# How small is too small for an MTB trail area?



## SWriverstone (Sep 3, 2009)

I'd like to get general opinions on what people think is the smallest area for building a fun MTB trail that will actually be used by people?

I ask because our club may be launching a trail building project at a local county park (near Martinsburg, WV). The county wants an MTB trail there (and of course just getting the landowner's blessing is more than half the battle).

The entire county park is 140 acres, about half of which (70 acres) is wooded and where we'd plan the trail.

Unfortunately we don't have the entire wooded area to ourselves-a gang of disc golf players got there first and developed a pretty nice disc golf course with 18 holes. (I believe this has been done since the satellite imagery below was acquired.)

But I've scouted the area and there is still plenty of untouched terrain left, both beyond the disc golf course and even between the "fairways" of the course. I've told the county both the course and an MTB trail can coexist peacefully in the same area.

My post is because a few MTBers I know have sniffed at the location, saying "there isn't much there" and "it's not enough land for a good trail."

In my opinion, these guys are elitists with unreasonably high expectations. I'm all for building wherever we can get permission!

So I'm just interested in hearing about other MTB trails (or trail systems) that pack a lot of fun and punch in a relatively small area. Seems to me like we could do a lot here, especially if we created a trail network (as opposed to one big loop) with a lot of twists and turns (but not so many to ruin the flow).

Here's a link to a Google map highlighting the property. The MTB trail would go in the woods in the southeast half of the property...
http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?hl=e...33180151751534.00049a5c7d41a968821bb&t=h&z=16

Scott


----------



## CMi_rider (Sep 5, 2007)

We are currently in the finishing stages of developing a trail in a 90 acre park. We have just over 6 miles of flowy trial. I could have packed in 8+ but I was trying to avoid the "hamster wheel" feeling that you get when you try to pack too much trail into a small area. So far, local riders really enjoy the trail and like the flow. We have three distinct loops, one is very open and flowy, the next is tighter, but still with good flow and better elevation, the last has good slow speed flow and is tight with more technical features.

Tips: 

Look for thick areas that can screen one section of trail from another. We have sections of trail that are within 40 feet of each other, but you would never know it. In fact, people are amazed that the trial is so close when I walk them from one section to the next.

Stacking loops is a good idea, but I would try not to make the segments shorter than a mile (personal preference).

Use the terrain available to the maximum extent.

If possible, use some of the open field area to make a pump track and skills park....dirt jumps too.


Small areas are great if you have no larger projects to work on. As you stated, any access is better than no access.


----------



## HypNoTic (Jan 30, 2007)

Coaticook have 20km of singletrack in 4 square km. This is a single loop with a bunch of shortcut and many crossing for other trails (hikers, horses, etc). Tight and twisty, but fun.

Rivière-du-Loup maintain 12km of trail in a 1km x 0.4km area, shared with ATV. They are squeezed between 2 rail road.

Less than half of 70 acres seems pretty small to me if you want to build a decent trail system. You can likely expect at most 1 to 2 miles of trail in that area before reaching "too much of a good thing". 

Remember, mountain biking is about nature. It's not fun to see the guy riding the other trail less than 30ft from you...


----------



## SWriverstone (Sep 3, 2009)

You guys make some good points, which raise an interesting question in my mind.

Some say mountain biking is all about nature...and according to this idea, trails should be built to avoid exposure to manmade objects and other trail users (on different sections of trail) as much as possible. (Hence your suggestion CMi_rider about looking for thick areas to screen different sections of trail from each other.)

This makes sense, and I'm a huge fan of nature (which is why I enjoy riding in national forests more than any purpose-built MTB trail). But there is another view...

Mountain biking could also be considered a fun skills-oriented activity, much like dirt jumping or riding a pump track. Seems like you could also build a fun, successful trail system where "seeing only nature" isn't the priority...but rather building an outdoor version of Ray's (indoor) MTB park is the goal—a trail that twists and turns and winds in and out of itself with lots of catwalks, little bridges, ramps, etc.

I'm wondering if the latter approach makes more sense when you only have a small area to work with?

BTW, we have 70 acres to work with HypNoTic (the whole park is 140 acres).

Scott

EDIT: I also realize that many MTB trails are a mix of the two extremes above...and that might be the best all-around approach. (And of course the terrain dictates much of what can or can't be done.)


----------



## HypNoTic (Jan 30, 2007)

What you have in mind is actually an hybrid between a typical bike park and some XC trails. It's perfectly doable but it must not be marketed as "regular XC trail network" to your users.

We often design bike park with man-made features that extend into the trail network. Heck, we've even built a surprise pumptrack section 2km down a trail and peoples loved it!

Don't forget that you are building trails in a forest. Peoples will be looking for some level of nature feeling, unlike a park such as Colonnade I-5 or Ray's where the urban settings change the look&feel of the experience.

If you want to really maximize the potential of the area, I suggest that you contact a professional to help you layout the plan before you start digging. I'm only working in Canada but you can give a look on the PTBA website to find someone in your area.


----------



## Trail Ninja (Sep 25, 2008)

Top Bridge Mountain Bike Park on Vancouver Island.
No kidding. This system is on 20 acres. It's connected to other trails but lots of people come from all over the Island to just ride Top Bridge. All the trails are bi-directional and you can easily kill an afternoon here. There are places where you can reach out and slap people going the other way on another trail.

View attachment 592905


----------



## SWriverstone (Sep 3, 2009)

Now that's some seriously compressed trail! :thumbsup: We have a trail in this area called "Knucklebuster" that is somewhat like that—riding it is a blast and a real challenge because you almost have to come to a complete stop to make some of the turns...everyone loves riding it.

I agree completely HypNoTic—trails like the one Trail Ninja posted should not be promoted as "true XC trails." 

I don't know that we'll have the funding to bring a pro trail designer in...but if we don't, we certainly plan to proceed carefully and wisely, and spend plenty of time walking the terrain and planning the trail before one tool ever touches the ground.

Scott


----------



## Trail Ninja (Sep 25, 2008)

Due to the nature of the ground cover at Top Bridge (salal and ferns about waist high) you can't see any trail except the one you're on for the most part. So if there aren't a lot of people out riding, you'd never know it was a bowl of spaghetti.

I talked to a disc golf guy at Top Bridge who also rides. He said he could put a disc golf (course?) in there with those trails and it wouldn't be a problem.

I've got a 40 acre park that I built a system on and if the parks department had let me, I could have got 2 hours worth of riding without crowding it at all. I'd say 70 acres is lots.


----------



## Trail Ninja (Sep 25, 2008)

Scott, what's that wooded area to the northeast that goes almost to Tuscarora Pike? It looks like there's a new subdivision going in just east of it.

If you could put an out and back loop in that to add to what you have, that would be a nice ride. If it's parkland for the subdivision, then you offer to make a multi-use trail. Call it a bicycle path instead of a mountain bike trail & you'll get further.


----------



## TunicaTrails (Jun 29, 2009)

I'm working with approximately 75 acres of wooded area and 8 miles feels just about right.

There is a popular trail to the North of us, Ridgeland, that has squeezed 10 miles out of 80 acres. It's very well done. I wouldn't go that far myself because I prefer the wooded experience, but I can't argue with their success. Both trails are built on non-mountainous, but very hilly land with dense foliage.


----------



## Surestick Malone (Jan 24, 2004)

Depends on what you want from the trail. 
There's a rather short trail used for regional races in Terrebonne (a suburb of Montreal). 
You couldn't ride all day there but for a quick after work ride to get the cobwebs out it's fine. 
http://maps.google.ca/maps?q=terrebonne,+qc&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Terrebonne,+Les+Moulins+Regional+County+Municipality,+Quebec&gl=ca&ll=45.712105,-73.665476&spn=0.002532,0.010986&t=h&z=17
The trail uses the toboganing hill on the right and the small rectangular wooded area just below the tennis courts on the left. 
You can see a picture of the portion on the sledding hill and get an idea of the small size of the area used in the summer/winter pic here: http://www.gpat.ca/


----------



## pinkrobe (Jan 30, 2004)

I'm surprised nobody mentioned the Tapeworm:
http://backcountry.unicyclist.com/UNICON/Tapeworm/Tapeworm.html

I'd say this is overdoing it, but as long as you're not advertising it as "backcountry biking" and your riding community is into it, it can be done. We can't get away with anything this dense. The WiBi guys like to see a couple km and a couple hundred feet of elevation between parallel trails.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

My local trails pack in about 6 miles into a relatively small area of forest. And it's not even a solid block of land we have to work with. There's a main area, and then a pretty thin ribbon that stretches across.

In addition to our 6mi of trail, the area is also shared by the ROTC folks who have an obstacle course and an orienteering course in the same woods in addition to a mile or two of paved paths for the dog walkers.

We're probably pretty close to about 70 acres, too.


----------



## faceplant72 (Oct 25, 2009)

The new hot spot in Seattle is only on 120 acres.
http://evergreenmtb.org/wiki/index.php?title=Duthie_Trails
we also have on section of paradise conservation area that fits ~1 mile of trail in less than 5 acres


----------



## Fattirewilly (Dec 10, 2001)

SWriverstone said:


> I'd like to get general opinions on what people think is the smallest area for building a fun MTB trail that will actually be used by people?


If you want to feel like you're going somewhere and not bending back and forth on yourself (hikers hate that, causes short cutting) one mile of trail per 10 +/- acres can work, but it's tight and you'll likely see a user on another section of the trail, but not see the trail itself. Done right and topo permitting, you can lay it out so that cross cutting isn't encouraged.

If people don't have other options, they'll come ride a 4 mile trail, but 8+ miles is more enjoyable and will draw more people.

So with 70 acres, figure half is compromised due to the disc golf, you may get 3.5 to 4 miles in the woods as an XC type trail. Get a topo map of your land and have the golf course penciled in. Ask the and manager and golfers if it's okay for a trail to cross the fairway. Only then will you really know what you have.


----------



## TFitz (Jun 21, 2008)

Tapeworm (actually there are 3-4 different trails there) is 2.25 miles on 12.5 acres. You have lots of options.


----------



## Skookum (Jan 17, 2005)

There are alot of trails around the Seattle area that utilize the tight twisty technique shown in Trail Ninja's picture. From my understanding the idea (for this area anyways) was taken from a trail called Intestine from Galbraith, and turned into Tapeworm which spawned numerous trails. 

The benefits of building such a trail are maximum mileage, easier access in building, easier logistic in building overall, creating trail that helps build low speed technical prowess, and concerning this thread the ability to pack in a decent sized trail in a small area.

The negatives of building such a trail are having trails like that put in every inch of a 100 acre park is too much of a footprint for a single parcel of land, you're just effectively creating a huge nature maze that isn't conducive to a real nature experience which was mention before. This type of trail is a stand alone or should be put in an area that is appropriate. Beginner riders and trail runners constantly will "bushwhack" shortcuts which braids the trail. In a trail like this, that can really create a navigational nightmare to many riders. Trail like this generally have minimal flow, which isn't necessarily a negative, careful trail planning can absolutely help with this, it depends on what you're looking for. If you do make a faster trail and people want to spend a few hours, and you only have a 4 mile loop that most people are completing in 20 minutes versus 30 minutes... Just another tangent to think about. 

When i built a similar trail underneath a freeway, there were no options but for me to separate the trail by creating fences. Sometimes it felt like i was trying to herd cattle. In my particular trail build i didn't mind in some instances if my trail was braided, but in some cases it actually would make for a safety hazard and/or erosion problem. 

The fencing tactic was employed at another park where people were braiding the trail. It just takes a few riders to plow through an area and more people follow, usually not aware that the original line is being diverted. The simple fencing can allow for plants/trees to grow that you plant then by the time the fence rots away it will have a natural barrier in place.

i like these types of trails, but i think they are great as a special type of trail and not the standard. We have hundreds of trails like this in the area now, and it get's pretty overdone and loses it's mystique haha.


----------



## th29 (Nov 4, 2004)

TunicaTrails said:


> I'm working with approximately 75 acres of wooded area and 8 miles feels just about right.
> 
> There is a popular trail to the North of us, Ridgeland, that has squeezed 10 miles out of 80 acres. It's very well done. I wouldn't go that far myself because I prefer the wooded experience, but I can't argue with their success. Both trails are built on non-mountainous, but very hilly land with dense foliage.


I couldn't imagine going any more than 1 mile of trail per 10 acres of land. Ridgeland has above average elevation change for Mississippi. The highest point the property is 458 ft, the lowest is 317. There are two hilltops over 420ft, and a t-shaped ridge that divides the property into three "bowls".

The average elevation change of a continuous slope from the hill tops to the bottom areas is about 75 feet at anywhere from a 80% to 100% slope.

That translates into about 3-4 layers of trail per hillside. The trick is in avoiding the predictable switchbacks if at all possible. The ones where you're at the bottom of a hill, you look up to the top, and see each level of the switchbacks you are about to ride. To avoid this, we tried to make each "layer" of trail last as long as possible, and made sure the layer of trail above or below it wasn't identical. Mix things up a bit so that when riders see another trail 25 or 30 feet away, they have no idea if it's something they've already ridden or not. For example we have sections of trail that might be 20 ft apart, but might be miles apart in terms of riding the trail system from start to finish.

So my rule of thumb is 1 mile per 10 acres if the terrain alows it, and getting less dense as the elevation change and percent slope lessens.


----------



## Walt Dizzy (Aug 18, 2003)

My $02:

I think you've had a lot of good examples showing how you can build in this park.

I'd like you to take the time to think through why you might not want to do so.

The main one is opportunity cost: are there places to build in the area that would be better? Better in terms of not crowding other users, more land, equal access, and proximity to riders?

If your answers are "no, no, no, and no" you can be more certain you are using your time effectively. Just having an opportunity to build isn't a compelling reason to do so. I've passed on a number of access opportunities to focus on better ones. Someone is always going to be enthusiastic, you need a bunch of people to buy in. This is going to be a big effort, make sure it counts.

Best wishes,

Walt


----------



## TunicaTrails (Jun 29, 2009)

Hi th29, you seem to be from Mississippi, maybe we'll meet some time.

I understand what you mean about coming and going trails not meeting close by on dense trails. I think I've accomplished that on the trail here in St. Francisville, unintentionally. The loop is being closed back around itself, wheras the original vision was for a less interesting loop continuing through flat areas and then gravel road. So there are some spots where two trails gets close to each other, as you said it could be miles away down the path of the route.

Sometimes it's good to have bailout points. The five miles that has been built so far is tough for many recreational riders to complete already, and our trail opens to the field in several places around the park so that riders and hikers are free to re-orient themselves on the property and call it a day if need be. This was something that was part of the original design and I think it's a great idea for trails on parish/county lands.

If you're building serpentine trails, I suggest that they should be very clearly marked, including exits, so that first-timers don't get lost in the maze.



th29 said:


> I couldn't imagine going any more than 1 mile of trail per 10 acres of land. Ridgeland has above average elevation change for Mississippi. The highest point the property is 458 ft, the lowest is 317. There are two hilltops over 420ft, and a t-shaped ridge that divides the property into three "bowls".
> 
> The average elevation change of a continuous slope from the hill tops to the bottom areas is about 75 feet at anywhere from a 80% to 100% slope.
> 
> ...


----------



## cmc4130 (Jan 30, 2008)

check out all the trail in this urban/suburban settting in North Austin . . . .
Walnut Creek Metropolitan Park ( *290.52 acres * ):

http://www.austinbike.com/mtb/walnutcreek/index.asp

MAP:
http://www.austinridgeriders.com/documents/Walnut%20Creek%20Metro%20Park_Kiosk.pdf

Even though the trail does loop next to itself . . . . unless there are other riders or people, it still feels "in the woods"--because of the trees in between, you don't see the other trail most of the time....


----------



## Bryce604 (Oct 6, 2009)

Trail Ninja said:


> View attachment 592905


I've ridden those trails, and its definitely the most intestinal network I've seen

You build on the island? I build in North Van


----------



## Trail Ninja (Sep 25, 2008)

Bryce604 said:


> I've ridden those trails, and its definitely the most intestinal network I've seen
> 
> You build on the island? I build in North Van


AMC definitely got their moneys worth out of that little plot of land. There is parkland all the way from there to Hammerfest now. Unfortunately no one is looking after those trails.

I build mostly in Qualicum and out towards Cathedral Grove. All around but not in "The Claw's" territory.


----------



## bitflogger (Jan 12, 2004)

This park is really a pocket-sized park of a few acres but the pump track, other features and little single track loop are enough to have started a following and scene even though it's not a year old and not done.






It's the small wooded area north of the golf course club house and parking lot in map below. Local beer on tap and food served are nice features.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Pleasant+View+Golf+Club,+Pleasant+View+Rd,+Middleton,+WI&aq=0&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=32.197599,71.191406&ie=UTF8&hq=Pleasant+View+Golf+Club,&hnear=Pleasant+View+Rd,+Middleton,+Wisconsin&ll=43.087678,-89.5411&spn=0.012676,0.012301&t=h&output=embed


----------



## Surestick Malone (Jan 24, 2004)

bitflogger said:


> This park is really a pocket-sized park of a few acres but the pump track, other features and little single track loop are enough to have started a following and scene even though it's not a year old and not done.
> 
> It's the small wooded area north of the golf course club house and parking lot in map below. Local beer on tap and food served are nice features.
> 
> http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Pleasant+View+Golf+Club,+Pleasant+View+Rd,+Middleton,+WI&aq=0&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=32.197599,71.191406&ie=UTF8&hq=Pleasant+View+Golf+Club,&hnear=Pleasant+View+Rd,+Middleton,+Wisconsin&ll=43.087678,-89.5411&spn=0.012676,0.012301&t=h&output=embed


Funny there's some quasi-legal trails built in woods surrounding a golf course near where I live that have been around for years. Just this year the golf course started cracking down on riders on these trails (police have been warning riders off with threats of trespassing fines). Some nearby legal trails on govt. land suddenly had access restricted which moved a lot of traffic over to the golf-course trails. The story, as I understand it, is golfers complained about noise from large groups (team training rides) disturbing their game and the golf course decided something had to be done.

I'm curious what sort of agreement you guys have locally with the golf club to use land that looks like it must, at least partially, be owned by them.


----------



## bitflogger (Jan 12, 2004)

Surestick Malone said:


> Funny there's some quasi-legal trails built in woods surrounding a golf course near where I live that have been around for years. Just this year the golf course started cracking down on riders on these trails (police have been warning riders off with threats of trespassing fines). Some nearby legal trails on govt. land suddenly had access restricted which moved a lot of traffic over to the golf-course trails. The story, as I understand it, is golfers complained about noise from large groups (team training rides) disturbing their game and the golf course decided something had to be done.
> 
> I'm curious what sort of agreement you guys have locally with the golf club to use land that looks like it must, at least partially, be owned by them.


The short story:

-We're good customers at the bar.
-We let golfer women borrow our bikes.

The long story:

-It's a public golf course.
-I worked with the area officials (cities, county) since 2003 and officials in this community for 5 years before first cut in the dirt was made.
-It's a lot more work than many probably imagine whether it's reporting to the city council, getting there to babysit any issue of any size, working to get help, doing a lot of yourself when nobody shows and keeping at sources of funding.

I'm not sure if you have or are part of a club but that should be your first step. A few of us in our club brought security to the officials because we had training, certifications and experience elsewhere. I also went with one manager's desire to have professionals involved. That brought credibility to officials who knew nothing and lets the land manager place blame outside of volunteers when appropriate.


----------



## Mike Brown (Mar 12, 2004)

I build trails in a 170 acre city park. about 10 acres is for road, parking lot, and drainage for said road and parking lot . About 35 acres is currently taken up with disc golf course. About 40 acres is difficult to access and/or bottomland that used to be a small dammed pond (not suitable for dirt surface trail). About 35 acres is in dispute for future use (more trails vs second disc golf course). This has left me with about 50 acres to build trail on. I end up with a 3.5 mile loop with about 1.5 miles of alternate trails inside the loop. It's super dense and mostly tight and twisty; we're still in construction/permitting, here's a map I recently submitted to the land manager as part of that process.


----------



## hankthespacecowboy (Jun 10, 2004)

I know it has already been alluded to in the previous posts, but the bright side is that with a smaller area, logistics of trail building are going to be much easier. Maybe you won't get the "stretch your legs and go somewhere" sensation you might with a larger area, but given the easier logistics, one could build in more "flow country" type features resulting in more smiles-per-mile. Personally, I'd rather ride a shorter trail that feels more engaging rather than grinding out miles of what feels like unpaved road riding. 

For what it is worth, my roommate and I built a pumptrack in area approximately the size of a venture capitalist's walk-in closet:


----------



## Trail Ninja (Sep 25, 2008)

I love those "route-less" pumptracks. Well done.


----------

