Sydney Airport (SYD) - Pictures/News/Discussion

[Sky_Is_The_Limit]

Originally Posted by MelbourneOnTheRise

That and every other major air route that's had HSR built along it. People will bite your hand off if you offer them the chance to travel while avoiding the humiliation and inconvenience of going through airport security and the endless waiting.

I think the political gridlock because of airport noise is just something we need to accept and find a solution that appeals to voters.

Canberra airport already exists. Airport noise NIMBYs can't complain about an airport that's already up and running. It can be expanded without the need for expensively buying land for a new airport then building and operating everything from scratch.

HSR just means we'd be killing 2 birds with 1 stone. As Melb_aviator said, there's no need to hub everything via SYD as in the past. Qantas has been trying to get blood out of that rock for decades and look at their declining market share as a result.

Let the cities along an HSR line pick up the slack, and people will find a way to get where they need to go. 1st SYD-CBR, then CBR-MEL, then SYD-BNE finishing with MEL-ADL. The rest of the world is doing just fine without their outdated airport congestion, we would be too.

So you are using international examples rather than what has been put down in text in the HSR Report into the East Coast of Australia?

It forecasts all routes (bar Sydney-Canberra) will have far lower transferral rates from flying to HSR. This is compounded by the second Sydney Airport report which states that passenger numbers are set to soar in the next 50 years. And if KSF is capped at say 50 million passengers per annum, the remainder will need to pass through an upgraded Canberra Airport, placing huge strain on a future HSR network.

Judging by the figures used in the second Sydney Airport report, I'm thinking it could even be possible that Sydney will need a more efficient KSF Airport, a second airport (Wilton/BC) and perhaps even a third airport (Canberra) by 2060 because 160 million passengers per annum by then is simply a huge amount of people.

I'm sure no one has thought that far yet on either side of politics.

[Sky_Is_The_Limit]

Originally Posted by Mornnb

I don't see many people choosing HSR over air travel, when it's 1 hour verses 3 hours. 5 minutes of airport security definitely beats 2 hours of being stuck in a train. HSR will only work if the ticket price is much lower.
And in regards to airport congestion, we are a small country with big distances, meaning aircraft are easiest and cheapest way (infrastructure wise) to get around.
I'm not against HSR, but it's not a piece of cake to make it competitive with air travel.

Agree that HSR will need to be clearly cheaper than flying.

Imagine a family of four having to pay $800 return ($100 each per direction) for HSR to get to Canberra just to fly out from a second Sydney Airport!

[Gargarensis]

im certainly against having to go to canberra just to get to sydney's 'second airport'.

and i bet you tickets on that HSR will not be cheap. it already costs a small fortune in loose change to travel the few kms between Sydney Airport and the Sydney CBD by suburban rail line.

[Cariad]

Originally Posted by Melb_aviator

No, honestly it was a rant of nothingness. Thats the best way to describe that.

Better bring something more meaningful to the table next time, as it might actually be taken seriously. Next...

It was a rant, agreed, but do I need to back up every word with evidence, or are you capable of seeing them for yourself?

So Melbourne for example has not stagnated whilst Sydney boomed?

[Cariad]

Originally Posted by mic

Really???

Milan and Rome
Barcelona and Madrid
Sao Paolo and Rio De Janiero
Beijing and Shanghai
Cape Town and Johanesburg
Mumbai and New Deli


They are all globally relevant in their own ways and this is what will happen in Australia....its happening as we speak. There is no longer a need to cluster services next to other services as there was in the past century, with the increase in technologically advancement you will see the deminishing of people in wealthier nations having to live and set up business in affliation and direct geographic connect with feeder businesses. Its all about where you want to live and then you can do business...

Agree, I was wrong. I couldn't think of any at that point when posting.

[brianc68]

My question on the option to use Canberra as an alternative 2nd airport instead of somewhere else in Sydney... How much more would you have to add to your airfare to go on this high speed train to Canberra.. I'm guessing its not going to be cheap! Australia is a high cost country as it is, so any sort of high speed rail is going to cost the earth to build and use. Just think about how much it costs to get to and/or park etc at our current airports using slow trains, cabs and cars - it sometimes comes to more than the airfare even now.

[Fabian]

Former PM Paul Keating is calling for the second airport to be built, yet I have to ask him this question:

Why didn't you start construction of Badgerys Creek back in your days as PM if you felt Sydney needs it so much?

[Brizer]

A raging & sustained nimby attack from alleged residents far and wide, combined with chicken-liver fellow politicians - of all colours. And he wasn't in power long enough, I'd say, especially as he had an ambitious agenda and was under attack from all sides even when he correctly identified the recalcitrant leader of Malaysia, Muhartir (sp), as 'recalcitrant'.

Howard put the kybosh on the plans for Badgerys, along with HSR, etc., for all the wrong reasons & promoted the army base site at Holsworthy but caved under nimby attack, too. Also he had a chronic fear of spending money on anything constructive.

[Brizer]

Meanwhile back in China:

architecture&design

Follow the link and check out the visuals! Note especially the location of this project = nimby Hell!!!

http://www.architectureanddesign.com...gn=newsletters


Woods Bagot designs new airport city in China: wins major global design competition

16 April 2012 | by David Wheeldon

Woods Bagot has won the international competition to design China Southern Airport City, a 400 hectare mixed-use development set on the Liuxi River, in Guangzhou, China – edging out bids by global design houses such as Zaha Hadid and Airport de Pari with Paul Andreu.

The City design, which totals 3.8 million square meters will provide a gross floor area that equates in scale to just over 7 Barrangaroo’s (Sydney), 1.5 Dockland’s (Melbourne) and 9 City Link’s (Perth) in development area.

The master plan will expand the airline’s traditional corporate headquarters to an urban scale, blending business and manufacturing uses with lifestyle and residential components. This new active district will support China Southern Airlines’ brand and continued leadership as Asia’s largest airline.

The firm said the process brought together the best talent from across its global studio, adding that for the Australian and Asia-Pacific region, the win signifies a continued commitment to build a solid partnership between China and Australia.

They noted the win comes following the announcement from Tourism Australia and China Southern Airlines to help realise the potential of travel between the two countries in mid 2010.

Woods Bagot's proposed masterplan exploits the potential of economic integration of functional elements against the aspiration for a transformational staff and visitor experience. Set amongst natural settings, the plan is to create a new international landmark in China for workplace culture.

Kirsty White, Senior Associate, Woods Bagot, commented: “Transport, travel and communication is at the forefront of a connected city The rise of these ‘concentrated-cities, where a variety of commercial, retail, residential and community facilities are present are seeping into the Asia Pacific urban landscape, where the success will hinge on smart urban design and essentially, an efficient use of resources.”

The China Southern Airport City master plan organises the neighbourhoods into three precincts and deems a somewhat ‘concentrated city’ approach.

With a growing portfolio of aviation projects, and in response to sturdy market conditions within the Asia Pacific region, Woods Bagot have embarked on developing a centre of excellence in Australia, to deliver “world class solutions for not only existing projects, yet to also respond to the substantial number of airport and rail projects planned across the country”.

James Berry, Director Transportation & Infrastructure at Woods Bagot said:

“The expansion in the Asia Pacific region was a major growth area for Woods Bagot and the recent project wins are a testament to this, as well as an indication that further growth is to come in the Middle East and central Asia region.”

On April 18 to 20, 2012, James Berry has been invited to deliver a paper to global aviation industry leaders at this year’s Passenger Terminal EXPO in Vienna. Titled “The Future of Airport Design” the paper is part of the on-going Woods Bagot Airport Research Programme (WARP Speed) that is undertaking research into the trends shaping the future of airports across the globe.

[ajw373]

Originally Posted by MelbourneOnTheRise

Canberra airport already exists. Airport noise NIMBYs can't complain about an airport that's already up and running. It can be expanded without the need for expensively buying land for a new airport then building and operating everything from scratch.

Want to bet on this? The NIMBY's have been complaining for years and everytime there is talk of more they carry on. Mind you the developers also want to develop land to the south of the airport, which to date the airport has been able to keep at bay, but sure as shit if the development goes ahead those people will also be whining about aircraft noise devaluing their properies and effecting their sleep.

[Brizer]

What ajw373 said in buckets!!!!
Where have you been the last several decades?
Obviously you do not live anywhere within a 10-15km radius of KSA as that area is a virtual epicentre of nimbyism. Complaining about the noise from aircraft is clearly the life's work of some folk who refuse to move but complain loud and long even though the airport was there long before they were born let alone decided to buy/rent anywhere near it.
The mysteries of the human brain...

[KIWIKAAS]

Canberra would never work as an alternative to Kingsford Smith. If capacity was reached at SYD an aspiring airline would simply just choose MEL of BNE instead. CBR as a second SYD airport would be a flop. It's simply not an option.
The most practicle airports to suppliment SYD are Bankstown or possibly Richmond. If you're looking at capacity issues then it's the domestic/ regional flights you need to look at dispersing. Bankstown or Richmond are the most practical for this (more so Bankstown).
Wilton (or Badgerys) is only an option as a replacement for KSIA, not a suppliment (Meribel anyone?).
Those projections for 90 or 160 million passengers per year are absolutely rediculous and shouldn't be taken seriously for a second. I don't think SYD will ever need handle more than 45-50 million per year. SYD is not a large scale hub airport like ATL, DEN, LHR or CDG...etc.

[Tyson]

I don't really follow the Canberra arguement either. If it was a viable alternative then why isn't being used already? i.e. why isn't Scoot or Air Asia X flying there for example? Because it needs HSR to link it to Sydney? The only real advantage CBR has over SYD would be cost, which obviously isn't even enough presently. Adding HSR on top would wipe out any cost advantage. The end result would be flying into CBR would become more expensive which in turn would make SYD even more expensive.

[brianc68]

Originally Posted by KIWIKAAS

Canberra would never work as an alternative to Kingsford Smith. If capacity was reached at SYD an aspiring airline would simply just choose MEL of BNE instead. CBR as a second SYD airport would be a flop. It's simply not an option.
The most practicle airports to suppliment SYD are Bankstown or possibly Richmond. If you're looking at capacity issues then it's the domestic/ regional flights you need to look at dispersing. Bankstown or Richmond are the most practical for this (more so Bankstown).
Wilton (or Badgerys) is only an option as a replacement for KSIA, not a suppliment (Meribel anyone?).
Those projections for 90 or 160 million passengers per year are absolutely rediculous and shouldn't be taken seriously for a second. I don't think SYD will ever need handle more than 45-50 million per year. SYD is not a large scale hub airport like ATL, DEN, LHR or CDG...etc.

I completely agree. BNE is a logical hub geographically for Asia and also North America, and has a large home market as well. Plenty of room to expand and 24hr operation. And also a 2nd parallel runway approved and in the pipeline.

As you say, the major hub airports in the US are not necessarily the largest cities in that country - eg denver and Atlanta for a start.

Canberra doesn't make sense on any level. Why catch a train for an hour or more (at extra expense) when you could fly to BNE or MEL to connect in the same amount of time?

[NoshowwithoutPunch]

Originally Posted by Mornnb

I don't see many people choosing HSR over air travel, when it's 1 hour verses 3 hours. 5 minutes of airport security definitely beats 2 hours of being stuck in a train. HSR will only work if the ticket price is much lower.
And in regards to airport congestion, we are a small country with big distances, meaning aircraft are easiest and cheapest way (infrastructure wise) to get around.
I'm not against HSR, but it's not a piece of cake to make it competitive with air travel.

How can you say 'stuck' in a train? The description suits air travel, not rail travel. And no, it isnt 5 minutes.

[NoshowwithoutPunch]

Originally Posted by Melb_aviator

Only in Australia you say? No, it's a common theme in democratic countries..

dont give such a glowing endorsement for 'democracy'

Sure, it might be the fastest horse in the race, but by a neck, not a length.

[Mornnb]

Originally Posted by NoshowwithoutPunch

How can you say 'stuck' in a train? The description suits air travel, not rail travel. And no, it isnt 5 minutes.

What's the difference, in both cases it's a melt tube, at last flight offers more impressive aerial views. And you're right it's more like 2 minutes.

[bwistle]

You're also forgetting that a HSR will god CBD-CBD, saving travel time/money to and from the airport. You just have to look at the Acela in the NE USA, it is now carrying I think 40-50% of travellers between NY and Boston. Of course air travel in Australia is much easier than in busy airports in the USA which have deals, TSA etc. But it does give you an example of how much of an impact it can have on market share.

[NoshowwithoutPunch]

Originally Posted by Mornnb

What's the difference, in both cases it's a melt tube, at last flight offers more impressive aerial views. And you're right it's more like 2 minutes.

Long distance train travel shits all over aviation for customer experience.

[AndyGM]

Originally Posted by Mornnb

I don't see many people choosing HSR over air travel, when it's 1 hour verses 3 hours. 5 minutes of airport security definitely beats 2 hours of being stuck in a train. HSR will only work if the ticket price is much lower.
And in regards to airport congestion, we are a small country with big distances, meaning aircraft are easiest and cheapest way (infrastructure wise) to get around.
I'm not against HSR, but it's not a piece of cake to make it competitive with air travel.

I don't agree with this at all.

I'll use a scenario I was recently in to illustrate my point. A few weeks ago I was in Melbourne and was flying back to Canberra (but lets imagine it was Sydney). I had a lunch in Melbourne CBD but had to go back into the office in Sydney that afternoon before heading home at the normal time.

I had a flight booked at 2.30 from Melbourne so I had to leave the lunch at 1.15 (40 mins travel time in taxi, 15 mins for checkin, 20 mins traffic contingency). The flight was scheduled for an hour but ended up taking one and a half due to the normal delays so I arrived back in Sydney at 4pm, it was then half an hour to get bags, get to taxi rank, wait for turn, get taxi, get to office. Arrived at 4.30.

Now, if there had been an HST available it would have run like this- leave lunch at 1.15 to get 1.30 train (no checkin, only a walk to the station (or five minute taxi ride) train always 3 hours (arrive at 4.30) 15 mins to get to office from train station (arrive office 4.45).

Overall little difference in trip time (15 minutes, up to 45 tops if plane was bang on time) but the second option the trip would have been much more comfortable and the three hours on the train could have been productive time. The whole three hours I could have been working/reading/watching a movie. On the plane trip the only section I could hvae worked would have been 30 cramped minutes on the plane during the flight.