National Academies Press: OpenBook

Innovations for Airport Terminal Facilities (2008)

Chapter: Chapter 4 - Innovations

« Previous: Chapter 3 - Approach to Developing New Concepts
Page 22
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Innovations." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2008. Innovations for Airport Terminal Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14219.
×
Page 22
Page 23
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Innovations." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2008. Innovations for Airport Terminal Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14219.
×
Page 23
Page 24
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Innovations." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2008. Innovations for Airport Terminal Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14219.
×
Page 24
Page 25
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Innovations." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2008. Innovations for Airport Terminal Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14219.
×
Page 25
Page 26
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Innovations." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2008. Innovations for Airport Terminal Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14219.
×
Page 26
Page 27
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Innovations." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2008. Innovations for Airport Terminal Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14219.
×
Page 27
Page 28
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Innovations." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2008. Innovations for Airport Terminal Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14219.
×
Page 28
Page 29
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Innovations." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2008. Innovations for Airport Terminal Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14219.
×
Page 29
Page 30
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Innovations." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2008. Innovations for Airport Terminal Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14219.
×
Page 30
Page 31
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Innovations." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2008. Innovations for Airport Terminal Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14219.
×
Page 31
Page 32
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Innovations." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2008. Innovations for Airport Terminal Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14219.
×
Page 32
Page 33
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Innovations." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2008. Innovations for Airport Terminal Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14219.
×
Page 33
Page 34
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Innovations." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2008. Innovations for Airport Terminal Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14219.
×
Page 34
Page 35
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Innovations." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2008. Innovations for Airport Terminal Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14219.
×
Page 35
Page 36
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Innovations." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2008. Innovations for Airport Terminal Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14219.
×
Page 36
Page 37
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Innovations." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2008. Innovations for Airport Terminal Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14219.
×
Page 37
Page 38
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Innovations." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2008. Innovations for Airport Terminal Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14219.
×
Page 38
Page 39
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Innovations." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2008. Innovations for Airport Terminal Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14219.
×
Page 39
Page 40
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Innovations." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2008. Innovations for Airport Terminal Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14219.
×
Page 40
Page 41
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Innovations." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2008. Innovations for Airport Terminal Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14219.
×
Page 41

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

22 The innovations developed through this research effort are a combination of existing approaches that have not been widely implemented and of new methods for improving the passengers’ experience and enhancing operational efficiency. Many of the innovations are intended to improve the airport experience not only for the average passenger, but also for the aging population, which is becoming an increasingly important consideration for airport operators and planners. The innova- tions involve approaches that could be implemented imme- diately, as well as some that may require government approval of certain activities, such as self-tagging of check baggage. All of the innovations incorporate methods, approaches, or activities that are being implemented in some form at various airports throughout the world. The innovations are intended to serve as a “kit of parts” for developing new concepts incorporating one or more innova- tions (see Chapters 5 and 6). Through this approach, airport stakeholders will be able to evaluate the innovations based on their need to address specific issues and will also be able to con- sider how multiple innovations could be combined to enhance the overall passenger experience rather than addressing a single issue. Because each airport terminal landside is unique in its operation and physical layout, emphasis is given to the inno- vations as methods to address issues passengers commonly face rather than prescribing specific solutions that may or may not be adaptable to a given airport’s terminal landside facilities. The intent is to ensure that the innovations are rel- evant to a wide variety of situations and airport sizes. Each innovation is examined in detail in this chapter. The assumptions upon which each innovation is based or prerequisite conditions that are needed to make the innovation feasible are identified. The advantages and disadvantages, from both the passenger and airport operations perspectives, are discussed, along with any challenges to implementation. The innovations identified involve the following: • Process-based departures hall, • Passenger-processing facilities, • Self-service baggage check, • Bag-check plaza, • Supplemental curbsides, • Passenger assistance parking area, • Low-profile passenger baggage devices, • High-capacity flow-through elevators, • Consolidated meeters-and-greeters area, and • Arrivals lounges Process-Based Departures Hall The process-based departures hall layout shown in Fig- ure 4-1 is based on the realization that common-use terminal equipment (CUTE) not only allows for the sharing of equip- ment, but could also affect the layout of the departures hall and corresponding curbside. In a traditional departures hall serving multiple airlines (see Figure 4-1: “Multiple Airlines”), each airline has its own proprietary equipment at the ticket counters, as well as its own SSDs. The curbside usually reflects the location and extent of the ticket counter frontage of the individual airlines. At airports where CUTE is used in the de- partures hall, each airline is typically assigned a number of “exclusive-use” ticket counter positions and has the ability to use other “shared” positions as their passenger demand requires. Many of these airports provide CUSS kiosks where passengers can check-in for multiple airlines. The curbside sig- nage at these airports usually reflects the locations of the in- dividual airlines. In contrast, a process-based departures hall could be separated according to passenger check-in processes rather than by airline (see Figure 4-1: “Process-based”). Using CUTE (including CUSS), the departures hall could be arranged into three sections: (1) self-service devices where passengers can print boarding passes, change seat assignments, request upgrades, etc.; (2) a self-service baggage check area where passengers can use SSDs to obtain bag tags and deposit their check baggage into the baggage handling system; and (3) full-service airline-staffed positions for passengers who C H A P T E R 4 Innovations

23 need (e.g., elderly/disabled or displaced passengers) or desire (e.g., premium passengers) interaction with an airline agent. The terminal curbside would also be arranged and signed to match this layout. Key Drivers While the ability to “share” may indeed reduce the need for additional ticket counter positions, “exclusive-use” posi- tions require the departures hall and corresponding termi- nal curbside to be arranged by airline. This arrangement often results in inefficient use of the entire departures hall as can be seen at many airports where a long queue forms in front of one airline’s counters and nobody is standing in front of adjacent airline counters. The same is true at the curbside. The disproportionate length of curbside assigned to a particular airline related to the amount of traffic on that airline causes curbside congestion, especially during peak periods. However, because of airline-specific signage at the terminal curbside, passengers are often not inclined to travel farther down the curbside to a less-congested area. The result is the same inside the terminal where one area has a concen- tration of passengers and the adjacent areas are practically vacant. With the increasing costs of terminal facility expan- sion and the complexity of implementing major renovation or new construction projects in or around an operating terminal, the need for higher utilization of existing facilities is greater than ever. Examples The process-based departures hall layout is not currently implemented at airport terminals serving multiple airlines regardless of whether CUTE is being used. However, single airline terminals—commonly airline hubs—are often split into zones based on the type of service (premium/first-class, domestic, international, etc.), but not necessarily on the pas- sengers’ check-in processes (boarding pass, baggage check, or full-service). Having only one airline tenant in a terminal promotes this type of separation because differentiation among airlines is not required. The curbside at these termi- nals typically reflects the same zones as the departures hall. Assumptions/Prerequisites Implementation of the process-based departures hall layout requires that one major component be in place. Each terminal must have a single baggage-screening system with a sortation system downstream of the screening matrix that feeds to in- dividual airline outbound baggage makeup devices (or a common baggage makeup room). If a centralized baggage screening system is not in place, the departures hall cannot be separated based on passenger check-in processes because each ticket counter baggage take-away belt would feed to individual screening systems and then require sorting or manual trans- portation to the proper airline, defeating the efficiencies of a common-use process and equipment. The ideal process-based departures hall layout is based on the assumption that passengers will be allowed to tag their own check baggage. This self-tagging would allow for all of the SSDs (boarding pass and baggage check) to be attended by roving agents rather than requiring staffed agent positions for accepting check baggage. Another assumption is that, since multiple airlines would be sharing SSDs, either the airport operator or a third-party would provide the roving agents to support these SSDs. The cost of these agents could be split among the participating airlines. Evaluation Passenger Perspective The process-based departures hall addresses a number of the issues that passengers commonly face. First, waiting and queuing would be improved because passengers would be able to check in and check baggage at a number of locations, a common benefit with current common-use facilities, rather than at specific airline facilities. By combining the self-service processes (boarding pass and bag check) for all airlines in the terminal, passenger traffic would be more constant, particularly during nonpeak periods when some airlines are very busy and others are not. The aggregate passenger demand would require fewer check-in positions with a process-based departures hall Figure 4-1. Process-based departures hall.

than with a traditional layout, allowing for the capacity of the departures hall to be increased without expanding the facility. Improved wayfinding would be another important advan- tage of the process-based departures hall, in both the departures hall and at the terminal curbside. Often, passengers are con- fused by the excessive signage required to direct the passengers of multiple airlines to their respective areas. The process-based departures hall would only require signage directing passen- gers to the three functional areas so that they would not have to distinguish the airline they want from a vast array of airline- based signage. Another advantage is that the departures hall could be organized so that a passenger who only needs to use an SSD could be processed near the SSCP, whereas the same passenger in a multiple-airline arrangement may have to pass numerous other airline counters on their way to the SSCP. The biggest disadvantage of the process-based departures hall layout is that passengers would be required to adapt to a new way of thinking about processing in the departures hall. Rather than simply looking for their airline, passengers would have to understand their processing needs. However, it is not unrealistic to expect passengers to understand their process- ing needs because the increasing numbers of passengers using self-service functions is an indication that they know what their processing needs are—that is, passengers understand that they need only a boarding pass if they are not checking bag- gage or that they need to stop in the departures hall to deposit their check baggage. Operations Perspective One major advantage of the process-based departures hall over the traditional multiple-airline departures hall is the increased operational efficiency during nonpeak periods. At most airports, although passenger traffic is lower during nonpeak periods, the aggregate traffic flow is relatively constant. However, the traffic for any given airline might vary dramat- ically throughout the day, causing periods of either severe congestion or relative inactivity. This effect also affects the curbside. As the process-based departures hall combines passenger traffic for all airlines, operational efficiency in the departures hall and at curbside would increase because the amount of check-in equipment or curbside frontage required would be based on total traffic rather than on the traffic of an individual airline. The result is that curbside demand can be balanced with departures hall demand, which is not possi- ble with the traditional multiple-airline arrangement where the curb frontage for each airline is commonly based on the length of ticket counter frontage and not the amount of vehi- cle traffic associated with that airline. Another advantage of the process-based departures hall, especially for airport operators, is that the terminal flexibility is enhanced by the separation of functions by passenger check-in processes rather than by airline. The only portion of the process-based departures hall that would be affected by airline changes would be the full-service area, and a large amount of flexibility would even be maintained there because it would be sized based on aggregate demand and not neces- sarily by individual airline requirements. This flexibility would greatly reduce the number of signage changes or cosmetic changes commonly associated with traditional multiple-airline terminals. With a traditional terminal, the airline’s position within the departures hall or on the terminal curbside can be an advantage if the airline is able to provide a more convenient route to the SSCP. The process-based departures hall minimizes the potential for an individual airline to have an advantage because all of the self-service functions would be located together and the full-service functions would be located together. Simulation Analyses Initial simulation analyses of the process-based departures hall showed a significant reduction in the required number of check-in positions compared with today’s requirements where each airline operates its own check-in equipment. A simulation analysis was conducted at a terminal section with three legacy carriers serving just fewer than 2 million annual enplaned passengers and approximately 560 peak-hour originating pas- sengers. At this size airport or terminal, from which several airlines operate with similar peak times, little reduction in the SSD requirements resulted; however, a 45% savings in the number of full-service check-in positions required did result. Another analysis was conducted for an airport terminal serving just fewer than 7 million annual enplaned passengers by seven airlines, one of which accounted for nearly half of the enplaned passenger traffic. This facility processed nearly 2,100 originating passengers in the peak hour. As airline peak hours do not exactly coincide, a process-based depar- tures hall would require fewer positions for each check-in process—40% fewer full-service check-in positions and at least 30% fewer self-service check-in devices. Detailed results of these analyses are included in the appendix. Challenges to Implementation A significant challenge to implementation of a process- based departures hall is the need for a common baggage- screening system with a sortation system downstream of the screening matrix that directs bags to an individual airline’s or multiple airlines’ outbound baggage make-up devices. While this type of system is more common post-September 11, 2001, many airports have either zoned baggage-screening systems or individual screening systems. 24

25 Another major challenge to implementation of a process- based departures hall is that airlines typically view their branding as an important part of their ability to differentiate themselves from other airlines. The process-based departures hall limits opportunities for branding to the full-service counters, which accommodate only 20% of originating pas- sengers, and the airline-specific portion of the SSD software. However, the operational efficiencies associated with the process-based departures hall may cause the airlines to strongly consider the trade-off between reducing costs and maintain- ing brand identity at the terminal landside facilities. Passenger-Processing Facilities The innovations identified regarding passenger-processing facilities address the fundamental issue that expansion or major renovation of terminal landside facilities is very expensive and often has a significant impact on operations. One option for delaying more expensive capital projects is to relocate some of the major passenger-processing functions commonly located in airport terminal landside facilities such as check-in, baggage check, and curbside operations or to combine the facilities with complementary facilities such as close-in parking. These multifunctional passenger-processing facili- ties (see Figure 4-2) could be located adjacent to an existing terminal, within the airport but remote from the central termi- nal area or remote from the airport near a major population center, such as a central business district or urban shopping center. The passenger-processing facilities in all three configura- tions shown in Figure 4-2 would be connected to the existing terminal in different ways. An adjacent passenger-processing facility (APPF) would be connected to the existing terminal via a pedestrian link such as a sky bridge with moving side- walks. The on-airport passenger-processing facility (OPPF) could be connected to the terminal via some form of people mover such as an APM. The remote passenger-processing facility (RPPF) could be integrated with a regional transit sys- tem that connects to the airport or could be a collection point for the regional transit system with a dedicated connection to the central terminal area via busing operations or an APM. The APPF and OPPF could also serve as collection points for other on-airport ground transportation functions such as re- mote parking, off-airport transit, and rental car operations. Key Drivers The key driving force behind developing passenger- processing facilities that accommodate a variety of functions at locations other than the conventional terminal building is to delay major capital projects required to expand the capacity of an existing terminal; this innovation may be less complex and therefore less expensive to construct. The combination of these major functions with other related functions, such as POV curbside operations, should provide additional capacity and increase the level of service for passengers in a more cost- effective manner than expanding an existing terminal and associated landside facilities. Examples Similar facilities have been implemented at a variety of airports in the United States, as well as in other countries. San Francisco International Airport and Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport offer check-in and baggage check at on-airport remote parking locations. Some airports, such as Hartsfield Jackson Atlanta International, offer curbside check-in (using skycaps) in the close-in parking garage. The close-in parking garage at Heathrow Airport’s new Terminal 5 (see Figure 2-1) combines a number of passenger-processing functions, such as POV and CV curbside operations, parking, and regional transit. Munich Airport provides check-in and Figure 4-2. Passenger-processing facilities.

baggage check within the train station located between the two terminals (see Figure 2-2), which is combined with the rental car counters and the regional transit system. Vienna Interna- tional Airport has a remote terminal (City Airport Terminal) located in downtown Vienna, which is connected to the re- gional transit system and has a dedicated rail link to the airport. The remote terminal offers both check-in and baggage check (see Figures 2-3 and 2-4), with the checked bags transported to the airport in secure sections of the rail cars. Hong Kong International Airport offers check-in and baggage transporta- tion assistance (which is fee based) at the Hong Kong and Kowloon train stations located on the Airport Express dedi- cated railway. The Airport Express station at the airport is located in the Ground Transportation Centre, which also accommodates multiple local and regional bus services. Assumptions/Prerequisites The feasibility of such innovative passenger-processing facilities relies heavily on the key assumption that passengers would be able to tag their own check baggage. Without this ability, passenger check-in would still be available via SSDs, but checking baggage would require airline agent support or relocation of the existing curbside check-in operations. In addition, common baggage screening systems for each terminal would greatly increase the viability of innovative passenger-processing facilities, as passengers from any airline operating within each terminal would be able to use the check- in or baggage check services located within the passenger- processing facility. For the APPF and OPPF, the existence of adequate close-in parking at the airport may reduce the added benefit of either type of passenger-processing facility as park- ing is a key element of both innovative facilities. However, if the airport needs to add parking or the close-in parking garage is in need of major reconstruction, either the APPF or OPPF would be a good alternative. The RPPF concept was examined in detail in ACRP Project 10-02, “Planning Guide for Offsite Terminals.” Evaluation Passenger Perspective Passenger-processing facilities that accommodate a variety of functions at locations other than the conventional terminal building have the potential to address a number of the issues that passengers commonly face. The ability to check in and check baggage in proximity to parking relieves passengers of the need to transport their baggage from a close-in or remote parking garage to the terminal before the bags can be checked. This process would be especially beneficial to the elderly and those with disabilities. Another advantage of this innovation is that wayfinding within the terminal landside could be sim- plified by directing passengers to a passenger-processing fa- cility that serves multiple terminals or a single terminal with multiple airlines rather than directing them to various posi- tions along the terminal curbside for a specific airline. Ver- tical transitions could also be minimized in a passenger- processing facility by locating all curbside operations on one level compared with many terminals with multilevel roadway systems. Consolidated passenger-processing facilities, particu- larly APPFs and OPPFs, would also help alleviate some of the congestion commonly experienced on the terminal roadway resulting from curbside check-in competing with passen- ger drop-off and recirculating traffic. Finally, consolidated passenger-processing facilities could reduce or eliminate at- grade crossings by providing for the delivery of passengers directly into the terminal building. One of the main disadvantages of such innovative passenger- processing facilities is that the functions currently provided adjacent to the terminal building, such as curbside check-in and private or commercial vehicle drop-off/pickup, would be relocated to facilities farther away from the terminal, creating the perception of a lower level of service. However, for the OPPF, the use of automated transit systems versus busing operations to connect passengers between the passenger- processing facility and the terminal might be seen as an improvement, especially if the terminal roadway is often con- gested or the close-in parking facility does not provide the type of amenities that today’s passengers expect (elevators, SSDs, minimal at-grade crossings, etc.). Walking distances from the APPF could be improved by moving walkways. Operations Perspective Passenger-processing facilities that accommodate a variety of functions at locations other than the conventional terminal building could benefit landside operations in a number of ways. First, rather than reconstructing close-in parking facil- ities or terminal roadways while the terminal remains opera- tional, constructing passenger-processing facilities in areas outside the central terminal area would result in lower con- struction costs and minimal operational impacts. Using remote parking structures not only for parking but also for curbside operations and check-in or baggage check would be another advantage compared with expanding either the existing ter- minal roadway system or the terminal itself. Also, combining parking and curbside operations could allow for enforcement to be focused on a few locations compared with enforcing POV parking on the terminal roadway at both the departures curb and the arrivals curb for multiple airlines or even multi- ple terminals. The opportunity to move an entire mode of transportation (e.g., private or commercial vehicles) into a consolidated location would reduce the number of POVs on 26

the terminal roadway or the number of stops that CVs have to make, thereby reducing the number of CVs required to maintain an appropriate level of service. An APPF or OPPF would also provide an opportunity to accommodate the TSA’s 300-ft rule if the airport operator chooses to maintain that distance rather than providing the necessary blast-protection measures. There would also be a security benefit of reduc- ing the number of uninspected check bags in the terminal departures hall. A major disadvantage of the APPF or OPPF is that, in most cases, it would be difficult to retrofit an existing close-in or remote parking garage to accommodate all of the features that would help make a passenger-processing facility viable. For example, CVs require higher floor-to-ceiling heights than do POVs, and most parking garage entrances are not designed to handle the volume of traffic associated with curbside operations. Reconfiguring an existing garage to accommodate curbside operations may be just as costly as reconfiguring or expanding the terminal roadway. Remote passenger-processing facilities would most likely require an APM connection to the terminal to make the transfer of passengers and baggage more efficient and to provide the level of service that would make the remote facilities comparable with close-in parking facilities. These systems can be very expensive and difficult to integrate into an existing terminal area. Challenges to Implementation The implementation of passenger-processing facilities that accommodate a variety of functions at locations other than the conventional terminal building would face many challenges. First, the amount of investment in existing close-in parking facilities would be a major consideration. Another issue would relate to the way passengers would be transported between the passenger-processing facility and the terminal. While bus- ing operations are perceived as not providing as high a level of service as APM systems and as having more significant environmental consequences and operating costs, they may be much easier to integrate with an existing ground trans- portation system. As with the process-based departures hall, a centralized baggage-screening system would be needed for each terminal (if not for all terminals) to make remote baggage check feasible. In addition, the transportation of checked baggage from either an OPPF or RPPF to the baggage make-up area could present a major challenge, especially from a capital cost standpoint. Self-Service Baggage Check The innovation of self-service baggage check is based on the assumption that passengers would be able to tag their own check baggage. In the current two-step self-service check-in system (see Figure 4-3 “Current Two-step System”), pas- sengers obtain boarding passes via an SSD or the Internet (Step 1) and then proceed to a bag drop position (Step 2), where an airline agent prints the appropriate baggage tags and checks the passenger’s identification. The passenger’s check baggage is tagged and placed on the baggage belt by the air- line agent. In contrast, self-service baggage check, in combi- nation with common-use technology, allows for a one-step system where passengers can obtain a boarding pass and tag their own bags in a single location (see Figure 4-3: “Self- service Bag Check”). This method allows airline agents to focus on their full-service customers, for whom they can provide a higher level of service. Roaming customer service agents (pro- vided by the airport operator or a third-party) could patrol the self-service areas and provide support as needed. Passengers who need assistance in the self-service area could be directed to a self-service “help” desk or the full-service counters. Key Drivers The key driving force behind self-service baggage check is to further empower passengers to process themselves. Self-service gained tremendous momentum in the banking industry with automated teller machines and has also affected big box re- tailers and, more recently, fast food businesses. Self-service has become commonplace at airports throughout the world and has reduced passenger-processing times at a lower cost than adding agent positions. 27 Figure 4-3. Self-service baggage check.

Examples While self-tagging of check baggage is not currently allowed in the United States, numerous airports in Europe offer self- service baggage check. Vienna International Airport and Munich Airport have implemented both the current two-step system with agent-staffed baggage drop positions in the second step and the one-stop self-service boarding pass and baggage check kiosks. At the one-stop kiosks, passengers swipe an appropriate identification card, obtain a boarding pass, and select the number of bags they wish to check. The kiosk prints the tags for one bag at a time, resolves any weight issues, and then inputs the bag into the baggage-handling system. At both the Vienna and Munich airports, self-service baggage check is provided in or near the train stations that serve the airports, as well as in the departures hall. Assumptions/Prerequisites Self-service baggage check relies on self-tagging, which is allowed in certain European countries but not currently permitted by the TSA in the United States. Also, if self- service baggage check is combined with common-use systems, a centralized baggage-screening system would be needed for each terminal so that baggage for any airline could be input at any self-service baggage drop position. These bags would be sorted to the proper airline after they clear the baggage- screening process. Evaluation Passenger Perspective One key advantage of self-service baggage check is that it has the potential to allow check-in at almost any location from which it is feasible to transport baggage to the terminal via either baggage conveyor or manual handling. In addition, self-service baggage check can be accomplished efficiently since additional airline agents would not be needed to tag baggage. Remote placement of SSDs and self-service baggage- drop positions, such as in a parking garage or CRCF, would greatly reduce the need for passengers to transport their check baggage across busy terminal roads; on one or more modes of transportation; or via multiple level changes, particularly in parking garages, for which escalators or elevators may not be available. Remote self-service bag drop would especially benefit the elderly and disabled. Self-service baggage check, implemented in a common-use environment, would also help simplify wayfinding because all self-service functions (boarding pass and baggage check) could be located together rather than apart, as in the current model; in the current model, CUSS kiosks (boarding pass only) are located through- out the departures hall and other parts of the terminal landside, but passengers must access their respective airline facilities to check their baggage. There are very few disadvantages to self-service baggage check. The biggest disadvantage may be an unintended consequence. An airline’s ability to assist passengers during off-schedule operations, which result in large numbers of passengers waiting in a departures hall to change their itiner- aries, could be affected by the reduced number of full-service agent positions that would be required when self-service bag- gage check is implemented. However, as many airlines are moving toward a heavier reliance on self-service processes, new strategies for dealing with these types of situations are being developed. Operations Perspective The key advantage of self-service baggage check from an operations perspective is increased processing capability without increased staffing requirements. Another advantage is reduced congestion in the departures hall caused by increased passenger-processing capabilities both in the departures hall and at other locations. In addition, the ability to locate SSDs and self-service bag-drop positions at various locations around the airport may present opportunities to generate additional nonairline revenues. For example, the demand for on-airport remote parking may increase because baggage check would be offered as an amenity that may not be offered at off-airport parking locations. One disadvantage to self-service baggage check is the potential impact on the baggage-handling system, in particular, on the ticket counter take-away belt. As passenger-processing rates—and, therefore, peak baggage demand—increase with self-service baggage check, the take-away belt, which has a limited capacity due to the speed at which it can operate safely, would be more fully utilized. Allowing passengers to place their baggage directly on the take-away belt may in- crease downstream conveyor jams as different types of bags (e.g., wheeled, soft-sided) must be placed on the take-away belt in different ways. Other issues that should be examined in more detail include controls for preventing false claims of lost baggage (i.e., passengers claiming that they input a bag when they did not) and the impact of self-tagging on baggage-handling system misread rates. Challenges to Implementation There are a few challenges to implementing self-service bag- gage check. The one major challenge is that current security regulations must be changed to allow passenger self-tagging of baggage. Retrofitting existing ticket counters and installing self-service baggage check-capable devices would require mod- ifications, but would not present a major challenge. Industry 28

29 Figure 4-4. Bag-check plaza. Figure 4-5. Bag-check plaza—linear layout. Figure 4-6. Bag-check plaza—parallel layout. acceptance of self-tagging should not present a major chal- lenge as discussions with airport and airline representatives regarding self-service baggage check were generally very pos- itive; both entities see the advantages of this innovation and believe that the disadvantages could be overcome. The concept has also been embraced by IATA through its Simplifying the Business initiative. Bag-Check Plaza The bag-check plaza would allow passengers to use SSDs to check in for flights, obtain boarding passes, and check bags while remaining with their vehicles. Upon completion of this process, passengers would proceed to park their vehicles or their well-wishers would drop them off at the curbside. While bag-check plazas could be located at close-in or remote park- ing facilities, Figure 4-4 illustrates the general location of a drive-through self-service bag-check plaza that would serve a close-in parking structure and terminal building curbside. Baggage would be transferred to the terminal building or, alternatively, to a remote baggage-screening facility. A bag-check plaza serving close-in parking facilities could use motorized belts to transport baggage directly to the processing area, while remote facilities would likely re- quire the bags to be trucked to the baggage-processing area. Figures 4-5 and 4-6 illustrate two alternative layouts for the bag-check plaza. Key Drivers The construction of a bag-check plaza would be driven by the need to decrease congestion on the curbside roadway and departures hall without increasing their physical size. Allowing passengers to check their bags at a location other than the curb- side would reduce the curbside roadway congestion associated with those vehicles dropping off passengers and baggage before parking. These facilities would also provide a customer service benefit resulting from the ability to check baggage prior to walking to the terminal building from parking. Passengers using the bag-check plaza could then bypass the ticketing and baggage check area of the terminal building and proceed directly to the SSCP, thereby reducing congestion in the tick- eting area and potentially deferring future capital expenses associated with expanding the departures hall. Examples A facility similar to the bag-check plazas currently in place at some airports is the remote baggage check-in facility. Multiple airports in the United States allow third-party vendors to accept check bags and provide boarding passes to passengers for a fee. At San Francisco International Airport, for example, passengers using the long-term parking facility can check bags and obtain boarding passes for daily domes- tic departures on 11 different airlines serving the airport. The service is operated by a third-party vendor that charges a nominal fee based on the number of bags checked. Passengers are required to check their bags at least 75 min prior to their flight if using this parking facility. At Honolulu International Airport, Hawaiian Airlines and Aloha Airlines (prior to its cessation of service in April 2008) offer(ed) drive-through bag check in the close-in parking

30 at an airport will depend upon many factors specific to the unique airport environment, including physical constraints. However, in general, those airports accommodating a high percentage of POV activity would likely be better suited for a bag-check plaza. To reduce staffing requirements and trans- action times, it was assumed that the facility would be self- service and that passengers would be able to tag their own bags prior to putting them onto the baggage conveyor belt. To capture as many passengers wishing to check baggage as possible, the facility would best be located in advance of high-capacity parking facilities offering a long-term product that caters to leisure and business travelers on long trips who are likely to have check baggage. It is unlikely that a bag-check plaza serving only a short-term (i.e., more expensive) park- ing garage would produce sufficient demand to make the facility viable since it tends to attract business travelers on short-trips who likely aren’t checking bags. Evaluation Passenger Perspective The primary advantage of the bag-check plaza is that it re- lieves passengers of the need to carry their baggage from a close-in or remote parking facility to the terminal building. Regardless of how close to the terminal they park, passengers are still burdened by having to carry their baggage into the building and to the check-in counter. In some cases, this process may require getting onto and off of a shuttle bus, which is particularly difficult for elderly and disabled passen- gers. Those passengers who would typically drop off their families and baggage at the curbside before parking could save time by checking their baggage at the bag-check plaza and then parking. Once parked, passengers can avoid the in- convenience of congestion and delays in the departures hall and proceed directly to the SSCP. A disadvantage could be that passengers have become accustomed to receiving assistance from an airline represen- tative if they have any difficulty checking in at a kiosk in the departures hall. Because the bag-check plaza would provide CUSS kiosks, passengers would not be able to speak directly with an airline representative. However, a roaming customer service agent would be available to provide assistance. Novice travelers who do not fully understand the check-in process may become confused and require more time, which would increase wait times for other passengers. In addition, the airline cut-off time for receiving bags at a remote bag-check plaza may require earlier-than-desired check-in times for departing passengers, depending on the method used to transfer the bags to the terminal. This earlier required check-in time may reduce the use of the bag-check plaza, which would, therefore, reduce its potential advantages. Figure 4-7. Hawaiian Airlines drive-through check-in at Honolulu International Airport. Source: TransSolutions, LLC. Figure 4-8. Aloha Airlines drive-through check-in at Honolulu International Airport. Source: TransSolutions, LLC. structure, as shown in Figure 4-7 and Figure 4-8, respectively. Passengers drive their vehicles to a bag-check-in area located adjacent to the terminal or inside the parking structure. Vehicles are parked in drive-through-style parking spaces before passengers exit their vehicles to check their baggage and retrieve their boarding passes. When this transaction is completed, passengers return to their vehicles and drive to an available space in the garage or drop their parties off at the de- partures curb. These passengers then proceed directly to the SSCP with their boarding passes in hand. Assumptions/Prerequisites It is anticipated that bag-check plazas would be designed primarily for POVs (including returning rental car customers) that have two to four occupants wishing to check bags and obtain boarding passes. The suitability of this type of facility

Operations Perspective Providing passengers the opportunity to check baggage before parking has the potential to reduce curbside roadway congestion associated with passenger drop-off and curbside check-in. Patrons who would typically drop off other members of their parties and their baggage at the curbside before parking could check their baggage at the bag-check plaza and then proceed directly to parking, thereby reducing the number of vehicles using the curbside roadway. This process would enable the airport operator to decrease curbside roadway congestion and enforcement without adding phys- ical capacity. The bag-check plaza would also supplement the capacity of check-in facilities in the terminal by allow- ing passengers to bypass the ticket counter and proceed directly to the SSCP. The bag-check plaza could also increase the seating capac- ity and improve the loading efficiency of shuttle bus services from remote lots because passengers have already checked their baggage. These advantages may then lead to a reduction in the number of shuttle buses in operation, which would, therefore, reduce operational costs and provide environmen- tal benefits. A bag-check plaza serving close-in parking lots would need to be constructed in what is likely already a congested area. Regardless of whether the facility is close-in or remote, the re- quired footprint may reduce the number of available parking spaces if it is constructed on an existing parking lot, which could have a negative impact on parking revenues. Depending on the location of the bag-check plaza, baggage would have to be transported to a baggage-screening area either by truck or an automated conveyance system. The cost to convey bags from a remote location to the terminal area would likely be substantial. Simulation Analysis To estimate the required size of a bag-check plaza, a com- puter simulation analysis was conducted at a medium-hub airport with a high percentage (77%) of POVs. The four- airline terminal at the selected airport accommodates approx- imately 1,200 peak hour enplaned passengers. Assuming that 60% of the passengers with check baggage use the bag-check plaza, a total of 12 self-service positions would be required to accommodate demand. If 40% of the passengers with check baggage use the bag-check plaza, eight self-service positions would be required. In addition, an average of four or five spaces per check-in position should be provided for vehicle staging (i.e., parked or in queue). Inside the terminal departures hall, the maximum passenger queues would be reduced by 50% or more. Detailed results of this analysis are included in the appendix. Challenges to Implementation The primary challenges to implementing the bag-check plaza would be the cost and operational difficulties of trans- porting baggage from the plaza to the baggage-processing area. In addition, passengers must be able to tag their own check baggage. Other challenges, such as the availability of land to construct the facility and the potential impact on parking space supply, would also need to be considered. The success of such facilities would likely relate to the ability to generate enough volume to justify the capital and operational costs. Supplemental Curbsides The curbside roadway accommodating POV and CV traf- fic has historically been adjacent to the terminal building, and the manner in which POVs and CVs are separated varies from airport to airport. Curbsides are typically designed to minimize walking distances by providing passengers prox- imity to the terminal building entrance associated with their airline. However, increased vehicle demand and the passen- gers’ desire to be dropped off directly in front of the door creates a high level of congestion along certain areas of the curbside while leaving other areas underutilized. Moving a portion, or in the case of a new terminal, all of the curbside functions into an adjacent parking structure or surface lot would allow for the dispersion of vehicle demand along the curbside frontage and would significantly increase curbside capacity. Supplemental curbsides located near the terminal building could be combined with pedestrian bridges to reduce or elim- inate at-grade lane crossings and to improve pedestrian safety and roadway operations. One arrangement might consist of a supplemental curbside in the parking structure and another “traditional” curbside serving an adjacent terminal (see Fig- ure 4-9: “Terminal and Garage”). This arrangement would be more appropriate for an existing terminal layout where certain transportation modes are moved from the existing curbside to the parking structure. For example, departing passengers could be dropped off in the parking structure and cross an elevated pedestrian bridge directly into the ticketing hall without having to cross any lanes of traffic. Another alternative might relocate all curbside functions inside a parking structure (see Figure 4-9: “Garage Only”). Because it is unlikely that existing roadway infrastructure adjacent to the terminal building would be abandoned, this layout would best be designed as part of the construction of a new terminal. Transportation modes could be assigned to sepa- rate levels of the parking structure and could provide direct access to and from the terminal building. A courtyard or other “outdoor space” could then be provided between the parking structure and the terminal building, similar to the 31

32 arrangement developed for the recently opened Terminal 5 at London’s Heathrow Airport. Key Drivers The implementation of supplemental curbsides would be driven by the need for additional curbside frontage capacity and curbside roadway throughput capacity, as well a desire to improve pedestrian safety by reducing the number of traffic lanes that passengers must cross to access the terminal (as opposed to providing additional curbside islands accessed via crosswalks). Examples Opened in March 2008, Terminal 5 at London’s Heathrow Airport is the most recent example of a new terminal designed with both POV and CV curbsides located within an adjacent parking structure (see Figure 2-1). This “remote curb” ter- minal accommodates departures and arrivals (POV and CV) on the upper level or roof of the parking structure and has a bus and coach station on the lower level. Departing passen- gers cross an elevated pedestrian bridge from the upper level directly into the departures hall while arriving passengers cross the landscaped plaza from baggage claim to the elevator banks on the lower level that access the parking levels and the arrivals curb. This separation of traffic minimizes the number of traffic lanes that pedestrians must cross. At San Diego International Airport, Terminals 1 and 2 each have a supplemental curbside located on a portion of the surface parking lot adjacent to the terminal. The curbside accommodates commercial vehicles such as hotel/motel shuttles, rental car shuttles, and taxicabs. An elevated bridge over the terminal curbside roadway provides a grade-separated pedestrian path between the terminal building and the sup- plemental curbside. Terminal 2 at Munich Airport has supplemental curbsides (see Figure 2-2) in the form of forecourts on each side of the terminal building, with POVs on one side of the terminal and CVs on the other. Each forecourt has two levels: the upper level for departures and the lower level for arrivals. Assumptions/Prerequisites A supplemental curbside could be implemented either as part of an existing parking structure modified to provide a traditional curbside or as part of a new terminal facility. In either scenario, to the extent possible, it is desirable to plan a curbside within an adjacent parking structure to provide vertical separation to reduce vehicle and pedestrian conflicts and to reduce walking distances and the number of traffic lanes that passengers must cross to enter the terminal. Similar to the San Diego International Airport arrangement, those airports without an adjacent parking structure could provide a supplemental curbside in an adjacent surface lot. Evaluation Passenger Perspective A conventional curbside consisting of multiple islands re- quires passengers to cross multiple lanes of traffic. Providing a supplemental curbside in a parking structure allows pas- sengers to cross from the structure to the terminal via a grade- separated walkway. Reducing the number of traffic lanes that must be crossed to access the terminal provides passengers with a sense of improved safety and convenience. The primary disadvantage of the supplemental curbside is that it could result in longer passenger walking distances. Passengers accustomed to being dropped off directly adjacent to the terminal would be required to walk from the parking structure to the terminal. The walking distances could, how- ever, be mitigated by providing moving walkways. Operations Perspective Increasing capacity for curbside operations reduces traffic congestion, thereby improving traffic operations and safety. A supplemental curbside would also allow airport operators to separate POV and CV traffic. At airports where both POVs and CVs drop off passengers on the departures level, the ability to move one or the other to the supplemental curbside would be provided, thereby increasing the curbside capacity for both mode types. Figure 4-9. Supplemental curbsides.

Similar to the bag-check plaza, the area required to construct the supplemental curbside in an existing parking structure may require eliminating some revenue-generating parking spaces. This reduced capacity would then constrain existing close-in parking, which could be difficult to replace. Passengers accustomed to one curbside location for drop off and another curbside location for pickup may be confused by the introduction of an additional curbside. The provision of multiple curbside locations may result in wayfinding com- plexity for passengers in vehicles and on foot. Challenges to Implementation The cost to reconfigure an existing parking structure to accommodate a supplemental curbside would be the primary challenge to implementation. Physical constraints imposed by existing facilities (e.g., column spacing, inadequate floor- to-ceiling height) may limit the ability to retrofit an existing parking structure to accommodate a supplemental curbside. The challenges to implementation with a new parking structure would be how to realign the existing terminal roadway system to accommodate the supplemental curbside located in the structure. Passenger Assistance Parking Area After September 11, 2001, vehicles are no longer allowed to dwell on the curbside unless they are involved in the active loading or unloading of passengers. Those individuals wishing to accompany a departing passenger or to meet an arriving passenger at the majority of large- and medium-hub U.S. airports are required either to pay a fee to park or to drop the passengers off or pick them up directly at the terminal curbside. As a result of this increased level of curbside enforcement, many meeters and greeters desiring to pick up passengers at the curbside have elected to recirculate along the airport roadway system rather than enter the airport parking facilities. This recirculating activity has resulted in increased roadway and curbside congestion. Some airport operators have implemented remote cell phone lots where meeters and greeters who arrive at the airport in advance of an arriving flight can wait in their vehicles for arriving passengers. The passenger assistance parking area (see Figure 4-10) would provide a number of dedicated parking spaces in a close-in parking facility or at the terminal curbside, within reasonable walking distance of the terminal, to allow visitors to accompany passenger(s) to or from the terminal. The parking area could be free of charge, and vehicle parking time would be limited to approximately 10 to 15 min. It is antici- pated that these parking areas would generally serve meeters and greeters and well-wishers. Key Drivers The key drivers to providing a passenger assistance parking area would be the desire to provide a high level of customer service for meeters and greeters and well-wishers accompa- nying an airline passenger to or from the terminal and to encourage these meeters and greeters and well-wishers to park their vehicles rather than circling the on-airport roadway system. Such passenger assistance parking areas would be especially beneficial for the elderly, the disabled, and families with small children. Examples A variation of a passenger assistance parking area is pro- vided on the arrivals level of Nashville International Airport. Vehicles pull into spaces where they are allotted 10 min to greet and assist their passengers with their baggage. A digital clock positioned above each space counts down the 10-min grace period each vehicle is allowed in the parking space. Airport staff monitor the spaces on a continual basis and will issue tickets and, if necessary, tow any vehicle that exceeds its time limit. Similar very-short-term parking spaces are pro- vided at Munich Airport’s Terminal 2. Assumptions/Prerequisites Provision of a passenger assistance parking area would re- quire that a fixed number of spaces be available proximate to the terminal. The spaces should be located in an area where the number of lanes a passenger must cross is minimized to reduce potential vehicle and pedestrian conflict points and to promote a higher level of safety. The spaces could be free of charge, and the vehicle would be allowed to stay in the space for 10 to 15 min. To ensure that vehicles do not exceed the allotted grace period, strict enforcement would be required. Evaluation Passenger Perspective The primary advantage of the passenger assistance park- ing area is that it enables well-wishers and meeters and 33 Figure 4-10. Passenger assistance parking area.

34 greeters to personally assist their passenger to or from the terminal building rather than quickly dropping them off or picking them up at the curbside. The passenger assis- tance parking area provides close and convenient parking spaces as opposed to spaces that may require longer walking distances. Because parking in the passenger assistance parking area would be limited to 10 to 15 min, aircraft delays may result in visitors being required to leave these limited-time spaces and move to public parking or, alternatively, to a remotely located cell phone lot, which could lead to more congestion on terminal roadways. Meeters and greeters would also be required to time their arrival so they would not have to dwell for long periods of time. Operations Perspective Providing a passenger assistance parking area would result in fewer recirculating vehicles on airport roadways. Similar to a cell phone lot, this innovation provides a close-in parking area for patrons wishing to meet their passengers without needing to recirculate. However, the provision of a passenger assistance parking area in an existing parking facility has the potential to eliminate some parking spaces and, subsequently, the revenue generated by those spaces. The provision of this parking product would also likely require additional staff for enforcement. Challenges to Implementation Airport operators may not have the ability to eliminate existing close-in parking capacity or related revenue to accommodate a passenger assistance parking area. The pas- senger assistance parking area would also have to be located outside of the area where a revenue control system is in effect; therefore, an entry/exit location separate from parking may be required. Low-Profile Passenger Baggage Devices Passenger baggage devices consist of ticket counter bag wells, used for depositing check baggage with the airline, and baggage-claim devices, used for claiming checked baggage at the point of arrival. The common passenger baggage devices (see Figure 4-11: “Typical Arrangement” and Figure 4-12: “Typical Carousel Claim”) require passengers to either lift their check baggage approximately 10 to 12 in. off the floor to place them in the bag well for the ticket counter agent to weigh each bag and apply a bag tag or to lift their bags over the typical 8-in. threshold of a slope-plate baggage-claim carousel. In addition, bags are often double-stacked on slope- Figure 4-11. Low-profile ticket counter bag wells. Figure 4-12. Low-profile bag claim devices. plate carousel devices, potentially requiring passengers to reach over another bag to lift their bag off the device. Both ac- tivities are difficult for the elderly and, in many cases, even for the average passenger. Traditional passenger baggage devices are also a hazard for airline agents who may have to move a checked bag approximately 30 in. to 36 in. from the bag well to the take-away belt. Low-profile passenger baggage devices address these issues and help prevent both passenger and agent injuries. Low-profile ticket counter bag wells (for a common example, see Figure 4-11: “Low Profile”) have been used at airports around the world for a number of years, but have not been widely implemented in the United States due to the higher cost compared with traditional devices. Low-profile ticket counter baggage devices require an additional feeder belt that

35 transports the checked baggage from the bag well to the take- away belt. These devices require additional controls and syn- chronization with the take-away belt to prevent jams on the take-away belt. While low-profile ticket counter bag well de- vices can be recessed into the structure to be nearly flush with the floor, typical applications result in a 4-in. to 6-in. floor- to-bag-well separation. Figure 4-13 provides an example of a low-profile ticket counter bag well at Vienna International Airport. Low-profile baggage claim devices—particularly flat-plate claim devices (see Figure 4-12: “Flat Plate Claim”)—are more common than their ticket counter equivalent, but are still not as widely implemented as slope-plate carousels. One reason for the lack of implementation of low-profile devices is the additional capacity created by double-stacking bags on slope- plate carousels. Another reason is that arriving baggage is typically loaded directly onto flat-plate devices, which limits passengers from circulating around all sides of the claim de- vice because a portion is located behind a wall that separates secure and nonsecure areas. However, remotely fed flat-plate devices are available and in use at some European airports. Slope-plate carousels allow for the baggage drop-off point to be located closer to the gate, which helps improve aircraft- to-claim times. Low-profile slope-plate carousel devices and remotely fed flat-plate devices address the issues associated with lifting bags off of bag-claim devices. Key Drivers The aging population’s propensity for airline travel is the major driver for implementation of low-profile passenger baggage devices. As more elderly persons choose airline travel for leisure trips, the impact of traditional passenger baggage devices will become increasingly more noticeable. When these passengers take long trips with a number of check bags, the task of placing those bags on ticket counter bag wells and re- moving them from bag-claim devices, particularly slope-plate devices, becomes more arduous and likely to cause injury or discomfort. Examples Several recently constructed terminals that accommodate both domestic and international passengers such as Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport’s Terminal D, John F. Kennedy International Airport’s Terminal 8, and Miami International Airport’s North Terminal (currently under construction) use (or will use) low-profile ticket counter bag well conveyors that require passengers to lift their bags 8 in. or less and do not require the agent to lift bags at all. However, slope-plate baggage-claim devices are used at many of these airports. Flat plate baggage-claim devices are more commonly found at small-hub airports where the departures and arrivals halls are on the same level as the aircraft apron, reducing the need for more costly remote-feed slope-plate devices. Assumptions/Prerequisites The only assumption regarding low-profile passenger bag- gage devices is that the benefits of providing a higher level of passenger service, particularly for the elderly and disabled, will outweigh the airline and airport operator costs to provide the low-profile devices. While it is certainly easier to include low- profile ticket counter bag well conveyors in new construction or major renovations, most existing ticket counter conveyor sys- tems can be retrofitted to accommodate the low-profile devices. Evaluation Passenger Perspective The biggest advantage of low-profile devices for passengers is the increased ease of placing check baggage on the ticket counter bag well conveyors and removing checked baggage from either low-profile slope plate or flat plate baggage-claim devices. Low-profile passenger baggage devices present virtually no disadvantages to passengers. Operations Perspective Low-profile ticket counter bag wells help prevent airline agent injuries associated with lifting heavy check bags from the bag well to the take-away belt. Low-profile ticket counter bag wells, particularly those with feeder belts, are more expensive to install and maintain due to the additional conveyor com- ponents and the controls required to coordinate the move- ment of the check bags from the feeder belt onto the take-away belt. Low-profile baggage claim devices may actually reduce baggage-claim capacity; however, they are typically less costly to install. There are also potential security concerns with direct-feed flat-plate devices in that circulating bags travel unimpeded from the nonsecure bag claim area to the secure area if they are not immediately claimed by passengers. Figure 4-13. Low-profile ticket counter bag well at Vienna International Airport. Source: Corgan Associates, Inc.

36 Challenges to Implementation The main challenge to implementing low-profile ticket counter bag well devices is the additional cost of an installation that primarily provides enhancements to customer service, rather than reducing operating costs. These types of customer- service enhancements often do not pass traditional benefit-cost analysis and must be supported by a larger desire to accommo- date not only mainstream passengers, but also the increasing number of aging and disabled passengers, as well as leisure trav- elers with one or more check bags. The challenge to implement- ing low-profile baggage-claim devices is that they provide lower capacities than do traditional slope-plate devices. High-Capacity Flow-Through Elevators Most U.S. airport terminals use escalators as the primary mode of vertical transition for passengers. Elevators, which are required by the Americans with Disabilities Act, are typically located in proximity to the escalators, but are not usually in the primary path of travel or in the passenger’s line of sight (see Figure 4-14: “Typical Arrangement”). As a result, passengers may elect to use the escalators even if they do not feel comfortable riding on them. Escalators are even more problematic when passengers have not had the opportunity to deposit their check baggage with the airline. High-capacity flow-through elevators are not commonly found in U.S. airport terminals, although they are used in some high-rise buildings and transit centers to transport pas- sengers between popular destinations. These elevators are designed to operate on a fixed schedule and act more like a vertical people mover than a traditional elevator. High- capacity flow-through elevators, unlike traditional elevators, are intended to be in the passenger path of travel (see Fig- ure 4-14: “Flow Through Arrangement”) and can open on both sides of the elevator cab. These types of elevators are fre- quently used in subterranean transit stations where there is a relatively constant flow of passengers and escalators are not available. While escalators would still be provided to accom- modate the many passengers who are comfortable using them, high-capacity flow-through elevators would accom- modate the needs not only of the disabled, but also of the eld- erly and those traveling with small children. These devices could be provided either in the terminal or in landside facili- ties, such as multistory parking structures. Figure 4-14. High-capacity flow-through elevators.

37 Key Drivers The primary driving force supporting the need for high- capacity flow-through elevators is the aging population. As identified in Chapter 2, vertical transitions via escalators or stairs, particularly with check baggage, is one of the biggest issues for elderly and disabled passengers. Escalators are also challenging for families traveling with small children. Also, baggage carts are typically prohibited from escalators, so passengers must deviate from the primary path of travel to continue using their baggage carts. Examples Heathrow Airport’s recently opened Terminal 5 uses banks of five high-capacity flow-through elevators to transport pas- sengers primarily between the transit station located below the pedestrian plaza and the departures level (see Figure 2-1). These elevators (see Figure 4-15) are located on the terminal side of the parking structure, run on preprogrammed sched- ules, and have a 50-person capacity. Additional banks of high- capacity flow-through elevators provide passengers access between the different levels of the parking structure and the departures and arrivals levels of the terminal. Passengers trav- eling between the parking structure and the terminal with check baggage have a much easier trip, especially since the arrivals and departures curbs are located in the parking structure. Assumptions/Prerequisites High-capacity flow-through elevators require a relatively constant demand to be effective. Multilevel terminals with baggage claim and ground transportation on the lower level and the departures hall, SSCP, and gates on the upper level are obviously well suited for high-capacity flow-through elevators. Multilevel terminals provide the opportunity to channel the steady flow of arriving passengers to the baggage-claim area using high-capacity flow-through elevators in addition to escalators. Terminals with additional levels for parking or transit stations would also be excellent candidates. Evaluation Passenger Perspective The biggest advantage to passengers is the ease of vertical transition, particularly for passengers with check baggage. The fact that these types of elevators are better suited to be in the primary path of travel also benefits other passengers, such as the elderly and disabled, who would prefer not to use escalators or stairs. It is also more convenient for passengers, especially those with baggage carts or in wheel chairs, to enter on one side of an elevator and exit through the other side, eliminating the first-in, last-out loading and unloading of standard elevators. The major disadvantage to high-capacity flow-through elevators is that, during peak periods, there may be some queuing in front of the elevators whereas escalators rarely have queues. However, if these elevators are used in conjunc- tion with escalators as illustrated in Figure 4-14, some passen- gers who intended to use the elevators may decide to use the escalators, keeping the queue to a minimum. Operations Perspective High-capacity flow-through elevators, much like traditional elevators, help reduce the number of injuries to passengers as compared with escalators. They could also satisfy the Americans with Disabilities Act requirements for elevators, so duplicate elevators would not be required. Another advan- tage would be that the elevator schedules could be set to re- duce the number of trips during nonpeak periods, reducing wear and energy consumption. One disadvantage to high-capacity flow-through elevators is the need for two or more at each location to maintain acceptable frequencies and to achieve the desired level of service. Most traditional elevators are not intended to be the primary mode of vertical transportation, so only one is installed in most locations. Challenges to Implementation The biggest challenge to widespread implementation of high-capacity flow-through elevators is the familiarity with and preference for escalators by U.S. passengers. Another big challenge is that the retrofitting of existing buildings Figure 4-15. Heathrow Airport Terminal 5— high-capacity flow-through elevators. Source: Corgan Associates, Inc.

that would be required to accommodate large elevators may not pass the benefit-cost analysis as the existing escalators most likely satisfy the need for assisted vertical transporta- tion. Retrofitting parking structures with elevators is equally challenging. Consolidated Meeters-and-Greeters Area Meeters and greeters were affected greatly by the changes in security regulations following the September 11, 2001, ter- rorist attacks. Before these changes, meeters and greeters could pass through security and meet passengers at the gate and then accompany them to claim their bags or proceed di- rectly to their vehicles. Today, meeters and greeters typically wait in their vehicles for a telephone call (via cell phone) from the arriving passengers they plan to pick up. Sometimes, cell phone lots are provided for waiting meeters and greeters, re- ducing unnecessary recirculation, emissions, and roadway congestion. However, meeters and greeters present a valuable revenue stream that is minimized by the use of cell phone lots. A common factor complicating the meters-and-greeters process is that multiple exits are typically provided from the secure area to the arrivals hall (see Figure 4-16: “Multiple Exits”). While multiple exits help distribute passenger traffic, they make it difficult for meeters and greeters to know where to meet passengers as they enter the arrivals hall. A consolidated meters-and-greeters area (see Figure 4-16: “Consolidated Meeters and Greeters”) not only would simplify the act of meet- ing and greeting arriving passengers by creating a single exit from the secure area to the arrivals hall, but also would capture this potential revenue stream. A single exit from the secure area into an arrivals hall that serves one or more airlines, sim- ilar to international arrivals, would allow meeters and greeters to arrive at the terminal without contacting the arriving party to ascertain which bag-claim device their flight has been assigned. As there would only be one exit, the meeters and greeters could go directly to the single exit and wait for their parties to arrive. This dwell time provides a natural opportu- nity to provide concessions and other amenities, such as bag- gage carts or restrooms. The meeters and greeters could also use revenue-producing short-term parking rather than waiting in a no-fee cell phone lot. Key Drivers Increased nonairline revenue is a significant advantage of providing consolidated meters-and-greeters areas. At many airports, meeters and greeters represent a revenue source that is not being captured because there is no central location where they can meet their parties. The increasing numbers of aging passengers are another driver of consolidated meters-and-greeters areas. Claiming checked baggage is often a difficult task for the elderly and the disabled, who have a hard time removing baggage from slope-plate claim devices. These passengers would greatly benefit from a single exit from the secure area to the arrivals hall by being able to meet the peo- ple picking them up before they claim their checked baggage rather than meeting them at the curb. Another driver is the number of exits that have to be monitored by airline or airport personnel. When exits are located remote from the SSCP, either the airlines using the arrivals hall or the airport opera- tor must provide security guards to monitor the exit, even if automated revolving doors are installed. Consolidating the number of exits from the secure area to each arrivals hall would reduce the cost of providing that security. Examples Most terminal buildings have either multiple domestic arrivals halls or multiple portals in a single domestic arrivals hall because of its size. In contrast, international arrivals facil- ities typically have a single exit into the nonsecure area. These 38 Figure 4-16. Consolidated meeters-and-greeters area.

locations are often characterized by congregating meeters and greeters and may provide concessions and other amenities. Assumptions/Prerequisites One major assumption pertaining to a consolidated meters- and-greeters area is that it would not create inequitable walk- ing distances. Another assumption is that there would be a sufficient flow of arriving passengers claiming checked bag- gage to justify some level of concessions, whether they be sundries, a newsstand, a coffee bar, or vending machines. One prerequisite would be that ample short-term parking must be located adjacent to each arrivals hall to accommo- date meeters’ and greeters’ vehicles. Evaluation Passenger Perspective Simplified wayfinding is one advantage of consolidating the meters-and-greeters area. This advantage affects both passengers and meeters and greeters. Passengers could be di- rected to a single exit to access the arrivals hall, and that exit would serve as a single point of entry for meeters and greeters to wait for their parties. Another advantage is that aging pas- sengers would be able to receive assistance from the parties picking them up rather than the meeters and greeters waiting in a cell phone lot until the passenger is either in the arrivals hall or at the arrivals curb. The availability of concessions or amenities, such as restrooms or baggage carts, made possible by consolidating the meters-and-greeters area would be an- other advantage for passengers. One potential disadvantage is that reducing the number of exits into the arrivals hall may increase the walking distances from the gates to the bag-claim devices. However, as passen- gers often arrive at the bag-claim devices well before their baggage, the availability of concessions or amenities would most likely outweigh the increased walking distances. Operations Perspective The potential to increase nonairline revenue by capturing meters-and-greeters traffic is the most significant operational advantage. Consolidated meters-and-greeters areas would also provide a great opportunity to reduce security staffing re- quirements by reducing the number of exits from the secure area to the arrivals hall. Such areas might also help reduce the need for constant enforcement of curbside regulations by encouraging meeters and greeters to use short-term parking to meet their parties at a single location rather than recirculating on the terminal roadway or waiting at the arrivals curb for the passengers they are picking up to contact them or to emerge. An operational disadvantage of a consolidated meters-and- greeters area would be the potential concentration of demand for short-term parking in proximity to the consolidated meters-and-greeters area. Another disadvantage might be the added congestion caused by meeters and greeters waiting for their parties inside the arrivals hall. Challenges to Implementation One major challenge to providing a consolidated meters- and-greeters area would be the existence of a sufficient traffic flow to justify the concessions or amenities needed to make the function more attractive than using a cell phone lot. However, the use of a single exit not only for passengers claiming checked baggage, but also for passengers exiting the secure area and heading directly to the arrivals curb or parking garage because they have no baggage to claim could mitigate this challenge. Those passengers without baggage to claim may be interested in either the concessions or amenities, particularly restrooms, before they exit the airport. Arrivals Lounges Typically, arriving passengers using ground transportation claim their checked baggage or go straight to the arrivals curb and wait for their desired mode of transportation (see Figure 4-17: “Typical Arrivals Roadway”). Often, there is little shelter from the elements and no indication of when the next awaited vehicle is scheduled to arrive. Also, the com- mercial curb is generally an island curb requiring passengers to cross POV traffic on the inner curb roadway. Arrivals lounges (see Figure 4-17: “Arrivals Lounge Con- cept”) would provide the same level of service to arriving pas- sengers as that provided to departing passengers by offering a comfortable waiting area and the necessary information to ease traveler anxiety. These arrivals lounges may include a check-in kiosk to alert drivers that customers are waiting for their shuttles, as well as information displays identifying when the next vehicle is expected to arrive. An enclosed wait- ing area would be provided that would be much more com- fortable than the outdoor areas common at many airports. It is anticipated that several lounge areas would serve different CV types such as hotel shuttles, rental car shuttles, inter- terminal transit, and so forth. Key Drivers Passenger level of service is the main driver of arrivals lounges. Arriving passengers are typically not provided the same level of service as departing passengers. Arrivals halls typically are not the grand spaces that departures halls are, and the curbside environment is nowhere near as nice as 39

departures lounges. Providing arriving passengers with not only a clean, comfortable place to wait for their desired ve- hicle, but also the information they need so that they would be able to patronize concessions or use the amenities pro- vided in the arrivals lounges should vastly improve the level of service for arriving passengers. Examples The tour bus lounges at London Stansted Airport (see Fig- ure 4-18) are a good example of facilities provided to accom- modate arriving passengers. As with many commercial vehicle curbs, the tour bus operations curbside at London Stansted Airport are remote from the terminal building. The tour bus lounges provide protection from the elements, include ameni- ties such as restrooms and vending machines, and provide in- formation displays for each tour bus operator. Many modern ground transportation centers provide nearly the same level of amenities as arrivals lounges, but are typi- cally inadequate in one or more ways. Ground transportation centers often focus on consolidating ground transportation operations to reduce commercial vehicle fleets and curbside congestion rather than focusing on the level of passenger amenities provided. It is also common for ground transporta- tion centers to be open-air (although some may be protected from the direct elements) and to provide only sparse bench seating. Very few provide the same level of amenities as the tour bus lounges at London Stansted Airport. Assumptions/Prerequisites There are key assumptions or prerequisites for arrivals lounges to be viable. First, there has to be sufficient commer- cial vehicle demand to make the provision of arrivals lounges feasible. Another assumption is that the physical layout of the terminal area is conducive to a consolidated commercial ve- hicles curb and that space can be made available for the lounges. Also, the cooperation of the commercial vehicle op- erators (e.g., hotels, remote parking, etc.) would be required to provide real-time information on their arrival times. Also, the lounges would function best if CV pick-up is provided on the inner curb. Therefore, with a conventional arrivals road- way, POVs would use the outer curb, which could be consid- ered an advantage since it likely places POV activity adjacent to short-term parking. Evaluation Passenger Perspective The key advantage of arrivals lounges to passengers is a re- duction in the anxiety typically associated with waiting for commercial vehicles at a remote curb, especially late at night. Arrivals lounges would provide the necessary information for passengers to make decisions such as whether they have time to use the restroom or get something to eat at nearby conces- sions. Arrivals lounges would also provide a higher level of per- ceived safety than is commonly found at commercial vehicle curbs by allowing passengers to wait in enclosed, adequately lit facilities. A potential disadvantage might be increased walking distances, particularly for passengers claiming checked baggage, from the arrivals hall to the arrivals lounges. 40 Figure 4-17. Arrivals lounges. Figure 4-18. Tour bus lounges at London Stansted Airport. Source: Corgan Associates, Inc.

Operations Perspective A key operational advantage of arrivals lounges would be the consolidation of commercial vehicle operations at the curbside. Another advantage might be the opportunity to re- duce commercial vehicle fleets through longer headways be- cause passengers would be provided a higher level of service and information while they wait in comparison with simply waiting at the curb. Arrivals lounges may also present addi- tional revenue-generating opportunities through vending or advertising. One potential disadvantage of arrivals lounges is that the lull in traffic during certain times of the day, similar to de- partures lounges, may result in low overall utilization. How- ever, if communication between the waiting passenger and the vehicle operator were interactive, the frequency of service could be more closely related to demand, thus reducing the number of commercial vehicle trips. Challenges to Implementation The single biggest challenge to implementing the arrivals lounge innovation is the question of who would pay for the facilities. Unlike departures lounges, which are paid for by the airlines through lease agreements, ground transportation operators do not typically pay a facility charge in addition to acquiring the right to operate at the airport. While passenger facility charge (PFC) revenues could conceivably be used to support arrivals lounges, the use of these revenues requires airline approval, which may be difficult to obtain for facilities that benefit arriving passengers rather than departing pas- sengers. Airlines have historically been more focused on the departing passenger’s experience because they have the best opportunity to affect the experience of departing passengers. In contrast, airport operators are most concerned about the arriving passenger’s experience because the arrivals process is often the arriving passenger’s first impression of the local area served by the airport. The decision to provide a higher level of service to arriving passengers may be a service decision rather than a business decision. Another challenge would be finding adequate space to house the arrivals lounges. At airports where the commer- cial curb is directly adjacent to the arrivals hall, there may not be surplus space available to construct an arrivals lounge. In addition, ground transportation services are relatively de- centralized, with each provider controlling its own schedule and being unaccustomed to providing that information to a common information system. The added cost and time to provide their operating information may be a deterrent. Summary of Innovations Each innovation addresses a number of the critical issues discussed in Chapter 3. Table 4-1 summarizes the critical is- sues that are addressed by each innovation. The intent of this summary is to enable airport operators and airport ter- minal landside planners or designers to quickly identify which of the innovations would be most relevant to the sit- uations at a particular airport. While the innovations were discussed individually in this chapter, combining one or more innovations could enhance their effectiveness. Several options for combining the innovations are discussed in Chapters 5 and 6. 41 Waiting / Queuing Walking / Vertical Transitions Baggage Handling by Passengers Information / Signage / Wayfinding Vehicular Movement / Pickup / Drop-off Safety and Security Issue is addressed by innovation Passenger assistance parking Passenger-processing facilities Process-based departures hall Supplemental curbside Innovation Bag-check plaza Self-service baggage check Issues Consolidated meeters-and-greeters area Arrivals lounges Low-profile passenger baggage devices High-capacity flow-through elevators Table 4-1. Summary of issues addressed by each innovation.

Next: Chapter 5 - Landside Concepts »
Innovations for Airport Terminal Facilities Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) Report 10: Innovations for Airport Terminal Facilities explores worldwide developments in airport landside facilities design, and examines future trends and innovative passenger service/processing concepts.

View information about the TRB webinar on ACRP Report 10:Innovations for Airport Terminal Facilities, which was held on Monday, April 26, 2010.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!