Six Mile Red Trail Closure, Please Read

Rode the park on a weekend against my better judgement today.

The closure of the trail between Jacques and canal road has impacted the park in a way that might not have been expected by the park administration.

The popular loop from the canal road lot has turned into and out and back. This means that the blue trail is getting 2x the traffic it once saw. This has created 2 dangerous situations.

-Many if not most riders are completing the loop by riding on the very narrow and dangerous Jacques lane. This is now a mile of pavement.

-Head on collisions are fairly common on the blue trail.



Perhaps a well written and informed petition aimed at the state might make an impact??

Thoughts???
 
jdog said:
Rode the park on a weekend against my better judgement today.

The closure of the trail between Jacques and canal road has impacted the park in a way that might not have been expected by the park administration.

The popular loop from the canal road lot has turned into and out and back. This means that the blue trail is getting 2x the traffic it once saw. This has created 2 dangerous situations.

-Many if not most riders are completing the loop by riding on the very narrow and dangerous Jacques lane. This is now a mile of pavement.

-Head on collisions are fairly common on the blue trail.



Perhaps a well written and informed petition aimed at the state might make an impact??

Thoughts???
Click to expand...

I also rode on a weekend day and many a people skidded and ended up in the woods to avoid hitting me. I will never make that mistake again, it’s absurdly dangerous now.
 
I'd say a head-on lawsuit argument might be convincing.

What about a second return trail? Cross over at the orange/red split. Another boardwalk,

Just spitballinh
 
Patrick said:
IMG_2097.jpeg
IMG_2098.jpeg
I'd say a head-on lawsuit argument might be convincing.

What about a second return trail? Cross over at the orange/red split. Another boardwalk,

Just spitballinh
Click to expand...
Rebuilding that trail and letting people know they are putting themselves at some risk is the best solution. This is far less dangerous than riding down Jacques. (Which ai have done every time except when I’m with kids)
 
I rode there this week on Tuesday. Hardly anyone there. Still I almost had 2 head on collisions on blue. One guy asked me if I heard his bell. I didn't.
 
I'd support a petition. I'm not exactly clear on why the State wanted that trail closed, aside from it being unsanctioned. It is no less safe than approved trails in the park.

Perhaps it would be best to focus on the closed trail being safe versus riding Canal and Jacques Rds, which is not safe. Mentioning potential head on collisions on Blue may have unintended consequences with the State. Would they close Blue to MTB if they thought it was not safe???

Regarding an alternate trail to complete the loop, last week I checked out the field edge that runs next to closed Red and it is completely ridable all the way to hook up with Red to Jacques parking. Similar trail as in @jdog post above, except enter at the driveway. Still have to ride a bit of Canal Rd to get to it but better than riding road the whole way.
 
I was there yesterday at about noon time, and the canal and Jacques lots were fairly empty. White wasn't too busy but had at least 6-7 near collisions on red and I run a bear bell. So not just blue.
 
Bikeworks said:
Government has done a helluva job on two of the best groomed, rider friendly trails in NJ; 6MR and Nassau. Shame.
Click to expand...
Both of these parks are an example of how shallow our access is. Most parks are maintained by a small crew, typically driven by one, MAYBE, two lead people. If something goes south and those players are neutralized for any reason, most TM comes to a complete stop. Its easy to blame is on the government but note that closing of a single trail section at each park shouldnt cripple everything else.
 
stb222 said:
Both of these parks are an example of how shallow our access is. Most parks are maintained by a small crew, typically driven by one, MAYBE, two lead people. If something goes south and those players are neutralized for any reason, most TM comes to a complete stop. Its easy to blame is on the government but note that closing of a single trail section at each park shouldnt cripple everything else.
Click to expand...
It stopped because the people who volunteer to maintain what was usually built by them, not the government, can see the writing on the wall; why put continued effort into something built for free that can be crippled by bureaucracy on what is typically done on a whim?

We just went through this out here in SI. Over 20 years ago, MTBers removed full abandoned vehicles (among other trash) from neglected City parks, made the trails, only to have the City hire a company to evaluate the trails, and mark some for closure decades later, without any consultation from the population who made the trails, and maintained them for over 2 decades, gratis. It's beyond a slap in the face.

So, want to ruin a trail system? Call your local pol and create a stir over a minor issue and see if you gain traction. It's easy to blame the government because they're the one who is creating the real issue, and once again, mostly excluding the community with the chops to resolve it the best.

If you need another example, take a look at the way Cromwell was initially handled by the township. I understand how contract bidding works, but that was a boondoggle of funds. We all know it.
 
I'm thinking the main reason for near head on collisions, even on a slow day, is zero visibility on turns. There will always be 2 way traffic. The brush is so thick in places you can't see who's coming. Telling the park how dangerous it is might have the opposite result we're going for.
Is cutting back the brush in low visibility turns an option?
Doesn't need to be cut to the ground. Just below line of site.
 
Bikeworks said:
It stopped because the people who volunteer to maintain what was usually built by them, not the government, can see the writing on the wall; why put continued effort into something built for free that can be crippled by bureaucracy on what is typically done on a whim?

We just went through this out here in SI. Over 20 years ago, MTBers removed full abandoned vehicles (among other trash) from neglected City parks, made the trails, only to have the City hire a company to evaluate the trails, and mark some for closure decades later, without any consultation from the population who made the trails, and maintained them for over 2 decades, gratis. It's beyond a slap in the face.

So, want to ruin a trail system? Call your local pol and create a stir over a minor issue and see if you gain traction. It's easy to blame the government because they're the one who is creating the real issue, and once again, mostly excluding the community with the chops to resolve it the best.

If you need another example, take a look at the way Cromwell was initially handled by the township. I understand how contract bidding works, but that was a boondoggle of funds. We all know it.
Click to expand...
I am not arguing and the public funding assessments are typically a joke and will almost never service a niche user group. (and yes, we are a niche user group). At the end of the day, did the MTBer's 20 years ago have approval to do that work? If they didn't, then you can't be mad at the result if it was never approved in the first place. Preface this that 3/4 of the TM I do is not approved, but I know the risks.
 
Nassau was not closed because of the gvt.

One of the homeowners worked very hard to find the single line in the land gift to the njdep that specifically excluded mountain biking as an approved use. The town had no option but to close that part of the trail system to mountain bikers or lose access altogether. It was set to mimic the restriction in watchung reservation - which was a high-use equestrian park in the 1980s (watchung stables) - around the same time as the land gift in highbridge.

There is nobody standing at the trailhead impounding bikes, although you might hear an irate homeowner yelling from their deck.
Respecting the closure is good politics.

The area in highbridge is not an equestrian area anymore - user needs change.
The town is working towards getting the wording removed from the deed - but that takes lawyers, guns, and money.
and by guns, i mean a lot of persistence over a long period of time. we have allies there.

Yes - the original builders are gone, and there was no transition plan. F-it, i'm out, was pretty much the end of it.
This came about because they didn't want to be part of the JORBA "family" - understandable, it was their baby.
Edit: When originally built and expanded.

The parks & rec in highbridge appreciate JORBA. We've been assisting for years at nassau, with no formal agreement.

I expect some regular maintenance days, and more independent work in the future, as the relationship formalizes,
and the new rep gets settled in.

----

6MR red trail hard closing was a knee jerk reaction to a lawsuit.
We didn't put that fencing along the trail which someone got caught/injured.
It has been marked closed for years. Marking it closed is enough to close it.
The fact that we all ignored it, and they didn't enforce it, does not change that.

The park mgmt is now in a legal quandary. They can't say yes to doing anything, and they can't say no,
because that means they could have said no in the past. Which means they won't talk to us at all cause then
it looks like they are in-charge. It is ugly. welcome to NJ. the litigious state.

@jdog really got done dirty here. All he is asking for is open dialog - but got crickets.
We are still in there - the park isn't becoming less popular - although most of us now avoid it on weekends unless it is a 6am jaunt.
 
Last edited:
As for 6 mile/after the trail closure and absolute dead air after… I had a few days where I thought I would just never go back there in any capacity and pull the plug entirely

Luckily, a few other stepped up and have been maintaining it, but I am not satisfied with how the park has handled it

In my view, this park is an absolute gem and a total asset to the community at large, but somehow the state doesn’t see the value of it. I think that’s the missing link.
 
stb222 said:
I am not arguing and the public funding assessments are typically a joke and will almost never service a niche user group. (and yes, we are a niche user group). At the end of the day, did the MTBer's 20 years ago have approval to do that work? If they didn't, then you can't be mad at the result if it was never approved in the first place. Preface this that 3/4 of the TM I do is not approved, but I know the risks.
Click to expand...
It was, and 'allowing' necessary trailwork of public land without approval is tacit approval. Legal? I leave that to the people who know the law. But from an ethics standpoint I think we can all agree that it's a shitty thing to get all harumph with the folks (us) who are saving municipalities lots of money by maintaining these trails.

@Patrick thanks for the elucidation. I was off base to include HB/Nassau as an example based on that info.
 
Sven Migot said:
I'm thinking the main reason for near head on collisions, even on a slow day, is zero visibility on turns. There will always be 2 way traffic. The brush is so thick in places you can't see who's coming. Telling the park how dangerous it is might have the opposite result we're going for.
Is cutting back the brush in low visibility turns an option?
Doesn't need to be cut to the ground. Just below line of site.
Click to expand...

We are still working on trimming in the park. Main problem is some equipment is broke and we having trouble fixing it.

We do factor sight lines when trimming.

It's better to trim during the week when usage is low, but that conflicts with business hours.
 
Patrick said:
Yes - the original builders are gone, and there was no transition plan. F-it, i'm out, was pretty much the end of it.
This came about because they didn't want to be part of the JORBA "family" - understandable, it was their baby.
Click to expand...
Not entirely accurate. The crew that built those trails was in several talks with JORBA and wanted to see a chapter stood up after they left. They didn't want to jump into starting a chapter with the flow trails crew at the beginning simply because they wanted to see how that chapter went after launch. We were always on good terms, and the founders/builders articulated that they want to see the trails last/maintained by a chapter.
 
KenS said:
Not entirely accurate. The crew that built those trails was in several talks with JORBA and wanted to see a chapter stood up after they left. They didn't want to jump into starting a chapter with the flow trails crew at the beginning simply because they wanted to see how that chapter went after launch. We were always on good terms, and the founders/builders articulated that they want to see the trails last/maintained by a chapter.
Click to expand...

I was referencing Jeff's "fed-up with town/gvt" end with the F.it - The post is on here somewhere.
Sure, Thatcher, Rich, and Jeff were always cordial, how it ended with JORBA is probably much different than Jeff getting blindsided,
and being helpless to do anything about it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Trail Conditions

Current Conditions

powered by Trailforks.com
Back
Top Bottom