DNR begins $30 Million Monon South Trail Development

[JTKelly]

A lot of private land along that route. I wonder how they'll navigate around, or compensate the affected owners of that land?

It is ALL private land. Part of the agreement when the railroads "aquired" that land was for it to revert to the original owner when the RR abandons it. This is theft pure and simple.

 

[JTKelly]

The parts that are in town, I can't tell you the last time I've seen anyone on it/them. In fairness, I think the part that extends out into the county gets some use. The trail (in town) and the train station relocation was nothing but a taxpayer boondoggle.

I've used it quite a LOT. Not so much the past year but for a few years prior I road a bicycle the full length 3-4 times a week. Walked parts of it about as much. I saw people using it a LOT inside of 37 and I rarely walked it with out seeing at least a couple other people even out closer to Williams.

NOTHING I saw while using it would make me want it any where CLOSE to where I live. 4 wheelers, beer cans, graffitti and trash. That is what it brings to you.

 

[snorko]

It is ALL private land. Part of the agreement when the railroads "aquired" that land was for it to revert to the original owner when the RR abandons it. This is theft pure and simple.

You are correct that when the railroad acquired most of the land it was acquired as an easement for rail use. When they file the NITU or Notice for Interim Trail Use to abandon the line Possession is taken by the organization who has stepped up to be the trail developer/manager. The federal government facilitates the transaction under their program intended to keep these corridors together for possible future rail use.

In 2014 the Supreme Court sided with landowners and decided the Government's reversionary interest stemming from the General Railroad Right-of-Way Act of 1875 did not hold. In a nutshell, the land is considered "taken" and the adjacent land owners are owed compensation. Link to a 2014 story on the decission: https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo...t-wins-supreme-court-fight-against-bike-trail

There are several law firms throughout the U.S. that specialize in these cases. They are class action suits filed in federal court.

 

[jamil]

Parks for the public seems an appropriate endeavor for a state. The north Indy/Carmel/Westfield/Sheridan trail has over three million users a year.

Well then. I guess I’ll have to hall my ass all the way up there to get my money’s worth. You gonna hall your ass all the way down here when this one gets done? Would be a shame for government to fund something with your money that you can’t use.

 

[Ingomike]

When the Monon was built Indy obtained their section from the railroad, when Carmel started theirs the opposition was organized, what they discovered was there was no consisent way that the RR had obtained the right of way. Some were purchased and owned by the RR, some were leases, some were easements, but at the end of the day the city employed eminent domain, put the money for it in escrow and let the competing parties fight for it in court.

 

[Ingomike]

Well then. I guess I’ll have to hall my ass all the way up there to get my money’s worth. You gonna hall your ass all the way down here when this one gets done? Would be a shame for government to fund something with your money that you can’t use.

I probably would have twenty years ago.

 

[snorko]

...but at the end of the day the city employed eminent domain, put the money for it in escrow and let the competing parties fight for it in court.

<-----Appraiser who likes it when parties fight it out

 

[Jaybird1980]

It is ALL private land. Part of the agreement when the railroads "aquired" that land was for it to revert to the original owner when the RR abandons it. This is theft pure and simple.

This is how I see it also. The railroad was an easement, when it's abandoned the land is to return to the landowners. The government should have no right to it.

 

[bgcatty]

A lot of private land along that route. I wonder how they'll navigate around, or compensate the affected owners of that land?

How will they compensate adjacent landowners along the route if necessary? Simple statutory answer is DNR will use the Eminent Domain Statute and Procedures I.C. 32-24-1 et seq. Period!

 

[Ingomike]

This is how I see it also. The railroad was an easement, when it's abandoned the land is to return to the landowners. The government should have no right to it.

It is not that simple as there are several ways the RR obtained the right of way, not just easements.

 

[bwframe]

We ride the trails West of Logansport. They got grant $ and making it soon rest of the way to Rochester. We got some closer to Peru we wanna ride this year as well. E-bikes are a blast in them. We often take them into small towns to eat so local business are helped. Most of these trails are old railroad tracks. They been trying to connect Wabash to Lagro wanting farmers to donate the use of the land. It always fails. They want farmers to clean the area, no hunting the land and keep insurance in it in case anyone gets hurt. Gee what a great deal…. So it’s never getting done…lol.

I was gonna ask about E-bikes. Are E-bikes allowed on all of these trails. Or does it vary from local to local?

I seen a gent on an E-bike in Btown the other day looking as if he left the "trail" and rolled right onto a sidewalk? Seemed like maybe an E-bike might be a decent future investment to take advantage of "roadways" that other motorized conveyances could not?


.

 

[DragonGunner]

I was gonna ask about E-bikes. Are E-bikes allowed on all of these trails. Or does it vary from local to local?

I seen a gent on an E-bike in Btown the other day looking as if he left the "trail" and rolled right onto a sidewalk? Seemed like maybe an E-bike might be a decent future investment to take advantage of "roadways" that other motorized conveyances could not?


.

Can’t say for all trails but most are all class 1 or class 2 ebike legal. They only have top speed of 20 mph then motor shuts off. And ebikes are not “motorized”. So if you see signs saying no motorized vehicles it does not apply to e-bikes. Class 3 e-bikes go over 20 mph before motor shutting off, many don’t shut off until after 28 mph or more and most if not all of these are not allowed. The Panhandle Trails near Logansport told us class 1 and 2 e-bikes legal. So we went with class 2. These bikes are so awesome and we have a good 40 mile range with ours.

 

[Jaybird1980]

It is not that simple as there are several ways the RR obtained the right of way, not just easements.

A very large amount of them are easements. Especially the ones where they're putting these trails.

 

[snorko]

Here is a link to an FAQ from one of the prominent law firms that handles these cases.

Rails to Trails FAQs | Federal Takings & Rails to Trails | Lewis Rice LLC

www.lewisrice.com

 

[shibumiseeker]

Bedford installed trails a few years back, but I can't remember ever seeing anybody use them since they have been built. Looks like they won't be near my area of the GSF.

We use the hell out of the Milwaukee as do hundreds of people weekly. It’s maintained entirely by volunteers.

Sure, let’s build things that cost money to use and are bread and circuses, or we can take existing unused abandoned rail lines and make something that gets people out exercising and in nature.

 

[jamil]

Can’t say for all trails but most are all class 1 or class 2 ebike legal. They only have top speed of 20 mph then motor shuts off. And ebikes are not “motorized”. So if you see signs saying no motorized vehicles it does not apply to e-bikes. Class 3 e-bikes go over 20 mph before motor shutting off, many don’t shut off tell after 28 mph or more and most if not all of these are not allowed. The Panhandle Trails near Logansport told us class 1 and 2 e-bikes legal. So we went with class 2. These bikes are so awesome and we have a good 40 mile range with ours.

I have a class 3. Honestly I don’t see why these aren’t allowed in more places. Just put a speed limit up and enforce that. A fit cyclist can easily go as fast on a peddle bike as I can go on a class 3.

Where I usually ride there aren’t restrictions. Yet. But there are speed limits.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

I have a class 3. Honestly I don’t see why these aren’t allowed in more places. Just put a speed limit up and enforce that. A fit cyclist can easily go as fast on a peddle bike as I can go on a class 3.

Where I usually ride there aren’t restrictions. Yet. But there are speed limits.

Back in the day I used to be able to hit 30+ mph on a 10 speed(not for very long but I could hit it). Knew a guy who got pulled over and given a speeding ticket on one, he was going 40ish in a 25 mph zone. But to keep those kind of speeds up you dang near have to be a world class cyclist.

I'd say having speed limits would be reasonable, but then again enforcement may be a bit more of a pain in the butt.

 

[Ingomike]

I'd say having speed limits would be reasonable, but then again enforcement may be a bit more of a pain in the butt.

We dont have the funds to police the streets, much less a bike path…

 

[Farmerjon]

I am often surprised at the amount of use the bike path out of North Judson gets.

 

[Libertarian01]

Philosophically I don't think the government should "necessarily" be funding projects such as this. Context is important.

I believe that ONLY AFTER all other infrastructure has been fully funded, then spending may(?) progress on such luxury(?) products.

However, I'm also somewhat pragmatic. The Indiana budget is about $18.5 billion, or $18,500,000,000 for those who like zero's (not Japanese.) So a $30M project compared to $18.5B is about 0.00162%. In other words, if you are wanting to be fiscally conservative and squish waste, and if you wanted to save Indiana taxpayers $1,000, then cutting this project would save $1.63 (rounding up.) If we're not squishing $185,000,000 then we're not even saving 1%.

I'm not saying it's not fiscally irresponsible, I'm just saying this is not the bugaboo I'd get in a twist over.

And by the way, maybe(?) it isn't fiscally irresponsible. Maybe... Projects like this may draw companies, employees, jobs to the state. There is an argument to be made that says younger workers like things to do after work. Projects such as this may(?) draw companies from which tax revenues will offset the cost. It isn't the strongest argument but it isn't a weak one either. The problem is that it is very hard to measure.

Regards,

Doug