richard golaszewski gra, incorporated 115 west avenue • jenkintown, pa 19046 • usa

Richard GolaszewskiGRA, Incorporated

115 West Avenue • Jenkintown, PA 19046 • USA 215-884-7500 • 215-884-1385

[email protected]: 04/21/23 09:31

Multidisciplinary Analysis of the Next Generation Air Transportation System

(NextGen)

Presentation to:Transportation Research Seminar

University of South FloridaApril 20, 2009

DRAFT—Not for release or distribution

2April 20, 2009GRA, Incorporated Version: 04/21/23 09:31


Objective

Illustrate intersection of engineering, economic, business and public policy through review of analyses supporting Next Generation Air Transportation System

Some limitations Does not explicitly consider rationing available capacity to highest and best

uses Does not consider “federalism” issues

• Local land use

• Federal pre-emption



Overview

Questions addressed in International Portfolio and Systems Analysis (IPSA) analysis

How much delay without NextGen Societal cost of delay Value of additional capacity from NextGen Benefits and costs to stakeholders (FAA, system users, passengers and shippers,

and society Impact on environment, energy use and quality of life—quantities of pollutants and

monetized values

Work described has been produced with collaborative effort among multi-organization team supporting the JPDO IPSA Division*

*This briefing does not necessarily reflect the views of the JPDO or other team members.

GRA, Incorporated



Joint Planning and Development Office

Multi-agency Body with Role to Coordinate NextGen R&D

FAA – Air Traffic, Airports and Safety Organizations

NASA Aeronautics

Department of Defense

Department of Commerce – NOAA

Department of Transportation

Department of Homeland Security/Transportation Security Administration

Office of Science and Technology Policy

Joint Planning and Development Office (JPDO) Structure

Divisions – IPSA, Policy, Net Centric Ops, Enterprise Architecture and Integration Nine working groups – Air navigation services, aircraft, airport, environment, global

harmonization, net-centric operations, safety, security and weather



IPSA Role

Develop analytic framework and tools to examine impacts (benefits and costs) of NextGen portfolio(s)

Help agencies formulate budgets that support NextGen requirements

Coordinate analyses with JPDO Working Groups and FAA NextGen Office

Understand business case and NextGen implications for each stakeholder group

Present integrated view to OMB, decision makers and stakeholders

6

Problem Structure



JPDO Investment Problem

Multiple objectives/multiple constraints—optimization not meaningful (no party controls all decisions)—very long time period adds to complexity

Users have differing wants/needs Passengers/shippers Airports Aircraft operators ATM providers

Multiple societal objectives Safety Reliability Security Environmental Efficiency Cost and availability of air travel

Multiple constraints Physical Cost Political/policy Acceptability

Even though outcomes can be monetized, some stakeholders will not agree with valuation, or that their issue can be valued in dollars



NextGen Deployment Decisions

Multiple parties have to take coordinated actions (partial list) FAA ATO—Install ground equipment and offer NextGen services FAA AVS—Safety certification of equipment and procedures for ATO,

manufacturers and operators Operators—Acquire/install on-board equipment—Train crews Manufacturers—Develop, certify and sell equipment to ATO and operators Airports—Expand capacity to meet higher ATM throughput

Other parties impacted but do not share in investment decisions Passengers—Respond to fares and service quality and changes in them Society—Incurs environmental impacts and changes in them

Sequential and sometimes irreversible decisions over long time periods—In many cases, actual solution, interactions and costs not known

Equipage/aircraft are long-term investments Environmental impacts have long latency—GHG models consider 300 years



Capacity Problems Are In Few Key Areas

ASPM 77 AirportsOEP airportsAll other airports

Excludes airports in AK, HI and PR

10

April 20, 2009GRA, Incorporated Version: 04/21/23 09:31


Types of Risk

Performance Risk – affects the likelihood that the program as planned will be unable to deliver capabilities to satisfy the technical or performance requirements;

Schedule Risk – affects the likelihood that program actions may not be accomplished before the agreed upon date;

Cost Risk – affects the likelihood that the program may not accomplish planned tasks within the planned budget.

Policy Risk – affects the likelihood that the program may not meet planned cost, schedule, and performance due to policy concerns.

Strategic System-Wide & Organizational Risk – affects the likelihood that the program may not meet planned cost, schedule, and performance due to matters concerning multi-agency support, stakeholder participation and decision-making, particularly in focus areas critical to enabling policy, core infrastructure, capabilities, etc.

11



Portfolio Challenges Reflect Uncertainty/Risk

2009 2025Time

Ca

pa

bil

ity

Cost of fuel

Policy options

Fleet mix

Environmental constraints

Technology

etc.

Demand

Evolving NAS Architecture NextGen Trade Space

“Risk/Opportunity/Uncertainty”“Known”

Successive capabilities

Successive decisions

Re

so

lutio

n o

f Fu

ture

Tra

de

S

pa

ce

Research Portfolio

R&D, Capital Investments

2015

12



Summary of Analysis Approach

Future demand scenarios are generated using FAA forecasts

Future baseline and NextGen airport capacities are estimated based on an airport capacity constraints analysis and performed in coordination with FAA and Mitre for the years 2015 and 2025

NextGen performance related to capacity is evaluated using NAS-wide airspace and airport capacity simulations

Airport capacities based on the airport constraints analysis En route capacities based on prior FAA, NASA, Mitre and IPSA analyses

NextGen performance related to environment is evaluated based on the NAS-wide analysis using a suite of environmental modeling tools—Aviation Environmental Design Tool and Aviation Portfolio Management Tool

Metrics of interest are derived from the NAS-wide analysis of throughput, delays, and environmental impacts

Iterate analysis to refine architecture given R&D portfolio, trade space and policy decisions

13



Iterative Approach to Developing Architecture

Updated JPDOEnterpriseArchitecture

2

JPDOEnterpriseArchitectureAlternatives

4

3

1

Policy/Key Decision Models

Dec. 1

Dec. 2

Dec. 3 Dec. n

Dec. 4

Dec. 5

Dec. 6

5

IPSA Integrated Modeling Suite

Full Portfolio Trade Space

b1

f1m2

m1Ti

meR

isk

Benefit0

Technology Trade Space

b1

b2

f1m2

m1

Tim

eRis

k

Benefit0

f2

14



IPSA Modeling and Analysis Approach

System Characteristicsand Operational

Environment

OperationalImprovementsand Enablers

OperationalImprovementsand Enablers

CharacterizationAnalysis approach, parameterization

“NextGen” Current System Data(traffic demand, system capacity,business model,

etc.)

Current System Data(traffic demand, system capacity,business model,

etc.)

Define Future ScenariosGrow demand, model capacity

effects

Model System-wide Effects

Queuing and physics-based models

EnvironmentalAnalysis

SafetyAnalysis

SecurityAnalysis

Annualized Capacity/ Delay

Analysis

Valid

atio

n

System Performance

Data, Tradeoffs, and Sensitivities

Policy and Risk Assessment

Historical data-based or SME-based schedule/performance adjustment

Top-level and Stakeholder Metrics,Multi-year Economic Analysis

15

Modeling Approach

16



Key Modeling Assumptions for NextGen Performance Improvements

Flight Trimming (Feasibility of Airport Throughput) Future demand is based on FAA TAF airport forecasts, and then ‘constrained’ to throughput

levels determined by upper limits on demand/capacity ratios at each airport, preventing the growth of delay to unreasonable levels (choice that can be varied)

Demand is ‘trimmed’ primarily from OEP airports which are largest contributors to delays

Airport Capacity Improvements Airport capacity improvements based on bottom-up analysis of impacts NextGen results in significant improvements in airport capacities (AAR/ADR) in all weather

conditions (IMC/MVMC/VMC)

En Route Airspace Capacity Improvements Based on prior government and industry research as well as IPSA analyses NextGen capabilities such as improved traffic flow management and dynamic airspace

capabilities result in increased en route capacities both NAS-wide and in congested airspace

Weather-related ATM Improvements NextGen capabilities related to mitigating the impact of bad weather are primarily captured

through improved ATC/ATM/TFM capabilities Improved ATC capability in weather mitigates weather impact on airspace and airports

Environmental impacts reflect best technology and consider change in noise and emissions over baseline

17



Integrate Modeling Tools for Holistic Analysis

LMI Queuing

Model

Boeing Airport CapacityConstraints Model,

LMI Airport Capacity Model

Projected Throughput

SensisProbTFMSensis

ProbTFM

ACESSimulator(Sensis)

ACESSimulator(Sensis)

FAA ATODemand Tool

FlightsETMS

Current demand

AirportsFAA Benchmark,

FACT-2 capacitiesEn RouteWeather

AirportWeather

Future unconstraineddemand

Current airport capacities

ENV Modeling(Metron)

Ventana NextGen Portfolio SimulatorGRA Security Screening Model

LMI Safety Model

Alternate future demand scenarios (fleet mix, demand level, demand distribution)

Costing Env .Impacts(APMT)

SensisAvDemand Future airport capacities

DelayEstimates

DelayEstimates

18



Evaluating NextGen Performance

Prior analyses of NextGen performance have primarily focused on a single dimension or goal such as capacity, environment, safety, security, etc.

NextGen is a complex, multi-dimensional effort that will involve tradeoffs between the NextGen goals based on:

Technology Policy Costs Benefits

We have developed a notional decision framework to represent how these tradeoffs could be evaluated

Safety and environment could be portrayed as quantity constraints

19



NextGen Allows NAS Users to Both Reduce Delay and Increase Throughput

Feasible Projected Throughput with NextGen Investment

NextGen Capacity

InvestmentDue to

CapacityIncrease

BaselineCapacity

Average Delay

Level of NAS Activity (Ops, flights, RPMs,….)

Feasible Projected Throughput, Baseline Future w/o NextGen

WITHOUT INVESTMENT: Baseline Projected Delay/Throughput

1

Reduce Delay

AFTER NEXTGEN INVESTMENT: Reduced Delay is Possible for Unchanged Throughput

2

3

Accommodate Growth

AFTER NEXTGEN INVESTMENT: Increased Throughput is Possible with No Additional Average Delay

2.5Operating

Point Analyzed

Stakeholders can employ the increased capability offered by NextGen in a range of ways. Infrastructure and simulation parameters chosen for this analysis result in the system

operating at “point 2.5” which combines increased throughput with decreased average delays

20

Using Analyses in “Business Case”

21



JPDO is Developing the NextGen Business Case in Support of the President’s FY2011 Budget

The JPDO has constructed the following business case and analysis information to address OMB requests

Based on the OMB Passback, JPDO seeks to: Improve NextGen cost and benefit estimation

ability, including the ability to quantify the benefits and performance of various levels of investment.

Work with the NextGen agencies to develop a more systematic methodology to estimate the cost of NextGen investments.

Improve the transparency of NextGen initiatives in each agency’s budget request, i.e. identifying your agency’s NextGen initiatives in OMB and Congressional justification materials.

JPDO is currently: Developing an analysis of alternatives for the OMB that captures benefit-cost ratios and

returns on investment, to be submitted in time for agencies’ FY 2010 budget request in September 2009.

22



Assumes That Stakeholders Will Use Operational Improvements to Create Value in the Following Ways

Stakeholder Key Improvements

Society /Passenger By accommodating additional flights to meet projected demand, NextGen helps to maintain a competitive commercial airline environment Fares remain affordable, while reducing delay More flights can add pollutants to the environment

FAA/ANSP Productivity of controllers increases, reducing the need to hire as many controllers as anticipated in the future

Commercial Airlines NextGen ATM improvements enable increased fuel and operational efficiencies, reducing airline operating costs and creating opportunities for airlines to grow their operations while maintaining or improving their delay performance.

Airports Additional flights increase revenues to the airport from flight fees, concessions and other associated airport activities

High Performance General Aviation

Increased access to airports in large metropolitan areas at preferred days and times; reduced flight time because of less congestion in system

23



NextGen Business Case Analysis Components

Alternatives: Baseline versus the NextGen Alternative

Baseline Alternative NextGen Alternative - One alternative or

portfolio of investments that can generate the capabilities and satisfy the goals as identified in the NextGen Integrated Plan;

Major assumptions: The following estimates reflect NextGen

as described in the JPDO Integrated Work Plan (IWP)

All aircraft fully equipped with necessary avionics

• Engine upgrades improve with projected fleet evolution

All capabilities realized by 2025 Same level of air traffic services offered

across the National Airspace System (NAS)

New Runway costs are reported as necessary to achieve NextGen

Key stakeholders: FAA/ANSP; Commercial Airlines and High

Performance General Aviation; Society/ Passengers; Airports

Key Features: Estimate life-cycle costs and benefits by major

stakeholder Focus this year is air navigation services

• Does not include DOD, DHS. Some NASA and DOC

Begin to identify alternative scenarios and portfolios and collect data to evaluate trade-offs between stakeholders and NextGen goals

Caveats: Costs – increased fidelity and scope from last

year. Estimates do not currently include risk adjustment

Benefits – based on IOC dates. Estimates do not reflect performance and technology risks

Results reflect FAA FY 2008 forecasts and do not reflect 2008Q4 – 2009Q1 downturn in traffic and economy

24



Modules for Economic and Financial Analysis

Note: Models need to address specific time periods and traffic levels with and without NextGen.

ATMCost/Performance

Model

NASSimulators

Aircraft Investments

ATM Investments

Societal BCA

User Business CasesAirlinesAirportsATMOther Users

DC

DC

DC

Airport CostCapacity Model

EliminateDoubleCounting

Passenger/ShipperCosts/Benefits

FaresValue of TimeTaxes/Fees


User AircraftOperating Cost/Performance

New module to be developed

ATMCost/Performance

Model

NASSimulators

Aircraft Investments

ATM Investments

Societal BCA

User Business CasesAirlinesAirportsATMOther Users

DC

DC

DC

Airport CostCapacity Model

EliminateDoubleCounting

Passenger/ShipperCosts/Benefits

FaresValue of TimeTaxes/Fees


User AircraftOperating Cost/Performance

New module to be developed

25



Existing Flow of Infrastructure Funds

Airlines

Airport andAirway

Trust Fund

General FundSociety

PassengersHigh

Performance GA

AirportsFAA-ATO

FAA-ARP

Noise Emissions(no money)

Taxes

Fares

Landing FeesFuel FlowOther

AIP

Landing Fees

RentalsOther

Taxes

PFCConcessionsParking

FAA Regulation and

Certification

26



Wrap Up

Business case reflects financial impacts on stakeholders Financial structure Intermediate transactions among stakeholders Rate of return

Does business case close overall and for each party? Incentives needed Transfers of benefits and costs Non-monetary impacts Absolute constraints

27

Back Up

28



Economic and Environmental Criteria

Economic Life-cycle costs Willingness to pay/price responsiveness Affordability Financial risk exposure

Environmental Resource utilization Service provision Environmental impact

Source: Peter Pearson and Tim Foxon. Multi Objective Decision Making: A Guidebook Approach. Presented at the workshop “Multi Objective Decision Making and Socio-Economical Aspects in Sustainability Assessment Methods,” COST Action 624: Optimal Management of Wastewater Systems, Meeting of Working Group 3: Evaluation Tools, 9-11 March 2000, Dundee, Scotland.

29



Decision Framework Organizes Steps

Framework for spatial multicriteria decision analysis (Malczewski, 1999).Framework for spatial multicriteria decision analysis (Malczewski, 1999).

Evaluation CriteriaEvaluation Criteria

Decision MatrixDecision Matrix

Decision RulesDecision Rules

Sensitivity AnalysisSensitivity Analysis

RecommendationRecommendation

Decision Maker’s PreferencesDecision Maker’s Preferences

ConstraintsConstraints

AlternativesAlternatives

Problem DefinitionProblem Definition

Ch

oic

e P

ha

seM

CD

A/G

ISD

esi

gn

Ph

ase

MC

DA

Inte

llig

en

ce P

ha

seG

IS

30



Decision Theory Close to Existing IPSA Framework

Source: Peter Pearson and Tim Foxon. Multi Objective Decision Making: A Guidebook Approach. Presented at the workshop “Multi Objective Decision Making and Socio-Economical Aspects in Sustainability Assessment Methods,” COST Action 624: Optimal Management of Wastewater Systems, Meeting of Working Group 3: Evaluation Tools, 9-11 March 2000, Dundee, Scotland.

Decisions

Multi-

Criteria

Analysis

Sustainability

Indicators/

Criteria

System

ModelingScenarios

Process

Modeling

Social

Analysis

31



Underlying Operational Performance Impacts for the Overall Society/Passenger Business Case

Metrics

Average Delay Per Flight

Reliability (No Weather vs. Weather)

Domestic Passenger Flights

Airport Capacity

Annual Seats

Enplanements

Available Seat Miles

Cancellations

Number of Persons Exposed to > 65 DNL

Local Air Quality Emissions

Climate related Emissions

32



Trade-space for NextGen Capacity and Environmental Performance

Alternative 1

Alternative 2

Alternative 3

ILLUSTRATIVE

Alternative 4

The trade-space is constructed using combinations of technologies and policies that impact capacity and environment

We posit likely outcomes/combinations based on prior analyses and experience with prior programs

33



“Target Portfolio”

NextGen Business Case Includes the Assessment of Total Lifecycle Costs, Benefits, and Risks

Identify ScopeIdentify Scope1 2 Assess Benefits, Costs, & Risks Assess Benefits, Costs, & Risks 3 Document and CompareDocument and CompareResultsResults

Analysis DocumentationAnalysis Documentation

JPDOJPDONextGen NextGen Business Business Case Analysis Case Analysis ReportReport

Integrated Work Plan2008

Subset of Operational Improvements (OIs) – modeled in the benefits analysis

Enablers – grouped into Cost Proxy Programs (CPPs) for costing purposes

• Define two alternatives for the business case: the baseline and the NextGen Alternative

• Determine the scope of the NextGen Alternative based on the Integrated Work Plan v1.0

BenefitsA CostsB RisksC

Generate Results by StakeholdeGenerate Results by Stakeholderr Commercial Airline Operators

12%

Government - ANSP30%

Airports40%

High-Performance General Aviation

18%

IllustrativeIllustrative

• Run forecast simulations to estimate monetized and non-monetized benefits of NextGen

• Identify, quantify and aggregate risks

• Risk-adjust cost estimates

• Place side-by-side the uncertainty and risk-adjusted discounted costs, monetized benefits, and non-monetized benefits of the Baseline and the NextGen alternative

Average Delay


Feasible Projected Throughput, Baseline Future w/ o NextGen

Feasible Projected Throughput with NextGen I nvestment

Capacity I ncrease Due to I nvestment

BaselineCapacity NextGen

Capacity

Reduce Delay

Accommodate Growth



WITHOUT INVESTMENT: Baseline Projected Delay/ Throughput

1

2

3

2.5Operating

Point Analyzed

Average Delay


Feasible Projected Throughput, Baseline Future w/ o NextGen

Feasible Projected Throughput with NextGen I nvestment

Capacity I ncrease Due to I nvestment

BaselineCapacity NextGen

Capacity

Reduce Delay

Accommodate Growth



WITHOUT INVESTMENT: Baseline Projected Delay/ Throughput

1

2

3

2.5Operating

Point Analyzed

• Coordinate with partner agencies to aggregate all lifecycle costs (capital and operating costs) for NextGen related programs and activities

• Apply uncertainty analysis to develop cost ranges

Breakout by Stakeholder• Government/ANSP• Commercial Airlines• High-Performance GA• Airports• Society/Passengers

34



Gap Observations: Criticality versus Difficulty

Risk

Low

Low

Medium

High

Medium High

Wx-1 Wx-2 Arch-2

ATM-1 ATM-3 ATM-5Envt-1

Cross-1 Cross-4 Cross-6

Arch-1 Sec-1

Cross-2ATM-2

ATM-9 Sec-2

ATM-4 ATM-6 Sec-3

Cross-3 Cross-5

Sec-4ATM-7

Cross-2

Risk includes technical risks, institutional feasibility, and schedule considerations.

Criticality reflects the level of benefits at risk or the overall level of investment that may be impacted.

CriticalityATM = air traffic management; Sec = security; Wx = weather; Arch = architecture; Envt = environment; cross = cross cutting

35



Stakeholders and Key Benefits

1. Society/Passengers By accommodating additional flights to meet projected demand, NextGen helps to

maintain a competitive commercial environment; Fares remain affordable, while reducing delay

2. Commercial Airlines NextGen improvements enable increased fuel and operational efficiencies,

reducing airline operating costs, and creating opportunities for airlines to grow their operations while maintaining or improving their delay performance.

3. Government/Air Navigation Service Provider Productivity of controllers increases in the NextGen Alternative Potential reduction in systems operations and maintenance costs

4. Airports Additional flights increases revenues to the airport from flight fees, concessions,

and other associated airport activities

5. High Performance General Aviation Improved equipage provides increased flying time and access to more airports

while enhancing safety

richard golaszewski gra, incorporated 115 west avenue • jenkintown, pa 19046 • usa

Documents