Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Tearsheets | Media Kit | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Open-minded in rail/trail debate

October 2, 2013

We appreciate the persistence of advocates for the Adirondack Scenic Railroad and those for replacing it with a multi-use trail in the state-owned corridor between Lake Placid and Old Forge, but the......

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(15)

DW12983

Oct-21-13 1:13 PM

It'll be three weeks wednesday since you promissed articles. "Our reporters plan to dig into all of this, along with the railroad side's complications, in an upcoming series of articles. Vetting each side's claims with logic, realism and a healthy dose of skepticism is a good role for the Enterprise to play." When can we expect your unbiased, thoughtfull and fact based articles?

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Wilford

Oct-17-13 5:50 PM

One has to be a real sick-minded person to enter the locomotive and cut the conductors and strip them out. I hope who ever did this is caught and punished to the absolute fullest extent of the law.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DW12983

Oct-05-13 10:57 AM

BJ...your facts and examples are lacking any credibility. The only fact that matters is that if the UMP reopens it must comply with current laws and current interpatations of old laws. Simply becouse there were options given in the 1990's doesn't mean they are still viable or legal in 2013. An example is the law passed in 2011 banning snow machines from active RR ROWs. An example of a reinterpation of a law is that in the 1990's you could only ride bikes on trails where smow mobiles were allowed. In 2013 the DEC and APA have the ability to allow bikes on other trails. Please BJ get your facts straight or should I say ARTA stop the denile of the current facts.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DW12983

Oct-05-13 10:57 AM

BJ...your facts and examples are lacking any credibility. The only fact that matters is that if the UMP reopens it must comply with current laws and current interpatations of old laws. Simply becouse there were options given in the 1990's doesn't mean they are still viable or legal in 2013. An example is the law passed in 2011 banning snow machines from active RR ROWs. An example of a reinterpation of a law is that in the 1990's you could only ride bikes on trails where smow mobiles were allowed. In 2013 the DEC and APA have the ability to allow bikes on other trails. Please BJ get your facts straight or should I say ARTA stop the denile of the current facts.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

bjccd5

Oct-04-13 11:00 PM

Albeit lengthy, and quite convoluted, sit back and watch the process folks....Too bad opinions have to wait until an 'Opening' of the 'UMP' is declared. It's like waiting until the 9th inning of a 10-1 game to side with a winner. Get off the fence folks and go the economic driver for a better Tri-Lakes!!!!!

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

bjccd5

Oct-03-13 9:33 PM

Understanding the UMP process is painstakingly long and misunderstood. Once the Unit Management Plan for the corridor is opened for re-examination for the most appropriate usage of such (which is WAY overdue), the State Language also changes to effectively meet the need(s) of the Corridor. Designations change all the time when plans change to meet needs. The Economic impact of a trail will certainly meet criteria for a shift in corridor re-classification and designation; therefore, re-defining usage as necessary for growth. What is so difficult in that scenario that is coming?

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Justthefactsplease

Oct-02-13 9:57 PM

I think the most important research in the Rail Trail debate is if there is a reverter clause to the right of way. Many RR of that era had them. Once the Rails are gone, the ROW no longer exists and the rail road bed reverts to the owner of the land it passes thru. If this happens, as this RR runs thru Wilderness we are one lawsuit away from walking cross country ski path only

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Justthefactsplease

Oct-02-13 9:52 PM

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

bjccd5

Oct-02-13 9:46 PM

and thank you PC and the ADE for the "still on the Fence" editorial. At least we know now that you have no spine. Don't give me the 'sitting back to wait for the APA and DEC and DOT to determine a cause for reopening the UMP' excuse. B.S.. and certainly driven by a political force, probably advertising $$$. Was once told the Editorial was based upon your opinion and you stood steadfast by that right, yet now retreat for 'more information'. Interesting theory...Hmmmmm....

1 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

bjccd5

Oct-02-13 9:35 PM

Still hold the ground ARTA! Scare tactic's are just that!! Any sensible, local taxpayer understands the positive economic immediate impact of a Trail. The rails are great for the southern track, but not from there to here. When will common sense and REASON kick in????

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DW12983

Oct-02-13 4:23 PM

Other fact ARTA is forgetting is that along most Rail Trails, where snow machines are allowed, they are severally restricted. Most have a 30 MPH speed limit and must yield to hikers, bikers, cross country skiers etc. Also most successful Rail Trails are paved in some way, the area near the trail has all vegetation cut back and some entity, either public or private, holds liability insurance on the trail. Also, most if not all are patrolled by either private security or the State through which it passes. To sum it up, with no snow machines being able to travel the full length of the Rail to Trail and Bicycles being severely restricted the economic benefits that ARTA is claiming will not happen. We will have a broken up trail system, like most Rail Trails, where only hiking is allowed along the full length. Think of how little use the Northville to Lake Placid trail actually gets.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DW12983

Oct-02-13 4:10 PM

As you know, the chief agency for land classification is the APA, an entity that other Rail Trails don’t have to deal with. This ROW will then be classified the same as the land through which it passes. So, in the Wild Forest and Primitive areas motorized vehicles are not allowed, neither will snow mobiles. Can you imagine the stink Float Plane Operators will raise if snow mobiles are allowed in the Lows Lake area? How about the fishermen in the St Regis Canoe area that aren’t allowed to use motors? Rules for Bicycles say that DEC and APA must classify trails on State Forest Preserve lands to allow their use. With an active RR ROW through these areas there is no problem. Once the ROW is abandoned then it will fall on the DEC to allow Bikes. APA, which restricts their use on most trails, will surely want to restrict their use.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DW12983

Oct-02-13 4:01 PM

Well Enterprise, thanks for clarifying your position. I have been, for nearly two years, asking that some entity would actually look into all of this. Most Government officials listen almost exclusively to ARTA's nonsense. They seem to take what ARTA claims as facts to be gospel. As I have said repeatedly, if the UMP is reopened no matter if the rails are torn up or not snowmobiling along this corridor will be severely restricted are out right not allowed. There are laws on the books that do not allow snow machines to operate on Railroad ROWs. The DOT will have to comply with this change in the law along with other changes that were made after the original UMP was written. If the ROW is abandoned the land the right of way passes through will be returned to the landowners through which it passes. There are Federal and State laws that say this. That eliminates the DOT and their designation as a Travel Corridor and places the land back in the private landowners and States hands.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

bgkk75s

Oct-02-13 12:22 PM

I feel we should have both rail and trail, just not on the entire line. Keep the existing rail between Lake Placid and Saranac Lake and add the trail alongside it. They should pull the rails from Saranac Lake to Old Forge and convert that using the money from the salvaged rails. There is no need to have only one option at the expense of the other.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

AdkBuddy

Oct-02-13 11:33 AM

No mention of snowmobiling. It is the only use of the trail that is a proven economic driver. I see in Tupper Lake paper today, one train supporter is apparently going to wage a one man boycott of local businesses that support ARTA. Oh well, Mr. Mecklenburg, do what you have to do.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 15 of 15 comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web