# 2 mile trail for $90,000.



## DaveVt (Jun 13, 2005)

Paid for with federal grant money on state land, that we now have to pay to use. Thoughts?


----------



## 2bfluid (Aug 17, 2008)

Pay to play will only become more widespread as we move forward. It is what it is....

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


----------



## Timothy G. Parrish (Apr 13, 2014)

That's some expensive trail. That's like $9 a foot, which is on the pricey side.

Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk


----------



## jochribs (Nov 12, 2009)

2bfluid said:


> Pay to play will only become more widespread as we move forward. It is what it is....
> 
> Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


It doesn't have to. Don't ride at those locations. I won't.


----------



## 2bfluid (Aug 17, 2008)

I would gladly pay a few bucks to ride quality, well maintained trails. Usually the fees go to maintenance and additional infrastructure. The grants help make it happen, but don't support the long term picture.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Did they have to use dynamite? 9 dollars a foot is ridiculous.


----------



## Timothy G. Parrish (Apr 13, 2014)

tiretracks said:


> Did they have to use dynamite? 9 dollars a foot is ridiculous.


That would have made it quicker and cheaper. I think they used spoons.

Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk


----------



## DaveVt (Jun 13, 2005)

Mini x. Flow trail ya know. Just like every other new trail built 'round here in the last number of years.


----------



## bmike (Nov 17, 2009)

Its pay to play because its on VT State Park property. $4 for a parking tag gets you in the door, or $4 if you pedal in. FWIW, you can pedal in from the opposite side, something like 6+ miles and no one would likely charge you...

Also FWIW, bike packers passing through the same gate sometimes have to pay, and they aren't riding said new trail, just passing through. 

Also FWIW, if you want to walk the 'History Hike' - you have to pay, its located within state park boundaries, campground, beach I think, playground, lake access, hiking, etc.

I tend to only go there in the off season - passing through or bikepacking, or XC skiing. So I've never dropped $$ on this.


----------



## Timothy G. Parrish (Apr 13, 2014)

Yeah, we have to pay to play on State Parks here in SC too. NC doesn't, so we just 'borrow' their turf from time to time. 

Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk


----------



## bmike (Nov 17, 2009)

bmike said:


> Its pay to play because its on VT State Park property. $4 for a parking tag gets you in the door, or $4 if you pedal in. FWIW, you can pedal in from the opposite side, something like 6+ miles and no one would likely charge you...
> 
> Also FWIW, bike packers passing through the same gate sometimes have to pay, and they aren't riding said new trail, just passing through.
> 
> ...


Information on VT State Park fees:

Vermont State Parks - Fees


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

Indiana is pay to play, too, and in a pretty big way. I have 3 different passes I carry around. Annual state parks gate pass. State off-road bicycling pass (valid and required in both state parks AND state forests, which do not yet have gate/parking fees). USFS annual trails pass.

A few city properties with trails don't charge, but they're small and don't offer the same kinds of experiences. There are also a few private trail systems with access fees.

It's what we have to deal with here. Neighboring states don't have the same fees, of course.


----------



## Velokid1 (May 3, 2005)

Red State Problems


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Cotharyus (Jun 21, 2012)

Velokid1 said:


> Red State Problems
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Please don't unnecessarily try to politicize things. Especially when you're wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Red_state,_blue_state.svg


----------



## motomike (Feb 4, 2005)

DaveVt said:


> Mini x. Flow trail ya know. Just like every other new trail built 'round here in the last number of years.


Dang! That's only about 3x what we build trails for around here. It better be good!


----------



## DaveVt (Jun 13, 2005)

It was built with your (our) tax dollars. Pile on the Debt. It's for tourism!!!! U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time


----------



## ray.vermette (Jul 16, 2008)

DaveVt said:


> It was built with your (our) tax dollars.


Just like sports stadiums, and playgrounds, and community rec centres, and municipal baseball diamonds and soccer fields and pools, and state and national parks.

A mountain bike trail is a recreational resource, like any other. Why should it be funded differently?


----------



## DaveVt (Jun 13, 2005)

ray.vermette said:


> Just like sports stadiums, and playgrounds, and community rec centres, and municipal baseball diamonds and soccer fields and pools, and state and national parks.
> 
> A mountain bike trail is a recreational resource, like any other. Why should it be funded differently?


Um. Because we're 20 trillion in Debt? It's a ridiculous price tag? IMO.


----------



## River19 (Jul 3, 2007)

This is similar to the Golden toilet seats IMHO

Honestly, if the future of MTB trails means hiring in a mini X guy and paying $6-10/foot of flow trail.....well crap, I think we may have lost our way.

I am 100% supportive of the bike park, downhill, dirt jump, bro flow aspect of MTB....and ride them occasionally.....but in many areas, especially in New England there are a good number of fantastic bike park options with more expanding every summer. 

Why then do MTB organizations feel the need to take an area prime for miles of some good techy single track and build yet another flow trail? Where is the balance?

Almost every classic XC techy system has been or is slowly being sanitized for many reasons......

So from a taxpayer and MTB rider perspective i'm asking, "where is the balance?"........where is the trail building plan resulting in 8-15miles of actual singletrack (not 48" wide smooth hardpack) that let's people challenge their skill against Mother Nature's canvas vs. a trailbuilder's CAD drawing brought to life with his Mini X? Not every new trail system has to be a bike roller coaster......balance find the damn balance.


----------



## jochribs (Nov 12, 2009)

Correct me if I am wrong on this... and I defer to you guys that have been experiencing the inside workings of this for many years...

but my perspective on this is it is a result of everything being homogenized. Variety and originality don't line the pockets like a one size fits all approach to making trail. And I think it's probably all pretty calculated as far as watching/researching the market on who's buying what sort of bike, and what type of trail they prefer riding. 

Mountain biking has changed quite a bit in the past several years as far as the experience goes, at least for me. I don't enjoy the new style of trail building as much as I did when trails were all unique, some being quite raw in terms of terrain. It's what mountain biking was. Now, more and more, it seems that for the most part, the trails are all the same (or are more or less getting there) and it's generally the location, and the background scenery that is varied. 

I think what Dave said in the other thread about this was pretty profound. Trails are being built now for a demographic of riders that wouldn't have been mtb'ers when bikes and trails weren't what they are now. And that's ironic. 

It's being marketed that you need to get rad, get 'enduro', and the bikes keep on getting more and more sophisticated and capable, but the trails (at least in my area of PA, NJ, DE) require that sort of sophistication and capability less and less. 

I think Flow is alright. I can take my Terrible One out and rip it, and have. But flow 'everywhere' is getting old. 

My wife and I went out to Raystown, and she was very underwhelmed...said it felt just like everywhere else these days. I was shocked yet admired her for saying so...this was the woman that cried when I first took her to Wissahickon when we were dating some 17 years ago, due to the rocks there, and still dismounts to carry her bike over some obstacles that she and I both know she could do. If she is saying that....well...


----------



## Timothy G. Parrish (Apr 13, 2014)

jochribs said:


> Correct me if I am wrong on this... and I defer to you guys that have been experiencing the inside workings of this for many years...
> 
> but my perspective on this is it is a result of everything being homogenized. Variety and originality don't line the pockets like a one size fits all approach to making trail. And I think it's probably all pretty calculated as far as watching/researching the market on who's buying what sort of bike, and what type of trail they prefer riding.
> 
> ...


I think it has more to do with efficiency and sustainability, with some of the above thrown in. You can pay someone with a mini-x or skid-steer to get the job done a whole lot quicker. The limitations of a skid-steer in particular is what often makes a good flow trail (no tight turns, rolling grade, wide path, etc.). The forests and parks also want trails that will have minimal maintenance requirements, so they're designed to shed water at an optimum level. Old school narrow singletrack takes more time and resources to create in most cases.

Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Still rolling our own in MA. 
And I ain't paying to ride **** unless there's a chairlift involved.


----------



## jochribs (Nov 12, 2009)

^^Exactly. Coming from a snowboarding background, I understand the duplicity in the pay to play ideal, but at the same time, your dollars there, where a lift is involved, are generally going towards a private establishment, and are offsetting continual 'high' costs of operation. 

It might be argued that the cost to ride pay to play trails is small, but that is beside the point I feel. If I have to pay, I am simply not going to ride there, on a principle level.


----------



## Velokid1 (May 3, 2005)

Cotharyus said:


> Please don't unnecessarily try to politicize things. Especially when you're wrong.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Red_state,_blue_state.svg


I wasn't arguing that this particular case is happening in a red state, but that the notion that tax revenue should only be used to fund things that everyone directly benefits from is a distinctly conservative one. The "if I don't use the schools/roads/trail system, then I shouldn't have to help pay for them" philosophy is often behind user fees on public lands.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## jochribs (Nov 12, 2009)

Timothy G. Parrish said:


> I think it has more to do with efficiency and sustainability, with some of the above thrown in. You can pay someone with a mini-x or skid-steer to get the job done a whole lot quicker. The limitations of a skid-steer in particular is what often makes a good flow trail (no tight turns, rolling grade, wide path, etc.). The forests and parks also want trails that will have minimal maintenance requirements, so they're designed to shed water at an optimum level. Old school narrow singletrack takes more time and resources to create in most cases.
> 
> Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk


I understand the sustainability reasoning, and that's generally why I have never taken sides on the issue of sanitization. I've understood both sides, while I have politely and quietly disliked the sanitary results.

But I'm getting to the point where I want to non-combatively voice that I feel these sorts of trails are going overboard.

And for a trail to be sustainable, it does not need to be paved, with roller after roller, and berms. I don't mind those sorts of features, and I can rip them pretty damned well, but it's just getting old for mountain biking when it's becoming the way everything is. It doesn't need to be so mechanical and manufactured.

And to the point of why Dave started this thread, if it is going to cost so glaring much, it can be built with more respect to the maintaining the areas personality and natural terrain, while at the _same time_ producing much more than a couple miles. Because that's the main issue of this thread right? They built it the way they did because it is efficient and cost effective right? Then why 90K?


----------



## DaveVt (Jun 13, 2005)

slapheadmofo said:


> Still rolling our own in MA.
> And I ain't paying to ride **** unless there's a chairlift involved.


In my town too. We have rejected VMBA and their promise of grant $...yet they still put us on their map. If 45k/mile is the going rate for trail, I'm owed about $250,000 over the last 5 years.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

slapheadmofo said:


> Still rolling our own in MA.
> And I ain't paying to ride **** unless there's a chairlift involved.


 Increasingly it's pay to park, at least with our local DCR parks and forests in MA. Now Harold Parker is $ 5.00 to park your car, or $60.00 per year, but the State police lot is still free. I get the big picture, but still. After spending 15 years doing great trail work there and making it worth going to, now they are going to charge me? I'll be dammed if I take 4-5 hours of my time on a weekend to do trail work there and they want to charge me to park? Just bite me.


----------



## River19 (Jul 3, 2007)

jochribs said:


> Correct me if I am wrong on this... and I defer to you guys that have been experiencing the inside workings of this for many years...
> 
> but my perspective on this is it is a result of everything being homogenized. Variety and originality don't line the pockets like a one size fits all approach to making trail. And I think it's probably all pretty calculated as far as watching/researching the market on who's buying what sort of bike, and what type of trail they prefer riding.
> 
> ...


I'm in the same boat.

I'm not against flow and I don't want to sound like I don't enjoy flow trails. BUT.....when damn near every trail is becoming cookie cutter flow with very little differentiating them but the scenery and the pub in town....that starts to make me a little frustrated.

Sure flow is fun as heck on my Pivot......but I could also ride those trails and enjoy myself on any of my hard tails as well. I would really love more and more options for slower tech driven classic trails with some friggin bumps other than "brake bumps on the 5' berms"......seriously, your experience with that PA trip is what I think my wife will be like if we hit PA.

We hit NC a month ago and we were in heaven......specifically because it didn't ride like all the flow stuff in New England. Even the stuff in Dupont that locals complain about is still less generic than what Joey's Mini X trail building service is banging out at large $


----------



## Timothy G. Parrish (Apr 13, 2014)

jochribs said:


> I understand the sustainability reasoning, and that's generally why I have never taken sides on the issue of sanitization. I've understood both sides, while I have politely and quietly disliked the sanitary results.
> 
> But I'm getting to the point where I want to non-combatively voice that I feel these sorts of trails are going overboard.
> 
> ...


I totally agree. And you should be able to voice your opinion. We have been doing so, telling board members of the organizations that provide funds for such building to not homogenize the trails as they reroute/rework them. Will they listen? To be seen. And for that 90k trail bill? I hope various groups involved looked at the preliminary plan and costs. If they didn't, then either lack of oversight/involvement or corruption may have been the reason.

To the OP: were you or anyone else at any of the public meetings for this project? Did anyone look at costs BEFORE the project was approved? Being that it was a state park, I can almost guarantee that a public input process was required. If nobody gets involved or speaks up then all bets are off and not much can be done after the fact.

Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

DaveVt said:


> In my town too. We have rejected VMBA and their promise of grant $...yet they still put us on their map. If 45k/mile is the going rate for trail, I'm owed about $250,000 over the last 5 years.


I hear ya man. Hell, I'm owed about 30k just for last week!

I ain't paying to ride, or park. The day I end up like Leeboh when they want me to pay to ride trails that I built is the day I go completely rogue as far as trail building goes.


----------



## bmike (Nov 17, 2009)

DaveVt said:


> In my town too. We have rejected VMBA and their promise of grant $...yet they still put us on their map. If 45k/mile is the going rate for trail, I'm owed about $250,000 over the last 5 years.


You really ought to take advantage of the bespoke / craft economy in VT and put yourself out there. Dave's Handcrafted - The No Flow Pro™, we keep it in the down low!

But be sure not to be too successful at it, otherwise you'll end up like Heady Topper, and out of staters will flock to your business and hire you for increasingly unreasonable rates to build your handcrafted trail all over NE. Maybe even paying you to create some NoBroNoFlo™ out west somewhere.

Then some other dude in VT on the web will be pissy about how all the good trail isn't flowy and go-ey and will start an alternate company and might succeed in their own niche. And I'll have to come up with more anconyms.


----------



## drag_slick (Sep 24, 2004)

Last machine built segment we did in Oct 2014 it was $3.50 a LF which was done with a Sweco and Mini-x


----------



## DaveVt (Jun 13, 2005)

drag_slick said:


> Last machine built segment we did in Oct 2014 it was $3.50 a LF which was done with a Sweco and Mini-x


The winning bid here was 6/lf. Plus 10 g for design....plus signage...plus state admin costs.
You would win every bid in Vt.


----------



## twd953 (Aug 21, 2008)

leeboh said:


> After spending 15 years doing great trail work there and making it worth going to, now they are going to charge me? I'll be dammed if I take 4-5 hours of my time on a weekend to do trail work there and they want to charge me to park? Just bite me.


I hear you. I did a chainsaw cert class put on by trail association a couple years ago, and afterwards they sent out a parking pass that was good at all the Federal land/trailheads in the region.

I thought that was a great idea. It's a super low cost way to give something back to the volunteers who are spending countless hours of their time and thousands of dollars of their own money (equipment, gas etc...) to make these places better.

Fortunately, we don't have to pay to park or use trails at any of our local riding area (I've lived places that do charge), but I'd be pretty pissed about new fees going into effect after volunteering tons of time and donating $$ to our local trails.

In pay to park/ride places, it seems like working something out where volunteering a certain number of hours gets you a season pass.


----------



## Timothy G. Parrish (Apr 13, 2014)

DaveVt said:


> The winning bid here was 6/lf. Plus 10 g for design....plus signage...plus state admin costs.
> You would win every bid in Vt.


Well, while on the higher end of $/lf, that's not too far off for all the costs involved. Here in Upstate SC and WNC it's about that, heavily dependent on terrain. Cost of signage and design is similar.

Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

$5/mile around here for turnkey build, cheaper if you have volunteers clear corridor and finish up after. Someone who knows what they're doing with a Sutter 300 and micro X can build trail that's essentially like handbuilt. We only handbuild in the rocks now and use mechanical everywhere else.


----------



## bmike (Nov 17, 2009)

Timothy G. Parrish said:


> Well, while on the higher end of $/lf, that's not too far off for all the costs involved. Here in Upstate SC and WNC it's about that, *heavily dependent on terrain*. Cost of signage and design is similar.
> 
> Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk


It can get pretty steep where this trail was built. From what I know of the location, its between the upper two black lines running sort of diagonal left / right.


----------



## Cotharyus (Jun 21, 2012)

To put this in perspective, Nashville recently (3 years ago?) had some trail professionally built in a high visibility park in order to save volunteers the static that was pretty much inevitable from the birders, hikers, horse people, and other folks that had been objecting to MTB use on trails in this park for 40 years. So we got our very own 8 miles of trail at a cost of $350K. It doesn't really seem like the price is too far off. 

The quid pro quo is we (the local MTB community) are committed to developing trail systems in two other parks, including one gateway system ( half the trail is in an open field, elevation gain on a 1 mile loop is 30 feet ) and a beginner/intermediate trail system in another park. For various reasons, some of that development is still ongoing, but so far, everyone seems happy with the end results. The way the city sees it, they got 18 miles for $350K rather than 8.


----------



## DaveVt (Jun 13, 2005)

I appreciate everyone's input.


----------



## Jozz (Apr 8, 2004)

This is what happened in 2004...


----------



## Timothy G. Parrish (Apr 13, 2014)

Jozz said:


> This is what happened in 2004...
> 
> View attachment 1097015


That's a nice road on the cover! I always wanted to read that to see what was in it, but I can't find anyone who owns it, and really don't feel like wasting my money.

Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk


----------



## epic (Apr 16, 2005)

Do you know what that road is? I don't think it represents anything having anything to do with the subject of this thread.


----------



## old_MTBer (Feb 16, 2014)

Have the book.
Cover photo: Flume Trail, Lake Tahoe.

The trail is on the Nevada side of the lake.


----------



## Timothy G. Parrish (Apr 13, 2014)

old_MTBer said:


> Have the book.
> Cover photo: Flume Trail, Lake Tahoe.
> 
> The trail is on the Nevada side of the lake.


Worth buying?

Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk


----------



## 2bfluid (Aug 17, 2008)

Well, I think it has a lot of good concepts in it. For someone just getting started in trail work it helps a lot.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


----------



## jochribs (Nov 12, 2009)

I took the comment of Jozz to say, that in 2004, that book and the contents therein more or less laid the ground work for the trail style in this conversation.


----------



## Jozz (Apr 8, 2004)

jochribs said:


> I took the comment of Jozz to say, that in 2004, that book and the contents therein more or less laid the ground work for the trail style in this conversation.


Voilà!

Yes, where you now needed to calculate grades and respect percentages, bench everything, remove a foot deep of material, all in the name of lord Sustainability.

I do admit using some of those guidelines when making one way climbs. For the rest I just build to the kickass standard.


----------



## Timothy G. Parrish (Apr 13, 2014)

jochribs said:


> I took the comment of Jozz to say, that in 2004, that book and the contents therein more or less laid the ground work for the trail style in this conversation.


Yeah, I thought that's what he was referring to as well. Hence my 'road' jab at IMBA.

Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk


----------



## epic (Apr 16, 2005)

Someone from Tahoe can correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that the Flume Trail is an old right-of-way for a logging flume. It wasn't built for mtbs by excavators at great expense. (It was probably built at great expense by chinese laborers)
I have the book too. Never felt that it was a waste of money.


----------



## ray.vermette (Jul 16, 2008)

Jozz said:


> ...all in the name of lord Sustainability....


It's funny you put it that way, because I think that book has a lot in common with the bible: if you have pre-conceived notions about what it contains, you are going to get out of it exactly what you expected to get out of it, whether it be good or evil.

But I'm an atheist, so what do I know?


----------



## bankerboy (Oct 17, 2006)

Timothy G. Parrish said:


> That's a nice road on the cover! I always wanted to read that to see what was in it, but I can't find anyone who owns it, and really don't feel like wasting my money.
> 
> Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk


For the unaware.

Tahoe Flume trail

While the cost per mile seems high in the OPs post there are a lot of things that can greatly impact cost. I can make a trail in a desert area with little more than a rake to create a visible line.

In one of the areas we are currently working is on a steep mountain, in crazy dense chaparral. The cut material has to be carried out due to environmental concerns. Many areas require great amounts of benching and rock work to keep it sustainable. Cost per mile there has been around $8000 per mile just for the professional brushing crew needed to clear the initial, scouted line. All other labor, planning, permitting, organizing, and building is done by volunteers. Not calculated into the cost is the city personnel utilized in the process, the tools purchased, person time, food, etc. The cost would be substantially higher. Utilizing a professional service greatly decreases the time from first cut to completion of a trail. Had we not used A.C.E. do the clearing, there would still be no trail where there is now nearly 4 miles of new, sustainable single track.

Cost of use, aka parking fee, is a simple economic principle. Use will require upkeep. This ensures the users pay for what they use. Part of the thought process is if you are paying for use, there is an implied value. As a result you are more apt to treat the area with respect and decrease the need for repairs due to misuse. It is not a perfect model but it does improve the user experience.


----------



## DaveVt (Jun 13, 2005)

bankerboy said:


> For the unaware.
> 
> Tahoe Flume trail
> 
> ...


So in very difficult terrain you managed 8000 dollars per mile and got the trail done. Obviously your local community was ready to step up BIG TIME to get this done in tough conditions with volunteer time and effort. What I'm saying about the current trend back east in Vt is IF there is such a desire for this type of trail....where are all those people to do the work....volunteer the equipment time and other resources? Our public lands are being built for tourists, and locals barely show up to help. Your model seems pretty darn functional as compared to our 45, 000 a mile.


----------



## 2bfluid (Aug 17, 2008)

The $8k was just for clearing the corridor. That's a lot. We quit clearing it for the crews so the builder can have a smaller corridor to keep riders on a tighter line.

Banker nailed it. 

In our area there is a wide range of prices per ft. $2-8/ft. 

Sometimes the builder will really want a trail and bid low just to get it. They tend to over deliver and build something completely kickass. It's not always a sustainable business model, but it is a great way to give back to the community and keep their backyard epic. They also get to stay home for a while and get off the road.



Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

MA seems to be mostly a volunteer kind if state. Some pro builds on bridges and such, especially if it needs some engineering or long spans. Are most states pro build trails?


----------



## bankerboy (Oct 17, 2006)

DaveVt said:


> So in very difficult terrain you managed 8000 dollars per mile and got the trail done. Obviously your local community was ready to step up BIG TIME to get this done in tough conditions with volunteer time and effort. What I'm saying about the current trend back east in Vt is IF there is such a desire for this type of trail....where are all those people to do the work....volunteer the equipment time and other resources? Our public lands are being built for tourists, and locals barely show up to help. Your model seems pretty darn functional as compared to our 45, 000 a mile.


It took two and a half years of really working with social media, San Diego Mountain Biking Association, and a really kick ass ranger staff.

In the first year we were able to only get a little over a mile and was a huge learning curve. We tried to do the clearing and it slowed the process down so much we lost a lot of momentum early on. The high point of that year was reaching out to local scout troops, high schools, shops, and HS racing teams. . Since many have community service hours, we really played that up to generate the enthusiasm. We spoke to hiking groups, bike shops, running clubs, and equestrian groups to gain valuable able bodies. These are all multi use so we took advantage of all groups who may use them.

In February of 2015 we were able to muster 120 willing bodies for one day to knock out about 7/8th of a mile in about 4 hours. It was all tread building and went very successfully. We held a huge BBQ and beverages (regular and adult) and had a large raffle where parts, clothing and a donated frame were given away. It laid the foundation for the following year and created a huge community swell of support.

In November of 2015 we received permission/authorization (5 years in the making) and began sighting the new trails. That is when the rangers really stepped up and contacted American Conservation Experience (A.C.E). They did the corridor work. That was the grunt work and it would still need to be completed today if they hadn't done it.

Starting after the rains in November (San Diego gets only 6 -10 inches a year) we generated work parties from 10-40 people EVERY Saturday until mid-March. We only stopped because the soil dried out and could not be worked with any sustainability. The trick I learned was social media. I would post it on the So-Cal forum here, another local form, Face Book and the SDMBA Meet-up site. All of a sudden people were contact me about the next time. We would see regulars but every weekend we would also see 5-7 new-to-trail work people. Again, after each build session we held a raffle although it was far smaller (2-5 items each time) than the year previous and used grant moneys for age appropriate beverages. It was a great year.

This year, again, waiting on the rains, we will be out there to finish what was not completed last winter. We have also been reaching out to local developers who have lots of lands to reconnect historic trails that were severed by the recent housing developments. Seeing what has been accomplished in the past, they are very willing to talk with us. Those plans may still be a few years out but we have to start now to get them on the books.

You have to generate your own buzz if you have an apathy problem. Start with the local bike shops. We have 3 major and several small shops that realize the benefit of more trails on their sales. They have started sending the branch personnel to help with the work. Social media is one of the easiest ways to reach masses. Attend an advocacy meeting with the local bike organization even if it is a road bike only. Lots of road bikers have a mountain bike. Take the lead and run it like it is your own. It really doesn't take much work but it does take effort, hence my tag line.

Best of luck!


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

bankerboy said:


> In the first year we were able to only get a little over a mile ....120 willing bodies for one day to knock out about 7/8th of a mile in about 4 hours....


Could you share some links/info so I could maybe see what this trail looks like?
I just can't get my head around that those figures...I'm not sure If I've ever been on a trail that required even remotely close to that much effort to build. 
Thanks!


----------



## DaveVt (Jun 13, 2005)

bankerboy said:


> It took two and a half years of really working with social media, San Diego Mountain Biking Association, and a really kick ass ranger staff.
> 
> In the first year we were able to only get a little over a mile and was a huge learning curve. We tried to do the clearing and it slowed the process down so much we lost a lot of momentum early on. The high point of that year was reaching out to local scout troops, high schools, shops, and HS racing teams. . Since many have community service hours, we really played that up to generate the enthusiasm. We spoke to hiking groups, bike shops, running clubs, and equestrian groups to gain valuable able bodies. These are all multi use so we took advantage of all groups who may use them.
> 
> ...


I, personally, am not trying to generate that level of engagement. I am not part of a club. We have a small scene and have once-a-month work and get about 10 ppl which is all I can manage and as they learn the get more independent which is ideal. The local chapters of the state club have failed to generate anything close to the level of participation you have, and so it's all pro built with very little volunteer hours added in and so, instead of 8,000 a mile and tons of help, they're at 45, 000 a mile. Personally, I think it a gross miss use of funds. I hope they read your story, it should inspire them. Great work out there It sounds like real community love.


----------



## bankerboy (Oct 17, 2006)

slapheadmofo said:


> Could you share some links/info so I could maybe see what this trail looks like?
> I just can't get my head around that those figures...I'm not sure If I've ever been on a trail that required even remotely close to that much effort to build.
> Thanks!


Absolutely.

The big build day was not a hard day, rather a "look what happens when a community comes together" event.

2015 build day Dirt Treaders Mountain Biking Community ? View topic - Black Mountain Build Day Results

This was a substantial novice turn out. Many riders and users who have never picked up a trail tool in their life. We had heavily flagged the area and assigned trail bosses to manage 10 or so workers. The bosses were directed not to dig, rather keep the crew on task. If we had 120 skilled builders, we could have had what was done that day in an hour or less. IM me and I will happily show you the more complex builds and what was needed to get done.

one of the many 2016 build days San Diego Mountain Biking Association ? View topic - Some Black Mountain Trail Build pics 1/30


----------



## bpressnall (Aug 25, 2006)

If they wasted $90,000 to build only two miles of trail, you can bet the trail fees will be wasted too, most likely to pay someone to sit at a desk and stare at a computer. Not likely much of it will actually filter back to the trail. But if you feel it's worth paying the fee to ride the trail- go for it! It is what it is.


----------



## bmike (Nov 17, 2009)

Folks, the 4$ is paid by all users at this state park. It's a ****ing state park in VT. Most state parks have some sort of day use fee. And it's ****ing 4$. Campground, playground, beach, hiking, etc. There is staff there most of the year anyway, not just to collect from privileged MTBs who ***** about more trail being built. FFS.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

bankerboy said:


> Absolutely.
> 
> The big build day was not a hard day, rather a "look what happens when a community comes together" event.
> 
> ...


Bad. Ass.

:thumbsup:


----------



## Cotharyus (Jun 21, 2012)

ray.vermette said:


> It's funny you put it that way, because I think that book has a lot in common with the bible: if you have pre-conceived notions about what it contains, you are going to get out of it exactly what you expected to get out of it, whether it be good or evil.
> 
> But I'm an atheist, so what do I know?


I think I like your analogy. I've read a lot of material on building trails over the years. I've built a lot of sustainable trail. Some of it with an excavator. The funny thing is, I've also had people ride that trail and ask where the part is that I built with an excavator. It's also one of the most intense climbing trails in the area. The descents aren't bad either. The idea that a sustainable trail can't be a good one is fallacy. In fact, it's faster and easier to build flow type trail with an excavator or similar machine than it is to build something that looks and feels old school and technical. So much "new trail" is grand funded, and those grants have project deadlines, so they get a grant, they hire a crew, and everyone has to rush through the project to hit the grant deadline, or the money goes away. Old trail was built by riders who wanted more trail, and didn't have a time limit. Some of the old trails are very sustainable, and very awesome. But some of them have been reduced to unridable gullies. You could argue that mountain biking is a victim of it's own success, or that the way grants work have encouraged the building of cookie cutter trails. For my money, the best argument is that the people who should be building the trails (local riders) got lazy and think any trail that someone else builds is awesome, so we have a bunch of grant funded trails that you can't tell if you're riding in VT, VA, CA, MA MN or TN. But maybe that's just me.

Of course, those lazy people who aren't building trails....they probably aren't reading this thread. But I bet everyone reading this thread could name a half dozen without stopping to think about it.


----------



## -Mueller- (Jan 15, 2012)

Edited; decided I didn't want to internet about this.


----------



## DaveVt (Jun 13, 2005)

The funding model is the problem. I don't have any problems with the builders.


----------



## 2bfluid (Aug 17, 2008)

-Mueller- said:


> Edited; decided I didn't want to internet about this.


Chicken

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


----------



## snug dug (Jul 7, 2012)

-Mueller- said:


> Edited; decided I didn't want to internet about this.


Move on, nothing to see here. LOL


----------



## snug dug (Jul 7, 2012)

DaveVt said:


> The funding model is the problem. I don't have any problems with the builders.


Your problem is using federal tax revenue to build trails? Here's where the money comes from:
Funding - Recreational Trails - Environment - FHWA
"The RTP funds come from the Federal Highway Trust Fund, and represent a portion of the motor fuel excise tax collected from nonhighway recreational fuel use: fuel used for off-highway recreation by snowmobiles, all-terrain vehicles, off-highway motorcycles, and off-highway light trucks."

Personally, I have no qualms with that, and RTP has played a huge role in getting trails on public lands.


----------



## jochribs (Nov 12, 2009)

snug dug said:


> Your problem is using federal tax revenue to build trails? Here's where the money comes from:
> Funding - Recreational Trails - Environment - FHWA
> "The RTP funds come from the Federal Highway Trust Fund, and represent a portion of the motor fuel excise tax collected from nonhighway recreational fuel use: fuel used for off-highway recreation by snowmobiles, all-terrain vehicles, off-highway motorcycles, and off-highway light trucks."
> 
> Personally, I have no qualms with that, and RTP has played a huge role in getting trails on public lands.


I don't know if you've read the entire thread, but I'm pretty sure that he makes it pretty clear that the issue is the high cost to build such a short trail. Couple that with the fact that it is federal tax dollars that are being spent, earmarked or not, and the issue of waste of such dollars come into play.

There are a couple other co-occurring issues that are becoming more and more of a concern in relation to the idea of 'sustainability' and sanitization, but the main point here was the high cost for very little.


----------



## bitflogger (Jan 12, 2004)

Context comes to mind. I don't have a grasp of what the discussed project is or the surroundings. I'll explain why the "bike park" 2 mi from my driveway is considered either a $30,000 or $250,000 project.

Most riders and club members only think of the single track, pump track and jump line. City officials and planners think of the connection that makes it car-free for 10s of thousands of people. The latter includes a bridge, busy road crossing, and a $120,000 RTP grant helped make it happen. This all being a significant investment in a master plan is also defense for it's existence when other interests want something else done with the property.


----------



## snug dug (Jul 7, 2012)

jochribs said:


> I don't know if you've read the entire thread, but I'm pretty sure that he makes it pretty clear that the issue is the high cost to build such a short trail. Couple that with the fact that it is federal tax dollars that are being spent, earmarked or not, and the issue of waste of such dollars come into play.
> 
> There are a couple other co-occurring issues that are becoming more and more of a concern in relation to the idea of 'sustainability' and sanitization, but the main point here was the high cost for very little.


I read it. 9 bucks a foot is on the high side for a natural surface trail. BUT, if that was the low bid (as required when working with federal funds, unless certain provisions can be applied), that tells me that there were issues involved that other trail builders who bid didn't want to touch and bid high (to not get the job), or bid high to account for the issues in case they won the bid. 9 bucks a foot, including the design and field work, could be considered quite reasonable in some cases.

I'm not certain, but I think that most riders, especially those who have not picked up a tool to build a trail, have no idea what it cost to build one. There are costs even when trails are volunteer built. People's time has a value. In 2014, the value of one volunteer labor hour was $23.56. In the example cited above, where 120 people built 7/8ths a mile of trail in 4 hours, the value of that labor was $11,308. So, while perhaps no money changed hands, there is a cost/value associated with volunteer labor. Clubs often use the value of volunteer time for recognition events or communications to show the amount of community support it receives from volunteers. Clubs also use those figures in grants, where matching funds are expected.

In the case of RTP grants, the money comes from fuel taxes collected on nonhighway recreational vehicles, like snowmobiles, trucks, ATVs and motorcycles. So, if you're an off-road vehicle user, you're helping pay for some trails you can't use, as well as ones you can use. That's bound to upset someone 

In terms of cost and wasting of dollars, a little perspective is needed. We all pay taxes of one form or another (gas tax, car tax, property tax, income tax, sales tax, etc). Those taxes pay for all kinds of things that not all of us use: roads, parks, schools, recreational facilities like ball fields and tennis courts. Cost to build a two lane undivided road is 2 - 3 million per mile. A 6 lane highway, 7 million per mile. Tennis courts cost 20 - 80,000. A swimming pool is $180 per square foot. Baseball fields cost 50k and up. Those are just construction costs, and I think those are crazy high. Maintaining those things requires a fair bit of coin, too.

I don't use a lot of things that my tax dollar goes to, but I'm not upset about it. I consider it a contribution to the greater good.

So, yes 9 bucks a foot is on the steep side and it darn well better be a kick as trail, but all things considered, it should offer a healthy ROI in the years to come.


----------



## jochribs (Nov 12, 2009)

Those are a lot of examples that don't seem to have a whole lot to do with the context of the issue, other than to say, "see...these things are a gouge too, so why not??") 

I'm not meaning to make a jab at you by saying that. It just really seems that it's making excuses for it more than anything else.

I work as a craftsman. Solo. I do work better than the big shots that have all the big names, the fancy trucks, and the massive ego's. Yet, I charge way less, and DELIVER MORE. Because I don't advertise, I don't get the loonies that are kicking tires looking for the lowest price, or the idiots that go for the ego ridden hot shot that has prices that don't actually reflect their actual work. Most times, I seriously wonder if the people that hire the aforementioned over inflated ego's even fully understand what it is that they are actually being bent over the barrel for. 

I'm not saying that about these particular trailbuilders per say, I don't even know them, but I am saying that just accepting outrageous pricing because you think that it equals the work being worthy of the cost is foolish. And your example of throwing an outrageous number out there because you don't want the work, I get. But that can be indicative of contractors just not wanting to do the work because they want easier jobs where the profit margin is higher...not necessarily because the work is remotely even worth that.


----------



## cerebroside (Jun 25, 2011)

Price sounds pretty normal, especially considering the terrain. Pretty similar to stuff our local club has been involved in. Not sure why people think it's outrageous?


----------



## DaveVt (Jun 13, 2005)

Just to clarify, I have worked as a professional trail builder and have thousands of hours of time in a volunteer as well. I know what the costs are, and end-results are on these projects.


----------



## snug dug (Jul 7, 2012)

jochribs said:


> Those are a lot of examples that don't seem to have a whole lot to do with the context of the issue, other than to say, "see...these things are a gouge too, so why not??")
> 
> I'm not meaning to make a jab at you by saying that. It just really seems that it's making excuses for it more than anything else.
> 
> ...


A little off mark-- was trying to touch on too many topics. I am saying those other things, built with taxpayer dollars, are indeed expensive, and serve limited public use, though possibly a broader use than trails. In comparison to ball fields, swimming pools and tennis courts, a trail at 9 bucks a foot is a pretty good deal.

I haven't seen the site, don't know the conditions, don't know the builders, and don't know what kind of hoops or redtape concerning permits, etc. they had to go through to get the trail built. In certain conditions, 9 bucks a foot would be reasonable, and if it's a public trail on public land, using taxpayer/federal money, the builders need to be able to justify that with their client.



DaveVt said:


> The winning bid here was 6/lf. Plus 10 g for design....plus signage...plus state admin costs.
> You would win every bid in Vt.


So, the actual trail construction cost is $63,360
$10,000 for design
7500 to 10000??? for signage
and the rest is state admin costs.
Seems pretty fair.


----------



## snug dug (Jul 7, 2012)

DaveVt said:


> The winning bid here was 6/lf. Plus 10 g for design....plus signage...plus state admin costs.
> You would win every bid in Vt.





DaveVt said:


> Just to clarify, I have worked as a professional trail builder and have thousands of hours of time in a volunteer as well. I know what the costs are, and end-results are on these projects.


Cool, me too.

Has this trail been built? Would you mind sharing the location of the trail, the name of the land management agency?

Did dirt have to be bought and trucked in to build the features, or was all the dirt harvested on site?

Really just curious, because the cost seems reasonable to me.


----------



## cerebroside (Jun 25, 2011)

DaveVt said:


> Just to clarify, I have worked as a professional trail builder and have thousands of hours of time in a volunteer as well. I know what the costs are, and end-results are on these projects.


I'm not sure what you're aiming to get out of this thread then. People like this sort of trail, that's why they get built. The cost is acceptable for that sort of trail (though we haven't seen it) and funding model seems inoffensive.


----------



## Woodman (Mar 12, 2006)

Moto, You know all too well the trails we built at Rocky Knob did not cost 3bucks a linear. I have built trails at $3 and all the way up to $15 per linear foot. Many variables involved in pricing trails, but rock would be at the top of the list.


----------



## DaveVt (Jun 13, 2005)

snug dug said:


> Cool, me too.
> 
> Has this trail been built? Would you mind sharing the location of the trail, the name of the land management agency?
> 
> ...


No trucking of dirt. Forest, Parks, and Rec. Little River State Park, Waterbury Vt. The cost for this project isn't hugely out of line, but the price does seem to be creeping up a bit. Local builders will tell you the opposite is true but 90k for 2.2 miles seems a bit higher then say 4 years ago.

It's not the price is so out of line, but I question weather a flow trail is worth so much more then a more primitive trail that could be built for free. I do not believe that kids and beginners need excavator road to learn to bike on. In my experience, gradient is far more of an issue then a primitive tread. If a state needs 90 K in grants (wherever they come from) to build a trail in a location, maybe they should find a new location. Given how broke the state and fed are.

The whole thing just seems to be a bit ridiculous to me, but I value everyone's opinion.


----------



## DaveVt (Jun 13, 2005)

cerebroside said:


> I'm not sure what you're aiming to get out of this thread then. People like this sort of trail, that's why they get built. The cost is acceptable for that sort of trail (though we haven't seen it) and funding model seems inoffensive.


This funding model is more and more offensive to me, my point was to reach out to see what other folks thought.


----------



## swampboy62 (Feb 10, 2009)

I'm just finishing up an almost 4 year trail building project in a small county park in Ohio. All built by hand, probably 85% built by my hands.

In our area, within a couple hour drive, there are 4 new trail systems coming on line. All 4 are largely 4' wide high speed flow trails built by machine. I've been told that these trails will 'age in' to being more traditional treads, but I haven't experienced that so I don't know.

The problem seems to me that the trail building chores are now largely being done by professionals for large $$$, instead of gradually happening by local volunteers getting out and building by hand. I don't know how this complete change in trail building style happened in ten years, but I really think it's going to be problematic for those of us who would rather ride tight and technical rather than fast and flowy.

If these 4' wide flowy trails were the only thing around when I started riding I don't think I would have stuck to the sport. I just don't find that kind of riding nearly as fun.

Just one man's opinion.

Steve Z


----------



## 2bfluid (Aug 17, 2008)

Seems like a lot of complaining. New trail is going in all over the country/world and everyone not involved wants to play Monday morning quarterback. 

If you want a particular type of new trail you should plan on organizing and building it yourself, as some have done in this thread. How much it cost is largely irrelevant if you are not the one showing up with the cash.

The land managers and project managers largely determine what has been and will be built. Don't blame trail grants, deadlines, and funding sources. Someone has to take the lead and make things happen, and it's easy to be the project manager, especially if you are involved with a club. 

The project manager can put what ever stipulations they want in the contract for the trail builder. Trail builders get paid to do what their told to do. It is easy to put in a sentence in the contract that says "No trail dozers or machines over a certain width." or "Trail will maintain a certain avg gradient." or "All rocks exposed during excavation of bench will be incorporated back into the new tread."

Most land managers also want a progression of trails and they hold the power to give projects the green or red light.

If you don't like what's being laid down, it may be time to step up. If you want tech trail, make it happen.

Not trying to be a jerk, just sayin'.....


----------



## motomike (Feb 4, 2005)

2bfluid said:


> The land managers and project managers largely determine what has been and will be built. Don't blame trail grants, deadlines, and funding sources. Someone has to take the lead and make things happen, and it's easy to be the project manager, especially if you are involved with a club.
> 
> The project manager can put what ever stipulations they want in the contract for the trail builder. Trail builders get paid to do what their told to do. It is easy to put in a sentence in the contract that says "No trail dozers or machines over a certain width." or "Trail will maintain a certain avg gradient." or "All rocks exposed during excavation of bench will be incorporated back into the new tread."


This is very true and something that I think a lot of people do not realize. Builders have to build what they are under contract to do. If there is a project through some really sick terrain and the bid is for a flat, dirt trail with no rocks or features, then that's just what must be built. If we don't agree with it, we don't bid on it. Someone else will.


----------



## R38 (Nov 9, 2015)

It sounds like to me that locals in your area are not stepping up and so the local land managers are forced to spend more money to get new trail put in.


----------



## River19 (Jul 3, 2007)

Well, it isn't necessarily that locals aren't stepping up.....it is more that the trails are being marketed more for non-locals as a tourism driver, and they are. So that will marginalize and disenfranchise locals.

Also, I as well as others question the real motives and interests of the overarching MTB org who in their strategic plan state under the specific goal of "[The Org]....maintains investment and an open dialogue from a wide scope of stakeholders and articulate the value of partnering with......[The Org]" lists "Riders and Trail Users" #7 out of 8 groups they "maintain an open dialog" with. Just for perspective #5 on that bulleted list is the "Vermont Ski Association and other Non-Profits".

So, when folks that really just enjoy riding good old singletrack like they have for the past 25 years or so question the trail building decisions and ever increasing influence of the tourism $ I kinda understand it. When you are the minority voice in a group of "Riders and Trail Users" who are #7 out of 8 groups the MTB org keeps an open dialog with, perhaps it is a tad frustrating.

Hey I maybe wrong, I've been wrong a couple times before.........but that is what I see from my saddle.....


----------



## woodyak (Jan 20, 2004)

leeboh said:


> MA seems to be mostly a volunteer kind if state. Some pro builds on bridges and such, especially if it needs some engineering or long spans. Are most states pro build trails?


I think that's because most of our parks are in pretty populated areas. The state doesn't see any value in spending money to attract mountain bikers to our parks and green areas. All the money is spent on parking lots, kiosks, and the occasional boardwalk. It seems like the local ranger is more than happy to work with local MTB groups to get some work done. Most of our "organized efforts" seem to be about building the occasional pro bridge or minor trail re-route. I'm glad folks are engaged but I have no interest in such work. We have more than enough un-monitored areas that allow us build the challenging trails that we like.

As far as the 45k per mile thing goes I am pretty amazed by that. Although, I think it'd cost more to do something like that on our trails given our terrain and lack of accessibility and the cost of labor and materials in MA. Besides I don't think we have a big/long enough hill that would make it worth it. So we continue onward making impossibly hard tech trails...


----------



## DaveVt (Jun 13, 2005)

swampboy62 said:


> I'm just finishing up an almost 4 year trail building project in a small county park in Ohio. All built by hand, probably 85% built by my hands.
> 
> In our area, within a couple hour drive, there are 4 new trail systems coming on line. All 4 are largely 4' wide high speed flow trails built by machine. I've been told that these trails will 'age in' to being more traditional treads, but I haven't experienced that so I don't know.
> 
> ...


Yup.


----------



## indytrekracer (Feb 13, 2004)

A few comments. 

1) any method of trail building can result in bad, average, or great trails. I have seen machine built trails that I feel missed the mark as a well as hand build trails. I have also seen both that are awesome. 

2) One of the issues with getting really good machine built trails is the unwillingness to pay what a really good machine built trail costs. If you make a pro trail builder go low on his bid to get the job, that means less time they can spend making the trail great. If you pay for bargain rate machine built trails, that is what you will get. Remember that if your government doesn't use the money to build mtb trails, their not going to give you a tax rebate. They will use the money to build a golf course, swimming pool, etc... 

3) I personally like a diversity in the trails I can ride. We just hand built two expert level narrow single track trails. Construction will start this fall on a $100k machine built flow trail. We worked with the national forest on opening a trail to bikes and they ended up relocating the trail off of an old road bed and building single track with a mule team. 

4) Someone is always upset. When we build expert level hand built trails there are riders pissed that they pay taxes so we should be building trails on public land they can't ride. When we build an easy trail, riders complain we are making mountain biking too easy. 

5) What we have found is that when there are enough beginner and intermediate trails, those riders don't feel the need to ride the advanced trails. This cuts down on the "dumbing down" of our advanced trails.


----------



## jochribs (Nov 12, 2009)

indytrekracer said:


> 4) Someone is always upset. When we build expert level hand built trails there are riders pissed that they pay taxes so we should be building trails on public land they can't ride. When we build an easy trail, riders complain we are making mountain biking too easy.





indytrekracer said:


> 5) What we have found is that when there are enough beginner and intermediate trails, those riders don't feel the need to ride the advanced trails. This cuts down on the "dumbing down" of our advanced trails.


These two points illustrate what I think is wholey wrong with our society and getting worse. This sense of entitlement that you should be catered to, things made easy and convenient for, and where everyone gets a participation medal just for showing up. It's ridiculous.

Those points, to me, are enabling people to expect that everything be made easy for them. When I started riding, you just rode. You didn't b(i)tch about the trail fallen trees that you needed to hop, or sections that would scare the $hit out of you. That _*was*_ mountain biking. And the bikes were $**** compared to today. Trails were what they were. Honestly, they were a whole lot more difficult than they are now for the most part. No one, not me, not anyone I know, like or even dislike, expected the trails to be different than what they were. No one expected the trails to be easier. They were what they were, and you could ride them or you couldn't. And if there was something that you couldn't do, you WORKED AT IT. That was being a mountain biker.

I didn't jump on a bike and immediately start racing expert class XC. I was pretty fast naturally, but not that fast. I had to suffer, get sawed off (Keith Bontrager term btw ) by faster riders, and get faster. I never said people had to slow down for me.

This isn't a blanket statement about everyone, but I think most reading this would have to agree, that this sport has become a pretty high ratio of Nancies with a lot of money to buy skill, and unneeded protective gear...to use on sanitized trail.

I say the same thing about snowboarding and skiing... if the people that are riding today, had to use the uncomfortable, cold and often painful gear we used back in the early 90's, they wouldn't be doing it.

Sorry Indytrekracer, I'm not meaning to bash you personally, but more what I feel you've found you need to do to cater to this 'me' society.


----------



## indytrekracer (Feb 13, 2004)

If you want to build trails on public lands, you need to be willing to build trails the public can use. Not just trails for a small hard core group. I have no problem building trails that less skilled riders can use, especially if it allows me to build some harder trails. It seems you would only be happy if every rider with less skill than yourself was excluded from mountain biking.

Want to build trails only per your own desire. Buy land and build them.

<edit for grammer>


----------



## jochribs (Nov 12, 2009)

indytrekracer said:


> If you want to build trails on public lands, you need to be willing to build trails the public can use. Not just trails for a small hard core group. I have no problem building trails that less skilled riders can use, especially if it allows me to build some harder trails. It seems you would only be happy if every rider with less skill than yourself was excluded from mountain biking.
> 
> Want to build trails only per your own desire. Buy land and build them.
> 
> <edit for grammer>


That's not what I was saying, but you seem to have taken it that way. I typed it a bit fast and probably didn't come across very clearly...or may I did.

What I was meaning to say was that I do not think that trails should be dumbed down. I was not some hardcore member of some hardcore group when I started, and nor was anyone else. ( I honestly don't know what I said in my post that represents me as hardcore in the least) But I and every single person I knew... (guys and girls) was absolutely stoked to ride wherever we could, and we sure as $hit weren't complaining about the trail or the logs or the gradient or whatever. Nobody did. Not one person that I can remember back through the 90's and up until this sanitization wave came about, was complaining about trail features.

I couldn't hop a 2 foot log when I started. But I didn't loath that it was there. The features of the trail were the features of the trail.

I wouldn't be as you say "happy if every rider with less skill than myself was excluded from mountain biking" and that statement is a bit far reaching...to left field. I would be happy if those with less skill did the SAME thing that I and countless people before them have done, and that's to earn it. To work at it.

My initial post wasn't meant as a jab at you, so I'm sorry if it came across that way.

*I want to edit to add, that as I am sitting and thinking about it, the only complaints that I notice people have are that the trails are getting too bland. That they're becoming sidewalks. That they feel the same wherever you go....not that trails are too hard or advanced. People tend to sit in awe of harder trails, with a yearning respect. You don't complain about that. (well, maybe people do in secret)


----------



## cerebroside (Jun 25, 2011)

I find a lot of people complain pretty loudly about 'dumbing down' trails, but the easy trails get *a lot* more riders (anecdotally >10x on stuff I've been working on).


----------



## DaveVt (Jun 13, 2005)

cerebroside said:


> I find a lot of people complain pretty loudly about 'dumbing down' trails, but the easy trails get *a lot* more riders (anecdotally >10x on stuff I've been working on).


Ah, the new demographic. And they're all stoked on the 7000 dollar bikes.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

I think more people these days expect to be able to ride 100% of a trail fight off the bat and never have to get off their bikes. BITD, you expected to have to walk a few sections here and there, and appreciated the feeling of advancing your skills to the level it took to finally clear everything. Now it seems like a lot of people not only can't fathom putting a foot down for anything, they don't even want to have to lift their asses off the saddle in case they mess up their cadence or some BS.

I blame 29ers (or at least the mindset that led to them).


----------



## bankerboy (Oct 17, 2006)

The biggest culprit here in San Diego is the city regulations. As the ever increasing population finds new recreational outlets, we are limited to multi-use trails in city and county maintained open spaces. For the longest time a multi-use trail was defined as an 8 foot wide DG sidewalk. 

Only in the recent years after much lobbying and communication with the city have they begun to alter that definition. Now a multi-use trail can be 36 inches wide. Still not a single track to a purist but it is far superior to what used to be. Besides, in a season or two the brush tends to push in a bit and narrow it down just dandy. A big plus of that is we are able to incorporate natural terrain including rock gardens, narrow bench trails, and sustainable climbs. 

Here, the mindset of “I can build for myself” still exists but it is only in unauthorized trails. Problem we are having is less and less land is available to build on. The Wild West days of trail building are fading. Mountain biking has become mainstream and there is nothing that will change that. There is still room for the difficult trail but don’t be too surprised when it gets changed to please the casual rider. It happens all the time here.

One idea that has been floated is the multiple line trails where there is the progressive line and the “P” line. Again, due to land constraints, that is not a feasible option. We look for ways to add interest to the trail. Think trail side rock/log rolls. Simple rock drops or rock gardens with options. That seems to keep all level of riders who use those trails happy. We still see pissing wars over a rock and whether it should stay or go – there one day, gone the next, and replaced again, only to be moved once more.

You are doomed to failure if you try to please everyone. We just work with the masses and it tends to sort itself out in a short time. We are happy we get to have a say in what and where we build.


----------



## iceboxsteve (Feb 22, 2012)

DaveVt said:


> Ah, the new demographic. And they're all stoked on the 7000 dollar bikes.


Money makes the world go round. Or something like that.

Trails are simple roads. If you live in a rural place and no one drives there, you could live on a gravel road. But the interstate needs to handle magnitudes more vehicle passes.

One is more heavily designed and expensive.

More people, more passes, more...(money in the industry's pockets?)


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

jochribs said:


> Trails were what they were. Honestly, they were a whole lot more difficult than they are now for the most part.


I don't know about you but the trails I started riding on were built long before anyone ever heard of a mountain bike, and a lot of sections really weren't so much "built" as they were just cut and worn from horse, hiker and deer traffic. Old multi use trails like these are still my favorite but I could see where building one from scratch specifically for mountain bikes is a different sort of deal.


----------



## jochribs (Nov 12, 2009)

J.B. Weld said:


> I don't know about you but the trails I started riding on were built long before anyone ever heard of a mountain bike, and a lot of sections really weren't so much "built" as they were just cut and worn from horse, hiker and deer traffic. Old multi use trails like these are still my favorite but I could see where building one from scratch specifically for mountain bikes is a different sort of deal.


This is a good point JB, that the trails we all cut our teeth on started differently. They can still be built like that without being overshaped and overworked. My feeling is it doesn't need to be a built to roll like a skatepark because it is built specifically for mountain bikes. It kinda takes the purpose out of it being a mountain bike at that point.


----------



## Boris Badenov (May 31, 2015)

bankerboy said:


> You are doomed to failure if you try to please everyone. We just work with the masses and it tends to sort itself out in a short time. We are happy we get to have a say in what and where we build.


I am the first person employed by A.C.E. in 2004. Prior to that, I was the first person employed by the other Conservation Corps in Arizona. In between, I was hired by the Forest Service to use RTP funds to do trail maintenance with a small crew. Plus a few thousand hours of doing trail work on my own.

Here is what I've learned;

I was a able to design and organize an Americorp funded crew to build a five mile trail in a county park in 1999, for the sum of $300, which I used to buy a pole saw and some loppers. Most of the tool we had were donated by another Conservation Corps, located in San Diego. So you can spend a lot of cash or you can be creative and spend very little cash to build trails.

I would chose to move to a different state, if the state I was living in was out of touch with the mountain biking community. I use to travel the U.S. in the fall to see how others built trails. I arrived at Kettle Morraine (state park?) in Wisconsin and was required to pay to park our car. Then we were required to pay for each person to ride the trails, which were one-way trails. Then they charged an excessive fee to camp, as well. It was a beautiful state, but I would prefer to live in the southwest or in Oregon, if I wanted to ride the best trails I have seen and avoid the high cost riders are asked to pay in other states.

I have come to where I disregard anything someone says, when they begin by using the word sanitized. They will always tell you about the good old days or earning the privilege to ride. They don't seem to understand those trails in the late 80's and early 90's, were just game trails and hiking trails, and were not designed for multi-use. They were not fun. And yes, most of us did complain, a lot. If we wanted to hike, we would leave our bikes in the garage and strap on our hiking shoes. I realize you will assume I am a beginner rider with no technical skills. My wife and I are expert riders who have taken on the most extreme trails in North America. We have many broken bones and surgeries to document our years of riding.

Back to the OP. There are ways to keep costs down. Mountain bikers make the best trails for mountain bikers. They often are willing to work for free, if they have input. Land managers are reluctant to use an adopt-a-trail program, but it can provide routine maintenance for free. For all of you people who play by the rules, you must know some riders who don't. In my experience, rogue builders are an essential part of the equation. They are like special forces, a seal team six of trail builders. They can be highly skilled and know how to build the best trails. When they plan a trail well, it can have a 90% chance of becoming adopted into a trail system by local land managers. Half the trails in Sedona were built by riders and are now system trails.

If you have an objective, and you are willing to attend boring meetings, beg for funding, seek out volunteers, ask local businesses for donations, convince the local newspaper to run an article to generate support, give a lot of your time, and get to know the local wildcat trail builders, you can succeed in accomplishing your mission.

Or you can get on the internet and complain on a public forum.


----------



## DaveVt (Jun 13, 2005)

Boris Badenov said:


> Or you can get on the internet and complain on a public forum.


You can Volunteer, be a rogue trail Ninja, skip the boring meetings and commoditization of your church.......AND get on the internet and complain.  
I think we see a pretty mixed response here. The interesting thing you mentioned is local will help if they are given some control. That's why volunteers stopped showing up in my corner of the world. I think it's why We've fostered a healthy little rogue scene in my immediate surroundings lately. Let the folks who show up make some decisions, even it I think they are "Mistakes" and let everyone learn as they go. Only works if the trails are not part of a marketed resource.
I appreciate your response.


----------



## jochribs (Nov 12, 2009)

Boris Badenov said:


> I have come to where I disregard anything someone says, when they begin by using the word sanitized. They will always tell you about the good old days or earning the privilege to ride. They don't seem to understand those trails in the late 80's and early 90's, were just game trails and hiking trails, and were not designed for multi-use. They were not fun. And yes, most of us did complain, a lot. If we wanted to hike, we would leave our bikes in the garage and strap on our hiking shoes. I realize you will assume I am a beginner rider with no technical skills. My wife and I are expert riders who have taken on the most extreme trails in North America. We have many broken bones and surgeries to document our years of riding.


Those trails not being fun to you is rather subjective. Also, who knows what the trails that you were talking about were actually like...maybe they indeed sucked, I kind of doubt it though. The best trails in my area started that way, and subsequently the builders also built/expanded upon in that style. They didn't and don't feel manufactured. They were rogue. This was happening before the sanitization style became chic, yet they are some of the most sustainable trails that I can think of. Ironically/uncannily, the trails that are being linked to these same trails now are flowing with bleach.

Maybe our ideas of sanitization are different, although I kind of doubt it since it seems that it's the same playbook that's being used. I could be wrong though.


----------



## indytrekracer (Feb 13, 2004)

It still seems like sour grapes to me. So some mountain bikers like trails that are different from what you like. They put in a lot of effort to building trails that they like. Lots of people ride and enjoy theses trails. 

Rather than be happy about more people mountain biking, some riders gnaw their teeth and complain to anyone who will listen. It seems like many are selfish and just don't want to share mountain biking with anyone they don't view as worthy.


----------



## jochribs (Nov 12, 2009)

indytrekracer said:


> It still seems like sour grapes to me. So some mountain bikers like trails that are different from what you like. They put in a lot of effort to building trails that they like. Lots of people ride and enjoy theses trails.
> 
> Rather than be happy about more people mountain biking, some riders gnaw their teeth and complain to anyone who will listen. It seems like many are selfish and just don't want to share mountain biking with anyone they don't view as worthy.


Sour grapes? My comment wasn't personal about you, or anyone for that matter, but you seem to be getting personal towards me. This is a venue to talk about this and express a feeling that up until about two weeks ago, I hadn't really been very open about. I'm sorry that my opinion doesn't jive with your style of trail...that seems to be taking over just about every trail system out there. THAT is why I am expressing this...It's becoming all encompassing. I don't have a problem with flow. I don't have a problem with incredibly easy. I do have a problem when it appears to be becoming the rule, rather than a kept-in-check option/variant.

The sour grapes accusation can go two ways. It could be said that you might be considered sour grapes judging by your dismissive 'too bad' sort of return comment because what you apparently prefer has been challenged.

My wife, and 8 year old son were initially more vocal about this issue than I am being now. And that says something. If a woman who still gets off of her bike to portage over certain features that she damn well could do (since the 90's mind you) says that it seems like over the past number of years all the trails around us seem to be becoming the same with slightly different scenery...and thinks that _*sucks*_...there is something notable to be said.

If my 8 year old riding on a rigid 20" would rather ride our local rocky trails and loathes some of the new reroutes at the same place which are basically just a series of rollers...again there is something notable to be said.

And that's THEM saying that, not me. Nor am I coaching them. These comments started coming from them as a result of me getting my son out there to ride and both my wife and son not feeling this new trail vision. At that point, I understood what they were saying, as both my wife and I have been riding for quite some time, and have the time in the sport to know the change. And while my son hasn't, he was communicating the style of features that he thought got really redundant.

My wife and son aren't HARDCORE. We are normal people. Well, maybe my son is, he pretty much rips at whatever he feels like doing. Sponsored snowboarder for three years now, but I digress. And a super humble, soft spoken kid to boot. And yet, he thinks the pump track should be _at the pumptrack_ not linking miles upon miles of trails.

Again, we are pretty normal. And I think our opinion is pretty valid, and to call it 'sour grapes' and just dismiss it wholesale like you have is straight up childish and bunk. As is your accusation that I somehow don't want to share mountain biking with anyone that doesn't have my view. You keep saying that, despite there being no support to it, and the fact that you yourself could be conversely accused of not wanting anyone to have a riding experience that differs from what you want to build, based upon your flippant disregard. Again, that two way street thing...

I'm glad that you're in charge of building, seems like you value others opinions greatly when they differ from yours.


----------



## indytrekracer (Feb 13, 2004)

Jochribs

My sour grapes comment wasn't specifically aimed at you. It is in reference the general griping that happens any time a trail is built that isn't deemed hard core enough.

Based on your comments I suspect you and I like very similar trails. The trails I like best are too hard for 80% of mountain bikers.

I also started riding before there were purpose built mtb trails. Trails back then didn't have any specific difficulty rating. They were just trails. Many trails had lots of easy sections with random hard sections (typically caused by erosion). I was fine with the idea of learning the hard way how to ride technical sections and don't mind long hike a bikes.

I have listened to other riders a lot over the years. And I had to come to the realization that most people aren't like me. Not everyone wants to have to learn the hard way. Many want to be able to ride on a true beginner trail and get comfortable with the basics of riding before attempted harder trails.

Not everyone is a competitive as me. There are many riders who don't feel the need to be able to ride expert level trails. They are very happy to ride easier trails. I originally though everyone would want be able to ride difficult trails. Some riders just want to get outside and exercise.

You are entitled to your opinion of what is or isn't a good trail. But so are those who like easier trails. When we build beginner and intermediate level trails, the number of riders on those trails is 10x or more the numbers of those would ride the expert and above rated trails.

The frustration I have is that when we build a trail that isn't an expert level trail, we see lots of people riding it and having a great time. Some of those riders may progress as riders and move up to harder trails, others may be content to just ride the easier trails. At the end of the day there are a lot of people enjoying mountain biking and the increase number of riders helps with the advocacy side of things.

But there always seems to a peanut gallery of riders who have to throw jambs at any trail below their riding ability. They throw out "sanitation", criticize bikes that cost too much, mock less skilled riders, or attack the cost of building easier trails, etc..... If they would just be honest and say they don't like that style of trail, that would be fine.

In respect to the following comment you made



> If my 8 year old riding on a rigid 20" would rather ride our local rocky trails and loathes some of the new reroutes at the same place which are basically just a series of rollers...again there is something notable to be said.


As someone who does listen to all mountain bikers, I have heard the opposite from other riders. There are many riders who love "F"lowy trails. So if some riders love "F"lowy trails and some love narrow,rocky,gnarly trails, who is right? The answer is that they are both right. We need Flowy trails we need gnarly trails.


----------



## Boris Badenov (May 31, 2015)

My wife, and two other riding buddies drove to a bike festival Saturday and joined a group ride of 30 others. It was a particularly strong group of riders. 35 miles and 3700 feet of climbing. It started off on superbly designed and built single track. Then a steep climb on a forest road. Then a very steep decent on a social trail built by motorcycles. I joked about the over/under on how many riders would crash on that section. It had 30 percent slopes that were loose and full of rocks, large and small. You had to maintain control while letting off the brakes to make turns, and you had to handle a lot of tree branches grabbing at you most of the way. Most of us made it. Some crashed. A couple cut their tires and we had to wait for repairs. It was a trail local experts take people on, as part of an epic route. Fine. It could not be ridden uphill. It is sort of a connector trail that one day will get worked on. It will go from a steep three mile trail to a 4-5 mile trail that can be ridden up or down and isn't rutted out and full of loose rocks. You can be certain that 98% of riders will celebrate the new improved trail. You can be just as certain that the other 2% will curse the day it was altered and sanitized. 

If someone has an eight year old son who has been a sponsored snow boarder for three years, and that boy is expressing his preference to riding more technical trails than others are riding, and you think the rest of us, and the trail building community should pay particular attention to this boy's concerns, you are living in a fantasy world. Nobody anywhere should be building trails to meet the needs of an eight year old child. And sorry, but yes, you have coached him into developing the same negative attitude as his father. 

It's been repeated over and over again. There is 2% of riders out there that are always going to complain. Mostly about trails being sanitized and not challenging enough. They curse those who enjoy those trails and suggest they are too lazy to learn how to ride technical challenges. They assume others cannot ride technical challenges, only they can. They are fully aware of the numbers. It doesn't matter if 98 out of 100 riders love a trail, those last two riders feel their needs should be addressed no matter what the cost to the majority of other riders. It's not just sour grapes. It's feeling a sense of privilege. The 2%ers demand to be heard. They are ever present on internet forums, telling stories, maybe even bringing their wives and young son into the mix, thinking if we won't listen to them (again), maybe we will listen to an eight year old kid who has been listening to his dad complain for years and has now decided it's easiest to go along with pops.

This is about trail building and advocacy and the high cost some pay to ride. It's not about the old days of hiking your bike over trails built for hiking, that had steps and countless sections not suited for riding over. Some like to think of those days as special and want more trails like that. It's not going to happen unless you own a lot of land and build a trail on it that requires you to walk your bike.


----------



## jochribs (Nov 12, 2009)

indytrekracer said:


> Jochribs
> 
> My sour grapes comment wasn't specifically aimed at you. It is in reference the general griping that happens any time a trail is built that isn't deemed hard core enough.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the response Indy, and yeah, it does sound like we like the same sort of trails.

What is the term sanitized trail describing? To me, it's when every bit of it feels like it has been manufactured. Rollers, berms, heavy benching. And that's where it feels like you could be at any trail, anywhere, save for the background. Like going to a Starbucks in a different state, on the other side of the country. It removes the 'personality' of the locale.

I get the need for easier trails. I just don't get the need for them to be so flowed out. Does a trail have to be flowy to be easy? I personally don't think so.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Boris Badenov said:


> It's been repeated over and over again. There is 2% of riders out there that are always going to complain.


Where exactly are you pulling this "2%" number from? 
Last I checked, repetition doesn't equal fact.

And I wonder, assuming your theory has any validity, when the complaining 2% whined about how the trails were too tough and needed to be made more like dirt sidewalks BITD, were you part of whining 2% group then? Sounds like it (still doing it actually). But now that the many of the newer trails are being built just the way YOU like them, everyone else needs to pipe down right?

Pot meet kettle.


----------



## DaveVt (Jun 13, 2005)

slapheadmofo said:


> where exactly are you pulling this "2%" number from?
> Last i checked, repetition doesn't equal fact.
> 
> And i wonder, assuming your theory has any validity, when the complaining 2% whined about how the trails were too tough and needed to be made more like dirt sidewalks bitd, were you part of whining 2% group then? Sounds like it (still doing it actually). But now that the many of the newer trails are being built just the way you like them, everyone else needs to pipe down right?
> ...


qft.


----------



## jochribs (Nov 12, 2009)

DaveVt said:


> qft.


Ha! I had to look that up. Man, I'm bad with all the acronyms...


----------



## indytrekracer (Feb 13, 2004)

jochribs said:


> Thanks for the response Indy, and yeah, it does sound like we like the same sort of trails.
> 
> What is the term sanitized trail describing? To me, it's when every bit of it feels like it has been manufactured. Rollers, berms, heavy benching. And that's where it feels like you could be at any trail, anywhere, save for the background. Like going to a Starbucks in a different state, on the other side of the country. It removes the 'personality' of the locale.
> 
> I get the need for easier trails. I just don't get the need for them to be so flowed out. Does a trail have to be flowy to be easy? I personally don't think so.


For me sanitizing is when riders who are not authorized remove features from trails. If a trail is designed to be a beginner trail, it isn't sanitized, it is built to the intended difficulty level.

I like to see a wide diversity of trails and I like for trails to highlight the natural features and spirit of where they are built. Trial Difficulty and Flow are two different things. A "F"low trail can be built to anything from easy to very hard. And trails that have a slower tighter flow can also be easy to very hard.

Within a trail system the builders can build a wide variety by varying flow and difficulty. If they are highlighting the natural features of the area, they can also differentiate the whole trail system from others around the country.

As riders we can also work to increase the variety of trails that we enjoy. If you are locked into one particular type of trail, then your going to have less trails to choose from. I tend to like a wide variety of trails. So I have lots of trails to choose from. There are trails that I don't particularly like, but it seems the locals do like them, so I just ride other trails.

The important thing to understand is that the trails built today (legitimately on public land) have likely been planned for years. If you are concerned about the long term plan for a given area, you need to be involved now. If a flow trail is built, and you want to see other styles of trail, get involved. Some times it helps to be involved and volunteer to build trails that aren't what you want, so that you can get to build the trails you want to see.

The big risk for advanced riders is that they check out because easier trails are built. If you leave intermediate riders to develop the master plan and build the trails, then why would you expect them to build hard trails.


----------



## Boris Badenov (May 31, 2015)

slapheadmofo said:


> Where exactly are you pulling this "2%" number from?
> Last I checked, repetition doesn't equal fact.
> 
> And I wonder, assuming your theory has any validity, when the complaining 2% whined about how the trails were too tough and needed to be made more like dirt sidewalks BITD, were you part of whining 2% group then? Sounds like it (still doing it actually). But now that the many of the newer trails are being built just the way YOU like them, everyone else needs to pipe down right?
> ...


During the 20 years I spent building trails, the crews visited with every trail user that came by. We'd get 100% support from trail runners, hikers, equestrians, and from 98% of mountain bikers. Yet the 2% were quite vocal in stating it didn't matter to them how many others enjoyed the trails, they did not approve of them. They vandalized the trail signs, refused to show up when given the opportunity to build difficult braids, and seem to prefer to spend their time on MTBR complaining, or at the local riders bar, telling stories about how they could clean even the most difficult trails on the mountain. Sound familiar to you?

I'm not sure you've ever built any trails. You'd know that the two percenters are the self-proclaimed elite. The guys who strap on lobster gear so they can prove how bad they are. Riders less skilled at technical riding have never been 2%. I doubt they have ever been less than 80%.

Your reading comprehension is about where mine was before I took summer school when I was 15. I'm defend people's right to pick their lines, even when a local rider calls them all complete losers for riding two feet left of the most rocky line up a hill. It doesn't mean I can't or don't ride very technical trails. I do, and so do all of my riding friends. Blood is spilled on most rides.

I'm winding down my years of serving others, and spending more time riding. I tend to ignore folks like you, and for good reason. In the same way guys like you lament the growth of trail building that isn't extreme enough for you, guys like me recall the early days when we rode out in the woods because it was great to ride out in the woods. We didn't need to jump stuff and film ourselves getting big air. A generation of newer riders has made the experience a lot less enjoyable. They love to be loud and aggressive. Like you, they drive really powerful, fast cars or big lifted trucks. They also ride motorcycles, really really fast. Like you, they drive 95mph, as you claimed you do, poach illegal trails, as you claimed you do, raise kids to be exactly like them, and say they "own it", as if that forgives their behavior on the trails or on the highways. I'm thankful there are several thousand miles between you and me. You are never going to be a problem for me or others I ride with.

I'll give you the last word and refrain from any further comments.


----------



## jochribs (Nov 12, 2009)

Your entire post is so far off base, that it's


Boris Badenov said:


> My wife, and two other riding buddies drove to a bike festival Saturday and joined a group ride of 30 others. It was a particularly strong group of riders. 35 miles and 3700 feet of climbing. It started off on superbly designed and built single track. Then a steep climb on a forest road. Then a very steep decent on a social trail built by motorcycles. I joked about the over/under on how many riders would crash on that section. It had 30 percent slopes that were loose and full of rocks, large and small. You had to maintain control while letting off the brakes to make turns, and you had to handle a lot of tree branches grabbing at you most of the way. Most of us made it. Some crashed. A couple cut their tires and we had to wait for repairs. It was a trail local experts take people on, as part of an epic route. Fine. It could not be ridden uphill. It is sort of a connector trail that one day will get worked on. It will go from a steep three mile trail to a 4-5 mile trail that can be ridden up or down and isn't rutted out and full of loose rocks. You can be certain that 98% of riders will celebrate the new improved trail. You can be just as certain that the other 2% will curse the day it was altered and sanitized.


Ugh, great exaggerated example there Boris. I see what you did there. Unlike my lowly and non valid 8 year old son, and non hardcore riding wife, who ironically like natural trails, you're the orchid that prefers the softer side of things...despite you being 
a throbbing stud who can handle a real rough one. Golf clap every one.
Boris is the yin to our yang. Bravo.



Boris Badenov said:


> If someone has an eight year old son who has been a sponsored snow boarder for three years, and that boy is expressing his preference to riding more technical trails than others are riding,


That someone would be me. And I'm damned proud...more than I can articulate.

But Boris, where'd you learn to address another man by indirectly referring to them as "someone", while flinging spineless jabs and insults at them. It's weak...and telling. (in lieu of more colorfully descriptive detailing of your mettle, or obvious lack thereof.)



Boris Badenov said:


> and you think the rest of us, and the trail building community should pay particular attention to this boy's concerns, you are living in a fantasy world. Nobody anywhere should be building trails to meet the needs of an eight year old child.


Nope, don't think you should pay 'particular attention' to _*my*_ 8 year old son. For one, he's a bit shy with that sort of stuff. And I hate to tell you to see how that shoe of yours tastes, but apparently, more and more trails are being built to meet the needs of eight year olds...just not mine. But more importantly, bringing up my sons tastes and distastes was quite simply to use an example of how NOT EVERYONE thinks how these trails are being built is the cats ass. And I think it pretty notable that if an 8 year old thinks it's redundant...it might just be a bit played out. An 8 year old who is free to think for himself. Twist that all you want. Take a flying leap while your at it.



Boris Badenov said:


> And sorry, but yes, you have coached him into developing the same negative attitude as his father.


No, I said I didn't coach him. That means that I did not coach him. Taking my words and attempting to make a fool liar of me only makes you look like a fool. I take him out to ride, and I listen to what he wants to do, and why. You have kids Boris?? Anyone with kids can attest that by the time they are 8 years old, they are becoming pretty fantastic little beings. Constantly surprising you with opinions and thought processes that you didn't know were going on in their little expanding heads. The fact that you can't fathom that an 8 year old kid can develop what they like our dislike without "the negative attitude of their father" proves that you are pretty out of touch. Maybe wherever it is that you are, you hand the tools to someone else that doesn't have his jaded fingers jammed into his ears, while saying liar liar, pants on fire. What are you Boris? 17? I mean, come on... Your style of trying to discredit another's view point is seriously spineless.



Boris Badenov said:


> It's been repeated over and over again. There is 2% of riders out there that are always going to complain. Mostly about trails being sanitized and not challenging enough. They curse those who enjoy those trails and suggest they are too lazy to learn how to ride technical challenges. They assume others cannot ride technical challenges, only they can. They are fully aware of the numbers. It doesn't matter if 98 out of 100 riders love a trail, those last two riders feel their needs should be addressed no matter what the cost to the majority of other riders. It's not just sour grapes. It's feeling a sense of privilege. The 2%ers demand to be heard. They are ever present on internet forums, telling stories, maybe even bringing their wives and young son into the mix, thinking if we won't listen to them (again), maybe we will listen to an eight year old kid who has been listening to his dad complain for years and has now decided it's easiest to go along with pops.


It's been repeated over and over again? Well I'm not exactly a mathematician (and even less so you, I'd wager), but I'd say that given the fact that I have not until recently even breathed a word of what I've been saying...and that "it's been repeated over and over again" that maybe there are others out there that are also saying these things???? Could it be, Boris? Could your 2% number be a total load? I think the only thing that your 98/2% song correlates to is you and your methane to excrement volume. I figure you don't smoke. But maybe you should light up... see what happens.



Boris Badenov said:


> This is about trail building and advocacy and the high cost some pay to ride. It's not about the old days of hiking your bike over trails built for hiking, that had steps and countless sections not suited for riding over. Some like to think of those days as special and want more trails like that. It's not going to happen unless you own a lot of land and build a trail on it that requires you to walk your bike.


Is that what you are arguing?? You think that I and any of the others in this thread have been yammering and hankering for hike a bike trails? It seems more likely that you are being obtuse for the sake of argument. There is a big difference between trails that you can't ride, with over the top tech, or gradient or what have you...and the glorified pump track trails that are being laid down more and more. There _was_ an in-between, and that's what I and the number of others in this thread have been talking about. That in-between needs to be gotten back in touch with. Either you have terrible reading comprehension, or you just like to twist other peoples words for the pure sake of it, and thus making an irrelevant argument based on fraudulently accusing others of being negative liars. And with reception like this, you wonder why more don't speak up to say they don't love these trails? Tons are reading this right now. But seeing these heavy handed attempts to smack any dissenters down, I guarantee that they won't want to bother.

You've a mouth like an excrement filled razor factory, and a head filled with preconceived notions about others reasons for speaking. And *you* call other people negative??


----------



## jochribs (Nov 12, 2009)

Boris Badenov said:


> During the 20 years I spent building trails, the crews visited with every trail user that came by. We'd get 100% support from trail runners, hikers, equestrians, and from 98% of mountain bikers. Yet the 2% were quite vocal in stating it didn't matter to them how many others enjoyed the trails, they did not approve of them. They vandalized the trail signs, refused to show up when given the opportunity to build difficult braids, and seem to prefer to spend their time on MTBR complaining, or at the local riders bar, telling stories about how they could clean even the most difficult trails on the mountain. Sound familiar to you?
> 
> I'm not sure you've ever built any trails. You'd know that the two percenters are the self-proclaimed elite. The guys who strap on lobster gear so they can prove how bad they are. Riders less skilled at technical riding have never been 2%. I doubt they have ever been less than 80%.
> 
> ...


This entire post proves that you are fighting an argument that isn't even what's being spoken about. No one is asking for what you are talking about. And no one is bragging about cleaning this gnar tech or that gnar tech. My family doesn't even wear gloves for godsake. Let alone lobster gear. The g-damned horror.

You've made this a fight about people asking for free-ride glory when IN REALITY Boris, we are just saying e-fudging-nuff, with the g-damned flow already. That doesn't mean that we only want unsustainable gnar. Yet that's the argument that keeps being tossed back in our faces...almost like it's a purposeful tactic to discredit anyone that doesn't want flow every fricking where. It's like, "let's see...someone is saying they don't like the over manufactured flow trails...let's accuse them of wanting to huck cliffs, ride straight down fall line trails that are eroded to all hell, and expect 20 foot doubles on every trail in the region! Yeah, that'll shut em up!"

This post of yours illustrates just how out of touch and poor 'your' reading comprehension is, not Slapheads.

And funny how you insult Slapheads intelligence saying he's is that of a 15 year old. Ironic, because your method of addressing others is on par with that age. 
Do you talk this disrespectful way when you're around other men Boris? I highly doubt it.

Please do keep your promise and take a hike. I feel there could be a productive discussion without your arrogance arguing about things no one is saying.


----------



## jochribs (Nov 12, 2009)

To everyone else in this thread, sorry I went off a bit there. It's not exactly where I was meaning to go and hope that this discussion can be had in a relevant and respectful way, because I think that there are a whole lot more than 2% of voices that want to respectfully voice their opinion about how trails are being built. 

Sorry again everyone.

Except Boris...just kidding Boris, I'll send you a pink frosted cup cake.


----------



## Walt Dizzy (Aug 18, 2003)

My $0.12 only:

Building machine constructed "flow" trail isn't a choice, it's a necessity. I don't have enough of my own time, or enough volunteer time to fix everything wrong with the trail I manage. The park service decided the trails they refused to let us fix were getting in bad shape, and proposed closing them down to deal with it. I proposed a program of machine work to get the job done, and they agreed to keep the affected trail open.

Maybe it's my fault for not trying harder, but I'm in the position that every single one of the people who complain they want to keep the trail old school never come to my work days, along with most other trail users. 

I'm aiming for half-and-half, machine-built vs hand built as my final product. If I can keep going until I'm 70, I might get it done.

In the mean time, most of the riders say they like the new machine built trail. The ones who don't will have a different trail available in the park. I mostly ignore the negativity and keep at it the best I can.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Boris Badenov said:


> I'll give you the last word


Blowhard


----------



## bpressnall (Aug 25, 2006)

You folks with expensive machine built trails should consider yourself lucky. All our trails are cheap hand built trails full of icky rocks. This crappy trail, for example, can't be sanitized and will never compare with those nice flowy trails. Unfortunately we have to tolerate miles of this stuff. This is my first attempt ever at posting a video, so hope it works:


----------



## drew p (Jan 20, 2012)

You are the lucky one buddy. =] When are you gonna come visit my expensive machine built flow trail?


----------



## bpressnall (Aug 25, 2006)

drew p said:


> You are the lucky one buddy. =] When are you gonna come visit my expensive machine built flow trail?


Hi Drew, I've been busy working, if you get my drift, but I will get down there. I hear a lot of good reports about it and I have ridden it virtually on youtube. Darn skiing might start interfering, also.


----------



## dman_mb1 (Jan 19, 2007)

Hmm, I'm OK with a more sanitized trail and/or more $/mile build cost if it helps make a trail that drains well and has a more durable tread, requiring less maintenance and lets it be ridden more during the rainy season. And, in some cases, if it makes the trail more suitable for less experienced or less fit riders, for example by reducing grades. But I do question a trail style that encourages faster downhill riding. I don't think that's a good thing for multi-use trails on public land. Not good for public perception from hikers, not good for other riders when they're grinding UP the trail, and not good for riders want to challenge and develop their technical skills and not just rail berms at speed.


----------



## voon (Nov 10, 2016)

I'm not sure about what creating a trail costs. But creating and maintaining them does cost money ... the only question is, where does it come from. here in (small) Switzerland, where everything accessible is full of trails and forest roads, maintenance and building falls to the cantones (states). So everything we have as trail is paid by taxes automatically. There aren't any longer trails in private hands or so. There's also no "wild terrain, devoid of control and people, where constant use just has naturally created a trail" ... with the exception of often used, small shortcuts between trails of just a few hundred meter length at best.

How does the US handle this?


----------



## BonkedAgain (Aug 23, 2005)

voon said:


> How does the US handle this?


It depends on where you live. Out west, where I live, many trails are on federal (national) lands, so they are managed by the federal government. However, in the US, unless tax dollars help make someone rich (like the defense industry, or prescription drugs, for example) our government is reluctant to spend tax money. That means that very little construction or maintenance is done by the federal government. Volunteer groups typically drive construction and maintenance. For smaller projects volunteer labor is often used, but for larger projects professional (paid) trail builders are used to do most of the work. How that money is raised varies with each region. Often grant money from government agencies or from charitable foundations is used. Sometimes a local volunteer group has enough visibility and supporters that they can raise enough money to fund the effort.


----------



## bpressnall (Aug 25, 2006)

Good point. Each type of trail has it's appropriate place. In California, I only know of two true "Flow Trails" in the entire state. Not exactly a big worry that all trails will become generic. I know both of the guys that developed those two trails, and I can assure you they like knarly trails also.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

I get pretty sick of people complaining about how hardcore everything used to be. You can make all kinds of trails, even the sanitized ones, much harder by ditching some modern bike tech and riding them on a rigid bike. Yet the same people I hear complaining are on 6" travel trail bikes with dropper posts. Well, yeah, lots of stuff feels easy on what we'd all have considered a full on DH bike 20 years ago. If you want challenge, stop using so many damn crutches!

There are still old fall line hiking trails to ride all over the place. They tend to be deserted, too. Go at it. 

-Walt


----------



## cerebroside (Jun 25, 2011)

Walt said:


> I get pretty sick of people complaining about how hardcore everything used to be. You can make all kinds of trails, even the sanitized ones, much harder by ditching some modern bike tech and riding them on a rigid bike. Yet the same people I hear complaining are on 6" travel trail bikes with dropper posts. Well, yeah, lots of stuff feels easy on what we'd all have considered a full on DH bike 20 years ago. If you want challenge, stop using so many damn crutches!
> 
> There are still old fall line hiking trails to ride all over the place. They tend to be deserted, too. Go at it.
> 
> -Walt


Uh, isn't the logical conclusion of this argument that MTB trails shouldn't exist? Riding a unicycle on a flat gravel road is probably pretty challenging, why use the technological crutch of having more than one wheel...


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

If you like that level of challenge, sure. My point was that if you want to complain that things aren't challenging enough, while simultaneously purchasing expensive equipment that makes said activity much easier, maybe you need to example both the numerator and the denominator instead of just blaming one.

Actually riding a uni on flat dirt/gravel roads is not very hard. Just tiring. FWIW. MUNI is actually quite a bit more capable on ultra tech (albeit slower) than mountain biking if you're really good at it. 

-Walt


----------



## cerebroside (Jun 25, 2011)

Walt said:


> If you like that level of challenge, sure. My point was that if you want to complain that things aren't challenging enough, while simultaneously purchasing expensive equipment that makes said activity much easier, maybe you need to example both the numerator and the denominator instead of just blaming one.
> 
> Actually riding a uni on flat dirt/gravel roads is not very hard. Just tiring. FWIW. MUNI is actually quite a bit more capable on ultra tech (albeit slower) than mountain biking if you're really good at it.
> 
> -Walt


Interesting, I've never actually ridden a unicycle. What I was trying to get at though is that it isn't all about the challenge. Sure, riding something at the bike park on a park bike might be comparable in difficulty to riding a hardtail on some flowy trails, but the experience is pretty different.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

Ok, well, the earlier posts (and a common refrain among mountain bikers) is that trails are being "sanitized" and that everything is too easy these days. My response was only about that, not about the subjective experience - which is probably mostly being altered simply by there being a LOT more mountain bikers on most trail systems than there were 30 years ago, rather than some fundamental change to the trails. 

The thing is, all those old trails you used to love are (mostly) still there. You can still go ride them. Some of them got gnarlier! AND you can go ride flowier bike-specific stuff if you so choose. 

I have a very adventurous old-school trail system right out my back door on which you can ride singletrack for 30+ miles and never see a soul. Now, you'll be pushing your bike some, and you'll lose lots of elevation on fall-line scree that you have to get back with... more pushing. But it's exactly the kind of riding people say they miss from the good old days.

I have never seen a person on that trail system on a bike unless they were with me. The other trail system out my door (separated by literally only 2 miles) has hundreds of people on it on any given weekend day and has super flowy fun downhills and grades designed to be rideable on a bike even by people with only mediocre fitness. 

I ride the old school gnar a couple times a year. I ride the flowy purpose built stuff a couple times a week. And I'm about as crusty a veteran as you can imagine.

If you were a land manager, where would you put your resources?

-Walt


----------



## cerebroside (Jun 25, 2011)

I don't disagree at all. I'd say I ride flow stuff about 2:1 compared to technical stuff, and the really oldschool stuff only a handful of times a year. Definitely a lot more riders on the flow stuff, as I mentioned earlier.

On the other hand, if the only new builds we were allowed to do were green/blue rated flow trails I would be pretty irritated, so I understand where people are coming from when they complain.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

I don't know, I think gnar trails are _allowed_ to be built all over. I've been involved with a ton of trail planning and construction over the years, and as long as it can be handled by the users (meaning all users, not just bikes) and maintained, most of the time anything goes. ADA guideline trails are obviously a different case but I don't think that's what we're talking about here. 

There just are MANY fewer riders who want to ride them, and hence fewer people pushing for that at meetings/with LMs/on trail crews. So you mostly get what people mostly want, which is basically the case for everything in life. Do I want nothing but endless tabletops and berms? Heck no. So I get out and push for more interesting stuff and sometimes it happens.

Then again I live somewhere that outdoor recreation is the main economic driver, so the resources are available to do whatever is needed/wanted. Different story in many places, obviously.

-Walt


----------



## Steezus (Jul 25, 2007)

Walt said:


> I get pretty sick of people complaining about how hardcore everything used to be. You can make all kinds of trails, even the sanitized ones, much harder by ditching some modern bike tech and riding them on a rigid bike. Yet the same people I hear complaining are on 6" travel trail bikes with dropper posts. Well, yeah, lots of stuff feels easy on what we'd all have considered a full on DH bike 20 years ago. If you want challenge, stop using so many damn crutches!
> 
> There are still old fall line hiking trails to ride all over the place. They tend to be deserted, too. Go at it.
> 
> -Walt


I agree completely. People talk like trails are being dumbed down left and right and there is no tech left. Those people have absolutely terrible memories as there are so many more trails to ride all over the world now compared to 10-20 years ago and that includes trails designed for tech. Too many people see a trail a certain way and now it can never change in their opinion or they get pissed, but trails slowly evolve to lessen the impacts on environment such as erosion, but some take it as a war against tech trails.

But right now, any state with suitable terrain has huge amounts of trails to ride full of a huge amount of variety for everyone. To be honest, there's so many more people out on trails that aren't as skilled that I am surprised we have as much gnar as we do have. And more are being built all over the place. It's an amazing time to be biking right now.


----------



## Cotharyus (Jun 21, 2012)

Walt said:


> I don't know, I think gnar trails are _allowed_ to be built all over. I've been involved with a ton of trail planning and construction over the years, and as long as it can be handled by the users (meaning all users, not just bikes) and maintained, most of the time anything goes. ADA guideline trails are obviously a different case but I don't think that's what we're talking about here.
> 
> There just are MANY fewer riders who want to ride them, and hence fewer people pushing for that at meetings/with LMs/on trail crews. So you mostly get what people mostly want, which is basically the case for everything in life. Do I want nothing but endless tabletops and berms? Heck no. So I get out and push for more interesting stuff and sometimes it happens.
> 
> ...


Yep. I covered this on an episode of my podcast. Trail not technical enough? Get a rigid SS. Trail too technical? Good, session it. It'll make you better. Be happy you have a trail, dang kids. Back in my day we were lucky to have fire roads.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

Walt said:


> There are still old fall line hiking trails to ride all over the place. They tend to be deserted, too. Go at it.
> -Walt


Yeah, we have 100's of miles of those around here, tech city. I'll take the sanitized version please.


----------



## mbmtb (Nov 28, 2013)

Walt said:


> I don't know, I think gnar trails are _allowed_ to be built all over. I've been involved with a ton of trail planning and construction over the years, and as long as it can be handled by the users (meaning all users, not just bikes) and maintained, most of the time anything goes. ADA guideline trails are obviously a different case but I don't think that's what we're talking about here.
> 
> There just are MANY fewer riders who want to ride them, and hence fewer people pushing for that at meetings/with LMs/on trail crews. So you mostly get what people mostly want, which is basically the case for everything in life. Do I want nothing but endless tabletops and berms? Heck no. So I get out and push for more interesting stuff and sometimes it happens.
> 
> ...


Exactly. You live somewhere where outdoor recreation is the main economic driver.

Most of us (by numbers) live in places with other economic drivers. And entrenched interests. Who are capable of getting well built but rarely used trails closed to all users, or closed to bikes (even if it's the bikers who built them).

Which has little to do with the cost, but they convince land managers that roads or 4' wide flat trails are all that are sufficient.


----------



## wildskycomet (Sep 15, 2005)

I have handed out that book to so many people to help deliver concepts, approaches, and ways to visualize a sustainable fun model/plan. The darn thing is pretty dog eared. But many people can't attend a trail building workshop, or always make it to work parties where things are being planned, or laid out, or options discussed and weighed. They are used to following the ribbon that someone else made, often without realizing all that went into deciding why to put the trail there, much less the work that went into it. It's a lot like a god basic cook book. Once you start cooking, you start to understand your ingredients, and tools for cooking. Soon you're the one deciding what to put in and how much to use, whipping up your own local delicacy.


----------



## wildskycomet (Sep 15, 2005)

Seems to me that the trails that are getting developed aren't much different than the roads we all travel here in Vt. They range from Class I,II, III, IV, Trail, and abandoned. Everyone has a preference, and all get used. Some are more suitable and inviting the less experienced, others are preferred for the quietness, others for the primitiveness. 
Folks like to work on the kind of trails they like. I/we will be hard pressed to get singletrackers to work on the trail that connects the various lodges to the Valley Trail, but it is still needed. The Inn owners are less likely to work on the primitive trail miles from their establishment or the killer downhill trail & features. But, sometimes someone need to hire someone to put in the machine built trail that serves as both the beginner uphill/downhill that provides lesser mortals with access to other suitable areas, that might otherwise demand too high a level of performance that otherwise might discourage participation in the sport. Did anyone attend last year's VMBA Fest? The machine built trail provided many with aces to a network that would have daunted many. Some of the traditional routes up & down might not have encouraged participation and enjoyment, but many clearly enjoyed both. And sometimes, when you need a certain kind of road/route accomplished in short(er) order, you need to pay someone to do it.
So, much like the roads and routes we prefer to use, or to mix/add another metaphor, restaurants... we choose to eat where and what we like or prefer at the moment. Taking the kids to a 5 Star, no, maybe not. maybe something tamer and cheaper. Going out with the friends? Maybe a raucous sports bar? Or no, how about something w/live punk music? The best place to live is someplace w/all kinds of dining options. Only one restaurant in town? Better like it or be ready to travel.


----------



## endo_alley (May 28, 2013)

"2 mile trail for $90,000. " I've worked on trails like that. ten years and $89,500 for environmental studies. And $500 in beer for the people who actually build he trail.


----------



## Dirtrider127 (Sep 17, 2010)

endo_alley said:


> "2 mile trail for $90,000. " I've worked on trails like that. ten years and $89,500 for environmental studies. And $500 in beer for the people who actually build he trail.


So sad but spot on


----------

