# Trail Conundrum



## sbsbiker (Dec 1, 2007)

Our local trail group proposed building a directional trail in one of our cities more popular riding areas a year ago. I opposed building a directional trail partly due to the fact that i like riding trails up and down, but was silenced by the dominant members of the cycling club's trail group, and people I've known for years were making it clear that everyone wanted this and that I would be a huge a$$ to try and stop it. I was told it would be tame enough to ride with my kid, and that it would be a low impact singletrack, not some "downhill" trail. I decided that i didn't want to fight the town, and STFU, even thought i still didn't want the trail. The City approved the trail, hired a designer($30k) and this week we saw the design that the city is about to put out to bid. It is a intermediate downhill "flow" trail. As designed, it calls for a 4-6ft "trail" with 3-4ft high berms (31) and 20 tabletop jumps, squashed into 1.7mi. I'm really angered by this design, and when i contacted the leaders of the club, they said the city brought in an outside design firm, and they don't like it either. City says they told the designer to design a "IMBA Flow Trail" and the designer followed IMBA Flow Trail guidelines. The city is proud of their new trail's design.

The problem is the club is apprehensive about openly opposing this design because they pushed so hard for the trail. Some of the members asked if I would be willing to step up and oppose the design, and I told them I felt they needed to come clean with the public, and do what's right for the land even if it puts their relationship with the city onto the rocks. A little bird in the city told me they feel the club doesn't like the design because it's not their design. The design is not appropriate for the area where it is proposed, and everyone but the city parks dept. knows this, but they already invested in the design and I don't see them walking away from their $30k design.

So are we stuck? What to do when the design isn't what the club was pushing for, but the club is hesitant to make waves because they want to maintain a good working relationship with the city for future projects.

Here's the design:
http://www.steamboatsprings.net/DocumentCenter/View/6159

Advice? Thoughts?


----------



## aero901 (Apr 11, 2012)

Was there a public comment session before the design was finalized? Obviously, that would have been the ideal time to let the city know there was opposition to the design. It's probably a little late now to raise these concerns if the project is in the bidding stage. The plan specifies a construction start date of July 12th and completion by Sept. 20th of this year.

Not sure I understand the opposition to this trail? Did the club know this style of trail was going to be built? If this style of trail doesn't exist at the system, isn't it good to add variety to attract different users?


----------



## ridingthebuff (Jul 9, 2009)

Who is paying? 30k design = 400k build. Enjoy your new trail or don't ride it. I can ride a "flow" trail about 10 times before boredom sets in, although this one looks more interesting than any VT trail built so far.


----------



## Cotharyus (Jun 21, 2012)

It sounds like "the public" asked for something and "the government" misinterpreted what the public wanted. You can either set the record straight (probably a good thing to do) or sit back and watch the fiasco unravel (probably the easy thing to do) but either way, you're ultimately putting the reputation of the club on the line. Long term, this can either prove out well, or poorly. I wouldn't be too public about it at first, maybe talk to some of the higher ups in private, and explain the problems with the design, and what the original goal was (ie, kids being able to ride it) vs what's being proposed. I would also anticipate serious maintenance problems if water has to be "transported" in order to pack the jumps and berms.


----------



## SeaHag (Jul 14, 2011)

sbsbiker said:


> I'm really angered by this design, and when i contacted the leaders of the club, they said the city brought in an outside design firm, and they don't like it either.
> 
> The design is not appropriate for the area where it is proposed, and everyone but the city parks dept. knows this, but they already invested in the design and I don't see them walking away from their $30k design.
> 
> ...


What specifically is the problem for you and the club? Single direction trails, while limiting, provide a safer experience for the trail users. We have a mix of both kinds of trails in our area and I believe most of the riders I know prefer single direction trails for avoiding head on collisions and right of way conflicts. If the rest of your trails are bi directional, what is the problem with having one trail different to appeal to a different kind of rider?

And what specifically makes the design not appropriate for the area proposed that "everyone" knows but no one is fighting against? I'm very familiar with Progressive Trail Designs work as they've done several in Minnesota that I've ridden. They really know how to make a great trail so I am skeptical that the trail is inappropriately designed or placed. What kind of trail building experience do you personally have that qualifies you to judge?


----------



## sbsbiker (Dec 1, 2007)

There was no public comment on the design. There never is any on city trail building. I have no doubt it is well designed and will be well built.

My main problem is that this is a mountain park, not a bike park and the city is building a bike park feature, 3 miles uphill from the nearest trailhead. I do not agree that we "need" this type of trail on this site as we have a gondola served trail park on Mt Werner (Steamboat Ski Area) just across the town with 35+miles of these trails. The big ski area is and should be the focus of this type of riding, not Emerald mt. 
I have no problems with these type of trails, just where the city is placing it. 
I posted a small link on our facebook trail page and i'm already getting flack for opposing it. 
The more I work with cyclists, the more I think most are self centered egomaniacs that only support their own deigns, and ideas. I want no part of any of them.


----------



## Mark E (Feb 7, 2006)

Wouldn't it be nice to have a gravity-oriented trail in town that does not require a lift pass? 

Isn't it fair to say that Emerald Mountain has an extensive network of multi-use, bi-directional singletrack (some of the best in the state), but no trail like this? 

With those questions asked, I'll point out that the next issue of IMBA's Trail News print newsletter has an article celebrating an IMBA chapter in West Virginia that is only interested in developing hand-built, advanced-level singletrack. They have a great relationship with Snowshoe resort and, like you seem to prefer, all of the gravity-oriented riding is built at the resort. 

The article points out that IMBA fully supports this chapter's vision. The local riding community has built a clear consensus about how they want to develop their riding options. If they don't want no stinking flow trails we are not about to tell them to start building them. It's all about developing that shared vision and making sure everyone is on the same page. If people in the community are critical of your opposition to the new trail maybe there are folks who think the plans represent a welcome addition.


----------



## bankerboy (Oct 17, 2006)

You oppose it a directional trail the majority including the city approved? I come from an area where the city and county do not support trails or biking. I wish I had your problems.

The park map you posted shows ample existing bidirectional trails. Now the city has proposed and funded a downhill flow trail. Where is the problem? This sounds more like a personal vendetta to stop something because of your hurt feelings. 

You have a city willing and able to build trail. Instead of fighting it, work with them to help them to learn what they know and share your experiences.


----------



## cmc4130 (Jan 30, 2008)

sbsbiker said:


> There was no public comment on the design. There never is any on city trail building. I have no doubt it is well designed and will be well built.
> 
> My main problem is that this is a mountain park, not a bike park and the city is building a bike park feature, 3 miles uphill from the nearest trailhead. I do not agree that we "need" this type of trail on this site as we have a gondola served trail park on Mt Werner (Steamboat Ski Area) just across the town with 35+miles of these trails. The big ski area is and should be the focus of this type of riding, not Emerald mt.
> I have no problems with these type of trails, just where the city is placing it.
> ...


I think your position that berms and jumps only belong at lift-accessed bike parks which cost at least $40/day and are open only in the summer . . . . is an unfair position.

There are hundreds of miles of cross-country trail and you are opposing 1 mile of berm/jump trail. The "flow country" concept means putting berms and features on regular trails in regular parks.

At the same time, I think it is fair to discuss the exact design and exact location; if I were doing it I would build it in such a way that all jumps are optional. Not all berms need to be tall, etc. I also see your point about the trail being 3 miles from a trailhead. I probably would not choose that. (However, the same thing was true at Camp Tamarancho Flow Trail, north of San Francisco, that I visited).

As for Steamboat, specifically, I was very impressed with how the town is trying to make itself a biking destination for all types of riding. When I got home, I posted pics and recommended that people go to Steamboat. That's what tourism is about. 

I traveled to Steamboat with a girlfriend in 2013. It was May and the ski-lift bike park was not open yet. (I was so bummed about this ski-lifts not running yet, I hiked up the mountain with a rented bike to get one run down the mountain and take photos (yeah illegally I guess).

I also made a special effort to go find the *Rotary Flow Trail *(I think that was the name) (which is not at the ski-lift mountain). _ So, this is not the first time Steamboat has built some berms and tables out in a regular park._ My girlfriend got to ride regular mtb trails and then hit a few berms--it was the first time she had ever ridden around a berm. I was pretty stoked to have been able to bring her out to a regular xc trail which had them. I also sought out the skatepark and dirt jump/pump track area.

Steamboat Springs - Recommendations

to the crew who keeps building berms at Walnut... - Page 4


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

I would talk to a stake holder about my concerns asap, in a non-confrontational and apologetic manner, and point out that the level of development is out of proportion to the site and that money can be saved up front and ongoing if the plan is modified. 

These problems are much easier to solve in house before the money flow has started. Can the consultant who designed the project be gotten on board with lowering the intensity. I would say it's time to quit f*cking around with internal politics and start speaking as one voice up front and loud. Is there an open meeting rule that was violated? In many cases low level mitigation can be effective but it borders on conspiring to violate contract requirements, and that is a pitfall. Try to learn as much as possible from your current situation. 

edit: The trail corridor will fill in a bit with vegetation so that given some time it may not appear as intrusive. I enjoyed the contract doc! Locally we have established a YCC program which basically gives us an in house contractor who funds itself from a variety of sources including public money.


----------



## sbsbiker (Dec 1, 2007)

Thanks for the input for all the posters. It's nice to read outside thoughts and ideas. It doesn't look like this trail has the community support it will need to be built, and the fact that this design will require maintenance than the city offers (none) make it's buildout questionable. One of my pro trail builder friends in Whistler says this design will require constant maintenance to survive, and currently the bike club is the only one doing any trail maintenance and their volunteer days see fewer and fewer participants. As some other posters showed, We do not have a shortage of this type of trail, you may need to pay $40 to access, but that $40 pays for the maintenance and upkeep, as well as lift service. I think without dedicated funding for maintenance, this trail will destroy itself in one season, once our 500 inches of snow melts off in spring.

Thanks again for your perspective on this topic.


----------



## cerebroside (Jun 25, 2011)

Sounds like a fun trail to me. I personally build on and maintain a flow trail (though a lot smaller!) for the local club, and we have a lot of similar features on other trails at our site. They tend to be very popular, you might find by introducing some flow trail you get people interested in that sort of trail out building...

Maintenance for our stuff hasn't been arduous, maybe one day a season per trail for us, which will obviously depend on traffic and local conditions. If the trail has been well designed you won't have to worry about water damage (which is kind of the point of this sort of build). We have similar snowfall figures and don't see any damage from that. 
You will get brake bumps / potholes where people are braking going into the berms/whatever, but if it isn't shuttleable the damage will be limited. Depends on your volume I guess. Lift service means huge amounts of traffic, which is why their maintenance is so intense.


----------



## cmc4130 (Jan 30, 2008)

Whether tabletops and berms require a lot of ongoing maintenance depends on two things:
(1) the type of dirt--some packed clays (like caliche) are ridiculously tough (and hold almost like concrete. Other silty or sandy dirt can crumble a lot more.
(2) how much "perfection" you actually expect. I have been involved with very groomed bmx trails/tracks and pump tracks, but I have also built berms and tables on trails that have received zero maintenance. if you don't require geometrically perfect shapes, mounds of packed dirt are remarkably durable. At one bmx spot, we have some jumps that are over 20 years old. And on the xc trails that my club works on, I built berms 9 years ago that have received zero maintenance and they are still there. Not pretty or perfect but fully functional.


----------



## aero901 (Apr 11, 2012)

Flow country trails shouldn't be any harder to maintain than other types of trails. If your trail volunteer numbers are dwindling maybe this new trail will get a new crowd of people interested in helping out. We usually see a surge in volunteer help and memberships when we undertake new projects.

I've built a lot of dirt berms and as long as the face angle is below or at the soil's natural angle of response it will generally stay put. Build it steeper than this angle and it will slump in a few years but still be usable. To find a local soil's angle of response, look for the steepest naturally occurring slope composed of that soil and measure it with a clinometer. 30-45 degrees is typical for most soils.


----------



## epic (Apr 16, 2005)

bankerboy said:


> You oppose it a directional trail the majority including the city approved? I come from an area where the city and county do not support trails or biking. I wish I had your problems.
> 
> The park map you posted shows ample existing bidirectional trails. Now the city has proposed and funded a downhill flow trail. Where is the problem? This sounds more like a personal vendetta to stop something because of your hurt feelings.
> 
> You have a city willing and able to build trail. Instead of fighting it, work with them to help them to learn what they know and share your experiences.


Yeah, nice problem to have.


----------



## bamwa (Mar 15, 2010)

Sounds sweet to me.
If you read up, IMBA's flow trail recommendations are designed for you to ride with your kid.
No gap jumps so everything is rollable at different speeds. 
Are you worried you kid will progress faster than you and leave you in the dust?
I'd shut up and let a 30k trail get built. Not everyone wants to always pay for lift tickets.
Like stated above, maintenance may not be nearly as bad as you think.


----------



## Miker J (Nov 4, 2003)

I wish I had your problem.


----------



## sbsbiker (Dec 1, 2007)

bamwa said:


> Sounds sweet to me.
> If you read up, IMBA's flow trail recommendations are designed for you to ride with your kid.
> No gap jumps so everything is rollable at different speeds.
> Are you worried you kid will progress faster than you and leave you in the dust?
> ...


The trail build cost is $140k! $30K was for design, and designer overseeing the construction. To compair, the Beall trail on the backside is 6 miles long and cost $40k, this trail should be paved with gold for it to cost $170k. But, the Accommodations Tax that provides money to build trails cannot provide funding to maintain trails.

I have no doubt my kid will eventually progress past me, but she is 3, so I have some time yet.
I'm worried that some other kid's (or a stoned adult) desire to jump will progress faster than his skills and that kid will break his a$$, and his lawyers will take the city to the cleaners for providing a jump track in a forest meadow, 3 miles from the trailhead, without a maintenance plan, or patrol, or plan for evacuation of injured.

But by all means, all of you guys come to Steamboat, ride this trail, tell the city you like it and want more. And please stay in a hotel, not a condo. Hotel rooms have a 1% tax that goes to fund these trails. Remember Hotel, not condo.


----------



## PhxChem (Aug 4, 2010)

sbsbiker said:


> The more I work with cyclists, the more I think most are self centered egomaniacs that only support their own deigns, and ideas. I want no part of any of them.


Uuuummmmmm...



sbsbiker said:


> It doesn't look like this trail has the community support it will need to be built, and the fact that this design will require maintenance than the city offers (none) make it's buildout questionable.


Your first post seemed to suggest it was a foregone conclusion. Now it's not going to happen?


----------



## Maday (Aug 21, 2008)

PhxChem said:


> Uuuummmmmm...
> 
> Your first post seemed to suggest it was a foregone conclusion. Now it's not going to happen?


He sounds like one of those self centered egomaniacs that only supports his designs and ideas. Seems like a foregone conclusion that he is going to do everything in his power to stop it.


----------



## sbsbiker (Dec 1, 2007)

No Maday, I am sitting this out. If the city wants to destroy a pristine mountain meadow, for a bike park feature that will see limited use and no one else is protesting, OK. I admit my opinion is the minority and whatever backlash the cycling community gets from this is their problem. I'm disappointed in where the city has decided to put this design, but it's their land, and a vocal minority is asking for this. I'm not going to be the community bad guy to nit pick every decision i disagree with. 

Not the first time I've been lied to and backstabbed by our cycling community, I will withdraw further and maybe it won't happen again.


----------



## Boris Badenov (May 31, 2015)

*This doesn't pass the smell test*



sbsbiker said:


> No Maday, I am sitting this out. If the city wants to destroy a pristine mountain meadow, for a bike park feature that will see limited use and no one else is protesting, OK. I admit my opinion is the minority and whatever backlash the cycling community gets from this is their problem. I'm disappointed in where the city has decided to put this design, but it's their land, and a vocal minority is asking for this. I'm not going to be the community bad guy to nit pick every decision i disagree with.
> 
> Not the first time I've been lied to and backstabbed by our cycling community, I will withdraw further and maybe it won't happen again.


Original post



> The problem is the club is apprehensive about openly opposing this design because they pushed so hard for the trail. Some of the members asked if I would be willing to step up and oppose the design, and I told them I felt they needed to come clean with the public, and do what's right for the land even if it puts their relationship with the city onto the rocks. A little bird in the city told me they feel the club doesn't like the design because it's not their design. The design is not appropriate for the area where it is proposed, and everyone but the city parks dept. knows this, but they already invested in the design and I don't see them walking away from their $30k design.
> 
> So are we stuck? What to do when the design isn't what the club was pushing for, but the club is hesitant to make waves because they want to maintain a good working relationship with the city for future projects.


None of this makes sense. Is the club apprehensive or are you trying to speak on behalf of others who might not actually agree with you. Let's hear from the club. You claim you were approached by some of the members. How many is some? One, two, three? Yet you didn't speak on their behalf. You said you just gave them your opinion. What exactly, is doing right for the land? You seem quite certain the design is not appropriate. Why not? If club members are angry over your attitude, why do you make it seem they are all in agreement that the design is not what they want? You came here to ask people if you are stuck and what you should do. One week later you have given up and are angry and say you were lied to and back stabbed. You claim the city is going to destroy a pristine mountain meadow to build a trail that will see only limited use. Is it a pristine mountain meadow. The pictures and plan you linked to don't even show a mountain meadow. It certainly isn't pristine. It has roads and other trails very close to the proposed new trail. How do you know how much use the trail will get? You claim you are not going to be the community bad guy and nit pick decisions you don't agree with, yet, that is exactly what you appear to be.

People who have been advocating for new trails for any length of time know how the game is played. They are essentially chess players. They always want to win and get the perfect new trail. They also have learned to lose a battle with dignity and move on. If you can see this battle cannot be won, use it to get a different new trail built that suits you. You can remind the city how much they invested in this trail and tell them the next trail proposal by the club will cost a mere fraction of that amount and the club members will even provide volunteer labor to use as a match to reduce costs. Always be looking forward and planning your next move. Get over this loss. Don't let it stop your club from winning the next round. Buck up. Don't let your kid see you acting like this. He will most likely enjoy riding the new trail when it is built.


----------



## sbsbiker (Dec 1, 2007)

Nit picking and asking for advice in an anonymous internet forum is different from taking the podium at the Parks and Rec. Comm. meeting and making a public record. To some degree i was just fishing for opinions, and or venting. 

I have come to understand that i'm a minority voice and that the people that are asking the city for trails, are asking for these type of trails. For the record, i'm not asking anyone for trails, and i think what we have are overused, and overmarketed. Unlike some here in town, I'm not looking to expand our trails to live up to our marketing. I would rather you go visit Park City, that place has great trails!! (or anywhere else)

This trail wasn't funded by lodging tax as a freeride or dh trail, but as a directional singletrack to help alleviate traffic conflicts on the bigger network, but it was designed by the city as a feature driven dh trail. 

The club members that thought they knew what the city was doing were wrong, and told me things that they thought were true, but were not. By the time anyone knew what the city was doing, we had already spent $30k on design and the contract was going to bid. At no time did the public have a chance to comment on the design. From what i understand, the funding comm. has called out the city for this switch, and the city has chosen to "dumb down" the design. 

I will get up and shoot you a pic of where it's going. It is a pristine mountain meadow. I don't have a boy, Harper is 3, and she will never see Prayer Flag meadow as i have.


----------



## DaveVt (Jun 13, 2005)

Building bike trail with tax dollars and grant money is increasingly lame. As our cities, states, and country are more and more broke, our poor are loosing support like Heating Assistance, veterans are wait-listed for benefits....instead we want to spend money on over designed bike trails for rich folks to ride 5000 dollar bikes down. I am more and more offended by this paradigm. A bunch of MTBers want a trail....get permission and show up and build it. 

Boring, over fabricated trails that make everyone feel like an expert. Lame.
The most recent "Sustainable" flow trail in our area wasted a bunch of grant money, the local club, and town lied on the work log for the grant about volunteer matching, and left boring trail who's main feature when I rode it last week was erosion. It was originally the only "advanced" trail to be built in a riding area once known for extremely challenging trail. The trail builder wanted to build a flow trail, so the locals got an easy trail. Development in the block of forest is done. The only future work planned is to eliminate another challenging trail and replace it with another easy trail. Why? All so people from out of town and out of state have a place they can ride with limited fitness and ability. Town forest developed for out-of-towners. The locals now have massive competition for their local recreational resources. In return they get to serve and clean up after more tourists while locked in their seasonal, underpaying jobs. Developing MTB for tourism is a mistake. Welcome to the future.


----------



## sbsbiker (Dec 1, 2007)

Davevt, I could not agree more.


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

sbsbiker said:


> Davevt, I could not agree more.


+1! We have got to be smarter than that...


----------



## biggearss (May 1, 2006)

Oh I agree with Dave about all the flow trails going in and around us. I have a hard time with someone complaining about trails that they actually were paid to help build and then turn around and complain we should not be building them. You need to pick one side or the other. As for locals and seasonal jobs...we all make choices on the future we want...if you want to move to an area the relies on tourism and be part of that industry then be ready for the ups and downs and low pay.


----------



## DaveVt (Jun 13, 2005)

biggearss said:


> Oh I agree with Dave about all the flow trails going in and around us. I have a hard time with someone complaining about trails that they actually were paid to help build and then turn around and complain we should not be building them. You need to pick one side or the other. As for locals and seasonal jobs...we all make choices on the future we want...if you want to move to an area the relies on tourism and be part of that industry then be ready for the ups and downs and low pay.


I quit being a paid builder. Big gear is and has been an integral part of our state org for a long time. Enter the voice of the establishment.


----------



## sbsbiker (Dec 1, 2007)

So this trail is almost done, i rode it the other night. Big berms, and table top jumps. Not challenging if you ask me, just a trail built for riders to get air. I guess the problem I have is understanding why trails need jumps, berms and the like. At one point all we wanted was access to trails, now we need trails with BMX features incorporated into a forest environment. Can anyone explain why BMX features are needed to enjoy a mtbike ride? Just buy a BMX bike and go ride at a jump park, or BMX track(we have one of those too) I guess I'm just too old to appreciate getting 6ft of air 4 times down a 1.5mi trail. Seems silly.

Oh well, $140k on a trail I won't be riding, but i guess people want.


----------



## DaveVt (Jun 13, 2005)

sbsbiker said:


> So this trail is almost done, i rode it the other night. Big berms, and table top jumps. Not challenging if you ask me, just a trail built for riders to get air. I guess the problem I have is understanding why trails need jumps, berms and the like. At one point all we wanted was access to trails, now we need trails with BMX features incorporated into a forest environment. Can anyone explain why BMX features are needed to enjoy a mtbike ride? Just buy a BMX bike and go ride at a jump park, or BMX track(we have one of those too) I guess I'm just too old to appreciate getting 6ft of air 4 times down a 1.5mi trail. Seems silly.
> 
> Oh well, $140k on a trail I won't be riding, but i guess people want.


I can explain it. It used to be that you would ride for years to develop skills. If you were really driven you would go to the DJ park and learn how to jump, then back to trail riding you would use those skills on traditional MTB trail as a tool to find faster, cleaner lines. Enter the new demographic of MTBers. They wanted to feel like experts without investing the time to learn. Instead, just make the trail and the jumps so easy the everyone can jump. The new expert trail is born. Not a trail the requires expert skill, a trail that makes everyone feel like an expert. I'll never forget building in the Cady Hill Forest in Stowe VT when the former president of the club, the man I blame for ruining MTB in that town, came through after riding their new "Expert" trail. "David", he says, "even I jumped!" Victory? Not so much. Everyone wants that pump and jump style they see in the movies. They just don't want to pay dues to get there. Instead they just pay club dues and build a Disney land version of what MTB trails should be. IMO.


----------



## sbsbiker (Dec 1, 2007)

yup


----------



## DaveVt (Jun 13, 2005)

dubs


----------



## DaveVt (Jun 13, 2005)

biggearss said:


> Oh I agree with Dave about all the flow trails going in and around us. I have a hard time with someone complaining about trails that they actually were paid to help build and then turn around and complain we should not be building them. You need to pick one side or the other. As for locals and seasonal jobs...we all make choices on the future we want...if you want to move to an area the relies on tourism and be part of that industry then be ready for the ups and downs and low pay.


I never had control of what was built and on every project was begging to add optional technical lines. Ended up leaving sustainable trail works because of it. Then, when working for sinuosity as 1 of 2 jobs I had at the time, got a call and was told to stop complaining about how we were transforming VT MTB into a joke or else VMBA would not give us contracts anymore. So I quit. Now I'm free to express my opinion without professional repercussions. As a trail builder in Vermont, you either have to affirm everything the state org does, or you are excluded from the work. Sweet eh? Not what you'd expect from a bunch of progressives.


----------



## epic (Apr 16, 2005)

DaveVt said:


> I never had control of what was built and on every project was begging to add optional technical lines. Ended up leaving sustainable trail works because of it. Then, when working for sinuosity as 1 of 2 jobs I had at the time, got a call and was told to stop complaining about how we were transforming VT MTB into a joke or else VMBA would not give us contracts anymore. So I quit. Now I'm free to express my opinion without professional repercussions. As a trail builder in Vermont, you either have to affirm everything the state org does, or you are excluded from the work. Sweet eh? Not what you'd expect from a bunch of progressives.


Quoted just because.


----------



## sbsbiker (Dec 1, 2007)

DaveVt said:


> I never had control of what was built and on every project was begging to add optional technical lines. Ended up leaving sustainable trail works because of it. Then, when working for sinuosity as 1 of 2 jobs I had at the time, got a call and was told to stop complaining about how we were transforming VT MTB into a joke or else VMBA would not give us contracts anymore. So I quit. Now I'm free to express my opinion without professional repercussions. As a trail builder in Vermont, you either have to affirm everything the state org does, or you are excluded from the work. Sweet eh? Not what you'd expect from a bunch of progressives.


That is exactly what happened to the local trail "advocacy" group in Steamboat. At one time they where the go to group to complain about trails that needed work, or we wanted to build, now they are a "partner" with the land managers, and paid for work from them so dissent is squashed. I heard tale of board members that expresses opposition to this project told politely to STFU, and get on the train. I posted a simple comment about how an expert singletrack had been cleared to the point it lost some of it's character, and was told to stop complaining. Crazy how things are the same all over.

But as my wife says, who cares, go ride your bike. OK


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

DaveVt said:


> I can explain it. It used to be that you would ride for years to develop skills. If you were really driven you would go to the DJ park and learn how to jump, then back to trail riding you would use those skills on traditional MTB trail as a tool to find faster, cleaner lines. Enter the new demographic of MTBers. They wanted to feel like experts without investing the time to learn. Instead, just make the trail and the jumps so easy the everyone can jump. The new expert trail is born. Not a trail the requires expert skill, a trail that makes everyone feel like an expert. I'll never forget building in the Cady Hill Forest in Stowe VT when the former president of the club, the man I blame for ruining MTB in that town, came through after riding their new "Expert" trail. "David", he says, "even I jumped!" Victory? Not so much. Everyone wants that pump and jump style they see in the movies. They just don't want to pay dues to get there. Instead they just pay club dues and build a Disney land version of what MTB trails should be. IMO.


Would you feel better about it if it wasn't labelled an 'expert' trail?


----------



## DaveVt (Jun 13, 2005)

slapheadmofo said:


> Would you feel better about it if it wasn't labelled an 'expert' trail?


I understand the need for easy trail. I have a 5 yo who loves to ride easier, machine built trail on his little rigid coaster brake bike. What I don't like is ALL new work being dumbing down of existing trail and all new trail being 100 percent ride-able for 100 percent of the users. The first example happens because somehow people stopped seeking the challenge and ride around every trail feature, so to prevent widening and increased impact we have to eliminate it when the state wants trail rehab done. The second is motivated by having to create trails that tourist can ride. Used to be you had to be fit and have good bike skills to even ride the majority of singletrack around the parts of VT I am familiar with. In an effort to "Grow the Sport" for revenue mostly we needed to build trail more people could ride. A good trail network should offer all riders a real challenge. Being told the old neglected overused trails are the expert trails and everything else will be intermediate or below is ultra lame considering where we're coming from. Erosion should not be a trail feature that adds the technical challenge on the "expert" trails. I'd like to have built some real expert stuff along with some easier stuff instead of dumbing down the whole scene and calling a trail like FLO the expert trail. Flo is the onbly "expert" level trail planned in Cady Hill in Stowe, a place we used to have 30 foot gaps, 20 foot step downs, tons of skinny log rides and many other real expert level features as part of our (my) daily ride. Going back and seeing how it has been developed vs what originally made it a hot spot is a real kick in the nuts.


----------



## Singletrackd (May 3, 2015)

Yuup


----------



## Cotharyus (Jun 21, 2012)

DaveVt said:


> I understand the need for easy trail. I have a 5 yo who loves to ride easier, machine built trail on his little rigid coaster brake bike. What I don't like is ALL new work being dumbing down of existing trail and all new trail being 100 percent ride-able for 100 percent of the users. The first example happens because somehow people stopped seeking the challenge and ride around every trail feature, so to prevent widening and increased impact we have to eliminate it when the state wants trail rehab done. The second is motivated by having to create trails that tourist can ride. Used to be you had to be fit and have good bike skills to even ride the majority of singletrack around the parts of VT I am familiar with. In an effort to "Grow the Sport" for revenue mostly we needed to build trail more people could ride. A good trail network should offer all riders a real challenge. Being told the old neglected overused trails are the expert trails and everything else will be intermediate or below is ultra lame considering where we're coming from. Erosion should not be a trail feature that adds the technical challenge on the "expert" trails. I'd like to have built some real expert stuff along with some easier stuff instead of dumbing down the whole scene and calling a trail like FLO the expert trail. Flo is the onbly "expert" level trail planned in Cady Hill in Stowe, a place we used to have 30 foot gaps, 20 foot step downs, tons of skinny log rides and many other real expert level features as part of our (my) daily ride. Going back and seeing how it has been developed vs what originally made it a hot spot is a real kick in the nuts.


This is the "lets give everyone a trophy for participating" mentality coming of age that's causing this. I put rock gardens in a section of woods too thick to ride around them, and line the gaps where people might be tempted to try with logs and brush. People complain about there not being a "bypass line" and I tell them - it's advanced trail. Learn to ride the features, or walk through them. But they all want their trophy for riding the advanced trail ...


----------



## bitflogger (Jan 12, 2004)

I catch some things that are parallel with our area even though they're far apart and we're not a real mountain town.

Group 1 here are more and more called or considered the "You moved my favorite rock." or "You can't move my favorite rock." posse. Group 2 has taken efforts that were pooped out, near broke (people and money), and not sustainable and created something that while having new school trail also saves or grows the whole sport. Whining and grumpy people who don't like some of the change seem to forget we still have no shortage of hand built trail and and opportunity to build more.

On bowing to the land managers.... Before our change we had too much that wasn't cared for, not satisfying the general public or neglected. Our changes have our IMBA chapter membership up, volunteers up, income up and a scenario that's looking like a few caring stalwarts can retire some day. 

Something kind of funny is how often we see the haters riding what they hate with smiles.

It is still a big challenge to get enough volunteers and to get income but we've gone from shaking our heads wondering how the infrastructure part of MTB can go on to new life. We've gone from land managers putting on the brakes and holding barriers to their embracing the sport.

Now I say blame the 29rs and fat bikes. Last night I rode with a pal where we share owning all style of MTB except full-on downhill. We rode our pump track but also new flow trail. He said "This new stuff is really just extended pump track and jump line for 29rs".

Embrace or at least accept change. It helps in all of life.


----------

