ACCELERATING MOVING WALKWAYS FOR QUALITY PEOPLE
TRANSPORT IN AIRPORTS: AN ASSESSMENT OF THEIR
APPLICABILITY IN AMSTERDAM AIRPORT SCHIPHOL
Indraswari Kusumaningtyas, Jan Carel Paro, Gabriel Lodewijks
Delft University of Technology
1. INTRODUCTION
Most major passenger airlines now apply the hub-and-spoke network in their
operation. This practice has enabled airlines to offer more flights to more
destinations at lower costs. The flights are scheduled in a number of time
windows, known as connection waves, in which ideally all incoming flights
connect to all outgoing flights (Burghouwt and de Wit, 2005). This temporal
concentration of flights causes peaking at hub airports, which adversely
affects airport capacity and resource utilization.
Annual growth of passengers and flights also impose airport capacity to a
heavy performance. Consequently, airports carry out expansion projects,
which often result in modern airport terminals that exceed human proportions.
Hence, walking distances within the airport terminal increase. This affects
both Origin/Destination (O/D) as well as transfer passengers. However, it is
considered a particularly critical matter for the latter since they have more time
pressure in walking through the terminal to switch flights.
Hub-and-spoke networks compete by offering the most attractive connection.
The attractiveness of a connection is influenced by a number of factors,
including the transfer time at the hub (Veldhuis, 1997). The transfer time
consists of a Minimum Connecting Time (MCT) and, in most cases, a waiting
time. The MCT is determined by the minimum time required to allow
passengers and baggage to transfer from one flight to another as well as to
turn around the aircraft. It is important that the established MCT can minimize
the number of misconnections, while at the same time enable airlines to offer
their passengers a seamless journey and maximize the productivity of their
aircraft fleets.
The increase in walking distances due to airport expansions may cause a risk
in maintaining the established MCT. Increasing the MCT is not desirable for
both the airport and the airline because it may increase the transfer times of
indirect connections in their network. This can be counter-productive to their
competitiveness in the transfer market. To achieve acceptable walking
distances and transfer times, more reliance is being placed on transport
technology. Some alternatives of transport system commonly used to assist
passengers’ mobility in airports are Automated People Movers (APM), apron
buses, and moving walkways. In the field of moving walkways, innovative
systems with higher transport speed have been developed. These systems
are generally known as Accelerating Moving Walkways (AMWs).
© Association for European Transport and contributors 2007
1
This paper aims to explore the applicability of AMWs to provide quality
transport for airport passengers, particularly in terms of reducing walking
distance and travel time. We take Amsterdam Airport Schiphol (AAS) as the
case study. AAS is one of Europe’s largest and busiest airports. Besides
serving the home-market in the Netherlands, it also functions as a hub airport.
The home carrier of AAS is KLM Royal Dutch Airlines (KLM). Focusing on
transfer processes, we evaluate whether AMWs can be a suitable passenger
conveyance technology in AAS.
2. ACCELERATING MOVING WALKWAY
AMWs are rubber belt or metal pallet conveyors that continuously move
passengers by accelerating them from a low speed at the entrance to a higher
speed at the middle section, and then decelerating them to a low speed again
at the exit. The acceleration and deceleration are achieved by implementing
various innovative techniques, such as in-line accelerating belts (Loder,
1998), sliding pallets (Gonzalez-Alemany and Cuello, 2003), parallelogram
pallets (Shirakihara, 1997), and accelerating rollers (Cote and Gempp, 1997),
see Figure 1. One accelerating roller system and one sliding pallet system
have been installed and are currently operating in public facilities.
(a)
(b)
Handrails
High speed section
Acceleration section
Slow speed section
Acceleration
High-speed
Deceleration
Auxiliary pallet
Main pallet
(c)
(d)
Accelerating
rollers
High-speed belt
Decelerating
rollers
High-speed
Acceleration
Low speed
Figure 1. Various AMW designs: (a) the in-line accelerating belts, top view
(Loder, 1998), (b) the sliding pallets, top view (Gonzalez-Alemany and Cuello,
2003), (c) the parallelogram pallets, top view (Shirakihara, 1997), and (d) the
accelerating rollers, side view (Cote and Gempp, 1997)
The accelerating roller system has an entry and exit speed of 0.6 m/s. It
accelerates the passengers up to 2.5 m/s (R. Besson, personal
communication, March 22, 2007). The entry and exit speed of the sliding
pallet system is 0.65 m/s, whereas the maximum speed is 2 m/s (A. Köhler,
personal communication, April 16, 2007). Hence, AMWs can transport
passengers approximately three to four times faster than Conventional Moving
Walkways (CMWs). AMWs are currently available with a 1.2 m treadway
width. Systems with a 1.4 m treadway width are in development.
At the moment, it is difficult to determine the exact costs to build and operate
an AMW. Based on the two currently installed systems, the costs of AMWs
© Association for European Transport and contributors 2007
2
can only be estimated relative to those of CMWs. The capital costs of AMWs
are estimated to be between 200 to 250% that of CMWs. The energy costs
may vary between 150 to 300% that of CMWs, depending on the design of the
system and the applied maximum speed. The maintenance costs are
estimated to be around 400% that of CMWs. However, these systems have
just been running for a very short period, so their costs are considered
unrepresentative of the true long term costs. Initially installed as test-cases,
these systems are more prototype-like. Therefore, as the first developed
systems, they normally yield higher unit costs. Furthermore, it may occur that
some forms of operational costs are overestimated due to the lack of a long
period of operating experiences. The high maintenance costs, for example,
are caused by intensive preventive maintenance performed every week. Thus,
the true long term costs of AMW systems are still uncertain. A longer period of
development and operation may later lead to lower costs.
An extensive review on AMWs, including the evaluation of their characteristics
compared to those of other transport modes, is provided in the work of
Kusumaningtyas and Lodewijks (manuscript in submission).
3. AMSTERDAM AIRPORT SCHIPHOL
3.1
An Overview
AAS is a two-level pier-type centralized airport with a single terminal that
accommodates all processes under one roof, see Figure 2. With such a
configuration, AAS aims to achieve fast and easy transfer processes.
Pier-G
Pier-E
Pier-F
Pier-H/M
Pier-D
Pier-C
Pier-B
Figure 2. An aerial view of Amsterdam Airport Schiphol terminal, captured
using Google Earth
© Association for European Transport and contributors 2007
3
The ground floor and the upper floor of the terminal each consist of a public
and a non-public part. This paper focuses on the non-public part of the
terminal. The arrival area and the baggage-reclaim area are situated at the
ground floor. The departure area, located at the upper floor, has four lounges
with amenities and retailers, and seven piers with several aircraft gates. The
configuration of the piers is shown in Figure 2. The terminal is equipped with a
network of moving walkways. These systems are mainly installed in the piers
and corridors with lengths varying from 40 to 100 m. The average length of
the systems is 70 m. The moving walkways generally have a treadway width
of 1.4 m. The operating speed of the systems is typically 0.75 m/s.
AAS serves O/D as well as transfer passengers. The total number of
passengers flying through AAS in 2006 is 46.1 million, with almost 41.6% of
them being transfer passengers (AAS, 2007). Based on the origin or
destination, air traffic movements in AAS are distinguished into Europe
(EURO) and Intercontinental (ICA). This gives four transfer possibilities, i.e.
EURO/EURO, EURO/ICA, ICA/EURO, and ICA/ICA. Each type of transfer is
assigned a certain MCT. Based on the study by Rietveld and Brons (2001),
the MCT in AAS is 50 min. Further distinction on the MCTs for each type of
transfer was not given. Although this study was performed in 2001, we may
expect that AAS would want to maintain the same MCT values regardless of
any expansions carried out in the years after.
AAS expects a 4 to 5% growth in passenger number per year, which will result
in 65 million passengers in 2015 (Schiphol Group, 2007a). To accommodate
this growth, AAS plans to increase the capacity of the current terminal, namely
Schiphol Centrum, by improving the efficient use of the existing infrastructure
and, possibly, by building an extra pier in the south part of the terminal. The
new pier, namely Pier-A, will connect directly to the terminal. Furthermore,
AAS estimates up to 85 million passengers in 2025 (Schiphol Group, 2007a).
Since Schiphol Centrum will have reached its maximum capacity in 2015, a
separate terminal is planned to be built at the northwest side of Schiphol
Centrum (Schiphol Group, 2007b). This new terminal, namely Schiphol
Noordwest, will have a capacity up to 30 million passengers. It is mainly
intended for flights not involved in transfer processes. Hence, the hub and its
transfer traffic can still apply the one-terminal concept in Schiphol Centrum.
3.2
Walking Distances
The one-terminal concept simplifies the execution of passenger processes in
AAS and enables the use of short MCTs. However, the pier configuration has
the disadvantage of long walking distances, especially for transfer passengers
(IATA, 2004). The positions of the aircraft gates are clearly seen via Google
Earth, so using the ruler feature we generated a database consisting all gateto-gate distances in Schiphol Centrum. The main distances are shown in
Figure 3.
The distribution of the gate-to-gate distances is presented in Figure 4. The
distances shown are point-to-point distances. The figure focuses on inter-pier
© Association for European Transport and contributors 2007
4
distances, whereas the intra-pier distances are analysed separately. Pier-H/M
is not included in the analysis since it does not serve transfer traffic.
E
G
51
0
230
280
F
210
120
160
L3
L4
21
0
0
34
13
0
H
160
260
L2
220
M
180
DI
L1
0
29
DII
260
C
0
30
B
Figure 3. The layout of Piers B to H/M and Lounges L1 to L4 in Schiphol
Centrum, showing the main distances in meters
>1900
1800-1900
1700-1800
1600-1700
1500-1600
1400-1500
1300-1400
1200-1300
1100-1200
1000-1100
800-900
900-1000
700-800
600-700
500-600
400-500
<400
18%
16%
14%
12%
10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
0%
Intra-pier
Percentage of total
Gate-to-gate distances
Distance (m)
Figure 4. The distribution of gate-to-gate distances between Piers B, C, D, E,
F, and G in Schiphol Centrum
The IATA recommends a maximum walking distance of 650 m to the
departure gates, of which not more than 200 m is unaided (IATA, 2004). With
© Association for European Transport and contributors 2007
5
regards to transfer process, this refers to the distance between the arrival gate
and the departure gate of the next flight. This guideline is not universally
adopted and some airport authorities, including AAS, have developed their
own standard.
Analysis on the intra-pier gate pairs shows that all intra-pier gate-to-gate
distances are below 600 m. On the other hand, approximately 73% of the
inter-pier gate pairs have a gate-to-gate distance more than the 650 m limit
recommended by the IATA. When the lengths of the CMWs are also
considered, in general around 40 to 70% of each inter-pier gate-to-gate
distance is unaided.
The exact details of Pier-A are not yet defined. Hence, we cannot determine
to what extent it will be used for transfer process. However, since Pier-A will
be built at the outer part of Schiphol Centrum next to Pier-B, the walking
distances toward this pier are likely to be long.
Schiphol Noordwest will be relatively far from Schiphol Centrum. Hence, this
terminal should have a good connection with Schiphol Centrum so the
passengers can easily access the international and high-speed rail network
situated underneath Schiphol Centrum (Schiphol Group, 2007b). However,
the current plan is to use Schiphol Noordwest for flights unrelated to the
transfer traffic. Hence, this terminal will not be discussed further.
4. THE APPLICABILITY OF AMWS
A transport system is deemed appropriate for implementation if it can fulfil the
requirements for that specific application. Factors typically considered in
evaluating the applicability of a transport technology for passenger mobility in
airport airside are ridership volumes, passenger LOS, terminal configuration
and geometry, and costs and benefits (Little, 2007).
4.1
Ridership Volume
The theoretical capacity of an AMW with a certain entry speed and width will
be equal to that of a CMW with similar characteristics. For an AMW, the speed
at the entrance determines the theoretical capacity. The higher speed in the
middle section does not increase the capacity of an AMW compared to a
CMW of the same width because the capacities of both systems at the
entrance are the same, being controlled by the entry rate (Loder, 1998).
Furthermore, walking on a moving walkway increases the passengers’ travel
speed and reduces travel time, but does not affect the capacity because it
does not affect the entry rate into the moving walkway.
Table 1 gives the theoretical capacity of AMWs with different widths and entry
speeds, calculated based on the NEN-EN 115:1998 standard (CEN, 1998).
© Association for European Transport and contributors 2007
6
Table 1. Theoretical capacity of AMWs
Width (m)
1.2
1.4
Theoretical capacity (passengers/hour/direction)
Entry Speed (m/s)
0.6
0.65
0.75
13,500
14,625
16,875
16,200
17,550
20,250
The theoretical capacity is usually never reached in practice. Due to slight
pauses when boarding and greater space allocations for those who walk on
the treadway rather than stand, a much lower practical capacity is achieved
(Leder, 1991). Al-Sharif (1996) also stated that the human buffer zone, which
is the area that surrounds a person, leads people to avoid touching each
other, thus reducing the capacity of a moving walkway. If these pedestrian
behaviours are not taken into account, the practical capacity of an AMW can
be estimated by looking at the pedestrian dimensions and the number of
passengers that can enter the AMW in abreast.
Davis and Braaksma (1987) defined the pedestrian dimensions for
transportation terminal design. A pedestrian will have 0.61 m body width when
carrying no luggage or when pushing a baggage trolley. The body width
becomes 0.78 m and 0.95 m when carrying one and two luggage(s),
respectively. The body depth of a walking pedestrian is 0.76 m, except when
pushing a baggage trolley; then he will occupy 1.72 m lengthwise.
Hence, only a maximum of two people can stand on a 1.2 or 1.4 m wide AMW
in abreast. The maximum practical capacity of an AMW with an entry speed of
0.6 to 0.75 m/s becomes just around 5680 to 7105 p/h/d, which is less than
half of the theoretical capacity. When passengers with luggage are present,
the capacity is further reduced since they tend to consume most of the
treadway width. Passengers with baggage trolleys may leave just enough
space for another person to stand next to them, but they still reduce the
system capacity by occupying more space lengthwise.
AAS requires that all moving walkways in the airport must be able to handle
117 passengers per minute for a 1.4 m wide system. This equals to 7020
p/h/d. Thus, the AMW can only fulfil the requirement if it operates with an
entry speed of 0.75 m/s. AMWs now operate with an entry speed only up to
0.65 m/s. However, since a speed of 0.75 m/s is already common for CMWs,
it should be possible to apply this speed at the entrance of future AMWs.
Nevertheless, disregard of the entrance speed, the applicability of an AMW in
AAS with regard to its ridership volume should always be evaluated against
the peak capacity of the intended location.
4.2
Passenger LOS
In this paper, the passenger LOS is discussed in terms of travel time and
walking distance. We take an average passenger walking speed of 70 m/min
(1.17 m/s), which is the walking speed used by AAS in their terminal design.
This speed takes into account the slowing down of passengers due to the use
of shoppers (i.e. small baggage trolleys), as well as due to orientation and
© Association for European Transport and contributors 2007
7
way finding. The same speed is also applied in case the passengers walk on
the CMW or AMW.
The transport time when using a CMW and an AMW, calculated relative to the
walking time on the adjacent corridor (thus bypassing the moving walkway), is
depicted in Figure 5 for increasing travel distance.
Transport time relative to walking
Transport time relative to walking [%]
200%
150%
walking
CMW stand
CMW walk
100%
AMW stand
AMW walk
50%
0%
0
50
100
150
200
250
Distance [m]
Figure 5. Transport time using a CMW and an AMW relative to walking time
on the adjacent corridor, based on 1.17 m/s walking speed, 0.75 m/s CMW
speed, 0.6 m/s AMW entry speed, and 2.5 m/s AMW high speed
For large distances, the transport time when using an AMW converges to
around 37% and 56% of the walking time on the corridor when passengers
walk and stand on the AMW, respectively. Walking on a CMW brings
passengers 35% faster than walking on the corridor, but standing on it will
transport passengers 83% slower. This explains why some airport passengers
prefer to bypass a CMW and walk instead, particularly when the CMW is
relatively crowded or they are in a hurry. On the other hand, even if a
passenger is blocked by others when using an AMW, he will still be
transported faster than if he chooses to bypass the system. This is a positive
feature, which implies that the AMW is indeed applicable for reducing walking
distance by giving passengers the option to rest their feet without loosing
valuable travel time.
Based on Figure 5, a distance of 150 m may be considered as the optimum
minimum system length at which the transport time benefit from applying the
AMWs will still be significant. At this length, standing passengers can still
obtain a significant transport time reduction when using the system, compared
to using the CMW or bypassing it. To maximize the transport time reduction, a
single-span AMW should also be applied for longer point-to-point transport
line. However, this can only be done if the location of the AMW does not block
cross-concourse traffic, or if no intermediate entrances or stops are required.
In terms of safety, AMWs apply various techniques. All safety measures
applied in the CMWs are used in the AMWs. Additional measures are also
© Association for European Transport and contributors 2007
8
installed to ensure safety due to the faster speed and the new designs
applied. In-factory and on-site tests by manufacturers generally indicate that
AMWs are safe for most groups of people. However, each design may have
recommendations with regards to who should not use the system and how to
use it.
AMWs are continuous transport systems, so they are always readily available
for use during operation. Hence, the passengers do not need to wait in order
to use them. The AMWs will typically be installed in the concourse, so
passengers do not need a vertical level change to access it. Furthermore, the
treadway of the AMW is at level with the floor, so passengers can easily enter
or exit the system with their luggage.
4.3
Terminal Configuration and Geometry
The non-public part of Schiphol Centrum terminal consists of the arrival area,
the departure area, the baggage-reclaim area, lounges, piers, and corridors.
Because these areas are already built-up environments, their function,
structure, and layout should be considered before installing an AMW. The
type of (pedestrian) traffic present should be taken into account as well.
Furthermore, the design of the AMW itself, such as the pit depth, the system
width, and the optimum minimum length, may also create certain
requirements.
Considering the current situation, corridors are considered the most suitable
locations for AMWs in Schiphol Centrum. The other areas are either too small,
too complex, accommodate too many functions and utilities, or have too many
crossing traffic. Long corridors are usually present between two piers (e.g. the
B-C-corridor between Piers B and C) or between a lounge and a pier (e.g. the
G-corridor between Pier-G and Lounge-3), see Figure 3. The corridors in
Schiphol Centrum are all more than 150 m long, so it is possible to have an
AMW with the optimum minimum length in these locations. A bidirectional
pedestrian traffic is mainly present in these corridors, so the installed AMW
will not disturb cross-flows.
Some corridors in AAS accommodate commercial activities such as
restaurants and shops, whereas other corridors are just empty. Installing an
AMW in a long and empty corridor, such as the G-corridor, will not only reduce
the travel time and walking distance, it can also help improve the passengers’
perception about the corridor, which otherwise would seem longer that it
actually is. However, the presence of a long AMW in a corridor with
commercial activities, such as the Holland Boulevard (i.e. the E-F-corridor
between Piers E and F), may have an adverse effect for the retailers because
people using the AMW may directly bypass them. Nevertheless, the Holland
Boulevard is the most traversed corridor in AAS in terms of transfer
passengers. An AMW in this location will certainly be useful for the
passengers. In this case, the applicability of the AMW mainly depends on the
strategy of the airport authority.
© Association for European Transport and contributors 2007
9
Related to the airport expansion plan, an AMW can also be installed in the
future A-B-corridor between Piers A and B. Assuming that this corridor will
have a similar concept as the B-C-corridor, the optimum minimum AMW
length can be accommodated without disturbing cross-flows.
4.4
Costs and Benefits
The capital and operational costs of the AMW must be financially feasible for
the airport in order for it to be applied. Furthermore, the benefit of installing the
AMW should make up for these costs. However, as previously described, the
costs for the AMW cannot be exactly determined at this moment. The
currently installed systems have just been operating for a very short period,
making it difficult to estimate the true long term costs for the AMW. Hence, a
detailed cost analysis cannot be performed.
Installing an AMW in the existing terminal, either as an additional system or as
a retrofit for a CMW, may be more complicated than installing it in a location
within the planned airport expansion. The existing passenger area may need
to be adjusted to suit the AMW. This can involve removing the current CMW,
modifying the support structure, and rearranging the layout. Special
procedures may be needed to get approval from all parties affected by the
changes. On the other hand, installing the AMW in a planned location will
have the advantage that the construction plan can also incorporate the
requirements for the AMW. This may save quite some effort and costs.
As previously discussed, standing on the AMW can transport passengers 70%
faster than standing on the CMW. This situation is likely to happen in the
airport at peak hours, when the passing lane of the moving walkway is
blocked. Standing on the AMW is also 44% and 15% faster than walking on
the corridor and on the CMW, respectively. Hence, for all situations, the
application of AMWs in AAS can assist the passengers by reducing the travel
time and walking distance between two locations. The AMW can contribute in
helping transfer passengers to reach their connecting gates in time, thus
reducing the risk of departure delays or passenger misconnections.
Subsequently, this can avoid the airlines from having to pay direct costs
associated with delays and misconnections, as well as indirect costs due to
the loss of goodwill (Hafizogullari et al., 2002).
The extent of the contribution of the AMW to safeguard the MCTs in AAS
depends on the length and maximum speed of the applied system. Applying
an AMW at the full length of the Holland Boulevard, for example, will bring the
travel time in that corridor to approximately 50% of the current time. If an
AMW is also installed each at the full length of the B-C- and the G-corridor,
the travel time in these corridors will reduce by 50% and 35%, respectively. In
general, the AMWs will cover around 15 to 40% of each gate-to-gate distance,
leaving around 15 to 20% of the distance to be covered by CMWs, and the
rest unaided. Around 18% reduction in each gate-to-gate travel time can be
expected. An exception is for the gate pairs between Piers C, D, and E, where
no AMW can be installed between them. The travel times for these gate pairs
remain the same.
© Association for European Transport and contributors 2007
10
The reduction in the required travel time may result in some spare time for the
passengers, which can be used to relax and visit the shops and restaurants in
the terminal. For the airport authority, the potential increase in the possible
travel coverage can allow for more gates to be utilized in the transfer process
while maintaining the MCTs. Both scenarios can generate revenues for the
airport.
5. CONCLUSIONS
We have presented an analysis on the applicability of AMWs to provide quality
transport for airport passengers, based on the preliminary study on
Amsterdam Airport Schiphol (AAS). The evaluation focused on the ability of
AMWs to reduce travel time and walking distance in the airport terminal,
particularly for transfer passengers.
Either walking or just standing on it, using the AMW will provide shorter travel
time than using the CMW or walking on the adjacent corridor. At peak hours,
the moving walkway can be crowded and the passing lane may be blocked,
so this is a positive feature for airport application. It is also applicable to
reduce walking distance by providing passengers the option to rest their feet
without loosing valuable travel time.
With its capability to reduce transport time and walking distance, the AMW
can contribute in maintaining the established MCTs in airports. The extent of
this contribution depends on the length and maximum speed of the installed
system. In case of AAS, based on the current conditions in Schiphol Centrum,
not every location in the terminal can be used to install the system and not
every CMWs can be retrofitted into AMWs. Since only the corridors are
deemed suitable to install AMWs without too complicated disturbance or
modification to the function, structure, and layout of the area, the transport
time reduction brought by the AMWs is only 18% of the current travel time.
Nevertheless, by applying AMWs in AAS, the potential travel coverage will
increase, enabling the airport to use more gate pairs to perform transfer
processes within the MCTs. Gate pairs that are still too far away to be covered
even with the AMWs may be used for connections with longer transfer time,
which is still acceptable provided that it is below the maximum connecting
time set by the airport. In practice, aircrafts with short connection times are
tried to be allocated closer gates. Those with longer connection times may be
allocated gates farther away.
Further aspects should be investigated before actually applying AMWs in the
airport. This includes safety, accessibility, reliability, and passenger
acceptance. Different AMW design, application, and operating conditions may
have different effects on the aspects above. Therefore, as much information
as possible should be collected from manufacturers and those already
operating the AMWs. Surveys can be performed on the passengers of the
currently operating system and simulation models can be used to provide
insights on various scenarios. Hence, a well-informed decision can be made
regarding the installation of the AMW.
© Association for European Transport and contributors 2007
11
Bibliography
AAS (2007) Statistical Annual Review 2006, Amsterdam Airport Schiphol.
[Online]
http://www.schiphol.nl/media/portal/_ir/pdf/pdf_files/2006_statistical_annual_r
eview_v1_m56577569830810513.pdf
Schiphol Group (2007a) Ruimtelijk Ontwikkelingsplan Schiphol 2015, Schiphol
Group. [Online]
http://www.schiphol.nl/media/portal/_schiphol_regio/pdf/pdf_files/SchipholRO
P20152_v1_m56577569830810932.pdf
Schiphol Group (2007b) Lange termijn visie op de ontwikkeling van de
mainport Schiphol: Een wereldwijd netwerk voor een concurrerende randstad,
Schiphol Group. [Online]
http://www.schiphol.nl/media/portal/_schiphol_regio/pdf/pdf_files/Langetermijn
visieSchiphol_v1_m56577569830813422.pdf
Al-Sharif, L. (1996) Escalator handling capacity, Elevator World, December,
134-137.
Burghouwt, G. and De Wit, J. (2005) Temporal configurations of European
airline networks, Journal of Air Transport Management, 11 (3), 185-198.
CEN (1998) NEN-EN 115:1998. Safety rules for the construction and
installation of escalators and passenger conveyors (includes amendment A1:
1998), Comité Européen de Normalisation, Brussels.
Cote, A. and Gempp, A. (1997) The high-speed passenger conveyor—
Reflections on comfort, Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on
Automated People Movers, Las Vegas.
Davis, D. and Braaksma, J. (1987) Level-of-Service standards for platooning
pedestrians in transportation terminals, ITE Journal, April, 31-35.
Gonzalez-Alemany, M. A. and Cuello, M. A. (2003) Accelerating walkway,
ThyssenKrupp Techforum, English ed., July, 52-55.
Hafizogullari, S., Chinnusamy, P. and Tunasar, C. (2002) Simulation reduces
airline misconnections: A case study, Proceedings of the 2002 Winter
Simulation Conference, San Diego.
IATA (2004) Airport Development Reference Manual, 9th Ed., International Air
Transport Association, Montreal, Quebec.
Kusumaningtyas, I. and Lodewijks, G. (manuscript in submission)
Accelerating Moving Walkway: A review of the characteristics and potential
application.
© Association for European Transport and contributors 2007
12
Leder, W. H. (1991) Review of four alternative airport terminal passenger
mobility systems, Transportation Research Record, 1308, 134-141.
Little, D. D. (2007) Airport airside conveyance—Technology assessments,
Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Automated People
Movers, Vienna.
Loder, J. (1998) The in-line accelerating moving walkway, Elevator World,
September, 94-97.
Rietveld, P. and Brons, M. (2001) Quality of hub-and-spoke networks; The
effects of timetable co-ordination on waiting time and rescheduling time,
Journal of Air Transport Management, 7 (4), 241-249.
Saeki, H. (1996) Mitsubishi Speedwalk: Development of accelerating moving
walk, Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Automated People
Movers, Paris.
Veldhuis, J. (1997) The competitive position of airline networks, Journal of
Air Transport Management, 3 (4), 181-188.
© Association for European Transport and contributors 2007
13