Third runway and T4

[flyguy]

if you are coming up to the control tower, it is on your left Before the police station and T3 -in fact its just after PIE merged toECP on the wayto the airport is where the current huge nursery is. Mywishlist is forT4 to have aerobridges just like KLIA2 but the planners didnt go for it and hence passengers have to scramble and brave the rain during thunderstorms.

[MAN Flyer]

Just out in the news today. Land south of airport would be cleared to park 30 single aisle planes.

I am trying to get my head around where that area actually is, especially near T3 ?.

[SQGamespeed]

Just out in the news today. Land south of airport would be cleared to park 30 single aisle planes.
http://www.straitstimes.com/breaking...lanes-20130107

Could this be a sign that AirAsia Singapore would get the green light soon ?

Would these be remote stands then? Seems like they think T4 won't be large enough if this many planes need to be put in a separate area.

I hope that AirAsia Singapore does NOT use T1 for check-in and baggage claim. Don't want BKK-style immigration queues this would inevitably bring! Plus it would be a LONG bus ride to this area from T1.

[boing]

Just out in the news today. Land south of airport would be cleared to park 30 single aisle planes.
http://www.straitstimes.com/breaking...lanes-20130107

Could this be a sign that AirAsia Singapore would get the green light soon ?

[boing]

As I told you, the underfround structure is there even at the time T2 was built. This is not a problem at all if decision was made to go with it.

So I know the current APM system was used by thousand every day now. But do you recall the desruption at the time when T3 was build? They need to do that just to add T3 into the system.

What underground structure are you talking about ? And a disruption would be inevitable if a line is to be merged with an existing one. All the more if the rolling stocks are to be replaced. What is remarkable is that the disruptions were minimized with viable alternatives in place.

[SINFJ]

As I told you, the underfround structure is there even at the time T2 was built. This is not a problem at all if decision was made to go with it.

So I know the current APM system was used by thousand every day now. But do you recall the desruption at the time when T3 was build? They need to do that just to add T3 into the system.

In all honesty, I believe the aiport planners would have weighted the underground constrants against the human inconviniences before deciding the an elevated APM was the lesser of 2 evils, hence it won the coin toss. If not, these people would already have been taken to task for a botched up project. This is Singapore.

[cscs1956]

I'm not sure in what context you asked the question in bold but the work done is there for everyone to see and is used by thousands of people every day.

I'm pretty sure they must have done a full scale study of siting the APM underground. There are too many difficulties in that option. Least of which is extensive structural works under Terminal 1 and 2.
And I've never heard of the news that MRT line was planned many years before. Care to share where you got that piece of info from or back it up with links ?

As I told you, the underfround structure is there even at the time T2 was built. This is not a problem at all if decision was made to go with it.

So I know the current APM system was used by thousand every day now. But do you recall the desruption at the time when T3 was build? They need to do that just to add T3 into the system.

[boing]

You are posting something like a tender specification. But what is the actual work done?

Circle line type of concept do not has to be on the roof. It can be under ground where the MRT line was actually planned for our airport for many years before it was officially openned to public. The problem is coordination between companies and departments who own that piece of work.

I am only interested in your last part of your post. It will be interesting to see how this APM system "expand" to take care of the new terminal.

I'm not sure in what context you asked the question in bold but the work done is there for everyone to see and is used by thousands of people every day.

I'm pretty sure they must have done a full scale study of siting the APM underground. There are too many difficulties in that option. Least of which is extensive structural works under Terminal 1 and 2.
And I've never heard of the news that MRT line was planned many years before. Care to share where you got that piece of info from or back it up with links ?

[cscs1956]

Why would anyone want to? It's blindingly obvious that HKIA's design is an astounding success and Changi's is an utter failure.

You cannot run away from how other has successed. Is our job to learn from them and do better. We used to be #1 for many years. What happen now?

Sure, we can say we are still better then many others. But if this is how we think, lets be it and wait for another 10-20 years. If I am still around, lets see how is Changi and the rest. Hope is not another SMRT culture.

[cscs1956]

You are posting something like a tender specification. But what is the actual work done?

Circle line type of concept do not has to be on the roof. It can be under ground where the MRT line was actually planned for our airport for many years before it was officially openned to public. The problem is coordination between companies and departments who own that piece of work.

I am only interested in your last part of your post. It will be interesting to see how this APM system "expand" to take care of the new terminal.

[boing]

Tell me what happen when we started to build T3. What happen to the skytrain? when hey have to stop for major rework? Then try to put youself in same situation if T4 will be up soon?

When I say circle line. It is not the circle line MRT in the first place. What I hope is a train service run round the airport terminal, both way. So you can reach any terminals in any direction without going to the different "gate". This kind of system has been used in different airport in the world.

The skytrian is only good when we have only T1 and T2. ie point to point. Worse is skytrain itself is single track without backup (well, backup is thru buses).

AFAIK, the transition from the old skytrain to the new skytrain linking up with T3 was done with minimum disturbance. It was one of the design objectives when planning for the new skytrain. And a " Circle Line", like what you proposed, was also brought to the table. But after much studies, the present system was adopted. It is also stated that provisions for links to T4 were built into place. Have a read at this:
http://web.archive.org/web/200601131...y+Sugimoto.pdf
It was stated in a book by the CAAS that a Circle Line system skimming over the roofs of all 3 terminals was on the cards. It was not chosen as it required extensive foundation works over T1 and T2 and would also be aesthetically displeasing.

Whilst the SkyTrain fulfils a function I am not in favour of any airport that forces passengers onto a train or bus etc. Unfortunately this comes about by extension, such as HKIA and ICN. LHR in the very least managed to keep T1-3 all in the same place for what feels and looks like centuries so it's done a reasonable job given its limitations, moreso when considering Tube access.

Airports like Beijing and KUL were built from Day1 to use a train and this is something I can't agree with. Even BKK stands up to scrutiny in this company.

Changi works, given the nature of expansion through the years, and still better than even a couple of newer facilities. I knock Changi for not building a suitable T3 to handle all SIA flights but, credit where it's due.

Inter-terminal links to satellite buildings are almost limited to light train networks and there's nothing one can do about it. When Changi decides to built T5 and T6 at the land reserved for it near runway 3, it in essence becomes a satellite terminal and it would be interesting to see how the designers find solutions to link the old and the new

[SilverChris]

Obviously someone hasn't read the book "Changi by Design".

Why would anyone want to? It's blindingly obvious that HKIA's design is an astounding success and Changi's is an utter failure.

[Nick C]

Obviously someone hasn't read the book "Changi by Design".

[SilverChris]

Oh blimey, he's still not done with that shovel of his...

As far I know, yes. So hope they put in much effort to try to intergrate the airport as a whole.

[cscs1956]

sometimes i wonder if i should bake a batch of muffins, much more calmer than the spread of emotional bullets i see flying around.

The runway and terminal extension plans were already in place as part of masterplan. Just a matter of when...

As far I know, yes. So hope they put in much effort to try to intergrate the airport as a whole.