Brussels Metro Line 3: A Project Plagued by Delays and Rising Costs
A scathing report from the Court of Audit has ignited a firestorm in the Brussels parliament, exposing a litany of errors and escalating costs surrounding the long-delayed Metro Line 3 project. Originally conceived in 2009 with a projected completion date of 2020 and a budget of one billion euros, the project now faces a staggering price tag of 4.8 billion euros – and a financing gap of nearly the same amount.
The audit focuses heavily on the initial stages of the project, specifically the awarding of contracts to Bureau d’études Métro-Nord (BMN) in 2010 for a feasibility study, and later to the consortium Toots (Besix-jan De Nul-Franki) in 2019. Both decisions are now under intense scrutiny. A settlement has been reached with Toots, but the financial implications remain unresolved.
“It’s astonishing that it’s taken until 2025 to recognize just how deeply flawed this process has been,” remarked Stijn Bex of Groen, highlighting the growing frustration with the project’s protracted timeline.
The Court of Audit’s report details critical shortcomings in the initial feasibility study conducted by BMN.Crucially, adequate soil studies were either absent or inaccurate, municipal archives were ignored, and the study failed to account for evolving mobility patterns within Brussels. Gilles Verstraeten of the N-VA pointedly questioned whether more thorough geotechnical investigations could have prevented the delays currently plaguing the South Station construction, where unstable ground conditions have caused significant setbacks.
Adding to the concerns, permits for construction projects – including the Decathlon store in Evere – have been granted along the planned metro route, potentially obstructing future station locations. “Only Brussels could pull something like this off,” Verstraeten lamented, underscoring the perceived mismanagement of the project.
the Court of Audit is now urging the Brussels government to commission a fully new, comprehensive, and impartial feasibility study. However, parliamentarians are demanding more than just a revised study. Many expressed concern over a lack of documentation provided to the Court of Audit, questioning whether this was due to negligence or a purposeful attempt to obscure details.
“which documents should we be requesting from STIB and Beliris that you didn’t receive?” asked Stijn Bex, echoing the sentiment of many. Zakia Khattabi of Ecolo went further, questioning whether the awarding of contracts violated criminal law. Hicham Talhi (ecolo) and members of CD&V even suggested reporting potential offenses to the public prosecutor’s office,though the court of Audit clarified that simply disrespecting a public tender does not automatically constitute a crime.
A broad coalition of parties - PTB, PVDA, Ecolo, Défi, and CD&V – are now calling for a special commission of inquiry to investigate the entire project, including the rationale behind every permit issued along the route. While other factions haven’t explicitly joined this call, outrage over the project’s failings is widespread. Sofia Bennani of Les Engagés emphasized the importance of budgetary duty, stating, “It’s not just a slogan; it’s essential for maintaining public trust in politics.”
