Go Back   Winnipesaukee Forum > Winnipesaukee Forums > General Discussion
Home Forums Gallery YouTube Channel Classifieds Links Blogs Calendar Register FAQDonate Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-08-2017, 09:42 AM   #101
AC2717
Senior Member
 
AC2717's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Maynard, MA & Paugus Bay
Posts: 1,898
Default

I just wanted to be the 100th post on this thread
__________________
Capt. of the "No Worries"
AC2717 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-08-2017, 09:53 AM   #102
upthesaukee
Senior Member
 
upthesaukee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Alton Bay
Posts: 4,226
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AC2717 View Post
I just wanted to be the 100th post on this thread
"Joey" won that distinction, but you did win the prize for being the 100th reply! No idea way the prize is, but you won it. 😁

Sent from my SM-G930V using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app
__________________
I Live Here... I am always UPTHESAUKEE !!!!
upthesaukee is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-08-2017, 10:05 AM   #103
AC2717
Senior Member
 
AC2717's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Maynard, MA & Paugus Bay
Posts: 1,898
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by upthesaukee View Post
"Joey" won that distinction, but you did win the prize for being the 100th reply! No idea way the prize is, but you won it. 😁

Sent from my SM-G930V using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app
you are right, dam it, I used the wrong word,
I just wanted to be the 100th reply lol
__________________
Capt. of the "No Worries"
AC2717 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2017, 02:04 PM   #104
baygo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 298
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redbarn View Post
They should allow golf carts on the trail, might sway some opinion, being able to drive from south down the weirs to Meredith on a cart sounds like fun. Kind of shrink the community's and tie them together. Just a thought.
I own and operate a restaurant that abuts the SD/LB community. My first summer the residents were coming by way of golf cart. Word of this spread by way of many channels and created additional interest in owning a home there. I'm approved by the city to offer groceries as well. Just as I was about to per sue that someone decided to start putting obstacles in the way of the golf carts. I dropped my interest in groceries.

I wouldn't be surprised by it if the trail gets built and bikers encounter big rocks placed on the trail. I think the trail organizers seriously need to consider this in their maintenance and upkeep projections.
baygo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2017, 04:02 PM   #105
jeffk
Senior Member
 
jeffk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Center Harbor
Posts: 714
Default

I would think this is not just a maintenance issue. If someone was injured due to people deliberately placing rocks on the WOW trail it could become a criminal issue.
jeffk is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 06-10-2017, 01:25 AM   #106
baygo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 298
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffk View Post
I would think this is not just a maintenance issue. If someone was injured due to people deliberately placing rocks on the WOW trail it could become a criminal issue.

You are absolutely right, terrible things could come from, and easily be classified criminal from, some maliciously placed boulders. A reality is: how do you catch the culprit? Yes people could get hurt and a lot of money would be wasted on removing the boulders in the interim.

In a previous post I mention a potential alternative of bringing the trail down Elm Street to Parade Road and up to Severance Rd, then down to the tracks on what I referred to as the snowmobile trail through the state forest. That post was apposed by two seemingly legitimate views. The first states that the state would be foolish to allow easement. I've since remembered that the snowmobile trail I referenced is actually a class 6 Town Rd. I would hope that is something to work with. The second states that the WOW trail federal funding only applies to construction on the rail road track. To this I encourage we take a closer look and get creative for another source of funding for an alternate portion of the trail.

A large percentage of the alternate trail I propose is already paved therefore there would not be as significant of an expenditure to create a rideable surface. If the calculation turns out that the expense to connect Severance back to the tracks is more than what is saved with the alternate route pre-paved surface, and the trail organizers find a shortfall from the government funding, I have this solution. Work out a deal with us to create the WOW Welcome Center on the corner of Severance and Parade. We have the land and I'm certain that if Alan Beetle and I sat down at a table and talked about it, we could come up with a strategy that gave this WOW welcome center a foundation for profit through food and beverage. Those profits or a potion of, can be dedicated to the trail to offset the expense.

Please understand that to help make this happen, we would likely lose some of our realestate. I would hope that in appreciation of said sacrifice the SD/LB community would find a permanent way for golf cart access to The Mystic Meadows.

There we have it. The trail gets built, SD/LB don't have to deal with a fence and other concerns. Trail riders have a great welcome center and nobody crashes into a boulder.
baygo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2017, 05:43 AM   #107
joey2665
Senior Member
 
joey2665's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Meredith Bay & LI, NY
Posts: 369
Default

Baygo that is an excellent viable solution and everyone wins in the end. I would think all parties would consider this alternative instead of wasting time in court and money on attorneys


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app
joey2665 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2017, 06:45 AM   #108
thinkxingu
Senior Member
 
thinkxingu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 1,294
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by baygo View Post
You are absolutely right, terrible things could come from, and easily be classified criminal from, some maliciously placed boulders. A reality is: how do you catch the culprit? Yes people could get hurt and a lot of money would be wasted on removing the boulders in the interim.

In a previous post I mention a potential alternative of bringing the trail down Elm Street to Parade Road and up to Severance Rd, then down to the tracks on what I referred to as the snowmobile trail through the state forest. That post was apposed by two seemingly legitimate views. The first states that the state would be foolish to allow easement. I've since remembered that the snowmobile trail I referenced is actually a class 6 Town Rd. I would hope that is something to work with. The second states that the WOW trail federal funding only applies to construction on the rail road track. To this I encourage we take a closer look and get creative for another source of funding for an alternate portion of the trail.

A large percentage of the alternate trail I propose is already paved therefore there would not be as significant of an expenditure to create a rideable surface. If the calculation turns out that the expense to connect Severance back to the tracks is more than what is saved with the alternate route pre-paved surface, and the trail organizers find a shortfall from the government funding, I have this solution. Work out a deal with us to create the WOW Welcome Center on the corner of Severance and Parade. We have the land and I'm certain that if Alan Beetle and I sat down at a table and talked about it, we could come up with a strategy that gave this WOW welcome center a foundation for profit through food and beverage. Those profits or a potion of, can be dedicated to the trail to offset the expense.

Please understand that to help make this happen, we would likely lose some of our realestate. I would hope that in appreciation of said sacrifice the SD/LB community would find a permanent way for golf cart access to The Mystic Meadows.

There we have it. The trail gets built, SD/LB don't have to deal with a fence and other concerns. Trail riders have a great welcome center and nobody crashes into a boulder.
I'm not totally familiar with the routes proposed, but this sounds as if anyone who doesn't want the path near them just needs to threaten a lawsuit and come up with another option. Isn't the point of the path to be along the lake?

Sent from my XT1528 using Tapatalk
thinkxingu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2017, 06:47 AM   #109
jeffk
Senior Member
 
jeffk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Center Harbor
Posts: 714
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by baygo View Post
You are absolutely right, terrible things could come from, and easily be classified criminal from, some maliciously placed boulders. A reality is: how do you catch the culprit? Yes people could get hurt and a lot of money would be wasted on removing the boulders in the interim.

In a previous post I mention a potential alternative of bringing the trail down Elm Street to Parade Road and up to Severance Rd, then down to the tracks on what I referred to as the snowmobile trail through the state forest. That post was apposed by two seemingly legitimate views. The first states that the state would be foolish to allow easement. I've since remembered that the snowmobile trail I referenced is actually a class 6 Town Rd. I would hope that is something to work with. The second states that the WOW trail federal funding only applies to construction on the rail road track. To this I encourage we take a closer look and get creative for another source of funding for an alternate portion of the trail.

A large percentage of the alternate trail I propose is already paved therefore there would not be as significant of an expenditure to create a rideable surface. If the calculation turns out that the expense to connect Severance back to the tracks is more than what is saved with the alternate route pre-paved surface, and the trail organizers find a shortfall from the government funding, I have this solution. Work out a deal with us to create the WOW Welcome Center on the corner of Severance and Parade. We have the land and I'm certain that if Alan Beetle and I sat down at a table and talked about it, we could come up with a strategy that gave this WOW welcome center a foundation for profit through food and beverage. Those profits or a potion of, can be dedicated to the trail to offset the expense.

Please understand that to help make this happen, we would likely lose some of our realestate. I would hope that in appreciation of said sacrifice the SD/LB community would find a permanent way for golf cart access to The Mystic Meadows.

There we have it. The trail gets built, SD/LB don't have to deal with a fence and other concerns. Trail riders have a great welcome center and nobody crashes into a boulder.
WOW! (no pun intended) So the way to avoid your terrorist boulder placers is to adopt your plan? Moving boulders isn't a casual effort and should be detectable. How about we make every effort to find out who they are and throw them in jail and put their mugs on posters along the trail. "Look out for and report these thugs!".

To be clear, I really don't care if an alternative trail route is decided on. If all are happy about it, great. I applaud offering this alternative solution.

I REALLY DON'T like making decisions based on veiled threats and intimidation. Court fights are one thing. That is how society works out it's differences. Threatened boulders in the trail are a whole different thing. It's like walking into a discussion with a blatantly obvious weapon with the clear intention of intimidating the other people in the room. Cowering before criminals is NOT a good plan to deal with the situation. Talk about a WRONG message.
jeffk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2017, 10:07 AM   #110
jetskier
Senior Member
 
jetskier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: North Reading, MA and South Down Shores
Posts: 732
Post A few facts

Hi all,

Generally, I prefer to stay out of the discussion, but I thought it prudent to supply a few facts.
  • I laud baygo's offer to broker a solution.
  • Multiple alternative routes (including the one supported by baygo) have been suggested to the WOW Org by SD/LB. This includes the route that baygo has suggested. The reticence to negotiate an alternative is certainly not on the part of SD/LB. I would encourage baygo to meet with Alan and Gretchen to provide his views. That would be helpful and his offer is generous.
  • The litigation is not something that SD/LB wanted to initiate. There have been many attempts to reach an alternative route with the WOW Org. This was an action of last resort and not a punitive response.
  • The land that connects SD/LB with baygo is privately owned. SD/LB have no say as to whether golf carts are or are not allowed. Perhaps baygo could meet with the owners and work something out.

Jetskier
jetskier is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2017, 11:24 AM   #111
joey2665
Senior Member
 
joey2665's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Meredith Bay & LI, NY
Posts: 369
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jetskier View Post
Hi all,

Generally, I prefer to stay out of the discussion, but I thought it prudent to supply a few facts.
  • I laud baygo's offer to broker a solution.
  • Multiple alternative routes (including the one supported by baygo) have been suggested to the WOW Org by SD/LB. This includes the route that baygo has suggested. The reticence to negotiate an alternative is certainly not on the part of SD/LB. I would encourage baygo to meet with Alan and Gretchen to provide his views. That would be helpful and his offer is generous.
  • The litigation is not something that SD/LB wanted to initiate. There have been many attempts to reach an alternative route with the WOW Org. This was an action of last resort and not a punitive response.
  • The land that connects SD/LB with baygo is privately owned. SD/LB have no say as to whether golf carts are or are not allowed. Perhaps baygo could meet with the owners and work something out.

Jetskier
Thank you Jetskier very informative.
joey2665 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2017, 11:54 AM   #112
baygo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 298
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jetskier View Post
The land that connects SD/LB with baygo is privately owned. SD/LB have no say as to whether golf carts are or are not allowed. Perhaps baygo could meet with the owners and work something out.


Jetskier
Thank you. You may not chime in often but when you do, it's valued.

The exterior borders of the property that you state is privetly owned has a 6 foot
communal border defined by a strip of grass that is cut by SD maintenance. Just enough for a cart trail.
baygo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2017, 07:12 PM   #113
baygo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 298
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffk View Post
WOW! (no pun intended) So the way to avoid your terrorist boulder placers is to adopt your plan? Moving boulders isn't a casual effort and should be detectable. How about we make every effort to find out who they are and throw them in jail and put their mugs on posters along the trail. "Look out for and report these thugs!".

To be clear, I really don't care if an alternative trail route is decided on. If all are happy about it, great. I applaud offering this alternative solution.

I REALLY DON'T like making decisions based on veiled threats and intimidation. Court fights are one thing. That is how society works out it's differences. Threatened boulders in the trail are a whole different thing. It's like walking into a discussion with a blatantly obvious weapon with the clear intention of intimidating the other people in the room. Cowering before criminals is NOT a good plan to deal with the situation. Talk about a WRONG message.
They are not my " terrorist boulder placers" nor am I insinuating any threat by me. There are close to 2,000 people living in SD/LB and it's a law of averages that there's at least one who would be very bitter if a lot of money was lost in a court battle and then the trail infringes (in his or her mind) on his life. Perhaps it's not boulders, perhaps he or she kept removing the fence. I really don't think it's realistic to rely on a neighbor notifying law enforcement that someone took down the fence that the neighbor didn't like in the first place.

This issue is just too confrontational and will cost/waste way too much money if it stays on its current course.
baygo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2017, 07:27 PM   #114
baygo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 298
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffk View Post
WOW! (no pun intended) So the way to avoid your terrorist boulder placers is to adopt your plan? Moving boulders isn't a casual effort and should be detectable. How about we make every effort to find out who they are and throw them in jail and put their mugs on posters along the trail. "Look out for and report these thugs!".

To be clear, I really don't care if an alternative trail route is decided on. If all are happy about it, great. I applaud offering this alternative solution.

I REALLY DON'T like making decisions based on veiled threats and intimidation. Court fights are one thing. That is how society works out it's differences. Threatened boulders in the trail are a whole different thing. It's like walking into a discussion with a blatantly obvious weapon with the clear intention of intimidating the other people in the room. Cowering before criminals is NOT a good plan to deal with the situation. Talk about a WRONG message.
They are not my " terrorist boulder placers" nor am I insinuating any threat by me. There are close to 2,000 people living in SD/LB and it's a law of averages that there's at least one who would be very bitter if a lot of money was lost in a court battle and then the trail infringes (in his or her mind) on their life. Perhaps it's not boulders, perhaps he or she kept removing the fence. I really don't think it's realistic to rely on a neighbor notifying law enforcement that someone took down the fence that the neighbor didn't like in the first place.

This issue is just too confrontational and will cost/waste way too much money if it stays on its current course. I wonder what would happen if we total up the money being conceited for legal cost and instead marked it to fund an alternative
baygo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2017, 09:32 PM   #115
Red apple
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Laconia
Posts: 65
Default

While I think some of the ideas to "go around" SDS/LB are great and even could work from the research I did the rails to trails fund must be on railroad tracks. So even if they would consider it would have to be self funded. I lived in SDS for four years and was on the board. At the time I left the stance was to fight it at whatever cost but as I read through this I see a spilt stance on the homeowners. Someone in SDS should do what's needed to put a vote together on the yearly meeting coming up so all the homeowners can vote to on what to do and if needed how much money to spend. Just my 2 cents and that about all it's worth.


Sent from my iPad using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app
Red apple is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2017, 05:47 PM   #116
Outdoorsman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 311
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by baygo View Post
They are not my " terrorist boulder placers" nor am I insinuating any threat by me. There are close to 2,000 people living in SD/LB and it's a law of averages that there's at least one who would be very bitter if a lot of money was lost in a court battle and then the trail infringes (in his or her mind) on his life. Perhaps it's not boulders, perhaps he or she kept removing the fence. I really don't think it's realistic to rely on a neighbor notifying law enforcement that someone took down the fence that the neighbor didn't like in the first place.

This issue is just too confrontational and will cost/waste way too much money if it stays on its current course.
Game Cam's or Trail Cam's are not expensive at all. Even LE uses them in certain situations. Especially Fish and Game. So let him or her continue. No need for a neighbor to notify law enforcement.
Outdoorsman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2017, 12:01 PM   #117
joey2665
Senior Member
 
joey2665's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Meredith Bay & LI, NY
Posts: 369
Default South Down/Long Bay (Offical WOW Trail Position)

"South Down and Long Bay position regarding the construction of the WOW Trail along the railroad right of way. In order to present a more factual representation we have created an informational website":

www.notthroughsdlb.com

Please note that this is their official stance on the Trail. I myself (a 10 year owner in SD then LB) do not agree with their position. Honestly whether you want the trail for various reasons or not, this site is complete propaganda. Crime and safety are and issue with out without the trail. It is just as easy to walk down or along the tracks than it is if you have the trail, the RR, beach access and boat clubs obviously there already so in my opinion there is no new issues that the trail creates are the criminal activity was there before the trail.
joey2665 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2017, 12:08 PM   #118
Woodsy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Weirs Beach
Posts: 1,358
Default

WOW.... its almost factual!

SD/LB already have public access thru their private community. The RR ROW is a snowmobile corridor trail used by the public... snowmobilers, hikers, etc....

just more NIMBY


Woodsy
__________________
The only way to eliminate ignorant behavior is through education. You can't fix stupid.
Woodsy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2017, 02:58 PM   #119
Major
Senior Member
 
Major's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Laconia
Posts: 184
Default WOW Trail

Crime is only one aspect of SD/LB position. I disagree with Joey. The WOW trail will create a defined avenue of egress, especially for a person riding a bike at night. I think it would be difficult to ride a bike along the side of the track at night in its present condition.

I know people who work (or worked ) for the Laconia police department. As I've stated in prior posts, publicly, they take a favorable position to the WOW trail. (I don't know why, but as witnessed by this forum, it is not very PC to be against it!) Privately, my source states that it is a defined avenue of egress for crime committed in Laconia and it is an attractive nuisance for crime, especially when committed at night. The WOW trail makes policing difficult.

I wouldn't focus on the crime aspect of the position. The environmental impact is a concern. Also, liability is perhaps the biggest concern. As stated previously, the WOW trail organizers are lobbying to have the Hobo railroad shut down. The owners of SD/LB already pay for this liability for its residents; however, any such policy would not apply to users of the WOW trail. Who is going to pay for it.

One thing I learned today is that the City of Laconia paid $400,000 for Phase II. As a taxpayer and resident, I am disappointed to hear this. The money could have been spent on more worthwhile things, like teacher raises. Or perhaps, a refund to the taxpayers, heaven forbid! Based on this contribution, I wonder what the City's obligation will be for Phase III?
Major is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2017, 04:35 PM   #120
joey2665
Senior Member
 
joey2665's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Meredith Bay & LI, NY
Posts: 369
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Major View Post
Crime is only one aspect of SD/LB position. I disagree with Joey. The WOW trail will create a defined avenue of egress, especially for a person riding a bike at night. I think it would be difficult to ride a bike along the side of the track at night in its present condition.

I know people who work (or worked ) for the Laconia police department. As I've stated in prior posts, publicly, they take a favorable position to the WOW trail. (I don't know why, but as witnessed by this forum, it is not very PC to be against it!) Privately, my source states that it is a defined avenue of egress for crime committed in Laconia and it is an attractive nuisance for crime, especially when committed at night. The WOW trail makes policing difficult.

I wouldn't focus on the crime aspect of the position. The environmental impact is a concern. Also, liability is perhaps the biggest concern. As stated previously, the WOW trail organizers are lobbying to have the Hobo railroad shut down. The owners of SD/LB already pay for this liability for its residents; however, any such policy would not apply to users of the WOW trail. Who is going to pay for it.

One thing I learned today is that the City of Laconia paid $400,000 for Phase II. As a taxpayer and resident, I am disappointed to hear this. The money could have been spent on more worthwhile things, like teacher raises. Or perhaps, a refund to the taxpayers, heaven forbid! Based on this contribution, I wonder what the City's obligation will be for Phase III?
Ride a bike, walk ect doesn't matter. I do not think crime is an issue either way as stated my home in LB was broken into and the walked down the tracks at night. My opinion change when I actually experienced the current trail for myself and found it quite enjoyable, I am the last person to be "PC". I also do not think liability is and issue as it is not much different than the current liability situation.

Were I absolutely agree with "Major" is, I do not think that phase III should be place on the shoulders of the tax payers. Private sponsorship, federal funding and donations should be used if not then I do not think phase III should be completed.
joey2665 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2017, 07:01 PM   #121
Paugus
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Paugus Bay
Posts: 7
Unhappy Bike Path Required?

I saw this on the WOW Trail Facebook page last week. Anyone know more about this?

"This week's #throwbackthursday is brought to you by South Down Shores & Long Bay developer John Davidson and the City of Laconia Planning Board circa 1986. "Mr. deHaven questioned if the bike path was public. Davidson explained that by a condition of the Planning Board that a bicycle path was required."

https://www.facebook.com/WOWTrail/po...55337886832071
Paugus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2017, 11:12 AM   #122
jetskier
Senior Member
 
jetskier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: North Reading, MA and South Down Shores
Posts: 732
Post John Walker - Just what is 'community minded' & what is 'selfish'?

http://www.laconiadailysun.com/opini...hat-is-selfish

Jetskier
jetskier is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2017, 11:41 AM   #123
Seaplane Pilot
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 711
Default Here we go again...

Playing the "safety" card!
Seaplane Pilot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2017, 11:57 AM   #124
Major
Senior Member
 
Major's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Laconia
Posts: 184
Default WOW Trail

Quote:
Originally Posted by Seaplane Pilot View Post
Playing the "safety" card!
It's a legitimate concern. During busy times, the forklift travels over the railroad tracks 200+ times a day. If the WOW trail is built, who has the right of way at the intersection of the WOW trail and the boat launch? If the forklift does, how does he stop in time when a bicyclist or a runner blows through the stop sign. Who's liable? Will the insurance obtained by the WOW trail and/or SD/LB protect them from liability?
Major is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2017, 12:14 PM   #125
joey2665
Senior Member
 
joey2665's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Meredith Bay & LI, NY
Posts: 369
Default Safety Card

Quote:
Originally Posted by Seaplane Pilot View Post
Playing the "safety" card!

I agree the safety card is just a smoke screen. The forklift, people and the train manage to get around the SDBC everyday including the extremely busy holiday weekends without issue I have had my boat there for 10 years
joey2665 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2017, 12:26 PM   #126
brk-lnt
Senior Member
 
brk-lnt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: South Down Shores
Posts: 1,709
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by joey2665 View Post
I agree the safety card is just a smoke screen. The forklift, people and the train manage to get around the SDBC everyday including the extremely busy holiday weekends without issue I have had my boat there for 10 years
The train is slow moving and very easy to see approaching. The people around the area on busy weekend also tend to be familiar with the marina, tracks, etc., and have a certain degree of situational awareness. If you build a trail that encourages people not familiar with the environment to pass through you statistically increase the risk of incidents due to decreased situational awareness. It is basically the same as the "out of town driver" problem in busy cities.
__________________
[insert witty phrase here]
brk-lnt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2017, 12:31 PM   #127
Paugus
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Paugus Bay
Posts: 7
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brk-lnt View Post
The train is slow moving and very easy to see approaching. The people around the area on busy weekend also tend to be familiar with the marina, tracks, etc., and have a certain degree of situational awareness. If you build a trail that encourages people not familiar with the environment to pass through you statistically increase the risk of incidents due to decreased situational awareness. It is basically the same as the "out of town driver" problem in busy cities.
Would this apply? https://www.nhstateparks.org/about-u...-statutes.aspx
Paugus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2017, 12:59 PM   #128
joey2665
Senior Member
 
joey2665's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Meredith Bay & LI, NY
Posts: 369
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brk-lnt View Post
The train is slow moving and very easy to see approaching. The people around the area on busy weekend also tend to be familiar with the marina, tracks, etc., and have a certain degree of situational awareness. If you build a trail that encourages people not familiar with the environment to pass through you statistically increase the risk of incidents due to decreased situational awareness. It is basically the same as the "out of town driver" problem in busy cities.
I completely disagree, people are not morons and many out the "out of towners" are used to running, jogging, biking ect of much busier city streets. The lift, much like the train is also slow moving.

There are other battles to fight if you do not want the trail, such (and most importantly that would effect the everyone in Laconia) is where the funding is coming from that are much more legitimate arguments. Which I am completely on board with, if funds are coming from the city directly or via higher property tax I am completely against it.
joey2665 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2017, 05:11 PM   #129
Seaplane Pilot
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 711
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Major View Post
It's a legitimate concern. During busy times, the forklift travels over the railroad tracks 200+ times a day. If the WOW trail is built, who has the right of way at the intersection of the WOW trail and the boat launch? If the forklift does, how does he stop in time when a bicyclist or a runner blows through the stop sign. Who's liable? Will the insurance obtained by the WOW trail and/or SD/LB protect them from liability?
Ok, so the WOW trail can build a pedestrian bridge across the ROW that the forklift uses. In fact, South Down should pay 1/2 of this cost (in my opinion). Problem solved.
Seaplane Pilot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2017, 06:13 PM   #130
Major
Senior Member
 
Major's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Laconia
Posts: 184
Default Forklift

Quote:
Originally Posted by Seaplane Pilot View Post
Ok, so the WOW trail can build a pedestrian bridge across the ROW that the forklift uses. In fact, South Down should pay 1/2 of this cost (in my opinion). Problem solved.
It would have to be quite a pedestrian walkway! Have you seen the forklift used to lift boats up to 26' long? The walkway would have to have a clearance of 15' or more. Anyway, the cost of such a walkway would be trivial compared to the engineering and construction costs involved in the areas near Lakeport Landing, Pickerel Cove, Perch Cove and the Weirs Beach bridge. I bet each section with be $1,000,000 or more.
Major is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2017, 08:46 PM   #131
jetskier
Senior Member
 
jetskier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: North Reading, MA and South Down Shores
Posts: 732
Default Bridges are Very Expensive

Quote:
Originally Posted by Major View Post
It would have to be quite a pedestrian walkway! Have you seen the forklift used to lift boats up to 26' long? The walkway would have to have a clearance of 15' or more. Anyway, the cost of such a walkway would be trivial compared to the engineering and construction costs involved in the areas near Lakeport Landing, Pickerel Cove, Perch Cove and the Weirs Beach bridge. I bet each section with be $1,000,000 or more.
Some of the requisite bridges will be as much as 1,000 ft long (ex: Chattel cove). If the bridge is 12' wide (to support a 10' trail and guard rails), then the overall square footage is 12,000 square feet. The cost range for this type of bridge is $150 to $250 per square foot. Therefore it would cost north of about $2M for that bridge alone. Pickerel Cove will require about an 800' bridge so something north of $1.4M. Just saying...

Jetskier
jetskier is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2017, 08:28 AM   #132
BroadHopper
Senior Member
 
BroadHopper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Laconia NH / Breckenridge CO
Posts: 4,464
Default Severance Rd to Hilliard Rd.

That's a new one! SB/LB is all for the Parade Road to Hilliard Rd route, which comprise of a steep hill that most people would think twice about. The Severance Road cut will be a must nicer proposal if the SB/LB will accept it. I bet because Severance Road cuts through their 'back yard', they may not approve it.

The problem is federal and state grants. They are set up for approval along existing or old RR beds. Where is the money going to come from if they change the route?

Also I believe Class 6 roads are privately owned and may require easements from current deeds. This brings up the Durrell Mountain Road and Hoadley Road fiaso. located on the Gilford and Belmont Line. Both roads are Class 6 and used by 4X4 and ATV for years. After a lengthy battle the court agrees the roads transferred to abutting landowners by some statute of limitation and were declared private properties. Hoadley Road is closed. Durrell Mountain is closed to motorized vehicles except snowmobiles.

The Severance Road proposal is a good one, but it looks like it faced a lot of obstacles.
__________________
Someday may never be an actual day.
BroadHopper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2017, 01:50 PM   #133
baygo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 298
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroadHopper View Post
That's a new one! SB/LB is all for the Parade Road to Hilliard Rd route, which comprise of a steep hill that most people would think twice about. The Severance Road cut will be a must nicer proposal if the SB/LB will accept it. I bet because Severance Road cuts through their 'back yard', they may not approve it.

The problem is federal and state grants. They are set up for approval along existing or old RR beds. Where is the money going to come from if they change the route?

Also I believe Class 6 roads are privately owned and may require easements from current deeds. This brings up the Durrell Mountain Road and Hoadley Road fiaso. located on the Gilford and Belmont Line. Both roads are Class 6 and used by 4X4 and ATV for years. After a lengthy battle the court agrees the roads transferred to abutting landowners by some statute of limitation and were declared private properties. Hoadley Road is closed. Durrell Mountain is closed to motorized vehicles except snowmobiles.

The Severance Road proposal is a good one, but it looks like it faced a lot of obstacles.
This seems to be some pretty good feedback. Not certain what all the obstacles would be but I sense nothing is insurmountable.

I recently looked at the WOW trail map and one thing I notice is that parking could become a serious problem for the downtown. Assuming the trial is a huge success it may not be far-fetched to assume 500 cars could converge on the downtown and be left parking for four or five hours while people are riding on the trail. That could really create a huge economic downturn in for the downtown. A WOW trail welcome center on Severance could help with such a problem. In the event that the demand for parking exceeded what could be made available near severance there is the additional parking option of Robbie mills Field and Elm Street school.

The welcome center could be operated for profit to benefit the trail and offset the loss of federal funding for the portion that isn't along the tracks.
baygo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2017, 02:06 PM   #134
jetskier
Senior Member
 
jetskier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: North Reading, MA and South Down Shores
Posts: 732
Post It would be much cheaper though

Quote:
Originally Posted by baygo View Post
This seems to be some pretty good feedback. Not certain what all the obstacles would be but I sense nothing is insurmountable.

I recently looked at the WOW trail map and one thing I notice is that parking could become a serious problem for the downtown. Assuming the trial is a huge success it may not be far-fetched to assume 500 cars could converge on the downtown and be left parking for four or five hours while people are riding on the trail. That could really create a huge economic downturn in for the downtown. A WOW trail welcome center on Severance could help with such a problem. In the event that the demand for parking exceeded what could be made available near severance there is the additional parking option of Robbie mills Field and Elm Street school.

The welcome center could be operated for profit to benefit the trail and offset the loss of federal funding for the portion that isn't along the tracks.
Baygo - of merit is the fact that the construction of the trail along this proposed route will be much cheaper than along the shore front. It will not involve building bridges or (potentially) dealing with the trestle underpass at the Weirs. In addition, there will be no need for fences or exorbitant insurance
which we know is also of issue.

Jetskier
jetskier is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2017, 02:52 PM   #135
Outdoorsman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 311
Default

Quote:
During the summer, the South Down Boat Club is a very busy, and a potentially dangerous operation.
Someone needs to contact OSHA about this immediate and imminent threat to public safety!
Outdoorsman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2017, 02:59 PM   #136
Outdoorsman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 311
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brk-lnt View Post
The train is slow moving and very easy to see approaching. The people around the area on busy weekend also tend to be familiar with the marina, tracks, etc., and have a certain degree of situational awareness. If you build a trail that encourages people not familiar with the environment to pass through you statistically increase the risk of incidents due to decreased situational awareness. It is basically the same as the "out of town driver" problem in busy cities.
Another reason to have OSHA visit the SD Boat Club. It sounds like a very dangerous operation for the residents of SD/LB. I would be willing to bet that situational awareness is an insufficient reason to operate the way it was described in the LDS letter.

This is a public safety concern after-all.
Outdoorsman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2017, 03:02 PM   #137
joey2665
Senior Member
 
joey2665's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Meredith Bay & LI, NY
Posts: 369
Default LB and SD HOA

Quote:
Originally Posted by joey2665 View Post
"South Down and Long Bay position regarding the construction of the WOW Trail along the railroad right of way. In order to present a more factual representation we have created an informational website":

www.notthroughsdlb.com

Please note that this is their official stance on the Trail. I myself (a 10 year owner in SD then LB) do not agree with their position. Honestly whether you want the trail for various reasons or not, this site is complete propaganda. Crime and safety are and issue with out without the trail. It is just as easy to walk down or along the tracks than it is if you have the trail, the RR, beach access and boat clubs obviously there already so in my opinion there is no new issues that the trail creates are the criminal activity was there before the trail.
Reprimanded by LBHOA for posting this link on the Winnipesaukee site. Guess I am not allow to have a different opinion from them. Thanks Jetskier!

Oh Well!!!!
joey2665 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2017, 04:39 PM   #138
Just Sold
Senior Member
 
Just Sold's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Derry, NH, but at The Lake at Heart
Posts: 2,579
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by joey2665 View Post
Reprimanded by LBHOA for posting this link on the Winnipesaukee site. Guess I am not allow to have a different opinion from them. Thanks Jetskier!

Oh Well!!!!
Their web site domain is public and it is a free country to post it. Although they can restrict access to their site and to what the general public can see.
__________________
Just Sold
At the lake the stress of daily life just melts away. Pro Re Nata
Just Sold is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2017, 04:59 PM   #139
joey2665
Senior Member
 
joey2665's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Meredith Bay & LI, NY
Posts: 369
Default Implied

Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Sold View Post
Their web site domain is public and it is a free country to post it. Although they can restrict access to their site and to what the general public can see.
I was told via e mail that the confidentiality is "implied".


I am sure if I agreed 100% with their position it would not have become an issue.
joey2665 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2017, 08:39 AM   #140
Winopt
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 95
Default

Why does the WOW trail have to be seasonal? It would make a great snowmobile trail as well.
Winopt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2017, 08:48 AM   #141
BroadHopper
Senior Member
 
BroadHopper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Laconia NH / Breckenridge CO
Posts: 4,464
Default SD/LB Preservation?

If they want to preserve the land, why are they building on the land? They should leave it alone and let nature do her thing! Preservation my butt!
__________________
Someday may never be an actual day.
BroadHopper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2017, 10:12 AM   #142
brk-lnt
Senior Member
 
brk-lnt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: South Down Shores
Posts: 1,709
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Outdoorsman View Post
Another reason to have OSHA visit the SD Boat Club. It sounds like a very dangerous operation for the residents of SD/LB. I would be willing to bet that situational awareness is an insufficient reason to operate the way it was described in the LDS letter.

This is a public safety concern after-all.
You sound like an alarmist fool. OSHA? What makes you think there are occupational safety hazard violations by the employees of the marina? They always seemed to operate safely when I observed them. But please, tell me about your first-hand experiences at the South Down marina that supports your claim.
__________________
[insert witty phrase here]
brk-lnt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2017, 11:07 AM   #143
thinkxingu
Senior Member
 
thinkxingu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 1,294
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brk-lnt View Post
You sound like an alarmist fool. OSHA? What makes you think there are occupational safety hazard violations by the employees of the marina? They always seemed to operate safely when I observed them. But please, tell me about your first-hand experiences at the South Down marina that supports your claim.
Ummm...satire.

Sent from my XT1528 using Tapatalk
thinkxingu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2017, 12:02 PM   #144
brk-lnt
Senior Member
 
brk-lnt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: South Down Shores
Posts: 1,709
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkxingu View Post
Ummm...satire.

Sent from my XT1528 using Tapatalk
Given his other posts on this thread, I don't think it's satire. I think it is more "belligerent keyboard warrior". If I'm wrong, and it's satire, I'm sure he'll be happy to correct me and let us know that his comments/suggestions were all in jest.
__________________
[insert witty phrase here]
brk-lnt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2017, 12:07 PM   #145
thinkxingu
Senior Member
 
thinkxingu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 1,294
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brk-lnt View Post
Given his other posts on this thread, I don't think it's satire. I think it is more "belligerent keyboard warrior". If I'm wrong, and it's satire, I'm sure he'll be happy to correct me and let us know that his comments/suggestions were all in jest.
Hyperbole in an attempt to point out absurdity. More specifically, OSHA as a hyperbolic suggestion in response to the anti-trail "concern" for safety.

Sent from my XT1528 using Tapatalk
thinkxingu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2017, 07:44 AM   #146
BroadHopper
Senior Member
 
BroadHopper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Laconia NH / Breckenridge CO
Posts: 4,464
Default Osha

I remember when OSHA was formed in the mid 70's. I was a grocery clerk at a large supermarket chain. OSHA made a ruling that if you are working with anything that requires you to work above the neckline you are required to wear a hard hat. Well believe it or not there was a time we were stocking shelves with hard hats on!
__________________
Someday may never be an actual day.
BroadHopper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2017, 06:49 PM   #147
Outdoorsman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 311
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brk-lnt View Post
You sound like an alarmist fool. OSHA? What makes you think there are occupational safety hazard violations by the employees of the marina? They always seemed to operate safely when I observed them. But please, tell me about your first-hand experiences at the South Down marina that supports your claim.
I have no first hand experience!

My post was just pointing out how ridiculous that particular argument is. (IMO) If you choose to throw "Its a safety issue" at the wall to see if it sticks, so be it; Just be prepared for other to dispute it.

If public safety is an issue with the private marina (as implied) and they can not operate SAFELY within their property, than it is an OSHA issue not a WOW trail issue.

Quote:
Originally Posted by brk-lnt View Post
The train is slow moving and very easy to see approaching. The people around the area on busy weekend also tend to be familiar with the marina, tracks, etc., and have a certain degree of situational awareness. If you build a trail that encourages people not familiar with the environment to pass through you statistically increase the risk of incidents due to decreased situational awareness. It is basically the same as the "out of town driver" problem in busy city[/b]
Choose your battles wisely is what I was taught.




Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkxingu
Hyperbole in an attempt to point out absurdity. More specifically, OSHA as a hyperbolic suggestion in response to the anti-trail "concern" for safety.
You hit the nail on the head.

Sarcasm does not always come across in the written word the way you envision it in your head.

Thank you
Outdoorsman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2017, 08:01 AM   #148
laketrout
Senior Member
 
laketrout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Long Bay
Posts: 104
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by baygo View Post
I own and operate a restaurant that abuts the SD/LB community. My first summer the residents were coming by way of golf cart. Word of this spread by way of many channels and created additional interest in owning a home there. I'm approved by the city to offer groceries as well. Just as I was about to per sue that someone decided to start putting obstacles in the way of the golf carts. I dropped my interest in groceries.

I wouldn't be surprised by it if the trail gets built and bikers encounter big rocks placed on the trail. I think the trail organizers seriously need to consider this in their maintenance and upkeep projections.
Its all Liability insurance Ray. Your place is awesome (Groceries and cold beverages even bags of ice- that would be great), and even better in my golf cart. The one condo closest to you in the SDS development shut it down and put the rock in front of the fence, at least thats what I heard.
laketrout is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2017, 08:14 AM   #149
laketrout
Senior Member
 
laketrout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Long Bay
Posts: 104
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jetskier View Post
Some of the requisite bridges will be as much as 1,000 ft long (ex: Chattel cove). If the bridge is 12' wide (to support a 10' trail and guard rails), then the overall square footage is 12,000 square feet. The cost range for this type of bridge is $150 to $250 per square foot. Therefore it would cost north of about $2M for that bridge alone. Pickerel Cove will require about an 800' bridge so something north of $1.4M. Just saying...

Jetskier
Pickerel Cove is a nice spot the railroad tracks that go along the water at that point is probably 8' wide there is no room for a walking trail without heavy material/landfill modification. The current Pickerel Cove train tracks Causeway over the water would need to be filled in to get the 10' required Wow ROW.
laketrout is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2017, 09:58 AM   #150
WakeboardMom
Senior Member
 
WakeboardMom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: NH X 2
Posts: 482
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Seaplane Pilot View Post
Ok, so the WOW trail can build a pedestrian bridge across the ROW that the forklift uses. In fact, South Down should pay 1/2 of this cost (in my opinion). Problem solved.
Red herring. I live by Trexler's Marina, where on a Saturday morning, the forklift is back-and-forth across the street, folks are checking out of cottages on LI and the trailers in the park so there's that kind of traffic, plus runners, walkers and bikers are on the road, and there's no big issue. It's what constitutes "traffic" here at our lovely lake.
__________________
MarieM
WakeboardMom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2017, 12:38 PM   #151
Paugus
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Paugus Bay
Posts: 7
Default Alternative route rejected in February?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jetskier View Post
Hi all,

Generally, I prefer to stay out of the discussion, but I thought it prudent to supply a few facts.
  • I laud baygo's offer to broker a solution.
  • Multiple alternative routes (including the one supported by baygo) have been suggested to the WOW Org by SD/LB. This includes the route that baygo has suggested. The reticence to negotiate an alternative is certainly not on the part of SD/LB. I would encourage baygo to meet with Alan and Gretchen to provide his views. That would be helpful and his offer is generous.
  • The litigation is not something that SD/LB wanted to initiate. There have been many attempts to reach an alternative route with the WOW Org. This was an action of last resort and not a punitive response.
  • The land that connects SD/LB with baygo is privately owned. SD/LB have no say as to whether golf carts are or are not allowed. Perhaps baygo could meet with the owners and work something out.

Jetskier
Did anyone see this? http://www.laconiadailysun.com/speci...ndini-6-22-615

"They asked if an alternative route (not along the lakeshore) had ever been considered and I was able to explain that, as recently as February, we had suggested an alternative route through their property for consideration, but that this alternative route had been rejected by their executive board."
Paugus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2017, 01:15 PM   #152
thinkxingu
Senior Member
 
thinkxingu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 1,294
Default

Nicely worded letter. I especially like the subtle reminders about the state-owned ROW and development plan requirement for the path.

Sent from my XT1528 using Tapatalk
thinkxingu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2017, 09:46 PM   #153
jetskier
Senior Member
 
jetskier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: North Reading, MA and South Down Shores
Posts: 732
Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paugus View Post
Did anyone see this? http://www.laconiadailysun.com/speci...ndini-6-22-615

"They asked if an alternative route (not along the lake shore) had ever been considered and I was able to explain that, as recently as February, we had suggested an alternative route through their property for consideration, but that this alternative route had been rejected by their executive board."
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
jetskier is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2017, 08:59 AM   #154
AC2717
Senior Member
 
AC2717's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Maynard, MA & Paugus Bay
Posts: 1,898
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jetskier View Post
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
__________________
Capt. of the "No Worries"
AC2717 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2017, 09:41 AM   #155
kjkam
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 11
Default Hilliard Road

For those proposing Hilliard road as an option to connect to the Wiers, have you walked that road, any part of it, narrow, and some major hills, and not well maintained

No dog in this fight, but my guess is that the budget doesn't fit any way they run this trail, it always costs more than they plan....
kjkam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2017, 11:35 AM   #156
fatlazyless
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 5,225
Default Like WOW! ....what a great trail!

Via the proposed www.wowtrail.org, peddling a bicycle the 9-miles from the Laconia Public Library to the Meredith Public Library, all along the flat, easy to peddle Wow Trail could take maybe one or two hours to do it. One hour on a bicycle is probably doable for many people, plus the flat terrain of the railroad, waterfront right of way works good for bicycles.

Weirs Beach has a beach, and is located right in the middle of the 9-mile long Wow Trail, so that could be a good spot to park your bike and go hit the beach......seems like it's all very doable?

Once the Wow Trail gets built and is one year old, people will be saying ...... Like WOW! ....what a great trail!.....so, how come this wasn't built like 40-years ago ....how come it took so long to get it built........wow!
__________________
Down & out, livn that Walmart side of the lake!
fatlazyless is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2017, 02:55 PM   #157
kjkam
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 11
Default route

The latest map I've seen looks like it will not follow the tracks all the way to the weirs, instead detour around pickrel and singing coves (i guess making use of Hilliard Road) Is that correct?
kjkam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2017, 09:59 AM   #158
thinkxingu
Senior Member
 
thinkxingu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 1,294
Default

An article on WOW Trail "ambassadors": http://www.laconiadailysun.com/commu...railambassdors
thinkxingu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2017, 10:35 AM   #159
feb
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Meredith (Winnisquam) & Nashua, NH
Posts: 170
Default

Last week I decided to try this trail out. First impressions were great. The section from Laconia to Winnisquam was peaceful. You get some views of the lake but most is obstructed by trees which is fine. The section from Laconia to Lakeport was a little more dreary only because you have to use streets a little bit and also see more of the backs of business. Still it was nice to be able to ride that distance without worrying about car traffic.

I was surprised how much the trail was used. I passed several families walking and/or riding, some joggers, some retirees strolling along, some dog walkers and some bicyclists. All in all I'd say I passed about 30 people in the 2 times I used it. Unfortunately we did see a guy passed out at the picnic table at the Lakeport end but it is what it is.

Overall it was nice. If they ever get the section from Lakeport to Meredith built I believe it would be very popular. The total mileage of the current trail isn't much but its still something relaxing to do and burn a few calories.
feb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2017, 10:53 AM   #160
thinkxingu
Senior Member
 
thinkxingu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 1,294
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by feb View Post
Last week I decided to try this trail out. First impressions were great. The section from Laconia to Winnisquam was peaceful. You get some views of the lake but most is obstructed by trees which is fine. The section from Laconia to Lakeport was a little more dreary only because you have to use streets a little bit and also see more of the backs of business. Still it was nice to be able to ride that distance without worrying about car traffic.

I was surprised how much the trail was used. I passed several families walking and/or riding, some joggers, some retirees strolling along, some dog walkers and some bicyclists. All in all I'd say I passed about 30 people in the 2 times I used it. Unfortunately we did see a guy passed out at the picnic table at the Lakeport end but it is what it is.

Overall it was nice. If they ever get the section from Lakeport to Meredith built I believe it would be very popular. The total mileage of the current trail isn't much but its still something relaxing to do and burn a few calories.
He wasn't "passed out," he was relaxing "en plein air." Much classier!
thinkxingu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2017, 08:47 AM   #161
Paugus
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Paugus Bay
Posts: 7
Default State says lawsuit is premature

Looks like the State isn't biting on this lawsuit.
http://www.laconiadailysun.com/newsx...suit-premature
Paugus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2017, 06:44 PM   #162
jetskier
Senior Member
 
jetskier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: North Reading, MA and South Down Shores
Posts: 732
Post Not the case

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paugus View Post
Looks like the State isn't biting on this lawsuit.
http://www.laconiadailysun.com/newsx...suit-premature
Not the case....

The WOW Org has been saying that they would be filing plans by the fall for Phase III. Now they are saying that it might be 4 or 5 years before they file plans. That is what they told DOT. The litigation was filed based upon the view that the WOW Org would imminently be filing plans with the city - that is what they publicly said.

DOT had to respond to the SD/LB petition by 8/11/17 and they requested an extension of 30 days. SD/LB agreed to this extension. DOT's concern is whether the action is premature since now the WOW Org is saying that it is going to be years (a different story than a few months ago). So, fundamentally no action has been taken by either side. SD/LB have the right to proceed to court and DOT has the right to determine whether they want to settle this by not granting permission to the WOW Org. If the litigation is delayed, it is just that. It will be simply be put aside until things progress...if that is the decision. The basis of the litigation stands.

It is clear that the article in the Laconia Daily Sun was focusing on a position that there was a motion to dismiss and that is simply not the case. The litigation is currently still very much in effect. Of course SD/LB does not want to waste state resources if the WOW Org is 4 or 5 years away from filing plans.

Fundamentally, the route along the frontage does not make sense and the WOW Org would be well served to focus on one of the alternative routes that have been proposed. It would be less expensive, less intrusive and could be built more quickly than the route along the frontage. Tavern 27 has even offered land for a welcome center and parking.

Just my 2 cents.

Jetskier

jetskier is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2017, 10:12 PM   #163
joey2665
Senior Member
 
joey2665's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Meredith Bay & LI, NY
Posts: 369
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jetskier View Post
Not the case....

The WOW Org has been saying that they would be filing plans by the fall for Phase III. Now they are saying that it might be 4 or 5 years before they file plans. That is what they told DOT. The litigation was filed based upon the view that the WOW Org would imminently be filing plans with the city - that is what they publicly said.

DOT had to respond to the SD/LB petition by 8/11/17 and they requested an extension of 30 days. SD/LB agreed to this extension. DOT's concern is whether the action is premature since now the WOW Org is saying that it is going to be years (a different story than a few months ago). So, fundamentally no action has been taken by either side. SD/LB have the right to proceed to court and DOT has the right to determine whether they want to settle this by not granting permission to the WOW Org. If the litigation is delayed, it is just that. It will be simply be put aside until things progress...if that is the decision. The basis of the litigation stands.

It is clear that the article in the Laconia Daily Sun was focusing on a position that there was a motion to dismiss and that is simply not the case. The litigation is currently still very much in effect. Of course SD/LB does not want to waste state resources if the WOW Org is 4 or 5 years away from filing plans.

Fundamentally, the route along the frontage does not make sense and the WOW Org would be well served to focus on one of the alternative routes that have been proposed. It would be less expensive, less intrusive and could be built more quickly than the route along the frontage. Tavern 27 has even offered land for a welcome center and parking.

Just my 2 cents.

Jetskier

You are forgetting one key item. If the trail is re routed away from the railroad ROW then the federal funding disappears.
joey2665 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2017, 10:33 PM   #164
jetskier
Senior Member
 
jetskier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: North Reading, MA and South Down Shores
Posts: 732
Post Not at all

Quote:
Originally Posted by joey2665 View Post
You are forgetting one key item. If the trail is re routed away from the railroad ROW then the federal funding disappears.
Not at all....
  • The cost to build the trail along the frontage will be much much higher than any of the the alternate routes.
  • With the current administration, money for secondary transportation infrastructure is being redirected to primary transportation infrastructure and it is unlikely that it will be as available in the past.

So, let's look at Phase II economics:

$400k came from the of Laconia (beautification fund)
$500k came from federal grants
$100k came from fund raising

Phase III is purported to cost $10M (my analysis with bridges etc is actually more like $15M to $20M).

The city of Laconia (I am told) does not have money to donate with all the other projects and commitments. So, that would mean:

$4M federal grant (pro rata, if available)
$6M - $16M to be raised

If the trail goes along one of the alternate routes the cost is only a fraction as there are no bridges to build, fences to separate the train from the pedestrians, trestle bridge issues etc... The route along the frontage is fraught with issues and associated costs...

Jetskier
jetskier is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2017, 10:41 PM   #165
joey2665
Senior Member
 
joey2665's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Meredith Bay & LI, NY
Posts: 369
Default

Sorry I completely disagree. The alternative plans do not eliminate all the bridges only one and no matter the route the federal funding is absolutely needed. All of the routes contain many obstacles it is certainly not as easy as your making it sound.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app
joey2665 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-2017, 04:56 PM   #166
Outdoorsman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 311
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jetskier View Post

Fundamentally, the route along the frontage does not make sense and the WOW Org would be well served to focus on one of the alternative routes that have been proposed. It would be less expensive, less intrusive and could be built more quickly than the route along the frontage. Tavern 27 has even offered land for a welcome center and parking.

Just my 2 cents.

Jetskier

It is always nice to see how GREEDY people think. You do NOT own the state ROW.

Go bully some other state/city/town
Outdoorsman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-2017, 07:15 PM   #167
beantownbaby
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 26
Default

^ haters gonna hate
beantownbaby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-2017, 07:53 PM   #168
jetskier
Senior Member
 
jetskier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: North Reading, MA and South Down Shores
Posts: 732
Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by joey2665 View Post
Sorry I completely disagree. The alternative plans do not eliminate all the bridges only one and no matter the route the federal funding is absolutely needed. All of the routes contain many obstacles it is certainly not as easy as your making it sound.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app
Actually, there are two to three bridges of consequence on the frontage route. There is a small one at SD, which is not of significant interest. The two big ones are Chattle Cove and Pickerel Cove. The required bridges would be approximately 1,000 ft and 800 ft in length....and how do you deal with the trestle at the Weirs? There is no room for a train and a trail there.

I have been on the snowmobile trails through the woods and reviewed the maps....nothing onerous.

Jetskier
Attached Images
 
jetskier is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-2017, 08:30 PM   #169
joey2665
Senior Member
 
joey2665's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Meredith Bay & LI, NY
Posts: 369
Default Jetskier

Jetskier your views are extremely clouded by the fact that you are a south down resident and do not want the trail through the community. Conveniently forgetting the fact that the trail and ROW were all agreed to in the original community plan. Yes I am a former Long Bay resident, yes as long as it is constructed properly and is esthetically pleasing I am all for the trail and finally yes I do currently have ownership interest is south down property. It is also my opinion that long term the trail will have a substantial positive impact not only Laconia but all the communities along the trail.
joey2665 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-2017, 09:11 PM   #170
jetskier
Senior Member
 
jetskier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: North Reading, MA and South Down Shores
Posts: 732
Post Just stating facts...

Quote:
Originally Posted by joey2665 View Post
Jetskier your views are extremely clouded by the fact that you are a south down resident and do not want the trail through the community. Conveniently forgetting the fact that the trail and ROW were all agreed to in the original community plan. Yes I am a former Long Bay resident, yes as long as it is constructed properly and is esthetically pleasing I am all for the trail and finally yes I do currently have ownership interest is south down property. It is also my opinion that long term the trail will have a substantial positive impact not only Laconia but all the communities along the trail.

I think that this discussion has reached larger heads...I am just presenting the facts. I have no control over what the WOW Org decides to do...and you now live in Meredith Bay not South Down. You are entitled to your opinion and I am entitled to mine. I would suggest that we simply leave it at that.

Jetskier
jetskier is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-2017, 02:29 PM   #171
Paugus
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Paugus Bay
Posts: 7
Thumbs up Thank you, Jetskier

Quote:
Originally Posted by jetskier View Post
Not at all....

So, let's look at Phase II economics:

$400k came from the of Laconia (beautification fund)
$500k came from federal grants
$100k came from fund raising

Jetskier
Thank you for providing us with these facts, Jetskier. I remember reading about NH CDFA tax credits (https://patch.com/new-hampshire/conc...ty-development), Downtown Tax Increment Financing funding (http://www.laconiadailysun.com/newsx...o-city-council) and private fundraising, but not anything about a beautification fund and federal grants.

Could this $400,000 in beautification money from Laconia and $500,000 in federal grant money you mention be reserved for Phase 3 and the pending lawsuit?
Paugus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-2017, 05:45 PM   #172
jetskier
Senior Member
 
jetskier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: North Reading, MA and South Down Shores
Posts: 732
Post Phase II funding info

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paugus View Post
Thank you for providing us with these facts, Jetskier. I remember reading about NH CDFA tax credits (https://patch.com/new-hampshire/conc...ty-development), Downtown Tax Increment Financing funding (http://www.laconiadailysun.com/newsx...o-city-council) and private fundraising, but not anything about a beautification fund and federal grants.

Could this $400,000 in beautification money from Laconia and $500,000 in federal grant money you mention be reserved for Phase 3 and the pending lawsuit?
Hi Paugus,

My understanding is that the $400k donated by the city came from the TIF loans (you have a link in your email which describes the $400k for phase II). I have been told that the money was placed in the budget under "beautification" of down town which is consistent with the projects listed in the linked article. I have talked to a couple of teachers who are upset about the expenditure based upon the lack of money for teacher's salaries; however, I don't know that the money would have been able to be reallocated to other purposes. It is a loan and has to be paid back by the city, so at some level, it affects the city budget as a debt service....read not free money.

The $500k came from a federal grant...All of the money was spent on Phase II (total construction cost of $1M). The federal grant is essentially free money. Private fundraising provided $100k of the costs. The WOW Org is a 501c nonprofit and their financials are public record. Their EIN number is 45-0509781 if you want to look at 990s or other records.

Hope this helps.

Jetskier
jetskier is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-2017, 08:36 PM   #173
Paugus
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Paugus Bay
Posts: 7
Default Federal grants?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jetskier View Post

The $500k came from a federal grant...All of the money was spent on Phase II (total construction cost of $1M). The federal grant is essentially free money. Private fundraising provided $100k of the costs. The WOW Org is a 501c nonprofit and their financials are public record. Their EIN number is 45-0509781 if you want to look at 990s or other records.

Hope this helps.

Jetskier
With all due respect, Jetskier, I like to be able to cite my facts and I haven't been able to track down info anywhere on this $500,000 federal grant you talk about. Will you please link the source so that we can all learn more about this type of federal funding the WOW Trail used? All of the info I can find lists the city TIF funds, NH CDFA tax credits, and private funding. Thanks in advance. Sorry to be a pain.
Paugus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-2017, 09:19 PM   #174
jetskier
Senior Member
 
jetskier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: North Reading, MA and South Down Shores
Posts: 732
Default WOW Trail Federal Grant Information

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paugus View Post
With all due respect, Jetskier, I like to be able to cite my facts and I haven't been able to track down info anywhere on this $500,000 federal grant you talk about. Will you please link the source so that we can all learn more about this type of federal funding the WOW Trail used? All of the info I can find lists the city TIF funds, NH CDFA tax credits, and private funding. Thanks in advance. Sorry to be a pain.
Hi Paugus,

Look at line #3 of the 2015 balance sheet (attached) is for Phase II. There was a grant of about $61k for Phase I. The grant number is H33C22A000349 and you can find information at this link:

https://www.usaspending.gov/Pages/Ad...?k=WOW%20Trail

Incidentally, you are by no means a pain...nice to have a factual interaction.

Jetskier
Attached Images
 
jetskier is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-2017, 10:15 PM   #175
Paugus
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Paugus Bay
Posts: 7
Talking Hmmmm...

Quote:
Originally Posted by jetskier View Post
Hi Paugus,

Look at line #3 of the 2015 balance sheet (attached) is for Phase II. There was a grant of about $61k for Phase I. The grant number is H33C22A000349 and you can find information at this link:

https://www.usaspending.gov/Pages/Ad...?k=WOW%20Trail

Incidentally, you are by no means a pain...nice to have a factual interaction.

Jetskier
Jetskier, Thanks for the link but that grant number you provided (H33C22A000349) and all of the others listed on that usaspending.gov link are for Phase 1.
"Project Description
LACONIA; WOW TRAIL PH 1; CONSTRUCT 7040' (Segments 7-10) SHARED USE PATH IN RR CORRIDOR FROM MAIN ST TO ELM ST; [04-28TE]"

As I recall, Phase 1 was built in 2010, which makes sense given the dates of the federal grants your link mentions. I still can't find anything about a federal grant for Phase 2.
Paugus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2017, 11:28 AM   #176
jetskier
Senior Member
 
jetskier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: North Reading, MA and South Down Shores
Posts: 732
Post Actually not

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paugus View Post
Jetskier, Thanks for the link but that grant number you provided (H33C22A000349) and all of the others listed on that usaspending.gov link are for Phase 1.
"Project Description
LACONIA; WOW TRAIL PH 1; CONSTRUCT 7040' (Segments 7-10) SHARED USE PATH IN RR CORRIDOR FROM MAIN ST TO ELM ST; [04-28TE]"

As I recall, Phase 1 was built in 2010, which makes sense given the dates of the federal grants your link mentions. I still can't find anything about a federal grant for Phase 2.
The grant was given during the Phase I period and covers both phases. The Phase I draw down was $61k which is in the WOW Org financials. The Phase II draw down was $500k (2015 financials). That is why I posted the 2015 financials.

Jetskier
jetskier is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:41 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.

This page was generated in 0.36605 seconds