The favourable financial outcome offered for the 'Long 80' project was based on CCM's confidence that it would attract 18 per cent more traffic. See Exhibit 4.7. Almost half of the increase in patronage was expected from the SJYC exit portal bound for the Harbour crossings:
Traffic destined for the Cahill Expressway/Sydney Harbour Tunnel would need to re-route to either use the CCT or surface routes such as William Street, College Street, Sir John Young Crescent, St Mary's Road, and Macquarie Street ... In addition, some traffic that would have been using William Street and Palmer Street to the Cahill Expressway to avoid the CCT toll, would have added incentive to use the CCT with the proposed access restrictions.
Source: The Cross City Tunnel Supplementary Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 Appendices, Appendix N, Traffic Assessment of Modified Activity. Cross City Tunnel Project, Modified Activity, Review of Traffic and Transport Implications. Page 6.
This differed markedly from the other two bidders. Both acknowledged that there would be higher construction costs for a longer tunnel. However, they did not predict that it would attract any additional patronage.
Exhibit 4.7: Changes in traffic volumes - comparing CCM's conforming and 'Long 80' bids | ||||
Tunnel | Approved Activity (vehicles/day) | 'Long 80' (vehicles/day) | Difference (vehicles/day) | Difference (per cent) |
Main Tunnel | 68,900 | 77,100 | 8,200 | 12% |
SJYC Tunnel | 17,400 | 24,600 | 7,200 | 41% |
Total | 86,300 | 101,700 | 15,400 | 18% |
Source: The Cross City Tunnel Supplementary Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 1 Main Volume, page S-9. Note: These figures are earlier estimates at the SEIS stage. Exhibit 2.4 in Chapter 2 gives the updated figures. | ||||
The principle of retaining alternative toll-free routes in the eastern sector was weakened as the RTA and the DoP sought to:
■ integrate the tunnel with the existing network
■ meet the EIS objectives regarding the greater Central Sydney area
■ ensure the financial viability of the project.
The maximisation of the RTA's financial benefit undermined the goal of getting vehicles off surface roads. The original objective may have been best served by making the tunnel accessible and affordable. But the approach adopted was to make surface travel unattractive and to increase the toll to pay for improvements to public space.