An analogy for the incrementalists: a unique forest can be completely cut down, by just saying each time "but it is just one more tree, please, no big effect".
"reversing the trail changes is possible if they don't work out" is a bad "escape plan", a poor way to push the changes; inertia will be too great. Gordon Woodington On Tue, Jun 21, 2022 at 10:44 AM Mary Crowe <singri...@gmail.com> wrote: > I agree with Sara and Gordon. As a walker , horseback rider and biker I > would like to see the trail access remain as is, There are so many places > available for biking and not so many quiet trails for walking. I think > busy all access trails could have signs that warn horseback riders to not > run up on walkers. and bikers to slow down or stop for walkers and riders. > As a rider I have not had problems with walkers and runners , and some > bikers are very polite but many just dont know how to safely pass horses. > I also some designating areas for the separate sports is also an idea to > consider. > > On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 7:40 PM Gordon Woodington < > alpinemeado...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> The argument, IMHO, still a good one despite a few voices to the >> contrary, is that too much "mixed usage" leads to issues of quality of >> experience. I disagree with notion that "bikers have learned". That is >> not my experience. Why the big push to homogenize all towns, all trails >> (which this round of changes comes close to doing). The logic of >> separating usages in some places is still a valid operating principle. >> LIncoln need not be generized while remaining appropriate in its choices. >> There are lots of places in the world where bikes and walkers are >> separated, and not all are "road" cases; many are in Nature in places >> which has been consciously and appropriately set aside for a subset of all >> potential users. I personally would veto all suggested changes at this >> juncture. >> >> Minimally, I would not like trail usage to change in a manner that >> encourages "rally" and "speed" behavior. IMHO some of the trail changes >> do this. >> >> The two arguments are basically the same. 1) to not be exclusive, trails >> should allow all types of user modes. 2) to not be exclusive, all zoning >> in Lincoln should permit all types of personal incomes with equal number of >> small lots. Should Lincoln give up 2 acre zoning, should I give up the >> tranquility of most trails without bikers? >> >> I believe Sara Mattes point still holds water, at least it corresponds >> with my recent personal experience. Lincoln is already serving the wishes >> of large numbers of users coming from other towns as well as from Lincoln. >> No need to change trail usage AT ALL. >> >> Gordon Woodington >> >> On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 6:31 PM John Mendelson <johntmendel...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> You are thinking back to a different time, Sara. Our roads were safer. >>> Trail biking was in its infancy. I could go on. Just because excluding >>> bikes was the right decision 40 years ago doesn't mean it is the right >>> decision today. >>> >>> Trail bikers are just as likely to be stewards of the trails and the >>> environment as those wanting quiet contemplation. Why should we make a >>> value judgement that one use is more important than another? Why is >>> walking and horseback riding more important to the community than biking? >>> Our current and proposed trail use policy says that walking and horseback >>> riding are in fact more important and I think that is plain wrong and not >>> in sync with the values the town otherwise espouses. >>> >>> John >>> >>> On Mon, Jun 20, 2022, 5:09 PM Sara Mattes <samat...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> I would strongly disagree with the general statement that we are >>>> perceived as “an island of exclusion,” because of our current trail >>>> policies. >>>> The number of cars parked along our roadways all during the pandemic, >>>> and the walkers that came from them would say otherwise. >>>> We are *well-known* for the relative peacefulness of our trails, as >>>> opposed to those towns that have a larger number of bikes on them. >>>> >>>> The number of fast moving bikes and mountain bikes that were here >>>> during Mike Farney’s tenure, and after, led to many complaints and to the >>>> degradation of the trails. >>>> The bike ruts led to erosion and degradation of flora and vegetation, >>>> and made walking often uncomfortable and sometimes unsafe. >>>> >>>> Subsequent hearings were filled with very passionate folks from the >>>> out-of-town biking community and those in town, with a similar charge of >>>> elitism deployed. >>>> It did not dissuade the stewards of our lands and the introduction of >>>> more restricted use, and the return of peace and healthier trails for the >>>> rest. >>>> >>>> It seems history is repeating itself and we may, once again, relearn a >>>> hard lesson, unless our stewards are very, vary careful as they thread the >>>> needle. >>>> >>>> Sara >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ------ >>>> Sara Mattes >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Jun 20, 2022, at 4:45 PM, John Mendelson <johntmendel...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> I must point out that both Concord and Weston (and other towns >>>> mentioned) allow cycling on a significant majority of their trails at >>>> present. We are very much our of step with our peer towns in terms of >>>> restricting usage of our trails. And these policies give us a reputation, >>>> deserved or otherwise, of a town that is the opposite of welcoming and >>>> open-minded. We are an island of exclusion when it comes to trail use >>>> policy in the area. >>>> >>>> Further, there are many trail bike specific destinations in the area >>>> that attract enthusiasts and an incremental increase in bike access here >>>> will not significantly increase use nor impact wildlife. >>>> >>>> John >>>> >>>> On Mon, Jun 20, 2022, 4:25 PM Barbara Peskin <bpeski...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Deb, >>>>> Thank you for sharing the zoom link and reminder for the 6/22 vote. >>>>> Interest from Lexington, Wayland, Andover, etc seems to be a sign of >>>>> outside recreational bike groups looking to get access to Lincoln trails >>>>> and I feel that the Conservation Commission's considering to lower the bar >>>>> on protecting habitat will negatively impact Lincoln wildlife - I don't >>>>> think Concord or Weston will in exchange protect trails if we open ours. >>>>> Lincoln has something special because of the generosity of conservation >>>>> and >>>>> hard work of stewardship that came before us, and I wish it could >>>>> continue. >>>>> I am sending in another letter on behalf of walkers and wildlife before >>>>> 6/22 and hope you might, too. If you are interested in seeing my letter >>>>> please let me know. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Re: Trails Continuance from Lincoln Digest, Vol 117, Issue 20 >>>>> >>>>> Hello, all - >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The June 1 ConComm trails discussion over Zoom was robust and >>>>> heartening; lots of people showed up and voiced their opinions on the >>>>> proposed trails regulations. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> For those who couldn't make it, the ConComm decided to hold off on >>>>> voting on the regs, and instead to continue the meeting on the evening of >>>>> this Wednesday, June 22, also over Zoom. You can find the agenda for that >>>>> meeting here: >>>>> https://www.lincolntown.org/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_06222022-4573 >>>>> >>>>> Further discussion and a vote on the trails issue is scheduled for >>>>> 8:15 pm, and the Zoom link for the meeting is on the agenda, or here: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Zoom Meeting Link: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> https://us06web.zoom.us/j/88063247875?pwd=SFJFd1pKcVJZSDFXUDkxdGVyYzBQZz09 >>>>> >>>>> or Dial In: 1-646-876-9923 >>>>> >>>>> Meeting ID: 880 6324 7875 Passcode: 894034 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Written comments on the proposed draft trails policy are a matter of >>>>> public record; Michelle Grzenda suggested that anyone interested in >>>>> reading >>>>> those comments should call or email her or Stacy Carter for the link. (The >>>>> Conservation Dept. prefers to get individual requests for the link rather >>>>> than broadcasting it, because private emails are included with the >>>>> comments). >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I have read the comments, and think they’re worth the read, as they >>>>> give a wide range of opinions on trail use in Lincoln. (I noticed that >>>>> some >>>>> quite extensive comments came from residents of Lexington, Wayland, >>>>> Weston, >>>>> Concord, Belmont and Andover — there’s quite a lot of interest outside >>>>> Lincoln in Lincoln’s trail policies.) And of course it’s always good to >>>>> hear the voices and views of others on the ConComm Zoom, and to voice your >>>>> own. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Deb Howe >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>>>> Barbara Peskin >>>>> >>>>> *My Moments in Nature Photo Gallery: barbarapeskin.com >>>>> <http://barbarapeskin.com/>* >>>>> -- >>>>> The LincolnTalk mailing list. >>>>> To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org. >>>>> Search the archives at http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/. >>>>> Browse the archives at >>>>> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/. >>>>> Change your subscription settings at >>>>> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln. >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>> The LincolnTalk mailing list. >>>> To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org. >>>> Search the archives at http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/. >>>> Browse the archives at >>>> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/. >>>> Change your subscription settings at >>>> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln. >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>> The LincolnTalk mailing list. >>> To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org. >>> Search the archives at http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/. >>> Browse the archives at >>> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/. >>> Change your subscription settings at >>> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln. >>> >>> -- >> The LincolnTalk mailing list. >> To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org. >> Search the archives at http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/. >> Browse the archives at >> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/. >> Change your subscription settings at >> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln. >> >>
-- The LincolnTalk mailing list. To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org. Search the archives at http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/. Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/. Change your subscription settings at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.
