Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

DEC led Mtn. Bike Trail System

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    I'd love to see some strategic long trail development. There is already so much to work with - having some connectors and unwinding some of the stacked loops to be longer, and connect disparate or distant trail systems would be great.

    I'm not a fan of riding in circles all day... (although I do it on occasion).
    Theres some effort happening in VT to create the XVT from CA to MA, dirt road, single track, snowmobile trail, etc. Would love to see something like that in the ADKs.

    And, it will no doubt rub against the 'wilderness' issue.
    I get it, some people think bikes do not belong... but I don't think herd paths and parking lots belong either. And I'm not interested in riding my bike to the top of Marcy... but skirting through the valleys or nearby ridges on specific, developed trails to connect interesting towns and places would be fantastic.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by jhl99 View Post
      To get back on track… there are many of these typical day use ‘stacked loops’ throughout the country. Another stacked typical stacked loop will not do much to put the ADKs on the biker’s radar. Recall, my premise is that the ADKs needs to become a ‘bucket list’ place to ride for adventure bikers and provide a reason for regional intermediates and experts to ride the trails.

      What I propose is to create a ‘super’ stacked loops that require multiple days to navigate, loops that let the ride choose different options. Essentially, a big spider webs of possible routes around the ADKs utilizing any type of legal trail or road. Maybe have a couple of predefined routes with cue sheets and maps for different styles of riding (single track/backcountry emphasis, dirt road emphasis, B&B tours, etc.)
      I agree. But wouldn't we also need that "typical stacked loop" to bring in those weekenders? To come to the campgrounds? To eat at the local establishments? There are those that don't feel comfortable riding multiple days - single track or otherwise. Just as in hiking, you have your multi-day, deep into the woods, type folks and you have your day trippers. Latter outweighs the former.

      Originally posted by Edb 46 er View Post
      I dream of multiple day trips that allow us to travel from town to town through the woods and some highway which would bring the more adventurist types to the sport.
      Originally posted by bmike-vt View Post
      I'd love to see some strategic long trail development. There is already so much to work with - having some connectors and unwinding some of the stacked loops to be longer, and connect disparate or distant trail systems would be great.
      Yep.

      Everyone has good thoughts. Here is the follow-up to the meeting in Raquette Lake from Adirondack Express:


      As mentioned before, any thoughts/ideas/concerns can be sent by January 30, 2015 via email to adirondackpark@dec.ny.gov or by snail mail to McCrea Burnham, 625 Broadway, Albany, NY 12233-4254.

      The whole kit and kaboodle - and by that I mean the whole Moose River Plains Wild Forest Unit Management Plan broken down by section along with the possible amendment plan. Complete with history, maps and other tidbits of info. For those that like to immerse themselves in the details: http://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/22571.html

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by ADK123 View Post
        But wouldn't we also need that "typical stacked loop" to bring in those weekenders?
        Probably needed, it was grudgingly included in post #6

        Originally posted by jhl99 View Post
        Ok, build a 30-40 mile stacked loop, because you have to... but then put the emphasis on a backcountry extended length loop system...
        Originally posted by bmike-vt View Post
        I'm not a fan of riding in circles all day... (although I do it on occasion).
        Same here. What I dislike that IMBA built stacked loops that I have ridden, ride the same way. Actually, this is to be expected, they build the trails using the same sets of design rules and they especially ride the same if they are built with machines.



        Above, 2 trail systems, 2 different climates and eco systems. With your eyes closed, they ride exactly the same way. Mountain bikers flock to Moab and Fruita because they are different. Nobody wants to travel far and wide for the experience that they can get at home.

        Some more shots of IMBA built trails at Allegripis






        The DEC is going to need to wrestle with how much earth moving is appropriate and being consistent with ‘Forever Wild’. I would be disappointed if trails with this amount of benching where built in the ADKs on public property. To me, this is too much.

        Here is a better looking switchback on the North Country Trail taking in Michigan. This is not an IMBA built trail.

        This is what I would like to see in the ADKs (another NCT pic from MI):



        (A narrow tread, not excavated with machines, tight, fits with nature better, I know the IMBA people would complain that the trails is worn into a depression and will not drain well, butt this is glaciated, sandy soil, it drains)

        Originally posted by bmike-vt View Post

        There is some effort happening in VT to create the XVT from CA to MA, dirt road, single track, snowmobile trail, etc. Would love to see something like that in the ADKs.
        This is what I’m getting at. The ADKs is the a perfect place for this type of activity. Water is readily available, the towns are there, there are lean tos already built. Some existing trails (hiking and snowmobile trails) can be leveraged, while others wouldn’t be attractive to mountain bikers. Couple those trails with existing roads and build some more single track connecters here and there and build the big loops!

        Originally posted by bmike-vt View Post

        And, it will no doubt rub against the 'wilderness' issue.
        It shouldn’t. This is a screen shot of my ‘master map’ from which I plan and track my routes in the ADKs (The base data is from the CD ROM that the DEC made available years ago).



        Green is Wild Forest=mountain biking OK, Red=Wilderness, no bikes. White is private land. The grid is 10 mile blocks…the blue line area is roughly 100s mile E/W and 120 miles N/S. There is a lot of green to work with.

        Some selected history that I am aware of:
        1. Mountain biking took off on the 1990s
        2. At least (2) books have been written about mountain biking in the ADKs
        3. It appears there have been sporadic efforts to promote mountain biking the ADKs
        4. The ADKs were the cover story in Bike (a national mountain biking magazine) in 2003
        And yet, the ADKs seems like they are a decade behind were other regions are regarding trails and mountain biking. To me, this makes the ADKs that much more attractive to riding, but it is really indicative that there just aren’t the local riders and clubs pushing for more trails. I think this is going to be a problem unless the ADKs can really draw riders from across the nation.

        In 2010, the Allegrippis trails where fairly new and Dirt Rag (a mountain bike magazine based in Pittsburgh, PA) organized a mountain bike festival at the trails (which has since become and annual event). The article states that “more than 1,000 riders from 24 of the 50 states attended.”

        Build it right, make it unique and they will come!


        Comment


        • #19
          Maybe there will finally be an opportunity to revisit the "Wild Forest, bikes OK; Wilderness, bikes not OK" arrangement. There are miles of trails in Wilderness that are well suited to bikes, and miles of trails in Wild Forest where bikes are not appropriate. Seems kind of dumb. But it did save the effort of having to actually figure out where bikes fit and where they don't. Maybe we can finally start figuring that out...
          Last edited by TCD; 01-03-2015, 11:19 PM. Reason: (typos)

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by TCD View Post
            Maybe there will finally be an opportunity to revisit the "Wild Forest, bikes OK; Wilderness, bikes not OK" arrangement. There are miles o trails in Wildernes that are well suited to bikes, and miles of trails in Wild Forest where bikes are no appropriate. Seems kind of dumb. But it did save the effort of having to actually figure out where bikes fit and where they don't. Maybe we can fainlly start figuring that out...
            The thing is that there is more than just impact considerations at hand in any discussion of the ethics of mountain bikes in Wilderness.

            At present, many locations in Wilderness Areas are reachable only via a full days worth of hiking at minimum. West Lake in the West Canada Lakes, much of the Five Ponds Wilderness (including Five Ponds, High Falls, Cowhorn Lake, etc.), Duck Hole and Shattuck Clearing in the Western High Peaks... would all of those places have the same feeling of remoteness if one could just hop on a bike and reach them in a few hours? Would they continue to feel as "wild?"

            Comment


            • #21
              That's certainly a consideration. But the current arrangment is sort of mindless. I think it arose less out of wilderness access considerations, and more out of lack of resources to adequately categorize trails. But I agree that "wilderness feel" should be considered.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by DSettahr View Post
                The thing is that there is more than just impact considerations at hand in any discussion of the ethics of mountain bikes in Wilderness.

                At present, many locations in Wilderness Areas are reachable only via a full days worth of hiking at minimum. West Lake in the West Canada Lakes, much of the Five Ponds Wilderness (including Five Ponds, High Falls, Cowhorn Lake, etc.), Duck Hole and Shattuck Clearing in the Western High Peaks... would all of those places have the same feeling of remoteness if one could just hop on a bike and reach them in a few hours? Would they continue to feel as "wild?"
                There are also places labeled 'wilderness' where you can drive a car or truck into a parking lot that has multiple (dozens?) of trailheads for trails threading and branching all over the terrain. Those places aren't really as 'wild' as they could be. I've seem more people in certain 'wilderness' areas than I've seen in other places.

                If done well, it wouldn't be 'just a few hours' ride. I've seen a doubling of the mileage that one can cover when navigating typical VT back country trails (read - not manicured and buffed out singletrack). So a full days hike turns into a half a day or more bike.

                We don't put the same limits on watercraft. Imagine if we had a rule that in order to navigate 'wilderness' waters you had to swim. That would cut down on the riff raff for sure. And would keep some really great places even more 'wild' feeling.

                Comment


                • #23
                  I have a few dumb questions: When two mountain bicyclists meet on a singletrack(if that is the right way to put it) who yields? Or are the tracks one way travel? What if you have people traveling at drastically different speeds, is there a way to pass? I have not had a mountain bike in about 10 years and have stayed on pavement or dirt roads with my road bike so I have no idea how this is all supposed to work.
                  Zach

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by bmike-vt View Post
                    We don't put the same limits on watercraft. Imagine if we had a rule that in order to navigate 'wilderness' waters you had to swim. That would cut down on the riff raff for sure.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Zach View Post
                      I have a few dumb questions: When two mountain bicyclists meet on a singletrack(if that is the right way to put it) who yields? Or are the tracks one way travel? What if you have people traveling at drastically different speeds, is there a way to pass? I have not had a mountain bike in about 10 years and have stayed on pavement or dirt roads with my road bike so I have no idea how this is all supposed to work.
                      Zach
                      First, one needs to ride in control of their bike, and speed is relative to terrain, visibility, etc.

                      Courtesy is that the person going uphill has the right of way.

                      Trails at 'trail' centers often have 1 way loops or sections. Typically technical or fast downhill sections.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Primitive Bike Corridors

                        A couple links in support of primitive corridors. Connecting other trail systems has worked in the Catskills, I think it would work well in the Adirondacks.



                        sigpic

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by bmike-vt View Post
                          There are also places labeled 'wilderness' where you can drive a car or truck into a parking lot that has multiple (dozens?) of trailheads for trails threading and branching all over the terrain. Those places aren't really as 'wild' as they could be. I've seem more people in certain 'wilderness' areas than I've seen in other places.
                          I personally think that the same argument could be made in favor of decreasing hiking accessibility in some areas of the Adirondacks. I often think that I like to see fewer (or no) signs and trail markers, as well as fewer (or no) bridges in areas designated as Wilderness in the Adirondacks, forcing a much greater responsibility for self-reliance by visitors. From a management perspective, however, some sort of development is always going to be necessary to offset impacts upon the resources that recreational use inevitably incurs. Finding ways to strike the balance between maintaining wildness and minimizing impacts in what is essentially one of the most popular backcountry areas in the world isn't easy to do.

                          Originally posted by bmike-vt View Post
                          If done well, it wouldn't be 'just a few hours' ride. I've seen a doubling of the mileage that one can cover when navigating typical VT back country trails (read - not manicured and buffed out singletrack). So a full days hike turns into a half a day or more bike.
                          Can you provide any specific examples where remote locations have been made accessible by mountain bikes only through circuitous routes that maintain a sense of remoteness and solitude?

                          Originally posted by bmike-vt View Post
                          We don't put the same limits on watercraft. Imagine if we had a rule that in order to navigate 'wilderness' waters you had to swim. That would cut down on the riff raff for sure. And would keep some really great places even more 'wild' feeling.
                          Motorized watercraft are prohibited from water bodies that are classified as part of wilderness areas. It can and does make a difference in the level of use and impact.

                          Originally posted by Riosacandaga View Post
                          A couple links in support of primitive corridors. Connecting other trail systems has worked in the Catskills, I think it would work well in the Adirondacks.



                          http://www.adirondackdailyenterprise....html?nav=5041
                          Does anyone actually use the corridors in the Catskills? I was somewhat in favor of them on the grounds that they would provide community connector routes via old roads suitable to mountain bike use that did not traverse any particularly remote locations. But the few times I've hiked them since the designation, I've not seen any evidence that they were being used by bicyclists.

                          I think it's also worth mentioning that the prohibition against bicycles within wilderness really didn't arise from a lack of any better method for managing bicycle use, nor is it without precedent. The federal wilderness system, against which the NYS wilderness system is modeled, also prohibits bicycles from federally-managed wilderness areas. In fact, the bicycle corridors in the Catskills are the only example that I am aware of in the US where bicycles are permitted within a wilderness area.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by DSettahr View Post
                            I personally think that the same argument could be made in favor of decreasing hiking accessibility in some areas of the Adirondacks. I often think that I like to see fewer (or no) signs and trail markers, as well as fewer (or no) bridges in areas designated as Wilderness in the Adirondacks, forcing a much greater responsibility for self-reliance by visitors. From a management perspective, however, some sort of development is always going to be necessary to offset impacts upon the resources that recreational use inevitably incurs. Finding ways to strike the balance between maintaining wildness and minimizing impacts in what is essentially one of the most popular backcountry areas in the world isn't easy to do.



                            Can you provide any specific examples where remote locations have been made accessible by mountain bikes only through circuitous routes that maintain a sense of remoteness and solitude?



                            Motorized watercraft are prohibited from water bodies that are classified as part of wilderness areas. It can and does make a difference in the level of use and impact.



                            Does anyone actually use the corridors in the Catskills? I was somewhat in favor of them on the grounds that they would provide community connector routes via old roads suitable to mountain bike use that did not traverse any particularly remote locations. But the few times I've hiked them since the designation, I've not seen any evidence that they were being used by bicyclists.

                            I think it's also worth mentioning that the prohibition against bicycles within wilderness really didn't arise from a lack of any better method for managing bicycle use, nor is it without precedent. The federal wilderness system, against which the NYS wilderness system is modeled, also prohibits bicycles from federally-managed wilderness areas. In fact, the bicycle corridors in the Catskills are the only example that I am aware of in the US where bicycles are permitted within a wilderness area.
                            I agree with you on limiting access, or at least making it less developed, less easy.



                            Bikes aren't motorized. We should ban any watercraft. It's a mechanize way of traveling. Walk or swim to enjoy wilderness.

                            I am not a fan of loop upon loop of trails, although that's what you get in some cases with hiking trails. I'd love to see some strategic connectors that are bike legal thru wilderness.

                            I have to think about your question some before I can answer with an example.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by bmike-vt View Post
                              I agree with you on limiting access, or at least making it less developed, less easy.



                              Bikes aren't motorized. We should ban any watercraft. It's a mechanize way of traveling. Walk or swim to enjoy wilderness.

                              I have to think about your question some before I can answer with an example.
                              I generally just lurk but I'm curious on this one, are you serious with your stance on banning watercraft, or just using this as an example of perceived inequity?

                              Would you agree that non-motorized watercraft are a part of Adirondack history? And that bikes aren't? (As far as I know). I think that's the key difference here.

                              I would use bike trails though.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                I'm pretty sure he is making a point that a paddle or oar is a mechanized form of travel.

                                And clear cutting has been part of Adirondack history but do we want that to continue? There are many poor arguments for banning bicycles, history is just another one to add to the pile.

                                And to say that because the US Federal wilderness designations are a correct blanket rule system for all is a pretty poor way of managing lands. All lands are not the same, therefore they should be managed accordingly.

                                Shutting bikes out has just historically been a hypocritical rule to human powered recreation in wilderness areas. And FWIW I've never seen a 'human powered' horse.

                                Bikes belong, whether you like it or not.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X