@GJ11 =
italics
You have not made your case. All you've done is posted a bunch of personal preferences to this thread. The IMBA book talks about fall-line trails and what does and doesn't work. Despite what you'd have others believe, there's nothing inherently wrong with them.
Actually, I have made my case. It’s just not your case. These aren’t personal preferences. As I’ve mentioned, it’s fact. I agree if a fall line trail is sustainable and holding up well, then it can work. This one wasn’t sustainable, as per the fact that it was soft dirt 10 years ago and now it’s exposed roots and loose scrabble, as I have explained before and as you have experienced yourself since you have been riding that trail since the year it was built.
Several posts back you claimed to have presented objective data to the MCPC at one of their meetings in order to justify your new trail and closing of the fall-line.
No, I did not. Read carefully. See post #48. I stated that I presented a proposal to them. In that same post I also said I do not attend the meetings since I barely have the time to work on trails let alone ride them. I work in NYC and have a 90 minutes commute each way. I work with MCPC over email as much as I can. It is also not “my” new trail…it’s everyone’s.
You said you made that presentation last year (2015). I have skimmed the MCPC meeting minutes from last year and there is no presentation, no testimony, no nothing, from you, or any other MCPC official, or land manager, survey crew, engineer, etc, indicating any problems or any proposed re-routes due to problems in fall line trails in LM.
Again, read carefully. I made a proposal, not a presentation. I did not attend any meetings, so this will not be in the minutes.
It's completely possible I've missed your objective research and presentations on the MCPC web site, so I asked you for the information you claim you had presented to MCPC justifying the closure and re-route. To date I've received nothing. You've also posted nothing (other than subjective personal preference and a link to a handbook) to this thread, to substantiate your actions.When my requests go unanswered, I begin to question your motives.
When you misstate what I said, which make it appear you have not read my responses, I begin to question yours. Additionally, In response to your questions, I offered to meet to discuss this, even offering to do so over a beer. Reason being, as I have mentioned before, there is a long history associated with trail work at Lew Mo. I’m not about to ramble on in a public forum about it. Those offers to meet went unanswered. Pot, meet kettle.
As for motives, my only motivation with Lew Mo is to keep it in good shape so it will be rideable for generations to come, not to serve the needs of a handful. I like riding quickly downhill like everyone else, unless the trail is eroding, then riding it isn’t in the best interest of the park. Not sure you are aware, but that old trail replaced a swoopy downhill section that was also badly eroded. No one complained when that original section was closed off.
So based on the link above, you announced the new trail on this board, and essentially said that you're looking for volunteers. Nothing in that thread indicated the old trail was closing or that you just presented data to MCPC that justified the closing of the fall-line trail or that one trail needed to be closed because MCPC wasn't going to support both the old trail and the new one. I'm paraphrasing here, but this was the gist of your arguments posted previously.
This was simply a post seeking volunteers and getting them excited about returning to trail building at Lew Mo after a couple of years of hiatus and dwindling volunteers Nothing more. You had asked if there was an announcement, so I gave you the link. There is no requirement to go into detail about what we are doing or why we are doing it. Typically, those who are interested show up for the trail dates to lend a hand. In so doing, they ask questions, and I answer them. As mentioned before, we also take their feedback into account. Witness the work we’ve done on the new section, including the awesome work done by
@jumpa and crew a just last weekend. We had heard some riders weren’t too thrilled about some of the turns, so we listened and made some adjustments. You give, you get.
The problem with that logic (or, more precisely, lack thereof) is that not “any one of us” is officially permitted to build a new trail in the park nor close one down. The MCPC has specifically designated me as the Volunteer Trail Crew coordinator based on my extensive experience with them and with trail building, including IMBA training, and has required me to submit proposals for new trails and/or major reroutes prior to proceeding. I’m not saying this to come across as holier-than-though, it’s just how it works, and I’m following the rules. I don’t own or manage the land on which the trails are built, I am abiding by the rules and process the land owner has laid out (again, a part of what I would have shared with you had we been able to discuss this together rather than beating dead horses over a public forum).
As I’ve mentioned before, part of getting a reroute approved means closing down the old section (otherwise it’s not a re-route). If anyone were to undo the work of the new section or re-open the old section to serve their own agenda, what that does is undermine the commitment made to MCPC in the proposal. While it’s true that they likely have more things on their hands to manage than one specific trail, not holding to what was approved and committed to makes it that much more difficult to get new projects approved. As I have also said, I am hoping to submit a proposal for a net-new trail (not a reroute) in the near future. While this may take time to go through the process, it’s going to be near impossible if I can’t show that we’ve done what we set out to do on past projects. Not clear from your post if the actions you reference are intended, or hypothetical, but if former (and by virtue of them being in writing on a public forum), then we all know who to blame if we can’t get future trail projects green lighted.
What I think really happened: you told the MCPC guys that you were designing a new trail with the IMBA handbook guidelines in mind. They said 'ok.' Then you closed the fall line trail after the new switch back trail was opened. You never really liked the climb out of there and thought this re-route would be better. But you could never objectively justify the closing of one and opening of the other (and probably didn't have authority to close anything, frankly). You made an indefensible judgment call and I called BS on it.
It’s obvious to me you’re not bothering to read my responses thoroughly. I have explained the process a few times already…proposal, conditions, approval, etc. Think what you want about what really happened and call BS as much as you want, but since I was the one directly involved in the process and you were not, I can say with 100% certainty there’s no stink where I stand.
When I pull the blow downs off the old fall line trail again, leave it alone. There's nothing wrong with it. MCPC doesn't care and I suspect if I brought your unsanctioned actions to their attention it would only work to diminish your reputation and standing.
That is your opinion. Just know that if you choose to defy the closure, there is a good likelihood (as I have stated above) we will not be able to get any more projects approved in the park, so the trail system will stagnate, just so that you and your buds can continue to use a small section of poorly designed, eroding trail. Yay you.
