Article: A second railway ... and please finish the motorway!

[ozbob]

From the Queensland Times click here!

A second railway ... and please finish the motorway!

A second railway ... and please finish the motorway!
Geoff Egan 21st Jan 2013 1:00 AM

THE Ipswich to Springfield Rail Link and Norman St Bridge are at the top of Mayor Paul Pisasale's wish list for a State Government review into transport in Ipswich.

The Ipswich Area Transport Study will be conducted by the Department of Transport and Main Roads to "plan for Ipswich's future transport requirements".

The review will encompass the entire Ipswich region.

THE region extends from Darra west to Marburg, and Ripley Valley north to Mt Crosby.

Cr Pisasale said he hoped the study would ensure the development of the connection of Springfield to Ipswich, via Ripley and Amberley, the eastern end of the Ipswich Mwy, the Norman St Bridge and the link from Riverview to the Ipswich CBD.

"Ripley needs close attention paid to it," Cr Pisasale said.

"Connecting it with Springfield, the CBD and the job creation areas such as the aerospace precinct is vital."

Cr Pisasale said the proposed Norman St Bridge was vital to alleviate future traffic in Ipswich city.

Currently the David Trumpy Bridge is the only bridge in the CBD.

A department spokesman said the study would be used to shape the future of transport in the city.

"(The study) will identify possible transport investments for Ipswich which will help Transport and Main Roads to prioritise investments over the short, medium and long terms," he said.

"There have been several previous studies assessing various transport issues, including road upgrades and future road/rail alignments.

"These studies include the Ipswich Mwy, Cunningham Hwy, Centenary Mwy, Springfield to Ipswich Rail, Norman Street Bridge, Western Ipswich Bypass and Warrego Hwy."

However, the department said it did not anticipate ongoing commercial and government developments in the CBD to create a dramatic increase in road or rail traffic.

"It is not anticipated passenger and traffic volumes will change substantially on the Ipswich rail line or motorway due to the opening of new State Government offices," the spokesman said.

The study will be prepared in collaboration with Ipswich City Council, with the department expecting it to be completed by June.

[Stillwater]

Mayor Pisasale, a Labor man, is a hard-working and much admired Mayor who gives 110 per cent for his city.  An Ipswich Area Transport Study is a much-needed and effective tool for the orderly planning and development of a dynamic area of Queensland.

Mayor Pisasale can move a state government to conduct such a study.

The Sunshine Coast LNP Members of Parliament actually promised an Integrated Transport Plan for the Sunshine Coast, but were over-ruled by Campbell Newman and the concept was scrapped.

The LNP government works with a Labor Mayor to prepare a transport plan for Ipswich, and so it should.  It doesn't work to implement its LNP Members' own promise to Sunshine Coast voters and actively works not to achieve their undertaking.  Go figure. 

[petey3801]

The second last paragraph in that article pretty much says there will be no frequency improvements on the Ipswich line anytime soon, so much for a state government wanting to increase public transport use through frequency increases etc. 

[#Metro]

Hello. I think this may take a while. new infrastructure costs hundreds of millions of dollars per kilometre plus aren't there capacity constraints that would require a new tunnel for trains under west end? This is why I think density increases are preferable.

[ozbob]

The second last paragraph in that article pretty much says there will be no frequency improvements on the Ipswich line anytime soon, so much for a state government wanting to increase public transport use through frequency increases etc. 

Maybe a new Government will sort that.  They way the present mob is going they are increasingly looking like one term wonders ...

[colinw]

Hello. I think this may take a while. new infrastructure costs hundreds of millions of dollars per kilometre plus aren't there capacity constraints that would require a new tunnel for trains under west end? This is why I think density increases are preferable.

I suggest reading the Springfield to Ipswich study, you will find costings in that study which are nowhere near the numbers you suggest.

http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/~/media/Projects/I/Ipswich%20to%20Springfield%20Public%20Transport%20Corridor%20Study/Pdf_ipswich_springfield_eis_exec_summary.pdf

The estimated infrastructure cost for the construction of the Ipswich to Springfield PTC is
$1.415 billion for heavy rail and $1.038 billion for busway (excl. GST and including a 50%
contingency).

(i.e. small change to the motorway proponents).

Its greenfield most of the way except for at the Yamanto to Ipswich end where it needs some houses resumed and then makes some use of an existing disused branch line corridor.

As for the West End bit, are you really saying that the quad track main line then two tracks through Central 5 & 6 could not handle Ipswich + Springfield line traffic of 4TPH+ each?  Frankly I think the Ipswich line tunnel via West End proposal (and equivalent metro ideas) is just so much unsubstantiated foam, that cannot be possibly justified even in the next 30 years.   It will achieve nowhere near what CRR will from the south, or fixing up access to the north and the NCL to Nambour.

Springfield to Ipswich is ideal for staged delivery over the course of the next 10-12 years, which makes it eminently affordable.  It is, of course, only justified if Ripley goes ahead with the planned scale, along with TOD at Yamanto.

Whether it should be the priority over other improvements (e.g. NCL duplication) I am leaving alone, ditto the argument about whether we need more concrete vs. improved services. I think there are valid arguments both pro- and con- on those topics.

[somebody]

As for the West End bit, are you really saying that the quad track main line then two tracks through Central 5 & 6 could not handle Ipswich + Springfield line traffic of 4TPH+ each?  Frankly I think the Ipswich line tunnel via West End proposal (and equivalent metro ideas) is just so much unsubstantiated foam, that cannot be possibly justified even in the next 30 years.   It will achieve nowhere near what CRR will from the south, or fixing up access to the north and the NCL to Nambour.

To be fair, it does have to handle more than 8tph in peak.  I agree with your analysis though, and stopping the part where people are made to connect to South Bank etc via Roma St will relieve a bit of congestion too.

Whether it should be the priority over other improvements (e.g. NCL duplication) I am leaving alone, ditto the argument about whether we need more concrete vs. improved services. I think there are valid arguments both pro- and con- on those topics.

I think there is only one valid argument - concrete without services is futile.  I'm guessing that I am not understanding what you are trying to say here.

[colinw]

Yeah, that didn't come out clear.

What I meant is that I am unsure whether we should be rolling out any more expensive bits of concrete until we fix the existing lines and perform the infrastructure work necessary to unlock what we already have.

I am thus dubious about building entirely new lines when still stuck with messes like the NCL, or even the current timetables.

On the other hand, I can see the merit of getting the Ripley line in place as Ripley & Yamanto develop, and while the corridor for it remains greenfield and relatively economical to build.

In other words, I'm dithering and in two minds about the whole thing ...

[SurfRail]

Yeah, that didn't come out clear.

What I meant is that I am unsure whether we should be rolling out any more expensive bits of concrete until we fix the existing lines and perform the infrastructure work necessary to unlock what we already have.

I am thus dubious about building entirely new lines when still stuck with messes like the NCL, or even the current timetables.

On the other hand, I can see the merit of getting the Ripley line in place as Ripley & Yamanto develop, and while the corridor for it remains greenfield and relatively economical to build.

In other words, I'm dithering and in two minds about the whole thing ...

Ripley is about the only bit you can build without needing to enhance CBD capacity though.  Anything connected to Sector II and you have issues.  The whole line will have good local ridership too with so many anchor points on the way.

[nathandavid88]

Yeah, that didn't come out clear.

What I meant is that I am unsure whether we should be rolling out any more expensive bits of concrete until we fix the existing lines and perform the infrastructure work necessary to unlock what we already have.

I am thus dubious about building entirely new lines when still stuck with messes like the NCL, or even the current timetables.

On the other hand, I can see the merit of getting the Ripley line in place as Ripley & Yamanto develop, and while the corridor for it remains greenfield and relatively economical to build.

In other words, I'm dithering and in two minds about the whole thing ...

I agree with you about being in two minds about this. New and extended lines are all well and good (I'd love to be able to catch a train out to places like Logan Village/Yarrabilba and Beaudesert myself), but the money that they cost I think in a lot of cases would be better spent in sorting out the messes we have on the existing lines. The last thing we need is even more pressure on lines that have issues handling what travels along them even now. That said, it would be good to see a corridor preserved now, to help keep the construction costs down for the future when a line out to Ripley becomes necessary.

[mufreight]

To extend the Springfield line into the Ripley Valley now would be easily justified as a greenfield development partly justified by the failure to provide adequate parking at Springfield Central.

[SurfRail]

To extend the Springfield line into the Ripley Valley now would be easily justified as a greenfield development partly justified by the failure to provide adequate parking at Springfield Central.

Even just to the 2 Redbank Plains stations (and hopefully Ellen Grove).

[SteelPan]

...(I'd love to be able to catch a train out to places like Logan Village/Yarrabilba and Beaudesert myself), but the money that they cost I think in a lot of cases would be better spent in sorting out the messes we have on the existing lines...

The financial capacity for fixing Australia's shockingly backward urban and regional rail networks rests with the trillion dollar+ capacity of the nations superannuation funds.  The Fed Govt that comes up with - an industry supported plan - to expose real fund dollars to rail networks in this country, particularly strategic inland to port corridors (ie, the "Inland Railway") and high growth urban corridors - which are also real commercial investment opportunities, will change for the better, the face of our great nation.

Sadly, there appears little commercial/infrastructure skill in fed politics under any political colour banner.