In a recent piece in the Times Standard, freight rail advocate Dan Hauser claims that the process of railbanking, i.e., preserving a railroad right-of-way by putting it to another use like trail development, results in the loss of easements over private property that then have to be re-acquired.  He suggests that this would make a railbanked trail between Arcata and Eureka near-impossible due to the many privately held easements in that stretch.  He's dead wrong, of course, and here is our letter that just ran in the Times Standard setting the record straight:

I was disappointed that Mr. Hauser misrepresented trail advocates in his recent My Word piece (Why a railroad in Humboldt County? Dec. 30). He states that we are “very selfish” and “want the railroad to go away.” Mr. Hauser seems out of touch with the fact that most Humboldt residents just don't think the railroad will be rebuilt here in the foreseeable future, whether we want it or not.

Railbanking is proposed as a reasonable way to preserve the right-of-way, by using it as a trail until such time as a railroad may become feasible. But, Mr. Hauser doesn't seem to understand how railbanking works. He says that “the NCRA would first have to formally and legally abandon the rail line” resulting in the loss of railroad easements over private property.

In actuality, railbanking precludes abandonment. A Rails-to-Trails Conservancy report on railroad acquisition explains that a railbanked corridor “is still being used for railroad purposes, legally speaking. This means that a railroad can legally transfer all forms of its ownership, including easements, to a trail group.”

Humboldt County needs pragmatic transportation planning. Considering the benefits of railbanking for preserving the railroad right-of-way and providing trails for the public, it needs to remain on the table as an option. Mr. Hauser should have researched the issue more carefully to avoid misinforming the public.

Chris Rall

Executive Director

Green Wheels

Arcata