Hutchinson Leader - Opinion - Comments

Matt McMillan - What is your

snowman — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 08:06:37 -0600

Matt McMillan - What is your source for this improved tar surface? The master plan for the Luce Line states that Qty:4 different ashpahlt surfaces were tested NONE of which resisted damage by snowmobiles to any significant degree. That is the DNR as a source. I have searched for any info that states the laws of physics have changed. Please enlighten me.

A poll should be done, but it should be county wide.

Or better yet lets have a town hall meeting with our local legislators present so they can hear the message.

See you on the trail this winter!!!

I think a poll should be

star-ann — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 23:32:48 -0600

I think a poll should be posted for the Luce Line Trail.

How often do you use the Luce Line Trail?
- Frequently
- Occasionally
- Never

Given the current economy, should the Luce Line Trail be paved?
- Yes
- No

Could the state fund be redirected for more important, practical projects?
- Yes
- No

Have you really been waiting 25 years for the trail to get paved?
- Yes
- No

Snowman, it is true that old

Matt McMillan — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 23:14:01 -0600

Snowman, it is true that old asphalt trails could not handle snowmobiles, but modern asphalt is able to absorb the snowmobile use. Old trails still restrict snowmobiles, but this new trail will not. The amount of money per mile is ten times less than you suggest, or $25,000 per mile, not $250,000 per mile. The total for the project is $2.5 million for asphalt from Cosmos to Winsted. If it were $250,000 per mile the project would cost $12,500,000. Where do you get your cost of $250,000 per mile? The cost would be eaten up with just the few miles between Hutchinson and Silver Lake.

How much have I used the

snowman — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 22:37:41 -0600

How much have I used the trail - I ride between 75-125 miles each year on the trail since it the closest and most assessable in this area.

Per the language in Mr. Dille's bill I assume that we have somehow learned how to defy the laws of physics that snowmobile studs/carbides will no long damage tar. If you haven't solved that that section of the bill is meaningless.

Lastly lets call this for what it is. You want a dual trail. Great - The Luce Line has a natural surface for snowmobiles and horses as it is today. If you want a tar trail justify it based on the fact you will need to acquire more land - build a trail and tar it. If you can do that for $250K per mile then I think we need to ask that company to start doing our highways also.

Let me know when the town hall meeting will be with the legislators. I would love to talk with all the liberals on this fact.

Snowman, how many miles did

Chacha — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 20:28:19 -0600

Snowman, how many miles did you actually put on the portion of the luce line that wants to be paved? Talk about rollerblades and bikes if I am right there are more days to use the trail for them than snowmobiles!!!??? Maybe you should find something more productive than fight for a trail you use maybe 8 times a year. I think paving the trail is worthless but the angle you are coming from is not worth it in my head. There are more places to ride a sled than there. Plus global warming is such a problem we will all have to stay inside..lol.

The DNR’s Luce Line State

Mayor Steve Cook — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 20:18:29 -0600

The DNR’s Luce Line State Trail Master Plan actually talks of paving segments of the trail west of Winsted “to accommodate local needs”. Two segments specifically identified in the Master Plan are Hutchinson to Silver Lake and Hutchinson to Cedar Mills. Since the time the document was written the City of Winsted has developed a local trail plan and actively supports paving the trail west of Winsted to Silver Lake. That would seem to fit with “accommodating local needs”.

Per the language of the

williamj.lepetomane — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 18:32:01 -0600

Per the language of the actual bill in question-
"1.12(b) Notwithstanding Minnesota Statutes, section 84.8712, subdivision 1,
1.13snowmobiles with metal traction devices may be used on the portion of the Luce Line
1.14Trail paved with the appropriation in paragraph (a)."

since we're interested in a real discussion;)

gov.

But, for some reason, their

fiscallyconservative — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 15:28:36 -0600

But, for some reason, their logic doesn't apply to horseback riders and snowmobilers? Sounds like they are being selectively logical/illogical.

I've actually asked DNR

Terry Davis — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 15:22:46 -0600

I've actually asked DNR officials why there isn't a state trail fee to pay, as you do on trails in Wisconsin, and on the county-owned Cannon Valley Trail between Red Wing and Cannon Falls. They will not put in place a fee structure, I've been told, believing it will deter users.

Bicyclists get verbally beat up all the time by other trail user groups because they don't pay fees. It isn't that cyclists don't want to pay, most are more than willing to buy a day, weekend or seasonal pass and have to do that when riding in Wisconsin and the CVT. Or one-time fees could be collected by retailers when bikes are sold. It is the state, through the DNR, that won't let bikers pay for state trails, so don't beat up the cyclists.

(Terry Davis is a Hutchinson Leader staff writer. E-mail him at davis@hutchinsonleader.com.)

Shhhh, don't say that too

fiscallyconservative — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 15:05:53 -0600

Shhhh, don't say that too loud. They (the pork barrel folks) are already hitting us once for the money. They will take every opportunity to hit us again if you give them a chance. This allows for more "pork" projects.

Ah yes, we are not supposed to have double taxation in this country. But... if you are a snowmobiler or a horseback rider and you have to pay your fees PLUS you get taxed for the overall project, don't you feel a little overtaxed? To me, it seems like it would be like having a toll road that was fully funded from our tax funds. Something doesn't seem right with that.

Per Minnesota state statuate

snowman — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 15:01:23 -0600

Per Minnesota state statuate 84.8712 Metal Traction Devices; Prohibition on Paved trails it reads that NO snowmobiles are allowed on MN paved trails that have a traction device.

I have also spoken to the DNR (in length) that there have been exstensive studies regarding carbide to paved trail wear and there have been no surfaces that hold up (but physics would tell you that).

I would also like to point out that if you reference the Master Trail Plan for the Luce Line trail NO where in the plan does it state that the trail should be tarred. The ONLY reference is that it should be evaluated as a potential option by towns only (such as Hutchinson has already done).

I can continue this all day with the liberals that want to waste money. If you want to have a real discussion on this lets have our local legilastors together for a town meeting and have fruitful discussion.

Can you arrange Mr. Cook?

If snowmobilers have to pay

fishman20 — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 14:43:28 -0600

If snowmobilers have to pay a fee to use the trails, if the trail gets paved, why not charge people who rollerblade or bike on it?

Snowman, Here we go again.

Chacha — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 11:54:17 -0600

Snowman, Here we go again. You come on here not knowing what you are talking about. The only way snowmobiles will not be allowed is if people abuse the trail. Just like everything else in life. Please read the posts above because they are correct and very accurate.

I see this as a prime

bosoxguy — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 10:50:34 -0600

I see this as a prime example of wasteful spending of our tax dollars by the government. The trail already meets every need other than roller bladers perhaps. Now we are going to create a parallel horse trail??? What a waste of time and money. This whole concept of take the money because they finally offered it to us is what is so wrong with our government. How about spending it on the things that we really need, or maybe giving it back to the taxpayers. Naturally the mayor is selling this as a great need because he seldomly receives government money and this is just a feather in his cap. His claims of economic benefits are loosely based on other trails in the state that offer more scenic views or towns with more entertainment options. I seriously doubt that if we build it, they will come.

Thank you, Mayor Cook, for

williamj.lepetomane — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 10:28:35 -0600

Thank you, Mayor Cook, for your continuing efforts and support of this project. And thank you for pointing out the specifics in the legislation that are intended to allow current user groups to continue to use the trail while making it more accessible to more groups. Someday, readers here may actually read the specifics and not just form anotheropinion(couldn't resist) in spite of the facts staring at them while they type. No one is trying to boot anybody off the trail here, just trying to make better use of a resource that has been neglected for far too long.

Bracing for the flame-fest,
gov.