Finally - 2nd Airport for Sydney

[cheap]

From Wikipedia

The Sydney unofficial metropolitan area covers 12,145 km² (4,689 mi²)
Population
2010 4,575,532 (Estimate)
2026 5,426,300 (Projected)
2056 6,976,800 (Projected)

London Metropolitan Region or the London Metropolitan Agglomeration covers an area of 8,382 square kilometers (3,236 sq mi)
Population 12,653,500

Airport Distance to London
Heathrow 22 km / 14 mi
Gatwick 48 km / 30 mi
Stansted 64 km / 40 mi
Luton 57 km / 35 mi
London City 11 km / 7 mi
Southend 64 km / 40 mi

In summary Sydney's area is roughly 50% bigger than London's, with roughly 40% of London's population

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by AndyXR6T

I live in Sydney and absolutely despise driving in and out of it, catching public transport in it etc, but Melbourne has an awesome system I rekon. You get off the plane, follow simple exit signs, once outside there is signage everywhere for buses taxis etc. Jump on a sky bus and away you go! I spent a week in Melbourne recently and did not get lost once. Lived in Sydney for the past 27 years and get lost in it every day lol

Melbourne is just a massive grid lol.

The problem is around the place, you either have to get someone to give you a lift to a train station, go to Southern Cross, find the Skybus place and get on, then it goes to the airport.

There is no rail into the airport, its only Skybus, taxi or VHA/B cars.

Or you can take your car to the airport and leave it at their car park and take out a second mortgage.

But trams are a pain in the *** too, on peak time its packed full of people, the Airport West tram can take 2 hours to get to/from its end at Elizabeth street in Melbourne to Airport West because it stops at like 700 stations on the way.

[GasoLane]

Originally Posted by Big Damo

Or you can take your car to the airport and leave it at their car park and take out a second mortgage.

Whenever we've flown out of Tulla we always used Andrews Airport Parking. Not as expensive as the Airport and the shuttle bus takes you right to the terminal door and picks you up on your return.

[Franco Cozzo]

I've seen their little mini bus on the Tullamarine freeway pretty regularly, there are a heap of parking places around Tullamarine who also offer a similar service.

Bendigo also offers a Melbourne Airport service out there lol.

[Stefan]

This ain't going to work.

Who will land their planes at two airports?

Why would international flights full of tourists want to land in Woop Woop?

Qantas, Virgin, Jetstar et al will land at only one airport. My guess is Mascot. Why would they spend money to set up in Badgerey's Creek too.

If it was a freight Airport only I can understand, BUT I'm sure freight would like to be close to Botany?

Money should be spent on useful infrastructure not another NBN, desalination plant...

[GasoLane]

Originally Posted by Stefan

Who will land their planes at two airports?

Until recently I believe Qantas and Jetstar used 2 Airports in Melb.

[ILLaViTaR]

Are they building it to accommodate for all the Chinese workers they've conjured up to come over here and replace us strayan workers with? Ever since they re-opened the 457 visa loophole and now this airport it's the ultimate opportunity for Chinese labour to tooker jerb.

[MITCHAY]

They should run international passenger/freight (24/7 if they can lift the curfew) out of Mascot and serve domestic from the new airport. Link it to the city by rail and perhaps a taxi/bus corridor.

[yearby]

I would think another airport would just be a 20th century answer to a 21st century problem.

The aircraft/airport scenario comes with a lot of problems, air pollution, noise pollution, aircraft congestion, vehicle traffic congestion, is subject to weather conditions, aircraft excessive fuel costs/usage. The airport will need a lot of valuable land and therefore will be designated to the outskirts away from where it most needed. And it will be limited when future expansion is needed. Then there is the problems for the passengers, traffic congestion getting to/from the airport, parking, departure check in times, weight limits, plane delays.

What is needed is a transport system that get people/goods into where they are needed, right into the heart of the city or depot or what ever, quickly with minimum delays. Something with no noise or air pollution, can be built into the cities infrastructure and has room for future expansion.

The only thing I can think of is something along the lines of a high speed train, not the trains we have today, but something along the lines of what the Japanese or Chinese have. The Chinese maglev train would be the be all and end all of trains and just a idea of what could be achieved. It travels at 270mph or 434km/h, covering the 20 miles (32km) from Pudong to the city outskirts in 7 minutes and 20 seconds, is on time 99.98% of the time. It uses electricity(no air pollution), extremely quiet (no noise pollution). And it gets the people right into the heart of the city. All you do is buy a $6 ticket and jump on board. You don't even need to wear a seat belt.

If expansion was needed, all that you would do is add more carriages/trains to the then existing lines. If future infrastructure included connecting all existing public transport and even all cities on the east coast, the aviation industry would not be able to compete on a cost/time/pollution level. There for there would be less congestion at existing airports. A win win situation for all.

Unfortunately management (including politicians) do knee jerk reactions without much foresight. So Sydney will get the new airport, unless people are willing to stand up against them. In Perth, (I think it was in the 80's) the government decided to dismantle the inner city railways because it was cheaper to use buses. People rallied against the decision, and the railways where rebuild but used electric trains, the electric trains proved so popular that they exceeded designed passenger capacity in 6 to 12 months (or something like that).

Just some food for thought.
Peter.

[EgoFG]

I was always in favour of putting in further west, even west of Lithgow.
Then service it with High speed rail.
Just imagine a 60minute trip from Lithgow to Sydney, with only four stations: Lithgow, Penrith, Parramatta, Sydney. (could continue to Dubbo then turn South to Melbourne)
This would assist in relieving the high realestate cost in Sydney, open up the (real) west for investment.
Would need a nice big tunnel straight through the Blue Mountains, so lets run 4 lanes of traffic there as well.
We do not think big in this country, and in fact we undo the big things we once did.

[GasoLane]

Unfortunately the people in power who thought big, like the Snowy Mountains Scheme, are no longer around.

What we have now are those (from all political parties) who only think as far as the next election.

[Nikked]

Cool, more tax revenue waste...may not be able to retire early, but i'll be able to catch a plane to one airport, then take a train to another airport to make my international flight...

[jpblue1000]

Originally Posted by yearby

I would think another airport would just be a 20th century answer to a 21st century problem.

The aircraft/airport scenario comes with a lot of problems, air pollution, noise pollution, aircraft congestion, vehicle traffic congestion, is subject to weather conditions, aircraft excessive fuel costs/usage. The airport will need a lot of valuable land and therefore will be designated to the outskirts away from where it most needed. And it will be limited when future expansion is needed. Then there is the problems for the passengers, traffic congestion getting to/from the airport, parking, departure check in times, weight limits, plane delays.

What is needed is a transport system that get people/goods into where they are needed, right into the heart of the city or depot or what ever, quickly with minimum delays. Something with no noise or air pollution, can be built into the cities infrastructure and has room for future expansion.

The only thing I can think of is something along the lines of a high speed train, not the trains we have today, but something along the lines of what the Japanese or Chinese have. The Chinese maglev train would be the be all and end all of trains and just a idea of what could be achieved. It travels at 270mph or 434km/h, covering the 20 miles (32km) from Pudong to the city outskirts in 7 minutes and 20 seconds, is on time 99.98% of the time. It uses electricity(no air pollution), extremely quiet (no noise pollution). And it gets the people right into the heart of the city. All you do is buy a $6 ticket and jump on board. You don't even need to wear a seat belt.

If expansion was needed, all that you would do is add more carriages/trains to the then existing lines. If future infrastructure included connecting all existing public transport and even all cities on the east coast, the aviation industry would not be able to compete on a cost/time/pollution level. There for there would be less congestion at existing airports. A win win situation for all.

Unfortunately management (including politicians) do knee jerk reactions without much foresight. So Sydney will get the new airport, unless people are willing to stand up against them. In Perth, (I think it was in the 80's) the government decided to dismantle the inner city railways because it was cheaper to use buses. People rallied against the decision, and the railways where rebuild but used electric trains, the electric trains proved so popular that they exceeded designed passenger capacity in 6 to 12 months (or something like that).

Just some food for thought.
Peter.

Peter, I love trains, greatest public transport Idea ever. but In australia we have such massive distances its hard to get them to stack up. In europe a rule of thumb is travel less than 500 miles (800kms') is quicker by high speed train, but above that distance the airplane takes over in speed and efficiency even once additional travel times, waiting times are taken into account. However in Australia most of our population centres are over 800Kms apart meaning center to centre air travel is still quicker, even agains the best city centre to city center train systems.


JP

[Yellow_Festiva]

Originally Posted by jpblue1000

Peter, I love trains, greatest public transport Idea ever. but In australia we have such massive distances its hard to get them to stack up. In europe a rule of thumb is travel less than 500 miles (800kms') is quicker by high speed train, but above that distance the airplane takes over in speed and efficiency even once additional travel times, waiting times are taken into account. However in Australia most of our population centres are over 800Kms apart meaning center to centre air travel is still quicker, even agains the best city centre to city center train systems.


JP

That's true for capital to capital, but a high speed train would make the "in between" cities more attractive and a real alternative to the capitals.

It's quite easy, and economical to travel by plane between Sydney and Brisbane, what about Byron to Brisbane or say any of the larger towns between Sydney and Melbourne to go in either direction?

[jpblue1000]

Originally Posted by Yellow_Festiva

That's true for capital to capital, but a high speed train would make the "in between" cities more attractive and a real alternative to the capitals.

It's quite easy, and economical to travel by plane between Sydney and Brisbane, what about Byron to Brisbane or say any of the larger towns between Sydney and Melbourne to go in either direction?

If the distances fall under the 500 mile rule then yes, the problem might be passenger numbers, significantly more people move from capital to capital which in europe and North America can tip the balance in favour of the infrastructure expense and keep ticket prices reasonable. In Australia I dont see the population to support it without major subsidy. And I don't see this country making that leap anytime soon. I have no data however on the scale of the passenger numbers on routes like you suggest.

Please don't get me wrong I am an advocate for rail and High speed rail, public transport in general, to do it would be a project of 'Nation building' proportions and 'national pride' rather than a pure economic imperative. I have built a career out of it. But the facts in australia, economically, financially and socially dont stack in its favor. perhaps when petrol costs $2:15 and our cities are so crowded with cars and carparking costs $100 a day will demand for decent Public transport rise and a paradigm shift in the public's thinking change.

JP

[xxx000]

Originally Posted by GasOLane

Unfortunately the people in power who thought big, like the Snowy Mountains Scheme, are no longer around.

What we have now are those (from all political parties) who only think as far as the next election.

The Snowy Mountains Scheme ruined much of the Snowy River and drowned towns.
It's a project often mentioned and claimed as being wonderful but was it really beneficial?

The current fed govt prior to the election made mention of the N.T. becoming the 'food bowl of Asia', clearly trying to run off the dubious icon status of the Snowy Mountains Scheme. Watch how this pie in the sky idea goes nowhere other than to sucker in a few more votes.

The BER was a national scheme that provided tangible benefits such as significant employment and the first new money spent on state school buildings in decades. Other than some of the money wrongly being put into non govt schools it was well executed.