Ipswich to Springfield Public Transport Corridor Study
https://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/projects/ipswich-to-springfield-public-transport-corridor-study
4 Likes
Heavy Rail could be extended to Ripley Town Centre or even Deebing Heights.
However, there appears to be no protected corridor for entry of the line into Ipswich. As such, it is highly likely that the connection between Ripley Town Centre or Deebing heights will be the BRT mode. The corridor has been described as a āpublic transport corridorā so the mode or mode(s) are not yet fully locked in.
Looping back of a rail line into Ipswich would also prevent further extension of the line in the future (for example, if development spread further southwest).
Continuing to chase sprawl as it gets further and further away from the Brisbane CBD is time consuming and very costly (and diverts resources away from improving the existing infrastructure on the Queensland Rail network). This location is already 40 km out from the Brisbane CBD.
Future development would be better focused around re-activating/redeveloping land around the existing Rosewood line which is already serviced by rail.
Brisbane CBD is not the only employment centreā¦unless you of course you are BCC.
Connecting these suburbs to a far closer City Centre makes a lot of sense.
Also developing the whole area as 15min Neighbourhoods would also be smart so access to employment is easier to get to and more diverse (aka not City Centre centric).
6 Likes
These are all great goals but Heavy Rail requires a Priority A corridor. It cannot run in Priority B (surface road corridors sharing intersections with mixed traffic) or C (mixed traffic). In contrast, BRT can run in all 3 types of corridor - Priority A, B or C, and be constructed more cheaply.
It is going to be challenging to thread a rail line in Priority A corridor into the Ipswich CBD. A tunnel and/or elevated viaduct would be required. It also throws away a future option (which has a value) to extend the rail line further southwest if development continues to move outwards.
For these reasons it is likely that Heavy Rail will be terminated at Ripley Town Centre or Deebing Heights, with a connecting bus provided into Ipswich. This still achieves a PT connection into Ipswich for passengers.
I think the route is fairly clear about as far as Yamanto, which strikes me as a logical terminus with a large parking facility or interchange for traffic coming from settlements south (Boonah, Aratula etc.) and would not add traffic for the extra bit into Deebing Heights. Strikes me as more logical to interchange adjacent to the existing Cunningham Hwy. Could also be the basis to bring regional bus in the translink fare structure into the picture as far as Warwick/Stanthorpe (as opposed to the current $60 private bus trip only 4 days a week, at a time that is unsuitable for commuting)ā¦ if the prevailing attitudes we already know exist can ever be overcome.
If you look on the satellite images, thereās evidence of an old rail corridor west of Ipswich Station extending south (around Darling St W/Challinor St on Google) that appears undeveloped about as far as Deebing Ck or Uni of Southern QLD, possibly even as far as the bottom of Lobb St (some appears to have streetside parking lined). But I agree it is unsuitable for modern heavy rail once you see how many streets it crosses (but therefore, an interface point with the existing heavy rail line technically would appear to exist from the south). Could be the basis (at least in part) for a BRT route though.
1 Like
One can see that there would be PT demand for trips Springfield Central <> Ipswich. However, heavy rail is not the only option available to do that, and would be challenging through an already built-up area. A surface BRT or LRT option along Redbank Plains Road could fill that need, for example.
There is also potential for future development to extend outwards, away from Ipswich. In this potential scenario, it would be better to preserve the option for the rail line to follow such development.
A southward extension might happen in the future (albeit at the rate we develop PT infrastructure, maybe a couple of hundred years 
and edit - thatās not me suggesting we ever actually should do this).
In any extension, I want a good outcome for regional communities further afield who may travel to any railway station with easy interchange (and maybe even actual regional public transport), and I want it to happen in a way that isnāt impactful to local communities with extra traffic etc. As long as those criteria are served, Iām open-minded about the means.
As it stands, I currently use Springfield Central as my commute interchange when travelling to the office in Brisbane (but not for the airport because reimbursement rules favour mileage and parking there). I am not greatly inconvenienced by the current system, but as those communities along the last bit of the Centenary Highway grow, the inconvenience medium/long-distance commuters like me may contribute is likely to grow, and I try to be mindful of that when thinking about how the next stage of PT design in the area can work for everyone.
Well that sounds like a very good reason to loop the rail line back into Ipswich and prevent further extension of the line to the southwest in the future.
10 Likes
Itās important to note that the route in question is planned to have a regular bus soon, and has been given the route code 501. (See the map linked at the bottom)
Clockwise, anticlockwise loop from doomben, shorncliffe to ipswich & springfield?? While still have express service for future towoomba via. Rosewood to the airport just like GC do atm.
Would be good if ippy line to springfield turn south after wulkurlka as its a key recreation hub to start rail trails from there if the surveyors needs find the branch out south corridor to preserve
Doing the loop back to Ipswich (cost and engineering challenges aside) would create a situation where development could spread outside an area where the train line could reasonably be extended.
For example, there is no rail out at Yarrabilba, Flagstone or Jimboomba. The lack of rail in these areas has not prevented large estates being built there.
Random aside, itās about a 10km straight shot from the proposed Deebing Heights stop to the Ebenezer loop as well (noting of course its present use and that itās earmarked for Inland Rail in the future). Branch point for the Ebenezer loop is north of Rosewood.
Yer we get it Bus = Good + Rail = Bad!!
Transport is the product. Modes are simply a means to deliver that product.
And it is always worth considering the circumstances at hand - there is no protected corridor into Ipswich for Priority A. It is a built up area.
I have no objection to the extension of Heavy Rail as far as Ripley Town Centre or Deebing Heights.
Then the prospective residents of those areas can make their choice accordingly. The state shouldnāt be enabling the relentless growth of urban sprawl by failing to build a rail link to a major employment centre on the off chance of yet more sprawl taking place in a few decades.
The odd thing to me is, you quite correctly state above that chasing further and further urban sprawl is a grossly inefficient endeavour, yet you also want to enable it southwest of Ipswich by curtailing the planned line. That seems contradictory. I would think doubling down on the usefulness of Ipswich CBD as a transport hub would be much better for sustainable urban development than extending the line from Ripley Valley out towards Boonah or Fassifern.
1 Like
Well, why not put on a bus between the two lines to make the connection between the two lines? Prefer not to throw away the option to extend rail southwest, its likely to be needed.
And its not āenabling itā either. Rail in SEQ has always lagged the urban growth boundary. Given that about 80% of trips are in car, if any road is built in that area in the future, houses will be built there, rail line or not. There is easy access to the Centenary motorway in that area.
Example. Yarrabilba. Lots of development, far from any passenger rail line:
We can do both. Iād argue a bus service is a good precursor to a rail line. It can grow the regular demand for the journey and eventually be replaced by higher capacity, and transition into a route feeding each station along the line.
For what? More sprawl? No thanks.
Do you think building, or even planning, a railway line out to undeveloped land is going to make it more likely or less likely that property developers will start building housing on that land?
Well thatās peopleās choice to make, if they want to lock themselves into a car-dependent future. I donāt want to cost the urban centres better development by spending billions trying to rescue people from their poor lifestyle choices. The toothpaste is out of the tube for Ripley already, but it isnāt for the area between Ipswich and Boonah/Fassifern, and Iād like to keep it that way, so I never, ever want a commuter railway line built there.
(itās also a bit arduous trying to respond to a comment that changes every few minutes)
1 Like
Perhaps it is useful to think about where the population growth is expected to occur when considering the hypothetical of āwhere should the rail line go next?ā
When looking at the stateās population projections by SA2 regions (Population projections: Regions | Queensland Government Statistician's Office), I see some things that are interesting in the data:
In particular, the growth is expected in the Rosewood SA2 (places like Rosewood, Thagoona, Walloon, Willowbank etc.) - a projected increase from ~15,000 (circa 2021) to ~80,000 by 2046. By contrast, the Boonah SA2 (Boonah, Peak Crossing, Aratula etc.) is projected to increase from ~13,000 to ~16,000 over the same period.
(Lockyer Valley East and Lowood are other expected growth areas, but I think that is self-apparent when you drive through areas like Plainland now).
I wouldnāt necessarily be targeting a southwards expansion in even the medium term based on those numbers. Bring on the Springfield - Ripley - Willowbank - Rosewood loop based on those projections .
(I say this mostly in jest, but I am not convinced south is the right future move, putting the question of logical truncation point for the current expansion aside)
3 Likes
Running a rail line into Ipswich requires a Priority A corridor within a built up area. This means a combination of viaducts, bridges and/or a tunnel ($$$). This option should be considered in an analysis - as we should always aim to run multi-horse races when choosing between options - however an analysis is likely to find that it is not the preferred option when considered against alternatives that do not require so much engineering.
Depends on the magnitude. If there is an 80% chance of development in an area (due to motorway access present) and a rail line increases that to 85%, its not like withholding a rail line will be effective at stopping development in that area.
Personally, I think that Deebing Heights will be the terminus for the train line for the effective future (especially considering what has happened to the Direct Sunshine Coast Line recently, where it will be part-train and part-BRT now).