roccoccoSafredi t1_iqw2d5i wrote
In a region with such huge struggles, is funding recreation stuff like this really a smart priority?
How many more busses could the money for this buy?
How many bus shelters could be built?
How many more fare inspectors could be hired for the light rail?
How many more repair personnel could be hired for the school system?
I'd think those are all far more pressing and useful needs than linking some recreational trails up.
Don't get me wrong, it'd be a nice thing, but in the list of regional priorities, it just seems odd to focus on unless some compelling opportunity exists for it (like a rail line who's right of way would be needed for it is being abandoned).
bmore t1_iqw3lh4 wrote
>In a city with such huge struggles, is funding recreation stuff like this really a smart priority? >
This is a county study. The city trail already goes to within yards of Lake Roland.
>How many more busses could the money for this buy? >
Zero, this is funded with restricted state bikeways funding, as outlined in the article.
>How many bus shelters could be built? >
Zero, this is funded with restricted state bikeways funding, as outlined in the article.
>How many more fare inspectors could be hired for the light rail? >
Zero, this is funded with restricted state bikeways funding, as outlined in the article.
>How many more repair personnel could be hired for the school system? >
Zero, this is funded with restricted state bikeways funding, as outlined in the article.
>I'd think those are all far more pressing and useful needs than linking some recreational trails up.
The economic benefits of linking trails up is discussed in the article, and they are far greater than the cost (which is, as noted, paid for with restricted funds for biking that would otherwise go to other jurisdictions).
> >Don't get me wrong, it'd be a nice thing, but in the list of regional priorities, it just seems odd to focus on unless some compelling opportunity exists for it (like a rail line who's right of way would be needed for it is being abandoned).
As outlined in the piece, the abandoned ROW of the NCR extends further south than the trail does now, and is then utilized by the light rail, which has adjacent unused ROW. The compelling opportunity you want to exist...exists.
bOhsohard t1_iqwf7cq wrote
damn bro, why'd you have to go and read the article? i just want to make reactionary complaints based off of misreading the title 😡
roccoccoSafredi t1_iqwlfm9 wrote
Ok, in that case... does it make sense to have funds restricted for bikeways existing, and if it does, does it make sense to use that money for something purely recreational?
Also, I am well aware of the RoW of the original NCR. I think the biggest challenge there is, as mentioned elsewhere in this thread, is going to be colocating it with the Light Rail's RoW. Much of that right of way was originally acquired in the 1840s so it's not nearly as generous as former railroad rights of way that came later (and had provisions for multiple tracks and access roads). It's a tight squeeze as it already is, and I'm not sure how pleasant of a ride it'll be with a chain link fence between riders and 50mph light rail trains.
bmore t1_iqxc1k7 wrote
If you want to repeal the Maryland Bikeways program that was passed through the House of Delegates 136-0 and the Senate 45-0, go for it!
I don't really see it as purely recreational. With the mileage between stops on the light rail a colocated trail could be a tremendous first and last mile connector between stations and employment and housing.
roccoccoSafredi t1_iqxcpcr wrote
You know, from that perspective (the first/last mile thing), I think it makes WAY more sense!
That's the type of thing I think is most useful from something like this, much more so than a trail across Cockeysville.
TerranceBaggz t1_iqywp37 wrote
Trails like this aren’t purely recreational. The Bay Area has one that goes like 30 miles out into the exurbs. People use it to bike to their jobs in downtown SF and Oakland all the time. I’ve biked parts of it and seen people biking to and from work on it.
buuj214 t1_iqw8ryk wrote
It's not exactly binary; it's not like, whelp, we added a trail, guess we can't also solve other problems. 'Don't make improvements until all problems are solved' is not a reasonable approach. Any level of government needs to be able to address all types of problems, solutions, and improvements at the same time.
That also ignores all the social and economic benefits of having recreation but that's a whoooole other discussion.
roccoccoSafredi t1_iqwlxdm wrote
No, I agree it's not binary. But in a world of finite funding, I cannot help but think the state could be using it in ways that would improve more peoples lives.
I'm not talking about things like "lets fix poverty!", but concrete expenses like the ones I've mentioned.
It's not like the opportunity for recreation doesn't already exist. And it's not like most people who would be using this trail extension don't already have the means to access either of the trails it's connecting. Sure, maybe a few, but is that number of people outweighed by the number who would benefit from some of the other things I talked about? I doubt it.
It's nice to have nice things, but my point is, we already have a lot of nice things. Maybe we should focus on having some more things that actually matter.
[deleted] t1_iqxgg2k wrote
[deleted]
UnrealSquare t1_iqw3rv6 wrote
Though trails like this can, and certainly would, also be used for non-recreation purposes, recreation is important.
roccoccoSafredi t1_iqwm1nx wrote
It is. But the entire purpose of it is to link two trails that already exist for recreational purposes.
UnrealSquare t1_iqwome2 wrote
And there is nothing wrong with that. Trying to get from one to the other now is pretty difficult without driving.
roccoccoSafredi t1_iqwp3kb wrote
Then drive.
UnrealSquare t1_iqwpk0e wrote
Not everyone has a car (something like ~30% of Baltimore city residents) or wants to contribute to pollution and congestion for recreation. Why are you so against something that will benefit both city and county residents by giving them another option to travel back and forth between the two that doesn't impact those who choose to drive?
roccoccoSafredi t1_iqwqwc8 wrote
I'm not so against it. I just want people to have some perspective on stuff like this.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments