Together they are Brisbane’s most significant public transport projects – two plans to prevent river bottlenecks for city buses and trains.
The Brisbane metro and cross-river rail projects are even designed to work together. If only the federal and Queensland governments could get on board and agree on a direction.
Guardian Australia understands the federal government will allocate roughly $300m in funding for the Brisbane metro bus project in the upcoming budget. The rest of the $1bn total cost comes from the Brisbane city council, which manages the bus network.
On Monday, federal Labor promised $2.2bn for cross-river rail, a project the Queensland government is already committed to financing without federal help. So far, the Turnbull government won’t help pay for the rail plan, which involves building four new underground stations and alleviating a key choke point, citing problems with the state’s business case.
In 2012, a version of the cross-river rail plan was assessed as “ready to proceed” by Infrastructure Australia. But IA now instead ranks the metro project among its top priorities nationally and says “the benefits of [cross-river rail], as set out in the business case, are significantly overstated, and the costs of the project as currently presented are likely to exceed its benefits”.
The metro project scores higher than cross-river rail on a cost-benefit analysis. Largely because the cost is relatively low, work could start immediately, and a bus interchange at the South Brisbane cultural precinct is long overdue.
Brisbane is also a bus city. Dedicated busways allow for short and efficient trips. The city’s rail network is not as extensive as in Sydney or Melbourne, and buses are a more convenient form of travel for many residents.
The deputy premier, Jackie Trad, says the state is very supportive of the metro, which will ultimately compliment cross-river rail.
Trad says the rail project, which she has consistently championed, has a full and peer-reviewed business case, and would allow the government to expand the network, which is likely to become overcrowded within a decade.
“Without [cross-river rail], rail services will be completely unable to keep up with growth,” Trad says.
Trad points to the recent federal decision to fund the $5bn Tullamarine line in Melbourne, which is listed in the lowest-priority category by IA, as evidence that federal funding decisions had been hijacked by “short-term politics”.
She says “successive LNP governments have ensured it was put on the backburner”.
Unable to get federal funding, the Queensland government announced in 2017 it would fund the cross-river rail project itself. The state opposition has maintained a soft position – not outright opposed to the project but publicly unconvinced it has merit for the cost.
The opposition leader, Deb Frecklington, points to the business case that listed capital costs as $5.4bn, with another $9bn required in operational and auxiliary costs.
“Annastacia Palaszczuk and Jackie Trad said they could deliver cross-river rail by themselves,” Frecklington says. “The fact [federal Labor] has promised 50% of the operational costs shows that this project is way more than the $5.4 bn Labor keeps spruiking.”
The LNP holds the federal seat of Brisbane by about 6% but the electorate is a top target of both Labor and the Greens, and both parties believe it can be won. Public transport is, unsurprisingly for the inner-city, near the top of voters’ list of concerns.
Coalition sources say the government’s re-election pitch to city voters will likely be around funding the metro.
Last week, Brisbane MP Trevor Evans was polling voters on the metro, with a preamble that reinforced that the bus project was among infrastructure Australia’s top-six priorities. Evans has also set up a petition for metro funding.
The federal LNP member appears more positive about cross-river rail than his state counterparts. But he says the metro should be the priority for funding and that he is “fighting hard” to have the project included in this year’s budget.
“It’s important that we get the politics out of infrastructure decisions and that the experts give governments advice on which proposals are best,” Evans says. “That’s actually why Infrastructure Australia was created and why it exists.
“Infrastructure Australia has listed Brisbane Metro as being in the nation’s top six high-priority projects and my view is that it should be funded accordingly.”
Evans says the metro should not be seen an alternative to cross-river rail.
“Both projects will be critical to Brisbane’s future because there are emerging bottlenecks for both the train network and the bus network,” he says. “But I’m also conscious that twice as many people uses buses than trains in Brisbane.
“I want to see both projects developed in a collaborative and cooperative way because of the huge benefits for Brisbane, but both projects should proceed on their own timelines and on their own merits.
“The business case for the cross-river rail is not yet as advanced or ready.”
