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
I read it’s a 100ft wide corridor .
Walker- what maps did you use to conclude that wetland are not involved along the wilderness stretches?
Yes, Larry, based on what you say above, there’d be Adirondack Park, no trails in the high peaks, no Interstate Highway System, no roads and bridges, on and on and on.
The “never-ending burden placed on taxpayers without providing any real economic benefit”!? You don’t use the Interstates? And may I remind you that federal taxes are at a forty year low. This whole anti-tax thing is way, way overblown, and I’m thoroughly tired of it.
Arlan, I used the SRCO paddling map for the northern reaches and the National Geographic hiking map for the southern part. I could easily have overlooked stuff. Would you point out where you think there are wetlands in wilderness areas?
For the record, I’m not counting places where the tracks lie on a boundary between wilderness and wild forest, since there, it may be possible to find a route around a wetland. For example, where the Lake Colby causeway is too narrow for a side-by-side rail/trail, the trail conceivably could use the existing snowmobile route that heads towards the Bloomingdale Bog, and then turn south along the east shore of Colby to rejoin the rail corridor.
Workarounds like that would be impossible in wilderness areas, which is why I was interested to find that, apparently, there are only eight miles of Wilderness in the eighty mile route, and no obvious swamps in those few miles. But I looked very quickly.
Oh oh, here we go with the tax stuff again, I am out of here! Have a good weekend!
I’m thoroughly tired of your belief that every issue can be resolved by higher taxes and more government activity. I’m also tired of the never-ending attempt to equate worthwhile accomplishments like the Interstate Highway System with useless projects like scenic railways. I’m tired of many of the nearly 650 New York State Public Benefit corporations and authorities (the most of any state) including the Overcoat Development Authority and the New York State Horse Breeding Development Fund and the Newark NJ Legal Center (developed by the Port Authority), entities that account for 90% of New York’s debt. And people have the nerve to ask me if I think towns should build playgrounds? There won’t be enough money left for a swing set if this nonsense keeps up.
Use google map with salelite images and then reply. It’s more wetland than not. They seem to have followed wetlands because filling was physically easier than digging.
O.L. – where do you draw a distinction between playground, ball field, ice arena and recreational trail. Should tax dollars be used for any of these?
Several facts not discussed here yet. First, train restoration, even for the occassional Pullman service being used as a barrier to rail removal, would obviate snowmobiling on the corridor (you cannont run snowmobiles on an active railroad). Snowmobiling represents a current $23 million spend in the corridor (Old Forge is the snowmobilking capital of the Adirondacks) and would be much higher if the tracks were removed, as they are a barrier to use when there is less than two feet of groomable snow. Second, those who are questioning the local biking volumes are neglecting the over 200,000 people who come to the FIsh Creek and Rollins Pond campsites each year. Nealy all, according to the local DEC gate keepers, come with bikes, and there is a short possible connector from the interior Rollins trails to the rail corridor. The WIld Center is only 9 miles away and Saranac Lake only 25. Whatever the number of new overnight visitors that train restoration would bring (the rail buffs’ Stone Consulting report says 7,000) they are easily trumped by the bike, hike, snowmobile, and other recreational users you would expect. You don’t need 244,000 to make a trail the right answer.
Lee. I’ve asked Brian Mann a question about who at DOT is so doubtful or downright dismissive about a trail conversion. He didn’t answer it this time, although he attempted by refering to an email from a dot person who said nothing like what has been reported. I asked it in response to another inbox post and it also was missed/ ignored.
Do you have any knowledge about who at the DoT is making statements and whether they have any real authority.
Converting the rail corridor between Lake Placid and Old Forge into a recreational trail for repeated daily use by bicyclists, runners, walkers, bird-watchers, wheel-chair users, young families, senior citizens, commuters, people of all ages and physical abilities, could be done quickly and inexpensively. It would provide a huge boost to the tourist economy, based on the economic impact of other popular rail trails around the country. It would add enormously to the quality-of-life of both residents and visitors. It’s a world-class no brainer. We’ve given the tourist train a more-than-fair trial extending over 12 years, and it hasn’t produced any noticeable benefits. Now let’s give the recreation trail a fair test. The rail bed is there. The work involved in creating a recreation trail is 90% done. For the salvage value of the rails, the smoothing and surfacing of the 34-mile rail bed between Lake Placid and Tupper Lake would be paid for. Even without the finished, crfushed stone/stonedust surfacing, the next 57 miles from Tupper to Old Forge would be immediately usable for mountain bikes and for vastly improved snowmobiling. If ever there is an urgent public need to restore train service through the Adirondacks, the rail bed will still be there, ready and waiting. We have everything to gain, and nothing to lose, by converting the 90-mile section between Lake Placid and Old Forge into one of the nation’s premier rail trails
Arlan, all the DOT talk is lower level staff who do not make these decisions. They can only say what is in the current UMP. If directed by their bosses to open the UMP then that is what will happen. That directive must come from further up the food chain.
I mean Dick has a point why not try one smaller corridor and test the results for the trail?
Frankly the train thing just seems like one of these endless pipe dreams that just goes on and on, kind of like waiting for GM to come back to Massena or waiting to see if the Paper mills will ever come back.
Now if you said hey the state is ready to invest the millions necessary to get this thing going or that CSX or amtrack are interested in the long run if the tracks are ready, I would certainly look at it differently. But this will take big big bucks, who has big bucks? The state or the commercial rail lines.
“I mean Dick has a point why not try one smaller corridor and test the results for the trail?”
I wish Dick meant that, but Mervel, the ARTA folks appear to have zero interest in testing their ideas on a corridor that doesn’t have rails to rip up first.
Dick, with all due respect, we’ve heard it a hundred times before. Truth is, despite your well meaning conviction, you have no idea how great a draw the corridor will prove to be if you get your way and destroy the work the ASR has done over the last twenty years– you’ve got optimistic guesses based on doubtful parallels to almost entirely dissimilar examples.
You end your post with two absurd statements:
“If ever there is an urgent public need to restore train service through the Adirondacks, the rail bed will still be there, ready and waiting. We have everything to gain, and nothing to lose…”
Sure, the tracks could be restored, but at a vastly greater price. And everything won’t be there: some 240,000 railroad ties, endless spikes and connectors, and the steel rails themselves will decidedly not be there if you folks get your way.
If Walker and I see eye-to-eye on anything there must be a reason!!! Maybe a cosmic one!!
This is a one way proposition or sure.
Sorry “for” not “or”.
The corridor is State Land. There are more people and more communities that want to use this land as a recreation trail than a train service. We live in a democracy. Open the UMP, which is how the use is determined and get on with it. If there was no groundswell of interest in this idea then it would be a dead idea by now. Here are some comments I have heard in the last 24 hrs. from people in Tupper Lake: 2nd homeowner: “We ride trains everyday at home, why would we want to ride them here?” Restaraunt owner: “My customers come here to recreate, t hey ask me where to go to ride bikes, paddle and hike.”, Neighbor: ” wouldn’t it be great to get that Trail built, I’d use it everyday.”; Business owner:”I can’t understand why some people don’t get it? It’s a no brainier!”.
Contrary to what you hear from some people, Tupper Lakers are for the Trail.
I’m also in agreement with Walkers last post. Cosmic indeed!
“Use google map with salelite images and then reply. It’s more wetland than not. They seem to have followed wetlands because filling was physically easier than digging.”
Arlan, you’re right that it looks worse on Google maps than on the paper maps, but its well short of “more wetland than not”: the four miles south of Horseshoe Lake have maybe a mile and a half of wetland (south of the Bog River Flow and Hitchens), and the four Wilderness miles near Lila have only one small (quarter mile?) wet spot, near Harrington Lake.
I understand that the side-by-side would be far more difficult than the rip-’em-up approach. But I think that it would make sense to explore that option thoroughly before dismissing it out of hand.
It is my opinion that one of ARTA’s more extreme exercises in rosy thinking is when they say that we’d have an “instant” trail if they got the go-ahead to take up the rails. This is going to take a long time to resolve and develop one way or the other. We’re talking about DOT, DEC and APA. Need I say more?
What exactly is the plan for these trains and who is going to pay for it and when?
Are we are saying we can’t do anything with these rail beds forever because they have old rail lines sitting on them that might be used someday?
I still think you have a lot of track, so give the train guys some of the corridor starting with what is currently ready to go and working, and give the trail people some of the track beds that are in bad shape to make trails out of.
Wetlands must be determined by a wetland survey which looks for specific vegetation, not just water. There is an official wetlands map of the Park at the DEC, I believe. I have not had success finding one online.
Mervel, if we do that, it precludes the possibility of running trains from Utica (and the rest of the nation) to Lake Placid. You know, like if you took away the section of the Northway between exit 29 and 30? You’d still have most of the Northway, but…
But if we work on adding trail parallel to the tracks, we could work toward Tupper from Saranac Lake and toward Big Moose from Old Forge, and someday, just maybe, we could connect them, and still have the train.
Hope, I know that there’s way more to it than my quick survey could provide. I just thought it might be worth trying to see how much Wilderness there was to deal with.
Walker,
Who is saying that is viable and who would pay for that (running trains from the rest of the nation & NYS to Lake Placid) ? I thought this was about a tourist train? Now we are talking about commercial rail, both passenger and freight? I think that is part of the problem. I was unaware of how much needed to be done to make that happen to the tracks themselves, but it is my understanding just from this discussion we are looking at millions of dollars in upgrades to the current tracks. Who has shown any interest in doing that? I think we have to balance the immediate benefits of a trail against the long term benefits and probability of full rail service in the park? Do we even want commercial trains in the park? Would they be allowed? Would the upgrades be allowed under park rules?
Too many questions.
Mervel, this has been all over the Enterprise, just Google “Pullman” and you’ll get a couple of dozen hits. Here’s one: Luxury on the rails?
Sorry, I didn’t mean to use Google. Go to the Enterprise and use their search.
Walker, Iowa Pacific has no plans to pay for improving the tracks. They don’t even have their own engines. Unless Amtrak plans on making the trip they can’t get here from there. For Amtrak to make the trip the tracks need to be upgraded to Class III standards. So far the only section at that standard is between Carter Station and Big Moose. So there is indeed a great deal of work to be done with no guarrantees that this plan is viable.
Walker, Jimmy said ” Walker, I can’t find it either email me [email protected] and I will send it this afternoon.” Did he ever make good on his offer? If so may be you could enlighten the rest of us with that very important information. B.R. Tom
Turned out that Jim didn’t have a web address for the report anywhere online, but he did have a scan of it. I assume he’d be willing to share it with anyone here.
I didn’t find the data terribly convincing, but as we kicked the numbers around it became clear that hard numbers would be all but impossible to generate for an eighty mile long trail that users could enter and exit anywhere for short or long round or one-way trips.
I have no doubt that a rail/trail would get more users than the railroad alone (if only because it is free) but it seems equally obvious that rail-with-trail would draw more than either one alone. So the question is how feasible is rail-with-trail. (And of course there is the question of whether DOT will allow the rails to be removed.)
Hope, I don’t know much about this stuff, but why couldn’t Iowa Pacific’s cars be pulled by ASR’s engines? If they could get the tracks up to Class II, which has a 30 mph max speed, the eighty mile trip would take 2:40, which seems reasonable to me for a scenic train.
You know, if you ripped out the bobsled run on Mt. Van Hovenberg and put in a ski lift, you’d be bound to get more skiers than you get bobsledders now.
Just sayin’.
@ Jim McCulley: Walker said “I assume he’d be willing to share it with anyone here” surely if you are refrenceing “facts” from a published study you can provide a link to the published study. Please help us out here Jimmy, give us a link.
Tom, tell you what, I’ll just OCR the report Jim sent me:
ADIRONDACK TRAVEL CORRIDOR
SNOWMOBILE TRAFFIC STUDY
PRELIMINARY REPORT
PRELIMINARY REPORT FOR THE WINTER
USE OF THE ADIRONDACK TRAVEL CORRIDOR
FOR THE 1998 SEASON.
REPORT PREPARED BY THE TRAILS COMMITTEE
OF THE NEW YORK STATE SNOWMOBILE ASSOCIATION
JEFF JOHNSON, TRAILS CHAIRMAN
Background Information
The Study began from December 15. 1997 with the erection of loser trail counters furnished
by the New York Slate Office of Parks and Recreation. The four monitors were placed at
various locations along the right-of way. These locations were Forestport, NY, Beaver
River Station, NY, Horseshoe Luke and Lake Clear Junction.
Monthly readings were obtained from the various sites and compiled and used to develop
this preliminary report. Problems were encountered with a massive early season ice storm
on the two most northern counting sites. Therefore for Ibis season those units were not
used The second season of counting will begin as the season begins in 1998/99.
The count also reflects the low snow season caused by El-Nino that held temperatures
ten to twenty degrees above the normal low the season.
The readings that were taken reflect a raw data count for three months closing on March
15,1998 to compile this report. That reading for two counters was 235,595 occurrences.
Those two counters were located in the Forestport and Beaver River Station regions.
Actual Recordings
JAN. FEB. MAR.
SITE1 30,160 105,848 148,487
Forestport
SITE 2 24,800 65,368 87,468
Beaver River Station
Total Raw Data 235,955
Because of incidental animal crossings, humans and any other non-snowmobile
recorded incident ten percent wilt be deducted from the final total.
Therefore as of March 15, 1998 the total adjusted snowmobile traffic on the Adirondack
Travel Corridor (NYS Corridor Trail 7) is 212.359 snowmobiles.
The counters will continue to record till the end of the 1997/98 season and those figures
will be incorporated in to final two year count at the end of the 1998/99 season.
The Snowmobile Economic Survey Study recently completed by the State University of
New York has been able to extract a dollar figure for these 212,359 snowmobilers for
the 1997/98 season. From that study a seventy-five dollar per snowmobiler per day-
figure can be applied.
This report also considers both local and out-of town traffic on the corridor.
Thus the total economic impact by snowmobiling on NYS Corridor 7 for the year ending
is $15,926,925.00.
[Probably the lines immediately after “Actual Recordings” will be spaced badly because of the way blog sofware usually works, but you can probably figure out what lines up under what.]
Hmmm, OCR isn’t always that good! The first line should read:
The Study began from December 15, 1997 with the erection of laser trail counters…
Sorry about that! There are probably some other errors.
Waker, good point on the bobsled run! And if we opened the roads on State lands we;d get a lot more tourists too!
I really find it short sighted for people to dismiss rail altogether as a possible answer to future travel and supply issues. The country used to be covered with rail lines. With our questionable energy future, the day may soon come where we do become more like much of the rest of the world and return to rail. You can transport 100 rail cars of whatever far more efficiently by rail to Placid for instance than by trucking it. I think we need to start considering options like that may be needed int he future.
@Walker, Is this what jimmy sent you? http://www.adirondackdailyenterprise.com/pdf/news/504487_1.pdf
ARTA is proud of the fact that they have 10,000 signatures.
Whoop-de-do. Well over 10,000 people voted with their pocketbooks in 2012, just riding from Lake Placid to Saranac Lake.
Methinks that carries a lot more weight than a bunch of signatures gathered at street fairs from people who may not even understand what they were actually “supporting.”
The railroad has one agenda, and it’s right out in the open – running trains to Lake Placid.
The core of ARTA has several agendas, all of which involves removing the tracks. Folks would do well to question their motives, as it’s entirely possible the promise of developing a “world class trail” is just a facade for other agendas. Especially the snowmobilers, who will most certainly lose their trail entirely if the tracks are lifted. DOT recently reaffirmed that if the tracks are removed, the right-of-way will revert to adjacent properties, like “The Bob.”
Tree, you’d better wash your hands after smearing that BS all over your keyboard. Please entertain us; who from the DOT said such a thing and where has it been reported?
The Managent plan for the corridor lists trail conversion as an alternative. The DOT DEC and APA all sighed off on the plan meaning they believe it is a reasonable use of the corridor.
Yes, Tom, that looks like the same report.
Wow! I’m was just checking in here because this convo got going too fast for me to keep up. But I read a little bit that is very disturbing, the idea that we would start charging a fee for using walking trails.
I just want to point out that the English Lords over a thousand years ago forced the King into allowing people to travel the trails and roads. It is one of the most core and basic freedoms that has come down to us through the centuries in our legal system. To see people who often write about our cherished freedoms advocate that sort of thing is mind-boggling.
Any road, trail, or path that has been used by the public for 10 years or more cannot be blocked to pedestrians without proper legal proceedings. If someone built new trails that were pay roads, fine. But any talk of fee based hiking trails is, to coin a phrase, simply un-American.
@ Walker, Notice that the URL for that preliminary report is from the ADE, I believe that Jimmy provided it to the paper and I am sure that Jimmy provided a copy to Chris Knight when Chris was still at WNJZ (Talk of The Town). The main point to note with the “study”, aside from the greatly inflated figures, is the wording at the top. Not once, but twice, the words “Preliminary Report” are used and that alone makes any of the data contained in the report suspect and not useable until it is verified in the completed study. Until a copy of the completed study is produced (it does not exist) the numbers that Jimmy and others at ARTA are throwing around should be disregarded as false. Data from this preliminary report was used in the Camoin economic impact report, which invalidates those findings.
Well, yeah, it’s mighty soft data. Consider, since there were two counters, if you made an out-and-back trip past both of them you’d be counted four times. Of course, it’s also likely that some riders were on those trails on short trips and didn’t pass either counter.
They deducted 10% for false counts. Maybe reasonable, maybe not. I get empty photos from my game camera more than 10% of the time, using the same infrared technology.
But in addition to that “Preliminary Report” heading, it’s interesting to me that in the fifteen years since, they haven’t tried to improve on the study. Game cameras are dirt cheap. If you set some up on a trail, you can rule out the empty photos. You wouldn’t want to try to do a whole season that way, but why not do one week, count the photos, and extrapolate? Seems like it would be pretty easy. If you did that several times at several different points on the trail, you’d begin to develop a pretty accurate picture of what was going on.
Gee Knuckle, you mean you shouldn’t have to pay for your recreation? That’s what all this is about- recreation. Why should I be forced to foot the bill for your recreation on state lands when you don’t have to foot the bill for mine? That’s fundamentally unfair in every way I can think of. There is a cost associated with trail creation and maintenance. The hike/bike crowd pays nothing for it, while the fish/hunt/motor boat/snowmobile crowd not only pays it’s normal taxes but has to pay high fees to engage in their recreation. We aren’t talking public thoroughfares, we’re talking hiking trials on state lands in particular.
Pay to play, pretty basic and fair as far as I can see.
@ Walker, “Well, yeah, it’s mighty soft data” you’re being very kind! This is what a “REAL” snowmobile traffic study looks like: http://users.stat.umn.edu/~sandy/courses/8801/articles/VOYA_Snowmobile_Use_2003.pdf
From what information I have gathered, these counters were indeed placed on the corridor in plain sight, by the NYSSA and local club members. Can you say “Fudged DATA”? This so called study took place because the snowmobile folks feared that the Rail folks were planning to operate year round. They (snowmobile folks) needed to show DOT and Parks and Rec that the snowmobile numbers met or exceeded the rail use numbers. It would appear that they went a little heavy on the numbers.
The completed study was done by SUNY Potsdam. Do you think they lied or fudged the numbers. get over yourself. Why is it train supporters just resort to calling people liars and not providing any proof that anyone is lying? hmmmm….. You can just as easily say you support the railroad without accusing people of lying. I have nothing against rail supporters, even have a few friends that support restoring the railroad. I don’t agree with them but we are still friends.
Chew on this:
http://www.snowmobile.org/pr_11_2012_sales-outperform-economy.asp
Arlo, there’s plenty of recreation we don’t have to pay for except through our taxes: hiking, paddling, back country camping, most swimming, some cross country skiing. And then there’s the common use of driving as recreation, and the Internet.
You’re interested in freedom. You might be interested in the concept of “freedom to roam, especially in the Nordic countries. Now that’s freedom. What we have is property rights, instead of freedom.
Hope, then what you are saying is that this: http://www.adirondackdailyenterprise.com/pdf/news/504487_1.pdf
And this; http://www.snowmobile.org/pr_11_2012_sales-outperform-economy.asp
Are one and the same or that the 1997-98 preliminary study was done by Suny Potsdam?
Hope the URL you provided didn’t seem to be a copy of a study at all. It seemed more like a press release of sorts talking about some economic impact study. Has Suny Potsdam done more than one economic impact study?
On page four of the 97-98 preliminary study it states; “The Snowmobile Economic Survey Study recently completed by the State University of New York has been able to extract a dollar figure for these 212,359 snowmobilers”.
“Study recently completed” being published as part of this offering would seem to indicate that the Suny study was completed before this information came to light. Just saying.
Hope, I think the SUNY Potsdam study you’re talking about is here: http://www.nysnowmobiler.com/images/pdf/2012/NYSSA-Economic-Study-Executive-Summary-And-Discussion-9-13-12.pdf
It mentions a ’97 study, but I don’t see any references to trail counters, and the ’97 study on the Enterprise site doesn’t mention Potsdam, so it’s hard to see the two as connected. The NYSSA study is based on a survey. It didn’t do much for me in terms of identifying how much use the rail corridor would be likely to see. Maybe I missed something?
Hope, May be a little novacane would help that nerve I seem to have hit?
The 2012 Economic Impact was done by SUNY Potsdam. I was just informing you of the economic impact of snowmobiling in NYS. I’m just pretty tired of every time some published verifiable information is put out there somebody comes out and basically says its a lie with absolutely no basis or if there is one they don’t tell you what it is. DOT puts counters out all the time to determine usage. Of course there is traffic going back and forth or leaving the road or trail before being counted. They have formulas to use to determine current use and future use. But the reality is, without the tracks there will be more snowmobile traffic, not less. More snowmobile traffic means more dollars in our communities. The RTC study does not include snowmobile use at all so that is additional economic impact to be gained. You want to disagree with these studies fine but at least back up your opinions with something besides “twisted facts and lies”.