National Academies Press: OpenBook

Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook (2010)

Chapter: Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities

« Previous: Chapter V - Terminal Airside Facilities
Page 138
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 138
Page 139
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 139
Page 140
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 140
Page 141
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 141
Page 142
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 142
Page 143
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 143
Page 144
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 144
Page 145
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 145
Page 146
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 146
Page 147
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 147
Page 148
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 148
Page 149
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 149
Page 150
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 150
Page 151
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 151
Page 152
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 152
Page 153
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 153
Page 154
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 154
Page 155
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 155
Page 156
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 156
Page 157
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 157
Page 158
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 158
Page 159
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 159
Page 160
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 160
Page 161
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 161
Page 162
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 162
Page 163
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 163
Page 164
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 164
Page 165
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 165
Page 166
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 166
Page 167
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 167
Page 168
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 168
Page 169
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 169
Page 170
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 170
Page 171
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 171
Page 172
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 172
Page 173
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 173
Page 174
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 174
Page 175
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 175
Page 176
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 176
Page 177
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 177
Page 178
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 178
Page 179
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 179
Page 180
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 180
Page 181
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 181
Page 182
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 182
Page 183
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 183
Page 184
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 184
Page 185
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 185
Page 186
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 186
Page 187
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 187
Page 188
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 188
Page 189
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 189
Page 190
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 190
Page 191
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 191
Page 192
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 192
Page 193
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 193
Page 194
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 194
Page 195
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 195
Page 196
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 196
Page 197
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 197
Page 198
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 198
Page 199
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 199
Page 200
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 200
Page 201
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 201
Page 202
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 202
Page 203
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 203
Page 204
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 204
Page 205
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 205
Page 206
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 206
Page 207
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 207
Page 208
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 208
Page 209
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 209
Page 210
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 210
Page 211
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 211
Page 212
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 212
Page 213
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 213
Page 214
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 214
Page 215
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 215
Page 216
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 216
Page 217
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 217
Page 218
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 218
Page 219
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 219
Page 220
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 220
Page 221
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 221
Page 222
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 222
Page 223
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 223
Page 224
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 224
Page 225
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 225
Page 226
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 226
Page 227
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 227
Page 228
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 228
Page 229
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 229
Page 230
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 230
Page 231
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 231
Page 232
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 232
Page 233
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 233
Page 234
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 234
Page 235
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 235
Page 236
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 236
Page 237
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 237
Page 238
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 238
Page 239
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 239
Page 240
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 240
Page 241
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 241
Page 242
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 242
Page 243
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 243
Page 244
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 244
Page 245
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 245
Page 246
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 246
Page 247
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 247
Page 248
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 248
Page 249
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 249
Page 250
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 250
Page 251
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 251
Page 252
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 252
Page 253
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 253
Page 254
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 254
Page 255
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 255
Page 256
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 256
Page 257
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 257
Page 258
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 258
Page 259
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 259
Page 260
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 260
Page 261
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 261
Page 262
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 262
Page 263
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 263
Page 264
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 264
Page 265
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 265
Page 266
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 266
Page 267
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 267
Page 268
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 268
Page 269
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 269
Page 270
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 270
Page 271
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 271
Page 272
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 272
Page 273
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 273
Page 274
Suggested Citation:"Chapter VI - Terminal Building Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 274

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.

138 The planner of today’s airport passenger terminals must address a wide range of differing needs. While the goals of functionality and flexibility remain paramount, the planner must also consider ways of creating a building layout and environment that supports the highest levels of passenger service and facilities in balance with the size of the building envelope and available budget. Terminal building projects are a major investment commitment, both as a direct expense in terms of rates and charges and as an indirect cost if poorly planned and consequently under-utilized or expensive to operate. Planners must also be innovative in the ways of creating spaces that maximize concessions’ revenues. This challenge includes creating areas where passengers may be expected to spend significant periods of time (food courts/retail nodes, etc.), as well as heavily trafficked con- courses where travelers move quickly and purposefully to or from their gate and have limited time to make purchases. In addressing these diverse needs and challenges, the terminal planner must work closely and effectively with the airport client, the airline customers, and other business stakeholders. The planner must also exercise firm but sensitive leadership within a team of professionals including the architect, engineers, and specialists in a wide range of technical disciplines such as information technology and security systems, baggage handling, people mover systems, and ground transporta- tion planning. This chapter begins by setting out the overarching planning considerations that should guide the planner when setting out to quantify the terminal facility requirements and develop the terminal program. This chapter also discusses in detail the methodologies for quantifying the amount of space required to accommodate key passenger processing functions and how the methodology applied can influence the type of facilities and equipment specified. The chapter also provides a fuller understanding of the service objectives and modalities underpinning some key operational functions such as airport security, baggage handling systems (BHS), and IT. While the terminal planner cannot and is not expected to be an expert in all of these fields, it is important that terminal planners have a good grasp of the rele- vant operational and functional requirements that will drive the spatial and building layout considerations. In essence, this chapter of the Guidebook contains information needed to undertake the terminal planning and design process previously described in Chapter II. The first step in this process is to gain a clear understanding of the mission for the project. In-depth discussions with the sponsor and primary stakeholders in the project assist the planner in identifying the project’s mission. With an understanding of the mission, and as the planning process begins, there are key terminal planning issues and concept types to consider. Quickly identifying the mission and concept type allows the planner to better define both the terminal facility and systems require- C H A P T E R V I Terminal Building Facilities

ments for the project. This chapter provides guidance in addressing the following categories of items involved when developing terminal building facilities: • Terminal planning and design considerations • Terminal concept development • Terminal facility requirements • Other building considerations VI.1 Terminal Planning and Design Considerations At the start of a terminal planning project, there are a number of key terminal planning considerations with ramifications for the terminal’s ultimate design that should be explored and discussed with the airport terminal sponsor and key stakeholders. The considerations presented in this section will focus on the terminal building itself as compared to the more macro considerations such as land use compatibility, Airport Master Plan, ground access trans- portation, terminal site, environmental, and business planning strategies that have been pre- viously discussed in Chapter III. Specifically, this section will address the following terminal planning considerations: • Mission • Balance • Level of service • Passenger convenience • Flexibility • Security • Wayfinding and terminal signage • Accessibility • Maintenance VI.1.1 Mission The airport terminal is the major connection between the ground access system and the aircraft. It consists of a ground access interface, a system of components for the processing of passengers and their baggage, and an aircraft or flight interface. It includes facilities and amenities for the processing of passengers and baggage; cargo handling; and airport administration, operations, and maintenance. In the terminal building, as well as its airside and ground access interfaces, facilities may be nearing capacity and, in some cases, may have even exceeded their design limitations. Airside areas can be saturated sometimes during peak periods with both maneuvering restrictions and physical limits to accommodate existing or any future aircraft demand. Terminal and passenger concourse facilities may also be cramped and too physically constrained for needed future expansion to occur. While forecast airside capacity typically drives future terminal requirements, constructed facilities must be in balance with ground access capacities and capabilities that include not only parking and curb frontage but also accessibility to and from the airport. Planning for the airport’s infrastructure is typically associated with a long-term planning horizon from an Airport Master Plan or developed from the best available information. Inevitably, however, there will be many changes of usage, need, priority, and policy during the lifetime of these investments, so flexibility and the ability to adapt facilities to such changes are vital. Furthermore, it is extremely important to understand that opportunities to increase terminal facility capacity are rare oppor- tunities within the nation’s system of airports. Open land areas and existing terminal infrastructures Terminal Building Facilities 139

at airports are a limited resource. Each terminal planning project requires careful study and deliberation to maximize each opportunity and to successfully plan for changing airport demand and operational requirements. Guidance in the planning of airport terminal facilities at commercial service airports is com- plicated by a variety of factors that affect planning decisions: • Existing configuration and size of airport facilities • Volume of airport traffic • Airport service area • Passenger characteristics • Presence and proportions of domestic and international service • Airline route and station characteristics • Operating procedures and policies • Aircraft fleet mix • Extent of non-scheduled airline service Apart from obvious influences, such as physical size and topography, some of the more sig- nificant characteristics that influence the airport terminal plan include the following: • Population profile of the area served • Per capita income and the potential for growth • Geographic location of the airport relative to other airports with similar service characteristics • Degree of commercial/industrial activity that may generate a relatively high propensity for air transportation • Proximity of major vacation or recreational areas. There are two basic categories of passengers: business travelers and leisure travelers. Significant variations in the characteristics and ratio of these two passenger types can influence terminal space requirements and staffing. Local business travelers will be familiar with the airport and its processing procedures, will arrive at the airport nearer to flight departure time, may spend whatever time they have in an airline lounge, and thus may be less likely to use the full range of terminal services and concessions. Leisure travelers are more likely to arrive well in advance of flight depar- ture time, have time to explore and use a wider range of terminal facilities, and generate a larger number of well wishers and/or meeters and greeters. At one end of the spectrum, an airport serving a vacation or resort area, perhaps with a relatively short season of intense activity, will have quite different planning requirements from an airport handling comparable peak-month volumes throughout the year and a high proportion of business travelers. The extent to which passengers are accompanied or met by visitors influences the planning of various terminal facilities. In particular, all terminal facilities must accommodate, as smoothly as possible, passengers and visitors with physical or mobility limitations. Airports with international flights have other characteristics that influence terminal planning and design. One such characteristic is a tendency toward higher aircraft activity peaks, because of the heavy dependence on schedules for city pairs related to time zone differences. Such flights typically have relatively long ground service times required for long-range aircraft servicing. Additional requirements for customs and immigration facilities and the provision of sterile areas for international passenger segregation also affect terminal planning. The route structures of the scheduled airlines serving an airport influence the character and, consequently, the facility requirements of the terminal. Over the years, most major airlines have changed their route structures from a line-haul system with a series of intermediate stops to a hub-and-spoke system. The primary function of the hub is to optimize airline scheduling and load factors by feeding passenger traffic to and from smaller centers of demand (the spokes) and 140 Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design

then consolidating demand for onward service at the hub. The services provided by airlines generally fall into three categories: • O&D service accommodates passengers who start or end their particular journey at the airport, whether a hub or spoke city. As a result, they generate the preponderance of demand for key passenger processing functions such as ticketing and check-in, passenger and baggage security screening, baggage reclaim, and ground transportation services. • Through service tends to have a relatively lower boarding load factor for O&D passengers at any given city because the aircraft capacity is shared among the number of city pairs served by that route. Therefore, terminal passenger processing function demands are reduced as compared to flights that serve a single destination or hub. • Transfer, or connecting, service has a significant proportion of passengers transferring between flights at the same airport, therefore generating less proportional demand for curb frontage, passenger check-in, and baggage claim facilities, but more demand for concessions, flight infor- mation, ticket change, and baggage transfer facilities. For transfer airports, there are typically higher load factors requiring larger holdrooms. Often airports will have a combination of airlines providing various types of service and, therefore, the type of service provided by a particular airline at an airport will determine the facility requirements for that airline. Similarly, the existence of, or the potential for, inter-airline operating agreements will influence facility needs at an airport to the extent that the sharing of particular facilities is desired and implemented. The mix of aircraft expected to use an airport, specifically their physical size, geometry, and passenger capacity, can significantly affect terminal planning. Airports serving a large variety of aircraft types and sizes require more flexible and complex gate/concourse configurations than those serving predominantly one class of aircraft, which are more conducive to the provision of standardized areas and facilities at, and adjacent to aircraft gate positions. Terminals at airports serving widebody aircraft require the ability to accommodate the large passenger surges, which normally occur when these aircraft load and unload. Similarly, airports with a significant amount of commuter or small regional aircraft, particularly at transfer airports, require careful considera- tion on the mechanisms for accommodating these aircraft and the facilitation of passenger transfers between connecting flights. Many commercial service airports serve a variety of non-scheduled operations such as charter flights, group tour flights, and air-taxi operations. At some airports, a relatively high volume of airline charter or other non-scheduled operations may warrant consideration of separate, modest terminal facilities for supplemental carriers. Occasionally, scheduled carriers may desire separate apron hardstands and buildings to serve charter operations that exceed the capabilities of facilities required for normal scheduled operations. Any such proposal should be evaluated thoroughly, because a separate facility can often create inefficiencies in logistics, staffing, and ground equipment utilization. Each of the factors discussed above, as well as other factors, have the potential for influencing the configuration and size of terminal buildings. Standards and guidelines for determining facility needs should, to the extent possible, address the variability introduced into the planning process through the consideration of these factors. Terminal planners need to review those factors with airport man- agement and the other stakeholders at the airport to ascertain which factors influence the facility requirements at the subject airport and the effect of such factors on overall facility planning. VI.1.1.1 Operational Mission Before terminal configuration alternatives can be developed, how the new terminal is to operate must be understood. A careful study of the Airport Master Plan or Terminal Program will identify what assumptions were made for terminal operation and passenger throughput. This study Terminal Building Facilities 141

will identify if the terminal is expected to be operated primarily as a hub transfer terminal, O&D terminal, or commuter terminal. Each type of terminal tends to perform better in certain con- figurations than others. Therefore, understanding terminal operational characteristics will help to rationalize the number or types of alternatives that will need to be generated and evaluated. Domestic and International Terminals. One of the primary distinctions of the mission of a terminal facility is whether it will be processing only domestic passengers, dedicated to inter- national operations, or handling both domestic and international passengers. Facilities serving international operations must comply with the requirements of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection described in Airport Technical Design Standards—Passenger Processing Facilities (12). The facility requirements for international arrivals are described in Section VI.3, Terminal Facility Requirements, and the flow of passengers and baggage through international terminals is depicted in Section VI.2.2, Flow Sequences. Examples of U.S. terminals that are specifically dedicated to international operations include Terminal 5 at Chicago O’Hare International Airport and the Tom Bradley Terminal at Los Angeles International Airport. Examples of terminals that handle both international and domestic passengers include International Terminal D at Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport and Concourse A at Denver International Airport. Having the ability to “swing” the use of aircraft gates between international arrivals and domestic departures/arrivals provides additional flexibility and higher utilization of the gate resource, and also avoids the need to tow the aircraft to a domestic terminal gate when the operation changes. This flexibility requires a separate sterile corridor to each gate with doorways that prevent the mixing of international arrivals with domestic passenger flows, which does add additional complexity to the design and construction cost of the terminal facilities. O&D Operations. O&D/terminating terminals require a good balance between accommo- dation for landside functions (ticketing, security screening, baggage claim) and airside functions (concourse, holdrooms/gates) because all passengers, either originating (enplaning) or termi- nating (deplaning) pass through both sectors of the terminal. Here, the key element is minimizing walking distances between curb and gate, and vice versa. Therefore, pier or linear terminals offer better configurations than a satellite or transporter terminal because passenger flows are intuitive and movements or changes in direction are minimized. Connecting Hub Operations. In hub terminals, connecting passengers remain on the secure airside of the terminal complex transferring between aircraft, rarely entering the unsecured landside of the terminal. This occurrence increases airside usage and reduces the load on landside functions. This imbalance in landside and airside capacity will have an effect on the overall terminal configuration; in particular, transfer flows must be made to be as easy as possible and without many changes in direction. A well-designed concourse will allow rapid turnaround times for aircraft and, therefore, higher gate utilization. For hub terminals, the ticketing and baggage claim facilities need not relate directly to the airside concourse because movements between these functions are less than movements between gates. However, even at a large hub airport, 30% to 60% of activity will be O&D passengers and must be considered in developing the terminal concept. Linear and linear/satellite configurations tend to function better for hubs because most move- ments are contained in a single concourse while allowing the terminal functions to be sized appropriately or even separately. Transfers within a single concourse allow passengers to change gates quickly and easily and enable airlines to schedule tight connection times. In large hubs, like Atlanta or Denver, that have multiple concourses connected by a people mover system, longer connecting times must be allowed for passengers required to move between concourses. Concourses with a single pier are effective hub configurations but may need to be comparatively long, requiring 142 Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design

a very deep site. Multiple piers, on the other hand, tend to increase walking distances, create confusion in wayfinding between piers, and usually require a long site to accommodate efficient aircraft movements between piers. Commuter/Regional Operations. In addition to hub and O&D operations at an airport, it is important to understand the effect of commuter/regional activities anticipated for the new terminal. In developing alternative configurations, propeller or jet regional aircraft have significant effect on the apron, as well as terminal space requirements. The Airport Master Plan or Terminal Program will indicate the amount of regional traffic expected at the new terminal. This traffic demand will indicate activity levels that must be accommodated by the terminal configuration. If a large number of regional aircraft are anticipated at a hub facility, a linear configuration might be appropriate because it allows for easier transfer between aircraft. At an O&D airport, a pier configuration might be more appropriate if one pier or one side of a pier is to be used for regional aircraft. This configuration can allow for more efficient use of space, but care must be given to minimize the effect of jet blasts from larger aircraft. Regional aircraft also affect the use of apron space. Propeller aircraft usually power-in and power-out by rotating in position. This maneuver requires more apron area than the conventional power-in and push-back operation, which is more indicative of jet aircraft. This increased area might reduce the space available for the gate concourse building on the site, thereby reducing the number of possible alternative configurations. Because regional aircraft have lower sill heights than large jets, the relationship between aircraft and terminal floor elevations becomes very important. In multi-level terminals with second level boarding, the relationship between the holdroom floor elevation to the aircraft door is critical, especially with the trend toward using passenger loading bridges to connect the building to regional aircraft. Here, the slope of the bridge must not exceed ADA requirements. If a terminal section is too high, this connection becomes costly and problematic. VI.1.1.2 Low-Cost Air Carriers Low-cost or “no frills” carriers have traditionally served low-budget leisure travelers but increasingly are also attracting cost-conscious business travelers. Many low-cost carriers operate high-frequency, point-to-point services that rely on very fast turnaround times to optimize oper- ating efficiencies. Because every dollar of airport-related cost is significant to the bottom line and ultimately the ticket price, low-cost carriers frequently build their operational network at lower cost secondary airports. Some larger airports that cannot lower their basic charges have built separate and more modest terminal facilities to accommodate low-cost carriers. Such purpose- designed terminals can be tailored to suit their different operating characteristics such as a higher proportion of O&D flights to multiple destinations, and fewer through and transfer passengers. Low-cost carriers do not typically “interline” (sell tickets or transfer luggage) with other carriers, which allows the low-cost carriers to operate independently from other carriers. Low-cost car- riers usually deploy only one or two types of aircraft, which streamline and simplify operations (maintenance, training, gate utilization, and ease of operation to name a few attributes). General implications for terminal performance follow: • Low-cost structure: It is important for the airport to offer low-cost options for passenger park- ing, tenant lease space, operation and maintenance costs, and reasonable landing fees. A good concessions program, with a variety of reasonably priced food and beverage offerings for consumption on board, is also desirable to serve passengers and raise revenue for the airport. • High-frequency markets: The airport will be able to get better overall gate utilization because of the high frequency of flights and more flights spread throughout the day. The curbsides, lobby, checkpoints, concourses, gates, and claim areas should all be sized appropriately to accommodate sustained high volumes of traffic. Terminal Building Facilities 143

• Decreased turnaround times: The quick turnaround times mean less time between departing flights, which tends to generate a need for a slightly larger than normal holdroom for the aircraft type used because some passengers for the subsequent flight will begin showing up while departing passengers for the current flight are using the holdroom. The apron parking, equipment staging, baggage loading and unloading, and cleaning and fueling operations all need to be geared to supporting quick turnaround of the aircraft. • Aircraft types: Because the aircraft fleet is uniform, gate striping and the layout are made easier. When one type of aircraft is being used, planning hydrant fuel systems, deicing facilities, and hangar projects is easier. • Non-interlining: By not interlining, carriers avoid complications that result in delays and problems with transfers of luggage and passengers between multiple concourses and terminals. Elaborate baggage systems are not typically necessary for baggage transfer. • Secondary airports: Because of cost, ease of turns, and added congestion to large airports, low-cost carriers are drawn to secondary airports that are typically not over-crowded and congested, slot controlled, or growth constrained. The secondary airports in proximity will typically draw this type of business from larger airports, which tend to attract passengers from outlying areas as well. This tendency should be factored into growth forecasts. Secondary airports may not have the infrastructure in place (access roads, parking lots, terminal building size, additional gates, and runway length capacity) to accommodate the increased passenger flows associated with the initial startup of an established low-cost carrier. • Allow for growth: Low-cost carriers have a tendency to stimulate a given market by providing lower fares and forcing other carriers to follow suit. The net result is growth for that airport. It is important to promote that growth throughout all facets of the airport. When master planning, designers must provide for building growth, parking needs, appropriate utilities, airfield expansions (runways and taxiways), and roadway infrastructure. VI.1.1.3 Remote Passenger Processing The advent of increased security requirements at U.S. airports has tended to erode passenger convenience and the quality of the user experience. Next generation airports will need to be planned based on the continuing evolution of passenger processing technologies and potential new models for passenger and baggage check-in. Fundamentally reengineering the functionality and flexibility of next generation airport terminals will involve optimizing an integrated system of passenger processing and utilizing the benefits of current and new technologies to supplement existing terminal processing capacity at remote locations. The technological advancements of Common Use Terminal Equipment (CUTE) and Common Use Passenger Processing System (CUPPS) are enabling more and more passengers to check-in online or at off-airport locations, such as rail terminals or hotels, by means of airline exclusive-use and common-use self-service kiosks. This trend is likely to progressively reduce the amount of space in terminal buildings that needs to be programmed for conventional check-in procedures. Today, the majority of airline ticketing kiosks connect passengers into the airline host system and allow passengers to confirm reservations, receive boarding passes, and make changes to itineraries, including rebooking flights and altering seating assignments. As such, it has become the mode of choice for frequent travelers and those seeking to avoid long lines at ticket lobbies. In remote locations such as parking garages, curbsides, rail transit stations, and hotels, kiosks help disperse demand and supplement the capacity of the primary on-airport terminal. The Internet, off-airport airline kiosks, and remote check-in services, typically at hotels and convention facilities (per TSA approval), make up the current available modes of checking-in outside of an airport. Kiosks and online check-in facilitate the ticketing of passengers virtually anywhere. These options have been generally perceived as the most operationally effective and minimal cost solutions to process passengers before they arrive at the airport. Some airlines have 144 Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design

developed a system in which Internet check-in passengers can check their bags at the airport 24 hours prior to their departure. Remote hotel check-in facilities accommodate both ticketing and checking in baggage. For a fee, third-party operators with a modified version of CUTE using a Virtual Private Network (VPN) connection into the airline host system can check passengers in from the hotel, issue boarding passes, and check passenger baggage. Using TSA-approved protocols to secure and monitor baggage, the operators drive the baggage to the airport for screening and make-up. Contingent on TSA approval and concurrence, decentralizing the passenger check-in process as much as possible (as has been done in the past at busy rail stations and as is currently done in Europe and Asia) provides a major enhancement in the effort to extend the useful life of current passenger terminal facilities. However, the overall benefits and the costs of maintaining such systems require evaluation and further analysis on a case-by-case basis. ACRP Report 10: Innovations for Airport Terminal Facilities (34) envisions that Common Use Self-Service (CUSS) will become widely implemented in U.S. airports and that passengers will be able to tag their own baggage, as currently allowed in Europe. As these technologies along with radio frequency identification (RFID) and wireless personal digital assistant (PDA) tech- nologies continue to evolve, configurations for the airport terminal complex will need to evolve with them. VI.1.2 Balance Once the mission of the terminal project is understood, the terminal operator and planner need to examine the proposed mission within the context of a variety of considerations to ensure that all elements of the project are in appropriate balance. Achieving the correct balance between critical airport passenger terminal components is essential for a successful terminal project. The following paragraphs describe these elements. VI.1.2.1 Airside, Terminal, and Landside Capacity Balance First and foremost, it is important that the passenger throughput of the terminal stay in balance with the processing capacity of the airfield and ground access components. It is generally not cost effective to build a terminal facility that has a peak period passenger processing capacity greater than the ability of the runway system to handle the arriving and departing aircraft that deliver the peak hour passenger volumes. Therefore, the planning process should aim for balance to be maintained between the primary processing components of the airside, terminal building, and landside including the following: • Airside—aircraft gates and airside accessibility • Terminal—passenger and baggage processing systems • Landside—airport roads, curb frontage, parking, ground transportation In the case of existing terminal complex infrastructures, the terminal, as well as its airside/ landside interfaces, may be nearing capacity and, in some cases, may have exceeded their design limits. Airsides may be saturated during peak periods with both maneuvering restrictions and physical limits to accommodate existing and future potential aircraft. While forecast airside capacity will drive future terminal requirements, the terminal facilities that are built must also balance with landside capacities and capabilities if the overall airport is to function efficiently. The issue of airside, terminal, and landside capacity balance should take into account any seasonal swings in average daily and peak period demands to guard against under- or over-building. Depending on the desired level of service for the terminal, the planner should strive for balance between peak and non-peak requirements, routine and non-routine operations, and present and future needs. Terminal Building Facilities 145

VI.1.2.2 Macro Contextual Balance In a similar manner to the terminal complex’s component balance, the terminal mission and project must be assessed against the macro framework of the airport itself. This macro contextual balance should examine the terminal project in relation to the airport’s role in the national and international air transportation network, applicable air traffic control system parameters, the traffic demand from the immediate region and neighboring communities, and regional and city transportation plans. VI.1.2.3 Terminal Processing Capacity Balance What holds true on a macro basis also applies to the micro issues of aircraft operations and key passenger and baggage processing functions such as check-in, baggage make-up, security screening, gate management, and inbound baggage claim, etc. Computer simulations are often a useful tool in checking that each terminal passenger and baggage processing function is in appropriate balance with one another, thereby ensuring that no single function becomes a bottleneck that adversely affects the overall LOS. For airports that operate multiple unit terminals, it may sometimes be advisable to step back and review the allocation of specific airline activity between the existing terminal complex infrastructure in order to balance more effectively airline missions with unit terminal capacities and minimize the risk of building unnecessary additional capacity. VI.1.2.4 Mission Balance It is important for all stakeholders in a terminal project to keep in mind that a balance must be reached between planning for the LOS expected by the traveling public and achieving the goals of the air carriers for efficient operations at minimum cost. Passenger processing solutions of the future must be able to not only contain cost, but also work effectively to meet customer service standards. VI.1.2.5 Total Terminal Project Balance To achieve success with any terminal planning, design, and construction project, it is necessary to bring the factors of size, budget, quality, and schedule into alignment at the very start and maintain this balance throughout the project. All four factors need to be studied individually and collectively to achieve appropriate project balance. This balance needs to be achieved within both the planning and design stages and maintained during construction itself. VI.1.3 Level of Service While the concept of LOS can be a simple one to define in terms of the qualitative and quanti- tative parameters for each terminal component, actual measurement of the LOS and forecasting what the LOS might be in a new facility is more problematic. LOS is a term that has been freely used by most terminal planners and airport operators but is not fully understood by most people. Adding to this confusion are terms like “world class,” which are even less well defined. LOS, in the context of airport terminal planning, is a generic term that describes, either qual- itatively or quantitatively, the service provided to airport travelers at various points within the airport terminal building. It often relates to the degree of congestion or crowding experienced by travelers at the passenger and baggage processing facilities in the terminal building. It may also be a measure of the amount of waiting or processing time, or the length of the queues or lines encountered by such travelers at these facilities. VI.1.3.1 Background The concept of LOS, as applied to airport terminal design, was originally developed by Transport Canada (TC) in the mid to late 1970s because the then current definitions of “capacity” were 146 Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design

considered inadequate. TC modeled its approach to define LOS on principles originally applied to traffic engineering, as well as work carried out by John Fruin a few years earlier for the bus and train terminals operated by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. Both of these approaches used a six-level scale (A-F) ranging from excellent to system breakdown. TC, in Interim Level of Service Standards (35) and Airport Services and Security (36), developed a set of definitions for LOS and then made detailed observations of passenger activity at a limited number of mostly small airports in 1976. These studies were the beginning of the Canadian Airport Systems Evaluation (CASE) methodology. Coupled with an approach that followed individual passengers through the departures and arrivals processes (using a time stamp method), TC was able to calculate the amount of time passengers spent in different areas of the terminal and the passenger densities. This survey resulted in a range of areas per person that covered the different LOS definitions. Subsequent surveys at other airports helped refine the survey methodology and computer analysis programs, but did not change the initial areas/person assumptions. An airport terminal is a series of processors, reservoirs or holding areas, and links or corridors. The LOS framework as developed by TC (and subsequently adopted by IATA) only addressed the LOS within holding areas and ignored how long passengers had to wait (i.e., the LOS associated with the processors themselves). At the time, it was recognized that processor LOS was important and additional work would be required, but that part of the study never proceeded far enough to be published. The TC LOS definitions were as follows: A Excellent LOS; conditions of free flow; no delays; direct routes; excellent level of comfort. B High LOS; condition of stable flow; high level of comfort. C Good LOS; condition of stable flow; provides acceptable throughput; related systems in balance. D Adequate LOS; condition of unstable flow; delays for passengers; condition acceptable for short periods of time. E Unacceptable LOS; condition of unstable flow; subsystems not in balance; represents limiting capacity of the system. F System breakdown; unacceptable congestion and delays. TC recommended that LOS C should be the design standard as it “denotes a good service at a reasonable cost” and “It is understood that LOS A is open ended on the high side.” It was also recognized that terminal traffic demands are dynamic, varying according to flight schedules and loads, and that LOS and capacity are interrelated: Capacity is a measure of throughput or system capability. Since an airport is capable of operating at varying degrees of congestion and delay, the capacity figure must always be related to the LOS being provided. For example, a particular system might be able to process 1,000 passengers/hour at a good LOS or 1,500 passengers/hour at a poor LOS (greater congestion). (35) The LOS framework recognized the difficulty in quantifying waiting and processing times within the relevant definitions and thus only proposed standards for the five primary reservoirs of a terminal: check-in (queue and circulation), waiting/circulation (not well defined in the reports), holdroom, bag claim area (without claim unit), and pre–Primary Inspection Line (PIL) or Border Control–related queuing. Table VI-1 combines these definitions and the observations into ranges of areas per occupant. The purpose was to indicate a good LOS and the point at which system breakdown occurs. The time element, even for a reservoir, was also considered important. It is obvious that any subsystems operating above LOS C should not have a time standard associated with them, since the terminal could theoretically operate all day at this LOS. However, once the LOS drops below Terminal Building Facilities 147

C a time duration factor is added equating to a standard of 15 minutes duration during the [design hour]. For example, if the holdroom is at LOS D for greater than 15 minutes during the [design hour], then the facility is judged to be one level lower, LOS E. Similarly, if LOS E is exceeded for 15 minutes, the facility would be assessed at an intolerable LOS F. (35) The 15-minute duration might consist of multiple short durations or a single 15-minute or longer duration. This distinction was considered especially important at small terminals, which might experience peaks of less than 5 minutes. Although TC continued its airport surveys to cover most Canadian airports, the basic area per person ranges were never refined. The focus of the research shifted to developing easier ways to track passengers and, ultimately, how to simulate terminal activity. The TC concept was adopted by Airport Authorities Coordinating Council (AACC), now Air- ports Council International (ACI), and IATA and published as part of AACC/IATA’s Guidelines for Airport Capacity/Demand Management, second edition, in 1990. A third edition was issued in 1996 without any substantial changes to this approach. The definitions were modified as follows and have remained the IATA LOS definitions that most people use: A Excellent LOS; condition of free flow; no delays; excellent level of comfort. B High LOS; condition of stable flow; very few delays; high level of comfort. C Good LOS; condition of stable flow; acceptable brief delays; good level of comfort. D Adequate LOS; condition of unstable flow; acceptable delays for short periods of time; adequate level of comfort. E Inadequate LOS; condition of unstable flow; unacceptable delays; inadequate level of comfort. F Unacceptable LOS; condition of cross flows; system breakdown and unacceptable delays; unacceptable level of comfort. Notice that terminology describing any associated delays is slightly more defined and that LOS E is not as “unacceptable” as in the TC definitions. It appears that AACC and IATA were extend- ing LOS definitions to cover more dynamic link elements of the terminal as compared to the reservoirs that TC focused on. The AACC/IATA definitions also eliminated the TC references to related subsystems in balance at LOS C, which implied that there were linkages between some elements of the terminal. AACC/IATA retained the recommendation of designing to LOS C and the “15-minute rule.” 148 Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design SYSTEM: A B C D* E* F Check-In 17.2FT2 /1.6M2 15.1FT2/1.4M2 12.9FT2 /1.2M2 10.8FT2 /1.0M2 8.6FT2 /.8M2 Wait/Circulate 29.0FT2 /2.7M2 24.8FT22.3M2 20.5FT2 /1.9M2 16.1FT2 /1.5M2 10.8FT2 /1.0M2 Subsystem Holdroom 15.0FT2 /1.4M2 12.9FT21.2M2 10.8FT2 /1.0M2 8.6FT2 /.8M2 6.5FT2 /.6M2 Bag Claim Area 17.2FT2 /1.6M2 15.1FT21.4M2 12.9FT2 /1.2M2 10.8FT2 /1.0M2 8.6FT2 /.8M2 Breakdown (Without Device) Pre–PIL 1.4 15.1FT2 /1.4M2 12.9FT21.2M2 10.8FT2 /1.0M2 8.6FT2 /.8M2 6.5FT2 /.6M2 Level of Service Ranges (Square Meters Per Occupant) * For the periods up to 15 minutes within the design hour. Source: Interim Level of Service Standards, Transport Canada, CASE 1977, and Airport Services and Security, AK-14-06- 500, Transport Canada, Revision No. 1, January 1979 Table VI-1. Transport Canada LOS standards.

Although AACC (later ACI) and IATA jointly promoted the use of these LOS definitions and standards, they have been generally referred to as IATA standards because of their inclusion in the various editions of IATA’s ADRM (3). For simplicity, the Guidebook will refer to them as IATA standards and definitions. The IATA table of LOS areas (see Table VI-2) included the same five reservoirs but, instead of ranges, assigned an area to each LOS level (in square meters/person). Interpretation of this table has confused many planners since it was released. For example, is 1.1 square meter/person for holdroom areas LOS B or C? In the TC table, it was clear that 1.1 square meter/person for holdroom areas would be LOS C. So the areas per person in the IATA table should be considered the minimum for each LOS, and any area per person less than those in the E column is considered LOS F. Although the IATA LOS definitions include references to delays, there has been no quantifi- cation of these delays or any other time-based LOS standards, except for some planning standards for maximum queuing times at “world class airports” in Figure B1.1 of IATA’s ADRM (3). It is also interesting to note that the most recent IATA publication (ADRM 9th Edition) has dropped the reference to the 15-minute rule. VI.1.3.2 Use of Level of Service in Sizing Facilities Most terminal projects are not “green field” sites, and many involve modifications and/or expansions to existing facilities. Thus, it is important to understand the current LOS for the major terminal elements, in order to establish baseline conditions and what would be required to bring deficient areas up to acceptable levels. New terminals are, to some extent, easier to plan for LOS because the planner should be able to optimize functional relationships and flows more easily to achieve the target LOS. As noted, LOS C is typically recommended as a design objective for the design hour because it denotes good service at a reasonable cost, with LOS A having no upper boundary. From a practical terminal planning perspective, the challenges are to determine the occupancy of reservoirs during the peaks and establish acceptable waiting times for processors. One of the fundamental problems associated with adopting a set of such specifications is that the perceptions of terminal building stakeholders may differ considerably on the designation of the LOS standard that should be provided or on the metrics used to define LOS. Though it may be reasonable to expect some convergence of opinion on qualitative definitions of LOS, the trans- lation of these qualitative statements into metrics is likely to result in a considerable divergence of opinion. For example, a planning objective expressed as a standard to provide a good LOS C, which might be described qualitatively as passengers experiencing acceptable delays and a reasonable level of comfort, could be expected to engender widespread support. However, when one associates a target quantitative space standard, queue length, or waiting time with this standard, it is likely to generate considerable disagreement depending upon the perspective of the stakeholder. Terminal Building Facilities 149 Level of Service TERMINAL AREA A B C D E Check-in Queue Area 19.4FT2 1.8M2 17.2FT2 1.6M2 15.1FT2 1.4M2 12.9FT2 1.2M2 10.8FT2 1.0M2 Wait/Circulate 29.0FT2 2.7M2 24.8F2 2.3M2 20.5FT2 1.9M2 16.1FT2 1.5M2 10.8FT2 1.0M2 Hold Room 15.0FT2 1.4M2 12.9FT2 1.2M2 10.8FT2 1.0M2 8.6FT2 0.8M2 6.5FT2 0.6M2 Baggage Claim 21.5FT2 2.0M2 19.4FT2 1.8M2 17.2FT2 1.6M2 15.1FT2 1.4M2 12.9FT2 1.2M2 Government Inspection 15.1FT2 1.4M2 12.9FT2 1.2M2 10.8FT2 1.0M2 8.6FT2 0.8M2 6.5FT2 0.6M2 Services Source: Guidelines for Air Capacity/Demand Management, Third Edition, ACI/IATA, 1996 Table VI-2. IATA LOS standards.

Furthermore, terminal planning and LOS should reflect the specific operational characteristics of the terminal, and the volume of passengers and baggage to be handled. Managing terminal capacity and planning with LOS in mind are key issues in developing competitive airports, with long-term financial and operational implications. Once a terminal is built, its size and features tend to be effectively permanent unless major additional investments are made, with significant effect on the cost of doing business and on the bottom line. The proper LOS standard provides a tradeoff between high utilization to minimize investments and high service quality and flexibility. Recent research for ACRP Project 03-05, “Passenger Space Allocation Guidelines for Planning and Design of Airport Terminals,” has indicated that in a well-designed terminal, passengers will flow to less crowded areas when densities increase beyond their comfort level. In short, passengers avoid experiencing an LOS lower than C unless forced to. This research is consistent with observations on queuing where passengers will not necessarily move closer to the person in front of them just because the queue behind them has overflowed the designated queue area. Thus, the boundary between LOS C and LOS D, according to IATA, is when a queue overflows its designated area. As the degree of overflow from a queue or other reservoir increases, the overflow can block adjacent functions or circulation, and cause these to have lower LOS. This case brings back the significance of the original TC LOS C definition that included “related systems in balance.” In the worst case, overflow can cause the LOS in these areas to deteriorate to the point where congestion occurs, or life safety issues become a concern. VI.1.3.3 Level of Service in Existing Terminals To fully assess the LOS in an existing terminal, three types of data are needed for each major terminal element: 1. Floor areas and processing rates: Areas are relatively easy to measure from existing plans. Processing rates can be collected by observation surveys and some data collected by airlines or other agencies. Please refer to ACRP Report 23: Airport Passenger-Related Processing Rates Guidebook. 2. Number of passengers in a process or reservoir: This number is more difficult to estimate without detailed surveys of activity and processing times. 3. The amount of time that passenger density exceeds a given LOS area per person or the per- centage of waiting times that exceed target goals: This number is the most difficult to estimate and often requires simulations. To give accurate results, simulations require large amounts of data about existing conditions and passenger characteristics (item 2 above). As noted, the CASE methodology of the 1970s involved giving all users entering the terminal a card that they carried with them throughout their stay in the terminal. Various checkpoints were set up that generally identified the interfaces between the different components (i.e., check-in, security screening, holdroom, etc.). Using a time stamp at each checkpoint, each person’s flow through the various areas could be calculated, as well as passenger arrival and departure distri- butions. While such an approach could still be used to generate accurate, terminal-specific data, it is very labor intensive and expensive to collect on a terminal-wide basis. Taking advantage of greater computing power has allowed simulations and spreadsheet models to utilize basic data (Item 1 above), combined with some airport-specific characteristics (such as arrival time distributions), to estimate Item 2 above. If done for a design hour or similar limited time period, spreadsheet models can determine waiting times and/or passenger densities and thus indicate the LOS. Obtaining more detailed statistics such as “95% of passengers in a design day wait x minutes” requires simulation-type tools, but the results are often more detailed than the underlying assumptions would support. Although models and simulations allow the planner to 150 Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design

evaluate many types of future “what-if” scenarios, caution should always be used in selecting the underlying assumptions. Results can be only as accurate as the data used to develop the models. Based on the history of the LOS concept, the different interpretations of how to apply it and the amount of data required to determine existing or forecast conditions accurately, it is recommended that terminal planners proceed cautiously. Taking LOS C as a benchmark, each airport client should be prompted to decide what LOS is appropriate for its passengers and tenants. In Section VI.3, Terminal Facility Requirements, methodologies will be presented to estimate the major terminal elements. Some of these will be associated with a generally accepted LOS approach, while others will have a much looser connection to LOS as commonly defined. Some processes and reservoir elements lend themselves to spreadsheet modeling; these models were developed as part of ACRP Project 07-04 and are available in Volume 2: Spreadsheet Models and User’s Guide. References to specific models and examples are provided in Section VI.3. VI.1.4 Passenger Convenience An important qualitative component of the LOS at an airport terminal is how passengers perceive their experience of transiting the airport in terms of comfort and convenience. While many factors may affect a passenger’s perception of convenience, three primary factors are typically associated with airport passenger terminals: • Distance a passenger must walk and the associated ease or difficulty involved in traversing this distance • Passenger’s feelings about the terminal facilities and ambiance • Time associated with moving through the terminal VI.1.4.1 Walking Distance and Ease of Travel The only absolute in dealing with the topic of walking distances in airport terminals is that they should be kept as short as possible. An industry rule of thumb concerning maximum walking distance has been that, if the distance traveled exceeds 1,000 feet, then some sort of mechanical people-mover assistance should be added. While it is clearly advantageous to minimize walking distances and the stress and exertion experienced by the passenger, there is no clear research or industry reference that defines the maximum walking distance that is tolerable for a pedestrian over a specific route (i.e., curb to plane) in an airport terminal. As stated by John J. Fruin, “walking distances are a subjective human variable, with relatively long walking distances being accepted under some circumstances and rejected under others” (37). Fruin does go on to state, in reference to data coming from studies of walking trips in downtown central business districts relating to bus terminals, that “Sometimes this data is used to justify moving-sidewalk installations for longer walking-trip distances, say 1000 feet” which may be the origin of this industry axiom. Referring specifically to airport terminals, however, Fruin comments: There are indications that the tolerable limit of human walking distance is more situation-related than energy-related. The maximum curb-to-plane walking distances represent a normal five- to seven-minute walk for most persons, but the anxiety connected with meeting schedules, making the trip, and negotiating an unfamiliar building, tend to make these distances appear to be much longer. The tolerable walking distance for a given situation is related to such factors as the trip purpose of the individual, available time and the walking environment, rather than energy consumption. (37) The factors involved in a passenger’s perception of the pedestrian journey generally center on the perceived level of effort needed to reach the destination and the complexity of the path traveled. This perceived level of effort typically includes ease of wayfinding and the ability to negotiate transition points along the path, such as changes from one level of the terminal to another, and will likely be affected by whether the passenger is carrying baggage. A passenger’s perception of Terminal Building Facilities 151

the convenience of the distance traveled will be influenced by the availability of appropriate mechanical aids such as moving walkways, escalators, elevators, and more sophisticated APM systems. These sorts of aids are becoming increasingly necessary as aircraft wingspans continue to increase and the distance between gates is extended further. This is particularly true at airports that have a large proportion of widebody aircraft gates. The perception and ease of walking distances in airport terminals can be affected by the amount of baggage the passenger is likely to have at each stage as follows: • Originating passengers—may have baggage to be checked between ground transportation and the check-in lobby. Carry-on bags are a consideration from ground transportation to the aircraft. • Terminating passengers—may have baggage that was checked between the baggage claim area and ground transportation. Carry-on bags are a consideration from the aircraft to ground transportation. • Connecting passengers—may have carry-on bags between aircraft gates. Thus, there is a benefit to keeping routes for passengers with checked baggage as short as possible with limited (if any) level changes. The sooner a passenger can turn his/her bag over to an airline representative (either on or off airport), the higher the LOS for this portion of the trip. Because almost all passengers have carry-on bags of some type, terminal planners should con- sider the effects of long distances traveled either carrying or pulling bags within the terminal. VI.1.4.2 Passenger Perception A passenger’s perception of a particular terminal’s LOS will be governed both by tangible and intangible factors. Tangible factors include whether the temperature of the terminal is comfortable, the availability and cleanliness of restroom and baby care facilities, adequate seating in common areas, and a good variety of reasonably priced retail and food and beverage concessions. Intangible factors include the helpfulness and friendliness of staff, ambient noise levels, and the relative level of stress involved in moving through the various processing functions. From a planning and design perspective, the following factors should be addressed: • Wayfinding: The ability of passengers to make their way easily through the airport terminal facility is an important requirement. There are three primary factors that contribute to this ability: – A terminal layout in which the various functions progress logically and preferably in a straight line – A terminal design that allows a passenger clear sightlines to what lies ahead – Appropriate signage, directions, and other assistance to wayfinding (Wayfinding and signage are discussed in greater detail in Section VI.1.7, Wayfinding and Terminal Signage.) • Passenger amenities: Another factor that enhances passenger perception of a terminal is a wide range of amenities. In today’s terminals, amenities include access to Wi-Fi and power connec- tions, as well as the passenger service facilities and commercial offerings mentioned above. • Facility design: Not to be overlooked is the role that good architectural and interior design can play in enhancing a passenger’s experience of traversing the facility through the creation of a sense of light and spaciousness and the inclusion of green plants and appropriately themed materials and colors for the internal finishes of the building. VI.1.4.3 The Value of Time Planners and designers have always assumed that it is important to create a terminal facility that facilitates a passenger’s quick and direct movement from the curb to the plane, plane to curb, and plane to plane. Recent research undertaken in ACRP Project 03-05, “Passenger Space Allocation Guidelines for Planning and Design of Airport Terminals,” is finding that, given the additional stresses placed on air travelers by security screening procedures resulting from the attacks of 152 Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design

September 11, 2001, passengers are valuing the ability to quickly move through the terminal as a primary factor in their determination of passenger convenience. VI.1.5 Flexibility The airport terminal is a modern building type that is particularly prone to obsolescence. The primary risk involved is functional obsolescence, which renders the terminal operationally compromised, unable to function at the desired LOS, and incapable of being modified or physically upgraded at acceptable cost. Even though architects aspire to the permanence of monumental civic architecture, airport passenger terminals are perhaps uniquely vulnerable to the sometimes quite rapid changes in the technological, operational, airline industry, and business parameters that have an effect on passenger processing and overall terminal efficiency. Key factors that can undermine the func- tional effectiveness of a terminal building are the following: • Unexpected changes in the profile or pattern of airline demand growth • Pace of technological and building services innovation • Introduction of new service or regulatory requirements • Emergence of new business strategies While planners and designers cannot anticipate all aspects of a terminal that may become outmoded, they can design for flexibility so that future owners can address possible areas of obsolescence, thereby extending the useful life of the structure. VI.1.5.1 Unexpected Changes in Demand Growth Growth in air travel has been remarkable, far exceeding the expectations of early airport planners. Initially considered a privilege of the elite, air travel is now affordable to the majority of the U.S. population, a fact that has had a profound impact on the design of terminals. Even though the art of forecasting annual and peak hour traffic has improved over the last 20 years, other unexpected factors have wreaked havoc on the assumptions underlying terminal design. The emergence of low-cost carriers, increased hubbing, airline alliances, fuel price fluctuations, and the advent of new trends such as the strong growth in international travel and the popularity of regional carriers have all affected terminal design, particularly if the building’s plans were closely tailored to specific growth assumptions. VI.1.5.2 Changing Technology When the first large commercial airports were being conceived in the early 1950s, no planner could have foreseen the effects the rapid pace of technological innovation would have on terminal design. At that time, airports were designed to accommodate propeller-driven 100-seat aircraft, a passenger-plane technology that was assumed to be the standard for years to come. This assump- tion proved to be costly to terminals such as the original International Arrivals Building at John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK), now known as Terminal 4. Heralded as the terminal of the future when it was dedicated in 1958, it quickly gained recog- nition as the building epitomizing the coming age of air travel when its plans and photographs were published worldwide. From its elegant check-in areas to its streamlined international arrivals facilities, nothing seemed to be lacking, aesthetically or functionally. Contemporary observers compared its plan to two Empire State Buildings lying head to head; its main structure serving as the reception area for international arrivals while its two wings were devoted to international departures, a separation of uses intended to minimize passenger walking distances. For the first 10 years of the jet age, Terminal 4 served its purpose well. In the late 1960s, however, the intro- duction of 400-seat jumbo jets required an immediate expansion of the terminal. All aspects of Terminal Building Facilities 153

the terminal’s operation were compromised during this improvised expansion. The building’s failure to address the needs of modern aviation led its owners to the dramatic decision to tear the building down in the mid-1990s. Even though the layout of the new Terminal 4 occupies a smaller building footprint it has a greater overall capacity than its predecessor and must now adapt further to meet the near-term demands of the continual evolving aviation industry, including the possible introduction of large, 500+-seat aircraft. The evolution in the design and operating range of the airplane is the most obvious advancement in technology affecting the planning and design of terminals. To keep pace with increasing numbers of passengers and the accelerating frequency of flights, baggage handling has under- gone a revolution as well. Initially baggage was hand carted from the terminal to the plane; now it is processed on fully automated industrial equipment whose spatial requirements were never considered by earlier terminal designers. It is not uncommon for baggage handling systems to consume over 20% of a terminal’s square footage, as well as requiring 20-foot ceilings. Driven by the need to accommodate unanticipated growth, the spatial requirements of mechanized baggage handling systems have transformed terminal planning as much as the changes in aircraft. As in society at large, information technology is driving the next round of changes in terminal design. Various management tools are now being introduced to allow for increased use in all aspects of passenger processing. Probably the largest looming impact will be electronic or e-ticketing, which raises challenging questions for the designer. Will its introduction ultimately render large ticket halls unnecessary? The ability to print your boarding pass at home combined with check-in kiosks has begun to impact the spatial requirements and geometry of today’s airport ticketing halls. In considering a similar technological innovation, the electronic banking card, which effectively eliminated the need for huge banking halls, it’s clear that the impact of e-ticketing and other forms of remote check-in are having a similar effect on terminal design. VI.1.5.3 New Operational Requirements Innovations in operational requirements have also challenged the conventional design of airport terminals. In the 1970s, when the threat of skyjackings was at its height, security concerns become paramount. Previously, security requirements had never been a major factor in terminal design, and passenger walking distances. After security became a concern for terminals, the entire circulation pattern that had formed the basis of terminal design had changed; for example, Kansas City had to set up multiple checkpoints. Security concerns have continued to prevail and have increased exponentially in the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001, profoundly influencing passenger processing and the operational management of terminals. The establishment of the TSA and the need to respond to newly mandated and potentially evolving sets of screening requirements for passengers and baggage has created a major new planning interface. These changes raise a whole set of new challenges in terms of how and where to program and locate the necessary space and equipment in both new and, more problematically, existing terminal buildings. Many terminal planning security issues remain to be definitively resolved. This is particularly true in relation to the amount of space to be programmed for the long term, bearing in mind that there can be no certainty as to whether threat levels will increase or decrease in the future and what the implications of such changes may be on terminal facility requirements that may make space programming challenging. VI.1.5.4 New Business Strategies In the late 1970s, the deregulation of the airline industry forced airline operators to adopt new business strategies, which had a tremendous effect on the planning of terminals. Recently completed state-of-the-art terminals, such as at Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport (DFW), were suddenly unable to cope with the new ways airlines were doing business. The plan for DFW 154 Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design

was based on it being an O&D operation, marking the proximity of the car and the plane paramount. With the introduction of hubbing, when the terminal is a center for transferring passengers, the proximity of airplanes to each other became most important, rendering the premise for DFW nearly moot. During the 1980s, hubbing became standard operating practice and each airline wanted to tightly integrate its services to the exclusion of other carriers. In the late 1990s, airlines began forming alliances, requiring the terminal to be able to integrate the services of a group of airlines, national and international, that jointly market themselves as global airlines. Not only must the airplane gates be near each other, but check-in counters need to be adjacent as well. Where once there was only one international arrivals facility, alliances have put pressure on airports, such as Chicago O’Hare, to retrofit domestic terminals for international arrivals so that these airlines can better leverage partnerships and minimize the towing of aircraft as an aircraft changes from an international arrival to a domestic departure. At the same time, there is a groundswell of interest among terminal operators in treating terminals as commercial real estate developments catering to business and leisure travelers, as well as the large numbers of employees who work at the airport. In addition to the airline and passenger facilities required, this calls for a whole range of additional commercial facilities including a wide variety of retail. How large these commercial terminal complexes may become is anyone’s guess. It is entirely possible that the main source of income for future terminal operators will be the commercial and retail enterprises located in the terminal and that an airline’s service will be courted based on the type of customer it can bring to the terminal. VI.1.5.5 Dealing with Uncertainty Planning for a new terminal should be based on the most accurate long-term traffic forecasts available. However, these will inevitably need to be carefully reviewed and potentially adjusted during the life of the building as traffic demand ebbs and flows in response to changes in the economy and occasional unanticipated shocks such as a terrorism threat. With this in mind, it is prudent for planners and designers of airport passenger buildings to recognize the potential variability of the levels and types of passenger and aircraft traffic that will use the facilities. During terminal concept development, a basic premise should be that any terminal facility will, at some stage, have to adapt to different passenger loads and operational modalities than those initially programmed. Therefore, planners and architects need to create flexible terminal designs that can be modified to accommodate a range of future conditions. In practice, beginning with the identification of the project parameters and during concept development, planners should do the following: • Consider the range of different kinds of loads that their facilities might have to serve: Terminal planners and designers should take as their starting point a range of traffic forecast scenarios, not just the most likely or “expected” case. The range of forecasts to be adopted can be validated by two kinds of analysis. The first examines the trends in variations between historical forecasts and actual outcomes. The second kind of analysis examines local patterns of variation. For example, an analysis might consider in detail the pattern of variation in the relative levels of domestic and international traffic and thus identify the amount of flexible space that might be needed to meet the range of future requirements. • Check the performance of the design under different loads: Sensitivity analysis that compares the performance of a particular design under different sets of demand criteria is a very important tool in the planning process. The particular sensitivity cases selected should be purpose- designed to test the robustness of the base case scenario. Typically, the planner will want to evaluate the performance of the design by varying the anticipated mix and volume of different Terminal Building Facilities 155

types of traffic and assessing the impact on peak hour activity levels. Now that computer simu- lations of the performance of passenger buildings are becoming commonplace, this kind of analysis is more easily accomplished. The examination of the initial designs under a range of levels and mixes of traffic is likely to identify circumstances under which the preliminary design performs poorly, and where corrections and adjustments therefore need to be made. • Amend the design when deficiencies are found in order to build in more long-term flexibility and mitigate the potential for future problems. VI.1.5.6 Creating Flexibility—Space, Function, and Time The options for introducing flexibility into the planning and design of airport passenger buildings can be analyzed usefully under the headings of space, function, and time as follows: • Space: How can space be programmed to safeguard flexibility? In practice this means providing for future flexibility in the relative allocation of space for the primary function and/or adjoining or connecting facilities so that it will be easier to adjust spaces to different uses as required. • Function: Which functions might be combined to add flexibility to future operations? For example, to what extent can the airport operator use CUTE systems that make it possible for airlines to share facilities according to their varying needs? • Time: How can parts of a passenger building evolve over time? Is it designed so that it can grow easily, possibly because its design is modular and space has been left open for additions or perhaps because the internal partitions can be reconfigured to serve different uses should future traffic patterns make such changes desirable? The mission of the passenger terminal building will determine, to some extent, its flexibility. This statement becomes obvious when one considers the way unit terminals created for individual airlines or functions can be inflexible. For example, the unit terminals at JFK worked well initially when domestic passengers normally terminated (or began) their journeys at this airport, and international arrivals were limited to one terminal. However, as transfers increased, the original individual units made it difficult for airlines to expand their services and coordinate international to domestic transfers. The need for more convenient connections between the various airlines was one of the principal drivers for the inter-terminal APM system. Airport Master Plans that provide for single large terminals, or for the various unit terminals to be connected efficiently, greatly enhance flexibility. Amsterdam Airport Schiphol, for example, serves many difficult kinds of services off a central spine. This configuration permits them to adjust spaces for different kinds of traffic easily as the spine elongates and they shift functions around. Similarly, airports with mid-field concourses connected by high-capacity APM systems, such as Hartsfield–Jackson Atlanta and Denver International Airports, make responding flexibly to new demands relatively easy for the airport operator. Shared-use or multi-function spaces inherently add flexibility to the performance of a passenger building. They permit the airport operators to allocate space to different functions as needed. Because the need for different functions typically peak at different times, shared and multi-function spaces have the potential to reduce the total space required. For example, a holdroom shared by multiple gates typically requires less space than the same number of individual gate holdrooms. Moreover, the benefits of shared space can extend to many different aspects of the passenger building. For example, benefits may include the sharing of gates between different types of aircraft and different airlines. Benefits may also include the whole range of facilities serving international and domestic passengers. Traditional design of passenger buildings separates these functions absolutely. However, recent practice in the United States and in the rest of the world indicates that it is both practical and economical to share portions of these facilities over large blocks of the day. 156 Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design

The shared-use wing of the passenger building at Edmonton International Airport in Alberta, Canada, is a prime example of a shared-use, multi-function facility. It is designed to serve three distinct types of traffic for many airlines by using a system of corridors with access points that can be locked or opened to channel passengers as required. It also has a system of retractable walls that can segregate spaces being used for the processing of international, domestic, and transborder traffic, which must be kept separate. Transborder traffic refers to passengers leaving Canada for the United States, who have already pre-cleared U.S. customs and immigration according to a long-standing agreement. These travelers are technically already in the United States and thus must be segregated from other international and domestic Canadian passengers. By adopting this strategy of shared use, the terminal facility requires only about half the space that would be necessary if it were sized to accommodate each category of passenger separately with the sub- sequent cost and efficiency benefits. CUTE and similar systems enable airlines to share facilities and reduce overall space require- ments. Experience at Las Vegas demonstrates that the substantial savings predicted in theory can be achieved in practice as indicated by J. Feldman (38). Because the ability of the terminal building to evolve over time is so important, planners should assume that these facilities will acquire different uses over their lifetime. The experience at U.S. airports over the last 20 years demonstrates this fact clearly. At Boston Logan International Airport, for example, the current International Terminal has previously served domestic shuttle services to New York via New York Air, low-fare flights on PEOPLExpress Airlines, and as a mini-hub for Northwest Airlines serving international to domestic transfers. Each of these different operations required different kinds of check-in, baggage, lounge, and aircraft facilities. Designs that incorporate large roof spans and minimize interior load-bearing walls make it possible to relocate interior partitions easily and to reconfigure interior operations. Conversely, designs that include substantial interior load-bearing walls can lead to major downstream costs. Similarly, passenger buildings with skin facades, either glass or easily removable partitions, make it easier to relocate aircraft positions as needed. Simply stated, flexibility is the factor that allows a terminal to accommodate future unexpected changes, unanticipated growth, technology, operations, and business plans. VI.1.5.7 Considerations for Achieving Flexibility in an Uncertain Future Underpinning all of the considerations discussed below is the concept of simplicity, which should extend to all elements of the plan, from the terminal’s layout to its structural system. Use a Linear Terminal Design. If the site permits, a linear terminal capable of lateral expansion (extrusion) is preferable to other types. Radial plans or compact plans such as TWA’s at JFK, often suggested by the arcs of terminal roadways or the constraints of corner sites at existing airports, are inefficient by comparison and difficult to expand. A linear type of terminal is the most readily expandable, provided the sides are kept clear of elements such as mechanical, electrical, and plumbing (MEP) systems; substations; and other “hard” functions that would be costly and difficult to relocate in future expansion. Create a Simple Rectangle Form and Use a Repetitive Structural System. An expandable linear plan suggests that the terminal should be a simple rectangular shape with clear roof spans that create large open areas unencumbered by columns. Long spans are ideal for ticket lobbies, such as a structure stretching from the front wall to the back edge of the lobby that allows for various sizes and orientations of ticket counters and for easy passenger queuing and circulation. On the other hand, long-span structures are difficult and costly to modify if that becomes necessary. Long-span structures also require attention to the design and coordination of air supply and Terminal Building Facilities 157

return, because venting through the roof is difficult. The cast-concrete long-span system at Dulles International Airport could expand laterally because of the careful placement of these mechanical and ventilating systems. In the long term, however, cast-in-place, precast, and post-tensioned concrete systems are less flexible than regular two-way steel structural grids. Structural steel framing and curtain wall systems offer the greatest flexibility in terminal design and renovation. If modifications or new openings are required, systems with metal frames that hold glazing units or metal panels are more flexible and structural steel systems can be added to or modified more easily at a later stage in the life of the facility. Because they can tolerate occasional penetrations, steel beams, girders, or trusses also allow more flexible initial MEP coordination, as well as later adaptations. Apply a Modular Approach to Design. Although this concept is subject to interpretation, repeatable modules—whether units of integrated architecture and systems such as the “dinosaur” structural columns and roof system at Dulles or a “kit of parts”—can be added to provide benefits in flexibility. The key for any terminal layout is for the planner to create a building that allows for an incremental expansion process that, when completed, adds to the unity of the whole of the terminal facility. Provide Ample Floor-to-Floor Heights. Where possible, ample floor-to-floor heights provide flexibility for the reworking of mechanical and other systems, if the terminal needs to be modified. Provide Ample Circulation Space. The provision of ample circulation space, especially a calculated over-provision for the design flows, allows the facility to accommodate unforeseen changes in use. Make the Circulation Patterns Straight and Provide the Potential for Network Circulation. Non-linear convoluted circulation patterns that connect differing functional areas of the terminal are inherently less flexible than linear patterns. Although it is generally preferable to establish single, clear linear routes and collection points, they need not be permanent or otherwise con- strained by the building plan, structural grid, or other fixed elements. Buildings that do not lock in a single, linear route but allow for network circulation and the possibility of setting several routes between major areas are the most flexible. Certain characteristics of building design, such as a regular structural grid and the ability to relocate non-structural partitions, permit circulation paths to be changed and allow for multiple routes as well. A change in user group or function might necessitate changing the circulation route between landside and airside. The need to phase and stage a renovation is also served by network circulation. Avoid the Constraints of Linear/Nodal Circulation. These constraints can be defined as the mandatory convergence of all major circulation routes at nodes, crossings, single corridors, or collection points. There is a natural tendency to collect circulation routes at nodes. Heavy space demands at nodes, from public circulation and services, limit long-term flexibility. Utilities, BHS, and other systems also tend to be concentrated at nodes in these areas, further complicating any future modifications. This approach also limits options for phased renovation. Network circulation is mainly applicable to the landside building. Concourses are inherently linear, although they can benefit, in terms of flexibility, from having a regular two-way structural grid in the event that the circulation path must shift off the central axis, either permanently or temporarily. Minimize Level Changes. Level changes, such as ramps and partial-flight escalators and stairs, are introduced for many good reasons in terminal design—mainly, to address the dif- ferent needs of landside and airside parts of the terminal. However, level changes within the inbound or outbound levels should be avoided because ramps and half-level changes tend to 158 Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design

coincide with nodal points in the circulation network and will forever constrain the optimal use of the areas, as well as other systems and services in those areas. Level changes are also very costly to modify. Provide Transverse Transition Zones. Future terminals would be well served by offering flexibility in the form of transition zones crosswise to the passenger progression through the terminal. The flexibility of these zones is particularly welcome when security requirements are increased. A zone at the departures’ entrance would allow for perimeter screening, whereas a zone after check-in could accommodate expanded security checkpoints. Make the Curb Frontages Straight. Curvilinear curbs and circuitous, complicated connecting roads make terminal expansion much more difficult. Place Building Services Outside of Functional Areas and Avoid Potential Constraints. Because major building services, egress stairs, electrical and communications closets, mechanical rooms, and shafts can limit the terminal’s capacity for expansion, these functions should be housed outside of functional areas and, if possible, should be designed for expansion. The latter may be a difficult point to make, given the need to contain initial capital costs; nonetheless, it is a significant component of flexibility. One fundamental issue is whether building services should be bundled at the perimeters of the building, to permit flow-through holdrooms and flexible space layout, or should they be more evenly dispersed in smaller clusters throughout the building envelope? These services can be large users of space when bundled and, once established, service cores cannot be easily modified, let alone relocated. These elements do not constrain the apron when located within the building perimeter; however, they do limit the flexibility of space planning in the initial layout. Smaller elements, however, are easier to relocate, should that become neces- sary in the long term. Do Not Compromise the Apron. The apron is the terminal’s most important asset. Aircraft will continue to evolve in size, fleet mixes will change, and terminal gating plans will be in constant flux, but the size and shape of the apron will not change, so preserving it is crucial for flexibility. Allow for Room to Expand in All Directions. Because future innovations in the airline industry cannot be predicted, the quickest path to designed obsolescence is not providing a way to add onto the terminal. Expanding the terminal means not only leaving extra area around it, but also understanding how to expand it, how a new structure can be attached to it, and how this construction can be implemented. This also means the possibility of expanding vertically, in which case determining what type of roof and structural systems to use becomes crucial. VI.1.5.8 Operational Considerations Common-Use Facilities. Congestion at airports, specifically in crowded check-in areas, as well as pressure to hold down costs on airline operations have led to an increased reliance on common-use facilities. Common-use facilities allow the shared use of valuable airport infrastruc- ture and space by several airlines, which results in the optimal usage of space, and savings in oper- ational costs. Common-use facilities take full operational advantage of the space by maximizing the use and increasing the efficiency of the facilities, and minimizing the amount of underutilized space. This is most evident in common-use gate environments when the airlines are assigned to gates by the airport’s gate management system and when CUTE and airport-owned passenger loading bridges are deployed. Technologies that take advantage of the common-use operational scenario are CUTE and CUSS. CUTE system technology allows multiple airlines to use the ticket counter or gate on a common-use basis, by connecting to each airline’s own host system, which enables the agent to Terminal Building Facilities 159

manage the passenger reservations, check-in, and boarding process in their own airline’s IT network. Presently, approximately 400 airports worldwide dating back to 1984 have implemented some level of CUTE technology (39). CUSS technology is a system that allows multiple airlines to provide their check-in applica- tions on a single self-service device (e.g., kiosks). These systems allow the airport to place the devices away from the traditional check-in counter locations such as parking garages, rental car facilities, rail stations, hotels, convention centers, and the possible future utilization on cruise ships. This decentralized process alleviates congestion while improving passenger flow and provides potential savings to airlines for whom installing their own equipment would be too costly or not permitted by the airport authority. The basic premise of these common-use technologies is that promoting the shared use of space and equipment greatly enhances the flexibility and cost efficiency of the building facilities. However, these systems need to be evaluated by the airport operator on an airport-by-airport basis. Airlines sometimes voice concern that implementing CUTE technology affects the true cost of doing business. This is because airlines may incur additional training costs for agents, software maintenance, upgrades, and modifications to the operational model in order to conform to the individual CUTE system provider’s operating environment. Swing Gates. These types of gates provide the operational flexibility to serve both domestic and international operations. Vestibule space controls access from the passenger loading bridge to both the adjacent holdroom area and sterile circulation corridor through the use of controlled access doorways. When this type of gate is used at an airport for departing (domestic/international) and arriving (domestic) passengers, the doorway from the holdroom area to the vestibule space is unlocked, while doorway access to the adjacent sterile corridor system in the same vestibule space is secured. For international arrivals, the doorway to the adjacent holdroom area is secured and the sterile corridor access to CBP is unlocked. This maximizes gate utilization for the airport by providing alternative flow patterns. Typical swing gate configurations are summarized in Table VI-3 (12). Airside Bus Operations. If peak gate demands are sporadically or temporarily greater than normally encountered on a typical basis, then busing passengers to and from remotely parked aircraft may be the best option to temporarily supplement aircraft gate capacity. This is partic- ularly true during special events or during construction when additional gate capacity may tem- porarily be needed. In the United States, busing passengers to and from aircraft is considered a lesser level of service than contact gates; however, for short periods bus operations are a satisfactory means to supplement gate capacity so long as the remote aircraft is parked within a reasonable distance from the terminal. Airside bus operations can provide needed flexibility at a lower cost than a fixed guideway system. As airline airside operations change, buses allow the flexibility for routes and stations to be added or changed easily. 160 Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design Gate Status Domestic Holdroom Door Sterile Corridor Door International Arrival Secured Open Domestic Arrival Open Secured International Departure Open Secured Domestic Departure Open Secured Gate Closed Secured Secured Source: Airport Technical Design Standards—Passenger Processing Facilities, U.S. Customs & Border Protection, Washington D.C., August 2006, pg. 5-16 Table VI-3. Typical swing gate configuration.

Locations for loading and unloading passengers from buses should be as close as possible to the core of the terminal building and airside waiting area to limit distance required for passenger walking. The disadvantages of operating buses on the airport apron would include possible conflict between aircraft flows, buses on and around the apron, and increased passenger enplaning and deplaning times. VI.1.6 Terminal Security High concentrations of people, like those found in passenger terminal lobbies, are attractive targets. Although U.S. airports have not experienced any such major attacks, in today’s threat environment there is no reason to believe that airports are immune. Improved security is achieved when the airport layout and terminal design complement the airport security plan, and when roadways, parking, and terminals are oriented with security in mind. Incorporating blast-resistant features during the initial design has relatively low incremental costs and blends with the overall building architecture much better than retrofitting a facility after the fact, which combines limited structural opportunities with greater unit costs. An airport faces the daily dilemma of having the free movement of thousands of unscreened passengers and the public, with no idea of who they are or what they might be carrying. Facial recognition programs have been tested at some public events, but various TSA and Department of Justice pilot programs have not found them to be ready for deployment at an airport, where congestion is normal and singling out and controlling the subject’s immediate environment (such as lighting, angle of presentation, pose while in motion) is difficult and an adequate database to search against is needed. However, technology is dependable that will alert security to a person who is loitering or acting suspiciously in a public area of the terminal or who leaves an item behind and departs the area. VI.1.6.1 Terminal Lobby Issues Given the fully accessible public environment of the terminal lobbies, and the very nature of airport congestion, fast-paced movement, and occasional and varied levels of chaos and confusion, both design and technology solutions for security concerns in public areas are quite limited. Primary among technology applications is one that includes using additional cameras with video analytic capabilities to identify potential threats in abandoned objects or passenger and group behavior, particularly where the analytics could employ trend analysis. Another future potential is the eventual introduction of sensors for chemical and biological analysis, although these currently have significant limitations in sensitivity, selectivity, and time delay. Expansion of CCTV coverage should include high-resolution cameras throughout selected public areas of the terminals, with a wide range of placements and lenses. In addition, CCTV should have site-specific analytic algorithms for numerous variables in terminal activities that include differences among domestic and international travelers. Recommendations not requiring new technology enhancements, but nonetheless useful to consider, include reviewing the construction of the lobby areas and placement of various concession stands, ticket counters, the Flight Information Display System (FIDS), advertising, other signage, and so forth to facilitate CCTV lines of sight. Security issues are federally mandated to be addressed in the design of most airport facilities; two of the three principal areas, baggage and passenger screening, are federally staffed and must comply with federal design requirements. The performance standards for the third area, general facility security for everything inside the fences and surrounding virtually every structure and Terminal Building Facilities 161

operational activity, are found in Transportation Security Regulations (TSR) §1542, Airport Security (40), and are unique to every airport terminal environment. Security issues are also among the basic drivers for each airport’s non-security terminal design, including layout of terminals and operational facilities, paths of travel to and within both public and secured areas, access controls, surveillance capabilities, and the IT and communications infrastructure (and its own technological security) that ties everything together. These issues are outlined as follows: • Advance security planning – Vulnerability assessment – Airport Security Program, Emergency Plan – Regulatory requirements, industry standards – Coordinate with Federal Security Director; federal/local agency—CBP, FAA, etc. – Access control, CCTV systems (Coordinate with IT) • Functional areas – Approach roads, parking facilities with adequate standoff – Surveillance systems (such as CCTV) at curbside, doorways – Perimeter columns and beams that are resistant to blast – Vehicle barriers—prevent VBIEDs coming close or into the terminal – Vehicle inspection stations with queuing and standoff distances • Bomb/blast analysis – Structural–non-structural – Blast-resistant facade and glazing – Limited concealment areas/structures • Operational pathways – Security of service corridors and personnel circulation – Minimal number of security portals – Space for emergency response, explosive ordnance disposal • Sterile areas – Tenant and concessions movement – Emergency response routes • Public areas (anti-crime, not just anti-terrorism) – Lobby configuration, lines of sight – Baggage claim areas – Emergency exits, fire doors (vs. security doors) – Parking – CCTV surveillance • Non-public areas – Corridors, stairwells, service elevators – Administrative and tenant offices, Security Operations Center, Airport Operations Center, and Emergency Operations Center – Access control, CCTV • Chemical, biological, and radiological threats – HVAC system characteristics, capabilities, and physical security VI.1.6.2 Passenger Screening The screening checkpoints are a regulated requirement and must be designed to meet the TSA mandates for operational space and equipment support as specified in TSA’s Security Checkpoint Design Guide, February 2006. Checkpoint design is not isolated from the full terminal design process; it affects paths of travel throughout public space, lobby space at the ticket counters, concessions placement, security queuing space, and throughput prior to the checkpoint. To some degree, the checkpoint can also affect everything after screening, depending on the checkpoint locations with respect to departure gates and their rates of throughput. 162 Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design

Problems at the TSA checkpoints can have a serious effect on the airport’s operations, including the closing of a concourse after an incident or a screening failure at the checkpoint and the result- ing need to re-screen thousands of passengers who had been cleared and must come out from the sterile area. Not only are such events costly to the airport and the air carriers, but they also leave the general public with considerably lowered confidence in the security operations at the airport. Thus, in the early planning process, it is useful to consider checkpoint placement and a closure design that could isolate a single concourse or terminal section following a breach, to avoid having to clear an entire terminal. Table VI-4 highlights a few aspects of the current levels of confidence in screening passengers for IEDs and illustrates the need for continued high attentiveness toward persons and activities beyond the checkpoint. Even though the checkpoint operation itself is not an airport responsibility, what happens before and after the checkpoint is. Integration of video analytics from CCTV at the screening checkpoint to the Security Operations Center enables rapid law enforcement response to the pre- screening queues, incidents within screening areas, and exit lane breaches or other anomalies after the screening. As Table VI-4 suggests, there is a sufficiently low level of confidence in the success of screening for IEDs that the airport should consider a significant enhancement of its ability to monitor patterns of behavior on the sterile side and throughout the concourses. Finding an IED on a passenger’s body or artfully concealed in a handbag remains TSA’s biggest challenge. Currently, no explosives detection is being performed on the body except for trace portals, whose functionality has come into question; consequently their use is currently suspended. Pat downs are the current method of finding explosives on the body, but very few are conducted. The same is true for hand-carried luggage. X-ray technology has improved in recent years, but it remains very difficult to find IEDs in a cluttered bag, especially when the device is disassembled. Again, trace is only used on selectees and only on a very limited random basis, leaving an un- comfortable margin of error for the possibility of an IED within the airport’s areas of responsibility beyond the screening checkpoint, and the uncomfortable fact that further access to aircraft is fairly easy beyond the screening checkpoint. Terminal Building Facilities 163 Vector Attack Mode Confidence Level In Current Measures tniopkcehCregnessaP muideMegaggabdnahniDEI nosrepnoDEI Low nistnenopmocDEI hand baggage Low Passenger Hold Baggage woLrenilgabniDEI muideMecivedcinortceleniDEI retfagabnidecalpDEI screening High pmaR tfarcrianodecalpDEI by ramp employee Medium tfarcrianodecalpDEI by unauthorized person Medium Source: TranSecure Table VI-4. Confidence level in screening passengers.

Checkpoint design for general passenger screening must adapt to the types of terminals and expected distribution of passenger loads; optimize efficient space; provide flexibility for meeting fluctuating load demands and emergency conditions; and consider equipment types, sizes, number, placement, spacing, power, IT, and communications requirements as well as adjacent spaces, seating areas, supervisory and staff areas, private screening areas, and more. These issues are outlined as follows: • General checkpoint design issues – Efficient space use for queuing, divestiture, secondary screening, and ADA requirements – Flexibility for meeting fluctuations in load demand, emergency conditions, and new regulations – Flexibility to accommodate changing TSA technology requirements—larger, smaller, and/or procedural support – Coordination with HVAC, electric, lighting, IT, and communications infrastructure – Coordination with TSA for support space and IT requirements – Protection of Security Screening Checkpoint (SSCP) integrity when not in use • Planning considerations – Terminal types—central, multiple concourse, remote/satellite – Operational types—international, O&D, hub – SSCP size—type of airline service—long haul, commuter, seasonal – Future load and service projections • Checkpoint elements – Equipment types, sizes, number, placement, spacing, power, IT, and communications requirement—i.e., magnetometer, Electronic Detection System (EDS), trace, X-ray, portals, holding/wanding stations (Current TSA specifications are available, but continue to change with evolving technology.) – Queuing/prescreening area; divest and composure space – Adjacent walls/barriers – Egress seating area – TSA supervisor and staff areas – Law enforcement officer station – Private screening areas • Exit lane components – Adjacent to SSCP, or elsewhere; surveillance • Electrical and IT data requirements (coordinate with IT) – HVAC, power, and lighting – CCTV, data, and communications VI.1.6.3 Employee Screening Employee screening is not currently required by regulation, although TSA continues to test the concept through various pilot programs. From a terminal design point of view, there is little differ- ence in how such a portal is treated; access control will still be required during non-operational hours. There are extended capabilities of the access control system such as adjustable security levels, and biometrics and video analytics that can be applied to critical areas with special rules for anom- alous behavior, including piggy-backing and tailgating, duress alarms or loitering at an employee door, or a human presence in a place not normally populated during non-operational times. As before, many recommended measures for improving security at employee portals are procedural but are based on enhanced technology, which must be accommodated in terminal design. These measures include the following: • Reduction of the number of access portals into the secured areas where not operationally restrictive. This may also reduce door-held/forced alarms. 164 Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design

• Delayed egress equipment on emergency exit doors, to also reduce false alarms. • Turnstiles to address piggy-backing or tailgating, although they require extra space for instal- lation and cannot identify attempts to gain access. • CCTV with video analytic capabilities on both sides of the portals may provide the best cost value and can provide a greater probability of detection for piggy-backing or tailgating events. • Biometrics throughout the access control system. VI.1.6.4 Baggage Screening Baggage screening is a TSA responsibility, although accommodation for design of the system is a cooperative effort between the airport and TSA as defined in Planning Guidelines and Design Standards for Checked Baggage Inspection Systems (41). As most baggage screening migrates to in-line systems (not necessarily the case at smaller airports), it demands an enormous amount of space and associated operational support including power, IT infrastructure, and connectivity. Much of that space would typically be dedicated to other uses such as operations, offices, storage, concessions, tenants, and so forth, all of which will now require alternate space accommodation, support, infrastructure, and newly thought-out integration into the overall airport operational concepts throughout the terminal. Space allocation for all terminal needs (as discussed above) is best accomplished in the initial stages of terminal design, not as an afterthought, which typically leads to the least-optimal accommodation of a wide array of facilities and systems. Baggage screening issues are outlined as follows: • TSA requirements – Inline systems – Lobby systems – Curbside check-in – Remote check-in • Checked baggage screening options – In-line systems – Lobby/ticket counter–mounted systems – Remote system – Stand-alone EDS – Stand-alone Explosive Trace Detection (ETD) – Flexibility/scalability to accommodate new technology, new threats, more staff, and increased traffic • Queuing capacity, recirculation • Facilities for oversized, selectee, suspect, and alarm bag removal • Extra work space for that displaced by EDS installation • Domestic and international connecting bags • Maintenance access and removal; life-cycle replacement • Floor loading; moving walls • HVAC, power, and lighting • CCTV and communications • Vehicle access (e.g., tug, pickup, Explosive Ordnance Disposal vehicle) VI.1.7 Wayfinding and Terminal Signage One of the primary purposes of any airport terminal complex is to move vehicles and terminal users efficiently through the roadways and buildings in a clear and concise manner. Given the sense of time urgency experienced by most of the traveling public at airports, wayfinding needs to be as intuitive as possible in order to provide efficient and comprehensible flows. While wayfinding is more easily accomplished in smaller airports, it becomes more challenging as the level of passenger and vehicular active increases at medium and large airports, particularly those with Terminal Building Facilities 165

high percentages of connecting passengers and significant volumes of domestic and international travelers. When planning and designing a terminal complex, a primary goal is to make traversing the facilities as intuitive as possible for every user. This is often referred to as “intuitive wayfinding.” The logical placement of functions, the use of clear sight lines from one decision point to the next, and visual openness to comprehend what lies ahead—all greatly enhance wayfinding, but, even in the best facility designs, these measures must be supplemented by an effective signage program. Carefully placed and clearly worded signage can ensure an orderly flow of passengers or vehicles, which maximizes the capacity flow potential of the terminal building and roadways. A successful signage program usually provides a “concise and informative series of non-verbal messages” (42) that is comprehendible to the majority of users. Signage programs can be broken down into primary categories that include directional, informational, regulatory, advertising, and identification. Airports will generally have their own established rules and policy manuals governing the physical and aesthetic characteristics of their signage. In any case, these visual cues should com- municate using simple, uncluttered, universally recognized symbols paying special attention to contrast and color to aid those with visual impairments and meet the requirements of the ADA. Additional requirements that must be taken into account include those by the FAA, TSA, CBP, U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S.DOT), and state DOT departments. Visual cues are key to enabling passengers to orient themselves in terms of where they are in a possibly unfamiliar building and how they can reach where they need to be using the most logical travel routes. Visual cues can be provided using maps, directories, and signage, both static (directional symbols and room labels) and dynamic such as FIDS. Dynamic signage, generated by the airport’s commu- nication systems network, provides the ability to display information throughout the airport and to respond to specific operational needs at any given time. The principles behind the development of an effective airport signage program for the terminal complex are beyond the intended scope of this Guidebook. Besides Guidelines for Airport Signing and Graphics, Terminal and Landside, Third Edition, 2001 (42), the reader may wish to refer to ACRP Project 07-06, “Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside,” for more details on this subject matter. VI.1.8 Accessibility The ADA is a landmark law that protects the civil rights of persons with disabilities. It prohibits discrimination on the basis of a disability in employment, state and local government services, transportation, public accommodations, commercial facilities, and telecommunications. To ensure access to the built environment, the ADA requires the establishment of design criteria for the construction and alteration of facilities covered by the law. These requirements, which were developed by the Access Board, are known as the ADA Accessibility Guidelines. Terminal planners and designers need to be sensitive to these guidelines and plan for any special design features and mobility aids that will permit passengers and airport workers with disabilities to navigate the airport and terminal. Disabilities can be classified into three main categories: • Vision impairment or legal blindness • Deafness or hardness of hearing • Mobility impairment For visually impaired or legally blind persons, appropriately sized wall-mounted Braille signage should be provided to direct the passenger or employee to various points within the terminal. 166 Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design

Signs may also include larger type fonts, which make it easier for visually impaired passengers who are not legally blind to more easily identify and read information. In addition, digital voice messaging systems should be provided to assist the passenger in acquiring up-to-the-minute arrival and departure flight information, which is displayed on the FIDS. Additional provisions may also be made available at information desks to relay up-to-date information to these passengers. These voice messaging systems should also alert passengers of entry and exit points on assisted moving devices—such as escalators, elevators, and chair lifts, if provided—and the locations of transit systems located at the airport. The digital voice messaging systems should also provide visual display of the same infor- mation for hearing-impaired passengers or employees. Public address systems should be clear and easy to understand with adequately located speakers throughout the public and employee areas of the terminal and associated concourses. Public telephone banks should have one clearly identified phone equipped with volume controls or a sound booster device for this group of passengers. Terminal entrances and circulation zones with level changes should provide ADA accessi- ble doors and ramps, with grades no steeper than 1:12 for mobility-impaired passengers and employees. Airports with longer walking distances between major functional elements within the terminal and concourse should provide wheelchairs and motorized carts. ADA accessible toi- lets should be provided and easily identified within the restroom locations. Additional areas of consideration for the wheelchair-bound passengers include provid- ing lower counter areas at check-in and telephone bank locations. Security areas should pro- vide adequate space and access to allow for the screening of passengers in wheelchairs. Gates that require level changes should provide means for transporting heavy electric motorized wheelchairs from gate areas to the apron to be loaded onto the aircraft. This transport can be done via a lift system integrated into the passenger boarding bridge itself or shared between multiple gates. VI.1.9 Maintenance It is important, particularly when undertaking the architectural design of an airport passen- ger terminal, for the design team to develop an overall maintenance strategy. This strategy should include an assessment of the long-term implications for cleaning and maintaining the building. To provide for functionality, capacity, efficiency, and flexibility for the operation and main- tenance of terminal facilities, the design team needs to identify the many functional operational areas and various stakeholders involved with the uses of those spaces such as the airport owner/ operator, the TSA, the CBP, the FAA, airlines, concessionaires, rental car agencies, commercial ground transportation providers, and so forth. An airport is like a city with its many tenants and user stakeholders acting as individual property owners within that city. Each has its own unique operating and maintenance needs to efficiently and effectively operate and manage their facilities and systems and therefore requires early assessment and understanding of the multitude of activities presented by each. These stakeholders should also include the staff or maintenance contractors who are physically responsible for the operation and maintenance of those systems. This early assessment may lead to dedicated spaces incorporated into the design and construction process, as well as the project budget, that meet the needs of all involved leading to an overall enhanced satisfaction level with the completed project. Additional information on the subject of maintenance can be found in Appendix C, FAA White Papers, in the paper entitled, “Operational and Maintenance (O&M) Considerations in Terminal Planning and Design,” by Norman D. Witteveen. Terminal Building Facilities 167

VI.2 Terminal Concept Development The development of concepts for terminal facilities at airports is typically an iterative planning and design process involving the use of quantitative facility requirements combined with a thorough understanding of the operations of the airside, terminal building, and landside com- ponents to develop various future options for the airport terminal complex. While the specific objective may be slightly different for a greenfield terminal verses the expansion or redevelopment of an existing terminal complex, the majority of the steps in the process are virtually the same. While Chapter II, Terminal Planning and Design Process, describes the sequential steps and services that are needed to plan and design terminals, this section is intended to provide insights into the specifics of developing terminal concepts for an airport. The art and science of terminal planning has evolved significantly from when commercial service first began, but the main purpose of passenger terminals has remained the same, that is, to provide a transition from ground transportation to aircraft for passengers and their luggage. As a highly specialized building form, terminals have advanced technologically to address higher passenger volumes, security concerns, and connections between flights and to provide other passenger services. Historically speaking, it is probably true to say that typical U.S. air passengers, particularly those traveling regularly on domestic routes, have as one of their key goals getting on and off their airplanes as quickly as possible—in short, to spend as little time as possible inside the terminal building. The stringent and expanded security checks that have been introduced following the attacks of September 11, 2001, and the subsequent need to check in much earlier have led to longer in-terminal dwell times for many passengers, not to mention increased hassle and potential stress levels. At the same time, the pressure to reduce minimum connection times and to finely tune airline schedules means that some groups of connecting passengers literally disembark at one gate and move directly to their new departure gate, spending scarcely any time in the terminal. Today airport passenger terminal buildings, particularly those at busy connecting hub airports, are being called upon to fulfill an increasingly complex variety of roles. This challenge is just one of the many faced by today’s terminal planner. As previously defined in Chapter I, in its simplest form, the terminal complex consists of three basic components: airside, terminal, and landside facilities. These basic components are depicted in Figure VI-1 (43). This figure offers some basic insights into the spatial relationship of these components. When all of these components are functionally active at their operational design peak, the airside component typically consumes the largest area of the three. During the arrival and departure peaks for the terminal curb, the landside component’s spatial requirement is somewhat less than that of the airside. The terminal itself often has the smallest spatial footprint when compared to the airside and landside. From purely a technical planning perspective, the airside component is the most inflexible of the three components because of the fixed dimensions of the aircraft, its associated wingtip clear- ances, and limited maneuverability. By contrast, humans with their mobility and adaptability are more flexible relative to their spatial requirements. People can be temporarily crowded into a limited amount of space, albeit at a decreased level of personal comfort typically described as a lesser LOS. People are also more maneuverable than either airplanes or vehicles because their paths of travel (while not desirable from a wayfinding prospective) can turn and elevate more quickly than their mechanical counterparts. Clearly responding to the needs of people using the airport terminal is more important than responding to any needs of aircraft or vehicles. However, when physically laying out a site plan for a terminal complex, the planner should take into account that aircraft have the most rigid and regulated requirements and, as such, tend to be the major driver in the configuration of the terminal complex. 168 Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design

Terminal Building Facilities 169 For these reasons the development process for terminal complex concepts typically starts by developing aircraft parking arrangements that will integrate appropriately with the airfield infra- structure, which in turn are predicated on the alignment of the airport’s runways. The location and position of the terminal building itself is primarily dependent on its seamless integration with aircraft operations to the runways, and convenient passenger access to and from various forms of ground transportation. There are occasions in existing airport environs when the inflexibility of rail transit and existing roadway alignments drive the conceptual development of the terminal complex. An example of such a situation is Midway International Airport in Chicago where the terminal and airside com- ponents are split by Cicero Avenue, which remained in its original alignment and serves as the main access roadway to the airport’s terminal as depicted in Figure VI-2. Source: Modified from The Airport Passenger Terminal, Walter Hart, John Wiley & Sons, 1985. Figure VI-1. Basic airside, terminal, and landside components.

170 Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design The primary orientation of the terminal building has traditionally been set by establishing the most straightforward path to and from the ground transportation modes, through the ter- minal facilities, to and from the parked aircraft. This straightforward approach is still the most desirable terminal objective for passenger processing because it typically results in simplified passenger wayfinding and minimal walking distances, but now additional items need to be taken into consideration. Today’s environmentally aware planners also must factor in the primary orientation of the terminal relative to paths of direct sunlight. The correct orientation of the terminal can assist in providing natural light to the internal spaces of the building while maximizing opportunities for active and passive solar enhancements in order to achieve sustainability goals. Additionally, the planner must avoid protected habitats, such as wetlands. Other location and orientation factors that should be taken into consideration are potential opportunities to link a new terminal’s location to multi-modal opportunities such as mass transit, highways, rail, and water for ferry access. Equally important is the ability to take advantage of locating the terminal in a configuration that allows the potential use of immediately adjacent lands for commercial development opportunities. Once the number of gates and the aircraft fleet mix is determined through the identification of terminal facility requirements, the initial development of terminal complex concepts can com- mence. At a minimum, it is best for the planner to have a clear understanding of (1) the aircraft gate requirements, (2) the approximate length and width of the terminal building or buildings, and (3) landside requirements for terminal curb length and vehicle parking before starting the development of terminal concepts. More simplistic and generalized airport terminal complex site plans can be prepared based on this limited information. Under this type of broad-brush planning approach, it is important to maintain fairly generous assumptions on the maximum size needed for the primary components in order to protect against the possibility that the initial Courtesy of: City of Chicago Figure VI-2. Aerial view of Midway International Airport.

facility requirement estimates, based on a preliminary analysis, are too low. Typically, terminal planning is an iterative process that allows for increasing levels of detail to improve facility require- ment estimates and a higher definition of the terminal project with each iterative step. Clearly, the more information and detail involved in the preparation of terminal facility requirements allows for a more precise development of the project concepts. VI.2.1 Terminal Concept Types Once the planner understands the mission of the terminal, gains insights from the key stake- holders, and assembles the necessary facility requirements to drive the planning process, it is pos- sible to explore the development of initial concepts. In general, there are two categories of terminal concept types. The first category addresses the organization of terminal processing into either a centralized or decentralized type of airport terminal complex. The second category then organ- izes the terminal into one of four generally recognized types of terminal and concourse concepts. VI.2.1.1 Centralized and Decentralized Terminal Facilities One of the most important decisions initially facing the planner and designer is whether the ter- minal complex should have a single centralized processing facility or does the mission of the airport warrant multiple decentralized passenger processing capabilities. Many factors enter into the deci- sion of a single vs. multiple unit terminal planning approach. Some of these factors include the level of passenger and aircraft activity, the specific role of the terminal facility, and whether the project is starting with a clean slate, such as a greenfield site, or supplementing an existing terminal infra- structure, whereby a new single terminal project becomes part of a series of existing unit terminals. Centralized Terminal Facilities. As the name implies, the underlying premise of a centralized terminal is that all passengers and baggage at the airport process through a single facility. There are many advantages to such a centralized operating philosophy: • Maximizes the use of the facilities and staffing – A single consolidated terminal maximizes passenger processing capacity and eliminates unnecessary facility duplication. – A single consolidated terminal minimizes staffing requirements for functions like passenger security screening checkpoints. – A single consolidated terminal provides the opportunity to operate as a common-use facility by utilizing CUTE and CUPPS technologies. • Minimizes interline connections: Because all airlines are operating within a single consolidated terminal facility, the connections of passengers and baggage between airlines are typically closer and less complex than in unit terminal complexes. • Maximizes concession revenue opportunities: In a centralized facility, it is possible to achieve the maximum exposure of the departing passenger to centralized concessions, which boosts revenue production while eliminating the need to duplicate concession locations as is needed with multiple unit terminals. • Simplifies macro wayfinding: From a macro wayfinding prospective, there is only one location that passengers need to arrive at and depart from, which typically simplifies the ground access infrastructure and decision making on approaching or departing the airport and terminal complex. • Minimizes duplication of landside facilities: A single consolidated terminal allows a single rail transit station to serve all passengers, thereby simplifying wayfinding and minimizing the duplication of facilities and the need for connecting services within a multiple unit terminal complex. • Adapts to airline flexibility: A single consolidated terminal provides adaptability to meet the changing needs of the airlines including minimizing relocations due to changing code-share alliances and partnership mergers. Terminal Building Facilities 171

172 Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design • Increases gate flexibility and utilization: A single consolidated terminal that is appropriately designed to process both international and domestic arriving and departing aircraft and pas- sengers, through the use of swing gates, eliminates the need to taxi or tow an internationally arriving aircraft to a different domestic departing gate. • Provides comparable level of service: Operating from the same terminal building typically pro- vides a comparable set of facilities and LOS for the dominant carrier(s) and other competing airlines. Decentralized Terminal Facilities. Several unit terminals create different needs from those of a single consolidated terminal. Multiple unit terminals represent the most decentralized concept. Each terminal operates independently of the other terminals and duplicates most facilities such as restrooms, building services, vertical circulation, and related structures. Most airports with multiple terminals do not evenly split activity, so each terminal must be capable of responding to individual peaks. This requirement generally results in a combined capacity greater than the airport’s combined peak facility demand. Exceptions to this would include airports such as New York JFK where all of the international terminals have similar arrival peaks (due to the dominant trans-Atlantic markets). An airport also may have different types of airline service that require different types of terminals. A domestic terminal, or one targeted at low-cost carriers, has different needs and char- acteristics than a large international terminal. Each of these characteristics should be considered when deciding on a centralized or decentralized concept. At a certain point, the size of a single terminal may become too large to truly be considered a centralized terminal. For example, to keep walking distances within desired maximums for O&D passengers, a terminal may require multiple security checkpoints that, in turn, produce multiple passenger paths and vertical circulation cores. These multiple paths may then require duplication of concessions and other services in order to be visible to all passengers. Thus, a terminal can have characteristics of a decentralized terminal within a single structure. VI.2.1.2 Basic Plan Configurations Over time, four basic terminal/concourse concept types have been recognized by the industry at large. These concept types are referenced in various publications including The Apron-Terminal Complex (1), which was prepared for the FAA, and in the FAA planning document, The Apron & Terminal Building Planning Manual (2). These terminal concept types are based on a specific relationship between the aircraft and the passenger processing and boarding areas. Once a decision has been reached about whether the terminal complex will take a centralized or decentralized processing approach, an initial investigation of concepts can begin by exploring any of these four basic concept types and variations on their principal mode of operation. These basic con- cepts differ in the way passengers are processed from the main terminal to the aircraft gate. Although at many airports, the overall airport terminal complex often combines elements of several of these types, for clarity they are each presented and discussed separately in the following paragraphs. Linear Concept. The linear concept, in its purest form, is the simplest and most straight- forward of the four basic terminal concept types. Its simple organizational principles, however, can also be seen in more complex permutations at various airports around the United States and abroad. A simple linear terminal consists of a single passenger processing area adjacent to a single common holdroom area, which, in turn, is adjacent to the aircraft parking apron. Aircraft board- ing is handled via a series of gates that lead directly to the aircraft parking apron or to passenger loading bridges, which are spaced along the terminal face. Figure VI-3 depicts an example of a

Terminal Building Facilities 173 simple linear terminal. In this configuration, this concept type is primarily appropriate for low-activity O&D airports. In general, the primary advantage of the simple linear configuration is that there is a direct relationship between curbside and the aircraft, and walking distances for passengers are relatively short. A linear concourse may be located parallel to, or within, the terminal face nearest the apron, with access to the terminal and aircraft gate positions at regular intervals. Classic variations of the linear terminal’s direct “to and from” ground access to aircraft gate positions are the individual unit terminals at Kansas City International (KCI) and DFW airports. These unique “drive to gate” terminals, when originally built, were the epitome of this convenient, short walking distance relationship between landside and airside. Today’s more demanding security screening requirements and the need for more productive concession revenues have unfortunately rendered the narrow and curvilinear geometry of KCI’s unit terminals functionally inefficient with regard to operating costs and revenue generation. The increased costs to oper- ate the multiplicity of passenger security screening checkpoints and the inability to concentrate passenger flows to a centralized concessions area have resulted in significant functional and financial limitations of this variety of the linear terminal. By comparison, “straight” linear terminals, with centralized passenger processing and sufficient building depth, typically gather passengers and baggage together in a single consolidated passenger security screening checkpoint (or a limited number of checkpoints). This funneling together of passengers through checkpoints provides an efficient operation for security personnel/equipment and provides the opportunity to expose the majority of passengers to a centralized concession Source: “Considerations for Selecting a Terminal Configuration,” David A. Daileda, FAIA, FAA White Paper. Figure VI-3. Simple linear terminal configuration.

174 Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design area. An example of a straight linear concept is the integrated terminal and concourse with its mezzanine APM system at McNamara Terminal of Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County (Detroit Metro) Airport. As discussed previously, a potential drawback, however, is that this centralization inadvertently results in some increased passenger walking distances. A primary strength of the “straight” geometry linear terminal is its ability to expand easily. This linear expansion of the facility is accomplished by extending the airside, terminal, or land- side components independently or in combination. Security screening separation requirements create an easily definable split between the non-secure passenger areas of the terminal and secure concourse areas beyond the security checkpoint. As a linear concept expands, the terminal configuration consists of a single passenger processing area adjacent to an elongated concourse, which is spread along the expanded airside face of the terminal. Passenger holdrooms are accessed from a linear corridor on the concourse that may be either single loaded, with all services on one side, or preferably double loaded, with gates on both sides of the airside concourse excluding any area needed for the terminal processor and its future expansion. In a less efficient manner, a linear terminal can be expanded by also developing adjacent unit terminals with pedestrian connectors between them. Individual unit terminals, however, offer few opportunities for common use of equipment and facilities and thus inherently result in some duplication of basic terminal infrastructure and limit the revenue that can be gained from a larger, single linear terminal. Figure VI-4 depicts a conceptual example of a linear terminal and concourse. Source: “Considerations for Selecting a Terminal Configuration,” David A. Daileda, FAIA, FAA White Paper. Figure VI-4. Expanded linear terminal and concourse configuration.

Terminal Building Facilities 175 Pier Concept. In the pier concept, aircraft are parked on both sides of a concourse that extends from the terminal. Aircraft are usually arranged around the axis of the pier in a perpen- dicular, nose-in parked relationship. Access to the terminal area is at the base of the concourse or pier. Pedestrian circulation moves down the center of the pier through a corridor with hold- rooms, and various services and amenities arranged along both sides of the circulation spine serving enplaning and deplaning passengers. This concept fully separates the passenger process- ing functions from the concourse activities thus enabling each element to develop according to its own requirements. Because the aircraft access on the pier is double loaded, walking distances for passengers are shortened. Initial expansion of the pier is accomplished by simply extending the pier to accommodate additional gates. This lengthening, however, increases the passenger walking distance from the processing area. Larger expansion can be accommodated by the development of new piers that are connected to the same terminal processing area. The distance between piers is determined by the size of aircraft the facility is designed to accommodate and by the length of the pier. As pier length increases, the distance between piers is increased because of the need for dual-lane aircraft taxiing areas between piers. This distance often is quite long and may require some type of people-moving conveyance to upgrade the passenger LOS. Multiple processing areas can be developed that can feed passengers into a network of piers. More compact arrangements of aircraft along the pier typically allow for more efficient servicing of the aircraft, thus lowering operating costs for the airlines. Examples of pier concepts are found at LaGuardia Airport in New York, Reagan Washington National Airport in Virginia, and Miami International Airport in Florida. This configuration works well for moderate to heavy activity at O&D and hubbing airports. The primary disadvantage to this concept is the extended passenger walking distances that can result in a large airport. Figure VI-5 depicts an example of a pier concourse, and Figure VI-6 depicts a multi-pier concourse. Satellite Concept. In the satellite concept, a building is developed on airside that is com- pletely surrounded by aircraft and is connected to the processing areas of the terminal via an underground, at-grade, or overhead connector. This satellite building houses the passenger holdrooms, as well as various services and amenities for the passengers. The aircraft are normally parked in a nose-in arrangement around the satellite that can have common or separate departure lounges. Although the satellite concourse itself can be compact, the separation distance from the terminal is typically quite lengthy. This length requires that some type of mechanized people- moving system, such as moving walkways, bus, or APM system, be used to move passengers back and forth between the terminal processor and the satellite concourse. One advantage of a satellite concept is that the passenger and aircraft functions become separate components that can develop independently. In this concept passenger processing is handled in a separate terminal facility. Aircraft parking and servicing occur in a compact area around the satellite, thus simplifying operations. The disadvantages are that more aircraft maneuvering area is typically required, and there is a substantial initial capital cost to install an underground or bridge connector with an APM system to connect the terminal and airside satellite. There are also the associated operating costs of either the automated train and/or moving sidewalks in the connector element. The amount of time a passenger requires to move from the curb to the aircraft is typically increased, and the walking distances may increase. This concept works well for heavy-activity airports with O&D and a large percentage of connecting passengers. Orlando International, Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International, Denver International, Terminal 1 at Chicago O’Hare International, and Terminal 3 at Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International airports are all examples of satellite terminal concepts.

176 Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design Initial expansion of this concept is handled through enlarging the satellite building. Often the satellite building will be developed as a pier-type concourse, which can then be expanded by lengthening the pier at either end. Following that, additional satellite concourses can be developed and connected to the main terminal processor building sometimes referred to as the “headhouse.” Utilizing this type of system, satellite concourses may be developed specifically to meet a particular need of the airport, such as a facility to handle regional airline service or international passengers. Figure VI-7 depicts an example of a satellite terminal. Transporter Concept. The transporter concept provides a complete separation of passenger facilities from those required to service and maintain the aircraft. Aircraft and aircraft-servicing functions are remotely located from the terminal. Originally, all passenger processing functions were to be housed in a single centralized terminal processor, sometimes referred to as the head- house, with large mobile lounges serving as temporary holdrooms. Passengers access the aircraft via the mobile lounges that leave from the terminal gates, go directly to the aircraft, and attach to the aircraft to provide weather-protected transit. A more common variation to the mobile Source: “Considerations for Selecting a Terminal Configuration,” David A. Daileda, FAIA, FAA White Paper. Figure VI-5. Pier concourse configuration.

Terminal Building Facilities 177 lounges approach is the use of buses that drop off the passengers adjacent to the aircraft on the apron. As originally conceived, the primary advantage of this concept was to provide ultimate flexibility for each of the airport elements to develop as needed. The number and arrangement of aircraft parking positions are not directly related to the terminal location or shape, and the aircraft apron could be laid out for maximum operational and maintenance efficiency. The most well-known “pure” transporter terminal was originally built at Dulles International Airport. The Dulles terminal has been modified to function as a satellite operation to accommodate an airline hub. It will ultimately have a below-grade APM. The primary disadvantages to this system are that the processing time for loading and unload- ing aircraft is greatly increased. In particular, the necessity of an early closeout of the flight at the departure location of the mobile lounge in the terminal is a significant operational dis- Source: “Considerations for Selecting a Terminal Configuration,” David A. Daileda, FAIA, FAA White Paper. Figure VI-6. Multi-pier concourse configuration.

178 Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design advantage especially for business travelers and connecting passengers who may arrive close to the actual aircraft departure time. Additionally, the cost for operating and maintaining the transport vehicles is ongoing and a significant part of the airport’s operating costs. And, if a busing system is used, passengers are loaded into the aircraft from the apron and are fully exposed to the weather. Weather exposure can be avoided by the use of mobile lounge–type vehicles; however, the initial cost, as well as operation and maintenance costs, for mobile lounge–type vehicles is quite substantial. In summary, the original transporter concept envisioned the use of the transporter vehicle as the departure lounge, although a more common application today is simply as a busing operation. Although the transporter concept as a busing operation variant is still somewhat popular in Europe and Asia, the transporter vehicle concept is fading out of existence in the United States. The busing variant is still being used at some airports but primarily as a means of handling peak Source: “Considerations for Selecting a Terminal Configuration,” David A. Daileda, FAIA, FAA White Paper. Figure VI-7. Satellite concourse configuration.

Terminal Building Facilities 179 period traffic without bearing the cost of building additional facilities. This busing transport concept is sometimes used for regional/commuter operations. In the United States, this mode of operations is viewed as a lower level of service than aircraft reached by a passenger loading bridge because of the additional inconvenience of transiting from the terminal to the plane on a bus. Figure VI-8 depicts examples of transporter configurations. More Complex Designs. With rare exception, airport terminals typically develop as a com- bination of configuration types. Additionally, because of the availability of land and the desire to make the airport terminal as compact as is practical, elements are often combined in various fash- ions horizontally, vertically, or both. These combinations open a wide range of variations on the basic configurations, thus offering greater choice when considering terminal configuration options. Single-Level Terminal. Generally, in smaller, low-activity airports, all of the elements of the terminal are arranged in a single-level building that enables the passenger to move from curb to gate without changing levels. Typically, the only time a passenger has to change levels is for actu- ally boarding the aircraft. For example, the passenger would exit the building and use the aircraft boarding stairs or in some cases go up stairs or a ramp inside the terminal to a passenger loading bridge that docks with the airplane. Source: “Considerations for Selecting a Terminal Configuration,” David A. Daileda, FAIA, FAA White Paper. Figure VI-8. Transporter concourse configuration.

180 Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design For a terminal on one level, the elements of the processor are typically arranged so that departure functions are first on the curb followed by the arrival area, or the departure and arrival functions occur on opposite sides of the terminal with adjacent roadways for each. In either case passenger access to/from the concourse/gate area is through a limited series of monitored screening/exit points. A simple one-level terminal with a single curbfront was previously shown in Figure VI-3, while Figure VI-9 shows a single-level terminal with a dual-curb arrangement. Two-Level Terminal. With increased activity, in order to make more efficient use of land area and/or to shorten passenger walking distances, terminal elements are often arranged verti- cally. Typical vertical arrangements include the two-level and the three-level terminal plan. In the typical two-level terminal, the ticketing activities are located on an upper departures level of the terminal, while baggage claim and ground transportation activities are located on the lower arrivals level. This two-level terminal building configuration should be designed with a two-level Source: “Considerations for Selecting a Terminal Configuration,” David A. Daileda, FAIA, FAA White Paper. Figure VI-9. Single-level terminal with dual curbs.

Terminal Building Facilities 181 curb arrangement with departures on the upper level and the arrivals curb directly underneath in order to minimize passenger’s vertical transitions with baggage. Passengers typically enter and exit the concourse through a screening checkpoint that is located on the upper level. Once arriving passengers exit past security, they take an elevator, escalator, or stairs to the lower arrivals level. The public concourse elements such as circulation, holdrooms, and gates are typically located on the upper level of the concourse, while airline operations, personnel, and service areas are on the lower level, which is adjacent to the aircraft parking positions on the apron. In this arrange- ment, passengers board aircraft through loading bridges from the concourse’s second level. For aircraft requiring boarding from the apron, such as smaller regional service aircraft, passengers move to the apron level through interior stairs/elevators or via stairs placed at the end of the loading bridge. Three-Level Terminal. A three-level terminal or concourse is often used at airports handling international flights to provide a separate sterile level to segregate international arriving passen- gers. This sterile level is located either above the holdroom level or between the holdroom and apron operations level, making the holdroom the third level. Passengers exiting the aircraft use vertical transportation to access the sterile level while maintaining complete separation from departing passengers in the holdrooms or arriving domestic passengers. After entering the ster- ile corridor system, passengers proceed to CBP inspection areas. There are many variations possible in the placement of FIS. The FIS may be located above or below the departures level of the terminal, on a single level, or split between two levels. CBP primary inspection (immigration) may be separated from international baggage claim and secondary inspections (customs, wildlife, and agriculture). If primary inspection is on a different level, sterile circulation must be continued between the primary and baggage claim/ secondary areas. Upon exiting the FIS, passengers pass through a meeter/greeter lobby and arrivals level of the terminal to the adjacent curb. If the FIS is located within a concourse remote from the terminal to primarily serve international to domestic connecting passengers, systems must be in place to trans- port locally terminating passengers and luggage back to the terminal. Detached Terminal Elements. Utilizing APM technology, larger airports can develop sepa- rate processing and concourse facilities and move passengers between these via specialized pas- senger transportation systems. This ability enables each of these airport elements to grow and adapt independently, as required, to meet the changing needs of the industry. As the airport grows, new facilities can be added in the appropriate location and the transportation system extended to reach these new additions. Currently there are two basic types of APM systems in use. The spine system transports pas- sengers in two directions along a single spine track system between various areas of the terminal facilities. This system can be completely internal as in the McNamara Terminal of Detroit Metro Airport, run between independent terminal facilities as in Denver International Airport, or connect terminal facilities and other airport facilities such as parking and intermodal facilities as at O’Hare International Airport. A loop system moves passengers in one or two directions around a circular track system between various terminal facilities. A loop system differs from a spine system in that the track circuit is typically longer than a spine system and thus has a larger ultimate capacity than a spine system serving the same facilities. The APM system at Dulles International Airport and the central terminal area portion of the APM at JFK International Airport are examples of a loop system.

182 Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design A multiple-APM system typically combines a number of individual spine systems that move passengers from the processor area to various concourse areas of the airport. Each system operates independently and is sized and scheduled to meet the needs of the concourse it serves. Tampa and Orlando International airports in Florida utilize a system of spine APMs that transport passengers to and from the central processor to the various concourses as depicted in Figures VI-10, VI-11, and VI-12. Source: “Considerations for Selecting a Terminal Configuration,” David A. Daileda, FAIA, FAA White Paper. Figure VI-10. Spine automated people mover.

Terminal Building Facilities 183 The primary advantage to this type of system is that each of the elements of the terminal can be developed to meet their own particular needs at the most appropriate location on the airport, while not being limited by passenger walking distances. As the airport evolves, the elements too can evolve to meet the changing requirements. As additional facilities are needed, they can be added to theairportand includedinthetransportation system. The disadvantages of reliance on APM systems are that they are typically expensive to construct, operate, and maintain and the use of such systems adds to the time required for the passenger to move through the terminal from curb to gate. These disadvantages have to be weighed against the increased capacity and flexibility such systems provide. VI.2.2 Flow Sequences This section describes the various paths or flows taken by the different user groups of the terminal and concourse facilities. These groups typically include passengers, visitors, employees, baggage, and deliveries. Source: “Considerations for Selecting a Terminal Configuration,” David A. Daileda, FAIA, FAA White Paper. Figure VI-11. Multiple-spine automated people mover.

184 Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design VI.2.2.1 Passengers The basic sequence of processing functions for the enplaning and deplaning of passengers has remained fairly constant from the inception of air travel. One of the most recent and significant changes to the air travel experience occurred following the attacks of September 11, 2001. The more stringent TSA security requirements for screening outbound passengers and baggage have had a significant effect on several aspects of today’s airport terminals. The following diagrams represent, in a very simplified manner, the primary passenger process- ing functions of a U.S. domestic airport terminal complex within the context of its three primary components: airside, terminal, and landside. Figure VI-13 illustrates domestic departures, while Figure VI-14 shows domestic arrivals. A significant function in all U.S. airports is the SSCP, which acts as the control portal between the secure and non-secure portions of the terminal. The SSCP is the location where all passengers and their carry-on luggage, airport employees, and all airside-bound supplies are screened for security purposes. This dividing line within the terminal serves as the demarcation for the SIDA/secured areas (beyond TSA security screening). Source: “Considerations for Selecting a Terminal Configuration,” David A. Daileda, FAIA, FAA White Paper. Figure VI-12. One-way or two-way loop automated people movers.

Terminal Building Facilities 185 Only ticketed passengers with a current boarding pass and appropriately badged personnel are allowed to proceed past the SSCP. All visitors are currently prohibited from proceeding through the SSCP unless they are escorted by appropriately badged personnel. One reason that visitors are not currently allowed past the SSCP is that this change of policy would increase the number of individuals that would need to be screened during peak periods, which in turn would require additional TSA staffing. At some future date, this SSCP policy concerning visitors may change, which would then affect projected demands on the SSCP, as well as impact the split between airside and landside concessions. Some of the most significant recent changes in this travel process have evolved out of techno- logical advances, specific security screening changes stemming from the attacks of September 11, and the need to generate more non-aviation revenues from the airport in general. Origin and Destination. O&D passengers are those passengers who begin or end their trip at a particular airport. Connecting. Connecting passengers are those who change their aircraft between the origin and destination. In nearly all cases, connecting passengers who later connect to another domestic flight are not screened at the connecting airport. Rather, they deplane at the connecting airport at a point that is secure (i.e., behind the screening locations) and then proceed to the gates of their next flight without having to go through another screening process. Domestic (Arrival/Departures). The domestic departing passengers enter the departure hall or lobby, which is accessible either by car through access road systems or by foot from the parking facilities. The departure hall or lobby also may be accessible by light rail at some airports. Upon Ticketing Check-in Secure Holdrooms Security Screening Checkpoint TERMINAL LANDSIDE AIRSIDE Baggage Make-up Departing DOMESTIC DEPARTURES Non-secure Passengers Carry-on Bags Checked Bags Source: Landrum & Brown Carry-on Baggage Screening Passenger Screening Checked Baggage Screening Secure TERMINAL LANDSIDE AIRSIDE DOMESTIC ARRIVALS Non-secure Arriving Passengers Carry-on Bags Checked Bags Baggage Claim Source: Landrum & Brown Secured Exit Figure VI-13. Passenger flow diagram for domestic departures. Figure VI-14. Passenger flow diagram for domestic arrivals.

186 Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design entering the departure hall, passengers can check in at their respective airline ticketing areas before proceeding to the security checkpoint. Passengers who have checked in remotely, either at an off- site location or by Internet, can go directly to bag drop locations and then to the security checkpoint. Passengers with no check-in bags can proceed directly to the security checkpoint. Figure VI-15 depicts a typical U.S. domestic arriving and departing passenger flow sequence. At security, all passengers and carry-on baggage are examined. After going through security, passengers can then shop at the concessions, eat, or continue on to the gate holdrooms. When the flight is called, they will proceed to the holdroom (if not already there) to board the aircraft. Arriving domestic passengers disembark the aircraft and enter the terminal building on the ground level or departure level depending on the type of aircraft and concourse operations. They are Landside Concessions Departure PAX Path Inbound/Outbound Baggage Path Airside Concessions Landside Concessions Access Road System Arrival CurbDepartureCurb Ticketing/ Self Service Kiosk Lobby Security Screening Checkpoint Non-secured Restrooms Airline Clubs/ Lounge Holdrooms Gates Secured Restrooms Inbound Baggage Outbound Baggage Make-up Baggage Claim Legend Arrival PAX Path SE CU RE N O N SE CU RE Baggage Services Baggage Check-in Baggage Drop Curb Check-in Apron AIRSIDE LANDSIDE Checked Baggage Screening Source: Landrum & Brown Figure VI-15. Passenger flow diagram for U.S. domestic arrivals and departures.

Terminal Building Facilities 187 then directed toward the baggage claim area via concourse signage through the one-way security doors and on to the arrivals hall, where they can claim their baggage and reunite with family and friends. From the arrivals hall, passengers can proceed toward services such as transportation and hotel/accommodation counters, tourist information centers, rail connections, and parking facilities. Depending on the airport, rental car facilities may be located at a remote location on airport property accessed via rental car shuttles operated by each of the rental car companies or a common shuttle bus for consolidated facilities. These buses typically pick up the passenger at a designated area of the inner or outer arrivals curb area depending on the roadway infrastruc- ture of the airport. International (Arrival/Departures). The departing international passengers follow the same course as the departing domestic passengers mentioned previously. In some cases, depending on the airport, the departing international passenger may enter an international terminal building separate from the domestic terminal. Additional security screening may be required for those traveling overseas to destination cities that have their own strict security guidelines. Figure VI-16 depicts typical flows for U.S. arriving and departing international passengers. All arriving international passengers disembark the aircraft and proceed through the sterile corridor system toward the immigration hall or CBP primary processing area. In some instances Departure PAX path Inbound/Outbound Baggage path Legend Arrival PAX path AIRSIDE LANDSIDE Access Road System Arrival Curb Gates Inbound Baggage Outbound Baggage Make-up SE CU RE N O N SE CU RE Apron Transfer PAX Bag Recheck Primary CBP Inspection Int’l Baggage Claim Secondary Inspection Meeter/Greeter Lobby Sterile Holding Area for Intransit PAX Sterile Corridor Landside Concessions Airside Concessions Airside Concessions Departure Curb Ticketing/Self- Service Kiosk Lobby Security Screening Checkpoint (SSCP) Non-secured Restrooms Airline Clubs/ Lounge Holdrooms Secured Restrooms Baggage Check-in Baggage Drop Curb Check-in Checked Baggage Screening Source: Landrum & Brown Figure VI-16. U.S. international arriving and departing passenger flows.

188 Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design the passenger loading bridge(s) may lead into a “swing gate” vestibule space, which can be used by domestic arrival and departing flights as well as international departure flights during non-peak international arrival times by controlling the door access to the sterile corridor area. Passengers are then processed into the United States by CBP officers at the processing booths. From there passengers are directed to the baggage claim area to claim and retrieve their baggage. After claiming bags, passengers are directed to exit control points leading to the arrivals hall. Most passengers then proceed to the meeter/greeter lobby or, for connecting passengers, a transfer baggage re-check area. Arriving passengers, who have been identified by CBP officers for additional screening either at primary processing or at the exit control point, are directed or escorted to CBP secondary processing where further individual screening is conducted. These areas may include baggage and/or agricultural products screening, and passport/visa concerns. From secondary processing, passengers who are cleared are directed to the meeter/greeter and transfer baggage areas. The meeter/greeter lobby typically includes transportation and hotel/accommodation counters and, in some instances, tourist information centers. All these service counters may be shared by both domestic and international passengers if the CBP area is contained within the main terminal. In some instances there may be a separate international arrivals building. Connecting passengers will then continue on to their gates. International arrivals facilities that are situated on a concourse on the secured side of passenger screening must have passengers go through an SSCP before entering the secured concourse. Under these circumstances all passengers must recheck their checked baggage either to their connecting flight or, if they have reached their final destination, to a domestic claim device on the non-secured side of the terminal. This procedure is done to ensure the integrity of the U.S. security screening process, because international travelers may not have been appropriately screened to U.S. standards at their point of international origination. Transiting passengers or “in-transit” international passengers are those who departed from an international location and are traveling to another international destination via the United States. International transiting passengers arriving into the United States are escorted to an in-transit lounge area through a sterile corridor system that keeps passenger(s) from mixing with other inbound and outbound passengers, making it easier and less labor intensive for the escort. Outbound transit passengers would then be escorted back through the sterile corridor system, to their departing aircraft. Before September 11, 2001, the Transit Without Visa program was available to airlines that had contracts with the United States to transit passengers without them first obtaining a U.S. visa. Many of these passengers would disappear between connecting flights, request asylum upon entering the United States, etc. This program was suspended on August 3, 2003, for posing a risk that could be exploited by terrorist organizations. As a result, all arriving non-U.S. passengers, whether they are staying in the United States or transiting to another destination, first obtain a U.S. visa. These passengers then have their passports processed by CBP even if they remain in an in-transit lounge. The only exception to this procedure is for citizens from countries in the Visa Waiver Program. Citizens of these countries are considered low risk and may enter the United States for up to 90 days without a visa. VI.2.2.2 Visitors Meeters/Greeters. The meeters/greeters of passengers enter the arrivals hall, which is acces- sible either by car, through the access road system, or by foot, from the parking facilities. The meeters/greeters are bound to the meeter/greeter area in the arrivals hall where they meet their arriving passengers and then depart with them.

Terminal Building Facilities 189 Well-Wishers. The well-wishers of departing passengers accompany them to the departure hall in the ticketing lobby. Generally, they enter the terminal with the departing passenger and can accompany them before security checkpoint. Security guidelines after September 11 prohibit any non-ticketed passenger from entering the SSCP area and therefore restrict them to the non- secure areas of the terminal. VI.2.2.3 Employees Employees are categorized, from a security perspective, as those who work at the airport and have an operational need for access to various security-related areas. They may be employed by the airport, airlines, concessionaires, the CBP, the TSA, other governmental agencies, or other tenants of airport facilities. Their ability to move around and perform their jobs typically depends on the type and location of their work, and the related permissions designated by the airport on their access badge. These permissions typically provide and/or limit access to security-related areas such as the Airline Operations Areas (AOA), sterile areas, and SIDA/secured areas, each of which is specifically defined in each individual Airport Security Program and are generally the non-public areas beyond TSA security screening. In some airports dedicated “employee-only” lanes near the checkpoint or in designated operational areas can accommodate limited types of access. VI.2.2.4 Baggage Domestic (Arrival/Departures). Individuals traveling domestically with baggage to be checked typically check their baggage at the curb or the bag drop locations within the ticket lobby. Depending on the airport, the airlines, and the types of baggage screening being deployed, the bags are either taken to a TSA checked baggage screening point, which is typically located within the ticket lobby; screened in-line behind the ticket counters; or taken to fully integrated in-line screening with the baggage conveyor system. Depending on the size of the airline and/or airport operation, the bags can enter either a baggage pier/carousel make-up area, where bags are sorted by hand and delivered to the aircraft via tug and cart (small operations, single airline), or a sortation pier/carousel make-up area, after which bags are delivered to the aircraft by tug and cart (large operations, multiple airlines). Those passengers traveling with carry-on baggage that wish to “gate check” will receive a claim ticket at the gate before they proceed to the aircraft. Passengers will typically leave their baggage in the cab of the passenger loading bridge before boarding the aircraft. For apron-loaded aircraft when a passenger loading bridge is not feasible for boarding passengers, baggage carts are typically placed adjacent to the aircraft stairway. Gate-checking typically occurs on regional-type aircraft because overhead bin space is often limited given the size of the aircraft. This type of baggage check is typically preferred by business passengers traveling with smaller sized carry-on luggage and enables quicker baggage retrieval either on the apron adjacent to the aircraft or in the cab of the passenger loading bridge instead of at baggage claim. Arriving baggage is unloaded by airline ramp personnel and loaded onto baggage carts, which are then off-loaded either onto baggage sortation systems that feed specific claim retrieval devices or onto individual baggage belts that directly feed the claim device through the wall. Arriving gate-checked baggage is unloaded and placed on a cart adjacent to the aircraft stair or in the cab of the passenger loading bridge for claim by deplaning passengers. In some cases where aircraft use a passenger loading bridge for enplaning and deplaning of passengers, the passenger loading bridge itself may have a dedicated luggage elevator in the rotunda area of the bridge. Airline ramp personnel place the baggage in this contained elevator, which then travels up to the departure level of the bridge enabling passengers to claim their baggage just before entering the building. For airports with a large portion of oversized baggage, separate areas of the terminals are dedicated to its retrieval; for example, ski equipment may have its own dedicated conveyor belt, which should have as straight a run as possible to minimize the potential for jamming.

190 Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design International (Arrival/Departures). International departing baggage flows in the same manner as domestic departing baggage but may have more scrutinized security screening pro- cedures that are governed by the airline and the security screening guidelines of the international destination city. International arriving baggage is unloaded by airline ramp personnel onto baggage carts, which deliver the baggage to a sortation system that feeds the CBP international claim devices. Transfers. Transfer baggage is off-loaded by airline ramp personnel onto baggage carts. Depending on the airline operation, these bags can be transferred “tail to tail” (one aircraft to another) or to a sortation system that directs the baggage to the proper location for transfer onto the connecting aircraft. International transfer baggage is the responsibility of the connecting international passenger. Once passengers claim their bags and either clear secondary processing or exit the CBP area, they are directed to baggage transfer locations, which feed baggage into the sortation system for delivery to their departing aircraft. VI.2.2.5 Deliveries The process or flow by which goods enter the airport complex depends on the area those goods are delivered to. Goods can be delivered at the terminal building via landside loading docks or at secure concourse locations depending on the configuration of the terminal itself. Loading docks and delivery areas at airport terminals offer entry into the building for various vendors and supplies. Deliveries bound for the secure and sterile portions of the terminals and concourse must first pass security inspections or be escorted by individuals with appropriate security clearances to those areas requiring proper security identification. These deliveries may enter the secure portion of the airport via secure checkpoint stations that include either manned guard stations, electronic access points (keypad access) with automatic gates, or a combination of both. To improve the efficiency of delivering concession goods to airport shops and restaurants, some airports are choosing to develop logistics centers outside of the terminal building to coordinate the arrival of goods at the airport and subsequent delivery to in-terminal facilities. The addition of this middleman facility at large airports can help to reduce overall average stock-keeping costs for the following reasons: • Acceptance of the concessionaire’s merchandise at this centralized facility can reduce the need for concessionaire personnel to accept and process merchandise at the receiving dock. • Merchandise can be delivered to concessionaire facilities at appropriate times of the day, thereby improving the efficient use of receiving docks and avoiding congestion during peak times. • Reducing merchandise processing bottlenecks improves the costs associated with security screening of goods, as well as allows the airport operator to better manage the number of trucks on its roads and parked at its terminal building(s). At several case study airports, the concession logistics centers are noted for the following efficiencies: • Reducing merchandise delivery times by as much as 80%; delivery personnel can deliver goods in 15 to 45 minutes as opposed to the hours the delivery process could sometimes take without such a center. • Decreasing the number of duplicate staff hours and equipment needed among concessionaires. • Increasing the efficiency of staffing levels for TSA, police, and security personnel when incoming merchandise does not have to be processed at multiple, decentralized locations. • Avoiding the need to break down large packages so they can get through existing X-ray machines and then put them back together for delivery to the stores.

VI.3 Terminal Facility Requirements The development of a detailed schedule of terminal facilities requirements (the terminal program) is the cornerstone of the process of planning a new, expanded, or renovated passenger terminal. Unless the planning team understands how much space of each type is required to meet targeted levels of activity and desired levels of service, a terminal plan cannot realistically be defined. The program typically does not refer to a specific terminal concept or gate configuration. The pro- gramming process can, however, run in parallel with the development of terminal concepts, which may be constrained by the terminal site and/or existing facilities. As the program is developed, especially the number and mix of gates, the terminal concept can be refined and the concept then used to better define certain elements of the program. For example, if multiple unit terminals are being considered, there may be a program for each terminal that reflects the duplication of some concession and support facilities. Thus, programming is, to some extent, an iterative process, but ultimately should drive the size of the terminal building, rather than an architectural concept driving the program. Terminal facilities are a function of the specific characteristics of the airport they serve. Each airport and each terminal has its own distinct peaking characteristics due to variations in the following: • Airline schedules • Proportion of business and leisure travel • Number of long- and short-haul flights • Mix of mainline jets and regional/commuter aircraft • Proportion of originating/terminating passenger activity vs. transfer passenger activity • International passenger or domestic passenger use These passenger and peaking characteristics determine the size and type of most terminal facil- ities. Thus, two airports with similar numbers of annual passengers may have different terminal requirements, even if the design hour passenger volumes are approximately the same. The peak hours for different types of activity (domestic vs. international, etc.), or for different airline groups (hub vs. spoke carriers), may also occur at different times at the same airport. Thus, it is important to determine, as accurately as possible, which types of activity occur at an airport and which individual peaks need to be considered in the terminal planning process. The various require- ments can then be consolidated into an overall program that will achieve the primary goal of the terminal, getting passengers and their baggage from ground transportation to aircraft or from aircraft to ground transportation. As discussed in Section VI.2.1, the concept of LOS also must implicitly, if not explicitly, be incorporated into the assumptions about the areas and dimensions for terminal programming. Unlike many airfield facilities, the capacity of each element of a terminal facility can vary depending on the level of crowding and/or processing time that is considered acceptable. A passenger traveling on business may be less tolerant of congestion or delay than a passenger traveling for pleasure, but in some cases the opposite may be true. In many cases the degree of acceptability also may vary depending on the configuration of the terminal space and the level of amenities provided. Thus, the capacity and LOS of a terminal can vary significantly. Economic considerations, as well as the practical realities of design, dictate that a good LOS must be provided for the design hour passenger volumes. LOS may decline to adequate levels during the “super peaks” of the year, such as during holiday weekends. However, a well-programmed and -designed terminal will not decline to unacceptable LOS, even during these super peaks. The basic approach taken in developing terminal facilities requirements is to review the plans and areas of the terminals, make observations of passenger activity, discuss with airport and Terminal Building Facilities 191

airline staff how well the present facilities are functioning, and then compute the quantitative requirements for current levels of activity. Comparing these to existing facilities is a form of calibration to see if the planning factors and/or models yield a demand consistent with current levels of facility utilization. The facility requirements described in this section are assumed to be developed using passenger and aircraft activity demand levels produced by one of the methodologies described in Chapter IV, Forecasts. These activity demand levels are then applied to a mathematically based formula that includes generally accepted dimensional criteria for determining the size of the facility. For each major functional area (ticketing, bag claim, etc.), typical configurations and their associated typical dimensions are graphically illustrated and described in the text. Typical dimensions are depicted in both feet and meters on the example drawings and, in some cases, a minimum rec- ommended dimension is suggested. These dimensions are based on multiple sources including current published planning criteria such as IATA and ATA, as well as generally accepted industry planning parameters. For some of the key facility requirements described in this volume of ACRP Report 25, a spread- sheet model is available in Volume 2 that provides the user with an additional analytical tool. These Spreadsheet Models support the technical analyses mentioned in this volume by providing a quantitative background reference further defining the terminal facility methodology. As with any modeling, judgment as to the validity of the input assumptions is necessary. It is not the intention of either this Guidebook or the analytical modeling tools to provide a “cookie cutter” approach to developing a terminal facilities space program. The planning team should base assumptions and parameters for each terminal on the best locally relevant information, rather than automatically assuming that the typical values are correct. This section also will reference other ACRP studies that provide additional information on identifying and collecting appropriate programmatic parameters; more information on these studies are in Appendix B, Other Pertinent ACRP Studies. VI.3.1 Level of Service Related to Passenger Flow Previous sections have characterized LOS as the qualitative experience of passengers using airport terminal buildings and discussed the use of quantitative metrics to determine the amount of space required to provide that experience. Those discussions were based on the space required at a specific point in time, typically the design hour in the design year. However, fluctuations in demand during this design hour can create profoundly different experiences for passengers, not only within the design hour but also beyond. The basic assumption underlying most space calculations based on a design hour is that the demand rate throughout that hour is constant. While not unreasonable, this assumption is almost always incorrect. Variations in passenger arrival rates during the design hour and variations in both the staffing levels and service rates at facilities during the design hour alter the demand pattern from the uniform distribution implicit in an hourly capacity calculation. In facilities sensitive to the impact of dynamics, using a design hour calculation alone can result in a significant change in the queuing experienced and the LOS provided to a large number of passengers. However, it is often not economical or prudent to plan for a peak condition that is only a few minutes in duration. This section outlines the key dynamic factors that influence passenger queuing and LOS at processing facilities within airport terminal buildings and the manner by which such factors develop. Applications of these dynamic factors are discussed in the following sections for each relevant terminal element. With this information, planners can determine if adjustments to planning hour calculations are required to achieve target LOS conditions. 192 Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design

Terminal Building Facilities 193 VI.3.1.1 Dynamic Factors Influencing Queuing and Level of Service Passenger Arrival Patterns. Simply knowing how many passengers arrive in a planning period is not sufficient to determine the expected queue, accumulation, or LOS. Instead, a planner needs to know, in smaller time increments, how many passengers are expected to transit the facility. This information may be generated by an arrivals distribution (i.e., for passengers entering the terminal building), output from the previous facility (e.g., the arrival at international baggage claim is directly related to passengers leaving Customs Inspection), flight schedules, on-time performance, walking speeds, etc. Staffing Level Variation. Both the number of staff provided and the time at which they commence and cease serving passengers have impacts for the LOS at the majority of airport terminal facilities. Cross Flow or Merge Conditions. It is not economical or sensible to create airport terminals in which each area is only used for one purpose at one time. As such, multi-use spaces must contend with different groups of people attempting to do different things, often at different speeds and/or in conflicting directions. These dynamic factors must be considered in order to design functional facilities providing reasonable LOS. Facility Location. It is not reasonable to treat each area of an airport as a separate process without regard for the activities that precede it. An airport must be considered as a “system” in which the LOS provided in one facility impacts those that follow. The arrival pattern at downstream facilities, while related to the throughput of predecessor areas, can also be affected by other variables. Thus, two facilities processing the same passengers with the same average processing speed may generate different queues as a result of their relative location in the airport. Discretionary Time. The way in which passengers spend time in an airport other than in “processing” is discretionary. Variations in the expected use of this time can alter arrival patterns and ultimately the LOS achieved. Utilization Rates. In a facility where passengers have a choice about the process they utilize (e.g., check-in via self-serve kiosks or full-service counters, with no checked baggage, curbside check-in, or premium check-in), assumptions must be made about the utilization of each of these options. Variations in these utilization rates can have a significant impact both on localized queuing for the various modes and also the total throughput of the facility, which subsequently impacts downstream processes. Processing Speed. In calculating the throughput and queuing at processing facilities, assumptions have to be made about processing speed. Within a spreadsheet model, an average (such as 2 minutes per passenger) is used, while in a simulation model, distributions are used (such as an Erlang distribution with a minimum of 1 minute, a maximum of 5 minutes, and an average of 2 minutes). Regardless of the type of model used to project the required size of a facility, variations in the expected processing speed can result in significant changes in the LOS achieved. Passenger–Bag Match. A dynamic factor found in baggage claim relates to the requirement to project not only passenger behavior (number of checked bags, time to arrive at baggage claim, time to find bag, etc.), but also baggage “behavior” (time of first bag, unload rate, etc.), and most importantly the way in which these two factors interrelate. Similarly, security throughput is affected by both the time required to process passengers and the amount of carry-on baggage. As improvements are made to the processing speed of passengers, the ability to process their bags within the same timeframe (i.e., matching the bag processing rate to the passenger processing rate) is becoming the constraining factor.

194 Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design 10FT / 3M typical 15-25FT / 4.5-7.5M Passenger Queue 10FT / 3M recommended; 8FT / 2.4M minimum ATO Counter Active Check-In Zone Circulation Source: Hirsh Associates Figure VI-17. Typical linear ticket lobby. VI.3.2 Ticket/Check-in Lobby The departures process has historically begun at the ticket, or check-in counter of the terminal. This has traditionally been referred to as the airport ticket office (ATO) counter. There is also a strong functional relationship between the ticket counter and the administrative offices that support the daily operation of the ticketing and check-in process. It is generally advantageous to have the offices and counters in a contiguous location with a staff only connection which is separate from direct public access. With the increasing use of automated, self-service, and remote check-in systems, the role of the ATO counter and the terminal check-in lobby has changed and continues to evolve. VI.3.2.1 Types of Check-in Facilities Staffed Check-in Counters. Many legacy carriers, depending on the location of the airport, maintain a certain service level for their customers by requiring staffed counters. These staff members may be divided among dedicated international, first/business class, elite level frequent flyers, and coach domestic ticket counters. Some international carriers may require ticket purchas- ing positions either at the Airline Ticket Office (ATO) counter or remotely. Figure VI-17 depicts a typical lobby configuration. Self-Service Check-in Kiosks. Self-service devices are commonly referred to as kiosks and are typically the size of an automated teller machine. Depending on the airline, self-service devices can be designed as stand-alone units that print passenger boarding passes and receipts, and allow the passenger to make changes in their reservations. These types of kiosks can be located away from the ATO counter in the check-in lobby, or distributed throughout the terminal. Because this type of kiosk is not staffed, bag tags usually cannot be printed. When kiosks are located in the ATO counter, counter stations are typically configured in pairs with a bag well weight scale between pairs. This configuration allows for bag acceptance and bag tag printing by agents who can staff multiple counter station positions. Bag Drop Counters. If passengers checking in remotely have baggage to check and the airline does not allow self-tagging, bag drop counters are typically required. These may be similar to regular ATO counter-located self-service kiosks, but dedicated to the bag drop function. Self-Tagging Stations. Self-tagging stations can incorporate bag tag printers as well as board- ing pass printers into self-service kiosks. Passengers then apply the bag tag to their luggage and

Terminal Building Facilities 195 deliver it to an originating input conveyor for loading into the baggage system. A self-tagging station can also be a stand-alone device that only scans the passenger’s boarding pass and prints out the number of previously approved bag tags for application. These stations require some minimal staffing support to handle customer issues. Curbside Check-in. Most airports provide for curbside check-in. Typically curbside check-ins are equipped with conveyor belts located at the check-in podiums for direct input of bags into the outbound baggage system. At smaller airports (or for airlines who do not wish to pay for conveyors), checked bags may be placed on carts and taken into the check-in lobby to be trans- ferred to the ATO counter bag conveyor. Curbside conveyors must either be capable of locking down or include a security door on the conveyor system that separates the public from the non- public side of the facility. These areas can require localized heating or cooling depending on the airport’s location or preference. The number of curbside inputs usually depends on the airport’s operation, type of airlines served, type of outbound baggage system, and location of baggage system relative to airline ticket counters. Allowing for curbside check-in can improve the LOS for customers and increases the volume of passengers serviced without increasing the size of ticket lobbies. Figure VI-18 depicts a typical curbside check-in layout. Whether for passenger convenience or airline staffing economics, the proportion of passengers using non-traditional check-in methods has grown significantly and, in the future, such methods are likely to serve the majority of passengers at most airports. Because there are different ways a passenger can check in, or check a bag after checking in remotely (by Internet, remote kiosk, or other means), the ticket lobby may need to accommodate the different types of facilities described previously and possibly others that will be developed in the future. 8FT / 2.4M 30FT / 9M overall curb width Source: Hirsh Associates Figure VI-18. Typical curbside bag check. For additional insight and practical help in performing the determinations and methods described in this section, go to the Check-in/Ticketing model provided in Volume 2: Spreadsheet Models and User’s Guide. This model allows the user to segment the check-in functions, adjust the number of positions, and see the impact of space inputs on the passenger flow and queue density. Due to the dynamic nature of these processes and procedures, this Guidebook will focus on requirements of staffed check-in counters, curbside check-in, and self-service check-in kiosks from a physical and functional perspective. The terminal planner should be aware of the various systems and procedures in use, or expected to be used, as the check-in lobby and related spaces are

planned. Flexibility in configuration and design is especially important for this evolving passenger processing function. Although demand can be estimated if sufficient information is available, the number of ATO counter positions can often be as much an issue of airline back wall “billboard” space as actual demand, and/or staffing. Thus, some airlines will prefer to locate self-service kiosks in-line with the ATO counter, effectively replacing staffed counters, while others prefer to locate kiosks in free-standing clusters or other configurations away from the ATO counter. VI.3.2.2 Estimating Demand Regardless of the mix of facilities, the approach to determining the requirements for check-in requires essentially the same information: • Number of peak hour enplaning O&D passengers • Number of airlines • Time distribution of passengers arriving at the terminal • Average service times and maximum waiting time targets • Percentage of passengers using each type of facility in the ticket lobby vs. other locations or going directly to the gate • Use of curbside bag check-in or fully remote bag check-in These airline and passenger characteristics can be used together with DDFSs to build queuing models (or input to simulations) to estimate the number of each type of check-in facility for each airline. These models must have all of the above data in order to produce an accurate estimate of check-in facility demand. However, as noted in Chapter V, DDFSs are often not available. Lacking this specific data for detailed queue modeling, other approaches may be used. Other approaches include using design hour spreadsheet models and using existing ratios of check-in facilities to peak hour passengers and/or gate capacity. VI.3.2.3 Dynamic Aspects of Check-in The arrival pattern of passengers at the airport can have a significant impact on the LOS experienced by passengers. As in all queuing facilities, variations in staffing and service rates also affect passenger LOS. Differences in the arrival pattern of passengers at check-in, from a uniform arrival pattern over the design hour to time-dependent arrival patterns during the design hour, result in significantly different queuing patterns and therefore LOS experiences for passengers. Similarly, if staffing levels or service rates vary over the design hour, different queuing and LOS experiences result. The example in Figure VI-19 illustrates the difference in the passenger queuing between a uniform passenger arrival pattern in the design hour and a variable passenger arrival pattern during the design hour. The basic data used in Figure VI-19 is the same for both sets of lines in the graph and consists of 1,200 design hour passengers, 30 staffed check-in desks, and an average processing rate of 2.5 minutes per passenger. If consideration is limited to a design hour passenger volume, then in a uniform (even) passenger arrival pattern, 100 passengers are assumed to arrive in each 5-minute increment of time. Because only 60 passengers can be served in that time, 40 remain in queue after 5 minutes. At the end of the hour, 480 passengers will be in the queuing area. Without consideration of arrival patterns, a planner might reasonably size the queuing area for this number of people. However, given that the queue of that length only occurs for 5 minutes, it can be argued that targeting a 5-minute increment of time results in providing a larger queuing area than needed thus representing too high a LOS. Accordingly, the 15-minute demand, in this case 400 passengers, is often used. 196 Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design

Terminal Building Facilities 197 However, if a simple arrival distribution is applied, the results are quite different. For the arrival distribution shown in Figure VI-19, the passengers are assumed to arrive as follows: • 25% in the period 60 to 45 minutes before flight close-out (same as uniform) • 50% in the period 45 to 30 minutes before flight close-out • 15% in the period 30 to 15 minutes before flight close-out • 10% in the period 15 to 0 minutes before flight close-out In this case the arrival pattern has 100 passengers arriving every 5 minutes for the first 15 minutes. Passenger arrival then jumps to 200 every 5 minutes before tapering to 60 and finally 40 passengers in the latter quarter of the hour. Thus, while the hour ends with 480 passengers in the queuing area, this level is exceeded for half of the time and there are 540 passengers, 12.5% more than expected, for a period of 20 minutes. If a 400-passenger peak were used to size the facility, it would equate to being 35% over capacity for that period, which would cause a significant decline in passenger LOS experience. VI.3.2.4 Check-in Design Hour The Check-in model considers these dynamic factors and is based on calculating the number of staff needed to check in the originating passengers for the peak 30-minute demand period with a defined maximum waiting time. The basis for this 30-minute methodology assumption is that passengers do not arrive at the terminal in a uniform manner, even within the peak or design hour. It requires data on, or assumptions for, the passenger distribution to estimate the percentage of passengers entering the terminal in a peak 30-minute period, average processing time per passenger, and the maximum waiting time desired. Because the Check-in model is useable for any type of check-in facility, a separate model can be run for each facility to be estimated. The sample arrival distributions that are illustrated in this chapter depend on the type of flight (domestic or inter- national) and time of day (flights departing before or after 9 a.m.), and suggest that the peak 30 minutes of a flight’s passengers arriving for check-in can range from 30% to 50% of the design hour total. An advantage of the Check-in model is that it allows the planner to include LOS assumptions for waiting time. However, it also requires data or estimates for average processing times and the arrival time distribution. This modeling must also be done separately for each airline or group of airlines (assuming the peak hour occurs at a similar time for the airlines, or some type of common 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0: 05 0: 15 0: 25 0: 35 0: 45 0: 55 P a s s e n g e rs Minutes Arrive - Even Q ueue - Even Arrive - D istribution Q ueue - D istribution P lanned C apacity Source: “Passenger Flow Dynamics and Level of Service in Airport Terminal Buildings,” Regine Weston, FAA White Paper, 2004 Figure VI-19. Pattern distribution for check-in arrival.

198 Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design use facility). Otherwise adjustments must be made for exclusive-use check-in positions, which may not be in use by airlines during the terminal’s peak. When obtaining data on processing times for staffed or self-service check-in facilities, caution should be used with airline-furnished data. These service times may reflect only the time an agent or kiosk is in use for a transaction (from log-in to delivery of boarding passes) and therefore could underestimate the full time taken by each passenger to complete the check-in process and walk away, making the position available for the next passenger. The planner should confirm airline- furnished data with on-site observation surveys. The Check-in model assumes a constant number of staffed positions, active kiosks, and so forth. As with passenger arrival patterns, variability in staffing can also affect queue length and waiting times. Continuing with the previous example, and using the distributed arrival pattern as a basis, Figure VI-20 illustrates the impact of staffing on queue length. The base case assumption is that the 30 desks will be fully staffed as soon as the first passenger arrives. Use of this assumption results in a maximum queue of 540 passengers as previously described. If opening the counters is delayed by 15 minutes, the queue at opening will be 300 passengers, which is below the planned capacity of 400 passengers queuing. However, this initial unmet demand drives a peak queue of 720 passengers and an over-capacity condition for 75% of the planning period. This variability should be considered for check-in and other processing-related facilities such as security and international arrivals primary inspection. VI.3.2.5 Ratio Approaches Existing ratios of check-in positions to design hour O&D passengers and/or EQA may also be used as a basis for future planning when sufficient detailed data is not available for modeling approaches. These ratios should be based on actual peak period use, staffing of ATO positions rather than leased counters, and numbers of available kiosks; they also should take into account observed levels of service. Examples of this approach are included in the Check-in model. The ratio approach can combine conventional staffed positions and kiosks as equivalent check-in positions (ECP). Each airline’s ECP is the number of conventional positions in use plus the number of kiosks. The current ratio of design hour enplaned passengers per ECP is determined and then either held constant for the forecast years or changed, based on the existing LOS. The Minutes Source: FAA White Paper, Passenger Flow Dynamics and Level of Service in Airport Terminal Buildings, Regine Weston, 2004 Figure VI-20. Impact of variable staffing at check-in.

Terminal Building Facilities 199 ratio of staffed positions to kiosks can then be varied depending on the current utilization of kiosks at the airport and the trends in kiosk use identified. An advantage of using a design hour to ECP ratio is that it requires less detailed data than the 30-minute service model. The disadvantage can be that it assumes a continuation of existing staffing assumptions and the approximate number of airlines. Another variation on this approach is to use a ratio of gate capacity EQA to ECP. This variation may be appropriate when the airport is expecting new airlines and larger increases in gates vs. growth in design hour passengers due to load factors and/or aircraft size growth within an aircraft group. Other factors that can affect the number of ECPs include the following: • Curbside check-in: The use of curbside, skycap check-in (although limited to domestic flights) is very popular among many passengers and airlines, especially when skycaps have the ability to issue boarding passes. While removing some passengers with checked bags from the ticket lobby, it relocates the queue to the curb and so has its own facility impacts. Recent changes in charging for use of curbside check-in may reduce utilization unless passengers believe they are getting a higher LOS. • Common-use counters using Common Use Terminal Equipment: CUTE systems allow airlines to share counters based on schedule compatibility (one airline’s schedule peaks coinciding with another’s schedule valleys). These types of systems are often administered by airport authorities, or joint airline operating companies. New standards incorporating both CUTE counters and CUSS kiosks are in development by IATA and should be in place in 2009. These CUPPS standards will resolve some commonality issues that have increased the costs and complexity of introducing common-use equipment at many airports. • Dedicated ticket sales positions for foreign flag carriers: Many foreign carriers require separate counters for ticket sales due to internal training/accounting procedures and/or the use of non-airline personnel (handling agents) for the actual passenger check-in process. The number of forecast ECPs can be converted to conventional linear positions to establish the length of the ATO counter. As noted, locations for kiosks are determined using a combination of airline preference and the physical constraints of the ticket lobby. To determine the length of an ATO counter for future activity, assumptions are made as to the ratio of in-line kiosks as compared to those located elsewhere in the ticket lobby. The resulting number of in-line kiosks and staffed ATO positions determine the length of the counter. VI.3.2.6 Typical Dimensions The ATO counter consists of the actual counter, agent work space, and the baggage conveyors. In most domestic and smaller airports, the conveyor is arranged parallel to the counter and the bags are taken from the counter bag well to the conveyor manually. The overall depth of this configuration is typically 10 feet from back wall to face of counter. The average width of the ATO counter per agent varies from 4 to 5 feet depending on counter design and whether bag wells or bag scales are shared. Most domestic carriers can use a 6-foot double counter plus a shared 30-inch bag well for an average of 4.25 feet per agent as previously shown in Figure VI-17. In a typical ATO configuration, there are also (1) breaks along the entire counter length to allow personnel access to individual ATO office areas and (2) end counters without bag wells. This increases the average ATO counter length for planning to approximately 5.0 to 5.5 linear feet per position for most terminals. The width of an in-line kiosk can be less than that of a staffed counter but is dependent on individual airlines’ equipment. For planning, all in-line positions are often assumed to require the same width.

200 Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design In many international terminals, where bags are heavier, powered take-back belts (typically 24 inches wide) for each agent are used. The overall depth of this configuration is typically 12 to 15 feet including a parallel baggage conveyor. The average width per agent varies from 6 to 7 feet depending on counter design. Figure VI-21 depicts a typical island ticket counter lobby. This configuration has also been required by some larger domestic airlines. VI.3.2.7 Ticket Lobby Dimensions The ticket lobby includes ATO counter passenger queuing area and cross circulation at the main entrance of the terminal building. Self-service kiosks can also be located within the passenger queuing area. Active Check-in Zone. In front of the counter is space for the passengers who are being checked in and for circulation to and from the check-in positions. This space is recommended to be 10 feet deep, with 8 feet as a minimum. Passenger Queuing Area. The total amount of passenger queuing area is ultimately deter- mined by the number of passengers expected to be in the queue and the width of the ticket lobby (number of check-in positions). It has been found that 15 feet is typically the minimum depth for passenger queuing and is adequate for lower activity terminals. Medium and higher activity terminals typically require 20 to 25 feet for queuing, respectively. Queues may be a combination of single queues (one per check-in position) or multi-server serpentine queues. The minimum width of a queue is recommended to be 4.5 to 5.0 feet. At terminals with larger checked bags, heavy use of bag carts, and/or larger traveling parties, wider queues are appropriate. Queue ropes should be spaced to provide more space at turns, with 5 feet as the minimum and 6 feet recommended when bag carts are used. Figure VI-22 depicts typical queue dimensions. For stand-alone kiosks, 8 feet for the passengers and circulation is recommended. Figure VI-22 depicts kiosk area dimensions as well. 30-35FT / 9-11M 12-15FT / 4-5M typical with take-back belts 30-35FT / 9-11M 15-20FT / 5-6M Source: Hirsh Associates Figure VI-21. Typical island ticket counter lobby.

Terminal Building Facilities 201 Cross-Circulation Zone. A cross-circulation zone is needed behind the passenger queue. This zone should be free of obstructions and separate from seating areas, FIDS, advertising displays, and/or entrance vestibules. The width of this zone is recommended to be a minimum of 10 feet at lower activity terminals, increasing to 20 feet at higher activity terminals. Total Dimensions. The combination of these three functions results in the following typical dimensions for the depth of the ticket lobby: • Low-activity terminals—35 feet • Medium-activity terminals—45 feet • High-activity domestic terminals (minimum)—55 feet • High-activity international terminals—50 to 70 feet Seating areas, entrance vestibules, and other functions would be in addition to these and typically add a minimum of 5 feet to the overall depth of most lobbies. Terminals with unusual conditions that result in large surges of passengers, such as charters, cruise ship activity, and so forth, may require deeper lobbies. In all cases the ticket lobby should be as barrier free as possible, and enough space provided for cross-circulation flows so they do not trigger automatic openers for curbfront doors. There are also two fundamental check-in counter configurations: linear/frontal and island. These are illustrated in previously shown Figures VI-17 and VI-21, respectively. The linear/frontal configuration is the most common for domestic terminals as well as many terminals handling international passengers with limited numbers of airlines. This configuration provides the most frontage as compared to the number of check-in positions. The island configuration is more common at larger international terminals because the number of check-in positions requires more length than frontage. The dimensions shown in Figure VI-21 are applicable to medium to higher capacity terminals. 8FT / 2.4M minimun 4.5-5FT / 1.4-1.5M wide (ADA min.=3.7FT / 1.1M) 5FT / 1.5M min. at turns 22FT / 6.7M8FT / 2.4M 8FT / 2.4M Source: Hirsh Associates Figure VI-22. Typical queue dimensions.

202 Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design VI.3.2.8 Curbside Check-in Dimensions Curbside baggage check-in is popular at many airports. The dimensions for these facilities are similar to that of typical check-in counters. Figure VI-18 illustrates a two-position check-in podium with a bag belt to the side. This configuration minimizes the depth of the podium (8 feet). Depth can also be limited by locating the bag conveyor within the terminal front wall to allow a more conventional counter configuration. Figures VI-23 through VI-25 illustrate other typical curbside check-in configurations. Passenger queuing and cross circulation space is recommended to be a minimum of 12 feet, with greater depth for higher activity terminals where there may be more circulation along the curb edge. It is normally anticipated that queues will form parallel to the curb rather than toward the vehicle lanes. This results in a 30-foot recommended minimum depth. Source: Star Systems, LLC—A subsidiary of Five Star Airport Alliance Figure VI-23. Typical curbside ticket check-in counter with take-away conveyor and two load points.

Terminal Building Facilities 203 The curb depth is also influenced by the presence of vehicle barricades that may be required at some airports for blast protection considerations unrelated to passenger processing. VI.3.3 Passenger Screening Security screening requirements are subject to TSA regulations and the level of security may be changed by TSA security directive if unusual levels of threat are perceived. Please see Section VI.1.6, Terminal Security, for a more complete discussion of passenger and baggage security considerations. VI.3.3.1 Estimating Demand Processing rates for SSCPs have been observed to vary significantly at different sized airports, with rates ranging from approximately 100 passengers/hour/lane to over 200 passengers/hour/lane. A lane contains typically an X-ray unit for carry-on bags, plus a walk-through metal detector (WTMD). Based on current TSA procedures that require passengers to remove computers and some other electronics from passenger bags, to remove their shoes, and so forth, the X-ray unit determines the capacity of the SSCP. Some airports have installed a combination of two X-ray units paired with a single WTMD for better TSA staff utilization, which also results in a reduction Source: Star Systems, LLC—A subsidiary of Five Star Airport Alliance Figure VI-24. Typical curbside ticket check-in counter with take-away conveyor and one load point.

204 Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design of the width of the checkpoint. This configuration is typically referred to as the “2 to 1” combination and is currently considered the preferable configuration. Passenger characteristics typically determine the SSCP throughput, with less frequent travelers (who are unfamiliar with TSA rules and procedures) taking longer than frequent flyers. Chang- ing TSA rules, such as the ban on liquids and gels, can also slow down processing rates until all passengers become familiar with the new procedures. It is very important that each airport measure its average processing rates during different seasons and times of day to determine a reasonable range of processing rates to use for planning. It is also recommended that actual throughputs be observed rather than relying on TSA hourly WTMD counts. These counts can overstate the passenger throughput because the WTMD counts include each person who passes through, including TSA officers and passengers who trigger the alarm and are allowed to take off probable trigger items and walk through again. Processing speed for the SSCP actually consists of the time required to perform a number of different activities such as divestiture, WTMD, X-ray, and referral to trace detection, each with its own individual processing speed. Variation in the time to complete any of these can have significant impact on the overall processing rate. As an example, one major airport found their security processing speed significantly diminished when dealing with participants from a large computer conference in which a high percentage of the passengers had increased Source: Star Systems, LLC—A subsidiary of Five Star Airport Alliance Figure VI-25. Typical curbside ticket check-in counter with baggage carts.

Terminal Building Facilities 205 quantities of electronics. Although the number of passengers processed was comparable to other peak days, the average wait time increased to 1 hour from the typical 20 minutes as a result of increased trace utilization and reduced processing speed. Increased queue length and wait time can occur as a result of increased processing time in any type of queuing facility, although variations tend to be more extreme where multiple processes are involved, as in the case of security. As discussed in Section VI.3.2, Ticket/Check-in Lobby, queues at check-in are affected by the rate of arrival for passengers entering the terminal building. If all passengers use the check-in facility immediately in advance of security, then the volume of passengers entering security has a known maximum, which is equal to the throughput capacity of the check-in counters. However, a number of dynamic factors can cause demand to exceed this “known” maximum. One of the most difficult to assess is the impact of passenger discretionary time. After check-in, some passengers may not proceed directly to security. The factors considered in making this decision include the amount of time before flight departure, security queue length, previous experience using the airport terminal, availability of concessions in the non-secure area of the terminal, and whether the passenger is accompanied by a well-wisher. There are too many variables to reasonably consider in a simple mathematical formula. For simulation modeling, significant data collection is required to develop reasonable test scenarios. The Security Screening model assumes that passengers do not have significant delay between check-in and security; however, the peaking factor can be varied to test the sensitivity of this assumption as discussed in the following paragraphs. For additional insight and practical help in performing the determinations and methods described in this section, go to the Security Screening model provided in Volume 2: Spreadsheet Models and User’s Guide. This model allows the user to see the effect of the number of screening lanes and passenger processing rates on passenger flow and the queue density. Notwithstanding, if all passengers proceed directly to security as early as possible, other dynamic factors can still impact LOS. For example, if self-service kiosks are provided, then some passengers will arrive at security in much the same pattern as they arrive at the terminal. (Note: This scenario assumes little or no queuing at kiosks, which is frequently the objective for this type of facility.) The use of staffed check-in by some passengers and kiosks by others can easily be considered in calculating demand at security. However, the percentage utilization of either method is a dynamic variable. Returning to the example previously used in Section VI.3.2.1 for staffed check-in, assume the base case of 1,200 passengers using staffed check-in related to 1,800 design hour passengers, but with one-third using kiosks. Figure VI-26 illustrates the base conditions at security using this assumption and the distributed arrival pattern used for the staffed check-in example. Passen- gers are arriving from two sources: metered through staffed check-in and un-metered having used kiosks. The number of passengers processed through staffed check-in every 5 minutes is 60 (30 counters × 5 minutes ÷ 2.5 minutes per passenger). In this example, there are always passengers queuing at check-in, so this number is constant and equates to 720 passengers within an hour. For the kiosk-using passengers, arrival at security is based on the distributed arrival pattern used previously in the check-in example. With the base assumption of one-third kiosk use, 600 kiosk- using passengers will arrive at security in the planning hour, varying between 20 and 100 passengers every 5 minutes. Assuming eight security units with a processing rate of 140 passengers per hour

206 Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design for each unit, the throughput capacity of the security facility is 1,120 passengers per hour. In the base case, the queue at the end of the hour will be 200, having peaked at 250 passengers. A reasonable queue space allowance on this basis would be in the range of 240 passengers. However, if kiosk use increased to half of all passengers, a very different condition would result. With only half of the passengers using staffed check-in, there is still a constant throughput of 60 passengers every 5 minutes from this source. In addition, assuming that sufficient kiosks have been provided, the passenger demand from this process will increase by 50% to between 30 and 150 every 5 minutes. If the capacity was set at 240 passengers as previously suggested, this scenario would result in a peak of more than twice that amount for over half of the planning period, as illustrated in Figure VI-26. VI.3.3.2 Typical Dimensions Passenger checkpoints have changed since the attacks of September 11, 2001, and the establish- ment of the TSA, becoming larger than previous installations. As TSA procedures and equipment continue to evolve, the configuration and size of the SSCPs are expected to change as well. Currently (2009), a standard SSCP contains four major components (See Figure VI-27): • X-ray unit for carry-on bags • WTMD • A search area for passengers who set off the WTMD • ETD for checking bags Additional equipment that has been installed in some airports includes whole body image technology, a separate X-ray unit for shoes, booths for TSA supervisors and law enforcement officers, and other equipment currently undergoing testing. The TSA’s ultimate goal is to have fewer pieces of equipment with better capabilities to speed up passenger processing. However, it is also likely that checkpoints will become larger and slower, before they reduce in size and become faster. Typical configuration with one X-ray unit for each WTMD varies from approximately 27 to 31 feet wide for a pair of lanes, depending on the type of baggage X-ray unit used. If a “2 to 1” configuration of two X-rays for one WTMD has been installed, a slightly narrower footprint of approximately 22 to 29 feet can be assumed. Non-standard configurations are also used when Minutes Source: FAA White Paper, Passenger Flow Dynamics and Level of Service in Airport Terminal Buildings, Regine Weston, 2004 Figure VI-26. Impact of arrival pattern on security.

Terminal Building Facilities 207 physical constraints do not allow a typical line of inspection lanes. Additional width may be asso- ciated with ADA accessible lanes. The length of the SSCP varies depending on a number of factors but is primarily related to the length of the tables placed before the X-ray unit for passengers to unpack laptop computers, take off jackets and shoes, and remove metal objects from pockets. Similarly, the length of roller beds and/or tables, and seats after the SSCP for passengers to put clothing back on and repack bags, can vary. Airports are experimenting with these functions, and standards for these tables are evolving. The length for an SSCP can vary from 57 to 68 feet. The variability in both SSCP width and length is a function of the type of baggage X-ray unit, the type of passenger holding and/or wanding stations, and other screening equipment. It is recommended that planners coordinate with the TSA on current equipment and procedures at the time of design. However, flexibility to reconfigure SSCPs should always be a goal in case of future changes in equipment and/or procedures. The size of the passenger queue area before the inspection lanes will be determined by the number of passengers anticipated to be in the queue at peak times. Serpentine queues are rec- ommended. The width of the queue lines is recommended to be a minimum of 4 feet, with 5 feet preferable, if possible, to allow travelling parties to stand next to each other. VI.3.4 Holdrooms Holdrooms or departure lounges are provided at each gate or group of gates. A typical holdroom contains seating and standing areas for passengers, an airline agent check-in podium to handle passenger service issues (such as standby seat assignments), space for a boarding/deplaning queue, space for circulation within the holdroom, and other amenities that the airport or airline may wish to provide. Source: Checkpoint Design Guide (CDG), Revision 1, February 11, 2009, Transportation Security Administration Figure VI-27. SSCP equipment configurations.

208 Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design VI.3.4.1 Estimating Demand Holdroom sizing is typically based on the average seating capacity of the largest aircraft expected to use each gate or group of gates. Holdrooms are typically sized for LOS C with some airports choosing to provide a higher LOS. LOS in holdrooms does not, at this time, have a formally accepted industry-wide definition. Previous guidelines on space per passenger (as discussed in Section VI.1.3, Level of Service) lacked specificity as to whether the area per passenger applied to all the passengers on the aircraft, or just those in the holdroom at a given time, and aspects such as how much circulation was included. The following LOS parameters have been derived from generally accepted industry practices: • Load factor for the aircraft typically expected to use the gate: Typical ranges are for 80% (LOS B/C) to 90% (LOS A) for terminals with consistently high loads. The design load factor may be reduced however if it is expected that a significant number of passengers will be using close-by concessions, or waiting in airline clubs and/or premium class lounges (international flights). Thus, an international airport may provide seating for only a 70% to 80% load factor, but still consider this to be LOS A. • Percentage of these passengers to be seated in the holdroom vs. standing: This percentage can range from 50% seated (LOS C) to 80% (LOS B), or even 100% LOS A. Again, these are typical ranges and should take into consideration the same factors as the load factor discussed above. • Area per seated and standing passenger: This area should take into consideration the extent of carry-on baggage. The resulting area must account for both the bags and adequate circulation for passengers with baggage to maneuver around other waiting passengers and their bags. Area per passenger is typically 15 square feet seated and 10 square feet standing (LOS B/C). This guide- line can be increased to 17 square feet seated and 12 square feet standing (LOS A) to provide wider aisles and/or more flexible seating configurations. These factors determine the total seating/standing lounge area of the holdroom. Area for the gate check-in podium(s) and its queue(s) should be added to the passenger seating area. The gate podium provides facilities for airline agents to check passengers in, change seat assignments, and provide other passenger services. The number of agent positions is a function of aircraft size and airline staffing policies but are typically as follows: one for commuter aircraft, two for narrowbody (up to 150 seats), three for widebody and B757 aircraft, and four for jumbo aircraft (over 300 seats). In addition to the passenger seating area and check-in area, a boarding/deplaning corridor should be added to the lounge area which effectively acts as an extension of the loading bridge door. If a gate has multiple loading bridges, each bridge should have a separate boarding corridor. Similarly, if a holdroom serves multiple gates, each gate should typically have its own boarding/deplaning corridor. Depending on the configuration of the holdroom and the proximity of the check-in podium queue to the loading bridge entrance, some additional queuing may be provided for the boarding process. However, few airports or airlines have seen a need for this additional queuing area. Holdrooms are recommended to be paired or grouped to allow greater flexibility of use. Grouping makes it is possible to reduce the total amount of holdroom space at many airports. One rule of thumb is to reduce the holdroom seating area by 5% for each gate in a common group. The amount of area reduction (for the passenger seating/standing area only) should be related to differences in departure times for adjacent gates, the estimated passenger arrival time distribution at the holdroom, and boarding time prior to departure. Thus, a reduction in seating area might not be recommended when there are expected to be near-simultaneous departures. Examples would include a connecting hub airport, and some spoke airports, when all of the carriers schedule departures at the same time. If departure times are typically well spaced, the area reduction may be greater than the rule of thumb.

Terminal Building Facilities 209 VI.3.4.2 Other Functions In addition to passenger seating and departure processing, some airports and airlines have added other amenities to holdrooms. These amenities have included work counters or desks, laptop/cell phone recharging areas, and play areas for children. Providing these amenities can take varying amounts of space and must be planned on a case-by-case basis. The Holdrooms spreadsheet model allows the user to vary all of the parameters as well as consider consolidated holdrooms serving multiple gates. 8FT / 2.4M typical 15FT / 4.5M 6FT / 1.8M min. clear 25FT / 7.5M min. 30FT / 9M recommended minimum Boarding Pass Reader Check-In Podium Source: Hirsh Associates Figure VI-28. Typical holdroom. For additional insight and practical help in performing the determinations and methods described in this section, go to the Holdrooms model provided in Volume 2: Spreadsheet Models and User’s Guide. By adjusting usage factors, this model allows the user to determine if a holdroom is sized appropriately to a level of service and what true capacity the holdroom maintains. VI.3.4.3 Typical Dimensions Seating Areas and Holdroom Depth. Figure VI-28 illustrates a typical holdroom in a linear configuration along a concourse. The depth of the holdroom should be a minimum of 25 feet to allow some flexibility in seating arrangements. However, a 30-foot depth is recommended for most terminals to increase this flexibility and to allow circulation between seating and the loading bridge boarding corridor. For holdrooms serving multiple gates located in a “corner” or at the end of a concourse, additional depth is recommended. Seating configurations are driven by LOS factors discussed above, as well as the overall pro- portions of the holdroom. The distance between rows of seats is recommended to be a minimum of 5 feet to allow free movement of passengers when seats are occupied. The separation can be increased for higher levels of service and/or when large numbers of carry-on bags are expected. Gate Podiums. A typical two-position gate podium is 8 to 10 feet wide. The depth of the podium counter and back wall is typically 8 feet but can be deeper if storage or other equipment is housed in the back wall. An area should be provided in front of the podium to contain the queue within the holdroom and not block the adjacent corridor. A 15-foot depth is generally adequate.

Boarding/Deplaning Corridor. The corridor should provide as direct a path as possible from the loading bridge to the main concourse corridor. A minimum 6-foot width is recom- mended for deplaning. Most airlines have installed boarding pass readers at the entry to the loading bridge, which increases the required width at the loading bridge door. These readers can either be a simple stand-alone reader (as shown in Figure VI-28) or can include a small work podium for agents. A wider area or multiple queue paths are generally required for enplaning due to the crowd of passengers that usually forms when an aircraft boards. For example, in Figure VI-28 the check-in podium queue and the internal circulation aisles supplement the boarding/deplaning corridor for enplaning activity. If the configuration does not allow such shared use of circulation, an 8-foot-wide boarding/deplaning corridor is recommended. Holdroom layouts should be designed to minimize cross-flows (e.g., queuing of departing passengers for information should not interfere with routing of arriving passengers). Airline or ground handler staffing and operational decisions (such as how passengers are called for boarding) can also affect queuing and resulting LOS. VI.3.5 Concessions Terminal concessions include all of the commercial, revenue-producing functions that serve the traveling public. However, most concession development is associated with departing passengers. The split between secure and non-secure concessions is a function of terminal configurations and operating policies. Following the attacks of September 11, only ticketed passengers are allowed past security screening, thereby eliminating well-wishers and meeters/greeters from walking onto non-secured portions of terminals and concourses. At many older airports, space for concessions was an afterthought, with little attention paid to either the amount or location of concessions. Often concessions were concentrated in the non-secure portions of the terminal, where today a better balance between secure and non-secure concessions is desirable. Passengers are more inclined to use concessions if they are relaxed and assured they will not miss their flight’s departure. In particular, most passengers proceed through security screening prior to shopping or dining and will typically not subject themselves to rescreening in order to reach concessions. In terminals with a high percentage of connecting passengers, such as hub airports, almost all of the concessions should be in secure areas. Because concessions can be a major component of the airport’s revenue stream, it is recom- mended that airports consider undertaking a concessions study to better determine market potential. For additional information on maximizing concession financial performance, please refer to Section III.9.3, Concessions Planning. As discussed in Chapter III, concessions generally fall into six main categories: • News/gift—including newspapers, magazines, convenience items, etc. • Specialty retail—including apparel, souvenirs, jewelry, etc. • Food and beverage—including sit down, food court, and take-away food services of various types; cocktail lounges; etc. • Duty-free shops—with sales limited to passengers departing on international flights. At most U.S. airports, duty-free merchandise must be delivered to the passenger at the boarding gate, although limited “take-away” purchases are allowed in some terminals. • Services—including a wide range of functions such as automated teller machines (ATMs) and other vending machines, full-service travel agencies, shoe shine and barber shops, rental offices and business services, currency exchange, baggage cart rentals, and so forth. • Advertising. 210 Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design

Terminal Building Facilities 211 Although most concessions are associated with departing passengers, some are related to arriving passengers: • Ground transportation concessions mostly consist of rental car counters but can also include commercial ground transportation services counters. At some airports, staffed rental car counters have been removed from the terminal and replaced by telephone banks. These decisions are largely based on local market conditions, the number of terminals at an airport, and other leasing/financial considerations. • Counters for hotels and other visitor services may not necessarily be revenue producing but are necessary passenger services. At most airports, these may take the form of telephone boards rather than staffed counters. • Other services for arriving passengers typically include ATMs and currency exchange for inter- national arrivals. • Food/beverage and retail concessions in arrivals areas are typically small and are more often provided for meeter/greeters waiting for international arrivals rather than domestic flights. In addition to the passenger service side, a significant amount of back-of-house space is necessary to support a concessions program. Concession support consists of storage areas, preparation kitchens, employee lockers, loading docks, trash compactors, and administrative offices. A percentage of the public serving areas (typically 25% to 35%) is generally used. This percentage depends on the mix of smaller concessionaires and larger operators with multiple locations served from central storage/preparation areas. Depending on the types of concessions and the number of concessionaires, some support space needs to be integrated into the back-of-house area adjacent to the customer serving spaces, rather than located remotely. In planning a terminal, consideration should also be given to providing non-public circula- tion for each major concession area, to allow deliveries and trash removal outside of public view. (See Section VI.3.10.5, Non-public Circulation.) VI.3.6 Passenger Amenities Passenger amenities include the following services that may not be revenue-producing con- cessions but provide the passenger with services that improve the travel experience: • Airport information centers, counters, and kiosks: In the increasingly competitive world of air travel, airports are using every marketing and public relations tool available to build a positive customer service image and make a favorable impression on travelers and visitors as they pass through their facilities. The customer service centers, information counters, and kiosks strate- gically located in the terminal assist passengers and visitors by addressing their questions, com- ments, or concerns. The range of services offered at such information centers might include flight, airport, and city information; directions; lost and found; local phone calls; in-terminal paging services; valet and ground transportation coordination; etc. • Paging systems and courtesy phones: A paging/phone service is used primarily to locate persons within the terminal complex. Audio/visual paging systems allow both visually and hearing impaired passengers to send and receive pages. The names of those being paged are both announced through speakers inside the terminal and displayed on monitors throughout the airport. • Wi-Fi: Many airports have added free Wi-Fi high-speed Internet access as an amenity for travelers. Some offer Wi-Fi access throughout the entire airport, while others may limit access to specified areas of the terminal complex or waiting areas. In addition, many airline club lounges offer their own free or fee-based Wi-Fi access. • Computer recharging stations: The convenience of charging a computer or a phone at the airport adds to customer satisfaction. These services offer passengers a way to stay connected and remain

productive while traveling through the airport. The recharging stations are most conveniently located in waiting areas and holdrooms of the terminal. Providing convenient electrical outlets is a trend that is increasing in popularity at airports and has more recently been recognized by some airlines as a potential LOS enhancement to be associated with their particular airline brand. • Wheelchair storage: Airlines provide escorts and wheelchairs to passengers transferring between flights if they request wheelchair assistance. All elevators, concessions, and restrooms in the terminal building must accommodate wheelchair users to meet ADA requirements. Wheel- chair storage should be located to minimize the average amount of time needed to reach any gate in a single concourse. • Electric passenger carts: Electric carts (typically referred to as golf carts) are used at many larger airports to supplement wheelchairs, especially when long distances are involved and an APM system is not used. These carts can range in capacity from 3 to 10 passengers, with larger carts at major connecting hubs. Airlines may also use electric carts to expedite connect- ing passengers who would not normally require assistance when flights are late. As noted in Section VI.3.10, corridors should be wider when electric carts are in use and passenger volumes are high to avoid accidents and injuries. Storage areas for carts must include adequate electric power for recharging batteries and be located so as not to interfere with passenger flow when parked. • Passenger luggage carts or trolleys: Luggage carts can be considered both an amenity and a rev- enue source. Whether provided free as a passenger service or for a fee, the following factors should be considered when planning the terminal: – Location and distance: The further a passenger needs to move his checked baggage, and the more bags there are, the more likely a passenger will want to use a cart. Thus, typically parking garages will generate more demand than curbside locations for departing passengers, and international baggage claims will generate more than domestic baggage claims. – Space: Although carts are nested for storage, the area can become significant if demand is high and there are large surges of demand such as a peak arrivals bank of flights. Locating cart racks or staging areas should be considered in the planning process to avoid the carts becoming choke points in baggage claim areas and circulation corridors. – Cart management: Typically, a third party will be responsible for cart operations. This responsibility includes picking up carts from around the terminal and adjacent parking areas and redistributing them to the locations where passengers need them. Terminal plans need to consider that long strings of carts will be moving to these locations and that ramps, doors, and other access points need to be planned to minimize conflicts with people and vehicles. VI.3.7 Domestic Baggage Claim Baggage claim facilities are required for both domestic and international passengers. The following discussion and methodology is primarily focused on domestic passengers; however, many of the principles and systems characteristics apply to international baggage claim as well. See Section VI.3.8.3 for more information on international baggage claim. Baggage claim planning is one of the most complex areas of terminal design. It is necessary to consider both the passenger flow and the baggage flow and predict their interface in order to adequately size the facility. In addition, there are multiple components to the facility require- ments: exposed length of device (for passenger access to claim bags), off-load space (to allow baggage carts to be pulled adjacent and handlers to load bags onto the claim device), total claim unit length (based on the expected number of bags to be accommodated), and baggage hall space (which relates to the total number of people to be accommodated and claim unit layout, and circulation). 212 Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design

Terminal Building Facilities 213 Utilizing only the design hour demand, it is difficult to assess the impact of these various factors. For instance, a design hour demand of 600 passengers could consist of 3 flights of 200 passengers or 12 flights of 50 passengers. Assuming that each flight is handled independently, the length of claim unit required would vary significantly. Often with smaller aircraft, multiple flights share one claim device, which drives a different requirement for off-load space. An analysis of the charac- teristics of the design hour is necessary to determine the peaks of demand to be accommodated. The full planning day schedule should also be analyzed, because the peak period for baggage claim may not always coincide with the peak hour for deplaned passengers. Perhaps the most challenging aspect is the interface between the bags and passengers. In a domestic facility, it is possible to arrive at a reasonable estimate of when the first and last passenger will arrive at baggage claim, based on their arrival gate and average walking speed. Baggage delivery is also affected by the distance between the gate and the off-load area but more significantly by the efficiency of airline or ground-handler staffing. Variables include how quickly the off-load crew is available after chocks-on, the number of baggage handlers off-loading the aircraft, the number of carts per baggage train (and therefore the number of trains per flight and amount of space at off-load), as well as the number of handlers off-loading bags onto the claim device. The reality at most domestic airports is that passengers will be in the claim area by, or before, the time the first bags are unloaded. At very large airports, planners need to work with the airport, airlines, and handlers involved to form a view on the likelihood of the first bag being delivered before passengers arrive, in order to calculate the maximum accumulation of passengers in or bags on the claim unit. When those factors are considered (passengers before bags, or bags before passengers and passenger–bag match), a wide range of accumulations can be experienced. VI.3.7.1 Estimating Demand As noted above, the pattern of activity within a design hour (or another peak arrivals period) must be considered for sizing the baggage claim. Most domestic flights can be unloaded and thus all bags claimed within a 20-minute period. This has led to the industry using the peak 20-minute period within the design hour as the basis for planning. Therefore, the claim unit frontage should be sized for the estimated number of passengers waiting for baggage, because most bags are claimed on the first revolution of the claim unit. The number of passengers actively engaged in claiming bags is also related to the average traveling party size, because with larger family groups, not all of the party will actually be at the claim unit picking off bags. Domestic baggage claim requirements are based on the following: • Design hour deplaned terminating passengers • Concentration of passengers arriving within a 20-minute period • Percentage of passengers checking bags • Average traveling party size, bearing in mind that not all members of a traveling party (especially families with children) will actually stand at the claim unit, but rather one member will claim the bags with most of the other members waiting in the peripheral area • Checked baggage per passenger ratios, which is less of a factor for domestic baggage claims, because bags typically do not accumulate waiting for passengers to claim them • Active claim frontage per passenger to achieve the desired LOS Industry consensus is that all passengers actively claiming bags should be either adjacent to the claim unit (LOS A and B) or no more than one person away from the claim and able to reach in/around to the claim unit when his/her bag is presented (LOS C). This guideline results in a claim frontage of 2 to 3 feet per person (LOS A and B) to 1.0 to 1.5 feet per person (LOS C) for those actively claiming bags.

214 Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design The factors contributing to estimating the size of a claim unit for an individual flight are the same as for the total demand, except that aircraft seating capacity and design hour load factor substitute for the peak 20-minute deplaned passenger volume. The Baggage Claim model estimates the number of passengers within the active claim area by calculating the number of traveling parties, taking one member to actively claim bags and then adding in a percentage of the “extra” passengers who may accompany the active claimer at the claim unit. These factors would be based on passenger survey data (party size) and observations. The Baggage Claim model is in two parts. The first part uses the 20-minute peak period to estimate the total amount of baggage claim frontage required to accommodate the total number of arriving passengers. This part uses the input assumptions listed above. The second part uses a similar methodology to calculate the size of a claim unit for an individual flight. Once the total frontage is estimated, the size and number of claim units should be determined based on the expected number of flights and aircraft sizes during the design hour(s), and airport operating policies regarding exclusive or preferential use of claim units. For additional insight and practical help in performing the determinations and methods described in this section, go to the Baggage Claim model provided in Volume 2: Spreadsheet Models and User’s Guide. This model allows the user to either size the total claim frontage required during the peak period of arrivals or to size an individual claim device for one or more aircraft. The time that a claim unit is in use for an individual flight helps establish the turnover of claim units. This time is more significant for flights on widebody aircraft. The following factors are required for estimating the time that a claim unit is in use for an individual flight: • Aircraft seating capacity • Design hour load factor • Percentage of passengers terminating at this airport • Percentage of passengers with checked bags • Average number of bags/passenger • Average bag unloading rate, which will vary depending on the size of the bags and the number of feed conveyors per claim unit The above factors will determine the time needed to unload a flight’s bags. In addition to the time needed to unload the checked bags, additional time should be added for bags that are not claimed on the first rotation of the claim unit because passengers arrive late or fail to identify their bags (typically up to 10 minutes should be added, unless there are unusual conditions). In cases where passengers arrive significantly earlier than the first bag is delivered, planners may want to consider the claim unit “in use” for that additional time if the airport or airlines do not want to have passengers from multiple flights at the claim unit simultaneously. As shown in the example in the Baggage Claim model, narrowbody domestic flights typically occupy a claim unit for 20 minutes or less (which results in the typical approach of sizing domestic baggage claim units for a peak 20-minute period). Widebody flights can occupy a claim unit for significantly longer periods, which is why units sized for large aircraft typically are often configured with two feed conveyors.

Terminal Building Facilities 215 VI.3.7.2 Typical Dimensions The baggage claim area consists of the baggage claim units, active retrieval and peripheral waiting/circulation zones around the claim units, additional passenger circulation, and baggage off-load area (baggage handling systems are described in additional detail in Section VI.4.1). VI.3.7.3 Baggage Claim Unit Types There are three basic types of claim units: flat plate, sloped bed, and simple claim shelves. Figure VI-29 depicts typical flat plate and sloped bed baggage claim units. Flat Plate. Flat plate units can be designed in various configurations, with “L,” “T,” “U,” and variations on these most common. Because they are direct feed, flat plate units are simpler to 10-12FT / 3-3.7M bypass lane 10FT / 3M carts 13FT / 3.9 M containers 15FT / 4.5M min. 30FT / 9M min. if no columns 3FT / 0.9M work aisle 10FT / 3M typical 18-25FT / 5.5-7.5M typical 35-40FT / 10.7-12.2M for Sloped Bed units: Source: Hirsh Associates Figure VI-29. Typical baggage claim units.

216 Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design maintain and are generally preferred if the baggage off-load area is on the same level as the claim area. Bags are loaded on the secure side, pass though fire/security shutters (which are closed when the claim unit is not in use), and are claimed by passengers in the (typically) non-secure baggage claim lobby. Unclaimed bags will circulate back through the loading area. The minimum outside radius is typically 5 feet, which results in a 10-foot-wide unit. It is recommended that the ratio of clear length of the “arms” to the width of the unit be no greater than 1.5:1. This ratio will limit deep, narrow bays, which can cause passenger congestion. Sloped Bed. Sloped bed units (often referred to generically as “carousels”) are almost always configured as ovals. Sloped bed units are fed from one or two conveyors, with larger international terminals typically preferring two conveyors due to the time required to deliver the larger number of bags. Feed conveyors can be located on a different floor level, or from some distance, and may feed the claim unit from either above or below. This capability provides flexibility in location, but with separate feed conveyors, there is the possibility of jams if oversized bags or bags with loose straps are accidentally loaded. The minimum width of these units is 18 to 20 feet, depending on the manufacturer, but is often wider due to the location of structures and the feed conveyors. Sloped bed units can also be configured to allow flow-through passenger circulation, which may be advantageous in some terminal configurations, especially for larger claim units. Although sloped bed units have more baggage storage capacity, the effective amount of this capacity is often less than expected unless airline/airport personnel manually reposition bags to optimize bag capacity. Simple Claim Shelves. Simple claim shelves can be used at very low-activity airports. Claim shelves are typically 3- to 4-foot-wide, sloping stainless steel shelves. They are loaded directly from the baggage carts through roll-up doors. As compared to mechanical claim units, the passenger moves along the claim shelf looking for his/her bag, which can cause congestion and confusion when large numbers of passengers are claiming bags. Typically, claim shelves do not exceed 35 to 45 feet in length (three baggage carts) and are most commonly used for oversized baggage. VI.3.7.4 Odd-Sized or Oversized Baggage Facilities should also be provided for odd-sized or oversized baggage, such as golf clubs, skis, and packages that are too large to fit on the baggage claim units or may cause jams on feed conveyors. Odd-sized (sometimes called out-of-gauge) baggage is usually handled in one of three ways: • Oversized belt: An extra wide conveyor, anywhere from 45 to 65 inches wide, transports these bags from the baggage off-load area to the baggage claim hall, generally between two claim units or against an exterior wall of the claim area. This conveyor system can be flat, incline, or decline before entering the claim area, but it is recommended that no bends occur in the system. • Oversized slide: Roll-up doors, from 6 to 10 feet wide and at least 5 feet high with a stainless steel slide, can be used to deliver oversized bags to the claim area. This system usually only functions effectively when the cart is off-loaded at the same level as the claim area, as with a flat plate claim arrangement. • Manual laydown: When it is not practical to include either a slide or belt system, airline employ- ees can take oversized bags from the secured side to the non-secured side for passenger retrieval, by using an airport access door usually adjacent to the claim area, or an elevator if the off-load area is on a different level than the claim area. This process would also apply to special handling items such as pet carriers. VI.3.7.5 Retrieval/Peripheral Areas and Claim Unit Separation The total amount of this area is ultimately determined by the number of passengers expected to be near the claim unit and the desired LOS. This area includes the active claim depth along the unit (retrieval area), depth for others in the traveling party, plus a circulation zone to and away from the

Terminal Building Facilities 217 claim unit (peripheral area). It has been found, however, that 15 feet is typically the minimum recommended depth for the retrieval and adjacent peripheral areas at all but the smallest airports. This depth results in a minimum separation of 30 feet between adjacent claim units or the “arms” of a flat plate claim. For international claim areas where there is a high percentage of passengers using bag trolleys, a 35- to 40-foot minimum separation is recommended. These dimensions assume an obstruction-free area to allow ease of circulation. Columns, bag cart racks, and other structures should not be within the retrieval area. Objects located within the peripheral area usually will require additional separation. A minimum separation between the claim unit and walls or bag trolley racks is recommended to be 15 to 20 feet for domestic claim units, and 20 to 25 feet for international claim units. Airports having “positive claim,” that is, a railing or wall around the claim units so that a security guard can check if a person has the correct bag, may require additional circulation for queuing at the controlled claim area exits. Additional area, outside of the peripheral claim area, needs to be provided for access to the claim area, circulation to ground transportation counters (rental cars, public transportation, commercial vans, etc.), seating for meeters/greeters and passengers waiting for transportation pick-up, etc. The dimensions of this circulation zone are dependent on projected passenger vol- umes and functions adjacent to the claim units, such as rental car counters. VI.3.8 International Arrivals Facilities—Federal Inspection Services FIS facilities are required at all airports with international flights. The exception is most flights from Canada, and a limited number of other airports with U.S. pre-clearance facilities. These passengers are treated the same as domestic arrivals. On March 1, 2003, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), the U.S. Customs Service, and the Agricultural and Plant Health Inspection Service were consolidated to establish U.S. Customs and Border Protection. The CBP is responsible for inspecting all passengers, baggage, and air cargo. By consolidating the three major agencies, the CBP has unified the inspection pro- cedures. At some airports, the Public Health Service (PHS) and/or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) may also have offices. Although the inspection process has varied over time, FIS procedures now call for all passengers to be processed through the primary inspection counters (formerly operated by INS). There are also a limited number of foreign airports that have U.S. personnel to conduct pre-inspection. Passengers from these airports (Ireland and some Caribbean islands) bypass local CBP primary inspection but are still subject to baggage inspection. It is anticipated that these locations will eventually have full CBP pre-clearance facilities. Secondary passenger and baggage inspection is based on more selective procedures using computer-based lists of passengers, roving agents, designations of “high-risk” and “low-risk” flights, and other selection techniques. CBP procedures and facility requirements are described in Airport Technical Design Standards—Passenger Processing Facilities (12). Although there is a national policy, implementation may vary at each gateway based on local conditions, and coordination is required with the CBP for reviews and approvals of plans. Thus, it is essential to involve the FIS agencies in the planning process early. Planners should also request updates to standards from the CBP during the planning process, as these are likely to change and evolve over time. A terminal for international arrivals also has facilities in addition to the actual FIS processing areas. Figures VI-30, VI-31, and VI-32 illustrate the international arrivals flow process for single- and two-level facilities, as well as a preclearance facility such as those found in Canada. An international arrivals terminal consists of the following major elements.

218 Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design Source: Airport Technical Design Standards—Passenger Processing Facilities, U.S. Customs & Border Protection, Washington D.C., August 2006, pg. 2-15 Figure VI-30. Single-level passenger processing facility.

Terminal Building Facilities 219 Source: Airport Technical Design Standards—Passenger Processing Facilities, U.S. Customs & Border Protection, Washington D.C., August 2006, pg. 2-16 Figure VI-31. Two-level passenger processing facility.

220 Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design Source: Airport Technical Design Standards—Passenger Processing Facilities, U.S. Customs & Border Protection, Washington D.C., August 2006, pg. 2-17 Figure VI-32. Preclearance passenger processing facility.

Terminal Building Facilities 221 VI.3.8.1 Sterile Corridor System Arriving international passengers must be kept separate from other passengers, visitors, or unauthorized airline employees until they have cleared all FIS inspections. Therefore, a separate corridor system from the aircraft gate to primary inspection is required. The corridors should be sized for single-direction passenger flow. Depending on the distance from gate to primary inspection, moving walkways or APMs may be appropriate. Because departing passengers can use the same gates as international arrivals, control doors and monitoring of the corridor system is required to prevent mixing of arriving and departing passengers. See Section VI.3.4.3, Typical Dimensions, for guidance on corridor sizes. VI.3.8.2 CBP Primary Because all passengers are subject to CBP primary inspection, the capacity of primary inspection generally dictates the overall capacity of the FIS. Under current guidelines, one double primary inspection booth (two agents; also referred to as a “piggy back counter”) is officially rated at an average of 100 passengers per hour. There are usually separate queues for U.S. citizens and foreign nationals, each of which will have a different average processing rate. CBP primary facilities are sized for a capacity stated in terms of passengers per hour. This rating is “steady state,” assuming a relatively well-distributed pattern of arriving flights. For that assump- tion to be correct and target waiting times to be maintained, a peak hour volume of 900 passengers, for example, would need to consist of six flights, arriving every 10 minutes, with 150 passengers each, rather than two flights of 450 passengers arriving within a few minutes of one another. Even in airports that have shorter-haul international flights, the idea that they will be of uniform size and evenly spaced is difficult to accept as a typical or reasonable planning standard. However, there are factors which “spread” or dilute the impact of arriving passengers, notably the distance between aircraft gate and the government inspection booths, combined with the metering of passengers out of aircraft and variations in the speed they walk. It should be noted that speeds are more divergent in terminals where moving walkways are provided. The number of booths required for primary inspection is typically prescribed by the CBP based on the design hour passenger volume and, as such, consideration of dynamic issues will not usually impact that aspect of the facility. However, while agencies may specify minimum queue depths, they may be insufficient depending on the likely distribution of peak hour passengers amongst flights and the relative timing of those flights. Examining demand in a smaller time frame, 15 or 30 minutes, is often helpful in understanding the maximum length of queue to be accommodated. One other key area to consider in arrivals facilities is the impact of off-time (i.e., early or late) flights. In addition to a base analysis, if off-time data is available, a number of sensitivity tests should be performed to fully understand the dynamics of the facility. For additional insight and practical help in performing the determinations and methods described in this section, go to the FIS/CBP model provided in Volume 2: Spreadsheet Models and User’s Guide. This model allows the user to size the CBP primary inspection area. The spreadsheet model for primary inspection has a tool for illustrating how variable arrival times for the same number and size of flights can impact passenger arrival rates and queue sizes in the primary area. Figure VI-33 illustrates a typical primary inspection area with the standard dimensions as published by the CBP.

222 Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design The standard double inspector “piggyback” booth is approximately 14 feet deep and, with the passenger standing areas on either side, 11 feet 6 inches wide. The CBP requires a 7-foot mini- mum distance from the booths to the holding line for waiting passengers. The CBP recommends a 50-foot minimum queue depth for smaller airports and a 75-foot queue depth for larger airports, but the actual depth should be a function of the peak number of passengers forecast to be in the queue and the LOS assumed. Separate queues are required for U.S. residents and for foreign citizens. Although Figure VI-33 shows equal queuing areas, the division of the queues would be deter- mined by the nationality mix of the passengers. The width of the queue lines is recommended to be 5 feet because most international passengers are traveling with others. VI.3.8.3 Baggage Claim After primary inspection, passengers proceed to international baggage claim. The approach in sizing a baggage claim for an FIS is similar to that of a domestic baggage claim; see Section VI.3.7. However, the time a claim unit is in use is typically longer for two reasons: • Checked baggage ratios and the percentage of passengers with checked bags are typically higher than for domestic flights, thus requiring more time to unload. All passengers entering the United States must also have CBP baggage inspection at the first point of entry (except those in-transit). Connecting passengers then re-check bags to their final destination. • Because passengers must clear the CBP primary area before entering the baggage claim area, bags may be on the claim unit before passengers are present. This delay can require a claim unit with greater capacity for baggage storage than is required for domestic flights. Thus, an international claim unit may be sized more for baggage storage than for active claim frontage, although both aspects should be considered. If sufficient storage isn’t available (or passengers are delayed at the CBP primary area longer than anticipated), airline employees may have to unload bags from the claim unit and place them on the floor for passengers to pick up. 11FT 6IN / 3.5M standard booth 12FT / 3.7M min. circulation 14FT / 4.3M standard double booth 7FT / 2.1M min. to waiting line 75FT / 22.9M min. queue area depth 12FT / 3.7M min. circulation 120FT / 36.6M Source: Hirsh Associates Figure VI-33. Primary inspection lanes.

Terminal Building Facilities 223 VI.3.8.4 CBP Secondary Inspection and Processing The CBP is planning to institute a new unified secondary inspection procedure that will affect the configuration of FIS facilities. Under previous procedures, passport, visa, and other docu- mentation concerns were handled in a secondary inspection area immediately adjacent to the primary (immigration) booths. Under the new unified concept, a single secondary inspection area will be located after baggage claim and contain both passenger (document) and baggage inspection facilities. This change can have significant impacts on existing facilities. In FIS facilities located on two levels (primary separated from baggage claim), some secondary passenger inspection facilities may continue to be located adjacent to the primary booths. These decisions would be made by the CBP and the airport on a case-by-case basis. After claiming their baggage, passengers proceed to an exit control to surrender their CBP declarations. Most passengers are instructed by exit control officers to exit the facility. If a passenger has been identified for additional inspection/processing at the primary area, or by any CBP officer while in the sterile area, he or she will be directed to proceed to the CBP secondary area for further processing. The secondary area can be configured with either a single entrance or separate entrances for document and baggage inspection. Within the secondary processing area, there are additional requirements for interview rooms, search rooms, and detention holdrooms. Facility requirements for these spaces are defined in Airport Technical Design Standards—Passenger Processing Facilities (12) but may vary given local airport conditions. VI.3.8.5 Transfer Passenger Re-check International passengers connecting to a domestic flight must clear all CBP inspections at their first point of arrival in the United States. Thus, after completing all the FIS procedures, connecting/ transfer passengers must re-check their baggage. The re-check counters should be located between the FIS exit and the meeter/greeter lobby so that the connecting passenger does not have to transit the meeter/greeter lobby with bags. This process is similar to an originating passenger and can be sized in a manner similar to a kiosk bag drop because the bags should be tagged to their final destination. Some staffed counters should also be provided to accommodate flight re-bookings or to issue new bag tags if the original tags are damaged. Queues for transfer passengers are typically shorter than queues for originating passengers due to relatively short processing times. From a security perspective, arriving transfer passengers are considered “dirty” because they have had access to checked bags that may contain items not allowed in the aircraft cabin. Thus, transfer passengers must go though an SSCP before entering the gate areas. In addition, the TSA does not accept the level of checked baggage security provided by most originating international airports and requires connecting baggage to be subject to the same security screening process as originating bags. This may, or may not, require a separate checked baggage screening system depending on the volume of transfer bags and the overall design of the terminal checked baggage screening system. VI.3.8.6 Meeter/Greeter Lobby After exiting the FIS, locally terminating passengers enter a meeter/greeter lobby, which will also provide access to ground transportation and other arriving passenger services. The meeter/ greeter lobby should have seating for a proportion of the meeters/greeters. However, seating may account for a smaller portion of the area with greeter standees and passenger circulation through the space making up the bulk of the area. The number of meeters/greeters will depend not only on local passenger characteristics but also on how long prior to scheduled arrival times the meeters/greeters enter the terminal. This information should be determined by survey. VI.3.8.7 CBP Administrative and Support Areas The total amount of space, as specified in Airport Technical Design Standards—Passenger Processing Facilities (12) is based on the rated capacity of the FIS. As with all FIS facility requirements,

local airport conditions may result in different requirements and evolving CBP procedures may change support space requirements; therefore, planners need to work with the CBP at an early stage of planning. A number of support spaces are related to CBP staffing, which must be considered on both a shift and total staffing basis. Staffing can vary considerably depending on whether the FIS is a 24-hour facility or only open for a single shift. Consolidation of the three former main inspection services has resulted in generally less duplication of support and administrative office spaces than previously required. The CBP administrative and support spaces should be located within the sterile perimeter and accessible from the primary and secondary processing areas. FIS facilities may also include a public reception room and an adjacent Entrance and Clearance (E&C) office. The office is required to be accessible to CBP officers from within the secured facility and to the general public from the domestic side of the terminal. As noted in the beginning of this section, other government agencies may have offices within the FIS. • The PHS enforces regulations to prevent the introduction, transmission, or spread of commu- nicable diseases from foreign countries into the United States. The PHS usually requires an examination and isolation room suite even if it is not staffed on a full-time basis. This suite is approximately 900 square feet and should be located near CBP primary inspection. • The USFWS is responsible for preventing illegal trafficking of protected fish, wildlife, and plants. The USFWS may have an office for an inspector at some larger ports of entry. This office is usu- ally located near secondary baggage inspection and may range in size from 200 to 900 square feet depending on the number of officers assigned and whether the USFWS requires exami- nation and storage areas separate from the CBP. • Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is the investigative arm of the Department of Homeland Security and is responsible for enforcing immigration and customs laws. The ICE typically has at least one agent office at an FIS but may have a larger presence at some ports of entry. VI.3.9 Public Spaces Public spaces include most of the non-revenue-producing areas of the terminal including queuing areas, seating and waiting areas, restrooms, and circulation corridors (see Section VI.3.10). Some of the public space elements are directly related to peak hour passenger volumes, whereas others are functions of adjacent facilities. Some of these areas (such as check-in lobbies) have been described under the departures and arrivals processes in previous sections of this chapter. VI.3.9.1 Restrooms Public restrooms should be provided in the main terminal locations (ticketing, baggage claim, and central concession areas) and the concourses. Observations of passenger activity indicate that deplaning passengers are the principal demand driver for concourse restrooms. Short-haul flights will also generally produce a greater demand for restrooms on arrival than long-haul flights. It has also been observed that most passengers will use the first restroom they pass between their arrival gate and either the baggage claim or a connecting gate, even if it is crowded and there is another restroom a short distance away. Thus, to reduce queues, it is better to have a smaller number of higher capacity restrooms than a greater number of relatively smaller restrooms. Restrooms should have at least as many fixtures for women as for men. A restroom fixture is a toilet or a urinal. Sinks are in addition and not included in a restroom’s fixture count. In some jurisdictions, new building codes for public buildings are mandating 25% to 50% more fixtures for women than for men. These higher ratios are appropriate for airports when the passenger gender 224 Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design

Terminal Building Facilities 225 mix approaches 50% female. In heavily business-dominated airport markets, with a typically lower female population, an even fixture ratio will provide a good LOS. However, if the gender mix is not known, it should be assumed to be 50%/50%. Restroom requirements are developed separately for the terminal and concourse locations to meet the demand profiles: • The terminal factor should be based on design hour total O&D passengers and their well-wishers. One approach is to provide a minimum of one fixture per sex for each 100 people. However, the configuration of the terminal may require more total restroom capacity due to the number of restroom locations and reasonable minimum sizes. This requirement often equates to 2.0 to 2.5 square feet/person based on design hour passengers. • For the concourses, it is recommended that a restroom module be provided for every eight EQA in order to provide reasonable walking distances. For most domestic O&D airports, the minimum number would be 10 to 12 fixtures/sex in each restroom location. For concourses with domestic hubbing, a larger restroom module (15 to 20 fixtures/sex) is recommended. This recommendation recognizes the more concentrated arrivals pattern and typically shorter flight times of hubbing airlines. Airport restrooms should be designed with more space than restrooms in typical commercial or public buildings because of the amount of carry-on baggage typically associated with airline passengers. For example, toilet stalls are recommended to be wider and deep enough to allow a passenger to close the door while keeping his/her carry-on bags in the stall. Shelves for smaller bags are recommended over urinals and sinks. More floor area is required for carry-on bags near sinks and urinals to avoid congestion and tripping hazards. Figure VI-34 depicts an oversized restroom stall. In addition to code-required handicapped access toilets, sinks, and urinals, it is recommended in transportation facilities such as airports that companion care restrooms be provided. These unisex restrooms allow an elderly or disabled person to be accompanied into a restroom by 6FT 3IN / 1.9M 3FT 6IN / 1.1M Source: Hirsh Associates Figure VI-34. Oversized airport restroom stall.

226 Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design another person who assists the disabled person. Although these companion care facilities are not very large (typically 70 to 100 square feet), retrofitting them can be difficult. If possible, restrooms should be designed so that part of the restroom can be closed for cleaning or maintenance while another part remains in operation. It is also desirable to have wide enough plumbing chase access for maintenance personnel. A typical restroom module of 10 to 12 fixtures/sex (including a companion care restroom and janitor closet) will average 60 to 70 square feet per fixture if all of these considerations are taken into account. Figure VI-35 depicts an example of an airport restroom. VI.3.9.2 Public Seating and Domestic Meeter/Greeter Areas Public seating areas include general waiting areas near the ticket lobby, baggage claim areas, and concessions. These are typically in non-secure areas of the terminal, but a portion of the area should be in close proximity to concessions regardless of concession location. Because security regulations now prohibit visitors from going beyond security, there is a need for domestic meeter/ greeter areas located at concourse exits and the baggage claim area, in addition to the traditional international meeter/greeter lobbies. Prior to 2001, most airports had traditionally provided seating for approximately 15% of the design hour originating passengers and their visitors, plus visitors for the terminating passengers. Because enplaning passenger well-wishers have been reduced to smaller numbers in most domestic terminals, less seating for enplaning passengers is typically needed. In international terminals, however, some airlines tend to generate large numbers of both well-wishers and meeters/greeters. Because security regulations now prohibit visitors from going beyond security, there is a need for domestic meeter/greeter areas located at concourse exits and the baggage claim area, in addition to the traditional international meeter/greeter lobbies. In estimating the demand for public seating, the number of well-wishers and the location of concessions should be considered, as well as the number of peak hour originating passengers. For Source: Hirsh Associates Women’s Restroom Men’s Restroom 30FT / 9M 63FT / 19M Figure VI-35. Sample airport restroom configuration.

Terminal Building Facilities 227 example, if an airport is in a destination city for most of its passengers, the number of well-wishers would probably be low. If most of the concessions are also in the secure area of the terminal, there would be a low demand for seating in the check-in lobby or non-secure areas for departing passengers. In contrast, if an airport serves a large proportion of locally originating passengers, and there are concessions before security, there will likely be more well-wishers who stay with the departing passengers until closer to departure time and require more public seating. General public seating is recommended to be sized in a similar manner as holdroom seating, with adequate space for carry-on bags. Similar sizing logic applies to the domestic or international meeter/greeter lobby. In the case of a meeter/greeter lobby, seating may account for a smaller portion of the area with greeter standees and passenger circulation through the space making up the bulk of the area. The number of meeters/greeters depends not only on local passenger characteristics, but also on how long prior to scheduled arrival times the meeters/greeters enter the terminal. VI.3.10 Circulation Circulation elements provide the necessary public, non-public, and sterile links to tie the functional elements of the terminal together. VI.3.10.1 Secure Circulation Secure circulation typically consists of the main corridor of the concourses, plus the security checkpoints (see Section VI.3.3, Passenger Screening). Concourses are typically either single loaded (gates on one side) or double loaded (gates on both sides). Single-loaded concourses can also have concessions and other uses on the non-gate side that may cause them to function more like double-loaded concourses. Corridor width is a function of single/double loading, the presence of moving walkways, passenger volumes, and hubbing activity. As shown in Figure VI-36, ancillary uses (such as telephones, water fountains, vending machines, or advertising displays), and some adjacent activities (FIDS monitors), can effectively reduce the width of a corridor. It is recommended that these uses be recessed into an alcove in the corridor walls as shown in Figure VI-37 to minimize the impact on passenger flow, or their presence taken into account when programming circulation space. The following are recommended minimum clear circulation widths: • For concourses without moving walkways, a corridor 20 feet wide for single-loaded concourses and 30 feet wide for double-loaded concourses is recommended. This width is generally adequate for most medium- to high-volume concourses used primarily for O&D flights, or for shorter hub concourses. • For concourses with moving walkways, a 15-foot corridor is recommended on each side of the moving walkway as depicted in Figure VI-38. This width generally allows for bidirectional movement on both sides. Wider corridors may be required for high-volume hubbing terminals. A significant number of electric carts in use would also require a wider clear circulation aisle. Moving walkways are available in different widths, designated by the width of the pallet passengers stand on. The minimum pallet width for an airport is 40 inches, but 56-inch pallets allow passengers with roller cases to easily pass other passengers without interference. Depending on the manufacturer, a 40-inch walkway is approximately 5 feet 6 inches in overall width and a 56-inch walkway is approximately 7 feet wide as seen in Figure VI-38. The total program area can be based on an area per equivalent concourse length. This length is determined by gates expressed as NBEG. The actual amount of secure circulation required will depend on the terminal configuration and should consider whether gates are

Source: Hirsh Associates Figure VI-37. Maintaining effective circulation width. R EC ES SED P AS SE N G ER Q U EU E R AIL IN G D EP AR T U R E LO U N G E SU SPE N D E D T V D ISPL AY FL IG H T IN FO RM AT IO N B O U N D AR Y L AY ER E FFE C TIV E D E S IG N W ID TH VIEW IN G AR E A T ELEPH O N ES W AST EB ASK ET FLO O R -ST AN D IN G D ISPL AY W AST EB ASK ET E FFE C TIV E D E S IG N W ID TH E FFE C TIV E D E S IG N W ID TH Source: The Apron & Terminal Building Planning Manual, The Ralph M. Parsons Company, pg. 3-17 Figure VI-36. Effects of ancillary uses on effective concourse width.

Terminal Building Facilities 229 single or double loaded. Exit and service stairs to the apron level should be included in the secure circulation area. The Concourse Circulation model will develop an estimate for secure circulation of a single concourse using this NBEG approach. For additional insight and practical help in performing the determinations and methods described in this section, go to the Concourse Circulation model provided in Volume 2: Spreadsheet Models and User’s Guide. This model allows the user to analyze the existing dimensions of a single concourse based on suggested corridor width and overall frontage based on the NBEG. VI.3.10.2 FIS Sterile Arrivals Circulation As noted in Section VI.3.8, a sterile arrivals corridor system is required consisting of the corridors and vertical circulation elements that connect the international arrivals gates to the FIS facilities. In some terminals a portion of the sterile corridor system may involve “edge” corridors, which connect multiple gates to a vertical circulation core or directly to the FIS. These edge corridors must have controlled isolation doors to prevent international arriving passengers from mixing with departing passengers. Because sterile corridors have single-direction passenger flow, they can be narrower than the main concourse corridors. Typically, a 15- to 20-foot-wide corridor will allow a single-direction moving walkway for most terminals depending on the number of gates and peak period arrivals. 5FT 6IN-7FT / 1.7-2.1M 15FT / 4.5M Source: Landrum & Brown Figure VI-38. Typical double-loaded concourse with moving walkways.

230 Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design Edge sterile corridors are typically 8 to 10 feet wide (clear width). The program area must also include vertical circulation from the holdroom level to the sterile corridor, if it is on a separate level. VI.3.10.3 Connectors Connectors can include (1) above-grade connector corridors between piers/concourses or between the landside of a terminal and a satellite concourse and (2) below-grade corridors to remote concourses and corridors, which supplement an APM system. The area for these elements is highly concept-specific and the width is dependent on the expected level of utilization, and provision for moving walkways, if applicable. Depending on the terminal concept, connectors may be secure or non-secure. VI.3.10.4 General Public Circulation General public circulation includes the vertical circulation elements of all of the corridors and other architectural spaces, which tie the public functional elements of the terminal together. The program area is usually based on a percentage of the other public areas of the terminal and typically ranges from 15% to 30% of these areas. The percentage is a first approximation and will also vary with the terminal configuration and gross size of the terminal. The split between secure and non-secure (public) circulation is also a function of the terminal concept. Terminals that will have an APM system will usually require additional circulation space beyond what would typically be required, in addition to the actual area for stations, system maintenance, etc. This space needs to be considered at the programming stage. VI.3.10.5 Non-public Circulation Non-public circulation provides access to airline operations, airport administration areas, con- cession support (and back-of-house access), and other areas typically not used by the traveling pub- lic. Non-public circulation can take many forms, especially when serving back-of-house concessions functions including food/retail delivery and trash removal. These spaces may include dedicated ser- vice corridors and elevators directly adjacent to the concessions, and tunnels under concourses to provide access to more distant concessions nodes and loading docks. The width of these corridors and/or tunnels should accommodate two-way movement of the types of delivery pallets and trash containers expected to be used. It is often a matter of interpretation as to whether existing spaces should be included in the public or non-public category. Non-public circulation typically is based on a percentage (10% to 15% is a common range) of these non-public functional areas. Evolving security protocols may require screening checkpoints for employees and concession deliveries that could increase the amount of non-public circulation space required beyond these percentages. VI.3.10.6 Horizontal and Vertical Transportation Systems People mover systems are critical in moving passengers between terminal buildings and trans- ferring them between their associated concourses and satellite or remote gates. These systems, which aid in the movement of passengers, include moving walkways, APM, escalators, and elevators. All but the smallest terminals require level changes for passengers and/or employees at some point; to provide a higher level of passenger service, to meet ADA code requirements and/or to allow the movement of goods and supplies, mechanical assistance is needed. The location and size of these systems will depend on terminal configuration and passenger traffic flow patterns, the goal being to move passengers efficiently to and from the gates and between major terminal facilities. Escalators. Typically escalators provide the primary means of transport for large numbers of people between floors. When available, the majority of passengers will use escalators (up to 90%) as compared to stairs or elevators. Escalators should be sized to handle peak surge loads (5-minute periods) without excessive queuing. Escalators should be located such that if queues do develop, they will not interfere with other functions. More important, there must be adequate

Terminal Building Facilities 231 space at the exit from escalators (or moving walks) so that passengers do not “back-up” on an escalator, which is a safety hazard. An example would be locating an SSCP or CBP primary queue such that it does not have sufficient separation from the exit of an escalator. Figure VI-39 represents a typical floor-to-floor arrangement with common dimensional criteria. Experience has shown that in an airport or other transit environment, 40-inch-wide (step width) escalators are preferred. The wider step allows sufficient space for passengers to stand on one side of the step and pass on the other side. Additionally, passengers with baggage can be accommodated with minimal disruption to others. Table VI-5 shows capacities of 40-inch-wide escalators operating at 100 feet/minute (typical speed). Numerous studies have shown that 100% step use is never attained even under the heaviest Lower Landing Upper Landing 7FT / 2.1 M Min 3FT 8IN- 5FT 4IN / 1.1-1.6M 24-40IN / 0.6-1.0M Varies / Depends on Manufacturer (5-164FT / 1.5-50M) Varies / Depends on Rise (Per US Code)30.0° Varies / Depends on Rise Source: Escalator & Moving Walks Planning Guide, V.06, Thyssen Krupp Elevator, 2006 Figure VI-39. Typical escalator. *Assumes 2 persons/step moving 100 feet/minute. Source: Hirsh Associates Table VI-5. Capacity comparisons for an escalator 40 inches wide.

232 Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design traffic pressure. Utilization of 75% may be realized; however, under normal use, 60% capacity is a more realistic utilization and is recommended for planning and design. Forty-inch step escalators are typically 5 feet 6 inches wide and require a pit at each end approx- imately 15 feet long and 4 feet deep. These dimensions will allow the escalator to have three flat steps at the top and bottom landings, which is recommended when passengers have baggage. Moving Walkways. Moving walkways are recommended when passenger walking distances are long (exceeding 1,000 feet) or when a higher LOS is desired. Moving walkways should also be located to allow access to gates and concessions. Moving walkways typically operate at 120 feet/minute and are rated at approximately 9,600 passengers/hour. However, as with escalators, practical capacity is much less, and 4,800 passengers/hour is recommended for planning and design. Elevators. Passenger elevators are required for handicapped travelers and others who either cannot or will not use escalators or stairs. The size and number of elevators at a given location will depend on the expected use. They can either be pushed (hydraulic) or pulled (traction), and each use depends on the number of floors being served. Because most passengers will use escalators, waiting time and speed are often not as important as providing a minimum size for wheelchairs and attendants. Dedicated service elevators, which can access non-public service corridors, are also preferred if possible, but most terminals have some form of dual use for elevators. Figure VI-40 depicts a typical single-car/hoistway arrangement with common dimensional criteria. Automated People Mover Systems. As airports are expanded and the distances passengers must travel increases, conventional modes such as moving walkways may not provide an adequate 7-8FT / 2.1-2.4M Right/Left Hand Door Center Door 8FT-9FT 7IN / 2.4-2.9M 4FT 3IN-5FT 5IN / 1.3-1.7M 5FT 8IN-6FT 8IN / 1.7-2.0M 3FT-3FT 6IN / 0.9-1M C a r Hoistway Source: Escalator & Moving Walks Planning Guide, V.06, Thyssen Krupp Elevator, 2006 Figure VI-40. Typical elevator.

Terminal Building Facilities 233 LOS. An APM is basically an automated, driverless train in which individual vehicles or trains operate at frequent intervals on dedicated guideways. Capacities can range from small vehicles holding 8 to 12 passengers to higher-capacity trains accommodating 75 to 100 people per car. APMs typically have maximum cruise speeds of as little as 15 mph to over 50 mph. However, effective travel speeds are highly dependent on the acceleration that can be obtained, the number of curves, guideway gradients, etc. (3). If properly planned and designed, an APM can carry large numbers of passengers rapidly between major activity nodes such as concourses and terminal facilities. Key criteria affecting decisions to utilize an APM include maximum walking distances, minimum connection times for hub airlines, and passenger types (domestic vs. international) and volumes. International arriving passengers who are transferred from gate areas to FIS facilities, via an APM system, will need to be segregated from the rest of the traveling public. The two general types of APM systems are based on the type of propulsion system: self propelled and cable propelled. Self-propelled systems are typically powered by conventional or linear induction motors. These types of systems are the most flexible and can be run as shuttle, loop, or pinched loop systems depending on the configuration and capacity required. Cable-propelled systems (sometimes referred to as “horizontal elevators”) have vehicles attached to a cable that is powered by a drive motor located at a single point along the guideway. Cable systems are limited to shuttle configurations with typically two or three stations. Most systems run on rubber tires or steel wheels. Magnetic and air levitation systems have also been developed. A new, developing type of APM system is the Personal Rapid Transit, which uses small three- to four-passenger vehicles to transport passengers and their luggage along designated guideways to their destination. Currently, this type of system is being implemented at London’s Heathrow Airport. Please see the research from ACRP Projects 03-06, “Guidebook for Planning and Imple- menting Automated People Mover Systems at Airports,” and 03-07, “Guidebook for Measuring Performance of Automated People Mover Systems at Airports,” for a full analysis of APM systems and their application to terminal planning. Figure VI-41 shows a type of APM single car and guideway system. VI.3.11 Airline Areas Airline areas include offices to support check-in functions, passenger services, and aircraft operations. VI.3.11.1 Airline Administrative Offices Airline offices include the Airport (or Airline) Ticket Office (ATO) and other airline admin- istrative spaces. The ATO is usually located immediately behind, or in proximity to, the check-in counter to provide support functions for the airline staff handling check-in and ticketing. Typically these offices are 25 to 30 feet deep along the length of the counter. As airlines move to more automation at the check-in counter, the number of passenger service agents working at the counters has tended to decrease, which may result in less demand for offices near the check-in counters. Other offices may include space such as the airline station manager office or a sales office. The amount of these office spaces and locations (ATO, operations area, office location on a terminal upper level, etc.) are dependent on individual airline requirements and preferences, and space availability. At hub airports, the amount of airline office space required can greatly exceed that which local traffic, and thus ATO counters, could be expected to require for support. At non-hubbing airports, other offices are typically provided for the equivalent of 10 to 25 square feet/linear foot of ATO counter, but requirements can vary greatly.

234 Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design International terminals served by foreign flag carriers may have special office or counter requirements for ticket sales. As with domestic airlines, the number of passengers purchasing or changing tickets at the terminal has been decreasing through the use of on-line ticketing. Thus, the need for ticket sales offices is likely to be reduced substantially over time. VI.3.11.2 Baggage Service Offices Baggage service offices (BSO) include both passenger service counters and waiting areas, as well as storage for late or unclaimed bags. Full baggage offices are typically required only by airlines with sufficient activity to warrant staffing. Other airlines often will request baggage lock-up areas to store late or unclaimed baggage and will handle passenger claims at their ATO counters. Area requirements are highly airport specific but should be based on the number and market share of airlines and O&D passengers. VI.3.11.3 Airline Operations Offices Operations include all of the apron-level support spaces for aircraft servicing and aircraft crew–related support spaces, typically located on the apron level. The demand for operations areas is a function of the size and types of aircraft being operated and individual airline operat- Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., All rights reserved Figure VI-41. Miami Metromover.

Terminal Building Facilities 235 ing policies. A planning-level program area for operations can be based on the number of gates (as expressed in EQA) and airlines at an airport. At airports with a large number of small domestic, international, and/or charter airlines, many of these carriers may use ground handling services provided by third parties. These third parties may include one or more ground handling companies, or other airlines. Typically, this use of third-party ground handling service providers will reduce the amount of operations space in a terminal; however, ground handler support space must still be provided elsewhere on the airport. It should be noted that some larger airlines will also use third parties at their smaller stations. Hub airlines, in contrast, may require a significantly larger amount of operations space due to locating some functions at the hub airport that serve smaller spoke airports in the region. These support functions may include space for crew-based (flight deck and/or cabin staff) offices and lounges, aircraft parts storage, larger storage areas for passenger cabin stores, etc. Operations areas may range from less than 1,000 square feet/EQA, to well over 2,000 square feet/ EQA at hub locations. VI.3.11.4 Airline Clubs and Premium Class Lounges These areas include exclusive-use membership clubs run by individual airlines (American’s Admirals Club, Delta’s Crown Room, United’s Red Carpet Lounge, etc.), international premium class lounges, and special services facilities. Airlines provide club facilities based on their individual criteria for level of passenger activity, type of market (business vs. leisure), the number of club members in a given airport market area, and so forth. The size of these clubs can vary significantly and, at hub locations, can be quite large. Airlines with international departures may also provide lounges for their first and/or business class passengers. U.S. airlines with membership clubs at an airport may extend day of departure club privileges to their international passengers rather than providing a separate premium class lounge. As with membership clubs, the size and number of lounges at an airport is highly depen- dent on the airline mix and passenger volume. Airlines within alliances have joined together at some airports to provide a single lounge for all of the alliance’s passengers. This consolidation has reduced, in some cases, the total lounge area that would be required by the individual airlines, while providing their passengers with more services. At a limited number of international airports, a few airlines are also providing arrivals lounges with showers and other amenities for premium class passengers. These lounges are located after FIS inspection. Some airports have also developed membership clubs or lounges run by the airport or a concessionaire. These function in a manner similar to airline clubs and provide similar amenities. Airlines that do not have clubs (or international airlines without premium class lounges) may also contract to allow their members use of other airlines’ airport clubs. Group rooms are provided by some airlines at hubs and larger spoke cities to accommodate larger traveling parties. Group rooms allow such groups to get together prior to a flight and may include provision for catering. Another type of special service room can be a waiting area for unaccompanied minors. VI.3.11.5 Ramp Control Tower The FAA ATCT does not typically take control of aircraft until they enter the main taxiway system. At smaller airports with lower numbers of gates, aircraft can push back and otherwise maneuver on the terminal ramp with minimal control. At larger airports, especially with the

236 Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design potential for aircraft to simultaneously push back into the same taxilane area, a ramp control tower is typically required. This tower can be staffed by either the airport’s operations department or an airline if it controls a large proportion of gates. While not a large area per se, the siting of a ramp control tower is important so that the ramp controllers can see directly as much as possible and only use CCTV as a back-up. VI.3.12 Baggage Handling Baggage handling includes outbound baggage (baggage make-up), inbound baggage (baggage claim), transfer baggage, and related support areas. Section VI.3.7 discusses the domestic baggage claim area and Section VI.3.8.3 discusses the international baggage claim area for the passengers. Section VI.4.1 provides a more detailed discussion of baggage handling systems and equipment. VI.3.12.1 Baggage Make-up Baggage make-up includes manual or automated make-up units, the cart/container staging areas, and baggage tug/cart (baggage train) maneuvering lanes. The type of system selected for a terminal depends on a number of factors including the number of airlines, the terminal configuration, operating policies (common use or exclusive use), and the size of the terminal complex. Manual baggage make-up systems are characterized by direct feeds from the ATO, curbside, or other input locations to a make-up unit. Make-up units include straight (index) belts, and recirculating units similar to baggage claim units (usually sloped bed). Automated systems are characterized by some type of sortation system, which accepts bags from numerous locations and directs the bag to a specific make-up unit depending on the airline and/or flight number. The location of the make-up unit may be close to the landside portion of the terminal, in a centralized location, or at the gate areas. Bag transportation can be via conveyor belt, tilt-tray, or destination-coded vehicle, and the amount of space is highly dependent on system design. Although checked baggage ratios are a consideration, especially when designing more com- plicated automated sortation systems, these ratios generally affect the total number of baggage carts/containers in use rather than the size of the make-up area. The number of carts/containers per flight, staged at any one time, are generally based on the size of the aircraft. For most terminals, one cart or container is typically staged for each 50 to 75 seats of aircraft capacity; this would be equivalent to approximately two to three carts/containers per EQA (1 EQA = 145 seats). A cart or LD3 container is usually assumed to have the capacity for 40 to 50 bags. The number of staged carts/containers can also vary based on individual airline policies for pre-sorting baggage at the spoke airport for more efficient transfer at their hub. An airline may start moving carts/containers to the gate as they fill up when more than two or three are used for a flight. The total number of staged carts or containers also is related to the passenger arrival time distributions and how early an airline staffs the make-up area. Typically, domestic flights begin staging carts 2 hours before scheduled time of departure (STD). International flights typically begin 3 hours for early departing flights (between 4 a.m. and 9 a.m.), and 4 hours for other depar- ture times. For passengers who check in before these normal time periods, some type of early baggage storage may be required. For additional information on early baggage storage, please see Section VI.4.1.2. The baggage make-up process is typically finished 30 minutes prior to scheduled time of departure (STD) but can extend closer to STD at smaller airports. To determine the required number of staged carts or containers, the planner should estimate the peak number of departures during the 2-, 3-, or 4-hour make-up period (as appropriate for the terminal’s type of service) and apply the appropriate aircraft sizes. This estimate can be done either for a specific schedule and fleet mix or based on the gate mix as expressed as EQA.

Terminal Building Facilities 237 The size of the baggage make-up area will vary depending on the type of make-up units (index belts, recirculating make-up units, sort piers, etc.) and whether the systems are exclusive or com- mon use. See Section VI.4 for typical configurations and dimensions. For preliminary planning purposes, the area per staged cart/container typically varies from 600 square feet/cart for indi- vidual airline make-up areas with recirculating make-up units to 300 square feet/cart for larger pier make-up areas. These areas exclude conveyor tunnels or sortation systems. VI.3.12.2 Baggage Off-Load Area The baggage off-load area consists of the portion of a flat plate unit where bags can be loaded or the remote conveyor feeding a sloped bed unit, a work aisle for ramp workers, space for the baggage train being off-loaded, and a bypass lane. Figure VI-42 illustrates a typical configuration. A work aisle 3-feet wide is recommended. An additional 7 feet for the baggage train is recom- mended where bag carts are used. When containers (typically LD3s) on single dollies are used, 10 feet is recommended to allow the containers to be rotated on the dolly. A bypass lane that is 10- to 12-feet wide for single-direction traffic flow is also typical. TUG AND BAGGAGE CARTS GUARDRAIL IMPACT BYPASS LANE PROTECTION 3FT / 0.9M 10-13FT / 3.0-4M 10-12FT / 3.0-3.7M Source: Star Systems, LLC—A subsidiary of Five Star Airport Alliance Figure VI-42. Typical baggage off-load area. For additional insight and practical help in performing the determinations and methods described in this section, go to the Baggage Make-up Model provided in Volume 2: Spreadsheet Models and User’s Guide. This model allows the user to estimate the necessary baggage make-up area based on the equivalent EQA and space factors relating cart space to EQA.

The program area should typically provide adequate space for the off-loading of a baggage train of four carts or single-container dollies when handling larger flights. This required space will result in an area of 2,000 to 2,200 square feet per off-load area. Depending on the number of flights likely to be using a claim unit at any given time, space may be provided to off-load multiple baggage trains simultaneously, usually less than four carts per flight. For flat plate units, this simultaneous off-loading may require a longer section of the claim unit to extend along the wall dividing the off-load area from the baggage claim. For sloped bed units, simultaneous off-loading may involve multiple feed conveyors. The total length and/or number of off-load conveyors are related to both the number of flights and the typical number of carts or containers in a baggage train. In terminals where baggage sortation systems are used for connecting bags, additional off-load belts are required for them. The number and length of such transfer input belts is highly dependent on the size and design of the baggage sortation system. VI.3.12.3 Baggage Train Circulation In addition to the areas for baggage make-up and baggage claim off-loading, most terminals need additional lanes and other common-use maneuvering areas, which link the inbound and outbound baggage handling areas to the apron. For programming, typically, a 10% to 15% allowance of all baggage handling areas will generally be sufficient for tug circulation in a two-level terminal, provided the terminal configuration is reasonably efficient. VI.3.13 Checked Baggage Screening As a result of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act, all checked baggage is subject to screening for explosives. Depending on the size of the airport, available space, and budget, four types of systems may be deployed. VI.3.13.1 Explosives Trace Detection Units Typically, ETD units are used by the smallest airports and located in the check-in lobby as the primary form of baggage screening as depicted in Figure VI-43. These units are fully manual systems with the slowest throughput rate. Typically, a single ETD unit shared by two screeners can process up to 66 bags/hour. ETD units also are used for checking oversized bags that cannot fit though EDS equipment and for examining in more detail bags alarmed by EDS units. VI.3.13.2 Explosives Detection Systems EDS units are capable of automatically detecting explosives and then providing a 3D view of the bag’s contents to TSA screeners for further analysis. Most of the currently deployed EDS technology was developed prior to the passage of the Aviation and Transportation Secu- rity Act, based on standards set forth by Congress in the Aviation Security Improvement Act of 1990. After large-scale deployment of EDS equipment in 2002 and 2003, equipment manufacturers have incrementally improved performance in terms of reducing false alarm rates and improving throughput capabilities. In addition, new EDS equipment has been cer- tified. Many of the currently deployed EDS machines operate with throughput rates between 100 and 550 bags/hour. EDS units have widely varying capacities and may be configured in different ways: • Stand-alone EDS units are the simplest EDS installations, typically located in the check-in lobby (as depicted in Figure VI-44) or immediately behind the ATO counter. Screeners manually load the bags into the EDS unit and then the screened bags are moved to a bag conveyor that transports the bags to baggage make-up. Typical throughput rates are in the range of 100 to 200 bags/hour. 238 Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design

Source: Star Systems, LLC—A subsidiary of Five Star Airport Alliance Figure VI-44. EDS units in lobby before ticket counters. Source: Star Systems, LLC—A subsidiary of Five Star Airport Alliance Figure VI-43. ETD units in lobby before ticket counters.

• Mini in-line systems have a single (or possibly two) EDS unit(s) on a feed conveyor from the ATO counter to the make-up area. This configuration requires the least in the way of bag sortation. EDS units for these simple in-line systems typically have capacities of 100 to 400 bags/hour. • Medium- and high-volume systems are highly integrated, highly automated, and low labor- intensive systems with multiple EDS units arranged in a screening matrix that requires sophis- ticated baggage sortation and tracking. Current EDS units for these systems have capacities of 400 bags/hour. Expected upgrades to these EDS units are estimated to increase throughput to the range of 500 to 700 bags/hour. Future EDS units in development are expected to have capacities of up to 1,000 bags/hour. Thus, the baggage handling systems supporting the EDS screening matrix should consider possible increases in EDS capacity during the life of the sys- tem. More detailed information can be found in the TSA’s Planning Guidelines and Design Standards for Checked Baggage Inspection Systems (41), released October 10, 2007. (Planners should check for updates). A full analysis methodology for sizing a checked baggage screening system is beyond the scope of this planning guide. However, an initial estimate of baggage volumes and EDS equipment can be made given certain basic assumptions and design hour passenger volumes. The Baggage Screening model allows for preliminary estimates of the major equipment necessary for EDS system programming. The Baggage Screening model follows the standard three-level TSA pro- tocols for checked baggage inspection systems (CBIS) and assumes an in-line system. The same principles can be applied to stand-alone systems. In an in-line CBIS, screening operations are integrated with the outbound baggage handling system. The process involves three different screening levels. Level 1 screening is performed with EDS units. All bags that can physically fit in an EDS unit are directed to Level 1 and scanned with EDS. All bags that automatically alarm at Level 1 are subject to Level 2 screening. During Level 2 screening, TSA personnel view bag images captured during the Level 1 EDS scan and clear any bags whose status can be resolved visually. This process is referred to as on-screen resolution (OSR), which for in-line systems allows the continuous flow of bags through the system until a decision is made. Although OSR typically occurs remotely, it may occur locally at the individual units, but this is not usually recommended. All bags that cannot be resolved at Level 2, and all bags that cannot be directed to Level 1 EDS units because of size restrictions, are sent to Level 3. Level 3 screening is performed manually and involves opening the bag and use of ETD technology. The small percentage of bags that do not pass Level 3 screening are either resolved, or disposed of by a local law enforcement officer. For additional insight and practical help in performing the determinations and methods described in this section, go to the Baggage Screening model provided in Volume 2: Spreadsheet Models and User’s Guide. This model allows the user to estimate the necessary baggage screening equipment based on checked baggage volumes. VI.3.14 Support Areas VI.3.14.1 Mechanical, Electrical, and Plumbing Areas At the planning and programming stage, utilities areas are typically estimated as a percentage of the enclosed functional areas of a terminal. This percentage will vary with the geographic location of the terminal, the provision of central plant functions either within the terminal or remotely and, in some cases, architectural design considerations that may limit the use of roof-top equipment. 240 Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design

Terminal Building Facilities 241 Most newer terminals allocate space to utilities in the range of 10% to 12% of functional areas if the terminal has its own heating/cooling plant, but many terminals are outside of this range. The existing percentage should be calculated and adjusted for expansions based on the adequacy of existing facilities. Recent trends in computer systems, telecommunications, and other building systems have increased the demand for utility space in many terminals. Some of this increased demand may be accommodated in the airline operations areas, whereas common-use systems need to be accommodated in airport-controlled areas. Airline mechanical systems may include centralized ground power and preconditioned air. Engineering studies should be done to determine if centralized vs. individual gate systems are preferred. These areas (if centralized) should be considered as a supplement to the overall building mechanical/electrical systems area for the terminal. VI.3.14.2 Maintenance, Janitorial, and Storage Areas Maintenance, janitorial, and storage space includes the building maintenance functions that are required to be within the terminal building. In addition to typical janitorial and supplies storage, areas may be required for hoists (cherry-pickers) and other specialized equipment needed to clean and maintain high-ceiling areas or certain types of window walls. Additional maintenance support may also be provided by facilities outside the terminal complex. A percentage of the functional areas (1% to 2%) is generally used in the absence of specific airport requirements. VI.3.14.3 Receiving Areas and Loading Docks Receiving areas and loading docks can serve both terminal maintenance and concessions. It is generally recommended that loading docks should be provided for concession deliveries to avoid clogging the terminal curbs with delivery vehicles. When loading docks are used for concession receiving, provisions may need to be made for security screening of food and retail merchandise before it can be moved to a secure area of the terminal. Trash compactors are also typically co-located with loading docks, and multiple compactors may be required depending on the volume and types of trash generated in the terminal. Estimating the number and size of loading docks involves many factors: the location (land- side or airside); the relative size of the terminal; whether concessions have a central receiving area separate from the terminal; the number of individual concessions that may get separate deliveries; the average size of delivery trucks (vans, larger straight trucks, or semi-trailers); and airport policies with regard to operating hours. VI.3.14.4 Airport Administration Management and Airport Operations Offices. In addition to offices for airport staff, many airports have a communication/incident control center that can often double as a meeting room or for other functions that are required on a more day-to-day basis. There is no rule of thumb for sizing airport offices because each airport has different staffing requirements and management structures. Planning for these facilities should be considered early in the programming process with input from the airport operator. Some airports prefer to locate management offices within the terminal while others prefer a location in a separate building. Such location decisions depend on the size of the airport staff, availability of space in the terminal, and the cost/benefit of in-terminal vs. remote locations for a given airport management’s operating philosophy. Police Offices. Although the TSA is responsible for screening passengers and their baggage, TSA officers do not have authority to arrest. For this, a local law enforcement officer (LEO) is

242 Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design required. Typically, there is space for an LEO at the SSCP, but depending on the size of the LEO presence at an airport and any additional duties (such as traffic enforcement), additional office and support spaces may be required. Medical Services. Some larger airports may have medical facilities in the terminal to respond to emergencies, or even for treating non-emergency passenger and employee problems. However, most airports have paramedics on site and/or Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting staff that will respond to medical emergencies as needed and do not require separate terminal facilities. Public Relations and Information. All airports require some way of providing information to arriving passengers who may not be familiar with the airport or its region. Airports are using every marketing and public relations tool available to build a positive customer service image and make a favorable impression on travelers and visitors as they pass through their facilities. These tools can be simple information displays and counters with local brochures up to staffed counters or customer information centers. The range of services offered at the information center may include flight, airport, and city information; directions, lost and found; local phone calls; in-terminal paging services; valet and ground transportation coordination; and so forth. In either case the area required is relatively small, but location, typically on the arrivals pathway for passen- gers or in the baggage claim area, and visibility are crucial to the effectiveness of the service. VI.3.14.5 Emergency Facilities Depending on the geographic location of the airport, certain areas of the terminal building itself may require special facilities in order to respond to circumstances unique to the region. Such areas include isolation areas for the prevention of infectious disease at U.S. foreign ports of entry and safe rooms to provide shelter from tornado activity. Isolation Areas. The Center for Disease Control (CDC) is a federal agency of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. A portion of the agency’s responsibility is the pre- vention of the spread of human infectious disease brought into the United States from abroad. Staff are located at quarantine/border health offices at U.S. airport ports of entry. CDC personnel have the legal authority to quarantine and isolate any person(s) or animal(s) they believe to be carrying a communicable disease that poses a significant public health risk. Isolation areas separate the suspected person or animal from the rest of the traveling public and restrict their movement to prevent the threat from spreading. This prevention is accomplished by visually screening international arriving passengers into the United States via foreign ports of origin, as well as responding to reports of ill passengers by aircraft crew. Airports are required by regulation to provide quarantine/isolation space free of charge and, as a result, the CDC has no influential leverage as to where the airport authority places these areas (44). Early collaboration with the CDC can help to provide for efficient and flexible space in coordination with the CBP areas. Tornado Shelters. U.S. airports that are located in areas of the country experiencing frequent tornado activity need to consider providing areas of the terminal that protect the traveling passenger from windborne debris. The Federal Emergency Management Agency has identified and mapped areas of the country that have higher levels of exposure to extreme wind hazard events such as tornadoes. Shelters or “safe rooms” are designed for the protection of wind forces and the impact of windborne debris. These rooms will provide a greater level of protection than those that comply with minimum building code requirements. Wind speed design criteria for tornado safe rooms range from 130 mph to as much as 250 mph depending on geographic location. Areas such as Gulf and Atlantic coastal areas have been documented as having the most occurrences of smaller tornadoes classified on the Enhanced Fujita (EF) Scale as EF0 to EF2, whereas the Great Plains region of the United States has been shown to have the highest occurrence rate of larger tornadoes classified as EF3 to EF5 (45). Restrooms are often used as safe rooms because of their

Terminal Building Facilities 243 multiple locations throughout the building, their structural surroundings, their lack of windows, and the added convenience of toilets/urinals and water supply. Other areas include stairwells, elevator cores, and mechanical rooms. The minimum recommended usable floor area for each seated, standing, and/or wheelchair-bound safe room occupant is 5 square feet, 6 square feet, and 10 square feet, respectively (45). Multi-use rooms with permanent fixtures such as restrooms will reduce the effective usable area and should be considered when planning new or multi-use safe rooms. Two hours is the typical maximum occupancy time for tornado safe rooms based on historical data. Signage is also critical in identifying areas designated as safe rooms, as well as directing passengers to these areas of the terminal. VI.3.14.6 Structure and Non-net Areas Non-net areas should be added to the recommended facility requirements to provide a better estimate of the total gross building area. Although the program areas are in terms of gross space, it is to be expected that there are always areas created in buildings that are unusable or occupied by special structures. Depending on how the individual program gross areas are determined, a factor of 2% to 5% should be added to the combined functional and support areas for non-net space. VI.3.15 Gross Terminal Area Planning Factors A terminal program should be a bottom-up process; that is, the total area should be the sum of the individual functional and support elements. When the process is completed, however, there is the inevitable desire to compare the program to other airports or to do a “sanity check” to see if the total area is within typical industry norms. It is recommended that such comparisons should be done on the basis of area per NBEG and with airports that have similar characteristics. These comparisons should be done with care, as the terminal configuration can greatly affect the area per gate: • The presence of extensive basements associated with baggage handling and APM systems can distort area comparisons. • Multiple unit terminal airports generally have higher area per NBEG ratios than airports with a single terminal with similar gate capacity. • Newer terminals designed to handle higher aircraft load factors tend to be larger per NBEG than older terminals. Based on recent terminal programs, the typical ranges for new terminals are shown in Table VI-6. Mixed domestic/international terminals will typically be closer to the range of large domestic terminals. Airport Terminal Square Feet/NBEG Smaller domestic 15,000–18,000 Larger domestic 18,000–24,000 International 28,000–40,000 Table VI-6. Typical sizes of new terminals.

244 Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design VI.4 Other Facility Considerations VI.4.1 Baggage Handling Systems When planning a new passenger terminal, it is extremely important to plan a BHS that will appropriately meet the needs of the terminal and its passengers. The size (volume of passengers) and operation (hub or O&D) of the terminal are two of the most important factors to first consider when planning the BHS. These factors will strongly influence the choice of specific design components to make the BHS as effective as possible for the new terminal. As an example, other important factors to consider are the space limitations and requirements of the terminal, the budget of the airport owner, and the operational standards of the airline carriers. Together, all of these factors will help the airport planner and BHS planner/designer determine the best design for the individual terminal. A BHS typically consists of different areas that serve different functions including baggage inputs, screening area, make-up area, and claim area. Additionally, support areas for the BHS are required, which include areas for motor control panels, control rooms, programmable logic controller vaults, and other non-conveyor BHS components. Once again, depending on the individual terminal, these areas can vary widely in many aspects including size, cost, design, and functionality. Inputs consist of ticket counter areas, curbside baggage check-in, and any other conveyor lines used to insert baggage into the BHS. Screening area refers to an automatic in-line baggage screening system, which is quickly becoming the norm for terminals to use. This system usually consists of one or more matrixes of EDS units combined with a way to sort the cleared bags from the suspect bags after they have been screened by the machines. The make-up area may or may not include sortation, which is the process of using the BHS to sort bags to assigned piers, run-outs, or make-up devices for loading onto the associated flights. A make-up area without sortation simply sends all bags to the same location where they can be manually sorted. The claim area consists of a flat plate or slope bed baggage delivery and various configurations of oversize baggage delivery. In this section, detailed information related to BHS planning and design is discussed in regard to the environment (terminal size/operation) in which it is best utilized. This and other factors that affect the BHS planning and design are addressed in order to promote a deeper understanding of the relationship between the BHS and the terminal, and the functional requirements that affect both. Once this relationship and the requirements are clearly defined for the individual terminal, the typical areas of a BHS can be considered and analyzed to determine how each should be planned to best fulfill all requirements. VI.4.1.1 Overview Passengers and baggage can be divided into six distinct passenger categories: • International originating passengers • Domestic originating passengers • International destination passengers • Domestic destination passengers • International transfer passengers • Domestic transfer passengers The passenger volumes of each of these categories will help determine the type and size of BHS operation required during the planning stages. Unless actual data is accumulated or available as design criteria, it is suggested that 1.0 to 1.25 bags per domestic passenger and 1.25 to 2.0 bags per international passenger be used during the planning process. The originating passenger arrival profile combined with a flight schedule helps determine the outbound baggage volumes over the

Terminal Building Facilities 245 course of the day. This volume in turn can be used to size the input, and checked baggage screening and baggage make-up system requirements. Figure VI-45 depicts an example of data for outbound bag volume. Similarly, the pattern of arriving flights combined with assumptions for aircraft unloading rates can help determine the requirements for inbound baggage handling and baggage claim as depicted in Figures VI-46 and VI-47. When assumptions for transfer passengers and baggage are added to the arriving flight pattern, transfer baggage volumes can be estimated as depicted in Figure VI-48. Space Limitations and Requirements of the Terminal. Space limitations of the terminal structure can dictate the physical arrangement of departures, arrivals, and baggage make-up facilities. If the terminal design is a single-level facility, then the arrivals and departures facilities will be located on the same level but separated so that operations do not interfere with each other. If the terminal structure is designed as a multi-level building, the arrival and departure facilities can be located on different levels, directly above one another, to reduce the linear space requirements. Most large facilities arrange the departure level above the arrival level. Each facility, depending on its requirements, should plan on a minimum footprint to accomplish a desired LOS. For instance, some terminals have seasonal requirements for FIS facilities and can design retractable walls in the claim areas to double as both domestic and FIS facilities during certain times of the year. These retractable walls, when properly designed within a facility, can segregate the public side from the non-public side. Some code-share partners offer a higher 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 5: 00 A M 6: 00 A M 7: 00 A M 8: 00 A M 9: 00 A M 10 :0 0 A M 11 :0 0 A M 12 :0 0 P M 1: 00 P M 2: 00 P M 3: 00 P M 4: 00 P M 5: 00 P M 6: 00 P M 7: 00 P M 8: 00 P M 9: 00 P M 10 :0 0 P M 11 :0 0 P M Time of Day B ag s p er M in ut e Source: Star Systems, LLC—A subsidiary of Five Star Airport Alliance Figure VI-45. Outbound bag volume in bags per minute.

05 10 15 20 5: 00 A M 6: 00 A M 7: 00 A M 8: 00 A M 9: 00 A M 10 :0 0 A M 11 :0 0 A M 12 :0 0 P M 1: 00 P M 2: 00 P M 3: 00 P M 4: 00 P M 5: 00 P M 6: 00 P M 7: 00 P M 8: 00 P M 9: 00 P M 10 :0 0 P M 11 :0 0 P M Time of Day Fl ig ht s p er H o ur Source: Star Systems, LLC—A subsidiary of Five Star Airport Alliance Figure VI-46. Inbound flights by hour. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 5: 00 A M 6: 00 A M 7: 00 A M 8: 00 A M 9: 00 A M 10 :0 0 A M 11 :0 0 A M 12 :0 0 P M 1: 00 P M 2: 00 P M 3: 00 P M 4: 00 P M 5: 00 P M 6: 00 P M 7: 00 P M 8: 00 P M 9: 00 P M 10 :0 0 P M 11 :0 0 P M Time of Day B ag s p er M in ut e Source: Star Systems, LLC—A subsidiary of Five Star Airport Alliance Figure VI-47. Destination bag volume in bags per minute.

Terminal Building Facilities 247 LOS with dedicated check-in facilities for a preferred corporate account, or first class and business customers. Budget of the Owner. The budget of the owner should take into consideration the BHS needs for the arrivals and departures facilities. Design issues that will affect the arrivals facility budget would be the type and length of claim devices used for the domestic and, if required, separate international claim devices. Flat plate devices can load baggage directly from the airport tug onto the flat plate, while slope bed devices require a conveyor to transport bags to feed the claim device. Real estate is typically a major concern when planning the claim facilities, and where the unload area is located for inbound baggage will determine which type of device should be designed. The following design issues will affect the departures facility budget: • Are curbside facilities required and, if so, how many? • What type of baggage screening system is required: an in-line or lobby-based solution? • Do the airlines’ ticket counter configurations require dedicated counters or common-use counters? • Will the BHS be a centralized or decentralized baggage sortation make-up arrangement? These design issues need to be evaluated before a comprehensive budget for the owner is established. Operational Standards of Airline Carriers. The size of an airline’s operation at a partic- ular airport will determine what the operational standards may include. Many carriers are now subcontracting all the maintenance and baggage handling operations to third-party vendors. 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 5: 00 A M 6: 00 A M 7: 00 A M 8: 00 A M 9: 00 A M 10 :0 0 A M 11 :0 0 A M 12 :0 0 P M 1: 00 P M 2: 00 P M 3: 00 P M 4: 00 P M 5: 00 P M 6: 00 P M 7: 00 P M 8: 00 P M 9: 00 P M 10 :0 0 P M 11 :0 0 P M Time of Day B ag s p er H o ur Source: Star Systems, LLC—A subsidiary of Five Star Airport Alliance Figure VI-48. Transfer bags by hour.

248 Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design This subcontracting could affect the decision of the preferred type of outbound BHS to be designed: either a manual or automated sortation system. When a third-party vendor is involved, comprehensive reporting capabilities for measuring the BHS performance usually becomes part of the standard operating procedures. A few standard issues to research are the following: • How do the airlines handle transfer baggage? • What are the times before flight departure that the BHS can accept either originating or transfer baggage? • Where will the baggage be handled when the flight departure is several hours away? VI.4.1.2 Outbound Baggage Systems Outbound baggage systems can have up to five different types of inputs as discussed in Section VI.3.2.1: • Staffed check-in counters • Self-service check-in kiosks • Bag drop counters • Self-tagging stations • Curbside check-in There are nine types of baggage flow to consider. Domestic Check-in. Domestic check-in usually consists of all levels of service provided within the same area: first class, business, and coach class check-in. International Check-in. Depending on the amount of international traffic and the LOS the airline plans to provide, separate dedicated international check-in facilities could be required. Unless there is a dedicated conveyor feed to a make-up area, any conveyor input can be commonly used for both domestic and international, but only when there are no international flights sched- uled for departure. Both international and domestic bags can utilize the same belt system, unless a dedicated wide belt system is required. Remote Check-in. Many airports that typically have a high volume of business conference attendees or specific family vacation destinations have arranged for travelers to check-in and transfer their luggage to an airport-approved secured vendor prior to departing their hotels. After arriving at the airport, these bags must be delivered to the TSA for proper baggage screening prior to departure. International Recheck (FIS). It is a requirement for arriving international passengers who are connecting on domestic outbound flights to claim all baggage, go through inspection by CBP as necessary, and recheck baggage prior to departure. In most FIS facilities, an additional conveyor belt is present that will take these bags to the outbound baggage system. Before these bags can be loaded or sent to the outbound make-up area, they must be rescreened if the TSA has not approved the upstream airport’s screening system protocol. Odd-Sized Check-in. Domestic and international odd-sized baggage is baggage that is too large to be handled by a normal conveyor system. It is typically manually handled at certain drop-off locations within the airport and delivered to the TSA for screening. In some instances the passenger will be directed to the bag drop-off point to deliver bags to the TSA for screening. After screening there is usually a dedicated odd-sized belt system designed to handle conveyable pieces of luggage (the conveyor is 45 inches to 65 inches in width) or a manual

Terminal Building Facilities 249 delivery for non-conveyable items like bikes, surfboards, etc., to the secured non-public side of the bagroom. Group Check-in. Some airport facilities have separate group check-in counters for vacation destinations or bus drop-off points. These areas typically have a belt that feeds into either the main outbound baggage system or a dedicated make-up unit for the group check-in. Transfer Baggage. Large volumes of transfer baggage usually do not occur unless the air- port is operating with a hub carrier. Hub facilities require separate load belts distributed around the outbound baggage system that can feed directly to an automated sortation system and, if needed, a manual sortation device, like a flat plate for odd-sized transfers. However, from time to time, non-hub airlines require transfer belts that feed into the outbound baggage sys- tem because of code-share transfers between carriers. These transfer belts are typically located on the apron-level roadway and require additional protection from tugs and carts as depicted in Figure VI-49. Early Bag Storage. Early Bag Storage Systems (EBSSs) are utilized in some facilities when a large volume of originating or transfer bags arrive so much earlier than flight departure Source: Star Systems, LLC—A subsidiary of Five Star Airport Alliance Figure VI-49. Typical transfer baggage load belt with concrete curb impact protection.

250 Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design that the airlines do not have an economical method of handling or storing these bags within the outbound baggage system. The EBSS is typically located separate from the outbound baggage system and will feed bags back to the BHS for sortation and delivery as depicted in Figures VI-50 and VI-51. It can be loaded by either of two ways: (1) a dedicated transfer load belt for early transfer bags or (2) a diversion from the outbound sortation system for early originating bags. The bags stored in this facility usually have more than 120 minutes before departure. Special Handling Items. Some types of baggage require special handling: • Pets: All checked-in pets are placed into an airline-approved container, but are never loaded onto a conveyor. Special attention is given to these containers; they are manually handled by airline-approved personnel. In some instances the customer will be directed to the pet drop-off point for delivery to the TSA for screening prior to airside delivery. Most airlines accumulate pets in a single area and usually handle pets in the same manner as non- conveyable luggage. Source: Star Systems, LLC—A subsidiary of Five Star Airport Alliance Figure VI-50. Typical EBSS with double-stacked mainline conveyor and two load points.

Terminal Building Facilities 251 Source: Star Systems, LLC—A subsidiary of Five Star Airport Figure VI-51. Typical EBSS with single mainline conveyor and one load point. • Firearms: Firearms that have been identified by the passenger can be checked in either in its own protective case or within normal checked luggage, once the TSA has determined it is unloaded and safe. Many firearms are handled as odd-sized baggage by the airline for safe delivery to the plane. • Extra large items—sports gear (bikes, surfboards, SCUBA tanks), wheelchairs, medical equipment, etc.: Extra large items that are non-conveyable in nature must have a process for their manual handling and delivery, usually to a single location, for TSA screening prior to airside delivery. Some facilities have a separate out-of-gauge drop-off location for the handling of these items that are typically delivered by the passenger after check-in. VI.4.1.3 Baggage Sortation System Design Parameters Types of Baggage Sortation Systems. There are four types of baggage sortation systems: • Centralized sortation (localized to terminal): A centralized sortation BHS gathers all input bags, originating and transfer, into one location and then sorts the bags to the flight’s sort designation as depicted in Figure VI-52. These systems usually employ automated tag readers (ATRs) for automated scanning and universal encoding consoles (UECs) for manual sortation if the automated scans fail.

252 Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design • Decentralized sortation (localized to gates): A decentralized baggage sortation system sorts the bags at two or more locations, or the actual flight sortation is performed at or near the individual airplane gates as depicted in Figure VI-53. These systems usually employ ATRs for automated scanning and UECs for manual sortation if the automated scans fail. • Common-use sortation system: A common-use sortation system incorporates all of the carriers’ bags into one common sortation and delivery system to process and sort the bags by carrier desti- nation. A major benefit of this system is that any future additions, removals, or modifications are simplified because all inputs feed into one single sortation and delivery system. Another major benefit is that if carriers are operating with sporadic departure times, all carriers’ sched- ules can be combined to maximize the use of the sortation system. • Manual sortation: A manual sortation system does not employ ATRs or UECs. The baggage sortation takes place in the baggage make-up area with airline personnel manually sorting each individual bag and placing it in the appropriate cart. In this arrangement, common make-up devices can be shared by multiple carriers if required. Baggage Sortation Components. Standard components of baggage sortation systems are ATRs and UECs: • ATR locations: ATRs, or laser barcode reader arrays, are utilized to automatically scan baggage tags and sort baggage to the proper designated make-up destination. • UEC workstation areas: UECs, or manual encode stations, are utilized to sort baggage manually to the proper designated make-up destination when the ATR fails to sort baggage automatically as depicted in Figure VI-54 and Figure VI-55. Source: Star Systems, LLC—A subsidiary of Five Star Airport Alliance Figure VI-52. Centralized sortation baggage handling system.

Terminal Building Facilities 253 Source: Star Systems, LLC—A subsidiary of Five Star Airport Alliance Figure VI-53. Decentralized sortation baggage handling system. Source: Star Systems, LLC—A subsidiary of Five Star Airport Alliance Figure VI-54. Typical UEC workstation area.

254 Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design Source: Star Systems, LLC—A subsidiary of Five Star Airport Alliance Figure VI-55. Universal encoding console. Baggage Sortation Operational Requirements. Proper operation of the baggage sortation system requires the following elements: • Drive aisle/drive-through rights-of-way and circulation: Proper space allocation in the make-up area for tug and cart drive aisle/drive-through rights-of-way and circulation is crucial for optimizing the baggage handling operation as depicted in Figures VI-56 through VI-58. It is important to always maintain at least a minimum height clearance of 7 feet 6 inches above the finished floor for airline tug and cart clearance wherever the tugs drive or park as depicted in Figure VI-59. This minimum clearance only covers baggage carts and tugs, not specialty equipment that will access the same areas. • Baggage cart staging: Adequate baggage cart staging is required in the make-up area to properly stage empty carts, as depicted in Figure VI-60. • Building column spacing: Spacing between building columns should be carefully considered to allow optimal working space for baggage handling equipment, tug drive aisles, circulation, and storage. • Maintenance and bag jam clearing access: Access lanes and doors in the make-up area will be required for baggage handling equipment, maintenance, and bag jam clearing. Minimum requirements for typical conveyor design are 1 foot from obstruction to the conveyor on the non-motor side, 3 feet from obstruction to the conveyor on the motor side, and 3 feet from top of the conveyor belt above to the obstruction. Other specialty conveyor equipment has further requirements and will be detailed in the BHS design package. • BHS control room: The BHS control room contains the essential components to monitor and operate the BHS properly and optimally. Graphic monitors and video camera monitors are located in the BHS control room to assist the observation of the BHS. BHS control room appli- cations need 400 square feet to accommodate the system.

Terminal Building Facilities 255 INBOUND BELT DRIVE AISLE EMPTY CART AND CONTAINER STAGING DRIVE AISLE B Y PA S S L A N E , T Y P B Y PA S S L A N E , T Y P 1FT 6IN / 0.5M TYP. 33FT / 10M 10FT / 3M 10FT / 3M 5FT / 1.5M 5FT / 1.5M 2FT 6IN / 0.8M 2FT 6IN / 0.8M 35FT / 10.7M 20 FT / 6 .1 M 15 FT 6 IN / 4 .7 M NOTE: DIMENSIONS MAY VARY WITH CONVEYOR WIDTH. Source: Star Systems, LLC—A subsidiary of Five Star Airport Alliance Figure VI-56. Space allocation for drive aisle/drive-through tug circulation. 5 18FT 1/2IN / 5.5M 4 18FT 1/2IN / 5.5M 3 16FT 6 7/8IN / 5.1M 2 16FT 6 7/8IN / 5.1M 1 15FT 1 1/8IN / 4.6M No. of DIMENSION X Carts 4 22FT 7 5/8IN / 6.9M 3 22FT 7 5/8IN / 6.9M 2 20FT 10IN / 6.3M 1 20FT 4 1/8IN / 6..2M No. of DIMENSION X Carts DIMENSIONS SHOWN ARE FOR A 12FT / 3.7M CART. DIMENSIONS MAY VARY WITH TYPE OF EQUIPMENT USED. DIMENSIONS SHOWN ARE FOR A SUEHIRO CONTAINER DOLLY. DIMENSIONS MAY VARY WITH TYPE OF EQUIPMENT USED. Source: Star Systems, LLC—A subsidiary of Five Star Airport Alliance Figure VI-57. Turning radius for tug and cart.

256 Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design • Human–machine interface graphics: Human–machine interface graphics contain the current status of the operation of the BHS, such as bag jams, conveyor time-outs, and emergency-stopped conveyors. These graphics assist with the rapid resolution of an issue within the BHS. • Motor control panel locations: Motor control panels (MCPs) can be placed in one general location/room or remotely throughout the BHS. MCPs require a minimum of 48 inches in front of the panel for Occupational Safety and Health Administration and access require- ments. The quantity and size of the MCPs depend on the complexity and magnitude of the BHS. MCP sizes range from one to five bays and as a safe rule of thumb, MCPs can house up to 20 drives per bay as depicted in Figure VI-61. • Programmable logic controller vaults: Programmable logic controller (PLC) vaults are valuable for housing all the PLCs in one location for easy access and maintenance. Also, a PLC vault can reduce the amount of time spent troubleshooting a problem during a BHS crisis. A room ranging in size from 200 to 300 square feet can accommodate most of the PLC vault applications. • BHS maintenance room: A maintenance room/area is required to maintain, build, or repair conveyor parts to assist with the proper upkeep of the BHS. Special consideration of size and location of the maintenance room/area is required depending on the complexity and magnitude of the BHS. A room ranging in size from 300 to 800 square feet can accom- modate most of the BHS maintenance room applications. B Y PA S S L A N E , T Y P B Y PA S S L A N E , T Y P B Y PA S S L A N E , T Y P 15FT / 4.6M 9FT / 2.7M 23FT 3IN / 7.1M 2FT 6IN / 0.8M 2FT 6IN / 0.8M16FT / 11.9M 24FT / 7.3M NOTE: DIMENSIONS MAY VARY WITH CONVEYOR WIDTH. 7FT 6IN / 2.3M 45FT / 13.7M Source: Star Systems, LLC—A subsidiary of Five Star Airport Alliance Figure VI-58. Sort pier spacing (single-sided piers with bypass lane, one mainline).

Terminal Building Facilities 257 3FT / 0.9M CLEARANCE 1FT 8IN / 0.5M UTILITIES 1FT 5IN / 0.4M 3FT / 0.9M CLEARANCE 4FT 5IN / 1.3M 1FT 5IN / 0.4M 4FTx4FTx3/8IN / 0.1Mx0.1Mx0.01M 7FT 6IN / 2.3M 18FT / 5.5M HRS ANGLE SUPPORT BAGGAGE CART FLOOR CEILING / BOTTOM OF BUILDING STRUCTURE M IN IM U M C LE A R A N C E F O R TU G & B A G G A G E C A R TS M IN IM U M C LE A R A N C E O F FL O O R T O C E IL IN G Source: Star Systems, LLC—A subsidiary of Five Star Airport Alliance Figure VI-59. Minimum clearances with double-stacked conveyor and tug drive aisle.

258 Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design • BHS spare parts room: Conveyor equipment parts require replacement from time to time. Spare parts are kept on site to reduce the down time of the BHS. A spare parts room is required to house the required replacement spare parts. Special consideration of size and location of the parts room is required depending on the complexity and magnitude of the BHS. If possible, accommodate both the BHS spare parts and the BHS maintenance room in the same area. • BHS remote monitoring locations: Establishment of remote BHS monitoring stations is necessary in the larger more complicated BHS systems to assist the daily operation and overall performance of the BHS. Certain areas, such as the EDS room, contain a dense amount of equipment in which a remote monitoring station can alleviate issues in a faster manner. Most of the BHS remote monitoring locations can be accommodated with 100 square feet. VI.4.1.4 Inbound Baggage Systems As discussed in Section VI.3.7, there are two basic types of mechanical baggage claim units: • Flat plate units are typically configured as “L,” “T,” or “U” configurations. Bags are loaded on the secured non-public side, then pass through the wall, and are claimed by passengers as depicted in Figures VI-62 and VI-63. This process occurs on the same terminal level with the unloading area adjacent to the claim unit. • Sloped bed units can be located anywhere so long as the feed conveyors are able to reach the unit from either above or below as depicted in Figures VI-64 and VI-65. Odd-sized baggage is usually handled in one of three ways: • Oversized belt: An extra wide conveyor system, anywhere from 45 inches to 65 inches in width, transports odd-sized bags from the apron level to the claim level generally between two claim units or against an exterior wall of the claim area. This conveyor system can be flat, incline, or PROTECTIVE GUARDRAIL 3FT / 0.9M TYP. 11FT / 3.4M TYP. 3FT / 0.9M TYP. Source: Star Systems, LLC—A subsidiary of Five Star Airport Alliance Figure VI-60. Empty cart staging at flat plate claim device.

Terminal Building Facilities 259 36IN / 0.9M 36IN / 0.9M 36IN / 0.9M 36IN / 0.9M 36IN / 0.9M 84IN H x 40IN W x 19IN D / 2.1M H x 1.0M W x 0.5M D 84IN H x 78IN W x 19IN D / 2.1M H x 2.0M W x 0.5M D 84IN H x 118IN W x 19IN D / 2.1M H x 3.0M W x 0.5M D 84IN H x 157IN W x 19IN D / 2.1M H x 4.0M W x 0.5M D 84IN H x 197IN W x 19IN D / 2.1M H x 5.0M W x 0.5M D Source: Star Systems, LLC—A subsidiary of Five Star Airport Alliance Figure VI-61. Typical MCP dimensions (20 drives/bay).

260 Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design Source: Star Systems, LLC—A subsidiary of Five Star Airport Alliance Figure VI-62. Typical flat plate claim unit for inbound baggage—“U” configuration. decline before entering the claim area, but it is recommended that no turns be used in the odd-sized system. • Oversized slide: Roll-up doors, around 6 feet to 10 feet wide and at least 5 feet high with a stainless steel slide, can be used to deliver oversized bags to the claim area. This system usually functions effectively only when the cart is unloaded at the same level as the claim area, like a flat plate claim arrangement as depicted in Figure VI-66. • Manual laydown: When it is not practical to include either a slide or belt system, airline employees can take odd-sized luggage from the secured side to the non-secured side by using an airport access door, usually adjacent to the claim area, for passenger retrieval. This procedure also applies to special handling items. VI.4.2 Information Technology Systems IT design in the terminal is no longer limited to point-to-point copper wire connections; the immense opportunities available in fiber optics and computerized local area network/wide

Terminal Building Facilities 261 Source: Star Systems, LLC—A subsidiary of Five Star Airport Alliance Figure VI-63. Typical flat plate claim unit for inbound baggage—“T” configuration.

262 Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design Source: Star Systems, LLC—A subsidiary of Five Star Airport Alliance Figure VI-64. Typical transport conveyor to slope bed claim unit with conveyor feed from above.

Terminal Building Facilities 263 Source: Star Systems, LLC—A subsidiary of Five Star Airport Alliance Figure VI-65. Side view of feeds for slope bed claim unit. area network (LAN/WAN) implementation can now be optimized by the early inclusion of IT professionals in the planning and design process. VI.4.2.1 Information Technology Issues For most terminals, shared network applications will run on the airport’s LAN. The most common LAN architecture is the star-configured Ethernet designed according to the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) 802.3 series standards. The general configuration of such a LAN using a hierarchy of access, distributed, and core switches is shown in diagram format in Figure VI-67. The airport LAN architecture impacts all terminal users. The range of user requirements and how user services are set up must be defined early in terminal design. Different terminal users will have different requirements for access and security permissions, network bandwidth, system availability, storage, and other functions. Servers might be centralized or located at the LAN edge depending on their functional and service requirements. Except for greenfield airports, most terminal design projects will require integration with existing facilities including an airport LAN, which might be outdated or under-designed. This integration, in turn, will require that a detailed understanding of both wired and wireless capa- bilities, connectivity, backup policies, and other aspects of the LAN be developed during terminal design so that specifications for terminal user services and connectivity can be coordinated with the airport IT and/or telecommunications departments that will be responsible for provisioning and maintaining them.

264 Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design Source: Star Systems, LLC—A subsidiary of Five Star Airport Alliance Figure VI-66. Inbound oversized baggage slide claim unit in a single-level terminal. VI.4.2.2 Information Technology System Performance In addition to security, specifications for networked terminal facilities should address require- ments for bandwidth (wired and wireless), availability, uninterruptible power supply (UPS), and emergency power backup. Bandwidth is a particularly major issue if security surveillance video is to be carried over a shared IT network. Even with the best compression [which is currently represented by MPEG-4 AVC and is designated H.264 by the International Telecommunication Union (ITU)], video streams will still range from 1 to 5 megabytes per second (Mbps) or more depending on scene content, camera resolution, video frame rate, whether all video signals are to be transmitted or only selected

Terminal Building Facilities 265 event video frames, the application of video analytics, and other variable factors. Bandwidth require- ments also depend on network architecture, e.g., performing compression and video analytics at the edge of the network will conserve network bandwidth but will affect network management and device maintenance. Network availability is the airport’s responsibility, but air carrier demands for availability (up time) may dictate how availability is achieved. In the case of common-use gate podiums, for example, service availability specifications may dictate that service be provisioned from separate tele- communication rooms in the terminal in order to minimize the possibility that all service will be lost if one segment fails. Similarly, electrical power for the network is the airport’s responsibility, but airport backup and cutover policies may not be acceptable to its tenants (and may conflict with the airport’s own security needs). A general airport policy of 3-hour UPS backup, followed by the cutover to emer- gency engine-generators, may be an adequate safeguard for most network services, but not for gnilbaC E5-TACgnilbaC E5-TAC gnilbaC rebiF enobkcaBgnilbaC rebiF enobkcaB Backbone Fiber CablingBackbone Fiber Cabling Outlets, Wall & Floor 2 RJ-45 Plugs Outlets, Wall & Floor 2 RJ-45 Plugs Data Voice Data Voice Access Switch Layer 2, In-Line Power Core Switch Layer 3 Distribution Switch Layer 3 Access Switch Layer 2, In-Line Power Core Switch Layer 3 Distribution Switch Layer 3 Backbone Fiber CablingBackbone Fiber Cabling Router Router Source: TranSecure Figure VI-67. Distributed network model.

266 Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design mission-critical functions including security systems, which must, by definition, remain fully available when an incident occurs. Space requirements for UPS are important design issues, but more critical are such details as the amount of power supplied (KVA ratings); whether the UPS should be included per rack or have a single, large UPS to power everything in a telecom room; disciplined periodic battery replacement in UPS units; cutover time for backup; and sufficient air conditioning if large UPS units are used. VI.4.2.3 Information Technology System Security Securing user services over a shared network requires attention to both physical access to facilities and logical access to various computer systems. Physical security, i.e., card and key access control to telecommunication and server rooms, is the responsibility of airport security (which is often a duty of the operations department), but logical access to network services will be determined by IT department equipment, policies, and procedures. Logical access, for example, might be controlled using virtual local area networks (VLANs) created on switches, but VLANs may not be acceptable to some users who may require LAN segments isolated by routers or may even require their own dedicated networks. VI.4.2.4 Common-Use Facilities Airport managers and airline tenants constantly search for ways to improve the efficiency of their operations and the services they deliver to customers. Airport operators focus on adding flights (and airlines) and maximizing the use of their facilities. For terminal facilities, the metrics are passengers per gate per day, i.e., utilization, and revenue per gate per day. The concept of the common-use facilities that has evolved to satisfy these metrics is described in detail in ACRP Synthesis 8: Common Use Facilities and Equipment at Airports (39). Common-use terminal models can be set up for exclusive use, in which airline-specific spaces (e.g., ticket counters, ramps, gates, and holdrooms) are designated for exclusive use by an airline or for common use, in which case all terminal spaces are available to all airlines willing to pay the associated rates and charges for the period of use. An airport may employ software for modeling space usage to maximize its metrics, and additional programs to monitor actual usage and provide status reporting to check tenant usage reports. Technology, especially information technology and systems, is essential for managing common- use facilities. The supporting technology often includes platforms and application programs such as the following: • LAN and WAN, both wired and wireless • Passenger paging systems, both audible and visual • Telephone systems, not only for voice services including Internet Protocol (IP) voice, or VoIP, but also for short-haul modems that connect airline ticket counters and gate computers to airline reservation systems • Multi-User Flight Information Display Systems (MUFIDS) • Multi-User Baggage Information Display Systems (MUBIDS) • Gate management systems, including CUTE • Ticket counters, including CUSS kiosks • Local departure control systems • Air operations database systems • Common-use baggage sorting systems • Baggage reconciliation systems, including the use of RFID devices • Wired and wireless Internet access • Cable television delivery to holdrooms and other public areas

Terminal Building Facilities 267 Although this list is not exhaustive, it does demonstrate the impact that technology has on implementing a wide range of functions, including airport common-use policies and programs, communications, administrative functions, security, and more. For additional information on common-use facilities, please refer to ACRP Synthesis 8 (39). The common-use platform of choice is the LAN. The LAN interconnects user computer terminals over a cable plant backbone, which may have both fiber and copper elements as well as wireless extensions, known collectively as the premises distribution system (PDS). The PDS is usually integral to the airport’s LAN infrastructure and itself is an example of a common-use design. Elements of the airport LAN may be segmented physically using cabling dedicated to certain common-use nodes or logically using VLANs to safeguard against tenant transmissions being intercepted and/or routed to unauthorized parties. Securing data transmitted over the LAN is a critical aspect of the design process and another is reliability. Tenant airlines will be unwilling to depend on the LAN for common-use services unless it is able to demonstrate availability comparable to the best telecommunication systems, e.g., 99.99% or better, over long periods of time. Reliability is equally critical for airport managers, because ticket counters and gates that are not operating are not producing revenue. VI.4.2.5 Planning Considerations for Passenger Check-in Facilities IATA and the airlines are pursuing several initiatives to improve passenger processing and to cut costs including the following: • e-Ticketing • CUSS • Barcoded boarding pass • RFID • e-Freight These initiatives depend on the availability of IT network resources, including the provisioning of connectivity to support changing requirements. This connectivity may be provisioned by means of wired or wireless technology, or a combination of the two in terminals and at remote sites: • e-Ticketing can be done on or off premises. • CUSS, which enables multiple airlines to provide a check-in application for use by passengers on a single device, can be done on or off premises. • Barcode reading of boarding passes, a well-developed technology, can be done with wired or wireless devices. • RFID, which can also include security functions such as tracking vehicles on airside, is by definition a wireless service. • e-Freight can be done on or off premises where the TSA has pre-approved the shipper. McCarran International Airport in Las Vegas (LAS) has been a leading user of network resources to improve check-in operations off site. LAS has installed CUSS kiosks in locations such as hotels, convention centers, and other destinations where travelers may be concentrated, effectively extending the stay of vacationing passengers by allowing them to perform most of their check-in processes (e.g., check bags and obtain boarding passes) before coming to the airport. Wireless technology now enables most, if not all, check-in functions to be performed away from terminals. It could also reduce the size and cost of terminal lobby areas by reducing the volume of in-terminal check-in and by expediting passengers through checkpoints. VI.4.2.6 Public Address Functions Public areas of a terminal and passenger airside facilities, including airline holdrooms, should be provisioned with means for paging and mass notification. These systems need to

268 Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design be modular so they can be adapted to new or changing uses in different parts of the airport (passenger halls, retail areas, etc.) and controllable by zone according to the messaging function being performed. Public address (PA) systems should provide a range of services including local and area-wide paging and public notification. Audio speakers should be placed and audio output should be dynamically adapted to ambient noise levels so that announcements can be clearly heard throughout the local areas even at peak traffic levels. Performance specifications should be based on acoustic testing or, where this is not possible, on acoustic modeling of the local environment. The PA system should enable individual zones to be paged by a PC-based administration interface that provides controls for audio inputs, outputs, and control signals. Permanent program storage should be accomplished in non-volatile memory. If there is a power interruption, the software and system configuration should be retained and updated automati- cally on resumption of normal power. In case of power failure or data-link loss, there should be no loss of operating configuration information and operator intervention should not be required. When used for emergency notification, PA systems should provide supplemental reach to overhead paging, parking, inter-building, and even individual area notification including compliance with Federal Emergency Decision and Notification Protocol and other inter-agency requirements. VI.4.2.7 Flight Information Technology—Flight Information Display System/ Multi-User Flight Information Display System A MUFIDS is an airport-provided application located in public areas and common-use areas of a terminal that provide passengers with essential flight information including code-shared flight designations, arrival and departure gates, arrival and departure times, baggage carousel designations, and emergency alert notifications. MUFIDS also enables the airport operator to effectively manage the assignment of gates and communicate essential airfield operational and passenger processing information to airlines and ground handlers. MUFIDS hardware and software should be engineered around a core of industry-standard workstation, PC, and LAN hardware and software and should be capable of displaying flight information to groups of users with diverse requirements. The system should be scalable to accommodate future growth at the airport and to support data distribution throughout the airport. A MUFIDS should allow individual displays and display banks to be configured to provide airline-specific information, location-specific information (e.g., flights associated with a given concourse), airport-wide information, or combinations thereof. The flight-related displays or display banks provided/supported should include the following: • Departures banks • Arrivals banks • Gate podium displays • Passenger loading bridge displays • Baggage Information Display Systems (BIDS) including at entrances to baggage claim areas and above baggage carousels MUFIDS displays will run as a service on the airport’s IT network backbone, often as VLANs to be able to isolate the flight information from other services and to enable its quality of service to be set for the required bandwidth during information updating. The airport, through its IT department, will normally provide these services in accordance with requirements developed in coordination with the airlines during the terminal design process.

Terminal Building Facilities 269 Airlines will typically provide automated interfaces to support the downloading of schedules, schedule changes, and near real-time updates of estimated arrival/departure information. Many of these interfaces will use short-haul modems connected over telephone lines to airline host reservation servers. It should be possible for airlines to automate downloads/updates of flight data without affecting master schedules; to distribute and process data to designated displays; to record and store logs of system activities including audit trails; and to access MUFIDS data across the airport IT network, including access from remote sites over the Internet via the airport’s website. MUFIDS installation should include means for the airport’s maintenance organization to locally monitor the status and performance of application programs residing on the primary MUFIDS servers. Database applications should be monitored for errors and application alerts that affect the ability to drive the MUFIDS displays, or that could lead to a system failure. Ideally, maintenance technicians should be able to diagnose problems as they are discovered by attaching a laptop computer, a tablet, or a PDA, equipped with suitable diagnostic software, to a nearby MUFIDS network element. VI.4.2.8 Community Antenna Television CATV (originally “community antenna television,” now often “community access television”) is more commonly known as “cable TV.” For terminals, CATV is often a means of generating revenue for the airport by displaying advertiser-sponsored programming integrated with broadcast programming. The requirements of the commercial sponsor include display location, size, channels to be displayed, and other aspects of the system; they will need to be determined early in the terminal and network design process and coordinated with the airport engineering, IT, and maintenance departments. VI.4.2.9 Information Technology Network Equipment A well-designed network will offer predictably consistent performance, resilience, and scal- ability. Performance requirements are determined during system design and will require consis- tently high performance in application response time, variations in system response time, and other performance parameters. For the network to provide a resilient platform for the applications it supports, an airport IT network should be specified as available at least 99.99% of the time, allowing for scheduled maintenance, and structured so that a failure of a single device or network connection does not cause failure elsewhere on the system. The system should allow “hot” replacement of faulty parts without shutting down the affected network components or interrupting user services. To be scalable, the network should support growth to a projected set of functions and/or capacity over a stipulated time period as determined during terminal design, without having to be radically redesigned and with minimum obsolescence of core equipment. The network should be able to handle both the addition of users, network nodes or sites, as well as the addition of new applications with increased bandwidth needs. Certain operational upgrades, such as increased memory and processing power on the network routers and switches, may also be required during the network lifetime, but none of this should require a radical overhaul of the network infra- structure to support projected growth during the network’s lifetime. These design objectives should be defined at the outset of the terminal design process by iden- tifying performance parameters and setting target values, which will ultimately be dictated by the application requirements. Values should be set for network availability or downtime, includ- ing how such targets are to be validated and tested. In a shared IT environment, where security

270 Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design is one of several applications on the network, IT policies for availability and downtime should be reviewed against security requirements, including zero downtime for critical functions. The following steps provide guidelines for approaching the fundamental tasks of the design process: • Specify performance parameters so that user applications can normally be accessed fully and quickly, without data loss or slow response times. Determine the performance parameters that best specify each of the design goals, for example, application response time, percentage of data that is lost in transmission (packet loss), delays in transmission that arise from passing through multiple switches or other devices (latency), and user access to operating services and programs (application availability). • Identify the scope of design constraints such as budget, implementation timescale, support of legacy equipment, incorporation of specialized departments that require unique network specification, and policies resulting from a shared IT environment. • Set target values for the relevant network performance parameters in the context of the identified design constraints. • Start with high-level design to resolve major issues such as the selection of wireless LAN tech- nology, equipment, and user permissions; the IP addressing plan; the degree to which routing is used instead of switching; backup and recovery provisions and procedures; etc. • Formulate a network architecture with distributed components whose main functionalities remain at the outer edge of the systems and whose functions would require high bandwidth if they were to continually transmit data to the central processing unit (CPU). At the edge, they can perform more effectively and reduce traffic over the network because only the results of the operation have to be transmitted, not the complete data input stream, as would be the case with centralized systems where most of the data processing occurs primarily at the main CPU for later redistribution. Edge devices are especially useful for high-bandwidth functions such as video surveillance, because they enable signal compression and encryption to be done before the signals are transmitted over the network fabric. • Formulate a specific network design plan that addresses the operational and technical details and design alternatives. The network may be a new installation, but more likely it will build on an existing communications infrastructure of cabling, network topology and equipment, and software and operating policies. The service needs of all stakeholders should be identified, described, and quantified, with particular attention to the need for securing voice, video, and data streams and storing video archives. VI.4.2.10 Information Technology Cable Plant A terminal cable plant can include some or all of the following elements: • Network copper cables such as CAT-5 or CAT-6 • Metallic hardwire and cables that are suitable for transmitting analog and digital signals, including voice, data, and video such as RS-485 cabling • Fiber optic cables, particularly for the IT backbone, but also including point-to-point cabling for video cameras and other high-bandwidth devices • Analog or digital data circuits directly owned or leased from commercial carriers • Wireless communication media, including radio frequencies, microwave frequencies, cellular frequencies, and infrared frequencies, equipped with encryption or other means of securing the signals appropriate to their application. For terminal LANs, a cable plant will comprise fiber optic backbone cabling, copper premises cabling, the associated cable pathways, user outlets, and telecommunication rooms with their associated termination equipment, enclosures, backup power equipment, and cable plant manage-

Terminal Building Facilities 271 ment software. Together, these elements enable voice, data, and video communication transmission for airport-owned and tenant services in the terminal to other facilities on the airport and to facilities external to the airport. The design of the terminal cable plant and its cable pathways will be dictated by the LAN topology, by current and future service requirements, and by local site conditions including physical access and cable pathways routings. Cable spaces and pathways should comply with the latest edition of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI)/Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA)/Energy Information Administration (EIA) standard EIA-569-B, Commercial Building Standard for Telecommunications Pathways and Spaces. Candidate pathway types include the following: • Ceiling—Open environment above accessible ceiling tiles and framework • Access floor—raised modular floor tile supported by pedestals, with or without lateral bracing or stringers • Tray & runway—prefabricated rigid structures for pulling or placing cable • Conduit—metallic and non-metallic tubing of rigid or flexible construction permitted by applicable electrical code • Vertical pathways—sleeve or conduit and slot penetrations for access to other floors • Partition cabling—where demountable partitions are used to conceal cables Cable sizes and quantities will determine the conduit and space needed in raceways. Maximum capacity of conduit and raceways (cable trays) should not exceed a calculated fill ratio of 50% to a maximum of 150 millimeters (6 inches) inside depth. To allow room for future expansion, and to facilitate additions and the removal of cables, a lesser fill ratio should be considered. Innerduct should be used to protect fiber backbone cable that runs in shared pathways. Conduit should be used for all wall penetrations to maintain the overall fire rating of the walls. Cable pathways, which carry signals for security equipment, should be routed in secured areas of the terminal. Where these cables are routing in public areas, they should be enclosed in metal conduit or electro-mechanical tubing. This guidance should also be applied to LAN cabling because the LAN is critical to terminal operations and, with the advent of IP cameras and IP-based access control systems, will be carrying critical security information. When using physical communications media, the terminal design should ensure that the cables selected are in compliance with established EIA/TIA and IEEE industry standards and that replacement materials are commercially available for the predicted lifetime of the system. VI.4.2.11 Telecommunications Rooms Due to the distance limitations of copper Ethernet cabling, telecommunications rooms should be distributed throughout the terminal to provide adequate capacity coverage and reach for both planned and future applications. Working space around equipment racks for maintenance personnel should be provided, and there should be enough room to accommodate reasonably foreseeable future expansion requirements. Telecommunications room design should address panel space for cable terminations, switches and relays, remote field panels, remote diagnostic and management computer stations, and power service with redundancy and/or emergency backup capability, as appropriate. Special consideration should be given to providing adequate physical clearance to access the equipment including HVAC service based on thermal analyses of installed equipment and local UPS to power equipment in the event of a power failure. Telecommunications rooms should have controlled physical access, preferably using the most secure means provided by the airport’s security access control system.

272 Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design It may be appropriate to consider HVAC system backup. Most terminals are fed from a central electrical plant, either remotely or on site. Although electrical HVAC equipment may be powered by an emergency generator, the chilled water system may not, which negates the effectiveness of the electrical components in the cooling system. Sensitive electronic equipment in a non-air-conditioned room may become damaged or will shutdown in a short time due to overheating. If telecommunications rooms require tenant access, they should have a clearly defined tenant area, physically separated from the airport facilities, such as by chain link fencing, or appropriate separate rack arrangement. Raised floors for either intermediate distribution frame or main distribution frame locations allow for below-floor cable management systems and under-floor air distribution to maximize cooling of the rack-mounted equipment. A carefully designed and electrically grounded system is critically important to successful operation of digital data equipment because poor grounding is one of the most common sources of electrical signal interference, especially in older systems. VI.4.2.12 Network Management Network management is the airport’s responsibility. Service level agreements should be estab- lished for tenant services, and actual performance should be continuously monitored, with the results documented and available to affected parties. Bandwidth utilization and quality of service should receive special attention because of their impact on the performance of critical functions. Bandwidth utilization and quality of service will be especially critical for video and voice transmissions, which can tolerate only minimal network transmission delays (latency) and dropped elements (packets), and for the co-existence of video transmissions sharing bandwidth with other applications on the LAN.

Terminal Building Facilities 273 VI.5 Additional Considerations VI.5.1 Building Systems Building systems, although often overlooked during the planning phase, are some of the most expensive components of a terminal complex. The number and complexity of systems poses a spatial challenge for the terminal designer and a scheduling challenge for the program manager. Potential connection back to existing systems at the airport without interruption to service should be planned for accordingly as well as evaluation of potential space constraints and aesthetic details. VI.5.1.1 Structural Efforts should be taken to allow for future expansion of the terminal and concourse facilities by designing the structural support systems to handle potential additional loads and incremental curtain wall or structural wall expansions. Depending on the design intent of the architect, struc- tural components can be left exposed as part of the aesthetic quality of the architecture. Additional efforts should also be made to allow for maximum internal flexibility of the plan and ease of passenger movement throughout the facility. VI.5.1.2 Mechanical/Electrical/Plumbing This area of the plan includes all the utility support areas for the terminal and concourses. Recent trends in computer systems, telecommunications, and other building-related systems have increased the demand for these areas within the terminal building. Some of these areas can be accommodated in the airline operations area whereas common-use systems need to be located in the airport-controlled areas. Plumbing is also a difficult system to remove and or relocate within a terminal facility. Thus, areas such as restrooms should be located in areas that are less likely to require future relocation if possible. VI.5.1.3 Electrical Power The terminal design process should address the potential impact of electrical power outages on the availability and integrity of security, communications, operations, and emergency egress systems. In addition to maintaining operational stability, the goal of power system design is to assure protection of critical terminal systems and the IT network from damage resulting from loss of power or power-on spikes. Electrical system architecture should be designed to provide the greatest uptime and availability through the use of main-tie-main breaker arrangements, UPS, and battery backup systems. Assessment should consider the need for low-voltage devices and control systems, battery- driven remote and stand-alone devices, standard 110/220 voltage for operating equipment such as lighting and CCTV monitors, and high-amperage/high-voltage systems for such things as EDSs and other screening and security equipment. If possible, power feeds for the terminal should be arranged from two separate sources, such as an emergency diesel generator system connected to the emergency (buss) distribution system. Use of automatic transfer switches should be provided to achieve automatic shift to the emergency power source. Redundant or backup system issues include the location and capacity of stand-by generators; the installation of redundant power lines to existing locations as well as to alternative locations where emergency conditions might cause shifts in operational sites; the installation of power lines, or at least sufficient additional conduit capacity and pre-installed pull-strings, for later installation of additional cables without re-trenching; installation of conduit to known future construction locations such as expanded terminal concourses; and the use of multiple feeds (from separate circuits and separate substations when possible) and geographical separation

where multiple feeds exist. A minimum of two power distributions (busses) should be provisioned for terminal facilities, one for mission-critical systems and one for non-critical usage. VI.5.1.4 Security Lighting Security lighting design should address both interior and exterior visibility, including visibility around terminal perimeters and roadways. Lighting specifications should assure sufficient illu- mination to minimize undesirable shadowing as well as the potential of blinding surveillance cameras. Illuminated levels should conform to federal and industry standards, such as the Illu- minating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA) or other recognized industry bodies. In general, these terminal lighting guidelines should be followed: • Comply with FAA requirements for exterior lighting, including FAA restrictions on the placement, height, and intensity of lighting that may impact aircraft operations. • Locate perimeter lighting a sufficient distance within the protected area and above the fence so that the light pattern on the ground will include an area both inside and outside the fence. • Locate perimeter lighting continuously and on both sides of the perimeter fence and sufficient to support CCTV and other surveillance equipment. The lighting should be arranged so as to create minimal shadows and minimal glare in the eyes of security guards and camera lenses. • Illuminate all vehicle and pedestrian entrances to the facility; this should not cause blinding of the drivers or cameras. • Illuminate manned entrances at a level sufficient to identify persons, examine credentials, inspect vehicles entering or departing the facility premises through designated control points (so that vehicle interiors can be clearly lighted), and observe persons slipping into or out of the premises. • Illuminate gate houses at entrance points at a reduced level of interior illumination to enable security guards to increase their night vision adaptability, and avoid illuminating them as targets. • Provide portable floodlights to supplement the primary system, especially during security incidents and emergencies. • Secure wiring for security lighting against tampering. VI.5.1.5 Public Telephone and Internet Access Demand for large banks of public telephones has lessened considerably due to the rapid expan- sion of cell phone networks and near-universal availability, but public communications must nonetheless be accommodated, particularly telecommunications devices for the deaf per ADA requirements in the United States and full services at airports where foreign travelers’ devices may not have internationally compatible access. Further, both wired kiosks and wireless Internet capability are now considered to be a minimum service standard. VI.5.2 Airport Terminals and the Arts The successful integration of art and architecture, during an airport terminal design project, plays an important role in the public’s perception of the facility. Just over half of the states in the United States have legislated art ordinances that encumber a percentage of the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for art in, on, or adjacent to any publically funded project, including airport terminals. Typically, the funds set aside for the commissioning, purchase, and installation of public art ranges from approximately half of 1% to as high as 2% of the CIP budget. Often the art project for an airport terminal focuses on establishing a “sense of place” reflective of the local and regional community the airport serves. Most airports serve as a front door to passengers arriving into the city, thereby often serving as the first and last impression of the city for the traveling public. The integration of art and architecture, often one of the goals of the public arts programs, is an important element in successfully planning and designing an airport terminal. 274 Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design

Next: Chapter VII - Terminal Landside Facilities »
Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) Report 25, Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design comprises a guidebook, spreadsheet models, and a user’s guide in two volumes and a CD-ROM intended to provide guidance in planning and developing airport passenger terminals and to assist users in analyzing common issues related to airport terminal planning and design.

Volume 1 of ACRP Report 25 explores the passenger terminal planning process and provides, in a single reference document, the important criteria and requirements needed to help address emerging trends and develop potential solutions for airport passenger terminals. Volume 1 addresses the airside, terminal building, and landside components of the terminal complex.

Volume 2 of ACRP Report 25 consists of a CD-ROM containing 11 spreadsheet models, which include practical learning exercises and several airport-specific sample data sets to assist users in determining appropriate model inputs for their situations, and a user’s guide to assist the user in the correct use of each model. The models on the CD-ROM include such aspects of terminal planning as design hour determination, gate demand, check-in and passenger and baggage screening, which require complex analyses to support planning decisions. The CD-ROM is also available for download from TRB’s website as an ISO image.

View information about the TRB webinar on ACRP Report 25, Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, which was held on Monday, April 26, 2010.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!