<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="https://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Research in Progress (RIP)</title>
    <link>https://rip.trb.org/</link>
    <atom:link href="https://rip.trb.org/Record/RSS?s=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" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <description></description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <copyright>Copyright © 2026. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.</copyright>
    <docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
    <managingEditor>tris-trb@nas.edu (Bill McLeod)</managingEditor>
    <webMaster>tris-trb@nas.edu (Bill McLeod)</webMaster>
    
    <item>
      <title>Peak Pricing for Runway and Gate Capacity Management</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2772556</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Growing demand for air travel and increasing schedule peaking are placing sustained pressure on runway and gate capacity at major U.S. airports. At many facilities, peak-period demand, rather than total daily activity, is the primary driver of operational inefficiency and capital expansion needs. Existing airport rate-setting frameworks are primarily designed for cost recovery and generally do not provide incentives for airlines to shift operations outside peak periods or optimize gate utilization. While differentiated landing charges, time-of-day pricing, and gate utilization fees have been used internationally, their applicability within the United States is uncertain because of federal grant assurances, revenue-use requirements, anti-discrimination standards, and airline use and lease agreements.

The objective of this research is to develop a comprehensive report on congestion pricing mechanisms applicable to runway and gate capacity management at U.S. airports. The research will evaluate pricing mechanisms used at selected international airports, assess their regulatory permissibility under U.S. law and policy, examine potential impacts on airline behavior and airport operations, identify alternative approaches to managing peak demand, and provide practical implementation guidance and decision-support tools for airport sponsors considering airside congestion pricing strategies.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 01 Sep 2026 11:59:04 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2772556</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Guide for Meeting Current and Future Airport Utility Needs</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2588330</link>
      <description><![CDATA[No abstract provided.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Aug 2025 10:19:33 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2588330</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Legal Aspects of Airport Programs. Topic 16-02. Legal Issues Regarding Airport Congestion Management</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2403844</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Currently, nine airports in the United States (and 367 airports worldwide) are considered “capacity constrained.” According to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 

[a]irports that exceed 80 percent of their hourly capacity, for at least 50 percent of the time, are considered to be capacity constrained. If 80 percent of hourly capacity is exceeded 75 percent of the time, the capacity constraint is considered to be severe. Airports that exceed 60 percent of their hourly capacity, for at least 50 percent of the time, are considered congested.

The most recent FAA forecast shows that 11 U.S. airports are expected to be runway capacity constrained by 2026, increasing to 14 by 2031, and an additional 16 airports are at risk of significant congestion by 2031. The forecast considers planned runway development approved through National Environmental Policy Act evaluations. Many other airports are facing passenger terminal capacity constraints, including gates, terminal space, and ground access. Capacity constraints affect not only the airports experiencing the congestion, but also those communities with or seeking air service to congested airports. Capacity constraints could also affect competitive access. 

While congestion can be avoided by increasing capacity, that is not always possible. And, where possible, airport infrastructure needs are many and varied. The 2023 airport infrastructure needs study conducted by Airports Council International – North America identified a backlog of planned and necessary airport infrastructure projects totaling $151 billion through 2028. Where new capacity cannot be built, congestion can be managed.

Under U.S. law and practice, FAA limits operations at three capacity constrained airports by requiring carriers to obtain an FAA-issued runway use authorization or "slot." FAA also engages in schedule facilitation with air carriers at several other airports to ensure the efficient use of airspace. 

Airport proprietors are responsible for managing all other aspects of airport use and its effects on the immediate surroundings. As a result, they bear significant responsibilities to the national transportation system and the communities they serve. While airport proprietors’ have certain rights to manage congestion at their facilities, they are limited by federal law.

OBJECTIVE: The objective is to provide a full understanding of U.S. law, including statutory provisions and relevant administrative and judicial interpretations, applicable to the various aspects of airport congestion management and competitive access, including the authorities upon which FAA relies to issue runway use authorizations, establish runway capacity limits, act as slot coordinator at congested airports, and engage in schedule facilitation; a survey of the legal authorities permitting and limiting the ability of airports to manage capacity; and an exposition of how the federal authority and airport proprietors' rights interact. 

As part of the legal analysis, the report will address the practical impact of congestion management practices on competitive air carrier access to affected airports, the extent of property rights over runway use slots, and the legal basis for slot trading and leasing. 

In addition, the project will compare U.S. runway congestion management laws and practices to the Worldwide Airport Slot Guidelines (WASG) collectively published by the International Air Transport Association, Airports Council International, and the Worldwide Airport Coordinators Group, which serves as the modern foundation of the global slot coordination process. The analysis will note the WASG elements that cannot be implemented in the United States for lack of legal authority.

]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 15 Jul 2024 17:59:03 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2403844</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Improved Surface/TFDM - Surface Tactical Flow</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/1509992</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The Surface Tactical Flow (STF) program is developing trajectory-based surface operations in support of NextGen. It leverages the development efforts of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Surface Management System (SMS) and provides guidelines for the development of a collaborative Surface Traffic Management (STM) system. The STM system will provide the tools necessary to achieve a fully collaborative surface environment where the input of airlines, airports and air traffic controllers are all used to provide a shared surface situational awareness. Shared awareness is required to safely expand the use of airport capacity by coordinating surface and airborne trajectory based operations. The STF program will support the Surface Collaborative Decision Making (CDM) sub-team of the CDM Stakeholder’s Group (CSG) to incorporate flight operator and airport authority stakeholder viewpoints for potential NAS-wide deployment of surface capabilities.     

NASA’s Airspace Technology Demonstration 2 (ATD-2) is a 5 year research activity running from 2015-2020. ATD-2 will focus on the scheduling of departures within a metroplex terminal environment to create similar efficiencies for departing aircraft. A primary challenge for ATD-2 is to develop a departure metering solution that accommodates surface and airspace flow constraints while allowing aircraft to execute efficient flight profiles.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Apr 2018 14:42:31 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/1509992</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Strategic Decision Support for Airport Capacity Planning</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/1401982</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Airside performance at major airports is affected by a large number of interacting factors in three major spheres of airside activity: (1) airport operations control (AOC), (2) maintenance services, and (3) air traffic control (ATC). AOC is responsible for assignment of preferred parking sections (with associated terminal gates). It is also responsible for sending planes to alternative parking spots when there is not a gate available in the preferred section for an arriving aircraft. Maintenance personnel provide turnaround services and deploy tractors for pushbacks at gates and for airlines that require such service. ATC determines how runways are used for arrivals and departures according to wind conditions and coordinates aircraft traffic for safe operation. Smooth operation requires close cooperation among these three spheres of activity. In this report, we describe a discrete-event simulation model and supporting analytical tools designed to help airport planners, operations directors, and air traffic control specialists collaborate in maximizing airside performance.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 25 Mar 2016 09:32:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/1401982</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Objective Measures of Airspace Complexity to Support Airspace Management</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/1362660</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Air traffic management consists of adjusting flows of aircraft through the National Airspace System. A delicate balance is achieved between allowing more aircraft to fly and take the chance of overcrowding the sky, thereby creating delays, higher operating costs and increased emissions, and allowing fewer aircraft in the sky, thereby under-utilizing available resources and missing economic opportunities. The goal of Project 22 was to determine whether recently developed objective traffic complexity metrics may be used to evaluate airspace capacity.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 Jul 2015 01:00:26 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/1362660</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>