No tunnels campaigners set up on O'Connell Terrace just next to where the public were queuing to go on a tour of the tunnel entrance and to see the tunnel boring machine. Refer attached photo. The boring machine which was on display will be used to dig the 4.5km North-South Bypass Tunnel from Bowen Hills to Woolloongabba. As always, the protest group sent the positive message that the money from car tunnels and bridges should be invested in Brisbane's public transport system so that more and more people can switch to clean and green public transport rather than continuing trends of car dependence.

In response to the protest the Lord Mayor told the ABC that "The whole issue of greenhouse emissions is a very important one but I take it back to the fact that people are going to need to use motor vehicles to get around this city to live out their lives and to do their business." Ofcourse people are going to continue to use their cars, we have never suggested that no one should drive. But if people are given comparable alternatives to the car then there is often no need for trips to be in a single occupant motor vehicle. Our point is that we should be reducing the proportion of trips taken via car (currently about 80% of trips to work) and increasing the amount of trips made by public transport, walking and cycling. We should be aiming to have a more balanced transport system where 50% of trips are by car, 30% public transport and 20% walk, cycle or work at home. Under our scenario Brisbane does not need new major roads because we would make better use of the road space by transporting more people by buses and by car pooling.

But Council and the State do not want to plan for reduced car use. If they were serious about reducing car use the private sector would not be investing in the tunnel projects. The tunnel projects (which are being delivered as public-private partnerships) are only financially viable for the private sector (who will recover costs and make a profit from tolls) if congestion is maintained on surface roads, people remain car dependent, and people are not provided with more alternatives to the car. A government that prioritised public transport would not need road tunnels and even if they wanted them the private sector would not invest in them.

The Lord Mayor also told the ABC "Frankly if we do nothing, my position is that we'll have even greater greenhouse emissions because of the terrible congestion." This is a debatable comment and makes huge assumptions about people’s travel behaviour under two very different scenarios. It also ignores that fact that not building the North-South Bypass would free up more than $500 million for investment in public transport, walking and cycling infrastructure. The Lord Mayor’s statement also shows that he does not understand the traffic modelling from the North South Bypass Tunnel Environmental Impact Statement, which shows that there will be more traffic on Brisbane's roads with the tunnel than without it. A four-lane, 4.5km stretch of road (above or below ground) will do very little to reduce the city's congestion, especially when you are planning for huge increases in car traffic. The experience of car tunnels in Sydney is that they become congested as soon as they reach their capacity (just like any road they have a capacity), and that the roads leading up to the tunnel entrances become bottle-necked with traffic as people enter/exit the tunnel.

Overall, the Lord Mayor does not (and does not want to) understand the argument of the no tunnels campaign. He needs to stay ignorant to remain confident. None of us are saying do nothing. What we are saying is that the money from the tunnels should be invested into public transport so that less people need to drive and more people use public transport. This is the most effective, environmentally friendly and socially equitable way of reducing congestion and greenhouse gas emissions from urban transport. The suggestion that more roads are good for Brisbane's environment because free-flowing traffic creates less pollution than congested traffic is incorrect. A car based transport system is not good for the environment and produces far more per capita greenhouse emissions than a city with a balanced transport system. The free-flowing versus congested traffic scenario may be true in a laboratory situation where you have a set number of cars travelling a set number of kilometres. But the implications in real life are quite different.

Firstly, even with no population growth the overall amount of kilometres travelled by cars in the transport system increases, which leads to more fuel being burnt. This occurs because if government prioritises road investment over public transport investment then travel times for car travel are reduced (in the short term), while travel times for public transport remain the same or are increased because the increased traffic impedes the flow of buses. This approach creates an incentive for people to drive more often and further because of the reduced travel times, and reduces the incentives for switching modes. Add to this equation a growing population and you have even more travel by car, and more fuel burnt. Compare this with a scenario where the road money was invested in public transport, which reduces travel times for public transport while car travel times remain static. This would increase usage of public transport and reduce car use. Yes, people will still be driving over the next 50 years, but the big question is how much.