sustainability

Article
Advanced Air Mobility: Demand Analysis and Market
Potential of the Airport Shuttle and Air Taxi Markets
Rohit Goyal 1 , Colleen Reiche 2 , Chris Fernando 2 and Adam Cohen 3, *

1 Independent Researcher, Boston, MA 02128, USA; [email protected]

2 Quantitative Scientific Solutions, Arlington, VA 22203, USA; [email protected] (C.R.);
[email protected] (C.F.)
3 Transportation Sustainability Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: Advanced air mobility (AAM) is a broad concept enabling consumers access to on-demand
air mobility, cargo and package delivery, healthcare applications, and emergency services through an
integrated and connected multimodal transportation network. However, a number of challenges
could impact AAM’s growth potential, such as autonomous flight, the availability of take-off and
landing infrastructure (i.e., vertiports), integration into airspace and other modes of transportation,
and competition with shared automated vehicles. This article discusses the results of a demand
analysis examining the market potential of two potential AAM passenger markets—airport shuttles
and air taxis. The airport shuttle market envisions AAM passenger service to, from, or between
airports along fixed routes. The air taxi market envisions a more mature and scaled service that





 provides on-demand point-to-point passenger services throughout urban areas. Using a multi-
method approach consisting of AAM travel demand modeling, Monte Carlo simulations, and
Citation: Goyal, R.; Reiche, C.;
constraint analysis, this study estimates that the air taxi and airport shuttle markets could capture a
Fernando, C.; Cohen, A. Advanced
Air Mobility: Demand Analysis and
0.5% mode share. The analysis concludes that AAM could replace non-discretionary trips greater than
Market Potential of the Airport 45 min; however, demand for discretionary trips would be limited by consumer willingness to pay.
Shuttle and Air Taxi Markets. This study concludes that AAM passenger services could have a daily demand of 82,000 passengers
Sustainability 2021, 13, 7421. https:// served by approximately 4000 four- to five-seat aircraft in the U.S., under the most conservative
doi.org/10.3390/su13137421 scenario, representing an annual market valuation of 2.5 billion USD.

Academic Editors: Maria Keywords: advanced air mobility (AAM); urban air mobility (UAM); on-demand air mobility; market
Nadia Postorino and Chiara analysis; air taxi; vertical take-off and landing (VTOL)
Caterina Ditta

Received: 5 June 2021

Accepted: 23 June 2021
1. Introduction
Published: 2 July 2021
A variety of technological advancements and industry investments in electrification,
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
automation, vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) aircraft, unmanned aerial systems (UAS),
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
and air traffic management are enabling innovations in aviation, such as new aircraft
published maps and institutional affil- designs, services, and business models. Advanced air mobility (AAM) is a broad concept
iations. that enables consumers access to on-demand air mobility, goods delivery, and emergency
services through an integrated and connected multimodal transportation network [1].
AAM can serve a variety of built environments (i.e., urban, suburban, and rural) and
includes local use cases of about a 50-mile (80 km) radius in rural or urban areas and
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
intraregional use cases up to a few hundred miles [2]. Other common terms include
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
on-demand air mobility, urban air mobility (UAM), and rural air mobility.
This article is an open access article
In recent years, on-demand aviation services similar to transportation network com-
distributed under the terms and panies (TNCs) (i.e., Uber or Lyft) are entering the marketplace. Globally, 12 app- and
conditions of the Creative Commons web-based, on-demand AAM passenger services using helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// were operational as of March 2020 [1]. A number of companies have announced plans
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ to launch passenger AAM services using VTOL and other novel aircraft designs. A few
4.0/). planned services include: (1) Volocopter in Singapore in 2021; (2) EHang in Linz, Austria

Sustainability 2021, 13, 7421. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13137421 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2021, 13, 7421 2 of 15

in 2021; (3) Vertical Aerospace in London in 2022; (4) Joby Aviation (also acquired Uber
Elevate) in 2024 (cities to be announced); and (5) Lilium in Orlando, Munich, Nürnberg,
and other cities around the world in 2024 [1]. A few companies with unannounced launch
timelines include Archer, Wisk (formerly Kitty Hawk), and many others. Additionally, a
number of automakers have announced investments in AAM, including Aston Martin,
Audi, Daimler, Geely, General Motors, Hyundai, Porsche, Stellantis, and Toyota [1].
While AAM may be enabled by the convergence of several factors, several challenges,
such as community acceptance, safety, social equity, issues around planning and implemen-
tation, airspace, and operations, could create barriers to mainstreaming. Moreover, while
numerous societal concerns have been raised about these approaches (e.g., affordability,
safety, privacy, multimodal integration, etc.), AAM has the potential to offer additional
options for emergency services, goods delivery, and passenger mobility [1]. Several market
studies forecast that AAM passenger and emergency services will begin to transition to
VTOL and electric VTOL (eVTOL) aircraft in the mid to late 2020s. Broadly, these mar-
ket studies estimate a passenger mobility market of 2.8 to 4 billion USD by 2030, and a
global AAM market potential of 74 to 641 billion USD in 2035 [2–8]. Herman et al. [6]
conducted a market study examining 74 global cities using a metanalysis approach of
existing studies coupled with an analytical forecasting model that included variables such
as city demographics, infrastructure costs, aircraft and supply chain, demand assumptions,
and community and regulatory constraints. The study estimates a market potential of
318 billion USD across the 74 cities in 2040. Another study by Porsche Consulting estimates
a global demand for 23,000 eVTOL aircraft in 2035. Using a gravity model, [7] forecasts
demand in 2042 for regional air taxis (up to 300 km). Mayor and Anderson [8] estimates
that air taxis could have upwards of 400 million enplanements representing 4% of domestic
trips by 2050. Lineberger et al. [9] estimates that the U.S. AAM market will be valued at
115 billion USD and employ more than 280,000 workers by 2035. Market forecasts vary
widely because of variations in study scope and assumptions, such as geography, timeline,
market segmentation, and the inclusion of military applications of VTOL aircraft.
Estimating the demand and growth potential of AAM is important for three key rea-
sons. First, understanding the potential demand for AAM helps private sector investments
in eVTOL and infrastructure development. Second, understanding the potential demand
for AAM is important to help inform planning, policy, and decision-making of the public
sector. Finally, estimating the market size, demand, and growth potential of AAM helps
public and private sectors understand the potential scale of externalities associated with
AAM. Although a number of studies have attempted to estimate the demand and market
potential of AAM, many of these studies focus on unconstrained forecasts, which can
overestimate the market potential for AAM using optimistic assumptions. This study
examines the demand and market potential of AAM by applying a series of constraints,
including infrastructure availability and capacity, willingness to pay, the time of day for
anticipated operations, and the weather. In addition to a constraint analysis, this study
analyzes the market potential of AAM by overlaying a variety of scenarios including tech-
nology enhancements, network efficiency, autonomous flight, infrastructure improvements,
varying values of time, competition with shared automated vehicles, telecommuting, and
latent demand.
This article presents a demand analysis examining the market potential of two po-
tential AAM passenger markets: (1) airport shuttles and (2) air taxis. The airport shuttle
market envisions AAM passenger service to, from, or between airports along fixed routes.
The air taxi market envisions a more mature and scaled service that provides on-demand
point-to-point passenger services throughout urban areas. This article is organized into
five sections. The first section provides an overview of the emerging literature on AAM
market demand analysis. The next section describes the methodology used to analyze and
forecast the AAM airport shuttle and air taxi markets. In the third section, the authors
review key findings from the scenario and sensitivity analyses of both markets. In the
fourth section, the authors discuss the findings from eight market scenarios. In the final
Sustainability 2021, 13, 7421 3 of 15

section, the authors conclude with a discussion of how the global pandemic may impact
the evolution of advanced air mobility and recommendations for additional research.

2. Overview of Studies Forecasting AAM Demand

A number of emerging studies have examined the market potential for AAM across
different geographies using a variety of qualitative and quantitative methods. Broadly,
these studies tend to use a variety of variables such as cost, journey time, wait time, num-
ber of connections, value of time, and vertiport density to quantify consumer demand,
potential mode share, and price elasticity for AAM. Using a gravity model to estimate
interurban demand, Becker et al. [7] identified potential AAM markets in 2042. Another
study by NEXA Advisors [6] modeled AAM demand for a variety of different use cases,
including air taxi, airport shuttle, corporate campus shuttle, emergency services, and
regional air mobility. The model used a variety of variables including population, pop-
ulation density, gross domestic product (GDP) per capita, age, existing aviation activity,
and the presence of large corporations. A similar study by Mayor and Anderson [8] mod-
els AAM using GDP and GDP growth; population and population growth; population
density; income distribution and wealth concentration; among other factors. A qualitative
study by Robinson et al. [10] identified potential locations for AAM using factors such as
sprawl, urban density, geography, the number of existing airports, wealth, weather, surface
transportation congestion, and the presence of various economic clusters. Using the cities
identified in [8], Mayakonda et al. [11] estimated AAM passenger kilometer demand based
on airfares, potential time savings, and vertiport density. The study estimated that AAM
demand could achieve 3.2 to 8.5% mode share based on airfares of 0.30 USD per passenger
kilometer. The range was attributed to various assumptions about the density of a vertiport
network. However, the study also found that mode share quickly declines with increasing
costs, particularly above 0.90 USD per passenger kilometer. At that price point, AAM mode
share declines to 0.5 from 1.3% (again, the range was attributable to different assumptions
about vertiport density).
Antcliff et al. [12] suggested that the San Francisco Bay Area could be an early adopter
market for AAM because of the high percentage of long-distance or “super” commuters,
among other factors such as weather and geography. Others have theorized that polycentric
regions with multiple urban centers could support AAM demand associated with bidi-
rectional traffic patterns that increase aircraft occupancies and reduce “deadhead” flights
without paying passengers [13]. These studies theorize that the bidirectional demand
from polycentric cities could also improve the operational efficiency and profitability of
early operations, helping reduce traveler costs and creating a feedback loop that increases
demand [14].
Finally, studies have also conducted exploratory demand modeling and travel time
analyses, often comparing AAM with private vehicle use and other modes of transportation.
Wei et al. [15] compared door-to-door travel times of private vehicles with short take-off
and landing (STOL) aircraft. Using a case study of South Florida, the study found potential
demand for AAM trips greater than 45 min. Other studies have found that air taxi trips
need to be longer than 15 to 25 km to provide sufficient travel time savings over surface
modes in order to generate AAM demand [16]. Using a case study of Melbourne, Australia,
Swadesir, and Bil [17] compared the travel times and costs of air taxis to cycling, driving,
and riding public transportation. Another study by Rothfeld et al. [18] found that surface
transportation was typically only competitive with AAM travel times when trips were less
than 10 km in length. Using a case study of the San Francisco Bay Area, Antcliff et al. [12]
found that minimizing AAM access and egress times (e.g., enplaning/deplaning, security,
delays, etc.) were an important factor the competitiveness of AAM door-to-door travel
times. Kreimeier et al. [19] conducted an economic assessment of AAM in Germany and
also found that air taxi demand is highly sensitive to cost and travel time. The study
also found a willingness to pay of 0.5–0.8 EUR2015 per kilometer, depending on travel
time and distance [19]. Fu et al. [20] modeled mode choice in Munich using a stated
Sustainability 2021, 13, 7421 4 of 15

preference-based survey (n = 248) multinomial logit, nested logit, and mixed logit models.
The study found a value of time of 27.55, 27.47, 32.57, and 44.68 EUR per hour for private
vehicles, public transportation, shared automated vehicles, and autonomous air taxis,
respectively. Al Haddad et al. [21] also concluded that the value of time savings, among
other factors, were highly influential on the potential adoption and use of AAM. All of
these studies suggest that AAM demand could be influenced by the quality of first- and
last-mile connections because of their impacts on total travel time, cost, and convenience
(i.e., number of connections) [12,15–21].
Cohen et al. [1] theorized that the AAM passenger mobility market segments may
evolve from hub and spoke services to point-to-point air taxi services if the cost of flights
decreases, adoption mainstreams, and infrastructure becomes more ubiquitous. How-
ever, Ref. [1] also cautions that although on-demand aviation may be enabled by the
convergence of several factors, a number of challenges could constrain AAM’s growth
and mainstreaming, such as safety, air traffic management, noise, privacy, visual pollution,
community acceptance, weather, environmental impacts, infrastructure limitations, and
security, among others.

3. Methodological Overview
The authors began the study by conducting a comprehensive literature review docu-
menting potential use cases and markets for AAM. The literature review was also used to
document a variety of operational assumptions (e.g., aircraft and flight characteristics) as
well as costs per passenger mile. As part of the literature review, 36 use cases were identi-
fied that could potentially be served by VTOL and eVTOL aircraft. In addition to reviewing
use cases, the authors collected preliminary data on 486 urbanized areas considered for
potential inclusion in the market study. Because of limited study resources, the researchers
filtered out small urban areas to focus on larger metropolitan regions and urban air mobility.
To do this, the researchers applied a population filter selecting metropolitan regions with
more than one million inhabitants and applied a population density filter excluding low-
density regions with less than 1000 inhabitants per square mile. The remaining urban areas
were indexed based on travel time, commute stress, and annual congestion cost. Between
summer 2017 and winter 2019, as part of a National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA) market study, the authors established a strategic advisory group (SAG) to solicit
feedback on key assumptions from more than 50 public and private sector thought leaders
to inform this research. SAG members included senior professionals and subject matter
experts from NASA, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the National Transporta-
tion Safety Board (NTSB), the North Carolina Department of Transportation, New York
City, the city of Los Angeles, Los Angeles World Airports, the International Civil Aviation
Organization (ICAO), and numerous manufacturers, startups, and academic institutions.
Public sector participants included directors of the FAA’s Aviation Plans and Policy Office,
the Office of International Affairs, the Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Integration
Office, and a former NTSB chairman. Manufacturers and startups representing a diverse
set of planned airframes were also included as part of the SAG. In consultation with the
SAG, it was decided that the market study would focus on ten metropolitan regions in
the U.S. (Dallas, TX; Denver, CO; Honolulu, HI; Houston, TX; Miami, FL; New York, NY
(including Newark, NJ); Phoenix, AZ; the San Francisco Bay Area, CA; Southern California
(including Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties); and Washington,
DC (including Northern Virginia)).
The authors then applied these metrics to create a four-step process to analyze the
airport shuttle and air taxi markets. Collectively, these four steps (described below) in-
cluded calculating key business model and operational metrics, such as number of flights,
potential revenue, operating costs, passenger volumes and distribution, and infrastructure
availability (e.g., number, location, and capacity of a hypothetical vertiport network). Each
of these steps are outlined below:
 Sustainability 2021, 13, 7421 5 of 15

Step 1. The first step included defining operational assumptions. For example, both the
airport shuttle and air taxi markets are defined by range, demand, infrastructure
availability, aircraft capabilities, and similar operational characteristics. The process
of defining operational assumptions included consideration of the complete trip
concept, such as ground transportation and first- and last-mile connections to a
vertiport, transfers, and the air taxi flight.
Step 2. The second step involved developing an operating model and calculating key
performance metrics. To do this, the authors calculated the cost of passenger service
for different aircraft types proposed to serve the air taxi and airport shuttle markets.
Each cost, such as capital, maintenance, batteries, electric charging, and vertiports,
was individually modeled. Weather adjustments, such as wind speed, temperature,
and density for each urban area, were applied. The full methodology for the weather
analysis can be found in [22]. Using the calculated cost of passenger service, the
authors calculated demand using a demand model comprised of (1) trip generation,
(2) scoping, (3) trip distribution, (4) mode choice, and (5) operational constraints.
Step 3. Third, the authors developed what-if scenario analyses using operational con-
straints, such as infrastructure capacity, time of day restrictions (e.g., limiting flights
during the night to minimize adverse community impacts), and regulatory chal-
lenges to flying under instrument flight rules (IFR) conditions.
Step 4. In the final step, the authors performed a Monte Carlo sensitivity analysis to better
understand the impact of these challenges and various assumptions on market size
and viability. To do this, the authors simulated 10,000 randomly generated air taxi
missions for each urban area. Eight scenarios were developed based on the current
and future states of the air taxi system, including decisions by key stakeholders.
The methods and findings from each of these steps in the analytical process are
described in greater detail in the following four subsections. All data used in the analysis
was from 2018 unless otherwise noted.
Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 16

3.1. Operational Assumptions

The authors
(8) Compound assumeddesign
helicopter—a that initial
withairport shuttle
a helicopter and air system
rotor-like taxi operations
and one would
or morehave a
pilot
conventional propellers to provide forward thrust during cruising flight shuttle
on board. Additionally, the authors assumed that aircraft used for airport (e.g., and
air taxi markets
HopFlyt). would have a maximum range of 50 miles on a single charge using an elec-
tric propulsion system. The nominal flight profile (Figure 1) and operational
(9) Tilt rotor—an aircraft type that generates lift and propulsion by way of one or more assumptions
(Table
powered1) used tomounted
rotors feed into on
therotating
analysisengine
were developed in consultation
pods or nacelles (e.g., Joby with the SAG.
Aviation).

Figure 1. Flight profile of the airport shuttle and air taxi use cases.
Figure 1. Flight profile of the airport shuttle and air taxi use cases.

Table 1. Operational profile of the airport shuttle and air taxi use cases.

Parameter Definition Minimum Maximum

Number of seats in aircraft. Initial years of operation assumed a pi-
Sustainability 2021, 13, 7421 6 of 15

Table 1. Operational profile of the airport shuttle and air taxi use cases.

Parameter Definition Minimum Maximum

Number of seats in aircraft. Initial years of operation assumed a
Aircraft seats (passenger
pilot on-board, hence there was one seat less available to be 1 5
seats = aircraft seats − 1)
occupied by a passenger.
Passenger load factor, which measures the utilization of the
Load factor (%) capacity of the eVTOL, i.e., the number of seats occupied by a 50% 80%
revenue passenger divided by the total number of available seats.
Utilization (annual number of Average numbers of hours in a year that an aircraft was actually
flights) for 2+ seat aircraft in flight. Conservative utilization numbers were used to consider 1000 2000
(number of flight hours per year) battery recharging/swapping times.
For 2-seat aircraft (only one passenger seat), the aircraft was only
Utilization (annual number of
flown when the passenger seat was filled. Therefore, the
hours) for 2-seat aircraft (number 500 1600
utilization range was adjusted by multiplying with the load factor
of flight hours per year)
of a 2+ seat aircraft, i.e., 1000 × 50%, 2000 × 80%.
Flight time for reserve mission (outside of mission time) at a
Max reserve (mins) 20 30
specified altitude.
Deadhead trips (%) Ratio of non-revenue trips and total trips. 25% 50%
Factor that captures the lateral track inefficiencies equal to the
Detour factor (%) ratio of actual flight distance divided by the great circle distance 5% 15%
between two vertiports.
Cruise altitude (ft) Cruise altitude for AAM vehicles. 500 5000
Time spent in the process of loading AAM vehicle with
Embarkation time (mins) 3 5
passengers and preparing them for flight.
Time required for passengers to disembark the AAM vehicle after
Disembarkation time (mins) 2 3
the flight.
Referred to the degree to which a battery was discharged in
Battery depth of discharge (%) 50% 80%
relation to its total capacity.

3.2. Price Per Passenger Mile

The authors analyzed nine different aircraft types using electric, hybrid, and JetA
powertrains. The nine types of aircrafts considered included:
(1) Multirotor-a rotorcraft with more than two rotors (e.g., Ehang and Volocopter).
(2) Autogyro-a type of rotorcraft, which use an unpowered rotor in free autorotation to
develop lift (e.g., Carter).
(3) Conventional helicopter—a type of rotorcraft in which lift and thrust are supplied by
rotors (e.g., Robinson R22).
(4) Tilt duct—a eVTOL in which a propeller is inside a duct to increase thrust (e.g.,
Lilium Jet).
(5) Coaxial rotor—a design with rotors mounted one above the other (e.g., GoFly).
(6) Lift + cruise—a design that has independent thrusters for cruise and lift (e.g., Aurora
Flight Sciences).
(7) Tilt wing—an aircraft that uses a wing that is horizontal for conventional forward
flight and rotates up for vertical takeoff and landing (e.g., A3 Vahana).
(8) Compound helicopter—a design with a helicopter rotor-like system and one or more
conventional propellers to provide forward thrust during cruising flight (e.g., HopFlyt).
(9) Tilt rotor—an aircraft type that generates lift and propulsion by way of one or more
powered rotors mounted on rotating engine pods or nacelles (e.g., Joby Aviation).
For this analysis, the airport shuttle and air taxi markets were evaluated using electric
aircraft because of the strong industry focus on eVTOL development, the potentially lower
environmental impact (if powered by a clean energy grid), and lower operational costs.
Next, the authors conducted a literature review and consulted with the SAG to review
more than 70 aircraft designs and performance characteristics to develop a range of flight
specifications, such as speed, range, weight, and other attributes. Aircraft specifications,
such as cost and maximum take-off weight (MTOW) were calculated on a per seat basis
and were extrapolated for aircraft with more than one seat.
Sustainability 2021, 13, 7421 7 of 15

The next step was to simulate the operation of these aircraft on randomly generated
flights using an air taxi model (i.e., one or more passenger travels in an eVTOL between
an origin and destination vertiport and pays on a per passenger mile basis). Ground
transportation provides first- and last-mile connections between the traveler’s origin
and destination.
Next, the operating cost per passenger mile for each aircraft was calculated as a
sum of the direct operating cost (DOC) and the indirect operating cost (IOC). The DOC
includes capital, energy, battery, crew, maintenance, insurance, infrastructure, and route
cost, whereas the IOC includes marketing and reservation costs. Next, the authors applied
a pricing model and taxes to calculate the price per passenger mile (i.e., the cost to the
passenger). Each of the cost components of the DOC were individually modeled for aircraft
with two to five seats (a one-seat aircraft was not considered because of pilot requirements),
whereas IOC was calculated as percent of the DOC (10–30%). To conduct the Monte-Carlo-
based sensitivity analysis, 10,000 randomly generated iterations were performed. Table 2
outlines key steps, ranges, and assumptions used in modeling each cost component.

Table 2. Cost component assumptions.

Cost Key Assumptions

Key Steps
Component Parameter Min Max
• Capital cost is the sum of the depreciation cost and the finance cost. Certification costs were Vehicle life
Capital and 12 k 15 k
included in the aircraft price. (flight hours)
insurance Depreciation rate (%) 5% 10%
• Residual value of the aircraft was assumed to be negligible.
cost Finance rate (%) 5% 10%
• Aircraft insurance is the sum of liability and hull insurance, calculated as a % of aircraft price.
Battery specific energy
• Energy required was calculated as the sum of energy required in each phase of the flight. 300 400
Energy and in Wh/kg
• Battery pack sizing was done based on the longest mission and battery recycling was assumed
battery cost Battery capacity
to be negligible.
specific cost 200 250
(USD/kWh)
Energy conversion
90% 98%
efficiency (%)
Pilot salary per year
• Assumed one full time equivalent pilot per aircraft and one full time equivalent ground crew 50 k 90 k
Crew cost (USD)
member in the initial years of service.
Ground crew salary
• Each crew member undergoes annual training. 20 k 30 k
per year (USD)
• Calculated infrastructure cost by extrapolating car parking garage style architecture and Cost of one
Infrastructure 200 k 300 k
construction to fit an aircraft. supercharger (USD)
cost Cost of one regular
• Same infrastructure was also used to park the aircraft overnight. A nightly parking fee was 10 k 20 k
added. charger (USD)
Mechanic wrap rate
Maintenance • Calculated based on per-mission basis by multiplying the ratio of maintenance man hours to 60 100
(USD per hour)
cost flight hours and the mechanic wrap rate.
Maintenance
manhours per 0.25 1
flight hour

The economic modeling found that the median operating cost per passenger mile
decreased as the aircraft’s number of seats increased because of economies of scale for main-
tenance costs, indirect operating costs, and capital costs. The factors used for consideration
in the operational model are shown in Figure 2. Multirotor(s) were found to have a high
operating cost per passenger mile because of lower cruise speeds compared to other types
of eVTOLs. The authors used median values for each seat category. Uncertainty in the cost
calculation was observed (shown by gray lines in Figure 3), largely because of assumptions
about cruise speed and network efficiency (utilization, load factor, and deadhead trips
used to reposition aircraft without paying passengers). Each of these variables has the
potential to increase and lower the operating cost per passenger mile. Maintenance, capital
expenditures, and personnel represented ~60–70% of the overall operating costs. Most
costs on a per passenger basis decreased for aircraft with a greater number of seats.
 Sustainability 2021, 13, 7421 8 of 15
Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 16

Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 16

Figure 2. Structure of supply economic model for the air taxi and airport shuttle markets using eVTOL.
Figure 2. Structure of supply economic model for the air taxi and airport shuttle markets using eVTOL.

Table 2. Cost component assumptions.

Cost Com- Key Assumptions

Key Steps
ponent Parameter Min Max
• Capital cost is the sum of the depreciation cost and the fi- Vehicle life (flight
12 k 15 k
nance cost. Certification costs were included in the aircraft hours)
Capital and
price. Depreciation rate (%) 5% 10%
insurance
• Residual value of the aircraft was assumed to be negligible.
cost
• Aircraft insurance is the sum of liability and hull insurance, Finance rate (%) 5% 10%
calculated as a % of aircraft price.
Battery specific energy
300 400
• Energy required was calculated as the sum of energy re- in Wh/kg
Energy and quired in each phase of the flight. Battery capacity spe-
200 250
battery cost • Battery pack sizing was done based on the longest mission cific cost (USD/kWh)
and battery recycling was assumed to be negligible. Energy conversion ef-
Figure 3. Operating costs per passenger mile. 90% 98%
ficiency (%)
• Assumed one fullAlthough
time equivalent
Although servicepilot
service per aircraft
providers
providers may use
may andaaone
use variety of
variety Pilot
of salarystrategies,
pricing
pricing per year for
strategies, for 50
this
this analysis,
k analysis,
90 k
full time equivalent
the ground
authors crew
assumed member
a in
cost-plus the initial
profit years
pricing strategy for (USD)
the operators
the authors assumed a cost-plus profit pricing strategy for the operators with an assumed with an assumed
Crew cost
of service. profit margin
profit margin of of10–30%.
10–30%.Additionally,
Additionally,the the authors
authors Ground
assumed
assumed crew
thatthatsalary
bothboth
thethe air taxi
air20
taxi and
k and30 air-
k
airport
• Each crew member shuttle
undergoesmarkets
annual will be subjected
training. to taxes and fees,
per comparable
year (USD)
port shuttle markets will be subjected to taxes and fees, comparable to taxis and TNCs. to taxis and TNCs.
These taxes
taxes can
• Calculated infrastructure
These costinclude
can sales
sales tax,
by extrapolating
include tax, motor vehicle
vehicle fees,
car parking
motor workers
fees,Cost of one
workers compensation,
super-
compensation, surcharges
200 300
surcharges
Infrastruc- for public
garage style architecture
for public andtransportation, accessibility
constructionaccessibility
transportation, fees,
to fit an aircraft. licensing fees,
charger
fees, licensing fees, inspection fees, environment
(USD) fees, environment
inspection k k
ture cost taxes, and
taxes, and
• Same infrastructure local/state
waslocal/state property
also used property
to park the taxes.
taxes. Although
Although
aircraft these
over- theseCost taxes
taxes and
of and fees vary by jurisdiction,
fees vary by jurisdiction,
one regular
the authorsfee assumed taxes and
and fees
fees ranging 10 k 20 k
the
night. A nightly authors
parking assumed taxes
was added. ranging between
between 5% 5% and
and 15%.
charger 15%.
(USD)
Based on
Based on these
theseassumptions,
assumptions,the analysis
the analysisconcludes
concludes thatthat
a five-seat eVTOL
a five-seat is expected
eVTOL is ex-
Mechanic wrap rate
to
• Calculated based cost
on around 6.25
per-mission USD
basis per
by passenger
multiplying mile
the
pected to cost around 6.25 USD per passenger mile in(USD in the near term
the near with
term an
with uncertainty
an 60 100 of
uncertainty
Mainte- peroffered
hour) by helicopters, but
nance cost of −
+/
ratio of maintenance 50%.
man
+/−50%. This
Thisestimated
hours to flightcost
estimated is is
hours
cost lower
and
lower than
the comparable
me-
than comparable services
services offered by helicopters,
higher than all surface transportation services (Figure 4). However,man-
chanic wrap rate.
Maintenance increased0.25operational
1
but higher than all surface transportation services (Figure 4). flight
However, increased opera-
efficiency and technological advancements such ashours per
autonomous hourcould
flight potentially
tional efficiency and technological advancements such as autonomous flight could poten-
reduce per passenger mile costs by 60%.
tially reduce per passenger mile costs by 60%.
Sustainability 2021, 13, 7421 9 of 15

Figure 4. Price comparison of passenger AAM services with other modes of transportation.

3.3. AAM
Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW Travel Demand Model 11 of 16
Demand modeling was used through a five-step process of (1) trip generation, (2)
scoping, (3) trip distribution, (4) mode choice modeling, and (5) application of constraints
to assess market size, viability, and valuation for the air taxi and airport shuttle markets.
cities), infrastructure availability and capacity, time of day, and visual flight rules
This process is shown in Figure 5. Each of these steps are briefly described below.
operation restrictions. The process of applying constraints is show in Figure 6.

.
Figure5.5.Demand
Figure Demandside
sidemodel
modelfor
forAAM.
AAM.

Step 1. Trip generation is the first step in demand modeling and estimates the number
of trips that are produced. For this step, the model was calibrated using the U.S.
Department of Transportation data on mandatory trips (e.g., work-related) and dis-
cretionary trips (e.g., retail, leisure, etc.). For the air taxi analysis, works trips were
generated using 2016 American Community Survey (ACS) commuting data and
discretionary trips were generated using 20170 s National Travel Household Survey
Unconstrained Willingness to Pay (NTHS) data. For the airport
Infrastructure shuttle analysis,Time
Infrastructure 2018ofU.S.
Day Bureau ofWeatherTransportation
Scenario Contraint Constraint
Statistics (BTS) T-100 Market Capacity Constraint
(All Carriers) data Constraint trips
was used. Airport-specific
• Best case scenario • Restricts demand for • Scenario utilized
were generated Constraintdistributing• Reduction
by proportionally due to time from
daily demand • Initial
eachAAMairport in
where AAM is not cases where cost of existing infrastructure • Capacity reduction of day operations deployments were
constrained by AAM was more thanan urban area toone
and assumed each census
due tract based on its (e.g.,
to additional population.
7AM to 6PM) to expected to operate
willingness to pay, passengers WTP take-off and landing operational mitigate the impacts using Visual Flight
infrastructure, pad constraints that limit of AAM on noise and Rules (VFR)
operational, or the number of flights privacy during
weather constraints per hour daytime hours
1
Sustainability 2021, 13, 7421 10 of 15

Step 2. Scoping was performed using ACS datasets available at different geographic levels
(block groups, census tracts, place, county, and urban area) for various mode
types. Temporal resolution of the datasets was limited to an average day of year.
The authors first performed a tradeoff analysis between fidelity in results and
computational speed for different combinations of geographic levels and mode
types. The analysis was then conducted at a census tract level for mode types
classified as driving, TNCs, taxi, public transportation, and walking. Next, the
authors assumed that no new infrastructure would be constructed prior to early
AAM operations. Existing infrastructure (i.e., heliports and airports) were obtained
from the FAA’s Aviation Environment Design Tool (AEDT) database. Capacity
enhancements, such as additional vertiports and increased capacity per vertiports
were evaluated in the Monte Carlo sensitivity analyses. Next, infrastructure was
assigned to each census tract using a nearest neighbor algorithm. For the airport
shuttle market, not all passengers arriving or departing at a major airport were
considered potential customers of AAM because of various limitations, such as
travel characteristics. For example, a family of four traveling a long distance with
over 200 lbs. of baggage would be unlikely to use AAM, because of the high cost
compared to other alternatives such as a rental car, and technically unable to use
one AAM aircraft (because of performance limitations). Therefore, demand for the
airport shuttle analysis focused on one to three passengers per air ticket.
Step 3. Trip distribution was performed by distributing trips between census tracts (origin–
destination pairs) using a simplified gravity model assuming equal likelihood of
individual trip interchanges between the tracts. All the trips where AAM total
travel time was greater than the travel time for ground transportation were not
considered for further analysis.
Step 4. Mode choice modeling was used to predict traveler mode choice while complet-
ing a trip. Air taxi and airport shuttle services were modeled to compete with
personal cars, taxi, TNCs, and public transportation. Next, a utility function was
developed based on two key attributes that influence choice of mode (i.e., travel
time and travel cost per median household income per hour). Coefficients of the
utility function were calibrated by fitting a logit model to the data generated using
the 2016 American Community Survey. Having calibrated the utility function, a
probabilistic choice model, the multinomial logit model (MNL), was selected to
describe the preferences and choice of a user in terms of probabilities of choosing
each alternative rather than predicting that an individual will choose a particular
mode with certainty.
Step 5. Constraints based on existing data were applied based on passenger’s willingness
to pay (obtained from [23]) using a stated preference survey (n = 1722) in five U.S.
cities), infrastructure availability and capacity, time of day, and visual flight rules
operation restrictions. The process of applying constraints is show in Figure 6.
Sustainability 2021, 13, 7421 11 of 15
.
Figure 5. Demand side model for AAM.

Unconstrained Willingness to Pay Infrastructure Infrastructure Time of Day Weather

Scenario Contraint Constraint Capacity Constraint Constraint
• Best case scenario • Restricts demand for • Scenario utilized Constraint • Reduction due to time • Initial AAM
where AAM is not cases where cost of existing infrastructure • Capacity reduction of day operations deployments were
constrained by AAM was more than and assumed one due to additional (e.g., 7AM to 6PM) to expected to operate
willingness to pay, passengers WTP take-off and landing operational mitigate the impacts using Visual Flight
infrastructure, pad constraints that limit of AAM on noise and Rules (VFR)
operational, or the number of flights privacy during
weather constraints per hour daytime hours

Figure 6.
Figure 6. Process
Process for
for applying
applying constraints.
constraints.

4. Findings and Discussion

4. Findings and Discussion
Air taxi and airport shuttle markets were found to be viable across the sample of 10
Air taxi and airport shuttle markets were found to be viable across the sample of
urban areas considered in this analysis. However, after applying all constraints, approxi-
10 urban areas considered in this analysis. However, after applying all constraints, approxi-
mately 0.5% of unconstrained trips (air taxi and airport shuttle combined) were captured
mately 0.5% of unconstrained trips (air taxi and airport shuttle combined) were captured
using AAM. Infrastructure constraints (both the number of vertiports and capacity) were
using AAM. Infrastructure constraints (both the number of vertiports and capacity) were
the greatest limitations for AAM demand. After applying constraints, AAM could replace
the greatest limitations for AAM demand. After applying constraints, AAM could replace
mandatory trips greater than 45 min. However, no notable demand was observed for dis-
mandatory trips greater than 45 min. However, no notable demand was observed for
cretionary trips because of a low willingness to pay. Next, the price elasticity of demand
discretionary trips because of a low willingness to pay. Next, the price elasticity of demand
modeled the sensitivity of the demand to changes in the price. Denver, Houston, and
modeled the sensitivity of the demand to changes in the price. Denver, Houston, and Hon-
olulu were found to be more price sensitive than New York, Los Angeles, and Washington,
D.C. Maximum revenue for each urban area was achieved at ~2.50–2.85 USD passenger
price per mile.
By extrapolating the combined demand of the air taxi and airport shuttle markets
for all 486 urban areas in the U.S., it was estimated that, in the early years of deploying
AAM, the airport shuttle and air taxi markets will have a combined potential demand
of 55,000 daily trips and 82,000 daily passengers. This potential demand had an annual
market value of 2.5 billion USD and could be served by approximately 4000 four- to five-seat
aircraft. Under a completely unconstrained scenario, there could be a potential demand of
11 million daily trips with a market valuation of 500 billion USD (Table 3). In particular, the
air taxi market generates ~98% of its demand by capturing longer trips greater than 30 min
in travel time served by ground transportation. In order to scale operations, additional
vertiports with greater operational capacity would need to be built and lower operating
costs realized. However, increased demand could raise a number of community concerns,
such as noise, congestion, and other social, behavioral, environmental, and quality of
life impacts.
Sustainability 2021, 13, 7421 12 of 15

Table 3. Market potential (size and valuation).

Daily Annual Market Valuation

Daily Trips Total Number of Aircraft
Passengers (Billion USD)
Unconstrained 11,000,000 16,000,000 850,000 500
Willingness to pay constraint 8,800,000 13,000,000 680,000 400
Infrastructure constraint 1,000,000 1,500,000 80,000 45
Infrastructure capacity constraint 80,000 120,000 6000 3.6
Time of day constraint 60,000 90,000 4500 2.75
Weather constraint 55,000 82,000 4100 2.5

4.1. Scenarios
A variety of factors, such as air traffic management capabilities, ground transportation,
aircraft impacts (i.e., noise), and the regulatory environment could impact the growth and
evolution of the air taxi and airport shuttle markets. The authors applied eight scenarios
to forecast the impact different policy decisions and technological advancements could
have on AAM passenger demand. Each of these scenarios are described in Table 4, and the
impacts of these scenarios on AAM demand are shown in Figure 7.

Table 4. Summary of AAM policy and technology scenarios.

Scenario Name Description

This scenario estimated a reduction in aircraft costs due to falling battery prices and increasing
aircraft production. This scenario forecasted a reduction in battery costs to 100–150 USD per kWh
Technology advancements
by 2025, with a 10 USD per kWh annual reduction. Additionally, this scenario assumes the cost of
aircraft production is reduced by ~15% every 5 years by doubling production.
This scenario assumed increasing network efficiency by (1) increasing aircraft utilization from
Increased network
~4 h a day to ~7 h a day due to battery and charging improvements, (2) increasing load factors
efficiency
from ~65% to 80%, and (3) reducing deadhead trips from ~37.5% to ~20%.
This scenario assumed an on-board pilot is no longer needed, allowing each aircraft additional
Autonomous flight passenger capacity. Additional ground staff were added for safety briefings and
passenger boarding.
This scenario estimated an increase in the number of vertiports and capacity, the latter enabled
Infrastructure through improvements in air traffic management (i.e., unmanned traffic management (UTM)).
improvements This scenario doubled the number of vertiports and the operational capacity every five years to
model these improvements.
Increased productivity while traveling may result in a decrease in the value of travel time,
thereby affecting the demand of AAM. This scenario evaluated the importance of travel time by
Value of travel time introducing a significance factor in the utility function varying between 0 and 1. “0” represents no
importance to travel time, and the user was expected to choose the mode entirely based on price,
comfort, etc.
This scenario examined the potential impacts of the adoption of SAVs on AAM passenger
Competition with shared demand, based on a penetration rate of 0.5% and 10% in 2025 and 2035, respectively. The scenario
automated vehicles (SAVs) assumed an average vehicle occupancy of ~65% (comparable to AAM) and a cost of 0.90 USD per
passenger mile, which is approximately 35% less than private vehicle ownership.
This scenario estimated the impacts of the growth of telecommuting on AAM passenger demand
Telecommuting
using a forecast longitudinal telecommuting growth rate of approximately ~10% annually.
Passenger AAM has the potential to contribute to new mobility patterns, such as de-urbanization
and induced demand (because of the potential of reduced travel times), which encourages more
people to use the service. Using a parametric analysis by varying average distances for each trip
Congestion and latent by −25% to +25% at an interval of 10%, this scenario estimated the potential impacts of induced
demand demand. Note, a negative percentage indicates increased urbanization. In some cases, pooling
and increased access to public transportation could also cause a reduction in congestion. This was
explored by varying the average driving speed by −25% to 25% at an interval of 10%. A negative
percent indicates increased congestion.
 Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 16

behavior in ways that are still unknown. The longer-term growth of e-commerce, tele-
Sustainability 2021, 13, 7421 work, and potential shifts to suburban/exurban lifestyles could impact the demand13for,of 15
and use cases envisioned, for AAM. However, in spite of these limitations this study pro-
vides a baseline estimate of market demand and a methodology for further analysis.

Figure 7.
Figure 7. Air
Air taxi
taxi and
and airport
airport shuttle
shuttledemand
demandcurve.
curve.

Table
Based4. Summary
on theseofscenarios,
AAM policy and technology
additional scenarios.
vertiports and UTM may be needed to serve the
airport shuttle and air taxi markets. Increased network efficiency, such as increased aircraft
Scenario Name Description
utilization, higher load factors, and reducing deadhead trips may help enable new capacity.
This scenario estimated a reduction in aircraft costs due to falling battery prices and in-
Additionally, the value of time, greater congestion, other technological improvements such
creasing aircraft production. This scenario forecasted a reduction in battery costs to
as autonomous flight may all support increased demand. However, the growth of SAVs
Technology advancements 100–150 USD per kWh by 2025, with a 10 USD per kWh annual reduction. Addition-
and a decrease in the value of time could present notable constraints on demand for the air
ally, this scenario assumes the cost of aircraft production is reduced by ~15% every 5
taxi market.
years by doubling production.
4.2.This scenario assumed increasing network efficiency by (1) increasing aircraft utiliza-
Limitations
Increased network tion from limitations
Several ~4 h a day to ~7 h
exist a day
with thisdue to battery
work. andwork
First, this charging
was improvements,
exploratory, and(2) in-
estimat-
efficiency creasing load factors from ~65% to 80%, and (3) reducing deadhead trips
ing the potential demand for a conceptual and disruptive transportation service is difficult from ~37.5%
to assess. There are many unknowns about to how
~20%.the public (both users and non-users) may
This scenario
respond to AAM.assumed
Publican on-board
concerns pilotequity,
about is no longer
noise,needed, allowing each
and environmental aircraftcould
impacts ad-
Autonomous flight leadditional passenger capacity.
to the development Additional
of policies that couldground
impactstaff
orwere added
constrain formarket
the safety in
briefings
the future.
Additionally, given this emergingand topic and the boarding.
passenger vast number of planned deployments, the
assumptions
This scenario estimated an increase in the numberevolve
used to estimate market demand may over time.
of vertiports Finally, the
and capacity, therecovery
latter
Infrastructure from
enabled through improvements in air traffic management (i.e., unmanned trafficthat
the global pandemic has the potential to reshape travel behavior in ways man-are
improvements still unknown.
agement The longer-term
(UTM)). This scenariogrowth
doubled ofthe
e-commerce,
number of telework,
vertiports and
and potential shifts to
the operational
suburban/exurban lifestyles could impact the demand for,
capacity every five years to model these improvements. and use cases envisioned, for
AAM.Increased productivity while traveling may result in a decrease in the value of travel of
However, in spite of these limitations this study provides a baseline estimate
market demandaffecting
time, thereby and a methodology
the demand for furtherThis
of AAM. analysis.
scenario evaluated the importance of
Value of travel time 5. travel time by introducing a significance factor in the utility function varying between
Conclusions
0 and 1. “0” represents no importance to travel time, and the user was expected to
Based on this study, AAM passenger services could have a daily demand of 82,000
choose the mode entirely based on price, comfort, etc.
passengers served by approximately 4000 four- to five-seat aircraft in the U.S. under the
This scenario examined the potential impacts of the adoption of SAVs on AAM passen-
Competition with shared au-most conservative scenario. Approximately 0.5% of unconstrained air taxi and airport
ger demand, based on a penetration rate of 0.5% and 10% in 2025 and 2035, respec-
tomated vehicles (SAVs) shuttle trips were captured using AAM after applying all constraints. Moreover, about 98%
tively.
of the demandThe scenario assumed
generated for thean
airaverage vehicle
taxi market occupancy
were of ~65%
trips greater (comparable
than to
30 min in travel
time served by ground transportation. However, the scalability of AAM operations will
depend on a number of factors, such as the ability to build more vertiports and reduce
operating costs. Additionally, an increased demand and operations tempo could raise a
number of community concerns, such as noise, aesthetics, congestion, and other impacts.
Sustainability 2021, 13, 7421 14 of 15

AAM has the potential to change how people travel and access goods in unintended
ways. As such, AAM could have a variety of impacts on accessibility, social equity, vehicle
ownership, vehicle kilometers/miles traveled (VKT/VMT), and greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions. Additionally, the impacts of AAM on travel behavior are highly uncertain.
AAM has the potential to transform long trips into time saved. However, AAM could
result in more or less congestion and emissions depending on how aircraft are used (e.g.,
traveling without passengers (deadheading), single passenger use, or pooled use). AAM
could also shift consumer preferences in favor of living in less dense communities (e.g.,
suburbs, exurbs, and edge cities) resulting in a number of travel behaviors, land use, and
other impacts.
Forecasting demand for a new mode of transportation is inherently difficult to do,
particularly as the long-term impacts of the pandemic on travel behavior are uncertain. In
spite of this study’s limitations, the findings provide early insight in the market potential
that stakeholders can use to help inform long-range planning and decision-making. The
impacts (both positive and negative) of AAM could create a feedback loop that has the
potential to stimulate or suppress demand. More research is needed to evaluate the
potential social, travel behavior, environmental, equity, land use, and quality of life impacts
on public acceptance and market demand for AAM.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, R.G., C.R., C.F. and A.C.; methodology, R.G., C.R., C.F.
and A.C.; validation, R.G.; formal analysis, R.G.; writing—original draft preparation, R.G. and A.C.;
writing—review and editing, R.G. and C.F.; visualization, R.G.; project administration, C.R.; funding
acquisition, C.R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA),
grant number NNH13CH54Z.
Acknowledgments: The authors would like to thank NASA and the NASA market study strategic
advisory group for their role in supporting this research. The authors would like to give special
thanks to Nancy Mendonca and Michael Patterson for supporting this work. The contents of this
article reflect the views of the authors and do not necessarily indicate sponsor acceptance.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design
of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or
in the decision to publish the results.

References
1. Cohen, A.; Shaheen, S.; Farrar, E. Urban Air Mobility: History, Ecosystem, Market Potential, and Challenges. IEEE Trans. Intell.
Transp. Syst. 2021, 1–14. [CrossRef]
2. Reich, C.; Goyal, R.; Cohen, A.; Serrao, J.; Kimmel, S.; Fernando, C.; Shaheen, S. Urban Air Mobility Market Study; National
Aeronautics and Space Administration: Washington, DC, USA, 2018; pp. 1–163. Available online: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/
citations/20190001472 (accessed on 25 June 2021).
3. McKinsey & Company. Urban Air Mobility (UAM) Market Study; National Aeronautics and Space Administration: Washington,
DC, USA, 2018; pp. 1–56.
4. Grandl, G.; Ostgathe, M.; Cachay, J.; Doppler, S.; Salib, J.; Ross, H. The Future of Vertical Mobility: Sizing the Market for Passenger,
Inspection, and Goods Services Until 2035; Porsche Consulting: Stuttgart, Germany, 2018; pp. 1–36.
5. Morgan Stanley Research. Are Flying Cars Preparing for Takeoff ; Morgan Stanley: New York City, NY, USA, 2019. Available online:
https://www.morganstanley.com/ideas/autonomous-aircraft (accessed on 25 June 2021).
6. Herman, E.; Dyment, M. Urban Air Mobility Study Prospectus; Nexa Advisors: McLean, VA, USA, 2019; pp. 1–32. Available online:
https://www.nexaadvisors.com/uam-global-markets-study (accessed on 25 June 2021).
7. Becker, K.; Terekhov, I.; Niklaß, M.; Gollnick, V. A Global Gravity Model for Air Passenger Demand between City Pairs and Future
Interurban Air Mobility Markets Identification. In Proceedings of the 2018 Aviation Technology, Integration, and Operations
Conference, Atlanta, GA, USA, 24 June 2018. [CrossRef]
8. Mayor, T.; Anderson, J. Getting Mobility Off the Ground; KPMG: Atlanta, GA, USA, 2019; pp. 1–12. Available online: https:
//institutes.kpmg.us/content/dam/advisory/en/pdfs/2019/urban-air-mobility.pdf (accessed on 26 June 2021).
9. Lineberger, R.; Hussain, A.; Silver, D. Advanced Air Mobility. Can the United States afford to lose the race? Deloitte. 2021.
Available online: https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/industry/aerospace-defense/advanced-air-mobility.html?id=us:
2el:3pr:4diER6839:5awa:012621:&pkid=1007244 (accessed on 25 June 2021).
Sustainability 2021, 13, 7421 15 of 15

10. Robinson, J.; Sokollek, M.-D.; Justin, C.; Mavris, D. Development of a Methodology for Parametric Analysis of STOL Airpark
Geo-Density. In Proceedings of the AIAA 2018 Aviation, Technology, Integration, and Operations Conference, Atlanta, GA, USA,
25–29 June 2018. [CrossRef]
11. Mayakonda, M.; Justin, C.; Anand, A.; Weit, C.; Wen, J.; Zaidi, T.; Mavris, J. A Top-Down Methodology for Global Urban Air
Mobility Demand Estimation. In Proceedings of the AIAA Aviation 2020 Forum, Virtual, 15–19 June 2020. [CrossRef]
12. Antcliff, K.R.; Moore, M.D.; Goodrich, K.H. Silicon Valley as an Early Adopter for on Demand Civil VTOL Operations. In
Proceedings of the 16th AIAA Aviation Technology, Integration, and Operations Conference, Washington, DC, USA, 13 June 2016.
[CrossRef]
13. Skabardonis, A.; Varaiya, P.; Petty, K.F. Measuring Recurrent and Nonrecurrent Traffic Congestion. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res.
Board 2003, 1856, 118–124. [CrossRef]
14. Yedavalli, P.; Cohen, A. Planning and Designing Land-Use Constrained Networks of Urban Air Mobility Infrastructure. Transp.
Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board.
15. Wei, L.; Justin, C.Y.; Briceno, S.I.; Mavris, D.N. Door-to-Door Travel Time Comparative Assessment for Conventional Transporta-
tion Methods and Short Takeoff and Landing on Demand Mobility Concepts. In Proceedings of the 2018 Aviation Technology,
Integration, and Operations Conference, Atlanta, GA, USA, 25 June 2018. [CrossRef]
16. Roland Berger. Urban Air Mobility: The Rise of a New Mode of Transportation. 2018. Available online: https://www.
rolandberger.com/en/Insights/Publications/Passenger-drones-ready-for-take-off.html (accessed on 25 June 2021).
17. Swadesir, L.; Bil, C. Urban Air Transportation for Melbourne Metropolitan Area. In Proceedings of the AIAA Aviation 2019
Forum, Dallas, TX, USA, 17 June 2019. [CrossRef]
18. Rothfeld, R.; Balac, M.; Ploetner, K.O.; Antoniou, C. Agenct-Based Simulation of Urban Air Mobility. In Proceedings of the 2018
Aviation Technology, Integration, and Operations Conference, Atlanta, GA, USA, 25–29 June 2019. [CrossRef]
19. Kreimeier, M.; Strathoff, P.; Gottschalk, D.; Stumpf, E. Economic Assessment of Air Mobility On-Demand Concepts. J. Air Transp.
2018, 23–36. [CrossRef]
20. Fu, M.; Rothfeld, R.; Antoniou, C. Exploring preferences for transportation modes in an urban air mobility environment: Munich
case study. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board 2019, 2673, 427–444. [CrossRef]
21. Al Haddad, C.; Chaniotakis, E.; Straubinger, A.; Plötner, K.; Antoniou, C. Factors affecting the adoption and use of urban air
mobility. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2020, 132, 696–712. [CrossRef]
22. Reiche, C.; Cohen, A.; Fernando, C. An Initial Assessment of the Potential Weather Barriers of Urban Air Mobility. IEEE Trans.
Intell. Transp. Syst. 2021, 1–10. [CrossRef]
23. Shaheen, S.; Cohen, A.; Farrar, E. The Potential Societal Barriers of Urban Air Mobility; National Aeronautics and Space Administra-
tion: Washington, DC, USA, 2018; pp. 1–115. [CrossRef]