mudchicken If something as major as track removal doesn't "sever" the corridor for purposes of trail use (it doesn't), then something as relatively trivial as grade crossing signage won't do it either. Falcon48 Mudchicken’s comment on light rail, trolleys and the Fort Collins trolley is interesting. FRA generally has no jurisdiction over light rail and trolley operations. The exception to this is if the light rail/trolley operation is on track shared with a "real" railroad, or grade crossings in a common corridor with a "real" railroad. I'm familiar with the Fort Colllins trolley, and I can't seen anything in this operation that would make it subject to FRA grade crossing rules (including the signage and inventory requirements). It runs restored streetcars (usually a single truck birney) in the median strip of a city street. It's not in a common corridor with a "real" railroad. It's a typical city streetcar operation. If the Fort Collins operation were subject to FRA grade crossings rules, then the New Orleans St. Charles and Canal Street streetcar lines would also be subject to these rules for every cross street over which they operate. I don't recall seeing little blue signs every block on these lines. And the same would be true of streetcar lines in other cities that still have them. Perhaps the state of Colorado has some of its own rules that would require special treatment of the Ft. Collins "grade crossings"", but the FRA grade crossing rules don't apply to this operation. And, if some local FRA inspector is taking a contrary position, the Ft. Collins streetcar folks need to be talking to his/her superiors. I doubt very much that FRA higher ups want to get in the business of regulating street crossings on city streetcar lines. On the other hand, tourist railroads (both general system and non-general system) with public grade crossings are subject to the FRA signage, inventory and emergency response rules. The comment about "trail" crossings is also interesting. I can see a technical legal basis for it since, under the National Trails Systems Act (NTSA), a rail corridor in NTSA trail use is not considered to be "abandoned". But it seems utterly pointless from a safety persopetive to demand that trail crossings of streets have the signage, inventory, emergency response procedures etc. applicable to "real" rail-highway grade crossings. I'm an avid bicyclist (not as avid as I was before old age), and I've never come across a rail trail/highway crossing signed as a "real" grade crossing. Maybe there's one somewhere, but I've never seen it. Falcon: The states (through either PUC/DOT/RRComm etc.) are the ones that deal with the crossing issue per long standing MOU's with the feds. The federal statute on the DOT #'s do not exempt FTA or tourist operations. The DOT Statute helps remind the NITU/CITU holders that they have obligations to maintain the rail corridors and they cannot "sever" the line through any of the hairbrained ideas they come up with. The corridor is to be maintained as a rail corridor, period; - or they risk losing parts of the corridor where the trails act is the only thing holding title, lest it reverts under its color of title. STB will step in if the NITU/CITU holder fails to toe the line. (witness Chanute KS or Houston) The three STB practioners I've been around regularly the past few years on rail-trail projects have a similar, if not the same opinion. (Asst. State Atty here in CO the same way) How aggressive the state regulating crossing engineer/ administrator wants to be is up to them. Colorado's PUC Rail Engineer is very aggressive and knows her stuff. FTA remains largely a joke in the safety sense (anything goes) and it is up to the individual states to rein things in with transit not regulated by FRA. As for the Mountain Avenue folly, it remains one incident away from a regulatory death sentence. They need to quit thinking of it of a municipal plaything.
If something as major as track removal doesn't "sever" the corridor for purposes of trail use (it doesn't), then something as relatively trivial as grade crossing signage won't do it either.
Falcon48 Mudchicken’s comment on light rail, trolleys and the Fort Collins trolley is interesting. FRA generally has no jurisdiction over light rail and trolley operations. The exception to this is if the light rail/trolley operation is on track shared with a "real" railroad, or grade crossings in a common corridor with a "real" railroad. I'm familiar with the Fort Colllins trolley, and I can't seen anything in this operation that would make it subject to FRA grade crossing rules (including the signage and inventory requirements). It runs restored streetcars (usually a single truck birney) in the median strip of a city street. It's not in a common corridor with a "real" railroad. It's a typical city streetcar operation. If the Fort Collins operation were subject to FRA grade crossings rules, then the New Orleans St. Charles and Canal Street streetcar lines would also be subject to these rules for every cross street over which they operate. I don't recall seeing little blue signs every block on these lines. And the same would be true of streetcar lines in other cities that still have them. Perhaps the state of Colorado has some of its own rules that would require special treatment of the Ft. Collins "grade crossings"", but the FRA grade crossing rules don't apply to this operation. And, if some local FRA inspector is taking a contrary position, the Ft. Collins streetcar folks need to be talking to his/her superiors. I doubt very much that FRA higher ups want to get in the business of regulating street crossings on city streetcar lines. On the other hand, tourist railroads (both general system and non-general system) with public grade crossings are subject to the FRA signage, inventory and emergency response rules. The comment about "trail" crossings is also interesting. I can see a technical legal basis for it since, under the National Trails Systems Act (NTSA), a rail corridor in NTSA trail use is not considered to be "abandoned". But it seems utterly pointless from a safety persopetive to demand that trail crossings of streets have the signage, inventory, emergency response procedures etc. applicable to "real" rail-highway grade crossings. I'm an avid bicyclist (not as avid as I was before old age), and I've never come across a rail trail/highway crossing signed as a "real" grade crossing. Maybe there's one somewhere, but I've never seen it.
Falcon: The states (through either PUC/DOT/RRComm etc.) are the ones that deal with the crossing issue per long standing MOU's with the feds. The federal statute on the DOT #'s do not exempt FTA or tourist operations. The DOT Statute helps remind the NITU/CITU holders that they have obligations to maintain the rail corridors and they cannot "sever" the line through any of the hairbrained ideas they come up with. The corridor is to be maintained as a rail corridor, period; - or they risk losing parts of the corridor where the trails act is the only thing holding title, lest it reverts under its color of title. STB will step in if the NITU/CITU holder fails to toe the line. (witness Chanute KS or Houston)
The three STB practioners I've been around regularly the past few years on rail-trail projects have a similar, if not the same opinion. (Asst. State Atty here in CO the same way)
How aggressive the state regulating crossing engineer/ administrator wants to be is up to them. Colorado's PUC Rail Engineer is very aggressive and knows her stuff. FTA remains largely a joke in the safety sense (anything goes) and it is up to the individual states to rein things in with transit not regulated by FRA.
As for the Mountain Avenue folly, it remains one incident away from a regulatory death sentence. They need to quit thinking of it of a municipal plaything.
Don't think you've got the STB version of severence down. Try building a freeway through it like Houston or sell off the land underneath it like Chanute. Track is pretty simple to put back. (and then there is the stunt that KDOT tried to pull in Wichita now in the courts)... on the other hand, STB has a whole bunch of "issues" to clean up and straighten out from what some of us surveyors have encountered of late with the STB Rail-Trail and abandonment statutes. Interested in seeing how some of this plays out..
Convicted OneI found the following to be interesting in the way it outlines a crude strategy to determine the ownership of questionable parcels http://onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/trr/1987/1154/1154-002.pdf
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/trr/1987/1154/1154-002.pdf
- PDN.
Paul_D_North_JrOne conclusion I do remember is that there were no records at all for about 10% of the parcels . . .
RIFFIN! Paging Mr. Riffin! Please come to the white courtesy telephone...
mudchicken Don't think you've got the STB version of severance down. Try building a freeway through it like Houston or sell off the land underneath it like Chanute. Track is pretty simple to put back. (and then there is the stunt that KDOT tried to pull in Wichita now in the courts)... on the other hand, STB has a whole bunch of "issues" to clean up and straighten out from what some of us surveyors have encountered of late with the STB Rail-Trail and abandonment statutes. Interested in seeing how some of this plays out..
Don't think you've got the STB version of severance down. Try building a freeway through it like Houston or sell off the land underneath it like Chanute. Track is pretty simple to put back. (and then there is the stunt that KDOT tried to pull in Wichita now in the courts)... on the other hand, STB has a whole bunch of "issues" to clean up and straighten out from what some of us surveyors have encountered of late with the STB Rail-Trail and abandonment statutes. Interested in seeing how some of this plays out..
I should say that (in spite of my suicidal bicycle hobby) I'm not at all a big fan of NTSA rail/trail conversions, but not for the reasons you state. My reason is simple. The way NTSA trail conversions are supposed to work is that a trail sponsor is supposed to be reponsible for all liability arising from the transfer and use of a rail ROW as a trail. That's clear from the statute itself as well as the "statement of willingness to assume financial responsibility" that a trail sponsor is required to file with STB in order for STB to approve NTSA trail use. But that's not the way it really works. The Federal treasury ends up being solely responsible for paying reversionary property owners for any "taking" of their property that results from an NTSA trail conversion, not the trail sponsor. I don't know why the Federal Department of Justice (which handles "takings" claims resulting from NTSA trail conversion) doesn't go back against trail sponsors for reimbursement for any "takings" claims the Feds are required to pay for NTSA trails. But they haven't done so to date. The result is a big "off budget" federal subsidy to trail sponsors, which is totally unjustified and was clearly never intended by Congress when it enacted the NTSA.
.
I think I'd be more impressed by the battling titans if either could spell 'severance' correctly...
Proofreading isn't one of my skills (a considerable understatement). That's why God created spell check programs, but He has apparently not licensed their use on this website.
Falcon48That's why God created spell check programs, but He has apparently not licensed their use on this website.
I think He has licensed them, but the stiffnecked Bakers of Clams are chasing idols instead of listening and heeding his wisdom.
Falcon48 Proofreading isn't one of my skills (a considerable understatement). That's why God created spell check programs, but He has apparently not licensed their use on this website.
Johnny
Believe it or not (and I realize it's hard to believe), I do check my posts for errors before I send them. But, inevitably, if I reread one of my posts the next day (particularly longer ones), I will find some other errors I missed the first time around (which is why I often "edit" my posts the next day). I think what happpens is that I see what I expect to see, not what's really there. That's whye I'm nott a vary goode proofereedre
One other thing about "severance" (did I spell it right this time?) that most trail sponsors probably don't fully understand. A "serverance" doesn't only affect the particular parcels of property involved - it can affect the existence of the entire trail (or a large part of it). As STB uses the term in trail transactions, "severance" refers to an action that irretrievably severs all or part of the trail corridor from the national railroad network. The theory behind this is that, if all or part of the trail corridor can't be connected to the railroad network, rail reactivation is normally not possible, so one of the conditions for NTSA trail use isn't met.
Consider the following hypothetical example (which, based on my observations, isn't really that hypothetical). A railroad is abandoning a line from Milepost 1 (where it connects to the abandoning railroad's remaining system) to the end of the line at Milepost 20. It doesn't cross or connect with any other rail lines. The locals want it to become a trail and so, in due course, a local trail sponsor requests NTSA trail use and the STB issues the necessary authorizations. The trail sponsor then makes a deal with the RR to buy the corridor (which, because it is mostly reversionary property, doesn't cost very much), the track is torn up and a trail is laid on the ROW.
But the story doesn't end happily ever after. Five years later, an opportunity arises for the trail sponsor to sell a half mile, non-reversionary section of the ROW to a developer at Milepost 2 by rerouting trail users to a reserved lane on a sleepy city street around the sale parcel. The proceeds of the sale will pay for upkeep of the rest of the trail for many years, so the trail sponsor makes the deal. The property is sold, the original trail through the sale parcel is ripped up, and the ROW disappears under new housing and a strip mall.
By making this deal, the trail sponsor hasn't only affected the half mile sale parcel. What it has done is to sever the sale parcel and everything beyond it from the national rail network. In other words, the entire ROW from Milepost 2 to Milepost 20 may no longer qualify for NTSA trail use. If the matter is brought to STB's attention (probably by reversionary property owners along the route), the STB could well vacate the trail use authorization, and the reversionary property in the corridor will then revert. Bye bye trail. This is why "severance" is (or should be) a big deal to a trail sponsor.
Convicted One I found the following to be interesting in the way it outlines a crude strategy to determine the ownership of questionable parcels http://onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/trr/1987/1154/1154-002.pdf
Paul_D_North_Jr
Interesting article. About 30 years ago a colleague of mine did a similar exercise for all of the ROW parcels of the Ironton Railroad, a little (like 8 miles) shortline here just north of Allentown, PA (jointly owned by the Lehigh Valley and Reading) which was about to be turned into a rail-trail. He's been deceased about 11 years now and I don't know where the records are (that firm was 6 employers and about 23 years ago for me). The results were kind of similar, except we have a couple more kinds of title here in Pennsylvania (conditional fee, fee simple determinable, etc.), which may revert back to the original landowner (or his heirs), and depending on whether that happens automatically or if the landowner has to take a positive step to reclaim it from the railroad. One conclusion I do remember is that there were no records at all for about 10% of the parcels . . .
Paul_D_North_Jr Falcon48 The other fly in this ointment, that won't show up in property records is the existence of state "marketable title" laws. These laws vary by state but, in general, what they do is to extinguish reversions, covenants and other restrictions that prevent the free marketing and use of real estate after a set number of years. I haven't looked at the Illinois marketable title law for some time but, as I recall, it extinguishes reversions and use restricting covenants after 40 years. It does not, however, affect easements. In other words, if a property owner granted an easement for a particular use, that easement would not morph into full ownership. Where not displaced by statutory law, there are also judicial "common law" principles that can limit seemingly perpetual reversionary interests or covenants (which, again, probably vary by state). The aptly named "Rule Against Perpetuities" (the curse of every law school real estate law class) is one of these. The underlying policy behind both the statutory and judicial law is that it's against public policy to indefinitely limit the free alienability of real estate.
Falcon48
The other fly in this ointment, that won't show up in property records is the existence of state "marketable title" laws. These laws vary by state but, in general, what they do is to extinguish reversions, covenants and other restrictions that prevent the free marketing and use of real estate after a set number of years. I haven't looked at the Illinois marketable title law for some time but, as I recall, it extinguishes reversions and use restricting covenants after 40 years. It does not, however, affect easements. In other words, if a property owner granted an easement for a particular use, that easement would not morph into full ownership.
Where not displaced by statutory law, there are also judicial "common law" principles that can limit seemingly perpetual reversionary interests or covenants (which, again, probably vary by state). The aptly named "Rule Against Perpetuities" (the curse of every law school real estate law class) is one of these. The underlying policy behind both the statutory and judicial law is that it's against public policy to indefinitely limit the free alienability of real estate.
Paul_D_North_Jr Convicted One I found the following to be interesting in the way it outlines a crude strategy to determine the ownership of questionable parcels http://onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/trr/1987/1154/1154-002.pdf Interesting article. About 30 years ago a colleague of mine did a similar exercise for all of the ROW parcels of the Ironton Railroad, a little (like 8 miles) shortline here just north of Allentown, PA (jointly owned by the Lehigh Valley and Reading) which was about to be turned into a rail-trail. He's been deceased about 11 years now and I don't know where the records are (that firm was 6 employers and about 23 years ago for me). The results were kind of similar, except we have a couple more kinds of title here in Pennsylvania (conditional fee, fee simple determinable, etc.), which may revert back to the original landowner (or his heirs), and depending on whether that happens automatically or if the landowner has to take a positive step to reclaim it from the railroad. One conclusion I do remember is that there were no records at all for about 10% of the parcels . . . - PDN.
What? None of the property was conveyed with 'Ground Rents'?
A staple of Real Estate transactions from Colonial Times to the present day - at least in the Mid-Atlantic states.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Haven't ever seen a ground rent lease for a railroad right-of-way - but my experience is all outside of major cities where such arrangements may be more common, it seems.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.