You must have missed the earlier posts that talked about the equipment already in use, including box scrapers, min-excavators, Kubota and Ford diesel tractors used on the existing 50" trails. Don't forget about the ATVs used for maintenance including grading. Again, already in use.
As for the DNR's cost projections differing from your views, can't argue that one. Their figures do not sound unreasonable to me with my knowelege of the existing trail system, but I'm not bidding on such a project either.

Perhaps you missed the other posts indicating the amount of existing trail mileage currently available to RUV (and larger) operators. When I read your statement above, I take it that there are no existing riding opportunities for RUVs and similar. This is NOT true, they have hundreds of miles of marked Route available; thousands of miles of forest roads, thousands of miles of county roads.

Yeah, we need more rules and laws out there, plus a DNR officer with a radar gun. How about mandatory breathalizers, license & background checks too? They would all make for a safer program, but we all know how things work. People will still speed (they do on the highways here, assume they do on the roads near you). My point is that more rules will not prevent undesirable behavior.
As for the correlation between narrow bars and trail maintenance standards, it would appear you have little interest or experience in forested single track trail riding. I suggest reading some of the USFS literature regarding motorcycle trails (layout/construction/maintenance) if you would like an alternate perspective.

 

Forgot to cover this one. H/M is a 50" system. Read their rules and regs - RUVs are not welcome there, nor are full-size vehicles. In the future they hope to accomodate them with new trails. *this is based on their website, I've not ridden there*

 

He's a slick one, isn't he DB?

There isn't a person on here who didn't know what you referring to by the term "multi-use"' regarding these trails...yet the very first thing he inevitablty attempts to do (and you can witness same in every single response he has ever penned here)....is to try and spin the subject completely...into a discussion regarding RUVs and Jeeps!

Don't have the time to point out his other inconsisties at the moment...yet just wanted to point out how obvious these guy's strategies have become...and more importantly how these methods have the effect of insulting your intelligence from the outset.

 

In reference to yourself no doubt? Where's the Tomahawk map you have that holds the key to the conspiracy theory universe?
Or just no comment on yet another question posed to you?

 

Busyrider, all arguments aside, do you as one of the people in a position to affect the outcome of state policy support the wider trail initiative that would accomodate not only two wheel enthusiasts, but also ATV's and hopefully the RUV crowd as well?

That is the bottom line... and right here, right now, you have an opportunity to make a giant leap of faith and help all sides of the argument... Widen the trails, and make sure that all new trails built are done to make them multi use for all concerned.

I think the maintenence issue can be resolved in time, as over time methods will improve.. just like they did with the snowmobile crowd. By the way, as I understand it, funds can be requested for the purchase of the machinery. I know that in WI it can be done... I hope that MI has the same forward thinking. In WI's case, it takes a non profit group to requeast funding and a commitment of time/etc from people.. but it can be done. They even have purchased trailers etc this way to haul the gear to various sites. I believe there are several clubs involved in this manner.

The important point here is the adoption of a wider standard. One that accomodates and includes the other types of machines and a commitment to work in conjunction with the other groups and not with a narrow focus. Done this way, I see a win win for all concerned.

 

Again, DB; there was absolutely no "confusion" regarding this trail map.
What 2-Trakkr doesn't like to talk about (as you have continually witnessed me question him here regarding)...is the fact that this old map made it very plain and clear as to what width this trail was maintained to...even going so far as to simply state same...on the map itself ! [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]. This wasn't about 'confusion'...it was about our DNR and these cyclists not caring for an atv symbol to be so prominently displayed on this map ....and the fact that it reminded or more importantly EDUCATED every atver who viewed it...that this trail was not only lefal to go down...but that it was one boot in the **** of a cycle group away....from being open to this same group for good! (simply reasonably widened).

Oh, he's not done buffaloin' ya yet, DB!......

 

[quote]
Simple question originally posted by: Dragginbutt

"...Why are you not upgrading the trails to the wider specification so they can be used by both groups?..."

[quote]
Originally posted by: 2TrakR

"Who pays for the upgrading work to widen the trails, who does the work? These are the first questions that have not been answered by those who've posed such questions before you.."

You see, DB! (lol)...the man can't even answer the question which sinks him!.
These cyclists are so damn worried about the fact that any widening of this trail system would obviously NOT be done by their "no wider than my handlebar" cycle clubsor that they themselves would be forced to pay into this reasonable width multi-use system (like true 'partners' with the rest of us).....that their reduced to answeruing questions..with questions!
Here's the answer, cycle boys.....WE pay for the work (no damn matter HOW much it costs)...and you all finally fall in line with the rest of us behind this for-profit modernized equipment...to drive the costs down even further! (with your cocky mouths shut and a true willingness to be the orv brothers you previously only "pretended' to be, up to that point).

Another simple question for DB:
"...2-Trakkr's "matter-of-fact" reply:
"...Wider trails equals faster speeds, faster speeds equals unsafe conditions, thus wider does not always equal safer...."

This crap is right out of the cyclist's playbook and is the biggest bunch of garbage I've ever had to endure them regurgitating again and again.
With our sandy soil here in Michigan; these two-wheelers whoop out these trails faster than you can say boo. No crime whatsoever on their part; yet continually keeping them in this condition; along with these narrow widths; causes not only a crappy day on the trail for atvers (as you can imagine; a modern cyclist's suspension eats 'em up)...but guess what?...it slows down all the atvers enough to blow by them...with ease!
I've seen a lot of people with 'speed' problems on both sides of the fence....yet if there's one group who seemingly could care less about this issue...it's pretty lopsided towards those evidently "now" more worried about "widths" and the rest of us.

 

Again, the reason why 2-Trakkr doesn't "care" about this latest map (sold for profit) showing absolutely nothing but cycle trails on it and cycle symbols...is the fact that this map doesn't "preclude" the average atver buying it actually having the knowledge of some obscure law allowing atvs access... IF THEY NEVER TURN AROUND on it AND MAKE SURE THEY BACK UP ALL THE WAY TO THE TRAILHEAD...IF THEY ENCOUNTER ANY OBSTACLES ALONG THE WAY.

As you can see, these guys play whatever side of the fence that suits them at the time...without giving out the type of details needed for the average enthusiast to learn/react realistically.

 

DB,
when I spoke with Dick regarding the last trail widening issue brought forth by Polaris for the State of Michigan, he was concerned about certain trucks being able to access the 60 inch trail that were under the 60 inch width mark. This is NOT a concern of mine since we could write laws to restrict the weight on these trails to 1700 lbs,which would ELIMINATE the truck issue on these newly cut 60 inch trails.

This is YOUR quote*
Widen the trails, and make sure that all new trails built are done to make them multi use for all concerned
END OF YOUR QUOTE*

Exactly where do we STOP with this widening thing?I mean,we also have the 4x4 truck clubs that would like FAR more access for their sport too. Do we now also take into concideration these 4x4 off road truck guys needs and make the entire trail system wide enough for them too?I mean,they also contribute to the trail maintenance fund to,or does your comment above not actually mean to make muti-use trails for ALL concerned?

 

[quote]
Originally posted by: Dragginbutt
"...Didn't I read somewhere in this thread something about contract maintenence for trails? If that was correct, I think it is nothing more than a specification that they would have to build/maintain too...."

This is the exact 'for-profit' system that these guys have been fighting..as it finally takes the lion's share of our maintenance money out of cyclist's wanting nothing to do with the specification you mention.

"...Also, isn't this what clubs and focus groups like the advisory board are for? To FOSTER cooperation, to help spend limited funds in the most cost effective way, and meet the needs of all the various user groups?...."

My experience has been that you first have to force these advisory board members to actually interact with the public they serve; meet when required to and not treat the public like crap (cutting off their time to speak) when they simply show up to speak their peace.

"...if not then it should be their charter.."

I tried to make a formal request (once) to the state agency who oversee these people....yet the department not only denied my request for exactly what both you and I describe..but soon secretly extended the term of the very person making sure none of this ever happened.

".... Much of their efforts should be in helping different riding clubs/volunteer groups organize their efforts, and they should be the liaison between the people with the purse strings and the volunteers doing the work..."

It's pretty hard to be a liason between groups you know absolutely nothing about...as the 'newest' members of the board you describe...have absolutely no record o ever attending the very board meetings they preside over!.(let alone a chair who chooses to act as you can see in my signature).