Locally Grown

Thanks for the info, Dan.

I see Ray Cox has a blog post with photos of the groundbreaking in Dundas at:
http://www.raycox.net/2007_05_01_archive.html#6893320305481578358

#2

Dan:

As you know, my office is on 4th Street and I live on Fareway Drive. I commute, by bike, along 4th Street almost every day. My experience indicates that it is indeed perfect for bike traffic. Now and then I take either 5th Street or 7th Street and they have far more vehicular traffic than 4th and so are not as nice routes for bikes.

Ross

#4

Frederick and Brent, thanks for chiming in. I’ll try to link to Alvin’s letter as soon as the Nfld News makes it available.

FYI to others new to the conversation, I blogged about the 4th St. concerns here 6 weeks ago, with two of the letters to the Nfld News: Safety of Mill Towns Trail’s bike lanes questioned

And I’ll see if some of the Mill Towns Trail board members can join the conversation here. Some board members wrote this Nfld News letter to the editor back in late March but they didn’t address the issues, other than to say, in effect, “come to our board meetings and talk to us.”

Bring concerns about the Mill Towns Trail

To the editor:

Recent letters to the Northfield News have raised questions about the Mill Towns Trail’s route through Northfield. We would like to respond and to say that we believe we have a responsibility to all the stakeholders in the proposed trail to address any questions raised about the safety, location and general impact of the Trail. We are committed to doing that and we have been doing that, for residents of the “historic district on the East Side” of town and for anyone else potentially affected by the trail.

At the same time, we believe individuals with concerns about the trail should present those concerns responsibly, respecting the good work that has gone into efforts to make the trail functional and safe (e.g., by Northfield city employees and dedicated citizens), the open procedures that have been followed in planning the trail and that remain available to anyone interested in the trail, and the potential value of the trail to our local community and to larger efforts to promote active, healthy lifestyles. We’ve been disturbed, frankly, by the alarmist rhetoric in recent letters and the very fact that a letter-writing campaign is occurring prior to efforts to evaluate and address in a considered manner any concerns individuals may have. Readers of the News should also recognize that a few letters may not represent general opinion; a number of board members of the Friends of the Mill Towns Trail, in fact, live in the same area as recent correspondents to the News.

We have a very different perspective on the issues (e.g., safety, congestion, environmental impacts), alternatives, numbers and claims cited in recent letters to the News. We’d like to share what we know and have thought about with anyone who has concerns of any kind, just as we would like to listen to and consider any concerns carefully to ensure that in the end, we have the best possible bike trail in Northfield to serve our community’s interests far into the future. Our group meets the second Wednesday of almost every month at Dundas City Hall at 6:30 and our meetings are always open ones, and we would especially like to invite anyone interested in the issues raised in recent letters to attend our May 9 meeting.

Neil Lutsky, Meg Otten, Peggy Prowe and John Stull

#6

Thanks, Neil, for giving me cause to explain why so many of us see links between State Trail bikers and “special event” bikers. First, as your own experience suggests, many of them are the same people. Second, unlike you, most of them are tourists on a relatively rare trip through Northfield. Third, both are expected to visit in very large numbers on a single day. (The “100,000 a summer, mostly on weekends,” projected on the Mill Towns website suggests about 4,000 on any sunny Saturday.) Fourth, both groups are given clear statements of the rules of the road—on websites, road signs, etc.—which both are equally likely to ignore. (See the prohibition against running stop signs on the Ironman website.) Fifth, both pose at least a nuisance and at worst a danger in interactions with cross traffic.

You cite your own experience as evidence that trail bikers behave differently. I’ll cite the experience of Northfield and Dundas police, and the opinion of the State DNR, and common sense: We should not expect bikers, especially those riding in groups, to become properly cautious about cars, pedestrians, and cross traffic from the moment they speed off a car-free, stop-free, crossing-free trail.

#8

Niel, Please read my post again. It did not quote you as saying, “many of them are the same riders.” I said, “as your own experience suggests….” It suggested this to me. Let me acknowledge your belief that the two groups are generally different.

Because I did not, in fact, “attribute to you something you did not say,” I’ll leave it to others to decide what is “misleading” here.

Please be assured that I had absolutely no intention of ascribing the Lanesboro lady’s comments to the Friends of the MTT. I quoted her as “a trail advocate” because she is one, and I failed to identify her as “the B&B owner from Lanesboro whose speech to Rotary was quoted in the Northfield News in Sept. 2006″ in order to stay below the News’s word limit for guest columns. I am sorry if you took my omission to be deliberately misleading, but it leads me to ask, from which part of what she said do you wish to disassociate your group?

Meanwhile, I am encouraged to learn that we have miscalculated the projected numbers of trail users per weekend. I’m also glad to know that the MTST folks have information that addresses safety issues. I am eager to find out more, though apparently neither this public blog nor the Northfield News are deemed to be appropriate forums.

#10

Fred and Griff,

I’d be happy to post analyses of the central issues that have been raised about the path of the Mill Towns Trail after Wednesday’s meeting. The reason I haven’t done so yet is that I have been gathering additional information in preparation for that meeting. I believe in being careful about evidence and getting the facts right.

It’s understandable that residents along a proposed Trail would have sharp questions about what life with a trail would be like. As I said in the Northfield News letter, we–the Friends Group–have an obligation to take those questions seriously and address them to the best of our knowledge. What I have had difficulty with is the jumping to conclusions that have accompanied the posing of the questions and then the promoting of those conclusions to others. I personally believe that’s been destructive rather than constructive for the community.

The 100,000 number represents a case in point. What’s the source of that number (beyond the fact that it was listed on the Mill Town’s web site)? How was it derived? What does it mean or represent? What are its implications for residents? I think those questions should have been answered before drawing out dire implications from it.

Fred, I appreciated your last post regarding your Northfield News column. The unattributed quotations bothered me deeply. I did not claim in what has become Post 9 above that you were intentionally misleading, and you made clear that it was an editing decision on your part that left the attribution out. Let me simply say that I didn’t believe you were trying to mislead readers. But what I would say is that it was unfair not to include an attribution or not to decide to remove the quotations if you couldn’t include an attribution. I think the burden falls on the author of a piece to exercise reasonable efforts to ensure that readers won’t be misled, and I think almost anyone reading your column would have assumed the quotes were coming from local (Northfield) trail advocates.

I again encourage folks to attend Wednesday’s meeting and hope we have civil and productive discussions of the issues that have been raised. That’s what I am anticipating. What do we all know that addresses these issues? What else might we need to find out?

#12

Fred,

I would like to know what you consider to be the “litany of abuses and misrepresentations to Mill Towns Trail lobbyists and supporters.” Where do you find the “repeated public statements claiming Carleton’s approval of the Upper Arb route”? I can’t vouch for how you or anyone else interpreted individual conversations, but I would like to see your claims made specific and the public evidence you have to back them.

I can say as a member of the MTT Friends Board, that I don’t believe the Board held that Carleton was currently committed to the upper arb route. There is a complicated history of letters from the College and discussions with the College regarding routes as things have unfolded over time, but the most recent indications we received from the College–prior to the most recent letter, which I have not seen–were not such that we felt the College was committed to the upper arb route. There is concrete evidence that we did not feel there was a sufficient commitment to that route or we would have sought bonding money for work on that phase of the project. That said, we have been working on the upper arb route, primarily because it appears to be the most feasible of the possibilities before us.

Speaking for myself, I can’t see taking the 4th St. route off the table based on what I now know. I don’t think there are good arguments for doing that, something we can discuss on Wednesday. (We did not meet last Wednesday, by the way; we meet once a month.) It is the case, however, that I would be delighted to work on alternative routes, as I and others have for some time. We’ve worked hard, in fact, the past few years, to explore alternatives. The fundamental problem, as I have encountered it, is that the alternatives have low probabilities of being successful.

#14

Fred,

My sense is that you and I are the only people reading this, but, hey, it beats grading.

In any case, you are correct that the website should be revised. I think you are incorrect about your interpretation of what has happened previously. My understanding is that what was said to the Northfield City Council and what is on the web site reflected a previous letter from Carleton. As key players at Carleton have changed and as we’ve had conversations with Carleton more recently–primarily about alternative routes–the College has become more cautious, seeking to learn about all the options and what those might entail. You, Carleton, and we ourselves might prefer certain alternative routes, but that doesn’t make them feasible. Again, I haven’t read the latest Carleton letter, but I suspect it doesn’t say anything we didn’t already know and they haven’t already said. I doubt it will change the larger calculus of the situation.

#16

Thank you, Neil, for your good humor about our exchange. If we are indeed the only people reading this, at least we two are learning more about each other’s point of view.

On the specifics of who-knew-what-and-said- what-when, I can tell you three things with confidence: Carleton officials affirm that there was never more than “tentative approval with reservations” regarding the Upper Arb. Two Mill Towns people at the Council’s 4th-Street striping meeting claimed however, as one said, “It’s all set with Carleton.” The Council member who seconded the “on-street trail” resolution now says they never would have approved it had they not been told that Carleton was fully on board with an Upper Arb route.

Because I don’t want to accuse anyone of bad intent, I’ll go with the interpretation that the trail lobbyist heard what he wanted to hear from Carleton (and possibly someone at Carleton told him what he wanted to hear). Still, it remains a problem for me that the 4th-Street striping I see out my window was based on a “misunderstanding.”

About the latest letter. If you read it as I do, you’ll see that in the name of clarifying its position, Carleton has, in fact, retreated further from approving the route.

Thank you again for taking the time to discuss these matters in this venue. I’m now going to go out this evening and pretend to have a life.

#18

Neil and Fred, our blog averages 100-200 readers/day and has 2,000+ unique visitors/month.

Believe me, there are LOTS of people reading this comment thread and the very helpful exchange between the two of you. I’ve learned more in two days than I have in 6 months. Thanks VERY much to both of you.

#20

Neil and Fred and Griff, I’m one of those 2,000 readers a month, and I’ve been following this discussion with great interest from Kenilworth, England, where we’ve been on sabbatical since last August. I’ve counted on Locally Grown and Northfield.org to keep up with the news from home while we’ve been away. I should say that while I certainly share Frederick’s feelings for the Arb, I am very enthusiastic about the bike trail. Last summer, before we left for England, Clara rode from Northfield to Pepin, Wisconsin; a link from Northfield to Cannon Falls would have made it a lot more pleasant. And I have to say that, from my experience of walking dozens of miles each week along Warwickshire’s footpaths and bridleways (often sharing the paths with bikes and horses, not to mention sheep), I think carefully-planned recreational use can coexist with respect for the beauty and tranquility of the countryside. I’ve come to love rural England because I have such excellent access to it through the country’s wonderful system of public rights of way. Isn’t it possible that increasing access to the countryside around Northfield, through the Mill Towns Trail, allow more people to appreciate that landscape, and create more passionate advocates of it like yourself, Frederick? Of course, I may just be feeling wildly optimistic today.

Greetings from England! See you all in August.

#22

My last post before the next two, each of which will address a major issue raised in this interchange!

While Fred and I do agree on certain points, as his last posting notes, I found it too general to be of much help. Any proposal for locating the trail is likely to engage a local NIMBY response. There are instances in which there may be sound reasons for such a response and others in which the reasons are specious. A central problem is that if everyone responds in that way, something like a trail will never happen. In some sense, Carleton has responded just as Fred has, so when Fred indicates that Carleton thinks we can do better, my sense after extensive interactions with Carleton is that Carleton now–its position has changed over time, which is a key point that has been misinterpreted by Trail opponents–has taken the same position. It’s easy to want a trail somewhere else, but it costs the common good.

It may be useful background to add that Eric Johnson had a wonderful vision for the Trail that ran it by the Cannon River and next to Carleton’s lower Arb. The purpose of doing so was to link the Mill Towns Trail to environmental educational experiences. Eric, I might note, is just as passionate about and protective of the Arb as Fred. Eric and I and others brought the concept to Carleton, which, basically, gave us the NIMBY response. Carleton’s apparent current preference to have the Trail by train tracks on the north side of the Cannon, despite the fact that numerous observers have concluded it’s technically not possible for that to occur due to pinch points along the route, is, in effect, a NIMBY response. It’s not a meaningful alternative that meets any reasonable vision for the Trail along the lines Fred described.

I do agree with Fred that the Fourth St. route is not the best possible route for the Trail, but I don’t think it’s a poor route, and I do think the reasons Fred and others have cited are, taken as a whole, specious. (I do think there are unresolved difficulties associated with the route, by the way, but they haven’t been the focus of discussion because they don’t immediately affect Fourth St.) I and others have worked hard, over years, to try to make other routes work. They haven’t. If we can develop a more desirable alternative and feasible route, that would be great, but wishing doesn’t make it so, and NIMBY responses without well-considered merit only make it more likely that we’ll end up with a generalized NIMBY, nothing.

One minor note: I don’t have an absolutist passion for bike trails. My work for bike trails is rooted in the opening controversy in this long series of postings concerning the likely users of such trails. I think bike trails primarily provide health and nature based recreational opportunities for families and older folks and, as such, are a wonderful community asset.

I want to go back to the NIMBY problem. The response is a common one, and what it requires all of us to do, I think, is to approach any issues raised in an open and carefully considered way. Not to do so has the potential to corrode the public good.

My next post will address this. In it, I will present arguments and evidence to suggest that Fred’s widely publicized claim that the Mill Towns Trail would bring “4000 visitors on every pleasant weekend day” during the summer to Northfield was terribly wrong. My best estimate is that on the very best of days, any resident of Fourth St. wouldn’t see more than 200-300 trail users, and that on most days, residents would see far fewer than that. There are a number of reasons why Fred’s numbers are so far off the mark, and but one of them, I would suggest, is that there’s been a ill-considered rush to judgment and, worse yet, to public promotion in the service of NIMBY.

#24

And now the numbers…

It all begins with the number 100,000, which was cited by members of the Friends of the Trail Board and included in a posting on the Friends web site. Peg Prowe wanted to estimate the number of visitors brought to a trail, contacted the Cannon Valley Trail, and was told that they had estimated that year (1998) there were 102,235 “visitor use days.” That’s the proximate source of the number 100,000.

To understand that number, it’s important to know how the Cannon Valley Trail derived it and what it means. The CVT bases their numbers on two sources; a counter along their trail and sales of trail passes. Neither yields an exact total for various reasons, but each of these totals is plugged into formuli that ESTIMATE visitor use days. (No matter how precise the number 102,235 might seem, it’s an estimate based on a count, not a count.)

What is a visitor use day (VUD)? This is important: it represents one person anywhere on the Trail for up to one day. So if a person bikes the entire 20 miles from Cannon Falls to Red Wing and then the 20 miles back, that contributes 1 visitor use day. If a pair of friends walks a mile on the trail from Red Wing and back, that contributes 2 VUDs. If a family of 5 at Hidden Valley Campground walks on the trail for 10 minutes, that contributes 5 VUDs. If someone living in Cannon Falls goes skiing on the trail, that contributes a VUD. In other words, the 100,000 number represents an estimate of the number of people on ANY PART of the 20 mile trail for any of these purposes.

It turns out the 1998 number is far higher than the “estimated VUDs” derived from the two sources for all subsequent years. A more accurate starting figure is 90,000. Let’s start there.

We now face the problem of dividing the VUDs over 7 specific months and weekends and weekdays. Weather is a variable in this as well, but the Cannon Valley Trail folks indicate that the key variable is whether people are off (e.g., for weekends and holidays). The highest usage dates are holidays.

I have employed the following assumptions:

a. Use of the trail doubles during the summer months when people are off. That assigns 9000 VUDs to April, May, September, and October, and 18,000 VUDs to June, July, and August.

b. During non-summer months, there are twice as many VUDs on weekends as on weekdays. That assigns about 500 VUDs to weekend days and 250 to week days.

c. During summer months, there are 1.5 as many VUDs on weekends as on weekdays. That’s because school is out during the week and people take vacations during the summer. That assigns 500 VUDs to week days and–I’m being liberal here–800 VUDs to weekend days.

Personally, based on my experiences riding the trail throughout the season, I think these average estimates are high. For various reasons totally unrelated to this current issue, I’ve had occasion to count the number of riders I’ve seen during long days on the trail. (For example, my son and I were once interested in counting how many riders used helmets. Forty percent didn’t do so, which also tells you something about what kinds of riders ride the trail.) For the sake of argument, however, lets assume the above numbers are correct. Note that these are averages; some days will be higher than others, but I don’t think the variability will be that substantial. The standard deviation is probably no more than 100.

Are these numbers plausible? I think they are at least in the vicinity of plausibility for two reasons despite the fact that I think they are too high. First, I’ve asked people who work for the Cannon Valley Trail how many people they believe the trail attracts on its most popular days (which everyone says are holidays). In other words, what’s the PEAK DAILY VUD on the most beautiful of days? The pass checker at Welch told me that on such a day, the trail could get “hundreds of users, maybe even 500.” That’s her estimate of the maximum she has seen. I’ve asked the same question of Scott Roepke, Trail Manager, and his best estimate was 1000, again for the maximum daily VUD he has seen. (Why the difference? My guess it’s because the pass checker is only seeing part of the traffic.) In other words, the maximum VUD on the CVT is probably somewhere between 500-1000, and that’s somewhere in the vicinity of the 800 VUD summer weekend average allowing for variability around that average.

There’s another way I approached the problem of estimating daily and maximum numbers. It was by counting parking spots for the Cannon Valley Trail. There are three parking lot locations with subsidary lots at two of them. On extremely busy weekends–and I’ve been down to the trail on those weekends–I would estimate that about 100 parking spots are taken by trail users. If we assume each spot supports two bicyclists or walkers and that all the spots turn over once during the day, than on these peak days, we have 100 cars x 2 users x 2 shifts or 400 users (plus folks using the trail from the towns and the campground along the way). That’s peak times. I’ve never been to the trail, even on holidays and trail event days, when the parking lots were completely full (except for Welch, which holds 35 cars).

The bottom line here is that FOR THE CANNON VALLEY TRAIL, we end up with a maximum number of users during the busiest of days of from 500-1000. MOREOVER, THESE FOLKS ARE VISITING THE TRAIL AT DIFFERENT PLACES. A VUD means anywhere on the trail. There is no single place along the 20 miles of the trail that is likely to see that number of visitors.

So we need to make a judgment about VUDs per location. There are three major locations along the trail, Cannon Falls, Welch, and Red Wing. Again, I’m going to make a liberal assumption and give each location 50% of the VUD. In other words, in any one location, I estimate that 250-500 users are likely to be encountered AS A MAXIMUM. (Note that the 500 figure ends up correponding to what the Welch checker suggested.)

The next problem is this: what are the implications of the Cannon Valley Trail figures for the residents of Fourth St. in Northfield? My best sense is that the Mill Towns Trail will be a significantly less popular attraction than the Cannon Valley Trail. That says more about the CVT than anything else. It’s on a wonderful abandoned railroad bed along the scenic bluffs of the Cannon River. The CVT is the nicest trail I’ve ever seen. So I don’t think we should expect the Mill Towns Trail to be equally popular. Moreover, since a majority of users of the CVT live in the Twin Cities, at least according to one survey the CVT did, the fact that we are less proximate would suggest a lower draw from the state’s major population center.

The bottom line in my judgment, then, is this: ON THE BEST OF ALL SUMMER RIDING AND WALKING DAYS, a resident of Fourth St. who sat outside watching the trail, would probably see 125-250 trail users.

It makes me sick, honestly, to compare this number to the 4000 figure that has been so widely cited by Mill Towns Trail critics.

I hope my own assumptions and calculations are correct. They are the result of attempts to understand the numbers and check them as best as I could, but that doesn’t make them perfect. At least what I’ve done is open to public scrutiny. These numbers are in the range of my own experiences as a trail user, I have to say. What they suggest is that the magnitude of usage of the Mill Towns Trail likely to be experienced by residents of Fourth St. over the course of a day would be small.

#26

Fred, I don’t automatically associate the use of the term ‘NIMBY’ with a lack of civility, tho I know from my using it with the proposed ethanol plant, it often triggers a negative response in people. I see the term as a handy way to label the understandable response from people who are worried about the effects that a development would have on their neighborhood… be it a skatepark, an ethanol plant, or a bike trail.

I’d hate to have you abandon this discussion.

Update at 8:12 pm: I posted this before I’d read Neil’s response.

#28

Back in 1997, I was vehemently opposed to the building of the Carleton rec center, which I believed would compromise the integrity of the arboretum. Ten years later, I think the rec center is undoubtedly a good thing for Carleton, though I still regret the loss of an unobstructed view from the Hill of Three Oaks. I also regret some hasty and ill-considered remarks I made to some of the people at Carleton. Yes, it’s always so much better to remain civil, even in opposition.

I’ve gone back and re-read Frederick’s original opinion piece in the Northfield News. It says (about the proposed trail route): “This flawed plan was neither their first choice nor their second. They adopted it only after several less dangerous, less disruptive routes were blocked. If any other route were found to be viable, I believe they would embrace it.” Neil seems to agree with this. Frederick continues to call for a different plan. But what viable alternatives remain, when even Frederick seems to agree that the current plan is the plan of last resort after years of work by the promoters of the Mill Towns Trail?

I do find merit in Frederick’s objections. It would be better not to disrupt the arboretum at all. It would be far better if the trail didn’t have to cross Division Street in the middle of town. But it does seem to me that the planners have made every effort to balance the needs of bicyclists, motorists, and pedestrians—who, after all, should be able to share the streets safely. (Here in England, there’s been a lot of discussion of how unsafe the streets are for cyclists; things are much better in the United States, where there are more stop signs and there’s more respect for the rights of non-motorists on the streets.)

If I’ve missed anything (I have, after all been away from Northfield for nine months), and there is a better plan than the one Neil supports, I’d like to know what it is. For example, I’ve always wished that the trail could cross the Cannon River under the Hwy 3 bridge near Riverside Park. Thence, perhaps up Woodley and out of town along 28, then left on Kane Ave. and out to Hwy 19. A nice workout, with excellent views of the wind turbine. But I assume that something like this has already been rejected for some good reason. It might be helpful to have some history of what has been proposed and what has been rejected, so we all know how we came to this point and can therefore agree that we’re now pursuing the only alternative left to us.

#30

Griff, is that the 5th Street bridge? I live on East Fifth Street. In a spirit of non-NIMBY-ism, I will say that, if Fourth Street doesn’t work out, I have no objection to the bike trail going up Fifth in front of my house. Then maybe the city would finally put a four-way stop at Fifth and Washington, something I’ve wanted for fifteen years.

#32

Rob,

There are problems taking the trail out County 28. The foremost one is that the terrain is so hilly. That might not be a problem for some riders, but if we remember that most riders will be older or family groups, then it is. That’s why almost all the trails I’ve ever ridden are more or less flat.

What you might not know–and what’s exciting–is that we (the City/Rotary/the Mill Towns Trail) are building a bike/pedestrian bridge across the Cannon this summer near the 3 bridge near Riverside Lions Park. That will allow kids in Northfield to get to Sechler safely and will bring the Mill Towns Trail into town.

Enjoy a warm pint for me. Best to Clara.

Neil

#34

This is one of the best discussions we’ve had here on Locally Grown, in terms of both tone and content. Thanks especially to Neil and Fred for the informed debate.

And I echo Rob’s sentiments about alternate routes through town if the 4th Street contingent stays cantankerous… I live on 2nd Street, and I’d be very happy if the trail was marked on my street.

#36

I like the idea of the trail going through the Arb. It would be a huge draw/marketing advantage. People would say “and be sure to bike the trail starting in Northfield because it goes through the Carleton Arb there.”

Neil, since you and I agree that the term ‘NIMBY’ is not necessarily pejorative, what differences do you see, if any, in the NIMBY stance of the 4th St folks like Frederick and the NIMBY stance of Carleton re: the Arb?

#38

Hey Griff:

I love the Arb and I love the Bike Trail, but I’ve got to agree with Rob that putting the Bike Trail through the lower Arb doesn’t seem like a good idea. If you put it on the hills, you’d being risking major erosion, if you put it in the valleys, you’d be experiencing major flooding.

Rob’s loving encirclement of the perimeter is, I am fairly certain, a compromise between the Arb Lovers and the Trail Lovers that probably resulted from eight years of discussion. Let’s not peddle backwards.

Ross

#40

Griff, Here’s a little help with vocabulary from Wikipedia:

“NIMBY and its derivative terms refer implicitly to debates of development generally or a specific case, and as such their use is inherently contentious….The term is usually applied to opponents by advocates of a development, implying that those opposing the debated development, or at least their
viewpoint in such regards, is narrow, selfish, myopic, hypocritical or otherwise limited. As such, its use is pejorative.”

#42

Neil, Your apology is gratefully accepted. The reason I had to bow out of our dialog was not the word itself, but how you were using it. Suddenly, after we had discussed so many specific pros and cons, you shifted to a more global indictment of “those who oppose.”

Let me offer my general opinion of “those who invade”: Would it surprise you, as a WWYBY*, to learn that there are folks out here who can imagine a common good greater than building a continuous bike trail from Mankato to Red Wing? Or that some of us, even those like me who love to bike, can distinguish between a good route and a bad one, regardless of where we personally live, work, and play?

OF COURSE people who live near 4th Street and who love the Arb are going to be among the first to object to this bad route, because we will be among the first to recognize its consequences. If you were routing the trail up St. Olaf Avenue and through that campus, your initial opposition would likely come from a different quarter.

What WWYBYs like you cannot seem to grasp is that your vision is not universally shared. Every farmer from Mankato to Red Wing may imagine a better use for the edge of his land. Every visitor to a park along the route may prefer their park without a new ribbon of asphalt running through. Every property owner may know of uses for his or her property that, in his opinion, trump those of a bike trail.

To the WWYBY, all this is irrelevant, because you confuse “a good thing” with “a necessary thing” and your non-polluting, healthful hobby with “the common good.”

The chief difference between NIMBYs and WWYBYs is that you are better organized. A clear vision, developed plan, & unified organization are all to your credit. They lead to funding and political clout. Your group has proved itself an effective lobby.

We, on the other hand—all those NIMBY’s from Mankato to Red Wing—typically don’t know what has hit us until our little portion of the future trail has been taken from us.

It is immoral to indict the College for believing it knows better how to manage and “enhance” the Arb than you do. It is similarly immoral to treat people in my neighborhood as a special interest group, when they seek to resist your special interest.

At what point does a WWYBY no longer see the difference between his own particular passions and “the common good”?

[WWYBY stands for "We Want Your Back Yard"]

#44

Fred et al.,

What I would like to see is discussion of how realistic the concerns that have been raised about the Fourth St. path of the trail are. It’s one thing to raise questions; it’s another to assume answers to those questions.

A major concern raised was the huge number of riders (and associated cars) clogging Fourth St. as a result of the trail. When looked at more closely, that concern turns out to lack solid grounding (see post 26). It was pretty clear from the outset to anyone who had much experience with trails that the 4000 number was wildly implausible.

Now it’s possible other concerns are equally unfounded, and it’s possible they’re not. That’s why it’s important to me to talk about the issues.

Fred, you’ve raised repeatedly the issue of not damaging the Upper Arb. And my response to that is, first, to look at the Cannon Valley Trail to see that a bike trail does not have to undermine natural resources. I keep calling for a response to my post 21 and others concerning the Cannon Valley Trail as a model of how to respect important natural sites and encourage a love of the outdoors through biking. What’s the evidence that the two area incompatible?

My second response to the Arb concern is to say that everyone involved in the process of establishing a trail route cares about the Arb. The members of the Friends Committee do, the Carleton Arb Committee does, the DNR does. No one in the Friends group is a trail above all else advocate. Nothing is going to happen in establishing a trail on Fourth St. or anywhere else that will harm the Arb in any meaningful way. I just don’t see that happening given the people and groups involved and their values. It’s important to note that any trail involving the Arb, upper or lower, has been conceived as running around the periphery of the Arb for just that reason. (I should have made clear in my post 24 that Eric Johnson’s plan for a lower Arb trail ran the trail aside of the Cannon behind the stadium and then out to 19 by the gym and up the outer edge of the lower Arb on Highway 19 right of way. In other words, the possibility was not that the trail would wind its way through the lower Arb. I agree completely with Rob’s post 39) In sum, I’m glad you and others are concerned about the fate of the Arb; I just don’t see damage to the Arb as a likely result of the process associated with the potential siting of the Trail.

I don’t know where the rhetoric about “indicting” the College or you is originating. I understand the College’s concerns and continue to work with the College to address its concerns and make the trail happen.

#46