https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.indystar.com/amp/1871225001
I am so sick of seeing stories like this. A freight railroad wanted to use the tracks, and it was denied.
It's hilarious to me that the rails to trails initiative began under the auspices of railbanking, only to have degraded to the point where the movement is essentially an aggressive cancer eroding the internals of its host. Trails almost never revert to railroads - NIMBYs tear up the tracks and then wealthy, entitled yuppies drive the discussion until the end of time.
Why can't these counties buy land and construct new trails? Why does it always have to come at the expense of existing infrastructure? Why can't these freaking people do their daily jog on a sidewalk or a damned treadmill?
Railroad ROWs provide a ready-made foundation for such trails. Get rid of the rails and ties (if they are still there), drop some stone dust, and you're done.
No property acquisition (you'd be surprised how many property owners don't want a trail through, or even adjacent to, their land), no major sub-grade work. Voila, trail!
If you want to see selfishness with regard to such trails, check out the Catskill Mountain and Adirondack Scenic stories.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
tree68 Railroad ROWs provide a ready-made foundation for such trails. Get rid of the rails and ties (if they are still there), drop some stone dust, and you're done. No property acquisition (you'd be surprised how many property owners don't want a trail through, or even adjacent to, their land), no major sub-grade work. Voila, trail! If you want to see selfishness with regard to such trails, check out the Catskill Mountain and Adirondack Scenic stories.
I've been following both - believe me.
More local to me is this: https://richmondstandard.com/richmond/2019/03/20/bnsf-plan-to-reactivate-rail-line-in-richmond-park-faces-opposition/
How DARE BNSF reactive a line that still has tracks. How DARE they inconvencience people who have been using that railroad tunnel as a shortcut.
I think Rails to Trails was a good idea but; as often happens with so many “good ideas”, it has been bastardized to the point it’s original purpose has largely been forgotten. Or, dare I say - deliberately ignored.
Shrike Arghast tree68 Railroad ROWs provide a ready-made foundation for such trails. Get rid of the rails and ties (if they are still there), drop some stone dust, and you're done. No property acquisition (you'd be surprised how many property owners don't want a trail through, or even adjacent to, their land), no major sub-grade work. Voila, trail! If you want to see selfishness with regard to such trails, check out the Catskill Mountain and Adirondack Scenic stories. I've been following both - believe me. More local to me is this: https://richmondstandard.com/richmond/2019/03/20/bnsf-plan-to-reactivate-rail-line-in-richmond-park-faces-opposition/ How DARE BNSF reactive a line that still has tracks. How DARE they inconvencience people who have been using that railroad tunnel as a shortcut.
Find it interesting that The Richmond Standard is a part of Chevron.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
This is another illustration of why I don't think the U.S. will ever be able to build new, HSR lines.
Even using existing ROWs, it will take years in courts to just be able to change curves and elevations.
I imagine the first volley will be a court injunction against BNSF activating the line until environmental studies are done. Those studies will then be debated and challenged in court.
York1 John
As long as BNSF did not abandon the line, they have a perfect right to run whatever they want whenever they want. Just hope they did not do some stupid 'feel good' deal with the park.
Agree with OP. The trail people are vultures who some times can't wait until the horse is dead.
PNWRMNM Agree with OP. The trail people are vultures who some times can't wait until the horse is dead.
Maybe some are but you paint with too broad a brush in your contempt. In 1963, after the bankruptcy of the CA&E and its abandonment of its ROW, a small citizens group of 14 led by May Theilgaard Watts came up with the idea of converting it to a Prairie Path, free for all to walk, jog, bike and in some stretches, ride horses, but no powered vehicles allowed. Within 3 years, they had leased 27 miles from the county and started clearing it. By 1971 it was up and running. Today it includes 61 miles of path in three counties. It was the pioneer in the Rails to Trails movement.
Juniata Man I think Rails to Trails was a good idea but; as often happens with so many “good ideas”, it has been bastardized to the point it’s original purpose has largely been forgotten. Or, dare I say - deliberately ignored.
I believe the official "rails to trails" organization has actually disavowed any involvement in the Adirondack issue. They are mostly about using old, unused rail lines. The folks in the Adirondacks want to tear up a perfectly good line that could be beneficial to the area.
Of course, at least one of them opposed the use of the rails during the 1980 Olympics as well.
tree68Of course, at least one of them opposed the use of the rails during the 1980 Olympics as well.
I suspect they also opposed the 1980 Olympics too!
BaltACDI suspect they also opposed the 1980 Olympics too!
Given their stance on other, more recent events, I would completely agree...
I grew up in NY State, and am familiar with the Adirondack and Catskill operations. They were active seasonal tourist trains, and ripping up the tracks is outrageous. However, the Indiana line operating a couple of weeks a year to the fair did not seem sustainable. I can understand why the City did not want the liability and wanted more use of the land. I guess you have to pick yout fights.
Shrike ArghastWhy can't these counties buy land and construct new trails? Why does it always have to come at the expense of existing infrastructure? Why can't these freaking people do their daily jog on a sidewalk or a damned treadmill?
Perhaps not directly the case in this Indianapolis scenario, but in many other instances the railroads created animosity with line side communities back when rail service was originally terminated. (I'm sure you are aware of how the railroads sometimes gamed the system when they wanted to justify abandoning a line).
SO, there might be a "payback" mentality involved in at least some of these conflicts.
Door swings both ways too. Farmers in central Indiana got ahold of portions abandoned C&O line through Indiana BEFORE the trails people could get ahold of it. And the farmers refuse to give it up. Consequently the Cardinal trail is split into two segments connected only by makeshift use of public roadways.
Shrike Arghast https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.indystar.com/amp/1871225001 I am so sick of seeing stories like this. A freight railroad wanted to use the tracks, and it was denied. It's hilarious to me that the rails to trails initiative began under the auspices of railbanking, only to have degraded to the point where the movement is essentially an aggressive cancer eroding the internals of its host. Trails almost never revert to railroads - NIMBYs tear up the tracks and then wealthy, entitled yuppies drive the discussion until the end of time. Why can't these counties buy land and construct new trails? Why does it always have to come at the expense of existing infrastructure? Why can't these freaking people do their daily jog on a sidewalk or a damned treadmill?
Here's a link the actual STB decision in the Fisher case.
https://www.stb.gov/decisions/readingroom.nsf/9855c1fb354da09b85257f1f000b5f79/79c1cedb010271b985258448003f690a?OpenDocument
This isn't a typical "rails to trails" situation, where the abandoning RR is transferring the ROW to a trail sponsor for a trail. In this case, the trail sponsor is actually the owner of the rail line and the ROW. Also, the STB typically approves a line for abandonment before it is transferred to a trail sponsor under the National Trails System Amendments Act ("Trails Act" for short). The abandoment procedure provides an opportunity for an entity seeking to preserve rail service to acquire the subject line for "net liquidation value" (i.e., salvage value less removal and disposition costs). That didn't happen here because the RR wasn't subject to STB/ICC abandonment authority.
This raises the question of why the trail sponsors in the Fisher case requested trail use authority from STB. After all, they didn't need abandonment authority and already owned the ROW. Why bother with STB? I don't know this as a fact, but I suspect the reason is that there is reversionary property in the ROW. In other words, once the reversionary property was no longer used for railroad purposes, the trail sponsor would lose title to it. The Trails Act "solves" this problem by declaring the trail a continuation of rail use.
That leads to one final observation. In the scenario just discussed, the reversionary owners have recourse against the United States for a "taking" of their property. My understanding is that the U.S. has paid many millions of dollars over the years for these claims - effectively a huge off budget subsidy to trail sponsors. I'm not aware of any cases where the U.S. has gone back against trail sponsors to recover the amounts it was required to pay to reversionary owners. The U.S. should be routinely be seeking these recoveries. The Trails Act is very explicit that a trail sponsor must assume all liability for transfer and use of a ROW as a trail under the Act. Further, the STB/ICC require a trail sponsor to file a "Statement of Willingness to Assume Financial Responsibility" before it will consider a trail use request. This "statement", among other things, is an affirmative undertaking to assume responsibility for any liability arising from tranfer or use to the ROW as a trail. So, it would seem that the U.S. would be on very firm ground in demanding that a trail sponsor repay the U.S. for any "takings" claims the U.S. is required to pay to reversionary owners.
Columbian style
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhIF-7UPDCw
York1 This is another illustration of why I don't think the U.S. will ever be able to build new, HSR lines. Even using existing ROWs, it will take years in courts to just be able to change curves and elevations. I imagine the first volley will be a court injunction against BNSF activating the line until environmental studies are done. Those studies will then be debated and challenged in court.
I didn't work for BNSF. But the RR I worked for wouldn't "abandon" lines it might conceivably want to use in the future - it "discontinued service" on them - a regulatory status that permits service to be resumed without any regulatory permission - and left the track in place. We also did not put lines into "trail use" as a means of preserving a route we might want to use in the future. While, under the Federal Trails Act, we would have had the legal right to resume rail service, the political firestorm that would accompany a rail reactivation that displaced a popular trail was something we wanted to avoid. "Trail use" was normally something we would do only if we had no further use for the line. I suspect (but do not know) that BNSF has a similar outlook.
This is a supplement to my earlier response on the BNSF Richmond reactivation.
Just to give you an idea of the law in this area, I'm attaching links to two STB decisions from 2001-2002 involving reactivation of a UP line in Salt Lake City, which the city didn't want reactivated. The city was not successful.
One thing that's interesting about this case, but not evident from the decisions, is its eventual outcome. After the city lost the attached cases, it got Federal funds to upgrade an alternate route that made this line unnecessary. Once that work was done, UP voluntarily abandoned the route at issue in these decisions. I wonder if something similar will happen with the BNSF in Richmond, since one of the articles suggests that BNSF might be willing to do a realignment.
(Wi-Fi / Router Issues here -sorry if this post gets butchered)
(1) The BNSF (ATSF/SF&SJV) line has never been abandoned or discontinued.... The slip at Ferry Point quit being used in 1984 and was partially burned to the water line by some of Richmond's finer citizens. The only thing embargoed was the half mile around the ferry slip. As usual, City and County, especially their Parks Planners, are dumber than a box of rocks and never verified the status of the rail line. With space and real estate at a premium at BNSF's end of the line, it's surprising the issue has not happened sooner. From the west end of Richmond Yard thru Tunnel 6 and out toward Ferry Point has long functioned as a tail track for that end of the yard. With all the other end of the yard tied up and clogged up with intermodal and automobile unloading, the west end gets used (especially in a boom economy) as a relief valve. The big problem on that end is what happens to radio signal around the tunnel, even with repeaters. Switch crews that I knew hated dealing with what happened with the switch locomotive getting into or outside the bay side of the tunnel. (relaying hand signals because locomotive radios and pak-sets won't work in the tunnel) After '84, it was not uncommon to see cars stored out there (Usually TOFC/COFC bare tables and empty tubs and ocassionally autoracks. After the east end got grade-separated, the west end was dis-used except when business got too good. (History just repeating itself)
(2) Falcon 48 already hit the nail on the head at North Indianapolis. Read the filings at STB. All sides of that argument are suspect. It's also clear that local government has blown it and won't have their prized greenway very long. (IN-DOT is going to help them shoot themselves in the foot. The white knight railroad showed-up too little and too late and still didn't have its act together when it tried to toll the process. They failed, as they should have.) STB would have bent over backward to protect rail service if the shortline filings were legit.
(3) The Rails to Trails process is seriously flawed. The mechanics of the statute and the ICC/STB rules are hardly complete ... with plenty of vague assumptions never clarifed. The trails side and proponets are largely clueless (poor stewards, they just want the plaything). Local and state govenment don't get it - It's still a rail corridor first and foremost, not cheap recreational trail (It can be taken away or forfeited), not a cheap road/ utility corridor and the trail is never more than INTERIM (a placeholder until rail service comes back)...Plenty of nutcases out there yelling "Rails to Trails" that are absolutely clueless. Plenty of cases out there where lawyers and and real estate people(plus gaggles of assessors and tax people) that should never been allowed to process any NITU/CITU or abandonment cases as they have screwed things up beyond your wildest dreams. Some of the guesses and blunders are things of legendary shame.
The OP has a right to be frustrated with the RTT process, but vent your frustrations at all sides and read the STB documents. ClusterFluff on all counts.
And what idiot allowed A&K Materials to bid on the track removal in Indiana? Even the STB called them "scoundrels" in the past. Really poor vetting. You deserve the headaches to come.
Falcon48: The BN side of BNSF used to reserve any residual freight rights/ concessions after NITU/CITU was granted. AFAIK, ATSF never did. That issue appeared at Ft. Collins (C&S Rex Branch, Horsetooth trail and the double screw-up by the City of Ft. Collins which hasn't oozed to the surface, yet)
Falcon48 and mudchicken - a couple of really great posts! (similar to what you've done here before on the same topic). I have some experience in this area - not as much as either of you, though - and for those who don't, what they say is exactly right. Thanks,l guys.
The UP in SLC case is an example of "You can't take it from us - but you can buy it from us, for the right price (or provide an equal or better alternative)".
Falcon48, your point about the total compensation paid out by the Court of Claims cases is interesting (goes back to the original late 1980's case, Presault v. ICC if I'm not mistaken). That would be worthy of a Right-To-Know request (if I had the time) or some investigative reporting by a national newspaper that wouldn't have an agenda against it, such as the WSJ.
- PDN.
BaltACD Columbian style
I MUST do this!!
Paul_D_North_Jr Falcon48 and mudchicken - a couple of really great posts! (similar to what you've done here before on the same topic). I have some experience in this area - not as much as either of you, though - and for those who don't, what they say is exactly right. Thanks,l guys. The UP in SLC case is an example of "You can't take it from us - but you can buy it from us, for the right price (or provide an equal or better alternative)". Falcon48, your point about the total compensation paid out by the Court of Claims cases is interesting (goes back to the original late 1980's case, Presault v. ICC if I'm not mistaken). That would be worthy of a Right-To-Know request (if I had the time) or some investigative reporting by a national newspaper that wouldn't have an agenda against it, such as the WSJ. - PDN.
I think it fair to say that Congress, in enacting the Trails Act "rails to trails" provisions did not intend to compensate reversionary owners from the Federal treasury. The good congresspeople probably thought that by waving a magic wand and saying that trail use didn't consitute a cessation of rail use, they could preserve the continuity of a trail corridor without spending any money. That clearly would not have survived SCOTUS scrutiny. But, under SCOTUS precedent, a court isn't supposed to find a statute unconstitutional if there is any reasonable way to interpret the statute so that it is constitutional. Interpretting the Trails Act to permit compensation for any "takings" to be obtained under the Tucker Act was consistant with that approach. Thus the blizzard of "takings" compensation the U.S. has had to pay for trail conversions under the Trails Act.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.