<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="https://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Transport Research International Documentation (TRID)</title>
    <link>https://trid.trb.org/</link>
    <atom:link href="https://trid.trb.org/Record/RSS?s=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" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <description></description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <copyright>Copyright © 2026. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.</copyright>
    <docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
    <managingEditor>tris-trb@nas.edu (Bill McLeod)</managingEditor>
    <webMaster>tris-trb@nas.edu (Bill McLeod)</webMaster>
    
    <item>
      <title>An Inventory of Research Needs</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/2274340</link>
      <description><![CDATA[A primary goal of the Conference on Airport Landside Capacity was to identify research needs. The statements that were submitted by conference participants have been reviewed, combined to eliminate overlap, and grouped under subject categories. The subject categories and titles of the 65 research statements presented here are listed in a table. The categories are arranged alphabetically, and the project statements are numbered sequentially. The numbers or the order of listing does not in any way indicate priority. The statements reflect the feeling that one or several participants had that research deficiencies existed and could be eliminated by the research recommended. Because there was not general agreement either within individual workshops or among them on many of these issues, resolving the conflicting views and assigning priorities within the time constraints of the conference were not feasible. The statements, then, represent an inventory of research needs from which a research program with appropriate priorities can be developed.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 28 Oct 2023 16:44:35 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/2274340</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>PROVIDING AIRPORT LANDSIDE CAPACITY</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/37019</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The capacity of the airport landside (which is the entire airport except runways, taxiways, and parking aprons) generally has not been determined by any set of criteria. Acceptable criteria have had reasonable use in determining capacity requirements for that portion of landside that comprises passenger terminal, cargo terminal, on-airport roadway systems, and automobile parking.  Among factors that have contributed to unsatisfactory landside capacity conditions are (a) lack of appropriate business and economic factors; (b) failure to consider landside as a whole and to establish priority of use for available land; (c) unreliability of forecasting; (d) absence of economic justification and cost parameters that result in burdensome costs and do not correlate useful life and investment amortization; (e) escalation of "gamesmanship" and acrimony between airport managements and airline representatives; and (f) lack of nontechnical criteria sufficiently comprehensive to provide coverage of pertinent areas of consideration, including geographical location priorities, economic justifications, effective costing, reasonable forecasting, fixing of responsibilities, and management objectives. /Author/]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 May 1981 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/37019</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>PLANNING, DESIGNING, AND CONSTRUCTING AIRPORTS IN MEXICO</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/37012</link>
      <description><![CDATA[In the design and planning of airports, Mexico gives primary consideration to the maintenance and operating costs of the proposed facility.  The airport is considered an assembly of systems, with the total capacity being not the sum of the individual capacities, but the capacity of that system that has the least capacity.  The five systems of the airport, each of which affects capacity, are the air space, the taxiways and aeronautical portion of the apron, the terminal complex formed by the airside and landside of the apron, the access road, and the installation (facilities, mechanical installation, baggage delivery belts).  It has been the goal in Mexico to coordinate these systems in such a manner that they can grow separately, depending on demand.  So far this appears to be accomplishing Mexico's objectives in regard to meeting airside and landside capacity.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 May 1981 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/37012</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>REGULATORY CONSTRAINTS AND IMPACTS ON AIRPORT LANDSIDE CAPACITY</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/37023</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The regulatory authorities and their regulatory power are enumerated.  The extent to which the regulatory powers directly or indirectly impact on airport landside capacity is then identified and investigated.  The role of environmental legislation in an expansion or new airport context is shown to be quite important.  Likewise, the lack of the control of the Civil Aeronautics Board over scheduling and equipment deployment is shown to be a major influence on airport landside capacity.  Few of the impacts are shown to be direct.  A host of indirect impacts of varying degrees of intensity exist.  The paper suggests that a systems analysis of the benefits and costs of the regulations be undertaken. /Author/]]></description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 05 Jun 1976 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/37023</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>INFLUENCE OF AIRSIDE AND OFF-AIRPORT FACTORS ON LANDSIDE CAPACITY</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/37024</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This report identifies the objectives of Workshop 4, which are as follows: (1) identify all airside and off-airport factors that influence landside requirements; (2) determine the relative importance of such factors with respect to airport landside capacity and level-of-service objectives; and (3) recommend a research and development program that will promote coordination of airside, landside, and off-airport activities.  Workshop 4 identified 13 airside factors and 5 off-airport factors that influence airport landside capacity.  The research and development recommendations of Workshop 4 are oriented toward socioeconomic research and compilations of the state of the art.  The airside and off-airport factors influencing capacity are broadly categorized as technical or nontechnical.  The recommendations to relieve constraints on balancing and expanding airport landside capacity pertain to the nontechnical areas, such as the management of transport systems, their financing, and the review of their environmental impact.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 05 Jun 1976 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/37024</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>AIRPORT AIRSIDE AND LANDSIDE INTERACTION</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/37025</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This paper explores and examines some of the principal interactions between 2 elements of the airport - the airside and the landside - and how physical and operational improvements to each element are assessed in the context of the interaction.  A brief description of the airside and landside elements is presented, and the most important factors affecting the interaction between the elements are outlined.  In addition, recent advancements in the state of the art in determining airside capacity and delays are summarized.  The principal influences of the landside on airside activities and development are limited to the apron- gate area component of the airside and are capable of being accommodated without serious conflict with other airport developments.  By comparison, the principal influences of the airside on landside activities stem primarily from the fixed-point servicing requirement of airline aircraft, which occurs on the apron-gate area component of the airside.  The extent of these influences is largely dependent on the degree of separation of the 3 basic operational areas of the landside: the aircraft-passenger processing area, the passenger collection point, and the access interface area.  At most airports, these 3 operational areas are contiguous, and the influence of the airside on the landside, therefore, is substantial. Finally, the requirement, desirability, and practicality of balancing the airside and landside in various ways are addressed. /Author/]]></description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 05 Jun 1976 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/37025</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>AIRPORT LANDSIDE AND OFF-AIRPORT INTERACTION</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/37026</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Traditionally, airport planning efforts have been directed toward developing operational and economic efficiency within the airport landside and airside.  Recently, these efforts have recognized the importance of maintaining equilibrium between the airside and the landside.  This paper expands the scope of airport planning by focusing attention on off-airport activities that interact with the airport landside.  The material presented assesses the relations between landside functions and off-airport activities.  The activities relevant to the landside and off-airport interaction are identified, and the demand for and supply of off-airport activities are reviewed with emphasis on consumption and production.  Findings and recommendations for alternative approaches for balancing the airport landside and off-airport capabilities are presented. /Author/]]></description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 05 Jun 1976 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/37026</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>AIRSIDE AND OFF-AIRPORT FACTORS AND LANDSIDE CAPACITY</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/37027</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The California Department of Transportation is developing a multimodal transportation plan that includes airports.  The 3 basic air and ground interface components-airside, landside, and off-airport - incorporate different jurisdictional, operations, and financial constraints.  An understanding of these is critical if they are to be coordinated into an overall transportation plan.  This paper discusses some of the implications of these and how California is working to address related issues. /Author/]]></description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 05 Jun 1976 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/37027</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>ALTERNATIVE METHODS FOR PROVIDING LANDSIDE CAPACITY AT EXISTING SITES</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/37028</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This report identifies the objective of Workshop 5, which are as follows: (1) identify and describe the functional types of airports and their capacity problem characteristics; (2) identify methods for increasing landside capacity through physical, technological, and operational means and describe known and potential effectiveness of each; (3) develop tentative priorities for which methods of increasing landside capacity are most worthwhile for specific functional types of airports; and (4) recommend researchand development that includes program priorities for increasing landside capacity for the following categories - (a) resolution of areas of uncertainty regarding suitability, performance, quality of service and cost of available physical, technological, and operational methods to facilitate their implementation (i.e., analyses, demonstrations), and (b) development of new technology and managerial techniques applicable to specific to specific capacity problem characteristics.  Workshop 5 had as its primary focus the determination of availabe and potential technological, operation-procedural, and institutional-regulatory methods for providing additional landside capacity at existing airports in the U.S.  The Workshop developed approximately 20 research and development statements elaborating on specific ares of consern within the landside where it was apparent that there was a void in existing documentation of the nature and extent of the problems, previous successes and failures in solving those problems, and methodologies, specific actions, events, or devices that might be used to overcome the identifiable capacity constraints at existing airport facilities.  The Workshop dealt only with passenger-related facilities on the airport landside; no attempt was made to address landside problems associated with cargo, service, or other air-related public use facilities.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 05 Jun 1976 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/37028</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>DESIGNING THE AIRPORT TERMINAL</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/37030</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The purpose of this paper is to provide the conceptual and analytical framework for determining the best alternatives for providing landside capacity at airports.  The basic premise is that many current problems at airports are due to the unfortunate tendency of airport planners to impose a single design concept on the entire terminal area. Centralized terminals are easier for transferring passengers, gate-arrival terminals are better for short-haul commuters, transporter designs are more economical for peaks of traffic, and so on.  To determine the best design, we must examine the variations in the traffic.  Since the major differences among the alternative design concepts lie in their ability to handle transfers and to deal with peaks of traffic, we should concentrate on determining the percentage of transfers and the variations in the level of traffic.  Based on this point of view, the paper summarizes the major distinctions in airport traffic in the United States and around the world.  The paper next examines the major questions concerning the fundamental nature of the terminal facilities at an airport.  Should the facilities be centralized in a single major complex or decentralized into separate terminals or gates as with the gate-arrival concept.  Should transporters be used almost exclusively, partially, or not at all.  To what extent should the facilities be shared by different airlines?  For each question, we develop a simple analytic model to explore the principal issues and trade-offs and to indicate the general circumstances for which each of the major alternative design concepts is most appropriate.  The results of these analyses generally indicate which combinations of design concepts should be chosen for airports with different mixes of traffic.  The results also suggest an analytical procedure we can use to determine in detail the kind of design that is preferable for a particular site. /Author/]]></description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 05 Jun 1976 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/37030</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>METHODS TO INCREASE LANDSIDE CAPACITY AT EXISTING AIRPORTS</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/37031</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Significant increases in terminal use can be obtained by avoiding sharp peaks during certain hours of the day and by adopting various changes in operating procedure.  Among the solutions mentioned are charging aircraft parking from parallel to nose in, using remote aircraft parking, using transporters, combining hold rooms, and automating ticketing and baggage handling.  It should be recognized, however, that an airport fulfills a complex series of functions and what we cannot increase the capacity of one system without taking into account its effects on other subsystems farther along the line.  Therefore, an accurate knowledge of a station's ability to handle present-day traffic at acceptable levels of service is a prerequisite for any successful expansion program. /Author/]]></description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 05 Jun 1976 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/37031</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>IDENTIFICATION OF LEVELS OF SERVICE AND CAPACITY OF AIRPORT LANDSIDE ELEMENTS</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/37013</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This report identifies the objectives of Workshop 1, which are as follows: (1) identify the dimensions of service relevant for expressing and assessing the level of airport landside operations; (2) suggest level-of-service criteria for various users of airport landside capacity under the full range of congestion conditions; (3) for various airport development plans and strategies, determine the levels of service required to meet the needs of all airport users; and (4) recommend a research and development program that will be useful in determining acceptable levels of service for all users of airport landside systems and subsystems. Workshop 1 discussions led to the conclusion that many elements, including passengers, baggage, visitiors, employees, freight, and services, have a direct impact on airport landside capacity and levels of service and are in competition for space and services.  However, the passenger is the most important of these elements, and all improvements should evolve around the passenger's needs for space and service.  The following definition of capacity was suggested by the workshop participants: Capacity is the physical provision required for a given demand at a given at a specified level of service.  The landside thus includes all the intra-airport access roads and ramps, internal distribution systems, parking facilities, curbside loading and unloading, terminal buildings, and that part of the apron around the plane used to service the passengers.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 14 May 1976 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/37013</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>IDENTIFICATION AND MEASUREMENT OF CAPACITY AND LEVELS OF SERVICE OF LANDSIDE ELEMENTS OF THE AIRPORT</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/37014</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Since the mid-1960s, air travelers have faced increasing inconvenience, frustration, and delays in the landside portion of their air trips.  Ever-increasing numbers of passengers and the continuing introduction of higher capacity aircraft have created bottlemecks and congestion throughout the landside environment at peak hours and have placed tremendous strains on terminal facilities.  Comfort and convenience of passengers in the airport landside are directly related to the capacity and the levels of service provided.  Although airport congestion is fully apparent to operators of major airports and to their users, the concepts of capacity and level of service as they relate to the landside have yet to be fully understood.  The concept of level of service is particularly difficult to understand, for it relates to quality, and quality, by definition, is subjective.  This paper first discusses briefly the background of air transportation development and its effect on the airport landside environment today and then describes the basic functions and facilities of the landside.  It then defines capacity and level of service within the context of the airport landside and examines the problems connected with developing meaningful measures of level of service.  Existing landside planning criteria that have evolved during the years are reviewed, and possible measures of capacity and level of service for landside facilities are outlined. /Author/]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 14 May 1976 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/37014</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>SIMULATION METHODS FOR AIRPORT FACILITIES</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/37015</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The most realistic method of quantitatively approaching airport landside traffic problems appears to be computer simulation of airport landside traffic flows.  This paper describes how the simulation of the landside portion of an airport complex can be used to represent or model the airport landside system to accurately determine the flow and holding capacity and the associated delays of the airport landside.  A review of existing computer simulation models indicates that the Bechtel and TAMS models are most suitable for this purpose.  They can produce the required distributions of delay, queue lengths, and occupancies for the boundaries specified.  The major adaptation that would appear necessary to complete the landside analysis capability would be including a model of the curbside as a server of finite capacity rater than representing the time spent at curbside as a dwell time.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 14 May 1976 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/37015</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>PROVIDING AND MANAGING AIRPORT LANDSIDE CAPACITY</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/37017</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This report identifies the objectives of Workshop 2, which are as follows: (1) examine the criteria that have been used for determining whether new landside capacity is required and consider whether they are sufficient to support judgments concerning physical, institutional, financial, and timing needs; (2) determine whether additional or changed criteria can be developed to improve the judgmental process and recommend areas for research and development; (3) consider the methods that can be used to provide and support new landside capacity when improved use of existing facilities will not suffice; (4) examine the role of airport management in achieving the required levels of landside capacity in the most cost-effective manner; (5) recommend management in the performance of its role; and (6) recommend research and development programs that will be useful to airport management confronted with problems of landside capacity.  Workshop 2 tried to evaluate the usefulness of various criteria to providing new or additional landside capacity.  Participants viewed these problems as airport management tends to see them.  The major conclusions of the workshop were that purely technical criteria have been overemphasized and that increased emphasis must be given to economic guidelines, particularly since reliable long-term air traffic forecasts do not exist.  It was recommended that landside development costs should be developed for a range of possible forecast values so that planners and decision makers can weigh the alternate costs associated with each level of projected demand before making final dicisions.  Such a practice would provide an indication of the cost of error in overestimating or underestimating and would help to ensure that the courses of least versus highest risk are given economic visibility.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 14 May 1976 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/37017</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>