Rail Trail Revisited
Today the Telegram ran another article about the twincity rail trail
Price too high for Twin Cities’ bike trail
These rail trail folks are very unrealistic. I attended some of their early meetings. They were poorly attended. Typically 6 to 12 people. They had no idea they had a ROW conflict with the Rt 12 project. I brought the ROW issue up on several occasions, including a meeting at City Hall in Leominster. Somehow the S&E reporter that was present at that meeting didn't think it important enough to make her report in the paper. Guess we know where the S&E stands on the project.
The rail trail supporters kinda went underground after the first year. They resurfaced briefly when the two cities planning offices jointly filed for the $500,000 grant. Information on their website is rarely if ever updated and it's difficult to track where and when they are meeting. Unless of course it's published in the newspaper.
Do these rail trail supporters really expect MassHwy to buy up the land for them CSX files to abandon the ROW?
MassHwy should buy up the ROW. But not for a frivilous use like a rail trail. They should have snapped it up a long time ago so they could redesign the Rt2/Rt2 interchange.
By the way, I've two questions that maybe some readers can answer.
What's the source of the money for rail trail earmarks?
And how did these rail trail supporters raise (or extort as the case may be) enough money to make an offer of $1.5 Million for the RR ROW?
I've got my suspicions, I just want someone to confirm them.
Price too high for Twin Cities’ bike trail
These rail trail folks are very unrealistic. I attended some of their early meetings. They were poorly attended. Typically 6 to 12 people. They had no idea they had a ROW conflict with the Rt 12 project. I brought the ROW issue up on several occasions, including a meeting at City Hall in Leominster. Somehow the S&E reporter that was present at that meeting didn't think it important enough to make her report in the paper. Guess we know where the S&E stands on the project.
The rail trail supporters kinda went underground after the first year. They resurfaced briefly when the two cities planning offices jointly filed for the $500,000 grant. Information on their website is rarely if ever updated and it's difficult to track where and when they are meeting. Unless of course it's published in the newspaper.
Do these rail trail supporters really expect MassHwy to buy up the land for them CSX files to abandon the ROW?
MassHwy should buy up the ROW. But not for a frivilous use like a rail trail. They should have snapped it up a long time ago so they could redesign the Rt2/Rt2 interchange.
By the way, I've two questions that maybe some readers can answer.
What's the source of the money for rail trail earmarks?
And how did these rail trail supporters raise (or extort as the case may be) enough money to make an offer of $1.5 Million for the RR ROW?
I've got my suspicions, I just want someone to confirm them.
posted by noway @ 4/25/2006 11:17:00 PM
3 Comments:
At 4/26/2006 09:21:00 AM,
RupertKnickerbocker said…
"What's the source of the money for rail trail earmarks?
And how did these rail trail supporters raise (or extort as the case may be) enough money to make an offer of $1.5 Million for the RR ROW?"
An unconfirmed, yet plausible, answer:
1. Most of the groups involved with conversion of RR ROW to recreational uses are a consortium of individual activists (cyclists, cross-country skiers, joggers, environmentalists) working in alliance with industry sponsored groups (cycle mfrs, cross-country ski companies, shoe mfrs, etc.) and organized as 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations. Operating funds come from dues, corporate contributions, government (federal and state) grants, individual donations and magazine subscriptions.
2. Most 501 non-profit organizations are minimally different from a money laundering scheme from the accounting and legal perspective. Funds come in and are immediately designated for salaries, projects, etc.
I learned from a conversation with a disaffected former member of the local group there was an expectation of raising additional funds from local individuals and local "corporate sponsors" to defray the purchase cost. "Sponsors" were to be provided favorable publicity and recognition signs (similar to Little League ballfields) along the trail. CSX Real Estate did their homework and realized sufficient and reported contribution levels were optimistic and not forthcoming in amounts that would lead to a sale. CSX then moved to their normal alternative of floating an extraordinarily high valuation since the "considered" value of $1.5 million was for the ROW exclusively and did not include the removal and disposal of 4.2 miles of rails, railroad ties, etc., which CSX had made very clear from the outset was a separate matter. As info, CSX has a financial stake (along with BNSF RR and UP RR) in a processing facility which takes old, unused creosote laden ties, grinds them and remanufactures new ties.
CSX, as most other transportation holding companies, views the disposition of abandoned rail lines as a substantial cash generator. Every now and then they "donate" an abandoned ROW for PR purposes in an effort to avoid costs associated with state mandated environmental cleanup regs. Other than trace amounts of creosote this did not apply to this line.
"Do these rail trail supporters really expect MassHwy to buy up the land for them CSX files to abandon the ROW?"
Yes, that was/is/remains the fallback strategy.
At 4/28/2006 06:55:00 AM,
noway said…
RupertK said...
"1. Most of the groups involved with conversion of RR ROW to recreational uses are a consortium of individual activists (cyclists, cross-country skiers, joggers, environmentalists) working in alliance with industry sponsored groups (cycle mfrs, cross-country ski companies, shoe mfrs, etc.) and organized as 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations. Operating funds come from dues, corporate contributions, government (federal and state) grants, individual donations and magazine subscription"
I guess sometimes I'm not as clear as I could be. I was hoping someone could identify the sources of those "contributions". Have any developers that have projects in the vicinity of the RR ROW been "encouraged" to make a donation to help their project get approved?
As I see things the government, federal, state and local, do not have any money. All government spending comes from tax payers pockets (yours and mine). Government grants for projects like rail trails come from the gasoline tax. Some of the gas tax comes from off-road users and is allocated for off-road projects. Anywhere from 20 to 40 percent of off-road funds is assigned to non-motorized transportation like rail trails.
RupertK said...
"I learned from a conversation with a disaffected former member of the local group...."
Hmmm, a disaffected former member, what's the chance you could get him/her to provide us with their view of this vs other more worthy rail to trail projects?
At 4/28/2006 04:10:00 PM,
RupertKnickerbocker said…
"I was hoping someone could identify the sources of those "contributions". Have any developers that have projects in the vicinity of the RR ROW been "encouraged" to make a donation to help their project get approved?"
Noway:
Certainly you realize the quid pro quo expressed in your inquiry is illegal-and everyone knows one would have absolutely nothing to do with the other. (Yeah, right) However, an unconfirmed and unverfied report HINTS of the possibility of a contribution to the rail trail cause was made by the developers of the project on the former Great American Chemical property.
Clearly, it would be in their interest to have a bike trail, as opposed to a road, close by. Simply good business, a prudent investment so to speak.
After reading your post (above) I phoned the former member of the local group and posed your your question & other queries:
1. He/She continues to believe the rail trail is viable, "desperately needed," etc. His/her disagreement is not with the trail, or the concept, rather with the tactics and strategy of the group pushing for the trail, i.e. "not as aggresive as they should have been." Of interest was his/her contention the property could have been delivered by CSX more than 18 months ago but Olver's office intervention "jacked the cost."
2. He/She claims interest as a "distance cyclist" so this trail is of little use for him/her other than for occasional warmups, etc. since he/she feels competition with vehicles on existing roads is somewhat precarious.
3. He/She has transferred efforts to working with a group seeking to build a trail from South Ashburnham to (eventually) Bellow Falls, VT along the former Cheshire Branch of the old B&M RR via Winchendon, Peterboro and Keene NH. The appeal for him/her is the trail length, terrain elevation changes, etc.
4. He/she described some rather ambitious plans for a trail along the former Central Mass. Branch of the B&M RR between Sterling and Amherst via Ware MA. Part of this trail is already in place and most of the volunteer efforts in this area are concerned with completing that trail. Supposedly, the "Master Plan" has this trail linking (via the current Mid-State walking trail) with the trail envisioned above to Bellows Falls.
5. He/She did offer the opinion, resulting from "three meetings with Olver or Olver's staff) that necessary funding is available and that Olver, an occasional bike rider, is extremely sympathetic to these organizations.
Post a Comment
<< Home