Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2011 Week 02 Hansard (Thursday, 10 March 2011) . . Page.. 882 ..
(3) How does this MCA operate, for example, what criteria are used.
(4) Will the Government rely on the cost-effectiveness calculations used in the report.
(5) Is the Government satisfied with the accuracy of the cost-effectiveness calculations;
(6) Is it appropriate for (a) this analysis to give a project a higher score if it is more expensive (b) the report to add the benefit and costs scores together, rather than weigh them against each other.
(7) When will the final report be made public.
(8) When will the Government decide which projects it will prioritise and make these priorities public.
Mr Stanhope: The answer to the member’s question is as follows:
(1) The Cardno report uses a Multi-Criteria Analysis (MCA) to rank the 202 nominated projects contained in the report. The MCA methodology developed by Cardno was first used in South East Queensland for a combination of 8 Local Government Areas and the State Government to determine and prioritise a 10 year cycling and pedestrian infrastructure program. The Cardno model was adapted for use in the ACT in terms of the weighting and criteria used to assess and rank projects. The adaptation was undertaken in consultation with stakeholder groups. Cost effectiveness was one of four criteria used as part of the MCA which is a qualitative rather than a quantitative analysis.
(2) (a) Yes, the Government is using the MCA methodology developed by Cardno for an initial ranking of projects.
(b) The efficacy of the MCA methodology will be tested by the working group I have requested to be convened by Roads ACT and report back to me in July 2011.
(3) The MCA is a qualitative analysis tool that is often used to consider tangible and non-tangible benefits that projects can deliver. In the case of the Cardno work, four criteria were used and developed through a public consultation process. These criteria included network characteristics, safety, cost effectiveness and strategic importance.
(4) No – will test the advice provided through the working group set up to review and report on the work to date.
(6) (a) No – the cost effective criterion divides the cost of a project by the number of people that it serves so the lower this criterion score the better.
(b) No – the MCA methodology differs from a cost benefit analysis where the costs of the project are divided by the benefits of the project to establish a cost/benefit ratio.
The MCA methodology scores and weights the various criteria which are then added together to establish the initial ranking of the projects.
(7) The report will be made public in due course.