Re: Re: Checklist

@dc3 wrote:

There are two planned Dublin airport projects, both undone and both unstarted.

– Second parallel runway

– Second Terminal

http://www.sbpost.ie/post/pages/p/story.aspx-qqqid=3898-qqqx=1.asp

Confidential report rejected proposed airport terminal site

10 April 2005 By Niamh Connolly, Public Affairs Reporter
The report by US engineering consultants Skidmore, Owings and Merrill (SOM) and Irish consultants Project Management – seen by The Sunday Business Post – was presented to the former Aer Rianta board two years ago as part of its masterplan but has not been published.

It found that the site at the airport’s north apron, proposed by the new Dublin Airport Authority (DAA) for the new terminal, provided the least benefits for the airport’s future expansion. Transport minister Martin Cullen is expected to present plans to cabinet for the DAA to build a second terminal on land it owns north of the existing terminal.

This is the DAA’s preferred option.However, international consultants warned that the space reserved for aircraft on this site would be “forever capped’‘ at just 30 “stands’‘. In addition, the new facility would not accommodate the 30 million additional passengers by 2018 forecasted in the airports’own masterplan. The cabinet debate may prove contentious with the PDs, led by Tánaiste Mary Harney, reaffirming this weekend that there needs to be competition at Dublin Airport.

The PD transport spokesmanTomMorrissey has called for the SOMreport to be published. He said there were only two parties that shouldn’t build the new terminal – Ryanair and theDAA. Aer Lingus has also voiced concerns about the DAA’s north apron site as it fears there will be insufficient airside space to accommodate its planned new wide-bodied long-haul aircraft. TheSOM/ProjectManagement report was commissioned in 2001 and is believed to have taken two years to complete. It is understood to have cost €3.5 million. One of two options favoured by the consultants in the report recommended that the terminal be developed east of the airport to include satellite piers and cargo facilities west of the runway on land privately owned by theMcEvaddys.

The second option was to ‘replace’ the existing terminal with a new facility and piers on the western site owned by the McEvaddys. The eastern site would then be reserved for cargo and a business park. However, DAA has made the north apron site its preferred option following requests from the government. The expert report ranks the north apron as the second least attractive of four possible options weighted by functionality, deliverability and cost.The north site was ranked second lowest on “functionality’‘, as it would accommodate only 12 million additional passengers and would reduce “two terminals of different capacities and services’‘. In the future, it would have to be “supplemented by satellite piers west of the 16/34’‘ (runway), on lands owned by the McEvaddys, the consultants said.The north sitewould also incur the highest longterm capital costs up to 2018, at €3.4 billion.

The optimal east site,which so far have not publicly figured in deliberations, would cost €3.14 billion. It is described as “most conducive to incremental expans ion and steady capit al expenditure’‘. The lowest long-term capital cost at €2.77 billion would be to build on land to thewest owned by the McEvaddys. This option would also incur the lowest operation and maintenance cost, according to the report. The north site rated second highest of the four options under “deliverability’‘ as the land is owned by DAA and no land purchase negotiations are required. Fine Gael’s Olivia Mitchell said it was unclear why the government and the DAA favour the north apron against the weight of the consultant report’s advice. “The only thing going for it is that the DAA owns the land,” she said.

Disruption linked with the north apron option by the consultants includes: * the demolition of existing multi-storey car parks; * relocating FLS to the far west,which would cost an estimated €80 million; * relocating cargo, and * considerable additional elevated roadway and second set of terminal roads.