Can you offer some suggestions? I certainly think this can be a case study on how to deal with the opposition.

Just to start the ball rolling, my pro-rail approaches would include the idea that rail service will be needed when driving becomes restricted due to fuel supplies being short or unaffordable, that there is a generational shift going on where people, particularly younger people, are not as enamored of cars as earlier generations, and of the thought that many older people may not want to drive because of fading eyesight and other problems (I can personally identify with that; my night vision is nothing like it used to be, and I get muscle cramps and things in my legs on auto trips over an hour or so). And of course, we rail enthusiasts are only, what, 5% at best of the customers on a heritage railroad?

This won't convince the trail people--McCulley would probably tell me I should just stay home or something if my eyes are that bad--but this railroad, and our whole business, needs all the help it can get. We certainly have not been as effective as we should have been over the years.

Floor open for comments. . .

The pro-rail arguments are simple and easy:

The railroad appeals to all walks of life (except anti-rail idiots) including the elderly, very young, disabled and otherwise "out of shape" rather then the just the small spectrum of avid hikers or long distance off-road bikers.

The railroad can be fully restored faster and cheaper than the trail. ARTA still chooses to not believe this, even when it is proven time and time again.

The railroad offers the greater economic benefit potential over the tail. This is demonstrated by the affect it has had on the community of Old Forge. This can also be observed in other first class tourist railroad operations elsewhere in the country.

As long as the rails remain in place, the route retains it's status as a "transportation corridor" which means it can still be used by snowmobiles in the winter. It the rails are removed it will open the door for potential restrictive or banned usage, or even a possible "forever wild" reversion scenario.

The railroad offers an alternative transportation option over the highways. The trail does not.

The anti-trail arguments, in addition to the pro-rail points above are also simple and straight forward:

The trail will cost millions of dollars to construct, which will have to come mostly from tax-payer pockets.

The trail will not generate any revenue in which to maintain its self, needing to rely once again on tax dollars.

The trail will be VERY long and VERY isolated, greatly restricting its usage. It will likely see heavy local usage in the Saranac/Placid area and little to no use elsewhere. This also increases the risks of danger to users being MANY miles from the nearest Police or Ambulance service.

Removing the rails will effectively isolate the Northern Adirondack region, making its communities almost exclusively reliant on tourism revenue. The aren't exactly business lining up to set up manufacturing in the Adirondacks, but this will eliminate any future potential for anything to like this to develop.

We sometimes loose site of the simple arguments and get caught up arguing the bizarre claims that get made. I myself have fallen into this many times and I suspect that is what ARTA is trying to do. We need to be vigilant and continue to speak out and refute their "facts", but at the same time remember the simple truths listed above and keep our cool. J3a-614. You made a well thought out and researched point with the drop in snowmobile registration. Unfortunately it was immediately discredited by McCully's spin to make it seem like you were attacking the snowmobile crowd. This is unfortunately par for the coarse. They have done this time an time again. They then upped it a notch by further discrediting you because you are "out of state", as if your opinions matter less because you are not local.

We, as a community, need to stay involved in this debate but we have to be carful not to get caught playing ARTA's game. We need to carry ourselves properly and keep our arguments simple and grounded since they are trying to make us look like a bunch of idiot foamers, or "blue-hair choo-choo fanatics". And if you think what we say really doesn't matter, I remind you that NYSDOT is keeping a close eye on everything that transpires. I wouldn't be surprised if they keep tabs on the Adirondack Daily Enterprise and maybe even this and other forums on a regular basis.

(Emphasis mine)

While I understand you don't like these people, calling them idiots on a public forum is probably not helping your case. If, as you say, NYSDOT is watching; it would be in your (and the railroad's) best interest to remain civil.

Ammendum:

Also, as dumb as it may seem, NEVER write off anyone's opinion. Even though the loud mouths are easy to hear, the quiet ones are far more numerous. Being calm, reasoned, and respectful will go further with the people in the background; you can probably never turn the more vocal trail proponents, but you can chip away at their supporters.

May I say thank you to both of you, TrainGeek and Bulby, for additional thoughts and the confirmation that being reasonable is not the bad habit I was beginning to think it was.

I'll add an additional point--the Catskill Mountain people seem to be winning their arguments, thanks to persistence, good facts (including the one that they do not cost the county money, and even pay rent), and are doing so to the point where the trail people, or at least some of them, are getting desperate and being uncivil. I say, if the trail people want to be uncivil, let them! Let them reveal themselves as to what they are.

I am reminded of a saying you don't hear much of anymore. That saying was "You can't make a monkey out of me!" That may have come out of the Scopes "monkey trial" on the teaching of evolution in the 1920s; it is an exclamation of "You can't make me a fool!"

And such a person is right. Neither you, nor I, nor anyone else can make someone a fool. They have to do that themselves! All we can do is reveal the fool is a fool. Better yet, let's just let the fools reveal themselves! I am pleased to note that seems to be happening in the Catskills.

Let's see if it can happen in the Adirondacks, too.

Someone said this (or a variation) before, but I'll repeat it here:

When the law is against you, argue the facts.
When the facts are against you, argue the law.
When both are against you, call the other side names and yell loudly.

so, where are we at? J3a-614 can argue the facts, traingeek can argue the law, and that leaves ARTA to name-calling and yelling; Am I right?

Added: if the ARTA can't get facts on their side, or the law, we see their true colors such as McCulley's remarks. Let the public decide what they think based on who presents what arguments.

It's larger than that. We have no way of predicting the manufacturing and transportation demands that will exist 100 years hence, any more than people 100 years ago could have predicted the situation today or even 50 years after them when the railroads were dying (and if they had known that situation, it wouldn't have accurately represented the world of today.)

So here they are trying to "crystal ball" the transportation infrastructure needs of the Adirondack region. It cannot be done. We don't know whether, in the future, communities are going to live or die on whether rails still go there. What we do know is that humanity's sudden, amazing affluence over the last 100 years draws from astonishing rates of resource consumption (oil, uranium, rare earth metals) that are simply not sustainable for even 100 years. And that raises a lot of questions about what happens next. Change is a foregone conclusion.

The version I'm familiar with is:

When the law is against you, pound the facts.
When the facts are against you, pound the law.
When the law and the facts are against you, pound the table.



Thank you for giving me a look up, and a smile. . .

Incidently, McCulley had what I consider a poor analysis of what I had to say. He says the first thing I brought up was the abnormally low snow season of 2010-2011. Besides it not being the first thing I mentioned, I did at least hint that year could be considered not typical, because of the steep decline then; didn't really know the reason for that, but it still looked like a bit of an outlier. He ignored what was the first thing I mentioned, that the decline in registrations has been going on for ten years--a fairly long time, long enough to be considered a trend in most circles. Any competent businessman looking at that would have the same questions about projected snowmobile patronage I have. And finally, he accused me of ignoring the rental snowmobile market. But, wouldn't the rentals also be registered? If that's the case, then the snowmobile market is even worse than I thought it was, although it could be argued that the rentals have higher utilization than privately owned units, and would preserve a higher level of snowmobile economic activity.

And it is true the railroad changed its accounting to where they counted single round trip ticket sales as two boardings rather than one person riding; this was in response to a government requirement. At that, this was several seasons ago, and ticket sales and boardings still increased after this accounting change.

Who's playing loose with facts?

By the way, one of us, in other conversations, believes ARTA hasn't "discovered" this site yet, based on the lack of ARTA commentary here, in contrast to railroad.net. This doesn't mean they aren't seeing this, but given the apparent egos of some of the members and the lack of commentary from them here, it might be they don't know about this place yet.

Having said this, it is still important not to say too much. So far, I don't see much that the ARTA people shouldn't already know, so I think we're still OK for the time being.

I will not be mentioning this site in anything I send off to the Adirondack Daily Enterprise.

Probably for the better.



Hopefully, if they do "discover" this site; they will be civil. Otherwise, we do have moderators who are competent at their jobs, and can remove postings that violate the guidelines.

Alternatively, they may have found this site, but realize they would be entering a hornet's nest of the pro-rail lobby.

Your "devil's advocate" is back.

The problems I see in the spiels above are the same as those we discern in the pro-trail lobby:
1) The "facts" are selectively chosen; and
2) Half of them aren't even truly "facts," but "wishful thinking."

Let's look at Traingeek's list:


Set aside the name-calling aspect, which has already been discussed: Do you have any proof of this? Sources to cite? By your rationale, people should be ignoring the road from Williams to the Grand Canyon and taking the Grand Canyon Railroad there instead. Some do, but not all or even the vast majority. Ditto commuting on the rails versus the road. Vastly larger numbers of folks drive to work even when the train is there and available, except when parking is non-existent.
Certainly many folks find the idea of a train quaint, charming, and somewhat attractive. But that changes if you have to live next to it, or get held up at crossings on a regular basis.
And as I can attest firsthand, rail trails appeal to "all walks of life" as well. I see families with very young kids bicycling or strolling, people in those scooter wheelchairs, bicycling commuters, old folks, etc. Yeah, you're not going to find an elderly person who has some trouble walking twenty miles from the town on the Adirondack trail, but so what? You're probably not going to find that family with kids there, either.


I would suggest the jury is still out on that. If I'm supposed to be skeptical of the trail advocates' costs estimates, I should be equally skeptical of the rail advocates' estimates. It only takes one washout somewhere to totally change the equation--as the Central Pa. Chapter NRHS, the Wilmington & Western, and others can attest in spades.


Again, I demand cites. It just happens that I've blundered upon all kinds of propaganda and tourism brochures from the Old Forge area from 1954--in a bundle that a late railfan carefully preserved from his trip there (and to Niagara Falla and Detroit via Canada). It seems they've been doing the "tourism" thing quite well for over half a century. How much of this can be legitimately ascribed to the railroad? I mean, a hard-core railfan drove there in 1954......


Hmmmm. [strokes chin] Gets interesting, I gotta say. I've seen, firsthand, some ugliness break out over just that situation, both rail- and trail-wise. Just one easement reverts, and.....


Only if and when it's running, not in its current configuration or even with tourist trains. We're simply NOT going to see an Algoma-Central-style passenger service with a run being subsidized to haul passengers to and from towns like the "milk local."
Is there coal up there? Fracking? Oil refinery? City-sized paper mill?


Likely but not guaranteed. I could make the case that track removal will be partially covered by scrap recovery, and then the trail gets left alone to be developed naturally. It's not written in stone that a "trail" HAS to be paved asphalt or groomed gravel. What if they compromise, and volunteers develop the trail incrementally, just like rail repair was being done incrementally?
Further, that track will cost millions to properly repair and maintain. Have you won a Powerball jackpot lately?


In my experience, small, short excursion runs--Strasburg, Wilmington & Western, Conway Scenic, etc.--or extremely prosperous ones--Durango & Silverton, Grand Canyon--can make enough revenue to cover repairs to a short stretch of track. Not the case with a long stretch of track in a remote area (Cumbres & Toltec, West Va. Central, Adirondack RR of the 1980s, and even East Broad Top); they have to find and generate freight traffic to share the costs. In effect, the sentence above works with either "trail" or "train."


Sorry to say this, dude, but...... same for the train.


The eternal "chicken or egg" question. I can't count how many industrial estates/parks have spent good money to install or reinstate "rail service" in the hopes that some customer will want and use rail service, and ultimately gain zero rail customers, or at most one lackluster one, barely enough to justify the local crew that heads there once a week or less. Rail is but one factor in industrial infrastructure.
Look, if it's wrong for me to accept "if we build it, they will come" from the trail advocates because they can't present firm examples with backing data, it's wrong for me to accept the same premise from rail advocates. I've seen far too many cases on both sides where results came nowhere near the hyped promises, as well as a scant few success stories on both sides.

I'm going to say this again: Rail-to-trail advocates have, repeatedly, demonstrated an amazing acumen for convincing politicians to spend other people's money for their personal benefit. That personally offends, if not outrages, the "Ron Swanson/Tea Party" guy in me, but that's politics in a nutshell. If I were in this fight for rail, I would be doing my damnest to show that their proposals are fiscally flawed, or at least more so than a rail preservation plan, and I would also be doing my best to promote whatever "shared use" plans makes legal and physical sense, because showing a willingness to compromise makes you look like the reasonable, sane one.

If nothing else, get past the idea that your "facts" are irrefutable and can only be countered by "lies."

Mr. Mitchell,

Very thought out response.

It sounds like convincing the hikers/snowmobilers that the rails protecting the easement is the only one where you did not come back with an argument of 'whomever has the best references or best politician on his/her side wins'. If that's the case, is there an advantage for rails remaining in place or does a 'railbanked' hiking trail accomplish the same thing?

Also, if you were put in charge of trying to save the line, how would you approach the argument?

Regards,

Art S.

The laws and technicalities vary from state to state, jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and rail line to rail line, depending on how and when property was acquired. I wouldn't pretend to know the particulars in this case. But trust me when I say that the Rails-to-Trails folks, at least their higher-ups in Albany or Washington if they are involved, have made it their business to know the particulars of said laws and restrictions. That's what they do. This is but one example of what I say is their political acumen and involvement at work. They don't just assume that since someone else did X and Y they can just do it, too. They do their political homework. That's why they win when they do.


I would have to review the entire range of options and alternatives available, and decide what options stand the greatest chance of success, and press for that. I don't have quite enough information at hand to make proper "suggestions."

An important point to remember in any discussion such as this:
When a private, or public-private, organization attempts an ambitious project and fails (to take an example here: Steamtown Foundation moving to Scranton, or a business failing to attract enough customers or revenue), the private entity is usually 1) still extant and 2) is held accountable for their actions (say, for example, bankruptcy or liquidation). When a public project fails in a similar manner--say, for real-world examples, the city convention center doesn't attract the number of conventions promised by consultants' studies, or a museum or library doesn't attract the planned number of visitors, or a transit line fails to draw enough ridership, or a school fails to produce qualified graduates-- 1) the responsible public servants (or their successors) are almost never held accountable, and 2) the usual effort to address the problems of the concept typically involves spending even more of somebody else's money, sometimes called "throwing good money after bad".

The biggest dilemma for this railroad project is quantifying a "return on investment" on whatever public dollars get spent. As bad as the perceived ROI looks for rail-trail to this cynic, the numbers could look just as bad for the rail service minus a viable revenue stream, and the disadvantage is that while a "trail" is literally open to all comers, a train isn't. That is the public relations advantage the railroad has to overcome, and why I feel any compromise that surrenders part of the right-of-way to trail while retaining a viable section of railroad with shared access, would be the long-term winner.

But I'm just another bozo at a keyboard in far-off Maryland, what do I know?

Also. What's the easiest way to position, maintain and restock "huts" along the route? By rail. Use old coaches/sleepers, haul them up there in-season, deliver supplies the same way. Off season, haul them home for maintenance.

What's the easiest way for snow-making machines (and large amounts of water) to gain acccess to extremely remote snowmobile trails? Have the trail within throwing distance of a railroad.

What's the best way for ambulances to access an extremely remote trail? Hy-rail.

Great ideas, but they are worthless to the trail crowd as the crowd is currently constituted.

Here's another to add to the mix: How different is maintenance of culverts, ditches, bridges, and other structures for a railroad, a trail, or a secondary road? Answer: None. Doesn't cost anything different to maintain substructure, which is where the bulk of maintenance dollars go, not to what I call the "superstructure."

How much extra does it cost to paint and maintain a bridge that supports a railroad, a road, a trail--or a railroad and a trail? Nothing, the steel's the same, the piers and abuntments are the same. Great opportunity for shared costs--but the trail crowd won't hear of it, because it doesn't want to hear of it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not to brag, but McCulley posted this in response to my comment about the decline in snowmobile registrations at the ARTA site.

http://www.snowmobile.org/worldwide-sno ... ercent.asp

http://www.snowmobile.org/pr_10_2010_health.asp

I can't help but wonder if I hit a nerve. . .one link is about worldwide sales, not what's happening in New York (hey, I thought the ARTA guys were all about local decisions and markets), the other is what would normally be considered a bunch of PR hooey.

And then there were the comments about how this was supposed to be a multi-use trail, that it wasn't primarily about snowmobilers. . .jeez, why all this snowmobile stuff on the page?

Oh well, I have some ideas for another entry. It'll be interesting to see what the ARTA people come up with for it.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Other comments by people in the Adirondack Daily Enterprise:

First, a straightforward criticism of rail by David Banks:

http://adirondackdailyenterprise.com/pa ... l?nav=5256

And what I think is Lee Keet playing a wolf in sheep's clothing, "advocating" for better rail service--and then using an inflated cost figure for restored service to Lake Placid, one about three times what the cost of track renovation would be, one that includes NEW rolling stock and locomotives. How many tourist roads do we know of, other than the Northern Central, can afford new equipment?

http://adirondackdailyenterprise.com/pa ... l?nav=5256

EDIT: Looking at the other, supposedly "kinder" ARTA site (The Adirondack Rail Trail), and they don't like the snowmobile news there, either; please note this is a rough copy-and-paste job, didn't have the time for minor edits such as adding proper quotation marks and such.

From the administrator who posted the story link:

"Don't you just love it when out of staters tell you what your community should be doing? This is not about you. You know nothing about the wants and needs of our communities. We aren't going down to your neighborhood and telling you how to develop your area. Stay out of ours.
This is not just about snowmobiling and there actually would be an increase in sales and registrations if there were more places to ride a snowmobile.
The reality is that we are more interested in outdoor recreation venues that work year around and develop healthy community living instead of sitting on your ass riding a tourist train. This is about the residents well being and lifestyle choices as well as tourism."

These are the follow-on comments by other posters:

Anthony Suzanne Bravo. I've noticed the anti-trail folks jabbering away about "the community"... ridiculous. Nothing like spending your tax dollars for you... Mr. W. Virginia, expert on all things Adirondack.
February 22 at 10:00am · Edited · Like

Izzy Vosseller I don't know why the two just don't work together.........obviously it won't happen
February 22 at 10:11am · Like

Roady Roady This guy is proof you can't fix stupid on many fronts.
February 22 at 10:15am · Edited · Like

The Adirondack Rail Trail Because the train folk aren't based in reality.
February 22 at 10:13am · Like

Izzy Vosseller sounds like a bunch if childish bs on both parts!
February 22 at 10:15am · Like

Jim Mcculley We are working together we have offered to let them keep their train from Remsen to Old Forge and remove the unused portion from Old Forge to Saranac Lake and the lightly used section between Lake Placid and Saranac Lake. This is a win for everyone. They can make it financially and the taxpayer doesn't have to pay for the up grade of tracks. The trail can be built for salvage. They want it all or nothing.
February 22 at 10:24am · Like

The Adirondack Rail Trail Izzy, the train does not have community support because it's been running for over 20 years with no economic benefit to the communities. It's been run as a venue for hobbiest using tax payer monies with benefit to the communities. Now that they have been exposed they actually start to make a serious attempt at running it like a business (2012). They squandered their opportunity and would have kept it up if not for our efforts to use this State owned asset for the betterment of our communities. They can keep running their trains from Utica to Thendara. They are based out of Utica.
February 22 at 10:24am · Like · 2

Izzy Vosseller lol.....now I see why there is an issue.......I highly doubt u guys will ever win! there is strong support for that railroad, always is and always will be! with that being said........so long and have a good day!
February 22 at 10:28am · Like

Jim Mcculley How much do you want to bet? Their is no support north of Old Forge ever community From Lake Placid down have asked the state to remove the tracks.
February 22 at 10:30am · Like · 2

Anthony Suzanne Strong support in West Virginia anyways...wankers from everywhere but the Adirondacks...
February 22 at 10:42am · Like

Patty Rascoe Keep up the great work Adk Railtrail!
February 22 at 10:44am · Edited · Like · 1

Roady Roady Keep backing the train izzy and see where it gets you.
February 22 at 10:50am · Like

Mike Funf Don't understand if u don't use it u should loose it.. If there's a plan for a 4 season use then that's what it should be for not for some one to say there gonna use mabe
February 22 at 10:59am · Like · 1

Ben Benjamin Several times a year we come North for a weekend with snowmobiles and stay overnight in rented accommodations, eat out, gas up my truck, and our sleds multiple times. We probably easily spend $500-$750 for the weekend (supporting North country businesses). On the flip side, my wife and I have ridden the train in both OF and LP. We were camping in the summer in OF, and leaf peeping in the fall in LP. By contrast, the train was NOT the draw and did NOTHING else to contribute to our spending to support other North Country businesses! I don't live there, but I spend my $ there. Get rid of the rails so we can ride our sleds!
February 22 at 12:37pm · Like · 6

Donnie Brook Here here!
February 22 at 12:51pm · Like

Daniel Carmichael Perhaps the 'strong railroad enthusiast' should spend more time working on WV's railroad problems than letting us know the 'facts' in NY http://www.journal-news.net/page/conten ... l?nav=5006

Anthony Suzanne Hear, Hear! Donnie, Hear!!
February 22 at 1:18pm · Like

Jim Mcculley http://poststar.com/.../article_6fc1419 ... 1e3-a121... Check out the big ridership declines.

With trains running, some people want to cross tracks
poststar.com
The resurgence of train traffic on Warren County’s rail line is leading to more ...See More
February 22 at 1:31pm · Like

Donnie Brook I second the motion and fully support! The train is not only bygone. Buy Evan in the Olympics didn't have a great effect, I all for trail utilization,
February 22 at 1:40pm · Like

Bob Dudek Mostly Silly and Misleading ..and condescending in the least. Will change no mind$.
February 22 at 1:46pm · Like

-------------------------------------------------------------------

It does look like the editorial caught their attention!

I have to agree with Mr. Bravo -- having a West Virginia resident telling Adirondack Mountain communities that snowmobiling is dying is about as useful as having a New Yorker telling West Virginia residents that coal mining is a dying industry.

You are wrong. This is based on the (false) presumption that every rail bridge is suitable for trail use, is intact, and will always be so, if you just add a few boards and railings.

I've seen many, many cases where rail bridges had to be replaced for a trail because the old bridge was washed out, removed for scrap, or removed to improve road height clearances. The cost to "replace" the bridge can run from extremely minimal--substituting a trail/road crossing at grade for the overpass or a rustic log bridge for a culvert, for example--to extravagant (replacing a former overpass with a long cable-stayed bridge or four-span box truss because a six-lane highway was plotted across the right-of-way).

There are other instances where a bridge will need major structural work for long-term use and preservation, even for trail use. Spalling concrete abutments, deteriorating or eroding masonry work, and failing trestle work are more common than you may think. I've gone over, as but one example, the East Broad Top line looking at it as a potential rail trail, and the condition of some of the abutments, the concrete-arch Aughwick Creek bridge, etc. are almost hair-raising from an engineering stability standpoint.

And this is just for bicycles. A safe "guesstimate" is to take any estimate for rehabbing a failing bridge for trail use, and at least quadruple that for rehabbing it for railroad use, even if you're not planning on 286,000-pound cars. Maybe even move the commas over to the right and add a zero, if it's bad enough.

The real answer does boil down to "how complicated do you want to make it?" The same ditches and culverts that have to be maintained lest the railroad get washed out or turned unstable can be turned into a "natural resource" for trail users. The same beaver dam at the culvert that aggravates the railroad turns the pond into a "nature sanctuary" for trail users, and can sharply raise trail usage by bird-watchers, etc. But if the local authority insists on making the entire trail paved and accessible to emergency vehicles in case of fire or medical emergency, then it's an entirely different proposition. Maybe. And the same bridge that could be replaced with a simple girder span gets turned into an engineering monstrosity at the hands of bureaucrats and regulations, to look at the other side of the coin.
We have one local group in Maryland attempting to secure a long-unused but still intact railroad right-of-way for preservation as a "walking path," but they adamantly do NOT want a "rail trail." As it was explained to me, "If we get it designated as a rail trail, the bureaucrats will insist on paving it, putting in bridges and ramps, light posts, etc. and costing money to keep up. We don't want that. It's fine as it is, just as a nature path that happens to connect several neighborhoods. We can maintain it with volunteers."