Stoneybridge
....as was the full length taxiway for 23L/05R
Under the current allowable dual runway rules, how often would this have been used?
Answer- infrequently and only when 23L/05R is being used for all movements. This only happens during planned maintenance or during an emergency.
You are talking of an extra strip of around 100m parallel to the runway. The cost which includes land acquisition, earthworks and the river tunnel would have been very high and disproportionate to its use. It would have had an even greater environmental impact which could have made winning the public enquiry even more difficult.So it was not built.
IF and it is a big IF, the rules for closely spaced parallel runway ops changes to allow mixed mode on both runways, I guess the Airport would look at it again.
FlyZB
when the T2 extension was being talked about, there were plans to build a remote pier at stands 235 - 247 with an underground subway linking the main terminal building with this satellite terminal.
In fact, it was originally proposed to put the underground link in when T2 was built so that it would be there ready for the time that a remote pier was constructed in the grass island and no taxiway disruption would take place. In the end it was considered too expensive to have this investment sitting there unused for possibly many years. This turned out to be the right decision as plans for a T2 extension have chopped and changed over the years and plans for a remote pier/satellite have not materialised.
Adola 69
Redevelopment of T1 ? - Dead easy!
You forgot step 0 which is to acquire a very large sack of money to allow this to be done.
Also I reckon it's about time the local councils chipped in with some investment instead of always on the take
I believe that the shareholders ie local councils did forego their dividends a few years ago, so they could be considered to have invested money in the airport.
Suzeman