Adelaide Airport visions

[Ho Really]

Dazzleland's post below in the News & Discussion: Adelaide Airport & Airlines thread got me thinking...

My dad is working on the joint user hydrant installation (fuel pumps) at the airport, and he got a peek at some of the plans, and some of them are quite exciting, like a new international terminal by 2029.

So I thought I'd put together a site plan. Enjoy...

Concept Adelaide Airport site expansion plan

Future Adelaide Airport Plan.png (359.81 KiB) Viewed 11988 times

Cheers

[Aidan]

Dazzleland's post below in the News & Discussion: Adelaide Airport & Airlines thread got me thinking...

My dad is working on the joint user hydrant installation (fuel pumps) at the airport, and he got a peek at some of the plans, and some of them are quite exciting, like a new international terminal by 2029.

I think he must be mistaken - our existing international terminal is quite new, and there's nothing much wrong with it, and I've heard Adelaide Airport's plans for the future and they don't involve new international terminals. There may be a new regional terminal in that timescale if demand for FIFO workers meets or exceeds projections.

So I thought I'd put together a site plan. Enjoy...

Future Adelaide Airport Plan.png

Cheers

Struth, what a terrible plan! Thousands of people unnecessarily blighted by noise, and the destruction of the last remaining section of Patawalonga Creek that's in anything like its natural state.

When we eventually need a new runway, it makes sense to keep it short. And there's no point in lengthening the crosswind runway as the aircraft that have trouble with crosswinds aren't the ones big enough to need a long runway.

[[Shuz]]

I've a better vision. Move the damn airport out to Dry Creek.

[Ho Really]

Struth, what a terrible plan! Thousands of people unnecessarily blighted by noise, and the destruction of the last remaining section of Patawalonga Creek that's in anything like its natural state.

Remember this plan is only fictional. If something similar was ever considered I would expect it to be at least 20-30 years away. Noise at that point may not even be a major issue anymore, we don't know. As for the destruction of the Patawalonga Creek, where the parallel runway is envisioned, there's not much but open fields, and I wouldn't cry too much about that.

When we eventually need a new runway, it makes sense to keep it short. And there's no point in lengthening the crosswind runway as the aircraft that have trouble with crosswinds aren't the ones big enough to need a long runway.

That runway was lengthened for fun to make Adelaide Airport look impressive. It's not really needed as you said because only small aircraft use it.

Any comments on the terminals or the light rail?

Cheers

[Ho Really]

I've a better vision. Move the damn airport out to Dry Creek.

Sure Shuz everyone's dream. Aidan says destruction of the Patawalonga Creek and you advocate destruction of wetlands and mangroves.

Cheers

[spiller]

A light rail train station in the middle of that flashy new plaza would be great. useless piece of space it is. I've never seen more than about 3 people actually using the plaza for anything other than crossing to the actual terminal. IMO that space would have been better used for more retail and eateries.

[zippySA]

My understanding is that this is exactly the intention of AAL - to populate this space with the current trend of "pop-up" retail and food outlets. All the inground services are there for this - they just need to find the operators.

That space would also nicely suit a light rail terminus, but suspect that is several decades away from reality if ever. Locals travelling to the airport would still travel direct given our minimal PT network, and I cannot see how it would benefit arrivals all that much as we are so close to the city anyways, much easier to taxi direct to your destination than take a one-way ride into town and then catch your taxi to hotel or meetings etc. and to make volumes viable, it would probably need to pick up general punters along the way, meaning you would be slower than car travel after several stops.

[[Shuz]]

I've a better vision. Move the damn airport out to Dry Creek.

Sure Shuz everyone's dream. Aidan says destruction of the Patawalonga Creek and you advocate destruction of wetlands and mangroves.

Cheers

I think we're pretty spoilt for the quantity and quality of wetlands and mangroves along the coastline of Adelaide's far northern suburbs. I'm not advocating for the destruction of the wetlands out around St. Kilda and Buckland Park way. The area and land in the vicinity of the Barker Inlet and Dry Creek has already been significantly impacted by urban development.

There is no argument that Dry Creek is the optimal location for a new airport, based on proximity to to the Adelaide CBD, provision of economic stimulus and jobs growth to the residents of Adelaide's northern suburbs, unlocking of development potential in the Adelaide CBD and transport connections; Northern Expressway, Port River Expressway, Salisbury Highway, Port Wakefield Road, North-South Motorway, Gawler & Roseworthy rail lines, of which a new airport line could be built.

Of course I concede that there would be some environmental impact, but wouldn't you agree that it's better develop a project where an environmental impact already exists (i.e. the saltpans) than to cause new environmental impacts elsewhere (i.e if an airport was to be built at Two Wells - which is the stupidest idea I've heard).

If anything, the oppurtunity would then exist to make it economically feasible to be able to adequately mitigate and plan for the minimisation of any additional, or even potential reversal of environmental impacts associated with the land which the saltpans / visionary new airport is located.

[crawf]

I've a better vision. Move the damn airport out to Dry Creek.

This^

[Splashmo]

Dry Creek? Plenty of space but considering we're in a linear city, it wouldn't be popular with anyone down south.

[[Shuz]]

Dry Creek? Plenty of space but considering we're in a linear city, it wouldn't be popular with anyone down south.

You think Two Wells would be a better option?

There's always someone whose going to get disadvantaged by an airport's location. Think the western suburbs of Sydney to Kingsford-Smith. Tullamarine to Melbourne's south. Brisbane Airport to the residents of Ipswich...

[Aidan]

I've a better vision. Move the damn airport out to Dry Creek.

Sure Shuz everyone's dream. Aidan says destruction of the Patawalonga Creek and you advocate destruction of wetlands and mangroves.

Cheers

I think we're pretty spoilt for the quantity and quality of wetlands and mangroves along the coastline of Adelaide's far northern suburbs. I'm not advocating for the destruction of the wetlands out around St. Kilda and Buckland Park way. The area and land in the vicinity of the Barker Inlet and Dry Creek has already been significantly impacted by urban development.

There's more of a need for wetlands and mangroves around the Barker Inlet because of the urban development. All that sediment in the runoff has to go somewhere! That's why the wetlands were constructed in the first place. And since then the Greenfields Wetlands have become the most important bird sanctuary in coastal southern Australia. So environmentally, Dry Creek is probably the worst possible place for an airport!

There is no argument that Dry Creek is the optimal location for a new airport, based on proximity to to the Adelaide CBD, provision of economic stimulus and jobs growth to the residents of Adelaide's northern suburbs, unlocking of development potential in the Adelaide CBD and transport connections; Northern Expressway, Port River Expressway, Salisbury Highway, Port Wakefield Road, North-South Motorway, Gawler & Roseworthy rail lines, of which a new airport line could be built.

I can't agree that there's no argument because you've just made one, but there's no sensible argument. Economic factors, not airport related height restrictions, are what limit development in the CBD, and moving the airport so much further away would harm the CBD's competitiveness. As you say, the northern suburbs already have good transport infrastructure with more on the way, and the industry there has taken advantage of that. What's needed to stimulate it isn't the relocation of the one transport mode that's not already concentrated there, it's lower interest rates to make investing in better equipment more profitable.

Of course I concede that there would be some environmental impact, but wouldn't you agree that it's better develop a project where an environmental impact already exists (i.e. the saltpans) than to cause new environmental impacts elsewhere (i.e if an airport was to be built at Two Wells - which is the stupidest idea I've heard).

Of course I wouldn't agree!

If you abandon the idea of closing the existing airport, it makes sense for our next airport to be further away, and considering the amount of industry in the northern suburbs, it makes more sense for it to be located in the north than in the south. The land in question near Two Wells is flat and of relatively low environmental value. The soil is quite saline (so not very good for farming) and high sulfides, which makes it a potential acid sulfate soil (so not very good for building on either). In fact it's similar to the land the saltpans were built on further south. An airport would be a sensible use of the land.

If anything, the oppurtunity would then exist to make it economically feasible to be able to adequately mitigate and plan for the minimisation of any additional, or even potential reversal of environmental impacts associated with the land which the saltpans visionary new airport is located.

But it would wreck the environmental mitigation of those parts of the land not currently occupied by saltpans.

[[Shuz]]

Aidan:

[monotonehell]

Aidan:

That "comment" seems unfounded in the context of this thread. I may not always agree with Aiden's opinions, but he's presented arguments for his above points while you've just made assertions.

[[Shuz]]

You can never justify continuing an argument with someone whose very tactic in argument is to ridicule, attack and negatively critique absolutely every single bloody thing. He never has a compliment, or a positive word to say, not even so much a neutral opinion. With Aidan, it's just constant negativity. If he can just pull his head in, and stop resorting to the 'no' defense, and that ridiculous post-breakdown of his, then I'll have a discussion with him. Otherwise for the time being, I'll do whatever the fuck I please and reply how I want.