General Cycling Discussion - What causes more erosion and environmental destruction?

This:

Or this?????

Option #2

Option 2.

Question: How does a cycylist cross Option 2?

But can "Option #1" support 500+ people per minute durring rush hour? I personaly would much rather see a 4 lane highway with two light rail tracks replacing the "car pool" lane.

I love option 1...reminds me of home.

Just don't let the girls know about that trail! *smile* ;)

Joe, get your mind out of the gutter! Now!

;)

Originally posted by Joe Gardner
Just don't let the girls know about that trail! *smile* ;)

Took me a minute, but finally got it... good one Joe!:D

But part of the question is where is erosion more significant, in pristine woods, or along the beaten urban roadways. It's different if the 2 grains of sand are blown off a roadway or off the great pyramids or out of the Mojave.

Originally posted by Jean Beetham Smith
But part of the question is where is erosion more significant, in pristine woods, or along the beaten urban roadways.

Where this road was built was once pristine woods just like that in the first picture.

Seems really trivial for anyone to complain about extremely minor damage that a relatively small number of people contribute to when compared to the millions upon millions of miles of roads that have destroyed vast amounts of pristine land.

It is true that we should try as well as we can to keep the pristine woods as healthy as possible, but mountain biking is so much less harmful than so many things that humans do that is considered acceptable.. (clear-cuts, disposing of waste into our rivers, mining, building roads, building factories, SPRAWL, the list goes on and on...)

Now I'm not trying to claim righteousness here, as I've taken advantage of and contributed to all of the above. I'm just saying that when people complain of a tire mark on the dirt it seems so trivial compared to the vast destruction we are all unknowingly contributing to every day.

Yes, we (mountainbikers) need to be respectful of the land, just as everyone else should. But we are not the problem that people like to make us out to be.:)

I think that we should make the case that black pavement causes global warming and we should go back to dirt/gravel roads -;)

Joe

Originally posted by joeprim
we should go back to dirt/gravel roads -;)

Joe
:eek:

You must not own a Road Bike? :confused:

Originally posted by KevinG
:eek:

You must not own a Road Bike? :confused:

I wouldn't say that...

Maybe he's just a really big fan of Paris-Roubaix. :D

Originally posted by khuon
I wouldn't say that...

Maybe he's just a really big fan of Paris-Roubaix. :D

Or maybe he is a fan of Rouge-Roubaix (http://www.batonrougecycling.com/Rouge_Roubaix/Rouge_Roubaix.htm) !:D

To be honest building like that saves trails from erosion. That is how the shore started was very enviro-concious riders. Now they are put up everywhere but originally meant to raise the riders above the roots that were washing out. For example :)

Without infrastructure like that shown in photo #2, the U.S. would be another third world country. Also, the last time I traveled on the Interstate, the vast majority of land was totally unspoiled. Treehuggers usually exaggerate environmental destruction.

Rob

Originally posted by tbobby
Without infrastructure like that shown in photo #2, the U.S. would be another third world country.

Somehow I'm not convinced. What needs to be remembered here is that the infrastructure shown in photo #2 is only a relatively recent phenomenon. The U.S was not a third-world country prior to it's invention, it won't be a third-world country after it becomes obsolete (and with the progression of technology, a time will come when it is obsolete).

It's amazing how many people forget that our species survived and prospered for 2 million years before cars were even thought of. Their demise would not represent the end of the world or the end of our survival or the end of society (as if that would be a bad thing) - it would just mean we would have to adapt a little in the short term, something our species has done countless times over the last 2 million years or so.

I was reading the "The Subway" by Stan Fischler this weekend on the history of the New York City tubes. As I looked upon dozens of pictures, what surprised me was no seeing a single CAR during any of the development. The same streets I commute on today that are packed with cars were nonexistant at the turn of the century. It's only after the 1940's that we raised thousands of miles of traction lines in favor of automobiles.

It was a mistake.

Traffic is not moving any faster than it was at the turn of the century. The average car in midtown Manhattan is traveling at 12 miles per hour. Crosstown traffic usually moves at 3 to 4 miles per hour depending on the time of the day.

Sometimes there is a need to sacrifice one area to enable another to survive.

The Overland Track here in Tasmania is an example of how popularity has seen enormous environmental degradation over 30 years by people wishing to enjoy the outdoor experience. By comparison with many of the other tracks in the island's World Heritage Area, the Overland Track is now a superhighway for humans on foot. Sadly, the other WHA tracks are now feeling pressure as more and more walkers seek new challenges and impose their will on the very environment they proclaim they love. The prevalence of duck-boarding, as shown in the first photo in this thread, is increasing to keep walkers from wandering in fragile flora and creating new trails. Human waste disposal, of course, is another significant issue.

A cycling friend is a track worker, spending 10-day shifts in remote areas trying to forestall the damage with creation of duck-boarding and steps created from scree helicoptered in from other locations. Imagine that... flying rocks in by chopper! His stories of degradation creep are alarming, to say the least.

The authority responsible for parks and the World Heritage Area is now examining very seriously the imposition of annual quotas on walker numbers for tracks in these fragile locations to avoid the degradation becoming systemic.

Hobart also has similar problems right on its doorstep with Mt Wellington and access issues there.

Depending on climate and environment, the human foot, over time, can be as destructive as a car tyre (much as it galls me to observe this).

FWIW

R

Originally posted by tbobby
the last time I traveled on the Interstate, the vast majority of land was totally unspoiled. Treehuggers usually exaggerate environmental destruction.

Rob

Ummm.... 50 years ago the area in picture #2 was a pristine forest. Environmental destruction is overlooked here because a road is seen as a necessary and accepted reality.

Building this road caused vast amounts of destruction (mining for materials, energy used in transporting materials, runoff from road construction into rivers, decrease of habitat in the area, etc... and the following air pollution caused by the fuel burning automobiles that it was built for.)

Land beside the interstate may seem fine and unspoiled, but building the road did further environmental destruction. Also, the 50 or so FT. wide X 3 thousand or so miles long area that this road is covering is forever dead. Comparing this one road to all the mountain bike trails in the country by ground area, you will find more ruined land under the road.

Although these roads seem necessary, Chris L is fully correct that our species survived for 2 million years without a paved road. Now, we've all used these roads, and they are surely useful, so none of us can say that roads are completely evil. We just need to realize that the act of building a road causes excessive environmental damage before we jump on the mountain bike community for the comparitively minute destruction their trails and riding cause.

As for treehuggers exagerating environmental destruction, that is really true... Can't argue there. The problem is that now whenever a real environmental subject comes up, anyone for the environment is labeled a "tree hugger" or hippie, and their point of view is discredited. It would surely not be an exageration to say that from ~1940, building roads throughout the world has contributed to environmental destruction. It would also not be an exageration to say that building mountain bike trails has contributed an extremely small fraction of destruction compared to building roads.

Actually, gonesh9, I can't argue with just about all you have said in your last post. Indeed, one pollution factor that is rapidly gaining a profile in urbanised communities, but is often ignored in the sort of environment you portray is noise. And a highway like that surely creates a vast amount of noise from traffic at various times of the day.

We live in a society that in gereral terms must consume the environment to grow the economy. Despite the best efforts of some (and alas the apathy of most) this trend is not improving. If we use waste generation as an indicator of sustainability the numbers are frightening. They are showing increases (in terms of tonnes/capita/annum) across the board - and that's with 95% population of Planet Earth still only 5% of the wealth.
Hold on to your hats it's about to get bumpy.

Originally posted by Rowan
The Overland Track here in Tasmania is an example of how popularity has seen enormous environmental degradation over 30 years by people wishing to enjoy the outdoor experience. By comparison with many of the other tracks in the island's World Heritage Area, the Overland Track is now a superhighway for humans on foot. Sadly, the other WHA tracks are now feeling pressure as more and more walkers seek new challenges and impose their will on the very environment they proclaim they love. The prevalence of duck-boarding, as shown in the first photo in this thread, is increasing to keep walkers from wandering in fragile flora and creating new trails. Human waste disposal, of course, is another significant issue.

This is slightly off topic, but I'm wondering why these areas can't be closed in the short-term (long enough to allow for some regeneration) when the environmental damage gets to be too much. The world-heritage areas around here (Springbrook, Lamington etc) have had sections closed at varying times in recent years to facilitate this. The Coomera Falls walk in Lamington has probably spend more time closed than open over the last three years - and this is in the tourist capital of Australia.

Not difficult. It's esse shaped and has a vertical stroke through it.

Bear in mind, that like so many others, you want to do Cradle and Lake St Clair (the end points of the Overland Track) when you come here later this year. Perhaps you should delete it from your "must-do" list as a demonstration of your concern (and I am three-quarters joking here).

The regeneration would take decades anyway. We are talking about a quartz rock base with scant and very delicate highland flora. Every footstep destroys a plant, then heavy rainfall takes over with erosion. The contrast in the before-and-after pictures of these areas is not nice. Hence the need for making sacrifices in one area (the Overland Track), managing others with limits on walkers, and complete bans on the most fragile.

R

Ummm.... 50 years ago the area in picture #2 was a pristine forest. Environmental destruction is overlooked here because a road is seen as a necessary and accepted reality.
What would that road look like if they had not paved it? How would people, goods, and services travel? If they still traveled by dirt roads would everyone be driving four wheel drive monster trucks? How wide would the roads be then? What would the enviromental impact be?

Actualy I find the comparison to be rediculous. A more interesting argument would be about wich causes more erosion, mountain bikes or hikers.