Could this be the site of Sydney's second airport?

From The Sydney Morning Herald (smh.com.au)

Found: a new airport option
By Anne Davies, Urban Affairs Editor
May 28, 2004

http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2004/05/27/suttonairport_farmland,0.jpg
Good access to transport and utilities but surrounded only by villages . . . the rural landscape near Sutton Forest, south of Sydney, close to the site of the latest option for the second airport. Photo: Dallas Kilponen

A triangle of rural land near the village of Sutton Forest in the Southern Highlands has been identified by the State Government as a highly suitable site for Sydney's second airport, internal state documents reveal.

Despite claims by the Premier, Bob Carr, that the Government has not been involved in recommending sites to the federal Opposition, a document obtained by the state Opposition under freedom of information laws reveals that the site, Wells Creek, has been studied in detail.

The eight-page document, compiled for the Minister for Planning, Craig Knowles, says the site bordered by the Hume Highway, Illawarra Highway and Golden Valley Road is "potentially suitable" for a major airport.

It says the site is relatively flat, has "excellent" access to road and rail, could be connected to Sydney by high-speed rail, is well served by utilities, has relatively few environmental issues and is surrounded only by villages.

On aircraft noise, the document says: "There will be comparatively low impact on current land use - depending on runway configuration - as local population levels are low and major NSW population centres are relatively distant from the site . . .

"Major population centres in south-west Sydney, Goulburn, Wollongong and Nowra are around 60-70 kilometres from the site. Aircraft will have reached high altitude by this distance."

The report also notes that the site is outside the 100-kilometre exclusivity zone granted to Macquarie Bank's Sydney Airport Corporation Ltd, which operates Kingsford Smith.

This means that the second airport, which Labor has said would take the budget airlines overflow, could go ahead without the corporation being given first right to develop the site.

The analysis was produced in January, just before the ALP national conference, by a member of Mr Knowles's staff at his request. It was sent to the federal office, his spokeswoman said.

Mr Knowles wanted to know what sites were available, she said. "It does not endorse the site. It's just geotechnical information on a chunk of land on the east coast."

However, no other sites were analysed, says the response to the FoI request. The document also highlights the merits of the site over Wilton, closer to Sydney.

The federal Opposition spokesman on transport, Martin Ferguson, could not recall seeing the document, but admitted speaking to Mr Knowles about alternative sites for a second airport.

"There is no preferred site," he said. "Our position is to examine alternative sites from the Nepean through the Southern Highlands."

Martin Laverty, whose Exeter house would be within a kilometre of a Wells Creek airport and who convened an action group when Sutton Forest was mentioned at the ALP conference, said: "Residents of the highlands have been sceptical about our area becoming Sydney's second airport, dismissing it as a political stunt. But we now have proof."

Peta Seaton, state MP for the Southern Highlands, called on the federal Labor leader, Mark Latham, to rule the site out.

like it'll ever happen

Note also, the road transport for this airport is worse than one in the basin: they'll need to be widening the Hume Highway to six lanes, extending the freeway grade from Berrima to there and duplicating the Illawarra Highway and replace the Macquarie Pass

How about extending the Newcastle rail line up the coast to Newcastle's own airport, give it half hourly services from Sydney and Maitland, realign Hornsby-Warnervale as was outlined in that laughable 2010 plan, and just use that as the 2nd airport?

It essentially already is Sydney's 2nd airport if you look at Virgin and Jetstar timetables. They'd save billions not having to build a whole new airport, they would save the Newcastle branch from Costa's grubby little hands (though they'd need to acquire some land and spend a few hundred million to extend the line North East from Newcastle Station).

They also wouldn't look like total nuts when the price of oil keeps rising as it is expected to do in the next decade or so, gradually supressing demand for air travel around the time of the opening of a totally new airport.

The airlines could actually save a significant amount of fuel by minimising extra weight from excess baggage and unused, wasted food. One of my lecturers did a PHD on it.

Why do they keep putting the ideas out there for an airport in the south... it should be in the north! OR out to sea! FULLSTOP

it's not proposed for the north for the same reason that less people live in the north: the terrain is practically impervious - look at the Pacific Highway and the railway, curvy and steep; and then look at the F3, it has enormous cuttings and blasts its way through. Could be difficult to do that for an area the size of an airport.

Oh, and they've kind of zoned most of it National Park.

Somwhere around the F3 end of Central Mangrove might be possible or maybe Somersby.

This means that the second airport, which Labor has said would take the budget airlines overflow..............

Why not just use Richmond and put in a second north-south runway then?
If its just an overflow option then why go to such lengths (100+km from the CBD, rediculous)?

Here is the Federal Government's response. They even told the NSW Government not to develop around the Badgerys Creek site even though Howard has deleted the propspects of an airport there for now.

From The Sydney Morning Herald (smh.com.au)

Badgerys alive, as PM says no airport needed
By Anne Davies, Urban Affairs Editor
May 29, 2004

The Federal Government has warned the NSW Labor Government not to allow development on Sydney's fringe to encroach on the Badgerys Creek site reserved for a second airport - even though the Prime Minister says the city does not need one.

Responding to revelations that the state Planning Minister, Craig Knowles, had commissioned a study of a site for Sydney's second airport near Sutton Forest in the Southern Highlands, Mr Howard said a second airport was not needed.

"We have a very good airport. There has been a lot of sharing around in relation to the noise burden, and all the information we have says that you don't need a second airport in the foreseeable future," he said.

"So it can only be that there are still people in the Labor Party who are trying in the long run to phase out Kingsford Smith, which is ridiculous."

But Mr Knowles yesterday released a letter from the federal Aviation Minister, John Anderson, dated just a year ago, warning the NSW Government not to build too close to the site currently reserved for the second airport, in Sydney's south-west.

"The Bringelly study area is adjacent to the Badgerys Creek airport site and it is therefore important that aircraft noise issues be taken into account in drawing up plans for the area," Mr Anderson wrote.

He said the three airport configurations contemplated in the 1985 environmental impact study needed to be taken into account.

"As the Commonwealth Government is yet to settle on a particular option it is important that, if incompatible land use is to be avoided, the noise contours for all three options need to be considered in planning the surrounding region."

Mr Knowles confirmed a Herald report that his office had studied the potential of a site bounded by the Hume Highway, the Illawarra Highway and Golden Valley Road in the Southern Highlands.

The study was done in January, before the ALP national conference when federal Labor formally abandoned a second airport at Badgerys Creek and announced it was studying several sites outside the Sydney basin.

Mr Knowles played down the study yesterday, saying it was done at his request and not at the request of federal Labor which has responsibility for choosing the site.

But he confirmed that only this site had been studied in detail.

Mr Howard called on the Opposition Leader, Mark Latham, to say whether or not he was considering an airport at Sutton Forest.

Peta Seaton, the state member for the Southern Highlands, said there was no need for another Sydney Airport within the next 20 years.

"Craig Knowles can't walk away from this detailed technical document prepared at his request in his own office," Ms Seaton said.

"The Premier must explain why he claimed not to know anything about these plans last February while his infrastructure super minister, Craig Knowles, was busily working away on a detailed plan for the exact location of Labor's airport."

Advances in aeronautical technology leading to bigger and quieter planes would delay the need for another airport, Ms Seaton said.

The Sydney-based No Aircraft Noise lobby group said Wilton should remain the preferred option, being 50 kilometres closer to Sydney than Sutton Forest.

However Mr Knowles's study concluded that Wilton had serious environmental problems because it was close to Sydney's water catchment and would involve flights over several nearby dams.

Why not use Richmond, Wollongong and Newcastle to disperse traffic in the region? The vast bulk of air movements are domestic so there's no problem. If you want to downsize KSIA then build the new airport and make that the international hub. Otherwise there is little need for a new airport in my opinion.

Out To Sea!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Out To Sea!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why?

Why spend billions of $s building an off shore platform that isnt needed? There is plenty of existing infrastructure that can be utilised or modernised for a fraction of the cost.

Unfortunately there is no easy or cheap option for Sydney on this one. It seems that where ever there is an airport proposed everybody seems to think that it's agreat idea but not in their backyard. Doesn't Sydney have a large tract of unused swamp or contaminated land that can be reclaimed? One option might be to use the old Holsworthy range. It is large, contaminated (Not suitable for housing) and close (relatively) to the city. The Army don't use it anymore because of the proximity of the city.

Doesn't Sydney have a large tract of unused swamp or contaminated land that can be reclaimed? One option might be to use the old Holsworthy range. It is large, contaminated (Not suitable for housing) and close (relatively) to the city. The Army don't use it anymore because of the proximity of the city.

They tried floating that a few years ago. It resulted in a massive community outcry (and I was living in the area at the time). I suspect the subsequent rerouting of KSA plane movements over Bangor (which previously was rarely noticeable) may have been motivated by revenge.

Never mind that it was technically unlikely as that's a particularly high wind area. It would get worse as the idea was to bulldoze the tops of the hills to fill the valleys, thereby creating a large, flat area to allow the construction of an airport. The hills provided what little wind protection that area actually has.

TGV Mel - Can - Syd.

- expand Canberra airport, with TGV station there & at Civic,
- a significant slice of air traffic is removed by the Melbourne link, and rerouting of domestic services (Not all) into Canberra with the last part of the journey into Sydney (if that's the final destination of course) by train direct to Central.
- you could also even reroute international traffic into an upgraded Canberra airport or even [shock horror] Melbourne.

makes too much sense..... I know ;)

LOL Tays thats not what we want at all. Canberra and Melbourne can piss off. :colgate:

The airpot should be in the north... they can get some of those tunnel drilling machines for the support infrastructure which already needs upgrading for road and rail traffic... and whom said all the population is in the south?... Im talking about the added populations of North Western Sydney, the North Shore, Central Coast and Newcastle, those populations can reasonably justfy one in the north.

As for rail if you not going to maglev then don't bother... however there is the nice late model shinkansen if it came down to boring normal rail. http://www.naoe.eng.osaka-u.ac.jp/jp/jobs/obog/hasegawa_images/shinkansen.jpg

As for rail if you not going to maglev then don't bother... however there is the nice late model shinkansen if it came down to boring normal rail.

Have you not learned from the entire break of gauge fiasco that screwed rail over in this country for the last century and a half? You want to start it over again by introducing yet another incompatible type of train? Sheesh...

float it off Malabar! best solution! has to be near existing airport!
other side of BOtany Bay (far right of pic). there is plenty of road network for increased traffic flow ect.

http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/~neilson/suburbmap.gif

Have you not learned from the entire break of gauge fiasco that screwed rail over in this country for the last century and a half? You want to start it over again by introducing yet another incompatible type of train? Sheesh...

I only want one type of train and that is Maglev... I didn't even know the gague of the Nizoumi or whateva its called was not standard. :(

I only want one type of train and that is Maglev...

Too late, we already have another type of train, and it runs on Standard Gauge. How on earth would you get a Maglev into the core of an existing city anyway?

Or have you forgotten the legacy that prevented SG trains from reaching Roma Street until 1978 even though they could reach South Brisbane from 1930 onwards? The same problem that prevents Standard Gauge trains from using the central terminals in Perth (narrow gauge) and Adelaide (broad gauge) even to this day?

Maglev would be no different.

Indeed when you scrutinise the plans for Maglev, they usually involve terminating the Maglev somewhere in the middle suburbs because it's horrendously expensive and unlikely that a Maglev would ever run all the way into town. It'd be a joke, and should be quietly forgotten like so many other silly wastes of money. There's only one way to get a train all the way into the East Coast capitals, and it involves running on Standard Gauge.

For now that is very accurate but in future maybe there will be more effective and cheaper tunnelling machines robots that can safely cut the tracks for new roads and rail that we will need.

Maglev track is known as being hideously expensive already... this is not news to anyone, the expectation that almost all Maglevs are elevated should provide slight benefits for installation, much like the addition of the twin track monorail in downtown KL, it can be done. I aggree cost would be prohibitive and the installation extremely problematic ... right now the whole thing is a big waste of dollars but that does not stop people dreaming... hearing that electromagnetc hum and seeing one whoosh off from Central would be amazing - but not likely anytime soon. :(

All the more reason to FORGET IT and push for more REALISTIC options like Train à Grand Vitesse.

ching ching.

;)

Oh you and your love affair with the TGV... why dont you take one to Vegas and Marry it... I will take my Japanses MLX-001 and marry that instead.

riiiiiiiiiightio then Avy ;)

From what I have read the need for a new airport is still a long way down the track, I read the current airport has had approval to triple the passenger numbers, and with the bigger planes and higher average capacity the growth of aircraft movements shouldn't be as great
will be interesting to see how jetstar go with alvalon as to give an indication of how a new sydney airport would go a large distance from the CBD
maybe once a new airport is becoming close to being needed qantas might serve the rest of australia better and de-centralise some flights out of sydney taking away the need for another airport

From what I have read the need for a new airport is still a long way down the track, I read the current airport has had approval to triple the passenger numbers, and with the bigger planes and higher average capacity the growth of aircraft movements shouldn't be as great
will be interesting to see how jetstar go

Umm, doesn't Jetstar only use small planes? Ex-Impulse 717-200 and new A320-200 aircraft ain't exactly big planes, carrying a mere 125 and 177 passengers respectively.

Other airlines aren't exactly throwing out their smaller planes either. Indeed, a marked trend in recent years has spurned the 747 for smaller, single deck planes with lower capacity running fairly frequently. That does not bode well for runway and terminal capacity, though it certainly suits the passengers better than the alternative.

float it off Malabar! best solution! has to be near existing airport!
other side of BOtany Bay (far right of pic). there is plenty of road network for increased traffic flow ect.


Where did you get that map from? it's ancient - doesn't even show the Southern Cross Drive extension from 1987!

Airport off Malabar? it'd be in the safety range of the Anzac Rifle Range... That would easily be reason enough to not even consider it lol

Umm, doesn't Jetstar only use small planes? Ex-Impulse 717-200 and new A320-200 aircraft ain't exactly big planes, carrying a mere 125 and 177 passengers respectively.

Other airlines aren't exactly throwing out their smaller planes either. Indeed, a marked trend in recent years has spurned the 747 for smaller, single deck planes with lower capacity running fairly frequently. That does not bode well for runway and terminal capacity, though it certainly suits the passengers better than the alternative.

Agreed. I think KSIAs ambitions to increase pax numbers to 68 million with a one third increase in air movements and no adjustments to runway capacity is a bit optimistic. Although larger aircraft will be used on intercontinental routes (but even then not always so ie: Boeing Sonic Cruiser) the domestic flights (the vast majority) will use similar sized aircraft to now. Therefore the need to increase domestic capacity by utilising runway space in the Sydney basin and region (Richmond, Bankstown, Wollongong, Newcastle).
An example is the Trans tasman routes. In the 1980s this was done exclusively with 747s and 767s. Now there are also services with 737 and A320 aircraft (to increase frequency and with the new budget options like Freedom Air and Pacific Blue).
The only aircraft bigger than what we have now will be the A380, and that wont be running domesticly.

TGV Mel - Can - Syd.

- expand Canberra airport, with TGV station there & at Civic,
- a significant slice of air traffic is removed by the Melbourne link, and rerouting of domestic services (Not all) into Canberra with the last part of the journey into Sydney (if that's the final destination of course) by train direct to Central.
- you could also even reroute international traffic into an upgraded Canberra airport or even [shock horror] Melbourne.

makes too much sense..... I know ;)

Ok, I agree that this is a good idea. But impractical.

You've go to be insane if you don't think that the same thing would end up happening here as in London when the Chunnel was built. The track from Paris to the edge of London was all high speed. But then they had to slow down on the suburban tracks into the main station.

I don't think Melbourne would have major problems, but you would have serious trouble trying to upgrade tracks that carry trains at 100Km/h max to 400Km/h.

Also, what would happen in summer when the heat gets so hot that trains can't travel above 70Km/h? Chaos on the Hume Highway.

You've go to be insane if you don't think that the same thing would end up happening here as in London when the Chunnel was built. The track from Paris to the edge of London was all high speed. But then they had to slow down on the suburban tracks into the main station.

Big deal. It gets you there. If at some point there are capacity issues, another single or double track can be built, which can allow operations isolated from the suburban network, and higher speeds.

I don't think Melbourne would have major problems, but you would have serious trouble trying to upgrade tracks that carry trains at 100Km/h max to 400Km/h.

Grade separate the Upfield line, and put in a 3rd/4th track (forget Dual Gauge, just put in SG alongside). It's straight, mostly flat, and high speeds could be maintained up til near where the line passes my place, where the line curves to the west to get towards North Melbourne.

Also, what would happen in summer when the heat gets so hot that trains can't travel above 70Km/h? Chaos on the Hume Highway.

70km/h is a bit much. They can typically maintain higher speeds than that. Besides, this only applies in the afternoon, operations for most of the day and all of the night would remain uninterrupted, and operations during the afternoon/early evening would just be a tad slower. At least they'd keep moving.

Trains wouldn't travel at 300kph inside Metro areas anyhow - it'd be somewhat limited to 130kph (160kph max?). @ 130kph & given its own ROW, there wouldn't be a problem with major slowdowns entering a metropolitan area. Who said they'd do a half arsed job and mix with suburban traffic in the first place?

the main corridor set out for access to Melbourne is the Albion corridor, via Tullamarine Airport, Upfield line makes buggar all sense to me considering what's built up around it & the train services we're talking about wouldn't have a hope in hell of stopping anywhere between the city and Upfield, it'd purely and simply be only a cost-cutting exercise using that option: one I very much doubt would happen.

The main problem would be Sydney. Perhaps another track pair along the East Hills Corridor from Campbelltown, then using the Airport link with a few changes at the Central end would do? You could mix airport shuttles at both ends with (Central - Turrella & Spencer Street - Tullamarine) the inter-city traffic.

you can almost guarantee that if and when it happens, the "high speed corridor" (where high speed = 300kph) would be between Campbelltown and Canberra Airport & Belconnen and Craigieburn. Everywhere else it would be speed limited due to built up areas.

They used to quote 3 hours Mel - Syd @ 300kph, given that it's 700km as crow flies and probably 800km (?) via any corridor that likely would be built, the 3 hour figure still seems realistic given that it's only maximum 100km of track that they'd have to travel at lower speeds.

Trains wouldn't travel at 300kph inside Metro areas anyhow - it'd be somewhat limited to 130kph (160kph max?).

East Hills to Glenfield is very capable of 160km/h running, but that's the exception.

I wouldn't want to be standing on a platform when a train went through higher than ~100km/h. The noise would be a bit much, the air flow dynamics would whisk the light footed and literally toss them around. And to top it all off, the kinetic envelope would require very narrow trains or moving the tracks further from the platform (wider steps onto suburban services). Basically, they'd need to mix in at normal speeds if on normal tracks, but that's not too much to ask. It's standard practice on most high speed lines, particularly in their first decade or two of operation.

Who said they'd do a half arsed job and mix with suburban traffic in the first place?

The plans seen thus far seem to suggest exactly that. But there is nothing wrong with that.

the main corridor set out for access to Melbourne is the Albion corridor, via Tullamarine Airport

Umm, no, the Albion Corridor does not go via Tullamarine Airport.

Upfield line makes buggar all sense to me considering what's built up around it & the train services we're talking about wouldn't have a hope in hell of stopping anywhere between the city and Upfield, it'd purely and simply be only a cost-cutting exercise using that option: one I very much doubt would happen.

Actually, Upfield would cost more, as it'd involve sinking the line all the way from the Ring Road to Royal Park, along with associated suburban line and station sinking, reconstruction, and a new SG track all the way.

The use of the Upfield Corridor is preferred in the plan to SG the north east and Goulburn Valley, for the benefit of V/Line trains. However, they're not fast enough to justify sinking the line.

The benefit of this corridor is that it's straight, flat and direct. Albion is too far out of the way, gets congested with freight traffic, and would involve complex upgrades to bridges and tunnels around East Keilor and Footscray.

The main problem would be Sydney. Perhaps another track pair along the East Hills Corridor from Campbelltown, then using the Airport link with a few changes at the Central end would do?

Pity there's no space to swing tracks over or under the Flying Junctions between the tunnel portal and the country platforms. They'd need new platforms on, above or below the Eastern end of the station. That'd be tricky given the dodgy construction standards of Platforms 26 and 27 (the logical choices)

Sydney? fully Quadruplicate the East Hills line then to Campbelltown and grade separate Glenfield junction. If you were to sextuplicate at and around Revesby and Kingsgrove (expensive), you can maintain 130km/h+ running all the way in to Turrella, then either run via Airport or via Sydenham at, theoretically, 80km/h

Pity there's no space to swing tracks over or under the Flying Junctions between the tunnel portal and the country platforms. They'd need new platforms on, above or below the Eastern end of the station. That'd be tricky given the dodgy construction standards of Platforms 26 and 27 (the logical choices)

Demolish Macdonaldtown and rebuild the flying junctions and dives (never designed for ICs via East Hills) and grade separate Illawarra Junction! lol

East Hills to Glenfield is very capable of 160km/h running, but that's the exception.

I wouldn't want to be standing on a platform when a train went through higher than ~100km/h. The noise would be a bit much, the air flow dynamics would whisk the light footed and literally toss them around. And to top it all off, the kinetic envelope would require very narrow trains or moving the tracks further from the platform (wider steps onto suburban services). Basically, they'd need to mix in at normal speeds if on normal tracks, but that's not too much to ask. It's standard practice on most high speed lines, particularly in their first decade or two of operation.


100km is fast enough to access a metropolitan area, wouldn't you agree? The N sets fly through Berwick at 95 - 100kph and when you're standing on the platform, it's not exactly how you describe it, not in the slightest.


Umm, no, the Albion Corridor does not go via Tullamarine Airport.

The Albion corridor runs between both airports (tulla and essendon), and given the allignment set aside for a rail line to Tullamarine, there's every chance it would be diverted via Tullamarine (and hence what I was talking about):

http://metropolis.tayser.net/projects/metro/airport/tullafuture.jpg


Pity there's no space to swing tracks over or under the Flying Junctions between the tunnel portal and the country platforms. They'd need new platforms on, above or below the Eastern end of the station. That'd be tricky given the dodgy construction standards of Platforms 26 and 27 (the logical choices)

Are you talking about Central? what about dedicating 2 or 3 platforms for Inter-city services which dive immediately after leaving the platform towards an underground junction on the airport line? costly yes, but make sense, no?

100km is fast enough to access a metropolitan area, wouldn't you agree? The N sets fly through Berwick at 95 - 100kph and when you're standing on the platform, it's not exactly how you describe it, not in the slightest.

100km/h will do, until there's a need (and the money) to put in another track pair. So long as those don't pass platforms where passengers are waiting, they could easily do 160-200..

However, you should try standing at stations like Mittagong (where they even put signs on the platform warning you about trains passing through at high speed), I'm not entirely sure what makes some stations different to others, but I doubt it'd be as inoffensive as you describe everywhere.

The Albion corridor runs between both airports (tulla and essendon), and given the allignment set aside for a rail line to Tullamarine

Only from the south. You'd still need to swing a line west from Craigieburn or Coolaroo, and work out a way of getting trains in and out of the airport from the north and the east. My own idea of a line from Upfield assumed a dead end, not through running. That'd be complex. Also, it'd add 10 minutes to everyone's trip for little gain (saving those few actually transferring from a whopping 20 minute bus ride to Spencer Street, or less than 10 minutes on a hypothetical bus to a hypothetical stop at Broadmeadows, Campbellfield or Craigieburn).

Are you talking about Central? what about dedicating 2 or 3 platforms for Inter-city services which dive immediately after leaving the platform towards an underground junction on the airport line? costly yes, but make sense, no?

Tis possible, but the financial penalties for a month long shutdown of Airport Line services to allow for the construction of an underground junction would be.. umm.. highly prohibitive.

Much eastier to stick a pair of platforms underneath or above Central Electric, or possibly above Chalmers Street bus interchange. It'd have less impact on suburban services, and people would get used to it eventually.

Tis possible, but the financial penalties for a month long shutdown of Airport Line services to allow for the construction of an underground junction would be.. umm.. highly prohibitive.

Is possible, put in a crossover at International and run shuttles Central-International for a month. Exactly what is happening at Bondi Junction where they want to knock holes in the wall. And Revesby and Campbelltown trains have to share a track pair to Central for a month (post "Clearways" scheme), as happens now.

But yes, unnecessary.

Is possible, put in a crossover at International and run shuttles Central-International for a month. Exactly what is happening at Bondi Junction where they want to knock holes in the wall. And Revesby and Campbelltown trains have to share a track pair to Central for a month (post "Clearways" scheme), as happens now.

Umm, I think we're thinking of different things.

The major changes to the tunnel would be at Central. You'd need to close Green Square to Central to build an underground junction to get trains from the Airport Line across to Sydney Terminal, so the crossover would go at Mascot or Green Square, and services on at line would need to divert via Tempe for about a month.

What I would like to know is who is going to pay for this airport as the existing Sydney airport is now privately owned ?

Probably a PPP (read superannuation funds and other institutional investors), or maybe a bond issue.

Only from the south. You'd still need to swing a line west from Craigieburn or Coolaroo, and work out a way of getting trains in and out of the airport from the north and the east. My own idea of a line from Upfield assumed a dead end, not through running. That'd be complex. Also, it'd add 10 minutes to everyone's trip for little gain (saving those few actually transferring from a whopping 20 minute bus ride to Spencer Street, or less than 10 minutes on a hypothetical bus to a hypothetical stop at Broadmeadows, Campbellfield or Craigieburn).


take a look at the map I posted again, it clearly shows an approach from the south (right hand side of the image) and the east (top side of the picture) - consistent with diverting from the current Albion corridor.

likewise:

http://members.iinet.net.au/~tayser/melhsraccess.jpg

and Sydney for good measure:

http://members.iinet.net.au/~tayser/sydhsraccess.jpg

with an intercity service running @ 100kph on the red sections (above), SSS - Civic - Central would anyone want to hazard a guess as to the time taken?

And if the main runway is lengthened at Moorabbin by lets say 500m and strengthening of the existing runway. Cost maybe $30m. Then Moorabbin can handle 737/A320s. terminal $20m max. A north south runway at Richmond on mostly state land $150/200m. Terminal $50m. A TGV from Melbourne to Sydney via Canberra $10b at the very least. A TGV will never match the frequency/cost ratio that developing the secondary airports in the regions would. Even in France the TGV projects have been put on hold in favour of freeway/air development. The benifit/cost ratio does not favour the TGV. Governmental spending that is.

i dont like the idea of trying to dodge trains at 160km an hour!

enter the matrix!

And if the main runway is lengthened at Moorabbin by lets say 500m and strengthening of the existing runway. Cost maybe $30m. Then Moorabbin can handle 737/A320s. terminal $20m max. A north south runway at Richmond on mostly state land $150/200m. Terminal $50m. A TGV from Melbourne to Sydney via Canberra $10b at the very least

You're comparing the cost of a few unlikely projects (NIMBYs would massacre either of them) with the full cost of an entire system. How about comparing the full cost of an expanded air service, along with the infrastructure and miscellaneous extra imports required to support it?

- A new freeway from the M2 up to Richmond perhaps - there goes a billion dollars (widening the M5/NH31 between Sydney and Wilton/Sutton Forest/wherever would cost about the same)
- Exports necessary to offset the worsening balance of trade that the extra fuel consumption/imports from the extra aircraft and extra road traffic around the airport - hundreds of millions a year there

Should I go on?

Oh, and Richmond won't happen. It's within the 100km exclusion zone of Mascot (which means Mascot's owners get first refusal to build it, and that's essentially a veto right). A new airport would cost about $2 billion all up, and that's just at Sydney.

Also, keep in mind that oil prices do not show many signs of coming down to levels agreeable to the aviation industry in the forseeable future. Meanwhile, the TGV's oil requirements would be minimal, as it would run on electricity. Also, its terminuses at Sydney and Melbourne would be served by mass transit (and even Civic and Belconnen are transit hubs), which would significantly reduce the extra oil bill.

The Richmond RAAF base is only 50km from the CBD. Macquarie Bank can build the airport if they wish. It's even closer than Wilton and it has a rail line running right next to the base with direct rail services to the city. Claredon Station is located there as well. However the Richmond line needs to at least be duplicated as it is only a single track from Quakers Hill. Cityrail has intention of doing this anyway.Windsor Rd could not cope even as a four lane road, and therefore it would need to go six lanes. extending the M2 out there would be needed as well on top of that.

The concern about having an airport out at Richmond is that the area experiences 100 days of fog a year, which would be a constant problem for the airport.

It would be theoretically possible to grade-separate Windor Road. Sections which are not suitable for this are generally being bypassed now in the current upgrade. Would need to bypass Windsor itself though.

Now in the US, the Air National Guard operates happily out of commercial airports, but I'm not sure if it would be appropriate/possible for the RAAF to share with the commercial traffic. It would then become a case of where would you move the RAAF? Williamtown?

Even though I don't like the idea of an airport at Richmond (and I'm sure the locals would hate it and would probably lynch you if you went up there and suggested it), they could build the passenger terminal next to Clarendon Station, and leave air traffic control and military hangars etc elsewhere on the base in the hands of the RAAF.

Still, upgrading Windsor Road and/or extending the M2 would both be pretty stupid ideas. It would only encourage people to drive even more than they already do.

Yes, they would want to get RIC to duplicate the rest of the Richmond line and run services quarter hourly all day, but that's unlikely given Costa's inclination to cut services wherever he can.

And yes, fog would be a big concern at Richmond, probably much more so than Wilton or Sutton Forest. Auto landers can help, but they do fail from time to time.

Edit: ...stupid internet connection...

Umm, doesn't Jetstar only use small planes? Ex-Impulse 717-200 and new A320-200 aircraft ain't exactly big planes, carrying a mere 125 and 177 passengers respectively.

Other airlines aren't exactly throwing out their smaller planes either. Indeed, a marked trend in recent years has spurned the 747 for smaller, single deck planes with lower capacity running fairly frequently. That does not bode well for runway and terminal capacity, though it certainly suits the passengers better than the alternative.
Yes but the trend is also to avoid major hubs like Sydney as well and fly directly point to point - eg Perth-Canberra and Perth- Gold Goast

Yes. Virgin Blue (and their smaller planes) is more popular on the Gold Coast than QANTAS/Jetstar. The majority of the flights are from Sydney and Melbourne, but services to Canberra, Perth, Adelaide, Cairns are becoming more popular.

I read on smh.com.au this morning that an extension of the M2 to Richmond has been examined as part of an upgrade of the Bells Line of Road, which links Sydney with the states Central West.

The area south of RAAF Richmond is commonweath land (Uni of NSW). A 4km north-south runway could be built avoiding overflights of Richmond and Windsor towns with a minimum of land purchase. Fog is a problem though. The rail link is there and only needs upgrading. The M2 extension and the Windsor Rd upgrade will take care of road traffic. For a investment of just $100s of millions instead of billions you could have a 2 runway (a 4km long north-south rwy and a 2km cross rwy) airport with a capacity of maybe 20+ million passengers. Because the north south rwy would not border any immediate urban area it could potentially be used 24/7 .Its political dynamite though and it would be a cock fight in the courts.

I read on smh.com.au this morning that an extension of the M2 to Richmond has been examined as part of an upgrade of the Bells Line of Road, which links Sydney with the states Central West.

That was announced ages and ages ago. Rumoured that the RTA is sitting on the report for various political reasons.

btw the article is here: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/06/02/1086058923654.html

NR32 Great Western Highway is a RONI until 2008. It is being duplicated to Katoomba and upgraded to Mt Victoria Pass. But its upgraded capacity is still limited. The Bells Line route is less developed with only Kurrajong, Mt Tomah and Bell on its route and it is generally less steep, excepting the section to Mt Tomah. The idea would be to create a B-Double route and hence save western truck freight a trip via Muswellbrook or Wagga Wagga.

I think that the airport out at Richmond is a great idea. Make that the International Airport and keep Kingsford-Smith for the Domestic. Then, Virgin Blue can move over into the current international terminal and leave QANTAS/Jetstar and the minor airlines at the current domestic terminals.

The runway is 1900m long (long enough for 737s).
Plenty of apron area and terminal space.
Commonwealth land to the south for a possible north-south rwy.
http://www.defence.gov.au/raaf/images/for_site/richmond.gif http://www.airviewonline.com.au/photos/0306/1811/0306-1811-37.jpg

OR

To save houses from Reclaimation, you could build a second runway at a different angle that runs across that open are in the first photo.

It would be theoretically possible to grade-separate Windor Road. Sections which are not suitable for this are generally being bypassed now in the current upgrade. Would need to bypass Windsor itself though.

Now in the US, the Air National Guard operates happily out of commercial airports, but I'm not sure if it would be appropriate/possible for the RAAF to share with the commercial traffic. It would then become a case of where would you move the RAAF? Williamtown?

Let me introduce you to the term "Joint User". This is where a civillian terminal is located adjacent to a RAAF base and the RAAF grants use of the runways and provides Air Traffic Control services. Outside of the capitals, this is more common than not.

RAAF Base Darwin is co-located with Darwin International
RAAF Base Townsville is co-located with Townsville International
RAAF Base Williamtown is co-located with Newcastle
RAAF Base Fairbairn was co-located with Canberra, until the base was de-comissioned last year. However 34 Squadron (VIP Transport) still maintain a pressence and operate from a new hangar at the airport.

RAAF Base Tindal is co-located with Katherine airport.
RAAF Base Wagga is adjacent to Wagga Wagga airport, now sold off to the civvies.
RAAF Williams Point Cook base has granted civil operating rights from the airfield (no longer used by the RAAF on a regular basis).

So to have Richmond as a second airport for Sydney really does not require the relocation of the RAAF. RAAF Richmond is in a gradual shut-down, with most of the assets moving to Amberley (to become a "Super Base"). However, you can be assured there would always be some RAAF pressence in Sydney .

Let me introduce you to the term "Joint User".

I was introduced to that term very early in my adolescence...http://www.birdforum.net/images/smilies/kos.gif

:D

(it shows...)

woah. OLD.

anyhow, now let's find a realistic example, ie a remotely busy airport...

woah. OLD.

anyhow, now let's find a realistic example, ie a remotely busy airport...

Well Darwin for starters. And to a lesser extent, Townsville.

Do you know anything about the traffic at these airports? I'm an Air Traffic Controller in the RAAF, and these are the two busiest RAAF bases.

indeed I grant you they probably are the two busiest RAAF bases but they are nowhere near the busiest commercial airports. Can you provide, say, a USAF example?

indeed I grant you they probably are the two busiest RAAF bases but they are nowhere near the busiest commercial airports. Can you provide, say, a USAF example?

Here are a few joint user airports off the top of my head:
Frankfurt am Main (50 million with USAF base)
Pittsburg, US (20 million pax with USAF transport base)
Keflavik, Iceland (commercial airport & USAF base)
Bangkok (30 million pax & Thai airforce base)

Frankfurt.
Top: commercial airport
Bottom: USAF base
http://www.spaceimaging.com/gallery/ioweek/archive/01-04-01/frankfurt_airport_640.jpg

but now how busy are they as military bases? :tongue2:

I'm not necessarily disputing the fact that it can and is done, more how appropriate it is at Richmond (and this thread is so old, I can't remeber if it was to be at a one runway Richmond or a two runway Richmond...)

Two longer term options for the Sydney airport could be:

1. Build another runway in Port Botany and increase existing terminal capacity including expansion of current drop off area to include an 'outer ring' , LAX style. Could be expensive but viable considering required infrastructure investment of second airport.

2. Sell off airport land for mixture of private development, commercial areas and parkland, and use the funds to build a new airport and associated infrastructure. Would probably still require a substantial goverment contribution, and would be extremely inconvenient for CBD flyers to head out west to catch a plane. I also dont see MIG buying into this unless it is well compensated.

well the sydney airport is unlikely to move especially with the new m5 east the goes straight to the airport.

Two longer term options for the Sydney airport could be:

1. Build another runway in Port Botany and increase existing terminal capacity including expansion of current drop off area to include an 'outer ring' , LAX style. Could be expensive but viable considering required infrastructure investment of second airport.

2. Sell off airport land for mixture of private development, commercial areas and parkland, and use the funds to build a new airport and associated infrastructure. Would probably still require a substantial goverment contribution, and would be extremely inconvenient for CBD flyers to head out west to catch a plane. I also dont see MIG buying into this unless it is well compensated.

option 2 sounds better, in the long term. As the existing airport has too many restrictions on curfews and building heights on the city. Is Sydney going to wait for urban development to surround the airport like Kai Tak Airport did in Hong Kong, until they decide to relocate the airport?

mods - please delete this one and retain the second one. Thanks.
See below

well the sydney airport is unlikely to move especially with the new m5 east the goes straight to the airport.

The M5 East is part of an orbital ring road that connects up with the city's other freeways.

Two longer term options for the Sydney airport could be:

1. Build another runway in Port Botany and increase existing terminal capacity including expansion of current drop off area to include an 'outer ring' , LAX style. Could be expensive but viable considering required infrastructure investment of second airport.

2. Sell off airport land for mixture of private development, commercial areas and parkland, and use the funds to build a new airport and associated infrastructure. Would probably still require a substantial goverment contribution, and would be extremely inconvenient for CBD flyers to head out west to catch a plane. I also dont see MIG buying into this unless it is well compensated.


There isn't the space to build at Port Botany even if the port went. If there is any space there would also have to be substancial reclaimination which isn't popular with those living around Botany Bay. It would be an ecological disaster for the bay.

I would rather keep Kingsford Smith due to it's easy access to the city. I support the option of keeping Kingsford Smith as an airport for Domestic services with international flights operating from the second airport. Any overflow from the second airport could be sent to Kingsford Smith It could also house light aircraft.

but now how busy are they as military bases? :tongue2:

I'm not necessarily disputing the fact that it can and is done, more how appropriate it is at Richmond (and this thread is so old, I can't remeber if it was to be at a one runway Richmond or a two runway Richmond...)

They are generally transport bases just like RAAF Richmond. Certainly not smaller with the exception of Pittsburg which is a very small USAF base.

Two longer term options for the Sydney airport could be:

1. Build another runway in Port Botany and increase existing terminal capacity including expansion of current drop off area to include an 'outer ring' , LAX style. Could be expensive but viable considering required infrastructure investment of second airport.

No. Lengthen runway 16L/34R (the third rwy) to allow landings of all aircraft types (incl the A380). The current runway length is 2440m. The threshhold for 16L is aprox 300m from the rwy end. To accommodate landings of fully laden 747s and A380s you need about 2600m from the threshold for easy operations. So an extension of about 500m on the southern end (200m on the existing land finger and 300 pier extension) and 200m on the northern end.
This would mean that ALL aircraft can use this runway for landings and all aircraft up to 767 and short range 747 and A380 flights can take off.
Runway 16R/34L is already nearly 4000m long so no adjustments there needed.
Runway 7/25 is 2500+m long so this can be used in present form for all operations up to 767 size and landings up to 747 size.

Such an adjustment would give KSIA a perfect north-south dual rwy operation.

Build a single 3500m long rwy at Richmond with an orientation of aprox 70/250 degrees from the western end of the existing rwy to the Hawkesbury river. This rwy would not have aproaches over residential areas and would therefore hopefully be a 24/7 operation. Capacity of 100000-150000 airmovements per year. Such a rwy orientation would preserve the bicentary park, racecourse and showgrounds.
Advantages of Richmond:
1. existing rail infrastructure that with a bit of work could provide a HS link to Parramatta (and the CBD?) as well as Cityrail stoptrains from the terminal.
2. proposed M2 extention would provide a road link via Richmond Rd.
3. Easy to orientate a new rwy with no urban overflights.
4. a large proportion of the land required is already comonwealth owned.
5. The land is already flat.
6. a single runway with ''all aircraft'' capability could take 100000-150000 airmovements off KSIA. Projected 2023 airmovements for Sydney = 412000.
That would mean KSIA could limit movements to the current number (280000-300000) with curfew in place.
Disadvantages:
1. Fog. Would have been a big issue 20 years ago but with precision ILS and more advanced radar not really a big factor now.
2. Flooding risk. Would need extensive flood protection.


2. Sell off airport land for mixture of private development, commercial areas and parkland, and use the funds to build a new airport and associated infrastructure. Would probably still require a substantial goverment contribution, and would be extremely inconvenient for CBD flyers to head out west to catch a plane. I also dont see MIG buying into this unless it is well compensated.

The ideal would be a mega airport at Wilton with 4 long parallel rwys, terminal cap of 80 million, HST to CBD, Fwy connex.
Closure or huge downsizing of KSIA.
This would be by far the most expensive option.

Wilton as an overflow would be an expensive white elephant.
Regarding Wilton. Its ALL or nothing (ie. not a second airport but THE airport for Sydney and surrounds).

richmond is good town but where ever this project goes will require huge ammount of work
whats the return on this billion dollar investment ?

Why not just build another few hundred metres of land finger into the water so the biggies can take off from rwy 3 as well? Environment? Noise pollution?

I think it would be royal pain in the ass to cab all the way out to Richmond or lug the suitcase on the train - but thats just me.

Why not just build another few hundred metres of land finger into the water so the biggies can take off from rwy 3 as well? Environment? Noise pollution?

You would then have to add about 1.2km to the length instead of 700m. That would mean an extention of the finger into Botany bay of around 800 metres!


I think it would be royal pain in the ass to cab all the way out to Richmond or lug the suitcase on the train - but thats just me.

I thought an express train (like the Gatwick Express) running direct to Parramatta and through to the CBD would work using the existing rail corridor with widening where possible to 4 tracks (between Richmond & Parra).
150 kph Richmond-Parramatta (15mins?) 80kph Parramaata-Central (15mins?). With a 2min stop at Parramatta it would take just half an hour to the CBD.

rail link like that seems like the easy option
but again it such a big change

You would then have to add about 1.2km to the length instead of 700m. That would mean an extention of the finger into Botany bay of around 800 metres! Yeah but why stop at 300m? May as well go the whole hog and extend 800m into the bay if you're going to extend anyway - there's plenty of room there. Would have the enviros up in arms though...

I thought an express train (like the Gatwick Express) running direct to Parramatta and through to the CBD would work using the existing rail corridor with widening where possible to 4 tracks (between Richmond & Parra).
150 kph Richmond-Parramatta (15mins?) 80kph Parramaata-Central (15mins?). With a 2min stop at Parramatta it would take just half an hour to the CBD. I would love to see that, and I think at least 120km/h would be achievable bt Parra-Central so times could even be quicker. But you would need an airport with a massive throughput to justify such an infrastructure investment, ala the Heathrow Xpress and Hong Kong MTR. Not even JFK gets its own express train to Manhattan. Would still be cool though.

Yeah but travelling on the Van Wyck expressway is an adventure in itself.

Yeah but why stop at 300m? May as well go the whole hog and extend 800m into the bay if you're going to extend anyway - there's plenty of room there. Would have the enviros up in arms though...

Probably the only way to ever get an extention through would be to build it on pontoons like the proposal for the airport off-shore. I dont think reclamation would get the thumbs up.
When looking at an extention into the Bay, you have to take into account the proximity of the refinery at Kernal. Due to the presence of the refinery to the south and suburbs to the north, the runway threshholds (threshold= start of landing zone) would probably have to remain at their present location.


I would love to see that, and I think at least 120km/h would be achievable bt Parra-Central so times could even be quicker. But you would need an airport with a massive throughput to justify such an infrastructure investment, ala the Heathrow Xpress and Hong Kong MTR. Not even JFK gets its own express train to Manhattan. Would still be cool though.

It wouldnt be such a huge investment. The track is there now. As frequencies increase the track could be duplicated progressively and modernised for higher speeds. Thats why I think Richmond would be a great candidate, due to the presence of infrastructure that would mean progressive upgrading of existing facilities during the growth process instead of one big spend up.

Theoretical growth process for Richmond.

Stage1.
i.New (north-east/south-west orientation) runway of 3500 metres.
ii.Closure of original 28/10 runway and the elimination of approaches over Richmond and Windsor residential areas.
iii.New multi-user terminal (with train station) and cargo facitities
iv. Reduced size of RAAF base
v.24/7 operation. Will be Sydneys main cargo airport and will handle a mix of domestic, charter and some night-time interconinental flights.

Stage 2.
i.Progressive expansion of cargo facilities and passenger terminal.
ii. Progressive duplication of line to Parramatta for express passenger and freight.
iii. M2 extension complete and 4 lane connection via upgraded Richmond Rd.
iv. Development of a large office, retail and light industrial park on airport grounds.

Richmond becomes ever more busy recieving a steady stream of night-time cargo and intercontinental flights.
During the day Richmond handles ¼ of Sydneys domestic traffic (in 2023 = 10 million pax).
Richmond is also Sydneys principle charter airport.
Richmond has an express train service to central station with 1 stop at Paramatta aswell as cityrail services from its station under the terminal.
Richmond also has a sizable office, retail and industrial park with its own railstation for cityrail services (and connection to express services at either the terminal or at Parramatta).

Sydney 2023. 68 million passengers
KSIA: 53 million pax (25 million international + 28 million domestic)
Richmond: 15 million pax (5 million international + 10 million domestic) + cargo.

After 2023: Possible future parallel runway (2700m) for landings to boost the capacity to 250000+ airmovements.

Have any of you considered the impact of expanding the runway on Port Botany? I feel that extending the runway would interfere with the port as it would obtrude into shipping channels.

I believe a 2nd Sydney Airport shouldnt get built.
Most of the people that are advocating a 2nd Airport
obviously dont live close to one and with Sydney
surrounded by National Parks the prospect of the
2nd Airport being surrounded eventually by houses
is way to high.

The more appropriate solution would be to better
regulate the Airline Industry into providing more
international flights to other cities. I.E Perth,
Adelaide, Canberra, Melbourne, Brisbane, Darwin,
etc etc. These airports would be able to handle
a bit of extra capacity.

And yes i understand that most business travellers
and tourists want to go to Sydney, but what is
stoping them being transferred from another airport
like the ones mentioned above via a domestic flight.
A lot of these domestic flights are flying below
capacity anyway, so it would make much more
sense and be more economical to utilise the infrastructure
that you already have and utilise domestic flights
you already have, with the added benefit of
providing better international services to other
capital city airports.

The more appropriate solution would be to better
regulate the Airline Industry into providing more
international flights to other cities. I.E Perth,
Adelaide, Canberra, Melbourne, Brisbane, Darwin,
etc etc. These airports would be able to handle
a bit of extra capacity.

And yes i understand that most business travellers
and tourists want to go to Sydney, but what is
stoping them being transferred from another airport
like the ones mentioned above via a domestic flight.
A lot of these domestic flights are flying below
capacity anyway, so it would make much more
sense and be more economical to utilise the infrastructure
that you already have and utilise domestic flights
you already have, with the added benefit of
providing better international services to other
capital city airports.

Why disperse the international flights?. Its not the international flights that cause the capacity problems (ie: larger aircraft = more passengers, less take-offs and landings). Its the domestic network which stretches capacity with smaller aircraft sizes and higher frequencies. Although international flights account for nearly half the passengers at Sydney with a quater of the airmovements.

...with the ANZAC rifle range and other clubs moved out, as it would be the land route to the 'island airport'.

>>On my day off I went to Barton Park, parked my car near St. George Soccer Stadium adjacent to Muddy Creek, and did a survey on flights timing & Airline landing at Runway 07 (East-West Runway).
survey on flights timing & Airline landing at Runway 07 (East-West Runway).

All are 737/747, unless specified

3.32pm- Qantas
3.34pm- Light aircarft (N/A)
3.36pm- Qantas
3.40pm- Atlas Air
3.42pm- Thai Airlines
3.44pm- Qantas
3.46pm- light aircraft (Qantaslink)
3.52pm- light aircraft (N/A)
3.54pm- light aircraft (N/A)
4.00pm- Qantas
4.04pm- Virgin Blue
4.08pm- Qantas
4.12pm- Jetstar
4.14pm- Qantas
4.16pm- light aircraft (N/A)
4.18pm- Virgin Blue
4.24pm- Qantas
4.28pm- light aircraft (Qantaslink)
4.30pm- Qantas
4.32pm- Jetstar
4.36pm- light aircraft (Qantas)
4.38pm- Qantas
4.42pm- light aircraft (Rex)

At 4.56pm- light Aircraft (N/A) took off overhead!
There were no landings after this up til I left the park at 5.25pm. Strange to see so many jets in the first hour and none afterwards.
Also the smaller SAAB and light aircraft made :eek2: :eek2: a noisier landing than the 737s and 747 Thai Airlines. Please explain? :)

...with the ANZAC rifle range and other clubs moved out, as it would be the land route to the 'island airport'.

Just closing the Rifle Range would seem to be an insurmountable obstacle. You know, the respective governments have been planning for nearly 10 years to do this but they still can't agree on the construction of alternate facilities (presumably at Holsworthy) for the fullbore and military shooters...

Just closing the Rifle Range would seem to be an insurmountable obstacle. You know, the respective governments have been planning for nearly 10 years to do this but they still can't agree on the construction of alternate facilities (presumably at Holsworthy) for the fullbore and military shooters...

Why is it so difficult to move them out to say off Heathcote Road, near the Sydney & Marconi clay Target complex?

A fullbore range needs to be 1100m from the last mound to the target butts. Then ~3km minimum safety clearance behind that

^Sound like you like blasting a bit of steam off! I did not know that about rifle ranges.

Existing Anzac Range at Malabar is quite close (not more than 1km!) from the houses along Darce St, Broome St etc.

Heathcote Road has hectares of space for the club to relocate. Either side of the Aboriginal Reserve.

lol. Yeah, at Malabar, the two fullbore ranges face down the headland - you're quite safe in any other direction other than towards the target butts. The exclusion range at Malabar goes out to sea though.

But there may be sufficient room at Heathcote. I don't think that had been put up as a site, it was Holsworthy or nothing...

^ Yeah, Holsworthy would be a better location> more central to Sydney's Population.

But 24-hour Airport off Malabar on a man-made island would not affect any homes with aircraft noise greater than 70dB. Only problem is cost to government/private overseas company> possibly same as HKIA or Kansai International Airport.

Why disperse the international flights?. Its not the international flights that cause the capacity problems (ie: larger aircraft = more passengers, less take-offs and landings). Its the domestic network which stretches capacity with smaller aircraft sizes and higher frequencies. Although international flights account for nearly half the passengers at Sydney with a quater of the airmovements.

People in say Adelaide, Canberra, Hobart etc are starved of international services and have often have to travel via Melbourne or Sydney to get out of the country or back to their home city when travelling internation. Yet we all know that not all domestic flights are full to capacity.

My suggestion was that rather than go to the expense of building a 2nd airport and the trouble that causes with traffic and noise etc etc, would it not be viable to transfer some international flights to other capital cities and then people going to sydney can transfer from these places instead using existing domestic capacity.

2. Sell off airport land for mixture of private development, commercial areas and parkland, and use the funds to build a new airport and associated infrastructure. Would probably still require a substantial goverment contribution, and would be extremely inconvenient for CBD flyers to head out west to catch a plane. I also dont see MIG buying into this unless it is well compensated.

Well here's what I'm thinking. If ya use Richmond airport as the next airport (i.e. relocating Kingsford to Richmond), then there will be more reason to start North West Rail Link. that way, it shouldn't be a significant inconvenience.

Well here's what I'm thinking. If ya use Richmond airport as the next airport (i.e. relocating Kingsford to Richmond), then there will be more reason to start North West Rail Link. that way, it shouldn't be a significant inconvenience.

Ahh...it would be a GREAT inconvenicence for city travellers from interstate and those like myself in Sydney's south. Creating unneccesary travel to the historic Hawkesbury region. > Locals will NIMBY it.

I hate to be a wet blanket but from a real-world point of view pie in the sky concepts like maglevs are really just a waste of thinking time when we could be putting our heads to practical ideas.

To make a second airport practical even for international flights it really needs to be within an hour's travelling time of Kingsford Smith and the city, 90 minutes at the most. Assuming no government is going to spend vast amounts on non-conventional rail in the near future this leaves out Sutton Forest, Newnes, Canberra and the other regional options more than 100 kilometres away. I agree that Somersby would be a good option as it sits between New South Wales' two largest cities, is quite accessible to the northern suburbs (the "technology belt" high-income market from Pennant Hills through North Ryde to North Sydney comprising a high percentage of international flight demand) via the F3 and a northern rail line that could be upgraded at relatively minor expense. It would also be an excellent boost for the economy of the Central Coast and provide an economic focus for the area. Either way, the infrastructure costs associated with servicing a new airport are going to preclude any big-budget spending on transport options, and our expectations are going to have to adjust accordingly.

^Excellent opinion. And welcome.

I suppose my argument is that more minimalist options also offer the best chance of governments having the funds to offer genuine public transport development around them and in the process educate Sydney people to get out of their cars. The construction and maintenance costs for a floating airport exposed to the sea (unlike the Japanese ones which as far as I know are all in sheltered bays) would be prohibitive. Somersby is still reasonably close to the coast to allow for fuel dumping if required but more importantly offers a major economic lifeline for the surrounding area and would assist in development along the entire Central Coast corridor north to Newcastle. The present too-cosy Macquarie agreement at Kingsford Smith that is holding up any discussion of a new airport is going to end up hurting Sydney economically and socially very soon; Brisbane's current development plans are going to see it as a major international arrivals point within a few years. Whether it be Somersby or Wyee or Wilton or Darkes Forest, the sites which appear to be the only realistic options left, a decision needs to be made before the land developers move in to avoid another Badgerys Creek fiasco.

I've was pondering the possibilities for KSIA's expansion to the predicted 68 million passengers in 2023. In the absense of a decission on a new airport location I decided to doodle a bit with the present airport to see what I could squeeze out of it. I came up with huge terminal expansion (for 60-70 million passengers per year) consolidated around the existing sites. Large cargo areas to the south of runway 25/7 and maintainance area over twice the size of the current one.
Nearly everything fits within the boundaries of the current airport although I did allow for a 600m lengthening of runway 34R/16L to acomodate large aircraft on long range flights. The area between the 2 north/south runways is reclaimed for maintainance areas. The existing domestic terminal area becomes a mix of international and domestic.

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid165/pe998010900f0948502888bb0f96c54a7/f463de33.jpg

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid165/pe998010900f0948502888bb0f96c54a7/f463de33.jpg

Key.
1.The red square is the location of the control tower
2.The blue line is a rapid transit line between terminal areas

My conclusion is that it would be possible to handle a huge traffic increase at the current location.

My next doodle. This one requires no runway lengthening or reclamation. The maintainance area stays where its is and the main terminal expansion is at the cost of the general aviation area with a large satelite to the south of runway 25/7 (with transit line linking it with the main terminal area). The cargo terminals can be seen just south of the control tower. This variant might be good for 50 million (due to less runway capacity) passengers per year. Btw. The drawing isnt entirely complete.


http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid165/p0b8b15c117950d4a53a1058df263fef6/f463d208.jpg

Yet another doodle is this of a possible airport at Richmond. Most of the land required is Commonwealth owned (ie.RAAF and University of West Sydney). The existing runway can be seen as closed functioning as a taxiway for the RAAF, maintainance and cargo areas. There is a 3-4km long north south runway which crosses the main road and railway between Richmond and Windsor. I Personally am not sure about cutting across this link and would probably prefer a domestic/pacific regional airport with a 2-2½km runway and terminal to the north of the main link between the towns.
An advantage of this is that a airport with medium/large capacity can be built so support KSIA with existing (to be upgraded) rail and good (future) road links. This is the cheap alternative to Badgerys or Wilton.

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid165/p0b8d05578c19e734ae572ab97ee8920f/f463cd9a.jpg

People in say Adelaide, Canberra, Hobart etc are starved of international services and have often have to travel via Melbourne or Sydney to get out of the country or back to their home city when travelling internation. Yet we all know that not all domestic flights are full to capacity.

My suggestion was that rather than go to the expense of building a 2nd airport and the trouble that causes with traffic and noise etc etc, would it not be viable to transfer some international flights to other capital cities and then people going to sydney can transfer from these places instead using existing domestic capacity.

Youre missing the point. Its the domestic flights that cause the capacity problems not the international. If you look at any country or continent you will see that international flights are confined to a limited/select number of airports. Thats because long haul flights require lots of passengers and airlines want to maximise the occupancy. If you start flying long haul international to all the named cities then you will be doing a 4 hop flight with a 737 to Londen. Not very rendable. To use a comparible country, Canada. Edmonton and Calgary are major cities (like Adelaide) but depend mainly on domestic connections for international flights through Toronto or Vancouver. Most cities in Europe with 1 million or more population dont have trans Atlantic flights. Its not really strange that Adelaide, Canberra and Hobart have to connect. But back to the point. Its not the wide body longhaul flights which cause the capacity problems. Its the high frequency, lower capacity flights which do.

I hate to be a wet blanket but from a real-world point of view pie in the sky concepts like maglevs are really just a waste of thinking time when we could be putting our heads to practical ideas.

To make a second airport practical even for international flights it really needs to be within an hour's travelling time of Kingsford Smith and the city, 90 minutes at the most. Assuming no government is going to spend vast amounts on non-conventional rail in the near future this leaves out Sutton Forest, Newnes, Canberra and the other regional options more than 100 kilometres away. I agree that Somersby would be a good option as it sits between New South Wales' two largest cities, is quite accessible to the northern suburbs (the "technology belt" high-income market from Pennant Hills through North Ryde to North Sydney comprising a high percentage of international flight demand) via the F3 and a northern rail line that could be upgraded at relatively minor expense. It would also be an excellent boost for the economy of the Central Coast and provide an economic focus for the area. Either way, the infrastructure costs associated with servicing a new airport are going to preclude any big-budget spending on transport options, and our expectations are going to have to adjust accordingly.

Wouldn't the terrain around Somersby be prohibitive? there's an awful lot of cuttings along the F3 up that way...

That said, if it's not, it makes demographic sense. Easy access is available from everywhere. The Central Coast needs something to give business a reason to move there. Some significant infrastructure improvement would go a long way towards providing the incentive. After all, The Central Coast is, well, "Central" between the two largest cities in the state.

Ahh...it would be a GREAT inconvenicence for city travellers from interstate and those like myself in Sydney's south. Creating unneccesary travel to the historic Hawkesbury region. > Locals will NIMBY it.

Sprint train from Richmond to City via Maquarie Park? I suspect those Maquarie Park fellows will get this benifit as well.

Now I did not expect to see a scan of DAP on this site... I had to check what site I was looking at. What is your background in aviation Kiwikaas?

Sprint train from Richmond to City via Maquarie Park? I suspect those Maquarie Park fellows will get this benifit as well.

Still people from Wollongong and Sydney's south will have to get to the city (which already stuggles at peak times) then head NW!

I've always thought it would save money (in the long run) to follow Asian cities and build an island airport off Malabar. And open Bankstown for regional flights (similar distances that London City Airport does - on a 1319m runway!).

KiwiKaas nice 'doodles'! But still doesnt allow Oceania's largest and most economically vital city to have a 24 hour airport.

You can also pose the question as to whether full on night operations are needed. For instance London Heathrow operates fully for just a couple of hours longer than Sydney. From midnight to around 5.30 there are only a couple of slots per hour availible so you could conclude that there is also a sort of curfew there too. Its not unreasonable to expect that there might be some relaxations in the future. For instance limiting all movements after 11pm to runway 16L/32R allowing for some night operations and lifting the 80 movement per hour cap during the day. If you look at the flight times at most of the worlds major airports you see that in most cases pretty much nothing happens between 12am and 6am. Even the 24 hour airports usually only have cargo and charter flights running in the wee small hours.

You can also pose the question as to whether full on night operations are needed. For instance London Heathrow operates fully for just a couple of hours longer than Sydney. From midnight to around 5.30 there are only a couple of slots per hour availible so you could conclude that there is also a sort of curfew there too. Its not unreasonable to expect that there might be some relaxations in the future. For instance limiting all movements after 11pm to runway 16L/32R allowing for some night operations and lifting the 80 movement per hour cap during the day. If you look at the flight times at most of the worlds major airports you see that in most cases pretty much nothing happens between 12am and 6am. Even the 24 hour airports usually only have cargo and charter flights running in the wee small hours.

That's what I've always thought. Does Sydney airport (or any airport in Oceania) really need to be open for 24 hours?

Flexibility. Cargo and freight can operate IN theese hours.

Why not have a 24 hour airport. Save truck drivers time away from home... and motorists lives.

Existing Sydney airport and my dream 24 hour offshore multi-purpose site at Malabar Airport are located so close to the port. An island 20-25 metres above sea level. With lower level used for desalinisation plant and sewerage treatment and on top of this the aviation half of the site! ha

Flexibility. Cargo and freight can operate IN theese hours.

Why not have a 24 hour airport. Save truck drivers time away from home... and motorists lives.

Existing Sydney airport and my dream 24 hour offshore multi-purpose site at Malabar Airport are located so close to the port. An island 20-25 metres above sea level. With lower level used for desalinisation plant and sewerage treatment and on top of this the aviation half of the site! ha

I just dont see how the offshore option could be funded. Then you would be beter off doing a Hong Kong style job on the Kernel peninsula. If night operations arent relaxed for KSIA then a single runway airport at Wilton, Richmond, Badgerys or even Camden could do the night operations. The second airport could be scaled down with KSIA retaining its possition as the main airport. The second airport would have a large cargo area, passenger operations during the day would be mainly domestic with a few intercontinental flights and charters flights operating at night. Ok. The second airport wouldnt be close to the port but as its peak time would be at night movement of goods shouldnt be a problem.

Still like my proposal for KSIA expansion to 60-70 million passengers.

Left = existing. Right = expansion proposal
http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid166/p362dbc3d531f3e6933baa8e4f9698735/f45912ca.jpghttp://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid166/pc197e8b3f3c27e1d9bf500650fdc2a15/f4591665.jpg

Wouldn't the terrain around Somersby be prohibitive? there's an awful lot of cuttings along the F3 up that way...

That said, if it's not, it makes demographic sense. Easy access is available from everywhere. The Central Coast needs something to give business a reason to move there. Some significant infrastructure improvement would go a long way towards providing the incentive. After all, The Central Coast is, well, "Central" between the two largest cities in the state.

The area from Calga north to Central Mangrove and across to Somersby and Kariong is a plateau and a lot flatter than further south. The land use is mainly hobby farms and horse studs and could be purchased without relatively great expense. The main problem is upgrading the infrastructure to conbect it to Sydney; the F3 just went through a major upgrade and only just handles its load in peak, and a rail line spur from the Wondabyne arear would require quadruplication ($$$) or at least a major signalling/track upgrade to increase capacity.

Dion

Large cargo area in the central area. A medium sized terminal for mainly domestic operations during the day and intercontinental/ charter operations at night.
There is also a maintainance and small GA area.

Location unknown.

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid166/pee20a55e159e0495d97adcae3691b4eb/f458ffdc.jpg

^ Location: Stage 1 of relocated SKS airport off Malabar. ;)

With Stage 2 desalination plant and sewerage treatment plants under.
Stage 3 etc second runway and aviation area fully developed
Stage 4 Relocation of SKS to Malabar, operated as a 24 hour airport.
Date of completion 2025?-2030 :)

^ Location: Stage 1 of relocated SKS airport off Malabar. ;)

With Stage 2 desalination plant and sewerage treatment plants under.
Stage 3 etc second runway and aviation area fully developed
Stage 4 Relocation of SKS to Malabar, operated as a 24 hour airport.
Date of completion 2025?-2030 :)

Love it! But I would swap stage 2 with one.

But wouldnt a second support airport on firm ground plus a huge expansion at KSIA get the political and Macquarie go ahead due to less cost than an island in the Tasman sea? There were similar plans in Holland to do the same but were shelved due to the enormous cost. Thats a country of 16½ million funding it, not a state of 7½ million. I just cant see it happening. Macquarie will hold on to KSIA with a tight grip. They might want to invest in a 24/7 supporting airport but they wont be jumping with joy at the idea of such an expensive project. They will vito it again and again till hell freezes over.

Here is another location. RAAF Richmond. The cheapest option (and probably most politically volatile). The existing east-west runway closed. A new North-south runway on what is largely commonwealth land.

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid166/p4a8df2a18dbad9771466f6f51be19027/f45855b4.jpg

The area from Calga north to Central Mangrove and across to Somersby and Kariong is a plateau and a lot flatter than further south. The land use is mainly hobby farms and horse studs and could be purchased without relatively great expense. The main problem is upgrading the infrastructure to conbect it to Sydney; the F3 just went through a major upgrade and only just handles its load in peak, and a rail line spur from the Wondabyne arear would require quadruplication ($$$) or at least a major signalling/track upgrade to increase capacity.

More rail capacity's needed anyway. I wasn't aware of the plateau at Somersby. The only times I've ever been to the Central Coast I've only ever gone to Gosford. I do recall a brief plateau at Kariong, but then the descent into Gosford...

Dion

More rail capacity (and a higher speed link) is needed anyway. I wasn't aware of the plateau at Somersby. The only times I've ever been to the Central Coast I've only ever gone to Gosford. I do recall a brief plateau at Kariong, but then the descent into Gosford...

But that's all mute. We'd be better off upgrading the current airport first. At least then they won't look like idiots when peak oil strikes.

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid166/pc197e8b3f3c27e1d9bf500650fdc2a15/f4591665.jpg

interesting. You'd use 16R/34L for concurrent take offs?

interesting. You'd use 16R/34L for concurrent take offs?

Both runways could be used for take-offs and landings but 16L/34R would become the main landing strip. As the 16L threshhold is situated somewhat further south it means aproaching aircraft will pass over the suburban areas at a higher altitude. This could lead to a relaxation on the 80 movement p/h cap and even create the possibility of 2 or 3 slots per hour between 11pm and 5.30am by limiting all movements to 16L/34R in the wee small hours.

These are probably my favourites thus far for an expanded KSIA.

This one involves lengthening 16L/34R by about 600 metres. The maintainance area stays where it is but will sacrifice a couple of hangars for an expansion of the current Qantas terminal. A large hangar sits south of the Ct. Runway 7/25 is closed and the GA area moved to the area now designated as the heli area. Runway 7/25 becomes a taxiway and is occupied on the western side by a cargo apron. The eastern end of 25/7 and the GA area become a terminal for wide body aircraft. There is a minimum of reclamation (only a small amount for a dual taxiway on the north end of 16L/34R) in Botany Bay and the two parallel runways are connected with a bridge taxiway over the water.

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid167/pa70fce7e24f152d727bfaeefad6378e9/f43ff7ed.jpg

The same but with 3rd 34/16 runway. The 3rd runway would be used exclusively for take-offs to the south or aproaches from the south due to its proximity to the western cargo area to the north of it. There is a channel to ensure that water circulation from Cooks River isnt disrupted to a large degree.

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid167/p3687e0ba43f3896d9edaa9d90a0a20b2/f43fff51.jpg

Save time and reclaim the entire bay :nuts:

Save time and reclaim the entire bay :nuts:

Why reclaim the entire bay?

You have tendancy to leap to extreme solutions Q-TIP :)

The runway ''fingers'' with outlining are possible pier structures on support columns (like was proposed for the whole offshore airport).

Jus joking about reclaiming the entire bay! Expanding runways into the bay is not an option IMO. The bay is there for recreation use, and much of the bay now is deemed out of bounds for public with port and airport.

More runways also reduces the safety of the airport, with planes further from terminals and accident-prone on the taxiways.

IVE ALWAYS WANTED MY DREAM AIRPORT, OFF MALABAR (KANSAI & HKIA STYLE) :)

Jus joking about reclaiming the entire bay! Expanding runways into the bay is not an option IMO. The bay is there for recreation use, and much of the bay now is deemed out of bounds for public with port and airport.

More runways also reduces the safety of the airport, with planes further from terminals and accident-prone on the taxiways.

IVE ALWAYS WANTED MY DREAM AIRPORT, OFF MALABAR (KANSAI & HKIA STYLE) :)

while it IS nice to have an offshore airport, it wont be so nice when people at the beach suddenly see a plane take off! but reclamating more of botony bay is a big nono....

People at what beach? Maroubra?

Airport is to be 500m offshore and runways run parallel to coast. Only beach affected by it may be maroubra.

Even now the runway does not affect people at brighton beach. You cant hear planes from the beach, only the soft sounds of greek music from the yeeros bar!

Same would go for the offshore runways at malabar.

The airlines could actually save a significant amount of fuel by minimising extra weight from excess baggage and unused, wasted food. One of my lecturers did a PHD on it.They already do that - its called 20kg limit instead of 60kg like in the US. Better idea is to ban fat people, or charge by the kg.... :tongue3:

I decided to doodle a bit and see how an offshore airport might take shape. The original design for an offshore airport (submitted some 3 or 4 years ago) was a replacement for the existing airport, but offered little extra capacity.
I have drawn up an airport according to the 2023 prediction of 68 million passengers and have made allowance for ½+ million air movements.
I liked Q-Tips idea to combine the project with water/sewage treatment so I have a large complex incorporated into the design. There are rail and road links as you can see.
KSIA retains one runway for an executive airport. The container port is also expanded. The largest amount of the existing airport becomes industrial, commercial, residential and recreational area with a new rail link.
http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid168/pb84fe761fa69fc6ccd2c80b7b725b47e/f42d9807.jpg

Here is an expanded KSIA with a 3rd north-south runway. The capacity of the airport is nearly the same as the offshore variant, but with night time restrictions on air movements.

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid168/p8d5fc810de893f9a84298213c2bbf168/f42d778a.jpg
http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid168/p006483845d82c8a3c71481ca267997cd/f42d5fdc.jpg

And without 3rd runway

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid168/pf3b6592c3128608689704623bbd96c1d/f42d6a5b.jpg

Nice offshore doodle!

However, road/rail link via the Malabar headland (on the northern side). This way not too many more pipes from the existing treatment plant on Malabar would be needed (southern side the desalination/sewerage treatment). And no houses to be destroyed ( 1.5 km road tunnel from Botany/Bunnerong Rd intersection to Pioneer Park).

Also 2 parallel runways (3500m and 4000m) separated 1.6km apart. With terminal and aviation facilities in the middle (similiar to HKIA). Water depths vary from 15-85m.

Nice work. What program are you using? Is that a scan from Sydway street directory?

www.street-directory.com.au

and a scalar graphics program (like PSP, for example)

I think an airport like Munich's would be great. Downgrade KSIA to one runway as a domestic/executive airport handling maybe 5-10 million pax per year. The rest through the new airport.

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid168/p0c1764163ebea42973fad3b01622b95d/f425933a.jpg

Bankstown has released it's Masterplan.
The plan calls for the closure of the cross-wind runway maintaining the 3 parallel runways and the provision for a airline terminal.
If Badgery's or Wilton do not go ahead then you could see regional traffic making use of Bankstown in the future.

Light Yellow=commercial
Blue = General aviation area
Light blue (insert square)=passenger terminal

More info and large images on the Bankstown Airport site.

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid181/p0ecc8049d8de0a8dd10fb26e842ff227/f2d6e591.jpg