Rec Path Phase 2 FAQ

Recreation Path Phase 2

There have been numerous articles and letters to the editor published in the Sun regarding the design of the Phase 2 Rec Path which would extend the Phase 1 Path from Cranmore Mountain Resort to the Intervale. Many statements and claims are either mis-informed, unsubstantiated, or simply false. Below are facts which we hope will clarify any misunderstandings.

Q:    What is the status of the Phase 2 Rec Path?

A:     Phase 2 is on schedule and moving forward. Town of Conway staff and our project engineers (HEB) are working to secure various permits (including environmental and wetlands permits) and complete all right of way agreements in order to finalize a 90% project design. This will be presented to the Board of Selectmen in the Fall of 2025. The Selectmen will then hold a public hearing and vote on the design. Once approved, the project will be put out to bid. Initial work is planned for the Winter of 2025 with construction beginning in the Spring of 2026 for a completion by November of 2026.

Q:    Who’s in charge of the project?

A:     Phase 2 is a public-private partnership between the MWV Trails Association and the town of Conway. MWVTA raised grant funding and, in partnership with the town, issued an RFP for design engineering which was awarded to HEB Engineers. The engineers are currently working with town staff to secure permits, work up 90% design plans, and develop construction plans as directed by the Selectmen.

Q:    Has the Phase 2 route of the Rec Path been prohibited from using the rail corridor in Intervale?

A:     No. The Rail Bureau denied a 60% design proposal but invited further proposals within the corridor that would satisfy their concerns, and has now provided three options to pursue, all within in the same section of rail corridor. The initial proposal was a first step to begin discussion with the Rail Bureau on an eventual solution.

Q:    What happened at the July 17 meeting with DOT in Concord?

A:     Design issues were discussed and three alternative solutions were provided by DOT. These alternatives are currently under review by our project engineers.

Q:    Why were town officials not made aware of the March 9 e-mail from Nicole Bryant (responding to the 60% design proposal) until May?

A:     Ms. Bryant originally sent the email to Town staff and HEB, so they were aware. Our understanding is that this was an intermediate step in the design process, there was no actionable involvement required by the selectboard who had directed staff to return with a 90% design.

Q:    Will railroad operations be compromised by a rail-with-trail?

A:     No. Railroad operations are being considered in the design process. There are many active rail-with-trails throughout the country, and design standards for the safety of both recreational users and railroad operations will be incorporated.

Q:    Does the project have a rail use agreement with the Rail Bureau or Conway Scenic?

A:     Not yet. A rail trail agreement (RTA) follows an approved engineering design which is in process. Once a design is approved, DOT and the Town will negotiate and sign a RTA. As Conway Scenic is a lease holder of the rail line, they would not be a signatory to the agreement.

Q:    Does Phase 2 have approved environmental permits?

A:     Our project engineers (HEB) are working to obtain these permits as part of the current design phase. We expect permits by the end of this summer.

Q:    Will changes to the design make Phase 2 more expensive?

A       Design cost is not impacted, as it was anticipated that HEB would need to make changes to the design based upon comments from right of way owners like DOT and permitting authorities.  Neither the design process nor the bid process have been completed so construction costs have not yet been determined.  Construction costs are covered by grants and private funds without impact to property taxpayers. 

Q:    Does the rail corridor redesign affect Whitaker Woods?  

A:     No. The Rail Bureau’s instructions to modify this section of path do not affect the section of the design on the edge of Whitaker Woods. 

Q:    Conway Scenic has suggested that the Rec Path run from the Kearsarge Road trailhead to the Whitaker House site. Why isn’t that route being considered?

A:     First, that proposed route could not be built to an accessibility standard as the terrain is very steep and could not satisfy a maximum grade of 5%. Second, this route would not connect with the planned extension of the Rec Path to the north. Third, Conway Scenic’s proposed route is in the middle of and would fragment Whitaker Woods, rather than running the perimeter, which was the public’s preference based upon previous public hearings and needs assessments.