Quote:
Originally Posted by ILUVSAT
Based on the Evaluation Summary, it looks like the first of any new runway additions will be located 1,200' east of the existing 12,500' runway - and will be 9,500' long.
The second highest ranked option would be to build the first of two new runways 1,200' to the east of the existing 9,000' runway - and be 10,000' in length.
|
I wonder if they airport authority is looking at having 3 parallel runways that can all take landings at the same time. (Runway Alternative 3)
Probably the easiest option is to build a runway adjacent to the current 17R/35L, (17C/35C) it would not be able to land aircraft the same time as 17R/35L though. (Runway Alternative 2)
Later down the document it said that the current runway infrastructure we have can take 493,000 total air traffic movements and 44.3m annual pax. So they have plenty of time to look at runway alternatives.
In 2017 ABIA saw 199,632 (slightly higher than the Forecast Aircraft Operations (High Case)) total air traffic movements and 13,889,305m pax. We have a long way to go in this regard before capacity is reached.
Looking at the Evaluation Summary, runway alternative 2 scored the highest but would negatively impact future terminal developments.
If anything, all that could possible need to be done to our runways for a long time is add
high speed exit taxiways to 17R/35L.