Sydney Airport protest spotlights ‘Kurnell’ options
Today’s anti Wilton airport rally on the SSW extremities of Sydney’s urban sprawl heard calls, among other suggestions, for the use of land currently occupied by the obsolete Caltex oil refinery at Kurnell to build a satellite airport to cope with growth at the nearby main Sydney Airport.
This is close to the sites identified by the Bradfield and IAC plan in the late 90s and early years of this century. It was drawn up by the late Bill Bradfield, an engineer and distinguished aviation administrator whose career extended from the post war years and well into the earlier decades of the jet age.
For those who have followed the 2nd Sydney Airport saga for a lifetime, Kurnell is intriguing at several levels.
It could make Sydney Airport much more efficient than it is by creating a fourth runway, parallel to but displaced to the SW of the centre lines of its two north-south runways and on the southern shore of Botany Bay.
However it was not really in Kurnell, in Bradfield’s vision, but nearer to the eastern side of Towra Point and depending on its length, suitable for regional jets and turbo-props, or for the largest aircraft flying.
This naturally involved linking the satellite airport to the main airport, and in my meetings with him before he died in 2006, Bradfield had in mind a road and possibly additional rail runnel that would link the Kurnell area to La Perouse by passing under the ocean entrance to Botany Bay and then on to Port Botany and the current airport as well as in effect extending Anzac Parade to the Cronulla-Sutherland peninsula.
Tunnels were considered preferable to bridging the entrance to Botany Bay with enough clearance for the largest ships ever likely to be relevant to Port Botany. (In my opinion, riding a bike or taking a train over such a bridge would command the most splendid of views of the Illawarra escarpment and Royal National Park coastline to the south, and the eastern suburbs beaches and distant Sydney Harbour headlands to the north. In the palaces of the future, of course.)
Such a physical link between Kurnell and La Perouse would also suggest to transport planners the merits of completing the Eastern Suburbs Railway not just to Kingsford, one station past the UNSW campus, as originally intended, but linking it the metropolitan railway at Cronulla, creating road and rail links that would revolutionise the transport demographics of SE Sydney perhaps as much as the Sydney Harbour Bridge did by connecting North Sydney to the CBD by road, rail, and in the bridge’s earlier decades, by trams that ran where the Cahill Expressway lanes are today on the eastern side of the bridge.
The significance of such links weren’t lost on Bill Bradfield, who was a friend and wise counsel, whose father JJ Bradfield was the Chief Engineer of Sydney Harbour Bridge and Metropolitan Railway Construction project, overseeing the design and construction of the Sydney electric railway network and proposing the Manly Warringah and Southern Surburban lines among others, that were never built but for symbolic sections of tunnel at North Sydney station and in ghost platform foundations parallel to those of the eastern suburbs line platforms under Redfern Station.
It is reasonable to suggest that Cronulla-Sutherland and La Perouse will be linked whether or not a Bradfield satellite airport is ever built near Kurnell. Such a linkage leaps up from the map if one asks what a Sydney of eight million, or maybe 28 million, people will look like in 30 to 100 years from now.
The major obstacle to the satellite airport proposal, apart from political inertia, is that even though it wouldn’t be joined to the existing airport, it would potentially load the existing inner city air traffic corridors with 50-60% more flights, given the similar but slightly displaced configurations of the combined runways, which in terms of Sydney Airport’s cap on activity and the curfew are immovable political barriers.
This means that there would be a political imperative to include the satellite airport in the Sydney Airport restrictions, and no-one is going to build extra runways that can’t be used to lift the main airport’s permitted flight limits.
Which means Wilton can’t be saved by developing an airport where Caltex is, or where Bill Bradfield proposed putting a satellite airport, unless all of the restrictions on the existing Sydney Airport were lifted, opening the way for using new nearby runways to treble or even quadruple traffic through two airports working in tandem on opposite sides of Botany Bay.
Please login below to comment, OR simply register here :
Thank you for registering, we have just sent you a confirmation email, which includes your new password to be entered below.
Sydney is in desperate need of an new airport, but no one wants it near their land. The so-obvious-that-you’ll-slap-your-forehead solution? Don’t build it on land, the ocean’s right there. There’s even a plan, but it’s more than an airport.My dream is to have an airport at Kurnell beach right behind the refinery with a 10 KM floating runway built on the ocean it would cost about 1 billion dollars to build, what are the advantages?
The basic concept has been done in other places and you all can google floating airport
The land belongs to the government, so there is NO costs involved, the infrastructure is already there and the only thing is needed is a Bridge to connect Kurnell to Little Bay which would cost another 1 billion dollars. Fast catamarans take the passengers to city in less than half an hour and with new bridge cars would take less than an hour to get to the city through Anzac Prade
Frank Moshfeghi, Sydney
nejad, finding the land is only 50% of the problem, the other is the flight paths come over other peoples land. Anywhere in Botany Bay brings planes over densely populated inner suburbs. Thats the advantage of an outer suburban location the flight paths can be over low density areas
Hi Ghost,
I think you missed the main point in my post and that was a 10 KM “FLOATING RUNWAY” on the ocean where the aircrafts would take off and land, in that case nobody suffers from the aircraft noise, I suggest you search “Floating Runway” and you will find a lot of useful information. Hope this helps.
FrankM/nejad2000
I don’t like to dismiss ideas no matter how outre but it seems the idea of floating runways & airports has come and gone. As far as I can tell the only one actually constructed was the test in Tokyo Bay and it has long gone. San Diego seems a reasonable model for Sydney because it would involve the floating structure in the unprotected Pacific. It was rejected on half a dozen criteria. All other google links seem to actually refer to creating man-made islands (so it is metaphorically “floating”) as below for Kansai-Osaka.
Given these costs and uncertainties, plus your own admission of one hour travel times–which is really the killer since the point is surely to have it close to Sydney/existing airport–strongly supports my own favourite which is the Canberra option. There is nothing theoretical about such a proposal since there are plenty of fast trains that already do equivalent journeys in less than one hour. On top of that the infrastructure serves multiple purposes, all to public benefit; namely better links between all three cities (Canberra, Sydney, Melbourne), relieving airports in Syd & Melb.; promoting regional development (Canberra, Goulburn & Albury-Wadonga).
I have followed the 2nd Sydney airport saga for many years. At the time, I was living in Sydney when Badgerys Creek was announced as the site to be selected. It was (then) completely open space and the implementation of infrastructure would be relatively easily constructed and integrated into existing networks. On quite a number of criteria it met (at the time) the necessary specs, not least being able to operate 24/7 and with little noise intrusion over the outlying suburban region. That was more than 25 years ago!! So what has happened since? Political inertia. Infighting between federal and state governments. And a growing NIMBY lobby. Today we are back where we started a quarter century ago and as you have so eloquently pointed out many times Ben the situation is now rapidly approaching crisis level. It takes many years to build an international airport from scratch. Just look at the history of Hong Kong (Chek Lap Kok) airport as an example. And Badgerys Creek would be a helluva lot easier to build.
When one looks at all the current viable and even future left-field (excuse the pun) options, Badgerys Creek is still the only sane and cost effective alternative in the Sydney region to Kingsford Smith. Furthermore, if the button was pushed tomorrow to start building, it will be completed long before any fast rail service from Canberra is constructed and in service. It’s time all the arguing and finger pointing stopped. It’s time for Anthony Albanese to pull his finger out and to accept the findings of the panel that he himself set up and which found conclusively that Badgerys Creek is the best and only place on the Sydney horizon for its 2nd airport.
I am so sick and tired of governments of all persuasions that set up panels/commissions to investigate a situation and then completely ignore their findings. I await the day to applaud a politician who has the guts and the ticker to make a bold decision that is the right one for all. And get on with making sure it happens. Unfortunately, it doesn’t look like it’s going to be Albanese.
In the oceanic environment near Sydney the history of tides, and tidal surges, means a tethered floating structure would have to be capable of withstand a variation of mean sea level of 5 metres a day over a periods of days, with a secondary tidal peak of around 3 metres. There are historic records of massive swells within several kilometres of the Sydney coastline, accompanied by strong gales.
Nor is the submarine landscape passive the way comparatively flat and shallow sea beds are in the Pearl River delta. To reproduce Sydney Airport offshore today you need 8 square kilometres of fail safe tethered, tidal surge adjustable pilings driven into what is quite a deep and uneven sea bed, except in Bate Bay, for a limited distance congruent with the drowned ice age estuary of a significant drainage outflow that was eventually blocked by the sand dunes that were later mined in our times for cement making.
The airport has to be rigidly tethered. The headings have to be fixed. Civil aviation will not make an exception for Sydney. The rigidity is what would destroy it if hit with an energetic surge.
As to Canberra. The airport has great potential, and made the greater if the unintended consequence is to dramatically grow Canberra at the expense of Sydney. There used to be a fall back position to shift the airport toward Bungendore to an area not subject to periodic flooding by Lake George, which incidentally is re-appearing after a long absence. However Bungendore is now top secret in its fine details, but I’m sure those who stray into the area will notice the razor wire, the check points and a peculiar failure of mobile phone networks in the vicinity of the substantial signals facility.
Yes, Ben, it is one thing to think about shallow bays (like Tokyo Bay) for a floating runway, but out in the unprotected ocean is another matter.
ff79 wrote: “..if the button was pushed tomorrow to start building, it will be completed long before any fast rail service from Canberra is constructed and in service.”
I agree with much of what you wrote but we need to stick to reality and your statement above is not correct. We should not use that as a factor in any choice.
Clearly the problem with Badgerys Creek is a toxic mix of local and state politics. Although I am sure that, technically, it is a good for a second airport but the problem is that it is not a “whole” solution. I know that there is an argument that says there are more than enough people in western Sydney to be served by a full second airport but if you look at the history of these things, it would almost certainly be a second-class airport. And Sydney Airport Corporation would control it and no doubt relegate by their own narrow perspective, which airlines or routes use which airport. The fact that one private company would control both airports is almost enough to wish it to fail (after 25 years operating as a monopoly BAC has finally been forced to divest its London airports to break up this absurd monopoly). Also, I do not believe for a millisecond that they would build a fast rail connection to the rest of Sydney.
So, I secretly hope that there is a growing sense of crisis in Sydney. A similar sense of impending crisis drove the very ambitious plan for HK to replace Kai Tak with Chek Lap Kok (by flattening the island of Chek Lap Kok) and have some of the best transport links to Central. Not only was Kai Tak totally inadequate but the authorities were worried that if it wasn’t built before the PRC handover, it might be blocked by the PRC (as it had been before the handover) for their own reasons (to favour the mainland, perhaps Shenzhen; or to “punish” the British lapdogs in HK etc, to retard HK’s financial dominance) in favour of Shanghai). This massive project which was the world’s largest engineering project at the time, with one of the largest suspension bridges, and entirely new rail and highway links etc, was completed in 6 years. Although it cost $20 billion (a real bargain I would say) not only will it earn that back from the economic growth of HK, but the old Kai Tak site is probably worth almost that much in real estate value, not to mention city amenity in super-crowded HK. And yes, I reckon that is an excellent model for how to handle the Sydney airport problem.
The Paris-Lyon TGV was authorized in 1976 and opened in 1981. Not only is the route about twice the distance of Canberra-Sydney but obviously there was a huge amount of R&D to be done, including a switch of original plans to use turbines to electric.
Michael,
You may have been away when I paid closer attention to what is going on at Glenfields.
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2012/03/02/sydneys-2nd-airport-site-emerges-from-the-flood/
This project shows all the signs of being a suburban rail link to Badgerys Creek should it ever be built.
The road traffic situation getting to Sydney Airport from anywhere west of Parramatta is such that what has the potential to be very easy rail network access to Badgery’s Creek by being able to schedule the existing Airport Line to if necessary go non-stop from Wolli Creek to Badgerys Creek, or two or three stops from the Sydney Airport terminals using the duplication going on along the East Hills line leading to the Glenfields graded separation, is being built by stealth.
Depending on where a terminal is located, it might also be possible to avoid any additional tunneling, or the need to do an Antony/Orly type VAL link, and it would be possible again without extensive tunneling, to also extend this line north and then NE to link with the western line at Blacktown, and provide additional convenient rail links at Parramatta, Granville, and Strathfield.
This doesn’t prevent a whole range of fast train options further afield, or within the metropolitan area. But what it would achieve for much less money and time is to improve the entire existing network and help build up patronage, something the Sydney road traffic situation is already doing.
I recommend a visit to the Glenfields site. I’m sure you will take one look and say something like …… Now what the h*ll is really going on here?
Ben, I’d like to believe it but in Australia we rarely do the sensible thing when it comes to transport options. They will always prioritize road (and of course good roads are required to airports) and delay the pax rail option. Or when they build it as in Brisbane (which was privately built using various tax exemption schemes) it is both very expensive and with poor service (stops at 8pm–I think it may have been extended recently). The Sydney experience will not entice them to repeat it.
No level of government wants to spend money so they try to get private funds to do it all, but private money will not fund PT. We get what we deserve. I walked thru the completed Northern Busway tunnel yesterday which Campbell Newman officially opened but his DoT minister had earlier said it was doubtful they would complete the final phase! I suppose one could say he is “clever” because as mayor he got private capital to build all those tunnels and even as they are all going to go bust (the first went bust last year), but hey, the tunnels are there (not being used much because of the tolls). So he has no intention of spending government money on PT which is why, as mayor, he did absolutely zip (even the buses for the state-built busways were co-funded with the state). Bob Carr did the same in Sydney.
I’ll check out the Glenfields site.
nejad2000, I know a floating runway could eventually be the best option if they don’t presrve the Badgerys and Wilton sites, but I can’t understand why you specify 10km when few aircraft need more than 3km to take off fully loaded, and none need more than 4km. Were you trying to specify an airport area of 10km^2? Even that’s excessive when you consider the cost.
It’s interesting – if slightly amusing – to read comments here from some contributors proposing a floating airport for the Sydney solution. Quite apart from the huge cost and the frequent wild behavior of the Pacific Ocean (despite its name!), both state and federal governments’ opposition to such a project will ensure that this option is and will be a total non starter. The only floating / island airports around the world – which I am willing to bet number less than half a dozen – are constructed in protected waters. A floating runway in Tokyo Bay was eventually abandoned.
Albanese’s procrastination over a Badgerys Creek go-ahead by ordering a further evaluation of the Wilton site means it will be another 10 years before a sod of earth is turned in construction, if ever. Why is it that governments are so adept at making the most monumentally wrong decisions?? Especially when all the facts that have been on the table for a very long time and successive reports have continued to back Badgerys Creek are out there for all to see.
If, by a horribly strange quirk of fate, Barry O’Farrell gets his way and Canberra eventually becomes Sydney’s 2nd airport it will only ever be successful if a very fast train is built. It must transport passengers on a non stop – one stop at the very most – service between Canberra airport and the Sydney city centre at speeds in excess of 350 kph allowing for speed up and slow down at either end of the line if it is to do the distance in 1 hour or less. I invite contributors of this blog to do a search of major airports around the world and I am sure they will find that the maximum commute time between some international airports and their connected city centre is 1 hour max, and in the vast majority of cases, much less. 60 minutes may be acceptable to pax travelling on a flight of several hours or more but I can’t see domestic pax from MEL and BNE accepting a further 1 hour travelling just to get to/from Sydney.
Unless Albanese and O’Farrell have better solutions, Badgerys Creek is a lay down
misere. And the sooner heads are knocked together and construction begins the better for Sydney, for NSW and for the travelling public. It’s way past time for the rhetoric to stop. I wonder what Tony Abbott’s thoughts are on this farce.
I doubt governments would do much to oppose a floating airport… as long as they don’t have to fund it. The cost would normally rule it out comletely, but if the other suitable sites get built on then they may be forced to consider it anyway.
And 1 hour from the CBD may be the limit for some, but Ryanair regards 2 hours as acceptable!
In reply to Aidan Stanger, he should be aware that although a number of major airports in Australia are privately operate on 99 year leases it does not preclude the federal government from having a say on any ongoing development at such airports. And where new major airports are planned it’s the federal government in conjunction with the state government that decides the site and its construction. Only when it’s completed will the government seek out a private company to run it, again usually with a sale on a very long lease. So, yes, the federal and NSW governments would have the authority to decide where a new airport for Sydney will eventually be built. It certainly won’t be offshore!!
ff79, I suggest you reread what I wrote. Of course the Federal and State governments could prevent a floating airport from being constructed. But that doesn’t mean they would. Considering that solution removes the noise problem, governments would have little reason to actively oppose it, though funding it is another matter.
One thing that seems a near certainty in Australian infrastructure barring a situation where there is an urgent and serious deterioration in the defence environment, is that the country has built its last publicly funded airports and shipping ports.
The policy setting on both sides of the house is to sell or lease a site or existing facility to private developers, who are then allowed to charge airlines, retailers, car parkers and shippers anything they think they can get away with.
Please login below to comment, OR simply register here :
Thank you for registering, we have just sent you a confirmation email, which includes your new password to be entered below.