AdeLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Summary Report

1 AdeLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Summary Report Contents

Executive Summary ...... 1 1 Introduction ...... 9 1.1 Project Overview ...... 9 1.2 Report Structure ...... 10 1.3 Determining Routes for Assessment ...... 10 1.4 Routes Assessed ...... 12 2 Multi-Criteria Analysis ...... 21 2.1 Purpose of the Multi-Criteria Analysis ...... 21 2.2 How does the Multi-Criteria Analysis Work? ...... 22 2.3 MCA and AdeLINK Planning Process ...... 24 2.4 AdeLINK (Suburban Routes) Themes and Criteria ...... 25 2.5 CityLINK Themes and Criteria ...... 26 3 Context ...... 27 3.1 Light Rail Networks ...... 27 3.2 Light Rail Corridor Typologies ...... 28 3.3 Assumptions ...... 30 Appendices ...... 32 Appendix A: MCA Results and Summary Data ...... 33 Appendix B: MCA Route Option Commentary from Workshops ...... 68

© 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 (The Department of Transport, Planning and Infrastructure) 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 AdeLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Summary Report

Executive Summary

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, and 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. 1 AdeLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Summary Report

This ‘Summary Report’ provides an overview of the AdeLINK light rail project, outlines the Multi- Criteria Analysis (MCA) process, a summary of MCA results, as well as some of the project’s contextual framework.

Multi-criteria decision making processes have become increasingly prominent in strategic decision making for investment opportunities across a broad range of projects, from environmental preservation, development, infrastructure delivery and so on. It involves a multi-stage process of specifying options to be assessed, defining key objectives/themes and criteria, choosing measures to be scored and choosing the best option to move forward with. For the AdeLINK light rail project: 5 themes, up to 19 criteria and up to 45 measures made up the MCA, dependent on the context (suburban link or CityLINK). This process is outlined in Figure 1 (below) and Figure 2 (overleaf).

The original routes identified for the AdeLINK light rail network were prescribed in 2015 by the State Government in their ‘Integrated Transport and Land Use Plan’ (ITLUP) and have been public knowledge since. As a result, these corridors may have already formed a basis for local and state government policy reviews and changes, infrastructure investment and development. Therefore, these routes were each considered as options for their respective AdeLINK corridor MCA.

To ascertain additional route options, planning officers and managers from each local government Council through which the ITLUP corridors passed were invited to attend an interactive workshop on 29 June 2016. Facilitated by the Project Team (InfraPlan and SA Government), the goal of the workshop was to come up with route alternatives in addition to the ITLUP route for the MCA. The details of the routes discussed at this workshop are provided in Appendix B of this report. MCA Criteria and Measures were also presented to Council officers for input and refinement.

Figure 1: Overview of the suburban AdeLINK MCA process.

2 AdeLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Summary Report

The MCA criteria and measures were refined for analysis of the CityLINK options, due to several factors, including:

 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 not being applicable in the same way as for the suburban links, i.e. as commuter corridors to the City centre. This refinement was undertaken on the 12 January 2017 during a workshop with the Project Team (InfraPlan and SA Government), along 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 2: Overview of the CityLINK MCA process.

Subsequent analysis of the route options (provided in more detail in Appendix A and separate detailed reports) has concluded unweighted scores presented on the following pages.

Note: The MCA scores will not be used to inform the staging of the AdeLINK network. Each route score should only be used to compare other route options for that specific link.

3 AdeLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Summary Report

EastLINK

EastLINK Option A: Norwood Parade Option C: Hybrid Option, Option B: Magill Road (via ITLUP Route (via Rundle Road, Norwood Parade and upper Rundle Rd, Beulah Rd, Parade West, Norwood Magill Road (connecting via Sydenham Rd) Parade and Penfolds Road) Glynburn Road or other route) Total score 37 26 38

The score suggests that the Parade (original ITLUP option) is the preferred option west of Portrush Road. However, a hybrid option connecting upper Magill Road has greater merit. While Magill Road option scored the highest for development potential, with transit supportive land uses it has a high volume of competing traffic; more heritage and would impact cyclists. Option C makes the best of the development envelope on both routes; has significantly more development opportunity and therefore uplift than Option A and the highest patronage potential. Option C has a greater number of business along its route and a higher patronage potential (revenue). The Capital Cost of Options A and C are likely to be higher than a Magill Road option. Further investigation is required to determine the most appropriate location for a connection from The Parade to Magill Road under the Hybrid Option. This could be between Osmond Terrace and St Bernards Road.

PortLINK

PortLINK Option 1: ITLUP route, light rail conversion via Option 3: Light rail Option 4: Heavy or Torrens Junction, conversion to Outer Light Rail to Outer Option 2: Electrification including Grange, Harbour, Tram to West Harbour, tram to of Existing Heavy Rail Semaphore and West Lakes and Grange, Grange and West Lakes plus Port Adelaide Spur Lakes spurs (reserving Option via Torrens via Grange Road and the option for Henley Junction Frederick Road Beach addition) Total score 37 26 39 28

The score suggests that either the light rail conversion of the Outer Harbour line (original ITLUP option) or an option via Grange Road replacing the Grange line from West Lakes Boulevard have equal merit on most fronts except capital cost. These options are also able to be more cost effectively linked to Henley Beach (2 km extension) than Henley Beach Road. Option 3 has more transit supportive land uses, more residents located within the corridor and more Government land with development potential. This would be offset by slower travel times to Grange and would sever more bike routes and possible impact on trees. Option 4 would have a greater impact on public transport experience and travel times to Grange and West Lakes.

NOTE: The capital cost of Option 3 is however likely to be significantly higher than Option 1 given the additional distance of in-road sections (subject to further analysis). The underground impact risks are also likely to be higher for Option 3 given the length of in-road sections.

4 AdeLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Summary Report

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.

Unlike other tram corridors the PortLINK corridor accommodates public transport users on the existing heavy rail line. While the Light Rail options 1 and 3 scored higher than option 2 (electrification) several important operational, cost and public transport user criteria will need to be investigated further before a decision can be made in relation to whether heavy rail or light rail/tram is preferred. These criteria include:

 In vehicle travel time  Door to door travel time.  Frequency  Capacity and seated versus standing time

ProspectLINK

ProspectLINK Option A: Prospect Road ITLUP Route (via Option B: Churchill Road (via O’Connell Street, O’Connell Street) Barton Tce West, Jeffcott Rd, Torrens Road) Total score 32 10

Prospect Road has the highest benefits on a number of fronts. While Churchill Road has more recent development applications with less restrictive zoning, would have the lower physical route impacts, and provide more Government land development opportunities, Prospect Road has the following advantages:

 A greater population catchment and greater transit supportive land uses.  A higher quality main street and a greater number of employment attractors.  Is not identified as a Freight Route.  Increased ability to integrate with other public transport services, and avoids catchment duplication with rail.  Reduced potential risk to underground services.

5 AdeLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Summary Report

UnleyLINK

UnleyLINK

Option B: Goodwood Road terminating at Option A: Unley Road and Belair Road ITLUP Repatriation General Hospital site (utilising Route (via Pulteney St) Glenelg Line)

Total score 43 19

Unley Road has the highest number of benefits compared to Goodwood Road including:  Ability to provide greater support The 30-Year Plan for greater Adelaide regarding more development opportunities and a larger catchment and therefore patronage potential and uplift potential.  More active frontages and transit supportive land use potential.  It has a longer and higher main street amenity with access to publicly available open space.  Connects more effectively to the inner and middle suburbs to the CBD, enhancing access to employment, education, healthcare, entertainment and other opportunities. Goodwood Road has strengths in other areas including more Government land development opportunities and a more accessible end of route destination. Both options will have comparable levels of traffic impact but also an opportunity for mode shift to public transport.

6 AdeLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Summary Report

WestLINK

WestLINK Option A: Henley Beach Road ITLUP Option B: Sir Donald Bradman Drive Route (via West Tce and Glover Ave) (via Grote Street) terminating at including Airport spur via Airport Airport Road Total score 34 18 Sir Donald Bradman Drive has a number of key strengths including a large employment catchment, higher number of students who live in the area, more accessible open space and more developable Government land. However, Henley Beach Road has:  More development supportive policy/zoning areas as per The 30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide, and higher number of development applications along its route, reflecting market attraction.  Transit supportive land uses and higher number of residents located within the corridor, therefore a higher patronage potential and property uplift potential.  Better alignment with the functional hierarchy of the road .  More active frontages and compatible Main Street land uses, ideal for tram routes. Notwithstanding this, careful design will need to be undertaken to preserve heritage, manage parking and traffic and to better integrate with other public transport services. Henley Beach Road would likely have a higher Capital cost with the inclusion of Airport Road in particular, but it also has a larger development envelope and potential.

Other suburban route options:

 A Richmond Road option provides the opportunity for tram storage (corner of Marion and Richmond Roads), and connectivity to a Marleston TAFE site redevelopment opportunity, Keswick interstate rail terminal integration, and employment hubs such as world business park and RAA headquarters. However, Richmond Road has limited scope for uplift.  Greenhill Road has the potential to create an East-West Link from Burnside to the Airport via the Marion Road entry. It has the benefit of a growing development envelope/catchment, close to the showgrounds and connecting to Burnside Village. The route will however not initially have a high patronage potential given its catchment size, and would have significant implications for traffic moving along the strategic Inner Ring Route of Adelaide.

7 AdeLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Summary Report

CityLINK

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

8 AdeLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Summary Report 1 Introduction

1.1 Project Overview In 2013, the South Australian Government released their ‘Integrated Transport and Land Use Plan’ (ITLUP) for South Australia, which first proposed the expansion of Adelaide’s existing single-line light rail system into a multi-line suburban network under the banner AdeLINK. AdeLINK will underpin the principles and objectives of ITLUP and The 30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide. It has the potential to attract investment, boost economic growth and encourage urban renewal and jobs and bring residents and visitors to Adelaide’s 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.

AdeLINK was illustrated to comprise six light rail routes in addition to the existing Entertainment Centre-to-Glenelg route (via the City), as per the image below. While preliminary investigations were undertaken during the preparation of ITLUP, detailed review of the routes was required to ascertain if these or alternative route options would be preferable.

In 2016, DPTI engaged InfraPlan to project manage the investigations that would consider the roles of AdeLINK and reposition Adelaide’s public transport system as a key driver of economic development, urban development, environmental and social objectives. As part of this investigation InfraPlan has underaken a Multi-Criteria Analysis (MCA) process over at least two route options for each of the AdeLINK corridors.

The purpose of this report is to document the process undertaken by InfraPlan to inform the the next steps in the study to determine the preferred route options for AdeLINK.

9 AdeLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Summary Report

1.2 Report Structure This summary report provides the project overview, an outline of the MCA process, contextual framework and a summary of the results. Each of the corridor-specific reports sit underneath this summary and provide a detailed explanation of the analysis undertaken for, and comparative assessment of each corridor. This hierarchical format is illustrated below.

1.3 Determining Routes for Assessment The original routes as prescribed in ITLUP (2015) have been public knowledge for some time and may have already formed a basis for local and state government policy reviews and changes, infrastructure investment and development. As a result, these routes were each considered as one option for their respective AdeLINK corridor MCA.

To ascertain additional route options, planning officers and managers from each local government Council through which the ITLUP corridors passed were invited to attend an interactive workshop on 29 June 2016. The goal of the workshop was to come up with at least one route alternative in addition to the ITLUP route for the MCA. Council staff were organised into their respective corridors and given tools to collaboratively highlight and discuss local challenges and opportunities with the Project Team (DPTI and InfraPlan staff).

Refer Figure 3 overleaf for images of Council Officer Workshop.

10 AdeLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Summary Report

Figure 3: Images from the AdeLINK Council Officer Workshop (Adelaide, 29 June 2016).

11 AdeLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Summary Report

1.4 Routes Assessed Each corridor’s ‘Option A’ (or ‘Option 1’ for PortLINK) was that shown in ITLUP, with alternative options (i.e. ‘Route B’ or ‘Routes 2, 3 and 4’ for PortLINK) were provided as a result of the workshop.

NOTE: Routes are shown only as their assessed portions and not as a completed network. For example, some routes had sections of overlap (O’Connell Street, Rundle Road) or varying start points (West Terrace, South Terrace) which determined their assessment portion. 1.4.1 EastLINK Three options were developed as a result of the workshops.

 Route Option A: ITLUP Route (via Rundle Road, Parade West, Norwood Parade and Penfolds Road).  Route Option B: Magill Road (via Rundle Rd, Beulah Rd, Sydenham Rd).  Hybrid Route Option C: Norwood Parade and Magill Road (using Glynburn Road).

Figure 4: EastLINK options.

12 AdeLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Summary Report

1.4.2 PortLINK In addition to options using the current rail corridor, the project team developed two additional options that separate the Grange service from the Outer Harbour service (via a Grange Road Option) allowing either a staging of the light rail/tram network or a retention of the Outer Harbour service as heavy rail. In addition, as the Torrens Junction (grade separation of the Outer Harbor rail line at Park Terrace) is going ahead, this facilitates potential options for light rail to access the City centre, i.e. via the existing tram line terminus at Bowden/Entertainment Centre, or via Torrens Junction and Memorial Drive. For the purposes of this MCA, each PortLINK option (except Option 2 ‘heavy rail’) was assessed with both City access options.

 The four options assessed were: Route Option 1: ITLUP route, light rail conversion via Torrens Junction Option.  Route Option 2: Electrification of Heavy Rail plus Port Adelaide Spur.  Route Option 3: Light rail conversion to Outer Harbour and West Lakes and Grange Road Tram.  Route Option 4: Heavy or Light Rail to Outer Harbour, tram to Grange and West Lakes.

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.

Unlike other tram corridors the PortLINK corridor accommodates public transport users on the existing heavy rail line. While the Light Rail options 1 and 3 scored higher than option 2 (electrification) several important operational, cost and public transport user criteria will need to be investigated further before a decision can be made in relation to whether heavy rail or light rail/tram is preferred. These criteria include:

 In vehicle travel time – there is a view that trams will be slower than heavy rail and therefore impact on overall travel times. For example the tram sections on Port Road-North Terrace would be slower compared with current heavy rail access to Adelaide Railway Station. However, third generation trams accelerate and brake faster than heavy vehicle fleets and achieve top speeds of close to 80km/hr, ideal for closely spaced stops such as the PortLINK corridor. Therefore, the difference may be relatively low from most locations along the corridor.  Door to door travel time – Light rail has the flexibility of changing from being a rapid, corridor priority, LRT vehicle to an ‘in-road’ tram via the street system, penetrating both centres and the CBD (driving superior door to door times and patronage destination catchments). Heavy rail connectivity from and to the Port Adelaide viaduct Station is limited by its location / design while at the CBD end some workers are inconvenienced by the location of the Adelaide Railway Station.  Frequency - Most public transport planners apply the rule of thumb: patronage increases by about 2/3rds due to frequency and 1/3rd due to catchment population growth. An increase in service frequencies may therefore improve the attractiveness of the tram and reduce the dependency upon private car travel. LRT/trams for the North West Corridor could provide service frequencies as low as 3-5 minutes between Woodville and the City.  Capacity and seated versus standing time - the capacity of the existing Adelaide fleet is only 179 passengers per tram car. New wide bodied and longer trams such as Flexity 2 Tram/LRT vehicle (similar to the Gold Coast tram) with modifications to city platforms and door openings can be configured to carry 284 passengers, 104 seated and 180 standing (248 at a 75% crush load). At 5 minute frequencies trams can accommodate close to 3,000 passengers per hour. The 4000 electric train (3 car consists) can carry up to 240 seated and 300 standing passengers (430 in total at 80% crush load). Therefore, at the existing 15 minute frequency only half the number of passengers can be accommodated by trains (1,600 passengers per hour) compared with higher frequency and 13 AdeLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Summary Report

larger trams. Nevertheless, trains cater for more seated passengers for a longer part of the journey, and potential standing times need to be assessed. 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.

Given the further investigations required for PortLINK, the Design Labs for this corridor will explore both heavy and light rail options.

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.

14 AdeLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Summary Report

Figure 5: PortLINK options showing one heavy rail and 3 light rail/tram options.

15 AdeLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Summary Report

1.4.3 ProspectLINK The MCA has assessed the following options:

 Route Option A: Prospect Road ITLUP Route (via O’Connell Street).  Route Option B: Churchill Road (via O’Connell Street, Barton Terrace West, Jeffcott Road, Torrens Road).

Figure 6: ProspectLINK options.

16 AdeLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Summary Report

1.4.4 UnleyLINK Two options were considered in the MCA:

 Unley Road and Belair Road ITLUP Route.  Goodwood Road terminating at Repatriation General Hospital site (utilising Glenelg Line).

Figure 7: UnleyLINK options.

Other potential alternative routes not considered in this MCA due to:

 Fullarton Road also considered due to high density catchment at Parkside, but constraints were considered to be very challenging. Area at Waite cannot be developed, and hence lower uplift potential.  Duthy St / George St also considered due to less traffic impact, but smaller catchment and reduced opportunities.  King William Road catchment was limited and the road width is constrained.

17 AdeLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Summary Report

1.4.5 WestLINK Two WestLINK options were considered in the AdeLINK MCA.

 Option A: Henley Beach Road ITLUP Route (via West Tce and Glover Ave) including Airport spur via Airport Road.  Option B: Sir Donald Bradman Drive (via Grote Street) terminating at Airport.

Figure 8: WestLINK options.

A third route option being along Richmond Road (via James Congdon Dr and Deacon Ave terminating at Airport) was not considered in the MCA. The Richmond Road option provided the opportunity for tram storage (corner of Marion and Richmond Roads), connectivity to Marleston TAFE site redevelopment opportunity, Keswick interstate rail terminal integration and employment hubs (e.g. World Business Park and RAA headquarters). However, only the Henley Beach Road and Sir Donald Bradman Drive options were assessed the limited scope for uplift on Richmond Road.

It is noted that the original ITLUP route for WestLINK was to continue along Henley Beach Road to Henley Square, with an Airport spur. However, for the purposes of the MCA, the section linking the Adelaide CBD with the airport formed the section for assessment. This was due to:

 there being plausible options for this section of WestLINK;  consensus at the workshop largely favoured connecting to Henley Square from the airport to occur via Henley Beach Road, rather than Burbridge Road (or otherwise); and 18 AdeLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Summary Report

 an extension to Henley Square being possible via PortLINK (from Grange, should the line be converted to light rail).  The route via Henley Beach Road offers very limited uplift potential or activation of main streets  PortLINK offers an alternative connection to Henley Beach Road that is cost effective and could be more viable re outcomes but is contingent on the feasibility of PortLINK. Continuation to Henley Square via Henley Beach Road or Grange will nevertheless require further investigations to determine the preferred route. To that end a separate study would determine which of the two routes indicated in Appendix A could be advanced.

19 AdeLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Summary Report

1.4.6 CityLINK The MCA has assessed the following options:

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

Figure 9: CityLINK options.

20 AdeLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Summary Report 2 Multi-Criteria Analysis

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 (43 for all suburban links and 45 for CityLINK) 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. 2.1 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.

21 AdeLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Summary Report

2.2 How does the Multi-Criteria Analysis Work? 2.2.1 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. 2.2.2 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.

22 AdeLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Summary Report

2.2.3 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.

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

23 AdeLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Summary Report

2.3 MCA and AdeLINK Planning Process The purpose of the MCA is to assist in identifying which route options has merit in taking forward to the next stages of the study, including Design Labs.

A graphic identifying how the MCA process fits into the broader project consultation process (including approvals and council involvement) is provided below.

Figure 10: Overview of the AdeLINK network study process.

24 AdeLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Summary Report

2.4 AdeLINK (Suburban Routes) Themes and Criteria 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.  Corridor ability to support the 30 Year Plan vision for infill and corridor development.  Ability to support an emerging main street providing a range of local services to the community.  An environment that is potentially dynamic and adaptable to be ‘living spaces’. Theme 2: Connectivity for the local economy and community Creating a connected city which connects people to employment, education, services and recreation.  Connect the inner and middle suburbs to the CBD, enhancing access to employment, education, healthcare, entertainment and other opportunities in the CBD.  Connect the city to the suburbs providing lifestyle opportunities including activity centres, employment, education, healthcare, entertainment and other opportunities.  Quality of and demand for the end of route activity, including tourism.  Reduce transport disadvantage and social severance. Theme 3: Integrated transport Providing an efficient public transport system that moves more people, more reliably, more often.  Improve the customer’s perception of the PT experience, including safety and reliability.  Least direct road impacts including movement of traffic, freight, buses.  Least direct road impacts on severance for pedestrians and cyclists.  Ability to integrate and/or replace current bus services.  Impact on the current network role and function (e.g. freight routes versus commuter routes).  Impact to signalised intersections. Theme 4: Economic Impacts Supporting a modern and innovative city which provides investment opportunities and return on property and infrastructure investment.  Patronage potential (revenue).  Constructability and business impacts.  Potential for property uplift and value capture.  Least route impacts (property acquisition, tree removal, services, car parking).  Potential for contributions from Government Land. Theme 5: Environmental sustainability Improving Adelaide’s position as a sustainable and carbon neutral city including reduced car dependency.  An environment that enables walking, cycling and public transport use.

25 AdeLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Summary Report

2.5 CityLINK Themes and Criteria 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.  Corridor ability to support the 30 Year Plan vision for infill and corridor development.  Ability to support an emerging main street providing a range of local services to the community.  An environment that is potentially dynamic and adaptable to be ‘living spaces’. Theme 2: Connectivity for the local economy and community Creating a connected city which connects people to employment, education, services and recreation.  Connect the inner and middle suburbs to the CBD, enhancing access to employment, education, healthcare, entertainment and other opportunities in the CBD.  Connect the city to the inner and middle suburbs enhancing access to activity centres, employment, education, healthcare, entertainment and other opportunities.  Reduce transport disadvantage and social severance. Theme 3: Integrated transport Providing an efficient public transport system that moves more people, more reliably, more often.  Improve the customer’s perception of the PT experience, including safety and reliability.  Least direct road impacts including movement of traffic, freight, buses.  Least direct road impacts on severance for pedestrians and cyclists.  Ability to integrate and/or replace current bus services.  Impact on the current network role and function (e.g. freight routes versus commuter routes).  Impact to signalised intersections. Theme 4: Economic Impacts Supporting a modern and innovative city which provides investment opportunities and return on property and infrastructure investment.  Patronage potential (revenue).  Constructability and business impacts.  Potential for property uplift and value capture.  Least route impacts (property acquisition, tree removal, services, car parking).  Potential for contributions from Government Land. Theme 5: Environmental sustainability Improving Adelaide’s position as a sustainable and carbon neutral city including reduced car dependency.  An environment that enables walking, cycling and public transport use.

26 AdeLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Summary Report 3 Context

Some contextual assessments were required to inform the MCA process. The following sections describe some of the contextual considerations by the AdeLINK project team in undertaking the MCA investigations. 3.1 Light Rail Networks Light rail and trams generally use one and the same vehicles, however the key differences between modes typically exist in their corridors, as well as the function and nature of the services.

Light rail is often used to describe what is a more rapid-transit solution by servicing widely spaced stations at a higher speed from a designated corridor with its own reserved right-of-way (segregated running). Light rail is therefore typically provided to serve longer distances, such as between a city centre and more distant suburbs, as these trips are increasingly sensitive to speed and reliability.

Trams generally operate within the road corridor and can be mixed with street traffic (shared running) or provided a dedicated lane (separated running). This leaves trams more susceptible to traffic conditions and road signalling, making them less effective for longer commutes, but enhance street activation and precinct vibrancy.

Despite these functional differences, the two modes can often integrate both functions in a single service. For example, some tram services may have short sections more akin to a light rail service where stops are more sparsely spread and/or sections where they have on-road right-of-way. Similarly, light rail lines may have tram-like segments, particularly within city centres and other areas of high pedestrian activity (refer Figure 11 below).

It is common to see tram services take exclusive road lanes where available, such as in medians of wide boulevards enabling a light rail-like function, but they are designed with the presumption that mixed flow is acceptable where exclusive lanes cannot be provided. In essence, the terms ‘light rail’ and ‘tram’ define two polar ends of a spectrum, where their similarities often facilitate various combinations of functionality.

Figure 11: Conceptualising urban light rail and tram networks.

27 AdeLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Summary Report

3.2 Light Rail Corridor Typologies Three types of light rail/tram infrastructure exist for AdeLINK corridors:

 Shared running in which trams share the lanes on the road with general traffic (motor vehicles, cyclists etc.). This type of tram line has the slowest and most unreliable operations and with the greatest delay to car traffic.  Separated running in which trams use the road corridor, but have dedicated or separated lanes from those carrying general traffic. This provides priority movement for the trams and the car traffic in order to minimise conflicts, delays to movement and safety.  Segregated running in which trams operate in a dedicated corridor or tramway with right of way at crossings and no parallel conflicts with cars or other vehicular, cyclist or pedestrian movements. This type of tram line has the lowest level of direct land use connectivity and is consequently the least effective in stimulating re-generation and up-lift, but the most efficient in managing service reliability. Examples of these three types of tram infrastructure are shown below and overleaf.

Shared Running (Jetty Road, Glenelg):

28 AdeLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Summary Report

Separated Running (North Terrace, Adelaide):

Segregated Running (Adelaide - Glenelg Tramway):

29 AdeLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Summary Report

3.3 Assumptions To calculate elements of the MCA, some assumptions were necessary in order to provide a broad figure to enable scoring. This section outlines some of these assumptions and their rationale. NOTE: Assumptions specific to each of the measures are specified in the detailed reports for each corridor. 3.3.1 Walking Distance Assumptions People are prepared to walk varying distances to public transport before they consider driving. While there is no exact figure, research shows that the type of public transport will determine how far people are prepared to walk. High-frequency public transport such as light rail can encourage people to regularly walk twice as far to access public transport compared to bus routes. This is due to a variety of factors, including the reliability of the service and quality of the journey. Most people will spend up to ten minutes walking to a high-priority, fixed-line and frequent service and around five minutes to a bus stop. 1

The physical walking distance to public transport stops varies due to a range of factors, which include those illustrated below.

Figure 12: Factors that impact walking to transport.

1 Department of Infrastructure and Transport (Australian Government) 2013, ‘Walking, Riding and Access to Public Transport: SUPPORTING ACTIVE TRAVEL IN AUSTRALIAN COMMUNITIES (Ministerial Statement)’, accessed 24 May 2016, . 30 AdeLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Summary Report

Figure 13: Distances walked from home to PT nodes as part of trips to all other places.

(Data derived from a household travel survey undertaken in the City of Brisbane). 2

2 Graph adapted from: Burke, M & Brown, A 2007, ‘Distances people walk for transport’, Road and Transport Research, vol. 16, no. 3, pp: 17–29. 31 AdeLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Summary Report

Appendices

32 AdeLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Summary Report Appendix A: MCA Results and Summary Data

33 AdeLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Summary Report

EastLINK

Option A: Norwood Parade ITLUP Route Option C: Hybrid Option, Norwood Option B: Magill Road (via Rundle Rd, (via Rundle Road, Parade West, Norwood Parade and upper Magill Road Beulah Rd, Sydenham Rd) Parade and Penfolds Road) (connecting via Glynburn Road)

Theme Criteria Measure Comment Score Comment Score Comment Score

2,482 properties with CVSV ratio of 1.3:1 or less and 1,663 Potential dwelling yield increases (using DPTI RDPA tool). While all three alignment options have a similar number of properties with a CVSV ratio of Number of properties within the 1.3:1, the Magill-Parade Hybrid option yields 2,329 properties with CVSV ratio of 2,510 properties with CVSV ratio of 600m corridor that have a Capital slightly more properties from the Residential 1.3:1 or less and 1,729 potential 1.3:1 or less and 1,853 Potential Value: Site Value ratio of less than Development Potential Analysis tool, as it 3 dwelling yield increases (using DPTI 3 dwelling yield increases (using DPTI 3 1.3. incorporates more of the north eastern RDPA tool) RDPA tool) section of all alignment options where the potential for infill development is greatest. However, given that all options are relatively similar, equal rating has been applied to all options. Cubic metres of transit supportive Corridor's ability to zoning/policy areas within 600m support the 30 Year Plan Total development supportive area: Total development supportive area: Total development supportive area: of the corridor. Area of urban 3 3 3 vision for infill and 17,016,355.36 m 22,873,911.49 m 23,393,376.07 m corridor, regeneration or other corridor development 2 3 3 1 zones that support increased development potential multiplied Average per km: 2,638,194.63 m3 Average per km: 3,731,470.06 m3 Average per km: 3,626,880.01 m3 by the allowable height. Recent approved development applications within immediate 145 dwellings 3 54 dwellings 1 145 dwellings 3 corridor (0-200m). Average size of parcels within the Average parcel size in UrC Zones: 1,658.71 Average parcel size in UrC Zones: Average parcel size in UrC Zones: Urban Corridor Zones within 600m m2 2 1,589.22 m2 1 1,601.99 m2 1 of the corridor. Amount of protective zoning: 4,339,745.44 Amount of protective zoning: Amount of protective zoning: Area of heritage, character & 2 2 2 protected zoning provisions that m 4,435,841.24 m 4,949,772.95 m could restrict future development -1 -2 -2 potential (within 600m of the Average per km: 672,828.75 m2 Average per km: 723,628.26 m2 Average per km: 767,406.66 m2 corridor).

Ability to support The Parade has a significant amount of Magill Road has a significant amount The Parade – Large amount of active Meters of active frontages along emerging and existing active frontage located in district centre of active frontage sporadically placed frontage confined to a small area. the corridor 1 1 1 main streets providing a zones. However, this is confined to a limited along the entire corridor, with only a Glynburn Road – No active frontage

34 AdeLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Summary Report

range of local services to area that would receive the majority of the small decrease on both sides when the community positive impact. compared with The Parade. There is a greater potential for new Magill Road – Minimal active opportunities and improvements frontage from Glynburn Road along a greater expanse of the onwards. corridor with the implementation of a tram. The Parade/Magill Road hybrid While Magill Road has a higher total option has the highest count of Business Point Data: the type of business count, in comparison The compatible businesses (even if the The Parade has a high number and businesses that would be Parade has a higher number and total percentage is marginally less percentage of high street compatible compatible with a 'main-street' percentage of high street compatible than the Parade-only option) with businesses (295 compatible businesses, at a 2 1 3 environment (corridor frontage businesses. (247 compatible 325 compatible businesses, at a rate rate of 51% of all businesses) only) businesses, at a rate of 36% of all of 50% of all businesses. Therefore, businesses) the Parade/Magill hybrid rates higher in this measure. Significant land uses: Significant land uses: Significant land uses: • Residential • Residential • Residential Transit supportive land use mix • General commercial (offices, within 400m of the existing • Education • Retail commercial 2 consulting etc.) 1 3 corridor. • Recreation • Utility/industry • Education • Public institution • Vacant residential • Public institution Significant land uses: Significant land uses: Significant land uses: Transit supportive and main street • Education • Retail commercial • Public institution land use mix of the corridor • Residential 1 • General commercial 3 • Some retail commercial 2 frontage (up to 50m). • Recreation • Education • Utility industry • Residential 2 2 2 An environment that is Square metres of publicly Total public open space: 340,422 m Total public open space: 138,908 m Total public open space: 195,913 m accessible open space within potentially dynamic and 2 3 2 1 2 2 400m of the corridor. Average per km: 52,779 m Average per km: 22,660 m Average per km: 30,374 m adaptable to be ‘living spaces’ including open Quality and amenity of main Intermittent but high main street amenity Sections of Magill Rd are medium Intermittent but high main street space and landscape streets along The Parade 1 main street amenity 0 amenity along The Parade 1 amenity Options A and C had very similar Peak Travel time estimates, based Options A and C had very similar overall overall travel time results, on the corridor's ability to Option B via Magill Road achieved the travel time results, approximately 3 minutes approximately 3 minutes greater accommodate shared/separated best travel time between Magill greater than Option B. All Options provided than Option B. All Options provided running. Measured at intervals 1 Campus and Rundle Street, Kent Town 2 1 significant improvement on exiting significant improvement on exiting and end of route (if comparable) during the AM Peak hour Connect the inner and timetabled bus services over similar routes. timetabled bus services over similar from the parklands city edge. middle suburbs to the routes. CBD, enhancing access to 1,018 tertiary students within 400m 1,203 tertiary students within 400m employment, education, Number of tertiary students 1,224 tertiary students within 400m catchment or 161 per kilometre of catchment or 181 per kilometre of 2 healthcare, within the 400m catchment catchment or 184 per kilometre of route 3 2 3 route route entertainment and other Number of persons employed in opportunities in the CBD 4,980 employees within 400m 5,471 employees within 400m professional, managerial, service 5,563 employees within 400m catchment catchment or 787 per kilometre of catchment or 823 per kilometre of etc. jobs within the 400m 837 per kilometre of route 3 2 3 route route catchment of the corridor 600m catchment Adelaide City employees: 600m catchment Adelaide City 600m catchment Adelaide City 3,992 2 employees: 3,839 2 employees: 4,156 3

35 AdeLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Summary Report

Number of corridor residents (up 600m catchment density per km: 600m catchment density per km: to 600m) that work in the 600m catchment density per km: 618.9 626.3 644.3 Adelaide CBD. Options A and C had very similar Off-Peak Travel time estimates, Options A and C had very similar overall overall travel time results, Option B via Magill Road achieved the based on the corridor's ability to travel time results, approximately 3 minutes approximately 3 minutes greater best off-peak travel time between accommodate shared/separated greater than Option B. All Options provided than Option B. All Options provided 1 Magill Campus and Rundle Street, 1 1 Connect the city to the running. Measured at intervals significant improvement on exiting significant improvement on exiting Kent Town. inner and middle suburbs and from the parklands city edge timetabled bus services over similar routes. timetabled bus services over similar enhancing access to routes. activity centres, Number of significant employment, education, attractors/generators along the healthcare, 27 attractors (5 major) 21 attractors (4 major) 23 attractors (5 major) corridor (e.g. schools, activity 1 0 1 entertainment and other centres etc.) opportunities 600m catchment resident population: 600m catchment resident population: 600m catchment resident Number of people residing within 22,788 21,618 population: 22,713 the 600m corridor. 3 600m catchment density per km: 3 600m catchment density per km: 3 600m catchment density per km: 3,533 3,526.6 3,521.4 Quality of and demand for the end of route Qualitative assessment of end of Magill Campus Magill Campus Magill Campus activity, including route existing activity 1 1 1 tourism Dwellings without a motor vehicle: Dwellings without a motor vehicle: Number of households without a Dwellings without a motor vehicle: 1,169 motor vehicle within 600m 935 1,199 Reduce transport 2 1 3 catchment. Average per km: 181 Average per km: 153 Average per km: 186 disadvantage and social severance Average SEIFA 'relative disadvantage' score of the Average SEIFA score: 1047 1 Average SEIFA score: 1046 1 Average SEIFA score: 1041 1 corridor's 600m catchment. Length of shared running vs All routes assume shared running All routes assume shared running All routes assume shared running separated running throughout 0 throughout 0 throughout 0 Improve the customer’s The Magill/Parade hybrid utilises the perception of the public On the whole, Magill Road carries the Parade Route is expected to disrupt the less busy sections of Magill Road transport experience, more traffic and nearly twice as much least motorised/commercial traffic, and is (traffic tends to build towards the including safety, levels of competing traffic: traffic commercial traffic than The Parade, ranked the highest for this measure, city-end of Magill Road) however frequency of services and volumes on corridor. Existing -1 however both routes carry a similar -3 -2 followed by the Parade/Magill Hybrid and comparative to the section that reliability amount of traffic at the western (City) then the Magill Road Route. would use The Parade, it would section of the routes. potentially conflict with more traffic. AADT = 21,600 (between Fullarton Road and AADT =21,600 (between Fullarton AADT = 22,400 (between Fullarton Osmond Terrace), 16,400 (between Osmond Road and Osmond Terrace), 16,400 Road and Osmond Terrace), 26,000 Terrace and Portrush Road), 13,200 (between Osmond Terrace and (between Osmond Terrace and 3 (between Portrush and Glynburn Road) and Portrush Road), 13,200 (between Portrush Road) 23,000 (between 8,600 (between Glynburn Road and Portrush and Glynburn Road) and Portrush and Glynburn Road) and Penfold/St Bernards Road). 16,300 (between Glynburn Road and Least direct road impacts 16,300 (between Glynburn Road and AADT for cars, commercial Penfold/St Bernards Road). CV = 520 including movement of Penfold/St Bernards Road). CV = 900 vehicles CV = 520 (between Fullarton Road and -1 -3 (between Fullarton Road and -2 traffic, freight (between Fullarton Road and Osmond Osmond Terrace), 460 (between Osmond Osmond Terrace), 460 (between Terrace), 1,000 (between Osmond Terrace and Portrush Road), 470 (between Osmond Terrace and Portrush Terrace and Portrush Road), 900 Portrush and Glynburn Road) and 350 Road), 470 (between Portrush and (between Portrush and Glynburn (between Glynburn Road and Penfold/St Glynburn Road) and 750 (between Road) and 750 (between Glynburn Bernards Road). Glynburn Road and Penfold/St Road and Penfold/St Bernards Road) Bernards Road).

36 AdeLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Summary Report

volume to capacity ratio of the Fullarton Road crossing has significant Penfold Road at capacity. Sections of Worst parts of Options 1 & 2 plus road corridor before and after impacts. Sections of high V:C ratio at 0 high V:C ratio at bottlenecks 0 Glynburn Road at capacity -1 tram implemented bottlenecks Number of times the route crosses Major Cycling Route. 7 crossings possibly Major Cycling Route. 12 crossings Major Cycling Route. 8 crossings over a BikeDirect route affected. -1 possibly affected. -2 possibly affected. -1 Major Cycling Route. Bike Lanes are Impact on(removal) or ability to intermittent Major Cycling Route. Part-time bike Major Cycling Route. Impacts as per retain routes along the corridor Assume existing will be retained, but are -1 lanes along Magill Rd. Assume will be 0 A, but wider roadway on Glynburn 0 (BikeDirect route) likely to be impacted at narrow road retained. Rd. Least direct impacts on sections and tram stops. severance for pedestrians and cyclists Assume design solutions will retain road crossings at pedestrian desire Assume design solutions will retain road Assume PACs will remain or be number of pedestrian refuges or lines. PACs will remain or be crossings at pedestrian desire lines. Assume relocated to tram stops. Assume crossings which would require relocated to tram stops. Additional PACs will remain or be relocated to tram -1 refuges at Fullarton Road and Beulah -1 -1 removal. crossing opportunity may occur on stops. Road will be impacted. Glynburn Road with potential tram stops. Conflicts with three routes and Conflicts with numerous bus services on The indirect travel path may result in Ability to integrate with Combines and compounds the Parade, though some impacts could be longer travel time between Magill and/or replace current impacts of both of the above options The number of metro services mitigated through route redistribution. Campus and the City compared with public transport services but fails to provide opportunities for removed Impacts are greatest to the east of Portrush -1 the B10 service – see Travel Time 0 -2 (including bus, train, O- redistribution to mitigate conflicts. Road where additional services access The section. New catchments activated by Bahn) No additional route coverage. Parade on route to the City. accessing roadways not currently serviced Adelaide Metro routes. The Hybrid Parade-Magill Option is Magill Road is identified as a High comparable to the Parade option as Impact on the current The Norwood Parade is both a Priority Public Frequency Public Transport Corridor both a Priority/High Frequency network role and Transport Corridor and a Priority Pedestrian and High Activity Pedestrian Area, Corridor and a Priority Pedestrian Alignment to (or conflict with) the function (e.g. freight Area making it compatible with tram while compatible with Trams, less so area between the Parade and SA DPTI functional hierarchy 3 1 2 routes versus commuter corridors. No options are either Major Traffic than the Parade and Hybrid Options. Payneham Road, and therefore rates routes) Routes or Freight Routes. No options are either Major Traffic similarly to the Parade. No options Routes or Freight Routes. are either Major Traffic Routes or Freight Routes. Impact to signalised Number of intersections that the 6 signalised intersections affected to point of 5 signalised intersections affected 5 signalised intersections affected intersections route has to cross convergence on Rundle Street, Kent Town -1 -1 -1 Moderate increase in PT uptake can be Moderate increase in PT uptake can Moderate increase in PT uptake can 2036 AM Peak patronage envisaged due in-fill developments and 1 be envisaged due in-fill developments 2 be envisaged due in-fill 2 Patronage potential Urban corridor and Urban corridor developments and Urban corridor (revenue) moderate increase in revenue moderate to significant increase in Outcome of criteria 1.1: translated moderate increase in revenue corresponding corresponding to increase in revenue corresponding to increase into trips to increase in patronage 1 2 2 patronage in patronage Lowest length of services in inner Overall services length in each option is Highest inner lane impacts with 33% Constructability and Potential risks to underground lanes but highest overall. Impacts to similar but Option B has the least length more service length compared to 4 business impacts services -1 inner lanes given greatest weighting 0 -2 within the inner lanes Option B as most likely to be affected. Based on standard rate of $3,000 per m2 res plus $5,000 per m2 Potential for property commercial and retail (10% of 10% of growth potential ($1.08bn) 10% of growth potential ($1.47bn) 10% of growth potential ($1.46bn) uplift and value capture 0 1 1 total value potential based on OS research)

37 AdeLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Summary Report

Significant amount of indented parking which may not be impacted, Significant amount of indented parking 4 travel lanes, therefore assumed but narrow sections likely to be On street parks affected which may not be impacted, but narrow clearway conditions will remain -1 0 affected. 4 travel lanes, therefore -1 sections likely to be affected unchanged. assumed clearway conditions will remain unchanged. Least route impacts on Impacts on medians, including (trees, services, car trees and islands (calculation to be Large number of trees may require Large number of trees may require removal parking, heritage items) determined upon review of actual No trees require removal removal – confined to a small area of – confined to a small area of the route -1 0 -1 corridors, but to include removal the route of trees) Number of heritage items along Total heritage items: 83 Total heritage items: 71 Total heritage items: 86 the immediate corridor frontage State: 9, Local: 74 -2 State: 6, Local: 65 -1 State: 10, Local: 76 -2 (up to 50m). Average per km: 12.9 Average per km: 11.6 Average per km: 13.3 Amount of government owned land: Amount of government owned land: Amount of government owned land: Measure the amount of local and 845,478.92 m2 621,830.81 m2 780,724.37 m2 state government owned land Number of parcels: 343 2 Number of parcels: 368 1 Number of parcels: 323 2 within 600m of the corridor. Average size: 2,464.95 m2 Average size: 1,689.76 m2 Average size: 2,417.1 m2 Amount of SA Housing Trust land: 69,711.88 Amount of SA Housing Trust land: Amount of SA Housing Trust land: Potential for Measure the amount of SA m2 59,231.76 m2 74,137.04 m2 contributions from Housing Trust Land along the Number of parcels: 69 2 Number of parcels: 91 1 Number of parcels: 72 2 government land corridor (within 600m). Average size: 1,010.32 m2 Average size: 650.9 m2 Average size: 1,029.68 m2

Measure the amount of Urban 2 Amount of Renewal SA land: Amount of Renewal SA land: Amount of Renewal SA land: 7,667.12 m 2 2 Renewal Authority (Renewal SA) 20,271.77 m 7,667.12 m land along the corridor (within Number of parcels: 13 1 Number of parcels: 18 2 Number of parcels: 13 1 600m). Average size: 589.78 m2 Average size: 1,126.21 m2 Average size: 589.78 m2 Enables walking and public Visual interest, personal security, road Less ability to cross road, less passive Visual interest, personal security, An environment that transport crossings 1 surveillance & night-time activity 0 road crossings 1 enables walking, cycling Part time bike lanes only, difficult to 5 and public transport use Enables cycling Inconsistent bike lanes 1 -1 Inconsistent bike lanes 1 cross road

Total score 37 26 38

38 AdeLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Summary Report

PortLINK Option 1: ITLUP route, light rail conversion via Torrens Option 3: Light rail conversion Option 4: Heavy or Light Rail to Option 2: Electrification of Junction, including Grange, to Outer Harbour, Tram to Outer Harbour, tram to Grange Existing Heavy Rail plus Port Semaphore and West Lakes West Lakes and Grange, and West Lakes via Grange Adelaide Spur spurs (reserving the option for Option via Torrens Junction Road and Frederick Road Henley Beach addition) Theme Criteria Measure Comment Score Comment Score Comment Score Comment Score

8,857 properties with CVSV ratio of 1.3:1 or less and 5,236 potential dwelling yield increases (using DPTI RDPA tool). 1,0713 properties with CVSV 10,786 properties with CVSV Number of properties within PortLINK Options 3 and 4 ratio of 1.3:1 or less and ratio of 1.3:1 or less and the 600m corridor that have yeild higher potential 7,532 properties with CVSV 6,485 potential dwelling 6,709 potential dwelling a Captial Value: Site Value increases from residential 2 ratio of 1.3:1 or less 0 3 3 yield increases (using DPTI yield increases (using DPTI ratio of less than 1.3. infill development, given RDPA tool) RDPA tool) they capture more of the western suburban areas of Seaton and Grange. PortLINK options 3 and 4 rate slightly higher in this measure. Cubic metres of transit supportive zoning/policy areas within 600m of the Total development Total development Total development Corridor's ability to corridor. Area of urban supportive area: supportive area: supportive area: support the 30 Year corridor, regeneration or 231,881,561.62 m3 3 N/A 0 253,111,915.44 m3 3 252,445,911.17 m3 3 Plan vision for infill other zones that support 1 and corridor increased development development potential multiplied by the Average per km: Average per km: Average per km: allowable height. 6,450,112.98 m3 6,299,450.36 m3 6,239,394.74 m3 Recent approved development applications 430 dwellings, 489 hotel 0 dwellings, 245 hotel 430 dwellings, 489 hotel 430 dwellings, 489 hotel within immediate corridor rooms 3 rooms 1 rooms 3 rooms 3 (0-200m). Average size of parcels within the Urban Corridor Average parcel size in UrC Average parcel size in UrC Average parcel size in UrC Average parcel size in UrC Zones within 600m of the Zones: 1,515.98 m2 0 Zones: 1,579.89 m2 1 Zones: 1,595.10 m2 2 Zones: 1,601.71 m2 2 corridor. Amount of protective Amount of protective Amount of protective Amount of protective Area of heritage, character & zoning: 7,121,985.22 m2 zoning: 7,318,680.77 m2 zoning: 7,318,680.77 m2 zoning: 7,707,098.46 m2 protected zoning provisions that could restrict future 1 0 1 1 development potential Average per km: 198,108.07 Average per km: 182,147.36 Average per km: 182,147.36 Average per km: 190,486.86 (within 600m of the m2 m2 m2 m2 corridor).

39 AdeLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Summary Report

Semaphore Road – Semaphore Road – West Lakes Boulevard – Significant active frontage Significant active frontage Limited active frontage would be served with light will be served with light rail. along the entire corridor. rail. West Lakes Boulevard – West Lakes Boulevard – Port Adelaide CBD – Limited active frontage Limited active frontage Significant active frontage Meters of active frontages along the entire corridor. N/A along the entire corridor. will be served with tram. along the corridor 0 0 1 1 Port Adelaide CBD – Port Adelaide CBD – Grange Road – Significant Significant active frontage Significant active frontage active frontage would be would be served with trams. would be served with tram. served with tram. Grange Road – Significant Tapley’s Hill Road – Minimal active frontage would be active frontage along served with tram. corridor. 211 compatible businesses, 76 compatible businesses, 332 compatible businesses, 269 compatible businesses, at a rate of 61% of all at a rate of 49% of all at a rate of 55% of all at a rate of 51% of all businesses. businesses. businesses. businesses. Given the lack of businesses Given the lack of businesses Given the lack of businesses Given the lack of businesses with direct frontage onto the with direct frontage onto with direct frontage onto the with direct frontage onto the existing Port rail corridor, the existing Port rail existing Port rail corridor, existing Port rail corridor, the options with a greater corridor, the options with a the options with a greater the options with a greater component of on-street greater component of on- component of on-street component of on-street tram components rate street tram components tram components rate tram components rate Ability to support Business Point Data: the type better in this measure. rate better in this measure. better in this measure. better in this measure. emerging and of businesses that would be While Option One has a While Option One has a While Option One has a While Option One has a existing main streets compatible with a 'main- higher precentage of 2 higher precentage of 0 higher precentage of 3 higher precentage of 2 providing a range of street' environment (corridor compatible businesses compatible businesses compatible businesses compatible businesses local services to the frontage only) (courtesy of the on-road (courtesy of the on-road (courtesy of the on-road (courtesy of the on-road community component through Port component through Port component through Port component through Port Adelaide), Options 3 and 4 Adelaide), Options 3 and 4 Adelaide), Options 3 and 4 Adelaide), Options 3 and 4 have a higher number of have a higher number of have a higher number of have a higher number of compatible businesses compatible businesses compatible businesses compatible businesses (courtesy of Grange Road, (courtesy of Grange Road, (courtesy of Grange Road, (courtesy of Grange Road, and also includes the and also includes the and also includes the and also includes the businesses within the Port. businesses within the Port. businesses within the Port. businesses within the Port. Therefore Options 3 and 4 Therefore Options 3 and 4 Therefore Options 3 and 4 Therefore Options 3 and 4 rate higher in this measure. rate higher in this measure. rate higher in this measure. rate higher in this measure. Significant land uses: Significant land uses: Significant land uses: Significant land uses: • Golf • Residential • Reserve • Education Transit supportive land use • Public institution • Rural residential • Retail commercial • Reserve mix within 400m of the • Recreation 2 • Utility/industry 1 • Residential 3 • Residential 3 existing corridor. • Residential • General commercial • Retail commercial • Retail commercial • Education • Utility/industry Significant land uses: Significant land uses: Significant land uses: Significant land uses: Transit supportive and main • Recreation • Public institution • Education • Education street land use mix of the • Residential • Residential • General commercial • General commercial corridor frontage (up to 2 1 3 3 50m). • Vacant • Utility/industry • Residential • Residential • Retail commercial • Retail commercial

40 AdeLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Summary Report

An environment that Total public open space: Total public open space: Total public open space: Total public open space: Square metres of publicly is potentially 3,347,588.28 m2 2,388,555.24 m2 3,386,852.9 m2 3,383,134.71 m2 dynamic and accessible open space within 2 1 2 1 Average per km: 93,117.89 Average per km: 83,897.27 Average per km: 84,292.01 Average per km: 83,616.77 adaptable to be 400m of the corridor. m2 m2 m2 m2 ‘living spaces’ Relatively low except for Relatively low except for including open space Quality and amenity of main Semaphore Road & Port Rail corridor not applicable Semaphore Road & Port Port Adelaide CBD only and landscape streets 1 0 1 0 amenity Adelaide CBD Adelaide CBD Peak hour assessment shows that providing Peak hour assessment shows improved travel times for all Peak hour assessment shows Peak Travel time estimates, that providing improved origin locations is that providing improved Peak hour assessment shows based on the corridor's travel times for all origin challenging for all options. travel times for all origin that providing improved ability to accommodate locations is challenging for Due to the scale of travel locations is challenging for travel times for all origin shared/separated running. all options. Option 1 time savings achieved via all options. Option 1 0 1 -1 locations is challenging for -1 Measued at intervals and provides the best overall electrification of heavy rail provides the best overall all options. Option 4 was the Connect the inner end of route (if comparable) service delivery (access to all on the existing rail lines, service delivery (access to all poorest performer overall and middle suburbs from the parklands city edge. origins by rail transport), Option 2 is awarded the origins by rail transport), to the CBD, closely followed by Option 3. best overall scores despite closely followed by Option 3. enhancing access to not delivering services from employment, two of the five origins. education, 1,709 tertiary students 1,377 tertiary students 2,033 tertiary students 2,000 tertiary students Number of tertiary students healthcare, within 400m catchment or within 400m catchment or within 400m catchment or within 400m catchment or within the 400m catchment 1 1 1 1 entertainment and 55 per kilometre of route 56 per kilometre of route 57 per kilometre of route 59 per kilometre of route other opportunities Number of persons in the CBD employed in professional, 14,058 employees within 11,148 employees within 15,639 employees within 15,324 employees within managerial, service etc jobs 400m catchment of or 450 1 400m catchment or 444 per 1 400m catchment or 451 per 1 400m catchment or 454 per 1 within the 400m catchment per kilometre of route kilometre of route kilometre of route kilometre of route of the corridor 600m catchment Adelaide 600m catchment Adelaide 600m catchment Adelaide 600m catchment Adelaide Number of corridor residents 2 city employees: 8,412 city employees: 7,017 city employees: 9,479 city employees: 9,562 (up to 600m) that work in 2 1 3 3 the Adelaide CBD. 600m catchment density per 600m catchment density per 600m catchment density per 600m catchment density per km: 234 km: 246 km: 236 km: 236 Shared running travel time No change in performance Off-Peak Travel time improvements provide times for Option 2 as there Benefits most in comparison estimates, based on the significant benefit compared is no influence from road due to the greatest amount corridor's ability to to timetabled bus services traffic. Improvements on Improvements to all on-road of on road running but still a Connect the city to accommodate and reduces the gap to other options reduces the sections but little change in 1 1 -1 lower performer overall in -1 the inner and middle shared/separated running. Option 2. Option 1 is the gap but Option 2 still comparison to other options comparison to other suburbs enhancing Measued at intervals and best overall performer given provides the most rapid options. access to activity from the parklands city edge services are provided from services for the 3 origins centres, all 5 origins. served. employment, Number of significant education, attractors/generators along 26 attractors (8 major) 11 attractors (2 major) 32 attractors (10 major) 28 attractors (10 major) healthcare, the corridor (e.g. schools, 1 0 1 1 entertainment and activity centres etc) other opportunities 600m catchment resident 600m catchment resident 600m catchment resident 600m catchment resident Number of people residing population: 74,366 population: 63,818 population: 85,308 population: 85,367 within the 600m corridor. 600m catchment density per 2 600m catchment density per 1 600m catchment density per 3 600m catchment density per 3 km: 2,069 km: 2,242 km: 2,123 km: 2,110

41 AdeLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Summary Report

Port Adelaide CBD & Port Adelaide CBD & Port Adelaide CBD & Quality of and tourism, Outer Harbour, tourism, Outer Harbour, tourism, Outer Harbour, Port Port Adelaide tourism, demand for the end Qualitative assessment of Semaphore Main Street & Semaphore Main Street & CBD, Outer Harbour, West Outer Harbour, Spur to Port of route activity, end of route existing activity beach, West Lakes, Grange 3 2 beach, West Lakes, Grange 3 Lakes, Grange beach, 3 centre, Grange beach including tourism beach, (possible link to beach, (possible link to (possible link to Henley Henley Square) Henley Beach) Beach) Number of households Dwellings without a motor Dwellings without a motor Dwellings without a motor Dwellings without a motor without a motor vehcile vehicle: 4,314 vehicle: 3,769 vehicle: 4,741 vehicle: 4,854 Reduce transport 2 1 3 3 within 600m catchment. disadvantage and Average per km: 120 Average per km: 132 Average per km: 118 Average per km: 120 Average SEIFA 'relative social severance Average SEIFA score: disadvantage' score of the Average SEIFA score: 967.26 Average SEIFA score: 968.66 Average SEIFA score: 968.69 1 962.91 1 1 1 corridor's 600m catchment. 68% of route segregated 48% of route segregated 47% of route segregated running on the Outer Harbor Entirely segregated running, running on the Outer Harbor Length of shared running vs running on the Outer Harbor line and existing Grange no change to existing line. 16% separated, 35% separated running 0 1 line. 25% separated, 29% -1 -1 spur. 17% seaparated, 14% arrangements shared running. Greatest shared running. shared running. overall route length. The options for this measure The options for this measure The options for this measure The options for this measure are not directly comparable, are not directly comparable, are not directly comparable, are not directly comparable, given that Options 3 and 4 given that Options 3 and 4 given that Options 3 and 4 given that Options 3 and 4 are the only tram corridor are the only tram corridor are the only tram corridor are the only tram corridor options with a significant options with a significant options with a significant options with a significant Improve the amount of the route not amount of the route not amount of the route not amount of the route not customer’s within the existing corridor within the existing corridor within the existing corridor within the existing corridor perception of the (i.e. along Grange Road, (i.e. along Grange Road, (i.e. along Grange Road, (i.e. along Grange Road, public transport Tappleys Hill Road or West Tappleys Hill Road or West Tappleys Hill Road or West Tappleys Hill Road or West experience, including Lakes Boulevard), they are Lakes Boulevard), they are Lakes Boulevard), they are Lakes Boulevard), they are safety, frequency of levels of competing traffic: expected to have a higher expected to have a higher expected to have a higher expected to have a higher services and traffic volumes on corridor. impact on vehicle traffic. 0 impact on vehicle traffic. 0 impact on vehicle traffic. -1 impact on vehicle traffic. -2 reliability Existing Given the role that Tapleys Given the role that Tapleys Given the role that Tapleys Given the role that Tapleys Hill Road plays in carrying Hill Road plays in carrying Hill Road plays in carrying Hill Road plays in carrying freight and vehciles, Option freight and vehciles, Option freight and vehciles, Option freight and vehciles, Option 3 4 ranks lower than Opton 3, 4 ranks lower than Opton 3, 4 ranks lower than Opton 3, 4 ranks lower than Opton 3, and Options 1 and 2 which and Options 1 and 2 which and Options 1 and 2 which and Options 1 and 2 which predominantly utilise the predominantly utilise the predominantly utilise the predominantly utilise the tram corridor (with the tram corridor (with the tram corridor (with the tram corridor (with the exceptions of Semaphore exceptions of Semaphore exceptions of Semaphore exceptions of Semaphore Road and West Lakes Road and West Lakes Road and West Lakes Road and West Lakes Boulevard for Option 1) are Boulevard for Option 1) are Boulevard for Option 1) are Boulevard for Option 1) are rated as neutral. rated as neutral. rated as neutral. rated as neutral. AADT = A majority of the AADT = A majority of the AADT = A majority of the route is within the existing route is within the existing route is within the existing corridor: the sections with corridor: the sections with corridor: the sections with non-existing 'in-road' tram Least direct road non-existing 'in-road' tram AADT = Entire route non-existing 'in-road' tram running are on Semaphore impacts including AADT for cars, commercial running are on Semaphore contained within existing running are on Semaphore Road (8,200 vpd), Hart movement of traffic, vehicles Road (8,200 vpd), Hart 0 rail corridor, therefore no 0 Road (8,200 vpd), Hart -1 -2 Street Bridge (6,300) West freight Street Bridge (6,300) West traffic volumes calculated Street Bridge (6,300) West Lakes Boulevard (19,800), Lakes Boulevard (19,800) Lakes Boulevard (19,800), War Memorial Drive (7,700), and War Memorial Drive War Memorial Drive (7,700) Grange Road (31,300 (7,700). and Grange Road (31,300 between Critendon and

42 AdeLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Summary Report

between Critendon and Holdbrooks Road) and Holdbrooks Road). Tappleys Hills Road (29,600 near Grange Road intersection).

CV = A majority of the route is within the existing CV = A majority of the route corridor: the sections with is within the existing CV = A majority of the route non-existing 'in-road' tram corridor: the sections with is within the existing running are on Semaphore non-existing 'in-road' tram corridor: the sections with Road (270 cv), Hart Street running are on Semaphore non-existing 'in-road' tram Bridge (205) West Lakes Road (270 cv), Hart Street running are on Semaphore Boulevard (790), War Bridge (205) West Lakes Road (270 cv), Hart Street Memorial Drive (270), Boulevard (790), War Bridge (205) West Lakes Grange Road (1,700 Memorial Drive (270), Boulevard (790), War between Critendon and Grange Road (1,700 Memorial Drive (270). Holdbrooks Road) and between Critendon and Tappleys Hills Road (2400 Holdbrooks Road) near Grange Road intersection) Grange Road sections have greatest road impacts. Small No on-road sections so no volume to capacity ratio of No road sections with V:C sections of high V:C ratio on impacts. Level crossing Grange Road sections have the road corridor before and ratios above 0.47, capacity Tapleys Hill Road may make 0 operations may improve 0 greatest road impacts. -1 -1 after tram implemented available within road routes. this worse than PortLINK 3 with EMUs but within limited scoring range. Number of times the route Grange Rd is a major cycling Grange Rd & Tapleys Hill Rd Existing rail corridor, no crosses over a BikeDirect 3 crossings possibly affected. route. 17 crossings possibly are major cycling routes. 24 -1 impacts 2 -2 -2 route affected. crossings possibly affected. Least direct impacts Impact on(removal) or ability on severance for Impacts likely on St Vincent Existing rail corridor, no Impacts likely on St Vincent Impacts likely on St Vincent to retain routes along the pedestrians and Street & Carlisle Street -1 impacts 0 Street & Carlisle Street -1 Street & Carlisle Street -1 corridor (bikedirect route) cyclists number of pedestrian Tram stops will increase safe Tram stops will increase safe Tram stops will increase safe refuges or crossings which pedestrian opportunities in 1 NONE 0 pedestrian opportunities in 1 pedestrian opportunities in 1 would require removal. some locations. some locations. some locations. Impacts are medium but Ability to integrate Impacts are minor and manageable, in some cases with and/or replace Impacts on many routes are manageable, in some cases by replacement of existing current public The number of metro minor, additional coverage No direct impact to bus by replacement of existing bus services, though some transport services services removed improves overall service -1 services 0 bus services. Additional -1 Grange Road routes will -2 (including bus, train, provision. coverage improves overall maintain a degree of parallel O-Bahn) service provision. running and turning movements across tram

43 AdeLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Summary Report

tracks. Additional coverage improves overall service provision.

Option 4 is disadvantaged by Given all of the the PortLINK Given all of the the PortLINK Tapleys Hill Road being Impact on the options utilise the existing options utilise the existing Options 3 and 4 rate highly identified as a Major Traffic current network role Alignment to (or conflictwith) dedicated existing Outer dedicated existing Outer as they incorproate longer Route and a Freight route. and function (e.g. the SA DPTI functional Harbour Line for a majority Harbour Line for a majority 1 1 lengths of High Pedestrian 1 For these reasons, most -1 freight routes versus heirarchy of the route, all options rate of the route, all options rate Areas. options rate similarly, with commuter routes) well as Public Transport well as Public Transport Option 3 having the slightly corridors. corridors. highest rating. 17 additional signalised 18 additional signalised intersections affected in on- intersections affected in on- Segregated running in 12 signalised intersections road sections of the route. road sections of the route. Impact to signalised Number of intersections that existing rail corridor, no affected in on-road sections intersections the route has to cross -1 signalised intersections 0 8 intersections with existing -2 8 intersections with existing -2 of the route impacted tram crossings may tram crossings may experience incresed experience incresed frequency of tram services. frequency of tram services. Moderate to significant Moderate increase in PT increase in PT uptake can be Moderate increase in PT uptake can be envisaged envisaged due to mixed use 2036 AM Peak patronage uptake can be envisaged N/A 1 1 due new corridor and in-fill 2 developments in Urban 2 due in-fill developments Patronage potential developments corridor, new extensions and (revenue) in-fill development moderate to significant moderate increase in moderate increase in Outcome of criteria 1.1: increase in revenue revenue corresponding to N/A revenue corresponding to translated into trips 1 1 2 corresponding to increase in 2 increase in patronage increase in patronage patronage Adds Tapleys Hill Road Existing corridor plus West Grange service delivered via impacts over Option 3. Lakes Boulevard from Albert Grange Road which adds Eastern end of West Lakes Park station, on road in Port significant impact length Boulevard has no services in Adelaide and Semaphore No impact to services as 4 above Option A. the roadway so is no saving Constructability and Potential risks to Road spur. option is limited to the on Option 3. business impacts underground services 0 existing rail infrastructure 1 -1 -2 Shortest length of impacted and corridor. Inner lane total: 16.0km, Inner lane total: 21.0km, services in inner lanes, outer outer lane total: 23.7km outer lane total: 27.0km lanes and overall impacts Inner lane total: 4.0km, outer lane total: 10.6km Based on standard rate of $3,000 per m2 res plus Potential for $5,000 per m2 commercial 10% of growth potential 10% of growth potential 10% of growth potential property uplift and N/A and retail (10% of total value ($11.99bn) 0 0 ($13.815bn) 1 ($13.84bn) 1 value capture potentail based on OS research)

44 AdeLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Summary Report

Semaphore Road - Semaphore Road - Significant amount of Significant amount of West Lakes Boulevard – No indented parking, therefore indented parking, therefore stopping along length of less likely to be affected by less likely to be affected by road, therefore no change. impacts to parking. impacts to parking. Port Adelaide CBD – Commercial Road is wide West Lakes Boulevard – No West Lakes Boulevard – No enough to facilitate parking. stopping along length of stopping along length of St Vincent Street parking is road, therefore no change. road, therefore no change. indented and therefore less Onstreet parks affected -1 No impact to parking 0 -2 likely to be affected. -2 Port Adelaide CBD – Port Adelaide CBD – Commercial Road is wide Commercial Road is wide Grange Road- 4 travel lanes, enough to facilitate parking. enough to facilitate parking. therefore assumed clearway St Vincent Street parking is St Vincent Street parking is conditions will remain indented and therefore less indented and therefore less unchanged. likely to be affected. likely to be affected. Grange Road- 4 travel lanes, Tapley’s Hill Road - 4 travel therefore assumed clearway lanes, therefore assumed Least route impacts conditions will remain clearway conditions will on (trees, services, unchanged. remain unchanged. car parking, heritage West Lakes Boulevard – 68 West Lakes Boulevard – 68 West Lakes Boulevard – 22 items) trees may require removal trees may require removal trees may require removal along entire length of road. along entire length of road. along entire length of road. Grange Road – 96 trees may Semaphore Road – 41 trees Semaphore Road – 41 trees require removal on Port may require removal may require removal Road median and Milner Impacts on medians, confined to the end of the confined to the end of the Street. Trees are only including trees and islands road length. road length. confined to these areas on (calculation to be N/A this section of the route. determined unpon review of -1 0 -1 -1 Grange Road – 96 trees may actual corridors, but to require removal on Port include removal of trees) Port Adelaide CBD – 9 trees Road median and Milner Port Adelaide CBD – 9 trees may require removal. Street. Trees are only may require removal. confined to these areas on this section of the route. Port Adelaide CBD – 9 trees Tapley’s Hill Road – No trees may require removal. requiring removal. Number of heritage items Total heritage items: 83 Total heritage items: 71 Total heritage items: 86 Total heritage items: 86 along the immediate corridor State: 9 Local: 74 -2 State: 6 Local: 65 -1 State: 10 Local: 76 -2 State: 10 Local: 76 -2 frontage (up to 50m). Average per km: 12.9 Average per km: 11.6 Average per km: 13.3 Average per km: 13.3 Amount of government Amount of government Amount of government Amount of government Measure the amount of local owned land: 4,725,226.03 owned land: 5,892,134.28 owned land: 5,816,638.31 owned land: 5,563,152.2 m2 and state government owned 2 m2 1 m2 3 m2 3 Potential for land within 600m of the Number of parcels: 3,404 Number of parcels: 2,812 Number of parcels: 3,656 Number of parcels: 3,479 corridor. contributions from Average size: 1,634.3 m2 Average size: 1,680.38 m2 Average size: 1,611.63 m2 Average size: 1,671.93 m2 government land Measure the amount of SA Amount of SA Housing Trust Amount of SA Housing Trust Amount of SA Housing Trust Amount of SA Housing Trust Housing Trust Land along the land: 1,007,693.14 m2 2 land: 719,516.64 m2 1 land: 1,142,892.06 m2 3 land: 1,130,570.68 m2 3 corridor (within 600m). Number of parcels: 1,765 Number of parcels: 1,346 Number of parcels: 1,942 Number of parcels: 1,914

45 AdeLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Summary Report

Average size: 570.93 m2 Average size: 534.56 m2 Average size: 588.51m2 Average size: 590.68 m2

Measure the amount of Amount of Renewal SA land: Amount of Renewal SA land: Amount of Renewal SA land: Amount of Renewal SA land: 2 2 2 2 Urban Renewal Authority 1,167,388.11 m 1,050,716.54 m 1,167,388.11 m 1,107,604.4 m (Renewal SA) land along the Number of parcels: 424 3 Number of parcels: 414 1 Number of parcels: 424 3 Number of parcels: 279 2 corridor (within 600m). Average size: 2,753.27 m2 Average size: 2,537.96 m2 Average size: 2,753.27 m2 Average size: 3,969.91 m2 Crossings only where rail Intermittent. Encouraging Enables walking and public maze / crossings exist, Main Roads with Less visual Main Roads with Less visual areas are Semaphore Rd, transport 1 Greenways not affected by 1 interest, shade/shelter 0 interest, shade/shelter 0 Greenways & West Lakes An environment that traffic enables walking, Outer Harbour Greenway & Grange Rd = less cycling Outer Harbour & Grange cycling and public Grange Greenway, Link to amenity. Link to Coast Park 5 Greenways encourage Grange Rd & Tapleys Hill transport use Coast Park via Semaphore via Semaphore Road. Enables cycling cycling, Coarse grain as Road = less cycling amenity Road. Semaphore Road has 1 1 Semaphore Road has high 0 -1 crossings only at rail mazes than all others. high quality cycling facilities quality cycling facilities /crossings. (separated and on-road). (separated and on-road).

Total score 37 26 39 28

46 AdeLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Summary Report

Prospect LINK Option A: Prospect Road ITLUP Route (via Option B: Churchill Road (via O’Connell Street, O’Connell Street) Barton Tce West, Jeffcott Rd, Torrens Road) Theme Criteria Measure Comment Score Comment Score 2,765 properties with CVSV ratio of 1.3:1 or less and 1760 potential dwelling yield increases (using DPTI RDPA tool). Number of properties within the 600m corridor The Prospect Road corridor has both more 2,330 properties with CVSV ratio of 1.3:1 or less and that have a Capital Value: Site Value ratio of less residential properties which are rated with a CVSV 3 1311 potential dwelling yield increases (using DPTI 2 than 1.3. ratio of less than 1.3:1. and a greater potential RDPA tool) dwelling yield from these properties. Therefore, Prospect Road Corridor is rated higher for this measure.

Cubic metres of transit supportive zoning/policy Corridor's ability to support the 30 areas within 600m of the corridor. Area of urban Total development supportive area: 50,229,499.21 3 3 Total development supportive area: 42,494,439.27 m Year Plan vision for infill and corridor, regeneration or other zones that m 3 2 corridor development support increased development potential multiplied by the allowable height. Average per km: 8,036,719.87 m3 Average per km: 6,176,517.34 m3 Recent approved development applications 206 dwellings, 140 hotel rooms 325 dwellings, 140 hotel rooms within immediate corridor (0-200m). 2 3 Average size of parcels within the Urban Corridor Average parcel size in UrC Zones: 991.29 m2 Average parcel size in UrC Zones: 991.29 m2 Zones within 600m of the corridor. 1 1 Amount of protective zoning: 1,914,846.14 m2 Amount of protective zoning: 1,763,253.59 m2 1 Area of heritage, character & protected zoning provisions that could restrict future development 2 -2 2 -1 potential (within 600m of the corridor). Average per km: 306,375.38 m Average per km: 256,286.86 m

Higher active frontage overall particularly on Lower active frontage, large amounts of industrial Western side. Potential and current service of main Meters of active frontages along the corridor warehousing and inactive frontages. Potential for street frontages may occur with the provision of 1 0 positive impact with light rail, however may be small. light rail.

140 compatible businesses, at a rate of 45% of all Business Point Data: the type of businesses that businesses. Prospect Road has a higher number of Ability to support emerging and 55 compatible businesses, at a rate of 38% of all would be compatible with a 'main-street' high street compatible businesses and has a higher existing main streets providing a 2 businesses. 1 range of local services to the environment (corridor frontage only) percentage of compatible businesses. Therefore, community Prospect Road rates higher in this measure.

Significant land uses: Significant land uses: • Residential • Utility/industry Transit supportive land use mix within 400m of • Education • General commercial (offices, consulting etc.) the existing corridor. 2 1 • Public institution • Retail commercial • Recreation

47 AdeLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Summary Report

Significant land uses: Significant land uses: • Retail commercial • Vacant Transit supportive and main street land use mix • Residential • Utility industry of the corridor frontage (up to 50m). • General commercial 3 • Residential 1 • Public institution • General commercial • Education 2 2 An environment that is potentially Square metres of publicly accessible open space Total public open space: 426,061 m Total public open space: 501,284 m dynamic and adaptable to be ‘living within 400m of the corridor. Average per km: 68,170 m2 1 Average per km: 72,861 m2 2 spaces’ including open space and Intermittent sections of high quality main street Quality and amenity of main streets Reduced main street amenity throughout landscape amenity amenity 1 -1 Option A has a slightly shorter travel length but Peak Travel time estimates, based on the Option A has a slightly shorter travel length but significantly lower overall travel time and thus is corridor's ability to accommodate significantly lower overall travel time and thus is the the favoured route from this perspective. Option A shared/separated running. Measured at intervals favoured route from this perspective. Both Options provides a better average travel speed over all 2 1 and end of route (if comparable) from the provide significant improvement over existing bus parts of the route, largely due to being delayed at parklands city edge. timetabled services. Connect the inner and middle fewer signalised intersections. suburbs to the CBD, enhancing access to employment, education, Number of tertiary students within the 400m 1,845 tertiary students within 400m catchment or 1,713 tertiary students within 400m catchment or 215 healthcare, entertainment and other catchment 252 per kilometre of route 3 per kilometre of route 2 opportunities in the CBD Number of persons employed in professional, 5,452 employees within 400m catchment or 744 4,696 employees within 400m catchment or 591 per managerial, service etc. jobs within the 400m per kilometre of route 2 kilometre of route 1 catchment of the corridor Number of corridor residents (up to 600m) that 600m catchment Adelaide city employees: 3,818 600m catchment Adelaide city employees: 3,366 work in the Adelaide CBD. 600m catchment density per km: 610.9 3 600m catchment density per km: 489.2 2 Option A has a slightly shorter travel length but Option A has a slightly shorter travel length but Off-Peak Travel time estimates, based on the significantly lower overall travel time and thus is significantly lower overall travel time and thus is the corridor's ability to accommodate the favoured route from this perspective. Option A 2 favoured route from this perspective. Both Options Connect the city to the inner and shared/separated running. Measured at intervals provides a better average travel speed over all 2 1 provide significant improvement over existing bus middle suburbs enhancing access to and from the parklands city edge parts of the route, largely due to being delayed at timetabled services. activity centres, employment, fewer signalised intersections. education, healthcare, entertainment and other Number of significant attractors/generators along 24 attractors (2 major) 15 attractors (3 major) opportunities the corridor (e.g. schools, activity centres etc.) 1 0

Number of people residing within the 600m 600m catchment resident population: 24,523 600m catchment resident population: 19,558 corridor. 600m catchment density per km: 3,923.7 3 600m catchment density per km: 2,842.7 1 Quality of and demand for the end Qualitative assessment of end of route existing Grand Junction Road – land-use currently industry, Grand Junction Road, land-use currently industry and of route activity, including tourism activity commercial and residential -2 commercial. Low residential population. -3 Number of households without a motor vehicle Dwellings without a motor vehicle: 1,120 Dwellings without a motor vehicle: 1,252 Reduce transport disadvantage and within 600m catchment. Average per km: 179 1 Average per km: 182 2 social severance Average SEIFA 'relative disadvantage' score of the Average SEIFA score: 985 Average SEIFA score: 965 corridor's 600m catchment. 1 2 Length of shared running vs separated running Both options assume shared running throughout 0 Both options assume shared running throughout 0

48 AdeLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Summary Report

Churchill Road carries significantly more traffic than Churchill Road carries significantly more traffic than Improve the customer’s perception Prospect Road, such is its connectivity to the wider Prospect Road, such is its connectivity to the wider of the public transport experience, levels of competing traffic: traffic volumes on transport network (with Cavan Road). For these transport network (with Cavan Road). For these including safety, frequency of corridor. Existing -1 -3 reasons, Prospect Road is ranked less negatively for reasons, Prospect Road is ranked less negatively for this services and reliability this measure. measure. AADT = 18,200 (north of Fitzroy Terrace) 16,100 AADT = 26,000 (north of Fitzroy Terrace) 25,600 (south (south of Regency Road) and 13,800 (north of of Regency Road) and 23,500 (north of Regency Road). AADT for cars and commercial vehicles Regency Road). Least direct road impacts including -1 -3 CV = 630 (north of Fitzroy Terrace) 780 (south of CV = 3,000 (north of Fitzroy Terrace) 2000 (south of movement of traffic, freight Regency Road) and 670 (north of Regency Road). Regency Road) and 2,500 (north of Regency Road). volume to capacity ratio of the road corridor Short sections of heavy congestion, particularly in Highly congested sections throughout and for longer before tram implemented southern parts 0 distances -1 7 crossings possibly affected. 12 crossings possibly affected. Major Cycling Route. Number of times the route crosses over a May impact on frequency of permeable access to BikeDirect route -2 There are less BikeDirect crossings of Churchill Road -1 the Braun Road Bicycle Boulevard. because the rail line reduces permeability to the west.

Major Cycling Route. Part-time bike lanes exist for Least direct impacts on severance 3.1km of Prospect Road only (south of Regency 6.8km of bike lane exists on Churchill Road. Wider road Impact on(removal) or ability to retain routes for pedestrians and cyclists Road only). Narrow road width in places - assume width and indented parking exists with higher likelihood 3 along the corridor (BikeDirect route) -1 0 existing will be retained but may be impacted at of retaining. tram stops. Assume design solutions will retain refuges. PACs will number of pedestrian refuges or crossings which Assume design solutions will retain refuges. Assume remain or be relocated to tram stops. Additional PACs would require removal. PACs will remain or be relocated to tram stops. 0 1 will be installed at tram stops. Ability to integrate with and/or One route (G10) removed entirely, possible Affects multiple routes, not possible to divert existing replace current public transport redirection of other services to parallel routes with routes to avoid or reduce conflicts. No reduction in The number of metro services removed services (including bus, train, O- minimal travel time change. Impacts to bus services -1 services as this route is not similar to existing bus -2 Bahn) limited to O’Connell Street. operations.

While Churchill Road has a higher hierarchy rating of High Frequency Corridor for Public Transport than Impact on the current network role Prospect Road is identified as a Priority Pedestrian Alignment to (or conflict with) the SA DPTI Prospect Road as a Standard Frequency Corridor (given and function (e.g. freight routes Area, which is compatible with Trams. Therefore, functional hierarchy 1 the high frequency of busses) it is also less compatible -2 versus commuter routes) Prospect Road rates higher in this measure. with trams given it is an identified Freight Route, with which trams are not compatible. Number of intersections that the route has to 3 signalised intersections affected to theoretical 5 signalised intersections affected including the major Impact to signalised intersections cross point of convergence on O'Connell Street -1 intersection of Churchill and Torrens Roads -2 Moderate to significant increase in PT uptake can Moderate to significant increase in PT uptake can be 2036 AM Peak patronage be envisaged due to mixed use developments in 2 envisaged due to mixed use developments in Urban 2 Patronage potential (revenue) Urban corridor and due in-fill development corridor and due in-fill development moderate to significant increase in revenue moderate increase in revenue corresponding to Outcome of criteria 1.1: translated into trips 4 corresponding to increase in patronage 2 increase in patronage 2 Constructability and business Services likely to be impacted only 73% the length Option B also has far greater length of services in Potential risks to underground services impacts of those impacted in Option B -1 outside lanes -2

49 AdeLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Summary Report

Based on standard rate of $3,000 per m2 res plus Potential for property uplift and $5,000 per m2 commercial and retail (10% of total 10% of growth potential ($2.78bn) 10% of growth potential ($2.57bn) value capture 1 1 value potential based on OS research) It is likely that car parking will be affected due to The existing indented car parking will reduce the On street parks affected narrow road sections and bicycle lanes. -2 likelihood for impacted car parks. -1

Impacts on medians, including trees and islands Minimal impact for Prospect Road with trees for Minimal impact for Churchill road in this option with (calculation to be determined upon review of Least route impacts on (trees, removal located in a confined area. -1 only 4 trees possibly requiring removal overall. 0 services, car parking, heritage items) actual corridors, but to include removal of trees)

Total heritage items: 51 Total heritage items: 65 Number of heritage items along the immediate State: 4 Local: 47 State: 6 Local: 59 corridor frontage (up to 50m). -1 -2 Average per km: 8.2 Average per km: 9.4 Amount of government owned land: 772,612.31 Amount of government owned land: 1,307,486.04 m2 Measure the amount of local and state m2 government owned land within 600m of the Number of parcels: 757 1 Number of parcels: 836 2 corridor. Average size: 1,020.62 m2 Average size: 1,563.98 m2 Potential for contributions from Amount of SA Housing Trust land: 384,840.71 m2 Amount of SA Housing Trust land: 316,376.59 m2 Measure the amount of SA Housing Trust Land government land Number of parcels: 584 Number of parcels: 631 along the corridor (within 600m). 2 1 Average size: 658.97 m2 Average size: 501.39 m2 Measure the amount of Urban Renewal Authority Amount of Renewal SA land: 0 Amount of Renewal SA land: 0 (Renewal SA) land along the corridor (within Number of parcels: 0 0 Number of parcels: 0 0 600m). Average size: 0 Average size: 0

An environment that enables Enables walking and public transport Road crossings, visual interest, fine-grain network 1 Coarse grain network due to adjacent rail line/rail yards -1 walking, cycling and public transport Better cycling facilities, but coarse grain network due to 5 use Enables cycling Inconsistent cycling facilities, fine-grain network 1 rail line/yards 1

Total score 32 10

50 AdeLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Summary Report

UnleyLINK Option B: Goodwood Road terminating at Option A: Unley Road and Belair Road ITLUP Route Repatriation General Hospital site (utilising Glenelg (via Pulteney St) Line) Theme Criteria Measure Comment Score Comment Score 1,845 properties with CVSV ratio of 1.3:1 or less and 605 potential dwelling yield increases (using DPTI RDPA tool).

Number of properties within the In comparison to the Unley Road corridor, the 1,882 properties with CVSV ratio of 1.3:1 or less and 600m corridor that have a Capital Goodwood Road corridor has slightly more 378 potential dwelling yield increases (using DPTI RDPA Value: Site Value ratio of less than 2 1 residential properties which are rated with a CV:SV tool) 1.3. ratio of less than 1.3:1. However the potential dwelling yield increases from these properties heavily favours the Unley Road corridor, therefore Unley Road Corridor is rated higher for this measure.

Cubic metres of transit supportive Total development supportive area: 23,297,033.72 zoning/policy areas within 600m of Total development supportive area: 28,761,208.89 m3 m3 the corridor. Area of urban corridor, Corridor's ability to support the 30 regeneration or other zones that Year Plan vision for infill and 3 3 support increased development corridor development potential multiplied by the allowable Average per km: 4,967,384.59 m3 Average per km: 4,357,758.92 m3 height.

Recent approved development 1 applications within immediate 140 dwellings 3 11 dwellings 1 corridor (0-200m). Average size of parcels within the Urban Corridor Zones within 600m of Average parcel size in UrC Zones: 15,581.82 m2 3 Average parcel size in UrC Zones: 15,581.82 m2 2 the corridor. Amount of protective zoning: 4,595,802.79 m2 Amount of protective zoning: 5,993,842.50 m2 Area of heritage, character & protected zoning provisions that could restrict future development 2 -1 2 -1 potential (within 600m of the Average per km: 979,915.31 m Average per km: 908,157.95 m corridor).

Unley Road has both a higher number in general and a higher percentage on the eastern and western While Goodwood Road has a significant amount of Meters of active frontages along the sides of Unley Road in comparison to Goodwood Ability to support emerging and active street frontages, many of these are sporadically corridor Road (30% higher on the Eastern side and 150% on 1 0 existing main streets providing a placed along the intended route. range of local services to the the Western side: Therefore, Unley Road rates community higher in this measure. Business Point Data: the type of 364 compatible businesses, at a rate of 55% of all 212 compatible businesses, at a rate of 51% of all businesses that would be compatible businesses. 2 businesses. 1

51 AdeLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Summary Report

with a 'main-street' environment While Goodwood Road has a significant number of (corridor frontage only) compatible high street businesses, Unley Road has both a higher number and a higher percentage of compatible businesses. Significant land uses: Significant land uses: • Residential • Residential Transit supportive land use mix within • Reserve • Recreation 400m of the existing corridor. • Retail commercial 2 • Education 1 • General commercial (offices, consulting etc.) • Utility/industry • Public institution Significant land uses: Significant land uses: Transit supportive and main street • Retail commercial • Residential land use mix of the corridor frontage • General commercial 3 • Utility industry 1 (up to 50m). • Education • Public institution • Open space Square metres of publicly accessible Total public open space: 549,892 m2 Total public open space: 691,434 m2 An environment that is potentially open space within 400m of the Average per km: 117,248 m2 1 Average per km: 104,763 m2 1 dynamic and adaptable to be ‘living corridor. spaces’ including open space and Overall, Unley Road has higher quality main street Although there are 2 sections with high quality main landscape amenity Quality and amenity of main streets amenity 1 street amenity, overall the main street amenity is poor 0

Peak Travel time estimates, based on Option B has a faster average travel speed due to the the corridor's ability to accommodate Option A has a slower average travel speed but a section of segregated running between Goodwood and shared/separated running. Measured shorter travel time over the total route due to the Greenhill Roads but a longer travel time over the total at intervals and end of route (if shorter length. Both routes have travel time 1 1 route due to the greater length. Both routes have travel comparable) from the parklands city advantages over comparable existing bus services. time advantages over comparable existing bus services. edge. Connect the inner and middle suburbs to the CBD, enhancing Number of tertiary students within 707 tertiary students within 400m catchment or 181 3 902 tertiary students within 400m catchment or 148 2 access to employment, education, the 400m catchment per kilometre of route per kilometre of route healthcare, entertainment and Number of persons employed in other opportunities in the CBD professional, managerial, service etc. 3,712 employees within 400m catchment or 949 per 4,824 employees within 400m catchment or 789 per jobs within the 400m catchment of kilometre of route 3 kilometre of route 2 2 the corridor 600m catchment Adelaide city employees: 4,239 600m catchment Adelaide city employees: 5,113 Number of corridor residents (up to 3 2 600m) that work in the Adelaide CBD. 600m catchment density per km: 903.8 600m catchment density per km: 774.7

Connect the city to the inner and Off-Peak Travel time estimates, based Option B has a faster average travel speed due to the middle suburbs enhancing access Option A has a slower average travel speed but a on the corridor's ability to section of segregated running between Goodwood and to activity centres, employment, shorter travel time over the total route due to the accommodate shared/separated Greenhill Roads but a longer travel time over the total education, healthcare, shorter length. Both routes have travel time 1 1 running. Measured at intervals and route due to the greater length. Both routes have travel entertainment and other advantages over comparable existing bus services. from the parklands city edge time advantages over comparable existing bus services. opportunities

52 AdeLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Summary Report

Number of significant attractors/generators along the 28 attractors (5 major) 22 attractors (4 major) corridor (e.g. schools, activity centres 1 0 etc.) Number of people residing within the 600m catchment resident population: 17,945 600m catchment resident population: 24,261 600m corridor. 600m catchment density per km: 3,826.2 3 600m catchment density per km: 3,675.9 2 Quality of and demand for the end Qualitative assessment of end of Mitcham Station, Mitcham Village & residential land- Repatriation General Hospital, Pasadena High School & of route activity, including tourism route existing activity uses 3 residential land-uses 2 Number of households without a Dwellings without a motor vehicle: 838 Dwellings without a motor vehicle: 1,049 motor vehicle within 600m Average per km: 179 1 Average per km: 159 1 Reduce transport disadvantage and catchment. social severance Average SEIFA 'relative disadvantage' score of the corridor's 600m Average SEIFA score: 1061 1 Average SEIFA score: 1054 1 catchment. Route has more shared running than Option A but also Length of shared running vs accesses 1.3km of the segregated Glenelg Line from Route is entirely shared running separated running 0 Goodwood Road to the end of the route assessment at 1 Greenhill Road.

Improve the customer’s perception Although Unley Road and Goodwood Road have Although Unley Road and Goodwood Road have of the public transport experience, comparable traffic volumes at the northern sections comparable traffic volumes at the northern sections of including safety, frequency of of their corridors, Goodwood Road has higher traffic their corridors, Goodwood Road has higher traffic volumes at the southern sections of the corridor (i.e. volumes at the southern sections of the corridor (i.e. services and reliability levels of competing traffic: traffic south of Grange Road. Goodwood Road also carries south of Grange Road. Goodwood Road also carries volumes on corridor. Existing -1 -2 more commercial vehicles than Unley Road. For this more commercial vehicles than Unley Road. For this reason, Unley Road is likely to disrupt less reason, Unley Road is likely to disrupt less motorised/commercial traffic along the corridor, and motorised/commercial traffic along the corridor, and is is rated higher for this measure. rated higher for this measure.

AADT = 30,100 (south of Greenhill Road) 28,600 AADT = 29,000 (south of Greenhill Road) 28,400 (north (north of Cross Road), 29,600 (south of Cross Road) of Cross Road), 33,200 (south of Cross Road) and AADT for cars, commercial vehicles and 23,700 (south of Grange Road). -1 34,300 (south of Grange Road). -2 3 Least direct road impacts including CV = 650 (south of Greenhill road), 600 (north of CV = 950 (south of Greenhill road), 1,100 (north of movement of traffic, freight Grange Road) Grange Road) volume to capacity ratio of the road Both routes show high V:C ratios for the AM Peak Goodwood Road route currently operates above corridor before and after tram direction, above what would be considered 0 capacity and therefore is a worse prospect than Unley 1 implemented congested Road for traffic impacts Major Cycling Route.

Number of times the route crosses 3 crossings possibly affected. Significant east-west links where impacts must be mitigated is the Charles 3 crossings possibly affected. over a BikeDirect route -1 -1 Street / Culvert lane shared path and access to the Least direct impacts on severance Rugby Street/Porter Street Bike Boulevard. for pedestrians and cyclists Major Cycling Route. Part-time bike lanes exist for Impact on(removal) or ability to 5.1km of Unley Rd. Assumed existing to be retained retain routes along the corridor No existing bike lanes on Goodwood Road. but likely to be impacted at narrow sections or tram -1 0 (BikeDirect route) stops.

53 AdeLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Summary Report

number of pedestrian refuges or Assume design solutions will retain road crossings at PACs will remain or be relocated to tram stops. crossings which would require pedestrian desire lines. Assume PACs will remain or 0 Additional PACs will be installed at tram stops. 1 removal. be relocated to tram stops. Ability to integrate with and/or Impacts multiple parallel bus routes but provides an replace current public transport The number of metro services opportunity for large scale rationalisation of services Major parallel service impacts and less palatable services (including bus, train, O- removed and integration of all of Adelaide Metro services at -1 rationalisation opportunities. -2 Bahn) the end of the tram line. Goodwood Road is a High Activity Pedestrian Route only for the northern section of the corridor, while Unley Road and Goodwood Road are both High Impact on the current network role Unley Road is a High Activity Pedestrian Route for the Alignment to (or conflict with) the SA Frequency Public Transport Corridors and Peak Hour and function (e.g. freight routes length of the corridor. DPTI functional hierarchy Routes, neither are Major Traffic routes or Freight 2 1 versus commuter routes) Routes. This is illustrative of the main-street characteristics along the length of the corridor. Therefore, Unley Road rates higher in this measure. Number of intersections that the Impact to signalised intersections 5 signalised intersections affected 4 signalised intersections affected route has to cross -1 -1 Moderate increase in PT uptake can be envisaged due Moderate increase in PT uptake can be envisaged in-fill developments and Urban corridor; existing PT 2036 AM Peak patronage due in-fill developments and Urban corridor 2 (Tram) catchment near northern end excluded in 1 Patronage potential (revenue) assessment Outcome of criteria 1.1: translated moderate to significant increase in revenue moderate increase in revenue corresponding to into trips corresponding to increase in patronage 2 increase in patronage 1

Constructability and business Potential risks to underground Sum total length of services in inner lanes in Option Sum total length of services in inner lanes in Option A is impacts services A is less than half the equivalent in Option B 0 less than half the equivalent in Option B -2

Based on standard rate of $3,000 per Potential for property uplift and m2 res plus $5,000 per m2 commercial 10% of growth potential ($1.84bn) 10% of growth potential ($1.12bn) value capture and retail (10% of total value 1 0 potential based on OS research) Parking exists outside of clearway hours. Likely to Goodwood Road wider than Unley Road, therefore less On street parks affected -1 0 4 be impacted at narrow sections or tram stops. likely to be affected by impacts to parking. Impacts on medians, including trees and islands (calculation to be Large number of trees requiring removal – Trees are Least route impacts on (trees, determined upon review of actual No trees likely to require removal. 0 located on median strips along long expanses of the -1 services, car parking, heritage corridors, but to include removal of corridor. items) trees)

Number of heritage items along the Total heritage items: 44 Total heritage items: 28 immediate corridor frontage (up to State: 6 Local: 38 -2 State: 4 Local: 24 -1 50m). Average per km: 9.4 Average per km: 4.2

2 2 Measure the amount of local and Amount of government owned land: 342,633.27 m Amount of government owned land: 727,405.19 m state government owned land within Potential for contributions from Number of parcels: 243 1 Number of parcels: 362 2 government land 600m of the corridor. Average size: 1,410.01 m2 Average size: 2,009.41 m2 Amount of SA Housing Trust land: 61,341.07 m2 Amount of SA Housing Trust land: 49,101.49 m2

54 AdeLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Summary Report

Measure the amount of SA Housing Number of parcels: 109 Number of parcels: 106 Trust Land along the corridor (within 2 2 2 1 600m). Average size: 562.76 m Average size: 463.22 m Measure the amount of Urban Amount of Renewal SA land: 0 Amount of Renewal SA land: 0 Renewal Authority (Renewal SA) land Number of parcels: 0 0 Number of parcels: 0 0 along the corridor (within 600m). Average size: 0 Average size: 0

An environment that enables Enables walking and public transport Visual interest, passive surveillance, shelter/shade 1 Less ability to cross road, less personal security -1 walking, cycling and public Inconsistent cycling facilities, frequent road 5 transport use Enables cycling No cycling facilities, difficult to cross road crossings 1 -1

Total score 43 19

55 AdeLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Summary Report

WestLINK Option A: Henley Beach Road ITLUP Route (via West Option B: Sir Donald Bradman Drive (via Grote Tce and Glover Ave) including Airport spur via Street) terminating at Airport Airport Road Theme Criteria Measure Comment Score Comment Score

2,834 properties with CVSV ratio of 1.3:1 or less and 1003 potential dwelling yield increases (using DPTI RDPA tool).

In comparison to the Sir Donald Bradman Drive corridor, Number of properties within the 600m the Henley Beach Road corridor has less residential 2,052 properties with CVSV ratio of 1.3:1 or less and corridor that have a Capital Value: Site Value properties which are rated with a CVSV ratio of less than 2 1091 potential dwelling yield increases (using DPTI RDPA 2 ratio of less than 1.3. 1.3:1. However the potential dwelling yield increases tool) from these properties is relatively comparative, slightly favouring the Sir Donald Bradman Drive corridor. However, given that both options are relatively similar, equal rating has been applied to these options.

Cubic metres of transit supportive Total development supportive area: 47,753,298.65 m3 Total development supportive area: 39,767,152.41 m3 zoning/policy areas within 600m of the Corridor's ability to support the 30 Year Plan vision for infill and corridor. Area of urban corridor, 3 2 corridor development regeneration or other zones that support increased development potential multiplied Average per km: 8,666,660.37 m3 Average per km: 8,115,745.39 m3 by the allowable height.

Recent approved development applications 1 244 hotel rooms 0 within immediate corridor (0-200m). 3 0

Average size of parcels within the Urban Average parcel size in UrC Zones: 1,274.15 m2 Average parcel size in UrC Zones: 1,196.62 m2 Corridor Zones within 600m of the corridor. 2 1

Amount of protective zoning: 2,070,312.31 m2 Amount of protective zoning: 1,131,028.56 m2 Area of heritage, character & protected zoning provisions that could restrict future development potential (within 600m of the -2 -1 2 2 corridor). Average per km: 375,737.26 m Average per km: 230,822.16 m

Meters of active frontages along the corridor 1,251m 1 509m 0 Ability to support emerging and existing main streets providing a Henley Beach Road has a higher number of high street Business Point Data: the type of businesses range of local services to the compatible businesses (115) and has a higher percentage 46 compatible businesses, at a rate of 46% of all that would be compatible with a 'main-street' community of compatible businesses (61%) Therefore Henley Beach 2 businesses. 1 environment (corridor frontage only) Road rates higher in this measure.

56 AdeLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Summary Report

Significant land uses: Significant land uses: • Residential • Utility/industry Transit supportive land use mix within 400m • Vacant • General commercial (offices, consulting etc.) of the existing corridor. 2 1 • Recreation • Residential Significant land uses: Significant land uses: • Retail commercial • General commercial Transit supportive and main street land use • Public institution • Utility industry mix of the corridor frontage (up to 50m). 2 1 • Education • Residential • Vacant • Open space Total public open space: 488,806 m2 Total public open space: 504,194 m2 Square metres of publicly accessible open An environment that is space within 400m of the corridor. 2 1 2 2 potentially dynamic and Average per km: 88,713 m Average per km: 102,897 m adaptable to be ‘living spaces’ including open space and The Torrensville area has a significant section of high and Large allotments (course grain) are predominant along landscape amenity Quality and amenity of main streets medium quality main street amenity 1 Sir Donald Bradman Drive -1

Travel times for the two Options are comparable and Travel times for the two Options are comparable and Peak Travel time estimates, based on the within a range of uncertainty given modelling within a range of uncertainty given modelling corridor's ability to accommodate assumptions. Both deliver significant improvement assumptions. Both deliver significant improvement shared/separated running. Measured at compared to existing comparable bus services. 2 compared to existing comparable bus services. 2 intervals and end of route (if comparable) Interconnection with CityLINK routes may play a role in Interconnection with CityLINK routes may play a role in from the parklands city edge. Connect the inner and middle differentiating these routes differentiating these routes suburbs to the CBD, enhancing Number of tertiary students within the 400m 807 tertiary students within 400m catchment or 160 per 498 tertiary students within 400m catchment or 110 per access to employment, education, catchment kilometre of route 2 kilometre of route 1 healthcare, entertainment and other opportunities in the CBD Number of persons employed in professional, 3,222 employees within 400m catchment or 639 per 2,169 employees within 400m catchment or 478 per managerial, service etc. jobs within the 400m kilometre of route 2 kilometre of route 1 catchment of the corridor

Number of corridor residents (up to 600m) 600m catchment Adelaide city employees: 2,761 600m catchment Adelaide city employees: 2,320 2 that work in the Adelaide CBD. 600m catchment density per km: 501.1 3 600m catchment density per km: 473.5 2

Off-Peak Travel time estimates, based on the corridor's ability to accommodate As per Peak travel time assessment but with greater As per Peak travel time assessment but with greater shared/separated running. Measured at benefits over existing bus services 2 benefits over existing bus services 2 Connect the city to the inner and intervals and from the parklands city edge middle suburbs enhancing access to activity centres, employment, education, healthcare, Number of significant attractors/generators entertainment and other along the corridor (e.g. schools, activity 12 attractors (5 major) 1 15 attractors (4 major) 1 opportunities centres etc.)

Number of people residing within the 600m 600m catchment resident population: 17,323 600m catchment resident population: 14,230 corridor. 600m catchment density per km: 3,143.9 3 600m catchment density per km: 2,904.1 2

57 AdeLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Summary Report

Quality of and demand for the Qualitative assessment of end of route Adelaide Airport (including tourism, employment, Adelaide Airport (including tourism, employment, end of route activity, including existing activity commercial & retail) 3 commercial & retail) 3 tourism Number of households without a motor Dwellings without a motor vehicle: 1,174 Dwellings without a motor vehicle: 967 vehicle within 600m catchment. Average per km: 213 1 Average per km: 197 1 Reduce transport disadvantage and social severance Average SEIFA 'relative disadvantage' score of Average SEIFA score: 976 Average SEIFA score: 966 the corridor's 600m catchment. 1 2

Length of shared running vs separated Approximately half of the route is separated running, the Over 85% of the route is shared running with only the Improve the customer’s running remainder shared 1 section within Airport land separated 0 perception of the public transport Sir Donald Bradman Drive carries more traffic at the experience, including safety, Both Henley Beach Road and Sir Donald Bradman Drive levels of competing traffic: traffic volumes on eastern (between South Road and James Congdon Drive) frequency of services and carry a similar amount of traffic along the sections of corridor. Existing -1 and western section (between Marion Road and Airport -2 reliability their corridors between Marion Road and South Road. Road) in comparison to Henley Beach Road.

AADT = 30,400 (between Airport Road and Marion Road), AADT = 820 (between airport Road and Marion Road), 30,200 (between Marion Road and South Road) and 1030 (between Marion Road and South Road) and 1250 25,500 (between South Road and James Congdon Drive). (between South Road and James Congdon Drive). AADT for cars, commercial vehicles -1 -2 Least direct road impacts CV = 820 (between airport Road and Marion Road), 1030 CV = 840 (between airport Road and Marion Road), 880 including movement of traffic, (between Marion Road and South Road) and 1250 (between Marion Road and South Road) and 1100 freight (between South Road and James Congdon Drive). (between South Road and James Congdon Drive).

Lower levels of congestion, particularly west of Marion volume to capacity ratio of the road corridor Peak direction V:C ratios are generally over 0.7 and often Road. The western approach to West Terrace is the only before and after tram implemented in a range considered to be congested. -1 1 section over 0.5. Number of times the route crosses over a Major Cycling Route. 6 crossings possibly affected. Major Cycling Route. 4 crossings possibly affected. 3 BikeDirect route -1 -1

Major Cycling Route. Part time bike lanes exist both sides west of Falcon Avenue (2.6km) and east of Parker Avenue Major Cycling Route. Bikes lanes exist for entire length of (1.4km). Bike lanes are intermittent between Falcon Impact on(removal) or ability to retain routes Sir Donald Bradman Drive. Full time bike lanes exist Least direct impacts on severance Avenue and Parker Street (0.9km). Bike lanes exist for along the corridor (BikeDirect route) -2 along Sir Donald Bradman Drive – likely to be retained 0 for pedestrians and cyclists entire length of Airport Road. Some narrow road sections due to road width and indented parking. (Henley Beach Road) and impacts are likely, particularly at tram stops.

Assume design solutions will retain road crossings at number of pedestrian refuges or crossings Additional crossing opportunity are likely to occur on pedestrian desire lines. PACs at tram stops will improve which would require removal. potential tram stops. 0 -1 pedestrian safety in comparison to refuges. Impacts multiple routes with some limited possibility to Mirrors existing Airport services which would be Ability to integrate with and/or re-route services via Sir Donald Bradman Drive, run outer eliminated. Fewer overall impacts with parallel services replace current public transport collector services with express runs from beyond the The number of metro services removed and less downstream impacts on services beyond the services (including bus, train, O- tram catchment or to terminate routes at interchanges -2 -1 Airport. Any impacted services could be re-routed via Bahn) with the tram, forcing transfers but encouraging tram Henley Beach Road, operate as limited stop service usage.

58 AdeLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Summary Report

Impacts are manageable and may result in improvements through the conflicted areas or be eliminated and force to catchment levels of service and travel times. Provides transfers to trams. some improved access for Airport Road residents, giving direct access to the City without the current need to transfer. Sir Donald Bradman Drive is also identified as a Major Impact on the current network Henley Beach Road is a Priority Public Transport Corridor, Traffic Route, Major Freight Route which is not Alignment to (or conflict with) the SA DPTI role and function (e.g. freight whereas Sir Donald Bradman Drive is a High Frequency compatible with trams. For this reason, Henley Beach functional hierarchy 1 -2 routes versus commuter routes) Corridor. Road rates significantly higher than Sir Donald Bradman Drive. Impact to signalised intersections Number of intersections that the route 6 signalised intersections affected -1 6 signalised intersections affected -1 Moderate to significant increase in PT uptake can be Moderate to significant increase in PT uptake can be 2036 AM Peak patronage envisaged due to mixed use developments in Urban 2 envisaged due to mixed use developments in Urban 1 Patronage potential (revenue) corridor and in-fill development corridor and in-fill development moderate to significant increase in revenue moderate increase in revenue corresponding to increase Outcome of criteria 1.1: translated into trips corresponding to increase in patronage 2 in patronage 1 Inner lane services length approx. 85% of Option B plus Constructability and business Total length of services in the road reserve almost 150% Potential risks to underground services much lower number and length of services in the outer impacts -1 of that potentially impacted by Option A -2 lane and road reserve overall

Based on standard rate of $3,000 per m2 res Potential for property uplift and plus $5,000 per m2 commercial and retail 10% of growth potential ($3.61bn) 10% of growth potential ($2.88bn) value capture (10% of total value potential based on OS 1 0 research)

Narrow road sections and no indented parking, therefore Significant amount of indented parking, therefore less On street parks affected impacts likely. -1 likely to be affected by impacts to parking. 0

Impacts on medians, including trees and Moderate number of trees requiring removal – Trees are islands (calculation to be determined unpin Large number of trees requiring removal – Trees are 4 Least route impacts on (trees, located on median strips along the entire corridor. Far review of actual corridors, but to include located on median strips along the entire corridor. -1 0 services, car parking, heritage less than Henley Beach Road. items) removal of trees)

Total heritage items: 10 Total heritage items: 6 Number of heritage items along the State: 2 Local: 8 State: 4 Local: 2 immediate corridor frontage (up to 50m). -2 -1 Average per km: 1.8 Average per km: 1.2 2 2 Measure the amount of local and state Amount of government owned land: 336,266.53 m Amount of government owned land: 567,719.36 m government owned land within 600m of the Number of parcels: 321 1 Number of parcels: 328 2 corridor. Average size: 1,047.56 m2 Average size: 1,730.85 m2 Amount of SA Housing Trust land: 131,326 m2 Amount of SA Housing Trust land: 96,843.09 m2 Potential for contributions from Measure the amount of SA Housing Trust Number of parcels: 217 Number of parcels: 187 government land Land along the corridor (within 600m). 2 1 Average size: 605.19 m2 Average size: 517.88 m2= Measure the amount of Urban Renewal Amount of Renewal SA land: 0 Amount of Renewal SA land: 0 Authority (Renewal SA) land along the Number of parcels: 0 0 Number of parcels: 0 0 corridor (within 600m). Average size: 0 Average size: 0

59 AdeLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Summary Report

heavy vehicle noise (freight route), less visual An environment that enables Enables walking and public transport Better visual interest, finer grained 1 interest/meeting places, median islands assist cross -1 walking, cycling and public 5 transport use Enables cycling Inconsistent cycling facilities, Full time bike lanes with indented parking 0 1

Total score 34 18

60 AdeLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Summary Report

CityLINK

Option A: via Morphett Street, Option C: via Morphett Street, Option B: West Terrace, Gouger/Angas Sturt/Halifax Street and Hutt Street Sturt/Halifax Street and Pulteney Street Street and Hutt Street (distance 4.14km). (distance 4.73km). (distance 4.15km). Theme Criteria Measure Comment Score Comment Score Comment Score Number of properties within a Number of properties with CVSV ratio Number of properties with CVSV ratio of Number of properties with CVSV ratio 300m catchment of the route of 1.3:1 or less: 1.3:1 or less: of 1.3:1 or less: that have a ‘Capital Value: Site 3 1 1 420 268 239 Value’ ratio of less than 1.3

Cubic metres of transit supportive zones and policy areas Total development supportive area: Total development supportive area: Total development supportive area: (urban corridor, regeneration and 82,652,000 m3 77,318,000 m3 95,228,000 m3 so on) that support increased 2 2 3 Average per km: 17,474,000 m3 Average per km: 18,676,000 m3 Average per km: 22,947,000 m3 development potential within a Corridor's ability 300m catchment of the route to support the 30 Year Plan vision Recent approved development for infill and applications within immediate projects: 26 3 projects: 19 2 projects: 25 3 corridor corridor (0-200m). development Average size of parcels within the within a 300m catchment of the Average parcel size: 972 m2 1 1 1 route Average parcel size: 976 m2 Average parcel size: 1,005 m2

Amount of heritage, character or Amount of protective zoning: 13,720 1 protected zoning provisions that Amount of protective zoning: 120,970 Amount of protective zoning: 64,580 m2 m2 could have implications for future m2 -3 Average per km: 15,600 m2 -2 Average per km: 3,310 m2 -1 development potential (within a Average per km: 25,580 m2 300m catchment of the route)

Ability to support emerging and Length of active frontage along 2,716m 1 2,400m 1 2,499m 1 existing main the route Per km: 574m Per km: 580m Per km: 602m streets providing a range of local services to the community Capacity of short term 300m catchment accommodation 300m catchment accommodation capacity: 300m catchment accommodation accomodation (hotels, hostels capacity: 8,155 3 7,021 2 capacity: 8,072 3 etc.) within a 300m catchment 300m catchment density per km: 1,191 300m catchment density per km: 1,122 300m catchment density per km: 1,397

61 AdeLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Summary Report

The number of café and 300m catchment seats: 40,980 300m catchment seats: 39,461 300m catchment seats: 32,620 restaurant seats within a 300m 300m catchment density per km: 5,983 3 300m catchment density per km: 6,304 3 300m catchment density per km: 5,644 2 catchment of the route

Significant land uses: Transit supportive and main Significant land uses: Significant land uses: • Retail commercial street land use mix of the • Residential • Recreation 2 • Education 3 2 corridor frontage (up to 50m). • General commercial • Retail commercial • Public institution

An environment that is potentially Square metres of publicly dynamic and Total public open space: 444,086 m2 Total public open space: 607,463 m2 Total public open space: 209,974 m2 accessible open space within a adaptable to be Average per km: 93,887 m2 2 Average per km: 146,730 m2 3 Average per km: 50,596 m2 1 ‘living spaces’ 300m catchment. including open space and landscape Quality and amenity of main High amenity along Hutt Street South 1 Gouger Street has the longest stretch of 1 Small, sporadic stretches of medium 0 amenity streets captured high amenity amenity Six shared stops on North Terrace (West Four shared stops on North Terrace Connect the Six shared stops on North Terrace (West Interchange opportunities with Terrace to East Terrace), interchange at (West Terrace to Museum), shared inner and middle to East Terraces), interchange at Hurtle other AdeLINK routes and Pulteney / Angas Street (UnleyLINK) and stops on Pulteney Street (UnleyLINK) suburbs to the Square (UnleyLINK) and City South, King 2 1 2 existing tram line King William / Gouger Street with walking and interchange at City South, King CBD, enhancing William Street access to transfer to the Victoria Square William Street employment, Number of significant 2 education, attractors/generators within a • 20 significant attractors 2 • 29 significant attractors 3 • 16 significant attractors 2 healthcare, 300m catchment (e.g. schools, • 12 of which are major • 15 of which are major • 12 of which are major entertainment activity centres etc.) and other Number of student registrations 300m catchment students: 57,134 300m catchment students: 63,321 300m catchment students: 56,851 opportunities in within a 300m catchment 300m catchment density per km: 8,341 2 300m catchment density per km: 10,115 3 300m catchment density per km: 9,836 2 the CBD

62 AdeLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Summary Report

300m catchment jobs: 65,715 Number of jobs within a 300m 300m catchment jobs: 58,084 300m catchment jobs: 63,144 300m catchment density per km: catchment 300m catchment density per km: 8,479 1 300m catchment density per km: 10,087 2 3 11,369

Number of residents (within 300m catchment Adelaide city 300m catchment Adelaide city employees: 300m catchment Adelaide city 300m catchment ) that work in employees: 2,713 3 1,657 1 employees: 2,191 2 the Adelaide CBD. 300m catchment density per km: 574 300m catchment density per km: 400 300m catchment density per km: 528

300m catchment resident population: 300m catchment resident population: 300m catchment resident population: Number of people residing within Connect the city 9,941 6,633 8,634 300m catchment 3 1 2 to the inner and 300m catchment density per km: 2,102 300m catchment density per km: 1,602 300m catchment density per km: 2,080 middle suburbs enhancing access 300m catchment tertiary students: 300m catchment tertiary students: 1,915 300m catchment tertiary students: to activity Number of tertiary students 2,435 students students 2,471 students centres, within the 300m catchment 300m catchment density per km: 515 3 300m catchment density per km: 463 2 300m catchment density per km: 595 3 employment, students students students education, healthcare, 300m catchment employed residents: entertainment 300m catchment employed residents: 300m catchment employed residents: Number of employed persons 3,807 employees and other 4,717 2,939 within the 300m catchment 3 1 300m catchment density per km: 917 2 opportunities 300m catchment density per km: 997 300m catchment density per km: 710 employees

Number of households without a Dwellings without a motor vehicle: Dwellings without a motor vehicle: Dwellings without a motor vehicle: 1,087 motor vehicle within 300m 1,486 1,544 2 Average per km: 263 1 2 Reduce transport catchment Average per km: 314 Average per km: 372 disadvantage and social severance Average SEIFA 'relative disadvantage' score within 300m Average SEIFA score: 995.20 1 Average SEIFA score: 989.25 1 Average SEIFA score: 975.13 2 catchment. Improve the Ratio of shared running vs 67% separated, 33% shared 87% separated, 13% shared 76% separated, 24% shared customer’s separated running 1 3 2

63 AdeLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Summary Report

perception of the 18,900 vpd on East Terrace (between 21,900 vpd on Pulteney Street public transport Rundle Road and Grenfell Street), (between Rundle and Grenfell), 27,500 experience, 20,800 vpd on Hutt Street (between 18,900 vpd on East Terrace (between vpd on Pulteney Street (between including safety, Pirie Street and Flinders Street), 19,300 Rundle Road and Grenfell Street), 20,800 Flinders Street and Wakefield Street), frequency of vpd on Hutt Street (between Angas and vpd on Hutt Street (between Pirie Street 29,200 vpd on Pulteney Street services and Halifax Street), 4,400 vpd on Halifax and Flinders Street), 19,300 vpd on Hutt (between Angas and Carrington reliability Street (between Hutt Street and Street, 7,300 vpd on Angas Street Streets), 6,400 vpd on Halifax Street Pulteney Street), 6,400 vpd on Halifax (between Hutt and Frome), 8,700 vpd on (between Pulteney Street and King Street (between Pulteney Street and Angas Steet (between Pulteney and King William Street), 5,500 vpd on Sturt King William Street), 5,500 vpd on Sturt William), 12,700/14,00 vpd on Gouger levels of competing traffic: traffic Street (between King William Road and Street (between King William Road and Street (between King William and volumes on corridor. Existing -1 -2 Whitmore Square), 11,300 vpd on one- -2 Whitmore Square), 11,300 vpd on one- Morphett Street), 12,000 vpd on Gouger way section of Whitmore Square, way section of Whitmore Square, Street between Morphett Street and West 22,500 on Morphett Street (between 22,500 on Morphett Street (between Terrace, 62,900 vpd on West Terrace Gouger Street and Franklin Street), Gouger Street and Franklin Street), (between Grote Street and Waymouth 16,700 vpd on Light Square (one-way 16,700 vpd on Light Square (one-way Street, 52,600 vpd on West Terrace section north), 21,700 on Currie Street section north), 21,700 on Currie Street (between Waymouth Street and Currie (between Light Square and West (between Light Square and West Street, 42,600 vpd on West Terrace Terrace), 42,600 vpd on West Terrace Terrace), 42,600 vpd on West Terrace (between Currie Street and Hindley Street. (between Currie Street and Hindley (between Currie Street and Hindley Street Street The V:C ratio (AM peak) indicate that The V:C ratio (AM peak) indicate that Morphett Street and Currie Street are Morphett Street, Currie Street and volume to capacity ratio of the Gouger Street has the highest V:C ratio currently nearing or at capacity, Pulteney Street are currently nearing or road corridor before tram (AM peak) along this route, but still has therefore trams corridors may impact -1 0 at capacity, therefore trams corridors -2 implemented capacity. 3 further on these roads carrying may impact further on these roads capacity. carrying capacity. Least direct road Pulteney Street running will significantly impacts including change traffic behaviour and movement of Impacts to Morphett Street (both permissions in this street, though direct Changes in access for businesses and the traffic, freight business and residential towers), bus street access points are limited. Impacts public to the Central Market and Scale of impacts to commercial access on Currie Street and traffic to Morphett Street (both business and surrounding businesses will be a significant and emergency vehicle access disruptions around the squares are the residential towers), bus access on Currie -1 design challenge for this route. Use of -1 -2 and mobility major points. Halifax Street works will Street and traffic disruptions around the West Terrace avoids difficulties through alter traffic movements in an area that squares are the major points. Halifax Morphett Street and the Squares. already has imposed traffic restrictions. Street works will alter traffic movements in an area that already has imposed traffic restrictions. 4 cyclist crossings possibly affected. 2 crossings possibly affected. 3 crossings possibly affected. Number of times the route Currie St/Elizabeth St; Sturt West Tce/Waymouth St; Gouger Currie St/Elizabeth St; Sturt crosses over a bike route St/Whitmore Square; Sturt St/Russell St; -2 -1 -2 St/Compton St St/Whitmore Square; Sturt St/Russell St. Least direct Halifax St/Castle St/Regent St South. impacts on severance for pedestrians and Impact on(removal) or ability to cyclists retain bike routes along the tram • Total length impacted = 4160m -2 • Total length impacted = 2650m -1 • Total length impacted = 3780m -2 route

64 AdeLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Summary Report

5 crossings possibly affected. Number of times the route Currie St/Elizabeth St; Sturt St/Russell 3 crossings possibly affected 3 crossings possibly affected. crosses over an active pedestrian St; Halifax Street/Surflen St; Halifax -2 Gouger St/Lowe St; Gouger St/Compton St; -1 Currie St/Elizabeth St; Sturt St/Russell -1 link St/Castle St/Regent St; Halifax Angas St/Moore St/Chancery Ln. St; Halifax Street/Surflen St. St/Cardwell St

number of pedestrian refuges or • Pedestrian actuated crossings: 0 • Pedestrian actuated crossings: 2 • Pedestrian actuated crossings: 0 crossings which would require • Pedestrian refuges: 12 -1 • Pedestrian refuges: 5 -1 • Pedestrian refuges: 8 -1 removal. • Total: 12 • Total: 7 • Total: 8

Ability to integrate with Intersects or runs parallel to all city bus Intersects or runs parallel to all city bus and/or replace Interchange opportunities with routes, includes ARS stop, likely to Intersects or runs parallel to all city bus routes, includes ARS stop, likely to current public Adelaide Metro Bus and Train impact the 99 City Connector bus routes, includes ARS stop. May impact the impact the 99 City Connector bus transport 0 1 0 services service. Major impacts to bus access to 99 City Connector bus service. service. Major impacts to bus access to services Clarendon Street terminus. Clarendon Street terminus. (including bus, train, O-Bahn) Impact on the None of the tram route options for None of the tram route options for None of the tram route options for current network CityLINK appear to significantly align or CityLINK appear to significantly align or CityLINK appear to significantly align or role and function conflict with the street typology conflict with the street typology Alignment to (or conflict with) the conflict with the street typology (e.g. freight descriptions in the Adelaide Design descriptions in the Adelaide Design role and function 1 descriptions in the Adelaide Design Manual 1 1 routes versus Manual or the Smart Move Strategy Manual or the Smart Move Strategy or the Smart Move Strategy future 'links' as commuter future 'links' as described in the 'Link future 'links' as described in the 'Link described in the 'Link and Place' routes) and Place' and Place' 6 intersections with tram turning 6 intersections with tram turning Number of intersections with movements, including 2 new signal 3 intersections with tram turning movements, including 2 new signal tram turning movements phases and 1 new signalised -2 movements -1 phases and 1 new signalised -2 Impact to intersection intersection signalised intersections 13 intersections with tram through 14 intersections with tram through 12 intersections with tram through Number of intersections with movements including one new movements including one potential new movements including one new tram through movements -2 -2 -2 signalised intersection intersection (or access restriction) signalised intersection

Patronage see CityLINK detailed report for more see CityLINK detailed report for more see CityLINK detailed report for more potential Cannot be measured information n/a information n/a information n/a (revenue) Count of businesses with street 287 businesses 284 businesses 246 businesses frontage on the route -1 -1 -1

94 Crossings 108 Crossings 85 Crossings Potential risks to underground 2.2km Waste Water Gravity Mains 2.3km Waste Water Gravity Mains 2.5km Waste Water Gravity Mains services 0.1km Water mains -2 -1 0.1km Water mains -2 1.1km SAPN transmission line 4 Constructability 2.1km SAPN transmission line 2.2km SAPN transmission line and business impacts Residential access points: 12 Residential access points: 7 Residential access points: 7 Number of vehicle access points Business access points: 59 Business access points: 69 Business access points: 59 impacted (eg. Laneways, Laneways: 10 -1 Laneways: 11 -2 Laneways: 11 -1 driveways etc) Total: 81 Total: 87 Total: 77

65 AdeLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Summary Report

82,652,000 m3 development supportive 82,652,000 m3 development supportive 77,318,000 m3 development supportive area area Potential for area 23,615,000 m2 (assuming 3.5m per 23,615,000 m2 (assuming 3.5m per property uplift Property value and uplift 22,091,000 m2 (assuming 3.5m per storey) storey) storey) and value potential 2 9,9401 m2 retail/commercial 1 2 10,627,000 m2 retail/commercial 12,788,000 m2 retail/commercial capture 1,767,000 m2 residential 4,015,000 m2 residential 2,993,000 m2 residential $3.9 bn in property uplift at 10% $5.2 bn in property uplift at 10% $5.3 bn in property uplift at 10%

90-degree: 331 90-degree: 217 90-degree: 163 Angled: 375 Angled: 332 Angled: 113 On street parks affected Parallel: 167 -2 Parallel: 130 -1 Parallel: 266 -1 Motorbike: 70 Motorbike: 106 Motorbike: 47 Total: 943 (603 in fornt of businesses) Total: 785 (523 in front of buisnesses) Total: 589 (382 in front of businesses)

Impacts on medians, including Least route trees and islands (calculation to impacts on be determined upon review of 65 trees -1 47 trees -1 43 trees -1 (trees, services, actual corridors, but to include car parking, removal of trees) heritage items)

Number of heritage items along Total heritage items: 103 Total heritage items: 60 Total heritage items: 54 the immediate corridor frontage State: 42 Local: 61 -1 State: 30 Local: 30 -1 State: 21 Local: 33 -1 (up to 50m). Average per km: 22 Average per km: 14 Average per km: 13

Amount of government owned land: Amount of government owned land: Amount of government owned land: the amount of local and state 239,800 m2 210,110 m2 254,170 m2 government owned land within Number of parcels: 428 2 Number of parcels: 290 1 Number of parcels: 425 2 300m of the corridor. Average size: 560 m2 Average size: 725 m2 Average size: 598 m2

Potential for contributions from government land

Amount of SA Housing Trust land: Amount of SA Housing Trust land: 45,410 Amount of SA Housing Trust land: the amount of SA Housing Trust 54,050 m2 m2 50,660 m2 Land along the corridor (within Number of parcels: 144 3 Number of parcels: 88 1 Number of parcels: 120 2 300m). Average size: 375 m2 Average size: 516 m2 Average size: 422 m2

66 AdeLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Summary Report

the amount of Urban Renewal Authority (Renewal SA) land No renewal SA land in CBD 0 No renewal SA land in CBD 0 No renewal SA land in CBD 0 along the corridor (within 300m).

While the route connects a number of Enables walking and public Significant City Place locations, a large Route that runs through the least Route runs almost entirely within transport portion of the route also runs through 0 Significant City Place locations -1 Significant City Place locations 1 An environment less significant areas. that enables No bike lanes on Currie St & conflict No bike lanes on Currie St & conflict walking, cycling with high volume of buses, Morphett St with high volume of buses, Morphett St 5 and public Most direct route. High quality shared path poor cycling environment and one-way poor cycling environment and one-way transport use Enables cycling (West Tce), Grote St/Wakefield wide road traffic around Light Square is not direct, traffic around Light Square is not direct, -1 1 -1 reserve Sturt/Halifax bike lanes exist and carry Sturt/Halifax bike lanes exist and carry moderate traffic volumes. Pulteney moderate traffic volumes. Street is direct

Total score 26 24 24

67 AdeLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Summary Report Appendix B: MCA Route Option Commentary from Workshops EastLINK

Option A: Option A: Norwood Parade ITLUP Option B: Magill Road (via Rundle Rd, Beulah Route (via Rundle Road, Parade West, Rd, Sydenham Rd) Norwood Parade and Penfolds Road) Aligns with the uplift zoning in Kent Town and Opportunity to develop Magill Road into along The Norwood Parade. renewed main street environment Stops can be aligned with existing activity Appetite for development along Magill Road centres and key developments (such as Urban Corridor not as strong as in Kent Town Norwood Mall and Place, Peregrine and The Parade (problematic with interface of Corporation, Norwood Morialta High School, existing residential areas). Pembroke School, Norwood Oval). Aligns with private investment already Creates greater potential uplift on Caroma Site emerging in Kent Town and dwelling yields (Magill Road) and Stepney Triangle. and population. Trees along Norwood Parade may constrain Conflicts with Beulah Bike Boulevard. design options. Runs through The Parade main street, and Misses the heart of The Parade as a key activity Rundle Street, Kent Town is emerging as a centre. mini main street. Link in with East End CBD proposed Tram On-street Parking impacted. route. Norwood Parade/Portrush Road intersection Fullarton Road/Beulah Road/Rundle Road presents design challenges. intersection presents design challenges. Option C: Hybrid Option, Norwood Parade and upper Magill Road (connecting via Glynburn Road) Runs through The Parade main street, and Stops can be aligned with existing activity Rundle St Kent Town which is emerging as a centres and key developments (such as mini main street. Norwood Mall and Place, Peregrine Corporation, Magill Campus, Pembroke School, Norwood Oval). Aligns with private investment in Kent Town Aligns with the uplift zoning in Kent Town and and dwelling yields and population. along The Parade.

68 AdeLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Summary Report PortLINK

Route Option 1: ITLUP route, light rail conversion via Torrens Junction Option Opportunities Constraints High frequency service to Outer Harbour and Requires comparable cost in tram fleet to 4000 similar travel time to current service, optional series electric fleet but can deliver considerably 2km connection to Henley Beach saves costs re higher frequency service – down to 3.7 min on NW WestLINK connection. corridor. Centre of Port Adelaide penetration, Adelaide Travel time penalty the closer you get to city re Oval and Semaphore spur - higher speed to West departure - not insurmountable (bunching TBC). Lakes and Grange compared to Option 4. Uplift of Kilkenny, Seaton (Housing SA estate), Best use of all existing infrastructure including AAMI site, Port Adelaide. Torrens Junction. Economies of scale re using existing track, frees Lowest cost compared to electrification of Outer two 2 platforms at ARS – defers underground Harbour Line, and Options 3 and 4, TBC. city rail loop.

Route Alternative 2: Electrification of Heavy Rail plus Port Adelaide Spur Opportunities Constraints Improves current services to 15 minute Provides more seated capacity depending on LRT frequencies. options. Maintains through services to Belair if underground loop later. Significant cost of underground loop. Outer Harbour Heavy Rail intact - maintains Can exceed modelled capacity albeit corridor current travel time perceptions TBC. growth is limited. Part Port Adelaide penetration via a spur to St Requires significant $$ to underground viaduct if Vincent Street. Port Adelaide land development objectives under heavy rail - Electrification required of OH line $$. Limited Urban Regeneration opportunities. Severance caused by close stations and electrified neighbourhood, no West Lakes connection.

Route Alternative 3: Light rail conversion to Outer Harbour and West Lakes and Grange Road Tram Opportunities Constraints High frequency service to Outer Harbour and Best use of all existing infrastructure including similar travel time to current service Torrens Junction and potentially splits services High speed to West Lakes (10 min-15 min saving between Torrens Junction/Memorial Drive and over option 4). North Tce (reduced congestion). Centre of Port Adelaide penetration, Adelaide Travel time penalty the closer you get to city re Oval and Semaphore spur. departure - not insurmountable (bunching TBC). Uplift of Kilkenny, Seaton (Housing SA estate), Maximises uplift along 2 corridors. AAMI site, Port Adelaide. Economies of scale re using existing track, Higher Cost than Option 1 but greatest all round potentially frees 2 city platforms at ARS – defers benefits re travel time and uplift/connectivity. underground city rail loop. Uplift of Grange Road Corridor - optional 2 km Requires comparable cost in tram fleet to 4000 connection to Henley Beach saves costs re series electric fleet but considerably higher WestLINK connection. frequency service – down to 5 min on NW corridor.

69 AdeLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Summary Report

Route Alternative 4: Heavy or Light Rail to Outer Harbour, tram to Grange and West Lakes Opportunities Constraints Detaches the future staging of electrification of Best use of all existing infrastructure including Outer Harbour line from the option of LRT or Torrens Junction and potentially splits services Train – flexibility – defers decision as part of between Torrens Junction/Memorial Drive and AdeLINK. North Tce (reduced congestion). Uplift of Seaton (Housing SA estate), AAMI site No uplift of Port Corridor if Heavy Rail. Incl. Port Adelaide Centre, Renewal SA land and If Heavy Rail, requires St Vincent Street Spur. Kilkenny if Light Rail. Centre of Port Adelaide penetration, Adelaide Requires significant $$ to underground viaduct if Oval and Semaphore spur. land development objectives under heavy rail. Uplift of Grange Road Corridor - optional 2 km Removes at grade rail intersection on Port Road but connection to Henley Beach saves costs re removes connection to Woodville West. WestLINK connection. Highest Cost LRT Option. If LRT potential economies of scale re using If Heavy Rail, electrification may be deferred but existing track, frees 1-2 city platforms at ARS. does not constrain Grange Spur to proceed.

Additional considerations:

 Port Road, Hindmarsh – the Norwood Parade of the West, ripe for development.  Delivering on-street transport (tram) in the heart of Port Adelaide – Commercial Road and St Vincent Street.  Decommissioning and removal of severance created by the existing rail line and viaduct – improve access between playing fields / club rooms and Port Canal Shopping Centre, currently via a flood-prone underpass (Hack Street).  Minimising travel time penalties for end-of line commuters on Outer Harbour Rail services – provision of fast rail services i.e. express from outer suburbs increase / improve public transport services and access to the Queen Elizabeth Hospital (QEH).  Improvement of the intersection at Port Road / West Lakes Boulevard (removal of level crossing).

70 AdeLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Summary Report ProspectLINK

Option B: Churchill Road (via O’Connell Option A: Prospect Road ITLUP Route (via Street, Barton Terrace West, Jeffcott O’Connell Street) Road, Torrens Road) Prospect Road existing uses and new densities New residents and existing uplift: leveraging provide high amenity and vibrancy. off current market momentum. Existing potential for night time economy Islington railway station and associated land: (especially with investment into cinemas and potential for 700 dwellings (5 ha site, zones possible small bar licenses). up to 8 storeys). Covers a significant portion of the whole of the Overlap with existing Gawler Rail Line (within City of Prospect (Prospect Road being the 130m of current line) could impact on logical centre of the LGA). patronage (service overlap). Existing 40km/h environment compatible with Operational freight route catering for high trams. volume of commercial vehicles. Some heritage items: not all on Prospect Road New centres and commercial land uses are but tend to be residential, 2-3 dwellings away private vehicle oriented (such as Churchill from Prospect Rd, down side streets. Centre). Possible EPA and zoning restrictions for some of Possible EPA and zoning restrictions for some the area at line terminus: but with end of route of the area at line terminus: but with end of activation of Renewal SA (Housing SA) route activation of Renewal SA (Housing SA) redevelopment. redevelopment. City end opportunities (Adelaide Oval, Already has public transport rail connection Women’s and Children’s and Festival Centre (Gawler Line – competition for patronage) connectivity, O’Connell Street uplift including albeit the stations are not attractive. LeCornu site). Relies heavily on parking spaces. More direct connectivity to Schools (namely Blackfriars and Prescott College). Leveraging off the development already occurring along Prospect Road. Potential for Park and Ride in the industrial zones at end of line. Walkable (400m) catchments to both Churchill Road and Main North Road: route is the logical centre of broader catchment. Potential terminus and stabling options in industrial land (cheaper land).

71 AdeLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Summary Report UnleyLINK

Option B: Goodwood Road terminating at Option A: Unley Road and Belair Road ITLUP Repatriation General Hospital site (utilising Route (via Pulteney St) Glenelg Line) Already existing nodes along route where Large catchment further south, and links to there is aspiration for growth (total 2000 Repatriation Hospital redevelopment. dwellings) (Unley Central & Mitcham). Council have been exploring business & Potential to utilise existing tram line, but residential to infill along length of corridor, some timetabling considerations required for and potential to leverage off main street Glenelg trams (TBC). environment. Links to urban growth potential at Greenhill Links to Pasadena High School. Road. Interchange opportunity at Mitcham Station Would improve pedestrian ability/safety to and existing end of line activation. cross Goodwood Road. Kingswood Character Area is a constraint for Colonel Light Gardens Character Area is a increased density. constraint to increased density. Links to Mitcham Girls High School, Walford Girls School.

Other constraints included:

 Unley Road/Belair Road would benefit from a Park and Ride at Mitcham Station, but there is limited space at the location.  Concerns were raised about severing east-west connectivity if there are banned turns – this will depend on the design.  Would have to investigate clearances at the Goodwood underpass, Millswood - Grade separation may be required.

72 AdeLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Summary Report WestLINK

Option A: Henley Beach Road ITLUP Route Option B: Sir Donald Bradman Drive (via Grote (via West Tce and Glover Ave) including Street) terminating at Airport Airport spur via Airport Road Henley Beach Road District Centre uplift Keswick uplift potential. (retail, mixed use). Henley Beach Road High/Main Street urban Keswick interstate rail terminal integration. growth corridor uplift potential. Larger residential component on HBR Medium to large scale site opportunities. (greater patronage and catchment potential). Temple College, St George College, Adelaide Athletics/sports precinct integration. High School and Thebarton Theatre all significant attractors/generators. Bakewell underpass for trams (height, retro- Links well with western bikeway. fitting for wires/tracks, possible extra costs involved). Connects City to Airport, with development Connects City to Airport. Potential for tram opportunities along Airport Road. Potential storage/stabling at Adelaide Airport. for tram storage/stabling at Adelaide Airport. Henley Beach Road would need to Sir Donald Bradman Drive requires twice as accommodate less off-street parking, much future parking given the development reducing the overall parking impact when envelope. development is considered. Henley Beach Road would accord with Sir Donald Bradman Drive would impact its function as a ‘Priority Public Transport recognised function as a ‘Major Traffic Route’ Route’. and a ‘Freight Route’, connecting the CBD and interstate rail terminal at Keswick with the airport via an interchange at SDB Drive for N-S Corridor. More impact on existing bus services on Bus services along Sir Donald Bradman Drive Henley Beach Road as this is a higher replace existing City – Airport services, so frequency bus corridor. This in turn creates have little impact on existing services and an opportunity for the tram to consolidate minimal opportunity to improve services in these services. this corridor.

73 AdeLINK Multi-Criteria Analysis Summary Report CityLINK

Notes on the following options are based on assessment of options at the Council Officers workshop. These routes have since been amended and Option A was revised.

Route Option A: City Loop, North Terrace, East Terrace, Hutt Street, Angus Street, Gouger Street, Morphett Street, Currie Street & West Terrace Opportunities Constraints Provides access to event space in the eastern Removes connection to Whitmore Square. Parklands (Rymill Park). Opens areas along Hutt Street for uplift. Access via Currie Street an issue with large number of bus services (East West, O-Bahn and Hills) as well as thru-city traffic. Opens areas around Victoria Square and the Reduces some of the property uplift potential Central Markets for uplift (more in line with the adjacent to Frome Street (although, see Pulteney zoning and property heights in ACC planning - Street). reduces towards South Terrace). Connectivity with O-Bahn services better via Reduced connectivity with O-Bahn services better Currie Street (?). via Grenfell Street (?). Hutt Street provides logical extension of North Terrace extension (via East Tce)

Route Option B: City Loop, North Terrace, East Terrace, Hutt Street, Angus Street, Gouger Street & West Terrace Opportunities Constraints Provides access to event space in the eastern Removes connections to both Hurtle Square and Parklands (Rymill Park). Whitmore Square. Opens areas along Hutt Street for uplift. Removes access via Morphett Street and potential adjacent property uplift is thus reduced. Opens areas around Victoria Square and the Reduces some of the property uplift potential Central Markets for uplift (more in line with the adjacent to Frome Street (although, see Pulteney reduced zoning and property heights south Street). towards South Terrace). Connectivity with O-Bahn services better via Connectivity with O-Bahn services better via Currie Street (?). Grenfell Street (?). Provides access to event space in the western Removes Currie Street and issues with Parklands, including Adelaide High School and competition against buses and thru-traffic. SACA’s development of Railway Oval.

Route Options C: Pulteney Street Opportunities Constraints Retains connection to Hurtle Square. Adds connection to Hindmarsh Square. Provides access to North Terrace, with Through-linking with another service would be via connectivity to the city loop and potentially North Terrace? Possible congestion along North East and West LINK. Terrace. Re-opens areas adjacent to Frome Street for uplift (see City Loop).

74