[Moe Ped]

DPR has finally released the updated version of its Trails Handbook and it's now freely available online.

Trails Handbook 2019 Agree to Conditions

A far cry from 10 years ago when I started volunteering in CA State Parks and the supervising ranger wouldn't allow me to have a printed copy. (A park facilities manager did eventually get me one)

The new version is very comprehensive; it's grown from 350-ish pages to a million (so it seems!)

I'm muddling my way through but a good place to start is the 193 p. "Appendix C. California State Parks' Best Practices"

It's refreshing that Mountain Bike-only trails are being put forward but the four classes of bike uses described in "Chapter 6. Mountain Bike Trail Design" seals the deal that you'll never see advanced biking trails in a California State Park. Advanced trails in SRA or OHV parks yes but this has been hinted at all along.

Also refreshing is the notion that narrow trails are better as are challenging rocky surfaces (up to a point).

Over-all; tons of good general trail building information all at one web site.

 

[leaguerider]

Thanks for the links.

 

[mbmtb]

I believe they said it was 1200 pages when they announced it a few months ago?

It's got some decent points. But it has a massive misunderstanding of how drainage should work. For example, the section on switchbacks is utterly wrong from both a water and user perspective. If you've ever wondered why they are so horrid on CA state parks trails, now you know.

 

[Moe Ped]

I believe they said it was 1200 pages when they announced it a few months ago?

It's got some decent points. But it has a massive misunderstanding of how drainage should work. For example, the section on switchbacks is utterly wrong from both a water and user perspective. If you've ever wondered why they are so horrid on CA state parks trails, now you know.

The switchbacks work OK for foot traffic; they're lousy for wheeled traffic for the reasons you mentioned. Apparent centrifugal force will cause the drains to fail in a matter of months if not weeks. (By plugging with displaced tread material)

It is telling that the DPR went to an outside consulting firm for the BMP for California OHV parks. (OHV BMP recognizes the need for banked corners with wheeled traffic)

One change in the new handbook I welcome is the reduction of the minimum width for Class 1 (Multi-use) trails; it's now 3' down from 4'. Because the trail prism volume is a 1/2 squared function, 25% less width means 44% less dirt that needs to be moved for construction. This is a good thing.

 

[mbmtb]

Interesting--is the OHV BMP published anywhere?

(Do you have a cite on that volume vs width thing? I was trying to do the math myself a bit ago and wasn't getting it right. Been way too long.)

And they have a solution for displacement. Not sure what the equestrians think of this. Not sure how it rides either. Built this year:

 

[Moe Ped]

Interesting--is the OHV BMP published anywhere?

(Do you have a cite on that volume vs width thing? I was trying to do the math myself a bit ago and wasn't getting it right. Been way too long.)

And they have a solution for displacement. Not sure what the equestrians think of this. Not sure how it rides either. Built this year:
View attachment 1265531

Here's the OHV BMP Manual.

I'm not very good with algebra either but understand trig reasonably well, I got those numbers by penciling a math comparison; I ignored the back-slope and out-slope. The area of a triangle is one-half base time height so the volume of a 1 foot long trail section with a 3' width and a cut 1' high (33% cross-slope FWIW) would be 1.5 cubic feet. 1 foot of 4' wide trail cut out of the same cross-slope (1.33' high cut) will have a volume of 2.666 cubic feet.

1.5/2.666 = .56 or 56%

If the 4' trail was 100% and the 3' trail is 56% of that then the difference is 44%.

Where is that switchback? Was the rock local or did FedEx bring it in?