More free (totally uncritical) coverage of rails to trails folks.. but notice how organized they are...

WE CAN respond to the editor Amy Sims.

FOX NEWS STORY ON RAILS TO TRAILS
superheater@rrmail.com

What concerns me most about the rtt legislation is that although the legislation does allow a conversion of a trail back to a railline, would the organization that did the conversion to a trail be able to maintain the trail under the theory of quiet enjoyment when a proposal is made to convert the trail back to rails sometime in the future.

Just a question from a nonlawyer who learned about land rights the hard way.

Cheers;

PKurilecz



UK Heritage Railways

What I wonder about is this. Has a hiking trail ever been converted back to a rail line?

As far as I know it has always been the other way. This is simply a way of saying make that rail line into a trail for hikers and snow mobilers.

Ted Miles

ted_miles@nps.gov

> What I wonder about is this. Has a hiking
> trail ever been converted back to a rail
> line?

> As far as I know it has always been the
> other way. This is simply a way of saying
> make that rail line into a trail for hikers
> and snow mobilers.

> Ted Miles

Ted, I think you are right. Once the freebie comes from the govt, there's a going to be a group of people fighting losing it tooth and nail.

RTT reversion is little like some other promises that have been made over history- nuclear power would eliminate the need for meters and when a true socialist state was acheived the all-powerful state would voluntarily cede power and cease to exist.



superheater@rrmail.com

> More free (totally uncritical) coverage of
> rails to trails folks.. but notice how
> organized they are...

Granted that Fox News has a well earned reputation for being "uncritical" when reporting on political events... I don't see their usual "slant" creeping in here. It is just a filler piece about recreation. I see no "darkness" here...

Why are ROW's abandoned? Because they have become redundant or no longer have economic benefit to the railroad. If you want to point fingers, I think you should look elsewhere, like politics and economics which have resulted in mergers, consolidations and transfers of jobs to other regions of the country, or other nations all together, not recreationists.

I've read foamer posts on usenet and other boards that make it sound like the recreation industry is just a bunch of anti-rail eco-terrorists who are bent on destroying the entire industry. RUBBISH!

Broadly speaking, the rails-to-trails organizations and recreation departments only step in when the RR's are walking away and the ROW is in danger of reversion to non-rail private ownership. Please keep in mind that the abandonment process is lengthy and every opportunity is available for legitimate continuation of the ROW in rail service. Abandoment is only granted when the Federal Government agrees that the line no longer serves a transportation purpose.

Please don't use certain state owned ROWs as a counter argument. Remember a state owned property is a taxpayer owned property and we all know how taxpayers feel about how their money is spent. In some cases (like it or not) the greater economic or social benefit is to allow snow mobilers a safe place to ride in the winter and for famlies to ride their bikes in the summer.

As far as ROW reverting from trail-to-rail use... do the math. Buying and transporting rails, ties, ballast, upgrading bridges and infrastructure is very expensive. There has to be substantial incentive to even consider it. The social and economic benefit of keeping a handfull of foamers happy doesn't add much to the equation.

I think it is a shame that the Rails-to-Trails groups come under such vicious (biased?) attacks on boards such as this. Without them, the ROWs would be lost in their entirety. Like it or not, it is a form of preservation or adaptive re-use, much like converting a depot to a community center... instead of tearing it down.

I for one am glad that I have the opportunity to ride my bike down several rail trails that are available to me. I use old maps and local history books to locate the sites of depots, water towers, sidings, mines, wreck sites etc. which would all be behind fences otherwise.

I apologize to Hume and Erik for posting anonymously. The last time I tried to reason with someone on a related topic on this board, he used my email address to attack me personally in the most juvenile way imagineable.

blackriver@nowhere.com

For what it's worth, I personally agree with BlackRiver's arguments point for point, right down the line. I think Rails to Trails does far more overall good for railroad heritage and preservation than harm--by doing our lobbying for us in Washington DC, and by preserving access to interesting former corridors and stimulating the adaptive reuse of old structures.

As for the relative "rights" of R-T-T versus operating preservationists--well, in this country you have as much or a little clout as you organize to get. R-T-T does a great job of organizing; we do, in general, a lousy job. In the very rare instances where we go head to head with R-T-T over the same corridor they win--because they play the game better, fair and square. "The fault, dear Brutus is not in our
stars, but in our selves"

For ARM's semi-official point of view on this issue, see Paul Hammond's article in Preservation Online
http://www.nationaltrust.org/magazine/a ... 082203.htm

eledbetter@rypn.org

> As far as ROW reverting from trail-to-rail
> use... do the math. Buying and transporting
> rails, ties, ballast, upgrading bridges and
> infrastructure is very expensive. There has
> to be substantial incentive to even consider
> it. The social and economic benefit of
> keeping a handfull of foamers happy doesn't
> add much to the equation.

This adds to the question that I was posing.

Assuming that there was some economic justification for the relaying of a particular row back from a trail, what legal (and additional cost) hurdles might exist that would add to the cost of the reversion to a rr row?

Just food for thought.

Cheers;

PKurilecz


UK Heritage Railways

> Granted that Fox News has a well earned
> reputation for being "uncritical"
> when reporting on political events... I
> don't see their usual "slant"
> creeping in here.

Actually, I'd expect "slant" from the other 3 networks. The problem here is that there is no exploration of the flip side of the coin. I don't see malicious intent, just a failure to consider the idea that many ROWS have been revived by shortlines, tourist and heritage operations. I think for example what might have happened to the Middletown & Hummelstown a few decades ago if rails to trails was active then..

That is in part "our" fault for not being visible and organized.

It is just a filler piece
> about recreation. I see no
> "darkness" here...

The fact remains, rights-of-way are being claimed for an alternative purpose. Since many abandoned roads become shortlines or tourist roads after a period of dormancy- the RTT folks represent a threat to rail preservation. It doesn't mean we have to start a Hatfield vs. McCoy relationship- just have to understand that we like railroads, they want them removed. Filler doesn't have to be poorly done (incomplete) does it?

>Why are ROW's abandoned? Because they have
> become redundant or no longer have economic
> benefit to the railroad.

My objection to the piece was that the benefits that were cited were not examined with any skepticism. Once again, just because the roadbed could not be operated as a Class One, signaled line doesn't mean a sucessor shortline can't run it. Conrail abandonments spurred literally DOZENS of viable shortlines and at least one major regional (R&N).

> If you want to
> point fingers, I think you should look
> elsewhere, like politics and economics which
> have resulted in mergers, consolidations and
> transfers of jobs to other regions of the
> country, or other nations all together, not
> recreationists.

All the things you list are influences on abandonment. However RTT is a political creation which represents a public subsidy (by opportunity cost if nothing else) to a specific group of people. I'm not pointing fingers, I'm simply and dispassionately pointing out a group whose efforts represent a threat to (potential) preservation efforts.

> Broadly speaking, the rails-to-trails
> organizations and recreation departments
> only step in when the RR's are walking away
> and the ROW is in danger of reversion to
> non-rail private ownership. Please keep in
> mind that the abandonment process is lengthy
> and every opportunity is available for
> legitimate continuation of the ROW in rail
> service. Abandoment is only granted when the
> Federal Government agrees that the line no
> longer serves a transportation purpose.

I don't place a whole lot of faith in the wisdom of the apparatus of the federal government-sorry. I spent too many years living in the Federal Tax Code.

> Please don't use certain state owned ROWs as
> a counter argument. Remember a state owned
> property is a taxpayer owned property and we
> all know how taxpayers feel about how their
> money is spent. In some cases (like it or
> not) the greater economic or social benefit
> is to allow snow mobilers a safe place to
> ride in the winter and for famlies to ride
> their bikes in the summer.

Where is the hard evidence about this "economic benefit"? This actually sounds like a taxpayer subsidy of snowmobiling or bikeriding to me. I'd love to audit that assertion under Generally Accepted Auditing Standards.

> As far as ROW reverting from trail-to-rail
> use... do the math. Buying and transporting
> rails, ties, ballast, upgrading bridges and
> infrastructure is very expensive. There has
> to be substantial incentive to even consider
> it. The social and economic benefit of
> keeping a handfull of foamers happy doesn't
> add much to the equation.

I am not a "foamer". I'm interested in rail preservation and the maintenance of vital economic infrastructure- again, where is the analysis of these puported economic benefits- I see claims but no substantiation. As for the "social benefits"-your handful of foamers is our handful of bikers.

> I think it is a shame that the
> Rails-to-Trails groups come under such
> vicious (biased?) attacks on boards such as
> this.

I have to ask did you read my post? It was a one-liner with a little editorial metaphor. There was NOTHING vicious in it. In fact my argument was with FOX not with RTT. They are free to pursue their interests. I look at it like I work for Pepsi, they work for Coke. I wish them luck and try to clobber them in the market.

> Without them, the ROWs would be lost
> in their entirety. Like it or not, it is a
> form of preservation or adaptive re-use,
> much like converting a depot to a community
> center... instead of tearing it down.

I think Ted Miles asked the best question. Has a RTT project ever reverted to rail? Once it goes RTT is a bike path forever. As you pointed out reconstruction is very costly.

> I for one am glad that I have the
> opportunity to ride my bike down several
> rail trails that are available to me.

I guess you are, since its essentially free-which was my point. I don't fault you for taking advantage of the situation-just think the property should be sold, leased or whatever to the highest bidder.

>I use old maps and local history books to locate
> the sites of depots, water towers, sidings,
> mines, wreck sites etc. which would all be
> behind fences otherwise.

> I apologize to Hume and Erik for posting
> anonymously. The last time I tried to reason
> with someone on a related topic on this
> board, he used my email address to attack me
> personally in the most juvenile way
> imagineable.

May I suggest you set up a proxy email? I post anonymously because I work in a position where its best that I be unknown, but I provide the opportunity for one on one and answer the folks that take the time to write.

The fact remains, this board is dedicated to rail preservation and most of us understand that RTT is the competition. At the risk of being sarcastic, If you went into some college town's sports bar wearing the other teams' colors would you expect roses or thorns?

superheater@rrmail.com

>
>R-T-T does a great job of
> organizing; we do, in general, a lousy job.
> In the very rare instances where we go head
> to head with R-T-T over the same corridor
> they win--because they play the game better,
> fair and square. "The fault, dear
> Brutus is not in our
> stars, but in our selves"

Amen. However I think we do have to consier the use of the term preserve. I think it may exist, but its essentially been converted and will likely not see a train again.

> For ARM's semi-official point of view on
> this issue, see Paul Hammond's article in
> Preservation Online
>
> http://www.nationaltrust.org/magazine/a ... 082203.htm


superheater@rrmail.com

> What I wonder about is this. Has a hiking
> trail ever been converted back to a rail
> line?

One example of where the infrastructure is in place to do so once funding and other perfunctories are fulfilled is the former M-K-T (Katy) R-O-W between Denton & Dallas, Texas. It's owned by Denton City/County, and is already earmarked for conversion back to a diesel-light-rail operation between the namesake cities.

hi_plain@yahoo.com

Sorry, can't see RtoT as competition! ROW is kept intact, clean, drained and in use. Long after I am gone and the highway folks have paved themselves into grid lock, there sits the original ROW already curved and graded and intact, ready for rail. Try to think the required seven generations ahead and see if you think we (the good old USofA) can afford to be the worlds greatest consumers and wasters.

PS: I am personally acquainted with one county planner that was seriously considering re-railing a trail so that several industries could go back to rail service.

lamontdc@adelphia.net

> For what it's worth, I personally agree with
> BlackRiver's arguments point for point,
> right down the line. I think Rails to Trails
> does far more overall good for railroad
> heritage and preservation than harm--by
> doing our lobbying for us in Washington DC,
> and by preserving access to interesting
> former corridors and stimulating the
> adaptive reuse of old structures.

Thank you Erik.

After reading some of the other responses, it seems that some folks have missed the forest for the trees.

During abandonment hearings, every opportunity is given to anyone that has an interest in operating or preserving service on a line. The catch is that they must be able to demonstrate that they are capable of operating it. Not every industrial spur, or branch line is a candidate for short line or tourist operation... at least not if you're realistic.

Every one of us that has had an interest in this topic for any length of time knows that there have been successes by short line operators and tourist operations... and there have also been failures.

Rails-to-Trails is not (by law!) the first option... it is the final hope for preservation.



blackriver@nowhere.com

My favorite dream would be to ride my bicycle to the Museum of Transport where I am a volunteer. There have been many bike/hike trails created, and many of them are very well used by many people. Not all trail conversions are going to be a suscess, some will become weed beds and/or trash collectors. Those trails that are not maintained, are trails that are not used, not used for a variety of reasons. But, at least some one tried. What happens to these eyesores? So far, not much. However, this is the same eyesore that an abandoned right of way presents. Not all trails are going to have mercantile operations spring up along side. But because there is not the evident economic benefit to be easily seen, does not mean the trail is a failure. If a trail is used by a lot of people, and those people pay taxes to maintain it, what is the problem of getting your tax dollars worth? I have a foot in both worlds. I like to bike, and take walks. I also like to be aboard the Frisco 1522 when it runs. Hopefuly the 1522 will run again.

jim1522@aol.com

>

> Rails-to-Trails is not (by law!) the first
> option... it is the final hope for
> preservation.

I agree. The Rails to Trails Act is intended to preserve railroad rights-of-way from being dismembered. Without the Act, the rights-of-way of most abandoned railroad lines would immediately revert to the adjacent land owners from whom the right-of-way was originally obtained. It would no longer be available for railroad use.

The disagreement between rail preservationists is not with abandoned rail lines, but with dormant ones. R-to-T proponents may in fact push to get a dormant line formally abandoned earlier than it would otherwise be so it can be used for a trail. But once a line is truly abandoned, we are better of with Rails-to-Trails than without it.

I suspect if the adjacent land owners knew their rights, they would seize their portion of the land over which the railroad had right-of-way on a dormant rail line soon after a railroad stopped operating, ripped up the track, or even stopped paying taxes on it, claiming de facto abandonment. If they won, the right-of-way would completely cease to exist.

I think the odds on a trail reverting to a railroad are small. But the odds of re-assembling the right-of-way after reversion are even smaller.



pjslks@ix.netcom.com

> The disagreement between rail
> preservationists is not with abandoned rail
> lines, but with dormant ones. R-to-T
> proponents may in fact push to get a dormant
> line formally abandoned earlier than it
> would otherwise be so it can be used for a
> trail. But once a line is truly abandoned,
> we are better of with Rails-to-Trails than
> without it.

Good point, sometimes the RtT advocates jump the gun, but again... the conversion doesn't happen unless the railroad agrees to part with the ROW and no qualified operators apply. As I understand it, as long as the RR pays their taxes, they don't have to do anything.

> I suspect if the adjacent land owners knew
> their rights, they would seize their portion
> of the land over which the railroad had
> right-of-way on a dormant rail line soon
> after a railroad stopped operating, ripped
> up the track, or even stopped paying taxes
> on it, claiming de facto abandonment. If
> they won, the right-of-way would completely
> cease to exist.

Some anti-trail, property rights nimbys in a certain western state (where I reside) thought that they had "reversionary" rights. Summarizing what I read in a newspaper article (I'm not a lawyer of any kind, let alone one that deals with land usage), the federal judge gave them a reality check. He pointed out that the "reversionary" right (in this case at least) went to the original property owner. If they could demonstrate that they (the current home owners) were descendants of the original owners, and/or had lived continuously on these properties since before the construction of the railroad, they'd have a case.

In fact, most of this land had been government land and undeveloped at the time of the RR's construction. Through timber grants (often to the RR which later resold them), land transfers and swaps, homesteading, sub-divisions etc. the "reversionary" rights were lost.

> I think the odds on a trail reverting to a
> railroad are small. But the odds of
> re-assembling the right-of-way after
> reversion are even smaller.

Probably so... but some cities are eyeing some RT's for use for light rail. That's a real bind for those of us who believe in both! :-) In somecases the ROW is sufficiently wide to accomdate both.

It'll be interesting.

blackriver@nowhere.com