Melbourne-Brisbane inland rail budget blowout feared due to construction costs

An explanation is being demanded after “alarming disparities” were raised between original and recent plans for the Melbourne-Brisbane inland rail.

Construction costs for the Melbourne to Brisbane inland rail are escalating.

The length of bridges needed for sections of the Melbourne-Brisbane inland rail is more than three times what planners originally estimated, prompting concerns the $15 billion project’s budget will blowout even further.

Letters tabled to a Senate inquiry into the landmark project raise “alarming disparities” between 2015 construction estimates and those of 2020, and call for the Australian Rail Track Corporation to explain the ballooning costs.

“I have no confidence the project can finish what it has started and as such places all our communities at significant risk,” Narromine to Narrabri community consultative committee member Andrew Knop stated.

The Federal Government promised $8.5 billion for the 1700km track in 2017, which was then estimated to cost about $10 billion in total. But costs have already escalated, with the Government allocating another $5.5 billion to the project in December last year.

The project has been plagued with difficulties along the proposed track, particularly in NSW where farmers and other landholders say ARTC has not consulted with them properly over the final route, which includes large tracts of greenfield sites traversing flood plains.

A letter from the Narromine-Narrabri CCC to the Department of Infrastructure’s Andrew Bourne last December – tabled last week to the Senate – highlights concerns that while the 2015 estimates allowed for 9601m of bridging along the whole track, current documents indicated at least 35,422m would be needed.

“The requirements of only three of the 73 N2N (Narromine-Narrabri) bridging structures have used almost 300 per cent of the (N2N) allocation,” the letter read.

“These figures are replicated along the entire Melbourne to Brisbane (M2B) alignment with many sections being 400 per cent to 1000 per cent over.”

Mr Knop said ARTC had not mentioned the project’s growing requirements at community meetings and called for more transparency.

In his response, Mr Bourne did not dispute any of the figures. He said the 2015 estimates were based largely on desktop studies, with the Government emphasising in 2017 that “costs would not be finalised until procurements, alignment and reference designs were completed”.

Mr Bourne said the N2N section’s “enhanced design” reflected changes in rainfall and run-off guidelines for infrastructure design, the need for extra earthworks, and NSW Government biodiversity offset changes.

“While I note Mr Knop’s concerns about the transparency … the Government is also cognisant that the early disclosure of detailed project cost estimates could adversely impact ARTC’s ability to negotiate value for money terms as it establishes key contracts,” he wrote.