Article: Tunnel vision: split over special treatment for 'high value' traffic

[somebody]

Tunnel vision: split over special treatment for 'high value' traffic

Date
    July 27, 2012

Jacob Saulwick
Transport Reporter

Peak hour traffic

At odds ... federal infrastructure proposals for building an M5 East and F3 to M2 link are set to be rejected by Infrastructure NSW. Photo: Bloomberg

STATE and federal infrastructure advisers are at odds over the size and scale of Sydney's next generation of road tunnels, and whether they should be limited to trucks, tradespeople and buses.

The federal government's infrastructure adviser is calling for potential new road tunnels linking the F3 and M2 in northern Sydney and duplicating the M5 East in southern Sydney to be built as one lane in each direction, solely used by ''high value vehicles''.

The idea, raised by Infrastructure Australia in a report for the federal Transport Minister, Anthony Albanese, is that the new tunnels would deliver economic benefits by making it easier for trucks and buses to move through the city.

They would be much cheaper than multi-lane motorways, allowing governments to direct funds to public transport projects.
Advertisement

The idea, however, is set to be rejected by Infrastructure NSW, which will hand down a report to the state government in months recommending the construction of new motorways.

''Ninety per cent of the travel movements in this state are by car,'' the chief executive of Infrastructure NSW, Paul Broad, told the Herald in response to Infrastructure Australia's suggestion.

''If we are just doing this stuff for the 10 per cent it is hard to see the justification,'' he said.

Infrastructure Australia's report, Private Financing Options for Upgrades in Sydney's M5 and F3-M2 Corridor, went to Mr Albanese in March. It argued against previous proposals for the M5 East and F3 to M2 link.

Instead of a multi-lane tunnel duplicating the existing M5 East, a new tunnel could be built as ''a two-lane high value vehicle link in the M5 East corridor as far as Foreshore Road'' acting as a funnel for trucks from Port Botany.

In northern Sydney, Infrastructure Australia also argues against plans for a multi-lane tunnel linking the F3 to M2. Instead, a slimmer tunnel could be built just for buses and multi-occupancy vehicles, new bus lanes could be introduced on the existing F3 and Pennant Hills Road, and a new commuter bus fleet could be built for people travelling between the central coast and city.

This package could cost between $2 billion and $3 billion, compared to more than $5 billion for a six-lane tunnel.

''Limiting use of the link to freight vehicles, light commercial vehicles, buses and high occupancy vehicles is likely to generate the highest value solution because it would help capture time and fuel savings for those consumers who value these most,'' the report said.

The idea, however, is unlikely to win the day. The state government revealed last week it was considering an unsolicited bid from Transurban to build a F3 to M2 tunnel under Pennant Hills Road.

As a toll road company, Transurban would have an incentive to push as many cars through the new tunnel as it could.

''It will be wide and built for a lot of cars,'' a source said.

http://smh.drive.com.au/roads-and-traffic/tunnel-vision-split-over-special-treatment-for-high-value-traffic-20120726-22v7f.html

[Gazza]

I would have thought F2-M3 would be for general traffic given it's essentially a missing link on the national highway network right?

[Stillwater]

But 90 per cent of traffic on the National Highway in urban areas is not what could be classed as 'freight and commercial traffic', which is the reason why the FG invests in National Highways.  IA is saying is if we build new tunnels and fund them 100 per cent, we want the tunnels used 100 per cent for the categories of traffic we fund the road for in the first place.  It also seems to be saying if you want to move people about, we will talk to you (NSW) about public transport for that purpose.

[Golliwog]

I noticed that the 90% they used was statewide. I'd expect if you looked just at metro Sydney you'd find that figure lower.

Either way, the whole point of building this for trucks, buses and tradies, is that these are the trips that you pretty much will always have on the roads. People in cars can shift mode, but you can't really do deliveries via bus. I think doing it this way is an interesting idea, and is something that needs to be looked at more. I also doubt it'll go ahead in the current car centric environment.

[SurfRail]

I don't suppose Paul Broad actually understands the notion of a mode share target...

DERP!

[somebody]

Not sure what buses use the M5 East or would use the F3-M2 link - long distance coaches is the only thing I can think of.

I think the best that is likely to happen is a single rate for cars, buses and trucks.