Grafton & Upton Railroad (G&U) Discussion

i guess no one on the planning board or milford times reads this thread. again, the stb will not issue a comfort letter on transloading. the clean railroads act of 2008 is definitive. past stb positions are clearly stated in the NET fiasco. to save everyone time and effort, transloading is governed by local zoning. when/if the railroad builds anything for transloading, the town should issue a cease & desist. since the property is zoned for industry and that zoning is approved by the town, then the railroad must submit an application for the transloading facility which the town can then turn down. the railroad must then front the money for a suit based on what? i don't believe transloading wood pellets is a money-maker so this will probably die. ken patrick

KEN PATRICK wrote:i guess no one on the planning board or milford times reads this thread. again, the stb will not issue a comfort letter on transloading. the clean railroads act of 2008 is definitive. past stb positions are clearly stated in the NET fiasco. to save everyone time and effort, transloading is governed by local zoning. when/if the railroad builds anything for transloading, the town should issue a cease & desist. since the property is zoned for industry and that zoning is approved by the town, then the railroad must submit an application for the transloading facility which the town can then turn down. the railroad must then front the money for a suit based on what? i don't believe transloading wood pellets is a money-maker so this will probably die. ken patrick

Hi Ken! Wondered what happened to you.
Ken, for someone who claims to have so much knowledge and experience in the shipping industry, your postings leave me to question much. For one thing, I would think that someone would pay more attention to such basics as punctuation and grammar.
That being said, your "facts" just don't jive with reality. If ANY of what you purport held legal water, there would not be such a debate continuing in Upton. If it were merely the "cut and dried" case that you present, the railroad would have lost long ago.
The ongoing "investigation" proves otherwise.
The reality borne out in this thread (via links, postings etc) proves that there is more to this than just a mere question of "zoning."
That being said, you are as welcome to your "opinion" as you are to the alternate legal world in which you reside, just don't expect your attempts to overlay your reality on the real world to go unchallenged.

hi cosmo- i remain perplexed that no mention is made in any of the postings re: reading the NET file and the clean railroad act of 2008. all too often, people prefer to let someone else take the lead. 'i don't know what i want but give me something to criticize. the facts are clear. transloading is not 'transportation' .any such activites are governed by local zoning and, in the case of waste, state regs. i spent huge amounts in lobbying to get the precursor senate bill relative to waste transportation and transloading passed. our"environmental transportation association' concepts are in the 2008 act. having consulted with legal folk on projects that attempted to claim federal exemption, i am familiar with the plethora of failed such projects. this requires town approval. ken patrick

KEN PATRICK wrote:hi cosmo- i remain perplexed that no mention is made in any of the postings re: reading the NET file and the clean railroad act of 2008. all too often, people prefer to let someone else take the lead. 'i don't know what i want but give me something to criticize. the facts are clear. transloading is not 'transportation' .any such activites are governed by local zoning and, in the case of waste, state regs. i spent huge amounts in lobbying to get the precursor senate bill relative to waste transportation and transloading passed. our"environmental transportation association' concepts are in the 2008 act. having consulted with legal folk on projects that attempted to claim federal exemption, i am familiar with the plethora of failed such projects. this requires town approval. ken patrick

1) Never heard of the CRRA. Link?
2) You seem to find plenty to criticize without anyone else's help.
3) Actually, according to the FRA trans-loading IS transportation, hence the reason the FRA governs it as opposed to the local govt. Sorry, but you are dead wrong and the information on that is available and linked on this thread. The facts are clear that according to the FRA: "Transloading = Transportation."
4) I would think that someone so involved with lobbying would pay more attention to the facts, be able to provide links to specific instances AND pay better attention to simple things like grammar, spelling and punctuation.
I, for one, might be inclined to take you a bit more seriously. Case in point: "Cowford," who I do not always agree with, but I do take his posts more seriously because of HOW he presents his case and is able to link to the sources of his information.

Cosmo wrote:1) Never heard of the CRRA. Link?

See:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/hr2095
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/hres1492

I am not taking a position here, just providing some "debate bait"... I haven't even read this yet.

The "Clean Railroad Act of 2008" did in fact pass, Oct 2008 it looks like.
It was introduced by Frank Lautenberg because at the time New Jersey NIMBYs were shrieking at the top of their lungs about solid waste transfer sites located along railroad property (some of those proposals have been have been discussed on this message board at the time) without local approval.

The key points of the law:

• States are granted the permanent right to enforce their public health and safety and environmental laws at facilities that handle solid waste, regardless if they are located on a railroad;
• The STB may continue to site railroad facilities in order to maintain a unified interstate railroad system of transportation, but may not allow the operation or creation of a rail solid waste transfer site in environmentally-sensitive areas, including the Pinelands National Reserve or in protected areas of New Jersey’s Highlands region; and
• Existing facilities will be required to come into compliance with applicable state laws within 90 days.

The bill has nothing to do with transload sites in general, only those handling solid waste (MS) and presumably C&D debris too. So, sounds like the wood-pellet operations, if a regular railroad-run transload operation, is fine.

In my (now self deleted) post, I had misread "wood pallets" as "wood pellets" in Title VI. However I must admit that I see nothing in the act that would preclude the G&U's wood pellet transload operations or confer jurisdiction to the town of Upton. I will welcome any evidence to the contrary that might lead me to a corrected viewpoint.

if g&u were to provide trucking of the bagged pellets to the final destination it would be 'transportation'. failing to do that as well as failing to hold out as a common carrier for bagged pellets kills the exemption. 49 10501b , subsequent findings in various pleadings and the brt steel transload failure makes me wonder why g&u didn't go to the planning board. given the weight/volume relationship of wood pellets and railroad per car pricing, i'm certain the economics of bagging at the source(s) and trucking to final destination(s) would be economically superior. ken patrick

I like trains.

KEN PATRICK wrote:if g&u were to provide trucking of the bagged pellets to the final destination it would be 'transportation'. failing to do that as well as failing to hold out as a common carrier for bagged pellets kills the exemption. 49 10501b ,

That seems to be incorrect - the whole purpose of a transload is to transfer from rail-car to truck (or vice-versa - lets keep it to railroad transload for now) - there is no requirement that G&U (or any railroad) own or lease the trucks - the customer's trucks go to the transload to pick up the materials from the rail-car, and that's "transportation". MSW is a special category only due to being specifically spelled out by the CRRA of 2008 (which is part of the issue that NY&A has with Coastal C&D transload, many references of this case you will find on-line, but basically NY&A doesn't run or operate the transload, Coastal does, and Coastal is NOT a railroad company - hence a zoning issue).

subsequent findings in various pleadings

Such as? What I find on-line are actual cases where the railroad's operating true transloads (and the G&U seems to be this) all seem to win the case (there is references to environmental mitigation, which seems fair.

and the brt steel transload failure makes me wonder why g&u didn't go to the planning board.

Does the planning board seem sympathetic? Did they ever seem sympathetic? There is a reason why the STB rulings pre-empt local ordinances.

given the weight/volume relationship of wood pellets and railroad per car pricing, i'm certain the economics of bagging at the source(s) and trucking to final destination(s) would be economically superior

This sounds like you think the wood pellets should be shipped exclusively by truck. Odd...

Ken, if this is easy as 123, why is the town's fact finding committee finding it extremely difficult to present anything note worthy to the town board? Never mind going to the STB. The Fact Finding Committee hasn't presented one thing to the town board. The bottom line is NIMBY's don't want the train back in town, they want a rail trail.

KEN PATRICK wrote:if g&u were to provide trucking of the bagged pellets to the final destination it would be 'transportation'. failing to do that as well as failing to hold out as a common carrier for bagged pellets kills the exemption. 49 10501b

???????????

On reading 49 USC § 10501(b) - General jurisdiction the only connection I see is that the "Surf Board" has jurisdiction and that that jurisdiction is exclusive.

(b) The jurisdiction of the Board over—
(1) transportation by rail carriers, and the remedies provided in this part with respect to rates, classifications, rules (including car service, interchange, and other operating rules), practices, routes, services, and facilities of such carriers; and
(2) the construction, acquisition, operation, abandonment, or discontinuance of spur, industrial, team, switching, or side tracks, or facilities, even if the tracks are located, or intended to be located, entirely in one State,
is exclusive. Except as otherwise provided in this part, the remedies provided under this part with respect to regulation of rail transportation are exclusive and preempt the remedies provided under Federal or State law.

Therefore I am failing to see the connection you are attempting to make and respectfully request clarification if possible.

Meanwhile, in other news from the Metrowest area; [quote="In the article entitled "Hopedale board OKs distribution of trust funds" on July 23rd, Mike Gleason, member of the Milford Daily News staff"] In other business, Phillips updated the board on the railroad meeting he attended last week at Sen. Richard Moore’s office with Grafton & Upton Railroad owner Jon Delli Priscoli.

Repairs on the railroad crossings in Milford and Hopedale will be completed by the end of September, according to Phillips.[/quote]

Read more in ● The Milford Daily News ●.

This is Streeter Barncat reporting... Outside our studios right now it's eighty-four degrees under clear skies and we're expecting fair and sunny weather tomorrow with highs in the eighties.. Sports after this... [cue Pickwick Ale spot here]

sir ray- look at the new england transrail fiasco to see the narrowness of stb involvement. net failed because it proposed activities beyond those of transportation. similarly, g&u is proposing to empty a railcar and bag the contents. the reason i opined that g&u should use it's own trucks to deliver the bags and also hold out to everyone that it would provide common carrier services for all pellet shippers is that they could argue transportation. i still think it would fail. the Upton 'rail committee' should engage a firm experienced in these attempts. lastly, you must look at the value of the commodity. pd cars work for plastics, frac sand etc not pellets. 100cu yd walking floor trailers carrying bags from origin and pump-offs at desination? superior. ken patrick

KEN PATRICK wrote:sir ray- look at the new england transrail fiasco to see the narrowness of stb involvement. net failed because it proposed activities beyond those of transportation. similarly, g&u is proposing to empty a railcar and bag the contents. the reason i opined that g&u should use it's own trucks to deliver the bags and also hold out to everyone that it would provide common carrier services for all pellet shippers is that they could argue transportation. i still think it would fail. the Upton 'rail committee' should engage a firm experienced in these attempts. lastly, you must look at the value of the commodity. pd cars work for plastics, frac sand etc not pellets. 100cu yd walking floor trailers carrying bags from origin and pump-offs at desination? superior. ken patrick

Hmm, no, you are wrong again, Ken.
It took awhile to find info concerning New England Transrail, since much is behind paywalls, but I finally found this:
http://www.progressiverailroading.com/f ... sp?id=2268#
"New England Transrail's plan to shred construction and demolition debris would extend beyond the scope of rail transportation and be subject to full state and local regulations, the board ruled. Other proposed activities, such as loading, unloading, handling and storing goods, would fall within the STB's jurisdiction"

Shredding Construction and Demolitions Debris not covered by STB jurisdiction, which is what we have been saying in prior posts.
Other proposed activities such as loading, unloading, handling, and storing goods, are covered by the STB, which again is what we have been saying in prior posts. Is the G&U going so SELL the bags themselves? That would be a question mark - if G&YU is not selling the pellets at the transload, then you are incorrect, Ken.