jchnhtfd wrote:
“Why not put the rails back and run a train? Maybe I’m missing something” .
Possibly State and Federal governments are missing something - a need for long-term planning for reasonably-priced passenger transport.
So you’re saying the long standing traditional use of eminent domain for transportation corridors has suddenly been revoked?
The NS RR seems to have used the Railbanking idea dow South to a pretty good advantage for them. I am not sure how many other RR’s use it though. In the Midwes the pattern seems to be the process to abandonment and then salvage and we are right where this thered is…who needs narrow strips of land miles in length? All the problems have benn mentioned in this topic… Another question is if new or relays of railroads run to millions per mile, how much money is really realized when a corridor is abandoned and salvaged out by the ower RR? Is this done for a tax right off ? Depreciation? Or is it done to stiffle competition from another RR, who might use the right of way to puit together a new corridor?
Sam
I didn’t say that it was revoked, I am saying that it is becoming politically untenable to use eminent domain when the ultimate benefactor is somebody in the private sector, and this may mean more than just developers. The use of eminent domain to redevelop an area which may or may not be blighted is virtually impossible now, it may be legal but it’s incredibly unpopular. In the current political climate, use of eminent domain to build a truck-only highway or a railroad may not get very far.
Many states currently have proposals in their General Assemblys to severely restrict the use of eminent domain, especially when redevelopment is involved.
Hear, Hear! One reason a lot of rail lines died was because they were redundant - two (or more) railroads serving a population center that could just support one. We’ve discussed dedicated passenger routes - well, here you go!
Of course, it’s not as easy as laying down/rehabilitating rail, so as germanium points out, there is some long-term planning that needs to happen.
In lower traffic areas, a single track on the ground would suffice. In higher traffic areas, you’ve got your real estate for that elevated, two-track line.
But that would take federal and state $$$$ away from the pet projects of the highway and trucking lobbies which are surgically attached to the politician’s wallets.[}:)][}:)][}:)]
The answers to your questions are a spaghetti farmer and yes.
wasn’t this discussed in part of the CREATE plan for chicago, use abandoned ROW(s) in chicago to create dedicated truck only routes through town? or maybe it was to make truck routes along side existing rights of way to run trucks down either side, mainly to capture the container segment of the trucks (on the lower end of the safe driver spectrum and awfully tough to communicate with).
Talk about hitting the nail (spike) on the head!!!