Exploring Airport Employee Commute and Parking Strategies (2012)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Exploring Airport EmployEE CommutE And pArking StrAtEgiES Many commercial airport operators in the United States devote time and resources to provi­ ding improving ground access choices for air passengers, and encouraging air passengers to shift to transit modes that have less impact on airport roadways and the environment; in contrast, a small amount of attention has been paid to the provision of airport employee com­ mute options. However, airport employees’ commute options and their mode choices have an impact not only on airport traffic and the environment, but on airport economics, the quality of life for employees, and airport employee recruitment and retention. Employees are vital to the operation of an airport. They staff the airport on a daily basis from well before the first flight until after the last, which at many airports means 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. The service hours and trip frequencies of public transportation systems are often geared toward the downtown commuter with a Monday­through­Friday schedule— typically in the 7:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. timeframe. Thus, public transportation may not satisfy airport employee commute needs, meaning the private automobile may be the only available commute mode. Airport employees generate a significant number of vehicle trips to and from the airport each day, which affects air quality, airport traffic conditions, and traffic in the communities surrounding the airport and on the freeway system. In addition, employees commuting by private automobile impact the airport operator who must provide space for employee parking, and assume the costs of operating and maintaining it. The purpose of this ACRP Synthesis (Topic S06­03): Exploring Airport Employee Commute and Parking Strategies, was to determine what is known about airport employee commute patterns and modes, what programs are being offered to airport employees by the airport operator or a transportation management association (TMA) that provide alternatives to the drive­alone commute to work, how these programs are monitored, what is known about the effectiveness of airport employee commute options (ECO) programs, and what the chal­ lenges are for the providers of such programs; and to review some ECO programs offered by non­airport employers for elements that may be relevant in the airport environment. This review was accomplished through a literature search of airport employee commute programs and programs offered by non­airport employers that may have applicability in the airport environment; and through interviews with four U.S. airport operators and one airport operator in the United Kingdom that offer comprehensive airport ECO programs. Each of the five case studies provides an interesting example of how employee commute options strategies are applied in the airport environment. The scope of the survey task was to interview six to eight airport operators, airport TMAs, or TMAs serving a geographic area including an airport, which offer the most robust airport ECO programs, and develop case studies that would be informative for organizations devel­ oping or enhancing an airport ECO program. The sample was to include one airport in the United Kingdom. To the extent possible, the sample was to include both airports with good public transportation access and airports with limited access. SummAry

2 A list of 19 potential interview candidates was developed based on the consultant’s knowl­ edge of what is being offered at U.S. airports, inquiries about airport operators that might offer comprehensive ECO programs, suggestions by the Topic Panel, and information obtained in the literature search. From the 16 airport operators and three TMAs that were interviewed (an 84% response rate), it was determined that although some airport operators offer benefits or provide information to encourage commuting by modes other than the single­occupant vehicles, six airports provided comprehensive ECO programs. Case studies were com­ pleted for five of the airports. Each is considered to have good public transportation access. Insufficient information was available at the time of report submission to complete the sixth case study. The case study response rate was 83%. Case studies were developed for Boston Logan International Airport (BOS), Los Angeles International Airport (LAX), Portland (Oregon) International Airport (PDX), San Francisco International Airport (SFO), and London Stansted Airport (STN). Each of the four U.S. airport operators offers an ECO program for its own employees, which is less than 10% of the total airport employee population. Each program also has elements that are available to all airport employees. Most of the STN ECO program elements are available to all STN employees. The following table of study airports prepared by DMR Consulting (October 2011) com­ pares the program elements for the ECO programs provided by the airport operators at the five case study airports. The programs shared some of the same elements, including ride­matching

3 for carpools, a guaranteed ride home for participants using some or all alternative modes to the single­occupancy vehicle, and bicycle parking. At least two of the programs included subsidized public transportation passes, employee purchase of transit passes using pre­tax dollars, full or partial subsidization of a public transportation option that accommodates airport employees, or dedicated staff to assist employees in determining their commute options. The distinguishing elements of each of the five ECO programs are as follows: • BOS: The Massachusetts Port Authority (Massport), owner and operator of BOS, pro­ vides an early morning employee shuttle, the Sunrise Shuttle. The Sunrise Shuttle serves employees in the surrounding community of East Boston, enabling them to report to work before the start of public transit service. A second route serving another area of East Boston and the adjacent town of Winthrop began service in November of 2011. • STN: BAA Stansted, the owner and operator of STN, provides funding to scheduled high­occupancy vehicle (HOV) operators to enhance existing service or provide new service for up to three years, providing the highest level of subsidy in the first year and lower levels in subsequent years, with the goal of commercial viability by the third year. The funding is generated by a portion of air passenger and employee parking revenue that is directed to the Passenger Transport Levy Fund. • LAX: Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA), owner and operator of LAX, sponsors a vanpool program with 65 vans that has a 97% occupancy rate. • PDX: The Port of Portland, owner and operator of PDX, contributed financially to the extension of the MAX light rail system into PDX, and worked with TriMet, the provider of the light rail system, to ensure that light rail service would be provided as early in the morning as possible to accommodate employee work schedules. • SFO: The City and County of San Francisco Airport Commission, the owner and oper­ ator of SFO, subsidizes the only bus route operating between midnight and 6 a.m. in the county in which SFO is located, San Mateo County, to accommodate the employee commute during hours that most public transportation routes are not in operation. The route is operated by SamTrans, the public transportation operator serving San Mateo County. The review and interviews indicated that: • All of the airports in this study are subject to regulations and commitments for which ECOs programs are either required or are a logical course of action for the airport oper­ ator. The review indicated the benefits of the ECO programs extend beyond satisfying such requirements, resulting in shifts to higher occupancy modes from the single­ occupant commute, a reduction in vehicle trips generated by employees and the asso­ ciated environmental benefits, and the provision of viable options to the drive­alone commute for airport employees. • Airport operators in this study employ and have influence over 5% to 8% of the air­ port employee population. Each ECO program had elements that were available to all airport employees and elements that were available exclusively to employees of the airport operator. • The airport operators knew of some airport employers that offered ECO programs; however, they were not aware of the number of employers offering such programs or the details of most of the programs. • The largest ten employers at three of the case study airports employed between 40% and 51% of workers. Therefore, ECO programs provided by a few of the largest airport employers have the potential to cause a significant reduction in the number of airport employee vehicle trips generated. Data are not readily available to understand the extent to which this is already occurring.

4 • Airport employee surveys are conducted at four of the airports on a regular basis to understand employee commute patterns: – Massport and BAA Stansted have collected information for all airport employees. – At LAX and PDX, employee commute surveys are administered exclusively to employees of the airport operator. – The employee commute surveys at LAX, PDX, and STN have been administered in a consistent manner, allowing the identification of changes in employee commute patterns over time. • The airport operators interviewed were missing some data that would assist them in furthering their ECO programs. They were not aware of: – The number of employees without security badges that work at their airport. The count from the airport security badge file does not provide the total airport employee count. – The proportion of employees that work within walking distance of the airport ter­ minal area. This information is necessary to understand the number of employees that have access to scheduled HOV options serving the terminal area, as well as the number of employees that cannot be accommodated by such services. – The number of vehicle trips or the percentage of airport vehicle trips generated by employees. This information would help airport operators understand the impacts of employees commuting to the airport, as well as measure progress with their ECO programs. – The number of employee parking spaces provided by tenants through leases. • The U.S. airport operators largely indicated that funding for additional elements of their ECO program is not available. • At some of the study airports, the monthly cost to the employee for parking is less than the cost of public transportation, particularly if the use of public transportation is not subsidized by the employer. • LAWA, and a representative from the Dulles Area Transportation Association (DATA), Washington Dulles International Airport (IAD), indicated the availability of options to the single­occupant commute may help with airport employee recruitment and reten­ tion. DATA was not included as a case study because during the data collection phase of this study there was not a comprehensive ECO program in place for employees. Sug­ gested research as a result of this study includes: • Development of a guidebook to assist airport operators and airport employers in cre­ ating an airport­wide employee commute program. This would include interviewing airport employers on what they currently offer and their level of interest in being part of a collective effort with other airport employers to influence the employee commute; a review of TMAs to determine what may be applicable in the airport environment; devel­ opment of a template for evaluating ECO program elements based on potential changes in mode share compared with economic, environmental, and quality of life factors; and guidelines on measuring program progress. • Development of a benchmark airport­wide employee survey instrument and data collection methodology. The review indicates it is not common for U.S. airports to conduct a survey of the total airport employee population, which also indicates that airports collectively have little experience with employee surveys. This would involve developing a survey, market­testing it at an airport, and analyzing the results. The survey and analysis methodology and lessons learned would be presented in a manual. This would also include developing methods to determine the number of vehicle trips generated by employees so airport operators may understand their contribution to air­ port traffic.