Its quite obvious Joel doesn’t like rail and assumes the rail folks are just a bunch of pushy alcoholics he would rather see die off than try to find a happy medium with. Perhaps Mr. Mielke should spend less time drawing cartoons and more on researching exactly what federal laws dictate and what the NCRA has said. Joel, how often do you even ride a bike? Are you going to pay for the upkeep and liability insurance for a trail or expect taxpayers to foot the bill?
“Railbanking (as defined by the National Trails System Act, 16 USC 1247 (d)) is a voluntary agreement between a railroad company and a trail agency to use an out-of-service rail corridor as a trail until some railroad might need the corridor again for rail service. Because a railbanked corridor is not considered abandoned, it can be sold, leased or donated to a trail manager without reverting to adjacent landowners. The railbanking provisions of the National Trails System Act as adopted by Congress in 1983 have preserved 4,431 miles of rail corridors in 33 states that would otherwise have been abandoned.”
Mike you need to read more of that law. Just because a line can be abandonded, that does not require the owner to do such. It is their option to agree to railbanking. You guys keep forgetting the federal government does not own the line, just appropriate it’s management on a federal level. If the line goes away completely, then you lose any and all property that crosses private lands. That reverts back to the previous owners and if you want a trail through their lands, which there is much disagreement over, it is up to your rather disengenuous supporters to come to an agreement with them, not force the governments hand because you’re not getting your way on something. Push private property owners too much and watch how soon parts of your trail (or even rail) gets destroyed. And they won’t care about the consequsnces.
Show the proof of that statement. Making stuff up doesn’t make it real. And if you are such a strong rail advocate why are you too afraid to use your name?
Now that was last year, the trend continues. As many people have pointed out a railroad easement does not cover other uses, so if the FRA approves a railroad’s application to abandon a route, the easement no longer applies. Gone. Currently the Federal Government is spending $millions to satisfy land owners that are winning these court actions.
I can tell you why somebody might be afraid to post their real name in this rag. Some of the trails people have not been satisfied with debate and have taken action of a nasty sort.
“Abandonment of a railroad easement may be inferred where the corridor is put to uses that are outside the scope of the easement. Alternatively, in some states, trail use is considered to be within the scope of a railroad ease- ment. This is sometimes known as the “shifting public use policy,” under which the railroad easement is deemed broad enough to encompass other types of transportation or public highway uses. Other states have rejected such a policy.
Another great read for those who would like facts rather than hyperbole:
I love it when Mike Buettner tells people to use their own name. It was not until he was caught using many blog names, that he stopped. “Robpushedme” was one of his names.
The rail to trail idea has been around for years. Very little has been accomplished because of lack of interest. That is until the call for a feasibility study for an East West rail trail. It’s interesting that the owner of a local newspaper that ran a hit piece on the E-W rail trail, is the same one organizing the hurry-up push for railbanking the Eureka-Arcata line.
Supporting studying the possibility of an E-W rail trail or suggesting alternatives to railbanking is now being demonized by said local media. We have also experinenced a local media blackout on anything but negitive articles.
Obviously, there’s no “lack of interest.” Just look at all of the comments on these trail articles. And if you’d like to push the trail idea forward, please sign this petition.
As a 20th Century railroad the NWP was not involved with land grants, but established it’s ROW between Ukiah and Alton by fee title and easements that everyone is arguing about here. Prior to SP and Santa Fe the historic railroads north of Alton and south of Ukiah had their own title and easement issues that folded into the NWP. None of this has an easy answer.
One thing is sure…….everyone should be on the prayer rug, praising Dan Hauser and others in the Legislature for creating the NCRA…….without which we would’t be having this conversation. SP would have liquidated the assets and easements north of Willits 25 years ago, end of story.
Also of note………the letters submitted by all interested parties at the July NCRA meeting in Eureka should be required reading for all parties. The letters of John Williams and the NCRA attorney are particuarly interesting. They can be accessed on the NCRA website from the meeting minutes page.
Its quite obvious Joel doesn’t like rail and assumes the rail folks are just a bunch of pushy alcoholics he would rather see die off than try to find a happy medium with. Perhaps Mr. Mielke should spend less time drawing cartoons and more on researching exactly what federal laws dictate and what the NCRA has said. Joel, how often do you even ride a bike? Are you going to pay for the upkeep and liability insurance for a trail or expect taxpayers to foot the bill?
And let the fight begin…
After 15 years of faked stats, threats, whining and misrepresentation, what NCRA said very politely is “It’s over, get used to it”
Great cartoon. Goebbels would have been proud of it.
I agree Jack, it is unfortunate the NCRA and John Williams had to stoop to lieing about the future of it’s line.
“Railbanking (as defined by the National Trails System Act, 16 USC 1247 (d)) is a voluntary agreement between a railroad company and a trail agency to use an out-of-service rail corridor as a trail until some railroad might need the corridor again for rail service. Because a railbanked corridor is not considered abandoned, it can be sold, leased or donated to a trail manager without reverting to adjacent landowners. The railbanking provisions of the National Trails System Act as adopted by Congress in 1983 have preserved 4,431 miles of rail corridors in 33 states that would otherwise have been abandoned.”
Mike you need to read more of that law. Just because a line can be abandonded, that does not require the owner to do such. It is their option to agree to railbanking. You guys keep forgetting the federal government does not own the line, just appropriate it’s management on a federal level. If the line goes away completely, then you lose any and all property that crosses private lands. That reverts back to the previous owners and if you want a trail through their lands, which there is much disagreement over, it is up to your rather disengenuous supporters to come to an agreement with them, not force the governments hand because you’re not getting your way on something. Push private property owners too much and watch how soon parts of your trail (or even rail) gets destroyed. And they won’t care about the consequsnces.
B.S.
Show the proof of that statement. Making stuff up doesn’t make it real. And if you are such a strong rail advocate why are you too afraid to use your name?
Perhaps this will help, though it tends to be ignored behind the Redwood Curtain.
http://www.mainjustice.com/2012/02/17/railbanking-flopping-in-the-courtroom/
Now that was last year, the trend continues. As many people have pointed out a railroad easement does not cover other uses, so if the FRA approves a railroad’s application to abandon a route, the easement no longer applies. Gone. Currently the Federal Government is spending $millions to satisfy land owners that are winning these court actions.
I can tell you why somebody might be afraid to post their real name in this rag. Some of the trails people have not been satisfied with debate and have taken action of a nasty sort.
Gee, Wally. You’re afraid of trail advocates?
What a load of crap Wally. Rumor monger much?
Yes, rail banking has and will be challenged. But it’s not an all or none situation. Easements and right of way are different in different situations.
Here is an excellent read that looks at both sides of the issue:
http://www.thewashcycle.com/2009/07/improving-railbanking.html
And a little history:
http://www.americantrails.org/resources/railtrails/antirail.html
“Abandonment of a railroad easement may be inferred where the corridor is put to uses that are outside the scope of the easement. Alternatively, in some states, trail use is considered to be within the scope of a railroad ease- ment. This is sometimes known as the “shifting public use policy,” under which the railroad easement is deemed broad enough to encompass other types of transportation or public highway uses. Other states have rejected such a policy.
Another great read for those who would like facts rather than hyperbole:
http://www.railstotrails.org/resources/documents/resource_docs/RailstoTrailsConversionCommentary.pdf
Hey, if you don’t like our rusty useless abandoned railroad, you can just leave!
I love it when Mike Buettner tells people to use their own name. It was not until he was caught using many blog names, that he stopped. “Robpushedme” was one of his names.
This from some fuckhead named “Jimny Cricket.”
The rail to trail idea has been around for years. Very little has been accomplished because of lack of interest. That is until the call for a feasibility study for an East West rail trail. It’s interesting that the owner of a local newspaper that ran a hit piece on the E-W rail trail, is the same one organizing the hurry-up push for railbanking the Eureka-Arcata line.
Supporting studying the possibility of an E-W rail trail or suggesting alternatives to railbanking is now being demonized by said local media. We have also experinenced a local media blackout on anything but negitive articles.
Obviously, there’s no “lack of interest.” Just look at all of the comments on these trail articles. And if you’d like to push the trail idea forward, please sign this petition.
As a 20th Century railroad the NWP was not involved with land grants, but established it’s ROW between Ukiah and Alton by fee title and easements that everyone is arguing about here. Prior to SP and Santa Fe the historic railroads north of Alton and south of Ukiah had their own title and easement issues that folded into the NWP. None of this has an easy answer.
One thing is sure…….everyone should be on the prayer rug, praising Dan Hauser and others in the Legislature for creating the NCRA…….without which we would’t be having this conversation. SP would have liquidated the assets and easements north of Willits 25 years ago, end of story.
ARD
Also of note………the letters submitted by all interested parties at the July NCRA meeting in Eureka should be required reading for all parties. The letters of John Williams and the NCRA attorney are particuarly interesting. They can be accessed on the NCRA website from the meeting minutes page.
ARD