Railway Preservation News
https://www.rypn.org/forums/

Trains, walkers, hikers, and picnicers co-existing
https://www.rypn.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=38246		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  christensenge [ Mon Jun 29, 2015 10:55 am ]
Post subject:  Trains, walkers, hikers, and picnicers co-existing
My response to those who contend that rails and trails cannot co-exist.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bN1BGe4FoUY

I hope they feel stupid,
Glenn
Author:  boilerwash [ Mon Jun 29, 2015 11:45 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Trains, walkers, hikers, and picnicers co-existing
They can co-exist..........in other countries.

You couldn't find an insurance company that would even speak to you about running an operation like that here. That's not even accounting for the NIMBY's and the BANANA's that would fight you tooth and nail on top of whatever lukewarm do nothing "support" you might get from the local politico's.

Assuming you managed to overcome all of that the operation would be open about ten minutes before some Saul Goodman ambulance chaser paid a park bum 10 bucks to jump out in front of the locomotive and then sue you into bankruptcy.

This is the land of the American Dream. If you try to make that dream a reality you will be hearing from our lawyers.
Author:  Ray Reter [ Mon Jun 29, 2015 12:05 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Trains, walkers, hikers, and picnicers co-existing
Both "Steam Into History" (New Freedom, PA) and Western Maryland Scenic Railroad (Cumberland, MD) operate adjacent to hiking/bike trails for at least part of their route.
Author:  EWrice [ Mon Jun 29, 2015 1:36 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Trains, walkers, hikers, and picnicers co-existing
The Coopersville & Marne Ry in Michigan cut a deal with the state to put a connecting trail on the northern edge of the ROW for most of the line. So far there is a few miles of trail in with plans to connect Grand Rapids to Muskegon and Grand Haven. Worked out good for everybody in the end. Nobody's property had to be claimed ED by the state and makes for an interesting hike/bike ride.
Author:  Emmo213 [ Mon Jun 29, 2015 1:42 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Trains, walkers, hikers, and picnicers co-existing
For sake of argument this is a hypothetical question.

Let's say a railroad and a walking path (owned by the county metroparks) wanted to co-existed. The land is owned by the railroad with the walking path there because of an easement. If the path was 20 miles long but the railroad was only operating on 10 miles of that, should there be concern that the metroparks would try to use eminent domain to obtain ownership of the used or unused portion of the railroad right of way?
Author:  christensenge [ Mon Jun 29, 2015 4:59 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Trains, walkers, hikers, and picnicers co-existing
Emmo213 wrote:
For sake of argument this is a hypothetical question.

Let's say a railroad and a walking path (owned by the county metroparks) wanted to co-existed. The land is owned by the railroad with the walking path there because of an easement. If the path was 20 miles long but the railroad was only operating on 10 miles of that, should there be concern that the metroparks would try to use eminent domain to obtain ownership of the used or unused portion of the railroad right of way?


Hi,

I think it depends upon the leanings of the metropark(s) decision makers and the decision making bodies and processes in place to formulate/determine a final decision.

"Steam Into History" worked with a body interested in making the rail/trail inclusive and successful. Unfortunately in many other places,the decision making process only gets utilized to support a "no rails" decision fomented by anti-railroad proponents.
Author:  Dennis Storzek [ Mon Jun 29, 2015 6:01 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Trains, walkers, hikers, and picnicers co-existing
The Fox River Trolley Museum in South Elgin, IL has a path along most of their length., and has for the last ten or so years. The museum (the former R.E.L.I.C. collection) operates on a portion of the abandoned Aurora Elgin & Fox River Electric, which last served to haul coal to the boilers at the Elgin State Hospital. Most of the rest of the AE&FRE ROW has become a bike path, administered by the DuPage County Forest Preserve District, I believe. While I am not privy to all the details, the museum never had a really good end point on their ride; they ran down the hill to the former location of a long bridge across the Fox River, and just ended in the little interchange yard under the Illinois Central overpass. The Forest Preserve District planned to put a multi-span bicycle bridge in on the old piers still in the river, but needed someplace for the path to go beyond that. They now run alongside the museum track with a fence for separation. In return, they built appx. 1/4 mile of track beyond the end of the existing line, swinging it into a forest preserve picnic grove, and constructed a short high level platform for the museum's elevated RR cars to berth at. Seems to be a win-win situation, or so I'm told, especially since the alternative would have been to seize the museum ROW through eminent domain.
Author:  robertmacdowell [ Mon Jun 29, 2015 10:11 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Trains, walkers, hikers, and picnicers co-existing
I can see several escapes for the landed tourist railway threatened by eminent domain for a trail.

Keep in mind tourist railways are railways, and already have eminent domain powers to an extent. What's more, there's a fairly cogent legal argument that any right-of-way operator has eminent domain to some extent - which the appeal court stated in Bingham v RTLD, and the Michigan Supremes did not challenge. I say this because two eminent domain powers clashing is a superhero fight: Iron Man vs Thor, fun to watch and not likely to end anytime soon. Both have powers for good reason, and thus, good reason can be convinced to prevail.

If you are hauling interchange freight, the commerce clause means your eminent domain powers are Federal, and override state concens. And yes, you can drum up this freight business after the county serves notice, and thus turn the tables on them.

Another component is whether you actually need it. This comes up a lot in this area. Say I sue for a prescriptive easement to access my land. But I already have frontage on a public road. I lose because I don't need the easement to access my land.

Similarly, if it is workable to lay the trail along the fenceline without taking the entire railroad, and the railroad shows that they offered and endorsed this solution, I believe the court would force compromise.
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/