Dublin Airport New Runway/Infrastructure.

Ben D Bus

Captain_Crash wrote: »

It wont be the tallest manned structure, some cathedrals have spires 90M plus. However; it will have the highest occupied space, so once finished, unless your flying, the lads in ATC will be the highest people in the country.

This doesn't include NI where there is a building taller than the new tower.

Everyone can claim a superlative if they set the correct parameters.

MJohnston

Captain_Crash wrote: »

It wont be the tallest manned structure, some cathedrals have spires 90M plus. However; it will have the highest occupied space, so once finished, unless your flying, the lads in ATC will be the highest people in the country.

This doesn't include NI where there is a building taller than the new tower.

plodder

Captain_Crash wrote: »

It wont be the tallest manned structure, some cathedrals have spires 90M plus. However; it will have the highest occupied space, so once finished, unless your flying, the lads in ATC will be the highest people in the country.

I'd say the church on top of Croagh Patrick is a higher occupied space (when it's occupied :pac:)

Captain_Crash

MJohnston wrote: »

Haha.... Yeah I noticed how it read after I clicked "submit" but sure, why change it eh:P:D

BeardySi

Captain_Crash wrote: »

It wont be the tallest manned structure, some cathedrals have spires 90M plus. However; it will have the highest occupied space, so once finished, unless your flying, the lads in ATC will be the highest people in the country.

This doesn't include NI where there is a building taller than the new tower.

OBEL in Belfast is 85m, so due to be pipped by the new ATC tower. Don't think there's anything taller up here...

Like I said earlier, it’s an argument that everyone will personalise but the way they generally measure these things they don’t take churches and their spires into consideration. Anyway one has people mostly occupying the bottom 5 metres while the other has people mostly occupying the top 5 metres.

Carawaystick

Deleted User wrote: »

Like I said earlier, it’s an argument that everyone will personalise but the way they generally measure these things they don’t take churches and their spires into consideration. Anyway one has people mostly occupying the bottom 5 metres while the other has people mostly occupying the top 5 metres.

Samson's taller, has a fella at the top and it moves.

BeardySi

Carawaystick wrote: »

Samson's taller, has a fella at the top and it moves.

Considering i can see them from my computer desk, it's surprising I forgot about them....

VG31

Does anyone know what the construction site between piers 3 and 4 is for? It seems to be preventing at least two gates at pier 3 from bring used.

VG31

VG31 wrote: »

Does anyone know what the construction site between piers 3 and 4 is for? It seems to be preventing at least two gates at pier 3 from bring used.

They are just renovating the apron and some stands.


http://iaip.iaa.ie/iaip/Published%20Files/SUPP%20Files/2017/EI_SUP_2017_12_EN.pdf

Shedite27

Complete outsider question here, but how will the parallel runways be operated? Will one be for takeoffs and one for landings? Every second movement? Or will only one be operational at any given time?

L1011

Shedite27 wrote: »

Complete outsider question here, but how will the parallel runways be operated? Will one be for takeoffs and one for landings? Every second movement? Or will only one be operational at any given time?

Both will be available for takeoff and landing at the same time (assuming within crosswind limits). I have seen a diagram suggesting that heavies will have to land on one and take off on the other but normal aircraft will use both.

Cloudio9

L1011 wrote: »

Both will be available for takeoff and landing at the same time (assuming within crosswind limits). I have seen a diagram suggesting that heavies will have to land on one and take off on the other but normal aircraft will use both.

Available as in technically possible. However planning permission states how each are to be used barring exceptional conditions.

Some people in this thread have suggested that the DAA is a rogue organisation that would ignore planning law but I think that is pretty unlikely.

Locker10a

Cloudio9 wrote: »

L1011 wrote: »

Both will be available for takeoff and landing at the same time (assuming within crosswind limits). I have seen a diagram suggesting that heavies will have to land on one and take off on the other but normal aircraft will use both.

Available as in technically possible. However planning permission states how each are to be used barring exceptional conditions.

Some people in this thread have suggested that the DAA is a rogue organisation that would ignore planning law but I think that is pretty unlikely.

Would it not be the IAA who’ll be in charge of how the runways are used ? Surely this is something for ATC and not the airport operator to decide

LiamaDelta

Locker10a wrote:

Would it not be the IAA who’ll be in charge of how the runways are used ? Surely this is something for ATC and not the airport operator to decide

The planning permission included restrictions on times and types of operation/use.

Captain_Crash

Cloudio9 wrote: »

Some people in this thread have suggested that the DAA is a rogue organisation that would ignore planning law but I think that is pretty unlikely.

I think your referring to me on this. I never suggested the DAA are a rogue operation (I think you mean IAA/ATC). What was said was the only restriction from a planning perspective on the North runway are its hours of use. I think it was generally agreed on the thread at the time that the inclusion of the word "preferred" was no accident.

The below image give a good illustration on how operations will be conducted. Weather coming from the east or the west L will be preferred for arrivals and R for departures. However as shown in the illustration, both are available for arrivals and departures (as mentioned above, heavies have some additional operational restrictions).

LXFlyer

Effectively what that is saying is that the numbers of aircraft flying over the residential areas of Portmarnock will be kept to a minimum insofar as that is possible.

Kermit.de.frog

Anyone know about any plans to improve road access?

I'm thinking the roundabout at the entrance needs to be replaced by a proper flyover and that flyovers would be needed on the M1 interchange.

MICKEYG

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Anyone know about any plans to improve road access?

I'm thinking the roundabout at the entrance needs to be replaced by a proper flyover and that flyovers would be needed on the M1 interchange.

I always wondered about this junction. When you leave the airport to head south on the M1/M50 you hit a set of lights on this roundabout whose only purpose I can see is to allow people heading south on the M1 to perform a U-turn.

jamo2oo9

Does the junction really need flyovers? I'm not aware of how much traffic is used during rush hour but whenever I'm heading into the airport via M1, traffic isn't too bad.

Captain_Crash

jamo2oo9 wrote: »

Does the junction really need flyovers? I'm not aware of how much traffic is used during rush hour but whenever I'm heading into the airport via M1, traffic isn't too bad.

Arrived at the airport last night to collect a family member and it was down to one lane because of roadworks, it took over 20 mins from the M1 exit to get past the roundabout and into the airport. However, I would agree that 99% of the time its no issue.

Irish Steve

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Anyone know about any plans to improve road access?

I'm thinking the roundabout at the entrance needs to be replaced by a proper flyover and that flyovers would be needed on the M1 interchange.

That's a whole mess that will have to be addressed at some stage.

For me, equally urgent is to sort out segregating out the pedestrian crossing on the departures level, along with the lanes that are used for drop off and through traffic, that's a complete mess and an accident waiting to happen given the increasing numbers that are now arriving by bus, or using the short term car parking.

There are too many vehicles (especially taxis) being parked on the departure road, and a far safer management scheme would be to use the outer lanes as the set down lanes, both left and right, with the middle lane being the through lane, which would make it easier for pedestrians to get out on to a dedicated walk area, especially where smaller children are involved.

IF the T1 security checks are being moved to the mezzanine, given the number of people that are already checked in, there is a case to be made for putting an overbridge on the departure level that would connect to the security scanning level, so that passengers who don't need to check in at a desk could go straight up to that level, which would cover a high number of Ryanair passengers, That would reduce the numbers crossing the road, and reduce the numbers on the check in desk level.

It's not just the airport, for some reason, traffic planners in this country seem to be completely unable to design schemes that result in appropriate separation (and safety) of pedestrians and traffic, places like Blanchardstown shopping centre being another example where there are too many places where the separation of vehicles and pedestrians just does not work well, and the Airside complex is another example. all arriving and departing vehicles are forced to drive past the entrances of every unit.

Another option that could help considerably would be to have a drop off and pick up zone at one of the long stay car parks, which could reduce the numbers of vehicles that are passing through the central airport area, given that the chances of the metro happening are still slim, it's going to be a number of years before there is a sensible rail option to get in and out of the airport.

Shedite27

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Anyone know about any plans to improve road access?

I'm thinking the roundabout at the entrance needs to be replaced by a proper flyover and that flyovers would be needed on the M1 interchange.

There's some work ongoing on the roundabout at the moment, looks to be adding another lane to it at least

plodder

MICKEYG wrote: »

I always wondered about this junction. When you leave the airport to head south on the M1/M50 you hit a set of lights on this roundabout whose only purpose I can see is to allow people heading south on the M1 to perform a U-turn.

I hadn't noticed that before, but in fact if they took those lights away the U - turning traffic would still have right of way (being on the roundabout). So, the function of the lights must be to give some priority to traffic leaving the airport over the vast stream of vehicles that needs to double back on the M1 at that location.

I'd say if improved access is needed from the M1 in the future, it might make more sense to build a completely new link straight into the other entrance, rather than messing with the existing one (other than maybe getting rid of the traffic lights on that roundabout).

Shedite27

plodder wrote: »

I hadn't noticed that before, but in fact if they took those lights away the U - turning traffic would still have right of way (being on the roundabout). So, the function of the lights must be to give some priority to traffic leaving the airport over the vast stream of vehicles that needs to double back on the M1 at that location.

I'd say if improved access is needed from the M1 in the future, it might make more sense to build a completely new link straight into the other entrance, rather than messing with the existing one (other than maybe getting rid of the traffic lights on that roundabout).

Was about to post that the stretch of that roundabout between the turnoff for the airport and the lights you're talking about must be very rarely used, but sure enough there's a car there in the photo on Google maps!

MICKEYG

plodder wrote: »

I hadn't noticed that before, but in fact if they took those lights away the U - turning traffic would still have right of way (being on the roundabout). So, the function of the lights must be to give some priority to traffic leaving the airport over the vast stream of vehicles that needs to double back on the M1 at that location.

I'd say if improved access is needed from the M1 in the future, it might make more sense to build a completely new link straight into the other entrance, rather than messing with the existing one (other than maybe getting rid of the traffic lights on that roundabout).

You could just block the u-turn option and force them to the airport roundabout.
In the LT a whole new junction from the airport to the M1 is needed. I think some of the development plans show this.

trellheim

Ref the Runways above the word "preferred" ( as I posted earlier) has very very specific constraints for aircraft movements . I'd expect something like Heathrows "no takeoffs from 9L in normal ops" - although as someone pointed out the Cranford agreement is gone now, but as an example it suits here.

Jamie2k9

The options are currently:
* New exit from MI
* Redirection of LT Car Park traffic (Most likely IMO based on cost)
* New access from Old Airport Road

Should be noted the level of traffic growth is much lower than passenger growth.

Donegal Storm

Fingal CC are hoping to upgrade the access apparently though no clues as to what they're actually planning

https://www.independent.ie/business/irish/eib-loan-to-help-tackle-airport-traffic-snarls-36393801.html

Shn99

is this the a380 gate under construction?
https://ibb.co/hXRj0S