(a) Public Domain Improvements
The issue of public domain improvement is twofold - whether these should be included as part of a project such as the Cross City Tunnel and secondly, how these should be funded.
As discussed, the Department's policy framework at the time of assessing the Cross City Tunnel was one of integrated transport networks, intended to address the range of transport options of car use, public transport, pedestrians and cyclists. In response to the first question, and in partial response to the issue raised in the report of a new road being able to stand on its own merits, it is difficult in many situations, particularly in road construction to not include such public domain improvements. Road projects by nature bring opportunities where traffic switches are predicted to occur where a new, more efficient route is said to be provided. A significant component of such a project's justification is how these benefits can be 'captured' and converted to broader public benefit in the form of improved public transport facilities and services. In order to address issues of government policy, including reducing car dependency by measurable indices such as vehicle kilometres travelled, it would be considered difficult to not include such public transport, pedestrian, cyclist and general community benefits such as those proposed for the Cross City Tunnel in justifying the proposal.
In response to the second component relating to funding of such public domain improvements, this matter is not a key consideration in the Department's role in project assessment and is largely assumed to have been resolved by the time a proponent is seeking the Minister's approval. The Richmond Report into the future funding of motorways, the recommendations of which have been adopted by the Government, recommends that:
"In some circumstances, an alternative means of achieving public domain benefits might be followed. This would involve capturing some funding upfront (either from the project or Government sources) and quarantining this funding for local benefits, with the use of such funding being decided following public consultation at a stage closer to, or following, the completion of the project. Delivery could remain the responsibility of the PPP private sector partner."
(b) Provision of Alternative Routes
The key issue in relation to the alternative route policy relates to east to north moving traffic wishing to access the harbour crossings. The Department recognises that most of the previously available routes from William Street to the Domain tunnel are no longer available. Alternative toll-free routes do remain via Macquarie Street to the Cahill Expressway and Harbour Bridge or via Cowper Wharf Roadway to the Domain Tunnel, albeit that these are less direct.
Despite extensive consultation by the RTA, the immediate closure of access routes to the Harbour crossings on opening of the tunnel and the wider road users' lack of understanding of these impacts is acknowledged. With the exception of the Cowper Wharf Roadway closure, there were few concerns raised in consultation regarding access to the Harbour crossings and this issue may have been 'lost' due to the focus on the proposed changes to air quality management and public domain improvements.
The provision of alternative toll-free routes has been a standard policy of the Department in assessing road projects and it is considered that this policy has been retained to some degree for this project. It is recognised that there are clearly toll-free routes available for east-west traffic, the traffic direction which the tunnel was largely constructed to address. These remain as surface routes through the CBD as were previously available to motorists.