wow trail opposed

[brk-lnt]

Originally Posted by Resident 2B

I think I would rather have the WOW trail than the train. With the rail bed washed out in two places, I wonder if God is sending us his idea for the solution. God and I often see eye-to-eye.

I think if the train goes, the fence goes.

R2B

Entirely agree with you on that point! Pave the railbed itself and skip the eyesore fencing.

[fatlazyless]

Not too familiar with it but doesn't Wolfboro have a 12 mile bicycle path, starting at Back Bay, which travels over an abandoned rail road right-of-way to Sanbornville. It has had all the tracks removed? Believe that it is not paved with asphalt but with some type of fine black gravel.

It works good?

[Skip]

Interesting article in today's on-line Citizen detailing the skyrocketing cost of a fence along the proposed WOW trail in Belmont. Entire article can be read HERE!

[fatlazyless]

Instead of a chain link fence why not the equivalent of a "virtual dotted line on the ground", constructed very simply with grey granite rectangular cobblestones. People do not need a chain link fence to know where the public trail property line is located. A cobblestone line on the gound would be an attractive solution.

Bicycle paths in the Netherlands which run between roads and canals frequently have a hedgerow or just a strip of grass and do not have an ugly chain link fence.

I'll even be happy to go to nearby Gilbert Block Company in Belmont and donate one grey granite cobblestone which costs about $3.50. So, at nine miles x 3.50 = a whole lot of cobblestones. Any other volunteer cobble donations out there?

[RI Swamp Yankee]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

.... So, at nine miles x 3.50 = a whole lot of cobblestones. Any other volunteer cobble donations out there?

If each block is 1 foot long:
5,280 feet / mile X 9 miles = 47,520 blocks

47,520 blocks X $3.50 per block = $166,320 (plus labor! )

[Bear Islander]

How does a cobblestone keep a child off the railroad tracks?

This is from todays New York Times
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...55C0A967958260

Trains hit pedestrians or vehicles more than 4,000 times each year. About 500 people are killed while walking on tracks each year. I think this is why the fence is being required.

[SAMIAM]

Be serious.....Amtrack trains travel at 70mph plus and our little scenic railroad crawls along at 2 or 3 mph.I've ridden it and you can WALK faster than the train is traveling.To compare a NY commuter train to our scienic railway is beyond ridiculous. I was in favor of the WOW project (and even donated) until I learned of the big ugly chain link fence that would scar miles of shoreline and ruin not only esthetics,but access for hundreds of property owners......please note that BearIslander lives on an island and is not effected.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by SAMIAM

Be serious.....Amtrack trains travel at 70mph plus and our little scenic railroad crawls along at 2 or 3 mph.I've ridden it and you can WALK faster than the train is traveling.To compare a NY commuter train to our scienic railway is beyond ridiculous. I was in favor of the WOW project (and even donated) until I learned of the big ugly chain link fence that would scar miles of shoreline and ruin not only esthetics,but access for hundreds of property owners......please note that BearIslander lives on an island and is not effected.

Where is it that Amtrak trains going more than 70 MPH pass within inches of a pedestrian and bike path? I was unaware that was happening.

Please explain what difference it make where I live? Is this thread only for WOW abutters?

Even a slow train can't stop on a dime, or in time to prevent hitting a pedestrian. Nor can you expect children to stay off railroad tracks just inches away from were they are walking unless you have a fence.

And a fence with openings every couple of hundred feet to allow for access is not much better than no fence at all.

I really don't see how this project can be both safe and allow access at the same time.

[jrc]

I've been on the train and I've been in Southdown. The train currently coexists with pedestrians quite well. There is no fence along the route now and many people cross the tracks safely.

In Skip's link it looks like the NH DOT requires the fence, maybe they can be reasoned with.

I just can't imagine a ugly chain link fence from the railroad bridge near the Irwins all along the side of Paugus Bay to the Weirs and then along Meredith Bay.

Near my weekday residence in Hollis, we can walk, bike, etc along an abandoned railway to Ayer. It is a nice trail to have. It did and does have opposition from literal NIMBY's. The good seems to override the bad. But in a few places fences were built to keep snowmobiles and ATV off the trails. These fences also cut longstanding access across the trail. These fences are now often in need of repair.

[fatnoah]

Personally, I think the trail is a great idea, however not with an ugly fence. While I understand the state's perspective in requiring a fence, it seems that whatever entity came up with that requirement is not too familiar with much of the geography of the line.

The sheer number of grade crossings for roads, driveways, paths, as well as narrow causeways would make so many gaps in the fence it would be pointless anyway...an argument further strengthened by the leisurely pace of the existing rail traffic.

For some numbers about existing rail-with-trails endeavors, check the following link: http://www.americantrails.org/resour...railStudy.html

Based on the URL, I would assume that there is some bias in the study, but it's interesting nonetheless.

[SAMIAM]

B. I.....I'm amazed and confused......looking back over your previous posts,you seem to be a guy who loves nature and cares about the enviroment.You have posted about,wildlife,clean water,alternative energy......but you approve of a nine mile chain link fence in front of our precious waterfront. You recently put up a web cam for your little Daisy the duck who was on her nest and we all stood by with baited breath. I put it up on my computer at the office so I wouldn't miss the big moment.My question is this................If you had a 5' fence in front of your property on Bear island,how would little Daisy have reached the water with her little babies?

[Bear Islander]

You misunderstand me. I am not in favor of the WOW trail.

It sounds like a great idea at first. However when you get into the details it stops making sense. The way I understand it the only way they will have enough room for the trail is to put it right next to the rails. Even with a slow moving train eventually someone will fall, or zig when they should zag, and there will be a horrible accident.

I can imagine this trail being VERY popular, much more so than similar trails that don't go along a beautiful lake. That means lots of people just inches from a vehicle that can't stop. Not a good idea in my opinion. The only answer is a fence between the tracks and the trail.

However a fence will be seriously ugly. And even if you could find a beautiful fence or an invisible fence.... What good is a fence that has a break every few feet?

In my opinion they are trying to do two mutually exclusive things at the same time. Isolate the trail from the tracks for safety reasons, AND provide hundreds of crossings to allow access. I just don't see how it can be done.

[SAMIAM]

Sorry,B.I.......guess I did have you wrong.I thought you approved of the fence....but I do disagree with you about any danger from a slow moving train.If only the DOT would waive the fence requirement everyone would be happy.

[kjbathe]

Why are we again trying to legislate personal responsibility? Create the template and paint a warning in reflective paint every 500 feet "DANGER - STAY CLEAR OF ACTIVE TRAIN TRACK" and call it good.

If folks want to get on the tracks, a fence won't stop them. And why incur the maintenance costs and headache of trying to keep the fence intact. Compliment the painted warning notices with a sign at the various entrances to the trail alerting them to the danger of the active track and problem solved.

I listen to these things and thank God we went to the moon in the 60's... Our perpetual hand-wringing today would never allow us to sign off on the idea of strapping three guys into a glorified trash can affixed to the five stories of high explosives needed to hurl them into the void of space. A fence to keep people off the tracks... If you need a fence to impose common sense, perhaps you should be on the tracks when the train comes.

[Woodsy]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

You misunderstand me. I am not in favor of the WOW trail.

It sounds like a great idea at first. However when you get into the details it stops making sense. The way I understand it the only way they will have enough room for the trail is to put it right next to the rails. Even with a slow moving train eventually someone will fall, or zig when they should zag, and there will be a horrible accident.

I can imagine this trail being VERY popular, much more so than similar trails that don't go along a beautiful lake. That means lots of people just inches from a vehicle that can't stop. Not a good idea in my opinion. The only answer is a fence between the tracks and the trail.

However a fence will be seriously ugly. And even if you could find a beautiful fence or an invisible fence.... What good is a fence that has a break every few feet?

In my opinion they are trying to do two mutually exclusive things at the same time. Isolate the trail from the tracks for safety reasons, AND provide hundreds of crossings to allow access. I just don't see how it can be done.

When does the lunacy end?? This is PRECISELY what is wrong with this country today! We have to account for every possible idiot! No personal responsibility allowed! We need to stop dumbing down to the lowest common denominator! I need to stop now before I go on a huge rant!

Should we build the trail YES! Do we need a fence? NO!

The rail traffic on this line is seasonal and very light/very slow moving. It's not like we are discussing mile long freight trains every few hours. People have coexisted with the railroad (no fence) for long, long time, and to the best of my knowledge there have been ZIP, ZERO, NADA injuries! I see people walking right down the middle of the tracks all the time. So why the big deal now? If anything, a nice trail beside the tracks would be much safer!

You need to look at how railroad tracks are constructed. Railroads operate best when the tracks are level. When a railroad is constructed, they use large quantities of gravel to raise the level of the tracks 2' to 3' above the surrounding terrain, depending on terrain conditions. This accomplishes two things, level track height so the train will roll easily and proper drainage. For most of the proposed WOW trail, the railbed will be somewhat higher (approximately 2') than the WOW trail. You would physically have to fall up to the tracks to get struck by the train.

Woodsy

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by kjbathe

Why are we again trying to legislate personal responsibility? Create the template and paint a warning in reflective paint every 500 feet "DANGER - STAY CLEAR OF ACTIVE TRAIN TRACK" and call it good.

If folks want to get on the tracks, a fence won't stop them. And why incur the maintenance costs and headache of trying to keep the fence intact. Compliment the painted warning notices with a sign at the various entrances to the trail alerting them to the danger of the active track and problem solved.

I listen to these things and thank God we went to the moon in the 60's... Our perpetual hand-wringing today would never allow us to sign off on the idea of strapping three guys into a glorified trash can affixed to the five stories of high explosives needed to hurl them into the void of space. A fence to keep people off the tracks... If you need a fence to impose common sense, perhaps you should be on the tracks when the train comes.

Originally Posted by Woodsy

When does the lunacy end?? This is PRECISELY what is wrong with this country today! We have to account for every possible idiot! No personal responsibility allowed! We need to stop dumbing down to the lowest common denominator! I need to stop now before I go on a huge rant!

Should we build the trail YES! Do we need a fence? NO!

The rail traffic on this line is seasonal and very light/very slow moving. It's not like we are discussing mile long freight trains every few hours. People have coexisted with the railroad (no fence) for long, long time, and to the best of my knowledge there have been ZIP, ZERO, NADA injuries! I see people walking right down the middle of the tracks all the time. So why the big deal now? If anything, a nice trail beside the tracks would be much safer!

You need to look at how railroad tracks are constructed. Railroads operate best when the tracks are level. When a railroad is constructed, they use large quantities of gravel to raise the level of the tracks 2' to 3' above the surrounding terrain, depending on terrain conditions. This accomplishes two things, level track height so the train will roll easily and proper drainage. For most of the proposed WOW trail, the railbed will be somewhat higher (approximately 2') than the WOW trail. You would physically have to fall up to the tracks to get struck by the train.

Woodsy

Where's that "Thanks" button when you need it .....

I see a higher likelyhood of injury from mixing bicycles, skaters and pedestrians.

[SAMIAM]

Er...Woodsy...that's exactly what Bear Islander said.

[Resident 2B]

Personally, I would much rather have the trail than have the train. I do not want the fence either. It will be ugly and it will negatively impact too many good people.

We have lived without the train since the Weirs washout. I do not know of anyone that is inconvienced at all because the train is gone.

I would much rather see many people using a free trail instead of some people using a train that they have to pay a good amount of money to ride. In addition, the train makes a lot of noise with its loud whistle/horn, so those that do not like that noise will be better off without the train.

This is a case of the good of many being served with the trail vs. the good of a few being served with the train. When you add in the ugly fence required to build the trail close to the train, the case for the train being eliminated gets much stronger.

R2B

[jrc]

Originally Posted by Resident 2B

...

We have lived without the train since the Weirs washout. I do not know of anyone that is inconvienced at all because the train is gone.
....

Well the people that run the train have been inconvienced. They leased the tracks from the state and have a right to expect the state to live up to that lease. They invested time and money into their business with a good faith expectation of having their lease honored.

I don't think the trail should be built if a fence is required. I think the train and the trail can coexist without a fence. But the state could always take their business by eminent domain and use the rail bed for the trail.

I think the state may still have dreams of restoring passenger rail service to NH, having real trains on that line would change my opinion on coexistence.