Is there such a thing as multi-use trails? | Information & Issues | Kananaskis Outdoors Forum

Post edited 2:07 pm – April 3, 2011 by rachelo

I believe that there is such a thing, but I don't believe that they are something to aspire to. I see them more as a last resort. For one, multi-use can only include non-motorized travel. I've heard of some places where they create a 'multi-use' trail that allows ATVs, and as far as I'm concerned any trail that allows motorized vehicles becomes an ATV trail alone, as who would ever want to walk it or feel safe doing so? An ATV trail that permits hikers is just a convenient way for the overseers to say "Look, we have x kilometres of hiking trails!" without having to put in anything that people might actually walk. A lot like those obnoxious newly-marked 'bike lanes' in Calgary, where they've drawn a bike along the side of the road where you normally bike anyways, and then get to announce a 'designated bike lane' without actually doing anything about the fact that it's still where cars park and drive.

But considering multi-use as feet, bikes, and horses, it's possible, but not preferable. I think multi-use trails make sense in some places where it is difficult to put a trail in for a distance, or as the access to a broader trail section. When it's not reasonable to make separate trails, we can handle sharing.

But given a choice, I'd always rather have a designated trail. It's nice to not worry about bikes zinging by (which, to be fair, is much less of a problem with bikers that are also willing to share), and I hate having to walk on a trail that's been chewed to a pulp by horses. On a bike, it would be nice to not have to dodge hikers. I love anywhere they've actually taken the hiking trail and the horse trail, and made them separate but parallel – much happier that trudging through poop-filled mud.

Interestingly, multi-use really seems to be a matter of whether something other than feet get to use it, as hikers are pretty much assumed to be permitted anywhere. When a trail does split into hikers and horses, it'd be a rare hiker with any motivation to take the horse trail, but I don't think it's prohibited, and I don't think riders can assume they'll only come across other riders. Similarly, while some trails are definitely bike-dominant, hikers can also use them, and even dedicated one-way downhilling trails seem to have some strange appeal to the odd hiker. So it's not like a mountain biker can every really get his own trail either. 

As a person who does multiple sports, I prefer to do them on separate trails where possible. I'm very capable of sharing, but I see a multi-use trail as something to do when it's not possible to give the horses or bikers their own space – not something I'd aspire to if building a trail.

Post edited 3:13 pm – April 4, 2011 by Bob Stebbins

Gillean Daffern said:

Is there such a thing as multi-use trails?” Sounds good on paper, but do they actually work in practice? I have my own view on this. I want to hear from everyone before the next go-around on May 5

We already have many multi-use trails in K-country serving combinations of hikers, equestrians, and cyclists. Though not ideal for all users the three categories seem to tolerate each other such that each generally enjoys their outings. But, as near as I can tell, this tolerance does not extend to ATV use. True some people hike trails in the Waiparous, where ATV use often dominates. But they appear to amount to a very small proportion of all hikers, equestrians, and cyclists using this area and K-Country. ATV use is incompatible with the activities of these three: it is noisy, it destroys trails, and some of its enthusiasts also damage the nearby off-trail environment (e.g., by littering, riding off-trail). The three categories want the nature they encounter to remain as it is, while the ATV users want to change it to serve their own special interests. Evidence for this difference in goals and attitude in a range of outdoor activities is available in a new book I have written with Lee Davidson entitled Serious Leisure in Nature: Sustainable Consumption in the Outdoors (Palgrave

macmillan, 2011).

Bob Stebbins

I'd like a better definition of multi-use.  If it is for non-motorized (hike/horse/bike/ski etc) then I'm all for them.  The cost of construction dictates getting maximum use and properly built and maintained the issues of horse mire & bike ruts can be mitigated. 

There seems to be such a small amount of funding for such projects and so many places where one can "just" hike, I support them.