It looks like heavy rail, but what is a little concerning is they don’t refer to heavy rail anywhere just mention mass transit solution. The options analysis appears to have been completed and is being reviewed by TMR. The I2S web site mentions specifically that 'The Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads is finalising its preliminary evaluation of the Options Analysis Stage 2 Business Case. ’ This should confirm if heavy rail will get the nod. My understanding is that busway and heavy rail were the two modes considered in the options analysis.
Almost as if having to change modes to continue in the same direction is not seamless (looking at you, ‘The Wave: seamless public transport for Sunshine Coast’).
I would doubt that there is anyone living along that corridor that opposes the railway line, and certainly not anyone I’ve seen with a loud enough voice to influence political decisions. People out that way just want basic infrastructure for their suburbs but it’s currently not being delivered. I don’t think NIMBYism is at all a contributing factor to the potential cancelation of this line.
I think first and foremost it depends on who is using the corridor and where they’re going. If it’s people going from Springfield or intermediate stops into Ipswich, you might consider alternative modes. But I suspect most of the traffic is city-bound (i.e. back through Springfield), and given the distance from the city, I think speed is a relevant factor.
I’m also generally not a fan of building isolated segments of other modes because they might be cheaper on paper. Isolation means you need local depots and maintenance facilities, and all the associated unique infrastructure needed. If it’s not going to form part of a transit network through the region or have potential for expansion, I don’t see the advantage of making it LRT over heavy rail to save a few bucks upfront. It’s why I don’t support LRT as an option for the Doomben line either unless there’s a plan for it to be part of a broader LRT network. You just end up with a bunch of isolated assets that you need new infrastructure and new supply chains to manage.
So I’d personally advocate against LRT for the alignment unless Ipswich had a broader plan for an LRT network, but am open minded about whether a busway might be more appropriate (I hesitate to use the term ‘cost effective’ because in the current climate of high and ballooning costs, cheaper options will almost always win because costs are growing faster than benefits under such conditions).
My selfish preference would to be at least to get it to Yamanto or near the Cunningham Hwy as heavy rail to allow for a better interchange for those coming in from the provinces (yes, I do drive from Warwick to Springfield and catch the train as needed for work, thankfully it’s only once a fortnight). But I acknowledge this is driven by self-interest .
=========================================================================== I2S Public Transport Corridor - outcome of options analysis
Good Morning,
I am interested in an update on the Ipswich to Springfield (I2S) public transport corridor, particularly the outcome of the Options Analysis.
It has been reported that “A Transport and Main Roads spokesman confirmed to Local Ipswich News that the Preliminary Evaluation (including an Options Analysis) for the I2S corridor was finalised in June and delivered to Ipswich City Council and the Federal Government.”Questions over delay in release of rail loop report
It would be appreciated if you could confirm if heavy rail will be used as the mass transit solution for I2S. It is time the outcome was made public.
Could it be the estimated $3 billion cost of building this, or the number of tunnels and viaducts crossings needed due to the terrain and environment, or the impact of adding 9 new stations that are mostly located in very low density areas, the lack of funding, or its projected 9 year construction time that could sink the project?
Why introduce a new mode? When they build new roads do they build them only so far, and then put up a road block and on the other side continue it as a bike path?
This thinking, in which we make excuses for, or enter into discussion about, continuing existing lines/corridors using new modes does not make sense.
It’s truly vital it ends up not only done, but a heavy rail solution— hence the mention in the South-East Queensland Transport Associations recent press release.
The original plan was a cycleway and rail line from Darra to Springfield. When the new government came in they cut the bikeway short at Ellen Grove, and cancelled the planned Ellen Grove train station.
They used the allocated funding/corridor space to widen the motorway instead.
I can’t think of another project like this where a fully funded and planned high quality active transport corridor (and train station) was converted into a motorway upgrade instead.
I often do think had the Ellen Grove railway station been constructed, it would’ve made heavy rail more accessible to Forest Lake residents (particularly to those whom live around Grand Ave/Woogaroo St/Roxwell St)
Yes, Richlands station is a stone’s throw away, but the feeder buses don’t have the best of all frequencies (101 Forest Lake to Oxley, via Inala; and 460 Heathwood to City Express).
101 runs hourly headways, whereas the 460 is more competitive (15 minutes to hourly, depending on the hour).
And the carpark at Richlands is - famously - all filled up by 7am, despite being 2 stories
We advocated long and hard together with some local councillors to get Ellen Grove station built during the lines’ construction. We failed at the time BUT we were successful in getting a double line all the way (they originally wanted to do a single line Richlands to Springfield Central, with no Springfield (Lakes) station). We were able to succeed with the double line, and the station at Springfield but failed re Ellen Grove. Yes, Ellen Grove station would have been very handy for Forest Lake, and taken some of the pressure off Richlands.
Yes! I know Cr Charles Strunk (councillor for Forest Lake Ward) continues to advocate adamantly for better bus connections to Richlands station, as locals have chosen to other options, such as retreating to Wacol station or to car-pool.
During the Brisbane New Bus Network (BNBN) consultations, it was planned for 122 Inala to Garden City to be extended to Richlands station - a true milestone for cross-town routes in the southside.
However, this was canned mysteriously. And what was worse was that council would’ve planned on retaining 122’s poor frequency and miserable hours of operation anyways (hourly headways, from 6am to 6pm).
But to think that the Springfield line could’ve been only single-track seems outrageous, given it’s fairly impressive peak frequencies today (6-18 minutes).
At what point does one mode no longer function at its optimum capabilities before you need to use another mode that can better perform the role?
Heavy rail’s purpose is to get you to Ipswich from Brisbane. Getting around Ipswich LGA region is a job for other transport modes that specialise in local (suburban) travel such as buses and light rail. The concept of forced transfers is public transport planning doctrine.
Heavy rail is a long range transfer service between regions and cities at suburbs that have stations existing. Asking for it to service nine new stations (ten including terminating at Ipswich station) will impact its paired line service (either Shorncliffe or Brisbane Airport).
I’d go further and operate light rail at its unique strength which it can act as a bus or train simultaneously depending on its implementation. and upgrade the Springfield line to light rail and let it terminate at Darra. Ipswich gets an LRT network which they can flood with line with much much more frequent services than heavy rail can, and under this scenario you can even add a new station at Ellen Grove and one at Darra with direct transfers to SEQ.
.
