6: Obstacles to the Proposal--and
solutions.
Preposterous! you say. It'll never
happen. It's too big a project.
Perhaps. But consider that the
proposed footway is already more than 80% in place. Consider that the public now has
access to more than 80% of the route as it stands. And more than 50% is already
on land set aside as conservation easement or public land. Furthermore, when existing projects such as
the Cohos Trail, the Sunapee-Kearsarge-Ragged Greenway, and the North-South
Trial are completed, the route will be 90% intact and accessible. That
leaves only 10% left!
Nonetheless, the enormity of the
project is not to be taken lightly. Hence, here's a response to some of the
most pressing criticisms of the proposal.
~ Argument
1:
We
have enough outdoor recreational opportunities in New England.
This
is basically untrue. Already our "recreational wilderness" is overtaxed. Just
consider the Presidential Range or Baxter State Park in peak season, or try to climb
Mount Monadnock (reportedly the second most hiked mountain in the world) on a sunny summer weekend without elbowing through crowds on the
summit. The fact of the matter is that what is popular becomes overwhelmed; what
is unknown is ignored. You could hike long stretches of the Metacomet-Monadnock Trail
on any day of the year and never run into a single person. The continuity of
a long distance trail helps to balance overuse by redistributing the hiking
population. If all areas become well known, then more people will be diverted to
less used areas, thereby alleviating some of the stress on the currently
overused areas. Furthermore, as population increases, so will demands for
recreational land. Of course, this says nothing about conservation for
environmental concerns such as habitat fragmentation and degradation, or other
concerns such as the essential integrity of public watersheds, the
conservation of endangered species, the improvement of community
aesthetics and livability, and the preservation of our communal vocational
heritage in agriculture and forestry.
~
Such a trail will
divert resources away from current projects.
True,
some diversion of resources will occur. However, the benefits will outweigh what
is lost via diversion. Many new resources will be generated that would not have
existed prior to the inception of this proposal. The proposal would generate and use
local resources, both public and private, which would not normally become
involved in distant, collaborative conservation efforts. Specific greenspaces,
now obscure to all but the local communities they are located in, would become
regional treasures. Furthermore, the trail would
tap into urbanized areas more effectively; urban communities such as Hartford, New
Haven, Meriden, Springfield, Providence, Worcester, and Fitchburg would be
intimately touched by the close proximity of the trail. Proximity
equals increased public awareness. Last of all, many current projects would benefit directly by such a trail;
resources would pour into areas that are already being considered for
conservation or are in need of recreational development and volunteer maintenance.
~There
is too much development along the route; it cannot be effectively
circumvented.
Development
is most threatening along the Midstate Trail in Massachusetts and the
Metacomet and Mattabesett Trails in Connecticut.
Nonetheless,
we must not give into conservation nihilism. The challenge of encroaching
development simply creates the need for more industrious, clever, and sustainable solutions. Furthermore, the presence of encroaching sprawl itself
indicates the need for a resource such as this proposed New England Trail. Development is inevitable, but trails and
wildlife habitat corridors can co-exist even within the most urban areas, if they are
planned for, created, preserved, and actively stewarded. In fact, the greening of urban
and suburban areas is not only a
boon for outdoor enthusiasts, it beautifies the cityscape and
suburbscape and increases property value and community livability. Since development is inevitable, we must learn how to
balance the spread of asphalt by the integration of green "roads" or
greenways. Each community should have green roads as well as paved roads.
~The
proposed route is too winding.
The route
is unapologetically serpentine for two reasons. First, to
take advantage of existing public lands, thereby keeping the land in the
public domain as much as possible. Second, some meandering is necessary to
capitalize on scenic areas and critical habitats. Those who have hiked the
Appalachian Trail will recall such diversions along its route: the Standing Indian Loop of North Carolina, the great
loop around the Presidential Range in New Hampshire, and the radical
twistings in the Hundred Mile Wilderness of Maine--to name but a few.
By
including more scenic areas and representative habitats into the trail, the trail becomes more precious,
more popular, and more interesting to hike, all of which increases public
interest which in turn advances the cause of conservation.
Therefore,
by necessity, the proposed route must meander; it must be forgiven for both borrowing from,
and diverging from, existing trail routes. A winding trail is an interesting trail. In any
case, do we truly want to complain about a longer greenway?
~There
is not enough public land along the route to make it feasible.
At
first glance, the casual observer might imagine this to be true, but this
assumption is false. In compiling the statistics for land ownership along the
route, I used a variety of immediately accessible maps, such as the DeLorme
Atlas series, hiking club maps, USGS Maps (which are almost always
outdated), GIS software, and any other material I could easily get my hands on. The
problem with this method is that it reveals only some of the public
land, not all of it. I fully expect that following a thorough research of
ownership, more public land along the route will be revealed. For instance,
my resource maps did not define the boundaries of reservoir property in
Connecticut, land which is surely under conservation easement, nor did it reveal
much of the land conserved by the Society for the Protection of New
Hampshire Forests, the Nature Conservancy, and other groups. Nonetheless, as the proposal currently stands, there is
already plenty of public land along the route. Consider these statistics,
compiled in 2001 (conservative figures at best--especially when recent
conservation initiatives are taken into consideration):
Total miles of trail (including both the RI and CT branches):
804.78
Total miles of known public land along the route:
470.64 (59%)
Total miles currently accessible to the public (via right of way or
permission)
667.53 (83%)
Total miles not known as accessible to the public
137.25 (17%)
Of
the 137 miles in limbo at the time these figures were produced, slightly less than 10%
is
public land, owned by local or state agencies, or is utility-owned land
(railways, power companies, etc.). A small percent of this land also passes
over areas owned by ski-area businesses, which are usually hospitable toward
greenway efforts. Furthermore, another 30 miles (4%) of footway would
lie on "Northern Forest Land" in the ownership of larger timber
companies, land which is more readily negotiable as a route for foot travel,
and ultimately, conservation efforts.
~The
route crosses the Presidential Range of the White Mountains. What about
current overuse in the Presidential
Range?
This
is a problem. However, it is likely that the presence of a "great
trail" winding through central New England will actually divert some of the
hiker traffic to outlying areas and take some of the weight off of the White
Mountains and other overused areas. More research is needed.
Currently,
the Presidential Range hosts three AMC huts, the Appalachian Trail, a
population of annual "through hikers" and hut guests, an auto road, and a cog
railway--all in a
environmentally delicate and extremely popular alpine area. Another long
distance trail would encourage a new batch of hikers, but many
of these hikers would not necessarily be passing through the White Mountains
in peak season as A.T. hikers do, as the season for long distance New
England Trail backpacking would be more flexible.
Furthermore,
by increasing the amount of available hiking turf, and by advertising
another 700 miles of trail, many vacationing hikers who were likely to spend
some time on the Presidential Range will be distracted elsewhere. Hikers will
gravitate towards what is most visible to them. Today, what is most visible
to the public is the Presidential Range. The New England Trail route would
seek to divert a portion of that public elsewhere.
Nonetheless,
in case of heady concerns of overuse, alternate routes through the Northern
Presidentials are certainly possible. Two options come to mind: a zig-zag
route over Mount Washington using the Glen Boulder Trail to Pinkhman Notch,
the Tuckerman Ravine Trail to the summit of Mount Washington, the Ammonoosuc
Ravine Trail to Marshall Station, and the Caps Ridge Trail/Cornice to
Edmonds Col. This route would refocus overnight stress on two roads (Route
116 in Pinkham Notch, and Base Rd./ Rt.302 in Crawford Notch). It would
alleviate overnight clustering at the Lakes of the Clouds Hut and the Hermit Lake Shelters,
and redistribute overnight sleeping to non-wilderness accommodations at AMC
facilities in Pinkham Notch, Crawford Notch, and Breton Woods as well as
commercial accommodations in Gorham and other nearby towns.
Other possibilities include a non-specific,
general route over the Northern Presidentials as a way to encourage hikers to use a diversity of trails to make their way from Boot Spur
to
U.S. Route 2.
