Survey Of Non-Motorized Trail Use By Oregon State Parks

[Lumpy]

Folks that live out of state and/or occasionally visit OR will not spend as much time on this survey. Took me about ten minutes.

[RobFromRedland]

I just completed the survey -- it's surprisingly long and (like most surveys) a bit frustrating, but this is a good opportunity weigh in with one of the few agencies that seems interested in BUILDING NEW TRAILS! The survey isn't limited to OPRD lands, but instead is attempting to measure trail preferences and priorities. It took me about 20 minutes to complete.

Tom

You know, Tom, building NEW trails is good, but there are a TON of EXISTING trails that have been abandoned over the years that would take MUCH less effort and money to bring back to usable shape. I don't understand why more effort isn't put into reclaiming abandoned trails.... I for one would like to see more effort into making some NETWORKS of trails (like there used to be before all the roads were built) that would allow some interesting loop options for hikes rather than always having to do out and back hikes for day hikers.

With the push to close roads, I think it would be great to bring back some of the historical trail networks to replace access. Trails are WAY cheaper to maintain than roads are.

And just for the record, I completed the survey as well. It was pretty long and somewhat repetitive, but maybe it will do some good. It certainly can't hurt.

[acorn woodpecker]

I just completed the survey -- it's surprisingly long and (like most surveys) a bit frustrating, but this is a good opportunity weigh in with one of the few agencies that seems interested in BUILDING NEW TRAILS! The survey isn't limited to OPRD lands, but instead is attempting to measure trail preferences and priorities. It took me about 20 minutes to complete.

Tom

You know, Tom, building NEW trails is good, but there are a TON of EXISTING trails that have been abandoned over the years that would take MUCH less effort and money to bring back to usable shape. I don't understand why more effort isn't put into reclaiming abandoned trails.... I for one would like to see more effort into making some NETWORKS of trails (like there used to be before all the roads were built) that would allow some interesting loop options for hikes rather than always having to do out and back hikes for day hikers.

With the push to close roads, I think it would be great to bring back some of the historical trail networks to replace access. Trails are WAY cheaper to maintain than roads are.

And just for the record, I completed the survey as well. It was pretty long and somewhat repetitive, but maybe it will do some good. It certainly can't hurt.

I second all you've said, Rob. While completing the survey, I was choosing to de-emphasize new trails and make new trailheads but felt I couldn't express my sentiments to re-open new ones as I didn't feel that was what the question was asking. The survey questions seemed to imply that entirely new trail systems should be built.

With numerous forest roads looking to be closed in the coming years and very little new money to maintain them it makes a lot of sense to decommission them and maintain appropriate ones as trails instead (especially if they can tie into a greater network of existing trails or old roads). This seems especially so in the Clackamas River areas. Wished I could have made it to that meeting earlier this month in Estacada that addressed the issue.

[kepPNW]

With numerous forest roads looking to be closed in the coming years and very little new money to maintain them it makes a lot of sense to decommission them and maintain appropriate ones as trails instead (especially if they can tie into a greater network of existing trails or old roads).

The folks at Microsoft always used to tell me, "We can't use 'We fixed the bug!' as a bullet" on the new & improved presentation. Customers expect that to happen and demand new features before willingly paying for the new version. (Go figure? ) Sounds like the same thinking has crept in here. Maintenance just isn't sexy.

[RobFromRedland]

The folks at Microsoft always used to tell me, "We can't use 'We fixed the bug!' as a bullet" on the new & improved presentation. Customers expect that to happen and demand new features before willingly paying for the new version. (Go figure? ) Sounds like the same thinking has crept in here. Maintenance just isn't sexy.

Yeah, but they could recondition old abandoned trails and then make it sound like it is a NEW trail (in some regards it would be)!

Maintenance is definitely NOT sexy, but it is what makes the world go round....Maintenance in the software world is something like 75% or more of the total cost of software. I'd guess that trails would be in a similar vein. It takes a lot more to maintain them than it did to originally build them (especially the really old ones which only cost a few thousand dollars to build in the first place).

[Grannyhiker]

Just filled it out; unfortunately I spend 1/3 to 1/2 of my time on Washington trails, which of course is not reflected in the survey. I put "highest" on wanting trail maintenance, new trails, security at trailhead parking. Another thing not brought out in the survey is the need for shorter but interesting trails for those of us for whom 5 miles is getting into the marathon category. (The Old Gray Mare ain't what she used to be/Many long years ago.) Too bad they didn't have a comment section!

[Don Nelsen]

Ok, I filled it out - took 20 minutes. I think its good they offered this survey - I'd be curious as to the results.

dn

[Splintercat]

You know, Tom, building NEW trails is good, but there are a TON of EXISTING trails that have been abandoned over the years that would take MUCH less effort and money to bring back to usable shape. I don't understand why more effort isn't put into reclaiming abandoned trails.... I for one would like to see more effort into making some NETWORKS of trails (like there used to be before all the roads were built) that would allow some interesting loop options for hikes rather than always having to do out and back hikes for day hikers.

Totally agreed on this, Rob... except I don't see it as a choice we should have to make: all of the above, please! Building and maintaining trails is chump change in the scope of state and federal budgets, IMHO, so it's really more a matter of making trails (and more generally, caring for public lands) a PRIORITY in how public dollars are spent. The nice thing about this survey is that the OPRD is asking very broad questions about demand, so that helps get at this larger issue of priorities.

Thanks for completing the survey, everyone!

Tom