Issue 119: July 1996

High on the proposed agenda of viable alternatives is Holsworthy. Generally this site has much to recommend it. Holsworthy is remote from most of suburbia, it is Commonwealth land to begin with, has relatively good access (which could be easily improved) and can house two 4000m, 24 hour runways at less cost than Badgery’s.

Points against are unexploded ordnance and the fact that obviously Bankstown and Hoxton Park would have to be closed down. The ordnance problem, from what we know, probably isn’t as big an issue as some would make you believe. However, to say that the closure of Bankstown and Hoxton would be fatal for General Aviation would be the understatement of the century. If this were to occur, maybe the Badgery’s project could proceed as a GA airfield with two 1800m runways though this is probably wishful thinking at best.

One place that seems to never get any realistic consideration as a suitable site for Sydney’s second major airport is Richmond. This writer grew up at Richmond and can tell you now that the often quoted fog problem relates largely to the lowlands area surrounding the northern perimeter of the Richmond plateau. Rarely was the actual base fogged in. Naturally like anywhere this does occasionally happen, but not to the extent that a modern (particularly year 2000) precision approach system couldn’t handle. If you want low vis then try Denver, O’Hare, Heathrow, JFK or Frankfurt at their winter’s day to day worst and see what real bad weather is about. Believe me, we have it lucky here.

Often when you mention Richmond you are told instantly that the single 2100m runway is too short for heavy jet ops and you would need to demolish half of the township to get the 4000m necessary for long haul ops. True, but to the west of the base lies thousands of hectares of government owned agricultural college grazing land. Without too much trouble you could build a 4000m cross runway into this area with plenty of land available for terminals and associated infrastructure. Another interesting point is in doing this the approach paths of the suggested cross runway would pass over farms and uninhabited forested hills to the northeast and over fairly lowly populated areas to the southwest.

Richmond is a massive aviation facility by any standard as depicted here in our Bicentennial airshow pic of heavy jets parked upon its spacious hardstandings. Construction of a cross 4000m runway and appropriate civil terminal and support infrastructure on vacant land to the west of the airfield could be accomplished cheaper and quicker with less environmental problems than at probably any other site.

The existing road system is destined for eventual upgrading and the Windsor Road has right of ways in place (they were there when I was a kid!) to make it into a full four and six lane freeway. Indeed a major upgrading of the existing road would be less expensive than any of the other sites as the basic infrastructure and space already exists. Richmond is also connected to the primary Sydney rail system via modern electric train.

But What About The RAAF?

Fair enough. The 1991 White Paper floated the idea that ultimately the air force would probably relocate most of its airlift group from the Sydney region to the north of Australia where most of their ops are expected to take place in the decades ahead. Amberley, Townsville and Darwin could all be further expanded whilst some of the heavy maintenance facilities at Richmond could be kept in place for that purpose. There is no need for the RAAF to ever totally vacate the site and due to the volume of air traffic projected over the coming decade they could well delay the transfer of the Hercules and 707 squadrons until around 2005.

Overall, we see the following positives for developing Richmond RAAF base as Sydney’s second major airport. It is owned, along with adjacent land, by the Government. It is closer to Sydney CBD than most other locations. It already boasts viable road and rail links. It is largely remote from major noise problems and finally its airspace shouldn’t infringe to any great extent (particularly with a little lateral thinking of just what constitutes required airspace in the first instance) upon Bankstown or KSA.

The bottom line of course is that firstly, it’s already there, as an operational aerodrome, and secondly, it would cost much less to fully develop than any other site. At the same time it would provide an incredible economic boost to the north western region of Sydney.

Unfortunately we seem to be the only people even remotely thinking in this light. Either we’ve got it horribly wrong or we’ve got it incredibly horribly wrong, though we will stick to our guns as Richmond has much going for it that the others simply don’t.

The thing that is certain though is that Badgery’s Creek will have an even harder time than before of getting approved to the standard required for it to rightly take its place as Sydney’s second airport. This will ultimately cost something in the order of $5bn, probably two decades of development and a political battle that will most probably never die.

Is it simply worth the bother?