Adirondack Recreational Trail Advocates
Frequently Asked Questions
The Adirondack
Scenic Railroad claims annual ridership of 14,000 in its peak year
(2010). This number pales beside the potential use of the corridor
as a year-round recreational trail. Since 1990, when it began
running between Lake Placid and Saranac Lake, the tourist train has
1) provided no noticeable economic benefits and 2) continues to
prevent other recreational uses of the line. Yet it continues to
receive taxpayer support based on the premise that it stimulates
business.
Claim: If we extend the
train ride from Saranac Lake to Tupper Lake, the train will achieve
its potential. More people will ride it and the regional economy
will benefit.
A 2010
study by
Camoin Associates projected a 75% increase in riders by extending
train service an additional 25 miles to Tupper Lake. If a ridership
of 14,000 in its best year has not helped our economy, what can be
expected with more riders taking a much longer trip to Tupper Lake?
Claim: There’s no
assurance that a recreation trail would be more successful than the
tourist train.
Wrong. A recent
study by Stone Consulting said restoration of train service from
Utica to Lake Placid will bring only 7,000 additional visitors per
year. A study by the Rails to Trails Conservancy said that a
recreation trail on the corridor will bring 244,000 visitors per
year. This excludes additional winter users - another major
opportunity for attracting more tourists. The Adirondack Rail Trail will be a major
tourist destination in itself, while the tourist train is an
incidental activity, something a visitor might do as a rainy-day
alternative. The type of outdoor-loving recreationists attracted by
the trail, the length of their stay, and their tendency to repeat
the experience will spark the regional economy.
For example, 27 million Americans ride bicycles, and many
families incorporate biking into their vacation plans. In the
Adirondacks, Fish Creek and Rollins Pond campgrounds alone attract
nearly 200,000 campers each year, most of whom bring bicycles. The
campgrounds will connect easily with the railroad bed, offering
campers a short bike ride to Tupper Lake or a longer (but still
easy) ride to Saranac Lake.
Claim: That’s all
speculation—where’s the hard evidence that rail trails are such a
big deal?
The national
Rails to Trails Conservancy, which has promoted the conversion of
30,000 miles of rails to trails, has plenty of evidence that rail
trails attract large numbers of recreationists and stimulate local
economies. For example, the Pine Creek Trail, which runs 63 miles
through the “Grand Canyon of Pennsylvania” between Jersey Shore and
Wellesboro, last year had 138,000 users and generated about $4
million in sales. The 32-mile Elroy-Sparta Trail in Wisconsin draws
some 60,000 users who spend about $2 million a year. The Heritage
Rail Trail, which runs 20 miles between York, Pennsylvania and the
Maryland state line, attracts 350,000 visitors annually who leave
behind $3.6 million. And so on.
Claim: We should keep
the train and build a separate trail and make everyone happy.
From Saranac
Lake west this is a logistical, economic, and regulatory
impossibility. Yet, in order to operate between Lake Placid and
Saranac Lake, the Adirondack Scenic Railroad requires that the
tracks be kept in place over the entire length of the line so the
rolling stock can be moved to Utica in the fall and back to Lake
Placid in the spring. As long as the train continues operating
between Placid and Saranac, it requires that the tracks be kept in
place for this twice-a-year passage. Thus does a nine-mile tourist
train monopolize the 80 miles of corridor between Saranac Lake and
Old Forge!
Claim: The town of
North Elba has the money to build an adjoining trail from Lake
Placid to Saranac Lake. It would be foolish not to push ahead with
the project.
ARTA is not opposed to this project as long as it connects to the next 81-miles of recreation trail. We continue to believe that the expense is unwarranted, but if that is what North Elba citizens want we certainly will not oppose it.
What about the movement
to continue the tourist train 25 miles from Saranac to Tupper and
also build a separate trail alongside it?
Extending the
tourist train to Tupper Lake would be a major expense for
questionable economic benefits. As for building a separate trail
beside the tracks from Saranac Lake to Tupper Lake, forget it. Even
if environmental regulations were dispensed with, widening the rail
corridor from 8 to 20 feet to accommodate a separate trail would
require dumping tons of fill into lakes and wetlands. This scheme is
a physical, financial and regulatory impossibility.
What will become of
economically-stressed Tupper Lake without the excursion train
linking it to Placid and Saranac Lake?
What will make
Tupper a tourist destination is not an extended tourist train but a
popular bikeway connecting the village to the rest of the Tri-Lakes
area--along with Tupper’s emergence as a hub for snowmobilers on a
greatly improved trail that links Tupper Lake with Old Forge in the
south and with hundreds of miles of other snowmobile trails to the
north.
Claim: The rail
corridor is on the National Register of Historic Places, which
prevents removal of the tracks.
Not so. Historic
registrations are frequently changed to improve the level of
protection. What is historic about the corridor is that it was used
for transportation and played a key role in opening up the
Adirondacks for lumbering, mining, health care and tourism. A safe,
scenic, long-distance recreation trail would continue this tradition
and interpret the region’s history for hundreds of thousands of
trail users. The train stations could serve as rest stops,
information centers, cafes, bike shops and museums.
Claim: The state
Department of Transportation (DOT) owns the line and would never
agree to removing the tracks.
This travel
corridor is state property, owned by the people of New York State.
It is managed by the DOT and leased to the Adirondack Scenic
Railroad. This one-year lease can be renewed or terminated as
appropriate. If the
public clearly prefers a recreational trail, the corridor will be
used for this public purpose.
Claim: If the tracks
are removed, the corridor will become part of the Forest Preserve
and snowmobiles will be banned.
Wrong. The travel corridor will continue under its own unit management plan (UMP). The classification of adjoining land will not affect the status of the corridor, with or without rails. The Unit Management Plan for the corridor anticipates a recreation trail if the train operator fails to restore service during an initial marketing period, presumably the planned UMP review in 2001, 2007, and then again this year, none of which have taken place.
Claim: To change the
UMP governing the travel corridor could take forever because the
state has so many other UMPs it must tend to first.
The UMP can be
changed promptly if given a high priority. The current UMP has been
in effect since 1995. The use of the corridor by the tourist trains
was always provisional.
The Plan contains a recreational-use option in the event the train
fails to deliver economic benefits. After an eleven-year trial
period, it is evident that the train has cost taxpayers more than
anticipated and has not produced the benefits originally envisioned.
It’s now time for the state to re-evaluate the economics of rail
operations and then implement the next most desirable option listed
in the UMP: the full recreational use of the corridor without the
rails.
Claim: The train
enables handicapped people to enjoy the beauty of the Adirondacks.
The Great
Adirondack Recreation Trail will provide those with impaired
mobility a perfect pathway for enjoying the outdoors easily, safely
and independently. The level trail will be well suited for electric
or self-powered wheelchairs, hand-propelled bicycles, etc., and
ideal for families with very young and very old members.
Claim: There are
thousands of miles of hiking, biking, skiing and snowmobile trails
in the Adirondacks, but only one tourist train.
An excursion
train runs at the southern end of the line, and another now operates
between Saratoga Springs and North Creek. But there are no easy,
peaceful, smoothly surfaced, long-distance recreational trails in
the Adirondack Park that connect communities, traverse wild and
scenic areas, and are suitable for people of every age and physical
ability. The Great Adirondack Recreation Trail would fulfill this
need.
Claim: If the rail
becomes a recreational trail, all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) will mess
it up.
Almost all of
the 30,000 miles of rail-trails in this country prohibit the use of
ATVs, as do most trails on state lands of the Adirondacks.
ARTA will press for
similar restrictions on the converted corridor.
Claim: When gas reaches
$10 a gallon or when we run out of gas altogether, we will need
trains to get to and from the Adirondacks.
High-speed train
service between major population centers must be a national
priority, but attempting to restore freight and passenger service
between Utica and Lake Placid is like trying to solve a 21st century
problem with a 19th century solution. Americans will never abandon
their automobiles, which will someday be getting 100
miles-per-gallon and be powered by cleaner alternative fuels.
However, if we ever did need to restore train travel to Lake Placid,
the rail bed would still be there in perfect condition for laying a
new, improved rail line for speedier train service.
No, if we "rail
bank' the tracks they can be reinstalled anytime there is a need, at
the discretion of the managing agency.
In fact, surfacing the ballast for use by
bicycles and other recreational uses creates a better starting point
for installing ties and rails than what we currently have.
Claim:
In Colorado the Durango to Silverton tourist
train does a good business dropping off hikers, boaters, and
fishermen along their route.
Why isn't that a good use of the
Adirondack Rail Corridor?
How can we make the
Great Adirondack Recreation Trail a reality?
By making sure
that public opinion and common sense will prevail. ARTA is
conducting further studies and analyses of the costs and benefits of
a recreational trail; making its voice heard through reasoned
debate; and taking its case to our elected representatives at every
level.