The National Academies Press

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
This PDF is available at http://nap.edu/26091 SHARE

   
Rethinking Airport Parking Facilities to Protect and Enhance

Non-Aeronautical Revenues (2021)
DETAILS
146 pages | 8.5 x 11 | PAPERBACK

ISBN 978-0-309-67375-4 | DOI 10.17226/26091
CONTRIBUTORS
GET THIS BOOK InterVISTAS Consulting Inc., Walker Consultants, JLL, Innovat International, and
DWU Consulting; Airport Cooperative Research Program; Transportation Research
Board; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
FIND RELATED TITLES
SUGGESTED CITATION
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2021. Rethinking

Airport Parking Facilities to Protect and Enhance Non-Aeronautical Revenues.
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/26091.

Visit the National Academies Press at NAP.edu and login or register to get:
– Access to free PDF downloads of thousands of scientific reports

– 10% off the price of print titles
– Email or social media notifications of new titles related to your interests
– Special offers and discounts

Distribution, posting, or copying of this PDF is strictly prohibited without written permission of the National Academies Press.
(Request Permission) Unless otherwise indicated, all materials in this PDF are copyrighted by the National Academy of Sciences.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Rethinking Airport Parking Facilities to Protect and Enhance Non-Aeronautical Revenues
AIRPORT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM
ACRP RESEARCH REPORT 225

Rethinking Airport Parking
Facilities to Protect and Enhance
Non-Aeronautical Revenue
InterVISTAS Consulting, Inc.

San Mateo, CA
in association with
Walker Consultants
Indianapolis, IN
JLL
Chicago, IL
Innovat International
Mount Pleasant, SC
DWU Consulting
San Jose, CA
Subscriber Categories
Aviation • Finance • Terminals and Facilities
Research sponsored by the Federal Aviation Administration
2021
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

AIRPORT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM ACRP RESEARCH REPORT 225
Airports are vital national resources. They serve a key role in trans- Project 03-47
portation of people and goods and in regional, national, and interna- ISSN 2572-3731 (Print)
tional commerce. They are where the nation’s aviation system connects ISSN 2572-374X (Online)
with other modes of transportation and where federal responsibility for ISBN 978-0-309-67375-4
managing and regulating air traffic operations intersects with the role of Library of Congress Control Number 2021930184
state and local governments that own and operate most airports. Research
© 2021 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
is necessary to solve common operating problems, to adapt appropriate
new technologies from other industries, and to introduce innovations into
the airport industry. The Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP)
serves as one of the principal means by which the airport industry can COPYRIGHT INFORMATION
develop innovative near-term solutions to meet demands placed on it. Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining
The need for ACRP was identified in TRB Special Report 272: Airport written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously
Research Needs: Cooperative Solutions in 2003, based on a study spon- published or copyrighted material used herein.
sored by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). ACRP carries out Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce material in this
applied research on problems that are shared by airport operating agen- publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the
cies and not being adequately addressed by existing federal research understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, FAA, FHWA,
programs. ACRP is modeled after the successful National Cooperative FTA, GHSA, NHTSA, or TDC endorsement of a particular product, method, or practice.
It is expected that those reproducing the material in this document for educational and
Highway Research Program (NCHRP) and Transit Cooperative Research not-for-profit uses will give appropriate acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted or
Program (TCRP). ACRP undertakes research and other technical activi- reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request permission from CRP.
ties in various airport subject areas, including design, construction, legal,
maintenance, operations, safety, policy, planning, human resources, and
administration. ACRP provides a forum where airport operators can
cooperatively address common operational problems. NOTICE
ACRP was authorized in December 2003 as part of the Vision 100— The research report was reviewed by the technical panel and accepted for publication
Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act. The primary participants in according to procedures established and overseen by the Transportation Research Board
and approved by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
the ACRP are (1) an independent governing board, the ACRP Oversight
Committee (AOC), appointed by the Secretary of the U.S. Department of The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are those of the
Transportation with representation from airport operating agencies, other researchers who performed the research and are not necessarily those of the Transportation
Research Board; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; or the
stakeholders, and relevant industry organizations such as the Airports program sponsors.
Council International-North America (ACI-NA), the American Associa-
The Transportation Research Board; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and
tion of Airport Executives (AAAE), the National Association of State
Medicine; and the sponsors of the Airport Cooperative Research Program do not endorse
Aviation Officials (NASAO), Airlines for America (A4A), and the Airport products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because
Consultants Council (ACC) as vital links to the airport community; (2) TRB they are considered essential to the object of the report.
as program manager and secretariat for the governing board; and (3) the
FAA as program sponsor. In October 2005, the FAA executed a contract
with the National Academy of Sciences formally initiating the program.
ACRP benefits from the cooperation and participation of airport
professionals, air carriers, shippers, state and local government officials,
equipment and service suppliers, other airport users, and research organi-
zations. Each of these participants has different interests and responsibili-
ties, and each is an integral part of this cooperative research effort.
Research problem statements for ACRP are solicited periodically but
may be submitted to TRB by anyone at any time. It is the responsibility
of the AOC to formulate the research program by identifying the highest
priority projects and defining funding levels and expected products.
Once selected, each ACRP project is assigned to an expert panel
appointed by TRB. Panels include experienced practitioners and
research specialists; heavy emphasis is placed on including airport
professionals, the intended users of the research products. The panels
prepare project statements (requests for proposals), select contractors,
and provide technical guidance and counsel throughout the life of the Published research reports of the
project. The process for developing research problem statements and
AIRPORT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM
selecting research agencies has been used by TRB in managing coop-
erative research programs since 1962. As in other TRB activities, ACRP are available from
project panels serve voluntarily without compensation. Transportation Research Board
Primary emphasis is placed on disseminating ACRP results to the Business Office
500 Fifth Street, NW
intended users of the research: airport operating agencies, service pro- Washington, DC 20001
viders, and academic institutions. ACRP produces a series of research
reports for use by airport operators, local agencies, the FAA, and other and can be ordered through the Internet by going to
interested parties; industry associations may arrange for workshops, https://www.nationalacademies.org
training aids, field visits, webinars, and other activities to ensure that and then searching for TRB
results are implemented by airport industry practitioners. Printed in the United States of America

The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, non-
governmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for
outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the
practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering.
Dr. John L. Anderson is president.
The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National
Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions
to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president.
The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent,
objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions.
The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase
public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine.
Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.nationalacademies.org.
The Transportation Research Board is one of seven major programs of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
The mission of the Transportation Research Board is to provide leadership in transportation improvements and innovation through
trusted, timely, impartial, and evidence-based information exchange, research, and advice regarding all modes of transportation. The
Board’s varied activities annually engage about 8,000 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from
the public and private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by
state transportation departments, federal agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation,
and other organizations and individuals interested in the development of transportation.
Learn more about the Transportation Research Board at www.TRB.org.

COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMS
CRP STAFF FOR ACRP RESEARCH REPORT 225

Christopher J. Hedges, Director, Cooperative Research Programs
Lori L. Sundstrom, Deputy Director, Cooperative Research Programs
Marci A. Greenberger, Manager, Airport Cooperative Research Program
Theresia H. Schatz, Senior Program Officer
Tyler Smith, Senior Program Assistant
Eileen P. Delaney, Director of Publications
Natalie Barnes, Associate Director of Publications
Sreyashi Roy, Editor
ACRP PROJECT 03-47 PANEL

Field of Policy and Planning
Stephen P. Gordon, Oakland International Airport, Oakland, CA (Chair)
Adam P. Cohen, University of California, Berkeley, Bakersfield, CA
Eric Johnson, Metropolitan Airports Commission, Minneapolis, MN
Robert V. Linehart, Jr., Republic Parking System, Chattanooga, TN
Daver Malik, Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport, Phoenix, AZ
Katie Stanciel, Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport, College Park, GA
Lawrence A. MacDonald, FAA Liaison
Aneil Patel, Airports Council International–North America Liaison
Christine L. Gerencher, TRB Liaison
AUTHOR ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The research discussed in this guidebook was performed under ACRP Project 03-47, “Rethinking
Airport Parking Facilities to Protect and Enhance Non-Aeronautical Revenue,” by a research team of
recognized experts in airport parking and ground transportation planning, management, operations, and
finance. InterVISTAS Consulting, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as InterVISTAS), was the primary research
consultant. Gavin Duncan, Senior Vice President at InterVISTAS, was the principal investigator, and
John Dorsett, Senior Vice President at Walker Consultants, was the deputy principal investigator. The
other authors were Peter Mandle, Executive Vice President at InterVISTAS; David Garza, Analyst at
Walker Consultants; Aaron Kurtz, Senior Associate at JLL; Jenna Buckner, CEO and Lead Consultant
at Innovat International; and Dafang Wu, Associate Director of DWU Consulting. The authors were
supported by Nelly Alandou at InterVISTAS; Randy Carwile, Will Rhodin, and Brian McGann at Walker
Consultants; and numerous other individuals at the companies comprising the research team. The research
team would also like to thank the many airport operators, parking operators, consultants, and vendors
who contributed their time, insights, opinions, and data, for which we are very grateful.

FOREWORD
By Theresia H. Schatz
Staff Officer
Transportation Research Board
ACRP Research Report 225: Rethinking Airport Parking Facilities to Protect and Enhance
Non-Aeronautical Revenue is a guidebook that identifies near-term and long-term solutions
to help airports of all types and sizes repurpose, renovate, or redevelop their parking
facilities to address the loss of revenue from airport parking and other ground trans-
portation services. The guidebook describes how airports might adapt existing parking
and ground transportation facilities to make them suitable for alternative, revenue-
generating purposes and identify new potential sources of non-aeronautical revenue to
compensate for shifting modal preferences, namely transportation network companies,
autonomous vehicles, and other emerging/future technologies. The guidebook addresses
operational, facility, and financial impacts related to the shifting consumer preferences
and potential solutions.
Non-aeronautical revenue is a critical source of income for airports, and parking is one
of the largest of these sources. Yet ongoing and emerging shifts in customer ground access
behavior, resulting from the growing use of transportation network companies (TNCs)
and the eventual adoption of emerging technologies, are posing a significant challenge to
the reliance of airports on parking revenue. Some airports have seen reductions in parking
revenue, and many are imposing or modifying access fees to recover a portion of the lost
revenue. While ACRP is researching the impacts of TNCs on airport revenues and opera-
tions (ACRP Research Report 215: Transportation Network Companies (TNCs): Impact to
Airport Revenue and Operations—Reference Guide), research was needed to explore in more
detail how airports may need to repurpose, renovate, or redevelop airport parking facilities
to generate additional nonaeronautical revenue to compensate for the decrease in parking
revenue.
Research for the guidebook under ACRP Project 03-47 led by InterVISTAS, in asso
ciation with Walker Consultants, JLL, Innovat International, and DWU Consultants,
included surveys, interviews, focus groups, and case studies. As part of the research, they
identified a series of case studies to investigate examples of converted parking facilities or
other repurposed, renovated, or redeveloped parking facilities used to generate revenues
or changes in demand. While there was limited documentation available on this topic, the
research effort focused on interviews with staff from airports, parking operations, parking
developers, equipment manufacturers, and airport planning and parking consultants as
well as the development of a method to evaluate alternative commercial vehicle loading
configurations within existing parking structures. The research also addressed forecasting

methods for future parking demands and looked at various management models to
address best practices for reducing expenses and risks for potential excessive parking
capacity. Lastly, the research reviewed various technologies available to offset revenue
reductions.
The appendices provide an annotated bibliography, a listing of acronyms, and a glossary.

CONTENTS
1 Chapter 1 Overview of the Guidebook

1 1.1 Guidebook Purpose
2 1.2 Methodology Used to Prepare the Guidebook
3 1.3 Guidebook Organization
4 1.4 Data Limitations
4 1.5 Ongoing Evolution
5 Chapter 2 Current and Future Risks to Public Parking and

Ground Transportation Revenues and Facilities
6 2.1 Historical Impacts
10 2.2 Transportation Network Companies
14 2.3 Subscription-Based Car Rentals
14 2.4 Park for Free/Rent Your Car Businesses
14 2.5 Peer-to-Peer Car Rentals
15 2.6 Off-Airport Parking
16 2.7 Automated Vehicles
20 Chapter 3 Estimating Future Parking Facility Needs

21 3.1 Methodology
21 3.2 Typical Data Used for Parking Demand Forecasts
22 3.3 Assess Existing Conditions
25 3.4 Analyze Recent Trends in Parking and Transportation Network Companies
27 3.5 Estimate Future Propensity to Park
40 3.6 Parking Demand Estimates
40 3.7 Parking Demands Versus Parking Requirements
43 Chapter 4 Adapting Parking Facilities for Other Vehicular Uses

45 4.1 Evaluation Criteria
46 4.2 Loading Configurations
54 4.3 Examples and Lessons Learned
59 Chapter 5 Repurposing Parking Facilities to Non-Vehicle Uses

60 5.1 Prior ACRP Research
61 5.2 Risk Reduction Strategies
68 5.3 Terminal Area Hotels
69 5.4 Future-Proofing New Parking Developments
75 Chapter 6 Airport Parking Management Models

77 6.1 Management Agreement
80 6.2 Lease/Concession Agreement
81 6.3 Fixed-Price Agreement
82 6.4 Private Developer Investment
83 6.5 Valet Parking Contract

84 Chapter 7 Innovative Payment Systems and Technologies

for Public Parking and Ground Transportation
84 7.1 Innovative Payment Systems and Technologies for Parking
109 7.2 Innovative Rate Setting for Commercial Ground Transportation
111 7.3 Airport Access Fees
A-1 Appendix A Annotated Bibliography

B-1 Appendix B Acronyms
C-1 Appendix C Glossary
Note: Photographs, figures, and tables in this report may have been converted from color to grayscale for printing.
The electronic version of the report (posted on the web at www.trb.org) retains the color versions.

CHAPTER 1
Overview of the Guidebook
This guidebook focuses on parking-related strategies available to airport staff as they

address the ongoing and future uncertainty regarding how parking activity, facilities, and
revenues are impacted by rapid changes in the transportation industry. In particular, the
introduction of transportation network companies (TNCs) and the eventual introduction of
automated vehicles (AVs) has had and will continue to have fundamental impacts on how
airline passengers choose to travel to and from airports. This guidebook presents (a) potential
strategies and methods for estimating future public (or commercial) parking needs in an envi-
ronment of uncertainty, (b) approaches for repurposing existing parking facilities that may
not be needed to meet future demand, and (c) strategies and technologies for maintaining or
enhancing net parking revenues in an environment where future parking revenues are at risk.
1.1 Guidebook Purpose

As described in Chapter 2, TNCs first started appearing at U.S. airports in 2012. Prior to that
point, passenger behavior regarding ground transportation to and from airports had remained
relatively stable for decades: if originating and terminating (i.e., non-connecting) passenger
traffic increased by 10%, demand for parking spaces (including demand accommodated in
off-airport parking facilities) generally increased by 10%. At certain points in time, demand
for parking at a specific airport might have been subject to adjustments due to singular events,
such as prohibition of non-passengers past security (which substantially reduced demand for
short-duration parking associated with passenger drop-off), construction of a new parking
capacity at an airport that historically had insufficient parking capacity (which could increase
the share of passengers willing to park), or a rapid change in an airport’s share of passengers
who were residents versus visitors (a decrease in the resident share could decrease the share of
passengers willing to park).
After parking demand had adjusted to those events, further changes in demand typically
reverted back to the traditional relationship of changing at the same rate as the annual origi-
nating and terminating passenger traffic. Furthermore, the duration of the adjustment period
was typically limited to a few months following the singular event. Therefore, after accounting
for the impacts of such one-time adjustments, an airport could develop long-range capital
plans and financial projections with the understanding that the risk to those projections was
typically limited to variations in passenger activity.
The introduction of TNCs, however, had a different type of impact on parking demand.
First, the volume and proportion of airline passengers selecting TNCs (mode share) increased
steadily since 2012 (with an associated reduction in parking mode share) as opposed to a
one-time adjustment occurring over a shorter period. Second, as of 2020, many U.S. airports
1

2 Rethinking Airport Parking Facilities to Protect and Enhance Non-Aeronautical Revenue
reported that the TNC mode share continues to grow and there is little certainty regarding
the eventual maximum mode share TNCs may achieve. Therefore, there is similar uncertainty
as to the eventual maximum impact of TNCs on parking demand and the associated facility
requirements and revenues. For longer-term projections of parking demand and revenues,
the uncertainty is compounded by the potential impact of AVs. As a result, traditional methods
of forecasting future demands and the associated facility requirements for airport public
parking may no longer be appropriate. Airport planners and operators must now estimate how
passenger propensity to park may change without knowing precisely the eventual magnitude
of the changes or the speed at which these changes may occur.
The ongoing impact of TNCs on parking demand and the associated revenues has also led to
three key questions:
1) What methods are available to forecast future parking demands given the ongoing and
future uncertainty regarding passenger propensity to park?
2) If total parking demand reduces, what can an airport do with the resulting excess parking
capacity? In particular, how could unneeded parking facilities be repurposed to generate
replacement (or new) revenues or relieve congestion in other facilities?
3) What strategies and technologies are available today to offset the revenue reductions
airports have observed (or anticipate) due to continued growth in the TNC mode share?
This guidebook is intended to provide airport management answers to those questions.
1.2 Methodology Used to Prepare the Guidebook

The guidebook was prepared under the direction and guidance of the project panel. It reflects
information gathered through the following methods:
• An extensive literature review that included articles published in periodicals, academic
journals, and on company websites; presentations delivered at conferences and relevant
webinars; and prior ACRP reports and syntheses;
• Interviews with staff of over 20 airports and airport operators (Represented airports
included large- and medium-hub airports in the United States as well as comparably-sized
airports in Canada, Europe, and Australia. The research focused on busier airports as they
were more likely to have considered and implemented the parking technologies and facility
repurposing strategies that were the focus of the research. Interviewed airport staff were
those responsible for the planning, operational, and/or business aspects of their airport’s
parking facilities.);
• Site visits, conducted as part of the research or as part of other ongoing projects, at 15 U.S.
airports;
• Interviews with staff from two parking operators responsible for the day-to-day management
of parking at more than 80 airports in the United States;
• Interviews with staff from six international airport planning, parking, and rental car consul-
tants, including members of the research team;
• Interviews with staff from two private airport parking developers and one real estate
development consultant;
• Interviews with more than 10 parking equipment and software providers;
• Research into the processing capacity of a range of potential commercial vehicle loading
configurations, including site visits and microsimulations;
• Reviews of numerous prior projects conducted by the research team and other consultants; and
• The research team’s experience gained through projects conducted during the research
period.

Overview of the Guidebook 3
The research conducted under this project was coordinated with the research performed
for ACRP Research Report 215: Transportation Network Companies (TNCs): Impacts to Airport
Revenues and Operations—Reference Guide. To avoid duplication of work, the principal inves-
tigators conferred regularly to discuss preliminary findings and the direction of their respective
research. This guidebook focuses on the design elements of the adaptive reuse or repurposing
of on-airport parking structures to accommodate the increased use of TNCs while ACRP
Research Report 215 focuses on policy planning, landside operations, and financial impacts
resulting from the continued increased use of TNCs.
1.3 Guidebook Organization

This guidebook answers the three questions posed in Section 1.1 in seven chapters and
three appendices. Chapters 2 through 7 are summarized below.
Chapters 2 and 3 address the question, “What methods are available to forecast future parking
demands given the ongoing and future uncertainty regarding passenger propensity to park?”
• Chapter 2: Current and Future Risks to Public Parking and Ground Transportation Revenues
and Facilities describes the current and likely future transportation services and technologies
that are expected to impact how passengers travel to and from airports now and in the future.
The chapter focuses on TNCs and AVs and their historical and potential impacts on airport
parking facility requirements and parking revenues.
• Chapter 3: Estimating Future Parking Facility Needs provides a methodology and examples
for the development of forecasts of future parking requirements given ongoing and potential
future mode shifts resulting from TNCs, AVs, and other disruptors. Examples are provided
showing how the methodology can be adapted based on the data available.
Next, Chapters 4 and 5 address the question “If total parking demand reduces, what can an
airport do with the resulting excess parking capacity?”
• Chapter 4: Adapting Parking Facilities for Other Vehicular Uses focuses on alternative layouts
and configurations of TNC passenger loading areas. This chapter also provides references
to prior ACRP documents that provide guidance on layouts for other commercial vehicles
and a range of public parking products and services.
• Chapter 5: Repurposing Parking Facilities for Non-Vehicle Uses focuses on strategies to
improve the attractiveness of land currently dedicated to on-airport parking for redevelop-
ment or reuse. This chapter provides guidelines on strategies to “future-proof” new parking
structures to facilitate future conversion to non-vehicular uses. The chapter also recognizes
that (a) repurposing of existing surface parking facilities is similar to developing other vacant
airport land and (b) it is extremely unlikely that an airport owner or operator would choose
to repurpose a parking structure for another use unless such a conversion was incorporated
into the original structure design.
Finally, Chapters 6 and 7 address the question “What strategies and technologies are avail-
able today to offset the revenue reductions airports have observed (or anticipate) due to
continued growth in the TNC mode share?”
• Chapter 6: Airport Parking Management Models summarizes industry best practices in the
establishment of operating agreements for airport parking facilities with the goal of reduc-
ing operating expenses and an airport’s risks associated with potential future reductions
in parking revenues.
• Chapter 7: Innovative Payment Systems and Technologies for Public Parking and Ground
Transportation highlights current technologies that have the potential to improve an airport’s

parking market share, improve the gross revenues generated by airport parking, and/or reduce
airport parking operating costs. This chapter also presents an update on the strategies avail-
able to airports to offset potential reductions in parking revenues—changes in commercial
vehicle fees and consideration of airport access fees charged to the public.
This guidebook also contains the following appendices:
• Appendix A, a bibliography of the resource documents reviewed as part of this research;
• Appendix B, acronyms used in this report; and
• Appendix C, a glossary of the key terms used in this report.
1.4 Data Limitations

At many airports, access to TNC activity data (e.g., number of trips made by TNCs or
the number of passengers transported) is subject to non-disclosure agreements and other
constraints. Thus, many airports are unwilling or unable to authorize use of their TNC data.
Therefore, some examples in this guidebook may anonymize the airport that provided the
relevant TNC and parking data.
1.5 Ongoing Evolution

Documents that provide information on technologies, their cost, and rate of development
have the inherent risk of that information becoming quickly out-of-date. Thus, as AV technology
continues to advance and evolve, predictions regarding key aspects of their deployment may
become quickly obsolete. As described in Chapter 2, aspects of AVs expected to directly impact
airport parking demand include their speed of development, the rate of public acceptance,
and the costs to purchase and operate. Each of those factors is subject to potentially significant
change as AV technologies evolve. Similarly, discussions of parking technologies and the associ-
ated costs, such as those presented in Chapter 7, may become quickly out-of-date as technologies
improve and software and equipment vendors develop and deploy improvements to existing
technologies and/or new technologies.
For these reasons, as airport practitioners develop estimates of future public parking needs
and revenues or investigate and evaluate strategies and technologies to enhance public parking
net revenues, practitioners are encouraged to obtain updated information regarding the current
state of AV and parking-specific technologies.
For AVs, potential sources of updated information include:
• Governmental organizations, such as TRB and U.S. DOT;
• Industry organizations, such as the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International
and SAE;
• Various consultants and academic transportation institutes; and
• AV and supporting technology manufacturers (though such information should be viewed
in the context of their commercial objectives).
For parking equipment and technologies, potential sources of updated information include:
• Industry organizations, such as the International Parking and Mobility Institute and the
National Parking Association;
• Various consultants who specialize in parking planning, operations, revenue control, and
revenue management; and
• Parking equipment manufacturers and software providers (though such information should
be viewed in the context of their commercial objectives).

CHAPTER 2
Current and Future Risks to Public

Parking and Ground Transportation
Revenues and Facilities
Together with Chapter 3, this chapter addresses the question,
“What methods are there to forecast future parking demands given Chapters 2 and 3 focus on the current
the ongoing and future uncertainty regarding passenger propensity and potential future risks to passenger
to park?” propensity to park for long durations
Airport passengers have numerous options for access between an (i.e., local passengers parking at the
airport and the place where their journey to the airport started or airport for the duration of their trip).
ended, such as their place of residence or place of work. Prior ACRP While the number of short-duration
reports, including ACRP Report 40: Airport Curbside and Terminal parking transactions (i.e., family or
Area Roadway Operations and ACRP Report 146: Commercial Ground friends parking while picking up or
dropping off airline passengers at
Transportation at Airports: Best Practices, describe these options:
the airport) is usually higher than the
• Private vehicles driven by the airline passenger (long-duration park- number of long-duration transactions,
ing) or the airline passenger’s friend or relative, who is not flying parking facility requirements and
(short-duration parking or curbside pickup and drop-off ); revenues are typically dominated by
• Rental cars leased from businesses located on or near the airport or long-duration parkers.
through peer-to-peer providers;
• Commercial vehicles that offer transportation between the airport
and the passenger’s origin or destination within the region for a fee,
such as taxicabs, limousines, scheduled buses and vans, and public
transit; and
• Commercial vehicles that offer transportation between the airport and a company’s place
of business (e.g., a hotel or parking facility), where the cost of transportation is considered
part of, or incidental to, the primary service being provided.
Passenger propensity to park (versus use other access services) reflects each passenger’s
perception of a combination of factors, including, but not limited to:
• The round-trip travel cost between the airport and the passenger’s destination within a
region for each access mode option (depending on the passenger, this calculation could
include the value of the passenger’s time, vehicle operating and depreciation costs, tolls,
and parking fees; some passengers traveling for business purposes may receive reimburse-
ment for some of these costs and thus, not consider them);
• Travel time and reliability of travel time between the airport and the passenger’s destination
within a region for each access mode option;
• Number of mode changes required during a trip (such mode changes include transfers
between public transit routes as well as the use of shuttles between the airport terminal and
remote parking facilities);
• Unassisted walking distances and availability of weather protection;
5

• Availability and reliability of each access mode option (depending on a passenger’s origin or
destination within the region, certain access modes may not be available at the passenger’s
desired travel time or not available at all);
• Familiarity with the available access options (many airline passengers are infrequent travelers,
traveling one or two flights per year, and may not be familiar with the available access options
to and from their home airport);
• Availability of parking in the passenger’s preferred parking facility at the airport;
• Vehicle ownership (some passengers may not own a vehicle or own a vehicle that cannot be
parked at the airport for several hours or days because others in the passenger’s household
require the vehicle);
• Number of passengers traveling together;
• Amount of luggage; and
• Personal comfort and safety (some passengers may be uncomfortable traveling in unfamiliar
vehicles, others may be uncomfortable using parking structures or other facilities with
limited visibility).
This chapter focuses on two key transportation options that have recently impacted airport
passenger propensity to park or are expected to significantly impact airport parking in the
future: TNCs and AVs. This chapter also describes four other transportation options that
create risks to airport parking demand and revenues: subscription-based car rentals; Park for
Free/Rent Your Car businesses; peer-to-peer car rentals; and off-airport parking businesses.
These services offer airline passengers an additional airport access option that, due to a combi
nation of cost, improved convenience, enhanced reliability, and other aspects, may reduce
an individual passenger’s propensity to park at the airport. As such, airline passengers, who
previously used airport parking and other traditional airport access modes, are increasingly
using these newer services. The introduction of AVs into the vehicle fleet is expected to create
additional challenges to airports in that AVs could substantially reduce the costs of TNCs
and other services, which could further impact airport parking demand and the associated
revenues.
2.1 Historical Impacts

At many U.S. airports, fees generated by airline passengers parking at the airport and fees
paid by commercial ground transportation services represent a significant source of revenue.
For many airports, it comprises the highest share of non-airline revenues. In addition, parking,
rental car, curbside pickup and drop-off, and roadway facilities are fundamental components
of an originating or terminating passenger’s airport experience and airport operations. Parking
is one of the few services impacting a customer’s airport experience that is directly controlled
by the airport operator (unlike airline services, concessions, or security screening).
Since the late 1990s, four ground transportation services have emerged that, especially since
2012, have significantly impacted ground access, parking, and rental car activity at airports:
• Subscription-based car rentals, such as those offered by ZipCar since 1999, that increase the
ability for customers to do one-way, short-duration rentals;
• Peer-to-peer car rental services, such as Turo (starting in 2009);
• Park for Free/Rent Your Car businesses, such as TravelCar (starting in 2012); and
• TNCs (e.g., Lyft and Uber), which rose to prominence starting in 2012.
Each of these services has, to varying extents, impacted airport revenues while TNCs have
also increased traffic using airport roadways and curbsides.

Current and Future Risks to Public Parking and Ground Transportation Revenues and Facilities 7
2.1.1 Impacts to Airport Revenues

While these services have all potentially impacted airport revenues, almost all the impact
appears to have been due to TNCs. As described in ACRP Research Report 215, once TNCs were
permitted to operate, many U.S. airport operators received revenue from TNCs that were similar
to or higher than the revenue previously received from traditional commercial vehicle services.
Airports also benefitted from the new or additional revenues received from TNCs transport-
ing customers who chose to use TNCs instead of being picked up or dropped off by private
vehicles, which typically pay no curbside fees or pay short-term parking fees that could be less
than TNC per-trip fees. Many airports, however, experienced lower parking and rental car
revenues (per airline passenger) because customers are choosing to use TNCs instead of parking
at the airport for the duration of their trip or renting a car.
Figure 2-1 summarizes revenues to all U.S. commercial airports for three selected years:
• 2011, the year immediately prior to the introduction of TNC services at U.S. airports;
• 2015, a year by which TNC services were substantially established (and authorized) at major
U.S. airports; and
• 2018, the most-recent year for which 12 months of data were available.
As shown, the parking and ground transportation share of non-aeronautical revenues remained
relatively unchanged from 2011 through 2018, increasing from 41% to 42%. Conversely, the
rental car share of non-aeronautical revenues (excluding any fees paid as part of customer
facility charges) decreased from 20% in 2011 to 18% by 2018. These results reflect all commer-
cial airports in the United States combined and do not necessarily mirror the experiences of
individual airports.
The impacts to rental car revenues are highlighted on Figure 2-2, which shows that rental car
revenues (paid to all U.S. large- and medium-hub airports) per enplaned passenger remained
flat or declined year-over-year since 2014. When compared with inflation, which averaged 1.6%
from 2011 through 2018, these revenues lagged behind inflation starting in 2015.
Figure 2-3 demonstrates that while nationally, parking and ground transportation revenues
comprised a relatively constant share of non-aeronautical revenue, revenues per enplaned pas-
senger did not remain constant. At medium-hub airports, it appears that parking and ground
transportation revenues per enplaned passenger continued to increase until 2015 (the year by
which TNCs were substantially operational at most major U.S. airports), after which growth in
revenue per passenger flattened. When adjusted for inflation, the parking and ground trans-
portation revenues per enplaned passenger at medium-hub airports started declining in 2015.
Until 2018, large-hub airport parking and ground transportation revenues per enplaned pas-
senger consistently increased, but were relatively constant when adjusted for inflation. During
this period, however, many airports implemented TNC trip fees that likely offset reductions in
revenues generated by parking facilities and other commercial ground transportation services.
In addition, due to the impact of TNCs on parking revenues, many airports increased their
parking prices and adjusted their parking products and services to both recover market share
and increase revenues per transaction.
For U.S. airports with residual ratemaking methodologies, such declines in non-aeronautical
revenues are offset by increased airline payments. These higher airline payments, typically
measured as cost per enplaned passenger, may become an obstacle to an airport attracting
new air service, or may even push existing airlines out of the market. For the airports with
compensatory ratemaking methodologies, the potential decline of parking and rental car
revenues is a direct challenge to the airport’s finances. Parking, ground transportation, and

Figure 2-1. 2011, 2015, and 2018 revenues, U.S. airports, in $ millions.

Source: Respective fiscal year data from FAA Form 5100-127.
Figure 2-2. Year-over-year change in rental car revenues per enplaned passenger, U.S. airports.
Source: Respective fiscal year data from FAA Form 5100-127.
Figure 2-3. Year-over-year change in parking and ground transportation revenues per enplaned
passenger, U.S. airports.

rental car revenues accounted for approximately 28% of the total U.S. airport operating
revenues in the fiscal year 2018. If those revenues are significantly reduced, those airports
would need to operate with an undesirable margin. Those airports would also need to reduce
investments in capital projects and operations, which could impact their ability to maintain
and improve facilities. Therefore, regardless of the ratemaking methodology used, airport
operators have incentives to maintain and enhance non-airline revenues by mitigating the
current and future impact of TNCs and other disruptors such as AVs.
2.1.2 Impacts to Parking Activity and Other Ground

Transportation Services
In addition to the impacts on airport parking and ground transportation revenues, the
increase in TNC activity has impacted the demand for parking and ground transportation
facilities. As described in ACRP Synthesis 84: Transportation Network Companies: Challenges
and Opportunities for Airport Operators, following the introduction of TNCs, airports experi-
enced the following impacts on a per-passenger basis when compared with the prior year:
• A 10% to 30% decline in the use of taxicabs;
• An 18% to 30% decline in the use of shared-ride vans;
• A 4% to 13% decline in rental car transactions; and
• Up to a 13% decline in public parking transactions (it is not known what proportion of the
reduction was related to pickup/drop-off parking versus long-term parking).
In addition, ACRP Synthesis 84 identified that in 2017, 46% of airports reported increased
roadway and/or curbside congestion, particularly at airports with increasing TNC volumes
and limited curb capacity. Many airports have reported similar declines in subsequent years
as well.
As of the time of preparing this guidebook, TNCs continue to gain market share at U.S.
airports though at gradually decreasing rates. Thus, as described in Chapter 3, estimating the
future requirements for ground transportation facilities used by TNCs (such as airport curbsides)
and impacted by TNCs (such as parking facilities) is subject to increasing uncertainty as tradi-
tional mode shares continue to change.
2.2 Transportation Network Companies

TNCs are businesses offering prearranged or for-hire ground transportation services for
compensation that connects drivers of personal vehicles to prospective customers using a
smartphone-based application (or “app”) provided by the company. While the service can
match passengers with licensed commercial vehicles, such as limousines, most matches are
with drivers using their own personal vehicles. Instead of calling a taxicab or driving to the
airport and parking, a passenger may elect to use the mobile app to request a TNC vehicle,
which is often more convenient and less expensive than using a taxicab or parking at an airport
(depending on the parking duration). TNCs are typically regulated by states whereas taxicabs
are typically regulated by a local municipality. As state regulations of TNCs do not address
fares (whereas taxicab fares are typically regulated by the local municipality), TNCs can easily
increase or decrease fares, including the use of surge pricing that increases fares during periods
of high demand.
Table 2-1 summarizes taxicab and TNC one-way trip standard fares for January 2020 (i.e.,
exclusive of any surge pricing) from four U.S. airports to destinations within their catchment
areas. As shown, for shorter trips, TNC fares are 75% to 104% of taxicab fares. As travel dis-
tances increase, TNC fares can be less than half the fares for taxicabs. While TNC and taxicab

Table 2-1. Fare comparison: taxicabs and TNCs, January 2020.

Los Angeles (LAX) Las Vegas (LAS) Dallas/Fort Worth (DFW) Grand Rapids (GRR)
Taxicab (a) TNC Taxicab (a) TNC Taxicab (a) TNC Taxicab (a) TNC
Base fare / flag
$2.85 $2.80 $3.50 $4.81 $2.25 $3.85 $3.30 $3.65
drop charge
Cost per mile $2.70 $1.07 $2.76 $0.83 $1.80 $0.80 $1.80 $0.85
Cost per
$0.00 $0.17 $0.00 $0.22 $0.00 $0.16 $0.00 $0.16
minute (b)
Airport fees $4.00 $4.00 $2.00 $2.25 $4.00 $5.00 $0.00 $0.00
Assumed tip (c) 15% $3.00 15% $3.00 15% $3.00 15% $3.00
Total cost
$17.50 $17.51 $18.25 $13.30
5-mile, 15- (75% of (79% of (104% of (94% of
$23.40 $22.20 $17.54 $14.15
minute trip taxicab taxicab taxicab taxicab
cost) cost) cost) cost)
$24.30 $23.86 $23.85 $19.15
10-mile, 25- (62% of (63% of (86% of (78% of
$38.93 $38.07 $27.89 $24.50
$37.70 $37.41 $36.65 $32.70
25-mile, 30- (44% of (44% of (62% of (59% of
$85.50 $85.68 $58.94 $55.55
Note: TNC fares do not reflect potential impacts of surge pricing.
(a) Fare reflects metered rates. Depending on the airport, some fares between the airport and selected areas may be subject to a flat rate.
(b) Assumes no significant periods of traffic delays or waiting.
(c) As of January 2020, typical taxicab tips in the United States appear to be between 15% and 20% of the base fare whereas TNC tipping
practices appear to not yet have a standard. The assumed $3.00 TNC tip reflects conclusions regarding average (mean) TNC tip, as
documented in National Bureau of Economics Research Working Paper No. 26380, “The Drivers of Social Preferences: Evidence from
a Nationwide Tipping Field Experiment,” October 2019.
Source: Taxicab fares, https://www.taxifarefinder.com/rates.php. TNC fares, https://estimatefares.com. Accessed January 2020.
costs vary among airports, TNC costs as a share of taxicab costs at other airports are generally
similar to those described in Table 2-1. For example, analysis of taxicab and TNC fares to
Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) by zip code indicated that the average (mean) TNC
fare paid (with no surge pricing, but including tip) would be approximately 70% of the total
amount paid (including tip) for the same trip in a taxicab.
The large fare difference between TNCs and taxicabs has been a key contributor to the signifi-
cant reduction in taxicab activity at U.S. airports since the introduction of TNCs.
Lower TNC fares (when compared with taxicabs) have also impacted airport public parking
activity and revenue. This is primarily due to the significant gap between the typical fees paid
to the airport by parking customers versus the fees paid by TNC operators. Table 2-2 summa-
rizes the average (mean) daily close-in parking price versus TNC airport fees at large-hub U.S.
airports in 2019. As shown, the average (mean) daily close-in parking price was $28.97 while
the average (mean) TNC round-trip fee paid to the airports was $5.53. This difference is
compounded by the fact that customers paying the daily rate in these airport parking facilities
are typically parking for multiple days.
The potential impact of TNCs on airport parking revenues and demands may be masked by
the increasing number of airline passengers and changes in parking rates. While per-passenger

Table 2-2. TNCs and daily parking fees, large-hub U.S. airports, 2019.
TNC fee paid to airport (June 2019) Daily parking fee
Airport – typical close-in
Airport code Pickup Drop-off Round Trip parking facility
Atlanta ATL $3.85 not charged $3.85 $36.00
Baltimore/Washington BWI $2.50 $2.50 $5.00 $22.00
Boston (as of October 2019) BOS $3.00 $3.00 $6.00 $35.00
Charlotte CLT $1.00 $1.00 $2.00 $20.00
Chicago (Midway) MDW $5.50 $5.50 $11.00 $40.00
Chicago (O'Hare) ORD $5.50 $5.50 $11.00 $40.00
Dallas/Fort Worth DFW $5.00 $5.00 $10.00 $24.00
Denver DEN $2.60 $2.60 $5.20 $28.00
Detroit DTW $5.00 $5.00 $10.00 $36.00
Fort Lauderdale/Hollywood FLL $3.00 not charged $3.00 $15.00
Honolulu HNL Charged as a percent of revenue $18.00
Houston (George Bush Intercontinental) IAH $2.75 not charged $2.75 $24.00
Las Vegas LAS $4.25 $4.25 $8.50 $36.00
Los Angeles LAX $4.00 $4.00 $8.00 $40.00
Miami MIA $2.00 $2.00 $4.00 $17.00
Minneapolis-Saint Paul MSP $3.00 $3.00 $6.00 $26.00
New York (John F. Kennedy) JFK not charged not charged not charged $39.00
New York (LaGuardia) LGA not charged not charged not charged $39.00
Newark EWR not charged not charged not charged $39.00
Orlando MCO $5.80 not charged $5.80 $19.00
Philadelphia PHL $3.00 $2.60 $5.60 $24.00
Phoenix PHX $2.66 not charged $2.66 $26.00
Portland PDX $3.00 not charged $3.00 $27.00
Salt Lake City SLC $1.05 $1.05 $2.10 $32.00
San Diego SAN $3.00 $3.00 $6.00 $32.00
San Francisco SFO $4.50 $4.50 $9.00 $36.00
Seattle-Tacoma SEA $6.00 not charged $6.00 $30.00
Tampa TPA $4.00 $4.00 $8.00 $22.00
Washington (Dulles) IAD $4.00 $4.00 $8.00 $22.00
Washington (Reagan National) DCA $4.00 $4.00 $8.00 $25.00
Average (mean) $5.53 $28.97
Source: Individual airport websites, June 2019.
parking demand may be declining due to TNC use, the number of passengers may be growing
at rate that results in increased parking demands and revenues, but at a lower growth rate than
was experienced prior to the introduction of TNCs.
In addition to the negative impact on airport parking revenue, increased TNC activity is
impacting airport curbside operations and parking facilities as TNCs shift vehicular traffic from
parking and rental car facilities to curbsides. Thus, many airports have experienced increases
in curbside volumes and congestion that have outpaced growth in originating passengers. As a
result, several airports have relocated TNC pickups from the terminal curbside to an alternate
location. As shown in Table 2-3, while many airports allow TNCs to pick up passengers on
the arrivals curbside (often in a demarcated area) or on a commercial vehicle curbside, several
require that TNC drivers meet their passengers in a nearby parking garage. While such TNC
pickup policies can reduce curbside traffic and congestion, they increase the volume of vehicles

Table 2-3. TNC pickup locations, January 2020.

Airport Airport code TNC pickup location Notes
Atlanta ATL Nearby surface lot
Baltimore/Washington BWI Departures curbside
Boston BOS Parking garage
Charlotte CLT Arrivals curbside
Chicago (Midway) MDW Arrivals curbside
Terminal 5: Arrivals
Chicago (O'Hare) ORD Departures curbside
curbside
Dallas/Fort Worth DFW Upper curbside roadway
TNCs must drop off on the
Commercial vehicle
Denver DEN commercial vehicle
curbside
curbside as well
Detroit DTW Parking garage
Fort
FLL Arrivals curbside
Lauderdale/Hollywood
Houston (George Bush
IAH Arrivals curbside
Intercontinental)
Las Vegas LAS Parking garage
Los Angeles LAX Remote surface lot
Miami MIA Arrivals curbside
Minneapolis-Saint Paul MSP Parking garage
Orlando MCO Arrivals curbside
Philadelphia PHL Arrivals curbside
Phoenix PHX Arrivals curbside
Commercial vehicle
Portland PDX
curbside
Salt Lake City SLC Arrivals curbside
Terminal 1: surface
parking lot. Terminal 2:
San Diego SAN
Commercial vehicle
curbside
International terminal:
San Francisco SFO Parking garage
Departures curb
Seattle-Tacoma SEA Parking garage
Tampa TPA Arrivals curbside
Terminal A: island
Washington (Reagan curbside. Terminal B/C:
DCA
National) Departures or Arrivals
curbside
Source: Individual airport websites, January 2020.
and people using a parking facility for passenger pickup, a function and level of activity
(both in terms of vehicles and people) for which parking structures were likely not originally
designed. Chapter 4 presents strategies on adapting parking garages for use as a loading area
serving TNCs.
In the near term (0 to 5 years), it appears likely that impacts due to TNCs will predominantly
be a continuation of recent trends, though at some airports, airport access mode shares may
stabilize as each market matures and adjusts to TNC services and fares. In such cases, growth
in parking demand as well as TNC and other ground transportation activity will closely mirror
growth in originating and terminating airline passengers. There is also a chance, however,
that TNC fares may evolve in response to changes in TNC business models and state regulations

(e.g., fare increases in response to increased pressure for profitability and classification of
drivers as employees rather than contractors), and demand for airport parking would be
impacted accordingly (e.g., increased TNC fares could increase demand for airport parking).
In the long term (i.e., beyond 2025), airport parking, ground transportation facilities, and revenues
will likely be less impacted by TNCs and more impacted by the introduction of AVs.
2.3 Subscription-Based Car Rentals

Subscription-based car rental services, such as ZipCar (owned by the rental car company
Avis), allow customers use of a shared fleet. These services allow customers easier opportunities
for short-duration rentals (i.e., less than 4 hours) and one-way rentals, both of which may be
discouraged by traditional rental car companies.
The challenges provided by these services are that subscription-based car rentals may
provide another lower cost option for airport passengers than other access modes, including
airport parking. If two one-way rentals (i.e., a passenger’s trips to and then from the airport)
are cost-competitive with parking at the airport for the duration of a passenger’s trip, the
passenger may elect to use the subscription service. The passenger’s choice may also reflect other
elements of the journey, such as the location at the airport where they would need to drop off
and pick up the rental car (subscription-based car rental services offered at airports by tradi-
tional rental car companies are typically accommodated as part of the existing airport rental car
operations and facilities).
In addition to creating a risk for airport parking demands and revenues, subscription-based
car rentals may have a larger impact on an airport’s rental car revenues. Airport car rentals
typically generate revenue for the airport based on a percentage of the total rental fee paid by
the customer. To the extent that one-way (or short-term) rentals replace multi-day rentals,
airports may experience reduced revenues as the price of two one-way rentals could likely be
less that the price for one multi-day rental.
2.4 Park for Free/Rent Your Car Businesses

Park for Free/Rent Your Car businesses, such as TravelCar, allow a local airline passenger
to park near the airport for free (or for a very low price) in exchange for allowing their car to
be rented out to a visiting passenger. The vehicle owner typically leaves their vehicle with the
business at a location near the airport and is provided a ride to the terminal. Upon their return,
they are provided a ride from the terminal to their vehicle. While the vehicle owner is away, the
business makes the vehicle available for rental to passengers visiting the region who otherwise
might rent a car from a traditional rental car company.
These businesses can pose a direct risk to airport parking revenues as they provide local
passengers an option for free (or very low-cost) parking near the airport. They also can pose a
direct risk to rental car revenues. These companies now represent a small share of the airport
parking and rental car market, but if they prove successful, they could attract customers who
would otherwise park at an airport.
2.5 Peer-to-Peer Car Rentals

Peer-to-peer car rental companies, such as Turo and Getaround, provide websites or apps
allowing individuals to rent their personal vehicles to customers. Such rentals are typically less
expensive than rentals from traditional rental car companies. Unlike the Park for Free/Rent Your

Car businesses, peer-to-peer car rentals exclusively target customers looking to rent cars.
Thus, impact on airport parking activity and revenue has been minimal.
The primary risks these businesses pose are to airport rental car revenues. As of early 2020,
peer-to-peer car rental companies operating on or near airports (a) had not entered into a
business agreement or signed a permit with any major commercial service airport and (b) were
not paying fees similar to those airports charge traditional on- and off-airport rental car busi-
nesses. At the time this guidebook was prepared, legislation defining a peer-to-peer car rental
service had been passed or was pending in several states, and there were several outstanding law
suits concerning an airport’s ability to require peer-to-peer rental car businesses to abide by
airport regulations and pay airport fees. Thus, the primary risks to an airport due to peer-to-
peer car rental businesses are (a) the non-payment of airport rental car fees by the peer-to-peer
companies as well as the traditional rental car companies or (b) lower revenues should airports
charge peer-to-peer rental car businesses fees that are lower than those now charged from
traditional rental car companies, and then, to provide a level playing field, allow traditional
rental car companies to pay the same lower fees.
Another risk to airports is increased curbside activity and congestion if the vehicle owner
and renting passenger choose to transfer the vehicle at the terminal curbside.
2.6 Off-Airport Parking

In addition to the services described above, off-airport parking continues to provide a risk
to airport parking activity and revenues. At many U.S. airports, airline passengers have the
option of parking at privately-operated parking facilities located in off-airport property. While
on-airport parking has the advantage of being nearest to the terminal (i.e., the customer’s
ultimate destination), off-airport parking businesses often have some advantages, including
cost, convenience, flexibility, and scale. Many off-airport facilities also entice patronage with
level-of-service enhancements that may not be offered by the airport, such as reservations,
loyalty programs, trunk-to-curb shuttle services, complimentary bottled water, and other
ancillary services.
Cost and Service. Off-airport parking operators almost always offer prices below those
charged by the airport for the comparable product, which is typically (but not always)
uncovered parking requiring the use of a shuttle service. Off-airport operators also offer
frequent discounts (or coupons) available through the internet, employers, and other
sources.
Convenience. Compared with most, but not all, airports, off-airport parking companies are
more likely to provide higher frequency shuttle services, incentivize shuttle drivers to
assist customers with their bags, offer trunk-to-curb service, and clean the snow off
customer vehicles.
Flexibility. As private companies, off-airport parking operators may be nimbler in reacting to
changes in demand by quickly changing prices, product types, and other services. Almost
all U.S. airports are operated by public agencies and as such, may experience more hurdles
to changing rates, services, or products due to management oversight and other required
government approvals.
Scale. Off-airport parking companies with operations near multiple airports can spread
fixed costs, such as website operations, marketing, and technological improvements
(such as software supporting a customer loyalty program) across their whole portfolio.
In contrast, an individual airport (particularly a smaller one) may be constrained by
similar costs at too small a scale to justify the investment.

Off-airport parking operators, as direct competitors for airport

At many airports, TNC impacts to off- parking customers, present an ongoing risk to revenues generated
airport parking businesses have been by on-airport parking facilities. They can also provide the needed
more severe than those experienced by capacity in the event an airport does not (or cannot) provide sufficient
airports. These impacts have resulted in parking spaces. The owners of these private businesses, however,
closures of off-airport lots and investors can quickly convert their property to other non-parking land uses if
increasingly considering sale of their justified by the commercial real estate market. Thus, an airport oper-
ownership stakes. ator may not be able to assume that off-airport parking operators
will (a) continue to remain in business and/or (b) be able to provide
sufficient capacity to maintain their existing share of that airport’s
total parking market.
2.7 Automated Vehicles

Although not a transportation mode, AV technology is another important trend that may
change the landscape of airport parking. For purposes of this guidebook, AVs are those vehicles
operating at “Level 4” autonomy, as defined by NHTSA. In a Level 4 AV, the automated driving
system performs all dynamic driving tasks without human intervention but may be limited to
operating under certain conditions or within limited geographic areas. Such conditions and
locations are assumed to be areas that are well-mapped, such as major U.S. cities and surround-
ing regions, including airports.
Currently, it appears that there will predominately be three different types of AVs used by
the public:
• Personally owned AVs, similar in capacity to current personal vehicles, that are used exclu-
sively by the owner and their immediate family;
• Shared ownership of AVs, similar in capacity to current personal vehicles that may be used
sequentially by several individuals or parties (such AVs may be owned by groups such as a
car club); and
• Pay-per-trip AVs available on demand for individual trips (i.e., an automated TNC) (such
AVs could be owned by individuals and made available as part of a peer-to-peer service or
owned by companies such as ZipCar or a TNC business and offered as part of the services
provided by these companies).
In addition to the above services, which would transport individual passengers or parties
(e.g., a family or a group of passengers known to each other and traveling together), AVs would
be used to provide automated shuttle services. These are fixed-route, multi-stop services,
similar in operation and capacity to buses and larger passenger vans, used to carry groups of
passengers. Such vehicles have been tested at airports, college campuses, and other locations
to carry passengers within parking facilities and between parking facilities and the airport
terminal or major trip generators.
Guidebook sections focusing on impacts and risks to parking facilities and revenues
(Chapters 2 and 3) focus on personally owned, shared, and pay-per-trip AVs, and the guide-
book section focusing on opportunities to increase net parking revenues (Chapter 7) focuses on
automated shuttles.
Many traditional vehicle manufacturers and technology firms are investing in AVs and
are indicating that broad adoption may occur through 2030. As of January 2020, there were
limited examples of fully automated vehicles operating on public streets (e.g., Waymo began

operations of fully automated taxis in Arizona in December 2018),

but the timeline for the rollout of customer-ready AVs continues to Mobility as a Service (MaaS) is the offering
be uncertain. Multiple vehicle manufacturers that originally hoped to of multiple forms of transportation,
release fully self-driving vehicles in 2019 delayed their introduction such as TNCs, taxicabs, car rentals, and
to 2020 or beyond. While the technology appears to be available public transit through a single gateway,
soon, safety, regulations, and customer acceptance represent major such as a mobile app, and payment
obstacles to the wider adoption of AVs. system. Thus, MaaS allows travelers
AVs, once they serve a significant portion of airline passengers, are to seamlessly plan, book, and pay for
expected to reduce the area required for airport parking facilities due multimodal travel. The introduction of
to lower parking demand (i.e., number of spaces required) and smaller automated vehicles, which could allow
parking spaces (since there is no need to open doors, the vehicles can a single vehicle to operate as more
park closer together). AVs are also expected to reduce airport park- than one of those services (i.e., operate
ing revenues as fewer vehicles will be parked for long durations once as an automated TNC for one trip and
airline passengers can instruct their vehicles, when allowed to operate automated peer-to-peer car rental on
unoccupied, to drive back home or to another storage location instead another trip) is expected to further the
of parking at the airport for the duration of the passenger’s trip. Even transition towards MaaS.
if unoccupied vehicle operations are not permitted for many years,
AVs could still impact airport parking demands and revenues as AVs
are expected to reduce the cost of TNCs.
2.7.1 Automated Vehicle Impacts on Parking Demand

In the future, it is expected that fewer individuals will own personal vehicles; instead indi
viduals will rely upon TNCs, shared ownership models, and peer-to-peer or subscription-
based car rentals. Using data from the National Household Travel Survey collected by the
U.S. DOT, a University of Michigan analysis (Schoettle and Sivak 2015) estimated that
nationwide, American automobile ownership could decline from 2.1 vehicles per household
(the average in 2015) to, eventually, as low as 1.2 vehicles per household due to households
owning completely self-driving vehicles (no estimated date was provided for when this might
occur). The analysis assumed that households would own fewer vehicles because one AV
could handle all household trips (i.e., drop off person A, then return home empty to pick up
person B). The reduction would certainly vary by area, with urban downtown vehicle owner-
ship dropping by much more than rural vehicle ownership.
From an airport perspective, the impact of AVs on parking will also be influenced by the
fares offered by ground transportation providers operating AVs. In 2016, a Rocky Mountain
Institute report (Walker and Johnson 2016) estimated the fares associated with human-driven
TNC services versus a potential automated TNC service. The report concluded that while
human-driven TNC fares were approximately $2.00 per mile, an automated TNC fare would
be closer to $0.80 per mile (a 60% reduction).
Airport experiences with TNC impacts on parking can provide indicators of how customers
may respond to another new service, such as a TNC operated using an AV. For example, prior
to TNCs, the main alternative to airport parking was typically taxicabs, shared-ride vans, or
public transit. TNCs provided a similar service at a lower cost and greater convenience. At
most major U.S. airports, TNCs have substantially displaced taxicabs and shared-ride vans as
an airport access mode. As shown in the examples provided in Table 2-1, TNC fares may be less
than half of taxicab fares, depending on the customer’s travel distance. A comparison between
the average fare reductions resulting from TNCs (versus fares charged by taxicabs) with the
corresponding reduction in airport parking demand can provide insight into how fares for
trips using AVs might eventually impact parking demand.

The potential AV impact on airport parking demand can be described

through the following example:
• At a given airport, prior to the introduction of TNCs, the main alternative
for customers considering airport parking (especially close-in parking) was
taxicabs.
• The introduction of TNC services at that airport resulted in an access service
comparable to taxicabs, but with fares that were typically 40% lower.
• Since the introduction of TNCs, parking demand at the airport, as measured by
peak accumulations during a typical busy day, reduced by 10% on a per-passenger
basis (and controlling for other factors potentially influencing parking
demand, such as changes in pricing or frequently full facilities).
• Thus, the 10% parking demand reduction due to a 40% drop in price of the
key competing access service provides a parking-TNC price elasticity of 0.25
(10% divided by 40%).
• As AVs are expected to provide services similar to TNCs, that elasticity could
be applied to the fare reduction associated with AVs to estimate the potential
impact on airport parking demand. Thus, with a 0.25 price-elasticity, if AVs
reduce TNC fares to an airport by 60%, the airport could project that parking
demand would reduce another 15%.
2.7.2 AV Market Penetration

The impact of AVs on parking demand and revenue at a specific airport will likely reflect
(a) the overall rate of adoption of AVs within the airport’s region and (b) the adoption rate
AVs by the region’s TNCs and car rental companies, which will likely continue to have large
presences at airports and are expected to be early adopters and operators of AVs. As of early
2020, AV technology is continuing to be developed and refined, and progress varies widely
among manufacturers. Thus, projections of AV adoption within the vehicle fleet vary signifi-
cantly. For example, in 2016, McKinsey estimated that by 2030, AVs would comprise between
0% and 15% of new vehicle sales worldwide, and by 2040, AVs would comprise between 10%
and 90% of new vehicle sales worldwide (McKinsey 2016). The wide ranges reflected the
potential impacts of AV availability in popular customer models (which could increase adoption
rates) and the potential for critical incidents and associated negative publicity (which could
decrease adoption rates).
In addition, adoption rate projections are continually changing to reflect the current state
of the industry. For example, in 2018, the Victoria Transport Policy Institute estimated that
by 2030, AVs would comprise approximately 20% of vehicle sales, and by 2040, AVs would
comprise approximately 50% of vehicle sales (Litman 2018). By 2020, the Victoria Transport
Policy Institute had revised those projections: by 2030, AVs would comprise 2% to 5% of
vehicle sales, and by 2040, AVs would comprise 20% to 40% of vehicle sales (Litman 2020).
The research team has identified the following phases for AV deployment and penetration at
airports. These phases reflect the understanding, as of 2020, of the state of AV technology and
potential adoption rates by services that typically comprise a large share of trips at U.S. airports.
• Immediate term, current and imminently available AV technology (e.g., 2020 to 2025):
Limited deployment of consumer-ready AVs that can operate in most environments in a

fully automated or Level 4 mode. Waymo currently operates these vehicles with an atten-
dant on board. Others, including Cruise, Daimler, Tesla, and WeRide, have announced plans
to deploy similar vehicles (sometimes referred to as robo-taxis) in a few urban areas. It is
expected that, initially, on-board attendants will be required for such services.
AV shuttle vans or mini-buses will be operating on some airports but will be restricted to
AV-only travel lanes or within designated portions of parking facilities.
• Near term, increased commercial availability of AVs (e.g., 2025 to 2030): Over 25% of
airport trips may be made by Level 4 AVs operated by TNCs, car rental, or other service
providers. The actual percentage will depend on the region, financial incentives, regulatory
environment, and public acceptance. While AVs are expected to represent a small share of
the new vehicles being sold (expected to be less than 20%) and a smaller percentage of the
total private vehicle fleet, a higher proportion of airport trips are expected to be made in
AVs. This is because TNCs and car rental companies, which will likely continue to have
large presences at airports, are expected to be early adopters and operators of AVs. While
these vehicles will be allowed to access many airports, they will likely be prohibited from
using terminal curbside roadways. Alternative drop-off and pickup areas may be needed
for airline passengers traveling in AVs.
• Medium term, AV sales gradually displace non-AV sales (e.g., 2030 to 2040): AVs may
comprise up to 50% of the total fleet by the end of this period, with the percent varying
by region. During this period AV technology is expected to reach human levels of driving
performance. Airport and regional roadways may be reconfigured to allow for AV-only lanes
benefitting from their improved performance (e.g., due to intra-vehicle communications),
ability to use narrower lanes, and other features.
• Long term, AV sales dominate the market (e.g., beyond 2040): AVs may comprise close to
100% of vehicle sales and over 85% of the fleet. By this period (if not earlier), empty vehicles
would be permitted to operate on public roadways.

CHAPTER 3
Estimating Future Parking

Facility Needs
Together with Chapter 2, this chapter addresses the question, “What, methods are there to
forecast future parking demands given the ongoing and future uncertainty regarding passenger
propensity to park?” As described in Chapter 2, TNCs and other services have gradually
increased their share of the airport ground access market. It also appears likely that at some
airports, airport access mode shares may stabilize in the near term (i.e., 2020 through 2025) as
each market matures and responds to TNC services and fares. There is also a chance, however,
that TNC fares may evolve in response to changes in TNC business models and state regula-
tions. In the long term (i.e., beyond 2025), however, airport parking and ground transportation
facilities and revenues will likely be adversely impacted by another ongoing development: the
introduction of AVs. Since the life expectancy of parking structures is 50 years or longer and
such facilities are typically financed using 30-year general airport revenue bonds backed by
concessions, parking fees, and other revenue sources, it is relevant to now consider how TNCs
and AVs might impact the use of these facilities.
This chapter presents strategies for estimating future public parking needs at airports. When
estimating future public parking needs, it is necessary to forecast (a) the travel modes that will
be available to airline passengers and (b) the percentage of passengers who will chose to travel
in private vehicles parked at the airport (versus selecting one of the available alternative travel
modes). An airport passenger’s decision to park at an airport versus using other available
travel modes is influenced by numerous factors including (the differences in) travel costs and
travel time, level of convenience, trip purpose, service reliability, service hours, and service
frequency. While airport management can establish the cost of parking (or parking rates),
on-airport travel time, and the level of convenience (or range of parking products), it has little
to no ability to influence those aspects of trips offered by other existing or future modes.
In general, the strategies discussed in this chapter focus on (a) developing near-term projec-
tions (i.e., 0 to 5 years) where the factors impacting passenger mode choice are generally known
and understood versus (b) longer-term projections (i.e., greater than 5 years) where the factors
impacting passenger mode choice and the extent of their impacts are less certain.
Two “disruptive” factors have and will significantly change historical or traditional airline
passenger mode choice patterns and airport parking requirements in the near and long term:
TNCs and AVs. This chapter focuses on strategies for estimating the potential impacts on
parking of TNCs and the anticipated increasing share of AVs in the fleet.
Transportation Network Companies. As described in Chapter 2, since their introduction
at airports in 2012, an increasing proportion of airline passengers are selecting TNCs
for airport access. While experiences have varied at individual airports, the growth in TNC
activity has generally resulted in declining use (on a per-passenger basis) of every other
airport access mode, including passenger use of private vehicles and the proportion
20

Estimating Future Parking Facility Needs 21
of private vehicles parked at the airport. Several factors have contributed to the growth
in TNC activity at airports but the primary factors appear to be the savings in cost and
improved convenience when compared with the other transportation services, such as
taxicabs, shared-ride vans, public transit, parking, and rental cars.
Automated Vehicles. As described in Section 2.7, AVs have the potential to reduce parking
demand at airports due to the following possibilities:
– They will reduce the average household vehicle ownership (which may mean that an
airport passenger is less likely to own a vehicle that will be parked at an airport for the
duration of their trip).
– After dropping off an airport passenger, an AV could be dispatched back to the owner’s
home (if the AV is a personal AV), to another customer (if the AV is a shared or pay-
per-use AV), or to another destination such as a low-cost or no-cost vehicle storage area.
– Businesses offering shared AVs (either owned by the business or as part of a peer-to-peer
arrangement) could provide service at a significantly lower cost than services requiring
drivers, such as taxicabs, shared-ride vans, and traditional TNCs. Such commercial
AV providers could offer lower fares attractive to passengers who might otherwise
park at the airport. As described in Chapter 2, TNCs offer passengers an airport access
option providing a comparable service to (or in many instances better than) taxicabs
but at a lower cost. A commercial service provider using AVs could offer a similar service
at a cost substantially less than the cost of a human-driven TNC.
The methodology and strategies presented in this chapter focus on estimating total demand
for public parking at an airport with the goal of determining whether an airport would have
surplus parking capacity that could be repurposed for other uses. The results can also be used to
estimate future potential parking revenue impacts and inform decisions on prices, products, and
operating strategies that could offset such impacts on net parking revenues.
3.1 Methodology
The methodology, in its simplest form, includes the following steps:
1) Assess Existing Conditions. Identify existing airline passenger levels and establish a “design”
level demand to be used as the basis for future projections of public parking demands.
2) Analyze Recent Trends. Evaluate recent trends in passenger propensity to park versus use
other travel modes.
3) Estimate Future Passenger Propensity to Park. Estimate potential impact (or likely reason-
able ranges of impact) of TNCs and future disruptors (such as AVs) on passenger propensity
to park versus use of other modes.
4) Prepare Parking Demand Estimates. Combine existing demands, passenger activity
forecasts, and estimated passenger propensity to park (i.e., modal share) to estimate future
parking demands.
Among U.S. airports, parking data availability varies widely. Thus, the guidelines provided
below are intentionally general and can be customized to an individual airport’s situation and
need. Furthermore, it is recommended that estimates of future parking demands incorporate
ranges that account for uncertainties within key assumptions.
3.2 Typical Data Used for Parking Demand Forecasts

While the basic methodology may be the same, each airport may need to tailor its approach
for estimating future parking demands to reflect the amount and types of data available. Data

Table 3-1. Potential data types, airport parking demand forecasts.
Historical public parking activity and facilities

Monthly parking transactions, by product, and by length of stay
Monthly parking revenues, by product, and by length of stay
Daily peak period parking facility occupancy, by facility
Existing parking inventory by type of products (and recent expansions/changes)
Current quantity of spaces reserved for employees, tenants, or other non-public users
Existing parking rates (and recent changes to these rates)
Ground transportation activity data
Monthly or annual trips, by ground transportation operator
Fees paid by off-airport parking businesses
Number of monthly or annual trips made by off-airport parking shuttles
Passenger survey data
Airport access mode used
Parking location, if vehicle was parked
Trip purpose (e.g., business or leisure)
Place of residence (i.e., zip code)
Travel duration (i.e., number of days away from home)
For TNC customers, mode used prior to introduction of TNCs
Passenger activity data
Monthly enplanements and/or deplanements
Monthly originating enplanements (i.e., non-transfer passengers)
Monthly local enplanements (i.e., airline passengers who live in the airport’s
catchment area)
Regional transportation studies
Forecasts of vehicle ownership trends for the region / airport catchment area
Estimates of AV adoption rates in the region
Source: InterVISTAS.
that could potentially be used are summarized on Table 3-1, and the availability of these items
will vary airport to airport.
Subsequent sections of this chapter describe how a methodology could vary depending on the
data available for a given airport.
3.3 Assess Existing Conditions

The goal of the existing conditions assessment step is to understand the level of parking
demand that should provide the basis for future planning. This level is often called the “design
day.” As each airport experiences different usage patterns in their parking facilities, the choice
of a design day reflects those unique patterns as well as airport management’s goals and objec-
tives regarding the experiences of their parking customers. Typically, a design day is based on
observed vehicle accumulations (or occupied spaces) in an airport’s public parking facilities. The
design day accumulations, however, should also consider factors that may be artificially increas-
ing or decreasing the peak accumulations during a day.
3.3.1 Design Day Selection

Airport planners have several options available when selecting a design day to use as the basis
for estimating existing and future parking demands. Traditionally, airport planners assess total
parking demand or occupied spaces occurring on each day of a 12-month period and base the
design day demand on one of the following:

• Highest occupancy day of the year;

• 30th highest occupancy day of the year;
• 90th or 95th percentile of daily peak occupancies throughout the year;
• Average (mean) or median daily peak occupancy during the airport’s peak month for
passenger activity; and
• Average (mean) daily peak occupancy for a consistently busy day (e.g., Wednesday) during
the airport’s peak month for parking activity or demand (which may not be the same month
as the airport’s peak month for passenger activity).
This choice typically reflects the following factors:
Customer experience. Does airport management wish to accommodate every customer in
the customer’s preferred facility during the busiest day (or hours) of the year, or is it accept-
able for customers to experience a few, several, or many days when spaces are unavailable
in their preferred facility? This decision is influenced by the availability of alternate parking
locations. For example, if a customer cannot find an empty space in their preferred facility
during the busiest hours/days of the year will they:
– Use spaces provided in a less convenient airport-operated facility or “overflow” lot
(i.e., a lot only intended for use when demands exceed those of the primary facilities)?
At some airports, overflow lots are only open during peak periods and, because they
are lightly used, are not built to the same standards or operated in the same manner as
the primary facilities.
– Park at off-airport parking facilities? Will this impact an airport’s ability to retain market
share?
– Reserve (or book) a parking space in advance the next time they travel through the
airport? (Chapter 7 discusses pre-booking of parking spaces.)
– Observe parking guidance signs (or internet data) indicating the availability of spaces
in each airport parking facility and choose a parking facility other than their preferred
option?
Financial feasibility. When sizing a new facility, especially a parking structure, it is generally
considered to be a good practice to only accommodate the requirements occurring during
the design day, rather than those occurring during the absolute peaks. That is, spaces that
are rarely used will generate insufficient revenue to pay for themselves (i.e., the revenues
will be less than the amortized costs of construction and maintenance).
Risk tolerance. Given the uncertainty regarding how TNCs, AVs, and other factors may
influence future public parking demand at airports, airport management may consider
lower design day parking levels. This would reduce the risk of constructing facilities that
in the future may not be needed but could also result in deteriorating customer service
as drivers would increasingly find it difficult (and eventually, impossible) to locate an
available parking space.
Using data from a small-hub U.S. airport, Figure 3-1 presents an example of how that
decision can influence the design day parking demand. Figure 3-1 shows the peak number of
accumulated vehicles across all airport-owned parking products for each day in 2018, sorted
highest to lowest. Also shown are the number of accumulated vehicles associated with each of
the traditional design day options identified above.
As shown, the absolute peak day value, 6,425 spaces, was approximately 1,000 spaces higher
than the 90th percentile value, a difference of approximately 19%. If this airport’s management
used the 90th percentile value as a basis for design, there would be insufficient capacity during
30 to 35 days of the year. Thus, the airport would need to provide alternate or temporary parking
spaces on these days (or certain hours depending on the selected design day) or accept that some
customers would be unable to park on the airport.

Source: InterVISTAS, from data provided by Gerald R. Ford International Airport.
Figure 3-1. Peak 2018 daily parking accumulations, Gerald R. Ford

International Airport.
If airport management chose to use the average Wednesday in March as the design day,
the design day demand would be approximately 7% below the absolute peak demand and be
exceeded on fewer than 10 days of the year. However, this design day choice would require that
the airport provide more than 10% more spaces (and incur higher capital and operating costs)
than if management had based the design day demand on the 90th percentile value, recognizing
that these additional spaces would be occupied very few days during the year.
3.3.2 Other Considerations

As an airport planner analyzes existing parking activity data, such as parking occupancy,
to identify the design day, they may need to consider factors that could be artificially increasing
or decreasing current use of parking facilities. For example, if an airport operates a parking
facility that is routinely full, it is likely that there are customers who are being forced to (a) use
another airport-owned parking facility instead, (b) use an off-airport parking facility, or
(c) use an alternative access mode. Customers choosing to park off-airport or use another
access mode will not appear in the airport’s parking occupancy data and can be considered
“latent demand” that could return to airport facilities if sufficient capacity was available.
Thus, analyses to determine a design day should consider the potential level of existing latent
demand and adjust the design day value accordingly.
Other factors that should be considered during evaluation of the potential design day
include:
• Depending on the airport, busy months for airline passengers may not coincide with parking
demand peaks;
• Christmas and other holiday periods may generate high volumes of short-duration parkers,
but few long-duration parkers;
• Each of an airport’s parking facilities may be busiest during different days of the week and/or
different times of the year;

• Introduction of new service provided by a low-cost air carrier may suddenly expand an
airport’s catchment area, potentially increasing the share of passengers choosing to park
(passengers driving to the airport from further away are more likely to be long-term parkers
than passengers driving shorter distances);
• Major out-of-town sporting events involving a local team that may cause local fans to
travel; and
• Changes in an airport’s mix of business versus leisure traffic and local versus visitor traffic
(as an example, in 2014, Nashville International Airport’s traffic was approximately 60%
local passengers or potential parking customers but by 2019, it was 60% visitors or not
potential parking customers).
3.3.3 Off-Airport Parking

As described in Section 2.6, many U.S. airports have nearby, privately-operated park-
ing facilities that offer parking to airport passengers (typically at a lower cost than on-airport
options). When determining the design day demand to be used as a basis for estimating future
facility needs, airport planners should consider the number of occupied off-airport parking
spaces during the airport’s parking design day. This off-airport demand can inform the design
day in one or both of two ways:
1. Airport management’s desired market share. Once the number of occupied off-airport
spaces is established, an airport planner can calculate the airport’s current market share.
Airport managers can then determine if the same or different market share should be
assumed when preparing estimates of future needs. Given that the on-airport parking prices
typically set the price for parking in that airport’s market, the airport can use that leverage to
increase or decrease its market share.
2. Risk of land use changes. Depending on land use development patterns near the airport, it is
possible that an existing off-airport parking business could be converted to another use,
requiring that the demand now served by the off-airport parking facility would be accom-
modated at the airport or other location.
3.4 Analyze Recent Trends in Parking

and Transportation Network Companies
Once the design day for current parking demand is established, certain historical trends
can be evaluated to inform future forecasts. Analyses of the trends or changes in (a) design
day occupied parking spaces per originating passenger and (b) TNC trips per originating
passenger can provide a potential basis for future projections of TNC activity and the asso-
ciated impact on parking demand. As noted in Chapter 2, passenger propensity to park at
U.S. airports has declined since 2012 with the introduction of TNCs. Over that same period,
however, many airports have experienced significant growth in passengers such that despite
reductions in parking demand on a per-passenger basis, the number of needed parking spaces
has increased.
Figure 3-2 and Figure 3-3 provide examples of how to determine this correlation using data
from a medium-hub U.S. airport. Due to the airport’s rules regarding TNC data, the name of
the airport cannot be published.
Figure 3-2 depicts the airport’s peak month parking demands from 2014 through 2018.
As shown, the design day parking demand increased from approximately 9,100 spaces in 2014
to approximately 11,000 spaces in 2018, an increase of approximately 12%. However, on a
per-passenger basis (in this example, on a per-originating-enplanement basis), the design day

Source: InterVISTAS (airport not noted due to non-disclosure agreement).
Figure 3-2. Historical parking demand, peak parking month, U.S. medium-hub airport.
Figure 3-3. Historical TNC activity, peak parking month, U.S. medium-hub airport.

parking demand decreased by 19.7% over the same period. Figure 3-3 depicts monthly TNC
trips (during the peak parking month) over the same period. As shown, TNC trips per passenger
increased from approximately 0.01 trips per passenger to 0.15, an increase of 0.14 trips per
passenger. Thus, for this airport, the correlation between TNC activity and change in parking
demand can be calculated as –0.197 ÷ 0.14 = –1.41. In other words, for every 0.01 increase in
TNC trips per passenger, the design day parking demand per passenger decreased by 0.0141,
or 1.41%.
With that relationship (developed using data for an individual airport), future design day
parking demand per passenger can be calculated based on a forecast of how TNC trips per
passenger will change. Examples of methods to estimate TNC trips per passenger are provided
in subsequent sections of this chapter.
3.5 Estimate Future Propensity to Park

This section presents three alternative methodologies for developing estimates of future
passenger propensity to park considering the anticipated growth in the use of TNCs and AVs.
Each methodology reflects a varying level of data availability recognizing that an airport may not
have many of the items identified on Table 3-1. Methodologies presented include:
• Professional judgment;
• Use historical TNC growth patterns to project future trends; and
• Use passenger survey data to inform estimates of future passenger propensity to park.
3.5.1 Professional Judgment

This approach estimates future TNC activity at an airport based purely on professional
judgment about the share of trips to and from the airport that will eventually be conducted
using TNCs or other single-party AV-based travel options (such as subscription-based or
peer-to-peer car rental services, or other modes that have not yet been developed). Based on
an airport planner’s understanding of a particular airport and the associated region’s possible
adoption rate for AVs, the future TNC trips per airline passenger can be estimated as follows:
1. For each planning horizon, estimate the share of trips conducted by TNCs and/or other
single-party AV-based access options;
2. For each horizon year, calculate the corresponding reduction in design day parking spaces
per passenger (using the ratio described in Section 3.4); and
3. Interpolate between historical and estimated future values.
Figure 3-4 depicts such an approach for one specific airport using the historical data pre-
sented on Figure 3-2 and Figure 3-3 as a basis. For purposes of this example, assume that the
airport planner has determined that for this airport the ratio of TNC trips per monthly passenger
(which was 0.15 in 2018) would be 0.25 by 2028 and 0.33 by 2038. Using the correlation factor
described in Section 3.4 (parking spaces per passenger reduces 1.4% for every 0.01 increase
in the ratio of TNC trips per monthly passenger), the 2028 parking spaces per passenger can
be calculated as follows:
1. The 2028 value of TNC trips per passenger is 0.25, an increase of 0.10 from the 2018 value. The
2038 value of TNC trips per passenger is 0.33, an increase of 0.08 from the 2028 value.
2. The 0.10 increase in TNC trips per passenger from 2018 to 2028 suggests that over the
same period, parking spaces per passenger will decrease by 14.1% (0.1 × –1.41% = –14.1%).
The 0.08 increase from 2028 to 2038 suggests that over the same period, parking spaces per
passenger will decrease by 11.3% (0.08 × –1.41% = –11.3%).

Figure 3-4. Professional judgment approach—future TNC transactions and parking spaces
per monthly originating enplanement.
3. A 14.1% reduction from the 2018 parking spaces per passenger value (0.0143) results in a
2028 parking spaces per passenger value of 0.0123 (0.0143 × [1 – 14.1%] = 0.0123). An 11.3%
reduction from 2028 through 2038 results in a 2038 parking spaces per passenger value of
0.0109 (0.0123 × [1 – 11.3%] = 0.0109).
4. Values for intervening years can be interpolated to create the values shown on Figure 3-4.
This is an illustrative example, and the assumptions and calculated values may not apply
to other airports.
3.5.2 Forecast Based on Historical TNC Patterns

This approach assumes an airport’s data is limited to historical parking accumulations and
monthly TNC trip data, but that the historical trends can be used to estimate potential future
changes in TNC use. The general methodology is as follows:
Step 1: Calculate year-over-year growth in TNC trips per passenger on a monthly basis
(i.e., growth from March 2015 to March 2016, growth from April 2015 to April 2016,
and so on), ideally for several years.
Step 2: Develop a mathematical model (using a curve fitting program or other method) that
replicates the pattern resulting from Step 1.
Step 3: Use the Step 2 mathematical model to estimate year-over-year TNC growth in the
future. This assumes that the historical changes in year-over-year growth are a good
indicator of future growth patterns.
Step 4: Apply historical correlation of growth in TNC activity to reduction in parking activity
(such as that described in Section 3.4).
Using data from the same airport used to prepare Figure 3-2 and
Figure 3-3, Figure 3-5 presents the year-over-year growth, on a monthly
This formula and constants are specific basis, for March 2016 through October 2018. Using a curve fitting
to the airport and data used in the program, it was determined that the following rational model formula
example. They should not be viewed as best fit the data.
a general formula for application
at other airports. a + bx
y=
1 + cx + dx 2

Figure 3-5. Year-over-year growth in monthly TNC trips per originating enplanement.
y = percent growth from same month, prior year

x = month number, starting one year after first month of data (i.e., if data began on March 2015,
then March 2016 would be month number 1)
a = 1.68
b = 0.0514
c = –0.0826
d = 0.0160
The model was then used to estimate year-over-year growth rates through 2038, as shown
on Figure 3-6.
The year-over-year growth rates were then applied to the October 2018 TNC trips per
passenger value to calculate the values for future Octobers. Using the ratio (described in
Section 3.4) between increase in TNC trips per passenger and reduction in design month
parking spaces per passenger, the future design day parking spaces can be calculated. The
results for both future TNC trips per passenger and design month spaces per passenger are
shown on Figure 3-7.
Figure 3-6. Forecast year-over-year growth in monthly TNC trips per originating enplanement.

Figure 3-7. Estimated TNC trips per monthly originating enplanement and corresponding parking
spaces per monthly originating enplanement.
3.5.3 Forecast Approach Using Data from Passenger Survey

The next approach uses passenger survey data to estimate how passengers, across an air-
port’s entire catchment area, might trend toward use of TNCs and AVs in the future. While
this method may still rely in part on professional judgment, passenger survey data can provide
additional information to inform key elements of that judgment. In particular, use of the
survey data can provide a refined view of how an airport’s passengers might change behavior
due to the ongoing maturation of TNC services and the eventual introduction of AV-based
services. A key element of TNC attractiveness is the relative cost compared with airport
parking. Therefore, survey data that provides information on a passenger’s home location,
trip duration (i.e., number of days away from home), and their airport access mode can help
estimate the price-elasticity between parking and other services, such as TNCs. This relation-
ship can then be used to estimate the maximum potential TNC usage based on the length of
a passenger’s ground transportation trip to and from the airport.
This method also examines TNC activity versus short-duration parking (i.e., drivers picking
up or dropping off airline passengers) separately from TNC activity versus long-duration parking

(i.e., an airline passenger parking at the airport for the duration of their trip). As described
below, while a passenger’s choice of TNCs versus either parking option includes cost as a key
consideration, the decision of using a TNC versus short-duration parking includes several
non-financial considerations that may not apply to long-duration parkers.
As part of its periodic surveys of airline passengers, the staff of Dallas/Fort Worth Inter
national Airport collect passenger mode choice data and, for Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex
residents, home zip code as well. An analysis of passengers using TNCs versus choosing to
park at the airport can be prepared using this data, plus available parking accumulation data.
Based on data gathered from the 2018 passenger survey, Figure 3-8 depicts (a) zip codes that
generated trips to the airport (grey areas indicate zip codes not represented by any passenger
responses) and (b) each zip code’s share of surveyed passengers who indicated they used a
TNC to travel to Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport. Figure 3-8 also depicts the range of
TNC fares associated with each zip code based on the TNC fare schedule in place in 2018.
As shown, TNC trips to the airport were concentrated to the east of the airport, most TNC trips
were from zip codes where the TNC one-way fare was less than $40, and almost no TNC trips
were from zip codes where the TNC one-way fare exceeded $60.
The same passenger survey also indicated the portion of passengers from each zip code who
used short-duration parking (i.e., they were picked up or dropped off at the airport by a friend
or relative) and long-duration parking (i.e., they parked their vehicles at the airport for the
duration of their trip). Figure 3-9 shows the distribution of mode choice (isolating TNCs,
short-duration parking, and long-duration parking) for four geographic zones concentric around
Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport (each zone represents 25% of the survey responses).
As shown, as travel distances to the airport increased, fewer passengers chose TNCs and more
chose to park.
The methodology used in the approach is:
1. As in prior examples, determine the existing design day parking demand.

2. Based on each surveyed passenger’s zip code, estimate the one-way TNC fare.
3. Near-term forecast. Assume that for the next 5 to 10 years, TNCs will continue to mature
and seek to increase market share, but that TNCs will have a different impact on the mode
choice of customers now using short-duration parking versus those using long-duration
parking.
a. Short-duration parking. Isolate survey responses indicating customer use of either TNCs
or short-duration parking; compare the proportion of customers now choosing TNCs
rather than short-duration parking, by TNC fare; and estimate (1) how that pattern might
change in the future and (2) the corresponding impact on passenger propensity to park
for short durations.
b. Long-duration parking. Isolate survey responses indicating use of either TNCs or long-
duration parking; compare the proportion of customers now choosing TNCs rather than
long-duration parking, by TNC fare; and estimate (1) how that pattern might change in
the future and (2) the corresponding impact on passenger propensity to park for long
durations.
4. Long-term forecast. Assume that beyond 10 years, passenger use of parking will increasingly
reflect the availability and cost of TNCs and other single-party AV-based access services.
a. Estimate AV adoption rate across region for a 10- and 20-year planning horizon.
b. Estimate potential fare reductions resulting from the availability of TNCs/single-party
AV-based services.
c. Estimate the impact that these fare reductions will have on passenger use of parking at
the airport.

Source: InterVISTAS, from passenger survey data provided by Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport.
Figure 3-8. TNC fares by zip code and TNC activity concentration.
Figure 3-9. Mode shares by passenger geographic quartile.

3.5.3.1 Design Day Parking Demand

For purposes of this example methodology, it is assumed that in 2018, design day parking demand
at Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport was approximately 2.0 spaces per 1,000 monthly origi-
nating passengers during the peak month for parking. Of that, it is assumed that 0.2 spaces
per 1,000 monthly originating passengers are associated with short-duration parking (stays of
4 hours or less) and 1.8 spaces per 1,000 monthly originating passengers are associated with
long-duration parking (stays exceeding 4 hours).
3.5.3.2 Estimating TNC Fares

As shown on Table 2-1, TNC fares typically reflect travel distance, travel time, service fees,
and base fares. Fares for trips to or from an airport may also include an airport access fee, if
charged by the airport operator. As of January 2020, TNC fare schedules (not including surge
pricing) for major TNC companies are publicly available through the websites of individual
TNC companies or through third-party websites (such as www.uberestimator.com and www.
estimatefares.com) that provide TNC fare estimates and comparisons. For each zip code
generating TNC trips to an airport, the TNC fare can be estimated from the associated travel
distance and travel time to the airport, and publicly available TNC fare schedules.
3.5.3.3 Near-Term Estimate—TNC Use Versus Short-Duration Parking

Short-duration parking demand is primarily created by drivers picking up or dropping off
airline passengers. A passenger’s choice to get picked up or dropped off versus use a TNC reflects
several factors, including TNC fare, short-duration parking fees (and space availability), the
driver’s vehicle operating costs (e.g., fuel, tolls), and a driver’s willingness to spend the time
driving to and from the airport (and their perception of the value of their time taken away from
other activities). Additional non-financial factors are (a) the value the airline passenger places on
the time they are able to spend with the driver, (b) driver desire to greet the passenger(s) as they
exit the secure section of the airport, and (c) driver desire to provide assistance to passenger(s)
who need it (e.g., families with small children, elderly travelers). Therefore, there will likely be
a share of airline passengers that will choose to get picked up and/or dropped off regardless of
the relative cost of a TNC versus short-duration parking.
The methodology assumes that (a) there is a market segment composed of passengers using
TNCs or parking for short durations, (b) this market segment represents a constant percentage
of all originating passengers, and (c) the proportion of this segment choosing to park is solely
dependent on the TNC one-way fare.
At Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport, combining the TNC fares associated with each
zip code with survey responses, by zip code, revealed the share of passengers choosing TNCs
versus short-duration parking. As shown in Figure 3-10, in 2018, for zip codes where a one-way
TNC trip was under $20, TNC customers comprised approximately 40% of TNC and short-
duration parking customers combined. This share increased to 50% for one-way TNC fares of
$25, then reduced to 0% by the time one-way TNC fares reached $55.
To estimate how this pattern might change in the future, professional judgment could be
used to estimate the share that TNCs might comprise of the combined TNC and short-duration
parking customer market segment by 2025. For Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport, it
was estimated that for one-way TNC fares of $25 or less, the TNC share of the TNC and short-
duration parking customer market segments could increase to 70% while the maximum TNC
one-way fare passengers would be willing to pay would remain approximately $55. These future
estimates reflect judgments regarding changes in several factors potentially influencing passenger
choice of TNCs versus short-duration parking, such as:

Figure 3-10. TNC versus short-duration parking activity, by TNC fare.
• Ongoing growth in the share of the public willing to consider TNCs;

• Potential increases in traffic congestion on roadways near the airport, which could dis
proportionately increase the round-trip travel time between the airport and nearby destina-
tions for short-duration parkers, which would increase the attractiveness of TNCs for those
nearby destinations; and
• A potential maximum TNC share, recognizing that the non-financial considerations related
to short-duration parking will likely mean that a portion of customers will always choose
short-duration parking regardless of their potential TNC fare.
The resulting pattern is shown on Figure 3-10 as the “2025 estimate.”
Table 3-2 summarizes the estimated reduction in passenger propensity to park for short
durations by 2025. As shown, a shift toward TNCs would reduce the short-duration parking
demand by 26.7%. As noted above, for purposes of this example, short-duration parking
generated demand for 0.2 design day spaces per 1,000 originating passengers in 2018. There-
fore, by 2025, short-duration parking is estimated to generate 0.15 design day spaces per
1,000 originating passengers.
3.5.3.4 Near-Term Estimate—TNC Use Versus Long-Duration Parking

Long-duration parking demand is created by airline passengers parking at the airport for the
duration of their trip. A passenger’s choice to park versus use a TNC reflects several factors:
(a) the difference between the cost of using a TNC and parking for a long-duration; (b) vehicle
ownership levels (i.e., is the passenger’s family inconvenienced if one of the family vehicles is
parked at the airport for several days); and (c) several qualitative factors, such as the relative
convenience of long-duration parking facilities (i.e., must the customer wait for and ride a shuttle
bus), the number of persons in the travel party, and the amount of accompanying baggage.
Similar to the methodology used to estimate TNCs versus short-duration parking, this
methodology assumes that (a) there is a market segment composed of passengers using TNCs
or parking for long durations, (b) this market segment represents a constant percentage of
all originating passengers, and (c) the proportion of this segment choosing to park for long
durations is solely dependent on the TNC one-way fare. Combining the TNC fares associated

Table 3-2. Example estimated short-duration parking

reduction.
Survey responses Estimated 2025 pattern
Short- Short- Short- Short-
duration duration duration duration
TNC fares TNC parking share share parking
$10 to $15 20 36 64% 30% 17
$15 to $20 53 73 58% 30% 38
$20 to $25 41 69 63% 30% 33
$25 to $30 93 90 49% 30% 55
$30 to $35 71 105 60% 44% 78
$35 to $40 28 82 74% 65% 71
$40 to $45 11 44 80% 73% 40
$45 to $50 5 23 82% 75% 21
$50 to $55 2 17 90% 86% 17
$55 to $60 0 5 100% 100% 5
Over $60 0 92 100% 100% 92
Total 324 637 467
Percent change from survey -26.7%

Source: InterVISTAS, from passenger survey data provided by Dallas/Fort Worth
with each zip code with survey responses, by zip code, revealed the share of DFW passengers
choosing TNCs versus long-duration parking. As shown in Figure 3-11, in 2018, for zip codes
where a one-way TNC trip was under $10, TNC customers comprised approximately 80% of
TNC and long-duration parking customers combined. This share steadily decreased such that
by the time one-way TNC fares reached $55, TNCs comprised 0%.
To estimate how this pattern might change in the future, professional judgment could be
used to identify the maximum share that TNCs might comprise of the TNC and long-duration
Figure 3-11. TNC versus long-duration parking, by TNC fare.

parking customer market segments by 2025. For Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport,
it was estimated that for one-way TNC fares of $10, the TNC share of TNC and short-duration
parking customers could increase to as high as 99%. It was also determined that passengers
within this market would be willing to pay one-way TNC fares approaching $60. This estimate
reflected in survey results (shown on Figure 3-8) indicated that while the volume was extremely
low (i.e., one or two survey responses), there were still some passengers willing to use TNCs at
those higher fare levels. The resulting pattern is shown on Figure 3-11 as the “2025 estimate.”
Table 3-3 summarizes the estimated reduction in passenger propensity to park for long
durations by 2025. As shown, the shift toward TNCs would reduce long-duration parking demand
by 27.9%. As noted above, for purposes of this example, long-duration parking gener-
ated demand for 1.8 design day spaces per 1,000 originating passengers in 2018. There-
fore, by 2025, long-duration parking is estimated to generate 1.30 design day spaces per
1,000 originating passengers.
When the results of the analyses of TNCs versus short- and long-duration parking are
combined, the 2025 design day parking spaces per 1,000 originating passengers is expected to
be 1.45, a 27.5% reduction from the assumed 2018 value of 2.0.
3.5.3.5 Long-Term Estimate—TNC and AV Impact on Parking Demand

As noted in Chapter 2, the introduction of AVs is expected to further reduce demand for
airport parking. In addition to changing vehicle ownership patterns, the primary impacts of
AVs on airport access are expected to further reduce the cost of on-demand service to/from
the airport and to improve the availability of such service (e.g., to households that do not own
a private vehicle or are unable to use their vehicle for airport access). The magnitude of this
impact may be governed by two key factors:
Regional coverage by AVs. Due to their expected higher price, TNCs and car rental
companies—rather than private owners—are expected to be early adopters of AVs. It is
Table 3-3. Example estimated long-duration parking

reduction.
Survey responses Estimated 2025 pattern
Long- Long- Long- Long-
duration duration duration duration
TNC fares TNC parking share share parking
$10 to $15 20 5 19% 1% 0
$15 to $20 53 30 36% 9% 8
$20 to $25 41 37 47% 19% 15
$25 to $30 93 72 44% 29% 48
$30 to $35 71 62 47% 39% 52
$35 to $40 28 58 68% 49% 42
$40 to $45 11 32 74% 59% 25
$45 to $50 5 12 71% 69% 12
$50 to $55 2 14 87% 79% 12
$55 to $60 0 5 100% 88% 4
Over $60 0 58 100% 100% 58
Total 324 384 277
Percent change from survey -27.9%

Source: InterVISTAS, from passenger survey data provided by Dallas/Fort Worth

also likely that these adopters will choose to deploy the AVs in areas where they can
maximize usage throughout the day. Thus, areas generating high volumes of trips by
customers willing to pay for such services, such as central business districts or airports,
will more likely be served by AVs than sparser areas.
Cost. A key attraction for the commercial use of AVs is that they can reduce the cost of the trip for
the customer. As of January 2020, estimates of such cost reductions are limited and subject to
significant change as the understanding of the fixed and variable costs of AV operation evolves.
Using the Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport passenger survey data, one methodology
to estimate the impact of AVs on airport parking is as follows:
1. Identify likely zip codes for initial AV deployment;
2. Estimate how the introduction of AVs will change the fares offered in portions of the region
that are served by AVs; and
3. Use the historical relationship between the change in parking demand and the introduction
of lower cost services, such as TNCs, as a basis for estimating how the lower fares will change
passenger propensity to park.
These steps are described as follows:
Step 1. Current airport passenger use of TNCs can provide insight into where AV operators
may choose to deploy their vehicles. For purposes of this example, it is assumed that areas
in the Dallas/Fort Worth region with high concentrations of airport-related TNC trips will
be attractive areas for AV deployment. Figure 3-12 depicts a limited number of zip codes
with the highest concentrations of TNC trips to the airport; this could inform an estimate of
how AV operators could deploy their fleet in a smaller region that promises higher vehicle
utilization. As shown, for this example it is assumed that the region of initial AV deploy-
ment comprises approximately 7.9% of Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport’s 2018
parking transactions.
Step 2. The next step is to estimate how AV deployment would
reduce costs for airport trips in the areas where AVs are available.
As noted in Chapter 2, the estimated fare of an AV TNC could be
as much as 60% below the fare of a non-AV TNC. For purposes
To reduce the differential cost of AV of this example, it is assumed that by 2028, AV trips to the airport
trips versus airport parking, airports would be 30% cheaper than non-AV TNCs, and by 2038, AV trips
could consider implementing airport to the airport would be 60% cheaper than non-AV TNCs. It is
and/or curbside access fees. Such fees also assumed that the presence of AVs in an area will likely reduce
are discussed in Section 7.3 of this the costs of all trips provided by similar services (such as non-
Guidebook. automated TNCs). Results of Steps 1 and 2 combined indicate
that 5% of the airport’s parking customers could be exposed to
AV services offering airport fare reductions of 30% by 2028 and
of 60% by 2038.
Step 3. The last step is to apply the airport’s historical relationship between parking activity
and the fares offered by competing services. For purposes of this example, it is assumed
that (a) the introduction of TNCs reduced the price of on-demand airport trips by
approximately 20% and (b) the introduction of TNCs and several years of TNC market
maturation reduced parking demand per passenger by approximately 30%. Applying
that same relationship to the potential reduction in fares due to the presence of AV TNCs
results in, for the areas served by TNC AVs, an estimated 45% reduction in parking
demand by 2028 and a 90% reduction by 2038.
As noted above, the near-term analysis estimated that by 2025, design day parking spaces per
1,000 originating passengers would reduce to 1.45. Based on their assumed initial deployment,

Figure 3-12. Potential service areas for AVs, based on existing TNC trip
concentrations.
AVs are expected to reduce fares in areas responsible for 7.9% of the parking demand. Thus,
the AV-driven 30% reduction in fares by 2028 (which is assumed to result in a 45% reduction
in parking demand) could reduce total parking demand per originating passenger by 3.6%
(7.9% × –45% = –3.6%) when compared to 2025. By 2038, the 60% total reduction in fares
(which results in a 90% reduction in parking demand) could reduce total parking demand per
originating passenger by 7.1% (7.9% × –90% = –7.1%) when compared to 2025.
Table 3-4 summarizes the forecast design day parking spaces per originating passenger using
this approach.
Table 3-4. Dallas/Fort Worth International

Airport example: estimating parking
demand per passenger using passenger
survey data.
Spaces per 1,000
originating passengers Change from 2025
2018 2.00
2025 1.45
2028 1.39 - 3.6%
2038 1.35 - 7.1%

3.6 Parking Demand Estimates

The estimates of future demands should Once the estimated future parking demand per passenger values
recognize that the future evolution are calculated, they can be combined with the passenger forecast to
of TNCs and introduction of AVs have estimate the future parking demands.
many unknown elements. Therefore,
airport planners should consider a Figure 3-13 depicts a potential range applied to the TNC trips per
reasonable range of likely scenarios passenger forecast presented in Figure 3-7. In this example, the fore-
encompassing a range of possible cast TNC trips were increased by 10% to create a high scenario and
outcomes. The magnitude of the range decreased by 10% to create a low scenario.
can be based on professional judgment, Figure 3-14 depicts how the range shown on Figure 3-13 would
sensitivity tests of key assumptions, create a range around the forecast of parking demand per passenger.
such as the geographic area potentially
included in the initial deployment of Table 3-5 summarizes the resulting parking demand calculations
AVs providing TNC/car rental services, using the range shown on Figure 3-14 (the forecast of passenger activity
and other factors. is for illustrative purposes).
3.7 Parking Demands Versus Parking Requirements

Once the estimated future design day parking space demand is established, airport planners
typically convert the space demand to a space requirement, which is the number of spaces that
should actually be provided to accommodate the design day space demand. This conversion
typically incorporates a “circulation allowance.”
A circulation allowance is the number of spaces (often expressed as a percentage of the design
day demand) added to the design day demand to improve the customer experience during the
design day. In large parking facilities with high occupancy (e.g., over 90%), drivers find it
increasingly difficult to locate available spaces. As a result, vehicles spend additional time
circulating through the parking lot or garage, which has direct consequences on vehicle
emissions, traffic congestion within the facility, and anxiety in passengers that they may miss
their flight. Typically, airport planners apply a 10% circulation allowance to the design day
demand to determine the actual number of spaces that are required to accommodate the
Figure 3-13. Forecast TNC trips per originating enplanement, low and high range.

Figure 3-14. Forecast parking design day spaces per monthly originating enplanement.
Table 3-5. Parking demand forecast calculation.

Existing High TNC Impact Low TNC Impact
2018 2028 2038 2028 2038
Peak month originating
800,000 1,075,000 1,300,000 1,075,000 1,300,000
enplanements
Design day parking spaces
per originating 0.01433 0.01099 0.00963 0.01229 0.01117
enplanement
Design day parking spaces 11,450 11,800 12,500 13,200 14,500

design day demand. The circulation allowance can be reduced in a parking facility that has
(or will have) an automatic parking guidance system (APGS), which, as described in Section 4.3,
guides drivers to available spaces. By improving the drivers’ ability to quickly locate an avail-
able parking space, the circulation allowance can be reduced. While developing a program
for a new garage, airport planners may wish to evaluate the extent to which the cost of an
APGS can reduce the number of spaces (and associated construction cost) in the structure.
Such evaluation may also consider other potential APGS benefits, including an improved
customer experience and reduced vehicle-miles-traveled.

CHAPTER 4
Adapting Parking Facilities

for Other Vehicular Uses
Together with Chapter 5, this chapter addresses the question, “If total parking demand
reduces, what can an airport do with the excess parking capacity?” In response to the recent
rapid growth in TNC activity at airports and the corresponding stress the activity has placed
on many airport curbsides, this chapter focuses on ways parking structures can be adapted for
vehicular uses other than parking, such as pickup and drop-off areas for commercial vehicles.
In particular, this chapter presents potential configurations for TNC loading facilities that can
fit within parking structures, a method to evaluate configuration efficiency, and other potential
considerations.
Given that parking structures and surface lots are designed to accommodate automobiles,
the structural design, vehicle circulation elements, pedestrian circulation elements, utilities,
and other aspects are generally compatible with other land uses that also process or store auto-
mobiles. At airports, the anticipated continued shift in demand from parking to TNCs has
contributed to (a) the potential for surplus parking spaces and (b) increased congestion on
curbsides. Therefore, this chapter focuses on adapting parking facilities for use as passenger
pickup sites by commercial ground transportation services, TNCs in particular.
ACRP Report 146 summarizes a wide range of best practices for the management, control,
and business arrangements related to commercial ground transportation at airports. These
best practices include recommendations regarding passenger loading configurations and
use of parking structures and surface lots as commercial vehicle loading and storage/staging
facilities. Prior to the introduction and growth of TNCs at airports, several airports used (and
continue to use) portions of a close-in parking structure as boarding areas for passengers using
taxicabs, limousines, shared-ride vans, courtesy vehicles, scheduled van services, or some
combination of these services. At these boarding areas, the physical arrangements and the type
of vehicles permitted to use these areas vary. At airports serving Indianapolis, New Orleans,
and San Francisco, vehicles load in a traditional nose-to-tail manner. Within Boston Logan’s
Terminal B parking structure and a parking structure at Minneapolis-St. Paul International,
vehicles stop in angled spaces.
43

Key advantages and challenges of these boarding areas include:
Advantages Challenges
Boarding areas are typically convenient Parking structures typically have limited
to the terminal area and offer weather vertical clearances (e.g., 9 feet or less)
protection, benches, and other amenities. that prevent use by larger vehicles, such
as buses and vans with header boards.
Further, the floors (other than on grade)
are not designed structurally for the
loading of buses and shuttle vans. The
limited vertical clearances are actually
beneficial in preventing such vehicles
from entering the parking structure.
Vehicular access to these areas can be Column grids within parking structures
controlled through card- or automatic may result in sub-optimal parking
vehicle identification (AVI) activated configurations and constrained vehicle
gate arms. circulation.
There is reduced curbside activity. Pedestrian volumes associated with
commercial vehicles may tax capacity of
garage elevators.
Areas within repurposed garages may not
have lighting, heating, or air conditioning
equivalent to terminal space.
Accumulations of waiting passengers
could trigger “public assembly” building
code requirements, such as fire sprinklers,
and increased structural loads.
When ACRP Report 146 was published in 2015, TNCs had only recently appeared at many
airports. As such, the report did not explicitly consider the use of parking facilities for TNC
loading. As shown on Table 2-3, as of January 2020, eight large-hub U.S. airports required
that TNCs load passengers within existing surface parking lots or parking structures. Some
medium-hub airports (e.g., Louis Armstrong New Orleans International) and small-hub air-
ports (e.g., Harrisburg International) also required that TNCs load passengers within existing
surface parking lots or parking structures. Those airports generally use one of five loading
configurations for a dedicated TNC loading area:
Loading Configuration Example Airport Using Configuration

in a Parking Facility
Linear loading, single-side of an aisle San Francisco International (roof of garage),
(similar to a typical airport curbside) Los Angeles International (former surface
parking lot)
Linear loading, both sides of an aisle Nashville International (ground level in garage),
Louis Armstrong New Orleans International
Sawtooth loading Las Vegas McCarran International (middle
level in garage)
Angled pull-through spaces Detroit Metro (middle level in garage)
Angled pull-in / back-out spaces Seattle-Tacoma International (middle level
in garage)

Adapting Parking Facilities for Other Vehicular Uses 45
The next sections present typical layouts of each configuration, key aspects of each configu-
ration, and a comparative evaluation. The methodology and findings are intended to support
the comparative evaluation of the relative benefits and limitations of each option; they are not
intended as a definitive capacity analysis.
4.1 Evaluation Criteria

Each configuration can be evaluated to identify the relative efficiency, safety, customer
experience, flexibility, and other criteria.
4.1.1 Efficiency
One possible measurement of each layout’s efficiency is a passenger loading zone (PLZ)
productivity index model, which measures the number of vehicles that can be processed in
an hour for a given length of curb. To compare dissimilar configurations, such as a linear
loading plan where vehicles are aligned nose-to-tail along a curb versus one where they load
side-by-side (e.g., angled pull-through spaces), the PLZ calculates the number of vehicles
processed in an hour per 100 linear feet of a given configuration. A higher PLZ score indicates
a more efficient layout.
The PLZ scores were developed using vehicle microsimulations of each configuration that
were calibrated to in-field observations. To provide a direct comparison, each configuration
was applied to a hypothetical parking garage aisle measuring 260 feet long and 60 feet wide.
As shown in the following sections, each configuration’s 260-foot-long area included transi-
tion zones at the beginning and end of the loading area, and some configurations included a
pedestrian crossing zone at one end of the area. The remaining area was divided into individual
loading spaces. The microsimulation results indicated the maximum number of vehicles that
could be processed through each configuration. The maximum volumes were then divided by
the length of the zone occupied by loading spaces to calculate the PLZ (i.e., the PLZ calculation
excludes the transition zones as these may be heavily influenced by site-specific conditions).
The PLZ scores were predominately impacted by the following factors:
Factor Impact
Vehicle dwell time Longer dwell times reduce PLZ scores, and vice versa
Maneuvering into and Configurations that are more difficult for a driver to
out of spaces maneuver into and out of have lower PLZ scores
Area required per space Configurations requiring more area per loading space
have lower PLZ scores
Pedestrian activity Configurations that increase the number of pedestrians
crossing traffic have lower PLZ scores
Of these, the most influential factor in overall capacity is dwell time, which is the time
the vehicle is stopped waiting for passengers to approach and load the vehicle. For typical
domestic air travel there is a mix of very short dwell times (the passengers get directly into the
vehicle, without putting luggage in the trunk), moderate dwell times (driver typically parks,
leaves vehicle, and opens trunk and helps load luggage), and long dwell times, which may
reflect passengers with significant luggage, a need to install a car seat, or difficulty locating
the passenger.

The methodology and results presented in this section assume a

At an international terminal and popular median 40-second dwell time for all configurations. This dwell time
vacation destinations, the median dwell assumption reflects configurations and TNC operating practices that
time can often be longer than the allow a TNC vehicle to stop immediately adjacent to their waiting
average assumed in this section (e.g., passenger party. As described in the discussion of each configuration,
one minute or more) due to increased some configurations may require additional signage or other elements
size and quantity of luggage, the much to improve the configuration’s ability to achieve the assumed median
higher likelihood that travelers will use dwell time.
carts to transport luggage, and higher
number of child car seats.
4.1.2 Other Evaluation Criteria
Other evaluation criteria applied to each configuration include:
Pedestrian safety. Extent to which a configuration minimizes
In 2019, TNCs introduced a loading opportunities for vehicle-pedestrian conflicts.
operation at selected airports intended Vehicle safety. Extent to which a configuration minimizes vehicle
to reduce dwell times by reducing the conflicts. Certain maneuvers, such as backing out of parking
amount of time required for a passenger spaces into moving traffic or pulling out and around or through
to match with their TNC vehicle. Upon other stopped vehicles, reduce this rating.
requesting a ride, the passenger is Resiliency. Ability for a configuration to accommodate surges
provided a unique code (similar to a in demand that exceed capacity without significantly obstruct-
personal identification number, or “PIN”). ing traffic flow.
Once at the TNC loading area, the Customer experience. Ability for passengers to readily identify and
passenger approaches the first vehicle reach their TNC vehicle.
in a queue of waiting vehicles and shows Flexibility. Ability for the configuration to adapt to changes in
their PIN to the driver. The driver enters operations and demand levels.
the PIN into their mobile app and the Driver training. Extent to which a configuration may require
passenger’s information, including additional driver familiarity to ensure smooth operations.
destination, is transmitted to the driver. Capital costs. Likely relative magnitude of cost for improvements
Such a system would likely improve the above and beyond paint, curbs, and bollards.
capacity of any of the configurations Operating costs. Extent to which additional staff are required to
described in this section. support and/or enforce the operation.
4.2 Loading Configurations

This section presents the five distinct loading configurations and their ratings against each
evaluation criteria.
4.2.1 Linear Loading, Single-Side of Aisle

Figure 4-1 depicts the linear configuration assumed in the hypothetical garage structure.
As shown, after allowing for lane tapers at either end, the loading area provides nine loading
spaces, assumed to be 24-feet-long each, served by two through lanes. This configuration does
not use the full width of the hypothetical garage area.
Efficiency. Based on vehicle modeling, each space can turn over approximately 27 times per
hour, a turnover rate that reflects the median dwell time, time to maneuver into and out
of spaces, and delays due to vehicle congestion. This configuration was determined to be
able to serve up to 243 vehicles per hour. As the area occupied by the nine loading spaces
is 216 feet long, the PLZ score is 113 (243 ÷ 216 × 100 = 112.5, rounded to 113).

Source: Walker Consultants.
Figure 4-1. Linear loading, single-side configuration.
Pedestrian safety. This configuration includes no pedestrian crossings and would only
experience double-parking during peak periods. Thus, this configuration rates highly
compared with other configurations.
Vehicle safety. This configuration is rated as neutral compared with the other configura-
tions. During peak periods, some vehicles may need to back up to maneuver out of loading
spaces. If vehicles are double-parked, vehicles parked along the curb may need to maneuver
between stopped vehicles.
Resiliency. This configuration rates highly compared with the other configurations. During
peak periods, vehicles can utilize the second lane to double-park while still preserving the
third lane for through traffic.
Customer experience. This configuration is rated as neutral compared with the other
configurations. Vehicles parked in the curb lane may obstruct customer view of approach-
ing vehicles.
Flexibility. This configuration rates highly compared with the other configurations. As
demands increase, this configuration can be converted to the linear loading, both sides of
aisle configuration (described in Section 4.2.2), which provide vehicle loading positions
on the opposite side of the aisle.
Driver training. This configuration rates highly compared with the other configurations as
it is similar to typical airport and non-airport environments. Thus, drivers would likely
need minimal training.
Capital costs. This configuration rates highly compared with the other configurations.
Capital costs would likely be limited to paint, curbs, bollards, and signs. For longer versions
of this configuration, multiple zones and associated signage may be required to help
distribute passenger demand along the full length of the available curb.
Operating costs. This configuration rates highly compared with the other configurations
as it would require no additional staff to assist customers and drivers with the operations
(except, perhaps, during very peak periods of demand and congestion).
Figure 4-2 depicts an example of a linear, single-side of aisle configuration.
4.2.2 Linear Loading, Both Sides of Aisle

Figure 4-3 depicts how a linear loading plan using both sides of the aisle fits within the
hypothetical garage area. In this configuration, a passenger loading area and associated loading
spaces are provided on each side of the 60-foot garage bay. As shown, the vehicle area and both
passenger waiting areas can fit between the column grid centerlines. A pedestrian crosswalk
provides pedestrian access to the vehicles loading on the opposite side of the aisle. In this
scheme, 18 spaces are provided (nine spaces on each side of the aisle).
To improve the ability of a passenger and driver to locate each other, this configuration can
be supplemented by signs that identify individual spaces or zones containing several spaces.

Source: InterVISTAS, 2019.
Figure 4-2. Linear loading, single sides of aisle

configuration, Los Angeles International Airport.
Depending on the operations provided by the TNC company, a passenger could indicate their
preferred space or zone, the passenger could be assigned a specific space or zone, or the driver,
upon arriving in a space or zone, could contact (e.g., using a text message) the passenger indi-
cating the space or zone they are parked in.
Efficiency. Based on modeling, each space can turn over approximately 25 times per hour,
a turnover rate that reflects the median dwell time, time to maneuver into and out of
spaces, delays due to pedestrian crossing activity, and delays due to vehicle congestion. This
configuration was determined to be able to serve up to 450 vehicles per hour. As the area
occupied by the 18 spaces is 216 feet long, the PLZ score is 208 (450 ÷ 216 × 100 = 208.3,
rounded to 208).
Pedestrian safety. This configuration is rated as neutral compared with the other configura-
tions as pedestrians can be directed to cross the drive aisle at a single location.
Vehicle safety. This configuration is rated as neutral compared with the other configurations.
During peak periods, some vehicles may need to back up to maneuver out of loading
spaces. If vehicles are double-parked, vehicles parked along the curb may need to maneu-
ver between stopped vehicles.
Resiliency. This configuration rates as neutral compared with the other configurations.
During peak periods, vehicles can utilize the second lane to double-park, but there is a
chance that double-parked vehicles would obstruct both through lanes.
Customer experience. This configuration is rated as neutral compared with the other con-
figurations. Vehicles parked in the curb lanes may obstruct customer view of approaching
vehicles.
Figure 4-3. Linear loading, both sides of aisle configuration.

Figure 4-4. Linear loading, both sides of aisle,

Nashville International Airport.
Flexibility. This configuration rates highly compared with the other configurations. This
configuration can open as a linear loading, single-side of aisle configuration and convert
to a linear loading, both sides of aisle configuration, as needed.
Driver training. This configuration rates as neutral compared with the other configurations
as left-side vehicle loading is rare at U.S. airports. Thus, drivers would likely need some
training to acclimate to left-side spaces.
Capital costs. This configuration rates highly compared with the other configurations.
Capital costs would likely be limited to paint, curbs, bollards, and signs. To direct customers
to spaces on the opposite side of the aisle, more signage may be required than for the
linear loading, single-side of aisle configuration.
Operating costs. This configuration rates as neutral compared with the other configurations
as it may require staff to control the pedestrian crosswalk.
Figure 4-4 depicts an example of a linear loading, both sides of aisle configuration.
4.2.3 Sawtooth Loading

Figure 4-5 depicts how a “sawtooth” loading configuration providing 16 loading spaces could
fit within the hypothetical garage area. In this configuration, each space would be approximately
26.5 feet long. Sawtooth spaces are commonly found at transit centers and incorporated into
bus bay parking design. The vehicle pulls into the angled curbside and when ready to exit, can
pull forward, avoiding any need to reverse to enter or exit a space. By avoiding any require-
ments for a vehicle to reverse, the configuration allows each space to serve a higher number of
vehicles during a given time period. In this configuration, a passenger loading area and associ-
ated loading spaces are provided on each side of the 60-foot garage bay. Because each space is
Figure 4-5. Sawtooth loading configuration.

angled, each space requires more roadway width than those under a linear loading configura-
tion. Thus, to provide the spaces and two through lanes, a limited portion of each pedestrian
waiting area may need to extend beyond the column centerline.
To improve the ability of a passenger and driver to locate each other, this configuration can
be supplemented by signs that identify individual spaces or zones containing several spaces.
As noted in the description of the linear loading, both sides of aisle configuration, there are
multiple ways the zone indicators could be used to help passengers find their vehicles.
Efficiency. Based on modeling, each space can turn over approximately 29 times per hour,
a turnover rate that reflects the median dwell time, time to maneuver into and out of
spaces, delays due to pedestrian crossing activity, and delays due to vehicle congestion. This
configuration was determined to be able to serve up to 464 vehicles per hour. As the area
occupied by the 16 loading spaces is 212 feet long, the PLZ score is 219 (464 ÷ 212 × 100 =
218.9, rounded to 219).
Pedestrian safety. This configuration is rated as neutral compared with the other configura-
tions as pedestrians can be directed to cross the drive aisle at a single location.
Vehicle safety. This configuration rates highly compared with the other configurations as all
vehicle maneuvering is forward.
Resiliency. This configuration rates as neutral compared with the other configurations.
During peak periods, vehicles can utilize the second lane to double-park, but there is a
chance that double-parked vehicles would obstruct both through lanes.
Customer experience. This configuration is rated as neutral compared with the other con-
figurations. Vehicles parked in the curb lanes may obstruct customer view of approaching
vehicles.
Flexibility. This configuration rates highly compared with the other configurations. This
configuration can open a single-side system and convert to using both sides of the aisle
when needed.
Driver training. This configuration rates as neutral compared with the other configurations
as left-side vehicle loading is rare at U.S. airports and sawtooth spaces are not typically
used for automobiles. Drivers would likely need some training to acclimate to the left-side
spaces.
Capital costs. This configuration rates highly compared with the other configurations. Capital
costs would likely be limited to paint, curbs, bollards, and signs. To direct customers to
spaces on the opposite side of the aisle, more signage may be required than for the linear
loading, single-side of aisle configuration.
as it may require staff to control the pedestrian crosswalk.
Figure 4-6 depicts an example of a sawtooth configuration using one side of the aisle.
4.2.4 Angled Pull-Through Spaces

Figure 4-7 depicts how a “pull-through” loading configuration providing 20 loading spaces
could fit within the hypothetical garage area. Pull-through space design separates entry and
exit lanes with angled spaces in between so that a vehicle can pull forward into a space and exit
forward into a separate exit lane. Pedestrians can cross to their vehicle at multiple points and
thus, do not require a dedicated crosswalk. As shown, on the side of the aisle opposite the
passenger waiting area there is a slight gap between the column centerline and the vehicle lane
to provide clearance from the column. As a result, the column centerline through the passenger
waiting area bisects the area. Figure 4-7 depicts a flow whereby stopped vehicles are facing
away from the passenger waiting area. This configuration provides for easier loading of luggage

Source: J. Orth, 2017.
Figure 4-6. Sawtooth loading configuration,

Las Vegas McCarran International Airport.
into vehicle trunks and, in states that do not require front license plates, ensures passengers can
see the license plates from the waiting area. It also has pedestrians crossing the vehicle entry
path, which means vehicles are likely to be traveling slower (as they look for their passenger or
empty loading spot) than they would on exit. Alternatively, an airport could have the stopped
vehicles facing toward the passenger waiting area, but the configuration shown in Figure 4-7 is
typically preferred.
This configuration also creates a potential complication in that drivers approaching the area
may not be able to readily see empty spaces further downstream. Thus, this configuration can
be augmented by a system that uses indicator lights (such as that described in Section 4.3)
showing drivers location of available spaces. Once parked, the driver can text the passenger
with their location.
Efficiency. Based on vehicle modeling, each space can turn over approximately 25 times
per hour, a turnover rate that reflects the median dwell time, time to maneuver into and
out of spaces, delays due to pedestrian crossing activity, and delays due to vehicle con
gestion. This configuration was determined to be able to serve up to 500 vehicles per
hour. As the area occupied by the 20 loading spaces is 208 feet long, the PLZ score is
240 (500 ÷ 208 × 100 = 240.4, rounded to 240).
Pedestrian safety. This configuration is rated less desirable compared with the other con-
figurations as pedestrians cross vehicles at multiple locations along the curb.
Vehicle safety. This configuration rates highly compared with the other configurations as
all vehicle maneuvering is forward with less need to maneuver around stopped vehicles.
Figure 4-7. Angled pull-through loading configuration.

Resiliency. This configuration rates poorly compared with the other configurations. During
peak periods, if a space is not available, a vehicle must wait in the entry drive aisle.
Customer experience. This configuration is rated highly compared with other configurations
as there are no parked vehicles obstructing customer views of approaching traffic.
Flexibility. This configuration rates poorly compared with the other configurations. Unlike
the linear and sawtooth configurations, capacity cannot be easily expanded within the
defined area.
Driver training. This configuration rates poorly compared with the other configurations as
pull-through loading spaces are very uncommon in the United States. Drivers would likely
need some training to acclimate to the configuration as well as the use of indicator lights
that identify available downstream spaces.
Capital costs. This configuration rates as neutral compared with the other configurations
as it could require a system that uses indicator lights showing which spaces are available
and may require signage identifying the location of individual spaces.
as it may require staff to assist customers in locating their vehicle and crossing entering
vehicles.
Figure 4-8 depicts an angled pull-through configuration.
4.2.5 Angled Pull-in/Back-out Spaces

Figure 4-9 depicts how a “pull-in/back-out” configuration might look within the hypothetical
garage area. As shown, 22 loading spaces could be provided in the area. Upon entering the area,
the driver would pull into one of the available spaces. After the passenger and baggage are
loading, the driver would back out of the space to exit.
Similar to the pull-through configuration, this configuration creates a potential complica-
tion in that drivers approaching the area may not be able to readily see empty spaces further
downstream. Thus, this configuration can be augmented by a system that uses indicator
lights showing which spaces are available. Once parked, the driver can text the passenger with
their location.
Source: Walker Consultants, 2019.
Figure 4-8. Angled pull-through configuration,

Detroit Metropolitan Airport.

Figure 4-9. Pull-in/back-out loading configuration.
Efficiency. Based on vehicle modeling, each space can turn over approximately 15 times per
hour, a turnover rate that reflects the median dwell time, time to pull into and back out
of spaces, and delays due to vehicle congestion. This configuration was determined to be
able to serve up to 330 vehicles per hour. As the area occupied by the 22 loading spaces is
228.8 feet long, the PLZ score is 144 (330 ÷ 228.8 × 100 = 144.2, rounded to 144).
Pedestrian safety. This configuration is rated highly compared with the other configurations
as there are no vehicle-pedestrian conflict points.
Vehicle safety. This configuration rates poorly compared with the other configurations as
all vehicles must reverse out of loading spaces into a travel lane.
Resiliency. This configuration rates poorly compared with the other configurations. During
peak periods, if a space is not available, a vehicle must wait in the travel lane until a space
becomes available.
Customer experience. This configuration is rated poorly compared with other configurations
as the parked vehicles will very likely obstruct customer view of approaching vehicles.
Flexibility. This configuration rates neutral compared with the other configurations. As
noted above, indicator lights could be required to achieve full utilization of the spaces.
If the configuration changes in the future, those lights may need to be relocated.
Driver training. This configuration rates neutral compared with the other configurations as
pull-in/back-out spaces are less common in the United States. Drivers would likely need
some training to acclimate to the configuration as well as the use of indicator lights that
identify available downstream spaces.
Capital costs. This configuration rates neutral compared with the other configurations as
it could require a system that uses indicator lights showing which spaces are available
and may require signage identifying the location of individual spaces.
Operating costs. This configuration rates neutral compared with the other configurations
as it may require staff to assist customers in locating their vehicle and crossing entering
vehicles.
Figure 4-10 depicts an example of the pull-in/back-out configuration.
4.2.6 Configuration Comparison

Table 4-1 summarizes the evaluation of the five loading configurations. As shown, the linear
loading, single-side of aisle configuration has the lowest efficiency but rates highly for most
other criteria. Conversely, the most efficient configuration (pull-through) is less resilient to
accommodate surges in demand, less able to increase capacity, and less familiar to drivers.
An airport’s choice of the best configuration for their situation will need to reflect how each
configuration might fit within the space available as well as the importance airport manage-
ment places on each criterion.

Figure 4-10. Pull-in/back-out loading configuration, Seattle-Tacoma International

Airport.
4.3 Examples and Lessons Learned

In addition to the base layout of a TNC loading area, there are several additional consider-
ations for airports planning a TNC loading area within a parking structure. The following
suggestions reflect comments provided by staff at airports that have relocated TNC pickup
areas into parking structures.
Automated Parking Guidance System Space Availability Lighting.
APGS space availability lighting (shown in Figure 4-11) indi-
Costs for APGS in parking structures can
cates to drivers the locations of available spaces. A sensor above
vary from less than $400 per space to
each space determines whether or not the space is occupied and
over $1,000 per space. Key elements in
that information is displayed via an indicator light also located
the cost include (a) whether the system
above each space (in Figure 4-11, a green light indicates an available
was included in the original structure
space while a red light indicates an occupied space). A similar,
design (as opposed to being designed
camera-based system is described in Section 7.1.7 of this guide-
for installation in an existing structure)
book. As noted above, for angled pull-through spaces, APGS
and (b) the number and complexity of
can increase capacity as it reduces the likelihood that drivers, who
supplemental signs used throughout
may not be able to see downstream available spaces, would wait
the structure to indicate the number
for a closer space to become available. Las Vegas McCarran
of available spaces on floors, sections,
International relocated a TNC pickup area into an existing park-
and individual aisles. In addition to
ing garage with multiple long rows of parking. The long rows
improving a driver’s ability to locate
made it difficult for drivers to quickly identify available spaces.
an available space, an APGS can reduce
To mitigate that challenge, airport management chose to install
the number of spaces required.
an overhead APGS system to denote space availability. Once a
driver is in a pickup spot, they contact the passenger indicating
their location.
Zonal Space Numbering. Identifying zones within the loading area helps TNC passengers
and drivers coordinate exact pickup locations, which mitigates pedestrian roaming
inside the garage and ensures better safety. As of January 2020, zonal numbering is used
at Los Angeles International, Nashville International, and San Francisco International
airports, among others, and passengers choose the sections where they would like to
meet their driver.
At Nashville International, this has resulted in an uneven distribution of demand
among the multiple zones available. Figure 4-12 depicts the Nashville International
Airport TNC loading area, which is located on the ground level of a parking garage.
Passengers enter the area from the right of the image and can choose between nine zones
located on both sides of the first aisle (TNC Zones A1 through B3) and on one side of

Table 4-1. TNC loading configuration summary.
Sawtooth,
Linear, single-side of aisle Linear, both sides of aisle Pull-through entry Pull-in/back out
both sides of aisle
Criteria Explanation
Hourly vehicles served per 100

Efficiency PLZ: 113 PLZ: 208 PLZ: 219 PLZ: 240 PLZ: 144
linear feet
Vehicles encounter Vehicles encounter Vehicles encounter

Pedestrian Minimize pedestrian-vehicle
Minimal concerns pedestrians at single pedestrians at single pedestrians at multiple Minimal concerns
safety conflicts, enhance level of safety
location location locations
Some vehicles may need
Vehicle Some vehicles may need to All maneuvering is All maneuvering is All vehicles must reverse Minimize vehicle-vehicle
to reverse during busy
safety reverse during busy periods forward forward into travel lane conflicts
periods
Vehicles can double-park Vehicles can double-park Vehicles can double-park If spaces are unavailable, If spaces are unavailable,
Ability to accommodate surges
Resiliency and still preserve through but may obstruct both but may obstruct both waiting vehicles obstruct waiting vehicles obstruct
that exceed capacity
lane through lanes through lanes entry entry
Parked vehicles more
Parked vehicles may Parked vehicles may Parked vehicles may No obstructions to
Customer likely to obstruct Ability for passengers to readily
obstruct customer view of obstruct customer view of obstruct customer view of customer view of
experience customer view of identify their vehicle
approaching vehicles approaching vehicles approaching vehicles approaching vehicles
approaching vehicles
If space guidance is used,
Can be converted to parallel Can open using single-side Can open using single-side Ability to accommodate changes
Cannot be expanded if equipment may be in
Flexibility double-sided loading if loading with opposite side loading with opposite side in future operations and
more capacity is required wrong place for other
needed opened when needed opened when needed demands
uses
Left-side loading is
Very uncommon
Conventional pickup uncommon at U.S.
Driver Left-side loading is rare at configuration for Uncommon configuration Similar to typical
configuration for airports airports; sawtooth stalls
training U.S. airports passenger loading or for passenger loading configurations
and other environments are not typical for
parking
automobiles
May require automated May require automated
Cost likely limited to paint, Cost likely limited to Cost likely limited to Need for improvements above
Capital space guidance to indicate space guidance to indicate
curbs or bollards, and paint, curbs or bollards, paint, curbs or bollards, and beyond paint, curbs,
costs space availability to space availability to
signage and signage and signage bollards, and signage
drivers drivers
May require staff to direct May require staff to direct
Operating Requires no pedestrian May require pedestrian May require pedestrian Requirement for staff to support
customers to vehicle customers to vehicle
cost control control at crosswalk control at crosswalk and/or enforce the operation
locations locations
Example San Francisco,
Nashville, New Orleans Las Vegas (single sided) Detroit Seattle-Tacoma
airports Los Angeles
Better than other configurations Neutral Poorer than other configurations
Source: Port of Portland
Figure 4-11. Automated parking

guidance system space availability
indicators.
Figure 4-12. TNC loading area, Nashville International Airport.

the second aisle (TNC Zones C1 through C3). When the area first opened, passengers
overwhelmingly preferred TNC Zone A1 as it did not require that they cross a drive lane,
and it was the closest zone to where they entered the area. As a result, distribution of
demand between the zones was very uneven, and congestion in high-demand areas often
blocked the entire first drive aisle.
To distribute and mitigate the congestion, airport staff allocated TNC Zones A1 through
A3 to one TNC operator and Zones B1 through C3 to the other TNC operator (TNC
services at the airport are currently provided by two companies). Furthermore, the TNC
operators have modified the mobile apps to identify to passengers that zones located
further from the pedestrian entrance (such as A2) are “preferred.” The Nashville expe-
rience demonstrates that at airports with delineated zones, staff may need to work with
TNC operators to modify the allocation and with mobile apps to improve the distribution
of demand along the available capacity.
Accommodating Unfamiliar Users. Airport officials should assume
that both passengers and drivers using the TNC loading area are
At one small-hub U.S. airport, over a
unfamiliar with the airport layout. At many airports, a large share
6-month period in 2019, approximately
of annual passengers (e.g., approximately 50%) use that airport
41,500 total TNC pickups were made by
once per year or less. Similarly, TNCs may experience high driver
over 2,000 individual vehicles. Of those,
turnover such that a high share of TNC pickups are by drivers that
over 20% made only one pickup during
use the airport less than once per month. Thus, wayfinding and
the 6 months and over 57% made one
signage are critical for both passengers and drivers. Pedestrians
pickup per month or less.
require connected and integrated signage from the terminal to the
TNC loading area and drivers require signage starting from the
airport entrance.
Global Positioning System Connectivity. TNC apps rely on global positioning system (GPS)
or Wi-Fi boosters to provide the locations of passengers and vehicles. Improving cellular
connectivity signal strength inside a garage by installing cellular phone signal boosters or
amplifiers, as well as Wi-Fi boosters, can improve communications for both TNC passengers
and drivers.
Vertical Pedestrian Circulation. Elevator and escalator systems within an airport parking
structure may not have been designed to accommodate the large volumes of passengers
using TNCs, which have higher turnover rates per space than typical airport public parking
spaces. Thus, airport officials should analyze the capacity of these systems as they evaluate
potential TNC pickup locations within parking structures. Possible solutions include either
locating the boarding area on a level requiring no pedestrian level changes or including
capacity improvements in the plan and budget.
Ventilation and Climate Control. Airport parking structures are typically not designed to be
places of assembly. Thus, TNC loading areas in garages typically do not have any special
ventilation or an enclosed waiting area. Normally, as long as only light duty, passenger
vehicles (as currently used by TNCs) use the loading zone, additional ventilation is not
required. However, higher vehicle volumes and vehicle idling in TNC loading areas may
cause airport management to consider improving ventilation in the area.
If a climate-controlled waiting area is provided, its intended use is as a waiting area for
passengers until the TNC app indicates that their vehicle is approaching and the passenger
should proceed to the loading zone. Building codes may require that an enclosed waiting
area be sprinklered. If the loading area is on the garage roof, a canopy may be provided over
passenger waiting areas.
Pedestrian Protections. When locating a TNC loading area in a garage, passenger waiting
areas are typically protected by curbs, bollards, or other types of barriers. Use of bollards or
other barriers may be preferable to raised curbs because (a) they are easier to remove if the
loading area is moved or reconfigured, (b) they remove trip hazard, and (c) they are easier
to negotiate for passengers with rolling luggage, luggage carts, and wheelchairs.

Flexibility. Given the dynamic and ongoing changes occurring in technology and consumer
preferences (as described in Chapter 3), TNC pickup areas and associated policies should
have a measure of flexibility to account for potential changes in TNC demand levels, the
products and services offered by TNC companies, and how TNC companies choose to
match passengers with drivers. In addition, plans and policies should reflect that the TNC
industry includes multiple companies and that these companies may manifest each of
these changes in different ways. If possible, the plans for opening day should have contin-
gency plans for reconfiguration and/or expansion in the event one or more of the TNC
companies choose to operate in a way not envisioned during the planning.
TNC Coordination During Planning. To mitigate the potential that TNCs use the area in
an unexpected way, planning for TNC loading areas should seek to involve TNC repre-
sentatives throughout the process. The planning process should also identify the changes
TNC operators will need to implement on their apps to direct their passengers to the new
locations and the changes in driver training. Despite coordination throughout the process,
however, airport officials should still identify potential contingencies in the event that
TNC operators use the new location in an unexpected manner.

CHAPTER 5
Repurposing Parking Facilities

to Non-Vehicle Uses
Together with Chapter 4, this chapter addresses the question, “If parking demand reduces,
what can an airport do with the excess parking capacity?” Chapter contents focus on strategies
to repurpose surplus airport parking capacity for non-vehicular uses. In general, the research
conducted for this guidebook revealed that opportunities to repurpose parking structures
for non-vehicular uses was severely limited. As shown on Figure 5-1, parking structures are
designed to a lower live load (expressed as uniform pounds per square foot, or “Uniform psf ”),
which includes any forces acting on a structure that are temporary or transient (such as people,
furniture, vehicles, and other movable objects). This is primarily because groups of people
and materials can weigh more, on a per-area basis, than occupied passenger vehicles.
In addition, parking structures include several elements that may be incompatible with
other low load uses, such as hotels, residences, and schools, including the following:
• Parking structures are typically designed to provide lower vertical clearances than those
used in spaces intended to be occupied by people (instead of vehicles);
• Parking structures may include sloped floors (e.g., floors having a 1:10 slope or grade rather
than level floors) that serve as vehicle vertical circulation ramps;
• Parking structure floors are sloped (e.g., 1:50) to facilitate drainage; such slopes are typically
unacceptable for non-vehicular uses;
• Vertical circulation elements (e.g., elevator cores and stairs) in parking structures are often
located at the periphery of the structure whereas hotels and other spaces intended for occu-
pation by people place them centrally; and
• Parking structure emergency egress stairs may be in locations inconsistent with those
required by building code for other spaces intended for occupation by people.
Lastly, airport operators interviewed as part of this research indicated that if public parking
demand reduced such that they had surplus parking capacity, they would close all remote surface
lots (which typically generate lower gross revenues per space and have higher operating costs as
they may require shuttle buses) before considering repurposing a garage. If demand was such
that a garage was no longer needed, they would remove the garage and replace it with a structure
built for an alternative use, such as a hotel.
As such, this chapter focuses on the (a) strategies for repurposing surface parking lots and
(b) potential revenue benefits of an on-airport hotel, which is the most likely non-aeronautical
land use that can substantially benefit from a terminal area location over other sites on an
airport.
59

Figure 5-1. Minimum design loads, by use.
5.1 Prior ACRP Research

ACRP has prepared several reports and guidebooks focusing on strategies to encourage and
enhance non-aeronautical commercial development and revenue. These reports include:
ACRP Report 47: Guidebook for Developing and Leasing Airport Property. This guidebook
presents the process of developing and leasing airport property. It describes the different
types of airport leases and associated elements. The guidebook also includes a descrip-
tion of the airport owner/project sponsor role and provides an overview of the different
decision considerations from the perspective of the airport sponsor, developer, and finan-
ciers. Based on the airport goals, the guidebook provides a list of the different financing
mechanisms, funding sources, and leasing agreement types available.
ACRP Report 121: Innovative Revenue Strategies—An Airport Guide. This guide provides
an inventory of revenue strategies available to airport operators. It highlights the areas of
innovation available to the airport to improve its revenue streams with respect to airport
activities, land development, and financing. The report presents five strategy types:
– Customer focus;
– Airport-provided and shared services, facilities, and equipment;
– Revenue participation in real estate and natural resource development;
– Value capture and other innovative financings; and
– Improvements to existing airport businesses.
Each strategy and associated case studies are evaluated against the potential for improved
net revenues, airport sponsor capital required, airport sponsor assumption of risk, imple-
mentation complexity and issues, and airport-specific challenges.
ACRP Research Report 176: Generating Revenue from Commercial Development on or
Adjacent to Airports. This report provides a comprehensive overview of the steps and
considerations for airport operators planning commercial development on a site on/adjacent
to airport property. The report addresses airport-specific regulatory requirements for real
estate development, including federal, zoning, environmental, and insurance considerations.

Repurposing Parking Facilities to Non-Vehicle Uses 61
The document also includes a self-assessment toolkit, a site evaluation toolkit, and an
implementation toolkit for the reader to build an extensive understanding of the specifi
cities of airport commercial development landscape.
ACRP Synthesis 1: Innovative Finance and Alternative Sources of Revenue for Airports.
This report provides an overview of different financing mechanisms and revenue sources
for airport operators. The document covers a range of different project delivery methods
and operation management agreement alternatives for an assortment of different airport
practices and privatization contracts. It includes a high-level summary of how to optimize
commercial activity to increase non-aeronautical revenues.
ACRP Synthesis 19: Airport Revenue Diversification. This report provides an extensive list
of non-aeronautical development projects for revenue diversification purposes, includ-
ing industrial parks, hotels, recreational facilities, health clinics, convenience stores. The
document presents alternative land and facility uses, tenant services, and ancillary uses
opportunities to enhance and diversify airport revenues.
5.2 Risk Reduction Strategies

When exploring how to repurpose parking facilities for non-parking redevelopment oppor-
tunities, one option available to airport operators is to partner with private sector developers.
In its most simple form, the developer assumes responsibility for financing, constructing,
leasing, and operating the property, and the airport operator realizes revenue from leasing
the underlying land to the developer. Variations may exist where an airport may participate
in some of the revenue generated by the developed property itself—income generated by
the “improvements” versus income generated by the land—but in most cases, landowners are
satisfied with earning a regular, fixed stream of ground rent income in return for shifting the
responsibility of redeveloping a former parking facility onto a third-party.
To accomplish this, it is critical that airport operators position airport properties to be
attractive to development partners. The ideal scenario is one where a landowner can entertain
multiple bids and proposals for a property. This creates a competitive environment that forces
developers to negotiate more favorable outcomes for a landowner compared to negotiating
with only a single party.
The primary means by which a landowner can properly position a property is by exploring
ways to reduce the risks inherent in real estate development. Real estate development risks come
in many forms, and the most common types include the following:
Entitlement risk, defined as the risk that governing bodies with regulatory authority over a
project may not support certain elements of the project and withhold approvals or permits.
Environmental risk, defined as the risk that underlying environmental issues may be cost
prohibitive to remediate or cannot be remediated.
Construction risk, defined as the risk that the cost of construction is higher than budgeted
and/or the risk that construction takes longer than anticipated.
Leasing and tenant risk, defined as the risk that a project fails to find tenants, rental rates
fail to achieve their targets, and/or tenants fail to pay rent (credit risk).
Capital markets risk, defined as the risk that interest rates increase, and financing becomes
more expensive.
Operating risk, defined as the risk that costs associated with labor, utilities, insurance,
and/or real estate taxes increase relative to what was budgeted.
These risks are inherent in every real estate project, and not only are they unavoidable but they
are also expected. Investors “price” their expected returns on investment relative to the risk of a

project. This directly impacts property value for landowners: if the risks of a project are high,
an investor will then seek ways to either increase revenue or decrease cost. For landowners,
this typically translates into lower land value as an investor seeks to reduce cost by decreasing
the purchase or lease price of the land.
In addition, every investor has a risk threshold. If the risks of a project are perceived as too
numerous, extreme, or insurmountable, potential development partners will turn away from
a project or even an entire market in favor of one where the risks can be better mitigated.
Developers and investors have different levels of risk tolerance based on type of land use/asset
(e.g., office versus hotel), business model (e.g., equity developer versus real estate investment
trust), and market (e.g., primary versus secondary). While there are common themes, for the
landowner seeking a development partnership, ultimately it is in the landowner’s best interest
to look for ways to reasonably decrease risk to attract developers and investors to an oppor-
tunity. Therefore, if an airport owner or sponsor can reduce one or more of these sources of
risk, it may have more success in attracting development partners to repurpose an existing
parking facility.
5.2.1 How Airport Operators Can Reduce Risk

A landowner should approach risk reduction with reason. Ultimately, the purpose of a
development partnership is to shift the responsibility for a commercial development project
to a third party. This inherently means shifting most of the risk of a development project onto
the partner and away from the landowner. Therefore, landowners should consider pursuing
approaches that incur zero or minimal additional costs to the landowner itself. Approaches that
may incur a cost to the landowner should then realize a return on that cost, usually by increasing
the underlying asking value/rental rate for the land.
Therefore, a landowner, and particularly a public entity like an airport operator, should not
attempt to address all categories of risk or all aspects within a category. For example, other
than potentially addressing site preparation (see environmental risk and construction risk),
a landowner cannot or should not directly address construction costs (e.g., by subsidizing the
direct material and labor costs of a project). A landowner also need not bear any of the risk of
operating the new development itself (e.g., by subsidizing a portion of the operating costs). An
exception for this may be those development sites that have access to an airport’s utilities or
where an airport operator has extended utilities to a site in anticipation of future development.
Ultimately, there are some key approaches an airport operator can take to reduce the risk of
redeveloping a surface parking lot and increase the likelihood of attracting a qualified partner
through a competitive process. Approaches allowing airport operators to improve their position
are described in subsequent paragraphs.
5.2.2 Entitlement Risk

Entitlement risk is the risk that governing bodies with regulatory authority over a project
may not support certain elements of the project and withhold approvals or permits.
The range of entitlement risk varies from airport to airport. Some airport operators, often
as independent authorities, may be situated in multiple jurisdictions and are obligated to a
range of zoning codes that dictate land use and density, among other requirements. Others
may have standing agreements in place that limit municipal intervention, particularly on
zoning matters, or the airport operators themselves are subject to separate approvals processes
meant to facilitate aviation and related land uses (and which can be leveraged for commercial

development). Other airports, in contrast to those chartered as independent authorities, may

be owned and operated by city, county, or state agencies, greatly limiting or entirely obviating
the need for approvals from other city agencies for development on airport property.
Regardless of the specific situation, it is critical for an operator to understand the jurisdic-
tional environment they are in and to what extent non-aviation development on airport-owned
land will be subject to local zoning codes. Long-term, but politically burdensome, solutions
include municipal ordinances that allow the operator to move forward with development with
minimal approvals. A somewhat simpler solution may be a Memorandum of Understanding
or similar agreement between an operator and their local jurisdiction(s) that provide for similar
outcomes.
In practice, the need for a zoning change or variance for most airport operators will be
limited. For those that do not benefit from their own zoning regime, most airports and lands
owned by the operators are already zoned for aviation uses and uses that are compatible with
aviation-adjacent or aviation-proximate uses. Industrial, retail, and office, for example, are frequently
viewed by land planners and zoning authorities as compatible with proximity to an airport, and
these land uses are frequently those targeted by development partners seeking to introduce
new projects near an airport.
The primary entitlements required for redeveloping surface parking lots come from FAA,
specifically Order 5190.6B in the FAA Airport Compliance Manual. There are three important
factors that have a material impact on redeveloping surface parking lots, or any airport-owned
land, particularly for non-aviation land uses:
Lease term. Order 5190.6B notes that a ground lease should not “exceed a period of years
that is reasonably necessary to amortize a tenant’s investment,” and that “leases that
exceed 50 years may be considered a disposal of the property.” That is, any lease term
longer than 50 years would result in all proceeds being returned to the federal govern-
ment rather than received by the operator. The misalignment of this with the private
sector presents considerable challenges to redeveloping surface parking, which has been
addressed in detail in ACRP Report 47 and other ACRP guidebooks and reports. How-
ever, the FAA regional office can, at an airport’s request, consider and approve lease terms
exceeding 50 years.
Appraisal. The FAA notes that leases for airport building and facilities must be at “fair
market value.” For non-aviation-related uses, the FAA will require a formal appraisal.
For aviation-related uses, the FAA does not require a formal appraisal and will accept
rates that are justified by industry standards, comparable leases, and other factors.
Therefore, while the FAA expects that all leases are “commercially reasonable,” only
ground leases for non-aviation-related land uses require appraisal. The result of this
is that, regarding rental rates, aviation-related lease terms can be more flexible than
non-aviation-related uses. If redeveloping a surface lot for non-aviation land uses, the
operator must complete this appraisal prior to any procurement to establish a baseline
rental rate for the ground lease.
This factor—that an appraisal is required for non-aviation land uses—is not entirely
burdensome, and in fact is rooted in best practice for airports and other landowners
seeking to validate the value of their underlying land prior to engaging in a sale or lease
of that land.
Approval for non-aeronautical use. The FAA requires that an operator seek approval for
non-aviation-related uses. Securing this approval is a threshold issue that presents more
obstacles than lease term or appraisals discussed above. An operator must petition the
FAA for “interim” non-aviation-related uses, and these approvals, when granted, typically
run with the length of lease term for a building or ground lease. Many operators have

successfully petitioned the FAA to allow non-aviation-related uses; however, by and large,
the FAA expects that airport-owned land should be used for aviation-related purposes, and
introducing any non-aviation-related use to airport-owned lands will require FAA approval.
Approvals of this kind are made at the regional level of the FAA. Among regions, experi-
ence varies in evaluating redeveloping surface parking into non-aeronautical land uses that
may bring new sources of revenue to the airport. Seeking approval requires a formal request
issued by the operator that outlines (a) the justification for pursuing non-aviation development
and (b) assurances that any such development will comport with operational requirements
(e.g., height and glare considerations). Some regions are less receptive to such requests and
require considerable effort on the part of the airport operator to justify why non-aviation
development is not only appropriate, but overwhelmingly more beneficial and desirable than
aviation land uses over the long term. This outcome occurs primarily in regions where non-
aviation land uses on airport lands are largely untested, and an operator is making its first
foray into commercial redevelopment of surface parking.
These are challenges that face all airport operators. Developing property for non-aeronautical
uses is frequently a subject of debate between airports and the FAA. However, this dynamic may
be shifting more in favor of airports. On October 5, 2018, the president signed the FAA Reautho
rization Act of 2018 into law. The act addressed numerous issues, including non-aeronautical
development of airport property. Section 163 of the act, “Limited Regulation of Non-Federally
Sponsored Property,” specifically notes that the FAA may no longer “directly or indirectly regu-
late . . . the acquisition, use, lease, encumbrance, transfer, or disposal of land by an airport owner
or operator . . .” That is, an airport may, without FAA scrutiny, engage in the development of
land it owns, even for non-aeronautical purposes with certain exceptions, as described below.
Important exceptions to this rule still exist. First, development of the
land must not interfere with the safety of airport operations. Second,
the act is clear that airports must still obtain “not less than fair market
Airports may consider partnering with value”—implying that an appraisal will still be necessary. Third, and
adjacent property owners to present perhaps the most restrictive, are the exceptions that apply to “land or
development opportunities to the a facility acquired or modified using federal funding” or “a Surplus
market. This can provide larger, and Property Act instrument of transfer.” Any land subject to these factors
perhaps better-configured, development will still face FAA scrutiny should an airport seek non-aviation devel-
parcels for potential partners. Operators opment. Therefore, even with Section 163 explicitly limiting the FAA’s
with numerous, yet fragmented, noise purview on non-aeronautical development activities, important excep-
properties that may be candidates for tions still exist that will result in the need for FAA approval.
development may benefit most from this An operator should therefore determine the approach it wishes
approach. However, while this approach to take prior to procuring for a development partner. Limiting the
benefits the airport operator, the benefit parking lot redevelopment to aviation-related uses will limit the number
for the private landowner may be less of interested parties but will obviate much of the need for FAA approval
clear as the project may still be subject for non-aviation uses. In contrast, making the lot available for a
to FAA Order 5190.6 and other airport broader range of land uses will require FAA approval, but will be
development restrictions. attractive to a broader and more competitive set of potential develop-
ment partners. Regardless of the approach, any perceived uncertainty
will reduce market interest, and thus an operator must determine its
position and strategy prior to procurement.
5.2.3 Environmental and Construction Risk

Each stage of development and construction brings a project closer to completion and,
therefore, closer to generating the income that recoups and justifies the initial investment.

As such, earlier stages of construction, such as environmental remediation and infrastructure

installation, pose greater risk than later stages of construction, such as installing furniture,
fixtures, and equipment (or FF&E). This is because construction costs are incurred well
before the property generates cash flow whereas FF&E expenses are incurred much closer to
when cash flow begins and an investor begins to earn a return on their initial investment.
Environmental and construction risks are closely related in this regard. Both will impact
total project cost and total delivery timeline for a new project, and therefore the ability for that
project to generate sufficient and timely income to justify the investment.
Examples of environmental factors include ground pollution, wetland mitigation, wildlife
protection areas, or any other combination of physical and/or regulatory considerations that
are clear thresholds for new development projects. Except for pollution, many of these envi
ronmental risks are tied closely with entitlement risk and should be addressed along with any
other entitlements prior to a procuring for a development partner.
Regarding cost and timing risk, pollution may require mitigation and increase the risk of a
project. The extent of this mitigation, and the thresholds that “trigger” mitigation, varies across
jurisdictions and may also be subject to federal programs (e.g., the EPA’s Brownfields or
Superfund programs, which provide grants and funding for pollution mitigation, but also
come with strict requirements for the level of cleanup required). Should mitigation be neces-
sary, this will add cost, time, and complication to a construction project.
In addition, non-environmental construction risks include the complexity/configuration of
the site and its impact on staging (i.e., placement of equipment, such as cranes, and materials),
extent of site preparation required (typically low for surface parking lots), extent of land
development required (i.e., installing necessary utilities and, for larger sites, access and circu
lation roads), and the cost/availability of materials and labor over the course of delivering
the project.
Landowners should limit the extent to which they address these risks because, as stated
above, one of the primary goals of procuring for a development partner is to shift the risks
of redevelopment, particularly for non-aviation land uses outside of the typical purview of an
airport operator, onto a third party. Should a landowner wish to mitigate some of these risks,
however, it may consider investing some level of capital into earlier, more risky stages of
construction. This can transform the opportunity closer to one that is “development-ready,”
which is more attractive to a wider audience of development partners.
This type of approach is similar to that taken by a specific type of investor: the land developer.
A land developer focuses primarily on site preparation and “horizontal” improvements (site
infrastructure), which prepare a project site for new “vertical” development (buildings). These
investors spend capital on environmental, site preparation, and infrastructure (roads, utilities)
costs for a site, then sell the land to developers who then take on the responsibility for erecting
vertical improvements on that land. As the land developer is incurring a significant risk in
investing in land development while stopping short of then developing income-generating
projects on that very land, they can command a premium when selling the land.
Public landowners, such as airport operators, can take a similar approach in addressing
these high-risk, early stage efforts to address various environmental and construction elements.
These investments will have a material, financial impact on the landowner, and therefore any
expectation for proceeds from the lease of land to a development partner should ensure this
investment is considered. If the airport operator is going to prepare a site by investing the
capital into, for example, demolition of a former garage or clearing a former surface lot,
the landowner should seek to recoup the cost of that preparation.

In some markets, this may be a “sunk cost” for the landowner as the challenges of leasing
airport land for commercial development may require this initial investment to attract investors
in the first place. Ultimately, the extent of this investment, and the likelihood an airport opera-
tor will recoup this investment, depend heavily on the strength of the local market. A stronger
market presents greater incentive (a) to developers to incur the risks of land development
themselves and (b) for a landowner to negotiate a higher ground rent in exchange for land
development activities already undertaken.
A landowner can assess the extent to which it should consider investing in land development
by comparing the potential proceeds earned from the lease of its lands to cost of preparing
that land for development. A third-party advisor is helpful here, as a qualified advisor can
provide estimates for each incremental investment in land preparation, provide an estimate
for the potential value of the underlying land, and help the landowner identify what level of
investment is appropriate given the market potential.
Ultimately, whether an airport operator will need to invest considerable resources or no
resources at all will vary widely from market to market. There is no one-size-fits-all approach
to mitigating environmental and construction risks, and a landowner should at a minimum
conduct the analysis described previously to determine what is appropriate.
5.2.4 Leasing and Tenant Risk

Much of the previous discussion of entitlement, environmental, and construction risk
addresses activities that lead up to a building becoming operational. While these activities
carry risk, this risk ends once the building is open (with some exceptions, such as environ-
mental issues which may not have been addressed properly). This is not the case for leasing
and tenanting risk, which is persistent for as long as the property is operational, which could
be decades. Landlords and their property managers seek to ensure that a property is generating
a sufficient and consistent stream of income. Landlords must balance length of term, size of
lease, frequency of renewal, and other factors to ensure ongoing revenue while also maintaining
flexibility in a changing market. Other elements of leasing and tenant risk include tenants
that pay rent late, fail to pay rent/default, or terminate a lease early.
Airport operators should not seek to minimize the risks of these ongoing tenant issues, but
they can play a role in minimizing leasing risk by becoming a tenant in a new development
itself. One of the key lease-up periods in the lifecycle of a building is the period that occurs
prior to the project opening. Many projects, depending on the market, will not be able to
secure financing until a developer has demonstrated there is tangible demand for the new
project. This tangibility often comes in the form of pre-leasing, where tenants execute lease
agreements with the developer prior to the project breaking ground or during construc-
tion. Depending on the market, pre-leasing requirements may range from 40% to 60% of
the total rentable square footage. Markets that are strong may not need pre-leasing, but this
is not common, particularly for airport submarkets and airport projects that face a bevy of
other challenges.
An operator could contribute significantly to reducing leasing risk and help a developer
secure financing for the project by becoming a tenant in the new facility. For example,
an operator could choose to relocate all or a portion of its administrative offices into a new
office building development on a former surface parking lot. The presence of the operator
could “jump-start” the pre-leasing effort, help the developer secure other tenants who may
want to be near the operator’s administrative functions, and overall support the project.

In this manner, the project becomes more like a “build-to-suit” project than a “speculative”
project. A speculative development project is one where a developer finances, builds, and owns
a multi-tenant property with only some or no tenants committed to signing leases prior to
securing financing and/or groundbreaking (or the minimum amount of pre-leasing required
to secure financing). By contrast, a build-to-suit development project is one where a user seeks
to occupy a newly constructed building and hires one or more third parties to design, finance,
build, operate, and/or maintain the building on their behalf. The user may finance and own the
asset themselves or work with the third-party developer who will own the asset and to whom
the user will pay rent.
Build-to-suit projects are common for organizations seeking a specific type of facility that
is not available on the market, a new facility in a market where there are only older facili-
ties available, or a facility in a market where there is little availability overall. The benefits
of a build-to-suit are that it allows a user to dictate the type of facility they want (including
design and material quality, configuration, specialized equipment), and some structures provide
opportunities for ownership.
In this manner, not only could an airport operator support the lease-up of a new facility and
attract a wider range of development partners, but it could also play a role in the design and
construction of the facility. This can provide an important opportunity for operators who are
offering development opportunities near the passenger terminal and wish to ensure a certain
congruity in design between the two buildings. Becoming a tenant in a new facility reduces risk
to the developer but increases risks to the airport operator who now must pay rent in a new
facility. In addition, the developer may require that the operator, as tenant, execute a lease that
is slightly longer-term than market. While this provides stability for the operator’s administra-
tive functions, it may also limit long-term flexibility depending on the lease term. Therefore,
becoming a tenant in a new project is a decision that the operator should take in concert with
other long-term planning and operational decisions. Also, this approach can only reduce the
risk in an office development.
5.2.5 Capital Markets Risk

Capital markets risk lies in the potential that interest rates increase and thus, increase the
developer’s cost to acquire construction funds. To mitigate this risk, an airport operator can
identify properties that are in an opportunity zone and market them as such. Opportunity zones
allow for developers to defer capital gains taxes on the sale of real estate investments, but only if
the investments are held for a minimum of 10 years. These zones were created as part of the
2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and thus, did not exist during research conducted for prior ACRP
guidebooks related to non-aeronautical development. Furthermore, as of January 2020, the
zones are largely untested, and the impact of airport-owned land within an opportunity zone
is unclear.
5.2.6 Operating Risk

Operating risk lies in uncertainties regarding future costs associated with labor, utilities,
insurance, and/or real estate taxes and how those costs may vary from budgeted amounts.
In general, airport operators have limited opportunities to address such risks and, as almost
all U.S. airports are operated by public agencies, there may be more risks in some aspects (for
example, labor costs may be subject to rules regarding minimum or living wages). Alternatively,
the airport, as a large utility consumer (or even a generator), may have lower utility costs that it
can in turn pass on to on-airport tenants.

5.3 Terminal Area Hotels

The discussion of leasing and tenant risk largely assumes that a project will be industrial
or office in nature. In addition to these land uses, airports can also look for ways to support
hotel development on airport-owned lands as well. Hotels are unique real estate products in
that the operating model is subject to “leases” that renew every night for every room. In this
sense, hotel operating performance is much more volatile and subject to broader market and
consumer dynamics, acting more like retail commodities such as food, energy, and clothing
than like other forms of real estate.
Airports have a unique, yet indirect, means of supporting hotel development. Namely, hotels
that are passenger terminal-adjacent, and especially those that have a direct physical connection,
perform better than competing hotels elsewhere in the market. The reason for this is intuitive:
a passenger seeking to add comfort to an extended layover is more likely to seek accommo
dations at a hotel attached to the terminal rather than spend additional time or money on a taxi
or shuttle to an off-airport hotel elsewhere.
Half of the busiest airports in the United States feature a hotel on airport property today
or have one in planning phases. Hotels are a substantial amenity to airports in terms of conve-
nience to travelers and elevating the profile and positioning of an airport. Airport operators
across the U.S. have reinvigorated their push to develop hotels on airport land for a very
important reason: on-airport hotels significantly outperform their off-airport counterparts.
Table 5-1 summarizes the operating performance of a sample of full service, on-airport
hotels over their competitive off-airport hotels (hotel names and locations are anonymized to
respect confidentiality agreements). The “occupancy” metric for hotels is like other real estate
in that it is an average measure of utilized space versus unutilized space over a period. “ADR”
stands for “Average Daily Rate,” or the average room revenue earned per room. “RevPAR” stands
for “Revenue per Available Room,” which is calculated by multiplying ADR by occupancy.
RevPAR indicates a hotel’s ability to fill room at the average rate. If RevPAR is lower than ADR,
a manager may consider lowering ADR to fill more rooms, and vice versa. Finally, “penetration”
is a measure of the hotel’s performance relative to competitive hotels in the surrounding market.
Thus, a hotel with a RevPAR penetration of 133% experiences 33% higher revenue per available
room than other hotels in the market.
As shown, almost all the on-airport hotels performed better than other nearby hotels across
each metric. Furthermore, the on-airport hotels with terminal connections outperformed the
Table 5-1. Full service on-airport hotel performance penetration analysis

over competitive set hotels.
Occupancy ADR RevPAR
Property Penetration Penetration Penetration Notes
Hotels with physical connection to terminal
Hotel A 110% 120% 133%
Hotel B 121% 127% 155%
Hotel C 109% 135% 146%
Hotel D 103% 124% 128%
Hotel E 104% 84% 88% Unbranded hotel
Hotel F 106% 143% 152%
Hotels with no physical connection to terminal

Hotel G 104% 132% 138%
Hotel H 107% 86% 92% Inferior product
Source: JLL.

competing properties by a greater ratio than did the on-airport hotels with no terminal connec-
tion. In the case of Hotel E, the on-airport property has underperformed the broader market,
primarily because it is an unbranded hotel (brands help drive demand). Hotel H has also
underperformed, primarily because its product is inferior to other hotels in its area.
Therefore, for airports considering removing/replacing terminal area parking facilities, they
may consider focusing the redevelopment opportunity on a hotel to better attract a narrow,
but deep, range of development partners who specialize in this type of product and who may
be attracted to the opportunity. Furthermore, even if the available property is not near the
terminal, an on-airport hotel will likely be more successful than hotels located off-airport.
5.4 Future-Proofing New Parking Developments

As noted at the beginning of this chapter, there is limited opportunity to repurpose existing
parking structures for non-vehicular uses. Airports considering new garages, however, can
“future-proof” the design with an eye towards future conversion to another use. This section
presents potential modifications that could facilitate such conversions. Included are (a) a review
of the rough order of magnitude cost implications of incorporating the potential modifications
into the design and (b) the technical and financial feasibility of making the change if it was
not incorporated into the initial design and construction. Modifications are categorized by the
cost premium associated with incorporating the improvement into the design. Low-cost ideas
are estimated to have a premium of less than 10% on the overall cost of the parking structure.
Medium cost ideas are estimated to have a premium of between 11% and 25%. High cost ideas
are estimated to have a premium exceeding 25%.
Modifications presented in the following paragraphs include:
Low-Cost Ideas (cost premium of 10% or less; some may reduce the overall cost)
1. Build to a shorter planning horizon, constructing fewer spaces upfront until more data
on future demand is obtained;
2. Plan for conversion to other vehicular uses (such as TNC loading);
3. Design structure to support a future vertical expansion of less than 30% of the levels;
4. Provide higher floor-to-floor heights;
5. Design for less lateral drift (the amount a structure moves horizontally due to wind or
earthquake forces);
6. Design for less differential settlement, which occurs when the soil beneath the structure
expands, contracts, or shifts in an uneven manner, causing the foundation to settle at an
uneven rate;
7. Strategically locate the vehicular vertical circulation ramp;
8. Design for a removable exterior facade;
9. Plan for future stair and elevator core locations;
10. Design wider stairs for potential higher occupant load; and
11. Provide additional mechanical and electrical infrastructure.
Medium Cost Ideas (cost premium of 11% to 25%)
1. Design for physical separation requirements (e.g., fire walls, setbacks) associated with non-
parking land uses;
2. Design top level of structure to accommodate a garden or park;
3. Design structure to support a future vertical expansion of more than 30% but less than 50%
of the levels; and
4. Design one-level below grade.

High Cost Ideas (cost premium of over 25%)

1. Design using express ramps instead of sloping floor vertical circulation ramps;
2. Design structure to support a vertical expansion of more than 50% of the levels;
3. Design floors for a higher live load; and
4. Design using short-span construction (e.g., structural columns are more closely spaced).
The following sections summarize the impact, benefits, and rationale for including each of
the above ideas within the design or implementing the idea in a parking structure that would
not have otherwise been designed to be converted to an occupied use.
5.4.1 Low-Cost Ideas

1. Build to a shorter planning horizon. Additional parking is needed at an airport typically
as a result of increased originating enplanements, and parking demand at an airport is typi-
cally expressed as a ratio of parking demand per annual originating enplanements. Airports,
especially those that experience chronic parking shortages, tend to want to solve the park-
ing issue for many years into the future. This is due to the time and disruption of building
a parking structure, especially if it is located near the terminal. As described in Chapter 2,
although enplanements have continued to increase at most airports, parking ratios have
decreased, largely as a result of TNCs. That trend is expected to continue and perhaps accel-
erate with the introduction of AVs. Building for a shorter planning horizon means that
instead of solving the parking issue for the next 10 years or more, an airport would solve the
issue for 5 years and develop a master plan of how to expand parking in the future based on
more aggressive or less aggressive adoption of TNCs and AVs. This is essentially deferring
a portion of the decision in terms of the number of parking spaces to build. This deferring
practice would allow an airport operator to make the decision about how much parking to
build with more data in hand.
2. Plan for conversion to other vehicular uses. As described in Chapter 4, moving TNC
pickup and possibly drop-off areas into a parking structure adjacent to a terminal is
a potential use of unneeded structure parking as the curbs become congested due to
increased use. Similarly, TNCs are causing decreases in rental car use on a per enplane-
ment basis. Relocating the resulting smaller ready-return car areas into unneeded areas of
a parking structure may also have merit. However, such a decision would need to recognize
(a) the operational requirements of rental car companies (such as their need to fuel, wash,
and maintain vehicles), (b) the need for nearby vehicle storage/flexible space, and (c) the
need to separate entering and existing rental car customers and employees from entering
and exiting public parkers. During design, an airport could develop a functional layout
that supports two or three alternate vehicular uses and provides the necessary vehicular
ramps to support that plan. For structures that have been designed without that consid-
eration, ramps or bridges can usually be added to the exterior of the structure to facilitate
the alternate vehicular functions.
3. Design for future vertical expansion of less than 30% of the levels. Whenever possible,
planning for horizontal expansions is preferred. It allows for the expansion to be constructed
with minimal closures and disruption to the existing parking (i.e., those levels below
the expansion), and it has less risk of modifications caused by code changes. However,
designing for a future vertical expansion of less than 30% of the levels (i.e., a one-level
expansion to a four-level parking structure), can be accommodated for a 10% cost premium,
plus the costs of the additional level. Structurally, the elements that must be designed to
accommodate a vertical expansion are the columns, foundations, and lateral load resisting
system. Functionally, elements that must be designed to accommodate a vertical expansion
include the ramping system, egress stair capacity, and elevator capacity. The purpose of the

future vertical expansion would be to build to a shorter planning horizon now and construct
the vertical expansion only if needed. Therefore, implementation of a vertical expansion
of a parking structure that was not designed for a vertical expansion is not discussed here.
4. Provide higher floor-to-floor heights. Clearance heights for parking structures typically
range from 7 to 9 feet. This results in floor-to-floor heights of 10 to 12 feet. Airport parking
structures tend to be on the higher end of this range because customer experience and
wayfinding are a primary design consideration. Floor-to-floor heights for other land uses
such as retail, hotel, and office are generally in the 12- to 15-foot range. Understanding
the potential future land uses and designing for an appropriate floor-to-floor height
results in a 1% to 2% cost premium. This is especially true for the ground floor where
there are no structural limitations on land use.
5. Design for less lateral drift. Lateral drift is the amount a structure moves horizontally
due to wind or earthquake forces. The lateral drift of all buildings is limited to avoid issues
such as glass windows breaking or elevator shafts not remaining straight. In high-rise
buildings, too much drift can cause building occupants to experience motion sickness.
The acceptable lateral drift for a parking structure is higher than most occupied build-
ings because there are typically no glass facades or exterior windows. When designing a
parking structure and considering a future conversion to another use, the lateral resisting
system should be designed to limit the drift for an enclosed building with glass facade or
windows. Bracing can be added to a parking structure that was not designed for a more
limited lateral drift, but that change could require modifications to the columns and
foundations where the bracing is added.
6. Design for less differential settlement. All structures are designed to accommodate some
settlement of the foundations. Where the foundations bear on rock, the settlement is very
small. In other cases, it can be up to 2 inches. If a foundation settles more than an adjacent
foundation, stresses are introduced into the exterior facade and floors become uneven.
As with lateral drift, the acceptable settlement for a building with glass facade or windows is
less than for a parking structure. For structures that could be converted to enclosed build-
ings, an airport would need to engage a geotechnical engineer to specify more stringent
differential settlement limits that could be used for a building with glass facade or windows.
7. Strategically locate the vehicular vertical circulation ramp. There are several factors that
should be considered when locating a ramp for vehicle vertical circulation. Flow capacity,
convenience, wayfinding, and pedestrian conflicts should all be considered. For structures
being designed for potential conversion, there are two strategies that have been used to
determine where to locate the ramp. The first strategy would be to locate the ramp so that
when it is removed, it creates a courtyard. The floorplate size and dimensions often seen
in airport parking structures are not conducive to occupied buildings where occupants
prefer to be nearer to the exterior. Creating a courtyard may contribute to solving this
issue. The second strategy is to locate the ramp on the exterior of the structure or, preferably,
as a “bump out” of the main structure. In this case the ramp could be removed, leaving a
rectilinear building.
8. Design for a removable facade. Parking structures are required to have a vehicle barrier
and a 42-inch-high pedestrian guardrail at the perimeter. This is typically accomplished
with precast concrete spandrels or barrier cables. When a parking structure is converted
to an occupied building, the spandrels (exterior beams) or barrier cables are replaced with
a building envelope facade that is not required to provide a vehicle barrier. Barrier cables
can be de-stressed and removed relatively easily. Spandrels used solely as vehicle barriers
and pedestrian guardrails can also be removed relatively easily. For a typical precast con-
crete parking structure, the spandrel also supports structural floor elements. In these
cases, removal of the spandrel would require extensive structural modifications. To design
a precast structure for adaptive reuse, the design team should use a beam to support

the structural floor members and a separate spandrel to provide the vehicle barrier and
pedestrian guardrail.
9. Plan for future stair and elevator core locations. Like parking structures, all building
types have preferred floor plan characteristics. For example, office buildings typically have
the core in the center of the building and flat floor plates around the exterior. This differs
from a parking structure where the cores are typically on the exterior of the structure.
The design team should consider stair and elevator core locations that will work for both
building types, or include in the design removable slabs that could accommodate a stair
and elevator in the preferred location for the converted land use. Egress stair locations are
typically determined by travel distance. The travel distance requirements for the potential
land use should also be considered by the design team when determining the location
of stairs.
10. Design wider stairs for potential higher occupant load. Stair widths and total stair
capacity is determined by the expected occupancy of a building. The code-required occu-
pant density of a parking structure is much less than most other uses. Future building uses,
such as an office, will require more or wider stairs for the same floorplan area. The design
team should plan for the egress needs of the potential building use and include stair egress
capacities to meet that demand or plan for removable slabs to accommodate future stairs.
11. Provide additional mechanical and electrical infrastructure. Occupied buildings have
more complex mechanical and electrical requirements than a parking structure. For parking
structures that may be converted to other uses, the design team should plan for additional
chase locations and include empty conduits to allow electrical and mechanical connections
from the floors to the mechanical and electrical rooms. Also, the mechanical and electrical
rooms should be oversized to allow for additional equipment to be installed. During
the design of the parking structure, it would be helpful to develop the design of the
potential building conversion to a level sufficient to determine the mechanical and elec
trical needs. This would allow the design team to confirm that the infrastructure provided
is adequate to support the future building. Converting a building without the additional
infrastructure can be accomplished, but it is likely to require structural modifications to
accommodate the mechanical and electrical requirements. It could also result in some
inefficiency in the design of the new space.
5.4.2 Medium Cost Ideas

1. Design for separation requirements of other potential land uses. The building code
requires buildings to be separated physically or with a fire barrier wall from other build-
ings. The distance and fire rating of the separation depends on the occupancy type of each
building. The separation requirements for parking structures are less than many other
building types. When designing a parking structure that may be converted to another use,
the design team should consider the separation requirements of the potential future use
and locate the parking structure accordingly. In tight sites, this additional constraint may
produce a less than ideal parking layout or result in some other type of compromise to the
parking layout. For parking structures that do not have the required separation distance,
rated fire walls can be used to separate the occupancies.
2. Design top level of parking for a garden or park. Providing for such a conversion would
allow a portion of the parking capacity, once not needed, to be converted to an amenity usable
by airport passengers, family and friends meeting or dropping off passengers, and employees.
Green roofs and amenity levels on the top levels of parking structures are less common at
airports, but are being done at some non-airport locations. The structural loading require-
ments are much higher than a parking structure. In addition to the increased load from soil,
plant and tree beds, hardscape, and potential water features, the live load requirements are

100 pounds per square foot versus 40 pounds per square foot for a parking structure.
Designing for all or a portion of the top level to be converted to a garden or park requires
increased columns (size, spacing, or both) and foundations as well as framing members
(e.g., horizontal beams) for the area that will potentially be converted.
3. Design for a future vertical expansion of more than 30% but less than 50% of the levels.
As noted previously, whenever possible, planning for horizontal expansions is preferred.
Designing for a future vertical expansion of between 30% and 50% of the levels (e.g., a two-
level expansion to a five-level parking structure) can be accommodated for a 25% premium
on the initial levels. Structurally, the elements that must be designed to accommodate a verti-
cal expansion are the columns, foundations, and lateral load resisting system. Functionally,
elements that must be designed to accommodate a vertical expansion include the ramping
system, egress stair capacity, and elevator capacity. The purpose of the future vertical expan-
sion would be to build to shorter planning horizons first and then construct the vertical
expansion only if needed.
4. Design one level below grade. Below grade parking has a higher cost not only because
of the excavation and retaining wall requirements, but also because it often requires fire
sprinklers and ventilation. In an adaptive reuse situation, creating what is essentially a base-
ment can be advantageous to the conversion. It can be used to house the increased mechanical
and electrical space requirements or other back-of-house requirements. In a situation where
the level is partially below grade and there is access from the street, it can be used to meet
the service or loading requirements of a building.
5.4.3 High Cost Ideas

1. Design using express ramps instead of sloping floor vertical circulation ramps. Most
parking structures at airports use express ramps or circular helixes for vertical circulation
of vehicles. This is primarily due to the high level of service provided by most airports to
allow the passengers to enter and exit the parking structure quickly, but it is also beneficial
to provide all flat floor parking for customers who may be loading and unloading luggage
into and out of vehicles. From an adaptive reuse perspective, express ramps reduce the area
dedicated to sloping vertical circulation ramps, which are unusable in occupied buildings.
2. Design for a vertical expansion of more than 50% of the levels. As noted previously,
whenever possible, planning for horizontal expansions is preferred. Designing for a future
vertical expansion of more than 50% of the levels (e.g., a three-level expansion to a five-level
parking structure) can be accommodated for more than a 25% premium on the initial levels.
Structurally, the elements that must be designed to accommodate a vertical expansion are
the columns, foundations, and lateral load resisting system. Functionally, elements that
must be designed to accommodate a vertical expansion include the ramping system, egress
stair capacity, and elevator capacity. The purpose of the future vertical expansion would be
to build to shorter planning horizons first and then construct the vertical expansion only
if needed.
3. Design floors for a higher live load. As noted at the beginning of this chapter, parking
structures have one of the lowest design live loads of any building type. Other building types
with a similar uniform load, such as a hotel, have higher requirements in corridors and
meeting rooms. Most other building types also have higher dead loads (i.e., the weight of
the structure, utilities, and other fixed objects) to account for mechanical and electrical
loads. For any potential reuse of a parking structure on levels that are on a supported slab,
as opposed to a slab-on-grade, the additional dead and live load should be considered in the
design. Modifying a structural system to support loads that are 100% to 200% higher than the
original design is typically not feasible. Designing for these higher loads results in a significant

increase in the cost of a parking structure. These costs can be minimized by limiting the
area or number of levels that are being considered for repurposing.
4. Design using short-span construction. Short-span construction has columns at the front
and back of the parking stalls, not just at the front as in long span construction. Shorter
distances between columns allow for less structural depth, which can provide increased
vertical clearances desired by non-parking uses. Short-span construction is not used often
in airport parking structures because of the difficulty in parking and reverse parking, the
desire to provide a more welcoming and pleasing environment by avoiding a “forest of
columns,” and the desire to improve visibility and safety. Depending on the live load used
for the structure, short-span construction may be required structurally without excessive
structural depth. Short-span construction is used often in podium parking structures with
an office building or other land use above the parking area. In addition to not being user
friendly to park and reverse park, short-span construction creates an inefficient layout
with columns interrupting every three spaces. It also hinders the ability to use one-way
angled parking.
5.4.4 Structural Quality and Maintenance

In addition to the strategies described above, an airport may consider constructing a parking
structure of a lower quality with the intent of saving money given the potential future reduc-
tion in parking demand. While this could achieve cost savings, the savings are likely to be
modest. Parking structures have historically been designed and built to typically last 50 years
or longer. Assuming future airport parking demand declines precipitously and therefore
parking structures would not be needed for a 50-year planning horizon, parking structures
could be designed and built with shorter lifespans in mind to reduce upfront project costs.
However, contractor mobilization and minimum construction standards that support building
codes must be met in support of safety considerations. Upfront savings of up to 10% may be
possible by excluding protective building materials such as traffic toppings, concrete sealers,
corrosion inhibitors, and other items. Many garages, however, already exclude these items.
Such upfront savings, however, could be partially offset by higher annual maintenance costs.
The most significant cost savings may be achieved through the decision to not maintain the
condition of a parking asset. For example, instead of setting aside an annual amount (e.g., 1% of
an initial facility’s construction cost, adjusted annually for inflation) for structural repairs and
replacements, this set aside could be foregone, anticipating that the life of the asset will be shorter
and therefore the need to preserve it could be less. This approach, however, may compromise
safety and the customers experience and thus, is likely inconsistent with airport management goals.

CHAPTER 6
Airport Parking Management

Models
Together with Chapter 7, this chapter addresses the question, “What strategies and technolo-
gies are available today to offset the revenue reductions airports have observed (or anticipate)
due to continued growth in the TNC mode share?” A key element in maximizing net parking
revenues is managing the operating costs associated with public parking. The operational model
an airport employs for its parking facilities can contribute directly to that goal but can also be
used to protect against the risk of uncertain future parking revenues. With those goals in mind,
this chapter summarizes airport parking management models used in North America. Infor
mation on each model includes a description of the contract structure, potential positive and
negative aspects of the structure, and existing examples.
This section also describes potential implications of changes in technology and consumer
preference on airport parking management strategies. Potential positive and negative aspects
reflect interviews with experienced airport parking operators and airport parking developers,
and the professional experience of the research team. Individual names and corporate affilia-
tions have been anonymized for confidentiality purposes.
Contract types include:
• Management agreement,
• Lease/Concession agreement,
• Fixed price agreement,
• Private developer investment,
• Valet parking contract, and
• Hybrid contracts.
Another option that is used by several U.S. airports, is to self-operate their parking facili-
ties using airport staff. Under this type of arrangement, the airport owner or operator retains
all revenues but pays all capital and operating costs. Since all parking staff are employees of
the airport operator, their salaries, benefits, and work rules (e.g., grounds for dismissal) are
the same as those of other airport employees. As it is not a contract type, self-operation is not
discussed in this guidebook, but further information on self-operation is provided in ACRP
Report 24: Guidebook for Evaluating Airport Parking Strategies and Supporting Technologies.
Of these contract types, U.S. airports predominately choose to employ management agree-
ments. As shown on Figure 6-1, a 2017 survey prepared by Airport Council International—
North America (ACI-NA) and the International Parking and Mobility Institute (IPMI) indicated
that of responding airports, more than 75% use a parking contractor and of those, most use a
management agreement. Small-hub U.S. airports are more likely than larger airports to be self-
operated, while large-hub U.S. airports are more likely than smaller airports to use management
agreements.
75

Source: Airports Council International-North America and International Parking Institute.
Figure 6-1. Parking contract usage by North American airports, 2016.

Airport Parking Management Models 77
6.1 Management Agreement

Key characteristics of an airport parking management agreement are as follows:
Revenues. The operator collects the revenues generated by the parking facilities and
forwards them to the airport.
Management Fee. The airport pays the operator a monthly management fee (can be flat fee,
an incentive fee based on specified and approved criteria, or a combination of these). Manage-
ment fees are frequently scheduled to increase periodically, based on a set percentage or
variable factors such as the consumer price index.
Reimbursable Expenses. The airport reimburses the operator for specific authorized operat-
ing expenses, as documented in an annual operating budget that is most often prepared by
the parking operator but is subject to approval by the airport. Such expenses include staff
hours at an agreed upon hourly rate stipulated in the contract.
Non-Reimbursable Expenses. Management contracts define what expenses may not be
reimbursable and must, therefore, be incorporated by the operator into their proposed
management fee. Typical non-reimbursable expenses include liability insurance, worker’s
compensation insurance, and payroll costs for parking operator management staff not
permanently assigned to the airport location (perhaps providing regional or corporate
office support).
Incentive Management Fees. Management fees can include an incentive fee component, but
U.S. tax regulations limit the ability of operators to make profit-based or net operating
income (NOI)-driven incentive fees if the facility was financed using tax-exempt bonds.
Even if revenue-based or NOI-based incentive fees are excluded, airport parking contracts
can include incentive fees based on non-revenue items such as:
– Customer satisfaction survey results;
– “Mystery Shopper” scores;
– Frequency of customer complaints;
– Accuracy and timeliness of operator reporting; and
– Parking volume growth, often in comparison to a pre-established threshold, such as
annual passenger growth.
Reporting. Management agreements usually incorporate stringent operator monthly
reporting obligations, including:
– Monthly profit and loss statements;
– Daily revenue, volume, and occupancy summary reports; and
– Annual operator financial statements certified by the operator’s chief financial officer or
certified public accountant.
Most major airport parking operators utilize robust online reporting systems that allow
authorized airport personnel to view monthly reports and real-time parking activity
reports through online reporting portals.
Operator Ancillary Line-Item Profits. Some airport parking management agreements pro-
hibit an operator from earning profits on ancillary services, such as self-insured, retention-
based liability insurance programs, where the operator charges the client market-based
rates for company-funded risk coverage but pays most claims from its own funds. The
parking operator in this case is responsible for covering risk management losses above a
specified client deductible but below the operator’s true insurance deductible. For example,
the client deductible may be $5,000 for certain kinds of losses, but the operator’s third-
party insurance covers losses above $250,000 only. The operator must fund losses between
the stated $5,000 and $250,000 from the companywide risk management pool. The oper
ator charges the client for coverage based on the client deductible, but its internal costs
are lower, based on coverage procured for losses above the higher threshold only. Thus,
if all losses are below the client deductible, risk management can be a profit center for the

parking operator. Ancillary profit centers should be spelled out

Capital improvement requirements in a management agreement, providing transparency in terms of
have the potential to complicate the operator profit.
evaluation of competitive proposals Flexibility. Management agreements can provide maximum con-
for management agreements. Such
tract flexibility for the airport and for the operator (as compared
requirements may result in uneven
to lease or concession agreements). For example, if the airport and
operator believe the addition or reduction of personnel is appro-
proposal submissions as operators
priate and the deal structure is a standard management agreement,
may submit bids that make varying
expense changes can often be promptly implemented. This matter
assumptions on the type or magnitude
can be less assured with other contract types.
of the capital investment. For example,
Competition Provisions. Management agreements typically pro-
one bidder may propose certain parking
hibit the operator from operating or having a financial interest in
and revenue control equipment and
the operation of a public parking facility that would attract/serve
features, while another bidder may
airport passengers or employees.
propose a different solution. To mitigate
Cancellation Provisions. Most airport management agreements
this risk, airport parking requests for
include cancellation clauses, allowing the airport to exit from the
proposals (RFPs) for management
contract with cause (e.g., parking company’s insolvency or impro-
agreements may specify that the operator
priety, operator’s failure to correct deficiencies after notice from
must contribute an amount towards
the airport).
capital improvement “up to $__” without
Capital Expenditures. Airport parking management agreements
specifying the type of investment,
often require reimbursable capital expenditure contributions on
enabling the airport to evaluate the part of the operator. Examples of such improvements that an
proposals on an even playing field. operator may fund include:
– Parking access and revenue control equipment;
– APGS; and
– Airport parking shuttles.
Capital improvements are frequently reimbursed to the parking operator over the term
of the management agreement or, if the amortization period is shorter than the agree-
ment term, the useful life of the equipment purchased. If an operator does make a capital
contribution for equipment or other improvements, and if the management agreement is
cancelled prematurely, the agreement generally stipulates that the unamortized portion of
the improvement is paid back to the operator as a lump sum.
6.1.1 Management Agreement Strengths

Strengths of management agreements for airport parking operations include:
• Airport maintains a high level of involvement in operations and flexibility in contract
obligations.
• Operator’s location-specific financial results are fully visible to the airport.
• Airport has full line-item access to audit operator’s reported expenses, including payroll time
sheets (to ensure that the approved and appropriate payroll hours are charged to the location).
• Operator is likely to generate a profit.
• Financial risk for operator is low if they submit a responsible bid.
• Financial and service quality risk for airport is low if operator is selected based on proper
criteria.
• Contract can be structured such that all operator profits are included in the management fee,
facilitating an “apples to apples” comparison of proposed financial results.
• Risk can be avoided by operators faced with the uncertain future of airport parking demand
and revenues because the long-term impact of TNCs and other factors on parking demand
is unknown.
• Management agreements may be structured such that daily revenue deposits are made to the
airport’s bank account while expenses are reimbursed to the parking operator as part of the

monthly management reporting process. Thus, the airport may benefit from the float as
it receives the revenues daily but reimburses the parking company 30 days after receipt of
the monthly statement.
6.1.2 Management Agreement Weaknesses

Weaknesses of management agreements for airport parking operations include:
• Management agreements typically require the airport be involved in day-to-day parking
operations. The parking operator is the agent for the airport. Thus, the airport must main-
tain an administrative organization, including staff with appropriate experience with parking
operations, to oversee the parking operator’s performance.
• Management agreements tend to be limited in duration requiring periodic re-competition
for the contract.
• The parking revenue stream to the airport is subject to variations associated with changes in
passenger volumes, passenger propensity to park (versus use other access modes), off-airport
parking competition, and other factors. Thus, the airport assumes a substantial portion of the
risk of potential future revenue reductions.
• Daily revenue deposits to the airport, combined with the time between operator payment of
expenses and reimbursement by the airport, given the large scale of revenue and expenses
associated with airport parking, can create financial stress for the parking operator. The park-
ing operator may need to build the cost of money into its management fee if it must wait up
to 90 days from the date direct expenses are incurred (such as payment of salaries) until it
is reimbursed by the airport. This can be mitigated if the airport provides the operator with an
advance payment of a certain duration (e.g., 90 days’ worth) of budgeted operating expenses
or includes a management agreement clause that provides the operator with timely reimburse-
ment of expenses.
• If a flat management fee is the operator’s only compensation, the operator may be less
incentivized to generate additional revenue or reduce expenses, as the management fee,
which covers profit and overhead, remains constant despite fluctuations in parking activity,
gross revenues, and net revenues.
6.1.3 Examples of Airport Parking Management Agreements

There are numerous examples of airport parking management agreements. Airports
currently using them include:
Large-hub airports. Denver International, George Bush Intercontinental/Houston,
Minneapolis-St. Paul International, Phoenix Sky Harbor International, and San Diego
International airports.
Medium-hub airports. Austin-Bergstrom International, Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky
International, Houston Hobby, Kansas City International, and Sacramento International
airports.
Small-hub airports. Boise, Des Moines International, Fresno-Yosemite International,
Gerald R. Ford (Grand Rapids) International, and Pensacola International airports.
Non-hub airports. Amarillo International, Key West International, and Wilmington
International.
6.1.4 Contract Variant: Hourly Billing by Job Classification

This variant of the management agreement approach incorporates non-labor expenses
and the management fee (including profit) into the hourly rates assigned to each job classifi
cation. In addition to the management agreement strengths described above, hourly billing by

job classification can increase operator responsiveness to requests for additional staff as more
billable hours typically provides higher profits, unless additional capital expenditures become
necessary. In addition to the management agreement weaknesses described above, hourly
billing by job classification can de-incentivize the operator to reduce staffing levels when
circumstances justify it.
Such contracts may also include operator protections against “non-controllable” factors
such as:
• Increases in federal, state, and local minimum wages;
• Fuel surcharges for shuttle operations;
• Capital expense repayment in the event of early contract cancellation;
• Reduction in shuttle driver man-hours to below minimum levels, rendering individual shuttle
bus or buses unprofitable due to fixed costs not being covered due to lack of utilization; and
• Increase in shuttle driver man-hours to above maximum levels, which could require the
operator to procure additional buses, possibly impacting profit potential.
Such contract structures are not common for parking operations in the United States but
they are commonly used for shuttle bus agreements that may be used to support parking
operations. John Wayne Airport, Orange County, uses such an agreement for its shuttle buses,
and the hourly rate includes amortization of the buses. Los Angeles International Airport uses
such an agreement for hourly staff payroll and other operations costs, supplemented by a flat
management fee that includes expenses such as management staff payroll.
6.2 Lease/Concession Agreement

Key characteristics of an airport parking lease/concession agreement are as follows:
Revenues. The operator collects all revenues generated by the parking facilities.
Operator Payments. The operator pays “rent” or a “concession fee” to the airport, sometimes
based on a fixed amount or as a percentage of revenue, perhaps over a threshold.
Timing of Payments. Rent may be paid monthly, annually, or even full-term in advance (as
a P3 concession payment.)
Expenses. A lease (or concession) agreement differs from the management agreement in that
expenses are, unless specified, not reimbursed by the airport to the operator.
Capital Expenditures. A lease or concession agreement may include a capital expenditure
contribution on the part of the operator, perhaps for parking equipment or other critical
improvements. An airport may choose to enter into a parking lease agreement with
such a contribution if the airport does not have the funds required to outfit the parking
facilities with critical equipment such as updated revenue control equipment, signage, or
shuttle buses.
6.2.1 Lease/Concession Agreement Strengths

Strengths of lease/concession agreements for airport parking operations include:
• These provide a more stable cash flow to the airport, especially under agreements that
include minimum guarantees. This reduces risk due to the ebb and flow of revenue resulting
from major changes in the economy, business or leisure travel patterns, or evolving modes
of transportation such as TNCs, AVs, or other modes, all of which can impact parking
revenue.
• Revenue stability (or large advance payments) may provide the airport with the value
opportunity to secure funding for non-parking infrastructure projects.

• There is a reduction in costs related to an airport’s internal parking administration organiza-

tion. An airport need only review the total parking revenues collected to confirm the revenues
retained by the concessionaire, which results in much lower audit requirements than a
management agreement where all labor hours and expenses must be audited.
• An agreement that includes a percent of revenues component, over and above a base rent
payment, enables the airport and the operator to benefit from increases in revenue, while
sharing the risk of revenue reductions.
6.2.2 Lease/Concession Agreement Weaknesses

Weaknesses of lease/concession agreements for airport parking operations include:
• For larger airport parking operations, revenue and expense amounts are so large that very
few parking companies have the financial capacity to enter into guaranteed rent arrangements.
• Changes in travel patterns or the impact of emerging services, such as TNCs, can introduce
uncertainty to a lease negotiation process. The operator may wish to “hedge their bet” by
reducing what might be a market-rate based rental to some lower amount.
• The airport has reduced ability to control customer experience. Unless stipulated in the
contract agreement, the airport has—compared to a management agreement—less ability
to control customer service aspects, such as controlling queue lengths at exits (which are
impacted by staffing levels) or providing roving parking attendants. The operator is incen-
tivized to minimize operating costs as the fees they receive depend solely on the revenues
collected, as opposed to a management contractor who is incentivized to provide additional
staff.
• If parking rates are increased in the middle of the contract, the contractor is rewarded with
additional revenue without incurring any additional costs or taking any actions to justify the
higher revenues.
• The operator may want to control aspects of the operation that impact revenue or expenses,
reducing the amount of control the airport can exercise over the operation. This matter can be
addressed through an effective contract negotiation, detailing clear boundaries for the airport
and the operator.
6.2.3 Examples of Airport Parking Lease/Concession Agreements

While not common in the United States, airport parking lease/concession agreements are
common in airports throughout the world. Examples of U.S. airport lease/concession agree-
ments include:
Large-hub airports. Baltimore/Washington International and Honolulu International
airports.
Medium-hub airports. Epply (Omaha) Airfield and Mineta San Jose International Airport.
Small-hub airports. Fargo International, Long Island McArthur, Myrtle Beach International,
and St. Pete-Clearwater International airports, and Joe Foss (Sioux Falls) Field.
Non-hub airports. Tri-Cities Airport.
6.3 Fixed-Price Agreement

A fixed-price agreement is similar to a management agreement in that the airport receives the
parking revenue and pays the operator to operate the facilities on behalf of the airport. Other
characteristics of such agreements include:
Revenues. The operator collects the revenues generated by the parking facilities and forwards
them to the airport.

Payments to Operator. The airport pays the operator a fixed monthly amount established
during the proposal process. This amount is based on budgeted operating expenses plus a
management fee.
Expenses. The parking operator pays all expenses and earns its profit within the constraints
of the fixed-price payment. Expenses need to be accurately defined in the contract, such
that there is clarity as to which entity is responsible for what expenses. Liability for major
variable costs, such as snow removal or major facility repairs, must be agreed upon and
stated in the contract. The agreement should ensure that the operator is not affected posi-
tively or negatively by government-stipulated changes in minimum wage levels and other
expenses not under the control of the operator.
Liquidated Damages. As the operator has incentives to minimize its expenses, liquidated
damage clauses are incorporated into the contract to address items such as missing ticket
percentages, failure to maintain and document maintenance of parking facilities, and failure
to staff at required levels. If liquidated damages are assessed, the airport reduces the amount
of its monthly remittance to the operator based on verified liquidated damage penalties.
6.3.1 Fixed-Price Agreement Strengths

Strengths of fixed-price agreements for airport parking operations include:
• The airport knows in advance what it will spend on the parking operation over the course
of a contract term.
• The operator can increase its profit by controlling expenses, but this is not the intention of
such a contract.
• The operator’s monthly reporting to the airport can be simplified as compared to a typical
management agreement, since the airport is not involved in the operator’s day-to-day
management of expenses.
6.3.2 Fixed-Price Agreement Weaknesses

Weaknesses of fixed-price agreements for airport parking operations include:
• Similar to concession agreements, fixed-price contracts may incentivize the operator to spend
less on operations, which could affect levels of service provided to the airport and its parking
customers.
• The operator has no recourse to improve profitability if the operating costs have been mis-
judged during the proposal process. Staffing levels would be established in the contract and
enforced via liquidated damages clauses.
• The operator cannot benefit by implementing revenue-increasing strategies.
6.3.3 Examples of Airport Fixed-Price Agreements

Fixed-price parking agreements are uncommon among U.S. airports. The fixed-price contract
structure is more commonly used for downtown and other (non-airport) parking facilities that
are municipally-owned or controlled. Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport and
John Wayne Airport, Orange County, use such a contract for their self-park operations.
6.4 Private Developer Investment

The private developer investment approach allows the airport access to non-airport funds
to construct needed infrastructure, pay off existing debts, or other reasons. As each deal is
unique to a given airport’s situation, this section describes and highlights the strengths and
weaknesses of one example, the garage development at Louis Armstrong New Orleans Inter-
national Airport. Other U.S. airports that have employed this method include Gulfport-Biloxi
International, Bradley (Hartford) International, and T.F. Green (Providence) State Airport.

6.4.1 Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport Model

For its 2001 and 2018 garage construction, Louis Armstrong New Orleans International
Airport used a model that allowed it access to non-airport funds. Key elements of the arrange-
ment are as follows:
• A 501(c)(3) non-profit entity, called Parking Facilities Corporation, was formed for the
specific purpose of developing the airport parking facilities. The entity has no private
owners.
• Tax-exempt bonds were sold to finance construction of the garages in 2001 and for the
current project.
• The entity executed a ground lease with the New Orleans Aviation Board and makes monthly
rent payments for the right to use the land on which the garages are built.
• A parking operations joint venture was hired to manage the airport parking facilities on a
Qualified Management Agreement basis. U.S. tax regulations stipulate that when tax-exempt
bonds are utilized to fund such a project, the company hired to operate the parking facilities
can neither share in profits generated by the venture nor can they participate in associated
losses. Thus, the operator manages the garages on a flat management fee basis, with initial
annual compensation of approximately $400,000.
• The operator collects all revenues, pays all expenses, and pays all profits to the airport.
6.4.2 Private Developer Investment Strengths

Strengths of the private developer investment model include:
• The debt sold to finance the garage development is not on the airport’s balance sheet, which
improves the airport’s financial condition.
• The entity can implement initiatives with more agility than airport as the entity is not subject
to the same level of decision-making regulation as is the airport.
• The airport earns all profits from the operation, does not have the debt on its balance sheet,
and can negotiate terms that ensure the appropriate level of parker experience.
6.4.3 Private Developer Investment Weaknesses

Weaknesses of the private developer investment model include:
• If the facilities underperform due to lack of demand or changing conditions and the bonds
are downgraded, the 501(c)(3) suffers, and there may be no profits to share with the airport.
• Due to the tax-exempt financing used, the parking management company cannot earn a
profit-based incentive fee.
• The airport has less direct control over the customer experience in its parking facilities.
• If the entity operates one parking facility and the airport operates another, the airport may end
up competing with the contractor in terms of parking rates and services.
6.5 Valet Parking Contract

Airports offering valet parking may elect to use a different contract structure than is used
for the rest of the public parking operation. In contracts where the self-park facilities are
operated under a management agreement, the valet portion may include a revenue share
component that shares the benefit and the risk between the parking operator and the airport.
At some airports the valet operation is part of the overall parking management agreement
while others use a separate contact for valet parking. At Dallas/Fort Worth International
Airport, for example, valet parking is operated under a concession agreement while other
facilities are self-operated or using a management agreement.

CHAPTER 7
Innovative Payment Systems and

Technologies for Public Parking
and Ground Transportation
Together with Chapter 6, this chapter addresses the question,
As noted in Section 2.2, TNC trip fees “What strategies and technologies are available to offset the revenue
are substantially offsetting (and often reductions airports have observed (or anticipate) due to continued
exceeding) reduced revenues from growth in the TNC mode share?” This chapter includes information
traditional ground transportation on technologies that can be deployed to (a) enhance net airport
services. On a per-passenger basis, parking revenues or (b) increase non-aeronautical revenues through
TNC fees have also somewhat offset strategies related to commercial ground transportation and airport
declines in airport parking revenues. roadway operations. Information provided in this chapter expands
As TNCs are a relatively new service, upon and/or updates information provided in ACRP Report 24 and
rules and regulations governing their ACRP Report 146.
operations at airports continue to
evolve, and it is possible that TNC
revenues to airports could be impacted
7.1 Innovative Payment Systems
through legislation and/or court
and Technologies for Parking
cases. For example, in early 2020, the There are numerous technologies that may be deployed to make
Arizona Attorney General challenged on-site airport parking more attractive to patrons and more lucrative
that a proposed change in TNC fees for airports. In general, these technologies seek to accomplish one or
at Phoenix Sky Harbor International more of the following goals:
Airport violated a provision in the
• Providing customers with easier methods of payment;
state constitution. While the Arizona
• Reducing parking operating expenses;
Supreme Court ultimately ruled that
• Increasing net revenue per parking transaction;
the fee changes were legal, the case
• Increasing the share of airport passengers choosing to park at the
demonstrated the potential risks
airport; and
associated with TNC-related airport
• Increasing capacity at a reduced capital cost.
revenues. To offset that risk, airports
may increasingly need to focus on This section presents several of these technologies and describes
strategies and technologies that typical goals, benefits, costs (current as of January 2020), implemen
seek to maximize the net revenues tation considerations, lessons learned, and other aspects. Technologies
associated with public parking. presented in this chapter include:
• Online pre-booking systems;
• Revenue management systems;
• New payment methods;
• Bluetooth beacons;
• Self-service virtual accounts;
• Central control room;
• Virtual nested parking areas using camera-based guidance;
• Automated robotic valet;
84

Innovative Payment Systems and Technologies for Public Parking and Ground Transportation 85
• Automated shuttles;
• Marketing and branding;
• Loyalty programs;
• Valet parking as a capacity enhancement tool; and
• License plate recognition.
7.1.1 Online Pre-Booking Systems

An online booking system (OBS) allows a user to pre-book a parking space at a specified
parking facility and price and pre-pay for all or part of the parking. The system issues a facility
entry credential (such as a bar code or QR code), usually integrated with the facility’s parking
access and revenue control system (PARCS), that is read at the entry and exit of the parking
facility. If the user has overstayed the duration paid for, the PARCS will require additional
payment before granting egress.
OBS websites typically have a standardized layout and a standard process customers use
to create and purchase a reservation. The website can be customized to an airport using the
airport logo, font, colors, and imagery. Administrative functions allow airport staff to change
many blocks of text and images, products, and pricing, so they are not reliant on the supplier
to keep the website current. The most robust systems have sophisticated rule-based pricing
mechanisms that allow pricing by multiple criteria, including time of entry, day of week, product
occupancy, time in advance of booking, stay length, etc. Other common features include:
• Acceptance of payment methods, including credit/debit card, mobile wallets, or other online
payment mechanisms;
• Storage of user and transactional data in a data warehouse that combines parking data with
data from other sources, facilitating email marketing and sophisticated data analysis, such as
that provided by revenue management systems (discussed in the next section);
• Full suite of standard reports as well as the capability for users to create customized reports;
• Built in customer loyalty programs;
• Existing integrations with larger PARCS providers and payment service providers; and
• Established application programming interfaces (APIs) to facilitate new integrations.
7.1.1.1 Typical Goals and Objectives

The main objectives for implementing OBS are to increase revenues by using a platform for
variable products and pricing (which may be used for yield management), to optimize occu-
pancy by influencing each customer to choose the product that provides the best yield for their
transaction, to provide a better (more seamless) customer experience, to collect data to make
more informed product and pricing decisions, and to collect email addresses to communicate
directly with the parking passenger.
7.1.1.2 Potential Benefits

The potential benefits of OBS include increased revenue and improved customer experience
through the system’s ability to:
• Deliver “the right product, to the right customer, at the right time, for the right price” (During
periods of high demand for premium products, such as terminal garage parking, the system
can provide customers the assurance that space will be available for them. During periods
of lower demand for a premium product, the system can offer customers that higher value
product for a price similar to what the customer would have paid for a lower value product.);
• Improve reporting, product and pricing development, and operational decision-making
through a deeper understanding of customer behavior that results from tracking and analyzing

the unique travel behavior, product selection, and price points for numerous individual
customers;
• Build a robust customer database that facilitates better marketing by communicating
personalized offers (including upselling to higher-priced parking products) in real time
digitally, as well as supporting automated surveys and ratings;
• Have a ready-made platform for marketing and sales across multiple platforms (mobile
phone, desktop, in-person) to present a customer with a seamless experience regardless of
which platform they may be using at any step of the process;
• Provide a loyalty program mechanism; and
• Provide a more seamless and integrated passenger journey, which includes the ability to
cross-sell both parking and non-parking products (e.g., concessions, food and beverage,
and lounge access) through the online platform.
U.S. airport operators with OBSs interviewed as part of this research have been unable
to isolate the incremental change in revenues solely attributable to the OBS. This is primarily
due to (a) the relatively recent adoption of such systems, which limits the ability for historical
analyses, and (b) continued changes in passenger propensity to park versus use TNCs, which
complicate the ability to isolate the impact OBSs have on customer behavior. Revenue benefits
vary greatly depending on many factors such as the marketing budget, the historical level
of engagement with parkers (e.g., past promotions and parking website traffic), and airport
staffing. Information provided by overseas airports with OBSs indicates that the combina-
tion of OBS and yield management (discussed later in this section) can increase gross parking
revenues by 5% to 10% in the first year of implementation.
7.1.1.3 Typical Implementation and Operating Costs

Currently, contracts for OBSs blur the lines between implementation and operating costs.
OBSs may be quoted in a variety of ways. Most common is either an annual license fee plus
transaction costs or a fixed fee per year (which may contain a defined number of transactions
or may be bundled with other services). The balance between license and transaction costs can
vary widely. Some providers offer a more comprehensive service that includes marketing and
customer service, and some also include yield management. Providers offering yield manage-
ment typically charge a percentage of sales or a percentage of revenue above a certain threshold.
Implementation costs include the licensing cost of the software, set-up costs, and costs for
customized development. Additional costs incurred by the airport may include consultants for
procurement, project management, and program advice. Internally, the airport will need to
commit time from staff in parking, finance, information technology, and marketing to support
website development; parking products and prices; identification of policies and standard
operating procedures: and integration with PARCS, finance, business intelligence, and other
systems.
While there may be an initial set-up fee which can exceed $50,000, depending on the system’s
complexity and contract arrangement, the bulk of the OBS cost is charged on a per-transaction
or percent-revenue basis. Typical transaction-based costs quoted by vendors reflect the complexity
of the system and the extent of yield management and/or dynamic pricing employed. OBSs that
use simple pricing tables (such as standard rates or rules-based rates that may vary depending
on the month, day of entry, and/or parking duration, but are not dynamically adjusted) can cost
approximately $0.50 per transaction, in addition to set-up fees. OBSs that employ yield manage-
ment and dynamic pricing can cost 5% to 10% of gross revenues processed by the system.
Other ongoing operational costs include system license fees and credit card transaction fees
(which are typically 2% to 3%), potential additional integration and transaction fees by the

PARCS provider, ongoing costs for third-party services such as “save to PassKit” (PassKit is a
mobile wallet payment method described later in this chapter), ongoing license fees for “extra”
OBS modules such as a loyalty program (which could cost $10,000 per year for the module),
and ongoing software development fees for issues resolution and custom development (which
could cost up to $20,000 per year). Combining all these costs would result in a set-up fee of
$50,000, annual fixed costs of up to $30,000, and ongoing variable costs directly based on the
transaction or revenue volume processed through the system.
7.1.1.4 Implementation Considerations

The gathering and storing of personally-identifiable information, including license plate data
and how it is used, may be governed by legislation relevant to an airport or city. An airport’s
legal team should prepare a privacy statement or a legal document that discloses some or all
of the ways an OBS gathers, uses, discloses, and manages customer or client data. The privacy
statement fulfils a legal requirement to protect customer or client privacy. Additionally,
a Tennessen warning and “opt in” notice should be available prior to booking. The warning
provides individuals notice when private or confidential information is to be collected from
them and enables users to make informed decisions about whether to give information about
themselves to the airport. If a user does not “opt in” then they will not be able to complete a
reservation. Lastly, terms and conditions detailing rules by which one must agree to abide in
order to use a service should also be clearly outlined and available on the website.
Another key consideration is the extent to which airport parking prices are subject to
regulation by the controlling jurisdiction. OBSs, when linked with yield management/dynamic
pricing systems, have the capability to both decrease prices to attract customers to certain
facilities and increase prices to divert customers away from certain facilities. Airports that require
board or other approvals for parking rate changes should determine how such approvals may
limit the airport’s ability to implement the price changes recommended by their OBS. While
board or other approvals may not be required to offer reduced prices, they may be required if
the system recommends increasing the price beyond a set threshold, such as the price charged
for customers not using the OBS.
7.1.1.5 Implementation and Lessons Learned

OBSs are common at airports throughout Europe, Asia, Australia, and New Zealand. As of
January 2020, U.S. and Canadian airports with OBSs, in varying levels of sophistication, include
Hartsfield Jackson-Atlanta International, Boston Logan International, Chicago O’Hare Inter-
national, Denver International, Dallas/Fort Worth International, Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood
International, Ontario International, Phoenix Sky Harbor International, Raleigh-Durham
International, San Diego International, and San Francisco International airports; airports
operated by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (John F. Kennedy International,
LaGuardia, and Newark Liberty International airports); and airports operated by the Metro
politan Washington Airports Authority (Washington Dulles International and Washington
Reagan National airports). U.S. airports currently in the process of implementing an OBS include
Charlotte International, Minneapolis-St. Paul International, Mineta San Jose International,
Seattle-Tacoma International, and Tampa International airports. Several Canadian airports
employ OBSs, including Calgary International, Edmonton International, Montreal-Trudeau
International, Ottawa International, Quebec City International, Toronto Pearson International,
Vancouver International, and Winnipeg International airports.
Prior to implementing an OBS integration with an airport PARCS system, airport staff
should determine the ability of their existing PARCS for such a deployment. A PARCS should
facilitate commercial best practices in parking, including supporting potential third-party

integrations, in particular an OBS and a data warehouse. While the data collected by PARCS
is comprehensive, there are a limited number of fixed reports provided by most systems,
and reports should be defined depending on the airport’s required reporting needs. These
considerations also apply to airports procuring a new PARCS. In such cases, PARCS can best
incorporate commercial best practices if PARCS offers an “open platform” that accommodates
most third-party sourced software programs, such as OBS and Loyalty software, and a variety
of payment technologies.
Additional considerations include the following:
• The OBS will need to integrate with a variety of systems including, but not limited to, the
PARCS, the airport financial system, and systems operated by the payment solution provider
and acquiring bank. Additional integrations with space guidance, business intelligence tools,
and other third-party providers are also available. The larger suppliers of OBS will have
prior integrations with many of these systems; new integrations will likely incur additional
cost and time.
• The airport will need to create new policies for online booking relating to entry and exit
grace periods, fees, and refunds, and new standard operating procedures will be required to
address specific issues with prepaid parking and the associated entry credentials and policies.
• Airports will need to determine the objectives for launching their OBS, how they will
achieve those objectives, what the success factors are, and how to measure them. If driving
online usage is an objective, marketing budgets will often need to be increased, along with
an increase in management and oversight. If yield management is contemplated, that skill set
may need to be recruited if it does not exist currently. Overall, active management of an OBS
will require a cross functional team that will need to be identified.
Table 7-1 summarizes other lessons learned.
7.1.2 Revenue Management Systems—Business Intelligence

and Data Analytics for Parking
Revenue management systems apply data science to automate the yield management of
parking. Parking yield management is the optimization of revenues from a perishable parking
asset or service through variable pricing and products that are offered to the customer based
on rules, occupancy levels, booking pace, and other variables. Airport passengers are familiar
with yield management from its use in the airline industry and other travel industry sectors
where seats, hotel rooms, and other elements are constantly fluctuating in price.
Parking yield management requires the use of an online pre-booking system and has been
practiced by yield managers at sophisticated international airports, particularly those in
Europe, for many years. Automating yield management is not yet as common in parking as
it is other travel verticals, such as airlines, hotels, and rental cars, but its use is growing.
Revenue management systems allow parking operators to take historic parking data and build
models for projected prices, revenues, and occupancy, and then refine these models based on
real-time data through data analytics and machine learning. This automation of forecasting
and pricing uses information from the drive-up (i.e., parkers without a reservation) and online
systems, as well as competitive rates, to try to create the most compelling and competitive set
of prices—“the right product, to the right customer, at the right place, at the right time.”
According to one supplier (IDeaS), their system enables clients to perform the following
day-to-day tasks:
• Determine the most appropriate pricing in every situation;
• Accurately forecast business demand;

Table 7-1. Online booking systems lessons learned.

Aspect Lessons Learned
Operations Include a proof of concept in the OBS contract
Include technical support in the contract
Conduct extensive testing prior to any type of launch
Ensure multiple internal staff members are properly trained in administering the
online system
Ensure staff are focused on customer experience and service
Soft Launch Use a soft (beta test) launch to identify issues specific to the equipment, software, and
local customers
Conduct research during the beta test to learn customer/user experiences and address
their concerns prior to hard launch
Ensure that the focus on customer needs is present during soft launch period
Ensure customer service and call center staff are fully trained prior to the soft launch
Hard Launch and Marketing Do not launch until fully ready
Have a definitive plan. Know the airport’s parking market, products, capacity,
operations, systems, competitors, target audiences, and priorities; understand and be
able to articulate the value proposition(s) for your customers/prospects, define goals,
schedule, and budget
Track all elements of the marketing plan and adjust as needed
Know your priorities. Early hard launch priorities are typically increasing customer
awareness, account creation (database building), increasing market share, and
ensuring a positive customer experience
Employ effective marketing methods, which generally include:
- Airport website with widget on the home page
- Digital advertising channels. The success of each channel may vary greatly and
should be evaluated to identify the most successful ones
- Email is typically the most effective method for conversions
- Publicity and earned media (e.g., social media mentions, shares, reviews)
Coordinate hard launch with a drive-up price increase, which allows the airport to
highlight the lower prices available through the OBS
Following launch, continue research efforts to identify strategies to improve the
customer experience
Use positive customer comments in promotions
• Identify and attract the most valuable business mix;

• Account for lost revenues through cancellations and no-shows;
• Evaluate the profitability of group inquiries;
• Effectively distribute the client’s strategy across all distribution channels;
• Make time-sensitive decisions on the go with a mobile app; and
• Factor online reputation into the client’s pricing decisions.
Automation becomes particularly useful in circumstances where there are many spaces,
products, and prices, as well as multiple tiers of customers (e.g., corporate and loyalty members)
and distribution channels (e.g., airlines and online travel aggregators). With advanced technology
taking care of daily pricing decision-making and updates, airport parking managers can manage
by exception, leaving them more time to be strategic while simultaneously driving more revenue
for their airport.


Common objectives of revenue management systems are to maximize occupancy and
revenues while providing choices for consumers that fit their budget and have the desired
amenity; to defer investment in additional parking assets until it is truly needed; and to compete
with off-airport operators and other transportation modes (e.g., TNCs) that are employing
similar tactics. Other goals include providing management reporting and forecasting, improving
operational efficiency and reducing costs, improving knowledge of customer preferences, and
developing better products to satisfy those preferences.

Revenue management systems can greatly improve parking revenues, optimize the use and
allocation of airport parking assets, enhance decision-making with real-time evidence, improve
budget accuracy and performance monitoring, and improve customer satisfaction. Some
revenue management service providers claim airports will see a 10% increase in revenues in
the first year of implementation. Airport managers and consultants estimate a range of 5%
to 15% improvement and caution that after the first year, the size of the improvement will
likely reduce.
7.1.2.3 Typical Implementation Costs

Business models vary among the companies offering revenue management systems. Airports
with 20,000 to 40,000 spaces may see a price range between $180,000 and $250,000 per year.
In additional to annual software license fees, fees may be added for setup and consulting. For
example, Smarking’s model is based on an initial set-up fee plus an annual service fee. Annual
costs depend on the airport’s selection of services, but the core business intelligence and data
analytics package can cost between $25,000 (a more simple reporting package) and $250,000
per year depending on the complexity of the airport parking operation, PARCS, and the related
systems installed. Set-up fees are typically about 20% of the annual charge.
7.1.2.4 Typical Impacts to Ongoing Operating Costs

Such systems will incur annual software license fees, and ongoing consulting fees may be
needed as well. Any changes to integrated systems (such as the integration of PARCS and OBS)
will incur integration charges. In theory, there should be savings in time and effort to produce
and analyze reports, which can result in lower staffing or management costs; however, for air-
ports that are not already sophisticated, there may be a requirement to increase resources to
actively manage the system, which should not be seen as “set it and forget it.” As online booking
becomes more prevalent and the data becomes more robust, it is possible that the parking
occupancy projections could result in cost savings as staffing and other operations, such as
busing, are optimized.

As with OBS, revenue management systems may require a review of existing airport policies
on parking pricing and required approvals. Regarding privacy and payment card industry
compliance, there are no identifying details associated with the data collected, so there should
not be any issues. While revenue management systems require access to PARCS and online
pre-booking databases (or aggregating database) for transactional and revenue information,
they do not require access to any customer-specific data or other confidential data sources,
such as bank card details. Other key implementation considerations include:
• Such systems will require some staff and management training to upgrade skill sets and
develop awareness of the tools available to system users.

• While airport management may wish to see that their investment cost is being covered or
exceeded by the incremental returns of the system, measuring the discrete returns may be
challenging as there are multiple factors simultaneously influencing parking activity and
revenues.
• Most systems will have at least some existing integrations with leading PARCS providers
and online booking suppliers, but if they do not integrate with an airport’s existing systems,
the integration will require additional time and money. Smarking, for example, states they
have developed integrations for more than 40 PARCS system vendors, including more than
400 versions of their hardware and software systems. As such, a typical implementation
time (for systems with which they are integrated) is 39 days.
• Implementation is ideally based on detailed past transaction data for at least 1 year and
ideally 2 years, which, depending on the systems in use at the time, can be difficult to access
and may need to be reviewed and modified for accuracy. Such review and “data scrubbing”
may increase implementation time. For example, implementation of revenue management
systems at John F. Kennedy International, LaGuardia, Newark Liberty International, and
Raleigh-Durham International airports was more protracted because, while the revenue
management system was being integrated with each airport’s PARCS, these airports had not
yet had a year of pre-booking information to provide as a basis for the system.
7.1.2.6 Implementation Sites and Lessons Learned

Revenue management systems have been implemented at airports worldwide, including:
North America. Boston Logan International, Edmonton International, John F. Kennedy
International, LaGuardia, Montréal-Pierre Elliott Trudeau International, Newark Liberty
International, Raleigh-Durham International, San Diego International, Savannah/Hilton
Head International, and Winnipeg International airports.
Europe. Bordeaux International, London Heathrow International, Lyon International,
Nantes International, Oslo International, Paris International, and Stuttgart International
airports, and airports in Sweden operated by Swedavia Airports.
Asia. Queen Alia (Amman, Jordan) International, Bengaluru (Bangalore) International,
Delhi International, Hyderabad International, and Kuala Lumpur International airports.
Oceania. Auckland International and Sydney International airports.
South America. Carrasco (Uruguay) International Airport.
Lessons learned from these installations include:
• Allow generous time for the integration and setup of the system, as well as for subsequent
setup testing.
• Align system recommendations with the airport’s public messaging. For example, an airport
with an “always cheaper online” policy may need to revise it if the revenue management
system does not recommend a cheaper online price for products that frequently fill.
• Such systems are not meant to be “set it and forget it” and should be actively managed to ensure
they reflect specific circumstances at the airport, such as facility capacity reductions due to
construction, introduction of new off-airport parking competitors, or changes in TNC prices.
• Allow adequate time for staff training and familiarization with the system. Training should
be provided for multiple staff because of the risk that parking managers and other staff may
frequently move to other positions within the airport’s organization.
7.1.3 New Payment Methods

Larger airport parking reservations providers, such as Advam and AeroParker, have been
incorporating modern payment options into their parking online booking systems, including

Apple Pay and Android Pay; integration with PassKit (mobile wallet) and Apple and Google
Wallets; and one-click purchase.
New payment methods provide more options for the consumer, particularly millennial
who are the fastest growing group using mobile payments. “Save to PassKit” is a conve-
nience, storing an entry credential (a “pass,” such as a QR code) along with other travel
credentials. Combined with Bluetooth beacons, often placed on a parking access entry column,
PassKit can be used with parking reservations systems to push the parking reservation QR code to
the customer’s phone so it is easily accessed at the time of entry. Bluetooth beacons also facilitate
other location-based notifications and advertising to a customer. One-click purchases, where
encrypted payment details from customers are stored with industry-compliant payment service
providers, enable a quick and seamless customer experience, similar to that provided by
online market leaders like Amazon.
Further, at least one airport parking reservation vendor, Advam, has integrated with
airport app provider M2mobi to provide a native payment option for parking pre-purchase
within an airport app so that the customer need not switch from the airport app to a payment
processor. With over 50% of OBS users accessing it via mobile phones (as reported by OBS
vendors and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey), it is important that airports try
to simplify their mobile apps such that mobile users considering parking purchases complete
the transaction at rates currently seen via more traditional methods (e.g., desktop, laptop).

The objective of new payment methods is to acquire and convert more customers to the
parking pre-payment service by providing a seamless customer purchase experience and
reducing the need for the customer to stray from the booking journey.

While benefits are difficult to quantify, they follow online retailer best practices and have
become part of an overall effort by airports and their vendors to improve ease of use of their
pre-booking functionality, hence driving usage of the system, increasing the customer data
(transaction and email addresses) collected, and ultimately allowing the airport to improve
revenues through better product and pricing decisions (informed by the additional customer
data and analysis) and effective marketing. U.S. airports currently implementing these initiatives
include Charlotte International, Dallas/Fort Worth International, Seattle-Tacoma International,
and Tampa International airports.

The cost of implementing the payment options varies depending on whether the desired
functionality is negotiated into the pre-booking vendor’s license fee. If not, software develop-
ment should be charged at a pre-agreed hourly or daily rate, which is typically $1,200 per day.

Airports may also encounter charges associated with a mobile wallet. For example, when
using PassKit, there are monthly charges based on the number of total active passes downloaded
by customers. That cost may vary from as low as $36 for 100 to 500 active passes, up to over
$7,000 for more than 300,000 active passes. However, if an airport signs up for its own Apple
developer account at a cost of about $100 per year, and integrates its pre-booking system
directly with Apple, passes in an Apple Wallet may be provided free of charge.

Generally, ongoing operating costs for implementing newer payment options should not
be significantly different from existing costs, assuming customers are already predominantly
paying for parking with bank cards at exit lanes and pay-on-foot machines.

A key consideration in implementing such payment methods is whether the airport’s payment
service provider (PSP) (a third party that allows a merchant to accept electronic payments such
as credit cards and mobile wallets) is willing to store encrypted customer payment details and
whether the airport’s acquiring bank supports tokenization (a process that replaces sensitive
data with unique identification symbols that retain all the essential information about the data
without compromising its security). Another consideration for PSPs generally is what types of
information they may require to keep airport transaction costs low. For example, some providers
will require a customer zip code or other verifying information in addition to a credit card
number and card verification value (CVV). Implementation of these payment methods may
engender a nominal ongoing increase in the pre-booking vendor’s license fee (several thousand
dollars) and a small increase to the vendor’s transaction fee.
7.1.3.6 Implementation Opportunities and Lessons Learned

PassKit is available on multiple mobile wallet applications but with varied availability and
capabilities depending on the operating system (iOS or Android). Billing for PassKit is monthly
against active passes, and a pass becomes active as soon as a user downloads it. To keep costs
down, it is important to manage and track volumes closely and deactivate passes after the user
has exited the facility. Administrative user rights allow customizable, specified time periods
where a pass becomes deactivated after the user has left the facility.
When integrating with a mobile app, it is preferable to provide payment capability within
the app to avoid a large customer drop-off rate (i.e., if the customer has to leave the app to
complete the payment in a web browser, sales conversion drops).
The integration should also be a seamless experience between the web service and the mobile
app. The solution should allow customers to make a reservation in one platform (mobile app
or web) and then make an amendment or cancellation on the other platform that may not have
been used on the original booking. Additionally, transactions made in the mobile app should
effectively post to the web service with all required information (first name, last name, email
address, etc.) for a transaction to take place. This is especially important if a customer raises
an issue with a reservation, does not know the reservation number, and the airport parking
operator needs to quickly locate the reservation.
Some issues associated with new payment methods include supporting a wide variety of
devices in the bring-your-own-device environment, users changing/losing devices, device
compatibility, and low/dead batteries.
7.1.4 Bluetooth Beacons

Bluetooth beacons are small wireless devices that broadcast a short-range Bluetooth low energy
signal that is detected by an app on a mobile device as it comes in proximity to the beacon.
The detection can trigger actions and notifications, open web pages, or push advertisements
directly to that mobile device. For a beacon to communicate with passengers, each passenger must
download the relevant airport or parking app and have Bluetooth enabled on their device. The
beacons do not collect data.

Bluetooth low energy devices typically have the following properties:

• Low power requirements, often operating for multiple years on a button cell battery;
• Small size and low cost; and
• Compatibility with a large installed base of mobile phones, tablets, and computers.
Bluetooth applications for parking may be stand-alone access solutions, separate from
installed access equipment, or integrated with existing parking equipment. Several parking
access providers, including Designa (Smart Move) and HUB (JPass), are developing and launch-
ing integrated Bluetooth solutions for parking. Other vendors have installed beacon-based
systems that are used to track and monitor commercial ground transportation vehicles.
Generally, these systems work as follows:
• Drivers must download the parking app in advance and activate Bluetooth on their device.
• When drivers approach the parking facility entry, the app will communicate with the Bluetooth
beacon integrated with, or near to, the entry column and perform an action—automatically
lift the gate, call up a QR code on a reservation, or ask drivers if they wish to enter.
• The driver performs the required action, if needed, such as scanning a QR code or pushing
“OK” on the app—the gate raises and the clock begins ticking on the parking stay as the
driver continues to a parking space.
• When ready to exit the parking facility, if the driver has prepaid and has not overstayed,
they drive to the exit where the system identifies the driver’s device and lifts the gate for exit.
• But if the driver has not paid or has overstayed, they may pay by phone or, in some cases,
at a pay-on-foot machine equipped with a beacon. Once fully paid, the driver continues to
the exit where the system identifies the driver’s device and lifts the gate.

In parking, the most common objectives for such beacons are to improve the parking facility
entry and egress process by recognizing an individual or a reservation at the entry point and
facilitating a speedy payment and exit. In some facilities, beacons are installed for wayfinding
purposes where the objective is to help parkers remember where they parked and find their car.

Most commonly, beacons provide an improved passenger experience, increasing throughput
at entries and exits, and enabling mobile payments or recognition of a prepaid reservation.
Beacon-powered systems eliminate tickets, provide e-receipts, and may enable remote extension
of a parking session. They may also serve to reduce the frustration of a lost vehicle if they are
installed throughout a facility.
Other potential benefits include:
• Real-time Updates and Navigation. An airport can deliver real-time “day of travel” infor-
mation directly to passengers in the airport or parking facility. Beacons can help the airport
communicate directions directly to the traveler’s smartphone, providing guidance without the
need for staffing. Beacons can be used as landmarks (e.g., attached to a garage column or wall)
for a mobile device to determine its location, which can then be used for example, to help a
customer locate their vehicle.
• Facilitating Entry to Parking Facilities. Beacons installed on entry columns can detect a reser
vation saved to a wallet and trigger a bar code to appear as a traveler approaches a parking
facility. Some parking suppliers have developed an integrated beacon that will trigger the gate
to open automatically if a reservation is detected.
• Generating Non-Aeronautical Revenues. Beacons can help promote parking products as
well as non-parking products such as in-terminal food, beverage, and retail concessions.

For example, beacons can send information about parking specials, nearby food vendors, or
nearby stores, along with a coupon.
• Passenger Flow Management (mostly used within an airport rather than in parking). Beacons
generate information about passenger pathways throughout the airport and may be used to
plan and manage service capacity, resources, and staffing.
• Improved Operational Efficiency and Security. Beacons can help airports track their employees.
If a traveler has an issue, the airport can identify employees located nearby who can assist.
This allows for a faster and more efficient response to issues as they arise. Additionally,
beacons can help detect if any employee or individual is trying to access a restricted area,
which improves airport security.

Implementation costs reflect the number of beacons required and the costs to integrate with
the airport’s parking system. As of January 2020, a typical beacon cost is approximately $30.
For uses such as communication with mobile wallets or for location tracking, they can typically
be installed onto existing infrastructure. For a more complete beacon-based parking access
solution, installation costs are estimated at a one-time cost of $8,000 per lane.

Parking access equipment and software suppliers may charge a transaction fee that would
vary according to volume. As of January 2020, such fees are approximately $0.35 per parking
transaction.

Implementation considerations for individual battery-powered beacons in a car park include:
• Beacons should be installed where they are easy to reach to change out batteries, preferably
without requiring the relocation of parked vehicles;
• Weather extremes may reduce beacon performance; and
• Beacon read radius and possible signal interference will influence placement.
Implementation considerations for a parking access system using beacons include:

• Customer apps must be downloaded in advance, which means consumer communication is
key to increase use of the system;
• Push notifications to a customer’s smartphone may require user permissions;
• Not all customers who enter a parking facility may have a smartphone with Bluetooth
capability (or they may have disabled it), so a backup system and/or lane may be required;
• The system should undergo multi-lane testing to ensure there is no cross-talk where a beacon
reads a Bluetooth device in an adjacent lane; and
• A system may improve accuracy and control by incorporating antennas pointing to an in-lane
“hot spot,” a geofence around the vehicle location, and/or in-lane induction loops to detect
a vehicle.
7.1.4.6 Implementation and Lessons Learned

A few European airports are using Bluetooth as a means to automatically call up an entry
credential provided by an OBS. Tampa International and Seattle-Tacoma International airports
are in the process of evaluating it as an option. There are several non-airport instances of
Bluetooth entry and exit, such as parking facilities owned by the City of Anaheim.
A few airports, including Seattle-Tacoma International and Tampa International, are considering
deploying Bluetooth as a means to automatically call up an entry credential provided by an OBS,

making it a speedier process for the customer than searching for the credential on their device. There
are also a number of non-airport examples of Bluetooth entry and exit, such as Parking Sense’s
operations for the City of Anaheim.
Lessons learned from these implementations include:
• The app will likely need to be integrated with another parking access system or third party
system, such as a pre-existing reservation system or a business intelligence system (if so,
choice of a Bluetooth beacon system should consider which systems already have existing
integrations);
• Airport staff evaluation of such products should consider existing data to determine if the data
is sufficient, if the data includes reliability statistics from other users, and if there are warranty
conditions;
• The parking owner and/or operator will need to educate customers about the app through
strategies such as ambassadors, signage, billboards, and information at points of payment; and
• The system should include a method for accommodating customers who do not have the
app or do not have a Bluetooth device.
7.1.5 Self-Service Virtual Accounts

Many airports manage specific customer groups (e.g., employees, corporate accounts,
frequent parkers, and commercial vehicle operators) through account-based parking, which
links customers or parking access cards to an account and allows the airport to issue monthly
statements. A number of airports have looked for “plug and play” solutions to automate the
management of these accounts.
NuPark is an example of a parking management system that is well suited to groups using
the airport on a frequent and ongoing basis. This system allows members of a group to use the
system online to elect a product or service, sign up with required details (such as email and
license plate), and gain access to specific parking areas via virtual permits. The airport can then
monitor compliance using license plate recognition technology.
Another system designed for frequent parkers is Advam’s ParkCharge. Like NuPark, customers
sign up directly in the ParkCharge system. They choose from three different payment methods
(pre-pay, pay-as-you-go, account top-up) tied to a stored payment card or account. They may
use several types of identifiers to enter a parking area, such as license plate or radio-frequency
identification (RFID). Because the customers have accounts tied to entry and exit identifiers,
their transactions and behavior can be monitored and, if desired, rewarded by tying activity
to a rewards program. There are other vendors that offer similar solutions implemented at
university campuses and other sites.
In addition to saving administrative time and cost, these systems also provide enhanced
customer data. Common features include the following:
• Automated or self-service loading of customer data into a customer database;
• Automated entry to parking areas using license plate recognition (LPR);
• Automated enforcement via license plate inventory (LPI), often accomplished through a
vehicle-mounted camera;
• Virtual (email) warnings or tickets (that may be reviewed in advance if desired);
• Creation of and changes to permits, products, and permissions in the system in real time;
• Creation of flexible reports using the database to monitor transactions and customer behavior;
• Virtual event tickets and validations; and
• Integration with the existing PARCS and sensor-based occupancy system.
Figure 7-1 depicts a sample self-service account interface offered by an airport.

Source: Brisbane Airport webpage, July 2019.
Figure 7-1. Example of a self-service virtual account web-based interface.

The major goals and objectives with these systems are to automate data entry and payment
to lower administrative time and cost, as well as reduce errors relating to information entry.
By providing groups with self-service input, the groups take ownership of the accuracy of the
data, as well as the overall accuracy of the names in the group being billed for product use.
Further, compliance, infringement issuance, payment, and billing are all automated, reducing
the need for staff. Some systems even automate the process for contesting an infringement
through forms provided to the parker that are then forwarded to the relevant email address
for review by the parking manager.

Key benefits are operational savings and improved accuracy. The additional benefit of more
and better customer data allows the airport to better allocate resources, develop future product
and staffing plans, and influence behavior through rewards and penalties.

Licensing costs of the systems themselves vary but may be as low as a $30,000 flat fee
or based on a per movement fee (common if the system is used for commercial vehicles).
Implementation and integration will depend on the associated systems (e.g., parking access
and revenue control) in use, but a cost of around $10,000 is common. These systems require
tokenization for payments, and therefore, a cost may be incurred to integrate with the airport’s
PSP. If an entry credential other than a license plate or existing pass is used (e.g., a card with
RFID or programmable chip), there may be costs associated with procuring that credential
and ensuring it is recognized by the barrier system.

7.1.5.4 Typical Impacts on Ongoing Operating Costs

PARCS providers may charge a monthly maintenance fee to have a fully supported integra-
tion with the third-party software. PSPs will charge ongoing transaction costs for payments
and tokenization. If a new and separate entry credential is introduced, new users will need to
be provided with that identifier on an ongoing basis. If access systems (e.g., barrier or tolling
systems) are replaced, a new integration will have to take place. Raleigh-Durham International
Airport has estimated the ongoing costs of their system to be approximately $30,000 per year.

Reduction in staffing due to automation may be an issue that has to be addressed, particularly
in a union environment. Also, employers inputting user data must understand their respon-
sibility to keep information correct and up to date or be liable for the parking fees incurred.

As noted above, Raleigh-Durham International Airport staff report ongoing costs of $30,000
per year. They also estimate a return on investment in less than 3 years based on savings in
administration, primarily due to the self-service entry of customer data.
Advam’s ParkCharge is in use at international airports, including airports serving Adelaide,
the Gold Coast, and Brisbane, Australia; and Auckland and Queenstown, New Zealand. Staff at
these locations indicate it has improved the customer experience by offering frictionless entry
and exit and automated billing for various classes of customers, including premium parkers,
employees, and commercial vehicle operators.
Self-service systems are not always integrated with the existing PARCS. Even if the supplier
of the self-service system does not charge for integration, the PARCS system provider may. If a
self-service system provides a work-around to full integration with the PARCS, this may result
in an unstable or unreliable system. Not all PSPs will support tokenization. Those that do, will
likely charge additional fees for it.
7.1.6 Central Control Room

U.S. airports are unique among their international peers in the high use of cashiers at parking
facility exits. Airports in Europe, Australia, and Canada are heavily automated, relying on a
system with almost all parking fees (a) prepaid via online pre-booking or (b) paid at pay-on-foot
machines located in the terminals or at the pedestrian access points to the car parks. Customers
can also pay for their parking using a valid bank card at any of the unmanned exit lane terminals.
Any customer service issues are handled by a small team of supervisory staff located in a central
control area where they can observe via closed circuit television (CCTV), communicate via
two-way digital intercoms, and intervene to manage the lane equipment remotely. While many
of the benefits described in this section can be attributed to the emphasis on self-pay parking
systems, the central control room is a fundamental component of such systems as it provides
an efficient way for the parking operator to address customer issues that may occur at any
location within the parking system.

The main objectives of a central control room are operational savings and increased effi-
ciency for the customer. The control room enables the parking business to reduce the number
of operational staff responsible solely for taking customer payments and employ fewer, higher
skilled “trouble-shooting” roles that oversee all lanes and can solve problems immediately.


Benefits include the following:
• Improved efficiency and resource allocation, and reduced operating costs (assuming there
are minimal legal and other barriers to reducing the number of cashier positions);
• Minimizing or eliminating queuing at exits by making all exit lanes available to all customers
at all times (assuming no lanes accept cash);
• Optimizing the capabilities of the installed PARCS and thereby improving asset utilization;
• Reduced pressure on cashiers from customers by providing distance from argumentative or
inflammatory situations; and
• Provision of higher skilled, better paid roles that may be more attractive for recruitment and
retention.

Control room setup includes application server(s), software to manage calls and issues,
multiple screens to show each lane via CCTV cameras (which may be pinhole or “pan tilt zoom”
capable), intercom (usually voice over internet protocol) hardware and software, PARCS work
station(s), central cashier terminal(s), online validation station(s), and the associated power
and communications to support these systems. Costs vary significantly based on the size of the
installation and what equipment and facilities may already exist at the airport. Control room
costs often fall in the range of 3% to 5% of the total new PARCS installation cost. In 2018,
a large-hub airport with about 60 entry and exit lanes received quotes for a new control room
in the range of $175,000 to $325,000, with the upper range driven by the number and cost of
required servers put forth by the bidder.
To fully leverage the investment in a centralized control room, additional costs may be
incurred if some exit lanes do not already have fully automated payment capabilities. Exit
stations with such capabilities currently cost $10,000 to $15,000.
Other transition costs include staff training and communications with, and education of,
customers accustomed to dealing with cashiers at exits. There may be some staff redundancy
costs to consider if staff numbers are reduced, but in some cases, cashiers can be re-deployed
within the airport or by the parking lot operator.

Ongoing system costs may include server maintenance and software licenses. Any potential
increase in credit card processing cost is typically offset by reduced cash collection cost. Labor
costs should reduce, but the precise savings will depend on the local situation, including
contractual obligations with parking contractors. Generally, a parking business with about
20,000 spaces and three to five garages or lots would not require more than three to five control
room staff at a time. Depending on the goals and objectives of a given airport, additional staff
may be deployed in a central control room to enhance the customer service provided, address
misreads in LPR systems, and resolve other issues.

Where a control room environment is new, the key issues are likely to be labor-related
(such as local union negotiations, if required) as the overall system relies on fewer staffed
exit lanes. Staff training and reallocation and new standard operating procedures will also
be required. Customer communications and education are also vital to ensure benefits are
communicated and that customers are aware that (a) there will be a person at the end of the
intercom and (b) there is someone who can come to their aid in-person if required. Further,

if cash is being eliminated in exit lanes, customers need to be informed if there is a cash option
(e.g., a pay-on-foot machine) and where it is located.

As noted above, automated and self-pay parking payment systems are common throughout
airports in Europe, Canada, and Oceania. Such installations typically incorporate a central
control room.
Lessons learned from these operations include:
• During transition to a more automated system, an airport should manage, negotiate, and
communicate with cashier staff at all stages to ensure that they are offered attractive options,
including different roles within parking operations, transfer options within the airport,
and/or redundancy terms for any interested in leaving.
• Airport staff and/or the parking operator should communicate with parking customers well
in advance of the change, throughout the transition, and for months after the actual changes
are implemented to minimize adverse experiences at the exits.
• To eliminate cashiers, a few pay-on-foot kiosks are a key component of the system as they
provide opportunities for cash transactions. The airport should ensure that all pay-on-foot
machines are working and well-signed for customers who may prefer to use cash or to pay in
advance without “pressure” at the exit lane.
7.1.7 Virtual Nested Parking Areas Using Camera-Based

Parking Guidance Systems
A virtual nested parking area is created when several dedicated spaces are defined by some-
thing other than physical barriers and entry and exit hardware. Currently, these areas require
the use of camera-based parking guidance systems that use different colored lights above the
spaces to convey information about that space (such as whether the space is occupied, part of
a product, or reserved for a particular customer). The cameras in the installed hardware read
the license plate and identify the space where the car has been parked and its associated
parking fee, which is programmed into the PARCS so that the car is charged appropriately at
exit. For this system to work, LPR must be in place at the entries and the exits of the parking
facility since the license plate read determines the duration the car has been parked.

The most common objective is to quickly designate areas of tiered products and pricing
without the time and expense associated with creating traditional nested areas with physical
barriers and equipment (that may also require expensive additional power and communications)
and without needing to take away existing spaces to install equipment and circulation lanes.
Further, entry and exit to the car park and the products using LPR create a more streamlined
customer experience that requires no need to lower the car window to show an identifier (e.g.,
QR code, ticket, or proximity card) to get a gate to lift.
Airports may also use virtual nested areas for staff or other specific groups and require they
park their vehicles in specific spaces or an assigned area. The members of these groups will
have their license plates stored in an administration component of the system and, if the airport
elects to do so, the airport can penalize them (e.g., charge the posted parking rate instead of a
preferential rate) if they do not park in their assigned area.

Key benefits are cost savings, flexibility in the number and location of spaces allocated to a
product or price point, and optimization of revenues and occupancy. In the case of designated

spaces for staff or specific groups, spaces not needed by the designated persons could be tempo-
rarily used by the public, potentially providing more efficient space utilization.

As of January 2020, camera-based LPR systems typically cost between $330 and $600 per
space. Generally, the cost is dependent on the size of the installation, the condition of the
existing PARCS and parking facility, and whether the client is in a location of importance to
the vendor. Key considerations include:
• Is LPR in place already at entries and exits? If not, cameras will need to be purchased and
installed and integrated with the PARCS system. Also, there may be a requirement for civil
works (such as changing lane configuration and building curbs or islands) to ensure front or
rear license plates can be read.
• Are there sufficient servers, power, and communications to support the system? If not, these
additional works may be carried out by the airport or the vendor, depending on how the
contract is structured, and there should be consistency in the specifications and aesthetics
throughout the garage.
• If the installation is in an outdoor lot, cameras must be mounted on existing or new poles with
clear sightlines to license plates.
In addition, software required to vary rates by space, unless included in the overall software
fee, could cost between $60,000 and $120,000, depending on how the agreement is structured.
Most camera-based parking guidance systems will offer a comprehensive administration and
reporting suite, which is usually included, and a “find your car” kiosk, which may be priced
separately at approximately $60,000 per kiosk.

Ongoing costs for virtual nested areas will be a part of the overall system costs for a camera-
based space guidance system. System maintenance and extended warranty costs may range
between 1.5% and 5% of the total installation cost. Some airports find it more efficient and less
expensive to take on the maintenance themselves or have an existing vendor provide it after
receiving training from the supplier. If the space or price requirements for a virtual nested area
or areas vary frequently, more dedicated staff may be required to interpret data and program
the system.

Implementation considerations include those associated with LPR installations: (a) the
gathering and storing of license plate data, and how it is used, may be governed by local or
state legislation and (b) LPR data may require more storage capacity than an airport may have
for its existing PARCS. Other considerations include:
• Camera effectiveness may be affected by weather extremes, including large temperature
swings (can cause condensation), extreme heat or cold, and driving wind and rain.
• License plate reads can be affected by myriad factors, including sun exposure, which varies
by time of day, lack of light, reflection, and a variety of “exception” license plates like tempo-
rary paper plates, vanity plates, dirty and partially or totally obscured plates. Thus, the system
may require manual support to correct misreads.
• For states that do not require front license plates, vehicles that have backed into spaces will
not be recognized by the camera-based system. In such cases, license plate information may
need to be manually observed and entered into the system.
• Different types of installations are required for outdoor lots (e.g., cameras mounted on tall
poles throughout the lot) than are required for indoor lots (which use cameras mounted on
channels along the center of each drive aisles).

• The camera-based system will need to integrate with the PARCS system, which must, in turn,
have an integrated LPR system. Unless the camera-based system vendor has prior integrations
with a particular PARCS provider, integrations will require additional time and cost.
• The ability to vary the price of spaces in real time may be limited if the airport requires the
vendor to implement the changes in the system.
• The installation usually requires project management and/or oversight by airport staff and
will require parking areas to be progressively cordoned off and cleared of vehicles during
installation.

As of January 2020, virtual nested parking areas using camera-based parking guidance
systems have not been used in an airport setting but have been deployed at the University of
Texas at Dallas and at several shopping malls. In addition, several airports, such as Austin-
Bergstrom International, Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International, Nashville International,
and San Francisco International airports have installed camera-based parking guidance systems
but have not yet used them to create virtual nested areas.
Lessons learned from existing installations include the following:
• Angled spaces are more difficult to read than 90-degree parking spaces.
• Space allocation within the garage needs to mirror what is displayed on wayfinding and
other signage.
• Systems that use camera installations down the center lane of a garage will be easier to install
and maintain since parked cars will not have to be moved. Such installations, however, must
consider height clearances and compatibility with existing signage.
• Many garages may not have the existing power and communications support required of
such systems and will need additional conduits or cabling, along with servers, to support the
installation.
7.1.8 Automated Robotic Valet

A robotic valet allows a valet parking operator to substantially reduce staff associated with
a valet parking operation. There are at least two separate robotic valet vehicles in airports
currently. They are:
• Ray (shown on Figure 7-2), made by Serva Transport Systems, has been in use at Dusseldorf
International Airport since 2014.
• Stan (shown on Figure 7-3), from Stanley Robotics, started operations at Lyon International
and London Gatwick International, in 2019. Stan was also trialed at Paris Charles de Gaulle
International in 2017.
With both systems, a customer pre-books parking at the airport.
With Stan, when pre-booked customers arrive at the parking facility,
they are directed to a line of parking garages or boxes. With Ray, they
As the level of automation increases are directed to marked parking or transfer bays. Customers exit their
in vehicles, an increasing number vehicles, remove their luggage, and lock their cars, taking their keys
of manufacturers will provide a with them. They register at a data terminal and once their booking
“self-parking” option, whereby an
is confirmed and arrival validated, they head towards the terminal.
unoccupied vehicle can be directed to
Shortly after the customer leaves, an automated robot arrives, measures
park by itself. Such systems may reduce
the vehicle, inserts “arms” under the tires of the vehicle, and lifts it clear
the attractiveness of robotic valets.
of the ground (the operation is similar to a forklift). The robot then
drives with the car to an enclosed parking area and deposits the car

Source: Serva Transport Systems.
Figure 7-2. “Ray” robotic valet equipment.
in a row or block of other cars, noting where the car has been parked. This process allows very
compact parking of like-sized cars. The Ray provider claims to be able to park up to 60% more
cars in a given area while the Stan provider claims 50%. The systems record the expected date
and time of return of the motorist through integration with the pre-booking system or flight
arrival software, and park the cars accordingly. Vehicles that are not needed for several days
may be “deep stacked” more than those required in less time.
When the customer is due to return, their car is either ready and waiting based on the
scheduled return time in the system or called via an app and transferred back to a pickup point
so that the vehicle is waiting for the customer when they return to the car park.

The objective is generally to maximize car park occupancy and reduce operational costs,
particularly staffing. Robotic valets may also drive revenues as more cars are parked in the
same area. This type of system may extend the time before additional parking assets are
required to be built or procured, saving money and freeing up capital in the short term for
other uses. In cases where airports are space constrained and do not have good options to
acquire or build additional lots or garages, robotic valet may provide an attractive method to
allow more passengers to park at the airport.

The clearest benefit is the improved space utilization in the parking lot or garage. For example,
at London Gatwick International, airport staff expect they will be able to park 8,500 robot-
parked cars into the 6,000 existing self-park spots once the system is fully operational. Better
space utilization enables more parkers and more parking revenue per square foot.
Source: Stanley Robotics
Figure 7-3. “Stan” robotic valet equipment.

Another benefit is cost savings relating to reduced staffing as well as the flexibility provided
by an automated system (it can ramp up or down as needed without having, for example,
required 4-hour shifts for a typical human valet). Nonetheless, the operations are not completely
unstaffed. With Ray, a staff member does monitor the automated valet registration kiosk to
ensure a smooth experience.
Another benefit is a reduction in emissions—as much as 60% to 80% according to Serva—
with electric robotic valets moving (mostly non-electric) cars and with the elimination of cars
circulating through a facility searching for a space.
There is also a potential benefit in fewer damage and accident claims, with robotic parking
providing less opportunity for human error while parking cars very close together.

Implementation costs may be high. Recently an overseas airport was quoted €16 million for
an installation in four designated areas of an outdoor parking lot with a total of 8,000 spaces.
Another airport received a quote of €6.5 million to achieve an increase of 1,000 spaces. In many
instances, it may be that the capacity increase provided by robotic valets can be achieved for a
lower cost using traditional (i.e., manual) valet parking practices. As robotic valet manufacturers
continue to evolve and gain experience, their cost basis will likely reduce.

Operating costs should be reduced in terms of human labor, but they will be increased by
licensing and maintenance fees for the robotic equipment, which may approach 30% of the
capital costs. Amounts will vary depending on the current airport situation and the location and
size of the operation.

Implementing robotic valet in garages may be challenging depending on the internal design
of the garage. While wide, clear, straight aisles are best, these may not be available, particularly
in older garages. Columns, low ceilings, and other design elements may limit maneuverability
of a robot in a garage. For this reason, Stanley Robotics concentrates its installations in outdoor
parking lots where it is easier to achieve a successful operation and return on investment. In
addition, this technology would not be applicable to airport valet operations where customers
drop off and pick up their vehicle at the airport curbside or nearby courtyard.
Legal considerations include the management of liability should a vehicle be damaged or a
passenger injured by the robot. In the case of Ray at Dusseldorf Airport, passengers are not per-
mitted in the valet parking area that is used by the robot. There are staff members in the vicinity
who keep an eye on the designated area, but they must always be prepared for the eventuality
that a parker may wander into it.
7.1.8.6 Lessons Learned

Customers like the concept of being able to keep their keys and not hand them off to a valet
and are generally pleased with the system, feeling it is a premium service. The “wow” factor of
the automation is repeatedly expressed by customers. Customers appreciated the quick drop-off
and pickup processes, with their vehicle ready and on time. Despite the automation, however,
many airports feel a “host” or customer service representative is required to reassure customers,
ensure customers follow the correct procedures, and resolve any issues should they arise.
For the airport, there are various implementation considerations, including allocation of
time and resources to integrate the robotic valet vendor with other parking systems, as well as

to potentially integrate with a flight information display system (FIDS) or other system tracing
airline arrivals. At times, the vehicle storage containers were too small for the vehicles being
driven. That issue should be considered at an early stage in the planning process and could be a
key concern in the United States given the market preference for larger vehicles, such as pickup
trucks and sport utility vehicles. Clear explanations of the service and the process to use the
service are required at the customer’s first point of contact with the product (such as at the
point of online booking, if online booking is available) but need repeating at the point of
vehicle drop off. Good signage on site, directing parkers to the correct location, is recom-
mended. Drive aisles must be wide enough to comfortably accommodate the robot. Multiple
tests determined that the robotic valet was best deployed in an outdoor setting as opposed to
a garage setting, which frequently did not allow for sufficient density in the stacked parking to
provide an acceptable return on investment in a reasonable time frame.
7.1.9 Automated Shuttles

Automated, driverless, self-driving, or robotic vehicles are vehicles capable of moving safely
from point to point with no human input. They are controlled by sophisticated software and
use a variety of sensors to perceive their surroundings, such as RADAR, LiDAR, sonar, GPS,
odometry, and inertial measurement units. Providers include Navya (which has partnered with
Aeroport de Paris and London Heathrow International Airport), Oxbotica (which has trialed
cargo area vehicles at London Gatwick International Airport with IAG Cargo), Westfield POD
(London Heathrow International Airport’s driverless pods in the business car park), EasyMile
(which has tested a parking shuttle at Austin-Bergstrom International Airport), and Aurrigo
(driverless luggage trolleys at London Heathrow International Airport). Such vehicles are being
used to carry passengers within a parking facility (such as between the extreme ends of a garage
and the vertical circulation cores) and between a parking facility and an airport terminal.
Currently, automated shuttles at airports are predominately electric.

The objectives for implementing automated shuttles are to improve airport performance
by providing a more “on demand” service schedule, reducing staffing costs, possibly reducing
fleet size, and, ideally, improving safety. Many providers call their products “first mile” and
“last mile” solutions intended to efficiently move passengers between a parking facility and the
airport terminal.

Automated shuttles offer the following benefits to airport parking and transportation
operations:
• Reduced staff costs;
• Improved flexibility and efficiency in providing shuttles on demand to passengers (in large
part because it may be difficult to rapidly increase or decrease staff throughout the day); and
• Improved safety as an unmanned vehicle programmed to follow all safety rules should be as
safe or safer than a manned vehicle, and is not subject to driver fatigue or distraction.

A single driverless shuttle, including implementation costs, costs between $300,000 and
$600,000, depending on the complexity of the operating environment. In addition to supplier
costs, costs will include airport participation in defining the operational design domain,
developing and implementing the operational plan, training, stakeholder engagement, and
addressing the legal and insurance risks involved.


Estimates of ongoing energy cost range from $4 to $5 per 6-hour shift for a low-speed electric
shuttle (such as those provided by Navya). As with other electric shuttles, AVs require storage,
charging, and maintenance. Changes to routes must be mapped in advance, an exercise
that typically requires up to 3 days of staff time. There also may be ongoing licensing fees of
about $1,000 per month, depending on the provider and, potentially, the cost of an on-board
attendant.

In the United States, the federal government oversees regulation regarding design, manu-
facture, and safety of vehicles, which must comply with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards. According to automated shuttle vendors, the standards do not yet address all the
issues relating to automated vehicles. Until legislation is in place for AVs, federal exemptions
must be sought for any AV trials. Further, the state must have legislation permitting AVs on
its roads. While several states permit AVs to be tested, legislation to operate with or without
a driver outside a test environment may not be in place. Local regulations, as well as any
regulations applying to the test site itself, will also have to be consulted. Stakeholders who
will regularly come in contact with the vehicles also need to be informed about the vehicles
and their operation and these stakeholders may bring insights themselves to assist with the
route and operation of the vehicles.
Other important considerations include:
• Privacy or what data is gathered in or from the vehicles and how it is protected.
• Risk or any ridership restrictions and insurance.
• An incident response plan needs to be in place.
• The operating environment must be defined. The vehicle route itself must be mapped in
advance. The route must take into account the traveling speed of the AV so that it is not
mixing with vehicles that may be traveling at significantly higher speeds, or that the speed is
appropriate should pedestrians be encountered.
• The length of any AV route is influenced by the battery life of the vehicle. As with many
electric vehicles, extreme cold reduces battery capacity, and the heating and cooling of the
interior of the AV will draw down battery life more quickly in more extreme weather conditions.
• Any changes to the route—perhaps due to construction, accident, or diversion—may result
in suspension of the AV route, unless the alternate route is already mapped.

As noted above, airports currently using automated shuttles include London Heathrow and
London Gatwick international airports. In addition, Austin-Bergstrom International Airport
has tested an automated shuttle on the roof of a parking garage and Dallas/Fort Worth Inter
national Airport has tested an automated shuttle within a remote surface parking facility.
Lessons learned from existing users include:
• The system should include a close and convenient storage and charging location. A typical
shuttle may be able to operate up to 9 hours, which may not be long enough for a full day’s
operation. If the shuttle can be taken out of service and charged during downtime, that can
extend the time/charge the shuttle has to run a route.
• The number of required vehicles should reflect that the shuttles are typically slower moving
than a traditional shuttle and have a specific battery limit.
• Airports may wish to start operations with a smaller fleet to allow customers and airport staff
time to get used to the operations.

• Currently, AVs designed as passenger shuttles may still require a “safety conductor” on board
who has undergone rigorous training on how to operate the shuttle. In this case, the potential
operating cost savings may be reduced, though the wage rate for an attendant or safety
conductor is likely less than that of a bus driver holding a commercial driver’s license.
7.1.10 Other Strategies and Technologies

ACRP Report 24 describes over 65 strategies and technologies that were available as of the
2009 publication date. For each strategy and technology, the report provides the goals and
objectives; use by customers; intended benefits; implementation actions, considerations, costs
and schedule; ongoing costs; and examples of its application. This section augments informa-
tion provided in this report for some of these strategies and technologies to reflect ongoing
improvements in the technologies and evolutions in how airports are using them. For each
strategy and technology described below, the title references the appropriate category and
number used in ACRP Report 24.
7.1.10.1 Marketing and Branding (ACRP Report 24 Category F.7 and F.8)
ACRP Report 24 summarizes the concepts behind the marketing and branding of airport
parking facilities. Since the publication of the report, the marketing and branding of airport
parking facilities rely increasingly on the roles played by mobile apps, websites, and social
media. Apps and websites that bring together the information most needed by travelers can
be effective tools to drive businesses toward on-airport parking. Information on parking avail-
ability, options for reservations, and loyalty program options for parking can be included with
other important information like flight status, security wait times, and dining options. Airports
are also increasingly using social media platforms to advise customers of new services and
disruptions, as well as respond to customer comments.
Airport users may appreciate having this information integrated into one portal, which could
influence them toward parking at the airport, having been alerted to availability, perks, and fees.
The portal may also alert a user to options that they were unaware of, such as loyalty programs,
reservations, and luggage drop services.
7.1.10.2 Loyalty Programs (ACRP Report 24 Category C.5)

ACRP Report 24 highlights a loyalty program’s ability to attract users to use an airport’s
parking with the promise of eventual free parking or other perks. The intention is that whatever
amount of free parking revenue is lost from these awards, it is more than compensated by
drawing users away from competing resources, such as off-airport parking, with these incentives.
At many airports, business users comprise a large percentage of the user base. With a loyalty
program in place, a situation analogous to how an airline’s frequent flyer program can be pre-
sented, a user may pay for parking and earn reward credits (or points) while traveling for business
and be reimbursed by their employer or client, and then use these parking loyalty rewards for
personal travel.
Since the completion of ACRP Report 24, parking loyalty programs have evolved to incor-
porate bar codes or QR codes provided through a smartphone app. This option is attractive
to airports because no credential needs to be mailed to the user. In addition, airport staff and
parking operators increasingly report that parking customers prefer to receive free or dis-
counted parking as a reward as opposed to discounts on in-terminal food and goods. For this
reason, a free-standing parking loyalty program is preferred over one linked to in-terminal
purchases of goods and services.

7.1.10.3 Valet Parking as a Capacity Enhancement Tool

(ACRP Report 24 Categories B.1 through B.4)
ACRP Report 24’s discussion of valet parking focuses on its ability to provide a premium
product. This report also noted the potential benefit of using valet parking as a way to use airport
property otherwise ill-suited for self-parking or other uses. Over the last decade, however,
some airports have begun to look to valet parking to significantly increase close-in parking
capacity while avoiding the costs of constructing a parking garage. These airports are choosing
to incur higher operational expenses (labor and insurance costs associated with moving the
valet-parked vehicles) to delay or avoid higher capital costs. These operations also do not
portray the product as a premium product. Rather, they portray it as a close-in parking option
similar to the “daily” and “hourly” products offered by other airports. Manchester Airport in
the United Kingdom uses their “Meet & Greet” product in this manner.
7.1.10.4 License Plate Recognition (ACRP Report 24 Category E.6)

As LPR technology improves, PARCS vendors are increasingly integrating with LPR systems
that can read and record the license plates of vehicles entering and exiting the parking lot.
These systems offer the potential to operate without tickets, although this use has not been
proven in the United States on a widespread basis. In this model, the patron pulls into the
entry lane, and as soon as the LPR camera is able to successfully read the license plate, the gate
opens. Payment is taken via credit card at the point of exit after the license plate is reread.
At the time ACRP Report 24 was published, accuracy of LPR systems in the United States was
typically 90% or lower. As a result, many U.S. airport operators were unwilling to consider LPR
systems as replacements for conventional parking facility access control. Since ACRP Report 24,
LPR accuracy in the United States has increased due to improved camera technology, use of
multiple cameras, use of infrared, and improved optical character recognition capabilities. As
of 2018, LPR systems deployed for over-the-road roadway toll collection reported capture and
accuracy rates of 97.5% (Swonsen 2018).
7.1.11 Parking Technology Scalability

The technologies described above vary in their ability to scale to airports of varying activity
levels. Table 7-2 summarizes each technology’s appropriateness for consideration based on the
size of the airport. The appropriateness generally reflects the likelihood that new revenues
and/or reductions in operating costs resulting from the technology will exceed expected capital
and/or ongoing operations costs. Where Table 7-2 indicates “may be appropriate,” the success
of the technology will likely depend on local conditions unrelated to the airport’s total level of
activity, such as the portion of passengers who are local residents and/or traveling for business
purposes (and thus, may be more time-sensitive and less cost-sensitive), and characteristics of
the airport’s parking facilities.
7.1.12 Value of Customer Data

U.S. airports have access to myriad sources that provide customer data. Airports are
increasingly looking at ways to monetize that customer data, especially in ways that can support
other areas of the airport’s operation. For example, a parking loyalty program can provide
the customer’s home address, frequency of travel, and travel duration patterns. That data
can then be used to promote other concessions or services within the airport that are targeted
at that individual’s specific travel patterns. The data, when combined with demographic data
for zip codes or neighborhoods and known preferences of certain demographics, can inform
airport decisions regarding concessions being offered and advertising modes such as online,

Table 7-2. Airport technology implementation and scalability.

Technology Non-Hub Small-Hub Medium-Hub Large-Hub
Airport Airport Airport Airport
New Payment
Appropriate Appropriate Appropriate Appropriate
Methods
Self-Service Virtual
Accounts
Revenue
Management
Not appropriate Not appropriate May be appropriate May be appropriate
Systems / Dynamic
Pricing
Central Control
Not appropriate May be appropriate Appropriate Appropriate
Room
Robotic Valet Not appropriate Not appropriate May be appropriate May be appropriate
Virtual Nested
May be appropriate May be appropriate May be appropriate Appropriate
Areas
Online Pre-Booking Maybe appropriate Appropriate Appropriate Appropriate
Bluetooth Beacons May be appropriate May be appropriate Appropriate Appropriate
Automated Shuttles May be appropriate May be appropriate May be appropriate May be appropriate
Marketing and
Branding
Loyalty Programs May be appropriate Appropriate Appropriate Appropriate
Valet Parking for
Capacity Not appropriate May be appropriate May be appropriate May be appropriate
Enhancement
License Plate
May be appropriate May be appropriate Appropriate Appropriate
Recognition
Source: Walker Consultants and InterVISTAS, 2020.
print, and television. Furthermore, with the customer’s email address, an airport can reach
out to them to participate in targeted surveys, focus groups, or other activities the airport may
use to improve its parking products and services.
Given the potential value of the customer data, airport management should consider ways to
ensure that the airport owns and controls the data when such data is collected by third parties,
such as a parking operator, PARCS vendor, or loyalty program operator.
7.2 Innovative Rate Setting for Commercial

Ground Transportation
FAA requires that U.S. commercial service airports be financially self-sustaining (i.e., operate
in a breakeven manner). Thus, U.S. airports rely solely upon the revenues they receive from
fees and charges that they establish and do not receive financial support from state or local
governments. These requirements are also contained in FAA Grant Assurances. As described
in Chapter 2, many airports are experiencing reductions in parking revenues per passenger.
Thus, an airport may wish to evaluate the fees it charges its commercial ground transportation
operators as a strategy to offset current or forecast reductions in parking revenue.
7.2.1 Types of Airport Commercial Vehicle Fees

The businesses required to pay airport fees include those commercial ground transportation
operators that drop off or pick up customers on an airport (i.e., do business on an airport).

Typically, commercial ground transportation operators wishing to do business on an airport

are required to enter into a formal business agreement with the airport operator. By entering
into this agreement or operating permit, the ground transportation operator indicates that it
agrees to comply with airport rules and regulations. These rules may specify vehicle and driver
safety standards, passenger drop-off and pickup locations, permitted and prohibited roadway
operations, required insurance coverage, and the type and amounts of fees that the operator
must pay. These fees are established by airport management to preserve existing revenues and
generate additional revenues, consistent with the other relevant goals of the management.
As described in ACRP Report 146, most airports require that commercial ground transporta-
tion businesses pay one or more of following fees.
Airport permit fees. Airport operators require commercial ground transportation busi-
nesses to pay a fee that, at a minimum, allows the airport operator to recover the costs
it incurs in issuing and administering the airport permits and vehicle-mounted decals
(or other equipment) that the ground transportation businesses are required to display
to signify that a specific vehicle is authorized to operate on the airport. These fees, com-
monly referred to as permit fees, are normally charged on a per-vehicle or per-commercial
ground transportation operator basis. At some airports, all commercial ground transpor-
tation operators pay the same fee, while at other airports, ground transportation businesses
pay permit fees that vary according to the type of ground transportation service provided,
the size or type of vehicle used, the type of fuel used by the vehicle, or the size or location
of the individual ground transportation business.
Cost-recovery fees. Many airport operators require that commercial ground transportation
businesses pay fees that allow the airport to recover all or a portion of the costs the airport
incurs in providing, maintaining, operating, and enforcing the facilities (e.g., the roadways,
boarding areas, vehicle holding areas) used directly by commercial ground transportation
businesses. Such costs can typically include:
– Allocable debt service from existing and future bonds to fund roadway projects;
– Allocable debt service coverage and other financial reserve requirements, if justifiable;
– Amortization of historical capital expenditure paid from internal funds, using estimated
economic life and a discount factor, typically as incremental borrowing costs;
– Allocable direct operating and maintenance expenses, which may include expenses
related to landside operators, traffic controllers, dispatchers, police officers, mainte-
nance personnel, and other personal and non-personnel expenses; and
– Allocable indirect operating expenses, which is the airport overhead allocable based on
a fair and transparent process.
Cost-recovery fees are often calculated based on the number of vehicle trips each com-
mercial ground operator makes on airport roadways. As such, they are sometimes referred
to as “per-trip” fees. The amount of these per-trip fees may vary by the type of ground
transportation service, vehicle size or capacity, type of fuel used, or other measures.
Demand management fees. Some airport operators impose fees or fines that are intended
to encourage the efficient operation of and reduce congestion on airport roadways and
curbsides. There are two basic types of demand management fees or fines:
– Dwell time fees are charged to commercial ground transportation vehicles that remain
at a curbside or passenger boarding area in excess of an established time limit. These
time limits, which are measured using RFID or other technologies, typically vary based
upon the type of service (e.g., charter bus versus courtesy vehicle) or size or capacity
of a vehicle.
– Interval fees are charged to commercial ground transportation businesses whose vehicles
make excessive airport trips, either measured by the number of trips made each day or
month or by the time interval between successive vehicles. Most frequently, these

interval fees or headway controls are imposed solely upon the operators of courtesy
vehicles.
Privilege fees. Many airport operators require that commercial ground transportation
businesses pay fees that reflect the overall business benefits or privileges received as a
result of the presence of the entire airport (not just the roadways and other facilities used
directly) and from the ground transportation businesses’ access to the traveling public.
These privilege fees are typically based upon the volume of airport-related business or
revenues a commercial ground transportation operator receives. On- and off-airport
rental car companies and off-airport parking businesses are frequently charged privilege
fees. These fees can be calculated in a variety of ways but most frequently are between 4% and
12% of the commercial ground transportation businesses’ airport-related gross revenues.
7.2.2 Recent Developments

TNCs have become much more prevalent since the publication of ACRP Report 146 and now
represent a significant proportion of the commercial ground transportation vehicles and total
traffic at many airports. Airport operators recognize that the increased number of TNCs has
adversely impacted (1) taxicab and door-to-door shuttle businesses and the fees the operators
of these services pay to an airport, (2) the revenues received from public parking and the
fees paid by rental car businesses, when measured on a per-passenger basis, and (3) contributed
to increasing congestion on curbside and other airport roadways.
Federal courts allow airport management to set commercial vehicle fees considering:
• The amounts and types of fees charged by other airports;
• The fees paid by other companies doing business at the airport including those providing
similar services businesses; and
• The estimated revenues the airport operator would receive from the imposition of the
potential fees.
As of January 2020, most U.S. airports require that each TNC company pay airport fees,
generally calculated according to the number of trips their affiliated vehicles make when
picking up customers and, at some airports, when dropping off customers. At some airports,
TNC fees were initially established based on the fees charged taxicab and limousine services.
As airports now have a better understanding of the impacts TNCs have upon the revenue
airports receive from parking and rental car businesses, many airports set fees that recognize the
business benefits TNC companies receive from doing business on the airport or fees that are
not directly linked to the costs to be recovered (i.e., market-based fees). Thus, many airports
require TNCs to pay market-based fees that are significantly greater than those charged taxicab
or limousine services.
In addition, airport management may establish fees that vary based upon where a customer
boards a TNC vehicle, with higher fees charged for preferential or more convenient locations.
This approach can be used to encourage customer pickup in a parking facility, for example,
if an airport seeks to reduce curbside traffic congestion.
7.3 Airport Access Fees

An airport access fee may be defined as a fee an airport operator charges motorists in private
vehicles for either entering the airport or using a designated passenger drop-off or pickup
area. While many airports in Europe and South America charge motorists an airport access
fee for entrance to the airport in a private vehicle, only one airport in North America does so,
Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport.

The types of access fees charged by airport operators include:

Fees charged for access to the entire airport. With this type of access fee all vehicles must
pass through a control gate or toll plaza at the airport entry or both at the entry and exit. At
some airports, entering motorists are charged a flat fee. At other airports, exiting motorists are
charged a duration-based fee (i.e., a fee calculated according the length of time the vehicle
was on the airport). At DFW, motorists are charged fees that vary depending on how long
they were in the terminal area—whether they parked for the duration of their trip, dropped
off or picked up a passenger, or simply drove from one end of the airport to the other.
Fees charged for access to the terminal curbside. With this type of access fee, only those
motorists dropping or picking up passengers at the curbside are charged. The terminal
curbside entrance and exits are gate-controlled, with exiting motorists paying a fee (at a
kiosk) prior to exiting the curbside area. Those motorists who bypass and do not stop at
the terminal curbside area are not charged access fees. Such fees could result in increased
traffic on airport access and circulation roadways as drivers may wish to wait until the
last possible moment to enter the curbside area to pick up a passenger. This behavior
could be mitigated by providing a free waiting area (such as a cell phone lot) located
away from the curbside.
Fees charged for access to an alternative passenger drop-off/pickup area. With this type of
fee, only vehicles operated by authorized commercial ground transportation businesses
may enter the curbside area immediately adjacent to the terminal building. Motorists in
private vehicles are directed to one of several alternative passenger drop-off and pickup
areas. Typically, motorists must pay a fee to use conveniently located drop-off and pickup
areas (i.e., those within a short walk of the terminal building). Less conveniently located
drop-off and pickup areas are available at no cost but may involve the use of a shuttle
bus. Similar to terminal curbside fees, such fees could result in increased traffic on airport
access and circulation roadways.
7.3.1 Typical Goals and Objectives

Airport operators choose to impose access fees for many reasons including:
• Promoting sustainability by encouraging the use of public transit and long-stay parking (thus
reducing vehicle-miles of travel and the associated vehicle emissions and fuel consumption),
• Responding to federal security requirements by reducing traffic volumes in the terminal area
and preventing unattended vehicles at the curbside areas,
• Reducing roadway congestion and deferring potential roadway expansions, and
• Commercializing or enhancing airport revenues.
7.3.2 Potential Benefits

The major benefit of such fees is reduced traffic congestion at curbsides and thus, improved
access for public service and permitted commercial vehicles, which results in additional airport
revenues.
7.3.3 Typical Implementation Costs

The capital costs involved depend on the number of barrier-controlled lanes to be installed
and the technology used to collect the revenues. For example, for a curbside that is gate-
controlled by two entry and two exit lanes, the cost is likely to be less than $150,000 for the
following elements:
• Two entry lanes, two exit lanes with pay machines, plus associated power, communications,
LPR systems, CCTV, and voice over internet protocol (VOIP) intercoms;
• Road marking;

• Signage; and
• Curb realignment.
However, this cost excludes potentially significant costs, including those for:
• Roadway widening, which could be expensive if the roadway is an elevated structure;
• Utilities;
• Pay-on-foot kiosks, if not already available (pay-on-foot kiosks located in the terminal would
minimize transaction times at the exit lanes);
• Costs to educate airport users and customers about the curbside access control (potentially
resulting in communications costs) and to police non-compliance until usage patterns
normalize; and
• Upgrades to airport websites, maps, and internal signage.
Other technologies, such as the use of LPR as part of an over-the-road tolling approach,
would require no gates, pay-stations, or roadway widening, but would require several LPR
readers and overhead gantries to mount the LPR equipment. With this approach, the LPR
system would read the license plate as a vehicle enters the tolled area (such as a curbside or
even the entire airport), read the license plate as the vehicle exits the tolled area, calculate the
fee, and send an invoice to the address associated with the license plate. Such systems typically
experience uncollected revenues due to LPR misreads, customer refusal to pay invoices issued
by the LPR system, and inconsistencies in vehicle registration information.
7.3.4 Typical Impacts to Ongoing Operating Costs

Including Per User Costs
The new equipment will require management and maintenance, typically 10% to 20% per
year of the capital cost, but as the airport is likely to have a PARCS system already in place
along with an existing maintenance program, incremental costs should be nominal.
The overhead costs associated with management and operation of the airport parking service
should absorb the costs of the new system after the initial learning period. Additional staffing
should be in place for at least 2 weeks to assist the public in learning to use the new system.
Over time (6 months or less), staff time to police the new system should be less than what is
required without the system once the public becomes accustomed to it.
7.3.5 Implementation Considerations

The biggest challenge is the management of change for customers accustomed to dropping
off and picking up at no direct cost to themselves. In one case overseas, a local TV station took
a keen interest in the new system, which resulted in negative coverage for 3 days, after which
opposition quickly dissipated. For changes with the potential to significantly disrupt traffic or
impact the airport user, a robust communications plan to the local media and public is highly
important to preempt or mitigate potential negative publicity. If an airport is implementing
curbside charges, it may be appropriate to implement a grace period in nearby parking facili-
ties to accommodate any diverted traffic, particularly in the first months of implementation of
curbside charging.
Before any change of this magnitude is implemented, individual airport policies should
be reviewed, and the airport board or city council should be given ample time to review and
comment on the proposed action. New standard operating procedures must be developed for
curbside officers and customer service staff. Key talking points should be provided to relevant
internal and external stakeholders. The airport should socialize the concept with its own
key stakeholders (e.g., airlines, concessionaires) and solicit input from specific user groups,
including Americans with Disabilities Act representatives, well in advance.

7.3.6 Lessons Learned

An airport implementing an airport or curbside access fee for the first time should expect
an initial negative customer response, along with potential negative media coverage. After the
initial period, however, customers will likely adjust to the new situation. For example, following
implementation of a curbside access fee, congestion on the curbs should reduce as some drivers
choose to use parking facilities instead (especially if short-duration parking stays are less
expensive than the curbside access fee), resulting in improved traffic flow and improved experi-
ence. Furthermore, if such fees are charged to all vehicles accessing an airport, the fee could be
relatively low (e.g., $2.00) and could still generate significant revenues. While such access fees
could require large toll plazas to process the high transaction volume, this could be substantially
mitigated by charging fees via a toll tag or other stored value devices (e.g., linked to LPR or an
account) due to the much shorter transaction times.
7.3.7 Example Installations

Several airports in the United Kingdom require that passenger drop-off and pickup occur
away from the terminal area, and charge motorists for the use of the more convenient drop-
off or pickup areas. Table 7-3 summarizes fees charged for the use of these areas at airports.
Table 7-3. Curbside access charges, United Kingdom airports,

October 2019.
Airport Cost per time spent at curbside

Airport code 5 minutes 10 minutes 15 minutes 30 minutes
Aberdeen ABZ £2.00 £2.00 £2.00 £10.00
Belfast BFS £1.00 £1.00 £3.00 £5.00
Birmingham BHX £2.00 £2.00 £5.00 £20.00
Bournemouth BOH £3.00 £3.00 £3.00 £3.00
Bristol BRS £1.00 £1.00 £3.00 £5.00
Cardiff CWL Free Free £5.00 £10.00
Doncaster Sheffield DSA £2.00 £2.00 £2.00 £5.00
East Midlands EMA £2.00 £2.00 £7.00 £22.00
Edinburgh EDI £2.00 £4.00 £10.00 £15.00
Exeter EXT £1.00 £1.00 £1.00 £1.00
Glasgow GLA £2.00 £2.00 £4.00 £10.00
Glasgow Prestwick PIK Free £2.00 £2.00 £4.00
Guernsey GCI Free Free Free Free
Inverness INV Free Free £3.60 £3.60
Isle of Man IOM £1.00 £1.00 £1.00 £1.00
Jersey JER No waiting allowed; active loading/unloading only
Leeds Bradford LBA £3.00 £3.00 £3.00 £3.00
Liverpool LPL £3.00 £3.00 £3.00 £10.00
London (Gatwick) LGW No waiting allowed; active loading/unloading only
London (Heathrow) LHR No waiting allowed; active loading/unloading only
London City LCY Free Free Free Free
Luton LTN £3.00 £3.00 £8.00 £23.00
Manchester MAN £3.00 £4.00 Not allowed Not allowed
Newcastle NCL £1.00 £3.00 £3.00 £3.00
Newquay NQY Free Free Free Free
Norwich NWI Free Free Free £2.30
Southampton SOU £2.00 £2.00 £2.00 £3.50
Southend SEN Free £4.50 £4.50 £4.50
Stansted STN £3.50 £3.50 £8.50 £25.00
Source: Staveley Head and UK CAA.

As shown, the fee amount varies between £1.00 and £3.50 for up to a 5-minute stay, and fees
may increase significantly thereafter (e.g., up to £25.00 for a 30-minute stay). In contrast, as of
January 2020, motorists at Dallas/Fort Worth International who remained on the airport for
8 minutes or less (i.e., those driving from one end of the airport to other) were charged $4.00
while those staying between 8 and 20 minutes (i.e., those dropping off or picking up passengers
at the curbsides) were charged $2.00.
Implementation of such fees can generate significant revenues. For example, about 1 to
2 million vehicles per year might be expected to enter the curbside area at an airport serving
about 5 million originating passengers. Imposition of a $3.00 fee for the use of an alternative
curbside area at this airport could yield over $4 million in new revenues annually depending on
the proportion of customers preferring the less convenient free curbside.


APPENDIX A
Annotated Bibliography
Leiner, Craig, and Thomas Adler. 2020. ACRP Research Report 215: Transportation Network Companies
(TNCs): Impacts to Airport Revenues and Operations—Reference Guide.
http://www.trb.org/Publications/Blurbs/180473.aspx
Keywords: TNCs, surveys, revenue impacts, best practices
The authors examined transportation network companies (TNCs) from multiple perspectives:
regulatory, financial, operational, and managerial. The Reference Guide presents an overview
of TNCs and best practices that airport operators can use to manage TNC operations and
develop sustainable revenue models. The Reference Guide also includes a model to test
changes in mode choice on ground transportation revenues.
Ward, Stephanie, Lynn Wilson, Regal Schnug, Tom Thatcher, Diana Fainberg, and Kathleen Yodice.
2017. ACRP Research Report 176: Generating Revenue from Commercial Development On or Adjacent
to Airports.
Keywords: airport revenue models, land use and development, toolkit
The authors review the development of a site evaluation toolkit that analyzes the attributes of
land under consideration for commercial development which is administered as an assessment
questionnaire. Following the site evaluation is an implementation toolkit that considers project
costs and revenues for the proposed development and identifies a path to create a refined
development program with alternatives for consideration. The authors ask airports to consider
local circumstances and fit to context each tool administered.
Mandle, Peter, and Stephanie Box. 2017. ACRP Synthesis 84: Transportation Network Companies:
Challenges and Opportunities for Airport Operators. http://www.trb.org/Main/Blurbs/176493.aspx
Keywords: TNCs, survey, ride hailing revenue impact, ride hailing fees
The authors of this report find that the introduction of TNCs has resulted in new opportunities
and challenges for airport operations.
Benefits include increased transit options for airport customers; the offering of services that
customers consider to be more reliable, convenient, and cheaper than existing ground
transportation services. Challenges include adverse effects to the taxicab and shared-ride van
businesses; airport public parking and rental car revenues; and terminal building curbside
operations.
A-1

A-2 Rethinking Airport Parking Facilities to Protect and Enhance Non-Aeronautical Revenue
In response to rapid TNC growth at airports, many airports have instituted TNC fees to offset
declining revenues from impacted ground transportation business as well as to manage
vehicular access. The authors find that 47 of the 48 surveyed airports in the report have some
kind of TNC fee in place. Annual permit fees, per-trip fees, and activation fees represent
revenue models airports have adopted with approximately 87 percent of airports surveyed
requiring a per-trip fee either alone or in combination with another fee.
Authors find that “the annual revenue airports receive from TNCs depends on the type and
amount of the fees the TNCs are required to pay, the number of airport passengers, and
maturity of the market (i.e., length of time TNCs have been serving the airport and adjacent
community).”
The authors attempt to quantify, as of the report year 2017, TNC impacts to existing ground
operations reporting the following:
A 10%-30% decrease in taxicab trips and an 18%-30% decrease in shared-ride customers;
A 10%-20% decline in use of private vehicles, with parking customers down by 5%-10%;
A reduction in rental car transactions, estimated to be 13% or less; and
A 46% reported increase in roadway congestion.
Any decline in public parking or rental car revenues could adversely affect an airport’s finances
because such revenues are the largest sources of non-airline revenues, the authors find. The
authors cite a survey conducted in 2016 which finds that median gross parking revenues was
$63 million for large-hub airports, $23 million for medium-hub airports, and about $9 million
for small-hub airports.
Kramer, Lois S., Steven Landau, Jeffery Letwin, and Michael Moroney. 2015. ACRP Report 121: Innovative
Revenue Strategies—An Airport Guide. http://www.trb.org/Publications/Blurbs/172699.aspx
Keywords: airport revenues, revenue enhancements, ground operations
The author webinar proposes five strategies for enhancing airport revenues, improving
operational efficiency, and recovering costs as represented in the following:
[focus on] Customer experience, needs and wants
Airport provided services/shared services, facilities and equipment
Revenue participation in real estate and mineral development
Value capture (i.e., access fees, fixed assessments, special tax districts, foreign trade
zones etc.)
Improvement to existing businesses
Kramer, Lois S. 2010. ACRP Synthesis 19: Airport Revenue Diversification.

Keywords: airport revenues, diversification strategies
The author reviews a number of diversification projects airports are undertaking. The following
are cited as examples:
Energy development
Non-aviation facilities that are low impact like golf courses, athletic facilities, etc.
Valet parking
Pet kennels
Gas stations

Annotated Bibliography A-3
Retail outlets
Hotels
Health Clinics
Office parks
Research facilities
Logistics centers and intermodal cargo facilities
Joint development projects with other public or private entities
Jacobs Consultancy. 2009. ACRP Report 24: Guidebook for Evaluating Airport Parking Strategies and
Supporting Technologies. http://www.trb.org/Publications/Blurbs/162823.aspx
Keywords: airport revenues, parking products, parking technologies
In this report the author describes over 80 parking products, services, and technologies usable
by airports to improve customer service, enhance revenues, and/or reduce operating costs.
For each item, the author describes the purpose, benefits, use by customers, implementation
actions and other considerations, examples of application, and capital and operating costs.
The products and services described in this document continue to remain relevant to airport
operators as methods to achieve an airport’s goals for customer service, revenues, and
expenses.
Nichol, Cindy. 2007. ACRP Synthesis 1: Innovative Finance and Alternative Sources of Revenue for
Airports. http://www.trb.org/Publications/Blurbs/158669.aspx
Keywords: airport revenues, financing models, traditional sources
In this report the author reviews various financing mechanisms available to airports, which
include access to capital markets, types of bonds available, commercial paper, capital leases,
and FAA Letters of Intent. The author reviews non-airline revenue sources to include:
Airport parking revenues
Rental car revenues
Terminal concessions
Advertising programs
Commercial development and land use
Energy and utility services
Regarding energy, electricity from solar or wind sources could be generated on airport
property to offset airport electricity or costs, or be sold to the local electric utility and/or
tenants.
Airport Council International – North America Economic Affairs and Research. 2017. Non-
Aeronautical Revenue. https://www.aci-na.org/sites/default/files/non-aeronautical_revenue_-
_july_2017.pdf
Keywords: airport revenues, FAA, parking and ground transportation revenue, data
According to 2016 data, the latest full fiscal year of data available in the FAA CATS database,
non-aeronautical revenue totaled nearly $9.1 billion or 46 percent of total operating revenues
of which parking and ground transportation accounted for $3.78 billion or nearly 41 percent of
non-airline revenues. Parking and ground transportation accounted for nearly 19 percent of total
operating revenues in 2016. Fiscal 2016 saw a 1.2 percent dip in year-over-year parking and

ground transportation revenue. Due to higher share of origin and destination passengers,
medium and small hubs generated higher parking revenue per passenger.
Alacron, Diana, Alejandra Argudin, Mark Santos, and Brett Wood. 2018. Smart and Connected Parking
and Mobility Systems: Planning and Designing for Tomorrow. Presentation at the International Parking
Institute 2018 Conference and Expo, Orlando, Florida.
Keywords: adaptive garage reuse, infrastructure, TNC drop-off/pick-up zones
The presenters provide an overview of the parking landscape as it relates to emerging
technologies and trends and Florida-based case studies. In Fort Lauderdale, the Las Olas
Improvement project has implemented TNC drop-off and pickup zones. The presenters
recommend that industry professionals develop policy to integrate rideshare and promote
more coordinated usage and partner parking and mobility to define a range of options for
patrons.
The presenters promote the idea of adaptive reuse of existing facilities to include the
reconfiguration of existing parking garages to meet the needs of a “changing automobile.”
Factors to consider include the following:
Floor loads
Floor slopes
Floor-to-floor heights
Occupancy loads
Ramping
Stair/Elevator design and placement
Adaptive reuse garages may also be used for loading and curbside management and require
more access points according to the presenters. Additionally, the presenters review a
“deconstructable garage” and the requirement of additional expansion joints, the location of
stair/elevator towers, and the extent of foundations.
Aslam, Muhammad. 2010 (estimated date). Revenue Generation for Airports; New Ideas for
generating revenues at Pakistani Airports. Final Term Assignment prepared for Superior University
Lahore. https://www.scribd.com/document/105463911/Revenue- Generation-for-Airports-new-ideas-
for-generating-revenues-at-Pakistani-airports
Keywords: non-aeronautical revenues, creative proposals

The author reviews ways that airports generate revenues and proposes new ways for airports to
generate revenues for his country of Pakistan. The following represent his proposed ideas for non-
aeronautical revenues:
Retail services
Conference rooms
Internet lounges
Video game arcades
Hotels
Food and beverage establishments
Wind and solar energy projects and airport owned lands
Boston Logan International Airport has a solar wind project that the author recommends for
further feasibility studies.

Bergal, Jenni. (2017). Uber, Lyft Cut into Parking Revenue That Keeps Airports Running.
http://www.governing.com/topics/transportation-infrastructure/sl-uber-lyft-airports.html
Keywords: TNC, airport revenue decline, parking fees
The author reports that airport managers are just starting to understand TNC impacts. Fees
from parking and ground transportation are important sources of revenue to airports.
According to the American Association of Airport Executives, parking fees typically represent
between one-fifth (20%) to one-quarter (25%) of non-airline revenues.
As the author reviews, making up for lost parking revenues by raising airline fees, is a non-
starter for many airports. Some argue that charging higher TNC user fees is a solution, while
some worry about the inequity of having TNC customers pay more to make up for a revenue
shortfall created by unused parking. Emptying parking garages are a concern for many airport
managers as the industry is becoming keenly aware of the future feasibility and adaptability of
existing airport parking facilities.
Burns, Dennis, and Joshua Kavanagh. 2018. Preparing for an Uncertain Transportation Future: Autonomous
Vehicles, Shared Mobility, Adaptive Garage Design, and Other Emerging Trends. Presentation at the
International Parking Institute 2018 Conference and Expo, Orlando, Florida.
Keywords: emerging technology, adaptive garage reuse, infrastructure, parking industry
The authors review the effects technology is having on the parking industry. They ask
rhetorically how the parking industry is “collaborating” in the changing mobility environment.
They write that adaptive reuse of parking garages, a topic quickly gaining interest, is more
complex than it appears on the surface. For instance, a typical 11’ floor-to-floor garage ceiling
would need to be doubled to 22’ for office/multi-use configuration. Additional design
considerations include maximizing flat floor area, and including long span construction,
removable concrete floors and beams. Traditional garage design incorporates sloping floors
and 11’ floor-to-floor heights with smaller structural design loads.
Burns, Lawrence D., William C. Jordan, and Bonnie A. Scarborough. 2012. Transforming Personal
Mobility. The Earth Institute, Columbia University.
Keywords: mobility, automated vehicles, vehicle ownership
This paper presents three case studies to assess the personal mobility system that results from
combining self-driving/driverless vehicles, shared vehicle systems, specific-purpose vehicle
designs, and advanced propulsion systems. Conclusions include that such a system is capable
of supplying better mobility experiences at radically lower cost under a wide range of
circumstances; and offers substantial sustainability benefits through improved roadway safety,
reduced roadway congestion, increased energy efficiency, reduced emissions, improved land
use and enhanced equality of access.
Center for Aviation. 2015. Uber at Airports; TNCs, Airport Policies and the Issues Surrounding Them:
CAPA Survey. https://centreforaviation.com/analysis/reports/uber-at-airports-tncs-airport- policies-
and-the-issues-surrounding-them-capa-survey-254675

Keywords: survey, TNCs, airport parking and ground transportation, infrastructure

CAPA conducted a survey of airports and asked airports confidentially questions about TNC
policies and operations. Approximately 41 percent of respondents indicated that they do not
have a corporate policy on granting permission for TNCs to operate, and of these, none had an
intention to introduce a policy at the time of the survey. Approximately 60 percent of
respondents indicated that no charge is made to TNCs for passengers carried. Approximately
63 percent indicated that the TNC is required to ensure that the vehicle is easily identifiable.
Only about 20 percent of respondents indicate that the TNC is required to report the number
of passengers delivered and picked up during an interval of time. About 68 percent indicated
that there is no “infrastructure investment taking place, scheduled, or planned that is
specifically related to TNCs.” Of those that indicated there is infrastructure investment taking
place, three of the four respondents indicated they are planning to provide a holding area for
passengers, and one is repurposing a parking lot as a TNC holding area.
Cohen, Ben. 2018. Skiing in the Parking Garage. The Wall Street Journal, February 19, 2018.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/this-u-s-olympic-team-practices-in-a-refrigerated-parking-garage-in-
slovenia-
1519039660?emailToken=12ac1483be00f9a69c3e48c62916d7b5Iy3rplrmDX3XM14WxO393%2BtXVl1q
uK0D4wVHgxyWaq%2BpFcHQtLozh3mD%2Fhj8WDwWHI0QFrfgTYK1JKUyabXnY4xkIfPO7Cq4HtuQnxY0
epFkxgtFOltCTzY5IqsSLjnk5JZ30mrmtXVnITXwgEGCxA%3D%3D
Keywords: creative multipurpose garage reuse, current events

The U.S. Olympic ski team needed a place to train for the Winter Olympics in the middle of
summer. The solution: truck in snow inside an existing parking garage.
Economic Development Research Group, Inc. 2017. 2017 Economic Impact Study Update San Francisco
Keywords: economic impact assessment, TNCs, parking and ground transportation
This report calculates and compares the direct impact of various on-airport services including
transportation and TNCs.
The Economist. 2017. Airport Profits: Ready to Depart.

https://www.economist.com/business/2017/08/12/airport-profits-ready-to-depart
Keywords: airport revenues, trends, aviation industry
The Economist reports that non-aeronautical income is peaking, especially in mature aviation
markets across North America and Europe with non-aeronautical revenues per person falling, a
trend offsetting the rise in aeronautical revenues from higher passenger numbers. This news
comes at a time when airport congestion is anticipated to increase and the costs of airport
construction is rising more than twice the rate of inflation. Airlines are not prepared to pay
higher fees to address airport capacity issues so airport managers must look to other revenue
sources.

Henao, Alejandro, Josh Sperling, Venu Garikapati, Yi Hou, and Stanley Young. 2018. Airport Analyses
Informing New Mobility Shifts: Opportunities to Adapt Energy-Efficient Mobility Services and
Infrastructure. Presentation at the Intelligent Transportation Society of America 2018 Annual Meeting.
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy18osti/71036.pdf
Keywords: TNCs, mode share, survey, airport revenues, parking and ground transportation
National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) conducted a study which used four airports as
case studies to “explore the extent to which emerging urban mobility services are shaping
current revenues.” The four airports studied were all finalists of the U.S. DOT Smart City grant,
and included San Francisco, Portland, Denver, and Kansas City.
The case studies revealed that, while the ride-hailing mode share has been increasing since
TNC market entry, parking revenue per passenger peaked approximately 12 to 24 months
after the introduction of TNCs, and have been declining thereafter. The report indicates that
the decline is “on par with the increase” in TNC use and growth in the number of airline
passengers, and indicates that parking demand at airports may be half of current demand in 14
years. As the report points out, “on the one hand, this can be viewed as a declining revenue
base, yet on the other hand, it may allow airports to continue to grow without investing in
additional parking infrastructure or to consider repurposing of existing land for other uses.”
The report also indicates that parking and car rental revenues have been declining since TNC
market entry, but that Denver and San Francisco are seeing $600,000 to $2 million in new
service fee revenue per month, after implementing TNC fees for pickups and drop-offs.
Herzog & de Meuron. 2010. 279 1111 Lincoln Road.

https://www.herzogdemeuron.com/index/projects/complete-works/276-300/279-1111-lincoln-
road.html
Keywords: multipurpose garage use, creative uses, case study, Miami
The garage comprises a mixed-use facility that includes 300 parking spaces, residential units,
and over a dozen shops and four restaurants including a rooftop restaurant. The garage is a
fully open concrete structure. Ceiling heights vary between standard heights and two to three
times standard heights to accommodate other aspects of the building program. An event space
is located on the upper levels which hosts parties, private events, and film and fashion shoots
which overlooks Miami Beach’s trendy Art Deco District.
Hirsh, Max. 2018. What is the future of airport parking? Passenger Terminal Today.
https://www.passengerterminaltoday.com/features/whats-the-future-of-parking.html
Keywords: airport parking demand, future ground access models, adaptive garage reuse
The author reviews the impacts TNC’s are having on airport parking. Anecdotally, he reveals
that in conversations with ten airport directors of major hubs in the United States, Europe, and
Asia that while passenger numbers are up, demand for parking has leveled off, or is even
declining in some cases. He writes that airport authorities need to rethink how they monetize
ground access. Successful airports, he writes, will have to have a credible and credit-worthy
action plan in place. “The future ground-access model will need to creatively and coherently
combine self-parking, ride hailing, AV’s and traditional mass transit,” he writes. Successful
airports will develop scenarios for multimodal ground transportation centers that can flexibly
accommodate a variety of access modes, and that anticipates different needs of passengers

using these modes. “A truly future-oriented parking operator will propose innovative ways to
redevelop existing facilities into ground transportation centers that can flexibly combine and
monetize a wide range of transport modes under one roof,” says Hirsh. The author believes
that garage adaptive reuse be considered as mobility patterns evolve.
Koester, Steve, David Galloway, Matt Sherwood, and Brett Wood. 2018. Ubered! The True Effects of
TNCs on Airport Parking. Presentation at the International Parking Institute 2018 Conference and Expo,
Orlando, Florida. https://s3.amazonaws.com/eshow001/959B7463-A28B-404D-82FF-
A8EAF46F5B59/2D0789F5-8B61-E711-9E33-180373F156C0/handouts/952018153531_Airport-
TNCPresentation-
v2.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAJJGNJEP5JIXCBLJA&Expires=1530906865&Signature=yCqllZnVl6bEOYQW
3UIhXjNxui0%3D
Keywords: TNCs, airport parking revenues, recommendations
The presenters provide summaries of parking activity data prior to and following the
introduction of TNC services at three large-hub U.S. airports. The presentation includes mode
share data. At each airport, parking transactions per passenger and revenues per passenger
have been declining since the introduction of TNC services. The presentation also includes
recommendations for encouraging passengers to switch from TNCs back to parking.
Koirala Phillips, Sareema. 2015. Airport Operations and Alternative Transportation Services. Presented
at Airport Ground Transportation Association 2015 Annual Spring Meeting.
https://www.agtaweb.org/images/site_docs/TNC_SurveyResultsApril2015.pdf
Keywords: survey, ground transportation operations, recommendations
The Airport Ground Transportation Association (AGTA) conducted a survey in which airports
indicated details of their ground transportation operations. The survey indicated that some
airports have banned TNC operations and “are waiting for state and county legislature to lead
the way before working with TNCs.” In 2015, 25 percent of respondent indicated that they do
not have UberBlack operating at their airports, compared to 43 percent in 2014, and 68
percent in 2014. 53 percent of respondents check for insurance of TNC drivers, 31 percent
require driver background checks, and 36 percent check for vehicle safety.
Based on the survey, CAPA developed recommendations for airport ground transportation
operations, which include the following:
Continue to closely monitor the activity of the alternative transportation service and
off-airport parking service providers;
Continue to gather and share examples of what other airports have done;
Take actions to reevaluate and alter the existing policies and procedures to cover the
operations of the above-mentioned companies if required by new city and/or
regulation;
Closely collaborate with city and state authorities on incorporating these alternative
transportation service providers into existing regulating policies to create equal
standards for all industry players, if they gain authority.

Ledbetter, Steve. Yield Management for Airport Parking. Presented at the American Association of
Airport Executives 2016 Parking and Landside Management Conference, Charlotte, North Carolina.
Keywords: revenue enhancements, emerging technology, dynamic pricing
The presenter cites that airports are interested in operating their parking facilities like an
airline or hotel to protect revenue, capture customer data, provide up-selling opportunities,
produce parker profiles and demographics, and seize the parker before leaving their home or
office. By promoting yield management, an airport can maximize revenue from a fixed,
perishable resource according to the presenter. Inherent in this model is dynamic pricing which
is targeted to the customer “at the right time and for the right price.”
Litman, Todd. 2020. Autonomous Vehicle Implementation Predictions, Implications for Transport
Planning. Victoria Transport Policy Institute, March 24, 2020. https://www.vtpi.org/avip.pdf
Keywords: AVs, adoption rates
The report describes potential impacts of AVs on transportation planning and potential
adoption rates in terms of annual vehicle sales, share of the fleet, and share of miles traveled.
Litman, Todd. 2018. Planning for Autonomous Vehicles. Presented at the Canadian Institute of
Transportation Engineers, Victoria, BC, January 24, 2018.
https://www.vtpi.org/AV_Litman_Presentation.pdf
Keywords: AVs, adoption rates
The presenter describes the levels of autonomy, benefits and safety impacts, and potential AV
operating costs. The presenter also discusses potential adoption rates in terms of annual
vehicle sales, share of the fleet, and share of miles traveled.
Mannion, Annemarie. 2016. Gensler Turns Old Parking Lot into a Mixed-Use Development in Cincinnati.
Interior Design, November 29, 2016. http://www.interiordesign.net/projects/12564-gensler-turns-old-
parking-lot-into-a- mixed-use-development-in-cincinnati/
Keywords: adaptive garage reuse, future conversion, design, case studies, Cincinnati
The Cincinnati Center City Development Corporation (3CDC) developed a mixed-use nine-story
development with over 250,000 square feet of office, 1,000 at-and-below grade structured
parking spaces, and 30,000 square feet of ground floor retail and restaurant space.
The garage was designed with the same ceiling heights and columns as the office to be flexibly
absorbed as potential future office space.
Marcus, Jerry. 2018. The Future of Parking: Mobility Centers. Parking, January 2018.
https://weareparking.org/page/MobilityCenters?_zs=1cwHe1&_zl=i9Ow4
Keywords: emerging technologies, trends, new business models, mobility centers, future revenue
sources
The author posits that a new business model will be needed for vehicle storage that offer users
modern convenience, multi-modal mobility options, and other new product offerings. He
writes, “as an industry, we all need to take the opportunity to evolve our legacy parking
businesses to address the winds of change including:

The need for greatly increased curb loading

The lack of special- purpose facilities of any kind, to store urban-based fractional
ownership vehicles
Storage/charging/maintenance for automated vehicles
New opportunities at existing facilities, that will certainly experience decreasing
demand.”
He writes how the parking industry has an opportunity to deliver a new class of product that
can take advantage of TNC and AV developments and offer a new menu of products at a
variety of price points for a range of customer needs all in one centralized location. The
following sample is provided by the author, Jerry Marcus, as an example of potential revenue
streams:
Monetizing Parking in the Mobility Center Model Sample

Discount Pay Parking (roof nest, stacked fleet 50% of base rate
vehicles)
Contract Parking 50% Premium
Parking Reservations 50% Premium
Fees via Geo-fencing of Ride-Sharing Services $2 – $4 per access fee
Retail (Bike shop, F&B) leasing

EV Charging Free with premium reservation
Food and Beverage Platform Discount with ride-share transaction
Fractional Ownership / Car-Sharing Storage Monthly fees – for parking & charging
Data Mining Sell data on location and length-of-stay
Property Naming Rights High-end facilities offer greater opportunity
Branded Valet Sponsorships Packages include car model viewing spaces
Bike Sharing Bundle ride and parking
Autonomous Vehicle – Change of Mode $2 with parking/Ride-share transaction
App Branding Annual contract
Source: The Parking Advisory Group. https://weareparking.org/page/MobilityCenters?_zs=1cwHe1&_zl=i9Ow4
McKentry, Chris. 2014. Why Have Online Booking? Presented at American Association of Airport
Executives 2014 Parking and Landside Management Conference, Phoenix, Arizona.
Keywords: revenue enhancements, emerging technology, online booking
The presenter discusses reasons for airports to consider online booking of parking reservations
as a way to compete against off-airport parking providers and drive parking and other revenues.
Historical incremental revenue benefits of online booking are also discussed. The presenter
also highlights key factors in a successful online booking system, including metrics for tracking
success and potential marketing strategies.
McKinsey & Company. 2016. Automotive Revolution—Perspective Towards 2030.

https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/mckinsey/industries/automotive%20and%20assembly/our%20in
sights/disruptive%20trends%20that%20will%20transform%20the%20auto%20industry/auto%202030%
20report%20jan%202016.ashx

Keywords: AVs, adoption rates, mobility behavior

This report describes the current state of the AV industry and provides estimates of future
adoption rates of AVs into the vehicle fleet.
Mile High CRE. 2018. KEPHART Project Denizen Achieves Top Honors for Sustainable Design.
http://milehighcre.com/kephart-project-denizen-achieves-top-honors-for-sustainable-design/
Keywords: adaptive garage reuse, future conversion, design, case studies, Denver, TOD project
Denizen is a mixed-use community located in the City of Denver, CO. As the first Transit
Oriented Development (TOD) pilot project created by the Regional Transportation District,
Denizen is a mixed-use 275-unit multifamily project. The ground level parking garage, designed
by KEPHART, was designed to be converted into retail and other uses and offer future flexibility
assuming a future of less parking demand. Walker is informed that project costs per space is
2013 pre-recession under-inflated prices.
Moran, Maarit, Ben Ettelman, Gretchen Stoeltje, Todd Hansen, and Ashesh Pant. 2017. Final Report:
Policy Implications of Transportation Network Companies.
https://policy.tti.tamu.edu/congestion/policy-implications-of- transportation-network-companies/
Keywords: TNCs, regulatory, public policy
This report presents the findings of a TNC legislative and regulatory review, discussions of
priority issues related to TNC policy, and future considerations related to TNC policy. It serves
as a database for statewide regulatory implementation.
Pendergrass, Michael, Jeff Goodermote, and Jess McInerney. 2018. Today’s Innovation Driving
Tomorrow’s Parking. Presented at the International Parking Institute 2018 Conference and Expo,
Orlando, Florida.
Keywords: adaptive garage reuse, case study
In this presentation, panelists consider the adaptive reuse structure. Future clear height, floor
slope and drainage, and MEP placement is discussed. The panelists review a case study, Denver
Health Acoma Garage, designed for future ground level retail conversion.
Praxis 3. (2018). GSU 25 Park Place Annex. http://www.praxis3.com/p3/portfolio/gsu/
Keywords: adaptive garage reuse, university campus, urban, Atlanta

A parking garage constructed in the 1930s in downtown Atlanta was converted to office space
in the 1950s. In 2016, Georgia State University renovated the building and repaired the Art
Deco façade to create four levels (160,000 square feet) of campus office space.
Prevost, Lisa. 2017. On the College Campus of the Future, Parking May Be a Relic. The New York Times,
September 5, 2017. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/05/business/college-campus-parking.html
Keywords: parking demand, trends, universities, adaptive garage reuse, future conversions

Some universities are building mixed-use garages and at least one campus has planned for a
decline in parking demand. Northwestern University, in Evanston, Illinois, designed a garage on
its campus to be converted into university classroom space.
Pyatt, Gary. 2015. Think Like an Etailer. Presented at the American Association of Airport Executives
2015 Parking and Landside Management Workshop, Dallas, Texas.
Keywords: revenue enhancements, emerging technology, yield management
In this presentation at the AAAE, the presenter promotes ecommerce platforms for airport
parking. Through price tracking and strategic pricing, airports can enhance revenues and
improve customer service according to the presenter. In addition, he recommends airports
map products to customer requirements and preferences. His product advertises increased
revenue by 10% within 12 months.
Schoettle, Brandon, and Michael Sivak. 2015. Potential Impact of Self-Driving Vehicles on Household
Vehicle Demand and Usage. Transportation Research Institute, University of Michigan.
Keywords: automated vehicles, vehicle sharing, vehicle demand, vehicle ownership, vehicle usage
The report presents an analysis of the potential for reduced vehicle ownership within
households based on sharing of completely self-driving vehicles that employ a “return-to-home”
mode, acting as a form of shared family or household vehicle. This reduction in ownership and
an accompanying shift to vehicle sharing within each household, in the most extreme
hypothetical scenario, could reduce average ownership rates by 43%, from 2.1 to 1.2 vehicles
per household.
Schwartz, Allie. 2017. Terra to Break Ground for Mary Street Office Complex. Miami’s Community
Newspapers, July 22, 2017. https://communitynewspapers.com/coralgables/terra-to-break-ground-for-
mary-street- office-complex/
Keywords: adaptive garage reuse, future conversions, office, Miami
Terra Group and Mayfair Real Estate Advisors plan to deliver a 78,000 square foot, mixed-use
Class A office building for Coconut Groove on a previous 402-space parking garage owned by
the Miami Parking Authority. Redevelopment plans include three floors for office space and
nearly 18,000 square feet of retail space and will incorporate some of the existing public
parking.
Smith, Mary. 2018. Free Ride: Autonomous Vehicles and Their Impact on the Future of Parking.
Webinar presentation to the National Parking Association.
Keywords: emerging technologies, autonomous vehicles, automated vehicles, parking impacts
In this presentation, Walker provides an overview of the research to date on automated
vehicles (AVs). It is Walker’s view that a 90 percent reduction in parking demand, as issued by
various sources and reprinted across multiple media platforms, is overstated and is based upon
aggressive assumptions regarding user adoption and the proliferation of shared AV trips (SAVs).
Walker estimates that a more realistic scenario for parking demand reductions is 40 percent

per unit land use nationally (per residence, per square foot floor area of office or retail) by
2040. As such, this will vary significantly by geographic area, land use, and density the authors
find. Walker argues for careful and prudent thinking and planning today. On the issue of
adaptive garage reuse, Walker has prepared several studies for design for significant
conversion; however, no client has elected to design for 100 percent conversion. Walker finds
that 100 percent conversion may not be appropriate for most decks but supports the following
considerations be taken for garage conversion:
Future retail at grade
Future additional occupied floors
Alternate uses on roof
Future residential wrap
According to Walker’s analysis, a 10 to 30 percent price premium exists for adaptive reuse
design today for a new structure depending upon the technical requirements needed. For
instance, a 25 percent and above premium covers the following:
Review if short span construction (30 x 30 grid) is required for future alternate use;
Provide all express ramps, all flat parking areas for future removal of express ramps;
Design all floors (or many floors) for 80 psf (or more) live load for future occupant
flexibility; and
Provide one level of the parking below grade for future support space (MEP, storage,
etc.).
Stanley, Bob, and Casey Wagner. 2016. Designing for the Future: Adaptive Reuse of Parking Structures.
Presentation to the National Parking Association.
Keywords: adaptive garage reuse, emerging technologies, technical requirements
In this presentation Walker Consultants reviews the feasibility of future garage conversion and
applies a scale of easy, medium, to hard according to up-front costs and technical requirements.
An easy conversion has a less than 10 percent cost premium associated and entails ramps on
the exterior of the floor plan rather than the middle of the floor plate and incorporates either
horizontal or vertical expansion joints [for less than 30 percent more stories] as well as taller
floor-to-floor heights. Additionally, this scenario provides for future internal stair/elevator
cores and design for removable façade as well as oversized MEP rooms. The medium scenario,
or the 10 to 25 percent premium, accounts for an increased set back to property line for future
“architectural features,” provides for future vertical expansion [for greater than 30 percent
more stories but less than 50 percent more stories] and provides for medium span construction
for future alternate use (30’ x 45’) to support future heavier live loads. The difficult scenario, or
the greater than 25 percent premium, provides all express ramps and all flat parking areas with
the intention of future removal of express ramps. This scenario provides for future vertical
expansion for more than 50 percent more stories with a minimum design load per occupancy
of 125 psf as well as utilizing short span construction (30x30 grid) for future alternate use.
Swonsen, F. 2018. “License Plate Recognition on the Airport Roadway.” Presented at the 2018 AAAE
Parking and Landside Management Workshop, Atlanta, GA.

Keywords: emerging technology, automatic vehicle identification, license plate recognition, open-road
tolling
This presentation summarizes the current state-of-the-art in technologies used for open-road
tolling and how they might be applied in an airport environment to implement curbside and
airport access fees.
Transportation Research Board. 2016. Special Report 319: Between Public and Private Mobility:
Examining the Rise of Technology-Enabled Transportation Services. Transportation Research Board,
Washington, DC. http://nap.edu/21875
Keywords: emerging technology, TNCs, urban mobility services
The report analyzes how innovative transportation services, including ridesharing, carsharing,
bikesharing, and micro transit, are changing mobility for millions of travelers. Such services
could reduce congestion and emissions from surface transportation if regulated wisely to
encourage concurrent, rather than sequential, ride sharing. Rapidly growing transportation
network companies (TNCs), like Uber and Lyft, however, are disrupting conventional taxi and
limousine services and raise policy challenges regarding personal security and public safety,
insurance requirements, employment and labor issues, and accessibility and equity.
Vanderhey Shaw, Kristin. 2016. John Wayne Airport Considers Software to Track Fee Payment from
Ride-Sharing Vehicles. Airport Improvement, January-February 2016.
http://www.airportimprovement.com/article/john- wayne-airport-considers-software-track-fee-
payment-ride-sharing-vehicles
Keywords: TNCs, emerging technologies, geo-fencing, airport fees
This article discusses the transition of John Wayne Airport (SNA) to charging for TNC rides.
Airports that wish to charge passengers for TNC trips, to generate ground transportation
revenue, face the challenge of fee collection from TNCs. Some airports conduct regular audits,
to verify that TNCs are delivering accurate fee revenues to airports, but audits can be
burdensome to conduct. SNA charges TNCs the same flat rate per pickup as it charges shuttle
vehicles and limousines: either $0.18 per passenger or $883,000, whichever is greater.
SNA is testing TNC-Ops, “a product from GateKeeper Systems that uses radio-frequency
identification (RFID), license plate recognition, and/or GPS to track TNC vehicles on airport
property.” GateKeeper receives data of the TNCs when the TNCs cross the threshold of the
airport geofence technology. As the article explains, “a geofence is an electronic line made up
of latitudinal and longitudinal points; GPS coordinates are connected to see when a vehicle
enters the circle,” and when it does, the device sends a signal to the TNC server.
SNA personnel can track TNC activity in real time, with a five-second delay. The technology
does not replace the need for audits, but audits are used to help verify the technology is
working, rather than fully relying on either method alone.
Johnson, Charlie, and Jonathan Walker. 2016. Peak Car Ownership: The Market Opportunity of Electric
Automated Mobility Services. Rocky Mountain Institute.

Keywords: automated vehicles, cost of automated TNCs, customer acceptance of automated vehicles
The authors estimate future adoption patterns for automated vehicles by determining key
economic tipping points such as when mobility services reach cost parity with personal vehicles.
At each economic tipping point, the analysis uses consumer-adoption data and trends to
estimate market sizes and potential growth rates of automated mobility services. The analysis
also assesses the potential impacts on personal vehicle, gasoline, and electricity demand.
Williamson, Richard. 2018. Airports, facing growth of ride-hailing apps, enhance parking technology.
Bond Buyer, March 5, 2018. https://www.bondbuyer.com/news/airports-guard-parking-revenues-
against-ride-hailing-services
Keywords: emerging technologies, airport parking reservation systems, TNCs, airport finance
Airports that are losing parking revenues to Uber and Lyft are responding with online technology
that allows them to compete on parking prices though advanced online booking. Rolled out by
Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport in 2014, and adopted by DFW airport in 2018, airports are coming up
with creative responses to compete on pricing.
The article also notes that some airports around the country are making up for lost revenues by
charging the ride-hailing services to pick up and drop off passengers.
According to Earl Heffintrayer, transportation analyst for Moody’s Investors Services, “[in fiscal
2017] we have, despite strong growth in enplanements, begun to see year-over-year declines in
only parking revenue.”
Despite this development, airports like Bergstrom International in Austin, Texas, and Dallas Love
Field are continuing to bond finance new parking facilities with the outlook from ratings agencies
remaining positive due to enplanement growth.


APPENDIX B
Acronyms
APGS Automatic Parking Guidance System

AV Automated Vehicle
AVI Automatic Vehicle Identification
CCTV Closed Circuit Television
CVV Card Verification Value
FIDS Flight Information Display System
GPS Global Positioning System
LPI License Plate Inventory
LPR License Plate Recognition
OBS Online Booking System
PARCS Parking and Revenue Control System
PLZ Passenger Loading Zone
PSP Payment Service Provider
TNC Transportation Network Company
B-1


APPENDIX C
Glossary
Application or App—A self-contained program or piece of software designed to fulfill a

particular purpose, especially one that can be downloaded to a smartphone or mobile device.
Application programming interfaces (API)—A set of functions and procedures allowing the
creation of applications that access the features or data of an operating system, application, or
other service.
Automated Vehicle (AV)—Vehicle in which at least some aspect of a safety-critical control
function (e.g., steering, throttle, braking) occurs without direct driver input. Automated vehicles
may be self-driving (i.e., use only vehicle sensors) or may be wirelessly connected to other cars
and roadside infrastructure.
Automatic vehicle identification (AVI)—A long-range radio-frequency identification
(RFID) or microwave identification system that automatically identifies vehicles having
vehicle-mounted transponders (or tags) as they enter and pass through the range of the AVI
system reader (the read zone) without any action by the driver.
Bluetooth—a standard for the short-range wireless interconnection of mobile phones,
computers, and other electronic devices.
Catchment Area—The geographical area from which an airport or other service attracts
customers or a population using its services.
Close-in parking—Parking facilities located adjacent to the terminal building and which
do not require the use of a shuttle bus.
Commercial Ground Transportation—Rubber-tired transportation service transporting
customers to/from airports including taxicabs, limousines, shared-ride vans, courtesy vehicles,
chartered buses and vans, but excluding rail service and parking shuttles, consolidated rental
car shuttles, or other buses operated by or on behalf of the airport.
Compensatory Methodology—One of two basic airline-airport rate-making methodologies,
whereby the airlines pay agreed charges and rates based on recovery of costs allocated to the
facilities and services that they occupy or use. The airport entity assumes the risk of operating
the airport so that it breaks even.
Cost per enplaned passenger (CPE)—All airline payments to an airport (including landing
fees, terminal rents, airside usage charges, and other fees) divided by the number enplaned
passengers.
Dead load—The weight of a structure itself, excluding vehicles, people, or other temporary
or movable objects.
C-1

C-2 Rethinking Airport Parking Facilities to Protect and Enhance Non-Aeronautical Revenue
Enplaned Passenger—Passengers who board an aircraft at an airport, including both

connecting and originating airline passengers.
FAA Grant Assurances—Obligations or assurances, associated with the acceptance of FAA
funds, requiring the airport owner or other organization to maintain and operate their airport
facilities safely and efficiently and in accordance with specified conditions.
Headway—The time interval between one vehicle and the next vehicle arriving at a station
or boarding point on a scheduled, fixed route.
Large-, Medium-, and Small-Hub Airport—The FAA’s National Plan of Integrated Airport
Systems classifies airports by size, defining four categories of airports by their activity (i.e., the
percentage of U.S. annual passenger boardings), with a large hub serving 1.0% or more of
the boardings, a medium hub serving at least 0.25% but less than 1.0%, a small hub serving
at least 0.05% but less than 0.25%, and a non-hub serving more than 10,000 boardings but
less than 0.05%.
License plate inventory (LPI)—Regular (e.g., nightly) surveys that record the license plate
number of every vehicle parked in a facility. Among other purposes, these inventories are used
by cashiers to determine the parking duration (and thus fees due) of exiting customers who,
for example, have lost their parking tickets.
License plate recognition (LPR)—Technologies that automatically recognize and record
a vehicle’s license plate number.
Live load—The weight or force on a structure due to vehicles, people, or other temporary
or moveable objects.
Mobility as a Service (MaaS)—The offering of multiple forms of transportation services
(automated vehicles, transportation network companies, taxicabs, car rentals, and public transit)
through a single gateway (such as a mobile app) and payment system.
Native payment option—A function within a website or mobile app that allows acceptance
of payment without directing the customer to a third-party payment processing site.
Non-aeronautical revenue—Revenues an airport receives from sources other than airlines or
aircraft operators, including parking, rental cars, in-terminal concessions (e.g., food, beverage,
and retail), land rents, and commercial ground transportation.
Originating and terminating passenger (O&D, origin and destination)—Airline passengers
who began (or will end) their trip at an airport as opposed to those passengers who are connect-
ing from (or to) another flight.
Payment Card Industry (PCI) compliance—A mandate by credit card companies to help
ensure the security of credit card transactions in the payments industry.
Peer-to-peer services—Services that are shared among users rather than owned by a company.
As used in this report it refers to a business that seeks to connect the operator/owner of a vehicle
with a customer seeking transportation or to hire the vehicle.
Pre-book parking—A parking transaction that occurs when, prior to arriving at the airport,
a customer reserves a parking space at a specified parking facility and price, and pre-pays for all,
or part, of the parking fee.
Pay-on-foot (POF)—A revenue control system that requires or encourages customers to pay
their parking fees at an automated pay station or kiosk upon returning to the parking facility
(or in the terminal building) rather than at an exit plaza.

Glossary C-3
Payment service provider (PSP)—A service allowing a merchant to accept electronic

payments by a variety of methods including credit cards, debit cards, and mobile wallets.
QR code—A machine-readable, matrix bar code, consisting of an array of black and white
squares, containing information about an item to which it is attached. Frequently the informa-
tion points to a website or application.
Rental car ready/return area—The parking or storage area(s) to which rental car customers
return rented vehicles or pick up rental vehicles.
Residual Methodology—One of two basic airport rate-making methodologies, whereby
airlines that sign an agreement (the signatory airlines) agree to pay any costs of operating the
airport system, airport, or a specific cost center that are not allocated to other users or covered
by non-airline revenues. The signatory airlines assume the risk of overall revenue shortfall and
receive the benefit from any revenue surpluses.
Robo-taxi—A self-driving taxi or driverless taxicab operated in fully automated mode for
on-demand transportation service.
Shared-ride service—A service providing door-to-door transportation for multiple customers
or parties to or from an airport whereby each passenger pays a predetermined fare regardless of
the number of passengers transported or distance travelled. The service may make multiple en
route stops and may be available on a walk-up or pre-reserved basis.
Tennessen warning—A warning or notice that private or confidential information is about
to be collected from the user and enables users to make informed decisions about whether to
share information about themselves.
Tokenization—A process that replaces sensitive data with unique identification symbols
that retain all the essential information about the data without compromising its security.
Transportation Network Company (TNC)—A business offering prearranged or for-hire
ground transportation service through mobile device application technology that connects
drivers of personal vehicles to prospective customers. Sometimes used to refer to the vehicle
transporting customers rather than to the company or business.
Trip Fee—A fee that airport operators charge commercial ground transportation providers
for passenger pickup, drop-off, or both, calculated based on the number of trips made by
vehicles affiliated with the provider.
Voice over internet protocol (VOIP)—A technology that allows individuals to make voice
calls using a broadband Internet connection instead of a regular (or analog) phone line.
Yield management—A variable pricing strategy, based on understanding, anticipating,
and influencing consumer behavior to maximize revenue or profits from a fixed, time-limited
resource such as airline seats, parking spaces, or hotel rooms.


Abbreviations and acronyms used without definitions in TRB publications:

A4A Airlines for America
AAAE American Association of Airport Executives
AASHO American Association of State Highway Officials
AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
ACI–NA Airports Council International–North America
ACRP Airport Cooperative Research Program
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act
APTA American Public Transportation Association
ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers
ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
ATA American Trucking Associations
CTAA Community Transportation Association of America
CTBSSP Commercial Truck and Bus Safety Synthesis Program
DHS Department of Homeland Security
DOE Department of Energy
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FAST Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (2015)
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
FRA Federal Railroad Administration
FTA Federal Transit Administration
HMCRP Hazardous Materials Cooperative Research Program
IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers
MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (2012)
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NASAO National Association of State Aviation Officials
NCFRP National Cooperative Freight Research Program
NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program
NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
NTSB National Transportation Safety Board
PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
RITA Research and Innovative Technology Administration
SAE Society of Automotive Engineers
SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act:
A Legacy for Users (2005)
TCRP Transit Cooperative Research Program
TDC Transit Development Corporation
TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (1998)
TRB Transportation Research Board
TSA Transportation Security Administration
U.S. DOT United States Department of Transportation

ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED
Washington, DC 20001
500 Fifth Street, NW
Transportation Research Board
NON-PROFIT ORG.
COLUMBIA, MD
PERMIT NO. 88
U.S. POSTAGE
ISBN 978-0-309-67375-4
90000
PAID
9 780309 673754

The National Academies Press

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The National Academies Press

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The National Academies Press

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS

This PDF is available at http://nap.edu/26091 SHARE

Rethinking Airport Parking Facilities to Protect and Enhance

146 pages | 8.5 x 11 | PAPERBACK

FIND RELATED TITLES

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2021. Rethinking

– Access to free PDF downloads of thousands of scientiﬁc reports

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

AIRPORT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM

ACRP RESEARCH REPORT 225

InterVISTAS Consulting, Inc.

Research sponsored by the Federal Aviation Administration

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

AIRPORT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM ACRP RESEARCH REPORT 225

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Learn more about the Transportation Research Board at www.TRB.org.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMS

CRP STAFF FOR ACRP RESEARCH REPORT 225

ACRP PROJECT 03-47 PANEL

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

1 Chapter 1 Overview of the Guidebook

5 Chapter 2 Current and Future Risks to Public Parking and

20 Chapter 3 Estimating Future Parking Facility Needs

43 Chapter 4 Adapting Parking Facilities for Other Vehicular Uses

59 Chapter 5 Repurposing Parking Facilities to Non-Vehicle Uses

75 Chapter 6 Airport Parking Management Models

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

84 Chapter 7 Innovative Payment Systems and Technologies

A-1 Appendix A Annotated Bibliography

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Overview of the Guidebook

This guidebook focuses on parking-related strategies available to airport staff as they

1.1 Guidebook Purpose

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

1.2 Methodology Used to Prepare the Guidebook

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Overview of the Guidebook 3

1.3 Guidebook Organization

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

1.4 Data Limitations

1.5 Ongoing Evolution

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Current and Future Risks to Public

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

2.1 Historical Impacts

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

2.1.1 Impacts to Airport Revenues

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Source: Respective fiscal year data from FAA Form 5100-127.

Source: Respective fiscal year data from FAA Form 5100-127.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

2.1.2 Impacts to Parking Activity and Other Ground

2.2 Transportation Network Companies

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Table 2-1. Fare comparison: taxicabs and TNCs, January 2020.

5 Chapter 2 Current and Future Risks to Public Parking and

84 Chapter 7 Innovative Payment Systems and Technologies

2.1.2 Impacts to Parking Activity and Other Ground

3.4 Analyze Recent Trends in Parking