Broadwing_Blog - Broadwing Adventures

Rails AND Trails - It Can’t Be Done…or Can it?

3/26/2014

I've been an advocate of more recreational trails throughout the park for a long time. I also feel that we’ll be cheated if we don’t try our damnedest to try to have a rail and trail, side by side where possible and intersecting when not.

In a March 16 letter to the Utica Observer Dispatch respected trail advocate Tony Goodwin noted that a rail with trail, “… is not physically possible” and that “Periodically leaving the corridor is so far just talk. A year ago, Tupper Lake rail supporters formed a committee to look at a parallel trail from Tupper Lake to the campground at Rollins Pond. I know committee members made field inspections, but so far there’s no plan showing that a parallel trail could feasibly be built.”

I decided to take a deeper look. I talked with some folks from Tupper Lake and Saranac Lake who have explored the rail corridor in greater detail than I have. I took their information and combined it with my own experience and I made a map of a possible trail from Saranac Lake to Tupper Lake. You will note a few specific things:

It is either in the rail corridor or on Wild Forest Forest Preserve with the exception of a short section at the Tupper Lake end that utilizes private roads.
Based on APA maps it follows the rail corridor or existing trails and roads throughout the entire route. It would require two or three short connector sections and bridges to be complete.
It would be an excellent all purpose trail. Short sections could be done by road bikes and the entire thing could be done on mountain bikes, by foot, ski, and snowshoe. Most, if not all of it could be done by snowmobile. Primitive and front country camping can be readily accessed along the way.

Note: The blue shows the rail corridor and red shows the trail route. All boundaries and the route are approximate. I don't pretend to have any expertise in GIS or cartography.

Have at it folks. What do you think?

Other Rails AND Trails Blog Posts:

37 Comments

Mark Kurtz

3/26/2014 08:12:35 am

Is this something that could be started on right away without having to wait for a bunch of legal wrangling that may take years, if not decades? If so, we should start on it now rather than wait. If it decided at some time in the future that the rails are to be torn up, the trail will already be in place and any modifications of it could then be made.

David Lubic

3/26/2014 02:47:17 pm

An excellent proposal! One has to wonder at why the rest of the trail crowd, or at least the noisy portion of it, does not see this, does not see how rails and trails work together in other places, and apparently doesn't want to know.

I have come to the conclusion that they just hate the idea of a railroad there. They apparently have the mindset of the 1950s and 1960s, that railroads should go the way of the stagecoach.

Jim Hotaling

3/26/2014 09:14:19 pm

This captures the concept of the current unit management plan which was approved, combining trails with rails. New York can be unique in it's preservation of historic resources and infrastructure and provide recreational access into areas otherwise unreachable for most people.

Robert E Brown

3/27/2014 12:44:10 am

Every one "can have their cake an eat it too!" By keeping both rails and trails, this plan allows all citizens regardless of age or physical condition to have access and mobility in an Adirondack experience. This area should be open to all of the citizens not just hikers and bikers. You should be able to enjoy the Adks. at all stages of life and at any given spand of time that you have available.

Peter Wilson

3/27/2014 01:11:43 am

Excellent points! I imagine this segment of the rail corridor (and trails adjacent or nearby) would see great traffic - especially if the mountain/trail bike paths received a little bit of improvement. Thanks for taking the time to post this rebuttal to the tunnel-vision can't-be-doners.

Greg Hill

3/27/2014 01:46:00 am

Great work and input, Jack. It's the kind of planning assessmnet that's been missing from the discussion, what with all its emotiional rhetoric. I hope you will your work to the attention of the appropriate DEC and DOT officials if you haven't done so already. Now if someone with access to the wetland boundaries and classifications within and adjoing the corridor would publish that inventory at an appropriate, easy to view scale, the prospect of a trail with rail could be advanced even further in my view.

Alan Roberts

3/27/2014 05:29:25 am

Dear Jack, This seems like a very doable plan for the Rails-With-Trails concept for this travel corridor. I'm interested as to whether you have a similar map showing a possible solution to the Saranac Lake to Lake Placid section of the corridor. I realize there were issues with a strictly side by side trail along the railroad along this section of the corridor due to wetlands, but by having the trail done in the way you have presented here these obstacles can be overcome.

Jack Drury

3/27/2014 05:49:11 am

Alan, I did not. The reason being is that the LP to SL section was almost completely engineered and virtually fully funded when the Army Corps of Engineers stepped in. I describe the situation as the Town of North Elba finally gave up because every time they turned around another obstacle was thrown at them. They just got burned out. My hope is that demonstrating that this can be done and perhaps with the Governor's support the entire process will be reinvigorated.
Thanks for taking the time to comment.

Barb O

3/27/2014 07:44:20 am

This is a pretty map but it has nothing to do with a rail trail proposal. Of course you can make trails anywhere you want. The point is that this state property is now going to waste because a tiny group of old men want to play train. The rail trail pays for itself. There are no other options unless you have money to spend.

Tony Goodwin

3/27/2014 09:35:36 am

Unfortunately, in my view Jack's proposal definitely does not in any way achieve ARTA's goal of a flat, smooth trail, separated from highway traffic. A trail that is therefore unlike all other Adirondack trails and thus capable of attracting a whole new group of trail users. My analysis below is based on my extensive efforts to scout a route for the Jackrabbit Ski Trail between Saranac Lake and Tupper Lake - an effort that may never come to fruition because of the difficulty in piecing all the parts together.

Specifically: This proposal still requires: 1) 13 miles of rail with trail, and that requires substantial parallel fill and the lengthening of every culvert and drainage; 2) Over eight miles of very rough and narrow trail proposed to somehow be converted into a smooth, flat trail; 3) Over five miles of private road, including one mile through a densely populated development; 4) Over four miles on highways, including Rt. 30 with no shoulders; and 5) 0.7 miles of totally new trail construction that would also have to be made flat and smooth to achieve ARTA's goal.
Rail service ended here over 40 years ago because of insufficient demand. Passenger service ended 50 years ago because many trains ran with no passengers at all. Had the regulators allowed it, the New York Central Railroad would have abandoned the whole line 70 years ago. Why some people think that rail service is again viable here is beyond my comprehension. Rail transportation to Lake Placid could be significantly improved if the line from Albany along Lake Champlain were to be improved so that trains could travel faster and more reliably and make travel, including the van shuttle from Westport, competitive with driving. The 10 hours from NYC and 7 hours from Albany to Lake Placid will just never be competitive, but that would be the best that a restored Adirondack Rail Corridor railroad could do.

Bill Hutchison

3/29/2014 10:05:33 am

" ARTA's goal of a flat, smooth trail, separated from highway traffic. A trail that is therefore unlike all other Adirondack trails and thus capable of attracting a whole new group of trail users."

In other words, a 70 mph snowmobile freeway. That's the real goal. Walkers beware!

A couple of things in reply: a) A big part of the draw is the scenery and a tourist rail line does not need to be particularly fast. b) An overnight sleeper operation New York-Lake Placid can leave NY in the evening and get travelers to LP the next morning for a weekend before heading back Sunday night.

Finally, none of the arguments set forth by Mr. Goodwin justify the destruction of the last railroad serving the Adirondacks. To so cavalierly dismiss this map just shows how single-minded ARTA really is. They don't care what anyone might say and are not interested in any compromise; their goal is the destruction of the railroad.

Randy

7/14/2014 10:35:51 pm

I certainly hope that not ONE CENT of my tax money goes to maintaining this toy train corridor. If a rail trail replaced the tracks and for some unknown reason years into the future some kind of train was ACTUALLY needed- the rail trail will have helped preserve the corridor for the new train to sit on.
Having cycled on other rail trails and about 1/3 of the Erie Canalway... the scenery, levelness, and lack of traffic are what make the ARTA trail so attractive. Being able to bike tour or trip with children (mine was in a trailer), and not have to think about major climbs or sleeping truck drivers is awesome.
When I first heard of ARTA's proposal I thought it was very exciting especially because of how the Genesee River Trail (Letchworth Park + north to Rochester) connects to the Erie Canalway (300 or so miles East and West) along with spur rail trails... and trails near the Hudson... The ARTA trail could help provide a connection to this with a beautiful route through the Adirondacks that could possibly eventually connect with rail trails to the north, heading toward the fabulous network around Montreal. Imagine how many bike tourists could be attracted to that kind of trip.
Having lived in Lake Placid for over 25 years I have mountain biked, cross country skied and snowshoed on the rails many, many times... and with its very good sight lines I have NEVER, EVER had a bad encounter with snowmobiles. Also, having been x-c skiing for over 40 years, it cracks me up the number of people who think skiers and snowmobiles don't mix- except for my first year or two I have come to prefer to ski where they have packed the surface.
Basically... let's get going! As a train buff I hate to say it, but the hobby train has more than had its chance!

Scott

3/27/2014 11:08:31 am

I am glad someone finally attempted to map a trail. Up til now, all we hear is generalizations, it can be done or it can't be. Thanks for at least making an attempt at this.

When you started this project, were you certain a route could be found or did you have doubts?

Did you set out to find a mountain bike trail? Is there a real demand for more mountain bike trails in the park like this? Do you think this is a trail that Fish Creek campers with hybrid, cruiser and kids bikes could get to Tupper or Saranac Lake or do you think this is more technical riding?

Scott

3/27/2014 11:13:27 am

I found these maps on APA's website. Did you use these Jack?

http://www.apa.ny.gov/State_Land/assets/RLPRC_MapSeries20140228.pdf

How did you determine that none of the roads you used were the type that are designed to be used when the ground is frozen, like the maps say? Some of the forest roads you used look like they go through long stretched of wetlands.

Jack Drury

3/28/2014 12:43:50 am

Yes, these are the maps I used. I had first hand experience on all portions of the route except for the section from Rollins Pond to Tupper Lake. I depended in the input from folks from Tupper Lake on that section. I've either walked, x-c skied, biked, or hunted the rest of the route. In most cased I've done more than one of these activities on it.

Jack Drury

3/28/2014 12:37:43 am

Scott, you have lots of questions. I'll try to answer each one.
When I started the project I didn't know for sure whether this project could be done. I'm a big believer however that there are never impossible obstacles there are only problems to solve. Is this the perfect route, no. Can if be improved upon, yes.
It is more Mt.Bike friendly than road bike but the route from Rollins Pond to Tupper Lake is relatively flat and if done correctly could be very road bike friendly. At this time only a few sections would be considered technical and they could be rerouted to minimize the technical aspects. (for example the Lake Colby section which is pretty steep could be rerouted to hug the contour a lot more than it does now)

Scott

3/27/2014 12:26:37 pm

I am doing my best trying to trace your route of the APA maps. Some of the sections that you have trail running directly along the rail where it looks like it would be very difficult to do so. For example, what do you have in mind for the section of side by side trail from Route 30 near Charlie's Inn, heading south to where the trail leave the corridor to got north of Colby, particularly around McCaulley Pond. That looks like pretty rough terrain.

Jack Drury

3/28/2014 12:50:03 am

The section from Charlie's Inn to SL does have some challenges but I consulted with one individual who showed me exactly what needs to be done. It isn't anywhere near as challenging as the LP to SL section (which has already been engineered) nor is it anywhere near as challenging as the causeway across Lake Colby. The section along McCaulley Pond might have to be rerouted on the south side of the hill rather than in the rail corridor itself. I haven't done a field check of that section in recent years to determine that. In any event it is Wild Forest and it can be done.

Scott

3/28/2014 01:22:16 am

Thanks for taking time to answer. Did you prefer the side by side trail or did you favor a meandering trail, in other words did you choose the side by side segments because those places were suitable for side by side trail or because it was difficult to find an alternative route at this time? Were the portions of the route that deviate from the rail because of unsurmountable physical limitations, more so than the MCaulley Pond area? I am surprised that the McCaulley pond section would be less challenging than SL -LP section. Having skied on both I can't recall any place on the SLLP section that so hemmed in by wetlands AND steep slopes AND a pond. You should send this to DOT. Thanks again.

Jack Drury

3/28/2014 02:25:10 am

I personally prefer a parallel trail that also meanders and provides more diversity of terrain. While I think a side by side trail COULD be done if money were no object I understand that it would be a major engineering feat and I personally wouldn't enjoy it as much as what I have proposed. I understand ARTA's argument for a rail corridor-based trail but I think what I have proposed is more diverse and in the long run will be more unique and attractive to the public. I don't like the section heading north of Lake Clear along route 30 and I would like to see if we couldn't find a route on the east side of the highway through Forest Preserve and Paul Smith's College land.
Thanks again for your comments and questions.

Angela Hoops-Estes

3/28/2014 09:35:43 am

GREAT IDEA :)

Gene

3/29/2014 03:51:01 am

Nice work Jack. I am wondering if there is a demand for this sort of trail. There are plenty of mountain bike trails/roads in the region. I think the push for the trail is to get a level trail that can be used by casual bikers, strollers and even wheelchairs.

I personally like the idea of a rail trail, but not at the expense of losing the train. But am skeptical whether a trail like this is needed, and whether it would be worth the cost. Clearly railroads and rail trails both can boost the local economy. Both have been proven elsewhere. Are there long distance mountain bike trails elsewhere that we can compare this to? A trail that can handle road bikes in a few places, would need a mountain bike for most of it but lack the more thrilling and challenging aspects mountain biking.

Is there a trail somewhere else like this that has been a success? Have you estimated how long it would take to go between SL and TL on. Mountain bike? I honestly don't see many people making that trip on this trail. You have roads for road biking, mountain bike trails, and bike paths. All completely different recreation experiences with different types of user. Creating some Frankenstein type of trail that to be all of these will be none of these but will cost a heck if a lot.

I am not criticizing you, Jack. I think you've just put the line on the map that some people are asking for. You done a fine job. I just don't see the wisdom in spending that much a trail that isn't really needed. How many rail trails (on abandoned railroads, of course) and other trails could we build elsewhere for the price of this one trail?

If the State decides the rails stay (if they ever actually make a decision) then I think the communities need to look for trail opportunities elsewhere, not next to the rails just because it is in close proximity to where some people wanted a trail.

Sorry for the rant, Jack. I think you've laid out the most logical route. Unless we build a well engineered (and expensive) side by side trail, we are just going to a have mediocre trail to add to the list of underused trails in the park.

Phil

3/31/2014 05:52:51 am

As you already know, Jack, I think this is an excellent initial step and very much appreciate the time you have put into it. Here’s the thing (and I’m sure you already know this, as well): ARTA will not be satisfied with anything but a “smooth flat trail” and, as we know, the only way to get that without tearing up the tracks would be prohibitively expensive. However, I think the appeal of such a trail as ARTA envisions, while it might be high elsewhere, would be more limited here than ARTA would be willing to admit. Frankly, much of this corridor is BORING. That’s right, I said it: I made a negative comment about our sacrosanct Adirondack landscape. But let’s face it, this corridor has some lovely lake and pond views and some interesting wetland traverses and some intervals of very nice forest, but a lot of it is just ordinary and some of it is plain ugly (impenetrable thickets of dead balsam and spruce come to mind). If you’re on a train, terrific! You can drink and converse between views. Straight and flat if you’re on a snowmobile is great, too. It’s okay if you’re on a road bike…up to a point. If you’re xc-skiing or walking, it’s deadly. I used to ski out to McCauley Pond form SL when a friend of mine worked out at Dick Beamish’s lodge. I’d just put my head down and go. After I left the Lake Colby causeway and until I got to the pond, all I saw was the tips of my skis. It was meditative, I’ll give it that.

Strollers and wheel chairs? Maybe for a couple of miles, in the right season. You can forget spring and most of summer. We have an abundance of wildlife in the Adirondacks, and much of is six-legged and dependent on blood meals. Late last July (not exactly the peak of bug season), I walked the section from Little Green to Hoel Pond. If you didn’t keep moving, you were food. Mosquitoes and deer flies, mostly, that day. I deal with it because I love this place. Many others do to; and for them, the bugs are just a nuisance…or even a perverse kind of entertainment. But you can’t expect clueless JQ Public to take his family down that corridor on the first week of June and have him return not thinking they were lucky to get out of it with their hides still on. Is that fun for a kid in a stroller? Yeah, you can protect the kid with a net. Is it fun for the person pushing the stroller? Aren’t we supposed to be having fun? ARTA boosters are going to all these other rail-trails and reporting great experiences. I don’t doubt them. But I wonder, on how many of those trails were they pursued by clouds of biting insects?

From day one, ARTA has been comparing our corridor to the Pine Creek Rail Trail. Sure, if you put our tracks down in a gorge and have them running beside a river as big as the Ausable for most of the way. The same goes for the Great Allegheny Passage with its tunnels and its crossing of the eastern continental divide. And for the Virginia Creeper with how many trestles? Forty-seven? In thirty-four miles? Some of them 600 feet long? These trails aren’t even remotely similar to our corridor, other than that they involve rail beds. Did I say remote? That we have – south of Sabattis to a degree that would make Pine Creek seem like a back-yard barbeque. There are minuses as well as pluses there. Back in 2001, USA Today did a short article on ten great bike tours. Six of them were in North America. One was the Pine Creek trail. Another was the loop from Keene through Jay and Wilmington and Lake Placid. Now there’s some Adirondack scenery! USA Today called it “unforgettable.”

Tony Goodwin

3/31/2014 08:40:51 am

Phil, you are entitled to your opinion that it is boring, and for hikers or skiers it would be boring. We believe we can put down a surface hard enough (at least after a year or so) for at least hybrid bikes and probably road bikes. I have biked two stone dust surfaced trails Greenbriar River and Lehigh Gorge) that were definitely firm enough for road bikes. At first, that surface will only extend from Lake Placid to Tupper Lake or Piercefield, but later could be extended south. While a bike does require physical effort and isn't as fast as a snowmobile it still will be an enjoyable and not too boring way to see the scenery. In fact, it might even be meditative - something clearly not possible riding on our local highways.

As for the strollers and wheel chairs, ARTA never envisioned them using the whole corridor, but what a nice amenity close to the center of each town.

South of Sabattis, it is only 17 miles to "civilization" at Beaver River and a bit further to Big Moose - hardly impossible distances on a bike.

Finally, the issue no one has dealt with on the above posts is: so what if we do restore the railroad? It will cost, by the railroad's own estimates at least $15 million taxpayer dollars to provide 30 mph service. As transportation, that's way slower than the service that ended over 50 years ago for a total lack of riders. (To increase to somewhat the same speed as 50 years ago, the DOT estimates a cost of over $40 million.)

As a tourist operation, the time and distances are much longer that the average tourist line. Yes, the Cumbres and Toltec runs authentic steam locomotives for a longer ride, much of it in the open above timberline, but that's the exception; and those riders return to the starting point by bus.

So ARTA says keep the two hour ride from Utica to Thendara, the canoe shuttle, and the shorter excursions out from Thendara. Also, the Polar Express and several other special trains, none of which even make it to the actual Adirondack Rail Corridor, would keep running.

David Lubic

3/31/2014 02:41:36 pm

I read Mr. Goodwin's remarks, and I wonder what he would think of the Cass Scenic Railroad in West Virginia. It takes 4 1/2 hours to go 12 miles up a mountain and 12 miles back down. Granted, this is to the second-highest peak in West Virginia, but one has to admit, this is mighty slow running to go from what might be described as next-to-nowhere Cass (no cell phone service among other things) to the peak at Bald Knob (which is really nowhere, although a quite spectacular nowhere).

I might mention that this is a former logging railroad, and is very steep and curvy compared with the Adirondack Scenic. How much so? Average grade is 5%, it has several stretches of 7% and 8% (and it regularly stops and restarts trains on an 8% at a water stop for its steam engines), and it also has two stretches of 11%; one of those used to be 13% until about 1970.

Even with these grades and the mountain goats of locomotives used on this line, there are two switchbacks, places where the terrain got too steep even for this railroad, and the trains have to reverse direction to continue to climb.

I mentioned that the power was coal-burning steam locomotives. These are special purpose logging engines, with geared drives, intended to run on the rough, light, temporary track of a typical logging operation. Top speed is--maybe--12 mph. I believe normal operating speed is on the order of 8 mph--hardly express train speed. Do not confuse these locomotives with those of rack or cog railroads; this is an adhesion line, the steepest such road in North America and the second-steepest currently operating in the world. Maximum curvature is about 40 degrees.

The point of this is that, compared with the Adirondack or Mr. Goodwin's trail proposal, the Cass Scenic is too slow and doesn't really go anywhere. It also has equipment far older than anything on the Adirondack (including one locomotive built in 1905, while the newest locomotive dates to 1945), with cars that can only be described as rough compared to anything on the Adirondack (all converted logging flats, anything longer than 40 feet would give trouble on those curves). In spite of this, or perhaps because of this, it is a most beloved railroad, hauling thousands of tourists each year, with a group of volunteers supplementing its paid staff (this is a state park, and is operated by the government of the State of West Virginia).

A railroad to "nowhere," government operated, slow, what might be considered inefficient, with really outmoded equipment--sounds like a typical government program, I guess, something no one should want to ride.

Well, there is evidence that might suggest otherwise:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDJkzW7ligQ

Oh, the two locomotives in this short version of the 4 1/2 hour trip up to Bald Knob happen to the the same ones I mentioned above. No. 5 was delivered new to a predecessor company running this same railroad in 1905, and has always called Cass home. The big No. 6 with it was built for the Western Maryland Railway in 1945, and is the last such Shay patent geared locomotive built in the world, other than models. And that start on an 8% grade is there, too, at about 5:00.

Hope you all enjoy a railroad I think even the most avid trail people would want to see stay a railroad.

Tony Goodwin

4/1/2014 12:13:41 pm

Yes, the Cass Scenic Railroad is another example of a tourist railroad that enjoys modest government support. Others including the Colorado narrow gauge lines have benefitted from government support; but not on the scale of a wholesale rebuilding of a railroad track structure to run trains of only moderate scenic interest.

I have described the scenery and overall experience in Colorado. Mr. Lubic has done a very good job of describing the Cass Railroad experience as something far from the ordinary. Vintage steam locomotives of a rare design take passengers to near the high point of the state of West Virginia. The passenger cars are not apparently deluxe, but they match the vintage of the engine.

This is opposed to aging passenger cars, long-retired from regular service, with windows often so scratched as to partially obscure the scenery the patrons are supposed to be enjoying.

In West Virginia, the Cass Scenic operations were apparently a nearly immediate boost to the local economy. By contrast, the trains have come and gone from Lake Placid and Saranac Lake for nearly 15 years with no discernible impact on the local economy. For instance, the owner of one restaurant within sight of the Lake Placid train station says she notices no increase in business on the days the train is running. When there is enough snow to cover the tracks so that snowmobiles can get to Lake Placid, however,she puts on extra help.

Bill Hutchison

4/1/2014 12:55:35 pm

Windows so scratched they partially obscure the view? Are you serious? I rode the train to Big Moose and the view was just fine.

Hey, no one is saying that the trail should not be built. Build it next to the railroad or somewhere else. There are those of us who don't want to ride snowmobiles or drive into the Adirondacks. There are also those of us who CAN'T or should not drive and these people should have choices. A trail won't give them that.

David Lubic

4/1/2014 01:06:58 pm

"Others including the Colorado narrow gauge lines have benefitted from government support; but not on the scale of a wholesale rebuilding of a railroad track structure to run trains of only moderate scenic interest."

Oh, if only Mr. Goodwin knew how much had to be poured into the track for both roads back in the 1970s. . .if he knew about No. 5, which looks beautiful today, but for years was swaybacked and dented from those years of rough logging service. . .of the similar work that has been ongoing for every locomotive on the road. . .that the only engine that wasn't that bad was the "big 6," which was only used for five years before diesels replaced it (and then it wound up with crankshaft trouble). . .of the shop fire at Cass that destroyed tools and parts and the building itself, how the crews worked in the open until the new shop was built. . .how a locomotive was in there, which had just been overhauled, and was about to enter service. . .it's on the final legs of a second, much more thorough restoration now, one that could not have been undertaken without the volunteers of the Mountain State Railroad and Logging Historical Society. . .of the work that went into reconstructing the logging camp at Whittaker, including the work of getting a huge and unwieldy steam skidding engine of a type not used on this road up the mountain. . .among other things, finding out the spar tower on this thing was about twice as heavy as estimated. . .of the cost of locomotive overhauls on both roads, including boiler replacements on several of the engines at Cass. . .the cost of rebuilding the station at Cass after another fire. . .

There's a fair degree of state investment in both roads over the years. . .

David Lubic

4/1/2014 02:18:57 pm

And in regard to the investment. . .that trail isn't going to be for free, either in construction or maintenance. It's not like you can just take the track up and run on it; it has to be regraded to get the "shadows" of the ties out, otherwise you have a path that is quite bumpy and gets worse over time. The State of West Virginia found this out with its rail trails, including the Greenbriar River trail. I can also say I saw it in a former railroad that local residents started using as a road after the tracks were taken up; you could see where the ties had been 10 or 20 years later.

Maintenance won't be free, either. There is a study by the trail consulting firm Camoin and Associates (commissioned by Adirondack Action, I believe), that puts trail maintenance at about $1,500.00 per mile per year. That's quite reasonable without being excessively low, and it's also a bit higher than what the state has been paying for the railroad (averaging $1,324.00 per mile over the years.

That's about what a secondary road runs, which tells us something.

A lot of what you spend money on in maintenance goes into substructure. Bridges need painting or other repair no matter what rides over them, drainage ditches have to be kept clear of weeds and other things so the water has a place to go, beavers don't discriminate in the effects their dams and lodges have on any man-made structure in the area, trees need to be kept trimmed lest they grow into the light above railroad, trail, or road, tunnels, if present, have their own maintenance needs--and none of this touches upon the "superstructure," the pavement or gravel surface or rails that people ride on.

Financially, at least in terms of taxpayer outlay, there's no advantage to the trail. That even applies to what might be realized from the sale of the rails and other hardware as scrap metal; I estimate that would only pay for about 15% of the cost of trail conversion, which in turn is still higher than the cost of rebuilding the railroad's track structure.

I honestly think a big part of this debate is that some people just don't like trains, or they think they are outmoded and should go away. I know, I've seen and heard these arguments before, and not just in regard to tourist or heritage railroads! It is even present on the Great Allegheny Passage trail, which shares part of its route with the heritage Western Maryland Scenic between Frostburg and Cumberland.

This is a former double-tracked railroad, with plenty of room for both except through the 900-foot long tunnel this railroad has. Even then, space is not an issue as much as breathable air is; this road also runs with coal burning steam power, and the locomotive does a wonderful job of filling the tunnel with smoke as it works hard uphill on the way to Frostburg. Even that's nothing, really; there are signs outside the tunnel warning people to keep out when a train is approaching, not something likely to be missed as the big locomotive strains against the long trains it pulls on that uphill run.

Yet even now, with a double-tracked railroad and a paved former second track in the tunnel, despite the railroad helping bikers by hauling the riders and the bikes up the hill so they can just ride back down, (likely very appreciated in view of the grade at 3% for the last three miles into Frostburg) despite the railroad paying its own way to a much greater extent than the Adirondack or Cass (it essentially runs self-sufficiently, the way the critics think a railroad should), there are some trail people who still want "that smelly old train" to go away.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pemWFqILsiQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9UlHHt-c9Y

Too bad this fight is having to go on; we should be friends.

David Lubic

4/1/2014 09:37:51 pm

I do have to say I appreciate Mr. Goodwin's comment that Cass Scenic is out of the ordinary. It very much is! And yet, at one time, it wasn't; that last Shay patent locomotive was one of something like 2,700 built over the years, and the leading other geared logging locomotive types--the Heisler and the Climax, also represented at Cass--numbered about 700 and 1,000 units respectively, if I'm recalling the numbers right. West Virginia alone had thousands of miles of such logging roads; the line at Cass is about the last one left.

The same goes for the narrow gauge lines of Colorado and New Mexico, of steam shortlines like the Strasburg Rail Road and the Valley Railroad of Connecticut, the thunderous mountain railroading of the Western Maryland Scenic (yes, there is a reason they call the locomotive there "Mountain Thunder," especially on the uphill run), and streamlined glory on the Grand Canyon Scenic (which rosters a couple of steam engines, too).

Each one of these railroads--and the Adirondack, too--is like a different flavor of ice cream--and a little harder to come by. Plenty of trails around, but only one railroad, and only the railroad can also serve as a freight hauler, should the day come--and I think it is--that we won't be driving or using highways the way we do now.

Which reminds me--one of the advantages of riding trains over driving is that you don't have to drive. If you have to drive, you have to concentrate on driving; you can't really enjoy the countryside. Not so on a train. where you can concentrate on the scenery, a book, a meal (where there's a dining car), or on fellow passengers, including those you might be romantic with. Not a good idea to do that while driving. . .and with far better ride quality than a bus.

Steve Burke

4/4/2014 10:13:25 am

This issue needs some resolution ASAP. You folks on both sides make the same arguments over an over. The state needs to stop dragging its feet.

Jack, I appreciate your attempt here, but I am also skeptical about whether people would actually use this trail in any significant number. I don't doubt that rail trail would be popular, but as previously mentioned here, this idea is not a trail for mountain bikers road bikers or casual recreational bikers.

There will be the train or a rail-trail. The notion of having both is just avoiding the debate of which would be better.

I don't think anyone thought you couldn't have some sort of trail following the corridor. Jack took a hard look an proved that you can't have a sensible trail along the corridor. This truly is a Frankenstein trail that as a whole is unusable.

Jack, you said that you desired to have a " side by side where possible and intersecting when not."

After taking a close look at the APA maps, it seems you did the exact opposite. You went further from the track when you could, and when that wasn't an option, you paralleled the rail. Am I wrong?

Near mcCaully pond, did you really feel a side by side trail was possible, or how about the west side of Rollins pond? To me it seems like you went side by side because there were no good options of alternate routes. Those areas seem like they are the least suitable for side by side, yet you did a side by side.

Steve Burke

4/4/2014 10:39:45 am

Jack,
Are you a cyclist? If so, can you compare this to any other long distance trail you've been on? I am sorry, but the way you explain it being suitable for some types of bikes in certain portion and other types of bikes on other portions, it just seems like a trail the attracts nobody. Are there examples of trails like this that are popular destination bike trails?

Piling Contractors in Chennai link

8/1/2021 02:39:57 am

We are one of the No.1 Pile Contractors in Chennai and experts in providing the Tractor Pile Foundation, Bored Pile Foundation in Chennai.

エンジニア派遣 link

11/17/2021 05:54:07 am

インドのITエンジニアをご希望に応じてスピーディーに派遣いたします。あなたのチームの一員として、あなたは直接の命令を受けるでしょう。

Best Family Lawyers in Chennai link

12/30/2021 02:59:53 am

IconLegalServices - we are Best Family Lawyers in Chennai with 100% success rate!

Electrical traders in Dubai UAE link

1/17/2022 08:09:09 am

JIS Electrical is U.A.E's leading Electro-mechanical supplier of Quality proven European products since 2000. We expertise in LV components/ Lighting & Distribution / EV Charging & Energy Storage.

Top Advertising agencies in Chennai link

4/19/2022 10:43:09 pm

Eumaxindia is an INS accredited advertising agencies in Chennai that leads in providing online branding & advertising solutions for all your marketing communication needs.

Rails AND Trails - It Can’t Be Done…or Can it?

Leave a Reply.

Jack Drury
& Doug Fitzgerald

"Like" us on Facebook Page

Links:

Archives

Categories

Rails AND Trails - It Can’t Be Done…or Can it?

Leave a Reply.

Jack Drury & Doug Fitzgerald

"Like" us on Facebook Page

Links:

Archives

Categories

Jack Drury
& Doug Fitzgerald