appendix e international terminal building arrivals...

Appendix E International Terminal Building Arrivals Level Study

INTERNATIONAL TERMINAL BUI LDING ARRIVALS LEVEL STUDY E

TABLE OF CONTENTS

E.1 Inventory.................................................................................... 1

E.2 Planning Parameters and Facility Requirements................ 3

E.2.1 Planning Parameters ..................................................................... 3

E.2.2 Facility Requirements.................................................................... 4

E.3 Alternatives ............................................................................... 6

E.3.1 Alternative 1 ................................................................................... 7

E.3.2 Alternative 2 ................................................................................. 10

E.3.3 Alternative 3 ................................................................................. 14

E.4 Evaluation ................................................................................ 17

E.5 Key Benefits of the Recommended Alternative ................ 19

E.6 Open Issues for Programming and Conceptual Design... 19

EXHIBITS

Exhibit E.1-1 | Overall – Main Terminal Arrivals Level ............................ 2

Exhibit E.3-1 | Alternative 1 – Overall – Arrivals Level............................ 8

Exhibit E.3-2 | Alternative 1 – Main Terminal Arrivals Level .................. 9

Exhibit E.3-3 | Alternative 1 – Main Terminal Arrivals Level – ................................................................ Passenger Flow . .. 9

Exhibit E.3-4 | Alternative 2 – Overall – Arrivals Level.......................... 11

Exhibit E.3-5 | Alternative 2 – Main Terminal Arrivals Level ................ 12

Exhibit E.3-6 | Alternative 2 – Main Terminal Arrivals Level – ............................................................. Passenger Flows . . 13

Exhibit E.3-7 | Alternative 3 – Overall – Arrivals Level.......................... 15

Exhibit E.3-8 | Alternative 3 – Main Terminal Arrivals Level ................ 16

Exhibit E.3-9 | Alternative 3 – Main Terminal Arrivals Level – .............................................................. Passenger Flows . . 16

TABLES

Table E.1-1 | International Terminal Building Main Terminal Arrivals ................................................................... Level Inventory ... 1

Table E.2-1 | ITB Main Terminal Arrivals Level Redevelopment ......................................................................... Components . 3

Table E.2-2 | ITB Peak Hour Arriving Passenger Demand ...................... 4

Table E.2-3 | ITB Peak Hour International Arriving Passengers ............ 5

Table E.2-4 | ITB U.S. CBP Facility Requirements .................................... 5

Table E.2-5 | Arrivals Hall Planning Factors.............................................. 6

Table E.2-6 | Arrivals Hall Facility Requirements ..................................... 6

Table E.4-1 | ITB Main Terminal Arrivals Level Alternatives ....................................................... Comparative Analysis .. 18

AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT PLAN – DRAFT FINAL International Terminal Building Arrivals Level Study | E - i

SFO Airport Development Plan International Terminal Building Arrivals Leve l Stud

Appendi x E

International Terminal Building Arrivals Level Study This append ix documen ts the plannin g study f or the ITB M ain Termin al Arrival s Lev el improveme nts

includin g the inventor y of existing facilities , an analy sis of future facilit y requireme nts, a descriptio n o f each alternati ve, identificatio n o f the ad vantages and disadvantages, and a summar y of ho w the alternativ es compare to the facilit y require ments. The results of this anal ysis we re incorporated into the ADP process.

E.1 Inventory The ITB Main Termin al Arrivals Level facilities consist primarily o f the U.S. Customs an d Border Protectio n

(CBP) proc essing area s an d administrati ve office s, internationa l and domesti c bagga ge claim, and th e Arrivals Hall. Tabl e E.1-1 provides an invento ry of the ITB processing facilities that wer e evalu ated.

TABLE E.1- 1 | International Terminal Building Main Terminal Arrivals Level Inventor y

COMPONENT B/A A B/A G

U.S. CBP Primary Processing

Counters 19 23 APC Kiosks 32 32

Baggage Claim Devices

International 4 5 Domestic 2 1

U.S. CBP Secondary Counters 12 12

y

Processing

Notes: CBP = Customs and Border Protection

APC = Automated Passport Control Sources: SFO Burea u of Planning and Environmental Affairs; Landrum & Brown, Inc., May 2016

The ITB Main Termin al Ar rivals Leve l, depicte d on Exhi bit E.1-1 , is the prima ry proce ssing poin t f or international arrivals. The key functions provided o n the Arrivals Leve l of the Main Terminal incl ude:

CBP international arrivals processing and support space

International and domesti c baggage clai m

Arrival s Hall

Airline recheck counter s

Ground transportatio n services o n arrivals roadways and curbsid es

Access to Garages A and G

Draft Final: September 2016 Appendix E | Page 1

SFO Airport Development Plan International Terminal Building Arrivals Level Study

EXHIBI T E.1- 1 | Overall – Main Terminal Arrival s Level

Source : Landrum & Brown, In c., July 2015

Draft Final: September 2016 Appendix E | Pag e 2


E.2 Planning Parameters and Facility Requirements Planning parameters and facility requirements guide the development of alternatives for the ITB Arrivals Level improvements. The planning parameters identify the conceptual goals of the ITB redevelopment and the facility requirements identify the capacity needed to accommodate the forecast growth in passenger traffic.

E.2.1 Planning Parameters

The conceptual goals of the ITB redevelopment analysis reflect the relevant components of The Principles of R.E.A.C.H. and the ideas identified during the ITB Visioning Charrette and other stakeholder meetings.

To organize and prioritize the ITB redevelopment goals, components were ranked into categories:

(1) Required: These components would provide adequate capacity for future growth and meet the minimum business or customer service performance objectives of SFO management.

(2) Highly desirable: These components would enhance SFO’s competitive position among North American gateway airports and significantly increase non-airline revenue generation.

(3) Complementary: These components would enhance the guest experience at SFO by creating unique experiences and should be incorporated where opportunities exist.

(4) Operational improvement: These components would increase operational efficiency or provide the necessary infrastructure to increase operational flexibility. Operational improvements are “nice to have” but are not necessary to meet the functional requirements.

Table E.2-1 identifies the category for each of the key ITB redevelopment components.

TABLE E.2-1 | ITB MAIN TERMINAL ARRIVALS LEVEL REDEVELOPMENT COMPONENTS

COMPONENT CATEGORY

Increase primary processing capacity Required

Expand international baggage claim as necessary to meet requirements Required

Expand domestic baggage claim as necessary to meet requirements Required Upgrade the BHS to meet future demand and establish distribution of baggage between B/As A and G systems

flexible and redundant Required

Improve baggage recheck operations Highly Desirable/ Operational Improvement

Enhance the international-to-domestic connecting passenger experience Highly Desirable

Improve preclearance to domestic connections Highly Desirable

Improve wayfinding from T1 and T3 to B/As A and G Highly Desirable Improve wayfinding to and from the parking garages and ground transportation Highly Desirable

Improve visibility and the passenger experience in domestic baggage claim Highly Desirable

Optimize Smarte Carte placement Highly Desirable



TABLE E.2-1 (CONTINUED) | ITB MAIN TERMINAL ARRIVALS LEVEL REDEVELOPMENT COMPONENTS

COMPONENT CATEGORY

Improve staging, delivery, and return of Smarte Cartes and wheelchairs Highly Desirable

Improve the placement and accessibility of the baggage service offices Complementary

Enhance the Arrivals Hall experience Complementary

Source: Landrum & Brown, Inc., July 2015

E.2.2 Facility Requirements

Facility requirements were established for each planning activity level (2018, 2023, Base Constrained, and High Constrained) of the SFO ADP Forecast. It was assumed that B/A H is the recommended alternative for future gate expansion. Planning standards from recent terminal studies at SFO1 and industry-standard planning metrics from IATA and Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) Report 25, Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design were used in the facility requirements development. For components where level of service is a factor in the facility requirements, the IATA Optimal Level of Service was used. This level of service provides sufficient space to accommodate necessary functions in a comfortable environment with “acceptable” processing and waiting times.2 SFO policies and guidelines, including The Principles of R.E.A.C.H. and concession revenue performance targets, were incorporated into the facility requirements.

As discussed in Chapter 4 Section 4.3.2, T1 and T3 will include swing gates capable of accommodating international arrivals. As all international arriving passengers must be processed in the U.S. CBP facilities located in the ITB, international flights forecast to use these gates are included in the ITB facility requirements.

Table E.2-2 identifies the peak hour arriving passenger demand for each planning activity level. The peak hour passenger count serves as the basis for determining most facility requirements. Demand could decline in the future (likely 2023 and beyond) given a desire to increase the number of preclearance sites, shared by both CBP and some major foreign hub airports such as Tokyo Narita International Airport (NRT), London Heathrow Airport (LHR), and Amsterdam Airport Schiphol (AMS). The preclearance program has no effect on departing international flights.

TABLE E.2-2 | ITB PEAK HOUR ARRIVING PASSENGER DEMAND

PASSENGER TYPE 2018 2023 BASE CONSTRAINED

HIGH CONSTRAINED

INTERNATIONAL 2,711 3,213 4,139 4,537

DOMESTIC 438 508 689 720 Source: Landrum & Brown, Inc., July 2015

1 San Francisco International Airport Terminal 1 Facility Requirements Draft Report, HNTB, September 29, 2011; Terminal 3 Programming and Planning Study Final Technical Report, LeighFisher, April 2012.

2 Airport Development Reference Manual, 10th Edition, International Air Transport Association, March 2014.



U.S. Customs and Border Protection: The U.S. CBP facility requirements are based on the CBP Airport Technical Design Standards (ATDS) issued in June 2012. This document identifies all CBP spatial requirements based on the projected numbers of peak hour arriving passengers. The ATDS does not account for processing efficiencies associated with recent initiatives, such as Automated Passport Control (APC) and Mobile Passport Control (MPC), which have been implemented at many U.S. gateway airports, including SFO. As APC and MPC use increases and becomes available to passengers with visitor visas, the overall spatial requirements will be reduced as a result of a faster processing rate. The ATDS does not account for actual CBP officer staffing limitations. The space requirements generated using the ATDS are conservative, providing sufficient space and processing area to implement new processing initiatives that would reduce staffing demand.

The peak hour arriving passenger count for each of the planning activity levels is provided in Table E.2-3. Peak hour arriving passenger counts are organized by boarding area because the CBP primary and secondary processing areas are separate. The corresponding CBP facility requirements are provided in Table E.2-4.

TABLE E.2-3 | ITB Peak Hour International Arriving Passengers

BOARDING AREA 2018 2023 BASE CONSTRAINED

HIGH CONSTRAINED

A 1,588 1,914 2,431 2,503 G 1,690 1,960 2,714 2,969

Notes: Boarding Area A includes passengers on international flights arriving at the future T1 swing gates Boarding Area G includes passengers on international flights arriving at the future T3 swing gates and Boarding Area H.


TABLE E.2-4 | ITB U.S. CBP Facility Requirements

FACILITY BOARDING AREA UNIT EXISTING 2018 2023 BASE

CONSTRAINED HIGH

CONSTRAINED

Primary Processing

A booths 19 16 19 24 25 square feet 25,610 21,120 25,080 31,680 33,000

G booths 23 17 20 27 30 square feet 28,750 22,400 26,400 35,640 39,600

Secondary Processing

A square feet 6,280 6,300 7,190 9,560 9,560 G square feet 6,280 6,300 7,190 9,560 9,560

Secondary Operations

A square feet 1 1,660 1,660 2,210 2,210 G square feet 1 1,660 1,660 2,210 2,210

U.S. CBP Administration N/A square feet 10,600 5,280 5,280 6,720 6,720

Subtotal net square feet - 64,720 74,460 97,580 102,860

TOTAL GROSS AREA2 SQUARE FEET 77,520 71,100 81,400 106,700 112,000

Notes: 1 Secondary Operations space is included in Secondary Processing under existing conditions. 2 A net-to-gross area factor of 30 percent was applied to Secondary Processing and Administration areas.




Public Space – Arrivals Hall: Table E.2-5 shows the planning factors used to develop the Arrivals Hall requirements. Table E.2-6 shows the resulting facility requirements.

TABLE E.2-5 | Arrivals Hall Planning Factors

FACTOR UNIT FACTOR

Meeter/Greeter Ratio1 meeters/greeters per passenger 0.3 Area per Occupant2 square feet 20.5 Seating Area2 percentage of total area 20.0 Circulation Width feet 25.0 Dwell Time – Passengers2 minutes 5.0 Dwell Time – Meeters/Greeters2 minutes 30.0 Notes: 1 Based on Landrum & Brown analysis and industry comparisons.

2

International Air Transport Association, Airport Design Reference Manual, 10th Edition, March 2014. Source: Landrum & Brown, Inc., July 2015, except as noted.

TABLE E.2-6 | Arrivals Hall Facility Requirements

EXISTING 2018 2023 BASE CONSTRAINED

HIGH CONSTRAINED

Total Occupants (passengers meeters/greeters) 1

and - 610 720 950 1,025

Total Occupant Area2 (square feet) - 15,140 17,870 23,360 25,200

Circulation Area (square feet) - 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 Total Arrivals Hall Area (square feet) 30,000 21,640 24,370 29,860 31,700

Notes: 1 Based on peak hour arriving passengers and meeters/greeters ratio 2 Based on Optimal Level of Service as described in International Air Transport Association, Airport Design Reference Manual, 10th Edition, March 2014.


E.3 Alternatives This section documents the alternatives analysis for the ITB Main Terminal Arrivals Level improvements including a description of each alternative, identification of its advantages and disadvantages, and a summary of how the alternatives compare to the facility requirements.

Draft Final: September 2016 Appendix E |

E.3.1 Altern ative 1

Alternative 1 , illustrate d in Exhib it E.3-1 , consist s o f a reconfigured C BP Secondary Processing facility, allowin g for the B/A A and B/A G international baggage claim halls to be connected, an internationa l baggage claim expansion within the Main Terminal, and concessions expansions in the Arrivals Hall.

Alternative 1 c onsists of the follo wing improvements, as shown in Exhibit E.3-2 :

Combinin g the internation al b aggage claim h alls b y reconfigurin g CBP Secondary Processi ng t o provid e a corridor betwee n the tw o halls . Separa te exit s for connectin g and terminatin g passengers would be maintained.

Expandin g CBP Prim ary Processin g for bo th boardin g are as.

Extendin g four of the existing international baggage claim devices.

Installin g two new international b aggage cl aim device s in the are a currently occup ied b y CBP and airline office s.

Reconfigurin g the airline reche ck are as to provid e ade quate circulatio n to th e new CBP Secondar y Processin g areas .

Retaining tw o out of three existing domestic bag gage claim s.

Draft Final: Septemb er 2016



Appendix E |

EXHIBIT E.3-1 | Alternative 1 – Overall – Arrivals Level

Reconfigured CBP Secondary

Connecting Corridor

International Arrivals Corridor from Boarding Area H

Connected International Bag Claim Halls

International Baggage Claim Expansion

B/A A Arrivals Level Mezzanine


EXHIBI T E.3-2 | Alternativ e 1 – Main Terminal Arrivals Level

Source: Landrum & Brown , July 2015

As illu strated in Exhibi t E.3-3 , passeng er fl ows for this alternativ e re main unchange d with th e exceptio n o f the corridor linking th e two international baggage claim halls .

EXHIBI T E.3-3 | Alternativ e 1 – Main Terminal Arrivals Leve l – Passenger Flow





Alternative 1 provid es sufficie nt internatio nal and domesti c ba ggage cl aim capacity . Howeve r, the disadvantages of Alternative 1 include the following :

Expanding the international baggage claim hall displaces CBP and airline support office s that mus t be relocated to other are as of the ITB.

The existin g domesti c baggage claim dev ices do no t have sufficient c apacity fo r ADG VI aircra ft arriving fro m precle arance location s and the area fo r the domestic bagg age claim is insufficien t

for widebody aircraft . This issue co uld be resol ved by usin g the domestic baggage clai m device s in T1 or T3 for any widebody domestic or precleared arrivals in B/As A or G, respectively .

E.3.2 Alternative 2

Alternative 2 , illustr ated in Exhibi t E.3-4 , co nsists o f a gran d stair way connecti ng the Departure s an d Arrivals Level s, a reconfigu red CBP Secondary Processin g to allow for pre-securit y connectio ns bet ween

the fr ont and bac k o f the Main Termin al, an expande d internation al b aggage claim withi n th e Mai n Terminal, and a new domestic baggage claim near Gate G91.

The Main Terminal Arrivals Level c onsists of the following improvements, as shown in Exhibit E.3-5 :

Expanding C BP Primar y Processin g for both boardin g areas t o mee t the facility requirements.

Reconfigurin g CBP Secondary Processin g to provid e a pre-security corrido r betwee n th e front an d back o f the M ain Termin al. This design allo ws for either separa te or combine d exit s for connectin g

and terminating passengers.

Extendin g fo ur o f the existi ng internati onal bagg age clai m devi ces t o m eet the facility requirements for claim frontage.

Relocatin g the airl ine reche ck counte rs into a building expansi on to allo w fo r the new pre-securit y co rridor.

Installin g two new international baggage claim device s in the area currently occupied by CBP and airline office s.

Constructing a n ew dome stic baggage claim h all ne ar Gate G91 , allo wing the thre e existin g domestic baggage claim dev ices t o be converted to international use.


SFO Airport Development Plan International Terminal Building Arrivals Level Study EXHIBI T E.3-4 | Alternativ e 2 – Overal l – Arrival s Level



International Arrivals Corridor from Boarding Area H

Building Expansion International Baggage

Claim Expansion

Grand Staircase from Departures Level





The passenger flo ws f or thi s are a, illustra ted in Exhi bit E.3-6 , woul d change substantially because th e vertical circulatio n core s ne ar the T1 and T3 connecto rs wo uld b e remove d. Pre-security connectin g passengers woul d use the new corridor to reach the Departures Level. International arrivi ng passengers woul d generall y tak e the e xisting rout e exce pt fo r passenge rs who are connecting to domestic fligh ts departing fro m the IT B. Tho se passengers would re-check their b ags at the b ack of the building, then turn around and us e th e grand stairwa y to reac h th e SSCP o n th e Depa rtures Lev el o r continue acr oss the non-secu re connectors tow ard Terminals 1 an d 3. Domestic passenger s needing t o clai m checke d baggag e woul d access the ne w domestic baggage clai m hall via ei ther the new arriv als corrido r o r the existin g Arrival s Hall.



EXHIBI T E.3 -6 | Alternativ e 2 – Main Terminal Arrival s Level – Passenger Flow s


The advantage s of Alternative 2 incl ude the following :

The new domestic baggage claim hall provides sufficie nt baggage claim capacity.

The expande d mee ters a nd greete rs ar ea in the Arrival s H all provide s add itional space f or circulation an d concessions .

The gran d stair way provid es vi sual connectiv ity betwe en the Arrival s and Departure s Levels and allows international-to-domes tic connec ting passenge rs t o enter th e Departure s Leve l ne ar th e

consolidated SSCP .

The disadvan tages of Alternative 2 include the following:

Because the internati onal baggage claim halls rem ain split, they do not provid e sufficient baggag e claim frontage for either boarding area.

Expandin g the international baggage claim hall displaces CBP and airline suppor t offices tha t m ust be relocated t o other are as o f the ITB.

The ne w domesti c baggag e claim ha ll is located nea r Gate G91 an d wo uld increase th e walkin g distance and complicate th e wayfinding for domes tic and precleared passenge rs arriving at B /A A. This issue could be resolved by using the domestic baggage claim devi ces in T1 fo r these flights .



E.3.3 Altern ative 3

Alternative 3 , illustrated in EXHIBIT E.3-7, consists o f a reconfigure d CBP Second ary Processin g are a and a n ew domesti c bagga ge claim nea r Gate G91.

The Main Terminal Arrivals Level c onsists of the following improvements, as shown in EXHIBI T E.3-8 :

Combining the international baggage claim halls by reconfigurin g t he CBP Secondary Process ing to provide a corridor . Sep arate exits for connecting and SFO-boun d passenge rs woul d b e maintaine d.

Expanding the CB P Prim ary Processing for both boarding are as.

Extending four of the existing international baggage claim devices.

Repositionin g th e airline reche ck counte rs t o provid e adequate circulatio n to th e ne w CBP Secondary Processing are as.

Constructing a ne w dome stic baggage claim hall ne ar Gate G91 , allo wing the thre e existin g domestic baggage claim dev ices t o be converted to international baggage claim use .

In addition , thi s alternativ e preserves th e abil ity fo r a building expansio n to accommodate th e relocatio n of CBP administrative support spaces. The ad vantages of Alternative 3 incl ude the following :

Utilization of the existin g ITB baggage claim dev ices for international flights minimiz es displacement of CBP and airline support offices.

The new domestic baggage claim hall provides sufficient baggage claim capacity.

Separate exits are maintained for connecting and terminating international arriving passenge rs.

The prim ary disadvantage of Alternative 3 is that th e new domestic baggage claim hall is located ne ar Ga te G9 1 and woul d increas e th e walking distanc e and complicat e the wayfindin g for domestic an d precl eared passenge rs arriving at B/ A A. Thi s issue coul d be resolv ed by using the domesti c baggag e clai m devices in T1 for these flights.


EXHIBI T E.3- 7 |Alternative 3 – Overa ll – Arrivals Level


Connecting Corridor

Domestic Baggage Claim Expansion

Combined International Bag Claim Hall

Potential Building Expansion







The revise d passenger flo ws for this are a, illustra ted in Exhi bit E.3-9 , remain relatively unchanged wi th the exceptio n o f the corridor li nking the tw o internatio nal baggag e claim hall s. Domesti c an d precleare d

passenge rs arrivin g at B/A A woul d b e direct ed to th e baggage claim at T1. Domesti c an d precleare d passenge rs arr iving a t B/A G wou ld b e directe d t o the n ew domesti c baggag e claim hall , altho ugh Unit ed Airlines cou ld continu e to use the T3 baggage claim for domestic and precleared passengers.

EXHIBI T E.3-9 | Alternativ e 3 – Main Terminal Arrivals Leve l – Passenger Flow s




E.4 Evaluation The primary focus of the evaluation process was to assess the ability of each alternative to satisfy the ITB Main Terminal Arrivals Level improvements objectives. The set of alternatives were compared against the existing condition as well as each other through a screening and evaluation process that considered the following evaluation criteria:

x International Baggage Claim Capacity: provides sufficient international baggage claim capacity to meet long-term demand at the Base Constrained demand level.

x Domestic Baggage Claim Capacity: provides sufficient domestic baggage claim capacity to meet long-term demand at the Base Constrained demand level.

x Minimal Displacement of Offices: requires minimal, if any, relocation of CBP or airport administration offices.

x Domestic Baggage Claim Walking Distances: maintains or improves the walking distance from B/As A and G to the domestic baggage claim.

x Enhanced Arrivals Hall: improves the guest experience in the Arrivals Hall by creating additional space for meeters and greeters and concessions.

The evaluation screening of alternatives, illustrated in TABLE E.4-1, used a three-tiered color-code to rate each alternative against the evaluation criteria. A summary for each rating explains the benefits and impacts of each alternative. The color codes used in the evaluation matrix are as follows:

● Exceeds Objectives ◐ Meets Objectives ○ Maintains Existing / Does Not Meet Objectives

This evaluation resulted in the identification of a recommended alternative. The symbols used for that evaluation are:

Sel ected Alternativ e Eliminated Alternative

The primary differences between the three alternatives are the location of the baggage claim devices and the connectivity between the B/As A and G baggage claim halls. Alternatives 1 and 2 require that new international baggage claim devices be installed in the area currently occupied by CBP and airline support spaces, which would have to be relocated elsewhere in the ITB. Alternative 3 utilizes all of the existing ITB baggage claim devices for international baggage claim. Alternatives 1 and 3 provide a connection between the B /As A and G baggage c laim halls by reconfiguring CBP Secondary Processing while Alternative 2 maintains separate baggage claim halls. The existing layout and Alternative 2 do not meet the international baggage claim capacity requirements.



TABLE E.4- 1 | ITB Main Terminal Arrivals Level Alternative s Comparative Analysis

Evaluation Crit eria

Existing Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

No build

Connected International Clai m Hall, New International Claim De vices

Divided International Claim Hall, New International

C laim Devices, G9Domestic Claim

Hall

1

Connected International Claim Hall, G91 Domestic Claim

Hall

International Baggage Claim Capacit y

○ ◐ ○ ◐ Domestic Baggage Claim Capacit y

● ● ● ● Mini mal Displacement of Offic e Facilitie s

◐ ○ ○ ◐ Domestic Baggage Claim WalkingDistance

○ ◐ ○ ○ Enhanced Arrivals Hall ○ ○ ◐ ○ Recomm ended Alternat ive

Source: Landrum & Brown, Inc., March 2016

Alternative 3 was selected as the recommended alternative because it provides the necessary international baggage claim capacity while maintaining the current passenger flow and minimizing displacement of CBP and airline support spaces. It maintains the opportunity for a building expansion to provide additional enhancements, such as a dedicated security checkpoint for connecting passengers.



E.5 Key Benefits of the Recommended Alternative The recommended ITB Main Terminal Arrivals Level Alternative, Alternative 3, is a balanced solution that provides the following key benefits:

x The modifications will improve the guest experience and provide flexibility of airline gate allocation between gates on B/As A and G of the ITB.

x Reconfiguration of CBP Secondary Processing allows for cross-utilization of the baggage claim halls.

x Converting the three existing domestic baggage claim devices to international baggage claim will minimize the impact to existing CBP and Airport offices.

x The new domestic baggage claim hall near Gate G91 will include claim devices sized for multiple precleared narrowbody or widebody arrivals.

E.6 Open Issues for Programming and Conceptual Design During the alternatives development phase and confirmation of the recommended alternative, a number of issues were identified that must be addressed in a detailed programming and conceptual design phase. In some cases, the costs and benefits must be analyzed further to determine the appropriate solution. Below is a brief description of each of the open issues for programming and conceptual design.

Perform simulation analyses of CBP Primary Processing to confirm long-term facility requirements.

The facility requirements for the CBP Primary Processing area are based on current design standards, which do not account for recent initiatives such as Automated Passport Control, Mobile Passport Control, and Global Entry, all of which have substantially improved processing capacity. Simulation analyses should test existing, new, and future CBP Primary and Secondary Processing procedures and confirm the facility requirements for each of the planning activity levels.

The simulation analyses will validate the potential need for the building expansion identified as part of the recommended alternative.

Perform detailed space programming for the CBP Administrative spaces.

The CBP design guidelines have changed substantially since the opening of the ITB and generally require less administrative and support space due to the consolidation of multiple agencies. New design guidelines, anticipated for release in 2016, may further change the requirements.

Several improvements on the Arrivals Level would displace CBP administrative and support spaces. The potential building expansion on the Arrivals Level to accommodate these spaces would require a detailed programming effort to determine to what extent the expansion is necessary (if at all).



Evaluate single versus dual CBP exits.

The recommended alternative maintains the existing operation of dual CBP exits – one for connecting passengers and another for terminating passengers.

Eliminating one of the CBP exits would allow for a single CBP Secondary Processing area with more efficient staffing and simpler wayfinding within the sterile area but would change the flow for the passengers who previously would have used the removed exit. This issue could result in increased walking distances and level changes for those passengers as well as increased passenger volumes at the B/A G security checkpoint on the ITB Main Terminal Departures Level, unless they were directed to the AirTrain and over to T3. A single CBP exit may also require the relocation of the airline recheck area to accommodate a new passenger flow.

Evaluate combined CBP Primary Processing.

Another alternative that could be considered is the consolidation of CBP Primary Processing into a single location. This configuration would further improve CBP staffing and provide the opportunity to improve the CBP Primary Processing passenger experience, which frequently has queues that extend into the boarding areas and is located in an area with low ceilings and very little natural light (if any).

Evaluate one-stop processing.

Combining CBP Primary and Secondary Processing into a single location, commonly referred to as “one-stop,” would optimize CBP staffing efficiency but would require a larger queuing space to accommodate carts and checked luggage, and will also likely increase the passenger dwell times in the baggage claim hall. The dwell time challenge could be mitigated by allowing passengers to use the APC kiosks prior to entering the baggage claim hall and then queuing for the combined CBP Primary and Secondary inspection once they retrieve their checked baggage.

Implementing either of these final two alternatives would likely require a reconfiguration of the existing CBP Primary Processing areas, relocation or reconfiguration of the baggage claim carousels, and complete reconfiguration of the existing CBP Secondary Processing facilities.


appendix e international terminal building arrivals...

Documents