We now go to the second opinion piece, written by a chief librarian who is also a photographer of some note in the area, and who also apparently spends a great deal of time walking in his beloved mountains, and who thus knows the area intimately:

http://www.adirondackdailyenterprise.co ... l?nav=5041

Again, from "The Adirondack Rail Trail," by what I presume is one of the administrators:

Another whiner. Gosh, how DO they rescue other people out of the backcountry? Seriously! That's the best you can come up with? There is shuttle service possibilities ( done all the time for paddlers by the way) for one way excursions.
Man we are digging pretty deep here for objections. People should probably stop taking their kids camping or hiking too. Unreal.

Following commentary:

Bob Dudek: Whenever you need to have back-asswards explanations.. You know you (they) are losing.. The argument.
April 16 at 12:33pm · Like

The Adirondack Rail Trail: I guess Phil here thinks all the tourist should stay in their hotels or ride the train when they come here.
April 16 at 12:34pm · Like

Sonja Vollertsen: Its all over but the crying now...
April 16 at 3:16pm · Like · 1

Jim Mcculley: Phil's wife is a grant writer for ANCA. They get a % of the grants they write. The railroad is a goldmine for grant writers, because it will always need grants to survive. Follow the money.
19 hours ago · Like · 2

The Adirondack Rail Trail: Ahhhh Ha........ Verrrrrryyyy Interesting.

A comment by me, here--Where does McCulley get off saying this fellow's wife is making money off the railroad? Does he have proof that she is writing grants for it?

Back to the trail-heads at "The ARTA;" again Hope Frenette opens with the initial comment:

Wah, wah, wah. I guess we shouldn't take our kids hiking or camping either. I wonder what happens in the High Peaks with NO road access when you need to rescue someone? You know there already are shuttle services available for paddlers so why not bikers? And last but not least, snowmobiler's do 44 miles in about an hour.

Following commentary:

Stuart Nichols: What happens if that rickety old train derails?
April 16 at 11:43am · Like · 2

Jim Mcculley: You want to read some false numbers? The ASR provided the following ridership numbers to the FRA (Federal Railroad Administration). 2007 41,141 Passengers ,2008 36,431 Passengers 2009 34,439 Passengers. Then they have an economic impact study done by Stone Consulting. they say 2007 47,648 Passengers 2008 43,718 Passengers 2009 42,789. Where they have to be honest to the FRA they get the real numbers. Their bogus economic impact study they added roughly 25%. They now count passengers twice.Yet ARTA is dishonest. lol
April 16 at 11:50am · Edited · Like · 3

Jim Mcculley: Stuart Nichols as taxpayers we will have to pay for it when it derails.
April 16 at 11:51am · Like

Stuart Nichols: I realize that Jim, my point is there are risks for everyone, including rail passengers. The train people just can't admit to any shortcomings on their side.

Commentary by me, for here: McCulley and others make a big deal about an FRA accounting change that applied to this railroad and others. However, that does NOT explain how patronage was increasing for years in the years before the change, and how it continued to increase in years after the change--in other words, there might be only one year in which you might have an oddball number from the accounting change, but not in other years, because the accounting would be consistent before and after that.

I can accept that not everybody is as enamored of railroads as we are here, but I am still amazed and disgusted at the brazenness, the nastiness, and the goofy logic I see being exhibited by the trail people. I certainly would not expect that I could get away with some of the statements that these people get to say. . .not that I would want to need them, anyway.

Having said that, I am all for the trail people continuing on like this. If these two letters are any indication, their bullying tactics are starting to make the trail position unpopular now.

Continuing with the latest commentary from "The ARTA;" again, Hope Frenette opens with commentary on something she saw:

Ran into a local businessman last night at dinner. He is very frustrated with NYS at holding up the UMP review. Can't really blame him. Without the review we are at a stalemate. The little taste of increased traffic this snowmobile season has wetted everybody's appetite. Let's get this show on the road.

Following commentary:

James HoughtaIing: Who is holding it up and what is their rationale?
9 hrs · Like

Hope Frenette: Well it's not the local guys that's for sure. Politics, Politics! We are pushing forward regardless.
8 hrs · Like

Jim Mcculley: It's totally a NYSDOT hold up. It's more about protecting their turf then doing what's right for the economy and the taxpayer.
8 hrs · Like

Marcel Carrier: Down here in Marcellus Shale Country, where we have been waiting for a decision from the state on Hydraulic Fracturing for 4 years, this is called "The Stall". I hope this is not the case with the Rail-Trail. hopefully it is a territorial spat between DOT and DEC or some other kind of p****** contest at state level. I would like for my 4 year old granddaughter to ride this trail before she retires !!!!!
8 hrs · Like · 2

Hope Frenette: Gee, we told them they could keep the turf they just got to get rid of the tracks. LOL.
7 hrs · Like

Jim Mcculley: The problem is we are trying to make hero's out of them and they're living in the pass.
7 hrs · Like

Hope Frenette: Change is always a difficult thing. It's just easier for the staff to keep the status quo. It's comfortable just not practical or economical. But nothing ventured is nothing gained. We have to do "something" here before it's too late.
7 hrs · Edited · Like

Brian Joseph: My money is on Cuomo holding things up. That's how he operates.
7 hrs · Like

Hope Frenette: It is my fervent belief that the status quo is unacceptable and that there is no money to rehabilitate the tracks anytime soon. Even DOT admitted they did not have funds for this (rebuilding the tracks) as they had other priorities. We have a plan that includes funding the project. Let's act.
5 hrs · Like

Jim Mcculley: I think on this one Cuomo is going to move it forward. It's the bureaucracy holding it up.

Still some more from "The ARTA," specifically an article on Amtrak delays (which itself has goofy commentary from at least some people), which the trail people suggest should be the real area of interest by the DOT:

http://blog.timesunion.com/business/amt ... ins/59828/

Again, Hope Frenette opens:

You see. This is the problem DOT should be concerned with. Not a tourist train in the Adirondacks.

And a following comment:

Gunner Cook: Can't build a oil pipeline in the midwest, so they ship it by rail to Port of Albany...makes sense, doesn't it?

More new material from the Adirondack Daily Enterprise, all from the letters to the editor section:

First up, a letter by Rachel Rice, who supports a trail that she says would be different from the others there:

https://www.adirondackdailyenterprise.c ... l?nav=5005

Here is somebody (who happens to be from here) taking me to task for not including the cost of tie disposal:

https://www.adirondackdailyenterprise.c ... l?nav=5005

And here we have trail supporter (and one of ARTA's principle members) who says I'm misleading people:

https://www.adirondackdailyenterprise.c ... l?nav=5005

Will have to check the Facebook pages later--darn, lunch hours are too short!

Here is another letter in support of the trail.

http://www.adirondackdailyenterprise.co ... l?nav=5041

My thought is, looking at the photo of this fellow, is that he is a bit of an extreme bicyclist. This isn't really meant to be a knock at him; I'm glad he enjoys biking as much as he does, and to a certain extent, I wouldn't mind being a cross country or long distance rider myself. But, might he also be in a category with the railfans who have vests and hats full of patches and buttons, the pacing roadhogs, the loudmouths, the general jerks, the ones who have given us a bad name over the years?

Another trail supporter; am glad she wants a better future and is an environmentalist, but as Alfred Runte would point out in "Allies of the Earth," railroads are quite "green," and should be part of the future, too.

http://www.adirondackdailyenterprise.co ... l?nav=5005

Greetings; I am new to the forum, although not new to the subject of the ASR and the ARTA. Some of the members here have posted links to commentary I have written in the Adirondack Daily Enterprise. The letter writer in the quote above is Ethan Winter and his wife. Ethan is the New York Conservation Manager for the Land Trust Alliance. No surprise here.

ASR needs a lot of support to beat back the aggression by ARTA and the snowmobile groups. I have probably read 1000 articles about rail-trail conversions and there has clearly been a shift from the original intent of the RTC to preserve rail corridors, to a more aggressive policy to create "greenways" and "sustainable alternative corridors". These environmentalist plans are permanent, not in the spirit of the intent of rail banking. This is happening all over the country, not just in the Adirondacks.

I live close to the Great Allegheny Passage; I can tell you there has not been anything close to the economic development the trail advocates write about. The inflated economic projections are a bill of goods to garner public support. Our rail transportation corridors are becoming targets of the environmental left. The following link is about the failure of the Badger Rail Trail in Wisconsin; hopefully, enough people can convince the NYDOT to learn from these kinds of mistakes.

http://host.madison.com/news/opinion/co ... 9b80c.html

Jim

Interesting how Ethan Winters and others site the success of the Pok High Bridge Trail, about 1 million visitors... One thing I would like to ask how is the trail traffic 1-3 miles either side of the bridge (how long is the trail east and west of the bridge?)?

It is one thing to have the draw of a high point view of the Hudson River and the city less then a mile from the parking lot, but it is irrelevant to compare it to a trail through the middle of the woods that goes on for miles.

Rich C.

It is all about how many true visitors to a region use a rail-trail. The spectacular view from this bridge is certainly a drawing-card. If the majority of people in the useage count are local to the area, any money they spend on the outing would not contribute "new money" to the regional economy.

The GAP/Yough River Trail here in Westmoreland County is well patronized by people who live live here. But any disposable income they spend on trail related activity would otherwise be spent in our region regardless. I think that is why real economic indicators of tax revenues, personal income, job count, do not hold up the claims of multi-million dollar economic impact.

The bottom line is photos of lots of people on a trail, or on this bridge, is not really indicative of whether or not the rail-trail conversion and the millions spent to do it was a good economic decision.

What was the cost to convert this bridge and trail? $38M?

The park's website also provides this map that illustrates how it is in the center of an urban area:

New development in the trail cause in general. The Weather Channel has partnered with Claratin, who in turn have partnered with the "Rails to Trails Conservancy." In addition to a 90 second spot produced by Claratin touting the benefits of trail development, TWC will be featuring many "prominent rails-to-trails" in their new Great Outdoors segment.

The Rail-to-Trails Conservancy appears to be getting away from the initial mission of railbanking to save rail corridors for future railroad use. The following link is on the RTC web site promoting the "Partnership for Active Transportation":

http://www.railstotrails.org/ourWork/ad ... aigns.html

Notice the absence of anything about preserving corridors for rail use. Well known, the qualification of railbanking is the desired status to open up federal funds for trail conversion. So the RTC will use the original intent to get federal money to assist in removing the railroad plant, but looking at this campaign, I am not so sure there will be willingness in the future to return a converted corridor back to a railroad. I can tell you that I have come across comments by trail organizations where the word "never" is used to describe future commercial use of a corridor.

Considering the current ARTA/Snowmobiler attack on the ASR, if the Remsen-Lake Placid rail corridor is lost to a recreational trail, I don't think there is any question there would be a brutal fight for any attempt in the future to restore the property to rail service, railbanking statues or not.

Jim

What has been described is mission creep. I would wager that many environmentalists fail to grasp the realities that exist. The mission of Rails to Trails was and still is to preserve the existing rail corridors for future reactivation. The right of way could have a trail adjacent to the existing tracks. I am not certain that it was ever envisioned that the tracks would be removed at all.

The fact is that rail is the most efficient mode of land transportation, both environmentally and economically. This may be going a bit off direct topic, but it seems to me that the left is trying to impact certain industries by impeding the transportation of targeted goods, thinking (wrongly) that they will dissuade the activities of the targeted companies by doing so. Thus by delaying or stopping the Keystone-XL Pipeline (as one example), they can stop the development of the tar sands oil. Those of us who understand global economics know that that will not work. That oil has probably already been sold and it's going to get refined, pipeline or no pipeline. The alternative is shipping by train and truck and probably proportionally more hazardous than shipping by pipeline (see Lac Magentic). They aim for the low hanging fruit, not realizing the potential negative impacts.

You are misinformed, per this article: Wall Street Journal: U.S. Refiners Don't Care if Keystone Gets Built (September 5, 2013)

I think Alan is right on, as the second part of his post acknowledges that railroads are transporting the crude, are very flexible as to what refinery is receiving it, and huge capital investment in pipeline construction and long term leases are not required to move this oil. Risk of accident is higher.

I think at least some ARTA directors look at rail-trail development as a way to realize a decades-old desire to remove the rail corridor from the areas of the Adirondack Park that are classified as wilderness. An early Adirondack Council proposal for the corridor included breaking up the line into segments of recreational trail permitting snowmobiles, and motorless trail through the proposed "Bob Marshall Great Wilderness". Having the snowmobile group support is a calculated political move to tap the large number of sled registrations since usually this crowd frowns on more internal combustion machines zipping around wilderness areas.

Regardless, perhaps there needs to be a change in how a trail conversion qualifies for railbanking, especially if "mission creep" is occurring. A railroad corridor that is considered active, or out of service, should not qualify. If trail conversion is desirable because of abandonment, trail developers should have to put up considerable capital and demonstrate economic development has occurred before federal railbanking funds for trail conversion is released. That might slow the trail crowd from becoming the pirates they are now.

Jim