❓ Hon. P.G. Pendal asks about the assessed costs of rail (including Rockingham Loop) and bus options. The answer details infrastructure, rollingstock, and operating costs, arguing rail is the better long-term choice due to user benefits and lower long-term operating costs.
AnsweredQoN 1038Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
(b) the rail, including the Rockingham Loop, was assessed at $805 million; and (c) the bus costs were assessed at $143 million?
(c) the bus costs were assessed at $143 million?
(c) the bus costs were assessed at $143 million?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
27 November 2001
Responded by
Minister for Planning and Infrastructure
Response time
75 days
(b) The cost including the link through Rockingham was $805.3 million. (c) The total discounted cost for the direct route cost for rail was $646.2 million for infrastructure and $514.3 million for rollingstock for a total of $1,160.5 million. Comparative infrastructure and rollingstock cost for buses was $142.8 million and $592.1 million for a total of $734.9 million. The operating cost of rail for the direct route was $46.2 million to $71.3 million, the range representing the increase in annual cost over time. The operating cost of buses was $35.8 million to $115.7 million, showing the much greater operating cost of buses compared to rail in the future. This large difference is one of the factors that shows why rail is the much better long term choice. 2. Section 13.5 of the South West Metropolitan Railway Master Plan also contains the following justification for rail over bus; 'While the Bus Option records a more favourable net outcome than the rail options the Rail Options offer higher user benefits than the Bus Option. These are: Over double the travel time savings for travellers staying with their existing modes; The benefits to passengers diverting to rail in the Rail Option are more than three times higher than the benefits to passengers diverting to bus in the Bus Option; The savings in vehicle operating costs to car 'stayers' in the Rail Option are double the savings to car 'stayers' in the Bus Option; The externality benefits of the Rail Option are up to $40 million greater than for the Bus Option; Additional operator revenue is $130 million greater in the Rail Option than in the Bus Option; and At the end of the project period annual operating costs for rail are considerably lower than for road. To achieve the patronage levels for the Bus Option, the patronage demand modelling assumed that buses would achieve average speeds of up to 77 km/h. Empirical evidence suggests that buses at best average 49 km/h. If greater bus travel times were incorporated in the modelling process, this would act to further reduce the relative differentials between the bus and rail options.
(c) The total discounted cost for the direct route cost for rail was $646.2 million for infrastructure and $514.3 million for rollingstock for a total of $1,160.5 million. Comparative infrastructure and rollingstock cost for buses was $142.8 million and $592.1 million for a total of $734.9 million. The operating cost of rail for the direct route was $46.2 million to $71.3 million, the range representing the increase in annual cost over time. The operating cost of buses was $35.8 million to $115.7 million, showing the much greater operating cost of buses compared to rail in the future. This large difference is one of the factors that shows why rail is the much better long term choice. 2. Section 13.5 of the South West Metropolitan Railway Master Plan also contains the following justification for rail over bus; 'While the Bus Option records a more favourable net outcome than the rail options the Rail Options offer higher user benefits than the Bus Option. These are: Over double the travel time savings for travellers staying with their existing modes; The benefits to passengers diverting to rail in the Rail Option are more than three times higher than the benefits to passengers diverting to bus in the Bus Option; The savings in vehicle operating costs to car 'stayers' in the Rail Option are double the savings to car 'stayers' in the Bus Option; The externality benefits of the Rail Option are up to $40 million greater than for the Bus Option; Additional operator revenue is $130 million greater in the Rail Option than in the Bus Option; and At the end of the project period annual operating costs for rail are considerably lower than for road. To achieve the patronage levels for the Bus Option, the patronage demand modelling assumed that buses would achieve average speeds of up to 77 km/h. Empirical evidence suggests that buses at best average 49 km/h. If greater bus travel times were incorporated in the modelling process, this would act to further reduce the relative differentials between the bus and rail options.
The operating cost of rail for the direct route was $46.2 million to $71.3 million, the range representing the increase in annual cost over time. The operating cost of buses was $35.8 million to $115.7 million, showing the much greater operating cost of buses compared to rail in the future. This large difference is one of the factors that shows why rail is the much better long term choice. 2. Section 13.5 of the South West Metropolitan Railway Master Plan also contains the following justification for rail over bus; 'While the Bus Option records a more favourable net outcome than the rail options the Rail Options offer higher user benefits than the Bus Option. These are: Over double the travel time savings for travellers staying with their existing modes; The benefits to passengers diverting to rail in the Rail Option are more than three times higher than the benefits to passengers diverting to bus in the Bus Option; The savings in vehicle operating costs to car 'stayers' in the Rail Option are double the savings to car 'stayers' in the Bus Option; The externality benefits of the Rail Option are up to $40 million greater than for the Bus Option; Additional operator revenue is $130 million greater in the Rail Option than in the Bus Option; and At the end of the project period annual operating costs for rail are considerably lower than for road. To achieve the patronage levels for the Bus Option, the patronage demand modelling assumed that buses would achieve average speeds of up to 77 km/h. Empirical evidence suggests that buses at best average 49 km/h. If greater bus travel times were incorporated in the modelling process, this would act to further reduce the relative differentials between the bus and rail options.
2. Section 13.5 of the South West Metropolitan Railway Master Plan also contains the following justification for rail over bus; 'While the Bus Option records a more favourable net outcome than the rail options the Rail Options offer higher user benefits than the Bus Option. These are: Over double the travel time savings for travellers staying with their existing modes; The benefits to passengers diverting to rail in the Rail Option are more than three times higher than the benefits to passengers diverting to bus in the Bus Option; The savings in vehicle operating costs to car 'stayers' in the Rail Option are double the savings to car 'stayers' in the Bus Option; The externality benefits of the Rail Option are up to $40 million greater than for the Bus Option; Additional operator revenue is $130 million greater in the Rail Option than in the Bus Option; and At the end of the project period annual operating costs for rail are considerably lower than for road. To achieve the patronage levels for the Bus Option, the patronage demand modelling assumed that buses would achieve average speeds of up to 77 km/h. Empirical evidence suggests that buses at best average 49 km/h. If greater bus travel times were incorporated in the modelling process, this would act to further reduce the relative differentials between the bus and rail options.
'While the Bus Option records a more favourable net outcome than the rail options the Rail Options offer higher user benefits than the Bus Option. These are: Over double the travel time savings for travellers staying with their existing modes; The benefits to passengers diverting to rail in the Rail Option are more than three times higher than the benefits to passengers diverting to bus in the Bus Option; The savings in vehicle operating costs to car 'stayers' in the Rail Option are double the savings to car 'stayers' in the Bus Option; The externality benefits of the Rail Option are up to $40 million greater than for the Bus Option; Additional operator revenue is $130 million greater in the Rail Option than in the Bus Option; and At the end of the project period annual operating costs for rail are considerably lower than for road. To achieve the patronage levels for the Bus Option, the patronage demand modelling assumed that buses would achieve average speeds of up to 77 km/h. Empirical evidence suggests that buses at best average 49 km/h. If greater bus travel times were incorporated in the modelling process, this would act to further reduce the relative differentials between the bus and rail options.
(c) The total discounted cost for the direct route cost for rail was $646.2 million for infrastructure and $514.3 million for rollingstock for a total of $1,160.5 million. Comparative infrastructure and rollingstock cost for buses was $142.8 million and $592.1 million for a total of $734.9 million. The operating cost of rail for the direct route was $46.2 million to $71.3 million, the range representing the increase in annual cost over time. The operating cost of buses was $35.8 million to $115.7 million, showing the much greater operating cost of buses compared to rail in the future. This large difference is one of the factors that shows why rail is the much better long term choice. 2. Section 13.5 of the South West Metropolitan Railway Master Plan also contains the following justification for rail over bus; 'While the Bus Option records a more favourable net outcome than the rail options the Rail Options offer higher user benefits than the Bus Option. These are: Over double the travel time savings for travellers staying with their existing modes; The benefits to passengers diverting to rail in the Rail Option are more than three times higher than the benefits to passengers diverting to bus in the Bus Option; The savings in vehicle operating costs to car 'stayers' in the Rail Option are double the savings to car 'stayers' in the Bus Option; The externality benefits of the Rail Option are up to $40 million greater than for the Bus Option; Additional operator revenue is $130 million greater in the Rail Option than in the Bus Option; and At the end of the project period annual operating costs for rail are considerably lower than for road. To achieve the patronage levels for the Bus Option, the patronage demand modelling assumed that buses would achieve average speeds of up to 77 km/h. Empirical evidence suggests that buses at best average 49 km/h. If greater bus travel times were incorporated in the modelling process, this would act to further reduce the relative differentials between the bus and rail options.
The operating cost of rail for the direct route was $46.2 million to $71.3 million, the range representing the increase in annual cost over time. The operating cost of buses was $35.8 million to $115.7 million, showing the much greater operating cost of buses compared to rail in the future. This large difference is one of the factors that shows why rail is the much better long term choice. 2. Section 13.5 of the South West Metropolitan Railway Master Plan also contains the following justification for rail over bus; 'While the Bus Option records a more favourable net outcome than the rail options the Rail Options offer higher user benefits than the Bus Option. These are: Over double the travel time savings for travellers staying with their existing modes; The benefits to passengers diverting to rail in the Rail Option are more than three times higher than the benefits to passengers diverting to bus in the Bus Option; The savings in vehicle operating costs to car 'stayers' in the Rail Option are double the savings to car 'stayers' in the Bus Option; The externality benefits of the Rail Option are up to $40 million greater than for the Bus Option; Additional operator revenue is $130 million greater in the Rail Option than in the Bus Option; and At the end of the project period annual operating costs for rail are considerably lower than for road. To achieve the patronage levels for the Bus Option, the patronage demand modelling assumed that buses would achieve average speeds of up to 77 km/h. Empirical evidence suggests that buses at best average 49 km/h. If greater bus travel times were incorporated in the modelling process, this would act to further reduce the relative differentials between the bus and rail options.
2. Section 13.5 of the South West Metropolitan Railway Master Plan also contains the following justification for rail over bus; 'While the Bus Option records a more favourable net outcome than the rail options the Rail Options offer higher user benefits than the Bus Option. These are: Over double the travel time savings for travellers staying with their existing modes; The benefits to passengers diverting to rail in the Rail Option are more than three times higher than the benefits to passengers diverting to bus in the Bus Option; The savings in vehicle operating costs to car 'stayers' in the Rail Option are double the savings to car 'stayers' in the Bus Option; The externality benefits of the Rail Option are up to $40 million greater than for the Bus Option; Additional operator revenue is $130 million greater in the Rail Option than in the Bus Option; and At the end of the project period annual operating costs for rail are considerably lower than for road. To achieve the patronage levels for the Bus Option, the patronage demand modelling assumed that buses would achieve average speeds of up to 77 km/h. Empirical evidence suggests that buses at best average 49 km/h. If greater bus travel times were incorporated in the modelling process, this would act to further reduce the relative differentials between the bus and rail options.
'While the Bus Option records a more favourable net outcome than the rail options the Rail Options offer higher user benefits than the Bus Option. These are: Over double the travel time savings for travellers staying with their existing modes; The benefits to passengers diverting to rail in the Rail Option are more than three times higher than the benefits to passengers diverting to bus in the Bus Option; The savings in vehicle operating costs to car 'stayers' in the Rail Option are double the savings to car 'stayers' in the Bus Option; The externality benefits of the Rail Option are up to $40 million greater than for the Bus Option; Additional operator revenue is $130 million greater in the Rail Option than in the Bus Option; and At the end of the project period annual operating costs for rail are considerably lower than for road. To achieve the patronage levels for the Bus Option, the patronage demand modelling assumed that buses would achieve average speeds of up to 77 km/h. Empirical evidence suggests that buses at best average 49 km/h. If greater bus travel times were incorporated in the modelling process, this would act to further reduce the relative differentials between the bus and rail options.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.