Quote:
Originally Posted by jetskier
The engagement occurred when the attorney for SD/LB wanted to reach out one more time to see if a solution could be reached. This was an attempt to avoid litigation. He met with Alan Beetle; Alan proposed a route that crossed Laconia CC (private property and crossed across SD and village private property (and crossed through Outerbridge Drive). A source for Laconia CC indicated that they would not allow the trail on their private property (either).
The proposal from Baygo and SD is to route up Elm Street and across Rt 106. The trail could either go down Severance Drive or continue about 1.2 miles on Rt 106 where it could directly cut into the state forest. There was an engineering study done a while back proposing this as the best route. If the WOW org wants a copy, it can be supplied.
Advantages:
+ Baygo has offered to provide land for a welcome center and parking.
+ Construction costs will be considerably cheaper than building along the frontage...no fence, no bridges etc...
+ The route uses public ROW along roads...no issues.
+ No issue connecting to the Weirs (connect via Hilliard Rd)...don't have to deal with the trestle underpass.
+ The trail would not be operating alongside an active railroad or contending with marinas or traffic crossing to the shore front.
+ The trail can be built even if Federal funding dries up (indications are that it probably will).
+ The environmental impact is minimized
In addition, it has been suggested that the Hobo railroad could be fitted with bike racks and connect segments without building along Paugus Bay (that was also rejected by the WOW Org.) Another viable option is to consider the trail from Severance Drive to the Weirs. This would make Tavern 27 an end point and the welcome center would be at the beginning of a trail segment.
SD/LB have reached out many times over a number of years to try to reach a viable solution that does not involve the frontage or crossing private property. The article miss-characterizes the history of the interaction.
Jetskier  |
While I, if living there would like this alternative, I always like to point out the hypocrisy of these bike trails.
All this conservation land that cant be developed because of some who knows frog or beetle or worm, or some wildlife, and also abutting conservation land and you can't do this or that or anything in general. Yet in my town they blaze a bike path/trail right down the middle of conservation land and marsh water area with a bridge 12 feet wide and winding in and right down the marsh area atleast 400 feet long with signs, covered areas and bump outs to sit and giant pilings right into the marsh and everything, just like this alternative would blast right into a forest.
Again I think the path in my area is fine in that area, but funny how someone couldn't put a shed on their own property within 15 feet of the conservation land you abut because some soft shelled spotted turtle lives somewhere on the other side of the marsh land and may visit and be scared by your shed