AT History - Are PUDS Really PUDS?

[Chair-man]

While growing up in central PA I once heard someone make this statement.

"When they originally designed the Appalachian Trail the designers knew hikers would need plenty of water and the trail was designed to pass as many springs and water sources as possible".

I've tried searching the net for any info to back up that statement but couldn't find anything.

On the face it, it sounds like it's probably true which would explain a lot of the pointless ups and downs (PUDS). So, are PUDS really PUDS?

The designers may have wanted as many views as possible too.

[ALLEGHENY]

The AT is a narrow corridor so you work with what you have available.

[rafe]

The AT mission statement does say something about the trail sticking to "the height of land." Besides which, from a land-acquisition viewpoint, the height of land is the least commercially viable, so relatively easy to set aside as public conservation land.

It's really no small miracle that the AT exists at all. My deepest thanks to all those past and present who made it possible.

[Cookerhiker]

...It's really no small miracle that the AT exists at all. My deepest thanks to all those past and present who made it possible.

Very wise words. I wish that all AT hikers felt the same sentiment as you do.

[slbirdnerd]

Very wise words. I wish that all AT hikers felt the same sentiment as you do.

Me, too. And if they were really so pointless, why would so many people keep hiking over them year, after year, after year?

[takethisbread]

Me, too. And if they were really so pointless, why would so many people keep hiking over them year, after year, after year?

I agree, although sometimes in maine I feel like the trail is sadistically trying to make it harder.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[burger]

I believe I read this in AT Journeys: when the trail was being built, individual trail clubs were responsible for routing and building each section. In some places, the local trail clubs actually competed with each other to see who could build the hardest stretch. The result: a lot of steep PUDs.

[MDSection12]

Well, there are highways that run largely parallel to the trail... So if your goal is efficiency I'd suggest driving from GA to ME.

[Spirit Walker]

In some cases it's a matter of where they could acquire a trail corridor. Often the trail will follow a land boundary, which can make for some really mindless ups and downs. Sometimes it takes you to water. Sometimes it follows a ridgeline, or avoids a pile of rocks on the ridgeline, or climbs to the ridge so you can get a view off the rocks. Sometimes the trail builders wanted an interesting route, not an easy one.

[rafe]

Is not the trail itself one very large PUD? I mean, you could walk from GA to ME along the I-95 corridor and skip quite a bit of the vertical.

[Lone Wolf]

folks who supposedly love walkin' in the mountains, complaining about walkin' those mountains. hmmm

[Kerosene]

PUDS don't bother me much. Hot, humid temps; a lack of available water; and treacherous descents with few reasonable hand-/toe-holds are what get to me.

I had the opportunity for a little day hike on the north shore of Maui last week. It was misting (and then full-on raining) but it was just warm enough; it was all uphill for 2.5 miles with some moderately steep stretches; it was sufficiently muddy that it was slippery and I was in sneakers; and there were no views to be had because everything was in the clouds -- even so, it was the most relaxing part of my vacation!

[burger]

I love how people here assume that those of us who think the trail has too many PUDs want it to be flat and paved the whole way. Way to take things to their logical conclusions, folks. Y'all should be politicians.

Personally, all I'd like to see is a few more switchbacks here and there on the worst climbs. Is that unreasonable? Remember, this trail has a 70-80% failure rate for thru-hikers. Maybe it would be a little higher if the grades were more reasonable. I don't see how anyone could argue that that would be a bad thing.

[rafe]

burger: I can and have said the same thing to myself many times. But really, is "success rate" of thru-hikers a design goal for the AT? And yeah, I've marveled over how west coast trails have switchbacks where the AT just hauls you straight up the mountain. I've done my share of cursing at PUDs.

But the thing is, it's all pretty much pointless (the whole notion of walking 2180 miles of trees and hills, to start with) so the PUDs, for better or worse, are just part of the deal -- no more or less pointless than the rest of it.

For a raft of reasons, the AT is one gnarly bugger of a trail in places, and yeah, it can be aggravating. But nothing's making you do it, so if it's not fun, no reason to keep doing it. The trick is to keep that aggravation in check somehow. Shake your fists at the heavens, yell obscenities to the wind, then grin and carry on.

[Lone Wolf]

this trail has a 70-80% failure rate for thru-hikers. Maybe it would be a little higher if the grades were more reasonable. I don't see how anyone could argue that that would be a bad thing.

that's because 70%-80% of them have never backpacked before. it's hard to run a marathon if you've never run at all.the AT ain't about thru-hikin' anyway.

[burger]

But really, is "success rate" of thru-hikers a design goal for the AT?

Maybe it should be. I mean, you have a few thousand people who show up at Springer every year having put their lives on hold and spent time and money getting ready to hike. Maybe the interests of those people should be considered a bit more in planning.

More generally, happiness and enjoyment of the users should be a design goal for any trail. Rafe, you (and other folks here) act is if it's impossible that there will ever be a slightly easier AT or one with fewer PUDs. As if it's fate that the trail will just be a "gnarly bugger" and aggravating. The fact that the trail is hard was a choice made by people, and it can be changed. In fact, that's happening right now on the CDT. A lot of sections of very steep ATV and jeep trails are being replaced with switchbacks. Even on the AT, some crazy steep sections (like Bear Mountain in NY) have been replaced by stairs and switchbacks.

No one says it has to be easy. Even walking a 2000-mile flat, paved path would be hard. But it can be easier than it is now. And that wouldn't be a bad thing.

[burger]

that's because 70%-80% of them have never backpacked before. it's hard to run a marathon if you've never run at all.the AT ain't about thru-hikin' anyway.

Not true. Thanks to Cheryl Strayed, half of PCT hikers last year were first-time thru-hikers. The completion rate was still around 50%.

Switchbacks and good grades = less injuries and exhaustion = more finishers.

It's easy for Lone Wolf or other folks who thru-hiked to look down on people who had to quit and say it was their own fault. Surely the trail has to get some responsibility.

[ALLEGHENY]

I wished for a zip line at times.

[Lone Wolf]

It's easy for Lone Wolf or other folks who thru-hiked to look down on people who had to quit and say it was their own fault. Surely the trail has to get some responsibility.

i have never "looked down" on anybody who quit. i quit twice. had nothing to do with the physical trail.

[rafe]

burger: It's an interesting discussion. I can argue both sides.

Eg., I've complained about poor signage along the AT -- particularly at road crossings -- and been roundly told to hush up and quit whining. (Waddya want, highway signs??? Sheesh.) LW is correct, the AT isn't there for the thru-hikers first and foremost.

Again, it's 100% voluntary. Nobody's forced to hike the AT. I never did climb Pond Mountain and probably never will.

I've done a few bits of the Coastal Path in England and it's so smooth and well graded you could push a baby stroller along most of it. Very nice. My wife loved it. The views were pretty nice, too.

I shouldn't be lecturing at you, kinda silly of me -- you've got lotsa miles behind you, I can see that.