“New York department to review Adirondack Scenic decision”
May 13, 2016
FTA:"… LAKE PLACID. N.Y. — State officials said Friday they are taking a second look at a plan that would have removed the railroad between Lake Placid and Tupper Lake in favor of a multi-use trail, even though the plan has the approval of the Adirondack Park Agency.
Back in February, the park agency board voted 9-1 to remove 34 miles of the railroad so a rail trail could be built. In the fall, the state Department of Environmental Conservation agreed with the park agency that the railroad should go. Now, the new acting chairman of the department says his agency is rethinking its support.
“We’re reviewing the entire plan, all the public comments, all the interest in the outside, we’re taking it all into account and ultimately determining the best way forward. We’ll make a decision on that soon,” Brian Seggos told North Country Public Radio…"
Looks like our friends in Upstate New York may" catch that break…"
Possibly, a local up there can fill in some of the details.
The old DEC commissioner is gone, and the current one hasn’t signalled his feelings on the topic. The APA “approval” wasn’t really an approval - only an agreement that “Option 7” was not counter to the Agency’s master plan.
The “trail advocates” thought this was a done deal, and are expressing their outrage (huge surprise…).
One of the main “trail advocates” is also known to have made a number of political contributions, so this may have caused some rethinking in the halls of the capitol.
There have been legal questions about the APA’s actions as well.
The simple fact that the topic has been officially noted to be still up in the air is very significant.
Perhaps that small group of people who want everyone out of their woods won’t end up being successful in this attempt.
Hopefully, this current process will have a good outcome for ASR…That area needs to be able to show itrself off to a much wider group of people who can enjoy it from the comfort of the ASR.
It would be a shame, and an economic loss for the State; limiting area to limit it to a small, cliquish group whose enthusiasm can be short term and fickle. It is an asset already in place…Enjoy its benefits, and services. Not to mention access to that area by enhancing its usefulness. [2c].
He doesn’t work for the park agency - and all they said was that Option 7 did not conflict with their master plan. It was simply a formality.
The one vote against was a lawyer who said they were way off base with their decision.
It’s long been said that nothing happens in Albany unless the governor says so. With current events being what they are, the gov may decide to distance himself from the decision so as to hopefully eliminate some potential “conflicts of interest…”
The decision is a joint one, involving DOT and DEC. Both have to sign off.
Larry: Any guesses as to which way this might go? The Newswire article seemed to indicate it was about to be a ‘new game’, and the decision might gain different meanings with the new Commissioner…
Hope this was a real consideraton of the previous decision, and not just a ploy to ‘fish’ for funds in a political time. [banghead]
At this point, it’s really hard to say. There are a lot of variables in play, but the general impression I get from folks who know a lot more than I do is that things may well be tipping in favor of keeping the tracks.
What this may do is embolden those who, for a variety of reasons, have withheld support for the rails for fear of retribution to show their support (there is one definite example of this happening). At least one local government has already changed their stance.
For now, “cautiously optomistic” is probably the best position to take.
The governor has now gone on record as approving “Option 7,” which calls for lifting the rails north of Tupper Lake.
The railroad has filed a 1,500 page lawsuit opposing that decision. Among the treats in the lawsuit is a document signed by DEC and DOT - which disappeared after a very short time on the state website, and which signatures were denied by the state shortly thereafter.
The “trail advocates” are crowing about their victory - I’m sure at least one is polishing up his spike puller, so to follow the last train out of town and get rid of the rails he hates so thoroughly…
At this point, though, one 800 pound gorilla in the room - the state and national historic registers - have yet to be addressed by the “trail advocates.” Perhaps they think they can buy that decision like it appears they may have bought this one.
Who is going to pay for trail maintaince on 80 miles of trail where nobody lives in rural counties that are broke. My local bike trail has 150,000.00 a year for maintance and its 20 miles long.
Travel Corridor. The rail line is classified as a Travel Corridor in the State Land Master Plan. Except for the rail line, all the Travel Corridors in the Park are highways. ARPS contends that if the tracks are replaced with a recreational trail, the rail line will no longer be a Travel Corridor in the sense intended by the State Land Master Plan. “A Travel Corridor is not defined as a trail allowing for a range of recreational activities. It is defined in terms of highways and railroads,” the plaintiff’s lawyers assert in court papers. ARPS argues that the Adirondack Park Agency erred when it ruled in February that removing the tracks would not violate the State Land Master Plan.
DEC approval. Seggos signed off on the plan in March, according to the lawsuit. ARPS lawyers contend that his approval of the plan was based on “flawed and biased economic impact data.” They also say he ignored competing data. Furthermore, ARPS says Seggos and other DEC officials refused to consider information that the society tried to present at a meeting in December. The lawsuit contends Seggos’s approval of the plan was “arbitrary and capricious” and should be nullified.
If it goes to a lawsuit, I hope they do better than the Catskill Mtn Railway. CMR lost the suit on all accounts, had to pay the government’s legal fees, and had to agree to support rail dismantling to the extent that they had to expell any member who protested the dismantling.
Travel Corridor. The rail line is classified as a Travel Corridor in the State Land Master Plan. Except for the rail line, all the Travel Corridors in the Park are highways. ARPS contends that if the tracks are replaced with a recreational trail, the rail line will no longer be a Travel Corridor in the sense intended by the State Land Master Plan. “A Travel Corridor is not defined as a trail allowing for a range of recreational activities. It is defined in terms of highways and railroads,” the plaintiff’s lawyers assert in court papers. ARPS argues that the Adirondack Park Agency erred when it ruled in February that removing the tracks would not violate the State Land Master Plan.
DEC approval. Seggos signed off on the plan in March, according to the lawsuit. ARPS lawyers contend that his approval of the plan was based on “flawed and biased economic impact data.” They also say he ignored competing data. Furthermore, ARPS says Seggos and other DEC officials refused to consider information that the society tried to present at a meeting in December. The lawsuit contends Seggos’s approval of the plan was “arbitrary and capricious” and should be nullified.