Sensational-Adelaide.com

With the opening of our new multi level car park in August 2012 and the relocation of the drop off / pickup area, both the lower road and the upper road were closed to the general public vehicle traffic. This was part of the design criteria to both open up the face of the terminal and in compliance with current international security guidelines, to provide a 70 metre exclusion buffer for private vehicle access. These guidelines apply to any new major construction works around international airport terminals.

Currently there is considerable pedestrian traffic across the link bridge to and from the car park and any vehicle traffic would create pedestrian/vehicle conflict which was one of the design criteria in the new plaza development. The ramp is currently only used for emergency vehicle and Federal Police access.

In due course we will demolish the ramp access to the north. Future Terminal expansions to increase checkin areas will also encroach on this roadway area.

So, no, the roadway will not be reopened to the public.

Aidan wrote:What use is a DVD that big? It won't fit into a standard DVD player!

alexczarn wrote:Isn't Adelaide the only major airport in Australia without a freeway connection? I hope when the North South Motorway gets connected between Torrens and Darlington that somehow there is provision for a freeway link to the airport..

monotonehell wrote:

alexczarn wrote:Isn't Adelaide the only major airport in Australia without a freeway connection? I hope when the North South Motorway gets connected between Torrens and Darlington that somehow there is provision for a freeway link to the airport..

What makes you think it needs one? Perhaps the reason the other Australian airports all have one is that they are in the middle of nowhere?

Any way the north south freeway by any other name will be close by when complete.

fifty wrote:Why is it needed? Because the Master Plan's own figures show vehicular transport to be the overwhelming dominant current and future method of accessing the airport...

monotonehell wrote:

fifty wrote:Why is it needed? Because the Master Plan's own figures show vehicular transport to be the overwhelming dominant current and future method of accessing the airport...

But one freeway? Freeways tend to go from one place to a linear number of places. Patrons of the airport will probably come from all over.

fifty wrote:

monotonehell wrote:

fifty wrote:Why is it needed? Because the Master Plan's own figures show vehicular transport to be the overwhelming dominant current and future method of accessing the airport...

But one freeway? Freeways tend to go from one place to a linear number of places. Patrons of the airport will probably come from all over.

I think the only reason people are even suggesting a freeway connection to the airport is to link it to the N/S Freeway (South Rd) whenever that will be done, as you say, in order to connect to airport patrons that will increasingly use such a road from all parts north and south of the city.

Upgrading Greenhill Rd/Glen Osmond rd is just my pie in the sky dreaming, but based on the same logic to connect patrons East of the city and the hills to the airport, and to finally provide the non-stop heavy transport route from north of the city to the major Eastern-states SE Freeway conduit that industry (and Portrush Rd residents) are crying out for.

ChillyPhilly wrote:Why not Cross Road in that case?

crawf wrote:A Qantas A380 was at the airport tonight around 9ish.

I got some photos which I'll post tomorrow.

ac83 wrote:

crawf wrote:A Qantas A380 was at the airport tonight around 9ish.

I got some photos which I'll post tomorrow.

Any idea why?

fifty wrote:

ChillyPhilly wrote:Why not Cross Road in that case?

Offtopic, but here goes....

I have often thought the same. There are difficulties with both. Aside from the simple airport extension, my thinking is that Richmond/Greenhill/Glen Osmond is better due to i) the presence of parklands along much of the corridor allowing flexibility with design and cheaper additional width*; ii) land value and zoning around Richmond Rd is maybe easier to accommodate a large flyover-type intersection with Sth Rd, compared to Cross Rds which has already been partly developed, iii) Glen Osmond Rd and Cross Rd residents and businesses will both put up a hell of a fight, but Glen Osmond Rd is yet to see any development and is really overdue compared to Cross Rd and is shorter in length; and iv) perhaps most importantly a freeway going down Greenhill Rd can include at least one off/on ramp directly to the city, adding a major economic justification to its case.

*Assuming the parkland nazis can be overcome