Re: (erielack) Re: M&E/Rahway Valley

["Schuyler G Larrabee" <sgl2_@_ix.netcom.com>]

Our own Paul wrote:

> You know, I've always wondered how this works. I'm assuming it all comes
down to lawyers, but if I have a piece of property - a railroad - that I've
always owned, and I wanted to restore the railroad, don't I have the right
to?
>
> Hmm.
>
> <sigh>
>
> - Paul


The "right" to?  Well, yes, mostly, but clear easy ability to, not
necessarily.

There are a couple of instructive examples here around Boston.  Example 1 is
the line running along the South Shore south of Boston.  As part of the
permitting involved in the Big Dig, the state agreed to revive commuter rail
service on three lines south of Boston.  Two are done, and operating from
almost day one at capacity.  The third has been a battle all the way.  I can
>understand< the point of some of the abutters - in some cases the tracks
are, CL of track to house, maybe 15' away!  But those tracks were there when
they bought the house.  There's been no service on these tracks since 1958,
but the tracks have been there ever since.  So they freak out about
"enormous, dangerous, dirty, noisy trains running through my bedroom."  And
they raise a stink with their state reps and senators, who of course want to
get re-elected, so they listen and side with the noisy ones, not the quiet
ones who WANT the service.  And there are public "meetings" to inform the
public about intended changes of service, which become circuses due to media
attention (I almost typed "intervention") and yes, they do hire lawyers by
the bagful.

Fortunately (IMHO), the MBTA kept after it, (they pretty much HAD to due to
the permissions for the Big Dig, and federal funding (thanks, guys) is
involved, you know?) and they finally overcome the disputes, partly by
agreeing to spend a couple hundred million to put a tunnel under downtown
Hingham, MA.

Example 2 is the former Central Massachusetts line, running from Waltham out
through Weston, Wayland, Sudbury to Hudson and Clinton, MA.  About three
years ago, the MBTA proposed to restore commuter service on this line, gone
since about 1965 or so.  This would be a Very Good Idea, expanding service
to an area where there is not really any sensible highway commuter route.
These towns are "served" by a narrow, crooked, scenic, two lane road, route
117.  They also have some of the highest per-capita incomes in the state.
They LIKE it this way.  The proposal brought rants about noise (we don't
want to hear the horns, and the engines are noisy too) and overt racism ("We
don't want those blacks coming out here on the trains and breaking into our
houses and attacking our wives and daughters."  That's pretty close to an
exact quote, except that they didn't say "blacks".) and based on some real
pressure from well-heeled state reps and senators, that proposal was allowed
to die.  One town (Weston) didn't even want the line allowed to become a
bicycle trail ("They will go pee in the bushes, you know.") but apparently
the burghers of Weston have become embarrassed enough that they are now
going to go along with it.

Now the MBTA >owns< that line, and it used to be a rail line, and there's a
state law that says any ROW (including inactive ones) that >>>ever<<< had
rail service can have the service restored if it is in the public interest,
unless both the legislature AND the governor permit otherwise.  In this
state, that ain't likely, just on general principals!

So even if you own it, and that's what it used to be, you can still have a
>real< battle to do it.

SGL
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Tupaczewski, Paul R (Paul)" <paultup_@_lucent.com>
To: "'Schuyler G Larrabee'" <sgl2_@_ix.netcom.com>; "'David Goessling'"
<dmg_@_library.ho.lucent.com>; <erielack@lists.railfan.net>
Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 4:57 PM
Subject: RE: (erielack) Re: M&E/Rahway Valley


>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Schuyler G Larrabee [mailto:sgl2_@_ix.netcom.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 4:24 PM
> > To: Tupaczewski, Paul R (Paul); 'David Goessling';
> > erielack_@_lists.railfan.net
> > Subject: Re: (erielack) Re: M&E/Rahway Valley
> >
> >
> > Paul Tupaczewski writes:
> > >
> > > If it's still railroad property, the NIMBYs really don't
> > have much of a
> > say here.
> >
> > Excuse me.  HA, HA, HA!
> >
> > SGL
> >

------------------------------

End of EL List Daily V3 #612
****************************