Rails to trails have sprung up all over the lower peninsula of Michigan with some legal battles re those easement laws. But the trails are wonderful and connect all over the state. Thanks to Fred Meijer and others.
Very interesting. Thank you. I've always wondered if the line from Marquette to munising could ever be reactivated. They used to service the munising papermill, and wood mill on m28, but now they come from I believe Newberry. Wisconsin central deactivated it in I think 1999
I don't know about Wisconsin (the closest i've ever been to there is either Iowa as i drove through or maybe flew OVER) but there are several trails that now exist on legacy paths in Northwestern (coming from Toledo) and Northeastern Ohio (mainly anywhere east of Youngstown)...
Interesting video. I had no idea that the trail could be returned to railroad service if needed. Who makes that call? Does the railroad that owns the property get to decide when it can be converted back or do they have to seek approval from the STB and justify service being restored?
"the right-of-way is 'rail banked,' which means that the railroad (or any other approved rail service provider) may reassert control at any time in order to restore service on the line." I believe they go to the STB for basically a rubber stamped approval.
Chances are if a rail corridor goes to rail to trail, it won't ever return. Not saying it can never happen, but more than likely rails won't ever return.
I’ve noticed that in a lot of cases where the railbanked easement is intended to be returned to service, that the NIMBY’s “Not in my backyard” and local governments have been able to block having the railbanked property returned to rail service. How is that possible? Doesn’t it undermine the whole concept of rail banking? Then there is even the case of Tennessee Pass, which is still owned by Union Pacific. Studies have been done to return service to a different operator, but each time is blocked by community’s. How do they have a say over what Union Pacific can do with their property?
Not only that, but you have the tourist operation in New York that actually lost track when forces greater then them wanted the corridor for a trail - claiming more tourist usage if it was a trail then a railroad. A railbanked corridor in upper Michigan was returned to rail but in return a new trail had to be created to replace the lost one. Not familiar with the cases of conversion back to rail being successfully blocked but doesn't surprise me.
You should apply that question to *deep breath* ANY Military base (especially Navy). I was at NAS Whitney Island, this summer, to attend a friend's retire ceremony and the locals are doing their best to close the base because of the Growlers that are based there. The folks who oppose any return (of rail service) don't GAF apparently about their regional employment opportunities; they just want 'quiet' (and F your feelings otherwise)
I don't remember the details behind it but the state was unable to obtain a section of right of way.for a trail that was former CNW line to Washburn. WI. Perhaps it has something to do with a snowmobile trail that was to be on the ROW. All in all Wisconsin still should be one of the high mileage States for trails
Hm,makes me wonder say a old line that now is apart of someone's backyard what would the litigation of that go to,or just some legal bs that is more of a explanation than anything as well the possibility of a house or building that was built in middle of the way. I know iminent domain has been used for stuff like that before and to often for a dumb project over here but thinking on regular lines here. Also it feels like the clause to bring back lines was used or came from the thought of mobilization such as what the interstate system bill was done originally for.
I was involved in a proceeding where the abandoned line in one section specifically stated the land goes back to the original owner. The home owner could prove it and ended up in a legal battle with rails-to-trails to prevent a trail being developed thru their small farm. The home owner, in this case, won the battle but it cost them in legal fees to keep strangers from walking thru their land.
