9.17.08.21 Board programme options presentation.pdf

Page 1 of 52
Board Paper
To:
Partnership Board
From:
David Dunlop
Date:
17 August 2021
Subject:
For decision: Engagement Programme Options
Doc no:
#0162/21
Agenda item:
#08
1.0 Purpose
This paper is seeking a number of Board approvals to allow the programme to prepare for public
engagement later in 2021.  Approval is being requested now to allow enough time to prepare
material.  The paper will also highlight current risks with the schedule to meet planned October
2021 deadline.
2.0 Recommendation
It is recommended that the Board:
• Approves the engagement affordability threshold of $7.4b
• Approves the four options proposed for public engagement planned for October 2021
that have emerged from applying the affordability threshold to the programme options
shortlist
• Approves the engagement strategy for the Programme to inform the MRT and SHI IBCs.
• Agrees to include a description of a potential value capture targeted rate and congestion
charging in the public engagement
• Notes the gaps in current information, and subsequent risk that Programme options may
need to change prior to the engagement
• Notes the level of detail to be provided on the options for public engagement, and risks
associated with this information
• Notes the risks associated with the remaining next steps and approval processes
required to achieve October Engagement start date.
under the Official Information Act 1982
3.0 Background
The programme team have considered various factors that impact the IBC delivery and the
future delivery of the DBC and consenting phases as quickly as possible, deliver on partner
expectations, engage in a meaningful way with suitable level of detailed evidence at each stage
of engagement, business case costs, and delivering a robust IBC.
A key shift in the programme since PBC is the increased importance of Urban Development,
mode shift, and Carbon emissions which has been reflected in the Partner approved Programme
Released

Page 2 of 52

Objectives.  IBC assessments have also identified a new understanding of the expected
performance of MRT, particularly the expected average travel speed within Wellington City’s
constrained urban environment.  It is essential that the community understand and are brought
along this shift in direction to allow the Programme to be successful in progressing through the
next stages of delivery.
The programme team propose 4 options for the engagement planned for October 2021 to reflect
the LGWM Boards request for engaging on a range of options.  The options proposed fit within
the $7.4B engagement affordability threshold (P95, whole of life cost). The rationale for
selecting these options and their descriptions are provided in Section 4.0.
Following the planned October engagement several factors impact on the appropriate timing of
further engagement, these include:
1.  Partner and third-party commitment to the scale, funding, and mechanisms for Urban
Development delivery.  This is critical to confirm the MRT mode and cross sections to
identify the resulting property impacts and costs, which need to be balanced against the
expected Urban development and transport benefits.  It is assumed that an agreement in
principle between partners and other third parties will not be completed by early next
year, more likely to take at least 12 months, to form some general levels of certainty of
agreed Urban Development outcome targets for the Partners to be able to publicly
support the trade-offs in urban development benefits with transport impacts and costs.
2.  Property Strategy and funding requirements, particularly for early purchases of affected
property owners soon after engagement.  This cannot be confirmed until the affected
owners are identified through the MRT cross sections as a result of the Urban
development commitment, and detailed modelling is completed to provide clarity on the
PT and network performance related to those cross sections.
3.  Following the planned October engagement future engagement is expected to require
engagement at a detailed level with the public, stakeholders, and property owners on
impacts and detailed performance metrics.  A significant amount of time is required to
produce this detail and is typically completed at this level of detail at a DBC phase rather
than an IBC phase.    It is possible that different programme elements can be engaged on
at different times to align with future engagement strategy and DBC scheduling.
4.  The level of Partner approvals required and resulting timeframe to receive Partner
approvals for commitment to the Programme option following the October engagement.
We have assumed 12 weeks following the request, noting the PBC took approximately 6
months to get formal approval of the PBC.
5.  The 2022 local government election cycle impacting on the availability for Governance
decision making and appropriate engagement windows in mid to late 2022 to enable
future engagement and decision making to occur. (GWRC significant decision-making
under the Official Information Act 1982
hiatus late September to mid - November, and WCC significant decision-making hiatus
from July to early December).
Due to the above factors it is recommended that the IBC is completed following the engagement
that is planned for October, subject to board partner satisfaction with the feedback received
during the engagement.  The DBC phase would include future stages of engagement as
necessary.  The key reasons for this are:
1.  The extra time between IBC and future DBC engagement allows the urban development
commitments to be solidified to provide certainty of the scale of urban development
Released
benefits committed to which can be traded off with transport corridor and property impacts
and costs.

under the Official Information Act 1982
Released

Page 4 of 52

Basin Reserve
Grade separated
Grade separated
Grade separated
At-grade
Vehicle Tunnel
Diagonal
Diagonal
Existing
Existing
(Mt Victoria)
Active Travel Tunnel
Existing vehicle tunnel
Existing vehicle tunnel
New Active Travel tunnel
New Active Travel tunnel
(Mt Victoria)
converted
converted
paral el to existing tunnel
parallel to existing tunnel
MRT City to South
LRT
BRT infrastructure
LRT
LRT
•  to Island Bay
•  dedicated lanes to
•  to Island Bay
•  to Island Bay
•
Newtown
  via Kent Tce
•  via Kent Tce
•  via Taranaki St
•  via Kent Tce
•  services extend to Island
Bay in general traffic
MRT East
Enhanced Bus
BRT infrastructure
Enhanced Bus
Enhanced Bus
•  bus lanes to Miramar
•  BRT lanes to Miramar
•  bus lanes to Miramar
•  bus lanes to Miramar
Centre
Centre
Centre
Centre
•  via Diagonal Tunnel
•  via Diagonal Tunnel
•  via existing Bus Tunnel
•  via existing Bus Tunnel
•  existing Metlink fleet and  •  new BRT fleet and depots  •  existing Metlink fleet and  •  existing Metlink fleet and
depots
•
depots
depots
  services extend to Airport,
•  services extend to Airport,
Miramar North and
•  services extend to Airport,  •  services extend to Airport,
Miramar North and
Seatoun in general traffic
Miramar North and
Miramar North and
Seatoun
Seatoun
Seatoun
Cost - WOL (P95) 30 yrs
$7.4 B
$7.0 B
$7.0 B
$6.1 B
Urban Development
Approximately 15,000 units
Approximately 12,000 units
Approximately 15,000 units
Approximately 15,000 units
Core and South
Urban Development East  Approximately 1,000 units
Approximately 1,200 units
Approximately 1,000 units
Approximately 1,000 units

A high-level review has been undertaken of the MCA scores that were developed for the
Programme Options short-list to determine if there is likely to be any change in the scores as a
result of the change in refined options i-iv.
Options iii and iv are unchanged from the Programme short-list Options 3 and 3A and therefore
no changes are expected.  Options i and ii have a different mode of MRT/public transport
improvement and a different extent of service and therefore could be subject to change.  The
details of the likely changes are contained in Attachment 1, however, at a high level it is
considered that while MCA scores may change for liveability, the overall differences are not
expected to materially change the overall performance of options i and ii 1 compared to iii and iv2
against the original short list assessment. The key differentiator relates to differences in urban
development between levels of MRT/public transport investment.  The original short list options
performance against the objectives are illustrated below.
under the Official Information Act 1982

Released
1 i and ii are expected to perform similarly to original short list option V1A
2 iii and iv are expected to perform similarly to original short list options V3 and V3A respectively

under the Official Information Act 1982
Released

Out of scope
under the Official Information Act 1982
Released

Page 15 of 52

Attachments
Attachment 1: Engagement Option identification process and indicative performance review
Attachment 2: Information to be presented for the Engagement Options
Attachment 3: Funding and Finance – Engagement affordability threshold & funding implications
Attachment 4: Memo to MoT outlining differences from PBC to IBC
Attachment 5: Risk profile
Attachment 6: Information gaps
Attachment 7: Schedule and resource

under the Official Information Act 1982
Released

Page 16 of 52

Attachment 1: Engagement Option rationale and indicative performance review
Short List Version 2 Creation
Some of the options at the Programme Short List stage exceed the engagement affordability threshold.  Accordingly,
alterations have subsequently been made to some of the options to help ensure the short list options are within the
affordability threshold in the short to medium term.
The original short list options already include variations in relation to the inclusion or exclusion of highway elements
and also consider the provision of MRT vs enhanced bus on the eastern corridor.  However, the original options did
not consider the potential for an intermediate form of MRT such as ‘BRT Lite’ which would still provide many of the
benefits of MRT and, as shown through subsequent investigations, could provide significant cost savings, and in some
cases an improvement in outcomes, that need to be balanced against a potential decrease in other outcomes.
The difference between MRT and BRT Lite is that BRT Lite will be limited to road-legal vehicles that therefore require
less pavement reconstruction and can travel beyond the end of the dedicated corridor.  Within the dedicated corridor,
the same high-standard of supporting infrastructure can be provided (separated lanes, stations etc.) but this doesn’t
need to be continued the full length of a bus route if traffic congestion is low and priority measures aren’t warranted.
Services can potentially be extended beyond the city centre (e.g. to Johnsonville or Karori), reducing the need for
transfers.  However, they may be perceived to be less permanent and therefore the level of mode share and urban
development uplift may not be as great as with full MRT.
Figure 2: Example of a comparable BRT system implemented in Pau, France.

under the Official Information Act 1982

In contrast to BRT, investment in an ‘enhanced bus’ solution features in three of our shortlisted options. While offering
similar features to BRT Lite, enhanced bus represents a lower-cost investment whereby:
•
Bus lanes are likely to be provided in the kerbside lanes and within the existing road reserve.
•
Upgrades to pavement and relocation of utilities would only occur at critical locations.
•
The existing Metlink bus network, fleet and supporting depots would continue to operate.

Released

The four options proposed for consultation, subject to further testing of MCA outcomes are as follows:

Page 17 of 52

Option i: Based on RPI V1A but has enhanced bus to
Miramar. Option includes Basin Reserve, new Mt
Option ii: Based on RPI V1A but has BRT Lite on both
Victoria Tunnel, repurposing of old Mt Victoria Tunnel
southern and easter corridors. Option includes Basin
for active modes and LRT to Island Bay but with mixed
Reserve, new Mt Victoria Tunnel, repurposing of old Mt
running in some locations south of Newtown.
Victoria Tunnel for active modes.

Option iv: Based on RPI v3. Option excludes grade
Option iii: Based on RPI v3A. Option includes grade
separation at the Basin Reserve necessitating MRT to
separation at the Basin Reserve
utilise Taranaki Street rather than Cambridge Terrace.
under the Official Information Act 1982
Released

Page 18 of 52

Note that these option diagrams are still subject to change.

Short List Version 2 High Level Review
A high-level review has been undertaken of the MCA scores that were developed for the Programme Short List
(original scores in Appendix) to determine if there is likely to be any change in the scores as a result of the change in
the options for consultation.
Options iii and iv are unchanged from the Programme Short List Options 3 and 3A and therefore no changes are
expected.
Options i and ii have a different mode of MRT and a different extent of service and therefore could be subject to
change.
From the Package Short List MCA process (undertaken after the Programme Short List MCA work), the following
criteria where MRT mode was identified as having enough of an influence to change the score:
•
Noise and Vibration – BRT was identified as being better due to rubber tyres being significantly quieter than
steel rail. This improvement will likely be carried forward with the change to BRT Lite and reduction in extent
of infrastructure
•
Contaminated Land – BRT identified as being better due to a shallower pavement requiring less disposal of
potentially contaminated material.  Moving to BRT Lite with a shorter extent may extend this score differential
further
•
Scaleabilty of Network and Services – BRT identified as being better due to the potential for services to
extend beyond the extent of the physical dedicated lanes. This improvement will also apply to these new
options
In addition to the above, MRT mode and extent also has an influence on the following areas, although it may not be
enough to change the score:
•
IO1 Liveability: Package long list assessment indicated that there is likely to be little change in Urban
Development in a shift from LRT to BRT if the look and feel of the system is similar.  With a move to BRT
Lite, this may not be the case so a reconsideration of the Liveability score would be warranted
•
IO2 Access: The modelling to date has assumed an open system which accurately reflects BRT Lite.  Whilst
there were identified benefits in terms of service frequency (higher due to smaller vehicles) and less need for
transfers, it was not enough to change the overall score
•
IO3 Reduced PMV: MRT likely to achieve greater mode share than BRT Lite, but not significant once
increased service frequencies and the open system is taken into account.  BRT Lite performs less well in
terms of the CATi tool (carbon emissions) but better in terms of embedded carbon.  Overall it was not enough
to change the scores.
under the Official Information Act 1982
•
IO4 Safety: Safety is better for BRT due to cyclists not having to deal with exposed rail lines within the
pavement.  It was not enough to change the scores during the last assessment.
•
IO5 Resilience: There is expected to be a slight improvement for BRT as vehicles are not constrained to the
corridor and the corridor can be reinstated quicker after an event. It was not enough to change the scores
during the last assessment.
•
Economic: Business Disruption may be less during construction for BRT Lite as there is less construction
required on the corridor pavement.
Released
•
Engineering Difficulty: Less construction and more common technology would reduce complexity for BRT
Lite.

Page 19 of 52

Based on the above high-level assessment, it is recommended that these options for consultation are considered in
more detail by the technical specialists to confirm any differences in performance and MCA score for the updated
options. This can be done quickly and will help with the production of the consultation collateral.
It is expected that the analysis will show many benefits for BRT Lite, but this will need to be weighed up against the
potential for less urban development and PT uptake. The MCA process is the best way to understand these trade-
offs, but cost and economic return will also need to be assessed in parallel.

under the Official Information Act 1982
Released