reasoning behind trail re-locations

[tdoczi]

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]

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.

[tdoczi]

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.

[Don H]

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

[tdoczi]

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.

[soilman]

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.

[Seatbelt]

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.

[10-K]

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.

[tdoczi]

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?

[10-K]

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...

[10-K]

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.

[Dogwood]

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.

[tdoczi]

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.

[10-K]

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.

[Dogwood]

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.

[Malto]

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.

[tdoczi]

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.

[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.

[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.