National Academies Press: OpenBook

Innovations for Airport Terminal Facilities (2008)

Chapter: Chapter 5 - Landside Concepts

« Previous: Chapter 4 - Innovations
Page 42
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - Landside Concepts." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2008. Innovations for Airport Terminal Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14219.
×
Page 42
Page 43
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - Landside Concepts." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2008. Innovations for Airport Terminal Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14219.
×
Page 43
Page 44
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - Landside Concepts." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2008. Innovations for Airport Terminal Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14219.
×
Page 44
Page 45
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - Landside Concepts." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2008. Innovations for Airport Terminal Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14219.
×
Page 45
Page 46
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - Landside Concepts." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2008. Innovations for Airport Terminal Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14219.
×
Page 46
Page 47
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - Landside Concepts." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2008. Innovations for Airport Terminal Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14219.
×
Page 47
Page 48
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - Landside Concepts." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2008. Innovations for Airport Terminal Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14219.
×
Page 48
Page 49
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - Landside Concepts." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2008. Innovations for Airport Terminal Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14219.
×
Page 49
Page 50
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - Landside Concepts." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2008. Innovations for Airport Terminal Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14219.
×
Page 50
Page 51
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - Landside Concepts." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2008. Innovations for Airport Terminal Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14219.
×
Page 51
Page 52
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - Landside Concepts." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2008. Innovations for Airport Terminal Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14219.
×
Page 52
Page 53
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - Landside Concepts." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2008. Innovations for Airport Terminal Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14219.
×
Page 53
Page 54
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - Landside Concepts." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2008. Innovations for Airport Terminal Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14219.
×
Page 54
Page 55
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - Landside Concepts." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2008. Innovations for Airport Terminal Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14219.
×
Page 55

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.

42 Based on a review of the innovations described in Chapter 4, several passenger-processing concepts were developed to illus- trate the general process that a departing or arriving passenger could experience while traveling through the airport landside environment. For the purpose of this research project, three landside concepts were developed, incorporating innovations discussed in Chapter 4, to illustrate the passenger experience and range of activities that would occur from the point the passenger enters the airport property in a vehicle (e.g., POV, CV, or public transport) until the point where the passenger arrives at the face of the terminal. The facilities that illustrate the three general concepts and processes described in the fol- lowing sections are defined as: • Adjacent passenger-processing facilities (APPF); • On-airport passenger-processing facilities (OPPF); and • Remote passenger-processing facilities (RPPF). Adjacent Passenger-Processing Facilities The APPF concept is envisioned to accommodate vehicle parking and curbside facilities in proximity to, but not neces- sarily attached to, the terminal (departures hall, SSCP, baggage claim, etc). A primary component of the APPF would be a new or existing parking structure that accommodates various functions intended to improve customer service and to increase the efficiency of landside operations. These functions could include innovations such as the bag-check plaza, a supple- mental curbside, and a passenger assistance parking area. APPF could also serve as a central hub for other facilities, such as re- gional transit and consolidated rental car facilities. Various alternatives for APPF are described below. Alternatives It is anticipated that an APPF concept could consist of an unlimited number of features and configurations that would be dependent upon numerous variables. These variables in- clude, but are not limited to, the goals of the airport operator and other stakeholders, budgetary constraints, and compati- bility with existing facilities. The alternatives would be appli- cable to a wide variety of airport sizes, with the exception of Alternative 4: because of its complexity and number of func- tions, Alternative 4 is more suited to implementation at larger airports. The five APPF concept alternatives are described below. Alternative 1 The primary components related to the departing passen- ger’s experience in Alternative 1 include a bag-check plaza located prior to entering the central terminal area and POV passenger drop-off in the adjacent parking structure. As shown in Figure 5-1, passengers in POVs would check their baggage at the bag-check plaza and proceed to the supplemental curb- side located on an elevated level of the parking structure to drop off their passenger(s) and either park or exit the structure. Passengers would then proceed to an elevated walkway cross- ing to the terminal building and then down an escalator to the departures hall. For arriving passengers, the POV supplemental curbside would be located at grade level in the adjacent parking struc- ture. Passengers would exit baggage claim and cross the CV curbside roadway to the POV pickup curbside located in the adjacent parking structure. CV drop-off and pickup curbsides would remain adjacent to the terminal building. Alternative 2 Alternative 2 (see Figure 5-2) would provide departing pas- sengers with a bag-check plaza; however, unlike Alternative 1, POV passenger pickup and drop-off would be accommodated adjacent to the terminal while CV passenger pickup and drop off would be located at a supplemental curbside on an elevated level of the parking structure. C H A P T E R 5 Landside Concepts

Departing CV passengers would take an elevated walkway crossing to the terminal building and then take an escalator up to the departures hall. Arriving CV passengers would re- trieve their baggage and proceed up an escalator and across the elevated walkway to the curbside. Alternative 3 Alternative 3 would accommodate all departing passen- gers in the parking structure. As illustrated in Figure 5-3, POV passenger drop-off would be located at a supplemental curbside on an elevated level of the parking structure while CV passenger drop-off and pickup would be accommodated at grade level. POV passengers would take an elevated walk- way crossing into the departures hall while CV passengers would take an escalator located in the parking structure up one level to the elevated walkway crossing into the de- partures hall. Arriving POV passengers would be accommodated at grade level adjacent to the terminal. Arriving CV passengers would be accommodated in the same location as departing CV pas- sengers. Passengers would proceed out of baggage claim and cross the POV curbside roadway to the CV curbside located in the parking structure. Alternative 4 In Alternative 4 (see Figure 5-4), the passenger-processing facility would provide a wider range of functions, essen- tially replacing many functions that would be conventionally 43 Figure 5-1. APPF Alternative 1. Figure 5-2. APPF Alternative 2.

located within the terminal building. POVs and CVs carrying departing passengers would be inspected at a vehicle checkpoint before proceeding to the main support facility (or parking structure) for drop-off and check-in. Passengers would then take an elevated walkway crossing to the terminal building. At the terminal building, passengers would be screened at the SSCP and proceed to their gate. POV drop-off and pickup would be provided on the same level within the parking structure. It is, therefore, anticipated that all POVs would require inspection because they would be entering a facility (and potentially parking) where sub- stantial passenger-processing functions would take place, in- volving relatively large numbers of people. After inspection, POVs would proceed either through the bag-check plaza or directly into the support facility for passenger drop-off and potentially parking. To avoid vehicle/pedestrian conflict, departing passengers would then proceed via elevator or escalator up to the check-in facilities. Arriving passengers would claim their baggage in the terminal, but all other ser- vices, including POV and CV passenger pickup, would be accommodated in the adjacent parking structure. Arriving passengers who are to be picked up by a POV could proceed directly to the curbside on the arrivals level or, if they are to access a CV, take a high-capacity flow-through elevator down to the CV curbside for pickup. CV passenger drop-off would be provided on the level im- mediately above POV passenger drop-off, at the same elevation as the terminal departures level. CV passengers would have the opportunity to check their baggage using either SSDs or full-service counters at this level and would proceed into the terminal to the SSCP. Upon retrieving their baggage, arriving passengers would take an elevator or escalator down one level to the arrivals curbside. Alternative 5 Alternative 5 would accommodate all passenger pickup and drop-off functions in a facility adjacent to the terminal. As shown in Figure 5-5, departing passengers using POVs and CVs would be accommodated on a supplemental curbside on an elevated level of the parking structure. Passengers would 44 Figure 5-3. APPF Alternative 3. Figure 5-4. APPF Alternative 4.

then take an elevated walkway crossing directly into the de- partures hall. Arriving passengers using POVs and CVs would be accommodated on a supplemental curbside on grade level in the parking structure. After retrieving their baggage, pas- sengers would proceed out of the terminal building and across a courtyard to the parking structure. This alternative essentially creates a “remote curb” terminal building. Common Advantages A common advantage among all of the APPF alterna- tives is the ability for departing passengers to check baggage prior to parking or being dropped off, which relieves pas- sengers of handling their baggage and reduces congestion on the curbside and in the departures hall. Another common advantage is the ability to drop passengers off at the supple- mental curbside located in the garage, which relieves conges- tion on the terminal roadway system and allows park-and-fly passengers to drop their companions prior to parking. Also, vertically separated supplemental curbsides would reduce vehicle/pedestrian conflicts. Alternative 4 would provide major congestion relief for an existing terminal, enabling it essentially—on the departures side—to become a secure building, which could provide an improved departures environment and enhanced revenue-producing concession opportunities. Common Disadvantages A common disadvantage among the APPF alternatives is that the facilities would be constructed in what is likely an already congested central terminal area, which would result in high construction costs and potentially significant opera- tional disruptions. In the case of Alternative 4, it may be that a support facility of this scope would replace too many ter- minal functions, leading to large amounts of redundant space and roadway capacity. Because more passenger processing would be occurring in an adjacent facility, each alternative may result in longer walking distances because passengers are required to cross a roadway or take an elevated walkway crossing to reach their desired locations. Alternative 4 would likely require that POVs and CVs be inspected because of the large numbers of pedestrians in the facility, which would in- volve passenger inconvenience and increased operating costs. Alternatives Evaluation Two sets of criteria were developed to evaluate the alterna- tives. The first set of criteria relates to passengers; the second set of criteria relates to feasibility of implementation. Table 5-1 sets forth the specific criteria and the corresponding benefits of each APPF alternative. Passenger Criteria The use of a supplemental curbside in an adjacent facility or parking structure would likely increase walking distances in all of the APPF alternatives. Passengers accustomed to all curbside functions being directly adjacent to the terminal building will experience a reduced level of service as they will have to walk between the supplemental curbside in the garage and the terminal building. The majority of commercial service airports require at least one level change regardless of the desired ground transporta- tion mode. In many cases, more than one level change may be required. None of the APPF alternatives requires more than one level change. In many cases, the level change is provided to avoid vehicle and pedestrian conflicts. The bag-check plaza would significantly increase the benefit of all APPF alternatives by relieving POV passengers from carrying their baggage from their parked vehicle into the ter- minal building. This would be especially beneficial to elderly and disabled passengers. Wayfinding under APPF Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 would become less intuitive as a result of the addition of a supple- mental curbside in the adjacent facility or parking structure. Alternative 3, for example, would accommodate POV passen- ger drop-off in the support facility and POV passenger pickup adjacent to the terminal. The vertical, as well as horizontal, 45 Figure 5-5. APPF Alternative 5.

separation of curbside facilities could confuse drivers as well as pedestrians as they try to locate their desired terminal road- way or curbside. However, this issue could be remedied by ensuring that adequate signage is in place. Alternatives 4 and 5 resemble a more traditional terminal roadway entrance as curbsides would be vertically separated. Alternatives 1 and 3 would provide a safer environment for pedestrians as vehicle and pedestrian conflicts would be elim- inated for departing and arriving passengers. Because of the proximity of passenger-processing functions such as check- in and baggage claim, security would be a major factor with Alternative 4. Vehicles would have to be inspected prior to entering the facility. Feasibility Criteria The cost to implement any of the APPF alternatives would likely be significant. As mentioned in Chapter 4, the physical limitations of existing facilities (e.g., column spacing and inadequate floor-to-ceiling height) would limit the ability to retrofit an existing parking structure to accommodate curb- side facilities—as incorporated in Alternatives 1, 2, and 3— and could make the project very expensive. However, it should be noted that accommodating terminal functions in a garage- type facility should decrease the need to expand a potentially more expensive terminal building with less disruption to operations. As mentioned in the description of the alterna- tives, Alternative 4 would provide a wider range of functions than would normally be located in the terminal. Renovation of an existing facility or parking structure would, therefore, not likely be required. A new facility would have to be con- structed, which would require a considerable capital invest- ment and potential disruption of an existing operation. The ability to generate minimal additional revenue could result where a supplemental curbside provides space for additional ground transportation services or providers that would otherwise be unable to be accommodated. Accommo- dating these additional services or providers could, therefore, increase the fees paid to the airport. Under Alternative 4, more passenger-processing functions would be located in the adjacent facility, which would provide an opportunity to ac- commodate additional concessions in the adjacent facility. The use of a supplemental curbside in Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 would provide not only additional curbside capacity, but also the ability to further separate mode types, which would provide less mixing of POVs and CVs. As mentioned above, the supplemental curbside would also allow for a re- duction in vehicle/pedestrian conflicts. APPF Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 could require renovation of existing facilities while they remain in operation, which would be challenging. The construction of a supplemental curbside would disrupt the existing parking operation and could impact existing roadway operations. Alternative 4 would require the construction of a new facility and, depending on its loca- tion, would have a much lower impact on existing operations. As noted in Chapter 4, one of the advantages of the bag-check plaza is that it reduces curbside roadway congestion associated with curbside check-in. This reduction in the number of vehicles idling on the curbside roadways would also decrease vehicle emissions. On the other hand, there would be the potential difficulty and cost associated with delivering the bags from the check-in facility to the terminal baggage system. APPF Concept Example The APPF concept example (see Figures 5-6 through 5-8) is functionally similar to APPF Alternative 1. Figure 5-6 shows how this concept would inter-relate with three common termi- nal and roadway configurations. As shown in the section illus- trated in Figure 5-6: “Two Level Terminal and Roadway,” this concept would provide vertical separation of POV passenger drop-off and pickup activities in an adjacent parking structure. 46 1 3 4 52 — — — Operational considerations — — — — — — — — — Significant benefits Marginal benefits — No considerable benefit Security considerations Capital cost of implementation Environmental Revenue generation potential APPF Alternatives Baggage handling by passengers Number of level changes Passenger criteria Feasibity criteria Safety / security Walking distances Wayfinding Table 5-1. APPF alternatives evaluation matrix.

POV departing passenger drop-off would occur on an upper level of the structure, and POV arriving passenger pickup would be accommodated on a lower level. In this example, CV passenger pickup and drop-off would be accommodated at the terminal building curbside. The POV passenger drop-off area would be connected directly to the terminal via a pedestrian bridge. The elevation of the pedestrian bridge and the location of the POV curbsides would vary depending upon the config- uration of the terminal building and curbside roadway system. The APPF conceptual layout of the upper-level facilities is shown in Figure 5-7. POVs destined for the passenger drop-off areas would have the option of accessing the bag-check plaza to check-in for their flight and drop off their baggage. POVs would then proceed to the supplemental curbside located in the parking structure for passenger drop-off. In this example, a passenger assistance parking area accessed directly from the POV passenger drop-off curbside is provided to accommodate passengers desiring assistance in unloading (limited to 10- to 15-min dwell times). In addition, direct access to a short-term parking area (e.g., 1-hr parking) is also provided via the POV passenger drop-off roadway. Close-in parking on other levels of the garage could also be accessed directly, giving vehicle driv- ers the opportunity to drop off their passengers and proceed directly to parking or to exit the terminal area. Park-and-fly passengers would proceed directly to parking or, if they have bags to check, to the bag-check plaza and then to parking. The APPF conceptual layout of the lower-level facilities is depicted in Figure 5-8. Similar to the upper-level, a POV pas- senger pickup curbside would be provided along a linear curbside within the structure. A passenger assistance parking area would also be provided, accessible via the POV curbside 47 Figure 5-6. APPF concept example—section. Figure 5-7. APPF concept example—upper level.

roadway. In this layout, passengers using the passenger assis- tance parking area would not have to cross traffic lanes to access the terminal. One-hour parking is also provided at this level for meeters and greeters who wish to meet their parties inside the terminal. As shown in Figure 5-8, CV passenger pickup would be accommodated along the curbside roadway fronting the terminal building. On-Airport Passenger-Processing Facilities Under the OPPF concept, the vehicle parking and curb- side facilities would be integrated with a range of terminal functions in a facility on the airport, but at some distance from the terminal building and connected by a passenger conveyance system. Passengers would park and be processed in the same facility before taking a conveyance system to the secure portion of the terminal building. In addition to terminal functions, because of its location flexibility, the OPPF could effectively accommodate an integrated rental car facility or a regional transit connection. Alternatives As with the APPF, it is anticipated that an OPPF concept could consist of an unlimited number of features and config- urations that would be dependent upon numerous variables. These variables include, but are not limited to, the goals of the airport operator and other stakeholders, budgetary constraints, and compatibility with existing facilities. The OPPF alterna- tives would be applicable to a wide variety of airport sizes, with the exception of OPPF Alternative 3, which is more suited to implementation at larger airports. The passenger-processing functions included in each of the three OPPF alternatives are described below. Alternative 1 Of the three OPPF alternatives, Alternative 1 (see Figure 5-9) would provide the fewest passenger functions. A bag-check plaza would be provided for departing passengers. Park-and- fly passengers would then proceed to parking and take a non- secure transit system to the terminal. POV passengers who are being dropped off could be accommodated in the OPPF or be dropped off directly at the terminal. Passengers wishing to be picked up by POVs or CVs would be picked up at the terminal building. Those passengers who parked at the OPPF would return to the OPPF via the transit system and would then proceed to their vehicles. Alternative 2 OPPF Alternative 2 (see Figure 5-10) would provide the same functions as OPPF Alternative 1 for POV passengers, as 48 Figure 5-8. APPF concept example—lower level. Figure 5-9. OPPF Alternative 1.

well as additional curbside facilities to allow CV passenger pickup and drop-off at the facility—essentially creating a ground transportation center with parking and an APM connection to the terminal. Alternative 3 OPPF Alternative 3 (see Figure 5-11) represents a fully developed on-airport landside support facility with a secure APM connection to the secure portion of the terminal. Departing passengers would begin with POV inspection, then continue to the bag-check plaza, and then to the OPPF, which would provide for both POV and CV passenger drop-off. Departing passengers would then proceed to the SSCP and the integrated APM station to the terminal. Arriving passengers would take the secure APM connection from the secure portion of the terminal to the OPPF and then proceed into the baggage-claim hall and to the POV and CV passenger pick-up area and parking. 49 Figure 5-10. OPPF Alternative 2. Figure 5-11. OPPF Alternative 3.

Common Advantages The primary advantage of the OPPF concept and the OPPF alternatives is the flexibility of the facility’s location relative to the airside. The site could be selected on the basis of airport circulation, constructibility, land cost, and accessibility to re- gional transit or suitability for rental car operations without having to provide direct access to the secure portion of the terminal. The OPPF alternatives would avoid the operational and cost impacts of building in a congested central terminal area, which could offset some of the costs for a required tran- sit connection. Functions provided as part of OPPF Alterna- tive 3 would greatly reduce the departures hall requirements and eliminate the need for a baggage-claim hall in the termi- nal building. Common Disadvantages The disadvantages of the OPPF concept include the need for a transit connection, which would incur costs and the potential difficulty of establishing a right-of-way. A similar disadvantage would apply to connecting check baggage to the terminal baggage system. With OPPF Alternatives 1 and 2, passengers who claim their baggage at the terminal building would have to carry their baggage on the transit connection back to their parking location. Alternatives Evaluation Similar to the APPF, two sets of criteria were developed to evaluate each OPPF alternative. The first set of criteria relates to passengers; the second set of criteria relates to feasibility of implementation. Table 5-2 sets forth the specific criteria and the corresponding benefits of each OPPF alternative. Passenger Criteria A fully integrated landside support facility where all pas- senger functions such as parking and check-in facilities are vertically separated would have the ability to reduce walking distances for those parking in the facility. However, depend- ing upon the layout of the OPPF and the proximity of the curbside to the APM station, walking distances could be substantial. While vertical separation of passenger functions would assist in reducing walking distances, the number of level changes would likely increase. OPPF Alternative 3 would require the highest number of level changes. Ensuring an adequate num- ber of elevators or escalators to transport passengers between their desired levels would, therefore, be a critical and required component of this concept. While the bag-check plaza would relieve passengers from carrying their baggage from their parked vehicles into the terminal building, OPPF Alternatives 1 and 2 would re- quire arriving passengers to handle check baggage on the passenger conveyance system when returning to parking. OPPF Alternative 3 would provide check-in in the OPPF, minimizing the distance passengers would have to handle their baggage. The ease of wayfinding would be dependent upon the number of functions provided in the OPPF. If the facility were to be used to supplement an existing terminal, passen- gers may have difficulty determining the location that best suits their needs. Each of the OPPF alternatives is intended to provide a safer environment for pedestrians as vehicle/pedestrian conflicts would be minimized for departing and arriving passengers. As passenger-processing functions such as check-in and baggage claim would be included, potentially involving large concentrations of passengers, security could be a major factor in OPPF Alternative 3. Therefore, it would likely be necessary to inspect every vehicle prior to it entering the facility. Feasibility Criteria The cost savings of building an OPPF as opposed to ex- panding an existing terminal would depend on the location and functions included in the OPPF. A facility consisting of a parking structure and passenger drop-off facilities, such as OPPF Alternative 1, would cost less than a more comprehen- sive facility, such as that in OPPF Alternative 3. However, use of the transit connection to the terminal would be lower in OPPF Alternative 1 although ridership could be increased if rental car return or a regional transit station were included in the facility. The proximity of the OPPF to the existing terminal and the subsequent length of passenger and baggage 50 1 2 3 — — — — — — — — — Operational considerations — Significant benefits Marginal benefits — No considerable benefit Revenue generation potential Environmental Security considerations Baggage handling by passengers Number of level changes Passenger criteria OPPF Alternatives Capital cost of implementation Walking distances Safety / security Wayfinding Feasibity criteria Table 5-2. OPPF alternatives evaluation matrix.

conveyance systems would also affect the overall cost of the facility. The OPPF would provide the opportunity to generate new revenue by increasing parking supply and services available in the remote facility, as well as new concessions. This provision of additional capacity would also allow an airport operator to recapture parking demand and associated revenue that had been lost to off-airport parking providers. Integration of the functions that would be provided in the OPFF and the existing terminal would require considerable attention. Passengers accustomed to a single passenger- processing facility would need to be educated as to the location of services that may now be provided at one or two possible locations (e.g., the terminal); however, this issue could be addressed by creating effective wayfinding and signage. The complexity of implementing the OPPF would depend on where the facility is to be located. A major advantage of the OPPF is its location flexibility, which should allow the selec- tion of a buildable site with good construction access and minimal disruptions to ongoing operations. Operationally, increasing the capacity of landside facili- ties may reduce traffic recirculation; however, additional capacity may also increase the number of vehicles accessing the airport. Also, the location of the OPPF may require the introduction of shuttle services to access both facilities, thereby increasing the overall number of vehicle trips and emissions. OPPF Concept Example The OPPF concept example (see Figures 5-12 and 5-13) provides a more detailed representation of OPPF Alterna- tive 2. This example includes a two-level facility with POV passenger pickup and drop-off occurring on the upper level of a parking structure and CV passenger pickup and drop-off occurring on the lower level. The upper level OPPF configuration is depicted in Fig- ure 5-12. Similar to the APPF concept example, POVs des- tined for the passenger drop-off curbside would have the option of stopping at a bag-check plaza, proceeding directly to the drop-off curbside in the facility, or proceeding to the terminal. A passenger assistance parking area, as well as a short- term parking area, would be provided on the upper level. Park-and-fly passengers could proceed directly to parking. A POV passenger pickup curbside accessible via the same inbound roadway system, or from the parking above, would be provided on the opposite side of the parking garage. Passengers would be transported to the terminal via a non- secure people mover. The lower-level OPPF configuration is depicted in Fig- ure 5-13. As shown, a shuttle drop curbside and staging area with islands would be provided to accommodate passenger 51 Figure 5-12. OPPF concept example—upper level.

drop-off and pickup. An arrivals lounge is depicted adjacent to the shuttle-bus pickup curbside. As described in Chapter 6, the lounge would provide a comfortable passenger waiting environment with video monitors to relay real-time infor- mation on shuttle arrival times and parking locations. Remote Passenger-Processing Facilities The RPPF involves a remote passenger-processing facility that would be located off airport property, possibly in an urban location or some other heavily populated location that offers transit connectivity. Because of the remote location of these facilities, they would likely provide fewer passenger-processing functions. Although these types of facilities have had some success in Europe and Asia, the decentralized nature of the re- gional transportation network in the majority of U.S. cities may not be as conducive to implementation of RPPFs. ACRP Project 10-02, “Planning Guide for Offsite Terminals,” provides guidance for determining the feasibility of an off-airport re- mote terminal. Therefore, this research project will focus on potential concepts for those remote facilities assuming that their feasibility has already been established. Alternatives The RPPF alternatives include a range of potential services and would primarily be applicable to airports in cities where there is an established regional transportation network and sufficient demand to justify connection to the airport. The passenger-processing functions that would be included in each RPPF alternative are described below. Alternative 1 RPPF Alternative 1 (see Figure 5-14) would provide a basic remote location where passengers could board a non-secure link to the airport. A relatively simple support facility would be provided with a waiting room and board- ing pass kiosks. Passengers would also be able to park their vehicles or be dropped off at the RPPF. It is envisioned that the RPPF would also connect with the local or regional transit system. 52 Figure 5-13. OPPF concept example—lower level. Figure 5-14. RPPF Alternative 1.

Alternative 2 RPPF Alternative 2 (see Figure 5-15) is a full-service remote terminal that would provide the opportunity to check bag- gage and use full-service check-in functions. An SSCP would also be provided; therefore, a secure link to the terminal would need to be provided, which could also be used to trans- fer outbound and inbound baggage. Regional transit could be accommodated on a lower level with self-service check-in and bag drop. RPPF Concept Example The RPPF concept example (see Figure 5-16) provides a more detailed representation of RPPF Alternative 1. The example represents an RPPF where passengers could park their vehicles or use other transportation modes (e.g., public transit, taxicabs) to access the facility. At the RPPF, passen- gers could obtain boarding passes and check their baggage before boarding a train or bus providing direct service to the airport. As shown in Figure 5-16, the passenger- processing facilities and curbside facilities would be provided on the lower level of a parking structure, with public park- ing provided above these facilities. A linear curbside would be provided for POV and taxicab and other CV passenger pickup and drop-off. Passengers would walk through a ticket lobby and services/concessions area to reach a rail platform, where they could board a train that would transport them to the airport. This function is shown on the same level as the other functions, but could be accommodated on an upper or lower level. Short-term (1-hr) parking would be provided on the lower level of the RPPF, adjacent to the passenger-processing facilities. A regional transit or sub- way station could be accommodated on a lower level (not shown). Landside Concept Considerations Discussed in this section are the key physical and non- physical airport attributes that should be considered by airport operators and terminal landside planners when identifying landside concepts for further consideration. A summary (see Table 5-3) is provided to further compare these attributes and the general level of importance of an attribute in influencing the desirability and likely success of a landside concept. Airport attributes that should be considered when developing a landside concept are summa- rized in two categories—physical attributes and nonphysical attributes. 53 Figure 5-15. RPPF Alternative 2. Figure 5-16. RPPF concept example.

Physical Attributes Physical attributes of the airport that would affect the selection of a desired future landside concept may include the following. Availability of Land The location of available land for facility development would have a direct effect on the type of landside facility that could be developed. For example, a fully developed terminal area may be considered an impediment to constructing a close-in landside facility (APPF), unless the APPF were to be implemented as a retrofit or replacement to an existing facility. However, airports that do not have a close-in parking structure may be candidates for an APPF. Airports with undeveloped land remote from the terminal may find the OPPF concept more desirable. On the other hand, airports with severe land constraints may find that an off-airport RPPF could serve as a potential solution. Roadway and Parking Access Control Configuration of the airport’s access and parking control system(s) is primarily a design consideration that can be addressed as part of the development of a landside concept; however, the potential effect on access and parking control systems should be considered as part of concept development. An APPF configuration may require integration of the land- side plaza (e.g., short-term parking) into an existing parking structure, but require a separate entry and exit that would maintain the integrity of the parking revenue control system. Availability and Configuration of Close-in Parking The availability of a close-in parking structure may influ- ence the decision to develop an APPF or an OPPF. In addition, the configuration of the facility would be a consideration with regard to the ability to retrofit an existing structure to provide an efficient passenger pickup and drop-off plaza for POV and CV operations. For example, a low floor-to-ceiling height may limit the size of CVs that would be allowed to serve a plaza. A low ceiling height could also affect lighting, wayfinding, and overall passenger comfort within the structure. An exist- ing structure may also require additional ventilation systems to accommodate the introduction of idling vehicles within the facility. The configuration and spacing of the column grid would also affect the ability to accommodate an efficient curbside pickup and drop-off plaza. Regional Transit Connection to Airport The availability and location of existing and future rail transit services may affect the selection of a location for implementation of a landside passenger-processing facility. For example, the integration of a rail station could allow for co-locating services and facilities such as ticketing, bag- check, and concessions more feasibly in an OPPF than an APPF because the latter is likely to be in a more congested area. For those airports where a future rail connection is planned, an RPPF could be co-located with other “non- airport” station facilities to promote use of the rail system and encourage the success of other synergistic retail and concession services. 54 APPF OPPF RPPF — — — Constructibility and operational disruption — — — — — Airport and regional policies — Attribute is a major consideration Attribute is important but not a major consideration — Attribute is not a concern Facility cost Passenger characteristics Availability of PFC funds Airport bonding capacity Ground transportation characteristics Federal transit funding availabiilty Landside Concept Example Key Considerations Roadway and parking access control Physical attributes Non-physical attributes Rental car operations Availability of land Availability and configuration of close-in parking Regional transit connection to airport Table 5-3. Landside concept example comparison.

Rental Car Operations The type of rental car services currently provided and plans for future expansion could be a consideration for inclusion within a landside concept. For example, providing consoli- dated rental car facilities within or adjacent to an OPPF could help generate passenger demand that would justify and sup- port the introduction of an APM connecting the OPPF to the terminal. Nonphysical Attributes Nonphysical attributes of the airport that would affect the selection of a desired future landside concept may include the following. Facility Cost In addition to the construction costs that will vary by option, the capital costs needed to ready the site and to construct the facility would range greatly from concept to concept. For example, the costs would vary significantly depending upon whether the facility is developed on a greenfield site; is a retrofit to an existing facility; or, if an existing close-in facility, would be removed to allow for construction of a new facility. The capital and operating costs of transporting passengers, and possibly baggage, to and from the site via a pedestrian bridge, APM, or transit system would also be a consideration, particularly for the OPPF. Constructibility and Operational Disruption The ability to construct a facility in an operational airport environment would be a consideration. The APPF, for exam- ple, would likely create greater operational disruptions and airport passenger inconvenience given its location directly adjacent to the terminal building and potentially within an existing parking structure. The OPPF and RPPF, on the other hand, could be constructed at “remote” locations that would conceivably result in fewer construction-related impacts. Funding Availability The availability of funding would be a consideration in the development of facilities. Funding sources and availability would vary by airport and by project, but could include air- port revenue bonds, PFC revenues, Airport Improvement Program (AIP) grants for certain aspects of the concept ded- icated exclusively for airport access, and other federal transit grants. Airport and Regional Policies Airport and regional policies pertaining to environmental initiatives may favor the implementation of certain landside concepts and operational schemes designed to reduce roadway congestion, annual vehicle-miles-traveled, and air pollutants. For example, airports with a transit-oriented policy may find the RPPF concept desirable. In addition, regulations and policies in effect at certain airports may limit how the airport can be modified. For example, historical zoning restrictions at Washington Dulles International Airport limit how the original airport facilities can be modified and restrict the de- velopment of facilities that would obstruct the view of the airport terminal building. Ground Transportation Characteristics The traffic volumes by mode type will help determine the size and configuration of the components of the various landside concepts. Airports with high CV traffic would require landside facilities capable of accommodating these larger vehicles and the passenger volumes associated with them. Airports would also have to accommodate POV traffic and provide access options that accommodate the high volumes and traffic patterns of these vehicles, includ- ing those proceeding to parking, to curbside, or to both locations. Passenger Characteristics Passenger characteristics will affect how a passenger- processing solution is implemented. Airports serving a large elderly population may be more likely candidates for use of assisted parking spaces or, at a minimum, convenient close- in parking. The proportion of passengers with checked baggage, such as those traveling to leisure destinations, would also affect the locations of ticketing and baggage- check facilities. 55

Next: Chapter 6 - Terminal 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!