Sensational-Adelaide.com

The airport's location to the CBD is an advantage, not a disadvantage. We can hardly blame it for limiting the height of the CBD when no one is building anything that even challenges the existing tallest.

rev wrote:

dsriggs wrote:

[Shuz] wrote:I guess this kills off any chance of relocating the airport elsewhere basically forever.

The new terminal killed that off when it was built.

We absolutely should've moved it somewhere else, preferably the salt pans near Port Adelaide, but there's nowhere to move it where one half of the city wouldn't complain about the new location.

I always thought out that way was a good location too, but it should have been moved even further out along the coast west of Two Wells, and linked with the Adelaide proper and the CBD via a freeway(with speed limit of 100) and a train line. But even if it was a possibility, Adelaide/SA just doesn't have the balls to spend those sorts of big bucks on anything, let alone relocating the airport.

If we had that much dough to spend, why not just buy a few thousand houses presently under the flight path, and demolish them?

We would then have the airport close to the CBD and central to businesses that need airport access. Indeed, once residential areas are cleared, more airport based businesses could be located nearby. Resale of the land to business could defray the cost of the purchase too.

I guess the question is, what earthly benefit is it to have an airport at Two Wells...unless you are a taxi driver?

rubberman wrote:
I guess the question is, what earthly benefit is it to have an airport at Two Wells...unless you are a taxi driver?

So the CBD can have no height restriction

GoodSmackUp wrote:

rubberman wrote:
I guess the question is, what earthly benefit is it to have an airport at Two Wells...unless you are a taxi driver?

So the CBD can have no height restriction

OK, then let those that want the extra height pay to relocate the airport. If however, public money should be spent putting up tall buildings, it would still be cheaper to build skyscrapers south of Greenhill Road and give them away, than relocate the airport. Are we that short of CBD office space that the only way is up? I guess though that if the city grows to three times its present size, you are right, and it will start to become a problem. However, three times its present size is what the Adelaide Airport seems to be looking at as its ultimate goal too. So when the city needs to develop upward, and the airport is a real restriction, the airport itself will be looking to relocate at that time as well. Of course by that time, tunnelling technology might be cheap enough to make a Tailem Bend Airport to the City tunnel feasible. That has all sorts of advantages.

Morning all,

Adelaide received its 1st B787 tongight with ...

Air New Zealand B787-9 ZK-NZE diverting here enroute Perth-Auckland

Stefan P wrote:Air New Zealand B787-9 ZK-NZE diverting here enroute Perth-Auckland

Heard something land and checked Flightaware on my iPhone. Lo and behold ANZ176...This has an all-black fuselage correct? I guess they won't take off until 06:00...Hope you've got some piccies for us.

Cheers

Moving the airport to the saltpans (mentioned mostly by [Shuz]) is never going to happen. I've said this before and so has Aidan. That place is not the right environment for an airport. The area is close to mangroves and flood prone. It is also full of birds. In regards to expansion Rev mentioned the 52 airbridges. Future growth is in Asia, namely China and India. They will drive more tourism and business opportunities to us. Adelaide Airport has the right idea and is on the right track. My only gripe is that the SA government is not looking at a dedicated tram (lightrail) corridor, but one down Henley Beach Road. It also should be a priority in my opinion since it will take at least a couple of years to plan and two more to build.

Cheers

Ho Really wrote:Moving the airport to the saltpans (mentioned mostly by [Shuz]) is never going to happen. I've said this before and so has Aidan. That place is not the right environment for an airport. The area is close to mangroves and flood prone. It is also full of birds. In regards to expansion Rev mentioned the 52 airbridges. Future growth is in Asia, namely China and India. They will drive more tourism and business opportunities to us. Adelaide Airport has the right idea and is on the right track. My only gripe is that the SA government is not looking at a dedicated tram (lightrail) corridor, but one down Henley Beach Road. It also should be a priority in my opinion since it will take at least a couple of years to plan and two more to build.

Cheers

Agree that a tram to the airport should be a dedicated corridor. Where could it run though?

ChillyPhilly wrote:Agree that a tram to the airport should be a dedicated corridor. Where could it run though?

Take a look at the thread Adelaide Airport rail link. Essentially my idea is to use the Keswick Creek corridor. Somewhere in the thread Monotonehell put together a map showing different options and also a post with pro and cons for each proposal. I did have a plan but lost it in a hard drive failure years ago and never bothered put another one together.

Anyhow...One option had the rail lines run down Sir Donald Bradman Drive and then into James Congdon Drive going south. It is now apparent that the government wants to duplicate that section of James Congdon Drive. This would mean no tracks down the median strip. Not so dedicated. I won't go into too much detail here since this is the Airport thread. I'll post in the thread mentioned above when I have the time. In the meantime you can expand on this idea your own way as Monotonehell did.

Cheers

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/sout ... 7102532829

Double-decker buses back on our streets with express service between the city and Adelaide Airport

DAVID NANKERVIS
Sunday Mail (SA)
October 26, 2014 12:00AM


Torrens Transit driver Daniel Polesso will be behind the wheel of the new JetExpress doub PUBLIC transport passengers will be able to ride a double-decker bus on Adelaide’s roads for the first time in more than five decades.

The 4.3m-tall bus will carry up to 107 passengers between the Adelaide Airport and CBD as part of a new JetExpress service starting November 10.

The State Government is leasing the Gold Coast-built bus for around $20,000 over the next six months and will operate during peak demand periods from 5am to 10am, and 4pm to 9pm on weekdays, to service growing numbers of visitors using Adelaide Airport.

Transport Minister Stephen Mullighan said the service will run hourly, the trip will take around 25 minutes for the cost of a Metroticket and will complement existing public transport services.

He said the double-decker, which is the first such public service since double-decker trolley buses were removed in 1958, will “enable us to carry more people between the airport and the city as more airlines and more flights continue to be added at the airport’’.

“The service will operate hourly and take approximately 25 minutes, providing 10 trips in the morning period and 10 in the evening,” he said.

“The service will pick-up and drop of passengers on Grote St adjacent the Central Market and Victoria Square and proceed via Pulteney St and North Tce to cater for the major hotels within the CBD.”

The bus has 14 cameras which cover upstairs seating and the downstairs luggage section and has an entertainment system which will feature SA Tourism videos.

Bus service contractor Torrens Transit will operate JetExpress and driver Daniel Polesso said passengers were in for a treat.

“It handles a bit like a normal length bus, is very easy to drive and is a very smooth ride,’’ the 30-year-old said.

The double-decker service will be reviewed following a six-month trial period.

Adelaide Airport managing director Mark Young said he expected the new bus would be popular with visitors to the state.

“The new double-decker bus is something unique and different for our customers,’’ he said.

JetExpress Double Decker

Manufacturer — Bustech

Model — CDI

Built — 2014

Lease cost — $20,000 for six months

Capacity — 92 seated, 15 standing

Top speed — limit set at 80km/h

Engine — 9L, 6 cylinder diesel

This is a nice bit of innovation, will be good to see how it goes.

As per usual 90% of the comments on this are negative and reflect either obvious lack of reading comprehension or (deliberate?) ignorance.

Complaining about luggage upstairs? Er, I think that's covered by the comment about the luggage section being on the lower level. It's pretty obvious most of the commenters on 'that' site live in a bubble and have never left the city... buses for airport transit always have huge luggage areas in easy to get to areas.

Why can't it be like skybus? Because skybus is for a city with 4x the population, and costs a lot more than just a standard metroticket (pretty certain it was about $15 a ticket last time I used it).

People will have to buy coffee and stuff because if it's only hourly then they might have to wait. Um, airports are always about waiting. Apparently 'Jay' should personally hand out coffee vouchers to every person who gets on the bus to make sure they don't incur any cost other than a metroticket. No word on the alternative of a $25 taxi fare.

It's only leased! How horrible, incurring a small charge to see how some new idea works instead of buying it upfront and then hearing endless complaints about 'wasted taxpayer dollars'.

The final irony in all this, as most on this forum would know, is that these same people are usually the same ones to bemoan how Adelaide does nothing / never changes / doesn't keep up with trends.

So instead of deploying double decker buses on the long limited stop commuter routes they're well suited to, they'll be used on a route where many passengers will have lots of luggage?

They're unlikely to impress interstate visitors. It's not as if Adelaide's the only city in Australia to have double decker buses. And they're common overseas so they won't be at all impressive to international visitors.

Making stupid decisions doesn't make us look impressive, it makes us look stupid.

Ho Really wrote:

Stefan P wrote:Air New Zealand B787-9 ZK-NZE diverting here enroute Perth-Auckland

Heard something land and checked Flightaware on my iPhone. Lo and behold ANZ176...This has an all-black fuselage correct? I guess they won't take off until 06:00...Hope you've got some piccies for us.

Cheers

A couple of shots of the historic event from last night...


ZK-NZE by SJ Perkas


ZK-NZE by SJ Perkas


ZK-NZE by SJ Perkas

The reason I think an airport outside of the metropolitan area would be better has nothing to do with height limits in the CBD.
I once said, and still believe, that our CBD first needs to fill out, and that is slowly happening. There's too much underused land. A denser City would be better then a few tall buildings. It means more people living in the City boundary.

My main concern is aircraft noise.
I don't know if anyone else has noticed this, but with the increase in international flights, all be it not a great increase, but an increase nonetheless, I've noticed more aircraft noise. We have more 777's coming in now.

They are forecasting that by 2045 over 18 million people will use our airport.
We will have 52 aerobridges to cope. There will even be a second terminal building.

If people are noticing more aircraft noise with such a little increase now, what's it going to be like in ten or fifteen years let alone if the forecasts are realized?

I don't buy this whole we need an airport close to the CBD. Many cities which are much larger then Adelaide have airports outside the metropolitan area. Why are we so special we need it in the middle of our suburbia?

FYI, I don't live under any flight paths.


What I found interesting as well in that article is that they intend on establishing direct flights to the US.
The increase in flights to Asia is a no brainer.

rev, I lived under the flight path for many years, and still experience it when visiting the parental unit. We were close enough that in the sixties and seventies when a plane came overhead, all conversation stopped. That is not so today.

Aircraft noise standards have improved to the point where measurable noise levels are a fraction of what they were. If you don't like present noise levels, then the sixties with the early B727 and DC09 aircraft would have sent you off the planet.

Here are some facts:

http://www.bne.com.au/sites/all/custom/ ... mpacts.pdf

The height issue, however, does have an impact eventually as Adelaide grows. When it gets to about three times its present population, those height restrictions due to the airport will bite. That ties in with the airport's planning for a threefold increase in its own capacity. After that, who knows. Probably everyone here will be dead by then. However, the point then is that when that happens, we don't know what technology will be available to connect to an airport, or maybe it will be a maglev train to Melbourne from whence we will fly, or maybe it will be a tunnel to Tailem Bend. Who knows?

The distance issue is important because if we want tourists and businesses, we need to make things easier for them to come to Adelaide, not harder. Maybe other cities have airports further away, (Sydney doesn't), but then again, more people are wanting to go to some of those cities.

However, underlying all of that is that if we want to spend $5-7Bn on a new airport, then that money is going to come out of our pockets in some way. Either more cost when we fly, higher product costs passed on by companies who fly people and products in, more taxes, etc etc. There is no magic pudding. If the government pays for it direct, it will come out of our pockets, and if it is done by the private sector, again, it will come out of our pockets eventually, unless you believe that either of those will do it for free somehow. If you believe that, I have a bridge in Sydney to sell you, dirt cheap. LOL. Divide $5-7Bn by the number of taxpayers in Adelaide, and you get something like $10k per taxpayer. And then when you tell half those taxpayers that, 'oh by the way, since you live south of the CBD you will now have to travel to Two Wells to catch a plane'. All I say is, good luck with that.

If that much money was available to spend on infrastructure, then I would vote for:

1). A metro
2). Improved cross metro area roads
3). A compact inner city tram system connected to the metro and those improved cross metro roads with carparks at the termini to take people to the CBD
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
50) Purchase of land under the flight path of the airport, move people out, move business in to reduce noise impact.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
5000). Relocate the airport.

Mind you, since we don't have the money, and scream blue bloody murder when anyone suggests we might pay more tax, all of the above is a pipe dream.