Dublin Airport New Runway/Infrastructure.

This whole thing is complete and utter horseshite.

The DAA and its predecessor Aer Rianta have managed to get everything wrong with the development of the infrastructure at Dublin Airport over the last number of decades.

Firstly; they shut runway 05/23 instead of upgrading it and then built 10/28L. What they should have done was upgrade 05/23 and build 10/28R, never bothering with 10/28L and leaving the area as fields.

Secondly; they built T2 in the wrong place. Anyone with an IQ above 50 could tell you upon looking at the airfield chart that the new terminal should’ve been built on the north side where McDonalds and the hangars are now, which would’ve been far more convenient for the new runway. Instead they plonked it basically on top of T1 which has led to issues with taxiing/shortage of stands etc.

Thirdly; they messed up with car parking. Where to start, they shut the spiral ramp car park at T1 which really should have been reopened by now. Add that to many other issues with the long-term car parks in particular.

you are clearly on the wind up with that post and several others. Not worth more than this as a response.

I'm afraid that these "suggestions" and accompanying criticism are so far wide of the mark.

The long range planning done in the late 1960s envisaged two parallel runways oriented as they now are. Two parallel runways offer significantly more throughput than the "V" layout you suggest. Parallel runways, especially those such as Dublin where the distance between centrelines is (from memory) 1690m allows for simultaneous independent use - something which even Heathrow doesn't have. This means that they can be used for simultaneous departures and arrivals, which are not needed at the moment but could be used (subject to Safety Regulation requirements) in the future. I think that, given the parallels were going to be built at some stage, when it came to a choice of whether to build the southern or the northern one, a pragmatic decision might have been taken to build the southern one to prevent the encroachment of development.

Putting T2 near McDonalds would have led to a long, single sided pier. So much for increasing parking. It's no more convenient for taxying than most other places. If arrivals are using one runway and departures the other, the taxying distances net off.

Car parking at DUB is a big issue - there's no train or metro so the demand is high. There's been a debate on this thread about monopolies and so on. But take MAN as an example. There are a number of operators of independent car parks within about a 10 - 15 min bus ride from the terminals. And the service is good. Where are all the entrepreneurs at DUB? The parking areas on top of T1 were closed to the public in the 70s. I doubt there would have been room for more than 400 cars total anyway. It's not good practice to put car parks (or even ATC Towers) on top of terminals. If you're in any doubt, imagine this happening on top of T1

I’m clearly not, but you can believe what you want.

I am not an expert in this field by any means, those are just my observations as a mildly interested member of the public.

What is there now? I have occasionally seen people walking on the ramps, where does it lead to?

It would’ve been much better to keep 05/23 and build 10/28R, probably never building 10/28L.

10/28L is OK but it is not long enough and is not preferable when the winds are strong. The prevailing wind at EIDW is SW, hence why 05/23 should have been upgraded. If this had happened, T2 would’ve been built on the north apron where the hangars are on the exit road, where it should’ve been built anyway.

T2 is one of the worst designed terminal buildings in Europe. The definition of a white elephant, the children’s hospital of aviation.

• A separate check-in building when nobody checks-in anymore
• A 5-storey shopping area
• Only one pier meaning a perpetual shortage of stands, many aircraft particularly transatlantic have to use T1
• Bottleneck on taxiing to 10/28R
• Demolition of Corballis House

you’re classing T2 as a white elephant, yet the daa have requested planning to extend said terminal, and there’s on going discussions for a T3 (Ino these aren’t exactly serious discussions but T3 isn’t that far away). T2 is far from a white elephant.

Well perhaps they could’ve kept 05/23 active while retaining the parallel runways. Instead, in a usual act of shortsightedness, they extended Pier D instead over the old runway.

where exactly on the north apron could it have gone that would allow for more gate space than where it is currently?

If it should have gone anywhere other than its current location it should have been to the west apron but that’s for another day.

I know daa have plans for a third terminal on the north apron which seem incredibly silly to me but I would be inclined to believe that is to rule out the west apron been used for it in future and to keep the value of lands the McEvaddy brothers own down.

Also, the extension of pier d is probably one of the most successful things the airport ever did. It is used by thousands daily.

16/34 is still operational, so why not 05/23?

Another huge issue is the McEvaddy lands. The Boot Inn closed recently. I sincerely hope nothing happens to that building, as it would be an atrocity in and of itself to destroy such a historical structure.

I personally think the McEvaddy lands should be zoned as green belt and no further proposals for development are made. There are a number of dairy farms on that land and quite a few cattle herds/possibly other livestock. When I was younger my family knew the owners of one of the farms on Dunbro lane and I had many summer memories of childhood in those fields with friends. That area has very good soil.

For that reason, they should never be developed. If another terminal is to be built it should be located where T2 should’ve been built, the north apron.

Your views and posts are very typical behaviour of someone who is trying intentionally to disrupt a thread.