Grand Rapids Airport (GRR) News and Developments

[walker]

Not construction or anything but someone took this neat shot at GRR Sunday night when we had a super moon.  It's a Southwest 737 crossing in front of the moon coming in for a landing:

Here's a link to the guy's web site where tells what he was up to:

super moon plane spotting GRR

 

[sparky05]

As a regular at the Viewing Area with my camera, after seeing that pic I have to say that I am ashamed of all my prior efforts at photography. If anyone needs me I'll be off in the corner wearing sackcloth and sitting in a huge pile of ashes.

[joeDowntown]

I didn't realize this until last week, but the viewing area is also a great spot to watch the sunset. 

Joe

[walker]

Non-stop flights between Washington National Airport and Grand Rapids on American Eagle start in April:

GRR Press Release

 

Edited December 6, 2016 by walker

[sparky05]

Flew that route on Northwest once. I believe Lansing has that route now as well. 

[arcturus]

Good to see they finally hired a new CEO.  They were without one for over 6 months.  

[GR8scott]

On 12/6/2016 at 9:06 AM, arcturus said:

Good to see they finally hired a new CEO.  They were without one for over 6 months.  

coming from Pittsburgh, I hope he has his sights on expanded service and other airport upgrades.....LAX, PHX.....

[SEsideguy]

He wil bring in new flights. If not then might as wel build a Mag-lev to Detroit Metro.

[SEsideguy]

I flew that route in 1968 on a United 737, it stopped in Lansing then to National airport. Everyone dressed in suits and women in dresses, what an event.

[ctpgr34]

New offerings at the airport- http://fox17online.com/2016/12/22/ford-airport-announces-new-restaurants-retail-offerings/

[arcturus]

3 hours ago, ctpgr34 said:

New offerings at the airport- http://fox17online.com/2016/12/22/ford-airport-announces-new-restaurants-retail-offerings/

Reading stuff like this I sometimes wonder how much 9/11 delayed airport improvements like this.  A decade maybe.

[GR8scott]

Looks cool but I hope it doesn't block out the entire window that that they are currently expanding. Also hope it doesnt mean they loose, Bell's, the other beer bar and quiznos!

[GRDadof3]

As long as the airport doesn't smell like burnt toast, I'm good with whatever they do. 

[Raildude's dad]

I had a discussion with their facilities engineer a few months ago. (Daughter went to college with him). I told him it was unacceptable to walk the concourse and smell burnt bagels. The bagel place moved with the remodeling and the issue still exists. I'm not a big air traveler (GRR to TPA and back)  I told him it was not a good impression on visitors to  smell burnt bagels. He said he would look into it since they had worked to eliminate it. Time for me to follow up:)

[sparky05]

A few pics of the Viewing Area expansion:

IMG_4607.jpg by Marc VM, on Flickr

IMG_4608.jpg by Marc VM, on Flickr

IMG_4606.jpg by Marc VM, on Flickr

IMG_4605.jpg by Marc VM, on Flickr

IMG_4601.jpg by Marc VM, on Flickr

[HomePortSupplyCo]

Pamplona may have the Running of the Bulls, but GR has Running with the Planes.

http://triviumracing.com/event/grr-runway-5k/

[joeDowntown]

9 hours ago, Onekama said:

Pamplona may have the Running of the Bulls, but GR has Running with the Planes.

http://triviumracing.com/event/grr-runway-5k/

If they do this while planes are landing and taking off, they could become the next extreme sport.

Joe

[wingbert]

I'll let you know.  I'm already signed up!

[walker]

16 hours ago, joeDowntown said:

If they do this while planes are landing and taking off, they could become the next extreme sport.

Joe

reminds me of this

[GR8scott]

if only they would add a traffic tunnel under the non-commercial runway on the north side for the no-brainier direct connect to i96!

Edited February 23, 2017 by GR8scott

[GR8scott]

3 hours ago, temporary.name said:

They already have one under the east runways. They just need to connect it to a street.

 Really? Is it new? the only one I'm aware of is under the north/south runway used only for airport vehicles.  I mean if Holland has one with two lanes in each direction under the one and only primary runway on a street with not very heavy traffic, not sure why GRR doesn't make this a priority.not sure why GRR doesn't make this a priority.

[RegalTDP]

1 hour ago, GR8scott said:

 Really? Is it new? the only one I'm aware of is under the north/south runway used only for airport vehicles.  I mean if Holland has one with two lanes in each direction under the one and only primary runway on a street with not very heavy traffic, not sure why GRR doesn't make this a priority.not sure why GRR doesn't make this a priority.

You mean something like this, right?  The cost vs. benefit is probably why it's not a priority.

Edited February 23, 2017 by RegalTDP

[Raildude's dad]

53 minutes ago, temporary.name said:

That's the one. I just said it's east of the terminal vs you saying it's a north and south oriented runway. 

We're thinking of the same one.

 

It *could* be converted for regular road traffic *if* connecting roads were built and proper fencing and signage was installed.

It cannot be converted for regular traffic. It's just 2 lanes, no breakdown lanes - constructed for minimal on site traffic. There are far higher standards for a "public" use tunnel.

As for the sketched tunnel on the aerial photo, the long range plan for the north side of the terminal is a duplication (mirror image) of the main runway - 2 taxiway system on the south side of the terminal. The existing north runway becomes part of the taxiway system.

The long - long range vision has a tunnel to the 36th St interchange.

44th St/ Oostema Blvd curved to the north and turned into Kraft Ave when the airport was first built. I always thought it was a big mistake and short sighted to cut off the second access for the north "runway"  glorified taxiway.

[Raildude's dad]

1 hour ago, temporary.name said:

Bare in mind I never said that option would be inexpensive. 

 

With that thought: the existing tunnel can be widened and brought up to current specifications for public use. There is already a hole there (as opposed to no hole on the north side) that may make it more viable for a public access tunnel. 

 

I'm not a traffic engineer nor can I give a sound estimate of cost. My thought process is that there already exists a open space underneath the runways so why not start there?

First: I didn't say anything about cost. Highway tunnels under runways are not unique, but they also are not cheap.

Second: Traffic engineers do not design tunnels. Geotechnical and structural engineers do most of the engineering.

Widening a tunnel is not like widening a road. Increasing the length of the roof (width)  will require a stronger / thicker roof, with more steel reinforcement. You will end up digging up the tunnel and pretty much start from scratch.  The existing tunnel most likely doesn't meet the standards for a one way public highway tunnel.

Then there is the life safety issue. There needs to be provisions for providing ventilation from fumes and safe exit for people in the event of a fire in the tunnel. The standards are much less for tunnels not open to the public. The existing tunnel is approximately 1560 feet long for information

Edited February 24, 2017 by Raildude's dad

[GR8scott]

19 hours ago, RegalTDP said:

You mean something like this, right?  The cost vs. benefit is probably why it's not a priority.

Yes exactly like that, the cost can't be too high especially if Holland can manage it I'm not sure why GRR doesn't do it. I've traveled all over the country and seen this done at many other smaller airports.....name one other  commercial airport thats immediately adjacent to an interstate that does not have direct access? It's just small town planning

Edited February 24, 2017 by GR8scott