Watchung Reservation - Call to Action (10/20, 7pm)

@KenS, didn't think of this till the drive home, probably been discussed though, but thought to lay it out here anyway

There will likely be a strong mtb presence once the park gets opened. At first I was fine with the limited mileage for mtbs and thought the county would approve more once they saw the positive influence with the community allowed in Watchung. But after hearing about all the concerns over safety, the county freeholders should be made aware that 6 miles for a mtb trail based on the expected usage would be considered very high. I don't know if you have stats on heavily used parks, but a park like 6MR is probably the most congested from my experience, and its most likely the park I'll have an accident with another rider. With the addition of another 50% of beginner and kids friendly trails the likelihood of multi bike accidents should drop considerably. I'll again use 6MR as an example, where the Rt27 section of the park gets separated by the orange and red. The Red trail is considered a "slower/beginner" section if the twisties and tight turns are beyond your experience level. I have aborted a few times at Orange from an on-coming fast rider, though on Red have come across riders but never had to avoid a collision.

Also the comment on multiple entry points is IMO spot on. The "right" side of the park where there are no entry points would be ideal to add a few miles of beginner trails. Overall I think the community represented professionally despite a little shouting, in retrospect the mic issue was more disruptive than any one individual. I considered asking for a pump track while we were at it, but I guess that would likely unwind another roll of red-tape on an already long lingered ordeal.... good luck with the continuing negotiations and keep use posted on the progress and if you need any support from us

_ Walt
 
Thanks to everyone for such a strong turnout. That was exactly what we needed. I think we made the important points:
1. Proposed trail network, while a good start, is too small.
2. Multi-use trails are safe and the standard around the state and the country. Bike-only trails would be counter productive.
3. Need more access points, particularly on the east side of the Reservation.
4. Need more beginner friendly terrain.
5. We need a clear plan of action from the County on WHEN we can start trail maintenance and WHEN the park will open to bikes.

We plan immediate follow up with the appropriate parties at the County to keep the momentum going. Thanks to Ken Seebeck as always, and also special shout-out to Matt Schwebel who has been lobbying for this behind the scenes for years.
 
Great turnout last night. I'd estimate there were 150 people in attendance; much thanks to everyone!

Mostly a positive session. Like I said last night, I was really disappointed that the County did not have a firm plan for opening the trails. On the other hand, they seem truly receptive to the many great suggestions, like more beginner trails and access points. We will continue to push this forward, not only behind the scenes but at the freeholder level as well.
#freewatchung
 
Just knowing what a positive impact that mtbing can have in other communities should be all the nudge these guys need.

I always think of park city and the way the town is built around mtbing all summer.


http://www.mountainbikingparkcity.com/


They have turned an off season sport into the reason that people move there.

Clearly this is nothing like what watchung will be, but to know what is possible is important.

6 mile is an interesting case. When we first approached to park to build trails, they really had no idea of our intentions.

After some serious handholding, they began to see the light. Mind you this was in 2005. It really took this long. Inch by inch it became a high traffic park.

Watching can be all that we hope. These officials need to see proof of a long term commitment and free labor. They love that.
 
Thanks Ken for working with the county to get bikes in Watchung . This is a long way from Mays Landing, we appreciate the efforts.
Two points that I thought were noteworthy was the suggestion to allow mtb's access to all trails on certain days of the week so as to ease the concern of multi users (bikes,hikers,equestrian) on trails. The freeholders seem adamant about the safety of multi use at Watchung, this may be the first step toward easing fears of multi use trails.

The other point was keeping a small portion of trails closest to the stables reserved for equestrian only. This gives beginner equestrians(kids) a place to horseback without the safety issue of the possibility of other trail users spooking a horse.
 
jdog said:
Just knowing what a positive impact that mtbing can have in other communities should be all the nudge these guys need.

I always think of park city and the way the town is built around mtbing all summer.


http://www.mountainbikingparkcity.com/


They have turned an off season sport into the reason that people move there.

Clearly this is nothing like what watchung will be, but to know what is possible is important.

6 mile is an interesting case. When we first approached to park to build trails, they really had no idea of our intentions.

After some serious handholding, they began to see the light. Mind you this was in 2005. It really took this long. Inch by inch it became a high traffic park.

Watching can be all that we hope. These officials need to see proof of a long term commitment and free labor. They love that.
Click to expand...

the park super confirmed that they had not reached out to any other bike friendly counties for input and was more so using South Mt for support of the current ban and proposal. Most in attendance felt it was short sighted of the county to only rely on third party recommendations. At work, if we only did what a vendor told us, and not study industry benchmarks, we'd come out with pretty crappy products with very narrow sight lines into the future.
 
pooriggy said:
Thanks Ken for working with the county to get bikes in Watchung . This is a long way from Mays Landing, we appreciate the efforts.
Two points that I thought were noteworthy was the suggestion to allow mtb's access to all trails on certain days of the week so as to ease the concern of multi users (bikes,hikers,equestrian) on trails. The freeholders seem adamant about the safety of multi use at Watchung, this may be the first step toward easing fears of multi use trails.

The other point was keeping a small portion of trails closest to the stables reserved for equestrian only. This gives beginner equestrians(kids) a place to horseback without the safety issue of the possibility of other trail users spooking a horse.
Click to expand...

Another later point was that there are already many ridable trails in the proposed area. I fear that the message to the freeholders is that it will take some time to create the "new" sections and Spring is just a ground breaking and the ban isn't lifted till several months later. It would be great, as someone mentioned, to have the county support a soft opening to allow mtbs to begin accessing and building trails over the late fall/winter for a true Spring opening. I heard a couple of guys near me responding to a question to why mtbrs don't go out to helping with park maintenance since the ban in 1995. Their response was very fair, they got tired of helping in the past as continued promises by the parks were not upheld to reopen the park. I don't blame them for not volunteering, the community will usually gravitate to park which they ride. I know Ringwood is a great park, but I've never done a TM there, cause I don't ride there.
 
Some trails at 6MR should be made one ways IMO. The bike traffic there on some weekends is insane. There are many sections were you could really get rippin if you wanted to with a lot of blind curves especially in the summer with the vegetation growth. The park is a great place to ride and many kudos to those who maintain it.
 
qclabrat said:
the park super confirmed that they had not reached out to any other bike friendly counties for input and was more so using South Mt for support of the current ban and proposal. Most in attendance felt it was short sighted of the county to only rely on third party recommendations. At work, if we only did what a vendor told us, and not study industry benchmarks, we'd come out with pretty crappy products with very narrow sight lines into the future.
Click to expand...

That was an interesting point, but if the freeholders are essentially keeping their own counsel how could that be changed?
I was looking for trail building guidelines on the NJDEP site to see if there are some state plans that are supposed to be followed. No luck so far but ran across this: http://www.nj.gov/dep/greenacres/trails/pdf/chapter1small.pdf which has some good stats backing up bike usage over horse, and just below hiking. Older study but I guess that's the most recent. Anyway.

I spoke to the stable manager (sorry forgot her name) after the meeting. She seemed pretty open and receptive to the plan. They do run summer camps all week during the peak season which would be an issue for the odd/even day proposal. I was trying to get an idea of how many riders per day go out past the beginner areas but we got interrupted. Might be a good thing to know if bike/horse safety is a question on mixed trails. If it's only a couple per day it's not a major hurdle.

Was there an opportunity for a expanded bike trail use proposal adding onto what their plan is, aside from requesting it be unlimited? I got the impression the freeholder rep was looking for something concrete when he threw out the trail runner dude.
The alternate bike access points problem was a very good point to make.

The older gentleman with the accent and the "have it, boys" attitude was my favorite anecdote. :p
 
Great turnout and I think the meeting conveyed MTB concerns successfully. I don't think it's productive to demand a date because that's just not the way government works. There's too many variables master plan needs to be updated, (superintendent needs to accept the draft, freeholders need to accept the proposed updates, if there are comments these steps repeat), plan needs to be adopted, insurance needs to be updated, etc etc. I think keeping the discourse open and being accepting of the process will yield us better results in the end.
 
I guess I left too early (~8:20) since I missed the angry runner & ejection. I was surprised to hear MTB support from the scolding runner lady.
 
Few things to note now that I'm not typing on my phone:

  • I think the beginner trails around the stables are an excellent idea. Honestly I think most of us don't like dealing with horses on the trails and it's a benefit to both the beginner horse riders and the mountain bikers. I'm not a fan of disallowing use on trails but in some cases it makes sense.
  • That angry runner was clearly an asshole. If he can truly say that he's run 10,000 miles and not ONE of his interactions with a mountain biker didn't have the mountain biker nasty, then he's the problem.
  • Runner lady was awesome. Was really nice to hear here slam the point that the trails should be multi-use, that the trails are in horrible shape.
  • Great point made was more users of the park = more attention and money to the park. There's only so many hikers and horseback riders and the numbers may be dwindling.
  • The guy who runs the trail maintenance was completely off base and came off as just an angry old white guy. Of course bikers have not shown up previously to trail maintenance, we've been told we're not welcome in the park, why would we waste our time maintaining those trails when we can maintain trails where we ride?
  • One of the best points someone was yelling out at one point is why BIKERS are treated as second class users. There's no reason why hikers/horseback riders are held to a higher level than mountain bikers and should have to be fighting an uphill battle.
  • I can't say enough how the room was in support of mountain biking including from non mountain bikers. Except for the angry trail runner and the angry trail maintance guy, everyone was pretty much in support of it. Even the woman who ran the equestrian stables was very supportive to the idea. I'd rather work WITH someone like that than against.
 
Great turnout last night, lots of possible solutions were identified, loads of fantastic comments, and loads of good questions! Some of the questions were so good that the county never answered them, just tip-toed around them... tisk-tisk. So much for transparency...

As an individual that works with the federal government (FDA) in getting approvals for the pharmaceutical and medical device industries, I can speak to the amount of time things take. At a federal level things take a very long time, however there is good reason for that.... there are lives at risk. And the risks are real and could be fatal.

However, what we are dealing with here is worlds away from that. There is no reason why this should take any more than 3-6 months to get off the ground and that's being generous. If the county was truly, and I mean truly genuine in getting this up and running then we would have seen a lot more activity from them. Up until now it has just been lip service...

When the signs came down and the impression seemed as though the ban was lifted, it took the county a matter of days to get new signs made and installed. Funny how that works....

At one of the last free holder meetings it was said by a few free holders that "this" will happen. One free holder even said that we can quote him in saying that it will happen. However, the county has shown no action other than talk about the subject. And some of the comments made by the county last night did not seem as though this will happen, rather is "may" happen. Maybe we are not all on the same page?

The master plan that we all saw last night came about towards the beginning of 2016 and here we are toward the end of 2016 discussing it. Now it needs to go back for a revision and then more approvals, and then maybe another revision, and then more approvals, then this and then that.... We can all see what's happening here... Stalling and more lip service.

Why can't the county say this month we will finalize the plan, next month we will work on paperwork, the following month we get signs put up, then the month after that we will open.... or something like that. Is that too much to ask for? Other areas of NJ allow bikes on trails and somehow there is something magical about Union county parks which prohibits bikes. Once again, if the county was serious about getting this finalized they could of reached out to neighboring counties and see what they are doing. It's much easier to adapt something that has a good track record, rather than reinvent the wheel. This doesn't need to be this difficult; certain people are making it difficult for reasons that are unknown.
 
Does anyone know when the meeting is for the hikers and equestrians? I am interested in attending as a hiker. Not to make trouble, but to just be a fly on the wall and hear what is said.
 
@Xler8, you work with a defined process for approvals. apply, supporting docs, request for clarification, more docs, another clarification, approval. it moves along in a forward direction - and if you did your homework, approval will come.

There is lot of homework here, in an undefined environment for approval. it is a moving target in a fluid system.
Moving off the status quo is what we are after. every time something affects the master plan, there is another cycle (sic) of change
and approvals, new rounds of talks. I'd be careful from here on out on making/suggesting changes that prolong the process.

a small, first, responsible step may trump (haha) a play for more initial access.

i would rather prove our commitment to safety and trail maintenance in a small environment, than delaying while referring to how other parks are doing it. It is too easy to say that park is not like ours....

thanks for the big turnout - you all rock
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom