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

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.

7This chapter provides a history of APM systems with an emphasis on airport APMs. The initial airside and landside airport APMs are then described in detail, followed by a more general description of the evolving role of both airside and landside systems over the last four decades. 3.1 History of Airport APM Systems 3.1.1 Origins of Driverless Transport The first APM in the world was probably built in Salzburg, Austria, at the Festung Hohensalzburg in the 1500s, and is still in use today. Der Reiszug (“the trip”) was constructed for the transportation of food to a castle on a hill. The system was 625 ft long on a 67% slope. Early in the 17th century, this sys- tem transported building materials used to expand the facil- ity. It is assumed that the original system was driverless; thus, in many ways it is similar to current APM systems. It consists of two cars connected by a cable. It uses onboard water tanks and gravity for propulsion. The tank in the car at the upper station is filled with water until its weight exceeds that of the lower car, then the brakes are released and the cars move and exchange positions. 3.1.2 Beginnings of Modern APMs Some of the earliest modern-day APM concepts were devel- oped in the 1950s when General Motors investigated driverless vehicles on separate guideways. Later in that same decade, the New York City Transit Authority briefly demonstrated an automated people mover operation along 42nd Street between Times Square and Grand Central Station. About a decade later, Westinghouse Electric Corporation developed an APM technology called Skybus with federal fund- ing provided by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Skybus utilized transistor technology, rubber tires, and center guidebeam guidance. The system was called the South Park Demonstration Project for the Port Authority of Allegheny County (PAAC). It operated between 1965 and 1966, and while Pittsburgh’s urban transportation experiment did not survive, Westinghouse further developed the Skybus tech- nology and implemented a later version at Tampa International Airport 5 years later as the first airport APM. During the 1970s, U.S. defense contractors diversified into transportation. Boeing supplied APM vehicles for the Mor- gantown (West Virginia University) automated system in 1975. LTV Aerospace Corporation became an APM supplier C H A P T E R 3 History of APM Systems and Their Roles at Airports Photo: www.pghbridges.com PAAC Skybus Demonstration Project Dallas/Fort Worth Airport AIRTRANS Photo: Lea+Elliott, Inc.

with an extensive project at the Dallas/Fort Worth Airport (DFW), the 13-mile AIRTRANS system. Although the inter- est of these aerospace manufacturers in transit technology was short-lived, the systems they built were not; AIRTRANS oper- ated over 30 years at one of the busiest airports in the world while the Morgantown personal rapid transit (PRT) system is still in daily use at the West Virginia University campus. The U.S. federal government’s Downtown People Mover Demonstration Program encouraged cities to build APMs as downtown circulators. Initially, four first-tier cities were selected and received federal funding grants. None of these systems were built. A second round of grants included Miami and Detroit; these systems were built opening in 1985 and 1987, respectively. Although the U.S. government’s investment dur- ing the 1960s and 1970s in new systems research and develop- ment was aimed at urban applications, APMs would go on to achieve greater success at airports throughout the world. Starting with Tampa in 1971 and continuing to the present day, APMs have been instrumental in overcoming the prob- lem of the growing scale of airports in terms of geometry and passenger volumes. In Japan, a strong interest in APMs from government and industrial organizations began to develop in the early 1970s. LTV Aerospace licensed its AIRTRANS technology to Niigata Engineering Company, which made several key improvements. Subsequently, the Japanese government adopted this technol- ogy as its standard for self-propelled APMs, and other Japa- nese suppliers, including Kawasaki and Mitsubishi, entered the APM business. In the ensuing years both urban and air- port APMs flourished in Japan. Airport APMs have been installed at the Tokyo–Narita (cable-propelled) and Osaka– Kansai (standard self-propelled) airports; urban APMs have been built in Osaka, Kobe, Tokyo, and Yokohama. Mitsubishi has airport airside APMs operating at Hong Kong and Wash- ington Dulles; has several airside systems under construction at Miami, Dubai, and Singapore Changi airports; and a land- side airport system is now operating at Atlanta International Airport. Niigata has built a system at the Taipei Interna- tional Airport. APM development in Japan has been distinctly different from that in North America and Europe in terms of their stan- dardization. In Japan, one supplier can build on another’s system, whereas APM systems developed elsewhere are pro- prietary and very different from one another and are not inter- changeable. In Canada, the Urban Transportation Development Cor- poration (UTDC) developed a new automated streetcar/light rail transit (LRT) vehicle technology for Toronto following an extensive study of automated guideway systems. The resulting Automated Light Rail Transit (ALRT) is characterized by auto- mated operations, steel wheel (steel rail suspension and guid- ance), and linear induction motors. After the first application in Toronto, UTDC went on to implement the ALRT technol- ogy for the Detroit (urban) People Mover and the Vancouver Sky Train. UTDC was later acquired by other Canadian com- panies: first SNC/Lavalin and then Bombardier. Bombardier 8 Photo: Lea+Elliott, Inc. Detroit Downtown People Mover During the 1970s and early 1980s, much progress was made in other countries, most notably in European countries and Japan and Canada. While these decades saw many new airport and some urban APMs in the United States, development in other countries focused more on urban transit applications. In 1983 Matra’s Véhicule Automatique Léger (vehicle automated light or VAL) system opened in Lille, France, with 8.2 miles of guideway and 18 stations. VAL APMs and many of its associated technological advances, especially automated train control, were subsequently deployed at other urban and airport applications in France. The latest version of the tech- nology was deployed at Paris CDG International Airport in 2007. In the United States, the VAL technology has operated at Chicago O’Hare since the early 1990s. Photo: www.usa.siemens.com Matra VAL in Lille, France

used APM technology as an integral part of their configura- tion for airside and landside connections. The second driver of APM growth was the inadequacy of existing transport technologies. The technologies most often used for transporting people in high-volume environments did not meet this emerging airport need. Moving walks, stan- dard rail transit, and bus transit technologies had all evolved to meet certain conveyance needs, but not the specific needs of airports. This new airport conveyance requirement was for high passenger volumes (with baggage) over the now longer but still relatively short distances (1,000 to 5,000 ft). Specifi- cally, other technologies failed to meet the emerging airport conveyance needs because: • Moving walks could not accommodate the high volumes generated by multiple aircraft arrivals and could not meet the trip time or walk distance thresholds for longer distances. • Standard light or heavy rail required longer headways, larger tunnel diameters or elevated track structures, longer board/ alight times, open platforms exposing passengers and bag- gage to the trough below (power rail), could not take advan- tage of their higher speeds due to short station spacing, and had less train capacity flexibility. • Transit buses required a vertical level change to the apron level, multiple steps in boarding and alighting the vehicle, and often exposed passengers to the elements during board- ing and alighting. Bus routes were more circuitous and safety concerns arose with buses crossing active aircraft taxilanes. The third driver behind the emergence of APM technology was the advent of improved APM technologies, particularly the transistor and solid-state technology. Integrated circuits allowed the complex control equipment required for the safe and reliable operation of a smaller vehicle (typically 30- to 40-foot long) to be compact and lightweight enough to easily fit on the vehicle. The necessary control and vital safety equipment could now be built into modules to be used for propulsion, braking, and door controls, as well as monitoring the perfor- mance of these subsystems. Microprocessors and software- based train control have continued to evolve and expand the capabilities of APMs and other forms of fixed guideway transit. 3.1.4 The First Airport Airside and Landside APMs The first airport airside APM at Tampa and the first landside APM at Dallas/Fort Worth are worthy of special discussion. The factors behind the decisions to implement revolutionary new passenger transport systems illuminate the general airport planning process that is described in detail in Chapter 5. Both systems are described in greater detail in Appendix B along with the other airport APM systems in operation today. 9 Photo: www.bombardier.com New York–JFK AirTrain expanded the vehicle size (ALRT II) and added a new line and fleet in Vancouver and is constructing the urban Putra Line in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. The ALRT II technology was also implemented at New York–JFK International Airport in an extensive landside system called AirTrain. 3.1.3 Drivers of the Driverless The emergence and growth of APMs at airports since the early 1970s can be attributed to three major factors, or drivers: (1) the increase in airport passenger volumes and the resulting expansion of airport terminal facilities, (2) shortcomings of existing transport technologies to meet advancing airport con- veyance requirements, and (3) improvements in APM-related technologies, particularly solid-state command-and-control components. The first driver, airport passenger volumes, increased sub- stantially in the United States during the late 1970s and 1980s. The advent of the U.S. Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 was a big reason for this increase. Competition among the U.S. air- lines took the form of lower ticket prices and greater numbers of flights. While domestic enplanements had increased an average of just 4.1% annually from 1970 to 1975, this jumped to 6.4% annually in the succeeding 15-year period. Enplane- ments rose from 170 million in 1970 to 466 million in 1990. New so-called “discount” airlines emerged in the early 1980s and helped fuel this increase. Airlines began transitioning their operations from point-to-point service to hub-and-spoke service with one or two airports serving as an airline’s hub and multiple spokes serving feeder airports. Passengers traveling between two spoke airports would depart the origin spoke airport, land at a hub airport, then transfer to another flight bound for the destination spoke airport. Airline hubbing operations increased passenger conveyance needs significantly at the hub airports. In addition, the growth of passenger vol- umes overwhelmed the older terminal facilities at some air- ports, necessitating the addition of other terminal buildings and satellites for which the APM was well-suited to act as an efficient connector. Some airports/new airport terminals built in the 1970s, like Tampa, Orlando, and Dallas/Fort Worth,

Tampa International Airport In the early 1960s the Hillsborough County Aviation Author- ity identified the need to expand capacity at Tampa Inter- national Airport while maintaining a high level of service (LOS) to airline passengers. The key level-of-service criterion in their decision-making process was to limit passenger walk distances between the roadway curb and aircraft gate to 700 ft. Adding aircraft gates by extending the existing terminal did not meet these criteria; thus the decision was made to imple- ment a new facility with a unique satellite concourse design. The new design had a central processing facility surrounded on all sides by satellite concourses housing the aircraft gates, as shown in the Tampa International Airport photo. Economies of scale were present at both the processing facility and the satellite concourses. The single processing facility was opti- mized to accommodate the ticketing, bag check, and bag claim activities. The satellite concourses had gates along the exterior of the concourse that allowed a higher ratio of aircraft gates to building area than was previously achievable. Parking garages were located adjacent to the central pro- cessing facility, allowing easy access for passengers but requir- ing the satellite concourse to be located further from the processing facility. The APM shuttles thereby became an integral element of the new airport concept by allowing easy 10 Tampa International Airport Photo: Hillsborough County Aviation C-100 Vehicle at Tampa International Airport Photo: www.bombardier.com passenger access between the processing facility and aircraft gates. Without the APM, the walk distance criteria would have been greatly exceeded; this made the APM a must-ride sys- tem. In this way, the APM shuttles allowed the walk distance criteria to be achieved. Each satellite concourse was served by two APM trains, each with its own guideway. Each lane oper- ated independently from the other so that a failure on one guideway would not impact the other lane. To ease the APM alight/board process, the shuttle stations, located at the same level as aircraft gates, were designed with three platforms to separate counter-directional flows. When the train arrived at a station, the alighting passengers would depart the APM to an empty side platform. After a short delay, the opposite side doors would open to the center platform where boarding passengers had accumulated (and could board a train on either lane). The flow-through design has proved to be very efficient in passenger processing (reducing station dwell times) and has been subsequently used at many APM shuttles. The first phase of the Tampa Airport had four airside con- courses, each with its own dual-lane shuttle with two single-car trains. Lengths of these shuttles ranged from 800 to 1,000 ft. APM headways, or time between successive train departures, were about 1.5 minutes for each of the four original shuttles. Since that time, two more concourses have been added, the cars have been increased from one to two per train, and the original satellites have been expanded to accommodate addi- tional aircraft gates. Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport In 1970, the Dallas/Fort Worth Airport was under construc- tion and a people mover was one of the requirements. After funding development work by two start-up companies, Varo

and Dashaveyor, the airport board asked these two firms to partner with larger companies for financial purposes. Varo partnered with LTV Aerospace Corporation, and Dashaveyor partnered with Bendix, and later Westinghouse Airbrake Company (WABCO). A unique aspect of the original Airport Transportation Sys- tem (AIRTRANS) was the plan to transport both people (pas- sengers and employees) and cargo (baggage, mail, supplies, and trash). No prototype or operating hardware of this com- plexity was in existence at the time, and a creative effort with models and simulations was required to convince the airport board that the system could be built. A request for proposal for AIRTRANS was issued in May of 1971; two proposals were received from LTV Aerospace and WABCO. After evaluation, LTV was declared the winner and notice-to-proceed (NTP) was given on August 2, 1971. The sys- tem was constructed in a remarkably short time of 30 months using fast-track construction methods. All aspects of the origi- nal service concept were built and successfully demonstrated. At one time, passenger, employee, baggage, mail, supply, and trash services were operated, although the cargo services were ultimately terminated. AIRTRANS began service in January of 1974. It was the largest people mover system of any kind in the world in terms of length, fleet size, and scope. The alignment was a series of interconnected loops serving a total of 17 passenger sta- tions with three inter-terminal routes and two remote park- ing routes. The alignment was partially elevated and partially at-grade with single or two-car trains following different oper- ational routes that served the different airport terminals and parking facilities. The original system included a fleet of 51 pas- senger vehicles and 17 cargo vehicles. In the early 1990s, American Airlines implemented its TrAAm system, which used completely refurbished/modern- ized AIRTRANS equipment and operated within the original system’s alignment. The resulting system helped the airline to cut in half the connection times between distant aircraft gates. A new elevated Skylink system replaced TrAAm in 2005 to serve the airside connection needs of the airport. The new sys- tem is one of the largest airport systems in the world and pro- vides a capacity of 5,000 passengers per hour per direction (pphpd). From the start at DFW, APMs have provided a wide 11 Photo: DFW International Airport DFW Airport Terminals AIRTRANS and Skylink at DFW Photo: Lea+Elliott, Inc.

range of conveyance service and allowed an origin/destination terminal design to transform itself into one of the largest air- line hub airports in the world. 3.1.5 The Airside Shuttle Era: 1970s–1980s The original airport APM system was the airside shuttle system at Tampa in 1971. For the next 20 years, the vast majority of airport APM implementations were airside two- lane shuttles with a single train operating separately on each of the two lanes. These systems were relatively short in length (1,000 to 2,000 ft), served two stations, and had relatively simple propulsion and train control. One landside single-lane shuttle system was constructed at Bradley International Air- port in Hartford in 1974, but the system never opened for revenue service because of funding considerations. APM implementation at major hubbing airports occurred at Chicago O’Hare, Frankfurt, Denver, Hong Kong, and Newark, all between 1993 and 1996. Like the pinched-loop system in Atlanta, the systems utilized switches at each end of a dual-lane guideway, allowing APM trains to switch to the opposite lane for the return trip. Multiple trains with service frequency as low as 2 minutes allowed for high-capacity transport of passengers over distances from 5,000 to 10,000 ft. A wider range of APM suppliers began to provide these longer systems. Greater sta- tion spacing led to an emphasis on higher speeds than with the earlier shuttle applications. New airport shuttle systems were implemented during the 1990s as well. While earlier shuttles tended to be self-propelled (motors on vehicles), a number of shuttles were now cable- propelled using wayside motors; examples include Cincinnati and Tokyo (Narita). Airport implementations were no longer predominately in the United States, as new systems were opened in England, Germany, Hong Kong, and Japan. 3.1.7 APMs in the Mainstream: 2000 and Beyond As airport APMs entered the 21st century, growth and innovation continued on all fronts: guideway configurations, system length, train speed, number of suppliers, vehicle sus- pension, vehicle propulsion, and the number of implementa- tion countries. Some of the industry innovations included: • Top-suspension of the H-Bahn Dusseldorf APM, • Detachable-grip cable in Minneapolis allowing pinched- loop operations. • Landside system at New York’s JFK and an extension of the Newark AirTrain, which both go off airport property to connect with regional rail transit systems. • “Spanning” runways in Zurich (under) and Mexico City (around), • Technology replacement in Birmingham (maglev to cable- propelled), • Train control and vehicle upgrades while maintaining oper- ations in Seattle and Atlanta, • Communications-based train control, • New system and subsystem suppliers, • Pilot demonstration of a small vehicle PRT system at London Heathrow, and • In the first decade of the 21st century, the number of air- port APMs has almost doubled; APMs are recognized as a vital component to major airports. 3.1.8 APM Industry Overview The convergence in the 1960s of the technology and system engineering advances of the space program and the willing- 12 Airport Airside Shuttle APM Photo: www.bombardier.com The airside shuttle APM systems were typically elevated above the apron (e.g., Tampa, Miami, and Orlando). Two early exceptions to this were the systems at Seattle and Atlanta. The Seattle APM is installed in a tunnel and consists of two inde- pendent multi-train loops connected by an independent single- lane shuttle. The Atlanta system opened in 1980 as an airside APM with two parallel guideway lanes that are pinched at both ends, allowing trains to switch over to the opposite lane for the return trip. This feature allows more than two trains to operate simultaneously (see Section 4.2). However, simple shuttles were the dominant guideway configuration of the first two decades of APM applications, with a single U.S. manufacturer, Westing- house and its C-100 technology, as the dominant supplier. 3.1.6 Pinched Loops Come of Age: 1990s Longer APM systems serving multiple terminals and stations with pinched-loop operations became the common theme for APM implementations in the 1990s. Airside and landside

ness to publicly fund new transportation systems research and development gave rise to early APMs. The technology found its niche in meeting the growing conveyance needs of rapidly expanding airports in the United States, and later in Europe and Japan, during the 1970s and 1980s. Since that time, APMs have become technically mature, and many APM innovations have been applied to other modes. No doubt the future will see further growth and maturation of the APM industry. A summary of all airport APMs currently operating is provided in Table 3.1-1. Additional descriptions of these systems are contained in Appendix B of the guidebook. 3.2 The Roles of APMs at Airports The role of APMs is different for the airside and landside uses. On the airside (or secure side) of an airport, an APM typ- ically connects aircraft gates with airport processing functions (ticketing, bag claims, etc.) or with other aircraft gates. On the 13 Airport Airside or Landside StartedService 1. Tampa Airside 1971 2. Seattle Airside 1973 3. Atlanta Airside 1980 4. Miami Airside 1980 5. Houston Landside 1981 6. Orlando Airside 1981 7. Las Vegas Airside 1985 8. London Gatwick Landside 1987 9. Singapore Changi Airside and Landside 1990 10. Tampa Landside 1990 11. London Stansted Airside 1991 12. Paris–Orly Landside 1991 13. Pittsburgh Airside 1992 14. Tokyo Narita Airside 1992 15. Chicago Landside 1993 16. Cincinnati Airside 1994 17. Frankfurt Airside 1994 18. Osaka Kansai Airside 1994 19. Denver Airside 1995 20. Newark Landside 1996 21. Hong Kong Airside 1998 22. Kuala Lumpur Airside 1998 23. Houston Airside 1999 24. Rome Airside 1999 25. Minneapolis/St. Paul Landside 2001 26. Detroit Airside 2002 27. Dusseldorf Landside 2002 28. Minneapolis/St. Paul Airside 2002 29. Birmingham (UK) Landside 2003 30. New York–JFK Landside 2003 31. San Francisco Landside 2003 32. Taipei Airside 2003 33. Zurich Airside 2003 34. Dallas/Fort Worth Airside 2005 35. Madrid Airside 2006 36. Toronto Landside 2006 37. Mexico City Airside 2007 38. Paris–CDG Airside 2007 39. Paris–CDG Landside 2007 40. London Heathrow Airside 2008 41. Beijing Airside 2008 42. Seoul Incheon Airside 2008 43. Atlanta Landside 2009 44. Washington Dulles Airside 2010 Source: Lea+Elliott, Inc. Table 3.1-1. Summary of existing airport APMs.

landside (or non-secure side), an APM typically connects the airport processing functions with other landside facilities such as parking, car rental, or regional transit. 3.2.1 Airside APM Systems APM systems that operate on the secure side of the airport are called airside APM systems. These systems transport pas- sengers between gates or between terminals and gates. The pas- sengers who ride these systems have cleared security or have deplaned from arriving aircraft. Airside systems are also used to transport arriving inter- national passengers between their gates and the customs and immigration facilities. These systems can have a special require- ment to maintain separation between arriving international passengers who have not yet cleared customs and all other air- line passengers and airport employees. Airside APM systems are usually designed to accommodate passengers with only carry- on bags, as these passengers would not be carrying large checked baggage beyond security or off an international flight. Two different functions of airside APM systems are described below. Terminal-to-gate or origin/destination (O/D) connec- tions—APM systems connect main terminal buildings (processing areas) to aircraft gates in the same or a sepa- rate (e.g., satellite concourse) building. All origin passen- gers are processed in the same terminal building and ride the APM to their departure concourse. Similarly, arriving destination passengers ride the APM to the terminal build- ing to reclaim baggage and/or transfer to a domestic flight or leave the airport. Gate-to-gate or transfer connections—APM systems are used to serve as a connection between aircraft gates within one or more concourses in order to facilitate the move- ment of transfer passengers or passengers returning to a different terminal from that of their departure fight. The APM system provides a fast connection between gates, which can thus be located further apart than with other conveyance technologies such as moving walks or apron buses. 14 Narita: Terminal-to-Satellite Concourse Photo: Lea+Elliott, Inc. Photo: Lea+Elliott, Inc. DFW: Gate to Gate/Terminal to Terminal 3.2.2 Summary of Airside APM Roles A tabular summary of existing airside APM system charac- teristics is provided in Table 3.2-1. The new functional and geometric capabilities that APMs have brought to the airside of the airport have provided new opportunities, including: • Allowing remote concourses to be located further from the main terminal processing functions by providing faster passenger connection times and reducing walk distances, • Enabling more gates in individual remote concourses through greater inter-facility transport capacity and faster gate-to-gate connection times, • Allowing major airlines to achieve hubbing (transfer) oper- ations of over 60 gates and over 20 million annual passen- gers (MAP), and • Enabling concourse/gate expansion on the opposite side of a runway(s) without having to also add roadways, parking, and terminal processing facilities to that side of the airport.

3.2.3 Landside APM Systems APM systems that operate on the non-secure side of the airport are called landside APM systems. These systems trans- port passengers between multiple processing terminals or between processing terminals and other landside activity centers at the airport. The passengers who ride these sys- tems have not cleared security prior to boarding the trains. Landside APM systems are usually designed to accommo- date passengers with large checked baggage or even baggage carts. Therefore, the same APM vehicle that might carry 70–75 passengers on the airside would carry only 40–50 on the landside. Trip times on these systems may be long to reach remote parking lots, rental car sites, or off-airport intermodal facilities. Two general functions of landside APM systems are described below. Landside circulation—APM systems enable the move- ment of passengers between airport activity centers such as terminals, parking lots, and rental car centers. These APM systems reduce the number of buses operating on the airport roadway, thereby lessening roadway conges- tion and auto emissions on airport property. Transit connections—APM systems also serve to connect an airport terminal with an urban or regional transit sys- tem. Passengers can connect to transit systems such as city buses or regional rail systems through intermodal centers. These APM systems also help to reduce roadway congestion and auto emissions in the region. Landside Circulation Landside airport APM systems, similar to airside systems, have allowed airports to expand their physical size and pas- senger throughput while still meeting level-of-service thresh- olds for connect time and walk distance. APM systems currently operate at airports with peak hour passenger flows of 1,000 pphpd or more and alignment lengths from 1,000 ft to 3 miles. For APM systems connecting a main terminal with (1) other terminals, (2) rental car center, (3) long- term parking, and (4) urban/regional transit, system demands are in the range of 2,500 to 4,500 pphpd. APM systems serv- ing all such applications tend to be longer: from 2 to 3 miles. Systems serving fewer than the four applications listed above often have proportionately lower demands and are typically shorter in length. Systems serving only car rental or long-term 15 Airport YearOpened Alignment Configuration APM Function 1 Length (miles)2 Tampa 1971 Shuttles O/D 0.73 Seattle 1973 Shuttle & Loops O/D 1.73 Miami 1980 Shuttle O/D 0.4 Atlanta 1980 Pinched Loop Transfer 1.0 Orlando 1981 Shuttles O/D 1.53 Las Vegas 1985, 1998 Shuttles O/D 0.2, 0.6 Singapore 1990, 2006 Shuttles Transfer 0.73 London (Stan) 1991 Pinched Loop O/D 0.4 Tokyo 1992 Shuttles Transfer 0.2 Pittsburgh 1992 Shuttle Transfer 0.4 Cincinnati 1994 Shuttle Transfer 0.2 Frankfurt 1994 Pinched Loop Transfer 1.0 Osaka Kansai 1994 Shuttle Transfer 0.7 Denver 1995 Pinched Loop Transfer 1.2 Kuala Lumpur 1998 Shuttle O/D 0.8 Hong Kong 1998 Pinched Loop Transfer 0.8 Houston 1999 Pinched Loop Transfer 0.7 Rome 1999 Shuttle O/D 0.4 Detroit 2002 Shuttle Transfer 0.7 Zurich 2003 Shuttle O/D 0.7 Taipei 2003 Shuttle O/D 0.8 Minn/St. Paul 2002 Shuttle Transfer 0.5 Dallas/Fort Worth 1974, 2005 Loops Transfer 4.9 Madrid 2006 Pinched Loop Transfer 1.7 Paris–CDG 2007 Shuttle O/D 0.4 Mexico City 2007 Shuttle O/D 1.9 London LHR 2008 Shuttle O/D 0.4 Beijing 2008 Pinched Loop O/D 1.2 Seoul 2008 Shuttle O/D 0.6 Washington Dulles 2010 Pinched Loop Transfer 1.9 Source: Lea+Elliott, Inc. 1The predominant APM conveyance function origin/destination and/or transfer that the APM serves. 2Length is measured in dual-lane miles of guideway. 3Combined length of multiple shuttles. Table 3.2-1. Airport airside APMs.

parking may have hourly demands from 1,000 to 2,500 pphpd and range from 1,500 ft to 2 miles. For remote facilities located more than 3 miles from the main terminal, buses are the more typical transport technol- ogy. Longer landside APM systems (length of guideway) typ- ically serve multiple landside terminals, each having its own ticketing and bag claim functions. The APM’s main function is to interconnect the terminals. Connecting a terminal with international service to one or more domestic terminals also occurs at a number of landside applications, including Chicago O’Hare, New York–JFK, Newark, San Francisco and Paris (CDG and Orly). Terminal roadways can quickly become the landside bottle- neck, resulting in long delays for buses and autos. Lengthening or widening terminal roadways eventually becomes physically impossible, if not cost prohibitive. At airports such as Newark, Chicago O’Hare, Düsseldorf, and Birmingham, landside APMs provide an efficient means of supplementing the terminal road- ways in providing access to and from the terminal buildings. These landside APMs allow the airport to increase O/D passen- ger volumes without having to increase roadway capacity. With more distant regional rail stations from the terminal, APMs and buses provide the connection to the terminal. Pas- senger arrival patterns at the station via the regional rail ser- vice depend on that service’s train frequency and train size. Typically, long trains arrive periodically and unload a large group of passengers in a very short time period. Such surged demand is well suited to the high capacity provided by APMs with shorter and more frequent trains. Many airports have an existing or planned regional rail sta- tion between 200 and 1,000 ft from the terminals. These are almost exclusively served by walkways. APMs serve a small number of airport rail stations with distances ranging from 1,000 ft to 2 miles between the station and the terminal. Buses serve a larger number of airport rail stations, with the distance between the station and the terminals ranging from one-half mile to 3 miles for most of these systems. The maximum dis- tance served by frequent, express bus service is approximately 12 miles. Major international airports have a wide variety of land uses on their premises. With airport growth, the expansion of terminals and roadways often forces other facilities such as rental car centers and parking structures to relocate to more remote locations. Landside APMs have been used to facilitate such relocations at many airports. Commercial Developments Commercial development opportunities on airport or adja- cent lands are a revenue-generating land use that is under con- sideration for planned landside systems at a number of major airports. The ability of a landside APM to connect the airport facilities and a regional rail station with a commercial devel- opment property can enhance that property’s value and pro- vide additional revenues to the airport. Summary of Landside APM Roles A tabular summary of existing landside APMs and their characteristics is shown in Table 3.2-2. In summary, the land- side roles that APMs have played include: • Reducing airport roadway congestion and emissions by eliminating airport bus traffic and thus allowing an airport to increase its O/D MAP for a given roadway system, • Better connecting separate processing terminals (and their respective aircraft gates) to allow hubbing opera- tions between facilities, • Helping to consolidate rental car facilities by better accom- modating their high-volume demands, and • Providing a nearly seamless connection to airport facilities from regional transit, helping promote transit modal access to the airport, and reducing regional auto congestion and emissions. 16 Photo: San Francisco International Airport Landside APM under Construction Landside Transit Connections Many major airports have a regional rail station located within the terminal complex, allowing an easy connection between rail stations and ticketing/bag-claim functions. How- ever, other airport terminal functions may not be served well by a single rail station location, and regional rail technology’s geometric constraints (curves and grades) and bypassing lines or operational constraints do not easily allow multiple rail sta- tion locations within an airport. The cost and constructability impacts of regional rail station location(s) have led some air- ports to locate a regional rail station remote from the terminal complex.

17 Airport YearOpened Alignment Configuration Service To Length (miles)1 Houston 1981 Loop Terminals 1.02 London Gatwick 1987 Shuttle Terminals, Intermodal 0.7 Tampa 1990 Pinched Loop Parking, Car Rental 0.6 Paris–Orly 1991 Pinched Loop Terminals, Intermodal 4.5 Chicago 1993 Pinched Loop Terminals, Parking, Intermodal 2.7 Newark 1996 Pinched Loop Terminals, Parking, Intermodal, Car Rental 3.2 Minneapolis/St. Paul 2001 Shuttle Parking, Intermodal, Car Rental 0.2 Dusseldorf 2002 Pinched Loop Parking, Intermodal 1.6 New York–JFK 2003 Pinched Loop Terminals, Parking, Intermodal, Car Rental 8.1 Birmingham (UK) 2003 Shuttle Intermodal 0.4 San Francisco 2003 Loops Parking, Intermodal, Car Rental 2.8 Singapore Changi 1990/2006 Shuttles Terminals 0.8 Toronto 2006 Shuttle Terminals, Parking 0.9 Paris–CDG 2007 Pinched Loop Terminals, Parking, Intermodal 2.1 Atlanta 2009 Pinched Loop Terminal, Car Rental, and Convention Center 1.4 Source: Lea+Elliott, Inc. 1Length is measured in dual-lane miles of guideway. 2Single-lane loop system converted to dual-lane mile equivalent. Table 3.2-2. Airport landside APMs.