|
|||||
|
IN the past 35 years, there have been seven studies in response to the demand for a new airport in Mumbai. None has conclusively proved or disproved the need for one. In fact, a certain amount of confusion resulted from the glut of reports. If one study proved that an airport was required, another refuted it.
The first six were prepared by the City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra (CIDCO), the Bombay Metropolitan Region Development Plan, the Planning Group on Civil Aviation, the International Airports Authority of India, Mott MacDonald and Strategic Options Pvt. Ltd. The seventh report is actually more of a master plan for the refurbishing of the existing airport and was done for Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd. (MIAL) by Netherlands Airports Consultants BV, a consultant in airport design and master planning.
The present airport at Santacruz-Sahar, called the Chhatrapati Shivaji International Airport (CSIA), which services domestic and international flights, is situated on 2,100 acres of which 135 acres have been encroached upon by slum-dwellers . The encroached land has of late come centrestage following a move to evict the slums to upgrade airport facilities. This has brought up the old question: Will freeing the 135 acres be adequate or will Mumbai need another airport at a new site?
Robey Lal, airport planner, formerly with the Airports Authority of India and now country head of the International Air Transport Association, is for the latter option. "There is no doubt that Mumbai needs a new airport and there is absolutely no scope for expansion at the current site. Mumbai airport is currently managing with one parallel runway and one cross-runway on about 2,000 acres. The minimum requirement for a modern airport is four runways on at least 5,000 acres. Managed well, this should handle about 100 million passengers annually," he says.
But the current managers of the airport seem to be confident that the existing space will do. The ongoing refurbishing plan as seen on the CSIA website says, "During the master planning stage, MIAL designed a parallel runway and identified all the constraints that would come in the way of this development. These constraints include rehabilitation of slums, relocation of all Air India and other facilities, buying large tracts of private land outside CSIA and removing a number of private buildings outside CSIA, which are obstructions in the funnel.
Addressing such complex constraints cannot be time-bound. Therefore, while MIAL will continue to work on the parallel runway option, it was decided to substantially upgrade the existing cross-runway operation to meet the large growth in demand. This cross-runway operation would handle 40 million passengers, which is more or less similar to the capacity of a close parallel runway.
The upgradation of the cross-runway would include construction of rapid exit taxiways, full parallel taxiways and additional lead-in taxiways. Further, air traffic control procedures and practices are being improved to cater to the seamless flow of aircraft movements."
A 1996 report prepared by Mott MacDonald has an even more optimistic point of view. It says that the capacity of the main runway "will not be a constraint for the foreseeable future".
The latest report on the issue is of 1997 and was prepared by Strategic Options Pvt. Ltd. of New Delhi. This says even more categorically that an airport at a new site is not required. The report, titled `Mumbai Airport: A Critical Appraisal of Whether Mumbai needs a Second Airport and if so When and of What Nature', says facilities at the old airport merely need to be upgraded.
It bolsters this with a comparison between Mumbai and Hong Kong's old Kai Tak airport.
The report says, "Essentially, Mumbai and Hong Kong should be considered as being in fairly similar positions [in that] land is limited and very expensive and extremely productive utilisation of this scarce resource should be essential." With this in mind the report looks at the comparative productivity levels of the two airports.
The figures show low productivity by Mumbai airport considering that Mumbai has double the area (even after excluding the encroached areas) and almost similar runway and apron spaces.
The report says that the Hong Kong airport claims to be able to handle 90 million passengers if it worked 24 hours as Mumbai does. That is three times the figure Mumbai says it can handle after its improvements.
The report also goes on to assert, "Mumbai will not reach saturation for well over half a century and more [that is, around the year 2047]." It clearly states that Mumbai does not need a second airport. Those opposing a new airport have frequently said that it is just an opportunity to cash in on soaring real estate prices in Mumbai.
It would seem that the dissenters have a point. What to do with the old airport has been a matter of concern in previous studies. A 1996 report by Mott MacDonald had recommended disinvestment of the old airport once the new one was functional. It said, "To construct a new airport and leave the existing one in operation would be likely to significantly erode the financial viability of the [new] project."
The report further reasons, "The use of high value land [in Mumbai] for aviation is minimised [if the old airport is closed and a new one built at a new site]."
If the old Mumbai airport is made dysfunctional, it will release 2,100 acres in a prime locality in Mumbai. At current rates, this land would be valued at approximately Rs.92,000 crore.
Giving further weight to this `land grab' theory is the fact that though the Maharashtra State government has said the new airport will not be built at the earlier considered site of Mandwa, the 45 sq. km. (11,000 acres) that had been acquired for the purpose are yet to be denotified. Local people allege there is a move to bring the land under urban land control rules or use it for a private port project.
The last study on the viability of a new airport was prepared in 1997. There have been many changes since then in the aviation sector that have made the projections redundant, and more changes are expected from the civil aviation authorities. Is a new study called for or is it, as the Strategic Options report says, that the issue is not one of land or space but one of efficient management of existing space?
Lyla Bavadam
Printer friendly
page
|
