National Academies Press: OpenBook

Guidebook for Planning and Implementing Automated People Mover Systems at Airports (2010)

Chapter: Chapter 8 - APM System Definition and Planning Methodology

« Previous: Chapter 7 - Matching Needs With Passenger Conveyance Technologies
Page 50
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 8 - APM System Definition and Planning Methodology." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Guidebook for Planning and Implementing Automated People Mover Systems at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22926.
×
Page 50
Page 51
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 8 - APM System Definition and Planning Methodology." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Guidebook for Planning and Implementing Automated People Mover Systems at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22926.
×
Page 51
Page 52
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 8 - APM System Definition and Planning Methodology." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Guidebook for Planning and Implementing Automated People Mover Systems at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22926.
×
Page 52
Page 53
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 8 - APM System Definition and Planning Methodology." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Guidebook for Planning and Implementing Automated People Mover Systems at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22926.
×
Page 53
Page 54
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 8 - APM System Definition and Planning Methodology." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Guidebook for Planning and Implementing Automated People Mover Systems at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22926.
×
Page 54
Page 55
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 8 - APM System Definition and Planning Methodology." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Guidebook for Planning and Implementing Automated People Mover Systems at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22926.
×
Page 55
Page 56
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 8 - APM System Definition and Planning Methodology." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Guidebook for Planning and Implementing Automated People Mover Systems at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22926.
×
Page 56
Page 57
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 8 - APM System Definition and Planning Methodology." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Guidebook for Planning and Implementing Automated People Mover Systems at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22926.
×
Page 57
Page 58
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 8 - APM System Definition and Planning Methodology." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Guidebook for Planning and Implementing Automated People Mover Systems at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22926.
×
Page 58
Page 59
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 8 - APM System Definition and Planning Methodology." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Guidebook for Planning and Implementing Automated People Mover Systems at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22926.
×
Page 59
Page 60
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 8 - APM System Definition and Planning Methodology." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Guidebook for Planning and Implementing Automated People Mover Systems at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22926.
×
Page 60
Page 61
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 8 - APM System Definition and Planning Methodology." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Guidebook for Planning and Implementing Automated People Mover Systems at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22926.
×
Page 61
Page 62
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 8 - APM System Definition and Planning Methodology." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Guidebook for Planning and Implementing Automated People Mover Systems at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22926.
×
Page 62
Page 63
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 8 - APM System Definition and Planning Methodology." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Guidebook for Planning and Implementing Automated People Mover Systems at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22926.
×
Page 63
Page 64
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 8 - APM System Definition and Planning Methodology." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Guidebook for Planning and Implementing Automated People Mover Systems at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22926.
×
Page 64
Page 65
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 8 - APM System Definition and Planning Methodology." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Guidebook for Planning and Implementing Automated People Mover Systems at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22926.
×
Page 65
Page 66
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 8 - APM System Definition and Planning Methodology." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Guidebook for Planning and Implementing Automated People Mover Systems at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22926.
×
Page 66
Page 67
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 8 - APM System Definition and Planning Methodology." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Guidebook for Planning and Implementing Automated People Mover Systems at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22926.
×
Page 67
Page 68
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 8 - APM System Definition and Planning Methodology." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Guidebook for Planning and Implementing Automated People Mover Systems at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22926.
×
Page 68
Page 69
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 8 - APM System Definition and Planning Methodology." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Guidebook for Planning and Implementing Automated People Mover Systems at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22926.
×
Page 69
Page 70
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 8 - APM System Definition and Planning Methodology." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Guidebook for Planning and Implementing Automated People Mover Systems at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22926.
×
Page 70
Page 71
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 8 - APM System Definition and Planning Methodology." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Guidebook for Planning and Implementing Automated People Mover Systems at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22926.
×
Page 71
Page 72
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 8 - APM System Definition and Planning Methodology." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Guidebook for Planning and Implementing Automated People Mover Systems at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22926.
×
Page 72
Page 73
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 8 - APM System Definition and Planning Methodology." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Guidebook for Planning and Implementing Automated People Mover Systems at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22926.
×
Page 73
Page 74
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 8 - APM System Definition and Planning Methodology." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Guidebook for Planning and Implementing Automated People Mover Systems at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22926.
×
Page 74
Page 75
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 8 - APM System Definition and Planning Methodology." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Guidebook for Planning and Implementing Automated People Mover Systems at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22926.
×
Page 75
Page 76
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 8 - APM System Definition and Planning Methodology." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Guidebook for Planning and Implementing Automated People Mover Systems at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22926.
×
Page 76
Page 77
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 8 - APM System Definition and Planning Methodology." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Guidebook for Planning and Implementing Automated People Mover Systems at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22926.
×
Page 77
Page 78
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 8 - APM System Definition and Planning Methodology." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Guidebook for Planning and Implementing Automated People Mover Systems at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22926.
×
Page 78
Page 79
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 8 - APM System Definition and Planning Methodology." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Guidebook for Planning and Implementing Automated People Mover Systems at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22926.
×
Page 79
Page 80
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 8 - APM System Definition and Planning Methodology." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Guidebook for Planning and Implementing Automated People Mover Systems at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22926.
×
Page 80
Page 81
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 8 - APM System Definition and Planning Methodology." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Guidebook for Planning and Implementing Automated People Mover Systems at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22926.
×
Page 81
Page 82
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 8 - APM System Definition and Planning Methodology." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Guidebook for Planning and Implementing Automated People Mover Systems at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22926.
×
Page 82
Page 83
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 8 - APM System Definition and Planning Methodology." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Guidebook for Planning and Implementing Automated People Mover Systems at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22926.
×
Page 83
Page 84
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 8 - APM System Definition and Planning Methodology." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Guidebook for Planning and Implementing Automated People Mover Systems at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22926.
×
Page 84
Page 85
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 8 - APM System Definition and Planning Methodology." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Guidebook for Planning and Implementing Automated People Mover Systems at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22926.
×
Page 85
Page 86
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 8 - APM System Definition and Planning Methodology." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Guidebook for Planning and Implementing Automated People Mover Systems at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22926.
×
Page 86
Page 87
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 8 - APM System Definition and Planning Methodology." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Guidebook for Planning and Implementing Automated People Mover Systems at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22926.
×
Page 87
Page 88
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 8 - APM System Definition and Planning Methodology." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Guidebook for Planning and Implementing Automated People Mover Systems at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22926.
×
Page 88

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.

50 Chapter 7 described the higher-level technology assess- ment where APMs are compared and contrasted with buses and moving walks for meeting the airport’s conveyance needs. If the APM technology emerges from this assess- ment as the optimal technology and worthy of further investigation, then a planning-level APM system definition is performed. This chapter describes the planning and analysis required to properly define an APM system within the airport APM planning context described in Chapter 5. These analyses relate to the APM planning steps 2 through 4 first described in that chapter. The APM system is defined in terms of alignment/guideway, ridership, system capacity, stations, other facilities, safety and security, level of service, and costs. The planning methodologies for each of these areas are described in detail. This system definition is initially sequen- tial in nature. For example, decisions or results from the align- ment analysis lead into the ridership estimation and from ridership estimation into the capacity/fleet sizing analysis, as shown in Figure 8-1 in step 2. This chapter provides more detail about the APM plan- ning methodologies used to define an APM system, whether airside or landside. Specific airside and landside examples of the APM planning process are provided in Appendix A. 8.1 Route Alignment and Guideway 8.1.1 APM Guideway Characteristics The guideway of the APM system refers to the track or other riding surface (including supporting structure) that supports and physically guides vehicles that are specially designed to travel exclusively on it. The guideway structure may be pro- vided by the APM supplier, as discussed in Chapter 10 (APM System Procurement). The guideway can be constructed at grade, above grade, or below grade in tunnels. Depending on the selected supplier, the guideway can be constructed of steel or reinforced concrete. The size of the guideway structure (columns) varies with span length, train loads, and any applicable seismic requirements. Spans typically range from 50 ft to 120 ft in length. The APM supplier provides guideway equipment that generally includes running surfaces, guidance and/or run- ning rails, power distribution rails, signal rails or antennas, communications rails or antennas, and switches. For tech- nologies that employ linear induction motors for propul- sion, guideway equipment may also include either a reaction rail (the rotor) or the powered element of the motor (the stator). An emergency walkway along the guideway is often required to provide emergency egress from a disabled train. It is typically continuous, preferably at vehicle floor height, and provides an unobstructed exit path to a station or other place of refuge or escape. Most emergency walkways are adjacent to the APM C H A P T E R 8 APM System Definition and Planning Methodology Photo: www.doppelmayr.com Guideway Running Surface

Level-of-Service Decision-Making Flow Key: Process Data Output Start/ End Planning Process Decision-Making Flow APM Benefits Alignment Stations Guideway/ROW Capital Costs Operations & Maintenance Costs Cost–Benefit Analysis Financial Strategies Power Distribution Command, Control, and Communications Ridership System Capacity NEED System Level of Service Evaluate System Level of Service Evaluate System Level-of-Service Measures Environmental Final Design Procurement Defined APM System Functions Served Service Req’ts. Maintenance Facility Walk & Time Thresholds Source: Lea+Elliott, Inc. Figure 8-1. General APM planning process.

guideway. Some APM systems allow for emergency egress along the guideway itself, with passengers evacuating from the front or rear of the train. Crossovers or switches provide the means for trains to move between guideway lanes. They are required for pinched-loop operations and are also desirable for failure management pur- poses on such system configurations. Crossover requirements vary significantly among APM system suppliers, and each supplier’s crossover requirements are unique in that their geometric requirements are largely inflexible. Many guideway configurations have guideway switches that allow trains to switch between parallel guideway lanes or between different routes on a system. Different APM technologies have different types of switches including: • Rail-like, • Side, • Beam replacement, and • Rotary. Due to the guidance systems of most rubber-tired APMs, a crossover is generally composed of two switches (one on each guideway lane) connected by a short length of special track- work. Steel wheel/rail APMs use rail switches, and one APM system uses a slot-follower switch that is similar to a tradi- tional rail crossover switch. 8.1.2 Route Alignment Planning Alignment planning involves developing alternative align- ment options that provide the desired connectivity between activity centers/stations and then evaluating those options based on a range of criteria, including several that involve passenger level of service, such as: Directness of passenger route—The directness of the route contributes to a passenger’s perception that they are being taken on the shortest distance to reach their des- tination. The straightest path and fewest stops between a passenger’s origin and destination will contribute posi- tively to the passenger’s experience. Circuitous routes (particularly onerous one-way loops) and many station stops create negative images of the APM and the facility it serves. Trip times—Routes and geometry that allow good cruise speeds will help minimize travel (in-vehicle) times. Frequent train service is desirable as the lower head- ways (time between trains) result in shorter passenger wait time. Passenger walk times and distances—The placement of stations should minimize passenger walk distances to and from gates and activity centers. Station locations should also minimize vertical level changes to the extent possible. Ride quality—The geometry of the alignment should be as straight as possible to minimize the lateral and vertical forces imposed on the passengers. The use of super- elevation in curves will minimize lateral forces imposed on the passengers and allow faster operating speeds. Seamless connectivity—Passenger connections should be as seamless as possible, avoiding transfers between APM routes. When transfers are necessary, it is preferable to minimize walk distances, level changes, and passenger wait times for such transfers; cross-platform transfers are preferred. Ease of use—Simple alignment and route configurations such as loops, pinched loops, or shuttles promote easy understanding for the passengers. Multiple route con- figurations can be confusing and complicate the passen- ger’s trip. APM station and terminal signs (static and variable messages), route color coding, and other means should assist in passengers’ understanding of the system. Physical constraints—The planning of APM alignments sometimes must be coordinated with an airport’s runway protection zone (RPZ) or its one engine out (OEO) sur- face. In the United States, the Federal Aviation Adminis- tration enforces the RPZ and OEO surfaces. It accepts or rejects encroachments for individual cases after review. A landside APM should be in the airport layout plant (ALP) [and could be subject to FAA approval, including need- ing an environmental impact statement (EIS)], and coor- dination with the FAA is important if the guideway or any other facilities are in or near the end of runway clearance zones and surfaces. Also, if the landside APM is closer than the 300-ft rule, the planner should coordinate with the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). Simplicity of passenger wayfinding—Clarity of passenger signage and visual connections and other cues help to ensure that passengers move efficiently and will mini- mize confusion and back tracking. 52 Photo: Lea+Elliott, Inc. Emergency Walkway

Visual connectivity—It is preferable to provide opportu- nities for visual connections such as between stations and activity centers or among stations. The trip will seem shorter if passengers are able to see where they are going. 8.1.3 Alternative System Configurations and Operating Modes Once the functional requirements and service locations for the APM are determined, alternative system configurations and operating modes must be developed. This work is a crucial aspect of the overall planning process because it will dictate the physical and performance characteristics of the APM and thereby be the principal determinant of the system capital and O&M costs. Developing appropriate APM configurations requires in- depth technical knowledge of the candidate technologies and their capabilities and limitations. Layouts may range from sim- ple shuttle(s) to open or pinched loops to complex networks employing switching and offline stations. Single or dual-lane layouts may be appropriate under different circumstances. Candidate system configurations and operating modes may be determined from experience and an assessment of the physical aspects of the airport. However, in every case, the best system layout and operating mode must be determined by detailed analysis and evaluation of various APM alternatives. This phase of study usually involves advanced simulation tools that mimic the APM’s propulsion and braking capabilities as well as the effects of the automated regulation of train separation, headway, and station dwell times. Such train per- formance studies allow the determination of the round-trip time and the travel time between each station in the system. In most cases, the best system is the simplest system that will ful- fill the planning criteria. Complexity can increase costs and result in reduced system availability, and so should be avoided unless there are reasons for that complexity. 8.1.4 Guideway Geometry Criteria The optimal APM guideway geometry would encompass a level, straight alignment. It would be at grade in order to avoid the costs of a below-grade tunnel or elevated structure. How- ever, in real-world practice, this ideal guideway is difficult to attain. Some airports, such as those in Atlanta and Denver, have APMs that were initially designed and built in concert with the airport and were thus afforded straight, level guideway alignments. Often, however, the alignment must accommo- date planned or existing physical constraints within an air- port’s existing environment. Also, the exclusive nature of the guideway, when introduced into a congested airport environ- ment, seldom allows at-grade runs for any significant distance. Nevertheless, when planning an APM, attempting to achieve a level, straight guideway with at-grade sections remains a wor- thy goal. Such a guideway is simpler to design, construct, and operate on and thus may have positive cost implications. It also allows maximization of the trains’ performance potential. Deviations from a straight and level guideway have planning constraints that must be observed. The final APM guideway design must be done by a registered structural engineer having specific APM design experience. Although detailed guideway design techniques are beyond the scope and purview of this guidebook, general planning principles can be followed that will help ensure that the guideway geometry, as developed in the APM’s planning phase, is a sound, feasible, and operationally and fiscally efficient preliminary design that can be carried into final design, construction, and operation. The unique nature of each project must also be considered. The initial planning of a guideway should allow maximum flexibility to the airport as to the choice of technology. Two primary design options are available: • Right-of-way for multiple candidate technologies—This is required for a traditional design-bid-build procurement approach, where the infrastructure is to be designed and built separate from the operating system, or for a design, build, operate, and maintain (DBOM) approach, where the infrastructure and operating system are procured together. Refinement to the initial guideway design is feasible within the parameters set by original planning, based on design level information for the selected APM technology. • Right-of-way based on specific technology/supplier—This is anticipated in a sole-source procurement approach, or for an extension of existing system, or with the airport’s prerog- ative to choose a technology in advance of planning based on a public–private partnership (PPP) or similar mechanism. The preliminary planning and design criteria for the devel- opment of an APM guideway alignment can be broken into three areas: station area guideway, wayside guideway, and crossover area guideway. Each of these areas has a different pur- pose and goal and is treated differently for the most effective and economical solution. Station Area Guideway The primary purpose of the guideway in the station area is to align and interface the trains with the station. The configu- ration of the station (center platform or side platform) dictates the center-to-center distance between the guideway lanes for a dual-lane system as shown in Figure 8.1-1. In order to get the maximum capacity of the APM system, the frequency of train departures should be maximized (min- imize headway between trains). The crossover location for turnbacks should be as close to each of the terminal stations 53

as possible to achieve minimum turnback times and thus minimum headways. This typically requires a constant track separation for a length of the track adjacent to the end-station. The planning should accommodate a minimum of 150–300 ft tangent track adjacent to terminus station prior to any hori- zontal curve in the alignment. When planning the guideway configuration for an end-of- line station where trains reverse directions, the optimum location of the turnback guideway and switches should be examined. These guideway elements may either be located ahead of or behind the station platform. Typically the train- reversing guideway elements are located ahead of the plat- form, as shown in Figure 8.1-2. This configuration requires the minimum amount of guideway and provides the shortest round trip time. However, it is possible in some instances that worthwhile benefits may accrue from locating the train- reversing guideway elements behind the platform, as shown in Figure 8.1-3. Although this configuration requires more guideway and has a greater round trip time, it is possible, depending on the overall station geometry, that locating the train-reversing elements behind the station platform may allow shorter train headways and thus higher system capac- ity. Since additional costs (e.g., guideway, switches, tunnel length, fleet) are associated with this decision, the above issues are best examined using computer simulations of train movements over the specific guideway geometry and dimen- sional alternatives. Wayside Guideway The primary purpose of the wayside guideway is to move the APM trains through a dedicated corridor with exclusive right of way. Due to the configuration of the power distribution and frequency of the APM trains, these systems do not allow grade crossings or interface with any non-APM functions within the guideway. The tightest spacing of the adjacent tracks is based on the width of the train and its dynamic envelope. Addition- ally, a 2- to 4-ft-clear width may be required for the emergency walkway, either between the tracks or on the outside of the tracks as shown in Figure 8.1-2. The location of the walkway is dependent on the center or side station platform. The prelim- inary planning criteria for wayside APM guideway are pro- vided in Table 8.1-1. Within the wayside there may be need for failure manage- ment crossovers to support the high level of reliability needed for APM systems. These failure management crossovers are typically placed approximately 1,000–1,500 ft from the station. These locations should be identified during the planning and finalized during system design. Evacuating from APM vehicles in a switch area of the guideway is challenging. It should be noted that certain technologies require a minimum track spacing of about 22 ft on center for crossovers. Based on the candidate APM technologies, the planning should consider the best solution to provide the track separation for crossovers. 54 Source: Lea+Elliott, Inc. Figure 8.1-1. Station area guideway configuration. Source: Lea+Elliott, Inc. Figure 8.1-2. Wayside guideway configuration.

Crossover Area Guideway Crossover tracks help provide APM system redundancy by allowing active trains to bypass a disabled train. The primary purpose of the guideway structure in this area is to provide support for mainline tracks, as shown in Figure 8.1-3. Preliminary planning criteria for APM guideways are pro- vided in Table 8.1-1 for horizontal curves, vertical curves and profiles, track separation, width of right of way, and dynamic width of an APM train. Horizontal curve criteria are mini- mum values that correspond to APM speeds to ensure that the horizontal forces on passengers standing in the moving train are acceptable. The same is true for the vertical profile (grade) criteria, which are maximum values. 8.2 System Demand/Ridership Estimation The estimation of ridership demand on a given APM align- ment (with station locations) is typically the next step in APM planning. This section describes the different ridership esti- mation methodologies used at airports as well as important ridership estimate considerations. There are two common APM ridership methodologies, best described as top-down and bottom-up. 1. The top-down ridership methodology takes an airport’s annual passenger numbers for the design year and applies 55 Description Guideway Type Station Area Guideway Wayside Guideway Crossover Area Guideway Horizontal Curve Mainline 300 ft 150 ft(1)(2) 300 ft 150 ft(1) Switch should be on tangent Maintenance 150 ft 150 ft None Spiral 60-110 ft 60–110 ft None Superelevation None 0%–6% None Vertical Curve and Profile Elevation Station floor(3) (3) (3) Grade 0% 0%–6% Constant Transition – Vertical Curve None 60(4)–110 ft None Track Separation Subject to station and crossover(5) 15–16 ft 22 ft Total Width of ROW Subject to station and crossover 28–30 ft 35–40 ft Preliminary Dynamic Width of Generic APM 12 ft (5) 12 ft(6) 12 ft(6) Notes: 1Absolute minimum; impacts speed. 4Impacts APM speeds. 2Only at approaches. 5For tangents. 3Elevation of vehicle floor must match station platform. 6Technology dependent. Source: Lea+Elliott, Inc. Table 8.1-1. Preliminary planning criteria. Source: Lea+Elliott, Inc. Figure 8.1-3. Crossover guideway configuration.

successive factors to determine a peak-hour, peak-direction APM passenger volume for the design hour. 2. A more detailed, bottom-up approach takes a gated flight schedule for the design day and combines aircraft board/ deboard rates, walk distances, walk speeds, flight crew fac- tors, airport employee factors, and so on, to determine system ridership throughout the design day. This method- ology typically uses simulation software and gives results at a greater level of detail. Deciding which of the two ridership methodologies to use is a function of the level of planning and of the data available to the planners. The two different estimating methodologies are described in the following subsections. 8.2.1 Top-Down APM Ridership Estimation As with other planning methodologies, the top-down APM ridership methodology has inputs, analysis, and outputs. The inputs required to perform a top-down estimate vary between airside APM systems and landside APM systems. For an airside APM system, inputs include: (1) the relevant design year activity level (MAP) for the airport, (2) peak month factors, (3) average day of the peak month factors, (4) hourly factors for air passenger arrivals and departures by concourse or terminal, (5) hourly surge factors, (6) passenger baggage characteristics, (7) passenger origin/destination percentages, (8) airline flight crew percentages, and (9) airport airside employee populations and shift times. The application of these factors and percentages to the annual passenger activity data results in surged hourly flow rates of airside APM riders for the peak hour of the design day, which is the common APM rider- ship metric for sizing the APM fleet. A surged hourly flow rate is the peak demand within a portion of the peak hour, which is then converted into an hourly equivalent number. This accounts for surges within the hour. For example, a 50% surge factor represents half of the hourly demand occurring in the peak 20 minutes. A ridership methodology graphic is provided in Figure 8.2.1-1. The surged hourly design volumes of potential APM riders must be considered within the airside configuration context of the airport to determine the number of passengers who would ride the APM system. For example, passengers travel- ing between separate buildings (e.g., the main terminal and a remote concourse or terminal) would presumably all ride the APM. Exceptions to this would be airports with other con- veyance options, such as underground walkways or buses where the APM may only accommodate a percentage of total inter-terminal passenger traffic. For airports with central processing functions (check-in, baggage claim, etc.) and all airline gates within a single termi- nal, an APM would typically only accommodate passengers whose intra-terminal trip exceeds some walk distance or travel time threshold. These level-of-service indicators can vary by airport and are influenced by the passenger type (business traveler, vacation travelers, etc.) and overall airport configu- ration and goals. Outputs for this airside ridership analysis are the surged hourly ridership volumes in each direction between all station pairs and to/from (on/off) volumes for each APM station. The peak station-to-station ridership volume then becomes an input into sizing the peak period train length (thus station length) and operating fleet. The peak period station on/off vol- umes become inputs into the station sizing process, in terms of platform length and width (to accommodate circulation and queuing areas) as well as the vertical circulation elements (esca- lators, elevators, and stairs). For a landside APM system, the top-down ridership estima- tion inputs include many of the same inputs as airside estima- tion. Other inputs unique to a landside estimate include airport access mode share for both passengers and employees, passen- ger party size, and passenger arrival patterns to the airport by flight type (domestic or international). The application of these landside factors to the annual activity level is the process that results in bidirectional hourly surged volumes of landside APM riders. This output is then used as an input to a subsequent APM fleet sizing analysis. As with the airside data, the hourly volumes of landside APM riders must be considered within the landside environment of the airport for the design year. Landside environment compo- nents to be considered include: (1) the location and size of air- port parking (passenger short-term and long-term, as well as employees); (2) the presence and location of a regional rail or other transit transfer station(s); (3) rental car lots; (4) the road- way network; (5) other facilities that influence the potential location of an APM alignment; and (6) the location, capacity, and frequency of other landside conveyance options such as walking, moving walks, and on-airport circulator buses. Similar to the airside ridership analysis, outputs are the surged hourly station-to-station directional flows and the indi- vidual station on/off volumes. These outputs become inputs to the subsequent train length, fleet sizing, and station sizing analyses. 8.2.2 Bottom-up Ridership Estimation The bottom-up (or flight schedule) APM ridership method- ology is more typically applied for airside APM ridership esti- mates than for landside estimation. The key input is the gated flight schedule for the future design day. This schedule pro- vides aircraft arrivals and departures throughout the day by airline, flight type, and gate. Information included in such a schedule includes the time of the flight, type of aircraft, air- craft seats, load factor, and origin/destination factor. With 56

57 Source: Lea+Elliott, Inc. Figure 8.2.1-1. Airside APM—top-down ridership methodology.

this more-detailed information, passenger volumes to and from airside APM stations can be determined at the minute- by-minute time increment as opposed to the 15- to 20-minute (surged hourly) basis of the top-down ridership approach. To obtain accurate passenger flows at a minute-by-minute level, additional factors are applied to the flight schedule rider- ship analysis, including passenger deboarding rates by aircraft type, passenger walk speeds, gate-to-station distances, termi- nal corridor flow capacities, and vertical circulation capacities accessing the APM station platform. Passenger flow analysis at this level of detail is typically per- formed with simulation software by specialized professionals. Such analysis is carried forward to determine the required number of station vertical circulation elements and the plat- form length and width dimensions. The methodology for pas- senger flows at stations is provided in Section 8.4.2. The APM station on/off volumes are combined to determine APM sys- tem station-to-station ridership volumes. These volumes are in turn used in the APM fleet sizing analysis. 8.3 System Capacity and Fleet Sizing The ridership demand estimates developed above should then be applied to the alternative system configurations to calculate the required APM system capacity. This is usually expressed as passengers per hour per direction. This calcula- tion is a crucial aspect of the overall planning process since it will dictate the physical and performance characteristics of the APM and greatly influenced the APM’s capital cost. Passenger comfort and convenience is the focus of much of the analysis, which includes considerations such as: • Area per passenger—Passenger comfort and personal space requirements are a major consideration in determining the appropriate area-per-passenger allocations. For example, in an airside airport setting with many connecting business travelers familiar with an APM system, a smaller area- per-passenger allocation may be acceptable. Conversely, in a landside airport setting with many leisure travelers that are less familiar with transit, a larger passenger area allocation is appropriate. Due to the variation in specific baggage profiles at different airports, it is recommended that a baggage survey be performed and the results compared with similar airports that currently have an operating APM. • Number of seated passengers—The appropriate number of seats on a train depends on the duration of the trip: the longer the trip the more seats are required for passenger comfort. For many airside APMs, the total APM travel time is very short and there are no seats within the vehicle. Other factors, such as the type of riders, can influence how many passengers will require seats. For example, if there are a large number of elderly passengers in a particular airport market, there could be a desire by the airport to provide more seats. • Accommodations for passengers in wheelchairs and pas- sengers with strollers—The area allocation for passengers with wheelchairs is a consideration in determining overall spatial requirements. Also, a larger space allocation for pas- sengers with small children should be considered given the use of strollers. • Accommodations for baggage—Airside and landside APM systems have different space requirements for baggage given that airside APM systems must only accommodate carry-on baggage and landside APMs typically accommodate all of a passenger’s baggage. Thus a very important aspect of deter- mining system capacity is the analysis of riders’ baggage. Space requirements (and therefore system capacity) for dif- ferent types of APM passengers can vary widely because of the baggage they carry. Baggage requirements typically involve consideration of baggage to be checked, baggage to be hand carried, and baggage carts. Depending on the proposed APM application, one or more, perhaps even all, of the above items must be consid- ered. For a proposed landside APM, passengers may be car- rying both baggage to be checked and hand-carried baggage, perhaps on a baggage cart. For airside APMs, only hand- carried baggage need be considered; however, carts (possi- bly smaller ones) may still be allowed, depending on the airport policy. International passengers typically have more baggage and require more space than domestic passengers. Employees and visitors typically have little or no baggage and will therefore require less space than passengers. Analysis of baggage issues involves applying of histori- cal data regarding the amount of baggage that typically accompanies each class of passenger. These data are con- stantly changing, with changes in demographics, bag tech- nology (e.g., advent of roller bags), and airport baggage screening requirements. Surveys to establish baggage char- acteristics in a specific market may also be useful in estab- lishing the baggage requirements. • Accommodations for baggage carts—Landside APM sys- tems are sometimes planned to allow baggage carts on the trains to enhance passenger service, minimize the effort required to move baggage, and expedite boarding and deboarding times. A baggage survey can help to define the percentage of passenger’s with baggage carts in a given mar- ket so that accurate space allocations can be established. 8.3.1 APM Vehicle Characteristics APM vehicles are fully automated, driverless, typically either self propelled or cable propelled, reliable, and provide a high degree of passenger comfort and safety. Vehicle speed, capacity, and maximum train length are dependent upon the 58

type of technology selected. The majority of APM vehicles have capacities of 50–75 passengers at airports, depending on their baggage characteristics. The original landside Newark AirTrain had smaller vehicles/cars with a six-car train holding about 70 passengers. At the other end of the spectrum, the air- side Atlanta APM’s four-car trains hold up to 300 passengers. subsystem, passenger intercom devices, a pre-programmed audio and video message display unit, fire detection and sup- pression equipment, seats, and passenger handholds. Some APM vehicles are designed to accommodate baggage (baggage racks) and baggage carts (stronger interior walls). APM vehicles can be supported by rubber tires, steel wheels, air levitation, or magnetic levitation. A detailed description of each type of APM vehicle suspension follows: Rubber tires—APMs using a rubber-tire suspension bogie also use concrete or steel guidance structures. A special coating is used on elevated structures to provide adequate traction without abrasion to the tires. The running sur- faces are attached to a primary surface (typically concrete or sometimes steel) in a manner that maintains proper alignment. When climate conditions require, heating (by 59 Photo: www.bombardier.com Newark AirTrain Self-propelled APM vehicles are electrically powered by either AC or DC provided by a power distribution subsystem. Vehicle propulsion may be provided by DC rotary motors, AC rotary motors, or AC linear induction motors. Rotary motors transmit thrust through a shaft/gearbox/wheel arrangement. With LIM, the motor’s stator is installed on the vehicle and the rotor is installed on the guideway. Thrust is transmitted through the air gap by magnetic flux produced by three-phase currents. Cable-propelled vehicles are also electrically powered but are pulled by an attached cable that is powered by a fixed motor drive unit located along the APM alignment, typically at one end of the guideway. Cable-propelled vehicle power (lights, electronics, HVAC, etc.) is typically provided via a 480 volt AC wayside power rail system. The typical airport APM single vehicle is approximately 40-ft long and 10-ft wide and can be coupled into trains as long as four vehicles. The maximum train length can potentially be increased beyond four vehicles but would require some signif- icant vehicle redesign and has not been undertaken to date. A single vehicle has typically held about 50 passengers landside and 75 passengers airside due to the different baggage charac- teristics. Somewhat higher passenger capacities are being seen in other parts of the world with different baggage levels and dif- ferent passenger crowding levels. APM vehicles are typically equipped with a thermostat- ically controlled ventilation and air conditioning system, automatically controlled passenger doors, a public address Photo: www.bombardier.com Two-Car APM Shuttle Photo: www.bombardier.com Rubber-Tire APM Vehicle

electric resistance wires or pipes with heated solutions in the running surface) might be provided for the running tracks on sections of the guideway exposed to the ele- ments to aid in maintaining good tire adhesion in the event of snow or ice. Steel wheels—Some APM vehicle types use steel-wheel bogie suspension. The primary advantages of steel wheels on rail tracks are simple vehicle guidance, low rolling resistance, and fast and reliable switching. Rail tracks, whether tun- nel, at grade, or elevated, are typically directly fixed to concrete cross ties. Guideway heating is not required for steel wheel/rail systems. running surface. Electrodynamic maglev systems develop their levitation using a moving magnetic field. There are high-speed (200+ mph) and low-speed (30–60 mph) maglev systems, but only low-speed maglev is applicable to airport APM implementations. There are no currently operating airport Maglev systems. The initial Birmingham (UK) Airport landside APM was a maglev system. 60 Photo: www.bombardier.com Steel-Wheel APM Train Photo: Otis Elevator Air-Levitated APM Vehicle Air levitated—Air-levitated APM vehicles ride on a cush- ion of air, rather than wheels, allowing them to travel quietly and without friction on the running surface. The vehicle and the concrete guideway “flying” surface are separated by an air gap that is between 1⁄8 in. and 1⁄4 in. Low-pressure air flows from blowers in the vehicle chas- sis to air pads. Special surface finishing requirements are needed to sustain the surface texture since any unusual roughness, or elevated expansion joint covers, can con- tribute to rapid wearing of the pads. Magnetic levitation—Maglev vehicles are magnetically lev- itated and propelled by linear motors (either induction or synchronous). Electromagnetic maglev systems use per- manent magnets or electromagnets and have a relatively small (less than one in.) gap between the vehicle and the Photo: Lea+Elliott, Inc. Maglev APM Train Vehicle steering and guidance mechanisms vary by tech- nology. In general, steering inputs are provided to vehicle bogies through lateral guidance wheels or similar devices that travel in continuous contact with guideway-mounted guide beams or rails. The steering inputs cause the bogies, usually located at both ends of each vehicle, to rotate so that vehicle tires do not “scrub” as they move through horizon- tal curves. Center and side guidance mechanisms are used by different manufacturers, and each type has unique char- acteristics. Descriptions of each type of vehicle guidance are provided below. Side guidance is generally provided by structural steel or concrete elements located along both sides of each guideway lane. Wheels roll along the contact face of the side guide- beams/rails so that vehicles are held between the side guide- beams/rails. The side guidebeams/rails may be located outside the main wheel paths and can be located either above or below the top of the primary running surface. Alternately, they can be located between the main wheel paths, in which case they are generally located below the top of primary running sur- faces. Side guidance generally requires special mechanisms and trackwork to maintain positive guidance through merge

and diverge areas (switches). These mechanisms differ consid- erably among APM technologies. 8.3.2 APM System Capacity Methodology System capacity refers to the number of passengers trans- ported by the APM in one direction per unit of time (usually an hour). It is a dynamic capacity of passengers over time as opposed to a static capacity, such as a vehicle capacity of 75 pas- sengers. The usual system capacity metric used during the plan- ning stage of the project is passengers per hour per direction. The appropriateness of this metric for planning purposes is dis- cussed in the ridership section (Section 8.2) of this guidebook. For a typical airport APM planning exercise, a number of APM planning aspects will already have been developed by the time that system capacity is to be determined. These include system ridership, alignment, station locations, and end-station geometry. During the planning stage of a project, system capacity is typically determined for a generic APM technology by using the following steps: 1. Determine round trip time for single train. This is usually determined by simulation, using alignment characteristics and technology-generic train performance. 2. Determine the capacity (passengers per vehicle) of a single- vehicle train given the airport’s passenger/baggage profile. This can vary greatly between airside and landside appli- cations. Typical airside floor space per passenger with only carry-on baggage is 4–5 sq ft per passenger. For landside, passengers with all baggage, the floor space is 5–7 sq ft per passenger. Seated passengers take about the same floor space, while passengers using baggage carts can take up to two times that space. Due to the variation in specific airport baggage profiles, it is recommended that a baggage survey be performed and the results be compared with similar airports with existing APMs. 3. Determine the system capacity of a single-vehicle train in terms of passengers per hour per direction. The system capacity of a single-vehicle train is the number of trains per hour past any given point times the vehicle capacity deter- mined in step 2. The number of trains per hour is the head- way in seconds (for one train, this is the round-trip time from step 1) divided into 3,600 seconds per hour. 4. Determine the minimum headway (maximum number of trains) that can be achieved for the given alignment. The minimum headway varies by system configuration. For a single-lane shuttle, it is the round trip time. For a dual-lane shuttle, it is half of the round trip time. For a pinched-loop configuration, the minimum headway is determined by throughput of the end stations’ switch configurations (obtained from train simulation modeling), station spacing and train control protocol, station dwell times (a function of the number of doors, passenger volumes, and boarding/ alighting rates), and other factors. For pinched-loop system 61 Photo: Lea+Elliott, Inc. Side Guidance Central guidance systems generally use a structural steel guidebeam along the guideway centerline to provide guid- ance and steering inputs. Guide wheel configurations and materials differ by technology, but generally roll along both sides of the center guidebeam, trapping the beam between the guide wheels. Central guidebeams are located at various elevations relative to the top of primary running surfaces, dependent upon APM technology. Because the vehicle’s pri- mary running wheels must roll across a guideway centerline through merge and diverge areas (switches), special mov- able replacement beam type switches are usually employed. These types of switches replace a straight guidebeam with a curved turnout guidebeam and vice versa depending on the vehicle’s travel direction. Photo: Lea+Elliott, Inc. Central Guidance

planning purposes, usually a minimum headway is limited to about 90 seconds. Shorter headways might be possible for some technologies and configurations, but being too optimistic could have negative consequences if subsequent technology selection and operations prove not to meet this standard. 5. Determine the maximum train length (cars per train) given technology constraints or station length constraints. The maximum train length for most APM technologies is about 170 ft (four 42-ft cars) although some APMs have up to six similarly sized cars. Some system configuration and station locations might constrain this length. The maximum train length and minimum headway determine the maximum capacity of a given system. 6. Iterate between number of trains and train length to gener- ate sufficient hourly capacity compared to the surged peak hour demand. A major advantage of automated systems is the greater frequency of trains, which equates to a better level of service. Given the cost of stations, it is often prefer- able to have shorter headways, shorter trains, and therefore shorter/smaller stations. Thus, more frequent, shorter trains usually are preferred to less frequent, larger ones. Typically one plans for approximately two-minute headways and adjusts the number of cars per train accordingly. The APM capacity estimation methodology is shown in diagrammatic form in Figure 8.3.2-1. 8.3.3 Planning Criteria for APM Trains APM trains are sized based on the estimated number of passengers (ridership demand analysis), the passenger char- acteristics, and the physical and operational characteristics of the expected technology/technologies. Train sizing involves a number of criteria, including: Vehicle length—The most common APM vehicles that have been implemented at airports can be referred to as large APM vehicles of approximately 40 ft in length and 10 ft in width. Most current APM suppliers offer self-propelled vehicles of this length. Examples are Bombardier, IHI, Mitsubishi, and Siemens (formerly Matra). Some self- propelled and cable-propelled APM suppliers offer vehi- cles of shorter length, including those of Schwager Davis, 62 Source: Lea+Elliott, Inc. Figure 8.3.2-1. APM planning capacity methodology.

Inc., Doppelmayr Cable Car (DCC), and Leitner-Poma Mini Metro. Bombardier’s vehicle at New York–JFK is the lone example of a larger (and faster) vehicle for that air- port landside application and is substantially longer (total distance and station spacing) than other airport APMs. Maximum train length—As a practical planning guide, large self-propelled trains can be as many as six vehicles, approximately 240-ft long. In pinched-loop systems, the maximum train length is limited by vehicle structural lim- its and station platform design requirements, resulting in a typical maximum length of a 4-vehicle train of approxi- mately 160 to 170 ft. Cable-propelled trains are typically limited by bullwheel friction, cable length, grade, curva- ture, and other factors. Wide vehicles (10 ft or greater) are typically limited to about 120 ft in length. With some technologies, the individual vehicles that make up a com- plete train can all be operated as individual units (single vehicles). Other technologies have two or more vehicles permanently coupled. Train sizing—Planning criteria for train sizing includes (a) number of passengers (seated and standing), (b) pas- senger type and characteristics (secure, nonsecure, bags, etc.), (c) space implication of carry-on bags and/or lug- gage, and (d) vehicle design implications of any baggage carts. Additionally, passenger boarding and deboarding requirements affect train sizing, with consideration of the number of vehicle doors, door width, platforms on one or both sides of the train, and the effect of any interference from train door openings and columns/structures in the station. For this reason, the side-center-side or triple- platform configuration can allow a system to have shorter or fewer trains due to its shorter dwell times. Train sizing is typically iterative with respect to trade- offs for train length, headway, station platform sizing, and vertical flow requirements in the stations. Certain APM suppliers provide married-pair vehicles, requiring train lengths in increments of two vehicles. Some types of monorail vehicles have barriers between cabins, which can reduce the deboarding rate for the affected cabin in the case of door-set failures. Some train technologies have walk-through capacity, which helps to equalize the pas- senger distribution throughout the train. Train performance—Depending on the maximum distance between stations, the maximum train speed can be an important factor in train performance and other design considerations. Typical APM systems have maximum train speeds between 32 and 40 mph, but vehicle designs can be specified for speeds of 50 mph. A greater specified train speed may limit the number of compliant vehicle designs. The lateral forces on standing passengers during acceleration, deceleration, or going through curves can result in the need for speed restrictions so as to provide adequate ride quality. Headway and line capacity—Train headway is typically lim- ited by the time needed to reverse trains at the end sta- tions. The ability to reverse trains onto the opposite track beyond the end-of-line stations minimizes the headway, but increases the round trip time and the resultant fleet size. It also increases the length (and cost) of the system. The ability to crossover before the station platform and perform turnbacks at the station can reduce the fleet size, but also increases the operating headway. Line capacity should be variable by changing operating fleet (headway) size a few times per day to meet variable ridership demand. This can save fleet-vehicle miles and operating costs. Ridership forecasts need to be determined with high con- fidence levels when line capacity is varied over the day. Fleet size—The fleet size for a pinched-loop system is typi- cally a function of the maximum operating fleet during the peak period, plus one full-length standby train and a sufficient number of spare vehicles to accommodate peri- odic vehicle maintenance activities and unexpected repair activities. Typically, the number of spare vehicles should be about 20% of the operating fleet (typically at least two spare vehicles). The number of spare vehicles can be increased to limit the number of operating shifts required for an APM system. Periodic maintenance must typically be performed during the night shift due to the number of spare vehicles. With additional vehicles, it can be possible to perform all of the maintenance activities during the morning and afternoon shifts, thereby eliminating a third shift of maintenance personnel and eliminating the wage increase necessitated by third-shift personnel. Provisions for disabled and mobility-impaired passengers—The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires that vehicles, like stations, must accom- modate persons with disabilities. Requirements include: • Horizontal door gaps, • Vertical door gaps, • Door widths, • Vehicle seating and signage, • Vehicle handrails and stanchions, • Vehicle flooring, • Vehicle public address system, and • Vehicle accessibility signage. 8.3.4 Planning Criteria for System Redundancy Reliability and system availability are of paramount per- formance to APM success. Accordingly, a professional evalu- ation must be made to assess various predictable failure modes and develop designs and/or failure operating modes to deal with each. Solutions may include redundant physical features such as crossover switches and sidings, special operating modes 63

(e.g. a series of station-to-station shuttles to operate around a blocked link), and other approaches. Many of these will include additional costs. Redundancy refers to the methods by which an APM sys- tem can overcome a vehicle or wayside failure and maintain passenger service, albeit often at a lesser level of service to the passenger. The methods to achieve redundancy vary greatly, as do the costs and necessity of such methods. The costs of achieving redundancy should be weighed against the neces- sity for, and the level of, redundancy. For example, an APM system that offers the only efficient means of accessing a remote concourse of an airport should typically have a high level of redundancy because a failure of the APM would have a catastrophic negative effect on airline operations. Conversely, an APM system flanked by a pedestrian corridor with associ- ated moving walkways would have lesser needs for redundancy because the APM’s operation would not be essential to airline operations. Typically, airside APM systems at large hub air- ports have greater redundancy than landside APM systems due to the time-critical nature of the gate-to-gate connections of airline passengers. APM system redundancy can be achieved in a variety of ways. The cost of implementing the methods of redundancy versus their value should be carefully considered by the air- port from the APM’s planning phase onward. The following are three ways in which redundancy can be achieved: Initial design decisions—Redundancy is sometimes inher- ent in the design of the APM system. Thus, initial design decisions can greatly affect redundancy. For example, both trains of a cable-propelled dual-lane shuttle APM system can be attached to a single cable and powered by a single motor. This would be an economical design deci- sion. However, this system would have very poor redun- dancy because a failure of the motor or a failure of a single sheave supporting the cable would shut down the entire APM system. An alternate design decision would be to power each train (and guideway lane) of the dual-lane shuttle independently, with separate motors and cables. Thus, a single-point failure would shut down only a single lane and the APM system would retain 50% of its service capacity until repairs could be made. However, this is a more expensive design solution. Alternate routes—The physical layout of the APM sys- tem’s guideway often allows alternate routes to be run during a vehicle or wayside failure. For example, a one- way loop system can revert to a shuttle route, or a sys- tem of shuttle routes, in the event of a single-point or multi-point failure. Likewise, a pinched-loop system can contain a variety of shuttle routes whereby trains can continue to operate in the event of vehicle or way- side failure. Run-around modes—Run-around modes typically encom- pass alternate routes made possible by guideway switches and/or a system of switches constituting crossover(s). In this case, the trains can be programmed to literally run around the failure point(s) by being routed through switches onto alternate sections of guideway. 8.4 Stations A successful APM system must be well integrated into the airport and terminal facilities. This allows the most efficient system operation and the easiest use by passengers. Stations are located along the guideway to provide passenger access to the APM system. Stations for airport APMs are typically online, with all trains stopping at all stations. The station equipment provided by the APM system supplier includes automatic sta- tion platform doors and dynamic passenger information signs. The stations typically have station APM equipment rooms to house command, control, and communications equipment and other APM equipment. This section covers APM station characteristics, components, and the methodology employed in planning for an APM station. 8.4.1 APM Station Characteristics and Components An APM station provides the physical connection between the APM train and the airport facilities it serves. An APM sta- tion comprises one or more platforms to facilitate passenger boarding and alighting APM trains. Typically, platform edge walls provide a barrier between the platform and the guide- way to help ensure the safety of passengers as trains arrive and depart the station. Doors are provided in the platform edge wall to enable the direct interface between the trains and the platform. Passengers may access the station directly from the adjacent facility if it is on the same level, or may use vertical circulation to access the station either from a level above or below the APM platform level. The APM station plays a critical role in the effective opera- tion of the APM system. As the direct interface between the APM and the airport facilities, the station must be appropriately sized, configured, and equipped to accommodate the flow of passengers effectively and efficiently. Thus, considerations such as passenger separation requirements, passenger baggage char- acteristics, vertical circulation requirements, and queuing areas must be taken into account when planning an APM station. This section addresses the most critical elements affecting APM station planning. These elements include: • Platform configuration, • Vertical circulation at the station, and • Station doors. 64

Platform Configuration The barrier walls, door sets, and passenger queuing area within an APM station are called the platform. A single APM station may have multiple platforms. Chapter 4 intro- duced three APM station platform configurations: side, center, and triple (flow through). For reference, these three configurations are presented diagrammatically below in Figure 8.4.1-1. The type of platform configuration used depends upon many factors that can vary widely among airport applica- tions. These factors include: • Passenger separation requirements, • Passenger demand at the station, • Physical constraints of existing facilities that limit the type of station that can be implemented, and • Level change requirements. Passenger Separation Requirements Passenger types for airport APM systems include origina- tion and destination passengers, transfer, secure, non-secure, sterile, and non-sterile. In some APM systems, O&D passen- gers are separated for security and sterility reasons. For exam- ple, at an international airport, originating passengers who are departing the country are either residents or visitors who have been granted permission to be in the country through the immigration service. Arriving destination passengers have not yet been cleared by the immigration service to enter the country. For this reason, these passenger types will be sep- arated. The APM and the station platforms must accommo- date this type of separation requirement. The best approach to maintaining passenger separation is to provide separate platforms for each passenger type. Otherwise, platform partitions are required to separate passengers by type on the same platform. For example, a center platform without partitions could not provide for the separation of passengers unless separate APM systems were provided for each passen- ger type. A partition would be required on a center platform to maintain passenger separation. This would also require sepa- rate vertical circulation cores for each passenger type. These requirements lead to increased platform size and greater verti- cal circulation requirements, thereby increasing station cost. Separation may be more effectively handled with side- or triple-platform configurations. In these cases, separate plat- forms can be provided to each passenger type to maintain sep- aration. Partitions and separate vertical circulation cores on each platform are not necessary, thereby possibly reducing overall platform size and vertical circulation requirements. Passenger Demand The anticipated passenger demand at each station will influ- ence the size and possibly the type of platform configuration. For example, a double side platform configuration may be appropriate if the total anticipated demand of both directions of travel is high and expected to grow over time. Congestion on platforms can be mitigated by providing a separate platform to each direction of travel. The triple platform configuration allows the most effi- cient movement of passengers in high-demand situations. 65 Source: Lea+Elliott, Inc, Figure 8.4.1-1. Profile views of platform configurations.

The flow-through movement that it provides permits the deboarding passenger unobstructed access for alighting the trains while affording boarding passengers the same un- obstructed access. Boarding and deboarding passengers are not required to use the same doors and platform spaces. This helps improve passenger flow and reduce train dwell times. Where level changes are required to access the adjacent facility, this platform configuration requires fewer vertical circulation elements as each platform requires only up or down escalators, not both. Level Change Requirements The need for level changes, or lack thereof, should be con- sidered in the planning of the platform configuration. The appropriate selection of the platform configuration could reduce or eliminate the need for vertical circulation, thereby reducing the station size, when the level of the adjacent facil- ities is considered. APM platforms that are on the same level as the adjacent facilities might be configured such that no vertical circula- tion is necessary. Examples of APM station platforms not requiring vertical circulation elements include the dual-lane shuttle APMs at Tampa International Airport and Orlando International Airport. An end station that is on the same level as the adjacent facility would not require vertical circulation. In this case, the station acts as an extension of the facility, allowing passengers to walk directly between the facility and platforms, regardless of the platform configuration applied. See Figure 8.4.1-2 for an illustration of an end station that does not require a level change from the APM station. APM stations on the same level as the adjacent facility that are not end-of-line stations require vertical circulation if the configuration has a center platform. This would be the case for a center platform and a triple platform configuration. The ver- tical circulation is needed to transfer passengers up and over (or down and under) the APM guideway. This requirement for vertical circulation increases the size and cost of the station. On the other hand, a side platform may not require vertical cir- culation in the station if passengers are able to access the facil- ity directly from the platforms and go in the desired direction. If the facility does not provide equivalent service to both sides of the platform, then vertical circulation would be required, either on the platform or within the facility. Either way, the vertical circulation is related to providing access to the APM and therefore should be considered as part of the total require- ments of the APM system. Physical and Geometric Constraints Despite careful consideration of passenger separation requirements, anticipated passenger demand, and level changes, physical and geometric constraints within the air- port facility can dictate the type of platform configuration. For example, consider a station planned to be constructed in a tunnel under an existing structure. The supporting struc- ture beneath the facility may require that the guideways be widely spaced in this area. Consequently, a center or triple platform configuration may not be possible, despite being desirable in terms of other considerations such as passenger separation and anticipated demand. Additionally, geometric constraints of the APM system may limit the available platform configurations. For example, dual APM guideways may not have the space to increase separation to serve a center platform, due to the geometric constraints of the APM system components. ACRP Report 25: Airport Passen- ger Terminal Planning and Design is an excellent reference for providing the context within which APM stations are located. Station Doors Physical and geometric constraints can preclude certain plat- form configurations. For this reason, the station interface between the APM and the adjacent facilities may not be the ideal solution, but one necessitated by the existing conditions. Addi- tional consideration may be required in terms of station size, vertical circulation, and APM operation in these situations. 66 Source: Lea+Elliott, Inc. Figure 8.4.1-2. Profile view of station requiring no vertical circulation.

The station has doors that align with a stopped train, and the two-door systems work in tandem. The automatic station platform doors provide a barrier between the passengers and the trains operating on the guideway. These doors are integrated into a platform edge wall. Station doors at the vehicle entrance locations provide protection and insula- tion from the noise, heat, and exposed power sources of the guideway. The interface between the station platform and the APM guideway is also defined by the platform edge wall and automated station doors. This wall and door system is also designed to allow evacuation of the APM vehicles in the event of a misalignment of the vehicle with the station doors. This requirement is accommodated by either a castellated wall configuration or a straight wall with open- able panels. Dynamic passenger information signs are typically installed above the platform doors and/or suspended from the ceil- ing at the center of the station to assist passengers using the system. These dynamic signs provide information regard- ing train destinations, door status, and other operational information. Vertical Circulation at the Station Vertical circulation for APM stations, as well as throughout the airport terminals, is typically provided by escalators and ele- vators. The research produced from ACRP Project 03-14, “Air- port Passenger Conveyance System Usage/Throughput,” should be an excellent resource on these conveyance elements. The two vertical circulation elements are further described below. • Escalators—Escalators are constant-speed passenger con- veyance devices used to vertically transport people for rel- atively short distances along an inclined slope. They consist of separate aluminum or steel steps linked together in a manner that keeps the treads in a horizontal plane. Gener- ally, escalator operation is continuous except for scheduled preventative maintenance or unplanned downtimes. Escalators can often be operated on either an on-call basis with push-buttons or with motion-sensors that detect approaching passengers and begin moving prior to their arrival. Nominal sizes for standard escalator step widths typ- ically found at airports are provided in Table 8.4.1-1. Nominal speeds for standard escalators typically available on the market today are between 90 and 120 ft per minute. The primary standard for escalators in the United States is ASME A17.1 Safety Code for Elevators and Escalators, pub- lished by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers. In Europe, the primary standard is European Standard EN 115. There are some escalators that are specifically designed to accommodate baggage carts. Some airports allow passen- gers using specifically designed baggage carts to access the escalator. • Elevators—There are two elevator types commonly used in passenger service: traction elevators and hydraulic elevators. Traction elevators use steel cables (or ropes) wrapped over a sheave to move the elevator cab up or down. The weight of the cab and people are counterbalanced with a counter- weight, thereby requiring less energy to move the cab. This type of elevator gets its name from the traction generated by the friction between the steel cables and the sheave or pul- ley. Hydraulic elevators use hydraulic fluid to pressurize an 67 Photo: Lea+Elliott, Inc. Station Vehicle Door Interface Source: Lea+Elliott, Inc. Size Nominal Width (in.) Single-Step Capacity Typical Applications Medium 32 One passenger with one bag Smaller airports Large 40 Two passengers Metro systems, larger airports, APM stations Very Large 48 Two passengers plus Newer large airports Table 8.4.1-1. Typical escalator characteristics.

68 Source: Lea+Elliott, Inc. Figure 8.4.1-3. Plan view of double-ended vertical circulation at a center platform station. in-ground piston to raise or lower the elevator cab. Hydraulic elevators are typically only used for relatively short distances (6–7 stories maximum) due to the length required for the cylinder structure below. Hydraulic elevators are also slower than traction elevators. Recent innovations in elevator system design include the use of microprocessor control systems, the use of permanent magnet motors with low-friction gearless construction, and machine-room-less elevators with the power units mounted between the elevator shaft wall surfaces and the guide rails. Nominal cab sizes for standard commercial elevators vary considerably by manufacturer, elevator type, and model. A general range of sizes for passenger elevators used in airports today is as follows: Small elevators: 5′8′′ × 4′3′′ with door width of 3′0′′ Large elevators: 7′0′′ × 7′0′′ with door width of 4′0′ Consideration should be given to flow-through elevators for APM stations. These elevators have doors on both ends of the cab, allowing exiting passengers to use separate doors from entering passengers. This flow-through design allows more efficient boarding and deboarding of passengers, thereby reducing dwell times and possibly reducing the total number of elevators required. The primary standard for elevators in the United States is ASME A17.1 Safety Code for Elevators and Escalators, published by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers. In Europe, the primary standard is European Standard EN 115. Many APM stations require vertical access because the APM train alignment is at a different vertical level than the pedestrian level of the facility being served by the APM. Vertical circulation to the platform can be at the ends or the center of the platform. The configurations with access at the ends of the platform are referred to as “single-ended” and “double-ended” if they provide access at one end or both ends, respectively. Figure 8.4.1-3 depicts a double- ended center platform station in plan view. In some applications, vertical circulation is only provided at one end of a platform. This results in more congestion at that end of the platform. With all of the required vertical circulation elements at one end, the width requirement of those elements may increase the overall platform width. Figure 8.4.1-4 depicts a single-ended center platform station in plan view. Figure 8.4.1-5 depicts two examples of a centrally located vertical circulation core on a center platform. The top example illustrates access from outside the central core, with the bottom example illustrating access from inside the central core. Several factors determine where vertical circulation is located on the platforms, including the station orientation in relation to the adjacent facility, concentration of expected passenger demand, and physical and geometric constraints. The orientation of the station relative to the adjacent facility influences the location of vertical circulation on the platform. Stations may be perpendicular or parallel to the adjacent facil- ities. Stations may also abut the adjacent facility or be located directly above or below it. The best location for the vertical cir- culation, in terms of station orientation, minimizes walk dis- tances, queue sizes, and counterflows. An APM station platform that is oriented parallel to a facil- ity may be best served by double-ended vertical circulation. This configuration provides a better level of service since it distributes the passenger load between two vertical circula- tion cores, thereby reducing individual queue sizes, minimiz- ing walk distance on the platform, and potentially reducing overall station width. Conversely, for a situation where a station is oriented per- pendicularly to a facility and abuts it at one end, vertical cir- culation may only be located at one end of the platform (see Figure 8.4.1-4) to minimize overall walk distance. Passengers exiting the station would not be required to walk in the oppo- site direction of the facility and then double back at the end of the escalator to proceed in their intended direction of travel. Single-ended platforms may result in increasing the overall width of the APM platform since all vertical circula- tion would be grouped together.

69 Source: Lea+Elliott, Inc. Figure 8.4.1-5. Centrally located vertical circulation. Source: Lea+Elliott, Inc. Figure 8.4.1-4. Single-ended vertical circulation at a center platform station.

The concentration of passenger demand within a facility influences the location of vertical circulation on the platforms. Vertical circulation should, if possible, access the locations of the facility where passenger demand is concentrated. The pas- senger demand may be evenly distributed throughout the facil- ity, or it may be concentrated at one end. Consideration should be given to the focus of the passenger demand when locating and sizing the vertical circulation access to the APM. For exam- ple, if the APM station is located directly beneath the baggage claim area, it may be more efficient to locate vertical circulation access at both ends of the baggage hall. This spreads passenger demand to both ends of the station, reducing congestion at the ends of the escalators and potentially reducing overall platform width. Conversely, if the majority of passenger demand is focused at one end of a facility, it makes little sense to direct passen- gers away from that end. For example, if ticketing and check- in or baggage claim is located at one end of a facility, vertical circulation to the APM station should be at that end. 8.4.2 APM Station Planning Methodology Planning of the location and layout of APM stations is based on: (1) the configuration and constraints of the terminal/ airport, (2) minimizing passenger walk distances and level changes, (3) providing adequate circulation and queuing space to ensure passenger comfort, (4) promoting ease of use through wayfinding means, and (5) creating a safe environment. Many factors are considered in providing the optimal passenger expe- rience with regard to these criteria, including: Spatial accommodations—The size of the stations is based on the length of the trains, the number of passengers and their spatial requirements, the vertical circulation require- ments, the passenger flows and circulation, and queuing requirements (at train doors and vertical circulation ele- ments). Passenger comfort and safety are considerations in planning the appropriate size of a platform. Minimize level changes—Level changes between passen- ger processing areas and APM station platforms should be minimized, if possible. In some cases, as with end sta- tions, it might be possible to provide the platform at the same level as the activity center so that no level change is necessary. Passenger boarding queues—Passengers form queues while waiting to board trains and to board vertical cir- culation elements such as escalators or elevators. It is important that these queues are separated so that other passengers can move around them freely. In addition, boarding queues should be fully dispersed among train operation doors so that passengers waiting for a train are not left behind on the platform. Vertical circulation ele- ments should be sized, located, and of a sufficient num- ber so that queues do not continually grow, creating a potentially unsafe situation. Passenger flow analysis—The configuration of the platform layout should be planned to provide the best possible pas- senger flows. Cross flows of passengers can cause conges- tion, so space allocations should consider separating them. In some cases, it may be best to provide flow-through plat- form configurations such that passengers board from the center platform and deboard to side platforms. Vertical circulation location—The location of the vertical circulation should be placed such that passenger move- ments are toward the passengers’ destinations, necessi- tating no backtracking. Vertical circulation should be placed such that there is a visual connection for passen- gers deboarding the trains to aid in wayfinding and min- imize confusion on the platform. Vertical circulation analysis—Analysis of the number and size of vertical circulation elements provides for adequate service so that queues are not too long and the wait times in the queues are acceptable. When sizing the vertical cir- culation, such as the width of the escalators and the size of the elevator cabs, planners should consider passenger comfort, personal space requirements, and baggage space requirements. Level boarding—The station platform and the vehicle floor should be at the same level, similar to an elevator, to meet ADA requirements. This provides for ease in boarding and deboarding and allows for passengers in wheelchairs, and with rolling baggage, baggage carts, or strollers, to board the vehicles with ease. Station doors—Station walls and doors at the platform edge provide a separation between the platform waiting area and the APM guideway. This is for passenger safety and to keep objects, such as baggage and baggage carts, off the guideway. Station doors are especially useful in airports, where many passengers may not be familiar with using transit. Often airport APM stations are cli- mate controlled, which is another reason that the walls and doors are needed. Wayfinding—Passenger wayfinding aids make it easier for passengers to understand and navigate to their destina- tion. While signage is important, it is also useful to pro- vide for other visual cues to help assure the passenger that they are on the correct path. Creative measures can provide a subtle way of leading passengers to their des- tinations. An example of this is the use of art at Denver International Airport, where a series of tiny impression- ist airplanes point toward the vertical circulation from the deboarding APM station platform. Other ways of accomplishing clarity in wayfinding include providing open vertical space that allows passengers to see the level 70

above or below the platform, which might be either the ticketing level of a terminal or the baggage claim level. Perceived safety issues—Passenger’s safety is a primary focus of planning APM stations. It is important to design stations that do not have hidden spaces that are obstructed from a passenger’s view. As previously discussed, station platform doors and walls provide a safety barrier between the pas- sengers and the trainway. Passenger Space Allocations There is no such thing as an average airport passenger; their baggage characteristics, their use of baggage carts, and their mobility issues vary from airport to airport. International pas- sengers have different characteristics than domestic passengers. Business travelers have different characteristics than leisure travelers. Airports serving metropolitan cities have different types of passengers than those serving vacation destinations. All of these characteristics should be considered when develop- ing passenger space allocation parameters. Passenger space allocation parameters include personal space of the passenger and allotments for carry-on baggage and, if appropriate, checked baggage. Additional allotments for bag- gage carts (if permitted on the system), strollers, wheelchairs, and walkers may also be considered. Figure 8.4.2-1 illustrates an example of passenger space allocations. Once passenger space allocations have been defined, they may be used to determine appropriate boarding queue and circulation space requirements. In addition, determination of the percentage of baggage-cart users, families with small chil- dren in strollers, and mobility-impaired users is necessary for determining vertical circulation mode choice. Establishing performance criteria and defining the level of service for passengers is necessary to size stations and to deter- mine the required capacity of vertical circulation and passenger vertical conveyance elements. By defining suitable performance criteria and levels of service, ample space and capacity may be provided so as not to limit potential growth, or to avoid provid- ing expensive, excess capacity. APM station planners may apply commonly used and read- ily accessible level-of-service recommendations with regard to personal space allocations, such as those suggested in the IATA Airport Development Reference Manual or in John J. Fruin’s Pedestrian Planning and Design. Both of these sources provide level-of-service recommendations for queuing and circulation environments. Airport operators and aviation departments may have internal levels of service to which APM station plan- ners must adhere. 71 Source: Lea+Elliott, Inc. Figure 8.4.2-1. Passenger space allocations.

Personal-space level-of-service recommendations com- monly use a scale of six levels of service to denote personal space allocations. The highest level of service, A, denotes a personal-space allocation that allows passengers freedom of movement and choice of walk speed and direction of travel. A level of service “C,” which is typically defined as the desired design level 85% of the time, provides less freedom of move- ment and limits walk speeds without unduly restricting movements. APM station planners should base station sizes on the airport’s desired level of service. Performance criteria, such as maximum wait in queue and time to serve all passengers, are also used for station sizing. Maximum wait time in queue is typically used to determine if adequate vertical circulation has been provided. The max- imum time to serve all passengers and the maximum time to remove all passengers from a platform are used to ensure that all passengers have been removed from the platform before the next train arrives. This is done so as to mitigate the possi- bly of accumulating queues that affect the safe and efficient operation of the APM. Depending on the system configuration, the passenger flows at individual stations will be different. For station sizing, it is necessary to perform additional analyses to quantify the passen- ger movements through each APM station. Such information will subsequently allow the proper sizing of the station plat- forms and ancillary service devices such as elevators and escala- tors. Depending on the needs of the project, this analysis may be adequately performed using spreadsheet tools; however, with large and complex APM applications, computer simula- tions of the pedestrian flows through the stations are often required (see Appendix E for more details). Careful analysis of queues on the platform is necessary to determine the required station width. Adequate space must be available on the station platforms to provide the most efficient and effective interface between the APM and the adjacent facil- ities. If platforms are not adequately sized, the successful oper- ation of the APM may be compromised. Consideration should be given to the queue areas and circulation zone as well as any queues that develop at vertical circulation elements. These are described in more detail below. Vehicle boarding queue area—The vehicle boarding queue area is a space in front of the platform edge doors where passengers form a bulk queue during the active boarding process. The space allotted to each passenger in this queue area is based on the personal space allocation appropriate for the specific conditions at the airport. It is important that this queuing space not interfere with the circulation of passengers in the station, and that sufficient queuing space is provided to keep boarding passengers from blocking the movement of deboarding passengers. For platforms that have escalators on the station boarding platform, it is critical that the vehicle boarding queue area not encroach on the space where people alight from the escalators, so as to prevent dangerous conditions. Vertical circulation queue area—The vertical circulation queue area is a space in front of vertical circulation devices where passengers form a bulk queue to access elevators and escalators to leave the station. The space allotted to each passenger in this queue area is based on the personal space allocation appropriate for the specific conditions at the airport. This queuing space should not interfere with the circulation of passengers in the station or encroach on the vehicle boarding queue area. Circulation zone—The circulation zone is the general segment along the platform used by passengers to enter and exit the station and to access vehicle boarding queue areas and vertical circulation queue areas. The space allot- ted to each passenger in this circulation zone is based on the personal space allocation appropriate for the specific conditions at the airport and the type of APM. It is also important that the vehicle boarding queue area and the vertical circulation queue area not encroach on this cir- culation zone. Size and Number of Vertical Circulation Systems Vertical circulation systems typically found at APM stations where vertical level changes are required are escalators, stairs, and elevators. The size and number of these vertical circulation systems should be carefully planned to provide the best inter- face between the APM station and the adjacent facility. In this section, the general approach to determining the size and num- ber of vertical circulation systems will be discussed. The charac- teristics of each of these systems are described first to facilitate the discussion. The calculation of vertical circulation requirements begins with determining the passenger demand for each type of system. The choice of using stairs, elevators, or escalators is influenced by several factors. First, the characteristics of the passengers, their baggage, whether they use a baggage cart, and their mobility issues are considered. Passengers with baggage carts and wheelchairs must use elevators. Some passengers with strollers, mobility concerns, and/or large baggage may choose to use elevators. For all remaining passenger types, their choice may be influenced by other factors. The ease and convenience of accessing each of the options, and the elevation change for the vertical transition, may impact the mode choice. If stairs are placed directly next to the escala- tor system and the level change is only 15 to 20 ft, some passen- gers who are fit and fully capable of physically using the stairs will choose to do so. Descending movements will see a greater percentage choosing stairs than ascending movements. As con- 72

gestion builds at the load point of the escalators and elevators, the percentage of passengers choosing to use the stairs will increase. Stairs need to be readily accessible along the path of the passengers, or they will typically be bypassed. Some stairs are designed and located to be only, or primarily, used for emergency access/egress. Once the demands for each type of system have been deter- mined, analytical models are used to determine the number of elements required to satisfy level-of-service requirements and other criteria. Both static (spreadsheet) and dynamic (simulation) models can be used to model the vertical circu- lation elements. Static modeling can be a valuable tool to assess the proper layout and integration of escalators and eleva- tors into an APM station, while dynamic modeling can provide a more realistic understanding of the complexities of the simul- taneous passenger flows and queue buildups occurring in between successive APM vehicle arrivals. The paragraphs below describe the analysis for both escalator and elevator systems. Escalator systems—In the case of escalator systems, the distinguishing feature affecting capacity is whether the escalator serves as a descending escalator or an ascend- ing escalator. A descending escalator has a lower capacity (generally) than that of an ascending escalator due to a person’s natural hesitation to be sure they have their foot- ing before the vertical drop begins. The other factor with an escalator is that passengers with baggage board at a slower rate than passengers without baggage. For these reasons, the capacity of an escalator system with a 40-in. tread has been observed to range from 40 persons-per- minute for landside passengers with carry-on and checked baggage, to 50 persons-per-minute for airside airport pas- sengers with only carry-on baggage. Figure 8.4.2-2 illus- trates some examples of 40-in. escalator capacities. The required number of escalators should be consid- ered when determining the overall platform width. In addition, the queuing requirements at the escalators may influence overall platform length. Consideration should be given to providing redundant devices to provide capac- ity during peak conditions in the event any escalators are out of service. One consideration of an escalator design that helps minimize the capacity impacts described above and speeds the boarding process is to provide more flat steps before the ascent or descent begins, such as a design that pro- vides three or four flat steps at the boarding location. Elevator systems—The capacity of an elevator system that only serves two levels is easily analyzed in terms of door width (affecting boarding rate), the average dwell time, and the service time (the average time between another elevator cab being available to board). The aver- age waiting time for this simple configuration would be determined by the round trip time of one cab divided by the total number of elevator cabs serving the circu- lation core. However, for elevator systems that serve more than one level, and especially systems that may serve different levels for different types of passengers (i.e., air passen- gers versus airport employees), it is more difficult to establish an average waiting time without a detailed ele- vator system analysis. (Simulations may be required for the most complex of elevator systems.) In the planning phase, a planning factor may establish the elevator aver- age service time goal, and then the planning and design process would define the number of elevator cabs that would be required to provide that service time. The required number of elevator devices should be con- sidered when determining the overall platform size. In addition, the queuing requirements at the elevators may influence overall platform size. Consideration should be given to providing redundant devices to provide capacity during peak conditions in the event any elevators are out of service. From a safety point of view, it is very important to pro- vide adequate passenger egress capacity to ensure that the passengers alighting from the APM to the platform can be dissipated through the available vertical circulation prior to the next APM train arrival. Consideration should be given to the fact that escalators and elevators can be unavailable for use due to either unforeseen failures or preventative maintenance. The dynamic modeling of vertical circulation elements requirements for APM stations is covered in greater detail in Appendix E. Code Compliance Transit station design must comply with all applicable codes. In particular, emergency egress codes such as National Fire Protection Association’s NFPA 130 should be considered in planning for the potential emergency evacuation of the sta- tion and associated APM trains. Appendix D of this guidebook provides an annotated bibliography of agencies whose codes and standards affect APM systems. Building codes/standards and fire codes establish much of the capacity requirements for vertical circulation, and those sources should be consulted to obtain the methodology for calculating the parameters that determine sizing of the vertical circulation elements for emergency conditions. One key aspect of such calculations is that the vertical circulation systems may be required to cease operation under certain emergency scenarios, and the escalators may then be treated as fixed stairs within those circumstances. 73

NFPA 130 and local building codes sometimes conflict, and these conflicts must be resolved to arrive at a station design. For example, in the case of designing emergency egress, NFPA 130 often has more stringent requirements than the local building codes in effect for an APM project. In most cases, the more stringent requirement should be followed. The outcome of emergency egress analysis may indicate that additional vertical circulation elements are required to meet the code(s) as required by the local authority having jurisdic- tion. In this case, the station design must take these findings into consideration. Minimum Station Platform Size Once the number and size of the vertical circulation elements have been determined, along with all appropriate queues, the minimum station platform size can be established. The mini- mum size of each platform is based on the sum of the queues, 74 Source: Lea+Elliott, Inc. Figure 8.4.2-2. Escalator capacity examples.

circulation zones, and vertical circulation elements. The com- bination of elements to define the minimum width and length depends upon the station configuration and location of the ver- tical circulation elements. The overall station size will be based on the minimum width and length (although it may be larger) and should take into consideration any internal columns, equipment rooms, and other facilities that will be located at the station. The station size should accommodate all of these elements to provide an effi- cient and effective interface between the APM and the adjacent facilities. 8.5 Maintenance and Storage Facility The MSF provides a location for all vehicle maintenance and storage as well as administrative offices. The mainte- nance functions include vehicle maintenance, cleaning, and washing; shipping, receiving, and storage of parts, tools, and spare equipment; fabrication of parts; and storage of spare vehicles. Simple shuttle systems often have the MSF located under one of the system stations. An example of maintenance below a shuttle station is provided in the adjacent photo of the Las Vegas McCarran airside APM shuttle system. 8.5.1 Maintenance and Storage Facility Planning Criteria The MSF is the primary location to perform maintenance on the APM vehicles and system equipment; to house repair shops, keep records, and protect spare parts and consumables; and to store the vehicle fleet, any maintenance vehicles, tools, and equipment. This facility can also store vehicles not operat- ing on the APM system guideway. Planning of the MSF (online or offline) should be also based on the specific APM technol- ogy and the O&M tasks associated with this technology. When considering the location of the MSF, it is important to determine whether the facility should be located online, that is within the passenger carrying guideway, or offline in a location outside of the operational alignment. Dependent both on the space available and the size of the fleet, MSFs may be either. In general, smaller shuttle systems are better suited to online MSFs, while larger systems with bigger space require- ments often require that the facility be situated outside of the passenger carrying alignment. Online MSFs are typically located at or just beyond the nor- mal train berthing position at the station. For systems with online MSFs, the trains enter the maintenance area from the passenger-carrying portion of the guideway. The types of maintenance activities that can be performed during the hours of system operation are therefore limited since the trains are maintained while parked at or adjacent to the normal berthing locations. These facilities are typically associated with smaller APM systems such as shuttle systems. The online MSFs are typ- ically accessed from below or the side. The shops, rooms, and equipment are generally located below the guideway and the station platform. An online facility typically has the same func- tions as an offline facility, but on a much smaller scale. There is no space to store additional fleet in an online facility, so when fleet size exceeds the number of cars that can be berthed at the station, these types of facilities are no longer practical. Offline maintenance and storage facilities are separated from the main line of operation. The MSF is accessible from the mainline guideway by the ready and receiving spur tracks. The ready spur track is where trains are staged prior to entering service. The receiving spur track is where trains are removed from service. Offline MSFs are typically associated with larger APM systems and can accommodate a larger fleet of vehicles. The facility is typically composed of a large build- ing where the vehicles are maintained and repaired, train yard, test track, wash facility, and a vehicle storage area. Regardless of where it is situated, the MSF building includes areas such as 75 Offline Maintenance Facility at Newark Photo: Lea+Elliott, Inc. For the larger APM systems (non-shuttles), the MSF is typ- ically a facility located separate from the operating alignment. Vehicle testing and test track functions are generally performed on the guideway approaching the MSF when the facility is sep- arate from the operating guideway. Photo: Lea+Elliott, Inc. Online Maintenance Facility at Las Vegas

maintenance and repair shops, spare parts storage, administra- tion offices, locker rooms, meeting rooms, and all other facili- ties needed to maintain the system. However, an offline MSF will typically also have a train yard composed of several tracks joined by switches, in order to allow effective routing between the maintenance building, vehicle storage area, vehicle wash facility, and test track. Maintenance Building The MSF should be designed to accommodate maintenance activities that will support the desired level of service and sys- tem availability. When planning the MSF, specific functional spaces should be considered to accommodate the different types of services and activities. Types of functional spaces that should be considered include administrative areas, personnel wash areas, locker rooms, eating/break areas, vehicle mainte- nance areas, mechanical equipment shops, electrical equip- ment shops, electronic equipment shops, tools and equipment storage, vehicle wash areas, vehicle test track, and vehicle stor- age areas. The following paragraphs discuss the more impor- tant considerations associated with these spaces. The detailed considerations are usually investigated during the subsequent design process, but it is important to be sure that adequate space of the correct types is provided during system planning. Administrative and personnel spaces—Provisions for office and work spaces for personnel should be included in the MSF plan. Male and female toilets, showers and locker rooms, and a common break room should be included. Sufficient office space for the O&M staff is needed and should be separated from the noise, dust, and odors of the maintenance areas to the extent practical. See also Section 8.8. Vehicle maintenance areas—Simple shuttle APMs usually have maintenance bays under one of the system’s end sta- tions. Many of the items that are discussed below, for larger pinched-loop systems with an offline MSF, must also be accommodated in some manner for shuttle sys- tems. When planning the vehicle maintenance areas or bays, several factors should be given consideration. Below- car maintenance pits can make APM vehicle equipment accessible without jacking, and should be considered where appropriate. Jacking areas with clear overhead space should be provided in case undercar equipment must be removed to be repaired. Access to the tops of vehicles should be provided. A separate power source should be provided for the maintenance bays because the cars will be removed from rail power when entering those areas. Over- head cranes will be needed for vehicles with roof-mounted HVAC equipment. The routing of electrical and mechan- ical equipment should be designed to prevent tripping hazards, injuries, and other safety hazards. Paths for fork- lifts, pallet movers, and other mechanical equipment must provide access to the vehicle maintenance area. Mechanical equipment shops—Maintenance of mechan- ical equipment usually requires the use of compressors, grinders, cutting tools, and other tools. Separate shop areas should limit the transmission of noise, vibration, and odors. Some vehicle components such as HVAC equipment, drive-train equipment, and compressors are bulky and will require clear paths for forklifts, hand trucks, pallet movers, or other wheeled carts. Provisions for this equipment, such as wide door openings and smooth floors, will improve access to the repair space. Solvents and lubricants are often used in these spaces and considera- tions for material storage, ventilation, and slip-resistant flooring should also be incorporated. Electrical equipment shops—Electrical shops have similar requirements as mechanical shops. Some of the electrical equipment, both on the vehicles and on the wayside, are bulky and operate at voltages at or above the normal build- ing voltage. Considerations for the movement of bulky items should be given to these shop spaces as well. Power requirements to energize the equipment that is being ser- viced can be important for testing or troubleshooting. Electronic equipment shops—These are similar to electri- cal shops except that electronics and their test equipment are more sensitive to humidity, temperature, and vibra- tion and thus require a separation from other areas (mechanical and electrical shops can be in open areas) to provide a cleaner environment with HVAC and dust fil- tering. This equipment can be sensitive to static discharge, so additional grounding is usually necessary. Storage areas—Storage for replacement parts, tools, test equipment, chemicals, and documents should be pro- vided. Supplemental fire protection for storage of rubber tires, solvents, or combustible items should be performed according to local fire codes. Certain types of materials, such as batteries, can necessitate the use of spark-proof fixtures, special ventilation, spill containment, or other special considerations. Storage of electronic equipment can have additional environmental requirements as well. Adequate space for repair manuals and maintenance records should be provided. These are typically kept in separate maintenance offices. If maintenance records are maintained electronically, which is normal, a provision for access to the database from the shop areas is necessary. Vehicle Test Track Vehicles must undergo thorough safety testing following certain maintenance activities before they are returned to passenger service. If the MSF is an online facility, the vehicles 76

are tested on the mainline guideway. If the MSF is offline, it is useful to have a separate, dedicated test track so that there is no service disruption on the passenger-carrying portion of the system while dynamic tests of the cars are performed. The test track should be at or near the maintenance bay exit track. See also Section 8.8. Vehicle Wash Areas Vehicle washing is performed manually for small APM fleets, particularly for a shuttle system. For larger systems, auto- matic washing of the vehicle exteriors should be performed at the MSF. Adequate space for heated water systems, detergent storage, and wastewater recycling should be included. The washing units are typically included in the APM supplier’s con- tract. The wash facility should be accessible by ground vehicles for equipment servicing and should allow efficient movement of the APM trains through the facility. Interior cleaning of the vehicles can occur in many areas—in a covered area outside the wash facility, at the inspection or maintenance bay locations, or at a covered storage area. Provisions for undercar clean- ing should also be considered. This uses high pressure water, steam, or air to remove grime and should follow manufac- turer’s recommendations. Undercar access and containment of contaminants should be included in the design of this area. See also Section 8.8. MSF Yard Tracks Yard tracks are an integral part of the MSF site design for APMs with offline MSFs and are used to transfer the APM trains to the MSF building and bays, storage areas, car wash, and test track. Adequate space for switches and ladder tracks (or in some site-constrained situations, traversers) must be included in MSF planning. The yard tracks should allow efficient train move- ment to and from these functional areas. Simple shuttle systems with online MSFs do not have yard tracks. The yard can have manual or automated vehicle control. An automated yard can improve the efficiency of moving trains but has potential haz- ards associated with the driverless movements. These hazards should be considered during the design process. Alternately, all train movements from the MSF ready and receiving tracks into the MSF yard tracks could be conducted under local manual control with hostlers driving vehicles. Vehicle Storage Area With online MSFs, trains are stored in the stations, and there are usually no spare vehicles to be stored. An offline MSF vehicle storage area ideally will protect the fleet from environ- mental conditions. The storage area should be adequate to store the APM fleet, unless some trains can be stored in the MSF bays or in stations. Convenient removal and return to passenger service from these storage areas should be provided, and where possible, there should be multiple routes into and out of any storage area. Site and Architectural Considerations In addition to easy train access to the mainline, an offline MSF should have convenient access for deliveries of materials by large trucks. Many facilities have incorporated loading docks to make these deliveries more efficient. The build- ing interior should contain open maintenance areas, including maintenance bays with pits, enclosed workshops, administra- tion areas, and personal areas. In many cases, the APM system, including the MSF, must be designed to be expanded in the future. Consideration should be given to possible expansion of the MSF building and storage areas during the planning process. APM system extensions (new guideway and stations) often require not just an expansion of the MSF but a reloca- tion of the entire facility. While relocating an MSF can be a challenging exercise, the initial cost savings (reduced guide- way and associated civil facilities) of a temporary (initial) MSF location is often the deciding factor in the planning process. Facilities for other functions, such as the central control facil- ity, propulsion power substation, and APM equipment rooms, are often co-located with the MSF. These functions have very specific requirements of their own and should be carefully con- sidered during the MSF design process. These functional spaces are discussed in subsequent sections. 8.6 Central Control Facility All APM systems include command, control, and commu- nications equipment to operate the driverless vehicles. Each APM system supplier, based on its unique requirements, pro- vides different components to house the automatic train con- trol equipment. ATC functions are accomplished by automatic train protection, automatic train operation, and automatic train supervision equipment. ATP equipment functions to ensure absolute enforcement of safety criteria and constraints. ATO equipment performs basic operating functions within the safety constraints imposed by the ATP. ATS equipment provides for automatic system supervision by central control computers and permits manual interventions/overrides by central control operators using con- trol interfaces. The APM system includes a communications network mon- itored and supervised by the central control facility. This net- work typically includes a station public address system, O&M radio systems, emergency telephone, and closed-circuit televi- sion. The basis for many of these communication requirements are emergency egress codes such as NFPA 130. 77

The CCF of an APM typically houses: • The consoles and displays that the system operator(s) use to supervise all aspects of system operations—the central control room (CCR); and • An adjacent central control equipment room which houses the central control computers; audio, video and data com- munications equipment; an uninterruptible power supply (UPS) that is capable of supporting all CCF loads; and a training room. For large, complex systems, the CCF is typically located in dedicated rooms within the MSF. As discussed in the MSF section, the MSF location for larger systems is sometimes relocated as the APM system is extended, so a co-located CCF would have to be moved as well. Some smaller, less complex systems, like many of the airport shuttle systems, may have the APM central control integrated into the air- port operations center. Other possibilities include location in separate stand-alone buildings or in a dedicated room within another facility such as an airport terminal. Regard- less, the function, equipment, spaces, and features of the CCF are relatively standard. The typical CCR contains an operator’s console with inte- grated operator workstations for the supervisory control of train operations, the power distribution system (PDS), and all audio and video communications systems. For small sys- tems, there may be a single workstation (although full redun- dancy is recommended) from which a single central control operator (CCO) can manage the entire system. For larger systems, there may be two, three, or more separate and/or redundant workstations, each with either full function or single function (e.g., train operations, PDS, and/or commu- nications) capabilities. Redundant CCF equipment can be less complex than the primary CCF equipment. An accepted guideline is to provide redundant and/or fail operational configurations of CCF equipment that ensure that no single failure of that equipment will ever result in the CCO being unable to perform a necessary function. Train operation workstations typically provide a system schematic display with indications and alarms and operator command/control interface capabilities that allow the CCO to supervise the movement of trains throughout the sys- tem through interfaces with the ATC system. The PDS work- station provides a single-line electrical power schematic display with indications and alarms and operator command/control interface capabilities that allow the CCO to supervise the sup- ply of power throughout the system. The communications workstation may be one multifunc- tion workstation or several individual workstations with indi- cations, alarms, and command/control features as required to interface with the public address, operations and mainte- nance radio, and video surveillance (CCTV) systems. Typically all audio communications are monitored and recorded for future reference in the event of a system incident. Usually there is one master CCTV monitor at the workstation and a second monitor for selectable playback of recorded images. Typically a bank of video monitors displays continuous video images from throughout the system. Finally, there are often large monitors that show the system schematic and the location/ status of all trains and status of all stations. Depending on the size and complexity of the system, there is wide variation in the quantity, layout, location, and allocation of features, functions, and equipment within the CCF. A typical CCF, including a central control equipment room and a separate CCR, is shown in Figure 8.6-1. This sample layout is for a three-station, pinched-loop airport APM that operates four two-vehicle trains during peak operation, has an offline MSF, and a total fleet of 12 vehicles. The central con- trol console is designed for two CCOs: one to manage train operations and PDS, and the other to manage communica- tions, including CCTV and emergency telephones. A common area between the two CCO positions allows both to access the radio (operations and maintenance) and public address audio interfaces. 8.7 Power Distribution and Utilities APM systems require electric power to operate. Power is required for vehicle propulsion as well as for all controls and monitoring functions. Power is usually obtained from the local utility company, so coordination with the utility company is required from the planning stage of the project to ensure that sufficient power can be supplied at designated APM substation locations. An APM system needs to be designed to continue operating even if one PDS substation goes out of service. The PDS for propulsion and auxiliary loads is typically provided as part of the APM supplier’s scope of work. 8.7.1 Propulsion and System Power Electric power is required to propel vehicles (propulsion/ traction power) and energize system equipment. Propulsion and system power are typically configured such that system operation power will be supplied by power substations spaced along the guideway. The substations house transformers, recti- fiers (if required), and the primary and secondary switchgear power conditioning equipment. Power distribution can be provided either as three-phase AC or DC. The distance between substations for AC systems is limited to about 2,000 ft, whereas for DC systems the distance is typically limited to one mile. Housekeeping power for lights and convenience outlets is nor- mally distributed from general-purpose circuits located within the facilities housing APM system equipment. 78

8.7.2 Local Utility Interface Requirements In planning an APM system, an important element is the estimate of electrical power demand. Power demand is a func- tion of the length of the system, fleet size (particularly the peak period operating fleet), peak period train headways, type of vehicles and propulsion, and whether the PDS is AC or DC. Once the APM system alignment and the station locations are established, a train simulation must be run to establish the number and length of trains required to provide sufficient system capacity to meet the ridership demand. Data output from the train simulation is then used to perform a power analysis to determine the location, size, and quantity of sub- stations required to power the system. The power analysis typ- ically determines the utility feeder requirements and includes calculation of root-mean square (RMS) and peak loads at each substation and for the entire system. This is the minimum information required by the local utility company to plan and provide the necessary feeders at specified locations. The local utility company should be involved at the initial planning stage of the project. Coordination includes not only the power demand of the system and each substation, but also the location, redundancy requirements, interfaces, and divi- sion of responsibility between the local utility and the future APM supplier. The division of responsibility varies depending on the airport’s desires and prior agreements with the local utility. In some cases, the local utility’s responsibility ends at the closest utility vault, where the APM supplier will inter- face their primary power equipment, which is then typically connected by the local utility. In other cases, the local utility will provide the primary switchgear or may even provide the traction power transformers based on the system supplier requirements. In this case the local utility provides and main- tains the primary equipment on behalf of the airport. For an airport that has an electrical operating department, there may be existing arrangements between the airport and the supplying utility that would establish a framework for negotiations. The particular relationship that each airport has with its utility will determine the appropriate interface between the two entities. APM systems are designed to include sufficient redundancy to maintain specified system availability requirements, typi- cally 99% or greater. Thus the local utility is usually required to provide redundant power feeds: one used as the primary feed and the other as the secondary feed. In the event of a primary feed failure, switching equipment automatically switches to the 79 Source: Lea+Elliott, Inc. Figure 8.6-1. Example of typical CCF.

secondary feed until the primary feed power is available. This ensures that the primary power feeders do not present a single point of failure that would shut down system operation. 8.7.3 APM Substation Requirements Many factors must be considered to determine the APM sub- station quantities, electrical size, locations, and facility/space requirements. A key factor is whether the system will use AC or DC distribution, since their size and the length of guideway served by each differs considerably. The APM industry has moved primarily to DC distribution systems. AC distribution systems are typically now used only on smaller APM systems such as short shuttles. The advantage of using AC distribution is that the physical size of the substation is smaller than that for a DC substation. DC substations require more facility space because they require rectifiers and can provide power to longer guideway segments since there is less voltage drop per unit length compared with AC power. This equates to larger equipment sizing to accom- modate this increased load. AC distribution requires substa- tions at more frequent intervals, 2,000 ft or less, due to voltage drop. This requires more substations along the alignment as well as an increased number of feed points to the guideway. DC distribution can provide power to a much longer guideway: typically 5,000 ft or more between substations. Although a DC substation requires more and larger equipment, the greater distance between substations results in fewer substations and typically equates to significant cost savings. APM substations typically range in size from 500 KVA to 1500 KVA. The electrical size of the substation depends on several factors, including length of guideway being powered by the substation, minimum headway of the APM system, size of the trains (large or small APM vehicle, number of cars per train, etc.), and the train passenger load. 8.7.4 Station Auxiliary Power Requirements Each APM station has train control equipment, supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA), station platform doors, PA, CCTV, local auxiliary power distribution equipment, and other electrical equipment required for system operation and monitoring. As most of this equipment is critical to the opera- tion of the system, much or all of this auxiliary system power is provided through UPS. Electrical power, either from the APM traction power substations or airport-provided facilities, will charge batteries, which in turn power the equipment, so that if there is a power outage, the equipment will function for a given time period. Typically the station auxiliary power loads range from 25 KVA to 100 KVA, depending on the size and complex- ity of the system. For example, some APMs have track switches that may be powered, controlled, and monitored through the auxiliary power source. UPS systems are typically supplied as part of the APM system supplier’s scope of work. If there is a significant distance between stations, an inter- mediate remote equipment room may be required for train control equipment (and possibly switches) that serves this seg- ment of guideway. Remote auxiliary power would be needed for these loads. 8.7.5 Maintenance and Storage Facility Power Requirements The power requirements for both the MSF building and the APM-related equipment located therein must be considered in overall APM planning. Power requirements for the facility itself can range anywhere from 500 KVA to 1,000 KVA, depending on the size of the facility. This power is usually obtained from the local electric power company and is not part of the APM supplier’s scope of work. The APM-related equipment, main- tenance bay stingers, and propulsion power for guideway lead- ing into and out of the MSF is provided as part of the overall APM system. Depending on the size of the facility, the number of trains it can accommodate, and the quantity of electrical tools and equipment required to maintain the fleet, the power required can range between 250 KVA and 750 KVA on a typi- cal large APM system. 8.8 Appurtenant Facilities— Planning Criteria In addition to the major fixed facilities documented in this chapter, most APM systems also include the following mis- cellaneous facilities that can be categorized as appurtenant facilities. These include administrative offices, APM system equipment rooms, train wash facility (different types), and the train test track. Administrative offices—The APM system’s O&M staff requires space to conduct administrative functions. These administrative offices are commonly located within the maintenance facility or adjacent to the central control facility, but may be located at any location convenient to the particular operating requirements of the system. The functional requirements for the system’s administrative offices are typical of any professional office environment. While usually separate from maintenance personnel offices, efficiencies may be gained by sharing certain func- tional spaces such as a conference room. Specifically, the administrative offices should accommodate the following functions/spaces: lobby/reception area, private offices, support (cubicles), conference room, copy/file room, bathrooms, small kitchen, storage, and janitor’s closet. 80

Equipment rooms—Equipment rooms are typically located at each station, central control, the maintenance facility, and along the wayside as needed. These rooms house control and interface equipment for the station doors, dynamic signage, CCTV, automatic train control equip- ment, UPS equipment, PA system equipment, and other related electronic equipment. Although the specific layout of the rooms should be coordinated with the APM supplier’s specific equipment requirements, some general rules apply. Cable distribu- tion and wiring access either above or below the equip- ment should be considered during the room’s design. If below the equipment, then sufficient clear ceiling height is required. If above the equipment, a greater clear ceiling height is required. Specific heights should be determined on a case-by-case basis. A minimal clearance of approxi- mately 3 ft around the perimeter of all major equipment cabinets is required for access. Train wash facility—There are generally three types of train wash facilities that correlate with the size of the system and the overall vehicle fleet size. These facilities, in ascending order of sophistication, are as follows. • Hand wash facility—For small APM systems (particu- larly shuttles), a hand wash facility is adequate. The facility typically consists simply of an online designated area to wash the trains that is capable of containing, and properly draining, the wash water without overspray impacting the public or public areas. Washing may be accomplished totally by hand or with the aid of a pres- sure washer. It should be noted that even systems operating in a tunnel environment require occasional washing. • Gantry wash facility—A gantry wash is typically an offline, fully automatic wash facility where the vehicle remains stationary within a wash bay. The bay may be a partial enclosure or a small fully enclosed building. The wash can consist of high pressure wash and rinse or can incorporate spinning brushes that automati- cally move around the vehicle. Gantry washes are space efficient because they can offer fully automated washing. However, they typically accommodate only one vehicle at a time. Thus, systems with multi-car trains typically require uncoupling and coupling of vehicles in order to wash them. • Drive-through wash facility—A drive-through wash is typically an offline, fully automatic wash facility where the train drives by fixed washing devices. As with gantry washes, a drive-through wash facility may incorporate high pressure wash and rinse with water only, or for highest effectiveness, may incor- porate spinning brushes. In this case, the brushes typically spin in a fixed position as the train moves past them. The ideal location for a drive-through wash is on the same section of guideway that serves as either the receiving or departure tracks within a main- tenance yard. This location will allow all incoming or outgoing trains to pass through the wash facility without the need of a separate, or additional, section of guideway. Test track—A test track is a dedicated offline guideway used for the testing of trains to ensure that they are ready for passenger service. A test track is not applica- ble to smaller shuttle systems since all maintenance and testing occurs online. For larger systems with an offline maintenance facility, a test track provides a desirable maintenance tool. These test tracks are typi- cally located directly adjacent to or as part of the maintenance facility yard. Ideally, the test track should be straight and level and allow maximum length trains to accelerate and decelerate to and from maximum cruise speed, thus allowing for brake testing. The down- side of such test tracks is their space requirement and associated capital (system and facility) costs. Some air- port environments may not have the physical space available to accommodate such a test track. In such cases, some aspects of the trains’ electronic, electro-mechanical, and physical functions must be tested online without passengers. 8.9 Safety and Security Planning Criteria Airport APMs are transport elements that are critical to air- port operations. Thus the safety and security of the APM system and infrastructure, and its passengers, maintenance personnel, and all other persons that enter the APM environment, are of paramount importance. 8.9.1 Comprehensive Approach to APM System Safety and Security Airports usually have a comprehensive approach to safety and security; the APM should be included as an integral part of this program. Any APM safety and security program should be continuous, from the start of planning, through procurement, detailed design, installation, testing and certifi- cation, and passenger service. The safety and security philoso- phies of current APM system suppliers and contractors have evolved from the rail transit, aerospace, and defense indus- tries, as well as occupational safety. Working in an airport also requires a clear understanding of the safety and security principles of the aviation industry, particularly with respect to construction safety within the airport environment and FAA/TSA security at the airport. 81

Comprehensive APM system safety and security programs typically include the following components: • System safety program plan (SSPP), • System security plan (SSP), • Design safety principles, • Hazard resolution process, • System verification and demonstration, • System safety certification, • Construction safety program, • Employee safety program, • Emergency preparedness program, • System operation plans and procedures, • System maintenance plans and procedures, • System training program, • System operational monitoring plan, and • Accident reporting. In the United States, the American Society of Civil Engi- neers (ASCE) has created and published ASCE Standard 21 (Automated People Mover Standards). Part 1, Section 3 (ASCE 21-05) addresses safety and performance requirements that apply to APM systems. ASCE published a safety and security standard that included requirements that address federal and state regulations for independent safety oversight agencies. Safety and security programs should also adhere to ASCE 21, Part 4 (ASCE 21.4-08). If required by legislation or regulation, the APM safety and security programs could be subject to the requirements of 49 CFR Part 659 (State Safety Oversight of Fixed Guideway Transit Systems), including the specific requirements for System Safety Program of Subpart 659.15. Although most airport APM systems do not fall under the definition of a fixed guideway transit system, some states have applied these federal regulations to APM systems that are within the juris- diction of their safety oversight agency (SOA), and this can include airport APMs. 8.9.2 System Safety System safety is the process, design, and procedures to verify, validate, and certify the safety of the APM system. Construction safety and occupational safety are generally not included under system safety, but are of equal impor- tance and are typically considered in the design and phas- ing of an APM system. Fully automated, driverless APM systems have significant safety considerations beyond the typical requirements for manually driven systems and/or automated transit systems with onboard personnel. In addition to safety features typically employed in other forms of passenger transport, driverless APM systems require the following safety considerations: • Improved vehicle guidance equipment, • Tipping stability and/or derailment prevention, • Automatic train control, • Restricted speed controls for manual operations, • Automatic doors with closed-and-locked detection, • Detection of propulsion and braking failures, • Detection of suspension failures, including wheel diame- ters and flat tires, • Provisions against intrusions into the guideway, • Provisions against obstacles and debris on the guideway, • Onboard emergency telephones and onboard public address systems, • Provisions and procedures for evacuations by passengers, • Regular testing and maintenance, and • Readiness drills related to safety and emergencies. All possible hazards related to the particular design of the APM system must be considered in the system safety process. The application of ATC and restricted manual speed controls is often considered to allow a reduction in provisions against collisions with trains, end-of-line buffers, and other equip- ment. Proper design analysis and hazard assessment are crit- ical in the design and review of vehicle crashworthiness. APM system safety should not depend on the ability or actions of operating personnel. Special procedures may be necessary to provide passenger safety under certain condi- tions. For any hazardous condition or emergency, all design conflicts should be resolved in favor of human safety. A haz- ard management process should be implemented to identify and resolve hazards and safety issues throughout the life of the system. System safety must be the primary design requirement for an APM system. The entire system must operate safely under all conditions. This includes special designs for safety-critical components; fail-safe or redundant equipment and controls; highly reliable parts; warning devices; failure sensors, instru- mentation, and alarms; and fire and smoke detection. Such equipment must be tested frequently, be properly maintained, and also be recalibrated and/or replaced on a periodic basis. 8.9.3 System Safety Program Plan Typically, the airport is required to develop an SSPP to iden- tify the processes used to address safety during the construc- tion, implementation, and operation of the APM. The SSPP addresses Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) standards and other regulatory requirements, includ- ing airport safety management and reporting procedures. The SSPP should also state the legislative or regulatory authority by which the airport is mandated to develop and enforce safety and security requirements. Enforcement by any SOAs should also be indicated. 82

The airport should require the APM supplier to develop a technology-specific SSPP. This would expand the airport’s SSPP to include: (1) designation of the contractor’s safety man- ager, (2) safety roles and responsibilities for all parties, (3) the hazard identification and resolution process, and (4) an inter- nal safety policy for the commitment of resources. 8.9.4 System Security Plan The APM is often a primary transportation mode for air- port passengers and employees. The airport should update its security plans and security incident response procedures to include the APM, particularly with respect to airport security, passenger segregation issues, and security of the APM equip- ment and infrastructure. In the United States, these security plans and procedures are subject to the jurisdiction of the FAA, Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the TSA, and in some cases, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). Sensitive information in these security plans may need to be released to the airport project personnel and the APM supplier to be incorporated into the APM system and its technology-specific SSP. 8.9.5 Emergency Preparedness Program The airport should update its emergency response proce- dures to include the APM with respect to emergency response coordination, airport security, and passenger segregation issues, as well as the security of the APM equipment and infrastructure. The airport should also develop an emergency preparedness program for the APM itself. This should address the duties of the APM operator and all emergency respon- ders for each type of emergency, and safety and security alarms. This program should define the requirements for notification of emergency responders such as fire, rescue, police, and other airport personnel. This emergency pre- paredness program should also address personnel training and the conduct of emergency readiness drills, and should be closely coordinated with airport emergency procedures and airport security procedures. 8.9.6 Safety Oversight Requirements Depending upon the jurisdiction, APM safety and secu- rity practices may be subject to regulatory oversight by a transportation safety board (TSB), SOA, public utilities commission (PUC), and/or other regulatory authority. Many APMs are operated by self-regulated airport author- ities that are not subject to regional or local oversight. In some of these cases, the APM supplier could be subject to safety oversight even when the airport authority is not reg- ulated by such an agency. Safety Oversight in the United States Safety oversight of fixed guideway transit systems is required at the state government level under 49 CFR Part 659 when there is a similar transit system operating within that state. States are exempted from these requirements if the transit system is subject to a multi-state safety oversight agency. APM systems are not included under the federal defini- tion of “fixed guideway transit systems” unless the airport has received funding from the Federal Transit Administra- tion (FTA). APM systems can be considered to be a fixed guideway transit system if the FTA includes the APM system mileage as a part of the FTA’s mileage formula for that state. Some other APM systems are still regulated by an SOA or another regulatory authority because of state legislative mandates or precedents prior to the enactment of 49 CFR Part 659. APM systems in the United States are subject to some level of safety oversight in a number of states, including California, Colorado, Florida, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania. Some states actively monitor APM safety certification and pro- vide regulatory safety oversight, while others are active during APM certification but do not conduct annual or triennial safety audits for APM systems. Independent Oversight of APM Systems The requirements of 49 CFR Part 659 set a strong prece- dent for independent oversight of transit system safety and security processes and performance. Airports should con- sider developing a system operational monitoring plan that addresses all of the requirements for transit agencies as con- tained within 49 CFR Part 659. If the airport is not subject to state safety oversight, many of the requirements for the SOA within 49 CFR Part 659 should be considered for application in the APM project. 8.10 System Level of Service Ridership, system capacity, and system technology will yield, through computation, the level of service experienced by passengers. This can be expressed quantitatively in several ways, including: • Walk distances; • Wait times; • Travel times; • Trip times (wait time plus travel time); and • Other experience factors, such as ease of boarding/alighting, noise environment, visual environment, climate control, and safety/security. 83

Optimizing the passenger experience is the focus of many APM planning methodologies. For an airside APM at a hub- bing airport requiring quick and convenient gate-to-gate con- nections, the passenger experience on the APM can be critical to the airport’s success. To the extent possible, methodologies that measure passenger level of service should be quantitatively based. Passenger LOS can be categorized as levels A through F, or varying degrees thereof. This methodology has evolved from pedestrian LOS work in mass transit pioneered by John J. Fruin and more recent airport-specific work by IATA. When quantitative means of measurement are not possible, planning methodologies may use qualitative criteria. Quantita- tive LOS analysis using levels A–F typically focus on passenger densities—either static density in queues or dynamic density of passenger circulation. Examples of APM planning methodologies that focus on passenger LOS are provided in other subsections for align- ments, ridership, technology assessments, stations, and train operations. For each of these areas, passenger LOS is a mea- surement of the passenger experience on the APM transport system. LOS measures include: • Passenger crowding: density—space for each passenger; • Trip time: minimizing total trip time, especially the wait-time component of trip time; • Work effort: minimizing walk distances, steps, level changes, baggage lifting, and so on; • Ride comfort: minimizing lateral forces on a passenger due to horizontal and vertical curves, as well as acceleration and deceleration; and • Simplicity: maximizing the ease of use. 8.11 Capital Cost Estimation Once the physical characteristics of the APM system are defined, estimates can be developed for the cost to build, install, and test the system. These estimates are typically developed on a subsystem-by-subsystem basis, with appro- priate contingencies to reflect uncertainties. The use of cost data from prior competitive procurements is of great rele- vance during this task. When buses or other roadway solu- tions are considered, estimates must include any special roadways that may be required. The complexities of APM systems make their cost estima- tion complex. For planning purposes, a cost estimate does not need to be as detailed as a budgetary estimate. APM planners should, however, recognize that the first number decision makers see will be the ones they expect later when a budgetary estimate is made. The cost estimates used in the initial plan- ning of an airport APM should be representative of the rela- tive differences between each alternative. The emphasis in this section is on estimating costs of the APM system (equipment) as opposed to the civil structures, which follow more typical facility cost estimation methodologies (quantity takeoffs). 8.11.1 Historical Perspective Cost estimating for the procurement of APM systems is a complex process. Each APM technology is proprietary and functionally unique; therefore, it can be impractical to use traditional cost-estimating methods to develop a budget for a particular application. Usually, it has been more efficient to develop price models based on the unit prices derived from line items and lump sums from similar past projects. In the past, the majority of airport APMs have been pro- cured with DB contracts, which place nearly all of the risk asso- ciated with APM system equipment on the APM supplier. This risk value can be quantified and should be included in the price estimate for the APM supplier. Soft costs for airport adminis- tration and project management, as well as design and con- struction contingencies, should be estimated separately. The most accurate cost projections are based on historical data that cover unit prices for major subsystems and compo- nents, thereby reducing the contingency value needed for unknown elements. It is possible to develop valid budgetary cost estimates using lump sum costs or contingency factors for minor cost elements. It is also possible to use real unit prices for the major cost elements. 8.11.2 Capital Cost Elements There are a number of capital cost elements of an APM sys- tem used for detailed cost estimates. These elements relate to the APM subsystems and include: • Guideway equipment; • Station equipment; • Maintenance and storage equipment; • Power distribution system; • Command, control, and communication systems; • Vehicles; • Other APM equipment; • APM system verification and acceptance; and • Project management and administration. Many cost aspects of the first four elements involve structures and facilities that are not specific to proprietary APM systems. Contract packaging issues should be considered in the develop- ment of budgetary cost estimates for the APM system. 8.11.3 Capital Cost Estimate Methodology Capital cost estimating for an APM system is typically based on historical data from similar APM system installations. As 84

no two APM systems are exactly alike, historical data must be processed carefully with respect to several factors that affect the bid prices; including: Landside/airside—The costs of construction activities at airports vary based on whether the project is located within any of the airport operations area (AOA), secure passenger areas, sterile international passenger areas, main terminal areas, or landside areas. Project costs are also affected by the complexity of construction access between these areas. The historical costs of APM systems generally reflect these complexities. Local airport plan- ners and engineers are generally the best source for facil- ity costs, structure costs, and other civil costs within the airport environment. Competition—Worldwide, there are a finite number of APM suppliers, and not all can bid on any particular project. The projected level of competition has been found to have a significant effect on the cost proposals from APM suppliers. Therefore, the impact of competi- tion must be considered in normalizing of historical costs of APM systems to the level of supplier competi- tion expected for the APM system under consideration. For APM shuttle systems, the additional competition from cable-propelled technologies may significantly affect the prices of self-propelled APM vehicle technolo- gies. The competitive factor decreases as the length of the shuttle system increases since the cost of cables and cable drives becomes more expensive. Business strategy—Bidding strategies among APM suppli- ers vary widely on an individual bid and have varied over time with individual suppliers. An APM supplier’s bid price on a project takes into account its costs (material and labor) and profit as well as other overhead factors such as marketing and retaining staff between projects. Other factors influencing a specific bid include overall corporate profitability, expectations of competing suppli- ers’ bid prices, available manufacturing capacity, and long-term dedication to the APM marketplace. An estab- lished supplier may underbid a project to maintain their market position. A supplier new to the APM field with a strong corporate backing may underbid a project to get a foothold in the marketplace so they can later show rel- evant APM experience, which is an important criterion in many APM supplier selections. Finally, as many procure- ments tie together the capital cost bid with the initial (i.e., years 1–5) O&M cost bid, some suppliers may underbid the capital cost but expect to make it up on the O&M bid or even plan to make it up on the subsequent O&M work when there is limited or no competition. System headways and train length—The costs of wayside ATC, power distribution segmentation, traction power substation capacity, and related automated functions at central control become more complex with larger operating fleets, longer train consists (vehicles/train), and shorter system headways. Train length and passenger capacity is also a factor in the cost of station platform size, automatic platform door systems, and vertical circulation at stations. Historical cost data should be normalized with respect to such system complexity. Transportation costs—Historically, transportation costs have been relatively low compared to other APM cost ele- ments, and are generally embedded in unit prices. Almost all of the equipment from the APM system supplier will need to be transported long distances, including some from other countries. Transportation costs associ- ated with APM vehicles and other APM equipment should be calculated and added to unit costs, or as an additive to the subtotals. Warranty life—For most APM systems, the warranty period begins upon the commencement of revenue service. For many subsystems, standard warranties generally begin when the APM supplier purchases the equipment from the manufacturer. Commencement of revenue service may be 12 to 24 months beyond the standard warranty, and in many cases, extended warranties are not available from manufacturers. Longer construction cycles may result in significantly higher warranty pricing from the APM supplier. Contract packaging—APM systems are generally devel- oped as a critical part of a major airport redevelopment program or a new terminal project. The work breakdown between the APM contractor, civil contractors working on APM structures and facilities, and other related facil- ity contractors can affect the accuracy of the cost estimate. Program costs are affected due to duplications or omis- sions in different cost estimates. Assignment of risk—The typical procurement of an APM system usually results in most of the risks—tangible and intangible—being assigned to the APM supplier. It is possible to reduce the risks to the supplier, particularly in areas related to construction of facilities and structures (e.g., utility relocation). This risk factor is closely tied to the procurement packaging approaches discussed in Sec- tion 10.3. Risk-related contract terms and conditions such as liquidated damages, consequential damages, and insurance also can have a significant cost impact. Taxes—Some airports are exempt from state and local taxes. Those that are not exempt can expect a cost increase of 5 to 10 percent to account for such taxes. Escalation—Historical APM price data can be outdated, given the limited number of projects in any year. Escala- tion factors such as the consumer price index (CPI) can be used to convert unit prices from earlier projects to the 85

present. This should include the effect of the project duration (midpoint estimate basis, for example). Recent (2007–2008) significant cost increases in materials (steel, copper, concrete, etc.) and labor should be considered in any escalation factors. Currencies—As a worldwide marketplace, the APM indus- try is impacted by exchange rates of different curren- cies. Even the North American suppliers procure some of their equipment from abroad. Recent experiences (2005–2008) with the relative strength of the dollar versus the Euro and Yen have resulted in much higher prices than previously experienced. The impact of fluc- tuating currencies should be considered for certain cost categories. All these factors combine to make an accurate cost estimate a challenging exercise for any airport. While historical cost normalization is a preferred methodology compared to stan- dard cost estimates, a major challenge is the collection of such historical data and the project-specific details associated with that data. There are a number of general steps involved in develop- ing a capital cost for an APM system: Cost element quantification—Each of the major cost ele- ments should be evaluated and selected with respect to units of measurement, quantities, lump sums, or per- centages. Some cost elements can be consolidated into larger groups. Quantities for each of the major cost ele- ments should be calculated or computed using prelimi- nary designs and analytical models. Optional features should be evaluated and included, as appropriate. When designs are not available for some subsystems, analytical models should be used to determine the quantities or complexity—for example, for the ATC system. Traction power simulations or power-flow models should be used to determine typical spacing requirements for traction power substations. Platform coverage analyses should be used to estimate requirements for public address speak- ers and CCTV cameras. Cost element categorization (standard/historical)—Each of the selected cost elements should be analyzed with respect to whether standard cost estimating or historical data will produce a more accurate result. In general, his- torical costs are more accurate for APM system elements, whereas standard cost estimating is more accurate for civil and structural elements. Normalization of historical data—Historical data should be normalized with respect to economies of scale, addi- tives, competition, and currency. Data for major cost ele- ments from different projects often include additives such as design, installation, system testing, training, standard warranties, and subcontractor markups (such as insur- ance, profit, and contingency). If the cost estimate is based on a price model, it is not necessary to normalize all of these factors, but rather to account for any major price impacts, which could be done simply in varying the con- tingency factor. Inflation and escalation—Inflation and escalation should be computed for standard costs and historical costs. Infla- tion factors should be based on the R. S. Means Building Cost Index (BCI), R. S. Means Construction Cost Index (CCI), or the producer price index (PPI) for the relevant production category. For structures and facilities that can be procured locally, unit costs should also be normalized for the local conditions based on the appropriate BCI or CCI ratios. Standard unit costs should also be escalated to the midpoint of construction using an appropriate rate. Historical unit data are generally inflated from the project bid dates, but also need to be normalized for the midpoint of construction if the duration of the proj- ect is anticipated to be much shorter or longer than a typical APM installation. Additives—Standard cost estimate additives should be determined. Design, installation, testing, project manage- ment, profit, insurance, bonds, permits and licenses, taxes, and warranties should be calculated and added to unit costs, or as an additive to the subtotals. Many of these items are generally included in the historical cost data for APM system verification and acceptance and project management and administration. Line item cost estimation—For historical cost elements, values for the selected cost items can be estimated using quantities and normalized, escalated unit costs. When mixed with historical cost elements, standard cost ele- ments should include additives already included in the normalized data. Contingency—Standard risk methodology should be used to assign contingency factors to APM system categories. Separate contingency factors should be considered for any civil work performed under the APM contract. Risk assigned to the APM supplier should be considered part of the APM contract. An additional factor for program contingency may also be needed for airport contract management, as well as for any project risk taken by the airport. Formatting—Completed cost estimates may need to be revised to reflect the airport’s preferred format or a format required by another funding agency. Typical cost formats that may be required at certain airports are the Construc- tion Specification Institute (CSI) MasterFormat, the FAA Cost Basis of Estimate (BOE), and the FTA Standard Cost Categories (SCC) formats. APM system data is usually in a different format and might not easily be converted into 86

these formats; it is therefore included as a single, separate contract price. The capital cost estimate is often the most important APM analysis performed during the planning process. An overly conservative (too high) estimate can unnecessarily terminate an otherwise viable project, while a low estimate will have negative repercussions once capital prices are received from suppliers. It is recommended that the estimate be compared with cost of the most similar recent APM implementations. 8.12 Operations and Maintenance Cost Estimation Estimates should be developed for the operating and main- tenance costs associated with the planned APM system. In developing the estimated O&M costs, it is important that timing issues are properly considered. System operation and maintenance activities will continue for many years. Most often, future costs for all alternatives are discounted to arrive at a present value, which can be combined with the estimated system capital costs to establish a theoretical total cost for the alternative. When buses or other roadway solutions are consid- ered, estimates must include the costs associated with their use of airport roadways, such as increased roadway maintenance. Estimating O&M costs for an airport APM has many of the same complexities as estimating capital costs. The proprietary nature of APM technologies, the competitive climate, contract requirements, and the differences between different supplier technologies will often lead to estimating costs for a generic APM technology, while the historical data is technology spe- cific. Access to historical O&M cost data and an understanding of the specific APM suppliers, their operations, and the previ- ous project’s contract/competitive situation is necessary for accurate estimation of O&M costs. 8.12.1 Operations and Maintenance Cost Elements There are a number of primary cost categories or elements commonly used in the buildup of an O&M cost estimate for an APM system, including: • Parts and consumables; • Traction power consumption; • Guideway heating and rail heating power consumption; • Operations staffing, including dispatching and operations supervisors; • Electrical, mechanical, and electronics technicians; • Maintenance support staff; • Inventory control and purchasing staff; • Management and administration; • Technical support; and • Utilities. The methodology for O&M budgetary cost estimating is closely related to operations planning. The following steps are recommended for preparing an O&M budget: Fleet mileage computation—Daily and weekly peak, off- peak, and night period demand is the basis of determin- ing operating fleet size during these periods. Annual fleet mileage should be computed using the hourly fleet size projections, including any effect for ramp-up and ramp-down between service modes. Energy consump- tion, consumables, and part consumption can be calcu- lated from the annual fleet mileage. Total fleet is a combination of the required operating fleet, stand-by train(s), and a number of spare vehicles undergoing scheduled maintenance procedures. Maintenance staffing requirements—The annual fleet mileage should be distributed among the vehicles in the fleet, including any special vehicle utilization require- ments. Annual maintenance requirements and mainte- nance cycles should be calculated from the annual vehicle mileage. The number of spare vehicles should be used in determining maintenance staffing requirements. Support staffing for vehicle hostling and cleaning ser- vices is also required. Small spare fleet sizes and shuttle systems typically require off-peak maintenance activities, which increase maintenance staffing and related man- agement staffing. Fleet impact on O&M costs—The fleet size of an APM sys- tem directly impacts O&M costs. Fewer spare vehicles may require much of the vehicle maintenance activities to be performed in the off-peak hours, often in turn requiring a third maintenance shift with significant addi- tional personnel and higher average wages. Historical data related to staffing requirements and wages should be normalized with respect to fleet size. Operational staffing requirements—Daily and weekly peak and off-peak operational schedules can be used to determine the basic operation staff requirements. Addi- tional technicians are typically required for recovery and emergency response. Operations of more than 18 hours per day and small spare fleet sizes often require complex staffing schedules, with three shifts or significant amounts of overtime. Weather-related activities—For at-grade and elevated APMs, historical weather tables from NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) and/or ASHRAE (American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers) should be used to esti- mate the effect of weather-related events, such as snow, 87

ice, and high winds. These events determine the cost impact for guideway heating, emergency shutdown, and backup operations. Technical assistance—Due to system complexity, spe- cialty engineering support from the APM system sup- plier and its major subcontractors often is required on an as-needed basis. These costs are generally included as a lump sum. Mobilization, training, and demobilization—In many cases, the airport contracts work by the APM system sup- plier or a third party for operation, maintenance, and/or technical support. The price of such contracting will include the cost of mobilization, training, and demobiliza- tion. Mobilization, staffing increases, and training may be amortized over the entire contract, whereas demobiliza- tion is usually accounted only during the final year of a contract. These costs should be included in the O&M budgetary cost estimates. Normalization of historical data—Historical data should be normalized with respect to fleet and staffing size, addi- tives, competition, and currency. It is not necessary to normalize all of these factors since some can be accounted for in the contingency factor. Inflation and escalation—Inflation and escalation should be computed for standard cost and historical costs. Infla- tion factors can be based on the CPI or the locally pre- scribed standard inflation factor. Inflation for parts and consumables can be based on the PPI for the relevant production category. Additives—Standard cost estimate additives should be determined. Project management, profit, insurance, bonds, permits and licenses, taxes, and warranties should be calculated and added to unit costs, or as an additive to the subtotals. Contingency—Standard risk methodology should be used to assign contingency factors for operations and main- tenance. Risk assigned to the APM contractor or a third party should be considered part of the O&M contract. System overhead—There should be a separate estimate of airport management and overhead costs. These can be labor, utilities, and general overhead (often a set percentage). 8.13 Resulting APM System Definition The APM system that results from the above level of design is now ready to be procured. The system has now been defined to the level necessary to develop performance-based technical specifications as part of an overall procurement package that the airport will then put out to the APM supply industry for tender. The purpose of the planning process for an APM is to con- firm the viability of the APM system and, if viable, identify characteristics and costs of the APM system to a degree that will allow the airport to: • Confirm and provide proper and adequate funding for the APM, and • Develop the APM procurement documents. The planning process and its resulting APM system defini- tion provide parameters accurate enough for developing the planning-level estimates of the APM system’s initial capital costs and ongoing O&M costs. Cost estimates to this level of detail then allow the airport to place the APM project in its capital budgeting process. For more information on funding and finance, see Section 9.3. The planning process also results in parameters for APM procurement documents, including system performance spec- ifications. Performance specifications are commonly used in APM procurements, as opposed to a standard CSI specifica- tion. The CSI specification is typically used for conventional construction projects. An APM performance specification tells the APM supplier what to design but not exactly how to design it. See Chapter 10 on APM system procurement for more information. 88

Next: Chapter 9 - Project Coordination, Justification, and Feasibility »
Guidebook for Planning and Implementing Automated People Mover Systems at Airports Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) Report 37: Guidebook for Planning and Implementing Automated People Mover Systems at Airports includes guidance for planning and developing automated people mover (APM) systems at airports. The guidance in the report encompasses the planning and decision-making process, alternative system infrastructure and technologies, evaluation techniques and strategies, operation and maintenance requirements, coordination and procurement requirements, and other planning and development issues.

The guidebook includes an interactive CD that contains a database of detailed characteristics of the 44 existing APM systems. The CD is also available for download from TRB’s website as an ISO image. Links to the ISO image and instructions for burning a CD-ROM from an ISO image are provided below.

Help on Burning an .ISO CD-ROM Image

Download the .ISO CD-ROM Image

In March 2012, TRB released ACRP Report 37A: Guidebook for Measuring Performance of Automated People Mover Systems at Airports as a companion to ACRP Report 37. ACRP Report 37A is designed to help measure the performance of automated people mover (APM) systems at airports.

In June 2012, TRB released ACRP Report 67: Airport Passenger Conveyance Systems Planning Guidebook that offers guidance on the planning and implementation of passenger conveyance systems at airports.

(Warning: This is a large file that may take some time to download using a high-speed connection.)

Disclaimer: The CD-ROM is offered as is, without warranty or promise of support of any kind either expressed or implied. Under no circumstance will the National Academy of Sciences or the Transportation Research Board (collectively “TRB’) be liable for any loss or damage caused by the installation or operation of this product. TRB makes no representation or warranty of any kind, expressed or implied, in fact or in law, including without limitation, the warranty of merchantability or the warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, and shall not in any case be liable for any consequential or special damages.

  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!