Touring - Appalachian Trail equivalent touring route?

I love trail running and hiking, especially in the Appalachians, but have no desire to thru hike the AT. Touring a parallel route by bike and experiencing the same scenery, however, would be incredible.

Has anyone ever put a route like this together? I'd imagine the amount of climbing on a tour like this would be incredibly masochistic, and I think that kind of makes me want to do it that much more.

I would suggest simply deciding what parts of the country you would like to ride in.

I'm not clear on what you're looking for. Do you want something that's as iconic in bicycle touring as the AT is in hiking? Go for the TransAm. Do you want to parallel most of the AT? You might design a route incorporates large chunks of U.S. 11 (interstate 81 takes most of the traffic, most of the way), with maybe detour onto Skyline Drive and the Blue Ridge Parkway.

Oh, and if you want the experience of "climb every mountain. From the bottom." you can go from the southern end of the BRP over to the Cherohala Skyway. Then go south on TN 68 to Copper Hill, and head for Brasstown Bald. :)

I've ran up Brasstown on the hiking trail from GA-180 to the top of the bald - I'd agree that riding up it should come next!

I'm basically curious to see if anyone has ridden or put together a route that follows the Appalachian chain from South to North (or vice-versa). Not necessarily something that parallels the AT exactly, but just travels through the same region.

The equally iconic bike trail is the Great Divide. Not, obviously, a near parallel route to the AT. :)

The Sierra Cascades parallels the Pacific Crest trail. To my eye it is FAR more scenic than a route paralleling the AT could ever be. But as you might guess it does have a great deal of climbing.

Let's focus in a bit.

I have hiked most of the AT in Maine.

There simply is nothing on the road remotely comparable.
I could send you zigzagging, but if you looked at the trip on the
map, you wouldn't like it.

OTOH, I could design a phenomenal trip for you. You want mountains, we
got mountains. And lakes, And seashore. And good restaurants. And historical sites,
if that interests you. I know all sorts of nooks and crannies. It's just a question of time,
and what you like.

But you can't follow the trail.

+1 to what the last people have said. I hiked some of the AT a few years back, and the nearest road to most of the trail is nothing compared to the trail itself.

I also second what staehpj1 said. While I havent hiked on the PCT itself, I've hiked around in the Sierras and it is much more scenic of an area. If I was to do a north-south tour this summer, it would be the Sierra Cascades route

Bike the Blue ridge Parkway and Skyline Drive as a good start. You might be able to piece together a reasonable parallel from local bike guides through VA, MD, PA, NJ, NY and New England.. good luck. I did skyline deive last June. "Bicycling the Blue Ridge" by Elizabeth & Charlie Skinner was helpful

Doing the Blue Ridge Parkway and then continuing onto Skyline Drive sounds like what I'm looking to do. I could even start in north Georgia and head towards Great Smoky Mountains NP before getting onto the Parkway. Pretty much exactly what I was looking for.

I love trail running and hiking, especially in the Appalachians, but have no desire to thru hike the AT. Touring a parallel route by bike and experiencing the same scenery, however, would be incredible.

Has anyone ever put a route like this together? I'd imagine the amount of climbing on a tour like this would be incredibly masochistic, and I think that kind of makes me want to do it that much more.

A bike version of the AT sounds like a great idea & makes me wonder why I've never read about this idea. In Virginia & North Carolina you have Skyline Drive & Blue Ridge Parkway all ready for safe but masochistic riding. They are so pretty it almost makes one forget the long uphill grinds.

Be sure to stop in Buena Vista VA--I started a weekend BRP tour there & the folks were very friendly, I ran into a couple hiking the AT & a local bike-touring lady who offered a nite's stayover if I needed it. Plus Skyline Drive/BRP have frequent altitude signs so that bikers can accurately post home as to how much 'suffering' they're doing. Granny gears are a must of course. With all that climbing you might be considering staying in motels to save tent/sleeping bag etc weight.

Be sure to stop in Buena Vista VA

Just remember, it's pronounced "BYOONA Vista" :)

I know you're not supposed to ride a mountain bike on the AT trail (at least not in New york where I am), but would there really be anyone stopping you? I mean, you wouldn't get fined or anything right? If caught, you could just say how you didn't know and turn around.

Try the ACA Atlantic Coast probably as close as you can come to the trail.

The equally iconic bike trail is the Great Divide. Not, obviously, a near parallel route to the AT. :)

Yes. The Great Divide Mountain Bike Route from Roosvile, MT to Antelope Wells, NM. There is also a Candian section that starts in Banff. In total, 2,711 miles with over 200,000 ft. of climbing according to the 2007 film "Ride the Divide."

http://www.adventurecycling.org/routes/greatdivide.cfm

I know you're not supposed to ride a mountain bike on the AT trail (at least not in New york where I am), but would there really be anyone stopping you? I mean, you wouldn't get fined or anything right? If caught, you could just say how you didn't know and turn around.

Just don't.

The AT was created at great cost and effort by hikers.
Volunteers spend endless hours keeping it open.

You might get away with it once. But eventually you would run
across someone like me.

The Blue Ridge Parkway and Skyline Drive sound like just what you are looking for, altho not as long as the AT. Bikes are not allowed on the AT and I would not recommend ignoring the ban. Even if you get away with it, the AT cannot handle the added traffic of mountain bikes, both in terms of space and trail erosion.

If you want something longer, check the routes developed by the Adventure Cycling Association.

http://www.adventurecycling.org/

Just don't.

The AT was created at great cost and effort by hikers.
Volunteers spend endless hours keeping it open.

You might get away with it once. But eventually you would run
across someone like me.

Alrighty... But I am curious as to why mountain biking is prohibited on the trail? it's not as if mountain bikers would be disturbing anything. they would just pass along the trail as a hiker would, enjoying the scenery and exercise. If a hiker and biker met on the path, they would just pass by each other without consequence.

I know you're not supposed to ride a mountain bike on the AT trail (at least not in New york where I am), but would there really be anyone stopping you? I mean, you wouldn't get fined or anything right? If caught, you could just say how you didn't know and turn around.

I'd be willing to bet you would never make the entire trail without being fined and probably arrested. Personally I think that is as it should be. If you want to do the AT then hike it.

Alrighty... But I am curious as to why mountain biking is prohibited on the trail? it's not as if mountain bikers would be disturbing anything. they would just pass along the trail as a hiker would, enjoying the scenery and exercise. If a hiker and biker met on the path, they would just pass by each other without consequence.

Mountain bike tires are much more destructive to trails than hiking boots. That's assuming that the MTBers stay on the trail. The trail can be crowded in spots, so the MTBers would either need to ride off the trail or run over hikers. In some areas, the AT is already badly eroded from overuse. Allowing mtn bikes would only make the problem worse, much worse.

Agreed. If I saw someone with a bike on the AT I would probably say something to them and/or call a ranger. It's a horrible idea, especially for some of the busier and more dangerous sections. Aside from that, there are significant portions that would be impossible to complete on any mountain bike.

I'll second what others have said about biking the Blue Ridge Parkway and Skyline Drive. Not only are they beautiful areas, drivers tend to be respectful of bikers. I also think the speed limit for most (all?) of the route is 35 mph.

I'll second what others have said about biking the Blue Ridge Parkway and Skyline Drive. Not only are they beautiful areas, drivers tend to be respectful of bikers. I also think the speed limit for most (all?) of the route is 35 mph.

I think the speed limit is 45 for most of the BRP. And while the cagers are usually courteous, be careful of (1) holiday weekends, (2) monster RVs driven by little old men, and (3) fall leaf color season.

Oh, and about biking the trail, stay out of the national parks fersure.

Alrighty... But I am curious as to why mountain biking is prohibited on the trail? it's not as if mountain bikers would be disturbing anything. they would just pass along the trail as a hiker would, enjoying the scenery and exercise. If a hiker and biker met on the path, they would just pass by each other without consequence.

Bikes rip up trails a lot faster than people.

Last I heard, they were having trouble keeping up with it,
the Boomers are getting old. I do hope it doesn't disappear.

Don't get me wrong, I love biking, and I used to Mtn bike.
But the thing I liked best was backpacking.

Alrighty... But I am curious as to why mountain biking is prohibited on the trail? it's not as if mountain bikers would be disturbing anything. they would just pass along the trail as a hiker would, enjoying the scenery and exercise. If a hiker and biker met on the path, they would just pass by each other without consequence.

There are sections that riding is allowed. Look on the Conservancy website (http://www.appalachiantrail.org). Having hiked from Amicalola falls to Springer mtn, I can't imagine someone being able to safely ride it. Esp with gear. That's a pretty tough climb on foot much less on bike. It's almost like a rough ship's ladder.

At least in Ga, it goes close to an army ranger base. The rangers use the area for training. You want to mess with them? :eek: Knowing a couple of guys there, I'm sure they would have something to say about riding it.

As for responsible riding? I continuously see people riding irresponsibly in the natural parks around here. It's naive to assume that a rider and hiker would always pass each other without incident. The trail was made for hikers, and should be left that way.

Mountain bike tires are much more destructive to trails than hiking boots.

Not true. (http://www.wildlandscpr.org/ecological-impacts-mountain-biking-critical-literature-review) There is this


One study specifically compares the impact on trails of four user classes, hikers, horses, motorcycles, and off-road bicycles. Wilson and Seney (1994) applied experimental passes to various sites on an existing trail system in the Gallatin National Forest of Montana. They found that users on foot (hikers and horses) make more sediment available than do users on wheels (mountain bikes and motorcycles).

which shows that foot traffic causes more erosion by making more sediment available. And there is this


In the August 1999 issue of Outside magazine, Jill Danz wrote, "a 1987 effort, funded by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, found that only one user group clearly messes up wild places, those who build trails in the first place. Every group's impact after that is relatively negligible."


That's assuming that the MTBers stay on the trail. The trail can be crowded in spots, so the MTBers would either need to ride off the trail or run over hikers. In some areas, the AT is already badly eroded from overuse. Allowing mtn bikes would only make the problem worse, much worse.

Only partially untrue, especially the part about mountain bikes going off trail. The following holds true for the most part


There is very little use of mountain bikes off-trail. In fact, for the majority of the mountain bikers, the trail is the most desirable place to ride for safety and pleasure. Hikers often wander off trail, regarding their own diffuse impact as negligible.

The crux of the problem is the amount of traffic and the unwillingness of the users (both foot and wheel) to share (foot) and behave (wheel).

You know, on the web you can find an incidence or two of almost every opinion regardless of how true or accurate it is (global warming doubters for example). In my personal experience I have hiked on trails that were over a hundred years that showed far less erosion than some ten year old bike trails I have ridden. Granted use, maintenance and terrain are all variables affecting this too. Regardless we should just follow rules and regulations as posted because it is just the responsible thing to do and in this case helps keep people from starting to hate "disrespectable bikers" which we do not want to become known as.

How about an epic ride that avoids highways?


Blue Ridge Parkway / Skyline Drive
Back roads from Front Royal VA to Purcellville VA
Washington and Old Dominion Trail to Leesburg VA / Cross Potomac at White's Ferry.
(optional 70 mile side trip to DC)
C&O Canal / GAP Trail to Pittsburgh, PA
There is a further bike trail across the northern panhandle of WV that will get you into Ohio.
Or maybe someone knows a nice way into New York and beyond from Pittsburgh.

You know, on the web you can find an incidence or two of almost every opinion regardless of how true or accurate it is (global warming doubters for example). In my personal experience I have hiked on trails that were over a hundred years that showed far less erosion than some ten year old bike trails I have ridden. Granted use, maintenance and terrain are all variables affecting this too. Regardless we should just follow rules and regulations as posted because it is just the responsible thing to do and in this case helps keep people from starting to hate "disrespectable bikers" which we do not want to become known as.

I've hiked trails in the Colorado Rockies that where no mountain bikes have ever rolled that show far more erosion than 20+ year old trails that see heavy mountain bike traffic every weekend since it's construction. For example, the foot trail

http://i144.photobucket.com/albums/r181/cyccommute/IMG_0720.jpg

and the mountain bike trail

http://i144.photobucket.com/albums/r181/cyccommute/IMG_1459.jpg

The foot trail is on the way to a lake and low mountain (13,000 feet). A busy day on this trail is 10 people. I fish just off the trail and seldom see more. The trail is also only open from late May to early October. The ruts you see are barely wider than a shoe and are up to 18" deep in places...that's the reason for the multiple tracks.

The trail is open almost year around and sees traffic (foot and wheel at about 20/80) at the peak of the season of 200 to 300 users per weekend day. This section is one of the most popular because it's about 3 miles from the major trailhead.

Granted, one trail is well designed and maintained (the mixed use trail) and the other follows an old stage road and isn't maintained at all. But the research shows that the impact from mountain bikes isn't any greater than that from hikers.

Granted, one trail is well designed and maintained (the mixed use trail) and the other follows an old stage road and isn't maintained at all. But the research shows that the impact from mountain bikes isn't any greater than that from hikers.

First you can't compare the two trails. The MUP looks new enough that it is likely designed around US Forestry Service trail design guidelines (http://www.fs.fed.us/t-d/pubs/htmlpubs/htm07232806/toc.htm). As you stated, the more eroded trail was likely evolved from trails before the damaging effects of erosion was either known or recognised. These trails tend to be rougher because of water erosion, not foot traffic.

What are the studies that you refer to? Every article about studies that I've seen has admitted that the studies are inconclusive. There is just not enough data to prove one way or other. This is in no way condoning mountain bike use on any trail. Problems arise depending on the social behaviors of individual riders. Just because a MTB tire doesn't usually damage a trail any more than a hiking boot, it doesn't mean that it can't. Both articles do mention that skidding in particular has a detrimental effect on trails.

In Ringwood state park in NJ there are separate trails for hikers and mountain bikers. This seems to be a good compromise because there have been some very contentious disagreements between the two factions. Ultimately, a seperation was agreed upon, and seems to work well.

Two good articles on the issue are The American Trails Website (http://www.americantrails.org/resources/ManageMaintain/BikeAMC.html) as well as at the Wildlands CPR (http://www.wildlandscpr.org/ecological-impacts-mountain-biking-critical-literature-review) site.

I would love to have some more trails in the parks around here opened up for MTB use, but it probably won't happen anytime soon.

First you can't compare the two trails. The MUP looks new enough that it is likely designed around US Forestry Service trail design guidelines (http://www.fs.fed.us/t-d/pubs/htmlpubs/htm07232806/toc.htm). As you stated, the more eroded trail was likely evolved from trails before the damaging effects of erosion was either known or recognised. These trails tend to be rougher because of water erosion, not foot traffic.

What are the studies that you refer to? Every article about studies that I've seen has admitted that the studies are inconclusive. There is just not enough data to prove one way or other. This is in no way condoning mountain bike use on any trail. Problems arise depending on the social behaviors of individual riders. Just because a MTB tire doesn't usually damage a trail any more than a hiking boot, it doesn't mean that it can't. Both articles do mention that skidding in particular has a detrimental effect on trails.

In Ringwood state park in NJ there are separate trails for hikers and mountain bikers. This seems to be a good compromise because there have been some very contentious disagreements between the two factions. Ultimately, a seperation was agreed upon, and seems to work well.

Two good articles on the issue are The American Trails Website (http://www.americantrails.org/resources/ManageMaintain/BikeAMC.html) as well as at the Wildlands CPR (http://www.wildlandscpr.org/ecological-impacts-mountain-biking-critical-literature-review) site.

I would love to have some more trails in the parks around here opened up for MTB use, but it probably won't happen anytime soon.

I wasn't comparing the two trails. I was using them as a counter point to dwmckee's post. He seems to feel that mountain bikes cause more erosion and hiking doesn't as evidenced by his experience with a highly eroded mountain bike trail and a noneroded hiking trail. These examples are exactly the opposite. True the construction of the the more heavily trafficked trail is much better but it sees far more traffic than the other one by several orders of magnitude. You can't say, looking at the foot trail, that hiking doesn't have an impact while also saying that mountain bikes 'cause' erosion.

And I know that the studies are inconclusive. But that only means that you can't say that mountain bikes cause more erosion than hiking nor vice versa. Inconclusive means that you can't draw a conclusion from the data. I linked to a review paper that seems to draw the same conclusion, i.e. there is no conclusion.

The multimode trail pictured, by the way, is part of the 1776 trail in Buffalo Creek, Colorado. I'm not sure how old the USFS trail design guidelines are but the trail dates from the nation's Bicentennial putting it at around 35 years old. It has had constant mountain bike use since the mid-1980s. There are also numerous trails that spur off of that trail and some even run through a major forest fire area that experienced very large sediment ladened flash floods shortly after the fire. None of the trails in the area show evidence of erosion on the trail surface itself. Testament to how well the trails were constructed.

:crash:

DuckFat, that'd be an AWESOME ride.

I wasn't comparing the two trails. I was using them as a counter point to dwmckee's post. He seems to feel that mountain bikes cause more erosion and hiking doesn't as evidenced by his experience with a highly eroded mountain bike trail and a noneroded hiking trail. These examples are exactly the opposite. True the construction of the the more heavily trafficked trail is much better but it sees far more traffic than the other one by several orders of magnitude. You can't say, looking at the foot trail, that hiking doesn't have an impact while also saying that mountain bikes 'cause' erosion.

And I know that the studies are inconclusive. But that only means that you can't say that mountain bikes cause more erosion than hiking nor vice versa. Inconclusive means that you can't draw a conclusion from the data. I linked to a review paper that seems to draw the same conclusion, i.e. there is no conclusion.

The multimode trail pictured, by the way, is part of the 1776 trail in Buffalo Creek, Colorado. I'm not sure how old the USFS trail design guidelines are but the trail dates from the nation's Bicentennial putting it at around 35 years old. It has had constant mountain bike use since the mid-1980s. There are also numerous trails that spur off of that trail and some even run through a major forest fire area that experienced very large sediment ladened flash floods shortly after the fire. None of the trails in the area show evidence of erosion on the trail surface itself. Testament to how well the trails were constructed.

Forgive me, I missed your first post and its link, ironically the same link as one in mine.

The last sentence in your previous post sounded as if you believed there was a conclusive argument. Thanks for clarifying your view.

Just remember, it's pronounced "BYOONA Vista" :)

Good reminder. Once my dad asked for directions to Fayetteville NC from a local who pronounced it "Fedville". Only Yankees think that Southerners speak in a slow drawl, often it's rapid-fire contraction that is hard for city-folk to decipher. Anyway on my Blue Ridge Parkway tour I parked in front of a guy's house in Buena Vista & asked him if it was OK to park there for a couple of days--he said sure! My home cul-de-sac neighbors often get furious if someone parks in front of their house despite ample parking room.

In my casual observation how much impact mountain bikes make compared to hikers depends on a few things. One is how responsible the mountain bikers are, another is how well the trail was built and maintained, another is what the terrain is like, and the last one on my list is how wet it is. In some situations the wet places become large spread out seas of tracked up mud from bikes where hikers impact is more minimal.

In general where I am hikers, runners, equestrians, and mountain bikers share the trails quite successfully. The trails are in pretty good shape and all are generally cordial toward each other. The MTB folks seem to be the ones who do most of the trail maintenance here.

That said I think that it makes sense for there to be places where the trails are closed to mechanized transport including bikes. The AT is one such trail as is the PCT.

Claiming that hiking boots cause more trail erosion that mountain bike tires defies common sense, regardless of the "studies" that you cite. Hikers lift their feet with every step, so their boots are not in continuous contact with the ground. In contrast, a mountain bike tire is continuously contacting the ground, except in the unusual event of a biker going airborne.

If a hiking trail shows more erosion it is probably due to it being much older than a comparable mtn biking trail and/or it having more usage. The Appalachian Trail has been around since the 1920s is holding up remarkably well considering all of the usage it gets from hikers. The worst sections are the ones with the heaviest usage or older sections (like Vermont) that were not constructed to modern standards that minimize erosion.

Just as significant as the erosion issue is the safety hazards posed by mountain bikers flying down trails with lots of hikers. Mountain bikers have plenty of places to ride without screwing up the AT.

Just as significant as the erosion issue is the safety hazards posed by mountain bikers flying down trails with lots of hikers. Mountain bikers have plenty of places to ride without screwing up the AT.
+1

I've done a helluva lot more bike touring than hiking, but I have hiked on portions of the Appalachian Trail in VA, MD, PA, & NJ. Anyone who has hiked on the portions where I've hiked knows that there are vast sections of the AT which are totally unsuitable to a bicycle. The AT is largely a narrow path through dense forest with rocky sections, some of which are stairway-like. It looks nothing like the photos above from the dry western US.

Claiming that hiking boots cause more trail erosion that mountain bike tires defies common sense, regardless of the "studies" that you cite. Hikers lift their feet with every step, so their boots are not in continuous contact with the ground. In contrast, a mountain bike tire is continuously contacting the ground, except in the unusual event of a biker going airborne.

If a hiking trail shows more erosion it is probably due to it being much older than a comparable mtn biking trail and/or it having more usage. The Appalachian Trail has been around since the 1920s is holding up remarkably well considering all of the usage it gets from hikers. The worst sections are the ones with the heaviest usage or older sections (like Vermont) that were not constructed to modern standards that minimize erosion.

Just as significant as the erosion issue is the safety hazards posed by mountain bikers flying down trails with lots of hikers. Mountain bikers have plenty of places to ride without screwing up the AT.

I didn't claim that hiking boots cause more trail erosion. Numerous studies...not just one but many...have shown that the results are inconclusive. The one study that I quoted was done on 'passes' of different travel modes over the same area of ground. Horses and feet were found in that study to make more sediment available. However, I don't know that those results have been repeated.

I can see a mechanism by which boots could cause more damage because of the noncontinuous contact. A mountain bike tire has a very small contact patch. That means all the force is in a very small area. The traction is high since the pressure per unit area is high. Pressing down a lot of weight in a very small area would mean that slippage of the trail material as the tire disengages and reengages to the ground would be very low and movement of any trail material would be minimal. The contact would be continuous but it would also be very small. It would also tend not to vary much outside of a given line because that's where the best traction is going to be. As the quote I give stated, mountain bikes don't really wander too far off trail because it's more difficult to keep moving.

Compare that to a foot which has a much larger area. Each heel strike and toe lift push against a larger patch of earth. Because the pressure is lower, the foot has a much better chance of dislodging the trail material. The hiker also wanders more off of a given line because the going may be easier or to avoid obstacles. It's also easier if you happen to wander off-trail to just keep going.

I don't want to ride the Appalachain Trail. I'm not saying that anyone should. I'm just saying that you can't make blanket statements that mountain bikes do more damage to trails then hikers do. Years of research into the issue has shown that the question is inconclusive. As I've said before, I've seen lightly used hiking trails that are severely damaged and I've seen heavily used hiking/biking trails that show no damage.

The AT starts in North GA, so go a little further north to Cherokee, North Carolina, near the Great Smoky Mountains. There you can get on the Blue Ridge Parkway and cycle it's ~470 mile length to Skyline Drive in Virginia. From there you continue on Skyline and end near DC. I've cycled several, or many, sections of the Blue Ridge Parkway and I can guarantee you that you will pedal your butt off, that you will see some of the most wonderful scenery the Eastern US has to offer, and that you will experience some of the most serene moments in your life.

Two years ago I met a couple from Ireland who were biking the route I described above in reverse. Granted, they were doing a credit card tour and their Airnimal (http://www.airnimal.com/) bikes were quite light and spendy, er... speedy.