Second Sydney Airport

[Avatar]

I will only accept rail if it's maglev. Either they go the whole hog or not at all.

Personally I think we should have a new massive International Airport and a Maglev. It never hurts to build for the future, something Australia is now certainly reluctant to do ... in anything. Look at the vision of the SHB, if only we still had visionary projects like that, that built with a view to overcompensation rather than a grose lack of.

[Lightness]

You don't often hear the words 'vision' and 'Sydney' in the same sentence. Build and build sounds fun but there's got to be demand and finances for the projects also. Personally I favour TGV over Maglev but that's another topic...

There was a feasibility study done about 10 years ago on a Canberra to Sydney and Sydney airport link. At the time it was turned down even though private companies were very interested. I think a similar study today could result in a different answer because some factors have changed:

- When the study was done airplane fuel was dirt-cheap. It's likely to stay expensive now plus there might be extra carbon taxes added on top of that.

- The growth in airline traffic has been much stronger than thought because of low-cost airlines. We're reaching the capacity limits faster than previously thought.

- High-speed train costs have been coming down. Building technology for things such as tunnels has moved forward greatly since then.

Btw, TGV trains would be great since they can make use of existing rail-tracks under the airport.

[coastal]

Originally Posted by connected_

Where did you read this?? As far as I know, a private company has no say in matters like that.

edit: Just found it. There's a 100km exclusivity zone granted to Macquarie Bank?! That's insane! 100km from the CBD is a bit ridiculous! Is Wells Creek still being considered as a possible location?

Give Macquarie the first option on ownership and development of parts of the new 24 hour airport at Badgery's Creek and allow them to retain some parts of the current airport for redevelopment in compliance with a government master plan for the site.

[Tyson]

Maglev is impractical IMO. Like Lightness said, a TGV style train could possibly depart from Central and travel through the metro area on existing tracks and make use of exisiting facilities. Maglev would rule that out and require land aquistions where it's the most costly and built up.

While it would be nice to see I think we would need to see another professionally done feasibilty study done on it before we could really judge. Based on a selection of completed railway projects (see: http://www.railway-technical.com/finance.html ) the average cost for a high speed TGV-style line is about US$40 million or more per kilometre. For a distance of at least 900km from Melbourne to Sydney this is approximately US$36 billion, or more than $46 billion in AUD. For a 280km trip from Sydney to Canberra the cost is about US$11.2 billion or about AUD$14.3 billion.

[RSG]

If the government allows a second be built, they should let Babcock and Brown own it. That way we will have two competing airports of high quality. If the decision is made for a replacement airport, Peter Debnam will complain about what will be done with the land of the current airport. I am a liberal supporter but a skyscraper fan foremost.

[RSG]

Originally Posted by Tyson

Maglev is impractical IMO. Like Lightness said, a TGV style train could possibly depart from Central and travel through the metro area on existing tracks and make use of exisiting facilities. Maglev would rule that out and require land aquistions where it's the most costly and built up.

While it would be nice to see I think we would need to see another professionally done feasibilty study done on it before we could really judge. Based on a selection of completed railway projects (see: http://www.railway-technical.com/finance.html ) the average cost for a high speed TGV-style line is about US$40 million or more per kilometre. For a distance of at least 900km from Melbourne to Sydney this is approximately US$36 billion, or more than $46 billion in AUD. For a 280km trip from Sydney to Canberra the cost is about US$11.2 billion or about AUD$14.3 billion.

Or the cost of a second airport and some infrastructure for it.

[Tyson]

^ I stilll think Sydney does not need a second airport. They need only one airport it just needs to be more efficient and in a better location.

[SYDNEYAHOLIC]

I agree with Tyson.

[connected_]

lol @ maglev. That would cost billions of dollars more to develop than a new airport, and would take about 30-40 years before it can break even. :P

[g.m.n.y.]

whats the deal with the "military reserve" out side of bankstown?
that would be an ideal spot for a re-located airport imo.

[Avatar]

Originally Posted by connected_

lol @ maglev. That would cost billions of dollars more to develop than a new airport, and would take about 30-40 years before it can break even. :P

I only want the maglev to service Newcastle, Central Coast, Sydney, Wollongong. With the new Airport part of this strategy.

[SYDNEYAHOLIC]

There won't be any Maglev because this is Australia. Honestly, everyone should know by now that if you live in NSW, only the cheapest and shoddiest government project will do.

Maybe in a hundred years there might be a train capable of going faster that slower.

[Tricky]

Just a few thoughts from me:

- If it's true that MAp has managed to get a clause into its contract for Kingsford Smith that no other international airport be built within 100km, then all this discussion is in vain.

- Building an airport out in the sea like in Japan or Hongkong is a nice idea, however, I think it's too expensive, and, more importantly, anything built outside Sydney harbour (i.e. out in the Pacific Ocean) would be WAAAAY too exposed to the elements (Storms & Hurricanes etc.). Plus I believe that the water around those existing Asian "sea"-airports is a lot shallower than the waters around Sydney's coast (and that makes a BIG difference!). So forget it!

- Therefore, Sydney Airport HAS to grow in size somehow - the terminal buildings that is. I kind of doubt that 70 million will be achieved though. The only ways that I can come up with to attract and 'process' more passengers at the airport are

a) vastly extend the terminal capacity

b) greatly improve airport operation efficiency, including the use of its runway system (surely this must require further improvements - I don't think the 2 parallel runways are far enough apart from eachother to allow for indepedent operation - maybe there lies a slightly cheaper option than building a whole new airport)

c) use bigger planes (A380) - give them preference over smaller ones

d)initially, free up slots currently used by "small aircrafts" e.g. by transfering regional or some other (domestic) services to other airport sites (those with the least impact on transfer-passengers, i.e. obviously NOT the big city-services like to/from BRN or MEL)

e) in the long-term: free up even more slots for bigger planes (international traffic) by slowly removing even more domestic routes onto train services. Worked in Europe like in Germany, where Lufthansa has cancelled the service between Berlin & Hamburg (200km apart), or Hamburg & Duesseldorf (300km?). Also Lufthansa has entered into special agreements with Deutsche Bahn (the German Railway Corp) to connect cities like Berlin with Frankfurt's CBD and the airport, or Frankfurt and Munich, so a lot of business people actually are using the ICE fast train (up to 330km/h) to travel between CBD's without losing too much time compared to air-travel (with its check-in, boarding and off-boarding hassles). .... mind you, there are still heaps of flights between those cities regardless.

Personally I also believe that MEL and BRN will eventually benefit from Sydney's growing congestion. It's similar too people currently moving north and south to avoid Sydney's traffic chaos and housing prices... in 5-10 years time the same will happen to air traffic and airlines will follow suit. I don't know the growth rates for all 3 aiports over the past few years, but I could imagine that in future it will look more favourably to Brisbane and Melbourne.

Anyway, some of it might also be wishful thinking.

Cheers.

Originally Posted by connected_

A second airport will definitely have to happen. It's just one of the implications that will come with Sydney's population growth. Density is set to skyrocket, which is why the city's council's are planning on developing 3000+ new apartment complexes as land within city limits is running out. And the current airport at Mascot accounts 8% of Sydney's workforce. The airport also contributes $6.6 billion annually to the NSW Gross State Product, while international visitors using the airport inject $2.6 billion a year into the economy.

Imagine what a second airport will mean for the economy? That's all the state & federal governments care about.

[Tyson]

As far as I know the parallel runways can operate at least semi-independently. Both runways are used at the same time if that's what you mean? Aircraft taking off from 34R are required to make a tight right hand turn almost immediately upon departure which is probably due to noise as much as it is for seperation.

I think one drawback with the existing runway layout is that it is so far away from the terminals and taxiing takes forever. Also aircraft routinely have to cross the actives to get where they are going and this slows eveything down. Domestic aircraft have to cross 34L-16R when they wish to use that runway. International aircraft have to also cross 34L-16R in order to get to and from 34R-16L. From standing in the terminal watching this activity it seems like it happens all the time. It isn't just a matter of increasing the amount of runways either I don't think because airports like Hong Kong, Frankfurt, and Heathrow all make do with less runways than SYD.

Good points above, although I doubt what worked in Germany can be easily transplanted here. For starters there are no major flights from Sydney to another city 200 km away. Canberra is a bit further than that, but in any case it probably doesn't have the traffic volume to either (a) make a rail connection viable or (b) make much of a dent in the amount of congestion at SYD.

[cammo2004]

Originally Posted by dunwyn

If a new airport is built, what would be the land value of Kingsford-Smith? I suppose there would need to be some environmental cleanup also the land value of surrounding suburbs would greatly increase.

What environmental cleanup?!? They'd just retask the airport site to sea freight. It's already next to Port Botany, so it's an established port district.

[Avatar]

Yeah but it would be amazing if they canaled all the land and released it for residential, very unlikely though.

[Cell.Phone]

Why not just build a fast train to newcastle and or canberra to solve the problem.

Newcastle airport can handdel up to 5 million passengers per year and it has a long enough runway for international flights.

Canberra can handell like 6 million per year and has a long enough runway for international flights

it would be much cheaper to fly into newcastle or canberra and then take a fast train to sydney then build a totally new airport for sydney

[Avatar]

Newcastle airport is on the 'wrong' side of newcastle and clearly canberra is too far away. It would have to be a very fast train to make those distances seem palatable. If i was flying to Sydney and landed in Williamtown or Canberra I would not be happy. The Airport has to be within the city limits imo, and certainly no more than 70km from the city centre in any direction.

[Tyson]

How do you persuade the airlines (particularly international ones) to fly into Newcastle or Canberra?

Anyway I think a high speed line to Newcastle would cost billions and be an engineering challenge. Probably not worth it in comparison to a new airport.

[coastal]

Originally Posted by g.m.n.y.

whats the deal with the "military reserve" out side of bankstown?
that would be an ideal spot for a re-located airport imo.

Holsworthy was looked at during the search for aiport sites. The site is cut up with deep gorges. Wilton, South of Appin, was on the short list with Badgery's Creek.