Show simple item record

contributor authorFrancesc Robusté
date accessioned2017-05-08T21:02:41Z
date available2017-05-08T21:02:41Z
date copyrightMarch 1991
date issued1991
identifier other%28asce%290733-947x%281991%29117%3A2%28143%29.pdf
identifier urihttp://yetl.yabesh.ir/yetl/handle/yetl/36556
description abstractThis 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.
publisherAmerican Society of Civil Engineers
titleCentralized Hub‐Terminal Geometric Concepts. I: Walking Distance
typeJournal Paper
journal volume117
journal issue2
journal titleJournal of Transportation Engineering, Part A: Systems
identifier doi10.1061/(ASCE)0733-947X(1991)117:2(143)
treeJournal of Transportation Engineering, Part A: Systems:;1991:;Volume ( 117 ):;issue: 002
contenttypeFulltext


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record