An old rail track in Northern California could become a 300-mile hiking trail(latimes.com)
latimes.com
An old rail track in Northern California could become a 300-mile hiking trail
https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2024-04-06/northern-california-rail-track-could-become-hiking-trail
18 comments
Rails to trails is awesome. The Ohlone Greenway bike path in the East Bay takes advantage of the BART right of way. The Little Miami scenic trail in Ohio replaced a defunct railway with a bike and walking trail that is used by 700k+ people every year.
I think it's awful. We need more public transit in this country. Giving up rail right of ways, which are a nightmare to obtain now with basically needing to take billions of dollars in properties away from people is dumb.
In general I would agree with trying to use these easements for actual rail transit projects, but from Mendocino county north, this is really very sparsely populated territory.
It's just not a black or white situation. Although, it does also beg the question of how will people get there to walk/bike on this trail?
In Sonoma and Marin, there's a lot more opportunity for rail transit I think, say for serving people commuting into SF, as well people traveling to the remote north coast for recreation. That whole area is really poorly served now, even bus service is scarce.
For anyone who's traveled in Japan, it's such a sad sight to see lack of high speed rail in California, and the main obstacle is obtaining the easements. So, I think both sides of this argument are understandable.
My first thought is to eliminate the binary logic. We don't just have 2 choices. Why not have both? Electric light rail with a pedestrian/bike path next to it...
It's just not a black or white situation. Although, it does also beg the question of how will people get there to walk/bike on this trail?
In Sonoma and Marin, there's a lot more opportunity for rail transit I think, say for serving people commuting into SF, as well people traveling to the remote north coast for recreation. That whole area is really poorly served now, even bus service is scarce.
For anyone who's traveled in Japan, it's such a sad sight to see lack of high speed rail in California, and the main obstacle is obtaining the easements. So, I think both sides of this argument are understandable.
My first thought is to eliminate the binary logic. We don't just have 2 choices. Why not have both? Electric light rail with a pedestrian/bike path next to it...
Well Ohlone Greenway is coincident with the BART tracks. BART still operates there, just above/below the walking path.
The other example I gave replaced a railway that had been abandoned for a long time. I agree that rail needs a revitalization in the US, but at least here in Ohio, the problem is not right of way, but instead changing population patterns and competition from more convenient travel.
I'd love to take Amtrak to Chicago for a weekend trip, but it costs as much as a plane flight and takes longer than driving a car or riding in a bus. Fix that problem using the existing right of way, then we can talk about building more.
The coasts are a bit different.
The other example I gave replaced a railway that had been abandoned for a long time. I agree that rail needs a revitalization in the US, but at least here in Ohio, the problem is not right of way, but instead changing population patterns and competition from more convenient travel.
I'd love to take Amtrak to Chicago for a weekend trip, but it costs as much as a plane flight and takes longer than driving a car or riding in a bus. Fix that problem using the existing right of way, then we can talk about building more.
The coasts are a bit different.
Sad. I wish we could restore and modernize train service all over California. The graded space for the rails already exists, and that is arguably the hardest part of building a railway.
I agree completely. I am baffled by the support that this and other "rails to trails" initiatives get around the world. At a time when we are trying to decarbonize, we should be investing in modernizing and upgrading the existing railway infrastructure, not scrapping it for recreation. This is a vanity project. California has enough hiking trails. It has too many cars and not enough public transport.
A similar project is underway in Ireland [0], where they decommissioned a large number of former passenger lines in the 1970s, and are now spending millions of euros converting them to "greenways". To give one example, the Youghal to Midleton "greenway" replaced a former commuter rail line connecting commuter towns to Cork City. Every day, thousands of people drive between those towns, resulting in traffic jams and unnecessary CO2 emissions. Re-opening the train line would be a no brainer, they have more commuters today than ever before. Instead, residents now have the option of cycling or walking along a desolate trail through a bog.
[0] https://www.corkcoco.ie/en/resident/greenways/midleton-to-yo...
A similar project is underway in Ireland [0], where they decommissioned a large number of former passenger lines in the 1970s, and are now spending millions of euros converting them to "greenways". To give one example, the Youghal to Midleton "greenway" replaced a former commuter rail line connecting commuter towns to Cork City. Every day, thousands of people drive between those towns, resulting in traffic jams and unnecessary CO2 emissions. Re-opening the train line would be a no brainer, they have more commuters today than ever before. Instead, residents now have the option of cycling or walking along a desolate trail through a bog.
[0] https://www.corkcoco.ie/en/resident/greenways/midleton-to-yo...
Article states: "a railroad was constructed to shuttle passengers and redwood logs between San Francisco and Humboldt Bay."
So a key question is: are there a lot of people trying to move between SF and Humboldt Bay? Does the carbon from transportation along this line warrant the renovation of the rail line (which itself produces emissions)? And if you build a train and no one rides that train, then that's probably even worse for emissions.
> California has enough hiking trails
This is pretty subjective. You can probably get rid of several of America's national parks and say "yeah we have enough national parks".
So a key question is: are there a lot of people trying to move between SF and Humboldt Bay? Does the carbon from transportation along this line warrant the renovation of the rail line (which itself produces emissions)? And if you build a train and no one rides that train, then that's probably even worse for emissions.
> California has enough hiking trails
This is pretty subjective. You can probably get rid of several of America's national parks and say "yeah we have enough national parks".
The article says they are hoping to promote tourism in the area. Why not use the 300 mile corridor for passenger rail, and construct hiking trails from the stops?
Also, realistically, how many people are going to actually travel the 300 mile trail on foot/bike?
Also, realistically, how many people are going to actually travel the 300 mile trail on foot/bike?
I like rail service, but I also like hiking trails. And there's a lot less to go wrong with the hiking trail. I'm not really keeping track, but I would generally assume any passenger rail project announced in CA will never be finished.
>The graded space for the rails already exists, and that is arguably the hardest part of building a railway.
Connstruction is easy. It's the multi-stakeholder approval process that's fiendishly difficult. You still have to go through that even if the graded space is already in place. Lots of stakeholders trying to get what's theirs, whether rent-seeking or stopping the work altogether. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/09/us/california-high-speed-...
Connstruction is easy. It's the multi-stakeholder approval process that's fiendishly difficult. You still have to go through that even if the graded space is already in place. Lots of stakeholders trying to get what's theirs, whether rent-seeking or stopping the work altogether. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/09/us/california-high-speed-...
Usually rails-to-trails conversions happen in places where running a railway no longer makes sense. If it made economic sense for a railway to be there, the owners wouldn't be selling or donating it back to state for a conversion.
"The graded space for the rails already exists, and that is arguably the hardest part of building a railway."
It's way easier to build this sort of thing new than it is to refurbish it and certify it as safe. Less costly, too.
It's way easier to build this sort of thing new than it is to refurbish it and certify it as safe. Less costly, too.
I disagree. Would you rather dig up trees, rocks, and mountains, and grade it, or dig up existing rail?
You're going to lay down new rail either way, and that's what you'll have to certify as safe, so it's not really any different. I'm just saying there's less crap you have to dig up if your starting point is an already-cleared 300 mile stretch rather than 300 miles of raw nature.
You're going to lay down new rail either way, and that's what you'll have to certify as safe, so it's not really any different. I'm just saying there's less crap you have to dig up if your starting point is an already-cleared 300 mile stretch rather than 300 miles of raw nature.
Previous HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39930887
[deleted]
Pretty sure it already is a hiking trail.
Any rail alignment is a hiking trail if you keep your ear out.
Bridges and tunnels might be dicey though.
Bridges and tunnels might be dicey though.