Letter: Considering all sides of the Rail Trail issue

Sudbury Town Crier, Thursday, July 14, 2005

TO THE EDITOR:

The establishment of the Sudbury Citizens for Responsible Land Stewardship on the face of it seems a good thing. I am an avid biker, yet have had concerns that the town-sponsored Rail Trail Conversion Advisory Committee is not perceived as neutral in ts approach despite being presented as so at Town Meeting when we voted the $25,000 for a feasibility study. This is a shame from my point of view, as it seems that it has soured some people’s trust in the Committee’s ability to present a balanced study of the options for the disused rail corridor running north from Rte. 20 through Sudbury.

That said, let me express my hope that the newly formed Sudbury Citizens for Responsible Land Stewardship is truly open to all citizens in Sudbury. Their Web site does seem to say all the right things, but I fear it could turn into a lobbying group devoted to blocking any development of the rail corridor. The final part of SCRLS’s mission statement reads “supporting recreation opportunities consistent with the community and private landowner rights and objectives.” This seems to me the key behind the rail-trail debate. Of course citizens’ private property rights are important, and I am concerned that the Rail Trail Conversion Committee has, as far as I know, excluded abutters from Committee membership. But surely we must also consider the rights of the rest of us in town. The concept of creating transportation corridors that avoid busy roads clogged with cars and SUVs when on foot or bike seems to me very much a part of my rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

SCRLS’s mission statement also alludes to “environmental responsibility” and “understanding of Sudbury’s natural resources.” I sincerely hope that these references to the environment and natural resources include clean air and a commitment to reducing fossil fuel emissions as well as land use issues.

The rail corridor does go through some sensitive areas and this should not be taken lightly. But we are a growing town with the associated growth in pressures on transport routes. The town will have to address future transport growth, hopefully with a nod to sustainability, balancing the conflicting needs of the environment and our insatiable appetite for the automobile

Of course an abutter to the trail, being on the front line, will more times than not, consider any development cause for concern. This is human nature. However, surely we all have a responsibility to work together to find ways to preserve the privacy of property owners along the rail corridor while working to find creative ways to use this resource. In my mind, a rail trail does not have to be a paved, expensive monstrosity. I’d just like a way to get to school and occasionally down to Rte. 20 to do a little shopping with my kids, without a car and avoiding some of the most dangerous intersections in town. If the town consensus is that a gravel path makes more sense for privacy, environmental and other reasons, surely we should have the chance to know that, rather than just shutting the idea down altogether. I hope that SCRLS can contribute to that dialogue rather than opposing outright any use of the rail corridor.

So, to the Rail Trail Conversion Committee members, I say, please, preserve, or re-establish, your neutrality and the fact that use of the rail corridor really is just in the exploration stages and not a foregone conclusion. And to the Sudbury Citizens for Responsible Land Stewardship, I say, please don’t paint all cyclists with the same brush. I am not looking to whiz at 25 miles an hour on a paved trail, parking my car on your street (the whole idea is to get out of the car), or clogging up busy intersections (I’m trying to avoid them). I am simply trying to find a safe way to cycle, or walk, with my children and avoid spending an hour or more a day running the kids around town in the car. For our family, this is a very important part of our lifestyle

for health, enjoyment and environmental reasons. [continue]

Melissa Gough

Wildwood Lane