State Highway Network Resilience National Programme Business Case

Transcription

1 State Highway Network Resilience National Programme Business Case Delivering State Highway Resilience 22 August 204 The copyright of this document is held by the New Zealand Transport Agency. No reproduction of any part of this document is permitted without written permission.

2

3

4 Contents Executive Summary... 3 PART A THE STRATEGIC CASE... 7 Introduction National Strategic Case on Resilience Strategic Context Transport Agency - Organisational Overview One Network Road Classification (ONRC), December Joint Resilience Operating Policy (July 203) Lifeline organisations Strategic Assessment - Outlining the Need for Investment Defining the Problem The Benefits of Investment The Key Performance Indicators Status of the Evidence Base... 2 PART B DEVELOPING THE PROGRAMME Programme Context State Highway Network National Resilience Programme Business Case (PBC) Resilience Overview Approach and data gathered Geographical & Environmental Context Social Context Economic Context Demonstrating the Need for Investment Defining the problem Issues and Constraints Stakeholders Consultation and communication approach during PBC development Alternative and Option Assessment Programme Options Development and Assessment Programme Development and Assessment Assessment of the long list programme options Prioritisation of the corridors and assessment of corridors Do-Minimum Option Recommended Programme Programme Overview... 24

5 9.2 Data Limitations and further studies required Recommended Programme Assessment Assessment Profile Alignment of PBC to Strategic Case Programme Financial Case Indicative cost Funding arrangements Affordability PART C DELIVERING & MONITORING THE PROGRAMME Management Case Programme Governance and Reporting Stakeholder Engagement and Communications Plan Programme Performance and Review Appendix A - Investment Logic Map... XXXIII Appendix B Benefits Map... XXXIV Appendix C TREIS Closure Data and State Highway Alternative Routes Analysis Map... XXXV Appendix D DRAFT GIS Hazards Map... XXXVI Appendix E Enhanced Network resilience Programme... XXXVII Northland... XXXVII Auckland... XXXVII Waikato... XXXVIII Bay of Plenty... XXXVIII Taranaki... XXXIX Manawatu-Whanganui... XXXIX Wellington... XXXIX Nelson... XL Marlborough... XL Tasman... XL Canterbury... XL West Coast... XLI Otago... XLI Southland... XLI Appendix F - Programme Evaluation Spreadsheet... XLIII Appendix G - Corridor Prioritisation Spreadsheet and Map*... XLIV *Map based on spreadsheet... XLIV

6 Executive Summary Improved resilience of the state highway network is recognised as important by: The National Infrastructure Plan which seeks improved resilience of all key infrastructure The Draft Government Policy Statement on Land Transport July 204, which seeks improvements at critical points of the transport network The One Network Road Classification s proposed customer levels of service for resilience of the transport network. The Civil Defence and Emergency Management Act requires that the state highway network be resilient. The Transport Agency has addressed the resilience of the state highway network to some extent, it has: Business continuity and emergency response plans in place identified alternative routes to state highway links an information collection and dissemination system in place to advise customer of events, impacts and their options and is continuing: its seismic retrofit programme, bridge scour and rockfall mitigation programmes its avalanche and weather monitoring programmes its proactive use of CMA to reduce the frequency and impact of ice formation on road surfaces to implement preventive works that reduce disruption or risk to customers and staff to build new structures to modern standard making them more resilient. However it is readily apparent we now expect the state highway to be more resilient than we once did as its importance to our economy has grown and past practices are insufficient, inconsistent and unsystematic nationwide i.e. while alternative routes are planned for each state highway these are not consistently recorded nor do they all have sufficient capacity to be viable alternatives without upgrade there is an inconsistent process used in different regions for assessing natural risks making it difficult to consistently assess, compare and prioritise service gaps and potential responses there has been no systematic framework for recording events, or assessing infrequent risks so current knowledge of risk tends to be dominated by the frequently occurring events causing a dearth of reliable systematic assessment of the scope, location or risk of infrequent events The approach taken in this PBC assumes that resilience is concerned with any event, natural or man-made, which could disrupt our customers travel plans. Resilience improvements seek to make the network robust enough to withstand events; ensure that alternatives routes are available; ensure that we are prepared to deal with events; and that after an event, delays are minimised and the state highway network is returned to normal as soon as possible. Page 3

7 The definition of resilience used in the development if this Programme Business Case (PBC) is taken from the National Infrastructure Plan (NIP) which states: The concept of resilience is wider than natural disasters and covers the capacity of public, private and civic sectors to withstand disruption, absorb disturbance, act effectively in a crisis, adapt to changing conditions, including climate change, and grow over time. Thus a broad approach to resilience has been taken which assumes that resilience is wider than risk management, covers both man-made events as well as natural events and both low impact regular events as well as low probability high impact events. A Strategic Case for the NZ Transport Agency, Highways and Network Operations (HNO) was developed late in 203. It identified three problem areas which would result in significant benefit when effectively addressed. Strategic Case : Problem Poor highway resilience may impede critical services from providing disaster response and recovery support` Unreliability of some highways impacts businesses and undermines economic growth The risky environment of some roads increases the possibility of harm to road users Strategic Case : Benefits of addressing the problem Better enabled disaster response and recovery Better support for economic growth Reduced risk of harm to road users When developing this State Highway Network National Programme business case we considered, or were guided by: the Transport Agency s resilience framework a Transport Agency research paper on quantifying and measuring resilience findings from a pilot rockfall and slip study on Milford Rd by GNS bottom up identification of seismic, flooding, rockfall and slip, and snow and ice risk from HNO regional offices external research into resilience, e.g. the NZ Transport Agency Research Report 378 study which quantified the risk to state highways from sea level rise predicted to occur as a result of climate change the impact of the forward improvement programme on improved resilience the estimated gap between the current and desired resilience service levels possible programmes of work to address this gap. This State Highway Network Resilience National Programme Business Case therefore seeks funding in the NLTP to fill these information gaps, improve practice and to establish a national consistent prioritisation framework that will be used to build a more detailed capital improvement programme in the NLTP. Page 4

8 In addition increased funding is sought for existing preventative maintenance programmes that have already been shown to increase resilience by reducing the risk of closures and improving safety at high risk locations because there is considerable additional benefit to be had through treating the known critical pinch points on the state highway network. The initial activities to fill information gaps and increase preventative maintenance were split into the following three types of activities: Resilience Improvements Priority Corridors Resilience Improvements Spot treatments Resilience Management and Preparedness The recommended programme is summarised against these types of activities in the table below: Programme components Resilience Improvements Priority Corridors Scope / Details In order to get a better understanding of resilience risks, Corridor Strategic and Programme Business cases are proposed starting with Priority corridors in Auckland, Wellington, Waikato and Christchurch and working through to Priority 5 corridors if justified in the longer term. The aim of the corridor Business Cases (BCs) is to understand in greater detail what the resilience risks and possible treatments are. These corridor Business Cases are proposed to be undertaken in NLTP period The BCs will also consider other Transport Agency goals such as safety and efficiency at the same time as resilience. The indicative funding allocation proposed for this work is up to a maximum of $0.6m per annum. Value for money is ensured by the business case process, which only proceeds to the next stage if it can be demonstrated that addressing the problem will result in significant benefits and at a justifiable cost. Resilience Improvements Spot treatments Resilience Improvements Spot treatments potentially includes increased funding for existing programmes such as Scour, Bridge Seismic Retrofit and Rockfall programmes. This activity includes enhanced preventative maintenance. The indicative funding allocation proposed for these activities is $20.0m per annum. Value for money will be ensured by contesting this funding nationally. Funding will only be available to treatments that can demonstrate value for money, for example reduced whole of life costs, and which are prioritised using existing prioritisation processes. Page 5

9 Resilience Management and Preparedness This activity aims to improve emergency planning, incident planning, communications, alternative route planning and Business Continuity Planning. The indicative funding allocation proposed for these activities is $0.m per annum. Most of the funding or this activity will come from existing administration budgets. International research suggests that investing in preparedness is good value for money because the investment has a high probability of being beneficial after many types of event, be they high probability low impact or low probability high impact events. It is also proposed to carry out a pilot of the NZ Transport Agency resilience measurement tool in partnership with Auckland university (~$0.M) The following table provides a summary of how the proposed investment is aligned to the problems and benefits identified in the Strategic Case: Strategic Case ILM Problem Strategic Case ILM Benefit Strategic Response proposed in this PBC Poor highway resilience may impede critical services from providing disaster response and recovery support` Unreliability of some state highways impacts businesses and undermines economic growth The risky environment of some roads increases the possibility of harm to road users Better enabled disaster response and recovery Better support for economic growth Reduced risk of harm to road users Investment proposed in management and preparedness including improved incident planning, Emergency response plans and Business Continuity Plans Further risk information to be gathered to fill gaps. Resilience Business Cases are proposed for high priority corridors. Preventative maintenance to improve resilience and reduce whole of life costs National risk framework to be developed. Spot treatments at high risk locations. We intend to support and prepare for these activities over 204/5 by: Developing a framework for consistently assessing geologic and hydrologic risks Developing an approach to assessment of risk and response on state highway routes, and dependent communities Developing a standard for: o Assessing Lifelines obligations and responses o Assessing and recording alternative routes o Emergency response plans, including providing emergency access to isolated communities Page 6

10 PART A THE STRATEGIC CASE Introduction The approach taken in this PBC assumes that resilience is concerned with any event, natural or man-made, which could disrupt our customers travel plans. Improving resilience is about making sure that: before an event the network is robust enough to withstand the event, that alternatives routes are available, that we are prepared to deal with the event; and that after an event, delays are minimised and the state highway network is returned to normal as soon as possible. This State Highway Network National Resilience Programme Business Case (PBC) follows on from the Strategic Case on state highway resilience that was endorsed by the VAC in December 203. The Strategic Case provided the context and the case for change to the Transport Agency s approach to ensuring that the state highway network is resilient and delivers on its commitments and government expectations around network resilience.. National Strategic Case on Resilience The National Resilience Strategic Case was endorsed by the VAC in December 203 for taking forward to a PBC and supported by the Group Manager Planning and Investment Dave Brash (Item 3.4 NLTP Review Group meeting 24 th December 203). The Strategic Case provides the context for addressing resilience on the state highway network. High profile events such as the Christchurch earthquakes and the Japanese tsunami have led to an increased emphasis, at a government level and within the Transport Agency, on resilience. The Strategic Case outlines the need for a clear picture of the existing resilience risks to the state highway network, and establishes an overall vision to progressively improve the resilience of the state highway network. 2 Strategic Context Ensuring the road network is resilient, able to withstand disruption, and that the Transport Agency can act effectively in a crisis and adapt to changing conditions is a focus for the Transport Agency and government. The Transport Agency also has legal responsibilities under the Civil Defence and Emergency Management Act 2002, under which transport is defined as a lifeline utility. This National Resilience PBC positively contributes to the Transport Agency s legal obligations and the outcomes sought by government and its partners. 2. Transport Agency - Organisational Overview The Transport Agency s role includes state highway planning and investment activities, including building and maintaining the state highway networks. The Transport Agency has a number of priorities in carrying out this role, including improving road safety and freight efficiency. The Transport Agency Highways and Network Operations Group is the operator of the state highway network. The NZ Transport Agency recognises that wider participation and collaboration with lifeline organisations, national government, local and regional authorities, and other partners will be required in order to develop a comprehensive picture of resilience risks and opportunities. The Resilience Programme Business Case is consistent with resilience aspects of the following plans, policies, strategies and statutory documents: Civil Defence Emergency Management (CDEM) Act 2002 (the Act ) National Infrastructure Plan (NIP), July 20 NZ Transport Agency Strategy NZ Transport Agency Statement of Intent (SOI), Joint Resilience Operating Policy and Resilience Framework (July 203) Draft Government Policy Statement (GPS) 205 Page 7

11 The linkages between these documents and the PBC are illustrated in the following diagram: 2.2 One Network Road Classification (ONRC), December 203 The ONRC consists of an integrated framework for categorising all roads and state highways and provisional customer levels of service. Ensuring the resilience of the land transport network is one of our enduring outcomes and a medium term objective of the ONRC and proposes three elements for this objective: - Resilient Network: Ensuring a resilient national strategic network, in which resiliency challenges are identified, prioritised and managed. - Resilient Relationships: Building relationships with key stakeholders and other network providers to understand respective whole of network risks, roles, responsibilities and opportunities. A third objective of the ONRC will focus on how the Transport Agency, the wider transport sector and other national network providers can identify and meet our future needs and challenges more effectively. This will be advanced with relevant partners at a later stage. Page 8

12 The ONRC categorises roads based on their main function(s), such as freight, tourism, everyday travel etc. The ONRC was developed to provide a nationally consistent framework to the management and investment in the road network. A Level of Service (LoS) is provided for each road classification; each classification also includes its own resilience LoS. Whilst we have developed clear levels of service for our strategic network, the status of alternative routes (where they are available) is less certain in terms of levels of service and investment priority. 2.3 Joint Resilience Operating Policy (July 203) A key objective of the NZ Transport Agency is to grow the resilience of the state highway network. In line with this objective the NZ Transport Agency in partnership with KiwiRail and Transpower developed a Joint Resilience Operating Policy which includes a Risk Identification and Assessment Framework, Resilience Response Framework and a Measurement Framework. In addition the policy takes a broad approach to resilience and covers the NZ Transport Agency s assets, services, systems and relationships. The partners acknowledge that not all resilience risks can be avoided. The policy seeks to ensure that risks are consistently identified, assessed, treated, monitored and reported on in a transparent and consistent manner. It sought to build on the Transport Agency s existing Risk Management Framework and business continuity planning process. The policy provides a framework for identifying risks to inform a discussion about acceptable levels of risk and resilience investment, and sets out the following four components for identifying and addressing risks:. The Resilience risk identification and assessment framework: incorporates the Transport Agency s existing risk management framework with an extension to include the consideration of low probability/high impact events, long range change and interdependencies. 2. The Resilience Response framework: has been jointly developed with KiwiRail and Transpower and has been approved by the Board. This framework focuses on treating identified risks before an event occurs, and managing consequences during and after an event. There has been some scenario testing using the framework and the framework is being used to manage known network risks 3. The Resilience Measurement Framework: measurement and monitoring have yet to be developed but will include network resilience levels of service and measures more generally applicable to a wider range of infrastructure. Network customer levels of service outcomes and Key Performance Indicators are indicated in this PBC. 4. The Resilience Investment Criteria have yet to be fully developed but an investment issues paper has been developed to discuss the current issues around investment in state highway resilience. Resilience investment signals for the National Land Transport Programme will be developed as part of the Transport Agency s Maximising Returns strategic direction. We expect application of this framework will provide a heightened awareness of the risks and lead to improved and more transparent investment decisions. This PBC has been developed using this framework and supports the outcomes sought. For further information on the operating policy please see the following link: Lifeline organisations The Civil Defence Emergency Management (CDEM) Act 2002 (the Act ) provides the framework for planning and dealing with natural and manmade hazards. The Act defines lifelines and specific lifeline entities in Schedule, Part A of the Act. The Transport Agency is defined as a lifeline in the Act. Managing network risks to the road network and customers and being prepared for shocks is a core responsibility of the Transport Agency under both the Land Transport Management Act 2003 and the Civil Defence and Emergency Management Act Page 9

13 3 Strategic Assessment - Outlining the Need for Investment As part of the development of the Strategic Case the problems, benefits and KPIs were established during two facilitated investment logic mapping workshops. The workshops identified that a coherent approach to identifying resilience issues and treatment options is required in order to ensure that the NZ Transport Agency meets its duties as a lifeline provider, reduces possible harm to road users and also supports economic growth through ensuring that the road network is reliable. 3. Defining the Problem A facilitated investment logic mapping (ILM) workshop was held on 25 July 203 with key Transport Agency stakeholders who included representatives from HNO, P&I and SC&P. The aim of the workshop was to gain a better understanding of current issues and business needs and identify problems in relation to resilience. Attendees identified that there has not been a consistent approach to statutory obligations in the past and there needs to be. The stakeholder panel identified and agreed the following key problems: Problem one: Poor highway resilience may impede critical services from providing disaster response and recovery support (the ability to bounce back). Currently our response to highway incidents is mostly reactive and does not effectively and consistently manage the root cause and likelihood and compounding consequence of a disaster. The Transport Agency has a statutory duty as a lifeline provider to maintain its network to function at the fullest possible extent during and after an emergency. This duty implicitly requires a pro-active approach aimed at improving the resilience of the network so that critical services are available to support response and recovery. Not achieving this level of service could lead to questions over whether NZ Transport Agency is doing its best to meet its statutory requirements as described in the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002 and accompanying regulations. Problem two: Unreliability of some highways impacts business and undermines economic growth. Journey reliability is important for road users, particularly businesses that need to have confidence in the network so that their choice of transport maximises their productivity. The reliability of some highways, real or perceived, can impact on business confidence and undermine economic growth within a region. Inconsistent network reliability reduces the choices for locating a business, reducing inter-regional competitiveness. In terms of resilience, this will be as the result of unforeseen events such as crashes or environmental events that close highways. Problem three: The risky environment of some roads increases the possibility of harm to road users. Events such as flooding, rock falls and slips/drop outs can cause harm to road users and have an increasing risk profile as our network carries more customers. A network increasingly free from such events will have a corresponding reduction in the risk of harm to road users. The Investment Logic Map is attached as Appendix A gives weightings the benefits that would arise from addressing the above problems. 3.2 The Benefits of Investment The potential benefits of successfully investing to address the problems were identified as part of a second facilitated investment logic mapping workshop held on 30 August 203. The stakeholder panel identified and agreed the following potential benefits for the proposal: Page 0

14

15

16 NZ Transport Agency TREIS Data (See maps in Appendix C) Provides data on number and duration of closures over the past five years. This has been combined into heat maps showing resilience hot spots. Some of the TREIS data is of poor quality. Further improvements in collecting this data should be made over time and consideration given to utilising publicly available satellite and Bluetooth data. TREIS data is evidence that ONRC resilience LOS are not always achieved and that further investment in resilience is warranted. However it is based on backward looking actual data that does not cover possible future events. Bottom up risk data from regions Risk data collected from the regions provides a good start to a national picture of risks. However there are many gaps to be filled before a capital programme can be prioritised Further risk data needed, including top down information on risks from national risk information. More detailed risk data will be required in the next stage of the business case to provide evidence base for comparison of risk treatment options. The large number of closures recorded in the TREIS data above and the resilience risk data provided by the regions clearly demonstrates the significant economic impact caused by lost hours to business due to closures, and the potential for a number of people to be hurt due to rock fall risk. The next stage of the business case will analyse the potential impacts and benefits from reducing risks and costs of risk treatments in more detail at a corridor level and at specific high risk locations. Resilience has long been considered and incorporated within the Transport Agency s activities though programmes and forums, which include: - Rock fall Programme - Scour programme - Bridge seismic retrofit programme - Preventative maintenance - Lifeline groups The Transport Agency s approach to resilience however is less well developed at a national level in terms of the provision of a national dataset on resilience risks and an understanding of resilience across the organisation and activities. When compared to the mature approach and dataset used in safety it is clear that future work (beyond this PBC) will be necessary in order to develop the Transport Agency approach to addressing resilience. For example the pilot study by GNS of rock fall risk on the Milford Road is to be developed into a national framework and rolled out across the country. It is also proposed to supplement bottom up risk data received from NZ Transport Agency s regions with top down risk data available from organisations such as GNS and NIWA. Page 3

17 PART B DEVELOPING THE PROGRAMME 4 Programme Context This chapter briefly sets out the geographic, environmental, social and economic context of this PBC. The study is at a national level which means that the programme covers geographies and communities across New Zealand. 4. State Highway Network National Resilience Programme Business Case (PBC) The need for a State Highway Network National Resilience PBC was identified in the Strategic Case. The Strategic Case identified a benefits split of 45% for disaster recovery, 45% for supporting economic growth and 0% for reduced risk of harm to road users. The National Resilience PBC seeks to ensure the state highway network delivers on the Transport Agency s commitments and Government expectations on transport network resilience. This Resilience PBC specifically identifies resilience issues on the state highway network, based on a one network approach, and recommends a national programme of prioritised activities. This PBC and the recommended national programme of prioritised activities will be submitted for inclusion in the State Highway Asset Management Plan (SHAMP), which is the basis for activities to be considered for the National Land Transport Plan (NLTP 205 8). The proposals in this PBC will be prioritised for value for money against other land transport activities through the SHAMP assessment process, and then as part of the development of the NLTP development process. Separate Business Cases are being developed at a corridor level; resilience is a core consideration for each corridor and initiatives identified in this PBC need to be assessed alongside other issues identified for each corridor such as safety, freight (including Higher Productivity Motor Vehicles) and local community access etc. 4.2 Resilience Overview The section firstly provides an overview of what resilience is in the context of this PBC and a summary of the meaning of terminology used within the report. As outlined in the Measuring the resilience of transport infrastructure research report there are a variety of definitions as different disciplines have applied resilience approaches to their work. The definition that is considered applicable to the New Zealand transport, outlined in the National Infrastructure Plan, is: The concept of resilience is wider than natural disasters and covers the capacity of public, private and civic sectors to withstand disruption, absorb disturbance, act effectively in a crisis, adapt to changing conditions, including climate change, and grow over time. The table below provides details of the definitions and terminology used in this report. The principles of robustness, redundancy (or alternative route) and preparedness (or resourcefulness) have been used to define particular treatments on corridors. The table provides a definition of each principle. The table also shows the resilience Level of Service (LoS) for each road type which is taken from the Transport Agency s draft One Network Road Classification (ONRC). Note that these resilience levels of service are aspirational and that affordability limits mean that they will not always be achieved and that proposed resilience treatments must meet value for money criteria. AECOM 203 Measuring the resilience of transport infrastructure Page 4

18

19 4.3 Approach and data gathered This PBC gathered data on the risks on the state highway network via a bottom-up and topdown approach.. Top down data GNS Science is currently working on a pilot study into rock fall safety risks along the Milford Road. This study will eventually establish a national framework for assessing rock fall risks using a quantified risk analysis. 2. Bottom-up data Data on resilience risks have been gathered from the regional offices via a Geographical Information System (GIS) tool. This risk data was informed by TREIS data showing actual closures caused by different hazard types over the past 5 years as well as GIS map of alternative routes to state highways (See Appendix C for TREIS data and alternative routes map). The risks provided by the regional offices included natural and man-made and also high impact low probability risks, which was a key focus in the Joint Resilience Operating Policy. The likelihood and consequence of a risk pre and post treatment was provided by specialists from the regional offices. The regions were also asked to indicate the main 2 indicative treatment in terms of robustness, preparedness or alternative routes. Maps showing the resilience risks identified by the regional offices are provided in Appendix D. The data provided by each regional office is indicative only and the next stage of resilience studies will provide greater definition and information on the risks. This bottom up data provided the following indicative information: - Resilience risks on the state highway network (manmade and natural, and operational as well as high impact low probability risks). - A recommended main response to the risk, e.g. whether preparedness, robustness or an alternative route. - A preferred treatment and whether the treatment is already being developed, e.g. through a Road of National Significance (RoNS) project. - An indicative cost for implementing the treatment. - A risk rating before and after treatment. The list of risks from the bottom up data collection was used as part of the assessment of the programme options This data provides a baseline for more detailed assessment of risks and treatments along prioritised corridors in future corridor PBCs (see chapter 9). 4.4 Geographical & Environmental Context The scope of the national resilience programme means that multiple geographies and environments around New Zealand may be affected by the programme. The geographic areas which are more likely to be affected by the programme include: Areas of higher population including cities and towns in New Zealand. In these areas the consequence of a resilience issue will affect a greater number of people. Locations with roads that have a higher state highway classification. In these locations the consequence of a resilience issues will affect a greater number of road users and is likely to have a higher economic impact as these corridors also tend to carry higher volumes of freight traffic. 2 The main treatment will not be the only treatment, for example while the main treatment for a corridor might be to make it robust, depending on the ONRC classification and target resilience level of service, it will still be necessary to address corridor preparedness and alternative routes. Page 6

20

21

22

23 8 Programme Options Development and Assessment A long list of programme options was developed in the Alternatives and Options Workshop. The preferred programme and activities was developed based on the prioritisation of corridors, which addressed the existing prioritised of the Transport Agency, including freight routes, high volume road etc. In particular, this PBC has used the One Network Road Classification to prioritise corridors. 8. Programme Development and Assessment Alternatives and Options workshop An alternatives and options workshop took place on 27 March 204. The workshop included representatives from Highways and Operations (HNO), Planning and Investment (P&I) and Strategy Communications and Performance (SC&P). A total of programme options were developed, which are: - Programme : Do minimum (RoNS and legal minimum requirements) - Programme 2: Do maximum (all state highways) - Programme 3: National strategic and high volume - Programme 4: National and regional strategic - Programme 5: Most unreliable SHs - Programme 6: SH most at risk from disaster - Programme 7: Freight journeys/local HPMV - Programme 8: National critical journeys - Programme 9: Agreed lifelines - Programme 0: Tourist routes - Programme : National Infrastructure Plan (NIP) hot spots 8.2 Assessment of the long list programme options Following the workshop the programme options were assessed in greater detail in terms of the benefits, risks and costs of each of the programme. The results of the assessment are provided in Appendix F. The aim of the assessment was to establish a consistent ranking process. A key outcome of the assessment of the programme options was that no programme option was sufficient on its own because they all ignored important aspects of the state highway network. The assessment table below highlights the limitations of each of the programme options. For example only focusing on tourist routes (programme 0) would ignore some high volume and national strategic roads which carry greater traffic volumes than tourist routes. Similarly not improving the resilience of tourist routes 3 would have safety consequences. While including national- and regional-strategic corridors in a preferred programme would address a significant amount of the state highway network, it would be unaffordable and would still not address other parts of the state highway network, such as primary collector corridors. In addition it was apparent that there resilience risk and other information gathered to date was insufficient to prioritise a capital works programme. Further information and analysis needs to be done before this can be completed. The PBC therefore recommends that further 3 The identification of tourist routes is yet to be determined in a separate Study, and so the precise scope of tourist routes was not looked at in detail in this PBC. Page 20

24

25

26 Resilience Management and Preparedness The corridor prioritisation process is documented in Appendix G including a map of corridor priorities. Corridors were prioritised from Priority to 5 by quantifying the number of programme options to which they contributed with Priority being the highest priority. The higher the number of programme options contributed to, the higher the priority. This approach gives the highest priority to the corridors with the highest level of service targets. The business case process then establishes whether high resilience risk problems exist on those corridors. If the next stage of the business case does not identify sufficient problems and potential benefits then that corridor business case will not proceed and the funding will be cascaded down to the next priority level. It is recognised that there are limitations to this approach. Some corridors deemed to be high priority may not have sufficient justification and some corridors deemed not to be high priority should be. This will be addressed in the next phase as follows: a number of Business Cases are underway for state highway corridors to identify all the issues specific to each Corridor. Further work will be carried out to ensure all state highway corridors consider Resilience and, where applicable, the Business Cases will be developed for prioritised activities. resilience improvements spot treatments that can be carried out anywhere on the network particularly in areas of high personal risk. This work may include an enhance bridge scour risk reduction programme, an enhanced rock fall risk reduction programme and enhanced preventative maintenance as stated above, if it is found that a high priority corridor does not in fact have sufficient problems or benefits from addressing the problems to warrant further development of a business case then funding allocated will be cascaded down to the next priority level. 8.4 Do-Minimum Option The do minimum option for this PBC is defined as the work being carried out under existing programmes that improves resilience, which is extensive, and includes the following: - Existing scour, seismic retrofit and rock fall programmes. It is important to note however that the preferred programme recommends increasing funding for these programmes. - RoNS specifically those that contribute to resilience through providing a robust or alternative route. - Existing safety improvement programmes that contribute to resilience by reducing road closures due to crashes - Existing Intelligent Transport System (ITS) programmes that improve information to road users and can be used to communicate to road users after a resilience event - Existing emergency works, including maintenance programmes. This Do Minimum option represents the minimum level of expenditure required to maintain a minimum resilience level of service. The activities in the do minimum are largely existing programmes and the programme options consider work that is in addition to the Do Minimum. Page 23

27 9 Recommended Programme As noted in the previous section, the assessment of alternative programmes identified that there is insufficient resilience risk information available to arrive at a comprehensive national prioritised capital programme for the NLTP. The recommended programme therefore seeks to fill the information gaps and develop a prioritised capital programme for the NLTP. In addition the recommended programme recommends enhancements to existing maintenance programmes such as enhanced preventative maintenance, rock fall risk treatments and scour treatments, at locations where acceleration of the programme can be justified, as well as activities to increase preparedness. 9. Programme Overview In essence the programme option assessment found that the whole network would benefit from improvements in resilience, not just priority corridors. Activities such as improving preparedness are network wide. The recommended programme therefore includes all state highways and proposed a three pronged approach covering business case development on high priority corridors, spot treatments to high risk locations and increased preparedness network wide. The high priority corridors for business cases are centred on the main urban cities based on both support for economic growth as well as support for emergency response to natural disaster. The recommended programme is outlined in the table below. Programme components Resilience Improvements Priority Corridors Scope / Details In order to get a better understanding of resilience risks, Corridor Strategic and Programme Business Cases are proposed starting with Priority corridors in Auckland, Wellington, Waikato and Christchurch and working through to Priority 5 corridors if justified in the longer term. The aim of the corridor Business Cases (BCs) is to understand in greater detail what the resilience risks and possible treatments are. These corridor Business Cases are proposed to be undertaken in NLTP period The BCs will also consider other Transport Agency goals such as safety and efficiency at the same time as resilience. The indicative funding allocation proposed for this work is up to a maximum of $0.6m per annum. Value for money ensured by the business case process which only proceeds to the next stage if can be demonstrated that addressing the problem will result in significant benefits and at a justifiable cost. Resilience Improvements Spot treatments Resilience Improvements Spot treatments potentially includes increased funding for existing programmes such as Scour, Bridge Seismic Retrofit and Rockfall programmes. This activity includes enhanced preventative maintenance. The indicative funding allocation proposed for these activities is $20.0M per annum. Value for money will be ensured by contesting this funding nationally. Funding will only be available to treatments that can demonstrate value for money, for example reduced whole of life costs and which are prioritised using existing prioritisation processes. Page 24

28 Resilience Management and Preparedness This activity aims to improve emergency planning, incident planning, communications, alternative route planning and Business Continuity Planning. The indicative funding allocation proposed for these activities is $0.m per annum. Most of the funding or this activity will come from existing administration budgets. International research suggests that investing in preparedness is good value for money because the investment has a high probability of being beneficial after many types of event, be they high probability low impact or low probability high impact events. It is also proposed to carry out a pilot of the NZ Transport Agency resilience measurement tool in partnership with Auckland university (~$0.M) Progress on the above approach and proposed programme focus of resilience activities has been noted by the Board (refer to Board paper 4/05/087) and they invited NZ Transport Agency HNO to broaden the scope of the resilience analysis and response to incorporate wider concepts such as network adaptation. Board members also stressed the importance of using scenario analysis to test various response frameworks and options. We agree these issues are important and will be embed them into our work in the next stage. 9.2 Data Limitations and further studies required The risk data provided by the regions is indicative only and does not provide a complete picture of the resilience risks on the state highway network. Appendix D shows risk maps based on data received from the regions. National maps on risks are available in documents published by organisations such as GNS Science and NIWA. A comparison of the maps in appendix D with other sources demonstrates that further work is needed to fully understand the resilience risks across the network. Active consideration of resilience robustness at a corridor level will help to identify where more detailed investigation is warranted. The indicative data provided in this PBC provides a useful baseline but should be used in conjunction with the national datasets available from organisations such as GNS Science and NIWA. The pilot study of rock risk in Milford Road by GNS is intended to provide a national framework for rock fall and geological risk assessment. Once this national framework is available it is proposed to roll it out nationally on high risk sections of the network. This next phase is needed to add to and refine the risk assessment work done to date. To this end work will be undertaken by GNS to finalise the risk assessment and prioritisation tool. The tool will then be rolled out across the country to gain a national picture of geotechnical risk and a prioritised programme of mitigation measures to reduce rock fall and other geotechnical risks. 0 Recommended Programme Assessment 0. Assessment Profile An assessment profile using the Transport Agency s Investment and Revenue Strategy will not apply to this State Highway Programme Business Case because it focuses on a single dimension of the overall State Highway Activity Management Plan. Once developed, the SHAMP will be assessed against the revised Investment Assessment Framework which will reflect the direction of the new Government Policy Statement on Land Transport. The NLTP Advisory Group will consider the Programme Business Case and signal whether it endorses the process and general direction taken. It is noted that all state highway corridors will be assessed for resilience and, where appropriate, the Business Case approach will be applied to develop activities further. These activities will then be assessed against the Investment Assessment Framework as they are further developed. Page 25

29 0.2 Alignment of PBC to Strategic Case The following table provides a summary of how the proposed investment is aligned to the problems and benefits identified in the Strategic Case: Strategic Case ILM Problem Strategic Case ILM Benefit Strategic Response proposed in this PBC Poor highway resilience may impede critical services from providing disaster response and recovery support` Unreliability of some highways impacts businesses and undermines economic growth The risky environment of some roads increases the possibility of harm to road users Better enabled disaster response and recovery Better support for economic growth Reduced risk of harm to road users Investment proposed in management and preparedness including improved incident planning, Emergency response plans and Business Continuity Plans Further risk information to be gathered to fill gaps. Resilience Business Cases proposed, starting on high priority corridors. Preventative maintenance to improve resilience and reduce whole of life costs National risk framework to be developed. Spot treatments at high risk locations. Programme Financial Case. Indicative cost Indicative costs are given as part of the SHAMP programme in Section 9. above. The exact timing of Corridor Business Case development may vary to suit other activities in the corridor such as safety or efficiency..2 Funding arrangements Funding will be sought through the NLTP review process in the normal way..3 Affordability See above. Page 26

30

31

32 2.2 Stakeholder Engagement and Communications Plan Resilience is part of the SHAMP and NLTP. As such a separate stakeholder and communications plan is not required at this stage. 2.3 Programme Performance and Review The programme recommends further corridor business cases and spot treatments such as enhanced preventative maintenance and scour treatment which are part of the SHAMP. Performance of the programme in delivering outcomes will be monitored and reported as part of the SHAMP against the KPI s suggested in this PBC. The triggers for revisiting the programme would be poor performance against these indicators. Also high risk personal safety issues could lead to the need for urgent preventative maintenance or other actions to ensure public safety is adequately addressed. Page 29

33

34

35 Appendix A - Investment Logic Map

36 Appendix B Benefits Map

37 Appendix C TREIS Closure Data and State Highway Alternative Routes Analysis Map

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52 Appendix D DRAFT GIS Hazards Map

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66 Waikato NZTA is seeking to improve the ability of the network to withstand short and long term events, provide alternatives routes in the event of outages and recover quickly from short term closures and large scale disasters. A description of the type of work that could potentially be considered for funding in each region is given below. Note this does not imply funding will be approved a business case will need to be developed for each activity and approval sought on a case by case basis. Potential work that could be considered initially in this region to improve the resilience of the state highway network (subject to funding approval) includes: Investigation of spot treatments in high risk rock fall areas and slips, such as slips along SH4 at Waihi Hill, slips along SH5, SH25 and rock fall risks at Ruahihi along SH29 and along SH30. Enhanced preventative maintenance where required. Investigate seismic retrofit and alternative routes for SH2 corridor. Investigate scour protection of bridges at risk, including Mangaorongo Stream Bridge on SH3, Mohaka Bridge on SH5 and Waihohou Rock Fall on SH. Consider alternative routes to SH30 and SH5 due to volcanic risk from Rotorua to Taupo. Enhanced preventative maintenance to reduce whole of life cost in flood prone areas including Karangahake Gorge Flooding, SH between Taupo and Turangi, SH29, SH25 and SH2 including Uretara Stream Bridge, Waitekohe Stream Bridge and Wairoa River Bridge. Improve preparedness to weather related events including snow and ice. Bay of Plenty NZTA is seeking to improve the ability of the network to withstand short and long term events, provide alternatives routes in the event of outages and recover quickly from short term closures and large scale disasters. A description of the type of work that could potentially be considered for funding in each region is given below. Note this does not imply funding will be approved a business case will need to be developed for each activity and approval sought on a case by case basis. Potential work that could be considered initially in this region to improve the resilience of the state highway network (subject to funding approval) includes: Investigation of spot treatments of rock fall risk at Northern Mangorewa Gorge along SH36 and slips at Matata Straights along SH2. Investigate risk treatments such as enhanced preventative maintenance in flood prone areas along SH2, including Kaikokopu Stream Bridge, Nukuhou Flats, Waimana Gorge, Pekatahi Bridge and Matakerepu Area. Consider alternative routes to SH2 in flood prone areas and areas Matata Straights which is prone to slips. Improve preparedness, better planning of alternative routes, a review of emergency response plans, better Business Continuity Planning and involvement in lifelines groups. Improve preparedness for seismic events and risk of liquefaction along SH33, TEL liquefaction along \ Gisborne NZTA is seeking to improve the ability of the network to withstand short and long term events, provide alternatives routes in the event of outages and recover quickly from short term closures and large scale disasters. A description of the type of work that could potentially be considered for funding in each region is given below. Note this does not imply funding will be approved a business case will need to be developed for each activity and approval sought on a case by case basis. Potential work that could be considered initially in this region to improve the resilience of the state highway network (subject to funding approval) includes: Investigate seismic retrofit of structures along SH2 and SH35. Investigate risk treatments such as enhanced preventative maintenance and better slope stability monitoring in areas prone to slips and weather events including SH35 to Hicks Bay, and SH2 to Waioeka Gorge, and enhanced preventative maintenance in flood prone areas along SH35 and SH2. Hawkes Bay NZTA is seeking to improve the ability of the network to withstand short and long term events, provide alternatives routes in the event of outages and recover quickly from short term closures and large

67 scale disasters. A description of the type of work that could potentially be considered for funding in each region is given below. Note this does not imply funding will be approved a business case will need to be developed for each activity and approval sought on a case by case basis. Potential work that could be considered initially in this region to improve the resilience of the state highway network (subject to funding approval) includes: Investigate seismic retrofit of Tukituki (Waipukurau) River Bridge (SH2), Ahuriri Estuary Bridge (SH2) and Nagruroro and Tutaekuri River Bridge (SH50a). Investigate enhanced preventative maintenance to reduce the whole of life cost for flood prone areas and areas prone to slips along SH2 and SH5. Improve preparedness, including preparedness for adverse weather and snow and ice along SH2. SH5 and SH38. Taranaki NZTA is seeking to improve the ability of the network to withstand short and long term events, provide alternatives routes in the event of outages and recover quickly from short term closures and large scale disasters. A description of the type of work that could potentially be considered for funding in each region is given below. Note this does not imply funding will be approved a business case will need to be developed for each activity and approval sought on a case by case basis. Potential work that could be considered initially in this region to improve the resilience of the state highway network (subject to funding approval) includes: Enhanced preventative maintenance in flood and slip prone areas including areas along SH3. Investigate spot treatments of high risk rock fall and slips on SH3. Manawatu-Whanganui NZTA is seeking to improve the ability of the network to withstand short and long term events, provide alternatives routes in the event of outages and recover quickly from short term closures and large scale disasters. A description of the type of work that could potentially be considered for funding in each region is given below. Note this does not imply funding will be approved a business case will need to be developed for each activity and approval sought on a case by case basis. Potential work that could be considered initially in this region to improve the resilience of the state highway network (subject to funding approval) includes: investigation of spot treatment of areas at risk to rock fall such as SH between Paekakiriki and Pukerua Bay. Investigate seismic retrofit of bridges along SH2 and SH, and other seismic risks along SH. Investigate enhanced preventative maintenance to reduce whole of life cost for flood prone areas, which might include SH56 from Tiakitahuna to SH57. Consider alternative routes, including SH57 as an alternative route to SH56 and an alternative route to the Manawatu Gorge. Improve preparedness to weather related events including snow and ice. Wellington NZTA is seeking to improve the ability of the network to withstand short and long term events, provide alternatives routes in the event of outages and recover quickly from short term closures and large scale disasters. A description of the type of work that could potentially be considered for funding in each region is given below. Note this does not imply funding will be approved a business case will need to be developed for each activity and approval sought on a case by case basis. Potential work that could be considered initially in this region to improve the resilience of the state highway network (subject to funding approval) includes: Investigation of spot treatments of areas at risk to rock fall, including SH2. Investigate bridges that may need seismic retrofitting including Thorndon Overbridge (SH), Southern Rail Overbridge (SH2) and Helston Road Underpass Bridge (SH). Investigate seismic risk along SH58, SH and SH2. Investigate scour protection of Waihenga Bridge along SH53. Investigate enhanced preventative maintenance for areas prone to slips including SH58, SH2 (Petone to Ngauranga land slip and from Pakuratahi to Featherston) and SH (Ngauranga Gorge slips). Investigate enhanced preventative maintenance for flood prone areas including Waihenga Bridge and flooding between Petone and Ngauranga.

68 Nelson NZTA is seeking to improve the ability of the network to withstand short and long term events, provide alternatives routes in the event of outages and recover quickly from short term closures and large scale disasters. A description of the type of work that could potentially be considered for funding in each region is given below. Note this does not imply funding will be approved a business case will need to be developed for each activity and approval sought on a case by case basis. Potential work that could be considered initially in this region to improve the resilience of the state highway network (subject to funding approval) includes: Investigation of spot treatments of high risk rock fall and slip prone areas along SH6, which include Whangamoa slips and slips and rock onto Atawhai cycleway. Investigate enhanced preventative maintenance to reduce whole of life cost for flood prone areas along SH6, which include Bolton s Road, Wakamarina and Pelorus River. Marlborough NZTA is seeking to improve the ability of the network to withstand short and long term events, provide alternatives routes in the event of outages and recover quickly from short term closures and large scale disasters. A description of the type of work that could potentially be considered for funding in each region is given below. Note this does not imply funding will be approved a business case will need to be developed for each activity and approval sought on a case by case basis. Potential work that could be considered initially in this region to improve the resilience of the state highway network (subject to funding approval) includes: Investigate seismic risks and seismic retrofit of bridges along SH, including Wairau Bridge and Spring Creek. Investigate scour protection of Wairau Bridge along SH. Investigate enhanced preventative maintenance to reduce whole of life cost for flood prone areas including Wairau/Tuamarina along SH. Investigate scour protection of Wairau Bridge and other bridges that may be identified. Tasman NZTA is seeking to improve the ability of the network to withstand short and long term events, provide alternatives routes in the event of outages and recover quickly from short term closures and large scale disasters. A description of the type of work that could potentially be considered for funding in each region is given below. Note this does not imply funding will be approved a business case will need to be developed for each activity and approval sought on a case by case basis. Potential work that could be considered initially in this region to improve the resilience of the state highway network (subject to funding approval) includes: Investigation of spot treatments of areas at risks from rock fall and slips including Rocks Road. Investigate enhanced preventative maintenance to reduce whole of life cost for flood prone areas along SH63 and other areas identified. Consider alternative routes to SH6 in order to avoid rock fall or slips. Canterbury NZTA is seeking to improve the ability of the network to withstand short and long term events, provide alternatives routes in the event of outages and recover quickly from short term closures and large scale disasters. A description of the type of work that could potentially be considered for funding in each region is given below. Note this does not imply funding will be approved a business case will need to be developed for each activity and approval sought on a case by case basis. Potential work that could be considered initially in this region to improve the resilience of the state highway network (subject to funding approval) includes: Investigation of spot treatments of rock fall risk areas along SH8, SH79 and Rakaia Gorge on SH77. Investigate seismic retrofit of bridges on SH, SH8, and SH77, including Rakaia Gorge Bridge, Waimakariri Bridge and Waiareka Creek Bridge. Investigate scour protection of bridges at Katiki Beach on SH88, and Waitaki Bridge and near Hundalee range on

69 SH. Investigate enhanced preventative maintenance to reduce whole of life cost for flood prone areas along SH, SH8, SH75, SH79 and SH82. Investigate risk treatments at the Lyttelton tunnel, at Ashburton River Bridge, Elephant Creek Bridge, Rangitata River Bridge and Upper Orari River Bridge. Consider alternative routes to parts of SH, SH77 and SH82. Improve preparedness to weather related events including snow and ice. West Coast NZTA is seeking to improve the ability of the network to withstand short and long term events, provide alternatives routes in the event of outages and recover quickly from short term closures and large scale disasters. A description of the type of work that could potentially be considered for funding in each region is given below. Note this does not imply funding will be approved a business case will need to be developed for each activity and approval sought on a case by case basis. Potential work that could be considered initially in this region to improve the resilience of the state highway network (subject to funding approval) includes: Investigation of spot treatments of areas at risk to rock fall and slips including SH73, SH7, SH6 and SH65. Investigate seismic retrofit of Albert Town Bridge on SH6, Waimakariri Bridge at Arthur Pass on SH73 and other bridges at risk. Investigate scour protection of bridges including Albert Town Bridge (SH6) and other state highways including SH7, SH73 and SH65. Investigate enhanced preventative maintenance to reduce whole of life cost for flood prone areas, including SH6, SH7, SH67, SH73 and SH67. Improve preparedness to weather related events including snow and ice. Otago NZTA is seeking to improve the ability of the network to withstand short and long term events, provide alternatives routes in the event of outages and recover quickly from short term closures and large scale disasters. A description of the type of work that could potentially be considered for funding in each region is given below. Note this does not imply funding will be approved a business case will need to be developed for each activity and approval sought on a case by case basis. Potential work that could be considered initially in this region to improve the resilience of the state highway network (subject to funding approval) includes: Investigation of spot treatments of areas at risk to rock fall and slips on SH93, SH88, SH85 and SH6. Investigate seismic retrofit of bridges including Kawarau Bridge, Waihopai River Bridge and Eyre Creek Bridge along SH6. Other roads at risk to seismic events include S93, SH88, SH85, SH, SH87, SH90 and SH8. Investigate enhanced preventative maintenance to reduce whole of life cost for flood prone areas, including SH88, SH85, SH, SH6, SH87 and SH90. Consider alternative routes to Taieri River Bridge along SH86, Waihopai River Bridge along SH6 and SH6 where there are risks of slips. Improve preparedness to weather related events including snow and ice. Southland NZTA is seeking to improve the ability of the network to withstand short and long term events, provide alternatives routes in the event of outages and recover quickly from short term closures and large scale disasters. A description of the type of work that could potentially be considered for funding in each region is given below. Note this does not imply funding will be approved a business case will need to be developed for each activity and approval sought on a case by case basis. Potential work that could be considered initially in this region to improve the resilience of the state highway network (subject to funding approval) includes: Investigation of spot treatments of areas at risk to rock fall, including Marian Hill Rock Fall along SH95. Investigate seismic retrofit of bridges along SH95, SH96 and SH99. Investigate enhanced preventative maintenance to reduce whole of life cost for flood prone areas including SH94, SH95, SH96, SH97 and SH99. Consider improvements to alternative

70 routes, including alternative routes to the Cromwell Stream Bridge and snow and ice along SH97. Improve preparedness to weather related events including snow and ice.

71 Appendix F - Programme Evaluation Spreadsheet

72 Programme Evaluation Spreadsheet National Resilience Programme Business Case Strategic options Programme Programme 2 Programme 3 Programme 4 Programme 8 Programme 9 Programme 0 Programme Programme 2 Outcome: Network Performance & Capability Do Minimum Do Maximum (All State Highways) National Strategic (including high volume) National and Regional Strategic (includes high volume) National critical journeys Agreed lifelines Tourist Routes National Infrastructure Plan (NIP) hotspots High Volume Benefit KPI KPI Benefit 2 KPI KPI Benefit 3 KPI KPI Weighted score Cost Investment cost (Range) Operational costs if significant (Range) Time (Range) Risks Technical Relative Importance of benefit What increase is achievable if implemented What increase is achievable if implemented What increase is achievable if implemented. What increase is achievable if implemented. What increase is achievable if implemented. What increase is achievable if implemented. What increase is achievable if implemented. What increase is achievable if implemented. Better enabled disaster 45% response and recovery Better event preparedness 25% 40% 80% 60% 70% 60% 55% 55% 55% 60% Achievenment of 20% 40% 80% 60% 70% 60% 55% 55% 55% 55% infrastructure standards Better support for 45% economic growth Improved public/business confidence in route availability 25% 40% 90% 70% 80% 75% 70% 70% 65% 70% Improved availability of key 20% 40% 90% 70% 80% 75% 70% 70% 65% 70% routes Reduced risk of harm to 0% road users Decreased occurance of 5% 40% 70% 55% 60% 55% 50% 50% 50% 50% actual harm and incidents Reduced risk of harm 5% 40% 70% 55% 60% 55% 50% 50% 50% 50% 40.00% 83.50% 64.00% 73.50% 66.25% 6.25% 6.25% 59.00% 62.50% What increase is achievable if implemented. $4,000,000,000 $5,442,750,000 $4,74,500,000 $5,09,000,000 $4,266,250,000 Scope not defined Scope not defined Scope not defined $4,346,250,000 $,442,750,000 $ 74,500, $,09,000, $ 266,250, $ 346,250, $2,500,000,000 $3,22,375,000 $2,870,750,000 $3,045,500,000 $2,633,25,000 $2,673,25,000 0yrs 30 years 5 years 5 years 5 years 5 years 5 years 0 years 0 years Parts of Network might not be resilient enough. The benefits of addressing all resilience risks are not justified by the very large costs. Non national strategic not Doesn't address regional conectors plus addressed. Freight may not be able tourist destinations. to get to natonal strategic Doesn't address regional conectors plus tourist destinations. Do we have a set of agreed lifelines nationally? See CDEM requirements Doesn't address national and regional stratgeic routes Doesn't address national and regional stratgeic routes Doesn't address national and regional stratgeic routes Operational Overly reliant on responsive maintenance The benefits of addressing all resilience risks are not justified by the very large costs Over emphasises stratgeic netowrk to detriment of rest of network. Sub optimal investment because you are focusing on road classification rather than purpose of the journey. Doesn't achieve all the benefits. Doesn't address total journey's. Might invest in parts that on not on ciritcal routes. Doesn't achieve all the benefits. Doesn't achieve all the benefits. Doesn't achieve all the benefits. Doesn't address all journey's. Might Doesn't address total journey's. Doesn't address total journey's. invest in parts that on not on ciritcal routes. Might invest in parts that on not on ciritcal routes. Might invest in parts that on not on ciritcal routes. Doesn't achieve all the benefits. Doesn't address total journey's. Doesn't achieve all the benefits. Doesn't address total journey's. Financial Stakeholder/Public Environmental Reactive maintenance could be higher whole of life cost. Potentially missing out on econmic growth in areas outside RONs Inconvenience to network users when road closes. Climate change may not e catered for adequately Unaffordable Diverting large sums would leave other programmes short of funding Robust solutions may have consenting issues High cost of addressing all mational stratgeic roads Very high cost of addressing all national stratgeic and regional strategic Risk that high level of stakeholders will miss out Risk local authorities might not meet their share of the work Robust solutions may have Robust solutions may have consenting consenting issues issues High cost of addressing all national critical journeys Risk that high level of stakeholders will miss out Robust solutions may have consenting issues High cost of addressing all agreed lifelines Risk that high level of stakeholders will miss out Robust solutions may have consenting issues High cost of addressing all tourist routes Lower cost of this option which focuses on hotspots only Lower cost of this option which focuses on hotspots only Risk that high level of stakeholders will miss out Risk that high level of stakeholders will miss out Risk that high level of stakeholders will miss out Robust solutions may have Robust solutions may have consenting Robust solutions may have consenting issues issues consenting issues Safety May or may not have an unacceptable level of risk. Safer journeys may not cover reilience issues adequately Safety funding could be reduced if diverted to Resilience Safety risks may eventuate on other road classifications e.g. rockfall fatality on SH3, SH6 Haast Safety risks may eventuate on other road Safety risks may eventuate on other classifications e.g. rockfall fatality on SH3, road classifications e.g. rockfall SH6 Haast fatality on SH3, SH6 Haast Safety risks may eventuate on other road classifications e.g. rockfall fatality on SH3, SH6 Haast Safety risks may eventuate on other road classifications not covered by Tourist routes Safety risks may eventuate on other road classifications e.g. rockfall fatality on SH3, SH6 Haast Safety risks may eventuate on other road classifications e.g. rockfall fatality on SH3, SH6 Haast Economic Isolated communities may suffer economic loss e.g. tourism The benefits of addressing all resilience risks are not justified by the very large costs Certain industries don't rely solely on strategic network alone. Misses key tourist routes Certain industries don't rely solely on strategic network alone. Misses some tourist routes Certain industries don't rely solely on national critical journey's alone. Misses key tourist routes Certain industries don't rely Certain industries don't rely solely solely on agreed lifelines alone. on tourist routes Misses some tourist routes NIP hotspots only covers critical parts of network. Large parts of network left untrested. NIP hotspots only covers critical parts of network. Large parts of network left untrested. Accessibility & Social Inclusion Isolation of communities Would provide good benefits for accessibility and social inclusion Rest of network stakeholders left out - no access to network Rest of network stakeholders left out - no Rest of network stakeholders left access to network out - no access to network Rest of network stakeholders left out - no access to network Rest of network stakeholders left out - no access to network Rest of network stakeholders left out - no access to network Rest of network stakeholders left out - no access to network other Sub optimum response times Best option for response time Sub optimum response times on parts of the network not treated Sub optimum response times on parts of the network not treated Sub optimum response times on parts of the network not treated Sub optimum response times on parts of the network not treated Sub optimum response times on parts of the network not treated Sub optimum response times on parts of the network not treated Sub optimum response times on parts of the network not treated 6/06/204 Appendix F - FINAL PBC Evaluation spreadsheet.xlsx Revision A

73 Programme Evaluation Spreadsheet National Resilience Programme Business Case Dis-benefits Dis-benefit This is datum for comparing options therefore zero net benefits Reduced funding for other programmes Reduced funding for other programmes Reduced funding for other programmes Reduced funding for other programmes Reduced funding for other programmes Reduced funding for other programmes Reduced funding for other programmes Reduced funding for other programmes Dis-benefit 2 Anticipated Programme BCR: This is datum for comparing options therefore zero net benefits EFFICIENCY TO BE ASSESSED AS PART OF THE SHAMP EFFICIENCY TO BE ASSESSED AS PART OF THE SHAMP EFFICIENCY TO BE ASSESSED AS PART OF THE SHAMP EFFICIENCY TO BE ASSESSED AS PART OF EFFICIENCY TO BE ASSESSED AS THE SHAMP PART OF THE SHAMP EFFICIENCY TO BE ASSESSED AS PART OF THE SHAMP EFFICIENCY TO BE ASSESSED AS PART OF THE SHAMP <Insert description> EFFICIENCY TO BE ASSESSED AS PART OF THE SHAMP <Insert description> EFFICIENCY TO BE ASSESSED AS PART OF THE SHAMP Anticipated Programme Profile: TO BE ASSESSED AS PART OF THE SHAMP TO BE ASSESSED AS PART OF THE SHAMP TO BE ASSESSED AS PART OF THE SHAMP TO BE ASSESSED AS PART OF THE SHAMP TO BE ASSESSED AS PART OF THE SHAMP TO BE ASSESSED AS PART OF THE SHAMP TO BE ASSESSED AS PART OF THE SHAMP TO BE ASSESSED AS PART OF THE SHAMP TO BE ASSESSED AS PART OF THE SHAMP Ranking factor Priority NA NA NA 2 Overall Assessment: Commentary Recommendation: Commentary Notes: a Target - rank as a percentage % the relative importance of the target b Assign what could be achieved if the programme was implemented c Dis-benefits - Negative impacts that are likely to occur as a direct consequence of implementing this programme d Risk - the most significant things that might result in the failure of this programme to deliver the expected benefits. e Timeframe - From funding date to delivery of benefits. f Cost - range of total estimated expenditure (TEI). It should be sufficiently reliable to provide an order of magnitude of the programme. g Cost (Operational) - impacts of operational cost should be identified (if significant) as these may substantialy differ between programmes. h Ranking - Considering all factors, which programmes are the preferred response to the problem. i Overall Assessment - why was the preferred programme chosen? Any other assessment observations? j Recommendation - How should this investment proceed or not? 6/06/204 Appendix F - FINAL PBC Evaluation spreadsheet.xlsx Revision A

74 Appendix G - Corridor Prioritisation Spreadsheet and Map* *Map based on spreadsheet

75 Corridor Prioritisation Assessment National Resilience Programme Business Case Corridor Corridor ID Corridor Priority ( = Highest Score in Column AA) One Network Road Classification Programme - Do minimum Programme 2 - Do maximum (all SHs) Programme 3 - National Programme 4 - National and Regional Programme 5 - Freight journeys (20% or more heavies) - NOT USED AS ALREADY COVERED BY ROAD CLASSIFICATION Programme 6 - National critical Journeys Programme 7 - Lifelines (Y /N) - NOT USED AS INCOMPLETE Programme 8 - Tourist Routes - NOT USED AS ROUTES NOT DEFINED Programme 9 - National Infrastructure Plan hotspots - NORT USED AS LOCATION BASED NOT Programme 0 - High CORRIDOR BASED Volume Comments Levin to SH 58 Intersection (SH 0N) 6 High Volume RONs provide robust solutions SH 2 Intersection to Wellington Airport (SH 0N) 4 High Volume SH 24 Intersection to SH 2 Intersection (SH 29) 42 High Volume SH 58 Intersection to SH 2 Intersection (SH 0N) 52 High Volume Tokoroa to Taupo (SH ) 64 High Volume Covered by Waikato Expressway Upper Queen Street to Taupiri (SH 0N) 74 High Volume Greville Road to Upper Queen Street (SH 0N) 76 High Volume Brynderwyn to Greville Road Intersection (SH 0N) 8 High Volume Tirau to Tokoroa (SH 0N) 92 High Volume Intersection SH 0B to Tirau (SH 0N) 93 High Volume Pakipaki to SH 50 Intersection (SH50A) 05 High Volume SH 73A Intersection to Timaru (SH 0S) 08 High Volume SH Intersection to SH 74 Intersection (SH 73A) 36 High Volume Pokeno to Cambridge (SH) 40 High Volume SH N Intersectin to SH 24 Intersection (SH 29) 56 High Volume Blenheim to Kaikoura (SH 0S) 4 2 National Strategic Taupiri to SH2 intersection - robustness provided by Waikato expressway. Greville road to Warkworth - robustness provide by RONs and exisitng northern Motorway. Covered by Waikato Expressway Assume already robust? Waikato expressway RONs provide robustness Hobsonville Road to Upper Queens Street (SH 6) 2 2 High Volume Picton to Blenheim (SH 0) 30 2 National Strategic Sanson to Levin (SH 0N) 33 2 National Strategic SH 50 Intersection to Pakipaki (SH 2) 48 2 National Strategic SH50A Intersection to Port of napier (SH 50) 57 2 High Volume Taupo to Turangi (SH N) 60 2 National Strategic Timaru to SH 88 Intersection (SH 0) 63 2 National Strategic Turangi to SH 3 Intersection (SH 0N) 65 2 National Strategic SH N Intersection to Maioro Street (SH 20) 73 2 High Volume Belfast to Lyttleton (SH 74) 80 2 National Strategic Upper Queen Street to Tamaki Drive (SH 6) 82 2 High Volume SH 6 Intersection to Constellation Drive (SH 8) 83 2 High Volume SH 2 Intersection to SH 29 Intersection (SH 2A) 89 2 High Volume Woodville to SH 50 Intersection (SH 02) 97 2 National Strategic 20/08/204 Appendix G - FINAL Prioritised corridors V6.xlsx Revision A

76 Corridor Prioritisation Assessment National Resilience Programme Business Case Kaikoura to Rolleston (SH 0S) 9 2 National Strategic Port Marsden SH Intersection (SH 5A) 25 2 National Strategic SH 0N Intersection (North) to Greville Road 4 2 High Volume Whangarei to Brynderwhyn Intersection (SH 0N) 6 2 National Strategic SH 58 Intersectin to SH Intersection (SH 02) 50 2 National Strategic SH Intersection to Port Chalmers (SH 88) 3 National Strategic Palmerston North to SH 2 Intersection (SH 03) 29 3 Regional Strategic SH 2 Intersection to Te Ngae (SH 33) 40 3 Regional Strategic SH 25 Intersection to SH 25 Intersection (SH 2) 43 3 Regional Strategic SH 50 Intersection to SH 2 Intersection (SH 2B) 49 3 Regional Strategic Waihi to SH 29 Intersection (SH 02) 67 3 Regional Strategic Waipa to Wairakei (SH 05) 68 3 Regional Strategic SH 3 Intersection to SH Intersection (SH 57) 95 3 National Strategic Wanganui to Palmerston North (SH 03) 96 3 Regional Strategic SH N Intersection to SH 25 Intersection (SH 02) 00 3 Regional Strategic Hawera to Wanganui (SH 03) 53 3 Regional Strategic New Plymouth to Hawera (SH 03) 54 3 Regional Strategic Clinton to Mataura (SH 93) 5 4 Arterial Dunedin to Bluff (SH 0S) 7 4 Regional Strategic Featherston to Woodville (SH 02) 9 4 Regional Strategic Frankton to Queenstown (SH 6A) 0 4 Regional Strategic Lumsden to Te Anau (SH 94) 8 4 Regional Strategic Manapouri to Milford Sound(SH 95) 20 4 Regional Strategic Nelson to Blenheim (SH 06) 23 4 Regional Strategic Otorohanga to SH 45 Intersection (SH 03) 28 4 Regional Strategic SH 0N Intersection to SH 36 Intersection (SH 05) 34 4 Regional Strategic SH Intersection to Cromwell (SH 06) 35 4 Regional Strategic SH Intersection to SH 2 Intersection (SH 58) 37 4 Regional Strategic SH Intersection to SH 94 Intersection (SH 97) 39 4 Regional Strategic SH 58 Intersection to Featherston (SH 02) 5 4 Regional Strategic SH35 Intersection to Wairoa (SH 02) 56 4 Regional Strategic Taupo to SH 2 Intersection (SH 05) 59 4 Regional Strategic Wairoa to Napier (SH 02) 69 4 Regional Strategic SH Intersection to Glenbrook Road Intersection (SH 22) 77 4 Regional Strategic SH Intersection to Otorohanga (SH 3) 86 4 Regional Strategic Spring Creek to SH 6 Intersection (SH 62) 03 4 Regional Strategic SH2 Intersection to SH 50A Intersection (SH 50) 04 4 Primary Collector Napier to Hastings (SH 2) 06 4 Arterial SH 74 Intersection to Darfield (SH 73) 4 4 Regional Strategic Sh 6 Intersection to SH 77 Intersection (SH 73) 5 4 Regional Strategic Kawakawa to Whangarei (SH N) 22 4 Regional Strategic SH 36 Intersection to Waipa (SH 05) 30 4 Regional Strategic 20/08/204 Appendix G - FINAL Prioritised corridors V6.xlsx Revision A

77 Corridor Prioritisation Assessment National Resilience Programme Business Case SH73 Intersection to SH74 Intersection (SH 74A) 35 4 Arterial SH 3 Intersection to Inglewood (SH 3A) 37 4 Arterial SH30 intersection to SH5 intersection (SH 30A) 38 4 Regional Strategic Alexandra to SH Intersection (SH 85) 2 5 Secondary Collector Allenton to SH Intersection (SH 86) 3 5 Arterial Cromwell to Hokitika (SH 06) 6 5 Arterial Featherston to Martinborough (SH 53) 8 5 Primary Collector Kawhia to SH 3 Intersection (SH 39) 4 5 Primary Collector Kopu to Hikuai (SH 25A) 5 5 Arterial Lumsden to Gore (SH 94) 7 5 Primary Collector Makerua to Palmerston North (SH 56) 9 5 Arterial Manunui to Turangi (SH 4) 2 5 Primary Collector Mosgiel to Kyeburn (SH 87) 22 5 Secondary Collector Nelson to Collingwood (SH 06) 24 5 Primary Collector Omarama to Clarksville (SH 8) 25 5 Arterial Opotiki to SH 2 Intersection (SH 35) 26 5 Primary Collector Opotiki to SH 35 Intersection (SH 2) 27 5 Arterial Pukeuri to Omarama (SH 83) 3 5 Primary Collector Renwick to SH 6 Intersection (SH 63) 32 5 Secondary Collector SH Intersection to Ohai (SH 96) 36 5 Primary Collector SH Intersection to SH 47 Intersection (SH 46) 38 5 Arterial SH 29 Intersection to Awakeri (SH 02) 44 5 Arterial SH 29 Intersection to SH 5 Intersection (SH36) 45 5 Primary Collector SH 3 Intersectin to Wanganui (SH 04) 46 5 Primary Collector SH 30 Intersection to Opotiki (SH 02) 47 5 Arterial SH 6 Intersection to Clifden (SH 99) 53 5 Secondary Collector SH 8 Intersection to SH Intersection (SH 90) 54 5 Primary Collector SH Intersection to SH 6 Intersection (SH 98) 55 5 Primary Collector Tarras to Luggate (SH 8A) 58 5 Arterial Te Kuiti to Atiamuri (SH 30) 6 5 Primary Collector Thames to Whitianga (SH 25) 62 5 Primary Collector Turangi to SH 4 Intersection (SH 47) 65 5 Arterial Whakamaru to SH 4 intersection SH 32) 70 5 Primary Collector Whitianga to Waihi (SH 25) 7 5 Primary Collector Atiamuri to Rotorua (SH 30) 72 5 Primary Collector Wellsford to Hobsonvill Road (SH 6) 75 5 Primary Collector Awanui to Ohaeawai Intersection (SH 0N) 78 5 Primary Collector Awanui to Pakaraka (SH0) 79 5 Primary Collector SH 3 Intersection to Waitomo Caves (SH 37) 84 5 Primary Collector Ngaruawahia to Tihiroa (SH39) 85 5 Arterial Rotorua to Whakatane (SH 30) 87 5 Primary Collector SH 02 Intersection to SH 30 Intersection(SH34) 88 5 Primary Collector 20/08/204 Appendix G - FINAL Prioritised corridors V6.xlsx Revision A

78 Corridor Prioritisation Assessment National Resilience Programme Business Case SH 29 Intersection to SH 5 Intersection (SH 28) 90 5 Primary Collector Tokoroa to Whakamaru (SH 32) 9 5 Primary Collector Intersection SH 26 to Tirau (SH 27) 94 5 Arterial Thames to Tatuanui (SH 26) 98 5 Arterial SH 2 Intersection to SH 26 Intersection (SH 27) 99 5 Arterial SH 27 Intersection to SH 29 Intersection (SH 24) 0 5 Arterial SH 2 Intersection to Kopu (SH 25) 02 5 Arterial Wairoa to Waikaremoana (SH 38) 07 5 Primary Collector Rangitata to Fairlie (SH 79) 09 5 Arterial Hanmer Springs Junction to SH Intersection (SH 07) 0 5 Primary Collector Hamner Springs Junctionto Greymouth (SH 07) 5 Primary Collector Hanmer Springs Junction to Hanmer Springs (SH 7A) 2 5 Primary Collector Northern Motorway to Rangiora (SH 7) 3 5 Arterial SH 73 Intersection to Akaroa (SH 75) 6 5 Arterial Darfield to SH Intersection (SH 77) 7 5 Primary Collector SH 8 Intersection to Mount Cook (SH 80) 8 5 Primary Collector Richmond to SH 67 Intersection (SH 06) 20 5 Arterial Cape Reinga to Awanui (SH 0N) 2 5 Primary Collector Dargaville to Brynderwyn (SH 2) 23 5 Primary Collector Kawakawa to Kawakawa (SH 0N) 24 5 Primary Collector Ohaeawai to Kawakawa (SH 0N) 26 5 Primary Collector Ohaeawai Intersection to Waimamaku (SH2) 27 5 Primary Collector SH 2 Intersection to Whanagrei (SH 4) 28 5 Primary Collector SH5 Int to Murupara (SH 38) 29 5 Primary Collector SH Intersection (Timaru) to Omarama (SH 08) 3 5 Arterial SH 8 Intersection to SH 6 Intersection (SH 8B) 32 5 Arterial SH intersection to SH 83 intersection (SH 82) 33 5 Secondary Collector SH 6 to Wanaka (SH 84) 34 5 Arterial Intersection SH 0N to Intersection SH 05 (SH 28) 39 5 Primary Collector Greymouth to Hokitika (SH 06) 42 5 Arterial SH 67 Intersection to Hokitika (SH 6) 43 5 Arterial SH 6 Intersection to SH 7 Intersection (SH 65) 44 5 Primary Collector Mokihinui to SH 6 Intersection (SH 67) 45 5 Primary Collector Cape Foulwind to SH 67 Intersection (SH 67A) 46 5 Primary Collector SH 6 Intersection to Reefton (SH 69) 47 5 Primary Collector Waiouru to SH 4 Intersection (SH 49) 48 5 Arterial Stratford to Taumaranui (SH 43) 49 5 Secondary Collector SH N Intersectino to SH 3 Intersection (SH45) 50 5 Primary Collector New Plymouth to Hawera (SH 45) 5 5 Primary Collector SH 47 Intersection to Whakapapa (SH 48) 52 5 Primary Collector Hamilton to Intersection SH27 (SH26) 55 5 Arterial Intersection SH 0N to Cambridge (SHB) 57 5 Primary Collector 20/08/204 Appendix G - FINAL Prioritised corridors V6.xlsx Revision A

79 Corridor Prioritisation Assessment National Resilience Programme Business Case SH Intersection to SH3 Intersection (SH 2) 58 5 Arterial Te Uku to Hamilton (SH 23) 59 5 Primary Collector Waimamaku to Dargaville (SH 2) 60 5 Primary Collector 20/08/204 Appendix G - FINAL Prioritised corridors V6.xlsx Revision A

80