Appendix E. LXRP benefits management plan
FIGURE E1: Site assessment framework—LXRA benefits and KPIs
Appendix D. LXRP sites
FIGURE D1: The first 50 level crossing removal sites (LXRP1)
Appendix C. Scope of this audit
| Who we audited | What we assessed | What the audit cost |
|---|---|---|
| DoT and MTIA | We assessed if DoT and MTIA have effectively addressed the recommendations from our 2017 audit Managing the Level Crossings Removal Program. | The cost of this audit was $225 000. |
Our method
Appendix B. Acronyms, abbreviations and glossary
| Acronyms | |
|---|---|
| ALCAM | Australian Level Crossing Assessment Model |
| DEDJTR | Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources |
| DoT | Department of Transport |
| DTF | Department of Treasury and Finance |
| HVHR |
Appendix A. Submissions and comments
We have consulted with DoT and MTIA and we considered their views when reaching our audit conclusions. As required by the Audit Act 1994, we gave a draft copy of this report, or relevant extracts, to those agencies and asked for their submissions and comments.
Responsibility for the accuracy, fairness and balance of those comments rests solely with the agency head.
5. Network integrity and standards governance
Conclusion
Our 2017 audit found significant weaknesses in PTV’s network integrity controls and the process it used to manage changes to engineering standards.
While DoT has introduced new systems to govern standards and assure network integrity, 2019 machinery of government changes have made further work necessary. Until this work is complete, there is a risk that project delivery agencies and contractors may be unsure about the standards their projects need to meet.
4. Managing benefits
Conclusion
In 2017 we found that LXRA was using unclear KPIs to measure the benefits of individual level crossing removals. We also found that LXRA was not progressively monitoring whether the project was achieving its intended benefits.
3. Procurement and packaging
Conclusion
Our 2017 audit found that LXRA’s procurement approach may not achieve value for money because not all sites would be subject to full price competition. While LXRA had set up mechanisms to minimise costs, these were untested.
MTIA has since changed its procurement approach. While this has further reduced price competition, MTIA is using its benchmarking tool effectively to manage costs. It is also incentivising the program alliances to share lessons learnt to achieve cost savings across the whole project.
2. Developing LXRP2
Conclusion
Our 2017 audit found that DEDJTR did not analyse if the 50 level crossing sites that the government had committed to remove were the most dangerous and congested. We also found that DEDJTR and LXRA did not develop a business case to outline the project’s intended benefits before starting construction.
Since then, LXRA developed and applied a transparent process to select sites for LXRP2. This new process has improved the project’s cost-effectiveness because it uses delivery efficiency as one of the criteria for site selection.
1. Audit context
Established in 2015, the LXRP is one of the government’s major transport infrastructure projects. It aims to reduce pressures on the transport network by easing road congestion and travel delays caused by level crossings. It also intends to improve safety by decreasing the chance of accidents involving trains and road users or pedestrians.
Our 2017 audit Managing the Level Crossing Removal Program examined the effectiveness of the LXRP and made 10 recommendations to improve it.