❓ Hon. P.G. Pendal questions the validity of the economic evaluation comparing bus versus rail for the South West Metropolitan Railway Master Plan, highlighting concerns about the rigor and completeness of the bus system analysis. The Minister defends the decision by referencing a previous decision to build a railway despite busway recommendations.
AnsweredQoN 1036Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
(1) I refer to the South West Metropolitan Railway Master Plan and Appendices dated April, 2000 and ask is it correct that an economic evaluation was carried out to test the comparative costs of bus versus rail for the Master Plan?
(2) Will the Minister confirm that the study stated that ‘the analysis considered the alternative of using buses. However, the data supplied for the bus case was rudimentary, with nowhere near the rigor applied to the development of infrastructure, rolling stock needs and operations, as was the case for the railway’?
(3) Does this not indicate that a truthful comparison was never in fact carried out, if studies for one option was merely rudimentary and without the rigor used for another option?
(4) If not, what other conclusion can be drawn from such a comparison?
(5) Is it also correct that the evaluation stated ‘The ability of the bus system to perform to the standards required was not examined’?
(6) If that ability was not examined how can the Government conclude that its decision was based on hard comparative data?
(2) Will the Minister confirm that the study stated that ‘the analysis considered the alternative of using buses. However, the data supplied for the bus case was rudimentary, with nowhere near the rigor applied to the development of infrastructure, rolling stock needs and operations, as was the case for the railway’?
(3) Does this not indicate that a truthful comparison was never in fact carried out, if studies for one option was merely rudimentary and without the rigor used for another option?
(4) If not, what other conclusion can be drawn from such a comparison?
(5) Is it also correct that the evaluation stated ‘The ability of the bus system to perform to the standards required was not examined’?
(6) If that ability was not examined how can the Government conclude that its decision was based on hard comparative data?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
12 December 2001
Responded by
Minister for Planning and Infrastructure
Response time
90 days
Government's need to lead and make strategic decisions at some time. For example, although transport studies and cost analysis recommended a busway for the Northern Suburbs, the Government of that time decided on a railway for long term strategic reasons, which often are over looked in so called, objective, cost benefit analysis. (2)– (6) When the initial study for a Northern Suburbs Transit System was carried out in 1988, the recommendation from this well researched, rigorous analysis was to use buses. The Government of the day rejected that advice and insisted on a fresh look at the issues involved. An equally (perhaps better) well researched, rigorous analysis recommended trains. As a result, Perth now has the very successful, internationally recognised Northern Suburbs Railway. The Government does not intend to have this debate all over again. The people of Perth have shown their overwhelming preference for rail. Urban rail patronage in Australia has increased 16 per cent in the last decade. The average car occupancy in Perth for peak period trips is about 1.1 persons which is wasteful of resources and environmentally unsustainable. Rail can attract people out of cars in a way buses cannot. There is data to show that Urban Rail is up to twice as energy efficient as buses. In Los Angeles, 90 per cent of users of the heavy rail system previously travelled by car. 50 per cent of commuters on the Dallas light rail/heavy rail systems are new to public transport. In Vancouver, 75 per cent of the commuter rail users were single occupancy car travellers. In our own case, the patronage projections for the Northern Suburbs underestimated the demand so much, that in 1995 the Government was required to purchase another five two-car train sets. This gave an increased capacity of around 3000 people over a two-hour peak period. Today all that capacity is taken up and demand cannot be matched during the peak periods.
(2)– (6) When the initial study for a Northern Suburbs Transit System was carried out in 1988, the recommendation from this well researched, rigorous analysis was to use buses. The Government of the day rejected that advice and insisted on a fresh look at the issues involved. An equally (perhaps better) well researched, rigorous analysis recommended trains. As a result, Perth now has the very successful, internationally recognised Northern Suburbs Railway. The Government does not intend to have this debate all over again. The people of Perth have shown their overwhelming preference for rail. Urban rail patronage in Australia has increased 16 per cent in the last decade. The average car occupancy in Perth for peak period trips is about 1.1 persons which is wasteful of resources and environmentally unsustainable. Rail can attract people out of cars in a way buses cannot. There is data to show that Urban Rail is up to twice as energy efficient as buses. In Los Angeles, 90 per cent of users of the heavy rail system previously travelled by car. 50 per cent of commuters on the Dallas light rail/heavy rail systems are new to public transport. In Vancouver, 75 per cent of the commuter rail users were single occupancy car travellers. In our own case, the patronage projections for the Northern Suburbs underestimated the demand so much, that in 1995 the Government was required to purchase another five two-car train sets. This gave an increased capacity of around 3000 people over a two-hour peak period. Today all that capacity is taken up and demand cannot be matched during the peak periods.
An equally (perhaps better) well researched, rigorous analysis recommended trains. As a result, Perth now has the very successful, internationally recognised Northern Suburbs Railway. The Government does not intend to have this debate all over again. The people of Perth have shown their overwhelming preference for rail. Urban rail patronage in Australia has increased 16 per cent in the last decade. The average car occupancy in Perth for peak period trips is about 1.1 persons which is wasteful of resources and environmentally unsustainable. Rail can attract people out of cars in a way buses cannot. There is data to show that Urban Rail is up to twice as energy efficient as buses. In Los Angeles, 90 per cent of users of the heavy rail system previously travelled by car. 50 per cent of commuters on the Dallas light rail/heavy rail systems are new to public transport. In Vancouver, 75 per cent of the commuter rail users were single occupancy car travellers. In our own case, the patronage projections for the Northern Suburbs underestimated the demand so much, that in 1995 the Government was required to purchase another five two-car train sets. This gave an increased capacity of around 3000 people over a two-hour peak period. Today all that capacity is taken up and demand cannot be matched during the peak periods.
There is data to show that Urban Rail is up to twice as energy efficient as buses. In Los Angeles, 90 per cent of users of the heavy rail system previously travelled by car. 50 per cent of commuters on the Dallas light rail/heavy rail systems are new to public transport. In Vancouver, 75 per cent of the commuter rail users were single occupancy car travellers. In our own case, the patronage projections for the Northern Suburbs underestimated the demand so much, that in 1995 the Government was required to purchase another five two-car train sets. This gave an increased capacity of around 3000 people over a two-hour peak period. Today all that capacity is taken up and demand cannot be matched during the peak periods.
(2)– (6) When the initial study for a Northern Suburbs Transit System was carried out in 1988, the recommendation from this well researched, rigorous analysis was to use buses. The Government of the day rejected that advice and insisted on a fresh look at the issues involved. An equally (perhaps better) well researched, rigorous analysis recommended trains. As a result, Perth now has the very successful, internationally recognised Northern Suburbs Railway. The Government does not intend to have this debate all over again. The people of Perth have shown their overwhelming preference for rail. Urban rail patronage in Australia has increased 16 per cent in the last decade. The average car occupancy in Perth for peak period trips is about 1.1 persons which is wasteful of resources and environmentally unsustainable. Rail can attract people out of cars in a way buses cannot. There is data to show that Urban Rail is up to twice as energy efficient as buses. In Los Angeles, 90 per cent of users of the heavy rail system previously travelled by car. 50 per cent of commuters on the Dallas light rail/heavy rail systems are new to public transport. In Vancouver, 75 per cent of the commuter rail users were single occupancy car travellers. In our own case, the patronage projections for the Northern Suburbs underestimated the demand so much, that in 1995 the Government was required to purchase another five two-car train sets. This gave an increased capacity of around 3000 people over a two-hour peak period. Today all that capacity is taken up and demand cannot be matched during the peak periods.
An equally (perhaps better) well researched, rigorous analysis recommended trains. As a result, Perth now has the very successful, internationally recognised Northern Suburbs Railway. The Government does not intend to have this debate all over again. The people of Perth have shown their overwhelming preference for rail. Urban rail patronage in Australia has increased 16 per cent in the last decade. The average car occupancy in Perth for peak period trips is about 1.1 persons which is wasteful of resources and environmentally unsustainable. Rail can attract people out of cars in a way buses cannot. There is data to show that Urban Rail is up to twice as energy efficient as buses. In Los Angeles, 90 per cent of users of the heavy rail system previously travelled by car. 50 per cent of commuters on the Dallas light rail/heavy rail systems are new to public transport. In Vancouver, 75 per cent of the commuter rail users were single occupancy car travellers. In our own case, the patronage projections for the Northern Suburbs underestimated the demand so much, that in 1995 the Government was required to purchase another five two-car train sets. This gave an increased capacity of around 3000 people over a two-hour peak period. Today all that capacity is taken up and demand cannot be matched during the peak periods.
There is data to show that Urban Rail is up to twice as energy efficient as buses. In Los Angeles, 90 per cent of users of the heavy rail system previously travelled by car. 50 per cent of commuters on the Dallas light rail/heavy rail systems are new to public transport. In Vancouver, 75 per cent of the commuter rail users were single occupancy car travellers. In our own case, the patronage projections for the Northern Suburbs underestimated the demand so much, that in 1995 the Government was required to purchase another five two-car train sets. This gave an increased capacity of around 3000 people over a two-hour peak period. Today all that capacity is taken up and demand cannot be matched during the peak periods.
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.