Dublin Airport New Runway/Infrastructure.

markpb · 19-12-2017 3:38pm

plodder wrote: »

I thought that pipe plan was a bit of a stretch. They wanted to dig up the entire road from the port to the airport. The amount of disruption it would have caused would be phenomenal. Should have been done when the port tunnel was built (if at all). They are lucky to have the port tunnel now anyway, and a fairly uncongested, toll-free route between the two locations.

It's going ahead, it was granted planning permission by DCC and FCoCo last year: https://www.independent.ie/business/green-light-for-20m-fuel-pipeline-under-city-to-airport-34699225.html. An Bord Pleanala also approved it.

It's being built by a private company so there was no way that the NRA were going to allow it to be done as part of the DPT construction. I don't see what the big deal is in relation to construction, it's a pipe going under the road. It's not like that's never been done before. Here is the construction plan and traffic management plan.

plodder · 19-12-2017 4:13pm

markpb wrote: »

It's going ahead, it was granted planning permission by DCC and FCoCo last year: https://www.independent.ie/business/green-light-for-20m-fuel-pipeline-under-city-to-airport-34699225.html. An Bord Pleanala also approved it.

It's being built by a private company so there was no way that the NRA were going to allow it to be done as part of the DPT construction.

Think about that. The NRA wouldn't allow it where it would cause no disruption, but the two local authorities are to allow it causing no end of disruption.

The Malahide road has desperate congestion as it is.

I don't see what the big deal is in relation to construction, it's a pipe going under the road. It's not like that's never been done before. Here is the construction plan and traffic management plan.

Sure, once it's built it wouldn't bother me. I just don't see the big benefit from it, post port tunnel.

Apparently, there's just under 16,000 fuel deliveries to the airport per year. I reckon that's about 4 trucks max, doing one trip per hour - hardly excessive.

Cookiemunster · 19-12-2017 4:22pm

plodder wrote: »

Apparently, there's just under 16,000 fuel deliveries to the airport per year. I reckon that's about 4 trucks max, doing one trip per hour - hardly excessive.

That's a lot of truck journeys taken off the road, which is exactly what we're supposed to be doing to try to get close to the EU emission targets that we're spectacularly failing to meet. It's also a lot safer to transport fuel through a pipe than by truck.

19-12-2017 4:43pm

Cookiemunster wrote: »

That's a lot of truck journeys taken off the road, which is exactly what we're supposed to be doing to try to get close to the EU emission targets that we're spectacularly failing to meet. It's also a lot safer to transport fuel through a pipe than by truck.

360 kms of trucks nose to tail taken off the roads per year. That’s a lot.

Captain_Crash · 19-12-2017 5:05pm

Fattes wrote: »

As for the objections to the pipe ultimately, it is a cost cutting exercise to remove the expense of vehicular and drivers from the fuel companies. It serves no other function in reality.

Except for removing over 16000 truck loads of fuel to the airport per year, taking over 700m liters of Jet A1 off the roads, reducing emissions, easing congestion, ensuring a safer environment for road users, ensuring a consistent supply of fuel to the airport, reducing cost of transportation.... except for all that yeah what function does it really serve ehh

BeardySi · 20-12-2017 1:03pm

Captain_Crash wrote: »

Except for removing over 16000 truck loads of fuel to the airport per year, taking over 700m liters of Jet A1 off the roads, reducing emissions, easing congestion, ensuring a safer environment for road users, ensuring a consistent supply of fuel to the airport, reducing cost of transportation.... except for all that yeah what function does it really serve ehh

What did the pipeline ever do for us? Eh?

plodder · 20-12-2017 1:36pm

The safety argument is a reasonable one and the diesel emissions from the tankers will be gone, though not sure about the overall effect on CO2 emissions . I'm just a bit surprised that it makes sense economically. If it does, and the suppliers aren't expecting an exclusive deal on fuel supply to the airport, then I've no particular problem with it. I expect the disruption will be a big deal for people who live near it....

Captain_Crash · 20-12-2017 1:56pm

BeardySi wrote: »

What did the pipeline ever do for us? Eh?

Ask not what the pipeline can of for us, but what we can do for the pipeline!

rushfan · 20-12-2017 1:59pm

Captain_Crash wrote:

Ask not what the pipeline can of for us, but what we can do for the pipeline!

We choose to lay a pipeline. We choose to lay a pipeline, not because these things are easy , but because they are haad!!!

Jamie2k9 · 20-12-2017 5:10pm

The 16,000 figure is probably well out of date as it was likely based on 2014 or 15 and with an extra 5 million passengers since its increased a lot and will continue to rise. Long term the fuel pipe makes sense from a commercial, safety and environmental prospective.

Fattes · 20-12-2017 10:29pm

plodder wrote: »

The safety argument is a reasonable one and the diesel emissions from the tankers will be gone, though not sure about the overall effect on CO2 emissions . I'm just a bit surprised that it makes sense economically. If it does, and the suppliers aren't expecting an exclusive deal on fuel supply to the airport, then I've no particular problem with it. I expect the disruption will be a big deal for people who live near it....

There is already an exclusive fuel supply deal at Dublin airport

CoisFharraige · 20-12-2017 10:49pm

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

Long term the fuel pipe makes sense from a commercial, safety and environmental prospective.

It's in the pipeline

plodder · 21-12-2017 12:37am

Fattes wrote: »

There is already an exclusive fuel supply deal at Dublin airport

Ah, in that case, we can expect to be paying more for air fares to pay for this then.

L1011 · 21-12-2017 12:44am

The terminals in the port are mostly common user - the pipeline will not tie the airport to a single supplier, it will be tendered again and the lowest bidder will win and use the pipeline.

This is not some madcap, never done before idea.

Jamie2k9 · 21-12-2017 12:50am

L1011 wrote: »

The terminals in the port are mostly common user - the pipeline will not tie the airport to a single supplier, it will be tendered again and the lowest bidder will win and use the pipeline.

This is not some madcap, never done before idea.

There is only one major supplier to the airport, the rest are minor in comparison.

There was planned granted back in 2001 for the link but it never happened.

Bussywussy · 21-12-2017 1:14am

L1011 wrote: »

The terminals in the port are mostly common user - the pipeline will not tie the airport to a single supplier, it will be tendered again and the lowest bidder will win and use the pipeline.

This is not some madcap, never done before idea.

I'm sure the highest bidder will fat,from cork and be well connected with Fine Gael and get the nod....

crosstownk · 21-12-2017 1:16am

With so much upgrading proposed at EIDW, Elliot Freemantle would have a field day.

Jamie2k9 · 21-12-2017 1:20am

Bussywussy wrote: »

I'm sure the highest bidder will fat,from cork and be well connected with Fine Gael and get the nod....

Sold it off in 2016

Bussywussy · 21-12-2017 2:08am

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

Bussywussy wrote: »

I'm sure the highest bidder will fat,from cork and be well connected with Fine Gael and get the nod....

Sold it off in 2016

You sure it wasn't a lease out? Kinda off the book/record job??

Jamie2k9 · 21-12-2017 2:17am

Bussywussy wrote: »

You sure it wasn't a lease out? Kinda off the book/record job??

Not this time. Sold to major Canadian chain Alimentation Couche-Tard. Mind you he managed to sell it for double what he purchased it for!

plodder · 21-12-2017 10:51am

L1011 wrote: »

The terminals in the port are mostly common user - the pipeline will not tie the airport to a single supplier, it will be tendered again and the lowest bidder will win and use the pipeline.

This is not some madcap, never done before idea.

Of course not, but I think people are entitled to know if it is going to result in higher charges and air fares. Someone is going to have to pay for it. Who will own the pipeline, and will all fuel that arrives at the airport be required to use it?

Fattes · 21-12-2017 11:28am

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

Not this time. Sold to major Canadian chain Alimentation Couche-Tard. Mind you he managed to sell it for double what he purchased it for!

Nope the aviation arm was not part of the deal only the retail fuel supply chain

NH2013 · 24-12-2017 6:55pm

Interesting new video from Engineers Ireland on the ongoing infastructure investments going on at Dublin Airport:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptBvJVDGYrE

TheFitz13 · 25-12-2017 12:58am

Quick question.... who owns Dublin airports Runways? Is it the DAA or IAA?

Jamie2k9 · 25-12-2017 1:00am

TheFitz13 wrote: »

Quick question.... who owns Dublin airports Runways? Is it the DAA or IAA?

daa

CoisFharraige · 25-12-2017 8:46am

TheFitz13 wrote: »

Quick question.... who owns Dublin airports Runways? Is it the DAA or IAA?

Only thing the IAA do is offer a service there.

embraer170 · 25-12-2017 12:25pm

NH2013 wrote: »

Interesting new video from Engineers Ireland on the ongoing infastructure investments going on at Dublin Airport:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptBvJVDGYrE

Good video, many thanks.

Lots of talk of roads and a total lack of ambition on public transport (Q&A, minute 45 onwards). Even with 55mppa, the only mention is Metro North. No ambition to try to get a heavy rail link to the airport.

:rolleyes:

Stephen Strange · 25-12-2017 12:33pm

embraer170 wrote: »

Good video, many thanks.

Lots of talk of roads and a total lack of ambition on public transport (Q&A, minute 45 onwards). Even with 55mppa, the only mention is Metro North. No ambition to try to get a heavy rail link to the airport.

:rolleyes:

It's madness. In addition to MN, DUB needs the spur from the Northern Line, it would allow people to connect from the DART and Northern Line Services

donvito99 · 25-12-2017 1:03pm

If you extended MN to Donabate this wouldn't be an issue.

NH2013 · 25-12-2017 3:52pm

Problem also arises of course when you consider that T3 will likely be built out west of the current airfield in a Heathrow T5 type style imaginably, one would hope that this would be considered when building the Metro north so as to have a stop both at the T3 location and then a joint T1/T2 stop as was discussed at the bus Depot at the airport by the Church. This should be considered now before full construction starts on the Metro north line.

Does anyone know the current proposed route for the metro north? Would re-routing it slightly west first to link into T3 be feasible?

Now would be the time to get it done while it's still a greenfield project, not trying to create spur lines 30-35 years down the road, though we've never been great at the future proofing in this country.

Dublin Airport New Runway/Infrastructure.

Comments