Canberra Airport: A Satellite for KSA?

The focus of this article is the ability of a site such as Canberra Airport to ease congestion at KSA. In this context, the capability of Camden, Canberra, Bankstown, RAAF Richmond and RAAF Williamtown should all be viewed as assets that can potentially provide additional transport facilities so that a second Sydney airport will not be required, at least in the next few decades.

Taking Canberra Airport as an example, what could it offer to solve the KSA saturation problem? Most studies have excluded Canberra Airport as part of the solution, and those that have considered the facility have made a cursory evaluation and dismissed the airport for a number of reasons: too far from Sydney, runway is too short, the takeoff gradients too high and the winter fog too high a risk….

What are the facts?

Canberra Airport serves the national capital as a joint civilian and military airport. The FAC ‘owns’ the airport apron and terminal buildings, the RAAF ‘owns’ the runways and taxiways, plus the land and buildings of RAAF Base Fairbairn. There are two sealed runways: 17/35 which is 2683m long and 12/30 which is 1679m long. The longer runway 17/35 has terrain clearance gradients of 1.73% to the south and 3.94% to the north. Air Traffic Control facilities are excellent as expected for the national capital, with a tower, departures, approach and radar support. Navigation systems that have all the ‘aids’ even include a microwave landing system. Canberra is Australia’s sunniest city, with sun shining for 62.5% of possible sunlight hours, but at 1888ft (576m) and with occasional hot summer days, the airport can have a high density altitude. In winter there are fogs that linger until late morning. The airport is about 130nm or 300km from Sydney.

The ‘blinding glimpse of the bleeding obvious’ way to ease the KSA congestion is to reduce the number of flights to and from the airport. At present, Canberra generates about 60 Sydney/Canberra/Sydney flights per day. Sydney, operating between 0600 and 2300 at a capacity of 80 flights per hour, has a theoretical capacity of 1860 flights. Displacing Canberra’s 60 flights would increase Sydney’s capacity by 4.4% – not much perhaps, but a start.

Ironically, flight displacement could be achieved by the development of a high-speed rail link between Sydney and Canberra. At present, there are two proposals for such a link. Speedrail proposes to use the proven technology of the French TGV. This is a wheel-on-rail system, and probably represents the full maturity of this type of railway technology. Transit time would be about 80 minutes with two stops. Technological risk is low as there are many similar systems in the world already operating, in France, Spain and Japan.

A competitor, Maglev, has recently emerged. This system uses an elevated track, magnetic levitation to provide a frictionless guideway, and a linear electric motor built into the track for propulsion. With a short 40km track in operation in Germany, the technological risk must be assessed as moderate, but there are offsetting advantages such as lower noise levels and a reduced ground ‘footprint’ that assists with land acquisition and preservation of wildlife corridors. Transit time with two stops would be about 60 minutes.

During the debate on high-speed rail links, the suggestion has been made that if the Sydney/Canberra link becomes a reality, then the follow-on Canberra/Melbourne link becomes highly probable. Should the full Sydney/Melbourne rail link be built, then flight displacement becomes a very important contributor to relieving KSA of congestion. With a Sydney/Melbourne link time of (say) 200 minutes and a lower cost than air travel, many leisure trips could be made by rail rather than air — and perhaps some of the less time-critical business trips. Perhaps the greatest attraction of the Sydney/Canberra rail link is the potential to provide the ‘critical mass’ for the full link between Sydney and Melbourne, and perhaps several decades in the future, the full Brisbane/Sydney/Canberra/Melbourne/Adelaide to service Australia’s ‘J’ curve of population density between Cairns and Adelaide.

To add steel to the irony of an aviation journal discussing trains displacing aircraft, consider these wildcard factors. Trains are much more energy efficient than aircraft, and displacing air traffic to rail would improve Australia’s environmental performance in regard to long-term greenhouse gas emissions. Many people would prefer to travel by train than air — apparently the ‘fear of training’ is much lower than the ‘fear of flying’.

The clinching argument could be simply dollars. By about the year 2000, Australia will change from being a net exporter of petroleum to a net importer. Trains run on electricity produced by either locally mined coal or hydro. In the future, each litre of Avtur displaced by electricity will save Australia from increasing foreign debt. Over the life of an airport and a fast rail system, what will be the value to the nation of using our abundant natural resources instead of imported petroleum? The economic sums would be very interesting.

Back to the present. Canberra is already providing some relief for KSA through internal direct flights to other destinations. The ACT and its region is a catchment area of over 600,000 people, and if they are provided with a more convenient and less expensive service to that available from KSA, then additional high-value KSA slots can be released. At present, there are four direct flights per day from Canberra to the Brisbane area, which means lower traffic on the Canberra/Sydney/Brisbane route.

The next obvious development is trans-Tasman traffic. Operators such as Kiwi International have been very successful in arranging direct services. Displacing some of the KSA–New Zealand traffic with Canberra/New Zealand flights will assist KSA. Simplifying immigration arrangements under the Closer Economic Relations agreement could make this happen overnight.

So far, the additional KSA capacity has been achieved without any additional Commonwealth dollars being spent on Canberra Airport. Admittedly, the Sydney/Canberra rail link will cost about $500 million, but the high-speed rail link is being proposed as a private enterprise venture, only depending on the Commonwealth for assistance with land acquisition, and the economic viability of this service does not rely on capturing all displaced air traffic.

If Canberra is upgraded to international airport status, then direct international flights further improve KSA’s situation. There have been studies that have provided preliminary costs for upgrading Canberra to provide international airport facilities. The total cost is about $100 million — about 5% of the cost of a Badgerys Creek or a Holsworthy. What does $100 million buy? At Canberra the project would include a new taxiway, a runway 640m longer and wide enough to take wide-bodied jets, a new terminal that is a transportation hub for air, rail and road services, and additional landing and navigation aids that will allow suitably equipped aircraft to depart and arrive in fog.

Once Canberra achieves international airport status, then KSA can be relieved of further movements. How many people in Canberra’s catchment of 600,000 people want to go to popular destinations such as Bali, Singapore or Bangkok (without transiting KSA)? How many Japanese tourists would like to make their first stop Canberra, where they can experience koalas, emus and kangaroos living in the wild at Tidbinbilla Nature Reserve, then spend a day or so exploring Australia’s capital before catching the train to Sydney and seeing the unfamiliar sights pass by the window on the passage to Sydney or Melbourne? Convenience, interest and efficiency would provide tour operators with considerable capital to provide attractive and popular experiences for Australians and our international guests.

There are some problems to overcome, and these require flexibility and innovation from our transportation and community regulators.

One of the often-quoted limitations to international flight operations from Canberra is terrain clearance in the event of an engine failure. Canberra Airport is situated in a long north-south oriented valley. Spot heights along the sides of the valley create the problem with terrain clearance. If Canberra Airport implements departures directed by radar (a Ground Controlled Departure) or a precision navigation aid such as differential GPS, then these obstacles can be safely avoided. Terrain gradients then fall to about 1.5 degrees, which places little restriction on fully laden jets suffering an engine failure shortly after liftoff. There are many airports in the world that rely on such measures to allow jets to operate profitably and safely on international flights.

All airports that are in a location where they can provide ready access to a population suffer from some degree of noise problem. Canberra is better situated than most, with the Majura Range and slightly extended departure ground tracks shielding most of the Canberra population from noise. There have been very recent residential developments to the south of the airfield, and Queanbeyan to the south-east needs to be considered. However, the exposed population near Canberra is a small fraction of the population at risk in any future development in the Sydney area. While there are already rumblings from Badgerys Creek and Holsworthy residents, in (say) 30 years’ time when population pressures in the Sydney area are much greater, then the magnitude of the population problem associated with a Sydney basin ‘solution’ to KSA limitation could be many times that existing in the Canberra area.

The Canberra Airport development proposal should be seen as one part of a broader strategic plan for transportation in eastern Australia. The capability of RAAF Williamtown and RAAF Richmond to provide additional relief should be part of the greater plan. For example, Bankstown and RAAF Richmond could accept commuter aircraft from western NSW and General Aviation aircraft could use the Richmond training area, especially on the weekends when military activity is low. A rail service already connects Richmond directly to the heart of Sydney. Williamtown could be developed along the same lines as that proposed for Canberra Airport, providing a local service in its catchment area. With an extension to the high-speed rail system to the north, the same benefits to KSA would accrue as for the Canberra Airport development.

The bottom line is that Commonwealth expenditure of about $300 million on a composite transportation plan could develop complementary air transport facilities at Canberra, Richmond and Williamtown, supported by private enterprise development of high-speed rail links Newcastle/Sydney/Canberra/Melbourne. Australia’s reward would be the displacement of KSA traffic to the extent where a $2bn development at Badgerys Creek or Holsworthy is no longer required, and there would be ongoing savings in energy costs.

The vision, commitment and cooperation of Commonwealth and State planners would be tested by such a hybrid approach to meeting the demand for transportation in east Australia for the next three decades. However, if they find the optimum solution, the nation would be richer by almost two billion dollars, so there is a real incentive to succeed.