Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
FLL Runway: County Commissioners Deliberating NOW!  
User currently offlineKFLLCFII From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3301 posts, RR: 30
Posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 4012 times:

Watch it live from the Broward County Convention Center (yes, at 11:37pm  Wink ) : http://www.broward.org/webcasting/wcbroward.htm

Mayor Eggelletion said it would be irresponsible to leave there tonight without providing the public with a final decision (do nothing, extend the southern runway to 6,001', extend the southern runway to 8,000' (  thumbsup  thumbsup  ), create a new parallel northern runway, etc).

My eyes are glued to the set...


"About the only way to look at it, just a pity you are not POTUS KFLLCFII, seems as if we would all be better off."
24 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21558 posts, RR: 55
Reply 1, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 3992 times:

Quoting KFLLCFII (Thread starter):
yes, at 11:37pm

Any particular reason why they're going to hold a one day hearing over two days?

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineKFLLCFII From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3301 posts, RR: 30
Reply 2, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 3975 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 1):

Started at 6pm EDT, they have the room reserved until 1am...


PS- The goddamn county events channel just cut the broadcast right in the middle of the meeting...WTF???  grumpy   irked 



"About the only way to look at it, just a pity you are not POTUS KFLLCFII, seems as if we would all be better off."
User currently offlineSinlock From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 1646 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 3961 times:

Been watching the web cast sence 6pm and then it just cut off to the standard county t.v. feed. It's now 12:30 and I just have got to get to bed. I had planed to do a full report but it's just too late.


My Country can beat up your Country....
User currently offlineKFLLCFII From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3301 posts, RR: 30
Reply 4, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 3901 times:

8,000 it is!!

Broward Commission votes to expand runway at Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood Airport

By Scott Wyman
Sun-Sentinel.com
Posted June 6 2007, 1:37 AM EDT

A second major runway will be built on the south side of Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport after county commissioners ended two decades of debate and gave their go-ahead to the long-delayed expansion plans early Wednesday morning.

The commission agreed on a 6-3 vote to proceed with lengthening the current commuter runway to 8,000 feet, bridging over both Federal Highway and the Florida East Coast Railroad tracks. In doing so, the commissioners rejected halting any further expansion at the airport, lengthening the south runway less or building a new runway just north of the current main runway.

Estimates are that the runway will cost $695 million to build and will require the county to buy or soundproof the homes of up to 2,500 nearby residents. The project still must be approved by the Federal Aviation Administration, a decision that is expected by the end of the year.

"We come to a decision that is long overdue and one which no one takes lightly," Mayor Josephus Eggelletion said. Eggelletion was joined by commissioners Stacy Ritter, Ken Keechl, Ilene Lieberman, Kristin Jacobs and Diana Wasserman-Rubin in favoring the plan. Commissioners John Rodstrom, Suzanne Gunzburger and Lois Wexler opposed it.


Source

Congrats FLL!



"About the only way to look at it, just a pity you are not POTUS KFLLCFII, seems as if we would all be better off."
User currently offlineLAXspotter From India, joined Jan 2007, 3650 posts, RR: 5
Reply 5, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 3881 times:

"This just in, a cult like group has started a mass celebration in the streets of Ft. Lauderdale, sources claim that these members are from an online group called airliners.net,"  Big grin

Well this is great news, about time a runway expansion, one of the only airports in the USA, with over 22 Million Pax, basically operating with one effective runway, for landings and takeoffs even tho 9R/27L was operable for small jets and General Aviation.



"Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel" Samuel Johnson
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21558 posts, RR: 55
Reply 6, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 3875 times:

I'm guessing it'll be extended to the east and also widened?

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineDaleaholic From UK - England, joined Oct 2005, 3207 posts, RR: 13
Reply 7, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 3862 times:

Good news!  bigthumbsup  Could maybe attract some transatlantic traffic?  scratchchin 


Religion is an illusion of childhood... Outgrown under proper education.
User currently offlineKFLLCFII From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3301 posts, RR: 30
Reply 8, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 3852 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 6):
I'm guessing it'll be extended to the east and also widened?

Bingo...Widen it from 100' to 150', and extend it over US1 and the FEC railroad tracks:


http://img407.imageshack.us/img407/3814/untitled1vv4.jpg


The total plan includes:
  • Expand and elevate Runway 9R/27L to 8,000 feet by 150 feet wide
  • Construct new full-length parallel taxiway 75 feet wide on the north side of Runway 9R/27L with separation of 400 feet from 9R/27L
  • Construct an outer dual parallel taxiway separated from the proposed north side parallel taxiway by 276 feet
  • Construct connecting taxiways from the proposed fulllength parallel taxiway to existing taxiways
  • Construct an Instrument Landing System for landings on Runways 9R and 27L
  • Decommission Runway 13/31
  • Redevelop terminal gates
With connected actions:
  • Close Airport Perimeter Road within the approach to Runway 9R
  • Relocate ASR-9
  • Acquire all, or a portion of the Wyndham Fort Lauderdale Airport Hotel to the extent a portion of the existing structure is in the RPZ for extended Runway 9R/27L
  • Partial displacement of Jet Center facilities - taxiway is a temporary runway during construction
  • Full displacement of Gulfstream Airways aircraft maintenance facilities - taxiway is a temporary runway during construction
Source

Quoting Daleaholic (Reply 7):
Could maybe attract some transatlantic traffic?  scratchchin 

Well, the plan doesn't elongate the *current* longest runway, but it does allow for future expansion of the International Terminal...So stay tuned.  Wink



"About the only way to look at it, just a pity you are not POTUS KFLLCFII, seems as if we would all be better off."
User currently offlineSinlock From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 1646 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 3810 times:

Yippy..............  bouncy 

The commission agreed on a 6-3 vote to proceed with long-stalled plans to lengthen the commuter runway on the airport's south side to 8,000 feet. At a cost of $695 million to build, the runway would bridge both Federal Highway and the Florida East Coast Railroad tracks.


Eggelletion was joined by commissioners Stacy Ritter, Ken Keechl, Ilene Lieberman, Kristin Jacobs and Diana Wasserman-Rubin in favoring the 8,000-foot runway. Commissioners John Rodstrom, Suzanne Gunzburger and Lois Wexler opposed it.


http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/loc...443.story?coll=sfla-home-headlines



After over 15 years a choice has been made. The Legal battle is far from over, but at last the county has stopped sitting on it's hands and made a choice. Mayor Josephus Eggelletion handled the meeting well even though he had to threaten to remove the audience more than three times.


Hopefully the county will listen to Dania and Hollywood about issues that will limit the impact but also let FLL move into the future.

B1c was my first choice because it will deal with issues in the far future, At the same time I fully support Gate Caps and and as limited use of 9R/27L as possible.



My Country can beat up your Country....
User currently offlineImperialEagle From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2529 posts, RR: 22
Reply 10, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 3794 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Hooray! At long last!!!!!!!!!!
Wonderful news!
 bigthumbsup 



"If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough!"
User currently offlineNADC10Fan From United States of America, joined May 2005, 165 posts, RR: 11
Reply 11, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 3751 times:

I would like some professional opinion, if possible, on an issue concerning the B1b / B1c expansion. I find myself engaged with an expansion naysayer who claimed the following:

Quote:
They said a runway is necessary but not the magnitude of this one and definitely not a 45 degree slope. The B1c sloped runway has already failed in seven prior states. Need I post them or do you trust my opinion. They failed under 35' incline, and this project proposes 10 additional feet. Don't forget the tower chief recommended it is also unsafe. Who do you think the FAA is going to trust? Our commissioners or the 30 year experienced airport developer with 20 years consultation for 55 recommendations for other airports around the world.

My understanding previously had been that the FAA had at least tentatively passed on all of the expansion choices that had been presented to the commission for this vote. This person's information would seem to call the issue into question, and it is true that in the article printed in the Sun-Sentinel the Tower Chief did raise the issue:

Quote:
Still, some had concern. Several pilots who live near the airport questioned the slope, while the air traffic control director at the airport wrote commissioners raising other safety concerns about the design of the runway.

(Article)

What is the thought on this?



TANSTAAFL!
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21558 posts, RR: 55
Reply 12, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 3660 times:

Quoting NADC10Fan (Reply 11):
What is the thought on this?

The person you are arguing with is incorrect in saying that this is a 45 degree slope - that would be many times steeper than any runway in the world, even Courchevel. If the runway reaches a height of 45 feet over the train tracks, it is only an issue of how gradually it gets there. I haven't seen any numbers on what the slope is, but if it's only half of what's at LAS (varies between a 0.9% to 1.2% slope), I don't see the problem with it. I've taken off and landed on a 0.9% slope, and it's not much different from landing on a completely level runway; you do it the same way you normally do, only the sight picture is different.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineNkops From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2662 posts, RR: 6
Reply 13, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 3649 times:

I apologize if I missed this somewhere, but what is the timetable on this???


I have no association with Spirit Airlines
User currently offline727LOVER From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 6422 posts, RR: 17
Reply 14, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 3600 times:

Quoting KFLLCFII (Reply 8):
The total plan includes:
Expand and elevate Runway 9R/27L to 8,000 feet by 150 feet wide

Construct new full-length parallel taxiway 75 feet wide on the north side of Runway 9R/27L with separation of 400 feet from 9R/27L

Construct an outer dual parallel taxiway separated from the proposed north side parallel taxiway by 276 feet

Construct connecting taxiways from the proposed fulllength parallel taxiway to existing taxiways

Construct an Instrument Landing System for landings on Runways 9R and 27L

Decommission Runway 13/31

Redevelop terminal gates

You'll note

elevating the viewing area over the fence like CLT

THAT wasn't a priority.

For me, this sucks. I like ALL the airline traffic on one runway.



Listen Betty, don't start up with your 'White Zone' s*** again.
User currently offlineKFLLCFII From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3301 posts, RR: 30
Reply 15, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 3494 times:

Quoting 727LOVER (Reply 14):
You'll note

elevating the viewing area over the fence like CLT

THAT wasn't a priority.

Unless, of course, they leave the *current* elevated jog park between Perimeter Rd and Griffin Rd intact:




 Big grin



"About the only way to look at it, just a pity you are not POTUS KFLLCFII, seems as if we would all be better off."
User currently offlineNADC10Fan From United States of America, joined May 2005, 165 posts, RR: 11
Reply 16, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 3430 times:

I'm glad to see this topic has continued. I was beginning to get worried ...

Quoting Mir (Reply 12):
The person you are arguing with is incorrect in saying that this is a 45 degree slope - that would be many times steeper than any runway in the world, even Courchevel. If the runway reaches a height of 45 feet over the train tracks, it is only an issue of how gradually it gets there. I haven't seen any numbers on what the slope is, but if it's only half of what's at LAS (varies between a 0.9% to 1.2% slope), I don't see the problem with it. I've taken off and landed on a 0.9% slope, and it's not much different from landing on a completely level runway; you do it the same way you normally do, only the sight picture is different.

This was the sort of thing I was wondering. I browsed the FAA site hard to see if I could find anything regulatory on the issue, or to find the FAA's recommendations to those working FLL's expansion effort. Unfortunately I came up blank. I would love to know what airports those were that my opponent was referring to.

Do we know what sort of gradient is pretty much the limit? You mentioned LAS, and this was raised elsewhere; I'm sorta wondering if FLL - which is at a much lower altitude with a heavier and more humid atmosphere - is more aerodynamically friendly to takeoff than it is out in high and dry LAS.

KFL, you don't have any specific data on this issue?

Another point that I've heard about, and it would be interesting to know if there's truth to it - or if not, what info there is debunking it: A good number of people have contested that a system of dual parallel 9/27's on the north side of the field would be A) easier, B) cheaper, C) friendlier and D) more easily approved by the FAA (who they claimed recommended it over any other option). Again, I haven't been able to find anything other than rumor or innuendo ... What, if anything, do we know about this?



TANSTAAFL!
User currently offline797 From Venezuela, joined Aug 2005, 1894 posts, RR: 27
Reply 17, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 3408 times:

Awesome news!

I've been expecting this for a while, it was about time to see it happen.

Quoting KFLLCFII (Reply 8):
Bingo...Widen it from 100' to 150', and extend it over US1 and the FEC railroad tracks:

This is totally based on logics. They'd never attempt to throw the runway on the current 95 highway.

Now, I wonder. What kind of traffic will this runway be able to handle? All usual flights that go into/out FLL? And also, will this enhance traffic into FLL or the terminals won't be proportionally enhanced?

Quoting KFLLCFII (Reply 8):
Decommission Runway 13/31

Finally, I never saw an airplane moving through that runway. It was a waste of space.

Quoting KFLLCFII (Reply 8):
Close Airport Perimeter Road within the approach to Runway 9R

No!!!! That sucks!

I hope they don't mess with the spotting park up Rwy. 9L!

Great news, I hope to see some bigger planes come.

Congrats!

797



Flying isn't dangerous. Crashing is what's dangerous!
User currently offlineKFLLCFII From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3301 posts, RR: 30
Reply 18, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 3341 times:

Quoting NADC10Fan (Reply 16):
I browsed the FAA site hard to see if I could find anything regulatory on the issue, or to find the FAA's recommendations to those working FLL's expansion effort.

Well, here is the actual Draft Environmental Impact Statement overview presentation that was given by the FAA to the County Commissioners during a recent workshop:

http://www.broward.org/airport/pdfs/districtwidebbriefings042007.pdf

...And here is the DEIS itself, prepared by the FAA, broken down into individual chapter links:

http://www.broward.org/airport/deis.htm

...With the two most pertinent passages being:

-Appendix D.3 Runway Length Analysis
-Appendix E.1 Airfield Planning, Design, and Constructability Review (*Warning - large file*)


The first one, with regard to runway gradient:


Runway Gradient: The Aircraft Characteristics for Airport Planning Manuals
distributed by the various aircraft manufacturers provide runway
requirements that are predicated upon a runway with no change in runway
elevation (effective gradient of 0.0 percent). These manuals do not provide
the ability to adjust runway length requirements based on runway with an
effective gradient. However, the FAA does provide an adjustment for runway
grade in Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5325-4A, Runway Length Requirements
for Airport Design
. This AC states that the runway length requirements are
to be increased at a rate of ten feet for each foot of elevation difference
between the high and low points of the runway centerline
.



And the second passage, indicating all appropriate figures for slope, elevation, etc:


http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/8294/untitled2lx0.jpg


Interestingly, contrary to your naysayer, it's not exactly a 45' total incline, but only a 37.32' total incline. (Beginning elevation 8.1' MSL, ending elevation 45.42' MSL.)

So, according to the FAA, if the runway length requirement for an aircraft should be increased by 10 feet for every foot in elevation difference, then the net increase in required runway length for any aircraft operating on 9R/27L is only 373.2 feet...certainly not a deal-breaker for a runway that's already 8,000' long, considering this "effectively" makes the runway still a good 7,626.8 feet if it were completely level, all other things being equal.

And besides, if circumstances dictate that an aircraft *absolutely* needs every inch it can get, and this condition prevents 9R/27L from being a satisfactory option, then 9L/27R is just a couple thousand feet away.

----

Just for your own reference, here are all the other presentations and PDFs throughout the process over the last few years:

http://www.broward.org/airport/community_airportexpansion.htm

Quoting 797 (Reply 17):


Quoting KFLLCFII:

Close Airport Perimeter Road within the approach to Runway 9R

No!!!! That sucks!

I hope they don't mess with the spotting park up Rwy. 9L!

Don't worry, just because they close Perimeter Road due west of the 9R approach, that doesn't mean it'll automatically shut out access to the Viewing Area. There's still Lee Wagener Blvd from the west, and Perimeter Road from the north. The portion they're talking about is simply the portion adjacent to the Gulfstream Int'l hangar, paralleling the Dania Cutoff Canal.  Wink



"About the only way to look at it, just a pity you are not POTUS KFLLCFII, seems as if we would all be better off."
User currently offlineNADC10Fan From United States of America, joined May 2005, 165 posts, RR: 11
Reply 19, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 3283 times:

KFLL, thanks for those document links and heads' up! Those are and will be a tremendous resource.

One thing, though ... I could not see where the FAA made any recommendations. Do they not do so? Do you know of anyplace where such might be found? I'm very interested in the choice of B1c over C1 and the other related north-side possibilities. I've seen it often contended that C1 is the best option, but I've also seen where there are other major issues with it as well; and I'm wondering how they stack against relational to the other options - especially the chosen one.

Looking forward to additional thought!



TANSTAAFL!
User currently offlineDnl65 From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 79 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 3218 times:

The FAA determination of preferred alternate will be included in the final EIS which is scheduled for early 08. With regard to the alternates studied here ,all would meet the basic need of the airport at least in the short term. Additionally, each alternate has some "warts". The C-1 mentioned above would take longer to build would require relocation of all the FBO's on the north boundary and doesn't provide the highest capacity as a result of the need to cross an active runway by every arrival. The B-1 alternates a,b,and c are complex and expensive to build and lead to some issues in ground movements (which is what the tower chiefs letter said , not that it was unsafe). The D alternates provide the best capacity but are expensive to build and their maximum utility wouldn't occur for quite a while.

.


User currently offlineNADC10Fan From United States of America, joined May 2005, 165 posts, RR: 11
Reply 21, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 3125 times:

Quoting Dnl65 (Reply 20):
The FAA determination of preferred alternate will be included in the final EIS which is scheduled for early 08.

Excellent! I will watch for that - I've found the current document to be fascinating reading with tremendous amounts of data. I look forward to the same in the final.

Quote:
With regard to the alternates studied here ,all would meet the basic need of the airport at least in the short term.

I did note that based on Overview estimates of each alternative.

Quote:
Additionally, each alternate has some "warts". The C-1 mentioned above would take longer to build would require relocation of all the FBO's on the north boundary and doesn't provide the highest capacity as a result of the need to cross an active runway by every arrival.

Hm, really. Obviously, having to cross the current 9L/27R is an issue - plenty of airports have to deal with it, currently, but an issue nonetheless. And moving the FBOs and freight haulers from the north side is a sine qua non.

One potential 'wart' I noticed which you didn't mention and I'm very curious for opinion on - when I studied the runway specification documents KFLL provided, I very specifically noticed the FAA states as follows regarding the proposed C1: "Due to the presence of the I-595 elevated roadway, non-standard departure minimums and/or climb may be required." This is true for a westerly departure, as well, because of I-95 and the I-95 / I-595 interchange, which is even more elevated. I didn't see anything about arrivals on that runway being subject to this issue, although it does cause one to wonder.

Is this sort of thing unusual, and how much of an impact would it have on a recommendation or a decision in a case like this, as opposed to the considerations regarding construction on the south?

Quote:
The B-1 alternates a,b,and c are complex and expensive to build and lead to some issues in ground movements (which is what the tower chiefs letter said , not that it was unsafe).

Now that is interesting. That's an element of it that I did not know. My understanding - based, it is true, on second- and third-hand sources - was that there were safety concerns on his part. This is another issue altogether.

I am assuming that it has to do with the somewhat limited access to the runway at its eastern end due the elevated design? From the design, there is taxiway access, but it's a single taxiway that must be entered at some distance away from the eastern end. I wonder how it compares to the northern runway option's issues of having to cross an active runway? I'd be curious to know the tower chief's opinion of that, as it's a definite headache he'd have to deal with that he does not currently.

Quote:
The D alternates provide the best capacity but are expensive to build and their maximum utility wouldn't occur for quite a while.

Well, reviewing the Overview doc (which I printed out), the D alternatives provided for new or extended runways on both the north and south sides of the airfield. Jumping from one to three major runways would certainly offer a strong increase in capacity. I will not deny, as an airport and aviation enthusiast, that this doesn't appeal to me a great deal. I would be severely doubtful, however, that approval would ever be gained for that in the present time simply on a cost factor basis.

However, I think that with the approval of B1c (and its assumed eventual buildout, despite what's sure to be a long and grinding series of legal challenges) adding more capacity by approving and building a northern runway remains an option they can take advantage in future. I will admit I find the likelihood of that to be rather low, but I cannot preclude the possibility - especially if growth in traffic shows the need.

Thanks for the continued discussion, folks. Great stuff!



TANSTAAFL!
User currently offlineDnl65 From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 79 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 3110 times:

There are three factors that constrain the B1 alternates. First since it is elevated there can only be a few (2 I think) taxiway exits and only one of those is a high speed. This will increase the amount of time each operation,
particularly arrivals have to spend on the runway. Second, the limited taxiway access could potentially lead to congestion at the point where the taxiway enters the ramp and third, since the elevated runway requires construction of a retaining wall there are potential issues on the ramp itself. Everyone should understand that the drawings included in the EIS are conceptual not design and the planners will work on the issues described above when they do the final design.


User currently offlineNADC10Fan From United States of America, joined May 2005, 165 posts, RR: 11
Reply 23, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 3027 times:

Quoting Dnl65 (Reply 22):
There are three factors that constrain the B1 alternates. First since it is elevated there can only be a few (2 I think) taxiway exits and only one of those is a high speed. This will increase the amount of time each operation, particularly arrivals have to spend on the runway. Second, the limited taxiway access could potentially lead to congestion at the point where the taxiway enters the ramp and third, since the elevated runway requires construction of a retaining wall there are potential issues on the ramp itself. Everyone should understand that the drawings included in the EIS are conceptual not design and the planners will work on the issues described above when they do the final design.

DNL ... thanks for pointing this in particular out, as it impacts greatly on what I've learned just today.

This morning, I had the opportunity to speak to someone whom I believe is a pretty senior official with the FAA about the topic; and in informing me of his opposition to the current plan, he explained to me what I believe was mostly what the FLL tower chief also pointed out. Essentially, it hit on each of these points you mentioned in your post. He told me that if they hold this design as is, the estimated operations per hour would have to be reduced by 20 - 30 from the original estimate which was based - I am guessing - on different runway design parameters. He said that the it was NOT necessarily the concept of an elevated runway that bothered them; obviously, they deal with such on a fairly frequent basis. But the way this particular one is coming together to highly restrict and/or lengthen the time of movement on the runway/taxiway complex is for them a deal-breaker. If it does not change, the person I spoke with firmly believes the northern runway is the superior option; the dual operations issue is something they have no problem handling (remember MIA). I need to talk with him at more length (if he will), but this is the core of what he said; and it certainly seems to capitalize on what you pointed out, as I said before.

There is another person I have direct access to with whom I've been meaning to have some words with. She is an engineer working (I believe) in the design team for the expansion, and I'm most curious to get her thoughts on this issue - assuming it falls within her knowledge, and she can speak to it.



TANSTAAFL!
User currently offlineCschleic From United States of America, joined Feb 2002, 1247 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 2980 times:

Quoting KFLLCFII (Reply 18):
Don't worry, just because they close Perimeter Road due west of the 9R approach, that doesn't mean it'll automatically shut out access to the Viewing Area. There's still Lee Wagener Blvd from the west, and Perimeter Road from the north. The portion they're talking about is simply the portion adjacent to the Gulfstream Int'l hangar, paralleling the Dania Cutoff Canal.

True, but it's so convenient getting from the rental car garage over to the viewing lot now on Perimeter Road. Or at least was until the recent construction started.

Isn't there a plan to expand some cargo or other areas that will ultimately replace the viewing lot? I could be wrong but think I recall reading this somewhere. And hopefully the park south of 9R will be a viewing option. One advantage of the current runway layout is all traffic in one spot.


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...
Fll Runway Extension For Heavy Aircraft posted Tue Oct 17 2006 23:42:45 by Fll2993
FLL Runway Option May Spare Dania Homes posted Thu Jan 12 2006 18:45:55 by OB1504
Battle Over FLL Runway Takes A Legal Turn posted Fri Aug 5 2005 20:43:51 by KarlB737
FLL Runway Ops Question? posted Wed Nov 3 2004 23:17:25 by Flairport
Old Restaurant By FLL Runway posted Tue Oct 19 2004 14:36:36 by HlywdCatft
Airplane/ Runway Show On TV Now posted Thu Jan 29 2004 04:03:14 by ZONA8
FLL's Runway 13/31 posted Fri Dec 5 2003 06:22:25 by Mia777
Consultant Says Shorter FLL Runway Will Work posted Thu Nov 20 2003 15:49:53 by TWFirst
Where To Find FLL Runway Activity Info posted Fri Oct 3 2003 23:48:40 by Flairport
SFO Runway Project - Dead For Now? posted Mon Apr 28 2003 19:15:04 by FATFlyer