Organization of land surrounding

airports: the case of the aerotropolis

+
Ricardo Flores-Fillol
,
, Miquel-ngel Garcia-Lpez
)
,
and Rosella Nicolini

December 2013
Abstract
This paper analyzes the conditions driving the organization of the territory near
airports by studying the distribution of economic activities. We consider how com-
mercial rms, service operators, and consumers compete for land. The theoretical
setting provides a grid of possible spatial structures in accordance with the degree of
competition among agents. An aerotropolis (airport city) appears when the spatial
sequence services area - commercial area - residential area arises as the land equilib-
rium outcome. Using data on the distribution of establishments in the United States
(US), we analyze the existence and determinants of aeropolitan congurations. Es-
timations performed with parametric methods detect some interesting dynamic pat-
terns aecting the density and distribution of activities around selected US airports.
Keywords: aerotropolis; bid-rent function; rm activity; parametric estimation.
JEL Classication: R12, R15, L90.

We are grateful at the participants to the NARSC (Ottawa) and SAE (Santander) conferences for
useful comments and suggestions. Financial support from research projects (ECO2009-12234, ECO2010-
17113, ECO2010-19733, ECO2010-20718, 2009SGR478, 2009SGR900), XREAP, XREPP, and Ramon Are-
ces Foundation is gratefully acknowledged. All errors are our own responsibility.
y
Departament dEconomia and CREIP (Universitat Rovira i Virgili). Email: ricardo.ores@urv.cat.
z
Departament dEconomia Aplicada (Universitat Autnoma de Barcelona) and Institut dEconomia de
Barcelona. E-mail: miquelangel.garcia@uab.cat.
x
Departament dEconomia Aplicada (Universitat Autnoma de Barcelona). Email:
rosella.nicolini@uab.cat.
1 Introduction
Logistics are becoming an increasingly important issue because rms are in search of ex-
ibility. Speed and agility are already as important as price and quality in the strategy
of rms that adopt just-in-time strategies. Firms choose their location to enhance their
accessibility to markets. Logistics are no longer seen as costs to be minimized, but as
value-added activities in rms supply chain that need to be optimized.
Therefore, fast delivery is a key element (see Leinbach and Bowen 2004 for empirical
evidence). In this context, airports are seen (especially by e-tailers) as a new kind of
Central Business District (CBD) with enough capacity to leverage air commerce into high
prots. In that spirit, Kasarda (2000) introduces for the rst time the idea of an aerotropo-
lis (airport city), namely, a large industrial area characterized by a high concentration of
logistic facilities and commercial activities near specic airports.
1
Arend et al. (2004)
suggest that aerotropoli may extend up to thirty-two kilometers (twenty miles), including
a number of activities and infrastructures such as retail and distribution centers, light in-
dustrial parks, oce and research parks, districts zoned for specic purposes, foreign trade
zones, entertainment and conference facilities, and even residential development that con-
tribute substantially to the competitiveness of rms in the area.
2
Our paper analyzes the
conditions driving the organization of the territory near airports by studying the distribu-
tion of economic activities. More specically, we study the existence and determinants of
aeropolitan congurations.
The importance of airports as economic fuel for their surrounding areas has been un-
derlined in the urban literature. McDonald and McMillen (2000) discuss the centripetal
force of Chicago OHare airport for industrial and commercial activities, and Cohen et al.
(2003) evaluate the spillovers entailed by own-state airport infrastructures as a device for
lowering manufacturing costs. In contrast, rather than focusing on the economic impact
of airports, our analysis deals with the spatial organization of activities near airports and
its evolution over time.
Starting from the setting of the location of divisible activities developed by von Th-
nen (1826), various models have tried to explain the conguration of the space in which
households commute to the CBD and form urban agglomerations around it.
3
As pointed
out by Fujita and Thisse (2002), the novelty of von Thnen is to introduce the notion
of bid-rent function: land is not homogeneous and is assigned to the highest bidder. A
piece of land at a particular location can be associated with a commodity whose price is
1
not xed by market supply and demand. According to Alonso (1964), who extended the
von Thnian agricultural model to an urban context, the rent each agent can bid at each
location is explained by the savings in transportation costs with respect to a more distant
site. Hence, land gives rise to a spatial heterogeneity, and agents stop bidding for the most
distant land since no further savings can be enjoyed.
4
In that spirit, we consider how commercial rms, service operators, and consumers
compete for land. By service operators, we refer to all rms developing activities associated
with the use of an airport. Service operators provide aviation and non-aviation services to
commercial rms. Aviation services account for air transportation activities, whereas non-
aviation services include a number of complementary services (e.g., freighter docks, bonded
warehouse, mechanical handling, refrigerated storage, fresh meat inspection, mortuary,
animal quarantine, livestock handling, health ocials, security for valuables, decompression
chamber, express/courier center, equipment for dangerous and radioactive goods, large or
heavy cargo).
5
Our theoretical setting is simple. A group of service operators supplies a range of
services near an airport and commercial rms need to settle close enough to enjoy them.
The spatial concentration of these services in the proximity of an airport allows rms
to benet from an easy access to many facilities. The two types of rms compete with
consumers, who also aim at settling close to the airport. The theoretical setting provides
a grid of possible spatial structures in accordance with the degree of competition among
agents. An aerotropolis requires a non-degenerated land equilibrium in which both service
operators and commercial rms assign a higher value than consumers to land plots located
in the proximity of the airport, and it is characterized by the spatial sequence services area
- commercial area - residential area. The land demand elasticity of service operators and
commercial rms has to be moderate so that both of them are active in the bidding process.
The relative land demand elasticity of consumers, service operators, and commercial rms
may yield alternative land congurations.
The second part of the study proposes an empirical application to identify the presence
of aeropolitan areas in the US. Kasarda and Lindsay (2011) propose a qualitative identi-
cation by detailing the distinguishing features of four cases in which aerotropoli could be
observed. Our contribution consists of suggesting a quantitative (econometric) strategy to
detect the existence of these spatial structures. In particular, we are interested in assessing
the conditions that make an airport a true center of attraction (i.e., a new CBD), which
2
gives rise to the formation of aerotropoli structures. Information on rms distribution in
the US is collected to bring our model to the data: we collect part of the County Business
Patterns data released by the US Census Bureau, and we focus on the years 2000 and 2010.
First, we extract the data concerning rms spatial distribution (by zip code), limiting our
interest to a nite number of NAICS codes to identify the groups of commercial and ser-
vice activities. Then we select some representative US airports (Memphis, Louisville, Los
Angeles, and Newark) to study the land organization in their surroundings. Estimations
performed with parametric methods detect a few interesting evolutionary patterns of the
density distribution of the two groups of activities for our sample of airports. The distance
from/to the airport mostly drives the land organization, but the creation of an aeropoli-
tan conguration is associated with the existence of some specic conditions. The degree
of attractiveness of the airport (measured by the density gradient) is dynamic over time
and is stronger in the proximity of the more cargo-oriented airports. We nd evidence for
classifying Memphis as a reinforcing aerotropolis, Louisville as a growing aerotropolis, Los
Angeles as a declining aerotropolis, and Newark as an aborted aerotropolis.
The paper is organized as follows. The next section introduces the theoretical frame-
work and discusses the most salient results. Section 3 presents the empirical analysis, which
focuses on Louisville, Memphis, Newark, and Los Angeles. Finally, Section 4 concludes.
2 The theoretical model
Our model builds on the von Thnian orthodox framework described in Fujita and Thisse
(2002). Space is represented by the real line A = (. ) with the CBD lying at the
origin. The CBD is an exogenous xed point that corresponds to the airport terminals.
We dene any spatial distance from it as r A, with r 0.
In the wake of the housing problem discussed in Glaeser (2008), we consider three types
of agents competing for land who aim at settling as close as possible to the CBD: (i) a
continuum of identical service operators with density :
a
(r) _ 0 at r A ; (ii) a continuum
of identical rms with density :
i
(r) _ 0 at r A; and (iii) a continuum of consumers
with density :
c
(r) _ 0 at r A, where c, i, and c denote service operators, commercial
rms, and consumers, respectively. As in the classical tradition, an absentee landlord is
assumed.
Land is nite and the total area occupied by service operators, rms, and consumers
3
at each r A is xed and normalized to 1 (as in Cavailhs et al., 2004), i.e.,
:
a
(r)o
a
(r) + :
i
(r)o
i
(r) + :
c
(r)o
c
(r) = 1, (1)
where o
a
(r), o
i
(r), and o
c
(r) stand for the sizes of land plots, and :
a
(r)o
a
(r), :
i
(r)o
i
(r),
and :
c
(r)o
c
(r) denote the total amount of land being used by each type of agent at a
location r A.
There is competition for land because each type of agent nurtures a particular interest in
settling as close as possible to the CBD. Any location entails some rental costs (decreasing
with distance) and some transportation costs (increasing with distance).
2.1 Consumers
Consumers utility function relies on the consumption of two goods: leisure and land. Their
source of revenue is the wage they earn for the time they devote to labor. Consumers
available time is xed and normalized to 1. Therefore, H = 1 1. where 1 stands for
labor and H denotes leisure. More precisely, leisure and land consumption report utility
to consumers in the following way ( la Cavailhs et al., 2004):
l =
1
c

(1 c)
1
(1 1)

o
c
(r)
1
, (2)
with 0 < c < 1. We assume that consumers are hired by commercial rms and receive a
wage (n) per unit of labor, which they use to cover land rental and transportation expenses.
We consider that leisure activities are settled at the CBD, whose access entails incurring
transportation costs. Thus, consumers budget constraint is given by
1
c
(r)o
c
(r) + tr 6 n1, (3)
where the price of leisure is equal to unity and 1
c
(r) is the rent per unit of land paid
by consumers settled at distance r. Furthermore, transportation costs to the CBD from
distance r are equal to tr, where t 0 is the cost per unit of distance.
Consumers choose 1 and o
c
(r) to maximize their utility subject to their budget con-
straint (which is assumed to be binding). From Eqs. (2) and (3), we can solve a constrained
maximization problem that yields consumers optimal labor supply and land plot demand:
1

= 1 c
_
n tr
n
_
(4)
4
and
o

c
(r) =
(1 c) (n tr)
1
c
(r)
, (5)
where n tr is assumed to hold. Naturally, 1

and o

c
(r) decrease with n and 1
c
(r), re-
spectively.
6
An increase in transportation costs creates incentives for consumers to increase
their labor supply (i.e., working time) to aord them and reduces their land plot demand.
Since consumers indirect utility function is \ =
(
wtx
w
)w
(1)
Rc(x)
(1)
, their bid-rent function, i.e.,
the highest price they are willing to pay for a unit of land at r A, becomes
1

c
(r) = n
_
n tr
n\
_
1=(1)
, (6)
which is increasing with n (since consumers have a higher income) and decreasing and
strictly convex with respect to r.
2.2 Service operators
The activity of the other two groups of agents is strongly connected. Commercial rms need
to deliver their production through the airport and service operators are the ones in charge
of accomplishing this task. Namely, service operators provide commercial rms with a
full range of aviation and non-aviation services. The action of delivering merchandise from
rms premises to the airport (i.e., the CBD) implies the existence of transportation costs to
be taken into consideration. For the sake of simplicity, we consider that transportation costs
are partially assumed by both commercial rms and service operators and are proportional
to their distance from the airport.
The activity of service operators is provided by using land and the labor supplied by
consumers. Their production function is modeled as the following Cobb-Douglas function
with constant returns to scale:
1
a
= 1

o
a
(r)
1
, (7)
with 0 < < 1. Service operators (settled at r) sell their services to commercial rms at
a price j
a
(net of production costs). Revenues earned by service operators are discounted
by their transportation costs and equal
pa
tx
1
a
. Service operators production costs comprise
labor and land rental expenses and are equal to n1 + 1
a
(r)o
a
(r). Therefore, service
operators prots are
:
a
=
j
a
tr
1
a
n1 1
a
(r)o
a
(r). (8)
5
Service operators choose o
a
(r) to maximize prots.
7
Using Eqs. (4) and (7), the
rst-order condition yields
o

a
(r) =
_
1 c
_
n tr
n
__
. .
L

_
j
a
(1 )
tr1
a
(r)
_
1=
, with n tr. (9)
The plot size increases with consumers labor supply and with service operators mar-
ginal revenue (
pa
tx
), whereas it decreases with the rental price.
8
Competition for land is
assumed to extract all prots (zero-prot condition) yielding
1

a
(r) = (1 )
_
j
a
tr
_ 1
1
_

n
_
=(1)
, (10)
where 1

a
(r) is the bid-rent function for service operators, which decreases with labors
unit cost n and increases with marginal revenue. Thus, it decreases with distance.
2.3 Commercial rms
Finally, commercial rms deliver goods through the airport and by using the services
supplied by service operators. Therefore, the activity of commercial rms makes use of
land and the services supplied by service operators as inputs. Their production function
is modeled as the following Cobb-Douglas function with constant returns to scale:
1
i
= 1

a
o
i
(r)
1
, (11)
with 0 < o < 1. Therefore, prots for commercial rms settled at r are
:
i
=
j
i
tr
1
i
1
i
(r)o
i
(r) j
a
1
a
, (12)
where revenues are assumed to decrease with transportation costs (tr), and their produc-
tion costs include the payment for the services provided by service operators (i.e., j
a
1
a
)
and land rental expenses (i.e., 1
i
(r)o
i
(r)).
Commercial rms choose o
i
(r) to maximize prots.
9
Using Eqs. (7) and (11), the
rst-order condition yields
o

i
(r) = 1

a
(r)
1
. .
Ya
_
j
i
o
tr1
i
(r)
_
1=(1)
. (13)
The plot size increases with service operators supply and with commercial rms mar-
ginal revenue (
p
i
tx
), whereas it decreases with the rental price (the value of o

a
(r) can be
6
computed by plugging Eq. (10) into Eq. (9)).
10
As in the case of service operators,
competition for land is assumed to extract all prots (zero-prot condition) yielding
1

i
(r) = (1 o)
_
j
i
tr
_
1=(1)
_
o
j
a
_
=(1)
, (14)
where 1

i
(r) is the bid-rent function for commercial rms, which decreases with the unit
price charged by service operators j
a
and increases with marginal revenue. Thus, it de-
creases with distance.
2.4 Land equilibrium
In the spirit of the von Thnian tradition, the three agents compete for land with an
auction mechanism. The land equilibrium is driven by the value each type of agent pegs
to a land plot at each possible distance from the airport, which is given by their bid-rent
functions (i.e., Eqs. (6), (10), and (14)). At the equilibrium, we observe that 1

(r) =
max 1

c
(r). 1

a
(r). 1

i
(r), i.e., land is assigned to the highest bidder at each location
r A. As a consequence, land is specialized after the bidding process, and no land is
vacant (as long as bid-rent functions are positive). Looking at Eq. (1), it is easy to check
that :

c
(r) =
1
S

c
(x)
holds in a residential area. Equivalently, we observe :

a
(r) =
1
S

a
(x)
in a
services area, and :

i
(r) =
1
S

i
(x)
in a commercial area.
11
From inspection of Eqs. (6), (10), and (14), it can be observed that bid-rent functions
are continuous, monotonic, and downward sloping with respect to the distance from the
CBD because agents associate a higher value with the land plots located closer to the
airport terminals (i.e., their reservation rent decreases with distance).
12
The lemma that
follows studies the eect of distance on equilibrium land plots and densities.
Lemma 1 Equilibrium land plots increase with distance, and equilibrium densities decrease
with distance.
Equilibrium land plots increase with r as the net result of two opposing eects, which
can be observed by inspection of Eqs. (5), (9), and (13). There is a direct negative
eect of r on land plot demand functions and an indirect positive eect of r through
rental prices 1

c
(r), 1

a
(r), and 1

i
(r), and the indirect eect overcomes the direct eect.
13
Therefore, densities after the bidding process decrease with r, a result that clearly matches
the empirical evidence.
7
Parameters c, , and o determine the land demand elasticity of consumers, service
operators, and commercial rms, respectively. Therefore, as c, , and o increase, 1

c
(r),
1

a
(r), and 1

i
(r) move upward and land demand becomes more inelastic. As a conse-
quence, depending on the relative value of these parameters, dierent land congurations
may arise as an equilibrium outcome.
In line with the idea suggested by Kasarda (2000) and Kasarda and Lindsay (2011), an
aerotropolis appears when the spatial sequence services area - commercial area - residential
area arises as the land equilibrium outcome, in a way made clear in Fig. 1.
14
Fig. 1: The aerotropolis land equilibrium
This equilibrium outcome occurs for a certain parameter constellation. Given the styl-
ized nature of the model, parameter choices in Fig. 1 are necessarily arbitrary, and the
analysis is therefore not exhaustive. However, it reveals some interesting insights that are
in line with the empirical evidence we will discuss in Section 3. Let j
a
= 2 and j
i
= 3,
so that the price charged by commercial rms is higher than the price they pay to service
operators. Additionally, let t = 1 and n = 2, so that consumers income can cover land
rent and transportation expenses for suciently low distances (see Eqs. (3) and (4)). The
assumption n tr implies the upper bound for distance r < 2.
15
Further land plots
8
remain vacant since no agent is willing to make a positive bid to occupy them. Given
that 1

c
(r) decreases with consumers indirect utility, we assume \ = 0.2, which allows
for active consumers in the bidding process. Finally, land demand elasticities are c = 0.5,
= 0.6, and o = 0.5 (the comparative-static eects of the elasticities are also shown in the
gure).
By looking at Fig. 1, we can conduct a simple comparative-static analysis yielding
alternative land equilibrium congurations (the precise details on the parameter values are
provided in Appendix A). An increase of c reduces the land demand elasticity of consumers
and shifts 1

c
(r) upward. The resulting land equilibrium involves the sequence services area
- residential area, so that commercial rms obtain no land in the bidding process. The
area occupied by consumers increases, whereas the area occupied by service operators is
reduced (if c increases suciently).
An increase of reduces the land demand elasticity of service operators and shifts
1

a
(r) upward. Again, the resulting land equilibrium involves the sequence services area
- residential area (with inactive commercial rms). Now the area occupied by service
operators increases, whereas the area occupied by consumers is reduced (if increases
suciently).
Finally, an increase of o reduces the land demand elasticity of commercial rms and
shifts 1

i
(r) upwards. As a consequence, a land equilibrium of the type commercial area -
residential area may arise, so that service operators obtain no land in the bidding process.
The area occupied by commercial rms increases whereas the area occupied by consumers
is reduced (if o increases suciently).
16
These last two land equilibrium congurations in which an agent type obtains no land
in the bidding process constitute extreme theoretical results, which are not observed in
reality since service operators sell their services to commercial rms. However, the upshot
is that there may be cases in which residential areas have a strong inuence (i.e., when cities
are important) and cases in which either commercial rms or service operators prevail as
a consequence of the relative magnitude of their land demand elasticities.
17
The following
proposition is derived from this comparative-static analysis.
Proposition 1 An aerotropolis requires a non-degenerated land equilibrium in which both
rm types assign a higher value than consumers to land plots located in the proximity of
the airport. In addition, the land demand elasticity of service operators and commercial
rms has to be moderate so that both of them are active in the bidding process.
9
This result is illustrated by the empirical evidence, as will be shown in the next section.
3 Empirical analysis
Our theoretical framework concludes that the land organization in proximity of an airport
can take dierent congurations, depending on the interplay among service operators,
commercial rms, and consumers. An aerotropolis appears when the spatial sequence
services area - commercial area - residential area arises as the land equilibrium outcome.
In this section, we focus on four US case studies to analyze the presence and evolution of
aeropolitan congurations.
In their book, Kasarda and Lindsay (2011) assess the importance of airports on rms
production and distribution chain and their subsequent impact on the organization of
activities around them. They provide a general overview of interesting case studies across
the world with a clear focus on the US. More precisely, they adopt a dynamic perspective to
identify four cases in which aerotropoli could be observed:
18
(1) the reinforcing aerotropolis
an already existing aerotropolis that experiences a self-reinforcing process yielding a
concentration of regional business activities; (2) the growing aerotropolis an area with an
unclear land organization that progressively adopts an aerotropolis-type conguration; (3)
the declining aerotropolis an existing aerotropolis that progressively loses importance due
to insucient infrastructures and available land to expand the airport; and (4) the aborted
aerotropolis an area where an aerotropolis is not formed despite displaying all the relevant
features to become an aerotropolis (e.g., available space, good infrastructures, strategical
position for land deliveries, culture of just-in-time practices), due to the attraction of a
city-downtown preventing any polycentric spatial organization.
Therefore, our empirical strategy consists of selecting a representative airport for each
of the aforementioned cases, following Kasarda and Lindsay (2011), and then providing
a quantitative assessment of their spatial dynamics. The selected airports are Memphis
International Airport (MEM) in Tennessee (case 1), Louisville International Airport (SDF)
in Kentucky (case 2), Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) in California (case 3), and
Newark Liberty Airport (EWR) in New Jersey (case 4). All these airports constitute a
true reference for the economic activity in their surroundings.
In practical terms, our econometric exercise aims at evaluating (i) airport attractiveness
and (ii) its evolution over time. We select a sample using data from the US Business Census
10
corresponding to 2000 and 2010. According to the availability of data, we extract infor-
mation concerning establishments belonging to industry sectors (i.e., commercial rms)
and service sectors (i.e., service operators).
19
Statistics would also allow us to rene data
information by providing a ner sectorial organization according to the NAICS classica-
tion, but because of our need to focus on the spatial dimension of the sample, we prefer to
avoid dealing with too much detailed data for getting robust estimation results. Beyond
the information about the sector of activity for each rm, our data include the rms zip
code and a rough measure of rm size.
We measure airport attractiveness via the variation of the coecient associated with an
indicator of the distance from/to the airport. Exploiting a parametric estimation method,
we regress the gross density of each of the two groups of rms (in each specic zip code
near the airport) against the inverted distance from/to the airport,
20
controlling for the
proximity to the city center and other relevant infrastructures.
3.1 Selected airports: some descriptive features
Our empirical exercise deals with the information associated with the spatial organization
of the land in the proximity of MEM, SDF, LAX, and EWR. According to our records,
this sample of airports does not present important dierences in the size of airport runways
and facilities, but instead in the whole airport ground (total land): MEM ranks rst with
1. 668.13 ha, LAX follows with 1. 408.08 ha, followed by SDF with 817.13 ha, and nally
EWR with 729.43 ha.
21
MEM and SDF are air-express mega-hubs since they are the base
of FedEx and UPS, respectively. E-tailers that normally operate in partnership with FedEx
and UPS, therefore have strong incentives to settle in their proximity.
22
Data released by
the Airports Council International (ACI) rank MEM as the 1st and the 2nd worldwide
cargo airport in 2002 and 2010, respectively; LAX was 4th and 13th for the same years,
SDF was 12th and 10th, and EWR was 18th and 23rd.
MEM is prominently a cargo airport.
23
In the past, the citys location on the Mississippi
River made Memphis an ideal place for commerce and shipping. Now, airport activities
have taken over the historical transportation hubs. The airport in Memphis is often labeled
as an aerotropolis because it has been the headquarters for FedEX since 1973.
As the headquarters for FedEx since 1973. . Its impact on the territory is impressive. In
2009, the airport generated around 220. 000 jobs accounting for 34% of jobs in the Memphis
area, and its (estimated) total annual output approaches $29. 000 million. The presence of
11
the airport has also had an impact on the development of the road and rail transportation
system: the Memphis area is actually served by several freight railroads and two interstate
highways (I40 and I55) plus two other interstate highways under construction.
SDF has been increasing its importance in the US landscape as a low-fare airport since
the mid-1990s.
24
At that time, the airport operated as a principal hub for Southwest
Airlines. Although the airport has been one of the operation bases for UPS since 1982, its
cargo activity improved dramatically in the 2000s with the creation of the UPS Worldport
for worldwide deliveries. Since then, the airport has generated an important economic
impact. In 2011, it supported around 65. 000 jobs that represent roughly 10% of all jobs
in the corresponding Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs). Its business expenditures
represent more than $7. 000 million, which generate around $300 million in state and local
taxes. Louisville has always served as an important crossroad in the US transportation
system: it lies at the crossing point of three major interstate highways (I64, I65, and I71)
and along one of the major US railway connections (the Louisville-Portland Railroad).
Thus, the airport activities have come to complement these other existing transportation
facilities. In this sense, rm location decisions in the area are the result of a clear selection
process based on competition among the dierent transportation options.
LAX was originally known as Mines Field and has been used for general aviation since
1928. with intense industrial activity associated with the aviation services up to the mid-
1980s. At that time, according to Giuliano and Small (1991), the airport area was the fth
regional subcenter (for employment), and the territorial distribution of activities around it
displayed a typical mixed industrial clustering feature but was not heavily service oriented
(as it could be in downtown Los Angeles). Kasarda and Lindsay (2011) reveal that the
decline of LAX as a cargo hub is related to a lack of proper infrastructure to meet the
demand of dierent industrial operators and to a constant delay in the distribution of
incoming merchandise (stocked in the docks). Statistics of freight deliveries provide further
evidence of underinvestment in LAX in a highly competitive environment: the airport
managed about 17. 771. 907 tons of deliveries in 2002, and about 19. 070. 000 tons of goods
transited that airport in 2006. However, that quantity fell to 17. 950. 000 in 2012 while
other airports did not record such an important contraction.
25
In any case, the airport is
still an important source of revenue and employment in Southern California: 1 of 20 jobs
of the region is attributable to the LAX, and about 158. 000 jobs can be associated with
the airport activity in Los Angeles, a number that rises to 408. 000 when considering the
12
overall region.
26
Finally, EWR is a strong passenger-oriented airport.
27
It is located in one of the most
densely populated areas in the US and is a near a complex rail and road transportation
system. EWR records a signicant passenger trac ow, approaching 35 millions of passen-
gers (in 2011). Concerning the economic impact of the airport activity in its metropolitan
region, the results are quite impressive: it keeps active around 143. 000 jobs (in 2011) from
which 20. 000 are found on the airport premises, accounting for about 30% of the overall
jobs created by airport activities in the region (and 4% of the overall jobs in New Jersey).
In terms of business activities, the value of its total output represents a bit more than
$20. 000 million in 2011 (again, about 30% of the overall activity in the region).
3.2 Econometric strategy
Our goal is to assess to which extent the airport attracts each type of business and then
track the potential variation of that attractiveness across time. Our empirical strategy is
straightforward: rst, we select a sample of representative sectors capturing the activity
of each group of agents (i.e., service operators and commercial rms), and we dene their
geographical location by looking at the establishment density per unit of space. Then we
estimate airport attractiveness, controlling for the distance from/to the city center, the
nearest interstate highway, and the nearest railroad.
The idea is to quantify how the real attractiveness of the airport (as a business dis-
trict) aects rms location decisions, even in the presence of other potential alternative
transportation infrastructures. Therefore, if the coecient associated with the distance
from/to the airport is statistically signicant after controlling for all the other potential
eects, we can conclude that the airport is the main element driving rms location deci-
sions.
28
Furthermore, we also focus on the dynamics of the attractiveness of the airport
by looking at the way in which the evolution of the establishment density (by group of
activity, according to the classication presented in Appendix B) has been aected by the
distance from/to the airport across time. In this respect, we perform the same type of
econometric estimations as detailed before, but considering as a dependent variable the
density growth from 2000 to 2010. The interpretation of the distance coecient from/to
the airport associated with the density growth follows the one discussed in Garcia-Lpez
(2010).
Using the land equilibrium result presented in Proposition 1 as a reference, we try to
13
identify land specialization depending on the distance from/to the airport. The empirical
literature usually tackles this problem by working with density functions. Our theoretical
results favor the adoption of this empirical strategy because the land specialization observed
in equilibrium (for each type of agent) takes the form of a density function (for a group
of agents) that is dependent on the distance from/to the CBD (as shown in Subsection
2.4). More precisely, we measure the inuence of the distance from/to airports on the
intrametropolitan location of establishments by estimating the following type of density
function:
|:(1
it
) = ,
0
+ ,
1
d
1
air;it
+ ,
2
d
cc;it
+ ,
3
d
hig;it
+ ,
4
d
rail;it
+ c
it
, (15)
where |:(1
it
) is the natural logarithm of the establishment density for location i in year t,
d
1
air;it
is the inverse of the distance from location i to the airport,
29
d
cc;it
is the distance to
the city center, d
hig;it
is the distance to the closest interstate highway, d
rail;it
is the distance
to the nearest railway, and c
it
is the error term. Distances are in kilometers.
The estimated coecient for d
1
air;it
is a gradient and, in general, measures the rate
at which the intensity of land use increases or decreases with distance from/to the air-
port. Since the distance is inverted, a signicant and positive value of the airport gradient
coecient (,
1
0) would conrm the airport as a true point of attraction. Thus, the
establishment density decreases as rms locate farther from the airport. In this respect,
an aerotropolis structure requires service operators settling closer to the airport than com-
mercial rms.
One of the principal limitations of an analysis based exclusively on the study of Eq.
(15) is associated with the statistical signicance of the potential changes of the estimated
coecients across time. We address this critique by estimating the correspondent density
growth function using the same covariates as in Eq. (15):
|:(1
it
) =
0
+
1
d
1
air;it
+
2
d
cc;it
+
3
d
hig;it
+
4
d
rail;it
+ c
it
, (16)
where |:(1
it
) measures establishment density growth (from 2000 to 2010) and
j
, with
, = 0. 1. 2. 3. 4, are the growth gradients associated with each covariate. In particular, a
positive estimated coecient of d
1
air;it
would mean that the growth of the establishment
density increases along with the proximity to the airport. A negative estimated coecient,
however, would imply that the growth is higher far from the airport and, as a result, would
indicate that a dispersion process (of establishments) is taking place.
We estimate Eqs. (15) and (16) by Ordinary Least Squares (OLS). In order to correct
14
possible problems of heteroscedasticity in our cross-section samples, robust standard errors
and the covariance matrix are calculated using Whites method.
We study the inuence of MEM, SDF, LAX, and EWR on the urban spatial structure
of their metropolitan areas (i.e., Memphis, TN-MS-AR; Louisville, KY-IN; Los Angeles,
CA; and New York, NY-NJ-CT-PA). Zip codes are our unit of observation: our sample
includes 80, 112, 359, and 881 zip codes in the areas of Memphis, Louisville, Los Angeles,
and New York, respectively.
We use establishment data from the 2000 and 2010 Zip Business Patterns (ZBP) from
the US Census Bureau. In particular, we focus on six NAICS industries: 31 Manufacturing,
42 Wholesale trade, 44 Retail trade, 48 Transportation and warehousing, 55 Management
of companies and enterprises, and 56 Administration support and other services. Estab-
lishments belonging to the rst three industries are considered commercial rms, whereas
establishments belonging to the last three industries fall under the category of service
operators.
In order to use GIS software and obtain additional data, we match zip codes from ZBP
with zip codes from Zip Code Tabulation Area (ZCTA) maps.
30
ZCTAs are statistical
geographical units introduced by the US Census Bureau which, in practice, constitute a
generalized representation of the US Postal Service zip code service areas. Each ZCTA is
labeled with the most frequently occurring zip code found in the area. Using geography
from the year 2000, ZCTA maps provide data on land area in square meters.
Our dependent variable is computed as the number of establishments per square meter.
Using ZCTA maps, we obtain tract centroid coordinates and can compute distances in a
straight line from each centroid to the airport zip code centroid, to the city center zip code
centroid, and to the nearest railway and interstate highway segment.
We run econometric estimations of Eq. (15) for each airport in a separate way (see
Tables 1-4).
31
The four tables share the same format. Odd columns 1, 3, and 5 show
results for the year 2000. Even columns 2, 4, and 6 show results for the 2010. Column 7
focuses on the growth of the density of the establishments in the period 2000-2010 (i.e.,
Eq. (16)). In the tables, Panel A shows the results for commercial rms, and Panel B
shows the results for service operators.
MEM estimations in Table 1 depict a clear picture of an aerotropolis land structure:
service operators generally settle closer to the airport premises than commercial rms.
The variation in the distribution of the log-density of establishments across time does not
15
present a pattern of sustained dynamics. In this respect, the land organization surrounding
this airport remains unchanged across time, unveiling an intertemporal consolidation of the
aerotropolis structure, i.e., a reinforcing aerotropolis. This implies that service operators
tend to consolidate their positions close to airport terminals and, eventually, organize more
eciently across the territory. In contrast, commercial rms tend to settle farther from
the airport premises.
Focusing on SDF, the estimations in Table 2 conrm that the airport is a true center
of attraction for business activity. Although the magnitude of the estimated coecient
declines with the introduction of further controls (namely, the distances from/to the nearest
highway and railway, beyond the distance to the city center), it is always highly statistically
signicant. The land organization follows an interesting dynamics pattern: focusing on the
preferred and most constrained estimations (columns 5 and 6), service operators display
a stronger attractiveness to the airport (excluding sector 56). Furthermore, the growth of
the establishment density (column 7) unveils that establishments belonging to sectors 55
and 56 become progressively clustered around the airport (from 2000 to 2010), while the
establishments in sector 44 are progressively settled far apart. Therefore, the pattern of
territorial dynamics in the area surrounding SDF presents an interesting case of a growing
aerotropolis, which is characterized by a replacement pattern in which service operators
replace commercial rms by taking their land plots in the airport premises. When viewed
along an intertemporal horizon, the reading of our results is straightforward: the territorial
organization in the area surrounding the SDF airport was extremely hybrid in 2000, but
it experienced an interesting change over time by converging toward an aerotropolis-type
structure.
32
Table 3 refers to LAX, and our estimations conrm the progressive weakening of this
aerotropolis-organized space, i.e., it is a declining aerotropolis. Columns 5, 6, and 7 indicate
that transportation services are progressively settling far apart from the airport, whereas
manufacturing activities are progressively approaching. The evolution depicted in the rst
row of column 7 (sector 31) is quite intense and statistically robust. Evidence of this
transforming area is also indicated by the loss of statistical signicance of the estimated
coecients of the other sectors, especially the ones belonging to the category of service
operators. Although our data cannot identify the causes of this decay, the inclusion of
the distance from/to downtown Los Angeles reduces the signicance of our estimated
coecients, suggesting that the downtown area becomes more attractive. It seems that, in
16
the presence of poor infrastructures, the urban eect dominates the airport eect and, in
line with Kasarda and Lindsay (2011), this is one of the potential causes of the decline of
a few aerotropolis structures in the US.
Finally, estimations referring to EWR in Table 4 conrm the importance of the city
center (New York City) as a point of attraction: when the estimations include this variable,
the magnitude of the coecient of the distance from/to the airport drops impressively and
mostly loses most of its statistical signicance. Only rms in sector 48 retain a clear
interest in settling in the proximity of the airport premises; for rms in all the other
sectors, all the eects do not show a clear pattern. This is a hybrid case and thus an
aborted aerotropolis because, although the airport exerts a relatively important inuence
in shaping the structure of the territory, other factors (as the density of the urban transport
infrastructure, for instance) also play an important role in rms location decisions.
Insert Tables 1, 2, 3, and 4 here
4 Concluding remarks
The increasing importance of e-tailers leads to airports being considered as a new type
of Central Business District with sucient capacity to leverage air commerce into high
prots. This paper applies current urban theory to the study of the spatial distribution
of activities around airports and provides some insights into the formation of aerotropoli,
which are dened as large industrial areas characterized by a high concentration of service
activities near certain airports.
Land competition around airports takes place among service operators, commercial
rms, and consumers. All agents display an interest in settling close to the airport. As the
result of a maximization process, agents associate a value with each unit of land. Finally,
location is determined by a comparison of each agents bid-rent function. Various types
of land organization correspond to the dierent degrees of attractiveness that the airport
displays for each agent. An aerotropolis requires a non-degenerated land equilibrium in
which both service operators and commercial rms assign a higher value than consumers
to land plots located in the proximity of the airport, and it is characterized by the spatial
sequence services area - commercial area - residential area. The empirical evidence supports
these theoretical results.
17
Focusing on a selected sample of US airports, our econometric exercise allows us to iden-
tify the existence of dierent spatial structures in the proximity of airports and track their
evolution over time. Memphis International Airport turns out to be the one that strictly
embeds the typical features of an aerotropolis setting, whereas Louisville International
Airport presents territorial dynamics showing a convergence toward an aerotropolis-style
territorial organization. The aerotropolis located around Los Angeles International Airport
loses importance over time as the urban eect dominates the airport eect and no impor-
tant airport investments are made. Finally, Newark Liberty Airport exerts a relatively
important inuence in shaping the structure of the territory, but other elements (mainly
New York City center) play a determinant role in rms location decisions.
A direct implication of this type of analysis concerns policy matters. Once the size
of the positive eects associated with being close to the airport has been stated, one can
consider the impact of public policies supporting the creation of a specic land structure.
The economic contribution of air transportation in terms of employment and income has
important eects at a regional level. Consequently, regional governments may be interested
in trying to implement the required conditions that allow for the formation of aerotropoli.
Some policy recommendations would suggest fostering logistical platforms close to cargo
airports, as well as promoting and encouraging the partnership between rms and service
operators. In such a framework, the intense collaboration among agents would guarantee
a suciently high level of facilities to allow for the existence of aerotropoli. Of course, this
issue would also imply studying the extent to which industrial parks are socially desirable
and therefore determining their optimal size. A welfare analysis examining these issues
could be an interesting task to undertake in order to extend and apply the main ndings
presented in this paper.
Another interesting extension of our framework would be to adapt it to study the im-
portance of creating logistic and/or industrial areas in the proximity of transportation hubs
such as railway stations or harbors. We have developed an idea by looking at the specic
case of an airport, but this type of results can easily be extended to other transportation in-
frastructures. From a technical viewpoint, such an application would not involve dramatic
changes. Even while maintaining the suggested structure and changing the parameters of
reference as well as certain interpretations, our conclusions are expected to hold. Never-
theless, there is a general lack of empirical evidence for supporting this type of study. The
scarcity of data and statistics is one of the most binding problems for providing a complete
18
analysis of this phenomenon, even in the case of airports. In fact, most of the analysis that
remains to be carried out concerns the empirical analysis of those features distinguishing
aerotropolis-type congurations from other industrial areas.
19
References
[1] Alonso, W. (1964), Location and land use, Harvard University Press.
[2] Arend, M., Bruns, A., McCurry, J.W. (2004), The 2004 global infrastructure report,
Site Selection Magazine.
[3] Bel, G., Fageda, X. (2008), Getting there fast: globalization, intercontinental ights
and location of headquarters, Journal of Economic Geography, 8, 471-495.
[4] Cavailhs, J., Peeters, D., Sekeris, E., Thisse, J.F. (2004), The periurban city: why
to live between the suburbs and the countryside, Regional Science and Urban Eco-
nomics, 34, 681-703.
[5] Cohen, J.P., Morrison Paul, C.J. (2003), Airport infrastructure spillovers in a network
system, Journal of Urban Economics, 54, 459-473.
[6] Fujita, M., Thisse, J.F. (2002), Economics of agglomeration. Cities, industrial loca-
tion and regional growth, Cambridge University Press.
[7] Garcia-Lpez, M.A. (2010), Population suburbanization in Barcelona, 1991-2005: it
its spatial structure changing ?, Journal of Housing Economics, 19, 119-132.
[8] Garreau, J. (1991), Edge city. Life on the New Frontier, Anchor Books Doubleday.
[9] Giuliano, G., Small K. (1991), Subcenters in the Los Angeles region, Regional Sci-
ence and Urban Economics, 21, 163-182.
[10] Glaeser, E.L. (2008), Cities, agglomeration and spatial equilibrium, The Lindahl
Lectures, Oxford University Press.
[11] Glaeser, E.L., Kahn, M.E. (2004), Sprawl and urban growth, Handbook of Regional
and Urban Economics (Henderson, J.V. and Thisse, J.F. Eds), 2482-2527.
[12] Kasarda, J.D. (2000), Logistics and the rise of aerotropolis Real Estate Issues, winter
2000/2001, 43-48.
[13] Kasarda, J.D., Lindsay, G. (2011), Aerotropolis. The way well live next, Penguin
Business, London.
20
[14] Leinbach, Th.R., Bowen, J.T.Jr. (2004), Air cargo services and the electronics indus-
try in southeast Asia, Journal of Economic Geography, 4, 299-321.
[15] McDonald, J.F., McMillen, D.P. (2000), Employment subcenters and subsequent real
estate development in suburban Chicago, Journal of Urban Economics, 48, 135-157.
[16] Muto, S. (2006), Estimation of the bid rent function with the usage decision model,
Journal of Urban Economics, 60, 33-49.
[17] Thnen, J.H. von (1826), Der isolierte Staat in Beziehung auf Landwirtschaft und
Nationalkonomie. Hamburg: Perthes. English translation: The isolated state.
Oxford: Pergamon Press (1966).
21
Notes
1
This type of land organization started becoming more and more visible since the beginning of the
2000s. Kasarda and Lindsay (2011) documents this rise and, according to their evidence at hand, they
also rene the denition of aerotropolis delivered by Kasarda (2000).
2
The formation of an aerotropolis is an expression of the self-organizing dynamics of a territory. Another
example of this dynamics has been the creation of edge cities in the 1980s. Edge cities are dened as highly
dense business and residential centers containing every city function but oering a low-density automobile-
oriented land conguration. This is the case of the areas around Route 128 in Massachusetts or the city
of Irvine in southern California (Garreau, 1991).
3
See Fujita and Thisse (2002) for a complete overview of this literature.
4
Empirical evidence can be found in Muto (2006).
5
See www.azworldairports.com for important non-aviation services provided by the major worldwide
airports.
6
Consumers leisure demand increases with wages. As a consequence, they decrease their labor supply.
7
Alternatively, following Glaeser (2008), the optimization problem can be equally solved dening a
measure of labor intensity (S
a
(x) =
La
Sa(x)
) and maximizing
a
Sa(x)
with respect to S
a
(x).
8
It is easy to check that the second-order condition always holds.
9
Alternatively, following Glaeser (2008), the optimization problem can be equally solved dening a
measure of land intensity (S
i
(x) =
Sa(x)
1
Si(x)
) and maximizing
i
Si(x)
with respect to S
i
(x).
10
It is easy to check that the second-order condition always holds.
11
Note that the precise value of n

c
(x), n

a
(x), and n

i
(x) can be computed by plugging Eq. (6) into Eq.
(5), Eq. (10) into Eq. (9), and Eq. (14) into Eq. (13), respectively.
12
Given that bid-rent functions decrease with x, they become negative at a certain distance. Naturally,
land becomes vacant when all of them become negative.
13
The net eect of x on S

c
(x), S

a
(x), and S

i
(x) can be easily computed. More information is available
from the authors on request.
14
By computing the crossing point between the bid-rent functions of commercial rms and service
operators (i.e., Eqs. (10) and (14)), we get a parametric measure (x
ia
) of the boundary separating both
agent types, i.e., x
ia
=
1
t
_
p
1
1
a
p
1
1
i
(1)(

w
)

1
(1)(

pa
)
1

_

(1)(1)
. This point approaches the CBD as transportation
costs increase. The reason is that commercial rms evaluate the opportunity costs derived from settling
at a certain distance from the CBD, concluding that their valuation of closer locations to the terminals
increases as the costs to access the airport increase.
15
It could be argued that the restriction w > tx should only concern consumers, given that it is required
to ensure S

c
(x) > 0 (see Eq. (5)). In any case, the aforementioned restriction constitutes a relevant upper
bound in all the considered land equilibrium congurations (see Fig. 1 and Figs. A1, A2, and A3 in the
Appendix) given that consumers occupy the last land plots before land is vacant.
A more thorough analysis shows that the upper bound for x is smaller than the one suggested by
x < w=t and is determined by consumers budget constraint. This is easily shown considering the parameter
22
values assumed in Fig. 1. With w = 2 and t = 1, then x < w=t = 2. In this case, L

= 1 (see Eq. (4)) and

consumers budget constraint requires x 6 2 R
c
(x)S
c
(x) (see Eq. (3)). Therefore, x 6
wLRc(x)Sc(x)
t
determines the upper bound for distance.
16
Another comparative-static exercise would imply looking at the eect of p
a
and p
i
, which would
ultimately change the relative willingness to pay of service operators and commercial rms, respectively.
17
Of course, a more sophisticated analysis would require considering heterogeneous agents within each
category.
18
Although their identication criteria are mostly qualitative, they have the advantage of providing a
sensitive and realistic interpretation of some current (and future) industrial agglomerations in selected
areas.
19
Further information on the composition of the sample by sector is provided in Appendix B.
20
The gross density is the ratio between the number of establishments and the total area. In the
literature, it is usually selected as a density measure when one needs to embed the idea of competition for
land among agents.
21
These measures have been obtained by referring to the layer package le (airport hub size) in the GIS
software.
22
For instance, Barnesandnoble.com, Planetex.com, and Toysrus.com are located close to MEM; whereas
Nike.com and Guess.com are close to SDF.
23
See http://www.mscaa.com/.
24
According to the information collected at http://www.ylouisville.com/.
25
Data source: Airports Council International (http://www.aci.aero/).
26
Source: http://www.lawa.org/.
27
Refer to http://www.panynj.gov/airports/newark-liberty.html/.
28
Airport facilities may enhance synergies among rms.
29
We use an inverted distance to avoid multicollinearity problems with distance from/to the city center.
Partial correlations using direct distances vary from 80% to 95%.
30
Both available at http://www.census.gov/.
31
The complete and detailed results of the estimations in Tables 1-4 are available from the authors on
request.
32
In this respect, Kasarda and Lindsay (2011) discuss an interesting particular case: the location of the
main warehouse of Zappos.com in the proximity of SDF in 2002. This new arrival represented a big push
for the creation of an aerotropolis, given that other rms attracted by Zappos business moved to the area.
23
A Appendix: Alternative land congurations
We start from the situation considered in Fig. 1, i.e., j
a
= 2, j
i
= 3, t = 1, n = 2, \ = 0.2,
c = 0.5, = 0.6, and o = 0.5. Then we consider, ceteris paribus, an increase of c, , and
o, respectively.
First, we consider an increase of c that takes now the value 0.65.
Fig. 1: Land equilibrium with c = 0.65, = 0.6, and
o = 0.5.
24
Then we assume an increase of , so that = 0.7.
Fig. 2: Land equilibrium with c = 0.5, = 0.7, and
o = 0.5.
Finally, let o take the value o = 0.65.
Fig. 3: Land equilibrium with c = 0.5, = 0.6, and o = 0.65.
25
B Appendix: Firm selection
Our database is built by extracting information from the US Business Census. We dene
the sample of rms to be used in this study by focusing on sectors of activity that can easily
be identied as industry or service sectors, to match in the best possible way our idea of
commercial rms (here, industry) and service operators (here, service). The description for
each selected group of sectors as well as their code according to the NAICS classication
system is provided in Table 1 below.
The activities included in sectors 55 and 56 deserve a particular attention since they
represent a large part of the service operators included in our sample. Sector 55 (Man-
agement of companies and enterprises) comprises: (i) establishments that generally hold
equity interests in enterprises to control or inuence manager decisions, and (ii) establish-
ments that manage a company and normally undertake strategic decisions making role of
the company or enterprise. Instead, sector 56 (Administration support and other services)
comprises establishments that perform routines to support corporate daily activities like
clerical services, oce administration, hiring of personal, cleaning, security or waste dis-
posal services. They specialize in one or more elds and provide these services to clients
in a variety of industries and, in some cases, to households.
31-33 Manufacturing
42 Wholesale trade
43-45 Retail trade
48-49 Transportation and warehousing
51 Information
53 Real-estate leasing
54 Professional scientic services
55 Management of companies and enterprises
56 Administration support and other services
72 Accommodation and food services
81 Other public services
Table 1: NAICS sectors
26
1
.
M
a
i
n
r
e
s
u
l
t
s
T
a
b
l
e
1
:
I
n
t
r
a
m
e
t
r
o
p
o
l
i
t
a
n
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
o
f
e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
m
e
n
t
s
a
n
d
p
r
o
x
i
m
i
t
y
t
o
a
i
r
p
o
r
t
:
M
e
m
p
h
i
s
D
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t
v
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
:
l
n
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
m
e
n
t
d
e
n
s
i
t
y
)

l
n
(
E
D
)
Y
e
a
r
:
2
0
0
0
2
0
1
0
2
0
0
0
2
0
1
0
2
0
0
0
2
0
1
0
2
0
0
0

2
0
1
0
[
1
]
[
2
]
[
3
]
[
4
]
[
5
]
[
6
]
[
7
]
P
a
n
e
l
A
.
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l

r
m
s
3
1
M
a
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
i
n
g
I
n
v
e
r
t
e
d
d
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
t
o
a
i
r
p
o
r
t
5
.
9
1
0
c
5
.
3
1
5
3
.
0
3
7
c
2
.
4
7
2
2
.
7
1
0
2
.
1
2
6
-
0
.
5
8
4
a
(
1
.
7
8
7
)
(
1
.
6
3
1
)
(
1
.
7
0
5
)
(
1
.
4
2
6
)
(
1
.
6
5
8
)
(
1
.
3
3
6
)
(
-
3
.
9
4
8
)
A
d
j
u
s
t
e
d
R
2
0
.
0
9
0
.
0
8
0
.
3
9
0
.
3
9
0
.
4
2
0
.
4
2
0
.
0
2
4
2
W
h
o
l
e
s
a
l
e
t
r
a
d
e
I
n
v
e
r
t
e
d
d
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
t
o
a
i
r
p
o
r
t
7
.
4
1
6
c
7
.
1
1
3
c
3
.
8
5
9
c
3
.
7
2
4
c
3
.
4
7
9
c
3
.
3
3
0
c
-
0
.
1
4
9
(
1
.
8
3
7
)
(
1
.
8
8
7
)
(
1
.
8
1
7
)
(
1
.
9
1
8
)
(
1
.
7
8
4
)
(
1
.
8
7
0
)
(
-
0
.
5
9
8
)
A
d
j
u
s
t
e
d
R
2
0
.
1
1
0
.
1
1
0
.
4
5
0
.
4
4
0
.
4
8
0
.
4
7
0
.
0
1
4
4
R
e
t
a
i
l
t
r
a
d
e
I
n
v
e
r
t
e
d
d
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
t
o
a
i
r
p
o
r
t
6
.
3
4
8
b
5
.
7
7
2
b
3
.
0
7
9
b
2
.
7
1
1
b
2
.
7
2
0
b
2
.
2
9
6
b
-
0
.
4
2
3
(
2
.
0
1
8
)
(
2
.
0
1
1
)
(
2
.
2
3
0
)
(
2
.
1
8
5
)
(
2
.
2
2
8
)
(
2
.
1
4
2
)
(
-
1
.
5
8
9
)
A
d
j
u
s
t
e
d
R
2
0
.
1
0
0
.
0
8
0
.
4
5
0
.
4
1
0
.
4
8
0
.
4
4
0
.
0
5
P
a
n
e
l
B
.
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
o
p
e
r
a
t
o
r
s
4
8
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
n
v
e
r
t
e
d
d
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
t
o
a
i
r
p
o
r
t
7
.
1
0
6
c
6
.
8
8
7
b
4
.
0
8
8
c
3
.
9
9
0
b
3
.
7
2
1
c
3
.
6
2
7
b
-
0
.
0
9
5
(
1
.
8
9
3
)
(
2
.
0
6
2
)
(
1
.
9
1
6
)
(
2
.
2
4
0
)
(
1
.
8
6
5
)
(
2
.
2
2
3
)
(
-
0
.
1
9
1
)
A
d
j
u
s
t
e
d
R
2
0
.
1
3
0
.
1
3
0
.
4
4
0
.
4
4
0
.
4
6
0
.
4
7
0
.
0
4
5
5
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
I
n
v
e
r
t
e
d
d
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
t
o
a
i
r
p
o
r
t
7
.
7
2
2
c
6
.
2
2
3
c
5
.
0
1
5
c
3
.
4
7
7
c
4
.
7
7
0
c
3
.
2
3
3
c
-
1
.
5
3
7
c
(
4
.
0
2
9
)
(
3
.
2
2
8
)
(
2
.
6
2
1
)
(
1
.
7
7
3
)
(
2
.
5
2
4
)
(
1
.
6
6
8
)
(
0
.
9
1
5
)
A
d
j
u
s
t
e
d
R
2
0
.
1
3
0
.
0
9
0
.
3
5
0
.
3
2
0
.
3
5
0
.
3
3
0
.
0
1
5
6
A
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
I
n
v
e
r
t
e
d
d
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
t
o
a
i
r
p
o
r
t
6
.
7
0
7
c
6
.
2
6
0
c
3
.
1
8
2
2
.
9
7
7
2
.
7
4
9
2
.
5
8
5
-
0
.
1
6
3
(
1
.
7
0
8
)
(
1
.
7
5
1
)
(
1
.
5
6
3
)
(
1
.
6
3
9
)
(
1
.
4
7
8
)
(
1
.
5
5
6
)
(
-
0
.
6
2
3
)
A
d
j
u
s
t
e
d
R
2
0
.
0
9
0
.
0
9
0
.
4
4
0
.
4
2
0
.
4
6
0
.
4
4
0
.
0
1
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
v
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
s
D
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
t
o
c
i
t
y
c
e
n
t
e
r
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
D
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
t
o
t
h
e
n
e
a
r
e
s
t
i
n
t
e
r
s
t
a
t
e
h
i
g
h
w
a
y
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
D
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
t
o
t
h
e
n
e
a
r
e
s
t
r
a
i
l
r
o
a
d
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
N
o
t
e
s
:
8
0
o
b
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
s
f
o
r
e
a
c
h
r
e
g
r
e
s
s
i
o
n
.
A
l
l
r
e
g
r
e
s
s
i
o
n
s
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
a
c
o
n
s
t
a
n
t
.
t
-
v
a
l
u
e
s
a
r
e
i
n
p
a
r
e
n
t
h
e
s
e
s
.
a
,
b
,
a
n
d
c
i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e
s
s
i
g
n
i

c
a
n
t
a
t
1
,
5
,
a
n
d
1
0
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
l
e
v
e
l
,
r
e
s
p
e
c
t
i
v
e
l
y
.
2
27
T
a
b
l
e
2
:
I
n
t
r
a
m
e
t
r
o
p
o
l
i
t
a
n
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
o
f
e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
m
e
n
t
s
a
n
d
p
r
o
x
i
m
i
t
y
t
o
a
i
r
p
o
r
t
:
L
o
u
i
s
v
i
l
l
e
D
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t
v
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
:
l
n
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
m
e
n
t
d
e
n
s
i
t
y
)

l
n
(
E
D
)
Y
e
a
r
:
2
0
0
0
2
0
1
0
2
0
0
0
2
0
1
0
2
0
0
0
2
0
1
0
2
0
0
0

2
0
1
0
[
1
]
[
2
]
[
3
]
[
4
]
[
5
]
[
6
]
[
7
]
P
a
n
e
l
A
.
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l

r
m
s
3
1
M
a
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
i
n
g
I
n
v
e
r
t
e
d
d
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
t
o
a
i
r
p
o
r
t
8
.
5
8
8
b
8
.
3
5
5
b
3
.
0
3
8
b
2
.
9
5
2
a
3
.
0
1
4
b
2
.
9
4
1
a
-
0
.
0
7
3
(
2
.
1
4
8
)
(
2
.
2
4
0
)
(
2
.
5
0
8
)
(
2
.
9
3
7
)
(
2
.
4
5
9
)
(
2
.
8
8
3
)
(
-
0
.
2
5
0
)
A
d
j
u
s
t
e
d
R
2
0
.
1
9
0
.
1
8
0
.
5
2
0
.
4
9
0
.
5
2
0
.
4
9
0
.
0
1
4
2
W
h
o
l
e
s
a
l
e
t
r
a
d
e
I
n
v
e
r
t
e
d
d
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
t
o
a
i
r
p
o
r
t
9
.
2
3
1
b
8
.
9
8
6
b
2
.
8
7
4
b
2
.
8
1
2
a
2
.
8
6
2
b
2
.
8
1
3
a
-
0
.
0
4
9
(
2
.
0
9
7
)
(
2
.
1
9
9
)
(
2
.
4
1
8
)
(
2
.
9
1
2
)
(
2
.
3
7
2
)
(
2
.
8
7
0
)
(
-
0
.
1
5
6
)
A
d
j
u
s
t
e
d
R
2
0
.
1
7
0
.
1
7
0
.
5
3
0
.
5
3
0
.
5
4
0
.
5
4
0
.
0
2
4
4
R
e
t
a
i
l
t
r
a
d
e
I
n
v
e
r
t
e
d
d
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
t
o
a
i
r
p
o
r
t
8
.
0
3
9
c
7
.
7
1
0
c
1
.
4
0
8
1
.
0
7
3
1
.
3
5
1
1
.
0
0
7
-
0
.
3
4
4
a
(
1
.
7
2
4
)
(
1
.
6
7
2
)
(
1
.
0
7
9
)
(
0
.
8
6
2
)
(
1
.
0
2
2
)
(
0
.
7
9
9
)
(
-
2
.
7
3
2
)
A
d
j
u
s
t
e
d
R
2
0
.
1
4
0
.
1
3
0
.
5
4
0
.
5
4
0
.
5
6
0
.
5
6
0
.
0
1
P
a
n
e
l
B
.
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
o
p
e
r
a
t
o
r
s
4
8
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
n
v
e
r
t
e
d
d
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
t
o
a
i
r
p
o
r
t
8
.
0
5
9
b
8
.
1
4
9
a
3
.
1
9
7
a
3
.
5
5
0
a
3
.
1
9
8
a
3
.
5
6
5
a
0
.
3
6
7
(
2
.
5
2
2
)
(
2
.
6
8
0
)
(
4
.
2
6
7
)
(
4
.
5
4
1
)
(
4
.
2
2
8
)
(
4
.
5
2
4
)
(
1
.
4
6
0
)
A
d
j
u
s
t
e
d
R
2
0
.
1
9
0
.
2
0
0
.
4
9
0
.
4
7
0
.
4
9
0
.
4
7
0
.
0
1
5
5
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
I
n
v
e
r
t
e
d
d
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
t
o
a
i
r
p
o
r
t
6
.
8
1
5
b
7
.
2
4
2
b
2
.
4
9
9
a
2
.
9
6
8
a
2
.
5
3
6
a
3
.
0
3
0
a
0
.
4
9
4
b
(
2
.
2
4
8
)
(
2
.
3
4
3
)
(
2
.
7
1
9
)
(
2
.
9
9
7
)
(
2
.
7
2
6
)
(
3
.
0
2
0
)
(
2
.
3
2
2
)
A
d
j
u
s
t
e
d
R
2
0
.
1
2
0
.
1
4
0
.
3
3
0
.
3
5
0
.
3
2
0
.
3
5
0
.
0
2
5
6
A
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
I
n
v
e
r
t
e
d
d
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
t
o
a
i
r
p
o
r
t
8
.
5
5
1
b
8
.
7
4
6
b
2
.
0
6
5
b
2
.
5
1
8
a
2
.
0
5
5
b
2
.
5
1
0
a
0
.
4
5
5
b
(
2
.
0
4
0
)
(
2
.
2
3
9
)
(
2
.
3
2
5
)
(
3
.
3
9
5
)
(
2
.
2
8
2
)
(
3
.
3
3
7
)
(
2
.
1
0
4
)
A
d
j
u
s
t
e
d
R
2
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
v
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
s
D
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
t
o
c
i
t
y
c
e
n
t
e
r
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
D
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
t
o
t
h
e
n
e
a
r
e
s
t
i
n
t
e
r
s
t
a
t
e
h
i
g
h
w
a
y
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
D
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
t
o
t
h
e
n
e
a
r
e
s
t
r
a
i
l
r
o
a
d
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
N
o
t
e
s
:
1
1
2
o
b
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
s
f
o
r
e
a
c
h
r
e
g
r
e
s
s
i
o
n
.
A
l
l
r
e
g
r
e
s
s
i
o
n
s
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
a
c
o
n
s
t
a
n
t
.
t
-
v
a
l
u
e
s
a
r
e
i
n
p
a
r
e
n
t
h
e
s
e
s
.
a
,
b
,
a
n
d
c
i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e
s
s
i
g
n
i

c
a
n
t
a
t
1
,
5
,
a
n
d
1
0
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
l
e
v
e
l
,
r
e
s
p
e
c
t
i
v
e
l
y
.
3
28
T
a
b
l
e
3
:
I
n
t
r
a
m
e
t
r
o
p
o
l
i
t
a
n
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
o
f
e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
m
e
n
t
s
a
n
d
p
r
o
x
i
m
i
t
y
t
o
a
i
r
p
o
r
t
:
L
o
s
A
n
g
e
l
e
s
D
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t
v
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
:
l
n
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
m
e
n
t
d
e
n
s
i
t
y
)

l
n
(
E
D
)
Y
e
a
r
:
2
0
0
0
2
0
1
0
2
0
0
0
2
0
1
0
2
0
0
0
2
0
1
0
2
0
0
0

2
0
1
0
[
1
]
[
2
]
[
3
]
[
4
]
[
5
]
[
6
]
[
7
]
P
a
n
e
l
A
.
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l

r
m
s
3
1
M
a
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
i
n
g
I
n
v
e
r
t
e
d
d
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
t
o
a
i
r
p
o
r
t
3
.
4
2
1
3
.
3
0
9
-
1
.
6
1
0
b
-
1
.
1
2
7
b
-
1
.
1
9
4
b
-
0
.
7
3
5
0
.
4
5
9
b
(
1
.
1
5
9
)
(
1
.
2
2
0
)
(
-
2
.
5
4
8
)
(
-
2
.
0
9
8
)
(
-
2
.
0
4
3
)
(
-
1
.
2
5
1
)
(
1
.
9
7
7
)
A
d
j
u
s
t
e
d
R
2
0
.
0
1
0
.
0
1
0
.
2
8
0
.
2
4
0
.
4
5
0
.
4
2
0
.
0
7
4
2
W
h
o
l
e
s
a
l
e
t
r
a
d
e
I
n
v
e
r
t
e
d
d
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
t
o
a
i
r
p
o
r
t
3
.
7
4
6
3
.
2
1
9
-
0
.
6
8
3
-
0
.
8
9
0
-
0
.
3
0
4
-
0
.
4
9
4
-
0
.
1
9
0
(
1
.
3
7
8
)
(
1
.
3
6
4
)
(
-
1
.
2
3
9
)
(
-
1
.
5
4
2
)
(
-
0
.
5
0
3
)
(
-
1
.
0
1
4
)
(
-
0
.
7
6
0
)
A
d
j
u
s
t
e
d
R
2
0
.
0
2
0
.
0
1
0
.
2
4
0
.
2
2
0
.
4
5
0
.
4
4
0
.
0
3
4
4
R
e
t
a
i
l
t
r
a
d
e
I
n
v
e
r
t
e
d
d
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
t
o
a
i
r
p
o
r
t
4
.
4
0
8
4
.
2
2
5
0
.
1
7
5
0
.
1
4
7
0
.
4
2
3
0
.
3
8
8
-
0
.
0
3
5
(
1
.
3
9
7
)
(
1
.
3
6
8
)
(
0
.
2
3
9
)
(
0
.
1
9
6
)
(
0
.
4
2
4
)
(
0
.
3
7
7
)
(
-
0
.
3
0
0
)
A
d
j
u
s
t
e
d
R
2
0
.
0
3
0
.
0
3
0
.
3
0
0
.
2
9
0
.
4
7
0
.
4
9
0
.
0
0
P
a
n
e
l
B
.
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
o
p
e
r
a
t
o
r
s
4
8
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
n
v
e
r
t
e
d
d
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
t
o
a
i
r
p
o
r
t
7
.
4
0
5
b
6
.
2
1
8
b
3
.
5
3
0
a
2
.
3
1
1
a
3
.
8
2
0
a
2
.
6
5
4
a
-
1
.
1
6
6
(
2
.
3
2
0
)
(
2
.
4
0
8
)
(
3
.
4
3
4
)
(
3
.
8
3
5
)
(
2
.
9
7
9
)
(
3
.
6
7
8
)
(
-
1
.
5
7
1
)
A
d
j
u
s
t
e
d
R
2
0
.
1
0
0
.
0
7
0
.
3
4
0
.
3
2
0
.
4
8
0
.
4
9
0
.
0
2
5
5
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
I
n
v
e
r
t
e
d
d
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
t
o
a
i
r
p
o
r
t
4
.
2
9
9
4
.
5
0
3
c
0
.
9
9
7
1
.
5
8
0
1
.
1
7
8
1
.
8
2
5
0
.
6
4
7
(
1
.
6
2
4
)
(
1
.
6
6
2
)
(
1
.
1
9
4
)
(
1
.
4
5
9
)
(
1
.
1
4
1
)
(
1
.
3
5
5
)
(
1
.
4
5
5
)
A
d
j
u
s
t
e
d
R
2
0
.
0
3
0
.
0
3
0
.
1
8
0
.
1
5
0
.
2
9
0
.
2
8
0
.
0
2
5
6
A
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
I
n
v
e
r
t
e
d
d
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
t
o
a
i
r
p
o
r
t
4
.
6
1
5
c
4
.
2
0
5
c
1
.
1
1
9
1
.
2
0
8
1
.
3
7
3
1
.
4
5
3
0
.
0
7
9
(
1
.
7
2
3
)
(
1
.
7
1
8
)
(
1
.
6
2
5
)
(
1
.
6
1
3
)
(
1
.
4
4
1
)
(
1
.
4
2
0
)
(
0
.
5
0
3
)
A
d
j
u
s
t
e
d
R
2
0
.
0
4
0
.
0
3
0
.
2
4
0
.
1
9
0
.
4
2
0
.
3
9
0
.
0
7
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
v
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
s
D
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
t
o
c
i
t
y
c
e
n
t
e
r
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
D
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
t
o
t
h
e
n
e
a
r
e
s
t
i
n
t
e
r
s
t
a
t
e
h
i
g
h
w
a
y
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
D
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
t
o
t
h
e
n
e
a
r
e
s
t
r
a
i
l
r
o
a
d
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
N
o
t
e
s
:
3
5
9
o
b
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
s
f
o
r
e
a
c
h
r
e
g
r
e
s
s
i
o
n
.
A
l
l
r
e
g
r
e
s
s
i
o
n
s
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
a
c
o
n
s
t
a
n
t
.
t
-
v
a
l
u
e
s
a
r
e
i
n
p
a
r
e
n
t
h
e
s
e
s
.
a
,
b
,
a
n
d
c
i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e
s
s
i
g
n
i

c
a
n
t
a
t
1
,
5
,
a
n
d
1
0
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
l
e
v
e
l
,
r
e
s
p
e
c
t
i
v
e
l
y
.
4
29
T
a
b
l
e
4
:
I
n
t
r
a
m
e
t
r
o
p
o
l
i
t
a
n
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
o
f
e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
m
e
n
t
s
a
n
d
p
r
o
x
i
m
i
t
y
t
o
a
i
r
p
o
r
t
:
N
e
w
Y
o
r
k
D
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t
v
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
:
l
n
(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
m
e
n
t
d
e
n
s
i
t
y
)

l
n
(
E
D
)
Y
e
a
r
:
2
0
0
0
2
0
1
0
2
0
0
0
2
0
1
0
2
0
0
0
2
0
1
0
2
0
0
0

2
0
1
0
[
1
]
[
2
]
[
3
]
[
4
]
[
5
]
[
6
]
[
7
]
P
a
n
e
l
A
.
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l

r
m
s
3
1
M
a
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
i
n
g
I
n
v
e
r
t
e
d
d
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
t
o
a
i
r
p
o
r
t
1
4
.
1
1
1
c
1
2
.
9
2
0
c
3
.
2
0
6
2
.
8
2
6
c
3
.
1
6
5
2
.
7
8
8
-
0
.
3
7
7
(
1
.
9
1
5
)
(
1
.
9
2
9
)
(
1
.
6
0
8
)
(
1
.
6
5
7
)
(
1
.
5
9
4
)
(
1
.
6
4
0
)
(
-
1
.
1
5
7
)
A
d
j
u
s
t
e
d
R
2
0
.
1
1
0
.
1
0
0
.
5
0
0
.
4
7
0
.
5
1
0
.
4
8
0
.
0
5
4
2
W
h
o
l
e
s
a
l
e
t
r
a
d
e
I
n
v
e
r
t
e
d
d
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
t
o
a
i
r
p
o
r
t
1
3
.
2
2
5
c
1
2
.
5
2
9
c
0
.
7
2
0
0
.
3
2
2
0
.
6
8
3
0
.
2
8
9
-
0
.
3
9
3
(
1
.
8
4
1
)
(
1
.
8
3
2
)
(
0
.
8
2
6
)
(
0
.
4
5
0
)
(
0
.
7
8
9
)
(
0
.
4
0
6
)
(
-
1
.
4
7
4
)
A
d
j
u
s
t
e
d
R
2
0
.
0
9
0
.
0
8
0
.
5
7
0
.
5
6
0
.
5
9
0
.
5
7
0
.
0
1
4
4
R
e
t
a
i
l
t
r
a
d
e
I
n
v
e
r
t
e
d
d
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
t
o
a
i
r
p
o
r
t
1
2
.
2
7
2
c
1
2
.
7
1
9
c
0
.
9
7
8
1
.
1
5
0
0
.
9
5
1
1
.
1
2
6
0
.
1
7
5
c
(
1
.
6
8
0
)
(
1
.
7
1
2
)
(
0
.
5
8
0
)
(
0
.
6
9
1
)
(
0
.
5
6
7
)
(
0
.
6
7
8
)
(
1
.
6
9
4
)
A
d
j
u
s
t
e
d
R
2
0
.
0
8
0
.
0
9
0
.
5
2
0
.
5
2
0
.
5
3
0
.
5
3
0
.
0
1
P
a
n
e
l
B
.
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
o
p
e
r
a
t
o
r
s
4
8
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
n
v
e
r
t
e
d
d
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
t
o
a
i
r
p
o
r
t
1
4
.
5
1
2
b
1
4
.
3
5
6
b
3
.
9
1
3
b
3
.
5
9
1
b
3
.
8
9
0
b
3
.
5
6
7
b
-
0
.
3
2
3
(
2
.
0
4
3
)
(
2
.
0
3
6
)
(
2
.
1
0
9
)
(
2
.
1
0
5
)
(
2
.
1
0
4
)
(
2
.
0
9
0
)
(
-
1
.
4
2
1
)
A
d
j
u
s
t
e
d
R
2
0
.
1
3
0
.
1
2
0
.
5
3
0
.
5
3
0
.
5
4
0
.
5
4
0
.
0
1
5
5
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
I
n
v
e
r
t
e
d
d
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
t
o
a
i
r
p
o
r
t
1
0
.
5
9
3
c
1
0
.
4
8
7
c
1
.
0
1
0
0
.
9
9
0
0
.
9
7
3
0
.
9
6
1
-
0
.
0
1
2
(
1
.
7
2
3
)
(
1
.
7
2
1
)
(
0
.
7
1
7
)
(
0
.
7
1
5
)
(
0
.
7
0
2
)
(
0
.
7
0
0
)
(
-
0
.
0
4
7
)
A
d
j
u
s
t
e
d
R
2
0
.
0
6
0
.
0
6
0
.
3
5
0
.
3
5
0
.
3
6
0
.
3
5
0
.
0
0
5
6
A
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
I
n
v
e
r
t
e
d
d
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
t
o
a
i
r
p
o
r
t
1
0
.
1
3
8
c
9
.
4
4
9
c
-
0
.
0
7
4
-
0
.
2
5
3
-
0
.
1
1
3
-
0
.
2
9
1
-
0
.
1
7
8
(
1
.
6
6
1
)
(
1
.
6
5
7
)
(
-
0
.
0
7
4
)
(
-
0
.
2
9
7
)
(
-
0
.
1
1
4
)
(
-
0
.
3
4
7
)
(
-
0
.
8
2
6
)
A
d
j
u
s
t
e
d
R
2
0
.
0
6
0
.
0
6
0
.
4
6
0
.
4
5
0
.
4
8
0
.
4
6
0
.
0
2
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
v
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
s
D
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
t
o
c
i
t
y
c
e
n
t
e
r
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
D
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
t
o
t
h
e
n
e
a
r
e
s
t
i
n
t
e
r
s
t
a
t
e
h
i
g
h
w
a
y
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
D
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
t
o
t
h
e
n
e
a
r
e
s
t
r
a
i
l
r
o
a
d
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
N
o
t
e
s
:
8
8
1
o
b
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
s
f
o
r
e
a
c
h
r
e
g
r
e
s
s
i
o
n
.
A
l
l
r
e
g
r
e
s
s
i
o
n
s
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
a
c
o
n
s
t
a
n
t
.
t
-
v
a
l
u
e
s
a
r
e
i
n
p
a
r
e
n
t
h
e
s
e
s
.
a
,
b
,
a
n
d
c
i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e
s
s
i
g
n
i

c
a
n
t
a
t
1
,
5
,
a
n
d
1
0
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
l
e
v
e
l
,
r
e
s
p
e
c
t
i
v
e
l
y
.
5
30