It’s still expected that construction will begin on light rail stage 2B sometime between mid-2027 and mid-2029. Photo: ACT Government.
Light rail stage 2B’s construction timeframe remains as planned, but there’ll be a shorter window between when the final design is decided and when shovels are expected to break ground.
Transport Minister Chris Steel tabled a ministerial statement about the project’s progress to the Legislative Assembly during the first September sitting week. (Ministerial statements are usually read aloud at the start of each sitting day.)
Mr Steel’s statement noted the development of the project’s draft environmental impact statement had allowed the ACT Government to gain a “better understanding of the implications of the technical design and practicalities” of delivering stage 2B.
“[Because of this, the] indicative Project timeframes have been revised to reflect the complexity of preparing an EIS that satisfies both Commonwealth and ACT requirements and to address the extent of community feedback received on the draft EIS to date,” he noted in his statement.
The “work to progress” on the final concept design and environmental approvals has now been pushed out to mid-2026 (originally slated to be completed by March of this year).
Infrastructure Canberra will then progress with detailed design and planning approvals from now until late 2028 (originally mid-2028).
“[There will be] potential opportunities to undertake early and enabling works from 2027, subject to a future decision from government,” Mr Steel wrote.
“Further updates will continue to be provided to the Legislative Assembly on the updated timeframes and key delivery milestones for Stage 2B as the Project progresses.”
The timeline for iCBR to finalise the business case, undertake main works procurement, finalise the government investment decision, and award the contract for the main works has remained the same, slated for between mid-2027 and mid-2029.
“Timing for construction will be validated during procurement; however, based on an estimate on benchmark projects, this is expected to take in the order of four years, with testing and commissioning occurring for a period of up to 12 months post construction completion,” Mr Steel wrote.
With consultation on the draft EIS now closed (it shut on Friday, 5 September), the final concept design and revised EIS can be written.
“The revised, final EIS will include a report outlining the comments received, issues raised and a response to the issues identified, as well as identifying one route alignment,” Mr Steel noted.
“The final EIS will be lodged again with the Territory Planning Authority [TPA] and DCCEEW [Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water of Australia] for consideration, approval and publication.
“This process will determine if the project can proceed and, if so, under what conditions.”
Subsequent applications will then be submitted for approval, including the development application, Parliamentary approval and works approval.
Mr Steel noted that dual assessments (which require the approval of both the ACT and Commonwealth governments) were coordinated through bilateral agreements to streamline the processes.
However, the bilateral arrangements don’t apply in this case, as stage 2B will also involve National Land, designated areas, and land leased by the Commonwealth or its agencies.
Mr Steel said the ACT was working with regulators to try to streamline the project’s assessment wherever possible.
“This process is inherently time-intensive and at times not supported by a clear precedent for linear infrastructure projects of this nature, such was the case in early 2025 where iterative changes to the draft EIS in response to separate feedback from DCCEEW and the TPA triggered a restart of statutory completeness checks on the draft EIS,” he noted.
“However, I am confident the approach of the Project to align public exhibition and consultation requirements into a coherent and coordinated process, rather than progressing ACT and Commonwealth approvals independently, is in the best interest of the community.”
