proposed road projects such as WestConnex discussed below. This study also showed the importance of taking account of uncertainties in all key variables, not only the discount rate 1.2.1 The Transurban economic analysis for the M2 upgrade The cost benefit analysis (CBA) for the M2 upgrade was prepared by Transurban and is published at Appendix E of the M2 Upgrade EIS. (Hills M2, 2010) The results of the peer reviewed analysis (Goldberg, 2010) author’s cannot be reconciled with the Transurban result. The detailed reasons for the very large discrepancy [BCR = 0.27 (Goldberg)] as against [BCR = 3.4(Transurban)] have now been analysed in detail and reveal a systematic attempt by Transurban to incrementally misrepresent all key numerical factors in the analysis. In legal terms such misrepresentation could be but the overall termed “innocent”, intention is unmistakeable. The results of the two analyses are tabulated in Table 1 below. The results of the analysis and its uncertainties are qualified author’s results are given as they statistically. Transurban’s unqualified appear in its Road User Cost Benefit Analysis (RUCBA). The detailed reasons for the gross differences are given in the notes related to the specified quantities in Table 1. . TABLE 1. Comparison of results with those of the author. Transurban’s Quantity value Authors Notes Author’s Transurban’s over 36 years mean value (over (see below) (95% fiducial value 30 years) limits) Travel time $77.1m to $188.1m $1609.0m (1) savings $299,1m Savings in $0.27m to $0.65m $33.0m (2) accident costs $1.05m Savings in -$8.36m to --$39.6m $41m (3) vehicle -$69.3m operating costs Total $149.15m $1683.00m CAPEX=$500m BCR 0.29 3.4
proposed road projects such as WestConnex discussed below. This study also showed the importance of taking account of uncertainties in all key variables, not only the discount rate 1.2.1 The Transurban economic analysis for the M2 upgrade The cost benefit analysis (CBA) for the M2 upgrade was prepared by Transurban and is published at Appendix E of the M2 Upgrade EIS. (Hills M2, 2010) The results of the author’s peer reviewed analysis (Goldberg, 2010) cannot be reconciled with the Transurban result. The detailed reasons for the very large discrepancy [BCR = 0.27 (Goldberg)] as against [BCR = 3.4(Transurban)] have now been analysed in detail and reveal a systematic attempt by Transurban to incrementally misrepresent all key numerical factors in the analysis. In legal terms such misrepresentation could be termed “innocent”, but the overall intention is unmistakeable. The results of the two analyses are tabulated in Table 1 below. The results of the author’s analysis and its uncertainties are qualified statistically. Transurban’s unqualified results are given as they appear in its Road User Cost Benefit Analysis (RUCBA). The detailed reasons for the gross differences are given in the notes related to the specified quantities in Table 1. . TABLE 1. Comparison of Transurban’s results with those of the author. Quantity Author’s value over 36 years (95% fiducial limits) Authors mean value Transurban’s value (over 30 years) Notes (see below) Travel time savings $77.1m to $299,1m $188.1m $1609.0m (1) Savings in accident costs $0.27m to $1.05m $0.65m $33.0m (2) Savings in vehicle operating costs -$8.36m to -$69.3m --$39.6m $41m (3) Total $149.15m $1683.00m CAPEX=$500m BCR 0.29 3.4
subdr179-infrastructure.docx