Accessible Trails are Better by Roger Bell

I believe the quality of the trail itself should enhance, not detract from, the experience of the user. We need to recognize the differing capabilities and needs of users and upgrade standards generally so that we move toward "universally designed" trails. I like the concept of wholeness, trails that incorporate accessibility considerations rather than specialize and segregate and patronize. At the same time, this idea shouldn't be viewed unrealistically or slavishly or with an absolutist mentality. Obviously, we need a whole range of trail opportunities and design solutions, not a single approach. What follows are some thoughts and policy suggestions about how construction technology should he viewed in relation to trail accessible.

As I see it, nearly every trail technology bears on considerations of accessibility (or "universal design"). For e.g.:

1) New material : I am especially excited about, and in fact I represent as part of my company, a new kind of lightweight bridge made primarily from fiberglass, which enable the opening of otherwise inaccessible trails. Since these do not require cutting down trees, nor use of helicopters and cranes to install, they are also less intrusive. I contend that well- conceived bridges are a key element in making all trails more accessible.

2) Low impact equipment: As trail builders, we specialize in smaller, trail-specific equipment, such as small excavators, Pionjar drills, specially equipped motorcycles, spreaders.  Small paving equipment can assist in retrofitting existing trails to meet ADA standards with asphalt, DG, soil stabilizing additives, or aggregate, without the need to knock down an excessive number of trees, or make the trails straight, overly wide, and uninteresting. Without the right tools, you can either negatively impact nature or inadequately meet the needs or all users.

3) Soil Stabilization Products can assist in making trails less seasonably limited and more accessible generally. E.g.: geo-web, road oyl, grass grid blocks, welded wire walls, gabions, and other methods for reducing the effects of water and poor soil.

Let’s make the argument clear. One reason, aside from the necessity to understand ADA requirements anyway, that my interests in trail technologies and accessibility coincide is that accessibility (or "universal design") raises consciousness about what makes better trails generally!

I believe good technology frees us to appreciate nature, and that otherwise well-meaning people have confused the issue by linking absence of technology and mechanization with being more "natural" and "environmentally correct". ADA requires reexamination of this point of view, because without wise use of technology, many deserving citizens will continue to be denied the wonders and tranquillity of nature! I believe, and have adopted as the credo of my new company, that:

"Good Technology Helps Access, Enhance, and Preserve Nature."

That awareness leads to my central premise, namely: That improved access improves trail quality generally and enhances the value of the recreation experience for all.

Main Arguments in support of premise:

1) Accessibility (or "universal design") enables the same kinds of difficulty and experience levels as currently exist, so making trails "accessible" does not mean making them all fit the criteria of "least difficult." In fact, the existence of difficulty levels itself improves quality, and--rather than patronizing persons with disabilities--recognizes differing interests and capabilities. The moderate difficulty level for non-disabled users might very well fit, for example, the criteria for "most arduous" for disabled users.

2) Thinking about accessibility (or "universal design") forces consideration of the need for keeping all trails maintained on a regular basis. Many existing trails would serve at least the high difficulty level for some persons with disabilities if they were properly maintained. While inconvenient for persons without disabilities, poorly maintained trails could absolutely ruin and make unsafe the experience for persons with disabilities.

3) Thinking about accessibility (or "universal design") forces designers to look comprehensively at trail specifications for all trails and ask, for e.g.:

• Is trail out-sloping always the best idea or are there other, better drainage methods for trails that wouldn't be hazardous to persons with disabilities?
• Should we seriously consider various soil stabilization techniques for all trail situations? For example, is there a surfacing product and methodology that will suit the needs of horse and wheel traffic alike?
• Are trail grades for existing trails generally too steep and would access standards make us more cognizant of the need to reduce all trail grades?
• Are steps and obstructive water bars really necessary or desirable on trails? Usually not.
• Should we do a better job of combining forces among accessibility designers, expert contractors, and volunteers?

All too often, we squander resources by relying upon well-meaning volunteers or over-burdened agency people or contractors whose expertise is road building or landscaping rather than trails. I submit to you that professional trail contractors, the people I associate with regularly, through a professional organization, Western Trailbuilders Association, are a valuable source of ideas and hands-on expertise that should be utilized and consulted as the process of refining standards proceeds. Working with you to become "accessibility literate," we could then be excellent advocates to assist you in creating better design standards.

4) Here is a biggy: Has wilderness policy adequately accommodated accessibility concerns? Have we been blinded by the elitist view of some groups to keep the wilderness "pristine" and thereby become inherently unfair to users who are not part of this narrow group? Have some environmental policies--such as the strict prohibition against using power equipment in the wilderness-- actually worked against the very interests they purport to serve? How, for example, might we accommodate the following potential value conflicts?

a) Denying use of mechanical equipment in the wilderness means that trail grades to avoid bad rock areas become excessive and trail standards generally tend to deteriorate in these areas. Should improving trail quality in the back country, partly to make trails more accessible, be grounds for permitting rock drills or other mechanized construction equipment? I say a resounding Yes!! Environmental protection and accessibility requirements both need good technology, not its absence.

b) Large windfalls and slide areas in the wilderness tend to be removed very slowly from trails because the cost of doing so without mechanical equipment often is prohibitive. Therefore, while these trails become merely inconvenient for the able-bodied, they are automatically made inaccessible to persons with disabilities. Should this be grounds for a waiver of the wilderness prohibition against mechanical equipment to build and repair wilderness trails? I say a resounding Yes!

c) An otherwise accessible trail leading to a lake crosses a stream which has water In it most of the year. Now it is crossed with stepping stones or waded, and a bridge is not installed partly because it can be negotiated by most users; also, installing a bridge would necessitate using a helicopter to deliver the bridge; there are no suitable trees handy and lightweight fiberglass would somehow be "unnatural" in the wilderness. As a result, at no time of the year is the lake accessible to many persons with disabilities. Would this dictate consideration for installing a bridge, even if it meant permitting use of a helicopter or using a "foreign material" like fiberglass? I say a resounding Yes!!

In each example, I am not saying that the decision would always be made in favor of a relaxation of the wilderness policy. But I am saying that considerations of accessibility (or "universal design") should significantly influence that decision--and that such consideration would tend to cause general improvement of trail standards without harm to the environment. Good technology should be recognized as an ally in trail design and construction--not feared as some alien intruder or "ghost in the machine." It should be utilized with intelligence and clarity about long term goals, despite knee-jerk opposition from those who refuse to see the larger picture.

If you agree with this proposition, I would urge you to make your voices heard with public land agencies and environmental groups because I can assure you it is a minority view and will meet with initial opposition. But you have a stake in getting this point of view understood and appreciated. What we have now, as Phyllis Cangimi of Whole Access has been saying, are tokenisms and feel-good solutions that don’t adequately address the inclusive philosophy we are advocating. Our approach must clearly be long term, but we need your support to gradually reduce the grades on this trail so our solutions are not all "up hill struggles"!

Conclusion: Let's view ADA as a marvelous opportunity to upgrade trails, and a great chance to evolve toward policies and practices that reflect a larger, more inclusive awareness of recreation opportunities for all citizens.