Rail-to-Trails Program Costly to Taxpayers

Solution: get one of those trains they have at the mall that little kids ride around on. Lease the railway in near perpuity or a long time to the trail. Then once or twice a year, have a conducter ride in the front seat tooting a little whistle on the converted rail-to-trail. Therefore you have not abandoned it’s transportation purpose.

The property owners are looking at the possibility that their land be returned to them given the abandonment of the actual easement for it’s purposes. But realistically, they’re fulfilling the rule of the modern douchebag given the fact that their choice was heavy locomotive traffic or calm bike trail. Hmm, which one would make your property worth more?

Its 1899. A. The railroad is going to get an easement to run a RR on your property, which they will exercise for as long as railroads in your area are profitable.

B. The railroad is going to get an easement on to run a RR on your property, which they will exercise for as long as railroads in your area are profitable. If and when the railroad abandons the property, the easement will pass to the state, if and only if, they build a multiuse trail for cyclists and joggers. Which they may not due depending on demand and funding.

Granted, the right given up in B is worth more than in A. Sure. But $1 million a mile (suitably adjusted back to 1899 or whenever)more ????? Someone else can do the math on what that comes to per acre given the typical ROW width, but it sure sounds high to me. IANAL – is it proper to evaluate an easement with an uncertain chance of eventually become a trail (and surely, the vast majority of abandoned rail lines eligible for rails to trails have not been railbanked?) based on the assumption that rail banking is/was a certainty?