Estimating Truck Trip Generation for Airport Air Cargo Activity (2017)

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.

12 The information on methods of estimating truck trips for air cargo facilities was gathered through two separate tasks: a literature review and telephone interviews. These tasks were conducted in par- allel, looking for similar information. Literature review The literature was composed of more than 35 related reports (including initial project scope sources and other sources found in the review), journal articles, and other publications. The results of the literature review are referenced throughout this chapter, and the sources are listed later in the report. Information from the literature review is presented separately from airport phone interview responses. This literature review is intended to develop a comprehensive understanding of the research and methodological activity related to air cargo-related truck trip generation rates that has taken place to date; and to provide a foundation for interviews with air cargo and airport planners, researchers, and stake- holders. The literature review was initiated with sources suggested in the scope, and an online search was conducted to identify and obtain available resources with information on air cargo truck traffic. The literature review focused primarily on domestic studies and experiences. However, there are a handful of international airport studies from North and South America that included some useful information on air cargo facilities truck trips. The literature review identified a very narrow range of studies associated with air cargo truck trips. These practices fall into the following four general categories: • Air cargo trends and background info (including regional airport plans) • Air cargo facility truck trip surveys (truck access and traffic impact studies) • Airport goods movement studies (specific airport studies) • General freight and cargo transportation planning (not further discussed in this document owing to its very general nature; the References section does include a list of the documents reviewed). Most reviewed documents (suggested in the scope) contain general information on air cargo trends and background but minimal specific information regarding truck trips or truck movements associated with air cargo facilities. In addition, it should be noted that most of the available studies and references are significantly out of date. When one considers the dynamic and complex nature of the air cargo industry, the value and applicability of these older studies may be limited in terms of developing current and future analysis of truck trip generation rates. air Cargo trends and Background info Study: “Characteristics of Urban Freight Systems” (Wegmann et al. 1995) Key Related Findings: Provides information on number of truck trips and truck trip rates based on survey studies for specific airports. Also provides detailed information on characteristics of truck movements in the privately owned Wilmington, Ohio, air cargo hub. This report was developed to support the transportation planning needs for urban goods movements and freight planning identified by Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) chapter four Methods of estiMating truCk trips for air Cargo faCiLities

13 to study the characteristics of urban freight systems. The project collected data from survey studies and published reports on the intermodal aspects of urban freight movements (including air cargo facilities). Table 2 shows data from the report that suggests a relationship between aircraft size and equivalent truck trips (the data are for UPS and the movement of express packages). Although this report states that truck access/egress to airports for air cargo represent a small percentage of total airport traffic, it also notes that air cargo passing through Seattle–Tacoma Inter- national Airport (Sea-Tac) is equivalent to 20,000 fully loaded five-axle truck per year or 50–60 truck- loads per day. This report includes some information on characteristics of truck movements in Wilmington, Ohio (air cargo hub of Airborne Express and the site of large sorting and distribution operation). This facility, which was privately-owned, is no longer operational. Table 3 provides details of these movements. Aircraft Containers Approximate Number ofPackages Equivalent Tractor- Trailer Trips Moved Between Aircraft and Sort Facility* 747 29 14,293 16 767 24 12,674 12 757 15 7,660 8 DC-8 17 8,506 10 727-100 8 3,630 4 727-200 11 5,193 6 *Includes movements to and from airport. Source: Characteristics of Urban Freight Systems. TAblE 2 EqUIvAlENT TRUCk TRIPS FOR UNITEd PARCEl SERvICE (UPS) AIRCRAFT Aircraft Trucks per Day Vehicle Type Time-frame Day Sort Vehicles 18 (36 trips) Tractor-trailers 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. Night Sort Vehicles 30 (60 trips) 60% tractor-trailer & 40% straight truck (24' or 48' trucks) 11 p.m. to 3 a.m. Extra Trucks 30 ad hoc trucks Information not available All day Support Trucks 250 (500 trips) 30% tractor-trailer & 70% straight truck and vans 7:00 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. Fuel Shipment Trucks 25 (50 trips) ± 4 Information not available Monday–Friday Airborne Express Commerce Park1 182 (364 trips) 50% tractor-trailer & 50% staged trailers Information not available Total2 539 (1,078 trips) 1A 400-acre, fully integrated industrial park and distribution center, adjacent to the airport and sort facility. 2Privately owned Wilmington Airport, which serves as a major package sort location for Airborne Express and has an adjacent industrial park and distribution center. Source: Characteristics of Urban Freight Systems. TAblE 3 CHARACTERISTICS OF TRUCk MOvEMENTS IN WIlMINGTON AIR CARGO HUb

14 Study: “Regional Airport System Plan Update” (MTC, R2A, keiser and Associates and vince Mellone 2000) Key Related Findings: Found that on an average work week the three San Francisco Bay Area air- ports generate 33,456 truck trips, but did not provide useful details of how this number was developed. A regional airport system plan update in 2000 presents San Francisco bay Area airport access conditions and improvements. To better understand their current air cargo truck activity, the Metro- politan Transportation Commission hired a consultant to collect cargo truck data at the three bay area airports in 1998. In an average work week (Monday through Friday) the three airports in the bay Area—San Francisco International (SFO), Oakland International (OAk), and Norman J. Mineta San Jose Airport (SJC) generated 33,456 air cargo-related truck trips (for 5 days) to and from the airport. Weekly truck trips were highest at SFO (17,348), followed by OAk (11,765) and SJC (4,344). The study argues that they have not developed a methodology that would be reliable enough to forecast future truck traffic at each airport. The study also notes that the changing air cargo patterns in the industry mean that a growing num- ber of trucks are carrying 2- and 3-day delivery cargo that is consolidated at the airport but leaves the airport on the ground instead of by air (their forecasts address only the cargo leaving by air). The study discusses that the pattern of truck activity by freight forwarders at SFO needs to be better understood. It has been anticipated that the truck counts would be followed up with driver interviews, but were not able to work out a satisfactory survey approach with the freight industry and thus were not able to collect that type of information. Study: Quick Response Freight Manual II (beagab et al. 2007) Key Related Findings: quick Response Freight Manual II (qRFM II) provides air cargo truck trip generation rates derived from a survey of a single air cargo terminal at JFK International Airport. The rates are by air cargo type and are provided in two measures; trips per firm and trips per employee. It also mentions that SCAG’s HTD model was used to derive air cargo truck trip genera- tion rates but does not provide details. qRFM II provides a discussion of truck trip generation rates for air cargo operations states that typi- cally trip generation estimates can be derived through surveys of air cargo terminal operators. The manual discusses that in cases where truck trip generation estimates for air cargo terminals cannot be derived from primary surveys (e.g., as a result of higher costs) or through secondary data sources, default truck trip generation rates derived from a single study of truck trip rates for air cargo opera- tions at JFk International Airport may be used (Table 4). However, these default estimates should be used with caution because they were developed from a survey of a single air cargo terminal operation. Air Cargo Type Number of Firms Number of Workers per Firm Truck/Van Trips per Day per Firm Truck/Van Trips per Day per Employee Courier 3 35 26 0.75 Forwarder 9 39 27 0.67 Broker 5 20 22 0.91 Trucking 1 20 10 0.50 Total/Average 18 33 25 0.73 Note: The numbers include both trucks and vans, and do not distinguish between different truck types. Source: QRFM II (taken from Characteristics of Urban Freight Systems). TAblE 4 TRUCk TRIP GENERATION RATES FOR AIR CARGO OPERATIONS

15 The qRFM II also notes the SCAG HdT model includes a separate air cargo shipments model. This model was used to derive truck trips associated with air cargo. The process of air cargo trip generation involved the conversion of air cargo tonnage to truck trips, using the factors and relation- ships developed as part the agency’s RAdAM. Study: Guidebook on Landside Freight Access to Airports (Frawley et al. 2011) Key Related Findings: Describes different types of air cargo service providers with market/movement details and type of cargo moved by each carrier type. Also provides a range for truck trips to and from air cargo centers as 15 to 50 trucks per day based on data received from airports. The Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) performed a research project to identify challenges and solutions to providing landside freight access to airports. This guidebook discusses the issues/ solutions related to landside freight access to airports and provides useful information for metro- politan planning organizations, state agencies, shippers, and airport operators. The study is a result of numerous case examples developed from surveys and interviews of airport and freight industry personnel across the state and nation. It provides examples of techniques to plan for and provide safe and efficient landside freight access to airports. The project also described different types of air cargo service providers (see Table 1). The study discusses the types of trucks accessing airport air cargo centers, from small delivery trucks to large tractor-trailers and notes that the number of truck trips to and from the cargo centers varies according to the level of activity at each airport and the size of the service trucks. The data received from airports for this research showed a range of 15 to 50 trucks per day (this does not include truck trips to/from freight forwarders located in the airport vicinity). Studies: ACRP Report 143: Guidebook for Air Cargo Facility Planning and Development (Maynard 2015) Guidebook for Estimating the Economic Impact of Air Cargo Operations at Airports (balducci 2014) Boeing World Air Cargo Forecasts (WACF) (boeing 2014–2015) “Air Cargo Supply Chain and the Changing dynamics of Airports in Canada” (GWl Realty Advi- sors 2014) Key Related Findings: Discuss air cargo-related data, airport truck access/movement data col- lection methods, air cargo growth, etc. Among the reviewed resources, there are some reports that discuss the difficulty of obtaining data on air cargo volume arriving and departing airport cargo facilities on trucks and some that provide background information on air cargo and truck access/movement data collection methods. These resources do not include specific information regarding truck trips and/or truck trip generation rates. For example, the ACRP Report 143 Guidebook discusses air cargo roadway access data and argues that these data are often necessary at airports with significant cargo trucking operations. It also dis- cusses data collection tools and describes manual or handheld counters that are used for intersection and other visual count or classification studies performed by a field surveyor. For automated data collection, it mentions “road tube” method as the most common short-term data collection method for traffic counting and classification. Also, boeing air cargo forecasts report, includes background information on air cargo growth and presents some trends on RFS, which are trucking services regis- tered with their own flight number, to extend their networks and add scheduling flexibility. air Cargo facility truck trip surveys A subset of the reviewed documents contains information on air cargo facility truck trip surveys, including truck access studies. These documents also include truck trip generation rates estimated from truck trip surveys.

16 Study: Sub-Regional Freight Movement Truck Access Study (Meyer Mohaddes Associates 2004) Key Related Findings: Provides trip generation rates for three types of air cargo activity based on annual tons of cargo (trucks per ton). However, does not provide details of how the rates were estimated. In a study that included a truck access survey in 2004, SCAG and San bernardino Associated Governments (SANbAG) initiated a truck access study to better understand trucking issues in the Western San bernardino and Riverside Counties area of California. The goal was to compile data and inputs to support the upgrade and refinement of the regional and sub-regional travel demand models and forecasting tools. The study was also intended to evaluate numerous pro- posed developments (e.g., international airports with significant existing and proposed air cargo facilities) in the study area that had heavy truck trip generation potential. In addition, the study authors researched and documented truck trip generation rates from national, regional, and local sources. The study notes the SCAG HdT model as one of the generalized sources of truck trip genera- tion rates in the region. It also references the Ontario Master Plan’s truck trip generation rates (estimated by Meyer Mohaddes Associates) for various types of air cargo activity, which are based on annual tons of cargo and provide the number of total daily trucks to and from the cargo facil- ity. Those rates were developed for three types of air cargo activities: air freight and mail (belly) cargo, all-cargo express and international cargo. Table 5 provides the Ontario Master Plan truck trip generation rates. Example details of calculation of the trucks per ton numbers are included in another study from the same authors. Study: Pacific Gateway Cargo Center CMP Traffic Impact Analysis (Meyer Mohaddes 2006) Key Related Findings: Provides estimates of air cargo truck trip generation rates which were vali- dated with the actual ground counts in the Ontario airport. Separate rates were developed for belly cargo, express cargo, and international cargo. Provides the details of trip generation rate calcula- tions. Argues that of developing trip rates using vehicles per ton of cargo moved is a more reliable indicator than developing trips per employee or square footage of facility. This report studied the truck activity impacts resulting from the development of the Pacific Gate- way Cargo Center (PGCC) in the Ontario International Airport (ONT). Separate trip generation rates were developed for belly cargo, express cargo, and international cargo using various sources. Also, each category was divided into auto and truck trip generation rates. Total surface transporta- tion trips from an air cargo facility were broken into two categories: auto trips and truck trips. Autos consisted of employee trips, package vans for deliveries, customer vehicles, airport police and other service vehicles, and visitors. Trucks consist of single body and multi-body large vehi- cles used for the transport of cargo to and from the cargo terminals. Table 6 summarizes the aver- age daily trips generated associated with the proposed PGCC for each cargo type expected to use it. In 2000, ONT handled 511,800 tons of cargo, most of which was associated with the UPS facil- ity southeast of ONT. Approximately 18,000 tons were air freight and mail (belly) cargo, and 493,800 tons were all-cargo express. Air Cargo Type Trip Rate (Trucks per Ton per Day) Air freight and mail (belly) cargo 6.0 All-cargo express 1.2 International cargo 0.14 Source: Subregional Freight Movement Truck Access Study (taken from Draft Ontario Master Plan). TAblE 5 AIR CARGO FACIlITy AIRPORT TRIP GENERATION RATES

17 Trip generation rates for belly and express cargo types were developed using cargo data obtained from lAX and other West Coast airports with major cargo facilities. Trip generation rates for international cargo were developed based on the forecast activity levels and the unique characteris- tics of the proposed PGCC. For example, international cargo trip generation rate was calculated as shown here (see Table 7): • (428,000 projected annual tons in 2030) × (11% peak month) = 47,080 tons per peak month (december). • 47,080/(20 average days in peak month) = 2,350 tons per AdPM (Average day in the Peak Month). • 2,350/14.9 average tons per truck, rounded to 160 two-way daily truck trips. • 160 × 2 = 320 one-way truck trips per day. • based on the projected 2,350 international cargo tons AdPM, this translates to a trip rate of 0.14 truck per ton. These vehicle and truck rates were validated with the actual ONT ground counts and the study argues that it is appropriate to use these trip rates in the development of overall air cargo trips at ONT. This study discusses recent trends (as of 2006) in international cargo and mentions an increased usage of large capacity modules called unit load devices (Uld), each of which can carry up to 6 tons of cargo. Up to three of these modules can be loaded onto a flatbed truck so the average cargo payload factor is approximately 14.9 tons per truck (significantly higher than the typical 2.15 tons per truck average for the other two cargo types). Typically, international cargo operators have limited customer package pickup, and few pickups or drop-offs by package van or smaller delivery vehicles. There- fore, the bulk of auto trips generated by international cargo operators will be related to employee commute and ancillary (lunch, errand, visitor, etc.) trips. Table 7 summarizes the trip rates for autos and trucks for 2030. These trip generation rates are lower than those in the SCAG report. The study argues that SCAG assumed that nearly all cargo trips to be express cargo and because international cargo operators are not expected to use large numbers of package vans and other smaller trucks, this reduction is expected. The study references studies conducted at lAX and other airports on the West Coast and argues that developing trip rates using vehicles per ton of cargo moved is more reliable indicator than developing trips per employee or square footage of facility. Cargo Type Daily Trips Auto Truck Total Belly 100 190 290 Express 2,570 2,110 4,680 International 2,240 770 3,010 Source: Pacific Gateway Cargo Center Traffic Impact Analysis. TAblE 6 SUMMARy OF dAIly TRIP GENERATION, 2000 Cargo Type Trip Rates (2030 One-Way Trucks per Ton) Auto Truck Belly Cargo 3.4 6.0 Express Cargo 3.4 1.2 International Cargo 0.95 0.14 Source: Pacific Gateway Cargo Center Traffic Impact Analysis. TAblE 7 SUMMARy OF AIR CARGO TRIP RATE

18 Study: ACRP Report 26: Guidebook for Conducting Airport User Surveys (biggs et al. 2009) Key Related Findings: Provides information on how to design, conduct, and analyze surveys of airport users and air cargo activities. Also, discusses typical target populations for air cargo surveys, such as air cargo operators and freight forwarders, and the key factors relevant to cargo surveys. ACRP Report 26: Guidebook for Conducting Airport User Surveys helps airports and other survey sponsors plan, design, conduct, and analyze surveys of airport users and provides useful information for effective user surveys at airports. This guidebook states that the tonnage of air cargo handled at an airport is the starting point for both facility and municipal planning purposes and other information about the characteristics of the cargo is also required. It also notes that cargo activity at an airport is not necessarily all air cargo. A cargo consolidation facility is sometimes located at the airport to serve an air cargo function as well as a freight consolidation and transfer function between other modes, including truck-to-truck transfer. The guidebook also mentions that volume of passenger activity influences international (and to some extent national) air cargo flows, because passenger volume affects the size of aircraft and availability of belly hold capacity in the market. For this reason, air cargo is often consolidated over a wide geographic area and trucked to a gateway or major hub air- port where adequate capacity exists to fly the cargo to its destination. The guidebook lists “truck trip characteristics” as one of the main data sets required in the preparation of any cargo study and discusses that this information is, naturally, highly valued by the shippers and forwarders, guarded by privacy rules, and not released easily. It also mentions truck surveys and interviews conducted by municipal and state agencies as another source of data. The local municipality may have traffic count information for basic truck volumes in and out of airport cargo facilities that can be used to estimate both the volume of activity and patterns. The guidebook argues that when all these sources of data have been investigated and the available information is still insufficient for the planned analysis, then consideration should be given to collecting additional data through a survey. individual airport goods Movement studies Airport goods movements studies contain information on air cargo facilities’ truck trip surveys and truck trip generation rates estimated from truck trip surveys for a specific airport. These sources are considered the most relevant to this synthesis study as they provide airport-specific truck trip genera- tion rates estimated based on truck surveys. Study: A Study of Goods Movement at Los Angeles International Airport (Wilbur Smith Associates and Evaluation and Training Institute 1990) Key Related Findings: Created a replicable data base and a methodology for addressing specific traffic problems associated with truck movement to/from the LAX airport. Trip generation rates were calculated in three different ways: by conducting interviews (air cargo carriers, freight forwarders and truckers), and using truck volume and classification data and cargo area counts as well as cargo volumes. Found that the derived trip generation rate calculated per tonnage is comparable and in range with the rates calculated in previous studies. The los Angeles International Airport (lAX) conducted a major airport goods movement study in 1990. Among the study’s objectives was to determine volumes of truck traffic on major access roads to lAX and to establish a relationship between lAX air cargo volumes and lAX-related truck traffic volumes. The study was intended to provide a framework related to cargo movement into and out of lAX cargo handling facilities by creating replicable data base and a methodology for addressing specific traffic problems associated with truck movement to/from the airport. The approach included conducting interviews (air cargo carriers, freight forwarders and truckers), using truck volume and classification cordon and cargo area counts as well as cargo volumes col- lected by the los Angeles World Airports (lAWA) to develop trip generation rates. These load factors were used in truck volume forecasts and various impact analyses (e.g., noise impacts, pave- ment, air quality).

19 Trip generation rates specific to lAX were derived by dividing lAX-related trucks by airport cargo tonnage. Those trip generation rates were then used to develop future (2010) forecasts of truck trip volumes. This was based on lAWA estimates of future cargo volumes projected by the depart- ment of Airports. Finally, these were assigned to a highway network using a small area truck traffic model to distribute current and future lAX cargo-related trucks on arterials in the immediate vicinity of the airport. This information along with background truck traffic volumes were used to evaluate various impacts of lAX cargo-related truck traffic. When this study was conducted in 1990, there were three major cargo complexes located at the edges of the airport and six major ingress/egress points to lAX cargo complexes (see Figure 4). Cargo facilities at those locations accounted for more than 92% of lAX inbound/outbound cargo volume. The 1990 study included counts conducted at these locations and calculations of daily truck trips (see Table 8). The study estimated an overall average trip generation rate of 0.38 tons per truck for the air- port, which was consistent with the average of 0.269 tons in another study by SCAG as well as FIGURE 4 LAX air cargo complexes as of 1990 [Source: RSG based on “A Study of Goods Movement at Los Angeles International Airport” (1990); base map from Google Earth, Nov. 2017]. Terminal/Location Daily Truck Trips Peak Time In Out Total Cargo City 1,867 2,035 3,902 1–3 p.m. Imperial 1,547 1,413 2,960 9–10 a.m./11–12 a.m. Southside 1,054 1,002 2,056 11–12 a.m./7–8 p.m. Source: A Study of Goods Movement at Los Angeles International Airport. TAblE 8 SUMMARy OF lAX TERMINAl CARGO TRUCk vOlUMES (1990)

20 with the 0.41 tons per trip projected for the year 2000 in the same report (“Air Cargo Highway Transportation Assessment,” 1987). The interviews with airport carriers revealed that approximately 10% of all cargo arriving at lAX was “transit cargo,” meaning it never left the airport while on the ground and was simply transferred between aircraft. This was considered when obtaining total trucked cargo volumes, shown in Table 9. Several ways of estimating truck trip generation rates are discussed in this study. Some truck studies have based a relationship on land use types. An extensively utilized alternative approach is to obtain trip rates by type of establishment, with an assumption that air cargo terminals are similar to major urban truck terminals. Using similar truck trip generation rates is posited as an acceptable alternate for lAX air cargo terminals. The third discussed approach is to base trip rates on the carried tonnage. The study derived a set of trip generation rates by dividing the total num- ber of estimated daily air cargo truck trips by the estimated total daily tons (9,645/3,640 = 2.65). The study then compares this rate with the data on truck load factors converted to trip generation rates obtained from the trucker and freight forwarder survey which ranged from 0.3 trips per ton to 2.7 trips per ton with the average of 0.63. The derived rate was in the range of rates calculated from the trucker’s survey information. The survey obtained information primarily from firms utilizing heavy trucks. However, a significant volume of air cargo is moved by many light trucks used by smaller firms. These light trucks make significantly more trips per ton of cargo. Consequently, the study concludes that the derived trip generation rate for the aggregate of lAX cargo movements is reasonable. Truck trip generation rates were estimated based on the three previously mentioned approaches and the rates based on tonnage of cargo was argued to be more reasonable and consistent with other studies. The study includes various truck trips tables by Od, driveways and truck types. The study also concludes that truck traffic impacts associated with lAX air cargo are not significant for both existing and future conditions. Study: Air Cargo Mode Choice and Demand Study—TransSystems—2010 (TransSystems 2010) Key Related Findings: Air cargo growth rates emerging in the future (whether measured by tonnage or landings/take-offs) is unlikely to be the decisive element in airport planning. Even the volume of truck traffic associated with air cargo operations at major airports is negligible in the context of all forms vehicular traffic. Converts annual tonnage forecasts of air cargo into weekly truck volumes. In another airport study done for the California department of Transportation (Caltrans), a comprehensive overview of state’s top cargo airports attempted to obtain updated, quantifiable and descriptive information about air cargo in California for improving mobility of goods by supporting industry infrastructure needs. This study covers historical air cargo trends, related Daily Truck Trips LAX Total Cargo City Imperial Southside Warehouse Area (10k S.F.) 58.5 29.4 59.3 147.2 Number of Truck Bays 314 101 127 542 Daily Truck Trips (adjusted)* 4,097 3,108 2,440 9,645 Tons of Cargo/Truck Trip 0.376 0.197 0.611 0.378 Source: A Study of Goods Movement at Los Angeles International Airport. *Volumes adjusted for un-counted hours and locations. TAblE 9 SUMMARy OF lAX CARGO TRUCk TRIPS (1990)

21 truck traffic forecasts, and insight into future air cargo demand. The study provides boeing air cargo growth rate forecasts for 2015 and 2020 (along with actual 2008 volumes) and converts annual tonnage forecasts into weekly air cargo truck volumes moving to and from the airports (see Table 10). A market survey was also developed as part of this study to obtain feedback and forecasts from key participants in California’s air cargo industry. Survey questionnaires were sent to 158 air car- riers, freight forwarders, truckers and developers operating at California airports, and 30 responses (19%) were received. The study argues that air cargo growth rates emerging in the future (whether measured by tonnage or landings/take-offs) is unlikely to be the decisive element in airport planning. Even the volume of truck traffic associated with air cargo operations at major airports is negligible in the context of all forms of vehicular traffic. Study: “Analysis of the Salgado Filho Airport as a Trip Generator Center” (Goldner et al. 2014) Key Related Findings: Vehicle trip generation rate was calculated as 3.79 trips per 100 square meters of cargo terminal area. In a recent research, ground trip generation associated to two airports in southern brazil (Hercilio luz in Florianopolis and Salgado Filho in Porto Alegre) was studied. Trip generation rates were calcu- lated by relating traffic counts to the numbers of enplaning and deplaning passengers and trucks, aircraft take-offs and landings, and the area occupied by the terminal buildings. For the Salgado Filho airport, truck trips were discounted from the overall counts and listed as a separate count associated to the new cargo terminal to be constructed. The rate was calculated as 3.79 trips per 100 square meters of cargo terminal area. Study: Central Florida Regional Freight Mobility Study (Cambridge Systematics, HdR Engineer- ing, Canin Associates and Aviation Analytics 2013) Key Related Findings: Provides an overview of current and projected air cargo activity in the study area, which includes four main airports. Air cargo tons by direction, commodity, and market shares are provided. Airport Weekly Truck Trips 2008 2015 2020 Los Angeles 4,747 6,278 7,727 LA Ontario 1,719 2,067 2,365 March Air Reserve Base 73 90 105 San Diego 1,191 1,404 1,578 Long Beach 385 454 510 Bob Hope 322 380 427 John Wayne 199 235 264 San Francisco 1,072 1,376 1,658 Oakland 2,079 2,490 2,838 San Jose 739 871 979 Sacramento Mather 691 814 915 Sacramento International 581 685 770 Fresno 86 101 114 Source: Air Cargo Mode Choice and Demand Study. TAblE 10 OPTIMISTIC AIR CARGO FORECASTS FOR TOP CAlIFORNIA AIRPORTS (2008–2020)

22 In another recent (2013) study, an overview of current and projected air cargo activity in central Florida and an air cargo market analysis were undertaken to help with the regional freight study. Information and data for this study was pulled from multiple sources including: • Interviews and meetings with airport management, air carriers, freight forwarders, and drayage operators • Florida Statewide Air Cargo System Plan • Orlando International Airport Master Plan • FAA Form 5010 airport data • bureau of Transportation Statistics (bTS) T-100 carrier data • boeing World Air Cargo Forecast 2012 • USA Trade Online, Harmonized System (HS) Port-level database. detailed information regarding air cargo tons by airport, carrier, market, commodity, and direc- tion, as well as dedicated air cargo facilities by airport, are provided in this study. As part of this study, a detailed overview of Melbourne International Airport stated that much of the truck traffic to and from the airport was not air cargo-related, but driven by the businesses operating on the airport. Study: “JFk Air Cargo Study” (landrum and brown 2013) Key Related Findings: As much as 20% of the freight moving through a cargo facility can be truck-to-truck. Trucking relative costs in cargo operating costs were compared in the recent JFk air cargo study and it was stated that future cargo facility planning at JFk should segregate trucks from autos. This study discusses that as much as 20% of the freight moving through a cargo facility can be truck-to-truck, meaning that even though it is shipped on an air bill, it never gets on an airplane. As such, it remains unreported to the airport and can complicate the planning process if it is not anticipated. It also notes that the amount of tonnage reported by the integrators is often substantially understated because of unreported truck-to-truck activity. For facility and infrastructure demand planning of the airport, this study discusses the trucking component and mentions that for JFk, most air cargo traffic is O&d, of which about 50% are local to the five boroughs of New york City. The projected air cargo tons for 2040 was 3,659,000, out of which 698,000 tons was integrated express carriers and 444,000 was transfer cargo. This leaves a balance of approximately 2,517,000 tons as O&d cargo—that is, cargo that will arrive at or leave JFk on a truck. As shown in Table 11, truck fleet mix for 2040 was estimated for planning purposes. One assumption made in calculating the above numbers was that stakeholders confirmed the most utilized vehicle types were the 53-foot tractor-trailer and the 40-foot truck for regular carriers, and the van and 53-foot vehicle for the integrators. Four other basic assumptions were utilized in esti- mating truck traffic: (1) trucks would operate with less than a full payload, (2) trucks would operate 286 days a year, (3) there will be an approximately equal in and outbound traffic flow, and (4) the 53-foot vehicle category, will also include some 48-foot trucks. suMMary of Literature review Of the more than 35 documents and research sources reviewed for this report, only a few provided rel- evant air cargo-related truck trip generation rate information or guidance. Further, although there are individual airport studies that include some information on truck trip generation rates, these are mostly outdated. Such studies that are more recent generally either did not include or did not share details of approaches to estimating truck trip generation for air cargo facilities. It should be noted that the lit- erature review focused primarily on U.S. studies and experiences. As mentioned before, the key caveat of the literature review is that the most useful studies reviewed in this section are dated and the truck trip generation rates and approaches might not be considered as useful.

23 interviews of experts and praCtitioners To obtain an appreciation of practitioners’ needs related to truck trip generation rates of air cargo facilities, a series of telephone interviews was conducted with a cross section of U.S. airport officials, selected experts and practitioners, and panel members from FedEx and UPS. Airports Representative Interviews: • Atlanta Hartsfield–Jackson International Airport (ATl) • Chicago O’Hare International Airport (ORd) • Edmonton International Airport (EIA), Alberta, Canada • John F. kennedy International Airport (JFk) • los Angeles International Airport (lAX) • Memphis International Airport (MEM) • Rickenbacker International Airport (lCk), Columbus, Ohio. Air Cargo Expert and Partner Interviews: • boston Metropolitan Planning Organization • Gibson Transportation Consulting • IntervISTAS Consulting • kPA • landrum and brown • Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). Air Cargo Carrier Representative Interviews: • FedEx Express • United Parcel Service (UPS). OD Tonnage Vehicle Percent Tonnage Load Operations Vans 10 251,700 2 tons 125,850 40' Truck 30 755,100 10 tons 75,510 53' Truck 60 1,510,200 19 tons 79,484 Annual Trucking Operations 280,844 Daily Trucking Operations 982 Daily Number of Trucks (rounded) 500 Integrator/Courier—OD Tonnage Vehicle Percent Tonnage Load Operations Vans 20 139,600 2 tons 147,000 40' Truck 30 209,400 10 tons 20,940 53' Truck 50 349,000 19 tons 18,369 Annual Trucking Operations 186,369 Daily Trucking Operations 651 Daily Number of Trucks (rounded) 325 Source: “JFK Air Cargo Study.” TAblE 11 JFk 2040 ESTIMATEd TRUCk FlEET MIX

24 ConCLusions froM interviews The airport officials, experts, and cargo carrier representatives interviewed for this study generally agreed that the greater emphasis on passenger traffic has led to less interest in understanding the truck trips generated by air cargo facilities. As a result, it is not validated that developing and using air cargo truck trip generation rates would improve airport cargo facility planning. When airports do develop roadway volumes and forecasts, it is typical to support overall master planning. It is also likely that the relatively costly and resource-intensive nature of data collection (e.g., truck counts at air cargo facility access points) needed to develop truck trip rates is another barrier to pursuing such efforts. Tables 12–14 provide more details on responses to the interview questions asked of each respon- dent type.

Question/Topic LAX ORD ATL EIA LCK JFK Importance of air cargo? Air cargo growth generally stagnant Facilities operated by lease holders Significant growth in air cargo movements Significant cargo space development planned Among the nation’s major trucking hubs Critical economic generator creating more than 27,000 jobs in Georgia Relatively small airport Air cargo truck trips do not have an impact on their real estate development, planning, etc. A major logistics hub (FedEx & UPS wide bodies ~46 operations/week) plus growing widebody freight lift (over 500 international arrivals per year) Distribution and e-commerce fulfillment space (~70 million sq. ft within 1 mile of LCK) A leading international air cargo center Has more than four million square feet of office and warehouse space for cargo operations Any studies of air cargo? Collects count data at about 67 driveways around the airport (incl. cargo facilities) every year LAX Goods Movements Study (1990), found by the research team (airport officials were not aware of it) A truck study by the Northeast Cargo Facility (cannot reveal truck trips details) Negotiating with IDOT/IL Tollway for additional facilities CMAP has been very helpful in doing regional truck studies Very little has been done beyond normal airport master planning A truck staging area is being developed to help mitigate truck congestion and blocking of loading doors No Truck trips are a very small part of overall traffic Some air cargo studies might have been done mainly for EIA planning purposes Have done truck trip studies for logistics facilities surrounding airport for local jurisdictions—but never been asked for airside facilities Obtained GPS data on truck activity from trucking companies and a consultant is analyzing for 53' truck access planning Currently exploring the ATRI data Air cargo trucks O/D study (before 1995) Air Cargo Study (2013) If yes, study’s purpose? Annual trip generation reports are mandated by LA City Council for Master Plan To assess trending with report forecasts (well under forecasts) N/A N/A N/A N/A General airport planning TAblE 12 SUMMARy OF PHONE INTERvIEWS WITH AIRPORT AIR CARGO OFFICIAlS (continued on next page)

Question/Topic LAX ORD ATL EIA LCK JFK Estimates of truck trips associated with the new/expanded facility? LA DOT charges fees for new development based on ITE Trip Gen Manual rates Korean air cargo facility used “warehouse space” trip gen rates Currently, a consultant is doing this for Northeast Cargo Campus Mostly have done generic total traffic in the past, nothing air cargo truck traffic-focused N/A N/A N/A Traffic engineering staff from both Port Authority Central Office and JFK will review plans for new or redeveloped building for impacts on adjacent roadways and access roads Air cargo partners for air cargo studies/planning? LA DOT for renovating building within cargo area With handlers— control traffic through taking over leases (Swissport, etc.), paving way on deciding how air cargo is handled at the airport Airlines (cargo and passenger), including integrators N/A Unusual for non- airport entity to be involved (real estate development industry involvement possible) Building facilities for forwarders Doing land lease for buildings made by others Case-by-case is different. Greater community input is considered for a major development project N/A = not applicable or not reported. TAblE 12 (continued)

Question/Topic SCAG Boston MPO Landrum & Brown InterVISTAS Consulting Range and nature of analyses and tools you employ for airport clients? Used HDT model (which is based on gate surveys at ports) for air cargo truck trips. Also used RTP report for some truck trips information. HDT air cargo truck trips come from the agency’s RADAM which converts air cargo tonnage to truck trips, using the factors and relationships developed as part of RADAM. N/A Developed an in-house model for air cargo truck trip generation (superior to ACRP model), but proprietary (result of Dubai airport master planning) Recent NYC Air Cargo Study used this model Most airports pay attention mainly to pax terminal, remote parking and rental car facilities; very little attention paid to planning for major air cargo facilities Very rare there’s original planning on traffic for cargo facilities—usually just a straight-line trend Data sources you use for such analyses and studies? Consultants help SCAG. Nothing in-house regarding air cargo truck trips. Typically, no standard source; usually ad hoc based on current need Possibly environmental impact docs for major freight facilities (e.g., expanded container port) N/A Not much for air cargo specific; mainly on pax facilities, rental cars, parking, concessions Key shortcomings and/or complexities? SCAG thinks this subject is something that had not put emphasis on in the past and now Have not used RADAM model recently and cannot share RADAM details Data that helps seeing the overall structure of community impacts Need to create a central data hub/repository with airport data (not necessarily FAA) Most airports do not track truck trips; most do not even have a freight official Need some general planning parameters to help understand nature of traffic at airport Employee car trips (may exceed truck trips) is another component of major freight hub traffic and is important for additional research Airports only want to avoid congestion and carriers and freight forwarders do not care much Key variables affecting air cargo facilities truck trips? N/A N/A Application of drone technology as substitution for local truck trips (~10 years out) Future of cargo industry Effects of changes in the air cargo industry on the ability to plan for air cargo facilities? N/A N/A Difficult to forecast Difficult to forecast Guidance/structure for how to access data that helps with community impacts What kinds and quantity of flows exist that make an airport work? (e.g., deadhead movements; empty chassis moving through) Overall picture of what moves where and how can you obtain data for it New airlifters—new blimps— 2nd & 3rd tier airports (~3 years out) Future growth of belly cargo versus freighter cargo Repatriation of overseas industries Fuel prices TAblE 13 SUMMARy OF PHONE INTERvIEWS WITH AIR CARGO EXPERTS ANd PARTNERS (continued on next page)

Question/Topic Gibson Transportation Consulting KPA Range and nature of analyses and tools you employ for airport clients? Very limited data and associated methods Worked on Aerotropolis project Absolutely zero in the way of tools/techniques Too complex Data sources you use for such analyses and studies? ITE Trip Gen rates for facilities within and around airport N/A Key shortcomings and/or complexities? Airport–related trucks are critical but not factored in the way it should be Interest in doing these analyses is limited by politics of local situation Never gets married up with local planning documents, even in N/Acommunities that surround airports Vast majority of airport planning is focused on pax not cargo Significant planning analyses/estimates must be framed by “engineering judgment” Key variables affecting air cargo facilities truck trips? N/A N/A Effects of changes in the air cargo industry on the ability to plan for air cargo facilities? Difficult to forecast E-commerce and door-to-door are the biggest changes and those generate most of air cargo and more truck trips More pressure on freight forwarders and airlines to be on time. Has implications for airports’ management of air cargo facilities N/A = not applicable or not reported. TAblE 13 (continued)

Question/Topic UPS FedEx Express Types of truck trip data requests received? • Number of vehicles per day and size of the vehicles (van, truck, etc.) • Vehicles by times of day • Usually no requests about volume or weight of cargo • Type of demand/timing of demand Organizations typically request information? • Airport authority or commission or local agency looking to plan infrastructure, highway route, etc. • Local, state, federal agencies Issues in providing the information? • Need to be careful about anti-trust and what can be shared • Confidentiality of customer information • Will share data if beneficial from a business perspective Data that you can provide? • Generally, supporting local communities where UPS operates • UPS cannot provide tonnage, but will try to help with specific local situations as possible • General info (e.g., number of trucks, type, frequency, weight of vehicles, time windows in an aggregate format) Data you provide typically used for? • Infrastructure planning and airport planning (airport master plan) • Municipal/regional/state agency for airport access planning, etc. • Unknown Issue of little to no data available to track air cargo truck-to-truck transfers? • Cannot release data and information regarding truck-to-truck transfers • Cannot release data and information regarding truck-to-truck transfers • Details that could be shared would be dependent on the nature of request and what FedEx feels they could share Advice to agencies/individuals seeking data on air cargo facility- related truck trips? • Doing ground counts, surveys, etc. of airport facilities and vehicle movements • Ask TSA, CBP, etc. for help • Companies will probably share data if they see an economic benefit to them from the data sharing • Good starting place is to request info (companies will not share data voluntarily) • Requesters need to contact local airport operations/planning team, who will act as a facilitator TAblE 14 SUMMARy OF PHONE INTERvIEWS WITH AIR CARGO CARRIERS