I rode Neds yesterday, and god damn it was rough, it's sad to see a 4km long consistent decent going from CBC down to powelines crumble. Some of the sections are still fun but overall the whole decent seems to be in dire need of some love.
How cool would it be to see a DH style trail built on the existing CBC and Neds line that could be used as a race course that would incorporate the shore style and features with some new school flow and jumps. Am I too much of a dreamer?
Used to ride Ned's all the time. Remember those two jumps? Long-ish skinnies ending with decent sized drops.
Thread killer
Not going to happen. My favourite feature was the log ride/jump at the end....cut up. Metro doesn't want the liability. They even went so far as to cut up small jumps only 1 or 2 feet high if they looked even remotely man made. I agree that both CBC and Neds is a travesty, but it is a good example of what happens when land managers decide on the litigious end of things. But then again, you would think the community would of been (or should be) more up in arms about the fact they are allowed to die out...I guess most just move on or ride something else. Pity too, considering how CBC at one time was the crown jewel. Really only worth it now for the extra riding and elevation.
However, I suspect they will not be the last to see this fate.
Other than structures being removed, has Ned's really changed much in recent years? It is eroded to bedrock and till and can't really erode further. I'm not sure how one could fix up Ned's, short of completely rerouting it.
I think most of what happens to Ned's is down to Metro/LSCR. It's a shame that the trail hasn't had more attention over the years and I think it could still be a great DH rip with some judicious planning and possibly some re-routes in a couple of spots. If CBC was polished up as well it makes sense to have the whole thing as a DH run. It's perfect for a shuttle run with there being a parking lot really close to the start of CBC.
CBC... Janky mess since day 1.
NEDS... All down to hardpan and a total river when raining. It would need serious rerouting.
Rumor has it that Metro wants Cambodia as a hiking only trail and shutdown of the rogue trails come spring time.
Posted by: LoamtoHome
CBC... Janky mess since day 1.
NEDS... All down to hardpan and a total river when raining. It would need serious rerouting.
Rumor has it that Metro wants Cambodia as a hiking only trail and shutdown of the rogue trails come spring time.
Wouldn't have rogue trails if CBC and Neds today were like they were in their prime. I guess there will always be the yearning for loam but rogue ones I am thinking about are very near CBC...no coincidence. And since the shuttle up to CBC is convenient, it stands to reason people are going to want the elevation. Classic example of how Metro doesn't get it and is thinking only of liability. If turning Cambodia into a hiking trail goes through I wonder how many would still ride it.
CBC is a very well known trail. Not only to us, but riders from around the world who come here to ride the shore. You would think it makes sense for Metro Van. to maintain it. I can see them taking out the gerbil cage for liability reasons, but why can't they at least do some armoring & drainage work, or at least ask / pay someone to do it?
Metro just cares about the watershed, and not the trails. The liability angle is hogwash as parties are covered by the BC Liabilities Act.
#nodignoride
Ya too bad CBC is such a mess, why does it get ignored while all the other sanctioned trails get maintenance?
I rode Ned's a while back, always enjoy it, just needs a bit of TLC also.
Posted by: LoamtoHome
Metro just cares about the watershed, and not the trails. The liability angle is hogwash as parties are covered by the BC Liabilities Act.
I wouldn't go to court on that assumption. If you are right, then explain why ALL man made features on Neds, as aforementioned even the smallest ones, were removed. Natural features carry no implied liability since there is no way to show negligence, incompetence of construction or design etc...One thing to remember about liability: it assumes a REASONABLY likely risk of injury, so on popular trails, Seventh say, if a feature is ridden ad infinitum and only one person is hurt, you could reasonably argue that it is indeed an accident, not from any other factor. Have many accidents on a hard trail that is stunt laden such a defence would not hold up. Lastly, I don't think DWV was going to use the Liabilities Act as a pillow in 1999 when all features were axed on Cypress due to one incident, albeit serious. Since the injured party had a father that was a lawyer.....action/reaction. In fact, the biggest reason for the "new flow" mantra is exactly litigious. Very little reasonable risk is involved with smooth, flow trails (Upper Dales, Expresso) although encouraging high speeds as a factor would be an interesting angle.
I wonder how it all works with surfing?
I've only been riding here for the past three years and can't compare to how things were back in the day, but CBC is still pretty fun even with a sprinkling of baseball-sized rocks across the trail and few chunks of armour missing :)
I like Neds as it is (and has been the last 20 years). And that is on an XC bike too. I find it really rewarding to relax get up to speed and everything begins to flow. Although I can see if you are trying to go World Cup DH speed, you could easily exceed the sweet spot for speed.
Plus I like jank and chunder because it works as natural speed bumps to reduce the potential for problems on multi-use trails and make e-bikes less of a problem
Posted by: blackfly
Posted by: LoamtoHome
Metro just cares about the watershed, and not the trails. The liability angle is hogwash as parties are covered by the BC Liabilities Act.
I wouldn't go to court on that assumption. If you are right, then explain why ALL man made features on Neds, as aforementioned even the smallest ones, were removed. Natural features carry no implied liability since there is no way to show negligence, incompetence of construction or design etc...One thing to remember about liability: it assumes a REASONABLY likely risk of injury, so on popular trails, Seventh say, if a feature is ridden ad infinitum and only one person is hurt, you could reasonably argue that it is indeed an accident, not from any other factor. Have many accidents on a hard trail that is stunt laden such a defence would not hold up. Lastly, I don't think DWV was going to use the Liabilities Act as a pillow in 1999 when all features were axed on Cypress due to one incident, albeit serious. Since the injured party had a father that was a lawyer.....action/reaction. In fact, the biggest reason for the "new flow" mantra is exactly litigious. Very little reasonable risk is involved with smooth, flow trails (Upper Dales, Expresso) although encouraging high speeds as a factor would be an interesting angle.
I wonder how it all works with surfing?
the wood work on Neds got taken down because it was old and rotten. Stunts are still up on Salvation, Corkscrew, Boogieman, etc.
I rode CBC last summer and it totally bummed me out. On one hand it was a cool nostalgia rip as many of the features are still around. On the other it's in total disrepair and really should be decommissioned. It's partially reclaimed as it is. When you're standing anywhere on CBC and look left or right there is unlimited potential for fresh sustainable lines. It's sad that we can't have a few lines down that zone.
Forum jump:
