The RTA developed 73 road changes to integrate the CCT with the road network. Most are not road closures as such, but changes to lanes and road use. By May 2006, 63 had been completed, six reversed and four were still pending. Of the 73 road changes:
■ 28 were in response to the EIS and 45 to the Supplementary EIS
■ 22 are specified in the contract as Materially Adverse Events (MAEs) and so may trigger compensation to CCM if reversed.
There is uncertainty over whether any reversal of the other 51 road changes not specified as MAEs would trigger compensation.
A widely held view is that the road changes were not necessary, but were introduced to force motorists into the tunnel in order to profit the tunnel operator.
In our view this was not the case. We found that the objective of the road changes was to reduce through traffic in and around Central Sydney and to improve the public domain, not to be a tunnel funnel.
Both the RTA and the DoP relied on patronage estimates of over 80,000 vehicles a day using the tunnel in their decision to implement immediate road changes. This was because the agencies believed that such a large reduction in above ground traffic would immediately attract more cars and lose the benefits of reduced congestion. Actual usage has been below 25,000 vehicles a day (when the full toll has applied). Since the half-price period began, usage reached an average of 34,000 vehicles a day.
Maintaining toll-free alternative routes was a key principle in the DoP Director-General's requirements. But road restrictions were added as the project developed because there was no mechanism to judge the cumulative magnitude of the road changes. This key principle was lost as the project progressed.
We cannot say that the road changes were robustly assessed, either collectively or on a road-by-road basis because:
■ the patronage scenario was not robustly assessed
■ ensuring the financial viability of the tunnel, and the RTA's interpretation of 'no net cost to government', affected important planning decisions.
There was extensive consultation with stakeholders about the road changes. It did not however capture the significant resentment among prospective toll payers. This is a group which was admittedly diffuse and difficult to survey. Any loss of patronage from this resentment will further hinder the tunnel's main objective of reducing through traffic in the City.