| Railway Preservation News https://www.rypn.org/forums/ |
|
| A dose of trail reality.........
https://www.rypn.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=9919 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | Jim Templin [ Mon Jun 07, 2004 10:36 pm ] |
| Post subject: | A dose of trail reality......... |
Newspiece critical of trail use and funding....... http://www.nwanews.com/adg/story_arkans ... ryid=66886 Biking, Walking preferred by few... |
|
| Author: | Art Miller [ Tue Jun 08, 2004 6:59 am ] |
| Post subject: | Apples v. Oranges |
"Fayetteville has a 20-year plan to develop about 128 miles of trails and bike lanes alongside streets...." "...creating trails and bike lanes..." "...right of way to build trails near new subdivisions." _______________________ Not long ago, I wrote here that when it comes to linking economic analyses and political policy development, details are important. That is the case here. The linked article was about replacing auto transportation with bicycles, not rail-trails. Three key quotes are reproduced above. Understand that bike lanes, placed next to vehicular traffic, are an entirely different critter than a rail-trail. The public's collective interest in a rail-trail is much different than its interest in getting all hot an funky pedalling 10 miles to work and back every day. The rail-trail rider and the bicycle commuter are two vastly different market segments. Respectfully, the linked article presents does not speak directly to rail-trail conversion issues previously raised. amiller@rtms-movietrains.com |
|
| Author: | Dave Brown [ Tue Jun 08, 2004 7:17 am ] |
| Post subject: | On the other side of the coin.... |
As of this month, it will be one year ago that the SP 4449 and SP&S 700 ran double headed and solo pulling trains at the Grand Opening of Portland, Oregons "Springwater Rail and Trail". The operation of these locomotives wouldn't have been possible just five years ago as the former interurban rails were to light and in very bad shape. Part of the agreement of the trail was that the railroad was moved over to use the former double track ROW so the trail could be beside the river and that the ROW be seperated by a chain link fence and underpasses. 4000 tickets were sold the one day of operations. From the train, the trail doesn't impede any view. It actually brings human interaction with those on the trail. I've been told the view from the cab is wonderfull (think girls on roller blades, bikes, etc.!). This trail is probably the third most used in the city. It's only behind the two waterfront trails in downtown. I have nothing but praise for "our" "Rail and Trail". Dave Brown |
|
| Author: | Greg Schultz [ Tue Jun 08, 2004 9:20 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: On the other side of the coin.... |
> As of this month, it will be one year ago > that the SP 4449 and SP&S 700 ran double > headed and solo pulling trains at the Grand > Opening of Portland, Oregons > "Springwater Rail and Trail". The > operation of these locomotives wouldn't have > been possible just five years ago as the > former interurban rails were to light and in > very bad shape. Part of the agreement of the > trail was that the railroad was moved over > to use the former double track ROW so the > trail could be beside the river and that the > ROW be seperated by a chain link fence and > underpasses. > 4000 tickets were sold the one day of > operations. > From the train, the trail doesn't impede any > view. It actually brings human interaction > with those on the trail. I've been told the > view from the cab is wonderfull (think girls > on roller blades, bikes, etc.!). > This trail is probably the third most used > in the city. It's only behind the two > waterfront trails in downtown. > I have nothing but praise for > "our" "Rail and Trail". > Dave Brown The Columbus & Ohio River Line of the Ohio Central has a bike path parallel their track from Newark east about 11 miles. From the train there really isn't much of an impact to the passengers' view especially since most is in an urban setting. The downside is the affect to the track maintenance guys. Part of this line goes through a very narrow cut and in order to remove ties, they have to remove the fence to do so. This increases the amount of work required to do track maintenance. Even outside of the narrows it limits the ability to perform track maintenance. Another downside to having a trail so close in proximity to an active right of way is that I don't think that chain link fence will stop the train from encroaching on the bike path if, (GOD forbid) there's ever a derailment. The unknown is what will litigation decide if someone is ever harmed in such an occurance. If the railroad objects over sharing the line will this save them from litigation? In today's courts it's doubtful. G greg@nospamskittercreek.com |
|
| Author: | Tim O [ Tue Jun 08, 2004 10:11 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: On the other side of the coin.... |
In the Scranton area and North, parts of the CNJ Mainline, NYO&W Scranton Branch and D&H Jefferson RR are now trails, and I have rarely seen anyone use them. When you do see a person, it is a strange feeling. If they were better patronized, a friendlier atmosphere would develop. The lakes and parks have much friendlier trails. In my opinion, even when the rail line has been abandoned, the Rail-Trail idea is a bust. Bring back the trains. mustang746@mac.com |
|
| Author: | Jim Templin [ Tue Jun 08, 2004 10:33 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Apples v. Oranges |
> "Fayetteville has a 20-year plan to > develop about 128 miles of trails and bike > lanes alongside streets...." > "...creating trails and bike > lanes..." > "...right of way to build trails near > new subdivisions." > _______________________ > Not long ago, I wrote here that when it > comes to linking economic analyses and > political policy development, details are > important. That is the case here. > The linked article was about replacing auto > transportation with bicycles, not > rail-trails. Three key quotes are reproduced > above. > Understand that bike lanes, placed next to > vehicular traffic, are an entirely different > critter than a rail-trail. The public's > collective interest in a rail-trail is much > different than its interest in getting all > hot an funky pedalling 10 miles to work and > back every day. > The rail-trail rider and the bicycle > commuter are two vastly different market > segments. > Respectfully, the linked article presents > does not speak directly to rail-trail > conversion issues previously raised. So what you are saying is that a trail that just happens to be on top of an old railroad right of way will be hugely patronized, while a dedicated, "non rail" trail won't? People are either using trails or they are not, no matter where the ROW came from. In an earlier discussion, a rails to trails success was cited in Lynchburg. What is the difference? The article addresses the reality that trails, no matter if they are rail trails, new bike paths, or glorified sidewalks are overfunded and underutilized. For Pete's Sake, Fayetteville is a collage town, which seems to me the absolute perfect type of community where walking trails would be popular. The only real alternative to the automobile in a bonafide transit situation is a streetcar, and I for one would rather see money invested in small, circulator systems than wasted on trails that will see little legitimate use, and eventually become hangouts for undesirables. BTW many of the proposed trails mentioned ARE infact, to be built on old RR ROWs. If rails to trails is a legitimate tool to preserve railroad corridors for future need, then let it be genuine railbanking, and leave the track in place. Biking, Walking preferred by few... |
|
| Author: | Rob Davis [ Tue Jun 08, 2004 10:57 am ] |
| Post subject: | exactly |
> If rails to trails is a legitimate tool to > preserve railroad corridors for future need, > then let it be genuine railbanking, and > leave the track in place. Exactly, Jim. And if the trail is a corridor that will potentially be useful for local transportation, proved rail service (streetcar, diesel car, or steam train as some Brit lines do) so that the value fo the transportation is available to all in the community, not just those who are physicall able to walk or bike. I strongly believe that a key to preservation of rail corridors is their use as... stand back... rail corridors! If we can move to a more socially-focused society, I am sure the notion of gov't funded light density rail service will be on the front burner... especially if we really are on the downward side of the oil economy arc. All of this is why I decried the end of Vermont's budding commuter rail. It was absolutely brilliant, bold and plain-old smart to start a commuter service to SEED the idea, rather than wait until traffic was so bad it became an emergency situation. Couldn't the same have been true of many lightly used lines that have hit the scrapper? Do we NEED to do everything as fancy as NJ Transit's new DMU River LINE? No way. A couple of DMU's could provide service on lightly used lines that are trail candidates. In England, several preservation outfits have been started in the past few years to save local rail lines... thier plans? Provide DMU service that is as much for local service as it is for tourists. Then, slowly expand the stock to include steam trains and more toruist-only services, while never giving up the community transport scheme. It is as brillaint as what Vermont tried, and even better since the myopia of the new anti-rail VT government has not taken root in these British examples. Rob trains@robertjohndavis.com |
|
| Author: | Mark Oles [ Tue Jun 08, 2004 12:52 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: On the other side of the coin.... |
In urban and heavily built up suburban areas, rail trails make a lot of sense, and are deserving of every dollar. I don't know how many of you are active cyclists, but I used to be very active. I have not ridden on the roads as much over the last few years because people are just not good at driving cars and sharing the road with pedestrians and bicylcists. The rail trail provides a safe place for cylcists to ride without much worrying about if the driver coming up behind them is going to leave enough space. And its not just the kids. Actually, I think the new drivers are the more aware of other vehicles on the road than those of us who have become complacent behind the wheel. It would be nice if the rail line were preserved, but only if there is a good reason to do so. Just preserving it for 'just in case' is even worse use of funding than putting down asphalt. And to be honest, most of the rail lines that are removed have been inactive for such a long time that parts of the right of way have already been sold, so reactivation is not an option. As for getting all funky riding to work, if I had a decent road network that had wide enough shoulders and I was confident that the drivers on the road would offer me the same respect as any other vehicle, I would do it. Its 25 miles each way, so that's a good hour commute. Compared with 35-40 minutes in my car. Would I do it every day? Possibly. There are showering facilities at work, so that's not a problem. I think the most sucessful rail trails have a lot in common with the more successful tourist railroads. I have heard of resturants that have opened along rail trails and other places with no automobile access. These resturants were only accessable by foot or bicycle, and therefore, it became a destination. Half the fun was getting there. Does that sound familiar to anyone? markoles@hotmail.com |
|
| Author: | Art Miller [ Tue Jun 08, 2004 1:07 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Another Dose of Reality: Settling for the Crums |
___________________ "If we can move to a more socially-focused society," "...which seems to me..." "In my opinion..." ___________________ RYPN colleagues wrote the above lines in posts not far above. (And in the course of the discussions they did raise very good and valid points of view and made reasoned statements that should be of interest to most RYPN participants.) However, my old rational empiricist genes have reappeared (they were honed to a fine edged during my grad school days). And that philosophy, plus lots of experience in economic analyses and development issues, leads me to make the following observations: (1.) What rail-trail proponents have done is to back up their opinions and views of the future with supportive facts and figures. They have developed a reputation for "doing pretty good science." (2.) The fact remains that railroad preservationsts simply have not done as well as the rail-trail bunch when it comes to making arguments based in the dismal quantitative world of benefit:cost analyses. (3.) Ergo, more often than not, in the policy arena, the rail-trail crowd has prevailed railroad preservationists. As earlier noted, they helped write the rules of the game! Duhhh. No wonder they win (they claim 1000 miles of new trails every year!). Until railroad historians and preservationists decide to get meaningfully and substantially involved in the big leagues of policy formation, we will have to be content to wring our hands and take the crums left over by those better organized. amiller@rtms-movietrains.com |
|
| Author: | Cliff McKay [ Tue Jun 08, 2004 1:08 pm ] |
| Post subject: | DMU's |
> A couple of DMU's could provide service on > lightly used lines that are trail > candidates. Just a link for those who don't know what a DMU is. http://www.coloradorailcar.com/dmuhome.htm mckay1995@comcast.net |
|
| Author: | o anderson [ Tue Jun 08, 2004 8:21 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: On the other side of the coin.... *PIC* |
>These resturants were only > accessable by foot or bicycle, and > therefore, it became a destination. Half the > fun was getting there. Does that sound > familiar to anyone? The West Point Inn on the Mt Tamalpais and Muir Woods Ry is probably the one of the oldest operations of this kind. Mountain bikers have replaced shays and gravity cars. Remote hiking trails remain for the pedestrian. The West Point Inn 
|
|
| Author: | Dennis Storzek [ Wed Jun 09, 2004 8:55 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Apples v. Oranges |
> Understand that bike lanes, placed next to > vehicular traffic, are an entirely different > critter than a rail-trail. The public's > collective interest in a rail-trail is much > different than its interest in getting all > hot an funky pedalling 10 miles to work and > back every day. > The rail-trail rider and the bicycle > commuter are two vastly different market > segments. An additional point. Reserved bike lanes on city streets have significant impact on the public at large; anyone who regularly drives a street that has a bike lane installed will quickly come to hate it, as the reduced street capacity is evedent in the increased traffic congestion in the remaining lanes. Affecting this many people, it should be easy to build opposition against them. Not so with bike paths on railroad ROW's. The public already views the tracks as a nusiance, and figures the trail is an improvement, if only because hopefully it will kill the trains. Any public costs of the conversions are well hidden and far from the general public's mind. Dennis Storzek dstorzek@elnet.com |
|
| Author: | Phil Mulligan [ Thu Jun 10, 2004 10:17 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: On the other side of the coin.... |
In the Philadelphia area, the RDG and PRR both built along the Schuylkill, in some areas next to each other. Gradually, the PRR passenger service was withdrawn beyond the City of Philadelphia proper. When Conrail came in the PRR track was pulled and the ROW between the City and Oaks became a Montgomery County Parks bike trail. Last Sunday was a major bike race in Philly. SEPTA runs EMU trains on the former RDG between Norristown and Phila every hour on Sundays, with two stations right on the race course. The station parking lots were full - with bikers. The County has a deal with SEPTA: on weekends trail users can park in the RR lots so they did, in droves. Lesson: the RR line has good a service as there is in the US on a Sunday, but the users were on the rail trail - essentially to the same destination. Electric City Trolley Museum Association |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|