[Shuz] wrote: Ho Really wrote:
[Shuz] wrote:I've a better vision. Move the damn airport out to Dry Creek.
everyone's dream. Aidan
says destruction of the Patawalonga Creek and you advocate destruction of wetlands and mangroves.
I think we're pretty spoilt for the quantity and quality of wetlands and mangroves along the coastline of Adelaide's far northern suburbs. I'm not advocating for the destruction of the wetlands out around St. Kilda and Buckland Park way. The area and land in the vicinity of the Barker Inlet and Dry Creek has already been significantly impacted by urban development.
There's more of a need for wetlands and mangroves around the Barker Inlet because of
the urban development. All that sediment in the runoff has to go somewhere! That's why the wetlands were constructed in the first place. And since then the Greenfields Wetlands have become the most important bird sanctuary in coastal southern Australia. So environmentally, Dry Creek is probably the worst possible place for an airport!
There is no argument that Dry Creek is the optimal location for a new airport, based on proximity to to the Adelaide CBD, provision of economic stimulus and jobs growth to the residents of Adelaide's northern suburbs, unlocking of development potential in the Adelaide CBD and transport connections; Northern Expressway, Port River Expressway, Salisbury Highway, Port Wakefield Road, North-South Motorway, Gawler & Roseworthy rail lines, of which a new airport line could be built.
I can't agree that there's no argument because you've just made one, but there's no sensible argument. Economic factors, not airport related height restrictions, are what limit development in the CBD, and moving the airport so much further away would harm the CBD's competitiveness. As you say, the northern suburbs already have good transport infrastructure with more on the way, and the industry there has taken advantage of that. What's needed to stimulate it isn't the relocation of the one transport mode that's not already concentrated there, it's lower interest rates to make investing in better equipment more profitable.
Of course I concede that there would be some environmental impact, but wouldn't you agree that it's better develop a project where an environmental impact already exists (i.e. the saltpans) than to cause new environmental impacts elsewhere (i.e if an airport was to be built at Two Wells - which is the stupidest idea I've heard).
Of course I wouldn't agree!
If you abandon the idea of closing the existing airport, it makes sense for our next airport to be further away, and considering the amount of industry in the northern suburbs, it makes more sense for it to be located in the north than in the south. The land in question near Two Wells is flat and of relatively low environmental value. The soil is quite saline (so not very good for farming) and high sulfides, which makes it a potential acid sulfate soil (so not very good for building on either). In fact it's similar to the land the saltpans were built on further south. An airport would be a sensible use of the land.
If anything, the oppurtunity would then exist to make it economically feasible to be able to adequately mitigate and plan for the minimisation of any additional, or even potential reversal of environmental impacts associated with the land which the saltpans visionary new airport is located.
But it would wreck the environmental mitigation of those parts of the land not currently occupied by saltpans.