Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2012 Week 7 Hansard (7 June) . . Page.. 2994..
Transport—cost modelling (Question No 2310)
Ms Bresnan asked the Minister for the Environment and Sustainable Development, upon notice, on 3 May 2012:
(1) In relation to the Northbourne Avenue-Gungahlin transit study, what method of economic modelling was applied to determine the costs of the bus rapid transport (BRT) and light rail transit (LRT) projects.
(2) Can the Minister provide a copy of the cost modelling and data used to determine the costs of the BRT and LRT projects.
(3) Can the Minister provide any modelling the Government has of cost savings and cost recovery measures for the BRT or LRT projects.
(4) How many people expressed a preference for light rail and how many expressed a preference for bus rapid transit at each of the community consultations at Dickson, City, Gungahlin and any others.
(5) What is the explanation for the significantly different cost projections for Gungahlin to City transit projects in the 2005 Canberra Public Transport Futures Feasibility Study and the 2012 Northbourne Avenue-Gungahlin transit study.
Mr Corbell: The answer to the member's question is as follows:
(1) The cost estimates were prepared in accordance with the Best Practice Cost Estimation for Publicly Funded Road and Rail Construction, Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, June 2008 and Australian Transport Council Guidelines. Costs were benchmarked against comparable projects including Constitution Avenue, the Hoddle Street Planning Study (Melbourne) and the Gold Coast Light Rail project. The current estimates are based on the pre-feasibility stage of the project, and consistent with national guidelines include an accuracy range of -15 to -30% and +20% to +50%.
(2) Detail on the percentage breakdown of costs for LRT and BRT is included in the URS concept report, available at www.timetotalk.act.gov.au.
(3) Detail on the percentage breakdown of costs for LRT and BRT is included in the URS concept report, available at www.timetotalk.act.gov.au.
(4) Approximately 765 people attended community information sessions about the project in Gungahlin, Dickson and Civic. 171 people specified a preference for LRT and 33 specified a preference for BRT in voting sheets available at the sessions. To date, the online survey for the project has had 524 responses. 414 people specified a preference for LRT and 71 specified a preference for BRT.
(5) The differences between costs for LRT in previous studies and the current study include:
* Escalation: the 2004 KBR Public Transport Futures Feasibility Study was based on 2003 costs. The 2008 PwC Submission to IA was based on an assumed