Page 1208 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 7 May 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Mr Coe also suggests that other routes in a potential ACT-wide network have not been considered by the government. We do not agree. Yes, we have made a commitment to deliver on the light rail corridor between the city and Gungahlin, but that is based on the outcomes of the Gungahlin to city transit corridor study, which supported the feasibility of light rail in the corridor. That study was built on previous work undertaken to develop the strategic public transport network identified in transport for Canberra. Transport for Canberra identifies five key corridors: Gungahlin to the city, Belconnen to the city, Tuggeranong-Woden to the city, Queanbeyan-Fyshwick to the city, and Woden-Weston Creek-Molonglo to the city. The ACT planning strategy also outlines how these corridors will be the subject of future land development opportunities.
The government is undertaking the work needed to assess and finalise the detail of likely costs in relation to the procurement, delivery and operation of the light rail service, to satisfy itself of the viability and affordability of the project. As a consequence, one element of the work underway and being resourced by this government is the ongoing development of revised cost estimates based on the detailed design as it progresses through the reference design stage. Mr Coe seems to believe that you do one single assessment at a high level, and that is the final cost. He is badly informed again and shows his ignorance of the detailed assessment process needed to develop and finalise a business case for a project of this complexity, of this significance and magnitude. That costing will both inform and is informed by the detailed technical design of the project as it is progressed.
The government will see the complementing of the expert costing advice through a program of value management, risk quantification and assessment of operating and maintenance costs. There is built into our program a series of checkpoints at each stage of the design process to challenge the construction and design options being put forward, to make sure that the cost estimates will take into account the timing of light rail infrastructure construction. The Capital Metro Agency has commenced its investigation of construction options and the mitigation of risks associated with construction. A key component of those risks is the impact on time frames for construction.
Whilst it can be trite to simply trot out the line that time means money, in a risk quantification sense for this project, capital metro, it is very much the case. And that is why this assessment also includes decisions around procurement methodology which provide the best risk transfer solutions and which are still impacted by time to deliver. Impacts include financing and material costs, particularly with regard to those components exposed to international exchange rates and long lead times for delivery.
Mr Coe also asserts that the operational costs are unknown. But these costs are, of course, naturally contingent upon the final design and service level parameters that are still under development as the project work progresses to a level of certainty sufficient to take this project to the market. As with the estimates for the capital costs of the project, detailed estimates of the operational costs associated with capital metro are currently being defined, based on the design and operating information as it is developed. Once again, Mr Coe asserts in a simplistic and ill-informed way that this
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video