Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
ZRH In 2020 - New Runway System (Picture)  
User currently offlineGlidepath73 From Germany, joined Mar 2005, 1020 posts, RR: 46
Posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 8001 times:

Hi Guys,

Since there has been some discussions in Switzerland how ZRH should be developed in the next 15 years, I was thinking a bit how it could be developed.
Since I couldn't find any illustration in the internet how this development could look, I started to do one.

Here my suggestion/design:

(I was playing for that with Google Earth and ZRH)

http://photobucket.com/albums/a112/G...3/?action=view¤t=ZRH2020mittel.jpg

As you can see, runway 14/32 got tilt to make it parallel to runway 16/34.
The existing highway would remain as a tunnel underneath the new runway 16L/34R.
I think with the redundant taxiway system and the still existing runway 10/28 we would have a sufficient runway/taxiway system for ZRH.
Furthermore, you can see the space between 16L and 16R allows a future "Gate F". The space in the northwest of Gate F would even allow a second future "Gate G". Those Gates would be linked by the already existing "Skymetro" system. "Gate F" would host even the new 80 meter tall ATC tower which is clearly visible on the "Gate F" building. (Btw, the remainings of runway 14/32 are still a bit visible)

I guess some people which live close to the airport, will get a heart attack if they see this picture.
But all mayor airports will have to grow, if they want to be ready for the air traffic in 2020.
This picture here just shows a solution of the problematic current runway system in ZRH and how this solution could look like.

(The idea to tilt runway 14/32 is already existing. I know that "Unique - Zurich Airport" has already plans for the future, but they never published a illustration of a "future ZRH"; at least I couldn't find one.)


Regards,
Patrick


Aviation! That rocks...
20 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineSaab2000 From Switzerland, joined Jun 2001, 1609 posts, RR: 11
Reply 1, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 7860 times:

The anti-aviation people in Switzerland, as well as Germany, will make sure this does not happen.

It took a virtual act of God simply to get an ILS to 28 (is it active yet?) and 34.

I love Swiss aviation, but I must say the following...... "dream on...."



smrtrthnu
User currently offlineN766UA From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 8090 posts, RR: 24
Reply 2, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 7827 times:

Cool design... alot of taxiways though.


This Website Censors Me
User currently offlineDeltaWings From Switzerland, joined Aug 2004, 1294 posts, RR: 17
Reply 3, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 7816 times:

Very interesting Patrick!

Having a paralell runway system is always alot more efficiant. The "new" runway 16L/34R would have some problems though, as there are quite alot of hills there, where the town of Winkel is. It probably could not be the full 3700 m in length bc of that.
Terminal F would be great, once ZRH gets enought traffic again. First they need to get Terminal " in use again.

But I think more important as the a paralell runway is an extension of 10/28.



Homer: Marge, it takes two to lie. One to lie and one to listen.
User currently offlineZRH From Switzerland, joined Nov 1999, 5564 posts, RR: 37
Reply 4, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 7737 times:

Hey Patrick
This is absolutely cool. Unfortunately I fear it won't happen anytime. I have more ideas: you could move the existing 16/34 (future 16R/34L  Wink) more to the north to avoid the crossing with 10/28. And 10/28 could be lengthened to the west (Rümlang).


User currently offlineFewsolarge From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 409 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 7705 times:

Do they not already have enough separation to do simultaneous takeoffs and landings? If so, unless they're going above two, why would they need parallel runways?

User currently offlineZRH From Switzerland, joined Nov 1999, 5564 posts, RR: 37
Reply 6, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 7667 times:

Quoting Fewsolarge (Reply 5):
Do they not already have enough separation to do simultaneous takeoffs and landings? If so, unless they're going above two, why would they need parallel runways?

Actually you could take off on 16 and land on 14 simultaneously but because of a silly noise avoiding procedure they have to make a left turn after taking off on 16. Because of this they can not do it in case of a go-around of the landing aircraft. I hope they probably will give up this left turn procedure (but politically very difficult).


User currently offlineGlidepath73 From Germany, joined Mar 2005, 1020 posts, RR: 46
Reply 7, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 7629 times:

Hi!

I was thinking a lot about a move of the current 16/34 to the north west. But the moving of 16/34 to the north creates almost a new crossing with the north west end of 14/32. Traffic would be again restricted there I guess. All other solutions would create even more crossings.
As it seems, a future 10L/28R could be only used in one heading and would create two more crossings (With 14/32 and 16/34). And there is the mountain "Lägern", which would restrict departing traffic to the west, heading 280. Sure, a lengthening of the current 10/28 is really necessary as well and should be fulfilled so soon as possible, not in 15 years.

The main problem are the unlucky runway directions in ZRH. 14 and 16 restrict each other a lot, even though they don't cross each other, there is always the problem of possible go-a rounds from landing traffic on 14.

Thus, the only real solution would be a tilt of 14/32. Maybe not that far as I showed... But as a compromise at least to the distance which allows simultaneous landing and departing traffic. If the future runway 16L-34R would be located where the double taxiways are right now in the north of "Gate F", it could maybe work out.
The engineers would have to check out how far 14/32 could be tilted to the north. I guess not only the little city "Bülach" would be not very happy about a future 16L-34R...

I'll do a second and a third ZRH 2020 design by time....   

Regards,
Patrick

[Edited 2005-10-31 23:51:08]

Edited for typos

[Edited 2005-10-31 23:51:45]


Aviation! That rocks...
User currently offlineGlidepath73 From Germany, joined Mar 2005, 1020 posts, RR: 46
Reply 8, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 7605 times:

Oh my,

and imagine a "Observation Deck F"!!!!!

That would be just overwhelming...

 bitelip 



Aviation! That rocks...
User currently offlineSabena332 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 7585 times:

Quoting N766UA (Reply 2):
Cool design...

I second this, really great work!

Quoting Glidepath73 (Reply 7):
I'll do a second and a third ZRH 2020 design by time....

Can't wait to see them!

Ever thought about a job in aorport planning & construction?  

Patrick

[Edited 2005-11-01 00:01:59]

User currently offlineFelixZRH From Switzerland, joined May 2005, 226 posts, RR: 17
Reply 10, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 7399 times:

Patrick, thanks for your wonderful work  bigthumbsup  .
In a Swiss forum there is a thread about this topic in German. Somebody has posted a interesting pic about possibilities for ZRH that could be good for the discussion here.
http://www.martinsteiger.aero/files/flightforum_ch/2005/RELIEF_Loesungsvarianten_001.png

I hope that a solution is found for the future growth.

Felix


User currently offlineDeltaWings From Switzerland, joined Aug 2004, 1294 posts, RR: 17
Reply 11, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 7283 times:

Those are interesting suggestions. You can see on every picture, that runway 10/28 has been extended. I guess that that is already definite. I have never thought of a parallel runway to 10/28.

The 6. Bauetappe is going to be very interesting!



Homer: Marge, it takes two to lie. One to lie and one to listen.
User currently offlineGlidepath73 From Germany, joined Mar 2005, 1020 posts, RR: 46
Reply 12, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 7271 times:

Thanks guys, since I'm a very creative person, I love to do stuff like this.
see: www.paziart.de

Quoting FelixZRH (Reply 10):
In a Swiss forum there is a thread about this topic in German. Somebody has posted a interesting pic about possibilities for ZRH that could be good for the discussion here.

Thanks a lot Felix, I was looking for something like that. Here, they show a possible 14R/32L. I doubt this, since the village "Oberglatt" would be hardly affected by it. A10L/28R would be a really short and restricted runway (Hills).
Thus, a 16L/34R seems really possible. Maybe with a reduced distance to the current 16/34. But I think this distance would allow simultaneous landing and departing traffic. (High precision radar approaches, GPS approaches)
The current 10/28 has to be definitely lengthened.

Regards,
Patrick

[Edited 2005-11-01 13:18:57]

[Edited 2005-11-01 13:25:01]


Aviation! That rocks...
User currently offlineDeltaWings From Switzerland, joined Aug 2004, 1294 posts, RR: 17
Reply 13, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 7252 times:

heres some pictures of the 10/28 extension

http://www.zrhwiki.ch/wiki/Verl%C3%A4ngerung_von_Piste_10/28



Homer: Marge, it takes two to lie. One to lie and one to listen.
User currently offlineGlidepath73 From Germany, joined Mar 2005, 1020 posts, RR: 46
Reply 14, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 5974 times:

Hi!

Today I've added the already planned, but not official approved runway 10/28 extension. As you can see, I've added even the same length at the other end of the runway. It would be with this extension about 3200 meters long.
(About the same as runway 16L-34R with 3250 meters)
The distance between the two parallel runways is about 1300 meters.

See here:
http://photobucket.com/albums/a112/G...73/?action=view¤t=ZRH2020-28ex.jpg

Regards,
Patrick



Aviation! That rocks...
User currently offlineAviationMaster From Switzerland, joined Oct 1999, 2473 posts, RR: 35
Reply 15, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 5859 times:

I hate it when these idiots bring up their argument about the "Erhalten der Lebensqualität". They should send all of these people abroad to let them see how nice they have it. I live near the airport and a freakin' truck or car at four o'clock in the morning is a bigger pain in the ass than an airplane.

User currently offlineSaab2000 From Switzerland, joined Jun 2001, 1609 posts, RR: 11
Reply 16, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 5527 times:

I agree 100% with those who can't stand the anti-aviation people. It is my opinion that they are in no small part responsible for the problems in Swiss aviation. The ridiculous rules and approaches/departures which have to be done cost the airline a lot of money which could be spent more wisely on other things.

It is absurd to say that they are to blame for the problems Swissair had, but they sure did not help anything.

I lived in Pfaeffikon/ZH when I lived in Switzerland and remember people complaining about the noise of the airport. I enjoyed telling them that none of the approaches for Kloten came over Pfaeffikon (or even close). The one which did was the approach for Duebendorf.

ZRH does not need to have a new runway nearly as much as it needs to have an ILS to every runway except 10 (maybe even there!) and allowances to use those runways. That is the problem, not the lack of runways. If any runway is to be extended, it needs to be 28. Another 500 meters of runway would change everything as many long-haul (or at least semi long-haul) flights could take off from RWY 28.

Allowing more realistic approaches to ZRH (including landing on 14 during normal airport ops) and landing on 28 with an ILS and a lengthened 28 would go a LONG LONG way to dealing with any capacity problems.

The problem with ZRH is not the lack of space, it is political because nobody has the balls to stand up to the activists. Practically everyone in Switzerland goes on their vacations to Greece, Turkey, Spain, USA, etc with airplanes and then the rest of the time complain about the noise. This needs to be dealt with before any expansion can ever take place.

Oh, and the costs need to be dealt with too. Landing fees are too much, driving away airlines to BSL and long-haul ops just deciding to not come to ZRH any more. They used to in the 90s when I worked there.

I repeat - the problems in ZRH are 90% political and 10% infrastructure.



smrtrthnu
User currently onlineMorvious From Netherlands, joined Feb 2005, 705 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 5352 times:

I first thought I was looking to London Heathrow in 2020, and didn't noticed to much different! (yeah i need to check my eyes)

Good work though!!



have a good day, Stefan van Hierden
User currently offlineZRH From Switzerland, joined Nov 1999, 5564 posts, RR: 37
Reply 18, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 5195 times:

Quoting Saab2000 (Reply 16):
I agree 100% with those who can't stand the anti-aviation people. It is my opinion that they are in no small part responsible for the problems in Swiss aviation. The ridiculous rules and approaches/departures which have to be done cost the airline a lot of money which could be spent more wisely on other things.

It is absurd to say that they are to blame for the problems Swissair had, but they sure did not help anything.

I lived in Pfaeffikon/ZH when I lived in Switzerland and remember people complaining about the noise of the airport. I enjoyed telling them that none of the approaches for Kloten came over Pfaeffikon (or even close). The one which did was the approach for Duebendorf.

ZRH does not need to have a new runway nearly as much as it needs to have an ILS to every runway except 10 (maybe even there!) and allowances to use those runways. That is the problem, not the lack of runways. If any runway is to be extended, it needs to be 28. Another 500 meters of runway would change everything as many long-haul (or at least semi long-haul) flights could take off from RWY 28.

Allowing more realistic approaches to ZRH (including landing on 14 during normal airport ops) and landing on 28 with an ILS and a lengthened 28 would go a LONG LONG way to dealing with any capacity problems.

The problem with ZRH is not the lack of space, it is political because nobody has the balls to stand up to the activists. Practically everyone in Switzerland goes on their vacations to Greece, Turkey, Spain, USA, etc with airplanes and then the rest of the time complain about the noise. This needs to be dealt with before any expansion can ever take place.

Oh, and the costs need to be dealt with too. Landing fees are too much, driving away airlines to BSL and long-haul ops just deciding to not come to ZRH any more. They used to in the 90s when I worked there.

I repeat - the problems in ZRH are 90% political and 10% infrastructure.

 checkmark   checkmark   checkmark   checkmark   checkmark   checkmark   checkmark   checkmark 

You are absolutly right!!!! I would even say 95 % political.


User currently offlineGlidepath73 From Germany, joined Mar 2005, 1020 posts, RR: 46
Reply 19, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 4392 times:

Quoting Saab2000 (Reply 16):
ZRH does not need to have a new runway nearly as much as it needs to have an ILS to every runway except 10 (maybe even there!) and allowances to use those runways. That is the problem, not the lack of runways. If any runway is to be extended, it needs to be 28. Another 500 meters of runway would change everything as many long-haul (or at least semi long-haul) flights could take off from RWY 28.

Allowing more realistic approaches to ZRH (including landing on 14 during normal airport ops) and landing on 28 with an ILS and a lengthened 28 would go a LONG LONG way to dealing with any capacity problems.

I agree 100%!

First of all the landing restrictions of the Germans have to be stopped! Runway 14 has to be operative during all normal operating hours.
It is crazy how the departing traffic on runway 32 is restricted by the approach traffic for 28. All a/c have to turn left after take off, circle over the airport just to gain enough altitude to climb over the approaching 28 traffic. A normal right turn after the 32 take offs would be much more efficient and less time intense...
The whole airport ops suffers under those bad restrictions.

Regards,
Patrick



Aviation! That rocks...
User currently offlineDeltaWings From Switzerland, joined Aug 2004, 1294 posts, RR: 17
Reply 20, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 4364 times:

It is also ridiculous that departing aircraft on 34 after 10 pm must rotate before intersection with taxiway "Romeo 8", due to noise regulations.

It is all political garbage, which is hammering growth of the airport, both from Switzerland and Germany.



Homer: Marge, it takes two to lie. One to lie and one to listen.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
ZRH In 2020- Part II / New Picture posted Wed Nov 2 2005 22:58:23 by Glidepath73
ZRH - Fourth Runway In 2020 posted Fri Oct 28 2005 08:53:22 by Glidepath73
ATL New Runway Taxi In Time posted Mon Sep 25 2006 15:33:42 by Micstatic
Another Useless New Runway In France-Beziers! posted Thu Feb 9 2006 11:05:07 by Beaucaire
Anything New For ZRH In Summer 06? posted Sun Jan 1 2006 16:06:07 by 717fan
MON A330 @ ZRH - In New C/s! posted Fri Nov 18 2005 11:16:33 by Gkirk
New Runway Safety System posted Sat Nov 5 2005 22:48:41 by I530j
New Runway Safety System posted Thu Nov 3 2005 17:43:45 by Usnseallt82
YVR: 1st Airport In World To Get New Radar System posted Wed Jul 27 2005 03:50:56 by DFORCE1
New Runway In CLT? posted Tue May 18 2004 05:31:32 by Cubsrule
ZRH - Fourth Runway In 2020 posted Fri Oct 28 2005 08:53:22 by Glidepath73
New Emergency System That Flies Airplane To Runway posted Thu May 3 2012 22:58:32 by planemaker
New Runway In GRU posted Sat Aug 18 2007 00:29:30 by Thering
Question: Runway Overshoot ZRH In The 90's posted Thu Mar 8 2007 18:34:52 by SRforever
ATL New Runway Taxi In Time posted Mon Sep 25 2006 15:33:42 by Micstatic
Another Useless New Runway In France-Beziers! posted Thu Feb 9 2006 11:05:07 by Beaucaire
Anything New For ZRH In Summer 06? posted Sun Jan 1 2006 16:06:07 by 717fan
MON A330 @ ZRH - In New C/s! posted Fri Nov 18 2005 11:16:33 by Gkirk
New Runway Safety System posted Sat Nov 5 2005 22:48:41 by I530j