"There are 17 level crossings and five pedestrian crossings that would need grade separation first and the cost of that alone would approach $2 billion," he said. However that was rejected last night by Brisbane Lord Mayor Graham Quirk, who is chairman of the Southeast Queensland Council of Mayors (COMSEQ). The Council of Mayors last year commissioned research into a cheaper alternative to the Cross River Rail project. Cr Quirk said existing budgets were steadily improving delays at level crossings. "Any grade separation at current level crossings to eliminate high priority level crossings is funded separately through a budget allocation," Cr Quirk said.

"The $2.5 billion cost of the Cleveland solution includes an additional freight line passing loop at Norman Park. "Therefore, no grade separation is required, as the light metro service at no time shares track with heavy rail passenger services or freight." Transport Minister Annastacia Palaszczuk said the Cleveland solution had already been tested by the Cross River Rail project team three years ago. However Cr Quirk said that was misleading. "The Cleveland solution prepared for COMSEQ is new, although it is based on an early proposal submitted to the Queensland Government two and a half years ago," he said.

"Since that time, the proposal has been refined and modified to take into account comments that were received." What is planned under the Cleveland solution? Under engineering firm GHD's Cleveland solution, Cleveland services would be shifted from South Brisbane's Merivale Bridge. That rail bridge would be choked with trains by 2016, a 2008 state government study showed. Fifteen of the 39 rail services across the Merivale Bridge (Monday to Friday) come from Cleveland, while in the afternoon 12 of the 33 services go to Cleveland across the bridge.

Under the proposal, these Cleveland services would run as light rail on a new tunnel from Park Road to Woolloongabba and across a bridge to QUT Gardens Point, then by tunnel under Herschel Street to a new underground rail at Roma Street. It would then run up the Exhibition line - with new stations at Exhibition and at Bowen Hills - out to Ferny Grove. The plan suggests light metro rail carriages carry 600 passengers in each three-car set. But Mr Dow said important detail was lacking. He believes GHD has underestimated the cost of the light rail trains.

GHD estimates the total cost of its alternative project at $2.5 billion, including a new fleet of rolling stock. However, Mr Dow said the cost of 70 rail vehicles itself would be around $1.5 billion, while the cost of construction, track duplications and light metro signalling would be a further $1 billion. Added to this would be the cost of the tunnels, bridges and stations. Mr Dow said there would be "little change" from the $7.7 billion cost of the Cross River Rail project. "This report appears to me to be a political response to the Cross River Rail wedge, created when [state LNP leader Campbell] Newman changed from being a strong supporter of Cross River Rail to an alternative view, at the time when he resigned as lord mayor," he said.

Mr Dow said between Monday and Friday, 38 per cent (15 of 39) of the inbound trains across the Merivale Bridge were from Cleveland. Outbound, it is 36 per cent (12 of 33). In the morning there are eight services in from the Gold Coast line and 16 services in from the Beenleigh line, with a similar number in the afternoon. "So, if you have 38 per cent of services as Cleveland, you only gain 38 per cent increase overall if you give that to the other lines," he said. "By contrast Cross River Rail will give a real increase of 114 per cent of train paths through the CBD." These figures are disputed by GHD, according to Cr Quirk.

"Critically, the Cleveland solution releases the Cleveland line train paths (eight in peak hours) across the Merivale Bridge," he said. "The capacity of the Merivale Bridge is 20 train paths per hour (at three minute headways), so the Cleveland solution provides an immediate capacity gain of over 70 per cent for growth on the Beenleigh and Gold Coast lines." However Ms Palaszczuk said this extra capacity would be taken up by increasing demand from passengers. "Passenger demand modelling shows that even with the Council of Mayors proposal, demand on the Beenleigh and Gold Coast lines would be at the capacity by 2020 and Cross River Rail would still be required as planned," she said. Mr Dow welcomed the debate created by the Cleveland solution, but said extra demand on the rail services created by the Petrie to Kippa Ring project now underway would be too much for the Cleveland solution.

"So it would really be a false economy to go ahead with this and not proceed with Cross River Rail at this point," he said. The plan also says opening up the Merivale Bridge rail lines as they are used today frees up 24 six-car train carriages to the Citytrain fleet at a value of $240 million. Other issues raised by the Cleveland solution report The report raises interesting issues including the possibility of a private operator running the flagged new service as already happens in Victoria. brisbanetimes.com.au understands the concept has been already discussed in general with some private operators.

It includes a greater role for local governments, other than Brisbane, Sunshine and Gold coast councils, to contribute to public transport costs, though a public transport levy. It also looks at the impact of re-prioritising public transport projects into two, five-year time frames, then for projects for 10 years and beyond. Ms Palaszczuk said the proposal was unlikely to be completed until 2019 and passenger growth on the Gold Coast and Beenleigh lines would quickly use the rail lines over the Merivale Bridge made available by the model. Cr Quirk said the problem was that there were real doubts that Cross River Rail would be financed, yet the Merivale Bridge would still be choked by 2016. "The main point here is that the Cleveland solution would increase the number of rail services across the Merivale Bridge by 50 per cent," Cr Quirk said.

"The big issue is the capacity on the Merivale Bridge, building up the capacity on the Merivale Bridge." Loading "It is correct that the Cross River Rail proposal provides capacity for growth in the core beyond 2030. "But the fact remains the current proposal is unaffordable at this time and better value for money options need to be considered prior to the point when Merivale Bridge reaches capacity in 2016."