An airport comprehensive transportation hub passenger walking convenience evaluation method

Abstract

The application discloses an airport comprehensive traffic hub passenger walking convenience evaluation method, comprising the following steps: typical layout design mode main features of the airport comprehensive traffic hub are summarized and analyzed; an airport comprehensive traffic hub passenger walking convenience evaluation index system is constructed by considering space layout, facility setting and the like; quantitative analysis is carried out on the influence of complex space visibility on passenger route identification behavior; on the basis, an airport comprehensive traffic hub passenger walking convenience evaluation method is proposed by matching passenger real walking feeling, and passenger walking convenience evaluation method effectiveness verification mode is pointed out. The application can be widely applied to airport comprehensive traffic hub planning design or post-use evaluation requirements, and can finely evaluate passenger transfer walking convenience, effectively matches passenger actual walking features and real feeling, and provides a strong basis for airport comprehensive traffic hub planning design and optimization.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] This invention relates to a method for evaluating passenger walking convenience, and more particularly to a method for evaluating passenger walking convenience in an airport integrated transportation hub. Background Technology

[0002] In recent years, a number of newly built large-scale hub airports have been completed and put into operation. These integrated transportation hubs, with different layout and design models, have achieved comprehensive transfers between various modes of transportation, including high-speed rail, urban rail transit, airport buses, taxis, ride-hailing services, and private cars. However, the contradiction between the ever-expanding scale of these integrated transportation hubs and their pedestrian accessibility has become increasingly acute, resulting in a poor travel experience for passengers. Therefore, researching methods for evaluating pedestrian accessibility is of great significance, providing a basis for the planning, design, and optimization of integrated transportation hubs at airports in my country.

[0003] Currently, research on the evaluation of integrated transportation hubs mainly focuses on urban highway, railway, or rail transit transfer hubs. There is relatively little research on the evaluation of airport integrated transportation hubs, which fails to meet the needs of evaluating the pedestrian convenience level of passengers during the planning and design phase of airport integrated transportation hubs, and makes it difficult to comprehensively and objectively reflect the real experience of the walking process from the perspective of passengers. Summary of the Invention

[0004] Purpose of the invention: The purpose of this invention is to provide a method for evaluating the pedestrian convenience of passengers in airport integrated transportation hubs that is universally applicable and can effectively reflect the actual walking experience of passengers.

[0005] Technical solution: The method for evaluating the pedestrian convenience of airport integrated transportation hubs of the present invention includes the following steps:

[0006] S1. Based on the typical integrated transportation hub layout design mode of large hub airports, compare and analyze the main characteristics of different layout design modes.

[0007] S2, construct an evaluation index system for the pedestrian convenience of passengers in airport integrated transportation hubs, and clarify the specific quantitative formulas for each level of evaluation index;

[0008] S3 quantifies the impact of various factors on passengers' wayfinding behavior by quantitatively analyzing the visibility of complex spaces and the ease of obtaining directional signage information.

[0009] S4, based on the constructed evaluation index system and related quantitative indicators, evaluates the pedestrian convenience of passengers in the airport integrated transportation hub;

[0010] S5 verifies the effectiveness of the evaluation method for passenger walking convenience in airport integrated transportation hubs.

[0011] Furthermore, in step S1, the typical integrated transportation hub layout design modes of the large hub airport include integrated, three-dimensional and stand-alone types; the main characteristics of different layout design modes include: land intensification, passenger walking convenience, management difficulty, location of rail transit stations, cost of investment of the same scale, construction difficulty and construction sequence.

[0012] Furthermore, in step S2, the evaluation indicators for the pedestrian convenience of the airport integrated transportation hub include: speed, timeliness, and smoothness; the implementation process of each evaluation indicator is as follows:

[0013] S21, the expression for the speed evaluation index L is as follows:

[0014] L=α1L max +α2L avg

[0015] In the formula, L max For max(L) i );L avg for n represents the number of transfer routes; α1 and α2 are distance weights; L i Let be the walking distance for transferring between the i-th mode of transportation, in meters, and its expression is:

[0016] L i =X i1 +0.636X i2 +1.418N i1 +0.831N i2 +0.564N i3 +0.424N i4 +0.291N i5

[0017] In the formula, X i1 X i2 N represents the horizontal walking distance for the transfer between the i-th mode of transportation and the total length of the moving walkway, respectively, in meters; i1 N i2 N i3 N i4 N i5 These represent the number of steps on the up stairs, down stairs, escalators, high-speed escalators, and the height of the vertical elevator on the i-th mode of transportation transfer route.

[0018] S22, the expression for the timeliness evaluation index T is as follows:

[0019] T = β1T max +β2T avg

[0020] In the formula, T maxFor max(T) i );T avg for β1 and β2 are time weights; T i The walking time for the i-th mode of transportation, taking into account automated walking facilities, is expressed in seconds.

[0021] S23, the expression for the smoothness evaluation index U is as follows:

[0022] U = μ1W1 + μ2W2 + μ3W3 + μ4W4

[0023] In the formula, W1 is the corresponding score of U1 according to the scoring rules, W2 is the corresponding score of U2 according to the scoring rules, W3 is the corresponding score of U3 according to the scoring rules, and W4 is the corresponding score of U4 according to the scoring rules; μ1, μ2, μ3, and μ4 are the weights of each of the two levels of smoothness indicators; the quantitative formula expressions for each of the two levels of smoothness indicators are:

[0024] S231, Streamline Disturbance U1:

[0025]

[0026] In the formula, U i1 H represents the interference degree of the transfer flow between the i-th mode of transportation; i0 H i1 These represent the number of conflict points in the transfer flow for the i-th mode of transportation and the number of transfer facilities traversed; the number of conflict points is:

[0027] H i0 =σ1·CP f +σ2·CP c +σ3·CP i

[0028] In the formula, CP f CP c CP i σ1, σ2, and σ3 are the number of frictional conflict points, the number of intersection conflict points, and the number of weaving conflict points for the i-th mode of transportation, respectively, and the weights of the three types of conflict points are σ1, σ2, and σ3.

[0029] S232, the expression for the walking continuity U2 is as follows:

[0030]

[0031] In the formula, U i2 The continuity of walking distance when transferring between the i-th mode of transportation; L ir H i2 These represent the walking distance for the transfer space between the i-th mode of transportation and the actual number of conflict points in the transfer flow, respectively.

[0032] S233, the expression for the streamline complexity U3 is as follows:

[0033]

[0034] In the formula, U i3 Let H be the complexity of the transfer flow for the i-th mode of transportation; i3 H i4 These represent the number of vertical floor transitions and the number of obvious horizontal turns in the transfer flow for the i-th mode of transportation, respectively.

[0035] S234, the expression for streamline shortcut U4 is as follows:

[0036]

[0037] In the formula: U4 is the streamline shortcut; U i4 L represents the shortcut degree of the transfer flow between the i-th mode of transportation; ir Let be the ideal walking distance for transferring between the i-th mode of transportation.

[0038] Furthermore, in step S3, the quantitative formula for the impact of visibility in complex spaces and ease of access to directional signage information on passenger wayfinding behavior is as follows:

[0039] γ=V(1+Z)

[0040] In the formula: γ is the spatial comprehensibility factor, which refers to the ease with which passengers can understand spatial features using their own vision and with the help of directional signs; V is the mean spatial comprehensibility, which refers to the ease with which passengers can understand the whole space from the local space, and is the correlation coefficient between integration and connectivity in spatial syntax; Z is the information integration degree, which refers to the ease with which passengers can obtain route guidance information based on the type of directional sign, and is quantified by the following formula:

[0041]

[0042] In the formula, f j (j=1,2,3k) represents the method by which passengers obtain information, taking values ​​between [0,1] based on the existence of such route guidance signs and the ease of obtaining them; θ j This is the weighting factor.

[0043] Furthermore, in step S4, the quantitative formula for evaluating the pedestrian accessibility of the airport integrated transportation hub is as follows:

[0044]

[0045] In the formula, C gT represents pedestrian convenience; L represents timeliness; U represents smoothness; γ represents spatial comprehensibility factor; and ρ1 and ρ2 represent the perceived impact coefficients of pedestrian convenience level, with values ​​ranging from [0, 1].

[0046] Furthermore, in step S5, the effectiveness of the passenger walking convenience evaluation method is verified through an on-site questionnaire survey.

[0047] Compared with the prior art, the significant advantages of this invention are as follows:

[0048] 1. This invention summarizes and analyzes the typical layout design patterns and main characteristics of airport integrated transportation hubs; constructs an evaluation index system for passenger walking convenience in airport integrated transportation hubs; quantitatively analyzes the impact of complex spatial visibility on passenger wayfinding behavior; proposes an evaluation method for passenger walking convenience in airport integrated transportation hubs, and provides a method for verifying the effectiveness of the passenger walking convenience evaluation method.

[0049] 2. This invention can provide a strong basis for the planning, design and optimization of airport integrated transportation hubs, and is of great significance for improving airport service quality and overall operational efficiency. Attached Figure Description

[0050] Figure 1 This is a flowchart of the present invention;

[0051] Figure 2 Layout design drawing for an integrated airport transportation hub;

[0052] Figure 3 A layout design drawing for a "three-dimensional" airport integrated transportation hub;

[0053] Figure 4 Layout design drawing for a "standalone" airport integrated transportation hub;

[0054] Figure 5 A diagram illustrating the evaluation index system for passenger walking convenience at airport integrated transportation hubs;

[0055] Figure 6 This is a passenger departure flow diagram for Terminals 1 and 2 of Nanjing Lukou International Airport.

[0056] Figure 7 This is a scatter plot of the visual network of each level of the Nanjing Lukou International Airport Integrated Transportation Hub. Detailed Implementation

[0057] The present invention will now be described in further detail with reference to the accompanying drawings and specific embodiments.

[0058] like Figure 1 As shown, the passenger walking convenience evaluation method of the present invention includes the following steps:

[0059] Step 1: Summarize the typical integrated transportation hub layout design patterns of large domestic hub airports, and compare and analyze the main characteristics of different layout design patterns.

[0060] Typical integrated transportation hub layout design patterns for large domestic hub airports include "integrated," "three-dimensional," and "standalone" designs. The "integrated" layout design pattern, such as... Figure 2 As shown, this refers to an airport rail transit or high-speed rail station directly connected to the main terminal building, while other modes of transportation within the hub are typically located along the driveways of the main terminal building, lacking a traditional transportation center; this "three-dimensional" layout design pattern, such as... Figure 3 As shown, this refers to an airport integrated transportation hub that is independent of the main terminal building. It is typically located in front of the main terminal building and serves as a traditional and clearly defined transportation center. Passengers need to use a combination of underground passages, horizontal corridors, and vertical transportation facilities to access the main terminal building; this is a "standalone" layout design pattern, such as... Figure 4 As shown, this means that each mode of transportation station is independent of the main terminal building, and their spatial layout is also relatively independent. Different modes of transportation usually transfer on the same floor. Passengers need to use a combination of underground passages and horizontal corridors to enter the main terminal building space, which has a clear transportation center.

[0061] The main characteristics of different layout design modes are analyzed from seven aspects, including land intensification, passenger walking convenience, management difficulty, location of rail transit stations, cost of investment of the same scale, construction difficulty, and construction sequence, as shown in Table 1.

[0062] Table 1 Comparative Analysis of Key Features of Airport Integrated Transportation Hub Layout Design Patterns

[0063]

[0064] Step 2: Construct an evaluation index system for the pedestrian convenience of airport integrated transportation hubs, and clarify the specific quantitative formulas for each level of evaluation index.

[0065] like Figure 5 As shown, this is the evaluation index system for the pedestrian convenience of airport integrated transportation hubs, which covers three Level 1 evaluation indicators (speed, timeliness, and smoothness) and eight Level 2 evaluation indicators.

[0066] The specific quantitative formulas for each level of indicator are as follows:

[0067] (1) Evaluation indicators for speed:

[0068] L=α1L max +α2L avg (1)

[0069] In the formula: L is the speed index value; L max That is, max(L) i );L avg Right now n represents the number of transfer routes; α1 and α2 are distance weights, determined based on actual evaluation requirements. Where L... i The formula for quantifying the walking distance (in meters) between the i-th mode of transportation is as follows:

[0070] L i =X i1 +0.636X i2 +1.418N i1 +0.831N i2 +0.564N i3 +0.424N i4 +0.291N i5 (2)

[0071] In the formula: X i1 X i2 N represents the horizontal walking distance for the transfer between the i-th mode of transportation and the total length of the moving walkway (in meters), respectively. i1 N i2 N i3 N i4 N i5 These represent the number of steps on the up stairs, down stairs, escalators, high-speed escalators, and the height of the vertical elevator (vertical height converted to the equivalent number of steps) for the i-th mode of transportation transfer route.

[0072] (2) Timeliness evaluation indicators:

[0073] T = β1T max +β2T avg (3)

[0074] In the formula: T is the timeliness index value; T max That is, max(T) i );T avg Right now β1 and β2 are time weights, determined according to actual evaluation requirements. Where T... i Let be the walking time (in seconds) for transferring between the i-th mode of transportation. The impact of automated walking facilities on passenger walking time should be considered.

[0075] (3) Smoothness evaluation indicators:

[0076] U=μ1W1+μ2W2+μ3W3+μ4W4 (4)

[0077] In the formula: U is the smoothness index value; W1, W2, W3, and W4 are the comprehensive scores of each of the two levels of smoothness indexes. The scoring rules are formulated according to the actual evaluation needs. The scoring rules of this embodiment, namely the scoring range of each index of passenger walking smoothness, are shown in Table 2. When the flow line interference degree U1≤0.5, W1=1; when the walking continuity degree U2 is 30-50, W2=0.6; when the flow line complexity U3≤2, W3=1; when the flow line shortcut degree U4>2.0, W4=0.2; μ1, μ2, μ3, and μ4 are the weights of each of the two levels of smoothness indexes, which are determined according to the actual evaluation needs.

[0078] Table 2 Scoring ranges for various indicators of passenger walking smoothness

[0079]

[0080] The specific quantitative formulas for each of the two levels of smoothness indicators are as follows:

[0081] 21) Streamline interference degree:

[0082]

[0083] In the formula: U1 is the streamline disturbance degree; U i1 H represents the interference degree of passenger transfer flow for the i-th mode of transportation; i0 H i1 These represent the number of conflict points in the transfer flow for the i-th mode of transportation and the number of transfer facilities traversed. The number of conflict points is:

[0084] H i0 =σ1·CP f +σ2·CP c +σ3·CP i (6)

[0085] In the formula: CP f CP c CP i These represent the number of frictional conflict points, the number of intersection conflict points, and the number of weaving conflict points for the transfer flow of the i-th mode of transportation, respectively. σ1, σ2, and σ3 are the weights of the three types of conflict points, which are determined according to the actual transfer flow design.

[0086] 22) Walking continuity:

[0087]

[0088] In the formula: U2 represents the walking continuity; U i2 The continuity of walking distance when transferring between the i-th mode of transportation; L ir H i2 These represent the walking distance for passengers transferring between modes of transportation (i) and the actual number of conflict points along the transfer flow, respectively.

[0089] 23) Streamline complexity:

[0090]

[0091] In the formula: U3 is the streamline complexity; U i3 Let H be the complexity of the transfer flow for the i-th mode of transportation; i3 H i4 These represent the number of vertical floor transitions and the number of obvious horizontal turns in the transfer flow for the i-th mode of transportation.

[0092] 24) Streamline shortcut:

[0093]

[0094] In the formula: U4 is the streamline shortcut; U i4 L represents the shortcut degree of the transfer flow between the i-th mode of transportation; ir Let be the ideal walking distance for transferring between the i-th mode of transportation.

[0095] Step 3: Quantitatively analyze the visibility of complex spaces and the ease of obtaining directional signage information, and then quantify the impact of the above factors on passengers' wayfinding behavior.

[0096] The formula for quantifying the impact of visibility in complex spaces and ease of access to directional signage on passenger wayfinding behavior is as follows:

[0097] γ=V(1+Z) (10)

[0098] In the formula: γ is the spatial comprehensibility factor, which refers to the ease with which passengers can understand spatial features using their own vision and with the help of directional signs; V is the mean spatial comprehensibility, which refers to the ease with which passengers can understand the overall space from the local space, and is the correlation coefficient between integration and connectivity in spatial syntax, which can be calculated using Depthmap spatial syntax software; Z is the information integration degree, which refers to the ease with which passengers can obtain route guidance information based on the type of directional sign, and is quantified by the following formula:

[0099]

[0100] In the formula: f j (j=1,2,3k) represents the way passengers obtain information, taking values ​​between [0,1] based on the existence of such route guidance signs and the ease of obtaining them. j This is the weighting factor.

[0101] Step 4: Based on the evaluation index system and related quantitative indicators constructed above, a method for evaluating the pedestrian convenience of airport integrated transportation hubs is proposed.

[0102] The specific quantitative formula for the Passenger Walking Access (TLU) evaluation method for airport integrated transportation hubs is as follows:

[0103]

[0104] In the formula: C g The index is denoted as: T = passenger walking convenience; L = timeliness index; U = smoothness index; γ = spatial comprehensibility factor; ρ1 and ρ2 are the perceived impact coefficients of walking convenience level, with values ​​ranging from [0,1], which represent the degree of influence of transfer flow conflict and spatial visibility on passengers' actual walking experience.

[0105] Step 5: Based on the on-site questionnaire survey, identify the method for validating the effectiveness of the evaluation method for the pedestrian convenience of passengers in airport integrated transportation hubs.

[0106] The on-site questionnaire survey involved setting up a passenger walkability evaluation scale and designing questions and answers based on the airport integrated transportation hub passenger walkability evaluation index system. The questionnaire survey was conducted in the airport terminal check-in hall. The validity of the passenger walkability evaluation method was verified by using the fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method (FCE) to quantify the questionnaire survey results, while simultaneously using traditional methods to assess passenger walkability. A comparative analysis was then performed on the evaluation results of the proposed passenger walkability evaluation method, the fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method, and the traditional passenger walkability evaluation method.

[0107] This embodiment takes Nanjing Lukou International Airport as the research object, selecting three modes of transportation: subway, intercity bus, and private car, to calculate the convenience of passenger walking. The passenger departure flow of Terminals 1 and 2 of Nanjing Lukou International Airport is as follows: Figure 6 As shown.

[0108] The core data sources mainly include: CAD planning and design drawings of the Nanjing Lukou Airport Integrated Transportation Hub, satellite imagery, and on-site surveys. In addition, the passenger walkability evaluation scale for the airport's integrated transportation hub includes three items: "speed," "timeliness," and "smoothness." Each item has four answer options: "very good," "good," "average," and "poor." The questionnaires were conducted in the check-in halls of Terminals 1 and 2, with an appropriate number of questionnaires distributed to different modes of transportation.

[0109] First, based on the layout design model of the Nanjing Lukou Airport integrated transportation hub, this embodiment determines the weights of the two-level indicators for walkability and timeliness to be 0.2 and 0.8, respectively; and the weights of the two-level indicators for smoothness (i.e., flow line interference, walkability continuity, flow line complexity, and flow line shortcut) to be 0.35, 0.3, 0.15, and 0.2, respectively. Furthermore, based on the calculation method for passenger walkability-related indicators, the values ​​of walkability-related indicators for transfers between different modes of transportation in the integrated transportation hub are calculated, as shown in Table 3.

[0110] Table 3. Relevant Indicators of Walking Convenience for Passengers Transferring Between Various Modes of Transportation at Nanjing Lukou Airport Integrated Transportation Hub

[0111]

[0112] Secondly, such as Figure 7 As shown in Table 4, the spatial visibility analysis of the integrated transportation hub was conducted using Depthmap software. The overall spatial intelligibility V of the airport integrated transportation hub is 0.90. Furthermore, based on the on-site survey results, the Nanjing Lukou Airport integrated transportation hub currently has three types of directional signage: suspended, embedded, and floor-mounted. The ease of information retrieval is 0.8, 0.5, and 0.6 respectively. With weights of 0.4, 0.3, and 0.2 for each sign, the information integration degree Z is 0.6, resulting in a spatial intelligibility factor γ of 1.44.

[0113] Table 4 Spatial Understandability of Each Level of Nanjing Lukou Airport Integrated Transportation Hub

[0114]

[0115] In summary, given the spatial comprehensibility factor γ and based on the calculation results of the relevant indicators of pedestrian convenience in Table 2, the pedestrian convenience of passenger transfer between various modes of transportation at Nanjing Lukou Airport Integrated Transportation Hub can be obtained, as shown in Table 5.

[0116] Table 5. Walking Convenience for Passengers Transferring Between Various Modes of Transportation at Nanjing Lukou Airport Integrated Transportation Hub

[0117]

[0118] As shown in Table 5, the convenience for passengers walking from the intercity bus station to the T1 terminal check-in hall is the highest, at 0.00828, indicating the best walking experience; while the convenience for passengers walking from the subway station to the T1 terminal check-in hall is the lowest, at 0.00510, indicating a poor walking experience.

[0119] To ensure the scientific rigor, objectivity, and effectiveness of the evaluation method for passenger walkability at airport integrated transportation hubs, the fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method was used to quantify the questionnaire survey results. In the questionnaire survey, the weights of each indicator were 0.35, 0.35, and 0.3, respectively, and the fuzzy evaluation sets were 1, 0.8, 0.6, and 0.4, respectively. The fuzzy comprehensive evaluation results are shown in Table 6. Simultaneously, traditional evaluation methods were used to assess passenger walkability, and the evaluation results of the FCE method, tl method, and TLU method were normalized. The normalized results are shown in Table 7. The tl method considers passenger walkability as the sum of the reciprocal of the walking distance and the reciprocal of the walking time.

[0120] Table 6. Fuzzy Comprehensive Evaluation Results of Passenger Questionnaire Survey on Various Transportation Modes at Nanjing Lukou Airport

[0121]

[0122] Table 7 Comparison of Normalized Results of Passenger Walking Convenience Evaluation Methods (FCE, tl, TLU)

[0123]

[0124] As shown in Table 6, considering the impact of factors such as flow conflict and spatial visibility, the TLU method's evaluation results show that passenger walking convenience is reduced to varying degrees compared to the traditional TL method. This aligns with the actual walking patterns of passengers within airport integrated transportation hubs, indicating that the TLU evaluation method has strong scientific validity. Regarding the questionnaire survey results (i.e., fuzzy evaluation results), passengers walking from the intercity shuttle bus station to Terminal 1 had the best walking experience, as did those walking from the subway station to Terminal 1. The evaluation conclusions are consistent with the TLU evaluation method.

[0125] Meanwhile, as shown in Table 7, most of the evaluation results of the TLU method are closer to the fuzzy evaluation results, indicating that the proposed evaluation method for passenger walking convenience in airport integrated transportation hubs can effectively match passengers' real walking experience and has strong effectiveness and rationality.

[0126] In summary, this invention can be widely applied to the planning, design, and post-use evaluation of airport integrated transportation hubs. It can also provide a detailed evaluation of passenger transfer walking convenience, effectively matching passengers' actual walking characteristics and real feelings. It can provide a strong basis for the planning, design, and optimization of airport integrated transportation hubs in my country, and is of great significance for improving airport service quality and operational efficiency.

[0127] The above embodiments are merely detailed descriptions of specific implementations of the present invention and should not be construed as limiting the scope of protection of the present invention. Any modifications made to the technical solutions based on the technical concepts proposed in this invention shall fall within the scope of protection of this invention.

Claims

1. A method for evaluating the pedestrian convenience of passengers in an airport integrated transportation hub, characterized in that, Includes the following steps: S1. Based on the typical integrated transportation hub layout design mode of large hub airports, compare and analyze the main characteristics of different layout design modes. S2, construct an evaluation index system for the pedestrian convenience of passengers in airport integrated transportation hubs, and clarify the specific quantitative formulas for each level of evaluation index; S3 quantifies the impact of various factors on passengers' wayfinding behavior by quantitatively analyzing the visibility of complex spaces and the ease of obtaining directional signage information. S4, based on the constructed evaluation index system and related quantitative indicators, evaluates the pedestrian convenience of passengers in the airport integrated transportation hub; S5 verifies the effectiveness of the evaluation method for passenger walking convenience in airport integrated transportation hubs; In step S3, the quantitative formula for the impact of visibility in complex spaces and ease of access to directional signage information on passenger wayfinding behavior is as follows: ， In the formula: Spatial comprehensibility factor refers to the degree of difficulty for travelers to understand spatial features by relying on their own vision and with the help of directional signs; The mean spatial comprehensibility refers to the ease or difficulty of understanding the whole space from the local space, and is the correlation coefficient between integration and connectivity in spatial syntax. To measure information integration efficiency, the formula quantifies the ease with which passengers can obtain route guidance information based on signage types. ， In the formula, The method for obtaining information for passengers takes a value between [0,1] based on the existence of such route guidance signs and the ease of obtaining them; As a weighting factor; In step S4, the quantitative formula for evaluating the pedestrian accessibility of the airport integrated transportation hub is as follows: ， In the formula, For the convenience of passengers walking; This is a timeliness indicator value; This refers to the speed and efficiency index value. The smoothness index value; For spatially comprehensible factors; , The factor representing the perceived impact of walking convenience is [0, 1].

2. The method for evaluating the pedestrian convenience of airport integrated transportation hubs according to claim 1, characterized in that, In step S1, the typical integrated transportation hub layout design modes of the large hub airport include integrated, three-dimensional and stand-alone. The main characteristics of different layout design modes include: land intensification, passenger walking convenience, management difficulty, location of rail transit stations, cost of investment of the same scale, construction difficulty and construction sequence.

3. The method for evaluating the pedestrian convenience of airport integrated transportation hubs according to claim 1, characterized in that, In step S2, the evaluation indicators for the pedestrian convenience of the airport integrated transportation hub include: speed, timeliness, and smoothness; the implementation process of each evaluation indicator is as follows: S21, Speed ​​Evaluation Index The expression is as follows: ， In the formula, for ; for , This refers to the number of transfer flow lines; and Distance weights; For the first The walking distance between different modes of transportation, in meters, is expressed as: ， In the formula, , The first Horizontal walking distance between different modes of transportation and total length of moving walkways, in meters; , , , , The first The number of steps on the up stairs, down stairs, escalators, high-speed escalators, and the height of the vertical elevators for each mode of transportation transfer route; S22, Timeliness Evaluation Indicators The expression is as follows: ， In the formula, for ; for ; and Time weighting; To consider the conditions of automated walking facilities, the first Walking time for passengers transferring between different modes of transportation, in seconds; S23, Smoothness Evaluation Index The expression is as follows: ， In the formula, This is the corresponding score for U1 according to the scoring rules. This is the corresponding score for U2 according to the scoring rules. This is the corresponding score for U3 according to the scoring rules. This is the corresponding score for U4 according to the scoring rules; , , , The weights for each of the two levels of smoothness indicators are: The quantitative formulas for each of the two levels of smoothness indicators are as follows: S231, Streamline Disturbance : ， In the formula, For the first Interference degree of transfer flow between different modes of transportation; , The first The number of conflict points in the transfer flow between different modes of transportation, and the number of transfer facilities traversed; the number of conflict points is: ， In the formula, , , The first The number of friction and conflict points, the number of intersection conflict points, and the number of weaving conflict points in the transfer flow of different modes of transportation. , , The weights of the three types of conflict points; S232, Walking Continuity The expression is as follows: ， In the formula, No. Continuity of walking between different modes of transportation; , The first Walking distance between different modes of transportation and the number of actual conflict points in the transfer flow; S233, Streamline Complexity The expression is as follows: ， In the formula, For the first Complexity of transfer flow between different modes of transportation; , The first The number of vertical floor transitions and the number of obvious horizontal turns in the transfer flow between different modes of transportation; S234, Streamline Shortest Direction The expression is as follows: ， In the formula: For streamlined shortcut; For the first Shortest route for transfers between different modes of transportation; For the first Ideal walking distance for transferring between different modes of transportation.

4. The method for evaluating the pedestrian convenience of airport integrated transportation hubs according to claim 1, characterized in that, In step S5, the effectiveness of the passenger walking convenience evaluation method is verified through on-site questionnaire survey.

Images