Based on the case study link: https://www.audit.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-10/20201014-Follow-up-LXRP-report.pdf, I have to answer the below question but I would appreciate if a sample answer could be provided to show how I can improve my answer. Q. Describe one specific example of good project planningin the project. Provide your argument as to why it was an example of good planning. Previous research by Dvir, Raz and Henhar (2003) have validated that a project's success correlates with end-user benefit, which should be at the forefront of project planning in order to ensure that the benefit is achieved. It is the iterative planning for aproject such as the Level Crossing Removal Project's (LXRP) overall objective of removing dangerous and congested level crossing sites is mainly to ease traffic congestion that has a flow on effect of improving community health and safety ((Victorian Auditor-General's Office (VAGO) 2017; University of Melbourne News 2021).

The reason that part of the planning for LXRP was exemplar of good project planning was based on the Level Crossing Removal Authority(LXRA) analysed data from 276 level crossings using a source called the Australian Level Crossing Assessment Model (ALCAM) and VicRoads' traffic data (VAGO 2017). These innovative tools identified potential risks or inadequacies at, level crossings. In addition it selected sites for upgrades based on their incident history, near misses, collisions, fatalities and traffic data determining congestion. LXRA's site prioritisation framework outlined four site selection principles and underpinning factors that included (i) Movement- Across the network; (ii) Place-Local access; (iii) Safety-Incidents and risks and (iv) Delivery efficiency (VAGO 2017). This helped to significantly improve the LXRP because it provided the Victorian government with a comprehensive understanding of what deliverables could be achieved for different investment levels (VAGO 2017). To conclude LXRA considered future requirement to assess if the level crossing would inevitably need removal in beyond 2026 based on a movement, place or safety perspective; corridor completion to assess if removing less level crossings would separate an entire rail corridor section from road and foot traffic; land use opportunity to assess ifremoving the level crossing would lead to other land use and transport benefits, such as significant precinct or urban renewal and network importance to assess if removing the site would significantly improve the movement of people and goods across the transport network (VAGO 2017). References 1. PMI (Project Management Institute). 2017. A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK Guide). 6^th Edition. Newtown Square, Pennsylvania: PMI, Inc. PART 2: SECTION 3 (Planning Process Group) (PAGES 565 - 594)

2. Dvir, D., T. Raz and A. SHenhar. 2003. "An empirical analysis of the relationship between project planning and project success." International Journal of Project Management 21(2): 89-95.

3. https://findanexpert.unimelb.edu.au/news/14113-level-crossing-removals--a-case-study-in-why-major-projects-must-also-be-investments-in-health