malcolmreynold5 comment-74797 2012-10-16T22:19:44Z 2012-10-16T22:19:44Z This is great, I actually just got into mountain biking myself and I love it! It gets me outdoors and away from my video games. I just got this bike here http://www.2wheelbikes.com/x22-mountain-bike.html and I love how it make me feel secure to whatever terrain I am riding on. malcolmreynold5 2012-10-16T22:19:44Z John Boyer comment-74026 2012-09-28T07:08:30Z 2012-09-28T07:08:30Z The whole movement of the bike returning to its rightful place as a sustainable energy source will crumble if we dont challenge the future generations to ride a bike. Nice to see a media source looking down the road. John Boyer 2012-09-28T07:08:30Z majormud2 comment-73189 2012-09-04T23:35:58Z 2012-09-04T23:35:58Z My wife teaches older D D's and for years she has refered them as handy capable persons, you almost said it in the article but I believe if this descriptive word became main stream it by itself could change the way society looks at the D D community, remember they are Handy Capable persons ! majormud2 2012-09-04T23:35:58Z Dina Neils comment-65667 2012-03-28T23:43:30Z 2012-03-28T23:43:30Z Darn! I wish I knew about this sooner- deadline for the video submission is only a couple days away. Will this happen again in 2012 or next year? Dina Neils 2012-03-28T23:43:30Z JimHarville comment-63175 2012-02-03T08:32:40Z 2012-02-03T08:32:40Z Thank you, Jessica, for once again bringing this issue into a public forum where all voices can be heard! I am a bit confused by your article, however. As a member of Friends of El Dorado Trail, you seem to be using as your only source the opinions of Mike Kenison, president of your group. As Mike had to leave the Supervisor's Meeting before the three votes regarding the rails/trails issue were taken, it appears that his comments are a little out of sync with the actual results. Vote One was a motion by Supervisor Briggs, seconded by Supervisor Nutting, to REJECT a license for Excursion Rail Service currently under consideration by the county. This license with a local non-profit group, Placerville and Sacramento Valley Railroad, Inc., has been in development since 2008, using guidelines approved by El Dorado County in 2007. The license has been previously approved and ratified by the three other member agencies of the Joint Powers Authority which owns this transportation corridor, and recently received a 4-0 recomendation by the El Dorado Parks and Recreation Commission. The motion to reject FAILED in a 3-2 vote. Vote Two was a motion by Supervisor Knight, seconded by Supervisor Santiago, to counter with a proposed revision which would limit the initial operating license to the section between Shingle Springs and Missouri Flat Rd. This motion passed 4-1, and negotiations on a set of revisions which will satisfy a majority of the Supervisors began immediately. Vote Three was a motion by Supervisor Knight, seconded by Supervisor Briggs, to work with County Counsel to write a report for the Board addressing the pros and cons of Supervisor Briggs' suggestion to withdraw from, or attempt to disolve, the SPTC-JPA. This motion passed 5-0, as ALL the Supervisors, regardless of their underlying goals, wish to have clarification of the options before the County regarding the recent determination by the JPA that the railroad tracks between Shingle Springs and the western county line CANNOT be removed! As you can see, just as it was a year ago when Mike was making the EXACT same claims, this issue is FAR from settled! On another note, the distance by rail from Shingle Springs to Missouri Flat Road is at most about 7.5 miles, and the distance between the train stations at Shingle Springs and El Dorado Town is about 5.8 miles. Like most of the "offers" from your group, "more than eight miles" quickly becomes less than six. By the way, any news on the $300,000 in rail materials the Railroad Park was supposed to get from the "Shingle Plan"? In retrospect, Jessica, it seems that your article is looking less like journalism, and more like a political press release! I look forward to your response. JimHarville 2012-02-03T08:32:40Z Casey Kirk comment-61532 2011-12-21T00:13:17Z 2011-12-21T00:13:17Z We made a correction. Thanks! Casey Kirk 2011-12-21T00:13:17Z Jessica Bean comment-61531 2011-12-20T22:59:56Z 2011-12-20T22:59:56Z The Sacramento Chef Challenge is being held on SATURDAY, June 23, 2012 not Friday. Sorry for the error. Jessica Bean 2011-12-20T22:59:56Z JimHarville comment-57229 2011-09-14T21:15:51Z 2011-09-14T21:15:51Z Mike, as I said about a week ago on this thread, you really SHOULD read my posts more thoroughly, as you are still missing a LOT! Any references to Folsom trail costs in the $1.5 million per mile range, attributed to you or others, apply only to trails built IN the corridor, OFF the roadbed. If you were actually reading these posts, you would realize that this figure at least gives your $2 million a mile claims for El Dorado County trail development SOME credibility, but instead you spent two posts arguing against yourself..... On to your next point... You very rarely lie overtly, Mike. Most of your lies are ones of omission, misdirection, or misrepresentation. Case in point; your claim on your website that our El Dorado operations are "illegal". Absolutely not true, but you have ignored my repeated requests for a retraction. How about your constant association of "free trail with the Shingle Plan", vs. "$50 million if the train guys get their way"? Any honest comparison shows clearly that even using YOUR numbers, $50 million under the "Evil Train Plan" corresponds to $25 million plus under the "Shingle Plan". Would it surprise you that several people who attended the joint Rails/Trails presentation at Four Seasons this last Monday, took from your presentation the impression that the El Dorado Western Railway Foundation SUPPORTS the Shingle Plan"? This is absolutely false, of course, yet it is something that you perpetuate in every presentation, every letter to the editor, and every forum in which this issue is discussed. You have been corrected by Mary Cory, administrator of the EDCo Historical Museum, as well as Keith Berry, President of EDWRF, yet you continue to present this theme in your battle for the "hearts and minds" of El Dorado County! I have no issue with the "facts" you have collected, Mike, when they are indeed factual. Your interpretation and presentation of these facts, however, leave tremendous room for improvement. JimHarville 2011-09-14T21:15:51Z mkenison comment-57071 2011-09-12T18:29:52Z 2011-09-12T18:29:52Z You need to do your own work to figure this out! You need to call Folsom and get actual cost. All you are doing is arguing with no facts of your own. Calling me a liar and questioning my homework, the projects I have reveiwed and conversations I have had with serious, "Real" people with trail experience, is not getting us anywhere! Jim, I no longer care what you accept, as your opinion is no longer valid to me, withour real numbers, from real people, about real and specific projects, becasue you are just spinning and arguing!! Keep a record Jim. My numbers and position will be the same. I will give you the last word on this. Mike mkenison 2011-09-12T18:29:52Z JimHarville comment-57036 2011-09-11T16:48:03Z 2011-09-11T16:48:03Z Ummmm... Mike, I corrected my misidentification of Jim K. ASAP, including a call to Chicago and a personal apology left on Jim K's voicemail. The conversation I was referring to, however, DID occur, just with Tony Powers instead of Jim Konopka. You are welcome to continue to attack me on this particular slip, as I am willing to gamble that it is not MY credibility that suffers when you do so! You are now claiming that Folsom's trail costs, through green belts and across wetlands, are running in the $500k range per mile. OUTSTANDING! This makes your high end estimates for Rails WITH Trails in El Dorado County FOUR TIMES what it is costing Folsom! How do you justify that number? For the sake of fairness, I am willing to accept that your $500k figure is only referring to the "Folsom Rail-Trail" portion that runs along Folsom Boulevard. Can you clarify this, please? Oh, and Mike, you don't need to worry about folks not following this thread any more. It is my intention to archive ALL of our discussions, in this forum and others, and make them available in both hard copy and electronic formats. I will make sure you get your own copy! :) JimHarville 2011-09-11T16:48:03Z mkenison comment-57030 2011-09-11T12:57:26Z 2011-09-11T12:57:26Z This is ridiculous! You are now saying that I claim a build cost in Folsom of $1.5 million per mile? Jim, were do you get this crap? Jim, were have I said this? If I have said this, then I retract that number immediately, because I do not know that $1.5 million is the number!!! My conversations with “real people” in Folsom would guess at a number closer to $500,000 per mile. The nice thing about Folsom’s trails is that they are done and they have actual numbers!! CALL them and get the numbers, it is that easy. You refute my claims, because of your communications with Jim K, that never happened. Your credibility has been slammed and it get worse for you with each post. You are lucky that no one in their right mind is still following this post. mkenison 2011-09-11T12:57:26Z JimHarville comment-56980 2011-09-10T00:21:21Z 2011-09-10T00:21:21Z Actually, Mike, during the course of yet another meeting in Placerville today, I verified AGAIN that our current operations are completely legal and approved by the county. Each of our operating weekends are applied for and approved on an individual basis, just like a craft fair. Ironically, even if we WERE operating in contradiction to the SPTC master plan, It would still not be against the LAW, and therefore cannot be "illegal". Please remove that reference from your website, OR print your claim in a legitimate newspaper so I may take action against your libel. Yes, Mike, getting someone's name wrong has competely destroyed my credibility.... NEXT! As it so happens, Mike, YOU have been one of my primary sources regarding Folsom's trail development costs. The picture that has evolved through conversations with you, Tony Powers, Dan Bolster, and others, is that Folsom's trail costs have run about $1.5 million a mile. You are claiming $2 million per mile in El Dorado County, an increase of 33 percent. Every engineer and contractor I speak to who DOESN'T have an axe to grind regarding the Railroad says that this is a seriously padded number, and that it is even more so in the lower part of Segment 1 (county line to Amber Fields). I am not trying to make up any numbers, Mike, I am just trying to listen and learn. So yes, Mike, spin... busted... ouch... NEXT! I had to step away from my computer for awhile, I was laughing so hard about the $5 million thing! That was a swipe at Roseville, Mike, not at you! It would just figure that the one and probably only time I am NOT poking fun at you, you take it wrong and get offended.... Sorry, buddy, I will try to be more careful next time! :) JimHarville 2011-09-10T00:21:21Z mkenison comment-56964 2011-09-09T19:47:38Z 2011-09-09T19:47:38Z No license or lease ratified in El Dorado County. You can run speeders, but not a business that takes donations or sells tickets and you know this. It is written in the SPTC master plan. The Master Plan is important to you when you need it and is tossed when it is in your way. You claimed a clear understanding of the Folsom trail systen and cost based on your conversation with Jim K. Now we see you have never talked to him, so how credible is your comments on trail build cost? You still do not have a number and you claim that the SPTC Corridor costs will be less than Folsom??? No wiggling out of this one. You spun it up and got busted! So we don't need to talk more about trail cost at this time. You have a lot of homework to do. "A Roseville project at $2.3 million? I'm surprised its not $5 million!" Are you saying that I make these numbers up and that the information I have is all pumped to make my case. Wow, you do not know me and I guess this is all a game of spin to you. This is why we do not like this forum with you Jim. You are full of yourself. mkenison 2011-09-09T19:47:38Z JimHarville comment-56954 2011-09-09T16:33:05Z 2011-09-09T16:33:05Z "Untrue Statements"? Mike, the only error I made was to incorrectly identify a person I spoke with for about 15 minutes, NINE MONTHS after the meeting took place! My response when that error was pointed out? I immediately admitted my error, made several calls to track down the TRUTH, finally reached someone in CHICAGO who was at the Greenstone meeting and knew who the individual was, and then provided the correct info in the SAME POST! I then left a message for the REAL Jim Konopka, briefly explaining what happened and offering an apology. You can try and make as much hay out of this error as you like, Michael, but if I could have extracted the same level of integrity out of YOU this past year, we could have agreed to a Rails WITH Trails solution for the corridor MONTHS AGO! Still waiting for you to correct your claim that we are running trains "illegally" in El Dorado County! (not holding my breath) A Roseville project at $2.3 million? I'm surprised its not $5 million! It should be a good case study to look at, however, as the differences between urban and rural trail development are pertinent to our debate. I do plan to speak to Tony Powers soon, and I will keep you posted. About 6 miles of the SPTC lies within Folsom, at least 3 of which include class 1 trail. The balance of that development IS planned, so that looks like Rails WITH Trails to me. If my future conversations with Tony, Jim, and others change my perspective on that, I will let you know. JimHarville 2011-09-09T16:33:05Z mkenison comment-56947 2011-09-09T14:50:49Z 2011-09-09T14:50:49Z Untrue statements, this is what you offer. You claim to know about trail building in Folsom and the cost which you say is more expensive than the SPTC corridor. You base this claim on conversations with Jim Konopka. You have never talked to him. Now you say you have talked to Tony Powers? Did you ask him how much the cost per mile will be? He is doing a project in Roseville at 2.3 million per mile. Ask how that project compares to the EDC corridor! give me the numbers Jim or all you offer is "Untrue statements." You have no numbers, no facts Jim, you never substantiate your claims. You are not running in Folsom and Folsom voted to dump you on EDC! Thanks Folsom. Folsom did not do a rail with trails build, because the trail follows the rails for very short sections, so again you spin with untrue statements with not facts. How many miles of Folsoms trail is in the Rail corridor? You need to know these things and you need to talk to the people you claim to have information from, and then bring the numbers. mkenison 2011-09-09T14:50:49Z JimHarville comment-56900 2011-09-08T18:35:35Z 2011-09-08T18:35:35Z Tony and I DID discuss costs that day, Mike, and my impression was that he felt your $2 million a mile for the length of the corridor was WAY off! In certain locations, sure, but not the whole thing. His comments fell in line with those of other engineers and contractors we have had look at this project, so forgive me if I don't take your word for it when it comes to cost estimates. Also sorry if discussing the ACTUAL FACTS surrounding this issue causes you to lose interest, Mike, I thought we were about to make some progress. I guess I will have to wait for another media publication to pick up this story, so we can start all the way back at the beginning.... AGAIN.... If Folsom does not want us, Mike, then why did they vote UNANIMOUSLY to approve our operating license? Why did Folsom specifically ask us to run trains over Rodeo Weekend? Why is the Folsom Chamber supporting our promotional efforts? Mike, if the P&SVRR had taken you up on your original offer to run trains from Folsom to Latrobe, restricting the El Dorado Western to the confines of the Railroad Park, would WE then be your friends, and would the EDWRF be the selfish, shortsighted ones for continuing to fight for the preservation of the railroad? Remember, Mike, I am a member of BOTH organizations, so this fight would be the same REGARDLESS of which organization carried the burden! Your pandering and false loyalty to the "El Dorado train guys" makes me want to go take a shower, Mike, so I gotta go. JimHarville 2011-09-08T18:35:35Z mkenison comment-56889 2011-09-08T17:15:57Z 2011-09-08T17:15:57Z I invited Tony to that meeting and if you remember what he said, basically the trail can be built next to the tracks, a known fact. But ask him what the cost will be and you know that number is huge! Hidden cost, RUFA, JPA transfers are going to loose the one or two people watching this conversation. I am done. The Shingle Plan create a train section for you, You are Wlecome! Folsom does not want you, but El Dorado County does from Shingle Springs to Missouri Flat Road. We can have both train and trail, next summer at no cost to the county and you will have a home, 9 miles of track to run your trains, and we both can try to build something great for EDC. mkenison 2011-09-08T17:15:57Z JimHarville comment-56880 2011-09-08T10:11:48Z 2011-09-08T10:11:48Z Nope, you're right! Jim Konopka was NOT at the Greenstone meeting! I have put in some calls, and as soon as I get the correct name of the Folsom Trails representative that DID attend, I will pop on here and attribute that gentleman's comments properly! Something to keep in mind as I address your latest post is that I may have gotten the NAME wrong, but the statements made by that individual were quite clear, and I stand by them. Let me tell you why these discussions are NOT a waste, Mike. Aside from all this quality time I get to spend with you, they allow me to present a balancing viewpoint to the public, in real time, to counter statements such as this: "If you get your way Jim, the El Dorado Trail connection to Folsom and the American River Parkway with not happen in our lifetimes, as the cost increase to $30 to $50 million for the 25 miles. The Shingle Plan allows for a connection to Folsom, at no cost to the county and can be done in 6 months!" To the casual reader, the statement above offers a very clear choice. "Free Trail" versus "$30 to $50 Million Dollar Trail". The only problem with that statement is that it is false. It is misleading. And considering that I have had to call you on it MANY times, it is clearly very, very intentional. In EVERY arena in which you and I have discussed this issue, you have presented this choice to the public, and I have had to challenge you with post after post to get you to break down the numbers as you finally have in this last entry. These numbers represent $400k per mile ON the roadbed, and $2 Million per mile OFF the roadbed. The end product in both examples is a paved class 1 trail. These numbers result in a $25 MILLION DOLLAR PRICE TAG for your "Shingle Plan"! You want to discuss a "Free" compacted gravel trail ON the roadbed over the 17 miles between the county line and Shingle Springs? Fine! Then compare it to the cost of a compacted gravel trail OFF the roadbed for 17 miles! Oh, I know that having to say "$25 million Vs. $50 million" doesn't play as well to the masses as "FREE Vs. $50 million", but you will just have to suck it up and start telling the truth! What about the big, expensive EIR, you say? News Flash, Mike, your "Shingle Plan" already commits you to an EIR! Let's move on to your claims that our organization is making false statements. The SPTC Master Plan recognizes excursion rail as a legitimate use of the corridor, and specifies that a non-revocable trails easement of 100 feet on EACH side of the rails be a condition of all development along the corridor. It also allows that after 10 years from the adoption of the Master Plan in 2003, segments proposed for excursion service could be re-evaluated and development priorities shifted. While the supervisors actions this past year are inconsistent with the SPTC Master Plan, we have never claimed that their actions were forbidden. If that were the case, we would not have invested hundreds of man-hours in public outreach, supervisors' meetings, and other aspects of the political battle, we would have simply circled the appropriate sections with a yellow highlighter and mailed them to the supervisors! Your claim - baseless. The JPA holds title to the corridor and all it's assets. El Dorado County has a broad easement back over the property, which can also include trail development under the Notice of Interim Trail Use. El Dorado County cannot "do what they want" with the corridor - procedures must be followed, interests of the other member agencies must be considered. Your claim - subjective. All track materials belong to the JPA. If EDCo is eventually successful in compelling the JPA to transfer the track assets under the NITU and Article 7 of the RUFA, EDCo is entitled to the residual. EDCo is NOT in control of the process or conditions of said transfer. Your claim - presumptuous. Many rail to trail conversions have had rails removed and have held up with very little maintenance. Unfortunately, our corridor is not one of them. The $400k repair on the upper trail, as well as the ever increasing fire danger in the corridor, show clearly that our concerns are justified. Your claim - myopic. Your "Shingle Plan" has significant hidden costs for the county, starting with the unfunded mandates that DOT and County Counsel are working on right now! Ongoing maintenance costs are also something your group has avoided like the plague. As far as your near term, phase one rail removal/gravel trail goes, it has long been my expectation that Joe Hattrup will submit a lowball prevailing wage bid, even if he has to take a loss on the project. I have been preparing for it for nearly a year.... Your claim - clueless THIS JUST IN!! The Folsom Trails guy from the Greenstone meeting was Tony Powers, past president of Folsom Area Bicycle Advocates and an Engineer by trade. More to follow! JimHarville 2011-09-08T10:11:48Z mkenison comment-56802 2011-09-07T16:27:21Z 2011-09-07T16:27:21Z Then give the numbers Jim. What are Folsom's build costs? You are full of it! Jim Konopka was not at the Greenstone meeting! This is why these discussions are a waste. So your 25 mile train will raise the cost of trail development by 25 million. Here is how I come up with the number. On the rail bed Shingle down 8 million. Off the rail bed 34 million. To deal with every drainage culvert and wet area on the 34 miles and an EIR will be very expensive. We also need to deal with large fill and cuts up closer to Shingle Springs. Several permits are needed at each wet area and so the build off the track will be tough. On the rail bed will be "free", and leave us with a hard packed surface or "gravel." It is exciting that this conversation has come a long way from your sides original false arguements, that the rail can't be pulled because of General Plan and SPTC Master Plan issues. Not True. Your side also claimed that the JPA was in control and now we know that EDC county can do what they want with their easment! JPA can not stop the removal of rails and your comments, not true again. That the materials belong to the JPA. Not True, EDC will get back some of their investment of $2.77 million and the JPA will have no claim to it. Your side has stated that the rail bed would deteriorate if the rails are removed. Not True, many rail trail conversions have had rails removed and have held up for 10 or 20 years and not fail yet! You say that a rail to trail conversion can not be done at no cost to the county and that is also Not True. I have been talking with Iron Horse and then can do the conversion as a "public works project", it would mean less track for you in the train section, but it could be done and that is exciting! So many of your statements have been proven untrue, false and misleading. Jim Konopka was not at the Greenstone Meeting and you need to talked to him to be able to quote Folsom's build cost! Obviously you have never met him or you would not have mistaken him for someone else at Greenstone. He also does not agree with your statement that " your numbers(meaning my numbers) were exaggerated on the high side". I just called him and I think you need to call and introduce yourself to Jim K. and have a conversation about trail building cost and you will see you a wrong again. I am always here to clarify things for you. Mike mkenison 2011-09-07T16:27:21Z JimHarville comment-56722 2011-09-06T20:49:16Z 2011-09-06T20:49:16Z "You know I don't usually read your posts completely".... Well, you probably should, Mike, because you are missing a LOT! Let's start with your statement that this post "clears up the cost". OK, Mike, so the $30 to $50 million figure is your total build-out from Folsom to Mo Flat. Is that for Rails WITH Trails, with class 1 trail developed OFF the roadbed, top to bottom (i.e. your worst case scenario if the train groups get their way)? If so, what are the total project costs of of the "Shingle Plan"? Not "free", because that only refers to early phase development of only two thirds of the Folsom to Mo Flat section. What specific level of development does the $30 to $50 million figure represent, Mike? Then, and ONLY then, can we make accurate comparisons of the promises made by your "Shingle Plan". I was very impressed by Jim Konopka during our on-site subcommittee meeting at Greenstone Road this last January 12th. If I recall, Jim also felt your numbers were exaggerated toward the high side for this project, and leaned more towards the position held by Russ Nygaard, Deputy Director for Facilities and Engineering. Jim Konopka did a magnificent job developing a Rails WITH Trails program in Folsom, and I will always be indebted to him. In fact, his numbers ARE the basis of most of my arguments. It is SO entertaining that you then take me to task for "generalization", and not addressing project and location specifics, when that is what I have been BEGGING you to do for the last year! Glad to see you are finally on board with that, Mike, when can we meet? JimHarville 2011-09-06T20:49:16Z JimHarville comment-56678 2011-09-06T19:57:51Z 2011-09-06T19:57:51Z Mike, you are so AWESOME! Yes, in March of this year the Supes did vote 4 to 1 to designate trail development as the priority in Segment 1, which is the portion of the corridor between the county line and Shingle Springs. Also still in effect from that meeting is the clause that they will "explore alternatives to removing the tracks". Perhaps you have forgotten that at the August 16th supervisors meeting a Corridor Oversight Committee was approved, over your strenuous objection, which will finally include Railroad Advocates as legitimate stakeholders in the corridor! I suppose I should be "grateful" that your plan includes $200,000 for Railroad Park development, but I think......... Hey! Wait a minute! Doesn't this article claim that up to $300,000 will go to the Railroad Park? Hasn't your group spent MONTHS pounding that $300k figure into the consciousness of anyone who will listen? Has your "offer" been reduced by a full third before we even begin to address the real costs of your project? Mike, I know your claim has been that the value available to the train section would be UP TO $300k, and $200k certainly fits in that window, but so does $20 bucks! To address your next question about revenue, it would be ridiculous to base revenue projections for capital improvements on short term benchmarks we have already passed! Although the "hands on" speeder experience will always be available to our ridership (at a market driven price of around $20), the bulk of revenue volume will be driven by the standard sized excursion train we will be launching in the next few months. As has been explained to you before, a broad pallete of offerings will be available, from short little hops to "drive a locomotive" rentals! Let's move on to what EDC can and cannot do with their allocated portion of the corridor. Mike, I read and understood Article 7 of the RUFA over a year ago. Our efforts to delay your Article 7 Request until we had a chance to mobilize and educate the public have succeeded beyond our wildest dreams! My projections last November were that we could buy 4 or 5 months, 6 at the most. We have now had over 10 months of rail operations and public outreach, which would not have been possible without your help. It is in my best interests to let your misunderstanding of County Counsel's comments stand, so I will not correct you here no matter how tempting it is! I will, however, address your question of how hard the JPA and the other member agencies will fight for the rails. Mike, I believe Sac County and Folsom collectively paid around $3 million for their share of the total corridor cost, and so also have a vested interest in how the corridor is developed. The Sac County Supervisors and Folsom City Council recently voted UNANIMOUSLY to approve our operating license, in fact, there support was so strong it was approved on the consent calendar, and was not even brought up for debate! Sac County has begun preliminary improvements at White Rock Road in preparation for our reactivation of that road crossing, and Folsom has likewise made human and capital investments in our program. So I don't know, Mike, how hard do YOU think they will fight to preserve the rails? Next, you again claim that "it is clear that you should not be running trains in EDC." Mike, all of our operations this year were approved by EDCo DOT in cooperation and coordination with the JPA. That is the management structure which governs rail access on the corridor. Since November your group has asked the supervisors DIRECTLY no less than FIVE TIMES to restrict our access to the corridor and you have been refused EVERY TIME! The Supes are sitting that one out until the dust settles, Mike, and you know it....... I will challenge you again, Mike, to put your claims that we are operating illegally down in print, in an actual paper. Please..... JimHarville 2011-09-06T19:57:51Z mkenison comment-56672 2011-09-06T13:32:11Z 2011-09-06T13:32:11Z You know I don't usually read your posts completely, but I do want to clear up the cost. The 30 to 50 million is from Folsom to Missouri Flat road. The free trail in the Shingle Plan is from Shingle to Folsom and I always refer to this as an imporved, graded, all-weather trail! The section from SS to Mo Flat will be the most expensive to build. This is our burden in the Shingle Compromise and it will be difficult. Do Not try to tell us that Folsom's Trails are more expensive than our Trail development will be in EDC. This is a lie and you need to get a grip here. Call Jim Konopka and get the numbers from him. I just caught this comment and it is incorrrect and a complete generalization and not specific to the many fills, cuts, drainage issues, needed bridges, extensive grading just to start an off the rail-bed build. What is the average cost to build in Folsom Jim? What was the cost to build on the Rail-bed in EDC. What is our experience to build off the rail-bed in EDC? What section of track are you talking about? You need to get a handle of these numbers before you start making claims of build costs!! In the end Jim, it is Not your concern, as the trail section will be built on the rails and we will figure out the Shingle Up trail. mkenison 2011-09-06T13:32:11Z mkenison comment-56671 2011-09-06T12:55:48Z 2011-09-06T12:55:48Z Jim, You need to remember what is happening in EDC. The Board Voted 4 to 1 for the Shingle Plan Compromise and that is our direction. The County is moving forward to get estimates on track removal, but also are ready to bring materials from the Trail section, to the Train section above Shingle Springs. This will help build out the Train section now, not 5, 10 or 15 years. $200,000 now is so important to build out “turn-arounds” in Shingle Springs and Missouri Flat Road. These materials will also help to build out the train park, installing switches and sidings, and the very important third rail to run narrow gauge trains. How long would it take to raise the $200,000 to buy these materials with a few thousand speeder riders? County Council made it clear that EDC can do what they want with our section of the corridor and the only issue is JPA ownership of the removed materials. How hard is the JPA going to argue for these materials when EDC paid $2.3 Million for their share! We will get our money for the sales of the rails and use these funds to build both the Train and Trail sections. We can remove the rails Shingle down to the County line with Folsom and leave the Rail Bed with a hard surface that will be used by the majority in EDC. You realize that most trail users like the improved trail, not the existing Natural Trail we have opened this year. The trails in EDC are used year round and have thousands weekly. So your 2000 speeder rides is not impressive, but we do support your runs “Shingle UP.” You guys conveniently use the SPTC Mater Plan when it suits your direction, and it is clear that you should not be running trains in EDC. County Council made this clear in the last Board meeting. There you go, give me two pages of railroad law! We want you Folsom guys to have fun with your hobby and you are welcome in EDC, from Shingle Springs to Mo Flat. The county is going to give the train section materials that would take 10 to 20 years to purchase, if you relied on speeder runs to finance rail improvement. EDC county has an exciting new direction that will give us both a train section and a trail connection. You Folsom guys can run the speeders for as long as needed to raise money, $5 or $10 per rider. With the Shingle Plan, EDC will also get a trail today at no cost to the county. Iron Horse is ready to assist with the construction and development of both trails. Whether the work is a Public Works project, or a salvage job (similar to work that you train guys have done), Joe Hattrup is confident that the project can be funded with the selling of removed rails. EDC is moving in an exciting direction! We have the Supervisors vote, we have a plan that has been vetted legally, and now we are moving forward with the Shingle Plan that will finally utilize the corridor with a most incredible compromise. A completely built out train section (with materials from rail removal from the trail portion) and a graded hard packed trail from SS to Folsom and a regionally significant trail connection for the majority in EDC. mkenison 2011-09-06T12:55:48Z JimHarville comment-56670 2011-09-06T09:20:26Z 2011-09-06T09:20:26Z Happy Labor Day, Mike! Sorry I didn't respond sooner, but we were busy over the weekend giving another two or three hundred folks the scenic railroad tour of El Dorado County! This response will work best if I deconstruct your latest post from back to front. First, your claim that we have had "14 years to make it happen and we still have nothing". Aside from the more than 2000 riders we have served this year, the washout repair which allows service to Latrobe, the restoration of the White Rock signal equipment, and the approval of our operating license by not only the JPA, but by City of Folsom and Sac County as well, what exactly were your expectations? Mike, all structural and framing work on the excursion car is complete. All metal has been primed, and the topcoat paint has been purchased and should be applied this month. The shade canopy for the car has been in storage at the yard for months, and of course the several thousand pounds of concrete we poured to bring the car up to the proper operating weight has been in place since early spring. The Whitcomb Locomotive, which was received by our group literally in pieces, has been painstakingly repaired and it's components reassembled. Final arrangements are being made to install the refurbished gear box and traction motor, putting us in the home stretch of a process that has taken three years and hundreds of volunteer hours. "How credible are you and your projections" "not close to being finished" "This is how you guys operate, false promises and time frames." "Speeders are all you have right now" I don't want to make light of your righteous indignation, Mike, but are you kidding me?! I suppose we should tackle next your claim that "You and your Folsom group want to come into El Dorado County a take the corridor for yourselves." Mike, it is impossible for us to "come into" El Dorado County when we are already here! Do I really need to give all of our El Dorado County members your personal phone number before you stop flogging this ridiculous, unfounded, and misleading argument? You have worked very hard to insert this statement into the public discourse, Mike, repeating it frequently and forcefully. In order to help you get the message out, I share your position with as much of our ridership as I can.... You should see their eyes roll! Finally, we get to the issue of cost. A careful reading of the first paragraph of the above post indicates that you believe it will cost $30 to $50 million if you are forced to build alongside the tracks between Folsom and Shingle Springs, but will take only $10 to $20 million to build the trail ON the roadbed........ What the heck happened to "Free"? Oh, I know you sometimes take the time to describe that the "free" refers only to the removal of the tracks, along with some preliminary surface prep, but your most common message to the public clearly makes the assertion of "Free vs. $30-$50 million". You and I both know that is not true. So let's break down the relationship between these numbers. If building the trail OFF the roadbed costs $30 to $50 million between Folsom and Shingle Springs, then Shingle Springs to Missouri Flat Road will cost $15 to $25 million. This gives you a total project cost of between $45 and $75 million for Rails WITH Trails for the 25 miles in question. Given that the Folsom Rails with Trails project, with much more difficulty per mile, was built at a cost LOWER than the low range of Mike's estimates, we find these numbers to be highly suspect. For the sake of comparison, however, we will continue to use them for this example. Next we look at the "Shingle Plan". Here we use the same $15 to $25 million for the stretch between Shingle Springs and Mo Flat Road, but insert only $10 to $20 million for Folsom to Shingle Springs, due to the removal of the rails. This gives you a total project cost of $25 to $45 million for the "Shingle Plan". Please note that the word "free" does not exist in this option, even using the numbers provided by Friends of the El Dorado Trail! In short, you are essentially telling the public that you are giving them a "free" car, but if they want a motor in it they will have to throw down some bucks! P.S. Mike, if you bother responding to this, please elaborate on the claims you are making on your blog and facebook that we are operating trains "illegally" in El Dorado County, so I can respond publicly to your libelous statements. JimHarville 2011-09-06T09:20:26Z mkenison comment-56516 2011-09-02T15:50:48Z 2011-09-02T15:50:48Z Yes the trail can be built next to the rails. There is room for this. The issue is cost and to build off the rail bed, in the dirt with be $30 to $50 million from Folsom to Shingle Springs. So how important is a 25 mile train run, when the rail maintenance cost explode with the longer, 25 mile run? How important is a 3 to 5 hour train run, (not popular for the average train rider) if it cost $20 to $30 million more to build a trail that will undoubtedly be used by many more in El Dorado County. We have argued these points over and over again and your Folsom group will not consider a compromise that will help build out the train section today and build a free hard packed trail from Shingle Springs to Folsom. Something for both is important and you need to find a compromise Jim. You and your Folsom group want to come into El Dorado County a take the corridor for yourselves. The trail folks want a compromise, something for both and the Shingle Plan builds both in months, not years as your “build the trail in the dirt” strategy suggests. Jim, you guys had a 15 year plan a few months ago, now it is a 5 year plan, and you have been at this 14 years already. How credible are you and your projections on anything for the corridor. You "still" do not have a passenger car!! All can see it sitting in your yard, and not close to being finished. You said we would see it this summer. Now you say we might see it at Christmas or maybe the spring! This is how you guys operate, false promises and time frames. I have been involve in this debate from the beginning and train guys have been saying that trains are going to run for 14 years and now you have more delays for us. TIME TO CHANGE THIS!! We need a trail and a train section and you guys can take all the time you want. We no longer want to wait for your group to get your act together! Speeders are all you have right now and they can not compete with the Outdoor Enthusiasts and trail users. Long winded answer and more false claims does not make a case for your Folsom Group. You had 14 years to make it happen and we still have nothing. I know you are going going to say that now you are ready! But here you are again delaying the rollout of your passenger car? Some things never change. Compromise, Compromise and get out of our way! mkenison 2011-09-02T15:50:48Z JimHarville comment-56513 2011-09-02T10:06:24Z 2011-09-02T10:06:24Z Jackie, is that you? :) If so, these are the most cogent and articulate arguments you have made since we first met! Unfortunately, the corrections need to start with your very first statement. According to the Federal Highway Administration report "Rails with Trails: Lessons Learned", Government agencies own about half of all Rails with Trails corridors nationwide. These agencies include States, counties, cities and, of course, Joint Powers Authorities such as the one which owns this corridor. Trails listed in this report which operate alongside excursion railroads include the Animas River Greenway Trail, Eastern Promenade Trail, Rock Island Trail, and several others, including our very own Folsom Parkway Rail-Trail! This same report also has a section about trail design around Steam Locomotive Operations, hardly necessary if excursion railroads were not being considered. In fact, acording to your own Rails to Trails Conservancy group, excursion railroads make up nearly 15 percent of all Rails with Trails programs nationwide. Let's move on to your other statements, starting with White Rock Road. Because this corridor is railbanked, the member agencies cannot construct any project which compromises an eventual return of regular freight or transit service. Since Sacramento County does invisage transit service over this section in the forseable future, they have agreed to let us reactivate the crossing now, with equipment restored and installed by volunteers, which will ultimately SAVE the taxpayers significant costs in the future. Next up are the crossings on South Shingle Road. By law, El Dorado County should not have paved over those rails, even on a railbanked line. The legal and financial responsibility for that lay squarely with El Dorado County. Instead of calling a lawyer, or harassing the supervisors, we provided a crew of volunteers to assist with the project, saving the county hundreds of dollars. Interesting side note: When your group insisted that the county go back and fill in the sawcuts, it actually provided a smoother transition and better ground clearance for our equipment, saving us the expense of renting an asphalt grinder to smooth out the road surface, which had been our original plan. Thanks to you, we can know operate our equipment safely and comfortably to within 2 1/2 miles of Shingle Springs! (Jackie, if I made a list of all the things you folks have done which have actually made our job easier, you would cry yourself to sleep for a week!) The next issue you bring up is the improvements to the corridor made by the Railroad. In a nutshell, any improvements we make to the corridor become the property of the JPA, with little recourse for the excursion operator. The exceptions are limited to reactivation of freight service, where the freight railroad would reimburse some of our costs, and temination for public project, where we could be compensated for certain capital costs. Because we are a non-profit, our labor is considered for the public benefit, and is non-compensable. As most improvements covered in the license would have been done by someone else in our absence, (vegetation control, drainage maintenance and repair, etc.), this clause would likely result in more SAVINGS for the county! Concerns about the maintenance of the trail are well founded. The upper portion of the existing bike trail is already facing a serious repair that will cost more than $400 Thousand Dollars to fix, and the fire danger in the corridor is of mounting concern to the local fire protection districts. Step up and show that you can maintain the upper trail as well as they do the Bizz Johnson, and we'll talk. Yes, Jackie, El Dorado gets one vote in five, or twenty percent. EDCo also spent LESS than twenty percent of the $14.5 Million it cost to buy the corridor. As I have said before, if it was the JPA that wanted to build a trail and El Dorado County that was fighting for the train, you would be the JPA's best friend in a New York Minute, so what's your point? Lastly, (for tonight), I did not claim that segment 2 has more challenges than segment 1, your very own FOEDT President Jeff Sellwood did! Repeatedly! I happen to agree with him, however, and yes, I CAN break it down piece by piece, but that is a subject for another post. G'nite! JimHarville 2011-09-02T10:06:24Z Trails comment-56477 2011-09-02T03:01:29Z 2011-09-02T03:01:29Z Indeed, there is a lot of misleading going on here. Rails WITH Trails is when a railroad owns the line and lets a trail be built next to it. The railroad groups did not buy this corridor, like other excursion trains do. In fact, this Folsom based group wants to lease the 25 miles from El Dorado County for $100/year. So we have this public purchased Rails TO trails corridor. The benefit to the larger public is the trail, as users of a trail far outweigh those of a weekend excursion train. Nonetheless, the Shingle Compromise allows for both. Train enthusiasts would have you believe their operation is no cost to the people. It’s already cost the people $2.77 million. Running these private excursion trains will raise the cost of the trail dramatically. Exactly how much is going to cost the taxpayers when they widen White Rock Road to 6 lanes to do your crossing? How much for crossings at the other roads? Surely the train folks didn’t pay DOT to cut South Shingle Road earlier this year to let speeders by? Surely the train folks didn’t pay DOT to fill the road back in afterwards either? The taxpayers pay all that, and then they get to make donations to ride the train. Did I read that your train group then expects the public to buy back the improvements (via the JPA) from you when you’re done, Jim? Ouch. This idea that the rail bed will degrade over the first winter is based on nothing. The Bizz Johnson trail had it’s rails removed over 25 years ago, requires little maintenance, and is going strong. Brisbane also had a projects like this done a couple years ago and is thrilled with their new trail. The less able bodied are very much so accommodated by the trail. Wheel chairs enjoy the El Dorado Trail now, and if you’ve looked up current laws, motorized vehicles for those that require it are allowed on the trail. The path does go somewhere. It meets right up with Payen Road in Folsom. In fact, Folsom trail planners are already working on connecting their trail system. Interesting fact: over half the line lies in El Dorado County (EDC), yet EDC only gets 1 vote out of 5 on the JPA. 4 out 5 people who do not reside in EDC are trying to tell us what to do with our portion of the line. The JPA has very little knowledge of the doings and wishes of the residents in all of El Dorado County. Jim, you make some interesting assertions yourself. You claim segment 2 has more challenges than segment 1. Can you break that down for us piece by piece? How much experience do you have in trail building? EIRs? Wetlands? Permits? Bridges? Under your plan, how many times is the class one trail going to need to cross the tracks? What are your solutions for those ‘few’ spots? In the past years, the Mount Shasta train closed it’s doors after the owner said he lost enough money to put all his grandson’s through college. The skunk train went bankrupt and had to be bought out be a commercial train to keep running. Railtown 1897 in Jamestown is being shut down because of low attendance. 9 miles of track is a very generous offer. Bay area excursion trains that are surrounded by 4 times as many people as the entire Sacramento area don’t run more miles than that. The taxpayers of this county paid 2.77 million dollars for our portion of this line, and you think $100 a year on that type of investment is fair. I humbly disagree. I think building a lower cost trail is in our best interest. Trail – open 7 days a week, 365 days a year! Trails 2011-09-02T03:01:29Z JimHarville comment-56418 2011-09-01T07:29:02Z 2011-09-01T07:29:02Z We want you to have a trail to use! The right-of-way is typically a hundred feet wide, and trail construction alongside the tracks is pretty straightforward in all but a few spots. You can certainly take in a lot of the countryside in an Amtrak train zipping along at 60+, but it is like the difference between downhill racing on a road bike and a leisurely stroll down a wooded path. Some prefer the dynamic, some prefer the subtle, and some can appreciate both. JimHarville 2011-09-01T07:29:02Z ABCs comment-56413 2011-09-01T03:28:59Z 2011-09-01T03:28:59Z Get real. I already use light rail and if I need to scenery I can take amtrak all the way across the US. When I come home at night, I'd rather have a trail to use. ABCs 2011-09-01T03:28:59Z JimHarville comment-56381 2011-08-31T19:46:11Z 2011-08-31T19:46:11Z Yes, Latenite, there will absolutely be a full sized excursion train open to the public! We hope to have our 90,000 pound locomotive and converted excursion car ready for our Christmas Trains this December, but at the very latest we will have them painted and certified by early spring. The biggest problem we see with the Shingle Plan, beyond the prevailing wage issues that indicate it cannot deliver what it promises, is that it runs contrary to what is currently being developed on the corridor. Folsom already has a well developed Rails WITH Trails program in the corridor. The El Dorado County supervisors have already approved a Rails WITH Trails program in the corridor from Shingle Springs to Missouri Flat Road (the tracks from Mo Flat to Camino were removed by the owners prior to the purchase by the JPA). What sense does it make to tear 17 miles right out of the middle of a 34 mile railroad? I like your description of the speeders, Latenite. They ARE sort of like mini-locomotives! Think golf carts on rails.... LOL! JimHarville 2011-08-31T19:46:11Z JimHarville comment-56331 2011-08-31T11:22:29Z 2011-08-31T11:22:29Z Hi, Mike! I knew you couldn't stay away! And you've given me so much material to work with! I need to understand about speeders? Mike, as has been explained to you SEVERAL times before, the speeder clubs are but one subset of rail users anxious to utilize the rail assets in the corridor. The number of speeders that show up for a run can vary, but 15 to 40 is probably typical. Each operator pays an average of $150 for the privilege, and it is not uncommon for a railroad as scenic as this one to host 3 or 4 runs a year. These numbers equate to $7000 to $24,000 in revenue to the railroad before we even start the engine of the full size excursion train! This is not just a reshuffling of local dollars here, Mike, these are TOURISTS from out of the area bringing dollars INTO El Dorado County. Most stay at least one night. Most buy at least a couple of meals. Most have to buy gas for their speeders AND their tow vehicles. Using the VERY SAME formulas and factors you have used in the past to demonstrate the economic benefits of trails, this equates to nearly a Quarter of a Million Dollars in economic benefits to the local economy for only FOUR DAYS of operations! And we haven't rolled the Tourist Train out of the station yet...... (For those just joining the conversation, Mike claims a Million Dollars a day in economic benefits from the American River Parkway, so I have used the same analytical factoring for this example.) I don't own a speeder, Mike, and I don't belong to a speeder club, but that is how the speeder thing works. I can't wait until this issue crops up on another forum, so you can once again pretend this has never been explained to you, giving you another opportunity to share your "speeder math". Before I move on to debunking your other unsupported claims, let's clarify another theme of yours that has been explained in excruciating detail in other forums. You have gone to great lengths over the last year to characterize our operation as an "out of county, Folsom based group", and therefore unworthy to claim any stakeholder status in the El Dorado portion of the corridor. The truth, of course, is that we are a regional organization, just as you want the El Dorado Trail to be a "regional" asset. The truth, of course, is the same as it has been the last eighteen times you have made me explain it. A review of the membership rolls of our historical railroad association shows that El Dorado County members outnumber Folsom members nearly 2 to 1. Our mission is to preserve, protect, and develop the railroad. Much of the railroad lies in El Dorado County. Not rocket science, Mike. So you feel that it is selfish of me to promote a Rails WITH Trails solution for the entire corridor. You want the public to believe your "expert" assessment that there is no way for Rails WITH Trails to physically and financially coexist on the corridor. If your position is correct, then you should have no problem answering the nine questions I posed to Jeff Sellwood when he first published this article in the Mountain Democrat. I have re-posted them above, so you don't need to look them up. Start with the prevailing wage/public works issues, Mike. Your OWN VENDOR, whom you have prominently featured on your website, has stated that the figures that you are using are not based on prevailing wage. On the other hand, EVERY fact in evidence points to this clearly being a public works project, and therefore bound by prevailing wage law. This is not me "attempting to deal a deadly blow" to your program, Mike, it is only me trying to get you to provide some verifiable evidence that your "Shingle Plan" is viable BEFORE the county commits to pulling the tracks. You have steadfastly refused to do this, and instead have done your best to suppress any dialog on this issue. Give the public an answer to that simple contradiction, Mike, so we can move on to vetting the rest of your "Plan". JimHarville 2011-08-31T11:22:29Z Doug Tarpin comment-56328 2011-08-31T06:52:28Z 2011-08-31T06:52:28Z So wrong here Leiris. People ride these historical rails because they are slow. It's called sightseeing. I personally do not like the Shingle Plan. I think both sides need more time to come to a better solution. Heck, maybe some type of surface could be put on top of the tracks over the crossings. Oh wait, someone wants to pull those rails. I don't like it. I think that even though the tracks are currently underused, I will side with the railers by not making a hasty decision which may destroy the historical significance of the corridor. Doug Tarpin 2011-08-31T06:52:28Z leiris comment-56319 2011-08-31T01:43:35Z 2011-08-31T01:43:35Z The train is an impractical idea in this area. People will not consistently hop on a slow and expensive train only to get some place where they will need a car to get around. Trail it so people can enjoy what's left of the land up there...without having to pay for a ticket. leiris 2011-08-31T01:43:35Z latenite comment-56290 2011-08-30T19:17:51Z 2011-08-30T19:17:51Z So with the Shingle Plan, the trail will never be continuous from Folsom to Placerville? What's the point of a 9 mile rail corridor? Obviously having both rail and trail between Folsom and Placerville would be great, but having one each for part of the way is kind of silly. What are these "speeders"? Are they like private mini-locomotives? Will there be no excursion rail option for the public? latenite 2011-08-30T19:17:51Z mkenison comment-56280 2011-08-30T15:48:23Z 2011-08-30T15:48:23Z Jim, you need to understand that your speeder (small little service cars for 2 to 4 people) runs are for a small minority in El Dorado County. How many speeders in EDC? 2? How many in CA? 200? How many in the US? 2000? We have 180,000 people in EDC and that means 179,998 that do not have speeder rail cars to use on the rails! Most want a trail for free! You want all 25 miles of the corridor and do not care that your selfish stance will increase the cost of the El Dorado Trail by 20 to 30 million dollars. You do not need 25 miles because most residents will not run 25 miles, for 3 to 5 hours and pay 30 to 50 per person for the experience. Most want a simple 1 to 1.5 hour long run and that can be done with the 9 miles you get in the Shingle Plan Compromise. You now will say that the 25 miles will be broken up into 3 different runs for three separate Speeder experiences! This is more disturbing, as you assume that the majority in EDC want to pay for 3 different rides on “Speeders”. Wow, I think you are way off here. Your group is Folsom based and is attempting to deal a deadly blow to the El Dorado Trail so you can have fun with your hobby. If you get your way Jim, the El Dorado Trail connection to Folsom and the American River Parkway with not happen in our lifetimes, as the cost increase to $30 to $50 million for the 25 miles. The Shingle Plan allows for a connection to Folsom, at no cost to the county and can be done in 6 months! The Shingle Compromise gives the El Dorado Train Group and your out of county, Folsom based group, 9 miles to call your own, forever. Your efforts can make the 9 miles as successful as you can, understanding the financial and operational challenges for Excursion Trains. History shows that Trains run on a shoe string and frequently file for bankruptcy. The Shingle Plan gives you a home and allows you to do what you can to make it. And the Plan allows for a trail to be built for free from Shingle to Folsom and make an incredible connection, that will truly have Regional Significance! Join the compromise and we can all move forward and build something for everyone in EDC. And we invite your Folsom train group to come up and have fun with your hobby in EDC. Mike Kenison mkenison 2011-08-30T15:48:23Z JimHarville comment-56132 2011-08-29T07:33:24Z 2011-08-29T07:33:24Z Jeff, since it appears you have not had time to answer my previous questions, I will add my next round of questions here. You state in your article that “The problem is that both trains and trails cannot exist in the same corridor in many places due to crossings, California Public Utilities Commission decisions, choke points, and significant fills and gullies.”. My questions regarding this item are as follows: Since Segment 2 (Shingle Springs to Mo Flat Rd) actually has MORE of the aforementioned challenges than found in Segment 1 (county line to Shingle Springs), does this mean you are abandoning your plans for Rails AND Trails development between Shingle Springs and Missouri Flat Road? If so, does this mean you will shelve your plans for a class 1 trail in that segment, or does it mean you will soon be ramping up a strategy to remove the rails from Segment 2 as well? Wouldn’t any Public Utilities Commission decision that applies in Segment 1 ALSO apply in Segment 2? What is your understanding of the role of the CPUC in the management and regulation of the Corridor? You then claim that your “Shingle Plan” is “a solution supported by many train and trail people alike”. I am having difficulty finding evidence of this. Your help would be appreciated with the following: Can you provide the names of ANY active railroad volunteers or railroad organizations that have endorsed your plan? Do you have the support of ANY local or regional Chambers of Commerce for the “Shingle Plan”? Are there ANY Historical Societies or Associations who support your version of “Heritage Railroading”? Thanks again for your consideration, I hope you can answer my questions soon! JimHarville 2011-08-29T07:33:24Z JimHarville comment-56131 2011-08-29T07:31:48Z 2011-08-29T07:31:48Z “Assets of rail removal, physical and financial, will be used to construct a hard-packed trail surface on the trail portion of the corridor and help establish (up to $300,000) the El Dorado Western Railway demonstration train. Remaining assets will be directed, by the county, for improvements along the El Dorado County portion of the SPTC.” Jeff, can you share with the public how you arrived at that figure? Please also share with us whether or not prevailing wage / public works standards were used for the calculations. As a related question, do you concure with Supervisors Knight and Nutting, the SPTC-JPA Board, and other legal and professional experts that this is a public works project? If not, can you explain why? Thank you for your time. JimHarville 2011-08-29T07:31:48Z JimHarville comment-56130 2011-08-29T07:30:35Z 2011-08-29T07:30:35Z You don't know the half of it, Ben! The above article was originally printed verbatim in the Mountain Democrat, under the byline of Jeff Sellwood, president of Friends of the El Dorado Trail. Here are just a couple of things the article leaves out about the Sacramento Placerville Transportation Corridor, (yes, they even got the name wrong). El Dorado County does not own the corridor. Title to the property, which runs from Sacramento to Placerville, is held by the Sacramento Placerville Transportation Corridor - Joint Powers Authority, of which El Dorado County is a member. The member agencies have broad easements back over the property, including the right to develop trails under certain circumstances, but the particulars of the actual title are very important to the current debate. In 2008 the JPA issued a Request For Proposal for an Excursion Railroad Operator, using guidelines approved by ALL the member agencies, INCLUDING El Dorado County. Concurrent with those negotiations, however, Friends of the El Dorado Trail ramped up their efforts to remove the tracks in El Dorado County. The main premise of the "Shingle Plan" is the use of the track salvage value to develop the trail. The problem with this "Plan" is that those figures were not calculated using prevailing wage / public works standards for the project. The posts that follow are copies of my responses to the original, Jeff Sellwood article published in the Mountain Democrat. JimHarville 2011-08-29T07:30:35Z Ben Ilfeld comment-56012 2011-08-26T22:31:31Z 2011-08-26T22:31:31Z Wow, this conversation is more interesting than the article itself. Ben Ilfeld 2011-08-26T22:31:31Z Jinj comment-56005 2011-08-26T18:46:26Z 2011-08-26T18:46:26Z I wonder if any of you 'folks' have heard of Eric Blair. He wrote beautifully constructed essays and novels identifying how misinformation and clever writing can make black into white. An example of a good attempt at the style he identified is found in the article above. The use of words like 'compromise' and 'dream' are used to create sense of a realistic and eminently sensible comments and proposals. In the article above there is no compromise and the reality (as opposed to a dream) is that rail groups currently operate public trains on the east 9 miles or so out of both El Dorado town and Shingle Springs, and, around 11 miles from Folsom through to Latrobe. Also, the rail groups, FEDSHRA, EDWRF and P&SVRR work together to preserve, maintain, and develop the corridor for 'multiple use' at minimal cost (if any) to El Dorado County. P&SVRR recently repaired a washout through donations and volunteerism and regularly run maintenance trains along all of the trackage. No dream here, just the reality of volunteers doing what volunteers do. What is also interesting about the article above and the general tone of the 'remove the rails' element, is that they neatly fudge the fact that removal of rails and ties does not a useable trail make. Compacted ballast that will degrade over the first winter is not really suitable for cyclist, hikers or equestrian uses as is, and of course once the rails are gone the call will go out for the County resources to be used to improve and maintain a 'useable' trail. The less able bodied among will of course be not be able to enjoy the beautiful scenery away from public roads, not much of a 'compromise' for those folks.... Errr, removing the center section of an in situ, operational and useful railroad.........., that is weird logic.... unless it is a precursor to a plan to remove all of the railroad. Lets be clear, the railroad groups support multiple uses within the corridor and will happily work with all groups that support that aim. If there are no tracks it will be difficult for a train to use the corridor - not a dream - common sense, not a compromise, more like the destruction of a wonderful and valuable asset in return for, what in effect will be a path to nowhere! Jinj 2011-08-26T18:46:26Z JimHarville comment-55982 2011-08-26T08:18:02Z 2011-08-26T08:18:02Z We absolutely do NOT agree, William! The railroad preservation groups support Rails WITH Trails for the length of the corridor, and feel that the core leadership of Friends of the El Dorado Trail has mislead both the El Dorado County Supervisors and the general public on this issue. The central promise of the "Shingle Plan" is that the trail can be built at NO cost to the county, and that salvage of the rail assets will create a residual surplus of hundreds of thousands of dollars. This surplus is "promised" to the Railroad Park being developed in the town of El Dorado. The reality is that these numbers were developed using high end estimates of the track salvage value, in combination with cost numbers that do NOT factor in prevailing wage and other costs associated with a public works project! We have had experienced project managers, contractors, and engineers take a look at this project, and the consensus is that it is unlikely that there would be ANY residual value left over from the salvage. No money for the railroad park, no money for the railings and bathrooms needed on the trail, perhaps even no money to prepare the trail surface as promised in the "Plan". The sad thing about this debate is that as a hiker, kayaker, and occasional cyclist, I fully support trail development on the railroad corridor, just not at the expense of the truth. JimHarville 2011-08-26T08:18:02Z cogmeyer comment-55978 2011-08-26T04:15:33Z 2011-08-26T04:15:33Z William, no condemnation of the Gold Rush era railroad system as the original instigator of urban sprawl? Anyway this is awesome news. I am an occasional user of the eastern portion of the trail between Camino and Placerville and look forward to tghe El Dorado Trail someday continuing through Pollock Pines and points eastward. cogmeyer 2011-08-26T04:15:33Z William Burg comment-55964 2011-08-26T01:55:30Z 2011-08-26T01:55:30Z Have the Folsom, El Dorado & Sacramento Historical Railroad Association and the Placerville & Sacramento Valley Railroad group agreed to this compromise? William Burg 2011-08-26T01:55:30Z LiquidEric comment-55962 2011-08-26T01:19:54Z 2011-08-26T01:19:54Z Interesting topic for me as a Placerville native. Thanks for posting. LiquidEric 2011-08-26T01:19:54Z Ben Ilfeld comment-55950 2011-08-25T22:12:47Z 2011-08-25T22:12:47Z Wow. That is quite a story. Good to hear about the outcome with such good context! Ben Ilfeld 2011-08-25T22:12:47Z Sherrie Tyler comment-55397 2011-08-19T01:16:33Z 2011-08-19T01:16:33Z I personally know how important living on your own with privacy and independence along with keeping one's dignity is essential to leading a happy productive life! Sherrie Tyler 2011-08-19T01:16:33Z HonestAbe comment-47397 2011-03-14T23:27:52Z 2011-03-14T23:27:52Z While I appreciate their zeal, it is an unfortunate moniker, given the current events. HonestAbe 2011-03-14T23:27:52Z