Thoreau Falls Bridge Removal?

Anybody who's opposed to having the bridge - I have a recommendation: walk about 50 feet past the bridge and cross the river on your own (then, don't use any trails in there - thereby reducing trail/bridge wear and tear).

There - problem solved for those offended by it. Same goes for rock stairs and trail work - don't use trails if you don't like 'em!

Attagirl, Becca! I couldn't say it any better.

With regard to Sierra's link, I found Erin Paul Donovan's arguments well thought out and posed. It did not seem he was "offended" by the bridge's presence but rather that, like me, he could maybe see both sides of this debate. As with the other bridges' removal, I do not feel strongly one way or the other {DUCKING!} . Having hiked in areas of the country where river fords are the norm, I see bridges in general as a privilege, not a right.

Stinkyfeet said:

With regard to Sierra's link, I found Erin Paul Donovan's arguments well thought out and posed. .

Click to expand...

He did, however, have a flaw in his facts...
He states that one must also make a stream crossing above Thoreau Falls. As many here know, one can bushwack to the bridge on the Ethan Pond Tr.

Doug

I can see both sides to the debate as well. Like everyone else, Erin has an agenda.

I have an agenda too and I'll be up front about it. I believe that the bridge and trails and corridors and blazes and historical artifacts are signs of human intrusion. Just like animals leave their own signs. But I also believe humans have a right to be there and I don't care for access being tightened or removed. Likewise I believe that cyclists should have (at least some) access as well but clearly they don't. Meanwhile horses do. I admit there is a line and I'm not sure exactly how far down the slippery slope to draw it.

Tim

It's unclear whether you meant the agenda statement literally or figuratively, but I personally do not have one with regard to this bridge, Tim. As stated above, I do not care either way. If the bridge is rebuilt, I will use it. If it is not, I will either get my feet wet or if I do not feel comfortable with the water level/force, I will turn around (as I have done at many a ford in the past). Either way, I will not be offended.

Happy trails!

Will said:

Don't you think that's the point? That you are the enemy that needs to be kept outside the gate at all costs? My sense is that the argument you present works against the preservation of a bridge there.

Click to expand...

I don't know, but if I had to guess, the idea is to make it more difficult to reinstitute logging in the wilderness areas of the Whites. Hikers and skiers are a secondary consideration.

Driver8 said:

I don't know, but if I had to guess, the idea is to make it more difficult to reinstitute logging in the wilderness areas of the Whites. Hikers and skiers are a secondary consideration.

Click to expand...

I disagree with that statement. The issue is it's a Wilderness area and man made structures do not belong there. I mean the 180 ft. bridge was way more important then this bridge and that one had to go. People fall where their own interest lie, if you hike out there a lot you want the bridge, if your willing to rough it at the crossings to be free of help from man, you don't want it. I think to be fair the FS should be consistent in their decision's, regarding the bridges. Crossing natural waterways to some is the essence of Wilderness travel. To be frank, I'd be less then honest to say I don't miss the 180 footer, regardless of the designation of the area, I would have loved to see it saved and that goes right to my original point. When it comes to our own wants, lines blur.

I have been letting this idea settle for some time and quite honestly am having a hard time feeling strongly one way or the other. I have listened to arguments on both sides, good ones. Both arguments make a lot of sense to me.

There are some really good reasons to replace the bridge. There are some really good reasons not to.

I did find the article posted by Sierra to be well argued. He has a few good points in there. #4 makes a tough case.

If it is replaced, I think it should be done modestly with natural materials, from close to the site.

For the record, I wanted to keep the 180 footer*, too. And I wrote about it a few times as well. In fact, Dan Abbe wrote to me as they had my name on file from last time.

* Aren't parts of it still lying on the site under tarps?

Tim

I cant agree with the blog commentary 4th point that because the prior bridge was not replaced is a good reason not to replace the TFB. The prior bridge was not by most observations structurally unsound. It did need deck replacement but the underlying cables and supports were sound. It, unlike the TFB, was not damaged by a natural event that was part of a declared a disaster event. In general the reports at the time was that the permitting process for the prior removal was a farce and the manager in charge effectively short circuited the public input process. The TFB bridge and the prior wilderness trail suspension bridge are both victims of a long term local USFS policy shift with a strong underlying budgetary driver to come up with rationalizations to minimize capital and maintenance expenditures.

Raven said:

If it is replaced, I think it should be done modestly with natural materials, from close to the site.

Click to expand...

Raven, it makes sense to use local natural materials from near the site to build bridges and other fixtures on trails. Aesthetic value is high, and materials are cheap. In my 34 years of trailwork the crews I've worked on use them most of the time. Lately we have preferred pressure treated lumber to native woods simply because they last longer if proper precautions against rotting are designed into the bridge.

The bridge on TFT is surrounded by young second-growth woods with a healthy percentage of spruce. However, the present bridge beams or stringers are 62' long. A scout around the neighborhood while we visited the site on 3 October found no trees of those species of diameter to replace the existing ones. Those had to be trucked in 53 years ago when the Forest Service built the bridge, because the local second-growth trees were even smaller then than they are now.

Given that the local trees are smaller and shorter than what is there now, they are as yet unfit to replace the latter. They could become parts of a truss bridge, which would have to be covered to keep the rain off them. To use local native timber that way means many such trees have to be turned into lumber at a portable sawmill, and carpenters skilled a post-and-beam joinery would have to do the pre-cutting and drilling before the trusses were assembled on land then moved across and lifted into place one at a time. Then come the floor beams, deck, top braces, roof, and sides. An alternative is to roof and side each truss, which is called a pony truss bridge. Either way, dozens of trees would be sacrificed. A large area would be taken for the workers' camp and the sawmill and work areas. Not impossible, but very high-impact and expensive.

This is why the most cost-effective replacement is likely to be either glue-lam or trusses, built off-site and flown in by helicopter. Now we wait to see what the district ranger tells the USFS bridge engineers.

Creag, your knowledge of trail maintenance is always welcome. I learn a lot from your feedback and it's interesting to know trail construction details. The tidbit in regards to not having on-site tree's large enough, really caught my eye, as well as the need for a sawmill and such. It really puts a project like that into perspective for us non trail builders. As far as not having any large tree's in the area. That falls directly in John Henry's lap.

Sierra, I was getting a good start on my 4000'rs when I got kinda diverted into trailwork. Still fascinating. I offer what little I know to balance the discussions and in hopes some who read them will take up trailwork also. I think it was Guy and Laura who figured that trailwork could have its own lists and traditions etc. but most of us are too individualistic to want to play in such an organized league.

"I ain't never seen a tree yet that didn't look better to me goin' under a saw than it did standin' on a mountain." J.E.Henry 1831-1912


Trees
By Joyce Kilmer, 1913

I think that I shall never see
A poem lovely as a tree.

A tree whose hungry mouth is prest
Against the earth’s sweet flowing breast;

A tree that looks at God all day,
And lifts her leafy arms to pray;

A tree that may in Summer wear
A nest of robins in her hair;

Upon whose bosom snow has lain;
Who intimately lives with rain.

Poems are made by fools like me,
But only God can make a tree.

Following up on peakbagger's observations about parallels (and lack thereof) with the prior bridge, sad experience has shifted my opinion. It was originally going to be replaced with a rock crossing; in the end, of course, it's essentially unfordable most of the time, and the approach trails were decommissioned. "No crossing here" is a substantially bigger change than "no bridge here."

My opinion only: If they trail is well established, well traveled, and had a bridge originally, then replace it. If not, then don't. "Wilderness" rules be damned.

Excellent points Creag and PB. Thanks for adding those details.

As I read the point made in #4, it occurred to me that the argument does rest on the first bridge removal being a sound decision.

Knowing there are not suitable materials nearby for a new bridge is good info to have.

I can't agree on comments about ignoring Wilderness rules. Without those rules you'll be crossing the bridge to line up for a Dunkaccino.

jniehof said:

Following up on peakbagger's observations about parallels (and lack thereof) with the prior bridge, sad experience has shifted my opinion. It was originally going to be replaced with a rock crossing; in the end, of course, it's essentially unfordable most of the time, and the approach trails were decommissioned. "No crossing here" is a substantially bigger change than "no bridge here."

Click to expand...

Prior to the Wilderness trail suspension bridge removal, the Franconia Brook Campsite was closed and replaced with the campsite on the other side of the East Branch, the claim was that there would be rock steps or other provisions established to allow folks to cross the East Branch to allow access to Franconia Falls , if there was even an attempt at this it didn't last long and given the typical flows I don't think it would be possible to maintain as ice out would probably move the step stones. I and others did do this ford slightly upstream of the Franconia brook intersection with the East Branch while the Lincoln Woods trail closure was in place two years and even at low water it required fording. Nice on hot day with low flows and warm water but dangerous after rain and with cold water. Thus the history of failed verbal commitments is longer than some may realize.

By the way, the concept of a local administrator making verbal commitments to assuage public opinion while implementing written policy is unfortunately a known tactic in dealing with the Fed. The assigned federal project manager establishes him or herself as a nice reasonable person to the public and makes verbal promises to mitigate the impact of upcoming policy, the locals back off and the new policy goes into effect. The project manager is then promoted or moved and the verbal commitments are forgotten/ignored by the next administrator.

I expect the next bridge to go will be the Franconia Brook Bridge. Given that the so called relocation of the Lincoln Brook Trail upstream of the bridge is at best a short term solution given that the area of the relocation is already undermining and most likely in jeopardy after the next flooding event, there really will be no need to maintain the Lincoln Woods trail given the fine new East Side road to no where.

Excellent points Creag and PB. Thanks for adding those details.

As I read the point made in #4, it occurred to me that the argument does rest on the first bridge removal being a sound decision.

Knowing there are not suitable materials nearby for a new bridge is good info to have.

I can't agree on comments about ignoring Wilderness rules. Without those rules you'll be crossing the bridge to line up for a Dunkaccino.

Raven said:

I can't agree on comments about ignoring Wilderness rules. Without those rules you'll be crossing the bridge to line up for a Dunkaccino.

Click to expand...

How could there be a Dunaccino in the Wilderness? Not advocating NEW construction, only replacing what is already there.