My house is about a mile away from the train stop in Meredith and I'm always aggravated when I take the grandkids for the 1/2 ride on the train. I can't take the 1/2 ride from the Meredith station. I have to drive to Wears to take a 1/2 ride either back to Meredith or to Lake Port. The little one's don't have the patients to go for the full ride from Meredith to Lake Port and back. I'm not sure why they can't manage this properly.

I didn't get a chance to watch the video on the city council's meeting till this past weekend. Just a few remarks, I would like to make on the video.

1. I like how Mr. Clark, president of the Plymouth and Lincoln Railroad, was extremely informative but I find it troubling that, the Stone Consulting study, never made it to the city counsel when it was first released and I find it troubling that he had to point out all the deficiency in the report done by Alta, those deficiencies should've been addressed before the report was released.

2. Mr. Dearness owner of New England Southern railroad noted that none of his information that he provided was even in the report. The guy takes time to partake in the study and they just omit all his information in the final report, what's up with that?

3. I like the points made by the Conway Scenic's owner Mr. Swirk, about taking the opportunity to capitalize on a resource, sitting right in front of them, rather than destroy it. That gentlemen has over 30 years experience in the freight railroad industry and Chicopee, MA was a perfect example he used of a city that saw an opportunity and took advantage of it, creating many jobs for that area. I'd like to see Laconia do the same but that discussion needs to have its own topic.

4. I found the Mayor's response on the current law (railroads take 1st priority on state owned ROW's) to be arrogant and condescending towards the gentlemen who was trying to remind him of that law.

5. Lastly, I was surprised not one person was on hand to show support for the WOW Trail and if they were, I don't recall them speaking. With the city creating so much tribulation over trail vs rail, I would have expected some support to back up the cities effort, of its "Hostile Takeover" quest.

NH HB25 never mentioned
 

I listened to the recording of the meeting and agree with your observations. The other very interesting fact (never mentioned) is that NH HB25 has passed and it includes funding for renovations (railroad ties, bridge repairs) along this segment (and attached segments) of the rail line. So, the Mayor in indicating that anything can be changed, never mentioned that the state is making a significant investment in the continued operation of the rail line.

Jetskier :cool:

A rail line can not be considered abandoned (and/or declared surplus) as long as it is active, whether once a day, once a month, or once a year.

The fact remains that this line continues to be used and as such it will stay as it is unless or until it is relocated (which it won't) or is permanently abandoned (which is dependent upon the rail users of the line). This line is still very much active.

I would guesstimate that the Mayor of Laconia may be looking for votes in discussing elimination of the rail line. It's a shame that tax payer money is being spent in "doing studies". Studies are absolutely useless unless or until Federal Railroad Regulations are substantially changed.

None of these Railroad Regulations are new as most were established back in the 1800's when the great Iron Horse started criss crossing our nation.





.

..... To The Daily Sun
 

Here's a Dec 2 letter to the editor published in The LaDa Sun.
...............

'Concord and Laconia keep railroad on life support'

To The Daily Sun

Laconia Mayor-elect Andrew Hosmer and the rest of the city council's recent delay on the proposed rail-trail is impacting not just Laconia but the entire state.

The New Hampshire railroad industry is dead; it's been dead for a long time. The state owned railroad line from Concord to Lincoln is an example of what is wrong with Concord and the way the state rules.

From what I've seen, the Bureau of Rail, Transit and Aeronautics is controlled by nostalgic railroad fans that want to return New Hampshire to the glory days or railroading - think steam engines, Pullman cars and the grand hotels.

This isn't going to happen in Laconia or anywhere in the Granite State.

Also, because of Concord, New Hampshire no longer has a manufactoring or commodity base to support any railroad, and even if it did, it wouldn't be competitive against interstate 93 and, once the 5G network is finished, driverless trucks.

The New Hampshire railroad industry is dead; it's been dead for a long time. The politicians in Laconia and Concord want to keep it on life support.

Steven J Connolly
Bethlehem
..................

Here in New Hampshire, we don't really have a railroad, what we have is more like a failroad. .... my comment-fll.

A useful on topic post. Thank you.

However I disagree that the rail system in NH is dead and I certainly disagree with Mr Connolly. Try telling this to the Hobo and Winnipesaukee Rail Companies, Conway Scenic Rail and others that continue to employee residents of this state and continue to be profitable.

Watch the video of the town meeting and tell me that rail is dead. You are just pushing your agenda of removing the rail in place of the trail.

I keep saying it, if you want the trail they should coexist. If you think the trail will be that more socially and economically beneficial to the area than spend the extra dollar for them to run parallel.

Actually, it is simple
 

The solution to the problem is simple:

1. There is no way that the current active rail line is going to be repurposed for the WOW trail. There is no basis to displace the businesses, there are federal right of use licenses and the state is investing the current rail line.
2. The rails with trails solution is too costly and there are a number of property rights issues and construction challenges.

The solution is to consider alternatives that are less disruptive and affordable. That is the path (no pun) of progress...everything else has become pretty much moot.

Just saying...

Jetskier:cool:

I am all for a temporary diversion of the trail in certain areas to ease cost and let both coexist. I would love to see some proposed alternatives

i've been saying it for years. from meredith center road, down union ave past the businesses that will benefit from it, left onto lake street past the margate on the margate side, and continue onto weirs Blvd on lake side all the way to the weirs

install walking path/sidewalk, probably 1/3 or less the cost (just speculation on cost of course, but no way as much as what they are trying to do)

Ask Mr. Connolly how well the Downeaster is doing. I remember him saying the Downeaster would be a failure and a waste of money. Well, now you would be hard pressed to find a seat on some of those trains. The fact of the matter is, Mr. Connolly is part of the problem in this state, quick to shoot everything down and lacks the ability to offer up any type of alternative solutions, he just wants to keep the status quo. So, let me ask how is the status quo doing for NH? Mr. Swirk the owner of the Conway Scenic Railroad, presented a very good example to the city council last week that pointed out how investing in the infrastructure that's in place is the real economic engine, not tearing it out. Chicopee, MA is reaping the benefits from that investment, it created jobs and revenue for that community. The Downeaster has spurred growth along its tracks as was pointed out in last week’s meeting with the city council. Take a look at the Grafton and Upton Railroad, down in Grafton, MA that railroad had been all but abandoned for 20+ years, couldn't even see the tracks they were over grown so much, now freight trains run up and down the line just about every day. Again, it's created jobs, spurred economic growth in those communities. If Laconia really wants to create economic growth, creating real jobs is the way to go, not building trails.

I have no dog in this fight but that will not work no matter how many times you say it.

There are many areas including in front of the NASWA where it drops off into the lower parking lot that there is no physical room for a sidewalk. There would be safety concerns about the proximity of cars with pedestrians along route 3, especially at night.

Also, the people who are interested and in favor of this most likely have no desire to walk along with traffic and inhale car fumes. They can get that experience many other places.

Agreed. There are also many other areas where a lake side sidewalk would lead straight to homeowners private docks, lake side property etc. You'd have a dozen or more crosswalks where the sidewalk would have to cross back and forth from Lake side to the Northern side and vice versa. Not to mention many areas where the site work required to allow the sidewalk and roadway enough room to coexist would be extremely expensive.

the town does not have easement rights for street and sidewalks? People run and bike up and down Weirs Blvd everyday without a sidewalk

Yes the city has some rights. But in many areas it would be physically impossible to build a sidewalk because of the terrain. There are steep slopes to the lake in a lot of places.

I am sure when you proposed the idea of building a retaining wall into the lake and throwing in a little gravel fill DES would be happy with the plan and tell you to go right ahead! :)

At one time Laconia required anyone doing new construction along Weirs Boulevard, and many other places, to build a sidewalk with granite curb. You can see many of the "sidewalks to nowhere" along Weirs Boulevard. On the Boulevard in front of Evergreen is the first one that comes to mind. They have now backed off of that plan because numerous individual unconnected sidewalks were not accomplishing the desired results.

I'm talking on the road level, in easement area, not right on the waters edge, there is no need to build retaining walls or anything like that, there is plenty of room roadside. sidewalks have existed beside roads for as long as roads have existed

I think you need to go look at the road again. There are areas where immediately beside the lane of travel there is a guard rail and a steep drop. As I said, there is no place to build a sidewalk. There is no "easement area" just a drop.

And, walking along route 3 with traffic would present an entirely different experience than what the proponents of the WOW trail have envisioned. it is just never going to happen.

New to this forum but had to register just to post my disdain for this initiative. Trying to shut down an active business both from the tourist and B2B work the shops do as a contractor is just pathetic. If you Wow folks are successful I hope they come to shut down your business next. One of the most patently unAmerican ideas I have seen proposed. Not against a trail by any means but to even suggest this as the means is abhorrent.

Welcome


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

Welcome to the Forum. I wish I could take credit for this, but someone suggested extending the runway at the Laconia Airport through Patrick's Pub. That would be a great start!

This is exactly what I was referring to. For example - my property on Paugus has no room on the lake side for a sidewalk, there may be 6" between the white line and the guard rail, and beyond the guard rail is a sheer drop to the lake. Just down the road from my property is another which would require substantial work for a side walk to be put in on the northern side / non-lake side, if it were even possible. There are many properties along the Blvd. where a sidewalk would simply be a massive undertaking.

Riding a bicycle along Weirs Blvd, US Route 3, from the Weirs roundabout to the Shaws supermarket on the Laconia/Gilford town line is pretty doable on both sides of the road. Both sides, going north or south, have solid white lines between the car lane and the dirt shoulder with the width varying from one to three feet of paved "bicycle or pedestrian" lane between the white line and the end of the paved asphalt surface.

The speed limit is either 35 or 30-mph, which is relatively slow, and helps to make it safe for pedaling a bicycle.

The dirt soft shoulder gives about another 1-3' depending on location, there.

In the summer I see bicyclists pedaling down the side "bicycle/pedestrian" lane on the boulevard pretty frequently. Adults just out for a bicycle ride on modest looking bikes with and without helmets.

Well, they could take your house by eminent domain and put in a sidewalk. Then everybody who want the sidewalk would be happy. You might not be though.

There is absolutely not a 1-3' dirt shoulder on either side of the white line the whole length of the Blvd. There are AREAS where this shoulder exists, but not the entire length of the Blvd.

Sure, and the tax payers would be ecstatic to inherit the costs associated with building the trail through properties purchased via eminent domain as well.

I was simply trying to add useful insight into the conversation. I have zero concern about the WOW trail being routed down the Blvd; there is simply not a realistic plan to do so.

No, I respectfully disagree because yesterday on Tuesday I drove along Weirs Blvd in both directions, and took a good look at the 'bicycle/pedestrian' lane as it exists between the white lines at the edge of the paved road and the dirt shoulder area while thinking about it in terms of riding a bicycle.

The usable bicycle width of pavement outside the white line varies from one to three feet with a steel safety barrier fence installed along the waterfront side of the road, there.

On the non-waterfront side, it's about the same one to three feet width of "bike lane" with a varying size of dirt soft shoulder area, running along private home, front areas.

Can we not use the dirt and rocks pulled from the canal dig to fill in the open spots along the Blvd?


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

That was a very sarcastic remark. I hate eminent domain. It is abused.

Because of the steep slope it would require a retaining wall built in the lake to keep any fill in place. And it is not like it would be needed in one small area. There are numerous places where that is the only way you could do it. Even if it was a good idea, good luck getting that approved by DES.

And taking people's property? Look at the drop and retaining wall to the right of the NASWA into their parking lot. What are you going to do there?

It seems that the only people offering opinions about what a good idea this would be have no idea of the topography they are talking about. Again, if you think it makes sense, walk the length of Weirs Boulevard and look at the numerous places where it would be a challenge to create any type of sidewalk.

..... just a white line is all there is
 

Well, having that white line running along the edge of Weirs Blvd with one to three feet of pavement before it becomes a dirt shoulder is actually very, very good for a central New Hampshire road for pedaling a bicycle or walking.

In the country of the Netherlands, informally Holland, which has a long history of bicycle paths built along side a road, Holland bike trails will have a physical barrier between the bike lane and the road whenever the car speed limit is above 19-mph.

A physical barrier can be a fence, masonry wall, bushes, trees, a water canal or combination.

On Weirs Blvd, US Route 3, the speed limit is either 30 or 35-mph for cars between the roundabout and the intersection with Union Ave at the Bayside Cemetery.

For bicyclers and pedestrians who pedal or walk along the one to three feet area of asphalt pavement that exists between the white line and the dirt shoulder, there are cars moving along at 30-35 mph and the only physical safety is the white line on the pavement, just the white line, not a physical barrier.

New Hampshire has a state law that says motorists must keep 3-feet distance, at 30-mph, 4-feet at 40-mph, 5-feet at 50-mph, and 6-feet at 60-mph, when passing a person on a bicycle. So legally, a motor vehicle is supposed to cross the center line on Weirs Blvd when passing a bicyclist in order to stay the legal distance away from the bicycle. If not possible due to oncoming traffic, the motorist is supposed to slow down and/or wait before proceeding past the bicycler.

Does that happen? What do you think?

No it doesn't and I break that law quite often because these people on bicycles seem to think they own the road. Well I have no problem reminding them that roads are bought and paid for by MOTOR VEHICLE registrations. If cyclists are so hell bent on having their own dedicated lanes, fine register them all I say. I think a nice $200 flat registration fee is a good start, and make it self funding. Hell why not put a few toll booths in, think of the money the state could make putting EZPASS in these bike lanes and WOW trail if it ever comes to be. Afterall pedestrians and cyclist MUST pay their "fair share" too.

In fact bicycles should be outlawed on Class 2 and 3 roads.

http://www.fosters.com/news/20190701...-use-full-lane

As I recall the speed limit on Weirs Blvd is either 35 or 30-mph which is not too slow, not too fast for a car to share the road with a bicycle. As already mentioned but worth mentioning again, having the one to three feet of pavement that is outside the white line at the edge of Weirs Blvd is better that what's usually available on Route-3 in central NH so that makes it a little safer for the bicycles.

Is not too unusual to see the bike pedalers on Weirs Blvd wearing large back packs all loaded with with shopping bags of food that was probably just purchased maybe at the nearby Shaw's, so apparently in the summer they use their bikes to get to and back from the grocery store for food shopping.

Hey, not everyone has car for getting around here, and some really depend on their bicycles in the warmer months as a way to go food shopping.

...... raise the gasoline tax by ten cents/gallon!
 

As I understand it, Class 2 NH roads are the very common, numbered local roads that go all over the state, and are not the limited access interstate highways like Route 93. Locally, NH Routes 3-11-25-28-49-104-109-113-132-153-171-175 and others are all class 2 roads.

So, your bicycle exclusion suggestion would basically ban bicycles from pedaling the 97-mile circle loop http://www.winnipesaukee.net/lakes-r...ound-the-lake/ around Lake Winnipesaukee.

What I suggest is raising the gasoline tax by ten cents/gallon as a serious effective way to pay for maintaining and improving the NH road system which includes both Route 93, Class 2 roads, and rail/trail bicycle paths including the Concord-Lake Sunapee Rail Trail ...... www.facebook.com/CLSRT/ and here in the lakes region ...... the www.wowtrail.org.

With a little bit of thought I’m sure NH can come up with another financing option to shift the burden onto out-of-staters. They are good at that. Maybe they could use a portion of the 66% increase in my property taxes.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

That's right ban bicycles on all roads where the speed limit is over 30 MPH and there is no shoulder to ride on. It's all about safety and "for the seniors and children". How many more must die?

Every bicycle in the state should be registered if not ridden on it's owner's property just like OHRV's and a $200 trail development and maintenance fee assessed per bike is a good starting point. Probably enough to at least hire all the hack state workers to oversee the program and pay them a six figure salary as minimum wage simply won't do.

When is the state finally going to slap registration fees on anything that floats? I think a good $100 flat fee per vessel would be prefect.

Committee for Compromise
 

The latest resolution calls for the formation of a blue-ribbon committee comprising representatives of the WOW Trail Board, homeowners’ associations from Paugus Park Road, South Down Shores, and Long Bay Estates, the Winnipesaukee Scenic Railroad, and the city.

From the Laconia Sun:

https://www.laconiadailysun.com/news...ticle-nav-next

Certainly a step in the right direction.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

How does this committee defer from past community efforts?


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

At least you have all the interest parties willing to sit and have an open discussion instead of the lawyers battling it out and sucking up everybody’s money.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

Not sure there ever was a previous committee. If there was, it was just the city and the WOW Trail Board and it was very one sided. This Blue Ribbon Committee should have be established back in the beginning.

By the way, the resolution to form the Blue Ribbon Committee passed.

IMO, there is no ... other than those that enjoy PRIVATE access on PUBLIC property feel that the Public ... MAY gain access to the PUBLICLY OWNED property that their tax dollars help pay for.

If the LE/SD people really wanted privacy, perhaps they should invest their own money and end this.

I understand the state owns the property but that doesn't mean it's "public" property. The property is still off limits to anyone that is not a railroad employee and is considered trespassing, if you are caught. Think of it as a police station, military base or a government building, we as citizens are owners to it all but that still doesn't give us the right to just walk right in. So lets not call it "public property" it's a "Railroad Right of Way" that is owned by the state and is off limits to the public.