Business case

Northern Veloway Project

Aspley to the Alderley Train Station

Student name: Nik Linnell, Sumit Ghosal, Craig Avery

Team/Group: Team B
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Summary

Brisbane is experiencing an unprecedented growth in commuters wanting to use

alternative transport options such as cycleways. The introduction of alternative
transport options like this has been projected to decrease traffic congestion by
upwards of 5% whilst increasing the take up of existing public transport
infrastructure.

Desired Outcome

To address this emerging need the Brisbane City Council has released a five year
plan to significantly increase dedicated cycle ways. The proposal aims to
implement world’s best practices through reducing the need of mixing cycles and
cars on existing roads which lead to higher safety outcomes. This mix of solutions
will see a higher take up rate by commuters.

Proposed Solution

The outcome of this project will be a dedicated cycle route for the Brisbane
Northern Suburbs into the Brisbane CBD.

1. This project will link Aspley to the Alderley Train Station.

2. The route will pass through a nature reserve at Aspley using existing
easements and then sweep into a skyway through Stafford heights
3. The proposed cycleway will meet the Kedron Brook cycleway and
continuing to Alderley train station.
4. The Veloway is a 12 metre, 2 lanes in each direction with contained battery
backed solar power lighted.

Risks

With a community-based project such as this ensuring all stakeholders are onboard
will contribute to the success of the budget. Normal construction project risks will
apply however with appreciate management these can be overcome.

Recommendation

To complete this project by the end of 2020 without disrupting existing traffic
flows the approval of a project budget of $XXX will need to take place.
CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2
1 PROJECT NEED 6
1.1 PROJECT NEED 6
1.2 PROJECT OBJECTIVES 6
1.3 CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS (CSF’S) 7
1.4 ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE 7
2 OPTIONS ANALYSIS 8
2.1 OPTIONS CONSIDERED 8
2.2 OPTIONS EVALUATION CRITERIA 8
2.3 OPTIONS EVALUATION 8
2.4 RECOMMENDED OPTION 8
3 PROJECT DEFINITION 9
3.1 SCOPE DESCRIPTION 9
3.2 CONSTRAINTS AND DEPENDENCIES 10
3.3 SCOPE MANAGEMENT 10
3.4 PROJECT DELIVERABLES 10
3.5 PROJECT KPI’S 11
4 PROJECT APPROACH 12
4.1 PROJECT MANAGEMENT STRATEGY 12
4.1.1 PROJECT STRUCTURE 12
4.1.2 PROJECT GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORK 13
4.1.3 PROJECT REPORTING STRUCTURE 13
4.2 PROCUREMENT STRATEGY 14
4.3 COMMUNICATION AND STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT STRATEGY 16
4.3.1 Stakeholder Management Strategy 16
4.3.2 Stakeholder Identification 16
4.3.3 Stakeholder Engagement Strategy 17
5 BUDGET, PROGRAM AND RISK 18
5.1 TIMING / PROJECT READINESS 18
5.2 BUDGET/COST ANALYSIS AND FUNDING STRATEGY 19
5.2.1 PROJECTED CAPITAL COSTS 19
5.2.2 PROJECTED COST PLAN 19
 5.2.3 COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS 19
5.2.4 PROPOSED FUNDING ARRANGEMENTS 20
5.3 RISK ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT STRATEGY 20
5.4 PROJECT QUALITY MANAGEMENT STRATEGY 21
5.5 PROJECT COMPLETION STRATEGY 21
5.6 BENEFITS REALISATION PLAN 22
APPENDIX A 23
A.1 SCOPE of WORKS 23
A.2 OPTIONS ANALYSIS 25
A.3 PROJECT SCHEDULE 26
A.4 PROJECT COST PLAN 28

28
A.5 PROJECT RISK REGISTER 28
A.6 PROJECT QUALITY PLAN 30
A.7 31
A.8 BENEFITS REALISATION PLAN 31
A.9 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS on OPTIONS 31
A.10 STAKEHOLDER ASSESSMENT MATRIX 31
A.11 ********** 31
A.12 ********** 31
6 REFERENCES 33
LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Options Considered 6

Table 2 Option Evaluation Criteria 6
Table 3 Constraints & Dependencies 8
Table 4 Scope Management 8
Table 5 Project KPIs 9
Table 6 Project Governance Structure 10
Table 7 Key Milestones 15
Table 8 Projected capital costs inclusive of contingency 15
Table 9 Projected ongoing costs 16
Table 10 Proposed capital funding contributions 17
Table 11Success Indicators 19

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Scope Description 7

Figure 2 Project Structure 10
Figure 3 Project Governance Structure overlap 11
Figure 4 Project Reporting Structure 11
Figure 5 Procurement Strategy (Government, 2018b) 12
Figure 6 Procurement Strategy 13
Figure 7 Stakeholder Management Strategy (PMI, 2017) 13

1 PROJECT NEED
1.1 PROJECT NEED
The Queensland State Government and Brisbane City Council (BCC)has identified that there is a
critical need for a cycle corridor which is to connect the CBD though to Chermside (Government,
2019b). This project will align with the established strategies and plans of the governing agencies
targeting:
● BCC transport plan (Council, 2018).
● TMR Strategic plan 2017-2020 (Government, 2018a)
● QLD Cycling strategy (Government, 2017)
The key project need is to implement the above strategies and plans through the development of a
section of bikeway between Albany Creek Road and Alderley Train Station along the Trout Road bus
easement.
The stakeholders are identified as but not limited to the Queensland Government, Brisbane City
Council, Community groups, and the major contractor.
The scope of this project is to deliver the aforementioned bikeway by 2022 in a cost effective manner
which is identified below.
1.2 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
Through the use of well-defined Project Objectives allows appropriate allocation of public funds and
limited resources (Chua, Kog, & Loh, 1999). These Project Objectives should key into organisational
strategies which are well defined and achievable (Van Der Merwe, 2002).
As stated by the BCC (Council, 2018) the project will deliver a high-volume primary cycle route
which will connect residential areas to major destinations such as:
● Employment centres,
● Regional activity centres and
● Regional recreation areas.
The project should provide local cycle routes which link individual properties and residential
catchments with local amenities and destinations (Council, 2018).
1. Increase distance between cars in surrounding traffic routes which reduces congestion
2. A marked decrease in car numbers in surrounding traffic routes
3. Connectivity factors to local facilities such as shopping centres or transport hubs
4. Travel time to the city from the start point not to be longer than taking other options such as
personal vehicle or public transport
5. Number of daily/weekly cycle and pedestrian users

One of the underlying objectives of the project is to add to the Queensland Governments’ Fitness and
Exercise program which keys of their Health and Welling strategy (Government, 2019a).

1.3 CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS (CSF’S)

The success of a construction project that feeds into several Government strategies, and which also
engages the community, depends upon how the project is managed and controlled (Alias, Zawawi,
Yusof, & Aris, 2014; Milosevic & Patanakul, 2005).

There are a number of Critical Success Factor for the project. Measurement of these KPIs goes
beyond what is known as the iron triangle of cost, time and quality (Toor & Ogunlana, 2010). The
CSFs cover areas such as project safety, well-organized use of public resources, satisfaction of
stakeholders which should contribute towards a reduction in conflicts and disputes (Toor & Ogunlana,
2010)

This project will succeed with an agile PMO team coordinating the execution of the project with the
complete support of the BCC and TMR.
Proactive engagement of external stakeholders
 Construction predictability – measured through cost versus budget along with the procurement
and tender strategy
 Time predictability – measured through completion date
 Defects predictability – based upon quality measures and use of contingency funds
 Community satisfaction with the service – measured through the stakeholder engagement plan
 Minimised Environmental Impact on the existing flora and fauna species found along the Trout
Road bus easement – Measured through the Environmental Impact Statement

1.4 ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE

Organisational change is to fundamentally modify the “way we do things”, to overhaul the structure,
the design of the organisation for decision making and accountability. (Burke, 5 th Ed.).
For this project, a dedicated project team will be assigned, led by the Project Manager. Internal key
personnel will be identified and re-structured from multiple existing projects around Brisbane.

2 OPTIONS ANALYSIS
2.1 OPTIONS CONSIDERED
The use of options in project management can be seen as an approach to risk management
(Akintoye & MacLeod, 1997).
The three options considered for this project ranged from integrating the route with existing
infrastructure to the construction of a dedicated cycleway (see Appendix 3)
1. Dedicated single purpose road - Overpass of all roadways
2. Dedicated single purpose with new intersections at roads.
3. Shared - Upgraded existing roadways with increased vehicle separation and upgraded
intersections

2.2 OPTIONS EVALUATION CRITERIA

The selected project is evaluated from a weighted evaluation, an approach designed to ensure
the selected option meets a number of key benchmarks (Archer & Ghasemzadeh, 1999).
The selected project is evaluated from a weighted assessment based on the
 Lowest risk to users
 Lowest negative impact to environment and adjacent community
 Lowest impact to flows existing infrastructure flows after construction
 Highest potential capacity
 Effective Comparative Cost of the options

2.3 OPTIONS EVALUATION

The 3 options have been scored and weighted by the Project Manager, the Engineering
Manager and a broad stakeholder group (see Appendix 3).
As the project does not deliver a tangible fiscal return the benefit is a qualitative assessment
based on the safety and impact to the community and existing traffic.
The cost estimate for each option has been externally benchmarked to like projects and then
each option is raked against the lowest cost option.

2.4 RECOMMENDED OPTION

Option 1 – Dedicated single purpose bike path, has been selected based on the superior
safety for users and no impact or obstruction to existing heavy traffic roads on this route. This
option was comparable on cost, schedule and environmental impact and scored as the best
option on
 Best practice safety – full separation from traffic
 Highest capacity
 Lowest impact to vehicle traffic flow
3 PROJECT DEFINITION
3.1 SCOPE DESCRIPTION
The project is the 1st phase of a dedicated cycle route for the Brisbane Northern Suburbs into
the Brisbane CBD. This project will link Aspley to the Alderley Train Station. The route will
pass through a nature reserve at Aspley using existing easements and then sweep into a
skyway through Stafford Heights before meeting an upgraded Kedron Brook cycle way and
continuing to Alderley station. The Veloway is a 8 metre, 2 lanes in each direction with
contained battery backed solar power lighted. (See Appendix A1 for a detailed breakdown of
scope.)

Project Breakdown
Aspley Terminal
Upgraded Trout Road (1.2km)
Chermside Reserve Nature Pass (2km)
Hamilton Road Overpass
Trout Road (.8km)
Rode Road Overpass (.2km) and Rode
Road interchange
Rode Road to Kedron Brook Skyway
(3.5km)
Stafford Road Interchange
Kedron Brook Upgrade (1.2km)
Raymont Road Overpass (.8km)
Alderley Station Terminal

Figure 1 Scope Description

3.2 CONSTRAINTS AND DEPENDENCIES
Due to the sometimes-complex nature of delivering projects within community settings
keeping an eye on critical chain methodology can ensure that constraints do not impact on
project delivery (Cohen, Mandelbaum, & Shtub, 2004; Raz, Barnes, & Dvir, 2003).
Environmental and ● The natural reserve through Chermside Reserve is a known
Cultural consent wildlife habitat and environmental management is a clear
constraint.
● Preservation of indigenous culture

Using established ● Clear acceptance from local residents

residential areas
Continuous full funding ● Long project may see change in government
commitment
Table 3 Constraints & Dependencies

3.3 SCOPE MANAGEMENT

The scope is continually elaborated to ensure the stakeholders needs are met, the project
remains viable and the project delivery is optimised. The changes to scope are managed to
ensure the same scrutiny is applied to the initial project scope.
Scope will be frozen at key phases of the project. Any change, addition or removal of scope
will require a formal change request to be approved before the request is actioned. Approved
scope change will update the affected project controls and deliverables.
 Strategic change will change the objective of the project will be subject to sponsor
and stakeholder approval. A strategic change will update the Project Management
Plan and cascade to the Execution Plan.
 Design Change will affect the fundamental design criteria and requires engineering. A
technical change will update the Work Packages and the Execution Plan.
Scope Execution Change – a change in method or material will be approved by the
Construction Manager with regard to the impact to the quality plan and the project
budget and schedule. A deviation to strategy or design will escalate. A Variation
Order is issued to authorise the Contractor to enact change.
The Quality Management Approval Matrix (Appendix 2) provides the required approval for
change to key deliverables.

3.4 PROJECT DELIVERABLES

Deliverables are the products, services, and results that a project produces. Hence every
project must produce something. (Bernie Roseke, 2014). Deliverables can be classified into
the following:
 For Internal or External Stakeholders;
 Tangible (example: engineering reports) or Intangible (example: training people);
 Requirement from the owner
The Project Team will deliver an optimised project to build a world class cycle way from
Aspley to Alderley. This will be demonstrated in the
 Project Management Plan, inclusive of budget and schedule
 Contracting strategy for the project
 Detailed work packages, inclusive of Quality Assurance and Control documentation
 Community and Environmental Acceptance
 Construction completion documentation.
When completed the cycleway will deliver a fast direct route for

3.5 PROJECT KPI’S

Key performance indicators (KPIs) can be a visual measure of performance and should link
into the Critical Success Factors. The KPI gauges the performance of the value, defined by a
Base measure, against a Target value, also defined by a measure or by an absolute value
(Bititci, Cocca, & Ates, 2016). For the bikeway project there are four KPIs defined (see table
5)

Performance Measure Reporting Target Years

Frequency
2019 2024 2025 2026 2027

Active Transport

Average Number of trips Annually 10,000 11,000 12,500 15,000

being taken by bicycle per
day

Average time for full Annually 20 min

distance in Peak traffic

Improve safety for Annually  Zero fatalities on existing traffic ways

pedestrians and cyclists  Reduce incidents on alternate routes by 30% by
2030

Environmental Impact

Reduce the environmental Annually 2% 3% 4% 5%

footprint (BCC Target) reduction

Project Specific

Utilization of local resources Monthly >70% local resources

Stakeholder Satisfaction

Achieve Project Key Target Monthly  80% Satisfaction rates in surveys

Milestones  10% downturn in complaints lodged to BCC
relating to traffic congestion

Table 5 Project KPIs

4 PROJECT APPROACH
4.1 PROJECT MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
It is well recognised that a strong project governance structure provides additional chance of
project success (Badewi, 2016; Too & Weaver, 2014). Leading on from case studies locally
and internationally informed the creation of the following project suture with a view to
providing clear, constant and direct feedback mechanisms between members of the project
and the Steering Committee (Glass, 2013; Miller & Hobbs, 2005).

4.1.1 PROJECT STRUCTURE

The following organisational chart lays out the PMO structure and reporting lines.

Project Steering
Director Committee

Project
Manager

Project Project
Management Execution
Office Team

Engineering Procurement Construction

Manager Manager Manager

Engineering Procurement Construction

Team Team Team

Figure 2 Project Structure

4.1.2 PROJECT GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORK

The project governance framework provides the project stakeholders with structure, processes, roles,
responsibilities, accountabilities, and decision-making models for managing the project. (PMI)
Within a project the governance framework ensures that project stakeholders have the
following structures:

Delegation of authority to be inserted into Append.

The project Governance Board or Steering Committee will include an Executive Team from
Department of Transport and Infrastructure, comprising Chief Executive Officer, Divisional
Manager of the Infrastructure division.
A joint leadership team comprising Project Director and Project Manager of PMO, General
Manager and Project Manager of the prime contract (supplier) will be primary governance
body at the project management and contract management level. Its main role will be to
establish and maintain a culture of one team with a “best for project” mindset within the joint
management team.
For this project the governance framework involves 3 different entities (see Table 6):
Owner Infrastructure unit of BCC will manage the project on their behalf. As owner of the
(BCC) project BCC Infrastructure unit will manage relationship with all internal and external
stakeholders, dictated by the policies and procedures of the BCC.
Supplier They are responsible for design and technical development, supply of materials and
experienced resources required for the project;
Project Team They will assume overall responsibility to deliver the project and meet the objective.

Table 6 Project Governance Structure

4.1.3 PROJECT REPORTING STRUCTURE

Each organisation considers numerous factors for inclusion in its organisational structure.
Each factor may carry a different level of importance in the final analysis. The combination
of the factor, its value, and relative importance provides the organization’s decision makers
with the right information for inclusion in the analysis (PMI, 2017). (See Appendix 7)
The project will be overseen by Brisbane City Council’s Infrastructure Unit. The unit will
also be responsible for the delivery phase of the project (see Fig. 4).

Lord Mayor

Chief Executive
Officer

Brisbane
Infrastructure Steering
Supplier Group Divisional Committee
Manager

Project
Management
Office

Figure 4 Project Reporting Structure

4.2 PROCUREMENT STRATEGY

The Queensland public expect and demand the Government deliver projects that are of high
quality whilst being the best value for money. A well thought out procurement strategy
ensures that the highest utility value is derived, and that risk is minimised whilst efficiency
maintained (Cheung, Lam, Leung, & Wan, 2001; Oyegoke, Dickinson, Khalfan, McDermott,
& Rowlinson, 2009).
Procurement strategy will be governed by 6 principles and in compliance with Queensland
Procurement Policy (Government, 2018b), which includes:
● Focus on the economic benefit to Queensland;
● Maximize Queensland suppliers’ opportunity to participate;
● Support disadvantaged Queenslanders.

Figure 5 Procurement Strategy (Government, 2018b)

4.3 COMMUNICATION AND STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT STRATEGY

4.3.1 STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT STRATEGY

Through the PMO, the stakeholder engagement strategy will encompass both primary and
secondary stakeholders. Due to the community-based nature of this project it is felt that the
project can only exist with the informed consent of the community based secondary
stakeholders (Bourne & Walker, 2008).

2. Plan 3. Manage 4. Monitor

1. Identify
Stakeholder Stakeholder Stakeholder
Stakeholders
Engagement Engagement Engagement

Figure 7 Stakeholder Management Strategy (PMI, 2017)

4.3.2 STAKEHOLDER IDENTIFICATION

A review was conducted on all stakeholders (see Table X Appendix X) to determine who the
primary and secondary stakeholders are (Bourne, 2016; Brugha & Varvasovszky, 2000). As
this project is primarily sponsored by the BCC, they have been identified as the primary
stakeholder. All other parties are identified as secondary stakeholders (Franch, Martini, &
Buffa, 2010).
The importance of secondary stakeholders, particularly community groups, cannot be
understated (Jepsen & Eskerod, 2009). As such, the PMO for this project have dedicated
specific resources to manage secondary stakeholders who sit outside of the BCC along with
construction related secondary stakeholders (see Table X Appendix X). The PMO will
encourage the growth of a relationship based upon mutuality whereby secondary stakeholders
are included as partners within the project (Bourne, 2016).
Stakeholder
Organization Key Issues/Interests
Group
Brisbane City Local Council · Additional costs associated with
Council responsibility of running of the facility
· Additional revenue relating to
higher utilization of the facility
· Need to consider creating policies
to manage crowds, light spill and
noise from night time events

Community Residents and Neighbors · Utilizing the facility for day to day
commute
· Low cost, safe, healthy and
environment friendly travelling
· Safe and time saving driving
experience

Local businesses · Potential additional business during

various cycling events
· Interest in creating new events/festivals
to attract business to the region

· Traditional landowners
· Historical groups

MOU Partners Cycling Brisbane · Wish to be seen as a core part of the

community;
· Wish to increase number of
training sessions and matches at the
Fields
· Prepared to provide a financial
contribution

4.3.3 STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT STRATEGY

The Project has secured broad support from the local community and its stakeholders. The
Council has solicited stakeholder and community feedback on the Project during its
development through:
● Direct one-on-one discussions with potential MOU partners
 ● Town-hall style meetings with the community
● Informal market sounding with potential suppliers.

The Project’s stakeholders and the community have identified how the Project will:
● Contribute to solidifying the township’s reputation as a sports town
● Contribute to delivering broader benefits to the community beyond sporting events
● Facilitate a creation of a night time economy, considered vital to attract and retain
talent from outside the region.

Consultation has identified concerns from residents regarding potential light spill and
excessive noise. Council is considering the development of new policies to govern the use of
the lights to ensure that play is undertaken within specific time slots to minimise the impact
on neighbours.

5 BUDGET, PROGRAM AND RISK

Delivering any project on time, within the agreed budget and of the quality demanded by
stakeholders form key aspects of delivery (de Wit, 1988; Lapinski, Horman, & Riley, 2006).

5.1 TIMING / PROJECT READINESS

Timeline management of the project should fit within existing frameworks as published by
the main project sponsor (Biesenthal & Wilden, 2014). Subject to securing of funding from
Council sources, community groups and the QLD Government, the Project’s delivery phase
is expected to commence in July 2019. The delivery phase is expected to be twelve (12)
months long with all works due to be completed by June 2020.

Table 7 outlines the expected dates of the key milestones. A detailed GANNT chart is
provided as an attachment to this business case (see Appendix A).

Event Start / Finish

Project Start February 2019
Finalize business case & Approval April 2019
Approval of funding from Council May 2019
Approval of funding from QLD Government May 2019
Obtain Project Approval June 2019
Finalize Conceptual Design December 2019
Request for Tender January 2020
Review of environmental factors March 2020
Evaluation of Tenders & Contract Award July 2020
Commence Enabling Preliminary Field Works March 2021
Complete Detailed design November 2021
Construction Complete April 2024
 Testing & Commissioning August 2024
Project Closeout October 2024

Table 7 Key Milestones

5.2 BUDGET/COST ANALYSIS AND FUNDING STRATEGY

5.2.1 PROJECTED CAPITAL COSTS

This is a class 2 estimate which has a 20% contingency. The cost plan has been externally
audited.
An allowance of 0.5% included for the cost escalation between the expected tender date and
the date of practical completion, based on Council’s prior experiences with projects of similar
scope.
Stage 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 Total
Project Capital Cost $4,653,333 $5,957,019 $7,443,704 $7,143,542 $6,317,569 $3,523,333 $35,038,500
Contingency $930,667 $1,191,404 $1,488,741 $1,428,708 $1,263,514 $704,667 $7,007,700
Escalation $23,267 $29,785 $37,219 $35,718 $31,588 $17,617 $175,192
Outturn Cost $5,607,267 $7,178,208 $8,969,663 $8,607,968 $7,612,671 $4,245,617 $42,221,392
Table 8 Projected capital costs inclusive of contingency

5.2.2 COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS

The key costs as identified in Section 5.2 are:
● Capital costs and contingency associated with the design, procurement, construction
and commissioning of the project;
● Ongoing operation and maintenance costs
● Based on the Council’s experience of other similar project completion in the Council
area, the following benefits have been identified that are expected to be realised from
the Project:
● Expected increase in participation by 40% in the first year;
● New events to be hosted such as Tour de Brisbane;
● Reduction in travel for local residents having to travel to home. Survey results
have indicated on an average every $1 invested in cycling infrastructure,
returns almost $5 to Queensland in health benefits, reduced traffic congestion
and other benefits (https://blog.tmr.qld.gov.au/cycling/infographics/);
● Health benefits associated with increased physical activity and participation;
● Encourages sense of an inclusive community;
● Potential to prevent crimes for youths and better educational outcomes;
● Potential improvement for local businesses’ turnover before/after major events
or training.

5.2.3 PROPOSED FUNDING ARRANGEMENTS

The project is being jointly funded by the Queensland Government, receiving up to 50 per
cent funding through the Cycle Network Local Government Grants Program (see Table 10).
The project is part of Brisbane City Council’s Better Bikeways for Brisbane program,
creating dedicated bikeways and active travel options with a $100 million investment.
Stage 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 Total
Project Capital Cost $4,653,333 $5,957,019 $7,443,704 $7,143,542 $6,317,569 $3,523,333 $35,038,500
Funding sources
Queensland Government 2,326,667 2,978,509 3,721,852 3,571,771 3,158,785 1,761,667 17,519,250
Cycle Network Local Government Grant
2,326,667
Program 2,978,509 3,721,852 3,571,771 3,158,785 1,761,667 17,519,250
Table 10 Proposed capital funding contributions

5.3 RISK ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT STRATEGY

Key Project risks have been identified by the Project team in a workshop environment. Key
risks for the Project were first identified at a stakeholder roundtable meeting in August 2017.
Subsequently, the Project’s Risk Register was reviewed monthly by the Project team. The
May 2018 version of the Project’s Risk Register and Risk Management Plan were endorsed
by the Councillors in June 2018.
A Risk Management Plan and Risk Register utilising a risk matrix (Datta & Mukherjee,
2001) have been developed by Council (see Appendix 5).
The Project is considered to have a moderate risk profile:
The Risk Management Plan developed by the Project Team will guide risk reporting,
monitoring and mitigation activities during the delivery phase of the Project.
Day-to-day risk monitoring will be overseen by the Project Team, led by the Project
Manager. Generally, key risks and risk activities will be reported through the governance
structure monthly i.e. to the General Manager, Steering Group and Councillors.
This report is part of the integrated project management tool that BCC uses on all projects.
Should critical risks be identified by the Project Team, these risks will be escalated
immediately through the governance structure.
Table 11 Key Project risks identified by Council

5.4 PROJECT QUALITY MANAGEMENT STRATEGY

Due to the public nature of the bikeway project ensuring quality control as an aspect of risk
management can go a long way to ensuring stakeholder satisfaction (Chua et al., 1999). This
approach should ensure a balance between competing needs of the project (Chua et al., 1999).
The main quality management objective is to deliver project management products that meet
the needs of the ultimate end-user – the project manager.

The quality of the Northern Veloway Project is managed from inception through the design
and construction to the completion of the project by gated approval of deliverables. (see
Appendix 6).

5.5 PROJECT COMPLETION STRATEGY

The completion of the project will be the acceptance by the sponsor of the product and that it
meets the intended purpose.
The Project Acceptance is dependent on
 The acceptance of completion of construction and acceptance of final documentation.
  The rehabilitation of affected sites
 The acceptance of performance of the Cycleway
 The acceptance of the final report including
o Final accounts
o Defect resolution
o The demobilisation or redeployment of the project management team

5.6 BENEFITS REALISATION PLAN

It is proposed that a post-evaluation will be undertaken by Council one year after
implementation to measure the success of the Project. As outlined in Section 1.2, four success
indicators have been identified in line with the project objectives (see Table 11).

This project will minimise impacts on the communities during construction to be an

environmental asset.

It will:
Reduce congestion  capacity for up to 2000 people per hr in peak
traffic, reduce demand on current congested
vehicle routes
 capable of handling increased cycle traffic
due to the growing shift to cycling for
transport and the emerging e cycle
technology
Be safe  provide the highest separation between motor
vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians
 increase safety fencing, lighting and security
for cycles
Be clean  have the lowest possible environment
footprint, visually, noise and emissions and a
high-quality approach to landscaping,
architecture and urban design.
 utilise renewable power and smart lighting

Be efficient  optimise the efficient use of resources

 it will compliment and seamlessly interface
with existing amenities
 it will provide a commercial interface at
terminals

Table 11 Success Indicators

APPENDIX A
A.1 SCOPE of WORKS
1. Aspley Terminal –
This building provides a park and ride option as well as the initial access and exit points.
The scope includes
● Building with toilet and shower amenities.
● Car Park
● Secure Bicycle Storage
2. Upgraded Trout Road (1.2km) – construct shared zone on Trout Road
This section is resumed from the existing eastern side of the road. I joined the Aspley
terminal to the Chermside Reserve Nature Pass and includes
● All under paving preparation
● Paving and road
● Intersection upgrades
3. Chermside Reserve Nature Pass (2km) – construct pathway with skyway
between hills.
This section is a combination of path and bridge using a proposed bus route alongside the
Chermside Nature Reserve for 2 km to Hamilton road and includes
● All under paving preparation
● Paving and road
● 3 Bridge sections inclusive of piling
● Wildlife thoroughfare devices and exclusion fences
● Wildlife hides
4. Hamilton Road Overpass – Continuing Skyway across Hamilton road with
entry and exit ramps.
● Bridge, inclusive of piling
● Entry and exit ramps with merging zones
● Upgrade to Hamilton Road for 200m from entry and exit ramps
5. Trout Road (.8km) - Pathway to west of Trout Rode
● All under paving preparation
● Paving and road
● Intersection upgrades
● Wildlife thoroughfare devices and exclusion fences
6. Rode Road Overpass (.2km) and Rode Road interchange
This is an overpass of a busy road with a high use entry and exit point. The road and
 adjacent intersections will be upgraded for increased cyclist safety.
● Bridge, inclusive of piling
● Entry and exit ramps with merging zones
● Intersection upgrades
● Upgrade to Rode Road for 200m from entry and exit ramps
7. Rode Road to Kedron Brook Skyway (3.5km)
This is predominately an elevated section linking Rode Road to the Kedron Bikeway
● All under paving preparation
● Paving and road
● Bridge, inclusive of piling
● 3 Entry and exit ramps with merging zones
8. Stafford Road Interchange
Stafford Road will be a high volume entry and exit point. This is scope will increase the
safety of cyclists.
● Entry and Exit Ramps
● Upgrade to Stafford Road for 500m from entry and exit ramps
9. Kedron Brook Upgrade (1.2km)
● Upgrade to existing cycle way to the design of the veloway to link with the
final elevated section
10. Raymont Road Overpass (.8km)
● Bridge, inclusive of piling
● Entry and exit ramps with merging zones
● Upgrade to Raymont Road for 200m from entry exit ramps
11. Alderley Station Terminal
● Building with toilet and shower amenities.
● Car Park
● Secure Bicycle Storage

The Scope for the entire Veloway will include

● Solar lighting with proximity control
● Security Cameras, panic buttons
● Lane Marking
● Fencing and Barriers
● Rehabilitation of landscape
● Signage and Signals
o High Speed Warning
o Merging rider Warning
o Location Signage
A.2 OPTIONS ANALYSIS

Northern Veloway Options Evaluation Table

Total Duration Construction Impact to Cyclist Safety

Total Cost ($M)
(mth) Duration Vehicle traffic Score

Project Option Weighting 20 5 5 20 20

Option 1 Score 35 36 24 100 100
Dedicated single purpose road – Overpass of
10 5 5 20 20
all roadways weighted score
Option 2 Score 32 36 24 10 50
Dedicated single purpose with new
intersections at roads.
14 5 5 2 10
weighted score

Option 3 Score 24 36 24 10 30
Shared – Upgraded existing roadways with
increased vehicle separation and upgraded 20 5 5 2 6
intersections weighted score

Guide to Option Rank Criteria

100% 50% 0%
Total Cost Lowest Cost Lowest Cost x 1.5 2 x lowest cost
Total duration Lowest Duration Low Dur X 1.5 2 x Lowest duration
Construction Duration Lowest Duration Low Dur X 1.5 2 x Lowest duration
Impact to Vehicle Traffic Full Separation from Traffic Limited intersections Intersections on high traffic routes
Cycle safety score Full Separation from Traffic < 50% shared with traffic Full integration into traffic
Cyclist Volume 2000 ph 1000ph 100 ph
Environmental Impact no residual impact some impact with controls significant impact along route
A.3 PROJECT SCHEDULE
A.4 PROJECT COST PLAN
The base costs estimates have been developed based on design advice from bikeway design
consultants commissioned by the Council, estimated from the quantity of components and
materials required, unit pricing, labour cost estimates for design, project management and
installation and grounds work.
A contingency of 20 percent has been applied to all future capital and recurrent costs
projected by the Council to provide a buffer for unforeseen changes in unit prices or scope,
based on Council’s prior experiences with projects of similar scope. This contingency
allowance is over and above any allowances that may have been inherently built into the cost
estimates (see Table 8 and 9).
A.5 PROJECT RISK REGISTER

Risk Level

Basic design assumptions Medium

Productivity norms not met Low Med

Weather Low Med

Governments looking to promote or pull down the last government’s

projects Medium

Market Place conditions Low Med

Social and cultural influences Low Med

Commercial databases Low

Government standards Low Med

Financial considerations Low

Physical environment elements Low Med

Organisational governance Low

Geographic distribution Low Med

Stakeholders Med Hi

Employee capability Low

A.6
A.7 PROJECT QUALITY PLAN
The project quality is managed in four spheres.
The Project manager delivers the integrated project management plan and ensures the stakeholders’ needs are met and efficiently managing the
sponsors’ resources. The Engineering manager ensures the project is designed and built to the required standards and specifications.
The construction manager ensures the work packages are completed to specification through the completion of the approved work packages. The
work packages contain the required verification, testing and inspection.
The approver can request additional evidence to verify work. Any defects will be rectified, or accepted, before the work package is accepted as
complete. The final acceptance is dependent on the completion of all work packages and resolution of defects.
Project Quality Management and Completion Approval Matrix
Community Environment Engineering Discipline Construction Construction
Phase Deliverable Project Manager Sponsor
Stakeholder and Heritage Manager Engineering Manager Contractor
Business Case Responsible Approve
Initiate
Project Management Plan Responsible Approve Approve
Phase
Preliminary Design Approve Approve Approve Approve Responsible
Detailed Design Approve Approve Responsible Consult Consult
Work Packages Approve Responsible Consult
Construction Schedule Approve Approve Approve Consult Responsible Consult
Design Phase Contract Management Plan Responsible Approve Approve
Budget Responsible Approve Consult
Project Execution Plan Approve Approve Approve Approve Responsible Consult
Project Management Plan (Update) Responsible Approve
Work packages Approve Approve Responsible
Construction Project Stages Approve Approve Approve Responsible
Phase Demobilisation and Rehabilitation Approve Responsible
Construction Completion Approve Approve Responsible
Product Acceptance Responsible Approve Approve Approve Approve
Close Final Project Report Responsible Approve
Project Close Responsible Approve
A.8 Project Reporting Structure

The Project Sponsor will be Council’s CEO. The Divisional Manager will be the head of
Council’s Infrastructure Unit. The Project Manager will be responsible for the day-to-day
running of the Project. Responsibilities include:

Managing the preferred supplier’s activities

Managing the Project Team

Reporting to the Steering Group, the CEO and Divisional manager

General Project administration.

The Project team will report to the Steering Group, the CEO and Councillors monthly.
Decisions will be escalated in line with Council’s delegations of authority. Generally, key
actions will be approved by CEO following the endorsement of the Divisional Manager. A
Steering Group will also be in place for the Project. The Steering Group will consist of Key
Stakeholders, who will contribute to Project funding, as well as heads from other Council
units. The Steering group will meet bi-monthly.

A.9

A.10 BENEFITS REALISATION PLAN

A.11 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS on OPTIONS

A.12 STAKEHOLDER ASSESSMENT MATRIX

A.13 **********

A.14 **********
6 REFERENCES

Akintoye, A. S., & MacLeod, M. J. (1997). Risk analysis and management in construction.
International Journal of Project Management, 15(1), 31-38.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(96)00035-X
Alias, Z., Zawawi, E. M. A., Yusof, K., & Aris, N. M. (2014). Determining Critical Success
Factors of Project Management Practice: A Conceptual Framework. Procedia - Social
and Behavioral Sciences, 153, 61-69. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.10.041
Archer, N. P., & Ghasemzadeh, F. (1999). An integrated framework for project portfolio
selection. International Journal of Project Management, 17(4), 207-216.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(98)00032-5
Badewi, A. (2016). The impact of project management (PM) and benefits management (BM)
practices on project success: Towards developing a project benefits governance
framework. International Journal of Project Management, 34(4), 761-778.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.05.005
Biesenthal, C., & Wilden, R. (2014). Multi-level project governance: Trends and
opportunities. International Journal of Project Management, 32(8), 1291-1308.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.06.005
Bititci, U., Cocca, P., & Ates, A. (2016). Impact of visual performance management systems
on the performance management practices of organisations. International Journal of
Production Research, 54(6), 1571-1593. doi:10.1080/00207543.2015.1005770
Bourne, L. (2016). Stakeholder relationship management: a maturity model for
organisational implementation: Routledge.
Bourne, L., & Walker, D. H. T. (2008). Project relationship management and the Stakeholder
Circle™. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 1(1), 125-130.
doi:10.1108/17538370810846450
Brugha, R., & Varvasovszky, Z. (2000). Stakeholder analysis: a review. Health Policy and
Planning, 15(3), 239-246. doi:10.1093/heapol/15.3.239
Cheung, S.-O., Lam, T.-I., Leung, M.-Y., & Wan, Y.-W. (2001). An analytical hierarchy
process based procurement selection method. Construction Management and
Economics, 19(4), 427-437. doi:10.1080/014461901300132401
Chua, D. K. H., Kog, Y. C., & Loh, P. K. (1999). Critical Success Factors for Different
Project Objectives. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 125(3),
142-150. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(1999)125:3(142)
Cohen, I., Mandelbaum, A., & Shtub, A. (2004). Multi-Project Scheduling and Control: A
Process-Based Comparative Study of the Critical Chain Methodology and Some
Alternatives. Project Management Journal, 35(2), 39-50.
doi:10.1177/875697280403500206
Cooper, R. G. (2008). Perspective: The Stage-Gate® Idea-to-Launch Process—Update,
What's New, and NexGen Systems*. Journal of Product Innovation Management,
25(3), 213-232. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5885.2008.00296.x
Council, B. C. (2018). Transport Plan for Brisbane - Strategic Directions. Brisbane
Australia: Brisbane City Council Retrieved from
https://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/sites/default/files/20181115_-
_transport_plan_for_brisbane_-_strategic_directions.pdf.
Datta, S., & Mukherjee, S. K. (2001). Developing a Risk Management Matrix for Effective
Project Planning - An Empirical Study. Project Management Journal, 32(2), 45-57.
doi:10.1177/875697280103200206
de Wit, A. (1988). Measurement of project success. International Journal of Project
Management, 6(3), 164-170. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0263-7863(88)90043-9
Franch, M., Martini, U., & Buffa, F. (2010). Roles and opinions of primary and secondary
stakeholders within community‐type destinations. Tourism Review, 65(4), 74-85.
doi:10.1108/16605371011093881
Glass, R. L. (2013). The Queensland Health Payroll Debacle. Information Systems
Management, 30(1), 89-90. doi:10.1080/10580530.2013.739899
Government, Q. (2017). Queensland Cycling Strategy. Queensland Cycling Strategy.
Retrieved from https://blog.tmr.qld.gov.au/cycling/
Government, Q. (2018a). Department iof Transport and Main Roads Strategic Plan. Brisbane
Queensland: Department iof Transport and Main Roads Retrieved from
https://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/About-us/Corporate-information/Publications/Strategic-
plan.aspx.
Government, Q. (2018b). Procurement Policy. Retrieved from
https://www.forgov.qld.gov.au/procurement-policy
Government, Q. (2019a). Health and wellbeing. Retrieved from
https://www.qld.gov.au/health/staying-healthy/fitness
Government, Q. (2019b). North Brisbane Bikeway. North Brisbane Bikeway. Retrieved from
https://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/Projects/Name/N/North-Brisbane-Bikeway
Jepsen, A. L., & Eskerod, P. (2009). Stakeholder analysis in projects: Challenges in using
current guidelines in the real world. International Journal of Project Management,
27(4), 335-343. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2008.04.002
Lapinski, A. R., Horman, M. J., & Riley, D. R. (2006). Lean Processes for Sustainable
Project Delivery. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 132(10),
1083-1091. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2006)132:10(1083)
Miller, R., & Hobbs, B. (2005). Governance Regimes for Large Complex Projects. Project
Management Journal, 36(3), 42-50. doi:10.1177/875697280503600305
Milosevic, D., & Patanakul, P. (2005). Standardized project management may increase
development projects success. International Journal of Project Management, 23(3),
181-192. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2004.11.002
Oyegoke, A. S., Dickinson, M., Khalfan, M. M. A., McDermott, P., & Rowlinson, S. (2009).
Construction project procurement routes: an in‐depth critique. International Journal
of Managing Projects in Business, 2(3), 338-354. doi:10.1108/17538370910971018
PMI, P. M. I. (2017). A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge ( PMBOK®
Guide )—Sixth Edition (ENGLISH). Newtown Square, PA, UNITED STATES:
Project Management Institute.
Raz, T., Barnes, R., & Dvir, D. (2003). A Critical Look at Critical Chain Project
Management. Project Management Journal, 34(4), 24-32.
doi:10.1177/875697280303400404
Too, E. G., & Weaver, P. (2014). The management of project management: A conceptual
framework for project governance. International Journal of Project Management,
32(8), 1382-1394. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2013.07.006
Toor, S.-u.-R., & Ogunlana, S. O. (2010). Beyond the ‘iron triangle’: Stakeholder perception
of key performance indicators (KPIs) for large-scale public sector development
projects. International Journal of Project Management, 28(3), 228-236.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2009.05.005
Van Der Merwe, A. P. (2002). Project management and business development: integrating
strategy, structure, processes and projects. International Journal of Project
Management, 20(5), 401-411. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(01)00012-6