Project: Proposed Riccarton Bus Interchange

Transcription

1 Project: Proposed Riccarton Bus Interchange Site Options MCA Workshop Report Reference: Prepared for: Christchurch City Council Revision: 0 18 February 2014

2 Document Control Record Document prepared by: Aurecon New Zealand Limited Level 2, 518 Colombo Street Christchurch 8011 PO Box 1061 Christchurch 8140 New Zealand T F E W christchurch@aurecongroup.com aurecongroup.com A person using Aurecon documents or data accepts the risk of: a) Using the documents or data in electronic form without requesting and checking them for accuracy against the original hard copy version. b) Using the documents or data for any purpose not agreed to in writing by Aurecon. Project File Riccarton Bus Interchange - Options MCA V docx 18 February 2014 Revision 0

3 Document control Report Title Site Options MCA Workshop Report Document ID Draft Project Number File Path P:\238329\Report 2\Riccarton Bus Interchange - Options MCA V3.docx Client Christchurch City Council Client Contact Philip Basher Rev Date Revision Details/Status Prepared by Author Verifier Approver 0 18 February 2014 Final Document APR APR SH SH Current Revision 0 Approval Author Signature Approver Signature Name Andrew Russell Name Shaun Hardcastle Title Technical Director Title Technical Director Project File Riccarton Bus Interchange - Options MCA V docx 18 February 2014 Revision 0

4 Project File Riccarton Bus Interchange - Options MCA V docx 18 February 2014 Revision 0 Page 1

5 Contents 1. Introduction Background Purpose of Report 5 2. Background Studies 6 3. Multi-Criteria Analysis MCA What is MCA? Application 9 4. Aurecon MCA Dashboard Description Methodology Riccarton Bus Interchange MCA Workshop Purpose Assessment Process Site Options Description Defining and Prioritising Value Criteria Weighting Value Criteria Assessing Options Initial MCA Scores Value for Money Sensitivity Analysis Risk Overview Conclusions & Recommendation 20 Project File Riccarton Bus Interchange - Options MCA V docx 18 February 2014 Revision 0 Page 2

6 Appendices Appendix A MCA Dashboard Outputs Index of Figures Figure 1 Site Options Locations 5 Figure Beca Report Six Alternative Sites (Source 2005 Beca Report) 6 Figure 3 Aurecon MCA Dashboard 10 Figure 4 Aurecon MCA Dashboard Value Criteria preference and Options rating table 11 Figure 5 Aurecon MCA Dashboard typical Value for Money Chart 12 Figure 6 Aurecon MCA Dashboard Value Criteria Window criteria weighting summary 15 Figure 7 Aurecon MCA Dashboard - Preliminary Assessment Full Cost 16 Figure 8 Aurecon MCA Dashboard - Preliminary Assessment Full Cost NPV Summary 17 Figure 9 Aurecon Risk Thermometer - Riccarton Bus Interchange Sites Options 18 Project File Riccarton Bus Interchange - Options MCA V docx 18 February 2014 Revision 0 Page 3

7 1. Introduction 1.1 Background Christchurch City Council and Environment Canterbury are together considering the introduction of a bus interchange within Riccarton in support of the operational goals and service level improvements expected as part of the Hubs and Spoke network delivery model for the Metro bus system in Christchurch. This report follows on from a Council meeting 12 December when the Council deferred its decision on the proposed Riccarton Bus Interchange Hub on the grounds that more information was required on the options for this facility. This was clarified by the Council s resolution from the 19 December 2013 meeting: 2. The Council request a report urgently on other options for the Riccarton Bus Interchange Hub Aurecon has been engaged by the Christchurch City Council to work with a multidisciplinary project team with representation from the Council s Administration, Environment Canterbury, Arrow Project Management and Opinions Market Research. Aurecon s role included: preparing preliminary concept images which depict the style of Bus Interchange being proposed and incorporating an off-street passenger waiting lounge. assisting as required with the community and stakeholder consultation process as technical adviser (transport and interchange design) managing and facilitating a Multi-Criteria Analysis (MCA) of 3 site options (Refer Figure 1 over page) for the bus interchange concept (described in further detail in Chapter 4 of this report). The three site options include: Option 1 Riccarton Road Mid Block Option The assessment assumes a site on the south side of Riccarton Road between Division Street and Rotherham Street, Option 2 Westfield Option This site assumes the availability of a portion of the Westfield Riccarton Shopping Centre car park adjacent to an existing bus stop at this location on Riccarton Road (purchase or lease of this potential site would be subject to the support of Westfield but they have previously declined this proposal) Option 3 Library Option The former Riccarton public library site (the site on Clarence Street is owned by the Council but subject, in part, to a current private lease). Project File Riccarton Bus Interchange - Options MCA V docx 18 February 2014 Revision 0 Page 4

8 1.2 Purpose of Report The purpose of this report is to describe and summarise the outcomes of the MCA assessment of the site options (Figure 1 below) consistent with the following Project Goal: Project Goal: Establish the best fit best value site option for a Riccarton Bus Interchange when assessed against key relevant value criteria Figure 1 Site Options Option 2 Option 1 Option 3 Project File Riccarton Bus Interchange - Options MCA V docx 18 February 2014 Revision 0 Page 5

9 2. Background Studies In 2005 the Christchurch City Council commissioned Beca Infrastructure Ltd to review the options for a proposed interchange (also referred to as a PT Hub) at Riccarton in the vicinity of the Mall. In addition, in 2008 the Council commissioned Abley Transportation Engineers to review the work of a number of earlier studies into the development of suburban interchanges (PT Hubs) across the city, notably including at Riccarton. The Abley report was intended to define a programme of works to help inform the development of a delivery programme for the Council s then Long Term Council Community Plan. However, in 2009 the outline delivery programme for city wide suburban interchanges was deferred. The 2005 Beca report explored six alternative sites (Figure 2 below) for a suburban interchange at Riccarton. Figure Beca Report Six Alternative Sites (Source 2005 Beca Report) Project File Riccarton Bus Interchange - Options MCA V docx 18 February 2014 Revision 0 Page 6

10 The six alternative Beca Report sites are summarised as follows:: A1 Riccarton Road on-street superstop adjacent to the mall entrance. A2 Riccarton Road on-street stops combined with waiting areas in adjacent retail units - to be located between Rotherham and Division Streets. B Mall car park adjacent to Riccarton Road an off-street bus station in the Mall car park C1 Car park adjacent to Riccarton Road and the Division Street mall entrance; in the form of an off-street bus station C2 Car park adjacent to Riccarton Road and Rotherham Street; off-street bus station. D Car park adjacent to Clarence Street; off-street bus station. A1 was envisaged to be implemented as relocated passenger shelters in front of the Westfield Mall entrance. A property purchase of option A2 was envisaged to deliver a lounge at the time, but alternatively, a lease could be considered for this site option. The other sites explored provided for an off-street bus interchange in the general vicinity of Riccarton Road activity centre, its shops and the Mall. These sites, all located off Riccarton Road itself, were discounted in the Beca report primarily because of the operational impacts of diverting buses off the main Riccarton Road corridor and the necessary traffic management measures to allow them to re-join the main route. A further aspect identified by Beca for not favouring these alternatives was the relatively high cost to acquire and/or develop the land required in each case for the off-street facilities. All the options were reviewed in the Beca report against several assessment criteria including bus operations, passengers (convenience and amenity), safety and security, impact on parking, cost and ease of implementation (2005 Beca Report table 4.2). The on-street and off-street options were then compared, with the report concluding that Option A2 a facility between Rotherham and Division Streets would represent an appropriate measure to be instituted in the shorter term. It was also felt that Option A2 provided better quality waiting lounges (if a property were acquired for those), assisting in growing passenger numbers and facilitating a more comfortable interchange experience. These were seen to be key advantages over the A1 alternative (nearer the Mall). These key criteria for assessing the relevant benefits and implications of the leading alternatives considered at the time remain pertinent to the current proposal. Project File Riccarton Bus Interchange - Options MCA V docx 18 February 2014 Revision 0 Page 7

11 The Abley report of 2008 further reviewed the preferred options for all the suburban interchanges proposed across Christchurch, including Riccarton. Riccarton was identified as a Category A location, being one of the busiest and most high profile sites city - wide, hence justifying the highest priority in any delivery programme. The Abley report again accepted that Option A2 (somewhere on Riccarton Road between Division and Rotherham Streets) represented the best shorter term solution for a Riccarton suburban hub. Abley noted that the street environment of Division Street and the access to the mall needed enhancement to make this area more attractive to shoppers and bus passengers alike. The report also noted that passengers at a hub in this location could take advantage of the existing pedestrian crossings on Riccarton Road at Division and Rimu Streets, which is a key safety benefit of Option A2. While both the Abley and Beca reports considered at the time that in the longer term a fully integrated bus interchange/hub adjacent to the Mall would provide a desirable long term solution, it is pertinent to note that the Beca report reviewed the options prior to the Mall s expansion eastwards and the addition of further entrances, especially Rotherham Street. This further reinforces the logic of a hub / lounge located centrally on Riccarton Road to optimally service all activities. The Beca and Abley reports provide a useful background context to the Multi-Criteria Analysis that forms the basis of this Aurecon report. Based on these studies Aurecon was requested by Council staff to assess the following Riccarton Bus Interchange Sites in the MCA process: Option 1 Riccarton Road Mid Block Option This option is equivalent to site alternative A2 in the Beca report. The MCA assessment assumes a site on the south side of Riccarton Road between Division Street and Rotherham Street Option 2 Westfield Option This option is equivalent to site alternative A1 in the Beca report and assumes the availability of a portion of the Westfield Riccarton Shopping Centre car park adjacent to an existing bus stop at this location (purchase or lease of this potential site would be subject to the support of Westfield but they have previously declined this proposal) Option 3 Library Option The former Riccarton public library site (the site is owned by the Council but subject, in part, to a current private lease) was included by Council because it could be made available at relatively low cost and provides for the assessment of an off Riccarton Road option. Project File Riccarton Bus Interchange - Options MCA V docx 18 February 2014 Revision 0 Page 8

12 3. Multi-Criteria Analysis MCA 3.1 What is MCA? Multi-Criteria Analysis (MCA) is a simple technique to compare different solutions to complex problems. It is used in decision making where a range of possible outcomes or options can be described with respect to a series of quite different assessment criteria. It is a technique that can be used in professional and nontechnical settings where typically multiple conflicting criteria are evaluated in making decisions. Structuring complex problems well in the context of multiple criteria leads to more informed, robust and better decisions. Typically a unique optimal solution does not exist. Rather, it is necessary to use judgement and preferences to differentiate between solutions. Quite often there is a trade-off between the various option assessment criteria. For these reasons the MCA process is well suited to a consensus approach to group decision making particularly involving expert technical panels that are well versed in the problem at hand. Commonly in multiple criteria problems some criteria will be more important than other criteria in assessing the value of the alternative solutions. To bring the assessment criteria into a common assessment base the MCA process allocates weightings to the various criteria. There are many different ways to allocate weightings but one common technique is called the analytical hierarchy process or AHP. Essentially the AHP process orders assessment criteria in a hierarchy from most important to least important. It then uses this hierarchy, through comparative pairings, to establish the level of preference of one criterion over those criteria below it in the hierarchy. This process allocates numerical weightings to all the criteria. Once all the criteria are weighted each of the solution options is assessed against the weighted criteria creating a weighted value assessment, and thus an overall ranking, for each option. 3.2 Application The MCA process described above is most useful where teams of people are working on complex problems involving human perceptions, preferences and judgements. Typical applications include making a choice within a set of defined alternatives, ranking within a set of alternatives from most to least preferable or assessing the relative merit (the scale of the value) within a set of options. The process is rigorous, structured and robust and analyses complex problems within a consistent value based framework. Project File Riccarton Bus Interchange - Options MCA V docx 18 February 2014 Revision 0 Page 9

13 4. Aurecon MCA Dashboard 4.1 Description The Aurecon MCA Dashboard is a simple computer based tool that integrates the principles of Multi- Criteria Analysis to help facilitate team based decision making within a set of defined options. The graphically oriented Dashboard tool is used in real time and allows a structured approach to: identifying and prioritising assessment criteria; weighting the various assessment criteria one to the other using an AHP approach; and assessing each of the solution options against the weighted criteria. The Aurecon MCA Dashboard has three operational windows as follows (and depicted in Figure 3): the Value Criteria window; the Options Assessment window; and the Value for Money Chart Figure 3 Aurecon MCA Dashboard Value Criteria Window Value for Money Chart Options Assessment Window Project File Riccarton Bus Interchange - Options MCA V docx 18 February 2014 Revision 0 Page 10

14 4.2 Methodology The Aurecon MCA Dashboard integrates the principles of Multi-Criteria Analysis into a single, interactive process screen. In some cases the MCA process can accommodate financial or cost based assessment criteria alongside non-monetary qualitative or technical criteria. To ensure an initial focus on assessing the value (and the technical or operational quality) of the various options under consideration, the Aurecon MCA Dashboard methodology separates the value assessment process from the cost assessment process. The monetary aspects are assessed at the end of the MCA process within the Value for Money Chart to provide a clear graphic representation of MCA Scores versus the NPV of each option. The Aurecon MCA Dashboard methodology has 5 simple steps as follows. Step 1: Identifying and prioritising the assessment value criteria Possibly the most important step in the MCA process is identifying the key criteria that best describe the value of each option (noting some option groups can be quite diverse in their make-up) and then ordering the criteria from highest to lowest priority within the Value Criteria Window. Identifying the assessment criteria is best done by a panel of experts well versed in the technical, qualitative and operational aspects of the project space as well as the range of possible options. Typically some investigation work is undertaken prior to the MCA assessment workshop to properly define the likely assessment criteria candidates so these can be confirmed, added to and prioritised in the workshop. Step 2: Weighting the assessment value criteria Once the value criteria have been agreed and ordered (essentially putting greater priority on those value criteria higher up the hierarchy) the relative weight of each value criteria is then assessed. This is done through an application of the analytical hierarchy process or AHP. The particular incarnation of the AHP applied uses the following paired comparison process. Figure 4 Aurecon MCA Dashboard Value Criteria preference and Options rating table Each value criterion is progressively compared with value criteria lower in the hierarchy and at each paired comparison the assessment team is asked to identify to what degree is the higher order criterion preferred over the lower order criterion using the table shown in Figure 4. Using this table, where there is a major preference for the higher order criterion over the lower order criterion a 4 is allocated and where there is no preference a 1 is allocated and similarly with a medium preference and a minor preference. This step is completed by progressively working through the Value Criteria pairings. The Dashboard then automatically calculates the weightings of all Value Criteria to the base 10. Project File Riccarton Bus Interchange - Options MCA V docx 18 February 2014 Revision 0 Page 11

15 Step 3: Assessing the options Once all the Value Criteria have been weighted the assessment team rates each of the Options against the weighted Value Criteria using the rating variables shown in Figure 4. For example, 1 represents a poor response to the criteria through to a 5 which represents an excellent response to the criteria. It is important that the assessment team has a good understanding of the scope and merits of each Option and typically a briefing is provided to the team to ensure a common understanding is achieved. The rating process is undertaken in the Options Assessment Window (refer Figure 3, page 10). It is best practice to work down each criterion assessing each Option against that criterion and then move to the next criterion. The Dashboard automatically calculates the Weighted MCA Scores for each option and allocates an overall ranking. Higher Value Options Step 4: Mapping MCA value score versus cost The Aurecon MCA Dashboard uses Net Present Values (NPV) in establishing the cost of each option. Typically this cost assessment is prepared prior to the MCA workshop and recorded on an independent spread sheet and then switched into the Dashboard Value for Money Chart once the MCA Value Scores have been established. As depicted in Figure 5 the Value for Money Chart graphically represents the relative cost-benefit value of each Option in one chart. Options with a high MCA Score and a low NPV provide the best value Options ie the top left corner of the Chart and vice versa (Refer Figure 5). Figure 5 Aurecon MCA Dashboard typical Value for Money Chart Lower Value Options Step 5: Sensitivity Analysis As a means of truthing the analysis and assessments done in the above steps it is usually important to test the assumptions, priorities and preferences captured in the Dashboard with various types of sensitivity analysis. An important feature of the Aurecon MCA Dashboard is that any entry, rating or preference can be adjusted at any time until the assessment team has fully tested and confirmed the outcomes of the assessment. The sensitivity analysis typically involves: Re-ordering, re-preferencing or adding new Value Criteria Testing the impact of removing Value Criteria from the assessment Reviewing and testing alternative cost data assumptions Adding and testing new Options The Aurecon MCA Dashboard is a flexible and interactive tool that allows for the quick assessment of What if? queries. Importantly the Dashboard does not provide a decision on an option selection but rather provides robust and structured advice into the decision making process. Project File Riccarton Bus Interchange - Options MCA V docx 18 February 2014 Revision 0 Page 12

16 5. Riccarton Bus Interchange MCA Workshop 5.1 Purpose The purpose of the MCA Workshop was the consideration of the following Project Goal: Project Goal: Establish the best fit best value site option for a Riccarton Bus Interchange when assessed against key relevant value criteria 5.2 Assessment Process The assessment team was made up of representatives from the Christchurch City Council, Environment Canterbury, Arrow Strategy, Opinions Market Research and Aurecon. The team is well versed in the Riccarton Bus Interchange concept, the outputs from the community and stakeholder consultation process and the various site options under review. The MCA assessment process was facilitated by Aurecon. 5.3 Site Options Description The three site options assessed for the introduction of the proposed Riccarton Bus Interchange (incorporating a passenger waiting lounge) are as follows (Refer Figure 1, page 5): Option 1 Riccarton Road Mid Block Option (site location between Division Street and Rotherham Street on south side of Riccarton Road It is assumed Council would negotiate a commercial lease for a suitable premises Target sites would need to be readily converted to the intended use consistent with the concept design which has been developed Option 2 Westfield Option Assumes the availability of a portion of the Westfield Riccarton Shopping Centre car park adjacent an existing bus stop at this location on Riccarton Road Site acquisition would be either a purchase or lease of the potential site and would be subject to the support of Westfield but they have previously declined this request There would be a need to improve north-south pedestrian access across Riccarton Road Project File Riccarton Bus Interchange - Options MCA V docx 18 February 2014 Revision 0 Page 13

17 Option 3 Library Option The site on Clarence Street is owned by the Council but subject to a current private lease for part of the site There are likely to be costs associated with buying out the current lease and demolishing the existing buildings 5.4 Defining and Prioritising Value Criteria The assessment team used the methodology described in Chapter 3 above to identify and prioritise the following key Value Criteria (Refer also Figure 7 next page): 1. Accessibility to the majority of passengers in Riccarton precinct 2. Meets 'Hubs & Spokes' delivery programme 3. Availability of property for development 4. Contribution to revitalisation of Riccarton Road shopping 5. Impact on adjacent businesses 6. Impact on parking for Riccarton Road Shopping 7. Safety & Security Profile In prioritising these Value Criteria the assessment team applied the following broad principles. The Bus Interchange site assessment needed to: Consider the strategic importance of the proposed interchange for metropolitan Christchurch Respond to the needs of the majority of existing and potential Metro users Be consistent with the performance expectations of the Hubs and Spokes Metro service model Consider the implications (positive and negative) for the Riccarton Road shopping precinct, business and property owners Take into consideration the preliminary results of the community and stakeholder consultation managed by Opinions Market Research Project File Riccarton Bus Interchange - Options MCA V docx 18 February 2014 Revision 0 Page 14

18 5.5 Weighting Value Criteria The assessment team used the methodology described in Chapter 3 above to undertake the weighting process for the Value Criteria (Refer Figure 6). Again the weighting process applied the broad principles detailed in Section 5.4 above. Figure 6 Aurecon MCA Dashboard Value Criteria Window criteria weighting summary 5.6 Assessing Options Initial MCA Scores To establish the initial MCA Scores the assessment team applied the 1 to 5 rating for each Option against each Value Criteria as described in Chapter 3 above (Refer Figure 7 next page). This assessment provided the following MCA Scores and overall rankings: Option 1 (Blue): Ricarton Road Mid Block Option MCA Score 192 Ranking 1 Option 2 (Red): Westfield Option MCA Score 91 Ranking 3 Option 3 (Green): Library Option MCA Score 99 Ranking 2. Project File Riccarton Bus Interchange - Options MCA V docx 18 February 2014 Revision 0 Page 15

19 Figure 7 Aurecon MCA Dashboard - Preliminary Assessment Full Cost Project File Riccarton Bus Interchange - Options MCA V docx 18 February 2014 Revision 0 Page 16

20 5.7 Value for Money As described in Section 3 above, Aurecon uses a Net Present Value approach to cost comparisons in the MCA Dashboard. In this case it is assumed Council would have an opportunity for an 8 year lease on a Riccarton Road site and thus this period was used as the NPV timeline across all Options with year 1 covering site acquisition and construction and the first year of operation being year 2. There are likely to be inconsistencies with site acquisitions and construction that favour Options 2 and 3 however it was decided for simplicity of comparison to keep the same project period across all Options. Some of the variance is picked up in the rating of each option. The key cost elements are: Site acquisition (purchase and lease elements) Construction and fit-out costs (fit-out is maintained as a consistent figure across all Options) On-going annual lease and outgoings costs. The Full Cost NPV summary is shown in Figure 8 below. While conservative in approach an inflation of 5% is applied to all costs and a conservative discount rate of 10% is applied in addition. Figure 8 Aurecon MCA Dashboard - Preliminary Assessment Full Cost NPV Summary Project File Riccarton Bus Interchange - Options MCA V docx 18 February 2014 Revision 0 Page 17

21 These NPV costs are represented in the Value for Money Chart shown in Figure 7 above and it is clear from this diagram that Option 1 (Riccarton Road Mid Block Option) is the overall best value option having the highest MCA Score and the lowest NPV cost of all options. Options 2 and 3 are grouped together but Option 3 (Library Option) does represent better value (higher MCA and lower NPV) than Option 3 (Westfield Option). It should also be noted that there is some doubt that Westfield would be willing to consider the sale or lease of part of their car park site as they have been reluctant to entertain this notion in the past. 5.8 Sensitivity Analysis It is always important in MCA processes to test the sensitivity of some of the assumptions and preferences made in the initial assessment. In particular for this project, while the support of existing and potential Metro users and the general public to the concept of a Bus Interchange and Passenger Lounge on Riccarton Road was overwhelming (in the order of 85% support), the stakeholder consultation for the project showed some quite strong opposition to the concept from adjacent property owners and business operators/owners. To this end the sensitivity analysis undertaken below tested the impact on MCA Scores if Value Criteria 1, 2 and 3 were removed from the assessment (essentially giving preference to property and business owners issues). Additionally, the NPV cost of the Westfield Option over the project life could be reduced if Westfield agreed to construct and lease to Council a bus interchange property on their land. For the sake of the assessment the same lease cost was applied to this option as will apply to the Riccarton Road Mid Block Option. This is seen as a very conservative cost approach and unlikely to be achieved from a negotiation perspective, but it was seen as a useful comparison in any case. Based on the above sensitivity approach and assumptions the range of sensitivity variations is summarised as follows (with full MCA Dashboard summaries are provided in Appendix A): 1. Full Cost (base case as in Figure 7 above) this assumes the land will be purchased from Westfield value proposition is clearly represented by Option 1, Riccarton Road Mid Block Option 2. Full Cost PT Criteria Removed this sensitivity assumes that the key public transport assessment criteria are not relevant value proposition remains with the Riccarton Road Mid Block Option 3. Full Cost PT & Land Availability Criteria Removed this sensitivity assumes that the key public transport assessment criteria are not relevant and land availability is not an issue Westfield Option marginal higher MCA value but the value proposition remains with Riccarton Road Mid Block Option 4. Westfield Lease this assumes the bus interchange and land will be leased from Westfield value proposition is clearly with Riccarton Road Mid Block Option 5. Westfield Lease PT Criteria Removed this sensitivity assumes that the key public transport assessment criteria are not relevant value proposition remains with Riccarton Road Mid Block Option Project File Riccarton Bus Interchange - Options MCA V docx 18 February 2014 Revision 0 Page 18

22 6. Westfield Lease PT & Land Availability Criteria Removed this sensitivity assumes that the key public transport assessment criteria are not relevant and land availability is not an issue value proposition shifts to Westfield Site however it assumes that land is available and PT criteria are irrelevant which is inconsistent with the broad Project Goal above. The above assessment shows that the Riccarton Road Mid Block Option for the proposed Riccarton Bus Interchange meets the Project Goal even where key public transport value criteria are removed from the assessment. The Westfield Option only becomes the value option where it is assumed the site is developed by Westfield for lease to Council and key public transport value criteria are excluded. This option is unlikely (Westfield have previously advised they do not wish to make the land available for a bus interchange) and does not meet the Project Goal and should therefore not be considered a viable option. 5.9 Risk Overview Aurecon typically undertakes a full risk workshop assessment of projects during a full business case or as a project moves past the preliminary concept testing stage. However it is sometimes useful in the very early stages of a project such as with the Riccarton Bus Interchange to undertake a rapid assessment risk overview using an Aurecon tool called the Risk Thermometer. This tool provides a 1 to 5 scale to create a quick heat map summary of the key risks for the project which in this case include: Figure 9 Aurecon Risk Thermometer - Riccarton Bus Interchange Options Cost Contingency Risk (cost over-run) Strategic Risk (political and policy risk) Program Risk (completion to meet program particularly Hubs & Spokes expectations) Performance Risk (ability to meet the performance expectations for the bus interchange) Safety Risk (overall safety profile of interchange site Note: this assessment assumes no introduction of a pedestrian crossing adjacent the Westfield Car park site) The rapid risk overview undertaken by the assessment team suggests that the Riccarton Road Mid Block Option has the best risk profile of the options considered (Refer Figure 9). Project File Riccarton Bus Interchange - Options MCA V docx 18 February 2014 Revision 0 Page 19

23 6. Conclusions & Recommendation The comparative MCA analysis provided in this report tested the following Project Goal: Project Goal: Establish the best fit best value site option for a Riccarton Bus Interchange when assessed against key relevant value criteria The three site options assessed were (refer Figure 1, page 5): Option 1 Riccarton Road Mid Block Option The assessment assumes a site on the south side of Riccarton Road between Division Street and Rotherham Street Option 2 Westfield Option This site assumes the availability of a portion of the Westfield Riccarton Shopping Centre car park adjacent to an existing bus stop at this location (purchase or lease of this potential site would be subject to the support of Westfield but they have previously declined this proposal) Option 3 Library Option The former Riccarton public library site (the site is owned by the Council but subject, in part, to a current private lease) The above assessment shows that the Riccarton Road Mid Block Option for the proposed Riccarton Bus Interchange meets the Project Goal even where key public transport value criteria are removed from the assessment and is therefore assessed as the best location for the proposed interchange. The Westfield Option only becomes the value option where it is assumed the site is developed by Westfield for lease to Council and key public transport value criteria are excluded, thus not meeting the requirements of the Project Goal. Given Westfield have previously advised they do not wish to make the land available for a bus interchange, this option appears unlikely. Notwithstanding this, if no specific Riccarton Road mid block property becomes available within the target area within sufficient time to meet the broader Hubs and Spokes implementation programme, further consideration of the Westfield Option could be made. However, if it was pursued it would be critical to ensure adequate and safe pedestrian crossing of Riccarton Road was implemented by way of a signalised crossing(s) and complementary traffic and access changes are made. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that site Option 1, Riccarton Road Mid Block Option, be pursued as the best location for the proposed Riccarton Bus Interchange. Project File Riccarton Bus Interchange - Options MCA V docx 18 February 2014 Revision 0 Page 20

24 Appendix A MCA Dashboard Outputs Each Dashboard output sheet is named as to scope and constraints

25

26

27

28

29

30

31 Aurecon New Zealand Limited Level 2, 518 Colombo Street Christchurch 8011 PO Box 1061 Christchurch 8140 New Zealand T F E christchurch@aurecongroup.com W aurecongroup.com Aurecon offices are located in: Angola, Australia, Botswana, China, Ethiopia, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Lesotho, Libya, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, New Zealand, Nigeria, Philippines, Singapore, South Africa, Swaziland, Tanzania, Thailand, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Vietnam.

32