Connect with us

Rhode Island

Rhode Island Poised to Take Early Role on High-Speed Rail Study

Published

on

Rhode Island Poised to Take Early Role on High-Speed Rail Study


CHARLESTOWN — Years after a proposed “Kenyon to Old Saybrook” high-speed-rail bypass through areas like the historic district of Old Lyme and and Stonington’s Olde Mistick Village sparked public outcry in Connecticut, few realize the pivotal role that a tiny Rhode Island town played in stopping the plan, or at least delaying it until now.

“We found out but it was almost by accident,” said Ruth Platner, a resident of Charlestown, R. I., a town of about 8,000 people. 

Platner said that in early December 2016, she and her husband, Cliff Vanover, happened to be watching television and saw Rhode Island Sen. Jack Reed being interviewed about NEC Future – the Federal Railroad Administration’s plan for investment in the Northeast Corridor.

“He was so happy that the plan that they had chosen didn’t miss Providence. We were listening and going, ‘Well, where’s it gonna go?” said Platner, a member of the Charlestown Citizens Alliance, which at the time held a majority of the seats on the local town council.

Advertisement

Platner said that the current rail corridor has two significant curves in Charlestown. On the bypass map, the new straight track bypasses those two curves – slicing through the 1100-acre Carter Preserve, the Burlingame Wildlife Management Area, the 100-acre Stoney Hill Dairy on Shumankanuc Hill Rd., Narragansett Tribal land and the historic Amos Green Farm, as well as Columbia Heights and Kenyon, which she said are both eligible for listing on the National Register. 

Opposition grew as word spread. On Jan. 10, 2017, more than 400 residents showed up for a presentation by Amtrak in protest of the plan, filling the auditorium at Charlestown Elementary School.

The Town Council wrote to then-Governor Gina Raimondo opposing the plan and asking that Amtrak maintain its current right of way. 

The council sent similar letters to Reed, Rhode Island Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, and Congressman James Langevin. By Jan. 17, their state senator and state representative had signed a letter in opposition to the bypass. On Jan 19, a coalition of members of the town councils of Charlestown and Westerly, members of the Narragansett Tribe, and residents of both towns, met with Gov. Raimondo’s chief of staff and other members of her cabinet, as well as staff from Whitehouse’s office and Langevin’s office. 

A breakthrough came on Jan. 26, 2017, when Gov. Raimondo released a statement that she was in favor of keeping Providence as part of the Northeast Corridor plan, but she would not support the bypass. The day before she had met privately with Charlestown and Westerly town council members and state legislators, the same day a “Drop the Bypass” rally was held at the R.I. State House rotunda.

Advertisement

On July 12, 2017, the Record of Decision was released. The bypass was shelved, but the Federal Railroad Administration left the route between New Haven and Providence unresolved, calling instead for a New Haven to Providence Capacity Planning Study. When that study would begin, no one was sure.

A seat at the table

Kim Coulter, owner of Stoney Hill Dairy Farm in Charlestown was one of the most passionate protesters of the bypass proposal. The project would have passed directly through her farm, and included the construction of a train tunnel. 

“The tunnel runs right through the property, right through the middle, it wipes us out,” she told CT Examiner. “My barns [would be] no longer standing, it goes right under my home, directly under my home.”

Her family has owned the farm for four generations, she said, and uses sustainable practices like pasture rotation. 

“We raise beef cattle, we have dairy cattle, we raise turkeys, chickens, broiler hens, hogs, and we grow our own feed, our own hay. We do pasture rotation – we’re a sustainable farm. We believe in sustainable agriculture. We compost our manure, we put it back into the field for fertilizer. Do we have to bring in lime and whatnot to you know, correct the pH of course. We do have to do that. But we pride ourselves on being sustainable. We pride ourselves in keeping the animals out of the wetlands,” she said. 

Advertisement

Coulter said that property owners were not included in the planning process the first time around. This time she is pushing for inclusion in the planning stages of the capacity study – but opposes the idea of revitalizing the bypass. 

“Shouldn’t we have some say before it goes too far, and the taxpayers’ dollars that’s paying for all of these studies? So if it’s going to impact the Carter Preserve, community homes, farmland, tribal land, shouldn’t we be seated at the table to have a voice and to say, hey, wait a minute, we’re spending a lot of money on a certain plan than was already opposed several years ago. Do we want to spend all this money on that same plan that’s going to get the same reaction? Is there a better way to do this? Is there a more efficient way to spend taxpayer dollars to come up with a better study, a better proposal?”

She acknowledged that the Northeast Corridor rail infrastructure needs to be upgraded but said the money could be used in a better way than building the bypass.  

Coulter questioned whether the destruction was justified, adding that once land is taken and developed, it cannot and will not be put back into its pre-construction form. 

“We’re not making land anymore… Once it’s gone, it’s gone. There’s no replacing it. People talk about climate change and they want to protect the environment,” she said. “You can’t have it both ways – either you protect the environment, or you destroy the environment – which is more important to you.” 

Advertisement

She said she is angry that the bypass is being considered again. 

“This is rearing its ugly head again,” Coulter said. “Just to go through and tear up conservation land, tribal land, farmland and just homes in general, I think is terribly irresponsible, especially in this day and age. I just can’t buy into it. Are we going to be loud again opposing it? Yes, we are.” 

‘We’re in constant communication’ 

Since about 2021, Deb Carney, president of Charlestown’s Town Council, has communicated once a month by email with Peter Alviti, Director of the Rhode Island Department of Transportation, who also represents the state on the Northeast Corridor Commission. Included on the email are members of Alviti’s staff, the Charlestown Town Council, State Sen. Elaine Morgan, State Rep. Tina Spears, Kim Coulter, owner of Stoney Hill Farm, and others. 

“We always reiterate that Charlestown has concerns around the New Haven and Providence Capacity Planning Study and our concerns that there might be any resurgence from the old proposal,” Carney told CT Examiner.

Carney said the initial email to Alviti’s office laid out all of the town’s concerns about the original proposal – including building track that would go “through farmlands, tribal lands, conservation land and people’s houses, which Carney said would be a huge detriment to Charlestown. 

Advertisement

“There was one section of it that was supposed to go underground, which of course would have been a problem and for the extreme cost and not saving any time. None of it and the complete disruption of people’s lives. It just made no sense,” she said. 

Carney said that in the Nov. 19, 2022, email, Pamela Cotter, who is administrator of planning at Rhode Island Department of Transportation, mentioned that RIDOT officials met with Amtrak officials on Nov. 2 “mostly to discuss operational items but the study came up briefly in the discussion.” 

Carney said she asked if it was possible to include a representative from Charlestown next time there was a discussion of the bypass. Carney told CT Examiner that Cotter said she would discuss Charlestown’s request with Amtrak and get back to her. 

“That was in December, so that’s where we are. We’re staying on top of it. We’re in constant communication,” Carney said. 

When asked for a statement on Alviti’s stance on high speed rail and particularly the bypass, Charles St. Martin, chief of public affairs for the Rhode Island Department of Transportation, responded in an email, “Amtrak presented their New Haven to Providence Capacity Study. Discussions are in their initial phases. Amtrak will provide robust public engagement to vet this concept.  RIDOT will help in any way possible to ensure that Rhode Islanders can have significant input throughout this process,” 

Advertisement

‘It doesn’t make sense’

Platner said that considering the high cost of planning and building the project, the Federal Railroad Administration should be able to find another solution.

“It’s just to get someplace faster – and it’s not a lot faster. It’s not an acceptable trade off, I don’t think,” she said.

Platner said another issue is that the Amtrak’s high-speed train, Acela, does not stop at Kingston – which at three miles away is a station she could bicycle to.

“The nearest stops are in Providence or New Haven. Unless you live near the Acela stop. it doesn’t really make sense because then you have the added time of commuting to that Acela stop. It’s basically to connect the urban areas,” she said. “It’s business travel. Also after the pandemic, everyone now has the ability to have a Zoom meeting. I don’t know why you would travel from New York City or Providence to go to a meeting. I don’t think it’s as necessary as it was.”

She said that the project would “sacrifice all of the wildlife refuges and the Pawcatuck River so that people can get to Providence faster.” 

Advertisement

“If the outcomes are that bad, and there are other [alternatives], they need to find another solution that’s not so disruptive. And again, the amount of money they’re spending on the planning and what they have spent and all of the engineers involved, they have to come up with a better plan.”

She said that with the original plan, Charlestown Town Council along with Richmond and Hopkinton and a number of other towns received a letter that contained a link to the plan but not a copy of the plan. 

“It was just a letter that said they were increasing services… they just made it sound like they were gonna have wider seats,” she said. “From the letter you couldn’t tell what it was that they were doing. You had no idea and who would have guessed that they would do this?”

She said the construction itself would be disruptive and destructive, probably lasting for years, especially with the excavation and grading required.

Platner said that since 2017 the general public knowledge of the project has dissipated. 

Advertisement

“What’s happened now is a lot of people have moved away and new people have moved in. I was contacted by someone who bought a home in Kenyon without knowing anything about this, and then wanting to find out about it. So people are moving into the previous path of the train where it was proposed without any knowledge,” she said. “A lot of the knowledge that was here is gone and now there’s new people moving in who don’t know what’s going to happen.”





Source link

Rhode Island

Pulled funding creates a bike path to nowhere. Let’s hope RI fixes it.

Published

on

Pulled funding creates a bike path to nowhere. Let’s hope RI fixes it.


play

I’ve long thought bike paths are among Rhode Island’s premier attractions, up there with the beaches, the mansions and the bay.

We like to knock government, but credit where it’s due, the state has done an amazing job building out an incredible pedaling network.

Advertisement

It’s clearly a priority.

At least I thought it was.

But they’ve just dropped the ball on what should have been a beautiful new stretch.

The plan was to finish a mile-long connector from the East Providence end of the Henderson Bridge all the way to the East Bay Bike Path.

There was even $25 million set aside to get it done.

Advertisement

Except WPRI recently reported that it’s now been canceled.

The main fault lies with the Trump administration, which is no friend of bike paths, and moved to kill that $25 million.

But it gets complicated, as government funding always does.

To try to rescue that money, the state DOT reportedly worked with the administration to refunnel it into a road project. Specifically, the $25 million will now be spent helping upgrade the mile-long highway between the Henderson Bridge and North Broadway in East Providence, turning it into a more pleasant boulevard.

Advertisement

That totally sounds worthy.

But it’s insane to throw away the bike path plan.

Especially for a particular reason in this case.

They’d already put a ton of money into starting it.

When state planners designed the new Henderson Bridge between the East Side and East Providence, they included a bike path.

Advertisement

It’s a beauty – well protected from traffic by a barrier, a great asset for safely riding over the Seekonk River.

The plan was to continue it another mile or so along East Providence’s Waterfront Drive, ultimately connecting with the East Bay Bike Path, which runs all the way to Bristol. Which, by the way, is one of the nicest bike paths you’ll find anywhere.

But alas, that connector plan has been canceled.

Advertisement

So the expensive stretch over the Henderson Bridge to East Providence is now a bike path to nowhere. Once the bridge ends, the path on it continues a few hundred yards or so and then, just … ends.

Too bad.

We were so close.

Most of the stories on the issue have been about the complex negotiation to rescue the $25 million by rerouting it to that nearby highway-to-boulevard project. But I don’t want to get lost in the weeds of that bureaucratic process here because it loses sight of the heart of this story.

Which is that an amazing new addition to one of the nation’s best state bike path systems has just been scrapped.

Advertisement

You can knock the Rhode Island government for blowing a lot of things.

The PawSox.

The Washington Bridge.

But they’ve done great with bike paths.

And especially, linking many of them together.

Advertisement

Example: not too many years ago, Providence bikers had to risk dicey traffic on the East Side to get to the more pleasant paths in India Point Park and on the 195 bridge to the East Bay Path.

But the state fixed that by adding an amazing connector that starts behind the Salvation Army building and beautifully winds along the water of the Seekonk River for a mile or so.

That makes a huge difference – and no doubt has avoided some bike-car accidents.

We were close to a comparable stretch on the other side of the river – that’s what the $25 million would have done.

But it’s now apparently dead.

Advertisement

Online commenters aren’t happy about it.

On a Reddit string, “Toadscoper” accused the state of being “complicit” with the feds in rerouting the money from bikes to cars.

And there was this fascinating post from FineLobster 5322, who apparently is a disappointed planner who worked on the project: “Mind you money has already been spent on phase one so rejecting it at this point is wasting money and also against the public interest … but what do I know? I only worked on the project as an engineer … I didn’t get into this to build more highways. I do it … to give back to communities and give them more access to their environment.”

Wow. One can imagine the state planning team is devastated. That’s not a small consideration. Good people go into government to make life better in Rhode Island, and it’s a bad play to take the spirit out of the job by first assigning a great human-scale project and then, after a ton of work, trashing it.

A poster named Homosapiens simply said, “We just accept this?”

Advertisement

Hopefully not.

The first stretch of the path over the Henderson Bridge is done, money already sunk.

What a shame to leave that as a path to nowhere.

It doesn’t have to happen.

Between Governor McKee and our Washington delegation, there’s got to be a way to get this done.

Advertisement

There’s got to be.

mpatinki@providencejournal.com



Source link

Continue Reading

Rhode Island

2 dead, 1 seriously hurt after crash on I-95 South in Warwick

Published

on

2 dead, 1 seriously hurt after crash on I-95 South in Warwick


WARWICK, R.I. (WPRI) — Two people are dead and another person seriously hurt after a crash involving two vehicles on the highway in Warwick Saturday.

Rhode Island State Police said the crash happened around 1:34 p.m. on the ramp from Route 113 West to I-95 South.

According to police, a Hyundai SUV that was driving in the middle lane of the highway started to drift to the right, crossed the first lane, and then crossed onto the on-ramp lane. The car struck the guardrail twice before driving through the grass median.

The Hyundai then struck the driver’s side of a Mercedes SUV that was on the ramp, causing the Mercedes to roll over and come to a rest. The impact sent the Hyundai over the guardrail and down an embankment.

Advertisement

The driver of the Hyundai, a 73-year-old man, and his passenger, a 69-year-old woman, were both pronounced dead at the hospital.

A woman who was in the Mercedes was rushed to Rhode Island Hospital in critical condition.

State police said all lanes of traffic were reopened by 4:30 p.m.

The investigation remains ongoing.

Download the WPRI 12 and Pinpoint Weather 12 apps to get breaking news and weather alerts.

Advertisement

Watch 12 News Now on WPRI.com or with the free WPRI 12+ TV app.

Follow us on social media:

 

 



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Rhode Island

Judge rejects DOJ push for Rhode Island voter information

Published

on

Judge rejects DOJ push for Rhode Island voter information


A federal judge on Friday tossed the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) lawsuit aiming to force Rhode Island to hand over its voter information as part of the Trump administration’s push to acquire voter data from several states.

Rhode Island U.S. District Court Judge Mary McElroy wrote that federal law does not allow the DOJ “to conduct the kind of fishing expedition it seeks here,” siding with Rhode Island election officials. She added that the DOJ did not provide evidence to suggest that Rhode Island violated election law.

Advertisement

McElroy, a Trump appointee, wrote that she sided with the similar decision in Oregon. That decision ruled that the DOJ was not entitled to unredacted voter registration lists.

“Absent from the demand are any factual allegations suggesting that Rhode Island may be violating the list maintenance requirements,” she said in her ruling.

Rhode Island Secretary of State Gregg Amore (D) praised McElroy’s decision. He said in a statement that the Trump administration “seems to have no problem taking actions that are clear Constitutional overreaches, regularly meddling in responsibilities that are the rights of the states.”

“Today’s decision affirms our position: the United States Department of Justice has no legal right to – or need for – the personally-identifiable information in our voter file,” he said. “Voter list maintenance is a responsibility entrusted to the states, and I remain confident in the steps we take here in Rhode Island to keep our list as accurate as possible.”

The Hill reached out to the DOJ for comment.

Advertisement

The DOJ called for the voter lists as it investigated Rhode Island’s compliance with the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, which allowed Americans to register to vote when they apply for a driver’s license.

The DOJ sued at least 30 states, as well as Washington, D.C., in December demanding their respective voter data. This data includes birth dates, names and partial Social Security numbers.

At least 12 states have given or said they will give the DOJ their voter registration lists, according to a tracker operated by the Brennan Center for Justice.

The department stated after it lost a similar suit against Massachusetts earlier this month that it had “sweeping powers” to access the voter data and that, if states fail to comply, courts have a “limited, albeit vital, role” in directing election officers on behalf of the administration to produce the records. The DOJ cited the Civil Rights Act as being intended to unearth alleged election law violations.

Copyright 2026 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending