Click for next page ( 5

The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement

Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 4
4 CHAPTER 1 Background Planning and designing airports to serve passengers and stand or wait in areas such as railway platforms. The guidance ever-evolving operational needs is challenging. It is even more is presented in a framework similar to traffic engineering challenging to achieve the correct balance of using limited cap- studies that associate letter grades (A through F; where A is ital investment resources while developing facility designs that excellent and F is poor) with square feet per passenger. provide the design flexibility to accommodate as yet unimag- Initial efforts to develop formulaic design guidance on air ined operational requirements to fulfill safety and security mea- passenger LOS can be traced to Transport Canada in 1977 sures, as well as to serve the needs of communities and their (3). In their "Level of Service Requirements for Passenger passengers. Aviation planners, architects, and engineers, as well Processing Areas in Airport Terminals," Transport Canada as airport owners and airlines (referred herein collectively as developed LOS requirements for each passenger processing aviation stakeholders), currently rely on level-of-service (LOS) area in the airport terminal. Review of the paper indicates that standards that were developed in the early 1970s by the Inter- the space ranges were based on data collected at a limited national Air Transport Association (IATA) to help them make number of Canadian airports. important development decisions. Within the last decade, given In 1978, the Airport Associations Coordinating Council the diversity of passengers and airline service products, aviation (AACC), the precursor to today's Airports Council Inter- stakeholders continually speculate regarding the adequacy, national (ACI), and IATA initiated a study on airport capacity validity, and robustness of these various standards. As a re- that resulted in the first edition of the Guidelines for Airport sult, the Transportation Research Board proposed Project Capacity/Demand Management (4), which contained a tabular 03-05, "Passenger Space Allocation Guidelines for Planning presentation of LOS guidelines by airport processing area. This and Design of North American Airport Terminals," for guidance was incorporated into IATA's Airport Development sponsorship by the Airport Cooperative Research Program. Reference Manual (1) and remained unchanged through the This report presents the findings of research regarding the 8th edition. In the 9th edition (published in 2004), new infor- basis of North American passengers' perceptions of airport mation regarding the formulation of the standards is provided; LOS and offers guidance for airport development. The in- however, the LOS ranges remained largely unchanged. tended audience includes airport and airline management The view that passenger space drives passenger LOS percep- and other aviation stakeholders. tion was questioned in 1991, when Seneviratne and Martel published a paper entitled "Variables Influencing Perfor- mance of Air Terminal Buildings" (5) that concluded, based A Brief Historical Perspective on passenger intercept studies, that different variables drive of Air Passenger Level of Service passenger perceptions in each air terminal area. For example, In 1971, John J. Fruin published Pedestrian Planning and "information" was found to be the most important variable Design (2), which documents the results of his research on affecting passenger perception of circulation areas; "availabil- pedestrian behavior on urban sidewalks and in transit sta- ity of seats," as distinct from the space to accommodate those tions. The guidance on pedestrian behavior includes both seats, was found to be the most important variable affecting standing/waiting behavior (space requirements) and walking passenger perception of waiting areas; and "waiting time" was behavior (on walkways, stairs, and elevators). The guidance found to be the most important variable affecting passenger includes square-foot-per-pedestrian requirements as they perception of terminal processing areas. In a finding that