K964

Akunob

My humble suggestion is, (rather than merely complaining about political ideologies and the role of gov't etc.), that concerned folks should focus their correspondence to any legislator on the economic and social benefits of Lime Rock Park as well as the historical significance of the venue as a landmark/attraction. Information on the amount of business and economic activity generated by LRP (i.e., hotels, restaurants, and other small business gains, etc) on race days and numerous auto club events (DEs, historic races, concours etc) and the positive tax contributions may have more of an effect than merely grumbling about politics. Showing the real potential economic harm to local businesses from taking away an iconic racetrack might resonate louder with legislators and residents if the case can be made that any lost commercial tax revenue from the closure of LRP (and the adverse effects on various small businesses that benefit from LRP's activities) might need to be offset by higher local property taxes. Just a thought...

TXE36

I actually think the historical approach may have the best chance of success. "Economic benefits" is just so dry and appear contrived, whether or not that is so.

Lime Rock has a rich history that is easily documented.

The huge economic benefit of TWS to College Station meant diddly squat to them as they bulldozed it to *maybe* build some crappy tract homes.

-Mike

Mark in Baltimore

I know it's tough to avoid politics given the topic, but let's save it for P&C and try to keep it out of this thread (as well as any of the tech forums). Thanks, everyone.

ProCoach

991carreradriver

Their is a natural barrier to this approach - The Cost. Who is going to fund the economic impact study of closing or severely limiting the LRP activity. Unfortunately, the government usually is the agency that commissions these studies and the parameters are often biased. The onus has to be on LRP to commission a study and then assuming it helps the cause, disseminate it to the legislators and local community folks in an understandable form. Unfortunately, I don't believe for one minute a deluge of letters from users of LRP touting the economics will do one bit of good. I have written to enough legislators in my lifetime to conclude it's barely more than a waste of time. Ever notice how many small airports have closed in the tri-state NY area? Everyone of them provided economic benefit to the locals. It didn't matter. There were concerted organized efforts by a strong association (AOPA) to save these airports. Midway in Chicago (the face of Flight Sim) was illegally bulldozed by Daly in the middle of the night stranding millions of dollars worth of aircraft. The Federal government did nothing after having all their grant money stolen. This is not politics, just how it has worked in the past.

fatbillybob

In cali we have Willow Springs raceway very close to homes. It seems there is no issue by neighbors there and I believe is listed as a "historic site". There was never any real racing like watkins glenn but history of some old dead actors running their Ferraris and such out there in the 60's and 70's is all I can think of. The historic site bar must be pretty low. I wonder if that designation is magic like conservation easements put on river front land to prevent future building? We joke about WSIR as being historic as in the owners don't want to put any money into it with the resulting quality facilities that give WSIR its "charm."

LuigiVampa

My original post was deleted by the mods because I discussed politics in the racing forurm which is difficult to not do when talking about this subject. Accordingly, I will try to restate the issue in a way that hopefully will not make someone report my post to have it remove.

If politicians are seeking to legislate LRP's ability to hold races on Sundays, which it already cannot do due to a legal agreement, I believe it is a precursor to trying to shut the track down. The simple truth is that many politicians in Connecticut are more concerned with a carbon footprint and do not appear to be fans of motorsports.

I am hopeful that Skip Barber, the owner of the track, can convince people that in addition to the jobs and tax revenue LRP brings in, there is the historic significance of the track. It would be Connecticut's loss if something happened to LRP.

stujelly

Same thing happened to laguna seca here in cali.

I think they only get 4 weekends of unrestricted sound.

Everything else is 96db 0r 93 db. A stock gt3 cant stay under those regs.

It has killed the local economy.

Otto Mechanic

Thanks for mentioning Laguna, my personal favorite track (I've never driven Le Mans so take that endorsement for what its worth).

When I was a kid we'd go out to Laguna to watch the Can Am cars run. My brother and I were both introduced to motorsports at an early age (10 and 6 respectively). My Dad was a huge fan and the only person I've ever known who owned and maintained a 1967 MG "C" GT. Not a "B", a full on iron block straight 6 (with an electric overdrive). That car went like a bat in a straight line but didn't really corner all that well. However, I digress...

Like I say, I love Laguna. When I saw it at first it was pretty much in the middle of nowhere back in the late 60's. Now it's surrounded by mega-million country estates. I think it was Luigi who coined the term "drawn to the nuisance", which is exactly what happened to Laguna and also what's happened to my local gun club.

The problem is, land around airports, race tracks and gun clubs is cheap and usually "out of town", so developers build nice country estates on it, then the new owners start complaining. It's kind of absurd really, but it's very common.

I don't know if the noise regs have really destroyed the local economy around Laguna. Any event I've been to is usually sold out in a matter of days, people put aftermarket mufflers on and call it good. It's better than losing the best track in the western US?

Otto Mechanic

Quick thought; has there ever been a case of a region/city/town succeeding at getting a noise reducing restraint on a freeway? More to the point, has anyone tried it and been tossed out of court with a background of loud laughter?

It must have been tried somewhere? If so it might provide the framework for a defense?

shewu

I think we'd kill to have 96 or 93 -- almost all weekends are 90db (Hooked on Driving) or 92db (PCA-GGR tries really hard to get these, and the track rental is considerably more expensive).

Akunob

Interesting question re: noise reducing restraint on freeways. I've seen these massive freeway sound barriers (concrete walls) that are designed to reduce sounds coming from freeways. I have to believe those are mandated by local regulation.

RJKK

Use to live in CT and thankfully moved away. Parents still there though and my dad's company (Echlin) use to run formula fords there amongst other things. He's happy to help to keep that track alive and well. Sunday racing is a relgion......

Otto Mechanic

In that case, maybe there's some hope for Laguna? It's in a County Park and I believe the concession is leased? If so, maybe the freeway sound mitigation measures might be applicable?