How do they get away with it!

[Watto79]

Good Afternoon Ausfishers,

Was advised by a mate that one of my local creeks which I have been frequenting for the last 30 odd years is presently closed by BAC (Brisbane Airport Corp).

Since doing some investigating as to why, it appears that BAC are intending on filling it in or the vast majority of it to build the new parallel runway for the airport!

I did hear rumours about this many years ago however all went quiet so assumed that it had hit a setback and plans were scrapped..apparently not and really wish I hadn't been so busy and ignorant now!

What I am trying to get my head around is how they get away with things like this?

On one hand you have the government banging in green zone after green zone to protect the future of our fishery, yet BAC get the go ahead to fill in possibly one of the biggest nurserys for the Nudgee area without the blink of an eye!

From my experience, Jacksons creek is one of (if not) the most fish, crab and prawn rich waterway in this area.

Having spent many of my weekends in this creek, I have seen first hand what this creek has to offer at different times of the year.

I have caught whiting, bream, flathead, luderick, trevally, cod, mangrove jack, jew, grunter and the list goes on..

The mud and sand crabs, people don't believe me when I tell them the numbers that I catch up there each year and still do to this very day..

The banana prawns that start up the very back of this creek, the same prawns that move out into the bay as they grow which our bay trawlers rely heavily upon each year..

The amount of life and breeding stock the filling in of this waterway will kill is an outrage.

So can someone please enlighten me how when all the current political party talk is about "better managing the fishery of Moreton Bay" this gets swept under the carpet?

Is it money, political deals or what?

Is it too late, to put a stop to this?

Why are the greens not kicking up a stink over this, are they not aware of it?

Thoughts please people?

Thanks,
Jay

[Axl]

MONEY!!!

It blows me away what the BAC seems to get away with it is as if they are not regulated buy any form of government at all and can basically do as they please.

I do alot of flying between Brisbane and Adelaide and have done for many years now utilising taxis to get to and from. The BAC a couple of years ago decided that they would impose a $1 surcharge that the pasenger must pay when leaving the terminal.

I thought to myself how can they do this how can I be charged a fee to use a taxi, since then this has trippled. The Adelaide airport has no fee last time I was in Melbourne there was no fee and there was no fee at Sydney last time I was there either.

The amount of taxi's that come through the Brisbane airport each day at $3 dollars a go over a year would be an absurd amount of money FOR WHAT!!

I hope they dont take your creek away from you Watto79 it sounds like a little piece of paradise and if it looks like they are going to then we (the people) need to stop it.

[Dignity]

Maybe the current crop of pollies are more sympathetic to the cause of BAC as it seems any big developer can do mostly what they like as they are seen to be bringing revenue into the state regardless of consequence. I am probably being a little unfair on "can do" (even though he spends money on upgrading the bar across the road from parliament, $150m on helping the horse racing industry, gets rid of a few staff........oops digressing again) as it seems most governments can "talk the talk" when it comes to sustainable environments but somehow can not "walk the talk".

[Tangles]

Jay , my pet subject has arisen?

there where some threads on this a few years ago around the time of the new green zones for MB, from memory a quick summary

1: The BAC had various plans for the 2nd runway

2: the most obvious ones ( there where a few options) which didnt involve filling in the creek was rejected as it didnt allow enough space between the 2 runways for another set of terminals to house duty free etc which had to be there, the other options where more environmentally favourable but didnt allow all the new Airport buildings between the runways which of course = money, BINGO

The options included building out a rock walls out into MB but those options just didnt allow enough space for buildings between the runways,

3: the pollies like Rudd and Swan got involved with the 2nd runway but only re noise of planes.... but that went quiet, the response from interested groups was minimal with little public complaints to the plans that where released without any fanfare of course so all approved with minimum of fuss in the end

4: QDC ie Queensland Development Corp was in favour and driving new investment in QLD so there you go, the QDC runs a lot of these decisions whether LNP or ALP

5: Also what was also approved was the dumping of all the material on the seagrass beds just off there, i posted up the reports etc,

6: Main issue is the lease negotiated by the ALP with BAC for the land re use and rights etc so basically the State Govt cant touch them, their public consultation from memory had almost no feedback as no one really knew it was there until after the time period lapsed and of course only a few responded so it was concluded that the public didnt care etc so

Yes its too late, this deal was done years ago and its all down to the space required between the two runways to accomodate another shopping terminal,,,, nothing from any groups apart from some lone fishos, greens didnt want to know about it as they where banging on about the proposed MB Green Zones at the time and who cares about a creek and seagrass, only group was the bird watchers and a local redcliffe member who caused a ruckus but they are nutters apparently


So to repeat when in future people land in Brisbane on the 2nd runway, there will be enough distance between the 2 runways for the new terminals/duty free and we should all be happy with the fact the correct amount of space between the runways is there.

PS i sent all the docs, reports to news, some pollies, even the Greens and nothing, Ecofishers took it up but no traction as deal was done, it was too late and the really big issue was the complicated commercial agreements the BAC has with rights over the land that fetters State Governments, once the BAC complied with all the consultation regs and had the appropriate reports it was green lit. I have no doubt there will be a pond somewhere there with a nice wooden walkway.

the QDC has a lot to answer for for dealing away the commercial rights to the land but that is the nature of big investments like airports over decades which require certainty and of course the Greens, well they where not interested in one that perhaps you would have thought would have gone to their DNA? , but they only had wide eyes on the Green Zones for MB.

Summary: they where not going to invest in a 2nd runway without the commercial spinoffs of terminals between them and the shops etc... the better runway options didnt allow that

Mike

[TheRealAndy]

I kicked up a big stink about this during the moreton bay marine park zoning planning (and subsequently with ecofishers). As a result of the port expansion, there has been a lot of silting in the northern bay, and one area that has actually benefited from this is out the front of the airport. There is a lot of seagrass in this area now, and anyone who fishes around the front of the airport would know about the huge numbers of dugong in the area these days.

We have this huge area of green zones in the desert of moreton bay. Yet the boundary of the marine park seems to have an odd rectangle protruding out into the bay, right where the second runway is going. Right where where the seagrass is, right where the dugong's feed. Ironic hey... So we get a bunch of greenzones in deserts, with no real science other than non published thesis from some james cook uni student IIRC, and yet another great fish habitat is destroyed for no reason other than its too expensive to preserve. Easier to fill it in.

[Obi _ Wan]

I kicked up a big stink about this during the moreton bay marine park zoning planning (and subsequently with ecofishers). As a result of the port expansion, there has been a lot of silting in the northern bay, and one area that has actually benefited from this is out the front of the airport. There is a lot of seagrass in this area now, and anyone who fishes around the front of the airport would know about the huge numbers of dugong in the area these days.

We have this huge area of green zones in the desert of moreton bay. Yet the boundary of the marine park seems to have an odd rectangle protruding out into the bay, right where the second runway is going. Right where where the seagrass is, right where the dugong's feed. Ironic hey... So we get a bunch of greenzones in deserts, with no real science other than non published thesis from some james cook uni student IIRC, and yet another great fish habitat is destroyed for no reason other than its too expensive to preserve. Easier to fill it in.

At the time when there were meetings in the Sandgate area based around the zoning, in Moreton Bay I brought up this same point, seagrass, dugongs, with the representatives from the EPA. They had no interest whatsoever, they just pointed to the rectangular protusion out into the bay and said that area is outside the Marine Park and had nothing to do with them.

The whole thing just disgusts me, double standards, greed, i just wished that the fishermen would forget their petty diferences and work together, as a group we would outnumber all these other idiot groups, but what do you do when you still today, run into guys who are totally unaware of the green zones.

[MacDougall]

Campbell Newman.

[Feral]

Basically they put the plans on hold, because with the financial crisis there was less demand for air travel etc, obviously it is picking up again and they see a profit in building the extra runway now.

[NAGG]

Unfortunately it is a case of something called PROGRESS ! -
Expansion of ports & airports - the building of major infrastructure unfortunately does have to encroach on the environment eg the LNG project on Curtis Is .
The only thing is that you can only hope that the environmental impact is kept to a minimum.

Chris

[TheRealAndy]

Campbell Newman.

There is always one. Sorry, but this deal was done by labor cronies, well before cn.

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

[netmaker]

this stuff craps me off to no end. i used to pump yabbies where raby bay is now situated and live not far away from birkdales aquatic paradise canal estates. it seems that government (on multiple levels) is the largest overseer of marine habitat degradation. the pollution that exited the river systems in last years floods must have been immense. the port and airport extensions only contribute to what amounts to government sanctioned environmental vandalism. green zones will hardly function when they are loaded up with silt and pollution. how will they be havens for marine life when the government stuffs up (and fills in) the nurseries that are meant to stock these green zones? i think "green" zones is proving to be an apt name - they are just missing the toxic skull and crossbones sign to go with them! and all the while the government points the bone at recreational fishos - freakin unbelievable.

[TheRealAndy]

Unfortunately it is a case of something called PROGRESS ! -
Expansion of ports & airports - the building of major infrastructure unfortunately does have to encroach on the environment eg the LNG project on Curtis Is .
The only thing is that you can only hope that the environmental impact is kept to a minimum.

Chris

Progress is fine, I have no issue with it. But for the sake of a few dollars, they should be able to keep the creek, and build around it. Would make it more unique. Also, they could also move the runway back so it does not protrude out into the bay.

As for curtis bay, why they hell could they not extend the pipeline to gladstone harbour? Why destroy another perfectly good habitat?

[Watto79]

It is clear that MONEY and therefore the GREED that comes with it are the main driving factor..

How much land does BAC have?

Yet they have decided the best place for a 2nd runway is over the creek and out into the bay..

I was talking to my old man last night about it, a fisherman and how I was introduced to the wonderful world of fishing..

This isn't the first time BAC have done this either..

They filled in Serpentine creek many years ago and also took care of Cribb Island!

My old man said the impact back then on the fishery from the filling in of Serpentine creek was enormous and the area has never recovered.

It is sad to think that they are happy to take away these creeks (nurseries) with little regard to the impact on the surrounding enviroment.

Shame on you BAC, if I had money I would see you in court to possibly try and stop this..

Unfortunately I don't..

And certainly am bitterly disappointed I did not find out and do something about this when the opportunity was given although sounds like those that did were never given a fair go anyway!

I would have loved this creek to be made a green zone and would have happily given up my fishing for the benefit of other areas of Moreton bay now destined to be a desert due to its demise..

[samsnap]

Very interesting thread - I posted something years back about this. Whilst working on a local charter boat the BAC hired the boat out for the day to do "A promotional video" It ened up being the interviewer/narator - Stacey West (Ranger Stacey) and a bloke from BAC and his ECO specialist and another Scientist from UQ. The body of it was filmed just of Bulwer and it was on the "impact of removing Middle Banks to supply the sand needed for fill for the 2nd runway" The ECO bloke from BAC swore their would be no impact to the bay "on film" and the Scientist from UQ had a computer generated projection and all sorts of proven data about the huge impact it would have on the bay and was generally very concerned! and he got about 2 sec worth on the film & the other bloke way too much. BUT when the cameras were off it was a different story and over a nice lunch and swim on the wrecks it was agreed by all parties that it would destroy the bay and associated fish species, aquatic life and dugons,and the tidal flow change would have a huge impact on the western forshore (they didnt add this to the fluff piece they filmed!)
Lets hope they have dropped this particular idea off their agenda.
Words fail me :'(
Sammy

[Watto79]

They certainly havn't dropped this idea Sammy!

I regularly see the sand dredge at middle banks working although havn't this year.....as yet!

As a fisho out in the bay almost every weekend weather allowing I would witness it loading up buckets of sand/silt and making its journey back and forth for months on end this went on for most of the year last year..

So maybe this runway is further ahead than I expected..

If this fill they have been taking years previous, was going to that intended site!

Just makes you angry when whats good for one doesn't apply to all when it comes to protecting and issues affecting the bay!

Really the government are not interested in protecting anything except their hip pockets! :P

[NAGG]

Progress is fine, I have no issue with it. But for the sake of a few dollars, they should be able to keep the creek, and build around it. Would make it more unique. Also, they could also move the runway back so it does not protrude out into the bay.

As for curtis bay, why they hell could they not extend the pipeline to gladstone harbour? Why destroy another perfectly good habitat?

Could have something to do with flight paths .... dunno - but I would be pretty certain that extending into the bay would be a more expensive option .
As for Curtis Is ..... they need a place to put the LNG plant ( so like a oil refinery ) it needs an exclusion / buffer zone ( I'm guessing)

[sharkymark2]

We could ask them to bridge the creek :). We could also write to our local members complaining about the justification of false science to select green zones. The greenies can get a dam stopped through a few frogs and turtles but we cant do the same with Dugong! Now thats discrimination against rec fishers! If the Airport goes ahead we should seek compensation. Maybe a fish farm to grow fingerlings like jewfish; the same that happens in NSW.I will certainly be contacting local members to complain.

[manta man]

Theirs actually a thread on this particular subject, back in 05/06/2006.Their was always a plan in place for this to happen unfortunatley. Obviously the time is right now. When i went down to the airport a couple of weeks ago, i noticed there was a lot work going on in this area.I know the old saying they keep drumming into my ear about (Progress) but you have to ask the question will it ever end in some capacity no i think not. Thats alright we"ll just rip up the mangroves fill in the creek and bobs your uncle. This is Pristine enviroment. I do wonder if one day the only place my grand children will be fishing is where you pay money to catch something. I"m sorry but this BULLSHIT.

[Dignity]

It does seem strange to fill in a whole creek to put in a runway that is only a few metres wide (some one will know the answer to this one) as Sharkymark says why not span the creek, after all the runway is just like a highway and it is done all the time. This will still close the creek to fishing on BAC precincts but as most marine life starts in mangroves and creek systems they will be conserving nature. I could live with that idea, maybe we need some one who can write prosaic letters to set one up that we can all forward to our local MP's, maybe even Mark Robinson will oblige as he appears to be rec fisher friendly when it suits.

[tunaticer]

Ever wonder why Nundah Creek and the foreshores from Cabbage Tree Creek to the northern end of Nudgee Beach were declared???
I believe they were created simply to offset the pending BAC expansion......there is probably 5 times as much mangrove area in that than what is involved in the BAC grounds.

BAC has to duplicate the southern side of the approach road to the northern side......there is no alternative to meet demands in 10 years. There is also no other place in SEQ suitable for an international airport of that size.

[tunaticer]

It does seem strange to fill in a whole creek to put in a runway that is only a few metres wide (some one will know the answer to this one) as Sharkymark says why not span the creek, after all the runway is just like a highway and it is done all the time. This will still close the creek to fishing on BAC precincts but as most marine life starts in mangroves and creek systems they will be conserving nature. I could live with that idea, maybe we need some one who can write prosaic letters to set one up that we can all forward to our local MP's, maybe even Mark Robinson will oblige as he appears to be rec fisher friendly when it suits.

Quite simply, the runways are 40 metres wide then there has to be a safe hardstand area either side of the runway at least 100m wide in case a plane runs off for whatever reason. = total width of runway is 250 metres plus another 150m for taxiway each direction = total of about 550 metres wide needed just for the aircraft operations, then add your terminals, parking, access routes and you will find the northern boundary will be very close to Shultz's Canal.

In future years it is quite possible that the runways will have to extend into the bay further to accommodate larger planes that will be built, the bigger they are, the more length they need. Image a 1000 tonne aircraft and it's required braking length needed?? 1000 tonne aircraft are not far away in reality.

Imagine the problems and legal dramas if you provided a concrete runway without hardstands either side capable of carrying a 750 tonne aircraft and one does leave the concrete??? quite possibly everyone on board would be killed.

[Dave_H]

2: the most obvious ones ( there where a few options) which didnt involve
filling in the creek was rejected as it didnt allow enough space between the 2
runways for another set of terminals to house duty free etc which had to be
there, the other options where more environmentally favourable but didnt allow
all the new Airport buildings between the runways which of course = money, BINGO



Tangles. I hate to burst your conspiracy theory about the reason the runway centrelines have to be so far apart but it has nothing to do with the terminal space. When you have two ILS (instrument Landing System) parallel runways operating together in what is known in our industry as IMC (Instrument Meteorological Conditions - cloud or even bad weather if you like) where the aircraft are being vectored onto and joining final approach at between 5-15nm, there is a tendancy for some of the larger types that are still moving at around 180-250 knots to overshoot the centreline slightly every now and again, especially when there is a strong sou'easterly blowing at altitude (not always the same wind on the ground). So lets call it noise abatement - or should I say the noise of two 80-400 tonne airliners meeting in the middle....

Your statement about terminal space being the primary concern is in no way true or the main driving factor. BAC may well be happy enough that they can get some serious floorspace out of the plan but the whole idea of the design around a parallel runway set up is to avoid many of the issues we see every day in other airports - delays in pushing-back, 30+ minute taxi times to either get into or out of the bays, two aircraft (especially international aircraft with tired crews that have been at work for almost 24 hours by the time they approach the runway to fly an accurate instrument approach) operating in close proximity joining the centreline at 10nm, or even to avoid holding. If your concerns are environmental (as you claim), are you aware of the 1000's of tonnes (no, not a misprint) of fuel (therefore CO2) that gets deposited directly into the upper and mid atmoshere in Australia alone when holding is required at either Brizzie, Sydney or Melbourne?

I hear your concerns about a valuable marine life nursery, however what do you suggest happen? Not s#!t stirring you, just making sure you have a more informed idea of what some of these reasons are behind some decisions. Are you aware as well that at one stage BAC wanted the Storey Bridge(s) sunk into tunnels under the river? The reasoning behind that one was that the bridges are a serious obstacle issue to many departing aircraft and one of the reasons we have to often turn hard left after getting airborne of RWY 19 to ensure compliance with obstacle clearance requirements placed upon the aircraft during their certification. Have a think about trying to work that into an airport development plan without having to push the runways further out into the bay, you'll see it is now almost impossible without encroaching in some way or form into any of the surrounding waterways.

I hope that may give you a better idea of what some of the reasoning is behind some decisions that may not otherwise make any sense to you. No, apart from flying in and out of Brizzie for a living I have no affiliation with the airport.

Regards,

Dave.

[Watto79]

Ever wonder why Nundah Creek and the foreshores from Cabbage Tree Creek to the northern end of Nudgee Beach were declared???
I believe they were created simply to offset the pending BAC expansion......there is probably 5 times as much mangrove area in that than what is involved in the BAC grounds.

BAC has to duplicate the southern side of the approach road to the northern side......there is no alternative to meet demands in 10 years. There is also no other place in SEQ suitable for an international airport of that size.

I beg to differ, there is alot more mangrove/wetland area within the BAC boundaries than the two area mentioned above!

But you could possibly be correct in why those areas were declared as "green zones"

[Watto79]

Tangles. I hate to burst your conspiracy theory about the reason the runway centrelines have to be so far apart but it has nothing to do with the terminal space. When you have two ILS (instrument Landing System) parallel runways operating together in what is known in our industry as IMC (Instrument Meteorological Conditions - cloud or even bad weather if you like) where the aircraft are being vectored onto and joining final approach at between 5-15nm, there is a tendancy for some of the larger types that are still moving at around 180-250 knots to overshoot the centreline slightly every now and again, especially when there is a strong sou'easterly blowing at altitude (not always the same wind on the ground). So lets call it noise abatement - or should I say the noise of two 80-400 tonne airliners meeting in the middle....

Your statement about terminal space being the primary concern is in no way true or the main driving factor. BAC may well be happy enough that they can get some serious floorspace out of the plan but the whole idea of the design around a parallel runway set up is to avoid many of the issues we see every day in other airports - delays in pushing-back, 30+ minute taxi times to either get into or out of the bays, two aircraft (especially international aircraft with tired crews that have been at work for almost 24 hours by the time they approach the runway to fly an accurate instrument approach) operating in close proximity joining the centreline at 10nm, or even to avoid holding. If your concerns are environmental (as you claim), are you aware of the 1000's of tonnes (no, not a misprint) of fuel (therefore CO2) that gets deposited directly into the upper and mid atmoshere in Australia alone when holding is required at either Brizzie, Sydney or Melbourne?

I hear your concerns about a valuable marine life nursery, however what do you suggest happen? Not s#!t stirring you, just making sure you have a more informed idea of what some of these reasons are behind some decisions. Are you aware as well that at one stage BAC wanted the Storey Bridge(s) sunk into tunnels under the river? The reasoning behind that one was that the bridges are a serious obstacle issue to many departing aircraft and one of the reasons we have to often turn hard left after getting airborne of RWY 19 to ensure compliance with obstacle clearance requirements placed upon the aircraft during their certification. Have a think about trying to work that into an airport development plan without having to push the runways further out into the bay, you'll see it is now almost impossible without encroaching in some way or form into any of the surrounding waterways.

I hope that may give you a better idea of what some of the reasoning is behind some decisions that may not otherwise make any sense to you. No, apart from flying in and out of Brizzie for a living I have no affiliation with the airport.

Regards,

Dave.


Doesn't make it right champ, I am certain if a better consultation process with the public and other sectors was pursued better alternatives quite possibly could have been sourced.

We have the "protected" Boondall wetlands reserve just across the road yet BAC have the right to destroy a massive amount of wetlands in their plans for the new runway!

Why??????

Just doesn't sit right with me..

[Dave_H]

I never said it was right. Just offering another point of view about the factors governing the positioning of the runways (especially in relation to A380 etc operations) that many on here might not otherwise be aware of. I hate seeing important areas rolled over in the name of progress myself and take no joy in seeing them destroyed either.

[MudRiverDan]

Brisbane wants to be modeled as a world class city.
A center for Queensland.

Sadly no other cities in the world have come up with anything other than huge pollution billowing cesspools..

Don't expect the Newman Government to do any different, the reason he "Can do" is because the path is a well trodden one set out before him by others.

A template... no real initiative, nothing pro active or new here...

Sydney Barely gets away with it as it is a deep harbour set on hard sandstone with a huge open channel directly to the sea.

Morten Bay on the other hand is a sedimentary bay and alluvial river system and mouth, far less tolerant to changes in the morphology and vegetation.

Dan

[Tangles]

I never said it was right. Just offering another point of view about the factors governing the positioning of the runways (especially in relation to A380 etc operations) that many on here might not otherwise be aware of. I hate seeing important areas rolled over in the name of progress myself and take no joy in seeing them destroyed either.

Thanks for the info but i have one question on that,

From a laymans POV, why did they choose this option over the other runway options put forward at the time ( which i assume would take into account your points) which didnt involve the creek. I understood it to be more a commercial one as noted. There where other runway options put forward.. or are you saying this was the only one safe option for the planes?

[finga]

Why didn't they build another airport out where there is miles of room to build what-ever you want and affect near nothing??
Plenty of room west of Ipswich.
There has to be a point where enough is enough in what you can destroy in order to expand instead of moving.

[Watto79]

Why didn't they build another airport out where there is miles of room to build what-ever you want and affect near nothing??
Plenty of room west of Ipswich.
There has to be a point where enough is enough in what you can destroy in order to expand instead of moving.

It would appear not if you are BAC!

[Watto79]

What about all the wasted space/unused tarmacs that now sit dormant that were what used to be the old international airport?

Off Lomandra drive and Boronia Road at the airport..

As I said earlier I am sure there were "better" alternatives overlooked, I think they went with what suited BAC at the time with little to no regard to the enviroment or surrounds!

As per earlier posts I am just stunned that they can get away with it this day in age with all the emphasis on green zones, sustainable fishing, water quality etc etc of Moreton Bay!

It would have to be one of the most or soon to be regulated areas next to the great barrier reef marine park!

I have since found out also, BAC have closed off some other waterways between the Kedron Brook and Brisbane river mouth..

Please tell me these are not being filled in as well!!!

[MudRiverDan]

Newmans can do is like allowing a pitbull loose on a chicken.

Can Do!

So where is the thought?
Where is the policy that integrates society/community with a its surroundings?

Nope None.. How? CAN DO!

Wow .. very impressive...

Maybe he should have stuck to being a flunky in the military....

It makes me laugh when people refer to Campbells military training as part of his workings.

All it means is that he is VERY GOOD AT TAKING ORDERS> ;)

A yes man.

Dan

[Watto79]

Newmans can do is like allowing a pitbull loose on a chicken.

Can Do!

So where is the thought?
Where is the policy that integrates society/community with a its surroundings?

Nope None.. How? CAN DO!

Wow .. very impressive...

Maybe he should have stuck to being a flunky in the military....

It makes me laugh when people refer to Campbells military training as part of his workings.

All it means is that he is VERY GOOD AT TAKING ORDERS> ;)

A yes man.

Dan

It would appear the damage was done long before Campbell Newman mate!

From previous posts this has been "in the pipeline" for approximately 5 years..

Maybe its worth putting to the new man in the seat Campbell Newman and see if he " can un do" what the previous party has allowed!

I am going to investigate this avenue..

Can anyone help on this avenue?

It is only "too late" once this creek has been filled in and wiped off the map which is still a work in progress presently..

And I am not going to sit on my hands and watch them fill away it if there is something I "can do" to possibly stop it!

Any ideas/thoughts/input would be appreciated..

[MudRiverDan]

It would appear the damage was done long before Campbell Newman mate!



Yep you misread.

---> "nothing new, just a template".

Cheers
Dan

[NAGG]

No point blaming Can do or Bligh ....... I think you will find that this falls under Federal jurisdiction & might even go back to the Howard Government .
As for the location of the airport ...... imo it's about as good as you can get - the last thing you want is people / tourists traveling a ship load of Ks to get to the city .
As for the runway direction - It appears to me that this new runway makes sense - for both alignment (keeping the flightpath away from the greater population) and also allowing for wind direction changes ...... no point just having 2 parallel runways .

I no it's not good to see a system like this altered in such a way ..... but we need to keep in mind the growth in Brisbane stature for both trade and tourism - Just like the port of Brisbane and it's expansion so does the airport need to grow .

Chris

[Dignity]

Nagg, it takes me at least half an hour to get anywhere overseas from an airport to my destinationsometimes longer, but in saying that the rest of your argument is valid, except there is that one niggling thing in the back of my mind "kill the nursery, forget about the marine life in the future".

[NAGG]

Nagg, it takes me at least half an hour to get anywhere overseas from an airport to my destinationsometimes longer, but in saying that the rest of your argument is valid, except there is that one niggling thing in the back of my mind "kill the nursery, forget about the marine life in the future".

I look at a place like Melbourne & compare it to Brisbane & Syd ........ Brissy & Syd kick butt - Melb can suck
I hear the same about Heathrow ....... kuala Lumpa was crap .
It was like the talk of having NSWs second major airport at Newcastle / Canberra and even Richmond ....... the only ones that benefit are the Taxis .

As a fishoe ..... & one who does like his estuary fishing I know the value of a system like this - but realistically for the area you still have the rest of nudgee creek & all of those up the passage .... so while there is an impact = just how big will be debatable

Chris

[Triple]

Here is the old thread - http://www.ausfish.com.au/vforum/showthread.php?53794-Brisbane-Airport-to-fill-in-Jackson-s-Creek

And here on pg 62 is a map of the BAC 2009 master plan -
http://www.bne.com.au/sites/all/files/content/files/BACMP09_Chapter_6.pdf

And page 5 of this shows the overlay of it on the creek -
http://www.bne.com.au/sites/all/files/content/files/Airport%20Approvals%20Manual_2012..pdf

[netmaker]

beats me why we need a bigger airport. i thought most of our arrivals were by boat these days...

[manta man]

Whats that Brownies Old saying, LETS NOT DESTROY, WHAT WEV'E COME TO ENJOY
NOW IT"S ( LETS DESTROY WHAT THEY"VE COME TO ENJOY)

[Axl]

Hmmm scored my first ever dislike for my post in this thread, I am not to sure why I was merely trying to state the fact that it is the money that the BAC has at its diposal that seems to make it untouchable and able to do pretty much what ever it wants.

Care to share your thoughts shauno555?

[tunaticer]

I suppose we could build a super airport on Straddie??? lots of area there that is undeveloped. Sand is a good base material and it is very easy to level out........
Bribie is another that could be easily converted too i guess.

What about the freeway to the gold coast??? tarmac is already laid!!! We could orchestrate another goat track freeway like we are so used to.

[MudRiverDan]

Hmmm scored my first ever dislike for my post in this thread, I am not to sure why I was merely trying to state the fact that it is the money that the BAC has at its diposal that seems to make it untouchable and able to do pretty much what ever it wants.


It's ok you will get over it.

Dan

[slider65]

this stuff craps me off to no end. i used to pump yabbies where raby bay is now situated and live not far away from birkdales aquatic paradise canal estates. it seems that government (on multiple levels) is the largest overseer of marine habitat degradation. the pollution that exited the river systems in last years floods must have been immense. the port and airport extensions only contribute to what amounts to government sanctioned environmental vandalism. green zones will hardly function when they are loaded up with silt and pollution. how will they be havens for marine life when the government stuffs up (and fills in) the nurseries that are meant to stock these green zones? i think "green" zones is proving to be an apt name - they are just missing the toxic skull and crossbones sign to go with them! and all the while the government points the bone at recreational fishos - freakin unbelievable.

I know Raby Bay was mangrove and flats that were flattened and filled to build on, But Aquatic Paradise was a dry paddock well above tide levels that they dug the canels in. There was no fill or clearing went into Aquatic Paradise as at the time i lived down the road and watched them build it. But Jacksons creek being filled is a joke when Nudgee Creek is put off limits in the marine park.

[Watto79]

And Nudgee creek which is now green zone is a very small estruary system as opposed to Jacksons. Talk about contradiction 2 creeks basically side by side or in very close proximity and one is to be a green zone and the other a dead zone! Kim Flesser my local councillor is a fellow fisho and an e-mail is off to his office here's hoping he might get back on the case. Wrong in every aspect unless ur BAC!

[Watto79]

I look at a place like Melbourne & compare it to Brisbane & Syd ........ Brissy & Syd kick butt - Melb can suck
I hear the same about Heathrow ....... kuala Lumpa was crap .
It was like the talk of having NSWs second major airport at Newcastle / Canberra and even Richmond ....... the only ones that benefit are the Taxis .

As a fishoe ..... & one who does like his estuary fishing I know the value of a system like this - but realistically for the area you still have the rest of nudgee creek & all of those up the passage .... so while there is an impact = just how big will be debatable

Chris

I disagree, lets look at the Nudgee beach area/foreshore..

They have filled in Serpentine creek in 1981..

All of Nudgee creek is green zone/marine park

90% of Nundah creek is green zone/marine park

Hayes inlet again 90% of it is green zone/marine park

Jacksons is destined to be wiped off the map!

Also Jubilee and what is left of Serpentine (the very mouth) creeks have the signs up also so possibly to be wiped off that map but not certain presently..

So this leaves Kedron brook floodway and Cabbage tree creek!

I guess 2 from 6 aint a bad ratio! :P

Considerable impact on the area regardless of which way you look at it!

I am happy to live with the green zones, just not filling in/removing of precious creeks and waterways!

[manta man]

Here Here to you WATTO