sydney-city-centre-review-of-environmental-factors

Stage 1: Strategic alternatives
Two strategic alternatives were considered as described below.
Strategic alternative 1: do nothing
There would be no change to the city centre road network under this alternative.
It would continue to operate and be managed and maintained under the status quo
whilst the Access Strategy is implemented. In proposing this alternative, neither the
identified strategic need for the proposal would be addressed nor would any of
the proposal objectives. Congestion would increase across the city centre, as the
option would not deal with the forecast changes in traffic patterns and distribution that
would place increased demands on the city’s most congested roads. This would
impact the delivery of essential business-as-usual function to support a ‘Global City’.
Buses, taxis, servicing and delivery vehicles are all road-based activities that heavily
rely on efficient road conditions to deliver their services. It would also not make
effective use of the road network, introduce needed increased capacity, reallocate
road priorities or maintain traffic flows in the future. Under this alternative, the city
centre road network is unlikely to continue to function effectively once 40 per cent of
George Street is pedestrianised. It would also be difficult to set other bus and cycle
priorities without first relieving traffic congestion elsewhere across the network.
Strategic alternative 2: do something
In accordance with the proposal objectives, this alternative would involve improving
road network functionality in Sydney city centre to support the growing demand for
access for buses, taxies, service and freight delivery and general traffic, including
during construction and operation of a number of projects proposed under the
Access Strategy. This alternative would meet the proposal’s strategic need.
Fundamentally, the alternative supports delivering Access Strategy initiatives by
allowing the city centre’s road network to operate more efficiently and effectively.
It would do this by setting street space priorities for traffic on certain congested and
critical roads and intersections. There will be some environmental, social and cultural
impacts associated with the proposal. Thus the purpose of this REF has been to
identify these impacts and safeguard and manage against any predicted adverse
outcomes.
Selection of the preferred strategic alternative
Under the ‘do nothing’ option, the Access Strategy would not be delivered and its
objectives and initiatives would not be met. This would lead to significant
socioeconomic and amenity impacts whilst resulting in the city centre ceasing to
function effectively. Recognising the significant impacts of doing nothing to address
the existing and future predicted issues with the city centre road network versus the
anticipated benefits of doing something means that this alternative was strategically
selected as the preferred outcome of the stage 1 process.
Stage 2: Key pinch points
Once Roads and Maritime identified the need to ‘do something’, the next stage
focused on which of the city centre’s roads would most benefit from the introduction
of traffic capacity improvements. This was done in conjunction with Transport for
NSW, which had previously identified, prioritised and allocated certain roads and
corridors for specific uses under the Access Strategy. Key access points, traffic
corridors and pedestrian corridors were also identified through this process.
Sydney City Centre Capacity Improvement 19
Review of Environmental Factors