Nature and hiking trails

[Village Idiot]

One thing Iowa has is a very fair number of those. I've always enjoyed them, especially this year when the only physical thing I can do this summer is walk. I'd got several choices very near my house where I can go every day:








But apparently some people do not share my interest.

[TKennedy]

They got it wrong, it's a government waist project.

[millring]

www.thefp.com/p/appalachian-trail-fell-in-love-with-america?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

[Rob Hanesworth]

Jul 20, 2024 5:25:46 GMT -5 millring said:

www.thefp.com/p/appalachian-trail-fell-in-love-with-america?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

I have walked the width of the Appalachian Trail.

[Dub]

Jul 20, 2024 6:07:08 GMT -5 Rob Hanesworth said:

Jul 20, 2024 5:25:46 GMT -5 millring said:

www.thefp.com/p/appalachian-trail-fell-in-love-with-america?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

I have walked the width of the Appalachian Trail.

I have walked the entire width of the Appalachian Trail.

[Rob Hanesworth]

Jul 20, 2024 10:35:32 GMT -5 Dub said:

Jul 20, 2024 6:07:08 GMT -5 Rob Hanesworth said:

I have walked the width of the Appalachian Trail.

I have walked the entire width of the Appalachian Trail.

It was about 15 feet wide at the point where I crossed so, of course, I had to camp overnight in the middle before going on. Sort of obstructed and pissed off people who were hiking the length of the trail.

[howard lee]

I'm not a big fan of rail trails, where they rip up railroads and pave the rail bed for hikers and bikers. We have such winky train travel here, compared to other Western countries. Tearing up the tracks doesn't help beef up our transportation system.

[Rob Hanesworth]

Jul 20, 2024 12:36:48 GMT -5 howard lee said:

I'm not a big fan of rail trails, where they rip up railroads and pave the rail bed for hikers and bikers. We have such winky train travel here, compared to other Western countries. Tearing up the tracks doesn't help beef up our transportation system.

I certainly agree that our passenger rail system and access are not what they should be, but I have mixed feelings about the rail to trail conversions.

We have a lot of very nice paved recreational trails including quite a few miles right here in my county. Most of them were abandoned for rail use and the track pulled up 50 years ago. They were never going to be used for passenger service and weren't even economically viable for freight any longer.

Indiana once had an extensive interurban rail system but eventually it was doomed by lack of population density.

I would love to see high speed passenger rail everywhere in the country that we can justify it. It will take massive investment on the order of that required for rural electrification. High quality, dedicated track.

I don't know about the east coast corridor but, out here in the hinterland, what passenger service we have runs on track owned by the freight railroads and at their indulgence.

Nancy and I took the train from Indianapolis to Chicago and boarded the Empire Builder for Montana. We frequently pulled into a siding to allow a freight train that had priority (their track) to pass.

Converting long abandoned railbeds to recreational trails isn't what's holding back mass transit.

[millring]

I think you'd have to be from the city to believe that rail is the answer to transportation in most of the country. The EU has an average density of 112 people per square km compared to 36 in the USA.

[howard lee]

Jul 20, 2024 16:46:56 GMT -5 millring said:

I think you'd have to be from the city to believe that rail is the answer to transportation in most of the country. The EU has an average density of 112 people per square km compared to 36 in the USA.

What a coincidence! I am from "the city!" 

I am not sure how population density would be a factor in affecting an improved rail system here, whether high-speed trains or not.

[billhammond]

Howard, you have a misunderstanding of rails-to-trails in the heartland. These are not rail lines that could become high-speed passenger routes. They are usually short, abandoned freight lines or stubs that have no public use whatsoever. Converting them to recreational trails is a good thing, not a bad thing.

[howard lee]

Jul 20, 2024 17:49:10 GMT -5 billhammond said:

Howard, you have a misunderstanding of rails-to-trails in the heartland. These are not rail lines that could become high-speed passenger routes. They are usually short, abandoned freight lines or stubs that have no public use whatsoever. Converting them to recreational trails is a good thing, not a bad thing.

OK.

[billhammond]

Jul 20, 2024 17:51:40 GMT -5 howard lee said:

Jul 20, 2024 17:49:10 GMT -5 billhammond said:

Howard, you have a misunderstanding of rails-to-trails in the heartland. These are not rail lines that could become high-speed passenger routes. They are usually short, abandoned freight lines or stubs that have no public use whatsoever. Converting them to recreational trails is a good thing, not a bad thing.

OK.

One example, which I have pedaled:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luce_Line_Trail

[John B]

Jul 20, 2024 17:51:40 GMT -5 howard lee said:

Jul 20, 2024 17:49:10 GMT -5 billhammond said:

Howard, you have a misunderstanding of rails-to-trails in the heartland. These are not rail lines that could become high-speed passenger routes. They are usually short, abandoned freight lines or stubs that have no public use whatsoever. Converting them to recreational trails is a good thing, not a bad thing.

OK.

Here's one I enjoyed.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Line

[Dub]

I asked my buddy, ChatGPT the following question.

It has been argued that American railroads were really in the real estate business as opposed to transportation and that is partly the reason the US has such poor railroad passenger service. Is that a valid view given the history and economics of the railroad industry?

And here is the reply I received.

The view that American railroads were more focused on real estate than transportation has some historical basis and can be considered valid to an extent. Here's a closer look at the historical and economic context:

Historical Context

1. Land Grants: During the 19th century, especially from the 1850s to the 1870s, the U.S. government granted vast tracts of land to railroad companies. These land grants were intended to encourage the construction of transcontinental railroads. The railroads were given alternate sections of land along their routes, which they could then sell to finance construction.
2. Real Estate Focus: Given these land grants, many railroad companies found themselves owning significant amounts of land. They realized that the value of this land would increase once the railroads were built, making real estate a lucrative part of their business model. Companies such as the Union Pacific and Central Pacific benefited enormously from this arrangement.

Economic Considerations

1. Passenger vs. Freight Service: In the early days, railroads provided both passenger and freight services. However, freight was often more profitable. The rise of the automobile and the development of the interstate highway system in the 20th century further reduced the demand for passenger rail service.
2. Investment Priorities: Because real estate and freight were more profitable, railroads often prioritized these areas over passenger service. Investments in infrastructure, technology, and service improvements were more focused on freight operations.

Decline of Passenger Service

1. Competition from Automobiles and Airlines: The growth of the automobile industry and the advent of commercial aviation provided strong competition to passenger rail services. People preferred the flexibility and convenience of cars and the speed of airplanes.
2. Government Policies: Federal and state policies favored the construction of highways and airports over railroads. The Highway Act of 1956, which funded the Interstate Highway System, is a prime example. This led to a decline in the competitiveness of passenger rail services.

Modern Implications

1. Amtrak: In 1971, Amtrak was created as a government-owned corporation to take over passenger rail service, which was no longer profitable for private companies. Amtrak has struggled with funding and infrastructure challenges, contributing to the perception of poor service.
2. Freight Railroads: Today, the major U.S. railroads primarily focus on freight. Companies like BNSF, Union Pacific, and CSX are profitable and efficient in freight transport but have little incentive to invest in passenger services.

Conclusion
The argument that American railroads were heavily involved in real estate and that this focus contributed to the decline in passenger service has merit. The land grants and the profitability of real estate and freight led railroads to prioritize these areas. Combined with the rise of alternative transportation modes and supportive government policies, this historical focus contributed to the challenges faced by passenger rail services in the U.S.

[howard lee]

Jul 20, 2024 19:09:30 GMT -5 John B said:

Jul 20, 2024 17:51:40 GMT -5 howard lee said:

OK.

Here's one I enjoyed.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Line

As a native New Yorker, this effing tourist magnet serves to bolster my feelings.

But I am only one voice in the wilderness. I like trains.

[millring]

Jul 21, 2024 9:30:36 GMT -5 howard lee said:

Jul 20, 2024 19:09:30 GMT -5 John B said:

Here's one I enjoyed.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Line

As a native New Yorker, this effing tourist magnet serves to bolster my feelings.

But I am only one voice in the wilderness. I like trains.

Somebody wrote a song for you.

[millring]

Indiana's lakes are small when compared to Minnesota's lakes, but I wouldn't want to have to drink any one of them dry.

[howard lee]

Jul 21, 2024 9:51:38 GMT -5 millring said:

Jul 21, 2024 9:30:36 GMT -5 howard lee said:

As a native New Yorker, this effing tourist magnet serves to bolster my feelings.

But I am only one voice in the wilderness. I like trains.

Somebody wrote a song for you.

It seems familiar.

I like this one, too: