Viewing page 11 of 14

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

-3-

a railway station with the trains parked in a marshalling yard and the passengers having to be led in groups by experienced staff to ensure not only that they boarded the right train, but also to prevent them from being knocked down by a shunting engine on the way. If one were to add that the whole process had to be done in the open, the parallel would not be exaggerated - and, a stationary aeroplane can quite neatly chop off somebody's head whereas a train has at least to be in motion before it comes a lethal weapon.

When we come to translating these thoughts into bricks and concrete, what is the best approach? To begin with, one has to recognize that the shape, size and layout of a passenger terminal are influenced by many factors. The type and volume of traffic- present and forecast- site limitations, the existence or other influences. One cannot therefore produce a standard pattern of an ideal terminal and expect such a pattern to fit all circumstances- nor could one hope to encompass in one talk all the detailed aspects of terminal design.  

There are, however, certain basic principles which apply equally to any terminal building irrespective of size and function. The first is that the functional purpose of the building must take precedence over aesthetic appearance. Let me hasten to add that I see no reason why the one should not be compatible with the other. Certainly a passenger terminal should look as attractive as possible, so long as this does not impose any penalties on passenger-flow and amenities, or add appreciably to the cost of construction by the use of unnecessarily expensive materials. 

Secondly, the building should be capable of handling the estimated passenger traffic without the dislocation caused by additional construction or major alteration for at least 10 years ahead. Moreover, the initial plan must be capable of expansion, so that the building or buildings can handle traffic up to the maximum runway capacity of the airport, making optimistic allowances for improvements in the aircraft movement rate as a result of developments in air traffic control and landing aids. These principles apply with equal force to all ground facilities at airports and include apron space, car parking areas and cargo warehouses. The development of civil aviation has been hampered so often by timorous and unimaginative planning and lack of faith in the future - and, so far as buildings and ground facilities are concerned, it has invariably been a case of "too little and too late".

my third point is that passenger and baggage flows should be self-evident, as short as possible and unimpeded by a form of obstruction. The ideal, which I appreciate can only be achieved at the smaller airports, is for the traffic to be handled at ground floor level, with proper separation of departing and arriving passengers. 

If the size of buildings or site limitations prevent this, the best alternative is to have all departing traffic handled o the first floor and arriving traffic on the ground floor, with a ramped road on the landside of the building for departing passengers. In all other cases changes of level should be kept to an absolute minimum, and there is much to be said in favour of keeping all baggage-handling and movement to the ground floor. 

And here I must emphasize the importance of adequate signposting. The signs should be bold enough to command attention, even if they detract from the aesthetic appearance of a passenger concourse. they should preferable be either 

/4......