 |
Re: Xonstruction in the canyon
Author: Dr Zarkoff
Date: 07-05-2015 - 18:56
>It appears that the right of way was not railbanked. In an application for National Historical designation I found the following. So it seems that Alameda county is the controlling party, if they want NCRY to stay and they allow UP to use their rails UP cannot dictate the circumstances.
The railbanking thing predates the SP's abandonment of the Niles line by two years, and you can bet your bottom dollar they put the R/W under the railbanking act. To be absolutely sure requires finding the filing which was probably made at the time, not what some bureaucrat has written 30 years later.
From that first item you listed (85-077991):
"Except as otherwise provided in this Act, any and all right, title, or interest of the United States in the real property described in section 3 shall be retained and managed by the Secretary of the Interior for use as a public recreational trail or for other recreational purposes, as well as for such other uses as the Secretary may determine to be appropriate pursuant to applicable law, so long as such uses do not preclude trail use."
That settles the question asked earlier of "who owns a right of way when it's in the rail bank program?" The answer is the US Department of the Interior, and I notice the very same Department oversees the Historic District business.
88-15072 is a city document which recommends the sale of some acreage in downtown Pleasanton. This is not where the NCRy is operating nor will ever be. I suspect the county's acquiring actual ownership from the Department of the Interior, which is permitted under the law, is mixed up with the re-routing of the former WP line to the SP's alignment (or something along these lines) through town in the 1990s. Wasn't the former WP line through the golf course removed about this time also?
WRM has also done this "historic district" thing with it's SN trackage, but this didn't take the R/W out of the rail banking program. I suspect if you dig through all the legalese and documents thoroughly, you'll find exactly the same is true for PLA's railroad: although a "historic district" has been declared, Ala Co is still the custodian of the R/W under the rail banking act apparatus, and PLA is using on a "lessee" basis (or something to that effect). Besides, Federal Law will pre-empt local, and if some genuine railroad operator files the necessary certificate of need, and it gets approved, Ala Co will cease being the caretaker and PLA will have to rip up or sell it's track. As I mentioned before, "never say never", and I do hope this doesn't happen.
The railbanking thing predates the SP's abandonment of the Niles line by two years, and you can bet your bottom dollar they put the R/W under the railbanking act. To be absolutely sure requires finding the filing which was probably made at the time, not what some bureaucrat has written 30 years later.
From that first item you listed (85-077991):
"Except as otherwise provided in this Act, any and all right, title, or interest of the United States in the real property described in section 3 shall be retained and managed by the Secretary of the Interior for use as a public recreational trail or for other recreational purposes, as well as for such other uses as the Secretary may determine to be appropriate pursuant to applicable law, so long as such uses do not preclude trail use."
That settles the question asked earlier of "who owns a right of way when it's in the rail bank program?" The answer is the US Department of the Interior, and I notice the very same Department oversees the Historic District business.
88-15072 is a city document which recommends the sale of some acreage in downtown Pleasanton. This is not where the NCRy is operating nor will ever be. I suspect the county's acquiring actual ownership from the Department of the Interior, which is permitted under the law, is mixed up with the re-routing of the former WP line to the SP's alignment (or something along these lines) through town in the 1990s. Wasn't the former WP line through the golf course removed about this time also?
WRM has also done this "historic district" thing with it's SN trackage, but this didn't take the R/W out of the rail banking program. I suspect if you dig through all the legalese and documents thoroughly, you'll find exactly the same is true for PLA's railroad: although a "historic district" has been declared, Ala Co is still the custodian of the R/W under the rail banking act apparatus, and PLA is using on a "lessee" basis (or something to that effect). Besides, Federal Law will pre-empt local, and if some genuine railroad operator files the necessary certificate of need, and it gets approved, Ala Co will cease being the caretaker and PLA will have to rip up or sell it's track. As I mentioned before, "never say never", and I do hope this doesn't happen.
