The plan focuses too much on creating a new transportation corridor focused primarily on ebikes and not enough on preserving the peaceful park-like amenity we have now.
The rail trail is a park with a mixed-use path, not an alternative transportation artery.
Hyping that aspect is how we begin, I think.
The rail trail is a friendly place. Cyclists must always yield to pedestrians. Dogs should be leashed or under voice control.
Other towns have done a lot of work on this, let’s look at what they’ve done before we cut down our trees, grade the trailside, and free the cyclists to go as fast as they like.
The proposal timeline sensibly begins with the low-hanging fruit, some of which has already begun to show up:
Maintenance
Striping
Wayfinding signage
There is no funding for the major and most expensive, disruptive proposals that are a few years down the road, the widening, bridge building, expansion, wetlands issues, restrooms, etc.
I suggest we begin with more of the low hanging fruit while the required studies go forward:
Along the way show people the extent of the proposed expansion and THEN ask them if they like that idea.
The striping is a gentle reminder to share the trail.
More trash cans and pet waste bags (and a realistic maintenance schedule) will help keep the trail clean.
The Wag’On Trail is a great idea. Signage reminding dog owners to leash their animals and pick up after them will also help.
Concerns:
The proposed cross section is too large and unnecessarily trades trees, grasses, and other plants for road base.
Designating all paved surface for cycling will result in greater speed and more danger to pedestrians for the inevitable conflicts.
Traffic calming involves reducing perceived space. PC spends a lot of effort on it elsewhere. The proposal is the exact opposite.
Preserving natural habitats should always be a priority in PC.
The plan focuses too much on creating a new transportation corridor focused primarily on ebikes and not enough on preserving the peaceful park-like amenity we have now.
The rail trail is a park with a mixed-use path, not an alternative transportation artery.
Hyping that aspect is how we begin, I think.
The rail trail is a friendly place. Cyclists must always yield to pedestrians. Dogs should be leashed or under voice control.
Other towns have done a lot of work on this, let’s look at what they’ve done before we cut down our trees, grade the trailside, and free the cyclists to go as fast as they like.
The proposal timeline sensibly begins with the low-hanging fruit, some of which has already begun to show up:
Maintenance
Striping
Wayfinding signage
There is no funding for the major and most expensive, disruptive proposals that are a few years down the road, the widening, bridge building, expansion, wetlands issues, restrooms, etc.
I suggest we begin with more of the low hanging fruit while the required studies go forward:
Along the way show people the extent of the proposed expansion and THEN ask them if they like that idea.
The striping is a gentle reminder to share the trail.
More trash cans and pet waste bags (and a realistic maintenance schedule) will help keep the trail clean.
The Wag’On Trail is a great idea. Signage reminding dog owners to leash their animals and pick up after them will also help.
Concerns:
The proposed cross section is too large and unnecessarily trades trees, grasses, and other plants for road base.
Designating all paved surface for cycling will result in greater speed and more danger to pedestrians for the inevitable conflicts.
Traffic calming involves reducing perceived space. PC spends a lot of effort on it elsewhere. The proposal is the exact opposite.
Preserving natural habitats should always be a priority in PC.