Underground terminal buildings?
 

I was involved in a recent discussion which included the idea that passenger terminals could be built undergound with some sort of retractable escalator to take the passengers up/down to/from the aircraft.

The thoughts were that with aircraft parking on the roof they would never need to be pushed back and could probably be parked much closer together than they are now.

Hmmmm...... I guess someone tried it somewhere?

In theory, yes. But no natural light, like a bunker? I don't think it'd go favorable with passengers.

Would the additional cost of building the terminal substantially under ground rather than above ground outweigh the benefits of a need for a smaller area of land ? Perhaps something more suited to an airport very close to a city centre where land prices are particularly high ?

In addition, how would the general passengers react ?

JSCL, they seem to adapted to no natural light in tube/underground/metro stations so I dont think that would be a killer.

But tubes are quick trips, sitting inside a bunker with the kids on a family holiday for 2-4 hours?

It'd need to be strong, planes parking about you? It's a nice idea, but I doubt it's practicality.

Underground places do not need to feel like a concrete bunker - there are ample examples of underground shopping malls where the front-of-house areas look very presentable

davidjohnson6, the discussion concluded it would save a lot of land, not only the area usually occupied by the terminal building but also a lot saved in apron and manouvring space.

Besides, think of all the spare dirt they would have to dump in the harbour to 'make' even more land!:8

It sounds very expensive to me, think of the engineering required to support the weight of aircraft driving over the top of the terminal, also the safety issues (leaks of fuel, oil, sewage etc.) and the potential for a fire right above the terminal.

It's a novel solution to a problem which I didn't even know existed! But I think it would be cheaper and more aesthetically pleasing if, in stead, the gates were raised creating more of a "drive through" scenario.

JSCL, crikey, you make it sound almost as bad as the flight!

WW, a drive through terminal building? Not such a silly idea at all, they could have passenger facilities above the aircraft and refueling, freight, baggage handling, sanitation etc below the aircraft.

Relative to the level of the ramp, the airside spaces of PIK are basically below ground level (built that way to avoid the jet blast of early jets). There are still a few open air courtyard spaces with neglected plants in them, but they're no longer accessible to passengers. Otherwise it's a pretty dingy place - natural light through a few skylights help, but not being able to see outside is psychologically not good for any building occupant. There was, for example, some compelling research done (IIRC) at the University of Sheffield about ten years ago that proved to the NHS that patients get better quicker (and therefore occupy hospital beds for less time) if they have a view out of the building. Ideally that view should be out onto a street, car pack, service yard - anything that lets them see the day to day routines of life passing by.

A good proportion of Dubai Terminal 3 (and 1) is underground linking the entrance to the overground structure with the airbidges. It allows for the overground section of the terminal building to have airbridgs on both sides.

Interesting idea. After all the average departure lounge these days might as well be in a bunker. Shops and other concessions take up every inch of wall space, and windows don't earn any cash!

I wonder if there might be a safety problem though, if an aircraft 'upstairs' had a fuel leak and/or fire then things might get interesting for the pax waiting below.

This is a feature elsewhere. Los Angeles Architects Pereira & Associates came up with it for LAX in 1960, although much has been rebuilt since. St Petersburg, Russia, domestic terminal is the same.

Underground structures however are challenging (ie expensive) for the architecture. Liability to flooding from groundwater/heavy rain, and needing extensive measures to overcome this, is one. Fire escape measures is another. Ability to change/link to other structures as requirements vary (and we all know how airports can be permanent construction sites) is a third. It's bad enough for underground city railways.

Afraid the Disability Access regulations make this one a non-starter nowadays.

I asked if it had been tried anywhere but most of the responses seem to be arguing against it.......:hmm:

Regarding the engineering challenges I very much suspect that building an underground structure strong enough to support aircraft would seem trivial compared to supporting a 30 storey office tower!:rolleyes:

And as Gavin C explained the New Terminal at DXB is mostly under apron and taxiway.

Lots of the admin areas, the inbound immigration and baggage reclaim area and check in /outbound security are all underground - under the taxiways and associated aprons. All the public areas are very well lit and appointed as you would expect but of course you don't have to spend too much time in these areas before going into the pier for departures or the city for arrivals.

I read the question as being all the terminal underground, there are many airports with terminals partly underground.

I suppose my question was not really clear enough, the real question is, are there any airports designed with underground terminal and facilities such that aircraft do not have to be pushed back from the gates? Something like, turn off arrivals taxiway into gate, reload, refuel then continue forwards onto departure taxiway...:hmm:

Excluding those airports that operate by bussing passengers out to the planes.

Not underground, but overground. Hobart airport in Tazmania doesn't do any push backs, just turn forwards and they park on an angle right next to the building or they park on an angle where they can taxi straight forward, one big building, not separate areas as such.

London City is another significant point where pushback tractors are not used but aircraft perform a tight 135 degree turn in front of the gate. It was part of the original airport concept, to provide rapid turnrounds. It does mean pax crossing the ramp in the open, which seems to dismay some, especially from the US.

Nothing underground needed though. A couple of generations ago many terminals were done this way.

John Hill, thanks for starting an interesting thread.

As someone who trained in architecture before my current foray in the transport game, I have often wanted to start a thread on airport design!

To the best of my knowledge, there are no manuals out there on 'how to design an airport' - so reference materials are based on pretty pictures of existing airports. There are a small number of firms who are experts in the field - but relative to other kinds of infrastructure, airports are a pretty niche endeavour.

My thinking was actually the opposite to what you have suggested - considering that land is at a premium - especially in blighty - could terminals be built above the apron? Essentially, you would have a multi-story structure above the main body of the aircraft, supported by columns at the end of the wingspan. My guess was that this wouldn't be acceptable because of the fire risk.

I think that an under-apron terminal would be technically feasible, but the costs would be high. New techniques with glass are being developed all the time - so some form of rooflight punctured through the concrete should be possible. I just think that the need to climb up through the floor and then up again to reach the aircraft (or a third time to board the nice bits of the A380) would add a lot of complexity relative to the convenience savings you mention.

Apart from using buses or just stairs at Ryanairports, you could avoid the push-back requirement by using mobile jetways. These could even have a 'divider' to process pax before boarding - but they are still messy and inflexible if you have one or two stragglers - hence not many airports use them.

Oh well, it was sort of interesting and I am somewhat suprised to hear that there are apparently no underground terminal buildings.

I thought though that in one of my several experiences in the ranks of SLF I transitted between two gates at an airport in Washington where we walked underground, but the details are rather hazy which is hardly suprising as I would have been about 20 hours into my trip by then.:confused:

Meanwhile, I will go on dreaming of my airport design, parallel runways with a row of 'angle parked' airliners between the runways. :8

Think out of the BOX
 

Put the terminal above ground, and the runway below ground.

QED.

or perhaps just wait for DXB to start sinking, as most of the big structures in Dubai are doing.

Good idea Gulfstreamaviator but hardly original as I believe the North Koreans have a few underground runways!

Daily NK - North Korea Constructs "Underground Runway"

JH,

you are talking about IAD (Dulles), which does indeed have an underground passage connecting the main terminal (the second finest in the US imho) to the outer piers. They also had mobile lounges, but only to connect pax between the concourses - afaik they have gone now.

I don't really see how the undeground spaces can register anything like as well as Saarinen's roof on the terminal itself!

Most airport terminals were built with legacy carriers in mind - and they have always preferred parking at a 'proper' gate with a jetway (air bridge). I don't think this model is compatible with the kind of turnaround you envisage, and also how much time / labour are we really saving? Pushback takes - 90 seconds?

At a low cost facility, I am with you - but I think the few that have been built have still used the standard jetway model, just without the jetways - so often using a single storey ground level terminal.

The problem is that an underground terminal would be hugely expensive, and that cost would outweigh the advantages in turnaround time. As for parallel runways, I have always felt that multiple runways, unless already there, are not compatible with the lo-cost model, given their huge cost to build and the likely need for extensive taxiing.

GLF,

On a similar note, I did see a proposal for two parallel runways, each sloping at opposite angles, the logic being that a downhill take off and an uphill landing would save on fuel.

Terminals at larger airports are multi-storey buildings with numerous levels separating arrivals, departures, administration etc. So it would require a lot of digging.

Some useful guidelines here

http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/m...70_6b_chg1.pdf

http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/m...50_5300_13.pdf

Still gives plenty of scope for innovative ideas

See also ICAO Doc 9184

Individual countries may also have their own requirements

Thanks JABIRD, I never knew I had ever been to Dulles but I do not doubt it as that was one marathon weather disrupted trip that took me 46 hours, without 'stopping' to reach my destination in Europe.

I know of a few quite steeply sloped runways which, due to terrain, are only useable uphill landing and downhill take off. But maybe that is not really what was being suggested.

Virginblue, yes a lot of digging.

Ha ha, we could 'refine' the principle somewhat and use spoil excavated for the terminal building to ramp the runways!:)

Still thinking on this one.....

The original concept had the aircraft operating in a clear space with no need for push backs etc but this does not appear to be an issue.

So........ if the gates were arranged so that the aircraft nosed in towards a central point they would be much closer together there being no terminal building in between.

The advantage of this would be the floor space of the underground terminal building would be much smaller and passengers and crew would have much shorter distances to walk to, from and between gates. Unfortunately that is probably the least likely thing to influence airport designers.

Suzeman,

Thanks for the link. Doubtless the CAA will have something too, but the frequency of new airport design is still close to zero. Within the UK in the last 30 years, we've had - just LCY really? (DSA was a new terminal on a previous military field).

JH,

Actually, this will depend on their brief. LCY was very much designed for minimum walking, and I'm sure plenty of contributors here will attest to door open to surface transport times (with luggage) of less than 5 minutes.

Regional airports want to strike the balance right - they play on being more user friendly than the big hubs, but they are making much less per pax than LCY, so they want to boost spending by shoving people into shops.

They also don't 'want' to have people arrive by bus, as they make no money from this. The real easy money is in a surface car park.

However, local authorities may then insist on a Section 106 agreement as part of any expansion plan, which dictates that a certain percentage of passengers must arrive by public transport.

There's Sheffield as well - almost closed now, new terminal building converted to offices, but just about hanging on as the local police chopper base.

this design idea could actually help the bombay airport (VABB, BOM). they could take all the terminals underground and finally have a parallel runway, or maybe add a 4th runway. i dont think they are doing it but if any airport needs it, bombay should be number 1.

I wonder if any of these designs consider boarding from multiple doors. That often seems a bottleneck.

Also, for ease of pushback you don't need the full terminal underground. Just the close-t-jetway sections.