Trails

[ookpik]

Nonsense. First, a complete trail would attract more users than the incomplete trail. I don’t know actual numbers in this particular case, but some trails attract significant traffic. Second, the amount of expropriation required would be tiny — maybe a corridor 6m wide. On top of which, as was pointed out by another commenter, an easement might be sufficient.

We’re not talking about a pet project of some nutter here. This is a project which, even in a political environment in which motor vehicle construction and traffic is still privileged, has managed to attract political interest, millions of dollars in donations, and a significant fraction of the needed construction. The point is that a route has been selected, funds raised, and politicians have said that it should be built. If it were a road, it most likely would have been, and concerns of existing property owners on the route would have been sidelined.

Hear! Hear!

P.S. I wonder how Canard would feel about expropriating/easmenting[?] a strip of land to complete a rail line under similar circumstances, i.e. broad public approval, $millions raised, political interest, media coverage, etc. Just asking