New railways and cycle paths

[adamskiodp]

Hi folks,

Please move if in the wrong forum.

Sorry if this is a stupid question:

Who decides on what is built when building a new railway line or reopening an old one? Is it the TOC, Network Rail, or the local authority/Council?

I am thinking particularly of planned works in my own area of Buckinghamshire. When the East/West rail link from Milton Keynes to London Marylebone is built and the single track section to Princes Risborough is upgraded to double track, why can't they put in a cycle path alongside it (with appropriate fencing/barriers)?

Apart from cost what would prevent this, and why has there been no will to do this on recent new lines (apart from Chiltern Railways loss of revenue)? E.g The newly opened Bicester to Oxford link.

It would be great to cycle between town such as Aylesbury/P. Risborough/High Wycombe avoiding the very busy roads and be able to ride on a relatively flat route

Sorry for the ramble

Thanks,

Adam

 

[DarloRich]

nothing - except the will to do so, funding and the required joined up approach between all stakeholders

 

[telstarbox]

Usually for new railways or reopenings there would be a Transport and Works Act Order which would be sponsored by Network Rail. There is usually a consultation period before an order is made. In some cases the local council needs to grant planning permission as well and they would be consulted in any event for a TWA Order.

According to the East West Rail website there will be further consultation in "Spring 2017" so keep an eye on the website. There is precedent for including a parallel cycle track - the recent Leigh Busway was built with one. However the safety case is likely to be different for a railway line.

You may be best to approach your local representative at Buckinghamshire County Council and ask them to help!

 

[adamskiodp]

Great, thanks.
Will contact my councillor

Adam

 

[30907]

nothing - except the will to do so, funding and the required joined up approach between all stakeholders

And the fact that a cycleway is likely to require extra land take rather than being accommodated within an existing railway boundary. I presume doubling Risboro-Aylesbury involves land take already so a different case.

 

[The Planner]

It isn't going to be doubled as part of E-W the last I heard.

 

[PeterC]

Is there a real transport need for an inter-urban cycleway rather than as a leisure facility for hobby cyclists?

 

[TBirdFrank]

No! Unless the cyclists are going to pay for it!

 

[modernrail]

Who are 'the cyclists'?

 

[jopsuk]

If a railway is rebuilt with the same number of lines it had before it was ripped up then there's little or no chance of a cycleway being included, certainly not within the boundary, so existing land would need to be purchased. The two big busway schemes (Luton-Dunstable and Cambridgeshire) have a maintenance track along side. These have been built on the footprint of two track railways. A two track busway is much narrower than the footprint of a two track railway and so a 3.5-4m wide path alongside is available. In both cases the maintenance track has been designated as a foot and cycleway (the Cambridge one is also passable on horse, indeed at road crossings it has Pegasus Crossing controls and signals). The Cambridge one has been surfaced with tarmac- partly out of the project budget, but a lengthy section the surfacing was funded by Sustrans.

 

[Trog]

Luton to Dunstable was single track, the double track was the LNWR section from Dunstable Town back towards Leighton Buzzard.

 

[squizzler]

I think there is excellent justification for retention of old rail alignments as bike routes. However when the railway needs the land back I think the bike route has to move. This clearly is not always necessary, like the section of the bike road next to the Welsh Highland out of Caernarfon.

I say this as somebody who exclusively uses the bike for commuting. I also feel that ordinary roads should shift where they have taken the rail alignment and the railway wants it back. Just to be more contrary, I also regard the term "re-openings" as double edged because it implies that the track must go on the old (and possibly sub optimal) alignment.

I question the amenity value of a bike route alongside a busy double track railway. You have been on a platform as an intercity or intermodal freight passes at full chat? Imagine biking along in a world of your own and a suddenly being overtaken (you are at rail level btw) by a speeding train the other side of a wire fence.

Couple that with the difficulties of traffic access to and from the roads and the demand for bike capacity being greatest in towns and cities, and I think we are best lobbying for the space on existing roads. I suspect trackbed conversions to bike trails will come to be seen as a short chapter in transport history which is almost over.

 

[edwin_m]

Couple that with the difficulties of traffic access to and from the roads and the demand for bike capacity being greatest in towns and cities, and I think we are best lobbying for the space on existing roads. I suspect trackbed conversions to bike trails will come to be seen as a short chapter in transport history which is almost over.

There will be some demand for the traditional transport function of getting someone from A to B because they have some reason to go there. However, rather like heritage railways, rural bike trails are probably more about tourism. Having some easily-graded off-road trails to cycle on in attractive countryside makes it more likely people will visit the area.

 

[DimTim]

All over bridges, under bridges would need to be wider to accommodate a cycle path - increased cost.

 

[Sean Emmett]

IIRC there was a cyclepath on the Airdrie - Bathgate line which had to be moved when railway re-opened. Bodmin Rly plans to extend to Wadebridge incl provision for relocated Camel Trail in some tight spots.

 

[AndrewE]

It seems to have been quite do-able between Airdrie and Bathgate...

I would have thought that a cycle path could be squeezed in along most railway alignments, and it would need to drop or rise to connect with roads at lots of under- and over-bridges anyway.

 

[HowardGWR]

I think there is excellent justification for retention of old rail alignments as bike routes. However when the railway needs the land back I think the bike route has to move. This clearly is not always necessary, like the section of the bike road next to the Welsh Highland out of Caernarfon.

I say this as somebody who exclusively uses the bike for commuting. I also feel that ordinary roads should shift where they have taken the rail alignment and the railway wants it back. Just to be more contrary, I also regard the term "re-openings" as double edged because it implies that the track must go on the old (and possibly sub optimal) alignment.

I question the amenity value of a bike route alongside a busy double track railway. You have been on a platform as an intercity or intermodal freight passes at full chat? Imagine biking along in a world of your own and a suddenly being overtaken (you are at rail level btw) by a speeding train the other side of a wire fence.

Couple that with the difficulties of traffic access to and from the roads and the demand for bike capacity being greatest in towns and cities, and I think we are best lobbying for the space on existing roads. I suspect trackbed conversions to bike trails will come to be seen as a short chapter in transport history which is almost over.

Very interesting post, thanks. We have discussed in other threads whether the MR line from Bristol to Yate should be reopened. I read frequently of assaults and robbery on the Railway Path, due to its lack of natural social control features, being mainly through tree lined cutting or somewhat remote embankment. Although reasonably well-used, it is clearly not as safe for lone cyclists or pedestrians, as a proper cycle path would be, on the nearby main roads.

 

[edwin_m]

Very interesting post, thanks. We have discussed in other threads whether the MR line from Bristol to Yate should be reopened. I read frequently of assaults and robbery on the Railway Path, due to its lack of natural social control features, being mainly through tree lined cutting or somewhat remote embankment. Although reasonably well-used, it is clearly not as safe for lone cyclists or pedestrians, as a proper cycle path would be, on the nearby main roads.

However would a cycle path on the main road carry a greater risk of cyclists being involved in accidents, outweighing the risk of crime on the segregated route?

 

[Sean Emmett]

'Very interesting post, thanks. We have discussed in other threads whether the MR line from Bristol to Yate should be reopened. I read frequently of assaults and robbery on the Railway Path, due to its lack of natural social control features, being mainly through tree lined cutting or somewhat remote embankment. Although reasonably well-used, it is clearly not as safe for lone cyclists or pedestrians, as a proper cycle path would be, on the nearby main roads'.
Sorry, NO. The last point is a complete over-reaction. Thousands of people use this path every day without incident. That's not to say there haven't been a few problems, but Police are now very well aware. I use this path out of preference to local main roads, incl as part of my cycle trips from Bristol to visit my mum in Ascot, and back.

Use of the ex-MR rail route was mooted for a Light Rapid Transit (LRT) then a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) but there was huge local opposition from locals who now appreciate the cycle track. Personally I would be in favour of re-use for heavy rail commuter or light rail, but if double track it would be v. difficult to accommodate cycle path as well.

Sean

 

[edwin_m]

If the original railway was in cutting or (especially) embankment, a light rail or BRT conversion may well remove the earthwork to bring the new route close to grade, making use of the steeper gradients possible with these modes. This creates a much larger strip of level ground than the original railway formation. The Nottingham tram around Compton Acres demonstrates how a two-track tramway, cycle track and acoustic barriers can be fitted into what was formerly a two-track railway on embankment.