Saw on another board the D&H line from Voorheesville to Albany, NY has seen the first of its rails lifted to convert the intact railway infrastructure into a trail.

Rob

trains@robertjohndavis.com

> Saw on another board the D&H line from
> Voorheesville to Albany, NY has seen the
> first of its rails lifted to convert the
> intact railway infrastructure into a trail.

> Rob

"Intact" in the physical sense does not necessarily mean "useful" or having utility in the economic sense.

While I do not know if there had been any recent traffic on the segment you mention, I suspect that the current best and highest economic use of the former corridor of commerce is as a linear park.

The Rail-Trail lobby often cites the preservation of these linear rights-of-way as a reason for rail-to-trail conversion. They are quick to note that should the economic conditions require, it is comparatively easy to re-convert.

The "best and highest use" concept is at the core of many economic arguments. Gazing into the future -- saying that maybe, just maybe, there might possibly be some undetermined amount of future freight traffic from an unidentified shipper or that there will be a future demand for passenger service on a dormant rail route --usually is not sufficient to overcome the quantified arguments of competing interests (apparently the Rail-Trail crowd, in this case).

Once again, lurking in the middle of this issue are those pesky laws of economics, as well as the question "How do we know what we think we know?" If some Special Interest Group steps forward with forecast data based on good research, then they have a strong chance of prevailing.

The process serves to strip the emotions out of railroad preservation arguments.

amiller@rtms-movietrains.com

Art,

Don;t preach economics as a black and white issue when it comes to rail preservation. The fact is, will and way have proven over and over that they can override the logic of the un-fair market system.

I also humbly disagree about emotion and preservation. Take emotion out, and 3/4's of what's going right in our community fades.

As for "easy to convert" see your first point. Gone is gone, Art.

Rob

> "Intact" in the physical sense
> does not necessarily mean "useful"
> or having utility in the economic sense.

> While I do not know if there had been any
> recent traffic on the segment you mention, I
> suspect that the current best and highest
> economic use of the former corridor of
> commerce is as a linear park.

> The Rail-Trail lobby often cites the
> preservation of these linear rights-of-way
> as a reason for rail-to-trail conversion.
> They are quick to note that should the
> economic conditions require, it is
> comparatively easy to re-convert.

> The "best and highest use" concept
> is at the core of many economic arguments.
> Gazing into the future -- saying that maybe,
> just maybe, there might possibly be some
> undetermined amount of future freight
> traffic from an unidentified shipper or that
> there will be a future demand for passenger
> service on a dormant rail route --usually is
> not sufficient to overcome the quantified
> arguments of competing interests (apparently
> the Rail-Trail crowd, in this case).

> Once again, lurking in the middle of this
> issue are those pesky laws of economics, as
> well as the question "How do we know
> what we think we know?" If some Special
> Interest Group steps forward with forecast
> data based on good research, then they have
> a strong chance of prevailing.

> The process serves to strip the emotions out
> of railroad preservation arguments.

> I also humbly disagree about emotion and
> preservation. Take emotion out, and 3/4's of
> what's going right in our community fades.

And about 95% of what's going wrong in it.

> The fact is, will and way have proven over
> and over that they can override the logic of
> the un-fair (??) market system.

Can you cite examples where "will and way" have prevailed? RYPN is filled with tales of disassembled locomotives, truncated restoration projects, and locomotives, cabeese, and passenger cars rotting away in public parks. Though not stated, each one of these sad reports is a de facto admission that economic laws have governed. The operations that have been successful have had leaders (for many years, Robert and Joyce Soule @ TVRM) who gave unwaivering attention to the bottom line.

> I also humbly disagree about emotion and
> preservation. Take emotion out, and 3/4's of
> what's going right in our community fades.

I do not believe I called for a total removal of emotion and sentiment when it comes to rail preservation. Clearly, emotion has a place. But the dismal science of economics eventually rears its head, and it must eventually be addressed.

Additionally, I would respectfully point out that the line segment that is the subject of this discussion did not generate enough emotions to trigger:
(1.) formation of a Special Interest Group (SIG) dedicated to the line's preservation;
(2.) creation of a competing alternative use plan to compete with the Rail-Trail crowd; and
(3.) generation of sufficient polical support to give the railroad preservationist's plan an fair review.

> As for "easy to convert" see your
> first point. Gone is gone, Art.

I did not say I agreed with them. I just cited their argument.

The bottom line is, so far as I can determine in this case, no one stepped up to effectively refute the Rail-Trail SIG's claims.



amiller@rtms-movietrains.com

> The bottom line is, so far as I can
> determine in this case, no one stepped up to
> effectively refute the Rail-Trail SIG's
> claims.

But even when rail preservationists DO come forward with a sound plan (i.e. VTRail and the Lamoille Valley line ) it may not be enough.

The idea of turning "Rails-into-Trails" seems to have some kind of lure which comes into play while legislators are making up their minds about these proposals. Surely they win BIG brownie points at election time by being able to claim they ignored the SIG's (railroads and preservationists) and created a rail/trail.

So I suppose preservationists ought to forget the economics and create another, possibly "patriotic" counter-argument against trail conversion.

SJHussar@aol.com

> But even when rail preservationists DO come
> forward with a sound plan (i.e. VTRail and
> the Lamoille Valley line ) it may not be
> enough.

No SIG is guaranteed a win.
Points to ponder:
(1.) The battles you mention likely were lost long ago when core state and federal policies governing such matters were debated and installed.
(2.) The railroad preservationist movement's track record does not show much in the way of a unified national agenda and governmental liaison effort twenty years ago (or now, for that matter).
(3.) On balance, the rail-trail crowd now is more effective than railroad preservationists. Heck fire, they wrote the rules!

> The idea of turning
> "Rails-into-Trails" seems to have
> some kind of lure which comes into play
> while legislators are making up their minds
> about these proposals. Surely they win BIG
> brownie points at election time by being
> able to claim they ignored the SIG's
> (railroads and preservationists) and created
> a rail/trail.

You are spot-on when you cite the lure of rail-trail conversions. And railroad preservationists have not been able to regularly and routinely offer anything more compelling.

> So I suppose preservationists ought to
> forget the economics

Terrible idea! Will guarantee defeat.

> and create another,
> possibly "patriotic"
> counter-argument against trail conversion.

Not a bad idea. It could be part of the mix. However, it is based on emotion. And that has its limitations, in part imposed by our policy competitors. But we must give the Devil its due --- the rail-trail crowd is very adept at making their cases using pretty darn good economic impact data.

Back on May 19th, I wrote about active and passive policy restrictions. The rail-trail crowd knows this principle well, and long ago figured out how to play and win at the policy development game. Since they wrote the rules, their odds of winning are much better than railroad preservationists and historians.


amiller@rtms-movietrains.com

> No SIG is guaranteed a win.
> Points to ponder:
> (1.) The battles you mention likely were
> lost long ago when core state and federal
> policies governing such matters were debated
> and installed.
> (2.) The railroad preservationist movement's
> track record does not show much in the way
> of a unified national agenda and
> governmental liaison effort twenty years ago
> (or now, for that matter).

> You are spot-on when you cite the lure of
> rail-trail conversions. And railroad
> preservationists have not been able to
> regularly and routinely offer anything more
> compelling.

Good Post!

The argument by preservationists is usually based on how nice it is or was to have the railroad there, or how historic it is (usually it isn't) or that someday some customers might come along And want freight service. They can't quantify any of it, of course.

I think this all goes back to the old argument that by trying to save everything, no matter how worthy or unworthy, you end up diluting your efforts to the point that you end up saving almost nothing.

At the risk of being branded a heretic, I admit to using and enjoying rail trails here in Ohio. My family and I ride our bikes on them often during the summer months. I think that overall using former railroad right of ways for bike paths is a good idea and actually helps in railroad preservation awareness. Many of the bike paths weÂ’ve traveled have historical references to the lines the paths traverse. The Kokosing Gap trail in Mount Vernon and the B&O trail in Belleville both reference their rail history. And when you travel through Gambier Ohio on the Kokosing you will pass by a locomotive and restored C&O caboose. Many of the support buildings and restroom facilities along these trails either use or are built to resemble railway buildings and or railway type architecture. The rebuilt depot in Yellow Springs, OH and the Xenia Depot are great examples.

One of the things I really enjoy is the ability to travel old right of ways – safely and at my leisure. My wife, daughter and I can ride our bikes along shaded trails with no steep grades. We also don’t have to contend with the dangers of automobile traffic.

Perhaps both the rails to trails groups and the railway preservationists would do service to all to work TOGETHER rather than view one another as adversaries. Do you know the history of a local rail trail? Why not work to share that history with the travelers sharing your knowledge with those whom ride there. ItÂ’s a great opportunity to get people interested in railway history and possibly get interest into your own preservation project. The Kokosing Gap group opens up their caboose to tours and raises funds by sells t-shirts and other novelty items. People stop to see the caboose and locomotive and get an interesting history on the rolling stock and rail line. It gives them a better appreciation for the right of way and the impact of railroads to the region.

I think youÂ’ll find that many in the Rails to Trails conservation arena are pro-rails and look to save these right-of-ways rather than have them become overgrown and otherwise destroyed. But like everything in life there is good and there is bad. Putting up a fence along the Western Maryland would be a disaster to that operation, especially since there is a great place to ride along the Potomac on the C&O Canal path.


Kokosing Gap Trail

greg@nospamskittercreek.com

Heretic? No way. I enjoy rail-tails, too. They are a great option for roadbeds already abandoned. In fact, next to active rail service being restored, they are the best option for lines already scrapped.

The issue, IMHO, is when the trail groups go after exisitng lines (like trail victories on the St J, D&H Albany Branch, and the thankful defeat on the VRS in Bennington).

Unlike Art's and RE's view, I say intact infrastructure is worth keeping in tact, as replacement will always attract considerable costs -- even of just the NIMBY kind.

There are plenty of abandoned ROWs to make into trails, before more rail gets lifted.

Rob

trains@robertjohndavis.com

Thank you for your reasoned support AND for the link to the outstanding Kokosing Trail website. From a railroad history interpretation and equipment preservation perspective, the trail organization seems to have done as well as, or better than, many rail museums!

The expansive Ohio rail-trail system is a prime example of how rail-trail advocates conducted an effective governmental liaison campaign, influenced state policies, and accomplished their objectives. Those interested in railroad preservation FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES would do well to review how Ohio's numerous trails were created. We could learn a lot.

If memory serves correct, Ohio can trace its rail-trail system growth to Governor Voinovich and OhDOT Administrator Jolene Molitoris. Ms. Molitoris later became Administrator of the U.S. Federal Railroad Administration. Not since the Claytors have railroad historians and preservationists had equally influential friends in high places.

How one saves an intact rail line FOR PURELY SPECULATIVE FUTURE FREIGHT OR PASSENGER TRAFFIC is a much tougher proposition. The policy "signals" are set against you.

[PS: By using caps I am not shouting. The RYPN email program just does not have an underlining option I could find to point out a critical difference.]



amiller@rtms-movietrains.com

> How one saves an intact rail line FOR PURELY
> SPECULATIVE FUTURE FREIGHT OR PASSENGER
> TRAFFIC is a much tougher proposition. The
> policy "signals" are set against
> you.

> [PS: By using caps I am not shouting. The
> RYPN email program just does not have an
> underlining option I could find to point out
> a critical difference.]

I think you've clarified the real problem by stating "purely speculative". I think it has to do with WHO (yea, that underline thing would be nice) wants to save the rails and WHY. We need to seperate the logical reasons from the emotional ones. We all hate to see lines destroyed but there is a reason why railways abandon lines to begin with, usually financial reasons. I think we're going to see continued loss of branch lines as railroads become more long haul oriented. Unlike 100 years ago, it doesn't make sense to ship a car load of goods across state when a truck can handle it (puts on flame retardent suit). But I also think it makes more sense to send freight by rail across country as UPS does.

If it makes financial and logical sense to save a rail line then making a sound arguement based on the facts will go a long way in getting the support of local businesses, governments and state legislatures. A case in point is the Pennsy Panhandle between the Ohio River and Columbus. There are many cities and industries that would not have access to rail if the communities and the state didn't realize the potential this line had and the impact to local economies. Conrail had this line scheduled for abandonement and destruction, but lucky for the many industries and communities involved, this line was saved. It was saved based on financial and economic reasons, not because of the historical reasons we appreciate. Because the economical and financial impact was raised in its defense, this line continues to be an important life line to the communities and industries along this line served by the Ohio Central System.

We can't count on historical importance alone to keep tracks in place, if we want to save rail lines, there needs to be a financial return and an economical impact.

On the other hand, it's much easier to convert a bike path back to a rail line than it would be a completely abandoned line that is re-developed with buildings and other major changes including reverting to other land owners.

If there is enough financial and economic impact and potential for tax generating revenues, don't think the government wouldn't lay tracks back in a heart beat. They would rather have the tax dollars coming in than putting them out for a recreational trail.

G

greg@nospamskittercreek.com

Just a note from someone who did not take the time to look at population desity maps, current (car) commuter volumes, etc.:
The "Albany Main" ran through three bedroom communities of Albany NY - Delmar, Voorheesville, and Altamont - before continuing on to rejoin the D&H main line. Many in these communities work in the city of Albany, and the vast majority drive.

To my knowledge, there was no study published by the Capital District Transportation Authority (bus Authority?) or the Capital Region Transportation Planning Commission regarding the use of the line as a rail commuter line. There also has been no major media coverage of the demise of the line. I do not know if there were any proposals developed by the local NRHS chapter or the Empire State Passenger Association.

Unfortunate, as it seemed as it would have been a nice little rail commuter avenue into downtown Albany (with access to Amtrak in Rensselaer).

Regarding the bottom line: we will drive in our cars until the price of gas is prohibitively expensive; what then? We move back into the cities, or develop commuter systems, or...?

> Can you cite examples where "will and
> way" have prevailed? RYPN is filled
> with tales of disassembled locomotives,
> truncated restoration projects, and
> locomotives, cabeese, and passenger cars
> rotting away in public parks. Though not
> stated, each one of these sad reports is a
> de facto admission that economic laws have
> governed. The operations that have been
> successful have had leaders (for many years,
> Robert and Joyce Soule @ TVRM) who gave
> unwaivering attention to the bottom line.

> I do not believe I called for a total
> removal of emotion and sentiment when it
> comes to rail preservation. Clearly, emotion
> has a place. But the dismal science of
> economics eventually rears its head, and it
> must eventually be addressed.

> Additionally, I would respectfully point out
> that the line segment that is the subject of
> this discussion did not generate enough
> emotions to trigger:
> (1.) formation of a Special Interest Group
> (SIG) dedicated to the line's preservation;
> (2.) creation of a competing alternative use
> plan to compete with the Rail-Trail crowd;
> and
> (3.) generation of sufficient polical
> support to give the railroad
> preservationist's plan an fair review.

> I did not say I agreed with them. I just
> cited their argument.

> The bottom line is, so far as I can
> determine in this case, no one stepped up to
> effectively refute the Rail-Trail SIG's
> claims.


smallgoalie-NOSPAM-@hotmail.com

smallgoalie --- thanks for the info. Really shows how derelict we've been in protecting infrastructure.

sincerely,
fat left winger

> Just a note from someone who did not take
> the time to look at population desity maps,
> current (car) commuter volumes, etc.:
> The "Albany Main" ran through
> three bedroom communities of Albany NY -
> Delmar, Voorheesville, and Altamont - before
> continuing on to rejoin the D&H main
> line. Many in these communities work in the
> city of Albany, and the vast majority drive.

> To my knowledge, there was no study
> published by the Capital District
> Transportation Authority (bus Authority?) or
> the Capital Region Transportation Planning
> Commission regarding the use of the line as
> a rail commuter line. There also has been no
> major media coverage of the demise of the
> line. I do not know if there were any
> proposals developed by the local NRHS
> chapter or the Empire State Passenger
> Association.

> Unfortunate, as it seemed as it would have
> been a nice little rail commuter avenue into
> downtown Albany (with access to Amtrak in
> Rensselaer).

> Regarding the bottom line: we will drive in
> our cars until the price of gas is
> prohibitively expensive; what then? We move
> back into the cities, or develop commuter
> systems, or...?


trains@robertjohndavis.com

> smallgoalie --- thanks for the info. Really
> shows how derelict we've been in protecting
> infrastructure.

> sincerely,
> fat left winger

It is interesting to see this topic resurface. The only real way to forecast demand is to go ask -- design and conduct scientific surveys, tabulate the results, and let the numbers guide your way.

Things that seem to make intuitive sense to rail propoents often are not. Just review the Tennessee State Senate Committee's 1988 preliminary commuter rail feasibility study for Nashville. (Newspaper clippings are available if anyone is interested. Contact me off-post.)

In spite of what then seemed to be slam-dunks turned out to be not of much interest to surveyed motorists and other commuters. And they are still not.

Even with the expenditure of some $340 million on major Mashville area interstate highway construction projects and increasing congestion, we have to face this fact ---

Americans love our cars.


amiller@rtms-movietrains.com