# "Rails to Trails"



## DET63 (Jan 12, 2010)

When railway lines are abandoned and the tracks picked up, sometimes they are converted to hiking, biking, or jogging trails. How do you feel when you find out that a railway line has been converted into a trail? My feeling is this: now that passenger and/or (more likely) freight trains are no longer using the line, any freight that used to be carried over it now has to be carried by truck, and any passengers by bus or private car. While nature lovers and bike riders may like having another trail to walk or ride on, there'll probably be more air pollution and its associated consequences due to the end of rail service. Any effort to revitalize the economy in an area formerly served by rail will either be thwarted altogether, or result in more truck and automobile traffic on nearby roads. In short, I'm never too happy when I hear the phrase "rails to trails."

(Yes, I know there is another meaning of "rails to trails," which usually involves the National Park Service and Amtrak. I'm not talking about that "rails-to-trails" connection, however.)


----------



## acelafan (Jan 12, 2010)

DET63 said:


> When railway lines are abandoned and the tracks picked up, sometimes they are converted to hiking, biking, or jogging trails. How do you feel when you find out that a railway line has been converted into a trail? My feeling is this: now that passenger and/or (more likely) freight trains are no longer using the line, any freight that used to be carried over it now has to be carried by truck, and any passengers by bus or private car. While nature lovers and bike riders may like having another trail to walk or ride on, there'll probably be more air pollution and its associated consequences due to the end of rail service. Any effort to revitalize the economy in an area formerly served by rail will either be thwarted altogether, or result in more truck and automobile traffic on nearby roads. In short, I'm never too happy when I hear the phrase "rails to trails."
> (Yes, I know there is another meaning of "rails to trails," which usually involves the National Park Service and Amtrak. I'm not talking about that "rails-to-trails" connection, however.)


I believe some Rails to Trails must be reverted back to railroad tracks if economic conditions (and the absentee railroad owner) feel that it would be prudent to do so. Wikipedia has a description of "Railbanking":

Railbanking is preserving railroad rights-of-way for possible future use. Railbanking leaves the tracks, bridges, and other infrastructure intact, relieving the railroad operating company from responsibility of maintenance and taxation. Often the tracks are put in custody of a state transportation agency, who then seeks a new operator for possible rehab or reactivation. This helps ensure the possibilty of future restored rail service when new economic conditions may warrant resuming operation. With environmental laws as they are, the restoration of railroad tracks upon a right-of-way that has been stripped is very difficult, requiring a lengthy process of environmental impact reports and permitting process. Once tracks have been stripped from a right of way and conversion to recreational trail is complete, rail service has rarely if ever been restored.

I'm neutral on Rails to Trails. I think they are a great way to revitalize outdoor recreation, but it would be nice to have trains running on restored tracks. At least the US is going to see an upswing in rail traffic over the next decade (especially freight and maybe passenger). We buy too much "stuff" that needs to be shipped all across the country for the cheapest price!


----------



## AlanB (Jan 13, 2010)

DET63 said:


> (Yes, I know there is another meaning of "rails to trails," which usually involves the National Park Service and Amtrak. I'm not talking about that "rails-to-trails" connection, however.)


Actually Amtrak's program with the NPS is Rails & Trails, not rail to trails.


----------



## rrdude (Jan 13, 2010)

AlanB said:


> DET63 said:
> 
> 
> > (Yes, I know there is another meaning of "rails to trails," which usually involves the National Park Service and Amtrak. I'm not talking about that "rails-to-trails" connection, however.)
> ...


"Rails To Trails" is one of the best programs I have ever encountered. It allows for (IF someone is willing to pony up the cash) the line to be reactivated (which hardly ever happens, anyone have some examples?)

And I say this having been on BOTH sides of the fence: 1) Fighting the RTT people tooth-and-nail to prevent the old Ann Arbor RR north of Thompsonville, MI from being torn up, we lost, it's a GREAT trail now. 2) Fighting hard, and using the law on our side, to convert a former short line stub into a trail in Catonsville, MD.

The RTT helps (too much in the case of the AA RR!) local entities and volunteer groups work with the public, and go thru the legal morass of working with the owner of the ROW to convert to a trail.

The WORST thing that can happen, and still does, is that after so many years of abandonment, (and no legal filings, etc.) the ROW sometimes converts to the adjacent property owners.

If you can't run trains on it, then convert it!


----------



## Bill Haithcoat (Jan 13, 2010)

We have an example of what I think you are talking about in the Atlanta area.

It is the Silver Comet Trail. This is old abandoned track from the Seaboard from Atlanta to BIrmingham. This ran in competition with the Southern Railroad route from ATL to BHM (used today by the Crescent).

Southern and Seaboard used to compete for the NYC, WAS,ATL,BHM market. Southern's route was shorter, its schedules were faster (though not necessrily faster mph), thus it was the sronger of the two.But Seaboard had the advantage of going through Richmond,a population center. Ex-Seaboard track (now CSX) is still in use north of Atlanta, just one block from my apartment. But to BHM, no more.

The Silver Comet was the name of the best and fastest of the Seaboard trains which served that route. And, yes, it was a brother or cousin to the other silver trains, the Silver Meteor and the Silver Star. They all were Seaboard's top streamliners once upon a time. The Meteor began in 1939, the Star and the Comet followed in 1947.

The Silver Comet trail seems to generate a lot of interest locally and seems to be well known. If even had its own murder a year or two ago. But I think that is considered an isolated incident, I suspect that it is still quite popular.

Since the Silver Comet last ran in 1969 I doubt that the local populace understands the name, just "something about trains".


----------



## MrFSS (Jan 13, 2010)

A portion of the *Monon Route* that entered Indianapolis from the north to downtown has been made into a bike, skateboard, jogging trail. It is well used and many people ride bikes from the northern parts of town to downtown to go to work. At major road crossings they have built overhead bridges so there is no conflict with traffic.


----------



## John Bredin (Jan 13, 2010)

With all due respect, *DET63*, while it's clearly disconcerting to see a rail line go out of service, I don't think you can look at this as "rail _versus_ trail" with the only two alternatives being an active rail line and an active trail.

The railroad is making its decision to keep or end service on a line based on its own traffic, financials, etc., not because someone else wants it as a trail. Generally, trail organizations don't come to the table with enough money to induce a railroad to give up service on an otherwise profitable line.

Once the railroad decides to end service on the line, the choices are either the right-of-way gets preserved more or less intact as a trail or adjoining landowners swallow it up -- legally if there was a right of reversion in the deed to the railroad, not-so-legally if they just start using, fencing in, etc. the portion of the unused right-of-way that adjoins their property.


----------



## Alice (Jan 13, 2010)

Rails-to-trails are great for wheelchair users on account of their gentle slope.


----------



## DET63 (Jan 13, 2010)

Alice said:


> Rails-to-trails are great for wheelchair users on account of their gentle slope.


I can't remember ever seeing a wheelchair user on a recreational trail, whether it was originally a railway ROW (and there are several—or at least one long one—near where I live) or anywhere else.


----------



## Rumpled (Jan 14, 2010)

I have seen scooter wheelchair people and a couple of wheelchair athletes (hand crank bike type and push the wheel type) on my local MUP's (Multi Use Path) a few times. Maybe it's becasue of where I live.


----------



## Kramerica (Jan 14, 2010)

John Bredin said:


> The railroad is making its decision to keep or end service on a line based on its own traffic, financials, etc., not because someone else wants it as a trail. Generally, trail organizations don't come to the table with enough money to induce a railroad to give up service on an otherwise profitable line.
> Once the railroad decides to end service on the line, the choices are either the right-of-way gets preserved more or less intact as a trail or adjoining landowners swallow it up -- legally if there was a right of reversion in the deed to the railroad, not-so-legally if they just start using, fencing in, etc. the portion of the unused right-of-way that adjoins their property.


I agree with John 100%. RTT simply preserves a public ROW that still serves some transportation need, plus adds recreational value. And if in the far future we need the ROW back for rail or for some other public purpose, it is still there.



rrdude said:


> "Rails To Trails" is one of the best programs I have ever encountered. It allows for (IF someone is willing to pony up the cash) the line to be reactivated (which hardly ever happens, anyone have some examples?)


I don't have any examples, and in the current cultural and social environment, I can't see how any RTT would ever be converted back to rail. There would be a huge outcry from the recreation industry and the trail users. I suspect most landowners prefer the RTT instead of a RR, too. In theory the back-conversion can happen, but it simply isn't going to happen without major changes in our societal desires.


----------



## rrdude (Jan 14, 2010)

Kramerica said:


> John Bredin said:
> 
> 
> > The railroad is making its decision to keep or end service on a line based on its own traffic, financials, etc., not because someone else wants it as a trail. Generally, trail organizations don't come to the table with enough money to induce a railroad to give up service on an otherwise profitable line.
> ...


You are prolly right. But locally, we are trying to get funding for a bridge over an interstate beltway that circles Baltimore. We have been working on the trail on each side of the highway for several years, and part of the requirements are that "any bridge that is built, must be designed so that SHOULD light rail ever be re-established, the bridge would be designed to handle it..........." or something like that. It makes the construction cost of said bridge skyrocket though..........


----------



## PetalumaLoco (Jan 15, 2010)

Kramerica said:


> I don't have any examples, and in the current cultural and social environment, I can't see how any RTT would ever be converted back to rail. There would be a huge outcry from the recreation industry and the trail users. I suspect most landowners prefer the RTT instead of a RR, too. In theory the back-conversion can happen, but it simply isn't going to happen without major changes in our societal desires.


Rails to trails back to rails does happen.

Other examples were cited in the book that's been mentioned on AU, Waiting on a Train, I believe.


----------



## AlanB (Jan 15, 2010)

There were also a few examples mentioned in the July issue of Trains, where trails either went back to trains or the paperwork to do so has at least been started.


----------



## rrdude (Jan 15, 2010)

PetalumaLoco said:


> Kramerica said:
> 
> 
> > I don't have any examples, and in the current cultural and social environment, I can't see how any RTT would ever be converted back to rail. There would be a huge outcry from the recreation industry and the trail users. I suspect most landowners prefer the RTT instead of a RR, too. In theory the back-conversion can happen, but it simply isn't going to happen without major changes in our societal desires.
> ...


Thanks "Loco", I spent about 90 seconds searching for that, then got frustrated, and went on to something else.


----------



## PetalumaLoco (Jan 15, 2010)

rrdude said:


> PetalumaLoco said:
> 
> 
> > Kramerica said:
> ...


Sometimes I get lucky.


----------



## Guest (Jan 21, 2010)

Bill Haithcoat said:


> We have an example of what I think you are talking about in the Atlanta area.
> It is the Silver Comet Trail. This is old abandoned track from the Seaboard from Atlanta to BIrmingham. This ran in competition with the Southern Railroad route from ATL to BHM (used today by the Crescent).
> 
> Southern and Seaboard used to compete for the NYC, WAS,ATL,BHM market. Southern's route was shorter, its schedules were faster (though not necessrily faster mph), thus it was the sronger of the two.But Seaboard had the advantage of going through Richmond,a population center. Ex-Seaboard track (now CSX) is still in use north of Atlanta, just one block from my apartment. But to BHM, no more.
> ...


Hey Mr. Haithcoat,

I've ridden out about 20 miles of the Silver Comet Path on a bicycle (and been the object of a golfer's golfball as it passes the course!). Anyway, it's a beautiful ride but I still wish it was rails. Some people are camping farther out on the Path or nearby and using it to get there. Really, I wouldn't do it by myself as the woman who was murdered was doing. You travel for long distances by yourself.

J


----------



## Rumpled (Jan 21, 2010)

I'm OK with the name and the usage. If a rail line is truly going to be abaondoned; then put it to good use.

It's kinda hard to predict the future of what usage will be needed.

I think abondoned lines like the So Cal Pacific Electric Lines should have been used continually for transit - I don't think there are any segments that could still be considered viable to convert back.


----------



## Guest (Jan 22, 2010)

Mr. Haithcoat will know the answer to this one, I'm sure. It seems that Amtrak/freight recently wanted to reclaim its rails in Atlanta. Someone else wants them for the Beltline, which I suppose is a green recreational multi-use thing around Atlanta. Didn't I read that the rails lost on this occasion to the neighborhoods surrounding it?

To the original poster. I dislike Rails to Trails in an area like Atlanta that desperately needs better commuter rail lines. In the country of Bermuda I walked the same and that was okay. The country is small. It has alternatives and it has strong laws about bringing cars into the country. It also has a well developed bus/ferry system. Different story.


----------

