Recently, members of Build Our Trail gathered to discuss laying the groundwork for turning their group into a non-profit organization.
Build Our Trail is focused on converting a portion of the former SEPTA Newtown Rail Line in to a multi-use trail.
Last month, representatives of the group appeared before the Northampton Township Board of Supervisors, seeking the support of the board in their endeavor. However, after hearing from a few member of the community who were opposed to the idea, the board decided to table the discussion for a later date.
"They didn't say no, as much as they said we'll talk about it later," said Tom Hibbs, as he led the meeting.
Hibbs said the group was committed as ever to advancing its mission, and the first step in this was to gain non-profit status.
"This is something that we have been thinking about since day one," Hibbs said. "We've just been waiting for the right opportunity."
The group has recently published this survey, asking members of the community at large for their thoughts on the project. Click the link to share your viewpoint until December 31.
You can read more about Build Our Trail at their website.
If you are interested in attending a meeting, email BuildOurTrail@gmail.com
PA-TEC has tried to avoid the climate change/energy price debate, mainly because we think commuter rail is a good idea regardless. That said, none of us believe that gas is going back to $.90 a gallon. It would therefore seem a bit naive to say that the benefits of being able to push a stroller from Lower Moreland to Newtown outweigh the benefits of getting people to work. But I'll let you make your case with some facts. Tell us: how many people use a typical trail on a given day? How about on a weekday? What is their average trip length? How do they reach the trail? Let's see some stats that would convince a township that the rails should come out and the gravel path should go in. We'll even help you - we're pretty good with data modelling. Make your case with hard numbers and carbon impact and gas savings, not some rosy idea of pushing a stroller 8 miles (and back?)
I think many more challanges would be faced as well, where the topography changes, around the Huntington Valley section and it's narrow cut-throughs. I think the whole point of this effort is use what we currently have, with as little monetary and residential impact as possible, and not over-engineer this thing, be it a rail or a trail. I really feel that the rail with trail option that some groups are advocating is without really knowing the situation. It seems misguided - like someone saying let's build a monorail.
Additionally, the existing rail/trail in Lorimer Park (Montgomery County) provides a clear example of what our project would mirror and due to the fact that this rail/trail exists along the same line gives our project an added boost. We are working in sections. We believe that even if we can get a portion of this conversion done, the neighboring communities will be more inclined to support conversion in their community. We have never asked for money for a feasibility study. That was said by one of the supervisors at the Northampton meeting who admittedly was unaware of the intention of our group. We have provided information packets to each of the supervisors and will be formally presenting at a later date.
—The Washington & Old Dominion Trail: An Assessment of User Demographics, Preferences, and Economics, Virginia Department of Conservation. Based on a 2008 survey of the Perkiomen Trail they saw a direct correlation of $2,338,231 annual soft good sales attributed to the trail. The Heritage County Rail Trail saw $4,011,165. From the Oil Heritage Trail System in PA - “An estimated 82,930 users who visited the trails between July and October, cre- ated an economic benefit of over $2.22 million for the region. This impact extended throughout the whole year is estimated to be almost $4.31 million due to an estimated 160,792 users frequenting the trails in 2006.” — Trail Utilization Study, Oil Heritage Region, 2008. The access question is valid. We have spoken with various other rail/trail groups throughout the country and many have utilized the parking lots in the old stations as the primary access points. This is absolutely an option for this project.
"Recent studies have shown that making communities more bike/pedestrian- friendly can make a significant contribu- tion to overall greenhouse gas emissions by driving down VMT. Overall, creating bicycle/pedestrian-friendly communities can result in between a five to 15 percent reduction in overall VMT in a commu- nity (Litman 2007). These figures can be even higher in close proximity to bike/ pedestrian facilities with local reductions of 20 to 30 percent (CCAP 2007)." We invite you to review the benefits of "active transportation" in both helping to reduce emissions, improve community health, make create more livable communities. (www.railstotrails.org/resources/documents/.../atfa_20081020.pdf)
Exactly. It is not a priority due to a serious lack of money for transit. I recall the CFO of SEPTA saying just a few years ago that he'll restore the R8 if somebody writes a check. I need to hope that the priorities will change through enlightenment. Trails are great and so is commuter rail. The fact remains that a conversion of a ROW to a trail makes it nearly or completely impossible to ever restore the commuter rail. That's my $0.02. I'll keep quiet now and get back to work trying to save the world.
I've been in the township long before the train stopped running, and can say the character of Southampton has changed, for the worse, since it stopped running. It had issues, but we were grateful we had it. The 1982 crash had nothing to do with the train service ending. To my neighbors and those who don't want the train back: Many of you have moved here since the train stopped running. It is your fiduciary duty as a home buyer to be aware of what your future neighbors are. I ride SEPTA frequently, and schlep up to Warminster with my fingers crossed that I'll find a parking spot. I've talked to many friends on the trail, which is part of the township's comprehensive plan. Most of us don't want it because it adds many concerns which deal with safety and cost. Take a look at the Street Road underpass. While Southampton is my lifelong home, its now nothing more than an intersection of dangerous roads. We need to change. We need to get with the times. We can't let this asset continue to rot, and if we are to remain a strong bedroom community, then that train has to come back. Consider this: http://articles.philly.com/2005-10-27/news/25442840_1_corridor-strategic-plan-rail-stations
http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/PublicTransportationsRoleInRespondingToClimateChange.pdf When full, our rail system reduces CO2 emissions by 88.5% compared with a typical car.
One point that I think needs to be clarified, is that the Build Our Trail group is not "anti-train" as is being implied. We have officially stated that we would welcome restoration of service on this line but the reality is that despite the best efforts of groups like PA TEC, service restoration in the near future not alive. We too also think groups like PA TEC are important as public watch dogs, but unfortunately they have become very adversarial with our group over the trail. With the restoration of train service not a foreseeable reality, our group is attempting to create something of both economic and recreational value to the adjacent communities where the fading train tracks exist. It's not an issue of train vs trail.
However, I contacted Byron Comati at SEPTA, and was told that SEPTA has no plans to convert the line to a trail at this time. I think that ends the debate.
Whenever change is going to be discussed in a community, regardless of whether that change is significant or benign, there is always going to be a group of passionate dissenters, which is actually very healthy to the process. While there are many legitimate concerns by residents that we've done our best to address, you have to be careful using posts here on The Patch as a barometer on public opinion, as much of the "fire" you reference being present, is generated by special interest groups whose sole purpose is to muddy the water and "torpedo" the trail initiative. Thanks again for your input.
The bottom line appears to be no one supports this, residents will be up in arms when they hear they're going to lose land to build accessways to the trail, especially along Churchville Road, and now SEPTA says they haven't endorsed anything. Funny how you guys tried to deflect criticism by talking about an invisible claim and picking apart the PA-TEC watchdogs instead of providing fact. The fact is Northampton isn't supporting you, SEPTA isn't supporting you, and neither is Upper Southampton. Just ask Joe Golden.
Surely you would not consider either a large shopping mall or the Sahara Desert parts of a ped-friendly community, and yet both provide for plenty of recreational walking just like your trail. Truly ped-friendly communities don't simply add places to walk, though. They support walking as an *viable alternative* to driving. Your trail is NOT an alternative to driving because it does not connect any significant number of people to jobs, other transportation, or commerce, because none are within reasonable walking distance. Your trail does no more to make your community ped-friendly than a racetrack helps with traffic congestion. A few sidewalks would go much further. As your co-member with an actual name points out, there's no train coming. So the analysis becomes trail vs no trail, or "forest" vs "pavement", with the additional impact of people driving to walk on your trail instead of staying home and enjoying a walk in their backyards (soon to be made undesirable by the addition of your trail.) You have the environmental/planning background. There's no reason why you can't tell us what the net carbon impact of this project is. If not, maybe you're the one who should be returning your diploma.
Southampton did approve the concept of a trail in 1992. What they successfully did is what BOT failed to do and that is to get the item on the agenda at the last minute, call it a discussion (not a vote) and stack the house with out of town bicycle zealots posing as residents. Most importantly, cross your fingers and hope no opposition shows up. Nice try! By the way, the SHT meeting following the conceptual approval drew a rowdy crowd all crying foul. BOT accusing PA-TEC of proposing the use of eminent domain is the pot calling the kettle black. Fact, the perkiomin trail would never have been completed without the use of eminent domain. I would suspect that most RTT projects use this disgraceful action against private citizens for of all things “recreation.”
So lets set the record straight. BOT wants the taxpayers to spend about 4 -5 million dollars for a trail that will sooner or later give way to a train in an area that has access to over 4000acres of open space and approximately 75 miles of trails. Its easy to waste OPM (other peoples money )isn’t it.
It does raise some questions about how this got on the agenda without a local sponsor.
You mention the "lower crime rates along the proposed trail...." Put in the trail, and you will have higher crime rates without a doubt. Trails provide the perfect setting for personal attack by strangers.