Can Rail Return After Railbanking?

It is absolutely possible for a rail corridor to return to train service after railbanking—even after the tracks have been removed. That’s the purpose of railbanking. In practice, though, rail service usually doesn’t return—not because railbanking prevents it, but because the original need for rail is gone. Without railbanking, however, there’s a real risk of legal abandonment, which could permanently eliminate the possibility of restoring train service in the future.

1. Rail service has come back—even after the tracks were removed.

Railbanking exists specifically to preserve the corridor for potential future use. And it works. The Surface Transportation Board (STB) has approved several cases where railbanked corridors—with the tracks removed—were later reactivated and rebuilt. It’s not common, but it’s entirely possible. The key is that the legal integrity of the corridor is maintained. That’s what railbanking is for.

See Trails To Rails on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_trail

2. The tracks typically don’t come back because they aren’t needed.

This is straightforward: the corridors get railbanked because they no longer serve a useful rail purpose. If a corridor were still viable for freight or passenger rail, it wouldn’t be up for abandonment or conversion in the first place. Keeping rusted, obsolete tracks in place doesn’t increase the odds of future rail—it just delays productive use. Railbanking, on the other hand, preserves options.

3. Trails become useful and loved—and that’s a good thing.

Yes, trails are popular, and communities often grow to rely on them. That’s not a drawback—it’s a sign of success. A well-used trail shows that the corridor is serving a real public need. If, in the future, there’s a strong case for restoring rail service, the corridor is still available. But it’s important not to let the popularity of trails be twisted into an argument against railbanking. Trails are compatible with long-term flexibility and public benefit. We all love trails, right?

The Harm in Not Railbanking in Santa Cruz County

In Santa Cruz County, where we have not railbanked, there are major real-world consequences—playing out right now—these are facts:

  • Massive cost increases.
    Building around obsolete tracks has driven costs through the roof—up to $25 million per mile in some sections. In many places, removing the tracks and building a trail directly in the corridor would cost a fraction of that.

  • A narrow, constrained, and compromised trail.
    Because the tracks are still in place, the trail must be squeezed into limited space—forcing narrower widths, sharp turns, retaining walls, and design trade-offs that undermine safety, accessibility, and usability.

  • Some places where no trail can be built at all.
    In key segments—like the Capitola trestle and Harkins Slough—the current plan doesn’t include a trail at all. The only legal way to build one there would be to railbank the corridor.

  • Huge delays due to construction complexity.
    Years have been lost navigating around tracks that no longer serve a purpose. Engineering workarounds, legal conflicts, and political fights have slowed progress and increased risk—without delivering any public benefit.

Meanwhile, the “harm” of railbanking remains entirely speculative.

No one has shown how railbanking would cause genuine damage—only hypothetical fears about losing the option for future rail. Yet railbanking preserves that option. And the longer we avoid it, the more harm we do—measurable in dollars, time, safety, and public trust.

Corridors Returned to Rail Service

The following list is not comprehensive. It is accurate as of spring 2025.