Looking for input on the pro's and con's of allowing a bike/walking trail on your right of way. Our right of way is at least 100 feet wide and wider.
1 Pro is consant security by park Rangers.
2 Pro better access to the right of way.
3 pro Help with weed control
4 pro good comunitty relations
5 pro free advertising
6 pro building a good strong relationship with the big local goverment agency.
7 pro Big chunk of money for easement.
1 con Legal exposure
2 con (not my idea) You can see the scenery for free with the trail. not that what we have is special.
Does anyone have good stories or horror stories about this? Thanks in advance.

The added liability exposure tends to increase insurance costs significantly.

Some years ago when the railroad on which I volunteered at the time asked for assistance from the county in paying the increased insurance premium for the part of the leased-line to be used by a rail-trail the county declined. The additional insurance cost was too much for the railroad, so it gave-up the lease on that line. -- Ray

With a 100 foot wide ROW, seems to me there is more than adequate room for a city street, much less a bike trail. A chat with your insurer should clear up what space seperation / fencing / whatever will satisfy them as to liability. I can understand concerns when the trail is 6 feet from the rail, but if you can get 30 feet away and behind a fence it seems pretty well insulated to me. Perhaps the trail folk can insure the RR for any additional liabilities arising out of the joint use of the property as part of the deal.

dave

Rail trails are a great asset to the bicycling community. I truly understand the problem though with having the trail parrallel a tourist RR right of way as it defeats the purpose of the view from the train. People want to experience the train ride and see things from a perspective they can't see elsewhere. In my opinion this is the biggest Con of the list.

As for sharing the right of way and liability, I know in Ohio bicycle trails that parrallel active railroads must be seperated by a fence or a unbroken line of shrubbery.

Another Con is photography, I beleive the bicycle trail on the WMSRR will have a detrimental affect to photo charters and photo freights.

Actually, Greg, last fall we were pleasantly surprised. In the photo below, the track has been moved from the north alignment to the south alignment, and the trail built where the tracks were. It is completed, and in my opinion has actually improved the photo location. And this isn't the only one.

It's possible that Brush Tunnel will be an exception, but then again perhaps not.

Jack, if the trail is funded by someone else, your group is paid a rent, and you are indemnified for risk, to me there appear to be more pros than cons.

JAC

I think unless we are talking abotu a 2-3 mile trip there are a good number of people who will not use the whole length of the trail. While my idea of a good bike ride is 30 miles many people are happy with just a few. You also have to remember that you are taking about families on the train and there is bound to be one or more people who can't use the whole trail.

I've not been down your line Jack, but apart from some picturesque little towns like Oberlin nearby, the scenery seems to be farm fields and weed grown ditches. I don't think having a second form of access to said fields and weeds will negatively affect your ridership - much the opposite, in fact. Cyclists may well see the train and either ride it themselves, or tell noncyclist friends about it, who may ride while the cyclists cycle alongside. Too much notariety among the public didn't seem to me to be a problem with the L&WV. Having another means of letting more of the public know you are there is a plus.

Photo specials are sold primarily to railfans and many are notoriously thrifty about ticket buying while splurging on cameras, etc. Thankfully, railfans are relatively few in number and needen't impact your marketing decision making - they will show up anyway and probably not contribute much when they do. This is why running an ad in TRAINS is like preaching to the choir, while having a stock of brochures in regional motels and visitors centers will pay much larger dividends. Forget the fans, and aim for the vacationers and local communities with events that will bring them back more times than once.

Assuming you can deal with any insurance issues, I don't see a downside.

dave

3 Con (the big one, in my experience):
Trail users, by and large, be they weekend 1/2-mile strollers or 50-mile bikers, develop a sense of entitlement and priority, and end up viewing the railroad as an "unsafe intrusion" and lobby either against a currently-existing operation or any restoration of service.

I've witnessed lobbying against even urban mass-transit reuse of "trailed" rail corridors. Even though part of the original; motivation for preservation of the Baltimore & Annapolis right-of-way between Glen Burnie and Annapolis was eventual extension of light rail south, I believe it's generally acknowledged by transit officials that even if the money were there it'd never happen--the trail is too popular with dog-walkers, joggers, and stroller-pushers.

We have permission to run a single rail line down our "rails to trials" as long as we separate the track from the trail. Since it used to be a double line, there is plenty of room for both.

Later!
Mr. Ed

I don't know if we fall under the same problem of complaining against us. We are Fee simple owners of the property. We are only selling an easement.
I don't see how they could try and stop us. I would have to put it in the agrement that anything done like that would forfit the easement. We would be selling the easement to a goverment agency. I don't know if that would make it better or worse.
I would like to think making nice with the park board would be better than not.
I do know it would be nice having park rangers to arrest the 4 wheeler, snowmobilers, rail thieves etc. having the property patroled regulary would be great.
It would also help with drainage issues that are present.

> We have permission to run a single rail line....

This phrase says it all. Somebody who owns something should not have to get permission from anybody to do anything with it.

The next thing to happen to this group is they will need to get permission to to do anything more than run one train a day on their single rail line.

> We would be selling the easement to a goverment agency.

Do that and you will lose control of your rail line. One of the committee members who participated in the Cumberland dog and pony show regarding the Scenic in May of 2005 said this in rationalizing their decision;

(paraphrase) "They're getting public (government) money, therefore the government needs to be in charge".

Take their money and they will consider the right-of-way theirs. The next thing they will require you to do is put up a fence.

If you need money to support your train, be creative and come up with ways to generate your revenue using the rail line.

Many of the Rail to Trail guides suggest "sharing" the right of way if outright abandonment is not possible. The one I saw showed how to create "incidents" to show how the railroad is not a good "partner" and thus should be removed.

The trail people are not your friends or even neutral - they want to destroy you.

You have a link to that site? I bike rail trails often, including the Panhandle trail in Newark which parralells the Ohio Central. I've visited many web sites and I've never encountered such. In fact many organizations (Rails-to-trails) are working to convert abandoned right of ways.

Can you provide the link to the site you refer? Or is this an unsubstantiated accusation?

An editorial op/ed piece in a York (Pa) newspaper recently suggested that the Northern Central line between New Freedom, Pa. and York, Pa. should be abandoned since operating a railroad in close proximity to a hiking/biking trail was "not compatible."

While converting abandoned rights-of-way to trails can be a very desirable re-use of resources (sometimes bridges and tunnels are still in place and in usable condition), the problems seem to arise when trails are proposed along still-active rail lines. -- Ray