rubberman wrote: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
Ah, so aircraft aren't "as" noisy as they used to be, so that must mean there isn't an issue. Right.
Mate I live nowhere near a flight path and I can hear those 777's coming in and leaving.
Fast forward to when the airport's been expanded again and we have dozens more aerobridges and air traffic has increased significantly(15 gates to 52), and then come back and tell me that aircraft noise isn't an issue. If I can hear the occasional 777 that comes in, what's it going to be like when there's more of them on a more regular basis?
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.
How many of the 6 million tourists which come to Australia do you think fly to Adelaide?
Why do we need an airport in the middle of suburbia for tourists?
Australia gets around 6 million tourists. South Australia gets a small fraction of them.
Incheon Airport is 48km from Seoul. It's one of the worlds busiest and biggest airports. South Korea gets 12 million tourists.
Athens Airport is about 30km from the city center. It's not even in the city. It's on the opposite side of a series of hills and mountains. By the end of this year Greece will have seen over 21 million tourists arrive. The airport has over 12 million passengers.
Munich airport is about 30km outside of Munich as well. It handles close to 40 million passengers. Germany receives over 30 million tourists.
I'm sure I can dig up more examples.
And economically, Greece aside with it's economic problems, Munich and Seoul don't seem to be struggling with their airports outside of the city.
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,
Do you know why government spending on infrastructure is so expensive? It's more expensive then it needs to be.
Get friendly with the right people in the related industries and they'll tell you it's because prices get fixed and marked up, by contractors and what not, so they can increase their profits. There's even price fixing and contract 'sharing' in the demolition and earth moving industries.
'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.
Wow, really? I mean, just wow..
So maybe we should build an international airport in Coober Pedy, the Barrossa Valley, the Adelaide Hills, Murray Bridge, Mount Barker, Woomera, Ceduna, etc...
You know since it's too far for them to travel.
Better yet why inconvenience people with the burden of traveling at all?
Let's throw all our money at developing instant teleportation technology and install teleportation devices in every home, business, street and landmark in the world.
When I read stupid comments like that, I start to believe those who say the best and brightest have left the state.
Such short sighted thinking, unable to actually think of the bigger picture and think beyond what's said.
Building an airport beyond the metro area would also involve building a freeway/rail link to the City...It would be part of a wider plan for improving road and public transport infrastructure in Adelaide.
This is the sort of short sighted selfish attitude and mindset that has kept this state stagnating and lagging behind the other major cities in this country. The sort of stupid leaders who said nah we don't need a proper road network with freeways..now 50 years later we are trying to play catch up by spending many billions more then what it would have cost originally.
If that much money was available to spend on infrastructure, then I would vote for:
I never said it should be done or that it should be a priority over other infrastructure spending. That ship has sailed like someone else said there's no chance of an airport anywhere else since the new terminal was built.
But then again this is South Australia. Stupid decisions are plentiful.