Moving the airport to a less populated area

Ideas and concepts of what Adelaide can be.
OlympusAnt
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 380
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2015 7:31 pm

Re: Moving the airport to a less populated area

Post by OlympusAnt »

There's bigger priorities than airports
Follow me on Flickr

http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/
User avatar
rev
SA MVP (Most Valued Poster 4000+)
Posts: 4612
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 12:14 pm

Re: Moving the airport to a less populated area

Post by rev »

OlympusAnt wrote:
Sun May 31, 2020 9:53 pm
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
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 1598
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 3:49 pm
Location: Blakeview

Re: Moving the airport to a less populated area

Post by SBD »

rev wrote:
Thu Jun 04, 2020 6:50 am
OlympusAnt wrote:
Sun May 31, 2020 9:53 pm
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.
User avatar
Ho Really
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2508
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 3:29 pm
Location: In your head

Re: Moving the airport to a less populated area

Post by Ho Really »

SBD wrote:
Sat Jun 06, 2020 10:40 am
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
Confucius say: Dumb man climb tree to get cherry, wise man spread limbs.
Nort
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1365
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 2:08 pm

Re: Moving the airport to a less populated area

Post by Nort »

Ho Really wrote:
Sun Jun 07, 2020 12:27 am
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
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 1598
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 3:49 pm
Location: Blakeview

Re: Moving the airport to a less populated area

Post by SBD »

Nort wrote:
Tue Jun 09, 2020 9:50 am
Ho Really wrote:
Sun Jun 07, 2020 12:27 am
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
Sen-Rookie-Sational
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2018 2:50 pm

Re: Moving the airport to a less populated area

Post by 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
User avatar
Nathan
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 3269
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 1:09 pm
Location: Bowden
Contact:

Re: Moving the airport to a less populated area

Post by Nathan »

brizzlar wrote:
Tue Sep 22, 2020 10:46 am
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.
User avatar
rev
SA MVP (Most Valued Poster 4000+)
Posts: 4612
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 12:14 pm

Re: Moving the airport to a less populated area

Post by 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.
User avatar
Norman
Donating Member
Donating Member
Posts: 5995
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2007 1:06 pm

Re: Moving the airport to a less populated area

Post by Norman »

rev wrote: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
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 1598
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 3:49 pm
Location: Blakeview

Re: Moving the airport to a less populated area

Post by SBD »

rev wrote:
Tue Sep 22, 2020 7:43 pm
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.
User avatar
rev
SA MVP (Most Valued Poster 4000+)
Posts: 4612
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 12:14 pm

Re: Moving the airport to a less populated area

Post by rev »

Norman wrote:
Tue Sep 22, 2020 11:02 pm
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.
Last edited by rev on Wed Sep 23, 2020 12:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
rev
SA MVP (Most Valued Poster 4000+)
Posts: 4612
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 12:14 pm

Re: Moving the airport to a less populated area

Post by rev »

SBD wrote:
Tue Sep 22, 2020 11:17 pm
rev wrote:
Tue Sep 22, 2020 7:43 pm
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
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 1598
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 3:49 pm
Location: Blakeview

Re: Moving the airport to a less populated area

Post by SBD »

rev wrote:
Wed Sep 23, 2020 11:55 am
SBD wrote:
Tue Sep 22, 2020 11:17 pm
rev wrote:
Tue Sep 22, 2020 7:43 pm
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.
User avatar
Ho Really
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2508
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 3:29 pm
Location: In your head

Re: Moving the airport to a less populated area

Post by Ho Really »

SBD wrote:
Wed Sep 23, 2020 10:40 pm
rev wrote:
Wed Sep 23, 2020 11:55 am
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
Confucius say: Dumb man climb tree to get cherry, wise man spread limbs.
Post Reply