by F-line to Dudley via Park
SilverLakeRailroad wrote:MBTA leases are very haphazard. It is a literal fill-in form and the only requirements for executing the lease are that the trail folks submit a skeletal funding plan and design to the T for review. They don't even have to have a funding source, just a "we'll try" (...and trot out the Iron Horse scam to get it rubber-stamped). Then they can do whatever they want, and administration is in the hands of the town. Yes, in the fine print the state can take it back. But then they have to defeat the town or trail nonprofit's usage control to take it back. There is 99.9% probability that will fail, because it requires de facto full permission from them to "Please, rip up my trail!" with all the legal maneuvering playbook to block restoration in the hands of the trail. It is as good as signing the ROW into permanent abandonment, and has nowhere near the restoration legal protection of something like the Minuteman which has the "restoration without objection" court order (which can still be circumvented, but takes more effort on the town's part). Since most of these towns can't afford to maintain their own trails, they end up sucking DCR dry to administer them regardless. So the state ends up picking up a tab it often didn't intend to...but doesn't get its control back because the towns/trail org. are still boss.BostonUrbEx wrote:I support rail trails for removal of encroachment and prevention of development or being purchased with the intent of never letting rail nor trail from ever happening. But I hate when something like the Minuteman Trail through Arlington means a Red Line extension doesn't ever stand a chance of happening without costly cut-and-cover construction. I love the trail, it really is great, but at some point, rail will trump trail in demand, but residents will kick and scream to prevent any rail from returning at the expense of their precious trail.That is how the MBTA leases work, They can retake their property IF they ever decide to add passenger service. Freight service doesn't matter, passenger only. COntracts specifically say NI IF AND OR'S OR BUT'S, if they need it back, they get it back. National Grid offers the same policy, just a bit more complicated than the MBTA policy...
The Northern Strand Community Trail (Bike to the Sea) on the Saugus branch will be under an MBTA lease. At some point, the MBTA will have a say. (I'm not sure on the contract specifics, but perhaps they can even cancel the lease early, as well, in turn for some sort of compensation like funding for other parks or something).
Incoherent policy. They should never sign their lives away like this. If somebody wants a trail, give DCR the lease and let them be the administrator who controls it and incorporates the trail lobby's desired features. That way every landbanked ROW is under centralized control under the state parks dept. and can be overridden by executive fiat to turn it back over if rail is needed. And only the trails that serve some value-added for the state parks system get added, instead of some grade crossing hell between one industrial dump and another and no sidewalk connectivity on either end that no one will use (see Chicopee, Methuen). It's impossible to be selective or keep things sanely balanced in the interests of statewide planning when other self-interested parties have a wide open door to stick their fingers in it and play grabby hands. It becomes that "win"/"lose" between modes as a masquerade for "win"/"lose" at local vs. state control. I don't think there's a single ROW in the state where public interest for rail can overpower the games local gov't plays. Now that the T is subservient to Mass EOT they need to be bound by some standards because they've been bona fide dumbasses at not looking these 99-year-lease insta-forms over well enough before signing on the dotted line.
It's never easy to de-landbank once it's trailed, but other New England states are a whole lot less out-to-lunch about their policy than MA is.