Therefore, Scenario 1 represents a situation in which further reform does not occur even if Reform option A or B is undertaken. In contrast, Scenario 2 represents a situation in which further reforms are undertaken, and the end-state reform is subsequently reached at a time later than the current Phase 2 reforms. Importantly, the timing of further reforms may be affected by the decision to either not undertake the proposed reforms or to implement Reform option A or B. The framework for the assessment of the three reform options (base case, Option A and Option B) and the two scenarios is summarised in Table 2. Table 2: Framework for assessing the options and scenarios Scenario 1: Scenario 2: No further reform Further reform undertaken Reject Heavy vehicle reforms stall Heavy vehicle reforms stall for a period of current indefinitely time reforms Phases 2 and 3 (or equivalent) implemented (base case) post 2020 Full end reached after mid 2020s (i.e. at a time after that would have been achieved under Reform option A or B) No additional cost No additional cost No additional benefits No additional benefits Option A Option A is implemented, but further Reform option A is implemented in 2020 heavy vehicle reforms stall and reforms continue indefinitely Phase 3 is implemented shortly after Full end state is reached in mid-2020s Only and benefits directly The full end is reached earlier than attributed to Option A are relevant under the base case Option B Option B is implemented, but further Reform option B is implemented in 2020 heavy vehicle reforms stall and reforms continue indefinitely Phase 3 is implemented shortly after Full end state is reached in mid-2020s Only costs and benefits directly The full end is reached earlier than attributed to Option B are relevant under the base case Source: Marsden Jacob analysis. Regulatory burden measurement approach In addition to providing a CBA, we have considered the impact on industry from complying with the changes in requirements that would occur under the reform options. The assessment of changes in industry costs is often referred to as burden ‘regulatory measurement’ and focuses only on changes in private-sector costs. Furthermore, regulatory burden does not include costs of actions that the industry would take anyway, which are referred to as as usual’ costs. ‘business
Therefore, Scenario 1 represents a situation in which further reform does not occur even if Reform option A or B is undertaken. In contrast, Scenario 2 represents a situation in which further reforms are undertaken, and the end-state reform is subsequently reached at a time later than the current Phase 2 reforms. Importantly, the timing of further reforms may be affected by the decision to either not undertake the proposed reforms or to implement Reform option A or B. The framework for the assessment of the three reform options (base case, Option A and Option B) and the two scenarios is summarised in Table 2. Table 2: Framework for assessing the options and scenarios Scenario 1: No further reform Scenario 2: Further reform undertaken Reject current reforms (base case) Heavy vehicle reforms stall indefinitely Heavy vehicle reforms stall for a period of time Phases 2 and 3 (or equivalent) implemented post 2020 Full end reached after mid 2020s (i.e. at a time after that would have been achieved under Reform option A or B) No additional cost No additional benefits No additional cost No additional benefits Option A Option A is implemented, but further heavy vehicle reforms stall indefinitely Reform option A is implemented in 2020 and reforms continue Phase 3 is implemented shortly after Full end state is reached in mid-2020s Only and benefits directly attributed to Option A are relevant The full end is reached earlier than under the base case Option B Option B is implemented, but further heavy vehicle reforms stall indefinitely Reform option B is implemented in 2020 and reforms continue Phase 3 is implemented shortly after Full end state is reached in mid-2020s Only costs and benefits directly attributed to Option B are relevant The full end is reached earlier than under the base case Source: Marsden Jacob analysis. Regulatory burden measurement approach In addition to providing a CBA, we have considered the impact on industry from complying with the changes in requirements that would occur under the reform options. The assessment of changes in industry costs is often referred to as ‘regulatory burden measurement’ and focuses only on changes in private-sector costs. Furthermore, regulatory burden does not include costs of actions that the industry would take anyway, which are referred to as ‘business as usual’ costs.