Supreme Court decision could have negative effect on rail trails

[rcannon100]

Ohhhhhhhhhhh this is potentially really bad.

[jabberwocky]

Don’t know about the Capital Crescent, but I believe the W&OD is almost entirely owned by the government. My recollection is the power company purchased it when the railroad went out of business, and portions were purchased by various government agencies over time. I don’t think any of the trail actually operates as an easement over private land.

Regarding the linked case, what would be amusing is if the agencies involved simply used eminent domain to outright seize the land (a power the supreme court has interpreted quite broadly). That would sidestep the easement issue quite neatly.

[PotomacCyclist]

From what I had read in earlier reports, the landowners could receive money from the federal government even though they retain their land. Seems like a big money grab to me, which started from a single weekend land rights seminar a few years ago. Shortly after that retreat, the lawsuits started up, leading to today’s decision.

I updated the first post. It looks like the NVRPA does own the land of the W&OD. Dominion Power has an easement to run its transmission towers in the park, but does not own the land.

[lordofthemark]

@jabberwocky 79282 wrote:

Regarding the linked case, what would be amusing is if the agencies involved simply used eminent domain to outright seize the land (a power the supreme court has interpreted quite broadly). That would sidestep the easement issue quite neatly.

Then they would have to pay fair market value for the land (at 2014 prices) – I think it would be cheaper to pay the differential between the value of a an easement for RR purposes only, and one for general transportation purposes. Did the SCOTUS decision address how to estimate that value? Or am I (IANAL) misunderstanding the whole case?

[PotomacCyclist]

A blog post from the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy about what types of trails will not be affected by the Supreme Court decision:

http://community.railstotrails.org/blogs/trailblog/archive/2014/03/11/the-supreme-court-decision-how-does-it-affect-rail-trails.aspx

“To answer the first question, the vast majority of current and planned rail-trails will not be affected.

The ruling does not affect trails that have been “railbanked” (the federal process of preserving former railway corridors for potential future railway service by converting them to multi-use trails in the interim). Potentially affected corridors are predominantly west of the Mississippi and were originally acquired by railroads after 1875 through federal land to aid in westward expansion.”

---

As The WashCycle highlighted:

Existing rail-trails or trail projects ARE NOT affected by this decision if ANY of the following conditions are met:

The rail corridor is “railbanked.”
The rail corridor was originally acquired by the railroad by a federally granted right-of-way (FGROW) through federal lands before 1875.
The railroad originally acquired the corridor from a private land owner.
The trail manager owns the land adjacent to the rail corridor.
The trail manager owns full title (fee simple) to the corridor.
The railroad corridor falls within the original 13 colonies.

So it appears that rail trails in Virginia and Maryland outside of the immediate DC area are also safe.

[PotomacCyclist]

A statement from the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy from Mon., Mar. 10, 2014:

http://community.railstotrails.org/blogs/trailblog/archive/2014/03/10/Supreme-Court-Hands-Down-Disappointing-Decision-for-Trails-in-U.S_2E00_.aspx

They also note the following:

“The fight for these rail corridors is not over yet. The case of Marvin M. Brandt Revocable Trust et al. v. United States will be sent back to a lower court where we hope to have another opportunity to clarify and limit the scope of this Supreme Court ruling.”

[Author]

Posts