I am just not clear on the "rails to trails" and "rails with trails" difference. Rails with trails seems to be clear...a trail somewhere along side an existing railroad track. But rails to trails seems to imply removal of the railroad tracks, and replacement with a trail. Can someone explain why it is necessary and/or "better" to take up the tracks, ties, signals, and everything else and put an trail of some standard exactly where the tracks were, as opposed to just leaving all that in place, and putting the trail a few feet off to one side? Seems that even if you have a bridge, just put a solid surface for walking but that would not require removal of the tracks.

Going just a possible step further, as I understand it, a railroad has rights to any previously railbanked right of way in the future. So a trail as seems to be mentioned in some of the documents, with pavement and restroom faclilities and parking and lighting, and all the other ADA improvements would be a sizable expense subject to loss if the railroad ever became activated again. Why not build the trail where the railroad reactivation would require no trail modification?

Wouldn't it be in both the railroad's and the trail folks' best interests to always go the rails with trails route if the railroad ever thought there was any prospect of future rail service. When the railroad wants to sell the track for scrap (or take it somewhere else for use), let them decide to take it up then, and the folks with the asphalt trail and all can do whatever they want along their trail.