LCWP TnA Trail

Simple questions:
Why not designated trails or traffic lanes?
Was riding down at Space Mountain at the Yeti Demo and there was a section of trail that was split up by a wooden fence for hikers and equestrian on one side, mountain bikers on the other.
Initially that may sound lame, but lets face some facts. We are always complaining about hiker traffic, OC trail use is not going to become less. Easily double trail capacity by splitting the trails. Easily put at ease the major concerns of hikers of being run down by us crazy cyclists. The money spent on separation would easily be recovered from reduced expenditures on excessive trail maintenance on our side of the trail.

Simple solution. Maybe too simple?
 
@Mikie Interesting proposition, however, I cannot imagine any form of trail separation that would match the aesthetic definition of a wilderness park, and installing any type of barrier seems to introduce liability - hitting the structure and being injured by it, having the structure collapse or decay, etc. I also can imagine that a division down the middle of sections of trail would push trails out even wider.

Designated use trails, designated use days or one-direction trails are other ways to potentially decrease conflicts between trail users - though more rules means more rule breakers, thus more enforcement demanded by those offended, and potentially more conflict as a result.
 
herzalot said:
@Mikie Interesting proposition, however, I cannot imagine any form of trail separation that would match the aesthetic definition of a wilderness park, and installing any type of barrier seems to introduce liability - hitting the structure and being injured by it, having the structure collapse or decay, etc. I also can imagine that a division down the middle of sections of trail would push trails out even wider.

Designated use trails, designated use days or one-direction trails are other ways to potentially decrease conflicts between trail users - though more rules means more rule breakers, thus more enforcement demanded by those offended, and potentially more conflict as a result.
Click to expand...
In regards to aesthetics, I have seen plenty of split rail fencing in OC Parks. With all the new tech engineered composite materials (many of which are recycled materials) I'm confident and convinced there is something out there that would satisfy that category.

In regard to liability, people have sued for getting hurt on fire roads so liability is not going away anytime soon. We are a user group that rides a substantial amount of technical. I have ridden next to barbwire fences at high speed, 6 inch narrow trails with extreme exposure, and bouldery, rocky, chunky death trails. Due to my mentality of I own my results, lawsuits have never come to mind towards others for my mistakes or crashes. But there are those out there that feel society owe them compensatingly (<-- I made that word up), for their lack of judgment or ability or short coming.

In respect to trails widening, that has to be managed no matter what. It's not a lack of inability, it's a lack of control points to direct traffic. Thus "P" lines on technical sections. If you can't ride it then you "shouldn't" ride it. You got to take the falls and hopefully learn from it to get better.

Let's face it. There is no REAL successful multi use trail. Everyone wants them. Everyone pretends it's a common goal. But it does not make sense to have hikers on a screaming technical descent, no more than it makes sense to include hikers on a motocross track, or a four wheel drive trail. Someone is going to get hurt, or have their feelings hurt.

Splitting a trail makes perfect sense in OC. Doubles the capacity, gives hikers a spectator view where they may even grow to understand our sport. Gives us the technical we want while allowing for Hiker trails to be maintained to their liking and a sense of security. To be honest, I'm so convinced of this that it would be tough for someone to convince me other wise...;)
 
Mikie said:
Simple questions:
Why not designated trails or traffic lanes?
Was riding down at Space Mountain at the Yeti Demo and there was a section of trail that was split up by a wooden fence for hikers and equestrian on one side, mountain bikers on the other.
Initially that may sound lame, but lets face some facts. We are always complaining about hiker traffic, OC trail use is not going to become less. Easily double trail capacity by splitting the trails. Easily put at ease the major concerns of hikers of being run down by us crazy cyclists. The money spent on separation would easily be recovered from reduced expenditures on excessive trail maintenance on our side of the trail.

Simple solution. Maybe too simple?
Click to expand...

Let me be the first to chime in with "it works on the FLoop!!"

No really, it does. Coming down "Mormon Hill" bikes go right, hikers and horses and all others go left. No conflicts, everyone sings Kumbaya.

I've only witnessed one crash there and that was excessive speed, which carried the rider into the opposite side - a chain link property line fence. Shattered elbow. But not due to the barrier.
 
Thanks for your suggestions, Mikie. Here's my take:

Wilderness parks come with their own set of rules and regulations. They come with far more restrictions than other areas and were created to protect our unique and amazing biodiversity.

I think the user conflict problem is exaggerated. We do surprisingly well given the area's population density and park popularity. Fences on single track in Aliso or Laguna Coast would create a safety hazard, and necessitate doubling or tripling trail width. Not going to happen, as habitat is king and plant and animal survival trumps recreational user demands. Also, structurally, we had kiosk/shady benches at key trail intersections, and they were removed because they detracted from the wilderness aesthetic. Its also my understanding that most user incompatibility is attitudinal, rather than accident-based between user groups. Due to limited options, we have the trails we have and the goal is to have them no wider than necessary. Multi-use is a mandate and there are no plans to make mountain bike-only trails. Continued education, riding in control, and cooperation/respect between user groups is our best strategy, IMO.
 
Last edited:
@kioti I hear yah...
Excuse me while I rant light frustration at the narrow mindedness of OC Wilderness Parks. They talk Wilderness Protection and aesthetics until deep pocketed contractors pave it over with ridiculously overpriced housing tracts calling them upper end communities.
For forum conversation purposes labeled stimulating talk, a wider trail is simply a wider trail and has in my opinion no significant impact on wilderness. How do they feel that a wider trail impacts biodiversity? This is nothing more than excuses for they simply don't want wider trails. Heck, I don't want wider trails. @Voodoo Tom and I prefer the brushy scratchy singletrack we ride. What biodiversity does Car Wreck contribute to biodiversity? Maybe accelerated erosion, I guess. When you look at the square footage of a trail compared to the square footage of the wilderness area, it is insignificant.

I reckon my suspicious mind is leading me that they are just tolerating cyclists, that fashion is more important than function. Mountain Bikers are the hooligans of the OC Trail Network. I rarely take any government officials at face value anymore. They all have agenda's that they must work to and do everything to say as little about it as possible. Money talks.

There.
Rant complete.
:)
 
I had to do a bit of compression with this document. If anything got lost in the compression and you want to see the original, PM me your e-mail.


2015 ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT and 2016 ANNUAL WORK PLAN
NATURAL COMMUNITY CONSERVATION PLAN (NCCP) and HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN (HCP)
IMPLEMENTATION AGREEMENT (IA), SECTION 4.4.5
 

Attachments

StrandLeper said:
I had to do a bit of compression with this document. If anything got lost in the compression and you want to see the original, PM me your e-mail.


2015 ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT and 2016 ANNUAL WORK PLAN
NATURAL COMMUNITY CONSERVATION PLAN (NCCP) and HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN (HCP)
IMPLEMENTATION AGREEMENT (IA), SECTION 4.4.5
Click to expand...
Mmmmm 184 pages, nice work Strand!
 
Thanks @Andy, @herzalot , @StrandLeper, @MattB @kioti for taking your personal time to attend the meeting with LCF folks, and sending updates to us on IMTBTrails.

MattB said:
I still have some open questions about the trail design philosophy of LCF and/or OC Parks in Laguna (Aliso and LCWP). This is based on a combination of the descriptions on their trail maintenance Facebook postings, trail work I've seen first-hand, word of mouth from people who have worked with some of their trail folks, and the LCF/OC Parks Trail Management Plan that Strand attached. I'm concerned with what appears to be a philosophy of eliminating any steep trails or steep/challenging sections of a trail. As Strand mentioned above, there appears to be a plan to reroute Laguna Ridge around the big rock drop towards the bottom of the trail. Reading through the management plan, it seems anything with a steep grade is planned to be "armored" (does this mean more pavers?) or rerouted
Click to expand...

Yeah, wow, looking at the pdf doc 17-0134-1 on @strandlepers post #111, the document titled "Laguna Canyon Foundation and OC Parks trail management plan" e-mailed from LCF to OCParks around Sep 2016.... The report identifies issues with various LCWP trails (doesn't say who identified them as issues), what has been done already, and suggestions for what to do in the future to fix the issues.

Specifically in the report, Old Emerald trail, Old Emerald Falls (BVD) and the middle and lower Laguna Ridge trail (TnA) all have recommendations to reroute, or if reroute is not feasible, armor the steep sections (my paraphrasing, some of the wording is different for each trail, but the same point). Also recommended is to re-do the armor on Lizard since "current armored sections are being skirted and need realignment".

I assume (Shouldn't do that, I know) but fairly sure that "armor" means concrete turf blocks. So if the recommendations are approved and go forward, all of the legal, reasonably steep, challenging/fun mountainbike trails in LCWP will be rerouted to less steep or the steep parts concreted with turf blocks.

I sure hope we have some say in the proposed work on these trails, but really not sure since it could be the MO for OC Parks and LCF to get the trails more friendly for all users. And that's just LCWP. Not sure if LCF does the same report and suggestions for Aliso/Wood Canyon park.

MattB said:
I know pavers can have a place, but given recent events I get nervous when I see them being used on 5 Oaks.
Click to expand...
Some of you guys have heard my opinion on concrete pavers. Every time I will argue to just do more regular trail maintenance rather than install pavers. Ruts and blown out berms are better than concrete.... Maybe places that get really muddy like Stagecoach.. but pavers are ugly, and give a fake, urban road riding feel to what was a natural trail. Personally I don't like the feel of transitioning from concrete to dirt or vica versa, esp at high speeds like in that lower berm on 5 Oaks. The effort to get them to the trail is crazy.

I'll stop, thanks again guys for the efforts!
TL/dr: Always have CNF/ANF :thumbsup: :confused:
 
If you ride at Snow Summit or Mammoth, you ride a lot of pavers. As I stated, I am not a fan, but they may have their place if used sparingly to keep a trail from blowing up into a 30 ft. wide swath. I still prefer natural rock armoring, but it's costly and logistically difficult.

Falling on pavers SUUUUUCCCCCKKKS!
 
Last edited:
herzalot said:
If you ride at Snow Summit or Mammoth, you ride a lot of pavers. As I stated, I am not a fan, but they may have their place if used sparingly to keep a trail from blowing up into a 30 ft. wide swath. I still prefer natural rock armoring, but it's costly and logistically difficult. Falling on pavers SUUUUUCCCCCKKKS!
Click to expand...

Mammoth uses pavers because they're building with pumice. Snow Summit's not a volcano, but the soil might not be compactable. Much of Aliso has dirt with a high clay content. You could set up a pottery factory on Meadows. I'd rather mix some clay into the dirt where needed than use pavers. They don't even match the surrounding dirt color, and have to be installed carefully or they'll end up with exposed edges which are hazardous to riders and ankles. I do like the cheese grater effect on gear and skin, as well as the bounce you get when your bones contact them at speed.
 
Last edited:
kioti said:
Mammoth uses pavers because they're building with pumice. Snow Summit's not a volcano, but the soil might not be compactable. Much of Aliso has dirt with a high claycontent. You could set up a pottery factory on Meadows. I'd rather mix some clay into the dirt where needed than use pavers. They don't even match the surrounding dirt color, and have to be installed carefully or they'll end up with exposed edges which are hazardous to riders and ankles. I do like the cheese grater effect on gear and skin, as well as the bounce you get when your bones contact them at speed.
Click to expand...

With the way they use sandbags to stockpile and move dirt around, that would make a lot of sense to move some of the high clay soil to mix in with the areas of 5 Oaks that get blown out and powdery in the summer. Who knows, maybe someday we can convince them.
 
Mikie said:
@kioti I hear yah...
Excuse me while I rant light frustration at the narrow mindedness of OC Wilderness Parks. They talk Wilderness Protection and aesthetics until deep pocketed contractors pave it over with ridiculously overpriced housing tracts calling them upper end communities.
For forum conversation purposes labeled stimulating talk, a wider trail is simply a wider trail and has in my opinion no significant impact on wilderness. How do they feel that a wider trail impacts biodiversity? This is nothing more than excuses for they simply don't want wider trails. Heck, I don't want wider trails. @Voodoo Tom and I prefer the brushy scratchy singletrack we ride. What biodiversity does Car Wreck contribute to biodiversity? Maybe accelerated erosion, I guess. When you look at the square footage of a trail compared to the square footage of the wilderness area, it is insignificant. :)
Click to expand...

Aliso and Laguna Coast parks were established to prevent the kind of suburban devastation that happened at Newport Coast. You had to see it to believe it.

I agree with you to a certain extent about trail width, but at some point a wide trail isn't that different from a dirt road. Do you know that we have riders on this site who appear to LOVE dirt roads? :whistling: And others who can barely tolerate them? :eek: FWIW, most of our trails around here started out as ranch or mining roads, and others as game trails. We'd like to preserve the game trail trails. :)
 
Ahem!!! They don't call them "truck trails" (Santiago, Monroe, Silverado...etc) for nothing.

They began life as actual roads. They have deteriorated into amazingly fun singletrack. In the interest of historical accuracy and "wilderness," shouldn't we return them to their original road state?

And sorry, but to designate anything in urban OC (including Laguna) as wilderness smacks of hubris. It's not a wilderness no matter what you call it. Half (or more) of the stuff growing there isn't California native anyway.
 
Runs with Scissors said:
Ahem!!! They don't call them "truck trails" (Santiago, Monroe, Silverado...etc) for nothing.

They began life as actual roads. They have deteriorated into amazingly fun singletrack. In the interest of historical accuracy and "wilderness," shouldn't we return them to their original road state?

And sorry, but to designate anything in urban OC (including Laguna) as wilderness smacks of hubris. It's not a wilderness no matter what you call it. Half (or more) of the stuff growing there isn't California native anyway.
Click to expand...
What the hell??
 
No, I'm not trying to just stir the pot...but to call it wilderness is an exercise in futility and is disingenuous to boot. I just look at reality. If you can sue the county over an attack by a wild animal (in this case a mountain lion) in a wilderness park, and WIN, how in the heck can it be a wilderness?

I'm sure we all remember this one - to me it's just the most vivid wtf moment: http://articles.latimes.com/1991-08-24/news/mn-789_1_mountain-lion - "We had always felt that it was the county's responsibility to warn us (about mountain lions in the park), and I feel pleased that the jurors agreed with us," said Sue Mattern-Small, Laura's mother.

Caspers in this case, but it could be the same in any of them.

Do we really need signs to tell us that there might be wild animals that can do us harm in a wilderness park? If so, then we as a species deserve what we get. If not, then perhaps we're getting somewhere. But the bottom line is that if you go to LCWP, you're not in the wilderness. You can walk to "civilization" in no time, and there are boatloads of people around.

Let's be real. It's a great place to recreate, but it is by no means a wilderness.
 
My friend Facundo Malbran is having some success in working with OC Parks on LCWP and Aliso trail maintenance without going through LCF / Trail Mix. We should think about linking up / supporting his efforts. He is a VERY good guy. He LOVES mountain biking and introducing kids to the spot. From what I know and understand, his ONLY agenda is keeping our trails, maintaining our trails, and teaching kids about mtn bikes and mountain bike etiquette and trail respect.

He reached out to me yesterday.

Disclaimer: He re-did my yard, we have friends in common and I have donated to his mountain bike group before.

Edit: Whenever he is riding with his group of kids on the trail or around town and they see me, he tells the kids that I support their group and then the kids thank me. That is the kind of guy he is.

https://www.facebook.com/search/top/?q=laguna canyon riders
 
Last edited:
The entire idea of "multi use" seriously needs to be reconsidered by land managers in areas where hiker/horse/MTB conflicts occur. The mode of operation is always to remove bikes from conflict areas. That's bullshit. Dedicated up/down segments with users considered are the way to go
 
dustyyoungblood said:
The entire idea of "multi use" seriously needs to be reconsidered by land managers in areas where hiker/horse/MTB conflicts occur. The mode of operation is always to remove bikes from conflict areas. That's bullshit. Dedicated up/down segments with users considered are the way to go
Click to expand...
I tend to totally agree with this. We love the idea of friendly multi use trails, but lets face some facts, nobody wants their 8 year old running around on a hike with his parents as a mountain bike bombing the trail. Smart segregation in highly congestive areas only makes sense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top