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

• 
  
• 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

Conspicuously absent was any representation from

• The Trucking Industry
  
• Regular road user (like us commuters)
  
• Motorcyclists
  

The new guidelines were posted for public comment on 3 December 2005. The new guidelines were approved on 30 January 2006.

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.

Phase 2

The 25% hearing for phase 2 was held at City Hall in Leominster. By this time the uproar had pretty much died down. The hearing was sparsely attended. The plans showed the merging lanes at North Main and Erdman way being extended north to provide more space for south bound traffic to cue up for the signals and to allow more vehicles to get through the intersection north bound per light cycle. North Main was to get an additional lane so that there would be a dedicated left turn lane and two through lanes.

At the other end Water St would be expanded to 6 lanes, two through lanes in each direction and dedicated left and right turn lanes in each direction. On Bemis Rd the first three properties on were to be taken and the roadway raised to reduce the grade. Devlin Passway was to be closed at the Bemis Rd end and turned into a dead end street. The takings would permit Bemis Road to be realigned with Wanoosnoc Rd. As I recall Bemis was to have a left straight and right turn lane approaching Water St. The current turn off from Wanoonoc Rd to Rt 12 South would be eliminated and Wanoosnoc Rd would be changed to 4 lanes to through lanes with dedicated left and right turn lanes. South of Bemis and Wanoosnoc Rt 12 traffic would merge back into one lane each way north ot the intersection of Water and Abbott Ave. which would be turned into a 90 degree turn.

My comments on phase 2 were hand written and were mailed from Vermont while I was on vacation at her request an electronic copy was e-mailed to Tracy Wu at Mass Hwy on my return from vacation. Nearly three years later and with a projected start in 2007 Mass Hwy has yet to respond to the comments.

Rt 12 Phase 1

The 25% hearing for Phase 1 of the project took place on 28 Feb 2002 in the Fitchburg Public Library. If you've ever been to one of these you know that politicians get to speak first. The higher up the food chain the earlier you get to speak. Knuttila was first to speak and then he left. Kinda left me with the impression that he didn't think anyone else opinion was worth listening to - but that's a different issue.

Phase 1 was to cover from MCM in Leominster to 300 ft. north of Benson St. in Fitchburg (thats about the end of the Mobil Station). This stretch was to be widened by 9 ft. and the traffic was merge back into a single lane at each end. Carey St. and Old Leominster Rd. in Fitchburg would curve around and intersect with Water St at 90 degrees with an island. This intersection would have only a stop sign. The buildings on the North East corners of Benson/Water and Battles/Water were untouched but the stop lines were set back appoximately 25 ft from the corners of the buildings. The set back according to Mass Hwy was to provide a ramp area for wheelchair access to the sidewalk. In response to my written comments on the plan I addressed several issue with the design including:

• the limited sightlines on Benson and Battles would not give drivers on the side streets enough time to react to a driver running a red light on Rt 12
• the 2 ft of planned run off does not provide enough area for snow in the winter, there is also no place for trucks making deliveries (like an oil truck)
• limited sight line at Holman Ave. (street next to Little Peach) in Leominster will make it hazardous for left turning traffic off of Holman Ave.

Mass Hwys replys (paraphrased here)

• It's up to the State, and Fitchburg police to "prevent" drivers from running red lights.
• Fitchburg will have to work out the snow removal issue (still waiting for that one)
• We may have to prohibit left turns at that location

The Twin City Rail Trail project was announced by Dean Mazzarella about 2 weeks after the hearing.

Route 12 today

The section of Rt 12 that is affected by the project today resides in a 50 ft ROW.

There are 3 traffic signals at, Erdman Way, State Street, and Bemis Road. Except at Erdman Way there are no dedicated turning lanes. At Erdman Way there are dedicated left turn lanes on North Main Street. Most traffic delays on this section of road occur at the traffic signals. Sometimes there are delays at Benson, and Nichols but delays at Nichols are usually short except when traffic is backed up all the way from the lights at State Street.

In Fitchburg most of the sidewalk is paved and some of it, is raised as it is in front of my house. (Yes, I live on Water St and yes they plan to take 9 ft of my frontage.) In Leominster very little of the sidewalk is paved and there are long stretches (like where MCM used to be) where traffic can turn in at any point.

The intersections of Carey St, Old Leominster Road and Abbott Ave with Water St are acute angles, which is a problem for vehicles with limited visibility like cargo vans and delivery trucks.

The entire stretch of Rt 12 is 2 lanes from just north of Erman Way to Bemis Road, but these are two VERY wide lanes at 39 ft. curb to curb. Traffic at Bemis Road tends to split into to rows of vehicles but in reality it is one lane. Likewise Bemis Road approaching Water St. is one lane. A certain former Fitchburg city councilor had the DPW repaint the road into two lanes. But that was an unauthorized change.

Today drivers on Rt 12 that wish to turn left sidle up to the double yellow and wait for an opening in traffic. Traffic traveling in the same direction just passes to the right as there is ample room to make that manuever. There are a few problem areas like the entrance/exit at Dunkin Donuts in Leominster where the minor curve limits the sight line and at the Mobil Station in Fitchburg near Benson St when traffic is heavy but there's nothing insurmountable if you aren't clueless.

Quick comments on the Rt12 project.

The project description on the MHW website is 603331 and it is NOT correct. I've reviewed the 75% blue prints for the project at city hall and they certainly do not match the description. (75% plans include pretty much everything that happens on this side of the pavement)

Originally there were two project numbers 603331 and 603332 which are supposed to be combined in the 603331 project number.

The design is actually 4 lanes at 11 ft/lane. Two feet of runoff on each side. A 5.5 ft sidewalk on each side. That is a total of 48 ft of pavement and 11 ft of sidewalk making up the 59 ft ROW, up 9 ft from the current ROW.

The 25% plans for Bemis and Water showed 6 lanes for Rt12. That was to be two thru lanes in each direction, and a left/right turn lane for each water st approach. Three houses are to be taken in whole on the south side of bemis and access to the passway is eliminated. There will be multiple lanes on bemis going away from water st and the grade is to be reduced. The alignment of bemis with Manoosenoc will also be straightened.

Note, that the land for the widening of rt 12 at bemis can come from only 1 place. The railroad right of way. That means that both the rail trail and the rt 12 project are in competition for the same "temporary" easement.

Overall, the project is a joke. The justification for the project is improved safety and better traffic flow. The safety benefit is supposed to come from the installation of signals at Benson and Water, and at Water, Nichols, North Main, and Battles. It is a common misconception that signalization improves intersection safety. Improvements are generally the result of intersection redesign. In this project both Battles and Benson have obstructed view approaches with buildings on the North east corners of the intersections and stop lines set back from the intersections for "handicap ramp access".

The traffic improvement is supposed to come with the increase in the number of lanes. In reality traffic signals increase congestion and air polution. The additional lanes will be stressed to keep up with the additional delays induced by the signals.

Of course there will be a corresponding increase in air polution associated with the signals.

BTW: this project has been approved for CMAQ (Congestion Mitigation Air Quality) funding despite the fact that it will almost certainly result in a net increase in air polution.

FGL

There's been a lot of talk over the past 6 months about modifying the laws for Junior Operators.

Three collisions involving deaths and serious injury over the past few weeks have increased the pressure to pass this legislation. But all these collisions involved operators that were violating the current JOL. Two kids killed and one seriously injured on Rt 128 - junior operator that wasn't supposed to have other kids in the car. The 5 teens in the Ayer crash - Junior Operator in violation of the existing JOL. Three teens injured in Holden this past Sunday - 17 year old driver operating between midnight and 5 AM, a junior operator violation, and now charged with DUI. (See article in T&G on 22 March 2006)

In the 22 March 2006 editorial, "Lawmakers must toughen the state's Junior Operating Law" the S&E jumps on the bandwagon, (virtual proof that it's a bad idea).

Do we really need to make the JOL restrictions tougher, or do we just need to get serious about enforcing the exiting law? I think you can guess my position. Enforce the existing law, then once the uproar has died down explore ways to improve the training side of the law. Some of the things that need to go into the JOL:

• Increase the hours behind the wheel during driver's ed
• closer monitoring of driving schools
• update requirements for driving instructors
• increase supervised driving hours with parents
  1. logbook required
  2. minimum number of hour on divided highways
  3. minimum number of hours at night
  4. minimum miles driven in inclement weather including rain and snow
• decrease the age for getting a learners permit (but minimum license age remains the same
• improved, standardized license exams

Concentrating on restrictions and penalties in the proposed legislation will turn a potential opportunity to do some real good with this legislation into just another piece of FEEL GOOD LEGISLATION.

Rails or Roads

Today 3/12/2006 the Telegram and Gazette ran two articles about the commute to Boston. One described the commute by rail the other by car leaving from the intermodal center using Rt 12 and Rt 2. Seemed to me the articles were written to highlight the benefits of using the train

Taking the train can be advantageous... if it goes where you need to be, but for most commuters it's impractical. For some, like me it doesnt go where you need to be, in my case Marlborough. For others, the train schedule doesn't match their schedule.

Is it appropriate to direct $300,000,000 to "upgrade" rail service to Fitchburg considering the current state of repair of our roads?

Do you think rail users would be willing to pay more than that $6 bargain fair and $2 parking to come up with the $300M for the upgrades?

What about that new parking garage? It's only half full most days. Am I the only one that doubts the garage can be maintained on so little revenue?