Big groomers, small trails

[jhwentworth 307]

Seems to be a common problem: How to fit a large groomer through a small opening. There are still a lot of local trails that pass through small tunnels under roads. Sleds can make it, but big groomers can't.

https://www.unionleader.com/voices/city_matters/city-matters-snowmobile-trail-issue-requires-6-million-fix/article_c9334bad-4fbe-5dde-a06e-e2e0888f4ca5.html?block_id=1120512

[PolarisCobra 131]

There are quite a few tunnels like that, even up north. By halfway through the season, it gets pretty bumpy inside. 

 

Would it make any sense to leave a small, simple drag close by that could be pulled through with a sled to smooth it out, and have the big groomer cross the road above? I'm sure crossing the road won't work in all cases depending on how busy the road is, and things like guard rails, but it should be viable in some situations?

Edited November 22, 2021 by PolarisCobra
sp

[jhwentworth 307]

I suspect that the clubs have already resolved the "quick fix" problems. Big groomers seem to be the direction the clubs are going, probably because they can do trails faster, and big groomers need big room.

People are talking about funding infrastructure now, and the trail system is our infrastructure. Anybody see a pile of money laying around?

[snorander 216]

2 hours ago, PolarisCobra said:

There are quite a few tunnels like that, even up north. By halfway through the season, it gets pretty bumpy inside. 

 

Would it make any sense to leave a small, simple drag close by that could be pulled through with a sled to smooth it out, and have the big groomer cross the road above? I'm sure crossing the road won't work in all cased depending on how busy the road is, and things like guard rails, but it should be viable in some situations?

Definitely wouldn't work in this case as the groomer would have to cross the highway

[PolarisCobra 131]

As much as I want to see trails open, and to make it as easy as possible for the volunteers who do the work, it seems like $6 million, and detours for a period of time is a lot to ask, considering the number of weeks those trails are typically open. 

Would be way cheaper in this case to buy another groomer for the other side of the tunnel, and give it to the club. 

 

[ICG 7]

Any chance there is some money in Joe's bill for us ???

It would seem logical to do infrastructure improvements.  before they do major paving improvements.

My company has erected a galvanized Arch pipe for a stream crossing.  . . .Labor, wasn't crazy, but the materials were expensive.

$$$$ Six Million dollars is nuts for a galvanized arch pipe ....

From a snowmobile club project ....To a prevailing PUBLIC WORKS Project.  NO

Anyone remember Dave's bridge.....He built a bridge up in the air for soft money..

No comparing a real bridge, to a BOLT together Arch, that gets buried with dirt.

Edited November 22, 2021 by ICG
Additional thought.

[John Mercier 36]

NRTP may be in the bill.

But mostly it is that fact that people either have no clue how that works, or are willfully trying to put one over on the community-at-large.

Any trail that has the non-motorized users has the ability to dip into the extra 40% of mixed use (motorized/non-motorized), so in essence those non-motorized users are having some of the money allocated to them expended.

Also the fallacy of what is happening over time in the return to State tourism. It has gone from $1.1 Billion in 2003 to less than $600 Million now... and the $1.1 Billion is not inflation-adjusted. 

 

[rneal55555 12]

On 11/22/2021 at 4:54 PM, PolarisCobra said:

As much as I want to see trails open, and to make it as easy as possible for the volunteers who do the work, it seems like $6 million, and detours for a period of time is a lot to ask, considering the number of weeks those trails are typically open. 

Would be way cheaper in this case to buy another groomer for the other side of the tunnel, and give it to the club. 

 

And build them a building to keep in, along with a building on the other side for sled/groomer to ride through the tunnel to get to it.

Edited January 16, 2022 by rneal55555

[jhwentworth 307]

The Jan/Feb 2022 edition of the Sno-Traveler has a story (page 22) titled "If It Weren't For Low Tunnels" that addresses the same issues discussed in the Union Leader two months ago.

[snorander 216]

The article said they filled they tunnel half way with sand and cover the floor with wood. Could they just dig out the sand and lower the approaches on each end of the tunnel?

[jhwentworth 307]

3 hours ago, snorander said:

The article said they filled they tunnel half way with sand and cover the floor with wood. Could they just dig out the sand and lower the approaches on each end of the tunnel?

They might gain some height, but these 10'-high culverts are tubes (circular) so  any gain would be limited. They want 12'x12' box culverts (flat bottom) so grooming equipment can get through.

Maybe, if Route 101 is expanded/rebuilt, they might get some help.

[RK-SXViper 144]

There are three of those round tunnels on that stretch of rec trail that never should have been done that way.

1st is in Raymond under Onway lake rd, put in by the town of Raymond way back when the rails were removed. I don't believe the trails bureau was consulted and they did what ever they wanted. This one is the smallest of the three and will actually fill with snow and water causing people to hit there helmets, our local F&G CO actually hit his helmet several years ago.

2nd is under rt 101 exit 3 on/off ramp, 3rd is under rt 101 east/west lanes, both of these were on the plans to be box culverts like the one under rt 101 in epping. For whatever reason, time $$$ or the contractor screwed up round culverts were used. The 101 tunnel should have been replaced several years ago when they were working on 101 right there and they accidentally hit the culvert with an excavator. Instead of replacing it the right way they just bolted a patch onto the top of it.

The issue with these being round tunnels with limited height isn't just about snow grooming equipment its also about all the other year round trail users. Bicyclists have to walk thru, horse back riders won't even go thru them. One big issue/expense with replacing these is they all have fiber optic lines running thru them. With the increased use and exposure over the past few years I wouldn't be surprised if the replacements actually get funded or at least the Raymond and Exit 3 ones. Replacing those two would have a huge impact on the trail use, but time will tell if they actually come thru.

Edited February 4, 2022 by RK-SXViper

[PolarisCobra 131]

I saw the Snow Traveler article. It pointed out the multiple users of that trail, which is different from the news paper article. It does make more sense to invest here for year round multiple use. 

[John Mercier 36]

They would need to us the NRTP.