Proposed New Runway.

kneemos

No doubt I'm missing something but from what I hear on the wireless the new runway will cost 320 million and require 12 hundred to build.

I appreciate land may be expensive but surely it's just a glorified roadway,where's the hundreds of millions going.
Also 12 hundred to build the thing??

mahoganygas

+ car parks
+ hanagrs
+ Gate buildings
+ duty free buildings
+ maintenance buildings
+ car parks
+ Expanded ATC
+ Extra security

I also wouldn't fancy landing a 500 ton 747 on a 'glorified roadway'.

320m to build, but how much will it make in added revenue?

Penn

Deleted User wrote: »

320m to build, but how much will it make in added revenue?

More than that.

BattleCorp

Do they also have to purchase the land too or do they already have this?

murpho999

mahoganygas wrote: »

+ car parks
+ hanagrs
+ Gate buildings
+ duty free buildings
+ maintenance buildings
+ car parks
+ Expanded ATC
+ Extra security

I also wouldn't fancy landing a 500 ton 747 on a 'glorified roadway'.

Don't agree with this at all. The cost is for a new runway.

All the new infrastructure you are talking about is already there with the new terminal 2.

VinLieger

In my opinion op doesn't have a clue, but what do I know?

If I run fast enough down the new runway, with my arms flapping, will I eventually take off?

vicwatson

BattleCorp wrote: »

Do they also have to purchase the land too or do they already have this?

They already have it I assume as they have planning permission since 2007 (though not all the concessions they want), they wont build it unless they get what they want - likes of operating hours outside of 7am - 11pm, only 65 flights per day on it etc

I thought planning only lasted 5 years but apparently they have 10 year planning?

Muahahaha

I presume they have the land, they own an awful lot outside the perimeter AFAIK.

€320m does sound an awful lot. Motorways here cost around €8m per km and I'd imagine the runway needs to be 3km in length with a 3km taxiway alongside it. Maybe 10km in total all up? I know motorways are not directly comparable but surely the physical runway could be built for €100m and then perhaps double that for all the lighting, new radars, etc

I haven't read anything that says the €320m figure includes new terminals or a new air traffic control. All they mention is the €320m new runway. The articles on it aren't very clear of what exactly the €320m will get

Annasopra

kneemos wrote: »

No doubt I'm missing something but from what I hear on the wireless the new runway will cost 320 million and require 12 hundred to build.

I appreciate land may be expensive but surely it's just a glorified roadway,where's the hundreds of millions going.
Also 12 hundred to build the thing??

12 hundred what?

vicwatson

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

12 hundred what?

Yen

Annasopra

vicwatson wrote: »

Yen

The first post doesn't make sense 320 million cost and 12 hundred x

Skylinehead

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

12 hundred what?

People I think.

Hardly euros :pac:

vicwatson

On the Matt Cooper show now, that CEO of Dublin Airport sounds like a right, (s)nob

Birneybau

Where's that question thread again?

vicwatson

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

The first post doesn't make sense 320 million cost and 12 hundred x

Jobs;)

kneemos

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

The first post doesn't make sense 320 million cost and 12 hundred x

Humans.

kneemos

There must be some ancillary stuff included,no way it would take 12 hundred to build a runway

Mesrine65

Jaysus the traveller lads will tarmacadam the lot for a fraction of the cost

maudgonner

Mesrine65 wrote: »

Jaysus the traveller lads will tarmacadam the lot for a fraction of the cost

And sort out a hape of new gates for the departure area.

frozenfrozen

they'd be iron gates.. which went missing from the house down the road the previous week

artanevilla

Runways are built to a much higher standard than road. There's lots of radio equipment to be added in for landing guidance etc.

Surveying needs to be exact as well, you can't be off by a couple of inches when it comes to aircraft.

Lights, drainage, certification etc....

Goat Paddock

Just read through this please and then you can question the costs:

http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC-150-5370-10G-updated-201507.pdf

kneemos

Goat Paddock wrote: »

Just read through this please and then you can question the costs:

http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC-150-5370-10G-updated-201507.pdf

All 662 pages?
I know they need stuff to build it,just wondering how it costs 320 million.

readytosnap

Yosser cud do dat.

melekalikimaka

kneemos wrote: »

All 662 pages?
I know they need stuff to build it,just wondering how it costs 320 million.

you asked a question, he gave you the answer. Read and thou shall be enlightened

For Forks Sake

kneemos wrote: »

All 662 pages?
I know they need stuff to build it,just wondering how it costs 320 million.

Bargain compared to the estimated £19 billion (no, that's not a typo) that it'll cost to build the new runway in Heathrow

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-19570653

Oasis1974

artanevilla wrote: »

Runways are built to a much higher standard than road. There's lots of radio equipment to be added in for landing guidance etc.

Surveying needs to be exact as well, you can't be off by a couple of inches when it comes to aircraft.

Lights, drainage, certification etc....

Would never have known that....No potholes likely then?

bigroad

600million for terminal 2
320million for a new runway.
A big shed and a wide road 3km in length with extra hardcore total bill 920 million.
That's the DAA skys the limit,why because they can.

kneemos

For Forks Sake wrote: »

Bargain compared to the estimated £19 billion (no, that's not a typo) that it'll cost to build the new runway in Heathrow

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-19570653

The construction will provide 60,000 jobs.

There's obviously more going on with these things than just a runway.

Mint Sauce

kneemos wrote: »

No doubt I'm missing something but from what I hear on the wireless the new runway will cost 320 million and require 12 hundred to build.

I appreciate land may be expensive but surely it's just a glorified roadway,where's the hundreds of millions going.
Also 12 hundred to build the thing??

Not that I know much about runway construction, but even on the best roads in the country, I wouldn't fancy being in an Airbus or Boeing landing on one. Even before you add all the communication and lighting, I would say its foundations,would be a little different to that of the M50.

Am actually slightly surprised at it my self, Heathrow cant even get a second runway despite handling way more landing and takeoffs, and passenger numbers, and Gatwick the same manages fine on just one.

Maybe if the DAA gave some of the money towards getting a new rail link to the Airport, that might be money better well spent.

Oasis1974

Mint Sauce wrote: »

Not that I know much about runway construction, but even on the best roads in the country, I wouldn't fancy being in an Airbus or Boeing landing on one. Even before you add all the communication and lighting, I would say its foundations,would be a little different to that of the M50.

Am actually slightly surprised at it my self, Heathrow cant even get a second runway despite handling way more landing and takeoffs, and passenger numbers, and Gatwick the same manages fine on just one.

Maybe if the DAA gave some of the money towards getting a new rail link to the Airport, that might be money better well spent.

Think you mean a third runway for Heathrow and both these airports are close to operating capacity.

tigerboon

The runway itself will be about 60m wide so that's the same as 9km of dual carriageway. Deeper foundations, concrete base maybe, deeper asphalt as well as a higher spec asphalt. There are hundreds of ground lights which are more than just bulbs. To operate these lights a high spec computer system is needed as well as a hell of a lot of ducting and cabling. There could be a couple of hundred km (yes km) of cable needed. This lighting system all needs to be backed up in case of failure. The drainage system needs to be able to take the run off from a huge area of runway. Signage boards are also needed. To be able to use the whole thing a network of taxiways, with all of the above features, is also needed. Add to all this the public consultation, design etc.

The flying mouse

Don't know why people just can't get the boat...back in my day.....

bigroad

Just let Mic O Leary build his own airport and save us all a load of cash.

Annasopra

kneemos wrote: »

There must be some ancillary stuff included,no way it would take 12 hundred to build a runway

12 hundred what?

The flying mouse

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

12 hundred what?

OP meant to say one thousand two hundred

NiallBoo

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

12 hundred what?

Just a guess, but is it new permanent jobs created because of the expansion?

(Airport people, not temporary construction jobs)

darkpagandeath

Clarification, This is just for a new runway yes as the infrastructure was already upgraded ?

For Forks Sake

kneemos wrote: »

The construction will provide 60,000 jobs.

There's obviously more going on with these things than just a runway.

Main difference being (afaik) that Heathrow are going to have to buy a lot of land/housing whereas Dublin already own the land to the north of the airport where the new runway is going.

Alun

tigerboon wrote: »

There are hundreds of ground lights which are more than just bulbs. To operate these lights a high spec computer system is needed as well as a hell of a lot of ducting and cabling. There could be a couple of hundred km (yes km) of cable needed. This lighting system all needs to be backed up in case of failure.

I briefly worked on an upgrade of the computer system for Schiphol's lighting system some time back in the 80's or 90's I think it was. As with most things in this world, once you get into the nitty gritty of it, they're a lot more complex than the average man on the street would believe.

salmocab

Alun wrote: »

I briefly worked on an upgrade of the computer system for Schiphol's lighting system some time back in the 80's or 90's I think it was. As with most things in this world, once you get into the nitty gritty of it, they're a lot more complex than the average man on the street would believe.

There could be call for new ESB sub station too, the lighting systems would be massive and between generator back ups and I presume a UPS along with a computer system to run it electrical systems will cost in the millions to supply and install alone.

Also comparing it to a road way is crazy the m50 has at worst things weighing a few ton driving across it and a runway has things weighing hundreds of tons bouncing down out of the sky onto it

Penn

vicwatson wrote: »

They already have it I assume as they have planning permission since 2007 (though not all the concessions they want), they wont build it unless they get what they want - likes of operating hours outside of 7am - 11pm, only 65 flights per day on it etc

I thought planning only lasted 5 years but apparently they have 10 year planning?

Before the 5 years are up you can apply for an extension of duration of planning permission for up to another 5 years.

SEPT 23 1989

I sure there is some sort of endangered snail or slug that will lead to massive cost overruns and time delays

webwayz

New runway, why not build the tunnel/cut and fill for the metro line and station while you're at it.
Dublin needs a new runway no doubt if it is to grow and expand, better to build it, and keep the green belt in north Dublin, and not build in the flight path.

Archeron

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

12 hundred what?

Battle ready war elephants.

gumbo1

murpho999 wrote: »

All the new infrastructure you are talking about is already there with the new terminal 2.

No it's not. The proposed runway is on the opposite side of the airfield. It would mean massive refurbishment of the existing tarmac that's there and a lot of the taxiways would need to be made bigger to accommodate the larger aircraft!

Annasopra

Archeron wrote: »

Battle ready war elephants.

Deadly

Goat Paddock

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

I sure there is some sort of endangered snail or slug that will lead to massive cost overruns and time delays

Snails and slugs have just as much rights to be here as us, how would you feel if your neighbourhood was demolished to make way for a snail trail. The analogy is clear.

If the EU were still building our infrastructure, I doubt anyone would care.