Questions
and Answers
Questions
on Notice put to the Author of Maroochy Airport Master Plan
at the Public Meeting on 23 February 1999 by Marcoola Residents
Index
Return
to AIRPORT INDEX PAGE
QUESTION 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
QUESTION 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
QUESTION
3
NOISE(
by Reg O'Reilly)
The consultant refers
to a noise management study on page 79, and concludes that aircraft
noise does not appear to be a major issue even for those living close to
the airport.
It refers to a 'small
concentration' of residents in Marcoola Beach for whom aircraft noise causes
annoyance.
Since publication of
the report the Marcoola Beach Neighbourhood Network has commissioned a
survey of directly affected residents to test the consultant's blinkered
acceptance of that earlier report.
The survey achieved
an incredible 75% response rate (approx 80 individual replies) and it indicates
that noise is so significant that residents are demanding
curfews, a moratorium on further development of pilot training, and no
further increase in air traffic until east-west is built.
This indicates that
people are not only significantly affected, they are also highly concerned
about future growth in aircraft numbers over their roofs - so concerned
that they want development of the east-west runway to be brought forward
to five years.
We are not prepared
to allow the number of planes over our roofs to increase three- or four-fold
thereby affecting our quality of life which will plummet along with safety
and real estate values
Why wasn't the consultant
able to discover this for its $75,000fee
when the Marcoola
Beach Neighbourhood Network was able to discover it in two weeks for no
financial outlay?
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.
I have since seen the
list if OFFICIAL Complaints but I believe there were so few because
PEOPLE
DIDN'T KNOW WHO TO PHONE !
Since I gave out the
Complaints Hotline there were as many as 14 in one
week.
QUESTION
4
SHIFT
EAST-WEST RUNWAY TO WEST (by Bob McMillan)
It is very important
that the people of south Marcoola and Mudjimba, whose lifestyle and real
estate are to be affected by the east-west runway, be compensated. Wouldn't
it cost less to shift the new east-west runway slightly deeper into the
cane farms to the west to minimise the level of property resumptions to
the east? Sugar cane and trees are not affected by noise, but this alternative
would be more people-friendly, minimising noise problems and safety issues
to the east. Surely it would also be better for the people of Twin Waters
and Pacific Paradise as planes would be at a greater altitude. Why wasn't
this alternative considered?
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.
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.
Return
to AIRPORT INDEX PAGE
The NEW All
Hours HOTLINE for COMPLAINTS is
or you can
call AirServices Australia through
The Brisbane
Noise Enquiry Unit on
1300 302 240
