Railroad Forums
If the STB confirms the line as active, the agreement between Eversource and the MBTA is open to legal challenge.I'm not sure if PSI has been paying attention to STB decisions, as the STB already denied that action. In the same decision, the board also denied the town's request as well, since a notice of interim trail use requires the owner's (MBTA) consent, which was not provided.
Here, however, PSI has no interest in the integrity of the rail
system or the provision of rail service, which is what § 10501(b) is designed to protect. Because
PSI has no interest in rail service, or even a claimed property interest in the rail line, it is
unnecessary for the Board to determine the extent to which preemption might apply...
The Board also need not address the issue of whether the Line
was abandoned. Apparently, PSI seeks a determination that the Line was not abandoned only
because such a determination is necessary for the Board to reach the preemption question, which
is, in effect, the issue raised by PSI.
Moreover, the types of actions taken or planned by MBTA— granting easements for a trail and subsurface utilities in the right-of-way and removing track—
are not generally inconsistent with the reactivation of rail service in the future.6
With respect to the utility easement, PSI points to certain provisions of the
easement as indicative of MBTA’s “intent to eliminate the possibility of rail service
reactivation.” (Pet. 17.) However, as noted above, the easements contain provisions providing
for MBTA’s right to operate rail service on the Line. If MBTA intended to prevent the
reactivation of rail service, presumably it would not have included such provisions.
A full abandonment not only extinguishes the common carrier obligation as to a line, butHmmmm..
also removes the underlying right-of-way from the STB’s jurisdiction. Hayfield N. R.R. v.
Chicago & N.W. Transp. Co., 467 U.S. 622 (1984) (once abandonment authority is exercised, the
right-of-way is no longer subject to Federal rail regulation and its disposition is subject to state
property law instead). In contrast, discontinuance authority relieves the carrier from its
obligation to provide service over the line, but the carrier holds the right-of-way in reserve for
potential future reactivation of rail service (i.e., it “railbanks” the line). In other words, the
discontinuance of service as opposed to full abandonment of a line avoids the extinguishment of
any rail easements under state property laws and the return of such property to reversionary
interest holders. Preseault v. ICC, 494 U.S. 1, 5-6 n. 3 (1990).
MaineCoonCat wrote: ↑Tue Nov 08, 2022 11:18 amSo the Town of Sudbury has bought the ROW (remind me what the line was called) from the diamond south to the town line, and, as usual, the City of Framingham has done nothing??ceo wrote: ↑Mon Nov 07, 2022 10:43 pm But my understanding is that the Bruce Freeman Trail, which also goes through Sudbury, is quite popular, and the town is spending a a lot of money to acquire the ROW and build the thing.The town did purchase the ROW south of the diamond. MBTA owns the ROW north of the diamond. It's my understanding that, as of now, the BFRT will terminate at Boston Post Road as Framingham has not done anything as far as continuation.
Town meeting has voted funds since 2014 to "design and build" and I do know there were some soil borings done (don't remember when) but I've yet to see anything visibly happening. There were a couple of DEP filings in 2016, 301-1174 and 301-1193. 1193 was something to do with a bridge, which in my fading memory I think was at Pantry Brook. 1174 was an ANRAD (Abbreviated Notice of Resource Area Delineation), locus: I don't know. From below, I calculate that the town has "invested" US$2,095,000 in this so far.
Framingham Close To $5M Deal To Expand Bruce Freeman Rail Trailhttps://patch.com/massachusetts/framing ... rail-trail
Framingham has agreed with CSX Corp. on the purchase price of $5 million for the 3.2 miles of land currently featuring old railroad tracks.
MaineCoonCat wrote: ↑Thu Nov 10, 2022 11:17 am I find this from page 11 of the new PSI petition interesting.The STB ruled against Protect Sudbury’s petition back in February.
chrisf wrote: ↑Sun Nov 13, 2022 11:34 am..MaineCoonCat wrote: ↑Thu Nov 10, 2022 11:17 am I find this from page 11 of the new PSI petition interesting.The STB ruled against Protect Sudbury’s petition back in February.
