reasoning behind trail re-locations

[tdoczi]

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?

[Dogwood]

http://www.appalachiantrail.org/docs...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.

[Dogwood]

You're question is certainly a fair one. The answers given might not be though.

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.

[rafe]

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]

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.

[rafe]

"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...ok-of-the-year)

[tdoczi]

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.

[tdoczi]

"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...ok-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.

[rafe]

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.

[tdoczi]

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?"

[Dogwood]

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!

[tdoczi]

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-

IMG_0010.JPG

[tdoczi]

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]

A quick email to the chapter that maintains that trail section would probably get the answers.

[rafe]

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]

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/2016/01/2...gs-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/2013/07/2...rd_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.

[tdoczi]

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...

[tdoczi]

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]

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]

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.