[MA-RPC] FSTAG Comments

[Hal Wright]

Here are my comments on the FSTAG, some pragmatic and some 
philosophical.

The Pragmatic

To their credit, the authors of the FSTAG have emphasized the 
importance of preserving not just the trail class, but also the 
specific purpose and setting of each trail section, as accessibility is 
addressed. On the other hand, there are numerous statements like the 
one on Preamble page 13, that encourage designers and managers to 
"provide access to the greatest extent possible." The tension between 
these mutually-exclusive goals will be most problematic when it comes 
to trail relocation.

Once it is agreed that a relocation is desired, the issue is: To what 
extent should accessibility inform the design process? For example, 
consider an initiative to move the AT off of a dirt road and into the 
woods, as we often like to do. If we are free to design the route using 
traditional criteria, and then to scrutinize it vis-a-vis the FSTAG, 
only modest changes might be required. On the other hand, taking 
accessibility into account at the outset might lead us to conclude that 
the relocation in its entirety is ill-advised, as it would worsen the 
accessibility of the trail.

The FSTAG is silent on how the redesign process ought to play out. I 
would like to see an explicit statement in the FSTAG to the effect that 
trail relocations are to be designed first in accordance with the 
rule-set of the managing agency, then subjected to FSTAG scrutiny, 
rather than the other way around. It's the surest way to avoid a kind 
of "mission creep" wherein the character of the AT is changed 
incrementally through a series of small, seemingly innocuous 
modifications.

A related concern is whether it is even possible to do key aspects of 
the flowchart analysis prescribed in the FSTAG for a trail that hasn't 
yet been built. A disaster scenario would be to cut a route and only 
later ascertain that there is no straightforward way to make it comply 
with the FSTAG. The fear of this happening may be enough to stifle the 
process of continuous improvement we have enjoyed in recent years.

I'll label one final concern the Mashipacong Syndrome, after the 
shelter where accessibility has been established by plunking down a 
large, plastic port-a-potty into an otherwise rustic backwoods setting. 
  The FSTAG proscribes this type of unbalanced approach, but 
budget-conscious state and federal decision-makers may be more worried 
about meeting accessibility requirements than they are about satisfying 
the aesthetic sensibilities of the ATC.

The Philosophical

Stepping into the middle of a process, as we so often do, it's useful 
to take a few steps back and reflect on what we are trying to 
accomplish. In this case, there are two overarching questions:

1. What is the Appalachian Trail for?

2. How would those people with disabilities be able to experience the 
trail as everyone is intended to experience it?

Regarding what the AT is for and how it ought to look, it's safe to say 
that walkers, trail runners, day hikers, weekend backpackers, and 
long-distance hikers will bring different points of view to the table. 
Time spent on the AT may be seen as an athletic event, as a social 
opportunity, as a nature walk, or even as a spiritual retreat. Perhaps 
it is more accurate to say that, for most, the spiritual component is 
always there, and that the athletic, social and natural aspects of the 
walk lead to a renewal of the spirit. Where people differ is in the 
portions of athleticism, socialization and raw nature they prefer.

In spite of the myriad ways in which the trail is used and perceived, 
it is first and foremost a long-distance hiking trail. The magic of the 
AT lies in the connectedness of space, time, thought, humanity and 
nature that it provides. White blazes inevitably remind us of places 
near and far that we have seen (or just read about), and of the 
volunteers along the way who have kept the path open over its length. 
If it weren't possible, at least in theory, to walk from one end to the 
other over more than 2000 miles of contiguous trail, it wouldn't be the 
same. If much of that walk took place in an "improved" (altered, 
developed, use whatever word you wish) setting, it wouldn't be the 
same. If the trail weren't maintained by volunteers, it wouldn't be the 
same. If there weren't a degree of sameness in the familiar white 
blazes and in the accommodations along the way -- evidence of broad 
agreement between contentious humans on how things ought to be done -- 
it wouldn't be the same.

Somehow, in a formal document, we ought to codify these essential 
aspects of the AT. (Perhaps it's already been done and as the newbie I 
just don't know it, or perhaps some of you would take issue with one or 
more of the above characterizations.) In any event, to take full 
advantage of the Conditions Of Departure in the FSTAG, we will need to 
be very clear about what the AT experience is about, and what it will 
take to protect it.

~~~

I can relate to those with disabilities who know the AT is special, and 
who long to experience as much of the trail as possible. Indeed, for 
the past eight months, I have been a disabled person longing to hike, 
and able to do so only in bits and pieces, in fractions of a mile. 
Nonetheless, I cannot imagine arriving in a place where I would want 
the trail to be altered in any meaningful way to accommodate me.

One of the most beneficial aspects of a long distance hike lies in the 
accompanying release from the necessity of confrontation prevalent in 
the so-called civilized world. Successful hikes are based on acceptance 
of one's self and of the trail as it is. People who see a long hike as 
a confrontation with the elements or with their individual limitations 
usually don't finish. It's just too exhausting to fight that internal 
and external battle day after day.

When we make the trail easier, we deny many, many people -- including 
some with disabilities -- the opportunity to transform themselves via 
the athletic and environmental components of a long-distance hike. The 
flip side of accommodating disability is exemplified by the stories of 
Bob Barker, Bill Irwin and, more recently, Scott Rogers. It would be 
fascinating to hear their thoughts on the issue at hand.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 6316 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.nynjtc.org/mailman/private/ma-rpc/attachments/20050408/a674081b/attachment.bin