# Presentation: 924142

## A Look into the Future:An Analysis of Airport Demand and Operational Capacity Across the NAS

**20 April 2004**
**Ben DeLeon**
**Deputy Director, Airport Planning and Programming**
**Office of Airports**

## Purpose of this Project

**Determine which airports will need additional capacity and why, given the anticipated future demand for air travel**
**Develop a “common list” of airports:**
**Airports identified in the Operational Evolution Plan (OEP)**
**Used multiple criteria, including Annual Service Volume (ASV), simulation modeling, and capacity benchmarks**
**All criteria needed to be in agreement in order for the airports to be identified as needing additional capacity**
**Other airports**
**Applied simplified approach **

**Notes:**
About a year ago we started looking at the capacity of the nation’s airports given the anticipated future demand for air travel
Identified airports with adequate airfield capacity
Identified airports needing additional airfield capacity

It should be noted, it does not mean that because an airport is not included in this analysis it isn’t important.  Airports identified in this analysis should receive greater attention.
Discussed if a new methodology should be developed
Opted not to develop a new methodology
Too much time to develop and more important validate 
Developed a common list of airports 
Decided to use existing studies and methodologies when possible
Annual Service Volume, capacity benchmarks, simulation modeling, and socioeconomic analyses
Looked beyond the 35 OEP airports
Used multiple criteria and existing on-going efforts
For airports beyond the 35 OEP airports
Less known about these airports
Assumptions made regarding operation of the airport
A Simplified modeling approach was used

## Results Based Upon Detailed Airport Analyses (Today, 2013, 2020)

- Constraints & Limitations
- Noise
- Airspace
- Arrival & Departure
- Terminals & Access Roads

**Notes:**
A lot of information available to use in this analysis
On-going studies being done for other efforts
Annual Service Volume, OEP modeling, Airport Capacity Benchmarks
Delay Data
Various weather scenarios
Airport configurations and use
Type of aircraft
Known plans and improvements
Physical improvements (pavement), technology, procedures, and airspace redesign
Known constraints
Noise limitations, congested and special use airspace, operational limitations
Competition for arrival and departure fixes and inability to operate over-water
We coordinated our findings with the airports needing additional capacity
In many cases we found the airfield was not the constraining factor
Terminal buildings could accommodate only so many passengers a year, which in turn limits the number of operations.
Access roads on the airport as a result of TSA requirements impedes access to the terminals

## Incorporating Socio-Economic Information

**Incorporating Socio-Economic Information**

- 1. Metro areas with projected population growth of at least 1% per year and 150,000 from 2000 to 2020.
- 2. Metro areas with projected real income growth of at least 1% per year and $50 billion from 2000 to 2020.
- 3. Aircraft indicate large and medium hub airports where low fare carriers have at least 15% market share.

-         High Population Growth 1
-         High Income Growth 2
-         Combined Growth
-         OEP Airport
-         Low Cost Carrier Market 3

**Extensive socio-economic information was included to identify locations needing additional capacity that would not otherwise have been identified**

**Notes:**
Used socioeconomic data from Global Insight
Forecasts of economic and demographic data through 2020
Nearly 300 Metropolitan Statistical Areas nationwide
Needed a more manageable number
Filters looking at significant increases in population and income
49 metro areas with high population growth (at least 1% per year and an increase of 150,000 people)
48 metro areas with high income growth (at least 1% per year and an increase of $50 Billion)
25 areas with both high population and income growth
Also looked at areas with the presence of a low cost carrier
Identified areas where the low cost carrier had at least 15% market share 
More than Southwest Airlines
Also looks at Jet Blue, Air Tran and others.

## CAASD’s Experimental Model for Estimating Future O&D Traffic Flows 

**CAASD’s Experimental Model for Estimating Future O&D Traffic Flows **

**Traffic counts can then be aggregated by airport.**

**Using forecasts of economic and demographic drivers, generate estimates of future O&D travel demand by metro area pair. **

**Allocating passengers among available routes provides estimates of connecting traffic. **

**Considers future trends in aviation**
**Covers nearly 300 airports**

**Notes:**
This work is different from other demand/capacity analyses in that the forecasts of demand were done for the metro area and then allocated to individual airports.  The TAF generates forecasts for individual airports.
Based on the socioeconomic data
Look at the metro areas
Considered income and population
Drives the propensity to travel
Can forecast the number of passengers between metro areas
Passengers then allocated among various routes
Takes into account the existing air carrier route network
For multiple airports in a metro area passengers are assigned to one airport
The number of passengers between airport pair can be forecast
The number of passengers can then be converted to aircraft operations
Aircraft were assigned to each airport pair
Aircraft type includes the distance to fly, number of passengers, and aircraft serving the city pair.
This modeling also considered trends in the industry.
Included the increased of General Aviation aircraft
Especially “high-end” GA.  (G-5’s, Falcon-50’s, Citation-10’s)
Increasingly popular for short distance flights
Many GA runways too short; must use the air carrier runway.
Also included fractional ownership.
The addition of one based aircraft can result in 4 to 5 times as many operations as a typical based aircraft.

## Results Based Upon High-Level Metropolitan Analyses (Today, 2013, 2020)

**Results Based Upon High-Level Metropolitan Analyses (Today, 2013, 2020)**

**Examined more closely select metropolitan areas**
**Containing airports that are predicted to have high demand compared to available capacity**
**Analyzed total demand and capacity for the metropolitan areas**
**Flagged those areas expected to have a demand/capacity ratio of .80 or greater**

**Notes:**
Metro Area Analysis
Identified airports within 60 miles of the concentrated population
Demand and capacity was calculated for each airport
Demand for each airport comes from the TAF
Capacity is either modeled or taken from existing studies
Total demand compared to total capacity
Able to identify the need for additional capacity in the metro area as well as the individual airports
Assumed the metro area needed additional capacity if the demand/capacity ratio was 0.8 or higher
Assumed an airport needed additional capacity if the demand/capacity ratio was 0.9 or higher
Did not assume relocation of traffic from a capacity constrained airport to another area airport
This example is for the LA Basin
Shows the metro area does not need additional capacity in 2003.  Adequate capacity at all area airports. 
Shows the metro area in need of additional capacity in 2013 and 2020
Shows the airports we considered in analysis
They include: Burbank, LAX, Long Beach, Ontario, Oxnard, and John Wayne

## 2003: Airports and Metro Areas That Need Additional Capacity

**2003: Airports and Metro Areas ****That Need Additional Capacity**

**5 airports that need additional capacity**

**Notes:**
Current time frame
5 airports
Atlanta, Chicago-O’Hare, LaGuardia, Newark, and Philadelphia
Airfield configuration, airspace limitations, and the number of operations contribute to the capacity needs of these airports
1 metro area that of Atlanta
Atlanta metro area is identified as needing additional capacity as Atlanta Hartsfield Jackson International Airport is the only commercial service airport serving the metro area
Since the airport needs additional capacity demand in the metro area may go unsatisfied without improvements
Notice places like the New York and Chicago metro areas are not identified as needing additional capacity.
Even though LaGuardia and Newark need additional capacity there are other area airports in JFK, Islip, Westchester County and Stewart that have surplus capacity.
Same is true for the Chicago Metro area. Considered O’Hare, Midway, Milwaukee, Gary and Rockford.

## 2013: Airports and Metro Areas That Will Need Additional Capacity (Without Improvements)

**2013: Airports and Metro Areas That Will Need Additional Capacity (Without Improvements)**

**16 airports that will need additional capacity**

- Airports not shown as needing additional capacity failed to satisfy at least one of the six required criteria.  Improvements not intended to increase capacity, such as those at SEA and BOS, are not included.

**Notes:**
Version 5.0 of the OEP was used as the basis for calculating capacity improvements
OEP identifies new runways, technologies and procedures needed to keep pace with demand
If OEP identified improvements do not happen (everything stops right now)
27 would need additional capacity in 2013
Fully expect the OEP to be implemented as planned
With improvements
16 airports would need additional capacity
 Airfield configuration, airspace limitations, level of activity continue to limit capacity at Chicago-O’Hare, LaGuardia, Newark and Philadelphia
This analysis does not include the full benefits of the reconfiguration plans for either O’Hare or Philadelphia.
Incremental benefits may be realized within this time frame.  The full benefits will not be realized until after 2013.

7 metro areas identified as needing additional capacity

What is interesting is most of these airports are across the entire southern part of the country from coast to coast
Consistent with the socioeconomic data
People are retiring and moving from colder climates to warmer areas
Businesses are taking advantage of incentives to relocate to more business friendly areas 
We ran a sensitivity analysis for airports having a higher growth in the 2003 TAF as compared to the 2002 TAF
We are confident in our analysis that the population of airports won’t change.  However, given the new forecast additional capacity may be needed at SFO if no action is taken.

## 2013: Airports and Metro Areas That Will Need Additional Capacity (After Assumed Improvements)

**2013: Airports and Metro Areas That Will Need Additional Capacity (After Assumed Improvements)**

**16 airports that will need additional capacity**

- Airports not shown as needing additional capacity failed
- to satisfy at least one of the six required criteria.

## 2020: Airports and Metro Areas That Will Need Additional Capacity (Without Improvements)

**2020: Airports and Metro Areas That Will Need Additional Capacity (Without Improvements)**

**19 airports that will need additional capacity**

- Airports not shown as needing additional capacity failed
-  to satisfy at least one of the six required criteria.

**Notes:**
Again, if the OEP identified improvements do not happen, and other plans beyond the OEP do not materialize
42 airports would need additional capacity in 2020
23 airports are actively addressing their capacity issues with improvements
Identified in the OEP
Other development in addition to the OEP will take place
New runways, runway extensions and technology
Leaves 19 airports needing additional capacity under the best case
Airfield configuration, airspace limitations, and the number of operations continue to limit capacity at LaGuardia and Newark

8 metro areas identified as needing additional capacity

Again, most of these airports are located in the southern part of the country

## 2020: Airports and Metro Areas That Will Need Additional Capacity (After Assumed Improvements)

**2020: Airports and Metro Areas That Will Need Additional Capacity (After Assumed Improvements)**

**19 airports that will need additional capacity**

- Airports not shown as needing additional capacity failed
- to satisfy at least one of the six required criteria.

## Conclusions

**Current improvement plans must move forward to keep up with demand by 2013**
**Even the planned improvements will not be sufficient at some locations**
**Aggressive assumptions were made for improvements in 2020 – some of these improvements may not materialize**
**Even the assumed improvements will not be sufficient at some locations**
**Additional analyses are necessary to develop possible solutions for the identified airports**
**Additional analyses will be necessary for the non-OEP airports to gain a better understanding of their capabilities, operations and local regulations**
**Detailed feedback and information obtained from the airports will be incorporated**
**In addition to new runways, procedures and technologies, policy options should also be explored**

**Notes:**
Of the 300 airports that were analyzed in this study, only about 10% will require additional capacity in either/or 2013 and 2020.
Improvement plans identified in and being monitored as part of the OEP Version 5.0 must continue in order to keep up with demand
In some cases, demand may continue to exceed capacity
This analysis considered aggressive assumptions with regard to capacity improvements by 2020
Some of these improvements may not materialize
Airspace redesign, reducing en-trail separations 
It is difficult to quantify the benefits of some of these improvements
Planning and airfield configurations are not known
Additional analyses are necessary to develop possible solutions
Should not be limited to physical improvements.
Policy options such as demand management or peak hour pricing may be the only solution.