VOLUME A: BACKGROUND AND NEED A3 Options and Alternatives

NEW PARALLEL RUNWAY DRAFT EIS/MDP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT A3-91 VOLUME A: BACKGROUND AND NEED A3 Options and Alternatives

CONTENTS FIGURES AND TABLES

3.1 Introduction 93 Figures

3.2 Feasible Alternatives to Runway Figure 3.2: Intrastate, Interstate and International Construction 93 Shares of Movements Across the Day, Brisbane Winter Weekday 2004/05 3.2.1 No Change Scenario 93 Figure 3.3a: Runway Options from the 2003 3.2.2 Demand Management Scenario 95 Master Plan 3.2.3 Expanded Use of Other Airports 97 Figure 3.3b: Runway Option 3 3.2.4 Conclusion 99 Figure 3.3c: Runway Option 4 3.3 Options to Runway Location 100 Figure 3.3d: Runway Option 5 3.3.1 History of Runway Options Figure 3.4a: Comparison of Material Amounts Development 100 Required by the Runway Development in Relation to that Produced within 3.3.2 Runway Options Assessed in South East Queensland During 2003-04 2003 Master Plan 100 Figure 3.4b: Quarry Sites within 150 km Radius of 3.3.3 The Preferred Runway Option 102 Brisbane Airport 3.3.4 Introduction to Preferred Runway Figure 3.4c: Daily Truck Generation During Design Alternatives 109 Construction Staging and Scheduled 3.3.5 Fill Minimisation Study 109 Project Timings

3.3.6 Airport Levee Study 110 Tables 3.3.7 New Parallel Runway Design 111 Table 3.2a: Regular Public Transport Passenger 3.4 Feasible Alternatives to Sourcing Movements at Brisbane, Gold Coast Runway Fill 113 and Sunshine Coast Airports, 1994/95 to 2004/05 3.4.1 Introduction 113 Table 3.2b: RPT Aircraft Movements at Brisbane, 3.4.2 Project Fill and Materials Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast Requirement 113 Airports, 1994/95 to 2004/05 3.4.3 Feasible Alternatives to Table 3.3: Runway Options – Assessment of Fill Materials 114 Impacts 3.4.4 Sourcing Pavement and Table 3.4a: Material Type and Estimated Volumes Structural Materials 116 Table 3.4b: Summary of Timeframes for Delivery of Materials During Construction

NEW PARALLEL RUNWAY DRAFT EIS/MDP A3-92 FOR PUBLIC COMMENT VOLUME A: BACKGROUND AND NEED A3 Options and Alternatives

3.1 Introduction traffic. It is estimated that business accounts for between 60 percent and 65 percent of the domestic traffic and that between one-third and 40 percent of This Chapter of the Draft EIS/MDP presents the domestic passengers travel from or to Brisbane and findings of assessments of options and alternatives return in the same day. As Brisbane’s population considered as part of the EIS/MDP process. Section grows so too will its business traffic. For this 3.2 includes an assessment of feasible alternatives reason it is reasonable to expect that the airlines will to runway construction such as the use of demand continue to serve the needs of the higher yielding management measures and expanded use of business passengers with services operating at other regional airports such as Coolangatta and current peak times. Maroochydore. Section 3.3 provides a detailed assessment of runway location options at Brisbane Further, in the case of Brisbane, a large number Airport, updating work that was presented in the BAC of regional flights from elsewhere in Queensland 2003 Master Plan. A triple bottom line assessment of operate to Brisbane carrying business passengers runway options is provided. Section 3.4 reviews the wishing to connect to interstate flights. For this feasible alternatives to sourcing runway fill and other reason the regional airlines service also contribute to construction materials. It summarises information morning and afternoon peaks at Brisbane Airport. detailed in the Moreton Bay Sand Extraction International peaks result from a complex array Study on sand fill options and provides new of issues. There are a number of significant information regarding the sourcing of pavement and influences and constraints affecting airline schedules. structural materials. These include: 3.2 Feasible Alternatives to • Passenger preferences to commence or complete Runway Construction their journey at ‘friendly’ times – not too early in the morning and not too late in the evening;

• Slot limitations at airports in Asia and Europe 3.2.1 No Change Scenario which will limit when aircraft can arrive at or depart from Brisbane; and 3.2.1.1 Peak Hour Spreading • The hubbing role played by some airports. This It is evident that many airports including Brisbane means that longer haul flights operating via Asia have daily peaks. If the demand within these peaks need to connect with flights in the hub port could be spread across other hours of the day, the to carry passengers from an incoming port to need for additional runway capacity and associated their different ultimate destinations. Thus the capital expenditure could be reduced. This would incoming flight needs to arrive in time to catch a be ideal for airlines (as they could improve the ‘bank’ of outgoing flights. utilisation of their aircraft) and airport operators (as they could increase the revenue achieved As a result of these factors airlines cannot schedule for their aeronautical infrastructure investment). arrivals and departures on an unconstrained 24 hour However underestimating the peak can lead to basis. Rather they are confronted with limited congestion, delays and ultimately to capacity scheduling opportunities or ‘windows’. constraints that restrict growth and development. This is why many Asian flights arrive at Brisbane The peaks arise due to passenger preferences and a in the early morning adding to the domestic peak number of airline operating constraints. described earlier.

Domestic airline peaks arise around 7.00am to Thus whilst there are some opportunities for airlines 9.00am each weekday morning and around 6.00pm and airports to spread their peaks there is a limit to 8.00pm each evening. For airports such as and little scope to spread traffic evenly across the Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane these runway operating day. peaks are driven largely by domestic business

NEW PARALLEL RUNWAY DRAFT EIS/MDP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT A3-93 When demand starts to exceed capacity during 3.2.1.3 Improvement Options for Existing peak periods, airlines either have to move flights Runway System into the shoulder period, change aircraft to a larger BAC has previously undertaken a review of whether seating capacity aircraft, or simply allow passengers additional airfield infrastructure to the existing to alter their travel patterns (e.g. travel earlier or runway/taxiway system could provide increased later, use alternative airports, or not travel by air). arrival and departure capacity to enable a This is not an ideal situation as for many reasons, deferment of the New Parallel Runway (NPR). The passengers particularly the business traveller, have enhancements considered were: a particular time when they must travel. This is discussed further in Chapter A2. • Additional taxiway entrances onto the main runway to facilitate intersection departures; The TAAM1 modelling for the 2035 scenario with no new runway (Chapter A2 Table 2.6f), indicates • Additional rapid exit taxiways to facilitate landing that delays of between 2.5 to 4 hours were starting aircraft vacating the runway quicker; to occur. No airline would tolerate such delays and • The construction of the missing section of would alter their schedule accordingly by either taxiway on the bravo taxiway system commonly changing flight times (where possible) or by not referred to as the ‘missing link’; and scheduling the flights (more likely) leading to loss of airline passengers through Brisbane. • Additional taxiway connection between the alpha and delta taxiway systems to facilitate aircraft 3.2.1.2 Passenger Loss operating from the cross runway.

The hourly, daily and annual capacity constraints These above enhancements were reconsidered of traffic for 2034/35 were applied assuming no during the current design phase for the NPR and additional runway. It is estimated that 35 percent of modelled as part of the TAAM investigations. That aircraft movements would be lost in 2034/35. The modelling has resulted in the following outcomes. overall passenger loss is estimated to be around 12 million passenger movements in 2034/35 or Additional Taxiway Entrances 24 percent of the unconstrained demand. An additional taxiway entrance was considered for It is forecast that there will be a loss of 3.2 million departures in both the 01 and 19 runway directions. international passengers and 8.8 million domestic The intent of this work would be to enable additional passengers. departures during busy periods, particularly when there are a number of aircraft queued on the taxiway By 2035 that would mean a direct loss of just under awaiting departure. Based on the existing aircraft $5 Billion per annum in passenger spending in the mix at Brisbane Airport during the busy hours, wider economy (in today’s dollars). these additional taxiways would not provide any discernible improvement in the hourly departure rate.

In the case of an additional intersection departure taxiway in the 19 runway direction (i.e. towards the city), there would be potential negative noise implications. The current noise abatement procedures would not permit such an intersection departure for jet aircraft.

1 Refer Chapter A2 for an explanation of TAAM Capacity modelling.

NEW PARALLEL RUNWAY DRAFT EIS/MDP A3-94 FOR PUBLIC COMMENT Additional Rapid Exit Taxiways 3.2.2 Demand Management Scenario

One additional rapid exit taxiway (RET) was 3.2.2.1 Demand Management Options considered for aircraft arriving in both the 01 and 19 directions. The intent would be to enable landing In the event that the NPR is not constructed when aircraft to vacate the runway more quickly potentially required, a number of demand management options allowing for additional arrivals. would have to be considered. These fall into two main categories: The results show negligible improvements in arrival rates confirming the optimum locations of the 1) Economic Management Approaches existing RETs. There are two main types of economic control:

Missing Link • Congestion Pricing Here airlines would be charged a higher fee to Departing aircraft using runway 01 without the arrive or depart during the peak period. This missing link have the potential for congestion on charge would be related to the estimated the alpha taxiway system. There is also potential for marginal cost of delay that each operation conflict with operations to the International Terminal. causes during the peak period. Instigation of The investigations showed that construction of the this approach would encourage lower value missing link would enhance the operational efficiency flights to move to shoulder and non-peak of the taxiway system by providing a complete dual periods. parallel taxiway system, and as a consequence assist in ensuring that the existing main runway does • Slot Auction achieve its predicted maximum departure rate of This approach would enable the selected 25 – 27 aircraft in a busy hour. authority to trade slots so that airlines operating higher value flights would be able to bid to Alpha – Delta Link migrate to the most valuable times of the day.

During periods of high demand and the use of the 2) Regulatory Approaches cross runway 14/32, a new link taxiway between • Slot Management the existing taxiways alpha and delta joining at the A second regulatory approach is slot thresholds of runways 19 and 32 would assist to management. This is usually associated with alleviate congestion when arrivals taxiing from a an overall movement cap. Again this approach runway 14 landing may be blocked by a departure is used at Sydney Airport. Slots are allocated queue for runway 19 take-offs. to airlines on the basis of the services operated The investigations show that the provision of this by airlines at the time of introduction of the slot management system. New slots are then additional link would assist taxiway efficiency co-ordinated to ensure efficient management and but does not add to runway capacity. This link is reduced congestion at the airport. At Sydney required as part of the proposed taxiway system for Airport there is a system to protect the slots of the new runway when the cross runway is closed Regional Airlines (usually operating the intrastate and converted to a taxiway. This new link has been services) which further reduces overall capacity. adopted as part of the new runway design. • AircraftSize Restriction A further approach that could be considered is to provide minimum limits on the number of seats on aircraft operating into the peak period. The intent would be to encourage smaller aircraft to fly to hubs away from Brisbane and then to have passengers join larger aircraft for their on-carriage to Brisbane.

NEW PARALLEL RUNWAY DRAFT EIS/MDP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT A3-95 3.2.2.2 Structure of Demand for Runway • Due to different aircraft sizes and profiles Usage at Brisbane Airport throughout the day, annual passenger traffic have different shares compared with peak hour Figure 3.2 shows the share of movements across aircraft movements; and the day by market sector (intrastate, interstate and international). The busiest hours of the day are the • Thus the regional (intrastate) movements 0800 and the 1800 hours which are summarised as: represent the largest contributor to the busiest hour of the day. • During the 0800 hour, intrastate aircraft movements account for 37 percent of It is important to recognise that many travellers movements, interstate for 47 percent and intend flying to/from Brisbane early in the day and international for 16 percent; returning late in the day to avoid overnight (or additional overnight) stays. This gives rise to the • During the busiest hour of the day, the two peak periods. This type of travel is particularly 1800 hour, intrastate aircraft movements important for intrastate and interstate business account for 51 percent of movements, interstate travellers. for 37 percent and international for 12 percent;

Figure 3.2: Intrastate, Interstate and International Shares of Movements Across the Day, Brisbane Winter Weekday 2004/05.

80% Intrastate

70% Interstate International

60%

50%

40%

30% Share of Movements 20%

10%

0% 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 Hour of Day

NEW PARALLEL RUNWAY DRAFT EIS/MDP A3-96 FOR PUBLIC COMMENT 3.2.2.3 Demand Management Implications This equates to an annual cost to passengers in excess of $500 Million in 2035, based on the It is evident that the demand management options capacity constrained forecasts of 27.0 million would have implications for the types of services domestic passenger movements (13.5 million that could be operated into peak periods at two-way) and 11.0 million international passenger Brisbane Airport. Larger aircraft types would be movements (5.5 million two-way). likely during the peaks and would focus on the delivery of business passengers. 3.2.3 Expanded Use of Other Airports

However it is likely that the flight frequencies from A number of commercial airports serve the connecting cities would be limited compared to South East Queensland region. These are the number that would be available if the additional discussed in the following sections. runway capacity was made available. The business market in particular values the additional frequencies. 3.2.3.1 Gold Coast Airport

Queensland is one of the most decentralised states The Gold Coast Airport (GCA) is located at in Australia with a substantial and growing population Coolangatta and serves the Gold Coast and Tweed outside of Brisbane. Many travellers from outside (NSW) regions. The Preliminary Draft Master Plan of Brisbane will seek to hub through Brisbane to 2006 for GCA (May 2006) indicates that: connect to interstate and overseas services. The • The primary runway (14/32) handles the majority pressure for airlines to hub outside of Brisbane would of the aircraft movements. This runway is not be well received. This would add to the time for 2,042 m long and 45 m wide and approvals are intrastate travel and make it difficult to undertake the in place to extend the runway to 2,500 m; and desired business activities within a day. • The secondary (cross) runway, (17/35) is 582 m Effectively the constraints that would emerge in the long and 18 m wide and is used for General absence of additional runway capacity would largely Aviation (GA) movements. be felt by intrastate and interstate business travellers. This would introduce inefficiencies into their decision With respect to the future and growth potential the making and increase the need for overnight stays Preliminary Draft Master Plan indicates that: thus increasing overall costs. It is likely that some of • Average annual growth moving forward will the business travel would not take place reducing the represent approximately 5 percent domestically; overall demand for travel to/from Brisbane. • Internationally there is greater potential for Ultimately, all the costs of congestion fall on growth off a relatively low base. The Gold passengers, whether this is through higher airfares Coast Airport runway extension to 2,500 m will or non-price congestion such as inconvenience and facilitate direct flights to Asia and therefore an delays. The exact breakdown between how much of average annual growth rate of 20 percent has any level of congestion is incurred as higher airfares been prepared, with the majority of that growth or as inconvenience, depends on how well airlines are being delivered from 2009–10 onwards; able to price-ration demand to the available supply. • Overall forecasting six years from now, By 2035, it is estimated that there will be an Gold Coast Airport predicts a total average annual growth rate of 6.12 percent for both additional cost of around $28 (two-way) to domestic domestic and international passengers; and passengers and $26 (two-way) for international passengers as a result of not providing additional • Domestic and New Zealand services will runway capacity at Brisbane, of which three- always represent the core business of quarters is estimated to be through higher airfares Gold Coast Airport and represent the majority (price rationing) and the remainder is non-price of passengers. rationing such as additional inconvenience and altered travel plans.

NEW PARALLEL RUNWAY DRAFT EIS/MDP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT A3-97 3.2.3.2 Sunshine Coast Airport Archerfield Airport has a multi-runway configuration with two parallel runways in two directions (40 and Located at Maroochydore, the Sunshine Coast Airport 96 degrees magnetic). (SCA) is the gateway to destinations such as Noosa, Maroochy, Coolum, Mooloolaba and Caloundra. The Master Plan includes a long term forecast growth of 3 percent per annum taking movements There are two runways at the Sunshine Coast Airport: from 122,960 (during Tower hours) in 2003/04 to • The main runway (18/36) is 1,797 m in length 228,742 movements in 2024/25. and a width of 30 m; and 3.2.3.4 South East Queensland Traffic Levels • The second runway (12/30) is 650 m in length, is Table 3.2a shows that the Brisbane, Gold Coast 18 m wide and is weight limited for aircraft up to and Sunshine Coast Airports supported around 5,700 kgs. 19.2 million passenger movements in 2004/05. 3.2.3.3 Archerfield Airport This is up from 10.7 million a decade earlier (a trend Compound Annual Growth Rate of 5.4 percent Archerfield Airport is located 12 km west of the over the decade). In 2004/05 Brisbane accounted Brisbane Central Business District (CBD). for 80 percent of the passenger movements as it The Archerfield Airport Master Plan 2005–2025 did a decade earlier although its share peaked at (November 2005) suggests that the airport is 86 percent in 2001/02. positioned to be a hub for aircraft charter, light aircraft, emergency services and privately operated aircraft in South East Queensland.

Table 3.2a: Regular Public Transport Passenger Movements at Brisbane, Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast Airports, 1994/95 to 2004/05.

Years end 30 June Brisbane Gold Coast Sunshine Coast Total Passenger Movements (‘000s) 1995 8,509 1,879 269 10,657 1996 9,236 1,993 310 11,539 1997 9,683 1,937 303 11,923 1998 9,737 1,868 280 11,885 1999 9,834 1,864 289 11,987 2000 10,534 1,959 307 12,801 2001 12,467 1,888 238 14,593 2002 11,774 1,736 216 13,726 2003 11,841 2,178 319 14,338 2004 13,780 2,504 431 16,715 2005 15,358 3,142 664 19,164 Share of South East Queensland Passenger Movements 1995 80% 18% 3% 100% 1996 80% 17% 3% 100% 1997 81% 16% 3% 100% 1998 82% 16% 2% 100% 1999 82% 16% 2% 100% 2000 82% 15% 2% 100% 2001 85% 13% 2% 100% 2002 86% 13% 2% 100% 2003 83% 15% 2% 100% 2004 82% 15% 3% 100% 2005 80% 16% 3% 100%

NEW PARALLEL RUNWAY DRAFT EIS/MDP A3-98 FOR PUBLIC COMMENT Table 3.2b: RPT Aircraft Movements at Brisbane, Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast Airports, 1994/95 to 2004/05 Years.

Years End 30 June Brisbane Gold Coast Sunshine Coast Total Aircraft Movements (‘000s) 1995 117 27 6 150 1996 126 26 8 161 1997 125 24 7 157 1998 126 23 6 154 1999 129 22 8 159 2000 133 21 10 164 2001 152 20 9 181 2002 125 16 5 147 2003 117 21 5 143 2004 122 21 6 149 2005 137 28 8 172 Share of South East Queensland Aircraft Movements 1995 78% 18% 4% 100% 1996 78% 16% 5% 100% 1997 80% 15% 5% 100% 1998 81% 15% 4% 100% 1999 81% 14% 5% 100% 2000 81% 13% 6% 100% 2001 84% 11% 5% 100% 2002 85% 11% 4% 100% 2003 82% 15% 3% 100% 2004 82% 14% 4% 100% 2005 79% 16% 5% 100%

Table 3.2b shows the RPT aircraft movements 3.2.4 Conclusion for South East Queensland Airports. In total the three airports accounted for 172,000 aircraft The above assessment identifies that the feasible movements in 2004/05. Brisbane’s share amounted alternatives to new runway construction will not to 79 percent of the total. provide sufficient capacity to meet demand for air traffic in South East Queensland as follows: The Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast Airports play an important part in servicing the • Maintaining the existing runway with no additional capacity will lead to a significant loss of passenger South East Queensland catchment area, particularly movements (approximately 24 percent) in 2035, Low Cost Airlines targeting the ‘sun seeker’ leisure with associated economic disbenefits; travel market. Even after allowing for continued strong growth at Gold Coast Airport and Sunshine • Improvements to the existing runway system will Coast Airport, the overall rapid pace of growth provide only marginal capacity improvements, in the region, and Brisbane Airport’s role in the insufficient to meet future demand; business travel market (and full service airlines), • Demand management will constrain aircraft ensures capacity expansion at Brisbane is largely movements, particularly to regional centres complementary to rather than in competition with with associated economic disbenefits for growth at Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast Airports. passengers; and

• Other South East Queensland airports will be complementary to Brisbane Airport rather than providing realistic alternatives if a new runway is not provided.

NEW PARALLEL RUNWAY DRAFT EIS/MDP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT A3-99 3.3 Options to Runway Location The 1998 Master Plan included a discussion and summary of Brisbane Airport runway development option assessment undertaken in the studies 3.3.1 History of Runway Options referred to. That assessment resulted in the Development adoption of the Q3 concept for Brisbane Airport and delivery of the existing core facilities during the Over the past 25 to 30 years numerous runway 1980s. configuration concepts and options have been considered in various studies conducted prior to In 1999 BAC continued to evaluate runway commencement of the Phase 1 airport construction development options. This reassessment was works in 1980 and in the preparation of the 1983, influenced by a number of factors including: 1991 and the 1998 Master Plans including: • A commitment by BAC to achieve the best • Original 1969 Master Plan; possible outcome for the overall community;

• Brisbane Airport Advisory Committee (BAAC) • Strong political and environmental issues – Report 1970/71; associated with future runway development at Brisbane Airport; • Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works – Minutes of Evidence 1979; • The need to develop a firm, stageable and cost effective Terminal Area Development Strategy; • Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works – Minutes of Evidence 1981; • The impact on immediate commercial development demands influenced by terminal • Parliamentary Standing Committee on area design; Public Works – Report 1981; • The future capital costs associated with delivery • Department of Transport – Preliminary of a southern elevated dual taxiway system; Master Plan 1981; • The flexibility constraints imposed by the • Department of Aviation – Master Plan 1983; southern extent of the future parallel runway on • Parliamentary Standing Committee on alignment options for the Gateway Motorway Public Works – Report 1989/90; Deviation; and

• GHD Pty Ltd – ‘Review of Runway • The cost, functionality, and aesthetic impacts Configuration’ Report 1990; imposed on the Airtrain structure being depressed below the proposed elevated dual • FAC – ‘Evaluation of Proposed Runway parallel taxiway system. Development Options’ Report 1990; These factors informed the 2003 Master Plan. • Department of Transport and Communication – ‘The Impact of Airport Noise’ Task Force 3.3.2 Runway Options Assessed in 2003 Report 1991; Master Plan • FAC – Master Plan 1991; As part of the BAC 2003 Master Plan, six runway • GHD Pty Ltd – ‘Runway Development Options’ options were assessed (see Figure 3.3a). The Report 1995; Master Plan stated that as part of any new • FAC – ‘Future Airfield Capital Works’ Report runway project process the assessment of these 1996, and options would be significantly extended in this Draft EIS/MDP. • Netherlands Airport Consultants (NACO) – Technical Paper No. 8 ‘Runways, Taxiways The Master Plan also stated that “any runway and Aprons’ 1998. system options that warrant review must be limited to those options that address the existing Brisbane Airport core infrastructure to realistically have any

NEW PARALLEL RUNWAY DRAFT EIS/MDP A3-100 FOR PUBLIC COMMENT Figure 3.3a: Runway Options from the 2003 Master Plan.

potential for actual implementation.” In this regard • Option 1 is not now a feasible option. The as part of the preliminary design process, more Gateway Upgrade Project will conflict with detailed costing of one of the options has been necessary clearances for arriving and departing undertaken (the preferred option identified in the aircraft. Additionally, it is not possible to Master Plan). This costing indicates significant engineer a solution that allows the linked taxiway recent cost escalation, reflecting the overly tight to cross both the new Northern Access Road engineering construction market and the shortage of (NARP) and the Airtrain in the current location. skilled labour. All the cost estimates for the various Option 1 is therefore not considered further; options included in the Master Plan would have • Option 2 is not now a feasible option. It is not similar cost escalation. possible to engineer a solution that allows the linked taxiway to cross both the NARP and New infrastructure, not previously considered in the Airtrain in the current location. Option 2 is the Master Plan, now affects the feasibility of some therefore not considered further; and of the six runway options assessed. These are discussed as follows:

NEW PARALLEL RUNWAY DRAFT EIS/MDP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT A3-101 • Option 6 was estimated, in the 2003 BAC Master The concept did result in a penalty of additional Plan, to be of the order of six times the capital cost taxiing distances for International aircraft utilising of the other five options ($1,920 Million compared the future runway, and additional construction costs to $285 Million to $315 Million). Additionally, there associated with construction in areas of very poor are a number of other significant impacts and geotechnical conditions. issues associated with the runway extension and duplication for this option which: The areas where Option 3 was considered to perform better than or equal to the other two a) Extends into the Ramsar and Marine Park with options assessed are listed below: the greatest impact on the ecology of the area; 1. Airport and Surrounds b) Will require compensation and/or land to be resumed in Nudgee Beach as a result of • Land Use and Planning – runway separation aircraft noise; and provides required area for future aviation c) Will have the greatest impact on the facilities including terminals, car parks and behaviour of Kedron Brook Floodway and surface transport access. Least impact of the coastal processes within Moreton Bay approach lighting structure in the Ramsar site adjacent to the Airport. and Moreton Bay Marine Park; • Reclamation into Moreton Bay – runway location BAC would therefore not build this option, particularly avoids any reclamation into Moreton Bay; in light of likely cost escalation. Option 6 is therefore not considered further. • Terrestrial and Marine Ecology – Lewins Rail habitat is retained and the approach lighting has This Draft EIS/MDP therefore assesses in more detail minimal impact on the Moreton Bay foreshore the impacts and implications of Options 3 to 5 from habitats for marine life and wader birds; the 2003 Master Plan, refer Figures 3.3b to 3.3d. • Cultural Heritage and Native Title – low risk of Table 3.3 provides a triple bottom line analysis of impacting cultural heritage materials; each of the remaining three Master Plan Options and considers the environmental, social and • Surface Hydrology – avoids impacts on the behaviour of Kedron Brook Floodway (including economic implications of each. the possibility of having to divert the Floodway 3.3.3 The Preferred Runway Option mouth to the north of its present location) resulting from the extension to the cross runway Option 3, or the ‘Staggered Runway Concept’ (Option 5); is the preferred runway option which locates the • Coastal Processes – avoids potential significant New Parallel Runway as far towards Moreton Bay long term impacts on coastal processes resulting as practical – a total of 2.35 km closer than in from the extension to the cross runway (Option 5); the former Federal Airport Corporation (FAC) and Department of Aviation (DoA) Master Plans, while • Water Quality – avoids complex reclamation and retaining the capacity and operational efficiencies of fill processes resulting from the extension to the a wide spaced parallel runway system. cross runway (Option 5); • Social Impact – avoids impacts resulting from The concept provides improvement in the potential the extension to the cross runway (Option 5) on: for Opposite Direction Parallel Runway operations by providing a runway stagger towards the preferred arrival a) Recreational amenity of Nudgee Beach; runway, increasing effective separation standards. b) Marine navigation pathways in and out of Kedron Brook Floodway; and It provides greater flexibility and stageability of c) Use of the mud and sand flats of the area by terminal development solutions with the creation of commercial and recreational fishers. a contiguous development zone previously bisected by an elevated dual parallel taxiway system. • Ground Based Noise and Air Emissions – provides least impact from ground based noise.

NEW PARALLEL RUNWAY DRAFT EIS/MDP A3-102 FOR PUBLIC COMMENT 2. Middle Banks

• Hydrodynamics and Coastal Processes – no difference between the options;

• Water Quality – no difference between the options;

• Marine Ecology – no difference between the options; and

• Social Impact – no difference between the options.

3. Other

• Construction – sand placement location does not require booster pumps;

• Operational Flexibility; and

• Operational Capacity – provides greatest capacity and life for the new runway.

NEW PARALLEL RUNWAY DRAFT EIS/MDP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT A3-103 Figure 3.3b: Runway Option 3.

N

Brisbane Airport Master Plan 2003 Runway Option 3 Proposed Runway Movement Area Proposed Roads Roads Airtrain Viaduct Waterways and Drainage RAMSAR Wetlands Biodiversity Zone Option3 Terminal and FAFA

NEW PARALLEL RUNWAY DRAFT EIS/MDP A3-104 FOR PUBLIC COMMENT Figure 3.3c: Runway Option 4.

N

Brisbane Airport Master Plan 2003 Runway Option 4 Proposed Runway Movement Area Proposed Roads Roads Airtrain Viaduct Waterways and Drainage RAMSAR Wetlands Biodiversity Zone Option4 Terminal and FAFA

NEW PARALLEL RUNWAY DRAFT EIS/MDP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT A3-105 Figure 3.3d: Runway Option 5.

N

Brisbane Airport Master Plan 2003 Runway Option 5 Proposed Runway Movement Area Proposed Roads Roads Airtrain Viaduct Waterways and Drainage Kedron Brook Floodway Diversion RAMSAR Wetlands Biodiversity Zone Option5 Terminal and FAFA

NEW PARALLEL RUNWAY DRAFT EIS/MDP A3-106 FOR PUBLIC COMMENT of sand for 3 north-west into Moreton Bay. Bay. north-west into Moreton west Under this option the area Apron of the General Aviation would be filled and established Facilities Aviation as a Future uses for aeronautical (FAFA) Area terminals and such as future maintenance hangars. 14/32 - 3,600 m extended to Existing 01/19 @ 3,600 m Proposed Runway Movement Area Proposed Roads Roads Airtrain Viaduct and Drainage Waterways Kedron Brook Floodway Diversion RAMSAR Wetlands Biodiversity Zone and FAFA Option5 Terminal Brisbane Airport Master Plan 2003 Runway Option 5 . The diversion would be through an area of an area . The diversion would be through would require a different approach to managing water approach a different would require would revetment quality than the other options. A rock runway the proposed need to be constructed around site prior to the hydraulic placement of reclamation would be directly this process tailwater from fill. Dredge (with marine environment discharged to the surrounding minimal settling time) or would need to be pumped into a land-based sediment pond prior to discharge into Floodway. Brook Jacksons Creek/Kedron of the 14/32 runway would be expected to have significant and long term impacts on the behaviour of occuring in the locaility that are the coastal processes at neighbouring effects possible erosion including creating the would extend across The reclamation shorelines. Floodway and may have an Brook mouth of the Kedron at the Floodway mouth impact on the tidal hydrodynamics (see Surface Hydrology). of the 14/32 runway would extend across the mouth of of the 14/32 runway would extend across Floodway and would impact the tidal Brook the Kedron at the Floodway mouth (causing increased hydrodynamics at the or siltation). Changes in hydrodynamics erosion mouth of the Floodway would likely lead to changes the behaviour and efficiency of Floodway in upstream the Floodway mouth may need to be As a result, areas. north of Nudgee Beach as shown in diverted to an area 3.3d Figure high ecological values that is Ramsar listed. would not be New stormwater drainage infrastructure for this option as the existing surface drainage requried system at the Airport would continue to operate. Two cultural heritage sites (including one burial site) would Two impacted by the 14/32 runway extension. be directly Potential for considerable Native Title negotiation to obtain associated with the requirement processes land that Bay for the reclaimed in Moreton exclusive tenure of the extension 14/32 as a result will be created runway. cross The FAFA would need to be located the west of The FAFA activities such related Aviation Area. General Aviation to as maintenance hangars would be located nearer communities to the west of site at Nudgee, residential Banyo and Nudgee Beach. Bay within the area Runway 14/32 extends into Moreton Bay the Ramsar site and Moreton excised from previously Marine Park. extends beyond the lighting structure The approach and would be located wholly in the Ramsar excised area site and Marine Park. Reclamation of the seabed in order to extend the 14/32 Reclamation of the seabed in order impacts to benthic in irreversible runway would result A marine fauna living in the sand and mudflat areas. feeding habitat that section of the important wader bird and would be removed occurs along the northern shoreline runway may cause distrubance to location of the reclaimed adjacent sand flat areas. and most of in Jacksons Creek environments Mangrove as per Option 4. Mangrove retained Jacksons Channel are (most of the immediately west of the GA apron areas would be filled for mangroves) Serpentine Creek remnant the development of FAFA. with this option. Lewins Rail habitat is retained impacts same as other options lighting structure Approach although not connecting to the foreshore. Volume of surcharge required is approx 12 Mm is approx required of surcharge Volume FAFA and filling of the runway extension in Moreton Bay. and filling of the runway extension in Moreton FAFA and will present Actual and potential acid sulfate soils are and management during construction. treatment require significant reclamation Runway 14/32 extension requires armouring/sea-wall Bay and associated rock into Moreton to support the runway structure. structure with parallel 01/19 @ 1,600 m spacing. Under this option west of the the area NPR would be filled and established as Aviation a Future for (FAFA) Facilities Area uses such aeronautical terminals and as future maintenance hangars. would apply when As per Option 3 of sand. 3 Proposed Runway Movement Area Proposed Roads Roads Airtrain Viaduct and Drainage Waterways RAMSAR Wetlands Biodiversity Zone and FAFA Terminal Option4 Brisbane Airport Master Plan 2003 Runway Option 4 Native Title Act 1993 As per Option 3. to extend the 14/32 runway process The reclamation As per Option 3. Reclamation of the seabed associated with extension As per Option 3. Reclamation of the seabed associated with extension One known site of low significance would be by sand fill this option. Potential for covered for indigenous remains uncovering archaeological very low. or non-indigenous material is considered under Native Title Notification requirements the sought. applications for permits are Inadequate development zone for terminals, carparks and surface transport interchange would facilities between runways. The FAFA need to be located the west of NPR. This a less than desirable location for would create access and parking a new terminal with road activities such as issues. Other aviation related to maintenance hangars would be located nearer communities to the west of site at residential Nudgee, Banyo and Nudgee Beach. is wholly lighting structure The approach contained within the Ramsar site and Moreton Bay Marine Park. Parallel runway alignment located on poor surcharge ground conditions requiring ground component to enable construction of the runway is required of surcharge above flood level. Volume 15 Mm approximately Some of the mangroves in the remnant sections in the remnant Some of the mangroves as a result would be removed of Serpentine Creek The of the Runway. of filling and surcharging Serpentine in the remnant mangroves remaining sections of system and the upstream Creek Jacksons Channel would be filled to accomodate and the downstream Jacksons Creek the FAFA. sections of Jacksons Channel would be retained as per Option 3. Lewins Rail habitat south of the New Runway is with this option. retained (which would be a lighting structure Approach to minimise footprint issues on piled structure the seabed) would have a minimal impact on habitats for marine life and Bay foreshore Moreton wader birds. A large proportion of the NPR alignment occursA large proportion soils (up to 30 m of marine clayover the poorest material) on the site with this option. As a result, and time would be amounts of surcharge increased to other options. for settlement compared required present Actual and potential acid sulfate soils are and management treatment and will require during construction. Existing required. No seabed reclamation of the airport will be seawall along the frontage lighting will be and approach re-constructed out into placed on a series of piled structures Bay. Moreton

3,600 m. Parallel 01/19 at 3,600 m to W and 2,300 m to N staggered with BAC (compared 1998 Master Plan) with 2,000 m spacing and with 14/32 downgraded. Under this option the between the area runways would be filled and established as a would apply when   Existing 01/19 at of sand.  3 Proposed Runway Movement Area Proposed Roads Roads Airtrain Viaduct and Drainage Waterways RAMSAR Wetlands Biodiversity Zone and FAFA Terminal Option3 Brisbane Airport Master Plan 2003 Runway Option 3 Option 3 Preferred OptionOption 3 Preferred Option 4 Option 5 Native Title Act 1993  cells, the use of bunded reclamation through sediment ponds and best practice (e.g. silt curtains, geotextile measures control will assist in blankets, etc.) This approach managing the impacts of suspended sediments waters of Kedron and nutrients on the receiving Bay. Serpentine Inlet and Moreton Brook, the site tailwater from Discharge of the dredge to enable during construction will be monitored against water quality goals to be progress action taken periodically assessed and corrective if necessary. Operational management of stormwater quality will employ similar methods to the existing arrangements on-airport with the use of grassed strips prior to discharge via tidal swales and buffer drains.   to be proposed The only permanent structure Bay is the piled approach located in Moreton will not have an The structure lighting structure. such as adverse impact on coastal processes sediment transport. waves and longshore the site from seawall protecting The dumped rock and would not is to be re-constructed erosion at the site have any impact on coastal processes or on adjoining coastlines.    an assessment of Impacts identified from of flooding included the potential interception the Landers overland flow through regional due to the construction Pocket floodplain area of significant fill platforms and the potential for impervious from stormwater runoff increased runway and taxiway pavements. Both of these impacts have been mitigated by the inclusion of a Floodway Drain) Brook diversion channel (Kedron which and local drainage detention storage areas, the local attenuation of peak flows through provide the impact of this drainage network and reduce option on existing drainage systems by reducing the new parallel runway the peak discharge from drainage infrastructure.   Parallel runway alignment located on poor surcharge ground conditions requiring ground component to enable construction of the runway is required of surcharge above flood level. Volume 15 Mm approximately   One known site of low significance would be by sand fill this option. Potential for covered for indigenous remains uncovering archaeological very low. or non-indigenous material is considered under Native Title Notification requirements the   applications for permits are sought. applications for permits are The 2,000 m separation between runways opportunity for an adequate provides Facilities Area) Aviation development zone (Future including terminals, car aviation growth for future parks and surface transport access. between the runways is most Having the FAFA a terminal operation perspective and efficient from facilities allows efficient access to aeronautical surface transport infrastructure. from is lighting structure A portion of the approach Bay located in the Ramsar site and Moreton Marine Park. Actual and potential acid sulfate soils are present present Actual and potential acid sulfate soils are and management during treatment and will require construction. Existing required. No seabed reclamation of the Airport will be seawall along the frontage lighting will be and approach re-constructed out into placed on a series of piled structures Bay. Moreton  sections of in the remnant Loss of mangroves for filling and surcharging from Serpentine Creek and some and NPR. Jacksons Creek the FAFA of the Jacksons Channel (the channel connecting sections of to the remnant Jacksons Creek is retained. Serpentine Creek) Lewins Rail habitat south of the Runway is with this option. retained (which would be a lighting structure Approach to minimise footprint issues on piled structure the seabed) would have a minimal impact on habitats for marine life and Bay foreshore Moreton wader birds.   Future Aviation Facilities Area (FAFA) for (FAFA) Facilities Area Aviation Future terminals and uses such as future aeronautical maintenance hangars. Runway Options – Assessment of Impacts. LEGEND Best Average Worst Preference QualityWater During construction, water quality is managed Preference Coastal Processes Preference Surface Hydrology Preference Geology, Soils and Groundwater (including Reclamation into Moreton Bay) Preference Cultural Heritage and Native Title Description AND SURROUNDS ENVIRONMENT AND SOCIAL - AIRPORT Land Use and Planning Preference and Terrestrial Marine Ecology Table 3.3:

NEW PARALLEL RUNWAY DRAFT EIS/MDP NEW PARALLEL RUNWAY DRAFT EIS/MDP NEW PARALLEL RUNWAY DRAFT EIS/MDP A3-107 FOR PUBLIC COMMENT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT the of sand fill nts, there is nts, there 3 would be required would be required 3 north-west into Moreton Bay. Bay. north-west into Moreton west Under this option the area Apron of the General Aviation would be filled and established Facilities Aviation as a Future uses for aeronautical (FAFA) Area terminals and such as future maintenance hangars. 14/32 - 3,600 m extended to Existing 01/19 @ 3,600 m Proposed Runway Movement Area Proposed Roads Roads Airtrain Viaduct and Drainage Waterways Kedron Brook Floodway Diversion RAMSAR Wetlands Biodiversity Zone and FAFA Option5 Terminal Brisbane Airport Master Plan 2003 Runway Option 5 would be required for the extension of 14/32 into Moreton for the extension of 14/32 into Moreton would be required the Plan did not take into consideration However, Bay. and new to fill the FAFA sand fill that would be required terminal that is necessary to service the NPR. Based on that at least 12 Mm this, it is considered in total to construct the runway and new terminal precinct. Option 3 could be used for the footprint from The dredge sand extraction under this runway option, acknowledging within the footprint would need to be that not all of the area and that the due to the smaller volume required dredged time would be reduced. overall dredging would be able to completed quicker given that dredging a smaller volume of sand is required. Sand Delivery via Pipeline: This option requires the longest Sand Delivery via Pipeline: This option requires booster pumps. Most complex pipeline, and may require Bay will be Moreton operation. Access from fill/reclamation due to water depth. restricted Construction Materials: Pavement material requirements likely to be similar those for Option 3. The 2003 Master Plan identified that 8 Mm little capacity increase at non-peak times and an actual little capacity increase in peak times. reduction dredging would be able to completed quicker given that dredging a smaller volume of sand is required. Changes dependent on dominance of 14/32 runway. impacts on Nudgee Beach, Sandgate, Increased from and Wynnum resulting Brighton, Redcliffe Shorncliffe, arrivals on 14/32. increased very limited operational fexibility with This Option provides independent operations limited to small aricraft due the conflicting alignments of the runways. It is also inefficient a choke point at the 19 must taxi through as all aircraft It has also very end of the existing runway. threshold limited ability for over bay operations. The extension of the 14/32 runway potentially impacts Potential amenity of Nudgee Beach precinct. recreational lighting structure the approach for high visual impact from the line of sight to Bay as it would extend across islands. lighting and angle of the approach Reclaimed runway area marine navigation pathways will alter current structure travel time and in and out of the Floodway increasing inconvenience (unless re-aligned). would impact on the use of mud and Reclaimed area by commericial and recreational sand flats of the area configuration of current fishers. This option retains west of the area Jacksons Channel although the mangrove terminal would need to be filled for the General Aviation and new terminal precinct. FAFA 2003 Master Plan cost of $315 Million. Cost escalation to be similar Option 3, with cost considered differential. Road access would need to be provided to the FAFA and to the FAFA Road access would need to be provided apron). (west of the General Aviation new terminal area Reduced operating capacity of runway system reduces traffic demand to Airport. overall road Construction noise involving the reclamation of the cross of the cross Construction noise involving the reclamation runway would concentrate impacts on the community of Nudgee Beach. runway during the cross based noise from Ground operation would impact on the community at Nudgee Beach. This option is the with parallel 01/19 @ 1,600 m spacing. Under this option west of the the area NPR would be filled and established as Aviation a Future for (FAFA) Facilities Area uses such aeronautical terminals and as future maintenance hangars. Pavement material As per Option 3 Proposed Runway Movement Area Proposed Roads Roads Airtrain Viaduct and Drainage Waterways RAMSAR Wetlands Biodiversity Zone and FAFA Terminal Option4 Brisbane Airport Master Plan 2003 Runway Option 4 of sand is required for this option. The of sand is required 3 closest to the pump-out location and does not booster pumps. require Construction Materials: likely to be similar those for requirements Option 3. Sand Delivery via Pipeline: 15 Mm dredge footprint for Option 3 would be used in dredge the sand. sourcing As per Option 3. impact to the Similar to Option 3 but with greater SODPROPS availability. south due to reduced by to the west created noise buffer Increased runway displacement but may have negligible beneficial effect. to use the runways This Option allows all aircraft for SODPROP standards Current independently. minimum conditions would apply. With less separation distance between the in the of mangroves runways, a larger area (west of the NPR) area Serpentine Creek remnant would be outside the runway footprint compared would need to this area to Option 3. However, and new terminal be filled to establish the FAFA in the future. precinct Reduced visual impact on Nudgee Beach from lighting structure. approach Otherwise, as per Option 3. 2003 Master Plan cost of $285 Million. Cost to be similar Option 3, escalation considered with similar cost differential. An additional major access road would need to An additional major access road the perimeter of NPR around be provided terminal precinct and future to access the FAFA (situated west of the NPR). This is a sub-optimal configuration and would likely lead to traffic congenstion issues when a new terminal is developed in the future. under access would need to be provided Tunnel the new link taxiway for extension of road to the GA area. access through Construction noise is as per Option 3. and During operation, the location of FAFA new terminal to the west of NPR would movement of from a noise source introduce that running of aircraft vehicles and the ground would adversely impact on the communities west of the Airport including Nudgee Beach.

Location means that The preliminary design The preliminary of pavement materials 3,600 m. Parallel 01/19 at 3,600 m to W and 2,300 m to N staggered with BAC (compared 1998 Master Plan) with 2,000 m spacing and with 14/32 downgraded. Under this option the between the area runways would be filled and established as a 3  29 24 14  Existing 01/19 at  Proposed Runway Movement Area Proposed Roads Roads Airtrain Viaduct and Drainage Waterways RAMSAR Wetlands Biodiversity Zone and FAFA Terminal Option3 Brisbane Airport Master Plan 2003 Runway Option 3 Option 3 Preferred OptionOption 3 Preferred Option 4 Option 5 of sand is required for this option. A of sand is required 3 would be required. would be required. preferred dredge footprint has been identified dredge preferred an adequate at Middle Banks that will provide volume of material while avoiding or minimising and/or social impacts. environmental Future Aviation Facilities Area (FAFA) for (FAFA) Facilities Area Aviation Future terminals and uses such as future aeronautical maintenance hangars.  between the options.No difference  between the options. No difference  between the options.No difference between the options. No difference  between the options. No difference  between the options, except that No difference       15 Mm Unchanged during peak operating periods potential due to increased – maximum reduction for SODPROPS when implemented. Further minimisation of impact to south Airport availability of SODPROPS because of increased and significant north-east runway displacement. Sand Delivery via Pipeline: booster sand placement operations do not require pumps. Construction Materials: to use the runways This Option allows all aircraft independently at all times and potentially to for over bay minimum standards allow reduced operations. identified that 600,000 m  of Jacksons Channel and areas Downstream (part of the Airport Biodiversity Jacksons Creek retained. Zone) are Some visual impact on Nudgee Beach from lighting structure. approach       costs indicate significant cost escalation – current estimated capital cost ~$1 Billion.          This option will make best use of the existing and at the Airport, allowing infrastructure planned road via high speed access to the terminal precinct Northern Access Airport Drive and the proposed Road Development. This is the best configuration terminal development, co-located for future between the two runways. under access would need to be provided Tunnel the new link taxiway for extension of road to the FAFA. access through      Minor to negligible construction noise will be the experienced at communities surrounding NPR site. noise assessed During operation ground-based acceptable. as being considered      Runway Options – Assessment of Impacts. LEGEND Best Average Worst Preference Hydrodynamics and Coastal Processes Preference QualityWater between the options. No difference Preference Marine Ecology between the options. No difference Preference Social Impact between the options. No difference Assessment between the options. No difference between the options, except that No difference between the options. No difference Middle BanksAirspaceConstructionImplementationTOTAL 13 3 8 2 55 13 3 8 2 50 15 1 3 2 35 Description ENVIRONMENT AND SOCIAL - MIDDLE BANKS, MORETON BAY Geology, Soils and Groundwater AIRSPACE and Risk Health Impacts between options: Air Emissions, Hazard to differentiate not considered Issues which are Noise – Existing Noise – New CONSTRUCTION Construction AND COST OPERATION IMPLEMENTATION, Operational Flexibility OF PREFRENCES SUMMARY Airport and Surrounds Preference Social Impact Assessment (Including Visual and Landscape) Preference Preference Capital cost 2003 Master Plan cost of $295 Million. Design Preference Preference Preference Capacity maximum capacity. This Option provides maximum capacity. This Option provides of the alignme Due to the conflicting nature Preference Surface Transport Preference Preference Based Ground Noise and Air Emissions Preference Table 3.3:

A3-108 NEW PARALLEL RUNWAY DRAFT EIS/MDP NEW PARALLEL RUNWAY DRAFT EIS/MDP NEW PARALLEL RUNWAY DRAFT EIS/MDP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT 3.3.4 Introduction to Preferred Runway they are easier to repair. This is a consideration Design Alternatives on the runway and rapid exit taxiways where safety is paramount and strict controls apply to The NPR will require site filling to provide a stable the slopes and grades of the pavement. Overall, base for the construction of pavements and to flexible pavements will allow repairs and regrading elevate the runway and taxiways above the level to maintain safety standards while this is much of major flooding and storm surge. Reducing the more difficult with concrete pavements. The study amount of fill will reduce the overall cost of the recognises that there are limitations to the use of project and investigations into minimising fill were concrete pavements on this project. undertaken during 2002 in two parts: 2) Increasing Subgrade (existing ground) Strength (a) Fill minimisation study; and (b) Levee study. The engineering strength of the existing ground surface at the new runway site is relatively weak The objective of the fill minimisation study was to and options to improve the strength of the in situ determine methods of minimising the amount of fill ground material were investigated. By increasing required to construct the New Parallel Runway by the subgrade strength it is possible to reduce the identifying areas within the runway/taxiways that overall depth of the pavement (where the pavement high quality fill materials could be substituted with is placed directly over the subgrade). low quality materials while maintaining the required pavement strength and flood immunity. The levee Two methods of increasing subgrade strength were study investigated the potential to use levee banks investigated: along the perimeter of the Airport to hold floodwater (a) chemical stabilisation through the addition of out of the site and reduce the filling requirements of lime or cement; and the new runway. A combination of both flood levees and fill minimisation techniques were considered (b) incorporating mechanical systems such as during the development of the design. geotextiles or geogrids.

3.3.5 Fill Minimisation Study The reporting indicates that the strength increase attributed to mixing lime or cement into the The investigations of the fill minimisation study subgrade may be marginal and will require large concentrated on identifying potential areas in amounts of cement to be effective and as such, is the development in which high quality fill could not expected to be cost effective. be substituted for lower quality fill materials. In addition, the fill minimisation study investigated In addition to subgrade treatment, investigations options for improving and strengthening the into deep soil mixing were undertaken to test the existing soil conditions through the use of applicability of deep soil mixing to the runway mechanical or chemical techniques. The study project. Deep soil mixing involves rotary mixing investigated the following techniques and reached the soft soils beneath the site with lime, to produce conclusions as follows: a firm foundation upon which to construct the runway, lessening the requirement for controlling 1) Use of Concrete Pavement and managing settlement. Deep soil mixing would require mixing lime into the in situ soils with an auger Concrete pavements require a reduced overall type device to a significant depth. The conclusions pavement thickness for a given design aircraft of the investigations were that the mixing should traffic mix when compared to a flexible or take place at close centres (around 1.5 m) across gravel pavement. Concrete pavements require the entire site to be effective. It was concluded that different raw materials when compared to flexible deep soil mixing would be uneconomic on this site pavements and are generally more expensive. and would present a risk of differential settlement Flexible pavements are generally better suited to and would not be considered further. ground susceptible to differential settlement as

NEW PARALLEL RUNWAY DRAFT EIS/MDP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT A3-109 Subgrade improvement through the use of 3.3.5.1 Assumptions geotextiles or other mechanical improvements will The fill minimisation study was based upon a provide for some strengthening of the subgrade to number of assumptions that required testing during allow temporary construction access but will not the preparation of the design. The following major greatly reduce the amount of fill required or reduce assumptions were used: the amount of settlement over the site. As such, geotextiles will be used where appropriate during the • Expected settlement of 1.0 m maximum; construction phase but have not been incorporated • Surcharge to achieve settlement is 1.0 m in in the permanent pavement or embankment design. place for one year; • Sand thickness for flexible pavement is 2.6 m; and 3) Alternative Pavement Structures • Typical existing ground level of RL 2.5 to 3.0 m The use of different materials in the overall (airport datum). pavement construction can reduce the thickness This study was undertaken prior to the any detailed of the pavement when compared to traditional geotechnical investigations that BAC commissioned construction techniques. An example is the use in 2005 as part of the Preliminary Design Phase of cemented basecourse layers in the pavement for the NPR. The results of these geotechnical construction which can reduce the depth of the investigations show even poorer existing soil pavement. Cemented pavement layers are stiffer conditions than was envisaged. Settlements and stronger than conventional gravel pavements could be as high as 2 m in places, with surcharge but can be difficult to repair and modify (similar to platforms up to 6.5 m in height and needing to be in concrete pavements). Where ongoing maintenance place for between two and four years. Hence, the to protect safety standards is possible, alternative results of the fill minimisation study are not relevant pavement structures can be considered. as these assumptions are no longer valid. 4). Alternative Fill Material 3.3.5.2 Conclusions High quality fill is a structural element in the pavement The interaction of subsurface conditions, fill heights, and is needed to support the loading induced by surcharge and settlements is critical in optimising aircraft on taxiways and the runway. In areas where the fill volumes required for the runway. It is structural strength is not critical (e.g. runway flanks) concluded that there is no practicable alternative to the sand fill could be substituted for an alternative the proposed use of 15 Mm3 of sand to achieve fill fill material obtained from land based sources. The and surcharge of the NPR site. use of alternative fill materials will not reduce the total volume of fill required for the project. 3.3.6 Airport Levee Study

The runway flanks for the NPR are intended to be 3.3.6.1 Introduction constructed from excess surcharge sand that has to be removed after the runway and taxiway footprints A levee is an earth mound or bund that is have been suitably consolidated. Therefore, the use constructed in such a way as to prevent flooding of alternative fill for the runway flanks would mean and tides from entering the site allowing the site the importation of additional fill from land based sites to remain at a lower level, possibly reducing the resulting in increased costs and more construction amount of fill required. A feasibility study was traffic on Brisbane’s road systems. The use of undertaken to examine the potential for using alternative fill would have no environmental, social or levee banks to provide flood immunity for future economic benefit for the project. developments within Brisbane Airport in place of site filling. The feasibility of the levee and any potential savings in fill volumes is dependent on two considerations, flood immunity and providing sufficient fill material beneath the pavement to provide a stable platform to enable construction.

NEW PARALLEL RUNWAY DRAFT EIS/MDP A3-110 FOR PUBLIC COMMENT 3.3.6.2 Levee Concept • An improved subgrade strength (of California Bearing Ratio 5 percent) was assumed. The site of the NPR is currently subject to inundation during large regional flood events and through 3.3.6.5 Recommendations of Levee Study regular tidal cycles. The levee system would provide The study recommended that, among others, protection from the regional flood events (flooding in geotechnical investigations and pavement strength Kedron Brook) and storm surge from Moreton Bay requirements needed to be addressed to further by providing a continuous bund or levee around the develop the levee option. In addition, the study airport site. A drainage network within the NPR site recommended that assessment of the impact of any would control the local (on-airport) rainfall events pump failure be carefully considered as failure of the which would be discharged from the site via gravity pumps could result in local flooding of the runway flow through culverts under the levees. If the water and taxiways during storm events. level external to the site is elevated (i.e. high tide or flooding), pumps would be required to drain the 3.3.7 New Parallel Runway Design stormwater collected within the levee. 3.3.7.1 Introduction 3.3.6.3 Comparison of Fill verses Levee Significant geotechnical investigations and analysis, To ensure that the runway and taxiways remain flood filling design, an assessment of constructability free in a major flood event (i.e. 1 in 100 year Average and pavement design was undertaken in 2005 and Recurrence Interval), the runway would need to be 2006 as part of the design phase for the NPR. The constructed to a level of: design investigations found that the assumptions of • RL 4.1 m AD2, settling to RL 3.3 m AD over time the previous two studies (fill minimisation and airport for the levee approach; and levee) were no longer valid and therefore there is no benefit in either alternative method. Based • RL 4.6 m AD, settling to RL 3.8 m AD over time upon this recent design work and geotechnical for the fill approach. investigations, broad site filling is the preferred From preliminary calculations the levee option option for the runway construction as this option would potentially save up to 30 percent of the total best integrates flooding, pavement and geotechnical fill demand for the runway site. These elevations, design constraints that are specific to this site. the potential savings in fill material and the potential 3.3.7.2 Geotechnical Investigations cost savings are dependent upon a number of assumptions that needed to be tested during the Geotechnical investigations were undertaken to subsequent design of the runway. characterise the types and quality of materials at the site and to assess the quantity of settlement that 3.3.6.4 Assumptions could be expected on the site. These investigations The levee study was based upon a number of determined that the site will settle up to 2.0 m, assumptions that required testing during the which is substantially more than the assumption of preparation of the design. The following major 0.8 m used in the levee study and 1 m (maximum) assumptions were used: used in the fill minimisation study. The NPR infrastructure will not tolerate such settlements • Expected average settlement of 0.8 m across during operation so ground treatment techniques the site; will be used to accelerate ground settlement prior • Settlement of the levees of between 0.1 m and to construction (primary settlement). This will 0.2 m; be followed by secondary settlement, which will occur after the construction. A target secondary • Within the volumes calculated, no allowance has settlement of 100 mm was specified by BAC to been made for surcharging or ground treatment minimise future maintenance issues and to ensure methods across the site; and that the runway and taxiway remained consistent 2 Based on improved subgrade CBR of 5.0. with the grading and safety requirements.

NEW PARALLEL RUNWAY DRAFT EIS/MDP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT A3-111 To complete the primary settlement (to achieve In such circumstances, the improvement to the a secondary settlement of 100 mm) a number original ground surface will not be measurable of recognised techniques are available including through the depth of fill material. As such, subgrade preloading, surcharging and surcharging with wick improvement techniques are not proposed in the drains (explained further in Chapter A4). With the design. exception of preloading, all techniques require the 3.3.7.4 Conclusion temporary placement of additional sand to increase the applied load and accelerate the consolidation. Based on the significant geotechnical investigation To achieve the required settlement, the surcharge and pavement design undertaken subsequent to the differs across the site but in places is expected to fill minimisation study and levee study: be approximately 6.5 m high and is expected to remain in place for up to 4 years. This timeframe • Concrete pavements will be used on taxiway for consolidation of 4 years is a function of the pavements and will help to reduce the volume surcharge height and the acceleration techniques of gravel materials brought to the site however proposed. The timeframe is considerably longer flexible pavements will be constructed on than that assumed in the fill minimisation study the runway surface to enable the airfield to (around one year). If lower surcharges were used, be managed and maintained within the strict grading constraints required for safety; primary settlement may not be achieved within a reasonable timeframe and hence delaying the • Subgrade strengthening will not be considered project unacceptably. The amount of fill required to beneath the runway and taxiways as the achieve this primary settlement including fill material quantity of settlement expected at the site and surcharge material is approximately 15 Mm3. prevents any subgrade strengthening from reducing the pavement thickness; 3.3.7.3 Pavement Design • The use of alternative pavement materials The natural subgrade strength of the soils was (cemented basecourse) to reduce the pavement investigated and a CBR of two was adopted for thickness have not been considered necessary the pavement design of runway and taxiways. as the required fill depth to achieve the required Pavement design indicates that an estimated 2 m of pavement strength will be in place as part of the fill material is required between the in situ soils and settlement and fill platform; the underside of the pavement materials to provide • Alternative fill options are described further in sufficient strength to support the pavement. section 3.4;

An estimate of only 1.0 m fill material was calculated • The potential savings identified in the levee in the levee report based on a subgrade of CBR system report does not allow sufficient fill 5.0 percent (improved). To achieve this improved material required to accelerate settlement of the subgrade strength from 2 to 5 percent the fill site, or the fill material required to fill the site post minimisation study suggests adopting chemical settlement. Both of these activities are required or mechanical subgrade improvements such as prior to the construction of the runway; and lime treatment or geotextiles. While both of these • The total volume of approximately 15 Mm3 of fill techniques are valid improvements they are not is required for three critical tasks: applicable at this site mainly due to the amount of - Consolidation of the soft compressible soils settlement expected on the site. When the site present on-site; settles up to 2 m, the original ground surface will be - Provision of a stable platform to enable covered with 2 m of fill plus additional fill material the construction of runway and taxiway required to elevate the runway or taxiway above pavements; and flood levels (typically another 2 m). - Sufficient fill height to provide for flood immunity to the runway and taxiways.

NEW PARALLEL RUNWAY DRAFT EIS/MDP A3-112 FOR PUBLIC COMMENT 3.4 Feasible Alternatives to This section describes the sources of different Sourcing Runway Fill material types proposed for the project. Specifically, the capacity of the existing land based extraction industry within South East Queensland to supply 3.4.1 Introduction the materials, the potential environmental impacts resulting from the extraction of materials and the The proposed NPR project requires a large volume measures that are in place to mitigate these impacts of construction materials for a variety of purposes are discussed. including filling, surcharging, pavement construction and other general construction activities. 3.4.2 Project Fill and Materials Requirements The requirements of each material are summarised in the engineering specification which has been A listing of the material types and estimated developed for the project and will form part of the amounts of construction materials is shown in construction contract. The specification reflects the Table 3.4a. The materials are generally broken into use of the material on the project, which determines two main types: the engineering and physical characteristics of the (a) Fill and surcharge material (sand extracted from material, specifically the strength, shape, durability, Middle Banks); and chemical stability and size of the material. This in turn can have a bearing upon the origin or source (b) Pavement and structural materials. of the raw materials proposed for construction. Generally, the sources of raw materials are:

• Land-based sources (i.e. quarries);

• Marine-based sources; and

• Alternative sources (specifically recycled construction materials).

Table 3.4a: Material Type and Estimated Volumes.

Material Type Volume (m3) (a) Fill and Surcharge Sand 15,000,000 (b) Pavement and Sub-base 100,500 Structural Materials Fine Crushed Rock 188,500 Road and Bund Material 110,000 Crushed Rock/Gravel for Seawall 25,000 Protective Rock/Rip Rap 15,000 Concrete 97,000 Asphalt 27,000 TOTAL 15,563,000

NEW PARALLEL RUNWAY DRAFT EIS/MDP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT A3-113 The materials will be delivered to the site over the The Study examined the environmental, economic, course of the construction period (refer Volume A, cultural and social impacts of sand extraction, and Chapter A5) and are not required at the site all at the various alternatives to bay sand, such as land based same time. extraction and manufactured sands.

Approximately 15 Mm3 of sand fill material will be The Study was undertaken in two principal phases. required for three critical tasks: The first was a comprehensive review of all available information related to sand extraction both within • Consolidation of the soft compressible soils Moreton Bay and from land based sources, present on-site; and sought to identify both the current state of • Provision of a stable platform to enable the knowledge and identify data gaps. construction of runway and taxiway pavements; and Based on this work, five separate specialist investigations3 were subsequently undertaken in • To provide sufficient fill height to provide for flood phase two of the Study including: immunity to the runway and taxiways. • Economic analysis of sand extraction In addition to this sand fill material, approximately from marine and land-based sources in 600,000 m3 of pavement and structural materials South East Queensland; will be required to be imported to the site for the construction of: • Sediment geochemistry processes within the northern Moreton Bay sand banks and potential • Runway pavements; impacts to water quality;

• Taxiway pavements; • Benthic fauna and fisheries;

• Drainage structures; • Indigenous cultural heritage; and

• Roads and access tracks; and • Numerical modelling of impacts to wave penetration to Moreton Bay. • Seawall. A scientific panel, established under the auspices Pavement materials such as concrete and of the Moreton Bay Waterways and Catchments asphalt are manufactured from raw materials Partnership and led by an eminent University of including gravels, sand and cement powder. The Queensland Professor, assessed key scientific reports manufacturing process for concrete and asphalt making up the Moreton Bay Sand Extraction Study. may occur on the project site requiring the The expert panel endorsed the scientific integrity of the component materials to be delivered to the site reports, noting that the scientific studies indicated no along with other project materials. major environmental impacts would be expected for 3.4.3 Feasible Alternatives to Fill the sand extraction scenarios considered in the Study. 3 Materials Sand extraction of 15 Mm from Middle Banks for the NPR project was one of the scenarios that the Study 3.4.3.1 Introduction investigated.

In anticipation of the increased future regional demand for sand, Queensland Government agencies initiated the Moreton Bay Sand Extraction Study (MBSES) in 1999/2000 in conjunction with key stakeholder groups. The study was based on a series of previous investigations of the Moreton Bay sand resource dating back to 1997.

3 Results of the studies are included in final reports available from the Queensland Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) website: www.epa.qld.gov.au

NEW PARALLEL RUNWAY DRAFT EIS/MDP A3-114 FOR PUBLIC COMMENT 3.4.3.2 Land Based Sand Versus Marine Sand In 1998, a detailed resource assessment of sand in northern and central Moreton Bay was undertaken The MBSES Phase 2 identified that at present there which identified a total available sand resource of is approximately 48 million tonne (Mt) of land-based approximately 3.8 billion m3. However, while areas sand in licensed deposits in South East Queensland, containing suitable sand resources have been the larger portion of which is located 50 to 75 km identified, a range of environmental, social, cultural from Brisbane Airport. Annual sand demand is and economic factors may affect the acceptability of approximately 7.6 Mt of which 3.4 Mt is sourced extracting sand from specific areas. Further, while from land-based sites, 2.5 Mt is manufactured from sand occurs in areas of Moreton Bay other than the rock, 0.7 Mt is extracted under permit from Moreton northern delta, these other sites are not considered Bay for commercial purposes. suitable for extraction. The MBSES examined a Demand for sand from the construction industry is range of environmental, social, cultural and economic expected to double over the next 50 years, in line with issues associated with potential sand extraction. population growth in the region. In addition to the For marine extraction the most significant issues construction industry demand there is also a demand are considered to be hydrodynamics, sediment for sand for high quality fill for major infrastructure geochemistry, water quality, ecological processes, projects such as the NPR and development of land at fish and fisheries and cultural resources. the Port of Brisbane. Development at Brisbane Airport In contrast the significant issues associated with will require 15 Mm3 of sand (27 Mt) over a land based extraction are groundwater and surface 12–18 month period, while development at the water; noise; air quality; traffic and transport; social Port of Brisbane is expected to require approximately considerations and cultural resources. Existing 300,000 m3 per annum over the next 25 years. land based sand extractions were identified at 13 At current rates of extraction, licensed land-based localities in the South East Queensland region in the sand resources could be exhausted within ten Study, ranging from the Tweed River in the south to years with new approvals for land based extraction Maroochydore in the north and the Upper Brisbane becoming exceedingly difficult. Existing land-based River and Lockyer Creek in the west. For each of supplies cannot meet the future construction these localities the Study identified: permit operator, industry demand and certainly cannot provide the resource characteristics, environmental issues, annual volume of high quality fill required for airport and port production, life expectancy and operating constraints. development. Currently, Moreton Bay extraction Overall, the findings of the Study were that these is limited to around 800,000 tonnes per annum existing operations have a limited life span and are (tpa). There are only limited licensed sand supplies heavily committed to existing demand. They have little available outside South East Queensland and few potential to meet future increases in demand either for feasible alternatives to fill sand in large quantities. the construction industry or for high quality fill. Manufactured sand was identified as the most The Phase 1 Study identified that the combination promising alternative to natural sand from land- of land and marine sources is the optimum way of based or marine-based sources, but the material is meeting potential future demand and reinforced expensive and not suited to all applications. that existing land sources alone cannot meet future Extraction of sand from Northern Moreton Bay demand for large volume fill and extractive industry currently occurs through the operation of licences requirements. by five extraction companies. Permit areas for sand The Phase 2 Study also investigated the economic extraction include Spitfire Bank, Yule Bank, Central impacts of four proposed scenarios for extraction Banks, Middle Banks and South West Spit. The of up to 36 Mt of sand from Moreton Bay, either total permitted extraction volume is 465,000 m3 per on a once-off basis, or over a twenty year period. year but the actual volume extracted is substantially This comparison showed that the marine extraction less than this (depending on demand) and has scenarios were clearly cheaper than the land-based recently been approximately 340,000 m3 per year. scenarios, with none of the land-based scenarios

NEW PARALLEL RUNWAY DRAFT EIS/MDP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT A3-115 being less costly than any of the marine scenarios. Overall, the study has shown that the sand resource The relativity between land-based and marine-based in northern Moreton Bay offers a viable source for costs arose from the nature of sand production supplementing diminishing land-based sources technology. Land-based sand would need to be when all environmental, social and economic factors quarried, processed and transported by truck in are considered.” approximately 30 tonne loads to fill placement sites. Marine sand on the other hand would be dredged A Sand Extraction Strategy was completed by the in situ and transported in large quantities by the Queensland Government in late 2004 to coincide dredger vessel for pumping or trucking ex wharf to with the release of the Study. The Strategy defines the final placement site. Given these differences in a coordinated approach for sand to be extracted technology, land-based sand production for delivery from northern Moreton Bay to address significant to Brisbane Airport was assumed to have costs of regional demand for sand. In particular, the approximately $27 per tonne including extraction Strategy set out that (underlining added): and transport, compared with between $9 and $12 “From a total available sand resource in Moreton per tonne for large scale marine sand extraction. Bay of approximately 3,770 Mm3, the Government These conclusions were supported by the key has made a decision that over the next 20 years it findings of the Scientific Panel engaged to review will support: the MBSES which stated that: • Extraction of up to 40 Mm3 (less than 1.1 percent of the total sand resource) of “The supply of large volumes of fill material from sand for development of Australia TradeCoast land-based sources is generally not practical due to: projects, including the expansion of the Brisbane • The environmental and social impacts of Airport and the Port of Brisbane. high rates of extraction from existing licensed • Extraction of up to 20 Mm3 (less than supplies and the associated delivery by road. 0.6 percent of the total sand resource) of sand • Exhaustion of a large proportion of available for use within the construction sector. land-based sand resources thereby putting • Locating the majority of future sand extraction further pressure on the extractive industry to to supplement a major shipping channel develop new, more distant sites. straightening project in the northern part of The existing land-based extraction operations have Moreton Bay. a limited life span and are heavily committed to • In addition to sand extraction to supplement existing demand. The prospects for developing channel straightening, increased sand extraction new extractive sites in the region and/or developing will be allowed in the Middle Banks area of substitutes for natural concrete sand (other than the bay (subject to environmental impact manufactured sand) are considered to be poor. assessment), with priority to be given to the Brisbane Airport Corporation.” There is a wide range of environmental and social issues associated with land-based sand extraction 3.4.4 Sourcing Pavement and Structural operations. The haulage of sand product on local Materials roads from land-based sand extraction operations is usually the most contentious issue with local This section relates to the civil works of the communities and generally the greatest source of project. Pavement and structural materials complaint. are granular materials that have specific chemical and physical properties that make them suitable for Economic analysis has shown that, including non- use in the runway construction. Different engineering market external costs, the supply of sand from land- specifications will apply to each material, depending based sources is significantly more costly than sand upon its use on the project. Pavement and structural extracted from northern Moreton Bay. materials will be generally sourced from local land- based quarries within South East Queensland.

NEW PARALLEL RUNWAY DRAFT EIS/MDP A3-116 FOR PUBLIC COMMENT In addition to raw materials extracted from quarries, 3.4.4.1 Ability to Supply there are other opportunities to include recycled The Queensland Department of Natural Resources materials in this project such as: and Water (DNRW) has approved the extraction • Re-using gravel materials that are currently on of 605 million tonnes of hardrock resources within the site; and South East Queensland (DNRW, unpublished data). • Re-using fill or gravel materials that are surplus The runway development will require approximately from other construction projects occurring at the 1.2 million tonnes (600,000 m3) of pavement and same time. structural material from this hardrock resource which equates to less than <0.20 percent of that The construction of the new runway will require available within South East Queensland. Therefore reconstruction of a number of existing perimeter it is concluded that there are sufficient hardrock roads, public roads and the 14/32 runway. The resources within South East Queensland to supply existing roads and cross runway comprise various the runway project without jeopardising future gravel materials that are expected to be suitable supply in the region. for use in the construction of elements of the NPR. Wherever possible, gravel materials will be From a comparison of rock amounts required by the recovered prior to construction commencing and runway development in relation to that produced in stockpiled at the site ready for re-use. As with raw 2003–04, the extractive industry presently operating materials, any recovered materials will be subject within South East Queensland has the capacity to to an engineering specification prior to re-use. The supply the runway development within the required condition of the recovered material will determine timeframes (refer Chapter A5). Figure 3.4a shows how the material can be reused during construction. that the project requirements for pavement and structural materials are a small proportion of that Materials surplus to the needs of other projects produced by quarries in South East Queensland occurring at the same time (specifically those during 2003–04 (latest data available from DNRW). projects with excess earthworks) can potentially be In summary there is no obvious need for the recycled and reused in elements of the NPR. As with expansion of existing quarries to service the runway raw materials and materials recovered from the site, project as the demand for NPR can be met by any recycled materials will be subject to engineering existing supply. specifications prior to use on the project.

Figure 3.4a: Comparison of Material Amounts Required by the Runway Development in Relation to that Produced Within South East Queensland During 2003-04 (DNRW, unpublished data). 8

7

6

5

Required rock 4 SEQ Production 2003-4 on tonnes i ll i 3 M

2

1

0

ial ip rap R Asphalt Sub-base Concrete for seawall ne crushed rock Fi Crushed rock/gravel Road and bund mater

NEW PARALLEL RUNWAY DRAFT EIS/MDP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT A3-117 Figure 3.4b: Quarry Sites within 150 km Radius of Brisbane Airport.

D AGUILAR HWY

Narangba

Lawnton

Dundas 20 km Kooringal Wights Mountain Myrtletown

New Farm Lake Manchester Chandler Karana Downs Point Halloran

Mount Cotton

Bahrs Scrub Stockleigh Kingsholme

3.4.4.2 Selection of Suppliers • The price to supply the specified materials; and

The construction of the runway project will require • Environmental performance of suppliers and the supply of various materials to the site to suit the their ability to consistently meet the licence contractor’s construction requirements. In selecting conditions applying to their various facilities the supplier to provide pavement and structural (e.g. operating hours). materials to the project, the contractor will consider As there is a range of pavement and structural a number of factors including: materials required for this project, it is likely that the • The ability of the supplier to provide the specified contractor will source the materials from a range materials; of different suppliers to ensure that the correct materials can be supplied to the site when they are • The ability to deliver the materials to the site in required. the required timeframe;

NEW PARALLEL RUNWAY DRAFT EIS/MDP A3-118 FOR PUBLIC COMMENT There are 190 operating, licensed hardrock, Heavy vehicles travelling from the western quarry gravel and sand quarries currently operating within locations will travel along the Warrego Highway, South East Queensland (DNRW, 2006). While Ipswich Motorway, Logan Motorway or not every quarry can produce all of the materials Pacific Motorway prior to the Gateway Motorway. required for the project, all of these quarries produce Those travelling from the northern quarry locations some materials that will be suitable for use on the will travel along the Bruce Highway and the runway project and as such, it is not possible to Gateway Motorway and those travelling from the limit discussions to a single supplier for this material. southern quarry locations will travel along the Of these licensed quarries, 130 are situated within Pacific Motorway and the Gateway Motorway. 100 km of the Brisbane Airport (refer Figure 3.4b). A high standard of direct motorway access will be Selection of individual suppliers will be carried out by used by construction traffic to access the site from the contractor however it is reasonable to expect that the Gateway Motorway. Two interchanges, the majority of pavement and structural materials will Airport Drive and Northern Access Road, will be sourced from within 100 km of the Brisbane Airport facilitate access to the construction site from the as the cost to supply materials increases with haulage Gateway Motorway. distance from the supplier to the Airport site. The additional heavy vehicle trips generated in 3.4.4.3 Transportation during Construction the construction phase will be evenly spread out over an approximate ten hour period each day. There are a number of quarries located within the The following steps were undertaken to derive area surrounding Brisbane and the Airport Site as construction traffic forecasts: shown in Figure 3.4b that could be used for material supply by the contractor during construction. It is 1. Calculations were completed to convert the expected that several different quarries will be used volume of raw materials into truck loads. to supply the amounts and variety of pavement and structural materials required for the project. Transport 2. Raw material volumes, in cubic metres, were of pavement and structural materials to the runway divided by the average load a rigid truck and site will be by road. The raw construction materials, dog trailer can carry. These were based on the approximately 600,000 m3, will be transported by following assumptions: haulage vehicles, typically rigid truck and dog trailer, to a. A rigid truck and dog trailer can carry a load of the NPR work site along major arterial and motorway up to 42.5 tonnes, as outlined by the National routes during the construction period. Transport Commission National Vehicle Standards; and Table 3.4b provides a summary of the timeframes b. The specific gravity of the material being over which materials will be required on the site. carried by the heavy vehicles is 2. The majority of these materials will be delivered to the site following filling and surcharging of the site 3. The total number of loads required was then from mid to late 2012. divided by the activity’s scheduled duration.

Table 3.4b: Summary of Timeframes for Delivery For the purposes of this assessment, it has been of Materials During Construction. assumed that one load corresponds to two truck trips, one laden and one unladen. Material Type Approximate Duration (months) The impact of NPR construction traffic will be low Sub-base 18 in the context of existing heavy vehicle traffic on the Fine Crushed Rock 18 Gateway Motorway. In 2004, approximately 106,500 Road and Bund Material 7 vehicles per day travelled along the Gateway Crushed Rock/Gravel for 6 Motorway and in 2005, approximately 59,000 Seawall vehicles along Airport Drive. From studies in the Protective Rock/Rip Rap 6 area, an estimated 16 percent of total traffic is heavy Concrete 13 vehicles travelling across the Gateway Bridge. This Asphalt 10

NEW PARALLEL RUNWAY DRAFT EIS/MDP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT A3-119 equates to more than 17,000 heavy vehicles per day. • 63 additional heavy vehicle trips from the south; Figure 3.4c shows the daily truck load generation • 49 additional heavy vehicle trips from the north; and throughout the construction staging. It also gives • 28 additional heavy vehicle trips from the west. an indication of other major transport infrastructure projects scheduled to be constructed within the NPR This is an overall increase in heavy vehicle timeframe in the vicinity of the Airport construction trips of generally not more than 1 percent per site. Exact details of the volumes of construction day throughout the construction period along the materials required for these other projects are not Gateway Motorway, Pacific Motorway, contained in publicly available documents. Logan Motorway and Ipswich Motorway and the Warrego Highway and Bruce Highway. During the construction period, the highest forecast truck load generation will be approximately 70 truck The approximate construction timeframes for the loads extra per day to transport the raw materials Gateway Upgrade Project (GUP), the North South to site (refer to Figure 3.4c). This is an additional Bypass Tunnel (NSBT), the Northern Access Road 140 heavy vehicle trips per day assuming no (NARP) and Airport Link coincide, in part, with the trucks remain on-site. From the quarry locations construction activities of NPR. At present, the in Figure 3.4b, it can be reasonably assumed that proposed programs for each of these projects approximately 45 percent of the raw material will be are scheduled to run parallel to some portion of transported from the south, 35 percent transported the NPR. These projects will also be transporting from the north and the remaining 20 percent raw materials and could potentially cause some transported from the west. Based on these cumulative impacts. However given the increase in assumptions, the following additional heavy vehicle heavy vehicle traffic is less than 1 percent, and the trips are assumed for the purposes of assessing the proximity of the construction site to the Gateway impact of the NPR construction traffic: Motorway, the disruption to the operation of the surrounding road network is likely to be negligible.

Figure 3.4c: Daily Truck Generation During Construction Staging and Scheduled Project Timings.

80 GUP Construction Program

70 NSBT Construction

60 NARP Construction

50 Airport Link Construction

40

30

20 Forecast Daily Truck Load Generation

10

0 Mar-2006 Jan-2007 Dec-2007 Oct-2008 Aug-2009 Jun-2010 Apr-2011 Mar-2012 Jan-2013 Nov-2013 Sep-2014 Jul-2015

Likely Construction Staging

NEW PARALLEL RUNWAY DRAFT EIS/MDP A3-120 FOR PUBLIC COMMENT References

Connell Wagner, 2004. Chapter 3 Project Description. In: Gateway Upgrade Project Environmental Impact Statement. Queensland Government Department of Main Roads. DNRW. “Aggregate Production for South East Queensland, 1997-2005.” Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Water (unpublished data). DNRW, 2006. “Major extractive industry/quarry operations.” http://www.nrm.qld.gov.au/mines/min_quarry/mines.html. Last updated January 2006, accessed May 2006. Department of Natural Resources and Water. SKM and Connell Wagner, 2005. Chapter 4 Project Description. In: North-South Bypass Tunnel Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Brisbane City Council.

NEW PARALLEL RUNWAY DRAFT EIS/MDP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT A3-121 This page has been left blank intentionally.

NEW PARALLEL RUNWAY DRAFT EIS/MDP A3-122 FOR PUBLIC COMMENT