Centralized Hub‐Terminal Geometric Concepts. I: Walking Distance
Publication: Journal of Transportation Engineering
Volume 117, Issue 2
Abstract
This paper analyzes and compares several airport‐hub passenger‐terminal layouts in terms of average total walking distance. A second paper extends the results to include baggage‐handling operations. For the purposes of this research, most of the terminal layouts can be structured in three concepts: single, open concourses, closed‐loop concourses, and multiple piers. Regarding walking distance, all but one of the geometries have an optimal shape regardless of the proportion of transfers. Parallel piers should be shorter the farther away they are from the terminal block. A new inverted closed‐loop layout is shown to be best (for large terminals) and “fair” to all passenger types. It is also flexible: future growth can be accommodated by building radial piers. This defines a “sun” concept, which is recommended for planning consideration. An application illustrates the performance of the different layouts. The conclusion is that hub airports, with a high percentage of transfers, should have a different geometry than local airports, with a preponderance of departing and terminating traffic.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
1.
Braaksma, J. P. (1977). “Reducing walking distances at existing airports.” Airport Forum, 4, 135–142.
2.
De Neufville, R., and Rusconi‐Clerici, I. (1978). “Designing airport terminals for transfer passengers.” J. Transp. Engrg., 104, 775–787.
3.
De Neufville, R. (1976). “Don't forget the transfer passenger!” Airport Forum, 3, 7–9.
4.
Hart, W. (1985). The airport passenger terminal. John Wiley & Sons, New York, N.Y.
5.
Horonjeff, R., and McKelvey, F. (1983). Planning and design of airports, Third Ed., McGraw‐Hill, Inc., New York, N.Y.
6.
Jeng, C. Y. (1987). “Routing strategies for an idealized airline network,” thesis presented to the University of California, at Berkeley, Calif., in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
7.
Kendall, M. G., and Moran, P. A. P. (1963). Geometrical probability, Hafner Publishing Co., New York, N.Y.
8.
Parsons, R. M. (1976). “The apron and terminal building. Planning report.” Report FAA‐RD‐75‐191, Federal Aviation Administration, Washington, D.C.
9.
Robustéd, F., and Daganzo, C. F. (1991). “Centralized hub terminal geometric concepts: II. Baggage and extensions.” J. Transp. Engrg., 117(3), 159–177.
10.
Robusté, F. (1988). “Analysis of baggage handling operations at airports,” thesis presented to the University of California, at Berkeley, Calif., in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
11.
“John F. Kennedy International Airport master functional plan for the reconstruction of the central terminal.” JFK‐2000, Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, New York, N.Y.
12.
Wirasinghe, S. C., Bandara, S., and Vandebona, U. (1987). “Airport terminal geometries for minimal walking distances.” Proc. of the 10th Int. Symp. on Transportation and Traffic Theory, N. H. Gartner and N. H. M. Wilson, eds., 483–502.
13.
Wirasinghe, S. C., Bandara, J. M. S. J., and Lee, F. (1985). “Airport terminal planning. Gate positions and configurations.” Report CE85‐16, Dept. of Civ. Engrg., The Univ. of Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Transportation Engineering
Volume 117 • Issue 2 • March 1991
Pages: 143 - 158
Copyright
Copyright © 1991 ASCE.
History
Published online: Mar 1, 1991
Published in print: Mar 1991
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.