SHI and MRT IBC Integration and Scope
Agenda Item:
4
Item for:
Approval
Addressee:
Partnership Board
Owner:
David Dunlop
Date:
28 April 2021
Version:
Final
Doc no:
0070/21
Purpose
This paper outlines the change in scope for the Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) and Strategic Highway
Improvements (SHI) IBCs, the next steps for their delivery, and requests Board approval of the updated
scope.
Executive Summary
To successfully deliver the MRT and SHI IBC’s the programme team has considered the technical work
completed, taken lessons learned from the work completed in 2020 and the 2020/2021 sprint phase and
recommend that a Programme Report and a single Combined MRT & SHI IBC be delivered. The key
reasons for this are:
1. The Programme Report will provide funders, partners, stakeholders, and the public a clear
understanding of the integrated programme. This will include all elements of the programme, the
dependencies and how they fit together, and delivery staging.
2. The practicalities of delivering two separate packages that are significantly connected and impact
on the single complex transport system has been challenging. The programme is now at a stage
that the individual packages have developed separate options in previous work, it is now the right
under the Official Information Act 1982
time to combine these pieces of work and deliver the remainder of the work through a single
system based assessment. The Combined MRT & SHI IBC will provide a stronger one transport
system assessment and business case, and provide time and cost efficiencies in its delivery.
To successfully deliver the two documents in a short timeframe the team require the Board’s clear
strategic direction regarding the scope and objectives to ensure that the team can focus on delivery of the
work to avoid time consuming changes.
Background
Released
The MRT and SHI packages delivered separate Draft Interim IBCs in October 2020. These were reviewed
by the partners technical advisors with strong feedback requesting clarification of how the two packages
integrated with the wider programme and with each other. To enable partners to make good system wide
decisions the partners will require a clear understanding of the benefits of the whole of programme
preferred solution, how the different components are integrated, how it will be implemented, and the
overall cost implications. The remainder of this paper outlines how this will be achieved, the scope
assumptions that require Board approval, risks, and timeframes for the business case delivery.
Scope changes
The previous technical assessments identified that the current scope constrains the programmes ability to
deliver on the objectives of the programme. A few key scope changes require Board approval to enable
the programme assessments to be completed. The proposed scope changes are outlined in
Attachment
1 Proposed Scope changes.
Next steps
The next steps are illustrated in
Attachment 2, MRT and SHI next steps. The key points to note include:
1. The “Programme Report” and “Combined MRT/SHI IBC” will be issued together for the review and
approval of the MRT and SHI components.
2. The “Programme Report” will provide a clear understanding of the whole of programme in regards
to the Scope, Problems, Objectives, Options assessment, and delivery (Management Case) of the
programme. It will set out how the different packages fit together to achieve the programme
objectives and the role of each package.
3. The Combined MRT/SHI IBC will provide the additional detail of the separate project components
required to meet the Programme Report requirements. It will also provide any additional details
required for the business case process at a package and project level.
4. The schedule for delivery is very compressed. The next steps are robust and scheduled as
efficiently as possible to achieve an early as possible delivery. The driver for timeframes are the
requirements to reflect the updated objective weightings in previous work, meet RMA and
business case requirements, and enable a successful public engagement process to be delivered.
5. Attachment 3 outlines the key risks and mitigations proposed to deliver the next steps within the
proposed schedule.
Key Issues
Risk Analysis
The proposed schedule for delivery of the Programme Report and Combined MRT and SHI IBC is very
compressed. Approval processes within the programme and partners is streamlined and cannot absorb
delays or changes in scope. To mitigate this, it will be necessary for the Board to confirm the scope in
Attachment 1 and support the programme by messaging that additional scope cannot be accommodated
and help prioritise resources to achieve reviews and approvals as necessary. The Technical Assessment
sprint phase teamwork approach with partners technical advisors forming part of the team will be
under the Official Information Act 1982
enhanced during the next steps.
The WCC Draft District Plan engagement is currently scheduled for October and November 2021. The
proposed engagement periods for LGWM will overlap. To mitigate this, it will be necessary for the LGWM
and Planning for Growth teams to continue meeting regularly to align the necessary technical details and
messaging to ensure consistency.
Financial Implications
Released
Additional costs have been incurred during the sprint phase, and additional costs will be incurred by the
Programme to review previous work to reflect the recent Objective weighting changes, and complete the
remaining programme assessment work. The additional costs will be absorbed within the existing
programme budgets.
A successful programme wide public engagement period that covers MRT and SHI is key to the future
success of the LGWM programme. A budget has been identified to cover this scope; however, the public
engagement approach, scope and delivery details are yet to be agreed. There is a risk that the cost to
resource and deliver a successful engagement process may increase over the allowed budget once the
engagement process is developed. To mitigate this early engagement planning will be undertaken to
confirm costs early and identify if additional budget is required, or if there is a need to reduce scope.
Legal and Compliance
The RMA legal advisor and Waka Kotahi IQA team have provided advice that the proposed process meets
the RMA options assessment process and business case process requirements. The IQA team support
the strengthened one system approach of the assessments that will be completed through the Programme
Report and Combined MRT and SHI IBC.
The existing RACIE is being updated to reflect the structure changes but has not yet been officially
approved. To achieve the compressed schedule proposed the streamlined approval processes are
required. It is recommended that the Board approve the following approval process:
1. Partners (Councillors) Approve Final IBC
2. LGWM Board Approve Objective weightings and scope change, Engagement Strategy,
Technically Preferred Option prior to engagement, Preferred option. Consultation with Partners
(Councillors) will occur.
3. Consult with LGWM Board regarding Engagement material, Interim IBC, Draft IBC, Final IBC-
4. Programme Director approves remaining technical and engagement approvals, with consultation
with PLT.
Strategic Issues
Understanding affordability of the programme is an important factor for the programme partners. It is
recommended that the Programme Report presents a cost range for the programme during the IBC phase.
The reason for this is, the IBC stage is early in the project life cycle with relatively high cost uncertainty,
and it is assumed that the ownership and delivery cost agreement principles will not be confirmed by the
partners during the IBC phase. It is recommended that the funding agreements occur during the DBC
phase once improved cost certainty and ownership models are understood.
Future Board engagement
The Programme team will be back to:
under the Official Information Act 1982
1. Obtain staged approvals for the Public engagement Strategy to enable efficient approvals
2. Provide updates on the Program Report and Combined MRT and SHI IBC to provide no surprises
and enable efficient approvals
3. Raise any changes in risk to delivery or schedule
Recommendation
It is recommended that the Board:
Approves the MRT and Strategic Highways to be delivered as one IBC
Released
Approves the scope changes proposed in Attachment 1 to enable the efficient delivery of the Programme
Report and the Combined MRT and SHI IBC
Approves the streamlined approval processes proposed to be applied to the Programme Report and
Combined MRT & SHI IBC, prior to the RACIE being updated and approved to reflect the structure
changes.
Notes the risks identified in Attachment 3 for the proposed delivery schedule
Approves the Programme Report provides a cost range at the programme level and not at partner level.
Attachments
Attachment 1: Proposed Scope changes
Attachment 2: MRT and SHI next steps
Attachment 3: Key
Risk and Mitigations
under the Official Information Act 1982
Released
Attachment 1: Proposed Scope changes
Existing scope
Proposed scope
Reason for change
Two separate IBCs for MRT and SHI
One combined MRT and SHI IBC
To provide a single system assessment of the significant
investments and provide efficiencies in the IBC delivery.
Note: This approach is supported by RMA legal and
Waka Kotahi IQA experts.
MRT route “from the railway station to
MRT route “from the railway station to the eastern
The current scope prescribes the route solution, rather
Newtown, and Newtown to the airport”
and southern suburbs”
than an outcome and allowing the evidence to confirm
the best route to achieve the objectives. Current
evidence indicates that other MRT routes may better
deliver on the urban development and mode shift
objectives at a reduced cost compared to the current
scope requirements.
Congestion charging is
not included in the
Include congestion charging as a tool that can be
Congestion charging was a key component of the
current Indicative Package provided to the
investigated by the LGWM Programme to provide
Recommended Programme of Investment from the PBC
LGWM programme for consideration in the
recommendations on the benefits and potential
which was removed for consideration within the IBCs.
IBCs.
implementation of congestion charging. Due to
Congestion charging can provide considerable benefits
insufficient time high level assumptions and
to the programme including contributing to mode shift,
sensitivity testing will be included in the
carbon and financial outcomes for the programme. It is
Programme Report and IBCs to identify what
also a realistic option that should be considered during
impact congestion charging could have.
option assessment processes to minimise RMA legal
The programme will return to the LGWM Board to
challenges for not considering a reasonable and minimal
request approval for the scope and additional
environmental effects option.
funding required to proceed with a Business Case
under the Official Information Act 1982
for congestion charging.
Released
Attachment 2: MRT and SHI next steps
under the Official Information Act 1982
Released
Attachment 3: Key
Risk and Mitigations
Assumption
Risk Description
Proposed mitigation
To achieve the proposed schedule the programme
There is a risk that if the objectives and
If there are changes to the objectives, they will need
cannot wait until the Councillor meetings to confirm
weightings require changes following Partner to be treated as a sensitivity test.
the Objectives and Weightings for the assessment
approvals that rework of the assessment
work to commence. It is assumed that the
work would be required resulting in delays to
Objectives and weightings that are agreed by the
delivery of the Interim IBC and public
LGWM Board at 28 April meeting (today) will be
engagement period
used to commence assessment work immediately
Approval processes require just one step approval
There is a risk that approval requests are not
Undertake a staged approach to inform approvers
for each required approval
granted at the first attendance of LGWM
early to provide the best chance of obtaining
Board or Councillor meetings resulting in
approvals at the required time. This is particularly
delays
relevant to the Technically Preferred option and the
Engagement Strategy approvals
To achieve the engagement period proposed the
There is a risk that Councillor approval
Recommend that special out of cycle council
detailed engagement material will start following the
requires changes to the Technically
meetings be held to Consult and obtain feedback on
Board approval of the Technically Preferred option
Preferred option resulting in delays to
the Technically Preferred option as early as possible
but developed at risk prior to Partner (Councillors)
completing engagement material and the
after the LGWM Board meeting to minimise the risk
approval. Awaiting the regular September
engagement period.
to delaying the engagement period.
Councillor meetings will delay public engagement
until November/December.
The Draft IBC reporting will start development
There is a risk that the delivery of the Draft
Provide a robust and evidenced based public
following Public engagement but in parallel to
IBC will be delayed if the Partners confirm
engagement process that provides clarity on the
Partner Approval processes. It is assumed that the
that the Preferred Option is required to be
benefits of the Technically Preferred option to obtain
programme will understand the key changes likely
reasonably different to the Technically
strong support from the Partners and the public
to be required by the Partners as a result of the
Preferred option following public
during the public engagement period.
Public Engagement feedback and commence the
engagement.
In addition, the programme team take a risk-based
Draft IBC.
approach and if substantial public feedback and
under the Official Information Act 1982
early post engagement feedback from the Board and
Partners indicates substantial changes to the
Preferred option may be likely then the programme
should delay progressing the Draft IBC until clarity is
obtained.
Released
Due to the limited time available a collaborative
There is a risk that stakeholders consider the Provide a robust engagement process to outline the
option development and assessment process is
option selection process excludes suitable
range of options considered and ensure the
unable to be undertaken with Stakeholders to
input from various different stakeholder
engagement clearly outlines the partners genuine
identify a Technically Preferred option
groups
desire to obtain feedback and openness to changing
the technically preferred option should better options
be identified that achieve the programmes objectives
under the Official Information Act 1982
Released
Document Outline
