Index

• Question 1
• Question 2
• Question 3
• Question 4
• Question 5

RETURN to MARCOOLA HOME PAGE

QUESTION 1

1 ECONOMIC BENEFITS TO THE SHIRE (by Alan Padley)
Your Suncoast Airport Master Plan update appears to indicate that even after the expenditure of considerable funds to upgrade the existing main runway and its taxiways, that runway will still have aircraft size, payload and safety restrictions. Further to that, your report indicates that a runway of adequate length and width would eliminate such restrictions and in fact create other benefits. 
Therefore, we request a summary of ALL benefits derived from the construction of a new runway along with estimates of financial "spin-offs" created by such benefits. 
This, we believe, would assist the community to hold a more rational debate on upgrading old versus new.

Answer.
Existing Runway (1797m x 30m) 
Limits size of aircraft
Limits range of aircraft operations
Complies with Australian standards (Rules and Practices for Aerodrome)
Limits ultimate airport capacity
Future Runway (2,450m x 45m)
Would allow operation by larger (wide bodied) aircraft eg., B767 Which are in
domestic airlines fleets and used on high density domestic and regional
international services
Allow longer range services (including New Zealand, Singapore)

Benefits would include:
* airport can market itself to wider catchment
* increased employment
* reduce noise on existing communities to north and south of airport
* allows airlines fleet utilisation flexibility
* cater for long term growth in traffic
* stimulus to local tourism industry

Back to Top

QUESTION 2

2 SAFETY OF MARCOOLA RESIDENTS (by Debra Blumel)
The safety of Marcoola Beach residents at the ends of the north-south runway has already been compromised. 
The area is already fully developed with the number of residents living in the public safety zone exceeding the upper limit recommended by Department of Housing, Local Government and Planning (1993) guidelines. 
CASA Standards have also been relaxed even though a licence is still current. 
Your report notes (p13) that there are houses located approximately 550 metres from both the northern and southern ends of the existing runway. 
Yet on page 41, you note that safety areas should extend to 1,500 metres for a preferential take-off runway and 1,000 metres for other runways. 
Safety will of course be further compromised with the increase in air traffic planned. 
We also note that it is not allowable to park on the roadside at the southern end of the current runway because planes are so low. Yet it is proposed to install traffic lights at Friendship Ave which will cause traffic to back-up along the same stretch of road. 
Why hasn't greater consideration been given to safety issues in the report, especially given recent safety incidents and a fatal crash at the airport as well as the dangerous practice of pilot-training engine failures just metres over peoples' homes?

Answer
Residential development does fall within Queensland airports Public Safety Zone (1500m from runway end, 225m either side of extended centreline),
However, airport has current CASA operating licence
It is noted that Queensland Public Safety Zone is a state government planning
guideline. 
There is no Australia wide public safety zone requirement.

Some 50% increase in aircraft movements forecast in 15 years (RPT aircraft
movements double, with more jets thus providing capacity for nearly treble the
number of passenger movements).
Concede slight increase in risk of incident due to increased aircraft
movements. However mix includes greater numbers of RPT aircraft which
have excellent safety record.

David Low Way is closer to the runway 36 threshold than laid down in the
Australian Standards (Rules and Practices for Aerodromes). 
However, a CASA operations licence is current for the airport
Controlled intersection with Friendship Avenue would need to be sequenced
to keep traffic clear of zone beyond runway end may dictate earlier provision of proposed new Airport access road along western Airport boundary

Back to Top

QUESTION 3

Answer
Not having seen the report commissioned by the Marcoola Beach
Neighbourhood Network, its objectives, methodology, results and conclusions,
we are unable to comment on the findings.

In relation to the Community Attitudes Survey undertaken as part of the Noise
Management Study, we are able to make the following comments:

Among the objectives of that survey were the establishment of the relative
position of aircraft noise as an environmental issue for residents in the vicinity
of the Sunshine Coast Airport and for those residents that did identify aircraft
noise as an issue, what aspects of aircraft noise were particularly annoying.
The survey sample was of 150 respondents of which 74 respondents were
from the north (in the Marcoola area).
* (At the meeting I called for a show of hands of persons who were consulted and only ONE raised her hand) *
It was a random survey, not limited to only North Marcoola and not necessarily limited or relying on those residents concerned enough to register a response.
The report acknowledges that there is a small concentration of residents
north of the Airport for whom aircraft noise causes an annoyance.
The survey also indicated that pilot training activities and jet aircraft
movements are those that cause more annoyance, especially at weekends.
The noise management study also involved consultations with many resident
groups, including the Marcoola Progress Association. Among the
suggestions from the Marcoola Progress Association were that Council
should purchase houses in the most noise affected areas.
The protection for and timing of the development of an east-west runway as a
noise mitigation measure is rightfully a local community issue where the
significant financial costs must be weighed up against the social and
environmental benefits anticipated, particularly for communities to the north
and south of the existing main runway.

Back to Top

QUESTION 4

Answer
Fixing the location of future east-west runway was not part of the brief for this
study.
This study adopted the previously identified location but verified the offset
from the existing terminal. Issues to be considered include:
Land availability
Location of Sunshine Motorway (or diversion if necessary)
Terrain to the west with respect to flight paths
Effect on houses between Airport and coast
Fixed wing aircraft movements are forecast to increase by some 50% in the next
15 years. This is well within the capacity of the existing Airport.
 

Back to Top

QUESTION 5

ALTERNATIVE FINANCIAL PLAN (by Jeanette van der Heide)
We have looked closely at the short, medium and long term costings at the back of the report. It appears that construction of the east-west runway will cost approximately $25 million (not including some associated wish-list items which are not essential). However, upgrades to the north-south runway will also cost $25 million to enable it to cope with the increased demand if the east west runway is not built! We note that the airport does not cost ratepayer's money, has always serviced its debt, and pays council for any services. In the past, profit has been re-invested into the airport. This is the first council that has ever creamed-off profit. This council wants $1 million profit from the airport per year to be returned to the Council for other purposes - it may even be spent on projects to get Councillors re-elected rather than invested in the airport to generate business opportunities. The $25 million needed to build the east-west runway could substantially be met by airport profits, especially since business would increase. In this way, there would be no additional cost to rate-payers, tourism would increase, residents would have certainty, and airport revenue would increase due to less restrictions.

Answer
Considerable expenditure is identified in Master Plan whether the proposed east-
west runway is constructed or not.
Many facilities require expansion/upgrading to meet forecast growth in traffic.
Construction of a new 13/31 runway (2450m long x 45m wide) alone could be in
the order of $25M. However, should a parallel taxiway, new aprons, new
terminal etc be required, a considerably larger cost would be involved.
The actual requirements and cost would be considered in a later detailed study for development of this runway.
Development of a future 13/31 runway would be the subject of a cost/benefit
analysis.
If the 13/31 runway was constructed within the timeframe of the current Master
Plan (15 years) and Council resolves to minimise expenditure on the existing
runway, the identified $25.5M expenditure on the existing facilities could be
reduced to around $16M.

Back to Top