Close sidebar

Urgent need for second Sydney Airport, report says

written by australianaviation.com.au | March 2, 2012
A proposed overhaul of Sydney Airport's terminal would do little to meet long term growth, according to a study recommending a second airport.

A long awaited report on Sydney’s airport needs has warned that the city faces ‘aircraft deadlock’ within a decade and will need a second airport by 2030.

But the study’s key recommendations – raising the cap on hourly aircraft movements at the current airport and building a second airport at Badgery’s Creek in the city’s west – were immediately rejected by the federal government.

“I have already made it clear the federal government will not make any changes to the current cap or curfew,” Infrastructure Minister Anthony Albanese said today in response to the report. “Further, I have consistently stated that the government has ruled out the use of the Badgery’s Creek site as a second airport and that remains our position.”

Advertisement
Advertisement

The report, produced by a joint federal and New South Wales government committee, recommended increasing the airport’s peak-hour cap from 80 to 85 aircraft movements, though it said such an increase would only buy the airport a few more years before it reaches capacity. Anticipating opposition to the Badgery’s Creek option, the committee recommended Wilton, south of Campbelltown, as a next-best option for a second airport. It did not recommend dropping the airport’s 11 pm to 6 am aircraft curfew.

The report said that even if a recently proposed overhaul of the airport’s terminals goes forward, the airport still wouldn’t be able to meet projected medium and long term passenger increases.

“The airport has limits to its ability to handle passenger growth not only because of the legislated cap on runway movements per hour but also because of the physical constraints on runway length” and other infrastructure, the report said, adding that there was “no scope” to enlarge the airport.

At current rates, the airport is expected to reach peak-hour capacity by 2020 and full capacity by 2027, according to the report. By 2035, the airport will have virtually no options for increasing capacity even through the use of larger aircraft.

PROMOTED CONTENT

The committee said inaction would cost the economy $6 billion in lost growth by 2035 and $60 billion by 2060, about half of that hitting New South Wales.

For all that, building a second airport has long been a politically contentious issue and is likely to become even more difficult as the city continues to expand. The government purchased the Badgerys Creek site more the two decades ago for use as an airport, but the city’s growth to the west has since surrounded the site with residential areas, and building an airport there is now opposed by both the federal and state governments.

The report said Badgerys Creek remains the best option because of its road and rail links and proximity to growing markets but said Wilton, in the city’s southwest, would be the next best choice, though it acknowledged that this too could face opposition.

“The spread of urban development in the Sydney basin means it is already very difficult to find a suitable site” for a second airport, the study said. “The opportunity to secure a suitable site is likely to disappear altogether if action is not put in train now.”

The study recommended improving public transport links to the existing airport, immediately initiating a new Master Plan process for Sydney Airport, and opening RAAF Base Richmond to limited commercial traffic. It also said Bankstown Airport, currently reserved for general aviation, could be opened to turboprop commercial flights, though Albanese said he opposed that change.

Albanese said he would push to “establish a joint body with NSW to look at implementing a long term strategy” and called for cooperation.

“This is a matter of importance for Australia and it needs a bipartisan approach,” he said.

 

25% off starts now! Australian Aviation magazine Cyber Monday sale is now live. Have the very best of Australian Aviation’s annual print and digital subscription. This includes every In Focus and Behind the Lens digital magazine, special coverage, exclusive photos and editions you may have miss. Subscribe now at australianaviation.com.au.

4 Comments

  • Steve W.

    says:

    The curfew needs to go. No matter which way you look at it, there is no viable option for a second airport without serious cost incursions. The area in the west of Sydney (Badgery’s Creek, Luddenham etc) is undulating to say the least. serious amounts of hills would need to moved to flatten out the area for the airport. The government should tell people who live under the flight paths into and out of Sydney to either deal with the noise of aircraft or move. With less noisy engines being developed, surely lifting the curfew is a viable option. Sydney is already losing out to Melbourne and Brisbane with international flights that arrive within the curfew period.

  • Mark

    says:

    I don’t even know why they waste our tax payer money on these studies, because the government will not do anything as this will only cause protests etc. We will be seeing this same story in another 10 years, still with no outcome or fix to the problem. Since when has the government ever worried about anything other then votes and individual power.

    Sometimes tough decisions have to be made that are not always what the people in the area of the new airport want, but the greater good of the country and the economy have to come first.

  • random

    says:

    There is only one way forward with this – both sides of politics need to agree on a common solution and agree not to enter petty one-up-man-ship. In effect that sounds like utopia but it will be the only way to collectively drown out all the NIMBY and other poorly focussed vested interests.

    That bi-partisanship will have to extend the entire way through from inception to delivery to negate cronyism also.

    Now given those parameters – how likely is Sydney to see another airport in the next 50 years unless the DoD is squeezed (without appropriate forethought) from their Richmond base?

    Even there, both sides of politics would manage to conspire to cock it up by being unable to control their union and / or business allegiances.

  • Awen

    says:

    Steve W has hit the nail right on the head. Get rid of the curfew as aircraft engines are quieter today than they have ever been. Sydney is often touted as the gateway to Australia yet the “gateway” shuts downnat 2300 – 0600!!!
    What a joke. If you’re stupid enough to buy a house under a flight path, deal with your poor choice. The economy and air travellers should not be held to ransom by protest groups. Drop the curfew and build a second airport ASAP!

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Urgent need for second Sydney Airport, report says

written by australianaviation.com.au | March 2, 2012
A proposed overhaul of Sydney Airport's terminal would do little to meet long term growth, according to a study recommending a second airport.

A long awaited report on Sydney’s airport needs has warned that the city faces ‘aircraft deadlock’ within a decade and will need a second airport by 2030.

But the study’s key recommendations – raising the cap on hourly aircraft movements at the current airport and building a second airport at Badgery’s Creek in the city’s west – were immediately rejected by the federal government.

“I have already made it clear the federal government will not make any changes to the current cap or curfew,” Infrastructure Minister Anthony Albanese said today in response to the report. “Further, I have consistently stated that the government has ruled out the use of the Badgery’s Creek site as a second airport and that remains our position.”

Advertisement
Advertisement

The report, produced by a joint federal and New South Wales government committee, recommended increasing the airport’s peak-hour cap from 80 to 85 aircraft movements, though it said such an increase would only buy the airport a few more years before it reaches capacity. Anticipating opposition to the Badgery’s Creek option, the committee recommended Wilton, south of Campbelltown, as a next-best option for a second airport. It did not recommend dropping the airport’s 11 pm to 6 am aircraft curfew.

The report said that even if a recently proposed overhaul of the airport’s terminals goes forward, the airport still wouldn’t be able to meet projected medium and long term passenger increases.

“The airport has limits to its ability to handle passenger growth not only because of the legislated cap on runway movements per hour but also because of the physical constraints on runway length” and other infrastructure, the report said, adding that there was “no scope” to enlarge the airport.

At current rates, the airport is expected to reach peak-hour capacity by 2020 and full capacity by 2027, according to the report. By 2035, the airport will have virtually no options for increasing capacity even through the use of larger aircraft.

PROMOTED CONTENT

The committee said inaction would cost the economy $6 billion in lost growth by 2035 and $60 billion by 2060, about half of that hitting New South Wales.

For all that, building a second airport has long been a politically contentious issue and is likely to become even more difficult as the city continues to expand. The government purchased the Badgerys Creek site more the two decades ago for use as an airport, but the city’s growth to the west has since surrounded the site with residential areas, and building an airport there is now opposed by both the federal and state governments.

The report said Badgerys Creek remains the best option because of its road and rail links and proximity to growing markets but said Wilton, in the city’s southwest, would be the next best choice, though it acknowledged that this too could face opposition.

“The spread of urban development in the Sydney basin means it is already very difficult to find a suitable site” for a second airport, the study said. “The opportunity to secure a suitable site is likely to disappear altogether if action is not put in train now.”

The study recommended improving public transport links to the existing airport, immediately initiating a new Master Plan process for Sydney Airport, and opening RAAF Base Richmond to limited commercial traffic. It also said Bankstown Airport, currently reserved for general aviation, could be opened to turboprop commercial flights, though Albanese said he opposed that change.

Albanese said he would push to “establish a joint body with NSW to look at implementing a long term strategy” and called for cooperation.

“This is a matter of importance for Australia and it needs a bipartisan approach,” he said.

 

25% off starts now! Australian Aviation magazine Cyber Monday sale is now live. Have the very best of Australian Aviation’s annual print and digital subscription. This includes every In Focus and Behind the Lens digital magazine, special coverage, exclusive photos and editions you may have miss. Subscribe now at australianaviation.com.au.

4 Comments

  • Steve W.

    says:

    The curfew needs to go. No matter which way you look at it, there is no viable option for a second airport without serious cost incursions. The area in the west of Sydney (Badgery’s Creek, Luddenham etc) is undulating to say the least. serious amounts of hills would need to moved to flatten out the area for the airport. The government should tell people who live under the flight paths into and out of Sydney to either deal with the noise of aircraft or move. With less noisy engines being developed, surely lifting the curfew is a viable option. Sydney is already losing out to Melbourne and Brisbane with international flights that arrive within the curfew period.

  • Mark

    says:

    I don’t even know why they waste our tax payer money on these studies, because the government will not do anything as this will only cause protests etc. We will be seeing this same story in another 10 years, still with no outcome or fix to the problem. Since when has the government ever worried about anything other then votes and individual power.

    Sometimes tough decisions have to be made that are not always what the people in the area of the new airport want, but the greater good of the country and the economy have to come first.

  • random

    says:

    There is only one way forward with this – both sides of politics need to agree on a common solution and agree not to enter petty one-up-man-ship. In effect that sounds like utopia but it will be the only way to collectively drown out all the NIMBY and other poorly focussed vested interests.

    That bi-partisanship will have to extend the entire way through from inception to delivery to negate cronyism also.

    Now given those parameters – how likely is Sydney to see another airport in the next 50 years unless the DoD is squeezed (without appropriate forethought) from their Richmond base?

    Even there, both sides of politics would manage to conspire to cock it up by being unable to control their union and / or business allegiances.

  • Awen

    says:

    Steve W has hit the nail right on the head. Get rid of the curfew as aircraft engines are quieter today than they have ever been. Sydney is often touted as the gateway to Australia yet the “gateway” shuts downnat 2300 – 0600!!!
    What a joke. If you’re stupid enough to buy a house under a flight path, deal with your poor choice. The economy and air travellers should not be held to ransom by protest groups. Drop the curfew and build a second airport ASAP!

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Each day, our subscribers are more informed with the right information.

SIGN UP to the Australian Aviation magazine for high-quality news and features for just $99.95 per year