30 June 2025

Light Rail Stage 2B costing to start soon, plus help to decide final route

| By Ian Bushnell
Join the conversation
113

Light Rail Stage 2B will require a new bridge across Lake Burley Griffin. Image: ACT Government.

The crucial work of estimating how much Light Rail Stage 2B will cost, which will help decide the project’s final route, is in train, with the ACT Government seeking a consultant to advise it.

But the successful consultant’s calculations will remain secret so as not to impact contract negotiations and future procurement.

Construction of Light Rail Stage 2B is timed to begin once the 2A extension from Alinga Street to Commonwealth Park is completed and up and running in 2028.

It will extend the line from Commonwealth Park across Lake Burley Griffin through the Parliamentary Triangle and down Adelaide Avenue to the new Woden interchange.

READ ALSO Pokies regulator not adequately monitoring licensee compliance: audit report

The project is the most ambitious and costly of the light rail roll-out, involving new bridges across the Lake and on Adelaide Avenue, 10 km of track, nine new stops and other infrastructure.

It will also include substations and upgrades to the existing Mitchell Depot site to house additional light rail vehicles, staff and storage.

There are two route options through the Parliamentary Triangle still on the table – State Circle east, from Commonwealth Avenue along State Circle to Adelaide Avenue; and National Triangle-Barton, from Commonwealth Avenue along King George Terrace, Macquarie Street, Bligh Street, National Circuit, and Sydney Avenue before connecting with State Circle.

The cost of each route option will be a significant factor in the government’s final decision and the consultant will provide a cost comparison for the government.

The consultant will have to take into account the findings of the draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) being developed as part of the approvals process.

The draft EIS submitted last year will be assessed by agencies and placed on public exhibition later this year. A final, revised EIS that includes the chosen route would then be submitted to regulators, with approval expected in 2026.

The project needs to be approved by the Territory Planning Authority, National Capital Authority and both Houses of Parliament.

There are two potential route options through the Parliamentary Triangle. Image: ACT Government

There are two potential route options through the Parliamentary Triangle. Image: ACT Government

Both routes face challenges that could inflate costs.

In 2023, the government revealed that the initially favoured direct route to State Circle had hit an engineering obstacle where the line transitions from Commonwealth Avenue to State Circle.

Last year, it proposed a short tunnel, known as a cut and cover, as a potential solution. This would mean the tracks on the Commonwealth Avenue median would descend on the approach to Parliament, going under Commonwealth Avenue and popping out on the State Circle median.

The route through Parkes and Barton has always been considered more complex and costly because of the number of environmental and heritage hurdles.

The so-called dogleg also defeats the idea of the north-south spine and would increase the journey time.

The cost estimates will inform the Business Case. But the public won’t get to see them because they will be considered commercial in confidence, and any release would impact future tenders and contract negotiations. They would also be part of future Cabinet deliberations and decision making.

The tender document says the consultant will provide expert advice on costs, cost planning, budgeting and risk analysis.

The consultant will also act as Infrastructure Canberra’s independent cost estimating adviser for the project and may have to estimate the cost of subsidiary projects as well as early and enabling works.

READ ALSO New caretakers investigating ways to show off Albert Hall’s strong history

The tender document says the consultant must use labour and material base rates valid at the actual time of its calculations and adjust material rates if there are any changes.

The consultant will also assess the impact of the project schedule on costs.

Any escalation of costs should only be applied for works forecast for financial years after the agreed base date.

All estimates are to be finalised with a list of assumptions, allowances, exclusions and qualifications.

The tender closes on 22 July.

Free Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? We package the most-read Canberra stories and send them to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.
Loading
By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.

Join the conversation

113
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

We need a… MONORAIL! They’ve been sold to Brockway, Ogdenville and North Haverbrook, and by gum it put them on the map! Anyone have Lyle Lanley’s number?

I suppose steam engines would have been envisioned. But not suitable in today’s city. Actually I’m not sure gantry wiring is any better. ACT seems to be selecting solutions from last century.

Not even ACT government insiders believe keeping the cost a secret is about getting the best value for money. Keeping the cost estimate secret just reinforces the feeling that the government isn’t being honest with the public. We’ve already seen repeated blowouts on previous projects where the cost hasn’t been disclosed, so it’s hard to see this as anything other than trying to avoid scrutiny. If the numbers were reassuring and the return on investment high, they’d release the details. Hiding them only erodes trust, fuels cynicism, and shuts the community out of decisions that directly affect us—not just financially, but in terms of what kind of city and public transport system we’re building.

YES! Bring it on!

Ergh! From what I’ve read of this it sounds like they want the Light Rail to into Commonwealth park first? I don’t understand what the fuss is about and why they don’t just run the Light Rail through to Woden.

Capital Retro9:59 pm 01 Jul 25

I’ve known for some time why tram salespeople are so successful and when I posed the question of why to AI (Aggregated Information) I got the same answer.

“Tram salespeople can be successful due to several factors, including the captive audience provided by public transport, the potential for targeted advertising, and the unique opportunity to engage with potential customers in a relaxed environment.”

Who were the lucky people from ACT Government of the day that were engaged in the “relaxed environment”?

Adam Newsead8:02 pm 01 Jul 25

Shouldn’t there be a third option also costed? If it’s fine in theory for the line to go along King Edward Terrace, why can’t it then turn right onto Kings Ave to go up to State Circle? Seems this would solve the obvious problems already identified with the two options that have been short-listed for costing. Or is the strategy here really to make the second option that snakes through the back streets of Barton look so ridiculous that the ACT Govt’s clearly preferred option of an expensive tunnel looks better??

Leon Arundell4:42 pm 01 Jul 25

A more important question is, “what is the best way to spend that money?” The ACT Government estimates that keeping Adelaide Avenue’s transit lanes will result in 5% MORE public transport travel over the whole of the ACT, compared with replacing those transit lanes with light rail. Keeping Adelaide Avenue’s transit lanes will also result in less car travel, and therefore less traffic congestion. The Auditor General revealed in 2021 that the government had estimated the cost of stage 2B at $905 million.

Sadly, transit lanes are so unstable. Most of the North bound Adelaide Ave transit lane has disappeared. It is now an ordinary traffic lane. It can’t be kept if it doesn’t exist.

Roger,
If you honestly think you need something so permanent so it doesnt get changed, surely a value capture tax on nearby properties, who benefit the most, should be used to fund it.

The idea of permanence also goes both ways, if it isn’t used or is subsequently made redundant, the entire asset becomes stranded.

Can someone please tell me why light rail is more efficient, more cost effective and more efficient than electricity powered buses, which can change their route as needs change?

A significant advantage of light rail is route and reliable service stability. That gives confidence to invest in property close to, and rely more, on public transport. The instability of bus routes bit us hard when we moved to Canberra. Assured by ACTION that a specific service was “being improved” we made a purchase near a stop. Within a month of moving in, the service disappeared entirely – some “improvement”!
An electric bus is still just a bus with a different fuel and engine benefitting the environment. It is not a magic solution to the general disadvantages inherent in urban bus travel.
Are you comfortable as a standing passenger on an urban bus whizzing along roads at 80kph, such as the Parkway (well known for frequent accidents)? How can this aspect be costed?
Cost efficiency and effectiveness has its limitations. Light Rail stage 1 is a widely publicised user success (about 1/4 of the entire Transport Canberra urban transport). There is little value in investing in something costing better on paper, if many potential users who can, avoid its use.

I am glad you asked Tony G. All big cities have seen the benefits of introducing light rail to their networks. The popularity and economic benefits the Gungahlin to Civic light rail route has brought to our city are enormous.

Light rail is popular, it reduces congestion and brings significant long term economic, social and environmental benefits. Sydney, Brisbane, Gold Coast, Melbourne and Adelaide have seen the benefits of light rail and are expanding their networks.

Canberrans have voted for light rail at the last four elections, get on board!

David Flannery4:20 pm 01 Jul 25

Yep, exactly! Well said!

The electric bus is simply a platform and advanced functionality can be built on it, such as driver-less AI driving, on-demand despatching while the tram is centuries old technology, hugely expensive, inflexible, and high maintenance.

From my experience the costs are alarmingly high, and it raises suspicion that someone might have ties to a concrete factory 🙂
I have been working on the Shenzhen metro, nearly 500kms in 15 years, 17 lines and 400 stations. As well as on the Riyadh metro project, completed in under 10 years, 85 kms, 3 lines and 85 remarkable stations-not mere tram stops copy and paste as those found in Canberra. Well linked with buses, under roof, below and above ground.
It is fascinating to note that Australia reaps far greater profits from mineral resources sales-$480 billions, compared to Saudi Arabias $180 billions yet the Saudis invest so much more in public transport, same as in free healthcare, education, housing first model etc.

Strange that for all this claimed “success” of the first stage of light rail, patronage levels are still significantly below the forecast 2021 patronage in the government’s business case used to justify the project.

A business case that only had transport benefits of ~20c in the dollar in the first place.

But of course these facts dont matter to those talking about the ephemeral but unquantified actual benefits of light rail that we’ve all apparently received from the first stage.

Canberran, your cute swipe at the tram applies equally well to buses (about 1830), cars (about 1885), aircraft (1783), radio (1901), digital computing (abacus), etc.. All these things, including trams, have evolved over time and are not as they were ‘centuries old’.
Ubiquitous driver-less road vehicles are still a pipe dream. On the other hand, routine service driver-less trams/light rail, trains, etc have already existed for up to nearly half a century! (Including recently in Australia – heavy haul in the Pilbara). Is this ‘old tech’ too?

Capital Retro10:20 am 01 Jul 25

This is what he said 2 years ago:

https://region.com.au/steel-vows-no-retreat-on-light-rail-stage-2b-after-route-doubts-emerge/681176/

The Feds have Chris Bowen, we have Steel.

David Flannery10:17 am 01 Jul 25

The Barton route, although longer and clearly more costly, should be the chosen option. The Barton route will capture a much larger passenger base… think all the offices, apartments and hotels along (and near to) National Circuit and Sydney Avenue, the National Institutions in the Parliamentary Zone, plus about 300m to Manuka Oval. Very few passengers will seek to embark or alight down in the state Circle cutting. The route to Woden was NEVER only about delivering Woden passengers to Civic in the fastest possible time as some continue to claim. The claim of “heritage issues” is a myth. There numerous examples of light rail running past old and historic buildings without impact… including past our former National Parliament building in Spring St Melbourne.

The problem with the longer route is that it may capture a “potential” larger passenger base, that may not actually translate into actual passengers because the travel times are so much more excessive than the alternatives.

David Flannery1:35 pm 01 Jul 25

Yes, but travel to and from where? After Light Rail 2B reaches Woden there will be 25 stations on the total route from Gungahlin to Woden. Passengers will be able to undertake journeys between any two of those stations, not just the trip from Woden to Civic. A whole bunch (hundreds in fact) of new journeys that have never been possible on a single ride. Think Watson to Parliament House, Curtin to Dickson, Yarralumla to Mitchell, Gungahlin to Manuka Oval. It will be a game-changer for public transport in Canberra, and, with less cars on the road, it will benefit car drivers too.

David,
That’s my point, you “may” be able to go from Curtin to Dickson for example but if it takes so much longer than just driving yourself or just not going because of the time imposts, the functionality doesn’t help from an overall transport perspective.

And thoughts of further extensions down to Tuggeranong for example become even less viable.

It would be just as viable to include a loop bus for the Parliamentary triangle areas as an offshoot of the main light spine rail until future connections are made.

Capital Retro2:26 pm 01 Jul 25

Incredibly, neither of Canberra’s two hospitals will have one of those 25 stations.

It will mean even more cars on the road.

We should have first a spine – fast link between major centres. Then we may add additional tram lines to this – one for example to Barton, Manuka, Kingston and train station. This is how it is done and was done 100+ years ago in the cities worldwide and works till this day very well. Trust me.

Leon Arundell4:46 pm 01 Jul 25

David Flannery should read the government’s Business Case for Light Rail Stage 2A. It estimates that keeping Adelaide Avenue’s transit lanes will result in 5% more public transport travel, over the whole of the ACT, compared with replacing those transit lanes with light rail.

David Flannery5:26 pm 02 Jul 25

What you claim about bus transit lanes may well be true Leon, but international case studies have demonstrated that light rail is more than just about public transport. Moreover, it is overwhelmingly about city building, encouraging transit oriented development and arresting the proliferation of sprawl on the fringe of the city where every journey away from home has to commence in a motor car. Look at what’s happened in just six years along the Stage 1 route – Flemington Rd and Northbourne Ave. And, light rail patronage in Canberra is now over 40% of all public transport trips. I know you know all this.. but despite the evidence you keep banging the “bus is better” drum.

David,
Light rail isn’t 40% of public transport usage, the last figures are about 20%.

And if stage 1 is so successful, why are these patronage rates still so far below the forecast 2021 demand in the government’s business case for that stage? Where the transport benefits were measured at around ~20c in the dollar.

A business case that even then, showed a very poor return on investment, including “wider economic benefits” that are typically excluded because they are too hard to measure or track the realisation of.

Its strange that the actual facts keep getting raised yet the response is either to ignore them or bring in buzz words like city building/shaping, transformative, visionary etc.

Light rail may well have benefits in a global setting but that doesnt mean its right or affordable for Canberra.

Urban renewal and densification dont actually require light rail to occur.

Its quite reasonable for individuals to have a preference for certain solutions but that doesnt mean we should spend billions of dollars of public funds on them without objective and systematic investigation and assessment of alternatives.

David Flannery7:51 pm 02 Jul 25

Ok chewy14, 20% is correct 👍, but that is still a big number for just one route compared to the multiple number of bus routes across and through the city. The 40%figure I had in my head was for the proportion of light rail passengers who had never before used public transport in Canberra. 😀

David,
How is a “big” number relevant?

Its all related to the size of the area serviced, population, transport needs etc.

And the “big” number is still well below forecast 2021 patronage despite population growth being higher than expected along the route.

The patronage of my local bus has significantly reduced since the government changed the route significantly lengthening travel time.

Does this mean buses arent effective public transport in my area or is it a reflection of poor route selection and connectivity?

Next week in the city we are going to have a money burning ceremony.

Stage 2B delivering a tourist tram from city into massive debt.

Why, they want to make transport slower for half of Canberra so it makes it less practical to use.

You’d think that Australia has the skills to put in their own tram system. We can’t even support Australian made. Why is bar going to a trade expo to showcase what we can do.

What’s the budget to have the consultant approve it regardless. If the first doesn’t they’ll find one that will. Steele needs to be investigated for his spending and not internally.

So the ACT government is committing to billions of dollars we don’t have without even so much as a business case. Just astonishing.

Just to show how obviously bad this is from a governance perspective, even Penfold gets it.

And that’s speaks volumes.

Where does the article say that? It says “The cost estimates will inform the Business Case” and that the consultant will consider all relevant matters relating to the project and advise.
Perhaps you should read it again?

Stuart the business case comes before anything. It informs the decision whether to proceed or not.

They’re already building bridges over Parkes Way so the decision has already been made. The business case will just rubber stamp the route. Just reckless. So bad even chewy gets it 🤣

Stuart M,
Where has the government suggested any new information provided in the investigations would change their position on delivering the project?

The project has been so infected with political rhetoric that considered infrastructure planning and decision making has long been thrown out the windows.

Penfold, you need to develop a cost estimate in order to inform a business case. A business case also needs to consider risks, including environmental, which may impact benefit realisation. Also, an “approvals process” does not mean it’ll be approved.

Otherwise, this is about 2B and NOT 2A. The latter is already approved and terminates at Commonwealth Park, and that includes the bridges over Parkes Way.

Regardless, while I do support Light Rail, I don’t support the Woden extension – and I live Southside. All I’m seeking to do is correct your comments.

Stuart yes I know what you’re saying about the cart before the horse in terms of the business case.

My point is that it’s just semantics from this ideological government. Why build to Regatta Point ? They’ve clearly decided to build to Woden and the cost/benefit any business case delivers won’t mean one iota in their decision making.

2CC a few weeks ago said 2A delivered 27 cents in benefits for every dollar spent, and that’s proceeding. The signs of good governance or decision making left this white elephant years ago.

Stuart,
Once again you’re either being deliberately obtuse or naiive around development of the project.

Whilst the stage isn’t formally approved or funded, the government has already made it an article of faith that it will happen regardless of anything included or excluded in the business case.

A business case would also typically look at the alternative options available, whereas the government has already excluded any option not involving light rail as the solution.

Leon Arundell4:54 pm 01 Jul 25

The ACT Government has produced two business cases for light rail stage 2. The 2018 business case, which it kept secret until recently, concluded that stage 2 would cost twice as much as the value of its expected benefits. The elements of its 2019 business case (included in the business case for stage 2A) implied that stage 2 would cost $1,201 million (including wire-free running) and would deliver $1,217 million worth of benefits. Then the cost of stage 2a blew out by more than $500 million.

Penfold, I’ll just offer this and then leave this conversation as Chewy has become involved and then it typically becomes silly.

The idea to build to Regatta Point is a good one IMHO. Stage 2A leverages from the existing investment of Stage 1 to soak in residents, students and tourists from the ANU and Acton precincts. The further extension to Regatta Point provides additional safe, transport there for events such as Floriade and Skyfire which minimises traffic conjestion and parking issues. I have seen first-hand the impact on traffic there and witnessed the risk to pedestrians trying to cross Commonwealth Ave and Parkes Way during those times – 2A will help to alleviate that. For all other times, the LR will provide ready access for tourists to the Acton waterfront and Commonwealth Park.

But again, I personally don’t support the 2B proposition. The cost and impact to traverse the lake and reach Adelaide Ave will (should?) negatively tip the Cost-Benefit balance.

Ah, I see Stuart M is allergic to facts, he somehow thinks they are “silly”.

Stage 2A provides almost no transport connectivity as the government’s own business case for the project found. Perhaps you should read it?

And that busines case included a cost that was significantly lower than the final contract that the government signed, nor the enabling costs of raising London Circuit which were excluded as only a development project. The actual cost benefit ratio in 2025 would be far lower.

Providing permanent mass transport for one off peak events like Floriade or Skyfire makes little sense from a transport or economic sense, especially when that transport is only provided from one direction, with the bulk of the population having no access to it anyway.

Stuart – for Floriade and the food festival 2A will be useful. For the other 49 weeks of the year it will likely be a white elephant.

As for 2B and chewy we’re in full agreement.

We already knew you were allergic to facts Pengold, your confirmation was redundant.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Region Canberra stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.