AIRSERVICES - Noise Action Plan for Brisbane - Gateway Motorway / SANEG SID

Question

1. Why does the preferred overland departure option in NAP4B Package 3 continue to route aircraft over residential communities instead of the Gateway Motorway corridor, despite a former Airservices Director of Operations stating during the 2022 Post Implementation Review community briefings that modern navigation now enabled a Gateway Motorway alignment which represented ''the best noise outcome for the most amount of people''? 2. The former Director of Operations stated that the Gateway Motorway alignment was assessed as providing the ''best noise outcome for the most amount of people.'' When was this assessment undertaken, and why was it not disclosed during NAP4B Package 3 public consultation? 3. Airservices Australia's Flight Path Design Principles require consideration of noise-sensitive land uses, including schools, childcare centres, residential areas, and places of worship. What is the justification for routing the SANEG SID over noise-sensitive land uses, including Tingalpa State School and Gumdale State School, when a Gateway Motorway-aligned alternative is available? 4. In deciding not to present the Gateway Motorway corridor (Minnippi Parklands-Belmont Rifle Range) departure option for community consultation, did Airservices Australia assess the impacts on schools, including Tingalpa State School and Gumdale State School? If yes, please identify the relevant assessment documents, including title and date. 5. In deciding not to present the Gateway Motorway corridor (Minnippi Parklands-Belmont Rifle Range) departure option for community consultation, did Airservices Australia assess potential impacts on schools and educational facilities within Bayside communities that may arise from future respite mode arrangements under NAP4B Package 4? If yes, please identify the relevant assessment documents, including title and date. 6. In deciding not to present the Gateway Motorway corridor (Minnippi Parklands-Belmont Rifle Range) departure option for community consultation, did Airservices Australia assess the existing ambient noise environment associated with the Gateway Motorway corridor? If yes, please identify the relevant assessment documents, including title and date. 7. In deciding not to present the Gateway Motorway corridor (Minnippi Parklands-Belmont Rifle Range) departure option for community consultation, did Airservices Australia consider that land use planning for road and rail may require homes along this path to be insulated for higher ambient noise compared to the current SANEG SID flight path alignment in which homes may not have mandated acoustic protections (insulation or double glaze windows)? 8. Were Population Overflown, N60, N70 and Track Miles metrics calculated for the Gateway Motorway corridor (Minnippi Parklands-Belmont Rifle Range) departure option? If yes, please identify the relevant documents, including title and date. Were equivalent metrics also calculated for the current SANEG SID alignment? If yes, please identify the relevant documents, including title and date. 9. Based solely on N70 contour outcomes, where does the Gateway Motorway corridor (Minnippi Parklands-Belmont Rifle Range) rank relative to all other southern overland departure corridor options assessed by Airservices Australia, specifically for the high-volume simultaneous operations mode? 10. Based solely on Population Overflown outcomes, where does the Gateway Motorway corridor (Minnippi Parklands-Belmont Rifle Range) rank relative to all other southern overland departure corridor options assessed by Airservices Australia, specifically for the high-volume simultaneous operations mode? 11. Does Airservices Australia acknowledge that the 2007 EIS/MDP Supplementary Responses identified the Gateway Motorway corridor as a preferred corridor for aircraft operations? If yes, what factors led Airservices Australia to depart from that position in subsequent assessments? 12. Did Airservices Australia consider the Gateway Motorway corridor (Minnippi Parklands-Belmont Rifle Range) for jet departures based on co-location with other transport modes (road and rail) as part of strategic transport planning? If yes, please identify the relevant assessment documents, including title and date. 13. Do the lateral dispersion assumptions used in environmental and noise modelling for SANEG SID flight path decision-making align with observed ADS-B track data for both current operations and the proposed alignment? If yes, please provide details of the validation undertaken and the results obtained. 14. It is understood that the SANEG SID flight path was shifted eastward away from the Gateway Motorway corridor from the original 2007 EIS/MDP. Was this subject to any dedicated community consultation process? If yes, please identify the consultation process undertaken, including dates, consultation materials and outcomes. 15. In assessing the SANEG SID flight path for NAP4B Package 3, is Airservices Australia using the 2007 EIS alignment or current operational flight paths as the baseline case for comparison? If current operations are being used as the baseline, what consideration was given to the fact that those operations were not themselves the subject of a dedicated community consultation process?

Answer

Please see attached PDF.

Documents

• Question with answer (PDF) (opens in a new tab)
• SQ26-000747.pdf (opens in a new tab)