New Rail Trail Standish to Fryeburg Maine

[peakbagger]

The Maine governor approved conversion of the former Moutain Division railroad bed into a rail trail. The trail had been open for quite a few years from Sebago Lake Station (Standish to South Windham.

https://apnews.com/article/maine-rail-trail-bill-signed-6bab5b7f5c8d807870da633a6173c94f
The potentially most interesting part from South Windham to Bridge Street in Westbrook has been in the cusp of being converted from tracks to rail trail for years but as far as I know its still tracks. This section follows an almost undeveloped section of the Presumpscot River which recently was turned into "free" river with the removal of a dam in downtown Westbrook.

To date the section from the NH border to the Saco River crossing North Conway is grown in and definitely not passable. From the Saco to North Conway the tracks are still in but the right of way is clear.

 

[NHClimber]

Initially I was not a fan of the North Conway trail that just opened near the tracks from Wal-Mart to Cranmore. First it’s paved, which I thought might diminish the rural character of the area, and, second, rail trails tend to accumulate people and trash. But I have to say that it looks like they did a decent job with it and the trail is getting use by not only families with a myriad of kids roaming somewhat uncontrolled on bikes (as kids will do) but a lot older people and people with disabilities. I have seen how happy everyone is to be able to get out and enjoy a trail that is flat and easy to walk on (the trail shares the entry point to the Pudding Pond/Peaked Mt mountain bike and hiking trails off Thompson Road). Plus other activities such as roller blading and roller skate skiers have a place to go. So I’m more supportive of the initiative now even though there have been a lot more crowds, and parking on Thompson Rd is extremely limited - better to access from Cranmore, which has a large lot. I’ve always wondered if NH would try to build a rail trail over to the Maine welcome center on 302, which is where a short segment of rail trail exists in Fryeburg that terminates right before the entrance road to the airport. The rail from Redstone to the Maine visitor center is the snowmobile corridor. I’ve wondered how they’d handle the Saco crossing over the rail bridge - probably would need to build large safety rails. Note that the Fryeburg section does not disrupt the rails, which have been left in place. Wonder if the new Maine sections will do the same or lift the rails.

 

[Andrew]

I was hoping the rails would stay in place on this project, but the article does not specify. Earlier stories had put that as a possibility although difficult in many sections. Would be nice to ride a bike to Portland some day from mid- northern NH, would be nice to ride a train also.

 

[peakbagger]

That has been the issue with the Westbrook to Windham section (and Guilford Transportation trying to squeeze out one last a buck off a dead rail line), Moneys were approved to rip out rails but an influential legislator in Windham insisted that the track remain with a segregated rail trail next to it. That increased the cost by a factor of 10 compared to a tear out. The reality is that the majority of the many bridges over the rivers are in major need of upgrade for rail traffic although still well suited for pedestrian traffic. In the background there was also a plan to build a huge wood pellet plant in Baldwin Maine that would have needed rail to ship the produc tto Portland Harbor, that project eventually died and the sawmill had just been sold to new owner who intends to keep it as a sawmill.

Guilford sold the railroad to new owners and that probably freed up the Guilford blackmail that despute not used the rail for decades they wanted to be bought out. The mill in Westbrook still used that spur line to bring in railcars but past the sput to the mill the mail line north to Conway is effectively abandoned.

The Sebago to the Sea trail intended to use the Westbrook to Windham track bed for its route but was forced onto River Road, a very dangerous commuter road with almost zero shoulders and poor sight lines that is major commuter route to Portland from the Windham area.

Part of the track was washed out in Hiram several years ago and I am not sure if it was ever repaired. A track car club had been used the section south of Fryeburg for runs but I think that was bootleg use.

I do agree that havng a biek option from Portand toe the Whites woudl be nice. E assist bikes are readilly available with 50 MPH range.

 

[Andrew]

Initially I was not a fan of the North Conway trail that just opened near the tracks from Wal-Mart to Cranmore. First it’s paved, which I thought might diminish the rural character of the area, and, second, rail trails tend to accumulate people and trash. But I have to say that it looks like they did a decent job with it and the trail is getting use by not only families with a myriad of kids roaming somewhat uncontrolled on bikes (as kids will do) but a lot older people and people with disabilities. I have seen how happy everyone is to be able to get out and enjoy a trail that is flat and easy to walk on (the trail shares the entry point to the Pudding Pond/Peaked Mt mountain bike and hiking trails off Thompson Road). Plus other activities such as roller blading and roller skate skiers have a place to go. So I’m more supportive of the initiative now even though there have been a lot more crowds, and parking on Thompson Rd is extremely limited - better to access from Cranmore, which has a large lot. I’ve always wondered if NH would try to build a rail trail over to the Maine welcome center on 302, which is where a short segment of rail trail exists in Fryeburg that terminates right before the entrance road to the airport. The rail from Redstone to the Maine visitor center is the snowmobile corridor. I’ve wondered how they’d handle the Saco crossing over the rail bridge - probably would need to build large safety rails. Note that the Fryeburg section does not disrupt the rails, which have been left in place. Wonder if the new Maine sections will do the same or lift the rails.

We enjoyed the Beede Spur Rail Trail up in Newport VT yesterday, and at one point I wondered if a few of the people who appeared to have been long-time walkers on the trail, were happy to see all the new riders zipping along their trail. There was a project at Rhododendron State Park back in the early 1990's to hardpack pave the trails through the grove for accessibility. I was initially not a fan and thought it would ruin the experience, but in the end it did so much help people focus on the beauty of the grove and keep them on the trails to protect the resource, subsequently enhancing the overall experience.

This trail in Newport is the result of some obvious ability in trail and community planning by some capable folks. We parked at the hospital so we could ride on the rail grade along the lake for 4 miles to the Canadian Border and return. Then proceed the opposite direction 2 miles into town on the Newport Bike Path, which was an excellent, clearly marked corridor into town with a section that passes through a conservation area, crosses a winding boardwalk bridge, and spits you out next to the Wendy's on the way downtown. The grades and surfaces on the trail sections are very well done with family cyclists in mind, and there are short sections on low traffic roads (steepest grades).

I had been thinking a lot as to why Vermont has done so well with it's rail trail development, and I think it has part to do with the state leadership recognizing them as alternative transportation corridors along with being recreational opportunities. And the best (developed and maintained) trails I see are those with VT state leadership and support behind them. What I saw happen with the Lamoille Valley Rail over just a short few years is just remarkable. Now I worked for NH Parks and the Trails Bureau for years and was in the middle of many issues regarding rail trail development and maintenance so have observed the realities. NH is just not willing to put direct investment into these trails without a trail group willing to take on leadership, and there is too much competing interest between the user groups as to appropriate use of the trails and investment towards improvements to be taken, and a lack of leadership by the state as to what is appropriate. The Presidential Rail Trail is a prime example, where you have a desperately needed recreational resource and a prime opportunity for a world-class trail; and you have the local state trail supervisor always responding to requests from local cyclist to improve the trail to be answered, 'well....you don't provide any money towards the trail...so screw.' This was/is the prevailing attitude all the time from the NH Trails Bureau, with them not recognizing this is not the non-motorized user groups fault. The laws/rules put in place back in the early development of the snowmobile trails and Trails Bureau are the reason all the funding goes into this particular state agency with the focus of their efforts only on motorized use of these trails. They did a good job by the way as I always used to see NH as a pioneer in securing and developing recreation use of the rail trail corridors (for snowmachine and subsequent other user access). But be rest assured, the personnel in the NH Trails Bureau except for one or 2 have always been actively hostile to non-motorized use and very turf protective towards motorized use of the trail corridors.

So basically what we get here in NH is the result of special interest groups applying for grants to grab money to get what they want out of a trail, and whatever the prevailing interest is on a trail section is what you will get on that section. I remember years ago the trails bureau supervisor expressing his frustration to me that he had to spend some of his time on managing a trail grant to improve the trail into Pondicherry for cyclists (add finer gravel). He told me he had not even been aware that the local non-profit group had applied for the grant without his knowledge, and he was frustrated to be dealing with a non-motorized issue, since the trail was not a problem when frozen. Another interesting example is the Ammonoosuc Rail Trail where somewhere along the line the atv groups secured funds to improve the trail from Haverhill to Littleton specific to developing that section for atv use, and that is the sole focus today in that trail section. The aforementioned supervisor way in the past had told me how he was trying real hard to get the atv project to dominate the trail all the way to Wing Rd. Bethlehem, but was hitting roadblocks. Now I was really surprised in the last 2 years when I heard that the Cross NH trail group had secured non-motorized grant funding to remove rails and improve the trail heading northeast out of Littleton, now with a restriction on motorized use (non-snow)??
This is all dis-jointed and whacky and lacks comprehensive leadership and is why I think we are not getting the regional trail corridors we deserve and some of us need.

 

[peakbagger]

My guess is Vermont has VAST (Vermont Assocation of Snow Travelers) that seems to be a far more organized statewide snowmachine group than the NH version which is a loose confederation of local clubs with far less voice. Rail Trails and snowmachine trails can and do go hand in hand and having two somewhat diverse groups working together on a state or regionwide basis is going to improve funding. On the other hand, as you have observed, there is no apparent state or regionwide coordination between rail trails and snowmachines in NH and Bureau of trails has become lap dogs to the ATV industry as ATVs bring in a bunch of funds and a lot of political pressure that is supprted by snowmobile interests. Unlike snowmachines and bike trails, ATVs do not go hand in hand with bike trails as ATVs by design tend to tear up the smooth trails that most bikers expect. Obviously bikes and ATVs occupy the trails at the same time of the year compared to snowmobile traffic. IMHO the sections of the Cross NH trail that are shared with ATVs are in general the most unpleasant sections to ride as the ATV traffic tends to pulverize the road base into a fine dust that no longer packs well and is prone to rutting and mud pits. The newer section of the Cross NH trail closed to ATVs in the Littleton area tends to literally be in people's backyards and while the impact of bike use during summer is probably manageable, adding ATVs to the mix could lead to issues like those that have occurred in Gorham along RT 2. I do not see bureau of trails becoming a willing participant until bikers pay "their fair share" somewhat akin to hikers "paying their fair share". I have witnessed the ongoing hostility of the ATV crowd to the closure of the majority of the Presidential Range Trail to ATVs and wonder how much longer it will stay that way. It is highly unlikely the National Wildlife refuge would ever be opened up to ATVs but my guess is Jefferson would not be opposed to alternative routing around the refuge.

I do wish that some group would get the funding to finish up ripping up the rails and rehabbing the road bed east of Littleton and connecting up to Whitefield but expect that the folks along the south shore of Burns Ponds may object to the reopening as it would bring traffic into the area.

 

[NHClimber]

Well, unfortunately, there always seems to be one user group that dominates. In MA, it is not the ATV crowd. MA has absolute disdain for ATVs and ORV use. Not sure how e-bikes fit in.

 

[peakbagger]

Level 1 pedal assist E bikes are allowed on most federal government bike paths. Level 2 and 3 (non pedal assist with a throttle and higher speeds) are treated as motor driven cycles and not allowed on federal and many recreational bike paths like the carriage roads at Acadia. No one is checking the ebikes on the Pondicherry wildlife refuge and I saw quite a few level 2 and 3 bikes on the trail through the refuge last year.

I think on commuter paths the throttle type e-bikes are pretty much the standard.

Ultimately its the Golden rule, he who has the gold makes the rules and ATVs and snowmachines have a dedicated funding mechanism.

 

[Mt Clinton Trail]

Initially I was not a fan of the North Conway trail that just opened near the tracks from Wal-Mart to Cranmore. First it’s paved, which I thought might diminish the rural character of the area, and, second, rail trails tend to accumulate people and trash. But I have to say that it looks like they did a decent job with it and the trail is getting use by not only families with a myriad of kids roaming somewhat uncontrolled on bikes (as kids will do) but a lot older people and people with disabilities. I have seen how happy everyone is to be able to get out and enjoy a trail that is flat and easy to walk on (the trail shares the entry point to the Pudding Pond/Peaked Mt mountain bike and hiking trails off Thompson Road). Plus other activities such as roller blading and roller skate skiers have a place to go. So I’m more supportive of the initiative now even though there have been a lot more crowds, and parking on Thompson Rd is extremely limited - better to access from Cranmore, which has a large lot. I’ve always wondered if NH would try to build a rail trail over to the Maine welcome center on 302, which is where a short segment of rail trail exists in Fryeburg that terminates right before the entrance road to the airport. The rail from Redstone to the Maine visitor center is the snowmobile corridor. I’ve wondered how they’d handle the Saco crossing over the rail bridge - probably would need to build large safety rails. Note that the Fryeburg section does not disrupt the rails, which have been left in place. Wonder if the new Maine sections will do the same or lift the rails.

Ditto, we took the grandkids for a ride on the North Conway trail, really enjoyed it, no cars to worry about, nice.

 

[Andrew]

Well, since I already drifted this thread west, and bashed the Trails Bureau in my last post; I should complement them with the latest news regarding the trail on the old White Mountains branch of the B&M RR. Reported in the Caledonian Record earlier this week (State Planning Next Leg Of Recreational Rail Trail Extension). The district supervisor and the chief of the NH Trails Bureau describe in a rather extensive article, their work with the Cross NH Trail group, to secure funding and arrange for the removal of rail, and resurfacing of the trail for the remaining 2.4 miles of trail between Littleton and Wing Rd. in Bethlehem. The work is expected to be completed by the late summer or fall of 2024. Additionally, the bureau reported they are putting in motion a plan to extend the trail to Whitefield, and then eventually on to the state line at Gilman VT, that's cool!
It looks certain that to Wing Rd, the trail will be non-motorized, but not sure about the other sections mentioned. I always thought there should be a non-motorized trail from Littleton to Whitefield where you could stop for ice cream, and then continue on into Pondicherry; but of course, my original inspiration was a tourist train to do just that (railfans are irrational). Funny thing was that when I first saw the article, they had an accompanying photo of and ATV ripping along a trail and the NH State Parks logo in the corner of the photo. I had to keep myself from being a d**k and commenting that it was an inappropriate photo for a non-motorized trail, but instead left a complimentary comment. Funny that when I look back to the article now, the photo is removed. The article also describes work by the Trails Bureau installing gates on the non-motorized sections of trail that were recently improved.
I happened to hear a few weeks ago on Vermont Edition a story about the development of the Lamoille Valley Rail Trail. It explains all the pieces that fell into place that made the trail happen so quickly. It starts at the 22 minute mark on the audio file in a broader story regarding cycling. How one Vermont organization adapts sports — like cycling — to everyone's abilities

 

[peakbagger]

I look forward to the section that runs long Burn Lake and get rid of the darn hill on RT 116 to be opened