CityLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Detail Report

i CityLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Detail Report

© InfraPlan (Aust) Pty Ltd. 2017

The information contained in this document produced by InfraPlan (Aust) Pty Ltd is solely for the use of the Client for the purposes for which it has been prepared and InfraPlan (Aust) Pty Ltd undertakes no duty or accepts any responsibility to any third party who may rely on this document.

All rights reserved. No sections or elements of this document may be removed from this document, reproduced, electronically stored or transmitted in any form without the written permission of InfraPlan (Aust) Pty Ltd.

i CityLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Detail Report Contents

Contents ...... ii Report Structure ...... 6 Introduction ...... 7 CityLINK Route MCA Summary ...... 9 1 Theme 1: Place-making and a vibrant city ...... 10 1.1 Corridor ability to support the 30 Year Plan vision for infill and corridor development ...... 11 1.1.1 Number of properties within a 300m catchment of the route that have a ‘Capital Value: Site Value’ ratio of less than 1.3 ...... 11 1.1.2 Cubic metres of transit supportive zones and policy areas (urban corridor, regeneration and so on) that support increased development potential within a 300m catchment of the route ...... 12 1.1.3 Recent approved development applications within 200m of the route ...... 13 1.1.4 Average size of parcels within the within a 300m catchment of the route ...... 14 1.1.5 Amount of heritage, character or protected zoning provisions that could have implications for future development potential (within a 300m catchment of the route) 15 1.2 Ability to support emerging and existing main streets providing a range of local services to the community ...... 16 1.2.1 Length of active frontage along the route ...... 16 1.2.2 The number of café and restaurant seats within a 300m catchment of the route ...... 17 1.2.3 Capacity of short-term accommodation (hotels, hostels etc.) within a 300m catchment of the route ...... 18 1.2.4 Transit supportive and main street land use mix of the immediate route frontage (up to 50m)...... 19 1.3 An environment that is potentially dynamic and adaptable to be ‘living space’ including open space and landscape amenity...... 21 1.3.1 Amount of publicly accessible open space within a 300m catchment of the route ..... 21 1.3.2 Quality of the amenity of main streets ...... 22 2 Theme 2: Connectivity for the local economy and community ...... 25 2.1 Connect the inner and middle suburbs to the CBD, enhancing access to employment, education, healthcare, entertainment and other opportunities in the CBD ...... 26 2.1.1 Interchange opportunities with other AdeLINK routes and existing tram line ...... 26 2.1.2 Number of significant attractor/generators along the route ...... 26 2.1.3 Number of student registrations within a 300m catchment of the route...... 29 2.1.4 Number of jobs within a 300m catchment of the route ...... 30

ii CityLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Detail Report

2.1.5 Number of residents within a 300m catchment that work in the Adelaide CBD ...... 31 2.2 Connect the city to the inner and middle suburbs, enhancing access to activity centres, employment, education, healthcare, entertainment and other opportunities ...... 32 2.2.1 Number of people residing within a 300m catchment ...... 32 2.2.2 Number of tertiary students within a 300m catchment ...... 33 2.2.3 Number of persons employed within a 300m catchment ...... 34 2.3 Reduce transport disadvantage and social severance...... 35 2.3.1 Number of households without a motor vehicle within a 300m catchment ...... 35 2.3.2 Average SEIFA 'relative disadvantage' score of residents within a 300m catchment ... 36 3 Theme 3: Integrated transport ...... 37 3.1 Improve the customer’s perception of the public transport experience, including safety, frequency of services and reliability...... 38 3.1.1 Ratio of shared running lanes versus separated running lanes ...... 38 3.1.2 Levels of competing traffic: traffic volumes along route (existing) ...... 40 3.2 Least direct road impacts including movement of traffic, freight ...... 42 3.2.1 Volume to capacity ratio (v:c) of the road route ...... 42 3.2.2 Scale of impacts to commercial and emergency vehicle access and mobility ...... 43 3.3 Least direct impacts on severance for pedestrians and cyclists...... 45 3.3.1 Number of times the route crosses over a bike route...... 45 3.3.2 Impact on or ability to retain bike routes along the tram route ...... 47 3.3.3 Number of times the tram route crosses an Active City Pedestrian Link ...... 48 3.3.4 Number of pedestrian refuges or crossings impacted (requiring removal) ...... 49 3.4 Ability to integrate with and/or replace current public transport services (including bus, train, O-Bahn) ...... 50 3.4.1 Interchange opportunities with Adelaide Metro Bus and Train services ...... 50 3.5 Impact on the current network role and function (e.g. freight routes versus commuter routes) ...... 53 3.5.1 Alignment (or conflict) with the route role and function ...... 53 3.6 Impact to signalised intersections ...... 57 3.6.1 Number of intersections with tram turning movements ...... 57 3.6.2 Number of intersections with tram through movements ...... 58 4 Theme 4: Economic impacts ...... 60 4.1 Patronage Potential (Revenue) ...... 61 4.2 Constructability and business impacts...... 62 4.2.1 Potential risks to underground services ...... 62

iii CityLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Detail Report

4.2.2 Count of businesses with street frontage to the route ...... 63 4.2.3 Number of vehicle access points that could be impacted (e.g. laneways, driveways etc.) ...... 64 4.3 Potential for property uplift and value capture ...... 65 4.3.1 Property value uplift potential ...... 65 4.4 Least route impacts on (property acquisition, trees, services, car parking, heritage items) ... 66 4.4.1 Number of on street parks affected ...... 66 4.4.2 Impacts on median, including trees and islands (calculation to be determines upon review of actual routes, but to include removal of trees) ...... 68 4.4.3 Number of heritage items along the route frontage (up to 50m) ...... 68 4.5 Potential for contributions from government land ...... 70 4.5.1 Amount of local and state government owned land along the route (within a 300m catchment) ...... 70 4.5.2 Measure the amount of SA Housing Trust land along the route (within a 300m catchment) ...... 71 4.5.3 Amount of Urban Renewal Authority land along the route (within a 300m catchment) 72 5 Theme 5: Environmental sustainability ...... 73 5.1 An environment that enables walking and public transport use ...... 74 5.1.1 Enables walking and public transport use ...... 74 5.1.2 Enables cycling ...... 76 Appendix A: Multi-Criteria Analysis Process ...... 77 Purpose of the Multi-Criteria Analysis ...... 77 How does the Multi-Criteria Analysis Work? ...... 78

iv CityLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Detail Report

The following analysis was undertaken by InfraPlan Pty Ltd on the request of the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure. The intent of this report is to provide a multi criteria analysis of several route options for the AdeLINK Tram network, including the routes as per the Integrated Transport and Land Use Plan (ITLUP), 2015. MCA processes are often applied by State Government Departments and Treasuries to assess project options. This report does not contain any modelling, or engineering data and as such the AdeLINK routes are only stated as potential options. AdeLINK has the potential to attract investment, boost economic growth and encourage urban renewal and jobs, as well as bring residents and visitors to the city centre. Providing high quality public transport services will also help drive market demand for residential development in the CBD, inner and middle metropolitan Adelaide. In 2013, the development of the Integrated Transport and Land Use Plan (ITLUP) involving 2,500 participants stated they support trams as a first priority (83% of inner and 78% of middle suburban residents). Planning for AdeLINK forms part of the overall electrification of public transport in Adelaide. The study comprises several key steps before concluding with a detailed business case for delivering the AdeLINK tram network (as shown in the diagram below). This is an essential process for establishing the rationale for funding options. The first step, an extensive multi-criteria assessment (MCA) process to assess route options, is now complete and contained in this report. It involved the testing of the original AdeLINK tram network against other potential routes identified in conjunction with Council officers through consultation and workshops.

The MCA Summary Report summarises the routes assessed in the MCA, providing guidance as to the route options to be taken forward to the Design Labs and Community Open Days. The results are also presented as standalone studies for each corridor. Criteria are unweighted to comply with Infrastructure Australia requirements. It is important to note that the MCA is one step in the process, and will assist in determining the final preferred routes for AdeLINK. The next phase of the study involves Design Labs, which will explore the integration opportunities between land use, street attributes and tram corridor planning (e.g. station locations) with Council staff and the community. This will provide a framework for more detail planning of the tram lines including stop locations, and identifying constraints and opportunities that will inform the design of each corridor. Following the Design Labs, a number of studies will commence in February 2017 to model the urban development outcomes (patronage demand); develop the operation framework of the tram system, including potential stabling options; assessment of road traffic operations and integration with bus and train services; and potential road and track layouts, including the location and style of tram stops within an urban design framework.

5 CityLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Detail Report Report Structure

This Multi-Criteria Analysis (MCA) Detail Report is to be read in conjunction with the ‘AdeLINK MCA Summary Report’, which provides the project overview, an outline of the MCA process (see Appendix A of this report), contextual framework and a summary of the results. Each corridor-specific ‘Detail Report’ provides an explanation of the methodology undertaken and details the comparative MCA assessment of each route option. This format is illustrated below.

This report details the results for the 45 measures used in the multi-criteria analysis that have been grouped under 5 themes, which form the chapters of this detailed report.

6 CityLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Detail Report Introduction

The MCA criteria was refined for the purpose of assessing CityLINK, due to unique city-centre environment and ‘loop’ configuration. The following was considered to create difficulty for application of the MCA used for the other AdeLINK corridors for CityLINK:  The ‘loop’ configurations all within close proximity meant that theoretical walking catchments significantly overlapped, encompassing much of the City centre and would yield the same results for some spatially assessed measures making the MCA less effective. This was overcome by reducing the common walking catchment to 300m to allow for variance in the comparative analysis.  Since ITLUP, Frome Street has been designated as a bicycle corridor through the City. It is unlikely a tram would be a suitable addition to the street.  Many measures are not applicable in the same way as for the suburban links, i.e. as commuter corridors to the City centre. This refinement was undertaken during a workshop with the Project Management Team (Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure and InfraPlan) with transport and planning staff from the Adelaide City Council. Outcomes of this workshop included determining final CityLINK route options and appropriately revised criteria and measures. Figure 1 (overleaf) illustrates the three route options brought forward for the MCA, and for which the Criteria and Measures have been applied throughout this report.

 Option A: via Morphett Street, Sturt/Halifax Street and Hutt Street (distance 4.73km).  Option B: West Terrace, Gouger/Angas Street and Hutt Street (distance 4.14km).  Option C: via Morphett Street, Sturt/Halifax Street and Pulteney Street (distance 4.15km).

7 CityLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Detail Report

Figure 1: CityLINK route options. Broken line represents infrastructure under construction.

8 CityLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Detail Report CityLINK Route MCA Summary

CityLINK Option A: via Morphett Option B: West Terrace, Option C: via Morphett Street, Street, Sturt/Halifax Street Gouger/Angas Street and Hutt Sturt/Halifax Street and and Hutt Street Street Pulteney Street

Total score 26 24 24

The scores for CityLINK options were comparative, with Option A scoring marginally higher than Options B and C. Option A scored well in the following measures:  Number of residents (within 300m catchment) that work in the Adelaide CBD  Number of employed persons within the 300m catchment  Number of tertiary students within the 300m catchment  Number of properties within a 300m catchment of the route that have a ‘Capital Value: Site Value’ ratio of less than 1.3:1

Option B scored well in the following measures:  Transit supportive and main street land use mix of the corridor frontage (up to 50m)  Number of significant attractors/generators within the tram corridors (e.g. schools, activity centres etc.)  Number of student registrations within a 300m catchment Option C scored well in the following measures:  Cubic metres of transit supportive zones and policy areas (urban corridor, regeneration and so on) that support increased development potential within a 300m catchment of the route  Number of tertiary students within the 300m catchment  Number of jobs within a 300m catchment

9 CityLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Detail Report 1 Theme 1: Place-making and a vibrant city

Facilitating 30 Year Plan growth targets, uplift potential of the inner and middle suburbs and vibrant main street activity and neighbourhoods.

10 CityLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Detail Report 1.1 Corridor ability to support the 30 Year Plan vision for infill and corridor development 1.1.1 Number of properties within a 300m catchment of the route that have a ‘Capital Value: Site Value’ ratio of less than 1.3 The capital value: site value ratio (CV:SV ratio) of a property is a proxy measure of the development potential of a residential property. While it does not necessarily determine if a property will be developed, this measure demonstrates which CityLINK option has more (or less) residential properties which may be suitable for redevelopment. The CityLINK Options that have a number of properties with a CV:SC ratio of 1.3:1 are rated higher for this measure. Data source: Provided by Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure, Population, Land and Housing Analysis Unit. Confidence Scale Level: A CityLINK Option A has more properties with a CV:SV of 1.3:1 in comparison to Options B and C. This is due to the 300m catchment for Option A incorporating more of the south-east residential areas.

Figure 2: Parcels with a CV:SV less than 1.3

Route Option Summary Score Number of properties with CVSV ratio of 1.3:1 or less: CityLINK A 3 420

Number of properties with CVSV ratio of 1.3:1 or less: CityLINK B 1 268

Number of properties with CVSV ratio of 1.3:1 or less: CityLINK C 1 239

11 CityLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Detail Report

1.1.2 Cubic metres of transit supportive zones and policy areas (urban corridor, regeneration and so on) that support increased development potential within a 300m catchment of the route Zoning information was sourced from Data SA (administered by DPTI) in June 2016. It was then clipped to a 300m catchment of each route using GIS, and the area of each zone, policy area and precinct was measured. Each zone was then cross-checked against Adelaide City Council’s Development Plan to ascertain whether it supported infill, medium or high density development (or the like) and to what height. If so, the areas of those zones were totalled and multiplied by the allowable heights to determine the maximum development potential for that route option. In the Capital City Zone, Policy Area 13 there is no enforced height restriction. To account for this, the average height of all recently built and approved developments (over $10 million in value) as well as those under construction within this Policy Area was calculated (based on DPTI information current to 29 November 2016) to ascertain a market-based figure. In reality, the potential for this Policy Area could be greater and therefore a confidence rating of B was applied for this measure. Confidence Scale Level: B Option C has scored the highest for this measure as it had a substantially higher rate of development potential of over 10 million m3 of transit supportive zoning when compared to Options A and B. This is due to its Pulteney Street alignment, which allows for a greater proportion of Capital City Zone, Policy Area 13 (with no height restriction) to be captured. Comparatively, Options A and B have much closer development potential, with the mild difference reflective of Option B’s shorter length, and as such have received the same score.

Route Option Summary Score Total development supportive area: 82,652,000 m3 CityLINK A 2 Average per km: 17,474,000 m3

Total development supportive area: 77,318,000 m3 CityLINK B 2 Average per km: 18,676,000 m3

Total development supportive area: 95,228,000 m3 CityLINK C 3 Average per km: 22,947,000 m3

12 CityLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Detail Report

1.1.3 Recent approved development applications within 200m of the route DPTI’s ‘New Investment in Metropolitan Adelaide’ map shows developments over $10 million in Adelaide City, developments over 4 storeys within an Urban Corridor Zone of an identified Inner Metropolitan Suburb or developments over $3 million within the Port Adelaide Regional Centre Zone of the City of Port Adelaide Enfield. It is important to note that the number of developments is not an indication of the size, scale and potential influence on urban regeneration. For the purpose of this measure, only developments with significant activity generating potential, such as apartments and hotels, are counted. Recent developments along North Terrace have also been included in this measure to ensure consistency. Completed developments and commercial developments such as office blocks and hospitals were excluded. The map was last updated in November 2016. Data source: Metropolitan Adelaide Investment – DPTI, Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure, South Australia: http://www.dpti.sa.gov.au/planning/adelaide_investment Confidence Scale Level: A Data shows that route Options A and C capture a more significant amount of recently approved developments in the CBD when compared to Option B. It is clear that a number of applications in the south ward would not be serviced by Option B. Therefore, Options A and C rate higher for this measure.

Figure 3: Recently approved development applications.

No. of Route Option Levels Dwellings Hotel Rooms Score projects CityLINK A 26 420 3,702 808 3 CityLINK B 19 333 2,548 356 2 CityLINK C 25 403 3,632 808 3

13 CityLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Detail Report

1.1.4 Average size of parcels within the within a 300m catchment of the route The average size of cadastral land parcels is used to determine which option is likely to have the greatest potential for significant uplift. For example, it would be easier for a developer to purchase one large land parcel, rather than buy a number of adjacent smaller parcels to construct a larger development. Cadastral and zoning data was received from DPTI, and analysed using GIS to ascertain the average parcel size within a 300m catchment. Parcels where only a portion of its area lie within a 300m catchment were counted as part of this assessment. Confidence Scale Level: A While the average size of a cadastral parcel within a 300m catchment of the three route options do not significantly differ, a marginally larger average parcel size can be found throughout Option C (33 m2 larger that Option A and 29 m2 larger that Option B). Average parcel sizes for Options A and B are similar. While there are slight differences in average parcel sizes between the three options, the significance of such is too minimal to warrant a significant difference in MCA scoring. Therefore, all three options are rated equally for this measure.

Figure 4: Land Parcel sizes.

Route Option Summary Score CityLINK A Average parcel size: 972 m2 1 CityLINK B Average parcel size: 976 m2 1 CityLINK C Average parcel size: 1,005 m2 1

14 CityLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Detail Report

1.1.5 Amount of heritage, character or protected zoning provisions that could have implications for future development potential (within a 300m catchment of the route) Heritage, character and historic preservation zones by their very nature have limitations on the type, intensity and scale of development that can occur. The desired urban form in these areas is generally lower density with housing of a particular era to protect the character of those precincts. This type of zoning unfortunately offers relatively lower potential for increased density, and therefore increased transit demand. Therefore, this measure seeks to determine which option has a lower amount of protective zoning (both in total and average per km), and hence could likely support a greater population over time. Data was acquired from Data SA and processed in GIS to gain the 300m catchments before being assessed manually against each Council’s Development Plan to determine if zoning is restrictive. Confidence Scale Level: A The amount of protective zoning within 300m of the subject routes is highest for Option A when compared to Options B and C. Option C has the least amount of protectively zoned land, both in total and when averaged per kilometre of route due to its alignment which avoids the Historic Conservation Zones in the south-east of the CBD. Therefore, Option C scores the highest for this measure. Route Option Summary Score Amount of protective zoning: 120,970 m2 CityLINK A -3 Average per km: 25,580 m2 Amount of protective zoning: 64,580 m2 CityLINK B -2 Average per km: 15,600 m2 Amount of protective zoning: 13,720 m2 CityLINK C -1 Average per km: 3,310 m2

15 CityLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Detail Report 1.2 Ability to support emerging and existing main streets providing a range of local services to the community 1.2.1 Length of active frontage along the route Digital inspection was used to determine the length of active frontages along the three route options. After assessing the frontage types a digital ruler was used to measure the length of active frontages in metres. ‘Active Frontages’ were identified if they met the following criteria:

 building frontage adjacent footpath (no separation between footpath and built frontage from car parking or similar);  accessibility (building main access directly off footpath);  visually permeable façade (majority of the building frontage is not a blank structures/ solid walls); and  retail or commercial land use. To ensure a level of consistency and accuracy, pathways and breakages along active frontages were not measured. The MCA score was determined by comparing the overall lengths in metres of each route option. The rating was determined at the discretion of Urban Design Professionals using judgement, but there is likely to be a lack of detail to warrant a high confidence scale overall. Confidence Scale Level: D

Figure 5: Example of Active Street Frontage: Gouger Street, Adelaide CBD (Google Maps).

In comparison to Options B and C, Option A has a marginally greater length of active frontages along its proposed route. However, this may be due to the additional length of Option A when compared to Options B and C. Therefore, all three Options score equally for this measure. Route Option Summary Score 2,717m CityLINK A 1 Per km: 574m 2,401m CityLINK B 1 Per km: 580m 2,499m CityLINK C 1 Per km: 602m

16 CityLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Detail Report

1.2.2 The number of café and restaurant seats within a 300m catchment of the route This measure seeks to determine which route may be most beneficial in transporting residents, tourists and workers to the various leisure opportunities that the Adelaide CBD has to offer. Using 2014 Meshblock data supplied by Adelaide City Council the number of café and restaurant seats within a 300m catchment of each subject route was calculated. The three CityLINK routes were overlayed on maps supplied by the Adelaide City Council with 300m buffers. The data inside of the buffers were then counted for each route. Only survey blocks fully within, or their majority, were included in the assessment. For consistency, data within a 300m catchment of North Terrace were included for all CityLINK options. Confidence Scale Level: B The presence of restaurant and café seats within a 300m catchment is highest in total for Option A and highest per kilometre of route in Option B. Option C has the lowest number of seats in total and per kilometre of route due to its alignment which does not significantly capture the Rundle Street East precinct. Therefore, Option C rates lowest for this measure.

Figure 6: Number of restaurant and cafe seats

Routes Option Summary Score 300m catchment seats: 40,980 CityLINK A 3 300m catchment density per km: 5,983 300m catchment seats: 39,461 CityLINK B 3 300m catchment density per km: 6,304 300m catchment seats: 32,620 CityLINK C 2 300m catchment density per km: 5,644

17 CityLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Detail Report

1.2.3 Capacity of short-term accommodation (hotels, hostels etc.) within a 300m catchment of the route This measure seeks to determine which route may best service short-term accommodation establishments such as hotels and hostels within the Adelaide CBD. Using 2014 Meshblock data supplied by Adelaide City Council the accommodation capacity of establishments within a 300m catchment of each subject route was calculated.

The three CityLINK routes were overlayed on maps supplied by the Adelaide City Council with 300m buffers. The data inside of the buffers were then counted for each route. Only survey blocks fully within, or their majority, were included in the assessment.

For consistency, data within a 300m catchment of North Terrace were included for all CityLINK options.

Confidence Scale Level: B

As Figure 7 displays, the majority of short-term accommodation in the Adelaide CBD is captured by all three CityLINK options along North Terrace. Option B, however, misses out on a number of establishments near Light Square which are captured by Options A and C. Therefore, CityLINK Options A and C rate higher for this measure.

Figure 7: Short term accommodation location and capacity

Routes Option Summary Score 300m catchment accommodation capacity: 8,155 CityLINK A 3 300m catchment density per km: 1,191 300m catchment accommodation capacity: 7,021 CityLINK B 2 300m catchment density per km: 1,122 300m catchment accommodation capacity: 8,072 CityLINK C 3 300m catchment density per km: 1,397

18 CityLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Detail Report

1.2.4 Transit supportive and main street land use mix of the immediate route frontage (up to 50m) Activities need to be co-located to meet the needs of the economy and people’s lifestyle choices. Compatible uses should be mixed vertically within the same building or horizontally on adjacent sites, and be within walking distance of each other. The co-location of many compatible uses would reduce car travel and increase walking, cycling and public transport use. Locally, traffic congestion would be reduced, air quality improved, health improved and accessibility maximised. Vibrant precincts would attract more business and employment, along with leisure, recreational and entertainment facilities. A mix of mostly retail commercial, public services, education and higher density residential uses generally typify vibrant precincts. While this data layer does not consider density, a presence of residential use within the 50m catchment could lend itself to increased population densities, if not already. The data used in this assessment has been sourced from the ‘Generalised Land Use’ spatial layer available from Data SA, a State administered open data source. It is updated regularly by DPTI. The data set used for this assessment was published in May 2016. Confidence Scale Level: A The land use mix aligning the subject routes shows that Option B facilitates a more vibrant precinct with human scale uses when compared to the land uses mixes for Options A and C. Therefore, Option B rates higher in this measure.

Figure 8: Generalised land use mix - 50m catchment.

19 CityLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Detail Report

Land Uses in CityLINK 50m catchment zone 100%

90% AGRICULTURE COMMERCIAL 80% EDUCATION 70% NONPRIVATE_RESID 60% PUB_INSTITUTION

50% RECREATION RESERVE 40% RESIDENTIAL 30% RET_COMMERCIAL 20% UTIL_INDUSTRY VACANT 10% VACANT_RESID 0% CityLINK A CityLINK B CityLINK C

Figure 9: Percentage of land use - Route (50m catchment).

Route Option Summary Score Significant land uses: CityLINK A 2  Residential  General commercial Significant land uses: CityLINK B  Retail commercial 3  Education  Public institution Significant land uses: CityLINK C 2  Recreation  Retail Commercial

20 CityLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Detail Report 1.3 An environment that is potentially dynamic and adaptable to be ‘living space’ including open space and landscape amenity. 1.3.1 Amount of publicly accessible open space within a 300m catchment of the route For this measure, a dataset of accessible reserves and open space was acquired from DPTI (2012 record). Clipped to a 300m buffer of each route option, the amount of open space for each route was calculated in GIS and totalled for that route option. Results were also assessed per kilometre. Confidence Scale Level: B Figure 10 demonstrates the presence of publicly accessible open space within a 300m catchment of the three route options. Option B is the greatest performer due to its extended alignment along West Terrace, therefore capturing the western parklands. While Option C connects the CBD’s four public squares, it captures far less of the outer parklands compared the other two Options and contains only 34.6% of the publicly accessible open space compared to Option B. Therefore, Option B rates highest for this measure.

Figure 10: Public open space.

Route Option Summary Score Total public open space: 444,090 m2 CityLINK A 2 Average per km: 93,890 m2 Total public open space: 607,460 m2 CityLINK B 3 Average per km: 146,730 m2 Total public open space: 209,970 m2 CityLINK C 1 Average per km: 50,595 m2

21 CityLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Detail Report

1.3.2 Quality of the amenity of main streets The methodology to score the amenity of the Main Streets along the CityLINK routes was as follows: 1. A site visit was undertaken of the entire length of each route option. 2. The route was divided into sections where the amenity of the Main Street varied. 3. Each section was assessed by separately rating the following three components: a. visual grain / visual appeal; b. sense of security night-time activity; and c. people present (the vibe). The rating of these components ranged from 0 (very poor) to 4 (very good). These components are described below (it is noted that there are other components that contribute to Main Street Amenity (such as the quality of walking and cycling), however these are assessed in other sections of this MCA).

 The ratings were averaged over the section and then colour coded to low, medium or high Main Street amenity.  A map was prepared illustrating the locations of the low, medium or high amenity along each route, refer to Figure 11  The MCA score was determined from comparing the amenity illustrated on these maps. Visual Grain and Visual Appeal: Fine grain and visually interesting main streets The ‘grain’ refers to the pattern of the arrangement and size of buildings and allotments; and the degree to which an area's pattern of street-blocks and street junctions is respectively small and frequent, or large and infrequent. Fine grain environments contain more activity and places of interest. They are more supportive of walking, cycling and public transport use. Coarse grain environments are often highly car dependent. Visually appealing main streets encourage visitors and are; clean, well maintained, landscaped, interesting and diverse, have street furniture. Refer example images below.

Very Poor = 0 Very Good = 4 . Coarse grain, high fences. Litter. Large areas . Fine grain land-use, street scaping, of roads and car parking. interesting architecture, street furniture, well-maintained.

22 CityLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Detail Report

Sense of Security and Night-Time Activity: A sense of feeling safe, as well as actually being safe, along the main street. Measures of security include, lighting, visual surveillance, out of hours’ activity, good sight lines, activity, refer to example images below.

Very Poor = 0 Very Good = 4 . Little surveillance from adjoining land uses. . Good surveillance from adjoining land uses. No lighting, low activity, little after-hours Good lighting. High activity. activity.

People Present (the ‘Vibe’): A main street where people visit, meet and stay. A vibrant environment that is enjoyable and interesting.

Very Poor = 0 Very Good = 4 . No activities to attract people, poor general . People often present, activities that amenity, no shade or shelter. encourage ‘staying’, cafes, seating, shade, shelter. Confidence Scale Level: D The rating was determined by urban design professionals using their judgement, and an overall rating was required even though a route could vary greatly from section to section. Main street amenity levels along each of the subject routes vary significantly based on the precincts they pass through. Areas of high main street amenity are largely focussed around Gouger Street, Hutt Street south and partially East Terrace north. As Option C does not pass through any of these precincts and is characterised by minor, sporadic stretches of medium levels of main street amenity, this Option is rated lowest for this measure.

23 CityLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Detail Report

Figure 11: Colour-coded assessment of route sections – high, medium or low main street amenity.

Route Option Summary Score CityLINK A High amenity along Hutt Street South captured 1 CityLINK B Gouger Street has the longest stretch of high amenity 1 CityLINK C Small, sporadic stretches of medium amenity 0

24 CityLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Detail Report 2 Theme 2: Connectivity for the local economy and community

Creating a connected city which connects its residents to employment, education, services and recreation.

25 CityLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Detail Report 2.1 Connect the inner and middle suburbs to the CBD, enhancing access to employment, education, healthcare, entertainment and other opportunities in the CBD 2.1.1 Interchange opportunities with other AdeLINK routes and existing tram line A desktop assessment of proposed routes and interchange opportunities with the existing Glenelg to AEC track and planned City Tramline Extension on North Terrace from King William Street to East Terrace, including three proposed stations; Museum (near Kintore Avenue), University (east of Pulteney Street) and East Terrace (at the Royal Adelaide Hospital). This assessment assumes network extensions and stop locations that have been part of previous MCAs but which have not yet been fully defined. Design changes affecting the above assumptions may affect the interchangeability between routes and services. Confidence Scale Level C All Options share existing West Terrace, City West and ARS stops plus future Museum stop on North Terrace. CityLINK A: This loop includes future University and East Terrace stops on North Terrace. The loop crosses King William Street and the existing line at Halifax / Sturt Street, providing interchange at the existing City South stop. CityLINK B: This loop includes future University and East Terrace stops on North Terrace. The loop crosses King William Street and the existing line at Angas / Gouger Street, providing an interchange opportunity between the existing Victoria Square stop and a Gouger Street stop near King William Street. CityLINK C: The loop crosses King William Street and the existing line at Halifax / Sturt Street, providing interchange at the existing City South stop. Route Option Summary Score Six shared stops on North Terrace (West to East Terraces), interchange at CityLINK A 2 Hurtle Square (UnleyLINK) and City South, King William Street Six shared stops on North Terrace (West Terrace to East Terrace), CityLINK B interchange at Pulteney / Angas Street (UnleyLINK) and King William / 1 Gouger Street with walking transfer to the Victoria Square Four shared stops on North Terrace (West Terrace to Museum), shared CityLINK C stops on Pulteney Street (UnleyLINK) and interchange at City South, King 2 William Street

2.1.2 Number of significant attractor/generators along the route Significant attractors and trip generators along the potential routes were assessed to determine which route would be most beneficial in connecting people to such destinations. Potential attractors were chosen and narrowed down for each route, by removing attractors that may have significant patronage generated but unlikely to be accessed by light rail users i.e. Hardware Stores (Bunnings Warehouse, Masters etc.) or may have significant patronage at some times, but irregularly (function centres, halls and so on).

26 CityLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Detail Report

To achieve this, digital inspection was used to identify the significant attractors in each of the potential routes. Typically, this involved attractors such as schools, shopping centres, activity centres, community facilities and services, employment hubs, and tourist attractions. These were listed in tabular form with major significant attractors underlined and weighted higher for the purpose of MCA comparative scoring. The rating was determined at the discretion of Urban Design Professionals using their judgement, but there was no data or relevant studies available. Confidence Scale Level: D When comparing the three options for CityLINK, Option B was found to have the most significant attractors overall and in terms of major attractors with a frontage to the potential route. Both Options A and C have similar numbers of significant attractors and both capture 12 major attractors. As Option B has more attractors overall, it scores highest for this measure.

CityLINK A CityLINK B CityLINK C

Tertiary Education Tertiary Education Tertiary Education UniSA City West UniSA City West UniSA City West TAFE SA City Campus SAE Creative Media Institute TAFE SA City Campus Adelaide College of the Arts UniSA City East Adelaide College of the Arts UniSA City East Adelaide University UniSA City East Adelaide University Adelaide University Schools Schools Schools Adelaide High School Adelaide High School Adelaide High School Christian Brothers College St Marys College Eynesbury College St Aloysius College Christian Brothers College WEA adult Learning

Shopping Precincts Shopping Precincts Shopping Precincts Rundle Street Precinct Rundle Street Precinct Rundle Street Precinct Hutt Street Precinct Central Markets Precinct Rundle Mall Gouger Street Precinct Hutt Street Precinct Cultural Facilities Cultural Facilities Cultural Facilities

Tandanya National Aboriginal The Arts Theatre SA Museum Cultural Institute The Royalty Theatre SA Art Gallery Botanic Gardens Tandanya National Aboriginal Festival Plaza SA Museum Cultural Institute Adelaide Convention Centre

27 CityLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Detail Report

SA Art Gallery Botanic Gardens Festival Plaza SA Museum Adelaide Convention Centre SA Art Gallery Festival Plaza Adelaide Convention Centre Community Services Community Services Community Services Calvary Wakefield Hospital Victoria Square Court Precinct Old Royal Adelaide Hospital Old Royal Adelaide Hospital SA Police HQ State Library of SA State Library of SA Calvary Wakefield Hospital Adelaide Railway Station Adelaide Railway Station Old Royal Adelaide Hospital North Terrace Biomedical Precinct North Terrace Biomedical Precinct State Library of SA Adelaide Railway Station North Terrace Biomedical Precinct

Route Option Summary Score  20 significant attractors CityLINK A 2  12 of which are major  29 significant attractors CityLINK B 3  15 of which are major  16 significant attractors CityLINK C 2  12 of which are major

28 CityLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Detail Report

2.1.3 Number of student registrations within a 300m catchment of the route This measure seeks to determine which route may be best in assisting students in accessing educational facilities within the Adelaide CBD. Using 2014 Meshblock data supplied by Adelaide City Council the student enrolment numbers of each educational facility within a 300m catchment of each subject route was calculated. The three CityLINK routes were overlayed on maps supplied by the Adelaide City Council with 300m buffers. The data inside of the buffers were then counted for each route. Only survey blocks fully within, or their majority, were included in the assessment. For consistency, data within a 300m catchment of North Terrace were included for all CityLINK options. Confidence Scale Level: B As displayed in Figure 12, Option B has the most significant number of student enrolments within a 300m catchment of the proposed route. While all three route options will service the four most populous educational facilities (UniSA City East & West campuses, Adelaide University and Adelaide High School), Option B additionally services a number of populous educational facilities within and around Victoria Square. Therefore, Option B rates highest for this measure.

Figure 12: Location of educational facilities and enrolment numbers

Route Option Summary Score 300m catchment students: 57,134 CityLINK A 2 300m catchment density per km: 8,341 300m catchment students: 63,321 CityLINK B 3 300m catchment density per km: 10,115 300m catchment students: 56,851 CityLINK C 2 300m catchment density per km: 9,836

29 CityLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Detail Report

2.1.4 Number of jobs within a 300m catchment of the route This measure seeks to determine which route may be best in assisting Adelaide CBD employees in accessing their place of work. Using 2014 Meshblock data supplied by Adelaide City Council the number of employees within a 300m catchment of each subject route was calculated. The three CityLINK routes were overlayed on maps supplied by the Adelaide City Council with 300m buffers. The data inside of the buffers were then counted for each route. Only survey blocks fully within, or their majority, were included in the assessment. For consistency, data within a 300m catchment of North Terrace were included for all CityLINK options. Confidence Scale Level: B As displayed in Figure 13, Option A’s alignment through the significantly residential south-east of the CBD means that in total and per route kilometre there are less jobs compared to Options B and C. Options B and C are both closely aligned with the commercial core of the CBD, therefore servicing more populous employment hubs. Option C is the best performer with 1,282 additional jobs per kilometre and 2,571 additional jobs in total when compared to Option B.

Figure 13: Employment location and density

Route Option Summary Score 300m catchment jobs: 58,084 CityLINK A 1 300m catchment density per km: 8,479 300m catchment jobs: 63,144 CityLINK B 2 300m catchment density per km: 10,087 300m catchment jobs: 65,715 CityLINK C 3 300m catchment density per km: 11,369

30 CityLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Detail Report

2.1.5 Number of residents within a 300m catchment that work in the Adelaide CBD The number of people working in the Adelaide CBD that live within a 300m catchment of each route option was calculated using 2011 ABS Census data by SA1 for resident location and SA2 for employment location. Data was clipped and exported using GIS to obtain a total. Each population was also divided by the route length to show the population density per km of that option, highlighting which option provides the greatest city workforce per km of track. Confidence Scale Level: B As shown in Figure 14, Option A has the highest number of Adelaide CBD employees within a 300m catchment. Due to Option A’s alignment through the well-populated residential area in the south-east of the Adelaide CBD it captures 174 additional employees per kilometre compared to Option B and 46 more than Option C. Therefore, Option A rates highest for this measure.

Figure 14: Catchment population employed in the Adelaide CBD.

Route Option Summary Score 300m catchment Adelaide city employees: 2,713 CityLINK A 3 300m catchment density per km: 574 300m catchment Adelaide city employees: 1,657 CityLINK B 1 300m catchment density per km: 400 300m catchment Adelaide city employees: 2,191 CityLINK C 2 300m catchment density per km: 528

31 CityLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Detail Report 2.2 Connect the city to the inner and middle suburbs, enhancing access to activity centres, employment, education, healthcare, entertainment and other opportunities 2.2.1 Number of people residing within a 300m catchment The population of each route option’s 300m catchment was calculated using 2011 ABS Census data by Meshblock (the smallest collection area). Using GIS, data was clipped to a 300m catchment, representing a reasonable walking distance to light rail, before being exported to obtain a total. Each catchment population was also divided by the route length to show the population density per km, highlighting which option provides the greatest population per km of track. Confidence Scale Level: B As displayed in Figure 15, each route option passes through areas with varying population densities. This is reflected in the 300m catchment population density for each route, whereby Option B’s alignment through the central CBD does not capture areas of significant residential population when compared to potions A and C. Per kilometre of route, Option A contains a mere 22 additional persons when compared to Option C and 1,307 persons overall. Therefore, Options A is rated highest for this measure.

Figure 15: Route population density.

Route Option Summary Score 300m catchment resident population: 9,941 CityLINK A 3 300m catchment density per km: 2,102 300m catchment resident population: 6,633 CityLINK B 1 300m catchment density per km: 1,602 300m catchment resident population: 8,634 CityLINK C 2 300m catchment density per km: 2,080

32 CityLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Detail Report

2.2.2 Number of tertiary students within a 300m catchment The number of tertiary students residing within a 300m catchment of the potential routes was obtained through 2011 ABS census data at SA1 level. Using GIS, this data was clipped to a 300m buffer around the potential routes to determine possible patronage levels of tertiary students. While the ABS is a reliable source and this data is likely to be indicative of current trends, the collection dates of such data could inflict upon the validity of this count as those who were attending a tertiary institution in 2011 may have completed their studies at the time of this assessment. Confidence Scale Level: B Similar numbers of tertiary students within a 300m catchment of Option A and Option C are noted. Option C captures 80 additional students per kilometre and an extra 36 students overall when compared to Option A. Option B has 520 fewer students overall compared to Option A and 52 less per kilometre of track making it the lowest performer of this measure.

Figure 16: number of tertiary students

Route Option Summary Score 300m catchment tertiary students: 2,435 students CityLINK A 3 300m catchment density per km: 515 students 300m catchment tertiary students: 1,915 students CityLINK B 2 300m catchment density per km: 463 students 300m catchment tertiary students: 2,471 students CityLINK C 3 300m catchment density per km: 595 students

33 CityLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Detail Report

2.2.3 Number of persons employed within a 300m catchment The number of employees working within a 300m catchment of the potential routes was obtained through 2011 ABS census data at SA1 level. This was then clipped to a 300m buffer around the potential routes to determine possible patronage levels of the working population. While the ABS is a reliable source and this data is likely to be indicative of current trends, the collection dates of such data may inflict upon the validity of this count. Confidence Scale Level: B Each of the three CityLINK options differ in the number of employed residents within a 300m catchment. It is clear that Option B captures fewer employed residents due to its alignment which avoids significant residential areas towards the south-east of the CBD. Options A and C capture a more significant number of employed residents, however Option A performs best by capturing the highest number of employees in total and per kilometre of route.

Figure 17: Number of Employed Residents

Route Option Summary Score 300m catchment employed residents: 4,717 employees CityLINK A 3 300m catchment density per km: 997 employees 300m catchment employed residents: 2,939 employees CityLINK B 1 300m catchment density per km: 710 employees 300m catchment employed residents: 3,807 employees CityLINK C 2 300m catchment density per km: 917 employees

34 CityLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Detail Report 2.3 Reduce transport disadvantage and social severance. 2.3.1 Number of households without a motor vehicle within a 300m catchment This measure highlights transport disadvantage as a result of either choice or circumstance. Households without a private motor vehicle rely more heavily on public transport to access services, jobs, goods and leisure opportunities. Data was extracted from the ABS 2011 Census, via Table Builder at the SA1 level. Using GIS, this data was then clipped to each of the routes 300m catchments and the total number calculated. Only SA1’s fully within, or their majority, were included in the assessment. Confidence Scale Level: B Option B has the lowest number of households without a motor vehicle within a 300m catchment of the proposed route. While Options A and C are home to a similar number of households without motor vehicles in total, per route kilometre, Option C shows the most benefit. Due to minimal differences in numbers, Options A and C are rated equally for this measure.

Figure 18: Houses without a motor vehicle.

Route Option Summary Score Dwellings without a motor vehicle: 1,486 CityLINK A 2 Average per km: 314 Dwellings without a motor vehicle: 1,087 CityLINK B 1 Average per km: 263 Dwellings without a motor vehicle: 1,544 CityLINK C 2 Average per km: 372

35 CityLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Detail Report

2.3.2 Average SEIFA 'relative disadvantage' score of residents within a 300m catchment The Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA) is an amalgamation of data compiled by the ABS ranking areas in Australia according to relative socio-economic disadvantage. It is commonly applied to identify a community’s socio-economic standing, based on a number of Census variables (including: employment status, level of education and income). A higher score on the SEIFA index means a lower level of disadvantage, while a lower score means a higher level of disadvantage. The most frequently applied SEIFA index is the Index of Relative Socio-Economic Disadvantage, which includes the broadest range of social disadvantage indicators and summarises a range of information about the economic and social conditions of people and households within an area (geographies at SA1 level). This is the index applied for this analysis with scores averaged over 300m catchments. Confidence Scale Level: B While there is only 20 SEIFA point separating Option A (highest average score) and Option C (lowest average score) this is a notable difference when comparing a small geographical area such as the Adelaide CBD. As Option C has the lowest average SEIFA score of the three options, there is greater potential for disadvantage to be addressed through improved transport infrastructure. Option C therefore scores highest for this measure.

Figure 19: SEIFA relative disadvantage scores.

Route Option Summary Score CityLINK A Average SEIFA score: 995.20 1 CityLINK B Average SEIFA score: 989.25 1 CityLINK C Average SEIFA score: 975.13 2

36 CityLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Detail Report

3 Theme 3: Integrated transport

Providing an efficient public transport system that moves more people, more reliably, more often.

37 CityLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Detail Report 3.1 Improve the customer’s perception of the public transport experience, including safety, frequency of services and reliability. 3.1.1 Ratio of shared running lanes versus separated running lanes A desktop assessment of likely in-road track arrangement and traffic lane allowance based on aerial photography assessment of existing road width and lane provision. For the purpose of maximising service efficiency and reliability, separated running is preferred to shared running. Loss of medians, followed by changes to on-street parking is preferred over loss of lane availability and vehicle capacity. This assessment considers the total loop, including any parts of North Terrace. Loop lengths and percentages are given for the total loop, including existing and planned track portions on North Terrace. Applied loop lengths are as follows:

Route Option CityLINK A CityLINK B CityLINK C Length (km) 6.85 6.26 5.78

Data source: Desktop assessments of existing road cross sections, lane arrangements and road furniture. As potential designs and cross sections have not yet been undertaken for CityLINK, some assumptions have been made. Future investigations and geometric design is likely to result in some variation from the assumed arrangements assessed here. Due to the degree of assumption and unknown design detail both routes are assumed to use shared running. Confidence Scale Level: C

CityLINK A:

Street / section Shared / separated Distance (km)

East Terrace / Hutt Street separated 1.28

Halifax / Sturt Street shared 1.53

Whitmore Square separated 0.21

Morphett Street separated 0.64

Light Square separated 0.18

Currie Street separated 0.50

West Terrace separated 0.30

Total 4.63.km

38 CityLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Detail Report

CityLINK B:

Street / section Shared / separated Distance (km)

East Terrace / Hutt Street separated 0.99

Angas / Gouger Street (Hutt Street to Victoria separated 1.11 Square)

Angas / Gouger Street (Victoria Square (west) to shared 0.53 Morphett Street)

Angas / Gouger Street (Morphett Street to West separated 0.55 Terrace)

West Terrace separated 0.96

Total 4.14km

CityLINK C:

Street / section Shared / separated Distance (km)

Pulteney Street separated 1.24

Halifax / Sturt Street shared 0.97

Whitmore Square separated 0.21

Morphett Street separated 0.64

Light Square separated 0.18

Currie Street separated 0.50

West Terrace separated 0.30

Total 4.03km

Route Option Summary Score CityLINK A 67% separated, 33% shared 1 CityLINK B 87% separated, 13% shared 3 CityLINK C 76% separated, 24% shared 2

39 CityLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Detail Report

3.1.2 Levels of competing traffic: traffic volumes along route (existing) Traffic volumes have been assessed along the selected routes: traffic volumes have the potential to impact on the travel time of trams, and therefore making it a less viable travel option. Corridors with higher traffic volumes attract a lower comparative rating. Numbers are displayed as vpd (vehicles per day). Data source: supplied by Adelaide City Council: derived from various sources (2014-2015) and SCATS data (2015-2016) Confidence Scale Level: A Given the 'loop function' of CityLINK, the tram route would incorporate different roads with varied traffic volumes: this makes a direct comparison of routes ambiguous (as opposed to the comparison of two linear and parallel routes). Some comparative sections between options can be reflected, such as: - north-south comparison of Option C on Pulteney Street and Options A and B on Hutt Street: given Pulteney Street carries more traffic, Options A and B could be preferred for this section. - east-west comparison of Option B on Angas/Gouger Streets and Options A and C on Halifax/Sturt Street: given Gouger Street carries more traffic, Options A and C could be preferred for this section. - North-south comparison of Option B on West Terrace, and Options A and C on Morphett Street: West Terrace carries a significant traffic volume, therefore Option A and C could be preferred for this section.

Overall, Option A incorporates the most routes with lower traffic volumes (namely Halifax Street/Sturt Street), incorporates less running on West Terrace which has significant traffic volumes (in comparison to Option B) and is therefore the route option that could have the least impact on travel times of trams. Route Summary Score Option 18,900 vpd on East Terrace (between Rundle Road and Grenfell Street), 20,800 vpd on Hutt Street (between Pirie Street and Flinders Street), 19,300 vpd on Hutt Street (between Angas and Halifax Street), 4,400 vpd on Halifax Street (between Hutt Street and Pulteney Street), 6,400 vpd on Halifax Street (between Pulteney Street and King William Street), 5,500 vpd on Sturt CityLINK A Street (between King William Road and Whitmore Square), 11,300 vpd on -1 one-way section of Whitmore Square, 22,500 on Morphett Street (between Gouger Street and Franklin Street), 16,700 vpd on Light Square (one-way section north), 21,700 on Currie Street (between Light Square and West Terrace), 42,600 vpd on West Terrace (between Currie Street and Hindley Street. 18,900 vpd on East Terrace (between Rundle Road and Grenfell Street), 20,800 vpd on Hutt Street (between Pirie Street and Flinders Street), 19,300 vpd on Hutt Street, 7,300 vpd on Angas Street (between Hutt and Frome), CityLINK B 8,700 vpd on Angas Steet (between Pulteney and King William), -2 12,700/14,00 vpd on Gouger Street (between King William and Morphett Street), 12,000 vpd on Gouger Street between Morphett Street and West Terrace, 62,900 vpd on West Terrace (between Grote Street and Waymouth

40 CityLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Detail Report

Street, 52,600 vpd on West Terrace (between Waymouth Street and Currie Street, 42,600 vpd on West Terrace (between Currie Street and Hindley Street. 21,900 vpd on Pulteney Street (between Rundle and Grenfell), 27,500 vpd on Pulteney Street (between Flinders Street and Wakefield Street), 29,200 vpd on Pulteney Street (between Angas and Carrington Streets), 6,400 vpd on Halifax Street (between Pulteney Street and King William Street), 5,500 CityLINK C vpd on Sturt Street (between King William Road and Whitmore Square), -2 11,300 vpd on one-way section of Whitmore Square, 22,500 on Morphett Street (between Gouger Street and Franklin Street), 16,700 vpd on Light Square (one-way section north), 21,700 on Currie Street (between Light Square and West Terrace), 42,600 vpd on West Terrace (between Currie Street and Hindley Street.

41 CityLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Detail Report 3.2 Least direct road impacts including movement of traffic, freight 3.2.1 Volume to capacity ratio (v:c) of the road route Scoring favours those roadways with a lower volume to capacity ratio. This is a proxy measure of congestion levels where a road with V:C ratio = 1.0 is operating at maximum capacity and therefore heavily congested. Roads with a lower V:C ratio (i.e. up to 1.0) will receive a higher score. Projection of future traffic impact is not possible at this stage as transport modelling has not been undertaken for the full range of AdeLINK route options. The transport projections include only the links as shown in ITLUP and therefore can only be used to assess impacts from those routes, thus comparative impacts are difficult to assess. Outputs from DPTI’s strategic transport model (MASTEM) for 2016 have been used. This data provides an indication of the V:C ratio for each section of the corridors. AM Peak traffic assessed for traffic lanes on all routes. Confidence Scale Level: C Option A: The V:C ratio on East Terrace is 0.45, increasing to 0.59 and 0.61 on Hutt Street. The ratio falls on the eastern section of Hallifax Street to 0.19 before rising to 0.54 on the approach to Pulteney Street. Sturt Street has a V:C of 0.48 before increasing to 0.67 on the one-way section of Whitmore Square. Morphett Street has a relatively high V:C of 1.09, before dropping slightly to 0.96 on Currie Street. West Terrace (between Currie Street and Hindley Street) has a V:C of 0.51. Option B: The V:C ratio on East Terrace is 0.45, increasing to 0.59 on Hutt Street. Angas Street (east) has a V:C of before rising to 0.52 on Angas Street (west). Gouger Street has a V:C ratio of 0.67 on Gouger Street before dropping to 0.6 n the approach to West Terrace. West Terrace V:C ration decrease from south to north along West Terrace, from 0.58 to 0.51 between Currie Street and Hindley Street. Option C: The northern section of Pulteney Street has a V:C ratio of 0.85, increasing to 0.98 between Flinders Street and Wakefield Street before decreasing to 0.93 on the approach to Halifax Street. Halifax Street has a V:C ratio of 0.54. Sturt Street has a V:C of 0.48 increasing to 0.67 on the one-way section of Whitmore Square. Morphett Street has a relatively high V:C of 1.09, before dropping slightly to 0.96 on Currie Street. West Terrace (between Currie Street and Hindley Street) has a V:C of 0.51 It is noted that any impacts may be addressed through detailed design at a later stage. Route Summary Score The V:C ratio (AM peak) indicate that Morphett Street and Currie CityLINK A Street are currently nearing or at capacity, therefore trams corridors -1 may impact further on these roads carrying capacity. Gouger Street has the highest V:C ratio (AM peak) along this route, CityLINK B 0 but still has capacity. The V:C ratio (AM peak) indicate that Morphett Street, Currie Street CityLINK C and Pulteney Street are currently nearing or at capacity, therefore -2 trams corridors may impact further on these roads carrying capacity.

42 CityLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Detail Report

3.2.2 Scale of impacts to commercial and emergency vehicle access and mobility A desktop assessment of access points, driveways and emergency services locations and primary routes to determine impacts resulting from possible roadway changes along proposed CityLINK routes. This assessment documents existing capability for right turn and crossing movements on the proposed routes other than at signalised intersections. Where tram lines are assumed to be separated from other traffic, it is assumed that these crossing or turning movements would be prohibited or signalised. Where shared running is used, some bans and/or restrictions (eg peak period bans) may be put in place. Emergency vehicle access routes are assumed to provide direct links from hospitals with emergency departments, city Police stations and the SA Metropolitan Fire Service to the main arterial routes through the parklands surrounding the City of Adelaide. These routes, hospitals, fire and police stations are identified in Figure 20. In the absence of concept designs, assumptions have been made about alignments, road closures and access restrictions. This is a design consideration that will require detailed investigation at future stages. Changes to routes, typical arrangements and alignments may affect the impacts assessed here. Existing and planned tracks on North Terrace in front of the Royal Adelaide and New Royal Adelaide Hospitals shows there is no inherent incompatibility between trams and emergency service vehicle access. Separated tramlines can provide improved access for emergency vehicles as they are permitted to use the tram lanes for emergency access, removing them from general traffic lanes and thus avoiding traffic congestion. Confidence Scale Level D

Figure 20: Emergency service locations

43 CityLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Detail Report

Separated running in a central alignment limits shopfront impacts but restricts turning movements, altering the route taken to access shopfronts. The impact is greatest where roadways currently have no restrictions. Hutt Street and West Terrace are already heavily restricted as is Halifax Street between Pulteney and King William Streets. Some streets are expected to utilise shared running which does not prohibit turning movements but may impose restrictions, such as banning turns during peak hour, to minimise delays to tram services. Emergency vehicle access beyond the city is unlikely to be significantly impacted by any of these options. Limitations within the city are likely to be limited to the loop route, mainly during the construction phase. If separated running permits Emergency vehicles to access tram lanes as is currently the case, movement within the city may actually be enhanced in some cases. Route Summary Score Impacts to Morphett Street (both business and residential towers), bus access on Currie Street and traffic disruptions around the squares are the CityLINK A -1 major points. Halifax Street works will alter traffic movements in an area that already has imposed traffic restrictions. Changes in access for businesses and the public to the Central Market and surrounding businesses will be a significant design challenge for this route. Use of West Terrace avoids difficulties through Morphett Street CityLINK B and the Squares. -1 Impacts to access at the future Wakefield Calvary hospital, allowances can be made to track construction. Pulteney Street running will significantly change traffic behaviour and permissions in this street, though direct street access points are limited. Impacts to Morphett Street (both business and residential towers), bus CityLINK C -2 access on Currie Street and traffic disruptions around the squares are the major points. Halifax Street works will alter traffic movements in an area that already has imposed traffic restrictions.

44 CityLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Detail Report 3.3 Least direct impacts on severance for pedestrians and cyclists. It is critical that the design of the tram route incorporates a high level of amenity and permeability for walking and cycling in the city, and any potential adverse impacts and mitigated. Potential adverse impacts to cyclists and pedestrians that may result from a tram corridor can include:

 Tram infrastructure may reduce road crossing opportunities and/or form tripping hazards  restrictions into/out of side streets may reduce permeability;  the road reserve width may be insufficient to accommodate trams as well as bicycle lanes and sufficient footpath widths;  pedestrian waiting times at traffic signals could be increased. Cycle route crossings that are at signalised intersections were not assessed because it is unlikely that traffic movements at these locations would be affected. It is expected that bicycle lanes would be retained or upgraded as part of the tram corridor design, but this cannot be confirmed until future planning is undertaken. Therefore, if a tram route shares an existing cycle route it is assumed that there are potential impacts at this stage.

3.3.1 Number of times the route crosses over a bike route To determine the number of times a CityLINK route option crosses a BikeDirect cycling route, the three route options were overlayed onto the Adelaide CBD BikeDirect Network (refer Figure 21). The route options were also overlayed onto the future Bikeways Network from the Adelaide City Council SmartMove Strategy 2012-2022 (refer Figure 22). The number of times a subject tram route crosses over an existing or future cycling route was then counted. Confidence Scale Level: C

Figure 21: DPTI BikeDirect cycling network overlayed with CityLINK options

45 CityLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Detail Report

Figure 22: Future City Bikeways Network (ACC SmartMove) overlayed with CityLINK options

Option A and C scored lower than Option B as it crosses additional north-south cycling routes without traffic signals. Of particular note is the contra-flow route that links the Rugby Street Bikeway to the Frome Street Bikeway. Options A and C crossed the contra-flow route that connects South Terrace to the Central Market. Route Summary Score 4 cyclist crossings possibly affected. CityLINK A Currie St/Elizabeth St; Sturt St/Whitmore Square; Sturt St/Russell St; -2 Halifax St/Castle St/Regent St South. 2 crossings possibly affected. CityLINK B -1 West Tce/Waymouth St; Gouger St/Compton St 3 crossings possibly affected. CityLINK C -2 Currie St/Elizabeth St; Sturt St/Whitmore Square; Sturt St/Russell St.

46 CityLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Detail Report

3.3.2 Impact on or ability to retain bike routes along the tram route The impact to the cycle routes along each corridor will be determined by the final design. It is likely that shared vehicle/tram lanes would have less impacts on the cycle lanes, however in some cases separated lanes may require additional road width that could have implications for cycle lanes and/or car parking depending upon road width and configuration. It is assumed that on Major Cycling Routes, the bicycle lanes would be retained or upgraded as part of the corridor design. This will need to be confirmed as part of future planning stages. The impacts or ability to retain cycling routes along the CityLINK rote options was assessed using the outputs of measure 3.3.1 ‘Number of times the route crosses over a bike route’. Confidence Scale Level: B Option B has less impacts to existing cycle routes due to the long length of off-road shared path along West Terrace, and that there are no existing cycle lanes on Gouger Street. Route Summary Score  Shared path along West Terrace (280m) - not impacted.  Currie Street is not a cycle route – not impacted.  Morphett Road & Whitmore Square has existing cycle lanes (1300m) – potential impacts. CityLINK A  Sturt St/Halifax Street has existing cycle lanes (1600m) and is on the -2 ACC future Bikeways network – potential impacts.  Hutt St has existing cycle lanes south of Grenfell St (980m) – potential impacts.  Total length impacted = 4160m  Shared path along West Terrace (950m) - not impacted.  Gouger Street does not have bicycle lanes (it is identified by ACC as a ‘possible alternative Bikeways route’ - as it is a ‘possible CityLINK B alternative’, it is not included at this stage). -1  Angas Street has existing bicycle lanes (1000m) – potential impacts.  Hutt St has existing cycle lanes south of Grenfell St (700m) – potential impacts.  Total length impacted = 2650m  Shared path along West Terrace (280m)- not impacted.  Currie Street is not a cycle route – not impacted.  Morphett Road & Whitmore Square has existing cycle lanes (1300m) – potential impacts. CityLINK C  Sturt St/Halifax Street has existing cycle lanes (1000m) and is on the -2 ACC future Bikeways network – potential impacts.  Pulteney Street has existing cycle lanes (1200m) – potential impacts.  Total length impacted = 3780m

47 CityLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Detail Report

3.3.3 Number of times the tram route crosses an Active City Pedestrian Link The Active City Pedestrian Links are identified in the ACC SmartMove Strategy as prioritised walking routes to key destinations (refer to Figure 23). These streets are planned for footpath widening to accommodate pedestrian demand, improve walking conditions, comply with DDA requirements and increase safe road crossings.

Given the city environment and signalised crosswalks at intersection, pedestrian severance would likely only occur mid-block or at unsignalised junctions. Therefore, the impacts to severance of walkability was assessed by overlaying the CityLINK options onto the Active Cross City Links. Confidence Scale Level: B

Figure 23: Proposed north-south pedestrian 'active' cross-city links (ACC SmartMove) overlayed with CityLINK options

Option A has the most potential impacts to the active city pedestrian links. Note that where pedestrian links cross a tram route at a signalised intersection, it is assumed that there will not be any impacts and this crossing is therefore not counted. Route Summary Score 5 crossings possibly affected. CityLINK A Currie St/Elizabeth St; Sturt St/Russell St; Halifax Street/Surflen St; -2 Halifax St/Castle St/Regent St; Halifax St/Cardwell St 3 crossings possibly affected CityLINK B Gouger St/Lowe St; Gouger St/Compton St; Angas St/Moore -1 St/Chancery Ln. CityLINK C 3 crossings possibly affected. -1 Currie St/Elizabeth St; Sturt St/Russell St; Halifax Street/Surflen St.

48 CityLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Detail Report

3.3.4 Number of pedestrian refuges or crossings impacted (requiring removal) The methodology to determine the number of pedestrian refuges and crossings possibly requiring removal primarily involved a desktop analysis through digital inspection. High resolution satellite imagery was utilised to count the number of median refuges and pedestrian actuated crossings (PAC’s). Signalised intersections were not included because it is assumed that they would be retained. The higher the number of pedestrian crossings reflects the higher level of pedestrian activity. It is assumed that the design of the tram route would improve pedestrian amenity, accessibility and permeability and this is reflected in the scoring. It was considered that some routes would be improved for pedestrian cross-ability with the installation of pedestrian crossings at tram stops. The rating was determined at the discretion of Urban Design Professionals using their judgement, but there may be a lack of detail and overall analysis to warrant an accurate impact of the removal of pedestrian crossing and refuges in some areas. Confidence Scale Level: D In comparison to Options B and C, Option A has the highest aggregate number of pedestrian refuges that may require removal or be impacted by tram implementation. It is likely that some existing crossings may not be impacted, but improved through design and the location of stops.

As each option has a similar number of pedestrian crossing locations that could be impacted, and due to the low confidence rating of this data, each option scores -1 to reflect a potential degree of impact.

Route Option Summary Score  Pedestrian actuated crossings: 0 CityLINK A  Pedestrian refuges: 12 -1  Total: 12  Pedestrian actuated crossings: 2 CityLINK B  Pedestrian refuges: 5 -1  Total: 7  Pedestrian actuated crossings: 0 CityLINK C  Pedestrian refuges: 8 -1  Total: 8

49 CityLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Detail Report 3.4 Ability to integrate with and/or replace current public transport services (including bus, train, O-Bahn) 3.4.1 Interchange opportunities with Adelaide Metro Bus and Train services A desktop assessment of proposed routes and interchange opportunities with existing bus routes and stop locations. It is assumed that when concept and detailed designs for a CityLINK loop service are developed, that bus stop locations will be considered to enhance connectivity and provide interchange opportunities between modes. This assessment assumes that wherever services intersect, an interchange opportunity is available. Interchangeability between bus and tram services is affected by proximity of bus and tram stop locations. Tram stops for the proposed City loop services are have not been defined and construction of a City loop track is likely to affect locations of existing bus stops, particularly where services run parallel. Therefore, this is an issue for major consideration throughout future design stages. Concept and detailed design stages will need to consider relocation of bus stops to provide the best interchange opportunities while preventing bottlenecks at new tram stops. Confidence Scale Level D All bus routes in or out of the city will cross or run parallel to all CityLINK loop route options at some point. Location of tram stops near intersections with crossing routes will provide interchange opportunities for passengers on these services, particularly where bus stops are in close proximity. Shared routes provide ideal interchange opportunities if bus stops are located close to tram stops. Train services are already well integrated with tram services via the Adelaide Railway Station stop on North Terrace. All CityLINK loop options include this stop. North Terrace (east of King William Street), East Terrace / Hutt Street, Halifax / Sturt Street, and parts of Morphett Street are currently serviced by the 98 (City & North Adelaide) and 99 (City Connector) Free City Connector services. North Terrace (east of King William Street), East Terrace / Hutt Street, Halifax / Sturt Street, and parts of Morphett Street are currently serviced by the 98 (City & North Adelaide) and 99 (City Connector) free loop services.

50 CityLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Detail Report

Figure 24: 98 and 99 City Connector loop service map

CityLINK A: This route shares North Terrace, East Terrace, Hutt Street, Morphett Street and Currie Street with existing bus services and stops. This route option also crosses Pulteney and King William Streets which are Public transport routes. The Clarendon Street terminus, on the north-eastern corner of the Currie Street / Clarendon Street intersection is the only bus terminus and stabling facility within the city. Buses currently access the facility from Currie Street. A sheltered, bus-only, right turn lane is provided in the median for west- bound buses, this access would be negatively affected by a tram route in this roadway. CityLINK B: This route shares North Terrace, East Terrace, Hutt Street, and West Terrace with existing bus services and stops. Gouger and Angas Streets do not currently carry public transport services but the proposed route crosses Pulteney, King William and Morphett Streets which are Public transport

51 CityLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Detail Report routes. Though not a direct parallel to the existing 99 service, this tram loop may affect this route while providing numerous intersection points with the 98 service. Interconnecting, rather than duplicating city connector routes provides better city coverage than the current services. CityLINK C: This route shares North Terrace, Pulteney Street, Morphett Street and Currie Street with existing bus services and stops. This route option also crosses King William Street which is a Public transport route. The Clarendon Street terminus, on the north-eastern corner of the Currie Street / Clarendon Street intersection is the only bus terminus and stabling facility within the city. Buses currently access the facility from Currie Street. A sheltered, bus-only, right turn lane is provided in the median for west- bound buses, this access would be negatively affected by a tram route in this roadway. Route Option Summary Score Intersects or runs parallel to all city bus routes, includes ARS CityLINK A stop, likely to impact the 99 City Connector bus service. 0 Major impacts to bus access to Clarendon Street terminus. Intersects or runs parallel to all city bus routes, includes ARS CityLINK B 1 stop. May impact the 99 City Connector bus service. Intersects or runs parallel to all city bus routes, includes ARS CityLINK C stop, likely to impact the 99 City Connector bus service. 0 Major impacts to bus access to Clarendon Street terminus.

52 CityLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Detail Report 3.5 Impact on the current network role and function (e.g. freight routes versus commuter routes) 3.5.1 Alignment (or conflict) with the route role and function Alignment (or conflict) with the route role and function: ‘Transport corridors’ are required to serve more than one transport function. Roads are not all the same. While many roads look similar, each road needs to provide its own specific function (or combination of functions) depending on its location in the transport network, the type and volume of users and the adjacent land use. The land use and urban design along these corridors has significant implications on the role and function of the corridor and highlights the importance of integrated land use/transport planning. The Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure defines the role and function of transport corridors in A Functional Hierarchy for South Australia’s Land Transport Network. However, this Functional Hierarchy (used in the assessment for the suburban routes) has not been applied to the Adelaide City Council, therefore the assessment for the CityLINK routes utilises the Adelaide Design Manual street typologies and the Smart Move Strategy link and place classifications (future link and place reflecting a 30 year vision). Data source: Adelaide City Council resources: Adelaide Design Manual (2016) and Smart Move Strategy (2012) Confidence Scale Level: C Neither the Adelaide Design Manual or the Smart Move Strategy typologies explicitly define the routes for trams, therefore professional judgement has been applied as to how a tram corridor would accord/conflict with these typologies/classifications. None of the tram route options for CityLINK appear to significantly align or conflict with the street typology descriptions in the Adelaide Design Manual or the Smart Move Strategy future 'links' as described in the 'Link and Place'. Where there appears to be a degree of alignment, (such as with Retail Streets or Boulevards) each option has benefits that another does not, therefore all options for this measure appear equally beneficial.

Figure 25: Hierarchy: Adelaide Design Manual street typologies

53 CityLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Detail Report

Figure 26: Smart Move Strategy link classification (reflecting future traffic volumes)

Hierarchy: Adelaide Design Manual Option A Option B Option C street typologies Boulevards (Gateway): Gateway approximately approximately approximately Boulevards should "accommodate all 300m on West 940m on West 300m on West modes of travel" and "and integrated Terrace between Terrace between Terrace between public transport amenities.". It should be North Tce and North Tce and North Tce and noted that the current tram network in Currie Street Gouger Street Currie Street the City operate on Boulevard (ceremonial and gateway) street typologies, therefore it can be assumed that future tram corridors in the city may accord with this street type. The current tram routes through on the southern section of King William Road predominantly operates on Gateway Boulevards therefore a longer length of the CityLINK tram corridor for Option B on West Terrace would accord with current condition. Boulevards (Transit): As stated in the approximately none approximately Adelaide Design Manual "Transit 500m on Currie 500m on Currie Boulevards define the spatial structure of Street between Street between the city and cater for high levels of public West Tce and West Tce and Light transport and pedestrian usage, due to Light Square Square their high frequency and turnover of transport services". Boulevard (Transit) currently operates as a bus transit boulevard, therefore servicing and route planning has the potential to be compromised with a tram route on Currie Street.

54 CityLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Detail Report

Terraces (City): It is not explicit in the approximately approximately none Adelaide Design Manual if tram corridors 500m on East Tce 500m on East Tce would align or conflict with tram between North between North corridors. Therefore this street typology is Terrace and Terrace and Bartels considered 'neutral' and none of the three Bartels Road Road options are considered Retail Streets (high activity): Retail none approximately none Streets (high activity) could benefit from 550m on Gouger tram corridors, specifically the CityLINK Street between which has the potential to connect King William St and metropolitan areas to retail activities. Morphett St Option B provides the longest length of this street typology with alignment of tram corridors. Retail Streets (local activity): Retail approximately approximately approximately streets (local activity) could benefit from 800m on Hutt St 500m on Hutt St 950m on tram corridors, specifically the CityLINK between East between East Sturt/Halifax which has the potential to connect local Terrace and Terrace and Angas between residential areas to local retail activities. Halifax Street, Street Whitmore Square Option A provides the longest length of and 950m on and Hurtle Square this street typology with alignment of Sturt/Halifax tram corridors. between Whitmore Square and Hurtle Square Streets (City): the Adelaide Design Manual approximately approximately approximately describes Streets as ' Traditionally mixed 630m on 550m on Angas 630m on Morphett use, Streets share a broad function from Morphett Street Street between Street between residential, commercial, retail and between Pulteney Street and Whitmore Square institutional and provide connection from Whitmore Square King William Street and Light Square, the wider City' which seems to accord and Light Square and 1,250 on with tram corridors. Option C provides the Pulteney Street longest length of this street typology with between North alignment of tram corridors. Terrace and Halifax Street Streets (Local) Approximately approximately none 550m on Halifax 550m on Angas Street between Street between Hutt Street and Pulteney Street and Pulteney Street Hutt Street, and 550m on Gouger Street between Morphett street and West Tce Squares: street typology for Squares do approximately none approximately not seem to align or conflict with the 200m around 200m around operating of trams from the definition of Whitmore Whitmore Square, their role or function defined as "provide Square, and 200m and 200m around local identity, recreational opportunities around Light Light Square and reflect the character and uniqueness Square of each location". Parklands (not applicable) none none none Small Streets and Laneways (not none none none applicable)

55 CityLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Detail Report

Smart Move Strategy link classification (reflecting future traffic Option A Option B Option C volumes) Metropolitan I (not applicable) none none none Regional II: The Smart move strategy approximately approximately approximately define "Regional Links" as "Carries traffic 300m on West 940m on West 300m on West of regional-wide origin" which somewhat Terrace between Terrace between Terrace between accords with tram corridors, and their North Tce and North Tce and North Tce and ability to encourage travel mode shift. Currie Street Gouger Street Currie Street However, traffic not generated from tram catchments of metropolitan spurs of the AdeLINK network may conflict with the tram movements. District III: The Smart move strategy approx 1300m on approx 990m on approx 1260m on define "District Links" as "Carries traffic of East Tce and Hutt East Tce and Hutt Pulteney Street district-wide origin" with an average Street between Street between between North distance travelled of 3km to 7km. This North Terrace North Terrace and Terrace and Halifax accords with metropolitan tram corridors, and Halifax Angas Street Street, and 1310m and their ability to encourage travel mode Street, and on Morphett shift. However, traffic not generated from 1310m on Street, Light tram catchments of metropolitan spurs of Morphett Street, Square and Currie the AdeLINK network may conflict with Light Square, and Street from the tram movements. Currie Street from Whitmore Square Whitmore Square to West Terrace to West Terrace Neighbourhood IV: The Smart move approx 1780m on approx 2200m on approx 1240m on strategy define "District Links" as "Carries Sturt Street, Angas and Gouger Sturt Street, traffic of neighbourhood-wide origin" with Halifax Street and Streets between Halifax Street and an average distance travelled of 1km to Whitmore Square Hutt Street and Whitmore Square 3km. This accords with purpose of the between Hutt West Terrace between Pulteney CityLINK in distributing locally generated Street and Street and traffic through the CAB, and its ability to Morphett Street Morphett Street encourage travel mode shift for CBD residents and businesses. Local V (not applicable) none none none MCA SCORES: 1 1 1

56 CityLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Detail Report 3.6 Impact to signalised intersections 3.6.1 Number of intersections with tram turning movements A desktop assessment of proposed routes on existing city road layouts and intersection arrangements. This assessment assumes that all existing signalised intersections are retained. Any currently un- signalised intersections which include future tram turning movements are assumed to be signalised. This assessment also includes signalisation and addition of signal phases for tram turning movements where a similar movement does not currently exist. In accordance with existing and planned tram infrastructure in the city, all track is assumed to be located in the centre of bi-directional roadways. Tracks are assumed to be paired, allowing for trams to travel in both directions and pass at all points of the loops. Any intersections impacted by turning movements will include both left and right turns due to provision of bi-directional loop services. In the absence of concept designs, basic intersection layouts and operations are assumed. Changes to routes, typical arrangements and alignments may affect the impacts assessed here. For this assessment, the loop services are assumed to operate independently. The West Terrace / North Terrace intersection is common to all options and therefore has been excluded from this assessment although a signal phase will be required for turning trams. Due to the arrangement of traffic movements at this intersection, the tram turning movement would be expected to be integrated with existing phases. In the absence of concept designs, basic intersection layouts and operations are assumed. Changes to routes, typical arrangements and alignments may affect the impacts assessed here. For the purpose of this assessment the loop services are assumed to operate independently. Data source: Assessment of aerial photography of the Adelaide Metropolitan area. Confidence Scale Level: C CityLINK A: 6  North Terrace / East Terrace  Hutt Street / Halifax Street  Sturt Street / Whitmore Square (not a current movement, intersection not signalised. Would need dedicated tram phase)  Morphett Street / Waymouth Street (entering Light Square, dedicated phase)  Light Square / Currie Street (dedicated phase)  Currie Street / West Terrace

CityLINK B: 3  North Terrace / East Terrace  Hutt Street / Angas Street  Gouger Street / West Terrace

CityLINK C: 6

 North Terrace / Pulteney Street (impacts through tram movements on North Terrace)  Pulteney Street / Halifax Street  Sturt Street / Whitmore Square (not a current movement, intersection not signalised. Would need dedicated tram phase)

57 CityLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Detail Report

 Morphett Street / Waymouth Street (entering Light Square, dedicated phase)  Light Square / Currie Street (dedicated phase)  Currie Street / West Terrace

Route Option Summary Score 6 intersections with tram turning movements, including 2 new CityLINK A -2 signal phases and 1 new signalised intersection CityLINK B 3 intersections with tram turning movements -1 6 intersections with tram turning movements, including 2 new CityLINK C -2 signal phases and 1 new signalised intersection

3.6.2 Number of intersections with tram through movements A desktop assessment of proposed routes on existing city road layouts and intersection arrangements. This assessment assumes that all existing signalised intersections are retained. Any currently un- signalised intersections which include future tram turning movements are assumed to be signalised. This assessment also includes signalisation and addition of signal phases for tram turning movements where a similar movement does not currently exist. In accordance with existing and planned tram infrastructure in the city, all track is assumed to be located in the centre of bi-directional roadways. Tracks are assumed to be paired, allowing for trams to travel in both directions and pass at all points of the loops. Any intersections impacted by turning movements will include both left and right turns due to provision of bi-directional loop services. In the absence of concept designs, basic intersection layouts and operations are assumed. Changes to routes, typical arrangements and alignments may affect the impacts assessed here. For the purpose of this assessment the loop services are assumed to operate independently of suburban routes. Data source: Assessment of aerial photography of the Adelaide Metropolitan area. Confidence Scale Level: C CityLINK A: 13 intersections affected

 East Terrace / Rundle Road  Whitmore Square to Morphett St (not a  East Terrace / Grenfell Street current movement, intersection not  East Terrace / Pirie Street signalised. Would need dedicated tram  Hutt Street / Flinders Street phase)  Hutt Street / Wakefield Street  Morphett Street / Gouger Street  Hutt Street / Angas Street  Morphett Street / Grote Street  Halifax Street / Pulteney Street (Hurtle  Morphett Street / Franklin Street Square)  Currie Street / Gray Street  Halifax Street / King William Street

CityLINK B: 14 intersections affected  East Terrace / Rundle Road  East Terrace / Pirie Street  East Terrace / Grenfell Street  Hutt Street / Flinders Street

58 CityLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Detail Report

 Hutt Street / Wakefield Street  West Terrace / Franklin Street  Angas Street / Frome Street  West Terrace / Waymouth Street (unless  Angas Street / Pulteney Street restricted to left-in, left-out only. Not  Angas Street / King William Street currently signalised) (Victoria Square)  West Terrace / Currie Street  Gouger Street / Morphett Street  West Terrace / Hindley Street  West Terrace / Grote Street

CityLINK C: 12 intersections affected

 Pulteney Street / Rundle Street  Whitmore Square to Morphett St (not  Pulteney Street / Grenfell Street a current movement, intersection not (Hindmarsh Square) signalised. Would need dedicated  Pulteney Street / Pirie Street tram phase)  Pulteney Street / Flinders Street  Morphett Street / Gouger Street  Pulteney Street / Wakefield Street  Morphett Street / Grote Street  Pulteney Street / Carrington Street  Morphett Street / Franklin Street  Halifax Street / King William Street  Currie Street / Gray Street

Route Option Summary Score 13 intersections with tram through movements including one new CityLINK A -2 signalised intersection 14 intersections with tram through movements including one CityLINK B -2 potential new intersection (or access restriction) 12 intersections with tram through movements including one new CityLINK C -2 signalised intersection

59 CityLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Detail Report

4 Theme 4: Economic impacts

Supporting a modern and innovative city which provides investment opportunities and return on property and infrastructure investment.

60 CityLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Detail Report 4.1 Patronage Potential (Revenue) DPTI have provided patronage data for the 98 and 99 Free City Connector services, gathered by bus drivers over a 15-day period in October 2016. This data shows average weekday patronage on the 99A and 99C services to be a combined 883 passengers. Combined with 98A and C services, this daily average over the sample period rises to 2,744 per day, however only 2,058 boarding’s are within the city square, the remainder are made north of North Terrace. The data, while indicative, is over a very short period and does not provide insight into destinations or interchange with other services. Estimation of patronage based on residential catchment is not possible in the form applied to suburban links. These assessments assumed the City as a destination and took a percentage of the catchment based on journey to work and employment data. This data does not exist for the city in the same format. In addition, determining patronage on the loop service will require balancing against existing tram services and makes assumptions about how suburban links interconnect and allow transfer of passengers to access destinations, all of which is not only undefined at this stage but is also very difficult to predict with any degree of accuracy or reliability. The reader is therefore referred to the various measures that would be used in any patronage calculations to be used as a proxy indicator of patronage potential for CityLINK loop options. These include Criteria 1, 4, 5, 7 and 11.

61 CityLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Detail Report 4.2 Constructability and business impacts 4.2.1 Potential risks to underground services A desktop analysis of underground services was conducted using the Location SA Map Viewer online tool and focussing on underground services that would be affected by the assumed alignment of the proposed CityLINK tram routes. This assessment includes services located in the centre of roadways and within medians and services crossing the carriageway. This assessment does not include locations of inspection and access pits or depth of service below ground. Service locations and impacts are approximated only, full site surveys will be required to confirm detailed service locations and impact assessment. Data sources: Desktop assessment of underground services within the road reserves of each of the routes using the Location SA web viewer at http://location.sa.gov.au/viewer/. Precise location and condition of infrastructure is unknown and an engineering survey is required to fully assess the impact of construction. Stormwater pipes are not included in this assessment as they are not shown on Location SA web viewer. Confidence Scale Level: C Based on this desktop assessment, the scale of impacts for the three options assessed are similar, but Option B impacts far less on SAPN infrastructure than other options. Route Summary Score 94 Crossings 2.2km Waste Water Gravity Mains CityLINK A -2 0.1km Water mains 2.1km SAPN transmission line 85 Crossings CityLINK B 2.5km Waste Water Gravity Mains -1 1.1km SAPN transmission line 108 Crossings 2.3km Waste Water Gravity Mains CityLINK C -2 0.1km Water mains 2.2km SAPN transmission line

62 CityLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Detail Report

4.2.2 Count of businesses with street frontage to the route The methodology to determine the number of businesses with a primary frontage along each route option primarily involved a desktop analysis through digital inspection. High resolution satellite imagery and ‘street view’ functions were utilised to count the number of businesses with an immediate frontage to each route option. Where multiple businesses were thought to exist inside of a single building, the number of business logos on the building was counted. A higher count of businesses with a frontage along a CityLINK route is indicative of a higher level of impacts and potential disruption during the construction phase. The rating was determined due to lack of detail and overall analysis to warrant an accurate impact on businesses during the construction phase. Confidence Scale Level: D Each CityLINK route option has a similar number of businesses that could potentially be disrupted during construction. While Option C has slightly fewer businesses with a frontage to the route, lack of detail regarding the impacts of construction result in all three options being scored equally. Route Summary Score CityLINK A Total businesses: 287 -1 CityLINK B Total businesses: 284 -1 CityLINK C Total businesses: 246 -1

63 CityLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Detail Report

4.2.3 Number of vehicle access points that could be impacted (e.g. laneways, driveways etc.) The importance of vehicular access to buildings and businesses varies depending on their use. Vehicle access can be important for some residents, visitors, customers, business owners, deliveries, service vehicles and so on who rely on private or commercial vehicles to some degree. Therefore, the number of vehicle access points along each corridor option; comprising driveways, direct business access points and no-through laneways (where there is no alternative entry point) were counted to ascertain the total that may affected or obstructed as a result of each alignment option. This could include temporary disruption during construction, as well as post-construction should vehicle turning movements be restricted. This process was undertaken manually along the length of each option, via digital inspection. Confidence Scale Level: C The number of access points to businesses and residential properties is similar for all CityLINK options. While Option C has marginally less access points that could be potentially impacted compared to options A and B. The number of business access points for Option B mean it is rated as having a greater impact for this measure. Route Summary Score Residential access points: 12 Business access points: 59 CityLINK A -1 Laneways: 10 Total: 81 Residential access points: 7 Business access points: 69 CityLINK B -2 Laneways: 11 Total: 87 Residential access points: 7 Business access points: 59 CityLINK C -1 Laneways: 11 Total: 77

64 CityLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Detail Report 4.3 Potential for property uplift and value capture 4.3.1 Property value uplift potential The total development supportive area (refer measure 1.1.2 ‘Cubic metres of transit supportive zones and policy areas that support increased development potential within a 300m catchment of the route’) was used to calculate property uplift along each of the CityLINK corridors. The outputs from this measure were then divided by 3.5 to reflect the assumed metres per storey and convert to floor areas (m2 from m3). The current percent of retail/commercial and residential land uses (determined from measure 1.2.4) were then applied to reflect the land uses which will benefit from property value uplift. Overseas research into property uplift and value capture for light rail corridors was referred to determine quantum of property uplift. The following rates were used when estimating property uplift along tram corridor  $3,000 per m2 for residential developments  $5,000 per m2 for commercial and retail developments  10% of total value potential based on OS research Confidence Scale Level: C Confidence scale C was applied due to a number of assumptions that were made while estimating development supportive areas, and broad value uplift assumption potential. Investigations into potential property uplift will occur as part of subsequent studies for AdeLINK. Hence figures identified below should be considered for relativity purposes only, and not actual estimations. Using a 10% increase in property uplift due to a tram corridor, CityLINK could potentially increase property values by the following: Route Option Summary Score - 82,652,000 m3 development supportive area - 23,615,000 m2 (assuming 3.5m per storey) CityLINK A - 10,627,000 m2 retail/commercial 2 - 4,015,000 m2 residential - $5.2 bn in property uplift at 10% - 77,318,000 m3 development supportive area - 22,091,000 m2 (assuming 3.5m per storey) CityLINK B - 9,941,000 m2 retail/commercial 1 - 1,767,000 m2 residential - $3.9 bn in property uplift at 10% - 82,652,000 m3 development supportive area - 23,615,000 m2 (assuming 3.5m per storey) CityLINK C - 12,788,000 m2 retail/commercial 2 - 2,993,000 m2 residential - $5.3 bn in property uplift at 10%

65 CityLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Detail Report 4.4 Least route impacts on (property acquisition, trees, services, car parking, heritage items) 4.4.1 Number of on street parks affected A digital inspection was used to count the number and type of on-street carparks along each route option. Where bays were not line marked, a digital ruler was used to measure the distance in metres of a stretch road designated to on-street parking. This figure was then divided by 6.5 (m) (the average length of a car park) in order to ascertain the approximate number of carparks available between side- streets. Angled and 90-degree parking bays were measured separately from non-angled parking. It can be assumed that there is potential to mitigate any significant loss of parking in the detailed design phase. Angled and 90-degree parking spaces have the potential to be retained and converted to parallel parking bays in some instances. Therefore, the count of angled and 90-degree parking spaces has less weighting than potential impacts on parallel parks. The number of parks in front of businesses for each route were calculated. The options with a high and are assumed to have a greater impact on the route alignment Confidence Scale Level: C When comparing the three CityLINK route options, Option C has a significantly lower number of overall on street carparks that could potentially require removal, however, a significant amount of these are parallel. While Option B potentially impacts more on street parking than Option C, it has the lowest count of parallel parks. Option A has the highest count of overall parking spaces and number of parks with direct business frontage that could be potentially affected. Therefore, Option A scores lowest for this measure. Route Option Summary Score 90-degree: 331 Angled: 375 CityLINK A Parallel: 167 -2 Motorbike: 70 Total: 943 (603 with direct business frontage) 90-degree: 217 Angled: 332 CityLINK B Parallel: 130 -1 Motorbike: 106 Total: 785 (523 with direct business frontage) 90-degree: 163 Angled: 113 CityLINK C Parallel: 266 -1 Motorbike: 47 Total: 589 (382 with direct business frontage)

66 CityLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Detail Report

Typology of Parking Spacing in Front of Businesses

CityLINK A 90 Degree Angled Parallel Motorbike East Terrace 0 0 16 0 Hutt Street 80 86 0 24 Halifax Street 0 145 6 13 Sturt Street 90 0 10 4 Whitmore Square 0 0 3 0 Morphett Street 0 0 66 8 Light Square 13 0 3 10 Currie Street 0 0 26 0 TOTAL Total 183 231 130 59 603

CityLINK B 90 Degree Angled Parallel Motorbike East Terrace 0 0 16 0 Hutt Street 80 13 0 11 Angas Street 74 45 6 36 Gouger Street 0 141 40 36 West Terrace 0 0 25 0 TOTAL Total 154 199 87 83 523

CityLINK C 90 Degree Angled Parallel Motorbike Pulteney Street 0 0 68 0 Halifax Street 0 62 6 13 Sturt Street 90 0 10 4 Whitmore Square 0 0 3 0 Morphett Street 0 0 66 8 Light Square 13 0 3 10 Currie Street 0 0 26 0 TOTAL Total 103 62 182 35 382

67 CityLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Detail Report

4.4.2 Impacts on median, including trees and islands (calculation to be determines upon review of actual routes, but to include removal of trees) The number of trees that may require removal on each route was calculated using satellite imagery. The number of trees situated on medians of a route options were counted. Confidence Scale Level: D This rating was determined as the impact to trees will be determined during the detailed design stage. There is a lack of detail and overall analysis to warrant an accurate impact at the MCA stage. The assessment assumes that trams would be in the centre of the road, and require existing trees to be removed (i.e. worst case scenario). The assessment does also not consider replacement and additional vegetation that would be considered as part of the detailed planning of the routes. When comparing the three route options for CityLINK, Option A contains the greatest number of trees that could potentially require removal. Options B and C contain a similar number of trees along their routes. Due to the lack of detailed design to warrant an accurate impact on existing trees, all three options score equally for this measure. Route Option Summary Score CityLINK A 65 trees -1 CityLINK B 47 trees -1 CityLINK C 43 trees -1

4.4.3 Number of heritage items along the route frontage (up to 50m) This measure is used to assess in foresight the potential of heritage places having an impact on the delivery of a particular route option. Planning near heritage item needs to be undertaken carefully to ensure the preservation of sites. Hence heritage places, particularly higher tiered items, may have implications for maintaining the character of surrounds. Contributory items (items within character preservation zones) were omitted, as this type of zone was assessed in Theme 1.. The data used in this assessment has been sourced from the ‘Heritage Places (Point Data)’ spatial layer available from Data SA, a State administered open data source. It is updated regularly by DPTI, with the data set used for this assessment current as of August 2016. Confidence Scale Level: D As depicted in Figure 27 (overleaf), each CityLINK route option would pass a significant number of State and Local heritage items that may be impacted or restrict how light rail systems could be implemented. Compared to Options B and C, Option A has the greatest number of heritage items (both in total and average per km) within an immediate 50 metre buffer zone of the route. However, given the tram corridor alignment is being planned to remain within the road reserve, encroachment from road widening (and therefore acquisition/construction impacts) on heritage items is not likely. Therefore all Options are rated equally.

68 CityLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Detail Report

Figure 27: State and local heritage places.

Route Option Summary Score Total heritage items: 103 CityLINK A State: 42 Local: 61 -1 Average per km: 22 Total heritage items: 60 CityLINK B State: 30 Local: 30 -1 Average per km: 14 Total heritage items: 54 CityLINK C State: 21 Local: 33 -1 Average per km: 13

69 CityLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Detail Report 4.5 Potential for contributions from government land 4.5.1 Amount of local and state government owned land along the route (within a 300m catchment) Contributions from government owned land might include electrical sub-station locations, tram stabling and so on. Data for this measure was acquired from DPTI. It included detail of the specific land owner and was therefore cleansed to remove government owned lands (local or state) that would be unlikely to contribute to the project in any way. These included: Aboriginal Lands Corp, Adelaide Park Lands, cemeteries, existing railway line corridors, SA Water Corp and existing water bodies, schools, reserves and other community services remain in the dataset. Confidence Scale Level: B Despite Option A having the highest count of government owned parcels, the overall area size is the smaller than Option C, indicating that these are mainly small parcels. Overall Option C has the highest amount of government land with 14,364 m2 and 44,057 m2 more than Options A and B respectively.

Figure 28: Parcels of State and Local Government owned land.

Route Option Summary Score Amount of government owned land: 239,800 m2 CityLINK A Number of parcels: 428 2 Average size: 560 m2 Amount of government owned land: 210,110 m2 CityLINK B Number of parcels: 290 1 Average size: 725 m2 Amount of government owned land: 254,170 m2 CityLINK C Number of parcels: 425 2 Average size: 598 m2

70 CityLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Detail Report

4.5.2 Measure the amount of SA Housing Trust land along the route (within a 300m catchment) The data used for this measure was refined from that used in the Government Owned Land measure to show which route may provide greatest potential for the SA Housing Trust to renew and intensify public housing stock or sell land to allow for new private developments within a reasonable, 300m distance from the tram route. The data was received from DPTI from a 2016 update. Confidence Scale Level: A While there are few SA Housing Trust owned parcels within any of the CityLINK route options, as seen in Figure 29, Option B has the least of all route options as most parcels are situated towards the south. Options A has the most significant land area owned by SA Housing Trust due to its extensive southern alignment and therefore rate highest for this measure.

Figure 29: SA Housing Trust owned parcels.

Route Option Summary Score Amount of SA Housing Trust land: 54,050 m2 CityLINK A Number of parcels: 144 3 Average size: 375 m2 Amount of SA Housing Trust land: 45,410 m2 CityLINK B Number of parcels: 88 1 Average size: 516 m2 Amount of SA Housing Trust land: 50,660 m2 CityLINK C Number of parcels: 120 2 Average size: 422 m2

71 CityLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Detail Report

4.5.3 Amount of Urban Renewal Authority land along the route (within a 300m catchment) This data was refined from that used in the Government Owned Land measure. It shows how much land is already owned by the State administered Urban Renewal Authority (Renewal SA) is within a 300m catchment of each route and is highly likely to be redeveloped. The data was received from DPTI from a 2016 update. Confidence Scale Level: A No Renewal SA land parcels are located in the Adelaide CBD. Therefore, all three options score equally for this measure. Route Option Summary Score Amount of Renewal SA land: 0 m2 CityLINK A Number of parcels: 0 0 Average size: 0 m2 Amount of Renewal SA land: 0 m2 CityLINK B Number of parcels: 0 0 Average size: 0 m2 Amount of Renewal SA land: 0 m2 CityLINK C Number of parcels: 0 0 Average size: 0 m2

72 CityLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Detail Report 5 Theme 5: Environmental sustainability

Improving Adelaide’s position as a sustainable and carbon neutral city including reduced car dependency.

73 CityLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Detail Report 5.1 An environment that enables walking and public transport use 5.1.1 Enables walking and public transport use Environments that enable walking and public transport use are made up of a variety of factors including the quality of footpaths, road crossings, the street network, signal timings, personal safety, shelter, visual interest and impacts from traffic. Given the high numbers of people walking in the CBD, the footpath network is generally of a high quality, particularly on roads that would be able to facilitate a tram. The ACC SmartMove Strategy was reviewed for contributions to an environment that enables walking and public transport use, as follows:

 Significant City Place Locations (refer to Figure 30). These locations are identified as priorities to ‘create a high-quality pedestrian environment, increase placemaking and opportunities for pedestrian activities, and improve access to the expanding public transport network, including tram, trains and bus services.  Current and future ‘evening places’ (refer to Figure 31 and Figure 32). The direction for these locations is to ‘create a safe night-time environment for pedestrians and cyclists’. This direction will increase passive surveillance and personal safety and security thereby contributing to an environment that enables walking and public transport use. These factors were rated individually and then the total route scores were compared to determine an MCA score.

Figure 30: Significant City Place locations (ACC SmartMove Strategy)

Figure 31: Current Evening Places (ACC SmartMove Figure 32: Future Evening Places (ACC SmartMove Strategy) Strategy)

74 CityLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Detail Report

Confidence Scale Level: D (Given that one score is determined for the entire route – the varying environments along the route do not allow for firm assessment). CityLINK A CityLINK B CityLINK C High Quality Pedestrian Environment 0 -1 +1 (Significant City Place, refer Figure 30) Passive surveillance/personal safety 0 0 0 (evening places, refer Figure 31)

Option B passes through the least Significant City Place Locations (West Terrace, Gouger St west, Angas St east and part of Hutt St), while Option C runs almost entirely along ‘Significant City Place Locations’. All routes run along streets with sporadic existing evening activity. Future evening activation (as identified in ACC SmartMove Strategy) is planned along sections of all routes, but significant sections of all routes are not included. These include the West Terrace Park Lands (Option B), Morphett St (Options A and B), the east end of Angas St (Option A), and sections of Hutt St (Options A and B). It was considered that all options were equivalent in this score. Therefore Option C is rated highest for this measure. Route Option Summary Score While the route connects a number of Significant City Place CityLINK A locations, a large portion of the route also runs through less 0 significant areas. CityLINK B Route that runs through the least Significant City Place locations -1 CityLINK C Route runs almost entirely within Significant City Place locations 1

75 CityLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Detail Report

5.1.2 Enables cycling Environments that enable cycling are made up of a variety of factors including the quality of cyclist facilities, road crossings and the street network. These factors were considered individually and total route scores were given accordingly. Confidence Scale Level: D. (Given that one score is determined for the entire route – the varying environments along the route do not allow for firm assessment). Option B scored the highest given that it is the most direct route, and its location in the centre of the CBD (Grote/Wakefield) allows a greater catchment & distribution to other cycling routes/destinations. In addition, Option B has a high quality shared path along West Terrace and wide road reserves of Grote St and Wakefield Street to facilitate wide bicycle lanes. Route Option Summary Score No bike lanes on Currie St & conflict with high volume of buses, Morphett St poor cycling environment and one-way traffic CityLINK A -1 around Light Square is not direct, Sturt/Halifax bike lanes exist and carry moderate traffic volumes. Most direct route. High quality shared path (West Tce), Grote CityLINK B 1 St/Wakefield wide road reserve No bike lanes on Currie St & conflict with high volume of buses, Morphett St poor cycling environment and one-way traffic CityLINK C -1 around Light Square is not direct, Sturt/Halifax bike lanes exist and carry moderate traffic volumes. Pulteney Street is direct.

76 CityLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Detail Report Appendix A: Multi-Criteria Analysis Process

The process evaluates both monetised and non-monetised project components in a transparent manner to inform decision makers on investment decisions. The tool is designed to augment the present practice of benefit cost analysis with the economic, environmental and social impacts that land use projects have upon transport patterns, and vice versa, which may otherwise be treated in an inconsistent fashion or be overlooked. In conjunction with DPTI and Council officers, the InfraPlan team developed the MCA to consider all aspects of the AdeLINK project, producing up to 45 measures to be scored under 5 themes for each corridor option. The results are presented as standalone studies for each corridor. The outcomes of this MCA are unweighted, such is the Infrastructure Australia preference. Purpose of the Multi-Criteria Analysis

 A MCA process will assist in evaluating the ITLUP route option, compare possible alternative routes and determine the most appropriate route (or routes) for more detailed assessment, including Design Labs.  The MCA is a higher level process than the Design Lab to provide information to augment the Design Lab process.  Agreed criteria to ensure transparent land use and transport outcomes are achieved in final route identification.  The MCA is consistent with State/Federal Treasury Guidelines and information is transferable to the Business Case for funding (supports a Benefit Cost Assessment).  Allows for a wide range of input, including professional advice and relevant data and analysis (final scores are limited by quality of this input). The MCA accords with Item 2 of the Infrastructure Australia (IA) Business Case Template: Stage 3 Option Assessment Template (see Appendices) which only stipulates, ‘Nominators should refine the long list to short list; a multi-criteria analysis (MCA) is suggested. The analysis should include consideration of: - The extent to which each option addresses the problems / opportunities; - The timeframe over which the option is expected to address the problem / opportunity (i.e. the duration of time for which benefits will be sustained in addressing the challenge); - Economic, social and environmental impacts; - Indicative capital and operational costs of the initiative; and delivery risk and challenges; and - Other considerations for the initiative as appropriate.’ The more detailed Business Case will need to determine the Base Case projects to the ‘Do minimum’ or ‘Do nothing’ scenarios which are still to be determined. However, to determine the Base Case projects, the MCA is of benefit.

77 CityLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Detail Report How does the Multi-Criteria Analysis Work? The Steps 1. Determine how the tool is to be applied. This may be determined by the selected projects to be compared, or by the end purpose of the comparison. 2. If applicable, assign a Weighting Scale in the Comparison Summary page to be applied to the assessment criteria. In this instance, results are not weighted. 3. Under each Project Assessment tab, assign a Confidence Level (A to E) for the relevant data for each appraisal element. In some cases, the rating for each element will be consistent across all compared projects, in others they will vary. 4. Assign a Rating from -3 to +3 for the project on its achievement of each appraisal element. 5. The Comparison Summary page allows for comparison of the projects assessed. Confidence Level There are two principal approaches to the confidence level – numeric or alphabetic. The numeric approach enables the confidence level to be incorporated into an indicator’s overall score via multiplication. This makes for a simpler, but perhaps less transparent output, since the final summary table does not present the calculations which lead to an overall score – i.e. whether it was due to a high rating or confidence limit. Readers may find the results difficult to interpret. An alphabetic system, on the other hand, leaves the final user of results in no doubt about the origin of a weighted score for an indicator – and automatically highlights which indicators require further clarification or supporting evidence and which are reliable. An alphabetic system with 5 grades A-E is presented below.

Confidence SCALE A-E

Recent, relevant and accurate studies with appropriate detail and analysis to form a rigorous and defensible A basis for the assessment. Assessment has a very high degree of confidence.

Substantial information – perhaps patchy in parts (date, accuracy, detail?) – but sufficient to provide an B accurate assessment with a fair degree of confidence.

Some background information, but either dated, lacking appropriate detail or accuracy to form the basis for a C firm assessment. Not suitable for a score greater than –2 or +2

Professional judgment within area of expertise. However, no relevant studies or data available. Not suitable D for score greater than +1 or –1

Best guess of professional assessing outside their area of expertise, gut feel, no relevant studies or data. Not E suitable basis for score greater than +1 or less than –1

A description of the nature and quality of data suggested for each appraisal element and each grade of the Confidence Scale is given in the Assessment Criteria tab. This table provides users of this tool with a clear guide to rating the available data and can be used to guide the gathering of new data to target particular areas of need. It is important that users of the tool can indicate where a choice is based on primary evidence, recent experience in similar projects, established engineering or other physical principles etc., and where choices of ratings are based on speculation, anecdotal evidence, unsubstantiated evidence or a professional estimate, rather than actual data.

78 CityLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Detail Report

Rating The rating scale ranges from -3 for significantly negative or unwanted outcomes to +3 for major positive outcomes. A rating is selected for each appraisal element. Confidence levels A and B have a rating scale of ±3, level C will restrict the impact rating to ±2 and confidence levels D and E restrict the impact rating to ±1. A neutral rating of zero is also available for indicators that are not expected to change as a result of development of the Project.

Rating

+3 Major positive impacts resulting in substantial and long term improvements or enhancements of the existing environment.

+2 Moderate positive impact – possibly of short, medium or longer term duration. Positive outcome may be in terms of new opportunities, and outcomes of enhancement or improvement.

+1 Minimal positive impact, possibly only lasting over the short term. May be confined to a limited area.

0 Neutral – no discernible or predicted positive or negative impact.

-1 Minimal negative impact - probably short term, able to be managed or mitigated, and does not cause substantial detrimental effects. May be confined to a small area.

-2 Moderate negative impact. Impacts may be short, medium or long term and most likely respond to management actions

Major negative impacts with serious, long term and possibly irreversible effects leading to serious damage, -3 degradation or deterioration of the physical, economic or social environment. Require a major re-scope of concept, design, location, justification, or require major commitment to extensive management strategies to mitigate the effect.

Comparison Summary Output from the project assessments is given on the Comparison Summary sheet, where the overall ratings of the projects can be compared.

79