Section 1: Executive Summary

Section 2: The Southern Corridor Imperative: An Unsustainable Trajectory

An urgent and compelling case for transformative public transport investment in Brisbane's south is established by three converging pressures: overwhelming population growth, a critical demographic shift towards an older population, and crippling traffic congestion that is already imposing a significant economic burden on the city. The current trajectory is unsustainable and threatens to undermine the region's future prosperity and liveability.

Overwhelming Population Growth

Queensland is in the midst of a sustained population boom, with projections indicating the state will be home to over a million new residents by 2036.² A significant portion of this growth is concentrated in South East Queensland, placing immense pressure on Brisbane's southern suburbs and adjacent local government areas.

According to Queensland Health and government projections, the population of Southern Brisbane is set to increase by 21% by 2046. The neighbouring Logan LGA, which shares a transport corridor with Brisbane's south, is projected to grow by an even more dramatic 43%, reaching a population of over 540,000 by the same year.³ This growth is not abstract; it is concentrated in the very suburbs that would be served by the proposed light rail line. Data from the Queensland Government Statistician's Office shows a clear upward trend for the key Statistical Area Level 2 (SA2) regions along the corridor, as detailed in Table 1.⁴

This data underscores that the demand for transport services in these communities will intensify significantly in the coming decades, rendering the current car-dependent model untenable.

A Critical Demographic Shift: The Aging Population

Compounding the pressure of raw population numbers is a profound demographic shift. Queensland's population is aging rapidly, a trend that is particularly pronounced in the southern suburbs. Across the state, the number of adults aged 65 or older is projected to increase by 76.7% between 2022 and 2046.⁵ In Southern Brisbane, the change is even more acute: the number of residents aged 80 and over is projected to increase by 123% by 2046, which represents an additional 29,000 people in this age group requiring accessible services.³

This demographic reality creates a perfect storm when combined with population growth and car-centric urban planning. The transport needs of an older population are fundamentally different from those of a working-age commuter. An aging demographic requires safe, frequent, reliable, and physically accessible "all-day" transport for non-commuter trips, such as accessing healthcare, social activities, and local shops. The current system, which is heavily reliant on private vehicles and peak-hour-focused bus services with complex timetables, is ill-equipped to meet this burgeoning need. This reframes the transport challenge from a simple peak-hour capacity problem into a critical issue of social infrastructure, public health, and equitable access for a large and growing segment of the community. Failure to address this will lead to increased social isolation and reduced quality of life for thousands of residents.

Crippling Traffic Congestion and its Economic Cost

The southern transport corridor is already failing to cope with existing demand. Key arterial roads are severely congested, imposing daily time and financial costs on residents and businesses. Beaudesert Road, a central artery for the region, carries approximately 45,000 vehicles per day at its northern end. As of 2018, this volume of traffic was already causing average delays of 27 minutes for northbound commuters during the morning peak period alone.⁶

This daily frustration translates into a significant and quantifiable economic drain on the city and the nation. A 2019 report from Infrastructure Australia calculated that road congestion cost the Australian economy $19 billion in 2016. Without major policy changes and investment in mass transit, this cost is projected to more than double to $39.8 billion by 2031.⁷ A separate analysis by the Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics projected the cost to reach between $27.7 and $37.3 billion by 2030.⁷

For Brisbane residents, these national figures have a direct and personal impact. The economic burden of congestion is not an abstract concept but a tangible cost borne by households and businesses every day. As outlined in Table 2, the time lost and extra fuel consumed represent a direct hit to household budgets and a significant loss of productive time.

This evidence demonstrates that maintaining the status quo is not a fiscally neutral position. Inaction is an active choice to accept the escalating economic and social costs of a failing transport system. The imperative for a transformative, high-capacity public transport solution is therefore not just a matter of convenience, but one of urgent economic necessity.

Section 3: A New Paradigm for Public Transport: Light Rail as a Public Utility

To address the profound challenges facing Brisbane, a fundamental shift is required in how public transport is planned, funded, and evaluated. The conventional focus on farebox profitability is a flawed metric that has led to decades of underinvestment in the high-capacity systems our growing city needs. The correct approach is to treat mass transit as an essential public utility—an economic enabler whose value is measured by the broad-based prosperity it creates for the entire community.

The Fallacy of Farebox Recovery

Public transport projects, particularly in car-dependent cities like Brisbane, are often subjected to a unique and inappropriate standard of financial viability: farebox recovery. They are judged on their ability to operate as a profitable, self-sustaining business. This metric is fundamentally flawed because it ignores the primary purpose of mass transit, which is to generate widespread public good far beyond its immediate users.

No other piece of critical transport infrastructure is held to this standard. Major arterial roads like the M1, the Gateway Motorway, or Beaudesert Road are not expected to be "profitable" from tolls or user charges. Governments invest billions in building and maintaining these road networks because their immense value as economic enablers is implicitly understood. They facilitate commerce, connect workers to jobs, and underpin the functioning of the city. High-capacity public transport must be viewed through precisely the same lens: not as a business to be run at a profit, but as a strategic investment in the city's economic and social fabric.

Transport as an Essential Service

A high-quality, high-capacity public transport network is a core public utility, as essential to a modern city's health and prosperity as its water, energy, and digital networks. Its true value is not found in the fares it collects, but in the economic activity it enables, the social equity it provides, and the environmental damage it mitigates. By providing a viable alternative to the private car, mass transit unlocks economic potential that would otherwise be choked by congestion.

Introducing Wider Economic Benefits (WEBs)

The true value of a transformative project like light rail is accurately captured through the economic framework of Wider Economic Benefits (WEBs). This is a standard and robust methodology used by organisations like the OECD and national infrastructure bodies to assess the full impact of major projects. WEBs encompass the positive externalities that accrue to the entire community, not just the direct users of the service. Adopting this framework moves the evaluation from a narrow discussion of operational subsidies to a comprehensive analysis of public return on investment.

Key WEBs generated by light rail investment include:

• Agglomeration Economies: These are the productivity benefits that arise when firms and workers are clustered together, facilitated by efficient transport that reduces the "effective distance" between them.¹⁰ By making it easier for people and ideas to connect, light rail fosters innovation and specialisation, particularly in the service and knowledge economies. OECD analysis suggests these benefits can add 10-20% to the conventional user benefits in transport project appraisals.¹⁰
• Increased Labour Market Catchment: High-capacity transit extends the geographic area from which employers can draw talent and expands the range of job opportunities accessible to workers.¹² This leads to a more efficient and dynamic labour market, boosting employment and overall economic output.
• Reduced Congestion Costs: By attracting drivers off the roads, light rail decongests the road network, generating significant time and cost savings for all remaining road users, including critical freight and commercial services.⁷ These savings represent a direct injection of productivity back into the economy.
• Urban Renewal and Investment: As a permanent piece of infrastructure, light rail acts as a powerful catalyst for private investment, urban regeneration, and the development of more sustainable, higher-density communities around its stations.¹²
• Environmental and Health Benefits: Electric light rail significantly reduces greenhouse gas emissions and harmful air pollutants compared to an equivalent volume of car traffic.¹³ It also promotes public health by encouraging active transport, as users typically walk or cycle to and from stations.

Adopting this framework is not merely an academic exercise; it is a powerful political strategy. It allows the public discourse to move beyond a narrow, defensive argument about "subsidies" and towards a proactive, positive case for "investment and return." It provides a robust, evidence-based foundation for challenging the simplistic fiscal arguments often used to oppose visionary infrastructure. By championing a WEBs-based approach, the Labor opposition can seize the high ground of sophisticated economic management, positioning itself as the party with a credible, long-term plan for Brisbane's prosperity.

Section 4: The Economic Case: Catalysing Growth, Investment, and Urban Renewal

The theoretical Wider Economic Benefits of light rail are substantiated by extensive real-world evidence from Australian and international projects. Light rail is not merely a mode of transport; it is a proven economic development tool that stimulates productivity, attracts billions in private investment, and fundamentally reshapes the urban landscape for the better.

Stimulating Agglomeration and Productivity

As established by the OECD and the World Bank, efficient transport connectivity is a primary driver of agglomeration economies, which in turn boost firm productivity and economic growth.¹⁰ By reducing travel times and costs along a high-density corridor, light rail effectively shrinks the city. This increased accessibility makes it easier for businesses to collaborate, for specialised labour to connect with employers, and for innovation to flourish. The result is a more productive and competitive urban economy.

Unlocking Development and Attracting Investment

Perhaps the most visible economic impact of light rail is its power to act as a catalyst for urban development and private investment. Research has identified several key mechanisms through which this occurs, including unlocking previously inaccessible or underutilised sites for development and triggering fresh growth in established areas by improving transport choice.¹²

The Gold Coast's G:link light rail system provides a powerful local example of this phenomenon. Since its opening, the line is credited with having triggered an estimated $6 billion worth of private development along its corridor.¹⁶ It has been instrumental in the revitalisation of key urban centres like Southport, transforming them into more vibrant and economically active precincts. Similarly, the Sydney Light Rail project has supported the state's economic prosperity by boosting the construction sector, reducing congestion costs, and creating a more attractive urban environment in the CBD, which in turn encourages further investment.¹³

The Power of Permanence: Creating Investment Certainty

A critical factor driving this investment is the physical permanence of rail infrastructure. Steel tracks embedded in the ground represent a long-term, multi-generational public commitment to a transport corridor. This stands in stark contrast to a bus route, which can be altered, rerouted, or cancelled with relative ease.¹⁸ This permanence provides a powerful signal to the private market, de-risking major, long-term investments in high-quality, mixed-use, transit-oriented development (TOD). Developers can invest with the confidence that the transport anchor for their project will remain for decades, ensuring sustained demand and value. This "investment certainty" is a fundamental advantage of rail-based transit that flexible, bus-based systems cannot replicate.

This city-shaping effect is not accidental; it is a strategic outcome. The investment in light rail creates a virtuous cycle: the public infrastructure stimulates high-quality private development, which increases density and creates a more attractive urban environment. This, in turn, attracts more residents and businesses, boosting patronage for the light rail service and creating the political and economic case for its further expansion. This positive feedback loop—where transport investment drives positive land use change, which in turn supports and validates the transport investment—is the hallmark of successful city-building.

Case Study: The Canberra Metro and the Northbourne Avenue Transformation

The strategic use of light rail as an urban renewal tool is perfectly illustrated by the Canberra Metro project. The project was explicitly conceived to build upon Walter Burley Griffin's original vision for the city's grand avenues and to address the decades of low-density, car-dependent development that had occurred along the Northbourne Avenue corridor, the primary gateway to the national capital.¹⁹

The project's full business case identified the corridor's underdevelopment as a key problem, noting that its low density and visually unappealing elements created a "sub-optimal entrance to our nation's capital".²¹ The light rail was positioned as the strategic intervention needed to facilitate densification and urban revitalisation, creating a "more formal grand boulevard".²⁰ By providing a high-capacity transit spine, the project was designed to enhance land values and encourage the development of new apartments and commercial projects, strategically achieving the ACT Government's desired urban planning outcomes.²⁰ This case study demonstrates a clear precedent for using light rail not just to move people, but to proactively and successfully guide the future growth and form of the city.

The quantifiable benefits realised in these Australian cities provide a clear and compelling benchmark for what a well-planned light rail network could achieve for Brisbane, as summarised in Table 3.

Section 5: The Financial Case: Land Value Capture as an Equitable Funding Pathway

A primary political and public concern regarding major infrastructure like light rail is its significant upfront capital cost. However, modern and equitable funding models exist that move beyond sole reliance on general taxation. Land Value Capture (LVC) is a proven financial tool that makes transformative projects more affordable by reinvesting a portion of the economic value they create directly back into the project itself.

The Principle of Beneficiary Pays

It is a well-established economic principle that new public transport infrastructure creates significant financial windfalls for landowners in its immediate vicinity. The improved accessibility and amenity lead to an increase in land values, an effect known as "value uplift".¹ LVC is a public financing mechanism designed to "capture" a portion of this unearned increase in private wealth and use it to help fund the public infrastructure that created it.²³

This approach establishes a far fairer and more equitable funding model. It ensures that those who benefit most directly and financially from the public investment contribute a proportionate share, thereby reducing the overall burden on the general ratepayer and taxpayer.²³ This reframes the funding debate from one of public expenditure to one of public investment and value sharing.

Quantifying the Potential: The Gold Coast G:link Case Study

The potential for LVC to substantially contribute to project funding is not theoretical. A detailed econometric study of Stage One of the Gold Coast's G:link light rail, conducted by the University of Queensland, provides a powerful local precedent. The study estimated that the project generated approximately $300 million in land value gains for properties located primarily within 400 metres of the new stations.¹

Crucially, this $300 million uplift represented approximately 25% of the total capital cost of the project.¹ This demonstrates that a significant portion of a light rail project's cost can be financed through LVC mechanisms, making the project far more financially viable than the initial "sticker price" might suggest. This insight is critical, as it provides a direct, evidence-based answer to the inevitable question of "how will you pay for it?" and transforms the financial equation for ambitious infrastructure.

Mechanisms for Value Capture

To be effective, LVC opportunities must be identified and integrated early in the project planning process, long before construction begins.²³ Several mechanisms can be employed:

• Special Levies or Charges: The Gold Coast City Council successfully used this model, introducing a "City Transport Improvement Charge" levied on properties across the city to contribute to funding the G:link and other transport projects.¹
• Tax Increment Financing (TIF): This involves dedicating the future increase in property tax revenue from the revitalised corridor to pay off the bonds used to finance the initial infrastructure investment.
• Joint Development: This involves partnering directly with private developers to integrate new commercial and residential projects with transit stations. These partnerships can involve cost-sharing, land swaps, or revenue-sharing from leases, creating mutual benefits for the public and private sectors.²⁴

A Long-Term, Efficient Approach: Broad-Based Land Tax

While project-specific mechanisms are effective, Infrastructure Australia advocates that the most efficient, stable, and equitable long-term approach to capturing value is a broad-based land tax, coupled with the removal of inefficient transactional charges like stamp duty.²³ A broad-based land tax provides a reliable and predictable stream of revenue that automatically reflects the value uplift created by public investments across the city. The Australian Capital Territory (ACT) is a national leader in this reform, having commenced a 20-year transition in 2012. This has successfully reduced the volatility of government revenues and created a more stable funding base to support ongoing infrastructure service delivery.²³

By embracing LVC, a light rail proposal for Brisbane can be positioned not just as a visionary transport project, but as a fiscally responsible and equitable investment in the city's future.

Section 6: The Superior Mode: Why Light Rail Outperforms Bus Rapid Transit

The LNP-led Council has committed Brisbane's mass transit future to its Brisbane Metro project, a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system. While this project is often branded with the language of a true metro, a direct, evidence-based comparison with Light Rail Transit (LRT) reveals that BRT is an inferior choice across the key metrics that define a successful, city-shaping transport system. For a future-focused city, light rail is the demonstrably superior investment.

Passenger Capacity and Operational Efficiency

A fundamental limitation of any bus-based system is passenger capacity. Light rail vehicles can carry significantly more people per unit than even the largest articulated buses. A typical light rail train has a capacity of 220-440 passengers, compared to approximately 150 for a high-capacity BRT bus.²⁵ The Sydney Light Rail demonstrates this efficiency, where a single light rail vehicle can carry as many people as seven standard buses.¹³ This higher capacity translates directly into greater operational efficiency and lower long-term operating costs. While BRT systems often have a lower initial capital cost, light rail is cheaper to operate over its lifecycle due to needing fewer drivers to move the same number of people, lower and more stable energy costs (grid electricity versus diesel or charging large battery fleets), and significantly longer vehicle and infrastructure lifespans.¹⁸

Passenger Experience and Rider Attraction

The quality of the passenger journey is critical for achieving modal shift—persuading people who have the option to drive to choose public transport instead. On this measure, light rail is vastly superior. The ride is smoother, quieter, and more comfortable than a bus journey, which is subject to the vibrations and lateral movements of a rubber-tyred vehicle on a paved surface.¹⁷ This superior experience is a key reason why studies and real-world observations consistently show that light rail is more effective at attracting these "choice" riders than even the highest-quality bus systems.²⁵

Environmental Performance: A Full Lifecycle Perspective

While the electric vehicles of the Brisbane Metro are promoted as a sustainable solution²⁶, this claim does not stand up to a full lifecycle analysis. The environmental impact of a transport system includes not only its operational emissions but also the embodied carbon from manufacturing its vehicles and constructing its infrastructure.

When these factors are considered, light rail is the cleaner option. A comprehensive European study comparing the systems over a 30-year lifetime found that a tramway emits 23% less greenhouse gas (GHG) than a fully-electric BRT system.²⁸ This is due to the much longer operational life of rail infrastructure (tracks can last 50-70 years) and light rail vehicles (30-40 years), compared to the shorter lifespan of busways, buses, and their components like batteries and rubber tyres, which require more frequent, resource-intensive replacement.

City-Shaping and Investment Certainty (The Critical Differentiator)

The most significant and decisive advantage of light rail over BRT is its ability to shape the city and drive economic development. As established previously, the permanence of rail provides the investment certainty that underpins high-quality, transit-oriented development.¹⁸ The LNP administration often highlights the "flexibility" of the Brisbane Metro as a key benefit, arguing that routes can be easily changed.²⁹ However, from an urban development and investment perspective, this flexibility is a critical weakness. It creates uncertainty for the private market, discouraging the multi-billion dollar, long-term investments seen along the permanent light rail corridors in cities like the Gold Coast and Canberra.

The choice is therefore clear. The Brisbane Metro is an investment in a better bus. Light rail is an investment in a better city. This distinction must be at the forefront of the public debate. By consistently and accurately referring to the Council's project as a BRT system, the opposition can deconstruct the misleading "Metro" branding and force a direct, evidence-based comparison. In a contest between BRT and LRT on the metrics that matter for Brisbane's long-term future—capacity, investment attraction, passenger experience, and lifecycle sustainability—light rail is the undisputed winner.

Section 7: A Proposed Starter Line: Connecting Calamvale and the Southern Corridor

To translate this city-wide vision into a tangible and locally relevant proposal, this document recommends a starter line focused on the southern transport corridor. This corridor presents a unique combination of existing demand, significant growth, and a concentration of key community destinations, making it the logical and most impactful location for Brisbane's first light rail line.

Corridor of Opportunity: Beaudesert Road & Mains Road

The Beaudesert Road and Mains Road corridor forms the natural spine for a southern light rail line. It is already one of Brisbane's most significant arterial routes, but is suffering from severe and worsening traffic congestion.⁶ Furthermore, the corridor is already served by some of Brisbane's highest-frequency bus routes, such as the 130, 140, and 150, which are designated as "turn up and go" services running every 15 minutes or better on weekdays.³¹ This demonstrates a strong, established market for public transport along this exact alignment, providing a ready-made patronage base for a higher-capacity light rail service.

Connecting Key Community Hubs and Economic Nodes

A successful public transport line does more than move people between two points; it weaves together the fabric of the community by connecting the key destinations that define daily life. A preliminary alignment for a southern light rail line would be strategically planned to connect the major community hubs and economic nodes of the southern suburbs, creating a powerful network effect. These essential destinations include:

• Major Educational Institutions: Griffith University's Nathan Campus is a major trip generator, attracting thousands of students and staff daily. A direct light rail connection would provide a vital service for the university community and reduce car dependency in the surrounding precincts.
• Major Healthcare Facilities: The Queen Elizabeth II Jubilee Hospital is a critical piece of health infrastructure for the entire southside. A light rail stop would provide safe, reliable, and accessible transport for patients, staff, and visitors, a particularly crucial service for the region's rapidly aging population.
• Major Retail and Commercial Centres: The corridor is home to some of Brisbane's most significant suburban commercial hubs, including Sunnybank Plaza, Market Square, Calamvale Central, and Sunnybank Hills Shoppingtown. These are not just retail destinations; they are major employment centres and vibrant cultural hubs for the diverse communities of the southern suburbs. Light rail would connect these nodes, boosting their economic vitality.
• High-Density Residential Areas: The line would directly serve the large and growing residential populations of Calamvale, Stretton, Sunnybank, Robertson, and Macgregor, providing them with a high-quality transport alternative for the first time.

A Gateway to the Scenic Rim

The southern terminus of the line in areas like Calamvale or Parkinson would also serve a strategic regional purpose, functioning as a gateway to the Scenic Rim. This region is a significant and growing tourist destination, renowned for its national parks, wineries, and farm-to-table producers.³² A light rail terminus could be integrated with a major park-and-ride facility and tourist information services. This would allow visitors from Brisbane and beyond to drive to the edge of the city, leave their cars, and access the CBD and other destinations via a fast, reliable light rail service. This adds a valuable tourism and regional economic development dimension to the proposal, broadening its benefits and political appeal.

Integration with the Existing Network

The proposed line would not operate in isolation. It would be designed for seamless integration with the broader South East Queensland transport network. A key interchange would be established at the Griffith University busway station, allowing for easy transfers to the South East Busway. Connections to the Beenleigh and Gold Coast heavy rail lines could also be investigated. This integrated approach is consistent with the long-term vision outlined in strategic documents like 'Connecting Brisbane', which call for a 'turn up and go' trunk network supported by feeder services.³⁶

Ultimately, a light rail line along this corridor would do more than just move people. It would fundamentally restructure the urban form of the southern suburbs. By creating a permanent, high-amenity transport spine, it provides a powerful organising principle for future land use planning. It signals to Council planners, developers, and the community where future growth and density should be concentrated, enabling a gradual but fundamental shift from a car-dependent suburban model to a more sustainable, vibrant, and walkable transit-oriented model. This is not just a transport project; it is a comprehensive urban strategy for the future of southern Brisbane.

Section 8: Strategic Recommendations for Council Opposition

This briefing document provides the evidentiary basis for a transformative transport policy for Brisbane. For this vision to become a reality, it requires political champions. The following recommendations outline a clear, actionable roadmap for Cr Kim and the Brisbane Labor opposition to adopt, champion, and advance this proposal.

Adopt Light Rail as a Signature Policy

The Labor opposition should formally adopt the development of a city-wide light rail network, beginning with the Southern Corridor, as the centrepiece of its long-term transport vision for Brisbane. This presents a clear, positive, and genuinely visionary alternative to the LNP's incremental and less ambitious BRT project. It allows Labor to define the future, rather than merely reacting to the current administration's agenda.

Reframe the Public Debate

A concerted effort must be made to shift the public narrative around mass transit investment. This involves two key communication strategies:

1. Shift from "Cost" to "Investment": Consistently and confidently articulate the case for evaluating transport projects based on their Wider Economic Benefits (WEBs). Highlight the billions in economic uplift, private investment, and congestion savings that light rail can deliver. Promote Land Value Capture (LVC) as a modern, fiscally responsible, and equitable funding model that ensures the project partially pays for itself.
2. Deconstruct the "Metro" Brand: Challenge the LNP's misleading branding of its bus project. Consistently and accurately refer to the Brisbane Metro as a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system. Use the direct, evidence-based comparisons in this report to demonstrate light rail's superiority on capacity, longevity, passenger experience, environmental performance, and, most importantly, its city-shaping power.

Champion Suburban Equity

This proposal should be framed as a direct response to decades of underinvestment in Brisbane's middle and outer suburbs. Light rail for the south is essential infrastructure to ensure these rapidly growing communities are not left behind with congested roads and inadequate public transport. This narrative aligns powerfully with existing opposition critiques of the LNP's priorities³⁷ and with Cr Kim's own stated focus on "putting locals first" and ensuring her suburbs get more value.³⁸

Utilise Council Processes

As a member of the Public Transport Committee, Cr Kim is uniquely positioned to advance this agenda within the formal structures of Council.³⁸ It is recommended that she table a series of motions calling for:

1. A formal, independent, and publicly released feasibility study into a light rail network for Brisbane, with the Southern Corridor as the priority first stage.
2. A detailed business case specifically examining the potential for a comprehensive Land Value Capture strategy to contribute to the network's funding.
3. A comparative lifecycle analysis of the true, long-term economic and environmental costs of the existing Brisbane Metro (BRT) project versus a light rail alternative for key corridors.

Align with Broader Labor Values

Finally, the proposal should be connected to the core identity and values of the Labor party. It can be positioned as a continuation of Labor's proud legacy of delivering nation-building, transformative infrastructure projects that serve the public good for generations, such as the Trans-Australian Railway and the Story Bridge.³⁹ Furthermore, in an era of cost-of-living pressures, light rail offers a path to permanent relief for households by reducing their dependence on expensive private cars. It creates thousands of long-term local jobs in construction and operation, boosting the city's economic productivity and resilience.

By adopting this comprehensive strategy, the Labor opposition can do more than just critique the current administration. It can present a compelling, evidence-based, and inspiring vision for a better-connected, more prosperous, and more sustainable Brisbane. This proposal is not just a transport plan; it is a political wedge that forces a debate on the city's future, compelling the LNP to defend their less ambitious solution against a clearly superior alternative and allowing Labor to set the agenda for years to come.

Works Cited

1. Land value uplift from light rail - School of Economics - University of Queensland, accessed October 28, 2025
2. Growing together - Queensland Government Planning, accessed October 28, 2025
3. Health Indicators 2025. Population profiles of Metro South Health, Logan, Redland and Southern Brisbane LGAs, accessed October 28, 2025
4. Population projections: Regions | Queensland Government, accessed October 28, 2025
5. Demography | Report of the Chief Health Officer Queensland, accessed October 28, 2025
6. Browns Plains to Beaudesert road capacity and safety, accessed October 28, 2025
7. Traffic Congestion: Info, Projects & Resources | iMOVE Australia, accessed October 28, 2025
8. Agglomeration Economies and Transport Investment | OECD, accessed October 28, 2025
9. Evaluation of wider economic impacts of light rail investment on cities, accessed October 28, 2025
10. Sydney Light Rail | QBE, accessed October 28, 2025
11. G:link Light Rail QLD - Keolis Downer, accessed October 28, 2025
12. Light-Rail Transit (LRT) - Transportation Policy Research, accessed October 28, 2025
13. What is the advantage of light rail vs buses? : r/notjustbikes - Reddit, accessed October 28, 2025
14. A case study: Canberra – Australia's National Capital - WIT Press, accessed October 28, 2025
15. Capital Metro - Full Business Case - Transport Canberra - ACT, accessed October 28, 2025
16. Home Financing Light Rail Projects—From Bidding to Value Capture, accessed October 28, 2025
17. Value Capture | FTA - Federal Transit Administration, accessed October 28, 2025
18. What's the Difference? What's the Fuss? Different Modes of Rapid Transit, accessed October 28, 2025
19. Brisbane Metro sets new standard for sustainable transport - LNP, accessed October 28, 2025
20. Total life-time emissions of tramways / light rail much lower than buses, accessed October 28, 2025
21. Brisbane Metro sets benchmark to keep our region moving - LNP, accessed October 28, 2025
22. High frequency services - Translink, accessed October 28, 2025
23. 4-day road trip through Queensland's Scenic Rim - Tourism Australia, accessed October 28, 2025
24. Connecting Brisbane - State Development, Infrastructure and Planning, accessed October 28, 2025
25. 25/26 Budget: Brisbane Going Nowhere With Active and Public Transport, accessed October 28, 2025
26. Emily Kim – Queensland Labor, accessed October 28, 2025
27. Our Story - Queensland Labor, accessed October 28, 2025