from the elements, such as a canopy, but are generally open their bags, the myriad ground transportation offerings are spaced (approximately 60 ft on center) to allow seating be-
Following are four de- .���MM�V"�|�'���DfU�����S��L��}�:|(*�;A�l��{���H�džfDQ4��مb�p��7�J�O��3��,mzN�Q nal concepts, including those processes that typically occur at last resort. Figure 6-4.
drop positions (Stage 2), and, finally, full-service staffed A number of passenger processes are grouped under termi- 0000001970 00000 n High-capacity flow-through H��=
domestic arrivals facilities. flights each airline provides and the number of passengers
57 place for passengers has been exacerbated since meeters- would include passengers who obtained their boarding passes 0000001745 00000 n passengers would be offered three optional services as they The further advantages of this concept are that it would enable
hall from either a functional or aesthetic standpoint. 0000122113 00000 n support area for the agents would be remote from their sengers requiring little or no service, thus providing the workstations, which could be considered a negative factor by
and self-service bag-check positions would generally be flow- some other use in the terminal. This change not only means improved Check-in A disadvantage would be the cost of providing the based departures hall). which include waiting for an indeterminate length of time The arrivals lounge concept (see Figure 6-6) would provide
interior spaces with no natural light.
their use rather than the more costly-to-operate, full-
Table 6-1 presents a comparison of the concepts based on SSDs if a help point is not provided. of SSDs for obtaining boarding passes, a further subdivision ��Q����!U`���������IE���q� Q{��L�c/��E}�`����a�l���ax��e�4q���Q��z�;yT|9 V������k@�Ra'�� .
fort.
This concept would not typically be adaptable Departures hall concepts comparison. and full-service positions would not be flow-through, queues several terminal characteristics. and-greeters are no longer able to meet passengers at the gate It is not anticipated that this entire arrangement could be TRB’s Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) Report 10: Innovations for Airport Terminal Facilities explores worldwide developments in airport landside facilities design, and examines future trends and innovative passenger service/processing concepts.You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. gested entry point and, once inside, would encounter SSDs The advantages of this concept are that services would be concept would also provide a fast-track route for those pas- described in Chapter 4. These passengers would proceed directly to the SSCP after
Concept is relevant but not optimal Departures hall depthâ (> 85 ft) sengers who have difficulty lifting baggage over the sill of gage would have the longest walk.
Arrivals lounges would address the issues associated
0000000476 00000 n bag-claim hall where baggage carts would be readily available
to obtain boarding passes only, with immediately adjacent â This reduced sense of Pier/Finger Nashville Baltimore - Washington P Passenger Terminal Concepts depth required. hall innovation. This option could account for as many as 60% to 80% of ports have not received the same attention as the departures between that space serving first-class and premium passen-
Main Street who need to obtain a boarding pass and have no check bag- ger problems. Traditionally at airports with terminals that serve multiple
This concept would also be adaptable to most existing such as concessions would be available immediately adjacent by providing a centralized entry point for all passengers. gers experience in gate holdrooms while waiting to board an mestic arrivals at a particular terminal would emerge through ���t��O�$�!��N�TN���#t��?����ꭧ~��==CV�WI|�J�{�$Ed 6k��ZI���P��R$��z�,�?7�u��t�X�Yg��H�Q6_��U{���s��� �D�Q7�K9�l.��p�ǔ��*Im�[B�p�����#��?�- aircraft. �I2R��IHI) HN�I$�I$�I$�I$�I$�I$�I$�I$�I$�I$�I$�I$�I$�I$�I$�I$�I&N�)N�BRN�)N�$�'L��)�Jt�T��K����n��!���������q��._S��[�Զt���r�o��묹�-��W�]����G>�j�s1�dz 4VCch�[ �ݜZO�q�r�m��ͱ����o�i��a�nok�x��~�uKi{����,{ k���#P��!��;�uge�zM���� �� �F뙝�]:�w;3��}��k/kC�ü��>\�W_C�:WI����MXr-g^�_s+�d�+�G����@wվ���s2ٓӶ�uw�Yuy�E���8�#]α�1>�u��m�t�0ߛ�K�>ϒ�}�h$U�{��b������1�9��Z����}'=�81�Ƴ���}O�7�W���s�V�cnve7�����k��W��F��}{�et�A��r�ٕnP��5����4���A�}s�6�O�Y�B��CD�}�����q_X���؟V�=}C;̖[~}ػ��Z�w9���n}Y�����=Q�S The innovative concepts de- concerns, especially at night. also for multiple floor penetrations. In this concept (see Figure 6-2), the terminal entry points Single-level terminal â
In Nanjing, the capital of China’s Jiangsu Province, students proposed a drive-through airport, where planes are integrated into the airport’s “pulling system”.
Consolidated domestic arrivals hall. Figure 6-1. â Concept is not a consideration presented to passengers in a logical manner and that the lay-
Also, since the self-service at each SSCP.
enabling an even greater breakdown of curbside space. 60 components could be incorporated as part of general improve-