| Railway Preservation News https://www.rypn.org/forums/ |
|
| WMSR newspaper poll https://www.rypn.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=12410 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | ebtrr [ Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:47 pm ] |
| Post subject: | WMSR newspaper poll |
The Cumberland Times is running a poll on their web site on what to do with the WMSR. URL is http://www.times-news.com/ and the poll is on the front page. VOTE! |
|
| Author: | joecomer [ Thu Mar 03, 2005 1:02 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: WMSR newspaper poll |
Yes, PLEASE VOTE!! I attended Frostburg State for my undergraduate education... and became keenly aware of the historical, economic and "positive tourism" impact this railroad has had on western allegany county and the historical preservation community of western maryland, especially Cumberland and Frostburg. Western Maryland (in my opinion) has been classically overlooked by legislators in Annapolis, and funding of the WMSR seemed to be a definate step in the right direction in the attempt to revive a stagnant regional tourism economy. Please don't let this treasure fade away... vote! ...write! county_commissioners@allconet.org (email address taken from an earlier post by Erik) |
|
| Author: | Greg Schultz [ Thu Mar 03, 2005 10:45 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: WMSR newspaper poll |
While I hope the WMSRR is able to continue in operation I question the logic of spending the money to temporarily relocate the track for a year (2 at the most). I did read the article from the Cumberland paper and while I am sure it is biased (most news is) I do not have the benefit of being close enough to the situation to know all the facts. Using Erik's numbers of 500 people for the photographer's specials alone, figuring the $500,000 tax dollars the operation recieves equates to about $1,000 per person. This does not include the other passenger throughout the year; so I'm sure the dollars spent per paying passenger is a lot lower. However, that's still a LOT of money provided for the upkeep and maintenance by taxpayers who must still pay if they want to experience the train ride. This may sound harsh but if the WMSRR can't keep itself financially solvent without tax subsidies then perhaps it's time to let it go. We all complain about the airlines getting subsidies, this really isn't any different. <puts on bullet proof vest> G |
|
| Author: | Erik Ledbetter [ Thu Mar 03, 2005 11:33 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: WMSR newspaper poll |
I think there is a philosopical and then a practical issue here. First the philosophical--if one diagrees with using taxpayer dollars to subsidize heritage tourism as an engine of regional economic development, then that's fine, it's a consistent position. It means that we would lose C&TS and WMSRR immediately, and probably roads like D&S and Great Smokey Mountain (which receive low-interest loans guaranteed and subsidized by the taxpayers) eventually. But OK, that's a consistent view--not my view, but fine. If one does agree that there is a place for public support for heritage tourism, espeically for public-private partnerships in which the public provides sufficient investment to make the opportunity viable for a private sector franchisee, then we need only dicker over what operations are deserving and what kind and level of support. I am open to a number of solutions to WMSRR--I am certainly not of the opionion that not every run should go to Frostburg (too far, too long, to challenging to operate). But I want to keep the state-owned infrastructure to Frostburg in place and usable. Finally, I can answer your question on a purely personal level. I'm a Maryland taxpayer, and I am fine with some of my taxes going to WMSRR, and I don't feel I'm over-taxed. Maryland has a high-tax, high-service philosophy and I for one broadly support that philosophy. Others may feel differently, and of course there are many low-tax low-service states in which one can live and work. But for me, I pay the high tax, so I get to play in advocating what to spend it on--and for me, that includes WMSRR. |
|
| Author: | Greg Schultz [ Thu Mar 03, 2005 12:29 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: WMSR newspaper poll |
Erik Ledbetter wrote: I think there is a philosopical and then a practical issue here. First the philosophical--if one diagrees with using taxpayer dollars to subsidize heritage tourism as an engine of regional economic development, then that's fine, it's a consistent position. It means that we would lose C&TS and WMSRR immediately, and probably roads like D&S and Great Smokey Mountain (which receive low-interest loans guaranteed and subsidized by the taxpayers) eventually. But OK, that's a consistent view--not my view, but fine.
If I may clarify, it is not a philosophical idea but a legal one. If I may quote Mr. Bastiat, "if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime" this is the premise of legalized plunder. The moneys we work for and earn or our property is taken from us and given to another. Erik, if you have no problem with your property (tax paid) being taken from you and used to support others, that's fine. But let's be sure to be consistant (not that you haven't been) the next time the discussion arises concerning subsidies for airlines and other private industries. Believe me, this is a difficult position for me to be in for a number of reasons. I have been involved with tourist rail operations for over 20 years and my very good friend TJ Gaffney is Curator of Collections at the Port Huron Museum. I know how difficult it can be to maintain our history. Remember, all that "free money" isn't really free. G |
|
| Author: | Erik Ledbetter [ Thu Mar 03, 2005 12:48 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: WMSR newspaper poll |
As I say, a disagreement in approach. I can't agree that it's a "legal" disagreement, however, becuase no court has ruled such economic development subsidies illegal. One may consider them illegitmate, unwise, even immoral if one choses, but they are clearly legal under current law and court rulings. And just for the record, to establish my internal consistency, I have never taken a stand against subsidies for other modes of transportation either. I might have strong views about how best to allocate and structure the subsidy to make it fairer and more productive of the public good, but I have no problem with the principle. As I said, I subscribe in general to a higher-tax, higher-service philosophy. |
|
| Author: | Alexander D. Mitchell IV [ Thu Mar 03, 2005 12:51 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: WMSR newspaper poll |
Quote: As I said, I subscribe in general to a higher-tax, higher-service philosophy.
Hanging around Washington, D.C. has a tendency to do that to folks, of course....... >;-) |
|
| Author: | Erik Ledbetter [ Thu Mar 03, 2005 12:54 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: WMSR newspaper poll |
Of course it does. People who beleive that goverment can aid the public good want to work in and around Washington. People who don't, don't. Self-fulfilling prophesy. Market of ideas at work. Invisible hand, and all that. :-) |
|
| Author: | Greg Schultz [ Thu Mar 03, 2005 1:10 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: WMSR newspaper poll |
Erik Ledbetter wrote: As I say, a disagreement in approach. I can't agree that it's a "legal" disagreement, however, becuase no court has ruled such economic development subsidies illegal. One may consider them illegitmate, unwise, even immoral if one choses, but they are clearly legal under current law and court rulings.
And just for the record, to establish my internal consistency, I have never taken a stand against subsidies for other modes of transportation either. I might have strong views about how best to allocate and structure the subsidy to make it fairer and more productive of the public good, but I have no problem with the principle. As I said, I subscribe in general to a higher-tax, higher-service philosophy. Is it legal to take property from one to give to another? Because a court has not ruled it illegal does not make it right. If you want to be taxed higher fine, I subscribe to a "let me keep what's mine" philosophy. It is illegal for someone to threaten my life in robbing me - your money or your life. But the government can threaten my property by taking it if I do not give them what they demand. Fail to pay your taxes and they take your property (real estate etc.) through foreclosure. To better understand my point may I suggest reading The LAW by Frederik Bastiat. I have no problem supporting the fire department or police department as these benefit all and provide for the safety of the community. However, supporting a private company is no different then taking my money to give to a group of knitting grandmothers so they can purchase yarn and build a home to meet in for their knitting club. G |
|
| Author: | Greg U. [ Thu Mar 03, 2005 1:30 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: WMSR newspaper poll |
...This is how it starts. Give and inch, take a mile. I have The Law. Schultz gave it to me, but I have yet to bring myself to read it. Maybe some day Greg, maybe some day. |
|
| Author: | wesp [ Thu Mar 03, 2005 2:06 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: WMSR newspaper poll |
Greg Schultz wrote: However, that's still a LOT of money provided for the upkeep and maintenance by taxpayers who must still pay if they want to experience the train ride. This may sound harsh but if the WMSRR can't keep itself financially solvent without tax subsidies then perhaps it's time to let it go. We all complain about the airlines getting subsidies, this really isn't any different.
As one who is actively involved with heritage tourism in Maryland, I would agree somewhat with Greg. The sum of $500,000 is a lot of money to invest in one location on a continuing basis. The existing pot of grant funding from the Maryland Historic Trust's Museum Assistance program would be greatly enriched with such a gift. One of the criteria for our grant funding at the local level involves with I'd call an exit strategy. In so many words our County grants agency wants to know the long-term impact of the grant. That is, how would the program continue without the proposed funding. They are happy to support programs but do not look to have a group become dependent on them for ongoing operations. I think WMSR was an example of this kind of dependency. I would be interested to learn of the ratio of earned income vs. operating support for similar operations like C&TSRR and Cass. Wesley Paulson National Capital Trolley Museum |
|
| Author: | wesp [ Thu Mar 03, 2005 2:11 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: WMSR newspaper poll |
Greg Schultz wrote: However, that's still a LOT of money provided for the upkeep and maintenance by taxpayers who must still pay if they want to experience the train ride. This may sound harsh but if the WMSRR can't keep itself financially solvent without tax subsidies then perhaps it's time to let it go. We all complain about the airlines getting subsidies, this really isn't any different.
As one who is actively involved with heritage tourism in Maryland, I would agree somewhat with Greg. The sum of $500,000 is a lot of money to invest in one location on a continuing basis. The existing pot of grant funding from the Maryland Historic Trust's Museum Assistance program would be greatly enriched with such a gift. One of the criteria for our grant funding at the local level involves with I'd call an exit strategy. In so many words our County grants agency wants to know the long-term impact of the grant. That is, how would the program continue without the proposed funding. They are happy to support programs but do not look to have a group become dependent on them for ongoing operations. I think WMSR was an example of this kind of dependency. I would be interested to learn of the ratio of earned income vs. operating support for similar operations like C&TSRR and Cass. Wesley Paulson National Capital Trolley Museum |
|
| Author: | ebtrr [ Thu Mar 03, 2005 4:12 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: WMSR newspaper poll |
1) If I understand correctly, the $500,000 is the put the section of track back in. Why was it taken out in the first place? Was removal really necessary and if so is this money wasted due to poor planning? 2) They say $500,000 is not justified by one year of operation. Why is there only to be one more year of operation anyway? Because of the trail? A trail and train can coexist on a former double track mail. They did it near Newark, OH. There is NO reason not to do so here. So, does ten years of operation justify $500,000. Tweny? A hundred? 3) The railroad gets subisides. How much for how many riders? As far as the $25 million in repairs and upgrades, it sounds like another case of a state neglecting a property until the bill gets high enough to notice, then crying about it. Final poll reults: 1020 votes in total Keep Frostburg Run ( 751 ) 74 % Look For Another Route ( 101 ) 10 % Cease Operations ( 168 ) 16 % |
|
| Author: | Alexander D. Mitchell IV [ Thu Mar 03, 2005 6:23 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: WMSR newspaper poll |
Quote: 1) If I understand correctly, the $500,000 is the put the section of track back in. Why was it taken out in the first place? Was removal really necessary and if so is this money wasted due to poor planning?
As I understand it, yes. The plans for construction of the Allegheny Highlands Trail involved removing the track and then putting it back as it was. It wasn't until construction had already started (with said track removal) that the decision came down to eventually abandon operation in the area. Incidentally, the cost of relaying the damaged track is being viewed as a "waste" by quite a few of the locals, according to my sources. The problem is not spending $500K to relay the disrupted track; the problem is that the railroad had been operating on an annual subsidy of $250K or so from local government (supposedly siphoned from local hotel/tourism taxes/fees), and if the annual subsidy is being discontinued, why bother with spending $500K to repair the track? It's sort of as if Amtrak were being shut down while coaches or locomotives were on order--do you bother taking delivery? Ridership has flucuated around 20-40K over the years, but for simplicity call it 25,000. That's about $10 a passenger (be it fall foliage, dinner train, or photo charter). It's estimated that on average every passenger represents a night's stay in a local hotel/motel, although with double occupancy factored in (and someone like me, who just drives 2.5 hours straight home)........... I'm not sure where your $25 million figure comes from, but a harsh economic reality kicks in eventually: Just as with Steamtown, Cumbres & Toltec, etc., one has to decide whether the maintenance of a recreational transportation corridor is worth the expense, especially considering that a) none of the lines I mentioned have ANY freight to justify any other transportation needs, and b) said corridor is ONLY available to those lucky persons on rail vehicles--not cyclists, hikers, snowmobilers, etc. |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|