The difference between Australia’s airlines and Anthony Albanese is that they want a second airport ‘in’ Sydney and as outlined in the Aviation Green Paper released today, he is searching for a new airport ‘for’ Sydney.
The report says that the external location for the second airport will be supported by strong road and rail links.
Which is more than can be said for the current airport, or even the everyday business of using road or rail for any purpose within the Sydney basin.
This puts the seriousness of this commitment in relation to a distant second airport in question. It would take an exceptional investment by government or a private/public partnership to provide surface transport relief on a significant scale to the southern highlands, or across the Blue Mountains, or to the south of Wollongong or somewhere in the greater Hunter/Newcastle area even if no large airport was being contemplated in those directions.
The efficiency of airline operations in Sydney today is distorted by the same access inadequacies that cripple public and private transport. It takes a large part of Sydney up to two hours even get to the airport, a delay that would similarly afflict getting to a high speed rail terminal offering a 300 km/h link to an airport near Newcastle or Canberra.
Air travel is really about time. Saving time, not embarking on an excursion into the country that could readily come with a trip price equal to or higher than a typical flexible economy fare to Melbourne or Brisbane.
There is a radical solution based on plans first proposed 10 years ago by Bill Bradfield. Build supplementary runways on the southern shore of Botany Bay, near the desalination plant, and link the Cronulla-Sutherland peninsula to La Perouse, Port Botany and the airport by road, and even with a light rail or metro.
Even a single short runway could take the regional aircraft out of the Sydney traffic mix yet provide country travellers with efficient access to the city as well as mainline air connections.
The bonus for non air travellers would be substantial. Connecting Cronulla to heavy traffic generators like the UNSW main campus or relieving the pressure on the Princes Highway through alternative road, bus or rail links to the Sydney CBD would benefit a large part of Sydney. There are various possibilities. A rail link could be made via the UNSW to Bondi Junction and the existing city stations, or through the airport to new city stations including the Hungry Mile (or Barangaroo) development and on to North Sydney
The economic benefits of the Bradfield concept extend way beyond air travellers, and would generate more broadly based returns from transport infrastructure spending. And it couldn’t possibly involve anything like the magnitude of investment needed to make the Sydney-Newcastle transport corridor useful for a brand new airport in the Hunter or on Cooragang Island.
3 Comments
Ben, the south shore of Botany Bay proposal certainly is interesting. Forgetting about the protests that would surely result from building a runway on or near Cook’s landing place, wouldn’t the runway inhibit the operations of both north-south runways on the other side of the bay? I’d hate to be departing from say 16R at Sydney “North” whilst there were similtaneous operations at Sydney “South” all controlled by the poor overworked ATCOs of Air Services Australia.
Frankly, I wish Albo would bite the bullet and build at Badgery’s. His constituents would re-elect him for life.
Jeremy,
The plans I saw were displaced in alignment in relation to the two main north-south runways as lay users see them, meaning the approaches and departures mimicked a three parallel runway operation, however with the most south-westerly of these, beside the eastern side of Towra Point several kilometres further south, meaning enhanced vertical separation from arrivals and departures at the main airport.
In my opinion, Treasury, will die in a ditch before agreeing with the expenditure required for site beyond the Sydney Basin, and the major airlines will simply refuse to fly to it.
I think the Towra Point option COULD have been built some decades ago, but when it was discovered that some of the migrating birds come from Siberia to enjoy Towra Pt in the summer, that option died.
It is true that Canberra, Goulburn and Newcastle are too far away to be effective second airports for Sydney, and Ben’s point about making sure that the surface transport to/from airport does not cost more than the airfare is also valid.
I don’t think one will ever see a bridge spanning the heads of Botany Bay, due to Cook’s Landing Place being under it. But an underground train link is possible. But if they can’t now justify surface rail or trams to La Perouse/Port Botany (the Randwick/POW/UNSW/Maroubra/Port extension to the Eastern Suburbs Railway or a replacement for the trams which used to ply that green 30m space in the middle of most of Anzac Parade… then what chance of approving a metro-type tunnel to Kurnell.
However, if Towra Point did have General Aviation runways (only) then all that is needed is a road link off Captain Cook Drive (road from Taren Pt to Kurnell), and let a mini-bus service whatever linkages were needed from the existing domestic terminal to a GA strip.
The problem with linking a call for other transport infrastructure that is not strictly needed, is that it only complicates the issue.
But I also just don’t think that any extension of KSA is going to FIX Sydney’s airport congestion issues. The GA is already at Bankstown, and KSA is busting at the seams, so a GA runway at Towra Pt only solves a 1960s problem, not the one of 2020. Towra Point could only ever be a stop-gap measure, much like the addition of a third runway was in the 1980s.
With Wilton and Darkes Forest affecting about 1/200th of the number of residents as continued expansion of KSA+Bankstown, it is better to invest for the better long-term solution. Plus we need to assume super-jumbos, and wanting to operate at ALL hours (if possible)… all of which requires a relatively green-fields site, with few residents, close to existing transport infrastructure. Darkes Forest is only 2km off the F6 freeway and Sydney-Wollongong rail line. Wilton is only 2km off the M5 and existing Sydney-Melbourne rail line. Yet both could be operated with noise limited to literally a few hamlets of houses (who could be compensated for any decrease in house worth, with government being buyer of last resort, if they wish to relocate). Literally, single-runway operations could be done at either, while the curfew was in effect at KSA, with the number affected being under 2000 people (N70 noise level) compared to about 500,000+ for similar operations at KSA.
Still, Ben, while we might disagree on the fundamental trade-off of travel time vs number of residents affected, we do agree that something needs to be done, and that the very-distant sites are not viable. Moreover, it is good that your are giving air to the discussions of where to locate a second Sydney airport, as we need to restart that debate to further the matter.
Graeme Harrison
Chair, Sydney Airport Community Forum (SACF) Inc