| Harbour Tunnel | |
|
|
| Back to Main Menu.. |
| How the EIS addressed transport planning |
|
Department of Main Roads (pp. D2, 10,11) Transportation planning for the Sydney area and the State, is an on going activity conducted through the Ministry of Transport and the TRANSAC Committee. TRANSAC is a committee of the head of the Ministry of Transport, State Rail Authority, Urban Transit Authority, Department of Motor Transport, Department of Main Roads, Department of Environment and Planning, Maritime Services Board and the Treasury. The committee essentially reviews the reports prepared by the Ministry of Transport in conjunction with the Department of Environment and Planning, the Department of Main Roads, the Urban Transit Authority and the State Rail Authority. This co-ordination of background planning provides for a consistent development of transport infrastructure by the member groups... The DMR has recently completed a major study of road needs of NSW, entitled "Roads 2000". Part of the strategy for the Sydney Region is the development of an orbital route, the eastern most part of which comprises the Harbour Bridge and a second Harbour crossing in close proximity to the Bridge. "Roads 2000" provides several strategies for developing the Sydney road network, in particular the stategy for catering for growth in the outer areas of the City. But another important part of the strategy is to improve access in the Sydney CBD and to provide bypass routes to remove through traffic from the City Centre to foster its role as the focal point for the Sydney region. "Should not the land use pattern be planned to match transportation constraints rather than remove transportation constraints to match a land use pattern. In other words, cannot transport constraints be seen as a legitimate planning mechanism?" A balance must be achieved between land-use development and transport links. Currently, the development on both sides of the Harbour exceeds the development of the cross Harbour transport links. There is little point in ignoring the needs of a large number of people who demonstrate the desire to travel by road across the Harbour. At one extreme it could be argued, on this "land-use" basis, that no rail or road Harbour crossing should have been built. At the other extreme some may argue that much more capacity should be provided than is currently proposed. It is not a simple matter to decide the "correct" choice between extreme viewpoints and unanimity of opinion is never achievable. If the Bridge had not been built, it would be incorrect to assume today that, because it isn't in existence, no such facility would be needed. Similarly, because it does exist, it is not correct to assume that it has exactly the best capacity to suit Sydney's existing and future needs. Land-use does respond to transportation constraints, such as the Harbour Bridge, but it does so slowly and at considerable economic cost. If it is desirable that future land-use patterns in Sydney should be different from today, there are more efficient means of achieving such a pattern than by relying on the delays and cost to business and individuals resulting from transportation constraints. Professor David Hensher, University of Sydney Q: To what extent was the need for the tunnel is addressed in the Environmental Impact Statement ? Very narrowly, like many impact statements they should ask the broader question about what are the broader set of transport needs. Transport can't be isolated from land use. In Sydney we have a very good example of our transport system having broken down due to the fact that the land use has not been properly considered. It's the reason why we have got this low density situation with a lot of traffic congestion, people dependent on their cars because low density means that public transport is very hard to justify. Consequently you find that there were much better ways in which the dollars could have been spent had they asked broader question, where could we optimise the use of our scarce transport dollar rather than simply being sucked in, if you like, by an outside organisation that claimed that there could be many benefits from this investment without asking the question that there is better investment potential by putting that money elsewhere. Q: Can you tell us whether the tunnel was part of a broader transport strategy? Certainly can, I think that the basic answer is no. The question that should have been asked at the beginning, when any major investment like a tunnel or whatever is being considered, is what are our priorities from an overall planning and strategic land-use transport point of view? That question was never asked in the context of this tunnel. The tunnel indeed was fairly low down in terms of the priority list for the government. Their priority was really a major radial circumferential road system that linked north to south, east to west, but it was further out west where the crying need is, where benefit/cost ratios were something like 8, 9, 10, 12:1. A tunnel - you were struggling to get a benefit/cost ratio really above 1.5. There is an unwritten rule around that you don't normally even comtemplate an investment if the benefit/cost ratio is less than 2:1. This one came nowhere near. On any criteria that one might consider other than a false assumption that this is free money and hence everyone would get benefits and there'd be no costs, it was really not something that you would contemplate in the overall list of priorities. Q: Why do think that the government went ahead with this project when there are other priorities in other areas that are more important? Why did the government go into this project? I believe that they went into this project because a very very influential private sector organisation convinced the government that this project would not cost the community any money. Bruce Judd, Department of Main Roads Q: Do you have policies about priorities, about which roads should be improved first? Priorities are always a major concern because one has to work to a budget of course. The RTA's total budget is slightly more than a billion dollars per year. Of that we'd be spending a little bit under half on road construction work and then one has to slot into that where we think is the best areas to best spend that money. Priorities are most important. Q: So how do you work out your priorities? Priorities are worked out on a benefit/cost ratio for the different projects that we are associated with, that's the basis of the most of the priority ratings that we have. Q: So how do you compare one road to another for improvement or development? For development we compare projects by assessing how much each of those projects will cost and what the benefits from each of the projects and then we attempt to put them into a shopping list order as to which way we should be going. Q: So the projects with the highest benefit to cost ratio are the ones that get priority? Projects with the highest benefit cost ratios are at the top of the list but sometimes of course there are other reasons why things have to be done at a very fast rate for different projects. So one can't say as an absolute rule that that is the way that projects are put into order, but in general it is the correct approach. Q: Had the government not been approached by Transfield Kumagai would the Harbour Tunnel have had top priority? If the joint venture of Transfield Kumagai had not come up with the proposal that they have and for the financing of the Sydney Harbour Tunnel the project would currently not be going ahead, the reason being is that the money that is being spent on building the Sydney Harbour Tunnel is not part of the RTA budget. It is not part of the money that we receive from the government each year. It is a privately funded project outside of the Loan Council requirements. So the project would not be going ahead now because in our budget we would not have anywhere near the amount of money that we'd need to finance a major one off project like the Sydney Harbour Tunnel. Q: Is that because the benefit to cost ratio would be higher for other roads and that you would be putting your funds elsewhere normally? The main reason why the Sydney Harbour Tunnel project wouldn't be going ahead, irrespective of what its benefit cost ratio is, is that it would physically cost too much money, we just could not afford the project. That project in capital cost terms in 1986 project money would use our entire year's budget. There is no way that we could finance building the Sydney Harbour Tunnel unless it was privately financed the way it has been.
References Department of Main Roads, Sydney Harbour Tunnel: Report on Environmental Impact Assessment, DMR, 1987. Interview with Professor David Hensher, University of Sydney, 1990. Interview with Bruce Judd, Department of Main Roads, 1990.
|
© 2003 Sharon Beder