Laserfiche WebLink
f <br /> Chairman Laurent responded that the UCRTS wished to maintain the rail connection. Mr. Jack <br /> stated his opinion that something that was in existence should not be taken away as it would be <br /> difficult to reinstate later. Mr. Jack emphasized his wish that the rail line be maintained, but a <br /> path beside the rail would be acceptable. Mr. Jack felt that there would be a future benefit to <br /> maintaining the rail. Mr. Cannon agreed and noted that they were pursuing the feasibility study <br /> only at this point and that they did not yet have funds to move the project forward. <br /> Mr. Tilton inquired about a former bike path study determined not to be feasible due to costs, <br /> and suggested that this path offered greater challenges. Mr. Tilton asked what had changed. Mr, <br /> Cannon responded that the study from the 90's had been placed on hold due to such issues as <br /> nitrogen loading and need for flushing. Mr. Cannon stated that the rail line was restricting many <br /> of the estuaries, reducing the flushing rate. <br /> Mr. Goddard pointed out that the path would be passing through two areas of critical <br /> environmental concern and inquired how a second path could be placed adjacent to the rail. Mr. <br /> Cannon responded that they were aware of the restrictions and that environmental impacts <br /> needed to be considered. Mr. Cannon responded that it was likely that the path would need to be <br /> rerouted to roadways in some areas. Mr. Goddard supported Mr. Jack's opinion not to give up <br /> the rail. <br /> Chairman Laurent expressed her wish to maintain the rail and inquired about the possibility of <br /> funding, possibly through wastewater funding sources. Mr. Cannon responded that they were <br /> always seeking funding from outside sources. Mr. Cannon reported that once the study was <br /> complete, Representative Vieira would move the project forward if there was support, adding <br /> that the Department of Conservation & Recreation has offered their willingness to take over the <br /> proj ect. <br /> Regarding funding, Mr. Jack expressed concern about diverting funds needed for other <br /> transportation projects. W. Segura referenced the UCRTS initiative as well as funds to be <br /> expended for the maintenance and improvement of the rail and questioned the amount of funds <br /> to be spent to improve the rail versus removing the rail. Mr. Cannon suggested the possibility <br /> that as part of improving the rail, a bike path could be installed adjacent to the rail. The Chair <br /> confirmed that MassDOT had already committed funds to improve'the rail and Mr. Cannon <br /> agreed that they would need to have a discussion regarding the status of the rail. Mr. Jack again <br /> emphasized his preference that the rail line be maintained. Mr. Cannon responded that it was <br /> clear that there was interest from the Board to maintain the rail, adding that he would not want to <br /> move forward a project that would not be supported, Mr. Goddard requested that Mr. Cannon <br /> keep the Board up to date with the feasibility report. <br /> Mr. Cavossa suggested an alternate route that would avoid some of the environmental challenges <br /> and expense. Mr. Cannon responded that the scope of work had focused on a path extension for <br /> the Shining Sea Bike path. <br /> 2 <br />