CRT Natick Rail Trail
Let’s highlight and go over this topic again. Folks shouldn’t forget that one day they’ll have a choice.
I like the idea of open space through an urban area, for exercise, and just plain fun. In addition, it would look nice. The rail trail idea has it’s charm. And maybe it could serve a more important function, as a way to relieve the traffic problems on our roads. So I thought I’d do a little investigation, and think about the details of what Natick will be making a choice on in the near future. First, the climate. How does commuter bicycling work in an area with a winter? This is what I learned.
Minneapolis is the top city in the country for bicycling commuters, according to their own city web site on bicycle paths. The city has 56 miles of off street and 34 miles of on street bicycle roadways and designated lanes. Much of the off street are paved rail trails. Their rating comes from a figure of just under 3 percent of commuters biking. The numbers come from their own web site which promotes bicycling. There are 382,000 people or 162,000 households living in Minneapolis.
If we translate the numbers to Natick’s population, we find that considering climate similarities, the possibility exists that 1000 commuters would use a bike path if one were built from the Cochituate Rail Trail in Saxonville, to join Natick and run to the downtown. Certainly a healthy number, if the trail were maintained, plowed, lighted, and paved. (And wouldn’t it be a pleasant surprise if the projection held true, for it would require a major culture change, behavior modification and massive public relations in order to attain the lofty plateau.)
Bicycling to work at Boston Scientific, the Mall, downtown Natick, or the office parks on Old Connecticut park would benefit some who live within bicycling distance of the trail. But only if the trail were built to be bicycle friendly. Key consideration needs to be given to the ancillary roads, where people live. How suited to bicycle use are they? How far would one expect to ride a bike to get to the trail’s various entrance points? Where are those key entrance spots? Are the roads leading to them safe for bicycling during the rush hours? If bicyclists were headed to the railroad station to shift onto the train, we would probably need to accomodate many of bicycles downtown. Where are those dozens, if not more, racks to be located? Will main roads leading to the entrances of the trail have bike lanes for safe travel? Mechanic Street might offer a spot to “get on” the trail. Widening of North Main St. might make that bike route safer.
To get started on the hard costs, how much would paving a rail trail to make it suitable for bicycling commuters be? What would the annual maintenance budget be for such a trail? What would it cost to install lighting, and what would the electrical figure be? How would landsaping needs be budgeted? What are the safety concerns, such as police protection?
From the rail trail’s own web sites, we see pictures of the land being unpaved stretches of walking path cut through woodland. As such, they are wonderful for a leisure activity on a Saturday or Sunday for younger, healthy people. However, unpaved rail trails aren’t useful to elderly and infirmed, and certainly not pleasant at any age during rainy, or snowy seasons, or when it’s just plain cold and icy.
So maybe the idea wouldn’t be primarily for commuters, but just for fun! Looking at Natick’s demographics, there are just under 4000 families with school age children. What would you rather see your tax dollars cover? Certainly the money it would cost to maintain a trail would be enough to relieve those families of bus fees, if the choice were made that way. And if the taxpayers had a choice between spending a few million dollars to aquire the land from CSX, vs a portion of the building of a new High School, what would they prefer to do? Would residents rather spend the money on improved roads, relieving congestion at key intersections with better turnoff lanes, and traffic signals? Would they like to use tax dollars for operations, in order to avoid a tax override?
Keep in mind, that a similar choice in how to spend money was made a few years ago, and it was on land already owned by the town. That was when residents were convinced building a golf course was a good idea. In this case, buying the land might be the cheapest part of the whole idea.
Town Meeting was convinced that they should invest similar amounts of money to satisy a handful of people with a special interest in a golf course. It’s time for reasoned evaluation, rather than emotional interest in something that might just be another operational expense, serving a handful of interested parties.
Let’s not make the same mistake again.
You raise several important points. The CRT Task Force issued a preliminary report that identified many of these issues and sets out a process to address them, including outreach to people who live or work alongside the right-of-way. Safety, costs, lighting, access and other issues need to be examined closely. The report and more information is available at http://natickma.gov/crt.
Fortunately, funding is available for many of the costs of a rail trail, so it need not fall on the taxpayers to buy the land and build it. As for the choice of building a new NHS vs. a rail trail: funding comes from different sources so that’s not necessarily a fair question; in any case, Town Meeting will have an opportunity to vote on these and many other projects and budgets.
The CRT proposal is in its very early stages, and all the issues you raise should and will receive a public hearing, so that whatever decisions are ultimately made are considered with public awareness and factual information.
Comment by Joshua Ostroff | January 18, 2007
As I read your response in it’s context involving other potential demands on our tax dollars, I realize that no matter what the majority demands, your personal priorities are foremost in your mind.
Comment by dave | March 24, 2007
Where is the “funding” available from, exactly?
Comment by John | April 5, 2007
First, from what I’ve read, the town isn’t going to be able to buy the land. It’s just a “use fee”. They call it “right of way”. Kind of like the lease we now have with the Dowse family in Sherborn for the golf course.
Second, the land is there, and can be walked by anyone who wants to now. Nobody has any interest in it so far. To get a more accurate picture of it’s popularity, pay a visit to the Cochituate branch, now open in Framingham. Nobody can be found there either. It’s actually not bicycle friendly.
The bigger issue has to do with improvements, upkeep, insurance, lighting, safety, pavement, and probably more details than we can imagine.
For a usable emenity, for what amounts to only half a year, the annual cost to operate is up for much discussion. I’d hate to think the same people who decided what a profit making venture the golf course would be, are going to decide whether or not we spend even a dime on “right of way”.
Comment by Dave | April 5, 2007
Dave,
The Right of Way refers to the area the rail company uses for its operation. In some places along the Saxonville branch (from Natick to Saxonville), CSX owns the land under the Right of Way and in some places it merely had the right to use the land. In Natick, the Right of way is owned by CSX and my understanding is that CSX is interested in selling this land outright to the town. That is not the case in Framingham where there were several property owners along the Right of Way.
Also, the above post From “John” is not mine.
Comment by John A | April 16, 2007
Josh says “Fortunately, funding is available for many of the costs of a rail trail, so it need not fall on the taxpayers to buy the land and build it.”
Pick the half truths out of this and you get “many of the costs”. (not all)
“need not fall on the taxpayers”, (but probably will either local or state) and finally “buy and build”, (of course not, the land isn’t purchased, it’s just a right of way)
I just wanted to note the typical political method of tricking people into thinking it’s a freeby. Josh could probably convince some people that the golf course would pay for itself within five years. He and a few others made those claims five years ago, and we’re still waiting.
Comment by Dave | May 5, 2007
Thank goodness the CPA didn’t pass Town Meeting, for the primary intent of that bit of tax increase, was to fund the rail trail.
Comment by Dave | July 30, 2007
Its unfortunate that trying something as simple as building a “rail trail” becomes such a confusing and complex issue.
I will have to admit that I am not a home owner in this town so my tax dollars are used elsewhere but I do, unfortunately, have to commute via an automobile in and around the metrowest while I wait for “affordable” housing to magically appear.
The congestion and traffic has become unbelievable just within the past few years and any idea that might allay this situation, such as a railtrail, should be visited. To be able to take care of just a few simple errands via walking and or biking should be encouraged.
Several cities I have visited have successful programs to help alleviate urban congestion and promote community experiences such as walking and commuting to work and shopping. Its an issue!
I am continually amazed at how “happy” people seem driving around in their “boxes” draining precious fuel and free time and getting fatter while they could be walking or biking the same route.
Natick and its surrounding towns are beginning to show foresight and planning for the considerable expanision that has been bestowed upon us. Lets continue to make use of areas such as the proposed “RailTrail” and work towards making the area a more comfortable and healthy area to live.
Build it and make it a priority for businesses to fund it. Especially that monstrosity on rt. 9 that we will thank for the thousands of extra cars on the road.
Comment by pete | August 20, 2007
One only has to take a closer look at the Saxonville to Route 30 trail to know how far from a commuting amenity this really is. A wide path through the woods is a fine place to stroll on a weekend afternoon, but with nowhere to park at either end, nor in-between that’s about as good as it gets. And unless one lives adjacent to it, the effort to sell it as a substitute for the car or bike, is just a salesman’s tactic.
Don’t mistake my words as anti-trail. I like it simple. Just don’t use my tax money to buy or lease and manage it. Maybe a group could form a non-profit, and raise funds to clear the land, and care for it.
“Rail Trail Common Sense” the leading article gives the bigger picture. It’s amazing how quickly the details get lost, as advocates try to sell the idea to the voters.
Comment by Dave | August 20, 2007
Clearly, if the costs for this were to come out of tax dollars there are plenty of things to prioritize ahead of it. In discussing the merits of having it though commuting and population/demographics is a bit of straw man argument isn’t it? (Comparing the use of an unpaved abandoned rail track with a paved rail trail is quite bogus, actually.) Go to any rail trail in Massachusetts and you’ll find paths clogged with visitors spending money on ice cream, lunches and other things. It’s not so much the people in town using the trail, but the people the trail will attract. Now, does Natick actually benefit from these extra visitors? I don’t know. Some folks in Natick would. Some not.
Comment by Marc | January 5, 2008
Advocates should keep in mind, that most people aren’t living adjacent to the trail, thus need a way to get there, a place to park and a method to use it. It’s a nice thought, but doesn’t show me value for my tax dollar. Especially since it’s not going to be paved. How do you expect me to ride my bike that way?
Comment by Dave | January 11, 2008