tree68The railroad is "cautiously optomistic." Seven postponements haven't helped the state's case any. The "trail advocates" will likely appeal immediately (cost is no object) if the judge rules for the railroad. The "trail advocates" still want the rails lifted all the way back to Thendara. Win or lose, their campaign is far from done. They continue to want everyone out of "their" woods...
Seven postponements haven't helped the state's case any.
The "trail advocates" will likely appeal immediately (cost is no object) if the judge rules for the railroad.
The "trail advocates" still want the rails lifted all the way back to Thendara. Win or lose, their campaign is far from done. They continue to want everyone out of "their" woods...
If the Judge were to state something in his ruling for the RR that - 'the trail advocates don't OWN the woods and their opposition is 'trivial' - would that bolster the RR's long term position?
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
The railroad is "cautiously optomistic."
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
Excerpt from Adirondack Almanack, Jan. 31
http://www.adirondackalmanack.com/2017/01/lawyers-debate-court-rail-trail-proposal.html#comments
After months of delay, lawyers for the state and the Adirondack Railway Preservation Society squared off in court Monday over the future of a 34-mile stretch of tracks between Lake Placid and Tupper Lake.
At the end of the 45-minute hearing in Malone, acting State Supreme Court Justice Robert G. Main Jr. reserved decision on whether to block the state from tearing up the tracks and converting the corridor into a multi-use recreational trail.
The judge also asked the state to provide more information on the ownership of the railroad corridor...
Assistant State Attorney General Marie Chery-Seckhobo told Justice Main the landowners have agreed to let the state use their pieces of the corridor for the recreational trail and signed letters of intent to that effect.
Nevertheless, Main expressed concern that the state’s existing right of way on the parcels may not allow for uses other than a railroad. If the right of way does not allow a recreational trail, he asked, “isn’t the proposal doomed to failure?”
When the hearing ended, the judge asked lawyers from both sides to discuss the issue further in his chambers.
“We just need to provide more information regarding the state ownership,” Chery-Seckhobo said after emerging from the closed-door meeting.
Other state attorneys who attended the court hearing said they do not see the ownership issue as a major obstacle.
The right-of-way question did not come up until the end of the hearing. Earlier, Chery-Seckhobo and Jonathan Fellows, representing the railway society, summarized their arguments in the case, reiterating points from legal papers filed with the court.
tree68The railroad has said that they will work with whatever is left, so we can hope that riders will still want to go to Tupper Lake in significant numbers.
Part of the 'secret' is that some big casino or similar tourist attraction is being provided in Tupper Lake, and that's part of the reason for extending service there. I'm interested in seeing just how much additional traffic this generates, and how the ASR promotes it.
They say that bad news comes in threes. A third NY mountain scenic railroad operation may be threatened. The Saratoga & North Creek announced (last year) that they lost a million $ the year before last, and so they cut back service last year. They also brought up the idea of a subsidy from the County that owned the track. A local newspaper article about this on their website got about 2 dozen comments, all very negative.
schlimmSo looks like the 16,000 ridership (actual bodies) number may be accurate, which would be good news for the ASR's survival.
In terms of saving the "north end," that's questionable - the powers that be have shown a marked propensity to ignore such facts, as well as public opinion in favor of the railroad. by all indications, all the posturing that's gone on over the past few years has been mostly cosmetic - it appears the decision along this line may have been pre-ordained at the outset.
The railroad has said that they will work with whatever is left, so we can hope that riders will still want to go to Tupper Lake in significant numbers.
tree68 schlimm I don't know what numbers the Stone Study showed. However, the numbers you gave do not come close to agreement. I don't have my copy of the ridership handy, and don't recall the specific period it covers. And I do have to rely on the recall of the folks who were there 35 years ago, so the specifics there are iffy. The 16,000 number is solid, though, and is on file with state DOT. As you note, I don't know how it was arrived at, ie, if that was boardings vs actual bodies. And service ended, rather abruptly, in mid-August. It's hard to say how things would have turned out had they continued through fall, when the "leaf peepers" would likely have resulted in sold-out trains. As I recall, the Stone study (the current study) conservatively estimated 7,000 riders. The bottom line here is that historically people will ride the railroad all the way from Utica to Lake Placid. Another thing the "trail advocates" like to point out is that commercial passenger service ended in 1965, which it did. To compare common carrier passenger service (in 1965) with tourist service (in 2016), however, is ludicrous - apple and oranges.
schlimm I don't know what numbers the Stone Study showed. However, the numbers you gave do not come close to agreement.
I don't have my copy of the ridership handy, and don't recall the specific period it covers. And I do have to rely on the recall of the folks who were there 35 years ago, so the specifics there are iffy.
The 16,000 number is solid, though, and is on file with state DOT. As you note, I don't know how it was arrived at, ie, if that was boardings vs actual bodies. And service ended, rather abruptly, in mid-August. It's hard to say how things would have turned out had they continued through fall, when the "leaf peepers" would likely have resulted in sold-out trains.
As I recall, the Stone study (the current study) conservatively estimated 7,000 riders.
The bottom line here is that historically people will ride the railroad all the way from Utica to Lake Placid.
Another thing the "trail advocates" like to point out is that commercial passenger service ended in 1965, which it did. To compare common carrier passenger service (in 1965) with tourist service (in 2016), however, is ludicrous - apple and oranges.
So looks like the 16,000 ridership (actual bodies) number may be accurate, which would be good news for the ASR's survival.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
caboose63 too bad the catskill mountain railroad got hosed so bad by the lawsuit. guess the trail nutjobs got what they wanted. will the catskill mountain have any track left to operate any excursion trains, or is it a dead line? nice going trail people.
too bad the catskill mountain railroad got hosed so bad by the lawsuit. guess the trail nutjobs got what they wanted. will the catskill mountain have any track left to operate any excursion trains, or is it a dead line? nice going trail people.
CMR was kicked out of the Kingston end. They still have about 6 miles in Phoenicia and eastward. They wanted to move their Kingston equipment to Phoenicia, but now the Phoenicia locals are trying to stop any further expansion there. The County also leases this track to CMR, and can someday evict them from here too.
schlimmI don't know what numbers the Stone Study showed. However, the numbers you gave do not come close to agreement.
Slightly off-topic, but the acting Commissioner of Environmental Conservation, who signed the execution order, might could possibly personally ride 34 miles of new bikeway.
tree68That said, the summer following the Olympics - June through the end of operations in August - saw some 16,000 people ride the rails to Lake Placid from Utica. Even if those riders were counted as two boardings, that's still 8,000 passengers - not a number to sneeze at, and higher than the Stone study counted. There were two round trips per day, and each saw about 100 passengers aboard, according to folks I know whe were there.
I don't know what numbers the Stone Study showed. However, the numbers you gave do not come close to agreement.
First number: 16,000, maybe 8,000.
Second set: (2 RT daily = 4); 4 x 92 days x 100 = 36,800. Now that is a very large number, but so far from the others as to prove again how unreliable eyewitnesses' memories are 36 years later, unless it is the boardings vs passenger metric again.
The Adirondack Railway (for the Olympics) of 1979 and 1980 didn't haul as many people as the Central did in 1932. It was chiefly the fear of total gridlock in the Lake Placid for the 1980 event that brought it about in the first place.
That said, the summer following the Olympics - June through the end of operations in August - saw some 16,000 people ride the rails to Lake Placid from Utica. Even if those riders were counted as two boardings, that's still 8,000 passengers - not a number to sneeze at, and higher than the Stone study counted.
There were two round trips per day, and each saw about 100 passengers aboard, according to folks I know whe were there.
From what I've heard, it was some questionable management that lead to the safety issues that brought that operation to an end. I would suspect that had that iteration been well run, today's Adirondack Scenic Railroad would not exist, as tourist service might well have continued to this day.
http://www.ajes.org/volume-19-2013/adirondack-railways-historic-engine-of-change.php
Even though i live in michigan, I and my wife are praying that the Adirondack Scenic Railroad is successfull in keeping that 34 miles of track in place for further use. Same the trail nuts are so anti rail as does the state's current governor. hope support for Adirondack continues to grow.
Ah, those golden tones. You'd think I'd done radio before, or something...
I called in a little later.
I'll be cynical - if they pull the rails up a Interstate should go in!
wanswheel Excerpt from Adirondack Almanack http://www.adirondackalmanack.com/2016/05/61518.html The lawsuit lists three causes of action: Travel Corridor. The rail line is classified as a Travel Corridor in the State Land Master Plan. Except for the rail line, all the Travel Corridors in the Park are highways. ARPS contends that if the tracks are replaced with a recreational trail, the rail line will no longer be a Travel Corridor in the sense intended by the State Land Master Plan. “A Travel Corridor is not defined as a trail allowing for a range of recreational activities. It is defined in terms of highways and railroads,” the plaintiff’s lawyers assert in court papers. ARPS argues that the Adirondack Park Agency erred when it ruled in February that removing the tracks would not violate the State Land Master Plan. DEC approval. Seggos signed off on the plan in March, according to the lawsuit. ARPS lawyers contend that his approval of the plan was based on “flawed and biased economic impact data.” They also say he ignored competing data. Furthermore, ARPS says Seggos and other DEC officials refused to consider information that the society tried to present at a meeting in December. The lawsuit contends Seggos’s approval of the plan was “arbitrary and capricious” and should be nullified. Historic preservation. The corridor and the rails are on both the federal and state registers of historic places. Under the state Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation Law, state agencies must avoid damaging historical resources or take steps to mitigate such damage. DEC has said it intends to install historical signs and repair old railroad buildings along the corridor. But the lawyers for ARPS assert that “the notion that destruction of this historic railroad can be ‘mitigated’ by a sign that [says] ‘once there was a railroad here’ is cynical and irrational.”
Excerpt from Adirondack Almanack
http://www.adirondackalmanack.com/2016/05/61518.html
The lawsuit lists three causes of action:
Travel Corridor. The rail line is classified as a Travel Corridor in the State Land Master Plan. Except for the rail line, all the Travel Corridors in the Park are highways. ARPS contends that if the tracks are replaced with a recreational trail, the rail line will no longer be a Travel Corridor in the sense intended by the State Land Master Plan. “A Travel Corridor is not defined as a trail allowing for a range of recreational activities. It is defined in terms of highways and railroads,” the plaintiff’s lawyers assert in court papers. ARPS argues that the Adirondack Park Agency erred when it ruled in February that removing the tracks would not violate the State Land Master Plan.
DEC approval. Seggos signed off on the plan in March, according to the lawsuit. ARPS lawyers contend that his approval of the plan was based on “flawed and biased economic impact data.” They also say he ignored competing data. Furthermore, ARPS says Seggos and other DEC officials refused to consider information that the society tried to present at a meeting in December. The lawsuit contends Seggos’s approval of the plan was “arbitrary and capricious” and should be nullified.
Historic preservation. The corridor and the rails are on both the federal and state registers of historic places. Under the state Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation Law, state agencies must avoid damaging historical resources or take steps to mitigate such damage. DEC has said it intends to install historical signs and repair old railroad buildings along the corridor. But the lawyers for ARPS assert that “the notion that destruction of this historic railroad can be ‘mitigated’ by a sign that [says] ‘once there was a railroad here’ is cynical and irrational.”
Travel Corridor: Railbank used to mean leaving the rails in place. However, it is now interpreted as it's OK to pull the rails and create a trail to "preserve" the corridor for future rail ROW if the need arises.
DEC Approval: Courts give great deference to government official's decission making process.
Historic Preservation: Yes it's cynical, however, historic preservation is experiencing a back swing of the pendulim. In our state (Michigan) the legislature is considering a sunset on Historical Designation Districts, so that they have to re-apply and go thru the whole approval process every 10 years. Politics is tilted toward redevelopment.
If it goes to a lawsuit, I hope they do better than the Catskill Mtn Railway. CMR lost the suit on all accounts, had to pay the government's legal fees, and had to agree to support rail dismantling to the extent that they had to expell any member who protested the dismantling.
CandOforprogress2Who is going to pay for trail maintaince on 80 miles of trail where nobody lives in rural counties that are broke.
The state owns the corridor, so the state will pay, if the trail is even built. They provide ASRR money each year for corridor maintenance anyhow.
The bigger question is where the money is coming from to build the trail (if it's ever built).
Who is going to pay for trail maintaince on 80 miles of trail where nobody lives in rural counties that are broke. My local bike trail has 150,000.00 a year for maintance and its 20 miles long.
The governor has now gone on record as approving "Option 7," which calls for lifting the rails north of Tupper Lake.
The railroad has filed a 1,500 page lawsuit opposing that decision. Among the treats in the lawsuit is a document signed by DEC and DOT - which disappeared after a very short time on the state website, and which signatures were denied by the state shortly thereafter.
The "trail advocates" are crowing about their victory - I'm sure at least one is polishing up his spike puller, so to follow the last train out of town and get rid of the rails he hates so thoroughly..
At this point, though, one 800 pound gorilla in the room - the state and national historic registers - have yet to be addressed by the "trail advocates." Perhaps they think they can buy that decision like it appears they may have bought this one.
It's not over yet.
Did Penn Central ever abandon the railroad under ICC rules?
I'm hearing that DOT favors the railroad, but I don't know what their "official" position is...
tree68 ... The decision is a joint one, involving DOT and DEC. Both have to sign off.
...
The decision is a joint one, involving DOT and DEC. Both have to sign off.
I guess we heard what DEC/Parks said. What is DOT saying?
Old news (Mar. 1) from same radio station, about Adirondack Scenic Railroad maybe suing the state.
http://www.northcountrypublicradio.org/news/story/31155/20160301/impending-lawsuit-keeps-rails-trails-debate-at-a-boil
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.