Expect Delays:
Adie Tomer and Robert Puentes

An Analysis of Air Travel Trends in the United States
“Increasing stress on our air travel system will accompany the return of economic growth, requiring future infrastructure investments to target both the large volume of environmentally and spatially inefficient short haul flights and the country’s critical 26 metropolitan centers of air traffic.”
An analysis at the national and metropolitan levels of commercial air travel patterns between 1990 and 2009 reveals that: ! Air passenger travel in the United States experienced its first annualized drop in September 2008 since the tragedy of September 11, 2001, and the decline has continued through March 2009. Strong economic growth helped American airports increase their passenger and flight levels by over 60 percent from 1990 to 2008, tripling population growth. However, residents are traveling less since the current economic downturn, producing sustained reductions in passengers and flights since September 2008 and June 2008, respectively. ! Nearly 99 percent of all U.S. air passengers arrive or depart from one of the 100 largest metropolitan areas, with the vast majority of travel concentrated in 26 metropolitan-wide hubs. Between April 2008 and March 2009, 26 metropolitan areas captured nearly threequarters of all domestic travelers, while 20 of these metros landed 94 percent of all international passengers. These extreme shares make these metropolitan hubs the critical links in the nation’s aviation system and reinforce their role as major centers of tourism and commerce. ! Half of the country’s flights are routes of less than 500 miles, and the busiest corridors are between the metropolitan air travel centers. Corridors of no more than 500 miles constituted half of all flights and carried 30 percent of all passengers in the most recent twelve month period starting April 2008. In fact, the metro Los Angeles-San Francisco corridor, stretching 347 miles, is the second busiest corridor in the country. ! The 26 metropolitan centers of air travel and other large metropolitan areas host a concentration of national delays—and the situation is worsening over time. The concentration within the 100 largest metropolitan areas was especially troubling with congestion-related delays as well as those lasting over two hours. Within the 26 domestic hubs, six experienced worse-than-average delays for both arrivals and departures: New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, Miami, Atlanta, and San Francisco. The current economic recession led carriers to reduce flights, which improved on-time performance. However, the return of economic growth will increase travelers, reduce on-time performance, and continue the hyper-concentration of U.S. air travel within major metropolitan areas and on short-haul flights. To ensure that the commercial aviation system runs efficiently while simultaneously improving its environmental record, policymakers must focus aviation and other transportation investments on the metropolitan centers and the heavily trafficked short corridors, thus strengthening the performance of the our nation’s major economic engines.

BROOKINGS | October 2009


I. Introduction
ommercial aviation has captured travelers’ imaginations for decades. From the first non air-conditioned flights of the late 1920s to the supersonic speeds of the Concorde, the ability to travel at unheard of speeds across continents and oceans simply made the world a smaller place. And what initially began as a heavily regulated market with a suspect safety record morphed into a safe, comfortable, and heavily competitive industry. Now three decades into the domestically deregulated market, travelers became big winners as real ticket prices have fallen dramatically.1 These lower prices opened up new parts of the country and world to more and more travelers, making income and revenues less of a concern when purchasing tickets. These falling prices were especially helpful to businesses and general economic growth as they effectively shrunk metropolitan distances from one another. It is little wonder that passenger levels nearly tripled over these three decades.2 But all is not well in the sector. The same surging oil prices taxing commuters and truckers are also wreaking havoc on the airline industry as real jet fuel prices increased over 55 percent in three decades.3 The growing air travel industry also led to increased emissions, leaving more pollutants in flight paths and the areas surrounding airports.4 Equally troubling, all those passenger increases intensified congestion and air space pressures, depressing national on-time arrival performance to near-record lows.5 This brief looks beyond these dueling trends and assesses exactly where people are flying and just how often their flights take-off and land on-time. Fortunately, these patterns and dynamics do not exist in a locational vacuum. Simply put, commercial air travel is primarily a metropolitan system based in airports located within metropolitan areas. Therefore, studying national air travel patterns is really another component of studying metropolitan travel patterns. It also means that maximizing air travel performance is reliant on maximizing metropolitan performance. First, we assess national travel trends over time, looking at passenger data alongside their flights’ ontime performance. We then disaggregate those national passenger statistics to uncover the specific metropolitan areas where the majority of that travel occurs, both as single entities and the corridors that connect them. The next section analyzes the on-time performance from the nation and its metropolitan areas, determining the primary sources of the nation’s delays. Finally, we synthesize these findings into a series of critical implications and implementable recommendations for policymakers.


II. Background: Why Are Air Travel Trends Important?
lmost one decade into the new century, travelers in the United States find themselves confronting difficulties everywhere they turn. Despite recent slowdowns in travel given the economic downturn, our metropolitan roadways are stuffed to the brim with vehicles, many of which are filled with single occupants. Transit systems from the largest to smallest metropolitan areas are dealing with the dangerous combination of rising demand amid declining operating budgets. Intermetropolitan passenger rail service faces similar demand increases from a much-heralded American rail renaissance, but the nonexistent service between most metropolitan areas leaves these demands unfulfilled. Much like those other travel modes, air travel faces its own batch of problems—and because of these problems U.S. metropolitan areas as a group are faced with substantial long-term challenges to competitiveness, sustainability, and inclusiveness.




First, our nation’s airports are experiencing some of the longest arrival and departure delays in that mode’s nearly century-long history. In every year since 2000 at least 15 percent of flights have been delayed at least 15 minutes.6 Combined with many airports’ location on the metropolitan periphery and the extended security requirements post-9/11, American air travel continues to take longer to get from start to finish. The business of air travel is also in flux. Since 2000, seven major domestic airlines have either filed for bankruptcy protection or merged with competitors due to financial constraints.7 These financial constraints also reduce the quality of the air travel experience; news stories abound showing increased traveler dissatisfaction with companies squeezing fewer amenities and more seats onto every flight.8 Of course, it’s hard to blame airlines for cutting amenities when the real price of jet fuel tripled from 2000 to 2008.9 Together with the recession’s effects, these factors contributed to 3.7 percent fewer domestic and international air passengers on U.S. airlines in 2008 than 2007.10 This was the first annual decrease since 2002 and is continuing into 2009. One contributing factor to the delays is the demand for air travel due to limited modal competition. Most areas of the country currently maintain only two modal alternatives for long distance, intermetropolitan area travel: drive or fly. Of course, there is a variable ceiling as to how far most people will drive to reach their destination while others simply do not own an automobile. So unless coach bus service or reliable and timely rail service exists, individuals must fly to reach a destination they’re unable to reach by car. The federal government is aiming to address this problem through increased investments in intermetropolitan area rail. While many countries in Europe and Asia built fast, reliable, and modern rail systems, the United States largely ignored this mode outside of the Northeast Corridor and Pacific Coast. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) reversed that stance by committing $8 billion to high-speed rail investment. This was followed quickly by the president’s FY 2010 Budget, which includes an additional $5 billion request over five years.11 These investments will still take years to go on-line, leaving most travelers with their current alternatives for the foreseeable future. The nation’s intermetropolitan travel challenges also generate negative consequences with regards to pollution and inefficient use of infrastructure capacity. Airplanes produce the most pollution during takeoff, initial ascent, and landing due to engine fuel needs versus cruising speeds.12 Thus, flights traveling shorter distances emit proportionally more pollution than many longer-distance flights. They also carry negative environmental impacts for the areas surrounding the airports, such as noise pollution and runoff concerns, all of which intensify along with airport volumes.13 Just as troubling, air travel is one of the largest per capita polluters per mile, edged out only by solo-driven SUVs and standard automobiles.14 The fact that these emissions enter the atmosphere and affect the airplane’s entire route only intensifies the problem and makes creating a more environmentally-friendly and sustainable aviation system a true national concern.15 Short-haul flights also make inefficient use of airport and airspace capacity. Because many travelers have no modal alternatives to short intermetropolitan travel, the extra short-haul flights increase the stress on airports’ capacities: from the air traffic control systems, to the runways and terminal slots. Short-haul flights also cause congestion in high-volume airports’ airspace, which then require redesigns to mitigate the congestion. New York, Chicago, and Houston are all currently undertaking costly and lengthy redesigns of their airspaces.16 One investment designed to address airport congestion and weather-related problems is the implementation of the Next Generation Air Transportation System, or NextGen. Beginning with initial work in 2001, NextGen’s main role is to replace the current radar-based air traffic control system with a satellite-based system. The system will also upgrade communications from voice to data and consolidate weather-related information and assistance.17 However, there have been many hiccups dur-

BROOKINGS | October 2009


ing the NextGen planning and implementation process and it is not expected to reach even midterm implementation until anywhere from 2012 to 2018.18 And with traffic levels predicted to double or triple by 2025, the clock is ticking to roll out the new system.19 In the meantime, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) must rely on its antiquated, radar-based air traffic control system. That system currently experiences more and longer unscheduled outages over time, while additional support systems indicate an increase in frequent system failures.20 These inefficiencies come with a price tag to fix, too. The FAA projects that $268 million is needed to repair 400 existing terminal facilities.21 Clearly, the country needs investments for both the short- and long-term. Conversely, air travel does maintain a series of structural advantages over competitive intermetropolitan travel modes. As any air traveler can attest, airplanes’ high speeds make it an attractive choice for traveling long distances. Air travel also has the modal advantage of producing a relatively small physical footprint on the ground. While air travel requires an airport and its associated ground infrastructure, rail and automobile travel require extensive on-the-ground rights-of-way to connect metropolitan areas. These rapid travel times have also been a principal force in expanding the air travel industry altogether, which spilled-over into the domestic economy, especially with respect to globalization. Businesses operating in metropolitan areas on opposite coasts or in different countries altogether now have less logistical difficulties to conduct face-to-face business. Maintaining strong aviation connections enhances interconnectedness and metropolitan areas’ ability to expand their service employment.22 Researchers discovered that “airport infrastructure expansions to enhance air traffic flows confer travel-time savings and reliability benefits, and thus increased worker productivity and shipping efficiency for manufacturing firms.”23 In another study of the United Kingdom high-tech manufacturing and financial services firms were found to rely heavily on air travel to conduct and grow their businesses.24

“Maintaining strong aviation connections enhances interconnectedness and metropolitan areas’ ability to expand their service employment.”

One of those particular spillover effects is the potential for increased commercial development surrounding these transportation hubs. Researchers found that expanded airline network activity in a metropolitan area has a net positive effect on metropolitan employment growth.25 For example, the Dulles Airport Toll Road corridor in metropolitan Washington, DC has grown from farmland with a rural roadway crossing in 1963 to a national commercial center with over 57.7 million square feet of office space in 2007.26 While Northern Virginia business development is not due solely to the opening of the airport, the area’s strategic location is critical for business growth. In addition, falling ticket prices have improved the equity components of the marketplace. The market’s heavily competitive structure has led to falling airfares in real terms: the price to fly one mile has dropped from 8.29 cents in 1978 to 4.17 cents in 2008, a nearly 50 percent reduction.27 This increased affordability means more Americans can utilize air travel, an equitable outcome that leads to improved connectivity for families and businesses alike. Overall, the air travel industry maintains some clear advantages in comparison to other travel modes, and those advantages bestow incredible opportunities for businesses and pleasure travelers. However, there are also clear inefficiencies within that travel system, inefficiencies which lead to increased pollution and misdirected infrastructure investments. Due to this mixed bag, it is imperative that policymakers have a firm understanding of the specific travel patterns and locational dynamics that aggregate to create our national air travel system.



This domestic-only dataset records the time-related statistics for all domestic operators with at least one percent of the domestic market. due to incongruous flight data. consider a fictitious flight from New York to Miami with a stopover in Charlotte that maintains the same flight number for the entire trip. So. it required an aggregation of commercial airports up to their metropolitan locations. Any traveler deplaning in Charlotte would be counted as traveling from New York to Charlotte. that single flight number from New York to Miami would actually be counted as two separate flights due to the stopover in Charlotte. The analysis requires the use of two distinct commercial aviation databases and a specific geographic methodology. so we exclude all non-commercial service data from our analysis. The unique element of T-100 Market data is that it counts passengers based on their flight number. Our analysis uses the country’s 100 largest metropolitan areas as the geographic scope. The other dataset. known as the T-100 data bank. Depending on the specific analysis. its flight data still constituted 66. but any passenger deplaning in Miami would be counted as traveling from New York to Miami directly. this ‘sample size’ is representative and sufficiently large enough to consider it a proxy for delay times at national airports and metropolitan areas. We define qualifying commercial service based on three conditions: the airport maintains scheduled intermetropolitan passenger service throughout 2008. For example. While this is a limited profile of flight data versus the two T-100 databases. Both T-100 datasets indicate whether the passenger and flight data was commercial service or not. thereby reflecting the extra demands each airport faced based on the combination of its connecting and final destination passengers. rather than just the users of distinct airports.29 However. creating a more complete picture of where passengers intend to travel but without minimizing the role of hub airports and their network connections. Methodology R elying on data provided by the United States Department of Transportation’s Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS). Spatial Data and Geographic Scope The other critical methodological element is the geographic analysis.7 percent of the total United States commercial aviation market in 2008. The T-100 Market dataset provides passenger data and includes all passenger volumes traveling between two specific airports. Thus. T-100 Segment contains all specific flight information by departure and landing airport.III. excluding certain locations such as helipads. we use both forms in this brief. The strength of this dataset is we could determine how many flights each airport’s traffic control system managed in a given time period. Databases The first database is the monthly Air Carrier Statistics database for domestic and international carriers. we only utilize percentages when comparing On-Time data to T-100 data. BROOKINGS | October 2009 5 . this report analyzes passenger metropolitan air travel from 1990 to 2009. provides complimentary flight data. using the same example as above. This enables our passenger analysis to count every passenger when they exited a flight. we utilized two separate datasets to track passenger data and flight data: Market and Segment datasets. The other primary database is the Airline On-Time Performance database. the T-100 Segment dataset.30 This aggregation lends this analysis a unique perspective on aviation patterns by true population centers. Since all but the first finding tracks aviation data by metropolitan area. the airport is used for regular intermetro passenger service. We calculate these 100 metropolitan areas’ air travel by aggregating their air travel statistics from their qualifying airports. The 100 largest metropolitan areas are defined by the Brookings Metro Program based on updated 2007 Census population estimates. The T-100 Segment database divides flights by departures scheduled and departures performed.28 Within the T-100.

national analyses include these airports. AK).5 Norman Y. These moving. and Spokane International (Spokane. CT Lakeland-Winter Haven. CA Provo-Orem. FL Modesto. Terminology Like most other federal agencies. FL San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara.9 Metropolitan Area Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk. including at origination. CA New Haven-Milford. there were also a series of qualifying commercial airports with sizable scheduled service that we exclude from our 100 largest metropolitan area analyses because they simply are not in one of the l00 largest metropolitan areas. The categories differ based 6 METROPOLITAN INFRASTRUCTURE INITIATIVE SERIES .0 Bob Hope 50. We determine domestic and international hubs by requiring one percent of all domestic or international passengers. NY-NJ-PA Orlando-Kissimmee. • Domestic and International Metropolitan Hubs: Both of our unique hub definitions consider all qualifying commercial air travel within a metropolitan area.3 Salt Lake City International 24.4 Sacramento International 53. Table A. CA Salt Lake City. CT Salt Lake City. twelve month measures control for seasonal variation and permit comparisons from any time of year to previous annual measures.7 Orlando International 42. PA Conversely. The Office of the Secretary uses a multi-tiered definition to define hubs by individual airports. such as Springfield and Hartford to Bradley International. The five largest airports on this list are: Luis Munoz Marin International (San Juan. CT Ogden-Clearfield. CA Boston-Cambridge-Quincy. UT Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana. Kahului Airport (Kahului. Below is a rundown of some of these terms: • Annualized Travel: The use of any consecutive twelve month period to construct travel measures. Ted Stevens Anchorage International (Anchorage. WA). to land within the metropolitan area. the FAA is a jargon-heavy institution.3 Pittsburgh International 55.31 These criteria left us with 109 qualifying airports in 89 metropolitan areas. Some of these eleven metropolitan areas’ primary cities are equidistant or closer to their adjacent metro’s airport than the host metro’s primary city. NV). MA Youngstown-Warren-Boardman. • Enplanements: Defined as the total number of passengers boarding a flight. MA Stockton. HI). OH-PA Source: Authors’ Calculations Nearest Metropolitan Area New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island. UT Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura. 100 Largest Metropolitan Airports without Qualifying Commercial Airport Distance Nearest Commercial Airport (miles) Westchester County 25. CA Worcester. UT Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford.8 Manchester 43. PR). respectively. stopovers and connections. the USDOT’s Office of the Secretary and airlines define hubs as single airports. However. All of the eleven metropolitan areas without commercial airport representation are adjacent to at least one of the other 89 metropolitan areas with large-scale commercial service.000 domestic passenger arrivals in 2008. • Hub Airports: While this report defines aviation hubs as centers of air travel by metropolitan area. This means referencing the national aviation system requires multiple terms that will have different meanings versus their standard definitions or be entirely unfamiliar.2 Salt Lake City International 68. UT Springfield. The table below lists these eleven metropolitan areas and the distance from the metro’s center to the nearest of the 109 qualifying commercial airports. CT Sacramento—Arden-Arcade—Roseville. Reno/Tahoe International (Reno.3 Bradley International 37. MA-NH Pittsburgh.8 Bradley International 29. Mineta San Jose International 62.and the airport exceeded 100. CA Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford.

8 million passengers passed through American airports in 2008. • Regular Service: We define regular service between two metropolitan areas as averaging more than 2 flights per week in each direction of a corridor. The higher growth rate in passengers versus population shows that individuals are flying considerably more than they did in 1990. IV. NAS-related weather delays result from non-extreme weather that impair the National Airspace System but still permit flight. while population grew at about a third of the rate. BEA.0% 60.0 percent increase from 1990 passenger levels. • Delayed Arrivals: The FAA considers a flight delayed if the flight either lands fifteen minutes late at its destination. 1990–2008 80. There is also the concept of airline hub airports. Figure 1 maps air travel growth against real GDP and domestic population growth over the same period.0% Real GDP 50. • Weather-Related Delays: The FAA differentiates between “extreme weather delays” and “national air system (NAS)-related weather delays. further evidence of air travel as a viable means for business and pleasure travel. The latest available annual data shows that over 806.” Extreme weather delays are due to extreme or hazardous weather conditions. Passengers.95 in 1995 to $249.on passenger levels. is diverted to another arrival airport. This is a 64. To put this growth in perspective. a considerable increase in under two decades.32 Figure 1. Air travel grew at a similar rate to that of real GDP growth. Air passenger travel in the United States experienced its first annualized drop in September 2008 since the tragedy of September 11. One major reason for this per capita increase may be the fall in real prices for airline tickets.0% 30. Findings A. Growth Since 1990. We do not use either USDOT’s or airlines’ version of hub airports in this report. A regional blizzard would qualify as an extreme weather delay while high wind gusts at one airport would be classified as a NAS-related weather delay. • On-Time Arrival Rate: The number of non-delayed flights landing divided by the total number of flights. An example is Delta Airlines and Atlanta’s Hartsfield Jackson Airport. When considering prices based on 1995 dollar values. and Population. and the decline has continued through March 2009. 2001.0% 40.0% 0.0% Population 19 90 1991 992 1993 994 995 996 1997 998 999 000 001 002 003 004 005 006 007 008 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Source: T-100 Market Data. Census BROOKINGS | October 2009 7 . or is cancelled altogether. takes off fifteen late from its origin. the average domestic fare has dropped from $296.58 in 2008.0% 10.0% -10.0% 20.0% Passengers 70. • Corridor: The total travel between any two metropolitan areas. which refer to the locations for centralized operations of specific airline firms. Real GDP.

such as the early 1980s. 2001 drop in air travel and only the third annual drop since the early 1990s recession. Departures Performed and Passengers. There is no doubt that the air travel downturn is due in large part to the nation’s larger economic troubles. First.000 800 600 400 200 0 Passengers (Millions) 8 6 4 2 0 Passengers 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 Source: T-100 Segment Data Figure 2 shows three interesting trends. departures levels rose quicker than passengers during the post-9/11 recovery. domestic figures through June 2009 are also available. March 2009’s annualized passenger levels were down 6.5 percentage decrease from 2007 passenger totals.9 percent. The annualized numbers show a drop in departures beginning in March 2006 and lasting for 15 months. the 2008 passenger level was actually a 3.While passenger growth was strong when compared to 1990. In addition to the combined domestic and international numbers.35 The drop in passenger levels is also seen in flight totals. 1990s. As it currently stands. the quantity of flights began to drop before the passenger drop in early 2008 and show a steeper drop in the first three months of 2009. households and companies both tend to increase their thriftiness by trimming their budgets and decreasing their consumption. like other services. is susceptible to such cuts in personal and business spending. However. Combined domestic and international numbers are now available through March 2009 and they show a sustained drop in annualized passenger levels. which are measured through departures performed. it is clear that the rate of growth in departures and passengers tend to follow a similar path since 1990. Figure 2. The year-over-year drop from June 2009 annualized numbers compared to June 2008 was 7. the rate of passenger growth since 9/11 never matched that of the flights. Excluding the declines after 9/11. This was the first annual decrease in passenger totals since the post-September 11.34 When economic growth is not strong.200 Departures 1. and 2000s. December 1990–March 2009 12 10 Flights (Millions) 1. Air travel. Again.36 Second. meaning that the average passengers per flight have also stayed relatively constant. Similar decreases occurred in previous recessions. These flight levels then flat-lined for almost a year before 8 METROPOLITAN INFRASTRUCTURE INITIATIVE SERIES . a time when the airlines were clearly recalibrating their business models to current passenger levels. Third.33 Extending the analysis by these three additional months reveals an even larger drop.3 percent from the annualized numbers in March 2008. this was the largest drop since 1990 save for post-9/11. this is the largest year-over-year drop since 1990. Even more troubling is that preliminary 2009 numbers suggest the drop is intensifying. Annualized.

Based on this criterion.0% 36. every subgrouping of the 100 largest metros displays air travel shares that outpace their population shares.030.4% 63. to centralized depots in the Midwest. air travel is clearly a large metropolitan phenomenon. Based on annualized passenger statistics from March 2009.587. In fact.667 175.5% 41. First.6 percent of America’s GDP and do so with only 40.] BROOKINGS | October 2009 9 . These metropolitan areas cover every corner of the country.217.5 percent of the nation’s population. with the vast majority of travel concentrated in 26 metropolitan-wide hubs.895 53. The most extreme of these differences is from the 50 largest metros. Destination Passengers.0% 16.767.the drop resumed in late 2007 and continued through March 2009.707 Share of National 100.6 percent of the national population (Table 1).863 191. March 2009.38 The question is how to assess which metropolitan areas are the hubs. Annualized. In sum.9% 26.208.532 306. Nearly 99 percent of all U.232 479.8% Source: T-100 Market Data (Passengers) and Census (Population) Of course.522.S.3% Population 301.364. the domestic-only numbers through June 2009 display a sustained drop in departures performed.470 126.290. large volume flights out to other hubs.722.9% 78.39 We excluded international passengers to isolate the determinations for both domestic and international hubs. B. 69..1% 83. the primary reason for this concentration is the role of metropolitan areas as domestic and international hubs.469 164.911 Share of National 100.783.504.8 percent of all passengers in the most recent twelve months passed through at least one of the nation’s 100 largest metropolitan areas.6% 54.9 percent of passengers traveled through one of the 100 largest metropolitan areas at some point in their trip. These 26 metropolitan areas are also leading economic centers: they produce 50. despite containing 63. from the elder giants of the northeast.37 The 100 largest metropolitan areas are the destinations for 83. Table 1. and Population. 26 metropolitan areas containing 43 commercial airports qualified as domestic hubs in March 2009 (Figure 3).332 109. 2008 Estimates Geography National Outside 100 Largest Metros 100 Largest Metros 50 Largest Metros 25 Largest Metros 10 Largest Metros 5 Largest Metros Passengers 786.9 percent of all air travelers. Research suggests that the country’s commercial aviation system operates within a hub-and-spoke system: higher numbers of smaller capacity flights from smaller airports feed into larger airports that send limited.40 [See Appendix 2 for the full list of the 26 metropolitan centers of air travel. Another 29. In the U. to the Pacific gateways.987. air passengers arrive or depart from one of the 100 largest metropolitan areas.5% 17.2% 61. they do the same when it comes to air travel.906 79. we determined that any domestic hub must be the destination of at least one percent of all domestic passengers over the most recent 12-month period.523.S. 98. Just like the passenger numbers.775 615.504 660.0 percent of all air travelers in the United States traveled exclusively between the 100 largest metropolitan areas. Just as the largest metropolitan areas’ share outperform their per capita share of national economic production.9% 22.0% 38.279 126.314.

enabling these hubs and their metropolitan areas to operate as focal points for their region and the domestic aviation system. Specifically. and Houston (Continental). Those 25 hubs served on average 87 distinct areas.8 percent. The largest share was in Atlanta (6. These extensive connections facilitate travel both within and outside of their regions. Minneapolis and Detroit (Northwest). 72.41 Excluding Honolulu and its uniquely isolated position. Chicago and Denver (United). Overall.6 percent).8 percent) and Chicago (5. Domestic and International Metropolitan-Wide Hubs. Dallas (American). with seven hubs connecting to over 100 distinct areas (Table 2).8 percent of all domestic passengers arrived in these metropolitan areas during the 12-month period ending in March 2009. the other 25 domestic hubs all maintained regular service to at least 44 other metropolitan and micropolitan areas. March 2009 100 Largest Metropolitan Areas Domestic Hub International and Domestic Hub Source: T-100 Market Data These domestic hubs also reinforce their status when considering how many metropolitan and micropolitan areas they regularly serve. These seven hubs were also home to some of the largest domestic airlines: Atlanta (Delta).The aggregate passenger arrivals within these 26 metropolitan areas were easily a majority of all domestic travel. 10 METROPOLITAN INFRASTRUCTURE INITIATIVE SERIES . the average domestic share in these 26 metropolitan areas was 2. Figure 3.1 percent). Annualized Passenger Levels. followed by New York (5.

Table 2. TX Charlotte-Gastonia-Concord. GA Chicago-Naperville-Joliet. we used a similar criterion as that of the domestic hubs: the metropolitan area must be the destination for at least one percent of all international passengers over the most recent twelve-month period. Half of the country’s flights are routes of less than 500 miles. the most common flights by distance are routes of less than 500 miles. NV New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island. This demonstrates the hub-and-spoke design to our air travel network—higher numbers of shorter-distance flights carry fewer passengers. by far. TX Minneapolis-St. Top 10 Metros by Metropolitan and Micropolitan Area Connections. and the busiest corridors are between the metropolitan air travel centers. Based on the most recent twelve month period. NC-SC Las Vegas-Paradise. international hubs form the backbone of the entire United States air travel network. CO Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington. Flights 501 to 1. followed by Miami (11. which carry 30.0 percent).7 percent of all passengers. IL-IN-WI Denver-Aurora. NY-NJ-PA Source: T-100 Segment Data Connections 145 133 127 124 122 114 109 98 97 96 Like domestic hubs.42 All 20 international hubs are also categorized as domestic hubs—cementing these metropolitan areas’ statuses as true aviation gateways both into and within the country.9 percent) and Los Angeles (10.6 percent. C. To assess these hubs. The largest of these metropolitan shares easily belonged to New York (21. The 20 international hubs were the destination for 93.2 percent of all international passengers. March 2009 Hub Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta. Table 3 shows that. while also serving as global gateways into and out of that network. BROOKINGS | October 2009 11 .000 miles long contribute another 27. while the ten largest alone make up 76. which then feed into and support the limited and longer-distance hub connections carrying larger quantities of passengers. other than the sub-500 mile group. which make up almost half of all flights. Passenger trends also show the dominance of sub-500 mile flights.6 percent of all international passengers. 20 metropolitan areas—with 29 of their commercial airports—qualified as international hubs in March 2009. MI Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown. every other distance category’s share of national passengers exceeds its share of national flights. MN-WI Detroit-Warren-Livonia. Paul-Bloomington. Based on this one-percent rule. the most popular departures group is flights of 500 miles or less. Meanwhile. Annualized.8 percent).

001 to 2.489 913.Table 3. while the Los Angeles metropolitan area also had a hand in four.6% 7.6% 12. these busiest corridors almost always involve at least one of the country’s 26 metropolitan-wide hubs.138.574.561 37.028.895 274.7% 6. Los Angeles-Las Vegas (229 miles).447.000 2. The busiest U.292 53.8% 8.411. and Los Angeles-Phoenix (358 miles).645 1. Los Angeles and San Francisco.500 1.341. Supporting eight commercial airports in total.152 Share of All Passengers 30. with the largest corridor just over that distance. Annualized. Just as importantly.0% 2. This corridor carried 2.6% 14.000 miles.7 million passengers between one another in the twelve-month period ending in March 2009.4 million more passengers than the next most-traveled corridor.611 85. Only 40 distinct metropolitan areas appeared in that list and 32 of those were part of the 100 largest metropolitan areas.830.829.000 Source: T-100 Segment Data Share of All Departures 49.501 to 3.] 12 METROPOLITAN INFRASTRUCTURE INITIATIVE SERIES . March 2009 Departures Performed 5. Each is also a major hub to international locations.004 415.S. [See Appendix 3 for the list of the 100 most traveled corridors in the U.000 2. aviation corridor—between metropolitan Miami and New York—also contains multiple airports.238 98.9% 8.6% 10.6% 5. Another four of the ten corridors travel less than 1.873. The list also shows that all of the country’s largest corridors are connections between the country’s largest metropolitan hubs.001 to 1.068 229.0% 10.501 to 2.000 Over 3.6% 8.6% 0.254 1.0% Passengers 246.567. making this corridor a gateway to international connections.132. or intraregional like Denver and Phoenix.0% 8.500 2.7% 4.964.327 69. UK). The New York metropolitan area was responsible for six of the ten largest domestic corridors.000 1.8% 27.800 523.870.509 118.643 59. The 100 busiest corridors were also concentrated in large metropolitan areas.4% 28.072 15. All Flights by Distance Group.S. connecting adjacent regions like San Francisco and Seattle. Both of these metropolitan hubs benefited from having multiple commercial airports within their boundaries.099.000 miles. the common theme amongst the metropolitan areas hosting these 100 largest corridors is the sheer size of the metropolitan areas and/or their relative isolation from other large metros. Three of the ten busiest corridors are less than 500 miles apart—between Los Angeles and San Francisco (347 miles).9% 10.009 1.252.7% 1. with the one exception involving the largest hub and one of the world’s largest financial centers (New York–London.010.43 Whether cross-country like New York and Los Angeles. these two metropolitan areas combined to carry 8.9% 4.780. A list of the country’s ten busiest corridors encapsulates these points (Table 4).6% The busiest individual corridors also tend to travel less than 1.752 1.057 68.3% 17.524 64.762 Distance Group (Miles) 500 or Less 200 or Less 201 to 300 301 to 400 401 to 500 501 to 1.

638 5.434.874 1-Year -6. NY-NJ-PA New York-Northern New JerseyLong Island.7% 14.705.544. CA Source: T-100 Segment Data Metro 2 Distance New York-Northern New Jersey1.4% 4.5% 15.7% -8. NY-NJ-PA New York-Northern New Jersey2. CA Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta. the nation’s airports have produced wavering on-time performance between December 1990 and June 2009.4% -9. NY-NJ-PA Las Vegas-Paradise.3% 1.032.5% 14.427 3. As Figure 4 shows.176 4.748.3% 30. GA Los Angeles-Long BeachSanta Ana.4% 3. Annualized.534 6. GA Chicago-Naperville-Joliet.7% -16.355.1% -13.733.0% 39. the best period for on-time performance was in the early 1990s when passenger volume was relatively low and following 9/11 when the number of flyers dropped sharply. CA Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale. AZ 3.0% 1. Annualized.0% 0. NY-NJ-PA Orlando-Kissimmee.7% -17. with on-time performance generally diminishing as air travel increases.2% -8.6% 10. Based on annualized data. Throughout the 2000s on-time performance dropped steadily but improved again since 2008 when travel levels fell. December 1990–June 2009 86% 84% 82% On-Time Percentage 80% 78% 76% 74% 72% 70% 68% 66% 19 90 91 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 01 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 19 199 199 199 199 199 199 199 199 200 20 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 800 Flights On-Time 750 700 650 600 550 500 450 Domestic Passengers 400 350 300 Passengers (Millions) Source: T-100 Market and On-Time Performance Databases BROOKINGS | October 2009 13 .458 Long Island. Figure 4.045.558 3.5% -17.4% D. United Kingdom Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana.0% Change 5-Year 10-Year 9. CA 347 Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Miami Beach.067 Long Island. FL 574 New York-Northern New Jersey733 Long Island.755 4. On-Time Arrival Performance and Domestic Passengers. NY-NJ-PA San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont. NY-NJ-PA New York-Northern New Jersey768 Long Island. The 26 metropolitan centers of air travel and other large metropolitan areas host a concentration of national delays—and the situation is worsening over time.5% -3.881.037 3. CA New York-Northern New JerseyLong Island.9% -5. NV Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana.4% -13.7% -5.Table 4.306.1% -4.7% -0. March 2009 Metro 1 Miami-Fort LauderdaleMiami Beach.415 4.2% 2. Top 10 Air Corridors.0% 13.468 229 358 Passengers 8.007 4. FL Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana. IL-IN-WI Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta. FL 955 London.7% 10.5% -10.

2% 32. one factor for increased congestion and delays are “inadequate investment in airport and air traffic control infrastructure.45 Further devolving from the metropolitan grouped statistics.1% Late Aircraft 32. New York also ranked as the worst metropolitan area when it comes to average arrival delay time for flights landing at least 15 minutes late (nearly 69 minutes). they are the most susceptible to NAS delays.9 percent of all its annualized delays in June 2009 were from the NAS category. as 64. show the distinct characteristics of particular areas. Table 5. Conversely.5% 3.4% This increasing share for NAS delays is directly related to the heavy-traffic at these large metropolitan areas’ airports. 14 METROPOLITAN INFRASTRUCTURE INITIATIVE SERIES .9 percent of all annualized NAS delays across the country in June 2009.5% 31.7% 39.3% 18.4% 24.8% 42. Annualized. June 2009 Delay Category National Aviation System 37. The FAA subdivides aircraft delay causes by five categories: carrier delay.1% 0. National Aviation System (NAS) delay.2% 22. And since this number doesn’t include the NAS delays due to departures from New York.3% 3.2% 0. extreme weather delay.While the 100 largest metropolitan areas maintain a similar arrival delay rate (78.44 While three of these five categories see similar shares between the divisions of the 100 largest metropolitan areas and the rest of the nation.2% 0.7% 4.” GAO points out that there is an imbalance between demand for air travel and the supply of air space.4 percent).8% 48. the following drill-downs.7% 32. both of which are directly attributable to an airport running a tight schedule.7 percent). the carrier delay and NAS categories are significantly different.4% 30. and late aircraft delay. The NAS delay category includes non-extreme weather and high traffic volume delays. security delay.2% 0. both from the NAS and Late Aircraft categories. Arrival Delay Category as Share of All Delays. The nation’s largest metropolitan area also stands in sharp contrast to others when it comes to the cause of delays.0 percent) and one of the worst departure delay percentages (21.6% 25.6% 3.9% Extreme Weather 3.1% 32.3% 29. Carrier delays—which are delays within the airline’s control.5% 3.2% 0.3 percent on-time) to the country as a whole (78. In turn. According to the GAO.46 The New York metropolitan area stands in its own category when it comes to poor on-time performance. this demonstrates just how much congestion in New York affects air travelers all across the country.0% Metropolitan Division National Outside 100 Largest Metros 100 Largest Metros 50 Largest Metros 25 Largest Metros 10 Largest Metros 5 Largest Metros Source: On-Time Performance Database Carrier 26. such as crew problems—drop as metropolitan area size increases. New York generated both the worst arrival delay percentages (30.2% 0. These high level of NAS delays. And since the largest metropolitan areas and their large flight volumes cause their airports to run the tightest of schedules.6% 3.3% 31. they differ when it comes to the cause of those delays. New York produced 13. New York is by far the leader in NAS delay percentages.2% 38. NAS delays increase sharply with increasing the metropolitan area size.2% 31. as well as Figures 5a and 5b.6% Security 0. suggest the vast majority of poor on-time performance is borne by inadequacies within the National Aviation System.5% 20.3% 45.

Over two-thirds of the 26 domestic metropolitan hubs produced an on-time arrival rate that exceeded the national average of 78. Annualized. 14 of the 26 domestic hubs produced a departure delay rate that was less than the national average of 16. New York. Annualized. Departure Delay Rankings by Metro. Portland. and Minneapolis.By contrast. June 2009 Figure 5b.9 percent. In this case. Atlanta. and Detroit. The story is similar when considering on-time departures. Again. June 2009 Source: On-Time Performance Database 1st Quintile 2nd Quintile 3rd Quintile 4th Quintile 5th Quintile Non-Qualifying Metros BROOKINGS | October 2009 15 . followed by Philadelphia. New York had the worst on-time performance. On-Time Arrival Rankings by Metro. Atlanta. The strongest performers from this group were Salt Lake City. The worst offenders were similar to the poor performers on arrivals: Miami. many metropolitan areas produced strong on-time performance statistics.9 percent. Figure 5a. followed by Salt Lake City. Honolulu. Honolulu shined in this capacity. and Boston. and Chicago.

6 Hours 7.7% 84. Policy Implications he prominence of our nation’s metropolitan areas.5 minutes. T 16 METROPOLITAN INFRASTRUCTURE INITIATIVE SERIES . their poor on-time performance affects a large number of travelers. Table 6.6% Over 6 Hours 4. the share of delayed flights landing at least two hours late more than doubled from 4.7% 35. economic recovery will bring increased numbers of passengers and flights. And since all six metropolitan areas are domestic and international hubs. Philadelphia. Annualized. in the national commercial aviation market is without question. Even more troublingly. and San Francisco. The most troubling of the share statistics are from the five.4% 69. Further. If travel trends continue as is. by the time delays reach over six hours each metropolitan division has substantially increased their share.9% 86.0% 49. these short-haul routes are vital for smaller communities to gain access to the entire aviation network. So. However.2% 90. Atlanta. To be sure.9% 42. As Table 6 shows. and twenty five largest metropolitan areas.1% 92.3 percent in 1990 to 10. public officials at all levels must be similarly prepared for new growth in passenger levels.9% 3 . On-Time Performance Database All Late Arrivals 9.4% 29.Based off this compounding nature.7% 24. The national average for all delayed flights in 1990 was 40.9 minutes.2% 27.1% 90. By the annualized measure in June 2009. airport authorities and national planners must find a delicate balance between access and efficient operations of larger-volume routes. Our research shows a general correlation between GDP growth and increased air travel. Those trends will put increased pressures on airport capacity. June 2009 Metropolitan Division Outside 100 Largest Metros 100 Largest Metros 50 Largest Metros 25 Largest Metros 10 Largest Metros 5 Largest Metros Source.8% V. by Delay Length. So the metropolitan shares of the shortest lengthy delay. air travel—like all travel—is intrinsically related to the nation’s economic health.0% 91.4% 45.5% 58.2 Hours 9. the 100 largest metropolitan areas produce an outsized share of these lengthy delays.3% 91. Miami. and this correlation is only reinforced by the declining air travel during the late 2000s recession. are remarkably similar to their shares of all arrival delays.9% 80. This situation is squarely at odds with national priorities regarding environmental cleanup and the provision of multimodal alternatives. Unfortunately.3 Hours 8. and further intensify air travel’s contribution to atmospheric pollutants.2% 66. increased travel delays for customers.6% 72. as economic growth is predicted to return within the next few years. However. one hour to just under two hours.0% 64. metropolitan areas increase their share of national delays as the length of delays grows. and more passengers and flights traveling 500 miles or less.9% 83. this number had increased to 56.6% 32.8% 2 . ten.1 percent in May 2009. Metropolitan Share of National Arrival Delays.0% 83. Chicago.7% 1 . especially the largest ones.8% 95. there are six metropolitan areas that experienced worse-thanaverage delays for both arrivals and departures: New York.1% 53. The final respect in which metropolitan-concentrated timeliness problems appear is through the expansion of lengthy delays.

federal aviation policy does little to recognize these specific metropolitan areas and their airports that are so critical to our national performance. $1. The FAA also permits larger airports to collect their own revenue via the Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) Program. which may then be invested back into the airport towards FAA-approved projects. it is important to note that these broad-based aviation trends do expose problems with current aviation and transportation policies. provided only 19.50 per arriving passenger. The most-used passenger airports need to be empowered with the ability to meet their larger-than-average congestion and investment costs without federal impositions or caps. alongside the annual subsidies from the Essential Air Service (EAS) program. the program’s requirements for service and aircraft size hinder the carriers’ financial viability.3 billion in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA).9 percent of total funding to these 26 metropolitan areas and their commercial service airports.50 relative to airport ticket fees is not intended to affect passengers’ mode and travel choices.6 billion investment through the Airport Improvement Program (AIP) in fiscal year 2009. ensure that more locations are reachable via air travel. the charge of $4. Second.49 Sending a majority of this federal funding to airports that constitute a small minority of all passenger trips only serves to intensify the congestion-related pressures the country’s aviation system already experiences.Recognizing these complexities. The most recent federal investment.54 This direct correlation between passenger levels and investment funding is certainly a boon to the nation’s busier airports. the total share only increases to 37.52 This.47 The result: of the $2. their collective revenue generation doesn’t do nearly enough to cover both the airport’s operating and long-term investment costs. First.53 Reforming the EAS will require finding the right balance between providing equitable access to smaller and remote towns while enhancing efficiency and performance within large metropolitan areas.8 percent went to these 26 metropolitan areas.9 percent) of passenger levels. The continued urbanization of regions all over the country and competitive pricing due to expanding low-cost carriers have enticed many smaller community residents to simply bypass their airports and drive to regional hubs. the EAS program has some faults. but the charges’ potential impact is limited for two major reasons.50 These ARRA and AIP funds. Currently policies are out of sync with the primary sources of our nation’s passengers and delays—the largest metropolitan areas If the nation’s air travel network is a metropolitan network. the EAS program’s design of filtering passengers from smaller communities to the country’s largest metropolitan airports ensures these citizens may reach destinations all over the country and world. But contrary to the metropolitan primacy implicit in these numbers. Equally troubling is that many of the airports awarded funding should not have qualified due to inadequate credentials. These small shares are dwarfed by the hubs’ share (72. then it is these hubs that fuel—and slow— the entire system. plus the realities of airline consolidation. only 21.8 percent) and 100 largest metropolitan areas’ share (83. irrespective of their local financing and market demand. Moreover. BROOKINGS | October 2009 17 . specifically poor economic credentials and history of grant management problems.48 Even if we extend these FY 2009 grants to all of the 100 largest metropolitan areas. led the number of carriers participating in the EAS to decrease from 14 in 1998 to just 10 today. However.1 percent.51 Similarly. The program permits airports to levy a maximum charge of $4.

meaning the country will continue to rely on its current air traffic control system and any near-term infrastructure upgrades. Airline health is likely to improve thru increased revenues. according to the most recent estimates. Thus. This places stresses on airport infrastructure as they supply capacity and personnel for all flights. the relative lack of investment in alternative modes leaves consumers with minimal choices along such corridors. proposed a major new system known as NextGen. The federal government most recently recognized the inadequacies of its air traffic control system in 2001 and. the environmental pollutants produced per mile are far greater on short-haul routes versus all others. Air travel is also a vital element to connect metropolitan areas all over the country and world. such growth would present many benefits. these downturns do have a silver lining of freeing up airport capacity and improved on-time arrival rates. 18 METROPOLITAN INFRASTRUCTURE INITIATIVE SERIES .56 And. passenger growth resumes in 2010. irrespective of distance.39 pounds per mile per person. this is not the case when traveling over land at distances of 500 miles or less. On the flip side. if history is any indication. while medium flights of 800 miles emit 0. the most common routes within our domestic system. But these silver linings will disappear as. economic. The air traffic control system seems ill-equipped to meet the “return to normal” of increased passenger travel. One reason policymakers can feel confident that such performance will continue to suffer is the reality that the same antiquated air traffic control system will be in place to manage our ever-busier skies. These sub-500 mile routes are a relative problem for several reasons. and environmental challenges While there are infrastructure problems that need to be addressed when air travel rebounds.55 These short-haul flights are. In addition. and overall weaker on-time performance of the aviation system once the economy rebounds The linkage between air travel and economic growth is consistent with the principle that transportation is a means to an end. they place logistical stresses on our limited airport infrastructure. While the economic downturn has certainly contributed to the declining passenger and flight levels seen since the beginning of 2008.Continued growth in short-haul air travel (500 miles or less) presents logistical.57 There is little question that the economic recovery will arrive before NextGen.64 pounds per mile per person. is still at least 3 to 9 years from midterm implementation. their negative effects are not minor and affect every regional.45 pounds per mile per person and long-distance flights of 2500 miles emit 0. and more passengers will signal that the interconnectedness vital to global economic growth is expanding. increased passenger levels at a higher rate than population growth will resume the downward slope in on-time performance. in response. and this broad reality explains why an upward trend in air travel will continue. Businesses and individuals need mobility to achieve their economic potential. First. It is this concept of expanded resources that policymakers must be the most concerned with when the economy recovers. domestic. As such. While traveling between Atlantic and Pacific coasts may only be reasonably done via airplane. this system has been wrought with implementation problems and. Unfortunately. which would help offset surging gas prices. and international hub in the country. according to the FAA’s most recent forecasting report. we found that the ten metropolitan areas generating the largest shares of flights traveling less than 500 miles were also the source of 42. This causes the average short-haul flight of 250 miles to have an emissions factor of 0. Unfortunately.2 percent of all domestic departure delays. by far. further delays. overall passenger growth is sure to indicate growth in the short-haul market—meaning more flights of less than 500 miles will take to the skies.

airline managers.S. The new commission could update and expand on FACT’s work in a few distinct ways. Due to the complexities of these two policies and many others. and ensuring the entire intermetropolitan travel system does not gunk up due to inadequate attention on the major aviation hubs. some flights could be shifted to slower periods while maintaining near-peak capacity during busy periods. both now and in the future. it could broaden the range of stakeholders to include airport and other transportation officials. One potential option is congestion pricing. Second. a national aviation commission could target the largest threats to future system operations T BROOKINGS | October 2009 19 . Policymakers and officials at all levels must contend with installing new capacity based on future demands. Third. However. including the specific criteria used to select particular policies for a metropolitan area. First. and help metropolitan areas understand which policies are available to them based on their particular congestion levels and relationship with other metros. private ownership would make airport performance more susceptible to market fluctuations and require adequate consumer protections from poorly-constructed agreements. including Australia’s Sydney Airport.VI. making better use of current capacity through enhanced flight distances. Due to increased congestion in the highest trafficked metropolitan areas. The following three recommendations aim to cut across those three major problems and solve multiple problems at once. FACT’s two national reports in 2003 and 2007 targeted specific locations to install capacity expansions in both the short and long terms. Empower the most congested metropolitan areas to enact congestion mitigation policies in the present and offer a national capacity plan for the future The federal government should unleash metropolitan innovation by permitting experimentation with a range of congestion mitigation policies that reflect its spatial realities. At the same time. the eligibility requirements could include a hybrid of passenger levels and delay quantities.S.58 Unfortunately. and consumer groups alongside federal government officials. As often is the case in transportation policy.59 Another alternative is complete airport privatization. Just as Congress established two national commissions to examine the U. for a variety of political and equity concerns there has been little implementation of these methods in the U. the commission could generate concrete eligibility requirements for federal congestion mitigation assistance. researchers. however. the requirements should include provisions for reducing or enhancing funding based on performance metrics over time. road and rail network in 2005. there is no silver bullet. There are many alternatives available to policymakers. The goal would be to take a national perspective. Moreover. a number of coordinated ideas that can help the country improve its passenger aviation system. the federal government should authorize an independent commission to continue the legacy of the FAA’s Future Airport Capacity Task (FACT). 1. By enabling airports to levy a variable charge for flights to land. this rubric would not reduce local authority over airports. Recommendations hese trends pose broad policy problems for the country. Other countries have already implemented such plans. There are.60 The most recent report also provided brief recommendations of alternative policies to decrease congestion. Collectively they have the power to positively transform the foundation of a highly mobile. interconnected global economy. which empowers private-sector ownership to maximize efficiencies and provide more immediate operational adjustments. all while being prepared for some of the industry’s most unexpected crises. the commission could generate an official implementation rubric for congestion mitigation.

Contrary to many European countries with less land area and a clear metropolitan capital. Their work would then inform the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems. This underinvestment left the country. security lines. The United States’ investment in intermetropolitan rail has been behind for decades. 2. if you build it you’d like them to come. to ensure capital investments go to the most needed metropolitan areas. both relative to our own history and our industrialized competitors.” But constructing high-speed rail corridors is not a simple proposition when considering a country as exceptionally expansive as the United States especially in a severely constrained fiscal environment. Fortunately. Table 7 shows the ten busiest corridors in the country of less than 400 miles. Research suggests that successful high-speed rail corridors require competitive travel times versus air travel. this is the maximum distance for rail to assume a significant portion of air travel’s market share. Studying aviation corridors especially helps for two primary requirements of corridor selection: distance and demand. with little modal choice and competition.61 Reduced congestion levels since the current recession’s onset leave a window to generate such a plan and an update to FACT’s 2007 report. especially at distances between 200 and 500 miles. under optimal conditions. research based on European results finds that the optimal distances to transfer market share from air travel to high-speed rail are 200 to 300 miles. which outlines approved projects for the country’s AIP grants over a five year period. air travel data provides an excellent tool to prioritize corridor investments. depending on the rail line’s speed in each corridor.65 Demand is another critical element of any successful transportation investment. at distances of less than 400 miles high-speed rail can meet or beat air travel times. And since Congress is currently debating FAA authorization. Simply put. Utilize aviation corridor statistics to prioritize specific high-speed rail investments The burgeoning proposals to construct high-speed rail corridors throughout the country generated considerable attention. This creates tensions when selecting corridors and developing criteria to prioritize investments.)66 20 METROPOLITAN INFRASTRUCTURE INITIATIVE SERIES .62 Rail is fortunate to have certain built-in time advantages due to air travel’s additional time expenditures: decentralized airport location (in most cases).and outline the optimal policy alternatives to address those threats.63 Specifically. it’s an optimal time to establish such a commission. (The table is limited to the 400-mile threshold because research suggests that.64 The effective distances are fluid. “The full benefits of high-speed rail investments will only truly be realized when they work in tandem with airports to offer smooth and efficient travel on both modes. and early gate arrival requirements. The detailed statistics for air travel among certain corridors present a detailed picture of the current marketplace for travel between points. the United States has multiple metropolitan centers throughout the country and many are over 500 miles from one another. while the capability wanes up to and past 500 miles. though. Thus.

Regulations should require that locations with congested airports receive certain considerations in the selection process. Paul-Bloomington. CA San Antonio. There also should be a formal process for federal railroad and federal aviation leaders to come together in their common goal to provide efficient and equitable intermetropolitan travel. high-speed rail can work.037 3. As such.910. MN-WI Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington. CA Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale. TX Minneapolis-St. 100 Largest Metropolitan Corridors Only.439 2. IL-IN-WI Austin-Round Rock. CA Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington.874 2.745.399 To put these numbers in perspective. AZ Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown.68 To be sure.7 million in fiscal year 2008.207 2. BROOKINGS | October 2009 21 . and typically more centralized locations.434. NV Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana. not every short distance. more comfortable. NY-NJ-PA Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana. TX Distance 347 229 358 232 185 222 318 248 342 190 Passengers 6.311 2. CA Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana. CA Las Vegas-Paradise.049 2. the full benefits of high-speed rail investments will only truly be realized when they work in tandem with airports to offer smooth and efficient travel on both modes. when chosen carefully and empirically. CA Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington. short-haul air travel statistics should be reviewed at regular intervals to ensure potential high-value rail markets are considered for investment.030. TX Boston-Cambridge-Quincy.69 It should concentrate a large share of resources in one corridor with broad political support that also consistently tests as a high-ridership corridor. TX Source: T-100 Market Data Metro 2 San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont. DC-VA-MD-WV San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara.70 However. March 2009 National Rank of All Corridors 2 9 10 13 16 25 32 34 39 40 Metro 1 Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana.Table 7.67 Based on these Amtrak statistics.311 2. MA-NH New York-Northern New JerseyLong Island. ability to add stops.028. Annualized. TX Chicago-Naperville-Joliet. many of these aviation corridors offer an excellent customer base to quickly create significant ridership and begin making returns on investment as soon as possible.638 3. high-volume air corridor is a strong candidate for high-speed rail. NY-NJ-PA Washington-ArlingtonAlexandria. Many countries and studies have found benefits of rail-service versus aviation over shorter distances: environmentally cleaner. and that total corridor services 14 major metropolitan areas. TX New York-Northern New JerseyLong Island. Representing initial success with a single trunk line will serve as an example to the rest of the country that. This specifically includes direct modal connectivity and investment selection criteria. Largest Metropolitan Corridors less than 400 Miles.733. the total amount of travelers on Amtrak’ Acela Express and Northeast Regional lines were 11.396.220.116.306.797 2. Aviation considerations should be part of our rail investment selection criteria. Similarly. the United States must utilize the lesson from the recently opened Madrid-Barcelona corridor in Spain that an investment can achieve immediately high ridership levels if a large market exists between points.

They delivered their initial results in September 2009. the federal government must focus on near-term upgrades to the country’s critical hubs. The FAA has already reported that even after current planned improvements are made across the country.75 The federal government should consider these recommendations and we underscore their focus on the key metropolitan areas in the system. This includes not just current bottlenecks. to also help identify the technologies available now that can increase capacity in the next few years. but also metropolitan areas with looming bottlenecks. a non-profit organization. which will likely lead to more congestion and a continuation of the previous downward trends in on-time performance. as recommended by the GAO.”73 These upgrades will directly tackle the NAS delays hurting the country’s most vital airports—and are implementable now.” 22 METROPOLITAN INFRASTRUCTURE INITIATIVE SERIES . proven capabilities and existing infrastructure.72 Based on interviews with industry stakeholders.74 The FAA recently formed a task force through RTCA. Since midterm implementation of NextGen is years away due to poor organization and questionable structure. However. the federal government must plan ahead and begin to accelerate deployment of new technologies and investments to expand operational capacities.3. Thus. Enhanced FAA investments in targeted metropolitan airports have the potential to significantly improve air travel delays.71 This helped relieve some of the national aviation system’s congestion-related pressures. Accelerate deployment of new technologies and investments to expand operational capacities in the medium term The 2008 drop in air travel passenger levels and improvement in on-time performance has continued into 2009. GAO recommends that the “FAA shift its focus from planning for NextGen to maximizing what can be done with existing. some of the nation’s 35 busiest airports will still need new capacity. which the task force identified. The primary goal of these investments must be explicit: to ease congestion and expand capacity in our nation’s busiest metropolitan areas.77 “The federal government must plan ahead and begin to accelerate deployment of new technologies and investments to expand operational capacities.76 The country can not afford to aim short—and it can not afford to send limited financial resources to under-used airports. the situation expected to reverse when the domestic and world economies recover.

In response. Aviation advances have served to improve connections among American metropolitan areas and with other world cities. In turn. On-time performance dropped precipitously during the past two decades. The country stands at a unique moment. providing a critical tool in the growth of the country’s high-end service industries. The intrinsic connection between economic growth and commercial aviation will force infrastructure investments to match upcoming economic growth. federal and state governments primarily limited their non-automobile. These dueling trends have created a set of serious implications for federal policymakers. The return of economic expansion will require high-growth industries to be supplied with an educated workforce and goods from around the world. But these positive trends belie some of the serious inadequacies within commercial aviation and the transportation system as a whole. especially due to the high volume of short-haul flights. And while passenger levels began dropping in late 2008. Conclusion ommercial air travel and its growth since deregulation have benefited customers and metropolitan areas alike. C BROOKINGS | October 2009 23 . they are expected to resume their growth in short order. It is critical that the country gets these investments right. In response. Air travel continues to produce more and more environmental pollutants. passenger levels have grown in lock-step with national economic growth since 1990. Metropolitan areas should be empowered to enact congestion-management policies. Real ticket prices have been cut almost in half since 1978. the federal government must address these implications and implement targeted reforms. But all of this will not be possible without an efficient and equitable intermetropolitan transportation network. And the federal government simply must accelerate the deployment of available technologies to create more capacity within the current system. particularly due to an air-traffic control system unable to comfortably manage growing passenger and flight levels. those investments must target two critical systemic elements: the large volume of environmentally and spatially inefficient flights under 500 miles and the country’s critical 26 metropolitan hubs.VI. intermetropolitan investments to aviation. Targeted transportation investments will have the opportunity to create such a network and unleash that growth. leaving consumers with little modal choice and a travel system ill-prepared to manage ever-rising gas prices. Finally. Air travel statistics must be utilized when selecting high-speed rail investments.

0% 1.631 3. MI Greensboro-High Point.247.687 382. FL 2007 Qualifying Population Commercial Domestic Rank Airports Hub 71 57 60 62 9 95 37 64 20 67 47 86 10 73 56 46 85 81 35 97 3 24 25 83 69 32 4 59 21 91 11 68 55 66 72 82 94 45 54 6 33 93 40 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 No No No No Yes No No No Yes No No No Yes No No No No Yes No Yes No No No No No Yes No Yes No Yes No No No No No No No Yes Yes No No No 24 METROPOLITAN INFRASTRUCTURE INITIATIVE SERIES .308 1.1% -21.2% -5.6% -11.8% -25.9% 7.289 16.9% 9.1% -5.9% -40.858 653.2% -7.8% 11.1% -6.4% 39. IN Jackson.7% 46. TX Indianapolis.798 2.9% 198.4% 8.0% -16. IA Detroit-Warren-Livonia.4% -16.417. NY Cape Coral-Fort Myers.959.249 865.6% 2. NC Greenville.8% 0.237.6% -6.149 23.2% 0.869.004 6. GA-SC Austin-Round Rock.2% 1. HI Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown.505.4% 27.4% -1. CT Buffalo-Niagara Falls.2% 39.6% -2.583.7% 30.360 23.383 30.551 960. NM Allentown-BethlehemEaston.7% 0.9% -4.4% -7.467 9.2% 3. TX Dayton.843 941.9% 29.5% -4.3% -12.0% 9.324 651. CO Columbia.5% 34.9% -3.4% -4. FL Charleston-North Charleston.5% -15.3% 42.596 3.1% -10.6% 51.1% -22.7% 21.8% 30.2% -1. MD Baton Rouge.7% -6.241 1.6% -6.173 40.5% 67.630 14.3% 5. CT Honolulu.157.0% 9. AL Boise City-Nampa.1% 24.710 5. SC Harrisburg-Carlisle.4% -12.678.3% 25.9% 69.3% -12. GA Augusta-Richmond County.8% 12.7% -3.5% 7.8% 2.9% -1.Appendix 1. MI El Paso.170 17.279 1.2% -5.7% 10.855 572.9% 31.1% -8.1% 19.991 2.712 289.030.6% 25.4% -6. PA Hartford-West HartfordEast Hartford.0% -9. SC Columbus.1% -7. OH Colorado Springs. IL-IN-WI Cincinnati-Middletown.3% -16.619 1.2% 14.7% -8. OH Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington. TX Fresno.4% 26.944.1% 82. OH Denver-Aurora.9% 195.706 43.258 553.3% 40.8% -3.8% -6. March International March 2009 1-Year 5-Year 10-Year Hub 2009 (Annualized) Change Change Change No No No No Yes No No No No No No No Yes No No No No Yes No Yes No No No No No Yes No Yes No Yes No No No No No No No Yes Yes No No No 12 19 35 10 145 2 41 7 54 5 23 18 61 12 20 28 12 98 10 133 93 77 15 12 27 124 18 127 18 114 15 11 14 15 15 14 28 22 109 36 10 27 715.954 4. OH-KY-IN Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor.868 5.7% 63.2% 9.8% -24.4% 39.6% -12.3% -2.2% -13.652 368.153.5% -1. TN-GA Chicago-Naperville-Joliet.2% -8.498.106 2.3% -1. CA Baltimore-Towson.5% 8.554.1% 16.430 1.9% 55. LA Birmingham-Hoover.6% -11. NY Albuquerque. CA Grand Rapids-Wyoming.8% - 3.2% -3.885.776 167.210 3.228 125.1% -16. PA-NJ Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta.742 8.690.0% 4.331 608. FL Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk.3% 14.7% 18.337.6% -9.0% -10.7% 17. TX Bakersfield.2% 8.0% 9.1% -2.7% 29.7% 11. MS Jacksonville.8% 14. MA-NH Bradenton-Sarasota-Venice.458.0% 16.6% 234.4% -5.8% -5. 100 Largest Metropolitan Areas Metropolitan and Micropolitan Destination Passengers Connections.4% -7.1% 7.6% 3.124.7% 24.1% Metro Akron.2% 7.511 877.2% -5.1% -12. CO Des Moines.181.3% -7.0% 1. OH Albany-Schenectady-Troy. NC-SC Chattanooga.537.3% 9.905. SC Charlotte-Gastonia-Concord.639.613 1.1% 16.442 687.546 3. ID Boston-Cambridge-Quincy.

380 132.280.1% -2.1% -50.429 6.9% -8.2% 4.9% 24. Paul16 Bloomington.4% 18.869. March International March 2009 1-Year 5-Year 10-Year Hub 2009 (Annualized) Change Change Change No No Yes No Yes No No No No Yes No Yes No No Yes No No Yes No Yes Yes No No No No No No No 53 17 97 18 73 24 14 3 83 62 48 122 39 31 96 23 22 85 1 80 83 35 12 44 6 19 35 18 5.2% 0.818. RI-MA Provo-Orem.418 -12.7% -2. KY-IN 42 Madison.7% -10.9% 22. FL Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis.153 1.7% -8.7% 31. AZ 13 Pittsburgh. ME Portland-Vancouver23 Beaverton.3% 38.5% 18.9% 18. FL 92 Philadelphia-Camden5 Wilmington.213 797.8% -2.589.4% 50.1% 13.9% 16.1% 25.150.5% 40.931 5. OR-WA Poughkeepsie-Newburgh77 Middletown.4% 45. FL 87 Las Vegas-Paradise.663.8% 0.145.097 19.265 15.506. CA 99 Nashville-Davidson— 39 Murfreesboro.3% -53.6% -1.236. VA 43 2007 Qualifying Population Commercial Domestic Rank Airports Hub 1 1 0 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 0 1 0 1 5 0 1 1 2 0 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 No No Yes No Yes No No No No Yes No Yes No No Yes No No Yes No Yes Yes No No Yes No No No No BROOKINGS | October 2009 25 . TN-MS-AR 41 Miami-Fort Lauderdale7 Miami Beach.0% 8.126 53.488 711. MO-KS 29 Knoxville.0% -14.2% -4.0% -5.1% -16.0% -7.7% -1. WI 38 Minneapolis-St.Appendix 1.797 1.194 17.7% 11.739.3% 17.0% 5.5% 39.2% 17.4% -4. WI 89 McAllen-Edinburg-Mission. CA Palm Bay-Melbourne-Titusville.756.1% 13. CA Louisville.0% -40.5% 4.8% -3.929.9% 35. UT 96 Oklahoma City.0% 92.8% -9.125.3% 16.220 4.3% 4.056 35.862 3.8% -7.9% 26.375 4. NC 49 Richmond.670.8% 24.6% -7.8% 22. CT 58 New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner.9% -6.881 3.1% 17.6% -12.062 862. NE-IA 61 Orlando-Kissimmee. PA-NJ-DE-MD Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale.947 2. UT 100 Raleigh-Cary.3% -10.180 15.6% Metro Kansas City.654 344.032 1.414. TN New Haven-Milford.266. OK 44 Omaha-Council Bluffs. NY Providence-New Bedford36 Fall River.8% -3.941. TX 70 Memphis. 100 Largest Metropolitan Areas (continued) Metropolitan and Micropolitan Destination Passengers Connections.496 2.4% -33.9% -7.937 29.8% 168.5% -36.9% 36.131.4% -6.037 20. PA 22 Portland-South Portland98 Biddeford.0% -7.1% 7.8% 3.7% 18.6% -6.3% -7.9% 3. TN 75 Lakeland-Winter Haven. NV 30 Little Rock-North Little Rock.7% 25.244 4.4% 4.6% -6. LA 51 New York-Northern New Jersey1 Long Island.0% 20.1% -9.002.1% -2.187 300.6% -6.1% 7.6% 11. NY-NJ-PA Ogden-Clearfield. MN-WI Modesto.3% 26. AR 78 Los Angeles-Long Beach2 Santa Ana.378 1. FL 27 Oxnard-Thousand Oaks63 Ventura.7% -12.4% 47.112.3% 21.485.366.

8% -11.6% 13. CA Rochester.0% -1. CA Syracuse.178 1. T-100 Market Data (Passengers).794 9. VA-NC Washington-ArlingtonAlexandria. OH-PA 2007 Qualifying Population Commercial Domestic Rank Airports Hub 14 50 26 48 28 17 12 31 90 15 74 18 76 80 19 79 52 53 34 8 84 65 88 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 No No No Yes No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes No Yes No No No No Yes No - Source: Census (Population).826 8.078 4.5% -11.3% 63.6% 8. DC-VA-MD-WV Wichita.5% 13.2% -30.4% -4.717 19.3% 7.3% 1.3% 16.Appendix 1.7% 34.7% 24. FL Toledo.495. MA Youngstown-WarrenBoardman.8% 1.4% 29.969 15.4% -13.537.554. KS Worcester.5% 7.7% -49.5% -13.055 3.2% 18.879.4% -7.188 8.699.063.583.0% 11.712 2.309.6% 47.9% 21. NY Tampa-St.606 23.9% -25.0% -6.1% 16.096 1. CA San Francisco-OaklandFremont.9% 13.5% -11. CA Scranton—Wilkes-Barre.6% 5.5% 10.087.5% -9.5% -54.2% - Metro Riverside-San BernardinoOntario.4% 0.7% -60.136 208. NY Sacramento—Arden-Arcade— Roseville.3% -8. MO-IL Stockton.1% 22.2% -7.242.2% -6.753.8% -8. Louis.7% -5.2% 4.143 4. MA St.447 750. CA San Jose-SunnyvaleSanta Clara. OH Tucson. WA Springfield.275 107. 100 Largest Metropolitan Areas (continued) Metropolitan and Micropolitan Destination Passengers Connections. T-100 Segment Data (Connections) 26 METROPOLITAN INFRASTRUCTURE INITIATIVE SERIES .0% -1.5% -4. TX San Diego-CarlsbadSan Marcos.4% 33.139 1. PetersburgClearwater. CA Salt Lake City.543.4% 29.368 1.7% 6.1% 87. March International March 2009 1-Year 5-Year 10-Year Hub 2009 (Annualized) Change Change Change No No No No No No Yes No No Yes No No No No No No No Yes No 35 17 32 84 36 47 62 23 8 65 59 14 64 5 22 20 22 90 11 3.866 6. OK Virginia Beach-NorfolkNewport News.828. AZ Tulsa.2% 8.3% 25. PA Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue.919.3% 22.2% -6. UT San Antonio.466.7% -5.5% 15.931.3% -4.893 -19.

9% 21. PA-NJ-DE-MD Yes Yes Boston-Cambridge-Quincy.547.307 73.030 14.3% 2.8% 7.415 35. NC-SC Yes Yes Orlando-Kissimmee.9% 5.880.395.714.197.5% 2.9% 4.871 3.742.152 28. MN-WI Yes Yes Detroit-Warren-Livonia.706 2.6% 3.8% 5.939 1. TX Yes Yes Denver-Aurora.621 4.0% 10.347 14. DC-VA-MD-WV Yes Yes Charlotte-Gastonia-Concord.228 3.532.874 12.377.4% 11.815 16.5% 1. Petersburg-Clearwater.2% 0.363.677 18.373 16.557.223.0% 3.180 171.530. CA Yes No Honolulu. FL Yes Yes Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown.575 926.278 1. CA Yes Yes Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington.4% 1.3% 0.4% 1.910.1% 2.575.111.811.1% 1. Metropolitan Hubs (Annualized March 2009 Statistics) Domestic Arrivals National Passengers Share 38. CO Yes Yes Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach.735.447 28. HI Yes Yes Portland-Vancouver-Beaverton.579 20.1% 1.170.649.857.625 14.091.9% BROOKINGS | October 2009 27 .813.7% 2.551 102.8% Domestic International Metro Hub Hub Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta. CA Yes Yes Las Vegas-Paradise.0% 2.673.932 9.947.596.5% 1.773 1.5% 1.348. MD Yes No Salt Lake City. MO-IL Yes No National Total Source: T-100 Market Data International Arrivals National Passengers Share 4.8% 1. IL-IN-WI Yes Yes Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana.6% 2.5% 3.8% 2.818. Louis.660 9.3% 2.279.2% 3. NV Yes Yes Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale.016.0% 1.5% 4.852 7.595 1. AZ Yes Yes Washington-Arlington-Alexandria.110.421.559 6.833.223 1.589 18.6% 4.3% 1.3% 0.401 1.371 460.0% 0.125.4% 0.785.0% 3. OR-WA Yes No St.9% 2.702.9% 1.521.726.653 19.385. WA Yes Yes Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington.457 18.684 22. TX Yes Yes San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont.498 234.961. MA-NH Yes Yes Baltimore-Towson.078.238.505.2% 3. Paul-Bloomington.730 8.880 6.533 36. NY-NJ-PA Yes Yes Chicago-Naperville-Joliet. MI Yes Yes Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue.963 5.4% 1. GA Yes Yes New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island.4% 2.1% 3.595 1.4% 1.368 1. FL Yes Yes Minneapolis-St.540 6.0% 1.373.033 1.787 5.703.801 312.1% 5. UT Yes No Tampa-St.262 9.724 8.051.243 16.5% 2.1% 94.Appendix 2.0% 72.773 16.2% 2.833 6.2% 0.1% 2. FL Yes No San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos.768 72.632 1.325 175.

3% -1.9% 2.874 3.9% -5.758 2. MA-NH Denver-Aurora.5% -3. CA Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown.255.7% 10. FL Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana.4% 0.786. NY-NJ-PA San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont.705.306. CA Chicago-Naperville-Joliet.7% 23.8% -34. GA Las Vegas-Paradise.748.335 2.7% -5.863 2.4% 26. HI San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos.9% -9.5% -10. GA Los Angeles-Long BeachSanta Ana.427 3. CA Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta. WA Washington-Arlington-Alexandria. IL-IN-WI New York-Northern New JerseyLong Island.3% -22. NY-NJ-PA Orlando-Kissimmee. HI Charlotte-Gastonia-Concord. DC-VA-MD-WV San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont.821.2% -1.6% 10.0% 39. CA New York-Northern New JerseyLong Island.1% -6.4% -9.297.4% -2.0% -12.854 2.0% -9.797 2.396.2% 16.311 2.7% -8.7% -17.1% -4.7% 10. NV Los Angeles-Long BeachSanta Ana.6% Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta.415.487 2.4% 4.553.355.4% 3. IL-IN-WI New York-Northern New JerseyLong Island.1% 43.2% -15. WA Chicago-Naperville-Joliet. United Kingdom Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana. FL London.127 Rank Population Area 1 1 Miami-Fort LauderdaleMiami Beach.881.468 229 358 1. NY-NJ-PA Las Vegas-Paradise. IL-IN-WI Hilo.910.3% -19. TX Boston-Cambridge-Quincy.4% -13.6% -22. CO Honolulu.415 4.2% -8.2% -6.5% 11. IL-IN-WI 1-Year 5-Year 10-Year Change Change Change -6.2% -8.2% 4.648 2. NY-NJ-PA New York-Northern New JerseyLong Island.176 4. TX Orlando-Kissimmee. CA Chicago-Naperville-Joliet. HI New York-Northern New JerseyLong Island.7% -8. CA Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Miami Beach.1% 5.7% 48.535.723.755 4.4% -6.067 347 574 733 768 2.638 5.4% -0. DC-VA-MD-WV Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana.6% -22.797 2. CA Denver-Aurora. CO Los Angeles-Long BeachSanta Ana.576 232 403 1.322. IL-IN-WI 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Population Area 2 New York-Northern New JerseyLong Island.Appendix 3.4% 30.733. CA Kahului-Wailuku. HI San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont.7% -0.071 2. FL 2 Los Angeles-Long BeachSanta Ana.535.032.818 2.9% 15.6% 5.4% 1.5% 14.4% 0.3% -12. CA San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont.5% 6.8% -17. FL New York-Northern New JerseyLong Island.739 2. NY-NJ-PA Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington.775 2.224 185 853 959 540 411 892 190 447 593 222 1.2% 15.769 2.8% -21.7% 16.0% 20.3% 1. NY-NJ-PA Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue.650 2.602.5% 33.434.413.311 2. GA 4 Chicago-Naperville-Joliet. NY-NJ-PA New York-Northern New JerseyLong Island.1% -13. CA New York-Northern New JerseyLong Island.5% -17. DC-VA-MD-WV Washington-Arlington-Alexandria. NY-NJ-PA New York-Northern New JerseyLong Island.745.4% -5.2% 8. GA 28 METROPOLITAN INFRASTRUCTURE INITIATIVE SERIES .4% 5.863 2.6% 9. GA Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington.287.4% 3.979 2. Distance 2009 (miles) (Annualized) 1.6% -2. AZ Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana.7% 14. GA Honolulu. CA Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale.558 3. NY-NJ-PA Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana.063 2.306. CA Washington-Arlington-Alexandria.6% -3.2% 105. CA Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta.0% 13.980.0% 9.933 89 545 675 598 8. NY-NJ-PA Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta.0% 0.9% 8.045.333.544. CA Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue.9% 0. TX Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta.4% 9.5% 73.7% -16.5% 15.5% -1. CA 3 Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta. NV Chicago-Naperville-Joliet. NC-SC San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont.5% 4.2% 2.699.007 4.534 6.0% 28.037 3.825 2.7% -29.4% -4.0% 1.0% -3.3% 83.458 955 3. Top 100 Corridors Total Passengers Average March.

6% -4.8% -23.6% 7.174 248 1.1% -22.299 1.8% 55.6% 85.0% 22.439 2. NY-NJ-PA Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana. IL-IN-WI 36 Boston-Cambridge-Quincy. FL Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale.5% 1. CA Paris.9% 4.306 1.866. TX New York-Northern New JerseyLong Island. MA-NH 37 Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta.974.3% -2.8% 5. CA 33 Chicago-Naperville-Joliet. CA San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont. NY-NJ-PA Charlotte-Gastonia-Concord.7% 19.8% 26. TX Boston-Cambridge-Quincy.8% -3.6% -3. CA San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara.207 2.820.2% -13.111 1.866 1.518 852 732 2.0% -10. MI Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington.5% 1.717 1.642 500 1.799. TX New York-Northern New JerseyLong Island.7% -21.2% -26. IL-IN-WI 32 Los Angeles-Long BeachSanta Ana.0% -31. AZ Detroit-Warren-Livonia.332 1. Petersburg-Clearwater.030 2.0% -12.905. TX Washington-Arlington-Alexandria.2% -17.9% 5.6% 7.1% -11. TX Honolulu. Top 100 Corridors (continued) Total Passengers Average March. FL Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta. CO Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Miami Beach.247 1.035.059. MI Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington.5% 49.674 2. HI Denver-Aurora.817 1. MA-NH BROOKINGS | October 2009 29 .088 1.116.6% 16.848 318 1.0% -4.5% 18.5% 18. MA-NH Chicago-Naperville-Joliet.908. GA Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington.7% -5. PA-NJ-DE-MD Tampa-St. GA 38 Las Vegas-Paradise.735.5% 54.7% 35.994.506 1.982.126.016 624 1.4% -10.393 2.0% 131.624 1. AZ Denver-Aurora.8% -1.9% -9. TX Las Vegas-Paradise. NY-NJ-PA Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Miami Beach. NV 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 Population Area 2 San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont.1% -16.6% -8.2% Chicago-Naperville-Joliet.1% -0.811 Rank Population Area 1 31 Chicago-Naperville-Joliet.6% -11.9% -2.750. CO Denver-Aurora. NV Chicago-Naperville-Joliet. NV Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana.897. CO Los Angeles-Long BeachSanta Ana. IL-IN-WI New York-Northern New JerseyLong Island. AZ Las Vegas-Paradise.244. TX Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale.9% -15.1% -7.5% -11. IL-IN-WI Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington.367 1.4% -4.7% 49. TX Boston-Cambridge-Quincy.239 2.9% -9. IL-IN-WI 34 Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington. IL-IN-WI Chicago-Naperville-Joliet. CA Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown.030.5% -1.7% -7. CA New York-Northern New JerseyLong Island.581 1.5% -9. NY-NJ-PA Washington-Arlington-Alexandria.099.3% 3.9% 52.819.2% -4.6% 5.415 409 673 1.9% -12.253 342 190 893 406 1.9% -5. TX Las Vegas-Paradise.028.4% 49.114 256 641 1.881.0% 22.9% 66.868.818.737.6% 20.093. IL-IN-WI Denver-Aurora. MN-WI Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington.6% -8.355 1.763.0% 1.5% -3.8% -19. Distance 2009 (miles) (Annualized) 1. IL-IN-WI Chicago-Naperville-Joliet.399 1.389 1.793.0% 39. CO Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown. NC-SC Chicago-Naperville-Joliet. FL Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Miami Beach. IL-IN-WI Austin-Round Rock.0% -16.372 3.9% 1.113 2.704.7% 15.6% -15.Appendix 3. TX 35 Chicago-Naperville-Joliet.556 962 381 1.6% -21.049 2. NV Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington.4% 35.1% -13.5% -1. NY-NJ-PA Detroit-Warren-Livonia.4% -0.692. FL Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale.9% -1. Paul-Bloomington.4% 48.755 1.5% -0.220. Petersburg-Clearwater.790 1. DC-VA-MD-WV Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington.3% -10.5% 26.0% -3.442 232 800 602 629 1.0% 19.3% 44. CA Sacramento-Arden-Arcade-Roseville.2% 15.6% -4. FL 1-Year 5-Year 10-Year Change Change Change -9.928.6% -6.384 2.2% 23. France New York-Northern New JerseyLong Island.830 1.5% -17.848 1. FL San Antonio.2% 46.8% -18.122 1.962.869.2% -0.0% -17.4% -5.8% -2.7% 3.833 2. FL New York-Northern New JerseyLong Island. TX Miami-Fort LauderdaleMiami Beach.948 1.271 2. DC-VA-MD-WV Tampa-St.7% 0.202 1.7% -24. CA Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Miami Beach. NY-NJ-PA Minneapolis-St.

802 1.5% 12.5% -2. CO Miami-Fort LauderdaleMiami Beach.637. NV London.383 1.0% -6.8% -5. GA Chicago-Naperville-Joliet.6% -13.3% -22.182 304 270 693 576 931 961 391 1.9% 83.1% 33.258 1.7% -1. CO Denver-Aurora.617 1.603 304 404 949 1.5% 2.3% -2. FL Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown. AK Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington. TX Chicago-Naperville-Joliet.445.0% 30.8% 2. MA-NH Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue. TX Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale.024 1. GA 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 Population Area 2 Salt Lake City.199 1.6% 4.7% -4.396 1.7% 5. CA Jacksonville.1% -3.0% 0.0% 88. FL Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington. FL Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta.362.334 1. MO-KS Boston-Cambridge-Quincy.2% -2.483 1.810 1.3% 49.0% 52.3% 37.7% 11. Distance 2009 (miles) (Annualized) 585 997 985 102 255 649 665 2.0% 20.8% 48.3% 5.2% -28.442.3% -0.550.648.449 1.7% 20. IL-IN-WI Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta. UT San Juan-Caguas-Guaynabo.7% 16.6% 16.5% -6.053 1.4% -4. WA Washington-Arlington-Alexandria. WA Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue.660.3% -13.6% Los Angeles-Long BeachSanta Ana.Appendix 3. HI St.661.7% 18.487.727 1. PA-NJ-DE-MD 1-Year 5-Year 10-Year Change Change Change -1.3% 3.6% -15. CO Anchorage.9% -0.4% 8.2% 159.5% -18.1% 32.818 861 1.1% -23. GA Los Angeles-Long BeachSanta Ana.9% -26.1% 5.484.195 1.399. TX Baltimore-Towson.7% -9.6% 10.395. CA Honolulu.422. GA Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta. GA Chicago-Naperville-Joliet. HI Orlando-Kissimmee.747 5. NC-SC Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington.024 1.848 1.4% 18.3% 1. DC-VA-MD-WV San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos.0% -3. MO-IL San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont. LA Kansas City. PA-NJ-DE-MD Kapaa.405.1% -13.1% 17. AZ Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta.951 1.386.648. IL-IN-WI 69 Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale.4% -10. MA-NH 30 METROPOLITAN INFRASTRUCTURE INITIATIVE SERIES .1% 12. PA-NJ-DE-MD Las Vegas-Paradise.3% -8. GA Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta.485 1.842 1.456 1. CO New York-Northern New JerseyLong Island.5% -7. PA-NJ-DE-MD Washington-Arlington-Alexandria.093 1. Top 100 Corridors (continued) Total Passengers Average March.651 1.836 1.8% -7.9% -2. United Kingdom Charlotte-Gastonia-Concord. TX Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Miami Beach.566.211 1. AZ 70 Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta.547.357.5% -1. NY-NJ-PA Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue.437. FL Chicago-Naperville-Joliet.7% -5. IL-IN-WI Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta.606.494.438.2% 23.5% 35. IL-IN-WI Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown.202 1.503. CA 65 Chicago-Naperville-Joliet. FL 67 Honolulu.625.6% 8.3% -15. DC-VA-MD-WV Tokyo.950 1.5% -2.0% 11.2% -8.520. Louis.416.659 1.177 1.1% 24.3% -1.4% -4.7% 29.0% -14. TX Denver-Aurora.2% -4. MD Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown.943 1.0% 57.620.709 1.9% 42. United Kingdom San Juan-Caguas-Guaynabo. CA Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington.1% -13.4% -1.4% 2.0% -1.8% 8. NY-NJ-PA Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown.289 3.953 227 285 1. IL-IN-WI Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta.1% -21. WA Denver-Aurora.1% -6.535 1. GA Boston-Cambridge-Quincy.2% -2.3% 50.9% 29.9% 0. HI 68 Chicago-Naperville-Joliet.665 1. FL Salt Lake City.6% 5. PR New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner.7% -28.6% -4.7% 5.429. UT Orlando-Kissimmee. IL-IN-WI 66 Miami-Fort LauderdaleMiami Beach. GA Denver-Aurora.046 3.527.628.510 Rank Population Area 1 64 Los Angeles-Long BeachSanta Ana.6% -9. PR London.592 1.6% -15.732 1.6% 8.0% -21.645.508.481 1.732 1.8% -0. CA New York-Northern New JerseyLong Island.4% 114. Japan Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington.9% 12.651 1.372 1.

019 872 1. FL 99 Minneapolis-St.6% 15. PaulBloomington.1% 50.6% -5.5% 26.337.214 Rank Population Area 1 97 Miami-Fort LauderdaleMiami Beach. MN-WI 100 Denver-Aurora.2% -8.5% BROOKINGS | October 2009 31 . Petersburg-Clearwater.354.336.019 1.7% 46.9% 27.836 1.349.4% 28. NY-NJ-PA Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown.6% -8. FL 98 Miami-Fort LauderdaleMiami Beach. CO Source: T-100 Segment Data Population Area 2 Orlando-Kissimmee.709 1.8% -0.7% 24. TX 1-Year 5-Year 10-Year Change Change Change -11. Distance 2009 (miles) (Annualized) 186 192 1. Top 100 Corridors (continued) Total Passengers Average March.Appendix 3. FL New York-Northern New JerseyLong Island. FL Tampa-St.

6% 11.5 9.6 1.9 2.4 53. NC 74.7 4.1% 21.3 54.6% Average Delay (Minutes) .5% El Paso.6% Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor.3 2.0% 14.9% 7.5% 2.0% Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk. NM 83.1% 16.4% -0.9% 34.1 -0.6% 4.3% 49.9 -0.0 4.7% 3.0 16.3% 10.6 50. TX 80.7% 3.6% 5.6 54. FL Las Vegas-Paradise.2 -2. CT 78.9% Jacksonville.9% -3.1 -1. OH 81.3 -3.4 5.1 -0.7 5. CA 83.1 6.1% 9.6 4.6 4.0% 6.9% Charleston-North Charleston.4% 8.5% 11.9% -0.5% 11.1 -1.4 2.7 57.0% 6. CA 82.6 4.1% -0.7% -7.9 -2.7 -8.6 7.4% 10.9% Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta. GA 73.8% 9.5% -3.3% 12.1% 6.3 51.2 -3.9% -9.0 4.8 5.1 1.1% 1.7 0.3% Greenville.0% 6.6 6.4% -8.0% 4.1 58. MI 83.1% 3. PA-NJ 78. 100 Largest Metropolitan Areas’ On-Time Statistics On-Time Performance .9 4.5 4. AL 78.7 -3.9 -0. MS 77.7 4.2% 5.9 53.5 7.6% -21.2% 22.8 61.9 59.3 53.2 -5.2 53.0 -1.7% 2.6% Charlotte-Gastonia-Concord.9% -4.4% -2.8 6.8% 9.9% Cincinnati-Middletown.4% 19. TX 82.7 56.1 5.4% Chattanooga.4 -0. HI 84. SC 73.5 -2.3% Kansas City. OH-KY-IN 81.0 49.7% 6. NY 77.5% 6.4% 9. SC 76.6 4. IN 81.6 51.2 6.1 53.1 -3.2% 7.8% 13.3 0.8 1.0 47.9 54.9% Chicago-Naperville-Joliet. SC 75.5% Cape Coral-Fort Myers.0% 16.4 5.6 8.7 58. FL 78. TX 81.7% Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown.1 1.0 -0.1 53.2% 12.0% -4.4% Baton Rouge.4% -3.8 -2.9% 8.6 1.9% 7.3 1.3 -1.0 -4.0% Dayton.6% -6.5 57. NY 78.9 -3.9 7.9 54.8% 17.3% -0.7 52.5% 17.2% -3.5% 9.0 53.8% 33.9% 20.1% 8.2% -7.2 3.6% Boston-Cambridge-Quincy.5 -0.9% 40.9 6.4% -3.8% 1.0% -3.1 1.5 -0.4% 6. OH 77.2 -1.7 1.1 4.9 5.7% 4.9% 10.9% Boise City-Nampa. CO 79. MD 82. MA-NH 75.3 4.9 4.0 2. LA 77.0% 7.5 3.8 50.8% 3.0 2. IL-IN-WI 77.6 65.9 0.8% 8.6% -0.5% Albuquerque.0 61.9% 6.9% 11.3% Baltimore-Towson.2% 9.Appendix 4.0 -4.3% 6.9% -2.2 58. CT Buffalo-Niagara Falls. FL 80.2% 4.3 49.1% Birmingham-Hoover.7% Detroit-Warren-Livonia.3% -2.8% Knoxville. GA-SC 74. OH 75.5 3.5 -1.6 4.4% Colorado Springs.8 -1.2 Metro Akron.6 51. ID 82.8 -0.6% 28.0% Austin-Round Rock. MO-KS 80.6% Jackson.9 57.8% 12.2 1.8 1.9 -1.0 1.7 55.5% 14.9 5.0 4.3% 22.9% 20.1 4.7 -5.3% Bakersfield.8% 0.7% Harrisburg-Carlisle.2% Grand Rapids-Wyoming.8% 5.6% Columbus.3% 9.4% -2.6% 5.7 -4.5 -2.5% -0.5% Lakeland-Winter Haven.0% 12.7 51.6% Fresno.2 3.8 9.0 4. AR 76.4% 7.0 0.9 -1.7% 6.6% 9. CO 80.8 55.5 2.2% -1.9% Columbia.5 52.7 7.6 5.3% -6.4% -7.7 2.4 52.5% 24.5% Greensboro-High Point.3 10.8% 13.2 2.6 -5.7% 17.0 -1. OH 79.4 3. NC-SC 79.0% Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton.6 7.9% 32 METROPOLITAN INFRASTRUCTURE INITIATIVE SERIES .0% 6.2% 7.3 0.4 -7.6% 1.8 5.0 2.0% -1.2% -2.5% Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington. PA 76.1 8.9 1.9 0.4% 8.5% 8.5 6. IA 77.5 4.6% 5.7% Albany-Schenectady-Troy.9% Honolulu. NV 81.8 -0.1% 8.2% 6.3 2.9 9.2 0.1 6.4% 8.4% Little Rock-North Little Rock.6% Augusta-Richmond County.7% 10.6% 6.2 0.9% 12.5 -0.6% -3.4% 2.8% 13.5% 17.3% 15. MI 79.7% 7.2% Indianapolis.Delayed Arrivals Only June 2009 Change (Annualized) 1-Year 5-Year 10-Year 58. TX 82.3% 0.2 5.2 54.8% 4.0 11.5 8.7 56.0 2.2 7.2 49.1 3.1 6.0% 7. TN-GA 77.8% 5.7% Denver-Aurora.4 54.9 1.7 4.7 4.0% 21.1% 6.8 54.7% -4.1 57.Arriving Flights June 2009 Change (Percentage Points) (Annualized) 1-Year 5-Year 10-Year 3.8% Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford.4% Des Moines.7 -8.0 4.8 1.2 1.2 54.7% 6.1% 3. TN 78.5 -0.9 52.9% 2.7% 1.

FL 75.3 51.1 MN-WI Modesto.8% 1. UT Oklahoma City.1 54.4 -0. AZ 83.2% -2.0% 5.8% 13.7% - - - - BROOKINGS | October 2009 33 . CA Nashville-Davidson—Murfreesboro.1 50.1% 5. WI 80.9% 3.6 6.1% 12.2 7.7% 11.0 San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont.8 2.0% 3.5% 4.7 Madison.1% 52.6 1.8 0.2% 5.4% 22. RI-MA Provo-Orem. CA 75.3 0.7% 9.1% 10.9% 11.0 New Haven-Milford.8% 13.4% 5.2% -5.4% -2.5 Middletown.4% 6.7 64. FL 76. ME 73.2 -4.6% 19.3% 4.6 Roseville.9 0.3 0.6% 9. TX 82.5 Louisville.7% 3.5 0.6 1.1% 0.3 -1.3 -0.1% 1.5 -11.2% 22.1% 6.4% 12.0% -2.5% 9.0% 7.3% 3. CA 83.8% 18.2 0.Delayed Arrivals Only June 2009 Change (Annualized) 1-Year 5-Year 10-Year 51.6% 3.3 -0.6% 10.3 0.5 Rochester.1% -1.0 1.5% 33.5 0.0% 14.0 Richmond.5% -1. TX 80. WA 78.5% 14.1 0.3 54.4 54.3% 3.9% 11.3% 5.2% 9.6 -6.9% 4.3 -0.4 0.4 Long Island.5 2.1% 5. NY 73.1% 6.3 -1.3% 19.2% 9.3% 12. NY-NJ-PA Ogden-Clearfield.6% -5. OR-WA 81. NY Providence-New Bedford79.1 -7. Paul-Bloomington.8% 5.1% -2.2 -3.6% -1.8% 13.2 San Antonio.6 Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington.3% 3.0% 5.5% 2.3% 5.0% 5.2 47.6% 5.1% 11.0 Fall River.1% 3.4% 13. NC 76.2 Memphis.7 9. CT New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner.7 7.2% 5.0% 11. TN 81.4 6.2% 2. CA 82.0% -0.8% 4. CA Palm Bay-Melbourne-Titusville.9 Springfield.3% 7.3 3.9 48.1% 7.0 0.9% 3.0% 5.7 Scranton—Wilkes-Barre.4 -0.6 49.8% -4.0% 7.3 0.9% 11. FL 69.0 51.0 48.9 3.5% 7.5 6.6 49.2 -7.3 6. CA 81.5 48.6 61.9% 9.3 2.2 Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario.6 6.7 Omaha-Council Bluffs.0 51.2% 8.0 -5. FL 80.9% 9.2 3.5 San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara.2 Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura.1% 53.5 New York-Northern New Jersey66.7 Minneapolis-St. MA Average Delay (Minutes) .5 1.8 -2.0 Pittsburgh.2 6.2 5.4% 3.6% -1.7 1.5% 3.7% 4.8 58.1% 11.1% -0.9 58.4% 19.7% 52.8 0.5% 6.0 4.1 -3. CA Salt Lake City.3% 5.4 -2.1 48.8 Portland-Vancouver-Beaverton.7 1.0 Sarasota-Bradenton-Venice.4 McAllen-Edinburg-Mission.4% 0.1% -4.5% 13.2% 0.2 2. 73.4% 3.5 49.5 2.0 3.3% 10.1% 7.7 Portland-South Portland-Biddeford.6% -1.4% 1.2 Sacramento—Arden-Arcade— 82.6% 7.4 -1.1% 4.9% 2.4 Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue.4 53.9% 4.9 0.Appendix 4.2% 1.6% 19. PA 77.9% -8.7% 22.2 1.4% 10.1 -2.9 1.2 0.9 PA-NJ-DE-MD Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale.2% 2.3 Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis.1 55.3 7. VA 75. 100 Largest Metropolitan Areas’ On-Time Statistics (continued) On-Time Performance .8 3. WI 79.7 4.1 0.9 51.6 Poughkeepsie-Newburgh77.1 -1.6% 4. NE-IA 78. PA 78.9% 18.3 San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos.9 -0.3% 7.9 Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Miami Beach.9% 7. 82. UT 86. UT Raleigh-Cary.1% 55.0% 12.9 -1.1% -10.3 60.9 58.9 51.8% 7.9 58.7% 5.3 54.8% 5.3% 19.7 10.8% 1.7% -10.9% 4. CA 84. OK 79.3 -0.6 0.8% 3.0% 4.3 -0.3% 6. TN-MS-AR 83.4% 15.Arriving Flights June 2009 Change (Percentage Points) Metro (Annualized) 1-Year 5-Year 10-Year Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana.0% 13.7% 2. KY-IN 79.0% 27. LA 79.9% 8.4 0.0% 5.6 52.6% 52.3 9.3% 6.1 68.5 Orlando-Kissimmee.1 -0.1% 10.4% 11.

9% 82.9% 17.6 52.6% 80.Appendix 4.0% 20. MO-IL Stockton.6% 7.6% 74. Louis.4 4.1 56.4 -2.5% 4.1% -3.0 3.0% 0.5% -0.1% 10.7 2.1 0.5 6.5 4.Arriving Flights June 2009 Change (Percentage Points) (Annualized) 1-Year 5-Year 10-Year 81.7% -5.7% 79.4 -1.4% -0. 100 Largest Metropolitan Areas’ On-Time Statistics (continued) On-Time Performance .8% 78.6 1.1 1.0 4.8% 8. Petersburg-Clearwater. AZ Tulsa.Delayed Arrivals Only June 2009 Change (Annualized) 1-Year 5-Year 10-Year 53.7 52.3% 7.3 Metro St.0 6.4 2.0 1.7% 10.3% -1. CA Syracuse.7% -1.2% - - - - - - - - 34 METROPOLITAN INFRASTRUCTURE INITIATIVE SERIES .1% 79.5 4.7% -0. OK Virginia Beach-NorfolkNewport News.1 4.6% -0. KS Worcester.7% 21. MA Youngstown-Warren-Boardman.5% -8.5 56.5% -2. DC-VA-MD-WV Wichita.0% 76.1 56.1% 4.2% 7.3% 7.8 3.0% 77.1 2. FL Toledo.3% 9.8 49.9% 2.1 7. OH-PA Source: On-Time Performance Database Average Delay (Minutes) . OH Tucson.1 53.3% 4.6 50.1 3.5% 4.5 0.1 -1.8 -2. VA-NC Washington-Arlington-Alexandria. NY Tampa-St.1 2.4 0.5 5.0 13.

See also: Joyce E. 18. Jan Brueckner.2. 19. Vol. US Airways filed for bankruptcy in 2002 and 2004.S.htm. 2. 2001. Congress is wrestling with different levels of funding for high speed rail from the House ($4 billion) and Senate ($1.” 1996.bts. 1977–2009 from 2007 and Down 3. 2009.gov/programs/airline_information/fuel_cost_and_consumption. Federal Aviation Administration. then merged with America West in 2005. 1926 – 2008.Endnotes 1.S. pp. 21.” Report GAO-09-481T. Airlines (1978 Prices). “Aboard Planes. Annual Passenger Yields: U.” Report 430-R-09004. “Inventory of U. available at www. 54(3): 2003. 2002. 14. “National Airspace System: FAA Reauthorization Issues are Critical to System Transformation and Operations. Air Transport Association. Samantha Putt del Pino and Pankaj Bhatia. “Working 9 to 5 on Climate Change: An Office Guide. 7. “Real Estate Report Yearend 2007. 11. “December 2008 Airline Traffic Data: System Traffic Down 5. U. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2007. Air Transport Association. 40 (8): 2003. Bureau of Transportation Statistics. Reston. 8. 16. Government Accountability Office.S.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics. 6.bts. 2009a. It is also an international concern as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) expects an increase in aircraftrelated global emissions by 2050 irrespective of large or small economic growth.” Report GAO-08-1154T. See: U. National Resources Defense Council.S. At the time of publication. available at www.” World Resources Institute.airlines. pp.’ American Sociological Review. Airline Network Benefits: Measuring the Additional Benefits Generated by Airline Networks for Economic Development. Historical Air Traffic Data. 26. “Airport Infrastructure Spillovers in a Network System. 1954–2008. Penner and others. available at www.org/maps/charts/ climate-CO2byMode.” Urban Studies. See: Mark Smyth and Brian Pearce. Government Accountability Office. “Air Passenger Linkages and Employment Growth in U. 10.7 Percent in 2008. Herndon. ATA filed for its final bankruptcy in 2008. Government Accountability Office. Air Carrier Traffic Statistics. see: Michelle Higgins.org/ economics/finance/PaPricesYield. Fuel Cost and Consumption. “FAA’s NextGen Implementation Plan 2009. 13.” March 12. BTS. Metropolitan Areas. Northwest and Delta both filed for bankruptcy in 2005 and completed their merger in 2008. available at www. 1926 – 2008. 9. For example. 2009b.gov/programs/airline_information/air_carrier_traffic_statistics. Section 8.” New York Times.htm. Vol. See: Fairfax County Economic Development Authority. 12. Government Accountability Office. pp. and Tysons Corner. “Next Generation Air Transportation System: Status of Key Issues Associated with the Transition to NextGen.S. 2006.S. Aviation and the Global Atmosphere.” 2009.S. 1977–2009. Oxford Economic Forecasting. 2008.sightline. Airlines (1978 Prices). 2009a.” Report GAO-09-377T.gov/press_releases/2009/bts012_09/html/ bts012_09.” Report GAO-09-554. U.airlines.bts. 27. 524-537. Airline Data and Statistics. “How Low-Carbon Can You Go: The Green Travel Ranking. 5. 3. (56): 1991. 22. Bureau of Transportation Statistics.” 2006. available at www.7 Percent in December BROOKINGS | October 2009 35 . “Aviation and Climate Change: Aircraft Emissions Expected to Grow. 23. GAO.org/ economics/finance/PaPricesYield.” Journal of Urban Economics. 17. 24. “Next Generation Air Transportation System: Issues Associated with Midterm Implementation of Capabilities and Full System Transformation.3. “The Economic Contribution of the Aviation Industry in the UK. U. Fuel Cost and Consumption. November 25. The IPCC also expects aviation’s share of global emissions to rise from 2 to 3 percent. 2009. 25. 4. but Technological and Operational Improvements and Government Policies Can Help Control Emissions. 1455–1469. Vol.S. Michael Irwin and John Kasarda. Class Conflict. United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2009. “Airline Traffic and Urban Economic Development.” 2008.2 billion) versions of the FY2010 appropriations bill. Jeffrey Cohen and Catherine Morrison Paul.” 2008. IATA Economics. Source: Authors’ analysis of Bureau of Transportation On-Time Performance Database statistics Ibid. These results also were reinforced by an econometric analysis by the International Air Transport Association. 20. 459-473. available at www. Mergers and bankruptcy filings since 2000: TWA and American airlines merged in 2001. GAO. Environmental Protection Agency. These statistics include the inventories of Dulles. U. Annual Passenger Yields: U. “Flying Off Course: Environmental Impacts of America’s Airports. Sightline Institute.html. 2009b. 15. 2007.

“Passenger Transport Emissions Factors. The nine exceptions included three major international metropolitan areas (London. 32. the current recession has produced cuts in international travel according to executives from Boeing and Airbus. and aviation-reliant Anchorage (AK). However.bts. For more hub-and-spoke information.S. Paris.” 2009.2. see Appendix B. For more information on the metropolitan nature of the U. 48. economy. 2009.” USA Today. Also. For a description of these delay categories. 1980. 36 METROPOLITAN INFRASTRUCTURE INITIATIVE SERIES . 41. 46. 45. 417–425. but the airport is actually closer to the city of Greenville than Spartanburg. National-Level Average Fare Series. Bureau of Transportation Statistics. We also considered each non-metropolitan commercial service airport the same as a metropolitan area.8.2 percent of the $1. Schank.oig. “Aerospace Forecast. Department of Transportation.S. The FAA also provides a comprehensive description on their web site at www. 2009b. Federal Aviation Administration. 49. SC metropolitan area. and 1981.bts. Source: Authors’ analysis of Federal Aviation Administration’s Airport Improvement Program data. 47. available at www. Advisory No.html. AA-2009-003. 37. J.” Brookings. The average number of passengers per flight in 1990 was 72.” Journal of Air Transport Management. while the average in 2008 was 75. Congress is considering raising the PFC cap to $6 or $7 for certain airports. “The Economics of Airport Congestion Pricing. 2009. At the time of publication. 59.xml. 1451) does not. domestic or international. 915) includes an increase but the Senate’s current version (S.3 billion package has been assigned to specific airport projects. Vol. 1975. 52. The FAA considers any domestic airport handling 1 percent of all enplanements over one year. 33. Regular service is defined as averaging more than 2 flights per week in each direction of a corridor. 11: 2005. GAO. Metropolitan Areas Fuel Prosperity. 90. “MetroNation: How U. 54. GAO. 2007.” 2007. Lihue.gov/help/aviation/html/understanding. 43. Emissions factors provided by the United Kingdom’s Department for Environment. “National Transportation System: Options and Analytical Tools to Strengthen DOT’s Approach to Supporting Communities’ Access to the System. 56. H. metropolitan San Juan (PR). September 9. At that time. 36. 03-083/3. Eric A. 2007.28. Source: Authors’ analysis of ARRA reporting data. 55. These domestic numbers only include flights hosted by domestic carriers. three popular Hawaiian Island airports (Kona. see: Alan Berube.” Tinbergen Institute Discussion Paper No. Two follow-up reports also discuss the hub-and-spoke system.” New York Times.’ See the FAA’s most recent national map from 2007 at www. “Global Air Travel May Not Recover Until 2011.000 internationally arriving passengers in 2008. Government Accountability Office. to be a ‘Large Hub. Based on U. 51. ibid 53. see the Methodology Section.” 2002. pp. available at www. The data is from a project list dated July 1. GAO. 39. U. Berube. Food. “Feds Keep Little-Used Airports in Business. For example. and Tokyo). 40. This is exactly what the FAA does when publishing the on-time statistics—uses the sample-size percentages to represent the entire country’s performance.” Report GAO-09-753. The Air Carrier Statistics database is also available in other combinations limited to domestic carriers and domestic flights. September 18. 30. Due to these locational dynamics. 2009a. 57. For a complete list of metropolitan on-time performance. 34. 58. there is dissension as the House’s FAA reauthorization legislation (H. Thomas Frank.html. see: Reconnecting America “Missed Connections: Finding Solutions to the Crisis in Air Travel.gov/xml/atpi/src/avgfareseries. Only 29 of these metropolitan areas’ 44 commercial service airports hosted at least 10.pdf.S. and Rural Affairs. Conference Committee will likely determine the maximum levy. Source: Authors’ calculations based on T-100 Segment data. Joshua L.S. 38. Air Carriers only. 50.’ 42. “Solving Airside Airport Congestion: Why Peak Runway Pricing is Not Working. See: Jeremiah Marquez. we associated this airport’s performance with the Greenville metropolitan area.R. 2009. Pels. 29. 35. 2009. 2009a. 44. Hence the use of ‘metropolitan and micropolitan areas.gov/programs/geographic_information_services/ maps/hub_maps/2007/html/map. U.dot. Greenville Spartanburg International Airport is a few miles over the border of the Greenville metropolitan boundary into the Spartanburg metropolitan area. and Maui). 2009.gov/StreamFile?file=/data/pdfdocs/Final_ARRA_Advisory_AIP_%283%29. Fiscal Years 2009 – 2025. see Appendix D.bts. The one exception to this was the Greenville. the other years with air travel decreases since 1956 were 1970.S. Based on authors’ calculations of a floor for regular service that exceeded sub-regional service. 31.

71. GAO mentions that performance-based navigation and approach capabilities. The MITRE Corporation. “The Effect of FAA Expenditures on Air Travel Delays.S. in turn. See Also: Nicole Adler. pp. 2008-16.” Journal of Transport Economics and Policy. 72. Chris Nash.2009b. 2007 – 2025 (FACT 2). “High-speed rail and air passenger transport: a comparison of the operational environmental performance. “The Economic Effects of High Speed Rail Investment.” 2009. available at www. Specifically. and enhance efficiency.” There are also data communication capabilities that upgrade plane-to-control communications and. Vol. “RTCA Task Force 5 NextGen Mid-Term Implementation Task Force Report. GAO. Vol. 64. “Ave Madrid.” 70. Steven A. 66. Report GAO-09-317. See the pages linked from the following URL: www. these limitations may significantly reduce the competitive distances. Government Accountability Office. 77-108. “allow for more efficient arrival and departure procedures.pdf. See Also: Ginés De Rus.gov/programs/airline_ information/. see: Ginés De Rus. 2009c. … more routes.com/pdf/NortheastCorridor. For one example. 217(4): 2003.” Journal of Urban Economics. and enable the use of runways that cannot currently be used under certain conditions. GAO found that the Japanese experience discovered higher ridership along corridors with multiple large urban areas. Among other sources. ibid 74. See: U. 65. TI 2008-103/3. and Eric Pels. 2009e 75. Part F: Journal of Rail and Rapid Transit. 69. pp. GAO. 2009. 2007. GAO-09718R. “High Speed Passenger Rail: Future Development Will Depend on Addressing Financial and Other Challenges and Establishing a Clear Federal Role”. capacity and safety. M Janic.” Tinbergen Institute Discussion Paper. 2009 – 2013. 62. which are mature and already active in certain areas. Northeast Corridor Trains Report. Hearing on ATC Modernization: Near-Term Achievable Goals. An Analysis of Airport and Metropolitan Area Demand and Operational Capacity in the Future. “improve air traffic controller productivity. 669-678. 2009. BTS is constantly updating its air travel statistics. Federal Aviation Administration “National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems. February 5.” The Economist.60. 67. Amtrak.bts.” Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. Ibid. “Capacity Needs in the National Airspace System. pp.” Discussion Paper No. Since many of the lines currently under consideration would only offer speeds of up to 110 mph.” Federal Aviation Administration. “High Speed Rail and Air Transport Competition. BROOKINGS | October 2009 37 . 38(1): 2004. Morrison and Clifford Winston. “The Economic Effects of High Speed Rail Investment.” 2008. OECD and International Transportation Forum Joint Transport Research Centre. 63. RTCA. 73. Mar González-Savignat. 61. GAO. 2009b.” See: Responses to Questions for the Record: March 18. Fiscal Year 2008.amtrak. 76. 68. 259-269. Vol. 77. Report to Congress. “Competition in Air Transport: The Case of the High Speed Train. 63: 2008. 2009c. October 2008.

We also thank our Metro Program collaborators: Alan Berube.edu For General Information Metropolitan Policy Program at Brookings 202. and the Heinz Endowments.edu/metro 38 METROPOLITAN INFRASTRUCTURE INITIATIVE SERIES . MacArthur Foundation. Finally. This work builds on a decade of independent and rigorous research and policy development funded through prior support from the Ford Foundation. thank you to the officials at the Bureau of Transportation Statistics that reviewed our methodology. the Joyce Foundation.6071 rpuentes@brookings. Thomas Berry. David Jackson. for their general support of the program. Kara Kockelman. Learn more about the Blueprint at www.org.brookings. Joshua Schank. Rebecca Romash. William Swelbar.797.797. For More Information Adie Tomer Research Analyst Metropolitan Policy Program Brookings Institution 202. and the Rockefeller Foundation. Martin Dresner. The Metropolitan Policy Program at Brookings thanks the Surdna Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation for their support of the program’s Metropolitan Infrastructure Initiative and the John D. Amy Liu. and Anne Wingate.6060 atomer@brookings. the George Gund Foundation. We also wish to thank the members of the Metropolitan Leadership Council for their support of the Blueprint Initiative. Robert Lang. Charles Stewart Mott Foundation. Metropolitan Infrastructure Initiative Metropolitan Policy Program Brookings Institution 202.797.Acknowledgements For their substantive and thoughtful comments on earlier drafts and other elements of this paper. Jane Garvey. the William Penn Foundation.6139 www. Mark Muro. Stephen Van Beek. MacArthur Foundation. and Catherine T.blueprintprosperity. and Clifford Winston. Emilia Istrate. a multi-year initiative to promote an economic agenda for the nation that builds on the assets and centrality of America’s metropolitan areas. we wish to acknowledge: Scott Bernstein. Anthony Downs. the McKnight Foundation. the Rockefeller Foundation.edu Robert Puentes Senior Fellow and Director.

S. and commentary on transportation and infrastructure are available at: http://www.aspx In the Series ! The Road…Less Traveled: An Analysis of Vehicle Miles Traveled Trends in the U.brookings. the goal of the Metropolitan Infrastructure Initiative is to develop timely.edu/metro. frame key debates. and offer policy recommendations to help leaders in the United States and abroad address key infrastructure challenges with specific emphasis on transportation. speeches.brookings. The initiative is part of the Metro Program’s flagship research and policy initiative.edu/metro/Infrastructure-Initiative. ! Making Transportation Sustainable: Insights from Germany ! Memo to the President: Invest in Long-Term Prosperity ! A Bridge to Somewhere: Rethinking American Transportation for the 21st Century ! An Inherent Bias? Geographic and Racial-Ethnic Patterns of Metropolitan Planning Organization Boards ! Principles for a U. and rural areas.S. presentations. About the Brookings Institution Metropolitan Infrastructure Initiative Launched in 2008. To learn more visit www. suburbs. independent analysis. This and other publications. the Blueprint for American Prosperity. Public Freight Agenda in a Global Economy BROOKINGS | October 2009 39 .About the Brookings Institution Metropolitan Program at Brookings Created in 1996. the Metropolitan Policy Program provides decisionmakers with cutting-edge research and policy ideas for improving the health and prosperity of metropolitan areas including their component cities.

6004 web site www. 20036-2188 telephone 202.797.edu/metro .brookings.6000 fax 202.BROOKINGS 1775 Massachusetts Avenue.797.6139 fax 202.797.edu telephone 202.2965 web site www.797. NW Washington D.brookings.C.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful