HANAOKA, Shinya 1 3 Hansen1, 2 1 2 3 Hansen 2 3 4 5 2 2.1 002 Vol.5 No.4 2003 Winter
3 4 2.2 Hansen 1 2, Skinner 5, Augustinus 6, Harvey 7 Windle 8 Pels 9 1 Skinner 5 Augustinus 6 Pels 9 NL Harvey 10 2.3 1 2 5 7 8 ML 11 NL 1 2 1 11 1999 12 8 13 LOS Level of Servis Vol.5 No.4 2003 Winter 003
1 Harvey 7 1 9 Harvey 13 14 15 1999 ITInclusive tour 2 2 5 25 2 2 2.4 ML LOS IATA PEX 004 Vol.5 No.4 2003 Winter
16 OAG Flight Guide 17 3 3 18 3 3.2 3 11 6 4 23 3 3.1 3 4 CAP Vol.5 No.4 2003 Winter 005
1 1 1 / / 1 45 1 4 2002 71 4 1 5 45 23 2 3 / / / / = 5 / / 45 5 4 2 4 OD OD OD 006 Vol.5 No.4 2003 Winter
15 ODOD OD 67 6 7 1 1 19 10 1 B747 20 350 ICAO 21 10 1 1 7% 22 19% 23 3 1 3 20 3 6 3 250 B777, B767 89 8 9 89 2 1 OD 4 24 5 4 4.1 2001 12 4 6 3 Vol.5 No.4 2003 Winter 007
5 15 4.2 6 25,26 7 6 2 7 Perimeter Rule [ ] 1999 27 4.3 4.3.1 5 200 150 21 26 6 Linate 008 Vol.5 No.4 2003 Winter
4.3.2 8 A1, A2, A3without A1 A2 10% A310% A2 A3 10%10% 10% 1 without A2 A3 7 Without 27.5 / 9 2 12 / 10 11 17 / 4.3.4 8 10% 12 1 4.3.5 3 9 10 A2 A3 4.7 /A1 2010 4.3.3 2010 8 3 40.7 / 22 / A3 Vol.5 No.4 2003 Winter 009
A2 A3 9 A2 A3 A1 A1 A2 A3A2 A3 A2 A3 A2 A3 A2 2 10 A1 A2 A3 2 A3 4.4 3 4.4.1 53 3 3 3 11 B1, B2 B3, B4without 3 2 3 B1 1999 7 3 3 B2 1 1 without without A2without withtouta1 B3 B4 10% 010 Vol.5 No.4 2003 Winter
B3, B4 3 B1 4.4.2 3 8 3 7 23 3 3 316 / 3% 12 1 4.4.3 12 3 32 3 B3 11 B1 B2 3 B3 B4Without B3 B4 3 B3 B4 B3 3 B4 B3 5 Vol.5 No.4 2003 Winter 011
3 3 3 3 1 1999 5 6 4 2002 4 2 2002 4 3 2 / 2 4 Small and Rosen 18 5 28 Without ij OD With ij OD Without ij With ij 6 2001.12 7 632001 7 31 8 32001 12 26 9 1999.10 10 16 11 2 1 17 Incheon International Airport 1 Hansen, M. and Du, Q.[1993], Modeling multiple airport systems: A positive feedback approach, UCB-ITS-RR, No.93-12. 2 Hansen, M. [1995], Positive feedback model of multiple-airport systems, J. Transp. Engrg., Vol.121 6, pp.453-460. 3 [1997] Vol.14 pp.765-772. 4[2001] Vol.18 4, pp.675-680. 5 Skinner, R.[1976], Airport choice: an empirical study, Transp. Engrg. J., Vol.102 4, pp.871-882. 6 Augustinus, J.G. and Demakopolous, S.A. [1978], Air passenger distribution model for a multiterminal airport system, Transp. Res. Rec., No.673, pp.176-180. 7 Harvey, G. [1987], Airport choice in a multiple airport region, Transp. Res. A, Vol.21A 6, pp.439-449. 8 Windle, R. and Dresner, M. [1995], Airport choice in multiple-airport regions, J. Transp. Engrg., Vol.121 4, pp.332-337. 012 Vol.5 No.4 2003 Winter
9 Pels, E., Nijkamp, P., and Rietveld, P. [2001], Airport and airline choice in a multiple airport region: An empirical analysis for the San Francisco Bay Area, Regional Studies, Vol.35 1, pp.1-9. 10 Harvey, G. [1986], Study of airport access mode choice, J. Transp. Engrg., Vol.112 5, pp.525-545. 11[1999] 1998 pp.81-89 12[2001] 11 13[1999] 1999 14 [1999] 15 [2001], 16 OFC [1999], OFC 17 OAG [2002], OAG Flight Guide Worldwide. 18 Small, K. A. and Rosen, H.S. [1981] Applied welfare economics with discrete choice models, Econometrica, Vol.49, pp.105-130. 19 20 [2002] 2002 21 ICAO [2001], Traffic by flight stage 1999, Digest of statistics No. 485. 22 [2001] 11 23[2002 2001 http://www.narita-airport.or.jp/naa/. 24[1999],1999 25[2001], 2000 pp.31-40 26 Hanaoka, S., Inamura, H. and Ishikura, T., [2001, Air traffic distribution policies in multiple-airport regions: International comparison, analysis and future perspectives for Tokyo, Proceedings of the 9th World Conference on Transport Research, CD-ROM 27[2000], 39 12 28 [1997], Evaluation of air traffic distribution policies in multiple-airport systems Case of Tokyo metropolitan area By Shinya HANAOKA The airports in multiple-airport areas are operated as a multiple-airport system. The system assigns roles or functions to the airports using air traffic distribution policies such as the exclusive use of passengers for domestic or international. Those policies are based on planning factors of airports such as location, accessibility and slot capacity. This study develops method of evaluating alternative rules of traffic distribution in a given system by using the criterion of passengers benefit. The evaluated method is used to calculate multiple-airport choice models for both terminal and transit passengers. The model was applied to the Tokyo Metropolitan area and the alternative of distribution rules was evaluated based on several feasible rules. Key Words ; Multiple-airport system, Air traffic distribution rules, Airport choice model Vol.5 No.4 2003 Winter 013