Edited 03 Aug 2013 08:54, 8 years ago, edited by locojoe67

I used to have little opinion either way, until i started riding a few rail trails.

For every well patronised, scenic rail trail, there are probably ten more that are rough, remote and little used. Costing millions to rehabilitate, they were often developed with the promise of attracting riders, hikers and outdoorsmen. Cash would flow into the community from an avalanche of weekend adventurers.

Wrong.

Most of these closed lines will never reopen, with track and bridgework restoration prohibitively expensive for volunteer groups. But in this context it is largely irrelevant. Static museums can serve as a focal point, communities can develop historical displays, and people can have a sense of pride in restoring buildings and maintaining what was. It is an inexpensive means of fostering some sense of belonging in communities that often badly need it.

As such, the problem is that rail trails are portrayed as a marvelous investment. The reality is that many are poorly used, poorly thought out trails with unfamiliar surroundings that present numerous dangers to their infrequent and inexperienced users, exposing the local council as trustee to significant legal liability in the event of accident or incident. Maintenance will also be required to ensure safety standards are adhered to, an additional ongoing cost often glossed over in the initial sales pitch.

Realistically, most of these closed lines will never reopen. But spending millions to rehab them, and allowing users on these often difficult-to-access corridors is just asking for trouble. Ever tried getting mobile access on these? Ever gotten a flat tyre 10ks from your car? What if your companion has a heart attack, miles from corridor access?

There is little that can be cheaply done to these corridors. So little should be done. Leave them be in the unlikely event coal is found nearby.

The only relevant question here, for the trail advocates, is: who really benefits? A half dozen horse riders and a few assorted cyclists? Is it worth it?

The ambit claims made by trail advocates are based largely on the few 'success' stories such as Lilydale-Warburton, near a substantial population catchment, and capable of attracting significant dollars for rebuilding purposes. This type of outcome is an outlier. The majority of the proposals are for rough and remote trails costing millions to rehab that should only be left to rot in peace.

Edited 03 Aug 2013 08:52, 8 years ago, edited by locojoe67

I used to have little opinion either way, until i started riding a few rail trails.

For every well patronised, scenic rail trail, there are probably ten more that are rough, remote and little used. Costing millions to rehabilitate, they were often developed with the promise of attracting riders, hikers and outdoorsmen. Cash would flow into the community from an avalanche of weekend adventurers.

Wrong.

Most of these closed lines will never reopen, but that is largely irrelevant. Static museums can serve as a focal point, communities can develop historical displays, and people can have a sense of pride in restoring buildings and maintaining what was. It is an inexpensive means of fostering some sense of belonging in communities that often badly need it.

As such, the problem is that rail trails are portrayed as a marvelous investment. The reality is that many are poorly used, poorly thought out trails with unfamiliar surroundings that present numerous dangers to their infrequent and inexperienced users, exposing the local council as trustee to significant legal liability in the event of accident or incident. Maintenance will also be required to ensure safety standards are adhered to, an additional ongoing cost often glossed over in the initial sales pitch.

Realistically, most of these closed lines will never reopen. But spending millions to rehab them, and allowing users on these often difficult-to-access corridors is just asking for trouble. Ever tried getting mobile access on these? Ever gotten a flat tyre 10ks from your car? What if your companion has a heart attack, miles from corridor access?

There is little that can be cheaply done to these corridors. So little should be done. Leave them be in the unlikely event coal is found nearby.

The only relevant question here, for the trail advocates, is: who really benefits? A half dozen horse riders and a few assorted cyclists? Is it worth it?

The ambit claims made by trail advocates are based largely on the few 'success' stories such as Lilydale-Warburton, near a substantial population catchment, and capable of attracting significant dollars for rebuilding purposes. This type of outcome is an outlier. The majority of the proposals are for rough and remote trails costing millions to rehab that should only be left to rot in peace.

Edited 03 Aug 2013 08:47, 8 years ago, edited by locojoe67

I used to have little opinion either way, until i started riding a few rail trails.

For every well patronised, scenic rail trail, there are probably ten more that are rough, remote and little used. Costing millions to rehabilitate, they were often developed with the promise of attracting riders, hikers and outdoorsmen. Cash would flow into the community from an avalanche of weekend adventurers.

Wrong.

Most of these closed lines will never reopen, but that is largely irrelevant. Static museums can serve as a focal point, communities can develop historical displays, and people can have a sense of pride in restoring buildings and maintaining what was. It is an inexpensive means of fostering some sense of belonging in communities that often badly need it.

As such, the problem is that rail trails are portrayed as a marvelous investment. The reality is that many are poorly used, poorly thought out trails that are dangerous to their infrequent users and expose the local council as trustee to significant legal liability in the event of accident or incident. Maintenance will also be required to ensure safety standards are adhered to, an additional ongoing cost often glossed over in the initial sales pitch.

Realistically, most of these closed lines will never reopen. But spending millions to rehab them, and allowing users on these often difficult-to-access corridors is just asking for trouble. Ever tried getting mobile access on these? Ever gotten a flat tyre 10ks from your car? What if your companion has a heart attack, miles from corridor access?

There is little that can be cheaply done to these corridors. So little should be done. Leave them be in the unlikely event coal is found nearby.

The only relevant question here, for the trail advocates, is: who really benefits? A half dozen horse riders and a few assorted cyclists? Is it worth it?

The ambit claims made by trail advocates are based largely on the few 'success' stories such as Lilydale-Warburton, near a substantial population catchment, and capable of attracting significant dollars for rebuilding purposes. This type of outcome is an outlier. The majority of the proposals are for rough and remote trails costing millions to rehab that should only be left to rot in peace.

Edited 03 Aug 2013 08:42, 8 years ago, edited by locojoe67

I used to have little opinion either way, until i started riding a few rail trails.

For every well patronised, scenic rail trail, there are probably ten more that are rough, remote and little used. Costing millions to rehabilitate, they were often developed with the promise of attracting riders, hikers and outdoorsmen. Cash would flow into the community from an avalanche of weekend adventurers.

Wrong.

Most of these closed lines will never reopen, but that is largely irrelevant. Static museums can serve as a focal point, communities can develop historical displays, and people can have a sense of pride in restoring buildings and maintaining what was. It is an inexpensive means of fostering some sense of belonging in communities that often badly need it.

As such, the problem is that rail trails are portrayed as a marvelous investment. The reality is that many are poorly used, poorly thought out trails that are dangerous to their infrequent users and expose the local council as trustee to significant legal liability in the event of accident or incident. Maintenance will also be required to ensure safety standards are adhered to, an additional ongoing cost often glossed over in the initial sales pitch.

Realistically, most of these closed lines will never reopen. But spending millions to rehab them, and allowing users on these often difficult-to-access corridors is just asking for trouble. Ever tried getting mobile access on these? Ever gotten a flat tyre 10ks from your car? What if your companion has a heart attack, miles from corridor access?

There is little that be cheaply done to these corridors. So little should be done. Leave them be in the unlikely event coal is found nearby.

The only relevant question here, for the trail advocates, is: who really benefits? A half dozen horse riders and a few assorted cyclists? Is it worth it?

The ambit claims made by trail advocates are based largely on the few 'success' stories such as Lilydale-Warburton, near a substantial population catchment, and capable of attracting significant dollars for rebuilding purposes. This type of outcome is an outlier. The majority of the proposals are for rough and remote trails costing millions to rehab that should only be left to rot in peace.

Edited 03 Aug 2013 08:27, 8 years ago, edited by locojoe67

I used to have little opinion either way, until i started riding a few rail trails.

For every well patronised, scenic rail trail, there are probably ten more that are rough, remote and little used. Costing millions to rehabilitate, they were often developed with the promise of attracting riders, hikers and outdoorsmen. Cash would flow into the community from an avalanche of weekend adventurers.

Wrong.

Most of these closed lines will never reopen, but that is largely irrelevant. Static museums can serve as a focal point, communities can develop historical displays, and people can have a sense of pride in restoring buildings and maintaining what was. It is an inexpensive means of fostering some sense of belonging in communities that often badly need it.

As such, the problem is that rail trails are portrayed as a marvelous investment. The reality is that many are poorly used, poorly thought out trails that are dangerous to their infrequent users and expose the local council as trustee to significant legal liability in the event of accident or incident. Maintenance will also be required to ensure safety standards are adhered to, an additional ongoing cost often glossed over in the initial sales pitch.

Realistically, most of these closed lines will never reopen. But spending millions to rehab them, and allowing users on these often difficult-to-access corridors is just asking for trouble. Ever tried getting mobile access on these? Ever gotten a flat tyre 10ks from your car? What if your companion has a heart attack, miles from corridor access?

There is little that be cheaply done to these corridors. So little should be done. Leave them be in the unlikely event a coal mine opens nearby.

The only relevant question here, for the trail advocates, is: who really benefits? A half dozen horse riders and a few assorted cyclists? Is it worth it?

The ambit claims made by trail advocates are based largely on the few 'success' stories such as Lilydale-Warburton, near a substantial population catchment, and capable of attracting significant dollars for rebuilding purposes. This type of outcome is an outlier. The majority of the proposals are for rough and remote trails costing millions to rehab that should only be left to rot in peace.

Edited 03 Aug 2013 08:02, 8 years ago, edited by locojoe67

I used to have little opinion either way, until i started riding a few rail trails.

For every well patronised, scenic rail trail, there are probably ten more that are rough, remote and little used. Costing millions to rehabilitate, they were often developed with the promise of attracting riders, hikers and outdoorsmen. Cash would flow into the community from an avalanche of weekend adventurers.

Wrong.

Most of these closed lines will never reopen, but that is largely irrelevant. Static museums can serve as a focal point, communities can develop historical displays, and people can have a sense of pride in restoring buildings and maintaining what was. It is an inexpensive means of fostering some sense of belonging in communities that often badly need it.

As such, the problem is that rail trails are portrayed as a marvelous investment. The reality is that many are poorly used, poorly thought out trails that are dangerous to their infrequent users and expose the local council as trustee to significant legal liability in the event of accident or incident.

Realistically, most of these closed lines will never reopen. But spending millions to rehab them, and allowing users on these often difficult-to-access corridors is just asking for trouble. Ever tried getting mobile access on these? Ever gotten a flat tyre 10ks from your car? What if your companion has a heart attack, miles from corridor access?

There is little that be cheaply done to these corridors. So little should be done. Leave them be in the unlikely event a coal mine opens nearby.

The only relevant question here, for the trail advocates, is: who really benefits? A half dozen horse riders and a few assorted cyclists? Is it worth it?

The ambit claims made by trail advocates are based largely on the few 'success' stories such as Lilydale-Warburton, near a substantial population catchment, and capable of attracting significant dollars for rebuilding purposes. This type of outcome is an outlier. The majority of the proposals are for rough and remote trails costing millions to rehab that should only be left to rot in peace.

Edited 03 Aug 2013 07:56, 8 years ago, edited by locojoe67

I used to have little opinion either way, until i started riding a few rail trails.

For every well patronised, scenic rail trail, there are probably ten more that are rough, remote and little used. Costing millions to rehabilitate, they were often developed with the promise of attracting riders, hikers and outdoorsmen. Cash would flow into the community from an avalanche of weekend adventurers.

Wrong.

Most of these closed lines will never reopen, but that is largely irrelevant. Static museums can serve as a focal point, communities can develop historical displays, and people can have a sense of pride in restoring buildings and maintaining what was. It is an inexpensive means of fostering some sense of belonging in communities that often badly need it.

As such, the problem is that rail trails are portrayed as a marvelous investment. The reality is that many are poorly used, poorly thought out trails that are dangerous to their infrequent users and expose the local council as trustee to significant legal liability in the event of accident or incident.

Realistically, most of these closed lines will never reopen. But spending millions to rehab them, and allowing users on these often difficult-to-access corridors is just asking for trouble. Ever tried getting mobile access on these? Ever gotten a flat tyre 10ks from your car? What if your companion has a heart attack, miles from corridor access?

There is little that be cheaply done to these corridors. So little should be done. Leave them be in the unlikely event a coal mine opens nearby.

The only relevant question here, for the trail advocates, is: who really benefits? A half dozen horse riders and a few assorted cyclists? Is it worth it?

Edited 03 Aug 2013 07:39, 8 years ago, edited by locojoe67

I used to have little opinion either way, until i started riding a few rail trails.

For every well patronised, scenic rail trail, there are probably ten more that are rough, remote and little used. Costing millions to rehabilitate, they were often developed with the promise of attracting riders, hikers and outdoorsmen. Cash would flow into the community from an avalanche of weekend adventurers.

Wrong.

Most of these closed lines will never reopen. But that is laregly irrelevant. Static museums can serve as a focal point, communities can develop historical displays, and people can have a sense of pride in restoring buildings and maintaining what was. It is an inexpensive means of fostering some sense of belonging in communities that often badly need it.

As such, the problem is that rail trails are portrayed as a marvelous investment. The reality is that many are poorly used, poorly thought out trails that are dangerous to their infrequent users and expose the local council as trustee to significant legal liability in the event of accident or incident.

Realistically, most of these closed lines will never reopen. But spending millions to rehab them, and allowing users on these often difficult-to-access corridors is just asking for trouble. Ever tried getting mobile access on these? Ever gotten a flat tyre 10ks from your car? What if your companion has a heart attack, miles from corridor access?

There is little that be cheaply done to these corridors. So little should be done. Leave them be in the unlikely event a coal mine opens nearby.

The only relevant question here, for the trail advocates, is: who really benefits? A half dozen horse riders and a few assorted cyclists? Is it worth it?

Edited 03 Aug 2013 07:39, 8 years ago, edited by locojoe67

I used to have little opinion either way, until i started riding a few rail trails.

For every well patronised, scenic rail trail, there are probably ten more that are rough, remote and little used. Costing millions to rehabilitate, they were often developed with the promise of attracting riders, hikers and outdoorsmen. Cash would flow into the community from an avalanche of weekend adventurers.

Wrong.

Most of these closed lines will never reopen. But that does not mean anything. Static museums can serve as a focal point, communities can develop historical displays, and people can have a sense of pride in restoring buildings and maintaining what was. It is an inexpensive means of fostering some sense of belonging in communities that often badly need it.

As such, the problem is that rail trails are portrayed as a marvelous investment. The reality is that many are poorly used, poorly thought out trails that are dangerous to their infrequent users and expose the local council as trustee to significant legal liability in the event of accident or incident.

Realistically, most of these closed lines will never reopen. But spending millions to rehab them, and allowing users on these often difficult-to-access corridors is just asking for trouble. Ever tried getting mobile access on these? Ever gotten a flat tyre 10ks from your car? What if your companion has a heart attack, miles from corridor access?

There is little that be cheaply done to these corridors. So little should be done. Leave them be in the unlikely event a coal mine opens nearby.

The only relevant question here, for the trail advocates, is: who really benefits? A half dozen horse riders and a few assorted cyclists? Is it worth it?

Edited 03 Aug 2013 07:38, 8 years ago, edited by locojoe67

I used to have little opinion either way, until i started riding a few rail trails.

For every well patronised, scenic rail trail, there are probably ten more that are rough, remote and little used. Costing millions to rehabilitate, they were often developed with the promise of attracting riders, hikers and outdoorsmen. Cash would flow into the community from an avalanche of weekend adventurers.

Wrong.

Most of these closed lines will never reopen. But that does not mean anything. Static museums can serve as a focal point, communities can develop historical displays, and people can have a sense of pride in restoring buildings and maintaining what was. It is an inexpensive means of fostering some sense of belonging in communities that often badly need it.

As such, the problem is that rail trails are portrayed as a marvelous investment. Poorly used, poorly thought out trails are dangerous to their infrequent users and expose the local council as trustee to significant legal liability in the event of accident or incident.

Realistically, most of these closed lines will never reopen. But spending millions to rehab them, and allowing users on these often difficult-to-access corridors is just asking for trouble. Ever tried getting mobile access on these? Ever gotten a flat tyre 10ks from your car? What if your companion has a heart attack, miles from corridor access?

There is little that be cheaply done to these corridors. So little should be done. Leave them be in the unlikely event a coal mine opens nearby.

The only relevant question here, for the trail advocates, is: who really benefits? A half dozen horse riders and a few assorted cyclists? Is it worth it?

Edited 03 Aug 2013 07:36, 8 years ago, edited by locojoe67

I used to have little opinion either way, until i started riding a few rail trails.

For every well patronised, scenic rail trail, there are probably ten more that are rough, remote and little used. Costing millions to rehabilitate, they were often developed with the promise of attracting riders, hikers and outdoorsmen. Cash would flow into the community from an avalanche of weekend adventurers.

Wrong.

Most of these closed lines will never reopen. But that does not mean anything. Static museums can serve as a focal point, communities can develop historical displays, and people can have a sense of pride in restoring buildings and maintaining what was. It is an inexpensive means of fostering some sense of belonging in communities that often badly need it.

As such, the problem is that rail trails are portrayed as a marvelous investment. Poorly used, poorly thought out trails are dangerous to their infrequent users and expose the local council as trustee to significant legal liability in the event of accident or incident.

Realistically, most of these closed lines will never reopen. But spending millions to rehab them, and allowing users on these often difficult to access corridors is just asking for trouble. Ever tried betting mobile access on these? Ever gotten a flat tyre 10ks from your car? What if your companion has a heart attack, miles from corridor access?

There is little that be cheaply done to these corridors. So little should be done. Leave them be in the unlikely event a coal mine opens nearby.

The only relevant question here, for the trail advocates, is: who really benefits? A half dozen horse riders and a few assorted cyclists? Is it worth it?