Upload
others
View
0
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Passenger Terminal Alternatives
Passenger Terminal Overview Terminal Concourses Terminal Building
Evaluation CriteriaEvaluation Criteria Alternatives
A B C
Addresses Forecast Demand
Provides Flexibility in Design
Improves Passenger ExperiencesFinancial Impact / Optimizes Economic ReturnFacilitates Efficiency / Operational PerformanceReasonable Constructability & ImplementationRelies On or Limits Other Design Alternatives
LEGENDLess than Desirable Moderate Good Best
Concourse Alternatives 24 gates, expansion to 27
ADG IV taxilanes
CBP to accommodate 400 passengers / hour
Improve revenue / concession generating opportunities
Flexibility for future
Design Drivers Concourse organization
Typical pier gate configuration
One-way vs two-way taxilanes
CBP organization
Site constraints
Expansion strategies
Concourse Organization
Linear Concourse Remote Linear Concourse
Typical Pier Concourse Pier & Linear Concourse
Typical Pier Gate Configuration
One-way vs Two-way Taxilanes
CBP Organization Sized to process
400 passengers per hour
Site Constraints
Expansion Strategies
Terminal Concourse – Alternative A 24 gates | linear = 27 gates | 3rd pier = 35 gatesNew pier concourses placed to avoid existing 150’ wide concourses Air cargo relocated (belly cargo can remain)Deicing & RON relocated to north side CBP integrated into level 1 (or 3) of concourse B ALL 1-way ADG IV taxilanes
Terminal Concourse – Alternative A
Terminal Concourse – Alternative B 24 gates | linear = 27 gates | 3rd pier = 35 gatesNew pier concourses placed to avoid existing 150’ wide concourses Air cargo relocatedDeicing & RON relocated to north side CBP integrated into level 1 (or 3) of concourse B 2-way ADG IV taxilanes in between concourses and
1-way ADG IV taxilanes on north & south ends
Terminal Concourse – Alternative B
Terminal Concourse – Alternative C 24 gates | linear = 27 gates | 3rd pier = 35 gatesNew pier concourses placed to avoid existing 150’ wide concourses Air cargo relocatedDeicing & RON relocated to north side CBP integrated into level 1 (or 3) of concourse B ALL 2-way ADG IV taxilanes except north end
Terminal Concourse – Alternative C
Concourse Alternatives 24 gates, expansion to 27
ADG IV taxilanes
CBP to accommodate 400 passengers / hour
Improve revenue / concession generating opportunities
Flexibility for future
Evaluation Criteria Alternatives
A B C
Addresses Forecast Demand
Provides Flexibility in Design
Improves Passenger ExperiencesFinancial Impact / Optimizes Economic ReturnFacilitates Efficiency / Operational PerformanceReasonable Constructability & ImplementationRelies On or Limits Other Design Alternatives
LEGEND Less than Desirable Moderate Good Best
Terminal Building Improve ticketing hall circulation & queuing
Improve intuitive wayfinding through terminal building
Improve passenger flow & experience through Security Screening Check Point (SSCP)
Provide administrative office space to meet current and future needs
Improve revenue/concession generating opportunities
Ticketing Hall – Alternative A
Ticketing Hall – Alternative B
Ticketing Hall Alternatives
Evaluation Criteria Alternatives
A B
Addresses Forecast Demand
Provides Flexibility in Design
Improves Passenger ExperiencesFinancial Impact / Optimizes Economic ReturnFacilitates Efficiency / Operational PerformanceReasonable Constructability & ImplementationRelies On or Limits Other Design Alternatives
Improve circulation & queuing
Improve intuitive wayfinding
Improve revenue / concession generating opportunities
LEGEND Moderate Good BestLess than Desirable
Passenger Flow Alternatives Improve circulation & queuing
Improve intuitive wayfinding
Improve passenger flow & experience through SSCP
Provide admin office space to meet current & future needs
Improve revenue / concession generating opportunities
Passenger Flow – Alternative A1
Passenger Flow – Alternative A2
Passenger Flow – Alternative A3
Passenger Flow – Alternative B1
Passenger Flow – Alternative B1 – Level 2
Passenger Flow – Alternative B2
Passenger Flow – Alternative B3
Passenger Flow Alternatives
Evaluation Criteria Alternatives
A B
Addresses Forecast Demand
Provides Flexibility in Design
Improves Passenger ExperiencesFinancial Impact / Optimizes Economic ReturnFacilitates Efficiency / Operational PerformanceReasonable Constructability & ImplementationRelies On or Limits Other Design Alternatives
Improve circulation & queuing
Improve intuitive wayfinding
Improve passenger flow & experience through SSCP
Provide admin office space to meet current & future needs
Improve revenue / concession generating opportunities
LEGEND Moderate Good BestLess than Desirable
Questions?