Sensational-Adelaide.com

[Shuz] wrote: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.

I rarely ridicule, and when I do it's in response to claims which I genuinely believe to be ridiculous.

Last time I posted a neutral opinion in response to one of your posts you ignored it. Fair enough, you're under no obligation to answer, but don't then pretend it never happens.

What's ridiculous about Usenet style breakdowns? They have the advantage of making it clear what I'm responding to, which could be quite useful when the posts are long.

You are AFAIC free to reply how you want (the mods may disagree, but never on my account). So if you want to go ahead, but keep in mind it's not my head that's in the sand.

Serious question: does everyone else think I'm too negative? Most people dislike AOL style postings (Me too) so where I agree I tend to keep quiet. But if there's one person I really don't want to resemble, it's Tony Abbott - so if what's left really does look like relentless negativity, I apologise.

Personally, I don't see it as relentless negativity when you put up a valid argument to the contrary and give reasons for the negativity.

[Shuz] wrote: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.

Nice self description there buddy.
Big deal if Aidan doesn't agree with every transport infrastructure idea people come up with on S-A.

You're telling people to pull their heads in?
Should we discuss how you abused your limited mod ability which was given to you to organize threads, but instead you decided to go around abusing that and deleting posts? Talk about someone who needs to pull their head in.

I'll do whatever the fuck I please and reply how I want.

Oh I really hope you do just that in reply to my post.

and that ridiculous post-breakdown of his

Better then walls of text.


I don't know about others, but I appreciate Aidan's insight.

If we can perhaps get this thread back on track...

Ho, you might be interested to have a look at the Adelaide Airport Master Plan. Pages 92 & 93 show indicative layouts for the development of terminals post-2029. As you'll see, we'll have quite a large airport if it all comes to fruition.

(Perhaps someone else can post the diagrams I'm talking about, as it's definitely beyond my technical abilities!)

I was at the airport Friday on the way to Melbourne and saw that they have cut up part of the Plaza, what for? Literally a few months after completion, they've already gone in and cut through the patterned concrete and pavers...

spiller wrote:I was at the airport Friday on the way to Melbourne and saw that they have cut up part of the Plaza, what for? Literally a few months after completion, they've already gone in and cut through the patterned concrete and pavers...

http://www.sensational-adelaide.com/for ... 08#p119308

Maximus wrote:If we can perhaps get this thread back on track...

Ho, you might be interested to have a look at the Adelaide Airport Master Plan. Pages 92 & 93 show indicative layouts for the development of terminals post-2029. As you'll see, we'll have quite a large airport if it all comes to fruition.

(Perhaps someone else can post the diagrams I'm talking about, as it's definitely beyond my technical abilities!)

Here you go..the images in the pdf were a little blury, but you can make out where the expansions will be.

2029 Beyond 2029

Maximus wrote:If we can perhaps get this thread back on track...

Ho, you might be interested to have a look at the Adelaide Airport Master Plan. Pages 92 & 93 show indicative layouts for the development of terminals post-2029. As you'll see, we'll have quite a large airport if it all comes to fruition.

(Perhaps someone else can post the diagrams I'm talking about, as it's definitely beyond my technical abilities!)

Thanks Maximus and Rev.

Cheers

P.S. I'm glad Aidan and I at least see eye to eye on Barker Inlet and Dry Creek. Thanks mate. Tough Shuz.

This is probably a pretty stupid question and probably the wrong place for this but...

I was just having a quick read of the development plan linked above and it gives a brief run down of the history. It mentions that Following exhaustive topographical, geographical and meteorological testing over the period 1941 to 1944, the present site between the city and the coast was chosen. World War II slowed the acquisition and development program but the ten years following the war saw the site developed for domestic services.

This got me thinking, what was located on the airport site before 1941? Was the land developed at all or was it largely empty?

EDIT: The document, it talks about the different precincts within the airports land area and current and projected uses for these areas of land. I couldn't help but notice that there are two large areas of land belonging to the airport to the west of Tapleys Hill Road.

The section of the report focusing on the Patawalonga Precinct (pg. 84) mentions that this area of land has been set aside for a future parallel runway. How would this likely work in relation to Tapleys Hill Road? Would a tunnel/underpass be built? Would the road be diverted around this area? Something else?

Most likely a tunnel / underpass. But that would be ages away yet.

The airport will probably be moved elsewhere before the parallel runway gets built.

SouthAussie94 wrote:This got me thinking, what was located on the airport site before 1941? Was the land developed at all or was it largely empty?

I'm certainly willing to be corrected, but I believe the majority of that area was basically a swamp. Before the outlet channel at West Beach was constructed, the River Torrens didn't flow directly out to sea. Instead, the water just collected in a big swampy-type area in what is now the western suburbs, and, when there was enough rain, the overflowing water made its way out to sea via the Patawalonga and Port Rivers. Of course, this sort of flooding was a bit of a problem for the growing city of Adelaide, and so the outlet channel was constructed. According to Wikipedia, the channel was largely finished in 1939, so it would make sense that the present airport site became viable shortly after that.

Maximus wrote:

SouthAussie94 wrote:This got me thinking, what was located on the airport site before 1941? Was the land developed at all or was it largely empty?

I'm certainly willing to be corrected, but I believe the majority of that area was basically a swamp. Before the outlet channel at West Beach was constructed, the River Torrens didn't flow directly out to sea. Instead, the water just collected in a big swampy-type area in what is now the western suburbs, and, when there was enough rain, the overflowing water made its way out to sea via the Patawalonga and Port Rivers. Of course, this sort of flooding was a bit of a problem for the growing city of Adelaide, and so the outlet channel was constructed. According to Wikipedia, the channel was largely finished in 1939, so it would make sense that the present airport site became viable shortly after that.

Mostly mangroves and two-up schools. West Beach Road used to go all the way through the middle (continuation of Richmond Road).

Maximus wrote:

SouthAussie94 wrote:This got me thinking, what was located on the airport site before 1941? Was the land developed at all or was it largely empty?

I'm certainly willing to be corrected, but I believe the majority of that area was basically a swamp. Before the outlet channel at West Beach was constructed, the River Torrens didn't flow directly out to sea. Instead, the water just collected in a big swampy-type area in what is now the western suburbs, and, when there was enough rain, the overflowing water made its way out to sea via the Patawalonga and Port Rivers. Of course, this sort of flooding was a bit of a problem for the growing city of Adelaide, and so the outlet channel was constructed. According to Wikipedia, the channel was largely finished in 1939, so it would make sense that the present airport site became viable shortly after that.

There was originally no Patawalonga outlet either - most of the water seeped away through the sand.

AIUI there were two suburbs that had to be demolished to build the airport, but I don't know the details.

SouthAussie94 wrote: EDIT: The document, it talks about the different precincts within the airports land area and current and projected uses for these areas of land. I couldn't help but notice that there are two large areas of land belonging to the airport to the west of Tapleys Hill Road.

The section of the report focusing on the Patawalonga Precinct (pg. 84) mentions that this area of land has been set aside for a future parallel runway. How would this likely work in relation to Tapleys Hill Road? Would a tunnel/underpass be built? Would the road be diverted around this area? Something else?

When they extended the main runway they had plans to route Tapleys Hill Road under it, but cost considerations meant they ended up diverting it round instead. Further extending the main runway (putting Tapleys into tunnel as originally planned) is a lot more likely than constructing another runway. Higher environmental standards and different operational requirements to when a parallel runway was first envisaged mean any additional runway is likely to be short and not need to cross Tapleys Hill Road.

But none of this is likely to happen any time soon. Even Melbourne Airport hasn't built a parallel runway yet.

Agree with Aidan, extending the current runway would seem the most likely major works for a long time.

As I understand it, this would enable the new A380 to use the airport hence increasing the volume for long haul flights which would be good. By the time they need a parallel runway, they may as well look to move the entire airport.