I'm just gonna leave this here without comment. The line in question is the Winnepesaukee Scenic between Meredith and Weirs Beach in New Hampshire:

http://www.laconiadailysun.com/newsx/lo ... -wow-trail

How much of a study would they get for 10,000?

Does the word "naive" apply?

Bob H

The south shore extension cost millions in a study. 10,000 may get 3 people 5 days taking pictures.

A closer read of the article reveals the $10k figure is only the city's portion. Other contributors are indicated. mld

A lot of these projects are nothing more than grand schemes to leech G-money, partly in consultancy fees to write reports that are basically phoned-in. People pouring in private capital would defeat the purpose of taking off the dole. So it's likely the town or state match is all there is to this project.

If I were king, the government could only match $3 for every $1 raised by proper fundraising, donations capped at $100 for matching purposes, and donors would be ineligible to leech (get contracts). This consultant report would've required $2500 donations from at least 25 people. Those donors would expect so much more for their money. It would shut down this entire business.

Ah yes, the government study.

Hmmm.... $10k city money plus money from bike trail proponents. Doesn't sound like the end result would be unbiased. If I lived there, I'd be looking at that closely since the city is spending tax dollars for a study with a possibly predetermined conclusion. Just sayin'...

Who did the railroad cheese off? Somebody hates them...

We can reverse engineer the numbers to see the railroad is taking in a million bucks a year. In my experience visitors spend 2-3x that at other local businesses. And then there's the multiplier when the railroad spends much of their income locally. I regularly get comments like "you're killing my business" when we don't run or "I want your schedule so I know when to add staff", and mind you, we're super small. I'm talking real spending, not this fantasy money they stick in these reports: if the railroad were credited for the same Sean Spicer numbers as the pro-trail reports use, it would be 10 times! So the bike path had better show more than $10M by a margin to pay its capital costs.

Realistically, bike paths cause a spike in business for the ice cream parlor and comic book shop because the #1 beneficiary is neighborhood kids.

End of the day, the railroad is a real functioning producing business, and real tourism. The trail is a fantasy of some starry eyed bicyclists with a hidden agenda to get the government to subsidize their fun.

The State of New Hampshire has spoken... They will not support a trail-without-rail:
http://www.laconiadailysun.com/newsx/lo ... d-corridor

You have to love the quote by the person originally trying to get the railroad removed:



He also said he didn't want to 'prejudice' the idea of extending the existing trail by tying it to any particular approach (e.g., 'rail with trail' like some other parts of what's there already.

The article does make mention of the track running on 'causeways' and through 'tunnels' that complicate the routing of a trail that is not on or near the rail ROW, and also mentions the objection of NIMBYs in gated communities who think a trail past their properties will increase the likelihood of theft or vandalism.