DRAFT—Not for release or distribution
Multidisciplinary Analysis of the
Next Generation Air Transportation System
(NextGen)
Presentation to:
Transportation Research Seminar
University of South Florida
April 20, 2009
Richard Golaszewski
GRA, Incorporated
115 West Avenue • Jenkintown, PA 19046 • USA
' 215-884-7500 • 7 215-884-1385
* richg@gra-inc.com
Version: 3/22/2016 2:59 AM
Objective
DRAFT—Not for release or distribution
 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
GRA, Incorporated
Version: 3/22/2016 2:59 AM
April 20, 2009
1
Overview
DRAFT—Not for release or distribution
 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*
GRA, Incorporated
*This briefing does not necessarily reflect the views of the JPDO or other team members.
GRA, Incorporated
Version: 3/22/2016 2:59 AM
April 20, 2009
2
Joint Planning and Development Office
DRAFT—Not for release or distribution
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
GRA, Incorporated
Version: 3/22/2016 2:59 AM
April 20, 2009
3
IPSA Role
DRAFT—Not for release or distribution
 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
GRA, Incorporated
Version: 3/22/2016 2:59 AM
April 20, 2009
4
Problem Structure
5
JPDO Investment Problem
DRAFT—Not for release or distribution
 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
 Aircraft operators
 Airports
 ATM providers
 Multiple societal objectives
 Safety
 Security
 Efficiency
 Reliability
 Environmental
 Cost and availability of air travel
 Multiple constraints
 Physical
 Political/policy
 Cost
 Acceptability
 Even though outcomes can be monetized, some stakeholders will not agree
with valuation, or that their issue can be valued in dollars
GRA, Incorporated
Version: 3/22/2016 2:59 AM
April 20, 2009
6
NextGen Deployment Decisions
DRAFT—Not for release or distribution
 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
GRA, Incorporated
Version: 3/22/2016 2:59 AM
April 20, 2009
7
Capacity Problems Are In Few Key Areas
DRAFT—Not for release or distribution
ASPM 77 Airports
OEP airports
All other airports
Excludes airports in AK, HI and PR
GRA, Incorporated
Version: 3/22/2016 2:59 AM
April 20, 2009
8
Types of Risk
DRAFT—Not for release or distribution
 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.
GRA, Incorporated
Version: 3/22/2016 2:59 AM
April 20, 2009
9
Portfolio Challenges Reflect Uncertainty/Risk
DRAFT—Not for release or distribution
“Known”
“Risk/Opportunity/Uncertainty”
Evolving NAS Architecture
NextGen Trade Space
Cost of
fuel
Technology
Policy options
Fleet mix
Demand
Environmental
constraints
etc.
R&D, Capital
Investments
Resolution of Future Trade
Space
Capability
Successive capabilities
Successive decisions
2009
Research Portfolio
2015
2025
Time
GRA, Incorporated
Version: 3/22/2016 2:59 AM
April 20, 2009
10
Summary of Analysis Approach
DRAFT—Not for release or distribution
 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 NASwide 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
GRA, Incorporated
Version: 3/22/2016 2:59 AM
April 20, 2009
11
Iterative Approach to Developing Architecture
DRAFT—Not for release or distribution
JPDO
Enterprise
Architecture
Alternatives
Technology Trade Space
IPSA Integrated Modeling Suite
m2
f1
2
1
Risk
m1
b1
0
Benefit
3
Full Portfolio Trade Space
Updated JPDO
Enterprise
Architecture
Policy/Key Decision Models
m2
f1
Dec. 1
Dec. 4
Dec. 2
Dec. 5
4
5
Risk
b1
0
GRA, Incorporated
f2
b2
m1
Dec. 3
Dec. n
Dec. 6
Benefit
Version: 3/22/2016 2:59 AM
April 20, 2009
12
IPSA Modeling and Analysis Approach
DRAFT—Not for release or distribution
GRA, Incorporated
Version: 3/22/2016 2:59 AM
April 20, 2009
13
Modeling Approach
14
Key Modeling Assumptions for NextGen
Performance Improvements
DRAFT—Not for release or distribution
 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
GRA, Incorporated
Version: 3/22/2016 2:59 AM
April 20, 2009
15
Integrate Modeling Tools for Holistic Analysis
DRAFT—Not for release or distribution
Airports
FAA Benchmark,
FACT-2 capacities
Flights
ETMS
Airport
Weather
En Route
Weather
Current demand
Current airport capacities
FAA ATO
Demand Tool
Boeing Airport Capacity
Constraints Model,
LMI Airport Capacity Model
Future unconstrained
demand
Sensis
AvDemand
Future airport capacities
Alternate future demand
scenarios (fleet mix, demand
level, demand distribution)
LMI
Queuing
Model
Projected
Throughput
Ventana NextGen Portfolio Simulator
GRA Security Screening Model
LMI Safety Model
GRA, Incorporated
ACES
Simulator
(Sensis)
Sensis
ProbTFM
Delay
Estimates
ENV Modeling
(Metron)
Costing Env .
Impacts
(APMT)
Version: 3/22/2016 2:59 AM
April 20, 2009
16
Evaluating NextGen Performance
DRAFT—Not for release or distribution
 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
GRA, Incorporated
Version: 3/22/2016 2:59 AM
April 20, 2009
17
NextGen Allows NAS Users to Both
Reduce Delay and Increase Throughput
DRAFT—Not for release or distribution
Baseline
Capacity
Average
Delay
NextGen
Capacity
Capacity
Increase
Due to
Investment
WITHOUT INVESTMENT:
Baseline Projected
Delay/Throughput
Accommodate
Growth
1
3
Reduce
Delay
AFTER NEXTGEN
INVESTMENT: Reduced
Delay is Possible for
Unchanged Throughput
2.5
2
Operating
Point
Analyzed
Feasible Projected
Throughput, Baseline
Future w/o NextGen
Feasible Projected
Throughput with
NextGen Investment
AFTER NEXTGEN
INVESTMENT: Increased
Throughput is Possible with
No Additional Average
Delay
Level of NAS
Activity (Ops,
flights, RPMs,….)
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
GRA, Incorporated
Version: 3/22/2016 2:59 AM
April 20, 2009
18
Using Analyses in “Business Case”
19
JPDO is Developing the NextGen Business Case in
Support of the President’s FY2011 Budget
DRAFT—Not for release or distribution
 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.
The JPDO has constructed the
following business case and
analysis information to address
OMB requests
 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.
GRA, Incorporated
Version: 3/22/2016 2:59 AM
April 20, 2009
20
Assumes That Stakeholders Will Use Operational
Improvements to Create Value in the Following Ways
DRAFT—Not for release or distribution
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
GRA, Incorporated
Version: 3/22/2016 2:59 AM
April 20, 2009
21
NextGen Business Case Analysis Components
DRAFT—Not for release or distribution
 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
GRA, Incorporated
 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 tradeoffs 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
Version: 3/22/2016 2:59 AM
April 20, 2009
22
Modules for Economic and Financial Analysis
DRAFT—Not for release or distribution
ATM
Investments
Passenger/Shipper
Costs/Benefits
Fares
Value of Time
Taxes/Fees
DC
ATM
Cost/Performance
Model
DC
Airport Cost
Capacity Model
NAS
Simulators
Societal BCA
DC
User Business Cases
Eliminate
Double
Counting
New module to be developed
User Aircraft
Operating Cost/Performance
Airlines
Airports
ATM
Other Users
Aircraft
Investments
Environmental
Analysis
Note: Models need to address specific time periods and traffic levels with and without NextGen.
GRA, Incorporated
Version: 3/22/2016 2:59 AM
April 20, 2009
23
Existing Flow of Infrastructure Funds
DRAFT—Not for release or distribution
Airlines
Fares
FAA-ARP
Airport and
Airway
Trust Fund
GRA, Incorporated
Passengers
Taxes
Noise
Emissions
(no money)
Society
High
Performance
GA
FAA-ATO
Taxes
General Fund
PFC
Concessions
Parking
AIP
Landing Fees
Fuel Flow
Other
Airports
Landing
Fees
Rentals
Other
FAA Regulation
and
Certification
Version: 3/22/2016 2:59 AM
April 20, 2009
24
Wrap Up
DRAFT—Not for release or distribution
 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
GRA, Incorporated
Version: 3/22/2016 2:59 AM
April 20, 2009
25
Back Up
26
Economic and Environmental Criteria
DRAFT—Not for release or distribution
 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.
GRA, Incorporated
Version: 3/22/2016 2:59 AM
April 20, 2009
27
Decision Framework Organizes Steps
Evaluation Criteria
Constraints
Decision Matrix
Alternatives
Decision Maker’s Preferences
Choice Phase
MCDA/GIS
Decision Rules
Design Phase
MCDA
Problem Definition
Intelligence Phase
GIS
DRAFT—Not for release or distribution
Sensitivity Analysis
Recommendation
Framework for spatial multicriteria decision analysis (Malczewski, 1999).
GRA, Incorporated
Version: 3/22/2016 2:59 AM
April 20, 2009
28
Decision Theory Close to Existing IPSA Framework
DRAFT—Not for release or distribution
Process
Modeling
Decisions
MultiCriteria
Analysis
Sustainability
Indicators/
Criteria
System
Modeling
Scenarios
Social
Analysis
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.
GRA, Incorporated
Version: 3/22/2016 2:59 AM
April 20, 2009
29
Underlying Operational Performance Impacts
for the Overall Society/Passenger Business Case
DRAFT—Not for release or distribution
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
GRA, Incorporated
Version: 3/22/2016 2:59 AM
April 20, 2009
30
Trade-space for NextGen Capacity and
Environmental Performance
DRAFT—Not for release or distribution
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
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
GRA, Incorporated
Version: 3/22/2016 2:59 AM
April 20, 2009
31
NextGen Business Case Includes the Assessment
of Total Lifecycle Costs, Benefits, and Risks
DRAFT—Not for release or distribution
1
2
Identify Scope
• 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
Benefits
A
NextGen
Capacity
Accommodate
Growth
1
3
Reduce
Delay
AFTER NEXTGEN
INVESTMENT: Reduced
Delay is Possible for
Unchanged Throughput
2.5
2
Operating
Point
Analyzed
Feasible Projected
Throughput, Baseline
Future w/o NextGen
Feasible Projected
Throughput with
NextGen Investment
Costs
• 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
Capacity
Increase Due to
Investment
WITHOUT INVESTMENT:
Baseline Projected
Delay/Throughput
Integrated
Work Plan
2008
B
• Run forecast
simulations to
estimate
monetized and
non-monetized
benefits of
NextGen
Baseline
Capacity
Average
Delay
Assess Benefits, Costs, & Risks
3
C
Risks
• Identify, quantify and
aggregate risks
• Risk-adjust cost
estimates
AFTER NEXTGEN
INVESTMENT: Increased
Throughput is Possible with
No Additional Average Delay
Document and Compare
Results
• Place side-by-side the
uncertainty and riskadjusted discounted
costs, monetized
benefits, and nonmonetized benefits of
the Baseline and the
NextGen alternative
Analysis Documentation
Level of NAS
Activity (Ops,
flights, RPMs,….)
“Target Portfolio”
Subset of Operational
Improvements (OIs) –
modeled in the
benefits analysis
Enablers – grouped
into Cost Proxy
Programs (CPPs) for
costing purposes
GRA, Incorporated
GenerateHigh-Performance
Results
by Stakeholder
General
Breakout by Stakeholder
• Government/ANSP
• Commercial Airlines
• High-Performance GA
• Airports
• Society/Passengers
Aviation
18%
JPDO
NextGen
Business
Case
Analysis
Report
Commercial Airline
Operators
12%
Government - ANSP
30%
Airports
40%
Illustrative
Version: 3/22/2016 2:59 AM
April 20, 2009
32
Gap Observations: Criticality versus Difficulty
DRAFT—Not for release or distribution
Risk
High
Wx-1
ATM-7
Sec-4
Cross-2
Wx-2
ATM-3
ATM-1
Arch-2
ATM-5
Envt-1
Cross-1 Cross-4 Cross-6
ATM-9
Medium
ATM-4
ATM-6
Sec-2
Sec-3
Cross-3 Cross-5
Arch-1
ATM-2
Sec-1
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.
Low
Low
Medium
High
Criticality
ATM = air traffic management; Sec = security; Wx = weather; Arch = architecture; Envt = environment; cross = cross cutting
GRA, Incorporated
Version: 3/22/2016 2:59 AM
April 20, 2009
33
Stakeholders and Key Benefits
DRAFT—Not for release or distribution
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
GRA, Incorporated
Version: 3/22/2016 2:59 AM
April 20, 2009
34