Rails To Trails

[dragracer]

There is a proposed rails to trails project very close to where I live. I've just been trying to get some info about the project and what I found so far is a little bit alarming. The proposed trail was going to be over 28 miles long. Sweet! Well part of the trail has already been shot down by some damn landowners group. Not sweet! :mad: And the remaining 15 mile section is starting to gain some opposition also. :( I just don't understand what these landowners think they are going to gain from a skinny piece of railway. It just seems ludicrous that anyone would oppose such a project. Do they hear "bike" and think Harley!?? Hell I dunno!! I don't see anyone opposing cities spending millions on parks and such. I just find it hard to believe that it would be that hard to convince people that this is a good thing. I'm gonna try to get involved and do what I can but there's only so much a person can do. Any of you all been involved in trying to get a project like this off the ground??

[robertsdvd]

I think it was in Wellesley here that a rail-to-trail had problems with local residents. First, Wellesley area is the, scratch: a, "rich folks area." Some of their published concerns were that it would invite the wrong folk into their area. Skateboarders, BMX'ers and evil cyclists - they were concerned about noise also... and garbage... and probably just about allowing others into their community.

[Brillig]

They just finished dealing with that around here with the 22 mile Perkiomen Trail that connects to the Schulkyl River Trail. Landowner opposition held it up for years but they finally pushed it through.

You might do some google searching on that and see what you can learn from their success with those same obstacles.

[mrdoright0405]

We have a "Rails to Trails" where I live. Its only about 20 miles long.

[madpogue]

One of our in-city commuter paths is an old rail corridor. It was fought by its immediate neighbors for years, out of unfounded fears that it would bring "the wrong element". Eventually it became clear that the disused rail corridor was already creating problems as it existed. The path proponents finally made it clear that the path would return the corridor to "legitimate" use.

Now it's one of the busiest neighborhood thoroughfares, used for multiple social purposes (thus sometimes making it unsuitable for "thru" cycling, but oh well...). Real estate "For Sale" signs appear on both the street and the path side of houses on the path. Real estate ads for neighborhood houses now advertise "On (or near) bike path". Kids set up lemonade stands beside the path.

What won over the neighbors? I'm not sure, but I suppose I could find out. The most obvious thing is the prospect of increased property values.

[townandcountry]

We had the same problem in Eugene over a proposed multi-use trail that went by a parochial high school and a couple of assisted living facilities. What finally got it passed was lots of diplomatic discussions between the city, bike clubs and property owners. It was finally completed last November, named in honor of a former mayor of Eugene who was instrumental in getting bike paths here in the first place. There are fences on both sides and the city police (bike police) patrol the area quite a bit.

I think in the end if both sides keep cool and fears are laid to rest by commitment to cooperation, you will have your new trail. Sure hope so.

[Moonshot]

In most cases landowner opposition cannot stop the construction of a trail. If the government or non-profit entity has already purchased the corridor from the RR or has a "railbank" agreement with the RR I doubt there's anything adjacent landowners can do to stop construction.

If, on the other hand, the opposition organizes before the govt or non-profit has acquired the corridor they can make it difficult for the RR to sell or railbank.

One more thing, if the RR has already abandoned (a legal term, like bankruptcy) the corridor the land is fair game for adjacent landowners to claim easements the RR gathered when the RR was built many, many years ago.

It's for the greater good that these intact, linear corridors remain intact. Therefore, it is often a shame when a RR abandons a corridor and properties revert to landowners.

[DieselDan]

You sound like you live here dragracer. We have a 26 mile old rail line that is in longer in use, but two *******s are holding it up. One was exposed as a blantant racist at a commuity forum, and I think the other has nothing more to do with his time.

[N_C]

If I am not mistaken if an old rail bed is part of a city, county or state right of way there is nothing a private home owner can do to stop a trails project. Unless they purchased the rail bed from the rail road company there isn't a whole lot that can be done about it. Sure they can oppose it but it usually doesn't do any good. But if he rail road company still owns the old unused rail bed then it is up to them what to do with it. They typically sell the unused rail lines to who ever wants to purchase it. If the rail line already is on a right of way then again there isn't a whole lot a private land owner can do about it, even if they do oppose it.

[DieselDan]

If I am not mistaken if an old rail bed is part of a city, county or state right of way there is nothing a private home owner can do to stop a trails project. Unless they purchased the rail bed from the rail road company there isn't a whole lot that can be done about it. Sure they can oppose it but it usually doesn't do any good. But if he rail road company still owns the old unused rail bed then it is up to them what to do with it. They typically sell the unused rail lines to who ever wants to purchase it. If the rail line already is on a right of way then again there isn't a whole lot a private land owner can do about it, even if they do oppose it.

It's called NIMBY- Not In My Backyard. Something arrogent white people do, protest anything that may bring "other" people to their neighborhood. Items such as parks, ballfeilds, commuity pools, schools, and other outdoor recreation areas can be targets. Other targets can be as insidious as prisons, hospitals, public housing projects, and, the absoulte worst thing that can be put in any community, a Volenteers in Medicene Clinic.

[Ohio Trekker]

I laugh when I hear about people opposing these types of trails. I have read the statistics that show these trails actually effect property values in a very positive way. Around here, I have not seen littler along even the busiest of trails with the excpetion of one that runs between Ohio & Pennsylvania which has a serious problem with trash on the PA end. The trail nearest my house runs through both existing and developing residential neighborhoods and there are no fences to keep the strangers out, even in affluent areas.

Sad thing is the people opposing these types of activity projectss are usually the same ones complaining about students and teenagers hanging around, yet are the loudest and first to complain when facilities are proposed to give the objects of their complaints something to do.

As a side note, one of my favorite R to T's is one that is entirely maintained by volunteers, with garbage bags, brooms and mops in the restrooms along with signs saying this is a volunteer operation, if you don't like the condition of the restroom, please clean it up! What a HOOT!!

[brokenrobot]

It's called NIMBY- Not In My Backyard. Something arrogent white people do, protest anything that may bring "other" people to their neighborhood. Items such as parks, ballfeilds, commuity pools, schools, and other outdoor recreation areas can be targets. Other targets can be as insidious as prisons, hospitals, public housing projects, and, the absoulte worst thing that can be put in any community, a Volenteers in Medicene Clinic.

A bunch of wealthy women were just arrested for making public the address of a new shelter for battered women not far from my house... The rich women didn't want it in their neighborhood, because it would "bring in the wrong element". I've never been more disgusted with anyone in my life.

-chris

[joeprim]

There was talk of one around here too. Seems like a lot of folks didn't like it. Most notably was a church - the trail goes through it's cemetary and the gun club the trail passes right behind the berm of our rifle range. There was talk about tading so that the trail pybassed both but some how that talk dryed up. The trail is owned by a developer so I'm sure he has some nasty motivation for wanting to make it a trail.

Oh it's not a normal right of way - it was a WWII quick build to get supplied from the Naval Proving Ground (I think it was called back then) here at Dahlgren. This seems to make it harded as well.

Joe

[N_C]

It's called NIMBY- Not In My Backyard. Something arrogent white people do, protest anything that may bring "other" people to their neighborhood. Items such as parks, ballfeilds, commuity pools, schools, and other outdoor recreation areas can be targets. Other targets can be as insidious as prisons, hospitals, public housing projects, and, the absoulte worst thing that can be put in any community, a Volenteers in Medicene Clinic.

You're right DD, I've heard of NIMBY & more then likely will have to deal with it in the future, in part because of the projects the trails foundation will be helping to spearhead here in this area. Once the governing body of a city, county or state makes up it's mind to do something with a right of way it eventually gets done regardless of NIMBY. Granted people who for their little NIMBY groups can & do find all kinds of legal loop holes to try to prevent a project. But at the most they just slow it down. So unless a public type project is going to happen on property other then a right of way or public easment there isn't a hole lot that can be done to stop it.

[atbman]

Same thing happens over here. The usual process is for local councillors to be bombarded (3 emails, 2 phone calls and a letter) with accusations that it will allow thieves acess to their houses (you can carry a lot of VCRs TVs, computers, etc on the back of an MTB), perverts will use it to kidnap schoolchildren, unsuitable (have less money than us) people, peeping toms will stare into our bedroom windows, society as we know it will fall into criminal anarchy, blah, blah, blah.

Then it gets built. Kids use it because parents (sometimes same as above) think it's great to have somewhere safe for them to ride, families use it (ditto), NIMBYs use it to exercise their dogs, some commuters find it handy, people use it to get to local shops, the odd idiot gets onto it with a trailbike and society does not fall into...etc., etc.

Ho hum

[N_C]

You know instead of these foolish little NIMBY groups popping up why won't folks educate themselves on public projects such as rec. trails? More ofthen then not there are public meetings about them inviting everyone, both pro-ponents & opponents to come and say their piece. But more often then not the opponents do not show up to share their opinion & concerns and don't start complaining about it until the project is almost under-way.

It is like these NIMBY people only understand one side of the an un-true story because of something dumb they heard about way back when in a totally differant community & they think it will happen in theirs. They "bury their heads in the sand" & refuse to listen to reason.

Maybe there ought to be a required & mandatory public education forum for public works projects so the "ostriches" can be properly educated on the matter. Or once the public meetings have been held and everyone who shows up to ask questions & offer their concerns that is the end of it and the project goes forth and no amount of opposition will slow it down or stop it, there can be no law suits filed to slow it down or stop it, etc. In other words "stand up & speak or forever hold your peace" on the matter. And maybe, just maybe they'll understand that because something happened in New York, or L.A. or Chicago 20 years ago does not mean it will happen in their community, nor does it mean it still happens in the other communities.

[Moonshot]

Then it gets built. Kids use it because parents (sometimes same as above) think it's great to have somewhere safe for them to ride, families use it (ditto), NIMBYs use it to exercise their dogs, some commuters find it handy, people use it to get to local shops, the odd idiot gets onto it with a trailbike and society does not fall into...etc., etc.


That's been my experience too. The odd idiot is rare, but they can be dealt with.

I rarely ride Rail Trails unless I'm with my family, but I firmly believe their importance in providing a safe, comfortable linear exercise path for the general public is great.

[pauncho]

It doesn't matter what "it" is, people are always against "it" being built in their back yards. This applies to churches, schools, hospitals, bike trails, fire stations and day cares as well as stadiums, highways and shopping malls. The overwhelming majority of ordinary people don't trust developers or bureaucrats, and figure any change is going to be the worse for them. Also, the overwhelming majority of people I know really wish they lived on a street where the only car that ever drove on that street was their car. They don't want more people, they want to be left alone. The more useful and desirable a new thing would be, the more congestion it would bring. Even a new park will be opposed if it means ball fields and bike trails, the locals only like it if it means useless expanses of grass that somebody else mows.

They aren't picking on us in particular when they oppose the bike trail. They (meaning us, almost everybody) are against everything.

[Roughstuff]

.... The overwhelming majority of ordinary people don't trust developers or bureaucrats, and figure any change is going to be the worse for them.

When I lived in Amherst Mass, an extension of the rail trail was opposed by local landowners who felt it might be used by drug dealers.

While on a world tour in Colombia, i heard that the extension of a bike path was opposed by drug dealers who felt it might be used by Police.

Go figure. :)

roughstuff

[dragracer]

That all may be true....but the trail I was referring to is almost totally rural. It's not going thru any large city or even town. It's out in the middle of freakin' nowhere! But these damn landowner groups get together and then all of a sudden this deserted railway is a major crime spree just waiting to happen. These people really need to get a life instead of trying to deny everyone else a little bit of good clean healthy fun.

[algarde]

I'd just go over into IL if it is not too far. There are a lot of MO people that ride over there, especially on the weekends. The Rails to Trails over there is expanding every year. They are currently working on connecting what is now a 20 mile section to make a loop which will be 25-30 miles. They are also extending it from Edwardsville to Staunton but that isn't done yet, also a good 25 miles. There are other shorter gravel trails than connect to all of these also. Madison County seems to have it together.

[pauncho]

When the locals say they oppose bike trails because they fear it will be used by drug dealers, prostitutes, and worse, what they really mean is they just don't know what it would bring, but they want to be left alone, and aren't going to trust anyone from anywhere else who tells them different. That goes triple for the tiny group of people who choose to live in very rural, isolated areas within a country as urbanized as the United States is today.

[dragracer]

I'd just go over into IL if it is not too far. ..........

Yeah well that might not be too feasible since I'm on the other side of the state....about 20 miles from Kansas and Oklahoma. LOL... :D There are plenty of other trails in the surrounding area... and there's always the Katy trail. I plan on checking it out some time soon. :)

[DieselDan]

I'll make it simple for you: suburban white people don't want anything that would bring black and hispanics to their neighborhoods. I see it all the time here, especially on Hilton Head Island. Anything that may attract a diverse crowd is opposed ad nasum.

[pauncho]

Frankly, I think the idea that NIMBYs are just racist WASPS trivializes the NIMBYs. Everybody's a NIMBY, not just snotty upper middle class white suburbanites.

What I'm saying here is that the overwhelming majority of ordinary people are selfish, short-sighted jerks about something that they care deeply about. That isn't going to win a lot of friends. Nevertheless, it isn't merely about race or class.

[N_C]

Pauncho, I actually agree that everyone is a NIMBY type person. But it depends on why they are that way with certain issues.

For example I live in a residential neighborhood. If there was a proposal to try to turn it into a half commercial & half residential area I'd probably be opposed to it. But so would the rest of the people in this part of town. And we would form a group to question & more then likely oppose the commercial development of this area. But it would have nothing to do with the fear of a "bad element" of society coming in to this area like gangs, drug dealers & people of differant races. But more to do with this is a nice peacfull area & we don't want it to be disturbed. That & there are commercial areas less then a mile from this area of town, so why put one here too?

To me NIMBY group that forms for the reasons I mentioned above is a good thing fighting for a good cause. But when a NIMBY group forms for other reasons, simply out of fear of potential problems like gangs, & violence, etc. Then that is not a good reason.

[pauncho]

I'm making the very general point that the people who live where something is being proposed to be built nearly always oppose it, regardless of what it is. That point was made in response to the suggestion that there is something uniquely irrational about local opposition to a proposed bike trail. The response that, sometimes, NIMBYs have a fair and reasonable point of view, misses my point entirely. Whether they do or not has nothing to do with whether the locals will oppose the building plan. They always oppose the building plan.

[HalfHearted]

In rural areas, especially, the biggest opposition to rails-to-trails projects comes from landowners who felt that they (or their ancestors) were deprived of their land rights when the govenrment granted rights-of-way (often of excessive width and what have you) to the railroads without compensating the owners of the property. Most such grants were explicitly written such that the rights-of-way would revert to the original owners if the railroad abandoned the track. These folks quite understandably feel that their rights are being trampled again when that clause of the original grant is summarily ignored.

In fact, that's the case in the SW MO trail project that is probably the one that started this thread. (The partially completed trail from Willard, MO going north to Bolivar, MO.)

That doesn't mean I like it, I'd love to see that trail (and many others) go through. In fact, I'd love to see that trail extend all the way to Kansas City and the Katy trail. On the other hand, if I or my parents had already been screwed by the government once and now the government was violating their own agreement and screwing me again, all in the name of a project that I didn't have any personal interest in promoting, I'd probably fight it, too.

The answer is not to accuse the folks there of racism/classism but to recognize that in such cases they may have a legitimate gripe and a "sore spot" that may go back three or four generations (and in some cases the law is clearly on their side). Then to work with them to ease those concerns.

Sometimes the organizations attempting to get the trail in make the situation worse by demanding that trail access be "pristine" and that bordering landowners (who, remember, originally owned that land and may still have a legal claim to it once the railroad abandons it) not "encroach" on the trail by offering services to trail users, placing new buildings within sight of the trail, or displaying advertising to the trail.

How would you like someone to tell you, "oh, we're taking your land, we're not compensating you for it, but it will be real beneficial for you. Oh, BTW, don't try to benefit financially from our trail."

Again, I'm not anti-trail. There's a 22 mile rail-to-trail four miles from my house and I ride it frequently. I love 'em and wish there were more of 'em. But the way to get more trails is not with foaming-at-the-mouth rhetoric and accusations of racism/classism and such against people who may have already been screwed by the government once and are just sick of feeling powerless and taken advantage of.

If you can't understand how they feel, maybe someday they'll decide to widen the street in front of your house to a four-lane divided limited access highway, taking away your front yard right up to your door and cutting down your shade trees and forcing you to go three miles out of your way to get from the "access road" to the other side of the new highway - and then reappraise your property and raise your property taxes in light of this "improvement." If you complain does that make you a racist classist SOB, or just somebody who doesn't want his yard stolen for other people's convenience? :)

John

[pauncho]

I'm going to start off leading with my chin and concede I don't fully understand that kind of feeling. Like most Americans, I'm not someone whose family has lived in one place for five generations. I don't have a deep emotional relationship with one particular quarter section of land. In fact, as a lawyer, my concept of property is that it is a bundle of powers that the government will enforce on behalf of individuals or artificial persons, and that the government itself inherently has the power to amend that bundle of powers it will enforce on behalf of "persons." I simply can't relate to holding a grudge against the Union Pacific because it 'unfairly' took/got a right of way from my Great-great-great-great Grandfather and Grandmother in 1868. You might say that I freely admit I just don't 'get it.'

I don't mean to disparage or deny the feeling, just admit that, like most Americans, I can't relate to it. I know that kind of thing exists, and not just in cranks. When the Pope visited Istanbul a few years back, part of the deal worked out beforehand to ensure he got a welcome from the Orthodox Patriarch was that, upon arrival, he had to apologize for what the Fourth Crusade did in 1204. These things are real to many people, but just not to most Americans. This is a part of the change of identity that goes along with modern, nontraditional life.

Nevertheless, I harbor some pretty strong doubts that a desire to right an ancient wrong and get back 'my family's rightful interest' in something that has been railroad tracks for 100 years or so is really the motivating factor for most, even really rural, opposition to bike trails. It's inspirational rhetoric, but it isn't the #1 or even #2 reason most of those country folks get riled up about the idea of a place being built where city folks on $1000 bicycles can ride right by my window all day long every day.

[Grampy™]

Around here people point out how close they are to the trail as a positive selling feature to attract more buyers.

[dragracer]

....In fact, that's the case in the SW MO trail project that is probably the one that started this thread. (The partially completed trail from Willard, MO going north to Bolivar, MO.).....

Not the one I was talking about originally but close. This one was to go from Columbus, KS. to Carthage, MO. The Kansas side was dropped because of so much opposition from what I understand and only about 15 miles of the remaining trail has a chance of being built.

[Sania]

I'd just go over into IL if it is not too far. There are a lot of MO people that ride over there, especially on the weekends. The Rails to Trails over there is expanding every year. They are currently working on connecting what is now a 20 mile section to make a loop which will be 25-30 miles. They are also extending it from Edwardsville to Staunton but that isn't done yet, also a good 25 miles. There are other shorter gravel trails than connect to all of these also. Madison County seems to have it together.

I am familiar and have seen the newer Rails to Trails in the Edwardsville area and I have a question since you're familiar with it more than I...all I've seen is that it's being built up which is a good thing. But is this a MULTI-USE trail or strictly for walkers and bikers?
Thanks, Sania