value management workshop report - home - roads and ... · 11 andrew spinks, environmental planner,...
TRANSCRIPT
26 November 2009
Parsons Brinckerhoff Australia Pty Limited ABN 80 078 004 798 Level 27, Ernst & Young Centre 680 George Street SYDNEY NSW 2000 GPO Box 5394 SYDNEY NSW 2001 Australia Telephone +61 2 9272 5100 Facsimile +61 2 9272 5101 Email [email protected] Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, AS/NZS 4801
RTA: Mount Victoria to Lithgow Project
Value Management Workshop Report
Value Management Workshop Report
©Parsons Brinckerhoff Australia Pty Limited (PB) [2009].
Copyright in the drawings, information and data recorded in this document (the information) is the property of PB. This document and the information are solely for the use of the authorised recipient and this document may not be used, copied or reproduced in whole or part for any purpose other than that for which it was supplied by PB. PB makes no representation, undertakes no duty and accepts no responsibility to any third party who may use or rely upon this document or the information.
Signed: .......................................................................
Date: 26 November 2009.......................................................................
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF Value Management Workshop Report Page i
Contents Page number
Executive summary 1
1. Introduction 2
1.1 Background to the value management study 2
1.2 Purpose of the value management workshop 2
1.3 Selection of preferred route 3
1.4 Project objectives 3
1.5 Strategic and project need 3
1.6 Value management workshop objectives 4
2. Value management methodology 5
2.1 Workshop agenda 5
3. Value management participants 7
4. Scope of the project 10
4.1 Geographical parameters 10
4.2 Topographical parameters 10
4.3 Temporal parameters 10
4.4 Financial parameters 10
4.5 No-no parameters 11
5. Information stage 12
5.1 Overview of presentations 12
5.2 Questions raised as a consequence of the information stage 12
6. Evaluation of the options 13
6.1 Initial evaluation criteria 13
6.2 Paired comparisons: weighting the option 14
6.3 Option evaluation matrix 15
6.4 Option evaluation matrix taking cost into consideration 18
7. Link thinking hierarchy 20
Page ii Value Management Workshop Report PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
8. Action plan and further evaluation 23
8.1 First evaluation stage 23
8.2 Second evaluation stage 23
8.3 Design notation 24
8.4 Action plan 24
Appendices Appendix A Overview of presentations
Appendix B Selected questions from information stage
Appendix C Total ideas generated
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF Value Management Workshop Report Page C-1
Executive summary
A two day value management workshop was held at the Bowen Inn at Lithgow on 25 and 26 November 2009 to consider the Mount Victoria to Lithgow project. Representatives of various stakeholders were present.
An integral part of the workshop was to create an evaluation matrix to calculate the value ratio and rank the options. The options evaluated were as follows: Mount Victoria – three options; Little Hartley – two options; River Lett - two options and Forty Bends - two options. The options are described as follows:
Mount Victoria The Hartley River Lett Forty Bends A = Outer bypass (short tunnel)
D= Current alignment F = Southern alignment H = Current alignment
B = Long tunnel E= Bypass G = Northern alignment I = Straight alignment C = Inner bypass
Evaluation criteria were identified, defined and rated. These evaluation criteria were applied to each option for each of the four segments of the route. They were rated on the scale of 1 – 10.
From this an evaluation matrix was created and in turn from this value ratios’ were established (except Mount Victoria) which aided in a consensus decision on each of the options.
The ranked number 1 options were:
Mount Victoria - B (long tunnel)
Little Hartley - E (bypass)
River Lett - F (southern alignment)
Forty Bends - H (current alignment).
The idea generation stage of the job plan produced 82 ideas for the refinement of the various preferred options. These ideas were then developed into action plans which are found in the body of the report.
Page C-2 Value Management Workshop Report PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
1. Introduction
1.1 Background to the value management study
The Australian and NSW governments, together with the community, are investigating an area between Mount Victoria and Lithgow to determine the preferred route for an upgrade of the Great Western Highway. The highway upgrade project is part of both governments’ commitment to improve road safety and accessibility for communities in the Blue Mountains and Central West.
The study area for the proposed upgrade extends along an 18.4 kilometre section of the Great Western Highway from the western end of the Soldiers Pinch road widening project near Browntown Oval at Mount Victoria to one kilometre west of McKanes Falls Road at South Bowenfels, south of Lithgow. This section of highway is used by Blue Mountains and Lithgow residents for local trips as well as to access communities in the Central West. However, it has a disproportionate number of serious and fatal crashes due to its poor alignment, geometry and grades.
The project has formed part of a number of major planning studies, including the Penrith to Orange Transport Strategy (1998), the Sydney-Dubbo Corridor Strategy (2007) and the Central West Transport Needs Study (2009).
As part of the process to select a preferred route for the project, a two day value management workshop was held on 25 and 26 November 2009 at Lithgow. The outcomes of this workshop are documented in this report.
1.2 Purpose of the value management workshop
The value management workshop is one of several inputs to the consideration of a preferred route. A preferred option has not been selected at this stage.
The purpose of the value management workshop is to discuss the route options and gain a shared understanding of what options provide the best balance across social, environmental, economic and engineering issues taking costs into consideration. The workshop will consider outcomes of the community and stakeholder consultation process undertaken to date, along with the outcomes of the technical, environmental and other specialist studies. The workshop includes participants from the local community, government agencies, councils, the transport industry and environmental, Aboriginal, business and other stakeholders.
Community participants take part in the workshop in order to:
Ensure that community views and values are taken into account.
Ensure the process is transparent and accountable.
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF Value Management Workshop Report Page C-3
1.3 Selection of preferred route
Following the value management workshop, a decision on a preferred route will be made by considering:
The outcomes of further technical and environmental investigations.
Community and stakeholder comments on the route options.
The outcomes of the value management workshop.
The outcomes of an RTA technical workshop.
1.4 Project objectives
The objectives of the project are:
Improve road safety.
Improve freight efficiency.
Cater for the mix of through, local and tourist traffic.
Be sensitive to the area’s natural environment, heritage and local communities.
1.5 Strategic and project need
The Great Western Highway is an important access route between Sydney and the Central West of NSW. The highway upgrade work that has already been completed has led to improved travel times for motorists and a safer road environment for all motorists, pedestrians and cyclists. These improvements support the position of the Australian and NSW governments to continue to upgrade the highway.
The proposed Mount Victoria to Lithgow highway upgrade is consistent with the governments’ strategic priorities of improving the highway’s safety performance and efficiency, and would help meet road network needs. In particular, the upgrade is required to:
Improve freight efficiency.
Improve access to the Central West of NSW to support growth in this region.
Reduce road user costs.
Better cater for the mix of local, through and tourist traffic.
Address the social and environmental impacts of through traffic.
Fully realise the value of public investment in the Great Western Highway upgrade program to date.
Page C-4 Value Management Workshop Report PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
1.6 Value management workshop objectives
The value management workshop objectives were as follows:
Identify critical information relevant to presented route options.
Develop a series of evaluation criteria, clearly define them and weight them.
Create a value ratio for each route option.
By consensus create a preferred ranking for the list of route options.
Identify refinements to individual route options or indeed create hybrid options where necessary.
Identify further actions to be carried out by the RTA to best arrive at the route option that will within reason “generate the highest level of value for the greatest number of stakeholders”.
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF Value Management Workshop Report Page C-5
2. Value management methodology The value management methodology followed the Lawrence Miles approach which is that accepted by Standards Australia and by the Treasury of NSW as the mandatory requirement for value management studies. This approach has been accepted internationally as a benchmark. In summary the workshop consisted of:
an in-depth initial briefing (held on 16 November at Old Hartley School)
a strategic diagnosis of the existing situation.
ensuring that a one day value management workshop covered:
Scoping of the project.
The information phase.
A speculation phase.
An evaluation phase.
A planning phase.
An implementation phase.
The reporting phase.
2.1 Workshop agenda
The agenda as follows:
Table 1 Workshop agenda
Day 1: 25 November
Time Item 8.45 Coffee and informal chat
9.00 Welcome and introduction by RTA Regional Manager, Western Region
9.05 Introduction to methodology and group problem solving
9.25 Strategic diagnosis outcomes (scoping)
9.30 Introduction to Link Thinking
9.35 Critical criteria presentations (information stage)
10.30 Break
10.45 Introduction to structured questions
10.55 Structured Q&A session
12.00 Final option list presented
12.30 Evaluation criteria
1) Final list
2) Definitions by consensus
Page C-6 Value Management Workshop Report PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
Time Item 1.00 Lunch
1.45 Evaluation criteria weighting
2.15 Sensitivity test criteria weightings (in groups)
3.00 Option rating
3.30 Break and informal questioning
4.00 Ranking (with discussion) to create consensus rank
5.00 Final discussion (in groups)
5.15 Final discussion (full group)
5.45 Finish
Day 2: 26 November
Time Item 9.00 Coffee and informal chat
9.30 Sensitivity testing of evaluation matrix (in groups)
10.00 Sensitivity testing of evaluation matrix (full group) and value ratios
10.30 Break
11.00 Consensus discussion and final decision on ranking of options (full group)
12.30 Lunch
1.15 Refinement of options/hybrid option investigation (in groups)
2.00 Full group discussion
3.00 Break
3.15 Action plan items for RTA
4.00 Next steps
4.30 Finish
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF Value Management Workshop Report Page C-7
3. Value management participants The participants for the workshop were carefully selected to ensure appropriate technical and user input to the decision making. The group was larger than normal with thirty-seven participants, but it was considered necessary to extend the range of participants in this case to provide credibility to the findings and to ensure true stakeholder representation was achieved.
Table 2 Value management participants
No Name / Title / Organisation
1 Phil Mahoney, Manager, Key Infrastructure Major Development , RTA
2 Peter Dearden, Western Region Regional RTA Western
3 Chris Barnett, Project Manager, RTA
4 Ashok Mehta, Engineer (Project Manager), Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government
5 Michael Wright, Urban Designer, Spackman Mossop Michaels
6 Matthew Callander, Manager, Tunnel Technology, RTA
7 Bruce Bates, Business Manager, RTA (observer)
8 Katrina Stankowski, Heritage Officer, Heritage Branch, Department of Planning
9 Brian Grant, Director and Cultural Officer, Wiradjuri Traditional Owners Central West Aboriginal Corporation
10 Gabby Higgins, Community Consultant, Straight Talk
11 Andrew Spinks, Environmental Planner, Sinclair Knight Merz
12 Russell Taylor, Resident, Mount Victoria
13 Warwick Peckham, Manager, Bathurst Local Aboriginal Land Council
14 Henk Buys, RTA Senior Geotech Engineer, RTA
15 Iain Stewart, Group Manager Operations, Lithgow City Council
16 April Guise, Communications Manager, Western, RTA
17 Jeff Charlton, Aboriginal Culture Heritage Advisor, Western Region, RTA
18 Carol Dicker, Resident, Little Hartley resident
19 Lucy Cole-Edelstein, Communications, Straight Talk
Page C-8 Value Management Workshop Report PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
No Name / Title / Organisation
20 Gary Rigozzi, Supervising geotechnical scientist, RTA
21 Ross Wilkinson, Chifley LAC Duty Officer, NSW Police Force
22 Peter Keane, Senior Environmental Officer, RTA
23 Eden Karimi, Graduate Civil Engineer, RTA (observer)
24 Tony Cooper, Gunangara Tribal Council
25 Diana Loges, Senior Project Development Manager, RTA
26 Alex Ferreira, Public Policy Graduate, RTA (observer)
27 Mary Casey, Heritage Consultant, Casey & House
28 Wal Smart, A/Manager Safer Road Systems, RTA Centre for Road Safety
29 Ian Burnett, Lead Designer (Road), RTA
30 Ramsey Moodie, Resident Hartley Valley, Chair Hartley Highway Action Group
31 Jim Robson, Resident, Top of RiverLett
32 Mark Bennett, Senior Bridge Engineer, RTA
33 Erica Duffy, Senior Strategic Planner, Blue Mountains City Council
34 Nicole Sommerville, Senior Social Planner, Sinclair Knight Merz
35 Stephen Darlington, Project Manager, RTA
36 Barry Gunther, Aboriginal Culture and Heritage Advisor Sydney Region, RTA
37 Kerry Fryer, Manager Tourism, Blue Mountains City Council (day one only)
Facilitation Team
Dr David Stevens, Parsons Brinckerhoff
Caroline Shindlair, Parsons Brinckerhoff
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF Value Management Workshop Report Page C-9
Table 3 Workshop groupings
A B C D E Phil Mahoney Peter Dearden Chris Barnett Diana Loges Stephen
Darlington
Warwick Peckham Jeff Charlton Brian Grant Tony Cooper Barry Gunther
Russell Taylor Carol Dicker Gabby Higgins Ramsay Moodie Jim Robson
April Guise Lucy Cole-Edelstein
Michael Wright Ian Burnett Ashok Mehta
Henk Buys Gary Rigozzi Matthew Callander
Wal Smart Mark Bennett
Iain Stewart Ross Wilkinson Katrina Stankowski
Mary Casey Erica Duffy
Andrew Spinks Peter Keane Bruce Bates Alex Ferreira Nicole Sommerville
Kerry Fryer Eden Karimi
Page C-10 Value Management Workshop Report PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
4. Scope of the project The ‘scope of the project’ provides important parameters and definitions and is essential to ensure that all participants have a shared understanding of the project that is being considered. The scope of the Mount Victoria to Lithgow project was defined as follows:
4.1 Geographical parameters
The northern and southern boundaries are defined as up to 500m on either side of the centre of the existing road (this is the orange corridor as published April 2009).
Eastern boundary is defined as Browntown Oval east of Mount Victoria.
Western boundary is defined as one kilometre west of McKanes Fall Road.
4.2 Topographical parameters
Approximately 1,000m above sea level at Mount Victoria dropping down to 800m to Hartley Valley dropping 700m further at River Lett and then back up about 900m to Lithgow.
Confirmed route will include culverts, bridges, viaducts, possibly tunnels and all other aspects of transportation structures.
4.3 Temporal parameters
Four corridors confirmed in April 2009 (Orange, Red, Green and Purple corridor).
Orange corridor announced August 2009.
Announcement of route options with Orange corridor October 2009.
Preferred route option by Easter 2010.
4.4 Financial parameters
Estimated costs for the options discussed are as follows:
Little Hartley – Option D (current alignment) $30M; Option E (bypass) $35M
River Lett – Option F (southern alignment) $70M; Option G (northern alignment) $85M
Forty Bends – Option H (current alignment) $25M; Option I (straightened alignment) $30M
Mount Victoria – costs were not available at the workshop
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF Value Management Workshop Report Page C-11
4.5 No-no parameters
‘No-no’ parameters are areas that are not able to be pursued during the value management workshop. Generally they are issues which are outside the given parameters and which would not contribute to a consideration of the route options. For the Mount Victoria to Lithgow project, the only ‘no-no’ parameter identified was:
Revisiting corridors that have been discarded.
Page C-12 Value Management Workshop Report PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
5. Information stage After the introduction by the RTA and a general introduction by the facilitator, speakers gave seven presentations on the major issues surrounding the project. They were as follows:
Table 4 Topics and speakers
Speaker Topic Introduction/background to project/route selection methodology Chris Barnett
Summary of the route options Ian Burnett
Environmental & heritage constraints Andrew Spinks
Geotechnical Henk Buys
Urban design Michael Wright
Socio-economic considerations Nicole Sommerville
Community feedback Lucy Cole-Edelstein and Gabby Higgins
5.1 Overview of presentations
Notes from each of the presenters listed in the table above can be found in Appendix A of this report.
5.2 Questions raised as a consequence of the information stage
Following the presentation, the workshop participants, had the opportunity to ask the relevant questions through a structured process.
To stimulate thought and to encourage active listening to the presenters, each participant was asked to form a ‘Link Thinking’ sheet. The Link Thinking sheets served as the basis for the formal questions which were constructed at the end of all the presentations.
Fifty-six questions are indicated in Appendix B. This was the result of the facilitator inviting participants on two separate occasions to put forward any questions that they thought would provide constructive information to the value management process as this stage.
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF Value Management Workshop Report Page C-13
6. Evaluation of the options A series of steps were worked through as part of the value management workshop proceedings for the consideration and evaluation of options. These included an initial evaluation, a paired comparison weighting and an option evaluation.
6.1 Initial evaluation criteria
A brief brainstorming session identified a series of potential evaluation criteria. It was explained that the final selection of evaluation criteria must reflect items that enable comparative evaluations to be made for each of the route options. The initial evaluation criteria and whether they were selected for the final evaluation criteria are found listed below in Table 5.
Table 5 Initial list of evaluation criteria
Evaluation criteria Accepted or rejected
Safety (definition; ice and access) Accepted but then later rejected on the basis that any options pursued by the RTA would be safe.
Heritage Accepted
Environment Rejected because it was considered too broad as a category and needed to be refined into eg heritage, ecology.
Visual impact Accepted
Transport efficiency Rejected as it was considered not to be a good differentiator.
Business impact Accepted
Residential impact Accepted
Access Rejected as it was considered not to be a good differentiator.
Ice issues Rejected as it formed part of safety. It was only applicable to Forty Bends.
Pollution Rejected as it was considered not to be a good differentiator.
Sense of place Accepted
Construction impact Rejected as it was considered not to be a good differentiator and due to the lack of specific information.
Future flexibility Rejected
Traffic efficiency Rejected as duplicate of transport efficiency.
Grades Rejected as it did not provide sufficient differentiation.
Maintainability Rejected as it did not provide sufficient differentiation.
Constructability Rejected as it did not provide sufficient differentiation. And due to the lack of specific information.
Ecology Accepted
Page C-14 Value Management Workshop Report PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
The final list of evaluation criteria are listed below, with their definitions tabled immediately to the right of the evaluation criteria. These were defined by the participants at the workshop by first working in their syndicate groups and then as a whole group. The definition had to be simple and clear so that everyone could meaningfully evaluate each option.
Table 6 Final list of evaluation criteria and definitions
Evaluation criteria Definition
Safety (this was later taken out as an evaluation criteria)
Degree of danger provided by black ice on viaducts or similar structures.
Business impact Minimising impacts on existing business including agri-businesses.
Residential impact Negative impacts on residents (except visual).
Visual impact Long-term intrusion of built structures onto visual landscape.
Heritage Immediate and cumulative negative impact on Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal heritage elements.
Ecology Degree of impact on high conservation value communities and endangered ecological communities.
Sense of place Ability of a design solution to facilitate the cohesion of the community, minimise severance and provide a place that can become a destination.
Safety was recognised by workshop participants as a key driver of the project. It is one of the project objectives and has been identified by the community in all feedback. However workshop participants needed to identify evaluation criteria that differentiated between options. The final decision that safety would not be an evaluation criterion was therefore reached after robust debate that:
a. Acknowledged the importance of safety for the project
b. Concluded that all route options would be safe, meet required standards and provide improvement in black spot areas.
c. Identified that this was not an evaluation criterion that could provide a clear differentiator between options.
6.2 Paired comparisons: weighting the option
After the criteria were developed, they were then ‘investigated’ to determine their relative impacts. A standard process of comparing each criteria against another and establishing the more ‘important’, criteria was adopted. The weightings are indicated below in Table 7. It should be noted that considerable time was taken in the construction of this matrix and that it was done by consensus.
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF Value Management Workshop Report Page C-15
Table 7 Paired comparisons
Evaluation Criteria
A B C D E F G Frequency Weighting
Safety A Criteria taken out
Business impact B C D E F G 0 7
Residential impact C C/D E C G 3 17
Visual impacts D E D G 3 16
Heritage E E E 5 30
Ecology F F 2 12
Sense of place G 3 18
16 100
The number of times that particular evaluation criteria appears in the table is indicated by the frequency. All the frequencies are then added up to come to a total of, in this case, 16. The weighting is then calculated by dividing 16 into 100. This is then used for each evaluation criteria to give the individual weighting as indicated in the table above. The total of the weighting column must then add up to 100.
6.3 Option evaluation matrix
The next step of the workshop was to assess each of the route options against the weighted criteria. This was done as follows:
Each of the options was scored on a scale of 1-10 in terms of its performance against each of the criteria (1 being the lowest rating and 10 being the highest). This was done on a consensus basis at each table. For example, the Mount Victoria Option A was rated 5 against ‘business impact’.
Each rating was multiplied by its weighting. For example, the Mount Victoria option A rating of ‘5’ against business impact was then multiplied by 7, which is the weighting for business impacts. This gives a weighted rating of 35.
The weighting ratings are added up. For example, Mount Victoria option A had a total weighted rating of 528.
The option with the highest total weighted rating is considered to initially represent the option that best meets the values of the evaluation criteria. For example, Mount Victoria option A is considered to be ranked second in terms of values.
After the initial ranking process, the results were reviewed by the stakeholders to determine whether there was consensus. The ratings were also sensitivity tested to see whether changes in ratings would affect the initial rankings of the options.
Page C-16 Value Management Workshop Report PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
Table 8 Initial option evaluation matrix
Mount Victoria Little Hartley River Lett Forty Bends
Options Options Options Options
Evaluation criteria weighting A B C D E F G H I
Business impact 7 5/35 5/35 6/42 5/35 7/49 6/42 5/35 5/35 5/35
Residential impact 17 7/119 9/153 2/34 5/85 4/68 5/85 5/85 5/85 4/68
Visual impacts 16 5/80 7/112 1/16 6/96 5/80 5/80 6/96 7/112 5/80
Heritage 30 4/120 9/270 2/60 4/120 9/270 6/180 5/150 8/240 5/150
Ecology 12 4/48 5/60 7/84 6/72 5/60 5/60 7/84 5/60 5/60
Sense of place 18 7/126 8/144 6/108 4/72 7/126 5/90 6/108 5/90 4/72
Total weighted criteria
100 528 774 344 480 653 537 558 622 465
Value ranking 2 1 3 2 1 2 1 1 2
Legend:
Mount Victoria Options Little Hartley Options River Lett Options Forty Bends Options A = Outer bypass (short tunnel)
D = Current alignment F = Southern alignment H = Current alignment
B = Long tunnel E = Bypass G = Northern alignment I = Straight alignment
C = Inner bypass
Discussion Notes: The following are the outcomes of discussion held within the groups on the ranking of options. Mount Victoria
Outer bypass (option A)
May need a second short tunnel.
Aboriginal issues.
Berghoffers Pass – impact.
Could be a more dramatic experience as people enter and exit the Mount Victoria area.
Will Victoria Pass remain open as extra route.
The ongoing maintenance – who is responsible.
Long tunnel (option B)
Construction issues at portal.
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF Value Management Workshop Report Page C-17
The long tunnel would have less visual impact because it avoids viaducts on the western side. Some realignment to the design (linking to existing highway) could further reduce visible impact.
Inner bypass (option C)
It is the least desirable option with several impacts – residential, heritage, severance, visual, business with little opportunity to mitigate impacts. The community has consistently expressed opposition to this option.
The inner bypass has significant residential impact and visual impact.
Other points
Heritage dominates on the basis of the effect on the Grange and effect on Aboriginal heritage.
The outer and inner bypass significantly impact the curtilage of the Grange.
Little Hartley
Group consensus that ranking is correct (bypass 1, existing routes).
RTA should consider extending bypass to avoid Meads Farm
River Lett Hill Options
Clarified the visual amenity rankings with urban designer.
There is an opportunity to mitigate visual impacts on northern alignment (ie large fills).
However on southern alignment, large cuts remain very visible forever.
Therefore the weighted criteria for visual amenity appear correct.
Forty Bends
Disagree with the ranking preference of current alignment on grounds of safety. Two fatalities at Forty Bends. Prefers straight alignment but heritage would be affected. Straight alignment could be adjusted to avoid heritage road.
Existing road has a number of reverse curves. Better to straighten out.
Heritage issue of a lesser order here than in other areas. But would prefer to avoid heritage road.
Aboriginal burials at northern end. Not affected by straight option. Diamond dreaming, concerned about water quality being affected by moving the road. Significant site.
Table agreed by consensus that rankings should be reversed, but heritage should be avoided and water quality taken into consideration.
The table noted safety data for Forty Bends had not been provided in data, and was only brought to attention by Jim Robson’s efforts.
Page C-18 Value Management Workshop Report PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
6.4 Option evaluation matrix taking cost into consideration
The next stage of the process was to bring costs into consideration. The costs for each of the options are as follows.
Mount Victoria: Costs not available
Little Hartley: Option D (current alignment) - $30m; Option E (bypass) - $35m
River Lett Hill: Option F (southern alignment) – $70m; Option G (northern alignment) - $85m
Forty Bends: Option H (current alignment) - $25m; Option I (straightened alignment) - $30m
To gain a final ranking, with costs included, a standard technique was used, that is, the score for the total weighted rate is divided by the costs. For example, for Little Hartley option D, the total weighted rating of 480 was divided by 30 ($M), to give a value ratio of 16. Importantly the option with the highest value ratio is considered to be the route option that generates the highest level of value for the greatest number of stakeholders.
The final value ratio rankings can be seen in the last line of Table 9 below.
Table 9: Final evaluation option matrix (with cost)
Mount Victoria Little Hartley River Lett Forty Bends
Options Options Options Options
Evaluation criteria weighting A B C D E F G H I
Business impact 7 5/35 5/35 6/42 5/35 7/49 6/42 5/35 5/35 5/35
Residential impact 17 7/119 9/153 2/34 5/85 4/68 5/85 5/85 5/85 4/68
Visual impacts 16 5/80 7/112 1/16 6/96 5/80 5/80 6/96 7/112 5/80
Heritage 30 4/120 9/270 2/60 4/120 9/270 6/180 5/150 8/240 5/150
Ecology 12 4/48 5/60 7/84 6/72 5/60 5/60 7/84 5/60 5/60
Sense of place 18 7/126 8/144 6/108 4/72 7/126 5/90 6/108 5/90 4/72
Total weighted criteria
100 528 774 344 480 653 537 558 622 465
Value ranking 2 1 3 2 1 2 1 1 2
Estimated cost ($M)
N/A N/A N/A $30(M) $35(M) $70(M) $85(M) $25(M) $30(M)
Value ratio 16 18.65 7.67 6.56 24.88 15.5
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF Value Management Workshop Report Page C-19
Mount Victoria Little Hartley River Lett Forty Bends
Options Options Options Options Value ratio ranking
2 1 1 2 1 2
Legend:
Mount Victoria Options Little Hartley Options River Lett Options Forty Bends Options A = Outer bypass (short tunnel)
D = Current alignment F = Southern alignment H = Current alignment
B = Long tunnel E = Bypass G = Northern alignment I = Straight alignment
C = Inner bypass The outcomes of this part of the process were as follows:
Mount Victoria: Will be subject to the cost estimates at future stage. Currently Option B (long tunnel) remains as Option that best meets values.
Little Hartley: No change. Option E (bypass) remains option considered to provide best value.
River Lett Hill: Change in ranking. Option F (southern alignment) considered to provide best value with costs included.
Forty Bends: No change. Option H (current alignment) remains option considered to provide best value.
The final value ratio rankings for Little Hartley and Forty Bends were accepted by consensus with the proviso that refinements could be made. The suggested refinements are detailed in section 7 of this report. The final value ratio ranking for River Lett Hill was provisionally accepted, but as the scores between the two options were very close, it was considered that additional work should be done to investigate both options to seek possible further improvements. These suggested improvements area also included in section 7 of this report.
Page C-20 Value Management Workshop Report PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
7. Link thinking hierarchy Following the ranking of options, the workshop participants were asked the question of “how can these highest ranked options be improved?”
Using the local, technical and environmental collective knowledge in the workshop, the group formulated a framework for improving the options. The framework found below and served as a basis for generating ideas on the refinement of options.
Mount Victoria Objective How?
Modify alignment
Refine Option A – (long tunnel)
How
Investigate intersection
Flatten grade
Consider objectives
Combine options
Reduce visual impact
Improve alignment
Preserve Aboriginal heritage
Enhance European heritage
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF Value Management Workshop Report Page C-21
Little Hartley Objective How
Improve access
Optimise option E How
(Bypass option) Extend alignment
Minimise ecological impacts
Create ‘sense of place’ village (visibility versus noise)
Signage for businesses
Forty Bends Objective How
Adjust alignment
Optimise Option I How
(current alignment) Improve road surface
Minimise black ice
Ensure water quality (Jack Whites CF)
Investigate aboriginal heritage (bones site)
Minimise impacts to non-Aboriginal heritage (Forty Bends Road)
Page C-22 Value Management Workshop Report PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
Forty Bends Objective How
Improve technology
Minimise environmental impacts
River Lett Hill Objective How
Improve visual amenity
Optimise Option G How
(Northern alignment) Provide efficient property access
Refine alignment design criteria
Review design speed
Review max gradient
.
The group that discussed the River Lett Hill option decided that although the southern option was ranked the number one option by the evaluation matrix, after discussion they concluded that the northern alignment was a better option and thus held discussion on improving the northern alignment rather than the southern alignment.
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF Value Management Workshop Report Page C-23
8. Action plan and further evaluation The syndicated groups discussed ways of improving the options ranked number one following the evaluation matrix process. After the 82 ideas were generated a series of evaluation techniques were used to reduce these ideas into meaningful sets of ideas for further evaluation.
8.1 First evaluation stage
The first evaluation stage entailed ranking the ideas as follows:
1 = worthy of further consideration
2 = Requires further elaboration as the idea is not understood
3 = The idea can be discarded because of:
a) repetition of an earlier idea
b) not ‘fully formed’ idea
c) outside of the scope set
d) instantaneous rejection
e) doesn’t relate to objectives
f) motherhood/doing it anyway
This process enabled a considerable number of ideas to be discarded by consensus to bring the number of ideas to a workable level.
By reference to Appendix C and by following the rating number readers can establish which ideas were culled out on this first level of evaluation.
8.2 Second evaluation stage
This evaluation was then followed by a second more sophisticated culling exercise. This was achieved by a sorting of ideas into a series of categories which were as follows:
Design notations (DN) - these are items that by consensus by all stakeholders are to be considered by the design team in developing the project
Action plan item (AP)
The schedule of design notations is found in Section 8.3. The Action plan can be found in section 8.4.
Page C-24 Value Management Workshop Report PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
8.3 Design notation
As a result of the evaluation 14 ideas were identified for ‘design notation’ and are listed below in Table 10. These design notations were accepted as consensus decisions by the key stakeholders to be considered in the ongoing design of the project.
Table 10 Design notation considerations
No Idea
Little Hartley
Reducing noise and visual impacts
3 Landscaping to minimise noise and visual impact. (note: it was pointed out by one of the participants that landscaping does not minimise noise)
Residential impacts
7 Current highway becomes cul-de-sac at each end so trucks can’t use it as a truck stop or alternative highway.
Access
11 One high standard access/intersection at Coxs River Road.
Extending bypass
16 Extend bypass slightly to west so Meads Farm is in western cul-de-sac.
Mt Victoria
General recommendations
22 Signposting Little Hartley as its own entity – consistent along all Great Western Highway.
30 Design of viaduct needs to be sensitive to the curtilage and the viewshed from the Grange.
31 Reduce speed in tunnel from 100km/h to 90 or 80km/h due to speed differentiation between cars and trucks (reinforce).
33 Provision for speed camera.
River Lett
Improve visual amenity
46 Minimise impacts on views of highway through Hartley Village.
Optimise northern alignment design
53 Provide efficient property access.
Forty Bends
Minimise impacts on non-Aboriginal heritage
59 Design to avoid Forty Bends if feasible.
60 Ensure corridor does not visually impact on Forty Bends Road and other heritage items to be minimised.
61 Improve existing vertical alignment.
Minimise black ice
76 Ensure adequate cross-falls.
8.4 Action plan
A series of items were raised during the value management workshop and further consideration, action and investigations are to be carried out after the value management workshop. The action below needs to be filled out by the relevant person with specific actions, responsibilities and due dates.
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF Value Management Workshop Report Page C-25
Please note items, 18, 23, 24, 28, 43, 52, 54 and 77 were deleted from the list as agreed to by the workshop on the basis of consensus (refer to 8.1 evaluation stage number 3).
Table 12 Action Plan
No Idea
Little Hartley
Reducing noise and visual impacts
1 Drop bypass into cutting - consider at grade intersection at Coxs River Road.
2 Noise mounds – may need to widen road reserve.
4 Low noise pavement.
5 Want to keep Little Hartley (village entity to remain) visible while reducing noise and visual impacts of bypass.
6 Double glazing windows or architectural treatments (subdivision to the south).
Residential impacts
8 Weight limit on current highway to prevent truck movements.
9 Create truck bays further from village – also help police and RTA heavy vehicle policing/enforcement.
10 Provide authorised truck stop.
Access
12 For those south of bypass provide access via Baaners Lane or Coxs River Road only, not direct onto bypass.
13 All other local access via current highway.
14 Investigate/minimise direct access on bypass.
15 Left in/left out with u-turn facilities.
Extending bypass
17 Shift bypass slightly to north (at eastern end) to minimise impacts on ecological community and reduce height of cutting (may increase impacts on residents).
Minimise ecological impact
19 Re-align to avoid high value vegetation.
20 Examine reducing physical footprint of bypass.
21 Consider retained cutting.
Sense of place – village
22a Heritage /tourist management plan for villages.
Mt Victoria
General recommendations
25 Investigate the connection from the Darling Causeway to the long tunnel route at Mt Victoria off and on road.
26 Modify alignment when it enters valley floor so it is closer to existing alignment.
27 Moving between chainages 4.2 and 4.9 slightly north-west and between 5.0 and 5.9 to the south.
29 Investigate normal at grade intersection at Browntown Oval (eastern side of Mt Victoria).
32 Access to portals – during construction.
Improve alignment
34 Investigate opportunities for different portal locations.
35 Investigate opportunities for reducing tunnel grade by lengthening or shortening tunnel.
36 Introduce horizontal and vertical curves into tunnel (investigate).
37 Consider realignment east of Mt Victoria to avoid properties (stay on existing highway longer).
Page C-26 Value Management Workshop Report PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
No Idea
38 Investigate a short or long tunnel through the protruding cliff at Berghoffers Pass with a short viaduct hugging the Berghoffers Pass line and rejoining Victoria Pass at the point where it meets Major Mitchell’s original line for the lower Pass.
39 Pass lower under the railway and enter the long tunnel at a deeper level to avoid a long viaduct. Enables lowering of the tunnel exit and enables the road to wind closer to the valley floor.
40 Minimise depth of cut under railway to minimise retaining required.
Preserve Aboriginal heritage
41 Full Aboriginal survey of area at portal locations
River Lett
Improve visual amenity
42 Ameliorate impacts of large fills – landscaping plan will achieve a better visual impact on the northern alignment than the southern alignment.
44 Investigate utilising existing highway above ‘suicide curve’ (first curve on way down).
45 Grade separate carriageways (investigate).
47 Lookouts to be considered.
Optimise northern alignment design
48 Vertical and horizontal alignment – minimise cuts and fills (may reduce costs).
49 Vertical and horizontal alignment – adjust design criteria (eg design speed) (may reduce costs).
50 Vertical and horizontal alignment – balance earthworks (may reduce costs).
51 Vertical and horizontal alignment – reduce blasting (may reduce costs).
55 Maintain existing highway as service road over full length of River Lett Hill.
56 Fresh examination of River Lett Hill (result of two options being so close).
Forty Bends
Ensure water quality
57 Investigate water quality associated with Aboriginal heritage re Diamond Dreaming at Jack Whites Creek.
58 Sedimentation traps/basins – ensure that the above is carried on through the investigations and design of the whole project.
Minimise environmental impacts
62 Assess noise impacts and investigate noise restriction techniques.
63 Investigate appropriate plantings to screen road (houses to road).
64 Investigate ‘sympathetic’ retaining structures.
Adjust alignment
65 Investigate straighten alignment.
66 Investigate flatten curve radius.
67 Investigate elimination of dips.
Improve road surface
68 Investigate surface treatments to deal with ice issues.
Investigate Aboriginal heritage
69 Gain access to Daintree Aboriginal site (one carved tree).
70 Check registrars (National Parks).
71 More consultation with aboriginal community (re water quality).
Minimise black ice
72 Opening tree canopy – expose road to winter sun.
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF Value Management Workshop Report Page C-27
No Idea
73 Heating road surface (ice).
74 Investigate chemical treatments (ice).
75 Investigate warm water sprays.
78 Investigate cold air drainage systems – channel cold air drainage into culverts via mounds and trees.
New techniques
79 Investigate in-pavement temperature indicators.
81 Above linked to warning systems linked to maintenance.
82 Variable speed limits.
Other Items
Needs to limit impact on all curtilage – highway bisects Fernhilll – curtilage compromised and need to mitigate impacts.
Potential impacts to volcanic plug and primary water supply on Casey’s property to be investigated.