Walking distance minimization for airport terminal configurations
Passenger walking distance is a major consideration in determining the configuration of an airport terminal. Given the size of a terminal in terms of the number of aircraft gates, the mean passenger walking distance is derived based on: the fraction of arriving, departing and transferring (hub and non-hub) passengers; gate spacing; spacing requirement for aircraft maneuvering; and the terminal block dimensions. Pier, satellite, and pier-satellite terminal configurations are considered. It is assumed that all aircraft parking positions are capable of handling any type of aircraft and passengers are equally distributed among all the gate positions over the life of the facility. Two groups of hub transfers are defined to accommodate different levels of hub and spoke operations. The optimum terminal geometry in terms of the number of piers or satellites and their sizes, is obtained by minimizing the mean walking distance for all the passengers. The probability distribution of the walking distance of a passenger is generated by simulation. Given an acceptable walking distance, several statistical parameters that are suitable to compare the optimum geometries for different configurations are reported. It is shown that in most cases the lower and the upper bounds of the optimum number of piers or satellites are proportional to the square root of the total number of gates in the terminal. For a wide range of passenger mixes and numbers of gates, a semi-centralized pier configuration appears to be the best terminal configuration with respect to passenger walking. Guidelines for the selection of the best terminal configuration for non-hub, moderate-hub and all-hub (wayport) terminals are presented. The application of the proposed method in a terminal expansion situation is given.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 26 (1992)
Issue (Month): 1 (January)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/547/description#description|
|Order Information:|| Postal: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/supportfaq.cws_home/regional|
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:transa:v:26:y:1992:i:1:p:59-74. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu)
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.