Calgary Public Transit II

[MalcolmTucker]

^ preach.

[RyLucky]

Good points raised, folks. I just want to add this:

Ridership isn't everything. There is no "correct" design for a transit system.

I think a lot of people see a trip to the airport as a mandatory $50 cab ride each way, for a few flights a year, and are therefore more willing to have their tax dollars go towards a transit project that provides an alternative to this, as opposed to a line there is almost no chance of them ever using. Even if this hypothetical line moved fewer people, the people want what the people want, and putting an airport spur on the NCLRT might drum up wider support, especially if new taxes are used to pay for transit. More people might perceive value even if daily use is lower.

[frinkprof]

Regarding Transit Camp's election survey of candidates, I was originally going to make a post each day to coincide with the Metro article for each question but I wasn't able to make the time to.

Anyway, the comprehensive list of responses is on the Transit Camp blog (http://transitcamp.ca) and the Metro articles are easy to find on their website. A bit lazy of me but free time has been at a premium lately so there you have it.

[J-D]

Originally Posted by ByeByeBaby

Airport transit is always one of the transit aspects that people attach a halo on, thinking it is more important than it really is. Much like rails and subways.

Here, CT used to focus on the airport workers (you're right about the old guard insiders at Transit) as the main market -- although the NELRT is correctly going somewhere where there are riders to take it. The recent addition of the BRT is a step in the right direction, and some legibility/usability improvements may actually make it a worthwhile service, although that's another day.

But the public is mostly imagining either how nice airport transit might be (without the hassles), or thinking that "world class cities" have "trains to the airport" (and that buses could never suffice, for instance.)

Here's a reality check -- San Francisco has a decent quality (except for the seats, yuck) metro system, BART, that has 50% more ridership than we do -- 415,803 on a typical weekday as of September 2013. The train runs right to the airport; you can take a one-seat ride to the airport from downtown San Francisco (or Oakland, or even as far away as Pittsburg, which is 80 km by car!) and the stations downtown are well situated -- blocks from the Embarcadero and Ferry Terminal, from Union Square, the convention centre, MOMA, the cable car turnaround etc. It's a really good system as far as transit to the airport; I'd rate it in the top 5 of the 17 North American airports I've taken transit to. (Calgary is in the top 17.)

So BART is a high-quality transit service to the airport, BART carries 150% of the C-Train's passengers, and SFO has three times the passengers of YYC. What is the ridership? 7,150 people take BART to SFO on a September weekday, 1.8% of riders, and 20th out of 44 stations. (5,098 on Saturdays and 5,517 on Sundays - I'll say one thing; airports are 7-day generators.) Relative to our system and size, we might expect something in the 2,500-5,000 rider range per day, which is absolute peanuts -- weekday LRT ridership is 277,400. The additional ridership would probably be lower than that from the $130M Saddletowne extension.

Building rail to our airport is justifiable only if it's on the way somewhere else (and it isn't), or if we have money to burn (and we don't -- I'm not known as bullish on the SELRT, but I'd rank it waay higher than airport LRT), or if we are letting our egos drive our decisions, rather than our brains (I hope not).

Having rail running to the airport is kind of an interesting thing, really. I've taken the train from Airports in quite a number of cities when visiting and it's always such a positive experience for me, but if the C-Train went to the airport I know for a fact that I still wouldn't take it. Maybe if I lived right on the train downtown, but there's no chance I'm going to take a bus after travelling like that, even with carry-on luggage.

[H.E.Pennypacker]

Originally Posted by J-D

Having rail running to the airport is kind of an interesting thing, really. I've taken the train from Airports in quite a number of cities when visiting and it's always such a positive experience for me, but if the C-Train went to the airport I know for a fact that I still wouldn't take it. Maybe if I lived right on the train downtown, but there's no chance I'm going to take a bus after travelling like that, even with carry-on luggage.

I think an LRT to the airport caters to the business crowd more tha anything - would make it much easier for suits to get out of downtown during peak times is pretty good for businesses

[Ferreth]

Originally Posted by H.E.Pennypacker

I think an LRT to the airport caters to the business crowd more tha anything - would make it much easier for suits to get out of downtown during peak times is pretty good for businesses

But would suits ever even consider getting in public transit? I know when I traveled for company work, it was cab every time - I don't think that would change just because an LRT was available.

I'm also indifferent to the more tourists argument. 1) Calgary doesn't need more tourists 2) They kind of tourists that penny pinch by taking transit from the airport are the least valuable to the economy anyways - we want jet setting types that get into limos ideally.

As far as personal travel goes, if I have enough money to afford a trip outside of Western Canada, I have enough money for a cab or parking at the airport. The extra cost is insignificant relative to the rest of my trip cost.

Overall I consider airport LRT pretty much a waste of money at this point - if we want to serve the airport, get buses that can handle luggage, have one route that connects to the nearest LRT and another that goes downtown (could be one route). As long as the service level is every 15 minutes or so, you would be good to go.

[Rusty van Reddick]

Originally Posted by Ferreth

But would suits ever even consider getting in public transit? I know when I traveled for company work, it was cab every time - I don't think that would change just because an LRT was available.

I'm also indifferent to the more tourists argument. 1) Calgary doesn't need more tourists 2) They kind of tourists that penny pinch by taking transit from the airport are the least valuable to the economy anyways - we want jet setting types that get into limos ideally.

As far as personal travel goes, if I have enough money to afford a trip outside of Western Canada, I have enough money for a cab or parking at the airport. The extra cost is insignificant relative to the rest of my trip cost.

Overall I consider airport LRT pretty much a waste of money at this point - if we want to serve the airport, get buses that can handle luggage, have one route that connects to the nearest LRT and another that goes downtown (could be one route). As long as the service level is every 15 minutes or so, you would be good to go.

1. Hundreds of thousands of "suits" use transit in Calgary every day. Hundreds of millions do around the world.

2. Calgary absolutely needs more tourists.

3. People don't necessarily take transit from airports to pinch pennies. They do it because in all cases transit is outrageously cheaper and often is faster and more efficient. Why would ANYBODY suffer the clusterfuck of a cab from YVR to a downtown hotel when the Canada Line is faster and cheaper? And though it's not the most comfortable trip, transit from YYZ costs not one-tenth of a cab ride and depending on conditions on the 401 or QEW can be faster.

I travel a lot and taking transit from airports - well, trains - is one of the things I find delightful about travel. The Canada Line has itself motivated me to visit Vancouver more often since I don't have to factor a $50 cab ride into my budget any more. That's damn good for Vancouver.

[Cage]

Airport rail link is usually a mechanism to get funding for the transit system. For example the airport authority in Vancouver put in 300 million into the spur line that should have only cost 200 million. Same goes for SFO-BART and Sydney Australia rail link.

I a high speed rail situation the airport is trying to replace commuter shuttle operation with rail connections. Much like Frankfurt. However this requires an airport that is slot and development constrained for the long term.

Also people who take transit to/from the airport are from the following groups: employees, home airport travellers, frequent visitors, students, transit geeks.

Tourists are one of the hardest groups to get onto transit outside of the transit geeks. For me (halfway into the transit geek crowd) I take transit from the airport only if I do not require a car at destination, am arriving in the daytime, and know about the destination cities transit system. However on the way back to the airport I am more likely to take transit. For example took a 60 EUR cab ride on arrival in MUC but took transit on the way out of MUC to BER.

[Ferreth]

Originally Posted by Rusty van Reddick

1. Hundreds of thousands of "suits" use transit in Calgary every day. Hundreds of millions do around the world.

Use, yes, but to the airport? I can't see an airport line being justifiable until traffic is much worse by car to the airport. Currently, I see most businesses cost saving by having someone pick up people at the airport, or sharing cabs. I'll concede that once Calgary gets really big, airport LRT would make sense from a business travel perspective.

2. Calgary absolutely needs more tourists.

Depends on your definition of "need". I'm approaching it from the POV that the Calgary economy is doing just fine - we don't need to spend more money on items to bring more tourists in. Not saying we should ignore tourist entirely, but we don't need to spend a bunch more on encouraging it either.

3. People don't necessarily take transit from airports to pinch pennies. They do it because in all cases transit is outrageously cheaper and often is faster and more efficient. Why would ANYBODY suffer the clusterfuck of a cab from YVR to a downtown hotel when the Canada Line is faster and cheaper? And though it's not the most comfortable trip, transit from YYZ costs not one-tenth of a cab ride and depending on conditions on the 401 or QEW can be faster.

I travel a lot and taking transit from airports - well, trains - is one of the things I find delightful about travel. The Canada Line has itself motivated me to visit Vancouver more often since I don't have to factor a $50 cab ride into my budget any more. That's damn good for Vancouver.

What you call "outrageously cheaper" I consider pinching pennies. Let's use your trip to Vancouver as an example. I Just looked up the price of a reasonable weekend trip via Westjet, $450. Two nights at a Best Western Downtown at $250. Food, say, $80. Total, $780. Now I am faced with a $50 cab ride vs Skytrain for a savings of $41, or 5% of my weekend trip cost. That's pretty much a best case scenario, longer trips and any additional spending make the $41 even less of a make or break financial choice on if I should make the trip, and put up with the hassle of dragging my luggage on a train, then to my hotel. As a tourist with light luggage, yeah I would probably take the train myself to see what it was like. But given the option of a shuttle bus to the hotel for my last few trips to Vancouver it has been shuttle bus every time. Your point that having a train ride to downtown motivates you to visit Vancouver is valid, but I don't buy it being a huge factor in people's choices of where to visit, especially for those who would spend significant dollars while visiting the city.

[MalcolmTucker]

A much bigger convention centre for the same cost would probably do better for the city. Vancouver's link if taxpayers paid for it would be considered a huge boondoggle.

[RyLucky]

Originally Posted by Rusty van Reddick

1. Hundreds of thousands of "suits" use transit in Calgary every day. Hundreds of millions do around the world.

2. Calgary absolutely needs more tourists.

3. People don't necessarily take transit from airports to pinch pennies. They do it because in all cases transit is outrageously cheaper and often is faster and more efficient. Why would ANYBODY suffer the clusterfuck of a cab from YVR to a downtown hotel when the Canada Line is faster and cheaper? And though it's not the most comfortable trip, transit from YYZ costs not one-tenth of a cab ride and depending on conditions on the 401 or QEW can be faster.

I travel a lot and taking transit from airports - well, trains - is one of the things I find delightful about travel. The Canada Line has itself motivated me to visit Vancouver more often since I don't have to factor a $50 cab ride into my budget any more. That's damn good for Vancouver.

I 100% agree.

[MasterG]

Originally Posted by Cage

Airport rail link is usually a mechanism to get funding for the transit system. For example the airport authority in Vancouver put in 300 million into the spur line that should have only cost 200 million. Same goes for SFO-BART and Sydney Australia rail link.

I a high speed rail situation the airport is trying to replace commuter shuttle operation with rail connections. Much like Frankfurt. However this requires an airport that is slot and development constrained for the long term.

Also people who take transit to/from the airport are from the following groups: employees, home airport travellers, frequent visitors, students, transit geeks.

Tourists are one of the hardest groups to get onto transit outside of the transit geeks. For me (halfway into the transit geek crowd) I take transit from the airport only if I do not require a car at destination, am arriving in the daytime, and know about the destination cities transit system. However on the way back to the airport I am more likely to take transit. For example took a 60 EUR cab ride on arrival in MUC but took transit on the way out of MUC to BER.

I took the 300 from the airport today on the way back from YVR (Canada line). It really is a joke. A special ticket you must buy at Mac's with no signage or "Public Transit -> " signs. No indication where it is unless you ask someone (for those that don't know its in Bus Bay 19-20 out of the 24~ bays at the Airport). Near the exit to the domestic departures. But again no signs. 30 min headways, no benches to sit and wait. Just a curb area surrounded by idling buses and taxis in the dark.

Tourists were asking other where to get tickets, and when english isn't your first language, a difficult prospect. Many will be able to understand "Buy ticket downtown here" at a machine, but how is someone with a few words going to be able to understand "Go to the Mac's, its a convenience store way at the other end of the terminal. ask for a Route 300 ticket, not a route 100 tickets or normal bus tickets. those don't work. Now go outside to Bay 20. Also fill out which day you are commuting on it and it works like an All-day pass. But you'll probably figure that out on your own right?"

I know it is a new service and they are still working it out, but do they want it to fail? It seems like they are actively trying to destroy it. It's as if neither Calgary Transit or the Airport authority give a crap if it succeeds or not. Did no one on the project team ever visit another airport with transit before?

A Canada Line-style project is billions, but a bench? Some Signage? A ticket machine if you really want to break the bank? Its ridiculous.

[ByeByeBaby]

Originally Posted by MasterG

I took the 300 from the airport today on the way back from YVR (Canada line). It really is a joke. A special ticket you must buy at Mac's with no signage or "Public Transit -> " signs. No indication where it is unless you ask someone (for those that don't know its in Bus Bay 19-20 out of the 24~ bays at the Airport). Near the exit to the domestic departures. But again no signs. 30 min headways, no benches to sit and wait. Just a curb area surrounded by idling buses and taxis in the dark.

Tourists were asking other where to get tickets, and when english isn't your first language, a difficult prospect. Many will be able to understand "Buy ticket downtown here" at a machine, but how is someone with a few words going to be able to understand "Go to the Mac's, its a convenience store way at the other end of the terminal. ask for a Route 300 ticket, not a route 100 tickets or normal bus tickets. those don't work. Now go outside to Bay 20. Also fill out which day you are commuting on it and it works like an All-day pass. But you'll probably figure that out on your own right?"

I know it is a new service and they are still working it out, but do they want it to fail? It seems like they are actively trying to destroy it. It's as if neither Calgary Transit or the Airport authority give a crap if it succeeds or not. Did no one on the project team ever visit another airport with transit before?

A Canada Line-style project is billions, but a bench? Some Signage? A ticket machine if you really want to break the bank? Its ridiculous.

This.

There is an airport transit market, but one that is almost entirely first-time users (not just tourists, most Calgarians as well - most people don't fly all that regularly) and one that needs to prioritize ease of use, legibility and comfort over other concerns. This is an area CT has been chronically behind on in general. We're halfway to what we need -- instead of a random bus that takes the scenic route through Airways Industrial, there is a bus that goes from the terminal to the downtown in a fairly direct fashion -- but the legibility of the system is terrible. The good news is that this is something that can be fixed with much more modest resources than building LRT all the way to the airport.

[RyLucky]

Originally Posted by MasterG

I took the 300 from the airport today on the way back from YVR (Canada line). It really is a joke. A special ticket you must buy at Mac's with no signage or "Public Transit -> " signs. No indication where it is unless you ask someone (for those that don't know its in Bus Bay 19-20 out of the 24~ bays at the Airport). Near the exit to the domestic departures. But again no signs. 30 min headways, no benches to sit and wait. Just a curb area surrounded by idling buses and taxis in the dark.

Tourists were asking other where to get tickets, and when english isn't your first language, a difficult prospect. Many will be able to understand "Buy ticket downtown here" at a machine, but how is someone with a few words going to be able to understand "Go to the Mac's, its a convenience store way at the other end of the terminal. ask for a Route 300 ticket, not a route 100 tickets or normal bus tickets. those don't work. Now go outside to Bay 20. Also fill out which day you are commuting on it and it works like an All-day pass. But you'll probably figure that out on your own right?"

I know it is a new service and they are still working it out, but do they want it to fail? It seems like they are actively trying to destroy it. It's as if neither Calgary Transit or the Airport authority give a crap if it succeeds or not. Did no one on the project team ever visit another airport with transit before?

A Canada Line-style project is billions, but a bench? Some Signage? A ticket machine if you really want to break the bank? Its ridiculous.

So true! I felt the same way last time I took the 300.

1) add signage!!! A visitor would not even know this route exists, let alone where to go.
2) make fare $3.00. I've heard of people thinking the bus driver is tricking them with a $8.50 fee.

Those two changes should/could happen immediately. In the medium term, add seating and increase frequency to every 15 minutes. Maybe if demand picks up they could use buses with more luggage room too. Oh! And they need earlier routes for morning flights. Personally, I think they should just build a $3 fee (or even $8.50) into your airport fee so everyone can have free transit with their plane ticket. That way you don't have to find exact change in a foreign currency. Also, with 13M YYC passengers/year, that's a lot of transit revenue.

[Cage]

Originally Posted by MasterG

I took the 300 from the airport today on the way back from YVR (Canada line). It really is a joke. A special ticket you must buy at Mac's with no signage or "Public Transit -> " signs. No indication where it is unless you ask someone (for those that don't know its in Bus Bay 19-20 out of the 24~ bays at the Airport). Near the exit to the domestic departures. But again no signs. 30 min headways, no benches to sit and wait. Just a curb area surrounded by idling buses and taxis in the dark.

....

A Canada Line-style project is billions, but a bench? Some Signage? A ticket machine if you really want to break the bank? Its ridiculous.

You are approaching this from the mindset of a public transit person and not an airport operator. This is where most of the issues have their root cause.

1. Airport expects Ctransit to lease a ticket wicket/booth like Red Arrow and the other shuttle companies. Ctransit does not see the need and does not pay for the expense, instead they get an agreement with Couche Tarde/Macs to use existing facilities free of charge.

2. Benches are provided around the arrival area for customers. The airport bus area was not designed for outdoor benches. If Ctransit wants an outdoor bench area, they can pay for the modifications an mnove their operations to International terminal.

3. All electronic kiosks are property of the airport authority and must operate to IATA CUSS (common use self service) standards. Electronid kiosks can be owned by the operator. This is to prevent each operator (read airline) from having their own proprietary kiosks. Requirements for common use equipment result in substantial savings to the airport as airlines cannot put proprietary computer equipment at the checkin counters and gates, proprietary equipment has been used to justify gate and desk hoarding by the airlines (look at LAX as an example, only Tom Bradley terminal is Common Use, all other terminals are airline specific). Hoarding the gates blocks out the smaller players or leads to expensive over expansion of the facilities. Further if one lessee gets special exception, all other airport lessees get the same treatment. To get an electronic kiosk would require Ctransit to bring it up to CUSS and CUTE standards.

4. Airport gets a lot more money from cab departure than it gets from city buss departure. Again the city approaches things from the naivity that the airport should provide services and space for free. Ctransit gets shocked when they find out the airport wants $$$ per pax boarded.

[H.E.Pennypacker]

For the sake of debate - would building the NCLRT to Beddington (with a station east of Harvest Hills Blvd, south of 96th Ave) and having a loop shuttle from that station to the Airport be an efficient alternative to building a line directly to the airport for the time being? It would build and LRT line that increases public benefit and provide easier access to the Airport

.. I get the gut feeling that we're going to get the NCLRT and SELRT sooner than folks are expecting around here, at least until Beddington and Quarry Park

[You Need A Thneed]

Originally Posted by H.E.Pennypacker

For the sake of debate - would building the NCLRT to Beddington (with a station east of Harvest Hills Blvd, south of 96th Ave) and having a loop shuttle from that station to the Airport be an efficient alternative to building a line directly to the airport for the time being? It would build and LRT line that increases public benefit and provide easier access to the Airport

.. I get the gut feeling that we're going to get the NCLRT and SELRT sooner than folks are expecting around here, at least until Beddington and Quarry Park

It's about the same distance from Harvest Hills Blvd to the terminal as it is from the NE line to the terminal. Why not just shuttle bus to the NE line, and not have to worry about the NC line?

(Of course, when the NC line goes ahead, there will be shuttles at the very least from both lines)

[MasterG]

Originally Posted by Cage

You are approaching this from the mindset of a public transit person and not an airport operator. This is where most of the issues have their root cause.

1. Airport expects Ctransit to lease a ticket wicket/booth like Red Arrow and the other shuttle companies. Ctransit does not see the need and does not pay for the expense, instead they get an agreement with Couche Tarde/Macs to use existing facilities free of charge.

2. Benches are provided around the arrival area for customers. The airport bus area was not designed for outdoor benches. If Ctransit wants an outdoor bench area, they can pay for the modifications an mnove their operations to International terminal.

3. All electronic kiosks are property of the airport authority and must operate to IATA CUSS (common use self service) standards. Electronid kiosks can be owned by the operator. This is to prevent each operator (read airline) from having their own proprietary kiosks. Requirements for common use equipment result in substantial savings to the airport as airlines cannot put proprietary computer equipment at the checkin counters and gates, proprietary equipment has been used to justify gate and desk hoarding by the airlines (look at LAX as an example, only Tom Bradley terminal is Common Use, all other terminals are airline specific). Hoarding the gates blocks out the smaller players or leads to expensive over expansion of the facilities. Further if one lessee gets special exception, all other airport lessees get the same treatment. To get an electronic kiosk would require Ctransit to bring it up to CUSS and CUTE standards.

4. Airport gets a lot more money from cab departure than it gets from city buss departure. Again the city approaches things from the naivity that the airport should provide services and space for free. Ctransit gets shocked when they find out the airport wants $$$ per pax boarded.

All fair points and a good explanation of what is happening. Now that they know that, this should be an easy fix. all other cities with transit seemed to manage, I am sure we can too. I am just surprised how poorly this first attempt was. And how some of the basics still haven't been dealt with even though the route has been open for a while now.

A nice addition more than anything? A sign that says Public Transportation. Now that I am thinking about it, Calgary may be among the only airport that provides public transit but does not have a sign for it. Definitely the largest.

To confuse matters they do have a "Ground Transportation" sign with the standard Bus symbol. One would think that is where to get a bus? Nope.

[H.E.Pennypacker]

Originally Posted by You Need A Thneed

It's about the same distance from Harvest Hills Blvd to the terminal as it is from the NE line to the terminal. Why not just shuttle bus to the NE line, and not have to worry about the NC line?

(Of course, when the NC line goes ahead, there will be shuttles at the very least from both lines)

Good point .. However is there a better direct route from one of the NE LRT stations to the airport than what would be from the 96th Ave route taken from a NCLRT shuttle?

Which would be quicker?

I'm not saying build the NCLRT to get a shuttle to the airport .. Rather an additional benefit for building the NCLRT could be a better direct shuttle to the airport

Ultimately I think there is great benefit from having a direct LRT line straight to the airport... I constantly hear how awesome it is to fly to Vancouver and be able to hop on a train that directly goes into downtown, you have to think this helps their tourism in some capacity .. I can only imagine how awesome it would be for tourists coming for Stampede being able to take a train straight to downtown, or people wanting to visit Banff/the mountains and being able to take a train from the airport to the bus station ... If you build it, they will come

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Cage

You are approaching this from the mindset of a public transit person and not an airport operator. This is where most of the issues have their root cause.

1. Airport expects Ctransit to lease a ticket wicket/booth like Red Arrow and the other shuttle companies. Ctransit does not see the need and does not pay for the expense, instead they get an agreement with Couche Tarde/Macs to use existing facilities free of charge.

2. Benches are provided around the arrival area for customers. The airport bus area was not designed for outdoor benches. If Ctransit wants an outdoor bench area, they can pay for the modifications an mnove their operations to International terminal.

3. All electronic kiosks are property of the airport authority and must operate to IATA CUSS (common use self service) standards. Electronid kiosks can be owned by the operator. This is to prevent each operator (read airline) from having their own proprietary kiosks. Requirements for common use equipment result in substantial savings to the airport as airlines cannot put proprietary computer equipment at the checkin counters and gates, proprietary equipment has been used to justify gate and desk hoarding by the airlines (look at LAX as an example, only Tom Bradley terminal is Common Use, all other terminals are airline specific). Hoarding the gates blocks out the smaller players or leads to expensive over expansion of the facilities. Further if one lessee gets special exception, all other airport lessees get the same treatment. To get an electronic kiosk would require Ctransit to bring it up to CUSS and CUTE standards.

4. Airport gets a lot more money from cab departure than it gets from city buss departure. Again the city approaches things from the naivity that the airport should provide services and space for free. Ctransit gets shocked when they find out the airport wants $$$ per pax boarded.

Don't want to pick on this response, but this is a classic bureaucratic, hide behind our crappy policy response.

"We have a policy about electronic kiosks". Sure, for airlines. This policy was not put in place to prevent people from paying for a transit fare. It was a policy related to airport operations and how airlines interact with that operation. This is bureaucratic nonsense. What impact would a electonic kiosk to pay for transit fare have on airport operations? But as long as you explain the reason behind the policy (even though that reason has nothing to do with the topic at hand), we are all convinced right?

"Calgary Transit can get a kiosk like all the other bus companies." Calgary transit is not another bus company. It is public entity that serves a public purpose. They should be allowed a damn ticket machine. It is almost no cost to the airport whatsoever. They should pay for such a machine no doubt, and whatever electricity it takes to run it, but I don't see why the airport has to impose ridiculous regulations on Calgary Transit to do so.

"The airport gets money from the cab companies and not the buses." Yup. There it is. The real reason for all this nonsense. The airport makes money from parking and cabs and not from transit. What a short sighted, narrow-view of what an airport is supposed to do.