The title says all:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/201 ... t=03102014

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati ... e/6252835/

http://www.eenews.net/stories/1059991197

As mentioned before, "your mileage may vary" as to whether land conveys back to the original owner or grantor when a rail line is abandoned. It really depends on your state's property laws and how the land was originally conveyed.

Since the land in question in the aritcle is a federal land grand railroad (think out west), it may not apply in places such as New York State, West Virginia or Missouri.

In glancing at a few rails-to-trails forums on the issue, the responses I've seen are somewhat as one might predict: a few thoughtful "how do we address this problem?" comments overwhelmed by much wailing, gnashing of teeth, rending of garments, etc. I've yet to find the invocation of puppies and kittens and the ultimate desperate appeal "Won't someone think of the children?!?", but they're close in a few places. Along with, of course, a scant few antagonists and libertarians stirring the pot.

It's safe to say, from what little I've seen in commentary, that even some of the core supporters of RTT find themselves uncomfortable with the idea of using the excuse of "serving the public good" to render change to easements and other real estate transactions via the likes of eminent domain to gain a trail.

One interesting point is that the property owner in question actually apparently said, for the record, that he was OK with a railroad using the right-of-way, but not for its use for a public trail. It appears that to many, no explanation of this mindset is really necessary, but to the vast majority no explanation is possible. Some dissenters from the "how is that possible?" view pointed out cases where ROWs were claimed for what were supposed to be gentle bicycle trails in their back lots, and ended up with snowmobiles and ATVs roaring up and down the "trail," legally or no--in effect, a cautionary "don't let them bait-and-switch you, too" tale.

The Rails to Trails Conservancy has stated on Facebook that it is "hard at work analyzing the ‪‎SCOTUS‬ case and will have a formal statement out soon."

I personally take the opinion of one of the commentors on the original link; the owner said this knowing he would never see a railroad there again. I think, based on past NIMBY history, that he would blow his top if someone suggested rebuilding the railroad now.

However, there is the possibility that he--and others--may see value in a real railroad (as opposed to a paper one, or just a right-of-way shorn of track), if for nothing else than as a way to keep trail people away.

Then again, could he have been serious? Maybe not a rail enthusiast as we are, but someone who thinks a railroad would be useful?

This could be an interesting development.

I seem to recall a shortline that abandoned a stretch of track, and then a trail group attempted to buy to abandoned right-of-way. One of the towns along the route (high property value suburb) had a group of residents decide they didn't like the idea of a trail through their neighborhood. The residents convinced the city government it was a bad idea. Said government contacted the railroad with an offer to buy the property within city limits. A bidding war insued. I'm not sure if this trail ever got built because the city had bigger pockets and bought the part through the town.

The residents had never complained about the railroad; however the railroad did make an effort to be a good neighbor, which may have had something to do with that.

Another possibility came to me--that the trail people may have to become "railroaders" to gain access to these unused rights of way.

One way could be to build a "park railroad" on the line (be interesting to see how long a run you can have with a Chance C.P. Huntington). Another could be to go with "rail cycles."

http://static.bangordailynews.com/wp-co ... 5_bce6.jpg

http://www.ecofriend.com/diyer-modifies ... orthy.html

http://www.2dayblog.com/2008/06/02/the-rail-rider/

http://www.mothugg.se/wp-content/upload ... awit_4.jpg

I am surprised at the number of web images of such contraptions. They are apparently fairly common in Europe:

"Rail-mounted cycle hire at Allingaabro Rail Centre in June 2007. [Photo: John Clark]"

http://www.scanrailsoc.org.uk/images/de ... cycles.jpg

http://www.dermott.ca/nord2002/fotos/dressin.jpg

Of course, we could go traditional, too:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:RailVelocipede.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draisine

http://bunkstrutts.files.wordpress.com/ ... -cycle.gif

About the only people who might not like these things would be members of the snowmobile crowd.

The real-estate lawyer for the agency administering trails in my state points out that the [i]Brandt[i] case does not affect the majority of abandoned rights-of-way that did not originate with federal land grants. the question is said to have to do with reversion to federal ownership Abandonments prior to 1983 may also not be affected. This may be a narrow decision with little application outside the west.

Aarne Frobom
Alternate Section, Michigan

The ruling applies to abandoned railroad easements on Federal land granted according to a law passed in 1875, when the land passed out of Federal ownership before a "rails to trails" law was passed about 1983. The Feds can't use the "rails to trails" law to preserve the easement if it didn't own the land when that act was passed.
Of course, the deed could have had a restriction or reservation in it, but that wasn't the case this time.
The ruling didn't overturn any "rails to trails" law, just said that a particular "rails to trails" law doesn't apply to some easements over land that the Feds didn't own when a "rails to trails" law was passed. The question of what happens to abandoned railroad easements on other kinds of land wasn't covered.

Sometimes the NIMBY's just plain don't want anything where the active rail line was. Amazingly the Akron (Ohio) Metro Regional Transit Authority, (that has no active rail transit activity) owns more railroad RoW than the very rail-active Cleveland RTA, including the former CSX CT&V Sub (used by both the CVSR and the WLE ABC Cluster) from the Howard St. overpass by Akron Northside station, all the way to Canton, the former Erie/Erie Lackawanna from Akron to Kent (then owned from Kent to Ravenna by the Portage Co. RTA), and the pertinent part of this post, the former Conrail (nee-PRR) Hudson Secondary from Akron to Hudson (originally the Cleveland, Akron and Columbus, the first railroad to reach Akron - in I believe 1854. It's most infamous as being the line where a PRR gas-electric was split in half by a freight train at Kent Rd. in Cuyahoga Falls in 1940, killing [barbecuing really] 43 passengers, which was the beginning of the end of PRR gas-electrics). There are still industrial spurs working at the North end. I believe Go-Jo and Little Tykes are served by NS from the C&P sub at Hudson, but most of the line is embargoed in place. The track is still in but paved over at grade crossings in some places, other places the signals are still there but signed "exempt" for trucks and buses having to stop at them.

Anyway, several years ago, a group wanted to start a dinner train on the Hudson Secondary. I can't remember where the starting point was going to be, the track ends into CSX at Broad St. in Cuyahoga Falls on the South end (used to go all the way to AY on it's own RoW), so it was probably going to start in the very elite town of Hudson. Well, the track passes through the edge of the equally haughty village of Silver Lake, squeezed up against SR 8 for a couple of miles. Now, this is a community that has only ever allowed one retail business within it's borders - a florist. The only other entities besides churches are a very exclusive country club and a private swim club across the road from that. Needless to say, the residents were up in arms about the possibility of a dinner train lumbering through their neighborhood several times a week and managed to kill the project. Goodness knows what their reaction would be if Metro RTA were ever able to get funding to actually contemplate real light rail service on the lines it owns!

I think the most interesting thing is in the third article in the first post of this thread. The forest service anticipated 120,000 people per year to use the trail while, in reality, the land owner has seen about 50 since 2007.

Regards,

Art S.

Rails to Trails analysis of the decision:

http://community.railstotrails.org/blog ... rails.aspx

The most interesting point in there is that the trail is not affected if it is in one of the original 13 colonies. I would like to know how that would affect easements for railroads that would have been granted some years after 1776.

If there is anything to that, it would have to depend on some sort of precedent, but what would that be?

Actually, I'm curious about the 13 colonies issue as well.

However, an easement is an example of just one type of property right for which a railroad could have acquired its right of way. Back in the days before general incorporation laws, when each railroad had to receive a charter from a state's legislature, there were provisions giving railroads power of eminent domain to obtain an easement. The easement, in some cases, would revert should the railroad cease operation and the track torn up.

Railroads could acquire their right-of-way in other ways, including, but not limited to:
-Easements
-Leases
-Condemnation
-Purchase
-License
-Federal Land Grant

Each one has its own significance in property law. Like I've said before, and other times, there is a general misconception that all railroad property reverts back to the original property owner upon abandonment. This isn't always the case as it depends on how the original right of was acquired for the railroad.

David Wilkins
Fee Simple, Utah

I own a farm in the Cornbelt, there is a abandoned RR Row along one side, about 15 years ago, which was about 20 years after the abandonment the RR contacted me to see if I was interested in buying the ROW, we negotiated a bit, but they thought it was worth the same as local prime farmland, and since it was on a small embankment, I thought is was worth quite a bit less. My neighbor did buy the land, he is still wacking away at the embankment with his bulldozer in his spare time some 15 years later.

Title search showed that the land had been bought by the RR from both landowners in the 1880s.

-Hudson

Also, check if a later agreement changed the facts.
One advice for railroad real estate people was that if it was ever necessary to obtain use of additional property from a landowner over whose property the railroad was already running, and the new land was to be bought, that was a good time to include the land under the original rights in the new deed, and wind up actually owning both parts!