Rail ‘Dayliner’ more like a dreamliner

Jack Peake is “particularly annoyed” and “angered” because others do not share his dream (ICF founder pushes back for rail, May 2).

His arguments for rail service are based on assumptions, unsubstantiated facts, false premises and a vision.

He misrepresents converting the line to a multi-use trail as tearing up infrastructure and leaving it blank.

Surely creation of a multi-use trail is not leaving it blank. He accuses “a special interest group representing a minority of people” of having their interest increased, whilst “the majority owners of the railway are ignored.”

So, are the owners a majority group on the Island? He argues a majority have a direct interest “to see this railway operate” simply because they pay taxes! He asserts the railway “provides the greatest opportunity to improve the region’s air quality by reducing the number of cars.”

How many passengers would the train carry each day? 200 perhaps? Maybe that equates to 75 cars—which still travel between home and the railway station.

He ignores the fact that when his “friends from the cycling world… will be old like me someday” they will still need cars to get to the station. He contradicts his own argument for rail by asserting “best possible use of the rail corridor… and not displace the rail from their potential multiple use”. He states “numerous business opportunities along the corridor” and “there are investors waiting”, without substantiation. If there were, then surely something concrete would have happened since the last passenger train ran in 2011.

Use the train for shopping—then a taxi between the station and the shops? Transporting goods—all those trucks at each station? The only truism he makes is to “remember all of this requires some vision and some investment” which is exactly what multi-use proponents are doing, and whom he criticizes. Dayliner? No, it’s just a dreamliner.

Andy Mundy

Bowser