BACKGROUND

The goal of airport system planning is to promote the efficient use of airport resources in a defined geographic area. This is accomplished through a thorough examination of the performance and interaction of the entire system to understand the interrelationships of the member airports. Developing airports in a system and understanding a region’s user requirements, socioeconomics, and surface transportation network may result in a more efficient system. While there has been a long-standing tradition of airport system planning focused on passenger and aircraft activity, airport air cargo system planning has been much less common. Air cargo facilities and activity are often off-site; there are also airport-to-airport cargo movements undertaken entirely by trucks (and it is common for airports to have more truck-to-truck cargo activity than aircraft air cargo activity). These unique characteristics of aircraft activity, coupled with limited reliable data on the types of air cargo movements and the cargo’s origins and destinations, make airport air cargo system planning challenging.

Research is needed to help aviation planners develop air cargo system plans.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this research is to develop a guide, with an executive summary, to help aviation planners conduct air cargo system planning at both the regional and state levels. 

The guide should cover, at a minimum: 

• An overview of air cargo system and the current practices including those of ground/ road feeder services
• A bibliography
• The purpose of and need for cargo system analysis
• Case studies for at least three state and three regional cargo systems plans
• Identification and appropriate role of incentive mechanisms to support viable air cargo systems
• Steps for conducting air cargo system planning that might include:
  • Identifying key stakeholders and subject-matter experts
  • Identifying and selecting appropriate data sources for developing air cargo systems plans
  • Conducting an airport cargo-related inventory
  •  Identifying demand forecasts
  •  Identifying cargo facility needs
  •  Key performance measures for air cargo systems planning optimization
  •  Identifying implementation steps that consider at a minimum:
    • Operational requirements for air cargo systems planning
    • Industry outreach and stakeholder engagement strategy  
    • Impact of governance structure (e.g., regulatory, operations, security, customs, safety)
    • Financing mechanisms for developing air cargo systems
• Future implications of advanced air mobility as it pertains to air cargo system planning (e.g., fleet, EV charging)

The executive summary should be written for state aviation departments/metropolitan planning organizations and airport executives. 

RESEARCH PLAN

The ACRP is seeking the insights of proposers on how best to achieve the research objective. Proposers are asked to provide a detailed research plan for accomplishing the project objective.  Proposers are expected to describe research plans that can realistically be accomplished within the constraints of available funds and subaward time. Proposals must present the proposers' current thinking in sufficient detail to demonstrate their understanding of the issues and the soundness of their approach to meeting the research objective. The work proposed must be divided into tasks and proposers must describe the work proposed in detail.

The research plan shall contain the appropriate interim deliverables for ACRP review and approval, including:

• A summary of the literature review of previous ACRP and non-ACRP studies regarding cargo system plans 
• A data collection plan for accomplishing the research objective that includes proposed case studies and selection criteria
• An interim report containing research results to date, an annotated outline of the guide, an analysis of results, next steps, and potential follow-on research ideas to be developed into problem statements

Note: For each research idea approved by the project panel, the research team will use the ACRP problem statement process (https://trb.org/ACRP/problemstatements.aspx) to develop and submit a problem statement on behalf of the project panel.  The development and submission of problem statements should occur as soon as possible, taking into account the ACRP problem statement annual submission deadline of early April.

The research plan should contain checkpoints with the ACRP panel, including:

• A kickoff web meeting to be held within 1 month of the Notice to Proceed 
• A web meeting to discuss the literature review
• A web meeting to discuss the case study plan
• One face-to-face interim deliverable review meeting and web-enabled teleconferences tied to the panel review and ACRP approval of other interim deliverables deemed appropriate

The final deliverables will include: 

• A guide with an executive summary
• A research team’s final report documenting all research steps, results, and analysis
• A Summary of Key Findings (see Special Note L)
• A Further Recommended Research Memo (see Special Note M)
• A technical memo titled “Implementation of Research Findings and Products” (see Special Note K)

Note: Following receipt of the draft final deliverables, there should be 3 months for ACRP review and comment and for research team's preparation of the final deliverables. For budgeting purposes, proposers should assume that ACRP will provide access to web-enabled teleconference services. ACRP will pay panel members’ travel costs for the face-to-face interim meeting. Proposers should assume that the meeting will be held in Washington, DC.

SPECIAL NOTES

A.  Proposers should take into consideration current ACRP Projects 03-63A, "Modernizing Air Cargo Operations in U.S. Airports" and 03-72, "A Guide on the Economic Impacts of E-Commerce on Airports and Airport Stakeholders" and other relevant studies.

B. The Information and Instructions for Preparing Proposals for the Transportation Research Board’s Cooperative Research Programs were revised in May 2024. Please take note of the new and revised text which is highlighted in yellow.

C. Proposals must be submitted as a single PDF file with a maximum file size of 10 MB. The PDF must be formatted for standard 8 ½” X 11” paper, and the entire proposal must not exceed 60 pages (according to the page count displayed in the PDF). Proposals that do not meet these requirements will be rejected. For other requirements, refer to chapter V of the instructions.

D. The Information and Instructions for Preparing Proposals for the Transportation Research Board’s Cooperative Research Programs have been modified to include a revised policy and instructions for disclosing Investigator Conflict of Interest. For more information, refer to chapter IV of the instructions. A detailed definition and examples can be found in the CRP Conflict of Interest Policy for Subawardees. The proposer recommended by the project panel will be required to submit an Investigator Conflict of Interest and Disclosure Form as a prerequisite for subaward negotiations.

E. Proposals will be rejected if any of the proposed research team members work for organizations represented on the project panel. The panel roster for this project can be found at https://www.mytrb.org/OnlineDirectory/Committee/Details/7168 . Proposers may not contact panel members directly; this roster is provided solely for the purpose of avoiding potential conflicts of interest. 

F. Proprietary Products - If any proprietary products are to be used or tested in the project, please refer to Item 6 in the Information and Instructions for Preparing Proposals.

G. Proposals are evaluated by the ACRP staff and project panels consisting of individuals collectively knowledgeable in the problem area. The project panel will recommend their first choice proposal considering the following factors: (1) the proposer's demonstrated understanding of the problem; (2) the merit of the proposed research approach and experiment design; (3) the experience, qualifications, and objectivity of the research team in the same or closely related problem area; (4) the plan for ensuring application of results; (5) how the proposer approaches inclusion and diversity in the composition of their team and research approach, including participation by certified Disadvantaged Business Enterprises; and, if relevant, (6) the adequacy of the facilities. A recommendation by the project panel is not a guarantee of a subaward. The National Academy of Sciences (NAS - the contracting authority for the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine) will conduct an internal due diligence review and risk assessment of the panel’s recommended proposal before subaward negotiations continue. 

Note: The proposer's approach to inclusion and diversity as well as participation by Disadvantaged Business Enterprises should be incorporated in Item 11 of the proposal.

H. Copyrights - All data, written materials, computer software, graphic and photographic images, and other information prepared under the subaward and the copyrights therein shall be owned by the National Academy of Sciences. The subawardee and lower-tier subawardees will be able to publish this material for non-commercial purposes, for internal use, or to further academic research or studies with permission from TRB Cooperative Research Programs. The subawardee and lower-tier subawardees will not be allowed to sell the project material without prior approval by the National Academy of Sciences. By signing a subaward with the National Academy of Sciences, subawardees accept legal responsibility for any copyright infringement that may exist in work done for TRB. Subawardees are therefore responsible for obtaining all necessary permissions for use of copyrighted material in TRB's Cooperative Research Programs publications. For guidance on TRB's policies on using copyrighted material please consult Section 5.4, "Use of Copyrighted Material," in the Procedural Manual for Subawardees.

I. The text of the final deliverable is expected to be publication-ready when it is submitted. It is strongly recommended that the research team include the expertise of a technical editor as early in the project timeline as possible. See Appendix F of the Procedural Manual for Subawardees Conducting Research in the Transportation Research Board’s Cooperative Research Program for technical editing standards expected in final deliverables.

J. Proposals should include a task-by-task breakdown of labor hours for each staff member as shown in Figure 4 in the Information and Instructions for Preparing Proposals. Proposals also should include a breakdown of all costs (e.g., wages, indirect costs, travel, materials, and total) for each task using Figures 5 and 6 in the brochure. Please note that TRB Cooperative Research Program subawards (selected proposers are considered subawardees to the National Academy of Sciences, the parent organization of TRB) must comply with 2 CFR 200 – Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards. These requirements include a provision that proposers without a "federally" Negotiated Indirect Costs Rate Agreement (NICRA) shall be subject to a maximum allowable indirect rate of 15% of Modified Total Direct Costs. Modified Total Direct Costs include all salaries and wages, applicable fringe benefits, materials and supplies, services, travel, and up to the first $25,000 of each lower-tier subaward. Modified Total Direct Costs exclude equipment, capital expenditures, charges for patient care, rental costs, tuition remission, scholarships and fellowships, participant support costs, and the portion of each lower-tier subaward in excess of $25,000.

K. The required technical memorandum titled, “Implementation of Research Findings and Products” should provide: (a) recommended tactics to facilitate implementation; (b) possible institutions/partners and their potential implementation role; (c) potential impediments to successful implementation; (d) metrics to measure extent of product use and benefit; (e) related FAA guidance; and (f) appendices as needed. An annotated template for the memorandum is found here: https://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/acrp/ACRP_Implementation_TechMemo_Template_2019.pdf.

L. The Summary of Key Findings will be a stand-alone document. It should: (a) convey the most pertinent and applicable results of the project’s research; (b) be geared toward the airport industry practitioner while minimizing technical language; (c) present results using text and graphics as appropriate; and (d) encourage readers to explore the primary project deliverables. The Summary of Key Findings should be limited to no more than 4 pages.

M. The Further Recommended Research Memo will be a stand-alone document.  It will include the prioritized list of and discussion of the follow-on research ideas from the interim report and meeting and the resulting problem statements.

N. All budget information should be suitable for printing on 8½″ x 11″ paper. If a budget page cannot fit on a single 8½″ x 11″ page, it should be split over multiple pages. Proposers must use the Excel templates provided in the Information and Instructions for Preparing Proposals for the Transportation Research Board’s Cooperative Research Programs.

O. The National Academies have an ethical and legal obligation to provide proper attribution whenever material from other sources is included in its reports, online postings, and other publications and products. TRB will review all Cooperative Research Programs draft final deliverables using the software iThenticate for potential plagiarism. If plagiarized text appears in the draft final deliverable, the research team will be required to make revisions and the opportunity to submit future proposals may be affected.