Metra to Rockford by 2027

I remember that but part of your point of view as I remember it was that the rail and trail could not coexist together on the same right of way and that the bikers would never permit it. Which has not panned out in all other parts of the country exactly that way.

However, placement of bike trails is only secondary. It’s more a matter of grass roots support for restoring rail service and preferred route as it is in other places of the country. If the support is greater for the bike trail the bike trail will prevail. If the support for restoration of rail service is greater they will find a way.

Understand that some folks in the railfan community feel that bicyclists are all powerful and insidious lobby. My argument is the reverse. The argument and support for rail is weak in the cases where the bikers were able to overcome the rail lobby.

And if you look at the history of the Brookfield, WI to Waukesha, WI cutoff, that is exactly what happened. The railroad at the time was too weak financially to fight it’s case and public support really didn’t see the railroads point of view. Also, it wasn’t bikers that drove the effort to lift rails there it was the Mayor of Waukesha that wanted additional tax revenue from a bank expansion over the right of way as well as he didn’t like the rails along the river, passing through a river park in some areas through the City. Only later did it become a bike trail on a truncated portion of the route that was already abandoned with the rails lifted.

I just noticed this post now and wanted to say that a.) I unfortunately know nothing about and have no insight into Elgin or the Metra extension to Rockford, and b.) I don’t mind people using my real name. I try to be reasonably discreet in this forum and don’t think that my online activities make me look any worse than my IRL ones.

Back in my pre-railroad-career days I was maybe a little less discreet… But fortunately it seems that it is becoming harder and harder to find archives of misc.transport.rail.americas…

Dan

My belief is that its the political clout of the upscale suburbs though which the rails would be relaid that would kill any such proposal, not the objections of the trail users. I also question whether enough of the right of way is still intact to allow rails and the trail to coexist with an adequate safety buffer.

You and I are in agreement here. I’m an avid cyclist and an avid railfan, and would be happy to hear any news of rails being relaid (or rails saved from being ripped up in favor of a trail). I can always find another place to ride my bike, but there are only so many intact corridors available where laying tracks is even an option.

Some new information this weekend likely affecting the UP Belvidere Subdivision. As part of its agreement with the UAW, Stellantis is promising to reopen its Belvidere Assembly plant.

That would definitely increase the freight traffic, both inbound and outbound. I think that it would have little effect on potential passenger riders.

Agreed. UP and CNW before it handled Belvidere traffic with a single turn, daily at most, between Belvidere and West Chicago and/or Proviso. Fast moving, relatively short freights typically, often running at night. CNW upgraded the Subdivision with welded rail to handle the Chrysler traffic. If Metra goes through, the Sub should see more improvements.

A belated response (I’m retired, so I don’t do anything in a timely manner).

I wouldn’t read too much into use of the term “interim rail trail use”. The “interim use” label is often used to describe the legal status of trails established under the National Trails System Act (“NTSA”). This is because the legal fiction underlying the NTSA is that a rail-trail conversion isn’t an “abandonment” of the railroad - merely an “interim use” of the right of way until such time (if ever) that rail service is restored. The purpose of this “legal fiction” isn’t really to preserve the ROW for future rail use. It’s to prevent reversionary sections of the right of way from reverting to the holders of the reversionary interests (usually the owners of adjacent properties).

Congress probably saw this as a cost free way to establish trails over reversionary segments of a rail ROW without paying anything to the reversionary property owners. If so, it didn’t work (at least the part about “not paying anything”). The Supreme Court ultimately held that the Federal government had to pay for “taking” the