Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Sydney's Second Airport  
User currently offlineallrite From Australia, joined Aug 2007, 2003 posts, RR: 4
Posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 8234 times:

The Sydney Morning Herald today features arguments from Stephen Byron of Canberra Airport and Christopher Brown from the joint Federal/State Commission into Sydney's aviation needs about Canberra Airport vs Badgery's Creek as Sydney's second airport. Ben Sandilands hasn't shut up about the topic all week. Location considerations aside, what will be the role for the second airport?

My thoughts and questions:

* Sydney is geographically different to many other cities with two or more major airports - domestic flights play a big role because there is no other easy option (ie driving/trains) between major population centres across Australia.
* The current airport is relatively well located for the wealthier parts of Sydney and business, or at least better located than the options above (Sydney's torturous topography creates issues for many suburbs).
* As such, wouldn't Qantas and we're-now-a-full-service-Virgin-Australia want to stay at Kingsford Smith, along with the other major internationals?
* Would the airport target freight, LCC, and regionals? Would this be enough to relieve the pressures on Kingsford Smith?
* Could the current Sydney Airport operate 24 hours or do weather and noise considerations preclude flights paths only over Botany Bay?
* How could the two airports effectively work together? You would still need to build a rail link to Badgery's Creek.

I've personally used airports like KUL, CDG, NRT, KIX and LHR which are located a fair distance outside of their respective city centres. It's okay if they are a start or endpoint (ie, airport -> hotel and vice versa) and are served by a fast and comfortable train, but become a pain in the neck with multiple suburban transfers. To effectively utilise dual airports I believe that there should be a fast and comfortable train between them with a luggage service - possibly from major suburban stations as well.


Applying insanity to normality
64 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinejupiter2 From Australia, joined Jan 2001, 883 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 8082 times:

Any 2nd Sydney airport at best would be secondary to the present airport and would be best suited to handling domestic traffic. With the size of the greater western Sydney, both geographically and population wise, a considerable number of domestic flights could easily be operated from an airport located in the region.

Sydneys wealth is no longer confined to just the eastern areas of the city, housing prices in the west in some areas regularly get into seven figures and large numbers of businesses now base themselves in the western areas of Sydney. Having said that, I can't see a future for international flights at a 2nd airport unless carriers are forced to move in some way. The present airport is just to convienient to the city centre and all that entails.

Domestic freight could be an option from any new airport, as it would be located closer to the geographic heart of the metropolitan area, maybe even dedicated international freight flights, especially for the likes of Fedex and UPS, space is still readily available for the likes of them to be build sorting facilities near a new airport and with good road and domestic flight availability,their cost could drop significantly from being locted near the present airport, which is crowded and high cost rent wise.

However, if I ever see a second major airport in Sydney in my life time I will be amazed, there just isn't a politician in the country who will ever have the guts to be so bold as to actually have foresight and do something this country actually needs.

RL


User currently offlineIndianicWorld From Australia, joined Jun 2001, 2916 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 8031 times:

A 2nd Sydney airport only really needs to be able to handle LCC, Freight and any overflow traffic. This would operate in the same way that AVV does for Melbourne.

IF eventually the Sydney-Canberra-Melbourne corridor gets HSR, SYD will be more than able to handle traffic way into the future. That is already 7-9 Million pax per year alone at todays numbers(Including both CBR and MEL routes fro SYD).

Still not sure why Richmond is not being seriously considered as an option as it is still scheduled for possible closure in the coming decade as the Defence Forces continue to shift their focus north. It will be a great AVV style alternative for Sydney's West, and an airport I am sure TT would love to operate from.


User currently offlineSydscott From Australia, joined Oct 2003, 2918 posts, RR: 20
Reply 3, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 7977 times:

My thoughts on a second airport;

1. Any second airport would need to have Kingsford Smith close and ALL airlines and traffic transfer out ot it. Sydney doesn't need a "second" airport it needs a new, bigger and properly designed airport;
2. The second airport should be built at Badgerys Creek and should be an unrestricted 24 hours facility;
3. The M7 and the South Western Motorway will need to be upgraded and expanded. Work should begin now;
4. An Airport Express Train Line will need to be built out to the airport from both the CBD as an Express style line and from Parramatta to connect in with the network;
5. The Nimbys need to be told to bugger off. Badgerys Creek has been talked about for 20 years so it's not like they haven't had fair warning;

Quoting allrite (Thread starter):
Would the airport target freight, LCC, and regionals? Would this be enough to relieve the pressures on Kingsford Smith?

Kingsford Smith should be closed and the whole site demolished and re-developed for housing. That would soon help solve the housing pressures in the inner city.

Quoting allrite (Thread starter):
Could the current Sydney Airport operate 24 hours or do weather and noise considerations preclude flights paths only over Botany Bay?

It could operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week if we wanted it to. But when you have an airport surrounded by;

* the Minister for School Educations electorate to the Airports East,
* the Minister for Transports Electorate to the Northwest,
* the Minister for Healths Electorate to the North and
* the former Attorney Generals Electorate to the West

then you're unlikely to see anything happen.

Quoting jupiter2 (Reply 1):
However, if I ever see a second major airport in Sydney in my life time I will be amazed, there just isn't a politician in the country who will ever have the guts to be so bold as to actually have foresight and do something this country actually needs.

2 words - Marginal Electorates. Besides none of our politicians has the guts or the vision to make the call. Hell the only reason the 3rd runway at Sydney was built was because those responsible fiddled the figures about aircraft noise and flight paths to make it seem that people would be affected less than what they were. That's not a trick the Government can pull again unfortunately and the people surrounding the airport know it.


User currently onlineqf002 From Australia, joined Jul 2011, 2948 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 7930 times:

Invest the money into the MEL-CBR-SYD-BNE HSR and use the enormous amounts of capacity this opens up to facilitate longer range domestic and international flights.

A second airport is a quick fix job for a more serious underlying issues IMO. The government should be encouraging more efficient and more environmentally friendly alternatives rather than fixating on (and it pains me to say this!!) a mode of transport that will be irrelevant on short domestic hops in 50 years...


User currently offlineEK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 4856 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 7866 times:

The 2nd Sydney Airport topic again...

Let's invest hard earned taxpayers money into another white whale such as the desalination plant currently operating at 50% capacity & if not already done so soon to be switched off...

The current airport has plenty of ample space for expansion with plans well underway to transform the 1 international terminal & 2 domestic terminals into to 2 international terminals... if slot constraints become an issue then lift the cap on aircraft movement... If residents complain then build another airport and introduce a 2nd Sydney airport tax and see how quickly everyone will begin crying wolf!

If any "2nd International Sydney Airport" was to be introduced it would be another waste of $$$...

EK413



Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
User currently offlineZKOKQ From Australia, joined Mar 2012, 473 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 7761 times:

Quoting EK413 (Reply 5):

I think the thing that upsets me is when people who buy near an airport and then complain about the noise, yet they dont want to pay to fund a new one and move it, when they moved in near the airport!


User currently offlineAustralis From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 97 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 7716 times:

Well, for me, Kingsford Smith has served its purpose...

Sydney, for me, deserves a proper 1st world rated airport that will provide easy connections between domestic and international flights and a proper layout for flights, along with cargo facility and whatever else the airport needs, like proper motorway/railway connections to the airport, to help improve connectivity...

Trying to say that the current airport can meet requirements for the next 30 years is a load of bulldust...

Seriously, i know governments are more worried about the political votes than actually doing something right in the country, but god damn, put some balls on the line and just get in done....

Didnt have these issues 50 years when Australia was building the Snowy Mountain scheme or other federal funded projects across the country...


User currently offlineEK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 4856 posts, RR: 4
Reply 8, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 7612 times:

Quoting ZKOKQ (Reply 6):

Exactly... I'll purchase a property under the flight path and then demand a cap on aircraft movements...
The airport is capable of handling an increase in movements...

Quoting Australis (Reply 7):

I agree Sydney Kingsford Smith has served its purpose but the airport ain't even operating to its capacity with a cap on movements heavily restricting it from doing so...

EK413



Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
User currently onlineqf002 From Australia, joined Jul 2011, 2948 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 7554 times:

Quoting Australis (Reply 7):
Sydney, for me, deserves a proper 1st world rated airport that will provide easy connections between domestic and international flights and a proper layout for flights, along with cargo facility and whatever else the airport needs, like proper motorway/railway connections to the airport, to help improve connectivity...

Surely the plan for 2019 fixes many of these problems though? A fully refreshed and refurbished terminal, with many new piers/spaces, bringing alliances and airlines under one roof. I think the concept SYD has spoken about solves the first half of your argument.

Cargo is adequately serviced in the existing facilities, which could very easily be redeveloped to allow for greater efficiency in the way the space is used. A new cargo facility could easily be built at the North end of the field, which is very much wasted space as it is, should there be a need for it in the future.

SYD has a direct rail link into the CBD, which ties into the Southern lines. The M5 runs alongside the airport, with extremely good links to the M7/M2/F3 to the North/West, to the Hume Highway and the Princes Highway to the South and into the city along Southern Cross Drive. The Eastern Distributor, Cross City Tunnel and the Harbour Bridge/Tunnel are all strong links to the Northern areas of Sydney.

The M5 is a bottleneck, and is the biggest issue. But it's a lot cheaper to add a couple of lanes to the M5, or even build a tunnel that bypasses the airport altogether and takes Southbound traffic from the city down to Roselands or somewhere like that than to build a brand new airport.

HSR to MEL/CBR and BNE longer term would also help solve the problem.

Taking the airport way out from the CBD is not the right move IMO. If there is to be a second airport, it would be just that. A second airport, operating in the shadow of SYD.


User currently offlineIndianicWorld From Australia, joined Jun 2001, 2916 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 7549 times:

Quoting qf002 (Reply 9):
HSR to MEL/CBR and BNE longer term would also help solve the problem.

This would make the most sense.

Quoting qf002 (Reply 9):
Taking the airport way out from the CBD is not the right move IMO. If there is to be a second airport, it would be just that. A second airport, operating in the shadow of SYD.

The 2nd airport should only be a reliever and designed for other market sectors. SYD could become the LHR type premium destination, with many LCC and other ops going elsewhere. makes sense, as it still gives expansion in the market.

[Edited 2012-04-11 03:02:08]

User currently offlinejupiter2 From Australia, joined Jan 2001, 883 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 7549 times:

Quoting IndianicWorld (Reply 2):
Still not sure why Richmond is not being seriously considered as an option as it is still scheduled for possible closure in the coming decade as the Defence Forces continue to shift their focus north. It will be a great AVV style alternative for Sydney's West, and an airport I am sure TT would love to operate from.

Richmond has absolutely no viable transport links with the rest of Sydney. The railway that does go there is single line for about 20 kms and road links to the Richmond, Windosr area can be be best described as atrocious. Hundreds of millions would be needed to be spent just to get these up to anywhere near adequate for an airport in the area. As well the area is prone to fog and as has been seen lately, flooding. While the base itself would probably need a flood of biblical proportions to have ops affected, the surrounding areas are a different story.

I agree with most that the present airport, allowed to be run in an proper manner, would probably suffice for decades to come, but reality says that will never happen. The new terminal plans will if built, completely change the way the airport is run and will for the vast majority make any transferring a very simple exercise.

But if a new airport is to be built, it should be done properly, go all out and build it, not as a second airport, but as a replacement stand alone airport and close Kingsford Smith, revenue derived from the sale of land in the area will help pay for the new airport. Additional land around the present airport will also become available, as businesses dependent on the airport will no doubt follow it.

Still realistically, a new airport is a pipe dream, just as is the HSR !!! Fantastic idea, but not likely in the next few decades and has probably been talked about as long as a second airport.

RL


User currently offlineAustralis From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 97 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 7396 times:

Quoting qf002 (Reply 9):
Surely the plan for 2019 fixes many of these problems though? A fully refreshed and refurbished terminal, with many new piers/spaces, bringing alliances and airlines under one roof. I think the concept SYD has spoken about solves the first half of your argument.

I have seen the proposal Sydney Airport is saying for 2019 but how come we are still waiting 7 years for this? How about not this coming out say 5-10 years ago and things having being built now? I dont know, seems they like going in circles and wasting money, but not my money, so i guess....

Quote:
Cargo is adequately serviced in the existing facilities, which could very easily be redeveloped to allow for greater efficiency in the way the space is used. A new cargo facility could easily be built at the North end of the field, which is very much wasted space as it is, should there be a need for it in the future.

With more traffic coming in, cargo will increase and perhaps more dedicated services, so i dont know about this, of what the current can handle or what they are able to handle, but something better than what there is at the moment, surely would be better.

Quote:

SYD has a direct rail link into the CBD, which ties into the Southern lines. The M5 runs alongside the airport, with extremely good links to the M7/M2/F3 to the North/West, to the Hume Highway and the Princes Highway to the South and into the city along Southern Cross Drive. The Eastern Distributor, Cross City Tunnel and the Harbour Bridge/Tunnel are all strong links to the Northern areas of Sydney.

The M5 is a bottleneck, and is the biggest issue. But it's a lot cheaper to add a couple of lanes to the M5, or even build a tunnel that bypasses the airport altogether and takes Southbound traffic from the city down to Roselands or somewhere like that than to build a brand new airport.

M5 is a great way for Western Sydney to get to the airport, and sure, another 1-2 lanes will help improve this bottleneck, but again, why didnt the NSW Govt plan 20 years ahead and do them back when the M5 was initial built?
Sure, they probably didnt expect the M5 to reach its peak so soon, but say you add more lanes, surely the usage will increase also and perhaps even add more traffic to Sydney traffic than before and just following down the line, so to speak. We shall see what happens with the M5...

Quote:
HSR to MEL/CBR and BNE longer term would also help solve the problem.

Great idea, and i would fully support it, but no one wants to foot the bill. Would help cut down on SYD-MEL/CBR/BNE flights, similar to say MAD-BCN flights in comparison to the AVE overthere. And with that, more slots for other flights.

Quote:
Taking the airport way out from the CBD is not the right move IMO. If there is to be a second airport, it would be just that. A second airport, operating in the shadow of SYD.

Well, be great if it could stay forever, but i dont know, we shall what Sydney really needs... a 2nd airport to fulfill the LCC/Domestic flights or a brand new airport, able to handle more pax per annum and a better layout. I, for one, lived under the flightplan at St.Peters and didnt mind the noise.. i guess some people just think its easy to keep complaining then understand the complexities of the current airport at large...


User currently onlineqf002 From Australia, joined Jul 2011, 2948 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 7354 times:

Quoting Australis (Reply 12):
I have seen the proposal Sydney Airport is saying for 2019 but how come we are still waiting 7 years for this? How about not this coming out say 5-10 years ago and things having being built now? I dont know, seems they like going in circles and wasting money, but not my money, so i guess....

How long will a brand new airport take to plan, design and build? Not to mention the inevitable dragging out of transport links... 7 years seems pretty quick to me for such a drastic and large scale plan in an existing facility (meaning work has to be done in stages to avoid disruption).

Quoting Australis (Reply 12):
cargo will increase

SYD really doesn't get that much cargo from what's can tell. There are a few heavy freighters that come in through the day (up to 10 I would estimate), but domestic and Tasman cargo is generally done overnight... As I said, there is plenty of space at the North endor the field if cargo becomes an issue. The space isn't big enough for terminal space and is a long way from the main body of the airport, but would serve well as a cargo space IMO.

Quoting Australis (Reply 12):
Great idea, and i would fully support it, but no one wants to foot the bill.

The same people who are going to pay for a second airport I would guess... The cost of the two can't be that different, given the additional infrastructure work required for a second airport would require.


User currently offlineallrite From Australia, joined Aug 2007, 2003 posts, RR: 4
Reply 14, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 7213 times:

Quoting jupiter2 (Reply 1):
Sydneys wealth is no longer confined to just the eastern areas of the city, housing prices in the west in some areas regularly get into seven figures and large numbers of businesses now base themselves in the western areas of Sydney. Having said that, I can't see a future for international flights at a 2nd airport unless carriers are forced to move in some way. The present airport is just to convienient to the city centre and all that entails.

It would be interesting to see a map of Sydney overlaid by frequency of travel, both by suburb of residence and location of businesses (as sources and destinations of business travellers). I believe that Sydney's "business leaders" are still mostly located in the northern and eastern suburbs. How many businesses outside of these regions require frequent travel? How many would relocate? I have no idea.

No matter where you go in Sydney, it's generally a pain to get there, especially if it involves travel along a road. Looking at a map of Sydney I can't see that Badgery's Creek is going to be any more convenient for most. I find Kingsford Smith quite convenient by public transport and reasonably well located by car (subject to not using the M5!)

Even the geographical heart of Sydney (Homebush) is located midway between Kingsford Smith and Badgery's Creek.

Look at the popularity of Tokyo's Haneda airport which is located within Tokyo, compared with Narita (which has other issues as well).

I believe that the problems with the existing airport include a lack of slots during peak times of the day. A chunk of these must include the morning and late afternoon/evening flights which must surely be popular especially for those on business trips. What could be nice is if there were outbound flights at the morning peak times from secondary airports located closer to large residential regions of Sydney (so the traffic is away from the CBD - not the case now). In the afternoon these would be inbound flights.

I think a LCC airport could potentially work, if the traffic is primarily leisure based and there is a railway line to the CBD and plenty of cheap parking. But even LCC' are chasing premium passengers these days and I still think they will prefer Kingsford Smith.

Quoting ZKOKQ (Reply 6):
I think the thing that upsets me is when people who buy near an airport and then complain about the noise, yet they dont want to pay to fund a new one and move it, when they moved in near the airport!

Ahh, but property is The most holy god of the Sydneysider and Property Values Must Always Rise and anything that prevents that Must Be Eliminated. I laugh at all those that bought near the Lucas Heights nuclear reactor then complain about it.

Just to create mischief I'd love to spread a rumor that an airport will be built on the Northern Beaches of Sydney. I can imagine the reaction (I have a few friends from there) considering that they don't like outsiders (ie people not from the Northern Beaches) coming in and, considering that it is "God's own country" can't see a reason to go anywhere else.  



Applying insanity to normality
User currently offlineSimes From Australia, joined May 2005, 39 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 7211 times:

I'll lay a perceived bias on the table right now - I have grown up in the St George region and copped a heap of air traffic when the 3rd runway was built in the 90's and still do on Sundays and Public Holidays and randomly here and there (the planes used to come so low over my place I could see the sprayed on text telling ground staff which hatch did what under the wing :P )

My own belief is that any new airport should replace the existing, but the existing airport could become domestic/business only and general aviation and cargo (if anything expand it's role in cargo given the proximity to the port, maybe have a rail loading facility as well - there's already a freight line skirting the existing airport) the runways into the bay given over to the Ports - either as more container berths or a cruise ship terminal (remember the Navy knocked the idea of using Garden Island for the larger ships on the head not so long ago, much to the angst of the state government and the tourism industry) - afterall Cook landed in Botany Bay, not Port Jackson

A nice big greenfields site at Wilton please - it's near the Hume Highway (dual carriageway to there and beyond already) and also the railway line - so there's a corridor for a rail link through to Central (upgrade whats there), also it could be the katalyst to allow for direct rail services into the city beyond Campbelltown - lets face it, the sprawal is going to the south west and north west, best to plan now in terms of ensuring residential areas are away from any approaches to any potential runways. That way it can operate unhindered and even 24 hours

EK413 - if the current airport was not where it is, then yes it could operate without caps, but given it's location and that the opportunity to move it in the 70's was not taken, it is what it is


User currently offlinejupiter2 From Australia, joined Jan 2001, 883 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 7203 times:

Quoting qf002 (Reply 13):

SYD really doesn't get that much cargo from what's can tell. There are a few heavy freighters that come in through the day (up to 10 I would estimate), but domestic and Tasman cargo is generally done overnight... As I said, there is plenty of space at the North endor the field if cargo becomes an issue. The space isn't big enough for terminal space and is a long way from the main body of the airport, but would serve well as a cargo space

Cargo is big business at SYD airport, used to be part of it for 20 years, in that time you would be amazed at the increase in freight tonnage in that time. The number of dedicated freight flights has increrased enormously over the last few years especially and it is not unusual to have all bays at the main freight terminal occupied at once, unheard of just a few years ago. While the number of freighters maybe small compared to some airports like Hong Kong, the vast majority of freight is still carried on passenger aircraft and this freight is still processed through the freight terminals.

Also, while the QF freight terminal is the main one, there are 4 others spread around the airport, what is really needed is a purpose built multi user terminal to be built, best location for that would be the south east corner. A multi level complex similar to what is in use in Hong Kong could solve a lot of space problems.

RL


User currently offlineSimes From Australia, joined May 2005, 39 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 7175 times:

Just to add, if the airport were moved west, then the jobs that went with it go that way also, I'm of the belief that Sydney's pretty "coast" heavy in terms of employment/economic activity - so to take a large generator out west would be benefical to the region

Also I think the idea of the HSR died with Ansett (I recall they were in one of the constoriums proposing it back in the late 90's?) without the tacit approval of an airline, I doubt HSR could be a goer here in Australia


User currently offlineSydscott From Australia, joined Oct 2003, 2918 posts, RR: 20
Reply 18, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 7144 times:

Quoting qf002 (Reply 4):
Invest the money into the MEL-CBR-SYD-BNE HSR and use the enormous amounts of capacity this opens up to facilitate longer range domestic and international flights.

That would be a colossal waste of money. To do it properly would require $100 billion and even the best network in the world, the Japanese one, relies on vast public subsidies. It would be a noose around the Governments neck for generations in the same way Cityrail, Transperth and most other public transport organisations in this country are.

Not to mention the environmental argument, which is complete bulldust. If you build an electrified rail network which power source has the only baseload capacity to make sure it's always running? The answer is Coal which is just as dirty as Avgas.

Quoting EK413 (Reply 5):
Let's invest hard earned taxpayers money into another white whale such as the desalination plant currently operating at 50% capacity & if not already done so soon to be switched off...

We all know the NSW State Govt has been useless for 20 years at building anything. Fortunately Airports aren't their jurisdiction.

Quoting Australis (Reply 7):
Sydney, for me, deserves a proper 1st world rated airport that will provide easy connections between domestic and international flights and a proper layout for flights, along with cargo facility and whatever else the airport needs, like proper motorway/railway connections to the airport, to help improve connectivity...

Trying to say that the current airport can meet requirements for the next 30 years is a load of bulldust...

Entirely agreed!

Quoting qf002 (Reply 13):
How long will a brand new airport take to plan, design and build? Not to mention the inevitable dragging out of transport links... 7 years seems pretty quick to me for such a drastic and large scale plan in an existing facility (meaning work has to be done in stages to avoid disruption).

Fortunately the planning for Badgerys Creek has already largely been done. They would already know the wind patterns out there so runway configuration would be easily done. After that the actual link to the airport can be tacked on to the end of the South West Motorway so that part of it should be relatively simple as well. 7 years is ample time to get things done and with all the affected Motorways being privately owned it's not like the State Govt has to foot the bill for that. They'll probably do what they've done now and privatise the building of the rail link.

Quoting qf002 (Reply 13):
The same people who are going to pay for a second airport I would guess... The cost of the two can't be that different, given the additional infrastructure work required for a second airport would require.

Macquarie Airports has the first right of refusal on building the 2nd airport. That was part of the privatisation agreement. After that, the Airport would be built on Commonwealth Government Land so if the current owners of Sydney Airport didn't want to build it the Government could do it themselves or they could sell the rights to do it to one of the big Global Infrastructure Investors to do it. Someone like Calsters or the Canada Teachers Pension Fund would more than likely jump at the chance. They own other privatised airports so would easily have the experience to do it.

Quoting Australis (Reply 12):
why didnt the NSW Govt plan 20 years ahead and do them back when the M5 was initial built?

Because the NSW Government couldn't plan anything to save themselves. All of these 2 lane tunnels and Motorways are stupid for a city the size of Sydney. But when you leave things to the likes of Macquarie Bank and their toll collectors that's what you get.


User currently offlineAustralis From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 97 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 7086 times:

Quoting qf002 (Reply 13):
How long will a brand new airport take to plan, design and build? Not to mention the inevitable dragging out of transport links... 7 years seems pretty quick to me for such a drastic and large scale plan in an existing facility (meaning work has to be done in stages to avoid disruption).

Well, surely 7-10 years to design a new greenfield airport in Western Sydney, alongside new road and rail links to the new airport can be achieve and carried out. Hell, if China can build them and have more than enough man power, surely we can achieve the same???

Quoting qf002 (Reply 13):
The same people who are going to pay for a second airport I would guess... The cost of the two can't be that different, given the additional infrastructure work required for a second airport would require.

Well, initial figures of the HSR from Melbourne-Canberra-Sydney-Brisbane... anywhere between 60-120 billion AUD. You could probably build 5 new Sydney Airports for 60 billion and still have enough for a latte at the end of it..


User currently offlinetayser From Australia, joined Mar 2008, 1125 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 7037 times:

Quoting Sydscott (Reply 18):
That would be a colossal waste of money. To do it properly would require $100 billion and even the best network in the world, the Japanese one, relies on vast public subsidies. It would be a noose around the Governments neck for generations in the same way Cityrail, Transperth and most other public transport organisations in this country are.

Not to mention the environmental argument, which is complete bulldust. If you build an electrified rail network which power source has the only baseload capacity to make sure it's always running? The answer is Coal which is just as dirty as Avgas.

r.u.b.b.i.s.h.

1. Ever heard of Natural Gas? Half the emissions of coal/lignite. And there's a big ol' resource project happening in Gladstone that could be piped down somewhere in NSW to feed a natural gas power station that could power the whole thing. Not to mention huge natural gas reserves in Bass Strait that could equally be piped northward into NSW.

2. $100billion is the entire East Coast. In France the latest LGV line was built for $35 million per kilometre - that's about $30billion AUD for Melbourne-Canberra-Sydney.

3. LOL @ public subsidy for HSR... and building a new airport wouldn't be a public subsidy on a massive scale? What about all the secondary subsidies - like public money building ground transportation infrastructure to serve the new airport? What about other transportation subsidies like the big one: roads? Newsflash, it's a government's job to provide a platform for its citizens to move about and create economic activity - aviation, roads, seaports and public transport - and eventually if built, HSR - are all subsidised in some shape or form whether directly or indirectly.

20% of all SYD's movements have origins/destinations in Victorian airports (98% MEL) - a further 4-5% in CBR. lets for argument's sake say 850km of HSR to Melbourne costs $40 billion. It's probably more correct to say that's $40billion in value as no government - Labor or Liberal - is going to operate a state owned rail service on a HSR line it built.

Look at the NBN as an example - a publicly owned telco wholesaler, but the private sector will be buying products from them and then on-selling to the public - the same model would fit with HSR. The government via ARTC buys the land required, builds and maintains the track, but the private sector purchase/lease vehicles and operate the services paying a fee to ARTC. A couple of decades later the government sells the underlying infrastructure off or long-term leases it like airports which in turn provides it with more income.

Attacking the biggest corridor first relieves the congestion at SYD, benefits MEL and CBR as well, and then doing the more expensive northern corridor to SEQ then starts attacking about ~20% of SYD's movements which are bound for BNE and OOL. 20 year type timeframe which halfway through sees a capacity increase at SYD by 10-15% (assuming HSR takes 50% of the MEL-SYD, MEL-CBR and SYD-CBR markets) and then another 10 years later, another capacity increase when BNE and OOL are added to the HSR network.

Or just build a $10+ billion airport which half the residents of the notoriously grass-roots NIMBY Sydney metro area want outside the basin.

And I havent even mentioned all the benefits of building a HSR line to places like Wagga, Albury, Shep/Wangaratta. Newcastle, North Coast of NSW - it would provide the impetus to dramatically grow these regions and at the same time allow them to get to their nearest capital city (and therefore international airport among other things) much quicker than they can now...

The reality is from this point on domestic aviation on the east coast for trips under 1000km are going to come under more pressure to shift to a different mode, and why make the poor investment decision now to build another airport that, save for the wholesale movement of aviation infrastructure in Sydney to it, will just serve domestic connections to MEL and BNE? QF doesnt have a J in the point end in its 767s and VA aren't moving to J class on these routes for no reason at all - they're all business travellers and are they going to be pleased by having to go to some far flung airport out in the bush and then get on a long car/train journey to their destination around the harbour to the east of the geographical heart of Sydney?


User currently offlineallrite From Australia, joined Aug 2007, 2003 posts, RR: 4
Reply 21, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 6977 times:

Quoting Simes (Reply 17):
Just to add, if the airport were moved west, then the jobs that went with it go that way also, I'm of the belief that Sydney's pretty "coast" heavy in terms of employment/economic activity - so to take a large generator out west would be benefical to the region

It doesn't mean that the passengers will necessarily move out there. Freight, yes, aviation related jobs, probably. Passengers, where are they coming from?

Suppose that Canberra was given a go as a second airport (I can see many arguments against it). Instead of a real HSR, could a train running at an average speed of, say, 160km/h cut it? That might mean (without doing real calculations) some stretches of 200km/h, but you could probably get away without building too much higher spec'd track and use existing rail corridors in Sydney. I've read elsewhere that you could lay most of it along the Hume Hwy, except for one steep stretch that could use the existing rail corridor. There are already trains (eg the XPT) that can do 160km/h in operation in Australia. Would a roughly 2 hour journey be acceptable? Flights to Canberra from Sydney take 1 hour + at least 30 mins of in airport time. Car is around 3 hours (2.5 for us), but that includes "time to airport/station".

I'd love to build high speed rail (I use it where possible when travelling), but could this be a "good enough" solution (that's all we seem to strive for in Australia).



Applying insanity to normality
User currently offlinegemuser From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5615 posts, RR: 6
Reply 22, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 6920 times:

Quoting allrite (Reply 14):

Just to create mischief I'd love to spread a rumor that an airport will be built on the Northern Beaches of Sydney.

Obviously you are too young to remember!

The magic words you seek are:

"Duffy's Forrest Airport"

Drop that in a conversation with your Northern Beaches friends, or more spectacularly, their parents!

Gemuser



DC23468910;B72172273373G73873H74374475275376377L77W;A319 320321332333343;BAe146;C402;DHC6;F27;L188;MD80MD85
User currently onlineqf002 From Australia, joined Jul 2011, 2948 posts, RR: 2
Reply 23, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 6906 times:

Quoting Sydscott (Reply 18):
Not to mention the environmental argument, which is complete bulldust. If you build an electrified rail network which power source has the only baseload capacity to make sure it's always running? The answer is Coal which is just as dirty as Avgas.

An electirified HSR has a viable future being powered by wind farms, solar power etc -- the alternative fleet of 737's does not.

Not to mention that fact that you're going to be faced with the fuel use of carting pax to and from this new airport into the city...

Quoting Australis (Reply 19):
Well, surely 7-10 years to design a new greenfield airport in Western Sydney, alongside new road and rail links to the new airport can be achieve and carried out. Hell, if China can build them and have more than enough man power, surely we can achieve the same???

LOL! Have you seen any of the recent infrastructure projects that have involved any Australian government in the past few decades?? There is still years of reports to be completed (ie the Federal Government is said to be allocating money for the first environmental reports in the 12-13 budget), then the design phase, the negotiations of massive upgrades to roads (which would end up being a federal vs state standoff), working out contractors, discussions with private partners, convincing the airlines to leave a highly sought after city location, then actually buildings the thing.

From actually announcing the thing is happening, it's going to take 15 years to build. In an idea world it should be a 3-4 year turnaround, but that's simply not the way things happen in Australia.

Quoting allrite (Reply 21):

The issue is that the Hume Highway corridor is very windy and hilly. Trains wouldn't be averaging much more than the cars driving along next to them at 110kmh. 160kmh trains on straighter tracks on a more straight line routing would still take 2.5 hours centre to centre. Double that to MEL. Not an attractive proposal IMO, and not good enough as a soltution.

The distances are vast -- for HSR to be attractive, it needs to be an hour to Canberra, 2 hours to Melbourne. That means 300kmh trains.


User currently offlineEK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 4856 posts, RR: 4
Reply 24, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 6838 times:

Quoting Australis (Reply 12):
M5 is a great way for Western Sydney to get to the airport, and sure, another 1-2 lanes will help improve this bottleneck, but again, why didnt the NSW Govt plan 20 years ahead and do them back when the M5 was initial built?
Sure, they probably didnt expect the M5 to reach its peak so soon, but say you add more lanes, surely the usage will increase also and perhaps even add more traffic to Sydney traffic than before and just following down the line, so to speak. We shall see what happens with the M5...

Our wonderful government never plans ahead and the M5 is an example... The project cost $750million to build and from day 1 of opening the M5 was operating to it's peak capacity... Surely the government didn't do their home work and didn't take it into account every road user would use the tunnel from day 1...
A project which could of cost probably $1.5 billion when the project first commenced will now cost our government $350 million to widen 22km of the M5 highway plus a further $5 billion to duplicate the tunnel...

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/new...stion/story-fn7q4q9f-1226017324015

Quoting Simes (Reply 15):
if the current airport was not where it is, then yes it could operate without caps, but given it's location and that the opportunity to move it in the 70's was not taken, it is what it is

Not many airports in the world like SYD which is an advantage for many visitors able to jump off a plane and be in the city within 15 minutes (except for advance cities such as HKG)...

Quoting jupiter2 (Reply 16):
Also, while the QF freight terminal is the main one, there are 4 others spread around the airport, what is really needed is a purpose built multi user terminal to be built, best location for that would be the south east corner. A multi level complex similar to what is in use in Hong Kong could solve a lot of space problems.

QF Freight and the other terminals will be relocated in the master plan allowing for expansion of the International terminal... QF Engineering will also be relocated allowing more room for expansion...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Sv0IIVqZ58

Quoting Sydscott (Reply 18):
We all know the NSW State Govt has been useless for 20 years at building anything. Fortunately Airports aren't their jurisdiction.

Yes we all know the government thinks about today and not worry about tomorrow... Hit the nail in the head with that one!

Quoting Australis (Reply 19):
Well, surely 7-10 years to design a new greenfield airport in Western Sydney, alongside new road and rail links to the new airport can be achieve and carried out. Hell, if China can build them and have more than enough man power, surely we can achieve the same??

You must kidding right... The OH&S practises we have in place won't allow such projects to be built in such a short time fence... These are the advantages with Asian cities not that I agree with it....

EK413



Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
25 Sydscott : Not to mention the fact of population growth and the needs of mining Company's to have more power for their operations. Baseload power will continue
26 Post contains links and images allrite : Is the reason that you can't just have a dedicated freight airport (which I presume is relatively cheap and could probably use existing airports - mil
27 EK413 : I'm certainly not asking the government to blow tax payers money but they certainly don't know how to spend it wisely... They continue discussing the
28 Sydscott : They've been disasters for the private Company's because they didn't get their tolling correct. But in Sydney at least Cross City Tunnel and the Lane
29 ZKOKQ : I would like to see data on how many operations rely on freight from certain places, feeding into SYD. I know when I have just sat at the viewing are
30 Post contains links tayser : Coal is going to play a big role for a long time, but you're neglecting to mention the baseload mix is going to change over time. http://www.infrastr
31 sydaircargo : agree , we dont need a second airport but one that has no restrictions and enough capacity for the future. or if no new airport get the high speed ra
32 Sydscott : Why on earth would catch a train to Sydney via Canberra? Why would catch a train to go from Melbourne to Brisbane if you can only go half way? That's
33 qf002 : An 300kmh HSR would be faster CBD-CBD than flying. The Canberra routing is actually pretty optimal in terms of straight line routing, and many SYD-ME
34 aa909 : Could there be a better candidate city right now, anywhere else in the world, for a dedicated international-only airport? With Sydney's large amount o
35 qf002 : I don't think this would work for this exact issue. It's like suggesting that BA keep only their international flights at LHR and move their domestic
36 Post contains links Sydscott : I thought this would be a worthwhile discussion piece for this thread. Some interesting points are raised; http://www.businessday.com.au/busine...s-go
37 CXfirst : I have always been a fan of HSR on the East Coast. I've thought that the best solution would be to get the MEL-CBR-SYD stretch built, with stops in s
38 Post contains links Airvan00 : Perhaps everyone should read http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politi...ks-airport-talk-20120415-1x1bk.htm The only reason the subject of Sydney's airport
39 Post contains images qf002 : Your link isn't working?? And Canberra is 300km from SYD, not 190km
40 Post contains links Airvan00 : Sorry the link is http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politi...s-airport-talk-20120415-1x1bk.html but a search for Paul Sheehan 's opinion piece in the SMH
41 Sydscott : Paul Sheehan's piece of hyperbole. Fair use from the link I posted above; "Elsewhere on these pages, Paul Sheehan comes up with a conspiracy theory t
42 Airvan00 : Not sure what point you are trying to make, but I can assure you that the plan is not a second Sydney airport but to close Mascot down. Second Sydney
43 koruman : I don't think a cent of federal money should go on a second Sydney Airport. It's the Detroit problem: a city which is large for historical reasons but
44 Sydscott : From the article I posted above; "The neat thing about an airport is that it can largely be paid for by the private sector, albeit with wise deals ne
45 Post contains images Airvan00 : "Not a balanced opinion piece". You will never find one of those. Everyone has a bias. Even people on a.net
46 Sydscott : Very true. I think it's only a matter of how violently opposite peoples opinions are to the facts that differentiates everyone.
47 Post contains images PITrules : Why is a second airport for Sydney even a consideration? With T2 and T3 to be combined, the most pressing issue of domestic/int'l connections will be
48 Airvan00 : Well, you obviously haven't done any research. Have a look at the moment rate of every jet airport in the world. You will discover that it is about 4
49 Sydscott : Caps that will never be lifted. And the re-designed airport terminals won't help with connections because the alliances will be separated so pax won'
50 PITrules : LGA routinely has more than 80 movements per hour (and 400,000 year) on what would be 16R/34L and 7/25 at SYD. And SYD a free runway on top of that.
51 Airvan00 : Yes I am seriously suggesting that a extra runway that you proposed would not increase capacity in ILS conditions (like this morning). If you are goin
52 Sydscott : QF is part of Oneworld. So that's easy. Virgin interlines with both Star and Skyteam Carriers. So they're easy. But where do you put Emirates? Tiger
53 PITrules : If you have two runways that are used for both t/o and landing in hard IFR weather, and you add a third parallel to remove the departures from the or
54 Airvan00 : Sorry, no point in continuing this conversation. You do not understand. The airspace for an overshoot needs to be protected "at all times" There woul
55 Post contains images PITrules : The ones who are not affiliated with others would offer the most flexibility. Either in T1 or T2/T3, it shouldn't really matter. And that's the root
56 Sydscott : Ah but it does because their interline passengers would have to change terminals. The only way to currently do that is via shuttle bus from the domes
57 Post contains images lightsaber : But eventually Sydney will need a 2nd airport. Better to secure the land now before the city grows out around the new airport. I envision something a
58 Post contains links Airvan00 : Finally. To get the numbers up, you need "independent". If the operation is "dependent" it does take away from the total of the movement rates. All t
59 IndianicWorld : It only really needs Richmond as a secondary option in the Sydney Basin, which can cater to LCC and other niche market sectors to grow. CBR and NTL ca
60 ozglobal : And the Hume Highway is a self-funding commercial venture? A second airport would not require state investment. In the time the second airport has be
61 dynamicsguy : The train, which in my opinion is already preferable to the shuttle bus.
62 Post contains links and images PITrules : Airvan00, adding concrete will not take away from existing capacity. Please, hit this link and review ch 4.3 of this ICAO document, which details clo
63 Airvan00 : This has been a nice little exercise, after all the design of close spaced, medium spaced and wide spaced runways and the resultant movement rates was
64 PITrules : Indeed a very good topic and conversation
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Beijing's Second Airport posted Fri Oct 5 2007 13:47:42 by Iloveboeing
Philadelphia's Second Airport? posted Fri May 4 2007 04:07:15 by Steeler83
A Second Airport For Seattle? posted Sun Aug 27 2006 21:53:24 by Dsa
Is Second Airport For Atlanta Possible? posted Wed Jul 19 2006 13:33:23 by 747Lord
A Second Airport For Atlanta? posted Fri May 13 2005 14:43:27 by PJ295
Does Boston Need A Second Airport? posted Thu Apr 21 2005 17:45:15 by KC135TopBoom
Second Airport In ATL posted Mon Oct 18 2004 04:08:55 by Deltadude
St. Louis' Second Airport posted Thu Jul 15 2004 01:01:12 by Jetpixx
New Second Airport For Venice posted Tue Nov 11 2003 16:51:03 by VCE
Sydney Int'l Airport Info Please posted Mon Mar 11 2002 10:52:43 by SOHK