Can a 13-mile-long network of mountain bike trails really enhance your experience in Great Smoky Mountains National Park?/Harold Jerrell file
There is no need for 13 miles of mountain bike trails, with more asphalt and supporting infrastructure, to be cut into an undisturbed section of the Foothills Parkway at Great Smoky Mountains National Park.
At the end of the day, just how would the "experience of riding a narrow roller-coaster with a rhythm of twists and turns" enhance the visitor experience at this wondrous realm of nature? That question spins out of the park's scoping document concerning a "Wears Valley Mountain Bike Trail System." And it's not the only one.
Perhaps the only reason this proposal surfaced is because the area in question was eyed as a "transportation corridor" for the park back in 1944 when Congress told the National Park Service to acquire land on the Tennessee side of Great Smoky for a parkway "to provide an appropriate view of the Park from the Tennessee side of the park, and for other purposes…”
Land indeed was obtained for the envisioned Foothills Parkway, but not all of it was developed. Today, the portion known as Section D remains undeveloped, and its use as a mountain bike park is being considered by the park staff.
In advancing that proposal, the scoping document issued by the park the other day states that "(W)hile more than 800 miles of trails exist in the Park, less than 8 miles are open to biking and there are no by-design mountain biking trails."
However, according to the MTB Project, there are 70 miles of mountain bike routes in or next to the park. True, they might not be single-track miles (many if not all follow gravel roads), but do only single-track trails qualify as mountain bike trails? If so, the surrounding Pisgah, Nantahala, and Cherokee national forests have mountain bike trails.
The park's proposal begs the question of whether there is a need to build 13 miles of mountain bike trails in Great Smoky. Do mountain bike trails that offer riders an "experience of riding a narrow roller-coaster with a rhythm of twists and turns without worry of conflicts with other types of trail users" really improve the cyclist's national park experience? Or do they just give mountain bikers another venue?
Certainly, the proposed trails would make for a fun ride, but would they really improve the experience of visiting Great Smoky? Would the riders be oohing and ahhing at the surrounding parkscape and appreciating the human culture stitched into the park's mountains, hollows, and coves, or be riveted on the "narrow roller-coaster" in front of them so they don't miss a twist or turn?
Then there's the question of paving over the area for two parking lots with 50-80 parking stalls, a mile-long access road, restrooms, picnic area, possible concessions, etc. How large of a footprint would that make in addition to the impacts of building 13 miles of trail? Is that the best use of the landscape? How will that affect flora and fauna?
If this proposal moves forward and the trails and infrastructure are put in, should other parks that don't have mountain bike trails (Shenandoah, Saguaro, Grand Canyon, for example) but which have space, build trails?
Yellowstone National Park found space for a new parking area (which will be erased beginning this fall), so perhaps land in that park could be found for a mountain bike park. Would it enhance the park experience?
Acadia has carriage roads that mountain bikes can traverse, but they certainly don't provide that "experience of riding a narrow roller-coaster with a rhythm of twists and turns..." So should Acadia find room for that experience?
What about other forms of recreation? Tennis courts? Swimming pools? Skateboard parks? Should space be made available for them? Should parks pave trails parallel to roads for road bikes (Grand Teton has) so cyclists and vehicles don't collide?
Not to be overlooked is the cost of such an endeavor. As of FY18 (most recent figures available), Great Smoky's trail system had maintenance needs to the sum of $16.3 million, and of that $13.2 million were deemed "critical" deferred maintenance. With that in mind, is this project affordable?
It's certainly not a proposal without consequences, and not one that is needed.
Comments
Completely agree, mountain bike trails would be a great addition to the park. The writer is obviously not a mountain biker nor understands the beauty of mountain biking. Contrary to what I can only think is the writer's perception, mountain bikers aren't a rowdy party all the time crowd. We travel with our bikes to enjoy trails just like those hiking do. In fact, I would be willing to bet there is less trash found on mountain bike trails than on those hiking trails where the average 1-2 mile hiking tourist is found. We ride to get out and enjoy new views, vistas and challenges. The trails would be a great addition and destination for lots of the mountain bikers within a 3-4 drive of the surrounding park area.
Let me guess - you don't mountain bike.
I like how the author tries to make it sound like its some slippery slope where if they add mountain bike trails, they may as well also add tennis courts and skateparks, as if any and all recreational activities should be made available just because some bike trails are built. Its called mountain biking because it takes place in the woods and mountains. If you invent a sport called mountain tennis, then maybe your argument would be the slightest bit relevant. And the whole appeal of mountain biking is to enjoy the wilderness. Assuming you as a hiker are enjoying it more than a mountain biker is pretty funny though.
By the tone of this article, this author considers the park exclusive to their own personal preferences. Are parks ONLY to be enjoyed by those with such snobbish and exclusive attitudes? What kind of "rollar coaster" is this person talking about? Obviously not a mountain Bike rider and sounds a bit against so much outgareous fun!
I LOVE THE IDEA, I live in the area, and my kids are being brought up to appreciate nature from the back of a mountain bike.
Please don't forget that there are many people that have disabilities that are limited to biking. I was hit by a car as a pedestrian and I can't hike far but I can bike anywhere I want.
For the record, mountain bikes have minimal impact on the envrionment, especially compared to the hoards of hikers and equestrians that pummel the trails in the smokies. Visit any established mountain bike trail network... you'll find very little erosion, waste or people "wrecking themselves".
Wow. What a ridiculously flawed, narrow minded thought process. Thankfully the other commenters have pointed out the shortcomings in your argument, so I don't have to. Build the trails. You will not be sorry.
So, National Parks and Parkways were established to provide recreation of all forms, new, old, and those unforeseen for the locals to enjoy their local neighborhoods? I suppose some additional single use horse trails, motorcross, ORV, E-bike, running, (and whatever else comes along) trails should be built, to be fair. If there is a legitimate demand, I would be presume private land entieties would fill the need. National parks are not beholding to only local concerns. This is coming from someone who rides both of my bikes, MT and Gravel, from my house to a major national park. I would not want to see any additional habitat further disturbed for any additional trails. If parks are managed to satisfy everyone, they will satisfy no one.
I would be oohing and ahhing at the surround parkscape and apprecating the nearly every detail of the park. Having beign a responsible mount bike enthusiast for 2 decades, I am confident I wont be rivited in on the odd termed "narrow rolelr coaster".
"Would the riders be oohing and ahhing at the surrounding parkscape and appreciating the human culture stitched into the park's mountains, hollows, and coves, or be riveted on the "narrow roller-coaster" in front of them so they don't miss a twist or turn?"