An Alternative Airport Terminal with Automated People Movers for Hong Kong New Airport
LAM W H K, Hong Kong Polytechnic University and WIRASINGHE S C, University of Calgary, Canada
The increased demand for air transportation requires large airport terminals that create excessive walking distances for passengers. Some of the larger airports such as Atlanta, Dallas/Fort Worth have used automated people mover (APM) systems to reduce wa
The increased demand for air transportation requires large airport terminals that create excessive walking distances for passengers. Some of the larger airports such as Atlanta, Dallas/Fort Worth have used automated people mover (APM) systems to reduce walking, and to improve the level of service for transferring passengers [TRB (1988), Leder (1991)]. In a number of recent terminal designs, pier type terminals have been considered especially when the terminal has a high percentage of transfer passengers (e.g., New Denver, Seoul, Toronto).
There has been a renewed interest in the configurations and geometries of airport terminals in recent years. Geometries (i.e. the arrangement of gates and piers) that minimize walking for arriving, departing, hub and non-hub transfer passengers have been proposed by Bandara (1990) and Bandara & Wirasinghe (1992a) for satellite and pier-finger terminals respectively. Robuste (1991) undertook a similar analysis for arriving, departing and hub transfer passengers for centralized pier-finger (remote and attached) and certain other configurations. They found the remote piers decreased in length with increasing distance from the terminal block. Bandara & Wirasinghe (1992b) presented guidelines for choosing among satellite, pier-finger and pier-satellite configurations for non-hub, moderate-hub and all-hub (wayport) airport concepts. A few studies have been done to calculate and compare the passenger walking distances with and without APM systems for a given terminal geometry. Shen (1990) incorporated the effects of an APM system by setting the distance travelled using the APM system equal to zero. McKelvey & Sproule (1988) compared different intra-airport transportation systems, for two basic unit terminals with eight and sixteen gates and their combinations, taking into account the capital, operating and maintenance costs and related travel times and walking distances.
An efficient arrangement for a pier type terminal with an APM system is to connect the terminal block to the centre of the remote piers, located parallel to each other, by a concourse along which the APM is operated (e.g., Atlanta, New Denver). In addition, two pier arms are attached to the terminal block. This arrangement (Figure 1) is preferred because (i) passenger walking distances between piers and, between piers and the terminal block, are essentially eliminated; (ii) the operation of the APM vehicles is along a simple linear route, in all-stop mode, at stations centred on each pier; and (iii) the aircraft taxiing distances are minimized if the terminal is located between two parallel runways [Hart (1985), Shen (1990)].
If a parallel pier type terminal with an APM system is to be considered along with other terminal configurations, during the early planning stages of an airport, it is necessary to consider the best (utility maximizing) geometry for each configuration in the comparison. The high cost of APM systems and high disutility of walking makes it essential that a utility maximizing geometry be chosen for a terminal with an APM, even if a comparison with other configurations is not being made.
Wirasinghe & Bandara (1992a) have proposed a method and software PPAPM to determine the geometry for a parallel pier terminal with an APM system (Figure 1) that minimizes the sum of the disutilities associated with passenger walking and waiting as well as riding the APM system and the relevant capital and operating costs. The terminal type considered consists of uniformly spaced remote piers and a pier attached to the terminal block. Only the number of gates is pre-specified. Moreover, the proposed method is also capable of considering any constraints to the terminal geometry other than the total number of gates. In practice, land availability and airline requirements can restrict the number of piers and their lengths in a terminal.
The purpose of this paper is to analyze the geometries of a parallel pier/APM terminal for Phases I and II of the Hong Kong new airport at Chek Lap Kok (CLK), with the use of the above proposed method. It is also to present the optimum geometry (i.e. the optimum number of piers and their lengths) for a CLK airport terminal with parallel piers and an APM system, taking into account any constraint due to space availability or airline requirements.
Association for European Transport