The Rail Trail and the final 75% Rt 12 plans
I viewed the plans in the engineering department at Fitchburg city hall last August with a neighbor. The project originally planned as two phases in an attempt to make it more palatable has been merged into one project but the changes are minimal.
The only significant change was made at the Bemis Rd end of the project where a through lane in each direction on Rt 12 has been eliminated. Water St is reduced from 6 to 4 lanes. This reduces the need to take land from the Rail Road ROW for the road project although it may not entirely eliminate it.
2ndson asked earlier today who wins on the easement issue at Rt 12 and Bemis Road?
I wish I could give you a definitive answer but all inquirys I've made to find out the answer have gone unanswered. It is important to the Twin City Rail Trail that Mass Hwy not get an easement because the rail road ROW has to remain intact for the rail trail to proceed.
The reason the ROW has to remain intact is so the ROW can be rail banked. The issue is that the railroad, CSX, doesn't own any of the land on the ROW in Leominster. In Leominster the ROW is composed of easements. The abutters own the land and if any portion of the ROW is taken then the ROW is extinguished and the abutters get their land back. Poof no more rail trail. I suppose the rail trail could happen if the abutters "donated" the land (some abutters favor the rail trail) or there could be eminent domain takings in Leominster but I doubt that would happen.
The winner in this particular rail trail project is CSX. With the ROW banked CSX can grant an easement to the rail trail at a price they will set (projected to be about $1.2 Million.) compared to getting $0 for the land in Leominster and having a near worthless strip of land in Fitchburg. CSX could offer the land to the abutters in Fitchburg but they'd probably have to clean it up first. Virtually all railroad ROWs have some spills and chemical contamination so it is very likely that the soil is contaminated. The rail trail will most likely be allowed to mitigate the soil contamination issue by paving over it.
Motorists are the big losers in this picture.
The Twin City Rail Trail will cross the Rt 12/Rt 13 intersection near Carter Park in Leominster, then Priest St., Nelson St. (entrance to Water Tower Plaza), Hamilton St. Erdman Way, Moore St, State St,, Battles St., Benson St., Bemis Road and Duck Mill Rd. Most of these crossings are close to Rt. 12 and trail users (if there are any) will impact traffic on Rt 12 as well as each of the roads mentioned.
Last but not least the Twin City Rail Trail project forces the retention of the railroad bridge over Rt. 2. This is significant because the bridge and railroad ROW is one of the two features that defines the Rt 12 / Rt 2 interchange.
The Rt 2 / Rt 12 on and off ramps are very tight. When the interchange was designed ramps had to be fitted into the space between the railroad bridge and the rising hills to the west of Rt 12. If the railroad ROW were to be extinguished, the bridge removed, and the land from the former ROW taken by eminent domain (remember those abutters own the land) the interchange could be redesigned. Now that would be a real improvement. If the Twin City Rail Trail becomes a reality (probable considering the support by the DMs (Dean Mazzarella and Dan Mylott) and under their direction the planning offices of both citys) any chance of significant change between Erdman Way and Hamilton Street in Leominster is unlikely.
BTW: we should expect this type of thing to continue to happen.
On the state level there's been a lot of emphasis on commuter rail, bicycles and pedestrains coming out of the Executive Office of Transportation (EOT). Be prepared to see EOT a lot more in the future. MassHwy falls under the EOT and the RMV has also been transfered under the EOT. The design guidelines at MassHwy were under review this year (normally done every 10 years or so). The advisory committee included among others:
Heres the actual representation on the advisory committee
On the federal level a lot of money has been set aside (earmarks) for non motorized transportation projects. The last transportation bill had $5,000,000,000 in earmarks for non-motorized transportation projects. Congressman Olver is on the transportation committee and certainly influenced the earmarking of funds for projects like rail trails. The save Fitchburg Blog has addressed the issue of change in Fitchburg politics and with Emile Goguen retiring we know we'll have a new state rep. It's high time we thought about dumping Mr Olver, a major porker as well.
The only significant change was made at the Bemis Rd end of the project where a through lane in each direction on Rt 12 has been eliminated. Water St is reduced from 6 to 4 lanes. This reduces the need to take land from the Rail Road ROW for the road project although it may not entirely eliminate it.
2ndson asked earlier today who wins on the easement issue at Rt 12 and Bemis Road?
I wish I could give you a definitive answer but all inquirys I've made to find out the answer have gone unanswered. It is important to the Twin City Rail Trail that Mass Hwy not get an easement because the rail road ROW has to remain intact for the rail trail to proceed.
The reason the ROW has to remain intact is so the ROW can be rail banked. The issue is that the railroad, CSX, doesn't own any of the land on the ROW in Leominster. In Leominster the ROW is composed of easements. The abutters own the land and if any portion of the ROW is taken then the ROW is extinguished and the abutters get their land back. Poof no more rail trail. I suppose the rail trail could happen if the abutters "donated" the land (some abutters favor the rail trail) or there could be eminent domain takings in Leominster but I doubt that would happen.
The winner in this particular rail trail project is CSX. With the ROW banked CSX can grant an easement to the rail trail at a price they will set (projected to be about $1.2 Million.) compared to getting $0 for the land in Leominster and having a near worthless strip of land in Fitchburg. CSX could offer the land to the abutters in Fitchburg but they'd probably have to clean it up first. Virtually all railroad ROWs have some spills and chemical contamination so it is very likely that the soil is contaminated. The rail trail will most likely be allowed to mitigate the soil contamination issue by paving over it.
Motorists are the big losers in this picture.
The Twin City Rail Trail will cross the Rt 12/Rt 13 intersection near Carter Park in Leominster, then Priest St., Nelson St. (entrance to Water Tower Plaza), Hamilton St. Erdman Way, Moore St, State St,, Battles St., Benson St., Bemis Road and Duck Mill Rd. Most of these crossings are close to Rt. 12 and trail users (if there are any) will impact traffic on Rt 12 as well as each of the roads mentioned.
Last but not least the Twin City Rail Trail project forces the retention of the railroad bridge over Rt. 2. This is significant because the bridge and railroad ROW is one of the two features that defines the Rt 12 / Rt 2 interchange.
The Rt 2 / Rt 12 on and off ramps are very tight. When the interchange was designed ramps had to be fitted into the space between the railroad bridge and the rising hills to the west of Rt 12. If the railroad ROW were to be extinguished, the bridge removed, and the land from the former ROW taken by eminent domain (remember those abutters own the land) the interchange could be redesigned. Now that would be a real improvement. If the Twin City Rail Trail becomes a reality (probable considering the support by the DMs (Dean Mazzarella and Dan Mylott) and under their direction the planning offices of both citys) any chance of significant change between Erdman Way and Hamilton Street in Leominster is unlikely.
BTW: we should expect this type of thing to continue to happen.
On the state level there's been a lot of emphasis on commuter rail, bicycles and pedestrains coming out of the Executive Office of Transportation (EOT). Be prepared to see EOT a lot more in the future. MassHwy falls under the EOT and the RMV has also been transfered under the EOT. The design guidelines at MassHwy were under review this year (normally done every 10 years or so). The advisory committee included among others:
Heres the actual representation on the advisory committee
- Pedestrain organization (Walk Boston)
- 2 Bicycle representatves (including a state rep)
- Historical Societies
- DPW directores
- MassHwy
- Planning Organizations
- FHWA (Federal High Way Administration)
- Conservation Commissioners
- and others
- The Trucking Industry
- Regular road user (like us commuters)
- Motorcyclists
On the federal level a lot of money has been set aside (earmarks) for non motorized transportation projects. The last transportation bill had $5,000,000,000 in earmarks for non-motorized transportation projects. Congressman Olver is on the transportation committee and certainly influenced the earmarking of funds for projects like rail trails. The save Fitchburg Blog has addressed the issue of change in Fitchburg politics and with Emile Goguen retiring we know we'll have a new state rep. It's high time we thought about dumping Mr Olver, a major porker as well.
posted by noway @ 3/30/2006 09:00:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home