Appendix - G - BHS AEROPUERTO DE SAN FRANCISCO

Appendix G
Baggage Handling System Study

BAGGAGE HANDLING SYSTEM STUDY G
TABLE OF CONTENTS EXHIBITS TABLES
G.1 Inventory.................................................................................... 1 Exhibit G.1-1 | Baggage Screening Process ............................................. 2 Table G.1-1 | Overview of Terminals and Boarding Areas ..................... 2
Exhibit G.1-2 | CTX Explosives Detection System ................................... 3 Table G.1-2 | Terminal 1 Baggage Handling Systems Inventory .......... 5
G.2 Facility Requirements and Design Basis .............................14
Exhibit G.1-3 | SFO Overall Existing Baggage Handling System Table G.1-3 | Terminal 2 Baggage Handling Systems Inventory .......... 7
Locations ............................................................................. 4
G.3 Alternative Analysis ...............................................................27 Table G.1-4 | Terminal 3 Baggage Handling Systems Inventory .......... 9
Exhibit G.1-4 | Terminal 1 Baggage Handling System ........................... 5
G.3.1 Project Drivers .............................................................................. 27 Table G.1-5 | International Terminal Building Boarding Areas
Exhibit G.1-5 | Terminal 2 Baggage Handling System ........................... 7 A and G – Existing Baggage Handling System
G.3.2 Common Themes Among Alternatives .................................... 30
Operational Capacities ...................................................... 14
Exhibit G.1-6 | Terminal 3 Baggage Handling System ........................... 9
G.3.3 Evaluation ..................................................................................... 35
Table G.2-1 | Bags per Passenger Rates .................................................. 16
Exhibit G.1-7 | Terminal 3 Boarding Areas E and F (Basement) .......... 10
G.3.4 Alternatives ................................................................................... 36
Table G.2-2 | Screening Alarm Parameters – CTX-9800 Machines ..... 17
Exhibit G.1-8 | Terminal 3 Boarding Area E Basement Checked
G.3.5 Alternatives Evaluation ............................................................... 48
Baggage Inspection System and Sortation .................. 11 Table G.2-3 | Baggage Handling System Outbound Baggage
G.3.6 Lot DD Parking Garages and Rental Car Center Baggage Make-up Periods ................................................................. 19
Exhibit G.1-9 | International Terminal Building Boarding Area A
Input Options ............................................................................... 49
Baggage Handling System ............................................. 12 Table G.2-4 | Baggage Claim Utilization Rate per Aircraft Type ......... 20
Exhibit G.1-10 | International Terminal Building Boarding Area G Table G.2-5 | Baggage Claim Utilization Rate ........................................ 21
Baggage Handling System ............................................. 13
Table G.2-6 | Airline Terminal/ Boarding Area Allocations .................. 22
Exhibit G.2-1 | Passenger Check-in Profile ............................................. 16
Table G.2-7 | Airline IATA Codes .............................................................. 23
Exhibit G.2-2 | Transfer Dwell Curve ....................................................... 19
Table G.2-8 | Boarding Area A Facility Requirements .......................... 23
Exhibit G.2-3 | Passenger Recheck Lateness Distribution ................... 21
Table G.2-9 | Boarding Area B and C Facility Requirements................ 24
Exhibit G.3-1 | Functional Diagram of Connectivity Between
Table G.2-10 | Boarding Area D Facility Requirements ........................ 24
Different BHSs .................................................................. 29
Table G.2-11 | Boarding Area D (United Airlines Only) Facility
Exhibit G.3-2 | BHS Backbone Schematic ............................................... 32
Requirements ................................................................... 25
Exhibit G.3-3 | BHS Backbone Dimensions ............................................. 32
Table G.2-12 | Boarding Area E/F Facility Requirements ..................... 25
Exhibit G.3-4 | Conventional and ICS Conveyors .................................. 33
Table G.2-13 | Boarding Area G Facility Requirements ........................ 26
Exhibit G.3-5 | Backbone Transport Times ............................................. 34
Table G.2-14 | Boarding Area H Facility Requirements ........................ 26
Exhibit G.3-6 | Option 1: Automated Solution ....................................... 49
Table G.3-1 | Typical System Life Expectancy ........................................ 28
Exhibit G.3-7 | Option 2: Airside Manual Transport to Terminal Area
Table G.3-2 | System Age and Expected End of Life Dates .................. 28
CBIS .................................................................................... 50
Table G.3-3 | Evaluation Criteria Weighing ............................................ 36
Exhibit G.3-8 | Option 3: Screening at the Rental Car Center and
Airside Manual Transport to Terminal Baggage
Make-up Areas ................................................................. 51
Exhibit G.3-9 | Option 4: Use Industrial Bag Drops in the
International Terminal Building ..................................... 52
AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT PLAN – DRAFT FINAL Baggage Handling System Study | G - i

SFO Airport Development Plan Baggage Handling System Study SFO Airport Development Plan Baggage Handling System Study
Table G.1-1 lists the airlines operating at each terminal and boarding area and the year of construction or
Appendix G the last major renovation for each boarding area. Exhibit G.1-1 shows a diagrammatic view of the
outbound baggage screening process.
Baggage Handling System Study
Table G.1-1 | Overview of Terminals and Boarding Areas
G.1 Inventory
Terminal B/A Year Gates Airlines
The existing conditions of the baggage handling systems (BHS) at SFO were examined to determine future A 2000 12 Non-Star Alliance, Star Alliance overflow, domestic overflow
International
BHS needs at the Airport. These systems support the movement, screening, and sortation of inbound and G 2000 12 United Airlines, Star Alliance
outbound checked baggage within the landside, terminal, and apron areas of the Airport. B 1985 9 Frontier Airlines, Southwest Airlines
1
C 1987 10 Delta Air Lines, US Airways (American Airlines)
In general, the baggage handling systems include: 2 D 2011 14 American Airlines, Virgin America
• Outbound (Departing) Baggage Systems 3
E 2014 10 United Airlines
F 1979 21 United Airlines
o Baggage conveyors from passenger check-in facilities
Note: B/A = Boarding Area
o Transfer baggage input conveyors to transport bags from one flight to another Sources: SFO Bureau of Planning and Environmental Affairs; Landrum & Brown, Inc., September 2015
o Input conveyors for arriving international passengers transferring to connecting flights

Exhibit G.1-1 | Baggage Screening Process
o Security screening areas (checked baggage inspection systems or “CBIS”)
o Conveyors that sort baggage to airlines or flights within an airline
o Baggage equipment (conveyors and carousels) for placing bags onto carts or unit load devices
(ULD) used for transporting and loading baggage onto an aircraft
• Inbound (Arriving) Baggage Systems
o Baggage input conveyors delivering baggage to the baggage claim area
o Baggage transport conveyors
o Baggage carousels
Sources: Transportation Security Administration, Planning Guidelines and Design Standards (PGDS); BNP Associates, October 2015
Currently, each terminal operates on one or more independent baggage handling systems, each with a
number of subsystems. Only the Terminal 3 and Boarding Area G systems are interconnected. All baggage
handling systems include an automated explosives detection system (EDS) supplied by Safran/Morpho.
The systems employee CTX-9000, CTX-9400, and CTX-9800 screening devices, which vary in age and
capacity, with the CTX-9800 being the latest and fastest and the CTX-9000 being the oldest and slowest.
Exhibit G.1-2 shows an example of a CTX EDS.
Draft Final: September 2016 Appendix G | Page 1 Draft Final: September 2016 Appendix G | Page 2
Exhibit G.1-2 | CTX Explosives Detection System Exhibit G.1-3 | SFO Overall Existing Baggage Handling System Locations
Sources: SFO Site Visit by BNP, April 2015; BNP Associates, October 2015
While most baggage screened through these systems is automatically cleared, some bags require viewing
by a Transportation Security Administration (TSA) operator through an on-screen resolution (OSR)
Sources: SFO Bureau of Planning and Environmental Affairs, SFO Airport Layout Plan, 2014; SFO Site Visit by BNP, October 2014;
process. This process is conducted in a centralized location and supports all of the terminals at SFO. BNP Associates, October 2015
In cases where baggage viewed through the OSR process cannot be resolved, the baggage is sent to a Terminal 1 Boarding Areas B and C
checked baggage resolution area (CBRA) for resolutions where TSA staff screen the bag manually.
These CBRAs are generally located adjacent to the EDSs. The existing Terminal 1 outbound BHS consists of independent systems installed or operated by individual
airlines, including Alaska Airlines, Delta Air Lines, Frontier Airlines, Southwest Airlines, and US Airways.1
Inbound baggage is removed from an aircraft’s cargo hold and driven by tug to a baggage input point for These systems, for the most part, are owned by the respective airlines. After the terrorist attacks in
presentation on a baggage claim carousel. Each terminal contains between four and 14 claim carousels. September 2001, the systems were modified by Airport management to provide for automated screening
The size of each carousel varies based on the type of aircraft it is designed to serve. to meet the requirements for 100 percent screening of checked baggage by December 31, 2002.2
The outbound baggage systems in Terminal 1 will not provide reliable service for more than a few years
Exhibit G.1-3 illustrates the existing BHS layout within the terminal core area.
as their components and controls are out of date.
The inbound baggage systems in Terminal 1 are equally deficient and will require incremental upgrades
in various operating areas as part of the Interim B/A B project between now and 2019, when the
permanent Terminal 1 system is scheduled to be complete.
Exhibit G.1-4 shows an overview of the Terminal 1 BHS at B/As B and C and the airline users as of fall 2015.
1 Following its merger with American Airlines, US Airways vacated its T1 BHS in October 2015. For this analysis, the system is still
described as the US Airways system.
2 Public Law 107-71, Aviation and Transportation Security Act, 107th Congress, November 19, 2001.
Table G.1-2 presents the inventory of key elements of the existing BHS in Terminal 1. The throughput of Terminal 2 Boarding Area D
each system is limited by its screening machines, as each CTX-9000 machine is capable of processing fewer
than 400 bags per hour. The Terminal 2 BHS was installed in 2009 and is used by American Airlines and Virgin America.
Exhibit G.1-4 | Terminal 1 Baggage Handling System
There are two check-in counter baggage conveyors and two curbside check-in baggage conveyors that
descend through the Arrivals Level ceiling into the bag room where they merge to form two main lines
that feed the CBIS area. Bags are tracked through the CBIS using automatic tag readers, which read the
International Air Transport Association (IATA) standard barcodes on the bag tags.
The CBRA has two input conveyors, two output conveyors, and two oversized conveyors for the delivery
and removal of baggage to and from the inspection locations.
Two transfer input conveyors are also available, one to route bags directly to the sortation system
(for domestic-to-domestic and domestic-to-international transfer bags that have already been screened)
and one to route international-to-domestic transfer bags to the CBIS.
The BHS and the baggage room are well maintained and clean. SFO staff responsible for this area
confirmed that the BHS is in good operating condition with no recent history of operational issues.
The system was designed to process originating baggage at a peak rate of 1,500 bags per hour.
Exhibit G.1-5 shows an overview of the existing Terminal 2 BHS. Table G.1-3 presents the inventory of key
elements of the existing BHS in Terminal 2.
BNP Associates, October 2015
Table G.1-2 | Terminal 1 Baggage Handling Systems Inventory

ITEM DELTA FRONTIER ALASKA US AIRWAYS SOUTHWEST
CBIS Screening Machines
3 1 1 4 2
(CTX-9000)
Baggage Cart Staging Varies by airline
Baggage Claim Units 14
Baggage Claim Frontage 2,086 linear feet
Note: CBIS = Checked Baggage Inspection System
Sources: SFO Site Visit by BNP, October 2014; BNP Associates, October 2015
Exhibit G.1-5 | Terminal 2 Baggage Handling System Terminal 3 Boarding Areas E and F
Terminal 3 has two independent CBIS and sortation systems: the B/A E basement system and the
B/A F apron system
In B/A F, which is the primary operating area for United Airlines, the system includes three CTX-9800 EDS
machines that feed a temporary CBRA installed outside the B/A F building. Five additional CTX-9000 EDS
machines route bags to the existing CBRA inside the B/A F space. All cleared bags are transported to the
existing B/A F sortation space west of the CBIS.
The B/A E basement CBIS consists of four CTX-9000 EDS screening machines located in the eastern
Terminal 3 basement. The B/A E basement system also has three baggage make-up carousels adjacent to
the CBIS.
The B/A E BHS was originally installed in 1980 and was not part of the TSA-sponsored Modernization
Program. The CBIS was installed in 2004 when American Airlines operated in B/A E. Since American Airlines
relocated to Terminal 2 in 2009, the B/A E CBIS was not used until United Airlines reactivated the system
in 2014. The B/A E CBIS consists of four CTX-9000 EDS machines.
Crossover subsystems that link the previously independent B/As E and F BHS have been installed to
provide United Airlines access to either CBIS in Terminal 3 and to allow bags to reach any make-up carousel
in B/A F or in the B/A E basement. The Terminal 3 BHS is also connected to International Terminal Building
(ITB) B/A G. Two conveyors for international-to-domestic recheck baggage connect from the ITB to
Terminal 3. One conveyor connects from Terminal 3 to the sortation system in B/A G to handle domestic-
to-international transfer baggage.
Exhibit G.1-6 shows an overview of the existing Terminal 3 BHS. Table G.1-4 presents the inventory of key
Sources: SFO Bureau of Planning and Environmental Affairs, SFO Airport Layout Plan, 2014; SFO Site Visit by BNP, October 2014; elements of the existing BHS in Terminal 3.
Table G.1-3 | Terminal 2 Baggage Handling System Inventory

ITEM QUANTITY
CBIS Screening Machines (CTX-9400) 4
Outbound Baggage Make-up Devices 6
Baggage Make-up Piers 0
Baggage Cart Staging Positions 80
Baggage Claim Units 4
Baggage Claim Frontage (linear feet) 828
Note: CBIS = Checked Baggage Inspection System
Exhibit G.1-6 | Terminal 3 Baggage Handling System The outbound CBIS screening area capacity is 2,925 bags per hour at B/A F; however, the overall capacity
of the outbound BHS for B/A F cannot be determined using simple calculations. It is a complex system
with bags crossing over from one area to another. Originating and international-to-domestic transfer bags
require screening prior to sorting while domestic-to-domestic and domestic-to-international transfer bags
bypass screening and proceed directly to sorting. The final sortation system has two main lines, each
theoretically rated at 50 bags per minute or 3,000 bags per hour. In operational practice, it is likely that
only 75 to 80 percent of this published rate can be achieved. The capacity of the outbound system at B/A F
could therefore be estimated at approximately 4,500 bags per hour, although this number is dependent
on the number of transfer bags entering the system that do not require screening. It is likely that this rate
cannot be achieved based on the current mix of bags requiring screening versus bags that do not require
screening. A simulation would be required to determine the actual capacity of the system under varying
flight schedules and transfer rates (a task that is beyond the scope of this ADP).
The outbound CBIS screening area capacity at B/A E is 987 bags per hour; however, like B/A F, the overall
capacity of the outbound BHS for B/A F cannot be determined using simple calculations. It is a complex
system with bags crossing over from one area to another. Based on the same assumptions as above, and
with a final sortation system that has two main lines, each theoretically rated at approximately 40 bags
per minute or 2,400 bags per hour, the capacity of the outbound BHS at B/A E could therefore be
estimated at approximately 3,600 bags per hour.
B/A E to B/A F crossover BHSs have been installed in the Terminal 3 basement. Bags can be checked in at
any Terminal 3 check-in area and are then directed to either the B/A E or B/A F CBIS. Similarly, bags cleared
by the B/A E or B/A F CBIS can be routed to either sortation system. Exhibit G.1-7 shows an overview of
the Terminal 3 East basement crossovers.
Exhibit G.1-7 | Terminal 3 Boarding Areas E and F (Basement)
Table G.1-4 | Terminal 3 Baggage Handling System Inventory

ITEM B/A E BASEMENT B/A F APRON
CTX 9000 4 5
CTX 9800 3
Outbound Baggage Make-up Devices 3 13
Baggage Make-up Piers 3 13
Baggage Cart Staging Positions 35 228
Baggage Claim Units1 10
Baggage Claim Frontage (linear feet) 1,420
Notes: CBIS = Checked Baggage Inspection System
1: Inbound claim unit unload conveyors are located in the Terminal 3 basement and the inbound claim units are
located in the Terminal 3 arrivals area. It is, therefore, not appropriate to delineate between B/A E and B/A F for
the inbound claim units.
Sources: BNP Associates, Crossover Design Drawings, 2013; BNP Associates, October 2015
Exhibit G.1-8 | Terminal 3 Boarding Area E Basement Checked Baggage Inspection System and Sortation Exhibit G.1-9 shows an overview of the B/A A baggage system. Exhibit G.1-10 shows an overview of the
B/A G baggage system. Table G.1-5 presents the inventory of key elements of the BHS in B/As A and G.
Exhibit G.1-9 | International Terminal Building Boarding Area A Baggage Handling System
B/A E CBIS LOCATION
Sources: BNP Associates, Crossover Design Drawings, 2013; BNP Associates, October 2015
International Terminal Building
The ITB has two boarding areas, B/A A and B/A G, which currently serve both domestic and international
flights. Each outbound BHS supports baggage screening, sortation, and make-up. Eight make-up carousels
are located adjacent to aircraft loading and offloading operations. Inbound operations require the
transport of baggage from the aircraft to areas closer to the main terminal.
The two boarding areas provide independent baggage handling systems. Outbound baggage operations
support a total of 12 check-in aisles with conveyors that distribute bags to either B/A A or B/A G.
The middle four check-in rows can send bags to either boarding area CBIS while the outer four check-in
rows on each side can send bags only to the nearest boarding area CBIS.
After the CBIS, crossovers allow bags to be sent to the opposite boarding area. These crossovers are not
redundant/fault tolerant, as there is only one conveyor line in each direction. If a failure occurs on one of
these lines, the system in each boarding area cannot exchange bags with those in the other boarding area.
Both BHSs were part of the TSA Modernization Program. One new CTX-9800 was installed at B/A G, and
this single machine feeds a CBRA located on a mezzanine west of the CBIS. The remaining four
EDS machines are CTX-9000s, which deliver rejected baggage to an older CBRA located directly below the
CBIS mezzanine. All cleared bags are routed north to the sortation system.
Exhibit G.1-10 | International Terminal Building Boarding Area G Baggage Handling System Table G.1-5 | International Terminal Building Boarding Areas A and G – Existing Baggage Handling
System Operational Capacities
B/A A B/A G
CTX-9000 5 4
CTX-9800 1
Outbound Baggage Makeup Devices 8 8
Baggage Makeup Piers 12 12
Baggage Cart Staging Positions 140 140
Baggage Claim Units (incline plate) 2 Domestic, 4 International 1 Domestic, 5 International
Baggage Claim Frontage (linear feet) 1,470 1,470
Each ITB CBIS has a capacity of 1,316 bags per hour.3 However, the overall capacity of the outbound
baggage systems at B/As A and G cannot be determined using simple calculations (see Terminal 3, above).
The final sortation system in each of the two boarding areas has three main lines, each theoretically rated
at approximately 60 bags per minute or 3,600 bags per hour. The maximum practical capacity of the
outbound system for both boarding areas could therefore be estimated at approximately 8,100 bags per
hour.
G.2 Facility Requirements and Design Basis

The facility requirements for the baggage handling system were developed based on the ADP forecast for
the 2018, Base Constrained, and High Constrained demand levels. The analysis of future flight schedules
Sources: SFO Bureau of Planning and Environmental Affairs, SFO Airport Layout Plan, 2014; SFO Site Visit by BNP, October 2014; and the applicable passenger and baggage processing metrics were used to determine the
BNP Associates, October 2015 BHS requirements at future development points. The key requirements in designing a BHS include:
• Outbound Baggage
o Originating Bag Rate – the peak baggage processing demand for departing passengers whose
journeys begin at SFO. The originating bag rate is measured in bags per minute (BPM).
o Transfer Bag Rate - the peak baggage processing demand for passengers that use SFO as a
transfer point within their journeys. The transfer bag rate is measured in BPM.
o Screening Bag Rate - the peak baggage processing demand for checked baggage that must be
screened at SFO. The screening bag rate includes the combined peak baggage processing
demand for originating, international-to-domestic, and international-to-international
transfer passengers. This screening bag rate is measured in BPM.
3 Although B/A G includes a newer CTX-9800 which provides more practical capacity than the B/A A system, capacity assessments
typically assume that the fastest screening machine has failed. If the CTX-9800 in B/A G fails, the remaining machines consist
of four CTX-9000 machines, which is the same machine configuration and capability as B/A A.
o Baggage Make-up Requirement – the peak number of baggage carts that must be available at • Transfer Passenger Distribution: The percentage of transferring passengers from domestic and
the baggage make-up area at any one time to load baggage from the BHS to the carts for international arriving flights and the percentage of transferring passengers from international
transport to the appropriate departing aircraft. Depending on aircraft size, between one and arriving flights that recheck bags
eight carts per aircraft may be required during the baggage make-up period.
These requirements are measured in numbers of baggage cart staging positions. Bags per Passenger
o Early Bag Storage (EBS) – if a bag arrives into the BHS before the flight’s baggage make-up
United Airlines was the only airline to provide detailed bags per passenger (BPP) numbers. Table G.2-1
position is open in the bag room, the bag is considered early and must be stored within the
presents this information for all combinations of domestic and international passenger/baggage flows.
system until the baggage make-up area for its flight is open. EBS requirements are measured Because no other airline provided BPP data, the data in Table G.2-1 applies to all SFO flights for the BHS
in terms of the peak number of bags that must be stored in the system.
facility requirements. The United Airlines BPP data are considered maximum values.
• Inbound Baggage
Table G.2-1 | Bags per Passenger Rates
o Arrival Bag Rate – the peak baggage processing demand for passengers who end their
journeys at SFO. The arrival bag rate is measured in BPM. DIRECTION TYPE BAGS PER PASSENGER
o Claim Presentation – the length of the baggage claim devices required to provide adequate Originating 0.80
OUTBOUND DOMESTIC
Transfer 0.86
space for passengers in the baggage claim area. Claim presentation is measured in the linear
Originating 1.01
feet of claim device that needs to be accessible to passengers retrieving bags. OUTBOUND INTERNATIONAL
Transfer 1.07
The data and assumptions used to generate outbound and inbound baggage requirements include: Domestic 0.86
INBOUND
International 0.99
• Design day flight schedules
Sources: United Airlines Analysis Data, October 2014; Landrum & Brown, Peak Month Average Day Flight Schedules, October 2014;
• Number of bags per passenger BNP Associates, October 2014
• Passenger check-in profile

Check-In Profile
• Screening alarm parameters
• Originating baggage requirements The domestic and international passenger check-in profile distribution at SFO, shown on Exhibit G.2-1,
indicates the percentages of passengers that arrive at the Airport by the number of minutes before
• Screening requirements
departure time.
• Make-up presentation requirements
• Early bag storage Exhibit G.2-1 | Passenger Check-in Profile
• Transfer bag requirements 14%

12%
• Baggage claim device use
Percent of all lobby check-ins

10%
• Baggage recheck requirements 8%
6%
Future Design Day Flight Schedules 4% Domestic
2%
0% International
The 2018, Base Constrained, and High Constrained demand level design day flight schedules were used in
170-160
100-90
210-200
200-190
190-180
180-170
160-150
150-140
140-130
130-120
120-110
110-100
20-10
10-0
90-80
80-70
70-60
60-50
50-40
40-30
30-20
the analysis of BHS facility requirements. These flight schedules were used to determine BHS demand to
develop facility requirements. The demand is determined by passenger load factor, passenger traffic
distribution, and transfer passenger distribution, all of which vary by flight. Minutes before Departure Time
• Passenger Load Factor: The percentage of seats occupied on a flight Sources: United Airlines Analysis Data, October 2014; Landrum & Brown, Peak Month Average Day Flight Schedules, October 2014;
• Passenger Traffic Distribution: The distribution of originating passengers and terminating
passengers
Screening Alarm Parameters Screening Requirements
The screening alarm rates are Sensitive Security Information (SSI) and have been omitted from this report. Level 1 Explosives Detection System Machine Requirements
This analysis uses historical SFO data collected during the operation of the higher throughput CTX-9800
devices installed at B/A F and B/A G. Table G.2-2 compares the assumed throughput of the screening The number of Level 1 explosives detection system (EDS) screening machines required for checked
equipment as prescribed by the TSA with the SFO observations. baggage screening is determined by dividing the screening bag rate by the machine processing rate.
Table G.2-2 | Screening Alarm Parameters – CTX-9800 Machines Level 2 On-Screen Resolution Operator Requirements
ORIGINAL DESIGN TSA REVISED DATA REVISED OBSERVED DATA In accordance with the TSA Planning Guidelines and Design Standards for Checked Baggage Inspection
PGDS V4.1 04-09-13 AT SFO Systems (PGDS),4 to determine the number of on-screen resolution (OSR) operators required, the
Level 1 Alarm Rate SSI SSI SSI required number of Level 1 EDS machines is multiplied by the Level 1 EDS screening rate and the Level 1
Level 1 Throughput 640 Bags per Hour 640 BPH 640 BPH alarm rate (FAEDS) and then divided by the OSR processing rate of 180 images per hour.
Level 2 Alarm Rate SSI SSI SSI
Level 2 Throughput 180 Bags per Hour 180 BPH 180 BPH NOSR =# EDS machines x EDS screening rate x FAEDS /OSR processing rate
18.8 BPH – Domestic
15.0 BPH – Domestic
Directed Search Throughput 24.2 Bags per Hour 13.8* BPH – Explosives Trace Detector Operator Requirements – Screened Bags
11.0 BPH – International
International
Not Directed Search Throughput 26.6 BPH – Domestic 26.6 BPH - Domestic In accordance with the TSA PGDS, to determine the number of explosives trace detector (ETD) operators
24.2 Bags per Hour
(Out of Gauge/Lost In Tracking) 19.8 BPH – International 19.8 BPH – International required, the number of required EDS machines is multiplied by the Level 1 EDS screening rate, the Level
Odd Size Bag Throughput 24.2 Bags per Hour 15.2 BPH 15.2 BPH 1 alarm rate (FAEDS), and the OSR alarm rate (1-CR) OSR including Lost in Track Bags (RLIT) and OOG Bags
Notes: BPH = Bags per Hour (ROOG), and then divided by the CBRA processing rate. There are two ETD operators per work station.
PGDS = Planning Guidelines and Design Standards (see source below)
SSI = Sensitive Security Information (data not provided for security reasons) NETD = # EDS machines x EDS screening rate x [FAEDS x (1-CR)OSR + RLIT + ROOG ] /ETD screening rate
Sources: Transportation Security Administration, Planning Guidelines and Design Standards for Checked Baggage Inspection Systems,
Version 5.0, August 25, 2015; BNP Associates, October 2015 Explosives Trace Detector Operators for Oversized Bags and Out of Gauge Bags
Originating Baggage Requirements In accordance with the TSA PGDS5, to determine the required number of ETD operators for oversized
bags, the EDS screening rate for oversized bags is multiplied by 60 and then divided by the ETD processing
In developing originating baggage requirements for scheduled flights, the passenger check-in profiles by
rate. There are two ETD operators per work station.
scheduled time of departure are applied to originating passenger/baggage volumes. The calculation is as
follows: NETD for OS = [Originating Bag Rate x (OS percent) x 60]/ETD screening rate for Oversized Bags
ܱ‫ ݁݃ܽ݃݃ܽܤ݃݊݅ݐܽ݊݅݃݅ݎ‬ൌ ሺ‫ݏݐ݈ܾ݈ܽ݁ܵ݁ܽ݅ܽݒܣ‬ሻ‫ݔ‬ሺ‫ݎ݋ݐܿܽܨ݀ܽ݋ܮ‬ሻ‫ݔ‬ሺܱ‫ݐ݊݁ܿݎ݁ܲݎ݁݃݊݁ݏݏܽܲ݃݊݅ݐܽ݊݅݃݅ݎ‬ሻ‫ݔ‬ሺ‫ݎ݁݃݊݁ݏݏܽܲ݃݊݅ݐܽ݊݅݃݅ݎܱݎ݁݌ݏ݃ܽܤ‬ሻ Baggage Handling System Make-Up Presentation Requirements

The originating screening bag rate is the flow of bags screened by the Level 1 screening machine. This does The BHS make-up presentation requirements are determined using the following parameters:
not include out-of-gauge (OOG) or oversized (OS) bags that bypass the screening machines and are
transported directly to a checked baggage resolution area (CBRA) for screening. The originating screening • The time that carts/containers are available at the make-up devices before flight departure time.
bag rate is calculated by subtracting the percentage of OOG and OS bags from the previously calculated • The number of carts/containers required per flight. This number varies based on aircraft size.
originating screening bag rate.
The cart/container assignments are distributed across a matrix by departure time. The number of carts is
ܱ‫ ݁ݐܴܽ݃ܽܤ݃݊݅݊݁݁ݎܿܵ݃݊݅ݐܽ݊݅݃݅ݎ‬ൌ ܱ‫݁ݐܴܽ݃ܽܤ݃݊݅ݐܽ݊݅݃݅ݎ‬Ȃ ሺܱܱ‫ܩ‬Ψ ൅ ܱܵΨሻ then summed for all time intervals to determine the maximum number of carts/containers required at
any given time.
4 Transportation Security Administration, Planning Guidelines and Design Standards for Checked Baggage Inspection
Systems, Version 5.0, August 25, 2015
5 Transportation Security Administration Planning Guidelines and Design Standards for Checked Baggage Inspection
Systems, Version 5.0, August 25, 2015
BHS make-up periods represent the time that carts and unit load devices (ULDs) (i.e., containers) are Transfer Bag Requirements
stationed at the make-up devices before flight departure time. When this parameter changes, it changes
the number of make-up positions required: the longer the make-up period, the longer the cart for a flight The transfer bag requirements are determined by multiplying the number of transfer passengers on each
will be situated at the make-up device, resulting in more flights over the day overlapping at make-up. arriving flight (defined in the flight schedules) by the BPP number for transfer passengers to obtain the
More flights that require baggage make-up simultaneously result in the need for more make-up positions number of transfer bags. The transfer bags are then distributed by arrival flight time onto a time grid and
and, consequently, a larger bag room. To optimize the size of the make-up area, bags can be stored in the summarized for each time period, assuming that the baggage offload rate onto the transfer input
EBS area, and the make-up duration can be shortened. Table G.2-3 illustrates the make-up start and end conveyor is 12 bags/minute and begins 10 minutes after aircraft arrival time. The calculation is as follows:
times used in the outbound baggage make-up analysis for both domestic and international flights.
Transfer Bags = Arriving Passengers x Transfer Percent x Bags per Passenger
Table G.2-3 | Baggage Handling System Outbound Baggage Make-up Periods
MAKE-UP START BEFORE This calculation is applied to each aircraft in the flight bank, creating a transfer matrix of baggage volumes.
SCHEDULED TIME OF DEPARTURE MAKE-UP END BEFORE A 20 percent peaking factor is applied to the transfer bags to account for unexpected instances, such as
FLIGHT TYPE (MINUTES) SCHEDULED TIME OF DEPARTURE inbound flight delays.
WITH WITHOUT (MINUTES)
EARLY BAG STORAGE EARLY BAG STORAGE
Domestic 120 180 20 Baggage Claim Frontage
International 150 210 30
Three factors determine baggage claim frontage demand: (1) the percentage of passengers per flight that
Source: BNP Associates, Baggage Handling System Planning Premises, October 2015
will claim bags, (2) the linear footage of claim device per passenger (i.e., the passenger presentation area),
Early Bag Storage and (3) the use time of the claim device for any particular flight. Passengers that claim bags include
terminating passengers and any passengers required to recheck bags.
A bag that arrives in the BHS prior to the opening of the make-up device for the flight is considered early
and must be stored somewhere in the system. Early bags come from two sources: originating passengers The number of passengers that arrive at baggage claim simultaneously determines the device
checking in prior to the make-up opening or transfer passengers arriving on a flight prior to the baggage presentation length required. Not all arriving passengers reach the baggage claim device simultaneously
make-up opening for the connecting flight. Because the time a bag is in storage has a direct effect on the for a number of reasons, including the rate at which passengers disembark the aircraft and passengers
capacity requirements of the storage system, a profile of storage times must be generated. For transfer travelling in groups where only one member in the group claims the bags. Table G.2-4 provides the
baggage, the transfer dwell time profiles for the different transfer types are shown in Exhibit G.2-2. percentage of passengers that are simultaneously present at baggage claim per aircraft type.
For originating baggage, the time period in the check-in profile (Exhibit G.1-11) that is earlier than the
make-up opening time (Table G.1-8) determines the required storage time for the originating baggage. Table G.2-4 | Baggage Claim Utilization Rate per Aircraft Type
SEATS PERCENTAGE AT BAGGAGE CLAIM

Exhibit G.2-2 | Transfer Dwell Curve
Narrowbody Aircraft (<200 seats) 67%
Widebody Aircraft (200-250 seats) 55%
Widebody Aircraft (251-300 seats) 50%
Widebody Aircraft (>300 seats) 45%
Source: BNP Associates, October 2015
Based on the above information and a standard length allocation of 2 feet per passenger6, the claim device
size can be determined using the following generic formula:
Claim Size = (Aircraft Seats) x (Load Factor) x (Percent Terminating) x (Percent of Passengers @ Claim) x
(Claim Utilization) x (Frontage/Passenger)
Note: DOM = Domestic; INT = International

6 International Air Transport Administration, Aerodrome Design Reference Manual, Edition 9, 2009, Table F9.6
The claim device utilization time is determined by the unload time of bags to the claim device plus an Facility Requirements Summary
allowance of 10 minutes. The utilization time is determined as follows:
The facility requirements are based on the airline to terminal/boarding area allocations, as identified in
ሺ஺௜௥௖௥௔௙௧ௌ௘௔௧௦ሻ௫ሺ௅௢௔ௗி௔௖௧௢௥ሻ௫ሺሺ௉௘௥௖௘௡௧்௘௥௠௜௡௔௧௜௡௚ሻ௫ሺ஻௉௉ሻ
ܷ‫ ݁݉݅ܶ݊݋݅ݐܽݖ݈݅݅ݐ‬ൌ ቀ ቁ+ 10 minutes Table G.2-6. The airline codes listed in that table are defined in Table G.2-7. The baggage requirements
ሺை௙௙௟௢௔ௗோ௔௧௘ሻ
for each boarding area are provided in Table G.2-8 through Table G.2-14 and are based on the three
Baggage Check Rate future peak month average day flight schedules.
Table G.2-5 presents the percentage of arriving passengers that have checked bags at their originating Table G.2-6 | Airline Terminal/Boarding Area Allocations
airport. TERMINAL/
BOARDING 2018 BASE CONSTRAINED HIGH CONSTRAINED
Table G.2-5 | Baggage Claim Utilization Rate AREA
AM, CX, TA, CI, LA, MU,
CLAIM TYPE UTILIZATION (%) AM, CX, TA, CI, AS, UA, NH, DL, AM, CX, TA, CI, AS, UA, NH, DL,
NH, DL, KE, KL, UA, SQ,
Domestic 67% A KE, IB, KL, BA, LH, SQ, AF, JJ, EK, KE, IB, KL, BA, LH, SQ, AF, JJ, EK,
AF, EK, BA, SK, VS, JL, AS,
SK, VS, JL, VX, PR, NZ SK, VS, JL, VX, PR, NZ
International 89% VX, PR
Source: BNP Associates, October 2015 AA, DL, WN, F9, AS, B6, AA, DL, WN, F9, AS, B6, HA, SY,
Terminal 1 AA, DL, WN, F9, AS, B6, HA, SY
HA, SY UA
Baggage Recheck Requirements Terminal 2 VX, AC, UA, WS VX, AC, UA, WS VX, AC, UA, WS
Terminal 3 UA UA UA
Baggage recheck requirements consist of the number of bags the belong to passengers transferring from SQ, BR, UA, OZ, LH, CA, SQ, BR, UA, MU, CA, JJ, OZ, IB, SQ, BR, UA, MU, CA, JJ, OZ, IB,
arriving international flights to other flights. These passengers are required to claim their bags, process G & T3 SWING
LX, NZ NH, LX, LH NH, LX, LH
through U.S. CBP, and recheck their bags for their next departing flight. Specifically, the lateness H Not Operational UA UA
distribution is applied to international recheck passengers that need to have their bags re-screened. Notes: Airlines are designated by their IATA codes. See Table G.1-11.
All transfer bags arriving from international destinations (including Canada) are security screened MARS = Multiple Aircraft Ramp System
regardless of any preclearance status. These include direct transfer bags that are input into the screening Sources: Landrum & Brown, Peak Month Average Day Flight Schedules, October 2014; BNP Associates, October 2014
system for Canadian and other preclearance origins (i.e., passengers do not claim their bags) and include
bags that have been claimed by passengers and must be rechecked after rescreening.
Exhibit G.2-3 depicts the lateness profile for international-to-domestic transfer passengers and for
international-to-international transfer passengers.
Exhibit G.2-3 | Passenger Recheck Lateness Distribution
Note: DOM = Domestic; INT = International

Table G.2-7 | Airline IATA Codes Table G.2-9 | Boarding Area B and C Facility Requirements
AIRLINE CODE AIRLINE AIRLINE CODE AIRLINE PLANNING ACTIVITY LEVEL

FACILITY REQUIREMENTS BASE HIGH
AA American Airlines KL KLM 2018
CONSTRAINED CONSTRAINED
AC Air Canada LA LATAM Airlines Chile
Originating Bag Rate (Bags per Minute) 26 29 31
AF Air France LH Lufthansa
Transfer Bag Rate (Bags per Minute) 7 8 8
AM Aeromexico LX Swiss International Air Lines
Screening Bag Rate (Bags per Minute) 28 30 33
AS Alaska Airlines MU China Eastern Airlines
Early Bag Storage (Number of Bags) 527 602 635
B6 JetBlue Airways NH All Nippon Airways
Make-Up Requirements with EBS (Positions) 108 108 112
BA British Airways NZ Air New Zealand
BR EVA Air OZ Asiana Airlines Make-Up Requirements without EBS (Positions) 152 153 158
CA Air China PR Philippine Airlines Arrival Bag Rate (Bags per Minute) 75 83 89
CI China Airlines SK Scandinavian Airlines Claim Presentation (Linear Feet) 1,067 1,291 1,601
CX Cathay Pacific SQ Singapore Airlines Note: EBS = Early Bag Storage
DL Delta Air Lines SY Sun Country Airlines Sources: Landrum & Brown, Peak Month Average Day Flight Schedules, October 2014; BNP Associates, October 2014
EK Emirates TA Avianca El Salvador
F9 Frontier Airlines UA United Airlines Table G.2-10 | Boarding Area D Facility Requirements
HA Hawaiian Airlines US US Airways PLANNING ACTIVITY LEVEL
IB Iberia VS Virgin Atlantic Airways FACILITY REQUIREMENTS BASE HIGH
JJ LATAM Airlines Brasil VX Virgin America 2018
JL Japan Airlines WN Southwest Airlines Originating Bag Rate (Bags per Minute) 10 14 17
KE Korean Air WS WestJet Airlines Transfer Bag Rate (Bags per Minute) 9 11 13
Source: OAG, October 2015 Screening Bag Rate (Bags per Minute) 15 17 21
Table G.2-8 | Boarding Area A Facility Requirements Make-Up Requirements with EBS (Positions) 46 62 70
PLANNING ACTIVITY LEVEL Make-Up Requirements without EBS (Positions) 63 86 97
FACILITY REQUIREMENTS BASE HIGH Arrival Bag Rate (Bags per Minute) 42 52 56
2018
CONSTRAINED CONSTRAINED Claim Presentation (Linear Feet) 460 720 924
Originating Bag Rate (Bags per Minute) 15 26 28 Note: EBS = Early Bag Storage
Transfer Bag Rate (Bags per Minute) 0 0 0 Sources: Landrum & Brown, Peak Month Average Day Flight Schedules, October 2014; BNP Associates, October 2014
Make-Up Requirements without EBS (Positions) 70 94 94
Arrival Bag Rate (Bags per Minute) 52 87 90
Claim Presentation (Linear Feet) 1,122 2,427 2,970
Note: EBS = Early Bag Storage
Sources: Landrum & Brown, Peak Month Average Day Flight Schedules, October 2014; BNP Associates, October 2014
Table G.2-11 | Boarding Area D (United Airlines Only) Facility Requirements Table G.2-13 | Boarding Area G Facility Requirements
PLANNING ACTIVITY LEVEL PLANNING ACTIVITY LEVEL
FACILITY REQUIREMENTS BASE HIGH FACILITY REQUIREMENTS BASE HIGH
2018 2018
CONSTRAINED CONSTRAINED CONSTRAINED CONSTRAINED
Originating Bag Rate (Bags per Minute) 2 2 3 Originating Bag Rate (Bags per Minute) 15 22 24
Transfer Bag Rate (Bags per Minute) 22 15 19 Transfer Bag Rate (Bags per Minute) 14 26 20
Screening Bag Rate (Bags per Minute) 4 6 8 Screening Bag Rate (Bags per Minute) 20 27 30
Early Bag Storage (Number of Bags) 118 119 150 Early Bag Storage (Number of Bags) 434 591 680
Make-Up Requirements with EBS (Positions) 16 17 20 Make-Up Requirements with EBS (Positions) 88 97 97
Make-Up Requirements without EBS (Positions) 21 23 29 Make-Up Requirements without EBS (Positions) 107 127 126
Arrival Bag Rate (Bags per Minute) 32 21 34 Arrival Bag Rate (Bags per Minute) 66 106 95
Claim Presentation (Linear Feet) 265 210 275 Claim Presentation (Linear Feet) 1,508 2,016 2,212
Note: EBS = Early Bag Storage Note: EBS = Early Bag Storage
Sources: Landrum & Brown, Peak Month Average Day Flight Schedules, October 2014; BNP Associates, October 2014 Sources: Landrum & Brown, Peak Month Average Day Flight Schedules, October 2014; BNP Associates, October 2014
Table G.2-12 | Boarding Area E/F Facility Requirements Table G.2-14 | Boarding Area H Facility Requirements
PLANNING ACTIVITY LEVEL
PLANNING ACTIVITY LEVEL
FACILITY REQUIREMENTS BASE HIGH
FACILITY REQUIREMENTS BASE HIGH 2018
2018 CONSTRAINED CONSTRAINED
Make-Up Requirements without EBS Make-Up Requirements without EBS (Positions) 0 8 10
184 192 200 Arrival Bag Rate (Bags per Minute) 0 5 16
(Positions)
Arrival Bag Rate (Bags per Minute) 52 47 61 Claim Presentation (Linear Feet) 0 66 127
Claim Presentation (Linear Feet) 710 702 718 Note: EBS = Early Bag Storage
Note: EBS = Early Bag Storage
System Replacement
G.3 Alternatives Analysis
The existing systems at the Airport are aging. While new screening systems were implemented after
September 11, 2001, the majority of the conveyor and sorting systems are from the 1990s or earlier.
A number of high-level BHS alternatives were developed to evaluate as many feasible concepts as possible
Table G.3-1 and Table G.3-2 below indicate the estimated operational life of BHS equipment as well as
for the final configurations of the overall BHS. With input from the stakeholders, evaluation criteria were
the screening equipment at SFO compared its expected end of life.
developed to score the alternatives and determine a recommended option. This section details the drivers
for alternatives development, reviews each alternative developed, describes the evaluation criteria, and Table G.3-1 | Typical System Life Expectancy
identifies the scoring of each.
SYSTEM LIFE EXPECTANCY
Baggage Handling System Conveyors, Carousels, etc. 15 to 20 years
G.3.1 Project Drivers
7 to 10 years although TSA has indicated that it may
Screening Equipment
extend the life to 15 years for some systems
For the development of the alternative configurations, several groups of project drivers were identified:
Source: TSA PGDS Version 5, August 2015; BNP Associates, October 2015
• Overall ADP goals
• Plant replacement Table G.3-2 | System Age and Expected End of Life Dates
• Health/safety issues
TERMINAL / BHS SCREENING SCREENING
• Demand/growth BHS SCREENING
BOARDING COMMISSIONING SYSTEM SYSTEM END
END OF LIFE SYSTEMS TYPE
• Functionality AREA DATE COMMISSIONING OF LIFE
Terminal 1 System being Morpho 2003
1975 - 2005 2019
The following ADP objectives relevant to the BHS were defined: B/As B and C replaced CTX 9000s 6 systems
• Maximize gate capacity, geometry, and flexibility Terminal 2

2009 2029
Morpho
2009 2019
B/A D CTX 9400s
• Optimize lobby and security flows to meet future needs and technology
Terminal 3
1980 Beyond EOL CTX 9000s 2004 Beyond EOL
• Maximize transfer connectivity for guests and baggage B/A E
• Maximize shared use facility and baggage claim flexibility Terminal 3
1980 - 1992
Most beyond CTX 9000
2003
Beyond EOL
B/A F EOL and 9800 except 9800
• Improve airline, TSA, and other stakeholder process efficiency
CTX 9000 Beyond EOL
IT B/A G 2000 2020 2002
and 9800 except 9800
In order to achieve the above goals, the future BHS must have a high level of flexibility and connectivity.
This design is significantly different from the existing conditions where most of the BHSs are independent IT B/A A 2000 2020 CTX 9000 2002 Beyond EOL
systems that are not connected to each other.
Source: Site survey and SFO Staff Interviews, October 2014; BNP Associates, October 2015
The other two significant goals involve reducing energy consumption and operational costs for Demand Growth
stakeholders including, but not limited to:
• Airport The forecast growth at SFO demands additional baggage handling capability in all terminals and between
• Airlines terminals. As passenger movements increase and become more complicated, baggage movements need
• Ground handlers to conform to these increases and changes. Passengers will expect improved services from airports such
• TSA as convenient acceptance and delivery of baggage with improved technology and automation.
Functionality
The diagram in Exhibit G.3-1 demonstrates the existing connectivity between facilities, which only exists
in the boarding areas shown. The Terminal 2 BHS is completely independent. Within the existing
Terminal 1, there are multiple independent BHSs; therefore, neither terminal is shown in the connectivity
diagram.
Exhibit G.3-1 | Functional Diagram of Connectivity Between Different BHSs Outbound Baggage Output Close to Gates
Another component of the proposed BHS projects is to provide output of outbound baggage as close to
the boarding gates as practical for any new outbound system (B/A H and Terminal 1 systems). Positioning
bags in close proximity to their departure gates within the BHS will reduce overall processing time and
ramp congestion and provide a more sustainable overall baggage process, as transporting baggage via a
fixed system is more energy efficient than transporting via ramp vehicles.
G.3.2 Common Themes Among the Alternatives

Check-In
Check-in expansion is not proposed under the baggage projects of the ADP. Instead, evaluation of the
check-in requirements related to the usage of home/mobile check-in and bag drops will require evaluation
as baggage systems upgrades occur. It is generally believed that reduced processing times would also
reduce the required space and facilities for check-in, but for the purpose of this analysis, it is assumed
that the number of check-in positions currently provided is sufficient.
For Terminal 1, the check-in would be replaced as part of the general Terminal 1 project. As discussed in
Section 5.3.3, the ITB improvements include a number of options to redevelop the ITB check-in.
Aside from the Terminal 1 redevelopment, the proposed ADP plans for the addition of some gates in B/A F,
but the main expansion occurs in B/A H. Additional check-in demand for B/A H would be accommodated
in the ITB. The ITB check-in is currently underutilized and can support additional capacity for B/A H.
However, the increased baggage volume would require additional BHS capability to accommodate B/A H
operations.
Oversize and Non-Conveyable Baggage
One of the main objectives of the BHS projects is to provide connectivity between as many BHSs as
With conventional conveyors, it is not practical to transport and sort oversize baggage over a longer
possible so that check-in, security screening, and make-up can occur anywhere for any given flight.
distance because they require dedicated rights-of-way and infrastructure. Additionally, fragile items, live
This design would allow the Airport to accommodate variability in the airline industry without making
animals, and oversize baggage cannot be transported via conveyors.
costly changes to physical systems.
Contrary to the goals of the ADP, manual transport to a consolidated screening location and redistribution
Redundancy
to the make-up locations would require significant additional staffing. It is therefore proposed that in all
Today, a majority of the connections for the aforementioned systems utilize single conveyors that fail to cases, some form of local screening remains at check-in for oversize and non-conveyable baggage.
protect baggage when mechanical failures occur. In addition, manual processes in many locations reduce To obtain optimal efficiency, it is proposed that wherever possible this screening occurs near the
capacity and require higher staffing levels to handle baggage. The lack of connectivity also results in passenger screening checkpoints because TSA staff and related support facilities are present, regardless
multiple handlings because bags must be sorted in one boarding area before transport to another. of a check-in baggage screening requirement. The flow of oversize and non-conveyable baggage is
Although the conveyance is sometimes automated, multiple handling events reduce the effective capacity relatively minor and non-continuous compared to the flow of normal check-in baggage.
of the systems. Therefore, dedicated facilities for screening of oversize and non-conveyable bags would not be efficient.
Baggage Storage and Distribution Systems Exhibit G.3-2 | BHS Backbone Schematic
Automated bulk baggage storage and retrieval systems can substantially improve baggage processing
efficiency. Making use of racking and cranes allows an item to be stored and retrieved individually
according to priority. This maximizes flexibility and control. It can also reduce resource requirements by
delivering bags to appropriate locations when required as opposed to when baggage is received from the
passenger. Vertically stacked storage systems also reduce the footprint required to accommodate early
bags, which would otherwise be routed directly to make-up areas.
Arrivals Baggage
It is assumed that the reconstruction of Terminal 1 will provide sufficient capacity to accommodate future
demand; therefore, the Terminal 1 requirements are not addressed here.
The existing capacity of the arrivals claim carousels in Terminal 2 and Terminal 3 is sufficient for the
calculated requirements of the future flight schedules.
The design day flight schedule uses a fixed transfer rate regardless of what time the flight operates.
In reality, the amount of transfer baggage will fluctuate throughout a day (e.g., last flights arriving vs. first Source: SFO Bureau of Planning and Environmental Affairs; SFO Airport Layout Plan 2014; BNP Associates, October 2015
flights arriving). For hub carriers like United, which have a high transfer rate, these variations can cause
significant differences in demand. The capacity of the arrivals carousels in Terminal 3 has been verified to This diagram shows the end state of construction; however, the backbone would be constructed in phases
be sufficient to meet demand even with 100 percent terminating passengers on incoming flights. during other major work on the various boarding areas and terminals.
While no increase in arrivals carousel quantity or length is proposed for Terminal 3, some of the In general, the backbone is intended to consist of a bidirectional four-conveyor system. This configuration
alternatives include baggage delivery improvements to these carousels such as input closer to the aircraft provides a theoretical capacity of 90 bags per minute in each direction and provides for a capacity during
and transport on a common system with the outbound baggage. single conveyor failure of 45 bags per minute. Exhibit G.3-3 shows two examples of typical cross sections
of this backbone including conveyor and maintenance access rights-of-way.
For the ITB, the available BHS capacity is not sufficient to accommodate the forecast requirements.
As discussed in the Inventory chapter, the ongoing ITB Arrivals Level Improvements project addresses the Exhibit G.3-3 | BHS Backbone Dimensions
deficiencies in baggage claim capabilities.
Backbone
With the exception of Alternative 1, all other alternatives propose a method to interconnect the various
baggage handling facilities at the airport. This design is referred to as the “backbone.” A schematic
diagram of one BHS backbone alternative is depicted in Exhibit G.3-2.
Due to the travel distances and complexity of the routing, conventional conveyors are not practical for Exhibit G.3-5 | Backbone Transport Times
the backbone. Instead, an individual carrier system (ICS) is proposed.
Conventional conveyors transport baggage directly on a belt. The highly variable and unpredictable nature
of baggage (e.g., sizes, weights, materials, trailing straps, etc.) can cause numerous issues on conventional
conveyors such as baggage jams and loss of tracking (i.e., computer systems may lose track of a bag’s
location).
In an ICS, bags are placed in a standard carrier (i.e., tray) for transport. These carriers are predictable
transport units and have a permanent identification that can be read via radio frequency identification
(RFID). Once the bag is initially identified and loaded into the carrier, the control systems are able to
monitor and control carrier movement throughout its journey, regardless of distance and routing.
Exhibit G.3-4 depicts an example of a conventional baggage conveyor on the left and an ICS conveyor on
the right.
Exhibit G.3-4 | Conventional and ICS Conveyors
Source: Vanderlande Industries, 2014
The travel time on the backbone between boarding areas would be relatively constant at 2 to 4 minutes
between neighboring boarding areas. A bag traveling from B/A G to B/A D would spend approximately
nine minutes on the backbone as it would travel through three segments of the backbone. This travel
would occur at an assumed speed of approximately 400 feet per minute plus an additional minute
reservation per boarding area for local routing distances. While the technology supports speeds up to
2,000 feet per minute, the nature and curved geometry of the terminal buildings prevents the practical
application of higher speeds. Exhibit G.3-5 depicts the approximate transport time on each segment of
the backbone.
Source: SFO Bureau of Planning and Environmental Affairs; SFO Airport Layout Plan 2014; BNP Associates, October 2015
G.3.3 Evaluation Table G.3-3 describes the weighing of each criterion.
The ADP team along with the airport stakeholders produced a set of criteria with which to evaluate each Table G.3-3 | Evaluation Criteria Weighing
alternative. Because all criteria have varying levels of importance, a relative weight was assigned to each. CRITERION WEIGHT
Each alternative has been evaluated in each category on a scale of 1 to 5, with “1” indicating a negative 1. Operational Process Control and Flexibility 20%
score and “5” indicating a positive score. 2. Capital Cost 15%
3. Operational Cost 30%
1. Strong Negative (i.e., high impact, low feasibility, high cost, low flexibility) 4. Achieving REACH 15%
5. Environmental 10%
2. Negative 6. Feasibility and Phasing 10%
3. Neutral Total 100%
4. Positive Source: BNP Associates, October 2015
5. Strong Positive (i.e., low impact, high feasibility, low cost, high flexibility)
G.3.4 Alternatives
The evaluation criteria are:
The following pages provide a graphical representation of each of the alternatives that were evaluated,
1. Operational Process Control and Flexibility:
including the scoring in each category. Each alternative varies in at least one of the following aspects:
• The ability to route and transfer bags between boarding areas to allow flexible allocation
of airlines and aircraft stands across the boarding areas. 1. Location of CBRA(s)
• The degree of process control which implies knowledge of each bag’s location at any time 2. Number of CBRA(s)
and the ability to change the baggage route while in transit. 3. Location of CBIS(s)
2. Capital Cost: The initial cost of the BHS and TSA provided screening equipment 4. Number of CBIS(s)
5. Extent of BHS backbone
3. Operational Cost: The relative operational cost of operation for the baggage handling systems in
terms of staff (Airport, airlines, ground handler, and maintenance staff), energy usage, and
material. For material, the consumption of parts and the cost of operational vehicles such as tugs
are considered.
4. Achieving the Principles of R.E.A.C.H.: The degree to which the alternative achieves or contributes
to R.E.A.C.H. by providing opportunities for revenue enhancement and passenger service
improvements such as: remote check-in and bag drops, bag drops at BART stations, supporting
shorter (later) check-in or close-out, or shorter connections.
5. Environmental Impact: The relative environmental impact of the BHS in terms of energy usage
and materials of the BHS. Energy usage is primarily driven by the quantity of bags and the distance
the bags need to be transported. For material, the relative quantity of material and the ability to
use sustainable materials is considered.
6. Feasibility and Phasing: The feasibility of the option and the ability to construct the option in
smaller steps/phases.
Alternative 1 – Optimization of Existing CBIS Alternative 2 – 2-Way Split with Sort Connectivity
This alternative involves the optimization of the existing BHS and CBIS in each This alternative includes the creation of a BHS backbone that interconnects all
boarding area. It is the equivalent of a no-build alternative, since screening equipment boarding areas and consolidation of CBIS and CBRA into large facilities at Terminal 1
is always scheduled to be replaced at the end of its service life. and Terminal 3. Terminal 2 and the ITB would not have their own screening facilities.
While this alternative can increase the capacity of each boarding area, it does not Advantages:
provide new connectivity between terminals and therefore does not support flexible • Backbone connectivity provides high flexibility
assignment of airlines and aircraft across terminals. • Reduced manual handling
• Consolidated TSA staff and equipment
The result would be five CBIS zones and five CBRA zones.
Disadvantages:
Advantages:
• Higher capital investment
• Low initial investment
• Reliance on backbone for screening and transfer results in high loads and high
• Low initial impact on facilities
complexity of operations during failure
Disadvantages: • Travel time for bags that would otherwise stay in the same boarding area is
• Low flexibility increased due to transport to the consolidated CBIS zones and back
• Significant manual handling required for transfer baggage, increasing the • Availability of sufficiently large spaces
potential for mishandling
• Distributed TSA staff and equipment
• Significantly higher total cost of ownership when system replacement is
required
• Airline operational implications with lack of modern solution such as early bag
storage Criterion Score
1. Operational Process Control and
5
Criterion Score Flexibility
1. Operational Process Control and 2. Capital Cost 3
1
Flexibility
2. Capital Cost 4 3. Operational Cost 5
3. Operational Cost 2 4. Achieving REACH 4
4. Achieving REACH 1 5. Environmental 3
5. Environmental 1 6. Feasibility & Phasing 3
6. Feasibility & Phasing 4
Source: SFO BPEA; SFO ALP 2014; BNP Associates, October 2015
Alternative 3 – 3-Way Split with Sort Connectivity Alternative 4 – Distributed CBIS / West CBRA
This alternative includes the creation of a BHS backbone that interconnects all This alternative includes the creation of a BHS backbone that interconnects all
boarding areas and consolidation of CBIS and CBRA into three large facilities at boarding areas and the consolidation of CBRA into one location. The ICS backbone
Terminal 1, Terminal 2, and Terminal 3. The ITB would not have its own screening extension to B/A H would be installed as part of the boarding area construction
facilities. project. It is not shown in the exhibits for Alternatives 4 through 7.
Advantages: Security screening is distributed to a CBIS in each boarding area; however, the most
• Backbone connectivity provides high flexibility staff intensive TSA process (the CBRA function) is consolidated to a single location in
• Reduced manual handling Terminal 3.
• Consolidated TSA staff and equipment (more consolidated than Alternative 1
Advantages:
but less consolidated than Alternative 2)
• Backbone connectivity provides high flexibility
Disadvantages: • Reduced manual handling
• High investment • Consolidated TSA staff
• Reliance on backbone for screening and transfer results in high loads and high • Only bags requiring CBRA processing and transfer bags require transport on
complexity of operations during failure the backbone (less load compared to Alternatives 2, 3, and 4)
• Travel time for bags that would otherwise stay in the same boarding area is
Disadvantages:
increased due to transport to the consolidated CBIS zones and back
• High investment
• Availability of sufficiently large spaces
• Non-conveyable bags (e.g., fragile items, animals, very large items, etc.) must
still be screened in each boarding area
• Distributed TSA equipment
• Single CBRA presents redundancy/disaster tolerance challenges
Criterion Score • Reliance on backbone for the transfer of CBRA baggage results in high
1. Operational Process Control and complexity of operations during failure.
5
Flexibility
Due to the single CBRA location, travel time for bags requiring CBRA processing is
2. Capital Cost 3 longer compared to alternatives with multiple CBRA locations.
3. Operational Cost 4 Criterion Score

5
4. Achieving REACH 4 Flexibility
2. Capital Cost 3
5. Environmental 3
3. Operational Cost 4
4. Achieving REACH 4
5. Environmental 2
Source: SFO BPEA; SFO ALP 2014; BNP Associates, October 2015 Source: SFO BPEA; SFO ALP 2014; BNP Associates, October 2015
Alternative 4B – Distributed CBIS / West CBRA Alternative 4C – Distributed CBIS / Central CBRA
This alternative includes the creation of a BHS backbone that interconnects all
This alternative includes the creation of a BHS backbone that interconnects all
boarding areas.
boarding areas. The backbone is not a ‘ring’ as in the other alternative but rather a
partial ring with a direct connection between Terminal 1 and 3. Screening would be distributed to a CBIS in each boarding area; however, the most
staff intensive TSA process (the CBRA function) would be consolidated to a single
Screening would be distributed to a CBIS in each boarding area; however, the most
location in the parking garage. It would be connected to the backbone between
staff intensive TSA process (the CBRA function) would be consolidated to a single
Terminal 3 and the ITB.
location in Terminal 1.
Advantages:
Advantages: x Backbone connectivity provides high flexibility
• Backbone connectivity provides high flexibility x Reduced manual handling
• Reduced manual handling x Consolidated TSA staff
• Consolidated TSA staff x Only bags requiring CBRA processing and transfer bags require transport on
• Only bags requiring CBRA processing and transfer bags require transport on the backbone (less load compared to Alternatives 2, 3, and 4)
the backbone (less load compared to Alternatives 2, 3, and 4)
Disadvantages: Disadvantages:
• High investment x High investment
• Non-conveyable bags (e.g., fragile items, animals, very large items, etc.) must x Non-conveyable bags (e.g., fragile items, animals, very large items, etc.) must
still be screened in each boarding area still be screened in each boarding area
• Distributed TSA equipment x Distributed TSA equipment
• Single CBRA presents redundancy/disaster tolerance challenges x Single CBRA presents redundancy/disaster tolerance challenges
• Reliance on backbone for transfer of CBRA baggage results in high complexity x Reliance on backbone for transfer of CBRA baggage results in high complexity
of operations during failure of operations during failure
• Due to a single CBRA location, travel time for bags requiring CBRA processing x Due to a single CBRA location, travel time for bags requiring CBRA processing
is longer compared to alternatives with multiple CBRA locations is longer compared to alternatives with multiple CBRA locations (the longest
of all options)
Criterion Score
Criterion Score
5 1. Operational Process Control and
Flexibility 5
Flexibility
2. Capital Cost 3
2. Capital Cost 3
5. Environmental 2
5. Environmental 2

Alternative 4D – Distributed CBIS / 2 CBRA Alternative 4E – Distributed CBIS / 5 CBRA

This alternative includes the creation of a BHS backbone that interconnects all This alternative includes the creation of a BHS backbone that interconnects all
boarding areas. boarding areas. Screening would be distributed to a CBIS and CBRA in each boarding
area.
Security screening would be distributed to a CBIS in each boarding area; however, the
most staff intensive TSA process (the CBRA function) would be consolidated to two Advantages:
locations (one in Terminal 1 and one in Terminal 3). • Backbone connectivity provides high flexibility
• Reduced manual handling
Advantages:
• Only transfer bags require transport on the backbone (less load compared to
• Backbone connectivity provides high flexibility Alternatives 2, 3, and 4)
• Reduced manual handling • Non-conveyable bags (e.g., fragile items, animals, very large items, etc.) can
• Consolidated TSA staff be screened in each boarding area
• Only bags requiring CBRA processing and transfer bags require transport on • High disaster tolerance/redundancy because the screening functions are
the backbone (less load compared to Alternatives 2, 3, and 4) distributed.
Disadvantages:
• High investment Disadvantages:
• Non-conveyable bags (e.g., fragile items, animals, very large items, etc.) must • High investment
still be screened in each boarding area • Distributed TSA equipment
• Distributed TSA equipment • Distributed TSA staff
• Reliance on backbone for transfer of CBRA baggage results in high complexity
of operations during failure
Criterion Score
Criterion Score 1. Operational Process Control and
5
1. Operational Process Control and Flexibility
4
Flexibility 2. Capital Cost 2
2. Capital Cost 2
5. Environmental 4
5. Environmental 4
Alternative 5 – Centralized CBIS/CBRA Alternative 6 – Split CBRA / Optimized T2

This alternative includes the creation of a BHS backbone that interconnects all In this alternative, the backbone interconnects all boarding areas except for Terminal
boarding areas. All screening functions would be centralized in a new single CBIS area 2 and B/A D.
in the Central Parking Garage or Central Hub (see Section 5.4).
Terminal 2 remains a standalone facility with its own CBIS and CBRA. All other
Advantages: boarding areas are interconnected via the backbone. Five CBIS zones are proposed
• Backbone connectivity provided high flexibility (Terminal 1, Terminal 2, Terminal 3, B/A G, and B/A A). The CBRA in Terminal 2 is
• Reduced manual handling dedicated to the standalone Terminal 2 BHS. The other two CBRA zones serve the
• Consolidated TSA equipment remaining terminals/boarding areas.
• Consolidated TSA staff Advantages:
Disadvantages: • Backbone connectivity provides high flexibility
• High investment • Reduced manual handling
• Non-conveyable bags (e.g., fragile items, animals, very large items, etc.) must • Consolidated TSA staff
still be screened in each boarding area • Only bags requiring CBRA processing and transfer bags require transport on
• Single CBIS/CBRA presents redundancy/disaster tolerance challenges the backbone (less load compared to Alternatives 2, 3, and 4)
• Reliance on backbone for transfer of CBIS and CBRA baggage results in high Disadvantages:
complexity of operations during failure
• High investment
• Due to a single CBRA location, travel time for bags requiring CBRA processing
is longer compared to alternatives with multiple CBRA locations.
still be screened in each boarding area
• Reliance on backbone for transfer of CBRA baggage results in high complexity
of operations during failure
Criterion Score
5
Flexibility Criterion Score
2. Capital Cost 1 1. Operational Process Control and
3
Flexibility
3. Operational Cost 4 2. Capital Cost 3
4. Achieving REACH 4 3. Operational Cost 3
5. Environmental 2 4. Achieving REACH 3
6. Feasibility & Phasing 1 5. Environmental 3
Alternative 7 – Split CBRA / Batching / Optimized Terminal 2 G.3.5 Alternatives Evaluation

This alternative is a variation on Alternative 6 and has the same CBIS and CBRA
arrangement. This alternative proposes implementation of batch building capability The matrix below shows the weighted score of each alternative. Based on the scoring, Alternative 4E is the recommended alternative.
into B/As A, B, C, F, and G to reduce the staffing level requirements and reduce the
apron level space requirements. ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE 1 ALTERNATIVE 2 ALTERNATIVE 3 ALTERNATIVE 4A/B/C ALTERNATIVE 4D ALTERNATIVE 4E ALTERNATIVE 5 ALTERNATIVE 6 ALTERNATIVE 7
Advantages:
• Batch building automates the make-up process, thus reducing staff Optimization of 2-Way Split Without 3-Way Split Without Distributed CBIS / Distributed CBIS / Distributed CBIS / Centralized Split CBRA / Split CBRA / Batching
DESCRIPTION
Existing CBIS Sort Connectivity Sort Connectivity 1 CBRA 2 CBRA 5 CBRA CBIS/CBRA Optimized T2 / Optimized T2
• Backbone connectivity provided high flexibility
• Reduced manual handling
• Consolidated TSA staff
• Only bags requiring CBRA processing and transfer bags require transport on
the backbone (less load compared to Alternatives 2, 3, and 4)
Disadvantages: DIAGRAM
• High investment (highest amongst the alternatives)
still be screened in each boarding area.
CRITERIA Score Score Score Score Score Score Score Score Score
OPERATIONAL PROCESS
Criterion Score CONTROL AND 1 5 5 5 4 5 5 3 4
1. Operational Process Control and FLEXIBILITY
4
Flexibility CAPITAL COST 4 3 3 3 2 2 1 3 1
2. Capital Cost 1 OPERATIONAL COST 2 5 4 4 5 4 4 3 4
3. Operational Cost 4 ACHIEVING REACH 1 4 4 4 5 5 4 3 3

ENVIRONMENTAL 1 3 3 2 4 4 2 3 3
FEASIBILITY and
4 3 3 2 3 5 1 2 2
5. Environmental 3 PHASING
WEIGHTED SCORE 2.1 4.2 3.9 3.7 4.3 4.2 3.3 2.9 3.1
G.3.6 Lot DD Parking Garages and Rental Car Center Baggage Input Exhibit G.3-7 | Option 2: Airside Manual Transport to Terminal Area CBIS
Options
This section discusses the BHS options to allow passengers to drop their baggage at the Long Term Parking
Garages in Lot DD and/or the Rental Car Center (RCC) prior to riding the AirTrain to the terminal area.
Four options were considered:
• Option 1: Baggage would be collected at remote locations and loaded into a high-speed
BHS conveyor running along the AirTrain guideway. The conveyor would deposit bags into a west
side CBIS at the terminal.
• Option 2: Baggage would be collected at remote locations and transported by an airside vehicle
to one or more terminal area CBIS.
• Option 3: Baggage would be collected at the RCC, screened at a new remote CBIS, and transported
by an airside vehicle to terminal area baggage make-up areas.
• Option 4: Baggage would be collected at remote locations and transported on by a landside
vehicle to industrial bag drops in the ITB.
Exhibit G.3-6 | Option 1: Automated Solution

In Option 2, baggage checked in at the existing RCC would be sent to a sorting facility, where they would
be grouped based on the terminal or boarding area of departure and then transported to input conveyors
feeding the CBIS in those areas. There would be no direct connectivity from Lot DD, although landside
vans could transport bags collected there to the RCC sorting facility. Exhibit G.3-7 shows Option 2.
In Option 1, bags would be collected at drop points in Lot DD and the RCC and loaded onto a new conveyor
running along the AirTrain guideway, as shown in Exhibit G.3-6. Due to the distance to the terminal area,
ICS technology is proposed because of the greater speeds and control over the baggage that an ICS would
provide. At the terminal area, the ICS link from the Lot DD area would connect to the backbone where the
bags would be transported to one of the CBIS areas for screening and then on to sortation at the
appropriate boarding area.
Exhibit G.3-8 | Option 3: Screening at the Rental Car Center and Airside Manual Transport to Terminal Exhibit G.3-9 | Option 4: Use Industrial Bag Drops in the International Terminal Building
Baggage Make-up Areas
In Option 4, baggage would be collected manually at Lot DD and the RCC and transported on the landside
to new industrial bag drops the ITB. No screening or sortation systems would be provided at Lot DD and
the RCC. These bag drops could be used by for bulk induction of baggage from any source, including
shuttles from area hotels, charter buses, or remote drops in city centers or the Millbrae Intermodal
Station. Exhibit G.3-9 shows Option 4.
In Option 3, baggage checked in at the existing RCC would be screened at a new CBIS area near the RCC,
pre-sorted based on the departure make-up area, and then transported to the appropriate make-up area
Evaluation and Conclusion
or directly to the gate. There would be no direct connectivity from Lot DD, although landside vans could
transport bags collected there to the RCC CBIS. Exhibit G.2-8 shows Option 3. Option 1 is expected to have a high cost, roughly estimated at $90 million for the BHS equipment only,
before considering an enclosure or improvements to the AirTrain structure. While the BHS equipment
could be taken into consideration in the extended AirTrain track structure, it would need to be an
add-on/modification of the existing AirTrain track sections, which raises the following concerns:
• Ability to add load to the AirTrain structure
• At the AirTrain stations, the BHS conveyor would not be able to be adjacent to the AirTrain track
and would require circuitous routes around the stations while maintaining vertical clearance from
the vehicle roadways below
• Maintenance access to the equipment may be difficult because the equipment would be
suspended alongside the AirTrain track. While access can be provided, the response time would
be long given the distances and limited locations for access stairs, etc.
• Difficult to remove baggage from the elevated route if an equipment failure occurs
SFO Airport Development Plan Baggage Handling System Study
An additional concern is that this option can only distribute bags to all terminals/boarding areas when the
BHS backbone is fully in place. Before the backbone is fully implemented, only passengers for the airlines
located in the connected terminals/boarding areas would be able to use the service. This situation could
be avoided if bags for the non-connected airlines were manually transferred between connected and
unconnected areas. Based on the above feasibility issues, Option 1 is not recommended.
Options 2 and 3 would have a high operating cost due to the staff and vehicles required to transport the
bags. Options 2 and 3 rely on adjacency to the airside and thus only work in the existing RCC location and
not for the proposed Lot DD parking garages/RCC location.
Option 2 is not recommended due to its high operating cost and the security and practicality concerns of
transporting unscreened bags on the airside.
Option 3 is not recommended because it would require screening equipment and TSA staffing at the RCC.
Although the baggage flow at the RCC would not be particularly high, it would still require a minimum
contingent of staff, leading to an inefficient use of limited staff resources. This situation is contrary to one
of the ADP goals, which involves consolidating screening operations and increasing staff efficiency.
Therefore, Option 3 is not recommended.
Option 4 is recommended as the most feasible option. The industrial bag drop locations can serve any
off-site check-in/bag drop and is not limited to Lot DD parking garages/RCC. Other opportunities may
include:
• Airport Hotel (allowing hotel guests to check out of the hotel and drop their bags at the hotel)
• Convention centers downtown and around the Peninsula (allowing convention attendees to check
out of their hotel and drop their bags at the convention center)
• City check-in (ability for passengers to drop their bags in the morning upon hotel check-out and
proceed to the Airport later in the day)
• Caltrain and the future high-speed rail station at Millbrae (where passengers would be able to
drop their bags at the station before proceeding to the terminals)
• Drop point for limo services (driver would drop passengers at the terminal curb and then drop
bags at the industrial bag drop)
• Check-in points at other major passenger population centers (e.g., large hotels, corporate
campuses, etc.)
However, the industrial bag drops would only reach the adjacent baggage systems at B/As A and G or any
system connected to the backbone. Any bags inducted at the drops and bound for another location would
be rejected or transferred manually after screening. Therefore, the ability for baggage input at the
industrial bag drops to reach any BHS automatically would be possible only when the backbone is
completed.
Draft Final: September 2016 Appendix G | Page 53

Appendix - G - BHS AEROPUERTO DE SAN FRANCISCO

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

Appendix - G - BHS AEROPUERTO DE SAN FRANCISCO

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Appendix - G - BHS AEROPUERTO DE SAN FRANCISCO

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Appendix G

Baggage Handling System Study

TABLE OF CONTENTS EXHIBITS TABLES

AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT PLAN – DRAFT FINAL Baggage Handling System Study | G - i

o Input conveyors for arriving international passengers transferring to connecting flights

Table G.1-2 | Terminal 1 Baggage Handling Systems Inventory

Table G.1-3 | Terminal 2 Baggage Handling System Inventory

Table G.1-4 | Terminal 3 Baggage Handling System Inventory

B/A E CBIS LOCATION

International Terminal Building

G.2 Facility Requirements and Design Basis

• Passenger check-in profile

• Transfer bag requirements 14%

Percent of all lobby check-ins

SEATS PERCENTAGE AT BAGGAGE CLAIM

Note: DOM = Domestic; INT = International

Exhibit G.2-3 | Passenger Recheck Lateness Distribution

Note: DOM = Domestic; INT = International

AIRLINE CODE AIRLINE AIRLINE CODE AIRLINE PLANNING ACTIVITY LEVEL

• Maximize gate capacity, geometry, and flexibility Terminal 2

G.3.2 Common Themes Among the Alternatives

Source: BNP Associates, October 2015

Exhibit G.3-4 | Conventional and ICS Conveyors

Source: Vanderlande Industries, 2014

G.3.3 Evaluation Table G.3-3 describes the weighing of each criterion.

3. Operational Cost 2 4. Achieving REACH 4

4. Achieving REACH 1 5. Environmental 3

5. Environmental 1 6. Feasibility & Phasing 3

6. Feasibility & Phasing 4

3. Operational Cost 4 Criterion Score

6. Feasibility & Phasing 2

6. Feasibility & Phasing 2

Alternative 4D – Distributed CBIS / 2 CBRA Alternative 4E – Distributed CBIS / 5 CBRA

Alternative 5 – Centralized CBIS/CBRA Alternative 6 – Split CBRA / Optimized T2

4. Achieving REACH 4 3. Operational Cost 3

5. Environmental 2 4. Achieving REACH 3

6. Feasibility & Phasing 1 5. Environmental 3

6. Feasibility & Phasing 2

Alternative 7 – Split CBRA / Batching / Optimized Terminal 2 G.3.5 Alternatives Evaluation

3. Operational Cost 4 ACHIEVING REACH 1 4 4 4 5 5 4 3 3

Exhibit G.3-6 | Option 1: Automated Solution

Draft Final: September 2016 Appendix G | Page 53

You might also like