 |
| Rail with Trail in Ohio’s Cuyahoga Valley south of Cleveland, with a wooden fence. Credit: Anthony Cherolis / CT News Junkie |
The watershed has some breath taking views of the river and hills, and many sports and outdoor activities that are supported by the Silvio O. Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge, the Connecticut River Conservancy and state agencies. Non vehicular access should be better. In some spots along the valley US Route 5, Interstate I-91, and the rail line are a tight fit between the river and a ridge, and while improved Route 5 road shoulders are a must for many reasons for all users, there are also scenic sections and town centers where moving the CRVT to an adjacent path that is parallel to Route 5 could be a big plus.
The Connecticut River Valley Trail will cross rail tracks or possibly run along them (Rail with Trail), or could also use a utility corridor for some segments. The design of Rail with Trail is pretty well understood - think of urban subway tracks in most cities, or even higher speed rail in many cities - that are often only a few feet away from buildings and roads. Rules exist for separation by distance or barrier, but billions of people live close to rail daily. The rail lines from Brattleboro to St. Johnsbury are mostly owned by the State of Vermont, and leased to New England Central Railroad (NECR, a subsidiary of Genesee & Wyoming) and also the Amtrak Vermonter to the south, and Washington County Railroad (WACR, part of Vermont Rail System) to the north. There is a liability concern for these companies and this is where Vermont Bill S,261 would play a part.
Vermonters have long enjoyed the open access to trails, unused roads, swimming holes, streams, and general walking around in the woods that has been provided by Title 12 V.S.A. § 5792 "Limitations on Landowner Liability". Bill S.261 would add this line to the entities that are protected:
"railroad property, railroad rights-of-way, and utility corridors to which public access is permitted"
These are lower traffic tracks, and a dual use of the Right of Way could be considered a higher use in one aspect over a plain Rail Trail because the tracks are still being used. Depending on the routes that individual towns choose, S.261 could help put together a better Connecticut River Valley Trail. We are already seeing this idea being talked about with the reopening of the Vermont Rail System line in Gilman, VT. (Gilman grapples with its identity as rail is poised to return - Seven Days), and this idea also applies to routes along the west side of Vermont. Connecticut has already approved limiting liability in 2022 legislation for tracks which often have more traffic and are in denser areas than our situation - Op-ed: Rail With Trail In Connecticut, Long Overdue (this article has some good examples pictured to give you an idea of what Rail with Trail looks like).
Maine and Massachusetts have also passed Rail with Trail legislation, often with help from railroad and utility executives (Rails with Trails legislation in Maine and Massachusetts), and former president and chief operating officer of Genesee & Wyoming Charles “Charlie” Marshall was instrumental in expanding Rails to Trails Conservancy work to encompass Rail with Trail (Retirement of RTC board Chair Charles Marshall).
At the end of this year's legislative session Bill S.261 has been referred to the Judiciary Committee. Testimony in support of S.261 has been submitted by Craig Della Pena (a realtor and small business owner who has been a prominent supporter of the Massachusetts Central Rail Trail), Representative Martine Larocque Gulick, and in person by Rick Sharp (one of the founders of the Burlington Waterfront Path). The Vermont Sierra Club chapter has also sent in a letter of support. However when the legislature takes this Bill back up during next session it could use more support to help us close the gaps in our trail networks.
contributed by Karl Kemnitzer
