As this latest briefing proves, those who want to utilize rail corridors for non-rail use will do all they can to further their agenda.THEY HAVE NO INTEREST IN SAVING RAILS. There have been several projects I have been involved with, where the trails advocates showed up. At best they muddied the water and made it more expensive to deal with, at worst, they ended them.
Any thoughts on the fairy-tail economic benefits to rails to trails? I have NEVER seen any that are based in reality put forth by any of the trails advocates. Another economic opportunity lost so some Hippie types can play.

lorija799@aol.com

> As this latest briefing proves, those who
> want to utilize rail corridors for non-rail
> use will do all they can to further their
> agenda.THEY HAVE NO INTEREST IN SAVING
> RAILS. There have been several projects I
> have been involved with, where the trails
> advocates showed up. At best they muddied
> the water and made it more expensive to deal
> with, at worst, they ended them.
> Any thoughts on the fairy-tail economic
> benefits to rails to trails? I have NEVER
> seen any that are based in reality put forth
> by any of the trails advocates. Another
> economic opportunity lost so some Hippie
> types can play.
I don't know if Rails to Trails is that bad. I've know some rail corridors that have vanished because the line was abandoned, the rail removed and the land is reverted to the landowners along the rail corridor. One in particular that I am aware of is the line that ran from Wilmington, NC to Jacksonville, NC. The rail was removed, fences went up and from what I understood from the original deed, that if the railroad abandoned the line, then the land went back to landowners. I'm not sure if the railroad could donate it to the Rails to Trails organization. There was a lot of uproar, that the local land owners did not want it turned into a trail because it would attract un-desirables.

phess@webkorner.com

> Any thoughts on the fairy-tail economic
> benefits to rails to trails? I have NEVER
> seen any that are based in reality put forth
> by any of the trails advocates. Another
> economic opportunity lost so some Hippie
> types can play.

Well, these "hippy types" have a politcal and lobbying organiztion that can run rings around anything we've put together. The Rails to Trains Convervancy can beat the pants off of us in letter-writing, fundraising, political jawboning and what have you.

Now I don't like to see viable rail corridors with track intact torn up for trail use any more than the next guy. One loss that drives me up a tree is the Gerogetown Branch in Washington DC. We lost the chance to have light rail linking Silver Spring, Bethesda and Georgetown--a public transit dream triple-play. But to an extent I think its our own darn fault. The trail people do what it takes to win politically, which is usually more than you can say for us. "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me."

I have seen some nice benefits from conversion to trails where the rails were long gone. One such is the old N&W Blackwater Creek passenger route through Lynchburg VA. They've just converted it into a trail, and as a result there is more life in the old Lynchburg riverfront than there's been in two decades. The trails gang may overstate the economic benefits, but in some cases they do exsist.

A Victorian Day Out on Britain's Bluebell
eledbetter@mail.rypn.org

I had ben told that the rails to trails legislation was intended to save the corridor and use it as a trail UNTIL is was needed for rail transit again, but there was no way anybody was ever going to get those trails back, I assume I was misinformed?
This was in the contect of R2T wanting to take over a barely active FEC branch out of Miami which would have landlocked a museum.... thanks be for well connected board members and friends.

Rudd@cogdellmendrala.com

Here on the Conway Scenic Railroad,we have mixed feelings about the snowmobilers who want access to the railroad when we shut down during the winter. Just before winter sets in we get the yearly request from the local snowmobile clubs to plank over our bridges, and switches so they can run without damaging their machines. We work with them and set limits on dates they can use our line and limits on where they can and cannot ride. Honestly, for the most part these are good people who are only out for some fun. However, they expect us to let them use the railroad each year and this is becoming a problem.
We are looking ahead to future winters where we may concider running local ski train shuttles between the many local ski areas. The snowmobilers will no doubt be upset by the change of policy, but hey, you cant let them think they have the right to use the tracks each winter because after all this is an operating railroad.
There are many miles of the state owned Mountain Division beyond Crawford Notch that we only run special trains over. The snowmobilers know this and contantly bug the state to let them use the line to operate thier sleds. Thats fine, but what happens if we need to get through? Will they stop running down our tracks to let a freight/passenger train pass? I doubt it. Now they feel we are stepping on their toes. Perhaps we should fight the snowmobilers tooth and nail even if we are not going to use the line? Or should we just be neighborly? By the way I live by the tracks, and I own an Arctic Cat 440 so I know both sides of this, but in the end my loyalty is with the railroad. If the Conway Scenic says no sleds allowed, then so be it. Comments?

Brian Hebert



Conway Scenic Railroad
btamper@hotmail.com

The real hazard in Rails to Trails is the silent fraud perpetrated by the well-meaning activists who try to say with a straight face, "And the corridor would be available again for future rail use should the need arise..."

If anyone ever thought of reclaiming the Washington & Old Dominion or the Baltimore & Annapolis trails, or the lower portion of the Northern Central trail, for mass-transit uses, they would be committing political suicide. To the local residents, the corridors are far more precious as a weekend recreational trail than as a commuter artery or a transportation corridor the rest of the week. I believe Erik would agree with me that attempting to lay rails on the precious bike and kiddie stroller asphalt would bring about a confrontation from NIMBYs that might resemble a Tianamen Square confrontation.

Accept reality--if the rails ever get removed from such a corridor, it won't matter if the area is completely gridlocked and gasoline is $10 a liter, you won't get the trail back from the suburbanite tree-huggers.

LNER4472@gateway.net

I dealt with Rails-to-Trails a bit early in their beginnings, and generally found the Washington office to preach less-destructive tones than local groups, which are often downright at odds with those who see the value of saving the rails. Overall, I've seen the tie-died, tree-hugging "hippie types" to be somewhat supportive of rail efforts, as rails are eco-friendly. The main opposition I've seen comes from blue-collar snowmobilers, who see the route as a racetrack for their 140mph machines (that's not an exaggeration), and yuppie cyclists, who envision it for mountain bikes in summer, cross-country skiing in winter. These two groups could not be more different, but often form at least a temporary alliance to destroy the tracks.

In the case of the Lamoille Valley, it would be cheaper to repair the damage for rail use than to create a trail. The main damage is washouts, which have to be repaired and maintained for both uses. Several years ago, Rails-to-Trails quoted me a rough estimate of the cost of building a trail (after rails and ties were removed and rough grading done). The cost, in late-1980s terms, was $100,000 per mile for asphalt paving and $60,000 per mile for crushed stone (which is poor to ride on im my opinion). About the same time, the railroad I worked on rebuilt 50 miles of track, with a large workforce of union trackmen, raising the speed limit from 10mph to 60mph -- for about $100,000 per mile...

I once asked Rails-to-Trails' president if he would at least try to change their policy to encourage trails construction ONLY after the track had been physically removed, but did not receive a reply.

Don't get me wrong, I ride a bike most every day in my neighborhood, and like riding on (paved) rail-trails also, but it simply does not make sense to destroy an existing rail line (in this case, an especially scenic one), presently used or not, for a recreation trail, especially when someone wants to operate it and has lined up endorsement from potential freight shippers.

bobyar2001@yahoo.com

It would be interesting to hear from Charles Marshall, President and COO of Genesee & Wyoming Inc., who is also on the Board of Directors of the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy.

> The real hazard in Rails to Trails is the
> silent fraud perpetrated by the well-meaning
> activists who try to say with a straight
> face, "And the corridor would be
> available again for future rail use should
> the need arise..."

I believe Erik would agree with me
> that attempting to lay rails on the precious
> bike and kiddie stroller asphalt would bring
> about a confrontation from NIMBYs that might
> resemble a Tianamen Square confrontation.

To be sure. Tearing up rails where they still exist to convert to a trail is rail destruction, not rail banking--we will never get those corridors back. It is hypocritical.

The unpalatable point I wanted to make, though, is that we've never equalled the loggying and organizing effort the trails folks have put together, and until we do too much complaining on our part is sour grapes. In the case Sandy cites we were lucky to get as much of the NCRR and B&A corridors for light rail as we did.

As for the question about Conway Valley: if you intend to run on it, post it and keep people off of it. I know that's a draconian solution that flies in the face of New England neighborliness, but Sandy is right, this is a camel's nose situation. It's in part becuase I have so much respect for the political power of the trails folks that I recommend that you not set any precedent which would give them a claim on ROW you intended to operate ever, at any time.

A Victorian Day Out on Britain's Bluebell
eledbetter@mail.rypn.org

Like most of the members of this board, I get a sick feeling whenever I hear of rail being ripped up. I get an even worse feeling when I see that same right of way being plowed under or built upon. So, in my mind, Rails To Trails IS railroad preservation. I was a very active member of a local(Goshen, IN) R2T group. In the end, we converted 16 miles of the NYC "Pumkinvine" branch between Goshen and Middlebury into a trail. The rail had been ripped out for over 15 years, so we saved the ROW frome being lost for ever. Many of the trails I have seen include the railroad heratige in the trail. As a result, many uniuqe bridges, depots, signals, shantys and even cabooses and rolling stock have been restored. Look at it this way, in a small town along the Kal-Haven trail in MI, the ROW and depot would have been flattend. Local kids would have no clue that a railroad ever ran through their home town. Instead, the children have a safe place to play. They can see that a railraod was there by going through the restored depot, caboose and semaphores. It gives them a connection to the past. If there are groups out there that are ripping up rails that still are or will be used, then I am totally against that.
For the most part, R2T are good. After all, what is the difference between putting an ice cream shop in a depot and an R2T? Without them, the depot and right of way would be lost FOREVER!

Mike Stickel
Bloomington, IN

> It would be interesting to hear from Charles
> Marshall, President and COO of Genesee &
> Wyoming Inc., who is also on the Board of
> Directors of the Rails-to-Trails
> Conservancy.


Indiana Transportation Museum
masticke@indiana.edu

The last press conference on a R2T project was about about as hippie free as you can get. The red-neck snowmobilers would have shot the hippies and the right-wing yuppies would have run the hippies out of town for being immoral. Let's face it, the driving force for R2T is from the developing "Not Me" culture. Those who want the candy but leave the bill for others.
I need to stop typing with my hair.
The only thing more distructive to right-of-ways are the farmers. Try to find abandoned line in Iowa or Nebraska.

pfdx@aol.com

> I believe Erik would agree with me

> To be sure. Tearing up rails where they
> still exist to convert to a trail is rail
> destruction, not rail banking--we will never
> get those corridors back. It is
> hypocritical.

> The unpalatable point I wanted to make,
> though, is that we've never equalled the
> loggying and organizing effort the trails
> folks have put together, and until we do too
> much complaining on our part is sour grapes.
> In the case Sandy cites we were lucky to get
> as much of the NCRR and B&A corridors
> for light rail as we did.

> As for the question about Conway Valley: if
> you intend to run on it, post it and keep
> people off of it. I know that's a draconian
> solution that flies in the face of New
> England neighborliness, but Sandy is right,
> this is a camel's nose situation. It's in
> part becuase I have so much respect for the
> political power of the trails folks that I
> recommend that you not set any precedent
> which would give them a claim on ROW you
> intended to operate ever, at any time.

Sandy failed to mention that the Baltimore Mass Transit Administration has already tried to do the planning and engineering to put the rails back on the Baltimore and Annapolis between Camp Mead Road and downtown Glen Burnie, and were told by the public to put it on a round about routing through a comercial industrial roadside that would make a one mile route three miles long. As far as I am concerned R2T is a total farce,


SZuidervee@aol.com

> I don't know if Rails to Trails is that bad.
> I've know some rail corridors that have
> vanished because the line was abandoned, the
> rail removed and the land is reverted to the
> landowners along the rail corridor. One in
> particular that I am aware of is the line
> that ran from Wilmington, NC to
> Jacksonville, NC. The rail was removed,
> fences went up and from what I understood
> from the original deed, that if the railroad
> abandoned the line, then the land went back
> to landowners. I'm not sure if the railroad
> could donate it to the Rails to Trails
> organization. There was a lot of uproar,
> that the local land owners did not want it
> turned into a trail because it would attract
> un-desirables.

The land does indeed belong to the railroad. if the tracks are removed and the people living around it put up fences then the land can be claimed as theres. but if the railroad wanted to run power thru the right of way, then the people who put the fences up would have to give the land up.

> Here on the Conway Scenic Railroad,we have
> mixed feelings about the snowmobilers who
> want access to the railroad when we shut
> down during the winter. Just before winter
> sets in we get the yearly request from the
> local snowmobile clubs to plank over our
> bridges, and switches so they can run
> without damaging their machines. We work
> with them and set limits on dates they can
> use our line and limits on where they can
> and cannot ride. Honestly, for the most part
> these are good people who are only out for
> some fun. However, they expect us to let
> them use the railroad each year and this is
> becoming a problem.
> We are looking ahead to future winters where
> we may concider running local ski train
> shuttles between the many local ski areas.
> The snowmobilers will no doubt be upset by
> the change of policy, but hey, you cant let
> them think they have the right to use the
> tracks each winter because after all this is
> an operating railroad.
> There are many miles of the state owned
> Mountain Division beyond Crawford Notch that
> we only run special trains over. The
> snowmobilers know this and contantly bug the
> state to let them use the line to operate
> thier sleds. Thats fine, but what happens if
> we need to get through? Will they stop
> running down our tracks to let a
> freight/passenger train pass? I doubt it.
> Now they feel we are stepping on their toes.
> Perhaps we should fight the snowmobilers
> tooth and nail even if we are not going to
> use the line? Or should we just be
> neighborly? By the way I live by the tracks,
> and I own an Arctic Cat 440 so I know both
> sides of this, but in the end my loyalty is
> with the railroad. If the Conway Scenic says
> no sleds allowed, then so be it. Comments?

> Brian Hebert

These people like the quad runners have to realize that railroad right of ways are private property.

> The last press conference on a R2T project
> was about about as hippie free as you can
> get. The red-neck snowmobilers would have
> shot the hippies and the right-wing yuppies
> would have run the hippies out of town for
> being immoral. Let's face it, the driving
> force for R2T is from the developing
> "Not Me" culture. Those who want
> the candy but leave the bill for others.
> I need to stop typing with my hair.
> The only thing more distructive to
> right-of-ways are the farmers. Try to find
> abandoned line in Iowa or Nebraska.

Well all the name calling won't get anybody anywhere. The difference is you can post on this page with the name calling or actually get out there and do something about in a smart and constructive way.............