CRUX, May 18, 2019
The Wanaka Sun, May 18, 2019
Relocating Queenstown Airport, from a financial perspective, is a hands-down winner.
Monique Kelly of ONE New Zealand presented a stark and fair challenge with her article “The true cost of aviation” (Crux and The Wanaka Sun, 9/5/2019), but not all her conclusions stack up.
We agree that climate change is a growing and imminent “existential threat”. We do not, however, agree with her conclusion that the idea to relocate Queenstown Airport is a “distracting diversion”.
Our research indicates the opposite – that relocating the airport would have a significant positive effect. Choosing not to move the airport would perpetuate exactly the wrong systemic forces that exacerbate climate change and diminish the effect of our interventions, while raising their costs. In contrast, relocating the airport is perhaps the single most useful action this region could take to address climate change.
This may not yet be obvious because change to the status quo seldom is and because unravelling the financial and other costs and benefits of an option not favoured by QAC is not easy.
Concerns regarding road transport emissions miss Queenstown Airport’s changed role from destination to regional hub. QAC’s data shows 51% of passengers landing at Queenstown head to Wanaka and other Central destinations, so no change if directions are reversed.
Currently most travel with just 1-3 people per vehicle. If the airport were in Central, most would likely use airport express buses coming to Queenstown, resulting in fewer vehicles and less emissions. Investment in an electric bus fleet would reduce emissions more quickly than relying on progressive electrification of private vehicles.
Relocation would reduce aircraft emissions. Flight lines would be more direct and shorter and it’s likely to reduce weather delays that extend flights. If built to accommodate wide-bodied jets it could reduce by 30% the number of daily flights, significantly reducing emissions.
The financial case is also compelling. Unlocking the $1.2 billion value of the Airport’s Frankton land provides cash to build a new airport. A suitable block of Otago dairy land – the most expensive – would be just $6 million. Even with $20 million legal costs the total land cost for a new airport could be less than $30 million. That’s much less than QAC’s plan to purchase an additional 15 to 34ha of Frankton land, plus 40 houses, with debt funded costs of $200 to $360 million, to add to its existing $1.2 billion landholding in Frankton.
The “exorbitant” economic cost comes not from moving the airport, but from leaving where it is.
The Airport in Frankton forces residential development throughout the Wakatipu Basin. This pushes everyone into cars to get to school, work, shopping, sport or recreation. It stretches the infrastructure of sewerage, stormwater, electricity and telecommunications – draining scarce community resources. It both increases the resource impact per house in terms of land needed, cars required, roads built, and time wasted in travel, while reducing the viability of public transport, recycling, and the viability of community, sport and cultural centers. It erodes the landscape, environment and liveability for all.
In contrast, FlightPlan2050’s proposal would provide an additional 5,000 dwellings for 12,500 residents in Frankton, making it a connected, liveable, peaceful community. Within a one kilometer radius, residents would have a complete range of excellent facilities, from schools and hospital to sports and commerce. As a flat, sunny, substantial and central site, it is our cheapest place to build. It is the most efficient place to locate sewerage and other infrastructure, with the intensity making it the lowest cost per dwelling of any alternative and using the least resources. It would substantially reduce dependency on vehicles and increase the viability of public transport, as well as increasing active options such as cycling and walking.
Climate change and our urgent need to act should be reason to support the relocation of the airport, not cause to attack the idea. Rather than being a “diversion” from the real issues, we think the relocation of the airport offers a key opportunity to address them.
We encourage you to become informed and engage with this debate. Further information is on our website FlightPlan2050.org
By John Hilhorst, spokesperson for the FlightPlan2050 group promoting an alternative development plan for Queenstown.