It sometimes amazes me that it can get that far with some of these takings cases. When other easements lapse (utilities, access, etc.) the land and its uses normally and rightfully revert to the owner.

When Metrolink (SCRRA) bought lower "Taylor" yard for their shops, it was my understanding from somebody there that some of that property was on a "transportation easement", so could only be transferred for another "transportation use", or else the property would revert to whoever holds would hold the rights.

From stories I'd heard on the SP (and taking all switchmen RR "stories" with a grain of salt), part of the lower end of C yards, adjacent to tracks 1 & 2 (the "old" 1875 mainline), was an easement from old "Taylor" mill to build a small storage yard. There was even a squab farm across from the mill along the LA River at the turn of the century, before Taylor yard began expanding, hence the name for the lower end and one of the leads was the "pigeon farm".

In some cases, it is my understanding that some of these "transportation" easements are RR specific, in many parts of the country, so bikeways may not cut it, and be rightly viewed as a "taking" of private property. I think this would probably depend a lot on the applicable State laws on easements, and on the specifics and definition of the transportation uses, the easement in question. So this ruling may not have been very broad in its impacts on these other legal side shows.