User Management Techniques – Part 4 – Segregated Use

Not all of this goes in the same load of laundry.

​When you do laundry, you are well aware of the need to place certain colors and fabrics in separate loads.  Cottons, whites, colored.  This type of segregation of clothes is important as placing certain clothes together can damage them.  Reds and whites are a common example of this, as either the colors will run, turning whites pink or the red will be bleached out.
​
While we have spent the last 3 parts of this series talking about how to share trails, today we go a much different direction: ensuring these users that previously shared, never share.  Much like the laundry, we are going to sort them, segregating them in other words, into their unique experiences.  If that is the case, we have some questions we need to answer:

• What is “Segregated Use”?
• How canb Segregated Use be considered sharing?
• What can Segregated Use do create successful hiking and mountain biking?

It’s time to sort everyone into their boxes with the Segregated Use user management technique.

​What is Segregated Use?

As its name suggests, segregated use segregates our users into their own unique trails.  Sometimes, other names like “separated use” or other euphemisms are used.  Given the context of the word “segregation” in the United States, some feel the word is too tainted by history to use in any form, even if its the correct term for the action we are undertaking.  Regardless of what name is used or the emotional reasons for doing so, anytime we build separate trails for separate users without the ability of the other user group using those trails, its segregated use.
​
When we do segregated use, we have determined for some reason, that hikers and mountain bikers on the same trail would be tough, if not impossible, to do.  This means that as segregated use, we are going to build similar trail experiences for each user group.  These separate trail experiences don’t have to be perfectly equal, they can be approximately equal.  Due to topography or volume of user groups or any number of reasons, one user group might have more or less miles of trails than the other.  As long as this doesn’t get lopsided, we are still doing segregated use.  If you physically move the trails away from each other that becomes boxed use.  If we have shared trails and segregated trails that merge and separate, that is hybrid use.  Segregated use means separate trails in the same location.

​How can Segregated Use be considered sharing?

How can a user management technique built around segregating users be considered sharing?  Simply put we are sharing the land or the space, not the trails. 
​
To explain how that plays out, we have to talk about existing segregated systems.  Segregated trails are a rarity in the United States and to better understand them as sharing we have to talk about a real-world example: Lebanon Hills Regional Park in Dakota County, Minnesota.

Mountain biking had been allowed on the western part of the nearly 2,000 acre park, in a section west of Johnny Cake Ridge Road.  However, it had been allowed on the old logging roads that worked their way thru that section of the park.  Many had narrowed down over time, being a tight doubletrack with some sections nearing track-n-half in width.  Two things intervened almost simultaneously that changed everything.  The first was a Master Plan process for the whole park taken on by Dakota County.  The second was a massive storm that destroyed the old road system that was mostly fall-line routing.  When new trails were first being designed in concept, there was a fear of negative interactions between user groups.  It was decided to layout the new trails in such a way that they would not share trail length with the hiking trails and cross the existing hiking and XC ski trails at a 90° angle.  Starting in 2001, the Lebanon Hills mountain biking trail system was created.  Lebanon Hills is now 12 miles long, including the skills loop, in length.  All packed in about 270 acres of the park.

Therefore, as we see with the example of Lebanon Hills, there was an existing use, that is hiking and XC skiing.  The trails for mountain biking were built around those uses in such a way as not to diminish those existing experiences.  In this case, mountain biking was being added in as a new use.  That might be the case in other properties, but it doesn’t have to be.  It’s possible to build from the beginning a segregated use system.  But if we do, we want to take the same care that the planners of Lebanon Hills took and ensure all experiences are positive.
​
That really is where the “sharing” part happens, even though we don’t actually share.  It’s a sharing of experiences, not the trails.  The entrance and exit points will be shared and there would be a mingling of users at these locations.  There may be historical or interesting locations where the trails might bring users to the same place also.  So, while the trails are segregated, the overall experience, including the interest points of that property, is shared by the user groups.

​What can Segregated Use do to create successful hiking and mountain biking?

Looking at Lebanon Hills again, we notice that the mountain biking trails are built for mountain bikers in a directional stacked loop system.  The hiking and XC trails are in a non-directional full loop system.

Segregated trails don’t have to be directional, though directional trails are recommended for mountain biking trails in a segregated system.  The reason for this is twofold.  First, it’s likely the trails will be intersecting each other and therefore have crossings.  Directional trails make this reality a lot easier, both in not confusing users and the signage.  Second, it’s likely that one the reasons segregated use might be chosen is due to user volume.  Directionality means you can handle a lot of users per a mile as they will be doing a conga line down their respective trails.
​
As Lebanon Hills shows, because we have separate trails where we don’t have to worry about passing user groups, we can have extremely narrow trails.  For handbuilt trails, bench widths as narrow as 12” to 24” are completely possible.  Also, as we aren’t encountering the other user group, we can go whole hog in creating the experience that particular user group demands.  If you want to go full North Shore on the mountain biking trails, knock yourself out.  Want to build steep timber or rock steps up a hill for hikers, go for it.  It won’t matter as the other user group has their own trails.  This also means we don’t need choke points to limit mountain bike speeds, except at crossings and for areas with safety concerns.  The only commonality between the two sets of trails will be that they are following the sustainable guidelines.

Entrances and exits to these types of systems can be tricky and some good planning is needed.  Limiting access points to a few trailheads is always recommended.  Lebanon Hills as two, one on the east and one on the west.  The west trailhead is basically the Taj Mahal of trailheads and might be overkill for most trail systems.  However, the important thing to notice about this trailhead is the way it funnels users into a single sorting location.  If you are a hiker or a mountain biker, you are directed to a single point that directs you to enter the trails at that location.  It’s like laundry day where your grungy undies and your Explosions in the Sky t-shirt are next to each other until they go in their respective bins on their way to the washing machine.

Just like shared and preferred use, signage, especially the point where there is sorting of users, is very important.  However, unlike the previous uses, as we have segregated users, the amount of on-trail signage we need drops off considerably.  It basically becomes signage or iron crossings (structures that corral users to cross without issues) at the cross points and some signs at the trail splits.

​Final Thoughts

Segregated Use works great for district or destination level trails.  Of all the user management techniques, it’s the one that really requires some good planning and honestly, someone doing the design that is familiar with it.  That being said, it has some distinct advantages for high volume properties or locations where sharing trails will be complicated or users just won’t go for any kind of sharing.

As part of the Knobbies in the Neighborhood presentation a complete User Management Techniques matrix is available that contains all the information presented here and much more.

This is Part 4 in a series on User Management Techniques.  Up next: Hybrid Use.