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

A crushing blow to rail-trail coexistence

September 13, 2013

Bureaucracy has finally destroyed a plan for two visions of the Adirondack railroad corridor to coexist side by side, at least between Lake Placid and Saranac Lake....

« Back to Article

sort: oldest | newest




Sep-14-13 11:33 PM

Last bantering with you, as you are so blind. Pay attention to the UMP review, then comment on why the debate has gone to a trail scenario.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-14-13 2:47 PM

Oh BJ it is you who cannot see. If the rails are gone so is the UMP, corridor and DOT. It will then become partially private, under DEC and APA jurisdiction and cut to pieces. Snow Mobilers loose in both instances. ARTA knew this almost two years ago and ignored it. Why? Becouse they needed the projected usage and revenues from snow mobiles to convince people to call for the rails to be ripped out. Evidence, see Mr. Mercurio's commentary. He doesn't even mention snow machine usage.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-14-13 10:13 AM

FYI, I do not own a snowmobile, but I'd ski and bike corridor often!!!

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-14-13 10:11 AM

LOL DW, just can't see the forest through the trees. And when the corridor use gets redefined via. the UMP review and the unit management is for trail use, that 2012 statute becomes moot. But this of course will be hashed out in the courts and re-written with probably just as gray as the current one.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-13-13 10:43 PM

The specific change I'm talking about is " § 83-a. Operation of snowmobiles on railroad property. Except in the case of a railroad employee acting in the performance of his duty, no person shall operate a snowmobile upon abandoned railroad property which is posted to prohibit the operation of snowmobiles thereupon, or upon or along the track or tracks of an operating railroad or within the fences or guards thereof, except across or along streets or highways or at farm or forest crossings where necessary to cross said tracks or property. Any person violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a violation punishable by a fine of one hundred dollars for each separate offense." Under this statute passed in 2012, the use of snowmobiles is prohibited along the travel corridor due to use of this corridor by the Adirondack Scenic Railroad.

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-13-13 10:41 PM

As I said before, the Rail Road folks and the Snow Mobilers have a symbiotic relationship. They should be cultivating this relationship. The BS being spread will only kill both. Remember, DOT, now that they are updating the UMP must conform to new laws and changes in old laws. I'd bet that Snow Machines will be banned if the rails remain or there'll be heck to pay.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-13-13 10:35 PM

Looks like BJ and the ARTA folks are clutching for straws. The blame game has begun! Vendor and his snow machine folks want a rail-less trail. That will happen eventually but, it will be in sections. If they were out of the equation the rail side trail would work. How wide is a sidewalk? That's all hikers and bikers need. Were there isn't room or through private land a by-pass could be made. Marshes, problem. As we see at the VIC, elevated walkways work great! But not for snow machines. If the rails get pulled through the Bog River Wild Forest or other wilderness classifications they won't be allowed anyway. (APA kicked out the float planes, didn't they?) Vendor, Mr Keet, ARTA Board and the Enterprise all had this information in 2011. It should be no shock to them.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-13-13 9:32 PM

The parallel trail never would've worked, at least not without spending a ridiculous amount. You just need to walk the tracks to know that. There are parts where the rails are next to water. I wish it were otherwise, and everyone could get what they want, but it's not.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-13-13 8:25 PM

How in the world does ARTA have an accountability issue brought on by PC and the ADE?????? Absurd notion and grasping for an emotional response due to a letdown created from the Army Corps. That's ALL it is, nothing else! Poor response in regard to misinformation from the editor (nothing new), yet a correct headline in regard to "CRUSHING BLOW" for the train folks.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-13-13 3:01 PM

Peter, Really? ARTA needs to take responsibility for an ill-conceived plan that was underfunded environmental disaster in the making. I would like to remind you for the last ten years I personally have written in your paper at least a dozen times, this would not work. Long before ARTA was ever formed I went to APA meetings to speak out against the side by side fiasco. I spoke on Talk of the Town numerous times on how this was an economic and environmental disaster. I begged you to send reporters to cover what the implications of this trail next to rail. And what it meant to the environment and the taxpayers of North Elba. Arthur Lussi an APA Commissioner 2 years ago listened to my call and walked the corridor. After walking it, he wrote a Guest Commentary in your paper, saying the APA commissioners were misled by APA staff about the environmental impact and the amount of wet lands. Now ever one acts surprised that the Army Corps wants a complete study? Really?

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-13-13 11:39 AM

I think we have enough regulatory agencies around here that we don't need the Army Corp of Engineers.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 11 of 11 comments

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
Remember my email address.


I am looking for:
News, Blogs & Events Web