Mx: Commuters Back retro-fit rail plan.

[Gazza]

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/641/railbike.jpg/


Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Out of interest Bob, with respect to the bit about lines having capacity post CRR, which parts of the network would you suggest would have the newfound capacity in 2020, and then into the future, to have a track taken away and converted to a bikeway?

[HappyTrainGuy]

I don't like that idea. Its a railway corridor. Not a bikeway corridor. All it does is limit the space available for maintainence and expansion. CRR shouldn't even have been mentioned considering there are already plenty of bridges that cross the brisbane river all within minutes of each other.

[Mr X]

I don't understand why someone would want to ride along a bike track right next to train lines? Surely along main roads is better?

[Cam]

I don't like that idea. Its a railway corridor. Not a bikeway corridor.

Try looking at it as a transport corridor. It would provide for a fast bikeway as the path would be relatively flat & there would be less road crossings. There are safety advantages because cyclists are separated from road traffic. Finding a path around some stations may be a problem.

There is a bikeway for some distance adjacent to the railway line heading north through the suburbs of Christchurch in New Zealand.

[Stillwater]

QR would not be paying a cent for bicycle paths on railway land ... the local council would.  If, in future, QR required the bicycle path for a new track, council does its dough.  Taxpayer wins from more efficient railway, ratepayer loses through loss of active transport amenity.  Trouble is that the taxpayer and ratepayer are one and the same person.  :conf

[Cam]

I don't understand why someone would want to ride along a bike track right next to train lines? Surely along main roads is better?

Bikeways on the bitumen of main roads typically provide very little separation between a cyclist & vehicles. Cyclists have been killed when vehicles have crossed the boundary between the vehicular traffic lane & the bicycle lane. Along many sections of onroad bikeways, there is the potential problem of opening car doors from parked cars.

I would feel much safer riding along a rail corridor than between parked cars & moving trucks. A train would have to derail for it to cross onto a bikeway that is along a rail corridor.

[HappyTrainGuy]

It could be what ever you want to call it but the fact is its still a railway corridor. What about in the future when the need for a extra set of rails is needed. Start resuming homes or resume the brand new bike path. Then theres the cost of additional/maintainence costs, lighting costs, crossing bridges/tunnels, earthworks etc.

[O_128]

I don't understand why someone would want to ride along a bike track right next to train lines? Surely along main roads is better?

$20 I could ride my bike along the corridor from the city to manly in under 45 min, would be embarrassing for TL

[ozbob]

Richlands is a great example ..  the bicycle path is an embedded part of the corridor ...   :bi

[Gazza]

Richlands is a great example ..  the bicycle path is an embedded part of the corridor ...

No, but what I'm asking refers to this quote from the article ;

"If the cross river rail goes ahead that  should significantly boost capacity, which could free up lines and allow that space to be converted into bikeways"

Where in the network could we do this?

I'm talking ripping up tracks in existing corridors, not the integrating with new ones aspect.

[ozbob]

"If the cross river rail goes ahead that  should significantly boost capacity, which could free up lines and allow that space to be converted into bikeways"

Never said that ...  whaooo ...  let me read back a bit ..

Things in the press can  be out of context  ...

[Gazza]

Things in the press can  be out of context  ...

Haha, I bloody well hope you weren't advocating ripping up tracks  Thought it sounded a bit off from you.
Damn Mx reporters.

[ozbob]

 

[Gazza]

Maybe the reason Oxley never got its 4th track electrified and 4th platform is because they are just gonna turn it into a bikeway in a couple of years anyway. The 'freight track' story was just a red herring

[johnnigh]

Very high foaming ratio in this thread... 

Anyone been to Europe? Anyone noticed bikeways beside railways? Yeh, I think they're just a little bit ahead of our game. And without even barriers between rail and bikeway. And I'm talking S-bahn electrics in Switzerland, for example.

[SurfRail]

Very high foaming ratio in this thread... 

Anyone been to Europe? Anyone noticed bikeways beside railways? Yeh, I think they're just a little bit ahead of our game. And without even barriers between rail and bikeway. And I'm talking S-bahn electrics in Switzerland, for example.

That'd be Europe we're talking about.  You know, Europe - where they don't have a sun in the sky, so no glare issues for mirrors at the end of platforms so as to go without guards.  (And where trains run more than 30 minutes in the off-peak on metropolitan networks.)

[Cam]

I think that the idea is not to replace rail tracks with bikeways but add bikeways along rail corridors where there is room & there is no need to retain the spare space for additional tracks in the foreseeable future. I think that there may be room along the Beenleigh Line between Salisbury & South Bank in some sections. Future expansion to 4 tracks between Yeerongpilly & the CBD should be underground along the CRR corridor.

[ozbob]

I think that the idea is not to replace rail tracks with bikeways but add bikeways along rail corridors where there is room & there is no need to retain the spare space for additional tracks in the foreseeable future. I think that there may be room along the Beenleigh Line between Salisbury & South Bank in some sections. Future expansion to 4 tracks between Yeerongpilly & the CBD should be underground along the CRR corridor.

Yes Cam.  What I said was that when CRR is built that might allow bike paths in some of the  inner existing corridors as further track amplifications might not be needed.  I never said replace railway lines with bicycle paths, just building next to where possible.

All new rail corridors should include bicycle/pedestrian paths IMO.  The Richlands example is a good one.

[Gazza]

Yes Cam.  What I said was that when CRR is built that might allow bike paths in some of the  inner existing corridors as further track amplifications might not be needed.

Where?

[ozbob]

Salisbury to Park Road, enough room in the corridor generally for a bicycle path, but only if CRR is done.

Exhibition loop line.  Ferny Grove line.  Some more possibles ...

Yeerongpilly to Sherwood via Tennyson could be done too I think ... could link in to the one on the Southern line

[Arnz]

The old winding Elimbah to Beerburrum alignment could probably be converted to a rail trail/bicycle track.

[HappyTrainGuy]

One thing that hasn't been brought up is the maintainence vehicle access to trackside infurstructure and emergency vehicle access paths along the corridor...

[aldonius]

That's easy, just build the bike track wide enough and close off when necessary.

[ozbob]

Very high foaming ratio in this thread... 

Anyone been to Europe? Anyone noticed bikeways beside railways? Yeh, I think they're just a little bit ahead of our game. And without even barriers between rail and bikeway. And I'm talking S-bahn electrics in Switzerland, for example.

When I was last in Melbourne I noticed on the Dandenong/Pakenham  line there are paths near some sections of the railway line, unfenced as well.  A large part of the Melbourne network is unfenced.  It was but they removed it progressively over the years.

[Derwan]

The problem with converting "free" space along a corridor into a bicycle track is that when/if that space is needed for additional track capacity, you can no longer have the bicycle track.  The problem with THAT is that once you provide something, it's very hard to try to take it away.  Sometimes it's best not to provide it in the first place.  You never miss what you never had.

There needs to be a longer-term strategy for bicycle paths.  If the short term is using the railway corridor, there has to be a plan to use an alternative route when track upgrades occur if there isn't already enough space in the corridor.

[Stillwater]

True.  Providing bicycle paths in space that otherwise would be occupied by a railway track encourages active transport opportunities in the short to medium term.  Yes, you do provide something that may have to be taken away later, but what you create in the meantime is a demand, or a market, for greater bicycle use.  This demand will force planners to provide rail corridor bicycle paths in the interim, while being forced to look to longer-term solutions.  People using the interim rail corridor bicycle path will demand an alternative if and when the land is required for an extra track.  By not providing something in the first instance, for fear that is may eventually be lost, active transport options are supressed - and we continue to stick to our cars.