A Summary

The Cross City Tunnel is a road project proposed by the Department of Transport and the RTA to reduce the number of vehicles on Sydney city streets, to improve air quality, to make city streets more pleasant and accessible, and to reduce travel time for vehicles travelling across the city.

The Cross City Tunnel is not an appropriate proposal to address transport problems in the CBD. The tunnel favours motor vehicle transport over public transport, and thus will increase the number of vehicles on the road and induce congestion in suburbs funnelling traffic in and out of the tunnel. The tunnel will have adverse affects on air quality, through the use of an unfiltered exhaust stack at Darling Harbour, by promoting more vehicles on the road, and through the highly energy exhaustive tunnel ventilation system.

The government should abandon the Cross City Tunnel proposal, or at the very least shelve it, until a comprehensive study of public transport networks, capacity, development opportunities and demand is administered by the government. Once this study is complete, public transport alternatives for reducing congestion in the CBD and fostering east-west travel should be considered. Examples could include east-west bus services, extensions to existing light rail, changes to city streets to favour buses and cyclists, and restrictions on motor vehicles entering the CBD (such as a "car-free CBD"). If such initiatives should fail, only then should the Cross City Tunnel be considered.

Current Government Policy

Action for Transport 2010 and Action for Air

In addressing the future direction of transport in the Sydney Metropolitan Region, the Minister for Transport, Carl Scully, has released Action for Transport 2010 (click here to view the pdf file brochure [726KB]). The objectives of this initiative are to reduce traffic congestion, improve air quality, reduce greenhouse emissions, increase public transport use, expand the existing public transport network and improve road safety. As part of Action for Transport 2010, the Government plans to reduce the projected number of total vehicle kilometres travelled by 43% by 2021.

The Government should be congratulated for its vision in recognising the importance of shifting transport towards public transport and away from private vehicle use. It is thus with some confusion and disappointment that we see included as part of the Action for Transport 2010 initiative, the Cross City Tunnel.

The Cross City Tunnel

The Cross City Tunnel (CCT) has been proposed by the Department of Transport and the Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA) to address the problem of congestion on Sydney's CBD streets (click here to view the RTA brochure [pdf file 1,805KB]). The project would involve the building of two separate tunnels, one for eastbound and one for westbound traffic, between Kings Cross and Darling Harbour, linking the Eastern and Western Distributors. The CCT would be approximately 2km long and tolled at a cost of $2.50 each way via automatic electronic tolling. The tunnel would cost $400 million to build, with a view to being funded by tolls. Ventilation of the tunnel was originally proposed through a single unfiltered exhaust stack behind IMAX in Darling Harbour (as stated in the EIS released in August 2000), however is currently under review, with in-stack segmentation and possible portal ventilation.

Theoretically, the tunnel has been designed to remove the estimated 60,000 vehicles which travel east-west across the city. It aims to cut travel time across the city for motorists by 20 minutes, bypassing 18 sets of traffic lights. Incorporated as part of the project are changes to the surface streets, including footpath widening, landscaping, providing bicycle lanes, and providing or upgrading bus lanes. The construction of the tunnel also aims to create 1600 jobs over the 2-3 year construction period.

Opposing Policies

At present the State Opposition has no transport policy available as an alternative to Action for Transport 2010 or specifically the Cross City Tunnel. The Opposition is however critical of the use of unfiltered stacks in the government's road projects.

The Australian Democrats have the most detailed and extensive transport programme among the other parties, thus the most significant rival to the transport policies of the Government. Entitled Going Places: A Transport Strategy for the Sydney Metropolitan Region the policy has 14 Proposal Platforms (click here to read in detail). Highlights from Going Places include:
- A bicycle path network should be extended throughout Sydney, as it is in Canberra, running parallel to major railways and highways, and bike racks should be installed at all shopping centres and on buses, ferries, trains and light rail, as well as at their stations and major terminals.
- Integrated ticketing should be introduced across all mass forms of transport, whether they are owned by public or private carriers, to achieve the maximum flexibility for users.
- All major Sydney roads should have enforced High Occupancy Vehicle lanes for buses, minibuses, taxis, hire cars freight vehicles and cars with three or more people.
- Bus routes should be reorganised by a Sydney Transport Committee to achieve maximum effect in a broader public transport network, and guidelines should introduced to ensure a uniform standard of service.
- Rail should undergo a major construction programme, with new links such as Chatswood to Parramatta, the Holsworthy triangle and others, along with station upgrades, and 'major stations' having 24 hr service and security with trains running hourly from midnight till dawn stopping at these stations.
- Frequent minibus services should run 24 hrs throughout every local council area, integrated with major transport links in the area, and should help to serve in night transport taking people to their homes from major rail stops.
- Light rail and rapid transport links should be investigated for development in feasible areas, such as a city to south eastern beaches via Randwick link.

The Democrats have not updated their transport programme to include a stance on the Cross City Tunnel, however evidence suggests that they are in opposition to the project.

The Greens also have an extensive transport policy, although it is not as detailed as the Democrats' Going Places (click here to read in detail). With regard to transport solutions for the CBD, the Greens support the concept of a car free Sydney CBD, and immediate extension of Light Rail into the Sydney CBD to provide a more effective system and inter-modal connections. They are opposed the Cross City Tunnel.

The Nature Conservation Council of NSW and the Total Environment Centre have written a joint submission in opposition to the Cross City Tunnel (click here to read the submission). Within their submission, they outline public transport alternatives to the CCT. These include cross city bus services to cater for the east-west transport need, the extension of Light Rail from Central to Circular Quay to address other CBD congestion, an extension of bicycle lanes and the proposal of a car free CBD.

The Proposed Change

The Cross City Tunnel proposal should be abandoned.

Rather than spending $400 million on a tunnel that will have impacts which conflict with the government's Action for Transport 2010, the government should administer a comprehensive study of public transport networks, capacity, development opportunities and demand. As stated in the Cross City Tunnel EIS, such a study has not been done by the Department of Transport. Once such a study is complete, the Department of Transport should implement public transport alternatives to the Cross City Tunnel.

A number of transport solutions for the Sydney CBD and alternatives to the Cross City Tunnel have been suggested by the Democrats, Greens, Nature Conservation Council of NSW and Total Environment Centre. The government should take serious note of these proposals when designing public transport solutions to congestion in the CBD (see Opposing Polices above).

If by some chance (although this is highly unlikely) the public transport solutions should fail to resolve the problems the Cross City Tunnel is being designed to address, only then should the Cross City Tunnel be brought back into consideration.

The emphasis on public transport in Action for Transport 2010 in practice would mean that the government would have to change the way it allocates funds. In the 2000-01 Budget, the RTA was allocated $2,199 million, most of which is to be spent on road development projects. By contrast the Department of Transport was given $1,861 million, almost half of which is for maintenance and running costs, and the School Student Transport Scheme. This means the money spent on actual development of public transport is significantly less than that allocated to development of roads. As part of this policy proposal, it is recommended the government change its allocation of funds between roads and public transport, to give more to public transport as consistent with Action for Transport 2010 goals.

Costing

To abandon the Cross City Tunnel proposal will cost nothing.

To administer the necessary comprehensive research into public transport will cost the Department of Transport time and money. Such a study is crucial before any future transport policies are implemented. If the government is serious about Action for Transport it must see to it that such a study is given top priority in its funding and carried out before it begins to commit millions of dollars to transport projects. Considering that last year the RTA committed $210,000 to an international tunnel ventilation workshop, the Department of Transport should be willing to commit at least that amount to this vital study. However with a view to having this study completed as quickly as possible the Department should be willing to spend up to $1 million on it if necessary. This money should come from the $75.4 million allocated to project developments as part of Action for Transport 2010 as outlined in the 2000-01 Budget. These project developments should be put on hold until this study is completed in the event that they conflict with recommendations of the study.

Estimating future costs, once the study is complete, will depend highly on the results of the study. However considering some of the proposals that have been offered up as alternatives to the Cross City Tunnel, an idea of possible costs can be gathered. Some examples: The 4.4km Light Rail extension loop between Central and Circular Quay, as proposed in the 1997 EIS, is estimated to cost $65 million (which would come from a mixture of public and private funds). To run a cross city bus service, might only involve redirecting some bus routes, as the Government has already committed $39 million to increasing the number of buses in the 2000-01 Budget. Extending bicycle lanes is also covered in the current Budget, with the RTA allocating $25 million, and thus would incur no extra cost. Making the CBD car free would be the most difficult to calculate, as it would depend on the exact specifications of the area closed to vehicle access. At the moment there are 19,800 off-street parking places available to the public in the CBD, as well as a further 2,000 on-street ticketed parking spots. Thus there would be substantial revenue lost to the government as well as the Security Parking Company which runs the parking stations, if these parking options were eliminated. However, if parking stations were moved out beyond the perimeter of no vehicle access, there would still be opportunities for revenue. To cost such a move is impossible without knowing the extent of the change; it might be anywhere between $10 and 50 million. The figure on this would need to be established as part of the comprehensive public transport research.

The policy of changing the allocation of funds would not cost any money; it would simply involve an alternative distribution of funds between road and public transport projects.

Reasons for the Change

The Cross City Tunnel is an inappropriate approach to CBD congestion

The Cross City Tunnel has been proposed to address the problem of congestion on the streets of the CBD. However what it offers to address this problem is a tunnel for east-west travelling motorists wanting to bypass the city. What this fails to address is that the majority of traffic in the CBD is from vehicles entering or leaving the city, not trying to bypass it (from transport data provided in the CCT EIS). Thus the CCT will fail to sufficiently address congestion in the CBD, as it offers nothing for motorists entering or leaving the city.

By designing a tunnel targeting east-west traffic through the CBD, the RTA is only addressing a proportion of CBD traffic. In fact the majority of CBD traffic is in the north-south direction, thus on this point the tunnel fails to adequately address CBD congestion.

Of the traffic along William and Park Streets, which the Cross City Tunnel would be primarily trying to address, 15 to 30% (depending on the time of day) are taxis that are going to and from the CBD (from transport data provided in the EIS). Thus even within this smaller proportion of the CBD traffic, a substantial amount of vehicles would not use the tunnel. At a toll of $2.50 for only 2km of road, the CCT is comparatively expensive, a fact that is likely to deter many drivers from using it. Also the fact that the tunnel is to have no toll-booths, running exclusively on electronic payment, will mean only drivers with that system could use the tunnel. Thus the RTA claim that the tunnel will remove from the streets the estimated 60,000 vehicles which travel east-west across the city is blatantly untrue.

The EIS presents transport data that shows that 72% of people who travel into the city, do so by public transport. It also shows that only 40% of people who travel east-west between the inner western and eastern suburbs do so by public transport. The EIS sees this higher percentage of travel by private vehicle in the east-west direction as justification for improving private vehicle travel in the east-west direction via the Cross City Tunnel. It should be noted that such a comparison is misleading, because the 60% of people travelling east-west who do so by private vehicle, are still fewer in number than the percentage of north-south travelling private vehicles. Nevertheless, rather than accepting that more people travelling east-west across the city use private vehicles than public transport, the Government should see this as a sign that there needs to be improved east-west public transport, not as a sign to build more roads.

The Cross City Tunnel will mean more cars on the road

A number of studies, such as the EPA 1997 State of the Environment Report, identify that building expressways such as the Cross City Tunnel induces traffic, encouraging more people to travel by private vehicle. This means that building the CCT will be in conflict with the Government's Action for Transport 2010 proposal, which aims for a 43% reduction in total vehicle kilometres travelled, as well as in conflict with the goal of encouraging more people to use public transport.

The Cross City Tunnel will fail to reduce greenhouse gas emissions

The CCT aims to improve air quality by speeding the flow of traffic east-west across the city. However what the EIS fails to address is the increase in congestion that will occur in surrounding suburbs, particularly Paddington, which will funnel traffic in and out of the CCT. Also with the increase in the number of cars on the road that will result with the tunnel's construction, it is likely that any improvement in air quality that would have been gained, will be counter balanced by these negative impacts.

Furthermore, a major factor not outlined in the EIS is the impact the CCT will have in its running. The CCT uses the same design of ventilation system as proposed for the M5 East Tunnel, with large overhead fans to push all exhaust fumes in one direction and out through an unfiltered stack. The RTA estimate the energy consumption by the fans in this system to be 32,000 Megawatt hours per annum, which is about the energy consumption of Goulburn. This was identified as an unnecessarily costly system by international experts at the RTA's International Ventilation Workshop. This wasteful rate of consumption would annually produce approximately 30,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas (1 Megawatt hour is approximately equivalent to 1 tonne of greenhouse gas). Considering this same system is being used in the Cross City Tunnel, this is an unjustifiably costly project, both in the energy it will drain from the Sydney grid, as well as in the amount of greenhouse gas it will produce in the process.

The ventilation system of Cross City Tunnel is contentious

Often identified as perhaps the least attractive aspect of the CCT proposal, largely because of the controversy sparked with the application of the same system in the M5 East Tunnel, is the fact that the Tunnel is to be ventilated through a 39 metre unfiltered stack at Darling Harbour. Although this arrangement is currently under review, with talk of emission at the eastern portal entrance as a possibility when atmospheric conditions are favourable, to reduce some of the impact on the area surrounding the stack, the RTA is adamant in its decision not to filter the stack.

There are some conflicting opinions on the level of emissions and the use of filtration equipment. The RTA maintains that filtration equipment has not been adequately proven to minimise the effects of exhaust plume. However Residents Against Polluting Stacks argue that filtration technology applied in Norway and Japan has proven successful in reducing particulate matter and sulphur dioxide from in the air, as well as improving visibility in tunnels. It should be noted that Norway and Japan have built more than half of the long tunnels in the world, and have pioneered the use of filtration equipment. Also a recent CSIRO investigation of air quality impacts from stack emissions has found that emissions of particulate matter would be more than double that expected by the RTA. These conflicts cast serious doubt on the quality of research that has gone into the proposed ventilation system to be used in the Cross City Tunnel.

The location of this stack in Darling Harbour, one of Sydney's premier tourist destinations, is extremely poor planning. The area is effectively in a valley, thus an inappropriate location for an exhaust stack. Furthermore, presently the Ultimo-Pyrmont area already has NEPM air quality exceedances one day in every six, which would be worsened significantly with an exhaust stack placed there. It should be acknowledged that current NEPM goals do not take into consideration long term cumulative impacts and currently under these goals it is estimated that annually between 400 and 500 people die prematurely as a result of air pollution in Sydney. This is over twice the number of people killed on Sydney's roads, which was 217 people in 1997. Thus the strictness of these goals, which have been used in the EIS, is severely questionable.

The Cross City Tunnel construction process will be highly disruptive

To construct the Cross City Tunnel would require the digging out and transportation of 250,000 cubic metres or 520,000 tonnes of excavated material, over a period of 7 to 15 months, with further work after that time. This would involve rock bolting drills, excavators with rock breaking attachments, fifty tonne cranes, wheel loaders, water tankers, tip trucks, bulldozers and many other heavy vehicles at work. This would have an enormous dirt, noise and congestion impact on William, Bourke and Palmer Streets in particular, as well as across Sydney more generally.

The impact of public transport solutions by comparison would be significantly lower; taking light rail as an example, laying down rail track does not involve such intensive digging and such heavy vehicles.

Beneficial street changes could be implemented without the Cross City Tunnel

As part of the CCT project the RTA plans a number of changes to CBD streets. These include footpath widening and landscaping on St John Young Crescent, William, Park and Harbour Streets, 24 hour bus lanes on Druitt and Park Streets, T2 transit lanes on William St and bicycle lanes between Kings Cross and the city. There are also recently announced additional changes (as stated in the Preferred Activity Report), with plans to improve traffic flow at a number of city intersections, involving opening some right turn opportunities to buses and creating left turn bays.

The RTA has tried to make these positive changes one of the selling points of the CCT, however the implementation of these changes does not hinge on the building of the Tunnel. They can be implemented regardless of the Tunnel.

There is a need for a comprehensive study of public transport in Sydney

The EIS on the Cross City Tunnel states:
"In order to identify public transport options that may best address the dispersed trip patterns, a comprehensive review of public transport networks, capacity, development opportunities and demand would be required."
It seems almost outrageous that the public transport alternatives to the CCT outlined in the EIS, as well as the Action for Transport 2010 initiative which highlights public transport as vital to the future of transport in Sydney, have been suggested without a comprehensive study of public transport networks, capacity, development opportunities and demand. Such research is crucial to any future transport planning in Sydney, and needs to be completed as a matter of urgency. To implement Action for Transport 2010 and to make a realistic assessment of alternatives to the Cross City Tunnel, which the EIS has not done, requires a full public transport network model with a sophisticated and detailed assessment of integrated potential transport solutions for the greater Sydney area. It is insufficient to just focus on the CBD as the EIS does, or on other specific areas in other transport projects, a detailed understanding of how projects and areas will interact with one another is vital.

This study should involve a whole of government approach, involving Local Government Areas as well as the State Government working together to analyse the possibilities of an integrated public transport system across the Sydney metropolitan area. Once the study is complete, planning future strategies for transport in Sydney should also be undertaken as a cooperative venture between Local and State Government.

This study should look at all possible areas of mass transport, including buses, minibuses, heavy rail, light rail, monorail, rapid transit (such as the VAL Metro proposal), and ferry, including different types of these, such as gas or electric buses. It should also look at the importance of facilities for cyclists and pedestrians. The study should analyse how these forms of transport might be best applied in the Sydney Metropolitan Region, in an integrated system that will best serve the transport needs of the Sydney populace. It should take into account how public transport will interact with existing roads, footpaths and private vehicles, with an overarching goal of reducing private vehicle use by facilitating other transport options. It should also take into account social dimensions of transport development, considering impacts on communities, business and the local and regional environment.

To arrive at Action for Transport 2010 as well as the Cross City Tunnel and other transport projects currently being implemented or discussed, it can be assumed that some research has been done. The comprehensive study should make use of this existing research where appropriate, and build on it.

Bus travel in the CBD needs attention

At present there are a number of problems with the arrangement of bus travel in the CBD. In many places, buses compete with cars, which causes traffic congestion, and some bus routes have inadequate access to retail, entertainment and office areas. The reason for this is because buses are not given priority, something which needs to change. Also the bus route layout is complicated, which reduces the use of the system by casual travellers or tourists, which is a good argument for light rail, but suggests that perhaps bus routes need to be looked at. Thus within the comprehensive public transport study, ways of giving buses (as moving a greater number of people than a private car) priority on roads, need to be analysed, with possibilities such as extensions of bus lanes, greater limitations on parking for private vehicles, as well as initiatives to minimise the number of cars in the CBD. Such initiatives would obviously need to be incorporated as part of other public transport initiatives such as extensions of both heavy rail and light rail, bicycle lanes as well as the possible introduction of minibus services and above or bellow ground rapid transit systems. All of these initiatives are in line with Government policy to encourage lesser use of private vehicle and greater use of public transport.

There is a need for a public transport solution for east-west travel across the CBD

One of the reasons that only 40% of east-west travel across the city is by public transport is because, while there are buses which do cross the CBD, there are in fact none which stretch across from the eastern suburbs to the inner western suburbs. Thus people who wish to make such a trip need to change buses, and often walk from one terminal to another, which discourages many potential users of buses for east-west travel. Thus one public transport solution, as suggested by Greenways and the Total Environment Centre, which should be considered as a potential alternative to the CCT is a cross city bus service.

Such a service could be arranged as an express between eastern and western suburbs, thus not stopping in the CBD, but only on stops east of William St for example, and from Victoria Rd heading west. There would need to be a number of such services running from various different suburb origins. If combined with the Democrats' idea of community minibus services, some commuters who do not live close enough to cross city bus service stops could be dropped off at such stops by minibus.

Alternatively, if the service did have stops in the CBD, it could mean some of the existing CBD bus services could be redirected to appropriate surrounding suburbs. When combined with other measures to reduce congestion in the CBD, such as reduction of available parking spaces, light rail extension and extension of bus lanes, a cross city bus service could fulfil the same needs as the CCT, only without the related negative impacts.

Reasons against the Change

The Cross City Tunnel is estimated to create 1600 jobs over the 2-3 year construction process. However the construction of Light Rail extensions, as one of the possible alternative to the CCT, would also create jobs. Furthermore, unlike the CCT, Light Rail would continue to create jobs after it is built for tram drivers.

For those drivers who regularly travel along William and Park Streets to cross between eastern and inner western suburbs, the Cross City Tunnel offers a reduction in travel time by avoiding traffic lights. However figures in the EIS of suburb to suburb journey times show an estimated average time saving of only about 6 or 7 minutes in a journey, not the 20 minutes stated on the RTA's colourful pamphlet. In longer journeys, such as from North Bondi to Ryde, or Watson's Bay to Leichhardt, this time saving would have little impact.

The RTA has included the Cross City Tunnel as part of its Orbital Network, an almost $3 Billion plan to link up Sydney's expressways. In this context, the CCT serves as a link between the Eastern and Western Distributors. Despite the fact that the Orbital Network is contentious from the view point that expressways induce traffic in the long term, the Government is attracted to this proposal for its job creating possibilities as well as the time saving for truck drivers in particular. Nevertheless, of all the links in the Orbital, the Cross City Tunnel is the least justifiable, as it is short, expensive and environmentally damaging.

The RTA sees the Cross City Tunnel as a zero cost project, because the $400 million spent on the tunnel will be reimbursed over time through the tolls. However, public transport such as light rail or buses would also pay for themselves in the long run, so the "no cost to government" argument is insufficient.

Stakeholders

Stakeholders in keeping or abandoning the Cross City Tunnel

Department of Transport
Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA)
- these designed and promoted the Cross City Tunnel, and stand to lose all the time and money invested in the design and promotion process if it should be abandoned.

Private Sector Shareholders
- these seek the revenue possibilities of a tolled link between the Easter and Western Distributors, once the tunnel has been paid off.

Environment Protection Authority (EPA)
Department of Urban Affairs and Planning (DUAP)
- these influence the keeping or abandoning of the CCT, deciding whether the project will be approved.

Department of Health
Department of Tourism
- these two government departments have interests that conflict with the Cross City Tunnel, as the tunnel ventilation system will have negative air quality affects adversely affecting health and tourism in one of Sydney's prime tourism spots, Darling Harbour

The State Opposition
The Australian Democrats
The Greens
Independents
- all these political parties have come out in opposition to the proposed ventilation system in the Cross City Tunnel, and the Greens are seeking the abandonment of the Tunnel as a whole for all the reasons outlined in this policy proposal.

Nature Conservation Council of NSW
Total Environment Centre
Eco-Transit Sydney
- these environmental groups have come out in opposition to the Cross City Tunnel and seek its abandonment for all the reasons outlined in this policy proposal.

City of Sydney Local Government Area
South Sydney Local Government Area
Woollahra Local Government Area
Leichhardt Local Government Area
- these Local Government Areas will be affected by the Cross City Tunnel, by the construction process and the affect the tunnel will have on traffic in their area; City of Sydney will see fewer cars on the road with the tunnel, the others will see more cars in their areas funnelling in and out of the tunnel. For this reason Leichhardt Council has come out in opposition to the CCT.

Sydney City Residents Against Polluting Stacks
Harris Community Centre
East Sydney Neighbourhood Association
Woolloomooloo Community Centre
Other residents
- these are concerned about the affects of local air quality with the CCT ventilation system, future increased use of the tunnel and the noise and dust that will come from digging out 520,000 tonnes of excavated material.

Transfield and Multiplex
Construction workers
- these stand to benefit from the CCT, by getting work from constructing it

Motorists travelling east-west across the city
- those that are willing to pay the toll stand to have improved travel times

Cyclists
- they will see more bike lanes put in at the same time the tunnel would be constructed, but would get them faster if the construction work did not take place

Pedestrians
- they would see surface footpaths improved as part of the tunnel project, but could also see these improvements without the tunnel

Stakeholders in implementing a comprehensive study of public transport

Department of Transport
- they would have the most to gain, as such a study would lead to effective future transport planning, and achievement of the Government's transport objectives ie. reduction in private vehicle use and promotion of public transport

Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA)
- they might stand to lose some of their road projects in favour of public transport, and might lose some of their power and funding; however this is what Action for Transport 2010 would mean in practice anyway.

Transport Development Workers
- these would be involved in carrying out the study

State Transit Authority
State Rail Authority
Bus and Coach Association
Rail Access Corporation
Public Transport Advisory Council
Accessible Public Transport Forum
Bicycle NSW
Private public transport operators
- these public transport bodies would be very interested in this study and stand to benefit a great deal from it

Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART)
- this body would stand to be able to push its case for Integrated Ticketing more effectively with this focus on public transport

Local Government Areas across the Sydney Metropolitan Region
- with a whole of government approach all Councils would be involved and stand to gain from this study which would result in future transport improvements in their areas.

Environment Protection Authority (EPA)
Department of Urban Affairs and Planning (DUAP)
- these would play an important role in discussion of future transport directions for the Sydney Metropolitan Region to come after the study, thus would welcome this study

Nature Conservation Council of NSW (NCC NSW)
Total Environment Centre
Eco-Transit Sydney
- these environmental groups would support this study

Residents across the Sydney Metropolitan Region
- all of Sydney's residents would be affected in the long run by this study, as it would be instrumental in determining the future of transport in Sydney; they would stand to gain a lot from a well planned integrated public transport network

Users of Public Transport
- of Sydney's residents, these would stand to gain the most

Motorists
- motorists would also stand to gain something from this study, in particular less congested roads. However they might also lose some of their parking possibilities, and generally be encouraged to become users of public transport

Cyclists
- they would stand to gain a lot, including more bike paths, and improved facilities (such as bike racks), as their mode of transport would be become increasingly more popular

Pedestrians
- they could expect to see improvements in pedestrian access, particularly to public transport

Stakeholders in possible alternatives the Cross City Tunnel

Department of Transport
- they should recognise the faults with the CCT and design and implement the public transport alternatives to it, which would fit with Action for Transport 2010. They have shown interest in public transport developments, such as light rail extensions, only have been convinced by the RTA to prioritise the CCT ahead of further light rail extensions.

Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA)
- the RTA could be involved in helping to facilitate some of the road improvements, such as bus lanes, which would be incorporated in public transport alternatives to the CCT. However with this emphasis on public transport, they could stand to lose some of their power and funds to the STA, SRA or PTAC.

Transport Development Workers
- these would be actively involved in implementing the alternatives

State Transit Authority (STA)
State Rail Authority (SRA)
Bus and Coach Association
Rail Access Corporation
Public Transport Advisory Council (PTAC)
Accessible Public Transport Forum
Bicycle NSW
- these public transport bodies would be actively involved in helping to plan and implement public transport alternatives to the CCT, thus would welcome this

Connex Australia
Sydney Light Rail Company
- if light rail were to be extended as part of the public transport initiatives to be implemented instead of the CCT they would benefit a great deal. However they would need to see that the original City Light Rail Loop proposed in 1997 be reviewed to address concerns raised by local businesses and pedestrians

Property Council of Australia
- they came out representing local business and pedestrian objections to the 1997 City Light Rail Loop, and thus would have an interest to make sure the faults in the original design were amended

Construction workers
- these would stand to benefit from some public transport possibilities such as light rail, by getting work from constructing it

Private Sector CCT Shareholders
- these would lose the revenue possibilities of the CCT but could invest in some of the public transport alternatives, such as Light Rail

Environment Protection Authority (EPA)
Department of Urban Affairs and Planning (DUAP)
- these would be important in approving the public transport alternatives

Department of Health
Department of Tourism
- these two government departments would see improvements in their respective sectors, as public transport would be healthier transport, and generate tourist interest (in the way light rail, monorail and Sydney Explorer have at the moment).

Nature Conservation Council of NSW (NCC NSW)
Total Environment Centre
Eco-Transit Sydney
- these environmental groups would support public transport alternatives to the CCT, offering advice and suggestions.

City of Sydney Local Government Area
South Sydney Local Government Area
Woollahra Local Government Area
Leichhardt Local Government Area
- these Local Government Areas would stand to see transport changes in their area, with the facilitation of more public transport, thus less congested roads. The City of Sydney Council would stand to see the biggest changes, with possible alternate bus routes, light rail and fewer cars in the CBD. The construction of these changes would be less impacting than digging out the Cross City Tunnel.

Sydney City Residents Against Polluting Stacks
Harris Community Centre East Sydney Neighbourhood Association
Woolloomooloo Community Centre
- these would no longer fear about increased exhaust emissions in their area, but instead would see the benefits of integrated public transport

CBD Motorists
- these would have restrictions put on them, and where applicable would be encouraged to become users of public transport

Cross City commuters
- these would be provided with new public transport services, such as a cross city bus service

Cyclists
- they would see more bike lanes through the CBD, leading out to surrounding suburbs

Pedestrians
- they would see improvements to footpaths and access to public transport

Expected Outcomes

If the Cross City Tunnel is abandoned, and a comprehensive study of public transport networks, capacity, development opportunities and demand is administered, with a view to offering a Sydney wide integrated public transport system, it would be possible to implement public transport alternatives to the Cross City Tunnel. These would fulfil the CCT objectives of reducing congestion in the CBD and improving air quality, without the negative impacts of the CCT. They would also effectively reduce specifically east-west congestion as well as cater for east-west cross city travel demands, by encouraging east-west commuters to leave their cars at home and travel by public transport.

The completion of the comprehensive study into public transport would also set a framework from which to plan all future transport initiatives in Sydney, and thus achieve the goals of the Government's Action for Transport 2010.

Implementation Time Frame

The Cross City Tunnel project should be abandoned immediately.

The comprehensive study of public transport networks, capacity, development opportunities and demand should be administered as soon as possible. The Department of Transport should begin assessing the scope and necessary resources for this study immediately, from which an appropriate time frame could be gauged. It would be expected that some of the research that would go into this study would already be available from previous transport studies made prior to formulating Action for Transport 2010. Thus building on existing research, and given the top priority in the Department of Transport's allocation of funding, it might be estimated that this study could be completed between one year to sixteen months time.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

The Australian Democrats
"Light Rail"
Going Places: Platform Proposal #8
URL: www.democrats.org.au/nsw/ace/issuesheets/transport/light_rail.html

The Australian Democrats
"Roads & Traffic"
Going Places: Platform Proposal #11
URL: www.democrats.org.au/nsw/ace/issuesheets/transport/roads.html

The Australian Democrats
"Summary of Platform Proposals"
Going Places: A Transport Strategy for the Sydney Metropolitan Region
URL: www.democrats.org.au/nsw/ace/issuesheets/transport/going_places.html

Davidson, Mark, Martin, Leigh and Floyd, Ted
Submission in Response to the Proposed Cross City Tunnel Environmental Impact Statement
Greenways and Total Environment Centre
October 2000

The Greens
Transport Policy
URL: www.nsw.greens.org.au/2001site/policies/transport-pol.html

Moore, Clover
"Air Purification Systems for Tunnel Exhaust"
Eastern Distributor: Air pollution and ventilation stacks URL: savewollicreek.8m.com

Nature Conservation Council of New South Wales Transport Campaign (Green Ways)
The real facts on the Cross City Tunnel
5 December 2000
URL: ecofriends.nccnsw.rog.au/transport/projects/GreenWays/eissub2.html

NSW Department of Transport
"Making the right choices for Sydney"
Action for Transport 2010
URL: www.transport.nsw.gov.au

NSW Treasury
"Minister for Transport and Minister for Roads"
Budget Estimates 2000-01
URL: www.treasury.nsw.gov.au

Residents Against Polluting Stacks
Submission on the EIS for the Cross City Tunnel
URL: savewollicreek.8m.com

Roads and Traffic Authority
"Brochure on Design of the Tunnel and the Surface Street Changes"
Cross City Tunnel
URL: www.rta.gov.au/environment/n82_c.htm

Sydney Buses
"Route Maps"
State Transit Authority website
URL: www.sta.nsw.gov.au

Website for the Railway Industry
"Sydney Light Rail"
Railway Technology
URL: www.railway-technology.com/projects/sydney/