April 26, 2003

APA Transportation Planning Division

Officers

Chair
Whit Blanton, AICP

Vice-Chair
Larry Lennon, PE, AICP

Treasurer
T. Joseph Marking, AICP

Secretary
Larry Fabian

Immediate Past Chair
Linda Howe, AICP

Newsletter Editor
Ruth Fitzgerald, AICP

Dear Transport Professionals:

	As planners, we typically try to balance the costs of something against its benefits, and airports are no exception.  They generate traffic, air pollutants and noise.  Aviation activities use chemicals that should not run off into eco-systems.  Airports also create jobs and bring major cash flows into and out of the metropolitan economy.  Many see them as critical gateways into national and international markets for local manufacturers and service providers.  And there are family visits and vacations.

To ask how an airfront – the commercial district around an airport – should be planned rests on answers to more fundamental questions about aviation.  What is its proper role in the regional economy and in the multi-modal transportation networks that affect us all?   Such an examination has two broad categories – passengers and cargo.  The requirements of each are very different.  It also has two broad arenas – airside and landside.  They, too, have very different requirements.

	TPD was proud to provide a forum last month, Saturday March 29th in Denver at the national conference of the American Planning Association in the Colorado Convention Center, where these issues were explored.  We were delighted to have the opportunity to work with ATRA – the Advanced Transit Association and its network of thinkers and activists who advocate the consideration of advanced forms of mobility networks.  Check out their interesting website at www.advancedtransit.org. The TPD’s airport committee, led by Michael Callahan, provides a continuing forum to advance the profession and state of the planning practice as it relates to aviation planning and the emerging issue of Airfront Districts.

	I encourage you to join TPD.  Please visit our website at www.apa-tpd.org.

								Sincerely,

Whit Blanton, AICP
Chair

APA-TPD / ATRA  				 3/29/03 Denver		   Berger/ABAM and Doppelmayr Cable Car

TABLE  OF  CONTENTS

Airfront Development Opportunities		Tom Clarke, AIA					 3

Airports and Economic Development		Mark Johnson, Landrum & Brown			 4

Green Building Provisions			Michael Callahan, Parsons Transportation		 6

The Growth of Aviation			Mark Johnson, Landrum & Brown 			 7

Height and Land Use Restrictions		Richard Dyment, HNTB				 8

Land Takings and Zoning			Mark Johnson, Landrum & Brown 			10

Environmental Impacts			Mark Johnson, Landrum & Brown 			12

Landside Operations			Dan Wong, San Francisco Airport			14

Airport APMs				Lawrence Fabian, Trans.21				16

Cargo and Communications Infrastrcuture	Amiy Varma, North Dakota State University		18

Freight, Logistics and J-I-T Manufacturing	Amiy Varma, North Dakota State University		19

Airside and Landside Project Cultures		Bob Griebenow, Berger/ABAM			21

Airfront Improvements			Jeral Poskey, ATRA				22

Airfront Land Use Planning			Chris Duerksen, Clarion Associates			23

PRT- and Wireless-Enabled Airport Paradigm	Peter Muller, Olsson Associates			24

AUTHOR  CONTACT INFORMATION							25

	

APA-TPD / ATRA  AIRFRONT Issues		   3/29/03 Denver		   Berger/ABAM and Doppelmayr Cable Car

AIRFRONT DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES
Tom Clarke, Architect Planning Construction

1.	Airports can generate tremendous demand for commercial development in sites with easy access to the airport.  They are a catalyst for economic activity and community development.  Airports do not go unnoticed by commercial developers and land speculators.  Still, they are typically designed as though they exist in isolation from the inevitable airfront community that will develop around them.

2.	In addition to cargo operations, warehousing and aviation-oriented manufacturing, airports will probably become significant retail centers because they are high-profile locations.  With convenient public transportation and vehicular access for shoppers, airfront commercial areas could evolve into major shopping centers as they become associated with both specialty and general retailing.  

3.	Airfront facilities and communities will be an increasingly important part of our cities if they are used as a catalyst for building transit-oriented urban development.  Architects, planners and engineers can help politicians and the general public to envision how airfront districts should look and function in the future. Buildings and public spaces can once again reflect some of the human scale and “old world character” of pre-automobile cities.  The underlying infrastructure in airfront communities would be planned to meet current and future efficiency and maintenance standards.

4.	The public transportation needed to connect the airfront to the airport facilities will make the airfront communities excellent sites for the planning of auto-free or auto-constrained districts having a strong pedestrian character.  The higher population densities that makes these communities walkable also make public transport such as can be provided by APMs feasible and cost-effective.  Such districts have been highly successful around the world and are especially popular in older European cities.

5.	Higher density communities require less basic infrastructure per capita, especially when the high costs of private vehicles and auto-related facilities such as parking are considered.  They have a much greater potential for incorporating energy saving concepts, water and waste recycling, plus other sustainable and affordable housing and community features.  By encouraging growth in such communities, some of the pressure to build suburban sprawl can be relieved.  .

6.	The planning of airfront communities could initiate a new chapter in city building.  New Special Districts could be created that cut through multiple layers of governmental jurisdiction. Regulations, taxation and turf protection to provide more efficient delivery of governmental and public services.  Special development authorities that are separate or associated with airport facilities could help to plan and fund the development of airfront communities.

7.	Altogether, the development of new airfront communities affords a promising opportunity to develop new patterns of urbanization that are more in tune with current needs.  In addition, these communities will shorten the timeframe that transit riders need to adapt to new and innovative transportation systems, insuring that these transit systems become successful components of a more balanced urban transportation system.
APA-TPD / ATRA  AIRFRONT Issues		  3/29/03 Denver		Berger/ABAM and Doppelmayr Cable Car

AIRPORTS and ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Mark Johnson, Landrum & Brown

1.	In 2001, there were 5,314 airports in the U.S. open to the public, of which 4,160 were publicly owned, and 546 provided commercial service.  

2.	In 2001, airports in the U.S. created $507 billion each year in total economic activity.    

3.	In 2001, there were 1.9 million jobs on U.S. airports, and 4.8 million other airport-related jobs are created in local communities, for a total of 6.7 million airport-related jobs, with a payroll of $190 billion. 

4.	Many local communities are using their airports as focal points for economic development.  Examples: 

a.	Alliance Airport -- Alliance Airport was developed as a public-private partnership in the 1980s on the north side of the Fort Worth area.  The project included an industrial airport and master planned industrial development site.  The 9,600-acre development area is served by two major trunk railroad lines, and major highways, in addition to the airport.  The developers have installed state-of-the-art infrastructure on the property.  

b.	Rickenbacker International Airport -- Former Air Force Base that was acquired by Franklin County, Ohio and is now operated by the Columbus Regional Airport Authority.  It was acquired with the express purpose of being an economic development magnet for the south side of the Columbus metropolitan area.  Today, the airport specializes in air cargo, with two 12,000-foot runways.  Today, more than 60 companies do business at Rickenbacker, including air cargo companies, freight forwarders, e-tailers, corporate aviation businesses, manufacturers and distributors.  A free trade zone was also established on property adjacent to the airport.  In 2000, business operations and capital development at Rickenbacker generated $1.8 billion in output and supported 18,711 jobs.  

c.	Savannah/Hilton Head International Airport -- The Savannah Airport Commission and the Savannah Economic Development Authority are coordinating on an economic development strategy to target industries that are most likely to contribute to the growth and diversification of the regional economy and that would value the airport as a transportation resource.  They are focusing on seven industries in the fields of medical and surgical products, electronics, pharmaceuticals, chemicals, and plastics.  The Airport Commission has also established a foreign trade zone.
 
d.	Scottsdale Airport -- The City of Scottsdale, Arizona has owned and operated this general aviation airport since 1967.  Scottsdale Airpark, a 2,600-acre commercial area, adjoins the airport and has become a model of airport business park development.  It is headquarters to over 25 national and regional corporations and is home to 1,800 small to medium-sized businesses.  Approximately 30,000 people are employed in the Airpark.      

RESOURCES

The Airports Council International - North America recently published a report, "The Economic Impact of U.S. Airports -- 2002," that is available on its website.  It includes aggregate statistics on the total economic impact of domestic airport and case studies of twelve airports.

Information about Alliance Airport is available at www.hillwood.com/prop/aa.cfm.

Rickenbacker International Airport's website is www.rickenbacker.org.

Savannah/Hilton Head International Airport's website is www.savannahairport.com.

Scottsdale Airport's website is www.scottsdaleaz.gov/airport/.  Also see the airpark website, www.scottsdaleairpark.com.

APA-TPD / ATRA  AIRFRONT Issues		       3/29/03 Denver		   Berger/ABAM and Doppelmayr Cable Car

GREEN BUILDING PROVISIONS
Michael R. Callahan, Parsons Transportation Group

1.	Land-use plans should consider more than street grids and incorporate Automated People Movers (APM) to create more sustainable airfront districts.  Design and development of APMs should be considered in commercial areas of master plans and zoning ordinances.  A new category of land use is called for.

2.	In other words, don’t think streets.  Think buildings/facilities and space – the spaces between buildings and spaces between natural environments.  APMs can rise above sidewalks and trees.  The alignment can vary vertically and horizontally.  Speed can be varied, optimizing route structures.  Think vertical as well – the 3rd dimension is important.

3.	Where should advanced transit systems be planned and designed to operate?  What incentives should be available for developers who incorporate advanced transit systems in communities and their facilities?  What for swage recycling and energy-reducing design?  What are the life-cycle costs?  What leadership is there in these areas?

4.	Green building and zoning incentives should be considered:

a.	Importance of green building, design, and walkable districts should be declared up front
b.	Green guidelines included in the RFP
c.	Commitment to meet a specific LEED* rating
d.	Selection of sustainable design consultant
e.	Integration of project phases and components driven by an overriding desire to use            
“green solutions.”

RESOURCES

•	Natural Capitalism.  Paul Hawken, Amory Lovins, and L. Hunter Lovins (1999).

•	Cradle to Cradle (Remaking the Way We make Things).  William McDonough and Michael Braungart (2002).

•	*US Green Building Council & the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Program.  (202) 828-7422, info@usgbc.org for general USGBC inquiries, leedinfo@usgbc.org for LEED inquiries.

•	“Building Connecticut Leadership in Green Buildings and Clean Energy.  A Report to Connecticut Innovations” (April, 2001).  Greg Kats, Capital E, http://www.cap-e.com.

•	“A Long Range Vision for Cities.”  Andres Duany.  Forum Journal.  Winter 2003, Vol 17, no 2.

•	A Primer on Sustainable Building.  Dianna Lopez Barnett and William D. Browning.  Rocky Mountain Institute (1995) http://www.rmi.org.

APA-TPD / ATRA  AIRFRONT Issues		  3/29/03 Denver		Berger/ABAM and Doppelmayr Cable Car

THE GROWTH OF AVIATION
Mark Johnson, Landrum & Brown

1.	The aviation industry generated $507 billion in economic activity in 2001.  The Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 opened the door to intense competition among domestic airlines.  

2.	Low-cost air carriers, such as People Express and Southwest Airlines, were able to exploit the oppor-tunity provided by deregulation to grow and successfully compete in many markets across the country.

3.	The real cost of air travel has decreased significantly through the years, a trend that was already occurring long before deregulation.  Deregulation further reduced those costs.  While the CPI increased by 910% from 1946 to 2000, domestic airfares increased by only 300%.  

4.	Contributing to the lower costs were more efficient aircraft (efficiency meaning the ability to fly more revenue-passenger-miles per dollar):

a.	The advent of jet aircraft in the late 1950s.
b.	The advent of the jumbo jet in the early 1970s.
c.	Increased fuel efficiency: revenue-passenger-miles per gallon increased from 18 in 1975 to 39 in 2001.
d.	The two-pilot cockpit largely replaced the three-pilot cockpit.
e.	The advent of the "regional jet" in the late 1990s, allowing fast and economical flights on low-density routes.

5.	The number of enplaned passengers increased from 275 million in 1978 to 670 million in 2000, before dropping to 625 million in 2001.   

6.	Changes in business models, especially the reduction of inventories and the use of "just-in-time" supply, increased the need for air cargo delivery.  

7.	The invention of an efficient and economical express parcel delivery system increased the dependence of business on the use of overnight express shipping and delivery.  

8.	Scottsdale (AZ) has an airport with an adjacent industrial park with runway access that employs about 30,000 workers.   This is an exceptional situation with which the FAA is not comfortable.

RESOURCES/REFERENCES

The Airports Council International (ACI) - North America is a trade association of airports that promotes research and lobbies national governments and international bodies.  www.aci-na.org.

The Air Transport Association (ATA) is a trade organization that represents 27 passenger and cargo airlines.  www.airlines.org/public/home/default1.asp, has a variety of reports and statistics relating to the air transportation industry.

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is responsible for the safe use of the nations airports and airways, is a source of much information and forecasts about the aviation system.  www.api.faa.gov/foreca01/Tabofcont.htm and  www.api.faa.gov/taf97/taftoc.htm.

APA-TPD / ATRA  AIRFRONT Issues		     3/29/03 Denver		   Berger/ABAM and Doppelmayr Cable Car

HEIGHT / LAND USE RESTRICTIONS AT AIRPORTS
Richard Dyment, AICP, HNTB Corporation

1.	There has been steady pressure from quite different interests to improve airport service, to allow existing land uses to continue, to allow additional land uses that are sensitive to airport operations, to improve airport safety, and at the same time, improve compatibility between off-airport land uses, airport operations and off-airport land uses.
 
2.	Airport height / land use restrictions are mostly developed based on prescribed standards developed by the FAA or the Military for aircraft operations.  The prescribed standards are in turn based on the type of airport, type of aircraft and type of  operations at the airport and in the airport area, and the type aircraft approaches conducted to and from the airport.  

3.	The method of determining the compatibility of those standards with surrounding land uses; and of surrounding land uses with airport operations, differs depending on whether the airport operator is Civil or Military. 

4.	Airports can range in size, complexity, and level of appropriate restrictions -- from an airport with a relatively short runway that accommodates a low level of activity with small, short haul aircraft; to large airports with a high level of activity with large, long-haul aircraft.

5.	It does not much matter whether the airport or the surrounding land uses were in-place first.  Both entities must be creative in discovering opportunities and implementing recommended measures to maximize compatibility with each other.  The purpose of this presentation is to discuss the compatibility of off-airport land uses with airport operations and on-airport land uses.

6.	The greatest opportunities in on-airport / off-airport compatibility are for the airport to minimize direct and induced off-airport impacts, and for off-airport areas to allow placement/development of only those land uses that do not negatively affect airport operations.

7.	This paper addresses the development of height / land use restrictions for a number of different airport types, the type of analysis required, and the types of mitigation typically undertaken.

8.	Types of airports include Civil or Military.  Aircraft can be grouped into five types: Small General Aviation; Medium General Aviation/Commuter; Large General Aviation/ Narrowbody; Widebody/Jumbo Aircraft; and “New Large Aircraft” (NLA).  Each has different height restriction requirements.  Types of airport operations are grouped into General Aviation, Scheduled Service, and Military.

9.	Height restrictions around Civil airports are determined by requirements in Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 77 - Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace, FAA Order 8260.3B Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS) and FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13 Airport Design.  Height restrictions around Military air bases are determined by Airfield and Heliport Planning and Design, numbered separately for the Air Force, Army, and Navy.

10.	Both the FAA and the Military are supported by Federal law requiring them to be notified (based on certain criteria) of any development that may affect airport / base operations.

11.	At Civil airports, on-airport operations and their compatibility withoff-airport areas is determined by Airport Master Plans; Environmental Assessments/Impact Statements (per FAA Order 1050.1D Policies and Procedures for Considering Airport Environmental Impacts, FAA Order 5050.4A Airport Environmental Impacts, or local, county, or state directives); and CFR Part 150 Noise Compatibility Plans.  At Military airports on-airport operations and compatibility between on-airports areas and off-airport areas is determined by Base Plans, Air Installation Compatible Land Use Zone (AICUZ) Studies and Joint Land Use Studies (JLUSs).  

12.	Measures that are available for the mitigation of incompatible land uses vary depending on whether the entity is a Civil or Military airport operator, or a municipal, county, or state land use office. 

13.	In most all cases, the airport/military base and the surrounding area benefit each other.  The goal then is to minimize incompatibilities to maximize benefits.

RESOURCES

•	CFR Part 77 Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace
•	CFR Part 150 Airport Noise Compatibility Planning.
•	FAA Order 8260.3B Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS)
•	FAA AC 150/1300-13, Airport Design, FAA
•	FAA Order 1050.1D Policies and Procedures for Considering Airport Environmental Impacts
•	FAA Order 5050.4A Airport Environmental Impacts
•	Air Force Manual 32-1123(I), Army Technical Manual TM 5-803-7, Naval Facilities Engineering Command Publication P-971, Airfield and Heliport Planning and Design.
•	Air Force Instruction 32-7063 Air Installation Use Zone Program
•	Joint Land Use Study Program, DOD-OEA.
•	Joint Land Use Study – Program Guidance Manual, DOD-OEA.
•	Photographs of aircraft, HNTB Corporation.
•	Aerial photographs of various airports; various websites and HNTB Corporation. 

APA-TPD / ATRA  AIRFRONT Issues		  3/29/03 Denver		Berger/ABAM and Doppelmayr Cable Car

LAND TAKINGS and ZONING IMPLICATIONS
Mark Johnson, Landrum & Brown

1.	Airports can produce substantial off-site impacts, especially noise.  Aircraft noise that disturbs residents can extend several miles off the ends of runways and beneath heavily used flight tracks.
  
2.	While successful inverse condemnation (taking without just compensation) claims for noise nuisance have been quite rare, concerned citizens have politically powers.  Noise concerns in communities can become severe enough to force local and state government action to attempt to limit airport development, expansion, and provision of new service.  Examples:

a.	Scottsdale AZ - intense pressure for restrictions on airport use, facility development, and activity growth.

b.	Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena CA - withholding of rezoning of land planned for new terminal.

c.	Naples FL - enactment of restriction on "Stage 2" business jets.

d.	Denver CO - closure of old airport, replacement with new airport at huge cost.

3.	Federal law (the Aviation Noise and Capacity Act of 1990) severely constrains the ability of airport operators to restrict the use of the airport at night or to particular classes of users (e.g. users with the quietest aircraft).  Nevertheless, political pressures from annoyed citizens persuade local governments to deny zoning approvals for development of airport land or to push for flight operational procedures or voluntary restrictions constraining airport operations.  

4.	If a community wishes to preserve the value of its airport as an economic development engine, it should protect it.  Ensuring land use compatibility in the airport environs is crucial to preserving long-term viability.  Considerations: 

a.	Protecting the airspace in the immediate airport area and beneath the runway approaches, by restricting the development of tall structures.

b.	Planning and zoning for the development of compatible land uses in areas of high noise exposure and low aircraft overflights.    

c.	Avoiding the development of facilities near airports that can attract large numbers of birds, e.g. landfills, agricultural processing plants.

 
RESOURCES

The Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) Office of Environment and Energy has developed a "land use compatibility toolkit."  It includes guidance and advisory documents for airports and local communities.  See www.aee.faa.gov/noise/lupitoolkit.htm.    

The FAA has published several advisory circulars relating to airport land use compatibility issues around airports.  

•	AC Number 70/7460-2J, Proposed Construction or Alteration of Objects that May Affect the Navigable Airspace, explains the requirements and criteria for notifying the FAA prior to building a tall structure.

•	AC 150/5020-1, Noise Control and Compatibility Planning For Airports, provides guidance for airport operators and local governments in developing noise compatibility plans under Federal Aviation Regulation Part 150.  

•	AC Number 150/5190-4A, A Model Zoning Ordinance to Limit Height of Objects Around Airports, includes a model ordinance and narrative explaining how it should be applied and adapted to the local setting.  

•	AC 150/5200-34, Construction or Establishment of Landfills Near Public Airports, describes the legal requirements for separating landfills from airports and the process for requesting exemptions.

FAA Advisory Circulars can be downloaded from the following website: www1.faa.gov/arp/150acs.cfm.

The California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics has developed the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook.  It provides guidance to county governments in fulfilling their statutory requirements to prepare "comprehensive airport land use plans."   The Handbook provides an excellent explanation and considerable background data and analysis on a broad range of airport land use compatibility issues and would benefit planners in any state.  The document is available on the following website: www.dot.ca.gov/hq/planning/aeronaut/htmlfile/landuse.html.  

APA-TPD / ATRA  AIRFRONT Issues		  3/29/03 Denver		Berger/ABAM and Doppelmayr Cable Car

AIRPORT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Mark Johnson, Landrum & Brown

1.	Airports are highly regulated as sources of potentially serious environmental pollutants.  They are required to prepare stormwater pollution prevention plans, spill control and countermeasures plans, and, often, wildlife management plans.  In air quality nonattainment areas, they can also be required to take action to improve air quality through air quality improvement plans.  

2.	Airport operators must maintain regular reporting on compliance with these plans.  Chicago O'Hare is developing an environmental management information system for tracking environmental data and reports.  It is a geographic information system with a web-based interface for entering and updating data and producing reports.  

3.	Aircraft noise is the most significant environmental issue from the standpoint of airport area residents.   Despite improvements, it is a problem that is not going away.  Congress has dealt with this by establishing aircraft noise certification requirements, mandating the phase-out of the loudest aircraft, and authorizing the establishment of airport noise compatibility planning programs.  According to the FAA, the number of people exposed to significant levels of airport noise decreased from 7 million in 1975 to 0.3 million in 2002. 

4.	Air pollution:  Airports are relatively minor sources of metropolitan air pollution.  For example, in the six counties of the South Coast (CA) Air Quality Management District, airports were estimated to account for 3% of NOx, 1% of SOx, and 4% of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in 2000.  

a.	Modern aircraft engines are quieter, more fuel efficient, and, except for NOx, produce fewer emissions than older designs.  Based on current engine technology, noise reduction has tended to result in increased NOx.

b.	Major sources of emissions on airport include ground support equipment on the airside, and automobiles on the landside.

c.	Many airports participate in the USDOE's Clean Cities Program, which promotes public/private partnerships for energy efficiency and air pollutant reduction.  Airports are working with their tenants to convert vehicle fleets to cleaner, alternative-fueled vehicles.  An example is Chicago O'Hare, where the airport is working with its tenants to convert to compressed natural gas.        

5.	Water Pollution:  At airports with wintry weather, deicing compounds pose potentially serious water quality problems.  Most deicing materials are glycol compounds, urea, and road salt.  Glycol is used to deice aircraft and is often used to deice runways and taxiways.  Urea and road salt are commonly used on the automobile parking lots and airport roads.  Approaches to this problem:

a.	Many airports rely on variations of conventional stormwater systems.  Catch basins and storm sewers direct the runoff to detention basins.  The water can be pumped through a force main into the sanitary sewer system during the winter when significant quantities of pollutants are present.  O'Hare has a sophisticated system that also provides flood control. 

b.	Albany has developed a biological glycol digestion facility that metabolizes the glycol, yielding methane and drinking water.  The digestion plant runs on the methane.  In fact, the plant is a net energy producer.
 
6.	Wildlife Conflicts:  Collisions of wildlife with aircraft can cause damage and even catastrophic accidents.  For this reason, the FAA strongly recommends that wildlife attractants be removed from the immediate vicinity of aircraft movement areas.  Bird attractants are to be avoided under the runway approaches.  In some situations, removal of wooded areas and wetlands is needed.  FAA Advisory Circular 150/5200-33, Hazardous Wildlife Attractants on or Near Airports, discusses this issue and explains criteria for identifying and resolving potential hazards.    

RESOURCES

The Federal Aviation Administration's Office of Environment and Energy has a website, www.aee.faa.gov/, with information about the FAA's policies and programs related to aircraft noise and air quality.     FAA Advisory Circulars can be downloaded from the following website: www1.faa.gov/arp/150acs.cfm.

Albany International Airport's website is www.albanyairport.com/.

O'Hare International Airport's website is ohare.com/.

Information about the Clean Cities Program is on the Department of Energy's website: 
www.ccities.doe.gov/.

APA-TPD / ATRA  AIRFRONT Issues		  3/29/03 Denver		Berger/ABAM and Doppelmayr Cable Car

AIRPORT LANDSIDE OPERATIONS
K.L. (Dan) Wong, San Francisco International Airport

1.	Airports serve as intermodal facilities for both passengers and cargo, needing efficient ground transport connections in the airport’s landside.  Traditionally, airports have focused development efforts on airside improvements, terminal buildings, and technical advancements (e.g., improved radar) due to the availability of government funds and lease agreements with air carriers.  As a result, landside improvements were not given high priority.
2.	In 1980, San Francisco created the first airport landside operations department in the U.S. to deal specifically with ground transportation and parking, traffic management and to facilitate efficient connectivity between surface and air transportation modes.  As airline passenger volumes have increased, landside issues have been exacerbated at many US airports.  It was not until the mid-1990s that the FAA and FHWA commenced joint efforts to improve landside access.
3.	At most airports, surface modes (e.g., courtesy vehicles, door-to-door vans, limousines, scheduled airporters, and taxicabs) are privately owned and operated by contract, permit, etc.  Regulation of surface modes at airports was reduced, if not entirely deregulated, at the state and federal level during the 1980 and 1990s.  Airports have assumed much of the regulatory powers.

4.	Public transit services at an airport are limited.  Only a few US airports served by rail transit, but this is changing.  The British Airports Authority several years ago established the International Air Rail Organization to spread good practice ideas and world class best practice among those interested in rail services to airports.   IARO has 60 members and publshes a  bimonthly newsletter.
5.	Many US airports are geographically constrained to expand landside infrastructure.  The Transportation Safety Administration, now part of the newly established Department of Homeland Security, has requirements that impose additional constraints.  The increasing dispersal of the US population and jobs away from the central cities further complicates these prospects.  Traffic congestion often occurs throughout much of the day, not just during peak periods.
6.	Typically each rental car operator operates its own courtesy shuttle service, whether to on- or off-airport facilities.  With consolidated rental car facilities being undertaken at many US airports, airports are opting for consolidated rental car courtesy vehicle systems.  San Francisco recently replaced its rental car shuttle with an APM.  Over 9,000 rental car transactions are processed on a peak day.

7.	The number of hotels on or near airports has increased in recent years.  Traditionally, each hotel operates its own airport courtesy shuttle.  The number of courtesy shuttles often exceeds the capacity of loading zones.  Pricing strategies can be employed to encourage hotels to consolidate their courtesy shuttle operations, reducing trips by over 33% in San Francisco.  Pricing strategies and local grants can   increase use alternative clean-fuels (e.g., CNG).  Hotels have benefited from lower costs and from not dealing with employee union requirements.
8.	Airports must accommodate long-term parking needs, usually at the periphery of the airport requiring shuttle services.  In 2002, 6.1% of  passengers in San Francisco utilize long-term parking.  Of this 56.9% was at the airport lots and 43.1% at off-airport facilities.  Pricing strategies have been utilized to reduce trips.  Local grants are increasing use of alternative clean-fuel vehicles (e.g., CNG).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Lester A. Hoel and Heather Wishart Shriner, Final Report - Evaluating Improvements in Landside Access for Airports (VRTC 99-R7), Virginia Transportation Research Council, October 1998

K.L. (Dan) Wong, AICP MITE, Oral Interviews with Dave Dunn, Elizabeth Mingle, Marilyn Chin, and Roger Hooson of the San Francisco International Airport, March 2003

San Francisco International Airport, 2002 Air Passenger Survey (April 8 through 16, 2002)

Andrew Sharpe, Director General, International Air Rail Organization, London,  www.iaro.com.

US Department of Transportation - Federal Highway Administration, Airport Ground Access Planning Guide, December 1996

US Department of Transportation - Federal Highway Administration and National Highway Institute, Landside Access for Intermodal Facilities - Participant Workbook (NHI Course No. 15264), June 1995

APA-TPD / ATRA  AIRFRONT Issues		  3/29/03 Denver		Berger/ABAM and Doppelmayr Cable Car

AIRPORT APMs
Lawrence J. Fabian, Trans.21

1.	There are now 27 airports with operating Automated People Movers, several with more than one.   Over half of them (16) are in the United States.  An APM is defined to be a passenger transport system in which vehicles are operated on exclusive guideways by computer controls with no need for drivers or station attendants.

2.	Airport APMs can be simple shuttles such as at Miami and the WED system at Houston, each carrying about 10,000 passengers a day -- a minor part of the overall airport operation.  They can also be substantial line-haul systems such as at Atlanta, where a 6-station APM forms the spine of the airport and carries about 240,000 passengers a day – more than most U.S. urban bus systems.

3.	Most of these APMs are used to interconnect airport terminals.  However, many serve other functions as well, such as
-  Atlanta		connection to regional transit
-  Dallas/Fort Worth	remote parking
-  Dusselfdorf		parking, regional transit
-  Minneapolis/St Paul	parking, car rentals, regional transit
-  Newark		parking, regional transit
-  San Francisco		parking, car rentals
-  Tampa		parking

4.	An APM underway at Paris/Charles DeGaulle Airport will serve Roissypole, an extensive commercial park devoted to hotels, meeting and exhibit space, and office facilities.  In Birmingham, UK, an APM will soon link the airport to regional rail and a major exhibit facility adjacent to the station.  The “new” Hong Kong airport has plans for extensive SkyCity commercial activity near the terminal.  There are similar plans for the new Seoul airport.

5.	The consolidation of scattered car rental facilities, each with its own shuttle operation, into one centrally owned and managed center is a new trend at airports.  Cleveland, Dallas and San Francisco were the first such facilities, and the newly opened APM at SFO replaces buses that had been serving the “RAC” (Rent-A-Car”) facility for several years.  Atlanta has plans to build an additional APM to link the airport to a remote RAC.

6.	Miami plans to create a new intermodal ground transport center about a mile for its highly congested terminals to reduce traffic at its curbs.  This center will have major parking, RAC, taxi/bus unloading areas, and eventually three rail services.  Los Angeles is planning a similar “intercept” strategy for security and growth reasons at LAX.

7.	The system costs of current airport APM projects range from $14-55 million per kilometer.  This excludes basic civil costs – which can be quite substantial for underground and elevated systems.  These typically are integrated into larger building and infrastructure construction for the airport complex.  APM system costs depend mostly on capacity requirements, level of amenities, and the selection of technology/supplier.

8.	There are now nine APM technologies from six suppliers that have successful project experience at airports:

-	Bombardier CX-100 (previously Westinghouse, AEG, then ADtranz) – the “standard” rubber-tired airport APM now operating at 16 facilities
-	Bombardier SkyTrain – steel-wheeled, as in urban Detroit and Vancouver, soon to open at New York/JFK
-	Bombardier Monorail – operating at Newark (large scale) and Tampa (small scale)
-	Doppelmayr – ready to operate at Birmingham/UK and underway at Toronto
-	Mitsubishi Heavy Industries – operating at Osaka, Hong Kong, and underway at Miami and Singapore
-	Niigata and Kobe Steel – operating at Taipei
-	Poma-Otis – operating at Tokyo/Narita, Cincinnati, Minneapolis/St. Paul, Detroit, and ready to open at Zurich
-	Siemens VAL – operating at Chicago, Paris/Orly, and underway at Paris/CDG
-	Siemens H-Bahn – operating at Dusseldorf

9.	There are ten service-proven APM technologies that have not been implemented in airports – Aeromovel, Alstom, Ansaldo, Hitachi, Kawasaki, Leitner, Schwager-Davis, Severn-Lamb, FROG/2getthere, and RATP/SK.  In addition, there are several dozen companies developing their own APM designs in various stages of development and commercial readiness.

10.	Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) is an advanced form of APM with service similar to automatic taxis, each carrying 1-6 passengers on non-stop trips.  PRT is in development, although a prototype has operated at West Virginia University since the 1970s.  The service envisioned is on-demand and extends over an entire network with off-line stations.  Despite small vehicles, fairly high volumes can be carried over individual segments of the network.  If capacity becomes a problem, adding network links can resolve the problems.

11.	This many-to-many service offers attractive solutions to link airports to airfront parking, car rentals, and hotels.  System costs are estimated to be $8-12 million/mile.  Civil cost is about half of the total.  The small dimensions of vehicles and guideways means that tighter turn radii and steeper grade-climbing capabilities provide installation flexibility.

12.	Commercial developers of PRT technologies include Advanced Transport Systems Ltd. (UK). Austrans (Australia), CyberTran (USA), PRT Korea, YorkPRT (UK), and Taxi 2000 (USA).

RESOURCES

*  Planner’s Guide to Automated People Movers (Trans.21, Boston, 2002).  Trans.21 also has published Benchmarking studies of airport APMs and maintains databases on airport and other APM projects.

*  “Telematics as a utility facility for airport-related industrial estates”, by Carl Loefen, Airport Forum (Momberger Airport Information, Germany, June 1992), www.momberger.com.

*  Articles on airport parking, The Parking Professional (International Parking Institute, VA, Jan. 2000, Oct. 21 and June 2002), (540) 371-7535    www.parking.org

*  Urban Land Institute, DC,  (202) 624-7000   www.uli.org,  has no reports on airport commercial districts.

*  Personal Automated Transportation: Status and Potential of Personal Rapid Transit (Advanced Transit Association, www.advancedtransit.org, 2003).  

APA-TPD / ATRA  AIRFRONT Issues		  3/29/03 Denver		Berger/ABAM and Doppelmayr Cable Car

CARGO  &  COMMUNICATIONS  INFRASTRUCTURE
Professor Amiy Varma, No. Dakota State University

1.	E-commerce, just-in-time manufacturing, and supply management systems are the growing reality of today’s economy, driving airfront growth.  They require coordination of supply, production, distribution, and customer location.  Air cargo is used as competitive tool (time, reliability, flexibility, quality, total cost, and IT compatibility).  40% of international cargo by value is now transported by the aviation industry.

2.	Aviation logistics will evolve around e-commerce as freight forwarding organizations mature around computerized control and documentation.  There needs to be communications across selected supply chains of  truck, rail, air and sometimes marine cargo movements.

3.	Communications across entire supply chains are proposed, but not yet developed, still a dream.  Initially there is more demand for freight forwarders and 3rd party logistics (forwarders), evolving toward demand for 4th  party logistics using  internet technology over entire supply chains.  We are just starting to understand the architecture of information flows.

4.	Examples of efforts to improve communications for better cargo handling and movement are:
a.	Hyundai Material Handling Systems such as Asiana Airlines (Seoul) and Hong Kong.
b.	Siemens Dematic (Mannesmann Dematic Colby) - more than 6000 logistics installations, of which ~300 at airports
c.	Biometric “Smart Cards” – FAA test at Chicago’s O’Hare, to demonstrate operational electronic cargo manifest and security, perhaps then LAX and Toronto’s Pearson
d.	Proposal to incorporate data for over 350 airport business processes and 400 airport technology systems, allowing assessment of airport security vulnerability (AISES)
e.	Internet-based Intelligent Agent Technology for real-time decisions (Lockheed-Martin)

5.	Benefits of integrated logistics are increased efficiency and security, reduced dwell times for loading and unloading, advance notice of delivery, improved planning and resource utilization, advanced detection and security through better assessment and enforcement.

6.	There are urgent communication infrastructure needs and standards.  The challenges involve using IT to provide logistical information in timely manner.  The most complex issue is how customs clearance can be handled for gateway international flows.  At airports, we need a more efficient system to take cargo from landside to airside and vice versa .   Should transfers take place at airport e-fullfilment centers?  Korean officials aim to make the new Seoul airport a leader.

7.	Examples of airports with advanced logistics centers are Dallas/Ft Worth, Global TransPark (NC),  Kelly AFB (San Antonio TX), Taisugar Logistics Park (Taiwan).  What are their economic impacts?

RESOURCES

* www.hdmh.com		* http://www.is.siemens.de/siemens-airports/news_dematic.htm
* www.aircargoworld.com		* www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/pp/Aircargo.pdf
* Ashford, N., Stanton, H.P.M. and Moore, C.A. Airport Operations, 2nd Edition, McGraw-Hill, 
   New York., 1997.
* Center of Cyber Logistics, http://www.ccl.cityu.edu.hk/CyberLogistics/CyberLogistics.htm

APA-TPD / ATRA  AIRFRONT Issues		  3/29/03 Denver		Berger/ABAM and Doppelmayr Cable Car

FREIGHT,  LOGISTICS,  & JIT MANUFACTURING
Professor Amiy Varma, No. Dakota State University

1.	We have experienced long-term economic growth.  Despite some cyclic recessions and extreme events (e.g. oil crisis, wars, acts of terrorism, etc.), continuing economic growth is expected.  

2.	Manufacturing and heavy industry have fewer chains.  Products and processes are more concentrated and standardized.  Just-in-time (JIT) practices were first tried in Japan in the 1970s.   The economy will become more service oriented economy and global, with outsourcing.  The move from regional to centralized warehouses resulting in savings.  It creates a new need for sophisticated and reliable electronic ordering and cargo delivery systems.

3.	The economy and businesses are much more interdependent.  The internet is an appropriate platform to achieve integration.  More common will be networks of aligned companies as competitors as opposed to individual companies.  Who delivers first and how soon a product or process becomes obsolete will drive business competitions and innovations.  Economies of scale will give way to economies of scope (customized and flexible production and process).

4.	The evolution of technologies will continue -- advanced materials, new vehicles and parts, telecommunications (cable to fiber optics to wireless), computers and software, detection and imaging technologies (bar coding, sensors, others).

5.	 Air logistics is a $200 billion /year industry in the U.S.  40% of the value (but 2% by weight) of world trade already goes by air.  65% of all air cargo in the U.S. is “express” (delivery in 3 days or less.  Boeing says the volume is expected to triple in next two decades.  More than 70% of all goods sold through the internet are shipped “express”.

6.	The airports handling more than one million tons of cargo are Memphis (world’s busiest freight airport and base of Federal Express), Louisville (base of UPS), and eight others.

7.	The three largest air cargo airlines are Fedex (carried over 7.4 billion ton-miles/year), UPS (over 4.4 billion), and Lufthansa .  According to Boeing, the air freight industry will need 2531 freight airplanes in next two decades (1228 for replacement and 1303 new).  

8.	Expect technological improvements for the plane, containers, facilitation, miniaturization (e.g. electronic industry) .

9.	 Only 10% of transactions are Business-to-Consumer.  90% are B2B, which are forecasted to increase from $ 0.5 trillion to $ 6 trillion in 2005.

10.	Urban deliveries by trucks are a growing problem, especially if we move from overnight or express delivery to same day delivery.    There are typically very large differences between inbound and outbound flows.

11.	Metropolitan planning concerns include a play-off between downtown and “Aerotropolis” – emergence of clusters and spines of aviation-linked businesses radiating outward from a major airport.  This concentration can lead to congestion and pollution.  Metro planners need to understand the impacts of e-commerce and JIT manufacturing.  They need data to understand the magnitude and temporal and spatial pattern of air cargo flows, its impacts and costs, and how to finance needed infrastructure and services.

12.	Challenges include:

a.	Should air passengers and cargo be separated?  90% of airline revenues are from passengers but that may change in future.
b.	Efficiency vs. Reliability vs. Safety  vs. Security vs. Noise –how to balance and prioritize
c.	How to effectively incorporate technology for navigation, controls, loading/unloading, safety, and security purposes as well as streamlining communications over entire supply chain?

RESOURCES

* www.worldtrade.org		* www.boeing.com/commercial/aircargo

* www.aircargoworld.com		* www.tiaca.org

* ULI on the Future: Cities in the 21st Century, Urban Land Institute, DC,  2000.

* Ashford, N., Stanton, H.P.M. and Moore, C.A. Airport Operations, 2nd Edition, McGraw-Hill, 
   New York., 1997.

* Brewer, A.M., Button, K.J., Hensher, D.A. Handbook of Logistics and Supply-Chain 
   Management, Pergamon, New York, 2001. 

* Kasarda, J.D. The Aerotropolis: Airport-Driven Commercial Development, ULI Europe Summer
   Conference, June 20, 2002

APA-TPD / ATRA  AIRFRONT Issues		     3/29/03 Denver	   	   Berger/ABAM and Doppelmayr Cable Car

PROJECT CULTURES
Bob Griebenow, Berger/ABAM

1.	Large engineering and construction projects in a particular sector tend to develop a certain modus operandi that can be referred to as a Project Culture.  There are many variations, and many plans are never built.  They differ depending on both public and private aspects.  They also vary in the degree of attention from the press and elected officials – at local, regional and national levels.  

2.	APMs at airports are typically exclusively airside or exclusively landside.  For reasons given below, a combination of the two is difficult.  Airside and landside projects have two very different cultures.  As planners and implementers of projects, we need to understand these differences to successfully bring projects to completion.

3.	The agencies that operate airports and control airside properties vary widely in government structure and authority.  Typical is a port authority, which is quasi-governmental agency that can levy taxes.  Most of their revenues are collected from fees or profit-making ventures, such as parking, car rentals, retailing, etc.  The Board of Directors is either elected or appointed.  They can often make decisions in ways similar to those of a private sector corporation, not requiring, for example, voter approval for even very large projects.

4.	Private stakeholders in an airport APM project must “profit” from its funding and operation.  Only public agencies (cities, counties, state authorities, transit properties) contribute to the project “for the common good.

5.	The single largest profit center for airports is in parking operations, followed by the aircraft gate fees paid by the airlines.  Secondary sources include revenues from commercial ventures, such as private tenants on airport property, taxes, sale of property, and fees.  The airport agency has large tracts of land that are their source of worth and income.  They can control these properties.

6.	In some cases, the public authority competes directly with the private sector.  A ready example is publicly-owned parking surrounded by an array of competing privately owned Park+Fly operations.   Others are hotels, restaurants, newsstands, and other retail.  Airports may not directly operate businesses on site, but they profit from those businesses.  They do not typically benefit from businesses that are off-airport.  Airports can charge bus, shuttle, and taxi operators.

7.	Airside projects are much easier to plan, fund, and implement because they are under the control of one stakeholder.  Landside projects connecting to the airport are much more difficult due to the large number of stakeholder interests and multiple public jurisdictions.

8.	Funding for landside projects is more difficult because APM revenues do not typically cover capital costs.  Moreover, they are not easy to collect, and disbursement is often controversial.  Landside APM service often conflicts with existing services whose operators therefore tend to oppose the competition.

9.	Landside APMs usually must be approved by a voter referendum.  Thus, they need to have support from metropolitan opinion makers and political leaders.  Their services, on the other hand, benefit only a portion of the citizenry.  Getting voter approval is not easy.

10.	Airport officials will discourage APMs that serve competing landside parking and retail.  
APA-TPD / ATRA  AIRFRONT Issues		  3/29/03 Denver		Berger/ABAM and Doppelmayr Cable Car

AIRFRONT IMPROVEMENTS
Jeral Poskey, ATRA Secretary-Treasurer

1.	Airport planners focus solely on airport property and operations.  They can be surprisingly oblivious to planning and development off of airport property.

2.	Most airports are surrounded by several cities or towns.  These cities compete for jobs and tax dollars, with little coordinated planning done.  Property owners around an airport have unique characteristics and needs with regard to noise, traffic and other services.  The presence of multiple municipal governments makes it difficult to address these concerns in a coordinated way.

3.	An APM for a small area around an airport, financed with loans and without any revenue service, could cost as little as $3-5 million/ year in loan repayments.  If fares and advertising revenues are collected, this would decrease the net cost.  Private sector studies indicate that APMs that are integrated with the airport could be self-sufficient, including capital costs.

4.	Business improvement districts (BIDs) are a form of self-taxing, where a majority (usually a super-majority) of businesses jointly decide to impose a mandatory tax on businesses within their area.  These funds are then normally used to improve the infrastructure and ambiance of the area (e.g. street cleaning, landscaping, security, signage, and information bureaus).  Over time, the agenda and  mission of a BID often evolve to other activities and they can provide a framework that brings unified control and planning and need their own checks and balances.

5.	BIDs have only been around  in the U.S. since 1974.  The majority were created after 1990.  Little is known about their long-term form and impact.  There are over 400 BIDs in the U.S.  The vast majority focus on downtown core areas.  BIDs exist in almost all states (North Carolina excepted).  They are sometimes known by other names (e.g. municipal utility districts (MUDs) in Texas).  In some states, any residential property within the BID boundary is exempt from the tax.

6.	The two primary reasons BIDs are formed are fear and opportunity.  Fear often comes about after a surge in crime, or the closing of a major retail or employment tenant.  Opportunity comes from events such as the Olympics occurring, and an area wanting to improve its appearance for visitors.

7.	BIDs can function as a “shadow government,” offering tenants and property owners control of the provision of services and a united voice in local affairs.

8.	Funding for BIDs is frequently based on property values.  Rates of 2 to 5 mills are common ($2 to $5 per $1,000 of assessed value).  Annual budgets of $2 - $5 million are typical for large BIDs.  BID revenues can often be used to leverage other government funds, frequently, government at a 10:1 ratio.  BID revenues can serve as the local match to Federal funding.  BID funds could function as secondary recourse funding sources, allowing a lower bonding rate.  The taxes would only be imposed if higher than expected costs or lower than expected revenues prevent making scheduled loan or bond payments.

RESOURCES

*  International Downtowns Associations, the largest organization of BIDs.  www.ida-downtown.org
*  Urban Land Institute, DC,  (202) 624-7000   www.uli.org
*  BIDs: Business Improvement Districts, by Houston, L. O., Jr. (1997).  Urban Land Institute

APA-TPD / ATRA  AIRFRONT Issues		  3/29/03 Denver		Berger/ABAM and Doppelmayr Cable Car

AIRFRONT LAND USE PLANNING
Chris Duerksen, Clarion Associates

1.	Airport planning in the U.S. proceeds with a two-phase development horizon.  This first generally goes out to 10 years, and the second 10-20 years.  This is especially relevant to new airports.  There is a myth that economic development comes quickly.  Experience indicates that regional officials give planning only afterthought, that officials are neither preservative nor opportunitistic.

2.	10-year  planning activities typically find low-image, low-value uses among the current mix – billboards, parking, and low-end hotels.  There is a variety of aviation-dependent uses – cargo, aviation suppliers, hotels, etc.  Housing near the airport tends to be moderately priced.  The loss of farmland or greenspace and often sensitive natural areas are often issues.  There are always significant traffic andstorm water runoff issues

3.	Often special districts with dedicated revenues come into play.  There is great need to think of building communities.

4.	The 20-year planning phase deals office, research, light manufacturing, and warehousing, as well as other commercial and institutional uses with an airport “affinity”.  Residential development tends to take on higher-end characteristics.  There is pressure to development near the noise contour lines within which aviation planners typically exclude development.

5.	Planners should endeavor to avoid:

-	Low-image uses at prime locations

-	Residential uses too close to the airport, and that a mix of housing types is in demand

-	Mediocre quality in development that retards the evolution to high-value uses

-	Adverse environmental impacts

-	Astoundingly uncoordinated land use and transportation

-	Lack of coordination between airside and landside land use planning

APA-TPD / ATRA  AIRFRONT Issues		  3/29/03 Denver		Berger/ABAM and Doppelmayr Cable Car

A PRT & WIRELESS-ENABLED AIRPORT PARADIGM
Peter J. Muller, Olsson Associates

1.	Personalized rapid transit (PRT) incorporating intelligent wireless communications have the potential to allow the reinvention of large airports. This combination is called a T-Pod (for Transportation Pod) system.  Small pods can transport passengers directly to their gates from remote parking areas. 

2.	The configuration would dramatically decrease waiting and allow for downsizing or even elimination of ticketing and baggage handling functions. At the same time, concessions and security could be consolidated allowing both to provide improved passenger service. 

3.	Savings from downsizing, eliminating or consolidating existing facilities should offset implementation costs.  Potential benefits and savings include:

More Seamless Travel		More Privacy			Better Security
Less Walking			Less Lost Luggage		Less Waiting
Less Taxiing			Less Pollution			Less Concentrated Noise
Remote Runways			No Terminal			No Baggage System
No Ticketing Area		No Parking Structure		No Shuttle Buses
No Tugs				Consolidated Concessions		Automated Way Finding
Quicker Surface Access		Greater Redundancy

4.	Retrofitting may be difficult.  This PRT-centered design is likely to be first implemented for large expansion projects or for entirely new airports. Airports should start planning now in order to be ready to implement T-Pod systems when they come into widespread use.

REFERENCES

MacDonald, R.A. Airport Mobility
Robinson, J. and Duncan, G Personal Rapid Transit Technology – Opportunities for
 Airport Passenger Terminal Facility Planning
Taxi2000 Corporation, T2 and Its Business  www.taxi2000.com
Muller, P.J., A New Airport Paradigm, Airport Magazine, May/June 2002 pp 42-43
Lowson, M.V., Engineering the ULTra System
Lowson, M.V., Surface Transport History in the UK – Analysis and Projections Proc Inst
 Civil Eng Transp Vol 129 Feb pp 14-19
Lowson, M.V., Sustainable Personal Transport Proceedings of the Institution of Civil 
Engineers
Lowson, M.V., Municipal Engineer (5) Issue 1 pp 73-82

APA-TPD / ATRA  AIRFRONT Issues		  3/29/03 Denver		Berger/ABAM and Doppelmayr Cable Car

AUTHOR IDENTIFICATION

Whit Blanton, AICP					Bob Griebenow, AIA, ASCE
Renaissance Planning Group					Principal, Berger/ABAM Engineers, Inc.
100 East Pine Street  Suite 401				33301 Ninth Avenue South  Suite 300
Orlando, FL   32801					Federal Way, WA  98003
407-487-0061 x13						206-227-0147    
wblanton@CitiesThatWork.com				griebenow@abam.com

Michael R. Callahan, MUEP				Peter Muller, Airports Team Leader
Aviation Planner						Olsson Associates
Parsons Transportation & Management (jv)			143 Union Blvd.  Suite 700
45045 Aviation Drive  Suite 200				Lakewood, CO   80228-1825
Dulles, VA  20166-7528					720-962-6072  x239   
703-898-9858						pmuller@oaconsulting.com
Michael.Callahan@MWAA.com

Tom Clarke, AIA						Mark Johnson, AICP, Director
Planning  Design Construction				Landrum & Brown
1600 York  #104.						11011 King Street  Suite 108
Denver CO  80206						Overland Park, KS  66210
303-322-3904						913-451-3311	
tclarkearch@mho.com					majohnson@landrum-brown.com

Christopher J. Duerksen					Jeral Poskey, Secretary-Treasurer	
Clarion Associates						Advanced Transit Association
1700 Broadway  Suite 400					PO Box 162
Denver, CO  80290-0401					Palo Alto, CA  94302
303-830-2890	x24					650-255-0030	
cduerksen@clarionassociates.com				jposkey@davinciglobal

Bob Dunning, V.P.					Dr. Amiy Varma, PE, AICP, Assoc. Prof.
ATRA							Department of Civil Eng’g & Construction
23519  264th Ave. South					North Dakota State University
Maple Valley WA  98038					Fargo, ND  58105
425-503-3754						701-231-7041
ckliff@oz.net						Amiy.Varma@ndsu.nodak.edu

Richard Dyment, Aviation Planner				Dan Wong, AICP, MITE
HNTB							Senior Transportation Planner
75 State Street						San Francisco International Airport
Boston, MA  02109						PO Box 8097
617-542-6900 x2356					San Francisco, CA  94128-8097
rdyment@hntb.com						650-821-6512	
							dan.wong@flysfo.com
Lawrence J. Fabian. Director
Trans.21
P.O. Box 249
Boston MA 02122  
617-825-2318		
LFabian@compuserve.com