Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Conway Branch Rail To Trail topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Conway Scenic Railroad and DOT differ on HB 300; DOT says Conway branch planning already addressed
Summary
Conway Scenic Railroad opposed House Bill 300, warning that mandated rail removal and new studies could harm tourist rail operators; DOT said it has already conducted a public planning process under last year's House Bill 1468 and is preparing a transfer of the 21‑mile Conway branch for interim recreational use.
Conway Scenic Railroad testified in opposition to House Bill 300, saying the proposed study language and possible removal of rails could threaten freight and tourist rail operations and local economies.
Jason Briggs of Conway Scenic Railroad told the committee his operator employs 76–80 people full time and that rail service brings substantial tourism to the region. He warned that removing track is effectively irreversible and said communities that accept trail conversions often become responsible for ongoing maintenance tasks such as mowing and trash removal. "Once the tracks are gone, that's very difficult to put them back," Briggs said.
Shelly Winters, director of the Division of Aeronautics, Rail and Transit at DOT, told the committee that the department has already convened a planning group under last year's House Bill 1468 to evaluate the Conway branch. DOT delivered a report earlier this year recommending interim recreational rail‑trail use for 21 miles of state‑owned corridor and said the department is preparing a transfer of management to the Department of Natural and Cultural Resources (DNCR) with a reversionary clause to preserve future rail options if funding and need arise.
"We convened a planning group to look at the best use and best value to the state currently for the 21 miles of state owned corridor," Winters said, and added the outcome of that process supported interim recreational use and a management transfer to DNCR. DOT and DNCR are working to submit the management transfer to Governor and Executive Council with further DNCR review on trail conversion steps.
Briggs and other witnesses urged caution about creating a study committee that duplicates or undercuts the work already completed under HB 1468. DOT and DNCR officials said public outreach and stakeholder meetings were part of the earlier process and that the department intends to retain a reversionary clause so the state could restore rail use if future conditions and funding support it.
Ending: Testimony split between rail operators urging preservation of rail infrastructure and DOT saying it has performed the study and begun an administrative transfer to DNCR for interim recreational use. The committee closed the public hearing; no vote was recorded during the session.
