Trail work - how wide?

I am attempting to pull a technical issue out of the he said / she said going on on the Executioner thread (which I think I triggered, but what the hell!). Lets see if we can keep this discussion strictly on the technical side.

The issue is: new trail sections and bypasses seem to be being built wider than necessary. I don't think this is the intent, but rather a byproduct of big trail day crews where we are instructed to work side by side and cut new lines with rakes. By working perpendicular to the line, the trail width tends to end up 3 feet wide, I think because of human factors.

Making trails wider than needed is a waste of work and materials, and takes away more frog habitat. So, why not start working parallel to the intended line rather than perpendicular? The result might be trails that are 1/2 the width, twice as fast to build, and which will need half the maintenance. And which resemble singletrack moreso than municipal-standard park paths.

Thoughts?

I concur. My favorite trails seem to be lil brown racing stripes surrounded by lush greenery.

the base gold trail needs to be sidewalk wide (for punters who can't stay in the middle of a trail), but the duff can be pulled back in to make it narrower if there are enough volunteers helping to get the work done by the end of the day.

The problem with executioner (I think, because it's been a while since I've looked) is that there isn't the greenery to pull back in an narrow it up, or there weren't enough volunteers to get the work done yet.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PG5wKXqfJ24

/end thread, go grab a shovel.

The problem with executioner (I think, because it's been a while since I've looked) is that there isn't the greenery to pull back in an narrow it up, or there weren't enough volunteers to get the work done yet.

There's greenery around executioner?

^^ see?! that's the problem. Executioner was always 2 to 3 sidewalks wide. Now it's only 1.

it all depends on the terrain you've got to work with.

The canopy is thick as hell in there, when we were working on it this year we tried to narrow it but its bassically impossible. Im not going to bang on Pipeline I dont know who you are or what your expierence is. But on Fromme its dense in areas when your digging out duff your not gonna try to rail the sides of the trail that will just hold water in. We definately try to naturalize a line but in a lot of sections its just not happening, especially not as nice as what Sven shows in his re-route.

Bad Pic that I found but thats probably a spot that I would consider good in the area we actually see a little bit of greenery showing.

^^ see?! that's the problem. Executioner was always 2 to 3 sidewalks wide. Now it's only 1.

Yeah, agree on certain trails there's no greenery and the trail edges are very ill-defined. But there are some brand new cuts being done where the nice foot of duff needs to be removed - on the new climbing trail over near St. Georges built last year (sorry I can never remember the name of that one) and the new bypass onto Crinkum from the 3rd switchback built a couple of weeks ago.

True I guess that we need a certain width so the gold stays in place but pulling back on the edges afterwords sounds like a good idea - lets keep it in mind. And I still think working down the line instead of parallel to it will encourage narrower trails.

I am attempting to pull a technical issue out of the he said / she said going on on the Executioner thread (which I think I triggered, but what the hell!). Lets see if we can keep this discussion strictly on the technical side.

Thanks for pulling this legitimate question out of that quagmire. I'll try and address your questions below.

The issue is: new trail sections and bypasses seem to be being built wider than necessary.

A solid trail base is necessary to handle the large numbers of riders we have on the Shore. Building the trail base approximately 1 meter (or three feet) wide is a best practice. For a number of reasons (weather conditions, rider ability, rider error) all riders may not stick to that "narrow ribbon", and the 1 meter wide trail base ensures long term stability of the trail.

I don't think this is the intent, but rather a byproduct of big trail day crews where we are instructed to work side by side and cut new lines with rakes. By working perpendicular to the line, the trail width tends to end up 3 feet wide, I think because of human factors.

Making trails wider than needed is a waste of work and materials, and takes away more frog habitat. So, why not start working parallel to the intended line rather than perpendicular? The result might be trails that are 1/2 the width, twice as fast to build, and which will need half the maintenance. And which resemble singletrack moreso than municipal-standard park paths.

Thoughts?

Working side by side is much more efficient for any sized work crew than working parallel to the trail. Think of an assembly line.

While a narrower trail may be faster to build, I disagree that it will be less maintenance. The trail bed will not be stable, riders will track off the line, the inside edge will sluff onto the trail, the outside edge will sluff away, etc. The extra effort to construct it properly the first time pays off in the long run.

If you are concerned about the appearance of a 1 meter wide trail, please remember that the trail has just been constructed. It's like a new lawn where the grass is just starting to take seed. Wait a year or two, and that ribbon of single-track that we find desirable will most likely appear.

Thanks for pulling this legitimate question out of that quagmire. I'll try and address your questions below.

A solid trail base is necessary to handle the large numbers of riders we have on the Shore. Building the trail base approximately 1 meter (or three feet) wide is a best practice. For a number of reasons (weather conditions, rider ability, rider error) all riders may not stick to that "narrow ribbon", and the 1 meter wide trail base ensures long term stability of the trail.

Working side by side is much more efficient for any sized work crew than working parallel to the trail. Think of an assembly line.

While a narrower trail may be faster to build, I disagree that it will be less maintenance. The trail bed will not be stable, riders will track off the line, the inside edge will sluff onto the trail, the outside edge will sluff away, etc. The extra effort to construct it properly the first time pays off in the long run.

If you are concerned about the appearance of a 1 meter wide trail, please remember that the trail has just been constructed. It's like a new lawn where the grass is just starting to take seed. Wait a year or two, and that ribbon of single-track that we find desirable will most likely appear.

all good points matt.

i wonder though if maybe there should be some/more effort put into rider education regarding trail skills and ettiquette so builders don't always to construct a trail with the idea of rider error in mind?

i guess the issue is how to reach those riders in question.

buildn on the shore sounds like a headache…

buildn on the shore sounds like a headache…

if you saw the number of riders that hit fromme on any given weekend, you'd be stunned. i was.

all good points matt.

i wonder though if maybe there should be some/more effort put into rider education regarding trail skills and ettiquette so builders don't always to construct a trail with the idea of rider error in mind?

i guess the issue is how to reach those riders in question.

This is why you have to build to the lowest common denominator. People come from all over with a variety of skills all thinking they're experts and don't need rider education.

This is why you also need to build ride arounds on stunts and tough sections. If you don't someone else will.

Boogieman didn't used to have ride arounds, until more people started riding the trail.

There was a thread a few seasons back with people whinging about the gravel that Greg and Slavik used on a muddy section at the top of pipeline. They laid down a wide bed of gravel that they bucketed in from a pile the DNV left along the road. It was called a sidewalk among other things.

Over time as new duff and debris came down and people only rode a narrow section of the trail it naturally narrowed back down to a nice width. In the end it's a good solid wide bed of sustainable trail but optically it's a narrow and looks like there was never any gravel put down.

This is why you have to build to the lowest common denominator. People come from all over with a variety of skills all thinking they're experts and don't need rider education.

This is why you also need to build ride arounds on stunts and tough sections. If you don't someone else will.

Boogieman didn't used to have ride arounds, until more people started riding the trail.

yeah, you're right that things need to be built to the LCD but it's a shame that has to happen.

i'm in total agreement with the ride around thing though and as you know that's something i've said for a while because it provides multiple benefits to a trail. it's the perfect way to preserve the tech/chunder sections that some people like and give everyone else a viable option. the beauty is that the ridership will determine which line survives. in some situations i recognize it is required to do a mandatory re-route and close of the old line but in others it isn't. it would be nice to see the option of keeping the old lines intact given more consideration when re-routes or maintenance work gets done.