As a cyclist I’m definitely in favour of a rail trail. I’m also definitely not a fan of ripping up the rails. There is no need when they can be used to facilitate the trail and, in the event of trains returning, can be as easily restored. Unless, of course, you intend to make a huge amount of money ripping them up and selling them.
Lydia Kindred is right when she perceives very few cyclists in this area. With little bike infrastructure our narrow country roads are a potentially dangerous place to be and many would-be cyclists are understandably reluctant. A car free transport corridor through the middle of our region would give the opportunity for our highly creative residents to redefine local transport.
Electric bikes are getting very reliable and, with the huge global uptake, prices are falling. An Ebike capable of reliably traveling that corridor at 25kph can be had for less than $1,000 and there is so much choice. For DIY, motors as little as $200 and batteries around $400 plus a donor bike. What’s more the technology can be applied to any bike-based vehicle, something to get creative with.
In one of the most perfect climates and environments for cycling we have the opportunity to redefine local transport and secure the corridor in public hands. But not for much longer as the developers probably have their eyes on it.
Robin Harrison, Binna Burra
I agree with your comments re having the trail beside the tracks. That would be a win win situation and is very achievable. Its silly that some rail trail supporters oppose this option for no apparent reason.
I think the rail beside trail option is the only way the rail trail will survive financially. A rail service would generate revenue which could be used to maintain the trail. A rail trail alone would be a financial burden on councils and would be closed after the initial buzz wears off.
It’s also worth mentioning the fact that the tracks are currently protected by legislation that prohibits their removal and sale of the land. The Rail Trail group has sought to remove this legislation, however they failed therefore the tracks and corridor are still safe in public hands. There would also be no money to make in the sale of the rails – the only benefit would be to use them as train tracks like they are supposed to be.
I wholeheartedly support a rail with trail option, as do many residents opposed to a trail only option.
While a rail beside trail solution appears to make sense, the difficulties and associated costs of doing are explained in the Feasibility Study, and in doing so the study recognises the current proposed train services. What is unreasonable is preventing the trail from proceeding in the hope that commuter services along the line will return,along the corridor. As many of us have pointed out that is most unlikely, a point reinforced in the NSW Government’s North Coast recent strategic plan, which while explicitly defining a role for the main North Coast line up to 2036, does not mention the corridor of the disused branch line proposed for the rail trail – why would it when such a service would be an uneconomic burden on the people of NSW that would do little to provide better transport where people want to go, and would be unlikely to bring significant environmental or traffic management benefits. If in the much longer term future there are the increases in population there might be a case for building a rail service from QLD system down the Tweed Coast and then along the corridor. In that case the costs of making alternative arrangements for the rail trail would be quite small compared with large cost of building a new narrow gauge line. You once again make the unevidenced comment that the the initial buzz of a rail trail will wear off and refer to a burden on Councils. Australia has a large untapped demand for safe places to cycle and LGAs and communities in Victoria continue to benefit financially from the popular trails there. The costs to ratepayers of mainlining the trail would be quite small compared with the hypothetical cost of Councils increasing rates by hundreds of dollars year just to provide a commuter rail service to a small number of its residents, noting again that no NSW government would have any reason to subsidise the service in the face of much more pressing public transport priorities. Nor would I expect councils or government to be keen on spending the additional cost of a parallel trail when the only justification would only be to allow for the unlikely possibility of a return to standard gauge services in the foreseeable future.