Final Impact Assessment and Land Use Transport Strategy

Caboolture to Maroochydore Corridor StudyFinal Impact Assessment and Land Use Transport Strategy

G:\ENVIRON\PROJECTS\9727\STAGE3\FINALIAS\FEB2000\CHAPTER02 Part A 2-16February 2001

Table 2.2.9c: Demand Forecasts - 2050

Mode Section Frequency

Bee

rwah

-Pel

ican

Wat

ers

Pel

ican

Wat

ers-

Cal

ound

ra

Cal

ound

ra-K

alan

a R

d

Kal

ana

Rd-

Era

ng S

t

Era

ng S

t-K

awan

a T

C

Kaw

ana

TC

-Par

rear

ra

Par

rear

ra-M

oolo

olab

a

Moo

lool

aba-

Mar

ooch

ydor

e

1A O-Bahn B-Mar 15 min Exp 5,700 8,900 15,600 15,700 16,200 16,200 19,000 20,000

1B O-Bahn B-Mar 15/30 Exp 4,400 7,600 13,000 13,200 13,800 13,800 15,800 19,200

2A Busway B-Mar 15 min Exp 5,700 8,900 15,600 15,700 16,200 16,200 19,000 20,000

2B Busway B-Mar 15/30 Exp 4,400 7,600 13,000 13,200 13,800 13,800 15,800 19,200

2C Busway B-Mar 15 min 5,700 8,800 15,200 15,000 15,100 15,100 18,000 19,500

2D Busway B-Mar 30 min 3,000 7,000 10,300 10,500 10,800 10,800 12,600 15,300

2E Busway GB-Mar 15 min Exp - 6,500 10,500 10,700 12,800 12,800 14,700 18,200

2F Busway GB-Mar 15 min - 6,000 9,300 9,500 10,700 10,700 12,800 15,300

3A Light Rail B-Mar 15 min 5,900 9,100 15,700 15,500 15,600 15,600 18,500 20,100

3B Light Rail B-Mar 15/30 4,500 7,800 13,400 13,600 14,200 14,200 16,300 19,800

3C Light Rail GB-Mar 15 min - 6,500 13,400 13,700 15,300 15,300 17,800 18,800

3D Light Rail GB-Mar OS 15 min - 6,700 13,800 14,100 15,800 15,800 18,300 19,400

4A Pass Rail B-Mar 30/30 7,300 10,500 17,100 17,200 17,700 17,700 19,800 20,700

4B Pass Rail B-Cal 30/30 5,400 6,500 - - - - - -

4C Pass Rail GB-Mar 15/30 - 6,200 12,700 13,000 14,500 14,500 16,900 17,900

B = BeerwahCal = CaloundraGB = Golden BeachMar = MaroochydoreOS = On Street running

2.2.9.6 Benefit-Cost Analysis Results

The financial and economic evaluation quantify thesocial benefits of providing each of the four line haulmode options to both users of the facility and thegreater community, against the cost of providing the

corridor in financial and economic terms. Thisevaluation is an important component of theassessment process as it is a means of ensuring ameasure of accountability to the selection of a preferredmode.



An evaluation of the different public transport modes forthe line haul corridor was undertaken for the future year2011 and the ultimate (2050) development of the studyarea. The ultimate development was assumed to haveresulted in a coordinated approach to land use-transport integration. The ultimate land use scenariohas been based on a manageable capacity populationin a concentrated settlement pattern along the coastalstrip, with employment concentrated and more self-contained in the centres on the Sunshine Coast.

The various possible land use scenario combinationswere examined earlier in the study and the impact ofeach was presented in the Corridor Assessment Report(CAR, December 1998). It was concluded that in orderfor sustainable development on the Sunshine Coast inthe future, a concentrated land use settlement patternalong the coastal strip must be encouraged, ascompared to the current trend of sprawled anddispersed development. As the viability of a dedicatedcorridor will depend on proper planning controls beingimplemented to encourage such development, theanalysis proceeded on this basis.

The financial analysis seeks to identify the mode thatmaximises the present value of fare revenue againstoperating and capital costs. The option that providesthe best net return, or net return per investment dollar,should be the preferred option in terms of the financialevaluation. It does not include other social andenvironment costs and benefits. This may not be thebest solution in transport terms, but it guides theselection process in a purely financial sense.

The economic evaluation also considers the socialbenefits and costs of the proposed mode. Theintroduction of a dedicated corridor provides a reductionin the price of travel by both public transport and privatevehicle users, where the price of travel includes thevalue of travel time and vehicle operating costs. Thisevaluation does not include the revenue receivedthrough fare box returns, but accident savings areincluded.

While this assessment has been based on a technicalevaluation methodology recognised for the assessmentof such schemes, further benefits in terms of economicand tourist development for the region are more difficultto quantify. It must be recognised that the provision ofsuch infrastructure will have a significant impact on theeconomic development of the region. It will provideemployment stimulus to the Sunshine Coast bothduring construction of the corridor, and to a lesserextent during the operation of the facility. The financialand economic analysis here has been limited to optionsthat will allow the various modes to be assessed. Laterin the report, further work is presented of detailedfinancial and economic analysis of the preferred modeonly. This work examines additional staging optionsincluding possible extension of the corridor to SunshineCoast Airport.

Scenarios for each of the four modes have beenevaluated in order to establish the best operationalsystem. The scenario for each mode that delivers thebest performance is:

O-Bahn - Scenario 1ABeerwah-MaroochydoreBeerwah InterchangeAll Day: 15 minute service between Maroochydore andBeerwah, plus 15 minute service on Sunshine Coast;plus additional 15 minute peak period express services.

Dedicated Busway - Scenario 2ABeerwah-MaroochydoreBeerwah InterchangeAll Day: 15 minute service between Maroochydore andBeerwah, plus 15 minute service on Sunshine Coast;plus additional 15 minute peak period express services.

Light Rail - Scenario 3ABeerwah-MaroochydoreBeerwah Interchange15 minute service all day to Beerwah, plus 15 minuteservice all day on Sunshine Coast, and feeder busesoperating 15 minute services all day.

Passenger Rail - Scenario 4ABrisbane-Beerwah-MaroochydoreNo Interchange Required30 minute service all day to Brisbane, plus 30 minuteservice all day on Sunshine Coast, and feeder busesoperating 15 minute services all day.

2.2.10 Financial Evaluation

The financial evaluation of the mode options for thepublic transport corridor has been undertaken for a 30-year evaluation period, assuming operations (andtherefore benefits) commence in 2011. In addition, alate introduction (2050) assessment has beenundertaken should construction of the corridor bedelayed. The results of the financial evaluation arepresented in Tables 2.2.10a-d.

It should be noted that both the 2011 commencementand the late 2050 commencement evaluations coversthe complete costs and revenue recovered fromoperations for the entire 30 year evaluation period. Thiswould include both rollingstock and bus acquisitioncosts and operating costs to cater for increasingdemand over a 30 year period, and whilst maintainingthe required service frequencies. The forecasted endof 30 year period (2040) demand for the 2011introduction was assumed to be the demand from the2050 analysis.

It is generally accepted that an investment in adedicated public transport corridor for the SunshineCoast would be unlikely to generate fare revenues torecover the combined capital and operating costs. Notsurprisingly, the results show that even with the



expected ultimate development of the corridor, the farerevenues would be insufficient to recover bothoperating and capital expenses. However, if thecorridor was introduced in 2050 (see Tables 2.2.9a &b), most options would recover 100% of operating costsand on average, approximately 110% of operatingcosts could be recovered. Light rail is the onlyexception with less than 100% of cost recovery ofworking expenses (95%).

O-Bahn

Of the O-Bahn options, scenario 1A has the best BCR(0.12), however it has a very large negative net presentvalue ($-736.6M). The cost recovery of workingexpenses is moderate at 35%, compared with 37% forscenario 1B. From the financial analysis, it seems thatthe O-Bahn option does not realise any substantialbenefits, despite the large increase in capital outlayover a dedicated busway. This option is therefore notconsidered to be financially viable.

Should the service be introduced longer term, then theBCR would be 0.37 with the cost recovery of workingexpenses at 101%. In effect, this 2050 assessmentshows that the option will become financially viable(100% cost recovery of working expenses) sometimebetween 2011 and 2050.

Busway

Of the busway options, scenario 2A has the best BCR(0.15), for a modest (comparatively) negative netpresent value ($-569.3M). The cost recovery ofworking expenses is moderate at 37%, compared with38% for scenario 2B. From the financial analysis, itseems that the busway option performs relatively wellwith revenue forecasts of $98.5M, and has the lowestcapital outlay of all the options. Certainly, this optionperforms well financially in comparison to the optionsthat connect with Beerwah, in the sense that returnsare fair for the lowest capital outlay.

Should the service be introduced longer term, then theBCR would be 0.45 with the cost recovery of workingexpenses at 108%. In effect, this 2050 assessmentshows that the option will be financially viable (100%cost recovery of working expenses) sometime between2011 and 2050.

Light Rail

Of the light rail options, scenario 3D has the best BCR(0.16), for the lowest negative net present value ($-450.5M). However, this option has limitations in thesense that it only serves the Golden Beach toMaroochydore corridor, but it does include some on-street operation. While the modelling allows suchoperation theoretically, in reality it would be difficult toachieve in the present built environment. For acomparable system to Beerwah, the BCR is only 0.11

(scenario 3A). The cost recovery of working expenses(scenario 3D) is a good 45%, compared with 37% forscenario 3C (no on-street running). From the financialanalysis, it seems that this option performs relativelywell with revenue forecasts of $86.8M, and has amoderate capital outlay. Certainly, this option performswell financially in comparison to the other options, but itperforms no regional function, and therefore overallpublic transport targets are unlikely to be reached.


Passenger Rail

Of the conventional passenger rail options, scenario 4Ahas the best BCR (0.15), for a significant negative netpresent value ($-641M). The cost recovery of workingexpenses is a sound 40%, compared with 38% forscenario 4C.


An interesting analysis was undertaken with stagedintroduction. The results indicate that construction ofthe Beerwah to Caloundra link would achieve a BCR of0.15, with a cost recovery of 35% should the remainderof the corridor never get completed. Alternatively,should the Golden Beach to Maroochydore corridoronly be constructed, a slightly lower BCR of 0.14 wouldresult. This is due to the reasonably high infrastructurecost over this stretch of the corridor. Cost recovery ofworking expenses is a little higher at 38%, no doubtdue to the greater demand along this part of thecorridor.

From the financial analysis, it seems that the passengerrail option performs well with revenue forecasts of$113.8M, but the capital outlay of this option is higherthan the busway option. Despite the capital outlay, thisoption performs best financially in comparison to theoptions that connect to Beerwah, in the sense that thereturns are greatest.

Summary

The analysis for the introduction in 2011, reveals thatthe most financially viable mode is passenger rail(scenario 4A), followed closely by the busway option(scenario 2A). Both passenger rail and dedicatedbusway have similar BCR’s, although when comparingthe results of cost recovery of net present value per



investment dollar and cost recovery of workingexpenses, passenger rail is slightly better. The costrecovery of working expenses was 40% for passengerrail compared with 37% for the busway, 35% for O-Bahn and 29% for light rail where the full length of thecorridor is implemented.

These results indicate that passenger rail obtains thehighest revenue despite the high capital and operatingcosts. Dedicated busways have the lowest capital cost,although staff and fleet operating costs erode thisbenefit resulting in a lower benefit-cost ratio and costrecovery of working expenses. Both dedicated buswayand passenger rail have the same BCR and equally thelargest BCR of all modes. Both of these modes have aBCR of 0.15, which indicates that the introduction of thetransport corridor by 2011 is not financially viable in itsown right. There are many other reasons however whya corridor may be justified including social justice andequity considerations, ensuring sustainabledevelopment, encouraging better land use planning,meeting IRTP objectives and overall economic

development of the region.

The net present value and the net present value perinvestment dollar are useful indicators of overallfinancial performance, however this does notnecessarily mean that they are the best overalltransport solution for the Sunshine Coast. This is theprincipal reason for undertaking the multi criteriadecision analysis in addition to the financial andeconomic evaluation.

As resources are scarce, any decision to introduce adedicated corridor requires strong justification andfinancial measures are an important ingredient of thedecision-making process. While certain indicators suchas the BCR and cost recovery are greater for thepassenger rail option, this mode has a lower (highernegative) net present value. It may be argued on thisbasis, that the busway option is better in financial termsdue to the lower capital investment required.



Table 2.2.10a: Financial Evaluation of CAMCOS Public Transport Mode Options introduced in 2050 O-Bahn & Dedicated Busway Options (1999$)

1A 1B 2A 2B 2C 2D 2E 2F

O-Bahn O-Bahn Busway Busway Busway Busway Busway BuswayResults of FinancialEvaluation Incremental toBase Case Present Valuediscounted @ 6%

B-Mar15/15Exp

B-Mar15/30Exp

B-Mar15/15Exp

B-Mar15/30Exp

B-Mar15/15

B-Mar30/30

GB-Mar15/15

GB-Mar15/15

Capital Cost ($M)

Rollingstock Cost -27.0 -27.0 -27.0 -27.0 -27.0 -27.0 - -

Bus Acquisition Cost -44.2 -40.4 -40.4 -37.1 -35.5 -34.9 -38.8 -34.9

Civil Infrastructure Cost -489.7 -489.7 -341.6 -341.6 -338.0 -341.6 -246.5 -246.5

Total Operating Costs ($M) -317.2 -236.5 -297.7 -223.6 -296.0 -291.9 -230.1 -215.9

Revenue ($M) 321.1 279.8 321.1 279.8 304.0 220.9 216.4 216.4

Net Present Value ($M) -557.0 -513.8 -385.6 -349.5 -392.5 -474.5 -299.0 -280.9

NPVI -0.99 -0.92 -0.94 -0.86 -0.98 -1.18 -1.05 -1.00

BCR 0.37 0.35 0.45 0.44 0.44 0.32 0.42 0.44

Cost Recovery of workingexpenses 101% 118% 108% 125% 103% 76% 94% 100%

Cost Recovery 37% 35% 45% 44% 44% 32% 42% 44%

BCR less Resumption Cost 0.38 0.37 0.48 0.47 0.46 0.34 0.44 0.46

Table 2.2.10b: Financial Evaluation of CAMCOS Public Transport Mode Options introduced in2050 Rail Options (1999$)

3A 3B 3C 3D 4A 4B 4C

LightRail

LightRail

LightRail

LightRail OS

Pass’gerRail

Pass’gerRail

Pass’gerRail

Results of FinancialEvaluation Incremental toBase Case Present Valuediscounted @ 6% B-Mar

15/15B-Mar30/30

GB-Mar15/15

GB-Mar15/15

B-Mar30/30

B-Cal30/30

GB-Mar15/30

Capital Cost ($M)

Rollingstock Cost -101.8 -67.8 -20.4 -25.8 -63.0 -45.0 -27.0

Bus Acquisition Cost -7.4 -7.4 -7.4 -7.4 -7.4 -3.0 -7.4

Civil Infrastructure Cost -398.6 -398.6 -277.7 -312.2 -398.6 -158.1 -277.7

Total Operating Costs ($M) -318.7 -266.6 -191.1 -191.8 -285.5 -155.1 -185.9

Revenue ($M) 304.0 233.5 240.8 277.5 338.0 122.5 240.8

Net Present Value ($M) -522.5 -506.9 -255.8 -259.7 -416.6 -238.8 -257.3

NPVI -1.03 -1.07 -0.84 -0.75 -0.89 -1.16 -0.82

BCR 0.37 0.32 0.48 0.52 0.45 0.34 0.48

Cost Recovery of workingexpenses

95% 88% 126% 145% 118% 79% 130%

Cost Recovery 37% 32% 48% 52% 45% 34% 48%

BCR less Resumption Cost 0.38 0.33 0.51 0.54 0.47 0.36 0.51



Table 2.2.10c: Financial Evaluation of CAMCOS Public Transport Mode Options introduced in 2011 O-Bahn & Dedicated Busway Options (1999$)

1A 1B 2A 2B 2C 2D 2E 2F

O-Bahn O-Bahn Busway Busway Busway Busway Busway BuswayResults of FinancialEvaluation Incremental toBase Case Present Valuediscounted @ 6%

B-Mar15/15Exp

B-Mar15/30Exp

B-Mar15/15Exp

B-Mar15/30Exp

B-Mar15/15

B-Mar30/30

GB-Mar15/15

GB-Mar15/15

Capital Cost ($M)





Revenue ($M) 98.5 79.4 98.5 79.4 92.9 62.1 61.6 61.6


NPVI -1.33 -1.25 -1.43 -1.32 -1.43 -1.48 -1.50 -1.47

BCR 0.12 0.10 0.15 0.13 0.14 0.10 0.13 0.14

Cost Recovery of workingexpenses 35% 37% 37% 38% 36% 25% 31% 33%

Cost Recovery 12% 10% 15% 13% 14% 10% 13% 14%


Table 2.2.10d: Financial Evaluation of CAMCOS Public Transport Mode Options introduced in2011 Rail Options (1999$)

3A 3B 3C 3D 4A 4B 4C

LightRail

LightRail

LightRail

LightRail OS

Pass’gerRail

Pass’gerRail

Pass’gerRail


15/15B-Mar30/30

GB-Mar15/15

GB-Mar15/15

B-Mar30/30

B-Cal30/30

GB-Mar15/30

Capital Cost ($M)





Revenue ($M) 92.9 69.3 70.3 86.8 113.8 54.8 70.3


NPVI -1.44 -1.42 -1.40 -1.30 -1.37 -1.49 -1.37

BCR 0.11 0.09 0.14 0.16 0.15 0.15 0.14

Cost Recovery of workingexpenses 29% 26% 37% 45% 40% 35% 38%

Cost Recovery 11% 9% 14% 16% 15% 15% 14%

BCR less ResumptionCost

0.12 0.10 0.15 0.17 0.16 0.16 0.15



2.2.11 Economic Evaluation

The economic evaluation of the various mode optionsfor the public transport corridor has been similarlyundertaken for a 30-year evaluation period, assumingoperations (and therefore benefits) commence in 2011.In addition, a late introduction (2050) assessment hasbeen undertaken should construction of the corridor bedelayed.

The results of the economic analyses are presented inTables 2.2.11a-d. Tables 2.2.11a&b present theresults for the late introduction (2050) of the corridor,while Tables 2.2.11c&d present the analysis for theintroduction of the corridor by 2011.

In this evaluation, the benefits of travel time savings forboth private and public transport, savings in vehicleoperating costs and road accidents have beenquantified and compared with capital and operatingcosts.

O-Bahn

Of the O-Bahn options, scenario 1A has the best BCR(0.33), however it has a large negative net presentvalue ($-517.3M). The greatest benefit is derived frompublic transport travel time savings ($205.8M).Therefore, the benefit that these savings bring lead toan improved net present value from the financialevaluation.

Conventional cost benefit analysis is the traditionalmeans of assessing single infrastructure projects, andthe methodology closely reflects Main Road’s CostBenefit Analysis Framework. From the results of thisanalysis, it seems that the O-Bahn option still does notrealise any substantial benefit over a dedicatedbusway, despite the large increase in capital outlay.

Should the service be introduced longer term, then theBCR would be 2.12 with a net present value of$980.2M. In effect, this 2050 assessment shows thatthe option will be economically viable (BCR equal to1.0) sometime between 2011 and 2050.

Busway

Of the busway options, scenario 2A has the best BCR(0.38), for a significantly lower negative net presentvalue ($-418.0M) than O-Bahn. Again, travel timesavings are the greatest benefit ($205.8M), with furtherroad user benefits adding to the bottom line. From thisanalysis, it seems that the busway options perform bestfor the lowest capital outlay of all the options. Certainly,this option performs well in comparison to the otheroptions that connect to Beerwah.

Should the service be introduced longer term, then theBCR would be 2.63 with a net present value of

$1,151.6M. In effect, this 2050 assessment shows thatthe option will be economically viable (BCR equal to1.0) sometime between 2011 and 2050.

Light Rail

Of the light rail options, scenario 3D has the best BCR(0.43), for the lowest negative net present value ($-307.5M). This option has limitations in the sense that itonly serves the Golden Beach to Maroochydorecorridor, however it has on-street operation. While themodelling has allowed such operation theoretically, inreality it would be difficult to achieve in the built upareas. The public transport travel time savings are high($195.0M), compared with $164.8M for scenario 3Cwhich has no on-street operation. For the conventionaloption (Beerwah to Maroochydore), the BCR is 0.27and a resulting net present value of $-607.3M; adramatic worsening compared with the Sunshine Coastonly service.

From the economic analysis, it seems that the light railoption performs quite poorly in comparison with thepassenger rail options, despite a high capital outlay.This is due mainly to the fact that the capital costs arethe same as for passenger rail, but there are nointerchange savings at Beerwah. The coastal on-streetoption performs well, however it doesn’t perform aregional function. Therefore overall public transporttargets are unlikely to be reached.

Should the service be introduced longer term as inscenario 3A, then the BCR would be 2.16 with a netpresent value of $958.3M. In effect, this 2050assessment shows that the option will be economicallyviable (BCR equal to 1.0) sometime between 2011 and2050.

Passenger Rail

Of the conventional rail options, scenario 4A has thebest BCR (0.35), although it’s net present value is $-491.2M (approximately $73M worse than the expressbusway option). The travel time savings ($195.3M) areless than the busway option ($205.8M) due to the factthat there are no express door to door services duringthe peak periods.

An interesting analysis was undertaken with stagedintroduction. The results indicate that construction ofthe Beerwah to Caloundra link would achieve a BCR of0.31, should the remainder of the corridor never getcompleted. Alternatively, should the Golden Beach toMaroochydore corridor only be constructed, a BCR of0.42 would result. This is due to the reasonably hightravel time savings gained for approximately $121Mless infrastructure costs.

From the economic analysis, it seems that thepassenger rail option performs well, with similar traveltime savings, despite a significantly higher capital



outlay than the busway option. The great advantagebeing the direct regional connection that passenger railcan perform. This option also achieves the greatestenvironmental benefits and this has not been includedin the above discussion, but the results can be seen inthe table summaries.

Should the service be introduced longer term, then theBCR would be 2.24 with a net present value of$939.1M. In effect, this 2050 assessment shows thatthe option will be economically viable (BCR equal to1.0) sometime between 2011 and 2050.

Summary

In terms of the economic evaluation, the busway optionis the preferred mode. This is largely due to the factthat the public transport user benefits (i.e. travel timesavings) are higher for this mode. The main reason forthis is that the busway and O-Bahn options have a 7.5minute effective headway during the peak hour on theSunshine Coast. In addition, as the busway option

offers express peak hour services, many travellers donot require an interchange at the stations. The BCR forthe busway option is 0.38, compared with 0.35 forpassenger rail, 0.27 for light rail and 0.33 for O-Bahn.

The most significant difference lies in the net presentvalues with the busway option performing best at $-418.0M, whereas the passenger rail achieves $-491.2M. Since the dedicated busway involvessignificantly lower infrastructure costs (some $57 millionless) than all the other options, it has the highest (leastnegative) net present value. The net present value perinvestment dollar for both the busway and passengerrail options are quite similar (-1.04 and –1.05respectively). Since the BCR’s are not too dissimilar,the results of this evaluation are extremely close. Onbalance, the outcome of the economic evaluationindicates that a dedicated busway would be preferredover passenger rail, with light rail the next preferred andO-Bahn the least.



Table 2.2.11a: Economic Evaluation of CAMCOS Public Transport Mode Options introduced in 2050 O-Bahn and Dedicated Busway Options (1999$)

1A 1B 2A 2B 2C 2D 2E 2F

O-Bahn O-Bahn Busway Busway Busway Busway Busway BuswayResults of FinancialEvaluation Incremental toBase Case Present Valuediscounted @ 6% B-Mar

15/15Exp

B-Mar15/30Exp

B-Mar15/15Exp

B-Mar15/30Exp

B-Mar15/15

B-Mar30/30

GB-Mar15/15Exp

GB-Mar15/15

Capital Cost ($M)





PT User Benefits

Travel Time Savings 757.8 662.4 757.8 662.4 693.0 533.9 606.3 606.3

Road User Benefits

VOC Savings 34.8 34.7 34.8 34.7 36.7 23.7 29.8 29.8


Accident Savings 90.3 80.3 90.3 80.3 83.1 60.8 56.7 56.7

Total Benefits 1,858.3 1,744.9 1,858.3 1,744.9 1,784.8 1,291.3 1,519.5 1,519.5

Net Present Value ($M) 980.2 951.3 1,151.6 1,115.6 1,088.4 595.8 1,004.1 1,022.1

NPVI 1.75 1.71 2.82 2.75 2.72 1.48 3.52 3.63

BCR 2.12 2.20 2.63 2.77 2.56 1.86 2.95 3.06

Environmental Benefits ($M)

Air Pollution 14.51 12.92 14.51 12.92 13.36 9.78 9.12 9.12

Water Pollution 2.12 1.89 2.12 1.89 1.95 1.43 1.33 1.33

Noise Pollution 2.12 1.89 2.12 1.89 1.95 1.43 1.33 1.33

Energy Consumption 38.94 34.66 38.94 34.66 35.83 26.23 24.46 24.46

Total 57.70 51.35 57.70 51.35 53.10 38.87 36.24 36.24




Table 2.2.11b: Economic Evaluation of CAMCOS Public Transport Mode Options introduced in2050 Rail Options (1999$)

3A 3B 3C 3D 4A 4B 4C

LightRail

LightRail

LightRail

LightRail OS

Pass’gerRail

Pass’gerRail

Pass’gerRail


15/15B-Mar30/30

GB-Mar15/15

GB-Mar15/15

B-Mar30/30

B-Cal30/30

GB-Mar15/30

Capital Cost ($M)





PT User Benefits

Travel Time Savings 693.0 578.4 607.2 691.9 704.6 189.2 607.2

Road User Benefits

VOC Savings 36.7 23.9 31.5 30.8 30.5 11.9 31.5


Accident Savings 83.1 63.8 62.6 70.8 97.0 34.9 62.6

Total Benefits 1,784.8 1,346.7 1,574.1 1,646.0 1,693.6 527.5 1,574.1

Net Present Value ($M) 958.3 520.1 833.7 1,149.4 939.1 166.2 1,076.0

NPVI 1.89 1.02 1.76 3.76 2.00 0.81 3.45

BCR 2.16 1.63 2.13 3.31 2.24 1.46 3.16


Air Pollution 13.36 10.25 10.07 11.38 15.59 5.60 10.07

Water Pollution 1.95 1.50 1.47 1.67 2.28 0.82 1.47

Noise Pollution 1.95 1.50 1.47 1.67 2.28 0.82 1.47

Energy Consumption 35.83 27.51 27.02 30.54 41.84 15.04 27.02

Total 53.10 40.76 40.04 45.25 62.00 22.28 40.04




Table 2.2.11c: Economic Evaluation of CAMCOS Public Transport Mode Options introduced in 2011 O-Bahn and Dedicated Busway Options (1999$)

1A 1B 2A 2B 2C 2D 2E 2F

O-Bahn O-Bahn Busway Busway Busway Busway Busway BuswayResults of FinancialEvaluation Incremental toBase Case Present Valuediscounted @ 6% B-Mar

15/15Exp

B-Mar15/30Exp

B-Mar15/15Exp

B-Mar15/30Exp

B-Mar15/15

B-Mar30/30

GB-Mar15/15Exp

GB-Mar15/15

Capital Cost ($M)





PT User Benefits


Road User Benefits

VOC Savings 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0


Accident Savings 27.2 22.2 27.2 22.2 25.5 16.2 15.4 15.4

Total Benefits 252.0 199.3 252.0 199.3 219.3 158.2 168.0 168.0


NPVI -1.06 -1.03 -1.04 -1.02 -1.11 -1.23 -1.12 -1.07

BCR 0.33 0.26 0.38 0.33 0.34 0.25 0.35 0.37


Air Pollution 5.75 4.91 5.75 4.91 5.35 3.65 3.44 3.44

Water Pollution 0.84 0.72 0.84 0.72 0.78 0.53 0.50 0.50

Noise Pollution 0.84 0.72 0.84 0.72 0.78 0.53 0.50 0.50

Energy Consumption 15.43 13.17 15.43 13.17 14.34 9.80 9.22 9.22

Total 22.86 19.51 22.86 19.51 21.26 14.52 13.67 13.67




Table 2.2.11d: Economic Evaluation of CAMCOS Public Transport Mode Options introduced in2011 Rail Options (1999$)

3A 3B 3C 3D 4A 4B 4C

LightRail

LightRail

LightRail

LightRail OS

Pass’gerRail

Pass’gerRail

Pass’gerRail


15/15B-Mar30/30

GB-Mar15/15

GB-Mar15/15

B-Mar30/30

B-Cal30/30

GB-Mar15/30

Capital Cost ($M)





PT User Benefits


Road User Benefits

VOC Savings 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0


Accident Savings 25.5 18.1 17.7 21.2 33.8 16.5 17.7

Total Benefits 219.3 174.4 208.7 229.7 263.3 112.5 208.7


NPVI -1.20 -1.19 -0.94 -0.89 -1.05 -1.21 -0.93

BCR 0.27 0.24 0.42 0.43 0.35 0.31 0.42


Air Pollution 5.35 3.95 3.86 4.49 6.68 2.92 3.86

Water Pollution 0.78 0.58 0.57 0.66 0.98 0.43 0.57

Noise Pollution 0.78 0.58 0.57 0.66 0.98 0.43 0.57

Energy Consumption 14.34 10.58 10.36 12.05 17.92 7.83 10.36

Total 21.26 15.68 15.36 17.86 26.55 11.61 15.36


2.2.12 Financial and Economic EvaluationConclusion

On the basis of the financial and economic evaluation,the busway is the preferred mode due principally to thelower capital outlay required for the civil infrastructureworks. While the financial evaluation favourspassenger rail, the net present value is greater (lessnegative) for the busway option for both the financialand economic evaluation. However, the road userbenefits and the environmental benefits are greater forpassenger rail.

Probably the largest determining factor is the value ofpublic transport travel time savings. For busways, thisis greatest due to the express peak services and theshort headways along the coastal strip. The modellingundertaken to date might underestimate the queuing

times associated with busway operations, howeverthese problems may not arise until some time in thefuture. Accordingly, the busway option is still favouredin financial and economic terms, although the rail is avery close second.

Selection of the preferred transport system involvesmany competing interests. Financial and economicconsiderations, while important, must be recognised asonly part of the decision-making process. None of theoptions considered clearly stand as winners in theirown right. Certainly in the short term, they are notfinancially or economically viable in purely monetaryterms. Therefore, the basis of the selection of thepreferred mode will depend on the results obtainedfrom the multi criteria assessment.

Mode choice selection involves many competinginterests. Financial and economic considerations, while



important, must be recognised as only part of thedecision-making process. It has been mentioned also,that the analysis has not included many of the regionalfinancial and economic benefits that the infrastructurewould bring to the Sunshine Coast. Theseconsiderations should not be underestimated.Examples elsewhere indicate that passenger forecastscan be underestimated when a good transport link isprovided.

None of the options considered, certainly in the shortterm, are financially or economically viable in purelymonetary terms. Therefore, the basis of the selectionof the preferred mode ought to depend on the resultsobtained from the multi criteria assessment. A furtherreason is that the results for the busway and rail optionare so close. Competing social, environmental andland use planning objectives should therefore take amore leading role to determine the final choice.

Throughout the consultation period, the SunshineCoast community has consistently raised variousamenity-related and other criteria. These criteria andothers were used to compare the relative performanceof the various modes.

2.3 Mode Choice Workshop

Each public transport mode has particular situationswhere it performs well and in choosing a preferredmode it was necessary to gain a better understandingof how each operates. In addition, acquisition andoperating costs are often unknown or even disputed.

To assist this understanding, a Workshop was held witha broad range of industry experts representing eachmode. A simple version of multicriteria decisionanalysis (MCDA) was used to analyse the decision ofthe stakeholders (see section 2.3.4).

Each mode under various operating scenarios hasbeen assessed by an economic and financialevaluation. The results from these assessments havebeen incorporated into the MCDA procedure.

2.3.1 Workshop Objectives

Objective of the mode choice workshop was to providea better understanding of the operating characteristicsof the public transport options, as well as providefeedback on the evaluation criteria put forward by theconsultants. The workshop will also provide guidanceto the evaluation process for the consultants whencarrying out the placement of the weightings of eachcriterion. This will be explained further in section 2.3.6.

The four public transport modes considered for thededicated line haul corridor were:

q Dedicated Buswayq O-Bahn (Guided Busway)

q Light Railq Passenger rail

The workshop reviewed and evaluated each of themode’s performance against criteria under theheadings of:

q Transportationq Economic and Financialq Engineeringq Environmentalq Land use/socio-economic

Some of the outstanding issues to be resolved were:

q Modes for staging the options?q Implication of modes on land use development?q Life of system (years)?q Year of commencing operation: between 2005 to

2050?q Financial, economic and political viability of the

project based on precedents set in Queensland byGold Coast Rail, Inner Northern Busway, SouthEast Transit, Brisbane Light Rail etc.?

q Mode operating costs?q Time at which the IRTP targets for public transport

on the Sunshine Coast are reached?q Should the alignment be designed to take

passenger rail for staging purposes?

2.3.2 Non-Negotiable Issues

These issues form the set design and planningparameters that could not be compromised and wereused as guidelines for the evaluation process. Thefollowing is a list of these issues not pursued during theworkshop.

q The system is a dedicated public transportsystem/corridor, i.e. not a shared facility with atgrade intersections or junctions.

q It must provide a high quality link between keyregional centres (Caboolture/ Caloundra/Maroochydore) as per the IRTP.

q Alignment defined in a 100m corridor betweenBeerwah and Maroochydore and to Maroochydore/Sunshine Coast Airport. In some areas the corridoris tightly defined, such as the Kawana Multi-Modaltransport corridor (MMTC), where a 20 metre striphas been set aside.

q Aim is to preserve a corridor at the end of the studyas per requirements of the IRTP and RFGM,therefore, ‘do nothing’ was not an option.

q If considering rail, no freight was to be supportedon the line.

q At least 1.5 kilometres of viaduct in the Bells Creekarea for ecological reasons.

q Requirements for construction on viaducts in otherareas due to flooding.



2.3.2.1 Staging Options

The workshop also assisted with resolving issuesconcerning staging options for the project. Theseincluded:

q Mode compatibility, e.g. busway followed bypassenger rail, and busway followed by light rail;

q Alignment designed for ultimate mode choice;q Disruption to services with a change in mode at a

later date;q Staging options and to consider construction of only

part of the corridor, i.e. Maroochydore toCaloundra;

q Staging options involving upgrading of existing busservices as an interim option; and

q Timing and funding implications.

2.3.3 Workshop Attendees

The attendees were representatives from the Client andthe Consultant teams plus local experts representingeach of the modes being considered. A limited numberof attendees were invited to ensure that therepresentatives of each mode were evenly balancedand to avoid biasing a mode. No one in Brisbane couldrepresent the O-Bahn affiliation since the O-Bahnorganisation is centralised in Adelaide (TransAdelaide).This was not considered a major drawback as all theinformation presented at the workshop was provided bythe governing agency of the Adelaide O-Bahn system -Passenger Transport Board, Department of TransportSouth Australia.

Number of Persons Position of Expertise

1 Study Manager

2 Civil Engineer

2 Transportation Planner

2 Environmental Planner

1 Strategic Transport Planner

2 Technical Transport Planners

1 Inner Northern Busway Planner

2 Brisbane Light Rail Planner

1 Bus Operations Planner

1 Rail Operations Planner

1 Public Transport Specialist



2.3.4 Multicriteria Decision Analysis Methodology

The procedure for a Multicriteria Decision Analysis(MCDA) initially requires the establishment of the set ofcriteria. The consequences of transport infrastructureinvestments can be subdivided into five mainobjectives:

q Transportationq Economic and Financialq Engineeringq Environmentalq Land use/socio-economic

Most externalities are environmental effects that cannotbe traded with a monetary value. Therefore, difficultissues of evaluation arise when making directcomparison of environmental externalities with thoseincluded in the transport system, engineering and landuse/socio-economic effects. This is made possible withthe aid of a MCDA.

The simple MCDA procedure requires the use ofweights to transform unquantifiable or non-dimensionalcriteria into a set of alternative scores. The weightsrepresent the relative importance of each mode againsteach criterion. The weights for each mode aredetermined in two steps. Firstly, relative weights areassigned to the four modes against each criterion byusing the simple procedure of Position Based Ranking,which is an ordinal ranking system, i.e. 1, 2, 3, and 4,with higher numbers signifying greater importance. If amode is perceived to have the same importance asanother, then the ranking for both modes will be thesame, and the highest ranking will be equal to three.The second step is to normalise the relative rankingnumbers by dividing each rank number by the sum ofall the rankings. When the partial contributions of allthe criteria are summed, the resulting set of alternativescores can be used to compare the modes directly.

Documents

Final Impact Assessment and Land Use Transport Strategy