___________________

"If we can move to a more socially-focused society,"

"...which seems to me..."

"In my opinion..."
___________________

My valued RYPN colleagues wrote the above lines in posts not far below. And in the course of those discussions, they did raise very good and valid points of view and made reasoned statements that should be of interest to most RYPN participants. If read carefully, RYPN discussions over the past month or so have helped bring important clarification to the issue of railroad preservation.

Things I have not heard here include:
(1) a typology, perhaps based on purpose, for preserving threatened railroad line segments that concurrently describes what is meant by "preserving;"
(2) clear policy proposals and initiatives derived from the typology; and
(3) identification of an organization capable of making those policy proposals and initiatives turn into reality.

That these items are not now in existance creates a policy vacuum which a well-organized group has filled. (Reproduced below is an earlier post that seems particularly salient.) And only when the above tasks are done can anyone hope to calculate the benefits and costs of any proposed action.

Without this thoughtful and scholarly approach, those better organized Special Interest Groups will continue to prevail in the policy arena. And, when all is said and done, those of us interested in railroad preservation is its many apparent forms can be confident we that more will have been said than done.
___________________________________

View Thread | Post Response | Return to Index | Read Prev Msg | Read Next Msg

A Policy Vacuum

Posted By: Art Miller
Date: Monday, 24 May 2004, at 3:39 p.m.

In Response To: 11 Most Endangered Announcement (Mike Piersa)

Elsewhere in this thread, one of my liked-minded colleagues worries about the potential loss of the L&NE shops in Penn Argyl. And I recall the dismay expressed when the old Western Maryland roundhouse complex bit the dust. Sadly, I think, the railroad preservation community's losses are far more numerous than its successes.

Yes, we can always point to an occasional exception. Spencer and the Roanoke Passenger Station come to mind immediately. And, of course, there is TVRM and other many other successful museums.

But think what might have been had there been a national policy initiative 10 or 20 years ago. Imagine what treasures might have avoided the wrecking ball.

Unless the special interest groups composing railroad preservationists get their policy act together, future victories will be few and far between. Commercial pressures will encroach on the national treasures that are of special interest to railroad preservationists in the same way they are eating up Civil War sites.

If you want a lesson in what effective public policy looks like in operation, on the ground, visit a local rail trail. Look at their signage, and how it acknowledges the favorable local, state, and federal policies and agencies that made the rail-trail a reality.

Then hunt up a copy of the Rails-to-Trails magazine. Every story contains plenty of information about how the RTC and local groups came together to get something done. And whether we approve of all the Rail-Trail bunch is doing, we have got to admit they are very effective.

11 Most Endangered Announcement (views: 583)
Mike Piersa -- Monday, 24 May 2004, at 11:25 a.m.
Vermont? (views: 357)
David M. Wilkins -- Monday, 24 May 2004, at 11:34 a.m.
Sprawl is an enemy of rail preservation (views: 361)
Rob Davis -- Monday, 24 May 2004, at 12:37 p.m.
Re: Sprawl is an enemy of rail preservation (views: 278)
Mike Piersa -- Monday, 24 May 2004, at 12:58 p.m.
A Policy Vacuum (views: 243)
Art Miller -- Monday, 24 May 2004, at 3:39 p.m.
View Thread | Post Response | Return to Index | Read Prev Msg | Read Next Msg

Railway Preservation News Interchange is maintained by Erik Ledbetter with WebBBS 4.33.


amiller@rtms-movietrains.com

I have been working on developing new strategies for preservation for over 5 years. They have been focused on specific projects at specific locations, rather than a nonspecific visionary statement.

However, we have to work on how we communicate the significance of our efforts, and how we present our efforts as part of a larger whole.

Broadly speaking, our preservation efforts and preservationists need to improve how we answer the hypothetical "so what" question to those who have no interest in or knowledge about what we do. I have no doubt that everyone on this board who reads this post feels that railroad preservation is important (otherwise you would be doing something else right now). However we are very bad at articulating the significance of railroad history and preservation to others. Because of this are efforts are often characterized as 'big boys with big toys' instead of preserving the story of the growth, development, and change of America.

Additionally, we also have to improve the way that we integrate preservation efforts with the larger goals of the town/city/state/region that we reside in. It is much easier to gain support for a preservation effort if we can show how it can work to accomplish objectives beyond preserving history (e.g. increasing area tourism, providing new education and technical training resources, etc.)

Needless to say, I could write a great deal more. However, if you would like to see how I applied this approach to a specific project – and showed how it can open up outside funding opportunities - I suggest seeing the 'the future' page on my website for the now demolished Altoona, Wisconsin roundhouse. (And look for more about other sites in the coming months!)

Tom

(and a re-cap on Altoona is coming soon!)



Altoona Roundhouse Museum Website
altoonaroundhouse@umich.edu

Tom's website for the Altoona roundhouse was pulled together in short order, but looks better than something one might pay a web designer a few thousand for. I hope he has time to put toward similar threatened facilities. This guy has talent...

ryarger@rypn.org

> Tom's website for the Altoona roundhouse was
> pulled together in short order, but looks
> better than something one might pay a web
> designer a few thousand for. I hope he has
> time to put toward similar threatened
> facilities. This guy has talent...

Is it possible that Tom C. is for hire? <:-)

Aside from that, let me remind all here that Internet and web activities are THE perfect way to involve a younger generation (your future board members, volunteers, and docents?) in the activities of your museum or excursion operation.

Bring in the first young person you can find that is fluent in HTML and/or web design. Work with them to develop a website--not just what YOU think said site needs, but also what THEY can contribute. Let them ask questions. Look at your place through a new set of eyes.

Such a project may be perfect as well for, say, a school competition, with an award to the winning design.

As someone who has dabbled with some of this professionally, though, I caution: a professional may be best for not only reviewing the proposed content and preparation of a site, but also for reviewing a website for technical issues like opening in multiple browsers or minor coding glitches. Turning a young whippersnapper loose with Microsoft Front Page Express, for example, is NOT a good idea.


LNER4472-NOSPAM-@bcpl.net

Thank you for your thoughtful post and for the important website link. I wish to make some quick comments.

>I have been working on developing new
> strategies for preservation for over 5
> years. They have been focused on specific
> projects at specific locations, rather than
> a nonspecific visionary statement.

Unless we want to settle for fighting over the policy crums, what you call "non specific visionary statements" are indeed needed. The rail-trail folks have one -- "A Thousand Miles of New Trails a Year." With that vision in place, they constructed specific policies and created state and federal funding pools and procedures. Then local and regional Special Interest Groups created specific projects that tapped those funds.

Respectfully, I think you've got it backwards. A continued focus on specific projects will leave preservationists without a national voice, without a national pool of funds, and stuck where we now are -- fighting for one project at a time!

> However, we have to work on how we
> communicate the significance of our efforts,
> and how we present our efforts as part of a
> larger whole.

Amen.

> Broadly speaking, our preservation efforts
> and preservationists need to improve how we
> answer the hypothetical "so what"
> question to those who have no interest in or
> knowledge about what we do. However we are
> very bad at articulating the significance of
> railroad history and preservation to others.
> Because of this are efforts are often
> characterized as 'big boys with big toys'
> instead of preserving the story of the
> growth, development, and change of America.

Again, Amen.

> Additionally, we also have to improve the
> way that we integrate preservation efforts
> with the larger goals of the
> town/city/state/region that we reside in. It
> is much easier to gain support for a
> preservation effort if we can show how it
> can work to accomplish objectives beyond
> preserving history (e.g. increasing area
> tourism, providing new education and
> technical training resources, etc.)

I think I hear you endorsing the idea of creating a broad base of tangible and intangible economic benefits that can be clearly described and quantified. Sadly, in the cold cruel world of benefit:cost analyses and resultant goverment funding, there is no benefit column for emotions on the spreadsheet or grant application.

Emotions are important, though. They provide the motivation.

> Needless to say, I could write a great deal
> more. However, if you would like to see how
> I applied this approach to a specific
> project – and showed how it can open up
> outside funding opportunities - I suggest
> seeing the 'the future' page on my website
> for the now demolished Altoona, Wisconsin
> roundhouse. (And look for more about other
> sites in the coming months!)

I have looked, and I like it. Your work provides a classic example of how to broaden the base of benefits and, by default, enlarge your supportive coalition. Serious policy players -- rail-trail groups; coalitions of military airplane and ship builders; the Sierra Club; and hundreds of other Special Interest Groups -- do the same thing.

However, and with the utmost respect, I feel it is a tactical battle plan. The way we do business in this country suggests a different Top-Down approach. Otherwise, everyone has to invent the same wheel, again and again.

> Tom

> (and a re-cap on Altoona is coming soon!)

A final thought: I have looked at the officer lists of several national railroad history organizations and I see nothing even remotely resembling a Vice President - Government Relations.

Most organizations playing in the big leagues of policy have a huge government liaison staff. At least 50% of the RTC's national and state staffs seem to be directly involved in creating and maintaining favorable government policy.

I think there is a huge message here about the need to enlarge the programs of work of national railroad history preservation groups.


amiller@rtms-movietrains.com

> Is it possible that Tom C. is for hire?
> <:-)

Hey, were trying to keep Tom in the Midwest. Back off ;-)

By the way, did you catch the great article on Tom in the U of M Spotlight (How appropriate is that name, by the way)? Nice picture of him from the article below.....

http://www.umich.edu/~urecord/0304/Jun07_04/21.shtml

TJ


Port Huron Museum

tjgaffney@phmuseum.org

I completely agree that we need to work on a national basis - I was merely stating that the preservation proposals I have worked have been local projects simply because there was a greater opportunity to actually see something accomplished.

It is important to work nationally - this can include articulating the significance and multiple benefits of preservation - which can help in garnering state and local funds.

However - we also need to exchange ideas and strategies on a national level so that we can apply them locally. Most projects won't get beyond the planning stages without strong local support - and many state and federal funds require that a NPO partner with the local government in order to be eligible.

Also, as this discussion evolves - it is important to think about improvements that need to be made externally and internally. External improvements may include forming a national vision statement and articulating the benefits of preservation. Internally we may want to reconsider how we can build stronger relationships and partnerships with other organizations, share preservation resources, improve internal management, etc.



altoonaroundhouse@umich.edu

> > Additionally, we also have to improve the
> > way that we integrate preservation efforts
> > with the larger goals of the
> > town/city/state/region that we reside in. It
> > is much easier to gain support for a
> > preservation effort if we can show how it
> > can work to accomplish objectives beyond
> > preserving history (e.g. increasing area
> > tourism, providing new education and
> > technical training resources, etc.)

> I think I hear you endorsing the idea of
> creating a broad base of tangible and
> intangible economic benefits that can be
> clearly described and quantified. Sadly, in
> the cold cruel world of benefit:cost
> analyses and resultant goverment funding,
> there is no benefit column for emotions on
> the spreadsheet or grant application.

> Emotions are important, though. They provide
> the motivation.

One of the things I have argued and continue to argue is that we need to look at preservation efforts more in a mixed-use environment rather than as a pure non-profit museum model like many in the past. I believe such models provide a case that there is cost-benefit to preserving a structure versus demolishing it.

Tom mentions this under his "Why Historic Preservation for Redevelopment?" section. One of my strong points in argueing for preserving the compressor house of the former Solvay Coke Plant site in Milwaukee is that as the centerpiece of a redevelopment scheme for the former plant site, it will be something that cannot be replicated anywhere else. Simply put, they do not make buildings full of steam engines like this anymore; making it a unique draw to the development. Once restored as such and intergrated with the site plan, it can be a valued added building for what will otherwise be just another brownfield site.

I have also argued that while the second floor should be preserved as is as a museum, the first floor could and should be adaptively reused as a retail or visitor center location.

This is not something unique; it has been done with stations and roundhouses in the past, and it was proposed for the Altoona Roundhouse as well, it would appear.

Sometimes, the results are far from desirable; as Erik stated in his Editorial "Rethinking Adaptive Reuse, or How Not to Save a Great Urban Terminal". But, I have also seen it done to great effect; my favorites are one or more powerhouses that were made into chic restaurants, but with some of the steam equipment preserved and integrated into the plans for the redevelopment. The results give visitors a feel for what it was like to be in the building during it's working days, while providing a unique dining environment. Erik also makes the case in his editorial that developing a station as a railway museum in conjunction with other civic or nonprofit uses or a tranportation center rather than another shopping mall or festival marketplace seems to work better as well. It is just this sort of musing about what works and where we should all be doing, rather than "one size fits all".

If you think about it, the arguement over "Rails to Trails" is an adaptive reuse one as well. Which way can the right-of-way best be preserved, with the rails intact or as a path?

I propose that rather than argue each individual case the same way, we should develop case studies including economic models to show what worked, where, and why. I think if the truth is to be told; not every right-of-way deserves to be preserved intact, while not every one deserves to be pulled up either. The question is in which cases is one better than the other, and go with the business model; rather than throwing effort at a lost cause from a business model point of view.

And just like there are varying degrees of adaptive reuse that preserve part but not all of the structure, perhaps a case could be made to railbank part of a right-of-way for future light rail or short line use while converting the rest to trails. Either one could be reversed to some degree in the future; but neither can take place if it is lost in the squabble over what form it should take.

This works well too in treating the rail-to-trails lobby as an friend rather than a foe. If they come after some intact, working railroad we feel should be preserved; as Art stated we should be armed with case studies and facts to back us up rather than pure historical or emotional diatribe. If that is all we have, we can expect to lose more in the future.

We can also work with rail-to-trail groups to avocate that a portion with more future potential be railbanked while with the rest converted to trails. Or a parallel scheme, or (God forbid) a pure trail.

As others have pointed out, a well-planned trail can give that same link to the past just like a railroad in place can. Both can be economically justified, and both can succeed or fail.

But we need to get out of this "one size fits all" mode, and determine how to succeed with the ones that are worth keeping. Arming a political lobby with just such information could do more for us on a national level than anything else.

The picture below from May 30, 2004 shows the compressor house still standing while boiler house and other structures around it go down. Work has stopped on the site for now; but the future is far from certain at this point.

-James Hefner
Hebrews 10:20a

Rethinking Adaptive Reuse, or, How Not to Save ...

james@survivingworldsteam.com