Auditor-General report highlights risk of cost blowouts for Level Crossing Removal Program

THE Andrews Government pledge to remove Melbourne’s “most dangerous and congested” railway level crossings has been exposed as a sham in a damning ­new report.

The report raises fears of further cost blowouts with complex works ahead. Picture: AAP

THE Andrews Government pledge to remove Melbourne’s “most dangerous and congested” railway level crossings has been exposed as a sham in a damning ­report by the Victorian Auditor-General’s Office.

The report reveals that 29 of the 50 level crossings targeted in Labor’s 2014 key election promise were rated as low or no priority by VicRoads just a year earlier.

Another seven that VicRoads deemed as high or medium priority have been ignored.

$300M BLOWOUT FOR CROSSING REMOVALS

PEOPLE DICE WITH DEATH DAILY AT BOOMGATES

The report found public servants failed to give “full and frank advice” on which sites to target, even after the Andrews Government was elected and pushed ahead with the project.

“As a result, the April 2017 approved business case does not include any analysis or rationale for why the 50 level crossings were selected as higher priority — or demonstrate that they were more dangerous and congested — than other level crossings,” the report states.

“The 50 selected level crossing sites include a number of sites that have not been identified as dangerous and congested,” it adds.

The report raises fears of further cost blowouts with complex works ahead. Picture: AAP

Opposition public transport spokesman David Davis said the Victoria Auditor-General’s Office (VAGO) had blown the whistle on the program.

“They (the government) were warned by the auditor that they needed a business case before they proceeded, but they proceeded nonetheless and now we see the consequences,” he said.

“These are not the most dangerous and congested level crossings. We have seen (Premier) Daniel Andrews’ wall-to-wall advertising claiming ‘the most dangerous and congested’.

“The auditor blows the whistle on that claim and Dan Andrews should stop his ads today because they are wrong.

“There are other crossings that are more dangerous he has left off. He spent millions on an advertising campaign that was a pack of lies.”

Mr Andrews boasted about the policy within weeks of his 2014 election. “My team will get straight to work fixing schools, ending the ambulance crisis, creating jobs, saving TAFE and removing the 50 most dangerous and congested level crossings,” he said.

Public Transport Minister Jacinta Allan yesterday downplayed suggestions that “postcode politics” had decided which crossings would go.

SKYRAIL IN BERWICK IS ‘ONLY ALTERNATIVE’

WERE WE RAILROADED INTO CROSSING REMOVALS?

Premier Daniel Andrews, and the public transport minister Jacinta Allan at a level crossing announcement in Bentleigh. Picture: Yuri Kouzmin

She said the government had committed to the 50 locations while in opposition, ­before it had seen VicRoads’ priority list.

“We worked on information publicly available to us at the time, that included the RACV’s list of 30 dangerous and congested level crossings,” Ms Allan said. “The level crossings that we committed to in opposition are those that we are delivering in government.”

A crossing on Union Road in Surrey Hills is among four identified as high priority by VicRoads but not earmarked for removal.

Ranked as Australia’s 13th most dangerous crossing in a 2008 report, it was the scene of a horror collision last year in which two elderly women died.

By contrast, questions were yesterday asked about a contract signed to remove a level crossing in Werribee no longer used by passenger trains. Just four freight trains use it daily.

The Auditor-General’s report also revealed the project’s budget had blown out from $5-6 billion to $8.3 billion.

It warned that the bill could continue to rise as the government fast-tracked the work: “This pace presents risks to achieving value for money.”

Treasurer Tim Pallas said: “This is, in many ways, an illustration of why governments should probably never talk about the cost of a project until they sign the contracts.”

[e-mail]