.l f :f.':'. | a A (Se? .' '- ‘ . .- A‘il J.’ ‘fiykzl‘ . I)": $5firl~d 9 ’ 31)}2’3“, 4 ‘. f '5‘ ,uLbJ 'I 153%" K '39? - "1? ‘t‘ - ’ (ILL: .. M ' \v '-v~.‘tl‘:§f-§3E . ' W}; I '" "29;.3‘1 rm ' , 4% ~ ; ilk 33.: mg)??? .r V N C'?":.‘: .. vk‘.‘ ’ " : map: .I_ .u I - A . JIJ} Y 4153:“ ' . .' '.G U . JI“."LI \ , '4 ,. “Wm” WWW"? U I. , '2. 1 "W1. '_' .it'g‘ 3-. I ‘It 7!." A... :2,” "1:12.55". ' A f I. J ‘ fl . .V 3 . " 2'1” .' f ,r’ ‘0' ...'-_. _ ',I,’ wf‘u’. ; u :w 2.". v1_ flux": -~ " " I ‘ 3445;121 H I?" 1me l’: 1/““““':-‘ “*1"? 3“)...“ “1'3“,“ ‘2‘$43.92.:‘4tvfiz.\':":Yf‘_nfl (I‘m (:nq‘xvnhvv'. {#1 . ”Wig »_" r.) w, ~t'f‘yf. 711' 0“”. c. "5 [kg-1 "‘;‘1‘9 ‘ ’ -v1;»,.2.:.~‘ It": a unit v. -.-- wt." ‘v; "-V- H».- ' ‘ ' ’ ' " “1V-"M' “i: ‘7‘: .. I f"? “I ' ' ‘ - ”‘1'? lb! ‘2‘“ “In 1161"?“ $3.19.“ 43’é:;§ér'(1'(lIG"TI-‘ “Ingg'gyg‘mttY‘h' _‘ ‘thAp. :I‘b.‘ > 'I .Kflj ' .vn‘. H'HE‘SI q LIBRAR’ a Michigan State University This is to certify that the dissertation entitled PLANNING OF INTRA-AIRPORT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS presented by William James Sproule has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Doctor of Philosophy dqyflnn Civil Engineering Vflv Major professor anmis)L Mdflflyey Dme January 21. 1985 MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 012771 w“ MSU LIBRARIES _:—. RETURNING MATERIALS: Place in book drop to remove this checkout from your record. .[Lfl§§_will be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. i PLANNING OF INTRA-AIRPORT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS Bv William James Sproule A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Civil and Sanitary Engineering 1985 ABSTRACT PLANNING 0F INTRA-AIRPORT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS by William James Sproule As terminal buildings are expanded to accommodate growth in air passenger traffic, walking distances will increase as the physical dimensions grow and in many cases these distances will become unacceptable. At some airports it may not be possible to expand an individual terminal due to site constraints and an additional terminal site must be constructed elsewhere on the airport site. As a result, consideration and analysis of various transportation systems to reduce walking distances and provide for the efficient movement of passengers on an airport site is expected to become an important component in terminal planning studies. A framework for the planning of intra—airport transportation systems has been developed in this study and techniques have been prepared to assist the terminal planner in the conceptual phase of the terminal design process. These include nomographs to determine service characteristics for a system and cost estimating procedures. Modifications have also been made to the Federal Aviation Administration's Airport Landside Model to expand its capabilities to assess the impact of an William James Sproule intra-airport transportation system on other passenger processing facilities and average passenger processing times. Using the framework and techniques, minibuses, conventional buses, automated guideway transit operating on a loop alignment, automated guideway transit operating on a shuttle alignment, and moving walkways have been incorporated in generic terminals of various concepts and for different passenger demand levels to identify guidelines for the use of these systems. TO MY PARENTS ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author wishes to express his sincere appreciation to all those who provided the inspiration, motivation, and encouragement to complete this dissertation. Special thanks to Dr. Francis X. McKelvey, Associate Professor, Department of Civil and Sanitary Engineering, and Chairman of the doctoral advisory committee for his continuous guidance and assistance during this research. Thanks also to the other members of the committee - Dr. Adrian Koert, Dr. Thomas Maleck, and Dr. William Taylor, for their enthusiasm and assistance. Appreciation is also extended to Ms. Vicki Switzer for her help in typing this dissertation and to Dr. Sweanum $00 for his assistance and valuable suggestions related to the computer programming aspects of the research. iii LIST OF LIST OF CHAPTER HHl—IH 45mm»: CHAPTER NNMNNN OtOIIhQMH CHAPTER (003000) IbCONH CHAPTER 4.1 4.2 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLES FIGURES 1 - INTRODUCTION The Problem The Terminal Planning Process Study Objectives Outline of the Research 2 - LITERATURE REVIEW Introduction Automated Guideway Transit Intra-Airport Transportation Systems AGT Development Planning of ACT for Airport Application Summary 3 - METHODOLOGY Introduction Planning Intra-Airport Transportation Systems Development of Service Characteristics FAA Airport Landside Model 4 - APPLICATION OF METHODOLOGY Procedure Generation of Terminals for Study Terminal Concepts Terminal Modules Terminal Module Combinations Terminal Cost Estimate Walking Distances #éblbub MNMNM 0-5me Incorporating Intra-Airport Transportation Systems in Terminal Units Intra-Airport Transportation System Costs Evaluation iv *0 Q) Q (I) 1 vi vii 000301»: 11 18 29 39 41 44 51 57 72 72 72 81 89 93 103 109 119 125 CHAPTER 5 - ANALYSIS System Alternatives Capital Cost Annual Operating and Maintenance Cost Total Annual Cost 01010101 #QNH 5.4.1 Annual Cost per Connecting Passenger 5.4.2 Annual Cost per Enplaned Passenger 5 Travel Time 5.6 Walking Distance 7 Alternative Alignments for Pier and Satellite Concepts CHAPTER 6 - SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 6.1 Summary 6.2 Conclusions 6.3 Limitations 6.4 Future Research Needs APPENDIX A - FAA AIRPORT LANDSIDE MODEL - EXAMPLE PROBLEM APPENDIX B - PROCEDURE USED TO ESTIMATE TERMINAL AREA LIST OF REFERENCES 126 127 131 134 134 144 156 161 167 173 174 179 180 181 213 220 Eagle. It. 0" LIST OF TABLES Automated Guideway Transit Systems at Airports Factors to Consider in Developing Design Criteria for Intra-Airport Transportation Systems Identification List to Guide in Planning People Mover Systems at Airports Queueing Models for Terminal Processing Facilities Area Requirements for an Eight Gate Module Area Requirements for a Sixteen Gate Module Air Passenger Demands Accommodated by Terminal Units Unit Costs to Estimate Construction, Operating and Maintenance Costs for Terminal Area Unit Costs for Estimating AGT System Capital Cost Range in Annual Costs of Intra—Airport Transportation Systems per Connecting Passenger Appropriate Intra-Airport Transportation System for Connecting Passengers (8 Gate Modules) Appropriate Intra—Airport Transportation System for Connecting Passengers (16 Gate Modules) Annual Cost per Enplaned Passenger of Terminal Modules vi 83 90 102 104 123 139 141 142 0’3 ["0 {ll D m Average Percentage Increase or Decrease in Annual Cost per Enplaned Passenger of Terminal Area with Addition of Intra- Airport Transportation System for Connecting Passengers 155 Average Percentage Increase or Decrease in Travel Time with Intra-Airport Transportation System for Connecting Passengers 160 Average Walking Distance in Terminal Concepts 163 vii Figure LIST OF FIGURES Total Revenue Passenger Enplanements on United States Certificated Route Air Carriers Layout of the Automated Guideway Transit System at Tampa Airport Layout of Automated Guideway Transit System at Seattle-Tacoma Airport Layout and Mall Cross Section of Automated Guideway Transit System at Atlanta Hartsfield Airport Layout of Automated Guideway Transit System (AirTrans) at Dallas-Fort Worth Regional Airport Decision Tree of Development Options for Pearson (Toronto) International Airport Decisions Facing Airport Terminal Planners Framework for Intra—Airport Transportation System Planning Nomograph to Develop Intra-Airport Transportation System Service Characteristics Nomograph to Estimate Vehicle Miles Travelled by an Intra-Airport Transportation System Methodology to Determine Appropriate Intra-Airport Transportation System Basic Terminal Concepts Applicable Terminal Concepts Related to Air Passenger Demand Levels viii 13 14 19 20 38 43 45 55 56 73 74 79 4.10 4.11 4.12 4.13 4.14 Terminal Module, Terminal Modules, Terminal Module, Pier Concept Satellite Concept Linear Concept Terminal Modules, Transporter Concept Terminal Module. Terminal Module, 16 Gates Combinations Combinations Combinations Combinations Combinations Combinations Modules Pier Concept, 16 Gates Satellite Concept, of Pier Modules of Satellite Modules of Linear Modules of Transporter Modules of Pier (16 Gate) Modules of Satellite (16 Gate) Average Walking Distance for Originating and Terminati ng Passengers Average Walking Distance for Connecting Passengers, Terminal Configuration "A" Average Walki Passengers, I tra-Air ort A ternati es, Intra-Airport Alternatives, Intra-Airport Alternatives, Intra-Airport Alternatives, Intra—Airport Alternatives, Units ng Distance for Connecting Terminal Configuration "8" Trans ortati n S stem Route Pier ermina Un ts Transportation System Route Satellite Terminal Units Transportation System Route Linear Terminal Units Transportation System Route Transporter Terminal Units Transportation System Route Pier (16 Gate) Terminal ix '0 a) Q l“) ..l 0‘ 87 91 92 94 95 96 97 98 100 105 107 108 110 111 112 113 114 Figgre Intra-Airport Transportation System Route Alternatives, Satellite (16 Gate) Terminal Units AGT Station Configurations Capital/Construction Cost of Intra— Airport Transportation Systems, Terminal Configuration A Capital/Construction Cost of Intra- Airport Transportation Systems, Terminal Configuration B Operating and Maintenance Costs of Intra-Airport Transportation Systems. Terminal Configuration A Operating and Maintenance Costs of Intra-Airport Transportation Systems, Terminal Configuration B Annual Cost per Connecting Passenger of Intra-Airport Transportation Systems, Terminal Configuration A Annual Cost per Connecting Passenger of Intra-Airport Transportation Systems, Terminal Configuration 8 Annual Cost per Connecting Passenger of Intra-Airport Transportation Systems, Terminal Concept Pier(8) Annual Cost per Connecting Passenger of AGT System, Loop Alignment Annual Cost per Connecting Passenger of AGT System, Shuttle Alignment Annual Cost per Connecting Passenger of Moving Walkways Annual Cost per Connecting Passenger of Standard Bus System Annual Cost per Connecting Passenger of Minibus System Annual Cost per Enplaned Passenger, Terminal Configuration A Page 116 124 128 129 132 133 135 136 138 145 146 147 148 149 152 U! :P 3’ > 3' .16 .17 .18 .19 .20 .21 .22 Annual Cost per Enplaned Passenger, Terminal Configuration B Average Travel Time for Connecting Passengers, Terminal Configuration A Average Travel Time for Connecting Passengers, Terminal Configuration B Average Walking Distance for Connecting Passengers, Terminal Configuration A Average Walking Distance for Connecting Passengers, Terminal Configuration 8 Alternative Intra-Airport Transportation System Routes to Reduce Walking Distances for Connecting Passengers in Pier and Satellite Terminal Concepts Annual Cost per Connecting Passenger of AGT Shuttle in Tunnel, Terminal Configuration A Average Walking Distance for Connecting Passenger with AGT Shuttle in Tunnel, Terminal Configuration A Average Travel Time for Connecting Passengers with AGT Shuttle in Tunnel, Terminal Configuration A Terminal Unit for Example Problem Deplaning System Network - Terminal 1 and Terminal 2 Enplaning System Network - Terminal 1 and Terminal 2 Connecting System Networks Input Data for Example Problem Output for Example Problem FAA Airport Landside Model - Program Airport Master Planning Worksheet xi Page 153 158 159 164 165 166 169 170 171 183 185 186 187 189 193 202 219 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 The Problem Air passenger traffic is expected to continue growing and forecasts (50)‘I by the Federal Aviation Administration indicate that domestic enplaned passengers flying on 0.3. carriers are expected to increase at an average annual rate of 4.7 percent to 470 million passengers in 1994. International enplaned passengers on 0.8. air carriers are forecast to be 35 million in 1994, an average annual growth rate of 5 percent. Figure 1.1 illustrates the growth in passengers on 0.8. air carriers. This growth in air passengers will put added pressure on the nation's airport facilities and at many airports, especially the large hub airports*‘, congestion and delays will become unacceptable. In fact, in a recent study (5) of conditions at major airports, it was found that 33 of the large hub airports are already experiencing capacity and delay problems. Conditions will worsen as air passenger traffic increases. ‘ Figures in parentheses indicate reference numbers in the List of References. ** The large hub airports are the largest airports and each enplanes over one percent of the nation's total enplaned passengers. In 1980, the 43 airports in the large hub areas handled over 75 percent of all enplaned air passengers in the United States. 500- Historical Forecast 400+ 300- 200“ 100 l r 1 I 1 1570 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 Total Revenue Passenger Enplanements, millions YEAR ‘igure 1.1 Total Revenue Passenger Enplanements on United States Certificated Route Air Carriers Source: FAA Aviation Forecasts, Fiscal Year 1983-1984. February, 1983. The ability of airports to accommodate traffic can be expressed in terms of "airside" or "landside" capacity. Airside capacity is defined as the number of air operations — landings and takeoffs - that the airport and supporting air traffic control system can handle and primarily describes the capabilities of the runway system. Landside considerations, such as the number of gate positions, number of ticket counters, or the adequacy of baggage handling equipment, affect the number of passengers that the terminal building can accommodate. In addition, ground access, which includes the roadways and parking areas for automobiles, is another important part of airport landside capacity, and at some airports, it has become the limiting factor in an airport's ability to handle passengers. Because it is widely agreed that few new large commercial airports will be built in the near future, many airport authorities have called for the expansion of existing airports, and at most airports this will involve an expansion of landside facilities. In the development of a terminal area plan, the objective is to achieve an acceptable balance between passenger convenience, operating efficiency, facility investment, and aesthetics.(51) One measure of convenience is walking distance and most authorities agree that 600 to 700 feet is a reasonable design criterion for passenger walking distances within a terminal and anything longer than 1000 feet is unacceptable.(27) However, as terminal buildings are expanded, walking distances will increase as the physical dimensions grow and in many cases these distances will become unacceptable. At some airports, it may not be possible to expand an individual terminal due to site contraints and an additional terminal must be constructed elsewhere on the airport site. As a result, the consideration and analysis of various transportation systems to reduce walking distances and provide for the efficient movement of passengers on the airport site will become an important component in studies as major airports review their terminal facilities to accommodate future air passenger demands. These systems will be referred to as "intra—airport transportation gygggmg" in this study and include vans, buses, moving walkways, and automated guideway transit systems that operate within the airport boundaries. In recent years there has been considerable interest in the application of automated guideway transit at airports. Such systems are currently in operation at Atlanta Hartsfield, Dallas-Fort Worth, Houston, Miami, Orlando, Seattle-Tacoma, and Tampa Airports and are being considered at several other airports. The potential of automated guideway transit was identified at a 1975 conference (2) on Airport Landside Capacity that discussed issues and research needs related to airport landside operations. Among the identified needs was the development of analytical tools to establish cost and service characteristics of automated guideway transit systems at airports. Although studies of intra-airport transportation systems have been done at several airports, they have been site specific and many basic questions have been raised: - At what volume does it become appropriate to employ an intra-airport transportation system or combination of systems? — Can criteria or guidelines be established which will assist the terminal planner in planning an intra-airport transportation system in the air passenger terminal complex? As air passenger demands increase, terminal planners will be facing intra—airport transportation problems at many airports. A need for planning guidelines and analytical tools to assist in the selection of the appropriate system to reduce these problems has been identified. 1.2 The Terminal Planning Process The planning of an intra—airport transportation system must be done in conjunction with the terminal. The development of a terminal design is performed in a series of four steps (14) - programming, concept development, schematic design, and design development - and the principal parties involved in this process will include the airport authority, the airport consultants, the airlines, and other tenants such as rental car agencies and concession operators. (1) Programming The initial step in the process defines objectives, and includes approximations of overall space requirements and preliminary estimates of anticipated capital investment, operating and maintenance costs. (2) Concept Development The space requirements determined in the programming phase are then allocated to various terminal arrangements or concepts. The terminal concept is a function of a number of factors, including the size and characteristics of traffic demand, the number of airlines to be served and the type of aircraft operated by these airlines, the traffic split between domestic, international, scheduled and charter flights, the available physical site, and ground access modes. Many alternatives are examined in this phase. For example, at the Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport, 48 basic alternatives for terminal and ground access system development were examined.(34) Consideration and analysis of intra—airport transportation systems must begin in the concept development phase as a decision to incorporate such a system will shape the terminal plan and its operations. (3) Schematic Design Schematic design translates several of the alternatives examined in the concept development phase into 7 plans which show the general size and location of the various elements in the terminal plan. Passenger routes through the terminal are specifically examined during this phase of the process and modelling techniques are beginning’ to be employed to identify passenger processing, travel and delay times, and the generation of lines at processing facilities. These analyses are used to determine the extent and size of facilities needed to provide a desired level of service to passengers and the impact of an intra-airport transportation system on other passenger processing facilities would be considered in this phase. (4) Design Development Detailed plans of a specific design are prepared in this phase. Capital budgeting, operating, maintenance, and administrative costs over the lifetime of the project are determined, and a revenue plan is adopted. Acceptance of the project by the airport authority, airlines, and tenants is the end result, and agreements are made on rate and charge structures for the airlines, concessionaires and other tenants to recover the costs of the development. The project then moves on toward implementation through the preparation of construction documents, tendering and awarding of contracts, construction, and operation of the facilities. 1.3 tudy Objectives The purpose of this study is the development of a planning technique to assist the terminal planner in the concept development and schematic design phases for incorporating an intra—airport transportation system. Specifically, the objectives are to: (1) Develop a framework for examining the application of intra-airport transportation systems. (2) Identify the appropriate intra-airport transportation system for different terminal concepts at different total and transfer air passenger demand levels. (3) Identify factors and guidelines that should be considered in the planning of an intra-airport transportation system. 1.4 Outline of the Research Past work in intra-airport transportation system planning, and development and applications of automated guideway transit are initially summarized. Then a methodology for the planning of intra—airport transportation systems and techniques that have been developed for this study are described. Using these, intra—airport transportation systems have been incorporated in "generic" terminals to develop general guidelines for the use of intra-airport transportation systems, and to identify appropriate systems for various passenger demand levels and terminal concepts. CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Introduction Ground transportation within the airport boundaries traditionally has been planned and designed in the context of terminal area development programs. As traffic volumes increased, cargo service and supply vehicles were separated. from passenger cars, limousines, and buses. Further improvements were achieved by providing separate curb levels for departing and arriving air passengers, and ultimately completely new terminal concepts were developed in order to accommodate the steadily increasing flow of passengers. In 1962, Tampa Florida's Hillsborough County Aviation Authority decided to take an innovative approach to planning new terminal facilities. Instead of simply collecting space, gate and concession requirements, the Authority engaged Leigh Fisher Associates, airport consultants, to survey, evaluate and compare all major U.S. terminals and make recommendations for the design of a new Tampa terminal. In their review of thirty major airports (10), it was found that walking distances tended to increase with the growth of air passengers as lengthening piers was the common means of expanding capacity. In virtually all cases, the walking distances were greater than generally 9 10 accepted maximum guidelines and walking distances were especially long for those passengers who must transfer between airlines. A separation of landside functions from airside functions was advanced as an effective solution for airport terminal design to reduce walking distances and more efficiently group related passenger and aircraft processing. This concept became known as the "satellite" concept. However, it was realized that the success of any such concept would be dependent upon a means of transferring air passengers efficiently and comfortably between airside and landside. The satellite concept was adopted for Tampa Airport, in which a clear separation between landside and airside functions was delineated and a system developed by Westinghouse was selected to shuttle passengers between the airside and landside components of the terminal. This marked the first application of a transit technology known as "Automated Guideway Transit" (AGT), and many felt that airports would be an ideal application of this type of system. The Westinghouse system (also known as "Skybus" or "Transit Expressway") was being developed with the support of the 0.8. government through an urban transit technology program. In the early 1960's, the Urban Mass Transportation Administration (UMTA) of the Federal Department of Transportation (U.S.DOT) decided to support investigations into advanced transit technology as a means of reviving urban transit and one of the early projects in . 11 this program was assistance to the Westinghouse Electric Company for the development of an automated guideway transit system. 2.2 Automated Guideway Transit Automated Guideway Transit (AGT) describes a class of transportation in which unmanned vehicles are operated on fixed guideways in exclusive rights-of—way. Within the general category of ACT, three classifications have been identified according to different service concepts, routing, and scheduling capabilities. (1) Shuttle-loop transit or single line transit (SLT) (2) Group rapid transit (GRT) (3) Personal rapid transit (PRT) The SLT is the simplest AGT system. The system utilizes larger vehicles (carrying mostly standees) along a single route with stops at stations along the way. The vehicles are usually confined to one line, which can be a linear shuttle or closed into a loop, and stop at all or most stations on the line. A GRT system generally uses fleets of medium sized vehicles that provide service on interconnecting routes. The system is typified by a moderate amount of networking and the use of off-line stations. PRT describes a system of small vehicles (two to six passengers) that provides origin-to-destination, demand responsive service at very short headways. PRT systems have off-line stations that are connected by an integrated 12 guideway network. The Westinghouse system that was installed at the Tampa Airport is an example of the SLT system classification and the layout is shown in Figure 2.1. Vehicles shuttle passengers between the central landside terminal building and an airside building. Several other SLT systems were built in the late 1960's and early 1970's in other airports, amusement parks, and exhibition grounds. The system at the Seattle-Tacoma Airport, as shown in Figure 2.2, consists of two one-way loops located in tunnels under the apron, and a shuttle in the main terminal building. Following the initial interest and identification of potential, the Federal government initiated a program to further develop AGT technologies. In 1970, funding was made available for three major demonstration projects - the TRANSPO 72 exhibition and GRT installations at the new regional airport for Dallas-Fort Worth, and on the campus of West Virginia University, Morgantown, West Virginia. Today, there are over two dozen AGT systems in operation and nine are located at airports. Characteristics of these airport systems are summarized in Table 2.1. The majority are SLT type and provide transportation within a terminal. At the William B. Hartsfield - Atlanta Airport, the AGT system is operated in an underground transportation mall that connects four satellite terminals to a central processing building. In .nhma Honouoo .ucmEmmmcmz mooa>umm .mmEme um mmmoosm m we um>oz mamomm pwumeou5¢= "condom unomufl< uuomuwd mmee no Eoumwm uflmcmue >m3wpflno poumEoun< on» we uncamq H.m ousmflm Doom CH meom H J. u a u - com o _ «.1 ..::=1 II II \\ \\ ... 5.— 53:...— II/ II \\ “\ II IIIIII 8.5.1:: 3.5.2....— \“\““ I IIII 3.3.3.1. \ \ II I/AI) E\“ \ \ «JILlVluv .i .fli—ill \\ w. 8.1— 3 l («I nit—...: 3.59m 56. i e r a X %.r i. W In R a. l4 .Hema .mmmxomm coflumEn0mcH I Ewumxw uwmcmue muHHHmumm uuomufim HmcoHumcuoucH maoomaioauumom "condom unomufld mEoomeimauummm um Eoum>m ufimcmue >m3opflnw poumEounm mo usoxmq N.N gunman poem as mamom 15 cogquonuoo canvas—u ooaogwcaueoa ._00_ 6. .ucn Iouuu toavcu use. so IIthI «Icudauo II vIoI—aod .ocu Ilsa-hm BonuIULOA loans» scans: IO«»I»°ALOU nauseous Ieaoguzaueea .AIIIucIue co .vIuIII Nuv IIIGCIIIIA No— me AuuUIaIu o—ou£I> .Ivut .uu _~ v:- ov.) .u. o ..co. .uu an I. o~u¢£0> .nIIochuI o .vIuIII 0v IuIUCIIIIA N- no hu«UI§Io cauago> .go.g .u. «x. h vsI Iva) .uu a ..coa .uu «\_ n. Ia I~u«£I> zqu .AIIIvCIuI quv IuIOGIIIIA oo- uo uu«UI¢Iu InauzIa .go.g yoga .. ecu ov.: a... o .a:o~ «II. on 0‘ Iuoast .oluu qulv .90. an th IAIIVIIs ouacul N .aoou I II Ilau can» IquoaI .cul u.a .eol on no moon. IOIuIaI II uI IquIao ecquu Ignace: 0:02 Oiu no Inocam .Iluu nus)! BoaquI .UII an .aoon vIBOII Ila» tuna IOILISI .c—l a. .vooao [aluxIl :6- n— uI Iqu050 I608 IIquu th n .Ilau ago)! I‘IuoaI UII en .0I.» aauu IIIuI>I gal n- uI IthIBI Ice: II—vasoa Inocua hohq—UUCUDC! InUu£I> Imus Ivan-quuUIhIAU ulcoqutho .Ampm. Ion-am quIIuh Iu.quuIm 0:» II sjocd Ia lIuIAI 0£P .IOIAI 23 have: «0553 I ca Ina—uouII I so.) uecqlhou «IsucIu ogu Iacu~ III couuuouav 0:6 cu vIquoso In noon sold ...-on .uu 00-0 Ia beau assoc or» as. ocou .uu Gena I. boom £030. elk .IUuauII .IucIvuau Invest. I ha ‘0 00¢ ecu IIIA tuUIIIOU Icoon N no saunas. i~ uIaceu tun: dean-«Icou lea-AI quAuu< I ch sISIVaso Isaac uIIIIIoIa vIaIl uIcoqucuoucu o cocoa u iflOU Iqul s.— nua- iOaaI unsuonaleo I IIOUIhiouquIn .onqu us.:. or» 6093903 voolua .IIuI oqubIb IuI Iuoucl 60¢» IuoIIu I mcI .uouos luavcu qucun I .IuIculqu huI 3F .3 n 302339 lea-nu Iconocoo I I» .Iuouol Ibuuuavcu .occau ca cougar -. sou.» yoga.“ an vouuoaoua vIuIUOJ ocuaaa «Isu- IuI II—ngIa Isa abacuu< .eoo~ quauUSLuI suds) Id 500‘ 1000—0 nIucocquoouIac~ o vIIouo . IquI n.- «no— ‘IuIIIaII squat £00.90. .vIuIaI—I on. .oeo~ ... coo. o» co. .I5IIJUqu can .ooeao—aaa .IUCIvuau you IVaquI I Baa) IIIAiu uIIuI dads—«:3 IvuevsI— quIIu tau: hIJ I ucuuoocseu vocal uuoaqu remap. Iu0u0600 tauaI saga. lune». aIcoqucquI— 0 «III I IIual I._ _so_ Iguassu boocIIIIs ¢ IIIIP Icoaquu no ulna no oumwmflmlll Inuamflu flmuuflduoaoo co—uuwoa lIthu Incuu «0 I500; no ocascad we no boa-:3 boa-a: cane a gang-a an... manomuwfl um mEmumwm ufimcmue opflso pmumEous¢ H.N manna 16 .A000VCI00 unIv 0000:000Ia co. .0 >0.uIdIu 0000500 .0000 -0Dp 0dI00>I 0:000. en .00.» 0000 00I00>I .00000—00 000 lI00t~ «000. coaquoauou .:w«£ .0u __ 000 00300! — .snl 000000 £003 >03 0000u0~u .000) .00 o .0000 N\_ o. .cuInu i00aal 000uucou 003050000003 .00 on 0— 0~0050> 000: 0~UN£I> 0)P N 000— N .0000! «.0 One. .0»I’0I0£ 0000000 000000 .A000vCIu. co. .00l«0 .0 .000000 «0030 00000. 0.0 0.00:0..IA Om nN .0000. 0000 .00000000 00. ac 50.0IAIU 0~00£0> 0:00Iu000 £00 1000 II00I~ n000. 00000000000 .30“: .0u __ 0:0 nNio_ .000000 tsuau 000000 :0.) AI: vauuuouu .000) 00 N\_ o .Ucon 0—0000) «0—30 0000>00 i0vaan 00000000 00:00wc—0003 .0u on .0 0—0000: 0:02 00 0~ucum —_ 0:0 .00nul n.N one. .05030000 0OIu0>I 00000. .A.0000000 on .0l00 ~u030 .000000—0 IN .000I0. 0UI00>I .00. nu MON .00000 o_v 0000:0000a ca .0000. 000300 00 Non .AIJ uo A0quBIO 0~u«£0> £50 N— 00 0:« 000300 0000:» ~0CCI£U .00.; .0u o. I0I0000 00.000 ncuaoe~ 000010-: 00000 00.00000000 SCI 00—) .0. N .wcon 0~0050>i030 00 is0>0 .0 I000 000000000: urwao> ... _~ .. u~u.;~> AN.” o—u.;o> o..c.m an arcane: ..o_.l n. «no. 0003000u3ccr t~u.£0> 0000 0;«0¢.000000I£U Icoaqum LC ldwm 00 I vuluham 000>00m ~00000I0000 0o00m no mace; L0 wc_cc:¢ .0 .0 L0AIDZ Lvnlaz yeah a £0wc04 uheum .nucavecoca x00:0 0000.20 .m.= €000~0I00 00: 000: 0:) 0000000000 VO 0.: U>aI3n 0K0 000 v0>00000 .0 000 0:0 .5I300—an £000 60 0:0000 000 0:0 ch 0hI00vaau also :00) I000». 00005:. v000l0030 human < .~—II :— 000000~ 000 IAII ud—I) 000:0! .60000 0:0 0000: 000000~ 000050 I qul 0000000000000h I :0 00000000 I000hm ...:avaaaa 00.. 3000 000000 0 ‘00) 00.0.0000 00.00000 N 000100” I000». 000" 003000-0030 0.u0>00 sou-lous- a-ae < .AI000am 00‘00000AMHMHH uuoauwuv mz<0h¢.< vounIu .0 [000». 05? .50300030 00000—000 I :0 ocqu I0000 00‘00000 00000 iuoaaau .0000300 500000000000 00.: 000.5. 05h .su.~.uuu nun-u.- II 000 ..00000000u a0I000II00 .0000. 0:01.00 00000. .uuuor o ...:.v~.:a ~0:«Iu00 0 00000000 £003) I000». ucu>ol caqu 000 00mc000Ia sou-sous. m_~:. < uhOAba( NICO—000000:— 0.00! uhOAba¢ ~I¢0000000000 000.0000I: I0¢I~0< 000000< ~I¢00w0¢ £0003 .0u|00——ID ii. llilillll. :0.WN«LC.0G A.@.ucoov coauIUOJ 0000>m H.N CHDMB 17 muhmnch cofluma>m .munomwwm 00m mEmummm :oflumuuomncmue pcsouo mo mo>05m .00a:00!00 0:0000:«w:m 0:0 .0.>OO :00»... .00.: £00000. ho !3«0 .CONDMEHOMCH newsman paw .Ammma pmmw>0uv mhma .mnowu mcflxaoz .A000pc000 «M .000000 .0000! :000 (000:0 000:0" .:000:000:0 .:0«0000 ~00: £00000n I :00) ~I:«!000 000 30: 0:0000::00 .0000! "OUHDOW i00.:00 I t 0:000 00 000n:0.000 00 >0~mIz .0:0000 i0030 manna .!000m. 0000000 .x.: 00>0t 0~aoom 05b 00 m0000000 0‘0—500 0:02 0—0050) 03P N "0:0 _ 00—06 0.0 «no. 0000350 000:00000 < .lIzwcul0un .0000 ~0030 .a000p:000 No .00000. .00. On .0I—0 .mcup—«aa 0v 0000:00.In oo- 00 0000 .000 m0 .00:Iv«:0 000 0000000 :0 :00) 50000000 0~0050> .0000. 0&00000 I000:— «000. wapnaas 00«Iv:0— 00000000000 .zwuz .0u —_ :0! n— 00 000:00 5003 m0: 0 0:0000::00 .0000! 000000< 000000~m 0:0 000) .00 0 .w:0~ 0000000 0:0000 i0paan 00000000 -0000 manna .!00.>. 10.3000 0.00:»:00003 .0» on 00 0—0050> 0:02 0—0050: 0)P N 0030 u .00—«! 0.0 moo. 00003:. 00uc00000 I .x.: .000coq .0!«0 "N030 0n000>0 0:000. .xuuoucauo o~ .0000 5.00 ...:.v..:p u~0v 0000:00000 00— 0Q000>0 .00. co .00:Iv—:u 00000.0 030 :00) .0 a0000000 0~0050> .0000. 0&000>0 000 !000I— .0000 0:00—03: 00000:0~ .500; .00 __ 0:0 :0! n. 00 000:00 £003 m0) 0 w:0000::00 .0000! 00on0a< 000000~m .0003 .0u o .wcon 0000000 .:«000 I0vuaw 00000:OU i0030 A—nzu .!000h. ~I:0000:000:— 0.30:0:00003 .0u on 00 0~0050> 0:02 0~0010> 0)? 0 000— N .0000! n._ .00- 0~000£0 000000000 0 ovce~0o 0002000uac0x 0~00£0> 0000 000000000000050 .c00000m 00 elm; 00 000u0nm 000>00m :oawmw0000o :0_00004 I000>m ~0:0.0000oo 0a00m .0 .0000 .0 w:.:::¢ .0 .0 00£!:z 000522 0ahh a £0wc00 0000m A.@.DCOUV H.N CHQMB 18 addition to the AGT system, moving walkways have been located in the mall. The system layout and typical cross—section of the mall is shown in Figure 2.3. The most extensive system is the GRT system (called "Airtrans") located at the Dallas-Fort Worth Regional Airport and it is used to provide airport circulation on a thirteen mile network as shown in Figure 2.4, that links four terminals. a hotel, and remote parking areas on the site. 2.3 Intra-Airport Transportation System§_ The interest in automated guideway transit and its potential application for intra-airport transportation was first documented in the late 1960's. One of the initial studies (11) was completed in 1969 by the Institute for Defense Analyses for the 0.8. Department of Transportation as one of a series of studies done to provide tools and techniques for planners of major activity centers to select systems for the efficient movement of goods, vehicles, and people. The study summarized the intra-airport transportation problem and identified the airport as an excellent showcase for AGT. Three possible applications were identified: (1) airport circulation - to provide for the transportation of people on the airport site between the terminal buildings and parking lots, or a regional rapid transit station. Cargo areas, hotels and other activity centers could be incorporated on this network. (Example system: "Airtrans" at Dallas-Fort Worth Regional Airport.) Landside Terminal , n-‘u \- A. .6?“ p3 ( in; . - Maintenance \ l / Mechanical} . f2": 3 - . v AGT Guideway Layout 0 1000 Scale in Feet Cross Section of Underground Transportation Mall Figure 2.3 Layout and Mall Cross Section of Automated Guideway Transit System at Atlanta Hartsfield Airport William B. Hartsfield - Atlanta International Airport Source: Information Folder, 1979. 20 REMOTE PARKING BRANIFF OZARK FRONTIER TEXAS I INTERNATIONAL EASTERN HOTE L — AMERICAN CONTINENTAL FUTURE TERMINAL DELTA LEGEND Supplies and Train Sllllon Plunger Smion Employee Smlon luau: und Mall Station C]. O +‘ __REMOTE PARKING 0/ ‘ TRANSPORTATION CENTER 0 1000 2000 L__¢__1_____J + 3:; Scale in Feet Figure 2.4 Layout of Automated Guideway Transit System (Airtrans) at Dallas-Fort Worth Regional Airport Source: Transit Technology Evaluation - A Literature Capsule, UMTA, U.S.D.O.T., 1981. 21 (2) intra-terminal - to provide for the movement of people between the central area of a terminal and a remote area of the terminal, or a remote satellite terminal where aircraft gate positions are located. (Example systems at Seattle-Tacoma and Tampa airports.) (3) inter-terminal - to link several terminal buidings together and provide transportation primarily for passengers transferring from one terminal to another. (Example system at Atlanta Airport.) A conclusion of this study was that "AGT may be unable to compete economically with more conventional manually operated transportation alternatives because the automated systems are capital intensive relative to the wage intensive manually operated systems. However, automated transit may produce additional benefits (e.g. greater comfort and more convenience) to more than Justify the greater costs." No analyses were included in this study to quantify these costs and benefits. One of the objectives of the study was to determine the applicability of analytic techniques for studying intra-airport transportation problems. The study chose to discuss specific examples of analytical techniques and how they relate to airport problems. Two models were developed to illustrate what could be done with fairly simple techniques and included a Simple Model for Loop Transportation Systems, and an Airport Parking Cost Tradeoff Analysis. 22 The study also recognized that simulation was a vital tool, and several simulation models have been developed for airport planning. However, the study stated that wherever possible, "analytic models should be used first to help structure the problem and bring to light those questions that can only be efficiently answered with simulation." The intra-airport transportation system was also separated into the same three elements or sub—systems by Leonard H. Quick in a paper (33) presented at the 1969 ASCE National Meeting on Transportation Engineering, and suggested that each must be examined individually to determine if the total requirements can be satisfied by a single system type. or if separate transportation devices will be required. "The decision on basic system type is primarily dependent on such factors as system design capacity, overall route length, station separation, and desired start of operation. The choice of an optimum system type can be made only after an in-depth analysis of the specific requirements of an individual airport." The paper includes a list of items which must be considered in the development of design criteria for the intra-airport system and these are presented in Table 2.2. In a 1971 review (29) of intra-airport passenger systems by John Nammack, it was indicated that "no single people mover system can satisfy all of the transit requirements encountered at different types of airports and the selection of a system is largely a matter of local 23 Table 2.2 Factors to Consider in Developing Design Criteria for Intra—Airport Transportation Systems DESIGN REQUIREMENTS I I J 1 MASTER PLAN OPERATIONAL TECHNICAL CRITERIA CRITERIA CRITERIA AIRPORT CAPACITY o OPERATING POLICIES o SYSTEM CAPACITY AIRPORT ACCESS o PASSENGER ACCEPTANCE 0 PERFORMANCE TERMINAL DESIGN 0 PASSENGER, DAGGAGE, AND 0 SAFETY CARGO PROCEDURES PARKING AREAS . RELIABILITY 0 EMPLOYEE TRANSPORTATION STATION PLATFORMS 0 MAINTENANCE ‘ 0 TRANSPORTATION INTERFACES MAINTENANCE AREAS 0 COMFORT 0 OPERATIONAL FLEXIDILITY ROUTE CORRIDORS 0 NOISE. POLLUTION AND 0 EXPANSION CAPABILITY ELECTRICAL INTERFERENCE CLEARANCE ENVELOPE 0 FINANCIAL CRITERIA CONTROL AND COMMUNICATIONS AESTHETICS Source: "Design Criteria for Intra-Airport Transportation Systems," Leonard H. Quick, 1969. 24 decision, based upon local requirements and desired ‘ standards of service determined by individual airport technical committees and their consultants." In a 1970 Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) presentation (36) before a National Air Transportation Meeting, Shields and Lindell discussed performance specifications that should be considered in the use of automated guideway transit for intra-airport service. Such aspects as capacity, seating, Operating frequency, trip time, verification testing, and service life, and requirements for maintainance areas, train control, communications, power supply, and safety are described. They also stress that "the development of the terminal building and intra-airport system must begin in the concept phase and proceed in parallel through planning and design." Much of the early literature on intra-airport transportation systems describes the potential for use of automated guideway transit but few techniques are presented to assist the planner in incorporating these systems in the airport. 2.4 AGT Development Following the federal investments in the three demonstration projects in the early 1970's, the U.S. Senate Transportation Appropriations Committee directed the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) to investigate the potential of ACT systems as a general form of urban transit. In 1975, OTA published "Automated 25 Guideway Transit: An Assessment of PRT and Other New Systems," (30) which reviewed the state-of-the-art of U.S. and foreign developments in AGT, and recommended substantial additional research into AGT technology, cost, and socioeconomic and environmental impacts. In response, the Urban Mass Transportation Administration (UMTA) began several major research programs in 1976. The ACT Socio-Economic Research Program (52) was structured to perform a systematic analysis of the operation, social, economic, institutional, and environmental issues related to AGT to determine where and under what conditions AGT would prove feasible. The program consisted of five principal activities. (1) Assessment of existing U.S. and foreign operational AGT systems to compile information on the technical, economic, performance aspects, and limitations of AGT. Assessments have been conducted for the ACT systems operating at six airports - Atlanta (20), Dallas-Fort Worth (42,43), Houston (40), Miami (21) , Seattle-Tacoma (39), and Tampa (38). (2) Cost Studies using data from the assessments to analyze information on capital, operating, and maintenance costs. An initial summary was made in 1978 (22) and supplements have been completed in subsequent years (23.45.46.47). Size, configuration, type, and cost vary widely among AGT systems, and thus it is difficult to develop 26 construction, operating and maintenance cost estimates for a proposed system. "A site specific analysis is required to prepare an estimate of costs at a particular 1ocation."(22) A computerized model (13) to calculate the life cycle costs of an AGT system was developed to assist in the evaluation of proposed alternatives. (3) Alternatiyes Analyses to examine the ability of ACT systems relative to other modes. The most extensive project of this activity was the "Generic Alternatives Analyses" (35) and its objective was to identify appropriate applications for AGT. This was done by comparing AGT systems against automobile, bus, rail, and pedestrian systems in several potential urban applications. Basic service characteristics were identified by which modes could be matched against transportation needs. Comparative demand levels, capital and operating costs, and the socio-economic and environmental impacts were examined at a sketch planning level of detail. It was concluded that AGT systems are competitive with bus and rail modes in major activity centers, corridors, and for area-wide networks in metropolitan regions with populations of more than half a million, and the most promising applications of ACT systems are in activity centers. The activity centers that were examined included downtown business districts, diversified centers, and university campuses. Airports were not considered as it was felt that ACT in the airport 27 environment is unlikely to have to compete significantly with other modes. Any AGT installation would probably be the only mode for the primary passenger movement involved. (4) Market Research to ascertain the nature and magnitude of the potential market for AGT systems. A forecast of the national market for AGT applications was made and summarized in the report, "An Analysis of the U.S. Market for Automated Guideway Transit."(19) The work. included the development of hypothetical AGT networks for eleven case study sites and analyses of cost and benefits for potential AGT applications. It was recognized that airports are already a developed market for AGT and federal intervention to facilitate deployments appeared to be unnecessary. The growth in air traffic has necessitated such substantial expansions in the physical size of many airports that longer walking distances separating terminals are unacceptable. Although no estimate was made of the number of airports involved, it is anticipated that as airports grow, the use of AGT is likely to increase as the physical dimensions grow or space constraints require that additional terminals be constructed in inaccessible locations. (5) Communications to disseminate findings and conclusions of the other four research activities. A concurrent research effort was the AGT Supporting Technology Program that included a series of "hardware" oriented studies. One series of reports (7) dealing with 28 ACT guideway and stations, provides extensive data in the current state-of-the-art in AGT facility design, including station and guideway elements, construction techniques, materials selection, and weather protection. Other reports deal with vehicle design, power distribution, safety and security, system operations, and other technological matters. A major activity in this program was the development of a set of AGT system planning models (24) which permit the user to prepare detailed cost and service information for a proposed AGT deployment given zone to zone trip demand data, feeder characteristics, station locations and configurations, and network geometry. These models have been prepared primarily for urban networks and would be used in the detailed design phase of a project. A third program involved demonstration projects that would use AGT to provide downtown circulation. UMTA solicited proposals for the design and implementation of such projects and the systems adopted the name "DPM" - Downtown People Movers. Several cities responded, however following the planning, review, and selection process, only two cities have proceeded with DPM projects. Systems are now under construction in Detroit and Miami. To assist cities proposing or considering downtown circulation systems, reports (44) have been prepared that bring together state-of—the-art in planning concepts, methods and data. Methodologies are described that range from the simplest, initial review of potential feasibility to the 29 most detailed DPM impact assessments involving computer simulations. 2.5 Planning of AGT for Airpgrt Application As a result of the federal programs, fairly extensive work has been completed on AGT and its application in urban areas. Although some of this work is applicable to all deployments, the airport does provide some differences and the techniques developed for the urban setting cannot be directly transferred. However, recognition of AGT has been made in air terminal planning studies. A 1973 study by the Ralph Parsons Company (32) identified that the increased use of wide-body aircraft and the steady, long term growth of traffic volumes have resulted in a need for larger terminals. More expansive facilities, in turn, have caused walking distances within terminals to increase and the use of various people moving systems have been adopted in recent terminal expansion programs to avoid the long walking distances inherent in some terminal designs. "Moving walkways have been found to be useful for distances of 400 to 500 feet and a series of moving walkways may be used for distances greater than 500 feet. When the travel distances exceed 1000 feet, AGT systems would seem to have potential application."(32) Some have felt that since present moving walkway systems operate at less than normal walking speed, their applications have been limited so work has proceeded 30 on the development of accelerating walkways. These units would be boarded at speeds of present walkways and would accelerate the standing pedestrian to speeds up to 10 mph and then decelerate so that the pedestrian Can alight safely. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, the Tri-State Planning Commission, and UMTA are currently involved in a research program (12) leading to the demonstration of an accelerating walkway system. Studies conducted at Washington National (6) and Seattle-Tacoma (4) Airports indicate that accelerating walkways would be well suited to many intra-airport transportation requirements and in some cases comparable to AGT. The Parsons study stresses that detailed analyses of the intra-airport transportation requirements and the interrelationship with other terminal activities, such as baggage handling, must be conducted to justify the expense that these systems impose upon the airport. Planning recommendations for terminal building areas and apron space were developed in a 1975 study (31) by the Ralph Parsons Company. General material was included on the application of people mover systems and a list of factors was presented, Table 2.3, as a guide for the planning of such systems in the air terminal complex. However, no specific guidelines or analytical techniques for people mover systems were presented. In 1975, a conference on Airport Landside Capacity (2) 31 Table 2.3 Identification List to Guide in Planning People Mover Systems at Airports 1. Identification of level of service - Convenience - Time - Distances travelled or walked 2. Identification of system users - Passengers - Well-wishers - Visitors . Airport and airline employees 3. Identification of areas of system utilization and distances to be travelled - Inbound (a) aircraft to terminal (b) terminal to baggage claim (c) baggage claim to parking - remote - close-in (d) baggage claim to curb - Outbound (a) parking to check-in - remote - close-in (b) check-in to waiting (c) waiting to aircraft - Transfer (a) aircraft to terminal (b) terminal to terminal (c) terminal to aircraft 4. Identification of peak flows - Airport passenger peaks (a) inbound (b) outbound (c) transfer 5. Identification of system capable of moving patrons within the terminal conveniently - Walking - Moving Walkways - Elevators 32 Table 2.3 (Cont'd.) - Escalators . Fixed Guideway Systems (a) wheeled vehicles (b) tracked vehicles (c) roadway vehicles - buses 6. Identification of interchange between internal system and external transit system - Rapid transit with total subsystem - Rapid transit direct to terminal check-in 7. Identification of transitions within the internal system - Vertical and horizontal systems - Moving walkways and vehicles - Vehicles and escalators - Vehicles and elevators 8. Identification of special terminal construction needed for transit systems - Rights-of-way for people moving systems and walkways, where required Elevated guideways Tunnels Stations, platforms Maintenance areas Equipment storage areas Blast protection Power and control center 9. Identifcation of environmental problems of transit systems - Type of motive power - Power source - Power quantity required 10. Identification of maintenance and operations Manpower Substation Backup systems Maintenance Monitoring operations Source: The Apron and Terminal Building Planning Manual. Ralph M. Parsons Company, 1975. 33 was held in Tampa, Florida and sponsored by the Transportation Systems Center and Federal Aviation Administration, U.S.D.O.T. The conference brought together many groups and agencies that were involved in airport landside operations to discuss issues on this subject and identify research needs. The use of automated guideway transit systems at airports was identified as one of those needs. "Although the initial impetus for the development of ACT technology was provided by the desire to develop less labor intensive solutions to urban transit problems, the major application of ACT has been at airports. This phenomenon is probably the result of a number of factors: intra-airport transportation problems are relatively self-contained, the capital cost of an automated transit system is a relatively low percentage of the total facility cost, airport authorities are generally more comfortable with high technology systems, airport operations demand a high level of transit service over long periods of operation, the airport may more easily integrate ACT, ACT permits increased flexibility in developing airport terminal configurations, and a more cost-effective solution may be provided by ACT than by more conventional transit modes."(2) "Further research is needed to determine ways for reducing the risk involved in the deployment of ACT systems at airports, develop analytical tools to establish the cost 34 and service characteristics of ACT systems, and perform cost-benefit studies to establish whether AGT is a feasible intra-airport transit solution."(2) In a 1975 paper (48), E. Bryan Tutty indicated that virtually all terminal concepts, despite expansion, can maintain their efficiency and passenger acceptability by incorporating transit systems. The systems which can be employed vary, and "only the airport authority and the airlines at a particular airport can determine the installation best suited to their specific requirements." Tutty describes systems that can or are being used and provides examples on how the capacity of various terminal concepts can be extended by the use of people moving systems. AGT has been examined for possible application at many airports,and the studies have generally been site specific following a conventional "systems approach," namely developing measures of effectiveness, generating alternative courses of action, modelling performance, carrying out a multi-criteria evaluation of the alternatives, and then selecting the preferred alternative. One recent study (26), conducted by Transport Canada, examined intra-airport transportation on a wider scope, although it was site specific to Pearson (Toronto) International Airport. The study included an assessment of systems at other airports, a literature review, and the development of a two-stage framework for analyzing the wide 35 range of ground transportation options available to airport planners. The first phase evaluated several circulation system alternatives using a "short list" of the most vital measures of effectiveness. The measures were grouped under four general headings and included: Transportation - convenience - walking time, waiting time - accessibility - coverage of activity centers - reliability - dependability of service Financial - flexibility - ability to modify the system to meet changes in demand — cost - life cycle costs of installation, operation and maintenance. Social - ease of implementation - number of external factors, disruptiveness, magnitude of initial investment. Environmental - environmental impact - emissions, noise, visual intrusion A subjective ranking scheme was used to measure the performance of each of the system alternatives. Weightings were developed for each measure of effectiveness according to the perspective of the group impacted. Six impact groups were identified as airport management, airport users, airport employees, airlines, ground transportation operators, and other levels of government. In the first phase of the evaluation process the impact group weightings 36 were estimated by the study team. In the second phase, these weightings were actually measured using focus group market research techniques. The result of the first phase was the pruning down of the alternatives to three promising candidates. To permit more detailed evaluation, representative hardware systems for each of the three alternatives were chosen and manufacturers of these systems were requested to provide expertise on what they considered to be the optimal application of their systems to the Toronto airport problem. In the second phase, the shorter list of alternatives were compared using an expanded list of measures of effectiveness that included the following measures in addition to those evaluated in the first phase. Transportgplpp_ - compatability with plans, programs and priorities of the airport and surrounding community - compatability with air operations - comprehensibility (i.e. ease of understanding how to use the system) - baggage handling capability - cargo handling capability - comfort Financial — revenue generation potential - energy conservation - industrial development potential 37 Social - safety and security - equity of treatment of all sectors of society (i.e. ability to handle handicapped travellers) Environmental_ - preservation or enhancement of quality of life The alternatives that were studied for the Toronto Airport were designed to provide intra-airport circulation and a wide range of possible operating policy and land use alternatives had to be incorporated in the planning process. Since each of these alternatives would generate unique demands on the intra—airport circulation system, a decision tree of development options was used, Figure 2.5. Once a path through the decision tree was established, the design demand for the system could be determined and then the system could be laid out and sized to serve the demand. The selection of an intra-airport transportation system represents tradeoffs among several factors. In a paper by McCoomb (25), the tradeoffs that decision makers must make in choosing between automated guideway transit systems and conventional bus alternatives were summarized as follows: Factors fgvorgpg AGT system§_ capacity level of service - convenience - reliability 38 (1'0“ W0 'MW" "Oh .LDI new; (15' / .. N 0" Development Decisions Include: Figure Source: will there be a third terminal (T3), or not, in the short to middle run? how will the airlines be allocated between the terminals? Will it be according to a transfer minimizing strategy (ST) or according to some other plan (AP)? will additional airport user parking be constructed remotely (RPu), centrally (CPe) or not at all? will a hotel be constructed remotely (HR), centrally (HC), or not at all? where will the employee parking be located which is dislocated by the construction of Terminal #3 (RPe), centrally (CPe) or not at all? will there be a central (bus) ground gransportation terminal provided remotely (RGT), as part of the Terminal #3 (GT3), centrally (GTC), at Terminal #2 (GT2), or not at all? 2.5 Decision Tree of Development Options for Pearson (Toronto) International Airport "Planning Intra-Airport Transportation: A Frameworflc for Decision Making," L. A. McCoomb, 1983. 39 - comfort - equity environmental impact Factors favoripgpbus systems cost flexibility ease of implementation 2.6 Summary of Literature Considerable work has been done on automated guideway transit (ACT) and the planning for these systems in urban areas, but the literature on planning of ACT for airports and intra-airport transportation systems is very limited, and site specific. However, it has been identified that airports provide an ideal application for AGT and it is anticipated that as airports grow the use of ACT is likely to increase. At the 1975 Tampa conference on Airport Landside Capacity the use of AGT at airports was identified as a research need and specifically the need for analytical tools to establish cost and service characteristics of ACT systems and studies to establish whether AGT is a feasible intra-airport transit solution. This study will fill a need that has not been met by previous work by providing a framework to examine intra-airport transportation system alternatives in the concept phase of terminal planning. Analytical techniques to determine service characteristics and to incorporate the 40 intra-airport transportation systems with other terminal planning models will be developed and guidelines will be identified to assist terminal planners in examining terminal and intra-airport transportation system alternatives. CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY 3.1 Introduction The ability of many airports to handle future air passenger demands is constrained by the capacity of landside facilities and airport authorities are now faced with the problem of either finding a new site, changing air terminal operations, or expanding terminal facilities. Due to financial, environmental and other factors, it is likely that few new large airports will be built in the near future.(2) Operational changes, such as airline scheduling and gate allocation, may only provide a short term solution. As a result, airport authorities will likely concentrate their efforts on terminal expansion. A number of questions must then be addressed in the conceptual phase of the planning process. - Can an existing terminal be expanded or extended, or is a new terminal required? - If a new terminal is required, where should it be located? What terminal concept should be used? - Is an intra—airport transportation system required? - If an intra-airport transportation system is required, what mode should it be? What route should it follow? How much will the intra-airport transportation system cost and what will its impact 41 42 be on overall terminal operations and costs? Figure 3.1 illustrates the decisions facing the terminal planner that can lead to the need for an intra-airport transportation system. Two categories or classes of systems are identified: (1) intra-terminal - designed for the movement of passengers within an individual terminal. (2) inter-terminal - designed for the movement of passengers between terminals. Consideration for this type of system would be made where an additional terminal is being planned. Although not shown in Figure 3.1, a third class would be a circulation system that links terminal buildings with remote parking lots, cargo area, hotels and other facilities on or adjacent to the airport. Among the factors that would be considered in the expansion of facilities is passenger convenience. One measure of convenience is walking distance and when distances exceed a specified level, consideration should be made to reduce the distances. A reduction might be made by examining alternative terminal layouts and locations, or it may be necessary to provide some type of transportation system. A framework for the planning of intra—airport transportation systems and techniques that have been developed for this study are described in this chapter. Using these, intra-airport transportation systems have been 43 Expected Problems from Increase in Passenger Demand J New Site I Operational Expansion of Facilities Changes at Existing Site Extend/Expand Build New Existing Terminal Terminal Passenger Convenience? l Intra-Terminal Transit System 1 Location of Terminal 1 Passenger Convenience? J Inter-Terminal Transit System I 1 Terminal Concept [ Passenger Convenience? L Intra-Terminal Transit System Figure 3.1 Decisions Facing Airport Terminal Planners 44 incorporated in "generic" terminals to develop general guidelines for the use of intra-airport systems, and to identify appropriate systems for various passenger demand levels and terminal concepts. 3.2 glgnning Intra-Airport Transportation Systems The planning of an intra-airport transportation system can be described by eight basic steps as shown in Figure 3.2. (1) measure walking distances (2) compare measured distances to guidelines (3) identify potential application of intra-airport transportation system(s) (4) develop alternatives (5) test alternatives (6) evaluate alternatives (7) select preferred alternative (8) prepare implementation plan (1) Mggsure Walking Distances An initial step in the planning of intra-airport transportation system would be to measure the walking distances for three types of air passengers. The distances that would be measured include: (a) curb to departure gate for originating passengers (b) arrival gate to curb for terminating passengers (c) arrival gate to departure gate for connecting or transferring passengers Typical routes through the terminal area can be scaled from 45 Measure Walking Distance Compare to Guidelines or Objective No Additional l Satisfactor ? Yes . . l ‘X‘ AnalySis Required. No Can Terminal Be Yes ‘Redesigned to Reduce WalkingiDistance? I NO Potential Application of Intra-Airport Transportation System % Lyser Characteristics [Number of Users‘ 44 Develop Alternatives - mode - route alignment Airline & Airport‘ Operations Mode and Route Limitations rTest Alternatives_}-———- iEvaluate Alternatives F—LEvaluation Criteria] Select Preferred Alternative 1 Develop Plan for Implementation Figure 3.2 Framework for Intra-Airport Transportation SystenI Planning 46 preliminary layout plans or taken from network diagrams that are prepared as input for terminal analysis models. (2) Compare Measured Distances to Guidelines The measured distances are then compared to an objective or guidelines identified by the airport authority. In most cases, maximum walking distances are specified. Most authorities agree that 600 to 700 feet is a reasonable design criterion for passenger walking distances within a terminal and that anything longer than 1000 feet is unacceptable (27). Specific guidelines are identified in International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and International Air Transport Association (IATA) planning manuals. "A walking distance of about 300 m (1000 feet) from the centre of the airside of the passenger building to the farthest aircraft parking position has been generally accepted as the reasonable limit."(17) "Walking distances for the passenger should be as short as possible. In determining the distance between major functions in the terminal, the planner must consider whether baggage is to be carried or not, availability of baggage trollies, change in level, and passenger characteristics. The suggested maximum walking distance between the major functions (i.e., car park to baggage check-in/baggage claim, and baggage check-in/baggage claim to furthest gate) is 300 metres (1000 feet). 47 Greater distances can be accepted provided a form of mechanical assistance is made readily available to passengers."(16) On review of these guidelines it is realized that it becomes important to clearly specify walking distance objectives and identify whether average or maximum distances are to be used, and whether distance between major processing facilities (e.g. baggage check-in to furthest gate) or total walking distance within the terminal area is to be used. It is also not clear how the distance from car parking to the terminal should be incorporated in the analysis. The following guideline has been used for this study: Intra-airport transportation syspgms be consgdered when the average walking distanceppgtween curb apd departure gate, arrival gate and curb, arrival gate and departure gate (connecting passengerle or petween car parking and curb exceeds 1000 geet. (3) Identify Potential Application of Intra-Airport Transportation Systepls) If the average distances fall within the specified guidelines, no additional analysis would seem necessary. However, if any distance exceeds the guidelines, a review of the terminal design should be made to determine if walking distances could be reduced. If it is not possible to reduce distances through redesign, an analysis of intra-airport transportation system alternatives would proceed. 48 Routes for affected passengers would then be examined to determine the distances between processing facilities and select components of the trip for which an intra-airport transportation system could be incorporated. (4) Developpégternatives Three aspects are considered in the generation of intra-airport transportation system alternatives - mode, route, and service characteristics. There are a variety of possible modes that could be used to reduce walking distances. The modes that are usually considered for each of the three categories or classes of intra-airport transportation systems would be: intra-terminal - moving walkways - tow trains or carts - automated guideway transit Anter-termip§l_ — moving walkways - automated guideway transit - buses and vans airport circulation - automated guideway transit — buses and vans Several alternative routes could be identified for each mode depending on system requirements. For example, automated guideway transit could shuttle between terminals or it could be operated on an one-way loop between 49 terminals. In addition, service characteristics, such as headway and operating speed, could be varied with resulting differences in level of service. Nomographs have been prepared for this purpose and their development and use are described in Section 3.3. Among the factors that would be considered in the selection of intra-airport transportation system alternatives for analysis include: - number of system users - user characteristics - airline and airport operations (e.g. location of processing facilities) — mode limitations (e.g. passenger carrying capabilities; maximum length for moving walkways) - route limitations (e.g. turning radii for automated guideway transit systems) (5) Test Alternatives It is important that the impacts of incorporating an intra-airport transportation system in the terminal complex be determined. For example, transporting passengers quickly from an arrival gate to the baggage claim area, only to have them wait for baggage to arrive may be unsatisfactory. An Airport Landside Model (48) was developed by the Federal Aviation Administration to assist in assessing the landside facilities at an airport. It has become a valuable tool that can be used in the conceptual phase of terminal planning and its use provides the planner with the 50 opportunity to vary parameters in the terminal and assess the impacts. With the additions and modifications that have been incorporated for this study, the model can now be used to determine the effects of an intra-airport transportation system on other passenger processing facilities in the terminal complex. The model is described in Section 3.4 and an example of its use is included in Appendix A. Adjustments to the intra-airport transportation system alternatives, terminal layout, and number of passenger processing facilities, can be made to insure that a satisfactory level of service is provided to air passengers. (6) Evaluate Alternatives There are many factors that can be included in an evaluation of system alternatives. Some of the factors could be: - cost - convenience - impact on other terminal activities - environmental impact - ease of implementation - flexibility or potential for expansion - reliability The factors that are included in an evaluation vary from airport to airport as the airport authority evaluates system alternatives to best meet their needs. It is 51 unlikely that any of the alternatives will rank highest for all factors, and it will be necessary to make tradeoffs between the alternatives and the factors. While cost is probably the most important issue facing the airport authority, many of the factors cannot be reduced to a dollar value. As a result, a multi-criteria evaluation technique would be appropriate to identify the tradeoffs between system costs and characteristics. (7) Select Preferred Alternative The alternative that best meets the needs of the airport can be identified. (8) Prepare Implementation Plan Following the selection of a preferred alternative, more detailed analysis of the alternative would be undertaken to define components of the system. Simulation models are particularly useful at this level of planning and would be used to determine optimum combinations of car (or train) size with headway, the extent to which passengers will be required to queue under peak conditions, and other similar design elements. 3.3 Qevelopment of Service Characteristigs When planning transit service, a key objective is to provide passenger carrying capabilities on the system to accommodate the demands at some specified level of service. Moving walkways are continuous systems, so the passenger carrying capabilities are governed by operating speed, width, and an assumed passenger occupancy. A 40 52 inch width unit, operating at 120 feet per minute is generally recommended for airport applications as it provides sufficient width for passengers with baggage carts and hand baggage, and operates at a speed which pedestrians are comfortable in boarding and alighting (28). The design capacity for this unit, is about 7200 persons per hour (or 120 persons per minute). (40) For bus, and automated guideway transit systems, individual vehicle capacity and frequency (i.e. number of vehicles per hour) are the basic parameters that affect the passenger carrying capabilities of the system. When preparing a transit schedule for a route, the traditional approach is to provide service to accommodate the demand at the maximum load point on the route (the point on the route where the largest demand occurs). The capacity of the route should be equal to or greater than the demand at this point. The capacity or passenger carrying capability of a route is determined by multiplying the capacity of an individual vehicle by the number of vehicles that pass the maximum load point in one hour (frequency). The units for transit capacity are "passengers per hour per direction" (pphd). The capacity of an individual vehicle may be seating capacity or some scheduling capacity value that includes standees. 53 CT = va (3.1) where: CT = capacity of a transit route, "passengers per hour per direction" (pphd) frequency (vehicles/hour) capacity of an individual vehicle, (passengers/vehicle) < I1 II II To increase the capacity of a route, one increases the number of passengers that a vehicle could accommodate, or increases the frequency. For automated guideway transit systems it is also possible to increase route capacity by forming trains of two or more vehicles. Given a passenger demand estimate at the maximum load point, the frequency of service required can be calculated for an assumed vehicle capacity. = 9. f C (3.2) v where: Q = passenger demand at the maximum load point (passengers/hour) f = frequency (vehicles/hour) Cv = capacity of an individual vehicle (passengers/vehicle) Other important relationships can be developed. Headway - the time between successive vehicles -§2 h - f (3.3) where: headway (minutes) = frequency (vehicles/hour) mt? 54 Vehicles Required for Route Service (N): — E_ N - h (3.4) where: c = round trip travel time or cycle time (minutes) h = headway (minutes) Total Vehicle Miles Travelled in an Hour (VMT); =52. VMT h x L (3.5) where: L = round trip distance (miles) h = headway (minutes) Nomographs have been prepared (Figure 3.3 and Figure 3.4) for this study that incorporate these relationships and can be used to develop service characteristics of an intra-airport bus, or automated guideway transit system. The input data to the nomographs includes: (1) Passenggr demand - estimate of maximum number of passengers to be accommodated at a point on the route (passengers per hour per direction). (2) Vehicle capacity - number of passengers that an individual vehicle can accommodate (passengers/vehicle). (3) Round trip_distance — distance travelled by a vehicle to return to starting point (feet). (4) Average speed — will depend on several factors including maximum operating speed, acceleration, station or stop spacing, dwell times at stations or stops, and interference caused by other traffic (miles per hour). The output includes: 55 4000 “I A d .4 4 Example .53 3000 '— 5 . Given: § ‘ — 2: .0 Passenger demand at maximum 9. '3. ., load point = 500 pphd I; 0‘ 4 Round trip distance = 6000 ft. i S 2000 - H Assume use of vehicle with E 8 4 50 passenger capacity and a: 2 . average speed of 15 mph § 3 .. In . Out 111:: m —P-- a 1000 - System to operate at 6 minute 4 . . Vehicle headway Capacrty ‘ = 100 1 vehicle required for service (500) q_-+- - 'I T I I T T v I I T W T 1 4 6 8 10 15 Headway, minutes 25,300 7 l q I 4 I . l 00 4 3 20,000.... 2 u I 1 0 .. ” I u ‘1 ~ I g I g '1 * Vehicles g 15,000-1 Required :3 .. I a. l H I: l E-o .I ' a d E 3 10,000- . I . 0- .4 (6.000) 1 5,0001 4 o I I I l f! I I l j T f' T S 10 15 20 Average Speed, mph Figure 3.3 Nomograph to Develop Intra-Airport Transportation System Service Characteristics 56 Emummm cowumuuommcmua uuomufldlmuucH on ma wmaam>mue mmawz mHofl£m> mumEHumm on namHmOEoz e.m musmflm «RizHEEEZRamEEMRSESAEbF oh no ow mm on me ov mm on m~ om mg as m o pthLphtbPPbbhbpbPP—bbbbhbbb‘hbprb-bfPthbbh?»brbbehthbrhb>>+b \1 \\\\\\\W e h vooo.m w H ... llfioooé m H u my ,.ooo.0s m. b. . «D 1 G b I. N [a v s .4 . .Safis w 1- .». e m i . 0% v 3 m 3»: r % so 186.8 a 1 v m o n m m 0H r r ooo.m~ use: cw ooaao>muu nodes oaoaso> n.HH "usmuso Am.m gunman Eouuv mouscafi o n >a36mo: uoom oooo I oocuunwc has» venom "cm>wo «Hmmmxm 57 (1) Headway — the time between successive vehicles (minutes). An adjustment to headway derived using the nomograph may be necessary. For high demand levels, it may not be possible to operate a service at the headway indicated. For example, the minimum headway for a bus is probably about two minutes. For low demand levels, it may be preferable to set a headway to provide a minimum level of service. For example, service every 10 minutes could be specified. (2) Vehicles required for route service - becomes input to an estimate of system capital costs. (3) Total vehicle miles travelled in hour - becomes input to an estimate of system operating costs. As an example, if the passenger demand is estimated as 500 passengers/hour, and vehicles with 50 passenger capacity are considered, the system would have to operate at a headway of six minutes to accommodate the demand. If the anticipated average speed is 15 mph and the round trip route length is 6000 feet, one vehicle would be required, and there would be about 11.2 vehicle miles of travel during the hour. 3.4 FAA Airport Landside Model The FAA Airport Landside Model (49) was developed in 1978 as a tool to assist in the quantitative assessment of the airport landside. It consists of a set of computer routines which analytically model each component of the 58 airport landside and a program and methodology for linking the routines to compute passenger delay and passenger processing time. Two types of data are used by the model, control and network. The first type of data, control data, describe overall airport characteristics and includes the following parameters: annual passenger enplanements number of passengers processed during the peak hour (or design hour) number of passenger traffic peaks in a typical day number of aircraft operations in the peak hour (or design hour) aircraft fleet mix (percent wide bodies) percent of daily passengers processed during peak hour (or design hour) average load factor percentage of connecting passengers percentage of passenger arrivals by auto, taxi, bus, and rail average number of bags checked per passenger average number of passengers per vehicle using airport roads during the peak hour (or design hour) terminal splits main roadway capacity (in vehicles per hour) number of lanes on main roadway percentage of vehicles recirculating total number of airport parking spaces total airport deplaning curb frontage (feet) total airport enplaning curb frontage (feet) 59 The second type of data, network data, describe passenger flow and passenger servicing characteristics for each terminal unit. A terminal unit consists of one or more zones and a roadway area. A zone can be used to identify and model a portion of a terminal building. For example, large terminals housing several airlines can be divided into separate zones to facilitate network analysis for individual airlines. Separate enplaning and deplaning networks are specified for each zone and each terminal roadway area is modeled with an access network submodel. The passenger flow descriptions include passenger routes used by the model to distribute arriving passengers to particular airlines and to the different processing facilities used by the airlines. These routes are specified as percentage splits in transition probability matrices. The passenger flow descriptions also include the distances (in feet) between the various facilities for each. path followed by enplaning or deplaning passengers. These distances are specified in distance matrices. Service characteristics listed for each passenger processing facility include the facility type, the mean service time, the standard deviation of service time, and the number of units (e.g. number of ticket counters) in service during the peak or design hour. The basic output is the total time spent by passengers enplaning or deplaning. The model does not account for time spent by passengers in optional activities such as 60 visiting restrooms or newsstands, or voluntary waiting time experienced by passengers who arrive well in advance of their flight. The total time is calculated as the sum of three components: (1) Delay time - the time spent by a passenger waiting in queues before being processed. (2) Service time - the time it takes to service a passenger at all required processing facilities. (3) Travel time - the time it takes a passenger to walk from facility to facility. Travel time is computed by using an average walking speed of three feet per second. The model presents these times at various levels of aggregation - by facility, by zone, by terminal unit, and by an airport average. The operations in the model are performed in the following steps: - The number of passengers to be processed during the peak hour (or design hour) is input directly or computed from other input quantities. - The total peak hour passengers are apportioned to obtain the number of enplaning or deplaning passengers during the peak hour (or design hour). - The enplaning and deplaning passengers are allocated to particular airlines (terminal unit and zone) based on the passenger market shares of those airlines. - For a particular airline, enplaning and deplaning 61 passengers are apportioned to various processing facilities according to the observed routes through a transition matrix. - At each processing facility, service and delay times are computed according to equations that model the processing facility. - The time spent in walking from one processing facility to the next is computed. - Weighted per passenger averages and cumulative annual totals of service, delay, and travel times (and their sum) are computed in aggregations previously described. The analytic models used in the landside analysis program are largely based on queueing theory which permits the estimation of delays and queue lengths for service facilities under specified levels of demand. When the average demand rate over some period of time is less than the average service rate ("steady state" conditions), probability theory is used to generate mathematical functions to represent the arrival and service performance of the system. Specifically, it is necessary to define the arrival distribution, the service distribution, the number and use of the servers, and the service discipline. Many of the components in an airport terminal exhibit a random or Poisson arrival process and the service characteristics are usually exponential or 62 constant. In most cases, there is more than one channel or server, and the queueing mechanism is a first-come, first-served basis. Two types of queueing equations are used in the Landside Model to describe processing facilities within the terminal. The first type (designated as M/M/k) assumes that arrival rates are characterized by a Poisson distribution and the service rate is random and characterized as exponential or constant. System equations for this process are given by: k'1 (Aéu)“ (Agu1k -1 ‘1 (3.6) P0 = Z n. + k' (1’0) n=0 ' ' A k p L =1? (—a —— L "s g 3‘1 (3.8) where: l = arrival rate (users/minute) u = service rate (users/minute) k = number of parallel servers P = probability that there is no queue (n=0) L = expected queue length W = expected waiting time (excluding service), i.e. delay time :22... 0 pk The second type (designated as M/G/k) assumes that arrival rates are characterized by a Poisson distribution and that 63 the service rate is a general random variable characterized by its mean and its variance. System equations for this process are given by: wq = (Akszsk’1)/2(k-1)!(k-ls)2 k-l (ls)n (AS)k 1(3.9) n=0 n! (k-l)!(k-ls)l Lq = wa (3.10) where: A = arrival rate (users/minute) s = average service time 32 = second moment of service time k = number of parallel servers Lq = expected queue length Wq = expected waiting time (excluding service), i.e. delay time M/M/k queues are appropriate in modelling situations where the service time is greatly influenced by individual passenger service requirements, whereas M/G/k queueing is considered to be more characteristic of routine service processes with well-defined endpoints. Table 3.1 presents the model type suggested for analysis that best represents the queueing conditions for the various processing facilities in a terminal. The equations used for determining the average passenger delay assume that steady state conditions exist. However, if the arrival rate exceeds the service rate, the processing facility would never be idle. Since more passengers would arrive than could be serviced, the line 64 Table 3.1 Queueing Models for Terminal Processing Facilities Suggested Processing Facility Queueing Model Enplaning Passenger Curbside (Doors) M/M/k Full Service Ticketing M/M/k Express Baggage Check-In M/G/k Security Screening M/G/k Seat Selection M/M/k Aircraft Boarding M/M/k Deplaning Aircraft Alighting M/M/k Baggage Claim* — Car Rental M/G/k Federal Inspection Service M/G/k Passenger Curbside (Doors) M/M/k * Separate model developed for Baggage Claim. 65 would continually lengthen and the delays would grow larger. Under these conditions, the queue is said to be "saturated." Unless the arrival rate is decreased or the facility service rate is increased, the line would continue to grow indefinitely with people waiting to be processed. When saturation occurs at any particular processing point, a deterministic approximation of the additional delay has been incorporated into the model. A separate algorithm is used to calculate delay at the baggage claim area. The model computes the difference in time it takes for passenger baggage to arrive at the claim area, and the time it takes for passengers to arrive at the claim area. If this difference is less than or equal to zero, the baggage arrives at the claim area before the passenger and no delay is experienced. Otherwise, the delay time is the time the passenger waits, starting from their arrival at the claim area, until their baggage is retrieved. A representation of the passenger delay at the baggage claim facilities is given by the relationship: nT Wq = E[t2] + n+1 - E[t1] (3.11) where: Wq = passenger delay E[t2] = expected value of time when first price of baggage arrives at claim area E[t1] = expected value of time passengers arrive at claim area n = number of pieces of baggage to be claimed by each passenger 66 T = length of time from arrival of first bag until arrival of last bag at claim device Other models simulate the activities at the three primary groundside components - parking, roadway, and curbside. The parking model is a M/G/m type of queueing model with the following basic assumptions about arrival and service patterns: - Poisson arrivals of cars for parking, i.e., the number of cars arriving in time interval T will be equal to K with probability ngke’AT (3.12) P(k.T) k! k=0,1,2,3,... - a general distribution for parking duration, i.e., a car parked at a given parking space for a time period 8 as described by a general probability distribution function 2 OS 1 fs(so) with E[s] = fi-and var(8) - an infinite number of servers (i.e., of parking spaces). It is initially assumed that the airport never runs out of car parking spaces. For the roadways, delay is defined as the excess time required to travel a section of road. When there is no congestion the nominal travel time is 67 *3 II <|U (3.13) where: D the distance traveled V o the unimpeded driving speed which is assumed to be the posted speed limit The actual average speed in traffic is similarly defined as =2. (3.14) T v r where Vr is the reduced speed due to roadway congestion. Therefore, the delay is .. _ P. - D. Tdelay - T-TN - (vr) (v0) (3°15) The third component of the airport groundside is the vehicle curbside. The model used is basically an expansion of a M/M/k queueing model that incorporates the number of curbside lanes and the length of curb frontage in an algorithm to estimate the number of usable service (loading/unloading) slots available. The M/M/k model is used to estimate average passenger delay time. Three changes or improvements were made to the FAA Airport Landside Model for this study to increase its capabilities. These changes permit the model to be used to examine terminal concepts on a more microscopic basis than was originally intended. The changes include: (1) The addition of certain types of passenger 68 processing facilities. (2) The development of a model for an intra-airport transportation system that could be used as a substitute for walking within a terminal or between terminals. (The FAA Airport Landside Model does not have the capabilities to include remote parking lots or hotels, so an airport circulation type of intra-airport transportation system is not included.) (3) A technique to model the flow of connecting passengers. (1) Additional Passenger Processing Facilities Escalators have been added and their processing capabilities are described by queueing models similar to the other facilities in the terminal building. The mean service time, the standard deviation of service time and the number of units in service are the input variables used to describe the service characteristics. (2) Intra-Airport Transportation System In the original FAA Airport Landside Model, average walking speed was used to determine the passenger travel time from facility to facility. The capabilities of the model have been expanded by incorporating an intra-airport transportation system component that can be included in a network as a substitute for walking. Three variables are used to describe the intra-airport transportation system for the model. (a) length or distapce travelled from where the 69 passenger boards to where the passenger alights. The length is expressed in feet. (b) average speed expressed in feet per second. (c) headway expressed in seconds. For continuous systems, such as moving walkways, the headway would be zero. The basic output of the FAA Airport Landside Model is the total time spent by passengers enplaning or deplaning. The total time is calculated as the sum of three components - delay time, service time, and travel time. When the intra-airport transportation system is used, the delay time for this facility is equal to one half of the headway — an approach commonly used to estimate average waiting time for an urban transit system. Service time is assumed to be zero, and travel time is calculated by dividing the distance travelled by the average speed. Time for passenger boarding and alighting and station dwell time have not been specifically included, although an adjustment to the average speed could be made to reflect these times. (3) ConnectinggPassengers As originally written, the FAA Airport Landside Model subtracted connecting passengers at the deplaning gate or added them at the enplaning gate and did not follow their path through the terminal. Changes have been made to the model to identify the impact of connecting passengers on terminal facilities and estimate the total time spent by passengers connecting between gates. Additional input data 70 is necessary to accomplish these tasks, and includes: - A matrix to identify the origins and destinations of connecting passengers - Identification of processors or facilities that connecting passengers use - Networks that describe flow and servicing characteristics for connecting passengers As an example, if the airport consists of one terminal building (and one zone), the network data would be input in the following order: Deplaning Network Data Bnplaning Network Data Roadway Network Data However, if the airport consists of two terminal buildings that are served by one roadway system, the network data would be input as follows: Deplaning Network Data, Terminal 1 Enplaning Network Data, Terminal 1 Connecting Network Data, Terminal 1 to Terminal 2 Deplaning Network Data, Terminal 2 Enplaning Network Data, Terminal 2 Connecting Network Data, Terminal 2 to Terminal 1 Roadway Network Data By including separate networks for connecting passengers, the impacts of incorporating alternative intra-airport transportation systems for the movement of passengers between terminals can be examined. The model output includes total time information for connecting passengers in addition to the total time information produced for 71 enplaning and deplaning passengers. The revised FAA Airport Landside Model program and a sample showing the development of networks, input data, and resulting output are presented in Appendix A. CHAPTER 4 APPLICATION OF METHODOLOGY 4.1 Procedure One of the objectives of this study is to identify appropriate intra-airport transportation systems for various passenger demand levels and terminal concepts. Using the methodology described in Chapter 3, intra-airport transportation systems have been incorporated in "generic" air terminals and then evaluated to determine the appropriate system. A framework for this phase of the study is shown in Figure 4.1. 4.2 Generation of Terminals for Study 4.2.1 Terming;;Concepts Early air terminals in the major cities and the terminals in many small cities today are simple terminals that consist of a common waiting and ticketing area with one or two gates. Typically one or two airlines serve the airport and the aircraft are parked on the apron in front of the terminal and passengers walk across the apron to board and alight. However, as the volume of air passengers increases, this simple terminal concept does not have sufficient capacity, so other concepts have evolved. There are four basic concepts, as shown in Figure 4.2, and many variations 72 73 Air Passenger Demand 1 Gates Required 1 Estimate Terminal Area Terminal Concept I Layout L Terminal Area Planning Guidelines Terminal Area 1 Network Queuing Model Passenger Convenience 1 Identify Need Impact on Airline Operations for Intra-Airport Transportation System I Incorporate System Alternatives in Terminal 1 Evaluate Intra-Airport System Alternatives 1 Identify Appropriate System Alternative Parking and Curb Requirements Intra-Airport Transportation System Planning Guidelines Figure 4.1 Methodology to Determine Appropriate Intra- Airport Transportation System Curb ' "" '\ Access Inierfoce / Processnng FIugM interface ¢¢¢¢ E +¢+¢ Apron (1) Pier or Finger Curb fl Access Interface Processmg Flighi interface iiiti (3) Linear 74 Curb Access mtertoce Processmg (2) Satellite Cur I b Access interface Processmg _————————( I I / 0/thht mterfoce («<34 Apron (4) Transporter Figure 4.2 Basic Terminal Concepts Source: Planning and Design of Airports, Third Edition, Robert Horonjeff and Francis X. McKelvey, 1983. 75 of these basic concepts. (1) Pier or Finger Concept The pier or finger concept evolved in the 1950's when gate concourses were added to simple terminal buildings. Aircraft are parked on either side of a pier or finger which is directly connected to a central terminal where the primary area for passenger and baggage processing is located. Chicago O'Hara and San Francisco airports are examples of this terminal concept. The concept has often resulted in longer walking distances for passengers and moving walkways have been used in some instances to reduce the distances. Although the pier concept has afforded an economical means of adding gate positions to existing terminals, its use for expansion is limited. Extension of a pier may be restricted by taxiway clearance requirements and the addition of gates would necessitate the expansion of passenger processing facilities in the central terminal area. Most successful additions have been made by extending the main terminal and then increasing the number of piers. (2) Satellite Concept The satellite concept consists of a single central terminal, in which the passenger and baggage processing is located, and one or more satellite structures. Aircraft are parked around the satellite building and these satellites are connected to the main terminal by a surface, 76 underground, or elevated passageway. Examples of this concept are Houston, Orlando, and Tampa airports. The distance from the main terminal to a satellite is usually well above the average distance to gates found with the pier concept, so inter-terminal transportation systems have been installed at several airports to reduce walking distances. Terminals developed under the satellite concept are difficult to expand without disrupting airport operations. As a result, increases in terminal capacity are usually made by adding terminal units (i.e. an additional central terminal with satellite(s)). (3) Linear Concept The linear terminal concept is an extension of the simple terminal in that the simple terminal is repeated to provide additional apron frontage, additional gates, and more room within the terminal for passenger processing. The concept is sometimes referred to as the "gate arrival" concept and has been used at the Dallas—Fort Worth and Kansas City airports. The passenger walking distance from the curb to gate is usually short and the linear configuration lends itself to close—in public parking. However, the walking distances for connecting passengers may be quite long. The concept does not lend itself to common or central facilities such as waiting rooms, baggage check-in areas. or concessions, and as a result, these facilities are 77 duplicated in the terminal. Linear terminals can be expanded by extending the existing structure and this can be done with almost no interference to passenger processing or aircraft operations. (4) Transporter Concept Aircraft are parked on the apron some distance from the main terminal where the passenger and baggage processing takes place. Passengers are transferred between the terminal and aircraft by specially designed buses or mobile lounges. Washington Dulles and Montreal Mirabel airports are the only two airports that have been developed using this concept, although the concept has been used at other airports to supplement facilities during peak demand conditions. Walking distances are held to a minimum since the passenger processing facilities are located in a relatively compact terminal building. However, when comparing this concept with the others, the purchase, operation and maintenance of the mobile lounges must be considered and the time required to transfer passengers between the terminal and the aircraft should also be taken into account. The transporter concept can be expanded with little impedance to airport operations by acquiring additional mobile lounges and expanding the main terminal and apron area . 78 The selection of an appropriate concept is a function of a number of factors, including the size and characteristics of the passenger demand, the level of service to be offered, the number of airlines to be served, the traffic split between domestic, international, scheduled and charter flights, the available physical site, and ground access modes. A 1973 study (32) offered some guidance to the planner for the initial identification of concepts and Figure 4.3 summarizes these guidelines. Applicable concepts and physical aspects of the terminal are related to the level of annual enplaned passengers and the functional nature of the airport, as defined by the relative proportions of originating, terminating, and transferring passengers.* * There are several ways in which air passengers can be defined and each value is important in the planning and design of the terminal area. enplaned or enplaning passenger - a passenger who boards an aircraft at the airport. deplaned or deplaning passenger - a passenger who alights from an aircraft at the airport. transferring or connecting passenger - a passenger who transfers from one flight to another flight at the airport. An "interline transfer" is a transfer between airlines. An "intraline transfer" is a transfer beteween flights of the same airline. originating passenger - a passenger who starts their trip in the area served by the airport. terminating passenger - a passenger who ends their trip in the area served by the airport. originating passengers = enplaning passengers - connecting passengers. terminating passengers = deplaning passengers - connecting passengers. 79 CONCEPTS APPLICABLE LINEAR PIER SATELLITE ' TRANSFMTER -PNVS|CAL ASPECTS OF CONCEPTS SINGLE LEVEL CORR NOLTI LEVEL CORR SINCLE LEVEL TERIINAL IOLTI LEVEL TERNINAL . SINGLE LEVEL CONNECTOR NOLTI LEVEL CONNECTOR AFRON LEVEL BOARDING AIRCRAFT LEVEL OOAROINC mm: SIZE 31 EIPLAIED 91mm FEEDER ONOER 25,000 A SECONDARY 25.000 10 75,000 X 75.000 10 200.000 X 200.000 T0 500.000 X mum um 15: m M) 500.000 to 1,000,000 " OVER 25% FAA TRANSFER 1 500.000 T0 1.000.000 IVER 155 FA! 0/0 1.000.000 TO 3.000.000 OVER 25% FAX TRANSFER 1.000.000 TO 3.000.000 OVER 751 FA! 0/0 OVER 3.000.000 am” 25: m TRANSFER mu 3. 000. 000 Figure 4.3 Applicable Terminal Concepts Related to Air Passenger Demand Levels Source: Parsons Company, 1973. Ralph M. The Apron—Terminal Complex, Analysis of Concepts for Evaluation of Terminal Buildings. 80 Combinations of concepts and variations are quite common and are the result of changing conditions experienced at an airport. An airport may have many types of passenger activity, varying from originating and terminating passengers using the full range of terminal services to passengers using limited services on connecting flights. Each may require a different concept. Changes in the function of the airport or the airlines serving the airport may necessitate modification or expansion of the facilities. Growth in aircraft size or a new combination of aircraft types serving the airport may affect the concept. In addition, physical limitations of the site may also cause a pure conceptual form to be modified by additions or combinations of other concepts. The combined concepts acquire both the advantages and disadvantages of each basic concept. One common variation is the Unit Terminal concept. It consists of two or more terminals built around a system of interconnecting access roads. The terminals are usually spaced some distance apart and each terminal provides complete passenger processing facilities for one or more airlines. Each terminal unit may be of the same basic concept or quite different. For example, the unit terminals at the Dallas-Fort Worth and Kansas City airports are linear terminals: the unit terminals at the Houston airport are satellite terminals whereas the unit terminals 81 at John F. Kennedy airport in New York vary as the airlines: have developed to best handle their individual requirements. Walking distances in a unit terminal are usually held to a comfortable distance since the terminals are usually smaller than large multi-airline terminals. However, for passengers transferring between units or terminals. an inter-terminal transportation system is usually required. Buses have commonly been used for this purpose. 4.2.2 Terminal Mogglg§_ Terminals have been developed for each of the four basic concept types using modules. Each module contains eight gates and the facilities necessary to serve the related passengers. As the demand increases, additional modules are added. By constructing terminals in this fashion guidelines for intra-airport transportation systems can be identified on the basis of air passenger demand levels and terminal concepts. If existing airports were used, other factors would make it difficult to isolate guidelines. A similar approach of using modules was used in a 1973 study (32) to identify applicable terminal concepts related to air passenger demand levels. An initial estimate was made that an eight gate module could accommodate one million annual enplaned passengers and this was later verified following further development and analysis of the modules. Estimates of hourly passenger demand and aircraft activity were also made prior to 82 computing terminal area requirements. Using graphs and rules-of-thumb developed by the FAA (31,51), estimates have been made for individual components in the terminal area. The estimates have been made for six levels of transferring or connecting passengers - O, 10, 20, 30, 40 and 50% of enplaned passengers. As the percent of connecting passengers increases, requirements for ticketing/check-in facilities, baggage claim facilities, and parking are reduced. A sample of the development of an estimate is presented in Appendix B. and Table 4.1 summarizes the terminal area requirements for an eight gate module. The next step was a preliminary layout of modules in sufficient detail to locate activities so that walking distances could be approximated and the impact of passenger circulation in the module could be assessed. For the layout of the eight gate modules the following assumptions were made: - single level terminal - single level curb - all gate positions designed to accommodate the Boeing 767 aircraft - power in/push out aircraft operations at gates - surface parking for automobiles - typical arrangement of passenger processing facilities. In addition, factors considered in the layout included: 83 .ummucoo nmunommcmnh a“ amended“ uoz u» .mnmmcmmmmm owcmHmcm Hmsccm GOHHawE 0:0 ADM mucuevuafivun mon¢ « 000.H 0hfi.u 000.H 000.H 000.“ 000.u 005.NHH 000.0HH 000.NNH 000.0Nfi 000.0mfi 00N.00H 00¢.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.h0u 000.00H 000.0HH 000.0Nn 000.hNn 005.0Nfi 000.HH 00N.HH 000.Nn 000.NH 00h.mH 000.0H 000.m0 000.h0 000.00H 000.h0a 000.0nn 000.0ufi 000.0H 000.0H 000.0H 000.06 000.0“ 000.0n 000.N 000.0 000.N 000.0 000.0 000.N 000.NH 000.NH 000.NH 000.NH 000.NH 000.0H 000.nn 000.nH 000.0H 000.0H 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 005.0 00h.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.h 000.b 000.0 000.0 000.h 000.h 000.0 000.0 000.H 000.H 000.H 000.H 000.H 000." 000.Nn 000.NH 000.0H 000.NH 000.Na 000.NH 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.h 000.0 000.HH 000.0fi 000.0“ 000.hn 000.0 000.0 000.h 000.h 000.0 000.0 000.v 000.v 000.0 000.v 000.0 000.0 000." 000.“ 000.H 000.0 000.0 000.“ £00 30v X00 RON X0“ *0 mnwucommmm unannoumsmnh no usuyuoccoo mwummm usaxumm Auwmu Onmaumv Heuoa musuufinum_0cacausm memum>m «mowcmnomz :ofiumnaonao nmnuo mummm nausea nonuo meanmmwucoo umnuo ummnu>mm one 0000 >nnoq Hanan mmmmmmm aneuemzusnnou mcaumxuaeusnnon mommm mcuanw< nunuo unmwucnoq Okayamamn neodumnwmo unannw< Emeo mmmuumm mummmmm czaonueo mummm uuonmfim\09< mauvcsoo ucunua< Ammn¢ noon no uumm mumbum. maflpoz mumu unmuu am no“ unusuaonaauwm mend H.¢ manna 84 - walking distances - FAA guidelines for separation criteria between parked aircraft, and between moving aircraft and the terminal - curb length requirements the combination with other modules. The FAA Airport Landside Model was then used to check the preliminary module layouts to verify that they could accommodate the passenger demands placed on them. As design criteria, processing time limits were specified and the facilities were adjusted until the criteria were met. For enplaning passengers, the average processing time is not to exceed twenty minutes, and for deplaning passengers, the average processing time is not to exceed thirty minutes. Figures 4.4, 4.5, 4.6 and 4.7 show the modules for pier, satellite, linear and transporter concepts that have been used for further analysis in this study. Each module has been developed to accommodate one million annual enplaned passengers within the processing time design criteria. The eight gate module is a single level terminal, so a sixteen gate module with two levels was also developed for the pier and satellite concepts to examine the use of a more concentrated arrangement and the effect on intra-airport transportation system requirements and planning. The same procedures that were used to develop the eight gate modules were followed for the sixteen gate 85 Apron Area 725,000 sq. ft. .000 \0000 Security Baggage Ticketing Claim Area Curb Automobile Parking Figure 4.4 Terminal Module, Pier Concept 0 100 200 l I l l Scale in Feet 86 Apron Area I 1 780,000 sq. ft. Tunnel-———4 1 I I I l'L/Security Baggage Ticketing Claim Area Curb Automobile Parking Figure 4.5 Terminal Module, Satellite Concept 0 100 200 L 1 I fi_l Scale in Feet 87 Apron Area 600,000 sq. ft. Curb Area Ticketing Security Baggage Claim Area Ticketing Security 399399 Claim F Automobile Parking .0000... O 100 200 l_1Ll Scale in feet Figure 4.6 Terminal Module, Linear Concept eeCQ eoee Apron Area 600,000 sq. ft. Zr—Security Baggage Ticketing Claim Area Curb Automobile Parking 0 100 200 L0,: 1 ‘_J Scale in feet Figure 4.7 Terminal Module, Transporter Concept 89 modules. Table 4.2 summarizes the terminal area requirements. For the layout of the sixteen gate modules. the following assumptions were made: - two level terminal - two level curb - two level parking garage for automobiles Other assumptions were the same as for the eight gate modules and the factors considered in the layout were identical. Figures 4.8 and 4.9 show the resulting modules, and each has been prepared to accommodate two million annual enplaned passengers within the processing time design criteria. 4.2.3 Iggminal Module Combinatipns Modules have been combined in two basic arrangements to form terminal units. Placing modules side-by-side has been designated as arrangement or configuration "A." Configuration "8" describes the terminal unit in which modules have been located on opposite sides of the parking lot. When modules have been placed side—by-side, the distance between modules is governed by the separation criteria for airfield operations. Linear and transporter modules are placed adjacent to each other, whereas the distance between the taxilane and gate positions, and the size of gate positions has been used to control the distance between the pier and satellite modules. When modules have been placed on opposite sides of the parking 90 .mnmmcmmmmn omGMHasm Hmsccm :o«afiue 03u n00 mucmewnnsvmn mesa * 000.fi 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.000 00fi.000 000.000 000.0V0 000.000 000.000 00¢.0H 000.0“ 00H.HH 00¢.Hn 000.HH 00H.0H 000.000 000.HHO 000.000 00v.000 0n0.000 000.000 000.00 000.00 000.00 000.VN 0H0.00 000.00 00H.00fi 000.00H 000.00” 000.000 00¢.0d0 000.0H0 000.00 000.00 000.00 000.00 000.00 000.00 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.v 000.0 000.0 000.v0 000.00 000.00 000.00 000.00 000.00 000.0H 000.0” 000.0H 000.0H 000.0H 000.0H 000.0 000.0 000.Hn 000.Hn 000.0H 000.0H 000.0« 000.0“ 000.0” 000.0H 000.va 000.v~ 000.0H 000.cn 000.0H 000.0H 00n.n0 00H.fi0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.00 000.00 000.00 000.00 000.00 000.00 000.0H 000.0n 000.0H 000.0H 000.0H 000.0H 000.0H 000.0” 000.0” 000.H0 000.00 000.00 000.0H 000.0H 000.vH 000.0H 000.0“ 000.0n 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 R00 *0? *00 £00 &0« R0 «nousmmmmm unannuumcmua no acnuuoscoo mwummm meaxnmm Aummm wnmnvmv annoy ennuuanum unavawam meuumhm Hmuacmzuwz c0aumH50huo nmnuo mummm nausea nonuo mcofimmmucoo 90:90 mamnO>wm can @000 >000: Eumflo mommamm acauem31>nnoa madamsoAauunnoq vummm mafianac umnuo memcaoq unaunmmmn mucuumuumo onwana¢ aamuo mumummm mumuumm padonuao oumnm unomnflm\oa4 unaucsoo oceann< Ammn< noon no ummm unmaumv mascot ovum smouxwm m n00 «mucmaunwaumm mun¢ 0.¢ manna 91 1 O Apron Area 1,200,000 sq. ft. Terminal - 2 levels upper level - ticketing area laim security curb security Automobile Parking (2 levels) O 100 200 L_ l 1 Scale in feet J. Figure 4.8 Terminal Module, Pier Concept, 16 Gates O O O O \ 1,600,000 sq. ft. \ \ I ’ \ \ I ’ \ ‘ /I I Tunnel ———‘0\ / 7L-Tunne1 \ \ I I . 1 pl I . Security Terminal - 2 levels Security Upper level Lower level ticketing area baggage claim curb - 2 levels Automobile parking (2 levels) 0 100 200 L n l _| Scale in feet Figure 4.9 Terminal Module, Satellite Concept, 16 Gates 93 lot, the parking has been placed in a structure to maintain a compactness in the terminal unit. Combinations of up to four modules have been developed for this study and are presented in Figures 4.10 to 4.15. In addition, the number of lanes on the terminal access roads and curbfront are identified for each terminal unit as shown in these figures. The selection of the appropriate arrangement or configuration of terminals at an airport will be governed by many factors, among which include: - number of runways and orientation - ground access system - curb requirements - airline operations - number of connecting or transferring passengers - site restrictions and limitations An evaluation of the most appropriate combination of terminals for a specific case is beyond the scope of this study. The terminal units have been developed to assist in. identifying guidelines for intra-airport transportation systems and provide terminal alternatives to accommodate a range in air passenger demands as shown in Table 4.3. 4.2.4 Terminal Cost Estimate One aspect of cost that this study has examined is the percentage increase in the cost of the terminal area by incorporating an intra-airport transportation system. Unit costs have been developed from various sources to estimate 94 : 2‘12 Pier (8)-2A Pier (8)-2B 3'13 Pier (8)-3A 4E ('— f a 3113 Pier (8)-4A 0 1000 Pier (8)- -4B L 1 .4 Scale in feet 3 - number of lanes Figure 4.10 Combinations of Pier Modules “832% 37—7 {3W 2 L s 2112 Satellite Satellite (8)-l (8)-2A L») a“: Satellite (8)-3A WEE v ”11H 7' 0 Satellite (8)-4A O 1000 l_ l 1 Scale in feet 3-number of lanes Satellite U40 [7“] LGfl <0 @3011 Satellite (8)-28 [1% @110 Tw‘l We Satellite (8)-3B @091] Figure 4.11 Combinations of Satellite Modules 22.: 96 r—2—4———u r——3 g 1 1 2 L LNJ 1Hi I t 2H2 *7 Linear (8)-2A Linear (8)-1 Linear (8)-3A Linear (8)-4A Linear (8)-4B 0 1000 L1, 1 J Scale in feet I 4 ‘4 3 3 1:: 3 - number of lanes L, 3 4 — Figure 4.12 Combinations of Linear Modules 8&8 88888888 8888 [ L ] 3 , m 2 3 ‘ 1 F ‘12. L - J L...”— W 2112 Transporter Transporter Transporter (8)-l (8)-2A 8888 (8)-28 real—19% J LA) 3113 " Transporter (8)-3A Transporter :3 EBEBEBEB (8%03 3{+3 Transporter (8)-4A Transporter (8)-4B O 1000 L, l 1 Scale in feet 3-number of lanes Figure 4.13 Combinations of Transporter Modules 98 3143 Pier (l6)-2A Pier (l6)—l -2B Pier (16) 3H3 Pier (l6)-3A Pier (l6)-3B 1000 0 Scale in feet 3 - number of lanes Combinations of Pier (16 Gate) Modules Figure 4.14 99 Pier (l6)-4A Pier (16)-4B neL 1000 .4 Scale in feet 3 - number of lanes d.) Figure 4.14 (cont 100 - 1' a 2 2 3Hs ' ’ ,:j\ I Satellite Satellite (16)-l (16)-2A ‘1 Satellite (16)-ZB .@@:@@§: 3 i 3 3H3 Satellite (l6)-3A @000 (Fri? Satellite (16)— -3B O 1000 I: L 1 1 Scale in feet 3 - number of lanes U Figure 4.15 Combinations of Satellite (l6 Gate) Modules 101 \ 3p: 4 4 ‘ 3 4 “ 1 4)). satellite (16)-4A @0030 1;: 7%- mm Satellite (16)-4B 33> 0 (ye F——‘=n v) O 1000 L_____L_____J Scale in feet 3 - number of lanes Figure 4.15 (Cont'd.) 102 Table 4.3 Air Passenger Demands Accommodated by Terminal Units Number of Annual Peak Hour Gates per Number of Enplaned Passengers, Module Modules, Passengers PMAD* 8 l 1 million 730 8 2 2 million 1460 8 3 3 million 2190 8 4 4 million 2920 16 l 2 million 1400 16 2 4 million 2800 16 3 6 million 4200 16 4 8 million 5600 * PMAD = Peak Month, Average Day - used for terminal planning and design. 103 the construction, and operating and maintenance costs for the terminal building, terminal access roads, parking, and apron area. Since the costs have been extracted from several sources and years, all have been adjusted to 1984 dollars using the Consumer Price Index and Engineering News Record Cost Index. Table 4.4 presents the unit costs that have been used for this study. For annual cost calculations, the construction costs of the terminal area have been amortized over a twenty year period with a 10% interest rate. 4.2.5 Walking Distances As an initial step in identifying potential application of intra-airport transportation systems, walking distances were measured in each terminal unit. Figure 4.16 shows the average walking distances for originating and terminating passengers for each of the six modules that have been developed for this study. These distances have been derived using the networks prepared for the development and testing of the modules with the FAA Airport Landside Model. A typical distribution of passenger movement through the terminal was used. The lowest average walking distances between terminal curb and aircraft gate are observed for the linear and transporter modules, and the longest distances occur with pier and satellite modules. A comparison of these measured distances to the suggested guidelines of 1000 feet, suggests that 104 Table 4.4 Unit Costs to Estimate Construction, Operating and Maintenance Costs for Terminal Area (1984 dollars) Unit Unit Cost CONSTRUCTION Terminal Building per square foot $1061 Parking surface lot per space $17502 2 level garage per space $530.02 multi-level garage per space $72002 Terminal Access Roads (includes lighting and drainage) at grade per lane mile $300,0003 elevated per lane mile $1,200,0003 Apron per square foot $23 OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE (per year) Terminal Area per enplaned $1.50“ passenger Note: For Transporter terminal concept, must add cost of transporter vehicles Capital cost of vehicle = $250,000 Operating and maintenance cost = $2.75 per vehicle mile Recent studies at Palm Beach Airport, Palm Beach, Florida. Parking Garage Planning and Operation, ENO Foundation, 1978. 1982 Dodge Guide to Public Works and Heavy Construction Costs. Recent in-house studies by Aviation Planning Associates, Cincinnati, Ohio. 105 suggested maximum walking distance 1200 a 800 4 600 ~ 400 . 200 . 1000 ~-————J-—-'=‘-— ———— —":'1_-._._- mummcmmmmm onwvmcflmfiuo umwm .mumw ou nusu .mucmumflo mcaxamz mmmum>< suggested maximum walking distance "1 1200 ‘ d q d 800 ‘ 600 ' 400 ‘ 200 ‘ 1mo---------——-__HHHJ:L_ ‘7 mummcmmmmm mewumcflfiuma ummm .nuso 0» mumw .mucmumfln meaxamz mmmum>4 Awav OHHHHOumm Away umflm Amvumuuommcmue Ame “mmcflq Ame muflaamumm Ame swam Figure 4.16 Average Walking Distance for Originating and Terminating Passengers 106 intra-terminal transportation systems be considered for the pier (8 gate) and satellite (8 gate and 16 gate) modules to reduce walking distances. However, the average distances are close to the suggested maximum. The following assumptions were made to determine the average walking distance for connecting passengers: - connecting passengers transfer from one module to another module - there is an equal distribution of connecting passengers between modules - connecting passengers leave the deplaning gate area and proceed through the central terminal area to the enplaning gate area of another module - all connecting passengers proceed through security in the module that they will be departing from — connecting passengers will not use baggage check-in or baggage claim devices The average walking distances for connecting passengers are shown in Figures 4.17 and 4.18. In virtually all cases, the walking distances for connecting passengers who transfer between modules is greater than 1000 feet. Intra-airport transportation systems have been incorporated in the terminals to reduce the walking distances for connecting passengers. 107 5000] 2 Modules 0 24-42 -1 m m a) 4000 u a) c m :1. c: 8 .3 . a) m 3000 mu m C '0 Q: P— I——1 "'10 j x 0‘ 2000- H O I: r—! guii r— gifié 1000-.__ .__._.______ __._0_‘___‘ __ suggested «:0 c max1mum H O 9: U o l l < , 5000‘ 3 Modules 4000- [__ F“ 3000' r 2000. F—‘ )— su ested 1000—00-1.-..q_.___ - ‘--r--1~--- mggimum 0 5000' 4 Modules F1 4000.. F— 3000.. r .— r- 2000.. 1000 'l’— - drain—d -4— up - suggested — I" - _ II - maximum 0 S S S 8 g 3 V v v v H H a.) u L. V V ”.4 «'4 a) u a) u A. 0-1 I: L. ....) ...1 "‘ "'1 O n. H 0 A O. H U m a) m 1: u N m E-1 Figure 4.17 Average Walking Distance for Connecting Passengers, Terminal Configuration "A" 108 50001 2 Modules 4000-I feet Connecting Passengers 3000‘ 20004 F_— I—I I 1 1000‘ _..___ ___,__.__ suggested I I max1mum 0 5000- 3 Modules Gate to Gate, Average Walking Distance, 4000‘ 3000'I V“) 2000- suggested 1000<--- ——..— .. —.—_.L.._-- , max1mum 5000~ 4 Modules 4000- 3000« ... 2000‘ suggested maximum 1000-‘- -‘f'—'- - -—0——I>--- Pier (8) Satellite (8) Linear (8) Transporter (8) Pier (16) Satellite (16) Figure 4.18 Average Walking Distance for Connecting Passengers, Terminal Configuration "B" 109 4.3 Incopporating Intra-Airport Transportation Systems in Terminal Units Two route alignment alternatives have been prepared for all terminal units. The "shuttle" alignment is the most direct route between terminal modules. whereas the "loop" alignment basically follows the terminal access road. Figures 4.19 to 4.24 show the two route alternatives for all terminal units. The following assumptions have been made in incorporating the intra-airport transportation systems in the terminal units. MovingVWalkways - units to be installed on shuttle alignment - moving walkway is to be protected from weather, so where modules are placed side-by-side, additional terminal area would be required for pier and satellite concepts - for configuration "8" concepts, the moving walkway would be incorporated in the parking structure so no additional adjustment to terminal area is required for the shuttle movement across the parking area LOOP ALIGNMENT SHUTTLE ALIGNMENT 110 1000 Scale in Feet. 0 -.— Stop/Station Intra-Airport Transportation System Route Alternatives, Pier Terminal Units Figure 4.19 mums: HmcflEume muflaamumm .mw>flumcnmuad musom Emumwm coflumuuommcmue uuomuwalmnucH om.v muswflm coflumum\moum ICI umwm CH mamum 1 OOOH @ 3% o 0 111 .0 @ fig)- @. <0 @— <08: 0 0.0. - - <0 ens MEI: $33: TL 0 0 emmsonq _ 4 000A ems gig-0 0.0 TL 00 BZWZZOHAfl MABBDmm LOOP ALIGNMENT SHUTTLE ALIGNMENT ...g.‘.‘.A.A.A 112 0 JJ C: G) O 0) ...) Eu ‘ JJ \M C.‘ 014-) -:-1 0m 4.) (D U) H ('0 U U) WNUU‘WNNU") Intra-Airport Transportation System Route Alternatives, Linear Terminal Units Figure 4.21 nmuuommcmue .mm>flumcumua< musom Emymmm 00333003 lel 0000 :0 mamom all] oooa o BZflZZOHQd mOOA mums: HmcHEHmB cofiumuuommcmne uuomuflalmuucH mm.v muomfim mmmmmmmm BZQEZOHA< MABBDEm LOOP ALIGNMENT SHUTTLE ALIGNMENT 114 1000 Scale in Feet -." Stop/Station 0 Intra-Airport Transportation System Route Alternatives, Pier (16 Gate) Terminal Units Figure 4.23 115 muHcD Hmcflfiuwa Awnmo may “mam .mm>wumcumwad musom Emum>m coaumuuommcmus uuomuwflumcumuad musom Emummm coflumuuommcmhe whomhwdnmuucH vm.v musmwh coflmumxmoum IQI uwmm cw mamom , ‘ OOOH o , . I @ ages sass aaasse ssasae @@ @@ m T11 H TIL @@@@@@ @@@@@@ BZflSZUHA/w mOOA BZflZZUHAd mABBDmm mafia: Hmcflsume Amumo va mufiHHmumm .mm>Hum:HmuH< musom Ewumwm coaumuuommcmne unomufldlmnucH A.U.ucoov vm.¢ musowm coflmumEoum IOI ummm :a m mom coca o g g g g 117 eye A? are awe 11111 1 @@@@@@@@ @@@@@@@@ BZWSZGHA< mOOQ BZWZZGHA< HABBDmm 118 - the maximum length of a walkway unit is 600 feet* Automated Guideway Transit - can operate on either shuttle or loop alignment Shuttle - vehicles Operate in both directions (i.e. no turnaround facilities required) — if only one vehicle is required for service, one guideway between stations is sufficient; if two vehicles are required, two parallel guideways are required - one on-line station for each module. - for costing. the guideway is an elevated structure Loop - one on-line station for each module - vehicles operate in a counter-clockwise direction — for costing, configuration "8" guideway is an elevated structure; arrangement "A" is elevated adjacent to terminals and at-grade on remainder of route * The maximum length is dependent on the maximum loading on the load carrying surface and tractive effort and pull due to the tensioning device. Manufacturers believe the maximum length to be about 600 feet (28), however units can be placed end to end for longer distances. When moving walkways are placed in tunnels or connecting corridors, the maximum length is generally governed by fire regulations. 119 Buses - operate on loop alignment on terminal access road - one stop for each module 4.4 Intra-Airport Transportation System Costs Unit costs have been identified for capital/ construction and for operating and maintenance of moving walkway, buses, and automated guideway transit systems. Moving Walkway The cost of installing a moving walkway unit and operating costs vary widely depending on application and the area installed (28). Several sources (8.28.35) have been reviewed and costs based on a linear foot measure would be appropriate for terminal concept planning. All costs have been adjusted to 1984 dollars using the Consumer Price Index and the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index. The cost of installing a moving walkway unit, with a width of 40 inches and an operating speed of 120 ft/min, is $2000 per linear foot. The annual operating and maintenance cost is $80 per linear foot. Buses It has been assumed that the capital cost of a bus system for intra-airport service would be the cost of vehicles required for service only. Vehicle maintenance would be done off-site and the system would be operated on 120 a contract basis. Costs have been identified for two sizes of buses - a conventional or standard urban diesel bus with seating capacity of 50 passengers, and a minibus with seating capacity of 25 passengers. Estimated costs (1984 dollars) of these vehicles used for this study are: Conventional bus (50 passengers) - $125,000 Minibus (25 passengers) - 80,000 The number of buses required for service is identified using the nomograph presented in Figure 3.3. Operating costs have been developed on the basis of vehicle miles of travel and include drivers wages, maintenance, fuel, insurance, administration and other variables associated with operation of the service. Several sources (8,15,18,35,37,53) were reviewed to determine approximate operating costs for bus operations on an airport site. The operating costs used in this study are: Conventional bus - $2.75 per vehicle mile Minibus ' - 2.50 per vehicle mile Vehicle miles travelled in an hour can be derived using the nomograph presented in Figure 3.4. Annual vehicle miles will depend on the hours of service and service frequency throughout the day. For this study it has been assumed that the hourly value determined using the nomograph represents 10 percent of the average daily vehicle miles travelled. 121 Automated Guideway Transit Since an AGT system requires the construction of an exclusive guideway and stations, the cost of these fixed facilities must be included as part of the AGT system capital cost estimate. A procedure was developed in an UMTA study (44) and it: has been used as a basis for this study to prepare cost estimates of an AGT system. Although the original procedure was prepared for downtown people mover systems, it incorporated all of the existing AGT airport cost data, and identified adjustments that should be considered when using the procedure for airport application. Seven components are identified to estimate the capital cost of the system. (1) Guideways - all guideway facilities including foundations, supporting structures, running and guidance surfaces, and switching equipment. (2) Vehicles - the rolling stock, including on-board command and control equipment (3) Stations - passenger loading platforms, access facilities, and vehicle interface equipment (4) Control and Communications - wayside and central office control and communications equipment (5) Power and Utilities - electric power transformers, feeders, switch 122 gear, and power rails (6) Maintenance and Support Facilities - repair shops and equipment such as emergency vehicles (7) Engineering and Project Management - all costs of architecture and engineering services, acceptance testing, and overall project management Data from all operating AGT systems were summarized in the UMTA study to develop unit costs for each of the seven components. These costs have been updated to 1984 dollars using the Consumer Price Index and Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index, and adjusted to include the most recent cost summary of ACT systems (47). Table 4.5 presents the unit cost values that have been used in this study and Figure 4.25 illustrates various station configurations and estimated costs for incorporating AGT in. the airport terminal. The nomograph presented in Figure 3.3 is used to determine the number of vehicles required for service. Operating and maintenance costs for AGT have been assumed as $1.75 per vehicle mile based on the UMTA study (44) and other cost summaries. An estimate of vehicle miles travelled is determined using the nomograph presented in Figure 3.4. Annual capital costs have been calculated assuming the following amortization periods and a 10% interest rate for the intra-airport transportation systems: moving walkways - 20 years automated guideway transit - 20 years 123 Table 4.5 Unit Costs for Estimating AGT System Capital Cost (all costs in millions of 1984 dollars) Cost Category Guideway - elevated - at grade - below grade Station* Vehicle Control and communications Power supply Maintenance support Project management Contengency * Depends on configuration, see Figure 4.25. Units of Cost per lane-mile per lane-mile per lane-mile per vehicle per lane-mile per lane-mile per vehicle % added to sum of above costs % added to sum of above costs Unit Cost 4.13 1.58 14.22 .60 1.98 1.00 .14 25.20 12.00 Source: Planning for Downtown Circulation Systems, Trans- portation Systems Center for UMTA, U.S.D.O.T., 1983. (Costs upgraded to 1984 values.) (A) (B) (C) (D) Figure 4.25 AGT Station Configurations Adapted from: 124 Station On-Line, Boarding One Side It On-Line, Boarding Two Sides A End of Line, One Line “ ‘7 I End of Line, Two Lines AA V7 1:..- : Estimated Cost of Incorporating in Terminal $225,000 $300,000 $350,000 $500,000 Automated Transit System Planning Guide, Westinghouse Electric Corporation, 1981. 125 conventional bus - 10 years minibus - 5 years Total annual costs are obtained by summing the annual capital and operating and maintenance costs. 4.5 Evaluation Many factors could be included in an evaluation and the factors will vary from airport to airport to meet specific concerns and characteristics. Two factors have been used in this study to provide a quantitiative comparison that could be used to identify tradeoffs between alternatives. The factors and the comparative measures that have been used include: 9.9.22. - capital cost - operating and maintenance costs — annual cost per user — additional cost of terminal area per enplaned passenger of incorporating an intra-airport transportation system (will be of interest to airport authorities, airlines and concessionaires as terminal rental fees and charges are set to cover these costs) Convenience - reduction in walking distance - effect on travel time CHAPTER 5 ANALYSIS 5.1 System Alternatives Five intra-airport transportation systems have been incorporated in the terminals - moving walkways, automated guideway transit on a shuttle alignment, automated guideway' transit on a loop alignment, minibus, and a standard or conventional size bus. The objective of installing a system was to reduce the walking distances for connecting passengers and the routings or alignments of these systems are presented for each concept in Figures 4.19 to 4.24. Several service parameters were assumed to develop capital and operating and maintenance cost estimates for each system alternative. The assumptions made for each system include: moving walkways - operating speed - 120 feet per minute automatedyguideway transi£_ - single vehicle trains - vehicle capacity - 50 passengers per vehicle - average speed - 15 miles per hour (1320 feet per minute) ' - maximum headway — 5 minutes - minimum headway - 1 minute minibus - vehicle capacity - 25 passengers per vehicle 126 127 - average speed - 10 miles per hour (880 feet per minute) — maximum headway - 5 minutes — minimum headway - 2 minutes standard (conventional size) bus - vehicle capacity - 50 passengers per vehicle - average speed - 10 miles per hour (880 feet per minute) - maximum headay - 5 minutes - minimum headway — 2 minutes 5.2 Capital Cost Using unit costs and procedures presented in Section 4.4, estimates have been made of the capital/construction cost for each of the intra-airport transportation systems and for connecting passenger levels of 10, 20, 30, 40 and 50% of enplaned passengers. Estimates for a 20% connecting passenger level are graphically shown in Figures 5.1 and 5.2. Figure 5.1 presents costs for all terminal concepts, in two, three and four module combinations, in configuration A. Figure 5.2 presents similar costs for configuration B. The intra-airport transportation systems for which cost estimates have been made include: minibus standard (conventional size) moving walkways automated guideway transit in a shuttle alignment automated guideway transit in a loop alignment As one would expect, the cost of all transportation 128 < coflumusmwmsoo HMGHEHmB .mEmummw coflumunommcmwa uuomwflfilmuucH mo umou cowuosuumcoo\HMUHmmu H.m wusmflm mmumo ma .wuwaamumm mam mummcmmmmm QOOAIBO< 4 mmumo ma .umwm mam mafiuomccoo wow wauussmneca D umquchmue .H. 133032; Def/OE O ummcflq A man pumpcmum o mmumo m .mufiaawumm mm manuficae + mmumm m .umaa mm owm 9mm + .m Mm Mm mmm can 9 A mm mm cam mad .5 A mm mm o d . . ll.ll I. «HHflHHfiHMfiMMfiHHWIJ: T m I m .I m I as r as I OH 1 ms . ma 1 ms 1 CN 1 cm 1 cm 1 mm t mm 1 mm meDUOE v [on mmHDUOE m ..om meSUOE N [om ‘maisAs u0139310dsu91¢ QJOGJIV—OJQUI go 3503 uoxioniqsuog/IvQIdrj 5191100 30 SUOTTIIN 129 m coflumusmflmcoo AmsAEumB .mEoumwm coflumunommcwue amounflm3xAm3 wcA>Qe O umwcAA A man oumocmum . mmumm m .wuHAAoumw mm manic? + mwumm m Jo: an. m S. .m. m w.m mm mmm 3m 9 A mm as omm P: on “A mm we r. m I m I 3 I 3 I 3 I 2 I cm I cm I mm I mm meDUOE v on meSmoOE m I on meDUOE N 0." ma 'moqsfis uoI lO’JJOdSuPJJ, niacin/-mnux go 3503 uononiisuog/Icndvn 5121100 3° SUOIIIIw N.m musmflm 130 system alternatives increases as the number of modules increase. The costs of transportation system alternatives for terminal configuration B are generally less than configuration A due to the compactness inherent in configuration B. This compactness results in shorter walking distances for connecting passengers and shorter guideway requirements for automated guideway transit systems. Because of the fixed guideway and station requirements, automated guideway transit system alternatives are the most expensive, and the bus alternatives are the least expensive. Similar conclusions result for other levels of connecting passengers and the costs are approximately the same as fixed facilities (moving walkway and guideway for an automated guideway system) are required as a minimum cost for all passenger levels. The vehicle requirements vary with passenger levels. As a result, the capital costs of alternatives for higher connecting passenger levels are a little higher and the capital costs of alternatives for lower connecting passenger levels are lower. However, in many cases the vehicle requirements are the same as the headway service parameter governs. At low connecting volumes, the minibus is the least expensive alternative, but as demand increases, additional buses are required and at higher demand levels, the standard bus becomes a preferred alternative. When the demand exceeds 750 pphd (passengers per hour 131 per direction) at the maximum load point, the minibus cannot be used for service as the capacity of minibus service with specified service parameters (25 passengers per vehicle, and 2 minute minimum headway) is exceeded. The capacity of standard size bus service with specified service parameters (50 passengers per vehicle, and 2 minute headway) is 1500 pphd. Due to the longer length of fixed guideways, and longer length of routes on the terminal access roads, the capital costs of providing intra-airport transportation service for the linear terminal concept are the highest. 5.3 Annual Operating and Maintenance Cost Another factor considered in assessing the cost of intra-airport transportation system alternatives is the operating and maintenance cost. Estimates of annual operating and maintenance cost have been made for each of the transportation systems at connecting passenger levels of 10, 20, 30, 40 and 50% of enplaned passengers using the unit costs and procedures presented in Section 4.4. Figures 5.3 and 5.4 present these cost estimates in a similar format to that used to show capital/construction costs. The operating and maintenance costs for each of the intra-airport transportation systems for a 20% connecting passenger level for each terminal concept, in two, three and four module combinations, and configuration A, are shown in Figure 5.3. The operating and maintenance costs for the terminals in configuration B, are shown in Figure 132 ' 4 + ‘1 $ I I I + + l T O o In I I O O Q 5121100 30 spuesnoqs, 'maasls uoxneqslodsutuj, QJOdJTV—PJIUI ;o 3503 aoueuanutew pup Burneiado Ienuuv é cowumunmflmsoo Hmcflsume .meuwxm coaumuuommcmue DuomufldlmwucH mo mumoo wocmcmucfim: pom mcflumuwmo m.m shaman mwumm .3 3mm w muwmcwmmmd @8793 4 wwwmm $332 WT mcwuowcqoo wow oAuusrmIeo< nu uwquchmue e >m3xAm3 meat/OE O unocAA A man 232an . mwumm w .quAAmumm mm man—.....cAE o mmusm m 50.3 mm me mam .H. A mm mm wHw cam .H. A mm on mam wad .H. A mm mm p ~ - - n - — _ b . . p P _ p . s _ I OOH I 09A AVIIJWHHHMW///Q\\\MWHHJV I 00A 0\ ¢ com I com I con oov oov com com wwHDGOE v room mmHHpOE m room meDUOE N Ioom 133 m cofiumusmfimcoo AmcHEumB .meumww coaumuwommcmue unomufldlmuucH mo mumoo mocmcmDCHmS pcm mcfiumnwmo mwumm wA .muAAAwuum wAm muwmcmmmmm mooAIeo< AV mwumm SA .qum mAn mcfluowccoo wow wAuusnmIeoa D umuuodmcmra a >m3x~wz mcw>OE O umwcflA A man pumpcmum . mmumm m .uuAAAmumm mm msnlwcwe o mwumm m .umflm mm 3m SE .A. A mm mm 3m 93 .A. A mm as 3m 3a .A. A mm mm Fl‘Ib _ . - . — h p . . O p p . r . . n1\nW\AVIJU\\nT|0 II.II. .tlI. I OOA AV\\xN\\yN///a\\\xWHWW I OOA I OOA . \\+ \ + I com I cow I com mmHDGOE v IOOO meDUOE m IOOO meoUOE N IOOO 'maasfis u0132310d5u91¢ QJOdJIV—PJQU] go 3503 eoueuaqurrw pus buIJeJado Icnuuv SJPIIOO 30 SPUPSDOQL O.m wusmfim 134 The lowest annual operating and maintenance costs occur with automated guideway transit system alternatives, while moving walkways and bus alternatives experience the highest costs. Similar findings were observed for other connecting pasenger levels. 5.4 Total Annual Cost Total annual costs have been estimated by amortizing the capital/construction costs and adding the annual operating and maintenance costs. Two approaches have been used to compare annual costs - annual cost per connecting passenger or user of the intra-airport transportation system, and annual cost per enplaned passenger. 5.4.1 Annual Costyper Connecting Passenger The total annual costs were divided by the annual connecting or transferring passengers for which the system was designed to develop an annual cost of intra-airport transportation system per connecting passenger. Annual costs were developed for 10, 20, 30, 40 and 50% connecting passenger levels. Figure 5.5 presents the costs for the alternative systems for each terminal concept at a 20% connecting passenger level, and terminal configuration A. Figure 5.6 presents the annual cost per connecting passenger for terminal configuration B. Higher annual costs per connecting passenger are found at the 10% connecting passenger level and lower annual 135 m coflumuomflmoou Answfiume .mEmomwm cowumuuommcmne uncanfléumuucH mo uwmcmmmmm ocwuomscou mom umoo Hmsccfl m.m musoflm moumm mA .muwaamumm mam mummcmmmmm 307.84 4 v.38 OH .32 OS ooduomccoo wow wAuuscheoc nu amusedmcuue a . >m3xAm3 mafia... O somewA A man pumpcmum . mmumm m .muwaamumm mm mooIACAE +. mmumm m .umwm mm mam mam .H. A mm mm wam «Hm .H. A mm an mam mam .H. A mm on F p . p . . p . . . b . .1 F p . . . W. m «IIIIIIIHHHHH\\\8HHHH §\\\+ .III ennflbnuflkflflfle“\\inunu W 3 o S .l H .... H I H 1&3. 1.0 e a u 1 S d O o o .iu .4u ..l N .l N .l N W” 7:3 0.! u u 6 S K d s e A; I m I m I m m a I u .b 0.0 o 1 T. To a. I. 1 IO IO IO 3% 3. 1 D. . v To 1 .d meDoOE O rm mwasooe m I m mmHDGOE w Im m 3 136 m cofiumusmflmcou Amoflfiwma .mEmuwzm coflumuwommcmue uuomHAoE O umchA A man pumocmum . mmumm w .muAAAmumm mm manlwcAE 4 mouum m .qum an mam wan .A. A mm on cam mam .H. A mm mm Sum mam .A. A mm mm p P — — — . F F u - p — — — — h p _ 1% +||I .I H .I H I. H .lu J E u S d o J 3 I w T w I w W I o u S VA 5 a In In In u a 0 T. I P 1 IO I O IO 5 mwAsooE v rm mmADooE m fi m mwAsooa w fi m 3Jothv—213u1 go Jafiuessed burqosuuo3 19d 3503 Tenuuv o.m wusmflm 137 costs per connecting passenger are found at the 30, 40 and 50% connecting passenger levels. Figure 5.7 shows the annual cost per connecting passenger of the intra—airport transportation system for Pier(8) terminal concepts at various connecting passenger levels to illustrate the reduction in annual cost per connecting passenger as the number of connecting passengers increases. A summary of costs is presented in Table 5.1. Some preliminary observations have been made. - the annual cost per connecting passenger decreases as the number of connecting passengers increases. - the bus systems have the lowest annual cost per connecting passenger and automated guideway transit operating on a loop alignment has the highest annual cost per connecting passenger. - at low connecting passenger levels, the minibus has the lowest annual cost per connecting passenger, however, as passenger levels increase and demand approaches the capacity of the minibus service, the standard bus yields lower annual costs per user. - the annual cost per connecting passenger of providing intra-airport transportation service for terminal concepts in configuration B are generally less than for configuration A, due to the compactness inherent in configuration B. - the annual cost per connecting passenger of providing intra-airport transportation service for 138 ow c: .3 sq 2A 5-1 2B 3:: CM 4‘ 4A CH 8'8 H0 3'1 3‘ mm on _ ..a 2- 2 m: 00 031q 1‘ 2:: \- - g I I I jfi‘ T I fil 'Tfi 5;: 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 SO % Connecting Passengers 3A 5‘ 3B H N w b 0" 1 l l 1 1 H N I» ah L l l l V I 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50 5 ‘ 4A 5 ' 4B 4 -4 4 «- 3- 3- 2- 2q 1'4 1. ¢—.+ I I ‘J O 10 20 3O 40 50 0 lo 20 30 40 50 + mini-bus 0 standard bus 0 moving walkway D AGT-shuttle A AGT-loop Figure 5.7 Annual Cost per Connecting Passenger of Intra-Airport Transportation Systems, Terminal Concept Pier(8) 139 among .ohoocommaa unnuoocnoo no“ no 050 nouns “muousomoua unnuooscoo ton EQHQNW CO fl Hflvhommflflkh Phonon fi‘lflHHfl—H om.~InO. OO.«Io«. OO.NIOH. «a. Inc. ~O.IOA. no.0uns. OO.OIOO. no.~non. OO. IA". «O.Io~. mn.~InO. O~.uuo~. um.~um~. On. Ice. o~.nmo.IA An.OI~O. oo.numu. OO.OIAO. «O. Io". on.us~. Oo.OIoo. OO.OIOO. OO.OIOO. OO. Imo. OO.IOA. OO.OIOO. Oo.«IOO. OO.OIOO. on. INA. on.IoA. Os.mumomww OO.OION. Oo.nun~. so. IA". mo.InA. fian.OIOO.A os.ouno. ms.ouos. Ao.AIou. OO.IO«.I_ OO.OIOO. Om.nuaO. OO.OIOO. on. Imo. OO.IOA. os.ouuo.A oO.«IOO. no.«uoo. on. Ina. As.usu. Oo.OIn~. OO.OIAO. OO.OIOO. mO. Imo. OO.IOA. no.nuoo.n OO.«IOO. no.uuon. Os. IO". mm.IoH. goon ofluvnsm amzxams mam «spans: Iaoc I504 ucq>oz ouuocnum 4m 4m 4m: 4m m GOAHMuhoamcmuH uuomhnOE nuwz man cqu xAco mCAxAm3 oAm oAm b A mm an .r r p A b b p - oo.m Iom.m Ioo.v Iom.v mmADUoE q .éoa mmumm mA 0006 b . b mmAspoE m mwumo m mwumm wA umuuoamcmue mound m mAm wAm B A mm mm oo.n Wom.m Ioo.v Iom.e roo.m .mAAAAwumm .umAm umchA .muAAAoumm .umAa oAm oAm B A mm mm b h h P p wA wA B A m a mm mm _ mwAspoE N Iom.m Ioo.v Iow.v roo.m MA.m musmAm 'Jabuassed pauetdua zed :soo tenuuv szeIIop 153 m coAumusmAmcou AMCAEHmB .Hmmcommmm pmGMAmcm Hum umov Amsccd mumocmmmmm .233 3 63:33 3m 5:382:00 wow @8792 5A3 4 $95 3 :82 3a oAuuscmnAoAA :33 D uwuuoamcmue .A. m>m3xAm3 ch>OE cup: 0 umchA A man :uA3 o mmumm m .muAAAmumw wm 3:0 chxAmill mmumu m £03 an mAm mAm a A mm mm wAm oAm e A mm mm eAm wAm a A mm mm A A A A A A A A A A A A . F A A A A A . oo.m co m «. oo Iom.m Iom.m Iom. Iooé Iooé Ioo. Tom.v tom.v Iom. $3569: A ..oo.m mmAAAcoE m .86 mmAsAVOE N roo. vA.m wusmAm ‘Jabuossvd poue1du3 10d :soa Isnuuv SJPIIOP 154 all passenger trips in the terminal are walking trips. ‘The solid lines show the annual cost per enplaned passenger of the terminal that includes an intra-airport transportation system to reduce the walking distances for connecting passengers only. The solid lines are generally above the dashed line, however in some cases, the annual cost per enplaned passenger is lower with an intra-airport transportation system. This results when the cost of constructing and maintaining links for walking between modules is greater than providing an intra-airport transportation system and occurs for some Pier and Satellite terminal concepts that have been included in the study. The average percentage increase or decrease in annual cost per enplaned passenger of the terminal area with the addition of an intra-airport transportation system for connecting passengers is summarized on Table 5.5 for each terminal concept and configuration. For this study, it has been assumed that only one means of transfer would be provided for passengers between modules. As a result, negative values appear on the table for cases where an intra-airport transportation system that transfer passengers between terminal modules would have a lower cost than extending the terminals to provide a walking link. In actual terminal planning, modules that are located close to each other would be linked and passengers may have several choices for movement within the terminal. 155 _ Xm.v xm.u 8m.v &Q.AI *m.AI mmnfivos mama 0A "Gmwh0>¢ 0.0 0.“ ¢.v ~.As v.An m m.¢ a.“ 0.0 «.0: 0.0: a AoAA ouAAAmumm A.¢ ~.m A.0 0.0: 0.0: m 0.0 «.0 A.» A.Au 0.Au c AmAA qum _ x0.~A xm.0 a~.~ am.0 xo.A moAsuoz name 0 Hummuo>< A.m 0.0 0.0 0.A ~.A m m.~A «.0 0.0 0.A 0.A < AmA nouuoomcmue A.¢A 0.A 0.0 m.A 0.A m A.- «.0A 0.0A 0.0 0.0 < Am. umchA A.m ¢.0 A.0 0.0 0.0 m m.~A 0.0 «.0 «.0: A.0 4 A0. uuAAAmumm 0.0 4.0 A.0 4.0 0.0 m A.~A 0.0 0.0 «.0: «.0 a A0. qum QwOA mAuuanm Mmzwaz mam msnAcAz :oAumuammucoo ammocoo Iaom I904 ucA>oz UnmoQMHm AchEAUH AchauoB EOHQWW GOA. PMHHOWHQCMHH. HNOQH fi‘lflhHGH mamasmmmmm manuomcsoo ham emum>m coAAMuuommsmua uaomuAmlmaucH mo :oAuA004 nqu mou< AmsASAua no noncommmm omsmAacm mom «moo Amacs< GA ommmuooo no unmouocH manucoonmm monum>¢ 0.0 oAnma 156 The following observations are made: — the smallest impact on the annual cost per enplaned passenger of the terminal area occurs with the use of buses for intra-airport transportation service; the largest impact results with the use of automated guideway transit on a loop alignment. - smaller increases in annual cost per enplaned passenger occur for terminal concepts with 16 gate modules than with 8 gate modules. - the smallest impact occurs with the Satellite(16) concept as cost savings result by providing an intra-airport transportation system instead of constructing links for walking between the terminal modules; the largest impact occurs with the Linear(8) terminal concept in configuration A. - the impact of automated guideway transit in loop alignment is smaller for terminal configuration B. 5.5 Travel Time The automated guideway transit alternatives have been the most expensive alternatives examined in the study. However, when evaluating intra-airport transportation system, tradeoffs were expected. Because of higher operating speeds, it was anticipated that automated guideway transit would rank high in convenience measures. One measure of convenience that has been considered in this study is travel time. The average travel time for connecting passengers has 157 been determined for intra-airport transportation system alternatives in each terminal concept. To determine the travel time, it was assumed that connecting passengers would walk from arrival gate to the intra-airport transportation system, board and ride the system, and then alight and walk to their departure gate. A factor has also been included to account for the operating frequency of the intra-airport transportation system. An additional time equal to one half of the headway is added. Figures 5.15 and 5.16 show the average travel times for connecting passengers for each terminal concept at the 20% connecting passenger level. The average percentage increase or decrease in travel time with an intra-airport transportation system compared to walking only is summarized on Table 5.6. The largest reductions in travel time are obtained by incorporating automated guideway transit on a shuttle alignment. This alignment would be similar to a direct route that a connecting passenger walking from arrival gate to departure gate would follow. Automated guideway transit has been used to replace walking over a portion of the trip. Larger reductions may be achieved for Pier and Satellite terminal concepts by selecting an alignment that would reduce the walking portion even further. Moving walkways could also be used to replace walking on a direct trip, however since the operating speed of moving walkways (120 feet per minute) is less than walking speed, the 158 d coAumusmAmcoo Amcflfiuma .muomcmmmmm chuomcsou How mEAB Aw>mAB mmmum>< mA.m wusmAm mmumm mA .muAAAmumm oAm muomcwmmmm nooAqu< cuAs AV magma mA .qua 0AA chuomccoo wow mAuusnmasuc 5:3 0 umuAOchmue .A. m>m3xAm3 0:306 zqu 0 umchA A man 5;: o mmumm w .muAAAmumm mm >Aco chxAms ll mound m 63: mm 3m SA .A. A mm mm 3m go .A. A mm mm 3m 3a .A. A mm mm A A A T A A P A A A A r P A A P If A Al m . 1| m A. vi 0 . A u v .A ./ I mm . , x A... ...... o I A I mm.“ ... oA / I 0A 4 ... 0A a 4 < J l A 4 \ hsm / I I \ A I \ I ,<\ o w m. I 4 3 . A o I 4‘ a U I .3 I 4 1 3 A o I 3 3m A 4 I 0 s D .1... 4 A x e o A . x m1 \ I 3 1 ...w 1 o~ \ . 1 ON \ . I o~ x.u \ u a \ n 0 A A... \ ... m \ . r O 1 mm 1 mm ... mm I moAsooe v fiom mmADoOE m rom mmADUOE N rem 159 m coAumusmAmcou chAEuoB .mnmmcmmmmm chuomccou mom mEAB Am>mue mmmum>4 muwmcmmmmm chuomccoo won 000A-Ao< 50A: mAuusnmneu< nuAs m>03xA03 ch>OE nuAs man :uAs >Aco ochAm3 oAm oAm mm mm A A AB A p p P mmAsooE v fiom moumm wA mmu I ODQ wound a .muAAAmumm mm oA .AmAd umuuodmcmue AmchA .ouAAAoumm In moumm m .umAd mam wflm B A mm mm P A A mmAsUOE m mAm wAm B A mm mm mam man 9 A mm we r A P b h A mmAsooE m 0A mA om mm on 0A.m musmAA 'SJObUBSSUd burnoouuos Jo; omxi Ianvi¢ ODUJOAV 'ain on 3399 sainuxw 160 .mumm musuummoo OA ovum Am>AAAm .uomcmmmmm chuomcsoo ADA 03A» Am>mna an .>Aco chxAmz cu Omummaoo A mAI «NI vA+ oAI AAI m.~A m mNI mmI mA+ mAI ONI v.mm d vAI mAI wA+ m I m I «.nA m owl nmI mA+ mAI mAI v.mA A «AI nNI mm+ a I m I A.~ m a + mAI ov+ AN+ mA+ 0.0 ¢ o + AAI mm+ o~+ mA+ m.m m «AI AmI ~m+ e + A + m.AA < oAI mAI mA+ A I m I ~.mA m m I o~I wA+ a I v I m.¢A < m I AAI mA+ N I n I A.AA m &m I waI xmA+ &A + &A I mmuacAe m.AA 4 .IIIIIL QOOA «Auusnm mmzxAmz mam msnAcAz aAso chxAmz soAumusuAucoo Iaod Iaod msA>oz oumosmum uuoaAB Ao>muh AchEAma monum>¢ Emummm :oAumApoamcmuh AnoaAAcImnucA AAA: ..meAA Ao>mua mummcommm ucAuouccoo new Ewum>m cooAumAnommcmuH uuomuAmu8 CA a mmmohomn no mmmwuocH manucmonmm mmmum>< AoAA muAAAmumm AwAv thm Amy nounommcmna Am. HmeAA Amv mufinnouMm Am. hufim Ammocoo AMGAEAMH m.m wanna 161 travel time from gate to gate with moving walkways actually increases. Since the bus and AGT on loop alignment follow the terminal access road, the routing is not as direct and the reduction in travel time is not as pronounced as the more direct routing of AGT in shuttle alignment. Although the travel times with moving walkways are longer than walking, moving walkways provide continuous service. The travel times that are presented in Figures 5.15 and 5.16 are for peak period service in which the headways would be shortest to accommodate the higher passenger demands. In off-peak periods, the travel time using moving walkways remains the same, however the travel time using other intra-airport transportation systems would increase to reflect longer headways. 5.6 Walkinginistance The intra—airport transportation systems have been incorporated in the terminals to reduce the walking distances for connecting passengers. Average walking distances for connecting passengers have been determined. These represent the walking distance from arrival gate to intra-airport transportation system, plus the distance from where the passenger alights the transportation system to departure gate. As a result, the total walking distance with an intra-airport transportation system is related to the walking distances within a module and the station/stop location of the transportation system. The number of modules and configuration does not affect this value. 162 Table 5.7 presents the average walking distance for connecting passengers when the intra-airport transportation system is incorporated. The longest distances occur with the Pier and Satellite concepts. A comparison of average walking distance for connecting passengers with an intra-airport transportation system, to the average walking distance without a system has also been made to estimate the reduction in walking distance. Figure 5.17 illustrates the average walking distances for each terminal concept in configuration A, and Figure 5.18 presents similar information for configuration B. The largest reductions in walking distances occur as the number of modules is increased. 0n review of the resulting average walking distances with the intra—airport transportation system, further reductions would be required for the Pier and Satellite concepts if the objective were to have average walking distances for connecting passengers of below 1000 feet. Two approaches that could be considered are shown in Figure 5.19. (1) Incorporate a transportation system in the pier of the Pier concept or between the satellite and central landside terminal of the Satellite concept, similar to Tampa airport. In addition to serving connecting passengers, the system would handle originating and terminating passengers. Moving walkways or automated guideway transit could be employed for this purpose. 163 Table 5.7 Average Walking Distance in Terminal Concepts Average Walking Distance, feet Originating Terminating Passenger2 Passenger3 Connecting Terminal Passenger with Concept Transport System1 Pier (8) 1100 Satellite (8) 1550 Linear (8) 700 Transporter (8) 400 Pier (16) 1700 Satellite (16) 1950 1 Arrival gate to departure gate 2 Curb to departure gate 3 Arrival gate to curb 788 709 1023 945 417 355 601 413 1030 868 1172 1053 164 ESEAwa Umummmmsm AMCAEHmB .mnmmcommmm ocAuomccou MOM mocmuon Eoumxm coAumuuoomcmuu wmumo wA uuomuAMImuucA nuA3.ll A mm mm A mwAsUOE w AAco wchAm3 mmumm m .Eoumxm usonuws II I I F wAm wAm a A mm mm P A A OOOAIII ooom econ ooom A A r mwAsooE m l I A :oAumusmAmcoo .muAAAoumm mAm moumm AA .AoAA AAA usuAOchmue a AmocAA A .muAAAmumm mm mmumm m .umAd mm mdm mam B A mm mm P A A OCAxAmz mmmum>¢ 000A 88 \x x \ coon A ooov 025 mmAsooE N I oooA ooo~ ooom ooov ooom ‘SJObUOSSPd bu I51 1 PM Ohm] DAV ' 33131) 03 33 '3‘.) 3883 burionuuon JO} AA.m musmAA onuvism Hmcfl8nme .muwmcmmwmm mcfluowccou 80m mocmumflo mcflxam3 mmmum>< Ewum>m cOMumuuoomcmuu uuoaufimumuuCM nuw3.l. >Hco mcwxama .mufiaamumm umuuommcmue “@0884 .wuwaamumm mmumo ma mmumm ma mmumm m mwumm m .Emum>m unocuwz.lt mam mam 9 A mm mm P A A A A A mam can 9 4 mm mm A A A mam mam e 4 mm mm A A A A A A 858.388 I- n cos fl vmuwmmmfim l / ‘ / / x / / 1 ooo~ ‘ z .\ \ z \ \ /\ x x \ I DOOM \ \ \ \ o \ : ocov mmH5©08 v fiooom mmHsUOE m I ooov r? ooom m GOHHMHDOHmcoo cam wag 9 A mm mm coo.” Illw m¢a5©08 m I l OOOH ooom ooom ooov ooom ‘SJObUOSSOd hUIXIDM nthnAV '9399 o: 0199 JD} ODUV)51H 3333 bUIQJDUUOJ ma.m musmflm 166 (l) Intra-Terminal System (2) Inter-Terminal System Under Apron 0 1000 Scale in Feet —.'- Stop/Station Figure 5.19 Alternative Intra-Airport Transportation System Routes to Reduce Walking Distances for Connecting Passengers in Pier and Satellite Terminal Concepts 167 (2) Placing the system under the apron to provide a direct link from pier to pier, or satellite to satellite. A similar approach is presently being implemented at the Atlanta-Hartsfield Airport (Figure 2.3). The original concept consisted of a landside terminal and four satellite terminals that are connected by a central underground transportation mall. Moving walkways are now being placed in a tunnel that links the ends of adjacent satellites to eliminate a longer walk to use the central system. The annual cost per connecting passenger and the effect on walking distance and travel time by placing the automated guideway system under the apron were examined for the Pier and Satellite concepts in configuration A. 5.7 Alternative Aligpments for Pier and Satellite Concepts By placing the intra-airport transportation system in a tunnel under the apron, a direct link would be provided for connecting passenger and average walking distances could be reduced below the suggested guideline of 1000 feet. It was anticipated that the costs of this alternative would be considerably higher than the alternatives initially examined because of tunnel construction. Estimates of the construction, operating and maintenance costs of using automated guideway transit in a tunnel on a shuttle alignment have been made for Pier and Satellite concepts in configuration A. Total annual costs were prepared and divided by annual connecting passengers 168 so that comparisons could be made to annual cost per connecting passenger values that were presented in Figure 5.5. The annual costs per connecting passenger of an automated guideway transit shuttle in a tunnel for a 20% connecting passenger level are shown in Figure 5.20. For the Pier and Satellite 8-gate modules, the annual cost per connecting passenger falls between the costs of automated guideway transit on shuttle and loop alignments that linked the central terminal areas. however, for the Pier and Satellite 16-gate modules, the annual cost per connecting passenger of placing automated guideway transit in a tunnel to link the modules is higher than all other alternatives originally examined. This results from additional stations and longer guideways than were initially required for the system linking the central terminal areas. A bus system operating on the terminal access road continues to be the lowest annual cost per connecting passenger alternative. Although the annual cost per connecting passenger of placing the automated guideway transit system in a tunnel is higher than other alternatives, the average walking distances for connecting passengers have been reduced below the suggested guideline of 1000 feet. The average walking distances from gate to gate for connecting passengers with an automated guideway transit shuttle system in a tunnel are shown in Figure 5.21 and the resulting travel times for connecting passengers are presented in Figure 5.22. It becomes apparent that by using the average walking 169 é :oflumuomwwcou HMCHEHwB .Hmccse cfi wauuanm Bum mo Hmmcmmmmm mcwuomccou Hmm umoo Hmsccd muwmcwmmmm Hmccsu cw oHuchmleoc I mwumm 3 .ouwgoumm mam mcfiuooccoo mom 8008-904 AV moans ma .uoam mam wauussmleod D umuuommcmue a. ASS—Hm», 05.508 0 ummcwq A man ounpcmum . mounm m .muwaawumm mm manna??— + moumm m 33.3 mm mam can a A mm on man can a A mm mm mam can a A mm mm A A A A P A A A A A r A A A A r A r \II|< Hm.m wusmflm mmumm ea .muaaauumm mam chcsu CA mauusnmIBom spars...- mmumm 3 .80.: o: Ewumxm coAumuuoomcmuu umuuommcmue B uuomuAMImuucw nuw3.ll unused A mace mcwxama mmumm m .ouwaamumm mm .Ewumam unozufi3 II moumm m .umwm on me was s 4 mm mm cam bad a 4 mm mm mam man a 4 mm mm F Ll A A A A A A A A A A P L A A A A 858fime m Umummmmsm III I I oooaI I I oooHI I I II 0008 mm“ 2 > A x m M A a I \l .m H. l , i , \ , A I seem a I seem \ z \ I seem . m s , / x / \ .I.I ’ A / \ (\ .L H a x x x n ..I. x! \ A /\\ \ . w i /\ a \ o a I seen A I soon \ I 000m mwu \ 3.; A A a n N \ \ a I. A \ \ mum . \ wm \ I ocovx I case I oooq m \ x n \ .m. \ s 4 mmHDUOE v r.som meDUOE m r.som meSUOE m Insom 171 < coflumusmfimcoo HchEAmB .Hmccse CA maupsnm 90¢ nua3 mummcmmmmm mcfluomccou How mEAB Hm>mue mmmnm>d mm.m musmflm mhwmcmmmmm chcsu AAA mauusnmIaod £9.25 I mmumm ma .muAHAwumm Sm .mcfluomccoo wow aooHIso< saw: AV mmumm ma .umAm was wAuusnmIsoa fit; 0 “333:3... A. mxmzxam.’ 0:85.: 5“; O .3913 a man 533 . mmumm m .mufiamumm mm 3:0 955203 III $323 a 83: mm 3m can A. 4 mm mm mum mum A. 4 mm mm cam 9: A. A mm mm A A A A A A A A A A A A r A A A A A . I m . I m _' I m . m w A I A / I m m / a .o. o I I mm I OH ’4 I OH I 4 I_oA m I I 4 \ S J. z u u \ .m / \ I , x o D a - ‘ 9 I I A 4 x 3 ‘A a 1m A o I I. T m." I 4 I m." A I I ma 3 m ~ ‘ s I O 0 4 A \ m m: A . x m: A \ d m Iom . x . Mu \\ j ON \ I ON M W n a \ an \ s m 0 O I mu I mm I mm I m¢a5©08 v Aom mmH9©08 m ron mmH5©08 N Ion 172 distance guideline of 1000 feet, several of the intra-airport transportation systems could not be used fOI' the Pier and Satellite concepts as the average walking distances for connecting passengers between gates and transit stops/stations are above 1000 feet. Tradeoffs between walking distance and system alternatives and costs result. Travel time is also inherent in the tradeoff and a reduction in walking distance will usually result in a shorter travel time for connecting passengers as walking is generally the slowest portion of the trip. CHAPTER 6 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 6.1 §ummarv Consideration and analysis of various intra—airport transportation systems to reduce walking distances and provide for the efficient movement of passengers on the airport site is expected to become an important component in terminal planning studies. A framework for the planning of intra-airport transportation systems has been developed in this study and techniques have been prepared to assist the terminal planner in the conceptual phase of the terminal design process. These include nomographs to determine service characteristics for a system and cost estimating procedures. Modifications have also been made to a Federal Aviation Administration analytical terminal planning model to expand its capabilities to assess the impact of an intra-airport transportation system on other passenger processing facilities. The FAA Airport Landside Model was originally developed to assist in planning of the landside facilities at an airport and it has become a valuable tool that can be used in the conceptual and schematic design phases. Its use provides the planner with the opportunity to vary parameters in the terminal and assess the impacts. In addition to the modifications to incorporate an 173 174 intra—airport transportation system, provision has been made to trace connecting pasengers through the terminal area, and additional passenger processing facilities have been included. Using the framework and techniques, intra-airport transportation systems have been incorporated in "generic" terminals of various concepts and for different passenger demand levels to identify guidelines for the use of these systems. 6.2 Conclusions The average walking distances for originating and terminating passengers in all of the terminals examined fall within the suggested guideline for maximum walking distance of 1000 feet. However, the average walking distances for connecting passengers exceed the guideline. Minibuses, conventional buses, automated guideway transit operating on a loop alignment, automated guideway transit operating on a shuttle alignment, and moving walkways have each been incorporated in generic terminals to reduce the walking distances for connecting passengers. Route alignments and service characteristics were developed and the total capital/construction cost, annual operating and maintenance cost, total annual cost per connecting passenger, and total annual cost per enplaned passenger were determined for each system, for each terminal concept and configuration, and for several connecting passenger levels. Reductions in travel times were also quantified 175 for each case. The primary conclusions and findings of applying the methodology developed in this study to the generic terminals include the following: 1. Intra-airport transportation systems operating in linear terminal concepts have the highest total annual cost per connecting passenger, while systems operating in terminals with a more compact arrangement, such as the transporter concept or pier and satellite concepts with 16 gate modules, have the lowest total annual cost per connecting passenger. The distances travelled and lengths of guideways for an intra-airport transportation system serving connecting passengers in a linear terminal are the longest for the terminal concepts examined and this results in the highest total annual operating cost per connecting passenger. 2. Bus systems have the lowest capital cost and lowest total annual cost per connecting passenger, however these systems have capacity limitations. The capacity of a minibus system is about 750 passengers per hour per direction, and the capacity of a system using conventional or standard size buses is about 1500 passengers per hour per direction. At lower connecting passenger volumes, the minibus system has the lowest total annual cost per connecting passenger, but as the demand approaches the capacity, a 176 system using standard buses has a lower total annual cost per connecting passenger. The level at which this occurs depends on the terminal configuration but is in the range of 600,000 to 1 million annual connecting passengers. Since a bus system would share terminal access roads and curbfront with other vehicular traffic, congestion is likely to occur as the demand increases and additional buses are required to accommodate the demand. 3. Moving walkways have higher total annual costs per connecting passenger than bus systems, but can be incorporated within a terminal building to provide a more direct route for connecting passengers than bus systems. The routing of the bus systems would be restricted by the terminal access road layout. When compared to travel times for connecting passengers walking between gates, the times are increased as moving walkways operate at less than walking speed. However, since moving walkways provide continuous service, no waiting time is required and this is an attractive feature. 4. Automated guideway transit systems have the lowest operating and maintenance costs, but the total annual costs per connecting passenger are high due to the fixed guideway and station requirements. Automated guideway transit provides the greatest potential for reductions in travel times for connecting passengers because of the higher 177 operating speeds of vehicles on exclusive guideways, and becomes an attractive alternative on a cost basis when the passenger demand exceeds the capacity that can be provided with a bus system. The level at which this occurs depends on the terminal configuration but it is approximately 2.5 to 3 million annual connecting passengers. Automated guideway transit on a shuttle alignment has a lower total annual cost per connecting passenger than automated guideway transit on a loop alignment for the terminal concepts, configurations and passenger demand levels examined. However, the total annual cost per connecting passengers for the two systems is comparable for configuration B with four terminal modules. 5. A direct or shuttle-type alignment provides the greatest opportunities for shortest travel times and lowest COStS . 6. The impact on the annual cost per enplaned passenger of incorporating an intra-airport transportation system for connecting passengers in the terminal area varies with the system, terminal concept, terminal configuration, and the number of connecting pasengers. The largest impact occurs when automated guideway transit operating on a loop alignment is incorporated in a linear terminal concept. The annual cost per enplaned passenger is increased by about 23 percent when compared to the concept without an intra-airport transportation system and 178 walking is the only means available for connecting passengers. 7. The walking distance guideline becomes an important factor in identifying intra-airport transportation system alternatives for consideration. Alternative systems and route alignments may be eliminated when the walking distances for connecting passengers between gates and system boarding and alighting points exceed the suggested guideline. For example, the sum of the walking distance from arrival gate to intra-airport transportation system boarding location and alighting point to departure gate exceeds the suggested guidelines of 1000 feet in the pier and satellite terminal concepts examined. Further reduction in walking distances would be required if the objective were to have average walking distances for connecting passengers of below 1000 feet. This would require the introduction of an additional system to reduce the walking distances or placement of the intra-airport transportation system on a different alignment (i.e., in a tunnel under the apron). Bus systems would probably not be considered for these alternative approaches. 8. The selection of an intra-airport transportation system has to be a local decision based upon the desired levels of service and objectives for the individual airport as tradeoffs result between cost, convenience and other 179 factors. As a result, no attempt has been made in this study to select the appropriate system under various scenarios that include several types of evaluation factors. This study has addressed only the quantitative factors such as walking distance, travel time, and cost. 2.3 Limitations The framework and techniques developed in this study have general application at airports. The modifications that have been made to the FAA Airport Landside Model provide the planner with a technique to assess the impact of an intra-airport transportation system on passenger processisng facilities within a terminal or between terminals. Further modification would be required so that the model can be used to examine passenger movements between terminals and other activity centers, such as remote parking areas, cargo areas, or adjacent hotels. Several assumptions have been made in developing the generic terminals and incorporating the intra-airport transportation systems. The systems have been designed to carry connecting passengers only and an equal distribution of connecting passengers between terminals has been assumed. The unit costs represent typical values and do not specifically reflect variations that would occur in different regions of the country. As a result, although the application of the framework and techniques have been demonstrated, care must be taken in extracting cost and convenience values from this study and applying them 180 directly to an actual airport site. 6.4 Future Research Needs During the course of this study, areas for further research were identified. Work could be undertaken to examine the effects of varying service parameters and route alignments for intra-airport transportation systems. Combinations of transportation systems and guidelines for airport circulation systems could be addressed. In addition, further work would seem necessary to refine capital/construction, and operating and maintenance costing procedures to develop more precise cost estimates of incorporating intra-airport transportation systems on an airport site. This study has also identified the importance of the walking distance guidelines for planning. Work should be done in this area to clarify guidelines for originating and terminating passengers and develop guidelines for connecting passengers. Finally, the selection of an intra—airport transportation system has to be a local decision and an evaluation of alternatives involves many considerations and tradeoffs among factors. A framework to assist decision makers in selecting and measuring these factors would be a valuable contribution. APPENDICES APPENDIX A FAA AIRPORT LANDSIDE MODEL - EXAMPLE PROBLEM The FAA Airport Landside Model* was developed as a tool to assist in the quantitative assessment of the airport landside. It consists of a set of computer routines which analytically model each component of the airport landside and a program and methodology for linking the routines to compute passenger delay and passenger processing time. For this study, changes have been made to the original model to expand its capabilities. The major changes include the ability to trace the route of connecting passengers and identify time spent by these passengers transferring from gate to gate, and the provision to include an intra-airport transportation system. An example is presented in this Appendix to show the input requirements and output data from the model and illustrate the changes that have been incorporated. The example consists of two pier modules placed side—by-side and served by one road access system. A people mover system links the two terminals and operates on a loop alignment. The example terminal unit is shown in * The FAA's Airport Landside Model - Analytical Approach to Delay Analysis. Federal Aviation Administration, U.S.D.O.T., Washington, D.C., 1978. 181 Figure 182 A.l. There are two basic types of input data. The first is control data that describes overall airport characteristics and includes the following parameters: annual passenger enplanements number of passengers processed during the peak hour (or design hour) number of passenger traffic peaks in a typical day number of aircraft operations in the peak hour (or design hour) aircraft fleet mix (% widebody aircraft) percent of daily passengers processed during peak hour (or design hour) average load factor percentage of connecting passengers origin and destination of connecting passengers within the terminal area (change made for this study) percentage of passenger arrivals by auto, taxi, bus, and rail average number of bags checked per passenger average number of passengers per vehicle using airport roads during the peak hour (or design hour) terminal splits main roadway capacity (in vehicles per hour) number of lanes on main roadway percentage of vehicles recirculating total number of airport parking spaces total airport deplaning curb frontage (feet) total airport enplaning curb frontage (feet) The second is network data that describes 183 Terminal 1 E) Terminal 2 ® @r :© ®LI 94: F'— 6 (k G? j __J 9 G L A; J V A o 400 @ Scale in Feet . transit stop/stati on O faci lity code Figure A.l Terminal Unit for Example Problem V 184 passenger flow and passenger servicing characteristics. The passenger flow descriptions include probabilities used by the model to distribute passengers from one processing facility to others. These probabilities are specified in transition probability matrices. The passenger flow descriptions also include the distances (in feet) between the various facilities for each path followed by enplaning, deplaning or connecting passengers. These distances are specified in distance matrices. To assist in the development of these matrices link-node network diagrams are prepared. The nodes represent passenger processing facilities, and the links represent the paths of passengers between these facilities. Figure A.2 presents a network diagram for the deplaning system of either Terminal 1 or Terminal 2. For this example problem, it has been assumed that the two terminals are identical. The distances between processing facilities are shown on the links, and the number in brackets on the links represents the probability of passengers that leave one facility destined to the next. Figure A.3 presents the enplaning system and Figure A.4 presents the connecting systems. Service characteristics input for each passenger processing facility include the number of units (e.g. number of ticket counters) in service during the peak or design hour, the mean service time, the standard deviation of service time, and applicable queueing model. The two exceptions to this input format for service characteristics 185 G Gate D Departure Room Area CR Rental Car B Baggage C3, C4 Doors Figure A.2 Deplaning System Network, Terminal 1 and Terminal 2 186 400'. 35': p (1.0' (1.0 (1.0) C Curb C1, C2 Doors Tl Ticket Counter (express - limited baggage) T2 Ticket Counter SE Security D Departure Room G Gate Figure A.3 Enplaning System Network, Terminal 1 and Terminal 2 187 Terminal 1 to Terminal 2 Terminal 1 Terminal 2 Deplaning Enplaning Terminal 2 to Terminal 1 Terminal 2 Terminal 1 Deplaning Enplaning G Gate - deplaning passengers Dd Departure Room Area - deplaning passengers PMS People Mover System (Intra-Airport Transportation Systenn SE Security De Departure Room - enplaning passengers Ge Gate - enplaning passengers Figure A.4 Connecting System Networks 188 are the baggage claim area and the intra-airport transportation system. For the baggage claim area, the rate at which baggage is placed on the carousel, and the distance from the gate to the baggage claim area are required. The input data for the intra-airport transportation system is the distance between boarding and alighting points (in feet), the average speed (in feet per second), and headway (in seconds). A roadway model has been incorporated in the FAA Airport Landside Model so network travel and transition probability matrices are not required for the roadway access system. The service characteristics input varies for the parking, curb, and roadway submodels. For the example problem, the input data is entered in the following order: Control Data_ Network Data_ Deplaning System - Terminal 1 Facility Service Characteristics Network Travel Matrix Transition Probability Matrix Enplaning System - Terminal 1 Connection System - Terminal 1 to Terminal 2 Deplaning System - Terminal 2 Enplaning System - Terminal 2 Connecting System - Terminal 2 to Terminal 1 Road Access System The input data is shown in Figure A.5. 189 xfluumz muAHAQmQOHm cofluflmcmuell w. xfluumz Hw>mwe xwozumzll w moflumflumuomnmnu mofl>uwm NuAHAomm.I H HmcHEme I Ewwmwm mcwcmamsm xHHAmE Nuflaflnmnowm cowuflmcmwa waumz Hm>mwe xHOBsz moflumflnmuomumnu mofl>wwm Nuwaflommnl H Hmcweume I Ewumxm mcflcmammo r mumo Houucou uuomuflm mw>02 wJQOua 1AA) .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 00.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0m .0 0 0 . w .0. m .ON m .0v m .00N N .0m. 0 .0. N .0. N .0. v N m I Imhm>m UZAZw 02n2<4awo N .OOQN 0..0 0..0 0..0 0..0 0m.0 0m.0 00.. 0..0 N N . mm.0 0N.0 .Omv. .000N On . m ma<2~2uwh mwua 03h m.< musmflm to Terminal 2 Facility Service Characteristics Connecting System - Terminal 1 A—JAA—JA ION ...... Q 99°99m' TERMINAL 1 T0 TERMINAL 2 QN 9'01”?me “5555555855552 ity Matrix Network Travel Matrix :r-Transition Probabil ........ ..o. 000030000000 . 000800000800 v '- 555555558555 ' ' INAL 2 m v- TER mV—lnoolegc-ooozv‘ $00000 00000: Deplaning System - Terminal 2 Enplaning System - Terminal 2 190 m$555555g5 ”555555855 '3 F8 ...... ..om.. n8........ P00280000V000 ’0 000 00 INAL 2 0 0 0 TER .....omo ...... 8 ..... 2N........v-oo.-oou.. 000000 mooooo 00000w 00008000 00000000 v-v-gI—I- (V) . Q—I-v-v-mvflv- m V‘ U) " m "N >- >- U) V) 0 0 ........ '200QNVNNCDO . . . . . . . . . . . .ZQQNNmNanmO . . . . . . . . 0000000000005 0000000000005 V 00000000 4 4 AJ .1 Q (L m 2 0 Lu 00000000 P 0 00000000 ? 09988000 DOC-v: ' .J 00 00000000H 00 a I.” P- M NA 0 Moo .0...— 00000000 00 0 v0000000m 0 h I o ...... 000000005n 0 > m 0 2 HGQQONDDDN 00000000h CONNEC Connecting System - Terminal 2 1 l rmina to Te v-I-QNv-v-mv- ”CD 00m000In eeeeeeeeee 0000m0000000 '— 000800000000 Q '- 0 Nm00000000000 191 'A—Road Access System V) U 0000000000000 ROAD 0031‘ V‘Dlflflt’) 00000v00 IDIDV LDLD NNN NW v-N NV- ONGOF'ONN 192 The basic output is the total time spent by passengers enplaning, deplaning or connecting. The model does not account for time spent by passengers in optional activities such as visiting restrooms or newstands, or voluntary waiting time experienced by passengers who arrive well in advance of their flight. The total time is calculated as the sum of three components: (1) Delay time - the time spent by a passenger waiting in queues before being processed. (2) Service time — the time it takes to service a passenger at all required processing facilities. (3) Travel time - the time it takes a passenger to travel from facility to facility. The model presents these times at various levels of aggregation as shown on the output for the example problem (Figure A.6). The FAA Airport Landside Model program, with the modifications made for this study, is included in this Appendix as Figure A.7. 193 .000m ”mw04dw 02AxaAu>AAO<3o<0a Aaoaand .00m “wwqhzouu maDU ANOQmA< Adhoh m.. ”xqa awn w0< 0.. ”m40A1u> awn x< 0m. 0m. “104w hd AHJQm «NOZwmmdd N UmeON 4<2~1awh no ammSDZ . ”mAAzD szmtmwh no ammEDZ Au§m mA 23m quh meg awkw2a<2~ma th... A00. ..0. .v0. .mm. A “hnqam 44002 QMOZwmmdn I Jada mam ~x< 0 0m “mZOAhdmmdo budemAd mDOI xAA>APU< AddeA< .0 monomeoAI Ava 0. ”x_: AmeA .0 .va. "mmwOZwmm4d mDOI ¥m aw>02 wdaomd IPA) Msznzawh awAa 03h Ewanowm mHQmem wow usmuso w.¢ mwsmflm 194 000000 AmzomemaA ozAAA<3 2A2 ZAS 2A2 2A2 .mwwvm.m .000vv0v ....vww .vawhvv 443224 AzA:A ><0m0 ZAEIXawm 2~2nx<4w0 HDOI ¥awm NOA0mww 0mm awn no .NADAAD 4nau< mwmzaz w2A4m~< whdhm IAOZwA wZAJ xw 02A2<4Qwo 195 00040000 (‘4 2A! 2A2 2A: 2A! .NONOmwb. .wmmmhme .nmmmmvv .m.m.nmo 440224 00000A00 IDIDVV ‘9va P VNN‘DNDQQ ' ”wzmh 44A0h ”wink 4w>4mh ”wzah w0~>awm “wink >44wD wA40 A4wm >4ax XAA xHA mmDU maDU Dwam Amzomema. ozAAA<3 :AeZAA 02A; AzAsA Aaswo x40 emu 2~2IX4Q .Owho. 2A! ZAZIX4Q .nmm. 2A! ZAZIX4Q .mmm. 2A! ZASIX4Q .000h ZAZ uDOI ¥4wa m.. 00m. ..v.. mm. 004. ..v.. mm.. who. ..v.. m... 000. 00h0. mm. 040. ammo. 4N. 00N. 0540. mm. 00N. 0050. mN. 004. w>.—. 0mm awn qu04m w0~>mww me mud .NA4AAD 44h0h m44>Aam4 maw>awm no mwszZ . 442—anA I w2—4au4 wA4Am Ewhm>m 02A244d2w 196 000000 N Amzomama. ozAAA¢3 2A! 2A: 2A: 2A! .N00h00.N ZAIIX4Q .N04N. 2A: 0.0N “wzuh 44h0h .0000000. ZAIIX4Q .0444 2A: 0.0. “wIAA 4w>4ah .mmnanN ZASIX4Q .N00 2A! ..N ”wink 00~>awm .0004.00 ZASIX4Q .4m.h 2A! 0.0. “wink >44wo 443224 330I ¥4ma .0 0.. 000. ..4.. 0 wh40 .0 mm. 004. ..4.. 0 #400 .h 00.. who. ..4.. m >4ax .0 00. 000. 05... . min .0 N.. 000. .400. 0 0A40 .0 N.. 000. .400. 0 dem AZAZV 000 «mg mzw>mwm >44wo a0A04u 00A>awm 000 awn m0 X4a awn .NA4Ah3 44h0h m44>Aca4 uwmz32 mZA4mA4 wh4hm IA0204 02A4 N 442A2mwh 0h . 442A2ch I 20Am>m 02~A002200 197 2A: 2A: 2A! 2A! 000000 Amzomemav ezAAA<3 ”mznh 4450A nmzuh 4w>4mh ”wimh mUA>awm “wzuh >44wo 0&30 0&30 520a 0040 0540 0000 .m0040.0 ZAEIX4d .0400 2A! ..m. .0004404 ZAEIX4Q .N.5. 2A! 0.4 ....400 ZASIX4d ..0N 2A! 5. .Nm40544 ZASIX4Q .0000 2A! 4.0 443224 Q3DI X4wn .0 0.. 00N. 0.00. N .0 .m. 00N. .N00. N .0 0N 5.0. 5400. . 4 .N. N0 000.0 0050. N. .0 0. 000. 05... 0 .0 0.. 000. 05... 0 AZAZA 000 mud waw>awm >44mo m0504u 00~>a00 000 awn no X40 awn .NA4A53 44505 044>Aau4 u00232 IA0204 02A4 N 442A2m05 u 02A4mm4 054Am SwAm>m 02A244dmo 198 000éé000 01 2A: 2A2 2A1 2A2 .N050005. .0000504 .0000044 .m.0.000 443224 00000500 ZAIIX4Q ZHEIX4Q ZHSIX4Q 2~SIX4Q ”0435 44505 H04:5 4m>4m5 ”02H5 00H>uwm H02A5 >44wo 0540 54mm >4ax XA5 XA5 0&30 0a30 0000 AmzomumaA ozAAA<3 1.0204 02.4 AzAas >a00 00A>awm 000 awn no 44505 044>~ma4 a00232 N 442Azm05 I 02A4mu4 05450 205m>m 02A244020 199 666666 N .62666666 62...<3 Zn: 2.! 2n: 2.! ..6666.6. z.z-xam6 .6666.66 2.x-xaa .66.. 2.: 6.6. “6:.. ><466 4666 .6466 66.64. 66_>666 666 666 .6 x.aa< «66:62 62646.4 6.4.6 150204 mZ~4 . 442.2305 05 N 442~Saw5 n 205m>w 02.5002200 2()0 0m: .055000 0mI-X4a .000 2.2 5.0. H02.5 44505 0a: .00.vm 0&2-x4a ..v 2.2 0.0 “02.5 00~>a00 0&1 .0.0mm. 0aInX4a .00. 2.! 0.0. H03.5 >4400 440224 «001 ¥4wa ............................... .642266 .436466 62.244666----------------------- .6 .6 6. .6646 .666. 6466 .66 >366 .4 .6 6. .6666 ...6. 6466 .66 662. .666 .6. .. .666. .466. x646 62.x646 .6 .6 .. .666 .666 6666 6666-26 .6 .6 4. .666 .... 6666 6666-66 .6 .6 .. .666. .66. 66: 6666 4.6 .4 .6 6. .6666 ...6. 6466 2. 66:. .6 .6 6. .6646 .666. 6466 2. >366 .6661 x466. .z.:. .6:\:6>. >4466 66 .4466 66.646 66.>666 .6I\:6>. 6:-x46 44.6. x46 666 26..4~.4..6 44.6. 2. 6.46 4666: 6.4.6 .6 .664 ”664.266. 6666 62.244626 .6 .666 “664.2666 6666 62.244666 66.6. 66.6. 6... .6. ”66>.->6-646.z6> 666 x46 66. 66. 66. 66. ”..466 44662 646.16> 66. .6. 46. 66. ”..466 4466: 666266646 4.46 66666 6.x4. 66.64 Sw50>0 000004 040m 201 0 40 0.00 0.40 ..5. 506 00.- . .02 5020 442—2005 44505 >4400 44505 >4400 X46 02.244620 X46 02~244600 .z.z. 6666266646 6661 x466 6.4444.46.64444494664444464.444.4464;6.4644644666464664446.644944464569669966664 0.40 0.00 5... 0.5 4.00 0.0. 44505 >4400 K46 02.244620 0.40 ..5. 00200200 5.0. 0.0. >430400 ..0. 4.0 442—2005 44505 >4400 x46 02.244600 ~2H20. .02 5023 442.2005 006 044505 0001 X406 99.40.09900’COO‘OOOiOOOOO.‘§..C990.009..OOOCCOC*.§.§QO§‘§C10‘O§i§0.§§ifiOiOCOffiiiGG 001 .505.50 001cX46 001 .00050. 001-X46 001 .04444. 001-X46 440224 uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu >042200 .05. Zn! 5... ”02—5 44505 .00 2.2 0.0 U02.5 00~>000 .0.. 2.2 0.5 H02—5 >4400 0001 X406 >430400 02—244620 uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu 2()2 Figure A.7 FAA Airport Landside Model - Program PROGRAM FAALD INPUT OUTPUT,TAPEZO'INPUT.TAPE7'OUTPUT.TAPE6) C MAIN PROGRAM OR OUEUEINO NETMORK g EOR LANDSIDE STUDY C READS ALL DATA AND OUTPUTS RESULTS g CALLS DELAY. ELOM. AND NETMORK COMPUTATION SUBROUTINES CHARACTER CODE1*4 CODE2t4 CODE3t9 BLNKE1STAR*1.LCRBE2. +EEALHEAfiIaHKE1 NPéPt1.CODt*9.DSTA§*2. CODEA COMMON/ /vEHCLE/TOTVEH VHMODE(4% VHLAM1(4. v4g‘m .VHLAM2(1. 4). RENTAL COMMON/TSTOAT APE EMix.NP PK. COMMON/RDwAv/ DMAx NLANES KRECI IRC PRKMAxx CMAx(2) COMMON/PXDATA/PAxPER(4).PXMODE14 COMMON /DLAV/N.S(2OI.D§LAV(2O)K 20).SSD(20) COMMON/CONEIG/NCURB 1O .REELOM{1O) COMMON/NEH/NUFLAG.MENFAC.SATLIN COMMON/AIRL‘ CDDE4 DIMENSION T PLT(1O PX§PLT(10 LCRBS36 TRVL 20.2 ).P1 20 20).MCOD 1E(2O).LAM(2O .VHLAM 5 4 TRMP1 0 2O . TSAVE 1O 3 .NAM 2oz 1.ETSAVE11D.3 .TIT E 1ég CODE2( CODE1114 .VLAM(8 .T ME 2 2g +.CODE3(12 BLNK(1 . TA (1 ICHK §0&.DS AR 11 N K§20) ISELA A612 ) + ARG(20£.C60£4(20 EOS20).+RSPLT(1 .10).N M 20 . REN(1O) EOUIVAL NCE iTRMP1‘1. 2,P1s1.1)) EOUIVALENCE VLAM(1% L M51 A DATA CODE1/1CURB1 1 ix1 xR v1 1SEAT1 1GATE1.1SPEC1 1DACS1. 11RENT1,1EI§1.1EXPé1.1STéT1 1INS1,1ESCR1, 19313599052 1 MMK1.1 MCK1.1ROAD1. CURB'. PARK1.1CURE1. 1 MCK1. DATA COOE3/1 RDwv IN 1,1 TMRD IN 1 1 RTL DROP1,1 DE- , +1 EN- CURB 1.1 PARKING .1 TMRD OUT1.1 RDwv OUT 1 TERMINAL +1 ROADw Av 1 1 COM BINED’.’ CMB- CUR 31 / DATA BLNK. STAR CR3(2).LCRD(3). E. H/’ 1.1-1.1DE1.1EN1.1E1.1H1/ DATA DSTAR/1 :41 DATA TMSPLT. TIME. ETSAVE.DTSAVE/74to./ DATA PAXPER TERM/16.1. 7 1D. ..1000. DATA VHLAM1/421 . .67 ..19..33..5..5..a.3to./ DATA VHLAM2/O...67.O. . .OéS/' MENEAc-1. SATLIN-99. KOUT-E IN=O NAL-O KOUNT-O DO 1 MM-1.3 DO 1 NN=1.1O DTSAVEENN.MM so. 1 ETS VE NN.MM =0. CALL CNTRLS( ITLE’LlT .PKHRPx. NPCP. BACPx NERR) IE (NERR.EO.1 60 CALL APSPEC (NTERM TMSPLT. NzONE. PXSPLT. NERR.IOELAC.TRSPLT.TREN) IE NERR.EQ.1& GO 0 72 CALL PxCALC ( NCT. PKHRPX TOTVEH=T0TVEHE(1. + R: ---------- PRINT CONTROL D TA AND AIRPORT SPECIEIC DATA wRITE(7 96)TITLE KOUNTsKOUNT+13 A-ACTPKE1 . NALD-IEIx (AVLD+O. 5)t10o) NF=IFIX( MIx+O.Oos .100 NNC=IFIX (CNCT+0.00 )1100) ‘wgggg(7. 6)APE.PKHRP x.NE. NPK. A NNC NOPS.NALD. (PxMODE(I).I-1,4) KOUNT=KOUNT+16 PPVE1.‘VEHPAX FOOT=C Ax11)+CMAx12) ROADSsRDMAx IE (ROMAx.EO. O. )ROADS=TERM«:2 MRITE17 78)NTE URITE 7.80; NZONE (PXSPLT$I £11-1.NZONE) MRITE 7.82 PPv EACPx.EOO OAOS.PRKMAx KOUNT-KOUNT+14+N20N NE C ---------- CHECK EOR COMPLETION OE TERMINALS1 INPUT DATA 2 NT-GS-KOUNT KOUNT-O IN-I IN+1 ITRsNzON $1M N.GT. NTERM) GO TO 66 C MRI E (7. 64) KOUNT-KOUNT+8 C ---------- READ DATA EOR NEM NETwORK 6 CALL STATES(NRTE MCODE. TRVL. P1. TITLE. NAM. NERR. NTM) dTREITRé NzON1} IE NER 62 8E 72 8 IF éNPC .EO.E .OR. NPCP.EO.H).AND. NRTE.NE 0) GO TO 6 MRI (7.90)TI LE 18 2001 2002 2003 2004 20 2005 2006 2007 2008 28 30 32 2()3 KOUNT=KOUNT+5 NNR: NRT E+ 1 PMSTT = GO TO 10.12 14 14). NNR ---------- OAOMAv NETwORKS---------- PAXLAM=(1. -CNCT)-TMSPLT(IN)-PKHRPX CALL RDELOM IN. TMSPLT(IN). VHLAM. RENTAL. TRMP1) wRITE 7.100 WRITE 7 94) (pXMODE(1;11.1i4) (VHMODE(I). 1= 1. 4) MRITE 7.126) (PAxPER( 3.1.44) KOUNTaKOUNT+ GO TO 16 ---------- TERMINAL BUILDING-—- NAL=NAL+1 PAXLAM=. SBEPKHRPXEPXSPLT(NAL)/3600. CALL ELOwIPAxLAM P1 ---------- COMPUTE DELAY EOR EACH STATE 00 42 I=1.N DELAv(I)=0. IE(NRTE. GT. 0 ARG(I)- LAM(I) ICHK(I)=aLNK 1) IMODE=MCOOE( ) GO TO (18.20.22 26.3 34 M36. 36 38 1002). IMODE ---------- STANDAR RD M/M K OUEUEINC MODEL---------- IFéNRTE. .NE. 1) GO TO 2001 AR (I)=ARC(I 4(1— CNCT-REAL(NTM(I))/1OO.) GO 0 2004 IE(NRTE. NE. 2; GO TO 2002 ARC(I)=ARG(1 1(1. +TREN(UTR)~REAL(NTM(I))/100.) GO TO 2004 IFENRTE. NE. 3) NGO TO 2004 IE NTM(1) NE TM(1)) GO TO 2003 ARC(I)=ARC(I I)E(1. -CNC T) GO TO 2004 éSS§§§GSRG(I) (1 +TREN(OTR) (PXSPLT(NTM(1))/PXSPLT(NTM(I)))) CALL MMKS(ARG(I) 5(1) K(I).IELAC U0 EL) DELAv(I)=wO GO TO 40 ---------- STANDARD M/G/K OUEUEING MODEL---- IFéNRTE. NE 1)O TO 5 as (6)5A8 RG(I 11(1-CNCT1REAL(NTM(I))/100. ) IE(NRTE. NE. 2 GO TO 2 6 ARG$I)=A R011 (1.+TREN dTR)tREAL(NTM(I))/100.) GO 0 2008 IE NRTE. NE .3) GO 2003 IE NTM(i&. .NE. NTM(1 ) GO TO 2007 AR (1)-A 0(1) (1. NCT) (30 O 2008 éSS¥§$UéRG(I)E(1.+TREN(dTR)*(PXSPLT(NTM(1))/PXSPLT(NTM(I)))) CALL MCKS(ARG(I). 550(1). 5(1).K(I).IELAG.MO.EL) DELAv(I =w GO TO ------- ROADMAY DELAY MODEL--- ARGSI)'O. DO 4 Id=1 3 ARG(I)'ARG(I)+VHLAM(IJ.16 ~ -------- CHECK EOR MAIN R ADMAv STATES IE (I.ED.1 .OR. 1. E0. 8)ARG(I)-TOTVEH VLAM(I)=ARC(I) CALL ROAO(ARC ). SSD(I). 5(1). K(I). IELAG. W0) DELAv(1)=wo GO TO 40 ( 2 ------- CHgCK FOR COMBINED CURB IE SNCURB IN).EO 1 .AND. d.EO.3) GO TO 42 DO 8 Id= 4 ARG(I}=ARC I+VHLAM(IJ.J) VLAM( )eAR ) ERONT=S IE(ERONT OD. gERONT-TMSPLT(IN)1CMAx(u- 1) 1E (NCURé(IN O 1)G MRITE (7 128)LCRB(dL ERONT KOUNT= KOUNT +1 GO TO 32 IE (FRO NT.E9.0.&FRONT-TMSPLT(IN)*(CMAX(J)+CMAX(d-1)) MRI E(7.130 ER NT K?UNT=K DU T+1p §F{)=12O. NBA CALL 1EURé(A1ng)((I I). )S(i). 5x11). zRONT. 550(1). IELAG. MO) 25111 ARG(I)=VHLAM 1.4) AR G SPAC= RKMAX‘gM PLT MIN; CALL ARK(ARG(I .550 (I SPAC. IFLAG, H0) OELAY(I)'HO GO TO 40 1002 o JLBO N0 44 46 1001 1003 w 9 8 055 51 50 2()4 """"" CAR RENTAL RETURN DELAY MODEL"" Tg ngMODE(1)‘TOTVEH ) ARG 9°?; .Esoxé R). .511). K(I). IFLAG. wo. EL) SP) M I) s I) 23600. ---------- BAGGAGE CLAIM DELAv MDDEL----~ LA AM 3600. 0.7 ARC I)-ARG(I) (1. -CNCT) I / PAXLAM 6) t BAGS KBAGS.SSD(I).S(I).K(I).BAGPX.IFLAG.UO) R G L A D L .3. i (ASAfl I L M ( A T OOMO A 8 R I A L ( S I E Y 0 O ). 5(1). 550(1). PMST. HO) flOOOOO‘OVH-fl ZMDOMDXme mrr PPGWA) MST pEDR RHD GREATER THAN 1 ) GO TD 42 T0 46 RELAY FROM PER VEHICLE T0 PER PAX .AND. I.E0.5;GO T0 44 .AND. I.EQ.4 CODE=CODE3(12) ms gAXLAM .1 .1 3g .CDDE2(MC). VLAM(I) sso(I). RHD. I 5% )6 LAM‘GO. (9260.0 vDEL D E NM).C E4( 1‘. (KII). ARG(IL SK. RHO. DELAY(IL him-()DAo-(w' m IDnCHn DELAv(I)-DELA KDUNTaKoUNT+1 CONTINUE ------- co PU TE EXPECTE CALB NETIME(P1.TRVL.NR 4° ¥3VEL TIMES FDR TERMINAL VTDT=VCD+vcs+vCT MRITE(7110)CD.HCD.VCD1cs.Hcs.vcs.CT.HCT.VCT.TDT.HTDT.VTDT KOUNT=K6UNT+ +9 ------- STDRE TIMES EDR THIs TERMINAL ZONE TSAVE IN.1 +CD¢Px5PLT NAL /TM$PLT I 1N.2 +cs:Px5PLT NAL /TM$PLT I IN.3 +CT¢PXSPLT NAL /TM5PLT I 222 2(35 .SERVICE.TRAVEL TIMES FOR TERMINAL no .TRVL.NRTE.IOFLAG,RD.RS.RT) .75 * PAXLAM .75‘PAXLAM (5.+NPK N I ODE.DTSAVE(IN.1).DTSAVE(IN.3).ETSAVE(IN.1).ETSAVE(IN. tRS‘TMSgLT(IN)/60. . t INAL UNIT SUMMARY PRINTOUT O 8) *3 9 )c 2) TTT12. I1)N= a O '00 4| .2U’21166t no .012l\l-\// . IEOK o .LLDSO .EzlleVnKRTP Héo- o T ( O E'1000. D+RS T=HRD+HRS YTOT=Y WRITE (7.112gRD.HRD.YRD.RS.HRS.YRS.TOT.HTOT.YTOT 1 N 3 2 RD+YR$ KOUNT+ CONTINUE o7 C(EEEEC( : EVVVV 8 E {9 NT H TR IR 3: 2% =9 (UVV:=DSDSTO :LrODRKDQKKRDREUT Y‘LKT+LKRHHHYV¢IH -------COMPUTE EXPECTED DELAY ADWA CALL NETIME(TRMP1 DO 6 KOUNT= 58 60 C C E1JHNNNi:I ') 1"... I I .12/30('t')/ is 15.'passewcen s 3(F4.2.'.') F4.2 9 THIS RUN T56.I2/ 12/ % SI.3).ETSAVE(I.1).ETSAVE(I.3) R(F6 56: V5 2 T45 AMETE UNITS: 5".T I THE PRIMARY CONTROL PAR L NE A 1 Viééélgg'53fi§g& 0f PAX 9 +ETSAVE 'AIRPOR F PARKING .1X.’DATA $0 I ’NUMBER OF TERMINA DE.DTSAVE(IN.1).DTSAVE(IN.3).ETSAVE(IN.1).ETSAVE(IN. 'NUMBER OF TERMINAL 20 1.1 2.1 1.2 2.2 PASSENGER MODAL SPLIT: NTERM T15. TTTTNT44T = a : .- {CTN 106) 31.1110 9 .UR\AURT$ITTAUR ALWQ:LWn:UEFFHW3 1 1 I=1 i EEEETEEEE73TTNPTLMMFIO MMMMNMMMM CIIUOILRR . Ittlln$lli:looknRn¥lRA2UOOs Pfi¥lIIIGCIOnYLODRK8nVI TTTTCTTTTDIUWKSHCFFSTIT/A..IIFFPFEFFF/ 1T++TT+¢I¢IT -°-----AIRPORT SUMMARY PRINTOUT GO TO 2 URITE(7 TOTPC'TOTPC+TMSPLT KOUNT=KOUNT+11 TOTPC=O. DO 68 68 86 88 89 90 92 94 96 100 102 103 104 106 108 110 112 MODQMOQO ‘5 .....Laaadd _. “UMMDMd—s _. 10 05K) FORMAT§//80("')/T3.'STATE',T12.’MODEL’ T20 1RATE IN1 T30 1T0 1TAL1.T 0,1UTILIZATION1,T55 RER RAx1.T66.1TOTAL PAX-HR’éTéo. 1 1(VEH/HR .T30.1SERVICE T40.1FACTOR1.T55 ’DELAY'.T66.’O DELAY'/ T 130.'(VEH/HR)' T55.’$MIN 1 T66.'(PEAK HOURg’/80é’-'g//) ‘ggRgAT (A9.T16.A4.T 9.F .0.T30.F7.0. T41 F 1.T 3.F .0. T66. +Fg§Mgg(A9+;é3¢g4éT19.F7. .0. T30. F7. 0. T42. F5. 1. FORMATS’T’./; 1x,19A4 3 //& +FORMAT 1x.1s ATE .T9 AI LINE1. T18. 1NUMBER1. T27. 1ARRIVALs1. T38. 1;OTAL’.T48.'UTILIZ’ .T59. 'PER pr1.T69.1LINE LENGTH /T18. 1OF1. T2 11RER SEC1.T38.1SERVICE1 T48. 1FACTOR1. T59. 'DELAY' T69 1MAITIN6 1 :./56?,’§§§¥ERS’.T38.’PER SEC'.T59. 1(MIN)1.T69.1(FERSONS) / FORMAT(/ 1X.’PASSENGER MOOAL SPLIT: 1 .T30. 4 F4. 2.6x 1x. 1v HIC M 1OAL SPLITz1.T30.4(F4.2 ) ( )/ E LE 0 FORMAT 11' //.1X 1984//) FORMAT A4.’:'.T28.4$F6.1)g FORMAT T30.1AUTO$1 40 1TAx1 T50’1BUSES1.T60. 1RAIL1/ T30.5(1— 11).T40 531—1) T50.6(1- ’IT 4:1- )% ‘EORSATsT #346T7.A8.T20. é. T26 7. 4. 37. F7. 3. T49. F4. 2. T58. FORMAT(T2 A4.T9.A4 T20 13.T29. F4. 2. T39. F5. 2. +T49.F4.2.T60.F5.0.T71 68.1) FORMAT$1 TERMINAL UNIT NO. 1.12. 1x. - .13.1 PCT’. T30. F7. 1. T43. F7.1 +6OSMAT "788T’F7)}) PEAK OUR RASSENGERS (M /T -1 1 IN 32. 7'DEPLANING 1 RAx1 T64.1ENRLANING PA MZ/Taz 10ELA T6TAL ELAv1 1T70.1TOTAL1/T32 5(1-1 {T 5(1-1 $17 é L05 W“? +FORM?;§é1z.//80(’t')/ 22.1REAK H UR 5TOTALS OR TERMINAL U T NO. 1}2T21.1069LANINCRRAx1T511ENRLANIN6 PAX'//T21. 1OELAv1 :éngg%:.I§})'DELAY 1 J64. 1T0TAL1/T21. 5(1-1 T34. 5(1-1). T51. 5(1-’). FORMAT(/4/T30 'PEAK HOUR' T60 1ANNUAL1./.1x. ’DELAY TIME T20. F7. 1 1.;281N’. 35.FT.0. 1 PAX-—MIN’. T54. F11.0. MIN1/. 1x. 15ERviC6 TIME: + . +67.1.1 MIN1.T35. F7.0. 1 PAx-MIN'. T54. F11.0. 1 MIN1/.1x.1TRAVEL TIME +:'.T20. 1F7.1.1 MIN1. T35. F7. 0 1 PAX- MIN1 T54. F11. 1 MIN1/.1x.1TOTAL TIME: 11 T20 F7. MIN1 5. F7. RAx- -MIN T64. F11. MIN1 :9RMAT( (/. T30. 'PEAK MOUR1. T65. 1ANNUAL1. /. 1x. 1OELAv TIME. 20. + , , l;ngN’.T35.F7.0. 1 PAx-HRS'. T54. F11.0. 1 HRS' /. 1x. 15ERVICE TIME 1. 1F7.T 1 MIN1,T35. F7.0.' FAx- HRS’. T54. F11. 0 1 HRs1/. 1x 1TOTAL TIME: 11.T20 F7 1 MIN1 T35 F7 0 PAX-HRS' T54. F11. 0,1 FORMAT(//Iéé’- 1£,T29.T§1-1) T42 7(1-1; T5L 8)tT67. 1 1)/ 1 1 AIRPORT Av RAG T30 7 1.T43.#7.1 T 6 F7;1;T I7.1/80(1-1)) FORMAT /24 1-1 .1OEPLANIN6 ROAowAv 6UMMARv flT/T FORMAT /24 1-1 .1ENFLANIN6 ROADWAY SUMMARY’. / EggmgT 38‘ 18))7. 1.T31.F7. 1.T48. F7. T61. F7. 1‘! FORMAT 1x.’RAx PER VEHICLE-8Y-TYPE:’.T29 déF 5. 2 15x1/4) FORMAT 1x.A2.1PLANIN6 CURB FRONTAGE:1.T46 6.0 FORMAT 1 COMBINED CURB FRONTA GE: T45 F6. 0. 1 fig FORMAT 1 CHECK INPUT OATA FILE FOR CORRECT' FORMA 1) END +SUEROUTINE APSPEC(NTERM. TMSPLT. NZONE. PXSPLT.NERR.IOFLAG.TRSPLT. ------ READS AIRPORT SPECIFICD DATA ------ COMMON/RONAv/ROMAx. NLANEs RECIRC PRKMAX. CMAx(2) COMMON/CONFIG/NCURQSTO) REFLOWST) 10) DIME ION WMSPLT} 0 .Px6PLT(10 BégSNSION TRSPLT10.10).TREN(10) REAO 20.2.ERR810 NTERM Nz NE.IOFLA6 REAO 20.2.ERR=10 NCUR6(I I-1.NTERM) REAO 20.4.ERR=10 REFLOM .1-1.NTERM REAO 20.4.ERR=10 TMSPLT I .1-1.NTERM REAO 20.4.ERR=10 PXSPLT .Is1.N20NE REAO 20.4.ERR=10 (TRSPL3.U).J=1.10 .I-1.N20NE) IF(N20NE.LT. NTERM GO TO 00 11 I-1.N20NE TREN(I =0. DO 11 0-1 NzONE TREN(I -TREN(I)+TRSRLT(I. d)*PXSPLT(d)/PXSPLT(I) CONTINUE GO To 14 00 12 I-1. .NTERM TREN(I =0. 00 12 #21 NT TREN(I =TREN1I)+TRSRLT(I. d)*TMSPLT(J)/TMSPLT(I) CONTINUE CONTINUE REAO(20.6.E %10&ROMAx. .NLANES. RECIRC. FRKMAx. CMAx(1). CMAx(2) IF$RECIRCEO ECIRc-. RE URN VRITES7.8) NERR= RETURN FORMAT 1018) FORMAT 10F8. 0g FORMAT F8.0.I 8F8. o) 1O 12 14 16 78 b” 2()7 FORMAT(’ ERROR OCCURED IN APSPEC -TRYING TO READ DATA FROM INPUT’) SUBROUTINE BAGS(PKBAGS T1 S.K.BAGRx.IFLAG.DELAY) ----- DELA AT BAGGAGE 6LAi DATA BAGRTE. wLKRTE. T2/1. ..786./ IF AG /(. o2-BAGRTE) T-RKBAOS1S/K T1=T1/wLKRT E BAGPX;T)/(8AGPX+1) 2+XMEA LAva .LT. 0 )DELAv-O. ODOAA “ID-(m x ME EL EL F( =S ET Zbrnuu AN AY AY DE /8 UR manOOX N SUBROUTINE CONVRT (VHLAMg ----- CONVERT FROM VEHICL T? RAx DELAY----- CDMMON/VEHCLE/TOTVEH( VHMODE 4g VHL LAM1(4.4).VHLAM2(1.4).RENTAL COMMON/RxOATA/RAxRER 4g. .RxMOD 14(.VEHPAX COMMON /OLAY/N. 5(20). D LAY(20).K 20).SSD(20) DIMENSION VHLAM(5. 4) DO 16 d=1.N VSUM=0. RSUM=0. GO TDI(2:3 6. 14. 10. 10. 14. 6. 2). U 004 VSUM=VSUM+VHMODE ).TOTVEH RSUM=RSUM+RAxRER1¢VHMODE(I)1TOTVEH DELAv(U)=DELAv(U tvsu RSUM= R UM+RAXRER 4) (TOTVEH- VSUM) S(d%o% d)*TOTVEH RSUM GO DO 8 I- VSUM=VSUM+VHLAM( 1) RSUM=RSUM +PAXPER i)*VH>AM(I.1) DELAv(U)= DELAY(d -VSUM RSUM RSUM=RSU UM+RAxRER 4)tVHLAMSd.1) S(d)=$(d )v(VSUM+VHLAM(4.1 )/RSUM GO TO 16 dd=d~1 DO 12 I=L VSUM=VSUM+VHLAMéI PSUM=PSUM+PAXPE (i aVHLAM(I. UU) IF(VSUM. E RSUM=RSUM VSUM DELAY( )= ELAv( d)/PSUM S(U)=s d)/P$UM GO TO 6 DELAv(U)=DELAv(UZ/RAxRER(1) S(U)=s U)/RAXRER 1) CON INUE EESURN SUBROUTINE CNTRLS(TITLE RKHRRL NRCR. BAGRL NERR) ----- READS IN CONTROL DATA ----- REAL MENFAC DIMENSION ICON(8) COMMON/VEHCLE/TOTVEH iVHMODE(4) VHLAM1(4. 4 .VHLAM2(1.4).RENTAL COMMON/TSTDAT/ARE FMi x NPK AC Rx NORS T COMMON/RXDATA/RAXRER( 4). PxMODE(4). VEHRfl DIMENSION TITLE(19) CHARACTER NY11.N011.NPCP*1.ICON*1 DATA NY NO/’Y' 'N’/ Eggs élé0N(I).i=1'8)/IAI.IBI'ICI.IDI.IEI.IFI.IGI.IHI/ READ 20.24.ERR=18 (TITLE(I). I-1.19) READ 20.28.ERR=18 NRC READ 20.29.ERR=18 NPK pNOPs READ 20.30.ERR=18 ARE PKHRPX. FMIx.ACTRK AVLD READ 20.31 ERR=18 CNCT. (RxMODE (I).I=1. 4). BAGPX. VEHRAx. RENTAL IF(RENTAL.60.0.) RENT ----- INITIALIZE DEFAULT DAT ----- IF(APE.LE.O. .AND. PKHRPX. LE. 0. )NERR= 1 SUM-0. DO 1 I-1 4 SUM=SUM+RXMODE(I) ISUM=SU IF(ISUM.EQ.1)GO TO 78 CONTINUE IF BAGPX. E0. 0. )BAGRx-1. 5 IF CNCT. E0. 0. CT .2 IF FMIx. E0. 00.K FMIx-. IF NPK. M0 N IF ACTRK E0 W? )ACTRK-o. 07 IF NORS. ED. 0 NO RS=7 0 IF AVLD. E0. 0. .&A VLD=.5x IF VEHPAX. E0. )VEH ------ IDENT IF v CONTROL PARAMETER----- Do 2 I-1. 8 IF(NRCR.N NE ICDN(I)) GO To 2 NN=I GO TO 4 CONTINUE 65(¥5?§'§g'1ORETT§~14 14 16 NN SE¢SS§=RFAOTPK11APE-1600.)/g10 00 b on M 00 0000 CO ‘0 COO 2()8 ACTRK-EMIx-.1s+.07 GO TO 6 PKHRPXtFMIXt2SO.+ 1.-FMIX)‘100. PKHRPX=PKHRPXENOP tAVLD RETURN wRITE(7.22) NERR=1 RETURN FORMAT 530R OCCURRED IN CONTRL-TRYING TO READ FROM INPUT‘) m 5 IN EACH STATE INTO SYSTEM AND ----- SUBROUTINE TO GET 1 To OBTAIN SPLITS UM: REAL LAM COMMON / L DIMENSIO DATA HOL WI OUT(%OM SSD(20) 20 20 %) dMPD ZE LAMBDA’S FOR FORWARD ELows ----- ZrOHO CmaZfiH \\ 4' wt") 1 :.AND.NopT.Eo.1)0UT(1)=K(1)/S(1) 91(1. d)*OUT(I) ZFPd'O' OOADD'A'ZOOAbbd 4020 CmLZIX ‘4' vM“. A.‘ 1‘ CL"! C (”Wm V A + _. .d)ND(MNOPT.EO.1)OUT(d)-’K(d)/S(d) Cvrbunucnnvrbuuz Haqucc dCCAflNJd ZLHPVvHHV'AHPVVH Mll' CO IN ----- oCOMPUTE LAMBDA' 5 TO INCLUDE FEEDBACK FLOWS""' PO go OfiUCPAANMA CC? 3 .%0?N1)LAM(U)-CAPLAM «LAM U +p1(1. d)*HOLD(I) A A'3)3S(U)K (d) L. é AND. NOPT. Eo. 1)0UT(U)=K(U)/S(U) )= 0UT(J ) UE 1 .L E. NLOOP)GO TO 6 mmnHHOIHCOPOHPO AM 550 MEAN K IFLAG ELAY wiT TH A 'GENERAL CE TIME. sso-STANDARD N. LM MENFAC .M MENEAc. SATLIN 1 I l 1 1 mo :0 m -M 5 BER VICEM N9NEW>9 NU9 RHOSTR/ ME LM/K. LE. NRHOSTR) GO TO 4 o=LM K R705 RtK =LM K.EO.1) GO TO 8 urdZD L MO A A LA nan;A) SUM=SUM+TERM TERM=TERM~LM/(N+1) CONTINUE 1O 00 MOO-b am: 10 I6 ”MM-5.5.. .5 #900005 M 0000 +OéMENSION ORC(2O.2O) SPC 2C”? SUM=SUM+TERM*K/(K-LM) E2: SSOu2/MEANu wNUM= TERMFE2*K¢MEAN/2 Mo: wNUM/(SUM-(K- LM)E(R LM)) Eszo-LA AM IF(IFLAG. E0. 0) GO wo;go§906 E(XRH0- RHOSTR)/2. ( ) R AL INTERARRIVAL L L M MU. Lo. L M MON NEV/NUELA A RgOSTR/. 98/ A M T LAC: O O: LAM /MU (RHO/K. LE. RHOSTR)GO TO 4 H O= R ( 0= GRHO/K RHOSTR‘K MzR K. 1E0? 1)GO TO 8 OO 6 N21 KLEE1 RO= P0+TE TERM: TERMFRHO/(N+1) CONTINUE P0=PO+TERM/(1. -RHO/K) RO=1 /p O OVAR= TERMERHOFK/(K- RHO)#*2 wo= OVARFPO/LAM IF(IFLAG.E0.0)G T010 wo=wo+gooo -(XRHO- RHOSTR)/2. EL-OVARtp RETURN ENO SUBROUTINE MPRINT(N TOTRIU DPC SPC TPC. TRVL I 26. 2O). TPC(2O. 2O). RVL(2O.2O).TOTRIO(2O.2 R C D M I R I IF X R T I K E O A F H F R H 0= E F LE KC) C ... I O) MRITE(7.16) OO 2 Ls1,N WRITE27.143(TOTPIU(L.M).MF1.N) MRITE 7.18 no 4 L-1.N WRITE27.14;(DPC(L.M).M-1.N) MRITE 7.20 00 6 =1.N wRITE 7.14;(SPC(L.M).M-1.N) MRITE 7.22 00 a L-1.N MRITE(7.14)(TRC(L.M).M-1.N) OO 10 I=1.N DO 1? u-1.N TRVL I.U)=ORC(I.d)+SRc(I.d)+TRVL(I.d) CONTINUE MRITE(7.2A) OO 12 L=1,N MRITE(7.1A)(TRVL(L. M). M-1 N) RETURN FORMAT 56(F6. 2 4x)/(12x. 5(F8. 2 4x;&) FORMAT 1'.1x ’CUMULATIVE TRANSIT N MATRIX:'/) FORMAT //.1x,’CUMULATIVE OEL Av MATRIx:'/) FORMAT //.1X.’CUMUL ATIVE SERVICE MATRIX '/) FORMAT //.1x.'CUMULATIVE TRAVEL TIME MATRIX:"I FSEMAT ///.1x 'TOTAL CUMULATIVE TIME IN SYSTE SEC/RAx):'/) SUBROUT INE NETIME (P1 TRVL. NRTE.IOFLAG.CO.CS.CT) ----- NETVORK RROCRAM FOR CALCULATING EXPECTED VALU EsN OF DELAY ANO TRAVEL TIMES. INPUTS ARE TRANSI TIO MATRIx p1 FOR N STATES ANO OELAv ANO SERVICE TIM ES FOR EACH STATE TRAVEL TIMES BETVEEN STAT ES. COMMON /DLAY/N §ERV(20).DELAY(20).K220;.SSD(2O OIMENSION OSAVE 20). SAVE(2O TSAVE 20 .OT(2o o; DPC(20) 20) +.ST£20.20) SPC 2O 0 .TOTPIJ 59.20).TRVLS20.26 . tho f TP (20.20).R1 20. 2O .PN(20. O .RSAVE(2O OO 2 1-1.N OO 2 U=1 N PN(I a =R1SI d TOTRIU I 0 2R1 1.0g OT I.d =OELAV§ )+O LAv(d) TT I.U =TRVL d) ST I u =SERV I$+SERV d) DPC i.u =P1 .u EDT .u spc I.d =P1 I.d *ST 1.0 TPC I.d =p1 I.d *TT .0 CON INU ----- DEGIN LOOP ON N FOR INTERIM MATRICES----- KLEES=N-2 OO 10 NN=1.KLEE5 OO 8 I-1.N OO 4 -1,N OSAVE d}=DT21.d3 SSAVE d =ST I.d 210 . . S T L L U A A T F N E E D R a G \I \I ) ) \I N ) \I ) L 4 I 4 4 4 v o S 1 1 1 R 1 U 0 O 0 TI ( I I I . 2 E T T T C M L A A A P ) A 8 R R R . T \I V. L A . . . . o V- A H I \II ) ) . C )))) A L V R 3 3 2 . P KKKK L E . A 1 1 1 . ) . S RRRR E D ) V O 0 O S \I . 1 PP D o 4 T. T. T. E ) .U . C EEJJ o L . ox E T T T C )). . P ++++ G V .4A L A A A I U)K . D 8888 A R .1P C R R R R (UK N . RRRR L T . 1H I . . . T Y1 J CCCC E o . "E H \I \I ) A AVL P I EEDD I Y TAV E 2 1 1 M LRV E P ((11.1 c A II. c v ( 1 1 EER T ))) T //// S H LH) . O O 0 L DST S ddd 0 )))) E D PV4 R I I I L +++ ‘1 . . u T \1’)‘; C A S 1 E T T T A ))) R 0111 2 . 5 88 A. ) E ) )E P A A A KKK o (It CI); N 0 I 0 O P. s H XL4D - R R R F KKK F ITTT ddd 1 1166 5. E . PA10 )X .) .) .) 0 (I11 (DST o 9 o o T ((111 o. C D ROE" IA x1 x2 x3 EEE D Nit. TIII N CCCC N. A E HODX 1PGA1 A1 A1 T VVV 8 E P))) 111 I PPPP AT P E KMOP R APR PR .PR N AAA T +ddd Oddd R 0505 E0 1 S P P M .. ETLHE HE .HE E 555 0))) U 1... GIII P COCO ML 3 / S D .EH) PNFEP EP .EP M ) DST Tddd P UIII PPP M4 KKKK T G E c E TLV4 XEPVX VX .VX E .u 6111 . . . M 111 )TTT 1 RRRR ..G A V H E CC 1 ADN1A 1A .1A L . mt: OIII 0 INNN .000 L ))))PPPP MN L A T P NIHR PN./P /P S/P E KdOddd G111 C (PPP OTTT L0 5646EEDD AI F D. G S CHEE /E))/ l/ 01/ KITIII NNN d+++ ./77 AT ....++++ LK I EYN N /V (EVP) )P21) 2) M3) H 1P PPP )PPP S I); 01]) C 1111;) VR ) EAA E ) Y CVTX4 IE111 12 I13 I() T 1+0+++ I/// E PUUJ Eddd 0 111115588 1A S PLE L H A L 0A1 10 E1 E1 LE1 dd J P)G))) O))) C T... ... )G dddd.... KP E SEM 1 T W ASTPO E ODE .DE DE .. I Ad ddd .ddd I OIII )III 0 IIII1144 R NCO/UT S G D CE//I 01100 .00 DOD IT. ) A) o o o O o o u R T11 U11 .\I Pppp1111 AT AABSII) M N A XTEAT oMO .MO NMO 11 E KI.III EIII T :CCC .CCC E0 TTTTCCCCDSDS PA EP2.¢S PYE E PALTA EBXM .XM AXM TN TNK1O111 .111 ANN)PPP NNIPPP N.))) OOOOPPPPDDEE M558.E AL H LCAR XT.PX .PX PX TP N . . . .U 1N .TTT )TTT M . .JDST . 1DST .ONNN TTTTDSDS. .. .. .. EY T .. A C EU1 .. EUHD 4PU6..P S..P S..P n. .OOOOP1EPQDST UDST 11.3-2 11d... GE... t:¢¢¢¢¢t)))) NA AT.E A NDL 5 NCEXN ..P.)= I). E)- ))E1-ua-M3V=Es:=EossaELasI)))E-a1)))EA.111 256588881212 IL MG2V6P IAA.1. ILVPO11)M41)6X2)6$3)6 ddUa))))OKA).)))UI)))ULIU1dddUIdeddULE111 7445RRRR.... TEOA.1A3$ TEEO:O TA//IssID1111A121U131 11NdddddCKdedddN1dddNA d...N T...NFTCCCN....CCCC1122N UD-LEgzasN UHRsHeN UCNNSGI1C R1 TR1 8R1 EEI ..... P.I...IN...I.OOIIIII22OIIIIORPPPR=angEEDD1111R O.GVVDYYNR 0 aDTYR 0.00NA 0.0EOO.EOO.EOO VVTBIIII.6:IPIIITPIIIT.11P111T11T111TINDSTU8K8K1111LLLLU R.A:AEAAAU RLLEGAU R.MMEL2I.TPIT.PIT.PIT AAN (11(- d1(l\l\(N N. TCCCN (CCCNAI I I TRRRR I I 8 8 vvvv TDB . LEt‘EI—LETDBAVENLTDB . "MM—r T. VAT .XT .XT SSOONTTT.OINFTTTOFTTTO.COOPPPOOOFPPPOFFDSTECPCPDSDSRRRRENU.FVFPEEMENUERPEEENU.OOIPOA.0AAO.AAO.AAO TPCDPDST.DPPIDSTCIDSTC.DDTDSTCDDIDSTCIICCCREEDDEEDDTTTTRES.IAISDDTRESRTSLDRES.CCDNDR.GPRG.PRG.PRG O 2 4 4 C 6 8C 1 1 1 C C 2C 4 C6 C8 AGO 610 5M 16 0’5 ZlJ. MAY ANO RAIL ..... )=FxMOOE(4) (VEHPAX- RATIO(1)- RATIO(2)- RATIO(3)) =RXMOOE14)/ AXFER(4 ) CkEFPER-PAX RATE ----- HRAx+RATIO(I) OF EACH TYPE OF VEHICLE ----- AT 10(1) (1. -CNCT)*PKHRPX E1+VHMOOE(I ) =HMO0E1I)/TOTVEH ) v STATES ----- P1 ----- COM PUTES ARR HA 184,4).VHLAM211.4).RENTAL O. COMMON/CONFIG/NCU COMMON/VEHCLE/TOT DIMENSION P1(20.2 DATA PR/34'O..1.. NT=NCURB(N) Tasssaagmn VHMOOE(1)=( .-RENT)‘VHMODE(1) °° 3 ”=11 VHLAM{I.J;=VHLAM1H VHLAM 26d2=VHLAM2b éa-é-COMEINEO EN ANO OEFLANINC CURB ----- xntaugg,ggngLAM1(l.2)+VHLAM1(I.3) ----- RANSITiON MATRIx. FIRST STEP----- $§§1'§}‘IL‘ '36 1 PR 223 FRENTFAUTO) OO 12 d-4.6 33262 FR(2 u)=FR(2. U)+VHLAM(I. dd)‘VHMODE(I) CONTINUE §é-g--SECONO MOVES ----- RR 6 48VHLAM‘S 2;*VHMODE(1)/PR(2. .6) 5.4 )w VHMOOE(1)/RR(2. NC) PR NC 7 -1. -PR NC 6) RIV ALS ----- ONV RT AR FROM PCT TO NO. OF VEHICLES----— TMv-TLAMFTOTVEH TMv-(1.+RF *TMV OO 16 1:1. 00 16 O=1.6 P1 I.d =RR(I d) IF I.GE.5 OR. U. GE. 5) GO TO 16 IF I.EO.1;VHLAM(I UI-VHLAM( I U +VHLAM(5. u) VHLAM(I.J =VHLAM(i. d)‘VHMOD DE1I CONTINUE VHMOOE(1)= AUTO SUBROUTINE ROAO(VLAM. VO OIST LNS. IFLAG. .DELAYZ COMMON/RDWAY/RDMAX NLANES MCIRC PRKMAX CMAx 2) ----- DELAY AT ROAO STAT ------ IF LAG =0 RATIO= FLOAT(LNS)/NLANES RLNSSRATIOFRDMAX /3 600. IE(RLNS.NE.86) GO TO 1 RLNS- RLNS/aeoo. VLAM= VLAM/36OOOO VO= VO*5280. /36 IF(1. -VLAM/RLNS)2 4 4 IFLA6=1 VR=1./(1.+VLAM-RLNS) VRFVR*.667FV0 GO TO I VR=VO1 1.-VLAM (3-RLNs)) DELAY-DIST/VR- IST/VO OIST=OIST/VO VLAM=VLAMt3600. VO=RLN513600. RESURN SUBROUTINE STATES(NRTE MCOOE TRVL R1.TITLE.NAM.NERR.NTM) ----- REAOS DATA FOR NE TVORK STATES----- COMMON /OLAv/N.S(2O). DELAY(20).K(20).SSD(20) COMMON/AIRL/COOEA MENSION TRVL(2O.2O).F1(2O.2O).MCOOE(2O).TITLE(19).NAM(2O). +COOEAI2og.NTMé2og CHARACTE COO 4. DATA RATE/3. / NERR'O 212 ) T U P N I M 0 R F D A E . R ) L 0 41 T. 4 E G D N o I C V. . nK ) T L . ( . F. S D E o T C A M \’.\I T ) . ) ON 5 9 ) N 41 v 2!; 0' L I I1 ) ON N a ( \I) ONON (I «II N cl 6 I II D NN 1- 01 o I B 8 E I ell I S v 0 Id... 04! d dd T 1: Gill 0 I S «'1 {IIII o u 6 A 8 3 I ) E . .3 7.. .. s .. .. a 7) )\I R 7" MM 8 R \l ) 71.... III!- 7|U IUIU / 7 v o o A R I Lo 1 I I I I I I 2 I I I ) 3) . ( y I U EE 5 0.1.1 1111 o{\ (( o o o . 6 I C LT 0 Tl)l TL LL L TL LL . 0 TR )6 MM MMMM V VV ( ( (( 0 IN L OAT AATT 0R RR L 01 11 .) R T . () GNN NNNN GT TT V GP PP 80 0 (N KO . (1‘ ( l‘l‘ R ( (1| )Cv .)R ‘1) \I . O \l)) ‘1); )\I )\I T 01]) \II) 8284p) 60N2T MN: 000 0000 N04 44 N.. 104 44 I .FAEO 1nd! oleE o n) dllllladldl‘dl 6411-8 Illl I) 81181‘ 0800 2 I I1 I 0T ‘1UE o I I7 I I I IE1 - I7 I IE1MEL - I7 I IE 1112’ I 00.. OER .. .. .UT0010000U- T02 OOU .. .U T0300U ((31)-IA] 22L2TNNIJIN622 2222NL62 22NMLN862 22NNTTTTTI(AI (1‘ (R 3R (I .((0((l.\l\1 .(o ((71 (I7 .(OEIRAAAAAEB DDZDNRU44LTNDDTDDDDT5NDT DDTSLT3NDTDDTUMMMMMTR AA A(RT VleAA AAAAN (A AAN VN (A AANTRRRRRIR EEOEFEEOOROFEEOEEEEOOFEO EEOOROOFEOEEOEOOOOORE RRDRINRDDTCIRRGRRRRCDIRG RRCDTCDIRGRRCRFFFFFWN a; 8 7 7 024602 3 3 (III-.122 177 178 277 278 6 8 APPENDIX B PROCEDURE USED TO ESTIMATE TERMINAL AREA The sizing of most terminal elements is based on passenger volumes for a selected design hour. However, when this information is not available, approximations can be developed for preliminary planning purposes by considering the number of aircraft and seating capacities expected to serve the terminal. This technique was developed by the FAA (31), and updated by the Air Transport Association of America (ATA) (1), and has been used for this study. The technique utilizes Equivalent Aircraft (EQA) as a single value to reflect the seating capacities and number of aircraft whose passengers would most directly influence the sizing of a particular component of the terminal. Tables and charts are used for sizing terminal elements based on EQA. Terminal space requirements have been approximated by combining individual components of the terminal. This appendix summarizes the assumptions made for each component in the development of an area estimate for an eight gate module handling one million annual enplaned air passengers of which approximately 20% are connecting passengers. The applicable tables and charts from the FAA/ATA technique are noted and results are summarized on a worksheet. Figure W .1. An important factor in the FAA/ATA technique in sizing 213 214 the components is the Gate EQA. The Gate EQA is developed by multiplying gate positions by equivalent aircraft factors. Gate Gate Another impor EQA for this example: 8 gate positions in module each gate designed to accommodate a Boeing 767 aircraft EQA = l tant factor is EQA Inbound. The EQA Inbound is used primarily for sizing baggage claim facilities and represents ai rcraft arrivals in a peak 20 minute periods. EQA Inbound, for this example = §_ Area Estimate by Components 1. Air line Counters (Figure 4-5)* assume peak hour gate utilization combines arrivals and departures - use curve B. 80% of enplaning passengers originate flights at airport (20% Connecting passengers) Gate EQA = 16 from Figure, counter frontage = 200 ft. estimated area = 200 x 10 ft = 2000 sq. ft. (Airline Ticket Office/Support §pace (Figure 4—6) space for accounting and safekeeping of receipts, agent supervision, communications, agent lounge * Reference to tables and figures that appear in The Apron and Terminal Building Reference Manual. Ralph Parsons Adminis Company. Prepared for Federal Aviation tration. U.S.D.O.T., Washington, D.C., 1975. 215 same assumptions as airline counters Gate EQA = 16 from Figure, area = 4500 sq. ft. 3. Outbound Baggage (Figure 4-16) assume 1.3 average bags per passenger and 60-100% of bag rooms as shown in Figure 4—11 Gate EQA = 16 from Figure. area = 7000 sq. ft. 4. Baggage Claim Area (Figures 4-22, 4-23. 4-24) assume 1.3 average bags per passenger 80% of deplaning passengers terminate flights at airport (20% connecting passengers) EQA Inbound = 8 from Figure 4-22, claiming frontage = 300 feet assume Tee and U-shaped devices alternating at 75 feet with flatbed/direct feed from Figure 4-23, for 300 linear feet of claim display, claiming area = 10,000 sq. ft. from Figure 4-24, for 300 linear feet of claim display, input area = 3600 sq. ft. 5. Airline Operations 3nd Support space for flight operations, flight crew and flight attendants, cabin service and ramp service personnel approximated at 500 sq. ft. per Gate EQA Gate EQA = 16 area = 16 x 500 = 8000 sq. ft. 10. 216 Departureggounges (Table 3-2) some combined use of lounges 60% boarding load factor assumed area per lounge = 1600 sq. ft. total area = 8 x 1600 = 12,800 sq. ft. Other Airline Space area not included under Airline Operations and Support includes air cargo services provided in the terminal (e.g. Priority Parcel), VIP rooms and other special purpose exclusive space assume 1000 sq. ft. Lobby-Ticketing (Figure 4—7) Gate EQA = 16 from Figure, area = 9,000 sq. ft. (includes counter area) area for airline counters (item 1) = 2000 sq. ft. area of ticket lobby = 7000 sq. ft. gobby3Waiting (Figure 4-8) estimated Peak Hour enplanements = 440 passengers assume 1 visitor per peak hour enplaning passenger assume seating for 30% of passengers plus visitors = 30% (440 + 440) = 265 from Figure, area = 6000 sq. ft. Lobby-Baggage Claim 3 devices required - lobby dimensions/device: length = 75 ft., depth = 30 ft. 217 - area required = 3 x (75 x 30) = 6750 sq. ft. 11. Food and Beverage Services (Figure 4-25) — annual enplaned passengers = 1 million — assume 20% average daily use factor for coffee shop and restaurant - from Figure, area = 10,000 sq. ft. 12. Other Concessions and Terminal Services (Figure 4-26) - space for services such as: news and tobacco; gift and apparel; rental auto counters; insurance; public telephones; vending machines; washrooms; airport management; police and security; medical aid; building maintenance and storage - annual enplaned passengers = 1 million - from Figure, area = 12,000 sq. ft. 13. Other Rental Space - space not directly related to air passenger activities. e.g. U.S. weather service - assume 2000 sq. ft. 14. Other Circulation — primarily the corridor to gate area - assume 15,000 sq. ft. 15. Building Mechanical Systems (HVAC) - assume 12% of gross total space 16. Building Structure — for building columns and walls, allow 5% of the total gross area approximated for functions on lines 1 through 15. Public Parking Spaces (Figure 5-9) - 80% of enplaning passengers originate flights at 218 airport (20% connecting passengers) - annual originating passengers = 800,000 - from Figure, parking spaces required = 1500 219 AIRPORT MASTER PLANNING WORKSHEET FOR TERMINAL BUILDING SPACE STATION CODE YEAR I LIN ENPLANDIENTS (Domestic Sched. Service) (8 gates) l. AIRLINE COUNTERS L.F. 200 CROSS AREA S.F. 2,000 2. ATO/SUPPORT SPACE 5.1-'4 4 500 (Adjoining Counters) ' 3. OUTBOUND BACGAGE CROSS AREA S.F. 7'000 A. BAG CLAIM: DISPLAY I..P. 300 . CLAIHING AREA S.F. 10,000 . INPUT AREA 8.7. 3,600 5.1mm“ 095.; 6me 8. 3,000 6. DEPARTURE LOUNGES S.F. 12, 800 7. OTHER AIRLINE SPACE S.F. 1,000 SUD-TOTAL H TERI] '7 8.1'. 48,900 8 LOBBY-T ICKETING S . F . (Excluding Line '1 Above 7'000 9. LOBBY-HAITII'G: I SEATS caoss AREA s.r. 6.000 IO. LOBBY-BAG CLAIM cnoss AREA 8.3. 6'7” II. FOOD 8 DEV. SERV. SJ’. 10,000 12. OTHER mNCESSIORS 8 TERMINAL SERV. SJ". 12'000 13. arm-:3 RENTAL SPACE S.I-‘ 2,000 1’0. OTHER CIRCULATION: VERT. : IN (DUNECTOR 15,000 : HISC. .M '8 mm m. 5.17. 58 .750 Sufi-[w £1 IERU '7 S.F. 43,900 TOTAL #1 man :14 3.9. 107,650 r_I1...I_lllm£__mllgv_mce 0 I) 1 12.900 I ...—51W 115 S.F. 120120 unmanned—1) 5v°°° I 17. TOTAL BASE AREA SJ". 126, 550 IO. SPACES NOT IN ‘PAA REPORT TOTAL GROSS AREA 8.9. 126,550 Figure B.l Airport Master Planning Worksheet LI ST OF REFERENCES 10. 11. LIST OF REFERENCES Air Transport Association of America. Airline Aircraft Gates and Passenger Terminal Space. Washington, D.C., 1977. Airport Landside Cgpacipy. Transportation Research Board Special Report 159. Washington, D.C., 1975. Aviation Industry Working Group. Survey of Ground Transpprtation Systems for Airports. Washington, D.C., 1978 (revised 1982). Bergmann, D.R., and others. "A Comparison of Automated People Mover and Accelerating Moving Walkway Costs and Effectiveness." Transportation Planning and Technology, vol. 4, no. 2, 1978, pp. 105-124. Carlson, Louise. "Tackling Airport Capacity and Delay Problems: An Industry-Wide Approach." Airport Services Management, January 1983, pp. 32-34. Chung, C.C. Accelerating Walkway System Analysis at Washington National Airport. Prepared for U.S.DOT, Urban Mass Transportation Administration, Washington, D.C., 1979. DeLeuw, Gather and Company. AGT Guidewaygand Station Technology Volume 1 - Executive Summary. Prepared for U.S.DOT, Urban Mass Transportation Administration, Washington, D.C., 1979. DeLeuw, Gather and Company. Characteristics of Urban Transportation Systems: A Handbook for Transportation Planners. Prepared for U.S.DOT, Urban Mass Transportation Administration, Washington, D.C., 1979. Dodge Guide to Public Works and Heavy ConstructiOn Costs. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1982. Fisher Associates, Inc. Airline Airport Terminal Design Possibilities. San Francisco, California, 1963. Freck, P.G. and others. Intra-Airport Transportation Systems: An Examination ofTechnology_and Evaluation Methodology. Institute for Defense Analyses, ArIington, VA, 1969. 220 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 221 Fruin, John J. "Applications of Accelerating Walkways." Journal of Advanced Transportation, vol. 16, no. 2, Summer 1982, pp. 103-109. General Research Corporation. Life Cycle Cost Model for Comparing AGT and Conventional Transit Alternatives. Prepared for U.S.DOT, Urban Mass Transportation Administration, Washington, D.C., 1976. Horonjeff, Robert and McKelvey, Francis X. Planning and Design of Airports. Third Edition. New York: McGraw—Hill, 1983. Romburger, Wolfgang 8., Editor. Transportation and f c n eer Han book. Second Edition. Institute of Transportation Engineers. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1982. International Air Transport Association. Airport Terminals Reference Manual. Sixth Edition. Montreal, Canada, 1978. International Civil Aviation Organization. Airport Planning Manual. Part 1 - Master Planning. Montreal, Canada, 1977. JHK and Associates. Public Transportation: An Element of the Urban Transportation System. Prepared forU.S.DOT,Federa1 Highway Administration and Urban Mass Transportation Administration, Washington, D. C. 1980. Kocur, G. and others. An Analysig of the U.S.JMarket for Automated Guideway Transit. Prepared for U.S.DOT, Urban Mass Transportation Administration, Washington, D.C., 1980. Lea, N.D. and Associates. Assessment of Atlanta Airport Automated Transit System. Prepared for U.S.DOT, Urban Mass Transportation Administration, Washington, D.C., 1982. Lea, N.D. and Associates. Description and Technical Review of the Miami International Airport Satellite Transit Shuttle System. Prepared for U.S.DOT, Urban Mass Transportation Administration, Washington, D.C., 1979. Lea, N. D. and Associates. Summary of Capital and Operations and Maintenance Cost Experience of AGT Systems. Prepared for U. S. DOT, Urban Mass Transportation Administration, Washington, D.C., 1978. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 222 Lea, N.D. and Associates. Summary of Capital and Qperations apd Maintenance Cost Experience of Automated Guideway Transit Systems: Costs and Trends for the Period 1976-1978 - Supplement I. Prepared for U.S.DOT, Urban Mass Transportation Administration, Washington, D.C., 1979. Lee, R.A. and others. General Motors Technical Center. Systems Operation Studies for Automated Guideway Transit Systems - Summary Report. Prepared for U.S.DOT, Urban Mass Transportation Administration, Washington, D.C., 1980. McCoomb, L.A. "Operational Requirements for People Mover Systems - The Airport Case." Toronto Ontario: Canadian Urban Transit Association Library, 1983. McCoomb, L.A. "Planning Intra-Airport Transportation: A Framework for Decision Making." Paper presented at International Air Transportation Conference, Montreal, Canada, June 1983. Meehan, James A. "Less is More." Airport Management Journal, July 1977, pp. 18-21. Montgomery Elevator Company Information Folder, Moline, Illinois, 1984. Nammack, John A. "Intra—Airport Passenger Transit Systems." Airport Services Management, May 1971, pp. 40-47. Office of Technology Assessment, Congress of the United States. Automated Guidewaerransit - An Assessment of PRT and Other New Systems. Washington, D.C., 1975. Parsons, Ralph M. and Company. The Apron and Terminal Building Planning Manual. Prepared for U. S. DOT, Federal Aviation Administration, Washington, D.C., 1975. Parsons, Ralph M. and Company. The Apron- -Terminal Complex, Analysis of Concepts for Evaluation of Terminal Buildings. Prepared for U. 5. DOT, Federal Aviation Administration, Washington, D. C., 1973. Quick, Leonard H. "Design Criteria for Intra-Airport Transportation Systems." Paper presented at ASCE National Meeting on Transportation Engineering, Washington, D.C., July 1969. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 223 Reynolds, Smith and Hills. New Terminal Complex, Fort gauderdale-Hollywood International Airport, Concept Analysis. Jacksonville, Florida, 1975. Rouse, W.V. and Company. Generic Alternatives Analyses: Summar , Definition of Generic Modes and Applicationn Areas. Prepared for U.S.DOT, Urban Mass Transportation Administration, Washington, D.C., 1979. Shields, Charles B. and Harry W. Lindell. "Performance Standards for Intra-Airport People Moving Systems." SAE Transactions, Society of Automotive Engineers, April 1970. Soberman, Richard M. and Heather A. Hazard, Editors. Canadian Transit Handbook. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto—York University Joint Program in Transportation, 1980. SRI International. Assessment of the Passenger Shuttle System at Tampa International Airport. Prepared for U.S.DOT, Urban Mass Transportation Administration, Washington, D.C., 1977. SRI International. Assessment of the Satellite Transit System at the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. Prepared for U.S.DOT, Urban Mass Transportation Administration, Washington, D.C., 1977. SRI International. Assessment of the Tunnel Train System at the Houston Intercontinental Airport. Prepared for U.S.DOT, Urban Mass Transportation Administration, Washington, D.C., 1977. Strakosch, George R. Vertical Transportation: Elevators and Escalators. Second Edition. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1983. Transportation Systems Center, U.S.DOT. Assessment of Operational AutomatedfiGuigeway Systems - AIRTRANS (Phase I). Prepared for U.S.DOT, Urban Mass Transportation Administration, Washington, D.C., 1976. Transportation Systems Center, U.S.DOT. Assessment of Operationgl Automated Cgideway Systems - AIRTRANS (Phase II). Prepared for U.S.DOT, Urban Mass Transportation Administration, Washington, D.C., 1980. Transportation Systems Center, U.S.DOT. Planning for Downtown Circulation Systems. Prepared for U.S.DOT, Urban Mass'Transportation Administration, Washington, D.C.. 1983. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 224 Transportation Systems Center, U.S.DOT. Summary of Capital and Operations and Maintenance Cost Experience of Automated Guideway Transit Systems: Costs and Trends for the Period 1976-1979 - Supplement II. Prepared for U.S.DOT, Urban Mass—Transportation Administration, Washington, D.C., 1980. Transportation Systems Center, U.S.DOT. Summary of Capital and Operations and Maintenance Cost Experience of Automated GuidewayTransit Systems: Costs and Trends for the Period 1976-1980 — Supplement III. Prepared for U.S.DOT, Urban Mass:Transportatiofi Administration, Washington, D.C., 1981. Transportation Systems Center, U.S.DOT. Summary of Capital and Operations and Maintenance Cost Experience of Automated Guideway Transit Systems: Cost and Trends for the Period 1976—1981 - Supplement IV. Prepared for U.S.DOT, Urban Mass—Transportation Administration, Washington, D.C., 1982. Tutty, E. Bryan. "Airport Transit Systems - A Major Factor in Terminal Expansion." Airports International, August/September, 1975, pp. 16-21. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration. The FAA's Airport Landside Model. Washington, D.C., 1978. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration. FAA Aviation Forecasts, Fiscal Year 1983-1984. Washington, D.C., 1983. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration. Planning and Design Considerations for Airport Terminal BuildingDevelopment. Advisory Circular AC loo/5366:7, Washington, D.C., 1976. U.S. Department of Transportation, Urban Mass Transportation Administration. AGT Socio-Economic Research, Program Digest. Washington, D.C., 1981. Vuchic, Vukan R. Urban Public Transportation Systems and Technology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: ’Prentice—Hall, 1981. Weant, Robert. Parking Garage Planning and Operation. Westport, Conn.: ENO Foundation for Transportation, 1978. Westinghouse Electric Corporation. Automated Transit System Planning Guide. West Mifflin, Pennsylvania, 1981.