Article
People Before Major Parties – Build It And They Will Come
We Need A Public Transport Network, Not A Stadium
There has been a major development in Hobart’s transport planning – a 368‑page “strategic business case” has been completed for a new Rapid Bus Transit (RBT) network and submitted to the Federal Government. Yet there has been no announcement by the Premier nor the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, Kerry Vincent.
Vincent has kept his social media feed full of sport, boating, breweries and photo‑ops, while saying nothing about the most important transport decision in a generation. The public is entitled to ask – why are we only hearing about it through a small Mercury article and vague quotes from an unnamed “government spokesperson”?
The Mercury article published 14 December 2025, reported that the strategic business case for Hobart’s rapid bus network had been submitted to the federal government but “will not be released publicly”, and that it was “unclear whether elements have been altered or scrapped” since the last public material was shown.
A second story, on 21 December 2025, quoted Independent MLC Bec Thomas demanding that the business case be made public – the Northern Suburbs Transit Corridor, part of the RBT, being a condition central to Thomas’s support for the Stadium.
In response, a government spokesperson promised that the business case would be released in January and that the state was “lobbying” Infrastructure Australia to get the RBT onto the 2026 national priority list.
But who exactly promised the release? Will the public see the full analysis – costs, route options and cost‑benefit results – or just a glossy summary? These details matter.
There have been more studies and plans drawn up on this than the number of stops planned for the RBT. So what has the government landed on?
What will be local impacts? The Tasmanian Planning Commission’s integrated assessment for the stadium raised flags about the new northern access road at Macquarie Point and how it would affect the Intercity Cycleway and the Tasmanian Transport Museum’s heritage rail operations. Both are real, functioning transport and tourism assets already using the corridor. If the business case has answers about how they will be protected or relocated, why have they not been provided?
At Estimates in November, State Growth Secretary Craig Limkin told MPs that on submitting the strategic business case to the Commonwealth, the government would then “move into a final business case which will confirm the route, the capital costs and also the funding sources” and that “we are probably at a P50 number, probably less, so you have a large contingency.”
Translated, that means the proposal being sent to Canberra does not yet have a confirmed alignment, a clear capital cost or a firm funding plan. A P50 estimate is the most basic probabilistic cost figure – the point where there is a 50 per cent chance the project will cost more and a 50 per cent chance it will cost less – and even that could not be stated in public. Under commonly used cost‑estimation guidance, a P50 at this stage should be accompanied by a large contingency band so decision‑makers can see the realistic cost envelope.
This does not sound like a “strategic business case”. It is closer to an early‑stage scoping study.
Yet the spokesperson claims the Government is lobbying Infrastructure Australia to get the project onto the 2026 national priority list and persuade a fiscally constrained federal Labor government to pour in “significant funding”.
Infrastructure Australia (IA) has an assessment framework used to decide which projects make it onto the Infrastructure Priority List. In their initial assessment they already made it clear “further work should include detailed planning, stakeholder engagement, and securing funding to ensure successful implementation and operation.”
Infrastructure Australia also expects business cases – including strategic versions – to provide high‑level but transparent cost information, with appropriate contingencies; to state clearly how costs were estimated; and to include all major project costs and benefits in the analysis. On top of IA’s framework sit the transparency principles championed by the Grattan Institute. Grattan recommends governments should publish “the lot” – business cases, cost‑benefit analyses, contract values and post‑completion reviews – so communities can see whether a project really stacks up and how alternatives were weighed.
The Hobart rapid bus case fails the pub test on every one of those points, because almost none of that information has been shown to the people – we, the public – who will pay for it. The funding story makes the secrecy even more troubling. The federal government has made it clear that the old 80/20 funding model – where Canberra pays 80 per cent of the bill and states find 20 per cent – is no longer the default for new projects. The contemporary norm is a 50/50 split.
How will Tasmania afford this? Tasmania has just suffered a credit rating downgrade, with Moody’s warning that Tasmania faces a very high debt path and that further borrowing without budget capacity and offsets risks higher interest costs and pressure for future spending cuts.
As MLC Ruth Forrest pointed out, signing up to a big co‑funded transport project in that context, without a clear plan for how the State’s share will be paid for, is a genuine fiscal risk – not just for capital budgets, but for essential services. Tasmanians have a right to see the numbers before their government starts lobbying Canberra.
Even if the money magically appears, the Government cannot meet the proposed timelines. Federal fact sheets indicate that the Hobart Public Transport Infrastructure Planning project – the umbrella planning program for the bus network and related upgrades – is not expected to be completed until late 2033, four years after the stadium is supposed to open. The Keeping Hobart Moving plan itself envisages planning from 2023–2026+ and phased delivery of transport improvements through 2029 and beyond.
If, as of December 2025, the work is still at a strategic planning stage and final business cases for specific corridors are only just beginning, the idea that a fully operational, tested rapid bus network will be in place by 2029 looks implausible. Business case development typically takes 12–18 months, procurement another year or more, and major construction several years again.
Compressing that into the remaining window – for a project without firm route, cost or funding – is wishful thinking, not responsible planning.
Should this stadium go ahead, there are already expert warnings that the RBT and expanded Derwent ferry network need to be delivered at the same time as the stadium, or Hobart will be gridlocked every time there is a game. Right now, the transport timeline is drifting years behind the stadium’s.
The RBT business case is beginning to look like a replay of the AFL deal – major commitments made without any Cabinet process, without clear Treasury advice, and without any meaningful disclosure to the public. For large funding proposals, Tasmanian Government procedures require Cabinet approval, backed by Treasury analysis. If that has happened here, the government should say when, on what advice, and reveal the cost estimates. If it has not, that is yet another serious breach of basic governance.
There is also a much bigger question at stake. A long‑term light rail or rapid transit network should be the destination for Hobart, not an after‑thought bolted onto a stadium deal. We are a small city, but we are big enough to support a high‑capacity transit spine if we deliberately shape housing, jobs and public space around strong corridors, rather than letting car dependence and congestion write the script.
The real debate we should be having is not how we can stop a stadium event from bringing our city to a standstill, but how we want to grow our city – and how we stage it sensibly from today.
That kind of conversation cannot happen in a backroom. It needs transparent data, open models and frank public debate about trade‑offs: which streets will carry bus or rail, where density should go, how ferries plug in, and what level of car access is realistic. The public is being asked to underwrite decades of debt and disruption. At minimum, they deserve to see the business case. Because, right now, our government’s incompetence is mind-blowing. The intelligent transport system rollout has already blown out from $7 million to around $65 million.
The Rockliff Government doesn’t know what it’s doing.
Did you know that only 40% of households are within a 10-minute walk of a regular transport route in the Greater Hobart Area?
The rapid bus network might be the right answer, or it might turn out that a staged light rail and high‑frequency bus system would perform better. That is exactly what a transparent, Infrastructure Australia‑standard business case process is meant to test.
Instead of another hurried deal framed around “making the stadium work”, we should insist on an open, evidence-based, city‑wide conversation about the city and transport network we want in 2050 and the steps to get there. That starts with publishing the business case in full – costs, options, benefits, risk and a believable delivery timetable. Then inviting independent experts and community groups to scrutinise it. If we are serious about progressing Hobart, we should be developing Macquarie Point as a priority housing densification, hotels, conference and reconciliation park urban renewal project.
That may convince the Federal Government to not only place our transport network on a national priority list but also provide the significant funding needed
Hobart transport network improvements – Keeping Hobart Moving | Infrastructure Australia
https://www.keepinghobartmoving.tas.gov.au/the_plan
Bus rapid transit in Hobart – Hobart Streets
Christine Bayley is a spokesperson for People Before Major Parties – Tasmania who are on Facebook.
Tasmanian Times (TT) is a community-based news and current affairs service covering the island state of Tasmania. It exists to provide a diverse presentation of Tasmanian issues. TT creates and supports independent media content utilising the best of modern technologies and tried-and-true practices of public-interest journalism.
Support us in expanding our coverage and developing new content by and for Tasmanians.
New initiatives on the way include … what our contributors and readers suggest! Please get in touch with your suggestions.