# What does sustainability mean?



## munisano (May 7, 2008)

First off I'm sort of on the outside looking in as I'm primarily a trail runner and offroad unicycler (I used to mountain bike for many years but not so much anymore). I've seen this word used quite heavily lately in the context of trails or trail building and mountain biking. I've read some of the IMBA doctrine but I'd like to hear a definition from the floor, from the folks actually doing the work...

Thanks.


----------



## Ken in KC (Jan 12, 2004)

*It means many things...*

By definition, it's a word with many meanings. The two definitions that have the most meaning to me are:

1. to support, hold, or bear up from below; bear the weight of, as a structure.
2. to keep up or keep going, as an action or process.

Definition #1 speaks to the design and the build of a trail. If a trail is designed and built properly, using standards established by engineering professionals (CCC, USFS, IMBA) then a trail would be considered sustainable. If a trail isn't designed properly to an engineering standard, then it's unstainable.

Definition #2 speaks to the ongoing maintenance as well as user impact. If a trail meets definition 1 but requires significant annual work to keep up with user impact, then it's not sustainable. If a trail is designed properly and requires little more than some trimming or light upkeep based on user impacts, then it's sustainable.


----------



## munisano (May 7, 2008)

Does this definition not depend on user type? For instance for wheeled traffic might sustainability mean something closer to rideability? Seems like the whole concept of "sustainability" is a bit vague and much more context or user sensitive. For example a trail that might not be rideable is still quite passable on foot.


----------



## HarryCallahan (Nov 2, 2004)

munisano said:


> Does this definition not depend on user type? For instance for wheeled traffic might sustainability mean something closer to rideability? Seems like the whole concept of "sustainability" is a bit vague and much more context or user sensitive. For example a trail that might not be rideable is still quite passable on foot.


I think you hit on one of the problems with using "sustainability" as a descriptive term. My employer has a sustainability plan. One of the things it includes is our definition of sustainability, as it applies to our mission or organizational purpose. We deliberately chose to leave out certain broad areas that we could speak to but not change.

With trails, I'd say sustainable means that a given trail is well engineered and can be maintained for it's given purpose within the owner's budget and without unacceptable collateral damage to the surrounding environment.


----------



## Ken in KC (Jan 12, 2004)

*Sure..*



munisano said:


> Does this definition not depend on user type? For instance for wheeled traffic might sustainability mean something closer to rideability? Seems like the whole concept of "sustainability" is a bit vague and much more context or user sensitive. For example a trail that might not be rideable is still quite passable on foot.


For me, that's covered in the design portion of definition 1. In the design phase of a trail, you consider user type. You'll design and build trails differently based on user type. Which then affects the sustainability.

There are trails in the Pacific NW that are sustainable based on foot and bike traffic. They wouldn't be sustainable for motorized traffic.

There are trails in Moab that are sustainable based on jeep, motocross and ATV traffic.


----------



## munisano (May 7, 2008)

All right now we're getting somewhere. So how do we define sustainability for multi-use trails; say for bicycles and foot traffic? Do we err on the side of the use group that has the most impact on the trails? What about for trails that were originally say for foot traffic only but are now designated multi-use?


----------



## bweide (Dec 27, 2004)

Sustainability is more focused on resisting the damage caused natural forces than by users. The water flowing down a fall line trail will do more damage than all of the users combined. A trail that was designed to resist user damage but not natural forces probably couldn't be called a sustainable trail. 

My definition of a sustainable trail is a trail that is highly resistent to permanent damage when it is receiving zero trail maintenance attention over a long period of time. An unstainable trail is one that requires lots of trail maintenance attention to stay in good condition. If this trail maintenance isn't perfomed, the unsubstainable trail quickly reaches a tipping point and begins to destroy itself.


----------



## thefriar (Jan 23, 2008)

bweide said:


> Sustainability is more focused on resisting the damage caused natural forces than by users. The water flowing down a fall line trail will do more damage than all of the users combined. A trail that was designed to resist user damage but not natural forces probably couldn't be called a sustainable trail.
> 
> My definition of a sustainable trail is a trail that is highly resistent to permanent damage when it is receiving zero trail maintenance attention over a long period of time. An unstainable trail is one that requires lots of trail maintenance attention to stay in good condition. If this trail maintenance isn't perfomed, the unsubstainable trail quickly reaches a tipping point and begins to destroy itself.


I like this one.

IMHO: Sustainable as it pertains to a modern shared-use trail is a trail that is designed and built to account for user wear and tear, as well as mitigating nature's devices. If the trail is designed to be sustainable through the weather's wear and tear, it will likely support most user groups, with the width of the trail tread being the limiting factor (an ATV doesn't make a good user for a 12" wide section of singletrack).

Roman and Incan roads, armored trails by today's standards, are still around and used today. They were built right the first time and didn't/haven't needed much maintenance other than keeping the corridors clear. If you don't follow through with building a trail correctly, it won't be sustainable, attention to detail is critical.

EDIT: I think a bunch of hiking trails don't get built with sustainability in mind, most of the parks in CT have legacy trail systems and they need constant supervision and maintenance, or they're rerouted by users seeking a dry/less challegning route from a to b. If the trails were designed and built right the first time, shouldn't need too much help.


----------



## pinkrobe (Jan 30, 2004)

bweide said:


> Sustainability is more focused on resisting the damage caused natural forces than by users. The water flowing down a fall line trail will do more damage than all of the users combined. A trail that was designed to resist user damage but not natural forces probably couldn't be called a sustainable trail.
> 
> My definition of a sustainable trail is a trail that is highly resistent to permanent damage when it is receiving zero trail maintenance attention over a long period of time. An unstainable trail is one that requires lots of trail maintenance attention to stay in good condition. If this trail maintenance isn't perfomed, the unsubstainable trail quickly reaches a tipping point and begins to destroy itself.


I concur. When we think about designing our trails so that they're sustainable, it comes down to just being able to show up and ride as soon as the snow is gone and the deadfall has been removed. If we have to fix washouts and ruts every spring, or the trail gets wider and wider over the course of a season, we haven't done a proper job in designing a sustainable trail.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

munisano said:


> Does this definition not depend on user type? For instance for wheeled traffic might sustainability mean something closer to rideability? Seems like the whole concept of "sustainability" is a bit vague and much more context or user sensitive. For example a trail that might not be rideable is still quite passable on foot.


Sustainability does not imply passability for a certain mode of traffic. One could build sustainable trails with a certain user group in mind, but said trails are not passable to other users. From a nonmotorized standpoint, for passability, horses require height standards and wide turning radii on switchbacks that bikers and hikers need not worry about.

A hiker can pass some extremely rugged terrain that neither bikers nor horses could pass.

A trail must be sustainable for ALL intended uses to be considered sustainable. If a trail holds up to hikers and bikers, but not horses (and all are permitted uses), then that trail is unsustainable because it cannot handle horse use. But if a trail system permits all nonmotorized use and the trails get damaged by illegal atv use, that does not mean the trail was unsustainable to begin with.

As others have said, a sustainable trail is one that will hold up well with minimum maintenance for a period of time. It doesn't matter the reason for the maintenance - user damage or erosion. The trail sustains itself, in other words. It doesn't require constant input from work crews.

Any fall line trail is an example of an unsustainable one. The fall line is the direction the water goes when it flows downhill in a rain event. A trail that follows this route (or otherwise channelizes the water) will allow the water to pick up speed, move soil particles (maybe even rocks). It requires rerouting or erosion control structures that must be maintained at intervals. Since it requires regular input, it is unsustainable.

I would argue that trimming brush doesn't even come into the argument. The issue is the surface of the trail, not the vegetation above it, except as that vegetation directly impacts the trail surface with roots, fallen leaves, and such.


----------



## slocaus (Jul 21, 2005)

My concept of sustainability, when it comes to trails, is that a properly designed and constructed trail will need little or not ongoing maintenance to keep it is usable condition. That is what our group uses as a goal in designing new trails or rerouting old ones. We have the opportunity to add 35 to 50 more miles of trail, and if you spend all your time maintaining old trails, you do not get new ones built.

We work on multiuse trails, and that means equestrians, hikers, trail runners, and mountain bikers. You design what is best for the trail, based on terrain, climate, geology, and make certain that features will handle the users; that can be switchbacks, bridges, etc. But the real concept is that a sustainable trail will require little to no yearly maintenance.

Weather is the primary design factor in California, with typically 8-9 months of totally dry weather and 3-4 months of rain, sometimes heavy. We take into account users, where they will negatively impact design, such as cutting corners that ultimately eliminate grade reversals. Bikes berm corners, horses walk on berms and break them down. We will berm corners and leave a wider flat area inside for equestrians, for example, but overall trail design is to keep Mother Nature from wiping out the wind removing dirt and rain eroding and washing it away.

Good explanations from everyone, how about some visuals?

This was a road on an old ranch and donated to the CA State Parks. Too steep and just the wrong place, probably done in the 1920s or 30s originally. We will reroute this, but we need to keep it alive until all approvals are met.









Repairing it. Note the reconstructed drain that failed just below him. (We got more rain in a week than we normally get in a year - gotta love El Nino.)









The new drain from above. Still very hard to keep this working in torrential rains.









Here is another, different CA State Park, 10 miles apart. Old ranch road, land given to State Parks. In the 1970s, only equestrians and hikers were here, and this was only a 30" trail. Mountain bikes came into the scene, and this route was the popular gravity route, but on a ridge top, too steep, and muddy, so it widened and eroded.









That old "trail" above ran just to the upper left on the ridge line. This trail replaced it, the old one is almost completely grown in.









These "rolling drain dips" keep water from running down the trail.









Here is where the new sustainable trail crosses the old one.


----------



## mblock (Jan 22, 2007)

bweide said:


> Sustainability is more focused on resisting the damage caused natural forces than by users. The water flowing down a fall line trail will do more damage than all of the users combined. A trail that was designed to resist user damage but not natural forces probably couldn't be called a sustainable trail.
> 
> My definition of a sustainable trail is a trail that is highly resistent to permanent damage when it is receiving zero trail maintenance attention over a long period of time. An unstainable trail is one that requires lots of trail maintenance attention to stay in good condition. If this trail maintenance isn't perfomed, the unsubstainable trail quickly reaches a tipping point and begins to destroy itself.


I also agree with this. The user impact is not the major factor in causing erosion, but if a trail is not designed right the user impact will provide the means for mother nature to cause erosion (i.e. soil compaction, vegetation loss..etc). There a number of scientific studies done on trail use and impact that can be found on IMBA's website. Most of them say the same thing....on any trail users may not be the major factor in causing damage, the environment and trail design are the major factors. However, volume of users and user type may be a factor (i.e. motorized vs. non-motorized and higher volume etc.)

Also to note that some of the studies (found on IMBA website) compare types of users and measure their impact. A number of these studies indicate that the impacts from hiking and bicycling are virtually the same. However, horseback and motorized use have more impact.


----------



## munisano (May 7, 2008)

IMHO, the notion of "sustainability" is in the eyes of the user group that uses/builds/maintains the trail system. In my own experience as a trail runner I actually enjoy running on rocky, technical terrain; on those very "legacy" trails that some folks often point to as being "built incorrectly". Built incorrectly or not, a lot of these legacy trails that I love to run on are still there, have been there since the 1930's or longer. While they might not be rideable by a mountain bike, they still are runnable and hikeable on foot. Why change them? 

The issue I have is since some of my local trail system has been opened to "multi-use" i.e. mountain biking (no horses still, thank heavens), some of these trails have been modified, and changed to fit in to the IMBA "sustainability" guidelines as part of agreements with the land agencies to allow mountain biking on the trail systems. The result so far is that, in my view, these trail changes have started to sanitize and tame these trails in the interest to make them more accessible to wheeled traffic. 

There has also been some new trails built on my local trail system following the IMBA guidelines. Swoops and dips and the trail zig-zagging back and forth on itself (to maximize trail length in a limited area of real estate) may be fun on a bicycle but is very boring to run. 

The only conclusion that I can draw in light of observing the local IMBA chapter's impact on my local trail system is that their goals are "bikecentric" which makes sense as they are the International Mountain Bike Association, and they are the sole group doing ANY trail maintenance/advocacy, however I think there is a disconnect between the actual user groups as to what makes a good "sustainable" trail.


----------



## pinkrobe (Jan 30, 2004)

munisano said:


> The only conclusion that I can draw in light of observing the local IMBA chapter's impact on my local trail system is that their goals are "bikecentric" which makes sense as they are the International Mountain Bike Association, and *they are the sole group doing ANY trail maintenance/advocacy*, however I think there is a disconnect between the actual user groups as to what makes a good "sustainable" trail.


^^^^...and there you have it. If you want a trail a certain way, you have to work for it. The ones who are willing to work for it will certainly influence the design and implementation of the project.


----------



## indytrekracer (Feb 13, 2004)

*Sustainablity and difficulty level are not the same*



> Built incorrectly or not, a lot of these legacy trails that I love to run on are still there, have been there since the 1930's or longer. While they might not be rideable by a mountain bike, they still are runnable and hikeable on foot. Why change them?


The key thing to understand is that sustainability and difficulty are two different things. Many legacy trails were not built with sustainability in mind. While they weren't built to be expert trails, erosion over time turned sections in expert level trails. In many cases instead of having a trail system with beginner, intermediate, and expert trails, you end up with every trail having expert sections. This isn't a big deal to the minority of "Hardcore" trail users, but discourages many people from using the trails, thus making the barrier to entry harder for the next generation of trail users.

Someone who only looks at trails as a trail user, likely doesn't see the damage caused to the environment when erosion is allowed to determine which trails segments are expert. All the dirt that washed away is now in the water shed, and in many cases users either widen the trail or go off trail to get around the rocky, rooty, fall line segments.

Our group took on a trail system with many fall line trails and battled the "hardcore" trail users who thought we were ruining things as we replaced the worst fall line sections with sustainable contour trails. Now that we have "ruined" the trail with contour trails, the parking lot is full of riders every summer evening. Instead of just having a dozen hardcore riders in the parking lot, the lot is full of kids, families, racers, recreational riders, and even the hardcore riders.

If you like hard core trails, then step up to the plate. We can build hardcore trails that are sustainable, but the difficulty has to be built into the trail.










The key is to build the trail to be difficult and not let erosion make it difficult.










erosion didn't build that crib wall.


----------



## SunDog (Feb 21, 2004)

*Sustainable trail to me means:*

1.	*A trail that is designed and built to resist long term local weather conditions and resulting erosion.* _This has been well established but all too often simplified to a basic IMBA standard resulting in bland basic XC trails. This is not IMBA's oversight, but more the fault of those interpreting IMBA's sustainability guidelines, such as "all fall line trail is bad"._

2.	*A trail that is suitable for intended users. * _To be sustainable the trail must be designed and built to resist the wear and tear of sustained user activities, such as bike skidding or equestrian induced trail creep. Those charged with building should consult with the other intended users in the design and build of a multi-use trail so as not to build only to their requirements and standards._

3.	*A trail that meets the long term expectation of the users.* _The trail should be thoughtfully designed to meet the expectations and desires of all authorized users. This will prevent unsanctioned re-routes, bypasses, and stunt features and also reduce user conflicts that lead to the degradation of any trail system._

Open mindedness and a willingness to do the research and work are most definitely required.


----------



## munisano (May 7, 2008)

I agree 100%. I think it's more in the execution of policy rather than, necessarily, the policy itself that is the issue for me. Consider the fact that the vast majority to trail users in my local trail system are foot traffic related it doesn't make sense to me to be building new trails and modifying existing legacy trails based on a bikecentric point of view. I understand the local IMBA chapter thinking this way since they are primarily mountain bikers, however the language of the MOA that exists with the park speaks to all trail users. So really these guys need to be soliciting the input from outside their organization when it comes to these trail advocacy issues. Unfortunately, this kind of dialog hasn't occurred; yet work continues to get done/be done on the trail system. I hope to work to open this dialog so that all trail users have a bigger say in what goes on. Even though I know I'm one of the "hardcore minority" I'm willing to keep an open mind if they are.


----------



## Ken in KC (Jan 12, 2004)

*Ah, some clarity....*



munisano said:


> I agree 100%. I think it's more in the execution of policy rather than, necessarily, the policy itself that is the issue for me. Consider the fact that the vast majority to trail users in my local trail system are foot traffic related it doesn't make sense to me to be building new trails and modifying existing legacy trails based on a bikecentric point of view. I understand the local IMBA chapter thinking this way since they are primarily mountain bikers, however the language of the MOA that exists with the park speaks to all trail users. So really these guys need to be soliciting the input from outside their organization when it comes to these trail advocacy issues. Unfortunately, this kind of dialog hasn't occurred; yet work continues to get done/be done on the trail system. I hope to work to open this dialog so that all trail users have a bigger say in what goes on. Even though I know I'm one of the "hardcore minority" I'm willing to keep an open mind if they are.


IMBA's standards aren't bike-centric. They're based on standards established by the CCC and the US Forest Service (John Muir). According to studies conducted by non-bike centric sources (including the USFS), bikes and foot traffic have the same physical impact to trail but they impact the trails differently.

As others have indicated, proper trail design is critical to a trail's sustainability. If the trails in question are designed properly, they will work well for foot and bike traffic.

In my neck of the woods, trail runners and mountain bikers are looking for exactly the same type of trail. We frequently have trail user challenge races (trail runners v bikers). Some trails are technical, some are smooth. But we're all looking for the same type of trail. When I lay out trail, I'll almost always run the line to confirm that the trail flows properly.

I agree that there needs to be communication. But it's also important to consider that most legacy trail isn't designed or built to any sort of standard. In most cases, it makes more sense to redesign or rebuild the trail than try to continue to maintain it.


----------



## munisano (May 7, 2008)

I'll agree that the IMBA standards may not be bike-centric if what you say is true that they are standards laid out by the CCC and the US Forest Service. Like I said, the disconnect is in the implementation of the standards in places. Communication is the key to make sure new trails are a good fit for everybody and all users. I just worry that if you play to the least-common-denominator (or majority rules!) always then you'll get boring XC trails.

I also agree that legacy trails shouldn't be as maintained. That is fine by me; laissez-faire. If it starts to get too hairy out there then yes it makes sense to clear things up a bit (which I have helped with in the past i.e. ice storm), but otherwise, IMHO leave it alone.

Now I understand that on re-routed trails we'd like to avoid "cob-webbing" but if the routes are different enough, then I'd like to see the old routes left open so you have an "A" and "B" type route, don't just reclaim the old route. Don't want to maintain the old route? Fine, don't. Again I guess what I'm arguing is the implementation of IMBA standards and for that I've got to act locally... thanks for being a sounding board on this.


----------



## Ken in KC (Jan 12, 2004)

*Fair enough...*



munisano said:


> I'll agree that the IMBA standards may not be bike-centric if what you say is true that they are standards laid out by the CCC and the US Forest Service. Like I said, the disconnect is in the implementation of the standards in places. Communication is the key to make sure new trails are a good fit for everybody and all users. I just worry that if you play to the least-common-denominator (or majority rules!) always then you'll get boring XC trails.
> 
> I also agree that legacy trails shouldn't be as maintained. That is fine by me; laissez-faire. If it starts to get too hairy out there then yes it makes sense to clear things up a bit (which I have helped with in the past i.e. ice storm), but otherwise, IMHO leave it alone.
> 
> Now I understand that on re-routed trails we'd like to avoid "cob-webbing" but if the routes are different enough, then I'd like to see the old routes left open so you have an "A" and "B" type route, don't just reclaim the old route. Don't want to maintain the old route? Fine, don't. Again I guess what I'm arguing is the implementation of IMBA standards and for that I've got to act locally... thanks for being a sounding board on this.


As pinkrobe mentioned in an earlier post, those who volunteer to do the work and get involved have more input in to the type of trail that are built.

One more point that's important to understand: In many cases Land Managers ask volunteer organizations to assume responsiblity for an entire trail system or park as part of their MOU for new trail.

Since many legacy trails are fall line (bisecting a hill) vs. contoured (following a contour or elevation line), water will channel on and down the trail vs. sheeting off the trail. Fall line trails cause tremendous environmental damage as it pulls soil away from its orginal location and deposits it where the water stops flowing or changes direction.

These fall line trails are often reclaimed and people who aren't knowledgable about the specific reasoning feal that the reclaimation is done without input or reasoning. Often times the perception is that the trails are being dumbed down to accommodate a specific user group when the reasoning is really to help protect the land.

I have a link from a local forum that explains this in great detail and with pictures (I love engineers who are Trail Stewards). The links to the pictures are broken right now. I've asked the smart people to relink them. Once it's up, I'll post the link here.

Edit to fix my horrible grammar.


----------



## bweide (Dec 27, 2004)

I think IMBA is less the creator of the "IMBA" trail sustainability standards and more the advertisers and missionaries for that standard. It seems like they backed into the standards almost by accident. Mountain bikers hate water bars and IMBA was looking for a way to eliminate water bars in new trail construction. Water bars are almost always a sign of a trail that is too steep and usually in violation of the half rule (too close to fall line). They figured out that by reducing trail grade, contouring along a hillside and adding swoopy dips in the trail alignment, a better mountain biking trail was created. The high sustainability of trails designed to those standards soon became apparent to the land managers so they began to specify all trails to "IMBA" standards. 

The issue of trail difficulty vs. sustainability is something I think trail organizations are wrestling with. People who ride the most difficult terrain are a very small group (2% of mountain bikers?) and land managers cannot build trails just for that user niche. Steep sustainable trails can be built but they require far more construction effort. So the question becomes whether to build a short bit of high difficulty trail or miles of IMBA style trails. There is a brand new trail system near where I live that was all built to IMBA standards. I hear expert riders complain about the "sanitized" trail but they ride it in droves. It is not unusual to riders to ride 25-30 miles on a ride and come back with a huge grin on their faces. 

If the mountain bike community is a valued and trusted partner of the land manager by giving them more sustainable trails and closing their fall line nightmares, we have more input to the types of trails being built. Stacked loops are a great way to balance difficulty with multi-use access. All of the trails leaving from the trailhead are lowest common denominator trails. They are very wide and with good sight lines to prevent user conflicts. Farther back in are the are side trails of medium difficulty. Then a ways out on the medium difficulty trails there are expert side trails. You can't get onto expert trails until you passed the filter of a long ride and increasing difficulty. The sections of expert trail can be short and because they are linked in with a lot of medium difficulty trail, the experts still experience a long ride with challenging sections.


----------



## munisano (May 7, 2008)

Again what I'm reading is the "mountain-bike-ization" of trail systems by doing all the things you've just described: removing water bars, gentler grades, stacked loops, swoopy dips etc... All this is fine and great if you're building mountain bike trails, but don't try to call it "multi use". What the trail builders / maintainers fail to realize is that what makes a good mountain bike trail (a "sustainable" one in fact) doesn't necessarily translate into good hiking / running trails. Sure you can hike and run them, but they aren't interesting and can be quite boring (I speak from personal experience on this). Sure they're fun to ride, but trail builders / maintainers need to do a better job of soliciting input from ALL user groups. By the same token, all user groups need to take better ownership and initiative and get involved with the trail building / maintenance process. 

I'd wager that in most trail systems the "least common denominator" is foot traffic then bikes (except for perhaps areas that were built originally for mountain biking of course) so it's those users that need to be accommodated. Granted bike traffic on trails necessarily requires more maintenance i.e. a downed tree across a trail is more of an issue for a bike than someone on foot who can just step over the log. 

I do agree with perhaps a more layered approach to trail building / maintaining where you have progressively more difficult trails the further away from the trail head area. I really like that idea. Obviously we can't build trails just for that "2% of mountain bikers" or other trail users that are hardcore enough to enjoy really difficult trails. That solution is simple, for your far ranging trail sections simply do no maintenance! This approach has worked great on the legacy trail systems that, over time, have become expert only type trails. I'm still a little fuzzy about the whole "Sustainability" definition, but if some of these legacy trails are still around after nearly 100 years, it's unlikely their going anywhere soon.


----------



## thefriar (Jan 23, 2008)

munisano said:


> Again what I'm reading is the "mountain-bike-ization" of trail systems by doing all the things you've just described: removing water bars, gentler grades, stacked loops, swoopy dips etc... All this is fine and great if you're building mountain bike trails, but don't try to call it "multi use". What the trail builders / maintainers fail to realize is that what makes a good mountain bike trail (a "sustainable" one in fact) doesn't necessarily translate into good hiking / running trails. Sure you can hike and run them, but they aren't interesting and can be quite boring (I speak from personal experience on this). Sure they're fun to ride, but trail builders / maintainers need to do a better job of soliciting input from ALL user groups. By the same token, all user groups need to take better ownership and initiative and get involved with the trail building / maintenance process.


I think you're missing a couple things here. Sustainability isn't just a use/user related concept, its an environmental impact consideration, yeah its great that a trial is sustainable for ALL user groups and enjoyable. A trail with water bars isn't sustainable, i.e. the trail tracks the fall line, erosion will occur, the water bars will need constant repair, and eventually you'll need a re-route. That erosion has NEGATIVE environmental impacts, it gets into water systems, into water sheds and causes asphyxiation in streams and destroys ecosystems. Because you can hike it or you can't bike it, or its a really gnarly section, doesn't mean its sustainable for one group and not for another and it definitely doesn't mean you should keep the thing open to any user group.

I do agree input from ALL user groups is necessary, but sometimes just because the hikers like the rocky walk up the fall line that loses 3-4" of soil a season doesn't mean its sustainable and that you shouldn't close that section with a sustainable re-route that may be less technical or enjoyable. Its about sustaining our interaction with the land and that involves making some sacrifices in terms of "fun", secondly its about building a trail that sustainable for ALL users and requires little maintenance (EDIT: and is fun for all user groups). (Low maintenance typically means low impact)


----------



## munisano (May 7, 2008)

Ok, if we're going to talk about the effects of man-built trail erosion on the environment then don't we need to also consider the effects of erosion on the environment on areas that aren't even traversed by man? I'd invite you to look around the woods, I just came from a off road unicycle ride myself, and noticed there is A LOT of erosion happening out there, the least of which was on the fall line trail I was riding. Perhaps we need to also reroute the wildlife trails and other natural occurring fall lines in order to make them more sustainable?  

I'm sorry, I'm just not buying into the whole environmental argument as the reason to build, in my mind, much more sanitized trails. By the same token, if you turn the argument around a bit, in order to re-route a trail, or to make an existing one more sustainable are you not displacing even more of the surrounding environment to do so? In fact some photos from this thread show a trail that was built up with large rocks from the surrounding area. What kind of impact did moving all those rocks around have? Sorry this just seems a bit ticky tacky IMHO. It still seems, to me, that mountain bikers want to build easily rideable trails and are using the whole environmental impact argument to justify their cause. I just don't buy it. I'd much rather them just be more up front and say, hey we want to build / maintain trails so their easier to ride (and that includes maintenance).


----------



## DavidR1 (Jul 7, 2008)

Interesting arguments but I think your views are a bit short-sided. There are, no doubt, many factors that could be at play here.

First of all, the group (groups?) that are performing the work will obviously have the final say in the trail layout. Have you contacted this group? Have you volunteered with this group in performing the trail work? If you want your voice to be heard, this is the way to get that done. Complaining about the work on this board will not change a thing for you.

Second, if the trails are multi use, then the routes have to be built in a way that is rideable by bikes. The last thing every group wants is for the trails to be closed completely. If one of these "legacy" trails that are not maintained (as you propose) causes an accident, then the park could be open to lawsuits. One major lawsuit and all trails could be closed.

Building and maintaining trails in many areas has become quite political. Get involved, there may be very good reasons why your trail system are being built the way they are.


----------



## thefriar (Jan 23, 2008)

Munisano, you seem genuinely interested in this topic. I appreciate that and you're asking great questions.

There is definitely naturally occurring erosion, google "Grand Canyon" for a decent example. Naturally occurring erosion isn't what we're talking about here, its user caused erosion. In New England, a wildlife/game trail, typically deer, coyote, or bear typically doesn't go in a straight a-b line and you don't typically see them using fall lines. When you have a naturally occuring fall line, it typically doesn't see boots, tires, and hooves (not much wildlife in North America that weights what a horse and rider does) that degrade the foliage, rocks, and other natural elements that slow the flow of water and naturally mitigate erosion.

A social trail developed by bikers and hikers going from A to B that uses a fall lines could be left alone with no trail maintenance or re-routes and it will destroy itself through continued soil loss. The human use in the past can compact the flow lines into the top of the fall line and that's killer, regardless of whether its greater than 15% grade or not.

Regarding the Enviro concerns, where we work we have access to enviro info systems and professionals that we can consult with or question, so we try to look at things from all angles. I think most US national trail systems developed today have to have some sort of Environmental Impact Study performed prior to execution, this can take time and cause hassles. 

Generally speaking though, if you clear new trail, there are techniques for dispersing the duff and excess dirt created from creating the new section of trail that slow erosion and mitigate the up and down hill impacts of water flow. This mitigates the enviro impact of building said new trail.

A more sanitized trail to one is a challenging trail to another, i.e. one man's meat is another's poison. I ride rocky rooty New England singletrack and love rock gardens that require trials technique to appropriately navigate, I rode the Allegripis IMBA trail system which might as well have been paved vs. my normal conditions. The Allegripis trails were mind bogglingly fast with some speeds, cornering maneuvers, and whoops that are more in line with my DH days. They were challenging and fun enough I'll make the 5 hour drive again and spend more time there.

DavidR1 has a point, the group that may have "sanitized" your trail might be going to meetings with land owners and other stakeholders, or has been going to meetings for years in addition to regularly doing TM. They could be hearing other stakeholders complain about MTB perceived or real issues and adopting a strategy that has wider sign-off and blessing that ensures continued legal MTB access.

Personally, when doing a re-route I try to make it more fun than the previous trail. If there's tech being removed, add some speed and cornering, if there's speed and cornering being removed add some tech. If a rider joins a group and gets up to speed on sustainable trail building its great, b/c it gives another educated perspective where one rider/builder might think of building a less challenging line another might see a mutually agreeable alternative without losing sustainability.

Its tough to be out there going to meetings, organizing volunteers, planning projects, and moving dirt, many hands makes lighter work and in the case of trail design and advocacy more chefs in the kitchen can lead to a better meal.


----------



## HarryCallahan (Nov 2, 2004)

I've got just a few thoughts I don't think have been expressed in this thread.

First, whether a trail "lasts" over time may well be a balance of use, climate, soil, and vegetation. Change that balance, and the answer changes. So a trail that lasts unmaintained for 50 years may fail because of a fire that removes vegetation, or slide away in a 100 year storm, disappear because people or animals stop using it, or become eroded in an unacceptable way because usage doubles.

Secondly, the debate about "sanitized" trails often comes up with recent work. Sometimes the complaint seems more valid than other times. Often, a trail may look excessively groomed right after the crew finishes, yet once the result has had some wear and weather, it takes on a rougher character.


----------



## Ken in KC (Jan 12, 2004)

*Trail is dictated by terrain....*



bweide said:


> I think IMBA is less the creator of the "IMBA" trail sustainability standards and more the advertisers and missionaries for that standard. It seems like they backed into the standards almost by accident. Mountain bikers hate water bars and IMBA was looking for a way to eliminate water bars in new trail construction. Water bars are almost always a sign of a trail that is too steep and usually in violation of the half rule (too close to fall line). They figured out that by reducing trail grade, contouring along a hillside and adding swoopy dips in the trail alignment, a better mountain biking trail was created. The high sustainability of trails designed to those standards soon became apparent to the land managers so they began to specify all trails to "IMBA" standards.
> 
> The issue of trail difficulty vs. sustainability is something I think trail organizations are wrestling with. People who ride the most difficult terrain are a very small group (2% of mountain bikers?) and land managers cannot build trails just for that user niche. Steep sustainable trails can be built but they require far more construction effort. So the question becomes whether to build a short bit of high difficulty trail or miles of IMBA style trails. There is a brand new trail system near where I live that was all built to IMBA standards. I hear expert riders complain about the "sanitized" trail but they ride it in droves. It is not unusual to riders to ride 25-30 miles on a ride and come back with a huge grin on their faces.
> 
> If the mountain bike community is a valued and trusted partner of the land manager by giving them more sustainable trails and closing their fall line nightmares, we have more input to the types of trails being built. Stacked loops are a great way to balance difficulty with multi-use access. All of the trails leaving from the trailhead are lowest common denominator trails. They are very wide and with good sight lines to prevent user conflicts. Farther back in are the are side trails of medium difficulty. Then a ways out on the medium difficulty trails there are expert side trails. You can't get onto expert trails until you passed the filter of a long ride and increasing difficulty. The sections of expert trail can be short and because they are linked in with a lot of medium difficulty trail, the experts still experience a long ride with challenging sections.


I'm not what you consider "IMBA style trails"? Around my neck of the woods, we don't really have any green trails. Not because we choose not to build them but because the terrain doesn't lend itself to easier trails. We're building on top of river basin limestone. All rock, all the time.

Personally, I liked riding water bars. They added more drops in the trail. I also understand why they're being written out of trail plans (not because mountain bikers didn't like them but because the USFS determined they weren't sustainable).


----------



## RicknALA (Feb 15, 2004)

As the current president and a founding member of the SORBA-Huntsville club munisano is criticizing: Where have you been? We have had several trail schools sponsored by both the state park and the local land trust. All user groups were invited but we still got very little participation in our planning, much less actual work. Our next meeting is this Wednesday the 24th. 7:00 PM at the park lodge let me know if you would like to be considered for the agenda .

Rick Williams
SORBA-Huntsville


----------



## rayray74 (Sep 18, 2005)

"What the trail builders / maintainers fail to realize is that what makes a good mountain bike trail (a "sustainable" one in fact) doesn't necessarily translate into good hiking / running trails"

We've actually had nothing but compliments from hikers and trail runners on the trail we (mountain bikers) designed and built....


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

munisano, I think you're missing something.

First, you say you like to trail run on rugged surfaces, water bars, and stuff like that.

My question on this is, what does the rest of the terrain look like in your area? If the rocks and stuff are buried under significant amounts of soil, exposed sections of rock will be a symptom of severe erosion and that condition is to be avoided. If that's the case, get used to running on soil-surfaced trails.

If your terrain is rugged and rocky, then the trail builders may just be attempting to make a passable route through the area and may not be so skilled at using available rocks and stuff in the actual trail tread. Help 'em out.

Waterbars...I don't mind riding them, but I see the problems they cause. All the areas I've been that use them are very wide because they sediment they force off the trail ends up collecting and burying any vegetation. Eventually, water starts over-topping them and once that happens, the mini-waterfall starts to UNDERCUT them. They really are a maintenance nightmare. Get used to trails without them.

Your request to leave the old eroded legacy lines open while the new lines also remain open is shortsighted at best. The reason those old eroded lines got closed is because those sections were not SUSTAINABLE (the whole point of this discussion, right?). Think about sustainability this way. We can either MAINtain the trail...putting lots of labor and money into keeping the spot open, or we can build a trail that SUStains itself, requiring little to no maintenance over the years.

Get involved with a trail crew and you'll see how few people actually do the work. If you expect these people to maintain eroded awful stuff, you're out of your mind. We all want more trail, but in the case of mountain bikers, many land managers won't allow that to happen unless a trail crew signs on to oversee maintenance. If we minimize maintenance, that crew can oversee more mileage and still get to ride, also.

Another of your comments hints at what your problem might ACTUALLY be. You mention twisty trails trying to fit more mileage into a small area. To be honest, I don't much enjoy biking on that kind of stuff, either. I understand a limited amount of twistiness, but there's a point where it just gets to be too much and you feel like you're going nowhere. I understand that beef, and it's not just a trail runner vs mountain biker issue. It sounds like your local club feels like it needs to maximize mileage no matter what, and the land managers have not provided any guidelines for maximum trail density.

There are really no generally-recognized standards for trail density. The people on the ground maintaining the trail are usually the ones who make that decision on the fly. Measuring or evaluating trail density is best done by looking at the trails on a map. Not a lot of crews do that, and I'd posit that doing so is a good idea. Thing is, these crews might not even realize what they're doing.

If you're going to approach them, you're going to have to do so tactfully. Don't just jump in and start criticizing. Maybe approach the crew leader or head steward or whoever one-on-one to express your concern about excess trail density, following up with an offer to help out. And don't expect to make huge changes right off. You'll have to start small.

Trail density, however, is not primarily a sustainability issue. It can exacerbate any issues due to poor construction techniques, but trail density is primarily a user experience issue. You don't want trail users to get the sensation that they're just going back-and-forth or around in circles.


----------



## Ken in KC (Jan 12, 2004)

*A Question...*

Munisano,

Several people have made a suggestion that you haven't responded to, so being the direct sort of person I am, I'll just ask the question:

How involved in the process are you? The people designing, building and maintaining the trails are volunteers. Are you volunteering too?


----------



## RicknALA (Feb 15, 2004)

*involvement*

I can answer that question Ken, no.
Rick


----------



## Ken in KC (Jan 12, 2004)

*And that's the point...*



RicknALA said:


> I can answer that question Ken, no.
> Rick


That's exactly what I'm getting at.


----------



## DavidR1 (Jul 7, 2008)

Hey man, it is a whole lot easier to come onto a mountain biking forum and tell the community that they are screwing up all the trails that this guy runs on then to actually go out there and get your hands dirty. 

Heck, I would venture to guess that this guys hasn't even contacted the group heading up the trail build. And the thankless work of trail builders continues to go un-noticed...

Please Munisano, show us some pics of you helping out on trail building days to prove us wrong. (don't worry, we won't hold our breath)


----------



## Landahl Calrissian (Nov 14, 2006)

munisano said:


> IMHO, the notion of "sustainability" is in the eyes of the user group that uses/builds/maintains the trail system. In my own experience as a trail runner I actually enjoy running on rocky, technical terrain; on those very "legacy" trails that some folks often point to as being "built incorrectly". Built incorrectly or not, a lot of these legacy trails that I love to run on are still there, have been there since the 1930's or longer. While they might not be rideable by a mountain bike, they still are runnable and hikeable on foot. Why change them?
> 
> The issue I have is since some of my local trail system has been opened to "multi-use" i.e. mountain biking (no horses still, thank heavens), some of these trails have been modified, and changed to fit in to the IMBA "sustainability" guidelines as part of agreements with the land agencies to allow mountain biking on the trail systems. The result so far is that, in my view, these trail changes have started to sanitize and tame these trails in the interest to make them more accessible to wheeled traffic.
> 
> ...


Your quote above will help me explain what sustainable means.

What exactly did those legacy trails look like when the trail was first built in the 1930's?
Is the route exactly the same? Is the trail tread in exactly the same condition as it was when built? 
My bet is that unless those trails were built with sustainable practices then they are not in exactly the same condition today as they the day they were built.

I've had the pleasure to ride some CCC built legacy trails, Monarch Crest, CO, Womble, AR, and Berryman, MO. Parts of those legacy trails were built with sustainable practices, i.e. 1/2 rule, grade dips/reversals, etc. Those parts of the trails are effectively the same as the day the were built. Other parts due to geography, geology or poor design/build are showing age and are non sustainable. Those sections require ongoing maintenance or rework/build.

Another thought about why trails should be rebuilt is that when legacy trails were built in the 30s or before, is that sustainability was a fairly new thought to trailbuilding. With the advent of the Railroad, then car, more and more people had easy access to the wilderness. Trails were made to get people to the point of interest as easily and quickly as possible from the RR or road. Sustainability/ environmental consequence was not part of the equation. Now Land Managers are aware of the damage done by improperly built trails and the long term consequences.

I'm not sure why sustainable has to be tame. There are many sustainable trails that I would have a hard time hiking let alone riding on. I've ridden many trails that were sustainable and rocky/rooty/ steep/challenging, etc.

The constraints put on by geography, property, and geology has the most to do with the type of trail being built, as much or more as the user group/s they are being built for.


----------



## mtb777 (Nov 6, 2005)

We've built quite a bit of lower level Intermediate trails and the more advanced riders (and volunteers) have requested more advanced stuff so we are doing advanced by-passes to keep things interesting for ALL levers of riders and hikers. Most of out trails are mountain bike specific, but we still work with our land managers and the different rider groups to keep everyone happy and to keep all trails and Technical Trail Features approved and "blessed". We have to submit plans for our trail layouts and TTF's and they are walked by risk management. The builders have the say-so on what gets built for the most part and I'd say if you want something a certain way then you have to be there to be heard or listened to. Sweat investment "works". Maybe you can propose some technical alternate trail bypasses if you are willing to build them. Once you start building you will never look at a trail again the same way. As you build and see what works and what doesn't work...you will start seeing this in other trails and look at ways to improve on what's there and you will get an eye for layout, flow, speed. and technical features. I have some issues with sections of trail that I like to make tight and twisty where the racers (and single speeders) want it straight and fast and the argument comes up of why we have handle bars and brakes! I like to build all kinds of skills into a trail and not make them all the same...it breaks up the flow a little bit and gives you a chance to wear out your cassette a little more evenly! Every one wants their favorites but everyone needs to realize that everyone's needs and likes are different and the that the better trails incorporate all of these things.
I have read some great arguments here on different sides of the same coin.


----------



## Francis Buxton (Apr 2, 2004)

There is an old saying - put up or shut up (I'm channeling Ken). If you don't like the current look of new trails in your area, there is only one way to change that - get involved. Skip a Saturday ride or muni once a month and join "the enemy" in improving the trail system you love to recreate on so much. Learn the teachings of IMBA for yourself, and learn the processes used to design and build trails. 

Ask to join the trail builders when they are laying out the next segment of trail to see the design process and see if there are places that you can provide input. Ask them why a trail can go along a certain alignment or through a certain rocky area. They may give you legitimate reasoning why it can't be done. They may see a line they hadn't before and route it in a way more acceptable to you. Maybe you'll both learn something. 

If you don't get involved, your complaints don't carry much weight. I'm sorry, but I don't have much sympathy (or respect) for people who are in really great shape b/c they train 5 days a week but don't ever give back to the trail systems they recreate on. I've given up a lot of ride time to build trails, and it's mostly because I find the activity very fun and rewarding. It's hard work and there is a tangible product at the end. Teach a man to build trail, and he'll be able to ride for the rest of his life.


----------



## munisano (May 7, 2008)

Sorry I've been away from this thread for a few days. To answer your question, I was once a SORBA member for a year or so and did participate in a few trail maintenance/building sessions. I had a sort of falling out with the club a while back and haven't been involved in trail building/maintenance ever since. 

However, I'm very active in the local running community that has put on numerous events in the same trail system over the years, putting countless hours into helping make events go. A good chunk of the profits from these events go to the park as well. So it's not as if I don't volunteer; just my focus is else where and this takes up most of my non-training time (along with work, school, life, etc...)

But your all right, I need to be more involved with the actual trail maintenance/building in my local trail system; but it's incorrect to say I've never done anything.


----------



## Ken in KC (Jan 12, 2004)

*Bullsh1t...*



Francis Buxton said:


> There is an old saying - put up or shut up (I'm channeling Ken). If you don't like the current look of new trails in your area, there is only one way to change that - get involved. Skip a Saturday ride or muni once a month and join "the enemy" in improving the trail system you love to recreate on so much. Learn the teachings of IMBA for yourself, and learn the processes used to design and build trails.
> 
> Ask to join the trail builders when they are laying out the next segment of trail to see the design process and see if there are places that you can provide input. Ask them why a trail can go along a certain alignment or through a certain rocky area. They may give you legitimate reasoning why it can't be done. They may see a line they hadn't before and route it in a way more acceptable to you. Maybe you'll both learn something.
> 
> If you don't get involved, your complaints don't carry much weight. I'm sorry, but I don't have much sympathy (or respect) for people who are in really great shape b/c they train 5 days a week but don't ever give back to the trail systems they recreate on. I've given up a lot of ride time to build trails, and it's mostly because I find the activity very fun and rewarding. It's hard work and there is a tangible product at the end. Teach a man to build trail, and he'll be able to ride for the rest of his life.


Channeling me is: If you don't step up and participate, you are pussie, are lobbing stones from the sidelines and have no business offering an opinion.

You either step up and become involved or STFU.

Period. End of discussion.


----------



## munisano (May 7, 2008)

Wow, name calling? Seriously? You don't even know me! Well, I guess we're now confirming Godwin's Law.

More to the point, I fail to understand how questioning what "sustainability" means or how that goal is executed (see the original point of this thread) out has anything to do with picking up a shovel or rake and making it happen? FYI it's this very proprietary and elitist attitude exhibited by some folks of the local trail stewardship that really turned me away from continuing to be involved. Great way to win over volunteers!

I may well get involved in trail stewardship, but I can promise it won't be with folks with attitudes like yours.

I'm sorry if I offended anybody by asking some questions, and engaging in an open debate, but name calling? Come on! :nono:


----------



## badwater135 (Feb 24, 2010)

Sustainability is being able to maintain a decent, professional discussion without resorting to elementary behavior.


----------



## Ken in KC (Jan 12, 2004)

*You misunderstand....*



munisano said:


> Wow, name calling? Seriously? You don't even know me! Well, I guess we're now confirming Godwin's Law.
> 
> More to the point, I fail to understand how questioning what "sustainability" means or how that goal is executed (see the original point of this thread) out has anything to do with picking up a shovel or rake and making it happen? FYI it's this very proprietary and elitist attitude exhibited by some folks of the local trail stewardship that really turned me away from continuing to be involved. Great way to win over volunteers!
> 
> ...


You haven't offended anybody. Certainly not me. And I certainly wasn't speaking to you. I was speaking to a larger issue that volunteers have with people who don't volunteer. It's a frustration that's shared across volunteer organizations and isn't limited to trail building.

Volunteers by definition are giving their time to an organization or a cause that they feel is important. It's a personal gift of their time and money.

People who aren't involved in the cause aren't in a position to dictate how someone else gives their personal time or gift. Thinking of time like money, most people wouldn't dare tell someone else how or where to spend it.

In general (not you specifically), telling people what they should do with their personal time based on what _you_ want and desire is offensive. It's nothing more than complaining. After decades of other people who are unwilling to give their time for something that you feel is important, tell you what you should do for them, it gets old.

I'll caution you about jumping to conclusions about perceived elitism. Trail design and building isn't an art nor is it something that people intuitively know. It's a trained skill based on engineering principals and sound design. Metaphor: In order to offer an opinion to a mechanical engineer on their design, you'll want to have some sort of credentials that justify your opinion. If you don't you're less likely to change their mind based on their training but you are far more likely to feel like they're being elitist. It's the same idea with people who are trained to design and build trails. It's not really a coincidence that most of the Trail Stewards in our little part of the world are engineers by degree. Designing and building sustainable trails is far more complex than simply pointing and saying "I want to go there".

^^^ This is the less expedient way of saying the same thing I said last night.

My attitude: So you and I are on the same page, I'm a firm believer in honesty over feelings. I'm far more comfortable being direct than engaging in rhetoric. Those who don't know me that well consider me an a-hole. Those who do know me well can confirm that I'm an a-hole. Talking around the pink elephant in the room drives me absolutely bonkers.

We've all been talking around the fact that those who volunteer get to determine the trail design. The truth of the matter is that unless you're lifting the tools, you don't get to tell other people what they should do to benefit you. It doesn't matter if we're talking about trails, your own lawn or your job; those with skin in the game get to offer an opinion.

If you ever make it to Kansas City, look me up and I'll buy you a beer. If I ever make it to where you are, I'll let you buy me a beer. But I'll still be direct.


----------



## Ken in KC (Jan 12, 2004)

*Thanks...*



badwater135 said:


> Sustainability is being able to maintain a decent, professional discussion without resorting to elementary behavior.


Thank you for your insight and wisdom. I've always appreciated the clarity you've brought to these discussions.


----------



## LWright (Jan 29, 2006)

Munisano,
You have started a discussion about "sustainability", but I get the impression you are more concerned with "Compatibility".
I hear you saying "I like the trails the way they are, leave them alone and take your bike somewhere else".
Maybe I am missing something, but I feel you are anti-bike and trying to "back-door" your way into some agreement you are unlikely to find.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

> More to the point, I fail to understand how questioning what "sustainability" means or how that goal is executed (see the original point of this thread) out has anything to do with picking up a shovel or rake and making it happen?


If you still do not understand, that is your failure, not ours. The concept has been rehashed just about every way conceivable.

What mental block are you suffering that prevents you from understanding the difference between trails that need no maintenance to trails that need almost constant maintenance? The concept is simple. The execution of that concept requires training and understanding of the local conditions for each trail.

There have been some questions posed to you that you still have not addressed. I suggest re-reading the thread and addressing them.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

LWright said:


> Munisano,
> You have started a discussion about "sustainability", but I get the impression you are more concerned with "Compatibility".
> I hear you saying "I like the trails the way they are, leave them alone and take your bike somewhere else".
> Maybe I am missing something, but I feel you are anti-bike and trying to "back-door" your way into some agreement you are unlikely to find.


+1 I stated something similar in one of my earlier posts.


----------



## munisano (May 7, 2008)

Fine.

LWright: You are about 2/3 correct. I do in fact like the trails they way they are and I do desire to, largely, leave them alone. I am however not anti-bike, as I do ride myself, albeit on one wheel most of the time. I do vehemently oppose changing my local trail system in the name of this nebulous "sustainability" concept. 

NateHawk: My "mental block" as you assume I have, has to do with the assumption that ANYTHING we do as any real "sustainability" in the long run. The Earth is a dynamic system, prone to change. There is erosion happening EVERYWHERE and I'm not even talking about on trails. I just don't see why, all of a sudden, there is this huge desire to change the way things are.

I'm not against trail maintenance, far from it. Nobody likes to ride or run through a maze of blow downs. I'm just saying why do we have to mess with stuff to the nth degree? Is it to make things more rideable? I can understand that, as foot traffic doesn't require as much maintenance. Wheeled traffic, to avoid having to hike a bike, would require a bit more trail sanitization. 

You all say I should get involved. I have and I will again, but probably not through SORBA. Why? Well SORBA's MOU with the local trail system reflects a bike-centric point of view, as it should their a mountain bike club. No, if I do anything with regards to trail stewardship with my local trail system it's going to be from a foot traffic perspective. Why not? We do represent the largest use group (both in terms of traffic and monetary support) in the local trail system. However that doesn't mean that there can't be an understanding between groups and that some compromise couldn't be reached. I'm sure there can be.

I just don't agree that "multi-use" necessarily means having to dumb a trail down to the least common denominator. If that happened then we'd have some pretty lame trails.

I do agree that trail widening is big problem, keep to the center is a rule I've always lived by and encourage others to practice. I do agree that clearing blow downs often is a good thing, and that certain trail sections probably do deserve to be re-routed or armored. However, leave the original route alone so you'll get an A and B option. 

I know that I'm not going to change any minds, but I wanted to better understand what "sustainability" meant to mountain bikers and now I have a much better appreciation.

Thank You and Happy Trails....


----------



## Ken in KC (Jan 12, 2004)

*Ignorance...*



munisano said:


> Fine.
> 
> LWright: You are about 2/3 correct. I do in fact like the trails they way they are and I do desire to, largely, leave them alone. I am however not anti-bike, as I do ride myself, albeit on one wheel most of the time. I do vehemently oppose changing my local trail system in the name of this nebulous "sustainability" concept.
> 
> ...


You're ignorant of trail design and building standards, which is why you're getting the push back regarding your ideas and opinions. If you'd spent any time at all educating yourself to overcome your ignorance, you'd have a better understanding of why your opinions and ideas aren't really that feasible.

Here's something to chew on: Anyone who is involved in trail design or maintenance on public lands works directly for the Land Manager. Ultimately they decide what trails go where and whether or not we're allowed to put trails on their land. Having an A and B option is fine with most of us because it's considerably less work. But in most cases, the LM doesn't want an A and B option. An A and B option increases labor/overhead for them and they're already working short staffed. If you'd become involved, you'd know this and not point fingers at SORBA for being the bad guy because they're not jumping on board with you and your opinions.


----------



## munisano (May 7, 2008)

This is what I'm talking about. The whole "I'm an expert and your not" attitude. Is it too much to ask for these so called "experts" to explain or justify their actions to the rest of us? Do I really have to be an expert to have the opinion that the trails should be left alone? Seriously? I'm not calling anybody a "bad guy" I'd just like SORBA to admit that their doing trail work in the name of mountain biking. I'm fine with that, but don't try and convince me their doing it for all trail user's benefit. I also fully respect the Land Manager's prerogative. But you guys still don't understand what I mean about an A and B option. What I'm saying is that the A option is the original trail, just leave it alone, there is no increase in labor or overhead. The B option would be the re-route or new trail, possibly built to be more mountain bike friendly.


----------



## Ken in KC (Jan 12, 2004)

*I've always found...*



munisano said:


> This is what I'm talking about. The whole "I'm an expert and your not" attitude. Is it too much to ask for these so called "experts" to explain or justify their actions to the rest of us? Do I really have to be an expert to have the opinion that the trails should be left alone? Seriously? I'm not calling anybody a "bad guy" I'd just like SORBA to admit that their doing trail work in the name of mountain biking. I'm fine with that, but don't try and convince me their doing it for all trail user's benefit. I also fully respect the Land Manager's prerogative. But you guys still don't understand what I mean about an A and B option. What I'm saying is that the A option is the original trail, just leave it alone, there is no increase in labor or overhead. The B option would be the re-route or new trail, possibly built to be more mountain bike friendly.


I've always found that asking questions is a far better way to learn about a subject than telling those who are subject matter experts why they should consider my opinion above their experience.

You asked about sustainability. You've taken the sustainability issue off course by claiming that we're elitists because we're not educating you on topics that you haven't asked about.

How do you reconcile these two statements:



> I'm not against trail maintenance, far from it. Nobody likes to ride or run through a maze of blow downs.
> 
> What I'm saying is that the A option is the original trail, just leave it alone, there is no increase in labor or overhead.


You made them less than an hour apart from each other. If you double sections of trail, you create double the need to maintain them as you've described. Of course there is an increase in labor and overhead.

I'm very familiar with A and B lines. Most of us prefer them. Most Land Managers don't prefer them.

I'm still scratching my head over your opinion that trails are dumbed down for and by mountain bikers. It's been my experience that all trail users are looking for the exact same thing. It doesn't matter whether it's runners/hikers, mountain bikers or equestrians. In our area, we set up informal multi-discipline races. Trail runners usually win because the trails are technical. If the trails were made my mountain bikers based on what mountain bikers want (according to you), the mtber's should win every time.


----------



## munisano (May 7, 2008)

Regarding the "elitist" comment: What I meant was, explain to me why just leaving the trails the way they are is so bad. I'm not saying do totally nothing, but why change them, tinker with them. Especially as you say (and I totally agree with) finding voluntary labor is very difficult and time intensive. Great. To work less often, aim for the large issues and don't sweat the details. I'm sorry, typing is an inferior way to communicate IMHO and what you don't get is the tone or more rapid discussion for clarification of points. Sorry. But when you say things that imply we're the experts and we know better than you, that comes off as elitist. My whole point in starting this thread was to understand what "sustainability" means and why it's important.

About the A and B route (again  ). Leave the A route alone, period. Maintain the B route period. If somebody has a problem with a blow-down in the A route then they can take it upon themselves to do something about it, other wise, leave it alone. What I said in general about clearing blow downs doesn't apply to the A and B situation since that is not the general case. I meant that on a section of trail nobody wants to traverse a forest of blow downs. Can you understand the difference? Granted foot traffic would have a much easier time negotiating such terrain, but I agree it does get old if in excess.

You're right, I should qualify what I mean by "dumbed down" even though I think this had been covered earlier in this thread. I'm talking about trails that purely follow the 10% rule or simply follow natural contours. I'm also talking about densely packing a trail into a small area in order to maximize trail mileage. If your going to go from point A to point B it may make sense, due to the terrain, to snake around some, but to pack 3 miles worth of trail into 1/4 mile square area? Hmmm I'm also talking about avoiding or eliminating fall lines at all costs, some of the most interesting trails are these types of trails.

I just don't agree that what the mountain bikers want and what the runners and hikers want are exactly the same thing. I do think that there can be compromise however.

Someone mentioned earlier in this thread the idea of a tiered difficulty system based on distance from the trail head. I think that is an excellent idea. I can see the closer trails might make sense to be "dumbed down" for the purposes of letting novices (bikers and runners) get comfortable on some easier trails. Necessarily because of proximity and traffic these trails would probably need to be worked on more frequently. Further out you'd have more intermediate and advanced trails, those, in my view could be less frequently worked on and allowed to get rough to a certain extent. Now those trails would probably satisfy most groups who are more adventurous. Furthest out would be the expert trails and these could be, in my view, almost completely non maintained except for perhaps the blow down concept I covered and the occasional good Samaritan.

Seems like a tiered approach could be a good compromise for all parties. I think, to an extent, this would fall fairly naturally as it's easier to maintain trails that are easier to get to (closer)...


----------



## Ken in KC (Jan 12, 2004)

*okay...*



munisano said:


> Regarding the "elitist" comment: What I meant was, explain to me why just leaving the trails the way they are is so bad. I'm not saying do totally nothing, but why change them, tinker with them. Especially as you say (and I totally agree with) finding voluntary labor is very difficult and time intensive. Great. To work less often, aim for the large issues and don't sweat the details. I'm sorry, typing is an inferior way to communicate IMHO and what you don't get is the tone or more rapid discussion for clarification of points. Sorry. But when you say things that imply we're the experts and we know better than you, that comes off as elitist. My whole point in starting this thread was to understand what "sustainability" means and why it's important.
> 
> About the A and B route (again  ). Leave the A route alone, period. Maintain the B route period. If somebody has a problem with a blow-down in the A route then they can take it upon themselves to do something about it, other wise, leave it alone. What I said in general about clearing blow downs doesn't apply to the A and B situation since that is not the general case. I meant that on a section of trail nobody wants to traverse a forest of blow downs. Can you understand the difference? Granted foot traffic would have a much easier time negotiating such terrain, but I agree it does get old if in excess.
> 
> ...


Since we're educating through a forum vs. taking a class and CE credits that most of us perform....

A and B. What part of "I understand" don't you understand? I know what you mean. What's your answer for the liability exposure that the LM and the volunteer group bring upon themselves by not maintaining a trail? No lawyers, LM's or law makers that I've spoken with would touch what you're proposing because it exposes them to the expense of litigation.

The stacked loop (tiered) trail system that you think may be a good idea has been in practice where applicable for over a decade. It's not new and it works.

Fall line: I agree, some fall line trails are fun. Especially in areas that are sustainable and can support them (Moab, for example). But in areas that aren't sustainable and can't support them, they're tremendously damaging.


----------



## munisano (May 7, 2008)

A and B. I guess this is root of the problem that none of us can avoid. Fear of litigation. That is very unfortunate and probably no way to fix that in this country at least. I'd say that mountain biking, trail running, hiking (breathing air, going to the bathroom) can be hazardous experiences and you could get hurt, even in perfect conditions so users beware. Obviously that isn't a legal argument but then again common sense can't be legislated.

Stacked loop: never said it was anything new, this would seem to me be a natural way a trail system would develop. All I'm saying is if you're going to do maintenance, or build IMBA approved trails, keep it in the first tier. Leave the further out stuff alone or keep to a minimum. Seems like this would make it easier for the trail stewards in general. Of course I understand we still have the litigation problem and I can see that perhaps that is what may be driving the entire "sustainability" issue ultimately.

Fall line: We agree they're great, I don't agree they're any more damaging than what brooks, streams and rivers are doing to your planet.  Trails aren't natural.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

munisano said:


> Regarding the "elitist" comment: What I meant was, explain to me why just leaving the trails the way they are is so bad. I'm not saying do totally nothing, but why change them, tinker with them. Especially as you say (and I totally agree with) finding voluntary labor is very difficult and time intensive. Great. To work less often, aim for the large issues and don't sweat the details. I'm sorry, typing is an inferior way to communicate IMHO and what you don't get is the tone or more rapid discussion for clarification of points. Sorry. But when you say things that imply we're the experts and we know better than you, that comes off as elitist. My whole point in starting this thread was to understand what "sustainability" means and why it's important.


You're asking experts to dilute training consisting of YEARS of training, education, and experience into how many minutes of dumbed-down verbal explanations? I started learning about trail sustainability in around 2000. Since then, I have many hours of on-the-ground experience, I have attended formal trailbuilding/maintenance seminars, I have earned a bachelor's degree minor in environmental science, and I'm working on a master's degree MAJOR in environmental science. Pray tell, what exactly am I supposed to tell you in 5 minutes that will answer your question?



> About the A and B route (again  ). Leave the A route alone, period. Maintain the B route period. If somebody has a problem with a blow-down in the A route then they can take it upon themselves to do something about it, other wise, leave it alone. What I said in general about clearing blow downs doesn't apply to the A and B situation since that is not the general case. I meant that on a section of trail nobody wants to traverse a forest of blow downs. Can you understand the difference? Granted foot traffic would have a much easier time negotiating such terrain, but I agree it does get old if in excess.


As explained a few times before, mountain bikers generally like A and B routes. Land managers do not. Therefore, A and B routes frequently do not get included in a trail design. You're lucky if you get an alternate line around a single blowdown or other technical feature. Usually the blowdown just gets cut through or a whole new reroute gets built because that's how the land manager or parks district wants things done. Revegetation/reclamation is part of trail maintenance. A reroute is built because there is a reason. The old line is unacceptable to the land manager. Leaving that unacceptable line open does not complete the job.



> You're right, I should qualify what I mean by "dumbed down" even though I think this had been covered earlier in this thread. I'm talking about trails that purely follow the 10% rule or simply follow natural contours. I'm also talking about densely packing a trail into a small area in order to maximize trail mileage. If your going to go from point A to point B it may make sense, due to the terrain, to snake around some, but to pack 3 miles worth of trail into 1/4 mile square area? Hmmm I'm also talking about avoiding or eliminating fall lines at all costs, some of the most interesting trails are these types of trails.


You're mixing topics. Trails that follow contours are examples of sustainable trails. I'm sorry you don't like them, but well built examples will last longer than you. Packing trails into a small space is a separate issue altogether. Fall line trails suck. I imagine with a LOT of labor and a lot of expense, an interesting AND sustainable one could be built. But I've never seen one. Wanna pony up to get one built? Be my guest.



> I just don't agree that what the mountain bikers want and what the runners and hikers want are exactly the same thing.  I do think that there can be compromise however.


Do you do all activities equally? How do you know what EVERYONE wants? I do a lot of hiking and mountain biking. I enjoy hiking on many of the same trails that I enjoy riding a bike on. There's no compromise there. I've ridden and hiked some trails I didn't necessarily enjoy as much as I could have...but I was still on a trail in the woods and it's not like it ruined my day.



> Someone mentioned earlier in this thread the idea of a tiered difficulty system based on distance from the trail head. I think that is an excellent idea. I can see the closer trails might make sense to be "dumbed down" for the purposes of letting novices (bikers and runners) get comfortable on some easier trails. Necessarily because of proximity and traffic these trails would probably need to be worked on more frequently. Further out you'd have more intermediate and advanced trails, those, in my view could be less frequently worked on and allowed to get rough to a certain extent. Now those trails would probably satisfy most groups who are more adventurous. Furthest out would be the expert trails and these could be, in my view, almost completely non maintained except for perhaps the blow down concept I covered and the occasional good Samaritan.
> 
> Seems like a tiered approach could be a good compromise for all parties. I think, to an extent, this would fall fairly naturally as it's easier to maintain trails that are easier to get to (closer)...


A stacked loop is an idealized system. I've seen it implemented well once. It requires a fairly specific set of circumstances including available land, available resources, the correct mix of existing resources, and enough motivated people to make it happen. The place I've seen it done well had the wide easy multi-use path already. The park just permitted mountain bikers to build singletrack around it. I have seen one other system that has the potential for an excellent stacked loop system. But as it exists now the wide multi-use path is in bad shape because it was poorly built in the first place and none of the singletrack was built with a plan in mind so it just goes everywhere. It will require a LOT to get that trail system up to par.


----------



## Ken in KC (Jan 12, 2004)

*Okay v2*



munisano said:


> A and B. I guess this is root of the problem that none of us can avoid. Fear of litigation. That is very unfortunate and probably no way to fix that in this country at least. I'd say that mountain biking, trail running, hiking (breathing air, going to the bathroom) can be hazardous experiences and you could get hurt, even in perfect conditions so users beware. Obviously that isn't a legal argument but then again common sense can't be legislated.
> 
> Stacked loop: never said it was anything new, this would seem to me be a natural way a trail system would develop. All I'm saying is if you're going to do maintenance, or build IMBA approved trails, keep it in the first tier. Leave the further out stuff alone or keep to a minimum. Seems like this would make it easier for the trail stewards in general. Of course I understand we still have the litigation problem and I can see that perhaps that is what may be driving the entire "sustainability" issue ultimately.
> 
> Fall line: We agree they're great, I don't agree they're any more damaging than what brooks, streams and rivers are doing to your planet.  Trails aren't natural.


Most LM's don't fear litigation. They expect to get sued. Most states' recreational statutes offer a high degree of protection from liabilty. What they (and all volunteer groups) fear is the cost of defending yourself. Just because you're protected doesn't mean that someone can't sue you. So we all take steps to do what we can to limit liability, including ensuring that we maintain all trails to the same level so that some ambulance chaser can't make a claim that gross negligence caused their client to injure themselves.

You're kind of making my point about ignorance here. You asked about sustainability and we're now talking about liability. They have nothing to do with each other but you were dead sure that I was being elitist or I didn't understand what you were asking about because I didn't seem to agree with your A and B line idea. Now that you have a deeper understanding of what the issues really are, is it possible that I wasn't being elitist?

Stacked loop: In cases where stacked loops can be designed in, they work great. Not all trail systems can be designed and built as a stacked loop system. I don't know if your trail system would or wouldn't be able to handle a stacked loop. I wouldn't even offer an opinion without looking at a contour map with a high enough DOP overlayed with the trail. And even then, I'd want to walk the area with a clinometer to assess soil type, etc. I doubt that you have the experience to make the assessment either.

Fall line: Have you ever seen a hill or micro-ecosystem die due to a fall line trail? I have. Rivers and creeks sustain life and are part of nature. Fall line trails don't sustain life and aren't part of nature. Even deer trails are generally contour trails.

Trails are natural. Man made recreational trails aren't natural.


----------



## LWright (Jan 29, 2006)

"What I meant was, explain to me why just leaving the trails the way they are is so bad."
I think most cyclist would agree, however, due to complaints by hikers and equestrians, land managers have chosen to make trails wider.
Don't blame cyclist for wide trails, blame those who complained about cyclists in the first place.


----------



## munisano (May 7, 2008)

I think that is a rather broad assumption. At least in my local trail system the trails didn't get wider until they were open to mountain biking.  So we're really all to blame for widening. And by widening I mean all users who skirt around puddles or muddy sections to avoid getting their feet wet or bicycle muddy as the case may be.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

munisano said:


> I think that is a rather broad assumption. At least in my local trail system the trails didn't get wider until they were open to mountain biking.  So we're really all to blame for widening. And by widening I mean all users who skirt around puddles or muddy sections to avoid getting their feet wet or bicycle muddy as the case may be.


So you choose to pick on a tiny unimportant comment rather than addressing the real issues of the post?

I see that you're just here to argue rather than improve your understanding of anything.

It seems to me that you probably didn't leave the TM club. If you were ever involved at all, they probably WANTED you to leave.


----------



## badwater135 (Feb 24, 2010)

I still think many are missing the point. Granted, your education is impressive, but does not correlate to expert status. I have a law degree and two master degrees, and would never pretend to be an expert. Just a little precocious.

NOTICE--What I am going to say directly relates to my local community SORBA, and might or might not relate to other communities. The local SORBA organization where I live has a feeling of entitlement over all the trails in our park. They seem to feel that they should "fix" every trail so that the average biker can ride the trail. However, the wonderful quality of our park is the difficulty and the rawness of the trails--the large number of rocks, and the difficulty of the terrain. These difficult trails bring hundreds of people to run trail races in the park. In fact, the most popular trail race is annually considered one of the best ultras in the country. Most runners and hikers come to the park because of these features. However, the mountain bikers want to change the trails to make them easier, so they can ride these trails, thereby removing the uniqueness and character of the area.
SORBA has built a few trails in the area in the last few years. Just a note--the trails that SORBA have built are actually the worst trails in the park: they are consistently muddy and wet, and, despite saying they continually go to trail building school, the builders have not shown that they have expertise in this area. You can see why when we hear that the mountain bikers are wanting to change and repair the current trails, we are scared. We see that the types of trails they typically build are not ideal, to say the least. SORBA has "repaired" other trails in the area, sanitizing the trails by making them much easier to ride. 

Continually, I keep hearing that they are really just trying to reduce the environmental impact. It seems to me that these P.C. words are used when convenient for SORBA. For instance, when they want to make a tough, steep trail easier to ride for the average mountain biker, they say that the trail needs to be rerouted to reduce environmental impact. At the same time, when they are building new trails, instead of just going from point A to point B in a more direct way to lessen the environmental impact, they persist in creating a winding trail that loops around and around, thus causing more environmental
destruction. Why would they do this, because they are trying to get as many miles to ride on this trail as possible. It just seems that these words, "environmental impact," are used when needed to proceed with their agenda. 

All trails are not the same. Let me put it more simply and add some examples. For instance, all jeans are not meant for every body type. That is why there are many different styles of jeans (slim fit, straight, loose, bootcut), so every body type can find a pair that fits them properly. Another example is that all roads are not meant for the same type of car. For instance, jeep roads are not meant for a Prius, for these roads are meant for a more rugged, 4-wheel drive vehicle. It is okay to have specialty roads, jeans, and even trails that are conducive to certain This works with trails too. All trails are not meant for every mode of transportation. Maybe some trails are not meant for most mountain bikers.Some trails can remain primarily hiker/runner trails, due to their difficulties or placement. Indeed, only a few, more advanced and skilled mountain bikers are able to ride these trails, but that does not mean that these trails need to be made easier or less difficult just because only a few bikers can ride them. It seems that other mountain bikers would work harder so they could learn to ride these trails too, instead of looking for other rerouting options.

I understand why mountain bikers want to build trails that they can ride. However, at the same time, they need to be more mindful of other users of the trails and more mindful of the uniqueness qualities of the lands that they are about to negatively alter. If you cannot ride a trail because of your conditioning or lack of necessary skills, work to gain fitness and the skills so you can ride that trail. Don't just use environmental impact as a reason to convince others that it is necessary to build another trail that is more "friendly" to the average. Being average and having all trails built for the common person, does not encourage or promote the greatness that is required to succeed. As George S. Patton said, "Accept the challenges so that you can feel the exhilaration of victory ."


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

badwater135 said:


> I still think many are missing the point. Granted, your education is impressive, but does not correlate to expert status. I have a law degree and two master degrees, and would never pretend to be an expert. Just a little precocious.


I was simply using myself as an example that many people (at least the ones participating in this discussion) have many years behind the statements they are making. Parts of my degrees are directly applicable to trailbuilding, however, so parts do count. But different people have different combinations of training, formal education, and experience to contribute. The main point I was making is the time it took to obtain what I do know and the amount of work that took. I'm going on 10yrs right now. I know others have more years, more experience, and more expertise than I. How is anyone supposed to dilute many years of what they've learned into a forum thread?

I do not know of any local situations outside of places I've done trailwork. This wasn't the original topic of the discussion, but it does seem like the OP may have been talking about local situations without informing us in that original post.

But your point is taken: not all who claim expert status really are experts. And not all who say they know what they're doing really do. I've seen firsthand experience of that. And you're right, some who claim one thing (that they are doing work in the name of sustainability) do so for a different reason entirely (to sanitize the trail). That's a WHOLE other discussion completely. I know many places fight with those issues. Sometimes it's club members who do it, and sometimes it's a rogue element outside a club. The effect is the same.

But back to the original (stated) topic, sustainability has a lot of aspects to it. What it is has been covered well. To learn how to apply the principle to a trail is not something that can be covered (well) here. That's going to take the dedication to learn (and you always will be), attention to detail, an insistence that it be done correctly, even if that means going back and fixing something you screwed up before, and it's going to take time to learn from others, your successes, and your failures.


----------



## Landahl Calrissian (Nov 14, 2006)

munisano said:


> I think that is a rather broad assumption. At least in my local trail system the trails didn't get wider until they were open to mountain biking.  So we're really all to blame for widening. And by widening I mean all users who skirt around puddles or muddy sections to avoid getting their feet wet or bicycle muddy as the case may be.


A muddy/widening trail only happens from three things.

1.Unsustainable design.

2.Sustainable design in the wrong geological area, seeps, soil, etc.

3.Improper use, I.E. when users shouldn't even be on the the trail.

I've ridden trail when conditions were 95 % rideable. The 5% was from bad design or geology.

Both can be overcome with sustainable design by people who know and care about what they are doing.

Imprpoer use: You can't fix stupid.:madman:


----------



## LWright (Jan 29, 2006)

*"If you cannot ride a trail because of your conditioning or lack of necessary skills, work to gain fitness and the skills so you can ride that trail. Don't just use environmental impact as a reason to convince others that it is necessary to build another trail that is more "friendly" to the average. Being average and having all trails built for the common person, does not encourage or promote the greatness that is required to succeed. As George S. Patton said, "Accept the challenges so that you can feel the exhilaration of victory ."*
*Absofreakinlutely*


----------



## Hotwheels103 (Feb 25, 2010)

Dunno but check out my topless bike ride loll WOO!
http://*****/8ZTQF

Lemme knw what u think  !

Thanks. X


----------



## thefriar (Jan 23, 2008)

A couple things here. I was trying to be universal on this, but it appears we're talking a localized, specific issue when many of us responding have been trying to approach this as a rational 10000 foot generalized discussion on sustainability.

If you (munisano and badwater) want to flame your local organization I'd recommend doing it somewhere they'll see it. But be productive, offer constructive criticisms and potentially acceptable solutions. Don't flame us here in the Trail Building and Advocacy forum b/c chances are you might not be able to ride/muni some of the stuff that some of the builders here have done, and done in a sustainable fashion. 

If someone doesn't like what the local club is doing, and that club has the land manager's ear and respect, you'll have to learn to play politics. Join said club, or form another club, go to the Trail Building schools, hiking clubs ALSO offer TM and Building schools so you don't have to go to your local club's or IMBA's trail school, same principles are taught at both. 

Once you have a firm footing and CREDIBILITY with that club or land manager present alternatives that are sustainable, sustainable DOES NOT have to equal easy. Its easy to build trails that include excruciatingly tough technical trialsy rock gardens, steep rock rollers, drops, high speed and TTFs that are sustainable. Its definitely possible the issue might be a local club that is in fact sanitizing the trails (and not doing a good job with sustainability). As another concerned trail user you should do something about it, be patient though as honey gets more than vinegar.

As far as current discussion, you're going to get no where on changing things arguing local points with experienced TM and Builder types on the interwebs. You don't like what's happening, get involved, get the schooling so you can confront/influence, and get what you want while keeping things sustainable.

Heck if you spent the time quietly in the background helping with the Club and their TM you might see a couple more riders that agree and just are too polite to speak up, figure out how you can work with them and building consensus and go from there.

EDIT: Re-reading this and thinking it through a bit more, what's been outlined involves a ton of time and work. The OP may be looking for a quick fix, hence that whole A/B line thing. Quick fixes don't work. Commitment of time and patience are required, its tough in today's society to sacrifice either, but that's how it is.


----------



## munisano (May 7, 2008)

Right. I'm sorry it seems this thread hasn't been very "sustainable" and had in fact eroded into a flame fest. I know I'm partially to blame for that, however I wasn't the one who started the name calling and elementary behavior. Can someone not question established practices and engage in a debate? Well, at any rate my initial intent was to get more of a World view on "sustainability" and not just a regional or local view. I thank everybody who contributed to this discussion. 

I realize now that, at its roots, the concept of "sustainability" is a very political and regional specific and I'm unlikely to win any battles at this level. Indeed at the end of the day mine is a local issue that I tried to dance around initially in this thread. I know now that my local concerns may not translate well to other regions and other localities, I think badwater135 must be another local user who laid out there the essence of my concerns with my local trail system. Good for them, I just wasn't being as blunt and forthright; maybe I should have from the beginning? Then again my original purpose was to learn at a more broad level what "sustainability" meant.

If anybody still thinks I'm anti-bike; you're wrong (except I guess in the sense that I prefer to ride without a training wheel  but that's way off topic). Like I said I was a SORBA member and left the club voluntarily (not kicked out), I've also attended several local and regional Mountain Bike Festivals and competitions. But I wear multiple hats as I'm primarily a trail runner (for over 18 years) so I like to think I have a more encompassing view of what a broad spectrum of trail users might like/dislike about a trail system (sustainability issues aside).

Thanks again to all alike. Hopefully there are no hard feelings. Know that I'm taking "thefriar's" advice (and others) to heart and do plan on speaking up more for the rights of ALL trail users of my local trail system. A plan is in the works.

Happy Trails to all!


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

munisano said:


> I realize now that, at its roots, the concept of "sustainability" is a very political and regional specific and I'm unlikely to win any battles at this level. Indeed at the end of the day mine is a local issue that I tried to dance around initially in this thread. I know now that my local concerns may not translate well to other regions and other localities, I think badwater135 must be another local user who laid out there the essence of my concerns with my local trail system. Good for them, I just wasn't being as blunt and forthright; maybe I should have from the beginning? Then again my original purpose was to learn at a more broad level what "sustainability" meant.


No, sustainability is not really political. What's political about wanting to minimize maintenance and maximize longevity? The definition of sustainability is not regional, but its application depends on local soil conditions and terrain. So there are indeed some issues and concerns that may apply to one place that do not apply elsewhere. This can be at a regional level, between trails, or even on different sites within a trail system.

This is a good place for general questions, because people here live and build trail in many different places and you can get an idea of how methods and techniques can vary across the gamut for a certain task.

If you want advice on a specific place with specific conditions, you'll have to lay out those conditions, throw up topo maps, and lots of pictures. And even then, that doesn't quite replace the ability to live there and see local weather and climate conditions and the ability to get your hands in the dirt.

I found myself thinking last night about what I would do if I was in a situation where my local club was doing a poor job of applying sustainability ideas or building a trail that provides a poor user experience. thefriar did a pretty good job of at least pointing out what I should do. I don't play politics as well as I could, so it'd be a challenge.


----------



## LWright (Jan 29, 2006)

Sustainability can be political, as it can be seen as a threat to current trail users (Like Munisano, No hard feelins BTW).
Our local No Bikes Allowed Crowd would rather a trail not receive any maintenance that might allow the trail to be designated multiuse.
Our local trails did not have annual maintenance for many years, and became overgrown and rutted (Pristine in NBAC speak). When funds became available and REGULAR MAINTENANCE resumed, the NBAC shouted to the Heavens about trail destruction and HIDDEN AGENDAS.

When I first joined LOBO 14 years ago, I was immediately rebuked by the clubs president for a letter I had written to the local State Parks Superintendent. I had ruffled some feathers the club had been trying to smooth over. Well now I am the president and the club sings a different tune, so join and work within can/does work.


----------



## Skookum (Jan 17, 2005)

This thread is funny, engineers and a know-it-all involved in a debate. The only problem with this scenario is you might have people reading in think, jeez look at the complexities of trail building! Yes there are some finer points of knowledge that can help minimize problems before/after but for the most part we're simply talking about organics, dirt, rocks, and lumber... 

Yes there is a certain learning curve to building sustainable trail, but as i'm in construction and i encounter the element of over thought that can trump common sense just as easily as it can overcome a potential problem. In other words the solution can become worse than the problem sometimes.

Not to disqualify the expertise opinion provided, it likely goes without saying as this thread illuminated, it's difficult to quantify to people why things have to change in some situations in order to become sustainable. It's easy for most persons with not only experience, yet the understanding of why you are implementing sustainable trail practices, to understand why things are done. And moreover understand that when you do take time to making things sustainable and still mantain a more natural/technical character it usually takes creativity and alot more work/time/money.

But i would hope that the regular joe reading this wouldn't get discouraged from getting into sustainable trail building. When for the most part it is a nice way to volunteer and enjoy a nice day in the sticks. And you can learn the finer points of trail building and come to the conclusion like anything in life it's not as complicated as it might seem initially.


----------



## Ridnparadise (Dec 14, 2007)

Perhaps we should look at sustainability a little differently? 

Although I have the most magnificent, Adonis-like bod, if I don't wash every week or so, I seem to get fungoid and oozy :ciappa: . Oddly I have discovered sustainability in a cake of soap and towel (read trail rake and elbow greece).

If anyone thinks a trail needs no follow-up after construction, well, you are kidding. Trail sustainability is not the issue, it is trail maker sustainability that matters. You made it, then you maintain it. Make it well, then you maintain it less, but not never!


----------



## slocaus (Jul 21, 2005)

Ridnparadise said:


> Perhaps we should look at sustainability a little differently?
> 
> Although I have the most magnificent, Adonis-like bod, if I don't wash every week or so, I seem to get fungoid and oozy :ciappa: . Oddly I have discovered sustainability in a cake of soap and towel (read trail rake and elbow greece).
> 
> If anyone thinks a trail needs no follow-up after construction, well, you are kidding. Trail sustainability is not the issue, it is trail maker sustainability that matters. You made it, then you maintain it. Make it well, then you maintain it less, but not never!


Agreed, however the old trails (old ranch roads before it was a state park) required maintenance every two weeks to clean old water bars or the next rain event would blow over them. Now we can generally do maintenance every two _years_ on new trails. That gives us more time to build more sustainable trail instead of working like crazy to save the crap we had.


----------



## Ridnparadise (Dec 14, 2007)

agreed:thumbsup:


----------



## J. Johnson (Feb 20, 2011)

At one level "sustainability" is, as slocaus suggests, ''not'' having to come out and re-do your work. At a deeper level it means not destroying the environment, and especially in avoiding erosion (loss) of soil, and consequent issues of sedimentation. At an intermediate level it can mean, at some specific location, how many times can you rebuild a section before you run out of soil in which to build?


----------

