MCU14/0106 & OPW15/0001 Compiled Information Request Response

i Consumer Travel

7.4 NON-STANDARD PARAMETER VALUES

Information request:

‘The Retail Needs Assessment assigns monetary values to travel time and environmental
benefits associated with reduced trip length and/or generation associated with an expanded

Noosa Civic.

There are concerns relating to the application of non-standard parameter values to the
travel time and travel distance savings. For example, the individual travel time of $28.95 per
hour is based on the average hourly earnings of employed persons in Queensland.

Standardised parameter values for the value of an individual's travel time as commonly
used in transport evaluations are estimated by Austroads at approximately
$15/hour...reflecting the need to balance the value of leisure related time against the value
of work related time, and the fact that not all time savings can be utilised.

The assessment calculates a benefit associated with fuel savings using a retail fuel price as
the parameter value as opposed to the adjusted resource cost of fuel. Austroads offers a
range of vehicle operating cost parameter values for use in transport economic
assessments that can be adjusted for inflation’.

Response:
The statement above that:

Standardised parameter values for the value of an individual's travel time as commonly
used in transport evaluations are estimated by Austroads at approximately
$15/hour...reflecting the need to balance the value of leisure related time against the value
of work related time, and the fact that not all time savings can be utilised.

does not accord with accepted theory and other studies relating to the value placed on leisure time, and
in our view is not the approach that should be adopted. It is certainly true though that individuals may
actually place a higher value on their leisure time, so the Austroads approach is actually very
conservative and there are plenty of alternative examples to support the approach and values used in the

DA report.

In the event that Council would prefer a sensitivity analysis we would suggest that at $15 the benefits
shown in the DA report could be halved for the downside; but similarly it would be appropriate to
recognise that a higher value is actually more likely, and an upside outcome could be 50% higher than

that indicated in the DA report.

URBIS
NOOSA RESPONSE REPORT - RETAIL ECONOMICS JUNE 2015 V2 CONSUMER TRAVEL 2 1