> 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.

I'd suggest Monkton, MD on the Northern Central as a candidate for analysis. On any summer weekend I see people pumping money into ice cream parlors and stores now occupying buildings that would have been vacant or arson victims by now absent the trail. I think in cases like Monkton the assertion would stand the most rigorous scrutiny.

> 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?

I don't see it this way at all. The relationship is much more complex--cooperation in some instances, commensalism in others, competition in others still. To take but one example, RTT is the best friend we've got on issues like ISTEA and TEA-21. To characterize them as "the enemy" is unsubtle, and passes up some real opportunities for partnerships based on mutual interests. I prefer to view RTT as a potential ally, and a good example of how to get where and what you want.


eledbetter@rypn.org

> 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.

> 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.

Certainly reversionary rights depend on state law and the actual means used to orignially acquire the right-of-way. But if the threat of reversion were not real, there would be no reason for a Rails-to-Trails Act in the first place! One recent post talks about the Northern Central in Maryland. Having seen the land records involved for the Northern Central, some parcels were given, some were sold, but many required court action condeming an easement (right-of-way) for railroad use only. And that was in the 1830's!

> 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.


pjslks@ix.netcom.com

> 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.

Peter, you could probably explain this better than I can, but they tried to put light rail back on the B&A Trail back into downtown Glen Burnie, MD, and not only did the trail people tell the MTA to go to hell, but they went for a totally convoluted diversionary route down 8th Ave and Richie Hwy that killed the project.

No shared ROW here!

Steve Zuiderveen


SZuidervee@aol.com

> Peter, you could probably explain this
> better than I can, but they tried to put
> light rail back on the B&A Trail back
> into downtown Glen Burnie, MD, and not only
> did the trail people tell the MTA to go to
> hell, but they went for a totally convoluted
> diversionary route down 8th Ave and Richie
> Hwy that killed the project.

> No shared ROW here!

> Steve Zuiderveen

Although I had left the MTA by that time, I strongly suspect the reason a convoluted route was studied was because the original right-of-way, by then converted to a trail, was a political non-starter. Even without the trail I suspect the NIMBY's would have kept it from happening, but the trail certainly made their job easier!

Pete Schmidt

pjslks@ix.netcom.com