Jump to content

Pine Swauk/Liberty Road Closures

  • Please log in to reply
27 replies to this topic

#26 Phantom 309

Phantom 309

    Advanced Member

  • Administrators
  • 7,876 posts
  • Location2nd to last

Posted 29 March 2016 - 10:47 AM

View PostSHREK, on 29 March 2016 - 09:11 AM, said:

Packwood Sat.

I forgot to mention....as a father of a pre teen daughter, I no longer actually wheel. I spend my days at basketball tournaments or working pigs, but I'm not complaining. Time flies.

#27 dirk


    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 186 posts
  • Locationwashington

Posted 31 March 2016 - 09:41 AM

View PostRTH, on 24 March 2016 - 07:11 PM, said:

Main thought i took from today was IF this goes through relocating and reestablishing trails WILL be part of the project.

BUT the time frame for this work is entirely dependent on the contractors pace and time frame throughout the project. The contractor has UP TO 5 YEARS with an option of an extension to complete their work, at their own pace.... throughout this time, specific trails will be closed until completion of work. Once again, up to and possibly extending past 5 years.

The major portions considering to be relocated are evolved trails that are not originally part of the ORIGINAL established trail.... that said there're still portions of 4w332 and 339 that are parts of the ORIGINAL trail that are also going to be decommissioned

Personally, we need to retain everything we can. The allotted contractor time frame is what errks me about the whole thing.

We should request no net loss of trail mileage at any time during the project.  Build new trail BEFORE closing out the old.  The contractor time frame junk sounds suspect.

#28 Phantom 309

Phantom 309

    Advanced Member

  • Administrators
  • 7,876 posts
  • Location2nd to last

Posted 01 April 2016 - 10:33 AM

I've been so slammed that I haven't been able to get my thoughts down on paper, but here's a QUICK overview of what I took from the presentation....

A) I don't like the open ended time frame that the contractors have to do the work. 5 years with an option for more. I understand the reasoning behind it, but it's been our (motorized users) experience that this has been used as a way to close our areas "without closing them" in the past.

B ) Although most of what is getting closed are trails/roads that "are not within the system," cutting off several of them is going to cut down on loop options for users. It will force more people to go in and out at the same area. Not only does this cut down on the appeal of the area, force more people (impact) into a smaller area, it forces everyone to trailer their bikes/jeeps further up the main roads to access some of the areas. I believe it makes more sense to adopt a couple of these roads into the system.

C) I personally don't like the proposed "Hill Climb Restoration." They plan to shut down the "five fingers" and build a bypass around them. I give them credit for not jiust shutting it completely, but I was told the new route would be built to USFS trail standards. Those standards are Bunk when it comes to the PNW terrain. If they keep closing all of our harder trails, people will just keep making new ones. I'm not saying I condone that, but why not give the people what they want for a change?! Abandon the standards that don't apply to our area (yes, I realize that is somewhat already in the works) and let us have some fun!