“Rail-With-Trail” Won’t Work on the U&D and What We Need Instead

Anyone who has been tracking the trail versus train debate in Ulster County over the past decade has heard the term “Rail-With-Trail” thrown about by both sides of the debate. Particularly when it comes to the County-owned corridor known as the Ulster and Delaware (or U&D), the topic is a flash-point of controversy.  

After years of evaluation and discussion, we think it’s time for all parties to acknowledge that “Rail-With-Trail” is not a viable option in portions of the corridor. Here’s why.

1. The U&D is a single-track corridor, but rail-with-trail requires two sets of tracks. On the U&D, the proper term would be “rail-PLUS-trail,” which is the construction of an entirely new trail next to the existing tracks.
2. The county-owned property that makes up the corridor is too narrow to accommodate rail plus trail. Putting a new trail alongside the tracks would require the County to negotiate purchases from dozens of individual property owners, or to invoke eminent domain.
3. Rail-plus-trail would be cost prohibitive. Even if the County could acquire property to widen the corridor, the OSI/GPI engineering study shows that the cost of a new trail would be 4-5 times higher for rail-plus-trail than for trail only.
4. Rail-plus-trail would threaten sensitive habitats and wetlands next to the corridor. In addition to a price tag 4-5 times higher than trail only, building a new trail next to the train tracks would require substantial excavation and fill, which would cause environmental impacts to adjacent wetlands and habitat areas.
5. Any trail must meet state/federal standards to assure safety and accessibility, or else it won’t be eligible for grant funding. If the trail is watered down to fit alongside the tracks, or to run between the tracks, or on top of a rock-cut next to the tracks, or cross back and forth over the tracks multiple times for instance, it would pose substantial liability risk to the County and the CMRR, discourage use, and preclude grant funding.

As the debate about rail and trail continues, we’re clear on where we stand: the County must continue to preserve trail connectivity along the U&D corridor. Given the physical constraints of the corridor, that will require some sections to be prioritized for trail only use. The term “Rail-With-Trail” is not applicable to this corridor, and is often used to deflect from the difficult decisions ahead. Instead of focusing on creative but unrealistic approaches to accommodating both rail and trail on the corridor, we urge the County to prioritize trail connectivity first, and to retain tourist train uses only where doing so does not preclude the trail.