Moving the airport to a less populated area

[OlympusAnt]

There's bigger priorities than airports

[rev]

There's bigger priorities than airports

Of course but that doesn't mean there shouldn't be an overall masterplan for the entire metro area, where it will grow, where density will be increased and what infrastructure such as schools hospitals, and.. where motorways/expressways/freeways will run, where public transport of various types will run, how that will all connect and be integrated, and things like ports, ferry & cruise ship terminals, airports.

Im convinced there is no overall idea or plan, they just play it by ear.

[SBD]

There's bigger priorities than airports

Of course but that doesn't mean there shouldn't be an overall masterplan for the entire metro area, where it will grow, where density will be increased and what infrastructure such as schools hospitals, and.. where motorways/expressways/freeways will run, where public transport of various types will run, how that will all connect and be integrated, and things like ports, ferry & cruise ship terminals, airports.

Im convinced there is no overall idea or plan, they just play it by ear.

Cruise ship terminals need enough shelter and depth on the water side to be able to operate pretty much all the time, as well as both passenger and supplies access land side. Much of Adelaide's coast has gently-sloping beaches without a deep channel close to shore.

• Port Gawler at the Gawler River mouth
• Has the Torrens Outfall created a sustained channel at Henley Beach?
• Holdfast Bay presumably has a channel leading from the Patawolonga outlet
• Port Stanvac could presumably handle larger vessels but I don't know if they had to wait in rough weather.
• There seem to be creeks at Marino, Hallett Cove and O'Sullivan Beach
• Port Noarlunga has the Onkaparinga mouth

None of these appear to provide potential for a sheltered berth like Outer Harbor, and even that needs to be dredged every now and then.

There is also no plan for a modern port in the southeast of the state. Kingston, Robe and Beachport were once international ports, but now any freight needs to either cross the Mount Lofty Ranges to Port Adelaide, or cross the border to Portland.

[Ho Really]

Cruise ship terminals need enough shelter and depth on the water side to be able to operate pretty much all the time, as well as both passenger and supplies access land side. Much of Adelaide's coast has gently-sloping beaches without a deep channel close to shore.

• Port Gawler at the Gawler River mouth
• Has the Torrens Outfall created a sustained channel at Henley Beach?
• Holdfast Bay presumably has a channel leading from the Patawolonga outlet
• Port Stanvac could presumably handle larger vessels but I don't know if they had to wait in rough weather.
• There seem to be creeks at Marino, Hallett Cove and O'Sullivan Beach
• Port Noarlunga has the Onkaparinga mouth

None of these appear to provide potential for a sheltered berth like Outer Harbor, and even that needs to be dredged every now and then.

There is also no plan for a modern port in the southeast of the state. Kingston, Robe and Beachport were once international ports, but now any freight needs to either cross the Mount Lofty Ranges to Port Adelaide, or cross the border to Portland.

Moving the airport is the topic here. Anyhow...we've discussed this before about cruise ships etc. At present only Outer Harbor can handle large cruise ships (besides cargo). There's potential for Glenelg one day to be a ferry terminal and cruise port, but only for smaller (perhaps a max of 200 metre LOA) and expedition-style cruise ships. See Glenelg Ferry & Cruise ship terminal. Port Stanvac is deep water but not sheltered and would not suit cruise ships and most probably will never be used again. Kingston, Robe and Beachport are all unsuitable for any kind of ship unless it is a yacht with a shallow draught, probably max 1.5 - 2 metres. Portland is definitely the closest major port to the southeast and will probably remain so.

Cheers

[Nort]

Moving the airport is the topic here.

An airport is just one part of the network of transport infrastructure, you can't really consider them in isolation from each other.

[SBD]

Moving the airport is the topic here.

An airport is just one part of the network of transport infrastructure, you can't really consider them in isolation from each other.

I can see benefits in moving the passenger port somewhere else and reinstating a southeastern freight port from the landside perspective. My analysis was that neither of these would be viable from the water side.

I cannot see any reason to move the state's main airport away from its present central Adelaide location. It already has the relative advantages that people talk about being a problem for the interstate rail terminal.

[brizzlar]

The airport has sunk A LOT of money into this airport. And it's unfortunate because it is literally the reason why the city centre is finding it so hard to go more vertical. Personally, I think the airport is holding the city back. But as many have said, it's too early to do anything because it would cause outrage to private investors who have contributed to the cost of the redevelopment.

It's interesting, however, to compare Adelaide to Boston. Boston's airport is even closer to the city than Adelaides is. It'd be interesting to see if something can be done in the flight paths/orientation of the runways etc to make it possible to avoid the CBD more. This would potentially then allow for far taller towers to be build in the CBD

[Nathan]

it is literally the reason why the city centre is finding it so hard to go more vertical.

It may be contributory, but it is not the reason.

[rev]

Looking at Google Maps, the flight paths at Boston don't seem to run as close to their cbd as is the case here. Isn't the orientation of the main runway here related to the sea breezes anyway? The orientation is sw-ne and is about 900m from the edge of the runway to the coast, but if you look at the RAAF base is almost a n-s orientation and it's over 7km away from the coast.

It's a shame they've decided to turn the Port into another boring suburban landscape with the recent housing developments, because otherwise it could be developed into a second fully fledged cbd for Adelaide.

[Norman]

Looking at Google Maps, the flight paths at Boston don't seem to run as close to their cbd as is the case here. Isn't the orientation of the main runway here related to the sea breezes anyway? The orientation is sw-ne and is about 900m from the edge of the runway to the coast, but if you look at the RAAF base is almost a n-s orientation and it's over 7km away from the coast.

It's a shame they've decided to turn the Port into another boring suburban landscape with the recent housing developments, because otherwise it could be developed into a second fully fledged cbd for Adelaide.

By the time Port Adelaide has enough activity, retail and office space to be worthy of being called a second CBD those houses will be old enough to be demolished and replaced anyway. Better this than having nothing for another 50 years.

[SBD]

Looking at Google Maps, the flight paths at Boston don't seem to run as close to their cbd as is the case here. Isn't the orientation of the main runway here related to the sea breezes anyway? The orientation is sw-ne and is about 900m from the edge of the runway to the coast, but if you look at the RAAF base is almost a n-s orientation and it's over 7km away from the coast.

It's a shame they've decided to turn the Port into another boring suburban landscape with the recent housing developments, because otherwise it could be developed into a second fully fledged cbd for Adelaide.

The extension of the runway centreline passes over North Adelaide, not the CBD. the reserve for a second parallel runway is on the north side, even further from the CBD. I'm not sure the height limits in the CBD relate directly to the volume of air occupied by aircraft (and their safety buffers). I thought it had more to do with radar reflections (and possibly sight lines from the control tower). I believe that these things can be managed or engineered around, but that takes effort and new equipment which cost money, LOTS of money when you take into account the safety-of-life verifications and testing needed.

If it's only about air space, then the existing buildings define a shield that other tall buildings can hide behind. Radar doesn't work quite so simply. Even the weather radar which is fixed and has known reflections to filter out shows wind farms under certain conditions. We don't want automated airborne collission avoidance systems to kick in because they have detected a plane flying towards it at right angles.

[rev]

By the time Port Adelaide has enough activity, retail and office space to be worthy of being called a second CBD those houses will be old enough to be demolished and replaced anyway. Better this than having nothing for another 50 years.

Ten years ago nobody would have thought the city skyline would have spread out so much let alone would we have two more 130m+ buildings standing, or several more 100m+ buildings.
To say by the time the Port has enough activity will take 50 years, is ridiculous.
They could have created a defence precinct, and attracted all the major and some smaller defence firms to base their HQ's there. But that would involve actual vision and proper planning for the Port.

ASC
BAE Australia
CEA Technologies
Naval Group (who are moving into the area, all be it in the shitty old tafe campus)
Lürssen Australia could have had a design office there
Civmec
Raytheon Australia
Boeing Australia
General Dynamics
Thales
Qantas Defence Services (which is now owned by Northrop Grumman)

And there's many smaller companies that provide the ADF with things.
They could have turned the Port into Australia's only dedicated defence precinct, thrown everything at it to make it attractive to these firms. Instead it's going to be more boring suburbia. Because doing something else is too hard.

It would take longer to build a new airport then it would to turn the Port into a proper or at least a fledgling second cbd.

[rev]

Looking at Google Maps, the flight paths at Boston don't seem to run as close to their cbd as is the case here. Isn't the orientation of the main runway here related to the sea breezes anyway? The orientation is sw-ne and is about 900m from the edge of the runway to the coast, but if you look at the RAAF base is almost a n-s orientation and it's over 7km away from the coast.

It's a shame they've decided to turn the Port into another boring suburban landscape with the recent housing developments, because otherwise it could be developed into a second fully fledged cbd for Adelaide.

The extension of the runway centreline passes over North Adelaide, not the CBD. the reserve for a second parallel runway is on the north side, even further from the CBD. I'm not sure the height limits in the CBD relate directly to the volume of air occupied by aircraft (and their safety buffers). I thought it had more to do with radar reflections (and possibly sight lines from the control tower). I believe that these things can be managed or engineered around, but that takes effort and new equipment which cost money, LOTS of money when you take into account the safety-of-life verifications and testing needed.

If it's only about air space, then the existing buildings define a shield that other tall buildings can hide behind. Radar doesn't work quite so simply. Even the weather radar which is fixed and has known reflections to filter out shows wind farms under certain conditions. We don't want automated airborne collission avoidance systems to kick in because they have detected a plane flying towards it at right angles.

There was an airport that I came across in the USA years ago, that had the runways/flight paths much closer to their cbd then ours, and they had much taller buildings and a denser cbd in general. I can't for the life of me remember it though.

[SBD]

Looking at Google Maps, the flight paths at Boston don't seem to run as close to their cbd as is the case here. Isn't the orientation of the main runway here related to the sea breezes anyway? The orientation is sw-ne and is about 900m from the edge of the runway to the coast, but if you look at the RAAF base is almost a n-s orientation and it's over 7km away from the coast.

It's a shame they've decided to turn the Port into another boring suburban landscape with the recent housing developments, because otherwise it could be developed into a second fully fledged cbd for Adelaide.

The extension of the runway centreline passes over North Adelaide, not the CBD. the reserve for a second parallel runway is on the north side, even further from the CBD. I'm not sure the height limits in the CBD relate directly to the volume of air occupied by aircraft (and their safety buffers). I thought it had more to do with radar reflections (and possibly sight lines from the control tower). I believe that these things can be managed or engineered around, but that takes effort and new equipment which cost money, LOTS of money when you take into account the safety-of-life verifications and testing needed.

If it's only about air space, then the existing buildings define a shield that other tall buildings can hide behind. Radar doesn't work quite so simply. Even the weather radar which is fixed and has known reflections to filter out shows wind farms under certain conditions. We don't want automated airborne collision avoidance systems to kick in because they have detected a plane flying towards it at right angles.

There was an airport that I came across in the USA years ago, that had the runways/flight paths much closer to their cbd then ours, and they had much taller buildings and a denser cbd in general. I can't for the life of me remember it though.

San Jose (California)'s international airport is conveniently close to the city, but the height limit is 88m because of that.

[Ho Really]

There was an airport that I came across in the USA years ago, that had the runways/flight paths much closer to their cbd then ours, and they had much taller buildings and a denser cbd in general. I can't for the life of me remember it though.

San Jose (California)'s international airport is conveniently close to the city, but the height limit is 88m because of that.

It's probably San Diego. Their airport is less than 5kms from the CBD (downtown). Height limit set by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is currently at 500 feet (150 metres). San Diego's tallest building is the 34-storey One America Plaza which stands at 150m tall. For the record SAN only has one runway.

Cheers