Rails to Trails and back to Rails?

[trains1504]

Can someone tell me if it is true or not that if a railroad feels that it is necessary to reclaim a section of line that has become a recreational trail all they have to do is start laying the track once again?

I am just curious if that is how it works.

[mudchicken]

Oversimplified question.

If the trail is there by NITU regulation an the railroad jumps through the regulatory process hoops correctly and meets its local obligations, then it can go back in. Still, it is not a simple as just relaying the rail on the roadbed.

SEE:   http://www.stb.dot.gov/stb/public/resources_railstrails.html

In order to put the rail line back in, the railroad must apply to STB " to construct and operate a rail line over the right-of-way is authorized under 49 U.S.C. 10901 and 49 CFR part 1150, or exempted under 49 U.S.C. 10502, then the NITU/CITU will be vacated accordingly." - 49CFR1152.29

NITU=Notice of Interim Trail Use

CITU= Certificate of Interim Trail Use

Larger issue that I see all to often is trails that have zero authority to occupy a former railroad corridor (in effect trespassing), overzealous (and clueless) trail authorities/ trail builders and trail groups that are poor/irresponsible stewards of the land. This problem is getting out of hand in several places and has spurred recent lawsuits in Ohio, Nebraska, Illinois and California. (beware of NARPO et. al. who can be equally clueless and good at spreading their own version of hate & discontent)

One of the older threads and news stories had to do with a trail group in San Jose', CA brazenly building trail on active UP branchline R/W.

Not all trails are there by NITU legislation. Not all railroad R/W that is not in use is really abandoned.

 

[ndbprr]

Try getting one converted.  The NIMBYs would have a cow like they are over the EJ&E being double tracked for additional trains even though it used to be double tracked.