Stop pollies peddling pedalling

THE article on cycling on the northwest rail corridor (“New Life for disused rail corridor,” Mercury, August 2) is full of unwarranted assumptions and unsubstantiated hype — something like a spiel from a used-car salesman. This rail corridor, like others, is disused because governments refuse to take the initiative in promoting and supporting passenger services. They rather spend more public money ripping up tracks and laying down concrete. Private promoters of passenger rail services are expected to prove “viability,” but where’s the viability of a bike track? Will the government charge access fees?

We have a public asset that can be used to provide services to all who cannot ride bikes, and who would enjoy a social outing, but elitism and individualism seem to be the order of the day. There is a misleading assertion that tourists will be attracted to our bikeways. It is far more likely that they, especially those from cruise liners, would prefer a train ride. What studies have been done of the Hobart cycleway?

Cycleways can coexist with rail lines and passenger services. it doesn’t have to be mutually exclusive. Ripping up tracks is deliberately removing a future transport option for when petroleum supplies run low, fuel has to be rationed, and priority given to the most efficient uses that give the greatest social benefits.

Peter Needham

Bothwell