View Full Version : reasoning behind trail re-locations
recently i hiked from damascus to mt roger's headquarters, ie, through an area where there was a major trail relocation and the old trail still exists as the iron mountain trail (as far as i know).
i had always just sort of assumed the reasoning behind the relocation to be making the AT more scenic or otherwise somehow better, but now that ive hiked it, one stretch in particular puzzles me...
just trail south of hurricane mountain shelter you come to the last (if youre hiking north) of multiple criss crossing of the old and new AT. from this point north to route 16 the trail routing, IMO, makes little to no sense. it descends to part way down the ride as it passes the shelter, then proceeds to countour around the ridge for what seems like eternity. its borrowing, repetitive trail that im sure was difficult to build, hard to maintain, is eroded badly in spots to the point of perhaps being dangerous in wet and muddy conditions. i havent hiked the iron mountain trail through there, but the map shows it as just sitting on top of the ridgeline and following it out to the road... sounds like a way better trail than the current AT to me, so what gives? why is the AT where it is now instead of where it used to be? its about 5 miles or so of trail that i dont see as a likely improvement over the old routing.
is it so that the shelter could exist? is it because the idea of the now iron mountain trail being a mountain bike trail goes all the way back to the original idea for a relo, and sharing it for even part of the way was deemed undesirable? or is it, as i tend to suspect, to avoid a roadwalk once you get to 16?
anyone care to speculate on these or any other ideas, or better yet, know the actual reasoning behind this? again, i am talking about one specific, relatively short stretch, not the entire relocation off of what is now the iron mountain trail.
Seatbelt
09-13-2016, 07:20
recently i hiked from damascus to mt roger's headquarters, ie, through an area where there was a major trail relocation and the old trail still exists as the iron mountain trail (as far as i know).
i had always just sort of assumed the reasoning behind the relocation to be making the AT more scenic or otherwise somehow better, but now that ive hiked it, one stretch in particular puzzles me...
just trail south of hurricane mountain shelter you come to the last (if youre hiking north) of multiple criss crossing of the old and new AT. from this point north to route 16 the trail routing, IMO, makes little to no sense. it descends to part way down the ride as it passes the shelter, then proceeds to countour around the ridge for what seems like eternity. its borrowing, repetitive trail that im sure was difficult to build, hard to maintain, is eroded badly in spots to the point of perhaps being dangerous in wet and muddy conditions. i havent hiked the iron mountain trail through there, but the map shows it as just sitting on top of the ridgeline and following it out to the road... sounds like a way better trail than the current AT to me, so what gives? why is the AT where it is now instead of where it used to be? its about 5 miles or so of trail that i dont see as a likely improvement over the old routing.
is it so that the shelter could exist? is it because the idea of the now iron mountain trail being a mountain bike trail goes all the way back to the original idea for a relo, and sharing it for even part of the way was deemed undesirable? or is it, as i tend to suspect, to avoid a roadwalk once you get to 16?
anyone care to speculate on these or any other ideas, or better yet, know the actual reasoning behind this? again, i am talking about one specific, relatively short stretch, not the entire relocation off of what is now the iron mountain trail.
I am certainly not an expert on this and cannot answer your questions. That said, I recently hiked that same exact section and wondered the same things. One person in Damascus told me that the reason for the biggest re-route off the Iron Mtn trail was to route the new AT over Wilburn Ridge and thru the Grayson Highlands. As for the section close to 16 I wondered if they wanted to route the trail past Comer(sp) Falls or something like that?? Only explanation I could come up with.
Maybe this?
"What is now the Iron Mountain Trail (IMT) was the route for Appalachian Trail until 1972 when a major relocation moved the AT away from all the communication towers over to the Roan Highlands." http://tehcc.org/wiki/Iron_Mountain_Trail_-_South
Maybe this?
"What is now the Iron Mountain Trail (IMT) was the route for Appalachian Trail until 1972 when a major relocation moved the AT away from all the communication towers over to the Roan Highlands." http://tehcc.org/wiki/Iron_Mountain_Trail_-_South
are there communication towers through the specific stretch of about 5 miles i am talking about? the entire reroute is maybe 40 or 50 miles, easily, im talking a small section of it. i dont think there are communication towers in that section.
but even if there are... i still dont see it as worth it. the AT passes lots of towers like that, so what? that section of the new trail has no redeeming qualities that make it so much better than walking past a few towers that i can see.
I am certainly not an expert on this and cannot answer your questions. That said, I recently hiked that same exact section and wondered the same things. One person in Damascus told me that the reason for the biggest re-route off the Iron Mtn trail was to route the new AT over Wilburn Ridge and thru the Grayson Highlands. As for the section close to 16 I wondered if they wanted to route the trail past Comer(sp) Falls or something like that?? Only explanation I could come up with.
glad im not the only one!
interesting point about the falls. theres a trail down from the iron mountain trail to the falls. i didnt hike it, but it seems newer. i doubt itll happen but it would seem to me maybe sitting on the iron mountain trail along the the top of the ridge until you get to the trail down to the falls might be the best of all worlds, if one were ok with sharing the AT with mountain bikes for a few miles.
When I'm hiking to Damascus I get on the Iron Mt. Trail at TN 91 instead of taking the AT. it's shorter, more remote feeling, and I like the metal mile markers. :)
If I'm hiking south out of Damascus I take the AT because it's easier going south.
Seatbelt
09-13-2016, 09:48
Maybe this?
"What is now the Iron Mountain Trail (IMT) was the route for Appalachian Trail until 1972 when a major relocation moved the AT away from all the communication towers over to the Roan Highlands." http://tehcc.org/wiki/Iron_Mountain_Trail_-_South
If I read this right, it is talking about the Iron Mtn trail south of Damascus instead of the Iron Mtn trail north of Damascus.
I try not to harshly second guess routing decisions because it's very likely I will never know what entirely went through the minds of those that had come to those decisions in the past.
If I read this right, it is talking about the Iron Mtn trail south of Damascus instead of the Iron Mtn trail north of Damascus.
The comm towers the trail went around are south of Damascus.
The comm towers the trail went around are south of Damascus.
have you? (or anyone here for that matter) actually hiked the last 4-5 miles of the iron mountain trail right before rt 16 and know if there are any towers or anything else objectionable in that stretch?
have you? (or anyone here for that matter) actually hiked the last 4-5 miles of the iron mountain trail right before rt 16 and know if there are any towers or anything else objectionable in that stretch?
I've hiked the full length of the IMT both north and south of Damascus and the only comm towers I'm aware of are off Cross Mountain Rd near where the AT crosses TN 91 in Shady Valley. I've heard a few people say that's one of the reasons the AT was rerouted there but that always sounded strange to me - there are many places the AT comes near towers.
I don't know who's responsible for that section of trail but maybe if you emailed the ATC (or whatever club/group maintains that section) they could tell you who did the relo and you could ask them what their thinking was.
Related to what you're wondering - I've often wonder what people who are painting blazes are thinking...
I try not to harshly second guess routing decisions because it's very likely I will never know what entirely went through the minds of those that had come to those decisions in the past.
what was going through their minds is exactly the question, take that harshly perhaps, but that not necessarily the case. just saying, if there is a good reason i'm not seeing it.
like i said, my suspicion is it was to avoid a roadwalk. maybe to some thats a good reason. personally i think the unspoken but often evident attitude that trail in the woods is always better than walking on a road, period, is ill conceived at best. doubly so when the trail that is created to avoid it is not only less interesting than the alternative, but clearly hard to build and maintain. just seems like a lot of effort to create a stretch of trail thats less pleasant than what it replaced.
I don't know who's responsible for that section of trail but maybe if you emailed the ATC (or whatever club/group maintains that section) they could tell you who did the relo and you could ask them what their thinking was.
my guess/fear is that no one who is still there even remembers. its not a recent thing, i dont think.
Related to what you're wondering - I've often wonder what people who are painting blazes are thinking...
i especially wonder that when hiking a section that uses the odd (to me) convention of marking turns with two blazes right directly over each other rather than offset in a way that indicates the direction of the turn. theres a spot in PA where you come to a perfect 90 degree T and the blaze indicates that there is a turn (well duh) but not which way to turn. i kind you not. i actually bumped into a trail maintainer a few hundred feet from this spot, coincidentally, and when i asked all he could say was "thats the convention we follow through here by tradition."
in other words, theres not nearly as much thought put into things as we'd like to think there is, often times.
like i said, my suspicion is it was to avoid a roadwalk. maybe to some thats a good reason. personally i think the unspoken but often evident attitude that trail in the woods is always better than walking on a road, period, is ill conceived at best. doubly so when the trail that is created to avoid it is not only less interesting than the alternative, but clearly hard to build and maintain. just seems like a lot of effort to create a stretch of trail thats less pleasant than what it replaced.
I agree with this. There were sections of the Superior Hiking Trail where I jumped on the road for several miles because the views were better (more expansive) than the trail. In fact, it was by walking the roads instead of the trail that I was able to really get a grasp of the topography. As you say, you could tell they put the trail in the woods for the sole purpose of not being on the road - even though the road is dirt and lightly travelled.
Anymore I care more about a continuous footpath than I do about daring not get off the trail. I think the PCT and really, the CDT, got me away from being a 'pass every blaze' purist.
Spirit Walker
09-13-2016, 14:33
ATC is building a permanently protected trail, for hikers only. That means no roads and no trails that are open to bikes or horses.. I agree that there were places where the old road walk was much better than the trail that was built to replace it. OTOH, I like not having to dodge bikes and ATVs when I hike.
Sometimes relocations are simply a matter of where they are able to acquire land rights. If a landowner offered a section on the side of the mountain instead of atop the ridge, and they didn't have to fight for it, the trail got relocated, even if it was more difficult to hike. Or they would put the trail along the edge of a property, and border fences don't necessarily follow straight lines.
ATC is building a permanently protected trail, for hikers only. That means no roads and no trails that are open to bikes or horses.. I agree that there were places where the old road walk was much better than the trail that was built to replace it. OTOH, I like not having to dodge bikes and ATVs when I hike.
Sometimes relocations are simply a matter of where they are able to acquire land rights. If a landowner offered a section on the side of the mountain instead of atop the ridge, and they didn't have to fight for it, the trail got relocated, even if it was more difficult to hike. Or they would put the trail along the edge of a property, and border fences don't necessarily follow straight lines.
there is still a trail on top of the ridge in that same area. the old AT is still there, still in use, still open to the public, so i feel safe in assuming it isnt a land rights problem. it just isnt the official route of the AT any longer.
one has to wonder, if the goal is really as you state it (it probably is, it makes a certain sense) if some sort of land rights issue presented a dilemma something along the lines of traversing the northern presis was no longer possible unless when you got to the end you took a 2 mile roadwalk, would they make the decision that the trail is best served by skipping the presis in order to avoid a roadwalk? i doubt theyd take it that far, but the example illustrates the fallacy of "avoid roads no matter what" thinking.
what was going through their minds is exactly the question, take that harshly perhaps, but that not necessarily the case. just saying, if there is a good reason i'm not seeing it.
like i said, my suspicion is it was to avoid a roadwalk. maybe to some thats a good reason. personally i think the unspoken but often evident attitude that trail in the woods is always better than walking on a road, period, is ill conceived at best. doubly so when the trail that is created to avoid it is not only less interesting than the alternative, but clearly hard to build and maintain. just seems like a lot of effort to create a stretch of trail thats less pleasant than what it replaced.
Far from it, trails are not built in their entirety always prioritizing or, as far as route, executed in a way what you or I deem the most interesting or how you or I suppose they should be routed. This is something the ATC, NPS, specific NP's, Wilderness Areas, Trail Clubs, etc deals with to such a degree it's difficult to impossible to understand as an outsider who rarely to never knows all the info these agencies are making their decisions. How many examples on the AT alone do you want me to offer? PCT? CDT? SHT?, Ouachita Tr, Colorado Tr, Long Tr, BMT, Pinhoti, JMT, Cali Coastal Tr, Ozark Highlands, AZT, etc. Are you aware how much work has been done and is ongoing by Brett "Blisterfree" alone with his Grand Enchantment Tr to keep it intact and continuous? WE have to understand trails evolve and change and ARE NOT SET IN STONE.
Far from it, trails are not built in their entirety always prioritizing or, as far as route, executed in a way what you or I deem the most interesting or how you or I suppose they should be routed. This is something the ATC, NPS, specific NP's, Wilderness Areas, Trail Clubs, etc deals with to such a degree it's difficult to impossible to understand as an outsider who rarely to never knows all the info these agencies are making their decisions. How many examples on the AT alone do you want me to offer? PCT? CDT? SHT?, Ouachita Tr, Colorado Tr, Long Tr, BMT, Pinhoti, JMT, Cali Coastal Tr, Ozark Highlands, AZT, etc. Are you aware how much work has been done and is ongoing by Brett "Blisterfree" alone with his Grand Enchantment Tr to keep it intact and continuous? WE have to understand trails evolve and change and ARE NOT SET IN STONE.
IN PA, our trails ARE set in stone. :)
there is still a trail on top of the ridge in that same area. the old AT is still there, still in use, still open to the public, so i feel safe in assuming it isnt a land rights problem. it just isnt the official route of the AT any longer.
one has to wonder, if the goal is really as you state it (it probably is, it makes a certain sense) if some sort of land rights issue presented a dilemma something along the lines of traversing the northern presis was no longer possible unless when you got to the end you took a 2 mile roadwalk, would they make the decision that the trail is best served by skipping the presis in order to avoid a roadwalk? i doubt theyd take it that far, but the example illustrates the fallacy of "avoid roads no matter what" thinking.
I used to get pissed at road walks too that I thought unnecessary. We don't know the "why's", or if we did, if the "why's" pass our own litmus test as "good" reasons. Road walks CAN BE part of the legitimately valid hiking experience i.e.; through Hot Springs or Hanover or Damascus for example. Across Bridge of the Gods for example. If I think them unnecessarily dangerous I may skip them. If they are used as temporary relos I may skip them also as I did on a PCT thru due to "official" PCT trail closures from forest fires. Came back and hiked the PCT which took more than 5 times before I bagged those PCT miles.
Then there is the flip side - a trail routed off a road sometimes not posing a great hazard and having better scenery, maybe easier logistics, better water availability, of shorter distance, etc in favor of the single track sometimes not more than 100 ft off the road.
It's all good though as options are there. The ENORMOUS WORK done and resources contributed by so many that continues as trails evolve should NEVER be ignored.
F WE have to understand trails evolve and change and ARE NOT SET IN STONE.
trails dont evolve, they are consciously changed by people making decisions. why you think those decisions are above questioning or speculation as to if they are wise or not i am not entirely sure...
specifically, in this instance, again, for the 7th time, the old trail is still there. it is still accessible and is still used as a hiking trail. so the question is- why abandon a perfectly good trail for a new one that has no clear advantage and has several clear disadvantages, the biggest being practical ones concerning construction and regular maintenance and safety?
i dont think thats in anyway an unfair question to ask, again, not sure why you do.
not sure why you want to just paint this as me whining about not liking the trail while simultaneously failing to properly see, acknowledge and respect the wisdom of some sort of higher beings who should not be questioned.
The ENORMOUS WORK done and resources contributed by so many that continues as trails evolve should NEVER be ignored.
i'm not ignoring it, i'm questioning whether it was work (and to be sure, it was, and is continually, a LOT of work i am sure) that was worth the effort or if those resources and renergy maybe would have been better used elsewhere.
get it?
http://www.appalachiantrail.org/docs/atj/00-trailyears.pdf
Worthy read of the evolving history of the AT providing insight to relos. Despite some opinions the AT is not "done." It changes according to many different factors and threats to keep intact a continuous unbroken trail despite it's
National Scenic Trail designation, which surely helped but is by far no panacea.
You're question is certainly a fair one. The answers given might not be though. :p
Evolve - when something changes, develops over time, hopefully for the better. The AT evolves. All trails evolve. Now we have a different PCT, one that will be routed through rather than around Tejon Ranch.
what was going through their minds is exactly the question, take that harshly perhaps, but that not necessarily the case. just saying, if there is a good reason i'm not seeing it.
like i said, my suspicion is it was to avoid a roadwalk. maybe to some thats a good reason. personally i think the unspoken but often evident attitude that trail in the woods is always better than walking on a road, period, is ill conceived at best. doubly so when the trail that is created to avoid it is not only less interesting than the alternative, but clearly hard to build and maintain. just seems like a lot of effort to create a stretch of trail thats less pleasant than what it replaced.
Getting the trail off roads is quite often the motivation for relos. In fact I think the ATC has a stated goal (too lazy to look it up) of eliminating all or most road walks, eventually, as resources allow. I can name two or three off the top of my head -- the largest and most obvious is the reroute in PA formerly known as the "Cumberland road walk (north of Boiling Springs.) Another on is the extended board walk through the marsh near Vernon NJ. A third is near Falls Village CT, where the trail now follows along the river rather than the road into the village. A fourth is Pond Mtn., just south of Watauga Lake. Etc. etc.
Another Kevin
09-13-2016, 18:46
Getting the trail off roads is quite often the motivation for relos. In fact I think the ATC has a stated goal (too lazy to look it up) of eliminating all or most road walks, eventually, as resources allow. I can name two or three off the top of my head -- the largest and most obvious is the reroute in PA formerly known as the "Cumberland road walk (north of Boiling Springs.) Another on is the extended board walk through the marsh near Vernon NJ. A third is near Falls Village CT, where the trail now follows along the river rather than the road into the village. A fourth is Pond Mtn., just south of Watauga Lake. Etc. etc.
I know of a fair number of relocations that have been done, too, to harden the trail. The original routing was to charge straight up the fall line, often on unconsolidated soil, which causes tremendous erosion problems and is why the trail is a ditch in spots.
Unfortunately, the relocations to avoid erosion issues typically make the trail both longer and less challenging. But they're often the only way to make it sustainable.
Sometimes the old fall-line trail is still usable, but can't handle the traffic that the AT would put on it. Or else, the landowner may demand that the trail remain open for other purposes. (Much of the land the AT traverses is NOT owned by the National Park Service.) In those cases, it may stay blazed and open.
There's a very complicated story about why the Mohawk Trail in Connecticut is no longer the AT. I'll let those who know the story better than I do tell it. I'm convinced that there was good and sufficient reason for the (30-mile) reroute.
For one (non-AT) trail near me, there was a sudden reroute because an adjacent landowner suddenly decided (incorrectly) that the trail corridor was encroaching on his land. The trail conference gave in when he started confronting hikers in the field announcing that they were trespassing, and threatening to fire on them. There is now a three-mile roadwalk to avoid the property in question, and the reroute totally cut off access to a lean-to on state land. The issue was kept very quiet for fear that some armed hiker would decide to take the law into his own hands; a firefight could have doomed the entire trail forever. The evidence of the incident was not deemed to be sound enough to prosecute the offender. The offending landowner eventually wound up bankrupt and sold out to a developer, but other things changed for the worse and the old routing cannot be reestablished.
These decisions are surely not arbitrary. It seems to me a bit of an entitled attitude for a hiker who isn't a maintainer of a section to demand an accounting for every routing decision. I can assure you that no maintainer will take on the backbreaking work of moving a trail unless there's a danmed good reason. For the most part (given all the constraints of land rights, sustainability, safety, and what not), those who do the work make the routing, and that's how it should be.
"The goal was, and is, to have the Trail off roads and in as natural a setting as possible, preferably at the height of land."
-- The Appalachian Trail, Celebrating America's Hiking Trail (Rizzoli, International Publishers, New York, 2012) p. 120
(Link to the book: http://www.appalachiantrail.org/home/community/news/2013/09/18/the-appalachian-trail-celebrating-america-s-hiking-trail-named-2012-nature-book-of-the-year)
There's a very complicated story about why the Mohawk Trail in Connecticut is no longer the AT. I'll let those who know the story better than I do tell it. I'm convinced that there was good and sufficient reason for the (30-mile) reroute.
something about a cemetery, halloween shenanigans, and a private landowner. basically, the trail would be unusable for the month of october and i guess it was decided itd be better to just route the trail elsewhere
These decisions are surely not arbitrary.
maybe not, but i also doubt the current trail maintainers for the section i am speaking about know the reasoning. see my above story about the way paint blazes marking turns in souther PA are handled the "reason" they are that way. ive found much in the world that shouldnt be arbitrary is just that.
It seems to me a bit of an entitled attitude for a hiker who isn't a maintainer of a section to demand an accounting for every routing decision.
not demanding, and talking about one specific trail section. you raise an interesting point about the trail's ability to withstand the traffic necessary to be the AT. anyone who has walked the ITM in the section in question care to comment on that? i will say the fact that it is used to by mountain bikes, to my mind, does kind of address whether or not the trail is hard enough to take the use of being the AT.
I can assure you that no maintainer will take on the backbreaking work of moving a trail unless there's a danmed good reason. For the most part (given all the constraints of land rights, sustainability, safety, and what not), those who do the work make the routing, and that's how it should be.
its nit picking perhaps, but this wasnt exactly the case of the trail being "moved." the relo on bear mountain is the trail being "moved." in the case i am asking about a new trail was built. the old one still exists. where there was once one trail, there are now two. to many minds "two trails are better than one" might be all the justification that is needed to make the work worth it, dont you think? its not a perspective without its validity, i just dont know about calling the lesser of the two trails the AT.
i'll also add that since the land is, i believe, on national recreation area property it may have very well been built by a paid trail crew hired by the government. someone at a desk somewhere may have decreed it and then paid people who had no vested interest in where the trail was or wasnt to go out and build the thing. it may not be the norm, but there certainly are many trails in many areas that have come to be in just such a manner, are there not? not every inch of trail we hike on is made by volunteers engaged in a labor of love, lets not overly romanticize it.
"The goal was, and is, to have the Trail off roads and in as natural a setting as possible, preferably at the height of land."
-- The Appalachian Trail, Celebrating America's Hiking Trail (Rizzoli, International Publishers, New York, 2012) p. 120
(Link to the book: http://www.appalachiantrail.org/home/community/news/2013/09/18/the-appalachian-trail-celebrating-america-s-hiking-trail-named-2012-nature-book-of-the-year)
depending on how you look at, there isnt anything at all "natural" about the section of trail i'm talking about, and thats part of my issue with it. it could easily be argued keeping the old trail routing and then using a short roadwalk to link it all together (if thats even the explanation, that is just speculation on my part in lieu of someone having a concrete answer) is, overall, the more "natural" routing.
i ask again, if suddenly for some strange reason the ATC faced a choice of having a 2 mile roadwalk somewhere in NH that could only be avoided by skipping the presidential range, which routing would you favor? anyone who says "eliminate the roadwalk at any cost" has some screwed priorities if you ask me.
Your hypothetical is silly. "Height of land" means that, given a choice, the trail will always follow the ridgeline. Beisdes which, the trails through the White Mountains predate the AT by a long shot. Most of the folks on those trails know them by their local names and could care less about the AT.
Mind you, I don't particularly love all the relos, and appreciate a nice road walk every now and then. I never did climb Pond Mtn. I've never heard anyone say they enjoyed it. I took the old road walk into Falls Village by accident -- I missed the turnoff for the new relo. It was pleasant walking in the shade on a hot day, instead of the steamy marsh along the river.
I still don't know why the trail was relo'd between Killington Peak and Rte. 4. The old AT (the Sherbourne Trail) was quite pleasant, and took you right to the Inn at the Long Trail. Nor do I understand why the trail was relo'd away from Monson, especially given that 99.9% of hikers have to stop at Monson anyway. A lot of it seems to make no sense, but I'm sure there were reasons.
Your hypothetical is silly. "Height of land" means that, given a choice, the trail will always follow the ridgeline.
and yet, in the specific example i am discussing, the old route of the AT, which IS STILL THERE and is STILL IN USE follows the ridgeline, while the new trail does not. so i guess "given a choice, the trail will always follow the ridgeline" isnt really the case. the choice to follow the ridgeline seems to be readily available, and a different choice was made. i can not and will not get behind "well there MUST be a really awesome reason for it." and i'm not sure why anyone would. too many things in the world are senseless and arbitrary, why should hiking trails be any different?
the reason for the sherburne pass situation i believe was something like "eww yuck ski slopes = bad" also probably pretty silly in the grand scheme of things. i sort of recall hearing that there was at some point real concern about the ski slopes literally causing the trail to have to be closed, but since the old routing is still there and still open, it would seem that fear was unfounded. it may also be example of the "hey two trails are better than one, so if we can find a reason to build a new one, why not?"
Reasons why the Long Trail is the way it is given the dates it came about existing before the AT, the construction techniques available at the time, the thinking of the time, etc why it goes straight up and straight down with then no switchbacks(still not many) over the pinnacles of the tallest peaks in the state, why it was rerouted atop Mt Mansfield to allow for Lynx habitat, why the AT tread is not routed directly along Gulf Hagas in ME for example or why it is where it is in S NP as another example or why it is where it is in the White Mountains of New Hampshire where the AMC already existed, or why it no longer ends at Mt Oglethorpe or even Amicalola Falls SP. There are reasons why the PCT is no longer the Rim Tr at Crater Lake NP, as it once was(the NPS took down every PCT blaze and sign) or Eagle Creek or why it only skirts Mt Rainier NP and isn't conjoined with the Wonderland Tr. What most of all should be recognized is the top prioritizing of the AT and its routing is not shared by all agencies, all people, all towns, etc. The world of backpacking/hiking/camping/outdoor activities DOES NOT revolve around the AT. Problems arise when the AT is placed on a pedestal as if all issues with this mighty lady should be prioritized over all possible others. Oh yeah, the AT is evolving! It has to!
in case anyone here doesnt know the section i am referring to, here it is. it is in fact on mt roger's NRA land-
36204
What most of all should be recognized is the top prioritizing of the AT and its routing is not shared by all agencies, all people, all towns, etc. The world of backpacking/hiking/camping/outdoor activities DOES NOT revolve around the AT. Problems arise when the AT is placed on a pedestal as if all issues with this mighty lady should be prioritized over all possible others. Oh yeah, the AT is evolving! It has to!
i agree with this sentiment 100% and have made that argument in other threads here, mostly about the whites.
in the specific example i am discussing, one possibility is that having a mountain bike trail through the region was a priority and that the ATC chose to not want to share a mountain bike trail, even for a short stretch. if thats the case, maybe someone local to or otherwise familiar with the area might be able to say so, or at least back up that speculation as as being a good possibility.
thing is though, if you google mountain biking the IMT, it doesnt seem like its really something too many people do.
Traveler
09-14-2016, 07:20
A quick email to the chapter that maintains that trail section would probably get the answers.
the reason for the sherburne pass situation i believe was something like "eww yuck ski slopes = bad" also probably pretty silly in the grand scheme of things. i sort of recall hearing that there was at some point real concern about the ski slopes literally causing the trail to have to be closed, but since the old routing is still there and still open, it would seem that fear was unfounded. it may also be example of the "hey two trails are better than one, so if we can find a reason to build a new one, why not?"
The negotiations over the AT path over Killington dragged on for years. Another motivation for relos is to get the trail off of private land. Similar goings on concerning the AT path over Saddleback (just north of Rangely.) I'm not saying I agree with all the relos, but they are not decided upon arbitrarily, or by a single individual, or simply to make work for trail crews.
peakbagger
09-14-2016, 08:59
Earl Schaffer was critical of the AT in Maine on his anniversary hike as he felt that the relocations since his original hike had made it more of an athletic challenge than a hiking trail. When he first hiked the AT in Maine, there were long stretches on private land and in many areas, the trail was routed from sporting camp to sporting camp. Much of the trail was relatively well graded log roads and many mountains were bypassed plus there was frequently a place with a bed and food every night. There was a couple of reasons for this. The original Maine section was mostly on private land used for timber production, state law was that no fires are allowed on private land without a permit from the owner or that a registered Maine Guide was present. Neither option was viable for hikers so the AT was routed between state owned lands and private camps. The other issue was the ATC was shooting to "finish" the trail and the Maine section was way behind, there was a deadline established that if the Maine section of the route was not complete, the AT would end at Mt Washington in NH. Myron Avery and small group took up the challenge to fill in the gaps and the usual solution was run the trail down logging roads to various sporting camps usually running alongside but not over the mountains. The trail got completed but it started ongoing conflicts with landowners. I know of hikers in the sixties that came over a ridgeline on the AT route and encountered and entire valley clearcut with little trace of the AT until the opposite ridge.
Fast forward to the seventies and Bob Cummings (a whiteblaze member) championed a legal case that ended up forcing the timber companies to hand over large tracts of land http://www.pressherald.com/2016/01/23/pioneering-maine-environmental-reporter-bob-cummings-dies-at-86/ . The paper companies didn't have much use for land on the ridgeline and didn't want hikers and an AT corridor on their prime timberland so deals were struck to trade timberland for ridgeline. The AT was then rerouted to the ridgelines albeit in a hurry and MATC has been undoing the damage of hurried initial trail construction ever since. Dave Field http://www.pressherald.com/2013/07/27/his-best-foot-ever-forward_2013-07-28/ published a book on the early history of the trail in Maine a few years back it has a lot of early photos of the effort and the older route
A section of the original AT from Mt Bigelow to Caratunk in Maine was abandoned and another trail, The Arnold Trail was substituted. Early guides listed either route as an alternative but the construction of the Long Falls Dam on the Dead River forming Flagstaff Lake effectively drowned the trail and two small towns along with it.
Some of the other relocations were to get the AT out of towns. In my town Gorham NH, the AT used to run through town and used a couple of ways of crossing a major river. In the seventies hikers were not appreciated in many towns and the AT would be relocated around the town. AMC was looking for a project for their centennial and they built a trail to bypass Gorham. Even though most thru hikers come into town after the long stretch of the whites, they now have to hitch in or blue blaze.
I personally was trying to get ATC interested in a relocation in my area. There is a road walk along RT2 and then a road walk down a town road to cross a river and eventually connect up with an old town road before heading back in the woods. About 2/3rd of the road walk could be eliminated and the trail routed along the river. The majority of the land is publically owned with one small unbuildable parcel that a private owner had listed for sale and another parcel that at the time may have been available. I talked to a couple of ATC regional reps at a few AT events but they weren't interested as it was not a high priority. About all they would do was let someone else do the work and then accept it at the end. I got the impression that they would much rather do high profile view shed purchases than protecting the actual trail route.
or by a single individual
it would then follow that in whatever group of people are making the decision, some members may not even agree...
AMC was looking for a project for their centennial and they built a trail to bypass Gorham.
so in other words, sometimes trails ARE built, more or less, for the sake of building trails.
and i see nothing wrong with that, at all. as ive said "the more trails the better" is a perfectly valid viewpoint in some sense. i just wonder if it is always to good of the AT. I wonder if "for the preservation of the AT" isnt sometimes used as the reasoning for building a new trail to move the AT on to in cases where "we want to build a new trail just to have a new trail" would not have generated the necessary support.
and please, no one try and claim again that no one builds trails just for the sake of having trails. thats just silly, the fact of the matter is ALL hiking trails are, indeed, built just for the sake of having trails.
Digger'02
09-14-2016, 11:13
so in other words, sometimes trails ARE built, more or less, for the sake of building trails.
and i see nothing wrong with that, at all. as ive said "the more trails the better" is a perfectly valid viewpoint in some sense. i just wonder if it is always to good of the AT. I wonder if "for the preservation of the AT" isnt sometimes used as the reasoning for building a new trail to move the AT on to in cases where "we want to build a new trail just to have a new trail" would not have generated the necessary support.
and please, no one try and claim again that no one builds trails just for the sake of having trails. thats just silly, the fact of the matter is ALL hiking trails are, indeed, built just for the sake of having trails.
I'll find out and get back to you.
There are plenty of people who go back that far.
Feel free to call sometime, I like questions that don't involve someone's 23 year old son that has stopped calling his mother while on a thru-hike
We're getting the AT off of roads as a rule, even if they are nice.
-Your friendly, neighborhood ATC guy.
Another Kevin
09-14-2016, 11:13
it would then follow that in whatever group of people are making the decision, some members may not even agree...
Well, of course. Do you think that in a group of diverse stakeholders, you can find total agreement on any issue?
Your original question, "I don't understand why such-and-such relocation is done, can anyone explain it?" is certainly a reasonable one - and I still believe that it has an entirely reasonable answer. (The answer may be more political than I'd like, but that's the real world.)
The tone has grown increasingly polarized as the thread went on. It would be better if both sides of the discussion can make the assumption of good will - there was a good reason at the time, even if nobody remembers it (and, unfortunately, many such decisions aren't documented quite as well as they ought to be). If the answers so far have been unsatisfactory, perhaps go back to the questioning tone, "would the maintaining club entertain a proposal to place the white blazes on the height of land rather than the current hillside route?"
Given humans' visceral attachment to the land that they inhabit, I don't expect that any decisions about land use will be entirely rational.
My guess for most seemingly nonsensical trail routings is that, at some time in the past, there was some issue with a landowner. Different maintaining organizations and different trails have different rules and priorities. Example: The New York Long Path maintainers seem willing to accept routings that are closed in deer season as long as they're open the rest of the year., and the guidebook informs hikers of the workarounds, which sometimes involve extensive roadwalks That protocol would be entirely unacceptable for the AT. It could well be that some former landowner insisted on that sort of condition, and the restrictions may even be read into the deed - although, in the last case, the problem would at least be documented. It could have been as simple as someone pointing down the hillside and saying, "could y'all put the trail down there rather than up here? This patch is where I like to hunt." In the past, and even today on lesser trails, a lot of easements are maintained on just a handshake basis, so these things often don't get documented.
I talked fairly recently with a saintly old man who had granted an easement-in-perpetuity for the New York Long Path to cross his woodlot. He was perplexed when the Trail Conference reps showed up to the closing with lawyers in tow, and a multi-page contract of bargain and sale for the easement. He had expected to conclude the deal much more informally. He doesn't trouble to post his farm. In fact, he had disdainful remarks about the "city people" who buy up the land and post everything in sight. He doesn't mind hikers as long as they don't tread on crops, leave the livestock alone, refrain from poaching, stay out of sight of the house, and leave gates as they find them. (I can recall a time when that was more the rule than the exception.) He treated with equal derision the idea that the government would condemn a trail easement. He is an old-fashioned gentleman who believes that people should simply decide these things with a word and a handshake - and then keep their word. The locals try very hard to respect his generosity. It extends to more than hikers. Outside the growing season, he lets one of the local model aircraft clubs use one of his fields as a runway - on an equally informal basis. Their picnic tables and viewing benches are there year-round, as is their wind sock. I wondered at the wind sock standing amid the tall corn, when I first hiked his land. In fact, I first met the landowner because I was having lunch at one of the picnic tables. It had a very nice view.
From http://www.fs.usda.gov/alerts/gwj/alerts-notices/?aid=17599
(http://www.fs.usda.gov/alerts/gwj/alerts-notices/?aid=17599)
"AT Hikers Rerouted near Damascus from Washed-Out Footbridge Date(s): May 22, 2013
Contact(s): Mount Rogers NRA (276) 783-5196
A section of the Appalachian National Scenic Trail (A.T.) near Straight Branch and US-58 east of Damascus, VA, has been rerouted indefinitely due to the complete washout of the Straight Branch A.T. Footbridge during a high water event in May 2013. The reroute (detour) follows portions of the Beech Grove Trail (#4552) and Virginia Creeper Trail (#4575). This detour is expected to be in place for the foreseeable future, as A.T. management partners plan for the construction of a replacement footbridge."
Perhaps something like this occurred, and a couple years later it was decided to "repair" whatever damage.
Who's to say that maybe in a couple years the A.T. management partners do come up with a reroute of the this section. In ten years later, will someone be investigating why that section was rerouted?
V8
Well, of course. Do you think that in a group of diverse stakeholders, you can find total agreement on any issue?
Your original question, "I don't understand why such-and-such relocation is done, can anyone explain it?" is certainly a reasonable one - and I still believe that it has an entirely reasonable answer. (The answer may be more political than I'd like, but that's the real world.)
The tone has grown increasingly polarized as the thread went on. It would be better if both sides of the discussion can make the assumption of good will - there was a good reason at the time, even if nobody remembers it (and, unfortunately, many such decisions aren't documented quite as well as they ought to be). If the answers so far have been unsatisfactory, perhaps go back to the questioning tone, "would the maintaining club entertain a proposal to place the white blazes on the height of land rather than the current hillside route?"
Given humans' visceral attachment to the land that they inhabit, I don't expect that any decisions about land use will be entirely rational.
…
Exactly. A reasonable question but then the polarizing and harsh judgments creep in. I used to routinely do the same thing analyzing landscape designs making harsh judgements about the architects or architectural firm while not knowing or understanding all of the parameters that were placed upon them during the design and construction phases when some aspects were sometimes out of their hands despite them making it known to clients the consequences of such restraints.
Well, of course. Do you think that in a group of diverse stakeholders, you can find total agreement on any issue?
my point being, that contrary to what several have seemingly implied, the reasoning, whatever it may be, very likely was not something cut and dry and obvious and above question, even by those who had direct input. several responses to my question, including in some part yours, have taken the "how dare you question..." tone as a response. my point is, im sure that even people within the groups responsible for these decisions have questioned them, and if they can, than we all can.
From http://www.fs.usda.gov/alerts/gwj/alerts-notices/?aid=17599
(http://www.fs.usda.gov/alerts/gwj/alerts-notices/?aid=17599)
"AT Hikers Rerouted near Damascus from Washed-Out Footbridge Date(s): May 22, 2013
Contact(s): Mount Rogers NRA (276) 783-5196
A section of the Appalachian National Scenic Trail (A.T.) near Straight Branch and US-58 east of Damascus, VA, has been rerouted indefinitely due to the complete washout of the Straight Branch A.T. Footbridge during a high water event in May 2013. The reroute (detour) follows portions of the Beech Grove Trail (#4552) and Virginia Creeper Trail (#4575). This detour is expected to be in place for the foreseeable future, as A.T. management partners plan for the construction of a replacement footbridge."
Perhaps something like this occurred, and a couple years later it was decided to "repair" whatever damage.
Who's to say that maybe in a couple years the A.T. management partners do come up with a reroute of the this section. In ten years later, will someone be investigating why that section was rerouted?
V8
plausible. i'd like to think in such a case, that once the damage to the original trail is repaired, that someone will stop and think "hey, maybe we should go back to the old route now" but the truth is that probably no one would, and that, to me is in a sense an "arbitrary" decision in the fact that the possibility of a decision exists but no one has thought to make it, so it is decided by default with no rational basis behind it.
Digger'02
09-14-2016, 15:58
Still tracking this one down but found out a few interesting tidbits over my lunch - The AT was on that route as late as '74, maybe later, but the IMT was a multi-use trail (and still is at many points). Acquisition in that area was not completed until later in the 70's and 80's and once the acquisition occurred, adding value to the National Recreation Area, instead of kicking the horses off, they built a relo to provide for a footpath only route and eliminate a road walk.
This is coming from a source that goes back to '79, the older folks will have to be asked face to face, but I should see them this month. If there is any additional relevant information, I will share it.
Still tracking this one down but found out a few interesting tidbits over my lunch - The AT was on that route as late as '74, maybe later, but the IMT was a multi-use trail (and still is at many points). Acquisition in that area was not completed until later in the 70's and 80's and once the acquisition occurred, adding value to the National Recreation Area, instead of kicking the horses off, they built a relo to provide for a footpath only route and eliminate a road walk.
This is coming from a source that goes back to '79, the older folks will have to be asked face to face, but I should see them this month. If there is any additional relevant information, I will share it.
Thanks for the info. So are horses currently allowed on that portion of the imt? Were horses allowed on the at in that area prior to the relo? If so, that may be the answer right there. I honestly feel kind of silly for not considering the horse angle. It seemed like most of the horseback riding was well south of there but maybe I subconsciously assumed too much in not considering horses might still be allowed on that section of the imt
Two Speed
09-14-2016, 16:27
. . . Bob Cummings (a whiteblaze member) . . . Make that former member. Bob passed away earlier this year.
http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/content.php/1318-Bob-Cummings-Legendary-Maine-environmental-reporter-moves-on-to-new-trails
Digger'02
09-14-2016, 16:48
Thanks for the info. So are horses currently allowed on that portion of the imt? Were horses allowed on the at in that area prior to the relo? If so, that may be the answer right there. I honestly feel kind of silly for not considering the horse angle. It seemed like most of the horseback riding was well south of there but maybe I subconsciously assumed too much in not considering horses might still be allowed on that section of the imt
Horses were allowed on the IMT back then, and still are, and Mountain Bikes are as well all the way up to the IMT 'Trailhead' at the gated 741 spur. Now Trail north of the 741 spur is hiking only trail because it was added to the IMT after the AT was relocated off. Before the relo the AT got on Homestead road at 741 and followed it to 16, so the road walk was considerably longer. Apparently there was some private in-holdings around Comers falls that lasted for some time.
Good question!!!! I'm glad folks are thinking about this stuff.
Horses were allowed on the IMT back then, and still are, and Mountain Bikes are as well all the way up to the IMT 'Trailhead' at the gated 741 spur. Now Trail north of the 741 spur is hiking only trail because it was added to the IMT after the AT was relocated off. Before the relo the AT got on Homestead road at 741 and followed it to 16, so the road walk was considerably longer. Apparently there was some private in-holdings around Comers falls that lasted for some time.
Good question!!!! I'm glad folks are thinking about this stuff.
So I guess the question is whether or not having to share the trail with horses is that big a deal or not. I'm going to refrain from venturing an opinion for the moment.
So I guess the question is whether or not having to share the trail with horses is that big a deal or not. I'm going to refrain from venturing an opinion for the moment.also going to have to check my maps re the road walk that was when I have a chance, which won't be until tomorrow probably.
peakbagger
09-14-2016, 17:48
Make that former member. Bob passed away earlier this year.
http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/content.php/1318-Bob-Cummings-Legendary-Maine-environmental-reporter-moves-on-to-new-trails
Considering that I linked to his obituary, I think it was obvious that he had passed away. At one time he was a member and thus no need to add former.
Horses were allowed on the IMT back then, and still are, and Mountain Bikes are as well all the way up to the IMT 'Trailhead' at the gated 741 spur. Now Trail north of the 741 spur is hiking only trail because it was added to the IMT after the AT was relocated off. Before the relo the AT got on Homestead road at 741 and followed it to 16, so the road walk was considerably longer. Apparently there was some private in-holdings around Comers falls that lasted for some time.
Good question!!!! I'm glad folks are thinking about this stuff.
i'm trying to line this up with my map, but there is no "741" on the hiking map that i can see, so i cant quite make perfect sense of it.
but i dos ee homestead road. at present, through the section i am talking about, the AT, the IMT and homestead road are all parallel to each other. if the AT there used to be homestead road, does that mean the IMT in that area is this newly created section north of wherever 741 is? im guessing so.
if thats the case, when the AT was taken off of homestead road, why wasnt it put where the IMT is now? was the land not acquired yet at that pint, but the land that little bit further down the ridge was?? interesting.
and if that was the case, when the top of the ridge was acquired, i wonder why the AT was moved there?
being able to see where exactly "741" is would help, wish it was on the hiking map.
ok, so according to google maps, 741 *IS* homestead road. the thing is, the current routing of the IMT doesnt really cross it, unless it does just before route 16. so the IMT up to there was the old AT route and the new IMT is, in essence, on the other side of 16, or am i missing a crossing somewhere? there also gates indicated on the IMT back by cherry tree shelter, but they arent at 741, are those the gates being referred to?
also worth nothing, the map uses dots to represent "multi use trails" which i take to mean trails that allow horses. the IMT in that section (and indeed nowhere on the map) is not indicated as a multiuse trail. it is marked as dashes, indicating a "side trail."
is the map wrong or are horses actually not allowed on the IMT at present? can anyone clarify?
here is a better, though unfortunately black and white, scan of the map of the area.
36221
i think i found the spot that is the "trailhead" on the IMT being referred to. it is, according to another website, "near 741" but not actually a crossing of 741. see screenshot of google map below.
so the current IMT from that point to the crossing of 16 was never part of the AT i'm guessing? any idea of a timeline of when the at relocation was done and then when the newer part of the IMT extending it out to rt 16 was done? was the land on top of the ridge and the land a couple hundred feet down the ridge (and probably less than a mile a way, and indeed almost touching (minus the vertical difference) in a couple spots really parts of separate land acquisitions? interesting stuff.
are mountain bikes not allowed beyond this point either? the site i found this info on was about mountain bikes and talks of the trail ending at that point and makes no mention of the continuation of it.
Two Speed
09-15-2016, 10:11
Considering that I linked to his obituary, I think it was obvious that he had passed away. At one time he was a member and thus no need to add former.I beg to differ. Any problems that Bob is working on probably have precious little to do with the AT or WB.
So I guess the question is whether or not having to share the trail with horses is that big a deal or not. I'm going to refrain from venturing an opinion for the moment.
By phrasing the post that way it assumes a pedestrian only trail was "the" priority for all in what is a trail in a National Recreation Area. Perhaps, it was equestrians and stock users who foresaw problems arising too given the terrain and the increasing added foot traffic of an increasingly popular footpath - the AT. Issues would have been foreseen by governing agencies as well. National Recreation Areas exist for a wide range of people involved in activities beyond hiking.
Similar concerns occur for hunters and fisherman in areas like Wilderness Areas who share these areas. Similar to that are agencies like the NPS or those who govern SP's who have concerns, given the terrain in some NP's and SP's the amount of added traffic and other concerns, National Scenic Trails may create for already popular or fragile areas in the NP or the added demand on resources Umm, Baxter SP immediately comes to mind. In National Forests which may have logging rights sold off there's other possible friction. Private land owner issues as AK said can arise. Protecting the AT corridor is no easy task; it can become complex and convoluted despite having protections as a National Scenic Trail.
Digger'02
09-15-2016, 13:57
i think i found the spot that is the "trailhead" on the IMT being referred to. it is, according to another website, "near 741" but not actually a crossing of 741. see screenshot of google map below.
so the current IMT from that point to the crossing of 16 was never part of the AT i'm guessing? any idea of a timeline of when the at relocation was done and then when the newer part of the IMT extending it out to rt 16 was done? was the land on top of the ridge and the land a couple hundred feet down the ridge (and probably less than a mile a way, and indeed almost touching (minus the vertical difference) in a couple spots really parts of separate land acquisitions? interesting stuff.
are mountain bikes not allowed beyond this point either? the site i found this info on was about mountain bikes and talks of the trail ending at that point and makes no mention of the continuation of it.
You are correct. My understanding is that the IMT from the 741 spur (7411) to 16 was never part of the AT. I don't know about when that section of the IMT was completed, but if I got to hike it, I could make a decent guess. I'll also ask around.
Mountain bikes are not allowed on the IMT from 7411 to 16, and it looks like there were a few separate parcel acquisitions in that area, but I haven't found anything conclusive. Full disclosure: I haven't had time to look that hard.
Hope this helps clear things up a bit!
You are correct. My understanding is that the IMT from the 741 spur (7411) to 16 was never part of the AT. I don't know about when that section of the IMT was completed, but if I got to hike it, I could make a decent guess. I'll also ask around.
Mountain bikes are not allowed on the IMT from 7411 to 16, and it looks like there were a few separate parcel acquisitions in that area, but I haven't found anything conclusive. Full disclosure: I haven't had time to look that hard.
Hope this helps clear things up a bit!
cleared things up... and made it all the more intriguing and mysterious too... thanks on both counts.
so is the AT maps just misprinted in the sense that they dont correctly label the IMT south of 741 as multiuse?
are there communication towers through the specific stretch of about 5 miles i am talking about? the entire reroute is maybe 40 or 50 miles, easily, im talking a small section of it. i dont think there are communication towers in that section.
but even if there are... i still dont see it as worth it. the AT passes lots of towers like that, so what? that section of the new trail has no redeeming qualities that make it so much better than walking past a few towers that i can see.
According to the 1974 Guide to the AT in Central and SW VA a major trail relocation was made in 1972 between Dickey Gap (Hwy 16) and Damascus to route the trail across Mt. Rogers and Whitetop. Some time after 1974 the trail was moved off the summit of Whitetop because of radio towers. The 2007 AT Guide to SW VA supports this explanation stating the trail no longer leads to the summit of Whitetop because the view is "marred by federal and state communications relay-stations." The 2007 Guide describes the IMT as a "cluster of long abandoned wagon routes, footpaths, and unpaved USFS roads." The AT followed this route before the 1972 relocation. It also states that Mt. Rogers AT Club maintains the section between HY 16 and Damascus the only section widely used by hikers. Parts of the trail are open to mountain bikes, horses, or both.
I can think of other places where the trail goes past large radar and VOR installations. (Snowbird Mtn, Apple Orchard Mtn.)
I can think of other places where the trail goes past large radar and VOR installations. (Snowbird Mtn, Apple Orchard Mtn.)
similar to my "what if" hypothetical about removing the trail from the northern presis if it avoided a road walk- theres all sorts of ugly unpleasant stuff on top of mt washington mucking up the view that you have to walk by. is anyone talking about moving the trail off the summit (would be easy to do) so hikers dont have to see it? of course not.
the people who decide these things, IMO, seem to make a big deal over nothing every so often.
having just walked it on the same hike, i have to say, the current trail routing on whitetop is odd too. its shorter, so i didnt notice it and theres no longer an obvious different route that still exists and is shown on the hiking maps, so it didnt register as strongly, but really, just go over the summit of the mountain. you break out into the open, see the top of the mountain looming in front of you, and then boom back into tree cover? c'mon!
A quick email to the chapter that maintains that trail section would probably get the answers.
often times folks on this board suggest i do something like this. i almost never do for two reasons the first is the assumption the person i'd be contacting has better things to do, and the second is the feeling that, often times (and this case, because of the years involved, is definitely one of those) they probably dont have the answer.
but in any case, i e-mailed the maintaining organization. my e-mail was forwarded to the president, she responded. she had some insight about the general area, specifically about relos just to the north and linking them up together, but no real answer. in fact, she seemed not to know some of the info that people have posted here (this is NOT a criticism of her, no matter how hard some of you will try and read it that way).
the most interesting thing she had to share was that she has noticed the same thing and has had informal conversations about feeling like the AT should be at the top of that ridge instead of the side of it with other people who have a say in the matter at various times.
Seatbelt
09-16-2016, 13:10
similar to my "what if" hypothetical about removing the trail from the northern presis if it avoided a road walk- theres all sorts of ugly unpleasant stuff on top of mt washington mucking up the view that you have to walk by. is anyone talking about moving the trail off the summit (would be easy to do) so hikers dont have to see it? of course not.
the people who decide these things, IMO, seem to make a big deal over nothing every so often.
having just walked it on the same hike, i have to say, the current trail routing on whitetop is odd too. its shorter, so i didnt notice it and theres no longer an obvious different route that still exists and is shown on the hiking maps, so it didnt register as strongly, but really, just go over the summit of the mountain. you break out into the open, see the top of the mountain looming in front of you, and then boom back into tree cover? c'mon!
Maybe the folks who installed and maintain the tower(s) on Whitetop heard stories about some less than desirable thru-hiker behavior and insisted on the trail being relocated???? Just a thought.
Maybe the folks who installed and maintain the tower(s) on Whitetop heard stories about some less than desirable thru-hiker behavior and insisted on the trail being relocated???? Just a thought.
maybe, but id be more inclined to chalk it up to the fact that in different places different parts of the trail are managed by different people and they have different concepts of what the trail should be like.
LittleRock
09-29-2016, 09:26
recently i hiked from damascus to mt roger's headquarters, ie, through an area where there was a major trail relocation and the old trail still exists as the iron mountain trail (as far as i know).
i had always just sort of assumed the reasoning behind the relocation to be making the AT more scenic or otherwise somehow better, but now that ive hiked it, one stretch in particular puzzles me...
just trail south of hurricane mountain shelter you come to the last (if youre hiking north) of multiple criss crossing of the old and new AT. from this point north to route 16 the trail routing, IMO, makes little to no sense. it descends to part way down the ride as it passes the shelter, then proceeds to countour around the ridge for what seems like eternity. its borrowing, repetitive trail that im sure was difficult to build, hard to maintain, is eroded badly in spots to the point of perhaps being dangerous in wet and muddy conditions. i havent hiked the iron mountain trail through there, but the map shows it as just sitting on top of the ridgeline and following it out to the road... sounds like a way better trail than the current AT to me, so what gives? why is the AT where it is now instead of where it used to be? its about 5 miles or so of trail that i dont see as a likely improvement over the old routing.
is it so that the shelter could exist? is it because the idea of the now iron mountain trail being a mountain bike trail goes all the way back to the original idea for a relo, and sharing it for even part of the way was deemed undesirable? or is it, as i tend to suspect, to avoid a roadwalk once you get to 16?
anyone care to speculate on these or any other ideas, or better yet, know the actual reasoning behind this? again, i am talking about one specific, relatively short stretch, not the entire relocation off of what is now the iron mountain trail.
I remember making the same observation when I hiked this section a couple years ago. Several SOBO thru-hikers I ran into in Damascus admitted that they had walked the VA Creeper Trail into town instead of following the white blazes. After following the white blazes myself the next day, it was easy to see why. The Creeper Trail was easy walking along an old railroad bed and great scenery, while the AT was longer, much steeper, and often rough trail with very little interesting scenery. But the reason for the separate routes was also pretty obvious - the Creeper trail is a multi-use trail used by tons of cyclists and equestrians, and adding AT hikers into the mix would make for a crowded trail.
Then in the Grayson Highlands section, it was plain as day that the trail was designed to take the longest and most circuitous route through the highlands. One could shave several miles off of their walk by following the Pine Mtn trail north from Rhododendron Gap, but with gorgeous scenery like that, why would one want to?
As far as the last section from VA 603 to VA 16, the climb up Hurricane Mtn was unavoidable, and my best guess is the rest of it was routed to pass more water sources. The IMT route follows the ridgeline and it looks pretty dry. If the trail had followed the IMT route, in all likelihood there would be no Hurricane Mtn shelter (which is a very nice shelter BTW). There are numerous other places along the AT where the trail follows neither the shortest nor the easiest route, and I'm sure in each case the trail clubs had good reason for building the trail where they did.
As far as the last section from VA 603 to VA 16, the climb up Hurricane Mtn was unavoidable, and my best guess is the rest of it was routed to pass more water sources. The IMT route follows the ridgeline and it looks pretty dry. If the trail had followed the IMT route, in all likelihood there would be no Hurricane Mtn shelter (which is a very nice shelter BTW). There are numerous other places along the AT where the trail follows neither the shortest nor the easiest route, and I'm sure in each case the trail clubs had good reason for building the trail where they did.
the "need" for a shelter in that stretch is one of the things i considered, but if the AT was still on top of the ridge, the shelter could then be off on a side trail, which i think would be less than a mile. theres worse shelter locations on the AT as far as distance off the actual trail. same for the water source at the shelter. and theres water at the falls further north, which i'm guessing is accessible from the top of the ridge, via the trail by the falls if no other way. a few miles without water doesnt seem like a big deal, lol i'm from NJ, the AT here and in surrounding states doesnt have hardly any water at times it seems.
no, as i concluded from what others in this thread have said and what people at the maintaining organization had to add- the AT is indeed not in the best place it could be here, and it ended up where it is probably due to chronology in regards to land acquisitions in the area. it should probably be "corrected" at this point, others who have a say in the matter have noticed his and discussed it. maybe it will happen, but i'm not holding my breath.
A lot of different groups make these decisions, for different reasons.
In Maine, I spoke to a Maintainer about it and he expressed pride that Maine had the baddest, most difficult sections... by recent design. It wasn't that bad back in the 1970's... hence all the PUD's (pointless up and downs).
Seatbelt
09-29-2016, 12:15
A lot of different groups make these decisions, for different reasons.
In Maine, I spoke to a Maintainer about it and he expressed pride that Maine had the baddest, most difficult sections... by recent design. It wasn't that bad back in the 1970's... hence all the PUD's (pointless up and downs).
I've often wondered why Maine has so many river fords, and some of them pretty dangerous at times?? In the south, they make little footbridges over many small ditches and streams. Is that part of their "pride" as well?
eabyrd1506
09-29-2016, 12:30
Would this competition to be the "baddest" explain why PA routes their sections over piles of loose rocks?
I've often wondered why Maine has so many river fords, and some of them pretty dangerous at times?? In the south, they make little footbridges over many small ditches and streams. Is that part of their "pride" as well?
this is just a guess, but i feel pretty confident in it.
when i started really getting into hiking in maine, i was surprised there werent MORE fords. i had heard for years all these wild stories about how theres no bridges over anything in maine and you are constantly getting your feet wet up to your knees. then i went and started hiking and kept finsing myself crossing streams and creeks over footbridges i had long been told didnt exist.
now that said, i soon came to find there ARE places where you do have to ford, of course.
so what decides whether a footbridge is put in or not? as far as i can tell, its a really simple answer- how much use the trail gets. so the trail that goes up saddle back, and the bigelows and baldpate? any water crossings on those have footbridges. trails in some non descript part of the 100 mw or somewhere between caratunk and monsoon? naaah. why not? not nearly the numbers of people hiking them. thats the only logical conclusion i can draw.
now, how does that translate to other parts of the trail? it would seem there must be footbridges across streams all along the trail in not especially heavily traveled areas, so why not in maine? my guess is that, owing to climate, the maintenance and upkeep issues such a bridge requires just much more quickly makes it not feasible if only a small number of people are going to use it.
i think all the "we're a bunch of badasses up here who dont need no stinkin' bridges" stuff is bogus.
I've often wondered why Maine has so many river fords, and some of them pretty dangerous at times?? In the south, they make little footbridges over many small ditches and streams. Is that part of their "pride" as well?
Spring snow melt. Wipes out bridges and trail fairly often. That little ankle deep stream you had to wade through in August or September was probably 8 to 10 feet deep in April and May. You know RT 201 at the Kennebec River crossing? That was underwater in 1987 and most of that highway had to be rebuilt. From the looks of it this Fall, its been rebuilt fairly recently, too.
peakbagger
09-29-2016, 13:37
this is just a guess, but i feel pretty confident in it.
now, how does that translate to other parts of the trail? it would seem there must be footbridges across streams all along the trail in not especially heavily traveled areas, so why not in maine? my guess is that, owing to climate, the maintenance and upkeep issues such a bridge requires just much more quickly makes it not feasible if only a small number of people are going to use it.
i think all the "we're a bunch of badasses up here who dont need no stinkin' bridges" stuff is bogus.
The long term maintainer of Poplar Ridge Shelter, Dave Field has a "why they do the things they do on the AT in Maine" list of answers. Dave has been active for a long time in the MATC and was involved with the major relocation of the trail after the land claims settlement (see my previous post). His answer to why there aren't bridges in Maine is pretty simple, there were bridges over most streams in Maine at one time but spring run off usually takes them out very quickly. Folks "from away" just don't realize how high the streams in Maine can get after a spring thaw accompanied by rain. Its routine for stream flow rates to be 50 to 100 times higher in the spring then summer flows. Along with the water are ice chunks and they can clog up a stream in minutes creating a dam. Unless the bridges are located quite high up off the stream with no abutments in the channel its highly likely that the bridge wont last more a few springs. In areas like the whites, there are suspension bridges that were built by the government but the FS is trying to rip out as many of them as they can as they don't want to maintain them (one was just taken out in the Wild River area recently). Add in recent requirements for ADA compliance (all new MATC privies are now wheelchair accessible) and a suitable bridge is million dollar investment. GMC just put one in over the Winooski and that took years. MATC is still moving and hardening the trail from the land claims settlement and that going to be ongoing for years so its matter to resources.
Another Kevin
09-29-2016, 16:38
Would this competition to be the "baddest" explain why PA routes their sections over piles of loose rocks?
Anything that isn't paved in the Poconos and gets that many boots trampling it becomes a pile of loose rocks.