Value Management Workshop Report - Home - Roads and ... · 11 Andrew Spinks, Environmental Planner,...

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.


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.


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”.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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.


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.


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


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.


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.


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.


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.


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)


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



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.


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


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)


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.


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.


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


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.


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).


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


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.


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.

Date post:	19-Jun-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

Value Management Workshop Report - Home - Roads and ... · 11 Andrew Spinks, Environmental Planner,...

Documents