Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Sydney second airport Politicians gutless bastards last 35 years
19 views
Skip to first unread message
Tudor5
Apr 15, 2012, 9:48:40 PM4/15/12
to
Politicians don’t inspire much confidence among Australians. A Readers
Digest poll in 2011 of Australia’s most trusted professions found that
politicians ranked second-to-last out of 45 professions. Only tele-
marketers are less trusted by the public.
The seemingly endless saga of Sydney’s second airport, which has risen
again as if from the grave, may finally push politicians into last
place in the public trust stakes.
A new independent report has confirmed that Sydney needs a second
airport. The report is quite clear about where the airport should go –
Badgerys Creek in Sydney’s west. Badgery’s Creek “is located close to
growing markets in the western regions of Sydney and close to road and
rail transport links,” the official Joint Study on Aviation Capacity
in the Sydney region found.
The finding comes as no surprise.
Badgerys Creek is by far the best choice, which is why it has been the
favoured option ever since the 1970s, when it became obvious that
Sydney was going to need another passenger airport. The Federal
Government approved the Badgerys Creek proposal and bought more than
1700 hectares of land there between 1986 and 1991 for the proposed
airport.
That’s where politics comes in. Politicians worked out that airport
noise could affect marginal seats in the area. They dropped Badgerys
Creek like a hot potato. Which means that if Sydney gets another
airport, it will be the second, third or fourth choice on the list,
not the best choice – unless Badgerys Creek is put back on the table.
The latest site proposal being pushed is Wilton, a poorer choice than
Badgerys Creek but the favoured option of Federal Transport and
Infrastructure Minister, Anthony Albanese (given that he can’t back
Badgerys Creek). The Wilton proposal could be stymied by NSW Premier
Barry O’Farrell, who is considering releasing parcels of land there
for housing development. Other problems with Wilton include the fact
that the area stores Sydney’s drinking water in Avon/Nepean and the
Warragamba dam. Not a smart idea to have a lot of planes flying over
that, particularly if one has to jettison fuel in a hurry. Moreover
Wilton has no rail route to Sydney and the M5 motorway is already
choked.
Many experts now say that politicians should bite the bullet and go
ahead with Badgerys Creek, as they should have done in the first
place. One of the experts, Strategic Aviation Solutions analyst Neil
Hansford, pointed out at the weekend that existing infrastructure is
already in place for Badgerys Creek, making it a more viable option.
“If we already have infrastructure available, I don’t see why we
should wait,” Hansford told Sydney’s Daily Telegraph. “Wilton is just
too far away and if you’re going to go that far, you might as well
build it in Canberra.”
Former Tourism and Transport Forum head Christopher Brown made some
good points in a recent article in the Sydney Morning Herald. Brown
was a member of the joint Federal/State Commission examining Sydney’s
aviation needs.
“We unanimously determined that the best site is Badgerys Creek –
based on scientific advice from global experts, balancing
environmental safeguards, topography, economic development, cost and
proximity – followed by a Wilton/Richmond combination,” he confirmed.
Brown continued: “All decisions about airport sites are fraught with
danger for the politicians in the hot seat and I do not envy Federal
Transport Minister Anthony Albanese or NSW Premier Barry O’Farrell in
trying to forge a compromise. But that’s what we elected them to do.”
Brown concluded that Sydney Airport “needs less politics and more
science”.
Most people would agree. Badgerys Creek is the acknowledged best
choice. It is where Sydney’s new airport should go, unless a decision
is made to site it well away from the city entirely, perhaps in
Canberra, and link it to the city by high-speed rail. That’s another
good option but another story entirely.
Digest poll in 2011 of Australia’s most trusted professions found that
politicians ranked second-to-last out of 45 professions. Only tele-
marketers are less trusted by the public.
The seemingly endless saga of Sydney’s second airport, which has risen
again as if from the grave, may finally push politicians into last
place in the public trust stakes.
A new independent report has confirmed that Sydney needs a second
airport. The report is quite clear about where the airport should go –
Badgerys Creek in Sydney’s west. Badgery’s Creek “is located close to
growing markets in the western regions of Sydney and close to road and
rail transport links,” the official Joint Study on Aviation Capacity
in the Sydney region found.
The finding comes as no surprise.
Badgerys Creek is by far the best choice, which is why it has been the
favoured option ever since the 1970s, when it became obvious that
Sydney was going to need another passenger airport. The Federal
Government approved the Badgerys Creek proposal and bought more than
1700 hectares of land there between 1986 and 1991 for the proposed
airport.
That’s where politics comes in. Politicians worked out that airport
noise could affect marginal seats in the area. They dropped Badgerys
Creek like a hot potato. Which means that if Sydney gets another
airport, it will be the second, third or fourth choice on the list,
not the best choice – unless Badgerys Creek is put back on the table.
The latest site proposal being pushed is Wilton, a poorer choice than
Badgerys Creek but the favoured option of Federal Transport and
Infrastructure Minister, Anthony Albanese (given that he can’t back
Badgerys Creek). The Wilton proposal could be stymied by NSW Premier
Barry O’Farrell, who is considering releasing parcels of land there
for housing development. Other problems with Wilton include the fact
that the area stores Sydney’s drinking water in Avon/Nepean and the
Warragamba dam. Not a smart idea to have a lot of planes flying over
that, particularly if one has to jettison fuel in a hurry. Moreover
Wilton has no rail route to Sydney and the M5 motorway is already
choked.
Many experts now say that politicians should bite the bullet and go
ahead with Badgerys Creek, as they should have done in the first
place. One of the experts, Strategic Aviation Solutions analyst Neil
Hansford, pointed out at the weekend that existing infrastructure is
already in place for Badgerys Creek, making it a more viable option.
“If we already have infrastructure available, I don’t see why we
should wait,” Hansford told Sydney’s Daily Telegraph. “Wilton is just
too far away and if you’re going to go that far, you might as well
build it in Canberra.”
Former Tourism and Transport Forum head Christopher Brown made some
good points in a recent article in the Sydney Morning Herald. Brown
was a member of the joint Federal/State Commission examining Sydney’s
aviation needs.
“We unanimously determined that the best site is Badgerys Creek –
based on scientific advice from global experts, balancing
environmental safeguards, topography, economic development, cost and
proximity – followed by a Wilton/Richmond combination,” he confirmed.
Brown continued: “All decisions about airport sites are fraught with
danger for the politicians in the hot seat and I do not envy Federal
Transport Minister Anthony Albanese or NSW Premier Barry O’Farrell in
trying to forge a compromise. But that’s what we elected them to do.”
Brown concluded that Sydney Airport “needs less politics and more
science”.
Most people would agree. Badgerys Creek is the acknowledged best
choice. It is where Sydney’s new airport should go, unless a decision
is made to site it well away from the city entirely, perhaps in
Canberra, and link it to the city by high-speed rail. That’s another
good option but another story entirely.
Phil Allison
Apr 16, 2012, 9:23:46 AM4/16/12
to
"Tudor5"
This load of tripe is from " eGlobal Travel Media " and has the by line of
Peter Needham.
http://www.eglobaltravelmedia.com.au/airline/back-to-badgerys-is-best-choice-for-new-sydney-airport.html
Why tripe ?
Cos the SAME report says that with some re-organisation, Mascot can provide
for Sydney's anticipated needs for another 20 to 40 years.
.... Phil
Petzl
Apr 16, 2012, 9:54:00 AM4/16/12
to
On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 18:48:40 -0700 (PDT), Tudor5
<spaml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Most people would agree. Badgerys Creek is the acknowledged best
>choice. It is where Sydney’s new airport should go, unless a decision
>is made to site it well away from the city entirely, perhaps in
>Canberra, and link it to the city by high-speed rail. That’s another
>good option but another story entirely.
There's no reason to leave Mascot?
<spaml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Most people would agree. Badgerys Creek is the acknowledged best
>choice. It is where Sydney’s new airport should go, unless a decision
>is made to site it well away from the city entirely, perhaps in
>Canberra, and link it to the city by high-speed rail. That’s another
>good option but another story entirely.
East West runways can be pretty immediately extended probably a third
runway included there as well, The "M5 East Freeway" could go
underground to allow this, "General Holmes drive" go underground as
well extending existing parallel runway.
Increasing efficiencies at Mascot would give the most bang for
taxpayers buck. I don't see why screamers at Mascot have more rights
than wherever they want to stick another airport. No matter where it
goes it is a adverse environmental decision. If the environment was
considered the Sydney Basin would have no airport, with existing one
closed (Noise and Air quality already at dangerous levels)
There is still a lot of available land around Mascot as well, Botany
Industrial Park (a lot of space there). A Monorail could provide
conveyance from Cruise Ship Terminal to Airport and Rail and any other
ancillary Airport buildings based around Banksmeadow Botany. Caltex
looks like closing as well.
I don't believe you can keep expanding Sydney next there will be
demands for a third? A fully functioning new Airport will make the NBN
look cheap. Much better to maximise the use of the one we have
--
Petzl
Rob
Apr 16, 2012, 9:30:18 PM4/16/12
to
What I find the most difficult question has not been answered. That is -
where's the money coming from to develop the infrastructure. Nobody has
offered any money up front.
Any development just expect to use the existing road and rail services
without penalty.
We have a situation here where a harbour development has been expanded
but no infrastructure developed to support that harbour. Roads were over
capacity by 20% last count, I'm aware - 2008. Those who use the
harbour will not pay for either road or rail upgrades, The Labor G'ment
transferred car imports here, truck movements on existing roads has far
exceeded what's safe. We have coal, wheat, cars, general freight and
quarries hauling stuff around. I have counted 30 trucks head to tail
coming down the mountain, on one group. the road is buggered.
All the BS about creating jobs has no significance in the overall
efficiency it just sort of sounds good.
No one can support infrastructure because it interferes with bottom line.
Lets get the roads and rail in place first then say lets build it here!
Petzl
Apr 17, 2012, 12:10:57 AM4/17/12
to
On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 11:30:18 +1000, Rob <mesa...@google.com> wrote:
>
>No one can support infrastructure because it interferes with bottom line.
>
>Lets get the roads and rail in place first then say lets build it here!
>
No more airports need be built in Sydney's Air Basin
>
>No one can support infrastructure because it interferes with bottom line.
>
>Lets get the roads and rail in place first then say lets build it here!
>
Since 1998 jets have been flying to Mascot already I have to clean the
soot off the sandstone at my Razorback (Picton)
Fact is Sydney Airport is a monster already created and would be
economic suicide to kill.
Mascot can already handle 5 times the landings it does now, it's just
political cowardice it doesn't and NSW don't have to allow 24 hour
operation.
Demanding another Airport in Sydney's air basin is also economic
nonsense. Won't fix anything environmentally! This is a ploy to stop
any more planes arriving at Sydney that's all it's about (Making it
stupidly expensive if one does)
Although increasing amount of planes will also harm the same
Environment but to a much lesser extent.
To put a working Airport elsewhere would be around $100 billion,
needing trains, roads, Airport gazzo's, fueling systems, buildings,
ect (Electro Convulsive Therapy). Just keep it out of Sydney basin
every clear day in early Morning at Razoback I see yesterday's air
rolling back into the basin as a pink brown fog that covers
Centrepoint (1000 foot high) till you can't see any thing. Each jet
burns about 10 tonne of Jet Fuel (90% Kerosene 10% toluene), turns it
into carcinogenic soot, so not good for your or our Air quality.
Sydney Airport needs to go but economically we can't afford to, best
to make the best of a bad situation and maximize the efficiency of
existing one and increase it's handling capacity (costs almost nothing
to do)
--
Petzl
Tudor5
Apr 18, 2012, 7:01:06 PM4/18/12
to
On Apr 17, 12:10 pm, Petzl <pet...@gmail.com> wrote:
Interesting opinion. Although your logic escapes me :)
Petzl
Apr 19, 2012, 2:42:33 AM4/19/12
to
On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 16:01:06 -0700 (PDT), Tudor5
<spaml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Sydney Airport needs to go but economically we can't afford to, best
>> to make the best of a bad situation and maximize the efficiency of
>> existing one and increase it's handling capacity (costs almost nothing
>> to do)
>> --
>> Petzl
>
>Interesting opinion. Although your logic escapes me :)
The existing Airport is capped at 80 movements an hour can easily be
<spaml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Sydney Airport needs to go but economically we can't afford to, best
>> to make the best of a bad situation and maximize the efficiency of
>> existing one and increase it's handling capacity (costs almost nothing
>> to do)
>> --
>> Petzl
>
>Interesting opinion. Although your logic escapes me :)
doubled without a new Airport. This though still creates a major
source of pollution. Each Jet turns 10 tonnes an hour of jet fuel (mix
of kerosene & toluene) into fine carcinogenic soot!
There is already a beautiful pink brown fog exhaled at night as the
Sydney basin breaths out. In the morning I can see all of Sydney from
Razorback including Centrepoint which is a 1000 feet high.
As Sydney breaths in during the day this 1000' plus high beautiful
pink brown poison covers everything right up to Razorback (Picton
mountain range). Under this "fog" in the basin area it can't be seen.
the schools though you can see asthmatic kids.
Airports are the main contributor to this, legal only in Australia and
Uganda! Not only does a Airport have to go outside the Air Basin the
one in it needs winding down.
North of Harbor bridge is still in Sydney and outside of our notorious
air basin that is where one should be built (Palm Beach?). Jet
Aircraft are now being made with major noise reductions and greater
size so noise is becoming less of a problem. Other alternatives are
Canberra or Goulburn don't matter as long as it's outside of Sydney's
already polluted air basin.
--
Petzl
Brad
Apr 21, 2012, 8:55:14 PM4/21/12
to
And that's why I live on the Other side of Razorback! I'd hate to see a major airport at Wilton, the whole area is hollow and suffers subsidence from long wall mining. I cannot see wobbly runways being a good option, or a 380 in a sink hole.
Brad
Apr 21, 2012, 8:55:11 PM4/21/12
to
Rob
Apr 21, 2012, 9:26:45 PM4/21/12
to
On 22/04/2012 10:55 AM, Brad wrote:
> And that's why I live on the Other side of Razorback! I'd hate to see a major airport at Wilton, the whole area is hollow and suffers subsidence from long wall mining. I cannot see wobbly runways being a good option, or a 380 in a sink hole.
The mines have drained the water from the catchment. Like to see one of
> And that's why I live on the Other side of Razorback! I'd hate to see a major airport at Wilton, the whole area is hollow and suffers subsidence from long wall mining. I cannot see wobbly runways being a good option, or a 380 in a sink hole.
the new houses sink.
In England the houses are still sinking after 100 plus years of mine
closure and there was no longwall back then.
Petzl
Apr 22, 2012, 12:25:32 AM4/22/12
to
On Sat, 21 Apr 2012 17:55:11 -0700 (PDT), Brad <brad...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Where ever, if ever, it is stupid to even consider our Sydney Air
Basin which Badgery's creek is. What's their game plan?
They already have a smog cloud over a 1000 feet high!
Do they want a smog cloud 2000 feet high?
Then I suppose there will be a third airport on the books!
There are plenty of options one is firstly and simply doubling the 80
movement cap on Sydney Airport (this will mean increasing passenger
handling capacity).
Wilton though is within the Sydney water basin, outside the Sydney air
basin. At 300m elevation, Wilton does not suffer from fog nor any
persistent smog retention?
--
Petzl
wrote:
Basin which Badgery's creek is. What's their game plan?
They already have a smog cloud over a 1000 feet high!
Do they want a smog cloud 2000 feet high?
Then I suppose there will be a third airport on the books!
There are plenty of options one is firstly and simply doubling the 80
movement cap on Sydney Airport (this will mean increasing passenger
handling capacity).
Wilton though is within the Sydney water basin, outside the Sydney air
basin. At 300m elevation, Wilton does not suffer from fog nor any
persistent smog retention?
--
Petzl
Rob
Apr 22, 2012, 1:37:02 AM4/22/12
to
governments - done deal.
Petzl
Apr 22, 2012, 2:49:27 AM4/22/12
to
Seems strange the best option is in North Shore where a Epping
Parramatta rail link is already being built? Vast areas of vacant land
there, also democratic centre of Sydney
--
Petzl
Tudor5
Apr 22, 2012, 11:40:03 AM4/22/12
to
On Apr 22, 2:49 pm, Petzl <pet...@gmail.com> wrote:
Your posts are increasingly loony
> On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 15:37:02 +1000, Rob <mesam...@google.com> wrote:
> >On 22/04/2012 2:25 PM, Petzl wrote:
> >> On Sat, 21 Apr 2012 17:55:11 -0700 (PDT), Brad<bradvk...@gmail.com>
> >On 22/04/2012 2:25 PM, Petzl wrote:
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> And that's why I live on the Other side of Razorback!
> >>> I'd hate to see a major airport at Wilton, the whole area is hollow
> >>> and suffers subsidence from long wall mining. I cannot see wobbly
> >>> runways being a good option, or a 380 in a sink hole.
>
> >> Where ever, if ever, it is stupid to even consider our Sydney Air
> >> Basin which Badgery's creek is. What's their game plan?
>
> >> They already have a smog cloud over a 1000 feet high!
> >> Do they want a smog cloud 2000 feet high?
>
> >> Then I suppose there will be a third airport on the books!
>
> >> There are plenty of options one is firstly and simply doubling the 80
> >> movement cap on Sydney Airport (this will mean increasing passenger
> >> handling capacity).
>
> >> Wilton though is within the Sydney water basin, outside the Sydney air
> >> basin. At 300m elevation, Wilton does not suffer from fog nor any
> >> persistent smog retention?
>
> >Now you have made the decision please forward that to the relevant
> >governments - done deal.
>
> Have done this
> Seems strange the best option is in North Shore where a Epping
> Parramatta rail link is already being built? Vast areas of vacant land
> there, also democratic centre of Sydney
> --
> Petzl
There is NO Available suitable land in where you indicate.
>
> >>> And that's why I live on the Other side of Razorback!
> >>> I'd hate to see a major airport at Wilton, the whole area is hollow
> >>> and suffers subsidence from long wall mining. I cannot see wobbly
> >>> runways being a good option, or a 380 in a sink hole.
>
> >> Where ever, if ever, it is stupid to even consider our Sydney Air
> >> Basin which Badgery's creek is. What's their game plan?
>
> >> They already have a smog cloud over a 1000 feet high!
> >> Do they want a smog cloud 2000 feet high?
>
> >> Then I suppose there will be a third airport on the books!
>
> >> There are plenty of options one is firstly and simply doubling the 80
> >> movement cap on Sydney Airport (this will mean increasing passenger
> >> handling capacity).
>
> >> Wilton though is within the Sydney water basin, outside the Sydney air
> >> basin. At 300m elevation, Wilton does not suffer from fog nor any
> >> persistent smog retention?
>
> >Now you have made the decision please forward that to the relevant
> >governments - done deal.
>
> Have done this
> Seems strange the best option is in North Shore where a Epping
> Parramatta rail link is already being built? Vast areas of vacant land
> there, also democratic centre of Sydney
> --
> Petzl
Your posts are increasingly loony
Rob
Apr 22, 2012, 7:16:36 PM4/22/12
to
infrastructure, decentralisation plus more.
If they were to introduce compulsory acquisition of land surrounding
Mascot airport:
less people being noise effected.
less traffic don't have to build any more road infrastructure.
decentralise Sydney too many people living there anyway.
This would be a wonderful scheme what more could you ask for.
petzl will you pass this on to the Government Thanks.
Ozzie Pete
Apr 22, 2012, 10:40:52 PM4/22/12
to
On 23/04/12 9:16 AM, Rob wrote:
> Now another thought which should solve heaps problems, noise, land,
> infrastructure, decentralisation plus more.
>
> If they were to introduce compulsory acquisition of land surrounding
> Mascot airport:
>
> less people being noise effected.
> less traffic don't have to build any more road infrastructure.
> decentralise Sydney too many people living there anyway.
>
> This would be a wonderful scheme what more could you ask for.
>
> petzl will you pass this on to the Government Thanks.
>
I do not understand why the Syd-Mel very fast train option has not been
> Now another thought which should solve heaps problems, noise, land,
> infrastructure, decentralisation plus more.
>
> If they were to introduce compulsory acquisition of land surrounding
> Mascot airport:
>
> less people being noise effected.
> less traffic don't have to build any more road infrastructure.
> decentralise Sydney too many people living there anyway.
>
> This would be a wonderful scheme what more could you ask for.
>
> petzl will you pass this on to the Government Thanks.
>
part of the discussion. If this was built, it could free up slots at
mascot and ease the current "overload". This is the fourth busiest
corridor in the world. A VFT could easily be as fast if you consider
all the hassles at the airports.
2c worth
Pete
Petzl
Apr 22, 2012, 11:18:48 PM4/22/12
to
On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 12:40:52 +1000, Ozzie Pete <pe...@somewhere.on.net>
wrote:
All the Federal government has to do is fix the *existing* track which
would enable our trains to travel their *existing* design speed. This
would at least halve travel times by existing trains (6 hour Sydney
Melbourne already capable). Not saying that high speed trains would
not also be a good idea.
--
Petzl
wrote:
would enable our trains to travel their *existing* design speed. This
would at least halve travel times by existing trains (6 hour Sydney
Melbourne already capable). Not saying that high speed trains would
not also be a good idea.
--
Petzl
Petzl
Apr 22, 2012, 11:36:07 PM4/22/12
to
On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 09:16:36 +1000, Rob <mesa...@google.com> wrote:
>>
>> Have done this
>> Seems strange the best option is in North Shore where a Epping
>> Parramatta rail link is already being built? Vast areas of vacant land
>> there, also democratic centre of Sydney
>
>
>Now another thought which should solve heaps problems, noise, land,
>infrastructure, decentralisation plus more.
>
>If they were to introduce compulsory acquisition of land surrounding
>Mascot airport:
>
>less people being noise effected.
>less traffic don't have to build any more road infrastructure.
>decentralise Sydney too many people living there anyway.
>
>This would be a wonderful scheme what more could you ask for.
>
>petzl will you pass this on to the Government Thanks.
>
The Government know this it is council election year and Labor
>>
>> Have done this
>> Seems strange the best option is in North Shore where a Epping
>> Parramatta rail link is already being built? Vast areas of vacant land
>> there, also democratic centre of Sydney
>
>
>Now another thought which should solve heaps problems, noise, land,
>infrastructure, decentralisation plus more.
>
>If they were to introduce compulsory acquisition of land surrounding
>Mascot airport:
>
>less people being noise effected.
>less traffic don't have to build any more road infrastructure.
>decentralise Sydney too many people living there anyway.
>
>This would be a wonderful scheme what more could you ask for.
>
>petzl will you pass this on to the Government Thanks.
>
Councils and Labor Politicians are "rat bagging" to make waves for NSW
Government.
Try looking at Google Maps around west of Palm Beach?
Try looking at Google maps for land adjacent and surrounding Mascot
for that matter.
There is plenty of land for sale there already. Problem with Mascot is
it adds to noise and pollution but if it has to be in our Air basin
that's where it will to go. More environmentally/cost efficient than a
2nd airport . Land is only needed for passenger numbers not landings
easily connected by moving footpaths even light rail/monorail.
Another Airport around Palm Springs would allow Mascot to be wound
down it's already a health problem through it's noise and pollution
(its already killing people, if it was a cigarette package?)
--
Petzl
Harold
Apr 22, 2012, 11:39:38 PM4/22/12
to
"Petzl" <pet...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:st07p7tv79hracnvu...@4ax.com...
>
> Wilton though is within the Sydney water basin, outside the Sydney air
> basin. At 300m elevation, Wilton does not suffer from fog nor any
> persistent smog retention?
> --
> Petzl
Hasn't a housing estate been built at Wilton? No matter which flavour of
> Wilton though is within the Sydney water basin, outside the Sydney air
> basin. At 300m elevation, Wilton does not suffer from fog nor any
> persistent smog retention?
> --
> Petzl
government is in power, you'd be extremely unpopular pulling down those
new McMansions for an airport.
H.
Petzl
Apr 23, 2012, 12:41:14 AM4/23/12
to
Sydney's water quality would be afflicted as well (Jet fuel a mix of
Toluene and Kerosene)
Not sure how many McMansions have been built there, as a housing
estate it's pretty new.
AFAIK the only relatively "suitable" place is Palm Beach area?
--
Petzl
Ozzie Pete
Apr 23, 2012, 12:55:37 AM4/23/12
to
often foggy in the morning.
Pete
Rob
Apr 23, 2012, 3:21:41 AM4/23/12
to
Petzl
Apr 23, 2012, 6:26:10 AM4/23/12
to
On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 17:21:41 +1000, Rob <mesa...@google.com> wrote:
>On 23/04/2012 1:39 PM, Harold wrote:
>> "Petzl"<pet...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:st07p7tv79hracnvu...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>> Wilton though is within the Sydney water basin, outside the Sydney air
>>> basin. At 300m elevation, Wilton does not suffer from fog nor any
>>> persistent smog retention?
>>
>On 23/04/2012 1:39 PM, Harold wrote:
>> "Petzl"<pet...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:st07p7tv79hracnvu...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>> Wilton though is within the Sydney water basin, outside the Sydney air
>>> basin. At 300m elevation, Wilton does not suffer from fog nor any
>>> persistent smog retention?
>>
>> Hasn't a housing estate been built at Wilton? No matter which flavour of
>> government is in power, you'd be extremely unpopular pulling down those
>> new McMansions for an airport.
>>
>
>> government is in power, you'd be extremely unpopular pulling down those
>> new McMansions for an airport.
>>
>
>It should be there just to annoy Petzl, who lives close by!
There isn't a single suburb in Sydney that has not officaily
complained about Sydney Airport.
Doubt if Wilton would bother me any more than Sydney does. Mascot they
presently come over a few seconds screaming behind each other. I'm
50km from Mascot
It's more of a problem at Marrickville where Aircraft do this from all
directions. LOUD and Low!
The best place with low impact noise and polution wise in Sydney is
Palm Beach. Which is near a new train corridor to Parramatta now being
built
Wilton would cause the closure of Banktown and Camden though and much
more expensive for light Aircraft to use Wilton
--
Petzl
Harold
Apr 23, 2012, 11:02:51 AM4/23/12
to
news:rsaap7hccptvfgoih...@4ax.com...
> Petzl
I got a lot of support when I mentioned this in another forum ...
To solve Sydney's problems, the entire city should be moved 50km to the
east.
H :)
>
> There isn't a single suburb in Sydney that has not officaily
> complained about Sydney Airport.
> --
> There isn't a single suburb in Sydney that has not officaily
> complained about Sydney Airport.
> Petzl
I got a lot of support when I mentioned this in another forum ...
To solve Sydney's problems, the entire city should be moved 50km to the
east.
H :)
Bernd Felsche
Apr 23, 2012, 12:16:33 PM4/23/12
to
Ozzie Pete <pe...@somewhere.on.net> wrote:
>On 23/04/12 9:16 AM, Rob wrote:
>> Now another thought which should solve heaps problems, noise, land,
>> infrastructure, decentralisation plus more.
>>
>> If they were to introduce compulsory acquisition of land surrounding
>> Mascot airport:
>>
>> less people being noise effected.
>> less traffic don't have to build any more road infrastructure.
>> decentralise Sydney too many people living there anyway.
>>
>> This would be a wonderful scheme what more could you ask for.
>On 23/04/12 9:16 AM, Rob wrote:
>> Now another thought which should solve heaps problems, noise, land,
>> infrastructure, decentralisation plus more.
>>
>> If they were to introduce compulsory acquisition of land surrounding
>> Mascot airport:
>>
>> less people being noise effected.
>> less traffic don't have to build any more road infrastructure.
>> decentralise Sydney too many people living there anyway.
>>
>> This would be a wonderful scheme what more could you ask for.
>I do not understand why the Syd-Mel very fast train option has not
>been part of the discussion. If this was built, it could free up
>slots at mascot and ease the current "overload". This is the
>fourth busiest corridor in the world. A VFT could easily be as
>fast if you consider all the hassles at the airports.
But a VFT can never work. Prevailing politics obstructs the means to
>been part of the discussion. If this was built, it could free up
>slots at mascot and ease the current "overload". This is the
>fourth busiest corridor in the world. A VFT could easily be as
>fast if you consider all the hassles at the airports.
provide reliable, affordable power for its operation.
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | For every complex problem there is an
X against HTML mail | answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.
/ \ and postings | --HL Mencken
Rob
Apr 24, 2012, 1:47:26 AM4/24/12
to
On 24/04/2012 2:16 AM, Bernd Felsche wrote:
> Ozzie Pete<pe...@somewhere.on.net> wrote:
>> On 23/04/12 9:16 AM, Rob wrote:
>>> Now another thought which should solve heaps problems, noise, land,
>>> infrastructure, decentralisation plus more.
>>>
>>> If they were to introduce compulsory acquisition of land surrounding
>>> Mascot airport:
>>>
>>> less people being noise effected.
>>> less traffic don't have to build any more road infrastructure.
>>> decentralise Sydney too many people living there anyway.
>>>
>>> This would be a wonderful scheme what more could you ask for.
>
>> I do not understand why the Syd-Mel very fast train option has not
>> been part of the discussion. If this was built, it could free up
>> slots at mascot and ease the current "overload". This is the
>> fourth busiest corridor in the world. A VFT could easily be as
>> fast if you consider all the hassles at the airports.
>
> But a VFT can never work. Prevailing politics obstructs the means to
> provide reliable, affordable power for its operation.
the airlines would stop it, its their cash cow.
> Ozzie Pete<pe...@somewhere.on.net> wrote:
>> On 23/04/12 9:16 AM, Rob wrote:
>>> Now another thought which should solve heaps problems, noise, land,
>>> infrastructure, decentralisation plus more.
>>>
>>> If they were to introduce compulsory acquisition of land surrounding
>>> Mascot airport:
>>>
>>> less people being noise effected.
>>> less traffic don't have to build any more road infrastructure.
>>> decentralise Sydney too many people living there anyway.
>>>
>>> This would be a wonderful scheme what more could you ask for.
>
>> I do not understand why the Syd-Mel very fast train option has not
>> been part of the discussion. If this was built, it could free up
>> slots at mascot and ease the current "overload". This is the
>> fourth busiest corridor in the world. A VFT could easily be as
>> fast if you consider all the hassles at the airports.
>
> But a VFT can never work. Prevailing politics obstructs the means to
> provide reliable, affordable power for its operation.
0 new messages