Sectional trail focus? Why?

[Shore]

Perhaps Tom Michelman ("pres" of bfrt), who's registered here, can elude to the focus their group's charter has become; that of the attention paid to the most contentious aspect of the proposed "trail"; Williams rd. to WhitePond, with rather minimal focus paid to the myriad of miles comprising other sections.

Many wonder "why" this section, arguably the most heated, with the most to lose has become your focus. Is it access to water? If not, what?

Seeking answers - thank you.

[tmichelman]

First any apologies if I do not use reply to thread correctly. It is my first time using the website.

Please note I joined this forum because I was invited via the FBFRT listserv, but am not a Concord resident, and do not purport to be an expert on Concord specific issues.

From your perspective, it may appear that we ,Friends of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail (FBFRT), are focusing only on the section near White Pond, but that is a misperception when considering the FBFRT as a whole. The FBFRT is a large organization we have members and Board members in all eight towns that comprise the proposed 25 mile trail (from north to south Lowell, Chelmsford, Westford, Carlisle, Acton, Concord, Sudbury and Framingham). Non-Concord members / board members, including myself do not generally focus on Concord issues, though I try to be aware of what is going on and feel I have some baseline knowledge of the issues at hand. We are working to get all 25 miles of the BFRT created, so I reject the contention that there is "rather minimal focus paid to the myriad of miles comprising other sections." Just check out our website, http://www.brucefreemanrailtrail.org/ to quickly confirm there is a lot going on beyond the Williams Road to White Pond segment.

I imagine that you are correct, that in Concord the Williams Road to White Pond segment has been a focus (though I know it is not the only issue the FBFRT is working on in Concord). The reason for the focus is easy to comprehend. The FBFRT goal is create a 25 mile continious trail, preferably on the railroad right-of-way. The issues around the Williams Road to White Pond segment puts our primary goal at risk. Thus the squeaky wheel gets the grease.

The goal of the FBFRT is not to get access to the water of White Pond, as it my understanding to do so from the right-of-way would involve trespassing. (though certainly from the railroad right-of-way there is a nice view of White Pond).

The FBFRT has a meeting tomorrow (Monday Feb-5-2007) in Chelmsford (again see our website). This discussion will be added to the agenda. I don't know what your interaction has been with other members of the FBFRT, but feel free to contact me directly if you want to discuss something specific.

Best regards
Tom Michelman President - Friends of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail
tmichelman@comcast.net
(c) 978-580-6190

Originally Posted by Shore

Perhaps Tom Michelman ("pres" of bfrt), who's registered here, can elude to the focus their group's charter has become; that of the attention paid to the most contentious aspect of the proposed "trail"; Williams rd. to WhitePond, with rather minimal focus paid to the myriad of miles comprising other sections.

Many wonder "why" this section, arguably the most heated, with the most to lose has become your focus. Is it access to water? If not, what?

Seeking answers - thank you.

[Shore]

Originally Posted by tmichelman

The goal of the FBFRT is not to get access to the water of White Pond, as it my understanding to do so from the right-of-way would involve trespassing. (though certainly from the railroad right-of-way there is a nice view of White Pond).

The FBFRT has a meeting tomorrow (Monday Feb-5-2007) in Chelmsford (again see our website). This discussion will be added to the agenda. I don't know what your interaction has been with other members of the FBFRT, but feel free to contact me directly if you want to discuss something specific.

Thanks for the input Tom.

None of us feel pond "access" is the ultimate goal of "bfrt" folk, however, the influx of hundred of additional daily pedestrians will absolutely put a severe strain on the aforementioned topics previously hilighted: Further, greater bank erosion, trash, illegal (& unenforced) swimming etc.

None of this "impact", along with the enforcement of said concerns have been to date, articulated by "bfrt" folk, whose focus has been myopically engaged in and for said paved trail.

The term "trespassing" is as ambiguous and unenforceable as it is currently, with myriads of ad-hock trails/paths essentially acting (as it does now) as mini-tributaries, terminating at White Pond's shoreline.

This is the rationale for concern; In other words, if a minor flow of unenforced foot traffic & swimming can't be quelled "now", how could it possibly be with the daily addition of hundreds more?

Thanks again for your input - & for those who wish to participate in this thread.

JimT

[tmichelman]

JimT,



I would like to clarify the one phrase in your response that I can do so without further research. You state

None of this "impact", along with the enforcement of said concerns have been to date, articulated by "bfrt" folk, whose focus has been myopically engaged in and for said paved trail.

Clarification: the FBFRT, as a group, has not advocated for a specific surface for any section of the trail. We, the FBFRT, have explicitly decided not to take a stance on trail surface. This is just a clarification, I am not suggesting that individual members of the FBFRT have not or would not take a stance on trail surface, only that The FBFRT as whole is agnostic on trail surface.

Disagreement: I would suggest that the FBFRT has not been "myopically" engaged, which would imply that we do not see other issues and desires beyound our own. I would suggest that we are well aware of all the reasons to support or not support the BFRT. I would suggest that our view of the project and it impacts is broad. I would suggest that concluding whether one supports the BFRT to follow the right-of-way or not support the BFRT at all, or to support having the BFRT divert from the right-of-way or any permutation you can think of, has a lot more to do with relative importance of the issues an individual ascribes to them, than to not considering the issues at all.

Jim, you and I may come to different conclusions about what we would like to happen, but I would bet we both understand the issues at hand.

Best regards,

Tom

[LindaB]

Tom, the "paved" aspect herein is merely semantics. Let's be serious.

The conclusions we're discussing here & as evidenced by that recent vote negating any amendments & the rail-roading of funding thus far, is an obvious harbinger of what the bfrt's conclusions are.....

Linda
==========================

Originally Posted by tmichelman

JimT,




I would like to clarify the one phrase in your response that I can do so without further research. You state

None of this "impact", along with the enforcement of said concerns have been to date, articulated by "bfrt" folk, whose focus has been myopically engaged in and for said paved trail.

Clarification: the FBFRT, as a group, has not advocated for a specific surface for any section of the trail. We, the FBFRT, have explicitly decided not to take a stance on trail surface. This is just a clarification, I am not suggesting that individual members of the FBFRT have not or would not take a stance on trail surface, only that The FBFRT as whole is agnostic on trail surface.

Disagreement: I would suggest that the FBFRT has not been "myopically" engaged, which would imply that we do not see other issues and desires beyound our own. I would suggest that we are well aware of all the reasons to support or not support the BFRT. I would suggest that our view of the project and it impacts is broad. I would suggest that concluding whether one supports the BFRT to follow the right-of-way or not support the BFRT at all, or to support having the BFRT divert from the right-of-way or any permutation you can think of, has a lot more to do with relative importance of the issues an individual ascribes to them, than to not considering the issues at all.

Jim, you and I may come to different conclusions about what we would like to happen, but I would bet we both understand the issues at hand.

Best regards,

Tom