My colleague, Frederick Bailey, opined not far down the screen that the railroad preservation movement needed to identify some "national issues." He is spot on in his comment.

Consider this observation. The Rails-To-Trails bunch has a grand vision -- a thousand miles of new trails each year.

Now, take a look at the NRHS Bulletin's annual chapter activities issue. Do you see any measureable common goals stated anywhere? I think not.

While many of the chapters and related museums have undertaken significant projects and made considerable progress, they lack a unified set of goals, a national vision.

Railroad preservationists often appear more closely akin to a herd of cats as opposed to a herd of anything headed in a common direction. We not only lack goals, but also objectives, effective strategies, and do-able tactics.

amiller@rtms-movietrains.com

> Consider this observation. The
> Rails-To-Trails bunch has a grand vision --
> a thousand miles of new trails each year.

Part of the lure of the rails to trails grand vision is that they aspire to "connect" the trails, thus making it possible to bike/hike uninterrupted across large sections of our nation.

Understanably, winning the hearts and minds of an army of activists (not to mention decision-making legislators) is made easier with such a "transcontinental" vision.


SJHussar@aol.com

> Consider this observation. The
> Rails-To-Trails bunch has a grand vision --
> a thousand miles of new trails each year.

Art,

Thanks for your kind remarks, and those of others on my posts on this topic. It is too bad our other comments developed so far down in the posts since a lot of readers here will miss them.

An inconsistency - First you offered that tearing up the StJ&LC might be a good example of economics working, then offered that the way to help preservation might be to use politcal pressure to beat the economic equation. We cannot have it both ways.

I suppose in the grand scheme of things a Rail Trail is better than an endless string of Wal Marts and parking lots. A rail trail does preserve the route of a railroad, largely, and those elements of the technology including surveying, engineering and construction of bridges and other landmarks. It may offer access to incidental rail related structures and businesses which may survive alongside, for a while.

So tolerance of anything that helps to save part of the system would be a good thing, whether it be a right of way, equipment, a small depot, or an intact shop facility, depot and full rail line carrying tourists.

This relates your comments on a National Vision. The breadth of rail preservation is excruciatingly broad and the success of so many individuals and groups, small and large, may be due in part to their ability to define a focus and goal narrowly so as not to be overwhelmed by it. Associations including ARM and TRAIN have shown that we can band together on some level, but even these organizations are not successful at lobbying, yet.

I do not believe this is due to competition between rival groups as much as the diversity they represent within the transportation picture and also geographically. This diversity contrasts with a movement like Rail to Trail which has a narrow focus and objective and whose mission is pretty much stated in their three word name.

Lobbying and political pressure does cost one thing and that is money. Contributions to support an overarching association or organization would be needed and I believe that will always be difficult in rail preservation. "It is hard to remember you want to drain the swamp when you are up to your armpits in alligators."

Rail preservation has been built on a very strong record of participation and volunteerism, necessarily cash poor at almost every turn. Rail to Trail is the opposite with yuppy riders rolling along completed facilities and often doing little to construct or maintain the trail. Our tax money does that! So it may be easier for the users to write a check than to bushwhack weeds or repair culverts.

In my opinion a National Vision for rail preservation may be grand thing but difficult to word concisely and yet be all encompassing to the potential benefit of preservation. Who would do it and how would we get all parties to sign on? And once perfected, what good would it do without the lobbying? In addition to money, something like that often takes years, maybe decades to penetrate the national consciousness.

Use the Appalachian Trail COnference as an example. A strong presence in government lobbying and partnerships, and wildly successful in the minds of much of the public. Yet after 75 years, the trail is not totally protected, new threats arise every week, and fundraising remains both a challenge and potential threat if sufficient funds are not raised annually. They have a wonderful and carefully crafted Vision and Goal, strong participation and volunteer base, yet face many of the same organizational challenges we are discussing.

What do you suggest as a remedy in our rail preservation community? Let's try to take baby steps first and feel our way along.

Bob Kutella


68trolley@comcast.net

Associations
> including ARM and TRAIN have shown that we
> can band together on some level, but even
> these organizations are not successful at
> lobbying, yet.

Just to add a little context without challenging the major point here, I would submit that the situation is more nuanced.

ARM and TRAIN have done some awesomely effective lobbying on narrow technical issues--the shining example is the way they stepped up to the plate to help craft a 49 CFR Part 230 we could live with after Gettysburg, averting potentially far worse regulation.

That said, our successful federal-level lobbying mostly involves technical regulatory issues. We absolutely do not have an effective lobbying voice in DC advocating for railway preservation as a "field" in the same way the Rails to Trails Conservancy works for its constituents.

> I do not believe this is due to competition
> between rival groups as much as the
> diversity they represent within the
> transportation picture and also
> geographically. This diversity contrasts
> with a movement like Rail to Trail which has
> a narrow focus and objective and whose
> mission is pretty much stated in their three
> word name.

I think this is more a problem of lack of creativity on our part than the absolute impossibility of forging a common mission. Think of the diversity of preservation work united under the banners of the "old home" and "downtown revitalization-Main Street" movements. There is a huge range of regions, climates, and structures represented, but all manage to find an effective common cause and common vocabulary under the National Trust for Historic Preservation.

For a first crack at a national rail preservation mission statement I would recommend that we start with John Stilgoe's description of the Metropolitan Corridor, and insert the word "preserve." I'll even take a crack at it tonight when I get home from work!

> Lobbying and political pressure does cost
> one thing and that is money. Contributions
> to support an overarching association or
> organization would be needed and I believe
> that will always be difficult in rail
> preservation. "It is hard to remember
> you want to drain the swamp when you are up
> to your armpits in alligators."

Warning well taken. As a community we have not shown ourselves overly quick to open our wallets to support community-wide infrastructure. The fate of L&RP is a salient example.

RyPN is an example of the kind of organization that could grow to encompass lobbying and advocacy for the field as a whole as part of its work, but at the moment undertaking any systematic such effort is so far beyond our resources as to be relegated to the hazy indefinate future.

Rail to Trail is the
> opposite with yuppy riders rolling along
> completed facilities and often doing little
> to construct or maintain the trail. Our tax
> money does that! So it may be easier for the
> users to write a check than to bushwhack
> weeds or repair culverts.

I'm not so sure they are actually all that different at all. They have a small cadre of active hands-on volunteers and so do we; they have a much wider "user" or "rider" community and so do we. Substitute "Yuppie train riders attending Day Out With Thomas" and you have our visitors as well as their users. What they do much better than us is find a way to monetize and politicize their casual, non-volunteer users.

> What do you suggest as a remedy in our rail
> preservation community? Let's try to take
> baby steps first and feel our way along.

I suggest the organization of a fomal lobbying alert system under the aegis of one of our exisiting organizations--ARM, NRHS, or R&LHS. It seems to me that of these three, ARM would be the best candidate.

The alert system would circulate via e-mail announcements of opportunity to lobby at the State or Federal level on issues of interest to our community as a whole--such as the fate of the Transportation Enhancements program in the Federal surface transportation bill. For an example of how this could work, see AAM's Museum Advocacy Team (which I commend to everyone who cares about museums, by the way):

http://www.aam-us.org/programs/gov_affairs/mat.cfm

The infrastructural costs are low, and the potential payoff very high.


eledbetter@rypn.org

> Consider this observation. The
> Rails-To-Trails bunch has a grand vision --
> a thousand miles of new trails each year.

Yes, they are organized with a goal... and I believe the preservation community should not view trails as a black-and-white, good-or-bad proposition.

When are trails an interesting part of preservation? When they take already abandoned grades and convert them to rec use, promoting the restoration of rail bridges and lineside structures (both rail and non-rail).

However, the trail movement is clearly the enemy of preservation and the national infrastructure when they turn their sites on existing railroads.

In fact, I would say there is no greater enemy of the lightly used rail line than the trail lobby.

We all know that we have lost the St. J to this lobby. What other pieces of historic railroads (and national infrastructure) will we lose?

Well, also in Vermont, an attack continues on a section of exisiting rail line in Bennington. Trailies want the track ripped up. The Vermont Railway has used it for car storage, and sees the possibility of reactiviation. The trailies want it gone so they can walk on it. The battle continues.

In Bethlehem,PA, a citizen's group suggested removing or relocating the NS mainline so that people could walk along the grade by the Lehigh River. That silly plan went nowhere fast, but the fact that it saw the light of day is an example of the outlandish, no-line-is-safe assault.

In Maryland, the Western Maryland Scenic is being forced to have their steam trains co-exist with a trail and a fence... both of which will most likely curtail the photo charter business and deprive the line of that revenue.

Interesting times...

Rob

>> RyPN is an example of the kind of
> organization that could grow to encompass
> lobbying and advocacy for the field as a
> whole as part of its work, but at the moment
> undertaking any systematic such effort is so
> far beyond our resources as to be relegated
> to the hazy indefinate future.

> I suggest the organization of a fomal
> lobbying alert system under the aegis of one
> of our exisiting organizations--ARM, NRHS,
> or R&LHS. It seems to me that of these
> three, ARM would be the best candidate.

> The alert system would circulate via e-mail
> announcements of opportunity to lobby at the
> State or Federal level on issues of interest
> to our community as a whole--such as the
> fate of the Transportation Enhancements
> program in the Federal surface
> transportation bill. For an example of how
> this could work, see AAM's Museum Advocacy
> Team (which I commend to everyone who cares
> about museums, by the way):

Erik, I don't know how rails to trails (or many other organizations for that matter) does it and I'm assuming they are 501c3- but lobbying is *SUPPOSED* to be an "insubstantial" part of a 501c3 qualified organizations activities and it sounds like all they do is lobby. If RYPN was to become a lobbying organization- you risk losing exempt status.



superheater@rrmail.com

> However, the trail movement is clearly the
> enemy of preservation and the national
> infrastructure when they turn their sites on
> existing railroads.

I knew if we both kept talking, Rob and I would find a political point of agreement.

Now, this of course may be an apocolyptic omen...

superheater@rrmail.com

None of this is AT ALL relevant to RyPN for now and for the forseeable future. Everything after this is for the sake of discussion and is without reference to RyPN.

That said, 501(c)3s cannot endorse candidates for office, but they most certianly can lobby for or against prospective legislation.

To do so they generally make a “501(h) election.” Organizations that make the 501(h) election under the 1976 lobbying law may spend 20 percent of the first $500,000 of their annual expenditures on lobbying ($100,000), 15 percent of the next $500,000, and so on, up to $1 million dollars.

I am not a tax attorney, however--consult your counsel for a definiative ruling on your situation.

eledbetter@rypn.org

I agree that a national eforrt for legislation is a good idea.

We could start by cleaning up our own house first - remember that bone yard next to your neighbor? Swapping equipment to bring them back home is a great start too.

Jim

> Railroad preservationists often appear more
> closely akin to a herd of cats as opposed to
> a herd of anything headed in a common
> direction. We not only lack goals, but also
> objectives, effective strategies, and
> do-able tactics.


Pacific Southwest Railway Museum
Jim@psrm.org

> I knew if we both kept talking, Rob and I
> would find a political point of agreement.

> Now, this of course may be an apocolyptic
> omen...

It had to happen! ;-)

And wouldn't it be nice if I spelled "sights" correctly?

As our wise and worldly Moderator points out, lobbying (legislative liaison; inter governmental relations; policy research; or whatever you choose to call it) IS NOT a threat to 501(c)3 status.

That is one of the most prevalent misconceptions in the railroad preservation movement. This legal fact needs retelling continually until it is forever rooted out as a reason we often (not always, but often) are not as successful in the public policy formulaton arena as selected other interest groups.

[I think I am going to get off my "Rules" kick now. ;-) ]

amiller@rtms-movietrains.com

> However, the trail movement is clearly the
> enemy of preservation and the national
> infrastructure when they turn their sites on
> existing railroads.

> In fact, I would say there is no greater
> enemy of the lightly used rail line than the
> trail lobby.

Strong words, pardner! But another example locally in the Midwest concerns a lightly used rail line which was 'banked' to preserve the right of way for possible future use. A nice trail was built, not elaborately paved but passable. Now comes the time when the ever spreading urban octopus has grown to where commuter rail is slated for this corridor. NO WAY say the trail folks!

Another example of short memories and effective trail lobbying presence with the public.

Bob Kutella


68trolley@comcast.net

All of us who contributed to this post ought to put together a panel discussion for ARM, TRAIN, or some group!

> All of us who contributed to this post ought
> to put together a panel discussion for ARM,
> TRAIN, or some group!

Art, could you contact me back-channel re. this idea?


eledbetter@rypn.org