[MA-RPC] FSTAG Comments

[James Hooper]

This is my basic comment in my write-up, they seem to want to treat all 
"trails" the same.

Hal Wright wrote:

> 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.
>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>MA-RPC mailing list
>MA-RPC at commerce-02.cilia.org
>http://www.nynjtc.org/mailman/listinfo/ma-rpc
>  
>