# Why Do Sustainable trails have to be so lame?



## rhamilton (Aug 7, 2006)

So to appease city councils and land managers trail building as "Sustainable" has become in vogue to allow for more trail access. The principals used to build these trails are:
1) limit environmental impacts; 2) keep maintenance requirements to a minimum; 3) avoid user conflicts. This is all well and good but the problem is that the most important principal is missing; Make a fun riding trail. By following the 1/2 rule and the 10% average grade and all that makes the trails sustainable the true holy grail of what makes certain trails fun to ride has been lost. How can we build trails that truly challenge riders with high speeds over rugged and loose rocks with 2 to 3 foot drops and burmmed corners and 30% grade G-outs. These types of features will be illegally built if we as trail builders cannot support them. The problem is that the old non-sustainable hiking trails that have eroded into drainages are actually some of the more appealing terrain to the hugely popular ‘Trail bike’ crowd. ‘Sustainable contour trails’ with their gentle grades, grade reversals and constant bench cutting has made for dirt ‘sidewalks’ along the side of hills. These trails are great for the ridged, SS and XC folks but every time I pull into a trail head these days all I see are bike with 6” or more of travel. Are ski resorts bike parks going to be the only place riders will find a challenge in the future?


----------



## atkinson (Sep 1, 2003)

Sustainable does not have to be boring or flat. However, building something that you can't maintain or is so steep that you end up braking the whole way, aren't good for the sport and aren't fun for riders and builders.

Check out the Whistler Trail standards, http://www.whistler.ca/images/stori...g_Committee/trail_standards_first_edition.pdf. These are for the trails in the Whistler municipality, not at the mountain.

I think the evolution of trail building has been vital to the health of mountain biking.

John


----------



## thefriar (Jan 23, 2008)

They're not... flow is your friend...

-Check out CT, or anywhere in New England. Our sustainable trails include roots and rock gardens that make newer riders (including experienced riders new to the area) walk. We build the flowy stuff for a bit and add in or leave in the rock and roots in different sections to mix things up. Logs, big boulder step ups, and drops are all there, and did I mention rock gardens that make you lose fillings? But I suspect you don't have the same rock and forest that we do so, I think that the following might be better...

-At raystown lake in PA, they built 40 miles of incredible sustainable smooth trails, place rides like a pump track, they say if its not challenging you, increase the speed (most people shut up quick about difficulty once they try going faster). They focused on sustainable but added such well thought out flow and grade reversals that you can get wicked air (enough speed to double the grade reversals), so good that a guy that lives for trialsy tech and gnarly DH can have a blast. They included great sight lines so user conflict is easy to avoid, they used sustainable techniques to minimize on going maintenance, and did it with the US Army Corp of Engineers so you know limiting environmental impact was huge.

If you can't use natural features, or they're too much hassle to incorporate or get approved, I'd say as you think about trail layout think about how you might create a giant pump track. I personally didn't get how the heck smooth trails could be fun until raystown, but a trail that allows users to dial a skill level with speed is unbelievable. The trail has to be well thought out, where will people fly, where will the fly off the trail, and where will they fly into other users. If you get the grade reversals dialed just steep enough, you'll be able to table them... check out raystown video.

If you can integrate natural features (keep it natural) as you layout the trail look for how you can integrate nearby rocks/boulders, roots, and downed trees. A well placed rock garden that walkers can easily navigate, but makes you wish you had Danny MacAskill skills really changes the tone of a place, i.e. a couple well placed features in a "boring" area really change trail character. At the end of the day, make sure the sight lines are there so you mitigate user conflict.


Kinda just sounds like you or your builders need to go ride other places for more ideas.


----------



## Fattirewilly (Dec 10, 2001)

rhamilton said:


> How can we build trails that truly challenge riders with high speeds over rugged and loose rocks with 2 to 3 foot drops and burmmed corners and 30% grade G-outs.


There's no reason the above can't be built "sustainably". If rocks are removed during the benching process you can add them back on a trail w/more advanced designation, or simply not remove them in the first place. Drops much larger than 2-3 can be constructed sustainably. Bermed corners or insloped turns are part of sustainable design, when done correctly. The technical features on your fall lines have developed through erosion. Instead, they can be put into a purpose built trail as part of the plan.

Finally 10% is more of a blanket "recommendation" for the AVERAGE grade over a longer segment of trail that can have multiple drainage segments (grade reversals or even g-outs). The degree to which you can cheat or alternatively require more respect for the 10% depends on your soil. Sand, you won't/shouldn't get to 10%. Lots of gravely loam, you could potentially push and average of 15%. Parker's book on natural surface trails devotes a lot of time to specific soils. 30% for 5 feet, isn't a big deal (30% down, 30% up over a short feature like a g-out averages to 0%....???), but 12% with 30 yards or more between reversals is a very likely a problem, particularly when it ends at a stream or drainage that goes to a stream.

Places like Raystown which big on the fun factor have a lot of 4-6% average grade, but within that lower average grade, the have much larger short sections of 12% up and 15% down g-outs, whoops, and other features which create the grade reversal and the vertical fun factor.



rhamilton said:


> These types of features will be illegally built if we as trail builders cannot support them.


That's good fodder for you to tell you land manager if you're getting boxed into level and non-undulating trails. Remember, level tread doesn't drain, so that's not really sustainable. A 2% grade that goes for 100 yards with no undulations (individual drainage sections) is far more unsustainable than 20 feet at 15% climb, 5 feet at a 20% downhill, and 30 foot climb at 12%. That averages close to 10%. Sustainability on advanced trails is about giving that user the experience but in a well thought out manner. So you can provide that experience in the most appropriate way, or it will get done slapstick with far worse results.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

Agreed. Sustainable does not have to mean dull. My local trail was designed and built sustainably. It's short, but it's got g-outs, whoops, jumps, berms, rock gardens, roots, and we make as much use out of the elevation as we can. and people drive an hour or more to ride our 6mi trail when they have a 20 miler nearly in their backyard.

we're now on our third summer on the existing layout (old layout had horrible flow and wasn't really "designed" at all), with no significant erosion to speak of and more bikes (in addition to runners) than ever before.

I have ridden trails similar to the ones you reference. sometimes they're built by folks who are only just learning about sustainable trails, so it's enough of a challenge for them to build erosion-resistant trails without the technical aspects.

other times, land managers hamstring builders with design specifications that don't allow for even as much as a bridge over a creek.

one place I lived, land managers permitted bikes on existing trails, but the trails were maintained for runners, hikers, dog walkers and horses. if one of them whined about roots or a downed tree or whatever, maintenance would come and cut that stuff out, even though mountain bikers enjoyed the challenge while it lasted. it took years, but finally the bikers managed to convince the management that there needs to be some area where those things are left in the trail because bikers WANT them. it took a lot of drama and hand-wringing, but some dedicated advocates convinced the managers it was in their best idea.

and other times, soils and other site issues limit what can be done. my local trails could add a couple more miles, but our soil is VERY VERY sandy and some bad decisions by developers in the past have resulted in some very serious erosion in part of the property, limiting its use. it's got some great elevation change that would be perfect for trails if it wasn't for 15ft deep gullies in sand. we just don't have the budget to build bridges large enough to span the gullies.


----------



## techfersure (Dec 17, 2010)

In my neck of the woods,we have everything you mentioned as to what you would like to see and the kind of terrain that you find challenging to ride.who does not like sculpted featureless flow runs for the speed and pump,but if thats all I had to ride I would become very bored in time.I have actually had riders come here and never come back because it was to challenging for then,and they were on 6" bikes!

Each to his own but less we forget that we are riding "Mtn bikes" and really there sole purpose is for riding challenging terrain,not gentrified trails that are just roads disguised with dirt.I do realize that other places are not as fortunate as we are here with the freedom and approval of the land managers to basically have a clean palette as to pretty much do as we please,but it's good to note that others are having success in changing the minds of land managers as to the type of terrain and challenges that Mtn bikes so love.


----------



## traildoc (Mar 5, 2007)

Can the posters, who replied to the OP, with the examples of sustainable trails they have gotten approved by the local land mangers, please provide some video links of those trails so we can get a better idea what you consider to be a fun and sustainable trail. Seems like these days most fun mountain biking trails are getting videod to share with friends and the public.

I always like to use Whistler as a community who gets what is a fun sustainable trail. The guy who was in charge of Recreation in Whistler became a good friend after meeting up in Sedona and Moab. He has been a great resource for how to deal with land managers and when you may be wasting your time trying to get a fun trail built. 

TD


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

traildoc said:


> Can the posters, who replied to the OP, with the examples of sustainable trails they have gotten approved by the local land mangers, please provide some video links of those trails so we can get a better idea what you consider to be a fun and sustainable trail. Seems like these days most fun mountain biking trails are getting videod to share with friends and the public.
> 
> I always like to use Whistler as a community who gets what is a fun sustainable trail. The guy who was in charge of Recreation in Whistler became a good friend after meeting up in Sedona and Moab. He has been a great resource for how to deal with land managers and when you may be wasting your time trying to get a fun trail built.
> 
> TD


I have some video of my local trails that I described, but no really good angles with the fun technical features in it yet.






This one was designed by our very own dburatti.

Hmm, the embed doesn't seem to be working for me right now. In case it isn't working later, here's a link.


----------



## diggingtrail (Dec 12, 2009)

*Another example of an un-lame sustainable trail*

Here's a trail that I designed last year and that my club then built. The existing trail that dropped down this section of ridgeline was in horrible shape (eroded and literally wide enough to drive a jeep down), and after this area was logged the previous year it was in even worse condition. A perfect opportunity to build a better, more sustainable, and fun trail. This section of trail is .7 miles long, descends approx. 115ft, and has an overall avg. gradient of only -3%. It is also one of the most popular sections of trail in the park system. After a harsh winter and very wet spring, the trail has held up great. The only maintenance has been on the berms ( :madmax: horses), a few minor drainage corrections, and trimming back the overgrowth.






Rusty Chair Redux from diggingtrail on Vimeo.

The key to making sustainable trails fun is to make them interesting. You don't need 15%+ gradients to have a fun trail (although I do appreciate a good descent). Short sections of steep trail on good soil or armor, followed by a grade reversal or change of direction can be fun and sustainable. Aim for rocks, logs, trees and place the trail though over or right around them. Provide optional lines for advanced riders, just off the main trail, that incoporate the natural elements. Find natural choke points between large trees, or take the trail through natural tunnels of foliage such as Mt. Laurel.


----------



## yogiprophet (Jan 9, 2006)

diggingtrail said:


> Here's a trail that I designed last year and that my club then built. The existing trail that dropped down this section of ridgeline was in horrible shape (eroded and literally wide enough to drive a jeep down), and after this area was logged the previous year it was in even worse condition.......The key to making sustainable trails fun is to make them interesting. You don't need 15%+ gradients to have a fun trail (although I do appreciate a good descent). Short sections of steep trail on good soil or armor, followed by a grade reversal or change of direction can be fun and sustainable. Aim for rocks, logs, trees and place the trail though over or right around them. Provide optional lines for advanced riders, just off the main trail, that incoporate the natural elements. Find natural choke points between large trees, or take the trail through natural tunnels of foliage such as Mt. Laurel.


Nicely done trail and great video too. Watching these two videos makes you aware that you have to make do with what you have to work with. These are two examples of places with not a lot of grade. Your area has a lot of natural features that you incorporated.

You also made a good point about the amount of grade not being the determinant of fun. If you are having to brake to scrub speed on a straight section then the amount of grade isn't the problem and it doesn't take much grade to get high speeds. The idea brought up about putting in rollers to make it less sidewalk like was also good. I was riding a trail yesterday that would have been considered boring except that the builders put in killer jumps in the trail. They turned a "sidewalk" into a jump park....SWEEEEET!


----------



## Fattirewilly (Dec 10, 2001)

traildoc said:


> Can the posters, who replied to the OP, with the examples of sustainable trails they have gotten approved by the local land mangers, please provide some video links of those trails so we can get a better idea what you consider to be a fun and sustainable trail.


Not "my" trail but I have a couple hours of sweat equity in it. Definitely sustainable, fun, and w/ some tech.

http://www.vabike.org/massanutten-new-trail-video/

If I come across any video of my stuff, I'll post it up.


----------



## Fattirewilly (Dec 10, 2001)

Yup. Video of MY trail. This is about the past 2 years of my trail building life. The whole loop is about 3.5 miles and is intended as a beginnerish/intermediate mixed use trail. Horses are part of the equation so it's brushed back wide to allow folks to pass, but fortunately the tread has stayed narrow...

Picks up at 1:45...





I hate switchbacks too....land manager wanted a switchback...

The advance loop at the same park is under construction


----------



## traildoc (Mar 5, 2007)

Not sure why the OP hasn't responded back, but I thought those videos were great. Hopefully others will give more examples.

I use to live in California where there was a 15 MPH speed limit in the Open Space Preserves, and you were subject to a $275 fine when you were caught in a radar trap, which were set-up at different downhill straight away sections regularly. Not sure what the speeds were in the video, but it seems like they were more than 15 MPH. Do you guys have speed limitations?

Seems like the videos could be used show a land manager what kind of trail a volunteer group was trying to buid at a new location. Were there any government surveys needed to get approval for those videod trails? 

Do you trailbuilders find that landmanager you are working with is usually a mountain biker themself, or are they just open-minded individuals that can give approval for those projects?

Is a trail designer and trail router the same thing? If they are different who's job is more important?

Using the natural terrain to make a trail fun and keep it sustainable seems to be the key to those videos.

TD


----------



## yogiprophet (Jan 9, 2006)

Traildoc, you would love Massanutten. Massanutten and El Paso are the only two places I've been that have more rocks than Sedona (that I can remember at least).

I can safely say there are no speed limits anywhere in the east - at least as far as I have ridden and that is a lot of places. I've ridden plenty in Cali and no limit in any place there either. The only place I've ever ridden that had a speed limit was Sedona and that was set by the terrain. I don't think i made it over 15 MPH the whole time I was there.

That Massenutten connector trail does seem like a blast although short at less than a mile long. Fattirewilly, that does bring back memories of the Massenutten XXC race I did there a few years ago. There were parts of the ridgeline that were so rocky, I had to walk parts of it. Oh, I long for that now that are forests here in Santa Fe are closed and there is a huge fire in my backyard right now. Not to get off topic, but here is a pic from my backyard.


----------



## traildoc (Mar 5, 2007)

yogiprophet said:


> Traildoc, you would love Massanutten. Massanutten and El Paso are the only two places I've been that have more rocks than Sedona (that I can remember at least).
> 
> I can safely say there are no speed limits anywhere in the east - at least as far as I have ridden and that is a lot of places. I've ridden plenty in Cali and no limit in any place there either. The only place I've ever ridden that had a speed limit was Sedona and that was set by the terrain. I don't think i made it over 15 MPH the whole time I was there.
> 
> That Massenutten connector trail does seem like a blast although short at less than a mile long. Fattirewilly, that does bring back memories of the Massenutten XXC race I did there a few years ago. There were parts of the ridgeline that were so rocky, I had to walk parts of it. Oh, I long for that now that are forests here in Santa Fe are closed and there is a huge fire in my backyard right now. Not to get off topic, but here is a pic from my backyard.


yogi:

You obviously haven't ridden at the Mid- Penninsula Open Space Parks: http://www.romp.org/news/pdf/0505.pdf, that article was done in 2005 and since then many more radar guns have been purchased.

TD


----------



## Mark E (Feb 7, 2006)

This video examines some of the new-school trail projects IMBA has been working on with the BLM:


----------



## traildoc (Mar 5, 2007)

Mark E said:


> This video examines some of the new-school trail projects IMBA has been working on with the BLM:


Mark E:

Are the trails shown near the end of the video mountain biking only trails. Doesn't seem like you could show that video to many land managers to let a volunteer group build a multi-use trail like that, or is the line of sight so good that there aren't any mountain biker hiker/equestrain issues.

How much does it cost per foot to build a trail like that shown in the last couple minutes of the video. Is money readily available for those type of projects.

TD


----------



## Mark E (Feb 7, 2006)

I believe the Sandy trails are signed as "mountain bike preferred use" but they may be signed "mountain bike only" -- the IMBA/BLM goal here was definitely to create MTB-specific trail. 

Costs -- as you probably know -- are highly dependent on the site, build style, etc. Something like $3 to $20 per linear foot might be the range. 

No, I wouldn't say money is readily available for trail building projects, but IMBA continues to find ways to get it done.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

traildoc said:


> Not sure why the OP hasn't responded back, but I thought those videos were great. Hopefully others will give more examples.
> 
> I use to live in California where there was a 15 MPH speed limit in the Open Space Preserves, and you were subject to a $275 fine when you were caught in a radar trap, which were set-up at different downhill straight away sections regularly. Not sure what the speeds were in the video, but it seems like they were more than 15 MPH. Do you guys have speed limitations?
> 
> ...


No speed limits on the trails in my vid. Most of the trails are two-way, and speeds are kept in check with a tight and twisty trail design with plenty of roots. 15mph is attainable in places on those trails in places. Higher speeds (not by much) are possible in a couple of spots if the conditions are right (trails are tacky, brush is clear, etc).

On the downhill-only trails with the berms and jumps, speeds over 30mph are attainable if you keep the flow and are willing to get big air. If you notice, a couple of the jumps send you across utility rights-of-way or access roads, but the trails are built with mountain biking in mind.

I know there was a lot of work done on the site where these trails are located prior to construction, but I'm not entirely sure what. The land is owned by a medium-sized state university and at minimum everything had to be approved by a committee that oversees this particular patch of land for a variety of uses. I am not sure about surveys because volunteers were not involved at that point.


----------



## TunicaTrails (Jun 29, 2009)

Speed traps on trails, that's wild. 

What defines sustainable in my area of the country may be very different from yours. For instance a trail in the Deep South that doesn't erode or have drainage problems, but is out in the open to sunlight will quickly become overgrown with subtropical weeds and briars; I wouldn't consider it to be sustainable. 

I prefer the term IMBA-graded. I'm lucky to have an area where the maximum sustainable grade is unusually high, but I support all the concepts IMBA puts forth. With steep gullies that hold impossible grades, plentiful vines and roots, sometimes making things easy is harder in the environment that I work, but we'll get there.


----------



## rhamilton (Aug 7, 2006)

Hi Guys, OP here. Thanks for all great input. Looking at the IMBA trails at the end of the video is proof that fun and sustainable can go together. However as traildoc pointed out that is not the same vision that most land managers here along the Colorado Front Range have. So here are a couple quick links to show the difference in trails that are built with the new vs the old building standards as a guideline.

Here is a model of 'new' sustainability, it is outsloped, and averages 10% grade. It is completely smooth bench cut and speed is controlled by limiting line of sight and outslopeing the corners??? XC bikes, SS and full ridged bikes work OK on these new designs but they do not offer the speed and technical features that the trail bike is made to ride

youtube.com/watch?v=TX4oRO6CiVs

This one has more of the rocks but the trail has been designed with a 10% average grade and speed control chicanes where pedal height boulders have been place at the apex of all the curves, some call this ‘forced flow’, I call it speed bumps

youtube.com/watch?v=JEw-WnA8o0s&feature=related

Now here are a couple of examples of Fun trails along the Front Range that were built many years ago using the old non-sustainable build standards and were built as hiking trails

youtube.com/watch?v=ciO87JSy7ow

youtube.com/watch?v=5T5OuLyFKUU

youtube.com/watch?v=TQ9qPo5IaAA

youtube.com/watch?v=_YuO49fUr_A&feature=related

All of these trails have rough terrain, steep grades, very long line of sight, wide trail bed to accommodate two way traffic and are a blast ride


----------



## Fattirewilly (Dec 10, 2001)

rhamilton said:


> Here is a model of 'new' sustainability, it is outsloped, and averages 10% grade. It is completely smooth bench cut and speed is controlled by limiting line of sight and outslopeing the corners??? XC bikes, SS and full ridged bikes work OK on these new designs but they do not offer the speed and technical features that the trail bike is made to ride
> 
> youtube.com/watch?v=TX4oRO6CiVs


What is the land manager's vision or responsibility related to this trail? Is it multi-use w/ lots of hiker traffic? Is it designated as a beginner or intermediate trail? If beginner or lots of hikers, is it any wonder that the designer would want to control user speed? A ski slope trail isn't appropriate everywhere. Perhaps you can negotiate the construction of a more advanced trail further from the hiker trail head or the installation of some alternative lines along the existing trail?



rhamilton said:


> This one has more of the rocks but the trail has been designed with a 10% average grade and speed control chicanes where pedal height boulders have been place at the apex of all the curves, some call this 'forced flow', I call it speed bumps
> 
> youtube.com/watch?v=JEw-WnA8o0s&feature=related


I'm from Virginia and seem to be more familiar w/ the politics of mt biking on trails in Boulder County. Seems like you should be happy you can ride this trail at all. Don't take that the wrong way. A lot of butt probably had to be kissed to build that trail. Then it was probably some kind of "case study" for Boulder Parks and Rec. If you could just haul down it at 20mph, with whoops and jumps, what do you think the chances are the next mt bike trail could be built??



rhamilton said:


> Now here are a couple of examples of Fun trails along the Front Range that were built many years ago using the old non-sustainable build standards and were built as hiking trails
> 
> youtube.com/watch?v=ciO87JSy7ow


First half is unsustainable fall line w/ 10' wide impact area as users have selected different lines over time. Second half "looks" pretty sustainable to me, perhaps designed w/ quicker flow.



rhamilton said:


> youtube.com/watch?v=5T5OuLyFKUU


No outflow but about half of it looks to be solid rock. This is typical of a fall line that ends at a creek... Spend the effort to rock armor the other other half and it could be sustainable. A reroute doesn't look easy.



rhamilton said:


> youtube.com/watch?v=TQ9qPo5IaAA


Looks like sustainable single track to me??



rhamilton said:


> youtube.com/watch?v=_YuO49fUr_A&feature=related


Narrow single track, on a side slope, perhaps a bit steep in spots. Definitely lacks engineered grade reversals because it has those waterbars all over the place that condemn the volunteers of that trail to frequent maintenance of them. Luv 4:03 when the rider dabs and rides around the rock feature. Also 4:25 where the 2 foot wide trail suddenly becomes 10' wide as the water bar is completely by-passed (it's not just bikes that do that). That's why trail designers put "chokes" or rocks on the trail, to keep people on the "trail" and minimize impact next to the trail.



rhamilton said:


> All of these trails have rough terrain, steep grades, very long line of sight, wide trail bed to accommodate two way traffic and are a blast ride


Rough terrain doesn't have to exclude sustainable, see Massanutten new trail vid. Steep grades not an issue on solid rock, you want it, offer to put in the effort. Most of your videos were single track, only wide on double track or fall lines where multiple lines have developed over time. Long lines of site are important to reducing user conflict.

Seems like you have a land manager or trail builder who needs their vision expanded....or the trail you're complaining about isn't designated how you'd like to use it?


----------



## mtbikernc69 (Mar 23, 2004)

I would say the OP hasn't ridden Masanutten. If he had, we wouldn't be having this conversation. I just wish people in general would quit whining about how a trail is built. If you want something different then build it for christ sake. And please don't start whining about machine built trails, either. Again, ride Masanutten. Part of it is machine built and is some of the funnest trail out there.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

politics can have a huge impact on trail design standards. when you're talking about high traffic multi-use trails, speed is a bad thing. Speed creates user conflicts in busy situations and has to be managed out of necessity. Ticketing is not a good answer, IMO. What works better is a trail design that limits speed on its own. It's cheaper, too.

IMBA spent many of its early years pushing the idea of sustainable trails in the first place, and refining many of those techniques. it took awhile for land managers to catch on, and many of them got an idea of sustainability that did not include challenging terrain. I've seen this in my own interactions with land managers. some of them hold on to that idea, and it's not until someone (or multiple someones) show them that challenge AND sustainability can coexist on the same trails that they start to accommodate some of the challenging features on the management plans for the trails. sometimes that can take a lot of hard work for really entrenched ideas.

one thing I've noticed is that if you get your foot in the door at one place, you can use it as a demonstration area for other land managers. if they see things done well nearby in similar conditions that they have, they are more likely to get on board with your ideas.

the soil on most of the trails in my video is VERY sandy. a lot of care needed to be taken in design and construction to minimize long stretches of straight trail where the sand could be washed away. after a season of riding, some trails had to be rerouted to avoid the sandy spots. we make extensive use of armoring in low places and on short, steep slopes to keep the sand in place. the swoopy downhill run was one of the few places we had extensive patches of clay to use for sculpting berms and jumps. the bowl is carved out of one such clay deposit. that was how control points were identified....the clay soil. where we found clay, we knew we could work with it to make fun features. if it wasn't for the clay, our trail system would have been an entirely xc system. Not bad on its own, but it would not have become a destination trail for anyone even an hour away because it's too short.


----------



## slocaus (Jul 21, 2005)

NateHawk said:


> politics can have a huge impact on trail design standards. when you're talking about high traffic multi-use trails, speed is a bad thing. Speed creates user conflicts in busy situations and has to be managed out of necessity. Ticketing is not a good answer, IMO. What works better is a trail design that limits speed on its own. It's cheaper, too.


How true. A great example, we have a land manager who is a rider, a very good rider, goes to Whistler, Mammoth, Moab a few times a year, rides what is basically an aggressive trail or freeride bike. He is a very active member of our advocacy group, the only land manager we work with who is a member.

You would think he would be all about great, gnarly, steep, fun trails with fast techy downhills, right? Nope, because he is the primary person on the ground in three open space parks, all accessible from town, and incredibly popular with hikers, dog walkers, families, and........ mountain bikers.

Each area get hundreds, one area, thousands of visits each day. Talk about ripe for conflict! But, low grade well designed trails that have good sight lines or speed control points were sight lines are short and it all works. Why, because he is a *professional* land manager who knows what a wide variety of users exist on his trails.

He is not voted into office, but the city supervisors are, and if there are too many complaints about conflicts on the trails, he has to answer for it, and his personal preferences as a rider have to be put aside. That is politics of land use and management. He goes where the kind of aggressive riding he wants to do is acceptable.


----------



## RYNOFREERIDE (Feb 26, 2004)

Here is some video from our new Cuyuna State Recreation Area trail system in Minnesota. This system is a designated IMBA ride center and Hans Rey rode the trail during our opening a few weeks back and one of the downhills was the first bit of trail that he has ridden in the US that he would brand as a Hans Rey Flow trail. There are 25 miles of sustainable trail built for all skill levels. This trail system is incredible!


----------



## RYNOFREERIDE (Feb 26, 2004)

I've been watching Minnesota's transition from the old school fall line trails to the sustainably built IMBA style trails over the past 10+ years and I've witnessed an incredible increase in riders as we replace the old trails with the new. The old trails were cool and definitely challenging, but were a maintenance hassle and really did not attract that many riders. There would be 5-10 cars at a trailhead in the old days and now we have 70-80 cars at the same trailhead where we've rebuilt the whole trail system to be sustainable. We've had some complaints from old timers, but with every new trail we rebuild with sustainable design, the number of riders jumps up exponentially. We try our best to build for all skill levels which I am sure helps, but we must be doing something right. Our trails are packed all summer long. With every year, the rider numbers in summer, at night, and now even in winter keep going up and up. I guess in Minnesota that by going with a sustainable design, we have targeted a larger share of the mountain bikers out there and seem to be getting more new bikers into the sport. It's been a huge success and has been fun to watch. 

Cuyuna is so amazing that it will only expand mountain biking even more while pushing the limits of sustainable design.


----------



## traildoc (Mar 5, 2007)

traildoc said:


> Is a trail designer and trail router the same thing? If they are different who's job is more important?
> 
> Using the natural terrain to make a trail fun and keep it sustainable seems to be the key to those videos.
> 
> TD


I think this video indicates the trail router is the most important part in this trails uniqueness: 




TD


----------



## VMBA (Mar 30, 2008)

Sustainable does not mean lame. Imagine a trail at 8-10% grade with a 2' drop every 50 feet (slabs of rock, built in like steps), then big in-sloped berms. Sustainable and fast and awesome. We're scheming about such a trail here in VT as part of a bigger project. Hans Rey calls it 'Flow Country'

Also, the Pipeline trail in Stowe, sustainable but flowy and technical. We're also working on Chandler Ridge in the Green Mountain National Forest, sustainable but still technical.


----------



## bamwa (Mar 15, 2010)

Awesome thread. Thanks to all trailbuilders


----------



## traildoc (Mar 5, 2007)

VMBA said:


> Sustainable does not mean lame. Imagine a trail at 8-10% grade with a 2' drop every 50 feet (slabs of rock, built in like steps), then big in-sloped berms. Sustainable and fast and awesome. We're scheming about such a trail here in VT as part of a bigger project. Hans Rey calls it 'Flow Country'
> 
> Also, the Pipeline trail in Stowe, sustainable but flowy and technical. We're also working on Chandler Ridge in the Green Mountain National Forest, sustainable but still technical.


V:

Can you provide links to videos of Pipeline and Chandler Ridge so we can get a visual of what you are talking about.

Thx


----------



## Huck Pitueee (Apr 25, 2009)

I live near Nevada city California and all the sustainable trail building is just dusty road riding to me.


----------



## ROAD WARRIOR (Jan 9, 2005)

I'll add my 2 cents. Cuyuna, Ironton MN; Cowboy/ M Hill, Rapid City SD; Santos, Ocala FL; Picture Rocks Tr., Lyons CO. If you consider any of these trails lame , then you're on the beginner trails.


----------



## bpressnall (Aug 25, 2006)

I knew you were going to get an ear full, posting a heading like that in the advocacy forum!


----------



## cheezecake (Jul 16, 2011)

Where i build my trails there is not much water run off so i dont need to worry about that but the sustainability part is pretty easy. the ground i have available is about a inch of soft soil and plants and plant roots. and then i have hard compacted dirt below everything else. once you scrape away the first inch nothing with grow back on the trail. if you live where lots of run off happens just make some parts go over a stream and not through it. my trails have lasted a good 10 years bye using this method.


----------



## techfersure (Dec 17, 2010)

If the truth be know there is much BS about what exactly"sustainable"means,first of all there is hardly any terrain that hasn't been subject to alteration by the hand of man.and we want to be able to do and be provided for the terrain in which to enjoy our sports and feel good about being good stewards with what is left after we laid our ever insatiable hands on this good earth,bottom line we have to be careful about guilt complex,over compensate and believe that sustainable in our view is just another excuse to not have to give up our distractions.no matter how conscious you are about land use we are still defacing the land when we build and ride.

I live near the Pa coal regions and there are literally tens of thousands of acres of completely defaced acres that offers some of the best Mtn biking and dirt biking you can imagine and thank god because it is literally guilt and "sustainable" free,no rules or hinderance who does not secretly wish for that !


----------



## cmc4130 (Jan 30, 2008)

Mark E said:


> This video examines some of the new-school trail projects IMBA has been working on with the BLM:


that clip is interesting at 4:46. definitely has some pumptrack style berms and rollers.

and 7:20 . . . . getting into some freeride/bmx style riding....

very interesting that this is "next generation" trails. as a former bmx rider, this to me is normal--of course you would want berms and jumps on a trail through the woods.


----------



## cmc4130 (Jan 30, 2008)

Fattirewilly said:


> Yup. Video of MY trail. This is about the past 2 years of my trail building life. The whole loop is about 3.5 miles and is intended as a beginnerish/intermediate mixed use trail. Horses are part of the equation so it's brushed back wide to allow folks to pass, but fortunately the tread has stayed narrow...
> 
> Picks up at 1:45...
> 
> ...


switchbacks indeed. i took this photo recently at Vail, to illustrate a switchback turn in desperate need of a berm or re-routing.










this was one of the switchbacks that got bermed up. it was fun... although the radius was a little too tight for the downhill speed you had. i paced the radius at about 10 feet.


----------



## Maday (Aug 21, 2008)

cheezecake said:


> Where i build my trails there is not much water run off so i dont need to worry about that but the sustainability part is pretty easy. the ground i have available is about a inch of soft soil and plants and plant roots. and then i have hard compacted dirt below everything else. once you scrape away the first inch nothing with grow back on the trail. if you live where lots of run off happens just make some parts go over a stream and not through it. my trails have lasted a good 10 years bye using this method.


Cheeze, doesn't it rain 9 months out of the year in the Puget Sound? How can water not be an issue?


----------



## Ridnparadise (Dec 14, 2007)

Maday said:


> Cheeze, doesn't it rain 9 months out of the year in the Puget Sound? How can water not be an issue?


Remember the Blues Brothers?

"How often does the train go by?"

"So often you don't even notice."


----------



## TunicaTrails (Jun 29, 2009)

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903999904576469960615061074.html

Discuss.


----------



## indytrekracer (Feb 13, 2004)

*trails*

This trail is to IMBA specs, I don't think its lame.









Schooner Trace: Brown County State Park.

So far no one has ridden every feature. It's hard. Rocks, exposure, narrow bridges, narrow tread, jumps, drops, tough technical climbs/descents.

It was a lot of hard work to build. Some was pro built (most was pros building by hand), a lot was volunteer built. When the trail wasn't hard enough more rocks were added. If there was a ride around, rocks where placed to block the ride around. If feature weren't hard enough we dug them out and built them harder.

The Brown County trail system has 25+ miles of trail. Ranging from true beginner flow trails to Schooner. So there is a nice mix. On a weekend there are hundreds of riders spread throughout the park, but if you take on Schooner, you are likely to only see a few riders, while the beginner and intermediate trails are packed.

So, here are some random comments

1) When working on public land, you typically need to start with easy trails and build up to difficult trails. If Schooner was the first trail we build, we probably wouldn't have gotten the chance to build more trails.

2) There are more beginner and intermediate riders than experts. There are some who don't like this. They want mountain biking to be a hard core underground thing that the lesser riders can't take part in. But parks are looking for facilities that lots of people can use. If you want a hard core trail in a park, you need to be willing to build beginner and intermediate trails. I was just at a trail I am sure the OP would call lame IMBA trail (Jack Rabbit, NC). The parking lot was full. Half the riders were women and kids. I saw more hikers than I did when I did a day hike on the AT trail. Sure, I would personally prefer a 6 hour Pisgah death march full of fire roads, hike-a-bike, and gnarly trails, but taking my wife to Pisgah would not end well. So if you are a hard core rider, yes, there will be many miles of trail built by IMBA clubs that aren't built specifically for you. But those trails will be highly used and are important for the sport.

3) There are lot of people who claim to be hard core who aren't. We get lots of riders who talk a big game and then turn around after a mile of Schooner. Many riders think that because they can power up a steep fall line climb and let go of the brakes down a fall line descent, that they have skills. But when we put rocks on the trail many of them complain.

4) The technical specs for building a trail have little to do with lame vs. epic. I could build a lame trail while hitting all the grade rules, just as I could build a lame trail that breaks the grade rules. In Indiana, we have 180 miles of non standard (fall line) trails in the Hoosier National Forest. Yet few people ride these trails, while the IMBA spec trails we have built in State Parks are heavily used. But, yes you can build trails that meet sustainability specs that are boring. Don't blame the specs, building great trails is hard. It takes a technical understanding and an artists eye. Not everyone who tries to build trail is good at it.



> How can we build trails that truly challenge riders with high speeds over rugged and loose rocks with 2 to 3 foot drops and burmmed corners and 30% grade G-outs.


All of this can be done on an IMBA spec trail.

5) Its hard for anyone to build a trail above their own ability to ride. We are fortunate that many of our trail builders are also very talented riders who have seen trails all across the country. So, they are motivate and know how to build advanced trails. If the so called "hard core" riders in an area sit on the side line and ***** and moan about how the local IMBA club sucks, then why would the local IMBA club build advanced trails for them? If Intermediate riders make up the trail building leadership, then how are they going to know how to build advanced trails?

6) The key is variety. I like all kind of trails and I think it is lame when riders have one particular type of trail they like and any thing else sucks. We build an beginner flow trail and people complain it doesn't have enough features. We build rock gardens on Expert trails and people roll the rocks of the trail.


----------



## lubes17319 (Dec 19, 2005)

*The project is sponsored by the Colorado Mountain Bike Association (COMBA) and will be built in partnership with the US Forest Service, Front Range Mountain Bike Patrol (FRMBP), International Mountain Bicycling Association (IMBA) and local bike retailers and manufacturers.


----------



## slocaus (Jul 21, 2005)

lubes17319 said:


> *The project is sponsored by the Colorado Mountain Bike Association (COMBA) and will be built in partnership with the US Forest Service, Front Range Mountain Bike Patrol (FRMBP), International Mountain Bicycling Association (IMBA) and local bike retailers and manufacturers.


Very nice. We have an area just acquired by the City that has plenty of rock. I can share this with the Ranger in charge, but we would really like to get it to his boss, the Natural Resources manager who makes the decisions. However, that soundtrack will wipe out anything positive that we could present to him.

Is there a non explicit version available, or no sound at all?


----------



## korbs (Oct 19, 2009)

great stuff here all. thanks to all the trail builders out there.


----------



## Visicypher (Aug 5, 2004)

I wish there was a "like" button for Lubes video.


----------



## cmc4130 (Jan 30, 2008)

bump


----------



## Cotharyus (Jun 21, 2012)

cmc4130 said:


> bump


Why? Because you think sustainable trail is lame, or because you want someone to prove it isn't?


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

What is lame about sustainable trail?


----------



## Bob W (Jul 6, 2004)

This is so easy to reply to...sustainable trails don't have to be lame, its typically the builder with lack of vision, understanding, experience and land manager input.


----------



## zrm (Oct 11, 2006)

techfersure said:


> I live near the Pa coal regions and there are literally tens of thousands of acres of completely defaced acres that offers some of the best Mtn biking and dirt biking you can imagine and thank god because it is literally guilt and "sustainable" free,no rules or hinderance who does not secretly wish for that !


To each their own, but personally, recreating in an industrial sump/wasteland doesn't do anything for me.


----------



## cerebroside (Jun 25, 2011)

zrm said:


> To each their own, but personally, recreating in an industrial sump/wasteland doesn't do anything for me.


Despite this being a four year thread bump, I will add that 'sustainable' to me means that I don't have to go back and fix it every month. I don't think I could summon the motivation to build and maintain trail that wasn't sustainable (by that definition.)


----------



## Ridnparadise (Dec 14, 2007)

cerebroside said:


> Despite this being a four year thread bump, I will add that 'sustainable' to me means that I don't have to go back and fix it every month. I don't think I could summon the motivation to build and maintain trail that wasn't sustainable (by that definition.)


Exactly right. Build it well and you rarely go back to do anything more than trim sightlines and clear drains of debris. Every hour wasted on avoidable maintenance is an hour not spent on other projects.


----------



## zrm (Oct 11, 2006)

Bob W said:


> This is so easy to reply to...sustainable trails don't have to be lame, its typically the builder with lack of vision, understanding, experience and land manager input.


Well, this isn't entirely accurate. All the things you mention play a part but it depends on what you have to work with and what your resources are. I live in a place with a lot of organic soil and glacial cobble. Steep, sustainable trails can be built, but they take a lot of effort and are very time consuming to build. You can build a lot of fun trails, trails that have rocks and roots but aren't full of 20" drops and 15% average grades that guys who are jacked up on Red Bull and ride 7" bikes will think are "boring" but most people will enjoy.

Places with more durable soil types and lots of exposed bedrock will be able to get away with stuff that would take hours building just a few feet of trail.


----------



## blackitout (Jun 30, 2014)

Fattirewilly said:


> Not "my" trail but I have a couple hours of sweat equity in it. Definitely sustainable, fun, and w/ some tech.
> 
> Massanutten New Trail Mountain Bike Video
> 
> If I come across any video of my stuff, I'll post it up.


It's good to see Mass making some trails. Thanks for showing this.


----------



## Cotharyus (Jun 21, 2012)

blackitout said:


> It's good to see Mass making some trails. Thanks for showing this.


You realize that new trail video was posted in 2009? They have done huge amounts of work on the west slope just in the last 3 years or so. If you live close enough to get out that way, it's worth a visit.


----------



## DaveVt (Jun 13, 2005)

.....Because MTBers don't understand that staying on trail and riding the most challenging line is the point of choosing to ride a bike off pavement. Instead, they ride around anything that is not a smooth path. Root beds get exposed wider and wider, foresters protest. Rock armoring gets ridden around, vernal wet areas are impacted, biologist complain. A smaller and smaller percentage of users see it as their duty to maintain the resources, feel entitled to ride whenever they want despite conditions, demand more sustainability without evolving as riders. 

It all comes down to the line choices each rider makes, and our gnar trails die a slow death of 10,000 poor line choices.
The End.


----------



## iceboxsteve (Feb 22, 2012)

DaveVt said:


> .....Because MTBers don't understand that staying on trail and riding the most challenging line is the point of choosing to ride a bike off pavement. Instead, they ride around anything that is not a smooth path. Root beds get exposed wider and wider, foresters protest. Rock armoring gets ridden around, vernal wet areas are impacted, biologist complain. A smaller and smaller percentage of users see it as their duty to maintain the resources, feel entitled to ride whenever they want despite conditions, demand more sustainability without evolving as riders.
> 
> It all comes down to the line choices each rider makes, and our gnar trails die a slow death of 10,000 poor line choices.
> The End.


You mean if there is a big rock in the trail, and I can't get over it, and I go around it, and I do that every time, and others do that every time, and now there is exposed soil, that is bad?

Or if there is a little puddle, but I have an aversion to being dirty, so I ride around it, and so does everyone else, and now we have a big puddle, that is bad?

Or if there are roots on a bench cut, and I don't like root chatter, so I ride downhill of it, and so does everyone else, and now the trail is crumbling down the hill slope, that is bad?


----------



## Ridnparadise (Dec 14, 2007)

iceboxsteve said:


> You mean if there is a big rock in the trail, and I can't get over it, and I go around it, and I do that every time, and others do that every time, and now there is exposed soil, that is bad?
> 
> Or if there is a little puddle, but I have an aversion to being dirty, so I ride around it, and so does everyone else, and now we have a big puddle, that is bad?
> 
> Or if there are roots on a bench cut, and I don't like root chatter, so I ride downhill of it, and so does everyone else, and now the trail is crumbling down the hill slope, that is bad?


I think he meant trails should be built knowing this is going to happen and with alternate lines in place. As to going riding in wet conditions and then avoiding puddles, well not even an alien anal probe will discover any logic in that - however it should be mandatory for all perpetrators.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

Many trails are purposed many years ago for other motorized access which have, by years of neglect, dilapidated into something that riders discover and exploit. Other have seen track or trails evoked by other users.

Purposed Bike Trails have a very different feel regardless of who uses them. It is the rare agency that allows casual building, generally demanding something more qualified by folks who achieve some sort of vetting. That those folks who make them would wrath not have to come out and rework them every season only make sense.


----------



## DaveVt (Jun 13, 2005)

iceboxsteve said:


> You mean if there is a big rock in the trail, and I can't get over it, and I go around it, and I do that every time, and others do that every time, and now there is exposed soil, that is bad?
> 
> Or if there is a little puddle, but I have an aversion to being dirty, so I ride around it, and so does everyone else, and now we have a big puddle, that is bad?
> 
> Or if there are roots on a bench cut, and I don't like root chatter, so I ride downhill of it, and so does everyone else, and now the trail is crumbling down the hill slope, that is bad?


Nah. You're good with all that stuff. That has nothing to do with why sustainable now also means 100 percent ride-able for all users.

Sustainability has to consider who's riding, and how often.


----------



## cerebroside (Jun 25, 2011)

DaveVt said:


> ...sustainable now also means 100 percent ride-able for all users...


It really shouldn't.


----------



## iceboxsteve (Feb 22, 2012)

DaveVt said:


> ...and how often.


I think this is a big part of the equation. The "locals only" rake-n-ride stuff I grew up with I could argue was pretty sustainable, even if it wasn't built on the best principles. Why? About 15 people knew about it and rode it.


----------



## DaveVt (Jun 13, 2005)

iceboxsteve said:


> I think this is a big part of the equation. The "locals only" rake-n-ride stuff I grew up with I could argue was pretty sustainable, even if it wasn't built on the best principles. Why? About 15 people knew about it and rode it.


That kind of riding to me will always be the well-spring of the authentic NE MTB experience. It can not exist with too many users. The days of the Brown Ribbon of loamy magic carpet snaking off through the forest are fading fast in the North East.

Sustainability is a myth. No trail condition is static. No builder can leave a trail and say it is 100 percent sustainable. The level of engagement the local volunteers demonstrate, their skill, and their respect for sensitive trail conditions are another component. The harder they work, and more trained they are, the more sustainable their trails become. (yup, obviously)


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

iceboxsteve said:


> I think this is a big part of the equation. The "locals only" rake-n-ride stuff I grew up with I could argue was pretty sustainable, even if it wasn't built on the best principles. Why? About 15 people knew about it and rode it.


A column in Bike this month talks about a slender ribbon of trail built on one's own land. That experience revealed the nature of more general riders to wander off of "the line" or willfully shortcut and otherwise widen and obliterate the original intent of trails. It suggested a tendency of riders to not restrict or conform. It suggested alack of respect for the trail.

An original style exploited by a controlled group and a "secret" trail doesn't do that. It is a micro-culture that self-regulates a certain adherence, formally or informally.

Trails for more general use anticipate that reality and work to embrace a varied usage. As such the can be more moderate, bullet-proof, perhaps missing the character of special trails.


----------



## zephxiii (Aug 12, 2011)

Pinkbike Poll: Flow Trails vs. Technical Trails - Pinkbike

ME TOO: I don't want a bunch of berms or jumps or rollers or whatever, I just want natural.


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

I think there is a growing appreciation for natural singletrack. I envision berms and rollers being removed and replaced with constructed "natural" trail once the fad has moved on. Natural trail is a more interesting place to be, with more possibilities. Reducing bike riding to the mind flow of riding mechanics is not that interesting after awhile.


----------



## indytrekracer (Feb 13, 2004)

It is kind of fun now to build and new trail and then wait for the complaints to roll in. I have been involved in building everything from easier flowy trails to double black diamond rock infested narrow single track.

I find it odd because I like to ride all types of trails and like working on having well rounded mtb skills. But there are a lot of riders who only like a very narrow type of trail and seem upset that we would build any thing other than what they want. 

I don't understand why riders lock themselves into such a small box of trail types they allow themselves to enjoy. If you only find a very limited amount of trail types to be fun. the problem may be with you!


----------



## Chris Clutton (Nov 8, 2006)

bsieb said:


> I think there is a growing appreciation for natural singletrack. I envision berms and rollers being removed and replaced with constructed "natural" trail once the fad has moved on. Natural trail is a more interesting place to be, with more possibilities. Reducing bike riding to the mind flow of riding mechanics is not that interesting after awhile.


More likely the maintenance will be neglected as the flow trail's appeal fades and the berms and rollers will get blown out. Flow trails may be considered "sustainable" but take a lot maintenance to keep them smooth in my experience.
I can't fault a trail concept that has gotten hundreds if not thousands of new riders into trail riding. Some of these new riders will start looking for new challenges and push for more natural trails to ride!


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

Chris Clutton said:


> More likely the maintenance will be neglected as the flow trail's appeal fades and the berms and rollers will get blown out. Flow trails may be considered "sustainable" but take a lot maintenance to keep them smooth in my experience.
> I can't fault a trail concept that has gotten hundreds if not thousands of new riders into trail riding. Some of these new riders will start looking for new challenges and push for more natural trails to ride!


Agree, and yes, it's all good, and eventually it's all about the terrain.

Sent from my SCH-I535PP using Tapatalk


----------



## cmc4130 (Jan 30, 2008)

bsieb said:


> I think there is a growing appreciation for natural singletrack. I envision berms and rollers being removed and replaced with constructed "natural" trail once the fad has moved on. Natural trail is a more interesting place to be, with more possibilities. Reducing bike riding to the mind flow of riding mechanics is not that interesting after awhile.




Natural singletrack has been virtually all there is for the last 25+ years of mountain biking. 90%+ of trails are like this.

"BMX bikes" predate "mountain bikes" and there were people calling BMX a fad in the late 70's (purpose-built race tracks with berms and rollers--but there were also off-road trails with homemade dirt rollers and berms in the 70s).

It's fine for you to prefer singletrack mtb, but to be wishing the demise of a tiny slice of mtb trails . . . well, I just ain't down with it.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

Trail preferences are like beer preferences. Everyone has them, but if someone hands you a cold, frosty beverage or builds you a new trail, consider yourself blessed.

I see trail design and construction evolving rapidly myself, with each successful trail, land agents are more willing to allow the envelope to be pushed. Crews are getting more skilled, designers more creative, I think we'll see more technical stuff being incorporated in the "average" trail in the future.


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

cmc4130 said:


> Natural singletrack has been virtually all there is for the last 25+ years of mountain biking. 90%+ of trails are like this.
> 
> "BMX bikes" predate "mountain bikes" and there were people calling BMX a fad in the late 70's (purpose-built race tracks with berms and rollers--but there were also off-road trails with homemade dirt rollers and berms in the 70s).
> 
> It's fine for you to prefer singletrack mtb, but to be wishing the demise of a tiny slice of mtb trails . . . well, I just ain't down with it.


Whoa, pardner, I'm not wishing the demise of anything, just saying I envision it happening. It's all good in my world!


----------



## Ridnparadise (Dec 14, 2007)

I'm with CMC on this. I've been riding bikes in the bush for nearly 50 years. Berms and flow trails do not outnumber natural trails and they never will. Not only that, they offer something different and that appeals to riders. If every trail was a semi-blown out flow trail, then that may be a problem. However, even if you cannot get yourself out of the ski resort bike park very often, there's no reason to complain about berms. Last I noticed berm and flow trails were not exploding from the guts of natural trails like aliens. Yes they decay and that is why they will never become the universal turn, or the universal trail.

All turns and all trails decay, age, mature, fall apart, degrade, risk local environments, face issues of sustainability or disappear. So do all highways. The question is whether flow trails are the answer to longevity? (Another question is "Who gives a rat's") It is pretty obvious most people do not feel flow trails are the cure for trail sustainability. Personally I don't see the terms flow and sustainable being linked in any way. Trails are either made well or badly. A large percentage of old-style, natural trail was built badly or not at all, with no consideration given for weather events, the effect of time or user numbers. That's why a lot die and get replaced or forgotten.

In Europe and Asia there are singletrack trails that date back thousands of years. I guess that = sustainable? You can walk and ride them. They were made so villagers had access to each other and for trade, stock movements etc. The reason the trails exist is because they follow the line of least resistance. Just like a cow or deer trail, smart people walked from place to place by letting the terrain guide them.

Therefore there are 2 equally stupid concepts at play in this thread. The first is that flow trails and natural trails are opposites. Second is that flow trails require berms and stuff. Trails are trails are trails. They are a narrow path from one place to another. You chose to go there, so you create the mood. 

Trials riders flow from boulder to boulder. DH riders flow down evil $#!t. XC racers flow up evil $#!t. Cows flow around hills and leave evil $#!t. We can all flow on any trail on our day. However, if you tell me trail flow should be a comparison between berms or turns through trees so close only Hans Rey can do it on a good day, then you may as well compare toffee to dog crap. Further, if you tell me you can rate sustainability on either of those options, then I think you probably ate the dog crap by mistake.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

DaveVt said:


> Nah. You're good with all that stuff. That has nothing to do with why sustainable now also means 100 percent ride-able for all users.
> 
> Sustainability has to consider who's riding, and how often.


There are plenty of trails where I live and ride (western VA, NC) that are extremely sustainable yet would eat many people for breakfast.

They are littered with rocks. There are times when at least one wheel is on one or more rocks for a quarter mile at a time. Anyone who thinks he is going to "roost" corners is going to find himself high siding into a ravine.

They also see pretty intense usage at times, yet I haven't noticed any degradation, even when it's wet.


----------



## Woodman (Mar 12, 2006)

I think in the past, we have looked at "sustainability" of trails way too simplistically. Most education has focused on physical sustainability but a number of us doing professional trail education work feel that is only a part of the picture. Below is how I present it in the trail education work I do nowadays:

Ecological Sustainability:
-Trail types that fit into surrounding landscapes

-Right type of trail and users for given area

-Level of impact during development stage appropriate for sensitivity of area

-Level of long term impact of trail commensurate with landscape 

Physical Sustainability:
-Physical robustness of the trail

-Ability of the trail to shed water thus preventing water based erosion

-Ability of the trail tread to withstand the impacts of permitted users

-Alignment is most important aspect

-Challenged alignments can be mitigated with various techniques: hardening or armoring

Managerial Sustainability:

-Ability of the land managing agency and its partners to actively manage and maintain the trail

-Where management budgets lack in maintenance money, volunteers can make up deficit with trained volunteer labor

-Regular inspections and assessments of conditions

-Trail decisions (including wet weather closures) based on real time information

Social Sustainability:
-Trail system generally meets the needs/desires of the users
-Good variety of trails with range of different difficulties

-Good relationship between users and managing agency

-Design helps to mitigate user conflicts

-If enough and right type of trails are not provided, users will create their own

-Trail systems that “make sense”

-Ease of navigability

Trail sustainability is not a yes/no proposition, but instead a sliding scale in each of the above 4 areas. To achieve social sustainability for mountain bikers, there may be some sacrifice in physical sustainability. 

Woody Keen


----------



## DaveVt (Jun 13, 2005)

Le Duke said:


> There are plenty of trails where I live and ride (western VA, NC) that are extremely sustainable yet would eat many people for breakfast.
> 
> They are littered with rocks. There are times when at least one wheel is on one or more rocks for a quarter mile at a time. Anyone who thinks he is going to "roost" corners is going to find himself high siding into a ravine.
> 
> They also see pretty intense usage at times, yet I haven't noticed any degradation, even when it's wet.


Very interesting example. I've ridden up and down the Appalachians. I know the type of trail you mean, western NJ and Pennsi have their share. If your trail is made largely of rock it helps a lot. There obviously won't be any dirt displaced....there's no dirt. Also, from my experience on rock garden like that, the trail is the easy (only) possible option. There is no riding off trail for a smoother line. It's either ride it or walk it, there is no around it.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Yep. The only thing that distinguishes it are the lack of fallen timber/vegetation, and the lack of moss. Worn away by tires, hooves, shoes and paws.


----------

