The
(SCAG)
Steven
P. Erie, Ph.D., Project Manager
Andrew
Mckenzie, Ph.D.
Scott
MacKenzie, M.P.P.
Susan
Shaler, M.B.A.
This study
was financed
with
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
In recent years the
focus of the SCAG Region’s airport debate has shifted from finding new
airport
capacity to better utilization of existing capacity.
The existing urban airports are highly
constrained and encroached while available capacity is concentrated at
suburban
airports in the Inland Empire and
This Regional Airport
Management Study addresses that need.
The Study’s purposes are to: (a) identify, compare, and evaluate
the
nation’s leading approaches to regional airport and ground access
governance
and coordination; (b) determine what management system is most
appropriate for
the SCAG Region consistent with the 2004 RTP’s “Regional Airport
Consortium”
concept; and (c) develop an efficient implementation plan for the
selected
prototype(s). The right governance
system ensures that the entity is an effective vehicle for implementing
a broad
range of SCAG regional policies, ranging from aviation and ground
transportation to growth visioning and coordination with the proposed
Maglev
joint powers authority.
Methodologically, we
review existing surveys and research, and conduct a supplemental survey
of the
nation’s 18 largest metropolitan areas concerning their airport systems
and
governance, ground access systems, and regional airport and ground
access
planning. We conducted Internet surveys,
and interviewed airport and transportation officials and planners in
Our
research suggests that while many regional airport management options
appear
available, most are inconsistent with a multi-jurisdiction,
multi-airport
“airport consortium” concept. Thus, we
exclude pure federal, state, county, municipal, regional or port
district
models of metropolitan airport management.
We believe that three governance arrangements stand out in terms
of
their political and legal feasibility: (a) a
New
England-Style MOU: The New England Regional
Airport
Consortium consists of an MOU between ten airports and six states to
perform
joint planning and marketing to encourage service at the region’s
secondary
airports and relieve pressure at
Reconstituted
SCRAA:
A second
approach would be to revive and reconstitute the
inactive Southern California Regional Airport Authority, which remains
fully
funded. SCRAA’s membership consisted of
the City of
A
New JPA: A third option would be
to create a new
joint powers authority (JPA). Such an
entity would not be burdened by SCRAA’s apparent record of failure. A new JPA could create a more inclusive
membership and adopt more flexible and consensus-building rules. This might be done in conjunction with the
official dissolution of SCRAA, with unspent member contributions
transferred to
the new JPA to jumpstart the process.
Relative to a MOU, a JPA under the California Government Code
can be a
separate organizational entity with powers and authority bestowed upon
its
participating governmental jurisdictions.
The joint powers agreement can authorize a policymaking board or
commission that may—or may not—consist of elected officials.
The
Study’s major findings regarding an airport consortium structure and
implementation strategy are as follows:
(1)
The
(2) There are distinct tradeoffs
between MOU and JPA approaches. An
MOU-based approach to regional airport
governance has the benefits of ease of creation and flexibility. The qualitative difference between a MOU and
JPA approach involves the amount of formal authority invested. The MOU creates little formal authority. In contrast, the JPA approach gives the
regional entity enhanced powers for achieving the collective goals of
its
members. This approach also commits its
members to ongoing participation and decision-making processes. A
strategy for
minimizing the shortcomings of the MOU approach would be to invest it
with more
structure than is typical of MOU-based organizations. As part of the
MOU
agreement, the participating parties could agree to meet on a regular
basis,
and develop bylaws that would structure their deliberations towards
achieving
identified goals and objectives.
(3) A “structured” MOU is the preferred
approach to creating an initial
(4) Airport consortium roles should
include
implementing SCAG policies, collaborative marketing, and serving as an
information clearinghouse and intergovernmental interface. The Regional Airport Consortium needs to work
hand-in-hand with SCAG in developing and implementing the RTP. For example, it should rank airport ground
access projects for the RTP every three to four years.
The consortium should identify complementary
roles and market niches between airports, and promote consideration of
innovative ways to achieve improved ground access to underutilized
suburban
airports, including high-speed rail access.
An academic Peer Review Team, similar to the group formed in
Similarly
to the New England Airport Consortium the new entity should consider
launching
a collaborative marketing venture, bringing the suburban passenger and
cargo
airports to the attention of the travel and tourist industries, and
industries
dependent upon air cargo shipments.
Working with the region’s business organizations, the new
airport
consortium should consider sponsoring a Fly Southern California
conference,
linking the airports with the airlines and their schedulers, travel
agents, the
tourist industry, the freight industry, and relevant industry
associations. Collaborative marketing
can serve the needs of constrained urban airports as well.
Here the consortium should focus marketing
efforts on flights and services most benefiting these urban communities.
The
consortium can be a clearinghouse and interface for the region’s
airport
operators. Thus, it can share
information regarding new federal and state policy mandates, and might
serve as
a critical coordinating interface between the region’s airport system
and
relevant federal agencies (such as the FAA, TSA, EPA, and DOT) and
their
OVERVIEW AND
OBJECTIVES
The
SCAG Region’s current airport management system is among
the most decentralized and complex in the nation if not the world. The 12 urban and suburban commercial airports
in the six-county region are operated by ten separate governing bodies,
ranging
from municipal departments (Los Angeles World Airports and Long Beach’s
Public
Works Department), to county agencies (e.g., Orange County’s John Wayne
Airport), to facilities operated as Joint Powers Authorities (e.g., Bob
Hope
[formerly
In
recent years the focus of the Region’s airport debate has
shifted from finding new airport capacity to better utilization of
existing
capacity. The existing urban airports
are highly constrained and encroached while available capacity is
concentrated
at suburban airports in the Inland Empire and north
With
SCAG’s 2004 adopted Regional Aviation Plan, a dormant Southern
California Regional Airport Authority, and proposed legislation to
create a
Southern California Regional Aviation Commission (AB 1197), this is an
appropriate time to consider new regional governance, management, and
coordination mechanisms for the Region’s airport and ground access
systems. The Regional Aviation Plan
recommends
decentralizing passenger and air cargo service from congested urban
airports to
outlying suburban airports where capacity is available.
Its implementation requires identifying
appropriate regional governance mechanisms and strategies to better
coordinate
the Region’s airport, ground access, and related planning and
development. This Regional Airport
Management Study
addresses that need.
What
are the most promising available alternatives in terms
of governance and management structures for the SCAG Region’s
multi-airport and
ground access systems? Other large
metropolitan
areas have faced similar challenges in designing effective regional
governance
and coordination arrangements for multi-airport and ground access
systems. A host of different governance
approaches
have been developed. One model features
a state (or even multi-state) multi-purpose authority operating
airports,
ports, bridges and tunnels. This is the
case in the
Elsewhere,
local governments—counties, cities, regional
authorities, or joint powers authorities—manage one or more facilities
in
multi-airport systems. For example, in
South Florida, county agencies run airports in Miami-Dade,
The
purposes of this study are to: (a) identify, compare,
and evaluate the leading approaches to regional airport and ground
access
governance and coordination; (b) determine what management system is
most appropriate
for the SCAG Region consistent with the 2004 RTP’s “Regional Airport
Consortium” concept; and (c) develop an efficient implementation plan
for the
selected prototype(s). Methodologically,
we review existing surveys and research, and conduct a supplemental
survey of 18
large metropolitan area’s airport governance and transportation systems
(using the
internet, telephone surveys, and other sources). Based
upon this research, we offer in-depth analyses of five exemplar
regional case
studies depicting leading airport management and ground access
coordinating
approaches of relevance to the SCAG region.
This
Regional Aviation Management Study is one of the
elements of the Regional Aviation Implementation Study.
The other elements include: (a) the Ground
Access Element (located in the 2004 RTP
Technical Appendix, pp. D-6-86 through D-6-177); and (b) the Financial
Element
(which can be found in Appendix III of this report).