Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook (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.

The process of planning airport passenger terminal facilities needs to take into account a mul- titude of safety, operational, commercial, financial, and environmental considerations, as well as have regard to local government and airline industry interests and aspirations. Chapter III, Planning Considerations, provides a detailed description of these interrelated factors. This chapter focuses on describing the terminal planning and design process. The first step in this process is to gather together and catalogue all of the existing data, information, and parameters that will have a bearing on the planning and subsequent design of the terminal facilities. The next step involves determining future forecasts of passenger, cargo, and aircraft movements that will form the demand basis for programming the future terminal and associated apron facility requirements. Once the facility requirements have been determined, the conceptual planning process can begin. This typically involves an iterative process of developing initial, and then progressively more refined, terminal complex concepts. These iterative conceptual development steps involve evaluation assessments that assist in narrowing the field of promising solutions, culminating in the selection of a single preferred option. The preferred terminal option then forms the basis for the initial architectural and engineering schematic design, design development, preparation of construction drawings, and specifications and cost estimation. This chapter is organized into two sections: Section II.1, Defining the Terminal Complex, and Section II.2, Terminal Planning and Design Project Process. II.1 Defining the Terminal Complex The primary users of airport terminals are airlines, air travelers, well-wishers and meeters/ greeters, and a wide range of employees of airport management, government regulatory author- ities, air carriers, concessionaires, and other airport tenants. While terminal facilities must, first and foremost, provide a good level of service (LOS) to these users, the planning and design of an overall terminal facility is greatly influenced by the more rigid requirements needed to accom- modate maneuvering aircraft and ground access systems. The terminal complex consists of the interface between aircraft, travelers, and the various modes of landside transportation. It is for this reason that this Guidebook has defined the terminal complex as including three primary components: airside, terminal, and landside. Figure II-1 depicts a diagram of a generic terminal complex that shows these three key components. II.1.1 Airside Terminal Facilities For the majority of new terminal planning and design projects, it is important from the outset to formulate solutions based on the airside component. This requires identifying gate requirements and 9 C H A P T E R I I Terminal Planning and Design Process

locating aircraft parking positions and their supporting taxilanes that optimize the overall efficiency of the airfield prior to developing the internal layout of the terminal building and the landside curb and terminal roadway systems. The efficiency of airfield operations will, to a very large extent, drive the overall efficiency of passenger processing through the terminal, and the ability of aircraft to park at the terminal and maneuver safely around the airfield in accordance with taxilane/ taxiway requirements contained in FAA Advisory Circulars is paramount. The airside’s large spatial requirements and fixed requirements for aircraft wingtip separations and maneuvering clearances typically drive the physical geometry of the terminal complex more than either the passenger processing requirements within the terminal building, or its associated landside components. The primary elements to consider when dealing with the airside component of a terminal complex include the following: • Aircraft parking restrictions – Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Title 14, Part 77 requirements – U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS) requirements – Air traffic control tower line-of-sight • Aircraft maneuvering – Taxiway requirements – Taxilane requirements – Pushback areas • Aircraft parking – Terminal gates – Remote aircraft parking positions – Wingtip clearances – Aircraft parking guidance systems • Aircraft parking apron – Apron gradients – Hydrant fueling 10 Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design T E R M I N A L A I R S I D E TERMINAL COMPLEX PARKING L A N D S I D E Source: Landrum & Brown Figure II-1. Terminal complex.

– 400 hertz power – Preconditioned air • Apron service roads – Tail-of-stand – Head-of-stand • Ground service equipment – Staging – Movement/maneuvering – Storage • Aircraft servicing • Security and emergency response • Environmental – Fuel spillage – Waste disposal • Blast Fences – Public and employee protection • Winter operations – Aircraft deicing – Apron snow removal These airside component elements are discussed in detail in Chapter V, Terminal Airside Facilities. II.1.2 Terminal Building Facilities The ever-evolving airport and aviation industry requires today’s airport terminal buildings to be planned and constructed in ways that safeguard flexibility for future modification at the least expense, while also responding to variations in demand and/or the changing needs of passengers, airlines, and aircraft. To help achieve these objectives for the airport and its operators, the planning itself needs to be flexible, balanced, and visionary. Maintaining a broad and balanced view of the planning process is the key to terminal planning that is functional today and flexible for the future. The terminal planning process should acknowledge the key functional and operational drivers, including business considerations that affect the airport and its operators, as well as the local community. These drivers include the following: • Concessions planning, which aims to provide interesting and pleasing offerings to passengers, well-wishers, and meeters/greeters and revenue generation for the airport • Security planning to respond both to specific threat and vulnerability levels, as well as the routine screening process of passengers and baggage • People mover and baggage handling systems • The wide range of information technology–based systems that underpin overall management and maintenance of the building, and through which essential information and data is disseminated to passengers and staff • The application of sustainability and demand management concepts The primary elements to consider when dealing with the terminal building component of the terminal complex include the following: • Programmatic parameters – LOS performance standards – Demand/capacity assessment Terminal Planning and Design Process 11

• Terminal facility requirements – Ticketing/check-in – Passenger screening – Holdrooms – Concessions – Baggage claim – Circulation – Airline offices and operations areas – Baggage handling – Baggage screening system – International facilities—Federal Inspection Services – Support areas – Special requirements – Building systems • Functional relationships • Flow sequences – Passengers – Visitors – Employees – Baggage – Deliveries – Waste removal • Passenger movements – People mover systems – Passenger wayfinding and signage • Terminal concept development – Domestic and international terminals – Concourse configurations – Centralized and decentralized terminals – Single vs. multi-level terminals – Flexibility and efficiency – Common-use terminal equipment – Swing gates These terminal building component elements are discussed in detail in Chapter VI, Terminal Building Facilities. II.1.3 Landside Terminal Facilities There are planning situations when the landside components may be the driving force behind the most appropriate terminal complex solution. Planning of landside terminal facilities requires considerable care because the efficiency, or lack thereof, can greatly influence the air travelers’ perceptions of the overall efficiency and user friendliness of the terminal. The terminal landside system provides the interface between the airport and the regional ground transportation system. Ideally, passenger connectivity between the various points of landside access to the terminal by road and, when applicable, rail should be as seamless and convenient as possible with a minimum of pedestrian level changes. Pedestrian and vehicular movements on the landside are particularly vulnerable to congestion at many airports due to peaks of demand associated with air travel and a historic pattern of growth in enplanements. Expansion of these facilities is often difficult, so intensive and proactive management of the landside curb and road- way systems is required to cope with increased activity and congestion. This management can be performed using manpower or by the use of technology. 12 Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design

The primary elements to consider when dealing with the terminal building component of the terminal complex include the following: • Curbfront pedestrian facilities – Sidewalk—adjacent to terminal – Curb islands – Pedestrian crosswalks – Curbside baggage check-in • Curbfront vehicle lanes – Loading/unloading lanes – Bypass lanes – Through lanes • Parking – Terminal passenger parking – Remote passenger parking – Off-airport parking – Valet parking – Employee parking (FAA, airlines, tenants, staff) – Rental car parking – Cell phone lots • Entry/exit roadways – Primary terminal access and exit roadways – Recirculation roadways – Service roads/loading docks • Commercial vehicle/transit staging areas – Taxi and bus holding areas – Ground transportation centers • Rail transit – Platform configuration – Station location These landside component elements are discussed in detail in Chapter VII, Terminal Land- side Facilities. II.2 Terminal Planning and Design Project Process This section of the Guidebook provides an overview of the terminal planning and design process including the types of projects, types of services, and a typical approach associated with addressing terminal facility projects. II.2.1 Types of Projects Terminal projects vary by an airport’s size, whether it is on a new site or is part of an existing infrastructure, and also by its specific mission. II.2.1.1 Large, Medium, and Small Hub Airport Terminals One goal of this Guidebook is to provide planning and design guidelines that are appli- cable to the majority of terminal projects including large, medium, and small hub airports as defined by the U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S.DOT). (See Table II-1). It should be noted that the use of the word “hub” by U.S.DOT does not imply that the airport is a connecting hub. Terminal Planning and Design Process 13

II.2.1.2 New, Expansions, and Renovations Terminal planning and design projects can typically be categorized as either “greenfield” (a new terminal on a new site) or the expansion or renovation of an existing terminal. In some cases there may be a need to classify a project as a “replacement” terminal if it is to replace an existing terminal with a totally new facility, but does not provide significant additional aircraft gate or passenger processing capacity. Significant increases in passenger or aircraft activity can trigger the need for additional environmental study requirements under the project purpose and need as presented in Section III.7, Environmental Protection. II.2.1.3 Terminal Missions In addition to the airport’s size and whether the terminal project is new, an expansion of an existing terminal, or the renovation of a current facility, the underlying mission of the terminal is a parameter that is best defined early in the planning process. The terminal’s mission—whether to provide facilities for domestic and/or international passengers, a legacy carrier, or a low-cost carrier or to accommodate multiple carriers on a common-use basis—will have significant effects on the size and configuration of the terminal. Whether the terminal is to accommodate a hubbing operation with a large percentage of connecting traffic or it is to be primarily an origin and destination operation, these factors will also have implications for the facility requirements and design. Likewise, within the context of an overall Airport Master Plan, whether traffic projections will best be met by planning for a single consolidated terminal or multiple unit terminals greatly influences the specific size and configuration of the terminal complex as a whole. The effect of a terminal’s particular mission is presented in more detail in Section VI.3, Terminal Facility Requirements. Each of these various types of terminal planning projects typically need to go through a similar process of (1) setting the project parameters during the gathering of current inventory data, 14 Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design Airport Classifications Hub Type: Percentage of Annual Passenger Boardings Common Name Large: 1% or more Large Hub Medium: At least 0.25%, but less than 1% Medium Hub Small: At least 0.05%, but less than 0.25% Small Hub Primary: Have more than 10,000 passenger boardings each year §47102(11) Non-Hub: More than 10,000, but less than 0.05% Non-Hub Primary Commercial Service: Publicly owned airports that have at least 2,500 passenger boardings each calendar year and receive scheduled passenger service §47102(7) Non-Primary Non-Hub: At least 2,500 and no more than 10,000 Non-Primary Commercial Service Non-Primary (Except Commercial Service) Not Applicable Reliever §47102(18) § indicates section of U.S. Code, Title 49, Transportation; Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs; Part B, Airport Development and Noise, Chapter 471, Airport Development; Subchapter I, Airport Improvement Source: 14 CFR Part 139 – Airport Certification Table II-1. Definition of airport categories.

(2) preparing facility requirements based on forecasts, (3) creating a variety of conceptual alter- natives, (4) evaluating terminal concepts, and (5) selecting a preferred alternative for further refinements. While these general process steps are involved in the majority of terminal projects, there are many other types of services that occur during, and sometimes independently from, this process. These types of services are described more completely in the following section. II.2.2 Types of Services The process undertaken to determine the best course of action for a new, renovated, or expanded terminal is a synergistic blend of technical analysis and qualitative reasoning. The technical and creative services involved in terminal planning and design can be grouped into four main categories: facilities programming, planning, design, and specialized technical analyses. • Facility programming services: This category of services involves the general startup of the project and sets the ground rules for all of the process to follow. – Project parameters: The input parameters include interacting with key stakeholders to set the project’s goals and objectives; defining the opportunities and constraints associated with the site of the project; conducting an inventory of previous studies; gathering together pertinent aerials and plans; and conducting observations, surveys, and user interviews. – Demand/capacity assessment: The demand/capacity assessment is typically a service performed when an existing terminal(s) is involved. This service consists of analyzing current passenger demand against the ability of the existing facility to meet this demand at an acceptable LOS. This analysis involves establishing a baseline condition for the existing terminal(s), which identifies the size and number of the various facilities that compose the terminal complex. The results of this analysis indicate whether additional facilities are needed just to meet current demand. – Terminal space program: The majority of terminal projects will include services to prepare future facility requirements for the terminal complex based on forecast projections. The methodology for developing facility requirements for the airside gates, the terminal building, and terminal curb are addressed further in the following sections:  Section V.3, Aircraft Gate Requirements  Section VI.3, Terminal Facility Requirements  Section VII.4, Terminal Curb Requirements • Planning services: Services in this category are at the heart of the synergistic process of applying the facilities requirements program and transforming it into conceptual plans. – Conceptual planning services: These services focus on taking the terminal facilities program and preparing various conceptual terminal complex site plans and terminal building dia- grammatic floor plans. – Advanced planning services: These services address an additional level of detail in the evolution of the terminal concepts. As terminal concepts are narrowed down to a manage- able number of preferred options (typically ranging from a single concept to as many as three concepts), more detailed conceptual plans and sections are developed based on a refined space program that now reflects the specificity of the terminal concept type. Site plans, building plans, site and/or building sections, and three-dimensional (3D) massing perspec- tives are developed during these advanced planning services. Floor plans typically remain a single-line diagram that reflects the refined program. Advanced planning allows for more accurate definition of the project, resulting in better cost estimates prior to engaging a full complement of architectural/engineering services. • Design services: Architectural and engineering services are brought into the process to articulate the terminal building through various stages of design—schematics, design/development, and contract documents. Architectural services may also be brought into the process earlier during the conceptual and advanced planning services as determined by the sponsor. Terminal Planning and Design Process 15

• Specialized technical analysis services: Some services in the terminal planning and design process are very specialized to airport terminal facilities. These include terminal simulation modeling, trigger point analysis, aircraft parking and maneuverability, passenger loading bridge analysis, and in-ground fuel pit placements as examples. – Terminal simulations: Simulation modeling is an excellent tool for quantitatively assessing the LOS performance of an existing terminal, determining the trigger point for the need of future facilities, or cross-checking the performance of a schematic design prior to embark- ing on the design/development phase of the architectural design process. Other important assessments can include the simulation of airside taxilanes/taxiways, terminal curb, and supporting roadway network. – Trigger point analysis: Similar to the demand/capacity analysis, the trigger point analysis examines when the particular functions of the terminal will no longer meet demand at an acceptable LOS. This service may be performed using various programmatic formulas or through the use of simulation modeling. – Aircraft parking positions and maneuverability: There are computer software tools available that assist in testing the viability of aircraft parking positions at the terminal gate or at a remote parking stand. The services involved with these computer tools assist in assuring that aircraft parking positions, lead-in lines, and wingtip clearances are working appropriately within the configuration being explored. – Loading bridge analysis: This service involves a combination of the previously described aircraft parking position analysis and determining the type and location of the passenger loading bridge needed to correctly dock with the aircraft being parked. While this service can be performed as a spreadsheet analysis, there are excellent computer software programs that simplify this important analysis. II.2.3 Typical Project Approach Whether the project is a new terminal or the expansion/renovation of an existing facility, there is a benefit in using a consistent and thorough study approach to identifying a preferred terminal facility solution. Figure II-2 depicts an approach that has proven effective in identifying the best alternative for implementation. This section describes the major steps in this process. II.2.3.1 Stakeholder Involvement This section provides an overview of individuals and groups who have a special interest in, or involvement with the terminal planning and design process. Referred to as stakeholders, these parties are integral to the implementation process, and their contributions should be reflected in its critical path. The road to a successful terminal development program is paved through teamwork and inter- relationships that offer open opportunities for participation and buy-in throughout the planning process. Participants vary from airport to airport, and interests are almost invariably diverse. It is the responsibility of the terminal planner to encourage, acknowledge, and as far as possible, synthesize the input of all stakeholders. Conflicts may occur, but they can be overcome through a proactive process of communication. Listening and responsiveness are most important. Small issues often escalate into big ones if they are not addressed quickly and responsibly. Carefully managed, stakeholder buy-in should be there when it is needed. Stakeholder participants in the terminal planning process are normally identified by the client; however, it is incumbent on the terminal planning manager to recommend stakeholders who should be encouraged to participate. The most successful planning processes are those that are kept open. Efficient stakeholder communication can strengthen relationships that are important to the acceptance and support of a recommended plan. 16 Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design

Typical stakeholders in a terminal planning process include, but are not limited to, air travel customers/terminal users, airport management, airlines, and concessionaires. Air Travel Customers/Terminal Users. The primary and most numerous terminal build- ing stakeholder group is the traveling public. Together with other terminal users (meeters/greeters, etc.), these air travel customers are the group most closely associated with evaluating terminals once they are up and running. This input is normally seen in the form of periodic surveys per- formed at many airports in the United States. Although this input is often “after the fact,” it is useful in determining future needs of the traveling public in new terminal projects. Apart from surveys, there are also public outreach programs that are offered during the terminal planning process. These outreach programs may enlist the input of public stakeholders through the airport’s website, printed mailers, and public meetings including City Council or other publicly attended governmental sessions. Survey forms may also be used to solicit public input, and planning-specific questionnaires are also helpful if information is received as input in a timely manner. Timing is the key. Airport Management. For almost every terminal project, airport management will have an important stake. Even airports that feature individual airline terminals require the overarching involvement of the airport management group. This involvement ensures that broad issues such as the following are kept in focus: • Prudent utilization of all airport land • Balanced development of airside/terminal/landside facilities • Compatibility with the Airport Master Plan • Financial feasibility/affordability • Representation of key stakeholders in the planning process Airlines. At most U.S. airports, there is a close relationship between airport management and the number one stakeholder group, the airlines. This situation differs somewhat from the Terminal Planning and Design Process 17 DESIGN CONCEPT REFINEMENT Program Criteria Document Conceptual Phasing Concessions Planning Concept Plan Refinement Shortlist Concept 3 STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT STAKEHOLDER INVOLVE ENT GOALS & OBJECTIVES GOALS & OBJECTIVES DEMAND FORECASTS DEMAND FORECASTS 1st ITERATION CONCEPTUAL PLANNING FACILITIES PROGRAMMING FACILITIES PROGRA ING Constraints & Opportunities Concept … Concept 3 Concept 2 Concept 1 Initial Evaluation 2nd ITERATION CONCEPTUAL PLANNING Shortlist Concept … Shortlist Concept 2 Shortlist Concept 1 Second Evaluation Source: Landrum & Brown Figure II-2. Typical terminal planning study approach.

European or Asian model in which the relationship and financial involvement between the two groups are more indirect. Terminal development in the United States is typically supported and financed through airline rates and charges. This means that airlines have an intrinsic interest or “stake” in development at the airport. Involvement may take many forms depending on the need; however, typical arrangements include the following: • Individual airline meetings that address specific needs related to the terminal or airport • Airport/airline affairs committees that provide a collective open forum for communications between the airport and its airline stakeholders • Ad hoc technical or other types of committees that are created to address specific needs or issues affecting airlines or airport stakeholders In the United States, terminal facilities’ rates and charges are a significant airline expense, ranking, on average, in third place after fuel and employee costs. For this reason it is important that airline stakeholders participate in the terminal planning process throughout all stages. In certain cases the Air Transport Association (ATA) and the International Air Transport Association (IATA) may be considered stakeholders in a terminal planning and design process. Both groups have been instrumental in providing terminal planning guides, particularly in establish- ing the use of service levels as measures of performance. IATA’s Airport Development Reference Manual (3) contains a substantial amount of terminal-related planning material, and the ATA was a major contributor to the FAA’s Apron & Terminal Building Planning Manual (2). In most cases ATA or IATA stakeholder involvement will be determined through airline/airport committees serving a specific airport. Concessionaires. One of the most important revenue-generating components in any ter- minal plan today is the concessions/retail area. The successful concessions/retail plan is one that is conceived early and integrated into the terminal plan as key functional elements are set. Concessions/retail stakeholders are often represented by retail planning specialists on the terminal planning or design team. This early involvement facilitates the process of collecting input and providing planning expertise before specific concessions/retail companies are contracted. Because the revenue generated by concessions/retail is potentially so great, there are planning factors that stakeholders almost always want to see included in the planning process: • Location—Concessions/retail areas should preferably be located in, or adjacent to, major passenger flows in the terminal. Locations should also take into consideration that passengers typically are anxious about potentially missing their flight. If passengers feel assured that they can make their flight they are more assured about using time to shop or dine. • Massing—Plans that provide for a synergistic grouping of concessions/retail areas together in one space. • Exposure—Maximum frontage display and ease of access for patrons into and out of the concessions/retail area. • Storage—Convenient access and capacity for supplies and sales goods. • Access—Both deliveries and removals provided in the most discreet manner available, out of public view. Other Stakeholder Groups. Each airport may be expected to have additional groups of stakeholders who will need to review the project and have an opportunity to provide input. Identification of these groups of stakeholders typically is provided by airport management but, in some cases, may be suggested by airlines or other core stakeholders. Other stakeholders may include, but are not limited to, the following: • Architectural review boards • Arts commissions 18 Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design

• Airport support groups (Friends of the Airport, etc.) • Special interest groups and other interested persons (including state or local accessibility officials, individuals with disabilities, and organizations representing individuals with disabilities) II.2.3.2 Agency Involvement The proactive involvement of the various agencies is an important component of the planning and design process. It should be included in the work plan outline in terms of time allocated for reviews and input at certain key planning milestones. It is recognized that the quality and usefulness of this input will vary among agencies, but it is incumbent on the planning and design team to encourage agency involvement and incorporate constructive input whenever possible. Federal Aviation Administration. For many years the FAA was involved only peripherally in the terminal planning process. Since the advent of Passenger Facility Charges (PFC) that are used to underwrite the cost of many terminal projects today, FAA involvement in the review process is mandatory to ensure that the PFC revenues are appropriately deployed for terminal improvements. When airport owners or sponsors, planning agencies, or other organizations accept funds from FAA-administered airport financial assistance programs such as Airport Improvement Program (AIP) entitlement or discretionary grants, they must agree to certain obligations (or assurances). Airport grant requests are evaluated by the FAA with a priority toward safety, airfield capacity, and pavement projects; although non-airfield projects, such as terminal buildings, are also eligible. These obligations require the grant recipients to maintain and operate their facilities safely and efficiently, and in accordance with specified conditions. The assurances appear either in the application for federal assistance and become part of the final grant offer or in restrictive covenants to property deeds. Some of the assurances that involve terminal developments include consistency with local plans, consideration of local interest, consultation with users, and terminal development prerequisites (8). FAA involvement is also frequently needed to ensure that terminal projects comply with the relevant environmental requirements applicable to the airport. FAA review may also have a role in ensuring that terminal building heights or aircraft parking plans conform to airfield naviga- tional restrictions such as imaginary surfaces and transitional slopes [refer to 14 CFR Part 77 (9) and TERPS (10)]. Transportation Security Administration. The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is an integral agency in terminal projects. The TSA is responsible for regulatory oversight through enforcement of the Airport Security Program and is the sole authority responsible for passenger and baggage screening. Airports are responsible for all other security, throughout the terminal and other facilities, and for law enforcement response. The TSA’s Recommended Security Guidelines for Airport Planning, Design, and Construction (11) provides the basis for planning all aspects of terminal building security, with the caveat that it is a series of practical recommendations, not mandated requirements. The TSA should be included in periodic reviews during planning and design. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security. For termi- nals with international arrivals facilities, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is an impor- tant stakeholder. The CBP’s planning guide, Airport Technical Design Standards—Passenger Processing Facilities (12), provides the detailed basis for planning and designing international terminal processing facilities in the United States. Because every international terminal is unique, it is advisable to provide multiple opportunities for the CBP to review the planned facil- ities during the planning and design process. Terminal Planning and Design Process 19

Local and National Building Code Review Boards. During the conceptual terminal planning process, it is important to take into account many of the basic principles that are encompassed in the local building codes. In particular attention should be paid to regulations such as the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and local building codes that may influence occupancy egress requirements and plumbing fixture counts. In general the building codes are rules that specify minimum acceptable levels for requirements related to the protection of public health, safety, and general welfare as they relate to the construction and occupancy of buildings and structures. These building code requirements and formal reviews become increasingly important as terminal projects move from conceptual into the realization of the architectural design during the design/ development phase. Local Fire Marshal. For the majority of municipal fire departments, the Fire Marshal typically supervises and coordinates activities of local firefighting personnel and inspects equipment and premises to ensure adherence to fire regulations. It is important to consider the role that this indirect agency has relative to the specific operational procedures and policies specific to each airport. All fire codes require that the terminal building must be provided with access for fire department apparatus and firefighters. This requirement is difficult to implement for most airport terminals due to the airside and landside delineations dividing the building. This delineation results in portions of the building not being accessible for normal fire department operations and the need for duplicate access points to the buildings and duplicate fire hydrants or department connections. Some large airports have their own firefighting and rescue teams, stationed on the landside portion of the airport with primary responsibility to respond to incidents in and around the terminal in addition to the airport’s aircraft rescue and firefighting. Early in the planning and design process, it is advisable to determine how the municipal firefighting and rescue personnel will be interacting with the airport-based firefighting personnel. It is also advisable to consult with the local Fire Marshal on matters relating to the design and adequacy of fire escape facilities, the size and positioning of emergency exits, and procedures to be applied during emergency situations. II.2.4 Goals and Objectives As previously mentioned in Section II.2.1.3, at the outset of any terminal planning exercise, it is important to have a clear understanding of the mission of the terminal and to begin formulating a vision for the project. The term vision does not literally translate into what the project will visually look like but rather the purpose and motivation behind the need for the new, expanded, or renovated terminal facility. The vision embraces the underlying reasons why the need for the project has arisen and is typically fueled by the motivation of primary stakeholders such as the mayor of a city or a major hubbing air carrier at the airport. It is the responsibility of the planner and designers to clearly articulate this vision into a written set of goals and objectives. Goals and objectives provide the first opportunity to distinguish the terminal project from other projects that may appear to be similar on a superficial basis but, in fact, may be quite different. Goals and objectives also provide an early opportunity, perhaps the earliest opportunity, for stakeholders and others to buy into the terminal project by agreeing on the fact that the project is needed in the first place, as well as providing a benchmark against which the options developed for the project may be tested or evaluated. Evaluation criteria should always relate back to, or draw on, the original goals and objectives for the project. Goals and objectives should be initiated in draft form and set forth as a “living document” that may be modified or adjusted as the project is developed, and needs and requirements are more fully understood. Satisfaction of the goals and objectives is one important measure of success for any terminal plan or design. Early enlistment of support for any terminal plan or design may be enhanced through a meeting that sets forth a set of goals and objectives and then invites input from key stakeholders and agencies. 20 Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design

Once a long list of goals and objectives has been established, a review of the list is recommended to minimize overlaps and consolidate items if possible. Ideally, most lists of goals and objectives should be of manageable length. A list of between 5 and 25 is typical. Each line item should be clearly and succinctly stated with a short definition (one or two sentences maximum). The final draft list should be reviewed with stakeholders and agencies to ensure that all needs and concerns have been addressed before the project moves forward into the initial stages of planning. In summary, the agreed goals and objectives should address the following: • Project definition and distinctive character • Enlistment of stakeholders and agencies participation and buy-in • Basis for evaluation criteria to narrow down options • Modalities for testing and measuring success • Strategy for progressing through future project stages II.2.5 Demand Forecasts Long lead times between the commencement of the planning process and final completion of the terminal building (ranging from 2 to 5 years) pose particular challenges to the terminal planner, who is typically charged with planning for demand growth for at least 5 years (and often longer) after the opening of the facility. While traffic forecasts are an essential guide, the presumption must be that they will never be completely accurate; there will inevitably be some discrepancies either in the nature and mix of the traffic or the total traffic volume, or both. Two major forecasting techniques are available. The first is extrapolation of past trends into the future, i.e., trend analysis. The second involves creating local aviation forecasts through correlation to other independently prepared local or national forecasts of future socioeconomic activity. The basic flaw with trend analysis is that trends rarely continue indefinitely, and the assump- tions underpinning them must be regularly interrogated to ensure they are still valid. Trends in demand growth can change for economic, technological, industrial, or political reasons. The list of reasons why trends do not continue over a reasonable planning period is practically endless. Since deregulation in 1978, development of the aviation industry has been characterized by increasing volatility, airline financial instability (including mergers, acquisitions, and bankruptcies), and changing security requirements. All of these factors can sometimes radically upset trend analyses. A more sophisticated approach is to tie the forecast of aviation activity to independently created forecasts of the future socioeconomic activity that will affect the airport’s business. The underlying assumption with this type of forecast is that aviation activity will be driven chiefly by economic growth which, depending on the size and importance of the airport, could be local, regional, national, or global. This approach is a variation of trend analysis in that it assumes that past economic drivers and relationships will be sustained. While these relationships are generally proven with regression analyses over a long time period, the accuracy of forecasts for particular years is still vulnerable to unexpected shocks that upset direct trend analysis, for example, fluc- tuations in fuel prices, heightened perceptions of terrorist or health threats, and so forth. Thus, there is always uncertainty about the levels of different types of future aviation activity at an airport. The terminal planner needs to understand the implications of uncertainty so that s/he can develop a plan that provides the airport as much flexibility as possible to adapt to new circumstances. The following subsections describe some factors that generate uncertainty. II.2.5.1 Airline Network Planning In the United States, airlines typically provide connecting services through one or more strate- gically located hub airports. Airline decisions to open up, expand, contract, or close down a hub location can occur independently of local economic conditions. Planning decisions to support Terminal Planning and Design Process 21

airline hub operations tend to be tied to that airline’s long-term business strategy, which may not be driven primarily by the size of the local market. II.2.5.2 Local Economic Factors While economic forecasts are generally more reliable than forecasts of future airline plans, airports that serve communities whose economy is dominated by one particular industrial activity, or by a single company’s business activities, are inevitably more vulnerable to the effects of decisions to expand or contract the enterprises concerned. Generally, traffic levels at smaller airports are more sensitive to fluctuations in demand of this sort, as compared to airports serving larger, more diverse economic regions, and are likely to face less volatility in demand. II.2.5.3 Airport Competition for Passengers Airports have overlapping service areas. While the great majority of originating passengers live within a 1-hour travel time from the airport, some passengers come from up to 3 hours away. The presence of a low-fare carrier will tend to attract passengers from longer distances if no competing service is available from a closer airport. Changes in airline service at competing airports can affect local traffic. II.2.6 Facilities Programming Programming of terminal facilities is part art, part science. Not only do a number of different methods exist for developing a program document, the uses to which the document will be put and the expectations of it may also vary widely. Programs used for master planning, conceptual planning, schematic design, and building renovations all offer different levels of detail, synthesize different types of input, and are required to meet the different applications of their users. As the effort to create a terminal program is initiated, it is important to understand both the needs of the end user and achieve a consensus (or lack thereof) on the integrity and availability of the data to be used as the basis of the program. Additionally, an important key to developing a useful and credible terminal program is some prediction of the type, and likely configuration, of the terminal. Concurrence among the programmer, design team, and client on the level of information required and the integrity of existing forecasts and data is crucial to agreeing on the schedule, budget, and participants in the programming process. Depending on their intended project purpose, terminal facilities programs can vary signifi- cantly in their level of detail. A terminal facility’s requirements can be generated as part of an FAA-reviewed Airport Master Plan, as an independent study focused solely on the terminal area complex (sometimes referred to as a Terminal Area Master Plan), or in association with the development of a single terminal building. If the terminal facilities programming is part of the Airport Master Plan, or independently addresses the entirety of the terminal complex, then the first step is to consider the number and type of terminals to be developed. Multiple unit terminals create different requirements from a single, consolidated terminal. Multiple terminals duplicate the need for landside access and for internal passenger processing facilities and systems. They also raise issues of connectivity and the potential affect on airline connection times. No matter how good the planning, multiple terminals cannot split activity evenly at the airport, so each terminal must be capable of responding to its own specific sub-peaks of demand in terms of spatial and systems planning. As a result, the aggregate demand for facilities, staff, and systems throughout the airport is inevitably going to be larger than if a single unit terminal approach were selected. Likewise, small domestic terminals have different needs and characteristics than large international ones. Each of these characteristics should suggest to the programmer how data needs to be collected, organized, and collated to be useful to the design team. 22 Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design

The type of terminal configuration being considered also has a direct bearing on the program- matic needs of the facility. For example, there are two primary organizational approaches to the terminal processor: centralized and decentralized processing of passengers and baggage. In addition, there are four basic overall terminal processor and concourse configurations: linear, pier, satellite, and transporter. These configurations also can be used in various combinations. Each has unique organizational implications and programmatic requirements. The various types of terminal configurations are discussed in more detail in Chapter VI. Key programmatic differences between these types of terminal configurations involve variances in the quantity of space required for circulation and concessions, and variations in their distribution throughout the terminal facility design. Additionally, the quantity of circulation space programmed will be different for concourses that are single-loaded or double-loaded, or that contain moving sidewalks, as well as for buildings with rail transit or bus dock stations. Tenant development interests also need to be recognized in the program. In some cases the whole terminal development program may be driven by the needs of one or more tenants, usually the principal hubbing airline, but possibly a new airline entrant. In some cases an indi- vidual airline may drive the program in order to meet growth or marketing requirements. In other cases an individual airline is the sponsor of the program and may be the sole tenant of the facility. In this case meeting that airline’s specific needs will take greater priority than in the case of a multi-airline facility, when the needs of all the tenants must be balanced against their relationship to the airport’s competitive objectives. II.2.7 Conceptual Planning Once the goals and objectives for a terminal project have been agreed on and sufficient terminal facilities programming has been completed, the conceptual planning process may begin. Goals and objectives ideally are refined, along with the planning process, and kept flexible as the project evolves. This is possible primarily because, as additional information is gained along the termi- nal concept development process, the goals and objectives can be brought into clearer focus as stakeholders and agencies engage in review plans and ideas. A typical terminal planning process consists of several iterations of developing concepts, each iteration serving as a means to receive feedback from the key stakeholders and agencies in the terminal project’s outcome, and progres- sively narrowing the choice of options. For illustrative purposes, a typical terminal planning process may involve the following three main iterative steps. II.2.7.1 Step One: First Iteration Planning Definition of Opportunities and Constraints. Opportunities and constraints encompass both physical issues, such as site constraints and boundaries, and also non-physical issues, such as political or policy-driven guidelines. Both are equally important and must not be overlooked during the planning process. Physical opportunities and/or constraints should be clearly repre- sented. This is often done by diagrammatically illustrating opportunities and constraints on a site plan or aerial photograph using color to define issues. Non-physical issues may also be noted on this site plan illustration. Adjustments to the opportunities and constraints diagram may be needed as reviews are carried out. Figure II-3 depicts an example of an opportunities and constraints diagram. Development of Initial Options. The first opportunity for creative development in any terminal project typically comes as the initial group of conceptual options is being developed. This is the first stage of the planning process in which a relatively long list of concepts may be produced. The process of development will ideally involve input from a variety of resources, which should always be coordinated with, and approved by, the client. Alternatives should be Terminal Planning and Design Process 23

clearly and consistently defined so that objective comparisons are possible. General programmatic (space program or project brief) requirements should be consistently reflected in each concept so that genuine “apples to apples” comparisons are possible. If the project sponsor is electing to pursue Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification, which is strongly suggested as a “best practice” approach, then sustainability principles need to be considered even at this early stage of concept development, particularly as it relates to the building’s orientation if a greenfield terminal project is envisaged. These initial development concepts may be sketched by hand or prepared with computer-aided design (CAD) as shown in Figure II-4. Initial Evaluation. After all reasonable options have been developed, an initial evaluation process can be set in motion. Evaluation criteria are best drawn from the original set of goals and objectives for the project and should be simple but clearly defined. To narrow down the potentially large number of initial terminal concepts to a shortlist of three or four, an evaluation process using criteria drawn from the project goals and objectives may be used. Typical criteria may address the following areas: • Airside • Terminal • Landside • Implementation feasibility • Flexibility • Sustainability • Environmental and community issues 24 Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design Courtesy of: State of Hawaii, Department of Transportation, Airports Division Figure II-3. Example of opportunities and constraints diagram.

• Land use • Capital costs • Operating costs Criteria should be defined and reviewed with the stakeholders and may be weighted depending on the needs of the project or the client/project sponsor. This process will help to gain a better understanding of the performance of each of the facility concepts. Additionally, when an initial option may be underperforming for a particular criterion, refinements may need to be made and, in some cases, new concepts may need to be developed and reviewed before the final selection of the shortlisted concepts begins. A matrix format is often used in the evaluation process to organize and present the ranking of the options against the various evaluation criteria. Criteria are arranged along one side of the matrix while the options may be listed along the intersecting side and identified by a letter or number as shown in Figure II-5. Evaluation criteria may be grouped according to major concerns; landside, terminal, airside, cost, and site considerations are typical groupings. Initial scoring may be as simple as +1 for positive readings, 0 for no effect, and −1 for negative assessments of criteria considered against each alternative. After the scores are totaled, a short list of the most desirable concepts may be established. Terminal Planning and Design Process 25 Courtesy of: Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport Figure II-4. Example of initial concepts.

II.2.7.2 Step Two: Second Iteration Planning Shortlisted Concepts. The shortlisted options are typically regrouped and redefined so that a more refined evaluation can take place during the second half of the conceptual planning process. Sections, detailed plans, and massing perspectives are some of the methods used to define each concept further. These additional levels of detail for a shorter list of concepts allows for added assessment of capital costs compared to budget targets. At this point, meetings may be held with stakeholders to review the results of the initial planning process. Adjustments and re-combination of some terminal components may also be appropriate at this time. These concepts can be drawn as hand sketches at this point in the process, but the additional accuracy of CAD assisting in more accurately representing the facilities program and the dimensional criteria of the airside, terminal, and landside facilities is also recommended. Figure II-6 depicts an example of shortlisted concepts. Second Evaluation. After the shortlisted terminal concepts have been refined and redefined, a second evaluation may be carried out. Initial evaluation criteria are usually revisited for validity 26 Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 A --+++-0-wolF tfarcriA + + + 0 I Ramp Operations 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 R ++0ytilibixelF esU etaG 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 S Program Implementation/Phasing + - - + + + 0 0 0 + + 0 I Ability to Expand 0 0 0 + + + 0 0 0 + + + D Runway/Gate Taxi Times 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E Subtotal 0 0 -1 +3 +3 +3 -1 0 +1 +3 +3 +1 T 0++noitcafsitaS margorP + + + + + + + + + E Passenger Convenience/Wayfinding - - + 0 0 0 + + + + + 0 R Connectivity Between Terminals 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M Revenue/Concessions Opportunity 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I Gateway Opportunities + + - + + + + + + + + + N Implementation Effectiveness + + - + + + 0 0 0 0 0 + A Flexibility for Airline Change 0 0 0 0 0 + + + + + + 0 L -00ytilibatcurtsnoC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Subtotal +2 +2 0 +3 +3 +4 +4 +4 +4 +4 +4 +3 L A -00noitcafsitaS margorP 0 0 0 + + + + 0 0 N +00ecafretnI tnorfbruC 0 0 0 + + + + + 0 D -00ecafretnI gnikraP 0 0 0 + + + + + 0 S Ease of Circulation/Phasing + + - + + + - - - - 0 + I Integration of Blue Line 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D People Mover Interface + + + + + + + + + + + + E Subtotal +2 +2 -1 +2 +2 +2 +3 +3 +3 +3 +3 +2 S Airfield Impacts 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I Adjacent Facilities Impacts + + - + + + + 0 0 + + + T Environmental Assessment 0 0 - 0 0 0 + + + + 0 0 E Economy of Site Utilization + + - + + + 0 0 0 0 0 + Subtotal +2 +2 -3 +2 +2 +2 +2 +1 +1 +2 +1 +2 C O Construction Cost (Order of Mag.) 0 0 - + + + 0 0 0 0 + + S Operation Cost (Assessment) + + + + + + + + + + + + T Phasing/Timing Cost 0 0 0 + + 0 + - 0 + + + Subtotal +1 +1 0 +3 +3 +2 +2 0 +1 +2 +3 +3 Grand Total Score +7 +7 -5 +13 +13 +13 +10 +8 +10 +14 +14 +11 + Positive 0 Neutral - Negative EVALUATION CRITERIA Scoring System: Source: Landrum & Brown Figure II-5. Example of  and  evaluation scoring.

Terminal Planning and Design Process 27 Courtesy of: Columbus Regional Airport Authority Figure II-6. Example of shortlisted concepts.

at this point. A narrowing and recombining of criteria may also be appropriate depending on developments and evolution of views and plans during Step One of the planning process. Weighting of evaluation criteria may also be a useful adjunct to this secondary evaluation of the shortlisted concepts. Following the conclusion of the refined shortlisted concepts, the evaluation criteria and weightings may need to be revisited and refined for inclusion into a restructured matrix, which should address any additional input from the stakeholders. The evaluation matrix may then be used during a charrette process to facilitate stakeholders input and to assist the consultant with the selection of the best representative preferred concept. The selection of the preferred concept should be a collaborative process between the consultant and stakeholders. Figure II-7 depicts an example of a weighted matrix. Recommended Terminal Development Concept. Ideally, the output of the second evalua- tion will be a recommended terminal development concept. Certain components of other con- cepts may be incorporated into the recommended terminal concept at this juncture in the planning process. The recommended terminal development plan can then be put forward for the review and approval of stakeholders. Figure II-8 depicts an example of a detailed terminal concept drawing. II.2.7.3 Step Three: Concept Refinement Concept Plan Refinement. During the third and final step of the conceptual planning process, the stakeholder-approved concept is further refined in order to test and verify performance prior to entering into the more labor-intensive design process. This refined version of the concept, sometimes referred to as “advanced planning,” begins to define the terminal building in terms of its internal functional layout in more detail. It is during this step that all of the major functional areas of the terminal building are delineated in CAD corresponding to the space program, and initial passenger and baggage conveyance systems, such as automated people movers, escalators, and elevators, are further identified. At this point in the process, the conceptual length, width, and height of the facilities begin to take initial shape, allowing the preparation of 3D massing perspectives and more accurate cost estimations. Depending on the needs of the project, animated visualizations and scale models may also be produced at this stage. The additional detail in the diagrammatic floor plans of the terminal building also allows for the simulation of passengers based on flight schedules representative of future forecast demand levels. The simulation of the terminal at this stage in the process helps to verify the translation of the space program into a floor plan that meets a satisfactory LOS performance as the basis for architectural design. Concessions Planning. The concept refinement step is an appropriate time to prepare an initial layout of concession areas with the aim of providing maximum exposure of the vari- ous commercial offerings to the main passenger flows through the terminal. This plan should include both the conceptual size and location of areas for retail, and food and beverage outlets, as well as concession delivery routes and storage. Setting the conceptual direction of the concessions planning early in the process helps ensure more productive revenue generation of the terminal project, and anticipate and minimize potential interference caused by the delivery and stocking of goods and waste disposal. Conceptual Phasing. Step Three is also when conceptual phasing, showing the primary phases of construction corresponding to the trigger points of demand, is prepared. This provides additional information relative to cash draw downs for the project over time. Program Criteria Document. Often, the final product deliverable of Step Three is a Program Criteria Document (PCD) that carefully describes the refined terminal plan, space program, 28 Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design

Terminal Planning and Design Process 29 Major Secondary Category Category Weighting Weighting RAW WEIGHTED RAW WEIGHTED RAW WEIGHTED RAW WEIGHTED RAW WEIGHTED %001%02EDISRIA1 %02yticapaCgnikraPtfarcriAderiuqeRsteeM1.1 %52ytilibixelFesUetaGtfarcriA2.1 %52ycneiciffEenalixaT/norpA3.1 %03stixE&sdnEyawnuRotecnatsiDixaT4.1 %001%52LANIMRET2 %51yticapaClanimreTderiuqeRsteeM1.2 2.2 Maximizes Flexibility for Potential Operational Changes 5% 2.3 Ability to Meet Primary Stakeholder Missions (airlines) 20% %03trofmoC&ecneinevnoCregnessaP4.2 %02ciffarTnoitanitseD&nigirO1.4.2 %01ciffarTgnitcennoC2.4.2 %51ycneiciffEytiruceS5.2 %5gnissecorPotnoitatneirOregnessaP6.2 %5seitilicaFyeKrehtOotytivitcennoC7.2 %5laitnetoPeuneveRsnoissecnoC8.2 %001%01EDISDNAL3 %02yticapaCbruCderiuqeRsteeM1.3 %03sseccAedisdnaLnrehtuoSsetadommoccA2.3 %02sdaoRssergE/sseccAfossenevitceffE3.3 %02sdaoRotnoitatneirOregnessaPfoesaE4.3 %01tisnarTssaMerutuFotsseccAysaEsedivorP5.3 4 IMPLEMENTATION FEASIBILITY 10% 100% %04snoitacifidoM/noitcurtsnoCesahPotytilibA1.4 %04esahPlaitinIfossenevitceffElanoitarepO2.4 %02noisnapxElanimreTegnaRg-noLerutuFsdraugefaS3.4 %001%01SEUSSILATNEMNORIVNE5 %05ytilauQretaWdnariA1.5 %05)leveLrevliSDEEL(ytilibaniatsuS2.5 %001%01ESUDNAL6 %05sdeeNnoitaivArofdnaLfonoitazilitUevitceffE1.6 %05snoitpOtnempoleveDlaretalloClaitnetoP2.6 %001%51TSOCLATIPAC7 7.1 Order of Magnitude Costs %001 TOTAL TERMINAL CONCEPT 100% South B Option 5 South C Option 3 West A Option 4 Importance Airport Master Plan Development Options - Evaluation Matrix Criteria Categories Option 1 Baseline Central Center A Option 2 Central West A 2.46 2.74 2.63 2.66 2.92 3.01 3.25 3.21 -5.00 -2.00 2.00 0.80 5.00 2.00 3.00 1.20 5.00 2.00 -5.00 -2.00 -3.00 -1.20 5.00 2.00 -3.00 -1.20 5.00 2.00 -5.00 -1.00 3.00 0.60 5.00 1.00 5.00 1.00 5.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 2.50 5.00 2.50 5.00 2.50 5.00 2.50 3.00 0.15 5.00 0.25 5.00 0.25 5.00 0.25 5.00 0.25 5.00 0.25 5.00 0.25 -2.00 -0.10 3.00 0.15 3.00 0.15 -3.00 -0.15 5.00 0.25 5.00 0.25 5.00 0.25 5.00 0.25 5.00 1.00 5.00 1.00 5.00 1.00 5.00 1.00 5.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 1.25 5.00 1.25 5.00 1.25 5.00 1.25 0.00 0.00 5.00 1.25 5.00 1.25 5.00 1.25 5.00 1.25 4.00 1.20 4.00 1.20 -3.00 -0.90 3.00 0.90 3.00 0.90 5.00 0.75 5.00 0.75 5.00 0.75 5.00 0.75 5.00 0.75 5.00 0.25 5.00 0.25 5.00 0.25 5.00 0.25 5.00 0.25 5.00 1.00 5.00 1.00 5.00 1.00 5.00 1.00 5.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 1.50 5.00 1.50 5.00 1.50 5.00 1.50 0.00 0.00 5.00 1.00 5.00 1.00 5.00 1.00 5.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.50 5.00 0.50 5.00 0.50 5.00 0.50 3.00 0.45 5.00 0.75 5.00 0.75 5.00 0.75 5.00 0.75 2.25 2.20 4.75 4.70 3.00 2.60 4.50 4.40 4.50 4.40 2.88 2.70 5.00 5.00 4.13 4.65 4.75 4.90 4.75 4.90 2.20 1.20 4.80 4.80 4.80 4.80 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 1.00 5.00 1.00 5.00 1.00 5.00 1.00 5.00 1.00 -5.00 -1.50 5.00 1.50 5.00 1.50 5.00 1.50 5.00 1.50 3.00 0.60 4.00 0.80 4.00 0.80 5.00 1.00 5.00 1.00 3.00 0.60 5.00 1.00 5.00 1.00 5.00 1.00 5.00 1.00 5.00 0.50 5.00 0.50 5.00 0.50 5.00 0.50 5.00 0.50 -5.00 -5.00 0.67 0.20 5.00 5.00 1.67 1.00 5.00 5.00 0.00 0.00 1.50 1.50 4.50 4.50 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 0.00 0.00 -2.00 -1.00 4.00 2.00 3.00 1.50 3.00 1.50 3.50 3.50 3.50 3.50 0.00 0.00 3.50 3.50 4.50 4.50 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 -3.00 -1.50 3.00 1.50 5.00 2.50 5.00 2.50 5.00 2.50 3.00 1.50 4.00 2.00 4.00 2.00 -3.00 -3.00 -3.00 -3.00 -3.00 -3.00 -3.00 -3.00 -5.00 -5.00 -3.00 -3.00 -3.00 -3.00 -3.00 -3.00 -3.00 -3.00 -5.00 -5.00 0.40 0.64 C olor Scoring Scale : 5 to 3 = G ood 2.99 to -2 = Average -2.01 to -5 = Poor Source: Landrum & Brown Figure II-7. Example of weighted matrix.

phasing, and concessions program, which will serve as guidance to the architectural designers and engineers. The primary purpose of the PCD is to focus the architectural design process on creating a solution that maintains the goals and objectives of the planning process; delivers an architectural design that, once constructed, delivers the desired LOS for passenger and baggage operations; provides flexibility in its phasing; and maximizes revenues from airport concessions programs. II.2.8 Design Process Transition to the design process can sometimes be challenging if the team of consultants chosen to design the terminal has not been included in the planning process. The natural inclination of architects and designers is to question plans that have been set out for them to design. This is especially true if they have not achieved the buy-in made possible through an involvement during the conceptual planning process. Consequently, the transition from planning to design stages must be carefully managed to avoid time-wasting and potentially costly attempts to re-plan, re-think, and/or re-shape the recommended concept and to safeguard its functional integrity. The design process itself traditionally follows three basic stages: schematic design, design/ development, and contract documents. In some projects there may be a need for a brief pre-design phase, which may involve confirmation of the designer’s understanding of the project. Often the design team may provide a service called “construction administration,” which follows the drawing up of the contract documents and provides various oversight responsibilities during construction of the project. A brief summary of each of the main stages of design follows. 30 Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design Courtesy of: State of Hawaii, Department of Transportation, Airports Division Figure II-8. Example of final detailed terminal concept drawings.

II.2.8.1 Schematic Design Schematic design takes the conceptual level of planning and begins to translate it into architecture. The space program is validated during this stage and applied to the terminal, which begins to be defined as an architectural statement in volume and structure. Column grids emerge and mechanical systems begin to be defined. This is an appropriate stage to infuse the expertise of a construction manager and engineer to address the realm of constructability and realistic cost estimations. Reviews with stakeholders and applicable building/life-safety groups continue or are initiated during this stage. II.2.8.2 Design/Development The schematic design is taken forward into a reality of structure, form, and supporting systems. Compliance with applicable building codes, such as the ADA, Uniform Building Code, National Fire Protection Association, and so forth is verified during this stage in parallel with continuing reviews with stakeholders and pertinent agencies. The design/development stage should result in plans that are sufficiently firm to enable the drawing of contract documents to begin. Only limited changes to plans should be expected after design/development is complete. II.2.8.3 Contract Documents This stage of the design process culminates in production of the documents that will be used to construct the new or expanded terminal. Everything necessary to carry out construction should be developed during this stage including plans, specifications, building department reviews, code compliance reviews, and stakeholder updates. Once construction documents have been developed, subsequent design changes become more expensive and problematic. Recently, new computer software has become available that is greatly enhancing the design process in terms of accuracy and project understanding. This software is referred to as “Building Information Modeling” (BIM) and revolves around a three-dimensional approach to design that was not previously available to designers until much later in the design process. BIM also provides more detailed information regarding quantities of materials (steel, concrete, doors, windows, etc.) that can be used to enhance cost-estimating accuracy. II.2.9 Value Engineering Value engineering is an organized review of the proposed airport passenger terminal design, with the goal of identifying possible changes to the proposed project’s design that would result in a minimum amount of capital and operating costs to the project sponsor, while still meeting all the project’s goals and objectives. This typically occurs toward the end of the schematic design of the terminal facility, although it may be implemented by the project sponsor at another point in the design process. II.2.10 Construction Process At many of today’s space-constrained airports, staging and implementation are great challenges. More often than not, implementation must be planned and carried out in the midst of ongoing airport operations. Safety and security are always major concerns that must not be compromised; the FAA includes security as a closely related element in the development of Safety Management Systems (SMS). It is almost always true that a good beginning makes a good end. This axiom is never more true than in an airport setting. A construction management plan that can be implemented in a safe, secure, cost-effective, and timely manner is critical to the success of any terminal development. Much of the responsibility for the construction management plan falls on the shoulders of airport management and their program and construction management teams. Experience is Terminal Planning and Design Process 31

important, along with attention to detail and quality assurance. Information dispersal and con- sistent and frequent communication are also critical to the success of any terminal development project. Airlines, the FAA, the TSA, and other stakeholders may also play an important part. The key is to develop the right plan and share that with those who need to be a part of it. II.2.10.1 Program Management For airport terminals, program management pertains to the process of effectively managing multiple facets of an overall development program. The role of the program management spe- cialist is to manage and ensure that all aspects of the project are completed on time and within budget. Program management specialists should accurately define the requirements, specifications, and scopes of work of each individual construction project; establish realistic budgets; and develop achievable milestone schedules necessary for the successful completion of the program. The project management team must lead and support the construction and operations activities to ensure all resources are comprehensively managed to meet the program’s objectives. In all, program management is the tool with the ability to unify design, scheduling, budgeting, funding, manage- ment, and construction processes in one application. II.2.10.2 Construction Management The job of construction manager is to deliver projects on time and within budget: inspecting construction, controlling schedules and costs, providing coordination and communication, administering construction contracts, and ensuring compliance with federal and state regulations. The key to the success of the project lies in an ability to cultivate trust and a cooperative relationship between the airport and the project management/construction management team. A construction management plan that can be implemented in a safe, secure, cost-effective, and timely manner is critical to the success of any terminal development. II.2.10.3 Project Delivery Options There are three primary means to implement the construction of a new airport terminal project: design–bid–build, design–build, and construction management at-risk. A fourth means, which is being used frequently overseas, infuses investment into the traditional mix of the owner, designer, and builder and is called “build–operate–transfer” (BOT). Design–Bid–Build. Design–bid–build is the traditional project delivery method in which the agency or owner segregates design and construction responsibilities by awarding them to an independent architect/engineer and a separate private contractor. This method requires two separate contracts. The first contract is between the owner and designer, followed by a second contract between the owner and the building contractor. Using this project delivery method separates the process into three sequential phases: (1) the design phase, (2) the bidding (or tender) phase, and (3) the building phase. The work progresses in a linear sequence where the owner first contracts with an architect for design then uses the design documents to obtain bids from various contractors, with the winning contractor securing the contract. The design–bid–build method typically involves lump-sum contracts that are competitively bid, providing the owner with a lowest responsible bid in the construction market. Design–Build. Design–build is a procurement or project delivery arrangement for a single entity (a contractor with subconsultants, or a team of contractors and architects/engineers, often with subconsultants) that is entrusted with both design and construction of a project. This arrangement contrasts with the design–bid–build method where one contract is bid for the design phase and then a second contract is bid for the construction phase of the project. Construction Management At-Risk. Under this approach the owner hires an architect but at the same time also procures the services of a construction manager. The construction manager 32 Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design

provides expertise on such matters as value engineering during design, project scheduling, cost tracking, management of construction contracts, and overseeing of construction activities. Under a construction manager at-risk approach, after the design phase, the construction entity provides the owner with a maximum construction cost, which is then negotiated with the owner. Once agreed upon, the construction entity assumes the financial obligation to deliver the project not to exceed the cost agreed upon. If the project goes over budget, the construction entity assumes the risk or overage. This project delivery approach helps to avoid claims and change orders often associated with the low-bid model. While typically the construction price is determined at the end of the design phase, it can occur earlier if mutually agreed upon, which allows the airport sponsor to start the construction process earlier. Build–Operate–Transfer. BOT is a type of project arrangement in which a private entity receives a concession from a private or public sector entity to finance, design, construct, and commercially operate a facility for a fixed term, typically 20 to 30 years, following which the facility reverts to the granting entity. During the BOT concession period, the franchisee is empowered to charge the users of the facility fees, rentals, and any other charges defined in the concession contract. These charges allow the private entity potentially to recover its original investment, and operating and maintenance expenses, plus a reasonable return. This type of arrangement is used typically in complicated long-term projects, as seen in power plants and water treatment facilities, and has been used in some jurisdictions as a means of privatizing the building of new airport terminals. II.2.11 Approval and Certification Building codes and other construction regulations are standards that have been adopted to protect public health and safety. The terminal building project needs to be inspected to ensure that each project meets current standards and complies with local building codes and zoning ordinances. After the project passes a final inspection, the inspecting agency may issue a Building Occupancy Certificate or Certificate of Occupancy. A Certificate of Occupancy provides legal documentation that the building is in a safe and livable condition and can be occupied for its intended purpose. Successful completion of the final inspection and a Certification of Occupancy is required before use or occupancy of a terminal project. Terminal Planning and Design Process 33