Centralized Hub‐Terminal Geometric Concepts. I: Walking DistanceSource: Journal of Transportation Engineering, Part A: Systems:;1991:;Volume ( 117 ):;issue: 002Author:Francesc Robusté
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-947X(1991)117:2(143)Publisher: American Society of Civil Engineers
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.
|
Show full item record
| contributor author | Francesc Robusté | |
| date accessioned | 2017-05-08T21:02:41Z | |
| date available | 2017-05-08T21:02:41Z | |
| date copyright | March 1991 | |
| date issued | 1991 | |
| identifier other | %28asce%290733-947x%281991%29117%3A2%28143%29.pdf | |
| identifier uri | http://yetl.yabesh.ir/yetl/handle/yetl/36556 | |
| description 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. | |
| publisher | American Society of Civil Engineers | |
| title | Centralized Hub‐Terminal Geometric Concepts. I: Walking Distance | |
| type | Journal Paper | |
| journal volume | 117 | |
| journal issue | 2 | |
| journal title | Journal of Transportation Engineering, Part A: Systems | |
| identifier doi | 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-947X(1991)117:2(143) | |
| tree | Journal of Transportation Engineering, Part A: Systems:;1991:;Volume ( 117 ):;issue: 002 | |
| contenttype | Fulltext |