User avatar
allrite
Topic Author
Posts: 2373
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 11:28 pm

Sydney's Second Airport

Wed Apr 11, 2012 5:30 am

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.
I like artificial banana essence!
 
jupiter2
Posts: 961
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2001 11:30 am

RE: Sydney's Second Airport

Wed Apr 11, 2012 6:30 am

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
 
IndianicWorld
Posts: 2806
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2001 11:32 am

RE: Sydney's Second Airport

Wed Apr 11, 2012 6:56 am

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.
 
Sydscott
Posts: 3086
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2003 11:50 am

RE: Sydney's Second Airport

Wed Apr 11, 2012 7:17 am

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.
 
qf002
Posts: 3098
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2011 11:14 am

RE: Sydney's Second Airport

Wed Apr 11, 2012 7:30 am

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 avatar
EK413
Posts: 4338
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2003 3:11 pm

RE: Sydney's Second Airport

Wed Apr 11, 2012 7:57 am

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 avatar
zkokq
Posts: 515
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 8:44 am

RE: Sydney's Second Airport

Wed Apr 11, 2012 8:50 am

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!
 
Australis
Posts: 15
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2009 3:40 am

RE: Sydney's Second Airport

Wed Apr 11, 2012 9:02 am

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 avatar
EK413
Posts: 4338
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2003 3:11 pm

RE: Sydney's Second Airport

Wed Apr 11, 2012 9:37 am

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!
 
qf002
Posts: 3098
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2011 11:14 am

RE: Sydney's Second Airport

Wed Apr 11, 2012 9:57 am

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.
 
IndianicWorld
Posts: 2806
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2001 11:32 am

RE: Sydney's Second Airport

Wed Apr 11, 2012 10:01 am

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]
 
jupiter2
Posts: 961
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2001 11:30 am

RE: Sydney's Second Airport

Wed Apr 11, 2012 10:01 am

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
 
Australis
Posts: 15
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2009 3:40 am

RE: Sydney's Second Airport

Wed Apr 11, 2012 11:30 am

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...
 
qf002
Posts: 3098
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2011 11:14 am

RE: Sydney's Second Airport

Wed Apr 11, 2012 11:48 am

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 avatar
allrite
Topic Author
Posts: 2373
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 11:28 pm

RE: Sydney's Second Airport

Wed Apr 11, 2012 12:43 pm

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.  
I like artificial banana essence!
 
Simes
Posts: 35
Joined: Sun May 29, 2005 11:04 pm

RE: Sydney's Second Airport

Wed Apr 11, 2012 12:44 pm

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
 
jupiter2
Posts: 961
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2001 11:30 am

RE: Sydney's Second Airport

Wed Apr 11, 2012 12:47 pm

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
 
Simes
Posts: 35
Joined: Sun May 29, 2005 11:04 pm

RE: Sydney's Second Airport

Wed Apr 11, 2012 12:52 pm

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
 
Sydscott
Posts: 3086
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2003 11:50 am

RE: Sydney's Second Airport

Wed Apr 11, 2012 1:01 pm

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.
 
Australis
Posts: 15
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2009 3:40 am

RE: Sydney's Second Airport

Wed Apr 11, 2012 1:19 pm

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..
 
tayser
Posts: 398
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2008 10:49 pm

RE: Sydney's Second Airport

Wed Apr 11, 2012 1:36 pm

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 avatar
allrite
Topic Author
Posts: 2373
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 11:28 pm

RE: Sydney's Second Airport

Wed Apr 11, 2012 2:00 pm

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).
I like artificial banana essence!
 
Gemuser
Posts: 4348
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2003 12:07 pm

RE: Sydney's Second Airport

Wed Apr 11, 2012 2:26 pm

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
 
qf002
Posts: 3098
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2011 11:14 am

RE: Sydney's Second Airport

Wed Apr 11, 2012 2:33 pm

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 avatar
EK413
Posts: 4338
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2003 3:11 pm

RE: Sydney's Second Airport

Wed Apr 11, 2012 2:55 pm

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!
 
Sydscott
Posts: 3086
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2003 11:50 am

RE: Sydney's Second Airport

Wed Apr 11, 2012 10:34 pm

Quoting tayser (Reply 20):
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.

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 to be from coal whether you like it or not.

Quoting tayser (Reply 20):
$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.

The Governments own numbers disagree with you. And even for $30 billion you'd more than do a new Sydney Airport which would be much more beneficial to the country as a whole.

Quoting tayser (Reply 20):
What about all the secondary subsidies - like public money building ground transportation infrastructure to serve the new airport?

It could all be privatised just like all of the Motorways currently are. The NSW Government wouldn't have to tip in a cent if it didn't want to.

Quoting tayser (Reply 20):
What about other transportation subsidies like the big one: roads?

See above!

Quoting tayser (Reply 20):
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.

Really? Name me one major national airport that is currently owned by a Government? Name we one major motorway project in Melbourne, Sydney or more recently Brisbane that was delivered by Government? The FACT is that aviation, road, seaport and public transport have all been successfully privatised so it's not as if Government has to foot any of the bill at all.

Quoting tayser (Reply 20):
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 NBN is hardly going to achieve its cost of Capital, has a rollout plan that has been delayed and is now clouded with uncertainty and has had to change its business plan. All the while technology advances to the point where the network will probably be outdated by the time its complete. The same model with a HSR would be a disaster!

Quoting qf002 (Reply 23):
An electirified HSR has a viable future being powered by wind farms, solar power etc -- the alternative fleet of 737's does not.

The probably with Solar and Wind Power is that the technolog to store the power they generate is simply not there. That's why they're used for peaking capacity as opposed to baseload. So a HSR would not be able to be entirely powered from these sources.

Quoting tayser (Reply 20):
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.

And what reductions in flights can your realistically point to to argue this point? Amtrak operates between BOS-NYC-WAS corridor with services straight to the centre of each city. It's been argues in this forum by our American friends that by the time you clear security in LGA, are delayed by air traffic control, get airborne, land in DCA and then catch your taxi it's not much more time on Amtrak to get there. Yet you still have a huge amount of flights from all of the network carriers between JFK/LGA/EWR and DCA. The same applies to the London - Paris market where you can see flights from LHR, LGW & LCY on aircraft of various sizes between the two. In both of these markets frequency of service between the airports hasn't decreased but the average size of the plane doing the services HAS decreased. So the idea that the congestion you talk of will be alleviated by airlines reducing frequency, and therefore freeing up departure slots, will nice in theory doesn't quite actually work in practice.

Quoting tayser (Reply 20):
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?

Kingsford Smtih Airport is too small, poorly laid out even with the proposed new terminal layout and too constrained to be a viable long term airport for Sydney. A new Airport would provide the opportunity to correct the problems, on a greenfields site which could be linked to existing Motorway and train (both intercity and cityrail) infrastructure and could be open 24/7. At the same time substantial warehouse and cargo capacity could be built around the airport site so that the intercity trucks could be taken off the Sydney Road Network. Hell if you wanted to build a HSR an airport at Badgerys Creek is in a better position to do it anyway because that way you could build a proper airport/train interchange which couldn't be built at the current Airports site unless you want to spend billions underground and even more linking it through to Central and Parramatta around the existing Cityrail lines.

A new Airport means more jobs in Sydneys West, a better hub airport for Qantas and Virgin, reduced noise for the vast majority of Sydney residents, the opportunity to re-develop Kingsford Smith to help alleviate Sydneys housing problem and the opportunity to re-design the transport infrastructure in Sydney to actually make this a 21st century city. A HSR or the status quo doesn't bring anywhere near these benefits and shifts the problem about what to about airport capacity in Sydney into a future where the airport will be more crowded and Western Sydney will be more densely populated around and under flight paths. A new Airport is needed and it's needed NOW!
 
User avatar
allrite
Topic Author
Posts: 2373
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 11:28 pm

RE: Sydney's Second Airport

Thu Apr 12, 2012 12:00 am

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 - military?) to remove them from Kingsford Smith because much of the Australian air freight is carried in the bellies of passenger aircraft?

Quoting EK413 (Reply 24):
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...

I remember catching a taxi from Shanghai's Pudong Airport along an eight lane (IIRC) highway that was virtually empty. If a government builds something overcapacity for the future then people (including our supposedly far sighted business leaders... err magnates... not involved in the construction) start complaining about wasted taxes. Remember, it's always "somebody else" (dole bludgers?) who should pay for infrastructure, training, etc. Not defending the government though - didn't take a genius to realise that the M5 East would be full from day 1. We've mostly stopped using it due to the horrendous jams.

Quoting Sydscott (Reply 25):
Name me one major national airport that is currently owned by a Government? Name we one major motorway project in Melbourne, Sydney or more recently Brisbane that was delivered by Government? The FACT is that aviation, road, seaport and public transport have all been successfully privatised so it's not as if Government has to foot any of the bill at all.

I can think of a few privatised motorway projects in Sydney (and I believe Brisbane) that have been financial disasters for the private companies involved and involved and ended up being bailed out with government funds. Then there is the airport line in Sydney...

According to a recently reread book on Australian railway history Sydney's first railway lines were in financial trouble during their construction. The government ended up taking control of them, marking the first time that a government was responsible for operating a railway anywhere in the world. 160 years later the NSW government is still taking control over private railway projects (Waratah trains, monorail).

Quoting Sydscott (Reply 25):
The NBN is hardly going to achieve its cost of Capital, has a rollout plan that has been delayed and is now clouded with uncertainty and has had to change its business plan. All the while technology advances to the point where the network will probably be outdated by the time its complete.

The networking experts (and they ARE experts who are involved with both cable and cutting edge wireless communications research) I work with don't agree with your comments about technology obsolescence - at least for the land based systems. Once you move outside our network you wish that we were all on an NBN-like network. Other aspects of the NBN organisation are, well, best not talked about. But probably no worse than our other major communications providers...  
Quoting Sydscott (Reply 25):
A new Airport means more jobs in Sydneys West, a better hub airport for Qantas and Virgin, reduced noise for the vast majority of Sydney residents, the opportunity to re-develop Kingsford Smith to help alleviate Sydneys housing problem

Pretty certain that it would be cheaper just to build more houses at Badgery's Creek or Wilton, even with better public transport than normal (ie none) than to redevelop Kingsford Smith Airport, plus there's more usable land out there. As desirably close to the CBD as Mascot, no. But then the surrounding infrastructure of the airport already can't cope, so adding more houses isn't going to help.

I would personally miss Kingsford Smith Airport if it closed. No more planes on descent over my suburb or down the George's River valley. Or over North Ryde as I take my kid to childcare (oh he'll be finished before it ever closes). No more plane spotting while taking my kid to the beach... No more spectacular views of the CBD out the window of the aircraft as it takes off or lands.

I see that Albanese has asked to open talks with SAC over Wilton (they have first right of refusal). To be facetious again, how will residents of Sydney's northern and inner suburbs cope with the news that they might have to pass in Sydney's South West to catch their aircraft, when everyone knows that all shootings and crime in Sydney happen there (and maybe Kings Cross, but they involve colourful nightclub identities). Note that the size of Sydney's South West increases to accommodate crime in other areas. I recall the whinging when the Royal Easter Show moved to Homebush from Moore Park.  
I like artificial banana essence!
 
User avatar
EK413
Posts: 4338
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2003 3:11 pm

RE: Sydney's Second Airport

Thu Apr 12, 2012 12:15 am

Quoting allrite (Reply 26):

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 duplication of the M5... They spent millions of dollars on the desalination plant why didn't the $$$ go towards the M5...
Regarding Sydney Airport I still feel there is no need to build a 2nd relieving airport course that's what it'll end up operating as and we know the owners of SYD will argue there points too...

EK413
Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
 
Sydscott
Posts: 3086
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2003 11:50 am

RE: Sydney's Second Airport

Thu Apr 12, 2012 12:53 am

Quoting allrite (Reply 26):
I can think of a few privatised motorway projects in Sydney (and I believe Brisbane) that have been financial disasters for the private companies involved and involved and ended up being bailed out with government funds.

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 Cove Tunnel were sold by the Administrators to other private investors without government funds.

Quoting allrite (Reply 26):
160 years later the NSW government is still taking control over private railway projects (Waratah trains, monorail).

The Monorail is profitable but is coming to the end of its useful life. So the Government acquired it so it could tear it down and get rid of it. That was something a private company wouldn't have done.

In relation to Waratah, that is for rolling stock, not for actual line delivery. And the NSW Government hasn't tipped in that much in terms of additonal funds, they've made the contractors wear the losses.

Quoting allrite (Reply 26):
The networking experts (and they ARE experts who are involved with both cable and cutting edge wireless communications research) I work with don't agree with your comments about technology obsolescence - at least for the land based systems. Once you move outside our network you wish that we were all on an NBN-like network. Other aspects of the NBN organisation are, well, best not talked about. But probably no worse than our other major communications providers...

That may be so, but it doesn't change the fact that the NBN, on its own current projections, isn't going to meet any sort of decent return on Capital or financial metrics which justify the investment in a commercial sense. If the Government committed this sort of money to a HSR they should be deservedly flogged for it.

Quoting allrite (Reply 26):
Pretty certain that it would be cheaper just to build more houses at Badgery's Creek or Wilton, even with better public transport than normal (ie none) than to redevelop Kingsford Smith Airport, plus there's more usable land out there

The problem with building lots of housing out there is that that isn't where the jobs are. It just adds to Sydneys unneccessary urban sprawl. What we need is consolidation and re-generation and a properly executed re-development of Sydney Airport and resulting upgrades of public transport and the road network would be beneficial to the entire Area. Hell it's already got 2 train stops on site which is better than most areas of Sydney!

Quoting allrite (Reply 26):
But then the surrounding infrastructure of the airport already can't cope, so adding more houses isn't going to help.

But that's the good thing. You get to wipe the slate clean. You could even use the area to build a new Navy base, or construct a new cruise ship terminal, hotel, attractions etc down there to free up the Harbour a bit. Moving the navy from the Harbour to Botany Bay would also release a large amount of land, buildings and housing which is in a prime develpment distract right next to the CBD. All it would take is some vision....

Quoting EK413 (Reply 27):
Regarding Sydney Airport I still feel there is no need to build a 2nd relieving airport course that's what it'll end up operating as and we know the owners of SYD will argue there points too...

At the end of the day for the owners of SYD it comes down to $$$ will they make more owning and running a second airport or will they make more as is. Of course they won't move unless the Government makes them and I think it's silly to have 2 Sydney airports. The fiasco we currently have over the one we have is bad enough, letting politicians whinge about 2.........no thanks.
 
User avatar
zkokq
Posts: 515
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 8:44 am

RE: Sydney's Second Airport

Thu Apr 12, 2012 1:11 am

Quoting allrite (Reply 26):

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 - military?) to remove them from Kingsford Smith because much of the Australian air freight is carried in the bellies of passenger aircraft?

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 area end of the JQ terminal, you do notice alot of freight being moved around the terminal.
 
tayser
Posts: 398
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2008 10:49 pm

RE: Sydney's Second Airport

Thu Apr 12, 2012 1:56 am

Quoting Sydscott (Reply 25):
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 to be from coal whether you like it or not.

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.

Quoting Sydscott (Reply 25):
The Governments own numbers disagree with you. And even for $30 billion you'd more than do a new Sydney Airport which would be much more beneficial to the country as a whole.
http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/rai...hase1_Report_Executive_summary.pdf

$20-25billion Melbourne-Canberra, $10-25billion Canberra Sydney: $30-45billion in total

$35 per million was the cost in europe and yes I'm well aware it costs more here, perhaps you neglected to read what I said here?

Quoting tayser (Reply 20):
lets for argument's sake say 850km of HSR to Melbourne costs $40 billion.

I got that figure from the same link I posted just above - upper end of the cost estimate.

Quoting Sydscott (Reply 25):
It could all be privatised just like all of the Motorways currently are. The NSW Government wouldn't have to tip in a cent if it didn't want to.

Lane Cove Tunnel, Cross-City Tunnel - how many more expensive tollways do you want in Sydney? Even Eastlink in Melbourne is not getting the amount of traffic it was forecast to have....

Quoting Sydscott (Reply 25):
Really? Name me one major national airport that is currently owned by a Government? Name we one major motorway project in Melbourne, Sydney or more recently Brisbane that was delivered by Government? The FACT is that aviation, road, seaport and public transport have all been successfully privatised so it's not as if Government has to foot any of the bill at all.

Melbourne and Sydney airports are effectively owned by the federal government - they just have a long-term lease on the land to the current institutions that run and squeeze every last cent out of every inch of land. Peninsula Link, nearing completion, in Melbourne is being built with private capital of which the state government will pay the consortium a fee to provide access for people to use toll-free: hello there's that public subsidy again.

You dont seem to get the fact that whether it is direct or indirect, there is ALWAYS a public "subsidy" with transport in this country.

And just so you know, Melbourne's Public Transport system is often generally referred to as a "privatised" system, when in fact it's ONLY the operation of the system that is privatised: government still owns the land and rail infrastructure, but private companies - are paid, sorry I mean subsidised, by the state government to manage and operate the system - they're also paid, by the state government, to maintain the infrastructure.

Quoting Sydscott (Reply 25):
The probably with Solar and Wind Power is that the technolog to store the power they generate is simply not there. That's why they're used for peaking capacity as opposed to baseload. So a HSR would not be able to be entirely powered from these sources.

correct, but at times when the wind is blowing and wind generators are operating more efficiently, the mix of power doesnt always have to come from Coal - that's what the national grid is for. I maintain, it doesnt have to always be baseload coal power, the federal governments carbon tax (tabboo on here) wants to see the mix increase, this is the point of pricing carbon - make something more expensive and make private capital seek out the cheapest form of electricity through innovation. As long as some form of environmental "Tax" is in place - the ALP want to do it through a carbon price, Tony Mad Monk from Mosman Abbott wants to direct pay money to the private sector (why aren't people arking up about that?) to move them to lower emissions - regardless, money will flow into finding alternative / renewable forms of energy, probably faster under the ALP, but will still happen regardless if the Liberal party come in and implement their policies - both of which will continue to put pressure on aviation and transport along the east coast.

Quoting Sydscott (Reply 25):
The NBN is hardly going to achieve its cost of Capital, has a rollout plan that has been delayed and is now clouded with uncertainty and has had to change its business plan. All the while technology advances to the point where the network will probably be outdated by the time its complete. The same model with a HSR would be a disaster!

Fibre in the ground will not be obsolete after 10 years, it'll need replacing in 50-75 years. Fibre is what make wireless networks ... work. And by the way, the ABS contradicts what you're saying - we're still using more data via fixed networks than ever before and a non-fixed media, save for a miracle / new law of physics will never be able to do what a fixed (fibre) network can do. Again you're limiting your argument to just direct cost and potential revenue - you might have heard the term "productivity benefits" before, this basically means you invest money to save money in other areas - I used health for example, $1 trillion over same timeframe as NBN construction, many of the ways people and companies can use the NBN will directly impact the money the government needs to spend on the health budget - i.e high quality video conference for remote areas, saves patients time and money which therefore means they're more productive. More productive companies = more profits = more company tax.

And this is directly relavant to HSR - probably has an even more material impact because the infrastructure which would pass regional cities would enable them to grow - growing cities = more property development = more stamp duties for state governments, it also means more people are working in different areas and therefore more PAYG for the federal government and those same people are consuming and therefore paying GST. Canberra-Sydney has the highest amount of road-based city to city transport and if much of that is replaced with HSR traffic, then governments dont need to expand or maintain roads as much (Savings) - these examples are only small in scope, but you need to recognise it's not as simply as pay $100billion and directly get X amount back - there are a multitude of other ways to weigh up a cost-benefit analysis.

Quoting Sydscott (Reply 25):
And what reductions in flights can your realistically point to to argue this point? Amtrak operates between BOS-NYC-WAS corridor with services straight to the centre of each city. It's been argues in this forum by our American friends that by the time you clear security in LGA, are delayed by air traffic control, get airborne, land in DCA and then catch your taxi it's not much more time on Amtrak to get there. Yet you still have a huge amount of flights from all of the network carriers between JFK/LGA/EWR and DCA. The same applies to the London - Paris market where you can see flights from LHR, LGW & LCY on aircraft of various sizes between the two. In both of these markets frequency of service between the airports hasn't decreased but the average size of the plane doing the services HAS decreased. So the idea that the congestion you talk of will be alleviated by airlines reducing frequency, and therefore freeing up departure slots, will nice in theory doesn't quite actually work in practice.

Boston-New York only has a short section of true high speed rail (where the Acela trains can only get up to 250-260kph - as opposed to most continental/asian systems which hit 300kph) - the rest is on conventional, therefore slower, rail lines. This is a really poor argument for you to use. If the Us actually pulled their finger out and built a proper high-speed line in the Washington-Boston corridor you would not see the same amount of air traffic.

In 2005, Eurostar had 70% of the London-Paris and 65% of the London-Brussels travel market: http://www.eurostar.com/UK/uk/leisur...urostar_achieves_record_market.jsp

Also - read the first first paragraphs of this: http://www.anna.aero/2009/07/31/100-years-of-cross-channel-air-travel/ and note the LCY-CDG decrease Y/Y on passengers.

With all that reduction in passengers flying, you're telling me the same number of frequencies still exist?

Quoting Sydscott (Reply 25):


A new Airport means more jobs in Sydneys West, a better hub airport for Qantas and Virgin, reduced noise for the vast majority of Sydney residents, the opportunity to re-develop Kingsford Smith to help alleviate Sydneys housing problem and the opportunity to re-design the transport infrastructure in Sydney to actually make this a 21st century city. A HSR or the status quo doesn't bring anywhere near these benefits and shifts the problem about what to about airport capacity in Sydney into a future where the airport will be more crowded and Western Sydney will be more densely populated around and under flight paths. A new Airport is needed and it's needed NOW!

Sydney as an international gateway is becoming less and less relevant when Melbourne & Brisbane airports are growing their international market share faster than Sydney.

How is Sydney not a 21st Century city? Why does Australia need some mega hub like Singapore or Hong Kong? We're at the arse end of the earth - the end of the line. And when Brisbane and Melbourne are growing faster in population how is much of this going to change?

It's typical - Sydney needs a political rethink, too many vested idiots wanting this and that without really doing the hard work - just like the Olympics, short term boost, medium-term malaise - Melbourne's been growing faster than Sydney because in the early 90s it recognised it needed to change, Sydney hasn't gone through this process yet and what you say may very well happen (further decentralisation of the metro, massive opportunity to redevelop the current airport site etc) but you're going to run into the same problems again and again by shifting all this capital beyond the current metro area and will be paying for it for decades whether it be high tolls, high prices to construct metropolitan rail lines and what not.

HSR potentially having a market of up to 40% of SYD's current movements gives the airport site a massive long term lease of life whilst the NSW government can then redirect funds to making the current metro area connect better and redevelop in areas which currently exist rather than doughnut sprawling it into the bush...
 
sydaircargo
Posts: 39
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2008 5:45 am

RE: Sydney's Second Airport

Thu Apr 12, 2012 5:20 am

Quoting Sydscott (Reply 3):
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;

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 rail on the way from Sydney via canberra to MElbourne, that would free
heeps of slots. and get rid of the curfew and allow night flights after 11pm , dont make the same mistakes here
that politics did to FRA in Germany
 
Sydscott
Posts: 3086
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2003 11:50 am

RE: Sydney's Second Airport

Thu Apr 12, 2012 7:19 am

Quoting tayser (Reply 30):
$20-25billion Melbourne-Canberra, $10-25billion Canberra Sydney: $30-45billion in total

$35 per million was the cost in europe and yes I'm well aware it costs more here, perhaps you neglected to read what I said here?

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 the point. Unless you have a complete and viable network then the thing is going to be a white elephant. Sure the Greens love it but the reason we all like air travel is because it's quick and convenient. Would you trade that to catch a train which takes much longer to get there vs paying Tigers or Jetstars fare? That's the point and that's why a train isn't commercially viable without Government subsidy or without spending much more than what you're quoting here.

And $25 billion would buy you an airport. Just sayin.....

Quoting tayser (Reply 30):
Lane Cove Tunnel, Cross-City Tunnel - how many more expensive tollways do you want in Sydney? Even Eastlink in Melbourne is not getting the amount of traffic it was forecast to have....

The NSW Government was too lazy to build them so why not let the Private Sector.

Quoting tayser (Reply 30):
Melbourne and Sydney airports are effectively owned by the federal government - they just have a long-term lease on the land to the current institutions that run and squeeze every last cent out of every inch of land

We can quibble over the details but the Airports were privatised by the Howard Government and will revert to public ownership at the end of their leases. Until such time the airports sit on Commonwealth Land but are effectively private company's.

Quoting tayser (Reply 30):
Peninsula Link, nearing completion, in Melbourne is being built with private capital of which the state government will pay the consortium a fee to provide access for people to use toll-free: hello there's that public subsidy again.

And if the Government didn't provide money for it to be tax free then there would be no public subsidy because the private company would levy a toll. That doesn't prove anything other than the Victorian Govt chose not to commit public funds to a project but is happy to pay the on-going cost of toll free access to a private consortium. If they chose, that's the key word "chose", not to subsidise the public would be levied a toll.

Quoting tayser (Reply 30):
You dont seem to get the fact that whether it is direct or indirect, there is ALWAYS a public "subsidy" with transport in this country.

What you don't seem to get is the point that wasting public subsidy on fast train networks is a pipe dream that will further indebt this country for dubious returns. That's my point. Sydney Airport is profitable and pays for itself at least.

Quoting tayser (Reply 30):
And by the way, the ABS contradicts what you're saying - we're still using more data via fixed networks than ever before and a non-fixed media, save for a miracle / new law of physics will never be able to do what a fixed (fibre) network can do

You can use the ABS to prove just abut anythng.

Quoting tayser (Reply 30):
Again you're limiting your argument to just direct cost and potential revenue - you might have heard the term "productivity benefits" before, this basically means you invest money to save money in other areas - I used health for example, $1 trillion over same timeframe as NBN construction, many of the ways people and companies can use the NBN will directly impact the money the government needs to spend on the health budget - i.e high quality video conference for remote areas, saves patients time and money which therefore means they're more productive.

No I'm limiting my argument to things that are tangible and quantifiable and not the subject of Economic theory and estimation. Will the NBN lead to increased productivity or will it just lead to you and I being able to watch and download are favourite movies faster? Besides which remote areas will be linked in by satellite, not fibre, to the NBN. And saving patients time and money is all well and good as long as you can provide the facilities, the Nurses and the Doctors to do the work. That is is the bigger problem especially when you're talking about the specialist fields.

Quoting tayser (Reply 30):
And this is directly relavant to HSR - probably has an even more material impact because the infrastructure which would pass regional cities would enable them to grow - growing cities = more property development = more stamp duties for state governments

Regional cities, espeically mining towns, aren't growning because the Mines suckup the available workforce that would otherwise be working to build the towns. Having an NBN or a HSR doesn't solve that.

Quoting tayser (Reply 30):
it also means more people are working in different areas and therefore more PAYG for the federal government and those same people are consuming and therefore paying GST

See above.

Quoting tayser (Reply 30):
Canberra-Sydney has the highest amount of road-based city to city transport and if much of that is replaced with HSR traffic, then governments dont need to expand or maintain roads as much (Savings) - these examples are only small in scope, but you need to recognise it's not as simply as pay $100billion and directly get X amount back - there are a multitude of other ways to weigh up a cost-benefit analysis.

In terms of road traffic, the problem is in the mix not the quantum. I'm sure we would all agree that having less road trains and trucks on the roads, and moving the freight they move onto freight trains has merit. Such a thing could relatvively easily be implemented through upgrading the exisitng rail network for it as well. That would have a much bigger impact on the SYD-MEL-BNE corridor and would also reduce the need for road spending without spending billion on fast trains.

Quoting tayser (Reply 30):
Boston-New York only has a short section of true high speed rail (where the Acela trains can only get up to 250-260kph - as opposed to most continental/asian systems which hit 300kph) - the rest is on conventional, therefore slower, rail lines. This is a really poor argument for you to use. If the Us actually pulled their finger out and built a proper high-speed line in the Washington-Boston corridor you would not see the same amount of air traffic.

If you'll notice I actually used New York - Washington and not New York - Boston. The time taken on the train to get from Central New York to Washington is comparable to the time taken getting from Central NYC to LGA, clearing security, getting on your flight etc. I make the point that, the same as what has happened in Europe, the hourly connections between the cities are all still there, they're just flown by larger regional jets, and in some cases props, rather than with jets. I'm not arguing passenger numbers, look at the schedules or BA, AF, LH. The flights are still there. So this ideal world where Virgin and Qantas are going to reduce schedules, free up slots and use them for other purposes just isn't going to pan out. What will happen is that aircraft size will go from 767 to 738, from 738 to ATR/Dash 8 while the schedule will stay the same. Sure there will be some consolidation, but I'd argue that the total effect will be negligible given the overseas experience.

Quoting tayser (Reply 30):
Sydney as an international gateway is becoming less and less relevant when Melbourne & Brisbane airports are growing their international market share faster than Sydney.

That's also because Sydney has a Qantas hub whereas Melbourne and Brisbane don't. It's also because Melbourne and Brisbane have both been growing at a faster economic rate than Sydney has along with their respective State economies. The airport traffic and its decentralisation is a natural evolution that will continue as point to point traffic grows.

Quoting tayser (Reply 30):
How is Sydney not a 21st Century city? Why does Australia need some mega hub like Singapore or Hong Kong? We're at the arse end of the earth - the end of the line. And when Brisbane and Melbourne are growing faster in population how is much of this going to change?

Don't even start me! Sydney doesn't need a mega-hub and I certainly don't advocate one. What I do advocate is the building of essential, un-constrained infrastructure for Sydney and a new airport, which has been talked about for the better part of 20 years, is an necessary piece of that.

Quoting tayser (Reply 30):
It's typical - Sydney needs a political rethink, too many vested idiots wanting this and that without really doing the hard work - just like the Olympics, short term boost, medium-term malaise - Melbourne's been growing faster than Sydney because in the early 90s it recognised it needed to change, Sydney hasn't gone through this process yet and what you say may very well happen (further decentralisation of the metro, massive opportunity to redevelop the current airport site etc) but you're going to run into the same problems again and again by shifting all this capital beyond the current metro area and will be paying for it for decades whether it be high tolls, high prices to construct metropolitan rail lines and what not.

The thing about building an airport at Badgerys Creek is that it doesn't decentralise the metro further. It actually moves the airport closer to the heart of Greater Sydney than what it is now. Plus it opens up a vast tract of land for re-development near the Inner City and on Botany Bay, it allows for major arterial roads connecting to the South and the West to have land set aside for their expansion, it allows Port Botany to be expanded and have existing roadways widened, it would allow for the expansion of the Major Motorways connecting a new airport to the City, it allows for the expansion of the cityrail and inter-city train and bus networks and it allows Sydney to compete with Melbourne Airport as a freight hub by being open 24/7. Not to mention that it finally de-politicises the airport because you can plan the flight paths to minimse noise over rural areas as opposed to now where it doesn't matter where a plane flies it's over houses.

The hard work has already been done. The time for talking is over, it's time to act.

Quoting tayser (Reply 30):
HSR potentially having a market of up to 40% of SYD's current movements gives the airport site a massive long term lease of life whilst the NSW government can then redirect funds to making the current metro area connect better and redevelop in areas which currently exist rather than doughnut sprawling it into the bush...

It's already doughnut spread into the bush, closely followed by Perth and Melbourne! What Sydney needs to do it build a new airport before there is no land left and not to follow the pipe dreams of the greens.
 
qf002
Posts: 3098
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2011 11:14 am

RE: Sydney's Second Airport

Thu Apr 12, 2012 8:52 am

Quoting Sydscott (Reply 32):
Why on earth would catch a train to Sydney via Canberra?

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-MEL flights today fly directly over the ACT (or close to it).

In response to other concerns raised since I last posted (sorry, I can't be bothered to individually respond to a million different points):

1. Cost -- my question is whether a new airport a long term solution to the issue at hand. I understand that air travel is absolutely key to Australian commerce and so on, but will it be the best way to get people between major centres in 30-40 years time? Oil is going to keep on going up, and there is going to be an inevitable rise in the cost of destroying the environment (talking about the carbon tax here). How long until only the wealthiest can afford a SYD-MEL flight for $300-400 a pop?

From that, where is the money better spent today to combat this issue? A $25bn airport that does nothing to combat the issue, or a $30bn HSR that plays a role in replacing short range domestic air travel? At the same time, up to 20-25% of the traffic travelling through SYD can be diverted away from the airport (the important thing here is to ensure the HSR is a better option that flying, through cost, convenience and duration), to relieve pressures.

2. Transport to the new airport -- does the '$25bn' that is being thrown around here include major upgrades to the road and rail systems to get people to the new airport? NSW is now spending almost $10bn building a new rail link to the North West, so I'd say that's a baseline cost for building a proper rail link to Wilton. The Hume Highway will need to become four lanes each way all the way out from the M5/M7 intersection (and the area around Campbelltown that's already 4 lanes will need to become 6 lanes, or alternative routes for local traffic will need to be built). The road across to the Princes Highway will also need major upgrades (it's still single lane in parts, and hilly/windy).

So really, an airport in Wilton is a $25bn airport cost, plus $20bn+ to upgrade roads and add rail. The Hume Highway will never be privatised. So the government will be footing that bill. The rail link could be privatised, but it will be so key to the success of the new airport that $20-30 tickets each way won't be tolerated (using figures inspired by similar setups at LHR, HKG etc).

3. Industry -- the major corporate hubs in SYD expect a local airport, 15 minutes from the CBD. An hour to the airport will place pretty major restrictions on corporate traffic and the ability for staff to move around the country quickly (ie you'd see the end of flying to MEL for the day).

4. Cargo. An airport outside the immediate city area is going to create a lot of traffic taking local cargo back to Sydney and the suburbs. This means more traffic, more damage, and higher costs.

5. This one hasn't been so heavily discussed, but what about the environmental impact? Wilton is surrounded by national parks, and is an agricultural area. An airport will have a massively degenerative impact on the local area. As will the road and rail links.

6. Governmental role (ie subsidies) -- the government will end up paying a big chunk of the cost, regardless of how you look at it. To start with, there's the cost of planning this thing, completing reports etc. Then they have to acquire the land they want to use, and then help pay for the thing to be built (no corporation has $30bn to invest in such a high risk proposal). Transport links need to be paid for, and QF and VA will need to be compensated (ie for moving their employees, lounges, operations and so on), as well as other operators.

If SYD is to be closed down, then Macquarie Airports will be entitled to compensations (even if they take on the new airport), into the billions probably. Residents in the Southern Highlands (yes, there aren't as many as Sydney, but still plenty who will be massively affected) will need to be compensated, as will any impacts to their agricultural operations.

Saying that the government will have no role in paying for this thing is completely naive and blindsighted. The taxpayer is going to be footing the bill, be it through taxes or through extortionate airport fees, train tickets and tolls.

Personally, I think that a new airport would be a good opportunity for the various governments to take control back. Airports are far more effective when they are publicly owned and operated (the alternative being the continuation of SYD today...)

I still think HSR is the better option. The cost of the two alternatives is pretty similar all things considered, and HSR has the long term capacity to extend to BNE and to actually fix the issues that are going to be faced in the next century.

A new airport is a nice idea, but it's just too late. It's as simple as that. It will cause as many problems as it fixes, and we area at what I see as the peak of domestic short range air travel.
 
AA909
Posts: 18
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2012 1:07 pm

RE: Sydney's Second Airport

Fri Apr 13, 2012 5:10 am

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 of O&D international traffic, a single-runway 24hrs airport would greatly reduce the demand on Kingsford Smith and poses advantages:
- Kingsford Smith is maintained as a domestic only airport, thereby maintaining the business conveniences of its location, but with it now freed up somewhat to grow particularly in regards to regional NSW flights. Possible exemption for NZ flights.
- International operations now no-longer subject to curfew restrictions; domestic operations not particularly hampered by this.
- More economic to build a single-terminal single-runway international facility

As an analog, for all its failings and history, NRT works pretty well in this regard. People arriving into Tokyo on flights >5 hrs don't really benefit that greatly from landing in HND rather than NRT (HND being the SYD analog). Of course everyone would rather land in HND, but when it comes to dividing up a finite resource... the international long-haul tourist traffic and business traffic probably has least to lose in having to travel an extra 30 minutes at the start/end of the journey.

QF would be at a disadvantage for all its connecting customers it currently chooses to route through SYD (rather than BNE or MEL) for domestic/international connections. Maybe they could stage their international flights from Sydney a little better and fly a few domestic flights to the new international airport for all the pax it wishes to continue to connect through SYD (a redeye 73H out of Perth, Q400 from Adelaide ... etc) . Get rid of that darned transfer bus too.

Maybe.
 
qf002
Posts: 3098
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2011 11:14 am

RE: Sydney's Second Airport

Fri Apr 13, 2012 5:47 am

Quoting aa909 (Reply 34):
QF would be at a disadvantage for all its connecting customers it currently chooses to route through SYD (rather than BNE or MEL) for domestic/international connections. Maybe they could stage their international flights from Sydney a little better and fly a few domestic flights to the new international airport for all the pax it wishes to continue to connect through SYD (a redeye 73H out of Perth, Q400 from Adelaide ... etc) . Get rid of that darned transfer bus too.

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 and European operations to LGW. There is simply too many people transiting through SYD to make this work. Much of QF's entire strategy works around SYD acting as a transit airport, so they would make one hell of a fuss about this. For that matter, VA would as well.

The NRT/HND example is very different, since HND has always been open to regional operations, and there has always been a good number of domestic flights at NRT. The market dynamics are very different, and the roles are very different to what you're proposing for SYD. Not to mention that TYO is a vastly larger city, and that the population spread in Japan is very different to Australia.

QF and VA will both be getting rid of cross terminal transfers this decade anyway if the SYD Master Plan goes ahead...
 
Sydscott
Posts: 3086
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2003 11:50 am

RE: Sydney's Second Airport

Mon Apr 16, 2012 6:30 am

I thought this would be a worthwhile discussion piece for this thread. Some interesting points are raised;

http://www.businessday.com.au/busine...s-good-for-you-20120416-1x2xg.html
 
CXfirst
Posts: 2889
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2007 8:13 pm

RE: Sydney's Second Airport

Mon Apr 16, 2012 8:06 am

Quoting qf002 (Reply 35):
Much of QF's entire strategy works around SYD acting as a transit airport, so they would make one hell of a fuss about this. For that matter, VA would as well.

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 say Albury (don't really know the size of this city), Wollongong and the current SYD airport (and any other large enough towns). Allow VA and QF to sell seats on the train with their own flight numbers. So passengers in MEL, CBR, Wollongong, etc. wanting to travel to DFW for instance would be booked onto the train and connect at SYD onto a flight (but have the train treated as a flight in regards with flight numbers, possibly even check-in at origin train station).

Eventually, as a SYD-BNE corridor is built, with stops in Newcastle, Gold Coast, etc., do the same thing allowing passengers to transit at SYD to international flights and domestic flights with no non-stop services from their cities.

Potentially, extend the service to BNE (the airport) and have a stop at MEL (the airport), to alleviate even more passengers from SYD (ie allow CBR passengers to connect to PER through MEL instead of SYD, and Newcastle passengers to connect in BNE for LAX services, etc.)

Allowing VA and QF to sell seats is a must in my opinion, or QF and VA would still want to offer flights throughout the day just for these transfer passengers. This could even be extended to QF, VA (possibly JQ, etc), operating their own products on the train)

Overall, this should alleviate most major flights within the East Coast to SYD, while not hurting transfer passenger numbers for QF and VA.

-CXfirst
 
Airvan00
Posts: 236
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 1:06 am

RE: Sydney's Second Airport

Mon Apr 16, 2012 8:13 am

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 has reared it's head is that "Anthony" is is trouble in his federal seat. His wife nealy lost her state seat in the same general area and would have, had not the Greens imploded by selecting the wrong candidate.
So he has to appear to do something. His problem is that BC is the prime site according to some in the party, so he has to try and propose Wilton.
I have been involved in the machinations over the noise at SYD for over 30 years and it is all about keeping certain people in the big white house 190km from SYD.
 
qf002
Posts: 3098
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2011 11:14 am

RE: Sydney's Second Airport

Mon Apr 16, 2012 10:40 am

Quoting Airvan00 (Reply 38):

Your link isn't working??

And Canberra is 300km from SYD, not 190km  
 
Airvan00
Posts: 236
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 1:06 am

RE: Sydney's Second Airport

Mon Apr 16, 2012 8:13 pm

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 on 16April will find it. This forum manages to truncate the link.

its about 300km by road but it's only 128nm by air. (127.759 if you want it exact)
 
Sydscott
Posts: 3086
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2003 11:50 am

RE: Sydney's Second Airport

Mon Apr 16, 2012 10:53 pm

Quoting Airvan00 (Reply 40):
but a search for Paul Sheehan 's opinion piece in the SMH on 16April will find it. This forum manages to truncate the link.

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 that what Labor's inner-city hacks are actually about is a fiendish plot to just replace Mascot altogether - which, just for a start, greatly overestimates the ability of said hacks to organise anything, let alone stay in power long enough to achieve it. Sheehan takes the O'Farrell's “do nothing" school a step further to paint it as a virtue, but the brave idea that the existing airport will be perfectly adequate until 2045 still begs the question of “what then?”. On current form, a hard decision to go ahead with a second airport today might mean it was ready by 2045, but only 'might'."
 
Airvan00
Posts: 236
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 1:06 am

RE: Sydney's Second Airport

Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:17 pm

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 airport is code for replacement airport (not in my backyard) . This has been the case for at least 30 years.
PS its not the hacks that have been pushing this but a number of ministers over the years. The hacks may have been just a little loose talking to journalists but ministers keep these things close to their chests. (both side of politics as well)

[Edited 2012-04-16 16:29:46]
 
koruman
Posts: 2179
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 9:08 pm

RE: Sydney's Second Airport

Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:38 pm

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 which is completely bypassed by the wealth-generating sectors of the economy.

The answer should be proper, serious High Speed Rail, achieving TGV average speeds of 250 km/h from station to station.

That should mean that the HSR could reach the following:

Newcastle 30 minutes
Coffs Harbour 1 hour 40 minutes
Gold Coast 3 hours 45 minutes
Brisbane 4 hours 10 minutes

Melbourne 2 hours 40 minutes

Canberra 1 hour

At those kinds of speeds the demand for domestic air travel would plummet. What's more, Newcastle in particular would be reinvigorated as a viable dormitory suburb for Sydney, and Sydney's population would start to shrink as Newcastle, the Central Coast and even Port Macquarie became more attractive places for people working in Sydney to bring up their families.

A similar phenomenon would occur in southeast Queensland as the corridor from Brisbane down to OOL became a viable dormitory suburb without people needing to wonder how they could pick their kids up from school if they work in a city 80 km away.

It's a far better use of money than a second airport for a city which is an economic basket case anyway.

If a second Sydney Airport is opened, I vote that it should be called Sydney Mirabel International Airport.
 
Sydscott
Posts: 3086
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2003 11:50 am

RE: Sydney's Second Airport

Tue Apr 17, 2012 1:23 am

Quoting koruman (Reply 43):
I don't think a cent of federal money should go on a second Sydney Airport

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 needing to be done on the infrastructure side – unlike the ill-thought granting to Macquarie Bank of a monopoly to tax, let alone the private railway station fiasco. And infrastructure built around facilitating employment growth eventual pays for itself."

Quoting Airvan00 (Reply 42):
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.

My point was that Paul Sheehans opinion piece was not a balanced opinion piece.

And in relation to infrastructure spending on rail connecting the airport to the rest of Sydney, quote;

"NSW Rail is even building the connecting tracks now by stealth, since the SW Rail project ends about three kilometres from Badgerys Creek, and the biggest graded separation rail fly-over in the southern hemisphere has almost been completed at Glenfields station, meaning the Airport Line will be able to rapidly serve both locations instead of just Sydney airport with a minor extension after its true destiny is revealed."

These rail lines serve the growth corridors of Sydney but also, conveniently, require only minor extension to serve a new airport.

Quoting koruman (Reply 43):
It's a far better use of money than a second airport for a city which is an economic basket case anyway.

The reason this city is a basket case is because it is almost unique in its ability not to plan for anything. A new airport shifts a constrained economic zone out West where it can grow and create an economic centre for a new region. The re-development of the Kingsford Smith site on Botany Bay can provide opportunities for housing, an expanded Port Botany and re-development of its connecting road and rail links. If the Federal Government moved the Navy from the Harbour to a new base in Botany Bay that would mean;

+ A huge development out West with the airport;
+ A huge re-development opportunity in the South on the Kingsford Smith site with an expanded Port Botany, new Navy base and increased housing;
+ A re-development opportunity for Garden Island, Woolloomooloo and Potts Point in the Inner East which could deliver a new Cruise Ship Terminal at the current Navy base site, which is now being advocated, along with new housing opportunities;

If you add these to developments at Barangaroo and the CUB site in Sydney it provides enormous scope to re-make this entire city. And all of this for minimal cost to the taxpayer aside from the Navy base.

Quoting koruman (Reply 43):
The answer should be proper, serious High Speed Rail, achieving TGV average speeds of 250 km/h from station to station.

I actually think there should be both. But alas, in this thread it's an either/or argument.
 
Airvan00
Posts: 236
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 1:06 am

RE: Sydney's Second Airport

Tue Apr 17, 2012 1:29 am

"Not a balanced opinion piece". You will never find one of those. Everyone has a bias. Even people on a.net  
 
Sydscott
Posts: 3086
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2003 11:50 am

RE: Sydney's Second Airport

Tue Apr 17, 2012 5:07 am

Quoting Airvan00 (Reply 45):
"Not a balanced opinion piece". You will never find one of those. Everyone has a bias. Even people on a.net

Very true. I think it's only a matter of how violently opposite peoples opinions are to the facts that differentiates everyone.
 
PITrules
Posts: 2109
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2000 11:27 am

RE: Sydney's Second Airport

Tue Apr 17, 2012 6:53 am

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 solved. The airfield is operating well below design capacity because of an artificial cap.

Consolidate and expand T1 and T2, and lift the movement cap. This alone will allow SYD to handle the air traffic needs for Sydney for another 20 years. When the airfield reaches its design limit of about 450,000 movements, then what?

Spend almost $100 billion for a HSR network, which only partly relieves SYD, or spend $1.5 billion to build another runway which allows for even more continued use of Mascot for decades to come? Seems simple to me. The airport expanded into Botany Bay twice already. Why not once more with a 3rd parallel runway, and save tens of billions of dollars. Its OK for Port Botany to reclaim the bay, but not the airport? Why is one is right but the other wrong?

As far as HSR, I have nothing against HSR, but why does this need to be an either/or thing? If HSR stops at every large town between Sydney and Melbourne or Brisbane as some are suggesting, it is no longer high speed and no longer a substitute for flying. As long as long range flights to SYD continue to increase, there will be a need to feed them with short haul flights. Is there going to be nonstop HSR to SYD airport from every direction to feed these? Highly doubtful.

Relocating the Navy to a closed SYD, so that parts of the CBD, or SYD itself, can be redeveloped for housing makes zero sense. If there is a country with a land shortage, it certainly isn't Australia! Why close a public asset so private developers can benefit, while costing taxpayers tens of billions to build a new airport.

Lift the stupid movement cap, modernize the terminals, and build one more runway (which is not something that has not been done before btw).

Here you go, problem solved:



No need for spending $100 billion, HSR, housing, wind farms, etc.
FLYi
 
Airvan00
Posts: 236
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 1:06 am

RE: Sydney's Second Airport

Tue Apr 17, 2012 7:39 am

Quoting PITrules (Reply 47):
Lift the stupid movement cap

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 40 movements per runway (that can be used interdependently) . for example LHR 80,
Movement rates are determined by runway occupancy. It doesn't matter much were in the world you are, it takes about the same time for an aircraft to go from brakes release to rotate and that is the determinate.
About 20 years ago I was asked an important question. It was framed this way. "The minister wants a movement cap. What can we say, and justify, that will not affect operations". I had previously spent 2 years studying possible runway configurations, and movement rates, after all if you are going to allocate slots, you have to know how many you have. The answer was obvious-- 80.
Yes, you can squeeze a little bit more by having more departures than arrivals but you will end up the same result. The FAA keep very good records of movement rates and have the best repository of that knowledge.

I hate to let you down, after you did such a nice map but the configuration in you photo montage would not help. Think about IMC conditions. You only have to look at SFO which has a similar arrangement. Runways need to be a certain distance apart to operate independently. 34L and 34R are placed right on that minimum distance. IIRC it was within 1 metre, and they still need a specialised radar system. It is all very easy in VMC conditions, but the airlines also need to operate when the sun is not shining. With the sun shining, I can easily see a movement rate of 96 but that all comes crashing down if the conditions and wind direction are not perfect.
 
Sydscott
Posts: 3086
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2003 11:50 am

RE: Sydney's Second Airport

Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:01 am

Quoting PITrules (Reply 47):
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 solved. The airfield is operating well below design capacity because of an artificial cap.

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't be able to transfer efficiently to non-aligned carriers.

Quoting PITrules (Reply 47):
Spend almost $100 billion for a HSR network, which only partly relieves SYD, or spend $1.5 billion to build another runway which allows for even more continued use of Mascot for decades to come? Seems simple to me. The airport expanded into Botany Bay twice already. Why not once more with a 3rd parallel runway, and save tens of billions of dollars. Its OK for Port Botany to reclaim the bay, but not the airport? Why is one is right but the other wrong?

A 4th runway for Sydney will never, ever get any support whatsoever from any politician. It's a dead concept before it even begins. The Port is a different matter entirely.

Quoting PITrules (Reply 47):
Relocating the Navy to a closed SYD, so that parts of the CBD, or SYD itself, can be redeveloped for housing makes zero sense. If there is a country with a land shortage, it certainly isn't Australia!

If you look at what is happening in and around Sydney you would see it makes sense. Australia doesn't have a land shortage, however Sydney currently does have a chronic housing shortage which isn't solved by vast housing estates a long way from economic and employment centres that than demand infrastructure from budgets which don't have the cash to build them.

Quoting PITrules (Reply 47):
Why close a public asset so private developers can benefit, while costing taxpayers tens of billions to build a new airport.

The Navy is a liability on the public purse, not an Asset. However in Inner Sydney the Navy is sitting on quite literally, in dollar terms, the better part of hundreds of millions or even a billion dollars of land. A public/private partnership to re-develop and sell that land while building new facilities on cheaper real estate will benefit the taxpayer rather than detract from it. And, as I've said above, any airport facility would be built by private infrastructure developers not by the taxpayer. The Taxpayer will benefit because otherwise unused public land will derive rent and leasing income from an airport. So, again, the taxpayer should make money from the project and, once the lease is up, be the owner of a cash flow positive, debt free infrastructure asset.

Quoting PITrules (Reply 47):
Lift the stupid movement cap, modernize the terminals, and build one more runway (which is not something that has not been done before btw).

None of this will result in a better long term outcome for Sydney than a new airport would. We need to invest now before the land in the Sydney basin, and the opportunity, is gone.

Who is online