The Cabinet's decision on the future of Dublin a irport is expected soon and could be a monumental blunder, writes Frank McDonald, Environment Editor.
The long-running debate about Dublin airport has been dominated by the issue of whether a second terminal should be independently operated by private sector interests - and by repeated barbs from Ryanair's colourful chief executive, Michael O'Leary.
His regular full-page advertisements in national newspapers have accused the Taoiseach personally and the Government in general of "dithering" on its 2002 pledge that a second terminal would be built to relieve chronic congestion at the State's main airport.
Ryanair itself was one of 13 bidders who responded to an invitation for "expressions of interest" in developing the second terminal, and the Department of Transport was to decide in January 2003 whether to proceed with a public tender. But no such decision was made.
According to Mr O'Leary, the subsequent two years were "marked by delay, dither and fudge", and what lay behind this was "the inability of Bertie Ahern to make a decision which (though opposed by a small number of trade unions) would be great for ordinary consumers".
In fairness, the Government did proceed to break up Aer Rianta, replacing it with separate authorities for Dublin, Cork and Shannon airports. But the new Dublin airport Authority has clearly indicated that it wants to proceed with Aer Rianta's old plan for a new Pier D.
The big problem with this is that Pier D would occupy a site just north of the original terminal building, which also happens to be the best possible location for a second terminal. If the new pier goes ahead, at an estimated cost of €70 million, a major opportunity will be lost.
Ryanair wants to build a second terminal on the site costing €114 million.
Designed by deBlacam and Meagher Architects, it would provide 24 new aircraft stands in the first phase - an 80 per cent increase on the airport's current capacity - and 12 more in the second phase.
And because it would be independent of the existing main terminal, while sharing the same access route, its nearest gate would be just 63 metres from check-in. Contrast that with Pier D, where the furthest gate would be a staggering 1.2km from the main terminal's check-in.
The elevated walkway connecting Pier D with the main terminal would also partially obscure views of the original terminal building, which was completed in 1941 and remains the best piece of architecture at the airport.
The cost of building the walkway has been put at €20 million.
The long trek to Pier D is unlikely to appeal to the airport's 17 million passengers, however cheap their flights may be. And it is so unnecessary, given that an independent terminal could be built on the north apron site either by Ryanair or the airport authority itself.
Tacking on a fourth pier to the main terminal would merely compound congestion at the airport, which has already seen far too many ad-hoc additions - such as Pier C, where there are aircraft stands on one side only. To proceed with another would be a monumental blunder. Any Government decision in favour of an alternative plan for a second terminal by brothers Des and Ulick McEvaddy on the west side of the airport would be equally ill-advised because it would involve building an entirely new road access network, remote from any rail link.
Dublin airport does not need an equivalent of Terminal 4 at London Heathrow. What it requires is a second terminal with the same road access as the existing main terminal, in close proximity to a new rail station. The issue of who runs this facility is surely secondary.
In many ways, the Government's handling of the second terminal mirrors the fiasco involving the long-delayed National Conference Centre; instead of picking the right site and getting developers to tender for it, successive ministers allowed a locational free-for-all.
This laissez-faire approach has marred strategic decisions on what must be regarded as crucial elements of public infrastructure. In the case of Dublin airport, which is bursting at the seams, the situation has been further complicated by kowtowing to the trade unions.
Unions representing staff at the airport are opposed to a second terminal run by the private sector and are equally opposed to any sale of Aer Lingus. The Taoiseach wants to keep them happy, whereas the Tánaiste believes that competition is the pre-eminent requirement.
There has been speculation that the deal being hatched by Bertie Ahern would involve union agreement to a partial sale of Aer Lingus in return for keeping the private sector out of running a second terminal, allowing it to be operated instead by the Dublin Airport Authority.
Minister for Transport Martin Cullen claimed recently that the Government's decision would be based on "what's best for Irish aviation, best for the customers, and best for the employees". However, the years of dithering over it would suggest otherwise.
One of the principles of sustainable development is that future options are not closed off by what we do in the present. But this was set aside even by the Luas project, in running the Tallaght line along the filled-in bed of the original route of the Grand Canal to James's Harbour.
If the Government is serious about sustainable development at Dublin airport and making decisions in the public interest, it would tell the airport authority to scrap its plan for Pier D and proceed rapidly with tenders for the development of a second terminal on the site.
It also needs to make a decision urgently on how to connect the airport with the city centre by rail.