airports have well-developed programs designed to improve the commuting experience for employees, other airports have not even considered it. The audience for this report includes the management and staff of airport operators seeking to understand, plan for, and accommodate the transportation commute needs of airport employees. This report may be of specific interest to airport transportation planners responsible for planning parking areas, bike lanes, and public transit interfaces; transportation management coordinators responsible for employee commute options (ECO) programs; and human resource professionals responsible for employee work-life balance and employee recruitment and retention.

Key conclusions from this synthesis are:

Second commute. Due to the sheer size of many airport campuses and the location of parking lots, transit stations, and so on, airport employees may be required to commute again once they park their vehicle or exit the transit station, for instance. This second commute adds to the duration of an employee’s daily commute and can create additional frustration for the employee.

Active commuting. Research has discovered numerous benefits of active commuting modes, such as walking or bicycling. Employees benefit with improved mental and physical health, and employers benefit by improved job performance.

Airport effort. More effort could be expended by airport operators in attempting to influence employee commuting behavior. Survey results indicate that few airports are attempting to influence employee commuting behavior.

Ease of use. Airports that have successfully influenced employee commuting methods have generally made alternative commuting modes easy to use. Employees look for ease of use, citing convenience as a significant factor in mode choice.

Education. Airport operators will need to inform and educate employees as to alternative commuting modes. Oftentimes, employees may only choose modes they are familiar with.

Employee work hours. Employees often work odd hours that may not coincide with public transit operating hours. Thus, an airport may want to consider supplementing public transit with an airport-provided vanpool, shuttle, or other program.

Events. It can be effective to create some excitement around alternative commuting modes. For example, to encourage bicycling and downplay any stigma associated with this commuting mode, companies have developed events such as a Bike to Work Day, Ride to Work Day, and Bike to Work Breakfast.

Funding. Airport operators will need to complete an honest assessment of the costs of operating a transportation management organization (TMO), transportation management association (TMA), and/or an employee commute options (ECO) program. Consider requiring airport employers to share in the costs.

Incentives/disincentives. To alter employee commuting behavior, airports will need to consider incentivizing alternative modes and disincentivizing the mode of choice—typically SOV. If changes are desired, there has to be something to influence employee behavior.

Mode of choice. Generally, airport employees choose to commute to work via SOV. This may be due to convenience or personal preference, or it may be the only option because of a lack of access to public transit and other modes.

Multiple solutions. Due to the unique commuting challenges of employees at an airport, it is beneficial to develop multiple solutions. It would be rare if a singular solution met all employee challenges.

Partnerships. With numerous employers at an airport, it is important to partner with these employers to collectively influence employee commuting behavior. Otherwise, airport operator efforts may be counteracted by employers. For example, if the airport operator increases employee parking rates to discourage SOV use, but airport employers subsidize

the increase, this action will not have the intended effect on employee commuting behavior.

Recruitment and retention. Airport operators and airport tenant employers at many airports have encountered difficulty in both retaining existing employees and recruiting new employees. One reason may be the commuting challenges experienced by employees. With a shortage of employees in some fields, an airport with difficult commuting experiences for employees may further impact these shortages, making recruitment and retention difficult for both the airport operator and airport tenants.

Safety. Particularly with employees who commute via bicycle and those who would like to, safety is of paramount concern. Bike lanes, or the lack thereof, speed of traffic, weather, and distance to the airport are significant factors that influence the degree of bicycle ridership. Airports that ensure sufficient bike lanes and that also provide covered bicycle parking, lockers, and showers for riders can positively impact ridership.

SOV parking. Providing sufficient and free parking to accommodate SOVs only encourages employee use of SOVs. When the number of parking spaces is restricted so that employees may not have an available space to park an SOV, employees may consider alternate commuting modes.

Surveys. To fully understand commuting challenges experienced by employees, airport operators can survey employees on a regular basis. This is especially helpful in gauging whether airport-provided commuting solutions are meeting employee needs. If data on airport-wide commuting challenges are desired, employees of airport tenants can also be surveyed.

Transportation equity. Due to the cost of housing, location of transit stations, and other variables, all airport employees may not have access to the same level of transportation, creating an inequitable situation. In fact, there may be some demographics in an area that cannot work at the airport due to the challenges of getting to work. Car ownership cannot be assumed. English as a first language cannot be assumed. The concept of equity is an important consideration for airports actively addressing the commuting challenges of employees.