the automated people mover's role in airport security - Lea+Elliott

THE AUTOMATED PEOPLE MOVER’S ROLE IN AIRPORT SECURITY
Michele Jacobson, AICP
Manager, Planning Projects, Lea+Elliott, Inc., 14325 Willard Road, Suite 200, Chantilly,
VA 20151-2110; PH (703) 968-7883; FAX (703) 968-7888;
email: mjacobson@leaelliott.com
Abstract
Much has been done recently to distance motor vehicles from special sites for
security purposes. Parking is no longer allowed near Federal buildings; rapidly placed K-
rails surrounding important sites are being replaced by permanent architectural elements;
and in cases such as the White House, Capitol and Pentagon, nearby roads are being
closed, moved or lowered. For all, the goal is the same – keep an explosive-laden vehicle
away from its target.
Application of this security measure at airports has already resulted in removal of closein
parking and Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) is considering shifting almost all
vehicles, whether parked or moving, away from the terminals. A vehicle-free zone
around terminals is a fundamental change in airport design and would require new ways
to move people and their luggage to and from the terminal on the landside. For LAX, the
proposed solution is a new APM. While APMs are already used in secure situations on
airports (i.e. “sterile” APMs programmed to keep customs-bound travelers separate from
the general airport population), this approach to airport security creates new challenges
for the design of the APM. This paper will describe these challenges and explore
potential solutions.
CASE STUDY - LOS ANGELES INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) is one of the world’s busiest airports serving
over 67 million passengers in 2000. It is one of four Southern California airports that are
owned and operated by Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA), the city department that
guides plans for airport expansion and redesign.
After 10 years and nearly $150 million spent on plans to upgrade LAX, the City of Los
Angeles and the Los Angeles Board of Airport Commissioners (BOAC) have approved a
plan for modernization that focuses on safety and security and includes
• re-alignment of the southside airfield
• a new consolidated rental car facility
• a new intermodal transportation center that links to regional transit
• an expansion of the FlyAway program, and
• an extensive automated people mover system.
1/24/2005 1

Figure 1.
Los Angeles International Airport
A second phase of development has been temporarily deferred to allow time for
additional studies involving vehicular traffic impacts, aviation activity and security issues
before being implemented. Elements of the second phase include
• an off-site check-in counter
• demolition of Terminals 1, 2 and 3, and
• a new terminal complex where the parking garages are now.
The approved plan maintains a gate capacity to accommodate growth to 78 million
annual passengers. Although the timing of the second phase of development is unknown,
APM planning assumes an eventual full build-out of the plan. This paper will explore
APM design and operational issues related to full build-out. Final Federal approval is
expected early in 2005 and construction projects at LAX would start soon after.
The current airport landside layout is shown in Figure 2.
1/24/2005 2

Figure 2.
Existing Landside Access Conditions
Alternative “D”
Through analysis of several alternatives in the Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR), it was determined that Alternative D, the
Enhanced Safety and Security Alternative, is the environmentally preferable option for
achieving the project’s objectives. The project has been broken into two development
phases, as described above, but the project’s major objectives have remained the same –
safety and security.
As Los Angeles Mayor James K. Hahn stated upon the City Council’s recent decision to
move forward with the plan for modernization, “Today the City of Los Angeles
demonstrated a shared commitment to creating a safer, more secure airport. My primary
interest in improving the airport is to increase the security of LAX’s employees, travelers
and infrastructure. This plan will enhance the safety of the millions of passengers who
move through the airport every year.”
1/24/2005 3

Central to the concept of Alternative D is a new design approach to securing airports.
The approach is manifested in numerous areas throughout the airport, but this paper will
focus on the measures that relate to landside access and particularly to the planned APM
system.
Landside Plans
One eventual goal at LAX is to limit access by private vehicles to the main airport
infrastructure. Airport access will be provided through four remote landside points,
providing redundancy and solving many of the traffic congestion problems associated
with the current airport access system. The four remote landside points will be connected
via an extensive APM system.
The four facilities comprising the landside system are the Central Terminal (CTA), the
Ground Transportation Center (GTC), an Intermodal Transportation Center (ITC) and a
Consolidated Rental Car Facility (RAC). As described in the LAX Master Plan Final
EIS/EIR:
“A new GTC would be the primary airport access center for private and
most commercial vehicles. A people mover would connect the GTC with
the CTA. The GTC would be the primary access point for all passenger
drop-off and pick-up and for private vehicle parking.
An ITC would serve as the connection point between the airport, the
Green Line and regional bus service. The existing MTA Green Line
station located at Aviation Boulevard would be linked to the proposed ITC
by a covered walkway. In addition, the ITC would provide parking
facilities for the public and large buses. The MTA buses would use the
MTA Green Line station. The APM would connect the ITC to the CTA,
with a stop at the RAC facility.
The access point to the existing CTA roadway would be controlled to
enhance access in the areas immediately surrounding the airport’s critical
infrastructure. Primary public airport access would be provided via the
APM from the GTC and ITC. FlyAway buses and other vehicles that are
currently cleared to drive on the secure airside of the airport, like airport
operations, police and fire protection would use the existing CTA roadway
system to access the new terminals. Delivery vehicles would be primarily
directed to a consolidated warehouse within the airport for security
screening and internal distribution control. Delivery vehicles accessing
the CTA would proceed to designated delivery locations at the new
terminals once they have passed the screening process.
Public parking would be provided in the ITC, the GTC, and in an
expanded Lot B. The GTC would consist of three garages and provide
1/24/2005 4

approximately 7,515 stalls, made up of both short-term and long-term
parking. The ITC facilities would provide approximately 9,125 short-term
parking stalls. The surface lot north of 111 th Street would be incorporated
into Lot B and would provide 5,470 long-term parking stalls. A shuttle
bus would transport people between this lot and the ITC for people mover
access to the CTA. In addition, there would be approximately 12,890
parking stalls located off-airport and operated by private parking
providers, providing a total of 35,000 public parking stalls.
A new 12,400-stall employee parking garage would be constructed. Some
employees will use an existing 1,200-stall garage on the southeast corner
of Avion Drive and Century Boulevard. They will be shuttled to a people
mover station for access to the CTA, GTC or ITC.
Rental car facilities would be consolidated in a campus. A three-level,
150,000-square-foot customer service building would be adjacent to the
APM, a passenger station, and a four-level, 9,000-space ready/return
garage. A baggage tunnel is being considered for transporting oversized
items, but at this point it is assumed that most baggage will be transported
on the APM.
Figure 3.
Alternative D layout
1/24/2005 5

APM Design Issues
Volumes
The APM system will be designed as a “must-ride” system, meaning that it will be the
only way for almost all of the employees, passengers and luggage to get to or leave the
airport terminals. The only people who will not use the system are some of the
employees and those passengers arriving on the FlyAway buses. This is a significant
departure from existing airport landside APM systems that carry only a portion of the
landside population.
Virtually all other airport landside APM systems in the world provide one service option
among many or serve a limited number of passengers. For example, a passenger traveling
from Manhattan to John F. Kennedy Airport can take the subway to Jamaica Station and
catch the APM into the airport, but they could also travel the entire route by cab, bus, or
private auto. And in the case of the landside portion of the APM at San Francisco
Airport, the service is limited to people traveling between the terminal and the rental car
facility and some of the parking – a relatively small segment of those traveling in the
landside area of the airport.
Based upon LAX’s planned ultimate airport build-out of 78 million annual passengers,
the APM system is been designed to provide a capacity of 14,000 pphpd. This assumes a
vehicle density factor of less than 40 to around 50 passengers per vehicle, depending
upon the luggage assumptions of each route. This is a much lower density than most
other airport situations. The lower number is due in part to the must-ride nature of the
system. If most passengers must ride on the APM, there will be a higher than usual
number of people using the system with large amounts of luggage. People carrying large
amounts of luggage often choose to come by auto (either taxi or private) to be dropped
off at the CTA’s curbside, rather than either parking their cars and carrying their bags
from the garage or taking public transit. For the same reasons, there will be a higher
proportion of passengers using luggage carts. Both factors lead to lower density factors.
Sizing the system also needs to address surging of passengers and the potential for very
large aircraft and their accompanying high passenger numbers.
Security Opportunities
One of the approaches to airport security that is embedded throughout Alternative D is to
increase the opportunities for additional levels of screening. These will include, but not
be limited to, improved and consolidated employee security screening facilities, bombsniffing
dogs, passenger profiling, and security screening of all checked baggage. Phase
two of Alternative D will include replacing existing curbside, drop-off/pick-up, and
parking in the Central Terminal area to the four remote landside points. The final layout
provides increased security by dispersing passenger processing and by separating
passenger processing from vehicles.
1/24/2005 6

By providing the link between the remote landside points and the Central Terminal, the
APM enables the disbursement of check-in points as well as the separation between the
passenger processing and parking. The APM also provides more opportunity for crowd
control. In typical airport landside arrangements, the type (ticketed passengers,
employees, meeters and greeters, etc.) and number of people entering and exiting the
terminal is varied and difficult to control. In an attempt to gain some control over who
and what approaches the terminal area, some airports have instituted vehicle checkpoints
on roads approaching the terminal. In some other instances, the general public is
relegated via signage to an outside curbside lane. Several aspects of the APM will offer
greater control to the airport.
The capacity limitations of the APM vehicles provide control of the flow of passengers
from the remote landside points. Each train will deliver a maximum number of people to
the terminal at set and known intervals. Airport terminal design and security procedures
can respond accordingly. And if something goes wrong the flow of people can be
stopped very quickly. Additionally, if desired, the APM can be used to limit access to
certain passenger groups, such as employees. As is done in certain airports today, the
APM can stop at only select stations that can be secured through the use of facility
design. And finally, an APM offers the ability to control the vehicle’s operation
including its ultimate destination and when the doors open to allow egress. This could
provide security personnel with a valuable tool to augment passenger profiling.
Reliability
While any type of landside transportation system can experience problems leading to
delays, the must-ride nature of the LAX APM system translates into the need for even
higher standards of reliability. Traffic jams on major travel days can render an airport’s
landside road system nearly useless but in many busy airports, passengers can avoid the
traffic by using rail, as in the case of the Metro to National Airport in Washington, D.C.
Additionally, major travel days and peak commute periods are predictable and people can
plan their trip around the congestion by allowing more time to get to the airport. The
roadway system can fail because of the overabundance of users. It is extremely rare that
the roadway system itself fails, such as when a sinkhole develops or an earthquake
destroys portions of the roads. It is easier to imagine an APM malfunctioning and
possibly stopping an entire system. A number of design and operational options are
being considered to address this challenge.
Ease of Use
There is no need to make flying more complicated or stressful. As for all airport APM
systems, it needs to be remembered that the number of people familiar with using fixed
guideway systems is a small percentage of the general population and often not
coincidental with those using an airport. The ultimate configuration of this system will
need to address ease of use by the traveler.
1/24/2005 7

Good signage is an obvious tool, but the system layout will have a more significant
impact on how easy the system is to use. Trips need to be as direct as possible and
transfers between trains should be avoided. Station crowding needs to be avoided and
passenger surges accommodated. Use of platforms for multiple routes can add to a user’s
confusion and so dedicated platforms should be used whenever possible. One of the
challenges in the case of LAX is to provide this level of service while also offering
travelers the maximum number of options and fitting the system into the airport layout.
Conclusion
Creating a vehicle-free zone around an airport terminal is a bold design approach that is
reliant upon a new way of collecting and moving people through the landside area. An
APM offers an efficient way to take large numbers of people the final leg from remote
collection points into the core passenger processing area. The success of such an
approach, however, demands a rethinking of many established standards and past
assumptions used for airport APMs. Hard decisions need to be made on sizing, security,
reliability, system configuration, and ease of use. Critical to tailoring the solution to the
challenge will be careful attention to details and constant reassessment of each decision
against project goals.
1/24/2005 8