Why we’re asking these thorny questions about the Adk Railroad
NCPR’s coverage of the rail-trail debate comes as New York state is gathering public comments about the future of the rail corridor. Photo: Brian Mann
The last couple of weeks I’ve had a lot of conversations — on the phone, via email, in person, and on social media — with supporters of the Adirondack Scenic Railroad about the fairness of NCPR’s reporting on the rail-trail debate.
Our latest story appeared Wednesday morning.
The concerns fall into a couple of broad categories. Firstly, some folks are worried by the fact that this public radio station has prominent supporters and donors who are also leading members of ARTA, the pro-trail group that wants to dismantle the Scenic Railroad.
Secondly, NCPR continues to ask thorny questions about ASR’s track record (I know, sorry), operating on sections of the line from Old Forge to Lake Placid over the last twenty-plus years.
Some pro-train advocates think these questions, by their very nature, are unfair and inappropriate. They think maintaining the railroad is a no-brainer and they’re dismayed that critics have been given so much attention and air time.
So let me address these two concerns in order.
IS NCPR SECRETLY SUPPORTING THE TRAIN (OR THE TRAIL)?
It’s true that we have some good friends and donors, including Lee Keet from Saranac Lake, who are part of NCPR’s community while also serving as high-profile leaders of ARTA.
But it’s also a fact that we have a huge cadre of support — financial and otherwise — from passionately pro-train folks, from Lake Placid to Old Forge and beyond.
It’s also true that we have a carefully crafted system of ethical and professional “firewalls” in place to protect our reporting from financial influence or political pressure.
In fact, NCPR has a long history of infuriating people who consider themselves to be our friends and core supporters. We don’t do it cavalierly, but we do it cheerfully when the facts and the story make it necessary.
Sometimes those folks drop out of our community. Usually they don’t.
Finally, it’s important for both sides in this debate to remember that the rail-trail fight in the Adirondacks is a relatively small issue in the context of the stories we cover over our huge region.
Our reporters are in the field covering high-intensity and high-dollar issues all the time — from hydro-fracking to the rooftop highway to big Adirondack land purchases.
In doing that work, we’ve developed strong procedures for protecting our work from undue influence.
SO WHY KEEP ASKING TOUGH QUESTIONS?
So assuming we’re not in the tank for either side, why ask these questions at all? Why dig into the Scenic Railroad’s business plan? Why give them the third degree over things like their financial health?
The first answer is that we plan to continue asking similarly tough questions about the rail-trail idea. We haven’t yet kicked the tires adequately on claims being made by ARTA about the cost and benefits of creating a long trail. That will happen this winter.
But it’s also true that in this story the Scenic Railroad is sort of like the incumbent politician in a political race. They’re the group with the history, the long years of struggle, with some big successes and some pretty big stumbles.
ASR now plans to ask New York for a 20 year commitment for use of the publicly-owned corridor, and for roughly $15.2 million in funding to restore a set of rails that would be used almost exclusively by their trains.
It’s NCPR’s job to provide skeptical, hard-nosed, fact-driven reporting about the Scenic Railroad’s internal workings, so that the public (again, including supporters) can reach informed conclusions about whether that investment is a good idea.
We also strive to be scrupulously fair and respectful. But train supporters, as much as critics, deserve to know as much as possible about the project, its strengths, its weaknesses, and any unanswered questions.
One final note. Folks following this story closely will note that the version on NCPR’s airwaves differs a bit from the version that appeared in the pages of Adirondack Explorer magazine.
This is because the magazine has a longer lag time and went to press before I uncovered some key bits of information, including my interview with Iowa Pacific executive Ed Ellis, and my opportunity to view a part of ASR’s business plan.
HOW TO REACH US IF YOU DO HAVE A CONCERN
As always, if folks do still have concerns about our reporting, or hear something that just doesn’t sound right, we welcome feedback. I’m at [email protected]. Martha Foley, our news director, can be reached at [email protected]. Station manager Ellen Rocco can be reached at [email protected].
Tags: railstrails
Just got back from a trip to Baltimore this weekend. Stopped to see the NCR/York Heritage line. a 40 mile rail bed running from north of Baltimore to York, PA. Wow was it ever getting lots of use with businesses for tourists and bikers grown up along the trail. A very nice asset to the community. Yes, a suburban setting unlike the Adirondacks, but it just shows how popular these trails have become.
Economic Impact
Please go to http://www.thearta.org/UMP%20Submittal.pdf. Starting at page 13, you can read a detailed discussion of the economic impact of rail-trails not located near urban centers. See also, http://www.outsideonline.com/adventure-travel/north-america/united-states/Outsides-Best-Towns-2013.html.
State Funding Support of the ASR
The Adirondack Scenic Railroad operates on a state-owned transportation corridor, which the state pays them to maintain, largely by spraying herbicides. They ride on state-owned rails, and the road crossings are built and maintained by the state. I suspect the state pays to buy, install, and service the crossing signals. ASR has requested that the state pay to install new ties and refurbish the rail infrastructure, at a cost estimated at fifteen to forty-three million dollars.
State funding of the expanded Adirondack Scenic Railroad would not end there, because there are still no investors, and no capital. They have not provided a business plan with credible projections for revenue, or a basis to anticipate that the ASR would be able to finance their expanded operations on that state-refurbished rail bed.
Once the rail infrastructure is restored, the state would need to fund the active maintenance of that rail infrastructure. At some point, the ASR would acknowledge that the near-century-old rails limit their speeds, and they’ll want the state to replace them. The state would also need to pay for updating and expanding the ASR’s inventory of rolling stock, which is not sufficient in breadth to provide the rail services envisioned, and generally dates from the 1950’s. One might infer from Brian Mann’s article that their existing rolling stock is not particularly well-maintained. It will likely need major maintenance and repair work, if not replacement.
The state would need to pay the wages for the employees the Adirondack Scenic Railroad would need to hire, given their obvious staffing shortcomings as Brian Mann discussed. The state would need to pay for their health insurance and training, and the supplies, tools, equipment, and facilities they’d use. The state would pay for diesel fuel, (very large) batteries, utilities, insurance, marketing, ticketing, regulatory compliance, financial management, waste disposal, snow removal, maintaining new crossing signals, etc. These ongoing operational costs would be massive.
How many of these costs would apply to the Adirondack Rail Trail?
Comparing Subsidies
It strains credibility to compare the current or possible future financial structure of the Adirondack Scenic Railroad to any user of highways or airports. The Adirondack Scenic Railroad is a very small non-profit enterprise, heavily dependent on state funding. They wish to become a much larger non-profit enterprise, with no capital and little revenue, funded to a much-greater extent by taxpayers of the State of New York.
How much would it cost to restore the rail infrastructure and operate ASR rail services along this corridor for twenty years? Is a hundred million dollars a fair estimate? Two hundred million? What is your estimate? To what extent would their revenues cover their massive expenses? How much could they charge three paddlers to drop them and their canoes off at Rollins Pond? Fifty dollars? How many paddlers, hikers, and leaf-peepers would need to ride this train to cover the ASR’s expenses?
Cape Air, JB Hunt Trucking, or other businesses using air or ground transportation make massive capital investments and generate massive revenue to cover their purchases of equipment and their operations. Road users pay a road use tax as part of their fuel expenses. Airlines pay to use airports, and people flying on airlines pay fees. CSX pays their way. The ASR has no capital, no anticipated revenue, no projections of overall costs, nothing. Don’t even think about comparing the ASR to Amtrak. The level of subsidization needed by an expanded Adirondack Scenic Railroad would be much, much greater than that provided to any of these other modes of transportation.
If the State of New York wants to make a decision to fund rail services from Old Forge to Lake Placid, there should first be a comprehensive analysis of what the overall costs and benefits would be, and a conscious, informed decision by the state to fund the ASR. “Fifteen million dollars” represents the “tip of the iceberg” of what taxpayers would pay for an expanded Adirondack Scenic Railroad. What would the benefits be?
Dependency, Transparency, and Accountability
We have no basis to anticipate that the ASR will ever achieve any degree of financial self-sufficiency, particularly north of Old Forge. They are and would remain very heavily dependent on state funding, but they have hardly operated in a transparent or publicly-accountable manner. They have refused to release their proposal to the public, and they have stiff-armed and attacked the press. They and their supporters have made repeated personal attacks against well-intentioned people offering a different vision and a detailed, credible proposal for this publicly-owned corridor.
Do you really want to reward that kind of behavior and invest in their massive and expensive but undefined venture? If so, the Adirondack Scenic Railroad can undertake a stock offering, and you can invest. Do the citizens of the State of New York value rail service to Lake Placid more than any other urgent budget priority, such that they are prepared to issue a “blank check” to the Adirondack Scenic Railroad? The Adirondack Rail Trail can be built and maintained inexpensively, and it will bring substantial benefits to the region. Which option is supported by communities along this corridor? See http://www.thearta.org/news/news.htm.
http://www.tripadvisor.com/Attraction_Review-g57658-d145561-Reviews-Virginia_Creeper_Trail-Damascus_Virginia.html
Hope’s comments regarding the Creeper are well founded. Check out the “Trip Advisor” comments.
Mountain View: The Adirondack Daily Enterprise has not given an “EZ Pass” to ARTA letter writers, as you accuse. Trail and the train advocates both have a bunch of people writing a bunch of letters, and as long as they keep them to one per person per month — and follow the other guidelines we’ve had for years and publish on our Opinion page daily — then we run them. The alternative would be to make new guidelines limiting the number of letters one can get published over the course of a year, or the number of letters on a particular subject, and that strikes me as arbitrary — and perhaps a biased decision favoring the group that writes fewer letters. I prefer to keep the rules consistent. At present, both sides are well represented, as you can see from the recent letters on this subject (http://adirondackdailyenterprise.com/page/category.detail/nav/5256/Rail-trail-debate.html).
I don’t think it’s fair to accuse me of taking sides I haven’t taken. It’s a cheap shot and a fabrication, and hurts your credibility. If you want to scrutinize my position, here’s the latest commentary from me, and the Enterprise, on this subject: http://adirondackdailyenterprise.com/page/content.detail/id/539198/Open-minded-in-rail-trail-debate.html?nav=5003
Also, please put your name on your comment so I know whom I’m speaking to.
-Peter Crowley, managing editor, Adirondack Daily Enterprise
David Banks: I’ll take this in bite sized chunks. Just this one paragraph is enough to keep me busy for quite a while. You say:
“Cape Air, JB Hunt Trucking, or other businesses using air or ground transportation make massive capital investments and generate massive revenue to cover their purchases of equipment and their operations. Road users pay a road use tax as part of their fuel expenses.”
These user fees do not cover the costs of the infrastructure that these carriers use. Never have, probably never will. Cape Air benefits from the Essential Air Services subsidy and one truck causes as much damage to roads as 9,000 autos and YOU get to pay for it in general taxes to make up the difference.
These carriers may invest in trucks or planes, but they do not pay all the costs associated with the roads and airports they use. Not even close.
“Airlines pay to use airports, and people flying on airlines pay fees.”
Ditto. See my previous message. Without the partially non-user funded Air Traffic Control System, no airline could fly safely. Airlines do not pay nearly all the costs of the facilities they use. Airlines benefit from government tax free bonding for airport construction, among other things.
“CSX pays their way.”
YES! We have a winner! CSX and most other freight railroads DO pay their own way and are the exception. They must do that and get their capital on the private market, while air and highway carriers benefit from government support. Government makes infrastructure investments for them, which they could never afford to do if they had to raise private capital. Also, public right of way pays no property taxes, while railroad property does.
In the old days, railroads designed, built, operated and maintained all of their physical plant and services (both freight and passenger). That model was destroyed by government support that provided infrastructure to competing modes at below cost. This is what drove the private railroads out of the passenger business and nearly destroyed them altogether. Anyone who suggests that what we have today is a free market transportation system is fooling themselves.
“The ASR has no capital, no anticipated revenue, no projections of overall costs, nothing. Don’t even think about comparing the ASR to Amtrak.”
Wouldn’t dream of it. ASRR is expected to work miracles with little support. Amtrak does get federal and state support and there is at least some realization that it has a role to play.
“The level of subsidization needed by an expanded Adirondack Scenic Railroad would be much, much greater than that provided to any of these other modes of transportation.”
You ARE joking, right? What did it cost to build all these roads into the Adirondacks, in TODAY’S dollars? Providing capital for roads and airports and not charging carriers or motorists enough to cover that cost is a SUBSIDY. When was the last time Cape Air built an airport or JB Hunt built a road? ASRR covers its operating costs through the farebox, so we can only be talking about capital costs. Any reasonable level of capital costs for ASRR is peanuts compared to what has already been spent for roads.
Not to belabor this, but, once again, ALL FORMS OF TRANSPORTATION ARE SUBSIDIZED. The ONLY exception is the privately owned and operated freight railroads and even they cooperate with government on specific public-private partnerships.
Meanwhile, we are expected to believe the trail will cost little to build and maintain? The truth will differ from that assertion, I believe. Check David Lubic’s remarks on that.
David Banks: First paragraph and my response:
“The Adirondack Scenic Railroad operates on a state-owned transportation corridor, which the state pays them to maintain, largely by spraying herbicides.”
It looks to me as though you are downplaying what the railroad does. As David Lubic says, “It seems to me that much, if not most, of the work in maintaining a railroad or a trail or a road is the same. That includes bridge maintenance and repair, cutting weeds that clog drainage ditches, taking care of water action (such as washouts), frost action, keeping trees cut back so they don’t grow into the light of your right-of-way, and clearing tree falls, beaver dams, and other things.”
These are all activities the state would have to pay for if the right of was converted to trail. Building the trail does not free the state from these costs. To suggest otherwise is a bit disingenuous.
“They ride on state-owned rails, and the road crossings are built and maintained by the state. I suspect the state pays to buy, install, and service the crossing signals.”
The trail will also use state owned right of way. Not much difference here. Show us the evidence concerning crossing signals.
“ASR has requested that the state pay to install new ties and refurbish the rail infrastructure, at a cost estimated at fifteen to forty-three million dollars.”
How is this different than paying the cost of building and maintaining the trail? Again, David Lubic shows there is not much difference. You still have all the costs of keeping the property maintained, whether it’s for a railroad or a trail.
Yes, there is a need to do some tie and roadbed work but I’m sure there would be a similar request to redo the roadbed, lay a new surface and install signage, rest facilities and so on for any trail.
BTW—and I’m sure you already know this—that $15 million cost comes from a report by a respected rail consulting firm. Meanwhile, the railroad progresses and is now working toward Beaver River.
What you have posted is easily refuted and is skewed to make a case for the destruction of the railroad in favor of your trail.
It doesn’t make sense to compare Amtrak to the Scenic Railroad. Whatever the level of government subsidy, Amtrak is used by hundreds of thousands — heck, maybe millions — of people a year as a practical mode of transportation from one city to another. The Scenic Railroad is a tourist train, utilized by people who mostly already have cars to go from Saranac Lake to Lake Placid if they so desired.
That Amtrak and commuter rail systems also operate on high levels of government funding is not an argument for the ASR. There’s a strong public interest in funding Amtrak. In the Scenic Railroad? The only public interest I could see would be if it were bringing in a lot of tourists who wouldn’t be here anyway to patronize local businesses. I don’t think it is.
Mr. Hutchison,
As in the case of your above exchange with Brian Mann, your aim is a bit wide of the mark.
Again, “The level of subsidization needed by an expanded Adirondack Scenic Railroad would be much, much greater than that provided to any of these other modes of transportation.” In other words, my point was clearly not that any form of land or air-based transportation completely covers the related public expenses. My point was that an expanded ASR north of Old Forge would be more dependent on public support than any other form of transportation because of their considerable expenses and their poor revenue outlook. Given JB Hunt’s investment in equipment, other costs, and road use taxes that JB Hunt pays, and the negative externalities related to their use of public roadways, they pay a far higher proportion of their total costs (including externalities) than the ASR could ever hope to cover. NYS taxpayers would be supporting improvement and upkeep of the rails, and also paying nearly all or nearly all of the ASR’s operational costs. I stand by my assertion.
The cost of maintaining rail infrastructure to withstand hundred-ton rail cars is comparable to the costs of maintaining a trail to withstand walkers or cyclists? I’ll also point out, again, the many, many costs of operating a railroad that would not apply at all to a rail-trail.
It really would be nice if the Adirondack Scenic Railroad would make their DOT submissions public, open their finances to public scrutiny, talk with the media, and otherwise engage on the basis of evidence, instead of all the personal attacks.
David Banks: I’m laughing out loud…”externalities”…you are a hoot. You tell me not to compare ASRR with Amtrak and then you try to compare ASRR with JB Hunt? Wow.
You dodge my point concerning subsidies by continuing to say:
“The level of subsidization needed by an expanded Adirondack Scenic Railroad would be much, much greater than that provided to any of these other modes.”
Really? Where’s the proof? You keep repeating this stuff as though it’s gospel in the hope that if you say it enough, people will start to believe it. Oh, and what “externalities” would the trail cover? Would you have toll booths to cover costs? Or, does it just “happen” as if by magic?
The bit about Brian Mann is a poor attempt at a cheap shot. Nice try.
Biran,
Nice, well done attack article you submitted as “news” in the Explorer. I didn’t know that the Explorer and NCPR were affiliated, and both funded, and conducted a month long investigative report. Thanks for creating some misconception as to, who pay’s your salary? NCPR, Explorer ? I’d like to know where my tax deductable contributions are going. Is the 501 non profit paying you to cover for the for-profit Explorer? I’d like to know so where should I book my NCPR donation as such, or an advertizing expense.
How was the cost of your attack piece on the railroad underwritten? I await your answer.
Wow, what happens when you go to work and come back. . .
First off, I think I had better make clear my main thrust about a double standard. The point isn’t to compare subsidies for Amtrak, roads, the Adirondack, air service, or trails. It’s the idea that the double standard exists at all for any and all types of railroad–period!
Freight rail–“If trucks are cheaper, trucks should get the business, and the railroad can go away,” even though, as pointed out, railroads pay for EVERYTHING and pay taxes on it, too.
Commuter rail and transit lines–“Buses are cheaper, if the passenger train can’t make a profit, it should go away. Heck, we don’t even need buses, we have cars.” Never mind that the motorist has never paid his own way in a century. Never mind that this has lead to a loss of privately paid for infrastructure, and ironically, a loss of tax revenue, both due to the taxes no longer paid by a railroad, but by the loss of property to road systems. Interestingly, there is a big fight in Virginia on just this last item; some towns in the Shenandoah Valley are upset that the state wants to expand I-81 to as many as 12 lanes in spots. That expansion will consume so much property that pays taxes that it will have an adverse effect on local governments the whole length of the corridor.
Heritage railroads–“If it can’t make a profit, it should go away so we can have a trail.” And the trail will be paid for by the taxpayer.
I have to laugh at the comments about how the railroad (a) has unproductive, antiquated equipment, and (b) how it can’t handle modern rail cars.
That railroad has heavier rail in it than a branch line just down the street from me that handles 100+ ton cars; the rail in the track dates to 1914. I should know, I just saw it yesterday. There’s other rail in the track that dates to 1917. And as to the older equipment for a heritage road, let’s keep in mind that’s part of what makes it a heritage road.
Good grief, what would the trail people say about another road that runs steam engines and wooden cars–and handles freight behind those steam engines to boot? What would they say about a steam locomotive on another road, in regular service, that is over 100 years old, and runs on one of the steepest adhesion railroads in the world, a line so steep it’s listed in Wikipedia with rack and cog railroads? What would they say about another steam road, also with wooden cars, including wooden freight cars, that helps maintain a hydroelectric plant, and hauled trainloads of material in some years back to update said plant? What would they say about some private rail cars that are available for charter, and are certified for speeds in excess of 100 miles per hour, and are also nearly–and in one case, is–100 years old? What would they say if I told them that one of these cars carried the current president to his first inauguration?
I bet they would say I was making all that up. . .but I’m not.
Just for fun–Can anyone name the heritage roads and the private cars I described above? In particular, can any of the trail people name some of them?
No winners or losers here, just a little variation of “Trivial Pursuit.”
This is the first time I’ve followed one of these conversations close enough and long enough, and I am beginning to realize that there are some true train aficionados involved in the debate. Real, honest to goodness rail buffs.
Heck, it seems like some of you are ready to re-argue history and debate the reasons and the wisdom behind the decline of rail travel.
I have to wonder how much of this plays into the defense of the Adirondack Scenic Railroad. In other words, as this conversation drags on, it seems like some of you would fight for Adirondack trains simply because you love all things rail… regardless of what might make more sense for this area.
I suppose the same could probably be said about the other side, to some degree. I get the feeling some snowmobile clubs love snowmobiling so much they would be ok with tearing down their grandmother’s house if it meant they could build a trail on her property.
Just an observation, I suppose. But here is hoping the people who end up making this decisions are not advocates or enthusiasts, but can step back, take a long view of the issue, and do right by the Park.
“I have to wonder how much of this plays into the defense of the Adirondack Scenic Railroad. In other words, as this conversation drags on, it seems like some of you would fight for Adirondack trains simply because you love all things rail… regardless of what might make more sense for this area.”–Dave
I’ll admit that’s part of what drives me. I also think–or, I hope my judgement is right–that keeping this railroad intact is the best thing for the park and New York. I’ll also add that I think the railroad people have gotten a wrong deal from some of the trail people. I haven’t said it until now, and wouldn’t have until I saw your comment, but I do think the trail people have been the bullies others have charged them to be. I have experienced a bit of it first hand–and the ARTA has called us “blue hairs,” too! (Facebook page around Sept. 9–and I thought it so ridiculous I didn’t believe it until I saw it. Whooee!!)
I’ll add, though, as Bill Hutchinson pointed out earlier, that the railroad and trail people should be friends–and that applies not only to the snowmobile people, but the bike and hike and canoe crowds, too. Working together, we can accomplish great things. Other railroads and groups have demonstrated this. The Durango & Silverton in Colorado drops off people in the middle of nowhere to camp, hike, and fish, as do the Alaska Railroad in Alaska and the famous Polar Bear Express in Canada. The Western Maryland Scenic, which had its own tiff with bike trail people despite a double-tracked right of way (the trail people were afraid of hikers and bikers getting hit by trains for some reason, and there was some concern about a 900-foot tunnel), eventually became friends of the bike crowd, and they of it, for its ability to haul the bikers up the steep 3% grades of this line, which gives them a nice downhill ride. All these roads operate with baggage or box cars in their passenger trains to handle, depending on the location, bicycles, canoes, and camping equipment–and I would imagine we could handle snowmobiles as well (never underestimate the mechanical creativity of railroad people!) Neither should have to lock the other out.
I say we should be able to have both rail and trail, too–and it shouldn’t have to cost as much as some say it will. (ARTA’s numbers for the railroad and the trail–at least from a maintenance standpoint–seem to bear this out.) Now, I will admit there might not be a continuous trail, at least not right away, but at the same time, the railroad can help connect trail segments, indeed can be used to access trail and other sites that would be otherwise isolated. (I grant I may be refusing some compromise here, but that’s due to the relative inflexibility of regular railroad equipment, which doesn’t like going around corners too much, or up and down hills that are too steep; bikes, feet, and snowmobiles are a little more nimble, you know, and we’re not running trolley cars on this line that can go around street corners.)
Finally, I strongly recommend that all read Alfred Runte’s “Allies of the Earth: Railroads and the Soul of Preservation,” about how railroads, particularly passenger lines, both allow access to wilderness areas and protect them at the same time. It’s really a good read, and it might stir up some brain cells for joint work!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Runte
http://www.seattlepi.com/ae/books/article/Trains-make-America-s-beauty-ours-1206373.php?source=rss
http://seattletimes.com/html/opinion/2003021861_alrunte30.html
http://tsup.truman.edu/item.asp?itemId=277
Hi Dave and good morning!
Yep, I’ll confess my love for trains, but for me it’s more than polishing the bell on old engine number nine. It’s also about fairness and justice. I just don’t like to see others pushed around.
I felt I had to roll out the historical arguments because others made statements that were not based in fact and were using them to justify their argument to kill the railroad in favor of the trail.
Yes, I hope cooler heads prevail. This is an emotional issue and it brings out the best and worst in people. I just think there is a way to accommodate the desires of both groups.
I suggest you look into how Kirkland (Suburb of Seattle) is handling their old railroad tracks. They are actually getting $20K per mile for recycling the rails and ties – along with a nice trail.
Seattle is also laying new track downtown
Who says you can’t have both?
http://www.ptny.org/advocacy/LivingstonAve/LABCPublicMeetingSaveTheDate.jpg
Brian,
We are still waiting for an answer on how the joint collorabative effort. ” the month long investigative report ” done by NCPR and the Explorer was handled. Beamish launched out letter number twenty three by my count, ( ok I might be off by one ) today in the impartial ADE. So one of the point men on the attack of the railroad renumerates you for the objective investigative reporting. I’m sure you would have the same relationship with the Explorer if you submitted something not so over the top flawed and biased.
Still waiting for your hard hitting evaluation of the ARTA misinformation campaign.
Please give us some insite on the relatonship between you, NCPR, Beamish and Keet. We need to be better informed on how this politic has charged NCPR’s reportage on this matter.
Hello, Bill;
“Yep, I’ll confess my love for trains, but for me it’s more than polishing the bell on old engine number nine. It’s also about fairness and justice. I just don’t like to see others pushed around.”
Same here, that’s a big part of what drives me for this road and the Catskill Mountain, too, even though I am not from the area of either one. That, and we’ve lost way too much over the years to let this go.
“. . . I hope cooler heads prevail. This is an emotional issue and it brings out the best and worst in people. I just think there is a way to accommodate the desires of both groups.”
Copy on that, too, and it should be doable. Might involve a bit more in the way of money, maybe more time, but it’s the better way, and compared with some other things, doesn’t cost that much. Too often we let ourselves or our dreams be sold for too little.
I wonder what the trail people would consider a good “format,” for lack of a better word, for rail and trail. Completely duplicating the railroad with a trail is an obvious one, but one of the things I would consider, if it can be done with an accommodation from “forever wild” designations for some of the territory and a bit of money, would be a trail that mostly parallels the railroad but occasionally veers away to return. That would be like roads that parallel railroads, the two sometimes together, sometimes apart, and I think it makes a drive interesting, especially if you are “pacing” the train, and especially if you are “pacing” a steam train.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fedmeW-WImw
In fact, I would hope the trail people would like the idea of steam power. Looks great, and with whistles that sing. . .we know the general public loves these old puffers and how they draw people out when they run.
There could also be the operation of trains to haul snowmobiles to trail sections that would, at least initially, not be connected into a continuous whole. Think of that as adding to the attraction of getting to a favorite section, as if you were on a ferry boat across a lake, an often enjoyable part of a trip.
You don’t have to drive yourself every foot of the way to enjoy the ride.
“I’ll add, though, as Bill Hutchinson pointed out earlier, that the railroad and trail people should be friends–and that applies not only to the snowmobile people, but the bike and hike and canoe crowds, too. Working together, we can accomplish great things. Other railroads and groups have demonstrated this.”–Me
And what did we get for a response?
“I suggest you look into how Kirkland (Suburb of Seattle) is handling their old railroad tracks. They are actually getting $20K per mile for recycling the rails and ties – along with a nice trail.”–Brian Peoples
Just another disappointment. . .
“We have no basis to anticipate that the ASR will ever achieve any degree of financial self-sufficiency, particularly north of Old Forge. They are and would remain very heavily dependent on state funding, but they have hardly operated in a transparent or publicly-accountable manner.”–David Banks
Curious, tell me again, how do you propose to pay for the trail, and to pay for the maintenance of it? Do you plan to install toll booths? Do you plan on a special gasoline tax? Are you planning on borrowing the nine-pin players from “Rip Van Winkle?” Will they want to leave their nine-pin game in the Catskills?
“The state would need to pay the wages for the employees the Adirondack Scenic Railroad would need to hire, given their obvious staffing shortcomings as Brian Mann discussed. The state would need to pay for their health insurance and training, and the supplies, tools, equipment, and facilities they’d use. The state would pay for diesel fuel, (very large) batteries, utilities, insurance, marketing, ticketing, regulatory compliance, financial management, waste disposal, snow removal, maintaining new crossing signals, etc. These ongoing operational costs would be massive.”–Ibid
Why? They are making an operating profit now. I don’t believe they would operate trains at a loss; they mostly need infrastructure help, which could be compared to road maintenance. You don’t complain about road maintenance, do you?
“They and their supporters have made repeated personal attacks against well-intentioned people offering a different vision and a detailed, credible proposal for this publicly-owned corridor.”–Ibid
Kettle, meet pot, courtesy of the ARTA’s Facebook page comments on hearings for the corridor from September 9, 2013:
The Adirondack Rail Trail [Initial Comment by the Administrator]: “Lots of blue haired rail fans not happy with the process. It was so loud you couldn’t hear your self think.”
Following comments, only quotation marks added and “Like” notes eliminated:
Linda Pickering: “Thanks for updating!”
Maureen Peroza: ” Thanks Hope. We are working the computers from this end. Time to sound the alarm ….for real!!!”
Jay Waller: “Unfortunately that’s when they set the meetings up for if you think you saw blue hairs tonight wait till the afternoons. Typical of any state hearing they’re scheduled when the working man is busy or can’t possibly make it in time….”
Gunner Cook: “I was there and saw one of the conplaints listed that the public presentations in say Utica were unfair being only 1-4pm. I would think at this point emails, letters and faxes are the most powerful tool.”
The Adirondack Rail Trail [Administrator]: “Absolutely make sure you email or write. Those are critical. The hearings are visual and also important for the press to gauge public sentiment while the hearings are ongoing. The more people that show up to a hearing is indicative of the interest of the general public in the issue. If you are a Tri Lake Business person you should really try a make the hearing but definitely everyone should write or email.”
I’ve said it before, and I’ll repeat it here. I read about those “blue hair” comments and others on a railroad counterpart. When I first read that, I didn’t believe anybody could be that stupid, disrespectful, and downright mean, enough to undermine their efforts. I had to see this to believe it.
I guess I can be wrong about some things, and this was one.
I do not know the person who wrote this, but it’s well written and referenced. I always felt that ARTA’s studies cooked the books to reach a conclusion that supported their assertions. Now here is the smoking gun:
Beware of ARTA’s numbers
November 6, 2013
By James Falcsik
Save |
As a resident of western Pennsylvania, I offer comments to my northern neighbors based on the unique position of having owned a retail business 100 feet from a trail, and having lived and raised a family in the shadow of the Great Allegheny Passage.
I take issue with three items the Adirondack Recreational Trail Advocates put forth in their argument for removing the tracks that are misleading or disturbing:
1. ARTA believes rail-trail conversion and maintenance is at substantially lower cost than railroad support from the public sector.
2. ARTA commissioned economic impact analysis to support their position that thousands of trail users will add revenue dollars to the region.
3. ARTA has shunned the environmentally friendly railroad industry in favor of thousands of personal internal combustion recreational vehicles.
Rail-trail organizations are publicly funded. They are organized as 501(c)3 tax-exempt entities, soliciting public grants and private donations; they are required to file federal Form 990 with the Internal Revenue Service, as did ARTA, EIN 45-4752327. Maintenance and improvement costs are usually spread out over sub-chapters organized in the trail towns. Determining the actual cost of yearly trail maintenance, repairs, mowing, administration, fundraising, etc., can be difficult unless all sub-chapter organizations are identified and financial data acquired. Websites like http://www.guidestar.org are helpful to find this public information. Because rail trails are considered linear parks, counties may include budgeted funds in their parks and recreation departments for maintenance, etc.
To illustrate my point, here in Westmoreland County, Pa., the mother-ship trail organization is the Regional Trail Corporation, formed in 1991 and headquartered in West Newton, Pa. The RTC is responsible for maintaining 43 miles of trail, known locally as the Youghiogheny River Trail, which is part of the GAP. The RTC also has responsibility for four smaller rail trails in the area, and its most recent Form 990 filing lists the following information:
EIN # 25-1660116
2011 RTC total income: $2,324,817, total grants $1,994,413
2011 expenses: $347,095
Assets: $21,122,276
2011 government grants: $1,171,377
2007 through 2011 total public support: $15,386,880
2011 public support: 97.94 percent.
An active railroad will generate income by providing a service to the private sector. Most passenger rail operations in the U.S. are subsidized. Freight, a moot point for now on this corridor, can generate enough revenue to be self-sufficient. By removing the railroad asset and creating a recreational trail, continued public funding in perpetuity could be expensive and considered “redistribution” as each trail chapter seeks local funding or government grants.
Economic studies cited by ARTA should be viewed with a wary eye by government officials and the public, especially when making economic decisions that affect the general population.
In order to legitimize their position, ARTA commissioned the national Rail Trail Conservancy to perform an economic impact analysis of the rail corridor for $25,000. ARTA discounts a study conducted by Camoin Associates, which reported much lower visitor numbers and revenues. Regarding economic impact studies, Texas A&M Professor John L. Crompton, Department of Recreation, Parks and Tourism Sciences, writes, “The motives of a study’s sponsor invariably dictate the study’s outcome.” Additional cautions from Crompton include the following:
There is temptation to adopt inappropriate procedures and assumptions to generate high impact numbers.
Sometimes errors are committed deliberately to mislead stakeholders.
Mischievous manipulation involves abusing one of four principles: exclusion of local residents, exclusion of time-switchers and casuals, use of personal income rather than sales output for economic impact, and careful interpretation of employment data.
Local residents and “time-switchers” should not be included in economic impact studies because they do not inject new funds into the region. The Camoin study removed all local visitors from their summary. In the ARTA submittal, the economic impact table for six existing trails relies on local users in some examples for up to 63 percent of annual expenditure projections.
Personal income data, rarely used by tourism advocates because results are several times lower than sales figures, is the most meaningful information that should be considered by elected officials and the residents participating in this debate. After all, citizens of the region affected will be interested to know how tourism and economic development will affect their financial well-being.
As an example, portions of the Great Allegheny Passage trail have been in use for more than 27 years. Comparing U.S. census data from 2000 and 2010 in several prominent trail towns, although not a scientific survey, one may find answers about the economic impact of the trail. Between West Newton, Pa., and Cumberland, Md., of six towns reviewed, five of six experienced population loss, and four of six experienced median per-capita income growth lower than the state average. The worst performer was Connellsville: population loss 17.1 percent and 12 percent slower income growth. West Newton, home of the Regional Trail Corporation, experienced population loss of 14.6 percent and 3 percent slower income growth.
Railroads are a green industry. Moving passengers by rail, or freight in the future, is efficient and cost-effective. A train of only 10 freight cars will carry the same freight that would require 40 long-haul tractor-trailers. Some commentary writers ask, “How many of the engines burning this diesel fuel would be low-emission, EPA-regulated diesel engines?” Well, perhaps two, or three on a good day. Once the tracks are gone, so goes the enormous potential for economic development with a proven, environmentally friendly, volume-based transportation system. Directors of the Adirondack Recreational Trail Advocates include a professional environmentalist and others committed to conservancy issues. It is very ironic they would form a coalition with, as some would describe, “reckless, carbon-footprint-spewing, internal-combustion snowmobilers.” This unusual marriage of ideology and departure from the roots of environmentalism is cause for questioning the motive.
—
James Falcsik lives in Irwin, Pa.
—
References:
http://www.guidestar.org
Crompton, Texas A&M: agrilife.org/cromptonrpts/files/2011/06/3_5_8.pdf
Crompton: “Economic Impact Studies: Instruments for Political Shenanigans?” agrilifecdn.tamu.edu/cromptonrpts/files/2011/06/3_9_3.pdf
http://www.sedacograil.org/Pages/Home.aspx
http://www.clintoncountypa.com/resources/CCNGTF/pdfs/articles/12.30.10 percent20- percent20Railroads percent20and percent20the percent20Marcellus percent20Shale.pdf
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/csx-selects-mckees-rocks-and-stowe-township-for-new-pittsburgh-intermodal-facility-228185891.html
http://www.carloadexpress.com/
http://www.adirondackdailyenterprise.com/page/content.detail/id/539248/Facts-yes-name-calling-no.html?nav=5256
censusviewer.com/city/PA/West percent20Newton
http://www.zip-codes.com/zip-code/15089/zip-code-15089-census-comparison.asp
http://www.city-data.com/income/income-West-Newton-Pennsylvania.html
http://www.city-data.com/city/Smithton-Pennsylvania.html
http://www.city-data.com/city/Connellsville-Pennsylvania.html
http://www.city-data.com/city/Meyersdale-Pennsylvania.html
http://www.city-data.com/city/Frostburg-Maryland.html
http://www.city-data.com/city/Cumberland-Maryland.html
Brian,
We are still waiting for your response to you the concern’s your listeners raised above.
David Banks: I see you now wrote a letter to the editor of the Adirondack Daily Enterprise, regurgitating the same old, tired distortions and suppositions that you posted here. If you think you can spread this stuff all over without a response, think again. You can run but you can’t hide.
Mr. Hutchison;
There is one key link appearing in the letter above that has been disabled (actually two) that folks in your region need to read:
Crompton: “Economic Impact Studies: Instruments for Political Shenanigans?”
http//.agrilifecdn.tamu.edu/cromptonrpts/files/2011/06/3_9_3.pdf
Using the principles set forth by Professor Crompton, the entire economic impact analysis, and therefore the entire flawed plan that ARTA submits, are in question. If you read this article you will find many items of the impact analysis are being manipulated.
Discussion forums of this nature will not make much diffference. Use the research tools that are available to you. Your local citizens need to be illuminated to the deception that is being presented by this group. It is not just with numbers.
My apologies; my own post of the Crompton article above had the wrong character string. The following is a correct link to the site:
http://agrilifecdn.tamu.edu/cromptonrpts/files/2011/06/3_9_3.pdf
Thanks James! Some deep reading here!