The legal action by the Adirondack Railway Preservation Society, which operates the scenic railroad, was filed last year and contended that New York’s departments of Environmental Conservation, Transportation, and the Adirondack Park Agency ignored economic development and historic preservation factors in greenlighting the railroad’s removal.
In his ruling, acting state Supreme Court Justice Robert Main Jr. sided with the Society. Main ruled that removing railroad infrastructure to construct a trail would effectively remove Segment 2 from Remsen-Lake Placid Travel Corridor designation. Such a use could not be allowed in the Adirondack Park State Land Master Management Plan for the travel corridor, the judge wrote.
The railroad alleged the state’s decision to build a rail trail was arbitrary and capricious, and Main agreed. He said the state did not successfully resolve historic preservation efforts or title issues to land within the corridor. Attorneys representing the society say the state may have to reroute part of its trail near Saranac Lake if they cannot sort out ownership issues for the railroad that the trail would replace.
Legal counsel from the state’s attorney general’s office, representing the state, said that while state officials did review economic data submitted by the railroad, it is not required to adopt plans based on that information. The state’s lawyer also presented a letter to the court pledging to establish a mitigation plan for any historical preservation issues. But the judge found those arguments inadequate.
“Today’s decision is a victory for the thousands of people who have contacted my office over the past several years objecting to the removal of a large segment of the railroad infrastructure on the Remsen to Lake Placid Travel Corridor,” New York State Assemblyman Anthony Brindisi, D-Utica, told the Enterprise. “Officials with the Adirondack Scenic Railroad have been in limbo for a long time, and this ruling allows them to proceed with plans for a Utica to Lake Placid railroad line.”
The trail versus rail issue has been brewing for years. The former New York Central line runs 141 miles from Utica to Lake Placid, with the state owning 119 miles from Remsen to Lake Placid. Adirondack Scenic has leased the line from the state and has been operating tourist trains over two segments: from Utica to the Old Forge area since the early 1990s, and from 2000 through 2016 between Lake Placid and Saranac Lake. The intervening 69 miles from Big Moose to Saranac Lake has been allowed to deteriorate. This 10-mph excepted track only received enough maintenance so that empty Saranac Lake-Lake Placid equipment could move to Utica for repairs and winter storage, though the Society would like the state to help it restore service over the entire route.
In 2016, at the behest of trail advocates, the state finalized a plan to remove the track between Tupper Lake and Lake Placid and replace them with a trail. To appease the railroad’s backers, the state plan also called for upgrading 45 miles of track from Big Moose to Tupper Lake to allow the continuation of tourist train operations. While the case was in court, the state moved ahead with plans for the trail. It did not issue a permit to the railroad to run trains over the most northern portions of the line this year. It also did not permit Rail Explorers to operate rail car rides out of Saranac Lake, as that company had done for two years.
Until the mid-1960s, New York Central ran sleeping cars from Grand Central Terminal directly to Lake Placid, a popular ski and tourism destination. The line was acquired by the state from Penn Central and rehabilitated for passenger service for the 1980 Winter Olympics held in Lake Placid. In 2015, the railroad carried more than 74,000 passengers, up from 42,655 in 2009.
David Nelson, you are correct as far as you go. The complete hierarchy is Supreme Court as the court of original jurisdiction-the trial court as you correctly observe-then the Appellate Division, then the Court of Appeals as the final arbiter. The appellate courts will rule on matters of law, procedure, and Constitutionality, and not on issues of fact.
Well, this thread escalated quickly…
‘-)
Good news finally. Maybe they could host the Winter Olympics in Lake Placid again if the NIMBY’s will let them.
@ Henry Sommers and all the other supporters of rails with trails …
The rip ’em up crowd has been pushing the nonsense that what has been provided as a “tourist” rail operation, with increasing success these past 20 years, is the only option in the future. The reality is this — the objective of keeping and upgrading the RR ROW to passenger speed conditions is to be able to provide excursion / tourist and passenger service for residents and visitors of all ages and abilities to the communities in and along the entire existing corridor.
The constant misinformation about what used to be 50-60 years ago, from those who want the rails gone, is bafflegab. The reality is the highway system in the Adirondacks is abysmally unable to support the existing levels of traffic during the peak tourism season now — AND land use regulations prevent that system from ever being expanded to accommodate the predicted huge influx of new visitors to use the proposed new trail.
More and more people around the world, including these United States, are choosing rail travel as the preferred option. Millenials in particular opt for this, as do many in the growing cohort of seniors.
When the folks in NYS government did their recent on-the-ground survey of the feasibility and challenges of building a rail trail in segment 2, it became very apparent that demolition of the rail system and construction of the proposed trail is a much more daunting task and will encroach on wetlands extensively.
Yes the ruling in the Article 78 case is most welcome and yes there is an appeals process ahead. That process includes a review by judges to determine whether due process was denied or that there are errors in law in the ruling to determine whether an appeal will be heard and there are time limits. The ruling states that what NYS agencies did was illegal, not the merits of rails versus trails.
The folks who live in and visit the Adirondacks have earned and deserve the investment in a proper passenger rail system and a complementary pedestrian-friendly trail network that supports and encourages economic development in the communities along the entire existing corridor. It’s time to work together to get it done.
Chip’s comment about the true intent of the “trail advocates” mirrors my own belief – they simply want everyone out of “their” woods.
Lee Keet probably dislikes the railroad more today than he did when he fought the operation of the Adirondack Railway (for the Olympics). As a side note, his “Lake Colby Association” successfully fought off some power boat races on “his” lake that undoubtedly would have brought a great deal of money into Saranac Lake. “It will bother the hospital…”
Mr Keet has been quoted as saying that he’s already spent a lot of money on this effort, and will spend whatever it takes to get the tracks removed. No mention of spending any of that money on a trail…
The repeated attempts to compare scheduled passenger service with tourist railroads are most amusing…
If anyone had doubted the true intent of the “trail advocates,” that doubt disappeared when the “advocates” turned down an alternative trail routing out of hand.
This fight is far from over. The “trail advocates” actually want the tracks gone all the way to Thendara, and all the way to Remsen has been mentioned. Their campaign will continue.
We’ll see if the money the state promised for rehabbing Big Moose – Tupper is forthcoming. Some feel it will disappear, since the state lost.
Tony, Tony, Tony…..are you really so hard-up in your argument here that you are resorting to going after a one-word typo in my posting? C’mon, man….I actually gave you a little more credit than that compared to some of your ARTA buddies. Sour grapes linger, I guess. Oh well…..
Now, then…..let’s continue:
skew (skyo?o)
v. skewed, skew·ing, skews
v.tr.
1. To turn or place at an angle: skew the cutting edge of a plane.
2. To give a bias to; distort: The use of a limited sample skewed the findings of the study.
OK, Tony….you already know what I’m referring to,but if you really want to play out this little game one more time, then for the sake of drama, I will. Here we go:
Remember when you said this in the Adirondack Daily Enterprise?
http://www.adirondackdailyenterprise.com/opinion/letters-to-the-editor/2016/02/the-ny-central-never-averaged-45-mph/
I immediately called B.S. on your “facts”, so some simple checking yielded my own letter to the Enterprise all of two days later:
http://www.adirondackdailyenterprise.com/opinion/letters-to-the-editor/2016/02/correction-on-train-times/
The next day, someone *else* called you out on the same subject:
http://www.adirondackdailyenterprise.com/opinion/guest-commentary/2016/02/don-t-argue-timetables-with-a-railroader/
Then, just fateful day later, you provided a reply to the Enterprise. Was it to actually admit your “mistake”? Was it to try to save face? Was it to try to deflect that you had been caught on your skewering? We will never know the truth, but you decided to say:
http://www.adirondackdailyenterprise.com/opinion/letters-to-the-editor/2016/02/railroad-research-was-insufficient/
Now this would have been all well and good, *if* you had stuck with one story. The only link I can’t retrieve within regard to this argument is your posting on the Railroad.net forums where you stated that you were getting your facts from an old NYC Employee TT. Your argument blew up at this point for two reasons: One, that is NOT what you said in your letter to the Enterprise–you stated there (in the link above) that you got your information from Harter’s FAIRY TALE RAILROAD. (The link is gone as the thread was deleted when the hyperbole about the lawsuit got so heated that the mods actually pulled the thread, so sadly I can’t get an exact quote.
Which was it, Tony? Choose a “source” and stick with it.
Aside from that, the *other* reason you gave yourself away as a “skewer”, per se, is that the ETT that you supposedly quoted from, contained the information to disprove your own argument literally all of *one whole inch away*. You know how I know this? Simply by moving my eyes over one (or perhaps two) column(s) on the same TT graph.
Enough, Tony. Enough is enough.Your group ended up getting you banned from the Railroad.net forums because you (or perhaps Jim McCuley who (contrary to what his proven lies about not showing up there) decided to try to sway things in the forum. You guys were caught, and you were banned. As a refresher, the post in the thread where the ARTA deception was uncovered is here: http://www.railroad.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=128&t=163211&hilit=goodwin&start=45#p1404121
This whole trail idiocy has now been *LEGALLY* acknowledged by a New York State Supreme Court Judge to be a debacle that is “not based in reason”, and was dismissed from the court as “The Court rejects respondents’ self-serving conclusion that the 2016 UMP is consistent with the SLMP [State Land Master Plan].
I could totally go on from here, but you get my point (although admitting to it, I bet, will not happen). You and your ARTA cohorts have spent *YEARS* trying to push this sham through, and it was shot down because a judge, when viewing everything that us supporters have been fighting for, agreed across the board that it was pushed through and *approved* without any proper guidance, thought, or logic.
If you *seriously* want a trail, then hop on board and support the idea of a coexisting trail that was first propsed back in the 1990’s. Do *NOT* go again with the idea that “a side by side trail can’t be done”. It’s 2017….*ANYTHING* can be done with money, cooperation, and planning. I can quote non railroad examples here but it is out of the realm of this forum.
If you do *NOT* decide to go along with the idea of both railroad and trail living together in perfect harmony, then one cam only surmise that you are not as much “pro trail” as you are “anti rail”, and the “anti rail” sentiment runs VEEEEERY deep in the ARTA board room.
Just admit that the judge called “shenanigans” on this whole idea and ruled as such, and start to cooperate with building a prospective world-class walking trail next to restoring a prospective world-class excursion railroad. If you go along with cooperating, then you may be able to save a little bit of the idea that you, yourself, did indeed want a trail, and were not just out to tear up the rails.
James Goodwin, or whatever his name is continues to try to put a spin on this whole thing to make it seem like the railroad is pointless. I can tell you for a fact railtrails that size don’t bring jack squat to the economy. A 10-20 mile trail is ideal. But this trail would just be too long for people.
EXPOSED!! Thank you Chip Ordway!
Rails and trails makes so much more sense especially in the Adirondack State Park.
James “tonh” Goodwin, why not support both, making it a win-win situation on all sides?
Just as an FYI for anyone reading this comments section:. Any comment left by James Goodwin, AKA Tonh Goodwin, should be taken with a grain of salt. Goodwin is on the board of directors of ARTA, the “trail advocacy” group which was the main spear holder against the Adirondack Scenic Railroad in this whole fight. Over the last few years, Tony has used skewed information and simple factual distortion to try to get the tracks torn up–all the while spewing off about the fact that he has “subscribed to TRAINS for fifty years!”. His ARTA cohorts have been caught in out-and-out lies and deception during this fight, but Tony still sees fit to put their propoganda out there, even in the comments section of this very article.
Just a bit of disclosure for you all. As I said….take his words for what they are worth….
Hello James Goodwin,
The following should help you stop fighting.
Judge Main’s ruling is based on the fact that Unit Management Plans cannot amend the State Land Use Management Plan.
Furthermore, if the rails are removed, then the land reverts to Forever Wild status. That result would make losers out of both Alternative 6 and Alternative 7 supporters.
Judge Main did not rule whether Alternative 7 made economic sense.
Judge Main ruled on the legality of Alternative 7.
Judge Main ruled that Alternative 7 is an illegal land use.
If Alternative 7 made every Adirondack resident a multi-millionaire it still would not be legal and could not be accomplished.
The Alternative 6 versus Alternative 7 fight has caused real social wounds in the Adirondack Park.
Your continuing to fight prevents these wounds from healing.
The best way to heal these real social wounds is to support the Trails with Rails Action Committee and the Adirondack Scenic Railroad to develop their plans going forward.
Your leaning a shoulder into the coming reconciliation would be extremely healing.
By the way, be aware that in New York State, unlike many and perhaps most other states, the “Supreme Court” is not the highest court but the lowest: it is a civil trial court. Above it is an appeals level court system and then at the top is the Court of Appeals, which functions as would most other states’ “Supreme Court.”
What makes the New York Court “supreme” (other than ego of course) is that it is a state wide trial level court, but with divisions in counties. That is also differently arranged than in other states.
So this decision is not quite the last word in this case as one might infer from reading that the “state supreme court” had ruled in favor of the railroad. The railroad won at trial. There are two appeals levels above that should the losing party elect to go that route.
Chip Ordway, can you a bit more specific on the times when I have “skewed information” in my writings on this issue. Any yes, it is Tony (not “tonh”) Goodwin that i’m usually known by.
Thank you Mr. Ordway for the eye-opening perspective!
As large as the Adirondack State park is, it is ridiculous to think that another place can’t be found to build an improved trail for hikers and bicyclists. This is just a waste of money to fight over this. Money that could used to improve the railroad and provide an improved trail. Disgusting.
Of interest, there is a proposition on the statewide ballot this year that. among other things, would permit bike trails to be built along a number of public highways in the Adirondacks. If approved, this would provide more than enough bike routes for those so inclined. As I understand biker mentality, most would prefer the challenging up and down that most highways have to the nearly flat profile of the railroad.
ThankYou, Justice Robert Main Jr. on your Adirondack Railway Action.
Don’t pop the champagne corks just yet. As Mr. Nelson points out below there are still appeals routes left. The people fighting the ASR are well financed by the liberal elites (limousine liberals). They don’t want a trail either but this is their excuse to keep people out of “their” park and wilderness. If any trail was built it would only be for a couple of miles within the town limits and this just to satisfy the local people. The only way this will be ended is if these rich Democrats lose interest in the issue and decide to pull their financial support. Of course Governor Cuomo may stick his nose into it but his decision will be based on how much there is in it for him.
We have a rail trail about 3 miles from my house. I run on it 4-5 days a week. it is extremely popular but I doubt if more than a couple of people a day (if that many) are from out of the area. Most of the users are local people running, walking (with or without dogs), bicycling, rollerblading etc. We had a tourist train operation for a couple of years. The group running it got the local towns all fired up about it and they built station platforms but it died after a couple of seasons as no one rode it after an initial trip. Now the rails are severed on both ends and there won’t be anymore trains. Just the occasional speeder trips. Rail with trail is the way to go. Done properly it satisfies both groups and will provide some economic benefit.
I agree with those who think the entire run from Utica to Lake Placid is too long. Only railfans would want a train ride that long and after they got the mileage they would move on to something else. These days people want to do something and then move on. That trip would require an overnight stay and if you wanted to explore the Adirondacks you would still need a car. But to rip up the tracks of a viable railroad that operates a nice 10 mile roundtrip is crazy. I’m anxious to see how this ends up. Let’s hope Cuomo and his cronies have bigger fish to fry.
Great news. Let’s support the Adirondack Scenic Railroad as much as possible. Plan a trip to the Northeast and schedule a visit/ride/contribution.
One can only hope there will be no appeal to Judge Main’s ruling. The State of New York should concur with the ruling if it is aware of the economic benefits a tourist railway would bring to Lake Placid.
Philip Nichols,
There is a big difference between a two hour scenic ride and a five hour scenic ride. Especially if that five hour ride puts you at a place where you must spend the night before taking the train back to the starting point.
The Cumbres and Toltec deals with this with a bus ride back to the staring point the same day. The Durango and Silverton has also now been offering an optional return via bus rather than the layover in Silverton and then the return trip to Durango by rail.
Scenery is great, but not many will want five hours of it each day if they chose to pet a weekend in Lake Placid.
I wonder if any of the parties involved, in this long running dispute, have ever visited the Western Maryland RR in Cumberland MD? Or the Cuyahoga Scenic in OH. I have ridden both of these rail/bike operations. They both seem to not only coexist but complement one another.
A successful tourist railroad definitely brings in more people/passengers than a rail/trail. Who wants to hike/bike when you can ride the rails”(and take in all the scenery – with none of the work)? And weather (rain) becomes less of a factor. You will still ride a train on a rainy day – but those pussy bike riders will stay at home. I guess you all understand where I stand on this subject. The only people that are pushing for the hike/snowmobile trail are those that own the bicycle and snowmobile rental facilities.
I hope Indiana rail interests in the Nickel Plate route that certain parties want to tear out (Noblesville et al) gets a court to side with Iowa Pacific’s proposal to save the freight-capable route using the same logic as the judge in NY did. Rail bank maybe; but a former-rail trail – NO!
Mr Goodwin clearly doesn’t understand the nature of the railroad. It is a tourist attraction, not a rapid transit line. I may or may not carry local people like a commuter around a major city nor as Amtrak does between cities. The lure here is to move people through wild areas where they otherwise could not go, where the could not see, at a leisurely pace and without fouling the atmosphere. It probably will be seasonal with no or fewer trains in winter but could move skiers in and out of the area to and from slopes in weather and on roads which snow and ice could make dangerous. So many additional reasons for the train than what he perceives. Too bad he is not alone in that perception.