Sydscott From Australia, joined Oct 2003, 2568 posts, RR: 20 Reply 6, posted (9 years 10 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 3293 times:
Does Sydney need another airport?
No Sydney doesn't need another airport. What it does need is for the federal government and politicians to leave it alone to operate to its full potential!!!!!! Currently movements are capped to 80 per hour. With the current runway configuration etc this could be increased to 110 to 120 with no problems. The government needs to stop fiddling with the approach paths and stick to a single plan for handling the noise issue. Commonsense in = politicians out!!!!!
If yes, where?
You will recall that when Sydney airport was privatised the contract stated that no 2nd airport could be built within 100 kilometres of the current site unless it was built by the current owners of the airport. Therefore it doesn't really matter where you build the airport because there is going to have to be billions of dollars of new road and rail links to any site out west or southwest. Plus you have the noise issue again.
It's simply not going to happen. Look at the politics, look at the lack of planning, look at the money that will need to be spent, look at the lack of available sites within the Sydney basin that wont have noise issues. Add it all up and it equals lots of talk and fuss running up to the election and bugger all action afterwards.
Thestooges From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 7, posted (9 years 10 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 3237 times:
I agree with you that another airport will not happen,
but Sydney has always needed and will always need a second airport.
"Currently movements are capped to 80 per hour. With the current runway configuration etc this could be increased to 110 to 120 with no problems. The government needs to stop fiddling with the approach paths and stick to a single plan for handling the noise issue",
Where do you live????
I happen to live in Annandale and happen to have both parrellel runways on either side of my house. When my family moved here in 1995 they had closed the cross runway and we had every single plane coming into Kingsford Smith flying in over our head. They finally re-opened the cross runway and used spaghetti flights paths which has severly alleviated noise from the residents of the inner-west who by far have always suffered the most from airport noise pollution.
No, I dont think they should increase movements, I think they should do what they've been planning for along long time and build a second airport and build proper rail and road links out to it.
Personally if the movements are to increase I think that every single extra flight should get routed over Paddington and Double Bay, and with that we'll see a new airport out west within a year.
Sydscott From Australia, joined Oct 2003, 2568 posts, RR: 20 Reply 8, posted (9 years 10 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 3201 times:
Sydney does need a second airport but it'll never happen.
"Where do you live????" Rushcutters Bay. I get daily flight movements over my place usually in the morning around 7:30ish and then around 9-10pm every night.
"When my family moved here in 1995." When your family moved to Annandale in 1995 they knew damn well that there was an airport nearby and parallel runways with operation going straight over your head. I can understand people who bought there in the 50's, 60's and 70's having a genuine complaint about the noise because they had no reason to expect air travel would boom like it has. But people who bought in the late 80's, 90's and 00's knew about the noise and bought in regardless. Aiports are noisy by nature and if you live near one you've got to expect it. So you've got no right to complain about airport noise at all.
I fail to see the logic in spreading the noise all over Sydney to affect the maximum number of people. The Keating government had it right when they concentrated movements so it affected the least number of people. At least then you can clear those people out by buying their homes or insulating them and providing other forms of compensation.
KSA should be used to its maximum potential before we even contemplate spending billions on a new airport. The planning for KSA was very poor and thanks to the land releases around badgerys creek that would be an equally poor choice. So where can you place an airport in the Sydney basin which can operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year and not have people complaing of noise???
Airbear From Australia, joined May 2001, 642 posts, RR: 2 Reply 9, posted (9 years 10 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 3182 times:
Sydscott ... well said! Assuming that Thestooges hasn't spent the last 40 or so years on Mars, there are no grounds for complaint. Also I would assume that being in that location, my taxes, levies and surcharges have already noise-insulated his house for him.
The best solution I ever saw for SYD was the plan to put a full-length runway on the Kurnell Peninsula. I think that involved a separate terminal, with a hi-speed connection to the main part of KSA across the Bay. This would be far more feasible and cost-effective than any new airport out in Whoop-whoop and the necessary road and rail links for this (and given Sydney's current rail woes, probably not a great idea, anyway .
In any case, given the "interest groups" involved, and the time anything like this takes in Oz (e.g. 100+ years for the ASP-DRW rail line...), I would be surprised if my grandchildren lived to see any new airport. So in the meantime the best solution would be - as somebody else said - for the politicians and various Green/NIMBY groups to put up and shut up, and let KSA operate like a real airport.
Fuffla From Australia, joined Feb 2004, 399 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (9 years 10 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 3105 times:
I get airplanes over my house everyday, all day, I'd love to live where airplanes fly overhead, if I could, I would build a house at the end of the runway. I believe that Sydney Airport has never reached it's full capacity, it never will. The government cannot expand Bankstown Airport and they could build another runway at SYD but that is very unlikely because there is no room.
If they are building another airport I would prefer to have it out at sea. There are only minor changes to public transport systems and there would be no noise problems, because the runways would be parallel to the coast. It will be easy to expand(just shove another parallel runway on the side) and would open up a lot of residential lots in the old airport's place, therefore creating no need for another airport in Sydney.
I think this in a great idea and should be taken into careful consideration by the government.
Thestooges From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 12, posted (9 years 10 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 3056 times:
Oh so you do live in the Eastern Suburbs. Like I thought . . . . .
Well thats easy for you to say that movements at Sydney Airport should be increased because believe me, you would be one of the last to be affected.
Im sure you have some flights over your head everyday but let me asure that it is a lot less than what Coogee, Randwick and Five Dock gets. And its definitely a lot less than what Annandale, Leichardt and Stanmore gets.
Why is that ?!?!?!?! Because you like in the rich part of town. It must suck if you live in the less affluent part of town because then you GET MORE THAN YOUR FAIR SHARE OF NOISE.
OK so my neighbourhood is under the direct flight path.
But unlike what the officials were telling to the public back in 1995, planes can turn after takeoff and they can fly over different suburbs that are just as close to the airport such as . . . . . .Rushcutters Bay!!!!!!
I believe that it is the people from the neighbourhoods such as yours (i.e. the wealthy ones) that probably use the airport the most, yet most of the noise burden gets placed on others.
I firmly believe that the burden of aircraft noise should be shared equally by all.
no Im quite sure your tax money has not payed for any insulation because we are a few blocks north of the insulation zone.
And I do believe I have a right to complain, Sydscott wants all flights put over a few suburbs, I believe the way they are doing it now is much fairer. We still get the lions share of the noise but at least the burden was alleviated to some extent, like I said before, planes CAN turn.
Sydscott From Australia, joined Oct 2003, 2568 posts, RR: 20 Reply 14, posted (9 years 10 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 2966 times:
"Oh so you do live in the Eastern Suburbs. Like I thought"
Rushcutters Bay is hardly the same as Double Bay, Rose Bay, Vaucluse etc etc So dont give me that crap.
"Well thats easy for you to say that movements at Sydney Airport should be increased because believe me, you would be one of the last to be affected."
On the contrary I had jets going straight over my head this morning from 7am until about 7:30am
"sure you have some flights over your head everyday but let me asure that it is a lot less than what Coogee, Randwick and Five Dock gets. And its definitely a lot less than what Annandale, Leichardt and Stanmore gets."
Thats because I'm not silly enough to live in a suburb that has a runway pointed straight at me!!!!!!!
"Why is that ?!?!?!?! Because you like in the rich part of town. It must suck if you live in the less affluent part of town because then you GET MORE THAN YOUR FAIR SHARE OF NOISE."
Your calling Annandale, Leichardt and Stanmore the less affluent part of town!!!!! Just how far West have you been in Sydney??? (Apart from when you've flown over it going to South America etc) They aren't "less affluent" suburbs. Nor would I say Rushcutters Bay/Kings X is part of the affluent part of town. What it does have is cheap rent and a good location for those that dont live at home.
"But unlike what the officials were telling to the public back in 1995, planes can turn after takeoff and they can fly over different suburbs that are just as close to the airport such as . . . . . .Rushcutters Bay!!!!!!"
And they DO turn after takeoff. But it doesn't really matter if they can or not, its beside the point. If you live close enough to the runway then the plane isn't going to be able to turn anyway!!!! I've already said that they do fly over Rushcutters Bay.
"I believe that it is the people from the neighbourhoods such as yours (i.e. the wealthy ones) that probably use the airport the most, yet most of the noise burden gets placed on others."
So what would you like us to do about it???? Spend a couple of billion re-aligning the runway to point at Double Bay??? The noise burden should be confined to as smaller space as possible and then everyone should be moved out from under it!!!! The less people that suffer, the better.
"I firmly believe that the burden of aircraft noise should be shared equally by all."
No it shouldn't. (See above) Why should everyone suffer because the few are suffering???? Answer is they shouldn't.
"no Im quite sure your tax money has not payed for any insulation because we are a few blocks north of the insulation zone."
Well more fool you for moving there. Under a flight path without insulation.
"And I do believe I have a right to complain"
NO YOU DONT!!!!!!! You knew the airport was there, you knew there were planes flying overhead, you knew where the runways were, you knew the hours of operation for the airport. You have no right to complain if your silly enough to buy a place under a well documented flight path.
Ironminds From Australia, joined Apr 2001, 556 posts, RR: 4 Reply 15, posted (9 years 10 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 2894 times:
I live in Bondi Junction, which for 3stooges presumably disqualifies me from talking about this issue and makes me some sort of right-wing death beast who relaxes after a hard day bashing aborigines, muslims and gays by taking a nice soak in a bathtub filled with $100 bills, but I can't agree with you more.
To add one point: Not only do you notice the airplane noise when you look at a house and decide to rent/buy it, but so what if people with less money have to put up with aircraft noise? Presumably that's just one factor in the market rate for housing in an area, and last time I checked, freedom from noise was not in the Australian constitution...though there may be a UN charter against it that Oz is signatory to (we'll find out when they issue the commemorative 50-cent piece).