1) Once railroad tracks are removed from a corridor, the odds of them being relaid for rail service are very low, as only 3% of railbanked corridors representing 150 miles have been reactivated for rail use. 2) The concept of railbanking was created to preserve rail corridors for future rail use while allowing interim use as trails, but in practice tracks are usually removed, making rail reactivation difficult. 3) Challenges to restoring rail service on a former rail corridor converted to a trail include securing funding, dealing with encroachments on the right-of-way, opposition from landowners, discord among agencies, and pressure from recreational users. Keeping rails intact is the best

1. www.allaboardwashington.org www.cascadiacenter.org
Rails and Railbanking
Once the tracks are gone, odds are they’re not
coming back
The importance of keeping rails in place
by Loren Herrigstad
Experience and statistics around railbanked corridors show that once the
tracks are removed from a corridor, the odds are overwhelmingly stacked
against their being relayed and rail services resuming.
The concept and process of Railbanking was ostensibly created as part of the National Trails
System Act of 1983 to accomplish the objectives of preserving rail corridors intact for both
future reactivation for rail use, while allowing interim use for public trails.
Through 2009, 301 rail corridors have been railbanked, with 120 of those corridors having been
converted into 2,764 miles of public trails with the rails removed. Just 9 of those railbanked
corridors however, representing some 150 miles, have had tracks relaid on them and hosted
trains, most all freight.
Railbanked Corridors
(2009)
Percentage of Corridors Mileage Percentage of Mileage
301 total 100% 5,079 mi 100%
120 opened as trails 40% 2,764 54%
9 reactivated for rail
use
3% ~ 150 mi
(exact figures not available)
3%
sources: Rails-to-Trails Conservancy testimony before US Surface Transportation Board presented July 8, 2009 as hosted on AmericanTrails.org; ‘Reactivated
Railbanked Corridors: rail trails returned to railroad service’ hosted on AmericanTrails.org with data from the Rails to Trails Conservancy through 2004; and
Simpson, David P., Preserving Freight and Passenger Rail Corridors and Service (Washington: Transportation Research Board) 2007.
In only one well-documented case — the 8-mile Denton Branch Rail-Trail — has an established
trail made way for a passenger rail operation, in this case the Denton–Carrollton ‘A-Train’
commuter rail service that feeds into the Dallas DART light rail system, with a paved trail
running alongside the rail line. In its 2011 online profile of this example, ‘Rail-Trail Sparks Bike
Boom in Texas Town’, even the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy noted this return of rail was a,
“rarity in the field of corridor abandonments.”
Another effort, the Maryland Transit Administration’s proposed 16-mile ‘Purple Line’ running
through the northern Washington, DC suburbs of Bethesda and Chevy Chase, has been bogged
down since it was first proposed in 1989 due in no small part to opposition mainly from
adjacent landowners, most notably the Columbia Country Club whose golf course straddles
both sides of the corridor, while the Washington Area Bicycle Association firmly endorses the
MTA’s Light Rail-with-Trail proposal. Even though it is projected to carry 64,800 rail riders
daily by 2030 if built, and has been approved by the Federal Transit Administration,
construction of the Purple Line, including improvement and extension of the Capital Crescent
Rail-Trail, is still waiting on funding from the Maryland legislature.

2. Rails and Railbanking 2
Both the experience of Purple Line planners and proponents, and a survey by the Washington
DC-based Transportation Research Board have identified several factors*, listed by order of
importance that constitute challenges in restoring rail service on a corridor that has been
converted to a trail . . .
1. Securing funding for the restoration project
2. Dealing with right of way encroachments
3. Opposition from adjacent landowners
4. Discord among public agencies of intended railroad use
5. Pressure from potential or actual recreational users
* source: Simpson, David P., Preserving Freight and Passenger Rail Corridors and Service (Washington:
Transportation Research Board) 2007.
Far more common however, are the experiences of communities like Aspen, Colorado. Despite
officials having put forward a number of passenger rail transit proposals since the mid-1970s,
and local Aspen area governments acquiring the 42-mile former Denver & Rio Grande Aspen
Branch in 1997, the various ideas failed to secure state or local voter funding. The Roaring Fork
Transit Authority assumed control of the corridor in 2001, and in response to public pressure
for rail, put out an RFP for a rail operator, receiving one proposal from Iowa Pacific Holdings in
January, 2005. That April however, the RFTA rejected the proposal without explanation, and
proceeded to scrap the 42-mile line and convert it to trail, which it is today. While many
envisioned Aspen becoming a modern ‘rail resort’ much like Davos and San Moritz in
Switzerland; such ambitions seem farther away than ever now. Similarly, rail boosters in Park
City, Utah attempted to tie that popular ski resort with passenger rail and transit proposals to
nearby Salt Lake City, even for the 2002 Winter Olympics. But the abandonment and removal of
the last tracks out of Park City in 1989 and conversion of the rights of way to trail use has
seemed to doom such ideas for the foreseeable future.
Maryland’s historic state capital, Annapolis, has an even stronger case for passenger rail, being
near the high-speed Northeast Rail Corridor and once enjoying frequent electric interurban rail
service over two lines to both Baltimore and Odenton, Maryland, which offered connections to
Washington, DC. While the South Shore line to Odenton was abandoned in 1935, the North
Shore line to Baltimore survived until 1976, with its northern 6 miles becoming part of
Baltimore’s Light Rail system in 1992, and the rest of the corridor becoming the 13.3 mile B&A
Trail in 1998. While Annapolis and surrounding 537,000-population Anne Arundel County
struggle with traffic congestion to job and activity centers in both Baltimore and Washington,
DC, strong opposition from both trail users and influential adjacent landowners has caused
further ideas of rail re-use of the B&A Corridor to be abandoned for at least the near term.
Will the Eastside Promote or Preclude Rail with Trail?
With I-405 projected to be accommodating 212,000 vehicles daily through Bellevue alone by
2030 according to WSDOT projections, and Eastside communities along the former BNSF
corridor already totaling some 480,000 residents and the area hosting some 3 million visitors
annually, there is a strong case for passenger rail on the Eastside. So the question is, will the
Eastside be like Annapolis or Aspen, which allowed their rails to be ripped up and dreams of
rail service to evaporate? Or will the Eastside be like St Louis, Missouri, which developed a
series of paved trails right along with its Metrolink Light Rail system — trails that were
superior to what likely could have been accomplished with a parks budget alone?
Given that keeping the rails in place makes both improving a rail line and building an adjacent
trail from the rail easier, as well as the development of better joint station and trailhead facilities
— keeping the rails in place on the Eastside line is clearly the best bet for the region.