passenger terminal alternatives...sep 28, 2017  · improve intuitive wayfinding through terminal...

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?