From Trains Newswire:
"A small town in Upstate New York has voted down a measure to tear up state-owned track operated by the Adirondack Scenic Railroad, the Adirondack Daily Enterprise reports. On Monday night, the Saranac Lake Board of Trustees voted on a measure that would have directed the state to convert the rail line between Lake Placid and Old Forge into a multi-use recreational trail. Trustee Allie Pelletieri proposed the resolution and says the seasonal tourist trains has not brought economic benefits to the area and that a recreational trail would become a major tourist destination throughout the year.'

http://trn.trains.com/en/Railroad%20News/News%20Wire/2013/09/New%20York%20town%20votes%20down%20rails%20to%20trails%20resolution.aspx

More detailed local coverage here:

http://www.adirondackdailyenterprise.com/page/content.detail/id/539063/Saranac-Lake-board-votes-down-rails-to-trail-resolution.html?nav=5239

And alas, nearby Tupper Lake has voted for a trail:

http://www.adirondackdailyenterprise.co ... l?nav=5008

Actually, this is kind of interesting. What are these towns going to do, being so close together on the same line? Do we have the makings of a local civil war?

A local person commenting on this on the "Next Stop Tupper Lake!" (Facebook site) said, "I believe that they already passed a similar resolution last year. This was expected." Still, I would be worried. The reason for this rail criticism is that a lot of people are disappointed that the railroads (Adirondack Scenic and Catskill Mountain) haven't made as rapid progress in reopening lines as they would like to see.

It's also disappointing because Tupper Lake has a new, replica station waiting for trains. That would be a colossal waste in my opinion.

Of course, I would argue, particularly in the Catskill Mountain case, that the trail people wouldn't do as well if they used only volunteers and whatever money they could scrape up (the trail proposals both would use public money). In addition to that, the trail people have also "sandbagged" the railroad in their studies; as an example, one study puts the cost of restoring a railroad at over $750,000 per mile. Read the fine print, and that's for all-new track material, something not needed on either railroad.

In any event, this is another example of how the things we want to accomplish are tougher than what other people try to do, and often unnecessarily so, thanks to being, shall we say, under-appreciated (the terms I would normally use are, at least temporarily, not too popular with an administrator here).

"The reason for this rail criticism is that a lot of people are disappointed that the railroads (Adirondack Scenic and Catskill Mountain) haven't made as rapid progress in reopening lines as they would like to see".

Maybe if the local government was as willing to spend a box car load of money to help the railroads as they are to subsidize a non-revenue generating hiking trail, there would be more "rapid progress in reopening lines as they would like to see".

WM 303- Well stated; here in NJ we've also seen local government try to put a tourist operation, having great potential to solve some severe auto traffic problems, right out of business. Governments simply don't think and plan ahead, especially when it comes to rail services.

Off the topic of preservation and into brass tacks.
I think the issue of subsidizing trails versus rails harkens back to the advent of the federal funding of the interstate highway system and these examples are a microcosm of that issue that remains with us today, which is a balanced transportation system in regard to public choices, etc. This is in relation to public versus private funding. Volunteers versus paid services.
Looking at these bicycle trails, one thing that struck me was they are seasonal in nature, especially in the northern climes. Another is they are recreational. I don't think any reasonable person would say bicycles are a more pragmatic option that the other associated uses for rail, especially when the examples are counted in some pretty significant distances. You could say a horse is a more viable option for all season use.
In light of economic development that is sorely needed in these areas, the subsidizing of bicycle paths seems a counter-intuitive choice for subsidies as a public transport option.
A local economy based on bicycles seems a poor choice for real economic development as far as the dual use of rail for freight hauling and passenger service.
In essence, its about private versus public options..the same equation led us into the automobile era with it's issues. Probably I am the only one that sees a sort of narcissistic attitude coming from the rail to trails crowd. All or nothing and paid for with the public purse.
In light of our economic situation, subsidized bike paths are a lunacy.

Follow the money. Where there's State or Federal grants available for trail construction, there's always someone trying to get their hands on it

Is there someone from the railroad that is willing to post ridership numbers? You can always call the NY State Tourism and find out how to calculate the amount of ridership to economic impact to the area. Unless "we" as railroad people start coming up with the economic numbers to support our trains, the rails to trails people are beating us because they can state those numbers just like its gospel.

SMH

As far as I know there is no arms length certification of any numbers in terms of usage although I could be wrong

I have dealt with a few rails to trails people.....narcissistic is probably a probably a pretty mild description of them.....personally, I like "rabid". My personal opinion of bike trails is that they are a waste of time and money. They do not ever make money, they are only a continuing maintenance cost... a drain on "public" money.
I've lost count of the number of times I've seen the same people who advocate these trails riding their bikes on the road, while being maybe 20ft from a paved trail. The truth is, those who do the bike races,etc. The serious Bicyclists, they don't use the trails.
I've also seen how dishonest they are concerning numbers and usage. For example, I've seen them counting "trail" users.....each person who steps on the trail is counted as a user, even when you are only crossing it to get to some other destination. I myself have been counted like that several times.The true usage numbers are under 50% of what they claim, probably closer to 25%. Also, here probably as with most places, most of the use of the trail is within city limits, or perhaps a mile of the parking area.
If they truly wanted an effective "trail" system, they should widen the side walks and perhaps pave bike lanes on the sides of existing roads. That would be a more effective use of public funds. It would also help reduce traffic problems caused by the bikes. Of course, it would also free up rights of way that would be better used to provide transportation alternatives to cars.....things like Trolleys and commuter trains.

Ok, I'm done with my rant.....and yes, I'm a trail hater and I'm bitter!

" . . . and yes, I'm a trail hater . . . "

Wouldn't have guessed that!

Well, normally I'm not one to hate....but all this talk about those bike trail people gets me fired up!

Dishonest about numbers? I'll let you decide whether the numbers themselves are "honest" or not. I do have some serious criticisms of these "trail studies." All of these are in regard to Catskill Mountain:

First, a "memorandum" by the county:

http://www.ulstercountyny.gov/planning/ ... o_cmrt.pdf

From the memorandum:

1. Physical Constraints

An examination of the physical constraints in the corridor shows that for numerous locations in the Kingston to Ashokan Reservoir section, the placement of rail bed in underpasses, rock cuts and on benched side slopes would require costly divergence and/or fill sections to accommodate theRWT. The use of retaining walls and associated fencing would be extensive. To overcome these physical
constraints there would be significant engineering and associated construction costs which would be prohibitive. Other physical constraints include the need to relocate or avoid utility infrastructure such as electric and telephone lines, business activities and parking areas. Existing underpasses through which the rail passes would force additional divergence and create at-grade crossings at Albany Ave. and Elemendorf Street that do not exist now.

My response--not necessarily true. Some places might require money, others might required a little more creativity. The street underpasses provide an excellent example, and the Western Maryland Scenic provides the precedent, along with street running--namely, share the underpasses by paving the track (like a street railway). Those underpasses are far shorter than any tunnel, and it's not like we're running the Acela here.

From the memorandum:

2. Environmental Constraints
The physical constraints present a myriad of environmental issues that would be difficult to overcome. These include wetland encroachment, increased drainage, and extensive clearing of trees in endangered species habitat areas. The additional disturbed area and changes in slopes would effect drainage already a challenge in the
corridor. Culvert extensions and relocation and redirection of existing swales along with new drainage structures would be necessary and present additional obstacles.

Vegetative clearance cannot be taken lightly. Issues related to habitat loss would require environmental permits and additional clearing would impact adjoining properties visually and also increase noise. The preservation of historic structures would present challenges, as modifications would be necessary to accommodate the RWT option.

These significant environmental factors and associated costs are not present in the trail only option that uses the existing disturbed footprint.

My response--If these were the serious problems the author of this report makes them to be, we would never build another road, widen another road, or even build a new subdivision or shopping center. Can we call this "making a mountain out of a mole-hill?"

3. Funding
Rail funding is extremely limited at all levels and generally confined to safety considerations rather than maintenance of trackage. The lack of federal resources also significantly impacts the ability to implement a RWT that would require extensive infrastructure costs to accomplish. A trail only option has funding sources.
The recent inclusion of $2,000,000 in the 2013 NY State budget can accomplish a significant portion of the trail if constructed on the existing rail bed. An additional $1,000,000 remains secured through the NYS Legislature and controlled by NYSDOT for trails along the U&D corridor. This funding is not available for rail. The Ulster County Transportation Council has been able to program NYSDOT funds with existing federal funding at an 80% match that can be used for the first, and most costly, segment of trail.

My response--"We don't get no. . .," no, I won't say it (at least for now), but this sure does show the double standard any railroad has to face. Whether it's Amtrak, a subway or light rail line or other commuter operation, a freight road, or our heritage roads, if it doesn't make money, it's supposed to go away. That doesn't apply to the road system or the air system; the Essential Air Service can subsidize some flights at a cost per passenger that is, no pun intended, in the stratosphere, while the road system has a cost recovery ratio in the 50% range based on cash flow, while Amtrak has an operating cost recovery (not including capital) of 88%.

Back to the memorandum:

4. Public Benefit
Taken as a whole, the rail operation with restrictions on public use across its entire length offers few if any public benefits, its economic impact is minimal, and for large segments of the line, CMRR has lost the battle to preserve the right-of-way. It is undeniable that the current situation fails to meet the goals established for the
corridor. The goal of the original purchase in 1979 was not focused on saving a railroad but rather using the railroad for economic development with a major tourist
railroad acting as a catalyst. Trail use has gained significant support and user base and is now understood as having significant economic development benefits. Figure 1 shows the costs and revenues of the U&D Railroad lease to CMRR for the current lease period. Taxpayer investment in the U&D amounts to almost $5,000,000. In contrast for the period of the lease to present, CMRR has paid the County slightly more than $34,000.00 in the last 22 years.

Initial comment: Supposedly Ulster County has something like 500 miles of trail now. If those miles of trail are such an economic boost, why does Ulster County have the unemployment and poverty problems it does? How will this trail be different from the other 500 miles?

And what about that $5 million dollar "investment?" Hrrumph, the county paid $1.5 million years ago, and its "investment" came from simply sitting on it. The county didn't put any money into it, what has gone in has been almost entirely from the pockets and sweat of the Catskill Mountain people. There are even some comments that I haven't been able to confirm that the county didn't even lay out the cash for the railroad, but took in in lieu of taxes.

There is also the question of the admittedly minimal rent paid by the railroad. It would be nice for that to be higher--but when the railroad goes away, so does the maintenance they perform on it. Much of that is still going to be required for a trail; trees try to grow into the light above your right of way and must be kept trimmed, some of them fall and have to be removed, weeds grow into your ditches and clog them, culverts need to be kept clear, bridges need their maintenance, as do tunnels where they are present--and that's all the same, whether the top surface is a railroad, a trail, or a secondary road. My guess is that this will run about $1,000 per mile per year. Can the county afford another $38,000 per year for this?

This is in addition to the cost of trail conversion. Doing that job right could cost up to $1 million per mile. Why? The State of West Virginia found out that if you don't scrape the ballast down and repack it, and sometimes part of the roadbed, too, you can still get shadows from the ties, thanks to trains compressing the ground under the former tie locations. I've seen this personally where a railroad had become a road in Ohio (actually, more like a driveway to several houses); the road had shallow ditches a bit less than a foot wide and a foot apart, about 8 feet long, running across it. This was on a line that had been "converted" at least 20 years earlier.

From the memorandum:

Ridership figures available from 2006 to present show that the peak was approximately 12,300 in 2010. In 2012 approximately three-quarters of CMRR’s ridership took place on the Esopus Scenic Train at Mt. Tremper. This ridership can be compared to the estimated 81,000 users of the Hurley Rail Trail. . .Train operations are highly seasonal. An examination of the posted 2013 operational schedule for CMRR shows that the operating period is expected to be up to a total of 49 days for the Mt. Tremper Esopus
Scenic Train and the Kingston sections.Finally, a close look at the map of the rail corridor reveals that rail operations are not only limited in duration but also in geographic extent. Rail operations open to the public constitute less than 5 miles of
the 38 mile corridor.

Response: This is merely a description of the status quo. How much would that change if the railroad were all opened? How rapidly would that change with a fraction of the money that is proposed for the trail conversion?

Here's a study, partially paid for by some rich fellow who has connections to Facebook:

http://www.ulstercountyny.gov/planning/ ... o_cmrt.pdf

Two main complaints from me:

1. This has been brought up before, but how good are those predictions, really? How good are those counts? How prosperous would Ulster County become, and how prosperous, really, are the other locations?

2. The railroad isn't mentioned at all. It's as if it doesn't exist. If I were doing this, I would have covered this, simply to avoid someone else--like me--claiming the study is grossly incomplete without noting that something else is there now, and on top of that, it pays its own bills!

Here's the railroad's study; be sure and check out the appendixes, too.

http://catskillmtrailroad.com/reports/C ... MP3-11.pdf

An interesting observation: This study is by far the most detailed from an engineering standpoint, yet commentors in the newspaper there have criticized it for not having adequate cost information and for the use of older maps as a base, supposedly not covering the relocation of utilities.

Like I said, we don't get no. . .no, I won't say it, not for now, anyway. . .

Floor open for additional commentary. . .

A couple of comments and corrections....

First, the Remsen-Lake Placid corridor is already extensively used for snowmobiling during the winter, we're not talking just a bike trail. The 'problem' is, as you might think, that the early and late season is waiting for sufficient snow to completely cover the tracks to allow safe use of the corridor. That typically is about two weeks on the front and two weeks on the rear. They've been doing this since before the corridor was reopened for rail use, and restoration of the bridges and washouts helped the snowmobilers a lot already. It's a big market. The snowmobile-trail coalition is trying to push the point that those four weeks just because the rails are in there are enough to justify pulling them out. So it's already used as a trail in the winter, and they are getting significant impact already. Other than those contested weeks, the uses have been coexisting rather nicely in the past. You have to read reports carefully to make sure that snowmobile impacts from track removal are limited to only that limited timeframe - not the entire season, because the rest is already there.

Similarly, while the trail concept without competition may be interesting, the Adirondacks are already laced with trails, and some existing rail trails. There's a beauty at http://www.bikethebyways.org/adirondack-trail/ Predicting massive new economic impacts when this is not really a new market is highly subjective.

The second thing that has happened - that is definitely a 'trigger' on New York State in particular, has been the success of the Poughkeepsie Bridge project; 'walkway over the Hudson'. Calling it a 'trail', while its really a bridge, has had the seemingly innocent impact of classifying the results as a trail project that got everybody's attention. It's incredible, I've walked it, but it has very little if anything to do with a typical rails-to-trails project. Yet the numbers are being shaded that way. In the Catskills in particular, you'll see a lot of justification about extending connections to the bridge project as if that's the destination linkage. The big numbers on that make trails look magic. If you can throw that average into your statistics for trail use (without disclosure) it's become a killer project to justify all trails everywhere.

Even way out here in the boondocks, without a trail to connect it, the Kinzua Bridge got over 100,000 visitors a year just to walk across it - before the tornado took it down. So there's an appeal there for sure, but it's not a trail.

One thing that's being actively ignored in NY is that the entire Adirondack corridor is on the state historic register, tracks and all, as it was done to qualify the line for TEA-21 funding for FRA III track upgrade to Old Forge; one criteria is that it had to be eligible, so it was placed on it back in 1993. Stand by for full comprehension of that factoid. Register nomination and placement (and it is confirmed, you can see it on the NY State list online) is supposed to PREVENT government destruction of historic assets, that's why it was started to begin with. So this conflict, sooner or later, will have national implications on what can or can't be done with a register-nominated property or asset.

It seems all this is based on propagandizing rather than verifiable numbers. Snowmobile use included although again it comes down to the greater public good in terms of recreational use subsidized by taxing maintenance costs etc. in terms of volunteered labor donated funds etc rail in most cases wins hands down. This aspect seems to have been lost in all the contention