NHDOT to Upgrade Five Portsmouth NH Rail Crossings

(SOURCE:  Seacoastonline.com By Jeff McMenemy)

PORTSMOUTH – The state Department of Transportation is launching a $1 million project to upgrade five railroad crossings in the city.

City officials requested the upgrades in 2014 while Sea-3, a propane storage and distribution facility in Newington, was going through a review process to expand their facility. The Newington Planning Board approved the expansion, but the city appealed the decision to Superior Court. No date has yet been set for that appeal.

Eric Eby, parking and transportation engineer for the city, told members of the Parking and Safety Committee Thursday that the DOT will put out a request for proposals on the project sometime in April.

“The city’s share will be $100,000, or 10 percent for the project,” Eby said at the Thursday morning meeting in City Hall. 

Numerous area officials and residents fought the proposed expansion, citing the substantial increase of propane carrying rail cars that would result from the project, and worries about the condition of Pan Am’s tracks.

The railroad crossings will be upgraded at Barberry Lane, Maplewood Avenue, Green Street, Michael Succi Drive and Gosling Road, Eby said.

After the RFPs are responded to, the DOT will “select a contractor and get working on the project,” Eby said.

Meanwhile, Portsmouth attorney Alec McEachern, who represents Sea-3, recently filed a motion to dismiss the city’s appeals of the facility’s expansion, claiming Portsmouth “lacks standing to appeal the relevant decisions by the town of Newington’s Planning Board,” because the city is not an abutter to the propane facility. McEachern also argues the only impact to Portsmouth of the proposed expansion of Sea-3 is to “increase rail traffic and decrease ship traffic.”

He also filed a motion to intervene in the case, which was filed against the town of Newington. 

Portsmouth staff attorney Jane Ferrini argues in the city’s objection to Sea-3’s motion to dismiss that the court shouldn’t consider the motion because Sea-3 is not yet a party to the appeal. Ferrini argues if the court does allow Sea-3 to intervene “this court may be opening the door for several corporations and associations to request to intervene in the underlying matter, such as … Pan Am, Norfolk Southern Railway and the Propane Gas Association of New England.”

But Ferrini says if the court does allow Sea-3 to intervene, it objects to Sea-3’s motion to dismiss because Portsmouth and three other towns received notice about the proposed expansion after Newington determined the project was a “development of regional interest.”
 Ferrini also contends the city is not “attempting to deprive Sea-3 of its federal” railroad rights, but rather, the city wants a “safety/hazard study of the site and Sea-3’s use of Pan Am railway.”
 
Sea-3 is seeking to build “five additional rail unloading berths and associated handling equipment at its existing” facility, McEachern said in a recent filing with the state’s Site Review Committee. This will allow the company to receive via rail and stockpile excess propane to be used during winter months.

Maine Railroad Crossing Liability Bill Blasted by Opponents

SOURCE: MaineToday Media - By Matt Hongoltz-Hetling, mhhetling@mainetoday.com

AUGUSTA -- A bill that would limit railroad liability for accidents at private crossings will not be approved as written, state legislators said Thursday after hearing from people opposed to the bill.

The bill, which would affect all private crossings along the state's 1,200 miles of railroad track, was criticized heavily during a public hearing of the state legislative judiciary committee.

"We understand there's a huge problem," Sen. Linda Valentino, D-Saco, said in the midst of testimony from a crowd of about 30.

The bill will be rewritten before the committee revisits the issue, Valentino said.

Many landowners who spoke against the bill were concerned that it did nothing to protect them from recent efforts by Pan Am Railways to dramatically increase fees assessed for maintenance of the crossing.

Cynthia Scarano, from Pan Am, said the company was not opposed to the idea of a bill that regulates maintenance fees.

In February 2012, Belgrade residents who cross railroad tracks to reach their camps began receiving notices from Pan Am that increased the assessments for maintenance of their crossings. Some who never before paid a fee were asked to begin doing so, and others saw their fees increase, in one case from $130 to $1,470 annually.

For similar agreements on crossings that go over state-owned railways, owners pay maintenance fees of about $350, according to Nate Moulton, who testified on behalf of the Maine Department of Transportation.

Pan Am's 2012 letters also told residents that they would be responsible for carrying $10 million in liability insurance.

The resulting uproar eventually led to the bill, which was sponsored by Rep. Dennis Keschl, R-Belgrade.

Bill supporters said that if railroads had no liability at private crossings, they would have no reason to ask landowners to assume the liability and insurance costs.

Affected residents, however, testified that the bill did nothing to ensure that the railroad would follow through on its commitment. They also wanted the separate issue of maintenance fees to be addressed in the same piece of legislation, so Pan Am and other railroads' fee structures would be regulated.

Belgrade resident Ron Fluet said the bill, which was drafted after meetings involving railroad representatives, legislators and the transportation department, should have included protection for the residents from the beginning.

"The way we've been dealt with by them just does not seem honorable or credible," Fluet said.

Scarano, a Pan Am executive vice president, said the railroad has backed away from its initial efforts to collect maintenance fees and is open to a bill that would include maintenance fee regulations.

She said the initial round of letters were sent by the engineering department before administrators had screened them properly. The maintenance fees were assessed by a person who had been hired specifically for that job. A different person has since been chosen for that work, she said.

Keschl said he intended the bill to be a starting point that would bring the issue to the state's attention rather than a final solution to the problem. He testified that he favors including residents' concerns but said the issue is so complex that it will be difficult to legislate.

Moulton agreed, saying legislation would need to address about 20 types of existing agreements, some of which date to the 1860s.

Representatives of the Small Woodlands Association, the Maine Snowmobile Association and the Maine Trial Lawyers Association also testified in opposition to the bill, because it would have an unintended consequence that could threaten the liability status of landowners who allow public recreation on their land. Legislators agreed to modify the language to avoid that consequence.