The National Academies Press

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
This PDF is available at http://nap.edu/25759 SHARE

   
Transportation Network Companies (TNCs): Impacts to Airport

Revenues and Operations Reference Guide (2020)
DETAILS
116 pages | 8.5 x 11 | PAPERBACK

ISBN 978-0-309-48116-8 | DOI 10.17226/25759
CONTRIBUTORS
GET THIS BOOK Ricondo Craig Leiner and RSG Thomas Adler; 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 2020. Transportation

Network Companies (TNCs): Impacts to Airport Revenues and Operations Reference
Guide. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
https://doi.org/10.17226/25759.

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.

Transportation Network Companies (TNCs): Impacts to Airport Revenues and Operations—Reference Guide
AIRPORT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM
ACRP RESEARCH REPORT 215

Transportation Network
Companies (TNCs):
Impacts to Airport
Revenues and Operations—
Reference Guide
Craig Leiner
Ricondo
Alexandria, VA
Thomas Adler
RSG
White River Junction, VT
Subscriber Categories
Aviation • Terminals and Facilities • Passenger Transportation
Research sponsored by the Federal Aviation Administration
2020
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

AIRPORT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM ACRP RESEARCH REPORT 215
Airports are vital national resources. They serve a key role in trans- Project 01-35
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 978-0-309-48116-8
managing and regulating air traffic operations intersects with the role of Library of Congress Control Number 2020932061
state and local governments that own and operate most airports. Research
© 2020 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, http://www.national-academies.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.national-academies.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 215

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
Megan A. Chamberlain, Senior Program Assistant
Eileen P. Delaney, Director of Publications
Natalie Barnes, Associate Director of Publications
ACRP PROJECT 01-35 PANEL

Field of Administration
Eva Maria Cheong, San Francisco International Airport, San Francisco, CA (Chair)
Bakari Brock, Lyft, San Francisco, CA
Tracy R. Harrison, Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport, Atlanta, GA
Kiran S. Limaye, KSL LLC, Portland, OR
Geoff Morrison, The Cadmus Group, LLC, Washington, DC
Gary L. Myers, Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority (retired), VA
Laurie Noyes, Tampa International Airport, Tampa, FL
Susan A. Shaheen, University of California - Berkeley, Berkeley, CA
Kathleen Brockman, FAA Liaison
Rodney Clark, FAA Liaison
Aneil Patel, Airports Council International - North America Liaison
Sarah Pilli, American Association of Airport Executives Liaison
Katherine A. Kortum, TRB Liaison
AUTHOR ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The research team would like to express its gratitude to the mem- Ben Carpenter, Manager of Landside Operations, Reno-Tahoe
bers of the panel for their support, insights, and advice throughout International Airport; Angus Davol, Senior Transportation Planner,
the duration of the project. Theresia Schatz, Senior Program Officer, San Francisco International Airport; David S. Galloway, Ground
supported the work at critical stages and guided the research team Transportation Manager, Dallas Fort Worth International Airport;
through the various tasks and panel meetings. Herald Hensley, Acting Senior Vice President of Parking and Trans-
Craig Leiner was the Principal Investigator from Ricondo, and portation Systems, Denver International Airport; Steven J. Holes,
Thomas J. Adler, Ph.D., from RSG was the Co-Principal Investi- Manager of Commercial Vehicle Operations, Metropolitan Airports
gator. Ricondo led the research on best operational practices and Commission; Jason Miles, Planning Manager, Hartsfield-Jackson
revenue impacts. Other contributors from Ricondo included James Atlanta International Airport; Dawn Romitz, Manager of Terminal
Jarvis, Caldwell Kerr, Trevor Klatko, Darrin McKenna, and Mark Operations, Pittsburgh International Airport; Houssam Sleiman, P.E.,
Taylor. RSG led the research related to the survey of airports, model Director of Capital Programs and Environmental Affairs, Massachu-
development, and programming of the simulation tool. RSG con- setts Port Authority; Shirlene Sue, Manager, Landside Management &
tributors included Alex Levin, Greg Spitz, and Matthew Coogan. Airport Permits, Los Angeles World Airports; and Jeffrey Wolf, Senior
Other subconsultants who contributed were Megan S. Ryerson, Ph.D., Manager, Aviation Business Development, Port of Seattle.
and Bruce Schaller, Schaller Consulting. Industry stakeholders who contributed to the effort included
The research team is grateful for the data, perspectives, and Bakari Brock, Senior Director, City Partnerships, Lyft; Rob Mitchell,
materials shared by airport operators, particularly the following Airports Business Development Lead, Uber; and Ray Mundy,
airport staff who participated in telephone or on-site interviews: Executive Director, Airport Ground Transportation Association.

FOREWORD
By Theresia H. Schatz
Staff Officer
Transportation Research Board
ACRP Research Report 215 is a Reference Guide for airport practitioners that identifies
strategies and practical tools for adapting airport landside access programs to reflect the
evolution of ground transportation modes [e.g., transportation network companies (TNCs)
and autonomous vehicles]. This Reference Guide also identifies impacts on other airport
revenues and operations (e.g., parking and rental cars) for both a current timeframe and a
projected 5- to 10-year outlook.
This Reference Guide addresses strategies for creating long-term sustainable revenue
models, managing curbside and roadway vehicle congestion, assessing customer service
impacts (i.e., location of drop-off/pick-up areas, wayfinding terminology), as well as
presenting strategies to forecast shifts of customer preferences and demand, including
the impact of technology and socioeconomic factors on customer choices and the use of
technology and access to data. There is consideration of how the shift in ground trans-
portation access, started by TNCs, affects long-range facility design and capital planning.
Additionally, this Guide addresses operational considerations and business terms related
to enforcement, staffing, and audits that should be considered as new ground transpor-
tation agreements are developed. Other considerations include making progress toward
airport sustainability initiatives such as the use of fuel-efficient vehicles or alternative-
fuel vehicles and achievement of community or accessibility standards or initiatives, in
particular, compliance with ADA regulations.
Extensive supporting documentation, including a searchable statistical database of
the airport survey and the Airport Mode Choice and Ground Simulator Template (an
Excel-based simulation template) that shows how the mode-choice model is applied
to estimate revenue impact, is available on the TRB website by searching on “ACRP
Research Report 215”.
Transportation network companies (TNCs) have become an increasingly popular form

of transportation since initially permitted at some airports in 2014. While many airports
receive significant revenue from TNCs, others have recorded declines in parking revenue and
rental car transactions that are perceived to be a direct result of TNC operations. There is also
a common perception among airports that TNCs are contributing to the increased conges-
tion on terminal curbsides and roadways. Since the introduction of TNCs, airports have also
recorded impacts to other ground transportation modes, resulting in a need to adapt airport
landside access programs. Now airports are considering the potential impacts of the next
wave of mobility innovation such as the development of connected autonomous vehicles.
ACRP Synthesis 84: Transportation Network Companies: Challenges and Opportunities for
Airport Operators supported the airport perceptions described above. The report also found

that TNCs are causing declines in the use of taxicabs and shared-ride vans at surveyed
airports. These findings were based on a limited amount of data because at the time the
synthesis project was conducted, only a few airports had more than 12 months of experi-
ence with TNC operations. Thus, the amount of data available before and after the TNC
operations began was limited. The synthesis study recommended further investigation
regarding the impact of TNCs on airport revenues and operations.
This research, led by Ricondo in association with RSG, includes best operational
practices and revenue impacts. The results of a survey of large-, medium-, and small-
hub airports were used to develop a disaggregate mode-choice model and a simula-
tion tool that estimates revenue impacts of TNCs. The research also compiled park-
ing and rental car transaction data from the FAA Certification Activity Tracking
System (CATS) as well as from individual airport financial statements in order to assess
the trends and impacts of TNCs on airport ground access revenue. Other contribu-
tors included Megan S. Ryerson, Ph.D., and Schaller Consulting. Nearly a dozen airport
operators contributed in telephone or on-site interviews including Boston Logan Interna-
tional Airport (BOS), Denver International Airport (DEN), San Francisco International
Airport (SFO), Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP), Hartsfield-Jackson
Atlanta International Airport (ATL), Seattle-Tacoma International Airport (SEA), Dallas
Fort Worth International Airport (DFW), and Pittsburgh International Airport (PIT).

CONTENTS
1 Summary
3 Section 1 Introduction
3 1.1 Problem Statement
4 1.2 Purpose of the Reference Guide
4 1.3 Approach to Developing the Reference Guide
6 1.4 Audience
6 1.5 How to Use the Reference Guide: Overview and Organization
7 Section 2 Transportation Network Companies—Overview
7 2.1 Emergence and Development of Transportation Network Companies
11 2.2 Outlook
12 2.3 Evolving Transportation Network Company Business Models
18 Section 3 Impact on Airport Operations
22 3.1 Curb Management
22 3.2 Staging Areas
23 3.3 Balancing Changes in Mode Share
23 3.4 Reassigning Pick-Up and Drop-Off Locations Due to Major Terminal
Renovations/Capital Improvements
24 3.5 Safe and Secure Customer Service: Driver Background Checks, Driver
Training, and Passenger Wayfinding
24 3.6 Developing Constructive Relationships with Transportation Network
Companies
24 3.7 Ensuring the Accuracy of Trip Reporting and Program Audits
25 Section 4 Impacts on Airport Revenues
25 4.1 Survey Data
27 4.2 FAA Revenue Data
31 4.3 Public Airport Data
33 4.4 Proprietary Airport Data
34 4.5 Funding Airport Operations and Capital Programs
44 Section 5 Best Practices
44 5.1 Introduction
52 5.2 Summary Tables of Practices
57 5.3 Policy Development, Regulations, and Permits
62 5.4 Transportation Network Company and Ground Access Management,
Operations, and Analysis
68 5.5 Business and Revenue Analysis and Capital Programming
73 5.6 Technology

79 Section 6 Conclusion
79 6.1 Regulations, Taxes, and Fees
80 6.2 Financial Trends and Impacts
80 6.3 Business Models
81 6.4 Technology
82 6.5 Industry Associations
82 6.6 Airport or Passenger Surveys
A-1 Appendix A Annotated Bibliography
B-1 Appendix B State-Enabling Legislation, City Ordinances,
and Airport Transportation Network Company
Trip Fees
C-1 Appendix C Updated FAA Certification Activity Tracking
System Revenue
D-1 Appendix D Acronyms/Abbreviations
E-1 Appendix E 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.

SUMMARY
Transportation Network Companies

(TNCs): Impacts to Airport
Revenues and Operations—
Reference Guide
ACRP Project 01-35, “TNCs: Impacts to Airport Revenue and Operations,” examined
transportation network companies (TNCs) from multiple perspectives: regulatory, finan-
cial, operational, and managerial. The project included a survey of large-, medium-, and
small-hub airports, interviews with landside managers, the development of a disaggregate
model, and a comprehensive review of the revenue and business impacts of TNCs.
ACRP 01-35 builds on the TRB’s continuing efforts to assess TNC impacts on
urban mobility, and it acknowledges the information provided in technical and policy
presentations at recent TRB annual meetings, as well as the findings presented in a
recent ACRP synthesis report.1 Industry organizations (AAAE and ACI-NA) were also a
valuable resource, especially in support of the airport survey.
The research was guided by a panel of subject matter experts who worked to review
interim products and ensure the quality and relevance of the final products.
The principal product of the research is this Reference Guide, which is designed to help
airport operators develop and implement practical approaches to managing TNCs within
the context of commercial ground transportation policies and programs. The Guide pres-
ents best practices that have proven to be effective tools that airport operators can use to
manage TNC operations and develop sustainable revenue models. The Guide will help
airport operators make judicious decisions about managing TNCs consistent with the
objectives of their overall ground access programs. In particular, the Guide will help air-
port operators evaluate the trade-offs among customer service, revenue generation, current
operations, and long-term facility planning.
The Reference Guide is supplemented by two electronic products: the Airport Mode Choice
and Ground Transportation Revenue Simulator Template and a statistical database. These
products can be accessed on the TRB website by searching on “ACRP Research Report 215”.
An important theme in the Guide is that airport operators need tools not only to manage
current operations but also to seek insight into the consequences of changes to their opera-
tions, regulations, and revenue models. The result of this research comprises specific tools,
guidelines, and policy levers that airport operators can use to support decision-making in a
rapidly evolving environment.
1
Mandle, P., and S. Box. ACRP Synthesis 84: Transportation Network Companies: Challenges and Opportunities for Airport
Operators, Transportation Research Board, 2017.
1

2 Transportation Network Companies (TNCs): Impacts to Airport Revenues and Operations—Reference Guide
The four audiences for the Reference Guide are

• Executive-level managers, planners, and legal staff charged with developing ground access
policy and managing their airport’s TNC regulatory framework.
• Landside supervisors with day-to-day responsibility for ensuring the safe and efficient
operation of ground transportation operations and facilities, and transportation engi-
neers and planners responsible for analyzing curb operations and developing capital
improvements.
• Finance and business development analysts who track the relative contributions and
trends of commercial ground transportation revenue and the impacts on airport finances
and capital programs.
• Information technology staff responsible for implementing programs that track historical
commercial ground transportation data and activities and identify trends.
The working definition of a TNC used throughout the Reference Guide is the following:
A ground transportation corporation, partnership, sole proprietorship, or other entity authorized by
a statutory regulatory body, under which an operator provides prearranged, for-hire services for com-
pensation, through mobile device application technology that connects drivers of personal vehicles to
passengers for transportation to and from an airport.
Several terms are currently used to describe technology-enabled TNC services, among
them ridesharing, ride-hailing, ridesourcing, and app rides. To distinguish the on-demand
TNC services from traditional ridesharing operations (i.e., carpooling and vanpooling), this
Reference Guide considers the term TNC to be synonymous with “ride-hailing.”2
The Reference Guide has six sections:
• Section 1 (Introduction) presents the problem statement and the research approach.
• Section 2 presents an overview of TNCs—their emergence, development, and business
model.
• Sections 3 and 4 present a summary of impacts on operations and revenues.
• Section 5 (Best Practices) is organized according to four categories: policy development,
regulations, and permits; landside operations; business practices, revenue analysis, and
capital programming; and technology. Each category is structured to present a situation
assessment, examples of best practices, and additional resources.
• Section 6 presents ideas for implementing the research findings, updating the research,
and identifying future research topics.
This Reference Guide complements the following ACRP research related to ground access
planning, analysis, and management:
• ACRP Report 20: Strategic Planning in the Airport Industry
• ACRP Report 40: Airport Curbside and Terminal Area Roadway Operations
• ACRP Report 49: Collaborative Airport Capital Planning Handbook
• ACRP Report 146: Commercial Ground Transportation at Airports: Best Practices
• ACRP Project 03-47, “Rethinking Airport Parking Facilities to Protect and Enhance
Non-Aeronautical Revenue” (in progress)
• ACRP Synthesis 84: Transportation Network Companies: Challenges and Opportunities for
Airport Operators
2
“Ridesourcing companies [typically referred to as transportation network companies (TNCs) and ride-hailing] provide
prearranged and on-demand transportation services for compensation, which connect drivers of personal vehicles with
passengers. Smartphone mobile applications facilitate booking, ratings (for both drivers and passengers), and electronic
payment” (Shaheen, S., A. Cohen, and I. Zohdy, Shared Mobility: Current Practices and Guiding Principles, U.S. Department of
Transportation, April 2016, p. 104).

SECTION 1
Introduction
1.1 Problem Statement

The objective of this research was to develop a Reference Guide for airport operators that
identifies strategies for adapting airport landside access programs to reflect the evolution of
ground transportation modes (e.g., transportation network companies [TNCs] and auto
nomous vehicles) and their impacts on other airport revenues and operations (e.g., parking and
rental cars) for both a current time frame and a projected 5-year outlook.3 The Reference Guide
addresses the following topics:
• Strategies for creating long-term sustainable revenue models, supported by a comprehensive
analysis of landside revenue changes (e.g., trip fees, parking, rental car, roadway access fees).
• Responses to curbside and roadway vehicle congestion.
• Customer service impacts (i.e., location of drop-off/pick-up areas, wayfinding terminology,
and displays).
• Strategies to forecast shifts of customer preferences and demand, including the impact of
technology and socioeconomic factors on mode choice.
• Use of technology and access to data (i.e., tracking vehicle location; compiling transaction
data; collecting vehicle dwell time, volume, and speed data).
• Shifts in ground transportation business models, started by TNCs, being reflected in long-
range facility design and capital planning.
• Operational considerations and common business terms to include in sample documents for
adopting new ground transportation agreements.
• Ground transportation policy enforcement and staffing.
• Achievement of airport sustainability initiatives in the use of fuel-efficient vehicles or
alternative-fuel vehicles.
• Achievement of community or accessibility standards or initiatives, particularly compliance
with ADA regulations.
The research conducted under this project was coordinated with the research performed
for ACRP Project 03-47, “Rethinking Airport Parking Facilities to Protect and Enhance
Non-Aeronautical Revenue.” To avoid duplication of work, principal investigators for
both projects conferred regularly to discuss preliminary findings and the direction of their
research. This TNC effort focuses on policy planning, landside operations, and financial
impacts. ACRP 03-47 focuses on the design elements of the adaptive reuse or repurposing of
on-airport parking structures.
ACRP Project 01-35: Amplified Work Plan, April 2018.

3
3

1.2 Purpose of the Reference Guide

TNCs provide on-demand transportation services in most U.S. metropolitan areas. As of
June 2019, TNCs also operate in the ground transportation markets at all major domestic
commercial airports. The rapid emergence of TNCs has presented multiple challenges to air-
port operators, states, regional transit authorities, and city governments. The regional and
metropolitan context is important to acknowledge, because TNCs are one example of a service
provided in a shared economy—a service that has been broadly embraced by customers but
has proven resistant to control, regulation, analysis, and integration into transportation
policies, plans, and operations.
Airport operators have traditionally had a high level of control over commercial transporta-
tion providers that enter their properties, and also over how these services operate on airport
roadways and terminal curbs. This is partly because, unlike cities, airports are treated as private
property with controlled access. In addition, airports are highly lucrative sources of business for
ground transportation operators, and thus commercial operators are generally responsive to
airport requirements. Ground transportation managers can usually rely on this relatively high
level of control over services and facilities. At the same time, managers have always had limited
resources available to address customer service issues and adherence to rules and regulations.
With the entry of TNCs into the commercial ground transportation landscape, airport opera-
tors may find themselves struggling to maintain efficient, cost-effective, and safe operations in
a dynamic environment. Now that TNCs have evolved to reach critical mass in airport com-
mercial ground transportation operations, their continued use presents airport operators with
multiple challenges.
The purpose of this Reference Guide is to provide airport operators with information, best
practices, and tools that will assist with managing TNCs within the airport ground access system.
Specifically, this Reference Guide is intended to
• Provide the basis for integrating TNCs into commercial ground transportation operations.
• Compile effective approaches to managing TNC operations.
• Present tools for estimating the impacts of changes in fee structure and mode share.
• Present empirical data on the impact of TNCs on ground access revenue and capital programs.
• Outline a strategic approach to managing change and new technologies in airport ground
access services.
1.3 Approach to Developing the Reference Guide

Five principles informed the development of the Reference Guide:
• Be broad enough to encompass a variety of topics and themes of importance to airport operators.
• Recognize that airports are at different levels of policy development and analysis.
• Offer practical and proven practices that have been used with success.
• Support strategic planning, as well as tactical actions.
• Recognize the rapid change in commercial ground transportation.
The research comprised nine tasks, as shown in Exhibit 1-1. The work was conducted to
document how airport operators
• Develop permitting procedures and enforce regulations.
• Locate passenger drop-off and pick-up areas within the overall context of ground access
operations.
• Manage vehicle staging and holding areas.

Introduction 5
NOTE: TNC—transportation network company

SOURCE: ACRP Project 01-35: Amplified Work Plan, April 2018.
Exhibit 1-1. Research work plan.
• Establish trip fees charged to TNCs and collect and confirm payment of such fees.
• Monitor and respond to revenue impacts and their effects on airport finances.
• Update capital plans to support evolving ground transportation operations.
The first phase, “Investigation,” included the research panel’s approval of the amplified work
plan, a literature review, interviews with airport landside managers, an online survey of the top
100 U.S. airports, and the initial development of ground access mode-choice models to analyze
TNC impacts on mode share and revenue.
The second phase, “Insights and Analysis,” included two tasks: (1) summarize the data and the
impacts to revenue, and (2) write the interim report, which included an outline for the Reference
Guide. The interim report compiled the results of the research conducted for Tasks 1 through 5,
and it serves as the principal source for this Guide.
Extensive supporting documentation (available on the TRB website by searching on
“ACRP Research Report 215”) includes a searchable statistical database of the airport survey
and the Airport Mode Choice and Ground Transportation Revenue Simulator Template, devel-
oped using the R programming language, that shows how the mode-choice model is applied to
estimate revenue impact.

1.4 Audience
In general, the primary audience for this Guide encompasses operating, administrative,
finance, and information technology professionals within an airport. Senior airport executives
and their governing boards, who make decisions regarding fees, regulations, capital spending,
and commercial ground transportation policy, are also part of the audience for this Guide.
More specifically, the audiences are
• Executive-level managers, chief financial officers, senior planners, and legal staff charged
with developing ground access policy and managing their airport’s regulatory framework
and finances. These managers review revenue trends and evaluate trade-offs as they develop
recommendations for their policy boards.
• Landside supervisors and law enforcement officers with day-to-day responsibility for ensur-
ing the safe and efficient operation of ground transportation operations and facilities, and
transportation engineers and planners responsible for analyzing curb operations and develop-
ing capital improvements. This group of airport operators provides active curb management,
enforcement, and security. The operators also collect data and perform traffic engineering
analysis of terminal curbs, drives, and access roads.
• Finance and business development analysts who track the relative contributions and trends of
commercial ground transportation revenue and their impacts on airport finances and capital
programs. This includes the management and administration of concessions.
• Information technology staff responsible for implementing programs that track commercial
ground transportation activities. These staff support financial and operating audits, as well
as help landside supervisors track TNC activities for compliance with rules and regulations.
1.5 How to Use the Reference Guide:

Overview and Organization
Section 1 presents an outline of the research tasks and the intended audience.
Section 2 serves as a concise narrative describing the development and evolution of the TNC
business model; this discussion is followed by Sections 3 and 4, which describe TNC impacts on
airport operations and revenue, respectively.
Section 5 presents 24 practices, as well as tools and policies, which airport operators can
reference to address challenges or issues in four broad areas:
• Policy development, regulations, and permits.
• TNC and ground access management, operations, and analysis.
• Business and revenue analysis and capital programming.
• Technology.
Section 5 begins by defining “best practice,” then presents summary tables listing all
24 practices, with each practice accompanied by a brief description. This is followed by four
sections corresponding to the four categories. For airport operators who need additional
information, references to source material are also provided. The Airport Mode Choice and
Ground Transportation Revenue Simulator Template, which shows how the mode-choice
model is applied to estimate revenue impact (based on hypothetical policy changes at San
Francisco International Airport [SFO]), is available on the TRB website by searching on
“ACRP Research Report 215”.

SECTION 2
Companies—Overview
This section outlines the history and development of TNCs—the initial concepts, their
reliance on app-based mobile technology, and evolving business models with ongoing
challenges to profitability. The section concludes with a discussion of TNC impacts on airport
revenues and operations.4
The TNC landscape continues to evolve rapidly. For example, since ACRP 01-35 started,
airport operators have modified curb operations by shifting TNC passenger pick-up and drop-
off to alternative locations, such as nearby garages. Rematch—allowing a TNC vehicle to drop
off a passenger and immediately become eligible for an on-airport pick-up—has emerged as a
management tool that provides passenger wait-time benefits and reduces “deadhead” trips. And
the two major TNCs have completed their initial public offerings (IPOs). This section presents
a discussion of
• The emergence and development of TNCs.
• The outlook for transportation systems.
• Evolving TNC business models.
2.1 Emergence and Development of Transportation

Network Companies
The sudden and unexpected surge of app-based ride services, like Uber and Lyft, in the early
2010s has a backstory that helps explain why they continue to experience rapid growth and how
their services are likely to evolve in the future.
The market for exclusive-ride, curb-to-curb service was expanding well before the early 2010s.
After declining in the 1960s and 1970s, taxi industry revenues experienced growth beginning
in the 1980s, which continued in subsequent decades, spurred by the revitalization of major
American cities.
Major cities, like New York City, Chicago, Boston, Los Angeles, Minneapolis, Atlanta, San
Francisco, Las Vegas, and Seattle, expanded their taxi fleets during the 1990s to meet rising
demand from population growth and economic revitalization. Even with this growth, taxi ser-
vices remained concentrated in the core of major cities and at airports. Getting a taxi in outlying
neighborhoods was often difficult, as was knowing how long the wait might be after making a
telephone request. Even certain large cities (most significantly San Francisco) had severe short-
falls in taxi availability. A 2013 San Francisco study found that only 49 percent of residents who
4
The annotated bibliography (Appendix A) summarizes more than 60 publications with additional information on TNC
operations, other research, policy development, and urban mobility services.
7

called for taxi service were picked up within 15 minutes, and 18 percent waited over 30 minutes
or were not picked up at all.5
Cities like New York City, Miami, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Boston began to see a com-
bination of premium black-car services and unlicensed taxis emerge to fill the gaps left by a lack
of taxi services. New businesses could, in most cities, be licensed as sedan companies; however,
a shortage of drivers made entering the market difficult. Licensing and automobile insurance
requirements for sedan service also made it difficult for new companies to get started.
Market forces and regulations also played a role in the evolution of TNCs. Cities that con-
trolled taxi supply through medallions restricted competition and distorted market forces.
A recent article in Bloomberg6 argued that the poor service offered by taxis fostered the rapid
rise of ride-hailing.
Moreover, the local and fragmented structure of the taxi and for-hire industry made it difficult
for companies to attract new businesses into the market. Companies like 1-800-TAXICAB
attempted to provide a single point of contact for taxi companies in their networks. Yet they
were met with limited success, providing an opportunity to companies that could harness the
efficiencies offered by smartphone technology and provide taxi-like services.
Uber and Lyft, which have become dominant TNCs, pursued this opportunity only after
another company, Sidecar, showed its market potential. The first company to offer local trips
using nonprofessional drivers, Sidecar began beta testing in San Francisco in February 2012.7
Uber offered local trips using drivers authorized by the California Public Utilities Commission
(CPUC) in 2010, but it experienced slow growth because of higher fares. Sidecar’s business
model was different. It sought to build a “transportation social network” whereby smartphone
users could “hitch a ride” with drivers going to a particular destination. In keeping with this
vision, Sidecar’s goal was to create a sense of community among users, providing a “fun option
for getting from place to place” and reducing congestion. In lieu of a fare, Sidecar suggested a
“voluntary donation” to help cover costs.
Another company, Zimride, which connected university- and corporate-based travelers
and drivers for intercity trips, followed Sidecar into the market. Like Sidecar, it characterized
payments as donations rather than fares to sidestep regulations. The key point is these two
services were envisioned as glorified carpools but instead became taxis.
Uber had rolled out UberCab in San Francisco in 2010 to connect users to licensed black-car
drivers using a smartphone app. UberCab was an explicitly for-hire service, but its premium
prices limited its market. As Sidecar and Zimride (rebranded as Lyft) gained popularity, Uber
began offering a less expensive service using nonprofessional drivers.
As these services grew, the taxi industry and regulators strenuously objected to these
companies’ evasion of established taxi and sedan licensing, automobile insurance require-
ments, and vehicle regulations. The new companies claimed they were exempt, arguing they
were merely technology platforms that connected drivers and passengers. Courts disagreed
and issued cease and desist orders in cities across the country that temporarily blocked Uber,
Lyft, and Sidecar from operating.
5
Hara Associates. Best Practices Studies of Taxi Regulation: Taxi User Surveys. SFMTA, San Francisco, 2013.
6
Ritholtz, B., “Taxi Cab Owners and Regulators Created Uber,” Bloomberg, May 4, 2018, https://www.bloomberg.com/view/
articles/2018-05-04/taxi-cab-owners-and-regulators-created-uber (accessed May 11, 2018).
7
San Francisco Examiner, “Need a Ride? Sidecar Helps You Catch Rides with Fellow Drivers in San Francisco,” June 26, 2012.
Fehrenbacher, K., “Zimride Launches Mobile Real-Time Ride Sharing via Lyft,” GigaOm, May 22, 2012. Stone, B., The Upstarts.
Little, Brown and Company, New York, 2017.

Transportation Network Companies—Overview 9
SOURCES: Personal communications from Lyft and Uber, August 2019; ACRP Project 01-35: Interim Report, March 2019.
Exhibit 2-1. Timeline—transportation network companies.
As TNCs gained popularity with frustrated taxi riders, authorities were forced to find a
way to regulate the new companies and their novel business model. Part of the challenge was
to define the service; that is, no one exactly knew what these TNCs were: carpool, carshare,
or taxi?
A timeline illustrating the expansion of TNC operations and business development is
presented in Exhibit 2-1.
The CPUC led the way in 2013, creating a lightly regulated category for TNCs, separate from
CPUC regulations for sedan companies and municipal regulations for taxis. Unlike sedan and
taxi operators, TNCs could conduct their own driver background and vehicle checks and could
rely primarily on drivers’ personal automobile insurance coverage.
Most states followed this model over the next several years. State regulations sometimes pre-
empted more restrictive city regulations, most notably in Texas. Houston, Austin, and, at times,
San Antonio required fingerprinting as part of background checks for drivers. Uber and Lyft
fiercely resisted fingerprinting drivers and lobbied heavily for statewide TNC regulation across
the country. In 2016, Massachusetts legislation resulted in a TNC regulation requiring a full
criminal background check for all TNC drivers.8
By early 2017, statewide regulation was the norm, with only a few cities (e.g., Austin, New
York City, Chicago, Seattle, Portland [Oregon], Minneapolis, and Washington, D.C.) indepen-
dently regulating TNCs. However, state legislation typically carved out an exception for airport
authorities, which were allowed to regulate access to airport roadways separately from states.
8
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Department of Public Utilities, 220 CMR 274.00: Transportation Network Companies,
https://www.mass.gov/files/220_cmr_274_00_final_9-22-17_1.pdf (accessed May 2, 2018).

(Appendix B provides references related to regulations and permits that govern TNC access
to airports.)
With fast and reliable service, low fares, comfort, and ease of payment, TNCs offered many
users an improved service in urban mobility. TNCs were particularly popular as an alternative
to inconvenient or unreliable taxi, bus, and subway services.9 TNCs also provided a means to
avoid the cost of off-street parking, as well as avoid drinking and driving. At airports, TNCs
offered an option to the cost and sometimes hassle of airport parking garages and car rentals.
As TNCs drew patrons from taxis, buses, subways, and personally driven automobiles, their
popularity drove down revenues for taxi owners and drivers, transit operators, downtown and
airport garage owners, and airport rental car concessions.
TNCs utilize efficiencies created by smartphone technology and relaxed regulatory require-
ments. Their algorithms match riders with drivers on demand to minimize wait times com-
pared with alternate modes. Smartphone apps eliminated the expense of back-office staff and
dispatchers and treated drivers as independent contractors, which eliminated the cost of paid
leave, health, and disability insurance. Drivers are required to purchase (or lease) and maintain
their vehicles and provide automobile insurance, saving TNCs from paying these expenses.
However, the principal reason TNCs offer lower fares is that they accept massive losses (sup-
ported by venture capital) as a strategy to earn market share, not because of efficiencies or
regulatory requirements.
Using billions of dollars in venture capital, TNCs can offer passengers fare discounts and
drivers financial incentives that, together with surge pricing, help ensure availability, particu-
larly for periods like peak hour or when bars close late at night.
Although Lyft and Uber both began TNC operations in San Francisco in 2012, Uber expanded
more rapidly, offering service in 14 major cities by the end of 2012. Lyft caught up with Uber
in geographic coverage in the United States after major expansions in 2016 and 2017. Both
companies now cover over 95 percent of the U.S. population. (Sidecar went out of business at
the end of 2015.)
With respect to airports, TNCs quickly emerged as a popular ground access option. The first
airport-issued agreement was at Nashville International Airport (BNA) in September 2014,
quickly followed by SFO in October of the same year. By 2016 TNCs had agreements authorizing
operations at about 60 airports. Yet 10 of the busiest (including Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta Inter-
national, Orlando International [MCO], Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County, Boston Logan
International [BOS], and Philadelphia International Airports) still didn’t allow pick-ups unless
drivers had a chauffeur’s license or livery plates. The negotiation and acceptance of operating
terms and fees continued, with TNCs ultimately entering into agreements with most large-hub
airports in North America.10
As of July 2019, Lyft has 368 authorized airport partners in North America. Their agreements
come in various forms: the majority (more than 220) are executed permits; the balance is in
accord with local ordinances or airport operator actions.
9
Siddiqui, F., “Falling Transit Ridership Poses an ‘Emergency’ for Cities, Experts Fear,” Washington Post, March 24, 2018.
Ori, R., “Parking Lots Disappearing in Ride-Sharing Era as Downtown Construction Booms,” Chicago Tribune, March 23,
2018. Flamm, M., and D. Geiger, “Uber and Lyft Crushed Taxis—Is the Commercial Parking Industry Next?” Crain’s New York,
February 21, 2018. Mandle, P., and S. Box. ACRP Synthesis 84: Transportation Network Companies: Challenges and Opportunities for
Airport Operators, Transportation Research Board, 2017. Rosenthal, B., “‘They Were Conned’: How Reckless Loans Devastated
a Generation of Taxi Drivers,” New York Times, May 19, 2019.
10
McCartney, Scott, “You Can’t Take an Uber Home from These Airports,” Wall Street Journal, July 6, 2016, https://www.wsj.
com/articles/you-cant-take-an-uber-home-from-these-airports-1467829592 (accessed August 2, 2019).

2.2 Outlook
This growth has catapulted TNCs into becoming a major part of the ground transportation
system, especially in urban areas. The impact on transit has been of particular concern. Public
transit ridership in major U.S. cities has been flat or declining over the past few years. A recent
study conducted a longitudinal analysis of the determinants of public transit ridership in major
North American cities for 2002–2018, segmenting the analysis by mode to capture different
effects on rail versus bus. The research found that standard factors, such as changes in service
levels, gas price, and automobile ownership, while important, are insufficient to explain the
recent ridership declines. The research found that the introduction of bikeshare in a city is
associated with increased light and heavy rail ridership, but a 1.8 percent decrease in bus rider-
ship. The results also suggest that for each year after TNCs enter a market, heavy rail ridership
can be expected to decrease by 1.3 percent, and bus ridership can be expected to decrease by
1.7 percent. This TNC effect builds with each passing year and may be driving recent ridership
declines.11 However, transit agency partnerships with TNCs for first-mile/last-mile connections
may improve regional mobility, especially when supported by incentives such as free or dis-
counted rides, guaranteed ride home programs, and linked mobile apps.
The Future of Mobility White Paper assembled demographic, economic, environmental,
and personal travel information from a wide range of industry, state, and business sources and
surveys to provide the “state of the knowledge” in support of transportation modeling and policy
development.12 The paper placed the outlook for TNCs within the context of statewide transpor-
tation systems, summarizing the current size of the ride-hailing market, the estimated impacts
on vehicle miles traveled (VMT), and the likely effects of TNC growth on the use of other modes,
particularly public transportation. Of note is the section discussing the implications of TNC use
on mode shifts. Is the TNC trip replacing one that otherwise would have been made on transit,
in a personal vehicle, or in a taxi? Or is the TNC enabling a new trip that would not have been
made, tapping into latent demand? Citing the results of five surveys conducted from 2014 to
2016, the authors state,
Across multiple studies in different cities, researchers find that modal shift impacts due to ridesourcing
are city- or region-dependent. Further, their impacts may be changing over time. While some studies
conclude that ridesourcing is largely not substituting for public transit trips, several other studies . . .
suggest that ridesourcing can compete with public transit and active modes (cycling and walking).13
At the same time, TNCs continue to be scrutinized for their role in increasing traffic in urban
areas,14 drawing riders from public transit, impacting the ability of drivers to earn a living wage,
and failing to serve the entire population. Public policy responses to these issues have been scat-
tered to date. Yet the pressure to address them is likely to intensify as TNCs become an even
larger component of the transportation system, and as the introduction of self-driving vehicles
draws closer. At least five key issues must be addressed:
• Traffic impacts. Several reports released in 2017 found that contrary to TNCs’ claims of
reducing vehicle trips and alleviating traffic conditions, they are adding millions of miles of
driving to urban roadways. Traffic impacts are most acutely felt in New York City and San
11
Graehler, M., Mucci, R. A., and Erhardt, G. D., Understanding the Recent Transit Ridership Decline in Major U.S. Cities:
Service Cuts or Emerging Modes? Presented at the 98th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington,
D.C., 2019.
12
Shaheen, S., H. Totte, and A. Stocker, Future of Mobility White Paper, 2018. https://cloudfront.escholarship.org/dist/prd/
content/qt68g2h1qv/qt68g2h1qv.pdf?t=pgra5s (accessed June 17, 2019).
13
Shaheen, S., H. Totte, and A. Stocker, Future of Mobility White Paper, 2018, p. 49. https://cloudfront.escholarship.org/dist/
prd/content/qt68g2h1qv/qt68g2h1qv.pdf?t=pgra5s (accessed June 17, 2019).
14
Erhardt, G. D., S. Roy, D. Cooper, B. Sana, M. Chen, and J. Castiglione, “Do Transportation Network Companies Decrease or
Increase Congestion?” Science Advances 5(5), May 8, 2019.

Francisco, but they may also spread to other large, densely populated cities. While an initial
attempt failed in New York City in 2015, several bills are currently pending in city council
to stem the rapid growth of TNCs in congested Manhattan traffic. Lack of data from TNCs
hampers a rigorous VMT analysis; however, the studies suggest VMT may be increasing in
these two cities as a consequence of TNC operations.15
• Transit impacts. Transit ridership has declined in nearly all large U.S. cities in the past sev-
eral years, reversing previous trends. Studies have shown that a substantial fraction of TNC
users are switching from bus or rail services, making TNCs one contributing factor in transit
ridership decline. Transit agencies have responded to this shift by trying to improve their
services and by considering how TNCs might complement or replace their services. Transit
agencies are currently experimenting with using TNCs as a replacement for low-performing
bus routes and as substitutes to costly ADA paratransit services. Transit agencies have also
partnered with TNCs to promote their use as feeder services to bus and rail hubs. In addi-
tion, several governmental units, including Chicago, New York City, Washington, D.C., Las
Vegas, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts, have adopted TNC trip fees with proceeds going
primarily to fund transit needs.
• Labor impacts. TNCs have greatly benefited from treating drivers as independent contractors.
Drivers use their own vehicles, as well as their personal automobile insurance policies,
and TNCs avoid paying benefits, such as vacation and sick leave and health and disability
coverage. Seattle adopted legislation, currently being challenged in court, that would allow
TNC drivers to unionize, and the city is also considering legislation to set minimum driver
wages. Bills in New York City also seek to improve driver incomes. Labor issues may increase
if the economy turns down and unemployed workers enter the industry, diluting driver
revenues and increasing traffic concerns.
• Access for people with disabilities. Advocates for people with disabilities have pushed state
and local governments to require that TNCs provide wheelchair-accessible vehicles. Penn-
sylvania and New York City adopted requirements for TNCs to offer wheelchair-accessible
service. Across the United States, dozens of individuals who rely on wheelchairs or guide dogs
have filed suit against Uber, alleging the company discriminated based on their disability; the
outcome of these suits could affect Uber’s core business model.16 UberACCESS, UberWAV,
and UberASSIST are the company’s responses to this issue.17
• Telephone dispatch. Prospective TNC customers must have both a smartphone and a bank-
ing relationship to sign up as Uber or Lyft users, to request rides, and to make payments. Some
transit agencies have arranged for their dispatchers to take and transmit telephone orders to
TNCs as part of partnership agreements.
As occurred over many decades with taxi regulation, TNC regulation is likely to accrete in
response to particular local problems and constituent concerns.
2.3 Evolving Transportation Network

Company Business Models
Understanding the commercial ground transportation business and landscape has always
been a key priority for airport landside managers. As discussed in ACRP Report 146: Commercial
Ground Transportation at Airports: Best Practices, airport operators develop and evaluate options
A brief review of possible VMT impacts is presented in the Future of Mobility White Paper, which notes two recent studies
15
(New York City and San Francisco).

16
Casey, B., “Uber’s Dilemma: How the ADA May End the On-Demand Economy,” University of Massachusetts Law Review
12, No. 1, 2017.
17
UberACCESS and UberWAV provide a wheelchair-accessible vehicle. UberASSIST provides additional assistance for seniors
and passengers with disabilities.

to manage and operate services consistent with their objectives. In particular, staff are charged
with developing permits, as well as with monitoring performance. This is done to support the
following objectives:
• Customer service. Ensure superior service and a range of options.
• Labor relations. Maintain uninterrupted service and fair treatment of drivers.
• Agreements, permits, and regulations. Ensure operators understand permit requirements,
comply with leases, audit requirements, and provide disability access.
• Fees and revenue. Establish business arrangements that, at a minimum, allow the airport to
recover its costs and potentially increase revenue.
• Operations. Monitor activities related to roadway access and curb congestion.
• Safety and security. Enforce vehicle maintenance and equipment requirements; ensure
operator compliance with training, background checks, and insurance requirements.
• Environmental quality. Support regional environmental and sustainability goals.
• Data. Collect, maintain, and share information related to dispatches, dwell times, and
trip fees.
Many of these issues are echoed in the negotiations between the SFO operator and TNCs;
the operator ultimately accepted and regulated the TNCs’ role in its ground access system.18
The introduction of a new business model that does not fit into legacy ground transporta-
tion categories introduces novelty and uncertainty to the commercial ground transportation
landscape. An understanding of the TNC business model can help airport operators negotiate
agreements that meet policy and operational objectives.
However, a single business model does not necessarily represent the entire ride-hailing mar-
ket. Products, each with its own value proposition, span a spectrum of services; a single large
company, such as Uber or Lyft, might have products at different price points and service charac-
teristics. A search of ride-hailing companies19 identified more than 70 businesses providing some
type of on-demand for-hire service. Further blurring the landscape are efforts by traditional
airport ground access providers, such as SuperShuttle, to incorporate features similar to ride-
hailing into their services.20 Just over half of these companies serve the U.S. market; the balance
operates only in Asia, Europe, or South America.
Three distinct product categories may be considered:
• Premium products: Uber Black and Uber Black SUV were the initial product offerings. These
vehicles are typically owned by a company that pays drivers directly; drivers usually do not
own the vehicles they are driving. Also, the company uses the TNC application for dispatch
and for generating revenue. Before TNCs, these vehicles operated like standard limo/car
services. From the drivers’ perspective, the only difference is that the app tells them where to
pick up or drop off a rider. Because there is a formal arrangement, it is logistically easier for
airports and other municipal agencies to regulate this category of service.
• Peer-to-peer products: With UberX, a private individual uses his or her own car to pick up
and drop off riders. Drivers sign up with the TNC directly and use the app to connect with
riders. The TNC pays drivers directly, which includes commission (a percentage of gross
revenue collected from the rider), plus any incentives or bonuses. Drivers decide whether they
want to be on or off the app, so they may drive 60 hours a week or only a few trips a month.
Also, they may drive for years or for only a couple of weeks. The “easy come, easy go” nature
of the service makes it much harder to regulate, as drivers are on and off the platform as they
18
Cheong, E., Director, Airport Services ACI-NA CEO Forum, “When Technology Disrupts the Airport Business Model:
Ground Transportation Impacts,” ACI presentation, February 2015.
19
Ride Guru, https://ride.guru/content/resources/rideshares-worldwide (accessed May 2, 2018).
A description of SuperShuttle products can be accessed at https://www.supershuttle.com/how-it-works/.
20

Table 2-1. Transportation network company mobility product offerings (as of June 2019).
LYFT DESCRIPTION
Shared and Shared Saver Matches a passenger with others going the same way, so they can split the cost. Price is fixed
upfront and always less than a standard Lyft.
Lyft Standard service; seating for up to four passengers.
XL A “supersized” ride for a larger travel party.
Lux A ride in a luxury vehicle.
Lux Black and Black XL A ride in a luxury “black-car” vehicle with a professional driver. XL version provides seating for up
to six passengers.
Bikes and Scooters Available for local travel in select cities.
Transit View nearby ferry, bus, and train schedules in the Lyft app.
UBER DESCRIPTION
Pool The least expensive option available; shared ride with an option to walk.
X Basic option; seating for up to four passengers.
XL Basic option; seating for up to six passengers.
Comfort Mid-size sedan, extra legroom, temperature control.
Select A four-door luxury sedan with seating for up to four passengers; professional drivers.
Black and Black SUV Uber’s original car service; luxury vehicles with seating for up to four passengers.
Jump Bikes and scooters.
SOURCES: Lyft, Inc., https://www.lyft.com/ (accessed June 3, 2019); Uber Technologies, Inc., https://www.uber.com/ (accessed June 3, 2019).
please. Also, when they are not on the platform, they can drive their cars for personal use. It was
after peer-to-peer services launched around 2012 that TNC volumes increased dramatically:
it was much easier to stimulate driver supply, and the service is much cheaper for the rider.
• Shared rides: UberPool and Lyft Shared (formerly Lyft Line) are a subset of peer-to-peer
products whereby the driver picks up different riders at different points, and the riders may
share the ride for different segments of the trip.21 The driver owns his or her own car and has
a direct relationship with the TNC. This product (also called ride-splitting22) enables TNCs
to generate more revenue and trip volume with the same number of drivers as standard
peer to peer. Consequently, the possible impact is much greater on mass transit. Another
way to frame it is that UberX competes with taxis, while UberPool mimics certain aspects
of traditional transit services.
Table 2-1 summarizes the services from Lyft and Uber.23
The long-term viability of current TNC business operations has been a source of debate in
financial publications, journals, and blogs, including Forbes,24 the Financial Times,25, 26 and Naked
Capitalism.27
According to Forbes, Uber passengers are paying only 41 percent of the actual cost of
their trips. Uber is using venture capital subsidies to subsidize the fares and to provide
21
Other pooled options include microtransit and taxi-splitting models.
22
SAE Task Force J3163 is preparing a full taxonomy and definitions.
23
While Lyft and Uber are currently the dominant companies, Wingz (originally known as Tickengo) competes in certain
markets, especially the West Coast and the Southwest. Wingz serves 21 airports and allows riders to request a specific “favorite”
driver; they conduct driver background checks, which include DMV and CORI checks, as well as fingerprinting.
24
Forbes, “Why Can’t Uber Make Money?” December 17, 2017.
Financial Times, LTD, https://ftalphaville.ft.com/2016/12/01/2180647/the-taxi-unicorns-new-clothes/(accessed April 30, 2018).
25
26
Financial Times, LTD, https://ftalphaville.ft.com/2017/08/23/2192709/a-question-about-ubers-fake-valuation/ (accessed
April 30, 2018).
27
Naked Capitalism, “Understanding Uber’s Bleak Operating Economics,” November 30, 2016. Naked Capitalism, “Under-
standing Uber’s Uncompetitive Costs,” December 1, 2016. Naked Capitalism, “Understanding False Claims About Uber’s
Innovation and Competitive Advantages,” December 2, 2016. Naked Capitalism, “Understanding That Unregulated Monopoly
Was Always Uber’s Central Objective,” December 5, 2016.

more capacity than competitors who cover 100 percent of their costs out of passenger fares.
Researchers confirmed this finding:28
TNCs’ fares on average are much lower than taxis’. It may be because they offer lots of promotions to
passengers when they first operate in a city, or they can charge lower fares since they have lower operating
costs, because they do not have fingerprint-based FBI background checks for their drivers. With time and
stricter regulations, we expect TNC fares to be more in line with that of taxis in the future.
A recent article on pricing examines two routes to profitability: “Will the extra money
come mainly from higher prices paid by consumers or from lower wages paid to drivers?”29
The author concludes that passengers, not drivers, will likely be the main source of financial
improvement, at least for the short term. Using the economic concept of price sensitivity,
the author argues that passengers are not that sensitive to price (i.e., the fare). Citing a recent
study of passenger behavior, the article suggests passenger demand is inelastic. On the other
hand, drivers respond quickly to changes in price by entering or exiting the market. The
article concludes by stating, “Because drivers are four times more price sensitive than riders,
a reasonable guess is that 80 percent of the price burden will fall on passengers, 20 percent
on drivers.”
If TNCs are currently underpriced, then airport operators must anticipate what would
happen to demand if fares were set equal to more established private mode (i.e., taxi) fares.
Underpricing could be one result of the recent IPOs: the need to set fares in line with investor
expectations.
2.3.1 Transportation Network Company Public Offerings

The two most significant TNCs in the United States, Lyft and Uber, recently engaged in
IPOs, with the result of transitioning the companies from privately to publicly held. This has
significantly increased disclosure of business operations, as well as subsequent reporting of
quarterly financial results. Comparisons are complicated because the general view is that Lyft
was too aggressive in pricing its IPO, and Uber used this lesson to later be more conservative.
Lyft share price was initiated at 72 and is now 47.93; Uber share price was initiated at 45 and
is now 30.05.30
Uber Initial Public Offering

Uber’s IPO took place on May 10, 2019. The IPO raised $8.1 billion and valued the company
at $76.5 billion at its closing price, significantly lower than earlier expectations as high as
$120.0 billion. One consequence of the disappointing IPO is that CEO Dara Khosrowshahi has
eliminated a senior executive position (Chief Operating Officer) and is combining the market-
ing, communications, and policy teams into one group to focus on the company’s stagnant
revenue growth. As recently noted in the financial press, “Central to Mr. Khosrowshahi’s job
now is recharging the company’s stagnant revenue growth and taming its big losses. Over the
past year, Uber has struggled to combat an onslaught of competition in both the United States
and regions like Latin America, where well-funded competitors are attempting to steal market
share in both ride-hailing and food delivery.”31
28
Hermawan, K., and C. A. Regan, On-Demand, App-Based Ride Services at Los Angeles International Airport. Washington,
D.C.: Transportation Research Board, 2017, http://amonline.trb.org/63532-trb-1.3393340/t002-1.3410428/678-1.3410497/
17-01061-1.3410560/17-01061-1.3410561?qr=1 (accessed May 7, 2018).
29
Goolsbee, A., “Path to Ride-Share Profits Begins with Higher Prices,” New York Times, June 2, 2019.
30
Yahoo! Finance, https://finance.yahoo.com/quote (Lyft and Uber closing share prices as of December 16, 2019; accessed
December 17, 2019).
31
Brown, E., “Top Uber Executives Out Amid Shakeup,” Wall Street Journal, June 7, 2019.

Lyft Initial Public Offering

Lyft’s IPO took place on March 29, 2019. The IPO raised $2.3 billion and valued the company
at $24.0 billion, higher than earlier expectations of $15.0 billion. As of December 2019, the share
price had fallen by about one-third since the IPO.
Stock Performance and Analyst Ratings Since Initial Public Offerings

Stock analyst ratings on both companies were generally “buy” or “positive” after the IPOs;
however, some of the Lyft ratings have moderated to “neutral.” Most stock analysts view Lyft
and Uber as being in substantially similar businesses with significant upside potential. Despite
some disappointment with stock price performance following the IPOs, stock analysts remain
generally positive on the long-term outlook for these companies and their businesses.
Analysts have made varying statements about the potential for profitability, but almost all
acknowledge that it will be several years in the future. Therefore, the basis for a “buy” rating
is the macro market opportunity when the companies get there and not any notion of current
business profitability or cash flow.
2.3.2 Recent Uber and Lyft Financial Results

Uber
In May 2019, Uber reported a $1 billion loss in the first quarter of 2019, in the first offi-
cial reporting as a public company after its IPO. The company reported a 20 percent increase
in revenue compared with the previous year and attributed the negative results to increasing
competition and the need to offer driver and employee incentives. Uber indicated that it plans
to use diversification as a strategy and highlighted the 89 percent year-over-year increase in
revenue from its food delivery business, Uber Eats.
Uber reported a second quarter (2019) loss of $5.2 billion; a large portion is attributable
to stock-based compensation that Uber paid its employees after going public. Its revenue
climbed to $3.17 billion, its smallest quarterly increase on record and below analysts’ expecta-
tions of $3.3 billion. “Uber has been grappling with an onslaught of competition around the
globe, particularly over the past year. While ride-hailing was once thought by early venture
capital investors to be a market in which one player would dominate, it has turned into a
crowded field, fueled by billions of dollars that have flowed into the sector. That has kept price
wars alive and profits elusive.”32
Lyft
In May 2019, Lyft reported a $1.1 billion loss for the first quarter of 2019. The company
stated that about 80 percent of that loss was related to stock-based compensation related to
the IPO. Revenue nearly doubled compared with the prior year. Lyft believes 2019 will be its
peak loss year. The company expects profitability to improve as it continues to grow its core
transportation business and expands into other segments, including rentable bicycles and scoot-
ers. It also announced a partnership with Waymo, the self-driving car unit owned by Google’s
parent company, Alphabet. Recently, Lyft has reported an improved outlook for its business and
now projects 2019 revenue to be approximately $3.5 billion, compared with a previous range
of $3.275 billion to $3.3 billion.33 “Lyft gained riders faster than expected, and those riders are
paying more, leading revenue to surge 72 percent to $867 million. The number of active riders
Brown, E., “Uber Posts Its Largest Quarterly Loss,” Wall Street Journal, August 8, 2019.
32
Brown, E., “Lyft Raises 2019 Revenue Outlook and Sees Smaller Annual Loss,” Wall Street Journal, August 7, 2019.
33

climbed to 21.8 million from 15.5 million in the year-earlier period, Lyft said. Revenue per active
rider was $39.77, up 22 percent.”34
Aspects of Business Model Sensitivity

Many analysts have focused on Lyft and Uber’s key business drivers, such as the fares
passengers pay and the percentage of the fare drivers retain. This is an inherent tension in the
business model—how much the platform company realizes after paying various costs.
One recent study pointed out a distinction between driver loyalty and customer loyalty.
Drivers move in and out of service and companies (which is a key distinction of the “gig
economy”), whereas customers seem to establish loyalty and contribute to return business.
This distinction helps explain why companies such as Lyft and Uber are looking at different
ways to enhance driver engagement, besides just costly incentives that contribute to losses.
Driver engagement could include, for example, the ability to combine passenger rides with other
services, such as meal delivery and product delivery.
2.3.3 Transportation Network Company Business Diversification

TNCs have increasingly looked at diversification to scale their businesses and to achieve
economic efficiencies.
Uber
Uber has engaged in multiple business ventures besides offering app-based rides. Uber Eats
has been mentioned as a key revenue generator: “‘We continue to have newer markets. We
continue to have businesses like Eats that have amazing growth rates,’ Khosrowshahi said,
adding that he thinks 2019 will be the company’s peak year of losses, which should start to
narrow in 2020 and beyond.”35 There are other Uber products and services, some in opera-
tion, some started and stopped or suspended, and some aspirational. For example, in May
2019, Uber requested permission to initiate its Uber Elevate food delivery service using the Air
Robot 200 UAS, a star-shaped hexa-copter, which can carry up to 25 pounds and can fly just
over 3 miles. In addition, the company has also been partnering with cities and transit agencies
to supplement public transportation.
Lyft
Lyft has invested in businesses beyond app-based rides. These have been focused on related
mobility services, such as bikes and scooters, and connections to municipal transportation. In
March 2019, Lyft introduced a program called City Works to provide rides and connections to
city transportation networks. In May 2019, Lyft began testing car rentals in San Francisco and
now offers a rental option (Lyft Express) for drivers using its platform.
Brown, E., “Lyft Raises 2019 Revenue Outlook and Sees Smaller Annual Loss,” Wall Street Journal, August 7, 2019.
34
Brown, E., “Uber Posts Its Largest Quarterly Loss,” Wall Street Journal, August 8, 2019.
35

SECTION 3
Impact on Airport Operations
The process for a TNC to begin operations is similar across most airports. First, if required
by enabling legislation, the company obtains the necessary state or municipal permit. Then,
the company completes an application for an airport ground transportation permit. On
approval by airport managers, the TNC may legally pick up and drop off in accordance with
that airport’s rules and regulations. This may include paying a one-time fee (e.g., an activation
fee); requiring drivers to have adequate insurance coverage; conducting driver background
checks; reporting and remitting trip fees; and adhering to roadway, curb, and hold lot pro-
cedures. Drivers may need to satisfy additional conditions; for example, when a regulatory
“overlap” exists, a TNC driver may need to obtain additional permits from the county or city
in which the airport is located.
Table 3-1 presents the trip fees and permit conditions of the airports that informed the
best practices presented in Section 5 of this Reference Guide. An updated list with fees as of
August 12, 2019, is included in Appendix B.
Table 3-2 summarizes the principal methods airport operators employ to establish commer-
cial ground access fees.
• Cost recovery allows the airport operator to charge commercial vehicle operators a fee suf-
ficient for the airport owner to recover the costs of providing, operating, and maintaining
the roadways, curbsides, hold areas, and other facilities commercial ground transportation
operators use directly.
• By contrast, a market-based fee reflects the overall business benefits the commercial
ground transportation operators receive, and the privileges they enjoy, as a result of the
presence of the entire airport and from the operators’ access to the traveling public. Typi-
cally, market-based fees are calculated based on the volume of airport-related business
ground transportation operators conduct, and the fees may involve a public bidding
process.
• And in some cases, fee schedules must be developed as specified in state or local enabling
legislation.
As shown in Table 3-2, cost recovery is the prevailing TNC fee approach at large-hub air-
ports, while market-based is the approach used by one-third to one-half of large-, medium-,
and small-hub airports. A small percentage of airports earmark TNC revenue for specific
purposes.
Commercial ground transportation fees are a critical source of operating revenue for air-
ports, and managers carefully monitor trends, transaction activity, and fee collection. In theory,
cost recovery should result in a mode-neutral fee schedule. But in practice, airport governing
boards may differentiate commercial ground access fees in pursuit of policy objectives (e.g.,
18

Impact on Airport Operations 19
Table 3-1. Transportation network company fees and permit conditions at selected airports.
AIRPORT TNC TAX/FEE NOTES BEST PRACTICE

BOS $3.25 (drop-off) increases to Trip fees increase to $4.00/$4.00 July 1, 2020. Conduct robust
$6.00 total as of 10/1/19 State law allows airport operator to require Criminal Offender Record background checks.
($3.00 pick-up and drop-off) as of Information (CORI) and sex offender checks. Pick-up/drop-off to be shifted
10/1/19) High-occupancy vehicle policy can be used to influence mode share. from curbs to garage as of Oct.
1, 2019.
Rematch to be permitted as of Oct. 1, 2019.
50% fee discount for shared-ride trips.
DCA and IAD $8.00 total Applies to DCA and IAD. Collect both a drop-off and a
(MWAA) ($4.00 pick-up and drop-off) Permits were issued to TNCs (Uber and Lyft), not to individual TNC pick-up fee.
$5,000.00 activation fee drivers. Failure to follow MWAA regulations can result in Notices of
Violation, with fines up to $250 per occurrence, applied against the
permit holders.
DEN $5.20 total Rematch is allowed—it reduces roadway traffic, reduces demand for Collect both a drop-off and
($2.60 pick-up and drop-off) space in hold lot, and improves customer service (shorter wait times). pick-up fee.
Pick-up and drop-off shifted in June 2019 from Level 6 to Level 5 due to Allow rematch.
curb congestion.
DFW $10.00 total Major recent adjustment in curb management: only active Collect both a drop-off and a
($5.00 pick-up and drop-off) loading/unloading allowed. pick-up fee.
$600.00 annual permit fee $3.00 of trip fee paid by company; $2.00 by driver.
LAX $8.00 total Rematch permitted. Collect both a drop-off and a

($4.00 pick-up and drop-off) $200.00 per violation of rules and regulations. pick-up fee.
$1,000.00 activation fee Allow rematch.
RNO $1.00 (pick-up only) Rematch allowed only if hold lot is empty. Use rematch to manage TNC
supply.
SEA $6.00 (pick-up only) Trip fee is set in an attempt to “level the playing field” with taxis. Set trip fee in context with
Tiered activation fee: Environmental fuel-efficiency goal (E-KPI) of 10.82 lbs. of CO2 per other commercial ground
$50,000.00 to $100,000.00 passenger trip is based on the equivalent for taxis, which have a 45 mpg access services.
requirement. TNCs can accomplish the CO2 goal using high mpg vehicles, Allow rematch.
deadhead reduction and/or pooling of unrelated passenger and any Establish environmental/fuel-
combination of these three items. Rematch permitted. efficiency policy.
TNCs have the option of paying a pick-up or drop-off fee (i.e., split the
$6.00 into two $3.00 charges). All chose to pay the $6.00 fee.
SFO $4.50 at nearby terminal area Activation fee based on pre-permit trips. Effective June 5, 2019, all
garage Transit First policy. domestic TNC pick-ups moved
to the central garage. Rematch
Continuing to develop, refine, and implement interim measures.
disabled.
MWAA—Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority

SOURCES: ACRP Project 01-35: Airport Survey, June 2018, RSG. ACI-NA, Survey of Airport Trip Fees, August 2018. Airport Ground Transportation Association, 2018
Ground Transportation Vehicle Fees and Fares Survey, March 2018. Ricondo & Associates, Inc., June 2019.
Table 3-2. Establishing and earmarking transportation network company

fees by hub.
TOPIC LARGE MEDIUM SMALL

Method used to establish trip fee
Cost recovery 42% 25% 13%
Market-based 32% 33% 53%
In accord with state, municipal, or other enabling 15% 17% 20%
legislation
No response 11% 25% 14%
TNC revenue earmarked 16% 17% 7%
Have made capital investments because of TNCs 82% 38% 40%
SOURCES: ACRP Project 01-35: Airport Survey, June 2018, RSG.

environmental, social, or living wage), or they may delay approving increases for other consid-
erations (e.g., labor relations).
The scope of this research involved (1) reviewing responses to the airport survey and
(2) conducting supplemental telephone and on-site interviews with eight airports, two TNCs,
TNC drivers, and several industry organizations. The objective was to develop a thorough under-
standing of the current issues, policies, and practices related to TNC management to inform the
development of best practices.
Table 3-3 summarizes the responses to the survey questions related to pick-up and drop-off
operations, hold lots, rematch programs, geofencing, and wayfinding.
As a follow-up to the airport survey conducted in June 2018, the research team inter-
viewed airport managers, senior TNC company representatives, TNC drivers, and airport
Table 3-3. Airport survey results—operations and management by hub.
CATEGORY LARGE MEDIUM SMALL 1

Primary drop-off locations 76% designate the private 75% designate the private 73% designate the private
vehicle departure/ticketing curb; vehicle departure/ticketing curb; vehicle departure/ticketing curb;
19% designate private the others have designated the 27% designate private
vehicle/baggage claim curb. private vehicle/baggage claim vehicle/baggage claim curb.
curb and “commercial vehicle
only” locations on both
departure and arrival levels.
Primary pick-up locations 45% designate private 45% designate private 40% designate private
vehicle/baggage claim curb; vehicle/baggage claim curb; vehicle/baggage claim curb;
32% designate the departure- 31% designate the departure- 33% designate a “commercial
level curb; the rest designate level curb. vehicles only” departure-level
“commercial vehicle only” curbs curb.
or nearby parking
structures/lots.
Has TNC presence led to change in 45% 23% 13%
pick-up/drop-off locations of other
modes?
TNC staging lot location 82% dedicated lot; 9% 62% dedicated lot; 8% 60% dedicated lot; 7% remote
Mean number of spaces combined taxi + TNC lot combined taxi + TNC lot lot
222 spaces 74 spaces 29 spaces
Rematch status 52% do not allow; 38% allow 58% do not allow; 8% allow with 33% do not allow; 13% allow
with some restrictions; 10% some restrictions; 33% allow with some restrictions; 53%
allow with no restrictions. with no restrictions. allow with no restrictions.
Operational requirements Most airports designate specific pick-up and drop-off curbs, require display of trade dress, and place
a limit on dwell time in staging areas; just over one-third require criminal background checks; and 9%
of large hubs have a vehicle fuel-efficiency requirement.
Geofences Nearly all airports have one or more geofences in place.
Areas defined by geofence Large and medium hubs geofence much of the airport property, as well as specific areas (e.g., staging
lot, specific terminal areas); small hubs are more likely to geofence specific terminal areas.
Have TNCs impacted landside Yes: 91% Yes: 62% Yes: 27%
operating costs?
Has there been a TNC impact on Yes: 86% Yes: 85% Yes: 60%
roadways, curbs, crosswalks?
Level of TNC wayfinding 64% have signage equivalent to 54% have signage equivalent to 67% have signage equivalent to
that of parking or other ground that of parking or other ground that of parking or other ground
access modes; 23% have no access modes; 46% have no access modes; 7% have no TNC-
TNC-related wayfinding. TNC-related wayfinding. related wayfinding.
1. Many small-hub airports have only a single-level roadway serving both departing and arriving passengers.
TNC—transportation network company
SOURCES: ACRP Project 01-35: Airport Survey, June 2018, RSG.

industry staff; the interviews represent a cross-section of interests and perspectives on a

range of topics.
The airport managers tended to focus on themes relating to curb operations, hold lot
capacity and location, and the impact of renovations and major capital improvements on
curb management and customer service. The TNC representatives highlighted wayfind-
ing (for both drivers and passengers), location and condition of hold lots, and a desire for
reasonable data reporting and background check requirements. The TNC drivers focused
on hold lot management and amenities, as well as challenges related to efficient passenger
pick-up. Aviation industry organizations offered critical perspectives and information on
wayfinding and trip reporting.
Table 3-4 summarizes the main themes by stakeholder.
Policy boards, landside managers, ground transportation planners, capital improvement
program managers, legal staff, and financial officers have been challenged to respond to the
burgeoning role of TNCs. Airport operators initially reacted by developing new rules for
pick-up and drop-off activities, improvising hold lot locations, and engaging in negotiations
with TNCs over insurance requirements, trip fees, data collection, driver background checks,
and other elements that make up the TNC service. As airport staff shared their experiences
with industry colleagues, and as new regulatory regimes developed, managers evolved their
supervision of TNC activities and now follow a more nuanced approach to managing this
new mode. This is not to say that TNCs no longer present challenges; rather, it reflects how
airport managers have more experience with integrating TNC operations into their commercial
ground transportation services.
As evidenced by the comments expressed in the airport interviews, many key issues persist:
• Managing curb congestion and enforcing permit conditions.
• Supervising and managing staging areas: location, dwell times, amenities, and capacity.
• Balancing changes in mode share: reassigning curbs, relocating hold lots, revising fees.
• Reassigning pick-up and drop-off locations due to major terminal renovations and capital
improvements.
• Ensuring safe and secure customer service: driver background checks and training, and pas-
senger wayfinding.
• Developing constructive relationships with TNCs.
• Conducting program audits and ensuring the accuracy of trip reporting.
Table 3-4. Key themes expressed in stakeholder interviews.
THEME AIRPORT TNC INDUSTRY
Recalibrating pick-up and drop-off locations -
Revising staging area locations and capacity -
Enforcing rules and regulations - -
Impact of renovations and capital improvements - -
Safe and secure customer service: driver background checks and training; passenger
wayfinding
Relationships -
Program audits, compliance, and trip reporting

SOURCE: ACRP Project 01-35.

SOURCE: D. Galloway, DFW International Airport, August 7, 2019.
Exhibit 3-1. Curb signs.
3.1 Curb Management

Airport operators designate the level (departure or arrival) and the assigned area (private
vehicle, commercial vehicle, courtesy shuttle, etc.) for TNC drop-off and pick-up. Grow-
ing enplanements at many airports have resulted in congested curbs and roadways at peak
periods; in response, airport operators have reassigned TNC operations from congested to less
congested levels. As an example, in June 2019, Denver International Airport (DEN) changed
TNC operations by moving all pick-up and drop-off activity to its commercial vehicle level.
This change was prompted by the growth of both enplaning passengers and TNCs, which was
creating a bottleneck on the departures level.36 Dallas Fort Worth (DFW) conducted a com-
prehensive analysis of curb conditions; this resulted in reallocation of curb assignments and
a plan for “permanent holistic curbside signage.” Current curb signs at DFW Terminal D are
shown in Exhibit 3-1.
As well, airport operators have modified curb assignments and, in some cases, have relocated
TNC passenger pick-up to nearby garages or surface lots. As explained by one airport executive,
TNC pick-up can require more curb capacity than other modes: TNCs arrive more randomly (as
distinct from taxis queuing at the curb), and drivers and passengers may need time to identify
each other. As he noted, “With pick-up on the arrival level, the taxi waits at the curb; with TNCs,
the passenger waits at the curb.” An effective practice is to relocate TNC activity to a nearby
garage or intermodal facility.
3.2 Staging Areas

Several airport operators said their initial staging lots quickly filled to capacity and that alter-
native sites were soon needed. This reflects the rapid capture of market share, as well as the lack
of experience in forecasting TNC demand. Accurate data and information from TNCs would
help inform the sizing of staging lots.
Although the airport survey found that for large-hub airports the mean staging lot capacity is
just over 200 spaces, the interviews suggest 265 to 300 spaces reflects a more reasonable number.
36
Personal communication from Herald Hensley, Acting Senior Vice President of Parking and Transportation Systems, Denver
International Airport, August 7, 2019.

DFW International Airport Boston Logan International Airport
SOURCE: D. Galloway, DFW International Airport, August 7, 2019. Ricondo & Associates, Inc., September 2018.
Exhibit 3-2. Staging area.
Adequate staging lot capacity is also important to avoid queues from vehicles entering the lot
spilling back onto adjacent access roads.
Almost all staging areas have sanitary facilities and trash holders, and one has a space for
prayer. Amenities such as driver lounges, canteens, or vending machines are not typically pro-
vided; at several airports the staging lot is a short walk to a nearby gas station or convenience
store. Many airport operators regulate activities in staging lots, including limiting dwell time and
engine idling. Exhibit 3-2 presents two examples of TNC staging areas.
3.3 Balancing Changes in Mode Share

As market shares change, airport operators are reviewing the location and capacity of ground
transportation facilities. One airport operator interviewed is relocating the initial TNC staging
area to the taxi area and relocating the taxi pool to a smaller and more remote location. Another
airport operator has carved out just over 300 spaces in a parking overflow lot a 5-minute drive
to the terminals. Additionally, in response to market share changes and congestion, another
airport operator has split its TNC pick-up locations. The airport offers either curb pick-up or
pick-up at a nearby garage, and it has instituted a two-tier trip fee: $5.00 for curb pick-up and
$3.60 for garage pick-up.
3.4 Reassigning Pick-Up and Drop-Off Locations Due to

Major Terminal Renovations/Capital Improvements
Several airport operators interviewed are in the midst of capital improvements that have
affected curb access and roadway configurations. Terminal doors may be closed, sidewalks and
waiting areas may become inaccessible, and there may be temporary or long-term lane closures
and diversions. Such changes require close coordination and communication with TNCs to
ensure apps reflect the most current conditions. Reconstruction projects are done with some
regularity, so all commercial ground transportation providers must be well briefed on planned
changes to terminal access and roadway traffic patterns.

3.5 Safe and Secure Customer Service:

Driver Background Checks, Driver Training,
and Passenger Wayfinding
Ensuring the safety and security of passengers is of paramount importance to airport manage-
ment. Thorough driver background checks are essential, yet the adequacy of screening TNCs
conduct has been a contentious issue. Massachusetts requires CORI and sex offender checks for
drivers; this level and quality of reporting should be the best practice.
Driver turnover is high for TNCs (relative to other providers), and airport roadways and
curbs are often congested. Airport operators thus should include driver training as a require-
ment in permits. Airport operators should also reserve the right to review and approve train-
ing materials. TNCs train drivers through their websites and apps. Landside managers should
regularly review and verify the adequacy of this training. Driver training is discussed in more
detail in Section 5.
Most airports provide wayfinding similar to that provided for the other commercial ground
transportation services: limos, taxis, courtesy shuttles, and public transportation. Some airport
operators have not installed signage specific to TNCs, while others have worked to develop way-
finding terms and signs to guide passengers to designated pick-up zones. The lack of consistent
signage across airports led the AAAE to recommend a more standard approach to TNC terms
and icons for signs.37 Wayfinding is discussed in more detail in Section 5.
3.6 Developing Constructive Relationships

with Transportation Network Companies
All airport operators interviewed said senior landside managers meet regularly with repre-
sentatives from the TNCs. These meetings offer an opportunity to discuss proposed changes
in procedures and curb assignments, to discuss upcoming capital projects that may alter access
patterns, and to identify emerging customer service or enforcement issues. Several landside
managers mentioned walking terminal curbs with TNC representatives to observe operations
and to discuss the rationale for the airport’s rules and regulations.
3.7 Ensuring the Accuracy of Trip Reporting and

Program Audits
All airport managers interviewed said their TNC permits included the requirement that
the company allow an airport operator to conduct an independent audit to ensure trip fees
are properly recorded. The audits also typically test whether the company and its drivers
are complying with other permit terms and conditions, particularly liability insurance. While
identifying any discrepancies in reported activities, underpayments, or other violations of
the agreement,38 the audit can also be used to test and verify the accuracy of the geofence
coordinates the company is using.
“Establishing a Common Standard for TNC Wayfinding at Airports,” AAAE, August 2018.
37
For an example, the Port of Seattle’s recent audit of TNCs can be accessed at https://meetings.portseattle.org/portmeetings/
38
attachments/2018/2018_03_19_SCM_9_TNC.pdf.

SECTION 4
Impacts on Airport Revenues
A second key component of the research effort focused on examining how TNCs are affecting
airport revenue and rental car transactions. This Reference Guide presents analyses, tables, and
exhibits mainly for large-hub airports. Key findings include the following:
• The use of TNCs has reduced the use of taxis and limos in most markets, and the associated
revenue from these operators has diminished. Less clear is the impact on revenue from park-
ing and rental cars.
• Airport and survey data clearly indicate TNCs substitute for private vehicle trips; therefore,
they are contributing per trip fees and revenues that didn’t previously exist at most airports.
• The impact of TNC activity is not a separate rating category for the bond-rating agencies.
Rather, it is a consideration related to the more general analysis of airport revenues. However,
the data do not show a significant decline in the broad category of ground transportation
revenue, and certainly not in any way that would jeopardize the ability of airports to generate
sufficient debt service coverage.
• While there are concerns regarding TNC impact on the revenue used to support airport oper-
ations and the financing of airport capital programs, most airport operators have developed
strategies to manage revenues. Longer-term questions will likely focus on the appropriate
types of facilities to build, and less on the ability to generate annual revenues.
• Absolute ground transportation revenue (overall and for the primary subcategories of parking
and rental cars) has generally continued to increase during the rapid increase of TNC activity
at airports.
• Ground transportation revenue per passenger (calculated using either total enplaned passen-
gers or origin and destination [O&D] enplaned passengers) has been flat.
– Ground transportation fees: A key discussion item for airport operators is the “level play-
ing field.” Of all the various commercial ground transportation operators at airports, who
should pay what fees? Airports have long-standing fiscal policies and business practices
underlying the establishment of ground transportation fees. At some airports, social equity
considerations and living wage goals now complicate the development of fee structures.
– Financing airport facilities: This review has not shown any significant negative impact on
near-term ability to finance airport facilities. Airports have generated replacement ground
transportation revenue sources, and airport operators have been generally successful in
developing the revenue necessary to support capital programs.
4.1 Survey Data

The airport survey conducted as part of the research generated information regarding the
impact of TNC activity on airport ground transportation revenue sources. The survey solicited
responses from 100 of the largest U.S. airports, and received responses from 58: 22 large hubs,
25

Table 4-1. Recent change in parking revenue

by hub size.
PARKING REVENUE LARGE MEDIUM SMALL

Decrease 45% 31% 27%
No Change 18% 23% 7%
Increase 36% 46% 40%
Unknown 0% 0% 27%
NOTE: The percentage values represent the share of the surveyed airports
that reported responses in each category.
SOURCE: ACRP Project 01-35: Airport Survey, July 2018, RSG.
15 medium hubs, and 21 small hubs. The survey data are particularly useful in providing a
recent view (as of summer 2018) of the impact of TNCs on ground transportation revenues.
4.1.1 Parking Revenue

Table 4-1 presents data on the recent change in parking revenue at the surveyed airports. As
shown, almost half of the large-hub airports reported a recent decrease in parking revenue; a smaller
share of medium-hub and small-hub airports reported decreases. This is not surprising given that
TNCs are more concentrated in the large metropolitan areas served by large-hub airports.
4.1.2 Rental Car Revenue

Table 4-2 presents data from the survey on the recent change in rental car revenue at the sur-
veyed airports. For all sizes of airports, less than half of the airports reported a decrease in rental
car revenue. The results for the reported decrease in revenue are somewhat more uniform across
airport size than the reported change in parking revenue (when compared with Table 4-1).
4.1.3 Taxi/Limo/Shared-Ride Van Revenue

The survey asked the airport operators to indicate changes in revenue from other commercial
ground transportation operators: taxis, limos, and shared-ride vans. These operators are argu-
ably the most direct competitors with TNCs for the “single ride” to or from the airport, and they
showed some significant shares of decrease in revenue.
Table 4-3 presents data from the survey on the recent change in taxi, limo, and shared-ride
van revenue.
Table 4-2. Recent change in rental car revenue

by hub size.
RENTAL CAR REVENUE LARGE MEDIUM SMALL
Decrease 36% 38% 27%
No Change 9% 23% 20%
Increase 23% 38% 33%
Unknown 32% 0% 20%
NOTE: The percentage values represent the share of the number of surveyed
airports that reported responses in each category.

Impacts on Airport Revenues 27
Table 4-3. Recent change in taxi/limo/shared-ride van revenue by

hub size.
TAXI/LIMO/SHARED-RIDE VAN REVENUE LARGE MEDIUM SMALL

Decrease
Taxi 68% 77% 80%
Limo 82% 38% 20%
Shared-Ride Van 64% 31% 13%

No Change
Taxi 9% 8% 7%
Limo 5% 31% 33%

Increase
Taxi 9% 8% 7%
Limo 5% 15% 7%
Unknown/Not Applicable
Taxi 14% 8% 7%
Limo 9% 16% 40%
NOTE: The percentage values represent the share of the surveyed airports that reported responses
in each category.
As shown, for all sizes of airports—large hub, medium hub, and small hub—a significant
share report a decrease in taxi revenue. This is expected as TNCs represent the most direct
substitution for taxi services.
For large-hub airports, a significant share reported a decrease in revenue for other related
services: limos and shared-ride vans. The trend is not so obvious for medium- and small-
hub airports. However, a large percentage in these two size categories reports that changes are
unknown or not applicable. In many cases, this could be because some smaller airports do not
offer these services, but it could also be that revenues are not recorded or tracked in a manner
that makes it possible to answer the survey questions.
4.2 FAA Revenue Data

U.S. commercial service airports are required to file annual financial reports with the
FAA in accordance with the FAA Authorization Act of 1994. To meet this requirement, the
FAA created CATS to gather and disseminate congressionally mandated airport financial
information. Airport personnel use the system to file and amend annual financial reports. FAA
staff use the system to administer the Airport Financial Reporting Program. The public can view
the resulting financial reports of commercial service airports, as was done for this study.39
39
FAA CATS data analyzed in this section encompasses 3 years: 2015–2017. The research panel requested that an additional
full year of data be included in the Reference Guide; Appendix C presents an additional year of CATS data for 2018. The
additional data do not alter the findings or conclusions presented in Section 4.

4.2.1 Parking Revenue

The FAA CATS database combines parking revenue with revenue from other ground trans-
portation services (taxi, limo, shuttle, TNC), making it difficult to isolate the impact of TNC
activity on parking revenue using only this database. Therefore, this section presents FAA CATS
data for parking in addition to other ground transportation revenue, as well as presents a method
to estimate the portion of TNC revenue and to net out TNC revenue from this FAA category.
Parking Revenue in FAA Certification Activity Tracking System Database

Table 4-4 shows the parking and other ground transportation revenue reported in the
FAA CATS database.
As shown, total parking plus other ground transportation revenue increased from 2015 to
2017. Revenue per passenger also increased, both per enplaned passenger and per O&D enplaned
passenger, although only slightly.
Adjusted Parking Revenue: Large-Hub Airports

Table 4-5 shows an adjusted estimate of parking and other ground transportation revenue
for large-hub airports, which was derived from taking the base FAA CATS data and netting
out the estimated TNC revenue.
As shown using the survey data on average TNC revenue by airport, total TNC revenue at
the 30 large-hub airports increased from approximately $55 million in 2015 to approximately
$298 million in 2017.
Adjusting the FAA CATS data for this estimated TNC revenue, total net parking and other
ground transportation revenue is estimated to have increased slightly from $2.3 billion in 2015
to $2.4 billion in 2017. This result is consistent with the airport survey data. According to the
airport survey, 45 percent of large-hub airports reported a decrease in parking revenue, and
the remainder reported an increase or no change. Thus, on average, the parking revenue for
large-hub airports would be expected to be unchanged.
Per enplaned passenger and per O&D enplaned passenger, this adjusted revenue shows a
decrease from 2015 to 2017.
Table 4-4. Parking and other ground transportation revenue (USD).
PERCENT
2015 2016 2017 CHANGE
Parking + Other GT Revenue
Large Hub $2,386,372,169 $2,562,516,069 $2,705,601,697 13
Medium Hub $780,390,615 $826,650,273 $871,279,530 12
Small Hub $470,834,728 $497,760,958 $523,083,319 11
Total $3,637,597,512 $3,886,927,300 $4,099,964,546 13
Revenue per Enplaned Passenger $4.67 $4.77 $4.88
Revenue per O&D Enplaned Passenger $6.67 $6.69 $6.74
NOTES: Revenue per Enplaned Passenger is calculated by dividing the total revenue in each airport size category by the
total passengers in the same airport size category. Revenue does not include rental car revenue, which is reported in a
separate category in the FAA CATS database.
GT—ground transportation
O&D—origin and destination
SOURCE: FAA, Certification Activity Tracking System, 2018 (parking, taxi, limo, and TNC revenue).

Table 4-5. Parking and other ground transportation revenue net of estimated transportation
network company revenue—large-hub airports.
2015 2016 2017

Average TNC Revenue per Airport (USD) $1,837,214 $7,318,989 $9,940,561
Reporting Airports 30 30 30
Estimated TNC Revenue—Large Hubs (USD) $55,116,420 $219,569,670 $298,216,830
Parking + Other GT Revenue Net of TNC Revenue $2,331,255,749 $2,342,946,399 $2,407,384,867
(USD)
% of Base Data 98% 91% 89%
Revenue per Enplaned Passenger (USD) $3.97 $3.80 $3.82
Revenue per O&D Enplaned Passenger (USD) $6.24 $5.85 $5.75
NOTES: Revenue per Enplaned Passenger is calculated by dividing the total revenue in each airport size category by the total passengers
in the same airport size category.
SOURCES: FAA, Certification Activity Tracking System, 2018. ACRP Project 01-35: Airport Survey, July 2018, RSG. Ricondo & Associates, Inc.,
October 2018 (analysis).
As shown in Table 4-5, after netting out the estimated TNC revenue, the adjusted FAA
CATS data represented about 89 percent of the base (original) data in 2017, compared with
98 percent in 2015. This indicates the estimated TNC revenue at large-hub airports increased
from approximately 2 percent to approximately 11 percent in this FAA CATS revenue
category from 2015 to 2017.
4.2.2 Rental Car Revenue

The FAA CATS database reports rental car revenue at U.S. airports. This includes the
concession revenue rental car companies pay to airport operators, but not the customer
facility charge (CFC) revenue that supports the operation of rental car facilities and associated
capital improvements. CFC revenue is dedicated to supporting the operation and develop-
ment costs of rental car facilities, and, in most cases, it is not considered part of the general
revenues airports collect. For most airports, rental car agreements provide for the payment of
monthly concession revenues. The concession revenues are typically a combination of mini-
mum annual guarantees (against a percentage of gross revenues earned from car rentals) plus
space rentals (e.g., ready-return areas and counters).
Table 4-6 shows the reported total rental car revenue from 2015 to 2017 for large-, medium-,
and small-hub airports. As shown, total rental car revenue has increased slightly for the total
population of 137 reporting airports. While the total amount of revenue has increased, per
passenger revenue is flat or declining.
This is consistent with the airport survey data, which indicated about one-third of sur-
veyed airports reported a decrease in rental car revenue. Or, on balance, more airports
continued to experience an increase in rental car revenue since the introduction of TNC
operations.
On average, rental car revenue increased approximately 6 percent from 2015 to 2017. Results
vary for the different airport sizes—large, medium, and small. The variances are not as much
related to any distinction associated with airport size as they are to the differences in results for
individual airports.

Table 4-6. Rental car revenue (USD).
2015 2016 2017
Large Hub $1,036,838,192 $1,074,242,281 $1,105,744,232
Medium Hub $351,951,509 $356,115,463 $361,959,858
Small Hub $254,840,674 $258,595,960 $274,586,417
All/Average $1,643,630,375 $1,688,953,704 $1,742,290,507
Revenue per Originating Passenger $3.01 $2.91 $2.86
NOTES: Revenue per Enplaned Passenger is calculated by dividing the total revenue in each airport size
category by the total passengers in the same airport size category. Includes concession fees and other
rents; does not include CFC revenue.
SOURCE: FAA, Certification Activity Tracking System, 2018.
4.2.3 Longer-Term Trends

In addition to examining the most recent data for 2015 to 2017, ACRP 01-35 research
included an evaluation of longer-term trends in ground transportation revenue, as reported
in the FAA CATS database. The project was also informed by the survey on TNC activity and
revenue generation.
This analysis is intended to determine the longer-term change in trends for ground transpor-
tation revenue at airports. Also, by extension, it is intended to determine the impact of TNCs
using a longer-term historical perspective. It is useful to compare the most recent data with the
longer-term trend in revenue generation from commercial vehicle operations at airports.
Exhibit 4-1 shows the longer-term trend in ground transportation revenue per enplaned
passenger for U.S. airports, including the estimated share represented by TNC operations.
As shown, total ground transportation revenue per enplaned passenger increased steadily
from 2009 to 2017. Beginning in 2015, TNC revenue has represented an increasing share of
the total ground transportation revenue per enplaned passenger at U.S. airports. This generally
confirms two themes related to the impact of TNC activity on airport revenue: (1) revenue per
$7.00
$6.50
$6.00
$5.50
$5.00
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
GT Revenue ex-TNC TNC
NOTES:
SOURCES: FAA, Certification Activity Tracking System, 2018; ACRP Project 01-35: Airport Survey, July 2018, RSG.
Exhibit 4-1. Total ground transportation revenue per enplaned passenger (USD).

passenger has decreased for traditional airport commercial ground transportation sources,
and (2) new and incremental TNC revenues have provided a replacement source of revenue
for airports.
The values shown in Exhibit 4-1 are in nominal dollar terms. Given the long-term perspective
of this information, it is useful to consider the impact of inflation on the trend and conclusions.
The compound annual growth rate for nominal dollar revenue per enplaned passenger from
2009 to 2017, as shown in Exhibit 4-1, is 1.0 percent. Over this period, the average price infla-
tion value was approximately 1.5 percent per year, depending on the specific measure or index
used for reference. It can therefore be concluded that the average revenue per passenger, while
increasing on a nominal basis, did not keep pace with inflation and declined somewhat on a
“real dollar” basis.
4.3 Public Airport Data

Publicly available data from a selected group of 37 airports were compared with the results
from the airport survey and the FAA CATS database.
The public airport data have differences from other data sources:
• The data are publicly available, with no issues regarding confidentiality or publication.
• The data are generally more detailed and quantitative than the airport survey data in annual
figures related to ground transportation revenues.
• The data frequently offer more line-item detail compared with the FAA CATS data (e.g., sepa-
rating more individual categories of ground transportation operator revenue).
• There is not a 100 percent sample of airports. Generally, coverage is better for large-hub
airports than for medium- and small-hub airports. This is partly because large-hub airports
issue revenue bonds more frequently and, therefore, produce disclosure documents more
frequently.
Thus, trade-offs are inherent in this data source. There can be insights from more detailed
information, but the sample is not as complete as a sample of all airports.
A total of 37 airports were found to have public data both recent and relevant to this analysis:
• Large hubs: 19 airports.
• Medium hubs: 8 airports.
• Small hubs: 10 airports.
The following presents data from the publicly available sources previously described on
ground transportation revenues at large-hub U.S. airports. In contrast to the FAA CATS data
presented earlier, the data in this section provide more information on the individual sources of
ground transportation revenues, specifically TNCs.
Table 4-7 summarizes the data from 19 large-hub airports, which represent a sample of
about 63 percent of the large-hub airports in the United States. In contrast to the consolidated
FAA CATS data, this summary provides further insight into more specific categories of ground
transportation revenue: parking, rental cars, other (taxis/limos/vans), and TNCs.
Overall, total ground transportation revenue per airport increased from 2015 to 2017. The
most significant change was the increase in average TNC revenue.
The data on revenue per passenger are consistent with the data reported in the FAA CATS
database: a slight increase in revenue per enplaned passenger and a slight decrease in revenue
per O&D enplaned passenger. This is explained by O&D enplaned passengers increasing faster
than total enplaned passengers at large-hub airports from 2015 to 2017.

Table 4-7. Ground transportation revenue per airport—large hubs (USD).
2015 2016 2017
Parking (millions) $73.2 $77.2 $78.9
Rental Cars (millions) $35.9 $36.9 $37.8
Other (millions) $7.2 $7.0 $6.1
TNCs (millions) $1.0 $4.1 $7.8
All/Average (millions) $117.3 $125.2 $130.6
Revenue per O&D Enplaned Passenger $9.16 $9.09 $9.05
NOTES: “Other” includes taxis, limos, shuttles, and vans; it does not include TNCs.
SOURCE: Ricondo & Associates, Inc. compilation of airport financial statements and bond official
statements from various dates.
This data source includes two revenue categories that provide more detail compared with the
FAA CATS data source:
• Other ground transportation revenue: This includes taxis, limos, shuttles, and vans. This
category does not include TNCs, which have been reported separately. The data show a
pronounced reduction in revenue from this category, consistent with the premise that TNCs
have taken significant mode share from taxis and limos.
• TNCs: This refers to the revenue from TNCs. Many airports now report TNC revenue as a
separate line-item category in their financial statements. For some airports, other informa-
tion (e.g., TNC market share) was used to estimate this category of revenue. The data show a
significant increase in TNC revenue.
From a review of the airport financial statements and the bond official statements, it appears
that in some cases TNC revenue is not completely reported. If there is some underreporting in
public documents, then this would help explain the difference between the airport survey data
and the TNC revenue shown in Table 4-7.
Table 4-8 compares the annual TNC revenue from the airport survey with the summary of
public financial statements for large-hub airports. The results are broadly similar in the trend
of increase from 2015 to 2017, but they are not precisely identical in values. Variances can be
explained by differences in reporting and sampling practices.
Table 4-8. Comparison of estimated transportation network

company revenue by airport—large hubs (USD, millions).
AVERAGE TNC REVENUE 2015 2016 2017
Airport Survey $1.8 $7.3 $9.9
Public Airport Reports $1.0 $4.1 $7.8
NOTE: The airport survey results are for 22 large-hub airports, and the public financial data are
for 19 large-hub airports.
SOURCES: ACRP Project 01-35: Airport Survey, July 2018, RSG. Ricondo & Associates, Inc.,
analysis of public airport records.

Table 4-9. Revenue per enplaned passenger—large hubs (USD).
2015 2016 2017
Revenue per Enplaned Passenger
Parking $3.48 $3.49 $3.48
Rental Cars $1.71 $1.67 $1.66
Other $0.34 $0.32 $0.27
TNC $0.05 $0.19 $0.34
Total/Average $5.58 $5.66 $5.75
Revenue per O&D Enplaned Passenger
Parking $5.72 $5.60 $5.47
Rental Cars $2.80 $2.68 $2.62
Other $0.56 $0.51 $0.42
TNC $0.08 $0.30 $0.54
Total/Average $9.16 $9.09 $9.05
NOTES: Other includes taxis, limos, shuttles, and vans; it does not include TNCs. The airport survey
results are for 22 large-hub airports, and the public financial data are for 19 large-hub airports.
SOURCE: Ricondo & Associates, Inc., analysis of airport financial statements and bond official
statements.
This source of additional airport data reinforces the general conclusions and results reported
from the other sources, particularly regarding the significant increase in TNC revenues at
large-hub airports from 2015 to 2017.
The data collected from large-hub airports were also used to analyze trends in revenue
per passenger.
Table 4-9 presents data on ground transportation revenue per enplaned passenger for
large-hub airports, using data as reported in the various public documents.
Overall, the trends in revenue per enplaned passenger are broadly similar to the trends
reported using the FAA CATS data. The most significant data item is the TNC revenue per
passenger. TNC revenue per enplaned passenger and TNC revenue per O&D enplaned pas-
senger increased significantly from 2015 to 2017. This has offset per passenger revenue declines
in other ground transportation categories. The change in rental car revenue at airports is not
necessarily directly related to the development of TNCs. Airports have concession agreements
with rental car companies that often provide for increases in minimum annual guarantees or
other revenue terms. In addition, other companies, such as peer-to-peer carsharing companies,
have an impact on the airport car rental business.
4.4 Proprietary Airport Data

Several large-hub airports provided detailed monthly transaction and revenue data for five
distinct modes of airport access:
• On-airport parking.
• Rental cars.

• Taxis.
• Limos.
• TNCs.
For these five modes, Ricondo compiled detailed revenue and transaction data that were then
used to analyze airport access mode share, as well as ground transportation activity and revenues
on a per passenger basis.
Exhibit 4-2 shows the change in ground transportation revenue per O&D enplaned passenger
from 2015 to 2017, with a breakdown of the drivers of change for each ground transportation
mode included in the analysis. TNCs drove an increase in revenue per O&D enplaned passenger,
which was offset by decreases for each other modes Overall, revenue per O&D enplaned pas-
senger was virtually unchanged during this 2-year period.
Proprietary data provided by several large-hub airports were consolidated and used to develop
the information shown in Exhibit 4-2. The revenues in different categories of commercial
ground transportation operations were summarized for each airport providing data. Separately,
information was accessed regarding the annual number of O&D enplaned passengers at each
airport. The revenue values were divided by the O&D enplaned passenger values to develop the
analysis of changes in revenue per O&D enplaned passenger from 2015 to 2017.
4.5 Funding Airport Operations and Capital Programs

Airports continue to have significant capital funding needs, and many large-hub airports have
multibillion-dollar capital programs. With the debt required to fund the construction and oper-
ating expenses that support expanded facilities, there is a need to generate adequate and reliable
NOTES:
SOURCE: Ricondo & Associates, Inc., analysis of select airports, analysis of proprietary data provided by select large-hub airports,
February 2019.
Exhibit 4-2. Change in revenue per origin and destination enplaned passenger,
2015–2017 (USD).

revenue. The general trend in average airline cost per enplaned passenger is a gradual increase, as
airports incur these costs to invest in their facilities. Airport operators have an interest in increas-
ing nonaeronautical revenues, including ground transportation revenues, to mitigate required
increases to airline rates and charges.
Revenues from airport operations are used to fund both ongoing airport operating costs and
investment in capital improvements. The development of TNC operations, the resulting changes
in commercial ground transportation mode share, and the potential impacts on key sources of
airport revenue, such as parking and rental cars, have raised issues regarding the generation of
airport revenue to support both ongoing airport operations and long-term capital program
financing. If nonaeronautical revenue decreases at an airport, then there would be a correspond-
ing requirement to increase revenue from another source.
Bond-rating agencies have recognized the uncertainties regarding changes in ground trans-
portation mode share and the impacts on revenue, but at the same time airport operators have
developed strategies to either enhance existing nonairline revenue or develop replacement
revenue. Thus, the increasing use of TNCs has not yet emerged as a major credit risk according
to the various bond-rating reports.
However, while airports continue to generate sufficient revenues, in the longer term there may
be more significant questions regarding the advisability of financing purpose-specific ground
transportation facilities, such as parking garages and rental car facilities.
4.5.1 Airport Revenue Generation

Airport operators have different governance structures and business models; however, gen-
erally, (1) they are required to generate sufficient revenue to pay annual operating and capital
expenses, and (2) they must use all airport revenue for lawful airport purposes. Note that while
there are exceptions, for this evaluation, it is reasonable to consider the most typical airport
experience.
Categories of Airport Revenue

Airport revenues are typically divided into two main categories:
1. Aeronautical revenues.
2. Nonaeronautical revenues.40
On average, for 2015, 2016, and 2017, the roughly $20 billion in annual airport revenues was
split approximately 50 percent between aeronautical and nonaeronautical revenues.
Parking and rental car revenue account for most of the nonaeronautical revenue category.
The revenue impact of TNCs requires an understanding of airport business arrangements.
Airport Business Arrangements with Nonairline Businesses

Airport operators use a variety of methods to contract with nonairline businesses. In some
cases, there are service agreements with permit fees, per use fees, or both. In other cases,
arrangements are more complicated, with minimum revenue guarantees and fees based on
percentage of earned gross revenue.
40
Nonaeronautical revenues, such as the revenues generated from parking and rental cars, are key to the development of
airport financial plans. U.S. airports, as a rule, must generate their own revenue; they are not allowed to send revenue off
the airport. Therefore, the amount of revenue generated from nonairline sources, such as parking and rental cars (and other
ground transportation sources), has a direct impact on the amount of revenue individual airports must charge airlines.

Most airports generate a significant amount of nonairline revenue from in-terminal conces-
sionaires, such as retail and food and beverage companies. These companies will continue to
provide a significant source of revenue to airports.
With the rapid growth in TNCs, airport operators have been revisiting business arrange-
ments and strategies for ground transportation services. This will continue to be an important
factor in evaluating the TNC impact on airport revenue. Airport operators will likely adjust fees,
operating policies, and strategic programs to reflect changes in mode share and airport access
by different companies.
As an example, many airport operators have been evaluating strategies to either preserve or
enhance parking revenue, including reservations, variable pricing, and technology to improve
the parking product.
In addition, airport operators have been evaluating policies and strategies that “level the play-
ing field” for ground transportation operators in terms of the fees commercial providers pay as
a condition of airport access.
The ability of airports to generate nonairline revenue will have an impact on the revenue
airline rates and charges are required to generate, and it has implications for funding airport
operations and capital programs.
Airport Business Arrangements with Airlines

Airport operators utilize a variety of business agreements with airlines. The typical industry
terms are
• Residual: The airlines agree to pay for all airport expenses and obligations, net of the
contribution from nonairline revenue sources.
• Compensatory: The airlines agree to pay only for the cost of the space they occupy and the
services they incur, and the airport operator is responsible for all else.
• Hybrid: This is a mix of the residual and compensatory approaches, including revenue-
sharing agreements.
The advantage of a residual arrangement is that the airport operator can rely on airlines
to provide for airport expenses and obligations, reducing the risk of underperformance
by nonairline revenue sources. The advantage of a compensatory arrangement is that the
airport can generate surplus revenues from nonairline revenue sources. Many airport oper-
ators have adopted a hybrid approach to balance and share the risk of annual financial
results. As Kroll Bond Rating Agency noted in a May 2018 report on airport bond-rating
methodology: “KBRA do not favor one approach over another. We see certain strengths and
vulnerabilities under each approach and view each approach in the context of the airport’s
operations.”41
The different business arrangements have different implications for the evaluation of
TNC impacts. If TNC activity reduces nonairline revenue (e.g., parking and rental car rev-
enue), then the airport operator needs to make appropriate adjustments. In the case of a
residual airline agreement, this would increase the required airline payments. In the case
of a compensatory airline agreement, this would reduce revenue flowing to the airport. In
either case this is a concern to be addressed, and it should result in the airport operator
identifying strategies to manage ground transportation revenues and replace one source
with another.
U.S. General Airport Revenue Bond Rating Methodology, New York: Kroll Bond Rating Agency, Inc., May 29, 2018.
41

Whatever the specific business arrangement, the airport is obligated to generate sufficient
revenue to provide for annual operating expenses and debt service on outstanding bonds. Also,
any decrease in revenue from a source must somehow be compensated.
Funding Airport Operations

Airport revenues are required to fund annual airport operations. Any decrease in parking and
rental car revenues would affect the ability to fund annual airport operations and would require
a review of expense obligations and other revenue sources.
Annual Operating Budgets

Airport operators develop annual operating budgets based on estimates of expenses
and revenues. The estimates of revenues are important in determining commitments
to expenditures on staffing and other operating expenses. The budgeting process is for-
ward looking, requiring estimates of future activity and associated expenses and revenues.
Airport operators must understand the impact of TNCs on the revenues estimated for
their budget.
Strategic Plans
Many airport operators develop multiyear strategic plans. Strategic plans typically identify
several factors relevant to investing in the future of the airport. Both airport operators and
airlines closely monitor cost per enplaned passenger; this measure has implications for route
development and competitiveness. With the development of TNCs, many assumptions in a
typical airport strategic plan need to be revisited.42
The main categories related to strategic planning are
• Annual Revenues: Maximize annual revenues and develop plans to generate revenues from
various nonaeronautical sources.
• Operations Plans: Maximize airport utilization and address any operational issues.
• Capital Funding: Develop a plan to fund the facilities determined as required.
The development of TNC activity has an impact on airport strategic plans, for both facility
development and revenue strategies.
Airport operators need to plan for passenger access. The development of TNC activity has
changed the view of airport ground transportation mode choice; therefore, it has changed the
need for various facilities to accommodate passengers. There has been a greater demand on
curbside facilities and a focus on the need for staging lots. Also, there is a need to review the basis
for charging commercial ground transportation operators.
4.5.2 Funding Airport Capital Programs

Airport revenues, net of annual operating requirements, are used to fund capital investment,
through either cash investment or payment of principal and interest on airport debt. Nonairline
Airline cost per enplaned passenger is an industry metric closely watched in terms of the affordability or otherwise acceptability
42
of the costs for airlines to operate and add service at an airport. There are different airline agreements at U.S. airports, with different
arrangements regarding assignment of costs and sharing of revenues. Whatever the specific details of business arrangements,
the ability to generate nonairline revenue (such as revenue from parking and rental car operations) assists the airport operator
in paying for expenses and reducing the requirement for airlines to pay fees. Nonairline revenue, therefore, can incentivize the
increase in airline service and activity. Thus, airport operators are interested in generating nonairline revenues, such as revenue
from parking and rental cars, as a strategy to reduce costs they would otherwise be required to charge airlines. Therefore, non-
airline revenues are crucial to the financial plans of airports, as well as to the preparation of capital funding programs.

revenues, including revenues generated from commercial ground transportation activities,

support the financing of airport capital programs.
4.5.3 Airport Funding Needs

ACI-NA surveys airports to summarize airport infrastructure needs. The most recent survey
reported that U.S. airports will have nearly $128 billion in infrastructure needs from 2019 to
2023 to accommodate growth in passenger and cargo activity, to rehabilitate existing facilities,
and to support aircraft innovation.
Table 4-10 presents ACI-NA’s most recent summary of reported infrastructure needs for
large-, medium-, and small-hub airports; non-hub and noncommercial airports are not included
in the table. Most of the capital project funding need is for large-hub airports, which is consistent
with the share of large-hub airport passengers.
4.5.4 Sources of Funding for Airport Capital Programs

U.S. airports utilize a variety of sources of funding for capital programs:
• Grants: from state and federal programs.
• Equity: cash flow from annual operating revenues, including specialized revenue streams
such as passenger facility charges and CFCs.
• Debt: issuance of bonds supported by general airport revenues, specialized revenue streams,
or both.
• Private Funding: third-party or public-private partnership financing arrangements.
The emergence of TNC activity at airports, and the changes in mode share and revenue
generation, will have different impacts on these various sources of funding for airport capital
programs.
More broadly, the ability of airports to generate annual revenues affects both the availability
of internally generated cash for short-term capital needs, as well as the net revenue to pay debt
service on borrowing to finance longer-term major infrastructure investments.
Ground transportation activities, such as parking and rental cars, have traditionally contrib-
uted a significant source of revenue to airports. Thus, they have helped to support the ability
to fund capital improvements. The more that airports can generate from nonairline revenue
sources, the less is required from airline revenue sources.
While airports have a variety of business arrangements, as discussed in the following section,
any reduction in nonaeronautical revenue is likely to put pressure on the required revenue
charged to airlines. This raises concerns regarding the affordability of capital improvements.
Table 4-10. Airport funding needs.
AIRPORT SIZE CAPITAL NEEDS SHARE OF U.S. PASSENGERS
Large Hubs $81 billion 72%
Medium Hubs $18 billion 16%
Small Hubs $9 billion 8%
SOURCE: ACI-NA, Terminally Challenged: Addressing the Infrastructure

Funding Shortfall of America’s Airports, 2019.

For most U.S. airports, the total revenues generated from airport operations are used to pro-
vide for both annual operating expenses and payment of debt service for capital investments.
Airport revenues are approximately evenly split between revenues received from airlines and
revenues received from nonairline sources, such as terminal concessions, parking, rental cars,
and other sources.
4.5.5 Rating Agency Criteria and Opinions

Credit rating agencies are key participants in the bond financing process and, therefore, in the
process of financing airport capital improvements. The key credit rating agencies involved with
airport bond issuance are Standard & Poor’s Global Ratings, Moody’s Investors Service, Fitch
Ratings, and Kroll Bond Rating Agency.
Credit rating agency opinions are important in connection with a given individual
bond issuance, but more so in setting criteria and establishing benchmarks and metrics for
airports.
Credit rating agencies issue periodic reports with opinions related to the outlook for airport
credits. These reports provide airport operators and other participants with guidance in the debt
issuance process. The reports include key metrics, such as airline cost per enplaned passenger,
and other metrics related to concession revenues.
Bond-rating agencies periodically review and update their criteria for assigning ratings to
airport credits. Generally, airport credit ratings are based on the quality of the market and the
ability to generate revenue.
Rating agencies use different terminology in explaining their rating agency criteria. For this
section, Ricondo compiled a summary that appropriately groups the rating criteria into similar
categories. Table 4-11 summarizes the criteria used by the various rating agencies in evaluating
the issuance of airport bonds.
The bond-rating agencies have included commentary in their individual rating reports
regarding the impact of TNCs on airport revenues. However, from this review, the bond-rating
agencies have not officially changed the criteria they use in evaluating airport debt specifically
regarding the development of TNCs.
Table 4-11. Bond-rating agency criteria.
GENERIC CATEGORY FITCH KROLL MOODY’S STANDARD & POOR’S
Management Development Planning Management Management Management and

Governance
Service Area Revenue Risk Economics/Demographics Market Position Economic Fundamentals
Airline Traffic Revenue Risk Airport Utilization Market Position and Market Position and
Service Offering Industry Risk
Capital Program Infrastructure Capital Needs and Debt Leverage and Capital Debt and Liabilities
Development Needs
Legal/Financial Structure Debt Limits Legal Mechanics Framework Liquidity and Financial
Flexibility
Financial Results Financial Profile Airport Finances Financial Metrics Financial Performance
SOURCE: Ricondo & Associates, Inc., compilation of rating agency reports, January 2019.

The rating agencies track the annual trends in airline and nonairline revenue, and attention
to the impact of TNCs and the changes in mode share and revenue generation has noticeably
increased.
A key question to consider is, how does the rapid growth of TNC activity at airports change or
affect the criteria used to evaluate airport debt? The answer would seem to be related to the impact
on airport revenues, as well as to the resulting impact on an airport’s ability to generate sufficient
debt service coverage. The impact of TNC activity is not a separate rating category for the rating
agencies. Rather, it is a consideration related to the more general analysis of airport revenues. As
previously discussed, TNC impacts on airport revenues have been a concern. However, the data
do not show a significant decline in the broad category of ground transportation revenue, and
certainly not in any way that would jeopardize the ability of airports to generate sufficient debt
service coverage. As a result, it is expected that bond-rating agencies will continue to highlight these
new trends but will also continue to offer favorable ratings to airports that show positive trends in
market growth, revenue generation, and ability to service debt.
Standard & Poor’s Global Ratings

Standard & Poor’s provided the following opinion in January 2018: “We anticipate
nonaeronautical revenues to grow with or slightly faster than passenger traffic due to airport
operator initiatives to improve concession schemes and yields. Parking and rental car rev-
enues might see slower growth due to increased competition from TNCs.” It was also stated
that “competition from technology used by TNCs such as Uber and Lyft are beginning to
negatively affect the business model of some transit providers and soften parking revenues
of some airport operators.”
Moody’s Investors Service

Moody’s issued the following opinion in April 2018: “Increased use of Uber and Lyft,
often referred to as transportation network companies (TNCs), has resulted in lower
per-enplanement parking and rental car revenues at U.S. airports, though strong growth in
enplanements, or the number of people using an airport to depart on a flight, has kept total
parking and rental car revenues increasing.” Moody’s noted that airport operators can charge
TNCs for airport access and can therefore offset declining revenue from other sources. One of
the key conclusions was that “most airports can recover lost revenue not recovered by TNC fees
through other revenue streams, most notably from airline rates and charges.”43
Moody’s issued an updated opinion in December 2018 regarding the outlook for financing
airport capital improvements. Specific comments related to TNCs and airport revenues were
as follows: “Increased use of ridesharing services like Uber and Lyft has had a negative impact
on parking and ground transportation revenue at airports across the U.S., but airports have
adapted by collecting pick-up and drop-off fees to keep overall collections stable. Looking ahead,
Moody’s believes that emerging technologies will allow for more effective fee collection and
provide increased revenue generation.”44
Summary
The rating agency opinions have evolved since the introduction of TNCs at airports. In prior
years, there was a greater concern that the continued increase in TNC activity would reduce
43
Airports—U.S.: Parking and CFC Bonds Face Credit Pressure from Uber, Lyft, but Airports Are Protected, New York: Moody’s
Investor Service, April 16, 2018.
44
Moody’s Investors Service, Inc., Research Announcement: Moody’s: 2019 Outlook for U.S. Airport Sector Remains Positive,
December 2018.

airport nonairline revenue and, as a result, would require increased airline revenue to fund
capital improvement programs. More recently, airport operators have responded, developed
strategies, and realized replacement revenue in connection with commercial ground trans-
portation services.
4.5.6 Funding Parking and Rental Car Facilities

Some airport operators have financed parking and rental car facilities with revenue streams
specifically dedicated to these facilities. The vulnerability of these narrowly defined revenue
sources raises concern, particularly regarding TNC activity and changes in ground transporta-
tion mode share and revenue generation.
There are trade-offs in applying funding sources to support bond issuance for airport
facilities:
• Separating a revenue stream and debt repayment obligation can be viewed as an advantage
in preserving the airport operator’s capacity to issue debt supported by the general revenues
of the airport.
• Airport operators that use more general and diversified funding for capital improvements
and debt issuance can have more flexibility in decisions regarding the generation and appli-
cation of revenues to repay debt for capital improvements, including the management of
year-by-year airline rates and charges strategies.
Airport operators have continued to invest in parking and rental car facilities, and they have
been able to issue bonds for such facilities. However, caution is also increasing regarding narrow
revenue streams for purpose-specific facilities; in some cases, airport operators have scaled back
or put on hold certain parking and rental car projects.
4.5.7 Airport Funding Conclusions

There are many ways to think about the impact of TNCs on funding airport facilities.
Exhibit 4-3 summarizes these funding issues in terms of recent historical experience,
near-term future, and long-term future. The conclusions are different depending on the time
horizon considered.
Recent Historical Experience

There have been concerns regarding the impact of TNCs on specific airport ground trans-
portation revenues, such as parking and rental cars. Any negative impact on individual airport
revenue sources also raises concerns regarding airport financial performance.
The information developed for this research has demonstrated that airports have continued to
realize sufficient revenues to support ongoing operations and to provide sufficient debt service
coverage on outstanding airport bonds. This is a generalized statement, recognizing that not all
airports are equivalent.
Two key actions should be highlighted regarding airport actions to ensure adequate
revenues:
• Creative Ground Transportation Programs: Many airport operators have recognized the need
to develop more creative ground transportation programs to attract demand and revenue.
Examples include online reservation systems, more user-friendly signage, space availability
technology, variable pricing, and products at a range of price points. Ultimately, the product
and pricing most preferred by the customer is likely to prevail, and airport operators will need
to address this concept not as a protected monopoly, but as a competitor.

SOURCE: ACI-NA, U.S. Airport Infrastructure Needs, March 2017.
Exhibit 4-3. Airport funding—key findings.
• Fees for TNCs: Airport operators have gradually increased per trip fees for TNCs. This pro-
vides a replacement for revenue that might be lost from other ground transportation modes,
as well as revenue needed to fund the operation and capital costs required to accommodate
the rapid increase in TNC operations.
Near-Term Future
In the near term, key questions relate to the evolving airport actions to accommodate TNCs,
the business arrangements in relation to other ground transportation operators, and the impact
on airport financial operations.
• TNC Growth: One of the key questions for airport operators is regarding the development of
TNC operations, at both airports and in cities in general. What are the growth curve and the
ultimate change in mode share? From this analysis, the impact of TNC activity at airports is
expected to level off.
• Ground Transportation Fees: Another key discussion item for airport operators is the “level
playing field.” Of all the various operators at airports, who should pay what fees? Airport
operators have developed policies and practices regarding the establishment of ground
transportation fees.
• Financing Airport Facilities: From this analysis of financing airport facilities, there has
not been any significant negative impact on the near-term ability to finance airport facili-
ties. Airports have generated replacement ground transportation revenue sources, and
airport operators have generally been successful in developing revenue to support capital
programs.

Long-Term Future
In the long term, considerations are likely to be related to the need for flexibility in facility
development and to the anticipated development of autonomous vehicles.
• Flexibility for Facilities: Whatever happens with new-technology companies, it will be in
the best interest of airport operators to develop facilities that are flexible to accommo-
date various types of activities. Rather than considering purpose-specific facilities, airport
operators should think about facilities that can accommodate new modes of transport.
• Ground Transportation Business Models: The recent developments in airport ground trans-
portation fees inform the longer-term strategies. Airport operators need to develop adequate
revenues to support annual operations and debt service.
• Development of Autonomous Vehicles: This is perhaps the most significant and uncertain devel-
opment related to airport ground transportation business operations and facility development.

SECTION 5
Best Practices
5.1 Introduction
Identifying “best practices” is a form of program evaluation in public policy. It is the process
of reviewing policy and management options that have been effective in addressing similar issues
in the past and may be transferable to a current problem in other locations. While some research
and evidence must be used when determining whether a practice is the “best,” it is often more
helpful simply to determine if a practice has worked exceptionally well in a particular setting
and to determine why.
The framework presented in this Reference Guide builds on recent TRB research on com-
mercial ground transportation and TNCs, for example, ACRP Report 146: Commercial Ground
Transportation at Airports: Best Practices. In that report, the term “best practices” referred to
“those practices which, when implemented, would help achieve or support the relevant goals of
airport management.”45
For this project, the work plan required a more focused definition of best practice so
landside managers could have available a menu of specific techniques that have been proven
effective with managing and monitoring TNC services.
5.1.1 Best Practice Definition

The working definition of best practice herein is any management action, program, or policy
that integrates TNCs into an airport’s commercial ground transportation system and sets the
framework to achieve the following airport management goals:
• Providing effective congestion management for terminal access roads and curbs.
• Maintaining passenger safety and security.
• Enhancing passenger customer service.
• Protecting and enhancing revenue.
• Supporting strategic ground access goals: environmental, fuel, emissions, vehicle occupancy.
• Fostering fair and neutral treatment of drivers and commercial ground transportation
providers.
• Leveraging intermodal resources.
• Customizing services to meet emerging needs.
• Leveraging digital technology.
45
LeighFisher Inc., Tennessee Transportation and Logistics Foundation, GateKeeper Systems, and Merriwether & Williams
Insurance Services. ACRP Report 146: Commercial Ground Transportation at Airports: Best Practices. Transportation Research
Board, Washington, D.C., 2015, p. 1.
44

Best Practices 45
Section 5.1 presents summary tables listing all 24 practices in this Reference Guide; each
practice is accompanied by a brief description and an indication as to the intended audiences.
Practices are organized according to four categories:
• Policy development, regulations, and permits.
• TNC and ground access management, operations, and analysis.
• Business and revenue analysis and capital programming.
• Technology.
In selected cases, exhibits, drawings, and photos illustrating the practice are also provided.
For airport operators who need additional information, references to source material are
also provided.
5.1.2 An Approach to Sustainable Commercial Ground

Access Programs
The rapid introduction and expansion of TNC activity warranted swift regulatory and rev-
enue management responses from airport operators to ensure safe vehicle operations, vetting
of TNC drivers, adequate insurance coverages, and trip fees necessary to support landside man-
agement and fiscal objectives. As airport operators gained experience in working with TNCs,
landside managers, planners, and business development staff began to adjust operations, fee
structures, and monitoring to more effectively respond to this new popular mode.
A significant finding of this research is that airport operators have evolved their practices
from reacting to TNCs, to managing their operations and revenue impacts, to the current
situation, in which they are adopting and seeking tools to influence and shape TNCs within
broad strategic goals.
Accordingly, the best practice definition for this ACRP project notes the need to consider
TNCs within an airport’s overall ground access system. Several of the practices in this Reference
Guide describe approaches and tools to help accomplish this.
• Practices 5.3.1 (Comprehensive Ground Access Plan) and 5.3.2 (Sustainable Commercial
Ground Transportation Program) present the key elements of policy plans.
• Practice 5.4.1 (Curb Management) considers landside capacity and how curbs, surface lots,
and garages all might be used to relieve curb congestion generated by all commercial ground
transportation modes.
• Practices 5.4.5 (Recurring Ground Access Surveys), 5.4.6 (Access Mode-Choice Modeling),
and 5.5.3 (Develop Simulation Tools to Estimate Changes in Mode Share and Revenue)
present the data and illustrative models that can serve to evaluate airport initiatives and
different pricing structures.
• Practice 5.6.5 (Mobility as a Service) considers all facets of airport ground access: technology,
modes, equity, and demand management.
In assembling the best practices, it became apparent that many airport operators are
responding to substantial recurring landside congestion on curbs and roadways and at gate-
way tunnels and bridges. The congestion is caused not only by the emergence of TNCs but also
by rapid growth in enplanements and the airline designation of hubs. Consequently, airport
operators have been adapting by moving pick-up and drop-off operations to alternative curbs,
levels, or locations to make effective use of available landside capacity. The objective is to find
more efficient ways to stage passengers and move them around the airport. One method is
to create a ground transportation facility that can support a range of commercial and private
ground access modes.

Ground Transportation Centers

The establishment of ground transportation (GT) centers, remote terminals, and auxiliary curbs that can accommo-
date all commercial GT modes (e.g., TNCs, limos, taxis, shared-ride vans, and shuttles) can provide a mode-neutral
way of managing demand. As market share for a particular mode grows or shrinks, and as new technologies
emerge, GT centers can offer the flexibility to serve as central processing facilities for passenger drop-off and
pick-up. These GT centers can offer complementary services, such as ticketing, screening, and remote bag check.
This approach can free up curb capacity that would then be made available for transit services and high-occupancy
modes; this would also support unimpeded or improved curb access for the pick-up and drop-off of passengers
with disabilities.
Several airport operators either have adopted this approach or are in the process of implementing the concept.
Examples are presented for the following three airports: Minneapolis–Saint Paul International Airport (MSP),
Boston Logan International Airport (BOS), and Los Angeles International Airport (LAX).
• At MSP, the airport operator has been working to provide a central location with connections to a variety of
GT modes.1 The operator is building a new transit center that will enable MSP to implement the following
actions in 2020:
– Allow taxicabs and TNCs to pick up passengers in the same area.
– Relocate off-airport parking shuttles, limousine operations, courtesy and corporate shuttles, and charter
and employee buses to a central location.
– Continue to re-evaluate the operation of individual roadways and surface lots.
• At BOS, a new initiative to manage TNCs will relocate pick-up and most drop-off activities from the terminals
to the ground floor of the central and west garages. The area will be protected from the weather and will
offer a remote bag-check option for departing passengers.
For the long term, as part of the Logan Forward capital program, the airport operator is planning an inter-
modal transportation center (ITC) that will be connected by a people mover to each of the four terminals, as
well as to the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority Blue Line airport station, the on-airport parking
garages, and the rental car center. The potential ITC may provide a dedicated location for pick-ups and
drop-offs for TNCs, taxis, limos, and, possibly, water ferries. The system would promote high-occupancy
vehicle access to the airport by giving these modes priority access to terminal curbs. Passengers arriving
via other commercial modes would be transported from the ITC to the terminals with buses, an automated
people mover, or other technology along a dedicated route.2
• At LAX, as part of its landside access modernization program (LAMP), Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA) is
finalizing plans for intermodal transportation facilities (ITF East/West). These facilities are envisioned to become
the main connection point for passengers arriving at LAX via public transportation and private vehicles.
Planned features of the sites include private vehicle parking, shuttle connections, passenger pick-up and
drop-off areas, waiting areas, concessions, and ticketing and information kiosks. The ITF East and West sites
will connect to the airport’s central terminal area via LAWA’s automated people mover.3 Other key components
of LAMP connected via the automated people mover include a new consolidated rent-a-car facility and the
Airport Metro Connector station, which connects Metro bus and light rail service to LAX.
1
Holes, S., Manager of Commercial Vehicle Operations, Metropolitan Airports Commission, Saint Paul, MN; personal communication,
August 8, 2019.
2
Massachusetts Port Authority, https://www.massport.com/logan-forward/initiatives/looking-ahead/ (accessed August 1, 2019).
3
Los Angeles World Airports, LAX Landside Access Modernization Program, Project Overview, https://www.lawa.org/connectinglax
(accessed August 1, 2019).

Best Practices 47
5.1.3 Ground Access Models

Overview
Several best practices involve the distribution of ground access surveys and the development
of tools to estimate air passenger responses to changes in airport access services.46 While these
practices are briefly described later in this section, an expanded discussion is appropriate given
the important role that models can play in helping airport operators estimate the impacts of
pricing and service changes on ground access revenues and mode share.
The research team evaluated the models and approaches used to project ground trans-
portation transactions and revenues for financial analysis. Depending on the purpose and
time frame of the analysis, three broad categories of modeling tools are available to airport
operators:
• Planning: These models focus on long-term demand for facilities and use passenger forecasts
to test policies and programs; they typically generate long-term estimates of mode share and
provide insight into facility requirements and program alternatives.
• Operations: These models focus on activity in different areas of the airport and do so at a
micro level. They support management of landside operations and help formulate tactics to
manage curb and access road congestion; this level of analysis can also support permitting
and operating protocols.
• Financial: These models focus on commercial ground transportation transactions and rev-
enue generation and are used to analyze transactions and trends by mode type, revenue per
transaction, and revenue per passenger; they may also support the evaluation of management
strategies for increasing revenue generation.
ACRP 01-35 research included a detailed review of the modeling tools available for ana-
lyzing airport ground access. The effort involved the initial development of an aggregate
mode-choice model based on the airport survey; this was followed by the development of
two disaggregate mode-choice models (for Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport
[DCA] and SFO). The mode-choice models serve as examples of how airport operators can
approach the challenge of estimating passenger sensitivity to changes in price and ground
access services.
The objective was to develop disaggregate mode-choice models that describe how TNCs
compete with other ground access modes, including specifically how they affect airport
parking. This work is different from the aggregate TNC mode-share analysis in several
respects:
• First, the resulting models are structured specifically to evaluate the competitive effects
between TNCs and each of the other available ground access modes; however, because of the
data on which the aggregate model was based, it was only able to evaluate TNC mode share
versus all other modes combined.
• Second, the model uses disaggregate (individual-level) data, meaning it is based on the
ground access mode choices individual air travelers make, as described in the air passenger
ground access surveys. The model also requires data about the level of service (travel times,
costs, etc.) for each ground access mode available for each air passenger in those surveys.
These data provide statistical observations about how those service levels affect choices.
The Airport Mode Choice and Ground Transportation Revenue Simulator Template that shows how the mode-choice model
46
was developed to estimate revenue impact (based on hypothetical policy changes at SFO) is available on the TRB website by
searching on “ACRP Research Report 215”.

• Finally, because of the resolution these data provide, the resulting models can more reliably
estimate elasticities of demand for TNCs and other specific modes with respect to service
attributes, such as travel time and cost.
While similar disaggregate ground access mode-choice models have been developed for
several other airports, none published to date have included TNCs. An unknown that can be
answered by this work is how TNCs fit competitively in the mix of existing ground access modes.
More specifically, how do changes in TNC fees, parking prices, and other policies controlled by
airports affect TNC mode shares and, in turn, parking volumes and revenues? This document
describes the methodology and development of those models, while a later section will focus on
analysis based on different policy scenarios using the models.
As previously noted, the models developed for this task are all based on disaggregate air pas-
senger survey data. In the case of one selected airport (SFO), the models use the more precise
point-to-point level of service data that are now available through a variety of online sources,
such as Google Maps (as opposed to the much more approximate zone-to-zone “skim tree”
data from regional travel-demand forecasting models that have typically been used and are used
for our second airport, DCA). Combining the individual-level survey data with the point-to-
point level of service data provides the statistical information necessary to determine how these
factors affect choices among available ground access modes.
The specifications for these models—the explanatory variables and their relationships to a
mode’s relative attractiveness—have been drawn from the team’s prior experience developing
such models for other airports. However, these models include the TNC as a specific competing
mode, separate from the modes such as taxis and limousines that have been included in previ-
ously developed airport ground access mode-choice models. Also, a critical consideration in
the structure of these models is how TNCs compete with other modes, specifically, the extent
to which changes in TNC service levels (e.g., price) affect other modes’ shares and, conversely,
how changes in those other modes will affect TNC shares.
The simplest mode-choice models—using the common multinomial logit model form—
essentially treat all modes equally; changes that increase the share of one mode will result in
equal proportional changes in the shares of all other modes. However, that is not necessarily a
realistic representation of how modes compete. Some modes may be more similar to others in
the services they provide beyond measurable level of service variables, such as travel time and
cost. As a result, increases in some modes’ shares may result in a disproportionately large change
in the shares of other selected modes.
For example, it appears that taxi mode shares at most airports have declined significantly
as TNCs have become available, while shares of other modes have not changed as much. This
behavior can be represented in other model structures, such as the nested logit model. The
nested logit model can be used to determine, statistically, which modes compete most directly
with each other and how they compete with all other modes. Technically, this model structure
can be used to estimate how the cross-elasticities of demand vary across modes. Practically, it
can be used to determine, for example, how changes in TNC prices would affect taxi demand
versus how they would affect airport parking demand. And, conversely, the nested logit model
can be used to determine how changes in parking price will affect TNC use. These, of course, are
important factors in determining how TNCs will affect future parking revenues.
Models Developed for DCA and SFO

Table 5-1 and Table 5-2 summarize the models developed for DCA and SFO, respectively. As
previously mentioned, separate models are presented by market segment for each airport. The
models show some variation across segments and airports in the innate (“all else being equal”)

Best Practices 49
Table 5-1. Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport model summary.
RESIDENT- RESIDENT- NONRESIDENT- NONRESIDENT-

VARIABLE TYPE VARIABLE NONBUSINESS BUSINESS NONBUSINESS BUSINESS
Private Vehicle Drop-Off - - - -
Private Vehicle Parking— -0.89** 1.44** -0.73** -0.70**

Terminal
Private Vehicle Parking— -0.27 0.03 -1.62** -0.84**

Economy
Mode Constants Rental -0.26 0.24 0.58** 1.89**
Taxi 0.99** 2.34** 1.57** 3.19**
TNC 0.71** 1.44** 0.90** 1.88**
Limo 0.72** 1.45** 1.14** 2.47**
Transit 1.52** 0.99** 0.78** 2.05**
Primary Explanatory Travel Time (minutes) -0.032** -0.011* -0.020** -0.026**

Variables Cost ($) -0.036** -0.040** -0.051** -0.050**
Secondary Baggage (at least one -0.96** -0.58* -0.55** -0.76**

Explanatory checked bag)
Variables (mode-
specific for transit Party Size (not a solo -0.59** -1.08** -0.48** -1.08**
only) traveler)
Nests Door-to-Door (TNC, Taxi, 0.52** 0.64** 0.74** 0.82**

and Limo) (expressed as
lambda)
Other Value of Time ($/hour) $52.50 $16.82 $23.34 $30.78
* = statistical significance at the 95% confidence level

** = statistical significance at the 99% confidence level
preference for one mode over another. These mode constants are expressed as a compari-
son to private vehicle drop-off, which is the “base”47 choice in these models. As would be
expected, residents show greater preference for private vehicle drop-off and parking, while
nonresidents lean more heavily on commercial modes. TNCs do not experience the same
innate preference in these data from 2014 to 2015, particularly compared with taxis, as one
might expect to observe today. However, there is a noticeable increase in preference for TNCs
between the two survey periods (SFO in May 2014 and DCA in October 2015), particularly
for nonbusiness travelers, who may have had limited exposure to and comfort with the app-
based service in 2014.
The coefficients in Tables 5-1 and 5-2 are nearly all significant; their signs are correct and their
magnitudes are logical. To apply these models, inputs are run through the nested logit equation
(where applicable, multinomial logit otherwise), which produces mode-share values for each
mode going to the airport under different policy conditions.
For those not familiar with nested and multinomial logit models, the best way to inter-
pret these coefficients is by using the Airport Mode Choice and Ground Transportation
Revenue Simulator Template (available on the TRB website by searching on “ACRP Research
While the model requires one mode to be used as the “base” for model estimation, the only values that matter are the differ-
47
ences between the mode constants, and these differences would be the same regardless of which mode was used as the base.

Table 5-2. San Francisco International Airport model summary.
VARIABLE TYPE VARIABLE RESIDENT- RESIDENT- NONRESIDENT- NONRESIDENT-

NONBUSINESS BUSINESS NONBUSINESS BUSINESS
Private Vehicle Drop-Off - - - -

Domestic Terminal
Private Vehicle Parking— -2.13** 0.03 -2.23** -3.56**

International Terminal

Long Term (economy)

Off-Airport
Rental -2.94** -1.29** 0.73** 2.38**
Mode Constants
Taxi -0.37* 2.28** 0.32** 2.52**
TNC -0.63** 1.56** -0.66** 1.19**
Limo -1.27** 2.27** -0.66** 1.19**
Shared-Ride Van -1.46** -0.67** -0.44** 0.35**
Transit 0.72** 1.90** 1.00** 1.81**
Other Scheduled Bus -1.99** -1.13** -2.17** -2.46**
Travel Time (minutes) -0.005** -0.027** -0.013** -0.013**

Primary Explanatory
Variables Cost ($) -0.020** -0.048** -0.022** -0.025**
Baggage (at least one -0.71** -0.32* -0.45** -0.29**

Secondary checked bag)
Explanatory
Party Size (not a solo -0.53** -0.23 -0.44** -0.42*
Variables (mode-
traveler)
specific for transit
only) Transfers (number of -0.38** -0.46** -0.41** -0.41**
transfers)
Nests Door-to-Door (TNC, Taxi, 0.99** 0.61** - -

and Limo) (expressed as
lambda)
Other Value of Time ($/hour) $15.76 $34.18 $34.21 $31.82
* = statistical significance at the 95% confidence level

** = statistical significance at the 99% confidence level

Best Practices 51
Report 215”) to see how the models behave with different policy inputs. For example, for the
SFO model, an increase of $2.00 in TNC fees results in a 3.0 percent decrease in TNC share to
the airport and increases in all other modes, including transit by 0.3 percent.
Several different nesting structures were tested to determine which modes were the clos-
est substitutes for each other. In all models, except for nonresident SFO models, “door-
to-door” commercial options together (TNCs, taxis, and limos) were found to be close
substitutes. This means that respondents show a strong tendency to switch among these
convenient commercial choices before switching to other modes. SFO’s nonresident models
did not exhibit this pattern, consistent with RSG findings on nonresident models for some
other airports.
While numerous specification tests were conducted in the development of these models,
additional testing would be appropriate before using the models for airport-specific plan-
ning and forecasting applications. In addition, for those applications, more recent survey data
would be useful. However, these models provide an appropriate base for illustrating the effects
on mode shares and airport revenues regarding changes in fees and prices. These models were
implemented in a sample enumeration-based simulator and used to estimate the revenue
effects of parking price and TNC-related changes.
The Airport Mode Choice and Ground Transportation Revenue Simulator Template, based
on hypothetical policy changes at SFO, shows how the mode-choice model is applied to estimate
revenue impact.
Broader Implications of the SFO and DCA Examples

SFO and DCA were selected for these detailed analyses largely because they were willing and
able to provide the research team with the detailed survey and other data to support this work.
They are both large-hub airports with good rail transit access and a full range of other highway-
based modes. On the surface, SFO and DCA would seem to be not particularly representative of
the broad range of airports currently experiencing significant increases in TNC access. However,
apart from their size and their direct rail access, they share with most other U.S. airports a com-
petitive mix of ground access options, including on-airport parking, private vehicle drop-off,
rental cars, taxis, and, now, TNCs. Most also have similarly designed revenue and fee structures:
direct revenues from airport parking, proportions of rental car charges, and per trip fees for taxis
and TNCs. These common features all lead to complex interactions among these modes, as well
as additional complexities in the resulting ground access revenues.
The SFO and DCA mode share and revenue calculations suggest some results that are likely
generalizable to other airports.
• While TNCs undoubtedly drew most of their initial market share from taxis and parking,
they also drew from other modes. At SFO they now appear to draw share similarly from all
the major modal alternatives. The extent to which TNCs do draw share from other modes
depends on the competitive mix at each airport, but this research does not support assuming
a simple substitution between TNCs and taxis or parking.
• The price elasticities of demand for parking and rental cars are more elastic than -1.0 at SFO;
at DCA they are also more elastic than -1.0 for rental cars. This means that reliable past prac-
tices of simply raising airport parking prices and rental car fees to increase revenues may now
result in the reverse effect (i.e., further reductions in revenue). This is partly due to the simple
economic effect that elasticities generally increase as prices increase (which they have at both
airports over time), but also from the increased competition to parking TNCs present.
• Similarly, simply increasing TNC fees may result in shifts to lower-revenue access alternatives,
such as private vehicle drop-off, and thus not result in net increases to airport revenues.

• The ground access–related revenue and fee structures used by airport operators result in
complex interactions as a result of demand effects and significant differences in the revenue
derived from each passenger trip. The net result of fee changes can be very different if either
or both of these effects is not appropriately accounted for.
However, there are also results specific only to these airports; therefore, this work should not
be viewed as a reasonable substitute for more current airport-specific studies. As noted earlier,
the work required to build and apply an integrated supply and disaggregate demand model that
can be used to properly calculate all these effects is relatively straightforward. Given that most
airport operators already expend considerable effort to collect air passenger ground access sur-
vey data, the incremental effort required to build a model for both ground access planning and
revenue analysis is small, especially compared with the missed revenue targets that could result
from less rigorous methods.
The Airport Mode Choice and Ground Transportation Revenue Simulator Template that is
available on the TRB website (search on “ACRP Research Report 215”) shows how the mode-
choice model is applied to estimate revenue impact (based on hypothetical policy changes at
SFO).
5.2 Summary Tables of Practices

The Reference Guide presents a variety of policy, management, operational, and business
practices that encompass the issues airport operators frequently encounter in the management
of TNCs. Tables 5-3, 5-4, 5-5, and 5-6 provide a quick reference to the 24 practices detailed in
Sections 5.3, 5.4, 5.5, and 5.6.
• Policy Development, Regulations, and Permits (Table 5-3) focuses on the broad initiatives
that provide the framework for effective TNC management.
• TNC/Ground Access Management, Operations, and Analysis (Table 5-4) covers landside
management tools available to airport operators for maintaining efficient and effective TNC
operations. Exhibit 5-1 is an illustration of the landside operations practice discussed in Sec-
tion 5.4.2.
• Financial and Business Development, Revenue Analysis, and Capital Programming
(Table 5-5) includes methods for monitoring revenue impacts and maintaining credit ratings.
This category also includes the development and application of a simulation tool that can
estimate the broad impacts of trip fee changes on mode share and revenue.
• Technology (Table 5-6) covers current and emerging practices that use automated vehicle
identification, PIN code matching, and other technology-based tools and concepts for more
efficient ground transportation management.

Best Practices 53
Table 5-3. Policy development, regulations, and permits.
PRIMARY
(SECONDARY)
# PRACTICE BRIEF DESCRIPTION AUDIENCE
5.3.1 Develop a comprehensive Adopt policies and strategies to manage all ground access programs Executive
ground access plan and activities: parking, commercial ground transportation, private (Landside Managers)
vehicle pick-up and drop-off, and employee access.
Establish mode-share goals tied to passenger levels.
Program flexible ground transportation infrastructure and utilities
that can adapt to changes in technology, customer preferences, and
shifts in revenue.
5.3.2 Integrate TNCs into a At the executive level, regularly convene representatives from all Executive
sustainable commercial units that have a role in TNC or commercial ground transportation
ground transportation issues: Chief Financial Officer, Landside Operations, Environmental,
program Legal Planning, and Capital Programming (cross-functional teams).
Under the guidance of the cross-functional team, develop a
comprehensive approach to all commercial vehicle modes: trip fees,
environmental impacts and performance, customer service, curb
management, and driver equity.
5.3.3 Establish regulations and Require that TNCs, TNC drivers, or both carry primary coverage that Executive
permit conditions that specifically covers TNC activity, as defined and required by the TNC, (Landside Managers)
address reporting, to demonstrate that coverage required in the given jurisdiction is in
insurance, driver training, place.
and accessibility Insurance and commercial liability coverage while on airport property
requirements should be at least $1 million with $250,000 of excess liability.
As a permit condition, require TNCs to prepare training materials that
accurately reflect current airport regulations; airport operator reviews
and approves materials and retains option to randomly test drivers
on regulations.
Permits should require companies to provide accessible vehicles.
Drivers must be trained in properly serving passengers with
disabilities and accommodating service animals. Performance should
be monitored by the airport operator. Penalties for violations should
be included in permits.
5.3.4 Provide framework for pilot Ensure airports have flexibility to evaluate and consider proposed Executive
programs TNC pilot programs. Structure flexible agreements that allow testing
of new technologies or processes.
5.3.5 Establish performance Define ground transportation objectives and metrics and set policy Executive
indicators and operating plans accordingly.
Implement infrastructure to continuously monitor traffic conditions
on roadways.
Consider metrics such as average vehicle speed, travel time, and
curbside dwell times.
Consider adopting a customer pick-up wait-time measure.
5.3.6 Foster collaboration Create working groups to address core policy and permitting needs. Executive
between airport managers Develop working relationships between airport landside staff and (Landside Managers)
and TNC senior staff TNC companies.
Communicate as far in advance as possible future capital
improvement and construction plans.

Table 5-4. Transportation network company/ground access management, operations, and analysis.
PRIMARY
(SECONDARY)
5.4.1 Curb management Evaluate overall curb demands by time of day (for both arrival and Landside Managers
departure curbs, as well as for arrival and departure roads and drives)
and flex drop-off and pick-up areas to use the least congested curbs.
For example, in some cases, airport operators have designated the
arrival level for drop-off in order to balance activity between upper-
and lower-level roadways.
Airport operators are evaluating overall curb and roadway operations
and taking a comprehensive approach to managing curb congestion.
For example, SFO and BOS have relocated (or are planning to
relocate) TNC activities to nearby garages and lots. The operator of
BOS is considering starting a remote bag-check service to
complement garage drop-offs.
In the short term, airport operators should consider repurposing
garage spaces; in the long term, airport operators should consider
designing and constructing ground transportation (GT) centers that
could accommodate multiple commercial ground transportation
providers away from terminal curbs. Within the GT center, spaces can
be reallocated as market- or mode-share shifts.
5.4.2 Staging areas/hold lots The location, adaptability, capacity, and design should be consistent with Landside Managers
current demand while allowing for expansion. Location should be in reasonable
proximity to terminals (5- to 10-minute travel time), and adequate driver
facilities should be provided.
5.4.3 Wayfinding The challenge of managing TNCs starts with the matching stage. Passengers Landside Managers
and drivers are matched via the smartphone app before either is at the curb.
This means the passenger and driver must first find each other amid activity at
the frontage. Drivers move slowly looking for a passenger with whom they are
not familiar, while passengers attempt to look over the nearest vehicles to find
“their” license plate or vehicle number. This is neither pleasant nor efficient. It is
essential to use easily understood and highly visible signs, markings, and
standard icons to guide arriving passengers to the proper pick-up location,
whether it is a curb, level, exit door, or nearby lot or garage.
5.4.4 Rematch This is a dispatch technology that allows a TNC vehicle to drop off a passenger Landside Managers
and immediately become eligible for a pick-up within a defined period of time.
Rematch offers the potential to reduce deadhead trips; relieve hold lot
demand; improve customer service by reducing wait times; and, possibly,
reduce VMT on an airport’s access roads.
5.4.5 Recurring ground access Conduct a survey of air passenger (and ideally employee) ground access Landside Managers
behavior to estimate airport access mode shares and gather essential input (Executive)
surveys data for mode-choice modeling and simulation. (Financial/Revenue
Analysts)
5.4.6 Access mode-choice Develop and apply a probabilistic model that incorporates ground access Landside Managers
survey trip data and data about level of service for each access mode to
modeling estimate how sensitive passengers are to changes in those levels of service.

Best Practices 55
Table 5-5. Financial and business development, revenue analysis, and capital programming.
PRIMARY
(SECONDARY)
5.5.1 Establish trip fees for  A fee charged to commercial vehicle operators doing business at an Landside Managers
sustainable revenue that airport. This is the principal method airport operators use to recover (Executive)
are aligned with ground the costs of managing the activity. Airport operators also use market- (Financial/Revenue
access policies based fee setting; in some cases, fee schedules must be developed as Analysts)
specified in state or local enabling legislation. Trip fees are also used
as a policy lever to align ground access operations with broad policy
goals related to curb management or environmental performance.
 Benchmarking: Airport operators should regularly conduct studies on
how other airports (direct peers as well as non-peer airports) set fees.
 Reasonableness and fairness: Whatever methods are used to
determine fee arrangements, airport operators should strive for
reasonableness, transparency, and fairness. This relates in some
respect to the individual airport circumstances, but it also reflects an
understanding of effective practices at other airports.
 Revenue management: Airport operators should engage in data-
driven tactics and strategies that optimize product availability and
price to achieve the highest possible revenue growth.
5.5.2 Monitor revenue and  Airport operators should develop monthly or daily activity tracking Financial/Revenue
activity that enables identification of patterns that are not apparent at an Analysts
annualized level. Consistently tracking activity (e.g., TNC transactions (Executive)
per 1,000 enplanements) and revenues (e.g., parking revenue per
enplaned passenger) across modes supports a comprehensive
evaluation of the airport’s ground transportation system and
facilitates accurate financial reporting and planning.
 Consistent tracking and reporting of ground transportation activity,
revenues, and data across multiple modes should be inputs to a
dashboard that establishes a baseline and identifies trends for
financial managers and policy boards, as well as rating agencies.
5.5.3 Forecasting: Develop  Forecasting has many different purposes, including near-term Financial/Revenue
simulation tools to estimate operating budget planning, long-term facility planning, and long- Analysts
changes in mode share and term strategic planning. A variety of models can be applied, ranging (Executive)
revenue and under from spreadsheet tools to more sophisticated demand models.
different scenarios  Estimate passenger price elasticity and changes in mode share using
disaggregate mode-choice models.
5.5.4 Maintain airport credit  Airport operators will continue to face questions regarding ability to Financial/Revenue
rating generate revenues from traditional nonairline sources, such as Analysts
parking and rental cars; basis for facility investment plans; and ability (Executive)
to prudently manage the airport financial result. These questions
relate to the items discussed previously. A key point with best
practices is to not wait for questions to be asked, but instead to
engage in proactive planning.
5.5.5 Monitor rental car  Review monthly transaction reports for trends. Financial/Revenue
transactions and programs  Meet regularly with rental car companies to understand current Analysts
business practices and new programs. For example, pick-ups and
drop-offs at the curb for premier customers or companies entering
into agreements with TNCs to rent cars to drivers.

Table 5-6. Technology.
PRIMARY
(SECONDARY)
5.6.1 Vehicle identification, Use a range of tools to support the airport operator’s management of TNC Executives
management, and tracking activity, curb enforcement, and auditing requirements; these include AVI/RFID, Finance
beacons, automatic license plate recognition (LPR), GPS, Bluetooth, and Landside Managers
integrated toll module. Separate software/applications include
GateKeeperTNC-Ops™ software and American Association of Airport Executives (Planning)
App-Based Transportation Clearinghouse service. GIS mapping and video
monitoring can supplement simulation models and can identify curb “hot
spots.”
5.6.2 PIN code matching Passengers open the TNC app to request a ride; they receive a numerical code, Landside Managers
then they are directed to wait in a pick-up line outside the terminal. The TNC Drivers and Riders
passenger shows their code to the driver, the trip information is processed, and
the ride proceeds as usual.
5.6.3 Predispatch This is an algorithm that anticipates rider demand at airports and matches Landside Managers
drivers to riders en route. This helps to lower the customer wait time. TNC Drivers and
Companies
5.6.4 Push data Information push, such as news updates, navigation routing, and the mobility Landside Managers
management system, is initiated by the server, not the client or user. These TNC Drivers and
systems aim to improve efficiency for drivers and make the trip faster for Companies
passengers.
5.6.5 Mobility as a service (MaaS) MaaS encompasses digital platforms that provide a gateway for users to view, Ground Transportation
reserve, and pay given a menu of real-time mobility options—both public and Users
private—such as transit, rail, TNCs, carshare, bikeshare, and micromobility. This
enables users to easily determine their most attractive mobility option based
on their individual preferences for time savings, trip amenities, convenience,
and cost.
5.6.6 Connected vehicles Connected vehicle technology allows vehicles to communicate wirelessly with Landside Managers
surrounding vehicles, infrastructure, the cloud/network, and pedestrians— Finance
collectively referred to as vehicle-to-everything. Together, these components (Planning)
constitute a connected vehicle environment, which is a core attribute
facilitating the development of connected autonomous vehicles, intelligent
transportation systems, and smart city initiatives.
5.6.7 Autonomous vehicles (AVs) AV technology, sometimes referred to as self-driving vehicle technology, Landside Managers
enables a vehicle to guide itself with little to no physical control or monitoring Finance
by a human operator. Current AV development is primarily driven by TNCs, (Planning)
carshare companies, automobile manufacturers and Tier 1 suppliers, tech
companies, and microtransit companies. The timing, adoption rate, and impact
of AVs are subject to conjecture.
NOTES:
AVI—automatic vehicle identification
RFID—radio frequency identification

Best Practices 57
SOURCE: Steven J. Holes, Metropolitan Airports Commission, August 9, 2019.
Exhibit 5-1. Staging area—Minneapolis–Saint Paul

International Airport.
5.3 Policy Development, Regulations, and Permits

5.3.1 Develop a Comprehensive Ground Access Plan
OBJECTIVES Establish the broad policy framework to consider all aspects of airport ground access: curb
and terminal roadway congestion, environmental indicators (including deadhead trips, VMT, and
greenhouse gas emissions), safety, customer service, capital plans, emerging technologies,
and sustainable revenue practices. This framework provides the foundation for commercial ground
transportation programs (Practice 5.3.2), trip fees, revenue management, and the potential for
airport access fees.
DESCRIPTION OF PRACTICE Airport operators adopt policies and strategies to manage ground access programs and activities:
parking, commercial ground transportation, private vehicle pick-up and drop-off, rental car use, and
employee access. The reasons for adopting the policies may vary and may include
Demand management to manage congestion and maintain operations.
Enhanced landside levels of service.
Revenue optimization.
Environmental goals limit to help VMT and emissions.
Recommended practice is to begin designing and constructing flexible ground transportation
infrastructure and utilities that can adapt to changes in technology, customer preferences, business
models, and shifts in revenue. For example, consolidated ground transportation centers can
accommodate both commercial modes and private vehicle activity away from congested curbs.
Although U.S. airports (with one exception at DFW) do not currently charge private vehicles for
driving on the airport roadways and accessing curbs (i.e., pick-up/drop-off), this concept has
surfaced in discussions at several large-hub airports and is an effective practice to consider for
managing curb and roadway congestion, influencing mode share, and supplementing
nonaeronautical revenue.
EXAMPLES OF HOW IT HAS Both BOS and SFO have policies that place a priority on supporting programs that encourage
WORKED the use on alternative ground access modes. BOS has a high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) goal of
35.2 percent at 37.5 million annual passengers; SFO has a Transit First policy. UK airports began
monetizing curb access in 2007 at Birmingham/Clark, and more airports adopted the practice
starting in 2009; it is now in place at 14 UK airports, as well as at Charles de Gaulle Airport in France.
RELEVANT AUDIENCES Policy boards, senior staff, landside managers, and chief financial officers.
LONG-TERM PLANNING Advances in tolling and LPR systems have significantly improved the ability to automate
CONSIDERATIONS identification of “unknown” private vehicles.
Reduction in traditional landside revenue streams (e.g., parking, rental cars) will continue to
create pressure for new resources.
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES ACRP Report 20: Strategic Planning in the Airport Industry
ACRP Project 11-02/Task 33, “Research Roadmap on Policy and Planning Issues”

5.3.2 Integrate Transportation Network Companies into a Sustainable Commercial

Ground Transportation Program
OBJECTIVES Manage commercial ground transportation services for sustainability, efficiency, and balance vis-à-
vis aeronautical revenue generation.
DESCRIPTION OF PRACTICE Within the framework established by Practice 5.3.1, develop a comprehensive commercial ground
transportation management program. A sustainable program will monitor trends in transactions per
1,000 enplaned passengers; track total GT revenue, as well as shifts within revenue sources; monitor
trends in nonaeronautical revenue (in constant dollars) per enplaned passenger; and identify
infrastructure to support and manage commercial GT consistent with revenue performance
objectives. The trip fee structure should reflect the operating and capital costs associated with
supporting and managing each commercial ground transportation mode. Expenses for landside
operations (direct operating costs of providing ground transportation facilities, asset depreciation,
costs of roadways, and other infrastructure used for ground transportation services) should be
tracked and calculated in determining the revenue required to adequately operate, maintain, and
expand commercial ground transportation services.
Components of a sustainable program will
Include all commercial modes.
Establish cross-functional teams (landside managers, financial officers, capital program
managers).
Have a fee structure aligned with policy goals and one that recognizes that price increases alone
may not be a sustainable strategy.
Have guidelines for revenue management and allocation for operating revenue and capital
programming.
Establish performance measures/key performance indicators and collect necessary data to
Establish baseline conditions.
Perform analysis and benchmarking.
Track/identify trends.
A sustainable program will also consider goals for
HOV mode share.
Customer service: wait times, safety, accessibility.
Curb operations and circulation on access roads and drives.
Environmental impacts: deadheading, greenhouse gas emissions.
Equity and operator living wage policies.
Variable rate/dynamic parking.
Monetizing curb access.
EXAMPLES OF WHERE IT Charlotte Douglas International Airport, DFW,

HAS WORKED Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport (PHX): see ACRP’s “A New Framework for Ground
Transportation at Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport,” Impacts on Practice, February 2018.
RELEVANT AUDIENCES Landside managers; financial and revenue analysts
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES ACRP Report 146: Commercial Ground Transportation at Airports: Best Practices
ACRP Report 80: Guidebook for Incorporating Sustainability into Traditional Airport Projects

Best Practices 59
5.3.3 Establish Regulations and Permit Conditions That

Address Reporting, Insurance, Driver Training
and Accessibility Requirements
OBJECTIVES Establish conditions and requirements to enable the safe and efficient operation of TNCs on airport
property.
DESCRIPTION OF PRACTICE Company information and fees
Charge application or administration fee.
Establish term (1 to 2 years) and whether permit is renewable.
Trip fee: specify drop-off, pick-up, or both.
Color photo of company trade dress.
Accessibility plan for accommodating passengers with physical disabilities.
Trip fee set by rate schedule and consistent with ground access policies: environmental, cost
recovery, customer service.
TNC should agree to allow airport operator to conduct passenger surveys and should assist
(not interfere) with process
.
Insurance
“Transportation network company insurance” is a policy that specifically covers the use of a
vehicle in connection with a TNC’s online-enabled application or platform.
Insurance and commercial liability coverage while on airport property should be at least
$1 million.
$200,000 excess liability.
A participating driver shall carry proof of TNC insurance coverage at all times during use of a
vehicle in connection with a TNC’s online-enabled application or platform.
Airport as additional insured.
Require that TNCs and/or TNC drivers carry primary coverage that specifically covers TNC
activity as defined and required by the TNC to demonstrate that required coverage in the given
jurisdiction is in place during this period.
Supporting exhibits: maps, definitions, forms
Attach to agreements a location map or aerial photo showing location of staging area(s), route
to terminal(s), and pick-up/drop-off locations.
A TNC is an organization, including a corporation, limited liability company, partnership, sole
proprietor, or any other entity, operating in [state] that provides prearranged transportation
services for compensation using an online-enabled application or platform to connect
passengers with drivers using a personal vehicle.
TNC activity is the period a driver is logged onto the TNC’s app to the time the driver logs off or
the ride is completed, and the passenger has exited the vehicle, whichever is later.
TNC drivers shall only transport passengers on a prearranged basis. For TNC services, a ride is
considered prearranged if the ride is solicited and accepted via a TNC digital platform before
the ride commences. TNC drivers are strictly prohibited from accepting street hails.
Provide template for monthly trip reporting/payments.
Operational requirements
Specify pick-up and drop-off locations: levels, doors, designated lots, inner/outer curbs, all
dependent on airport configuration and management policies.
Define routes to/from staging area to terminals.
Identification: require display of trade dress, visible within 50 feet.
Specify staging lot dwell time limit; duration may differ based on time of day or arriving flight
schedules.
Driver may not refuse trips unless unable to provide service because of travel party size.
Drivers may not solicit rides.
Driver may not turn off app while in staging lot.
Staging lot to be used to serve on-airport trips only.
Drivers to remain with vehicles when parked in the staging area.
Penalties
Notices sent to TNCs for payment, not to drivers.
Driver information and fees
Driver application and annual renewal fee.
The make and model of the motor vehicle being driven.
The license plate of the motor vehicle being driven.
(continued on next page)

(Continued).
TNC drivers must possess a valid driver’s license and be at least 21 years of age.
Certificates of insurance for the motor vehicle being driven (see insurance practice).
Renewal process allows airport operator to update list of authorized drivers and confirm
insurance compliance.
Training: TNCs must establish a driver training program to ensure all drivers are familiar with
airport rules and regulations.
Driver background checks and enforcement
TNCs must perform national criminal background check, including the national sex offender
database on drivers utilizing their platform.
TNCs to facilitate criminal background checks.
There should be a 7-year “look back” on reckless driving and for any convictions related to
drugs or alcohol, fraud, sexual offenses, use of a motor vehicle to commit a felony, a crime
involving property damage and/or theft, acts of violence, or acts of terror.
Airport operators should perform spot checks in hold lots and staging areas to verify the TNC
driver in the vehicle matches the company app and the vehicle registration. At one airport (BOS),
a TNC driver was found to be using the company credentials issued to another person. The
unauthorized driver had several outstanding warrants.
LONG-TERM PLANNING Permit conditions should be aligned with the airport operator’s sustainable commercial ground
CONSIDERATIONS transportation program.
Airport operators should monitor federal and state legislation related to background checks and
should revise permit conditions to reflect national and state practice.
5.3.4 Provide Framework for Pilot Programs
OBJECTIVES Ensure airport operators have sufficient flexibility to manage and approve pilot programs related to
operations, emerging technology, and reporting.
DESCRIPTION OF PRACTICE As technology and best practices continue to evolve, permits should be flexible enough to allow
airport leadership to test new products, features, and operational configurations through pilot
programs.
EXAMPLES OF HOW IT HAS At Portland International Airport (PDX), the PIN pilot required reconfiguration of pick-up areas and
WORKED dispatching methodology.
At multiple airports where rematch has been implemented, contracts allow for flexible TNC
dispatching (not mandating that dispatches occur from a staging lot).
RELEVANT AUDIENCES Senior staff, landside managers, and information technology staff.
LONG-TERM PLANNING As permit renewals come due, consider incorporating specific language that allows for mutually
CONSIDERATIONS agreed upon pilot programs. Consider the ability to repurpose infrastructure for new use cases as
passenger and operational needs evolve.
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES Example language in TNC permit: “Operator may, from time to time, propose to [airport operator]
the testing of new products or features designed to enhance TNC operations or customer service.
Upon the [airport operator] express written approval, such testing may begin without requiring
further modification to the underlying Agreement.” The duration of and measures for evaluating the
pilot program should be specified in the airport operator’s approval; the approval should also
acknowledge the airport operator’s authority to terminate the pilot program at any point.

Best Practices 61
5.3.5 Establish Performance Indicators
OBJECTIVES Manage environmental impacts of TNCs, including deadhead trips, VMT, and greenhouse gas
emissions.
DESCRIPTION OF PRACTICE Establish performance indicators to manage/reduce the impact of TNCs on emissions, fuel
consumption, and greenhouse gases.
Permit operations that reduce deadhead trips (e.g., rematch).
Establish fuel-efficiency requirements.
Provide incentives for use of alternative-fuel/electric vehicles.
EXAMPLES OF HOW IT HAS Seattle-Tacoma International Airport (SEA): Environmental Key Performance Indicator (E-KPI)
WORKED sets environmental fuel-efficiency goal of 10.82 lbs. of CO2 per passenger trip based on
the equivalent for taxis, which have a 45 mpg requirement. TNCs can accomplish the CO2 goal
using high mpg vehicles, deadhead reduction, and/or pooling of unrelated passengers and any
combination of these three items. Rematch is permitted.
PHX: 10 percent discount on trip fees for dedicated alternative-fuel vehicles.
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES ACRP Research Report 180: Guidebook for Quantifying Airport Ground Access Vehicle Activity for
Emissions Modeling (and associated online tutorial).
5.3.6 Foster Collaboration Between Airport Managers

and Transportation Network Company Senior Staff
OBJECTIVES Develop effective working relationships between airport ground transportation staff and TNCs to
discuss operations, proposed changes in pick-up/drop-off locations and procedures, enforcement
issues, and hold lot activity.
DESCRIPTION OF PRACTICE All airport operators interviewed for this ACRP research said senior landside managers meet
regularly with representatives from the TNCs. These meetings offer an opportunity to discuss
proposed changes in procedures and curb assignments, to discuss upcoming capital projects and
construction plans that may alter access patterns, and to identify emerging customer service or
enforcement issues. Several landside managers mentioned walking terminal curbs with TNC
representatives to observe operations and to discuss the rationale for the airport’s rules and
regulations.
EXAMPLES OF HOW IT HAS Many airport operators are working collaboratively with TNCs to identify issues, evaluate solutions,
WORKED and ensure effective implementation. Recent examples include Chicago Midway International
Airport (MDW), PDX, and San Diego International Airport (SAN) in the development of PIN
programs.
LONG-TERM PLANNING As necessary, create working groups to address emerging issues and topics (e.g., permitting, trip
CONSIDERATIONS fees, routing to/from hold lots).
Ensure airport staff and TNCs have multiple points of contact to address both high-level policy
topics and day-to-day matters (e.g., driver conduct, customer service issues).

5.4 Transportation Network Company and Ground Access

Management, Operations, and Analysis
5.4.1 Curb Management
OBJECTIVES Reduce airport access road and curb congestion; make best use of available landside capacity.
DESCRIPTION OF PRACTICE Flex between departure and arrival levels to reallocate TNC activities to less congested locations.
Consider the role of nonterminal locations (nearby garages and surface lots) for pick-up and
drop-off; if garages are used, spaces should be designed to allow drivers to pull through rather
than back into travel aisles.
Consider using (or establishing) intermodal centers for all commercial ground transportation
operations.
Analyze proposed changes with a microsimulation model, such as VISSIM, or with the
spreadsheet tool developed for ACRP Report 40.
Monitor mode market share every 6 months and adjust curb assignments (linear feet, location)
commensurate with demand.
Ensure vehicles display trade dress and any other airport commercial ground transportation
tags. Drop-off and pick-up should only be in designated areas, and drivers must not block lanes,
dwell for excessive time at the curb, or solicit for riders.
EXAMPLES OF HOW IT HAS The operators of BOS, DFW, DEN, LAX, SEA, and SFO have proactively and creatively reassigned
WORKED pick-up and drop-off locations to make efficient use of available curbs and to designate
“underutilized” airport property, such as nearby garages and mini staging areas, for pick-up.
New drop-off/pick-up location for Uber and Lyft at DEN; TNC passengers will now use Level 5
(commercial GT level), not Level 6; airport staff began researching options for pick-ups and
drop-offs earlier this year and worked closely with the TNCs to streamline procedures.
At Montréal–Pierre Elliott Trudeau International Airport, clear striping indicates designated TNC
zones.
The BNA sponsor created a TNC pick-up area on the ground floor of a new short-term parking
garage.
The MSP operator is building a new transit center that will enable the airport to
Allow taxicabs and TNCs to pick up in the same area.
Relocate off-airport parking shuttles.
Relocate limousine operations.
Relocate courtesy and corporate shuttles.
Relocate charter and employee buses.
LONG-TERM PLANNING Design landside infrastructure with flexibility in mind. Given that existing modes of ground
CONSIDERATIONS transportation may gain or lose popularity, and new modes may materialize, infrastructure should
be built and designed to accommodate a range of growth scenarios and mode shifts.
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES ACRP Project 03-47, “Rethinking Airport Parking Facilities to Protect and Enhance Non-
Aeronautical Revenue”
ACRP Report 40: Airport Curbside and Terminal Area Roadway Operations

Best Practices 63
5.4.2 Staging Areas/Hold Lots

OBJECTIVES Provide adequate capacity; set location in reasonable proximity to terminals; provide driver facilities.
DESCRIPTION OF PRACTICE Staging areas: location
Recommended travel time from hold area to passenger pick-up location should not exceed 5
minutes; upper limit should not exceed 10 minutes at peak periods.
Establish separate and clear ingress and egress lanes to prevent line cutting, unnecessary
bottlenecks, and potential accidents.
Avoid left turns out of the lot.
Create lane space for merging vehicles—secondary lane space at the exit of the lot allows for
ease of adding vehicles into the flow and prevents bottlenecks.
Opt for traffic signal lights over stop signs—peak-hour egress can be nonstop, so having a stop
sign significantly delays the flow of traffic.
Staging areas: adaptability
Locate and design hold areas consistent with overall ground access plan.
Plan for shared facilities.
Staging areas: capacity (number of spaces)
Survey responses and interviews suggest the following ranges:
Large hub: 250 to 300.
Medium hub: 100 to 150.
Small hub: 50 to 75.
Consider splitting staging area into two separate smaller locations to improve passenger pick-
up wait time and to reduce staging area congestion.
Staging areas: design
Access and egress should be adequate to prevent queued vehicles from spilling back onto
adjacent roads.
Delineators or bollards should be placed between ingress and egress lanes.
Pavement marking and signs should be consistent with good traffic engineering practice.
Pavement should be marked with inbound/outbound arrows on ingress and egress lanes.
Exit lane signage should detail next move (e.g., “Straight Only”).
Exit lane signage should detail restricted moves (e.g., “No Left Turn”).
Sanitary facilities, lighting, trash receptacles, video surveillance, and prayer areas should be
provided:
Multiple trash cans should be distributed throughout the lot.
On-site/portable restrooms should be provided for waiting drivers (recommendation is one
restroom per every 20 lot spaces).
Lighting should be sufficient for safety, security, and visibility.
TNC driver rules and instructions for operating on airport premises should be visibly posted.
EXAMPLES OF HOW IT HAS The BOS operator reconfigured a former limo lot for an initial TNC hold area; with the increase in
WORKED demand for TNCs, taxis were relocated from the taxi pool and TNCs were moved into the larger lot
the taxis vacated. (As a further refinement, TNC operations at BOS were moved into the central
garage as of October 2019.) Chicago O’Hare International Airport has enhanced striping and
delineation; the ORD operator recently installed a traffic signal and has optimized the signal timings
to improve hold lot access. Traffic flow and routing recommendations have been implemented at
Toronto Pearson International Airport (YYZ) and SEA.
LONG-TERM PLANNING Keep staging lot design and location in mind when planning airport construction/renovation
CONSIDERATIONS projects. Staging lots should be designed to accommodate a range of growth scenarios. New
programs, such as rematch, may reduce demands on staging lot capacity. Efficient design and
location also reduce neighborhood impacts and improve the driver experience.

5.4.3 Wayfinding
OBJECTIVES Provide arriving passengers with clear, simple, universal communication of pick-up locations: curb,
level, door, or nearby lot or garage.
DESCRIPTION OF PRACTICE Many airport operators developed their own wayfinding symbols and terminology to direct TNC
passengers to pick-up locations. This resulted in a variety of terms and icons designating TNC pick-
up locations.
The AAAE, in collaboration with TNCs, airport operators, and other industry stakeholders, led the
effort to develop a common and easily recognized set of terms to provide a consistent experience
for passengers wherever they land. The terminology features consistent wording, icons, and images
for signs directing passengers to TNCs.
EXAMPLES OF HOW IT HAS The AAAE symbols and nomenclature are in use at nine airports, including Austin-Bergstrom
WORKED International Airport, DEN, LAX, BNA, MCO, DCA, SFO, and YYZ. DFW is developing a holistic curb
signage program.
LONG-TERM PLANNING Understanding that signage might have to be replaced in phases, airport operators should routinely
CONSIDERATIONS include this wayfinding standard in planned updates/upgrades.
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES Establishing a Common Standard for TNC Wayfinding at Airports (AAAE, August 2018). The Ride App
Pick-Up icon may be used in several different formats and versions. Vector EPS files and artwork are
supplied by AAAE at https://www.dropbox.com/s/ab1zvcfxddssw44/RAP_Icon_Artwork.zip?dl=0.
DFW International Airport AAAE COMMON STANDARD ICON
SOURCE: AAAE, August 2018.
SOURCE: D. Galloway, DFW, August 7, 2019.

Best Practices 65
5.4.4 Rematch
OBJECTIVES Reduce deadhead trips and emissions; reduce customer pick-up wait times. Rematch can be an
effective solution for airports with congested staging lots, as it reduces the number of drivers
dispatched from the staging lots.
DESCRIPTION OF PRACTICE Rematch is a dispatch technology that allows a TNC vehicle to drop off a passenger and
immediately become eligible to pick up a new passenger within a defined period of time. Feasibility
of this practice depends on the specific airport roadway layout; the practice works best where drop-
offs and pick-ups can occur on the same level or in a separate nearby area, such as a surface lot or
garage. Some airport operators have established a rematch-specific entrance for a shorter loop that
allows recirculation to all airport terminal roadways.
Rematch has the potential to reduce
Deadheading and congestion.
Total vehicle miles driven per passenger.
Vehicles in staging lot.
Passenger wait times and cancellations.
EXAMPLES OF HOW IT HAS At airports where rematch has been implemented, passenger pick-up wait times have been reduced
WORKED by over 30 percent. At SEA, Lyft achieved reductions in deadheading through the rematch program
and received an Aviation Environmental Excellence Award from the Port of Seattle in 2018.
LONG-TERM PLANNING The rematch algorithm calculates the estimated travel time between a drop-off location and a pick-
CONSIDERATIONS up location. The driver with the shortest route to the pick-up point will receive a request in lieu of a
new driver being dispatched from the waiting lot. As long as roadways accurately appear in
mapping software, rematch will dispatch an eligible driver with the quickest route to the pick-up
point, even if that routing requires switching levels or using an airport return/U-turn roadway.
SOURCE: Uber, August 12, 2019.

5.4.5 Recurring Ground Access Surveys

OBJECTIVE Provide relevant airport staff with recent data on how people get to the airport.
DESCRIPTION OF Survey of air passenger (and ideally employee) ground access behavior to provide
TECHNOLOGY AND Mode share to/from the airport.
PRACTICE
Input data from mode-choice modeling and simulation.
EXAMPLES OF HOW IT HAS BOS, SFO, and DCA periodically conduct ground access surveys to explore airport access patterns.
WORKED
RELEVANT AUDIENCES Ground transportation
Customer experience
LONG-TERM PLANNING Recurring surveys allow airport operators to keep their analyses relevant to the rapidly changing
CONSIDERATIONS ground transportation landscape.
Recurring surveys provide a primary data source for tracking current air passenger and
employee airport access patterns, as well as changes and trends in those patterns.
Recurring surveys provide data to support new ground access policies and operations in
response to observed changes.
Survey data can be used to develop ground access forecasting models or tools.
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES ACRP Report 26: Guidebook for Conducting Airport User Surveys
SOURCE: Screenshot, Ground Access Survey, Massport DEP Parking Freeze Study, October, 2018.

Best Practices 67
5.4.6 Access Mode-Choice Modeling

OBJECTIVES Provide relevant airport staff with a framework to use ground access survey data for forecasting and
planning.
DESCRIPTION OF Probabilistic model that incorporates ground access survey trip data and data about level of service
TECHNOLOGY AND for each access mode to estimate how sensitive people are to changes in those levels of service.
PRACTICE
EXAMPLES OF HOW IT HAS BOS used a mode-choice model to support discussion around policy changes related to HOV
WORKED use.
Using SFO and DCA data, the research team developed mode-choice models as part of this
ACRP project to explore potential revenue impacts of various hypothetical policy changes.
Customer experience
LONG-TERM PLANNING Access mode-choice models allow airport operators to
CONSIDERATIONS Understand how customers and employees will change or maintain the way they get to the
airport in a highly dynamic and fast-changing ground access system.
Gain key input for ground access forecasting and, thus, for developing well-informed ground
access policies.
Examine a range of travel modes and policy considerations.
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES The Airport Mode Choice and Ground Transportation Revenue Simulator Template, developed using
the R programing language, and available on the TRB website by searching on “ACRP Research
Report 215” (includes model specifications); ACRP Synthesis 5: Airport Ground Access Mode Choice
Models.
SOURCE: Gosling, G. ACRP Synthesis 5: Airport Ground Access Mode Choice Models, Transportation
Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2008, p. 17.

5.5 Business and Revenue Analysis and Capital

Programming
5.5.1 Establish Trip Fees for Sustainable Revenue That Are Aligned
with Ground Access Policies
OBJECTIVES Set commercial ground transportation trip fees to support sustainable revenue for operating and
capital expenses; in a consistent, transparent manner, apply them fairly and equitably across all
commercial ground transportation operators.
DESCRIPTION OF PRACTICE Airport operators have gradually increased per trip fees for TNCs and have started to apply them,
not only to pick-up but also to drop-off trips. This provides both (1) a replacement for revenue that
might be lost from other GT modes and (2) revenue needed to fund the operation and capital costs
required to accommodate the rapid increase in TNC operations. Airports have long-standing fiscal
policies and business practices underlying the establishment of ground transportation fees. At some
airports, social equity considerations and living wage goals now complicate the development of fee
structures.
The required revenue should be allocated based on ground transportation mode share spread
across the estimated number of trips.
TNC revenue should be used to reinvest back into the passenger experience (such as
wayfinding, pick-up area, and staging lot amenities).
Airport operators should regularly conduct benchmarking studies on how other airports (direct
peers as well as non-peer airports) set fees. Airport industry associations can assist by
periodically surveying airports and publishing the results.
EXAMPLES OF HOW IT HAS PHX conducted a study of all commercial ground transportation to ensure fees are applied
WORKED consistently across modes.
BOS will undertake a 6-month review of fees charged to taxis and limos. Current fees were last
updated in 2007.
LONG-TERM PLANNING Existing modes of ground transportation may gain or lose popularity; airport operators should
CONSIDERATIONS seek to diversify revenue streams across all modes of landside access, including commercial
ground transportation, parking, and private vehicles.
Airport access fee structures should be designed to meet airport revenue goals consistent with
ground access policies: HOV mode share, congestion management, greenhouse gas emissions,
and customer service.

Best Practices 69
Current Schedule of Trip Fees at Selected Airports (as of August 12, 2019)
Airport TNC Fee Notes Features
BOS $3.25 (pick-up only) State law allows airport to require Criminal Pick-up/drop-off relocated
$3.00 pick-up: effective Offender Record Information (CORI) and to central garage
10/1/2019 sex offender checks. 10/1/2019.
$3.00 drop-off: effective Fee will increase to $4.00/$4.00 7/1/2020. Rematch to be permitted
10/1/2019 50% discount for shared ride. 10/1/2019.
DCA and $8.00 total Applies to DCA and IAD. Collect both a drop-off
IAD ($4.00 pick-up and drop-off) Permits were issued to TNCs (Uber and and a pick-up fee.
(MWAA) $5,000.00 activation fee Lyft), not to individual TNC drivers. Failure
to follow MWAA regulations can result in
notices of violation, with fines up to
$250.00 per occurrence, applied against
the permit holders.
DEN $5.20 total Rematch is allowed; it reduces roadway Collect both a drop-off
($2.60 pick-up and drop-off) traffic, reduces demand for space in hold and a pick-up fee.
lot, and improves customer service (shorter Allow rematch.
wait times).
DEN changed TNC operations 6/19 by
moving all pick-up and drop-off activity to
its commercial vehicle level. This change
was prompted by the growth in both
enplaning passengers and TNCs, which was
creating a bottleneck on the departure level.
DFW $10.00 total Major recent adjustment in curb Collect both a drop-off
($5.00 pick-up and drop-off) management: only active and a pick-up fee.
$600.00 annual permit fee loading/unloading allowed.
Company pays $3.00 of trip fee; driver pays
$2.00.
LAX $8.00 total Rematch permitted. Collect both a drop-off
($4.00 pick-up and drop-off) $200.00 per violation of rules and and a pick-up fee.
$1,000.00 activation fee regulations. Allow rematch.
RNO $1.00 (pick-up only) Rematch allowed only if hold lot is empty. Use rematch to manage
TNC supply.
SEA $6.00 (pick-up only) Trip fee is set to “level playing field” with Set trip fee in context with
Tiered activation fee: taxis. other commercial ground
$50,000.00 to $100,000.00 Environmental/fuel-efficiency goal. access services.
Rematch permitted. Allow rematch.
TNCs have the option of paying a pick-up Establish
or drop-off fee (i.e., split the $6.00 into two environmental/fuel-
$3.00 charges). All chose to pay the $6.00 fee. efficiency policy.
SFO $4.50 Activation fee based on pre-permit trips. During fiscal year 2019/20, the
Transit First policy. airport director or his designee is
As of 6/5/2019, pick-up/drop-off relocated authorized to adjust ground
to top level of the domestic hourly parking transportation access fees from
time to time, provided the total
garage.
rate in effect for each mode is
projected to recover allocable
costs and does not exceed $9.00
per trip.

SOURCES: ACRP Project 01-35: Airport Survey, June 2018. ACI-NA, Survey of Airport Trip Fees, August 2018. Airport Ground Transportation
Association, 2018 Ground Transportation Vehicle Fees and Fares Survey, March 2018. Ricondo & Associates, Inc., June 2019.

5.5.2 Monitor Revenue and Activity
OBJECTIVES Receive and compile TNC transaction and trip data of sufficient accuracy to support audits, monitor
compliance with permits, establish baseline activity, and track trends.
DESCRIPTION OF PRACTICE Airport should implement geofence to track all entry, exit, pick-up, and drop-off activity.
Trips are to be reported and payment remitted monthly; this should include date and time
of entry into geofence.
TNC should establish electronic waybill system with trip details satisfactory to airport
administration, finance, or audit departments.
Airport should require TNCs to make available for inspection complete records of all
business transacted at the airport.
Airport operator has the right to audit the TNC’s airport operation; and to inspect or audit
books of account, statements, documents, records, returns, and files relating to business
transacted at the airport.
Monthly trip report and trip fees will be due by the 15th of the following month.
Deposit increase, prepayment requirement, or termination may result in event of default.
For enforcement and auditing, real-time vehicle activity will be visible to enforcement
officers via an airport mobile app.
Real-time data must corroborate self-reported trip fees.
EXAMPLES OF HOW IT HAS The Port of Seattle’s 2018 audit of TNCs can be accessed at
WORKED https://meetings.portseattle.org/portmeetings/attachments/2018/2018_03_19_SCM_9_TNC.pdf.
LONG-TERM PLANNING Airport operators may require the TNC, at its own expense, to provide a report prepared by a
CONSIDERATIONS certified public accountant on trip activity and fees paid.

Best Practices 71
5.5.3 Forecasting: Develop Simulation Tools to Estimate Changes in

Mode Share and Revenue Under Different Scenarios
OBJECTIVES Provide relevant airport staff with a tool to explore policy and service changes.
DESCRIPTION OF Simulation tool that uses ground access survey data and ensuing ground access mode-choice
TECHNOLOGY AND models to estimate changes in mode share and, correspondingly, ground transportation revenues
PRACTICE based on changes in policy or level of service.
EXAMPLES OF HOW IT HAS At BOS, a mode-share simulator supported discussion around policy changes related to
WORKED HOV use.
As part of ACRP Project 01-35 the team developed mode share and revenue simulators
using SFO and DCA data to explore potential revenue impacts of various hypothetical
policy changes.
Customer experience
LONG-TERM PLANNING Allows airport operators to estimate the impacts of proposed policy and service changes
CONSIDERATIONS on mode shares and, correspondingly, on ground transportation revenues and operations.
Can be used to determine what changes are necessary to achieve airport operators’
ground access service, operations, and revenue objectives.
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES The Airport Mode Choice and Ground Transportation Revenue Simulator Template (available on the
TRB website by searching on “ACRP Research Report 215”).
SOURCE: Screenshot, Airport Mode Choice and Ground Transportation Revenue Simulator, prepared
for ACRP Project 01-35.

5.5.4 Maintain Airport Credit Rating
OBJECTIVES Maintain credit ratings adequate to support bonded indebtedness required to replace infrastructure
and expand facilities necessary to support passenger enplanements.
DESCRIPTION OF PRACTICE This research project has not identified any significant negative impact on near-term ability to
finance airport facilities. Airports have generated replacement ground transportation revenue
sources, and airport operators have generally been successful in developing the revenue necessary
to support capital programs. There is a concern that TNC activity has or will decrease nonairline
revenue sources, such as parking and rental cars and, by extension, the total nonaeronautical
revenue at airports. Any decrease in nonaeronautical revenue is a concern with respect to (1) ability
to fund ongoing airport operations, (2) requirements to increase airline rates and charges to replace
nonairline revenue, and (3) stability of annual revenues to support repayment of debt used to fund
airport capital programs. However, if TNCs provide an incremental and replacement source of
revenue from the per trip fees assessed at most airports, then the impact to airport finances
becomes less of a concern.
Bond-rating agencies have recognized the uncertainties regarding changes in GT mode share and
impacts on revenue, but at the same time they have noted airport sponsors have developed
strategies to either enhance existing nonairline revenue or develop replacement revenue. Thus, the
increasing use of TNCs has not yet emerged as a major credit risk according to the various bond-
rating reports. The rating agencies track annual trends in airline and nonairline revenue, and there is
a noticeable increase in attention to the impact of TNCs and changes in mode share and revenue
generation at airports.
Two key actions should be highlighted regarding airport actions to ensure adequate revenues:
Creative GT Programs: Many airport operators have recognized the need to develop more
creative GT programs to attract demand and revenue. Examples include online reservation
systems, more user-friendly signage, space availability technology, variable pricing, and
products at a range of price points. Ultimately, the product and pricing most preferred by
the customer is likely to prevail, and airport operators will need to address this concept
not as a protected monopoly, but as a competitor.
Fees for TNCs: Airport operators have gradually increased per trip fees for TNCs. This
provides both (1) a replacement for revenue that might be lost from other GT modes and
(2) revenue needed to fund the operation and capital costs required to accommodate the
rapid increase in TNC operations.
LONG-TERM PLANNING A key question to consider is, how does the rapid growth of TNC activity change or affect the criteria
CONSIDERATIONS used to evaluate airport debt? The answer would seem to be in the impact on airport revenues, as
well as the resulting impact on an airport’s ability to generate sufficient debt service coverage. The
impact of TNC activity is not a separate rating category for the rating agencies; rather, it is a
consideration related to the more general analysis of airport revenues. As previously discussed,
there have been concerns related to TNC impacts on airport revenues. However, the data do not
show a significant decline in the broad category of GT revenue, and certainly not in any way that
would jeopardize the ability of airports to generate sufficient debt service coverage. As a result,
bond-rating agencies will continue to highlight these new trends but will also continue to offer
favorable ratings to airports that show positive trends in market growth, revenue generation, and
ability to service debt.

Best Practices 73
5.5.5 Monitor Rental Car Transactions and Programs
OBJECTIVES Maintain current transaction data, identify financial trends, and remain current with company
programs and initiatives.
DESCRIPTION OF PRACTICE The FAA CATS database reports data for rental car revenue at U.S. airports. This includes the
concession revenue paid to airport operators, but not the CFC revenue rental car companies pay to
support the operation of rental car facilities and associated capital improvements. CFC revenue is
dedicated to support the operation and development costs of rental car facilities, and, in most cases,
it is not considered part of the general revenues airports collect. For most airports, rental car
agreements provide for the payment of monthly concession revenues. The concession revenues are
typically a combination of minimum annual guarantees (against a percentage of gross revenues
earned from car rentals) plus space rentals (e.g., ready-return areas and counters).
One-third of surveyed airport operators reported a decrease in rental car revenue. However, on
balance, more airports continued to experience an increase in rental car revenue since the
introduction of TNC operations.
Airport operators should
Continue to review monthly transaction reports for trends.
Meet regularly with rental car companies to understand current business practices and
new programs (e.g., pick-ups and drop-offs at the curb for premier customers; companies
entering into agreements with TNCs to rent cars to drivers).
Monitor activities of peer-to-peer companies (e.g., Turo).
5.6 Technology
5.6.1 Vehicle Identification, Management, and Tracking
OBJECTIVES Ensure compliance with regulations and auditing.

Ensure equity across transportation modes.
Preserve passenger choice.
Identify operational changes to increase efficiency.
Ensure tangential goals (e.g., congestion mitigation or greenhouse gas emission targets)
are met.
DESCRIPTION OF TNC vehicle identification and tracking within the airport geofence supports trend analysis, curbside
TECHNOLOGY AND enforcement, cost recovery, and financial auditing. A range of technologies are used depending on
PRACTICE the need, including
AVI/RFID—used at more than 30 U.S. airports; nearly all those that charge per trip fees.
Beacons.
Automatic LPR.
GPS.
Bluetooth.
Integrated toll module.
Management within the geofence area can be supported by using GIS-based mapping and video
monitoring to supplement simulation models and to identify curb “hot spots.”
Separate software/applications include GateKeeperTNC-Ops™ software and AAAE App-Based
Transportation Clearinghouse service. AAAE’s App-Based Transportation Clearinghouse operates as
a service that utilizes geofence technology to receive data from TNC companies and tracks driver
events such as entries and exits, as well as pick-ups and drop-offs, from the airport property. The
service includes monthly trip fee and data reconciliation, a mobile app for curbside enforcement,
and advocacy to the TNCs on behalf of airports who use the service. This may increase revenue and
enforcement capability for airport operators.48
EXAMPLES OF HOW IT HAS PHX is conducting a thorough study of all commercial ground transportation to ensure
WORKED fees are applied consistently across modes.
SFO developed the App-Based Transportation Clearinghouse tool to increase revenue and
improve enforcement capability.
(continued on next page)

48
TNC Operations Overview, GateKeeper Systems, Accessed June 2019. App-Based Transportation Clearinghouse, AAAE,
Accessed June 2019.

(Continued).
RELEVANT AUDIENCES Airport executives

Finance—revenue and auditing
Landside operations—curb management
Planning—performance management goals
LONG-TERM PLANNING Because existing modes of ground transportation may gain or lose popularity, new modes
CONSIDERATIONS may materialize, and parking may become less popular in some locations, airport
operators should seek to diversify revenue streams across all modes of landside access,
including commercial ground transportation and private vehicles.
Imposing access fee structures that meet airport revenue goals but do not penalize any
one provider in favor of another can broaden the revenue base and support equity across
transportation modes.
5.6.2 PIN Code Matching

OBJECTIVES Reduce customer confusion and wait time.
Increase curb throughput by reducing dwell times.
Reduce terminal congestion.
DESCRIPTION OF Allows drivers and riders to match instantaneously at the curb based on rider’s in-app request. The
TECHNOLOGY AND steps for riders are the following: (1) open the TNC app to request a ride; (2) receive a 4-digit
PRACTICE numerical PIN code through the app; (3) wait in a pick-up line outside the terminal—much like a taxi
line—for a ride; (4) once at the front of the line, show the code to the next driver, who will punch the
code into the TNC’s system; and (5) the ride proceeds as usual.
Provide dedicated and separate curb space for each TNC company.
Provide curb dwell space to ensure efficient passenger loading and to maintain maximum
throughput.
EXAMPLES OF HOW IT HAS Lyft pick-ups at SAN Terminal 2
WORKED Lyft PIN program at MDW
Uber at PDX
RELEVANT AUDIENCES TNC drivers, riders, and companies
Landside operations
LONG-TERM PLANNING May require additional staffing to actively manage curb operations; separate curb designated for
CONSIDERATIONS each TNC.
SOURCE: Uber Blog; used by permission.

Best Practices 75
5.6.3 Predispatch
OBJECTIVES Reduces TNC rider wait times.

Reduces curbside crowding.
Reduces TNC driver wait time in the hold lot.
DESCRIPTION OF Predispatch is an algorithm that anticipates rider demand at airports and matches drivers
TECHNOLOGY AND to riders en route. This helps to lower customer wait times.
PRACTICE Drivers may receive a text message and an in-app notification to drive toward the
terminal. If the driver does not receive the ride request en route, then the driver must
drive back to the staging area and is placed at the front of the queue.
The application would be most appropriate for when the hold lot is a substantial distance
from the terminal.
EXAMPLES OF HOW IT HAS Uber and Lyft worked with SFO to refine dispatching procedures,49 the first change being
WORKED prematch or predispatch. This is intended to lower TNC passenger wait times.
The Lyft platform uses predispatch at Washington Dulles International Airport (IAD) and
DCA.50
RELEVANT AUDIENCES  TNC drivers and companies

 landside operations
5.6.4 Push Data

OBJECTIVES Maximize the efficiency of TNC trips for both drivers and customers by allowing more trips per
working period, decreased wait time for customers, and a quicker trip to the customer’s destination.
DESCRIPTION OF Push data are information initiated by the server, not the client/user, to the TNC application. This
TECHNOLOGY AND includes information such as news updates, navigational routing based on current traffic conditions
PRACTICE (e.g., avoiding accidents on a nearby freeway by using an alternative route), and mobility
management systems.
EXAMPLES OF HOW IT HAS Used systemwide in the TNC application.

WORKED
RELEVANT AUDIENCES TNC drivers and companies.
LONG-TERM PLANNING Types of data are constantly evolving and should be frequently evaluated for their usefulness to the
CONSIDERATIONS efficiency of airport TNC trips.
Transportation Network Companies at San Francisco International Airport, September 2017.

49
Washington, D.C., airport information for drivers, Lyft. Accessed June 2019.
50

5.6.5 Mobility as a Service

OBJECTIVES Personalize and optimize transportation routes with a variety of different vehicles.
Provide individual and societal benefits,51 including cost savings (reduced car ownership),
convenience (fewer delays and time for other tasks), reduced congestion, and safety (motor
vehicle accidents).
Promote sustainable transportation by using environmentally friendly modes of transportation,
including trains, buses, and bicycles.
DESCRIPTION OF Consumers have increasingly embraced new mobility options, as demonstrated by the growing
TECHNOLOGY AND number of TNCs, carshare, bikeshare, and micromobility companies worldwide. The next step is
PRACTICE bringing all these services together onto a common digital platform.
As MaaS applications continue to develop, airport operators must invest in improving digital
information sharing to present passengers with ground transportation options and, in turn,
influence the use of different modes of access.
Implementing MaaS through smartphone apps would support easier multimodal trips that
easily could incorporate more than two modes of transportation, unlike the previous examples.
In 2018, Bay Area Rapid Transit began a partnership with moovel to create a new smartphone
app. Through the app, passengers in groups of two or more may purchase public transit tickets
to either of the two area airports (SFO or Oakland International Airport [OAK]) at a 25 percent
discount. While this system is currently limited to public transit options, the app could support
purchasing tickets for other modes of transportation, becoming a true MaaS platform.
EXAMPLES OF HOW IT HAS In Helsinki, Finland, the first all-inclusive MaaS solution, Whim, is commercially available on the
WORKED market. Whim gives its users all city transport services in one step, with public transport, taxis, bikes,
cars, and other options all offered under a single subscription.
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES Streeting, M., I. Kershaw, N. Santha, and A. Khanna. The Future of Airport Ground Access. L.E.K.
Consulting, 2018.
See Appendix A in Transportation Research Circular E-C231: U.S. Department of Transportation�s
Mobility on Demand Initiative: Moving the Economy with Innovation and Understanding,
Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2018.
https://whimapp.com/about-us/.
5.6.6 Connected Vehicles

OBJECTIVES Inform drivers to use an alternative route during congestion.
Provide parking availability, reducing the need for advanced messaging.
Allow the cell phone lot to be used more appropriately for just-in-time pick-ups.
Improve safety.
DESCRIPTION OF Connected vehicle technology allows vehicles to communicate wirelessly with surrounding vehicles
TECHNOLOGY AND (referred to as vehicle-to-vehicle or V2V), infrastructure (vehicle-to-infrastructure or V2I), the
PRACTICE cloud/network (vehicle-to-network or V2N), and pedestrians (vehicle-to-pedestrian or V2P),
collectively referred to as vehicle-to-everything or V2X. Together, these components constitute a
connected vehicle environment, a core attribute facilitating the development of connected
autonomous vehicles, intelligent transportation systems, and smart city initiatives.
Adequate and secure high-speed/high-capacity communication infrastructure should be installed to
prepare for connected vehicles. It may be timely to install conduits for electric vehicle charging and
to provide increased power grid capacity.
EXAMPLES OF HOW IT HAS See autonomous vehicles section (5.6.7) for initial applications.
WORKED
RELEVANT AUDIENCES Landside operations and planning
National Express Transit, April 2019 (mobility as a service benefits).

51

Best Practices 77
5.6.7 Autonomous Vehicles

OBJECTIVES Many theoretical benefits attach to widespread implementation of autonomous vehicle (AV)
technology. These may include
Improved safety.
More free time for occupants.
Increased mobility and access.
Reduced emissions (associated with smoother acceleration and traffic signal coordination).
Greater opportunities for higher utilization of vehicles that could be shared.
DESCRIPTION OF AV technology, sometimes referred to as self-driving vehicle technology, enables a vehicle to
TECHNOLOGY AND guide itself with little to no physical control or monitoring by a human operator.
PRACTICE Current AV development is primarily driven by ride-hailing companies (e.g., Uber and Lyft),
carshare companies (e.g., Zipcar), automobile manufacturers and Tier 1 suppliers (e.g., GM,
Tesla, BMW, Aptiv, Scania), tech companies (e.g., Waymo, Nvidia, Voyage, and Aptiv), and
microtransit companies (e.g., NAVYA, May Mobility, MOIA).
With the deployment of this technology, airports would likely experience an increase in demand
for curbside access and a decrease in demand for long-term parking. AV technology would
facilitate the growth of ride-hailing services (which would not require parking), and personal
AVs would drop their owners on site and would return to the owner’s residence or an
inexpensive remote lot.
EXAMPLES OF HOW IT HAS Waymo is offering commercial AV ride-hailing in an area of Phoenix and has recently committed
WORKED to manufacturing AVs in Michigan.
Several airports and cities have begun to test AVs for internal movement and for access
between the airport and the city. Since 2011, Heathrow Airport in London has been running
battery-powered “ultra pods” on what is in practice a fixed guideway between Terminal 5 and
the business car park. Each pod carries up to six passengers and offers on-demand service
through touch screens at the three stations. The pods also monitor their own battery charge
and remove themselves from service at opportune times for charging. From the perspectives of
control and technology, this does not constitute much of a departure from people mover
systems in function, if not capacity.
Phenix, M. “Hands Off with Heathrow’s Autonomous Pod Cars.” BBC, November 13, 2014.
In 2017, New Zealand began testing on-roadway AVs, operated by HMI Technologies and
produced by the French company NAVYA, at the Christchurch Airport, with the intention for
these shuttles to carry up to 15 passengers, sitting and standing, between the terminal and
parking lots.
Hayward, M. “First New Zealand Autonomous Vehicle Demonstration Kicks Off at Christchurch
Airport.” Stuff, January 26, 2017.
In 2018, the operator of Brussels Airport finalized a contract to pilot AVs for internal circulation
on airport roadways in mixed traffic, which would be the first application of AVs at an airport for
this purpose. Testing is planned to start this year, and, if successful, these buses will be put into
operation in 2021. (Brussels Airport. “Brussels Airport and De Lijn Start Pilot Project with Self-
Driving Bus.” April 20, 2018.)
LONG-TERM PLANNING Timing, adoption rate, and impact of AVs are subject to conjecture; proactively plan for the
CONSIDERATIONS advent of AVs.
Traffic study of AVs in a mixed environment: Can they ever violate the rules of the road? What
does it mean for an AV to drive safely?
Infrastructure needs.
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES Appendix A: Annotated Bibliography for additional information:
Arbib, J., and Seba, T., Rethinking Transportation 2020–2030, 2017.
American Planning Association, Knowledgebase Collection: Autonomous Vehicles, 2018.
Litman, T., Autonomous Vehicle Implementation Predictions: Implications for Transport
Planning, 2018.
The Economist, Autonomous Vehicles: Reinventing Wheels, 2018.
Mobileye https://www.mobileye.com/our-technology/

SOURCE: Photo courtesy Austin-Bergstrom

International Airport Parking, August 2, 2019. (Note the icon indicating an
autonomous vehicle.)

SECTION 6
Conclusion
Commercial ground transportation operations will continue to evolve in response to increas-

ing passenger enplanements, the need to maintain or expand adequate nonaeronautical rev-
enue, new federal and state regulations, emerging technologies, evolving business models, and
enhancements to airport infrastructure. The following topics are among those airport opera-
tors will need to monitor, and they could also be areas for future ACRP research, webinars, or
presentations at the TRB Annual Meeting.
6.1 Regulations, Taxes, and Fees

Enabling legislation continues to be introduced to respond to specific issues. Proposed
national legislation would require ride-hailing companies to give riders more informa-
tion about the driver picking them up. Senate bill S. 1871 and House bill H.R. 3262 would
require states to improve safety guidelines for ride-hailing companies by mandating that the
drivers display a front and rear license plate, a scannable quick response or similar code on
the passenger windows for riders to verify they are entering the correct authorized vehicle
and illuminated signs visible during both day and night and readable from 50 feet. The
federal legislation, titled “Stop, Ask, Match, Inform,” would impose a 1 percent reduction
in federal highway funding for states failing to enact conforming state-level laws.
At the state level, a bill recently introduced in the Massachusetts House would require
TNC drivers to undergo fingerprinting as part of the state’s criminal background checks.
Massachusetts currently requires a two-step screening. TNCs are first required to perform
multistate criminal and driving background checks, as well as a check of a national sex
offender database. Drivers who pass are then referred to the state for criminal history checks,
including for violent felonies, serious driving offenses, or sex abuse convictions. Drivers can-
not operate in Massachusetts until they clear the secondary check. And in New Jersey, after
the March 2019 death of a university student who got into an Uber impersonator’s car, the
governor signed legislation in June requiring TNC drivers to show additional vehicle and
personal verification.
Lyft has started continuous background checks and has enhanced identity verification.
Continuous criminal background checks will monitor drivers daily and will immediately
notify Lyft of “any disqualifying criminal convictions.”52 Active drivers who do not pass an
annual screening—which includes a Social Security number trace, a nationwide criminal
search, a county court records search, a federal criminal search, and a U.S. Department of
52
Lyft Blog, “Lyft’s Commitment to Safety,” April 15, 2019, https://blog.lyft.com/posts/2019/4/14/lyfts-commitment-to-safety
(accessed August 12, 2019).
79

Justice 50-state sex offender registry search—in addition to continuous screenings will be
barred from the platform.
Additionally, cities and states continue to review and update taxes and fees imposed on
TNCs. Their challenge is to balance long-term mobility policy goals with revenue objectives.
According to the Eno Center for Transportation, in 2019 “the state of New York adopted new
surcharges on TNC and taxi trips in the busiest areas of Manhattan, while in Washington State,
efforts to apply the taxi sales tax to TNCs failed. Georgia lawmakers proposed a TNC trip fee as
part of a regional transit bill. Philadelphia officials called for switching its per-trip percentage
assessment to a $0.50 surcharge in order to generate more revenue.”53
6.2 Financial Trends and Impacts

Airport operators will continue to track TNC revenue trends, as well as rental car transactions
and parking revenue. Adjusting trip fees, using dynamic pricing strategies, and considering other
methods to differentiate products will be essential to maintaining adequate nonaeronautical
revenue. Airport operators should continue to benchmark their airports against comparable
airports; they should also strive to increase nonaeronautical revenue per enplaned passenger
keep pace with the rate of inflation.
6.3 Business Models

With the recent IPOs by Lyft and Uber, TNC financials will be more readily available for
scrutiny by financial analysts and investors. Moreover, the employment model TNCs use (i.e.,
independent contractors) will continue to be examined. For example, California is adjusting
to last year’s state Supreme Court ruling on Dynamex that makes it harder for companies
to claim workers are independent contractors. Recent legislation could force companies to
change how they classify their workers. Assembly Bill 5 was passed at the end of May 2019,
and it codifies Dynamex, extending its reach beyond wage issues to other labor code matters
(exempting some professions); the bill passed the California Senate in September 2019 and
was signed by the governor the same month; the law is expected to take effect January 1, 2020.
Lawmakers, companies, and unions are now considering how such a change would work—
with many enterprises, including TNCs, seeking exemptions.54
“Uber and Lyft . . . said that their business models, as well as drivers’ stated preferences, rely
on flexibility, which they said would be hard to achieve while also meeting requirements such as
mandated meal/rest breaks and overtime. Both said they’d likely need to insist that drivers work
for only one service, and limit how many drivers work at a time, two changes that would curb
drivers’ earnings potential.”55
In Massachusetts, Senate Bill 1090 would establish collective bargaining rights for TNC
drivers; a companion bill, S. 2289, includes requirements related to data sharing, accommo-
dating riders with disabilities, passenger security, and fines for violations.
53
Kim, S. J., and R. Puentes, “Taxing New Mobility Services: What’s Right? What’s Next?” Eno Brief. Eno Center for Trans-
portation, Washington, D.C. https://www.enotrans.org/etl material/eno-brief-taxing-new-mobility-services-whats-right-
whats-next/ (accessed August 2, 2019).
54
Scheiber, N., “Debate Over Uber and Lyft Drivers’ Rights in California Has Split Labor,” New York Times, https://
www.nytimes.com/2019/06/29/business/economy/uber-lyft-drivers-unions.html (accessed June 29, 2019).
55
Said, C. “Deliv Switching California Couriers to Employees—‘Start of a Wave’ ” San Francisco Chronicle, June 22, 2019,
https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/Deliv-switching-California-couriers-to-employees-14029663.php (accessed
June 27, 2019).

Conclusion 81
In July 2019, Uber implemented layoffs as part of cost-driven changes, letting go about one-
third of its 1,200 employees in the marketing department. The effort to slash costs came in the
wake of reported first quarter 2019 losses of $1 billion; second quarter losses were reported
at $5.2 billion. And Lyft has raised prices on routes in several cities touting “their upcoming
pricing algorithms, which they hinted might be able to more precisely predict what riders
might be willing to pay for a ride. Lyft said those pricing changes would boost revenue per
rider by next quarter.”56
6.4 Technology
As new technologies continue to promote the growth of mobility-on-demand services,
effectively managing access to an airport’s roads and curbs will remain a critical concern.
To prepare for the future, many airport operators are installing ground transportation man-
agement systems that allow them to track app-based mobility-on-demand service providers
as they travel throughout the airport premises. Airports have installed systems that use a
Web API interface to monitor and collect information on TNC trips to and from the airport.
Collected information includes the TNC ID, driver ID, trip ID, location, timestamp, type
of event (e.g., airport entry, pick-up, drop-off, airport exit), and number of passengers (as
reported by the driver). Airport operators can use these systems to their benefit by adopting
policies and integrating systems that charge ride-hailing companies for time spent on the
airport’s premises or the number of passengers in each vehicle. This technology can also
support airportwide access fee initiatives.
Uber’s IPO filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission explains the resources Uber
is deploying to support its platforms. Its Advanced Technology Group (using tools such as arti-
ficial intelligence and machine learning) is working on demand prediction, matching and dis-
patching, pricing strategies, and autonomous vehicles. Uber builds proprietary systems for the
following57:
• Marketplace technologies: These technologies comprise a real-time algorithmic decision
engine that matches supply and demand for Uber’s Personal Mobility, Uber Eats, and Uber
Freight offerings.
• Demand prediction: This is a proprietary demand prediction engine that uses data to predict
when and where peak ride and meal order volume will occur, allowing the company to man-
age supply and demand in a city efficiently.
• Matching and dispatching: Proprietary matching and dispatching algorithms generate more
than 30 million match pair predictions per minute.
• Pricing: Uber’s technology sets product pricing in real time at a local level. In areas and times
of high demand, Uber deploys dynamic pricing to help restore balance between driver supply
and consumer demand. Dynamic pricing helps balance demand during the busiest times so
that a reliable ride is always within reach.
Similarly, Lyft’s IPO filing notes its intention to continue to invest in technology related
to mapping, routing, payments, in-app navigation, and matching technologies. As the filing
states, these are keys to integrating technology and leveraging data science in Lyft’s platform to
56
Marshall, A., “Uber and Lyft Suggest the Days of Cheapo Rides Could Be Over,” Wired, August 8, 2019, https://www.wired.
com/story/uber-lyft-suggest-cheap-rides-could-be-over/ (accessed August 12, 2019).
57
Uber Technologies, Inc., Form S-1, Registration Statement, https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1543151/
000119312519103850/d647752ds1.htm (accessed August 2, 2019).

increase efficiency and improve safety. In addition, Lyft is investing in autonomous technology,
which it believes will be a critical part of the future of transportation.58
6.5 Industry Associations

Both ACI-NA and AAAE have provided leadership by convening working groups and
sponsoring activities to help airport operators understand TNC impacts and share ideas and
approaches. Regular conference calls, webinars, focused research (e.g., wayfinding standards),
and panel discussions at annual meetings and specialty conferences have all contributed to
expanding the knowledge base available to airport operators. Both organizations should
continue their roles in disseminating timely information and providing forums for discussion
between airport operators and TNCs.
6.6 Airport or Passenger Surveys

Regular ground access surveys are essential tools for establishing baseline information on air
passenger access characteristics. Such surveys provide information on trip purpose (business/
nonbusiness), residency, trip origin, and access mode, and they can include stated preference
questions that can help support pricing strategies and the formulation of new ground access
services. Data from passenger surveys provided the foundation for developing a key best
practice: developing ground access revenue forecasting models. As demonstrated in this
Reference Guide, it was possible to develop disaggregate models for DCA and SFO because
recent, statistically valid ground access survey data were available. The Airport Mode Choice and
Ground Transportation Simulator Template that shows how the mode-choice model is applied
to estimate revenue impact (based on hypothetical policy changes at SFO) is available on the
TRB website by searching on “ACRP Research Report 215”.
58
Lyft, Inc., Form S-1, Registration Statement, https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1759509/000119312519059849/
d633517ds1.htm (accessed August 2, 2019).

APPENDIX A
Annotated Bibliography
1. AAAE. 2018. Establishing a Common Standard for TNC Wayfinding at Airports.
TNC wayfinding is not standardized at airports, often causing confusion among TNC
drivers and passengers, as well as increasing curbside congestion. To establish a common
practice and standard for TNC wayfinding, a working group of U.S. airport leaders was
formed. After an extensive 6-month process involving many stakeholders, a recommended
term and icon in airport signage was selected. Best practices for using the standard is
provided.
2. ACI-NA. 2014. Recommendations of ACI-NA Multi-Committee Task Force on Ride-Booking
Operations at Airports.
Examples of operational challenges for ride-booking services at airports are provided;

these include distracted drivers, vehicle inspection and safety standards, congestion of road-
ways and facilities, nearby communities concerned about increased traffic, enforcement
of vehicle trade dress, difficulty with collection of permit and other fees, and policies and
regulations developed before airport TNC operations were permitted. Considerations for
airport regulation of ridesharing services were provided; these include questions of regula-
tory authority, parties to regulate, and means of regulation. Existing ground transportation
policies and regulations were suggested to be reviewed. Charging for ridesharing services,
ground transportation fee structure, enforcement, revenue definition, and vehicle tracking
were discussed. Landside and facility considerations included passenger pick-up and drop-
off location, passenger and vehicle waiting area, signage, and vehicle identification by the
airport and ridesharing passengers.
3. Alemi, F., Circella, G., Mokhtarian, P., & Handy, S. 2019. What Drives the Use of Ridehailing in California?
Ordered Probit Models of the Usage Frequency of Uber and Lyft. Transportation Research Part C, 102,
233–248. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2018.12.016.
A statistical model, using online survey data of millennials and the preceding generation X,
was developed to understand factors affecting the frequency of TNC service use. Results
indicate that sociodemographic variables predict service adoption but do not explain the
change in frequency. Findings show that travelers using TNCs more include those with a
higher willingness to pay to reduce travel time, those who use smartphone apps to manage
their travels, and leisure travelers who travel long-distances via flying. Individuals owning
a private vehicle and having concerns about the security/safety of TNCs use the service less
frequently.
4. American Planning Association. 2018. Knowledgebase Collection: Autonomous Vehicles. https://www.
planning.org/knowledgebase/autonomousvehicles/.
Resources on autonomous and connected vehicles are provided, including videos, briefing
papers, functional plans, staff reports, guides, and background repositories. These resources
A-1

A-2 Transportation Network Companies (TNCs): Impacts to Airport Revenues and Operations—Reference Guide
provide background on autonomous vehicles, policy recommendations for communities,

and examples of impacts to equity and access, the transportation network, land use, and the
built environment.
5. Arbib, J., & Seba, T. 2017. Rethinking Transportation 2020–2030. RethinkX Sector Distribution Report.
This research discusses how autonomous and connected vehicles will cause a major
disruption to the transportation and oil markets, with the disruption driven by economic
trends. Private vehicle ownership will have increasing costs, decreasing convenience, and
diminishing quality of service. The authors estimate that by 2030, 95 percent of U.S. pas-
senger miles will be with on-demand autonomous electric vehicle fleets in a business model
deemed transport as a service. The behavioral issues that are barriers to AV adoption (e.g.,
preference for driving and fear of new technology) will be outweighed by the significant
transportation cost savings.
6. Beer, R., Brakewood, C., Rahman, S., & Viscardi, J. 2017. Qualitative Analysis of Ride-Hailing Regula-
tions in Major American Cities. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research
Board, No. 2650, Vol. 1, 84–91. doi:10.3141/2650-10.
A qualitative analysis of ridesharing (TNC) regulations was conducted, specifically

focused on driver and company-related regulations. Driver-related regulations included
background checks, driver’s licenses, vehicle registration, and external vehicle display.
Company-related regulations included sharing data, providing a list of drivers, and adher-
ing to numerical limits on fleet size. Findings show that driver-related regulations vary
significantly by city. Two key findings include that fingerprint background checks lessen
the likelihood of TNC operations and that Atlanta is the only city with numerical limits
on TNCs (unclear if practiced; the aviation general manager may set limits at Hartsfield-
Jackson Atlanta International Airport).
7. Bischak, C. A. 2019. The Impact of Transportation Network Companies on Urban Transportation
Systems. University of Texas at Austin.
National household travel survey data were analyzed to investigate how travelers perceive
and use TNCs. Study findings indicate that TNCs are supplementing urban transportation
services, not transforming them. The study found most users only use TNCs for a few times
a month or less, primarily on non-work days (e.g., weekends) and in the evenings. Users
perceived TNCs as more convenient compared with public transportation or taxis, and
convenience is a main factor for choosing a TNC service.
8. Bits and Atoms. March 2017. Taming the Autonomous Vehicle: A Primer for Cities. Long Island City,
NY: Bloomberg Philanthropies and the Aspen Institute Center for Urban Innovation.
This report assessed AV technology, with the benefits, risks, unintended consequences,
regulatory challenges, and impact to cities discussed. Cities across the world are preparing
for AVs, and the report provides examples of city initiatives. While past thinking has been on
autonomous high-speed highways, the future will focus on city driving—the largest market
and most technically challenging. Different urban AVs may include private passenger cars,
autobots/taxibots, driverless shuttles, and software trains (tractor-trailers). Many groups of
people will see increased mobility from AV use, particularly nondrivers, senior citizens, and
the disabled. The timeline for AV adoption is provided, with tipping points of improved
battery and sensor technology driving lower costs and widespread use.
9. Bosch, P., Becker, F., Becker, H., & Axhausen, K. 2017. Cost-Based Analysis of Autonomous Mobility
Services. Transport Policy, 1–16.
Cost analysis for AVs is discussed, with focus on operational models and future modes’
cost structures. Use cases for future travel modes were analyzed, with the mode choice

Annotated Bibliography A-3
determined not only by cost, but also by travel time and comfort, perception of transfers,
and waiting times. Results suggested that shared AV fleets will compete with other modes
and private car ownership will remain because out-of-pocket vehicle costs are low.
10. Boston Consulting Group. December 2017. The Reimagined Car: Shared, Autonomous, and Electric.
Researchers propose that electric shared autonomous vehicles (SAVs) will fundamentally
change mobility, safety, and reliability while lowering transportation costs across the world,
as much as 50 percent in large cities such as Chicago and New York City. The high cost of
private vehicle ownership, from insurance, fuel, maintenance, and parking, for example,
and the negative impacts of traffic congestion, air pollution, and automobile fatalities can be
reduced from SAVs. Stakeholders, market opportunity, underlying technologies (ridesharing,
autonomy, and electric powertrain), and implementation are discussed. Automakers’ and
suppliers’ traditional business models will adapt to electric SAVs.
11. Canalys. 2018. The Road to Autonomous Vehicles. Palo Alto, CA.
The potential for AVs to improve mobility and address problems with traditional driving
(e.g., severe traffic congestion, vehicular crashes, and time spent parking) are discussed. The
progression of vehicle autonomy toward full automation, the critical role of legislation and
the regulatory process, and business strategies of companies involved with AV technologies
are discussed.
12. Centre for Aviation. 2016. Airports and Uber 2016: Transportation Network Companies Now More
Welcome at Airports.
Airports were surveyed about their relations, attitudes, and operations regarding TNC
services, with the primary TNC company being Uber. A comprehensive summary and key
findings on TNC operations at airports are provided. Millennials continue to be the leading
group using TNCs, but frequent business passengers are increasingly using TNCs because
of the app’s accessibility. The future direction, emerging negative impacts to car parking
revenues, and other implications are discussed.
13. Coleman, M. 2018. Portland International Airport’s TNC Experience and Plans for the Future.
Presented at the 97th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.
The rapid growth of TNCs (1.7 percent to 12.4 percent mode share from 2015 to 2017) at
PDX is discussed, along with its impact on ground transportation operations. Public pick-up
and drop-off curbside traffic is growing but more slowly, with rental car traffic steady. Taxis,
fixed-schedule shuttles, and light rail have declined in share at PDX. Challenges include
passenger and driver wayfinding, wait time, pick-up congestion, and pedestrian crossings.
14. Collier, R., Dubal, V., & Carter, C. March 2018. Disrupting Regulation, Regulating Disruption:
The Politics of Uber in the United States. San Francisco: University of California, Hastings College
of the Law.
Uber’s dramatic and significant growth in the ride-hailing market has disrupted a highly
regulated transportation sector. Previously, taxis benefited from anti-competitive barriers to
entry and price control, with safety and labor provisions to protect the public. Key questions
are raised for the current and future regulation of Uber and other TNC services and their
relation with taxi regulations.
15. Conway, M. W., Salon, D., & King, D. A. 2018. Trends in Taxi Use and the Advent of Ridehailing,
1995–2017: Evidence from the U.S. National Household Travel Survey. Urban Science, 2(3), 79.
doi:10.3390/urbansci2030079.
Data from the National Household Travel Survey were used to investigate the expan-
sion of ride-hailing (TNCs) services in the United States. The growth has been greater in

mid-sized and large cities, and among younger users and wealthier households. Equity
implications are suggested for future research. Findings indicated that residents of dense
urban areas have higher TNC usage, emphasizing the need for cities to plan for the growth
of TNC services.
16. Davol, A. 2016. A New Model for Airport Ground Transportation: Transportation Network Companies
at San Francisco International Airport. Journal of Airport Management, 147–153.
As one of the first airports in the United States to permit TNCs, SFO provides insight
on its TNC policies, permitting, and recommendations for other airports. One opera-
tional issue is administrative fines and enforcement. At the onset of TNCs, the most com-
mon fine was for trade dress and airport placard. As drivers have gained familiarity with
airport regulations and operations, the most common fine has become unauthorized
parking or staging. A real-time tracking system has been developed to support auditing
and enforcement. Recommendations include engaging in the development of regula-
tions, learning about TNC operations and technology, and learning from the passenger’s
perspective.
17. DiPrima, C. 2018. Integrating TNCs into the Curbside Traffic Model at San Francisco Inter-
national Airport. Presented at the 97th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board,
Washington, D.C.
SFO’s curbside operations are being impacted by continued TNC growth, around
25,000 daily trips in late 2017 with a 19 percent annual growth rate. Areas of curbside con-
gestion are being identified using heat mapping. Results show that pick-up locations are
more evenly distributed, while drop-off locations have “hot spots,” confirmed by the airport
duty manager and police staff.
18. The Economist. March 2018. Special Report. Autonomous Vehicles: Reinventing Wheels.
AVs are an emerging technology with far-reaching social and economic implications,
with public concern over potential risks such as ethical dilemmas and cyberattacks. AVs
could greatly reduce deaths and injuries from automobile accidents and transform urban
areas, affecting congestion, public transportation, urban sprawl, parking, and private
vehicle demand. For example, freeways, streets, and parking facilities associated with
automobile-dependent cities can be converted to sustainable features such as gardens and
bicycle paths. Public transportation could become more viable in less dense areas if AVs
were used for last-mile coverage to and from transit stations. “Robotaxi” service adoption
could be increased if governments were to restrict or ban cars in some areas, which may
have political challenges.
19. Eibert, S., Girardeau, I., & Phillips, J. 2019. Addressing Airport Congestion as Traffic Takes Off in the
Age of Uber and Lyft. Rutgers University. ACRP University Design Competition.
This design competition produced potential solutions to address congestion caused by

TNC growth at airports. The research team conducted a literature review, interviewed air-
port landside management staff, and conducted a safety risk assessment and cost-benefit
analysis of the proposed recommendations. The recommendations (intended for large-hub
airports) include using rematch, raising per trip fees, increasing enforcement to prevent
vehicle idling, and combining passenger drop-off, pick-up, and staging into a single termi-
nal, adjacent to the airport, which is not curbside.
20 Erhardt, G., Roy, S., Cooper, D., Sana, B., Chen, M., & Castiglione, J. 2019. Do Transportation Network
Companies Decrease or Increase Congestion? Science Advances, 5(5). doi:10.1126/sciadv.aau2670.
The growth of TNCs has implications for congestion, with research inconsistent because
of limited data. Researchers found that TNCs are the largest factor for the increasing

congestion and lower travel time reliability on San Francisco roads. Traffic flow is disrupted
by passenger pick-up and drop-off on major arterials.
21. FHWA. February 2018. Integrating Shared Mobility into Multimodal Transportation Planning:
Improving Regional Performance to Meet Public Goals. U.S. Department of Transportation.
As shared mobility services, such as ridesharing (e.g., TNCs) and bikesharing, increase
in popularity, transportation planning practices must adapt. Issues, challenges, and
opportunities for shared mobility are reviewed in 13 metropolitan areas. Examples of
partnerships to improve regional multimodality include transit agencies and metropolitan
planning organizations undertaking pilot project partnerships with TNCs. The Metropoli-
tan Transportation Commission in the San Francisco Bay Area is focusing on first-mile/
last-mile coverage to integrate transit with TNC services.
22. Goodin, G., & Moran, M. August 2016. Transportation Network Companies Testimony to the Texas
House Committee on Transportation. Austin, TX.
Policymakers are faced with many issues and considerations for TNC regulation.
This testimony presents background information and reviews policy issues with leg-
islation. Driver requirements, vehicle standards, data collection, operational features,
and insurance requirements are commonly regulated at the state level, but vary state by
state. Specific considerations include addressing equity concerns, evaluating the role of
technology, ensuring safety and security, integrating with mobility plans and programs,
and managing impact goals such as traffic congestion reduction. The regulation of
TNCs and taxis are compared, with taxis historically regulated at the local level com-
pared with TNCs at the state level. Taxis and TNCs operate under different require-
ments with respect to insurance requirements, the permitting process, and fleet size,
for example.
23. Graehler, M., Mucci, R. A., & Erhardt, G. D. 2019. Understanding the Recent Transit Ridership Decline
in Major U.S. Cities: Service Cuts or Emerging Modes? Presented at the 98th Annual Meeting of the
Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.
Public transit ridership in major U.S. cities has been flat or declining over the past few
years. This research conducts a longitudinal analysis of the determinants of public transit
ridership in major North American cities for 2002–2018, segmenting the analysis by mode
to capture the different effects on rail versus bus.
The research finds that standard factors, such as changes in service levels, gas prices, and
automobile ownership, while important, are insufficient to explain the recent ridership
declines. The research found that the introduction of bikeshare is associated with increased
light and heavy rail ridership but a 1.8 percent decrease in bus ridership. The results also
suggest that for each year after TNCs enter a market, heavy rail ridership can be expected
to decrease by 1.3 percent and bus ridership can be expected to decrease by 1.7 percent.
This TNC effect builds with each passing year and may be an important driver of recent
ridership declines.
24. Greenblatt, J., & Shaheen, S. 2015. Automated Vehicles, On-Demand Mobility, and Environmental
Impacts. Curr Sustainable Renewable Energy Rep, 2(3), 74–81. doi:10.1007/s40518-015-0038-5.
The timeline for automated vehicles was discussed, with emergence in the 2020s, accep-
tance in the 2030s, and market domination in the 2050s. Combining on-demand mobil-
ity (e.g., ridesharing) with automated vehicles may lead to further benefits and increased
adoption of both technologies. Benefits include an expected reduction of greenhouse gas
emissions, increased driver productivity, and improved user accessibility. Future trends will
change significantly compared with current trends, specifically vehicle size, ownership, and
occupancy, as well as commuting patterns and land use.

25. Henao, A., Sperling, J., Garikapati, V., Hou, Y., & Young, S. 2018. Airport Analyses Informing
New Mobility Shifts: Opportunities to Adapt Energy-Efficient Mobility Services and Infrastructure:
Preprint. Intelligent Transportation Society of America, 2018 Annual Meeting. Golden, CO: National
Renewable Energy Laboratory. https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy18osti/71036.pdf.
Using case studies for four major cities in the U.S. DOT Smart City Challenge (San
Francisco, Portland, Kansas City, and Denver), TNC revenue and mode-share trends are
assessed. Parking revenues per passenger, parking growth rates, and rental car revenues are
analyzed amid TNC operations. The trend in airport parking does not seem to reflect growth
in airport passengers, indicating that accommodating increased air travel will depend on
curb demand instead of parking demand. Future study is suggested for additional airports,
gathering public transit data from regional transit agencies and modeling travel demand and
energy impacts.
26. Hermawan, K., & Regan, A. 2017. On-Demand, App-Based Ride Services: A Study of Emerging Ground
Transportation Modes Serving Los Angeles International Airport (LAX). Journal of the Transportation
Research Forum, 111–128.
The impact of travel time and cost on choosing Uber and Lyft is compared with other
ground transportation modes serving LAX. A key finding is TNC demand is heavily influ-
enced by fares; TNC demand would fall by 21 percent for business passengers and 23 percent
for leisure passengers if TNC fares were raised to match current taxi costs.
27. Hermawan, K., & Regan, A. 2018. Impacts on Vehicle Occupancy and Airport Curb Congestion
of Transportation Network Companies at Airports. Presented at the 97th Annual Meeting of the
Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.
The rising prevalence of TNCs at airports has raised questions of congestion impacts
and their effect on shared modes such as vans, shuttles, public buses, and light rail. Find-
ings indicate that TNCs are replacing shared modes more than supporting them. While
some passengers use UberPool or Lyft Line, supporting higher-occupancy trips, TNC trips
are primarily low occupancy. This low occupancy may result in higher congestion as more
private vehicles access the airport’s curbs and garages. For example, at San Francisco Inter-
national Airport, TNCs decreased net shared trips by 215,000 in 2015, which is projected to
become 840,000 in 2020.
28. ICF International; Eno Center for Transportation. February 2016. Emerging Technology Trends in
Transportation.
An overview of developing transportation technologies and trends, along with their policy
implications, was provided, with focus on AVs. The different driving and automation capa-
bilities in vehicles, from Level 0 (no automation) to Level 4 (full self-driving automation)
are discussed. Emerging issues include the impact to travel demand, vehicle ownership,
urban spaces, highway design, existing infrastructure, insurance, liability, and cybersecurity.
Hacking and cybercrime pose threats, and a fully connected transportation system must be
protected.
29. InterVISTAS. April 2016. Transportation Network Companies and Car-Sharing at Airports. ACI-NA/
AAAE Airport Board & Commissioners Conference. Indianapolis, IN.
This conference presentation focuses on TNCs and carsharing at airports. The timeline
for TNC regulations, reasons for passengers choosing TNCs, typical airport commercial
ground transportation requirements, and challenges in TNC regulation are discussed.
Reasons for passengers choosing TNC services include reliability, cost, convenience, and
accountability. Challenges in regulation include imposing and collecting fees, usage of
curbside and staging areas, signage and wayfinding, auditing of self-reported trips, and
competing services. Carsharing is increasing in popularity, with company-owned fleets

(e.g., Car2Go and Zipcar) and peer-to-peer services (e.g., Flightcar and Turo) operating
at airports.
30. Johnson, C., & Walker, J. 2016. Peak Car Ownership: The Market Opportunity of Electric Automated
Mobility Services. Rocky Mountain Institute.
The market growth and impact of electric automated mobility services are discussed. By
2035, these services will likely be logistically, technically, and economically plausible, and
able to gather a large market share currently attributed to privately owned vehicles. Automa-
tion savings on the cost per mile of TNC service was analyzed by various components, such
as labor, insurance, and fuel costs. The economic impact of automated mobility services will
be substantial, generating $120 billion (U.S.) by 2025, with oil companies projected to lose
revenue, automobile manufacturers to be split, and electrical utilities to gain revenue.
31. Joyce, C. 2018. Including TNCs in the Wider Sustainability and Ground Access Strategy at Heathrow
Airport. Presented at the 97th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.
Sustainability is a critical part of Heathrow Airport’s business model, with the rise of
TNCs affecting airport operations and ground transportation. Initial problems with drivers
parking nearby in short-term lots or neighboring city streets caused the airport to propose a
solution. Steps taken included construction of an authorized vehicle area facility, increased
enforcement, engagement process with operators, and coordination with local authorities and
licensing agencies. The authorized vehicle area is the allowable geofenced area for pick-ups
and includes amenities for drivers (e.g., restrooms, vending machines, and refreshments).
Currently, the permanent authorized vehicle area gets more than a million customers annu-
ally and its operation costs are covered.
32. KC Associates for GateKeeper Systems, Inc. March 2017. Understanding Important Capabilities in the
Successful Management of Airport Ground Transportation Operations.
Airport staff and consultants were surveyed to identify the importance of ground trans-
portation management capabilities and enabling technologies. The three most important
capabilities included access control, use fee/trip charge creation, and curbside vehicle man-
agement. The three least important capabilities included multilane/high-speed vehicle
detection, online trip fee payments, and capability to identify and track drivers.
33. Kerr, C., & McKenna, D. January 2018. The Impact of TNCs at Airports: Operational Consequences
and Future Considerations. Airport Magazine.
The rapid growth of TNCs at airports has significantly affected ground transporta-
tion and landside facilities, presenting challenges and opportunities for airport opera-
tors. Challenges include curbside congestion and possible detrimental effects on revenue.
Opportunities include addressing curbside congestion in ways not possible with other
modes, as well as using TNC data to understand passenger access patterns and preferences.
Long-term considerations include the evolving nature of TNC technology and business
models, and AVs.
34. Kim, S., & Puentes, R. 2018. Taxing New Mobility Services: What’s Right? What’s Next? Eno Brief. Wash-
ington, D.C.: Eno Center for Transportation. https://www.enotrans.org/etl material/eno-brief-taxing-
new-mobility-services-whats-right-whats-next/.
The current state of TNC taxes and fees imposed by cities and states is examined. A table
of the taxes and fees, date of enactment or implementation, and disposition of funds is
provided for seven cities and 10 states. Policy questions are addressed regarding the effects
of TNC taxes and fees on congestion, infrastructure and public transit funding, traditional
taxi services, and funding for regulatory costs and community needs. Congestion reduction
is suggested to focus on reducing single-occupancy vehicles, rather than using targeted fees
solely on TNCs.

35. Litman, T. April 2018. Autonomous Vehicle Implementation Predictions: Implications for Transport
Planning. Victoria Transport Policy Institute.
The benefits, costs, impacts, and timeline for AV development and adoption are dis-
cussed. Some benefits may begin in the 2020s and 2030s but will be limited to affluent
nondrivers. Self-driving and microtaxi services in urban areas will offer lower costs than
traditional taxis but with low service quality. Benefits such as traffic and parking conges-
tion reduction, increased mobility, increased safety, and reduced air pollution will be
likely in the 2040s and 2050s. The extent of benefits, costs, travel impacts, and timeline
is uncertain, with current projections double-counting benefits, not fully considering
the complexity of regulation, and not knowing the extent of benefits if not all vehicles
are AVs.
36. Martin E., Shaheen S., Zohdy I., Chan N., Bansal A., Bhattacharyya A., Tawfik A., Yelchuru B., Finson R.,
Yeung Yam Wah C. 2016. Understanding Travel Behavior: Research Scan. U.S. Department of Trans-
portation. FHWA-PL 17-025.
This report presents a research scan of the state of knowledge in transportation to

enhance understanding of travel behavior and various influencing factors on future travel.
It provides an overview of the current state of travel behavior as measured today, as well
as background on the current understanding from literature in travel behavior research. It
also explores what is known about the sociodemographic portrait of Americans and how
demographics influence travel behavior. The report discusses emerging information tech-
nology and its impact on new mobility options. It also presents emerging methodologies
and new forms of data that show significant potential to improve the resolution and com-
prehensiveness of travel behavior information. Finally, it identifies gaps in understanding
that could be addressed in the future with appropriate applications of emerging data and
technological resources.
37. Michel, C., & Mai, A. March 2018. Lessons from Autonomous Shuttles & Multi-Modal Shifts. Keolis
Group.
Examples of AV shuttle services are discussed for Lyon, Paris, London, and Las Vegas. Les-
sons learned include the need for close collaboration with police, fire departments, and cities
on infrastructure. As well, insurance has higher premiums, licensing is lengthy, and a high
level of ongoing maintenance and support is needed. Ridesharing can be used to improve
public transportation ridership and revenue (e.g., first-mile/last-mile coverage) and meet
vehicle emission reduction goals.
38. Moran, M., & Lasley, P. 2017. Legislating Transportation Network Companies. Transportation Research
Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2650, 163–171.
TNC legislation in the United States was systematically reviewed and a database devel-
oped of state-level TNC legislation to guide policymakers. As of May 2016, 34 states and
Washington, D.C., had passed TNC legislation. Key questions emerged regarding issues of
whether and how to regulate TNCs, ensuring public safety while maintaining competition,
and integrating with existing taxi and transportation policies.
39. Mundy, R. March 2018. A Review of Airport TNC Agreements. Airport Ground Transportation
Association.
TNC agreements at select North American airports were reviewed, with 22 airports having
agreements and 9 having no agreements. The various contract terms, access fees, and struc-
tures (e.g., fee charged for pick-up, drop-off, or both), application fees, yearly fees, and other
fees were outlined. Other requirements including insurance, geofence, and staging area time
limits were discussed.

40. New York Times, Business Section. November 2017. Where Self-Driving Cars Go to Learn. https://
www.nytimes.com/2017/11/11/technology/arizona-tech-industry-favorite-self-driving-hub.html.
An example is provided of Arizona as a state that is attracting the self-driving car industry
through less regulation and a conducive political environment. The state plans to attract
TNC companies, car manufacturers, and Silicon Valley technology companies, and capture
their economic growth. However, there have been setbacks, with a high-profile, fatal self-
driving vehicle crash and concern from public safety advocates.
41. Papa, E., & Ferreira, A. 2018. Sustainable Accessibility and the Implementation of Automated Vehicles:
Identifying Critical Decisions. Urban Science, 2(1). doi:10.3390/urbansci2010005.
A scenario-based approach identifies the critical accessibility and societal changes emerg-
ing with fully automated vehicles. The disruptive potential of automated vehicles comes with
risks; one leading risk is management of implementation that may reinforce car dependency.
This could lead to negative health, environmental, and societal consequences. The role of
local government is critical in preparing the legal, transportation, and urban systems for AV
integration.
42. Pew Research Center. May 2016. Shared, Collaborative and On Demand: The New Digital Economy.
Washington, D.C.
The market for ridesharing (TNC) customers is examined based on survey data that
explores opinions, attitudes, and behaviors toward TNCs. Findings indicated that TNC
services are most popular among young adults, urban residents, and college graduates.
Use varies by age, but there are no substantial differences across gender or race. More
frequent customers are less likely to own or drive a car and more likely to use transit. Most
surveyed customers view TNC services as software (58 percent) as compared with trans-
portation companies, and drivers as independent contractors (66 percent) as compared
with company employees. Most customers are familiar with the debate on regulation and
strongly feel that TNCs should not be regulated in the same manner as taxis.
43. RAND Corporation. November 2017. Why Waiting for Perfect Autonomous Vehicles May Cost
Lives. https://www.rand.org/blog/articles/2017/11/why-waiting-for-perfect-autonomous-vehicles-
may-cost-lives.html.
For policymakers, critical questions surround AVs about the timing of their entry into the
consumer market and their safety. RAND research shows that hundreds of thousands of lives
could be saved if AVs are allowed on the road before the technology is flawless, because AVs
will lead to more long-term traffic safety benefits.
44. Rayle, L., Dai, D., Chan, N., Cervero, R., & Shaheen, S. 2016. Just a Better Taxi? A Survey-Based Com-
parison of Taxis, Transit, and Ridesourcing Services in San Francisco. Transport Policy, 45, 168–178.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2015.10.004.
As TNCs are gaining in popularity, the impact to other modes and to vehicle travel has
been unclear. Study findings indicate that taxis and TNCs have different characteristics and
that TNCs replacing taxis is part of the picture; over one-half of TNC trips are replacing
modes other than taxis, such as public transit and driving. TNCs are expanding mobility
for city residents, particularly those who live in high-density cities with insufficient
public transit and constrained or expensive parking. Future research is suggested to assess
the impact of TNCs on vehicle use and ownership.
45. Schaller, B. 2018. The New Automobility: Lyft, Uber and the Future of American Cities. Brooklyn, NY:
Schaller Consulting.
A detailed profile of TNC ridership, users, and usage is provided. The continued growth
of TNC services is expected to surpass local bus ridership by the end of 2018. Large, densely

populated metro areas have high TNC ridership, with riders who are young, well educated,
and mostly affluent. Suburban and rural residents, as well as those with disabilities and with-
out smartphones, continue to use traditional taxi services. TNCs, however, are having a sig-
nificant role in urban mobility, adding billions of miles of driving and competing with public
transportation, walking, and biking. Shared-ride TNC services were found to add mileage,
rather than mitigate the traffic impacts of private-ride TNCs. Public transit is extended, but
should not be replaced, by TNCs and microtransit. Congestion from increasing TNC trips
can be managed by trip fees, bus lanes, congestion pricing, and traffic signal timing. Address-
ing congestion should focus on reducing traffic and emphasizing high-occupancy vehicles.
Public policy intervention is needed in the development of AVs to ensure frequent, reliable,
and comfortable high-capacity transit.
46. Shaheen, S., Chan, N., & Rayle, L. Spring 2017. Ridesourcing’s Impact and Role in Urban Transportation.
Access Magazine. University of California, Berkeley.
Policy discussion is evolving at the state and local levels over insurance coverage, taxi com-
petition, and driver and vehicle safety checks. Based on a survey of urban ridesharing (TNCs)
and taxi customers, rideshare customers were found to be younger and well educated, to
frequently travel in groups, and to own fewer vehicles. Many respondents stated they drove
less because of ridesharing. A need was identified for objective analysis of environmental and
mobility impacts to inform policymaking.
47. Shaheen, S., Cohen, A., Yelchuru, B., & Sarkhili, S. September 2017. Mobility on Demand: Operational
Concept Report. U.S. Department of Transportation. FHWA-JPO-18-611.
This operational concept report provides an overview of the Mobility on Demand (MOD)
concept and its evolution, a description of the MOD ecosystem in a supply and demand
framework, and a list of its stakeholders and enablers. Leveraging the MOD ecosystem
framework, this report reviews key system enablers, including business models and partner-
ships, land use and different urbanization scenarios, social equity and environmental justice,
policies and standards, and technologies. This review is mostly focused on the more recent
forms of MOD (e.g., shared mobility).
48. Shaheen, S., Cohen, A., & Zohdy, I. April 2016. Shared Mobility: Current Practices and Guiding Principles.
U.S. Department of Transportation.
Shared mobility modes have many environmental, social, and transportation-related

benefits, including reduced vehicle use and costs, higher convenience, and increased multi-
modality. Laws governing ridesharing (TNCs) are evolving at the state and local level, with
respect to TNC insurance requirements, mandatory driver training, limits on consecutive
driver hours, consumer protections, and equal access for customers with disabilities. Uber-
Pool and Lyft Line are services available to lower fares and facilitate a higher vehicle occu-
pancy by splitting the trip with other customers.
49. Shaheen, S., Totte, H., & Stocker, A. 2018. Future of Mobility White Paper. California Department of Trans-
portation. https://cloudfront.escholarship.org/dist/prd/content/qt68g2h1qv/qt68g2h1qv.pdf?t=pgra5s.
This comprehensive assessment reviewed a variety of transportation topics affecting Cali-

fornia and the rest of the United States. Connected and automated vehicles, zero-emissions
vehicles, carsharing, ridesourcing/TNCs, equity considerations, shared mobility public-
private partnerships, and data sharing were some of the topics analyzed. A consistent set
of factors was used to assess the topics, including research coverage, state of development,
and degree of variance in predictions. TNC trips shared with other customers are growing
in popularity, with 20 percent of Uber trips attributed to UberPool and 40 percent of Lyft
trips attributed to Lyft Line, where pooled service is available in their U.S. cities. Information
and communications technology has an important role in enabling shared and automated
vehicles, with future 5G cellular communications technology discussed.

50. Smith, T. April 2018. Protecting Your Bottom Line from the “Uber Effect.” Airport Improvement.
The impact on airport parking revenue from the rapid expansion of TNCs is discussed.
Rental car bookings have dropped alongside airport parking revenues, with the increasing
share of business travelers using TNCs suggested as one cause. Examples of ways to pre-
serve parking revenue include implementing online booking, providing parking coupons,
and establishing a frequent parking and corporate parking program. Curbside manage-
ment programs need to be updated to accommodate TNC growth, with flexibility of critical
importance.
51. Stocker, A., & Shaheen, S. 2018. Shared Automated Mobility: Early Exploration and Potential Impacts.
Road Vehicle Automation 4. Lecture Notes in Mobility, 125–139. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-60934-8_12.
The link between public and private transportation for SAVs and the impact on travel
behaviors and other travel modes is discussed. Future SAVs business models are reviewed,
including business-to-consumer, peer-to-peer, and for-hire service models. For example,
for-hire models include ridesourcing/TNCs, taxis/E-hail, and courier network services. The
portion of AVs that will be SAVs is unknown but is expected to be significant. The future of
SAVs is heavily dependent on the business models, traveler behaviors and preferences, and
public policy.
52. LeighFisher Inc., Tennessee Transportation and Logistics Foundation, GateKeeper Systems, and
Merriwether & Williams Insurance Services. 2015. ACRP Report 146: Commercial Ground Transporta-
tion at Airports: Best Practices. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C. doi:10.17226/21905.
Regulations and permitting of TNCs are discussed, with respect to the business model
airport operators use with commercial ground transportation companies. TNCs use an open
access system, in which any vehicle with a valid agency-issued permit may serve the airport.
TNC driver costs were identified primarily as fuel, with mileage and vehicle wear and tear
varying based on the number of trips per the driver’s flexible work schedule. The sizing of
hold lots, types of commercial ground transportation fees, legal considerations, and imple-
mentation challenges are discussed.
53. Feigon, S. and C. Murphy. 2016. TCRP Research Report 188: Shared Mobility and the Transformation of
Public Transit. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C. doi:10.17226/23578.
Research findings suggest that ridesharing and carsharing are not transit substitutes but
substitutes for private car or taxi trips. Customers are more likely to have a car, but shared
modes allow the car to be used less often. Spatial analysis of transit and TNC travel times
for U.S. metropolitan areas show that transit is more competitive than ridesharing when
there is a dedicated right-of-way or limited traffic congestion. Trip length and travel time
were important factors in selecting a mode, with a faster mode preferred for longer trips.
The research highlighted transit agency partnerships with TNCs to provide first-mile/
last-mile coverage to improve mobility, with incentives such as free or discounted rides,
guaranteed ride home programs, and linked mobile apps.
54. Special Report 319: Between Public and Private Mobility: Examining the Rise of Technology-Enabled
Transportation Services. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2016. doi:10.17226/21875.
Suggestions related to TNCs include reassessing TNC (and other modes such as taxi and
for-hire services) regulations as technology changes, considering alternative employee clas-
sifications, and integrating features of TNCs and shared mobility services into the existing
transportation system. Additionally, safety requirements for vehicles and drivers need to be
examined to ensure consistency and a level playing field. Despite the rapid growth of TNCs,
data on the scale and performance of the TNC companies (e.g., Uber, Lyft) are limited.
Predominant TNC customers are millennials in urban areas, with older urban residents as
the least frequent customer. The impact to VMT is not known because TNC pick-up and

drop-off mileage increase total travel; however, higher vehicle occupancy and reduced pri-
vate vehicle ownership may lead to reduced VMT.
55. Mandle, P. and Box, S. 2017. ACRP Synthesis 84: Transportation Network Companies: Chal-
lenges and Opportunities for Airport Operators. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.
doi:10.17226/24867.
Permits and regulations of TNC drivers, vehicles, and companies are established by the state
or other local jurisdictions, with an airport permit required to drop off and pick up passengers. A
dedicated staging area is provided at most airports (82 percent), consisting of a surface lot, an area
within a parking structure, or an area used by other commercial drivers. Curbside traffic officers
or airport operations staff enforce TNC rules and regulations at most airports (87 percent), with
police supporting enforcement at around half of the airports. Fees charged to TNCs include an
annual permit fee, a per trip fee, an activation fee, and a minimum guaranteed amount, with
59 percent of airports charging for pick-up only and 41 percent of airports for drop-off only.
A summary table of the reported trip fees is provided in the report. The impact on airport total
revenue is not addressed, with the question remaining if TNC revenue exceeds a loss from
other modes that are displaced. The impact of TNCs on airport operations is discussed with
examples including additional responsibilities for airport staff, increased curbside or roadway
congestion, decreased taxi and shared-ride van trips, and a decline in parking.
56. Zmud, J., Goodin, G., Moran, M., Kalra, N., and Thorn, E. 2017. NCHRP Research Report 845: Advancing
Automated and Connected Vehicles: Policy and Planning Strategies for State and Local Transportation
Agencies. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C. doi:10.17226/24872.
Governmental policy and planning strategies to influence private-sector decisions on

automated and connected vehicles are discussed. Strategies include mitigating safety risks,
encouraging SAV use, addressing liability and insurance issues, reducing congestion, and
improving air quality. For example, to encourage SAV use, subsidies, transit benefits,
parking cash-out, and road use pricing could be applied. Granting signal priority, grant-
ing parking access, and investing in infrastructure may improve traffic safety, reduce con-
gestion, and promote air quality. While AVs may reduce crashes and provide other benefits,
authors cautioned that future policy would need to adapt to emerging problems.
57. Schaller, B. September 6, 2018. Disruptive Technologies: Impacts on Transportation Revenues. Presenta-
tion for TRB Webinar, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.
This webinar discusses the impact to revenue streams for transportation programs from
new mobility services such as connected/autonomous vehicles and ridesharing services
(TNCs). Revenue impacts, challenges, and opportunities for airport operators are presented.
New mechanisms for transportation revenue are suggested for municipalities across the
United States. The future impacts of increased connected/autonomous vehicles in big cities
are presented, with former surface parking and garages being able to be repurposed for other
uses such as residential, parks, and bike paths.
58. Transportation Research Circular E-C231: U.S. Department of Transportation’s Mobility on Demand
Initiative: Moving the Economy with Innovation and Understanding. Transportation Research Board,
Washington, D.C, March 2018.
The concept of mobility on demand is discussed, with goals that include increasing
mobility options, enhancing convenience, improving transportation network efficiency,
and reducing customer’s costs. Instead of using private vehicles, mobility on demand facil-
itates alternative modes such as bikesharing, carsharing, ridesharing (TNCs), and public
transit by incorporating trip planning, booking, and fare payment into a single application.
Los Angeles Metro, a public transportation operator, has expressed interest in partnering
with TNCs, noting that service must incorporate accessibility and equal access for customers
without smartphones.

59. Transportation Research Circular E-C236: National Academies–TRB Forum on Preparing for Automated
Vehicles and Shared Mobility. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., September 2018.
The deployment and impacts of new transportation technologies, including automated

vehicles and shared mobility, are discussed to help inform policymakers. The far-reaching
impacts are discussed with relation to safety, the transportation system, energy, society, the
environment, and the economy. A catalog of critical research needs is provided to address
the impacts, including developing models for data sharing, studying impact to land use, and
ensuring safety through state and local policies.
60. Wang, M., & Mu, L. 2017. Spatial Disparities of Uber Accessibility: An Exploratory Analysis in Atlanta,
USA. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 67, 169–175.
The emergence of ridesharing (TNCs) has brought up questions of social inequality.

A quantitative neighborhood-level analysis of Uber accessibility indicated that wealth, race,
and unemployment rate do not have significant effects, whereas a higher road network den-
sity, population density, and a shorter commute time increase accessibility. UberX and Uber
Black service correlate with public transit differently; for example, as stops increase, UberX
accessibility improves.
61. Wyman, K. March 2018. The Novelty of TNC Regulation. New York University School of Law.
This discussion of TNC regulation highlights that as of 2017, 48 state legislatures have
passed legislation that legalizes and regulates TNCs. In large cities (e.g., New York and
Chicago), TNCs often comply with local regulations in addition to state regulations. The
common theme for regulation is a focus on safety, with fares and vehicle fleets not regulated
by jurisdictions; however, a few limit surge pricing.


APPENDIX B
State-Enabling Legislation,
City Ordinances, and Airport
Company Trip Fees
General References
1. Schaller Consulting, Unfinished Business: A Blueprint for Uber, Lyft and Taxi Regulation,
September 2016.
2. National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, Final Report on Transportation
Network Company Regulation, January 2017.
3. Testimony of Ginger Goodin, P.E., Senior Research Engineer and Director, Transportation
Policy Research Center, and Maarit Moran, Associate Transportation Researcher, Texas A&M
Transportation Institute, to the Texas Senate Committee on Business and Commerce, sum-
marizing nationwide legislation enacted to authorize and regulate transportation network
companies, March 14, 2017.
4. Eric Biber, Sarah E. Light, J. B. Ruhl, and James Salzman, “Regulating Business Innovation as
Policy Disruption: From the Model T to Airbnb,” Vanderbilt Law Review 70, no. 1561, 2017.
5. San Francisco County Transportation Authority, The TNC Regulatory Landscape: An
Overview of Current TNC Regulation in California and Across the Country, Draft Report,
December 2017.
Transportation Network Company State-Enabling

Legislation and Enactment Year
California AB 2293 (2013)

Colorado SB 125 (2014)
Florida HB 221 (2017)
Georgia HB 225 (2017)
Massachusetts, An Act Regulating TNCs (Chapter 187 of the Acts of 2016)
Nebraska LB 629 (2015)
New Jersey, TNC Safety and Regulatory Act (N.J.S.A. 39:5H-1, et seq.) (2017)
Texas HB 100 (2017)
Vermont HB 10 (2018)
B-1

B-2 Transportation Network Companies (TNCs): Impacts to Airport Revenues and Operations—Reference Guide
City Ordinances
Chicago Code Chapters 9–115
Cleveland City Council, Per Trip User Fee Orientation, Hopkins International Airport (2019)
Miami-Dade County (2016)
Los Angeles Licensing Agreement (covering TNC services to/from Los Angeles International
Airport) 2015; rev. 2017
Table B-1. Airport TNC trip fees: pick-up/drop-off (as of August 12, 2019).
AIRPORT CODE PICK-UP DROP-OFF TOTAL NOTES

Atlanta ATL $3.85 $- $ 3.85
Baltimore BWI $2.50 $ 2.50 $ 5.00
Boston BOS $3.25 $- $ 3.25 Oct. 2019: fee increases to $3/$3; July 2020: fee
increases to $4/$4;
50 percent discount for shared ride.
Charlotte CLT $1.50 $ 1.50 $ 3.00
Chicago ORD/MDW $5.60 $ 5.60 $ 11.20 $10,000 annual fee plus an administrative fee of
$0.02 per trip.
Dallas Fort DFW $5.00 $ 5.00 $ 10.00 $600 annual permit fee.
Worth
Denver DEN $2.60 $ 2.60 $ 5.20
Detroit DTW $5.00 $ 5.00 $ 10.00
Ft. FLL $3.00 $- $ 3.00
Lauderdale
Las Vegas LAS $2.60 $ 2.60 $ 5.20
Los Angeles LAX $4.00 $ 4.00 $ 8.00 $1,000 activation fee.
Miami MIA $2.00 $- $ 2.00
Minneapolis– MSP $3.36 $ 3.36 $ 6.72 $5,000 security deposit.
Saint Paul
New York JFK/LGA/EWR $- $- $- JFK, LGA, and EWR do not charge a pick-up fee;
(PA/NY/NJ) Uber pays EWR $1 million/year for airport access.
Under consideration: $4/$4 fee at all three
airports for TNCs and taxis.
Orlando MCO $5.80 $- $ 5.80
Philadelphia PHL $2.60 $ 3.00 $ 5.60
Phoenix PHX $2.66 $ 2.66 $ 5.32
Portland PDX $3.00 $ 3.00 $ 6.00
Salt Lake City SLC $2.50 $ 2.50 $ 5.00
San SFO $4.50 $ 4.50 $ 9.00 Same fee for all pick-up/drop-off locations; all
Francisco domestic terminal pick-ups are required to be at
the 5th floor of the domestic garage; domestic
drop-offs at the terminal curbsides and all
international pick-ups and drop-offs are at the
international terminal curbside.
San Diego SAN $3.86 $ 3.86 $ 7.72
Seattle SEA - - $ 6.00 Option of paying $3/$3.
Tampa TIA $4.00 $- $ 4.00 Oct. 2019: fee increases to $5.
Washington, DCA/IAD $4.00 $ 4.00 $ 8.00 $5,000 activation fee.
D.C. (MWAA)

SOURCES: ACI, Transportation Network Company Fee Survey, August 2018; Crain Communications, Inc., June 2019; Ricondo & Associates, Inc.,
July 2019; Airport Ground Transportation Association/Raleigh-Durham Airport Authority, TNC Survey, June 2019.

APPENDIX C
Updated FAA Certification Activity

Tracking System Revenue
Table C-1. FAA CATS data: ground transportation revenue at airports.
2015 2016 2017 2018

Large Hub $2,386,372,169 $2,562,516,069 $2,705,601,697 $2,819,605,407
Medium Hub $780,390,615 $826,650,273 $871,279,530 $943,883,074
Small Hub $470,834,728 $497,760,958 $523,083,319 $565,654,044

Rental Car Revenue
Large Hub $1,036,838,192 $1,074,242,281 $1,105,744,232 $1,124,755,957
Medium Hub $351,951,509 $356,115,463 $361,959,858 $371,786,044
Small Hub $254,840,674 $258,595,960 $274,586,417 $293,238,834

Total Parking + Other GT + Rental Car Revenue
Large Hub $3,423,210,361 $3,636,758,350 $3,811,345,929 $3,944,361,364
Medium Hub $1,132,342,124 $1,182,765,736 $1,233,239,388 $1,315,669,118
Small Hub $725,675,402 $756,356,918 $797,669,736 $858,892,878
Total $5,281,227,887 $5,575,881,004 $5,842,255,053 $6,118,923,360
C-1

C-2 Transportation Network Companies (TNCs): Impacts to Airport Revenues and Operations—Reference Guide
Table C-2. Total ground transportation revenue per enplaned passenger.
2015 2016 2017 2018

Parking + Other + Rental Car
Large Hub $3,423,210,361 $3,636,758,350 $3,811,345,929 $3,944,361,364
Medium Hub $1,132,342,124 $1,182,765,736 $1,233,239,388 $1,315,669,118
Small Hub $725,675,402 $756,356,918 $797,669,736 $858,892,878
Total $5,281,227,887 $5,575,881,004 $5,842,255,053 $6,118,923,360

Enplaned Passengers
Large Hub $587,861,584 $615,754,916 $630,316,466 $655,689,219
Medium Hub $123,246,734 $130,028,555 $136,929,708 $146,810,716
Small Hub $67,664,374 $69,704,764 $72,853,707 $77,887,210
Total $778,772,692 $815,488,235 $840,099,881 $880,387,145

Revenue per Enplaned Passenger
Large Hub $5.82 $5.91 $6.05 $6.02
Medium Hub $9.19 $9.10 $9.01 $8.96
Small Hub $10.72 $10.85 $10.95 $11.03
Airport Average $6.78 $6.84 $6.95 $6.95
Table C-3. Total ground transportation revenue per O&D enplaned passenger.
2015 2016 2017 2018

Revenue per Originating Passenger
Large Hub $9.17 $9.09 $9.10 $8.90
Medium Hub $10.45 $10.32 $10.25 $10.03
Small Hub $11.39 $11.49 $11.52 $11.38
Airport Average $9.68 $9.60 $9.60 $9.42
SOURCE: FAA, Certification Activity Tracking System revenue data, divided by Sabre originating passenger data, 2019.
Table C-4. Parking and other ground transportation revenue at airports.
2015 2016 2017 2018

Large Hub $2,386,372,169 $2,562,516,069 $2,705,601,697 $2,819,605,407
Medium Hub $780,390,615 $826,650,273 $871,279,530 $943,883,074
Small Hub $470,834,728 $497,760,958 $523,083,319 $565,654,044
Total $3,637,597,512 $3,886,927,300 $4,099,964,546 $4,329,142,525

Revenue per Enplaned Passenger $4.67 $4.77 $4.88 $4.92
Revenue per O&D Enplaned Passenger $6.67 $6.69 $6.74 $6.66

Updated FAA Certification Activity Tracking System Revenue C-3
Table C-5. Rental car revenue at airports.
2015 2016 2017 2018

Rental Car Revenue
Large Hub $1,036,838,192 $1,074,242,281 $1,105,744,232 $1,124,755,957
Medium Hub $351,951,509 $356,115,463 $361,959,858 $371,786,044
Small Hub $254,840,674 $258,595,960 $274,586,417 $293,238,834
Total $1,643,630,375 $1,688,953,704 $1,742,290,507 $1,789,780,835

Revenue per Enplaned Passenger $2.11 $2.07 $2.07 $2.03
Revenue per O&D Enplaned Passenger $3.01 $2.91 $2.86 $2.75
$120 Large
Medium
Small
$115
Average
$110
$105
$100
2015 2016 2017 2018
SOURCE: Sum of Parking, Ground Transportation, and Rental Car Revenue, as reported in FAA, Certification Activity Tracking
System, 2019.
Exhibit C-1. Total ground transportation revenue: index 2015 = 100.
Of 137 Reporting Airports
13
124
Increase Decrease
SOURCE: FAA, Certification Activity
Tracking System, 2019.
Exhibit C-2. Airports
reporting change in total
ground transportation
revenue, 2015–2018.

C-4 Transportation Network Companies (TNCs): Impacts to Airport Revenues and Operations—Reference Guide
$106
$104
Large
$102 Medium
$100 Small
Average
$98
$96
$94
$92
2015 2016 2017 2018
Exhibit C-3. Total ground transportation revenue per enplaned passenger: index 2015 = 100.
Of 137 Reporting Airports
52
85
Increase Decrease
SOURCE: FAA, Certification Activity
Tracking System, 2019.
Exhibit C-4. Airports
reporting change in ground
transportation revenue
per enplaned passenger,
2015–2018.

Updated FAA Certification Activity Tracking System Revenue C-5
$106
$104
$102 Large
$100 Medium
Small
$98
Average
$96
$94
$92
2015 2016 2017 2018
Exhibit C-5. Total ground transportation revenue per O&D passenger:

index 2015 = 100.
$120
Large
$115
Medium
Small
$110 Average
$105
$100
2015 2016 2017 2018
Exhibit C-6. Parking + other ground transportation revenue: index 2015 = 100.


APPENDIX D
Acronyms/Abbreviations
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act

AVI Automatic Vehicle Identification
AVs Autonomous Vehicles
CATS Certification Activity Tracking System
CAVs Connected Autonomous Vehicles
CFC Customer Facility Charge
CORI Criminal Offender Record Information (Massachusetts)
CPUC California Public Utilities Commission
GT Ground Transportation
HOV High-Occupancy Vehicle
IPOs Initial Public Offerings
LPR License Plate Recognition
MaaS Mobility as a Service
O&D Origin and Destination
PFC Passenger Facility Charge
TNC Transportation Network Company
VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled
D-1


APPENDIX E
Glossary
Airport Capital Plan: The document that defines the financial and programmatic expenditures
for the capital programs and projects proposed to meet facility needs, as well as agency mission
and goals, for a multiyear period. The airport capital plan includes the scope, cost, and schedule
data for the programs and projects.
Application or App: A self-contained program or piece of software designed to fulfill a particu-

lar purpose, especially one that can be downloaded to a smartphone or mobile device.
Automatic Vehicle Identification (AVI): A long-range radio-frequency identification or micro-

wave identification system that automatically identifies vehicles having vehicle-mounted tran-
sponders (or tags) as they enter and pass through the range of the AVI system reader (the read
zone) without any action by the driver. The term can also be used to refer to the system that
records the time the vehicle enters and exits the read zone and summarizes the number of trips
made by each operator.
Autonomous Vehicles: These are defined by U.S. DOT (2013, ITS Strategic Plan, 2015–2019) as
“those vehicles in which at least some aspect of a safety-critical control function (e.g., steering,
throttle, braking) occurs without direct driver input.” Autonomous vehicles may be autonomous
or self-driving (i.e., use only vehicle sensors) or may be connected (i.e., use communication
systems, such as connected vehicle technology, in which cars and roadside infrastructure com-
municate wirelessly) (ITS Joint Program Office, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research
and Technology, 2019, How Connected Vehicles Work).
Best Practice: As used in this report, those innovative and creative practices that, if implemented,
help achieve or support the relevant goals of airport management related to commercial ground
transportation services. These include a broad range of standards, strategies, rules and regula-
tions, business practices, fees, operational models or methods, facility configurations, support-
ing technologies, and other programs used by airport operators to provide, monitor, control,
regulate, and enforce commercial ground transportation services.
Commercial Ground Transportation: Ground transportation services that require customers

to pay a fare for transportation to or from an airport directly (e.g., taxicabs or shared-ride vans).
The cost of the transportation may otherwise be included in another service provided (e.g.,
hotel/motel or off-airport parking courtesy vans).
Deadhead Trip: A nonrevenue trip that occurs before picking up a customer or after dropping
off a passenger.
E-1

E-2 Transportation Network Companies (TNCs): Impacts to Airport Revenues and Operations—Reference Guide
Geofence: A virtual barrier around some portion of the airport defined by GPS coordinates.
Typically used to manage staging area operations. A geofence is used to track all entry, exit,
pick-up, and drop-off activity on airport property.
Hold Area: An area designated for use by commercial vehicles, such as TNCs, taxicabs,
limousines, shared-ride vans, and buses, to wait in (or stage) until they are called to the
curbside.
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 percent or more of
the boardings, a medium hub serving at least 0.25 percent but less than 1.0 percent, a small
hub serving at least 0.05 percent but less than 0.25 percent, and a non-hub serving more than
10,000 boardings but less than 0.05 percent.
Placard: An airport-issued sign displayed behind the passenger’s side front windshield or
other location specified in airport rules, indicating the name of the TNC, vehicle license plate
number, driver identification number, or other required information.
Platform: Any hardware or software used to host an application or service.
Rematch: Within a defined number of minutes following a customer drop-off on the airport
property, the TNC driver/vehicle is dispatched for a customer pick-up. The driver bypasses the
staging. A rematch program is an effort to reduce customer wait times for pick-ups and to reduce
deadheading and congestion on airport terminal area roads and curbs.
Shared-Ride Van/Service: Door-to-door transportation, typically provided to and from an

airport, for which the customer shares a vehicle with other parties (as opposed to family
members or friends), with fares charged per passenger (as opposed to a fare for the use of an
entire vehicle, as is the case with a limousine or chartered bus or van).
Staging Area/Holding Area: A parking area, provided by an airport operator, for use by TNC
drivers (or the drivers of taxicabs, limousines, and shared-ride vans) waiting to be assigned
a customer; this is frequently the only airport location where drivers can receive a customer
request.
Trade Dress: With regard to TNCs, trade dress refers to the trademarked logos that must
be displayed on or affixed to the front or rear windshield as required by local or airport
regulations.
Transportation Network Company: A ground transportation corporation, partnership, sole

proprietorship, or other entity, authorized by a statutory regulatory body, under which an
operator provides prearranged, for-hire services for compensation through mobile device
application technology that connects drivers of personal vehicles to passengers for transporta-
tion to and from an airport.
Trip Fee: User fee charged to commercial ground transportation providers (for passenger pick-
up, drop-off, or both) so the airport operator can recover costs related to managing ground
access services and providing adequate supporting facilities.

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.
ISBN 978-0-309-48116-8
COLUMBIA, MD
PERMIT NO. 88
U.S. POSTAGE
90000
PAID
9 780309 481168

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/25759 SHARE

Transportation Network Companies (TNCs): Impacts to Airport

116 pages | 8.5 x 11 | PAPERBACK

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2020. Transportation

– 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 215

Research sponsored by the Federal Aviation Administration

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

AIRPORT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM ACRP RESEARCH REPORT 215

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 215

ACRP PROJECT 01-35 PANEL

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Transportation network companies (TNCs) have become an increasingly popular form

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Transportation Network Companies

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

The four audiences for the Reference Guide are

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

1.1 Problem Statement

ACRP Project 01-35: Amplified Work Plan, April 2018.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

1.2 Purpose of the Reference Guide

1.3 Approach to Developing the Reference Guide

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

NOTE: TNC—transportation network company

Exhibit 1-1. Research work plan.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

1.5 How to Use the Reference Guide:

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

2.1 Emergence and Development of Transportation

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Transportation Network Companies—Overview 9

Exhibit 2-1. Timeline—transportation network companies.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Transportation Network Companies—Overview 11

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

2.3 Evolving Transportation Network

(New York City and San Francisco).

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Transportation Network Companies—Overview 13

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Transportation Network Companies—Overview 15

2.3.1 Transportation Network Company Public Offerings

Uber Initial Public Offering

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Lyft Initial Public Offering

Stock Performance and Analyst Ratings Since Initial Public Offerings

2.3.2 Recent Uber and Lyft Financial Results

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Transportation Network Companies—Overview 17

1.5 How to Use the Reference Guide:

2.1 Emergence and Development of Transportation

2.3 Evolving Transportation Network

3.4 Reassigning Pick-Up and Drop-Off Locations Due to

3.5 Safe and Secure Customer Service:

3.6 Developing Constructive Relationships

3.7 Ensuring the Accuracy of Trip Reporting and