Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Dublin Airport New Runway/Infrastructure.

1340341343345346366

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,793 ✭✭✭tinytobe


    Just wondering, does anybody know if this new North Dock at Terminal 1 at Dublin airport is actually getting built? Or is this some endless thing?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,516 ✭✭✭Blut2


    Dublin could grow to have a footprint similar to DXB (90mn+ pax, also two runways) with the current land available no problem. Land is not a capacity constraint for DUB.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 555 ✭✭✭dublin12367


    awaiting planning permission from Fingal County Council since Dec 2023…



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,793 ✭✭✭tinytobe


    The usual Irish drama.

    One should think it'll be all done faster than HS2 in the UK.



  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 10,284 Mod ✭✭✭✭Tenger


    More routes = more choice = more passengers.

    And Im.noy sure what you mean by "sprawl"? The airport has the land already, it's not going to get bigger geographically.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,915 ✭✭✭WishUWereHere


    If I may add to Your comment Tenger,

    More passengers = more revenue. But try explaining the positives to the naysayers is bordering on impossible.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 363 ✭✭CardF


    ok so the reason you celebrate is growth of revenue. i can see two ways that would be cause to celebrate, 1 would be that you hold a financial interest, or 2 that you celebrate the financial benefit to the greater good, financially.

    But im not so sure that more growth would be to the greater financial good (*above what benefits there already are), or at least not as much as would initially appear in any headline. Because an increase in the frequency of aircraft noise could drop the value of property over the vast area of north dublin which they overfly. Thats a lot of property. And as frequent aircraft noise is associated/correlated with a negative affect on health theres another financial negative. A lot of people in the affected areas.

    Theres also an opportunity cost in that housing development wont happen in places that become just too loud, no appeal, so no builders and no buyers so we never see that economic revenue.

    I dont see anything wrong with being a naysayer, business frequently clashes with the environment, I can show you cases where business has been allowed to have its way freely and left destruction and a financial defecit for the taxpayer in its wake. The greater good is not the reason that cowboy ceos get excited, believe it.

    The greater good may not be served by having a 90%+ monopoly in the market, requiring the population outside the pale to go through the shenanigans of getting up to Dublin first, in order to then begin their travels. And if I were a plane nerd I would be very bored by 90% of everything being concentrated into just one big boring overcrowded commerical machine.

    33 million passengers is a lot of people, as business grew and grew it naturally became more and more exicted over time 20m 25m, 30m, more more. Theres always another bit you can add on here, another buck to be made there. But at some eventual point it WILL become a net negative to the public, and the breaks have to be applied by govt. (The cries by business of nimbys ruining it are predestined at some point. If not at 20 million then at 200 million).

    Thats what Fingal did, and its for the best. Unless you're set to make a killing out of pumping the numbers, getting your bonus and your picture taken, and then leaving the problems behind for the locals.

    (re earlier question, i wont be disclosing my location)

    We're never joining nato. 😁



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,641 ✭✭✭✭cson




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,641 ✭✭✭✭cson


    In a word; yes.

    608 people will have to get over it for the benefit of 32 million people. Or indeed more.

    The likes of your thought process is why Ireland is the way it is with planning and why a Metro that was first proposed in 2001 still hasn't broken ground.

    Absolutely coddled society trying to rinse the state for whatever they can get.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 730 ✭✭✭Nibs05


    I heard some comments about it not beaing about the road infrastructure, in recent weeks the traffic from the m50 to the airport has been cronic at sometimes, although it’s not consistently bad, it’s just a noticeable increase in traffic, coming off the m1 northbound and trying to cross 3 lanes to get into the Santry lane is impossible sometimes or drivers just sit in the swords lane blocking the road trying to get into the airport lanes.

    Was this being addressed in the master plan ?



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Sports Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 32,765 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    The idea that 800 flight movements a day is going to devalue property and stop development but the current 700 doesn't is pretty farcical.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,554 ✭✭✭EchoIndia


    The fact that the M50 itself is jammed all day, and at a near-standstill at times, is bemoaned by many but is rarely, if ever, linked to the debate about Dublin Airport. Traffic on other road routes to the airport is much less of an issue, though.



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 32,765 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    Whatever about traffic levels to/from the airport - the entire set up of the M1/M50 interchange and airport turnoffs seems like utterly abysmal planning. I hate that road - when going to the airport you are waiting for all the traffic to come off the M50 while trying to cross two lanes to get to the turn off. Amazed more accidents don't happen there.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,554 ✭✭✭EchoIndia


    That's about 750 metres of distance for drivers to merge. I've never seen an accident on that stretch, though of course that's just my experience as a local. It all comes back to the fact that every single passenger, worker or other visitor to DUB has to get there and back by road, whether in personal vehicles or other modes. I think that whatever improvements might be made to the road network, you would still only be "treating the symptoms and not the disease".



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 902 ✭✭✭vswr


    All valid arguments, but it comes down to simple supply and demand…. Ryanair have been throwing sh*t at the walls for years seeing what sticks route wise at Cork, Shannon, Knock and Kerry… and they never get the numbers… hence why Dublin gets majority of routes….

    Likewise with freight, if there was a need for it to be west coast, it would fly into Shannon already.

    What you're suggestion stops any growth for the whole of Ireland, just because you don't like the fact Dublin and the East coast are the economical and population hubs of the state.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 327 ✭✭jwm121


    Sick of coming onto this thread and seeing your dumb posts. This thread is for the infrastructure of Dublin Airport. Not a ranting chat for your NIMBY opinion. Please, for the sake of all of us, take it elsewhere.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 224 ✭✭Pygmie


    Yawn. NIMBY is your only argument. You never actually cover any of the issues like noise pollution or over expansion because it doesn't suit your narrative. Why don't you take it elsewhere instead of attacking the poster?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 363 ✭✭CardF


    We're never joining nato. 😁



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 363 ✭✭CardF


    800, then 900. sure 1000. 1200.

    30 million, 40, 50. sure its only some northsiders.

    We're never joining nato. 😁



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 363 ✭✭CardF


    We're never joining nato. 😁



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 555 ✭✭✭dublin12367


    https://www.dublinairport.com/remove-the-cap

    This attachment appeared on the airports website a couple of hours ago. A very good read and all questions answered. I suggest you read it, and read it very carefully. Any questions you have after reading it, read it again and your answer will be there. It’s all fact. Statistics and information are backed up with sources.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 224 ✭✭Pygmie


    Hardly an impartial source.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 555 ✭✭✭dublin12367


    Read it. daa aren’t the source for most of it.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,915 ✭✭✭WishUWereHere


    I’ve suggested this very thing to this person ( as well as ask some questions ) but he/she seems to play ignorance in the extreme.
    Because I suggested above the financial gains for all ( I’m including DAA, airlines everyone in fact ) he/ thinks I’m celebrating 🙄

    I’ve said before & I’ll repeat myself for the final time I have no connection to the airport in any way, I just see the benefits for all by the increase in footfall - something this person seems to not want to acknowledge.

    This ‘person’ is belittling everything that’s positive about this thread with their NIMBYISM.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,915 ✭✭✭WishUWereHere




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,554 ✭✭✭EchoIndia


    I read it and, whatever about its accuracy, it is a highly partial (as opposed to impartial) set of statements. That's fine insofar as it's what you would expect the airport authority or its customers to argue. Whether it is the Oireachtas, the Government or a statutory body such as ACP that ultimately unravels this issue, they are going to have to balance the different perspectives as well as landing a solution that is not vulnerable to legal challenge.

    As an aside, the latest edition of Phoenix magazine has a short piece about the Minister for Transport (Darragh O'Brien) and the Minister for Climate, Energy and the Environment (also Darragh O'Brien) and quotes some statements made by him about Dublin Airport and also some about Ireland's climate action targets - his stance can have quite a different emphasis depending on which of his Ministerial "hats" he is wearing at the time. 🤔



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 333 ✭✭davebuck


    Courts reject Ryanair's appeal to the underpass.

    Ryanair has failed in its last-ditch effort to appeal a decision by An Coimisiún Pleanála to approve a €200m-plus tunnel project at Dublin Airport.

    The Supreme Court has rejected an application from the airline to seek leave to appeal a High Court decision to refuse it a judicial review of the planning watchdog’s decision. The High Court also refused Ryanair leave to appeal.

    The DAA has welcomed the Supreme Court decision.

    “We look forward to now getting on with the construction of the underpass,” said a spokesperson.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 75,228 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Ryanair have become utterly pathetic about this sort of stuff.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 333 ✭✭davebuck


    Their argument was the loss of 2 stands absolute rubbish in time passengers could be using the tunnel to get to remote stands on the western part of the campus.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 75,228 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    And they actually did it because they don't want the daa spending money on anything, basically.



Advertisement
Advertisement