Yes I did say 300-400 million for a trail because there is significant environmental cleanup, fish passage barriers, and significant erosion control work to do even if it is a trail. We cannot simply abandon the rail without expecting ongoing major environmental damage that will also affect private property. The billion dollar estimate for the rail includes bridging slides so that the rail could be reliable. The $125 million estimate does not include bridges and admits that the rail would still be subject to annual maintenance costs that are estimated to be as high as $1 million per mile. If the rail is not stable then shippers will simply plan for trucking as it is more reliable and then where is the revenue for the rail? Furthermore, private landowners with rail easements over their property are already claiming abandonment by the NCRA because of "lack of use for over 1 year" which is the reversion clause in these easements.Railbanking is the only practical solution to protecting the public's interest in this right of way. It would allow for a trail now and if the RR every becomes feasible then bring back the rail. Those who would fight railbanking are risking the public's investment in this critical linear right of way.

If the RR is so feasible, why are not the shippers (the timber industry and others) attending the NCRA board meetings to argrue for reopening. Clearly they are realists and recognize that the dream of a RR through the canyon is just that.

I welcome information that may better inform us all on this important matter. Please stick with the facts.