The National Academies Press: Estimating Truck Trip Generation For Airport Air Cargo Activity

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
This PDF is available at http://nap.edu/24848 SHARE

   
Estimating Truck Trip Generation for Airport Air Cargo

Activity
DETAILS
56 pages | 8.5 x 11 | PAPERBACK

ISBN 978-0-309-39003-3 | DOI 10.17226/24848
CONTRIBUTORS
GET THIS BOOK Kaveh Shabani and Peter Plumeau; Airport Cooperative Research Program; Airport
Cooperative Research Program Synthesis Program; Synthesis Program;
Transportation Research Board; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and
FIND RELATED TITLES Medicine

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.

Estimating Truck Trip Generation for Airport Air Cargo Activity
AIRPORT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM
ACRP SYNTHESIS 80
Estimating Truck Trip
Generation for Airport
Air Cargo Activity
A Synthesis of Airport Practice
Consultants
Kaveh Shabani
RSG
San Diego, California
and
Peter Plumeau
LogisCity, LLC
Burlington, Vermont
S ubscriber C ategories
Aviation • Freight Transportation • Operations and Traffic Management • Terminals and Facilities
Research Sponsored by the Federal Aviation Administration
2017
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

AIRPORT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM ACRP SYNTHESIS 80
Airports are vital national resources. They serve a key role in Project A11-03, Topic S03-13
transportation of people and goods and in regional, national, and ISSN 1935-9187
international commerce. They are where the nation’s aviation sys- ISBN 978-0-309-39003-3
tem connects with other modes of transportation and where federal Library of Congress Control Number 2017936213
responsibility for managing and regulating air traffic operations
intersects with the role of state and local governments that own and © 2017 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
operate most airports. Research is necessary to solve common oper-
ating problems, to adapt appropriate new technologies from other
industries, and to introduce innovations into the airport industry. COPYRIGHT INFORMATION
The Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) serves as one
of the principal means by which the airport industry can develop Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and
innovative near-term solutions to meet demands placed on it. for obtaining written permissions from publishers or persons who own the
The need for ACRP was identified in TRB Special Report 272: copyright to any previously published or copyrighted material used herein.
Airport Research Needs: Cooperative Solutions in 2003, based on Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce
a study sponsored by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). material in this publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes.
ACRP carries out applied research on problems that are shared Permission is given with the understanding that none of the material will
by airport operating agencies and not being adequately addressed be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, FAA, FHWA, FMCSA, FRA, FTA,
by existing federal research programs. ACRP is modeled after Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology, PHMSA,
the successful National Cooperative Highway Research Program or TDC endorsement of a particular product, method, or practice. It is
(NCHRP) and Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP). expected that those reproducing the material in this document for
ACRP undertakes research and other technical activities in various educational and not-for-profit uses will give appropriate acknowledgment
airport subject areas, including design, construction, legal, mainte- of the source of any reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of the
nance, operations, safety, policy, planning, human resources, and material, request permission from CRP.
administration. ACRP provides a forum where airport operators can
cooperatively address common operational problems.
ACRP was authorized in December 2003 as part of the Vision NOTICE
100—Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act. The primary par-
ticipants in the ACRP are (1) an independent governing board, the The report was reviewed by the technical panel and accepted for publication
ACRP Oversight Committee (AOC), appointed by the Secretary according to procedures established and overseen by the Transportation
of the U.S. Department of Transportation with representation from Research Board and approved by the National Academies of Sciences,
airport operating agencies, other stakeholders, and relevant indus- Engineering, and Medicine.
try organizations such as the Airports Council International-North The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are
America (ACI-NA), the American Association of Airport Execu- those of the researchers who performed the research and are not necessarily
tives (AAAE), the National Association of State Aviation Officials those of the Transportation Research Board; the National Academies of
(NASAO), Airlines for America (A4A), and the Airport Consul- Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; or the program sponsors.
tants Council (ACC) as vital links to the airport community; (2) The Transportation Research Board; the National Academies of Sciences,
TRB as program manager and secretariat for the governing board; Engineering, and Medicine; and the sponsors of the Airport Cooperative
and (3) the FAA as program sponsor. In October 2005, the FAA Research Program do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or
executed a contract with the National Academy of Sciences for- manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because they are considered
mally initiating the program. essential to the object of the report.
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 organizations. Each of these participants has different
interests and responsibilities, and each is an integral part of this
cooperative research effort.
Research problem statements for ACRP are solicited periodi-
cally 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 Published reports of the
contractors, and provide technical guidance and counsel throughout
the life of the project. The process for developing research prob- AIRPORT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM
lem statements and selecting research agencies has been used by
TRB in managing cooperative research programs since 1962. As in are available from
other TRB activities, ACRP project panels serve voluntarily with- Transportation Research Board
out compensation. Business Office
Primary emphasis is placed on disseminating ACRP results to the 500 Fifth Street, NW
intended users of the research: airport operating agencies, service Washington, DC 20001
providers, and academic institutions. ACRP produces a series of and can be ordered through the Internet by going to
research reports for use by airport operators, local agencies, the FAA, http://www.national-academies.org
and other interested parties; industry associations may arrange for
and then searching for TRB
workshops, training aids, field visits, webinars, and other activities to
ensure that 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. C. D. Mote, Jr., 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 increase the benefits that transportation contributes to society by providing
leadership in transportation innovation and progress through research and information exchange, conducted within a setting that is
objective, interdisciplinary, and multimodal. The Board’s varied committees, task forces, and panels annually engage about 7,000
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.

TOPIC PANEL S03-13

SARAH DROBIS, Gibson Transportation Consulting, Inc., Los Angeles, California
WILLIAM S. KUTTNER, Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization, Boston, Massachusetts
ROBERT LEWANDOWSKI, UPS Airlines, Louisville, Kentucky
PETER MANDLE, InterVISTAS, Burlingame, California
BRYAN SCHREIBER, Columbus Regional Airport Authority, Columbus, Ohio
MARK A. THORPE, Ontario International Airport Authority, Ontario, California
PAUL TRONSoR, FedEx Express, Memphis, Tennessee
ASHLEY SNG, Airports Council International–North America (Liaison)
SYNTHESIS STUDIES STAFF

STEPHEN R. GODWIN, Director for Studies and Special Programs
JON M. WILLIAMS, Program Director, IDEA and Synthesis Studies
MARIELA GARCIA-COLBERG, Senior Program Officer
JO ALLEN GAUSE, Senior Program Officer
THOMAS HELMS, Consultant
GAIL R. STABA, Senior Program Officer
TANYA M. ZWAHLEN, Consultant
DON TIPPMAN, Senior Editor
CHERYL KEITH, Senior Program Assistant
DEMISHA WILLIAMS, Senior Program Assistant
DEBBIE Irvin, Program Associate
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMS STAFF

CHRISTOPHER J. HEDGES, Director, Cooperative Research Programs
LORI L. SUNDSTROM, Deputy Director, Cooperative Research Programs
MICHAEL R. SALAMONE, Manager, Airport Cooperative Research Program
KAREN NEELEY, Program Associate
EILEEN P. DELANEY, Director of Publications
ACRP COMMITTEE FOR PROJECT 11-03
CHAIR
JOSHUA D. ABRAMSON, Easterwood Airport, College Station, Texas
MEMBERS
DEBBIE K. ALKE, Montana Department of Transportation, Helena, Montana
GLORIA G. BENDER, TransSolutions, Fort Worth, Texas
DAVID A. BYERS, Quadrex Aviation, LLC, Melbourne, Florida
DAVID N. EDWARDS, JR., Greenville–Spartanburg Airport District, Greer, South Carolina
BRENDA L. ENOS, Massachusetts Port Authority, East Boston, Massachusetts
LINDA HOWARD, Independent Aviation Consultant, Bastrop, Texas
FAA LIAISON
PATRICK W. MAGNOTTA
AIRCRAFT OWNERS AND PILOTS association

ADAM WILLIAMS
AIRPORTS CONSULTANTS COUNCIL

MATTHEW J. GRIFFIN
AIRPORTS COUNCIL INTERNATIONAL–NORTH AMERICA

LIYING GU
TRB LIAISON
CHRISTINE GERENCHER

FOREWORD Airport administrators, engineers, and researchers often face problems for which infor-
mation already exists, either in documented form or as undocumented experience and prac-
tice. This information may be fragmented, scattered, and unevaluated. As a consequence,
full knowledge of what has been learned about a problem may not be brought to bear on its
solution. Costly research findings may go unused, valuable experience may be overlooked,
and due consideration may not be given to recommended practices for solving or alleviating
the problem.
There is information on nearly every subject of concern to the airport industry. Much of it
derives from research or from the work of practitioners faced with problems in their day-to-day
work. To provide a systematic means for assembling and evaluating such useful information
and to make it available to the entire airport community, the Airport Cooperative Research
Program authorized the Transportation Research Board to undertake a continuing project.
This project, ACRP Project 11-03, “Synthesis of Information Related to Airport Practices,”
searches out and synthesizes useful knowledge from all available sources and prepares con-
cise, documented reports on specific topics. Reports from this endeavor constitute an ACRP
report series, Synthesis of Airport Practice.
This synthesis series reports on current knowledge and practice, in a compact format, with-
out the detailed directions usually found in handbooks or design manuals. Each report in the
series provides a compendium of the best knowledge available on those measures found to
be the most successful in resolving specific problems.
PREFACE The existing literature and research regarding air cargo facility-related truck trip genera-
By Gail R. Staba tion rates is limited in its scope and detail. Beyond a handful of highly localized efforts to
Senior Program Officer forecast air cargo-truck movements across the country, little empirical research exists on the
Transportation Research Board volume and nature of truck trips associated with existing and new air cargo facilities, both
airside and landside. In addition, the complexity of the modern air cargo industry makes it
difficult to obtain the data necessary to develop truck trip generation rates. Access to such
information could conceivably help a community plan and invest appropriately by account-
ing for air cargo’s impacts. Similarly, air cargo operators and airport officials could employ
such data to help ensure cargo facility truck access and egress remains reliable and safe.
This synthesis of practice compiles existing information about air cargo truck trip gen-
eration studies. Information used in this study was acquired through literature review, inter-
viewing experts and industry officials, and conducting in-depth case examples of three
selected airports.
Peter Plumeau, LogisCity LLC, Burlington, Vermont, and Kaveh Shabani, RSG, San
Diego, California, collected and synthesized the information and wrote the report. The
members of the topic panel are acknowledged on the preceding page. This synthesis is
an immediately useful document that records the practices that were acceptable within
the limitations of the knowledge available at the time of its preparation. As progress in
research and practice continues, new knowledge will be added to that now at hand.

CONTENTS
1 Summary
3 Chapter One Background
Purpose of Study, 3
Scope and Methodology, 3
5 Chapter Two Description of Air Cargo System Components

Types of Cargo Carriage, 5
Types of Airport Air Cargo Facilities, 6
9 Chapter Three Complexities Associated with Developing

Truck Trip Generation Rates for Air Cargo
Facilities
Determinants of Air Cargo Truck Trips, 9
Complexities, 9
12 Chapter Four Methods of Estimating Truck Trips for Air

Cargo Facilities
Literature Review, 12
Summary of Literature Review, 22
Interviews of Experts and Practitioners, 23
Conclusions from Interviews, 24
30 Chapter Five Case examples

Hartsfield–Jackson Atlanta International Airport (ATL), 30
Los Angeles International Airport (LAX), 31
Memphis International Airport (MEM), 34
Conclusions from Case Examples, 36
37 Chapter Six Conclusions and Suggestions for

Further Research
39 Glossary
42 References

44 Appendix A Checklist of Considerations Associated with Air

Cargo-Related Truck Trip Data
45 Appendix B Interview Guides Used in This Study
46 Appendix C Potential Freight Movements Data Sources
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.

Estimating Truck Trip Generation for

Airport AIR Cargo Activity
Summary Truck trip generation associated with air cargo facilities and activities is an under-researched issue
in the traffic engineering and transportation planning arena. Except for a handful of highly localized
efforts to forecast air cargo-truck movements across the country, little empirical research exists on
the volume and nature of truck trips associated with existing and new air cargo facilities, both airside
and landside. In addition, the complexity of the modern air cargo industry makes it difficult to obtain
the data necessary to develop truck trip generation rates. Access to such information could help a
community plan and invest appropriately by accounting for air cargo’s impacts; similarly, air cargo
operators and airport officials could employ such data to help ensure cargo facility truck access and
egress remains reliable and safe.
The existing literature and research regarding air cargo facility-related truck trip generation rates
are limited in scope and detail. In addition, considering the rapid pace of change in the air cargo
industry, many such documents are significantly dated. There are also important differences of per-
spective and opinion on approaches and methodologies for obtaining data and developing estimates
of truck trips across the literature, with no one benchmark by which to assess the validity of these
competing ideas.
The major air cargo airports and air cargo planning officials interviewed for this study gen-
erally confirmed the absence of readily available and reliable truck trip generation data for air
cargo facilities. However, no airport suggested that obtaining and applying such data is a prior-
ity because it is unusual for studies of air cargo truck traffic at its facilities to be requested or
required. There is limited airport experience to compile validating that developing truck trip gen-
eration rates would facilitate improvements in air cargo facilities. This is probably because pas-
senger traffic is typically the principal priority and focus at major airports. One exception to this
pattern is Los Angeles International Airport (LAX), where local legislation requires the airport
annually to develop and publish counts of air cargo truck traffic for one busy day in the year (as
part of the mandated annual airport traffic generation reports). These counts are for Los Angeles
International Airport-Specific Plan, the principal mechanism by which LAX Master Plan Projects
are implemented. The only truck trip modeling initiative related to air cargo that was identified
nationwide—the Southern California Association of Governments’ (SCAG) Heavy-duty Truck
Model (HDT)—generates estimates of air cargo truck trips based on the output of another model,
the Regional Airport Demand Allocation Model (RADAM), which converts air cargo tonnage to
truck trips using proprietary factors developed as part of RADAM.
Air cargo company officials stated that their firms are willing to (and do) share certain truck trip
data to support trip generation rate development. However, the firms are generally able to share such
data only in a highly aggregated form for a specific facility to maintain their competitive positions,
comply with anti-trust rules, and abide by customer data confidentiality agreements. For example, a
firm may be able to provide overall truck volumes by time of day for a specific facility, but would
generally be unable to provide more granular information such as truck type, tonnages, commodities,
or origin/destination. In addition, these officials noted that a decision to share any such information
would need to be made in the context of legal and business ramifications for the firm, adding an
additional layer of complexity to efforts to obtain truck trip data.

2
It is difficult to determine the actual level of demand for air cargo facility-related truck trip gen-
eration rates across potential users. It is unclear whether the lack of readily available data is a driver
or a consequence of the limited occurrences of trip rates being developed and applied. Because every
air cargo facility and airport has unique characteristics, including the nature and volume of air cargo
handled, air cargo facility access roadway configurations, and local roadway system operations, it
is unlikely that a single truck trip generation rate or range of rates can be applied across all airports.
Therefore, further research would help to fully assess the details of the available data sources and
methods discussed in this report to determine the most effective combination of data and methods
for application to different airports.

3
chapter one
Background
Purpose of Study
Truck trip generation associated with air cargo facilities and activities remains an under-explored
topic in the traffic engineering and transportation planning arena. The ITE Trip Generation Manual—
considered the primary source of trip generation rates—provides plots and equations for dozens of
finely differentiated land use types; however, this source has yet to distinguish “air cargo” from the
more general categories of “commercial airport” and “truck terminal.” Similarly, beyond a hand-
ful of highly localized efforts to forecast air cargo-truck movements (e.g., the Southern California
Association of Governments Regional Airport Demand Allocation Model), little empirical research
exists on the volume and nature of truck trips associated with existing and new air cargo facilities,
either airside or landside.
The complexities associated with the modern air cargo industry make it difficult to obtain and
understand the data necessary to develop air cargo facility truck trip generation rates. It is precisely
this complexity and dynamism, however, that makes it important for airport planners, traffic engi-
neers, and local officials to have access to reliable and useful truck trip information. Having access to
such information will help a community plan and invest adequately and appropriately by accounting
for the impacts of air cargo facilities and activities. In addition, because air cargo typically handles
high-value/time-sensitive shipments, the air cargo operator and airport management have similar
concerns related to ensuring cargo facility truck access and egress remains efficient, reliable and safe.
The purpose of this study is to gather information from experience to develop methods and tools
to support the planning and development of roadway infrastructure at a range of airport sizes and
types of cargo facilities. The audience for this synthesis study is airport, environmental and regional
transportation planners.
Scope and Methodology
The scope of this synthesis included existing research and practices directly related to identification
and/or application of truck trip generation rates associated with on-airport air cargo facilities. Parties
in this scope include air cargo facility research and planning experts, airport air cargo and planning
officials, air cargo express company officials, and selected relevant planning entities.
The methodology for this synthesis included a literature review, interviews with experts and
industry officials, in-depth case examples of selected airports, and the distilling and synthesizing of
the information collected into findings and suggestions.
Beginning with the literature list provided in the original project request for proposals (RFP), a
web-based scan for relevant research and practices in air cargo facility-related truck trip generation
was conducted. In addition, relevant past research was identified through internal expertise and
experience as well as through expert interviews conducted as part of this project. The results of the
literature review were synthesized and have been integrated into this report.
A series of structured interviews was also conducted with three main groups: air cargo facility
planning experts; airport planning and air cargo officials; and air cargo express company officials. To
help ensure comparable information was collected across the different interviews, a structured interview

4
guide was developed for each group of interviews and employed in each interview (see Appendix A).
In addition, documentation and data, as appropriate and available, were obtained from several of the
airports interviewed.
The organizations and officials interviewed across the three groups were identified based on input
and guidance from the ACRP program officer and the Synthesis Project Panel, as well as from exist-
ing knowledge and experience. In addition, some of the interviews led to identification of interview
targets that were not on the original list.
Based on the results of the literature review, interviews and review of additional airport documents
and data, three airports were identified for more in-depth review as case examples:
• Atlanta Hartsfield–Jackson International Airport (ATL)

• Los Angeles International Airport (LAX)
• Memphis International Airport (MEM).
The detailed results of the case examples are summarized in chapter five.
Using the aforementioned material, collected information, and analyses, a synthesis of issues and
considerations in estimating air cargo-related truck trip generation was developed. This includes the
state of the practice, current and future needs and gaps, and research needs.

5
chapter two
Description of Air Cargo System Components
Air freight is transported in dedicated cargo aircraft and in the cargo space of passenger aircraft
(belly cargo). As with passenger baggage handling, cargo on narrow-body and smaller aircraft is
loaded individually, whereas cargo on widebody aircraft is usually containerized. International cargo
arriving as imports may have been pre-cleared electronically or may be subject to additional inspection
by regulators before being cleared to leave the airport. Perhaps one of the most unique attributes of
the air cargo industry is the rapid loading and unloading of commodities onto widebody and narrow-
body freighter aircraft by means of unit load devices (ULDs), including pallets and containers.
Cargo aircraft have large doors and rollers fastened to the deck of the aircraft. These aircraft allow
containers and pallets laden with freight and mail to be rolled on and off either manually or through
a mechanized system.
Types of Cargo Carriage
As shown in Table 1, there are four primary air cargo transport business models that affect airport
facility planning. These are passenger airlines/combination carriers, all-cargo carriers, integrated
express carriers, and freight forwarders.
Passenger Airlines and Combination Carriers
A passenger airline provides cargo services to the industry by offering for sale the capacity of the
“belly” compartment of its aircraft that is available after the passenger-related items such as food/
beverages, company material, and passenger luggage are loaded. These airlines can provide the
industry with air cargo transport flexibility in the form of frequent flights to destinations. Passenger
airlines generally provide airport-to-airport service, with freight and mail carried as belly cargo.
Airlines usually offer belly cargo space “as available,” because priority goes to passengers and their
luggage. These airlines may also be known as combination carriers, which are scheduled air carriers
that transport both passengers and cargo in passenger-configured aircraft, with cargo restricted to the
lower deck compartments.
All-Cargo Carriers
All-cargo carriers operate airport-to-airport air cargo and freight services for their customers but do
not offer passenger service. All-cargo carriers offer scheduled service to major markets throughout
the world using widebody or containerized cargo aircraft. Major air cargo carriers operating in North
America include Polar Air Cargo and Kalitta Air.
Integrated Express Carriers
Integrated express operators move the customer’s goods door-to-door, providing shipment collec-
tion, transport by air or truck, and delivery. Dominant integrated express operators in North America
include FedEx, UPS, and DHL. (DHL’s U.S. domestic pickup and delivery service was discontin-
ued in January 2009.) Express companies provide next-day and deferred, time-definite delivery of
documents and small packages (up to 70 pounds). Integrated express operators are increasingly
transporting heavy freight (more than 70 pounds), which is the next logical step in leveraging the

6
Table 1
Types of Air Cargo Carriers
Type of Example of Market/ Type of
Characteristics Customers
Carrier Carrier Movement Cargo
Baggage hold Wholesale

Combination Most passenger Airport-to- Mail,
of passenger businesses,
Carrier airlines airport freight
aircraft mail, retail
Polar, Kalitta Main deck of Larger

All-cargo Wholesale Airport-to-
Air, World all-cargo specialized
Carrier businesses airport
Airways* aircraft freight
Integrated Main deck of Retail Packages,
UPS, FedEx Door-to-door
Express all-cargo businesses express
Express
Carrier aircraft
Freight Panalpina, All-cargo and Wholesale Road feeder Ocean and
Forwarders Forward Air passenger businesses service air freight
aircraft (pickup and pickup and
delivery) delivery
*No longer operating.

Source: Air Transport Association and International Air Cargo Association [compiled by the
Texas Transportation Institute (TTI)].
unique scale of operations, network, and other resources that operators can bring to each business
sector (Maynard 2015).
Freight Forwarders
A freight forwarder is a firm that receives, stores, and/or ships goods on behalf of other companies. It
usually provides a range of services including tracking inland transportation, preparation of ship-
ping and export documents, warehousing, booking cargo space, negotiating freight charges, freight
consolidation, cargo insurance, and filing of insurance claims. Freight forwarders usually ship under
their own bills of lading or air waybills; their agents or associates at the destination (overseas freight
forwarders) provide document delivery, deconsolidation, and freight collection services (Business
Dictionary 2016). UPS Supply Chain Solutions (part of UPS, Inc.) and SPO Logistics are the two
largest freight forwarding firms in the United States (Transport Topics 2016).
Types of Airport Air Cargo Facilities
The consolidation of the domestic air cargo industry in recent years has precipitated a situation in
which air cargo facilities at many airports no longer have a wide customer base, as more freight is
trucked directly to major air cargo hubs, bypassing smaller, low-volume facilities. This has led to
many vacant cargo facilities or space that are not well utilized. For example, the U.S. Postal Service
once had airmail sorting facilities at most medium and large airports, but has closed many since 2001
because much of its Express and Priority Mail Service has switched from passenger airlines to con-
tract agreements with FedEx and UPS. On the international air cargo front, the passenger gateway
airports continue to experience greater tonnage growth than the domestic airports, and more inter
national passenger routes and freighter routes continue to expand into U.S. airports.
Figure 1 presents a diagram of a generalized on-airport air cargo facility that provides truck access
and parking. Such on-airport cargo terminals are usually multi-tenant. These may be common-user
spaces managed by an authorized cargo handler, but, as traffic levels increase, carriers and integrators
often want to have their own space. Forwarders/customs agents may occupy a designated storage area
or merely place their customers’ consignments in a common area (The World Bank Group 2009).
Figure 2 illustrates, in simplified schematic form, the various types of ground movements asso-
ciated with air cargo at a major air cargo airport. As shown, cargo may flow between aircraft and
numerous facilities, both on and off-airport. Similarly, cargo may flow between these facilities and

FIGURE 1 Simple air cargo facility diagram (Source: Maynard et al. 2015).
FIGURE 2 Overview of typical air cargo ground movements at major airport (Source: RSG).

8
customers and suppliers outside of the airport, including shippers and receivers many miles distant
(e.g., road feeder services) as well as integrated industrial facilities adjacent to airport property such
as the JetPlex Industrial Park at Huntsville, Alabama International Airport. The common charac-
teristic shared by all these activities is that they generally involve truck movements, both on-airport
and between the airport and external parties.
Belly Cargo Handling for Passenger Airlines
Freight on passenger airlines is dropped off at a warehouse at the origination airport by a shipper or
shipper’s agency; the freight is then picked up at the destination airport by the customer (or freight
forwarder) after arriving on the passenger airline. Inbound belly cargo is unloaded and transported to
cargo facilities or from one aircraft to another aircraft, whereas outbound belly cargo is transported
from trucks to the cargo terminal and loaded onto the aircraft prior to departure.
All-Cargo Carrier Facilities
All-cargo airlines (e.g., Polar Air Cargo, Cargolux) typically contract with third-party companies for
loading, unloading, and ground-handling of cargo at privately or airport owned warehouse facilities.
Typically, the same facility at an airport handles both the belly and all-cargo airlines (e.g., Swissport).
Integrated Express Carrier Facilities
Integrated express operators use a hub-and-spoke transport model, such as that used by passenger
airlines. The air cargo hub used for package sorting and aircraft transfer is the backbone of inte-
grated express operators. This allows for total product connection to each market in the operator’s
system. Each day of operation, flights from around the world arrive at the hub, where packages are
unloaded, sorted by destination market, and loaded onto outbound aircraft. Integrators often make
heavy use of automated sorting at their hub terminals to achieve desired turnaround times and deliv-
ery commitments. Regional air cargo carriers operate smaller turboprop aircraft between origin and
destination (OD) or local market stations and smaller or more remote cargo markets, typically in
support of a larger integrated express cargo operator such as FedEx, UPS, or DHL. Wiggins Airways
and Mountain Air Cargo are examples of feeder airlines contracted to both UPS and FedEx. Feeder
flights often transport cargo from a smaller market and feed cargo to an awaiting aircraft for the
carrier’s hub. Feeder aircraft may also fly directly to a hub.

9
chapter three
Complexities Associated with Developing Truck

Trip Generation Rates for Air Cargo Facilities
The increased importance of trucks in transportation planning and traffic engineering has contributed
to a need for trip generation data that can be used to estimate truck traffic volumes. As noted earlier,
the robustness of trip generation data for trucks associated with air cargo facilities has not received
as much study or attention as more general truck traffic. This chapter discusses the determinants and
complexities associated with air cargo-related truck behavior and provides context for the subsequent
chapters on the state of the practice and further research needs.
Determinants of Air Cargo Truck Trips
Dynamic Cargo Types and Volumes
Air cargo moving to, from, and within the United States and Canada accounts for 9.1% of the world’s
air cargo traffic in terms of ton-miles and 14.1% in terms of tonnage alone. In 2015, total US air
tonnage cargo enplaned was about 23.6 million tons (Bureau of Transportation Statistics 2016). The
U.S. domestic market has remained relatively flat in recent years, except during the global economic
downturn, which resulted in a drop of 12.4% in 2009. Traffic continued a slow recovery in 2014 and
2015, growing 2.9% and 2.5%, respectively. Figure 3 provides an overview of trends in U.S. air cargo
volumes since 1999, measured in revenue ton kilometers (RTK) (Boeing 2016).
Facility Types
The size and form of cargo facilities in an airport vary substantially. Cargo type, characteristics of
trucks serving the facility, materials handling, and degree of mechanization make cargo facilities
different and hence different truck trips may be generated from those facilities.
Reduced Air Cargo Capacity and Shifts to Truck
Rationalization of the size of the passenger fleet, the predominance of narrow-body airplanes on domes-
tic routes, and the decline of scheduled domestic air freight airlines has reduced North American
domestic air cargo capacity, measured in available ton-miles. Continuing the trend of past years,
combination carriers continue to rely on trucks to offset the loss of domestic air capacity that has
resulted from reduced fleet size and the shift of widebody airplanes from domestic to interna-
tional markets. Consequently, most cargo between airports in the U.S. today travels by road on
trucks. These road feeder services (RFS) allow combination carriers to offer service comparable
to that of pure cargo carriers. Rising fuel costs have magnified the inherent cost advantages of
ground transport over air transport (Boeing 2016). In addition, freight forwarders prefer to avoid deal-
ing with the more onerous air cargo security regulations of the post-9/11 world and use road services
whenever possible (Air Cargo World 2015).
Complexities
Pace and Nature of Change in the Air Cargo Industry
The emergence and continued growth of e-commerce, the mobile Internet, and a global consumer
class has led to an environment in which businesses and purchasers depend on freight and goods

10
60,000
50,000
40,000
RTK (millions)
30,000
20,000
10,000
13
14
15
99
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
19
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
Scheduled freight (inc. express carriers) Charter freight Mail
FIGURE 3 U.S. air cargo volumes, 1999–2015 (Source: Boeing World Air Cargo Forecast 2016–2017).
being shipped and delivered wherever and whenever they are desired. This relatively new “pull
economy,” in which consumers and users of commodities and products drive the production and
shipping activities, differs significantly from the historical “push economy,” in which manufac-
turing cycles and processes generally dictated when and where commodities would be needed
and products would be available to consumers. Further, as new product shelf life decreased, such as for
consumer electronics, and as the value of goods shipped has increased, the demand for expedi-
tious transport and control, as well as transparency, has correspondingly increased (Plumeau
2016). Domestic air cargo in the United States also experienced shifts, particularly as fuel costs
increased in recent years and integrated express carriers developed deferred delivery business
models, reducing the demand for overnight delivery by aircraft and relying increasingly on truck
networks.
Since the late 2000s, however, the rate of growth of air cargo volumes, both worldwide and in
North America, has generally fallen short of forecasts or stakeholder expectations. For example,
air cargo tonnage was about 11% lower in 2015 at North American airports than had been forecast
in 2011 (Muscatello 2016).
As much as 20% of the freight moving through an air cargo facility can be truck-to-truck. Thus,
even though it is shipped with an air bill, it never actually gets on an aircraft. It therefore remains
unreported to the airport and can complicate the planning process if it is not anticipated in the plan-
ning (Muscatello 2016).

11
The trends of major significance to the future of air cargo include:
• Increasing focus of shipping activities on major gateway airports

• Rationalization of belly cargo capacity
• Modal shifts, new markets emerging (primarily international)
• Dynamic and changing distribution systems
• Imbalances in freight flows between key countries and gateway airports
• E-commerce (e.g., Amazon) (Muscatello 2016).
These trends create change in freight logistics, freight volumes, and freight transportation routes, not
analyzed in this report.
Data Sources and Access
The principal data required for estimating air cargo truck trip generation rates come from surveys
or interviews. However, gate surveys or cargo business interviews are costly and typically have low
response rates. In addition, most air cargo carriers are not willing to share truck movements data in
an effort to keep their customer’s information confidential.
Traffic counting data collection surveys, which employ pneumatic tubes in the roadway attached
to an automated counter, are potentially more useful. However, they are also more complex, as there
are significant non-cargo movements to/from cargo facilities that the traffic counting tubes will typi-
cally not be able to discriminate from cargo traffic without additional significant effort to manually
break out traffic types in the resulting count database. Collecting data through observation could be
another option; however, this can be expensive because a field surveyor will need to be in position
to collect the data for a designated time period. Video counting systems, which automatically count
vehicles entering and exiting a facility, may also hold promise for counting air cargo truck trips, but
similarly can be costly.

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

13
Table 2
Equivalent Truck Trips for United Parcel Service (UPS) Aircraft
Equivalent Tractor-
Approximate Number of Trailer Trips Moved
Aircraft Containers
Packages Between Aircraft and
Sort Facility*
747 29 14,293 16
767 24 12,674 12
757 15 7,660 8
DC-8 17 8,506 10
727-100 8 3,630 4
727-200 11 5,193 6
*Includes movements to and from airport.

Source: Characteristics of Urban Freight Systems.
to study the characteristics of urban freight systems. The project collected data from survey studies
and published reports on the intermodal aspects of urban freight movements (including air cargo
facilities). Table 2 shows data from the report that suggests a relationship between aircraft size and
equivalent truck trips (the data are for UPS and the movement of express packages).
Although this report states that truck access/egress to airports for air cargo represent a small
percentage of total airport traffic, it also notes that air cargo passing through Seattle–Tacoma Inter-
national Airport (Sea-Tac) is equivalent to 20,000 fully loaded five-axle truck per year or 50–60 truck-
loads per day.
This report includes some information on characteristics of truck movements in Wilmington, Ohio
(air cargo hub of Airborne Express and the site of large sorting and distribution operation). This facility,
which was privately-owned, is no longer operational. Table 3 provides details of these movements.
Table 3
Characteristics of Truck Movements in Wilmington Air Cargo Hub
Aircraft Trucks per Day Vehicle Type Time-frame
Day Sort Vehicles 18 (36 trips) Tractor-trailers 11 a.m. to 1 p.m.
60% tractor-trailer &

Night Sort Vehicles 30 (60 trips) 40% straight truck 11 p.m. to 3 a.m.
(24' or 48' trucks)
Information not
Extra Trucks 30 ad hoc trucks All day
available
30% tractor-trailer &

Support Trucks 250 (500 trips) 70% straight truck 7:00 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.
and vans
25 (50 trips) Information not

Fuel Shipment Trucks Monday–Friday
±4 available
Airborne Express 50% tractor-trailer & Information not

182 (364 trips)
Commerce Park1 50% staged trailers available
Total2 539 (1,078 trips)
1
A 400-acre, fully integrated industrial park and distribution center, adjacent to the airport and sort facility.
2
Privately owned Wilmington Airport, which serves as a major package sort location for Airborne Express and
has an adjacent industrial park and distribution center.
Source: Characteristics of Urban Freight Systems.

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

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

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

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

Cargo Type
Auto Truck
Belly Cargo 3.4 6.0
Express Cargo 3.4 1.2
International Cargo 0.95 0.14
Source: Pacific Gateway Cargo Center Traffic Impact Analysis.

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

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

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

*Volumes adjusted for un-counted hours and locations.

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

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

23
Table 11
JFK 2040 Estimated Truck Fleet Mix
OD Tonnage
Vehicle Percent Tonnage Load Operations
Vans 10 251,700 2 tons 125,850
40' Truck 30 755,100 10 tons 75,510
53' Truck 60 1,510,200 19 tons 79,484
Annual Trucking Operations 280,844

Daily Trucking Operations 982
Daily Number of Trucks (rounded) 500
Integrator/Courier—OD Tonnage
Vehicle Percent Tonnage Load Operations
Vans 20 139,600 2 tons 147,000
40' Truck 30 209,400 10 tons 20,940
53' Truck 50 349,000 19 tons 18,369
Annual Trucking Operations 186,369

Daily Trucking Operations 651
Daily Number of Trucks (rounded) 325
Source: “JFK Air Cargo Study.”
Interviews of Experts and Practitioners
To obtain an appreciation of practitioners’ needs related to truck trip generation rates of air cargo
facilities, a series of telephone interviews was conducted with a cross section of U.S. airport officials,
selected experts and practitioners, and panel members from FedEx and UPS.
Airports Representative Interviews:
• Atlanta Hartsfield–Jackson International Airport (ATL)

• Chicago O’Hare International Airport (ORD)
• Edmonton International Airport (EIA), Alberta, Canada
• John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK)
• Los Angeles International Airport (LAX)
• Memphis International Airport (MEM)
• Rickenbacker International Airport (LCK), Columbus, Ohio.
Air Cargo Expert and Partner Interviews:
• Boston Metropolitan Planning Organization

• Gibson Transportation Consulting
• InterVISTAS Consulting
• KPA
• Landrum and Brown
• Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG).
Air Cargo Carrier Representative Interviews:
• FedEx Express
• United Parcel Service (UPS).

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

Table 12
Summary of Phone Interviews with Airport Air Cargo Officials
Question/Topic LAX ORD ATL EIA LCK JFK
A major logistics
hub (FedEx & UPS
wide bodies ~46
operations/week)
plus growing A leading
Relatively small
Significant growth Among the nation’s widebody freight international air

airport
Air cargo growth in air cargo major trucking hubs lift (over 500 cargo center
Air cargo truck trips
Importance of air generally stagnant movements Critical economic Has more than four
do not have an international
cargo? Facilities operated by Significant cargo generator creating million square feet
impact on their real arrivals per year)
lease holders space development more than 27,000 of office and
estate development, Distribution and
planned jobs in Georgia warehouse space for
planning, etc. e-commerce cargo operations
fulfillment space
(~70 million sq. ft
within 1 mile of
LCK)
Obtained GPS data
on truck activity
A truck study by the
Collects count data from trucking
Northeast Cargo Very little has been
at about 67 No companies and a
Facility (cannot done beyond Have done truck
driveways around the Truck trips are a consultant is
reveal truck trips normal airport trip studies for
airport (incl. cargo very small part of analyzing for 53'
details) master planning logistics facilities
facilities) every year overall traffic truck access
Any studies of air Negotiating with A truck staging area surrounding airport
LAX Goods Some air cargo planning
cargo? IDOT/IL Tollway is being developed for local
Movements Study studies might have Currently exploring
for additional to help mitigate jurisdictions—but
(1990), found by the been done mainly the ATRI data
facilities truck congestion never been asked
research team for EIA planning Air cargo trucks
CMAP has been and blocking of for airside facilities
(airport officials purposes O/D study (before
very helpful in loading doors
were not aware of it) 1995)
doing regional truck
Air Cargo Study
studies
(2013)
Annual trip
generation reports
are mandated by LA
City Council for
If yes, study’s General airport
Master Plan N/A N/A N/A N/A
purpose? planning
To assess trending
with report forecasts
(well under
forecasts)
(continued on next page)
TABLE 12
(continued)
Question/Topic LAX ORD ATL EIA LCK JFK
Traffic engineering
LA DOT charges Currently, a
staff from both Port
fees for new consultant is doing
Authority Central
Estimates of truck development based this for Northeast
Office and JFK will
on ITE Trip Gen Cargo Campus
trips associated with review plans for
Manual rates Mostly have done N/A N/A N/A
the new/expanded new or redeveloped
Korean air cargo generic total traffic
building for impacts
facility? facility used in the past, nothing
on adjacent
“warehouse space” air cargo truck
roadways and
trip gen rates traffic-focused
access roads
With handlers—
control traffic
through taking over
Unusual for non-
leases (Swissport, Case-by-case is
airport entity to be Building facilities
Air cargo partners etc.), paving way on different. Greater
LA DOT for involved (real estate for forwarders
deciding how air community input is
for air cargo renovating building N/A development Doing land lease for
cargo is handled at considered for a
studies/planning? within cargo area industry buildings made by
the airport major development
involvement others
Airlines (cargo and project
possible)
passenger),
including
integrators
N/A = not applicable or not reported.
Table 13
Summary of Phone Interviews with Air Cargo Experts and Partners
Question/Topic SCAG Boston MPO Landrum & Brown InterVISTAS Consulting
Range and nature of Most airports pay

Used HDT model (which is
attention mainly to pax
analyses and tools you based on gate surveys at ports)
Developed an in-house model terminal, remote parking
employ for airport clients? for air cargo truck trips. Also
for air cargo truck trip and rental car facilities;
used RTP report for some truck
generation (superior to ACRP very little attention paid
trips information.
model), but proprietary (result to planning for major air
HDT air cargo truck trips come N/A
of Dubai airport master cargo facilities
from the agency’s RADAM
planning) Very rare there’s
which converts air cargo

Recent NYC Air Cargo Study original planning on
tonnage to truck trips, using the
used this model traffic for cargo
factors and relationships
facilities—usually just a
developed as part of RADAM.
straight-line trend
Data sources you use for Typically, no standard source;
usually ad hoc based on current Not much for air cargo
such analyses and studies? Consultants help SCAG.
need specific; mainly on pax
Nothing in-house regarding air N/A
Possibly environmental impact facilities, rental cars,
cargo truck trips.
docs for major freight facilities parking, concessions
(e.g., expanded container port)
Key shortcomings and/or Data that helps seeing the overall
structure of community impacts Employee car trips (may
complexities? Need to create a central data exceed truck trips) is
Guidance/structure for how to
access data that helps with hub/repository with airport another component of
SCAG thinks this subject is
community impacts data (not necessarily FAA) major freight hub traffic
something that had not put
What kinds and quantity of Most airports do not track and is important for
emphasis on in the past and now
flows exist that make an airport truck trips; most do not even additional research
Have not used RADAM model
work? (e.g., deadhead have a freight official Airports only want to
recently and cannot share
movements; empty chassis Need some general planning avoid congestion and
RADAM details
moving through) parameters to help understand carriers and freight
Overall picture of what moves nature of traffic at airport forwarders do not care
where and how can you obtain much
data for it
Key variables affecting air Application of drone
technology as substitution for
cargo facilities truck trips?
local truck trips (~10 years out)
New airlifters—new blimps—
2nd & 3rd tier airports (~3
N/A N/A years out) Future of cargo industry
Future growth of belly cargo
versus freighter cargo
Repatriation of overseas
industries
Fuel prices
Effects of changes in the
air cargo industry on the
N/A N/A Difficult to forecast Difficult to forecast
ability to plan for air cargo
facilities?
(continued on next page)
TABLE 13
(continued)
Question/Topic Gibson Transportation Consulting KPA
Range and nature of Very limited data and associated Absolutely zero in the way of
analyses and tools you methods tools/techniques
employ for airport clients? Worked on Aerotropolis project Too complex
Data sources you use for ITE Trip Gen rates for facilities
N/A
such analyses and studies? within and around airport
Key shortcomings and/or Airport–related trucks are
critical but not factored in the
complexities?
way it should be
Interest in doing these analyses
is limited by politics of local
situation
Never gets married up with local
planning documents, even in
communities that surround N/A
airports
Vast majority of airport
planning is focused on pax not
cargo
Significant planning
analyses/estimates must be
framed by “engineering
judgment”
Key variables affecting air
N/A N/A
cargo facilities truck trips?
Effects of changes in the E-commerce and door-to-door
are the biggest changes and
air cargo industry on the
those generate most of air cargo
ability to plan for air cargo and more truck trips
facilities? Difficult to forecast More pressure on freight
forwarders and airlines to be on
time. Has implications for
airports’ management of air
cargo facilities
N/A = not applicable or not reported.
Table 14
Summary of Phone Interviews with Air Cargo Carriers

Question/Topic UPS FedEx Express
Types of truck trip data requests • Number of vehicles per day and size of the vehicles (van,
truck, etc.)
received? • Type of demand/timing of demand
• Vehicles by times of day
• Usually no requests about volume or weight of cargo
Organizations typically request • Airport authority or commission or local agency looking to
• Local, state, federal agencies
information? plan infrastructure, highway route, etc.
Issues in providing the • Need to be careful about anti-trust and what can be shared
• Will share data if beneficial from a business perspective
information? • Confidentiality of customer information
Data that you can provide? • Generally, supporting local communities where UPS operates
• General info (e.g., number of trucks, type, frequency, weight
• UPS cannot provide tonnage, but will try to help with specific
of vehicles, time windows in an aggregate format)
local situations as possible
Data you provide typically used • Infrastructure planning and airport planning (airport master
plan)
for? • Unknown
• Municipal/regional/state agency for airport access planning,
etc.
Issue of little to no data available • Cannot release data and information regarding truck-to-truck
• Cannot release data and information regarding truck-to-truck transfers
to track air cargo truck-to-truck
transfers • Details that could be shared would be dependent on the nature
transfers? of request and what FedEx feels they could share
Advice to agencies/individuals • Companies will probably share data if they see an economic
benefit to them from the data sharing
seeking data on air cargo facility- • Doing ground counts, surveys, etc. of airport facilities and
• Good starting place is to request info (companies will not share
related truck trips? vehicle movements
data voluntarily)
• Ask TSA, CBP, etc. for help
• Requesters need to contact local airport operations/planning
team, who will act as a facilitator
30
chapter five
Case Examples
To obtain a detailed understanding of how and why airports and their local planning partners have devel-
oped and used air cargo-related truck trip generation rates and estimates, three case examples of selected
airports (Hartsfield–Jackson International, Los Angeles International, and Memphis International)
were undertaken. The selection of case example airports was based on the information collected and
analyzed in interviews as well as input and guidance from the project panel. Geographic diversity and the
nature of air cargo activities at each airport were also considered in the case example selection process.
Hartsfield–Jackson Atlanta International Airport (ATL)
Hartsfield–Jackson Atlanta International Airport is one of the 10 busiest cargo airports in the United
States by tonnage, with more than 625,000 metric tons of cargo moved in 2015. It also handled more
than 2,500 flights per day in 2015 with more than 100 million passengers. Air cargo is one of the ATL
airport’s top priorities, as air cargo activities account for more than 9,000 airport-based jobs, 27,000 jobs
in the region and $6.7 billion in business revenue. ATL forecasts 1.7 million metric tons increase of
air cargo within the next 5 to 10 years and expects that cargo business will build 1.7 million square
feet of new warehouse space to accommodate the anticipated growth. ATL currently has three main
air cargo complexes (North, Midfield, and South) with more than 1.5 million square feet of cargo
handling space. Each complex dockside access to adjacent interstate highways. More than 100 trucking
companies provide expedited ground transportation for air cargo shipments in ATL (Figure 5).
The dominant, integrated domestic carriers UPS and FedEx, who connect from ATL to their
national hubs in Louisville, Memphis, and Indianapolis, are the dominant air cargo service providers
in Atlanta. Although UPS and FedEx offer global services, international air cargo mostly travels in
the bellies of widebody passenger aircraft, for which the Delta Airlines’ principal hub at ATL offers
extensive service and connections through its own operations as well as with partner airlines to
European and Asian markets (WSP & Parsons Brinkerhoff 2016).
Many of the on-airport and off-airport roadways that provide access to ATL currently perform at
unacceptable levels of service and experience delays that are predicted to worsen. ATL is making a
strategic push to capture more air freight and has attracted several new carriers recently. If greater
market penetration combines with normal growth, and if online retail continues to push up package
volumes, the pressures at key external network access points to the air cargo complexes could be sub-
stantial. Because air cargo is time-sensitive and dependent on aircraft schedules, it tends to be bound
to peak periods that press against capacity limits (WSP & Parsons Brinckerhoff 2016).
To begin mitigating some of the growing air cargo-related truck congestion and operating issues,
ATL has initiated a truck staging system. According to airport officials, truck traffic to and from ATL
sometimes creates gridlock on neighboring roads. At peak hours, tractor-trailers often backed up to
the interstate while blocking driveways and side streets. In addition, truck drivers were self-selecting
which dock door to use, creating confusion, blocking docks, and triggering arguments. Still in its
development phase, the airport decided to create a distinct truck staging system that would not only
eliminate congestion, but also differentiate ATL in the industry and move it closer to its desired cargo
goals. When fully built-out, the system will include:
• A dedicated, secured staging lot with 40–60 spaces and check-in booth adjacent to the South
Cargo Complex and the expanded, consolidated cargo now in development.

31
FIGURE 5 ATL airport air cargo aerial map (Source: RSG, using map data from Google Earth, Nov. 2017).
• 100% participation by the cargo handlers and airlines to guarantee success of the program.
• Assigned matching of trucks with available docks.
• A computerized system using individual dock sensors with internal alerts (red and green lights
to indicate availability). There are 32 docks per existing building (128 total), and each will be
equipped with sensors. The system has metric reporting capabilities.
• Communication to ensure orderly pickup and delivery (Air Cargo News 2016).
While not a primary purpose of the new staging system, airport officials did say that the ability to
better understand truck movements and trip generation associated with air cargo may be a benefit that
the airport and others will be able to use to improve planning and operations. The staging system and
consolidated cargo complex are expected to be fully operational in 2018.
Los Angeles International Airport (LAX)
LAX is the seventh busiest airport in the world and the third busiest in the United States with more
than 2.1 million tons of cargo moved in 2015. Most of the 2,300 average daily flights that fly through
LAX carry at least some belly cargo; in addition, nearly 30 dedicated cargo airlines operate at LAX.
The airport has more than 2.1 million square feet of cargo space on 194 acres of ground. An addi-
tional four million square feet have been developed for cargo use in the immediate vicinity of the
airport. LAX has two major cargo complexes (Century and Imperial) (Figure 6).
As discussed in the literature review summary in chapter four, a comprehensive study of goods
movements was done at the LAX airport in 1990 to address specific traffic problems associated
with truck movements to/from the LAX airport. Trip generation rates were calculated by conducting

32
FIGURE 6 LAX airport air cargo area aerial map (Source: RSG, using map data from Google Earth, Nov. 2017).
interviews with air cargo carriers, freight forwarders, and truckers, and by using truck volume and
classification data, cargo area counts, and cargo volumes. The study concluded that the derived
trip generation rate calculated per tonnage is comparable and in range with the rates calculated in
previous studies.
Currently, the only air cargo truck-related information that LAX prepares is the annual trip
generation reports which is a requirement of the LAX Airport-Specific Plan (mandated by Los Angeles
City Council). These annual traffic generation reports from 2009 to 2015 are available on their web-
site. According to the website, “These reports identify the number of trips generated by LAX Airport,
the number of trips anticipated to be generated at the completion of any LAX Master Plan Project(s)
in development at the time of the report, the number of trips projected to be generated following the
implementation of the LAX Master Plan as informed by current and project-based trip counts, and
the number of trips anticipated to be generated by on-going LAX Master Plan construction activities.”
Vehicle trips are counted during a design day (Friday in August, a busy day in a busy month) and
the trip counts are reported for three peak periods (8–9 a.m., 11 a.m. to noon, and 5–6 p.m.) for the
Central Terminal Area and more than 60 airport-related driveways in and around the airport. These
data are compiled by LAX officials.
As part of the traffic count process, truck traffic data are recorded manually at the cargo facility
driveways and are reported for 13 cargo facilities in about 60 driveways around the airport (access points)
from which 13 driveways are used for cargo movements. These trip counts, which are reported for
inbound and outbound movements, are potentially useful for estimating truck trip generation rates by
comparing historical and current data. Using the square footage of air cargo facilities or total tonnage
to/from each facility, truck trip generation rates can be estimated using the peak hour number of
trucks reported in the previously mentioned trip generation reports.
According to the LAX airport official interviewed, there is not much demand for air cargo truck
trip information and most of the public and airport officials’ attention is paid to central terminal

33
Table 15
Summary Of LAX Cargo 2010 Forecasts (from the 1990 study)
Annual Daily Annual Trucked
Terminal Area (sf) Area Percentages Trucks per Ton
Truck Trips Truck Trips Cargo Tons
Cargo City 720,000 1,644,000 5,269 612,900 24% 2.68
Imperial 540,000 2,365,450 7,582 461,700 18% 5.12
Southside 750,000 1,057,168 3,388 639,900 25% 1.65

Southwest
750,000 2,008,828 6,439 637,200 25% 3.15
(new planned)
Notes: Southwest is a new forecasted terminal in 1990 study. Another planned cargo facility was northwest, but its data were not available from LAX airport in their
current traffic generation reports.
and passenger traffic congestion. Air cargo truck traffic is mostly on outer streets connecting to
LAX and have less traffic.
As discussed in the literature review, the 1990 study provided some forecasts of tonnages, terminal
expansions and truck trips for 2010. The forecast details, which are shown in Table 15, were com-
pared with those forecasts were compared with actual 2010 truck trips using public data from
the LAX website and some other data received from the LAX official interviewed. Calculation
details are shown in Table 16.
Based on the calculations, there were about 14,500 daily truck trips to/from LAX air cargo facilities
in four terminals (Table 16). This was calculated using the “air cargo terminals truck trip generation
rates” calculated in the 1990 study. Using the “annual trip generation reports” from LAX that was
discussed earlier, the number of daily truck trips are comparable with the calculated numbers. The
2010 LAX annual trip generation report has counted 588 trucks in the peak one-hour period in one
day in 2010. This is 1,600 trucks for three one-hour peak periods counted. Assuming that peak period
counts are 7% of total daily counts, a calculation based on publicly available comparison of truck
counts by hour from stations close to airports on NYS Traffic Data Viewer (http://gis3.dot.ny.gov/
Table 16
Calculated LAX Truck Trips in 2010 (based on truck trip generation rates in the 1990 study)
Annual Daily Annual Trucked
Terminal Area (sf) Area Percentages Trucks per Ton
Truck Trips Truck Trips Cargo Tons
Cargo City 899,026 1,726,692 4,933 651,582 34% 2.65
Imperial 593,469 1,139,832 3,257 430,125 22% 2.65
Southside 933,617 1,793,128 5,123 676,652 35% 2.65
Southwest 232,442 446,434 1,276 168,466 9% 2.65
Sources:
LAX Traffic Generation Reports (http://www.lawa.org/ourLAX/AnnualReports.aspx?id=8090), 2010 data.
LAX Traffic Volume Statistics (http://www.lawa.org/LAXStatistics.aspx).
Data received from LAX official interviewed.
Notes/Assumptions:
Area for each facility is based on current data received from LAX official interviewed. Area percentages are calculated based on these data.
Annual trucked cargo tons are calculated based on area percentages and total freight and mail tons moved from LAX (1,926,825 tons) from LAX statistics
(this assumes terminal tons are proportional to terminal area).
Annual truck trips are calculated using truck trip generation rate from the 1990 study (trucks per ton) mentioned in the literature review. Daily truck trips are
calculated assuming there are 350 days per year.

34
Table 17
LAX Airport Major Tenants
2013 Total Building
Primary Tenant Location Function/Land Use
Area (SF)
FedEx South Cargo East Cargo 405,220
United Airlines Century Cargo Complex Cargo 213,737
Mercury Air Cargo Century Cargo Complex Cargo 206,745
USPS Century Cargo Complex Cargo 197,044
Japan Airlines South Cargo East Vacant, Cargo 191,652
Korean Airlines South Cargo East Cargo 158,245
American Airlines Century Cargo Complex Cargo 148,813
Asiana Airlines / Virgin

Century Cargo Complex Cargo 144,175
Atlantic
Note: Century Cargo Complex is also known as “Cargo City.”
Source: LAX Airport summary of the cargo facilities (obtained from the interview contact).
html5viewer/?viewer=tdv) total daily counts based on 2010 traffic generation report was calculated
to be 11,760 trucks. This number is lower than the calculated 14,500 daily trucks but comparable.
Adjusting various assumptions for these calculations might make the numbers more comparable.
The fair conclusion could be that the calculated “air cargo terminals truck trip generation rates” in
the 1990 study using the trucks per ton approach results in reasonable number of trucks.
The LAX Airport cargo areas are generally oriented around three primary areas, known as the
“Cargo City” (also known as “Century Cargo Complex”), the “Imperial Cargo Complex,” and the
“South Cargo Area.” Twenty-seven on-airport warehouses provide more than 2.8 million sq. ft. of
warehouse and support space. All but one of these facilities offer airside-to-landside access. Four
additional off-airport warehouses providing 120,000 sq. ft. also serve LAX. Major tenants based on
building area currently include FedEx, United Airlines, Mercury Air Cargo, USPS, Japan Airlines,
Korean Airlines, American Airlines, and Asiana Airlines (see Table 17). These eight cargo facili-
ties account for about 60% of LAX cargo facility area and the majority of truck trips inbound and
outbound of LAX air cargo facilities.
Memphis International Airport (MEM)
Memphis International Airport (MEM) is owned and operated by the Memphis-Shelby County Airport
Authority (the Authority). As of 2015, MEM ranked first in the nation and second in the world (after
Hong Kong) for total air cargo tonnage handled (ACI 2015).
MEM includes two principal air cargo facilities: the FedEx “Superhub” on the north side of the
airport and the cargo east facility, located southeast of the main passenger terminal (Figure 7). The
FedEx Superhub encompasses numerous facilities to support cargo operations, including aircraft
gates/hardstand parking positions, sort facilities, maintenance hangars, corporate offices, employee
parking, support vehicle storage, and an independently operated fuel farm. FedEx facilities are located
both north and south of Runway 9-27. The central air cargo facility includes additional air cargo aprons
and hangars facilities that serve UPS and other non-FedEx carriers (Memphis Master Plan 2010).
For the first 10 months of 2016 (January–October), MEM handled a total of 3.66 million U.S.
pounds of air cargo, including all-cargo carriers, belly cargo and others. This was a decline of about

35
FIGURE 7 MEM airport air cargo aerial map (Source: RSG, using map data from Google
Earth, Nov. 2017).
5% from the same period in 2015. MEM officials stated that FedEx activity represents about 99% of
MEM’s total air cargo weight handled. Every weekday night at the Superhub, FedEx lands, unloads,
reloads, and flies out 150 to 200 jets. Its aircraft take off and land every 90 seconds between 11 p.m. and
4 a.m. The Superhub processes between 1.2 million and 1.6 million packages a night. The central air
cargo facility handles UPS, which is mostly road feeder services and truck-to-truck transfers, as well
as other air cargo carriers. The volume of belly cargo has declined in recent years to a very low level.
Because FedEx dominates the air cargo situation at MEM, the airport’s master planning typically
includes significant consideration of FedEx’s growth and plans. Occasionally, the airport’s master
planning consultant will conduct supplemental modeling of area roadways, as warranted by existing

36
or forecast conditions related to airport access for passengers and cargo. However, MEM officials said
this modeling did not include identifying or generating any truck trip generation rates for air cargo
facilities specifically. One of the factors that mitigates the need to conduct such truck trip generation
analysis is the airport’s easy access to Interstate highways that provides substantial excess capacity.
The MEM officials believe a major change in highway demand and/or capacity would be required to
generate interest in pursuing a more detailed, granular study of truck trip generation associated with
air cargo.
MEM officials said the Memphis Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) has previously
conducted various studies of traffic flow to look at truck traffic regionally and around the airport,
although none of these were specific to the airport. The officials were not aware of any past instances
of the airport or air cargo firms providing truck trip estimates to the MPO (or other agencies) connected
with development of a new or expanded air cargo facility. They did note that MEM has a representative
on the MPO’s Technical Advisory Committee, whose role is to help prioritize and fund road projects
across the metropolitan region.
In 2014, MPOs developed a strategy to create an integrated urban land development, often referred
to as an Airport City. The impact area of this development extends as far as 25 miles into East Arkansas
and North Mississippi and 50 square miles directly adjacent to the airport. This Plan developed a
strategy to create an airport-integrated urban land form, where the impact and development attraction
of the airport extends out as far as 25 miles into East Arkansas and North Mississippi and 50 square
miles directly around the airport (often referred to as Airport City). Although this ambitious plan
calls for several major investments and initiatives related to improving freight and truck movement
and connectivity throughout the Airport City area, it did not develop data or information on truck
trip generation associated with air cargo or other facilities. Such analyses may be conducted as part
of future implementation studies.
Conclusions from Case Examples
The case examples for this synthesis collectively suggest that large freight hub airports and air cargo
facility developers/owners do not generally conduct truck trip generation analyses when building
or expanding a facility unless required to do so by relevant authority. The studied airports contain
large-scale cargo facility areas and move significant amounts of freight to/from the airport. However,
it appears that passenger traffic congestion receives the majority of public and airport attention,
rather than to truck movements to/from air cargo facilities.
Additional data was obtained from the LAX airport and used, along with the airport’s traffic gen-
eration reports, to calculate truck trips and compare previous forecasts of air cargo terminal truck
trip generation rates (from a LAX study in 1990). This resulted in reasonable and comparable truck
trips per day when using a trucks per ton approach for estimating air cargo truck trip generation rates.
This calculation and comparison could not, however, be conducted for the other two case example
airports because related data were not available. Any truck-related studies by or for the case example
airports in recent years were conducted by consultants. Consequently, the data necessary to perform
analyses comparable to that conducted for LAX are not available.

37
chapter six
Conclusions AND SUGGESTIONS

FOR FURTHER RESEARCH
The review conducted for this synthesis revealed that the development of truck trip generation rates
for air cargo facilities has historically received little support or attention from planners, airports, the
air cargo industry, or researchers. To the extent that literature related to air cargo facility develop
ment, planning and operations exists, relatively little of this literature focuses on or addresses air
cargo facility-related truck trip generation rates, likely because most airports maintain a primary focus
on passenger traffic rather than freight. As the value, volume, and importance of air cargo grows,
airports and transportation planners may place more emphasis on truck traffic associated with that
growth. The interviews conducted for this synthesis collectively suggest that there has been only
limited interest in understanding the truck trips generated by air cargo facilities, particularly on
off-airport roadways.
The information and data required to develop these truck trip rates are not readily available to
planners and researchers. For example, the most robust and precise data for air cargo facilities is
generally collected and maintained by private air cargo carrier firms, and is considered proprietary
and confidential. For the most part, these firms will only share such data on a case-by-case basis, as
deemed appropriate by corporate officials. However, when these firms do share their data, it is
typically aggregated in a manner that allows a user to understand only total tonnages or trucks to
and from a facility, sometimes by time of day.
The other options for obtaining the data to support development of truck trip generation rates are
limited and potentially resource-intensive. Several airport officials suggested conducting vehicle
counts at access points on air cargo facility roadways and/or surveys of truckers. However, it appears
to be uncommon that public agencies outside of airport authorities, such as metropolitan planning
organizations, city or county planning and transportation departments, and state departments of trans
portation, systematically conduct such efforts or collect such data. Again, it is likely that the limited
resources available to understand airport ground traffic are allocated mainly to passenger operations.
The principal gap in existing practices remains the lack of availability of current and usable data
(or data confidentiality requirements) on air cargo facility-related truck trips. Without data that pro
vides a fine enough level of granularity to discern and understand the details of truck trips serving
air cargo facilities, such as volumes, tonnage, times of day, and types of trucks, it will be difficult to
develop guidance that practitioners and airports can apply with confidence.
As noted in this report, the approach employed in the 1990 LAX Airport Study may have appli
cability to a wider spectrum of airports. Such application would require additional and more robust
data to be obtained for the subject airport. The “trucks per ton” method was employed for LAX 2010
truck trips using data available through the LAX traffic generation reports and compared the results
with actual traffic counts (with some assumptions). This effort produced comparable and reasonable
truck trip numbers. However, additional research would help to evaluate this method for other large
airports (using actual daily truck trip counts with a truck count survey) and compare with any truck
trip modeling results (if done and available for the region/airport) to be able to suggest the most
effective approach to use. The only way that different approaches could be evaluated/validated is
by using actual truck counts to/from air cargo facilities, an approach that requires that traffic count
data be made available through the airport or by performing the potentially expensive roadside
truck surveys. Another option for a planning agency to develop truck trip generation rates is to

38
build a special generation model along with the region’s travel demand model (similar to SCAG
HDT). However, such a model will also require truck count data for validation.
Appendix A provides a brief checklist of considerations that planners can use to identify pos
sible information and data sources and options when conducting research into truck trip genera
tion associated with air cargo facilities. Appendix B reproduces the guides developed for the three
different groups interviewed for this synthesis, as described in chapter one. Appendix C provides
details of potential freight movements data sources that could be used for estimating airport truck
trips data.

39
Glossary
Air cargo Freight and mail carried by passenger airlines, integrated express carriers, and all-cargo
carriers.
Air cargo apron/ramp area Portions of the airport tarmac designated for air cargo aircraft
parking and operations.
Air forwarder Firm specializing in arranging storage and shipping of merchandise and mate-
rials on behalf of its shippers. It usually provides a full range of services, including tracking
inland transportation, preparation of shipping and export documents, warehousing, booking
cargo space, negotiating freight charges, freight consolidation, cargo insurance, and filing of
insurance claims.
Air freight That portion of air cargo that does not include mail. Air freight ranges in size from par-
cels weighing several ounces to large shipments weighing thousands of pounds.
Airmail That portion of air cargo that does not include freight; typically composed of letters,
parcels, and packages.
All-cargo carriers All-cargo carriers operate airport-to-airport air cargo and freight services for
their customers but do not offer passenger service.
Cargo airports Cargo airports are dedicated to the movement of air cargo and offer the advantage
of uncongested airspace relative to airports with passenger airline service.
Cargo buildings Warehouses, buildings, and retrofitted hangars dedicated to facilitating the trans-
port of air cargo at airports.
Cargo terminal A cargo terminal is a facility designed to move cargo containers between differ-
ent transport vehicles for onward transportation. At an airport, the cargo terminal is used to
move cargo between aircraft and trucks. Only a few examples of pure cargo terminals exist in the
world, including SuperTerminal 1 at Hong Kong International Airport and Emirates’ Cargo Mega
Terminal at Dubai International.
Consolidation center/drop station A consolidation center, or drop station, is intended to reduce

truck congestion at large international gateway airports by consolidating the loads of multiple
trucks at a point well outside the airport prior to transporting to the destination airport.
Converted hangar/warehouse A converted hangar/warehouse is a stand-alone building originally

designed as an aircraft hangar, converted to be used as a warehouse for the storage and transfer of
air cargo. DHL’s converted warehouse at San Francisco International Airport is a prime example
of this type of facility. Brussels Airport is also home to a converted Sabena hangar that was used
for air cargo sorting by DHL.
Cross-dock less-than-truckload (LTL) warehouse A cross-dock LTL warehouse is a facility

where materials from trucks or rail cars are unloaded and directly loaded onto outbound trucks or
rail cars, with little or no storage in between.
Dedicated truck parking Parking for trucks/trailers on the landside of cargo buildings. Includes
spaces in the building’s truck-bay doors/docks and parking lot truck/trailer spaces.
First-line air cargo facilities First-line air cargo facilities have direct airside access and are typi-
cally used by airlines as well as ground handlers that require direct access to the aircraft and usu-
ally park adjacent to the cargo building.

40
Freight ton-mile (FTM) One ton of cargo carried one mile.
Freighter Aircraft capable of carrying only cargo.
Ground handler Businesses that provide aircraft handling services to air cargo and passenger
airlines. These businesses assist with the loading and unloading of aircraft, cargo transport,
and material handling.
Ground support equipment (GSE) Tugs, K loaders, push-back tractors, trucks, belt loaders, dol-
lies, ULDs, and other vehicles and equipment used to service air cargo aircraft.
Integrated express cargo carriers Cargo carriers offering door-to-door service typically under
one brand. For example, FedEx Express, UPS, and DHL.
Intercontinental hubs An intercontinental hub connects two or three continents by air cargo and
passenger aircraft and can be in relatively remote parts of the world, away from dense populations.
These airports offer cargo hub capability as well as aircraft service centers for aircraft needing to
refuel and change crews.
International gateways The international gateway functions as a consolidation, distribution, and

processing point for international air cargo. To a certain extent, an international air cargo gateway
is like a hub airport in that the gateway airport is not reliant on the surrounding market area to
generate sufficient cargo to justify air cargo-related operations.
Load factor Revenue ton-miles divided by available ton-miles.
National cargo hub The cargo hub is the backbone of an integrated express carrier since it provides
connections to each market in the integrator’s system. Each day of operation, flights from around
the world arrive at the hub. Once at the hub, packages are unloaded, sorted for the appropriate
destination market, and loaded onto the appropriate outbound aircraft.
Non-integrated all-cargo carriers Cargo carriers offering airport-to-airport cargo service, such
as Atlas, Cargolux, and Evergreen. These carriers rely heavily on air forwarders to transport cargo to
and from the aircraft.
Origin and destination (OD)/local market stations Local market stations, or direct air cargo
services (OD service to an airport’s surrounding market area), are generally near population cen-
ters where there is a concentration of industry, commerce, and transportation infrastructure. These
airports represent the spoke in a hub-and-spoke air carrier network.
Passenger airlines Passenger airlines generally provide airport-to-airport service, with freight and
mail carried as belly cargo. Air cargo services provided by passenger airlines vary in scope and
size from airline to airline, based on the type of aircraft operating within their fleets.
Passenger belly cargo Cargo loaded into the belly (and tail) compartments of passenger aircraft.
Regional hubs Regional hubs serve the region in which they are located by performing the cargo
sorting and distribution functions of a specific carrier’s primary hub.
Road feeder service (RFS) Cargo that is transported by surface, usually by a dedicated truck, on
an airway bill. Carriage between origin and destination may be exclusively by surface or also may
feed into airport-to-airport or surface transportation.
SCAG Southern California Association of Governments, which functions as the metropolitan

planning organization for the greater Los Angeles region.

41
Second-line air cargo facilities Second-line air cargo facilities may be on the airport premises
but do not offer direct airside access. They work well for tenants who do not have aircraft or can
access the aircraft through other through-the-fence access points.
Sorting facility Sorting facilities are designed to consolidate and process air cargo, routing it
through the appropriate channel for further transport or local delivery. Automated sorting is used
by integrators at their hub terminals to achieve their desired turnaround times and delivery com-
mitments. These facilities do not necessarily need to be located on the airport premises.
Third-line air cargo facilities Third-line air cargo facilities are in areas surrounding airports
and may be owned by private landlords but are not directly connected with the airport. Although
not on-airport property, these facilities offer aviation service providers the proximity to the
airport they desire.
Through-the-fence gate airside access Security gates near cargo buildings that allow vehicles
access from landside to the air cargo ramp/apron.
Trip generation Trip generation is the first step in the conventional four-step transportation fore-
casting process and predicts the number of trips originating in or destined for a particular traffic
analysis zone.
Unit load device (ULD) A unit load device is a pallet or container used to load luggage, freight,
and mail onto widebody aircraft and specific narrow-body aircraft.
Warehouse Warehouses are buildings with many different functional definitions, depending on the
operator’s role. Activities that take place in a warehouse relating to air cargo include unloading/
breakdown, buildup/loading, import/export document processing, security screening, tracking/
tracing, inventory/control, perishables refrigeration, product inventory, delivery and receipt of
goods, scanning and processing, and administration.

42
References
Air Cargo News, “All About Airports: Atlanta Moves to Truck Staging,” 2016 [Online]. Available:
http://www.aircargonews.com/0616/160613/Atlanta-Moves-To-Truck-Staging.html [accessed
Sept. 2016].
Airports Council International, “ACI Releases Preliminary World Airport Traffic Rankings—
Apr. 4,” 2016 [Online]. Available: http://www.aci.aero/News/Releases/Most-Recent/2016/04/04/
ACI-releases-preliminary-world-airport-traffic-rankings [accessed Nov. 2016].
Balducci, P., et al., Guidebook for Estimating the Economic Impact of Air Cargo Operations at Air
ports, ACRP 03-16, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C.,
2014.
Beagan, D.F., M.J. Fischer, and A.R. Kuppam, Quick Response Freight Manual II, FHWA,
Washington, D.C., 2007 [Online]. Available: http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/publications/qrfm2/
qrfm.pdf [accessed Sept. 2016].
Biggs, D.C., M.A. Bol, J. Baker, G.D. Gosling, J.D. Franz, and J.P. Cripwell, ACRP Report 26:
Guidebook for Conducting Airport User Surveys, Transportation Research Board of the National
Academies, Washington, D.C., 2009.
Boeing 2014–2015. “Boeing World Air Cargo Forecasts.” [Online]. Available: http://www.boeing.com/
resources/boeingdotcom/commercial/about-our-market/cargo-market-detail-wacf/download-
report/assets/pdfs/wacf.pdf [accessed Sept. 2016].
Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Air Cargo Summary Data (All), October 2002–July 2016,
U.S.DOT, Washington, D.C., 2016 [Online]. Available: http://www.transtats.bts.gov/freight.
asp?pn=0&display=data2 [accessed Oct. 2016].
Cambridge Systematics, HDR Engineering, Canin Associates and Aviation Analytics, Central Florida
Regional Freight Mobility Study, Final Report, MetroPlan Orlando, 2013.
Frawley, W.E., J.D. Borowiec, A. Protopapas, J.E. Warner, and C.A. Morgan, Guidebook on Land
side Freight Access to Airports, Research Project, Texas Transportation Institute, College Sta-
tion, 2011.
Goldner, L.G., A. de Melo Nascimento, and I. Marilia Dantas Pinto, “Analysis of the Salgado
Filho Airport as a Trip Generator Center,” Journal of Transport Literature, Vol. 8, No. 3, 2014,
pp. 229–249.
GWL Realty Advisors, “Air Cargo Supply Chain and the Changing Dynamics of Airports in
Canada,” 2014.
Landrum and Brown. 2013. “JFK Air Cargo Study,” NYCEDC, 2013 [Online]. Available: http://
www.nycedc.com/sites/default/files/filemanager/Projects/Air_Cargo_Study/06-Air_Cargo_
Capacity_and_Future_Demand_053112_MN.pdf [accessed Aug. 2016].
Maynard, M., et al., ACRP Report 143: Guidebook for Air Cargo Facility Planning and Develop
ment, 2015.
Meyer Mohaddes Associates, Pacific Gateway Cargo Center CMP Traffic Impact Analysis, Aeroterm
and City of Ontario, 2006 [Online]. Available: http://www.lawa.org/uploadedfiles/ont/pdf/pgcc/
deir/pgcc_app%20c_traffic%20impact%20analysis.pdf [accessed Aug. 2016].
Meyer Mohaddes Associates, Subregional Freight Movement Truck Access Study, 2004 [Online].
Available: http://www.sanbag.ca.gov/planning2/pdf/WestValleyTruckStudy-MMA-2004.pdf.
[accessed Aug. 2016].
MTC, R2A, Keiser and Associates, and Vince Mellone, “Regional Airport System Plan Update,”
San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, Regional Airport Planning Com
mittee, 2000 [Online]. Available: Accessed September 2016. http://www.bcdc.ca.gov/planning/
reports/RegionalAirportSystemPlanUpdate2000_Volume3AlternativesToNewRunways_
RegionalAirportCapacityAndDelay_Traffic_Environment_Feb2001.pdf.
Muscatello, D., “Changing Dynamics of Air Cargo,” ACI-NA/AAAE, Airport Board and Commis
sioners Conference, 2016 [Online]. Available: http://aci-na.org/sites/default/files/5air_cargo_
dynamics.pdf [accessed Sept. 2016].
Plumeau, P., “The Evolving World of Freight and Goods Movement: Implications for Transpor-
tation Planning and Community Design,” On the Horizon: State of Transportation Planning,
2016, pp. 38–44.

43
The World Bank Group, “Air Freight: A Market Study with Implications for Landlocked Countries,”
2009.
TranSystems, Air Cargo Mode Choice and Demand Study, California Department of Transportation,
Sacramento, 2010.
Wegmann, F.J., A. Chatterjee, M.E. Lipinski, B.E. Jennings, and R.E. McGinnis, Characteristics of
Urban Freight Systems, U.S. DOT. Washington, D.C., 1995
Wilbur Smith Associates and Evaluation and Training Institute, A Study of Goods Movement
at Los Angeles International Airport, Southern California Association of Governments,
Los Angeles, 1990.
WSP and Parsons Brinckerhoff, Atlanta Regional Freight Mobility Plan Update, Atlanta Regional
Commission, 2016

44
Appendix A
Checklist of Considerations Associated
with Air Cargo-Related Truck Trip Data
The following provides a general “checklist” of considerations that planners can use to identify possible
information and data sources and options when conducting research into truck trip generation asso-
ciated with air cargo facilities. This list is not exhaustive nor will it be appropriate for every situation.
However, it provides transportation planners and analysts with a starting point for better understanding
the dynamics of air cargo movements and associated truck activities.
A. What are the air cargo tonnages handled by the airport?

• All-cargo carriers
• Belly cargo
• Integrated express carriers
(Note: Airport-published/maintained air cargo tonnage reports may be used along with truck count data
to calculate truck trip generation rates of air cargo facilities.)
B. What are the air cargo flows at the airport? Where is cargo coming from and going to?
C. What entities (agencies, offices, firms) hold/maintain the data?
D. What are the truck trip counts and classifications (truck types) associated with the air cargo facility?
E. What are the different types of air cargo handled at air cargo facilities?
F. What percentage of truck movements are truck-truck transfers and what percentage are to/from
airport and to/from locations outside the airport?
G. How will the region’s economic status/growth affect air cargo demand at the airport?

45
Appendix B
Interview Guides Used in This Study
Airport Air Cargo Managers/Officials
A. What is the importance of air cargo to your airport and community?

B. Have you undertaken any studies of air cargo, particularly related to air cargo truck trip planning?
C. If answer to (B) is yes, what was the study’s purpose—specific development/facility plan, eco-
nomic development, airport master planning? Would you send us any relevant documents associ-
ated with the truck trip estimation?
D. What types of air cargo and air cargo access to your airport do you plan for?
E. When building a new or expanding an existing air cargo facility, do you typically provide estimates
of truck trips associated with the new or expanded facility to the airport and/or municipal or regional
planning/permitting agency(ies)?
F. If answer to (1) is yes, how are these estimates calculated?
G. Who are the air cargo partners you work with for these types of studies/planning (e.g., shippers,
integrators, non-carrier integrators, forwarders, passenger airlines, cargo airlines)?
Air Cargo Experts/Consultants
A. What is the range and nature of analyses and tools you employ for airport clients, particularly
related to air cargo-related truck trip generation and assignment?
B. What are the data sources you use for such analyses and studies?
C. What do you see as the key shortcomings and/or complexities in conducting such analyses and
studies, including the data required to support them?
D. What, if any, do you see as the impact of these shortcomings on the usefulness and/or credibility of
such analyses and studies?
E. What are the key variables (local, national, global) affecting truck trips associated with air cargo
facilities that an airport and its local planning partners should be aware of when estimating future
truck trip generation?
F. How are changes in the air cargo industry affecting the ability to plan adequately for air cargo
facilities?
Air Cargo Businesses and Associations
A. What are the types of truck trip data requests your company or your membership receive?
B. Which organizations typically request information?
C. What issues do you have in providing the information?
D. What data can you provide and what data is off-limits?
E. How is the data you provide typically used?
F. Airports typically report that there is little to no data available for them to account for or track
air cargo truck-to-truck transfers. Please speak about this issue and the magnitude of the issue at
airports where you operate.

46
Appendix C
Potential Freight Movements Data Sources
RSG also reviewed available national data sets that could potentially be useful in getting/estimating air-
port truck trips data. Some of the potential data sets reviewed are summarized in Table C1.
Table C1
Potential Data Sources for Airport Truck Trip Movements
Source Data Relevance Pros/Cons Use
Detail network tons
Weight and value of air Free to public
Includes highway truck could be analyzed for
cargo movements and Excludes letter-type of
FHWA FAF/CFS traffic and truck tons on highway links by the
shipment sizes by O-D package shipped by air
the network airports for truck trips
pairs (FAF zones) Uses T-100 data
to/from airports
Includes number of
trucks for O-D To obtain number of
IHS/Global Weight and value of air
movements (county to Costly (however, states trucks to/from counties
cargo movements and
Insight county). Calculated might have purchased and airports
shipment sizes by O-D
from tons based on the data for other uses) To obtain tons of cargo
Transearch pairs (counties)
truck payloads to/from airport
assumptions
Free to public
Weight of freight and Includes airport-to-
Limited coverage of
mail air cargo airport segment or To obtain tons of cargo
FAA T100 carriers’ filings
transported (domestic market weight of cargo to/from airport
(particularly for all-
and international) moved
cargo service)
Departure and arrival Air cargo activity
tonnage of “mail” and information including Not all airports publish
Airport Traffic To obtain tons of cargo
“freight” in both the weight of loaded and such reports or have
Reports to/from airport
“international” and unloaded cargo at the those available to public
“domestic” markets airport
FAF = freight analysis framework
CFS = commodity flow survey

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 978-0-309-39003-3
COLUMBIA, MD
PERMIT NO. 88
U.S. POSTAGE
90000
PAID
9 780309 390033

The National Academies Press: Estimating Truck Trip Generation For Airport Air Cargo Activity

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

The National Academies Press: Estimating Truck Trip Generation For Airport Air Cargo Activity

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS

This PDF is available at http://nap.edu/24848 SHARE

Estimating Truck Trip Generation for Airport Air Cargo

56 pages | 8.5 x 11 | PAPERBACK

– Access to free PDF downloads of thousands of scientiﬁc reports

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

AIRPORT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM

A Synthesis of Airport Practice

Research Sponsored by the Federal Aviation Administration

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

AIRPORT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM ACRP SYNTHESIS 80

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.

TOPIC PANEL S03-13

SYNTHESIS STUDIES STAFF

COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMS STAFF

ACRP COMMITTEE FOR PROJECT 11-03

AIRCRAFT OWNERS AND PILOTS association

AIRPORTS CONSULTANTS COUNCIL

AIRPORTS COUNCIL INTERNATIONAL–NORTH AMERICA

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

5 Chapter Two Description of Air Cargo System Components

9 Chapter Three Complexities Associated with Developing

12 Chapter Four Methods of Estimating Truck Trips for Air

30 Chapter Five Case examples

37 Chapter Six Conclusions and Suggestions for

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

44 Appendix A Checklist of Considerations Associated with Air

45 Appendix B Interview Guides Used in This Study

46 Appendix C Potential Freight Movements Data Sources

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Estimating Truck Trip Generation for

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Scope and Methodology

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

• Atlanta Hartsfield–Jackson International Airport (ATL)

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Description of Air Cargo System Components

Types of Cargo Carriage

Passenger Airlines and Combination Carriers

Integrated Express Carriers

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Baggage hold Wholesale

Polar, Kalitta Main deck of Larger

*No longer operating.

Types of Airport Air Cargo Facilities

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Belly Cargo Handling for Passenger Airlines

All-Cargo Carrier Facilities

Integrated Express Carrier Facilities

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Complexities Associated with Developing Truck

Determinants of Air Cargo Truck Trips

Dynamic Cargo Types and Volumes

Reduced Air Cargo Capacity and Shifts to Truck

Pace and Nature of Change in the Air Cargo Industry

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

The trends of major significance to the future of air cargo include:

9 Chapter Three Complexities Associated with Developing

12 Chapter Four Methods of Estimating Truck Trips for Air

37 Chapter Six Conclusions and Suggestions for

44 Appendix A Checklist of Considerations Associated with Air

45 Appendix B Interview Guides Used in This Study