Adirondack train group moves to answer growing questions
The last few months have been complicated for the Adirondack Scenic Railroad. Bill Branson, head of the Adirondack Railroad Preservation Society, says his group has tried to remain above the fray as debate swirls about the tourist train project.
“We chose a while ago to take the high road and be above the name calling and the misinformation,” he says.
But this week, Adirondack Recreational Trail Advocates announced that it had gathered more than 10,000 signatures on a petition calling for the railroad tracks from Old Forge to Lake Placid to be torn up and replaced with a multi-use trail.
Perhaps more importantly, seven local governments along the rail corridor have now passed resolutions questioning Branson’s vision of an excursion train — with some town, village and county leaders calling point-blank for the tracks to be torn up immediately.
Train advocates still have a lot of supporters, including powerful groups like the region’s Chamber of Commerce and the Adirondack North Country Association.
But in an interview this week, Branson acknowledged that his group hasn’t been visible enough in the debate. “We don’t have an attack organization or a defense organization,” he said.
“We don’t have volunteers who really want to mix it up with their neighbors in the community. It’s hard for us to respond.”
It appears that Branson understands that this approach hasn’t worked. He said his group recognizes that many locals are skeptical about the tourism railroad’s future, after decades of delay and slow progress.
The current plan for reviving the railroad was approved nearly a quarter century ago, and much of the track remains in disrepair.
“They’re not wrong in what they’re saying,” Branson said. “Whatever is happening is happening in small bites.”
Part of the problem is that train advocates, including those within the state Department of Transportation, think removing the tracks seems inconceivable — or “crazy,” as Branson describes it.
They see slow, steady progress toward a vision of revived rail transport that could one day include cargo trains and regular passenger service into the heart of the Adirondacks.
But that’s clearly not the way it looks to a wide swath of the general public, or to local government leaders.
I suspect that train boosters will have to make a more convincing argument or run the risk of watching their support erode even further.
(A lot of smart people disagree with me. Kate Fish, head of the Adirondack North Country Association, and a passionate supporter of the train, calls the whole debate about the rail corridor’s future “a bit of a distraction.”)
Fortunately, the railroad is currently developing a public business plan, which Branson says will be available soon.
The document will include information about how much state of New York funding would be needed to move the project forward, along with specific claims and information about what an expanded tourism railroad might do for the Park’s economy.
Providing those numbers and a detailed vision for where the tourism train project goes next, will be a hugely helpful addition to the conversation.
One big question is the future of a proposed Pullman car overnight excursion that would take passengers from New York City to Lake Placid, which was announced this fall to great fanfare.
But there have been few details offered for how long that project would take to launch — speculation has ranged from two to ten years — how much it would cost taxpayers, and what the benefits would be for communities along the rail corridor.
I have no idea who will, or should, win the Great Adirondack Train Debate. But I think it’s undeniable that, welcome or not by train boosters, that debate is well underway, it’s serious, and not going away any time soon.
Next month, I have a full article about the debate in the Adirondack Explorer magazine. And in the coming days, NCPR will also air an interview with one of ARTA’s founders about their vision for a recreational trail.
Tags: railroad, railstrails, train
Years ago I camped in a federal park for a month, the camping in some places was free as was the hiking, but entry to the visitor center and parking and a tram ( propane truck pulling different trailer carts) was by fee for a window card or seasonal decal and pocket pass. I always thought this was a great way to do it and to give locals the benefit of on foot entry.
“For that matter, what do they do with a hunter in that scenario?”
Same thing you do with anyone when they break the law. In this case they would be written a ticket and they would pay a fine or go to court and explain why they don’t think they need to pay. Same thing the DEC guys do now when you are fishing without a license or don’t have a life jacket, whatever. Why do you think it would be more difficult in this case? Again I don’t think I support the idea but you could do it.
Arlan, perhaps “some” would have been a better word than “all” since they can’t be in more than one place at a time? Another good example is some of the more Northern parts of the park, there Native Americans do not feel that they have to abide by the posting laws. They have a good argument, but the state does not agree.
Correction “some” Native Americans.
“What are we doing here, running a theme park for city people?” Kind of. That is one way to look at how a tourism driven economy works.
I would think at some point you would need a financing plan for how any of these things are going to happen? That plan would include specific costs for what we want done and who is targeted to pay for those costs.
I am not anti-train but from what I have seen, the train ideas really seem to be pie in the sky, while the trail ideas seem more realistic.
Seems we’ve gotten a long way from discussing the railroad.
Tony, earlier I was asking if any of these rail-to-trails projects has actually been done on a corridor that had working trains on it. Is this new territory for ARTA?
A tourism based economy won’t work if we make everything free for the tourists.
Paying a fee for using trails I think is fine and I use trails more than I hunt. I think you could start with the High Peaks where the most traffic on the trails is happening and where the most damage is happening due to hikers.
But on the railroad has anyone spoken to the commercial rail carriers (CSX etc.) and found what their take is on the long term viability of these rail lines?
“Same thing you do with anyone when they break the law. In this case they would be written a ticket and they would pay a fine or go to court and explain why they don’t think they need to pay. Same thing the DEC guys do now when you are fishing without a license or don’t have a life jacket, whatever.”
Paul, what keeps people from giving them a false name and address?
And I understand it’s the same situation, but I imagine there’d be a whole lot more of them.
Would park rules allow for commercial rail transport anyway? Consider that a good portion of the rail cargo going through the north country today (at least what I see from the relatively busy tracks in SLC is toxic chemicals.
Most people would follow the law.
The vast majority of hunters and fishermen by a license even though they realize that the probability of enforcement is very very low, the same would hold for hikers.
“A tourism based economy won’t work if we make everything free for the tourists.”
No one’s proposing making hotels, restaurants, gift shops, ski shops, ski areas and gas stations free. Of course a tourism-based economy can work if some of the major draws are free for the tourists. It’s been working for a hundred years.
I’ll buy that, Mervel. If voluntary compliance is high enough, it doesn’t matter if a certain percentage get away with ignoring the law.
So what should it cost? And should it be one rate for all users?
Walker,
If it’s working so well why are we constantly inundated with economic development schemes? After 100 years of success we should be doing great.
Larry, under these proposals, the state would be collecting hiker’s fees, right? How would that help local businesses? Somehow this doesn’t seem like the kind of solution you’d get behind.
Walker, I don’t think we should spend any tax dollars on projects like scenic railroads or conversion of railroads into biking paths. If we must, they should at least pay for themselves. Local businesses are not really helped by giving access away for free.
What about roads. Should all roads be toll roads? It’s not fair to taxpayers who don’t drive. I don’t use playgrounds. Should we charge user fees for kids?
“Local businesses are not really helped by giving access away for free.”
If my restaurant sitting beside the trail does 80% of its business from trail users, and if the user fee cuts the number of users by 30%, my business really was being helped by giving access away for free. And that helped my employees, and all of the services that my employees spent money at.
Exactly, that is how the Taxpayers ( our representatives) should make funding decisions. IF the attraction creates enough Sales Tax, Employment Taxes and many other variables, known as the multiplier effect, THEN the attraction , IF it is the best return on investment, is worth funding or subsidizing. Example: highways, ORDA, Schools, and so on. The Rail Restoration has only created a few jobs, VERY small increases in sales tax revenues, and has cost the Taxpayers well over $30 million. So regardless of how successful the train is, how nostalgic it is and so on, where is the bang for the buck?? Who is the beneficiary of the investment?
The Railroad’s studies and the trail comparison have shown time after time that the Trail is the better investment by at least 20% and probably much greater.
Not everyone who hikes in the Adirondacks is some rich person on vacation from Westchester County. There’s a lot of locals who like to hike on public land, or middle-class families making a day trip. Those people of more modest means are the ones who might stop using the trails if you start charging people.
People who visit the Adirondacks get gas, they eat, they get drinks, they spend money. They make up a big part of the clientele of a lot of businesses in the summer. Less of them will mean less money in just about everyone’s pockets.
“There’s a lot of locals who like to hike on public land, or middle-class families making a day trip.”
Of course the locals are less likely to patronize your hotels or your more expensive restaurants. It’s a real challenge to know what’s what when you start asking these questions.
Wow, go away for the day and look at all you miss!
To the person whom accuses me of being a Lee Keet acolyte, poor, poor, pitiful you if that’s the best insult you can come up with. I am my own person and I am perfectly capable of forming my own opinions and voicing them. When I attended the ARTA presentation in Tupper I found the idea to be refreshing, exciting and bold. I certainly give ARTA credit for even coming into the Lion’s Den of Rail road booster territory. I was not a member of the board at that time but expressed interest in the idea and Dick Beamish, who I did not know at the time, asked Lee Keet, who I had a business relationship with, to ask me to join the steering committee. I accepted and the rest is history. At that Tupper meeting I found the rail road people to be rude and condescending and totally there to shut down the meeting. Not in the least bit open minded. Well you reap what you sow folks. Since that meeting I have had overwhelming support from the people of Tupper Lake. Yes, not all agree with me but when people don’t agree with your opinion in Tupper you are pretty much ostracized and end up doing all your shopping in Lake Placid. Hasn’t happened to me in Tupper.
Walker, I told you to google Iron Horse Preservation. They have a description of the procedure of removing and disposal of rails and ties. ARTA will not be raising money to build a trail until the State gives the go ahead. We have been raising money to pay for our study, website, advertising and outreach. We have many, many donors and have been able to stay ahead of the game. We are also applying for grants. We have been approached by a representative of a multi national corp. who are interested in supporting the trail construction. First things first.
I’m a businesswoman and I personally think the return on investment in the Rail Trail will be significantly superior than the train hands down. It doesn’t matter if it’s private or state funds that are invested. What matter is the return.
Marlo, you could have resident permits for locals like they have at beaches down in Cape Cod. Like I keep saying I don’t think the hikers fee is a good idea but there could be a way to do it.
Hope, I have asked several times and haven’t seen any help yet, are there other rail trail projects where they were trying to do it on a corridor that has trains running on it in some capacity?
Hope, when your business plan is to shove them out of business you can’t expect them to be too cordial. Even the rail side trail (the cooperative option) was not getting any ARTA support. The unfortunate thing here is that we have a rare case where many local factions are working together but it is up against a going concern. Too bad it isn’t a simpler thing that doesn’t pit one side against another.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rails_with_trails
one example. Note, most have parallel right of ways.
In the West, on National Forest Land (owned by you and me!), you have to pay for access – technically to park at a trailhead or USFS parking lot. There is a tag – you can get a day or annual pass. The fee covers some of the cost of maintaining trails, access roads and parking. It has always seemed reasonable to me, and easy to enforce.
As a hiker, birder, and occasional canoeist, I believe the hunters, fisherman, and snowmobile enthusiasts have a point that they should not be the only ones paying outdoor resource fees – all users of state lands should pay some kind of access fees / licenses. As Paul says, you can make accommodations for property-tax paying residents in the ADK – maybe a free pass for them.
Walker,
I think you could could do a year usage license for say 30.00. You could also do some different pricing plans in the high peaks that have higher usage and wealthier users; issuing day or week plans for 10 or 20 bucks. You could base it on what the State parks in the Adirondacks are already charging.
On these kind of fees though you have to be careful how they are done, in that when they are low you don’t want to end up spending more money selling and administering the plan than it brings in.
But anyway back to trains.
Is this ever going to be commercially viable? Or as my 13 year old’s artist tells me; they are never going to be profitable, like ever.
mervel, if you are talking about the scenic RR not if they have this piecemeal thing only. No way.
The pay to play system works on the Saranac Islands campsites. I can remember when it was first come first serve and it cost (dare I say) a dollar a night (“when I was your age everything cost a nickel!”) . Now it is like 20 bucks and they are jammed. It isn’t a deterrent there. Why would it be in the even more popular areas? But again, and again, I say don’t do it.
Walker,
On a typical summer’s day, I watch the hordes of day-trippers launch their boats, park their campers, unload their cars and set up their picnics. I watch them use the various recreational facilities we provide and maintain, all free of charge. They don’t eat, drink or shop locally. They don’t spend a dime in town. When they go, the only thing they leave behind is garbage. I don’t blame them; we’re the idiots who are giving it away for free. I don’t think we need to provide railroads or bike trails also. Maybe day-tripping is not so easy in other parts of the North Country and free recreation facilities draw people who stay and spend locally. I get why that might make sense.
Original Larry. how do you know whether the shopped, stayed or eat in the towns that they traveled through to get to their destination? My office is right next to a Stewarts and that store is mobbed in the summer and fall. When Big Tupper was open it was very busy in winter. Raquette River Outfitters had one of the best seasons ever. Shaheens is always full of campers and hunters getting supplies. Don’t delude yourself, even day trippers spend money here.
Paul, there are a few places in the country that have side by side options. Those are places that there are double tracks and one side was removed for a trail. We do not have double tracks. If a sided by side option was even remotely viable then I would be for it. It is not realistic to fill in miles of wetlands in this day and age. Even the train folks agree with that. Their compromise is to put you bike on the train and take it to a remote trail head and ride. That is not the type of trail we envision. It does not connect villages and it is not conducive to anything but mountain bike riding. The ASR has a successful operation in the Utica -Old Forge area. We have no interest in that section. If they want to keep the Lake Placid one going, fine. The rest of the corridor can be used as a retreating trail. They can build a train maintenance facility in Lake Placid and keep the train there. They are already keeping it here this winter because they couldn’t make it back. So, keep it here permanently. ASR is barely keeping their head above water now. Expanding the line isn’t going to make any difference. They have had since 1996 to get this project going. The excuse of lack of funding, man power and interest is the reason it has not happened. Any other business would shut down due to lack of those very same things. Why should the State keep supporting a failing business model?
As Hope says, we’re willing to let the ASR keep the operations they currently have. The 80 miles between Saranac Lake and Thendara are used by two trains a year (this year only one), so we don’t consider this to be an “operating railroad”. Remember that this whole line has already been abandoned twice in 1972 and 1980. With the recent track work to Big Moose, perhaps that will become the southern terminus of the trail – at least until the realization that there aren’t trainloads of people who want to go to Big Moose. That track upgrade was paid for by a federal grant that was supposed to help rural transportation, not tourism. No one thinks that there is any more federal money to continue the improved track beyond Big Moose, and the DOT web site says it would cost $43 million to achieve that standard of track all the way to Lake Placid. So now this five mile section of 60 mph railroad will sit there and be the rail equivalent if the final five miles of the road to Tahawus were a four-lane, divided, 65 mph highway that ends at the trailhead.
Walker, it would work like any other license. You’d be able to buy it anywhere hunting and fishing licenses are sold- like Walmart or your Town clerk. You’d get a license and have to have it on you when using state lands. It’s simple. What happens if you don’t have a license? What happens when you get a speeding ticket? You get a piece of paper directing you to appear or plea by mail and you get fined. If you don’t respond a warrant for your arrest is issued. Pretty simple.
As far as this idea our poor locals would be severely harmed by having to buy a license, give me a break! If they are so harmed, then we’d better stop charging for hunting and fishing licenses, vehicle inspections and registration fee’s, taxes and fees altogether. That’s a strawman argument. If they want to hike the trails, pay for it. If they want to paddle the ponds and lakes and rivers, pay for it.
If cost effectiveness is a real concern as far as the rail line goes then shouldn’t that apply to everything else? There isn’t much the state does that’s cost effective. In fact I’d venture the opinion that most of what gov’t as a whole does is not cost effective. You should think these things out before you make that the bench mark.
Myself, I think national infrastructure concerns should completely over rule the idea of tearing up any tracks or rail beds. What might not seem viable today may be our only choice in 20 years.
The transportation money is better spent upgrading rails between high population centers to high speed first and then working its way outward toward less populated areas. If, and that is a huge “if” there is demand for railroad transport from Old Forge to Lake Placid, the funds will be found to build it. What is actually left is barely viable now and needs a massive rebuild anyway.
I’m not overly familiar with the ASR’s operations at the southern end of their line, but it’s my understanding that they presently have a side-by-side bike trail along some part of it, and they also have a canoe and kayak program on the Moose River. If I remember correctly these are both popular programs at the southern end of the line. I can’t imagine why they wouldn’t work as well further north if a trail that parallels the line could be developed; remember a bike trail wouldn’t have to cling to the rail line– where the rail line crosses water on a narrow causeway, the trail could go around instead. I realize that there would be issues with DEC/APA regs, but unless I miss my guess, this isn’t going to be smooth regulatory sailing any way you slice it.
Seems to me that ARTA would be well advised to be thinking about Plan B.
So the short answer to the question of whether they have ever built a rail trail on a non-abandoned corridor appears to be NO.
If the southern end appears to be viable it seems like one argument you have to get around is – they should be able to make the other end viable. Or worse that what would be very viable is if the whole line was running. If they didn’t have anything going, and they were not actually expanding the rails it would be much easier to beat this argument. This is a very difficult task for ARTA.
Again, once you tear it up that is probably it. So you can’t say that if the rail trail is a bust we can put back the tracks. ARTA’s opposition can make the argument that if an expanded train is a bust you can always use the line as a trail later. This doesn’t help the folks that are chomping at the bit for a trail.
Would you need to spend 40 million to put in a smaller narrow gauge railway that runs smaller trains? Maybe get rid of those big monsters. How do the “Pullmen” folks plan to pay for the rail upgrade? It only takes 18 hours to go 80 miles at 5 miles per hour!
Paul, you have been given 2 answers already about rails with trails. Yes they do exist. Most of them on double wide rail beds or in urban areas where a street was converted to trail. There are not many of them. If we want to build one we would have to fill in wetlands, expand rock cuts and build bridges. To do what we envision as a great recreation destination we would need to stay in the corridor. Snowmobilers are not going to give up the corridor because they would permanently lose 90 miles of snowmobile access in the Park. That mileage cannot be made up elsewhere in the Park. The rail road tracks are a significant inhibitor to using the corridor to it’s fullest recreational potential. Whether one likes it or not, recreation is our bread and butter here and we should be doing whatever we can to facilitate it. Snowmobilers consider expanded rail service a very real threat to their personal recreation choice. I’m a skier, you’ll find me at Whiteface or on a x-country trail but I believe there needs to be places for snowmobiles to be used as well.
Hope, Thanks, I get it. The question I was talking about was not the existence of rails with trails (I have been on some). The question relates to the fact that part of the difficulty you folks are having is that you are trying to put a trail on a corridor that has some small running operations on it and they have the aspirations to expand (and they are expanding in some areas). The simple question I asked, and yes I think I have the answer, is has anybody tried to make a trail where there was a train running on part of the corridor? The answer appears to be no. So you have your work cut out.
“Snowmobilers are not going to give up the corridor because they would permanently lose 90 miles of snowmobile access in the Park.”
If a train can run the whole section of that corridor (assuming it was upgraded) they would have no choice.
I am not sure that it is technically legal to ride that corridor on a snowmobile now. Is it?
I hope it works out whichever way it goes. Good luck. Hope thanks again for the comments.
Some thoughts about the side-by-side option:
First, heading south from Saranac Lake, the tracks don’t pass through a Wilderness Area until Horseshoe Lake; they then pass through about four miles of the Round Lake Wilderness Area. They then pass through another roughly four mile stretch passing Lake Lila. So far as I can see, that’s it, and none of that wilderness distance appears to involve wetlands.
So from a very quick glance, it looks to me like the big problems come from the causeways over Colby and the Stillwater Reservoir.
So, while I understand that the trail would be much easier than the rail with trail, I wonder how hard anyone has really looked at the side-by-side approach?
I love the certitude with which both sides proclaim that their position is the correct one, the one that will help the local economy, the one that won’t cost much and the one that will benefit the most people. Bottom line, you’re both advocating more tax-supported projects that will be very nice but will end up adding to the never-ending burden placed on taxpayers without providing any real economic benefit. I guess people will never understand that spending tax money on projects private industry won’t touch is a bad idea.
Seems like a lot of competing interests at work here:
http://www.adirondackdailyenterprise.com/page/content.detail/id/534461/Town-of-North-Elba-recommits-to-trail-beside-rails.html?nav=5046
Walker, I would have to imagine that the RR ROW is probably pretty wide. So I doubt there is too much of an issue with classification it is probably more about cost.
History note:
The ROW for the trans-continental RR was a mile wide! That is how all those robber barons made out like they did! The government gave them a whole lot of land all they had to do was build a RR in the middle. They could do whatever they wanted with the rest. And they sold it and made a fortune.
OriginalL- should communities build playground or sidewalks?
Interesting Paul,
Actually, Webb did the same with the Adirondack. He could not sell the State land, but trad it; so, he had two saw mills, Outerkirk here, follow him up the corridor. He would scalp the timber, mill it, ship it out, trade the land back and move on to the next section all in a VERY short time before the Sate could catch on.