Chapter 3—Designing Horse Trails
Once trail analysis and planning are completed, planners know how the trail relates to existing transportation systems and recreation opportunities. The next step is trail layout and design. The design should protect the setting, use an appropriate level of development, meet the needs of trail users, and minimize trail user conflicts.
Trail Settings
The setting is the overall environment of the trail. Three commonly used settings are wildlands, rural, and urban. The terms and definitions may vary from area to area and between organizations. The definition of the setting helps planners and designers make decisions on matters such as the suitability of particular construction methods or maintenance levels. Settings also affect esthetic decisions.
Wildland Settings
Riders place a high value on riding in wildland settings (figure 3–1). These areas are generally minimally developed or dispersed multiple-use areas, such as forests, swamps, deserts, or alpine areas. Many National Forest System lands have wildland settings. In some cases, rural road rights-of-way are used for wildland trails. Wildland settings often present the most design challenges because of topography, distance from services, and hazards. When trails are not accessible by motor vehicles, tools and materials may need to be packed in—a significant challenge. In this guidebook, the wildland settings category does not include recreation opportunities in designated wilderness.
Resource Roundup
Best Practices
What constitutes best practices for designing trails? The National Bicycling and Walking Study (1994) published by the FHWA, defines best practices as those that " …offer exemplary or model planning guidelines, design standards, development strategies, and management programs that lead to successful bicycle and pedestrian programs." Riders often use the same trails as pedestrians and bicycles. The study lists numerous examples of State and local plans that address individual topics. Some also clarify existing national standards and incorporate regional considerations. The update, Ten Year Status Report (FHWA 2004), is available at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bikeped/study.
Figure 3–1—Trails in wildland settings generally
have minimal
development and offer
the most challenge for trail users.
Resource Roundup
Trails, Naturally
Natural Surface Trails by Design: Physical and Human Essentials of Sustainable, Enjoyable Trails (Troy Scott Parker 2004) has a flexible design system that covers:
- Basic physical forces and relationships
- Trail shaping techniques
- Trail purpose and management
Parker provides an evaluation form that looks at human perception, human feelings, physical forces, tread materials, and tread watershed. This technique helps designers and visitors understand new or complex situations quickly.
Resource Roundup
Horse Power
When trail segments are difficult to reach with mechanized equipment, construction and maintenance crews turn to horse power. Stock-Drawn Equipment for Trail Work (Didier and Herzberg 1996) describes the advantages and disadvantages of different types of plows and grading equipment, including photos and sources. The document is available at http://www.fs.fed.us/t-d/pubs/htmlpubs/htm96232802. This Web site requires a username and password. (Username: t-d, Password: t-d)
Rural Settings
Rural settings often incorporate some combination of rivers, creeks, unimproved drainages, hillsides, undisturbed open space, and other natural features.They often include open spaces and preserves near highly populated areas or in moderately developed rural regions (figure 3–2). Unusual—but often viable—resources in some areas include contributed rights-of-way and fence setbacks by cooperating neighbors. Safety concerns for riders in rural settings include visibility, interaction with other recreationists, and natural hazards. Rural trails may cross or run at grade parallel to roads with vehicular traffic, a significant safety concern.
Figure 3–2—Trails in rural settings often take
advantage of public
rights-of-way, such as
canals or utility corridors.
—Courtesy of
Kandee Haertel
Resource Roundup
Trails on Small Properties
Trail Design for Small Properties (Baughman and Serres 2006) provides " …simple, and inexpensive solutions for designing, building and maintaining sustainable trails—trails for hiking, horseback riding, bicycling, cross-country skiing, snowmobiling, off-highway motorcycles, and all-terrain vehicles." Subjects covered include: determining trail uses, selecting a corridor, establishing design standards, marking the trail location, clearing and constructing the trail, installing structures and facilities, and signing. Copies are available from University of Minnesota Extension at http://shop.extension.umn.edu.
Urban Settings
Urban settings usually are highly developed or congested areas. Trails in urban settings (figure 3–3) often accommodate many different user groups and frequently require many facilities. Urban trails may share routes with other modes of transportation and often take advantage of roads, utility corridors, developed drainage corridors, and similar rights-of-way. Safety is a significant consideration when animals must mix with motorized traffic and adjust to other aspects of city travel.
Figure 3–3—Shared-use paths in urban settings
serve many
different user groups.
Appropriate Levels of Development
The appropriate level of trail development is based on local needs and conditions. This guidebook uses the terms low, moderate, and high development as subjective classifications to describe the degree of development. Specific definitions aren’t assigned to the terms, because level of development is relative. For example, high development in a wildland setting may be considered moderate development in a rural area, or low development in a busy urban area. On the other hand, a simple neighborhood trail in an urban area could be similar to a low development trail in a wildland area. Levels of development also may vary on different trail segments within the same trail corridor. Planners usually generate their own definitions based on local conditions and input. This guidebook focuses on development with modest to substantial improvements.
Riders' Needs
Equestrians include youngsters, elders, leisure riders, professional riders, organized groups, novices, people with disabilities, and working ranchers (figures 3–4 through 3–8). Riders recreate singly or in groups, and for many reasons—including pleasure, exercise, or challenge. Popular group trail events include social trips, competitive trail rides, and endurance races. Riders ferry loads or camping gear using packstrings or packtrains—a group of packhorses or packmules tied together single file and led by one rider. Less common are the drivers of stock that pull carts or carriages. Well-designed horse trails consider the setting of the trail system, the needs of all user groups, and the specific needs of stock and their riders.
 Figure 3–4—Children... |
 Figure 3–5—…leisure riders… |
 Figure 3–6—…organized groups… |
|---|
 Figure 3–7—…organized groups… |
 Figure 3–8—…and the working rancher. |
|---|---|
| —Figures 3–4, 3–5, and 3–6 courtesy of the Forest District of DuPage County, IL. | |
Some riders prefer gentle, wide trails, and easy trail access. Others prefer technically challenging situations. The designer uses local guidelines when determining the opportunities to offer trail users.
Horse Sense
Counting on Experience
Planners, designers, and land management agencies expect riders and their stock to be prepared for the riding environment. This includes being comfortable when encountering other trail users and common activities on the trail, at trailheads and campgrounds, and near vehicles. Public trails and recreation sites are not the place for stock or riders that are green—or that don't have the skills to handle common situations.
Conflicts
Stock, hikers, runners, and bicyclists sometimes share trail corridors that are modified to meet each user group's requirements. However when conflicts seem likely, land managers may separate trail users on different trails or on different treads separated by buffers. The Trail Scenarios section in this chapter has more information about separating trail users.
Motorized traffic is one of the most dangerous hazards to stock. Collisions or conflicts can cause serious injury or death to people and stock. Design that considers the needs of all users is vital.
Resource Roundup
Conflicting User Groups
To learn more about interactions between trail users, see Conflicts on Multiple-Use Trails: Synthesis of the Literature and State of the Practice (Moore 1994). The report is available at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/conflicts.
Trail Information Libraries
An abundance of information is available online regarding design and construction of recreation trails. Appendix B—Trail Libraries, Trail Organizations, and Funding Resources lists some national organizations that offer sizable online databases or comprehensive links to many other trail resources. Because designing trails is a complex field that requires different areas of expertise, jurisdictions rely on experienced trail designers and specialists.
Lingo Lasso
Shared-Use Trails
Some agencies or groups use the terms multiple use or multiuse instead of shared use when referring to trails and paths. Many of these groups ascribe exact meanings to each term. Others don't distinguish between the terms and use them interchangeably. This guidebook calls paths that accommodate a variety of user groups shared-use trails. In this context, a shared-use path or trail is " …a trail that permits more than one type of user and that has a transportation and recreation function." (Beneficial Designs 1999). Figure 3–9 shows pedestrians and horses on a shared-use trail.
Trail Hierarchies
Some agencies and municipalities find it useful to assign a hierarchy to trails, ranging from trails with a major regional significance to trails that access neighborhoods or areas with sparse traffic. Trail classifications can reflect the functions the trails serve, their scale of development, their level of use, and their location in a larger trail system. The Forest Service, MetroGreen, and Scottsdale trail classification systems are discussed in this section.
The Forest Service considers specific trail uses when designing, constructing, and maintaining a trail. Forest Service Trail Classes are basic categories that reflect the desired management of each trail, taking into account other management activities in the area, user preferences, settings, and protection of sensitive resources.
Trail classes also help determine the cost of meeting the national quality standards. The five trail classes range from minimal development to full development as shown in table 3–1. Most of the trails discussed in this guidebook would fall into Forest Service Trail Classes 3 and above (more developed trails).
The Forest Service also uses Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) and Wilderness Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (WROS) classifications (see Chapter 7—Planning Recreation Sites).
| Trail Attributes | Trail Class 1 | Trail Class 2 | Trail Class 3 | Trail Class 4 | Trail Class 5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| General Criteria: Physical characteristics to be applied to all National Forest System trails | |||||
| Tread & traffic flow |
|
|
|
|
|
| Obstacles |
|
|
|
|
|
| Constructed features & trail elements |
|
|
|
|
|
| Signs |
|
|
|
|
|
| Typical recreation environs & experience |
|
|
|
|
|
| —Adapted from Trail Class Matrix (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service 2005b) at http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/measures. | |||||
The Metro Green Alliance—seven counties in the Kansas City area—uses a different approach. Design Guidelines for MetroGreen (Mid-America Regional Council and others 2001) incorporates five trail classes that address different levels of development, amount of use, and user type, as shown in table 3–2. The trail system used in Scottsdale, AZ, consists of primary, secondary, local, and neighborhood trails in natural and built environments (table 3–3).
A trail's degree of challenge depends on the user. Defining trail challenge—or trail difficulty— requires a subjective look at an average trail user's physical ability and skill. Difficulty takes into consideration trail condition and trail elements such as alignment, steepness, elevation gain and loss, and the number and kinds of barriers that must b crossed. Trail length is not considered a difficulty factor, although it is an important consideration. Snow, ice, rain, and other weather conditions may increase the level of difficulty. Because of their subjectivity, trail ratings are not recommended. Instead, provide appropriate information at the trailhead or trail junction so trail users may make informed choices. Visitor information stations can include a map and trail length, maximum grade, sustained grade, elevation change, obstacles along the way, and other relevant information. See Chapter 12—Providing Signs and Public Information for further discussion on this topic.
Trail Scenarios
The trail scenarios presented in this section are design approaches that commonly work for riders. These are not the only possible solutions—designers are encouraged to learn about stock and rider needs, and then mix and match trail elements to best fit local conditions and requirements.
From the rider's perspective, trails must have enough space for stock to feel at ease. Stock tend to stay a comfortable distance away from other trail users and from walls or fences they cannot see through or over, sometimes even moving to the far side of the trail to avoid them. Accommodate this behavior by widening the trail, routing it away from disturbing objects or activity, locating the horse tread on the far side of the trail corridor, providing a physical separation or visual screen, installing barriers, or increasing the horizontal distance—also called the shy distance—from the discomfort. Shy distance is in addition to tread width.
Trail Talk
On the Edge
Horses and mules are most comfortable in the track that other stock have trod. They favor the outer edge of a tread, especially if this ground is less densely packed. Having a 2-foot shoulder (0.6- meter) of nontread material or a downslope defines the edge to the animal and rider.
In areas with low development, stock tend to travel about 18 inches (457 millimeters) from the edge of the tread surface (figure 3–10, A). Riders often guide their animals farther away from fences or other obstacles because the riders are more comfortable there. The trod area frequently lies 2 feet (0.6 meter) or more away from obstacles (figure 3–10, B). In areas with a high level of development, for example between tall structures, stock tend to walk about a foot (0.3 meter) from the tread edge of a single-lane trail. If there is a 2-foot (0.6-meter) shoulder, this means they travel about 3 feet (0.9 meter) from the wall or building.
The amount of horizontal shy distance an animal needs in addition to tread width depends on the trail design. Bill Archibald (personal communication) of the Canadian Equestrian Federation suggests using reasonable design parameters, based on what is appropriate for average riders. Too much shy distance may be counterproductive, because a startled animal that wants to bolt may take advantage of the available space. Experienced stock, under the control of experienced riders, often get by with 3 to 4 feet (0.9 to 1.2 meters) of horizontal shy distance. They usually keep within the normal 5- to 6-foot (1.5- to 1.8-meter) tread width on many horse trails, provided there is adequate clearance on both sides of the tread.
Figure 3–10—Traveled area on horse trails. In rural or suburban areas, stock tend to walk 18 inches from the edge of the tread (A)
except when passing. Riders, on the other hand, tend to guide horses and mules 2 to 3 feet away from buildings and obstacles (B).
—Adapted with permission from sketches by Bill Archibald.
Resource Roundup
Trail Planning
Trails for the Twenty-first Century: Planning, Design, and Management Manual for Multiuse Trails, 2d Edition (Flink and others 2001) is a popular reference for trail developers. The detailed guide addresses developing trails in former railroad corridors, but the concepts apply to all shared-use trails.
Designing Shared Use Trails
Designing Shared Use Trails to Include Equestrians (O'Dell 2004) is an equestrian overview of trail design. More information is available at http://www.americantrails.org/resources/trans/transhorse.html.
Equestrian-Only Trails
Single-tread trails reserved exclusively for horses and mules—also called bridle trails, bridle paths, or bridleways in urban settings—are uncommon in the United States. Figure 3–11 shows a trail that could be designated for equestrians only or for shared use. Most public trails are designated for shared use, although there may be instances where a trail is not appropriate or safe for all users—for example, a narrow and winding recreation trail with a steep dropoff.
Figure 3–11—An equestrian-only trail for riders and their horses and mules.
Such trails may be called bridle trails, bridle paths, or bridleways.
Trail Talk
Mixing Bicycle and Horse Use
Whether or not riders and bicyclists can share a trail without conflict depends on local circumstances and customs. It also may reflect the local cycling style— mountain bikers have different needs than road cyclists. While there are situations where bicyclists and stock don't coexist well, in other situations they may be very compatible. Here are three approaches:
- The American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO) generally
finds it undesirable to mix stock and bicyclists on
paved shared-use trails. Paved shared-use trails are
common in areas with high and moderate levels of
development. The Guide for the Development of
Bicycle Facilities (AASHTO 1999) recommends
a separate bridle trail in such cases. The reasoning
is that many bicyclists are ill-informed about the
need to slow down and make room for stock, and
stock may be unpredictable if they think a bicyclist
poses a danger.
- The Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center
(PBIC) notes that some rural trails with hard
surfaces already include a soft shoulder for joggers
(Rails and Trails: Design of Trails 2005). The PBIC
recommends providing a parallel trail with suitable
surface for stock where there is adequate space.
- Michael Kelley, in a 1998 address at the
National Symposium on Horse Trails in Forest
Ecosystems held at South Carolina's Clemson
University, made a case for trails shared by mountain bikers and riders. "My basic thesis is that
horses and bikes can, and must, share trails together
with all other nonmotorized users. I hope to show
that problems are often matters of perception rather
than reality, and those that are real can almost
always be solved with a proactive approach…
"Trail width necessary to accommodate both uses is subject to controversy. Some jurisdictions, particularly those that formed regulations during the early days of mountain bikes, require road sized-trails in order to accommodate both uses. Nowadays, more information and experience indicates that significantly smaller trails are better for multiple-use. Narrow trails tend to slow users down, and in that respect, are less dangerous. The narrower the trail, and the more features such as turns, rises and falls, obstructed views, and occasional protruding rocks or roots, the slower mountain bikers will go. Most experienced mountain bikers would rather ride these challenging trails than smooth, wide open trails that encourage high speeds.
"Width of trails can depend upon proximity to urban areas. In the San Francisco Bay Area, China Camp State Park is very close to large population centers. Its multiple-use trails are 4- to 5-feet (1.2- to 1.5-meters) wide, become narrower as vegetation fills in, and accommodate horses and bikes very well. In the backcountry, a trail wide and tall enough for a horse can accommodate a hiker."
