"A recent Surface Transportation Board ruling said efforts to revive the rail line should take precedent over efforts to build a trail. The decision could have a negative impact on plans to convert 300 miles of rail line into the Great Redwood Trail. The line runs through Humboldt and Marin counties."

https://www.rtands.com/freight/stb-ruli ... eat-trail/

A link to the actual ruling: https://lostcoastoutpost.com/loco-media ... /51083.pdf

This could be a good precedent. A proponent of the trail is referring to the short line as "the toxic coal train".

And 3 different Leagues of Women Voters request that coal trains be prohibited.

Realistically, the real issue here - and it's a very real one - is whether a pre-emptive strike by the trail interests overrules an Offer of Financial Assistance (OFA) to take over a rail line for continued common carrier service. Basically, here, the trail strike is held off until the OFA procedure is complete, which is actually a deferral if not a victory.

There's another ruling - not that long ago - in Union County TN where the OFA offer was rejected by the STB despite significant support from local shippers, government interests, etc., and Oberman in the minority wrote a blistering rebuttal to the trail decision supporting the OFA process rather than a trail conversion.

This is the first evidence that the OFA process is apparently now alive and well, and while this will certainly be subject to scrutiny (and proof of funding) the two recent decisions we should be watching (Saratoga & North Creek and this one) have both leaned into keeping the railroad as a railroad if at all possible. This doesn't mean trail conversion is dead, it just means that the retention of common carrier rail service must be exhausted before that can happen.

There was a decision a long time ago (Roaring Fork) where an excursion operation was not considered as part of the economic sustainability of a line in addition to common-carrier service that may or may not emerge later. That one became a trail. But the language of preserving a line for 'local economic benefits' is still there, so it's a matter of interpretation to a more receptive STB with a broader interpretation.

As an amateur competitive cyclist who also frequents rail trails, I must ask the original poster to define "bike trail people".

Thanks.

You know, it's the old saw of creating a group name for people you don't know, completely agree with, or understand for the purpose of derision instead of conversation.

It's an easy fallback if you just want to complain about stuff instead of trying to fix it.

This is the saga, repeated all over society and public discourse, of the loudest and most publicity-seeking "extremists" of any movement inadvertently "defining" said cause in the public eye. Name any societal issue today, and you are likely to find that potential compromise, such as it could be, is being thwarted by absolutists demanding their way with no room for compromise. The case could well be made that, in that context, even the people who "belong" to such movements in theory don't "know, completely agree with, or understand" the "movement" as truly defined by its "leadership."

Yes, it's possible to be a rail history buff, a rail service supporter, and a rail-trail supporter. But it's been fairly well proven that a few elements of rail-trail advocacy, some in "high places," see any railroad remaining in place as a threat and an obstacle impeding their trail goals, even an active freight line in many cases.

I fail to see why it's an either/or situation.
There are plenty of rails next to trails (including on the south end of the NWP), and most ROW have enough room for both. Yes, the NWP is in flood prone area, and a case could be made that there isn't enough economic reason to restore service, without extensive remediation for flooding. And energy markets are so volatile, by the time service was restored, it may not make economic sense.
But this march to just rip out the rail (and undergrading, if it still exists) is short sighted.

The amount of $$ and work to make the NWP into a bike trail for its full length through the canyons would be insane. There are probably dozens of large washouts, I think?- something like a dozen tunnels, that several have caved in, probably 30-40 bridges and trestles of various sizes. Unless the trail folks have several hundred million dollars I do not see this happening.
That route has to be some of the least hospitable ROW in the US in terms of bridges, tunnels, land slide-prone areas, flooding etc. It being a trail or rail makes little differences when it comes to collapsed tunnels and bridges.

Going back to a topic a while back, has there EVER been a stretch of track greater than 5-10 miles that has been re activated from rail bank? I think the answer is no.

To my recollection at least two such lines were partially reactivated, one the line between Shelocta, Clarksburg and Saltsburg, Pa. in southwestern Pennsylvania east of Pittsburgh that was rebuilt by NS--five miles of new track/ROW and 11 miles of rehabilitated track. The caveat with this is that both this project and the other one (as I recall) were "railbanked" for right-of-way preservation, but that neither had had trails put upon them.

The ultimate test of this philosophy, of course, will come when someday certain suburban rights-of-way ostensibly "saved" to preserve future "transit needs" finally come to a "fish or cut bait" decision for the (re)installation of rail transit. Two prime examples: The former Washington & Old Dominion in northern Virginia, and the former Baltimore & Annapolis between Glen Burnie and Annapolis, Md. I sincerely believe only lack of government finances and will have prevented showdowns over these two trails--so far............

NCRA was basically trying to jump the line and go directly to trail without even allowing the STB to consider the OFA offers already on the table and filed.

That was denied, that's all. Doesn't mean the OFA's will pass the test, they were tossed on Union County, it's my no means decided. Just that OFA's have to be at least considered. That's good at least as a procedural process.

In the department of 'what should have been' it goes back to the original ATSF+SP deal to build up the Eel River there and stick to the east side of the river at Rio Dell , through the Scotia (mud) bluffs, and right there you can't hold anything for any length of time, rail or trail. If they'd bridged across there (like the highway does now) and paid off the landowner this might have turned out differently... but that's a great theoretical argument. Then there's the tunnels.... which I've seen firsthand and wouldn't walk in them, let alone bike, in earthquake fault zones. Those shots of an SP Pile driver permanently stationed there at the bluffs and just keep driving piles as the hill slowly shifted into the river...yeah. You've got specific areas on the line that have very specific engineering problems, but not the entire railroad. And it's just as rough for a trail.

The other thing to consider is that Eureka/Arcata had significant rail and interior connections long before SP ever got there with a main line connection, and was entirely served by water. It still is, fuel has to be barged in as the highways are so bad. If there was ever a case for another Alaska Railroad but on a smaller scale, this may be it given a decent business plan. There's a limited supply of potential deep water ports on the west coast, too, and who would have ever imagined the resurgence of Prince Rupert?

TRAINS has a feature on a upper Michigan line that was rebuilt on a trail for a short portion, and we did one in Pennsylvania to rebuild a coal loadout in Western PA out of Kiski Junction over an existing trail. I think it was about nine miles. Went though a full study to reopen a line in Centre County PA for Resource Recovery for a landfill/recycling plant as the highway option had been turned down, it eventually was withdrawn. So there's certainly precedent, if not distance specific, for trail to rail, it is legit.

The problem with the NWP is the sheer amount of money it would take to rebuild it. Can you imagine the literal billions needed to "do it right" plus the massive push back from environmental groups when you start talking about ROW relocation etc.

I agree would be great to see it as a RR to Eureka and makes logical sense perhaps in the extreme long run, BUT it won't happen. Too much money and too many route problems.

Again, though, it won't happen as a trail either- once the trail groups get construction firm quotes on tunnel rebuilds and dealing with the mud slide areas, they won't be able to afford it either.

I remember seeing a 1990s study to rebuild like 40-50 miles of the Nashville & Eastern to it's eastern terminus, pretty sure it was around 1 billion estimated needed, and this line is basically on firm ground with maybe 1 tunnel and a few small bridges needed.

I seem to recall there was a plan to run steam excursions south from Glen Burnie , on the B&A, but the residents didn't want it.

The WOD was a failure of planning. It's listed on the early WMATA maps as "commuter railroad". WMATA didn't think the area would develop, or people would want a one seat train ride to Dulles Airport.
Shortsighted.

In the Michigan Upper Peninsula instance mentioned by Randy above (can't remember which carrier), local trail enthusiasts were advised by the statewide trails lobby not to protest the reinstallation of track. The lobbyist was fearful that hostility toward rail reconversion would imperil the whole rail-to-trail program. Michigan law relies on potential rail re-use to thwart the reversion of abandoned easements to the underlying landowner. This is a tenuous argument, but many hundreds of miles of trail depend on it.

Aarne Frobom
Third booth from the back, Toivo's Tacos
National Mine, Michigan

There were some problems with the W&OD beyond just poor planning by WMATA. The first is that during the land transfers between the Southern, the estate of the W&OD, the C&O, Virginia Electric Power, the Virginia Dept (at the time) of Highways and the Parks Commission an agreement was apparently snuck in that the line would not be used for rail service by the new owner. The second is that the Dept of Highways did not want to spend the money for the W&OD to have a crossing (most likely an overpass) on I-66 for the railroad even though they were wiling to level the central business district of Falls Church. (They also wanted to be rid of the grade crossing on Shirley Highway). The third, and maybe the most important, is that the voters of Fairfax County did not want what had always been a bucolic trolley line cutting through the town centers converted to a state-of-the-art metro system and essentially Falls Churching the towns of Vienna and Herndon and, unlike Arlington and the City of Alexandria, voted for highway median construction. Had there been a proposal for a light-rail system of some type which would not have destroyed the town centers the result might have been a bit different.

GME