Fairfield Residents Against Airport NoisePlease address all correspondence to: Post Office Box 20
Horsley Park NSW 2164
Phone/Fax (02) 9620 1428NEWS RELEASE.
14th August 1999"The Push for Option A"
There is a need to respond to recent pro-Badgerys media.
Last weeks (Aug 11) Fairfield Champion editorial article, run on the front page of the paper, indicated that only 750 people attended a rally at the Club Marconi and that Fairfield therefore wanted this airport. This is in fact spurious nonsense, and serious misinformation. There were at least 1,500 persons who attended the rally, and we note that once the auditorium was filled, the doors were closed and no other persons allowed to enter. We are aware that in fact there were a number of persons who have since complained that they were unable to get into the meeting and so went home.
In an article in the Sydney Morning Herald, Friday 13th August, transport writer Mr R. Wainright has noted that: "Mr Anderson is expected to take Options A and B from the EIS document to the Cabinet......An industry source said: "The penny doesn't seem to have dropped yet that failure to build Badgerys Creek means that, within five years, the blue-ribbon electorates of Warringah, MacKellar and Wentworth will have a massive increase in noise from heavy jet movement.""
In fact the EIS vol 3 pg 20-4 says:
"In the case of Badgerys Creek options A or B, the extended centre lines of the parallel runways to the north-east of the airport cross the northern extended centre lines of the parallel runways at Sydney Airport in the vicinity of Hornsby. Whilst air traffic management procedures would be devised to separate air traffic for each airport as much as possible, there would still be a need for many flight paths to merge or cross. This would result in the need for complex procedures to be provided in order to segregate the aircraft from each airport, although this might not be conducive to the provision of the smooth flow of air traffic.
Under option C, the number of potential coflictions would be reduced greatly because the Badgerys Creek aircraft would be operating to and from parallel runways that are in turn almost parallel with those at Sydney Airport. The traffic patterns would probably always be in the same direction, leading to a harmonius flow of air traffic."
- Regarding operations at Sydney airport the EIS says "Such as scenario would also require the lowest aircraft to maintain an altitude of about 3,000 feet (914 metres) over built up areas to the north-west of Sydney until established in the centre line and on final approach at about 10 - 12 nautical miles (about 18 - 22 km) from the runway threshold."
The reader should also note that the obstacle limitation surface plans provided in the EIS "Planning and Design Summary Report" fig 2.2 and 2.7 (option A and B) show that the mountains behind the Badgerys site are too high to clear. Therefore virtually all aircraft using Badgerys Creek option A or B would have no choice other than to fly in and out of the Badgerys site (at the very back of the Sydney basin) to the north east - over the Sydney population. It should also be noted that the EIS does not include data for flight path interference with Bankstown airport (5th busiest in the world in terms of aircraft movement) which is on a different runway alignment again to both Badgerys and KSA.
The EIS section 20.3.3 discusses multi airport environments overseas, and notes that New York and London have airports which have parallel runways to each other. When Tullamarine airport was developed in Melbourne the runways were aligned in similar directions.
Why then would anyone consider to build an airport at Badgerys Creek on the option A or B alignment?
In response to Mr Wainrights "industry source" we retort that Blind Freddy can see that if an airport were to be built at Badgerys Creek particularly option A or B, then the long term operating plan currently in use at KSA will have to be abandoned as is, and that LSA airport return to its earlier narrow northern approach and departure modes. This will mean that the blue ribbon electorates of Warringah, Mackellar and Wentworth will in fact become black ribbon seats of intense aircraft noise impacts, if Badgerys is built. The liberal seat of Parramatta would also be noise devastated, as would the seat of Mitchell. (See maps chapter 20, EIS supplement book 3) FRAAN has calculated that in fact a minimum of 8 Federal Liberal electorates will be noise devastated, directly or indirectly, by Badgerys Creek option A or B.
In fact the only real advantage to option A or B at Badgerys Creek (particularly option A) is that these are the only options that would not destroy the private extra-ordinarily high density urban-industrial ghetto city planned to be built north and south of the Badgerys site. (See EIS supplement vol 3, chapter 7) The reader should also recall the Labor State Government Gazette 156 "Growth Centre Gazette" secretly published 22nd December, the Friday before Christmas Monday 1995, which essentially gazettes all available land north and south of the proposed site, to come under the control of a "Development Corporation" (currently "in limbo", and presumably re-activated if an airport were to be given the green light.)
At a meeting (held within the Liverpool Council building 22 May, 1997) with the South West Sydney Regional Development Organisation, Chairman Mr Roy Medich (a major landholder near Badgerys) clearly indicated that he and the organisation would accept only option A. We are aware that this is also the position of the Greater Western Sydney Economic Development Board who are also very much pro Badgerys and represent major local landholders or business "beneficiaries".
It is poor that the EIS summary does not show any of the earlier noted maps and thus properly show the genuine impacts and problems associated with this proposal. FRAAN feels that this lack of basic critical information within the widely distributed EIS summary is a deliberate attempt to mislead the general public, and politicians, as to the real impacts of this proposed airport, in order to push the case for the procedure of this proposed airport and its associated developments.
Perhaps this airport proposal would be better named the "Collins Class" airport proposal.