Hyland Park Reserve/Downhill area

[SickBoy]

Maybe Tim or Minime or JayT could comment on this...

Back in the day there used to be trails at Hyland Hills (and I am sure they could still be resurrected fairly quickly). I know Hyland Park Reserve wasn't on the list of Three Rivers Parks that we've been cleared to build at, but what are the chances that we could expand on some of those old trails? Maybe build some new ones on the backside of the ski area so as to avoid the Golf range (or whatever it is now).... Seems like there's more than enough land there to get a 4 or more mile trail in....

[noise_is_life]

Didn't they used to have weekly races there?

[GearDaddy]

Yeah this would be cool to have again. I remember well how killer Hyland's trail was when they first opened it. You'd climb and descend the full elevation 2 1/2 times in a single loop. After about 4 laps you'd be shot. They spent some time putting in some new twisty switchback sections that were fun, but I think one reason they shut it down was because they did a bunch landscaping and ditch digging to put in new pipeline for snow making, which was completely in the way of the trail.

There isn't that much land to build on though, as the Richardson Nature Center is only about 200 yards down the hill on the other side.

You know what would be cool though is if there was a legal trail that went all the way from the ski jump on 84th through Hyland Park and then connecting to the Riverbottoms. Right now you can actually pull this off commando-style (I haven't done it - really), only having to follow the railroad tracks and a little pavement for a short distance. Point-to-point that could be a 20 mile trail.

[JayT]

Being classified as a "park reserve" Hyland is regulated by an 80/20 development policy, that is, only 20% of the total land that makes up that park can be developed. Hyland is a park that is right at that 20% point - so currently, no new development of any kind will be considered at Hyland.

If there was any piece of that 20% pie left I'm afraid it'll be gone for sure when Bloomington sneaks in a new piece of paved trail down the west side of Hyland.

Hyland, Carver, Baker, Lake Rebecca, Crow-Hassen, Murphy-Hanrehan, & Elm Creek are all park reserves.

[SickBoy]

That sucks.

Curious though - wouldn't something like 15 feet of 8 foot wide paved trail be worth like 45 feet of 18" wide singletrack? Or are they considered the same under the 80/20 policy?

[SickBoy]

Didn't they used to have weekly races there?

Yeah, I think seberly's club used to run them. They were some of the first races I ever did. I really miss riding there, some of the singletrack was really super sweet. The unfortunate placement of the golf practice range kinda threw a wrench in that.

[JayT]

Curious though - wouldn't something like 15 feet of 8 foot wide paved trail be worth like 45 feet of 18" wide singletrack? Or are they considered the same under the 80/20 policy?

In the Park Districts eyes - a trail is a trail regardless of width. Apparently, when calculating 80/20, it's the impact of the trail being there vs. its physical width.

Defining "impact" is a topic that has come up recently when discussing sustainable trails. Theoretically, if a trail is truly built to sustainable standards it should have little or no physical impact. I can't say how the PD will determine the impact of sustainable trails. That's yet to be determined.

[stoneage]

Yeah, I think seberly's club used to run them. They were some of the first races I ever did. I really miss riding there, some of the singletrack was really super sweet. The unfortunate placement of the golf practice range kinda threw a wrench in that.
I don't know. Dodging golf balls when you were redlined was always kinda exciting. It was always a time trial format. Yes, it was Steve Eberly. Slightly off topic, does anyone else remember the ONE XC race they had on the Minnesota Zoo property?

[stoneage]

In the Park Districts eyes - a trail is a trail regardless of width. Apparently, when calculating 80/20, it's the impact of the trail being there vs. its physical width.

Defining "impact" is a topic that has come up recently when discussing sustainable trails. Theoretically, if a trail is truly built to sustainable standards it should have little or no physical impact. I can't say how the PD will determine the impact of sustainable trails. That's yet to be determined.
Something that should be seriously looked at, and a frank discussion started. I regress to the Eloise Butler area, where the MTB's were kicked out because one woman with unleashed dogs got the ear of the park department, and then the loppet crew got to go in with bulldozers in exactly the same place. You go look at the 20 foot wide trail they put in and tell me if it is sustainable. I feel that we should be far more outspoken on this subject.

[Tim Wegner]

Don't think for a minute that we have not been outspoken about these inconsistencies. What is important is "how" we are outspoken. We have learned that it is better to come to the land manager with an idea and an implementation plan rather that finger pointing and accusations. The right attitude is what has gotten us to the level of respect where we are now with the land managers.

I think our approach has been successful and unless I see some failures in the near future it is the process that MORC will continue to utilize in the future.

Open to other ideas on this though so lets discuss.
TW

[fasterfoster]

I don't know. Dodging golf balls when you were redlined was always kinda exciting. It was always a time trial format. Yes, it was Steve Eberly. Slightly off topic, does anyone else remember the ONE XC race they had on the Minnesota Zoo property?I remember that one!
...walking (mandatory) across the muddy pallets in the marshy area...
Wasn't it part of the Minnesota Clean Air Festival (or something like that)?

[stoneage]

I think our approach has been successful and unless I see some failures in the near future it is the process that MORC will continue to utilize in the future.
I agree. It is just frustrating to see other user groups, for whatever reason, get what I feel is preferential treatment from certain agencies, whether it is political or not. You are aware of how many times we have had to 'prove' ourselves time and time again. If we could get away without reinventing the wheel at every meeting, we could accomplish a lot more. A little more aggressiveness couldn't hurt in some of these cases. For instance, in the last 8 years, which Minneapolis user group would have more time on their system, if trails were in place for them? Cross country skiers or off road cyclists? 2004 was an 11 month season for me on the bike. Skiers were traveling to ski hills at 6 in the morning for practice. Parks are supposed to be aware and support the community. We have to make certain agencies aware of the demand and be firmer in our requests, IMHO.

[seberly]

Yes, the Habanero Bicycle Club and Hoigaard's put on the Tuesday time trial for several years at the downhill area - which from what I can see gets some slightly different treatment that the rest of the Park Reserve....

Anyway, the trails in and around the downhill ski area were about a mile in length and are still there but were only open during the event so there never was any permitted general use trails at Hyland. But as many of us know before MTB's were really prevalent you could ride them many places you cannot anymore.

The event fell apart for many reasons:

-club members to put on event dwindling.
-lack of participation by riders - we were down to like 15 riders on a typical evening.
-the opening of the driving range certainly affected things as we had to go around that area - back and forth at the top as I recall.
-and it was hardly a place for beginners - I know I achieved some of my highest heart rates ever recorded at that place - but it was in town and folks could ride to it - that was cool.
-thinking back the trails were anything but sustainable.

I don't believe you will see MTB trails at Hyland - the 80/20 factor is a major part of that - the only place it could happen would be on the down hill area but it is so small it is hardly worth it - it is an awesome place though for running, hiking, and of course X-C skiing in the winter. On the other hand the river bottoms is close by so that helps out. Maybe with our success with the city of Bloomington we can put some trails on other city land - like Tierney's Woods or some other smaller areas.

Some years down the road could someone do a weekly time trial at Wirth?

[FSSS]

I agree. It is just frustrating to see other user groups, for whatever reason, get what I feel is preferential treatment from certain agencies, whether it is political or not.

The biggest thing is that these other groups are already established users. A new user group will always have a tougher time than an established group.

Hikers/walkers, runners, XC skiers, birdwatchers and other established groups are all factors the public land managers must consider during the planning and implementation of their management plans. This is a lot of work. Land managers aren't going to include a new user group unless it is worth their time, energy and most importantly, their $$$. A major concern is that they will invest this time, energy and $$$, and it won't be worth it in the long run - they don't know if mountain bikers as an established user group have 'staying power'.

We all know mountain bikers have the potential to become a well established user group (and an active and generous one at that), but many land managers don't. They are coming around, and it will get easier every time we do 'prove' ourselves. This is why the trailwork and advocacy that MORC and MOCA does is sooooo important. This is why the trailwork that we as individual mountain bikers do (through MORC/MOCA/other groups) is sooooo important.

[jitterjepp]

Something that should be seriously looked at, and a frank discussion started. I regress to the Eloise Butler area, where the MTB's were kicked out because one woman with unleashed dogs got the ear of the park department, and then the loppet crew got to go in with bulldozers in exactly the same place. You go look at the 20 foot wide trail they put in and tell me if it is sustainable. I feel that we should be far more outspoken on this subject. Did the woman who had her dog off the leash get a fine? In Minneapolis you get a fine for this. They have signs all over up and down Theo Wirth that say "pick up and leash" Yeah I saw those trails about two weeks ago. They are firgging huge! They are also looking a bit unsustainable. Whatever.... it's annoying

[seberly]

I think most land managers don't know what to do with a group that is interested in access and willing to actually volunteer to plan and build. This is not typical - when citizens want more ball fields or rinks it is expected that the city or other land manager will need to do the planning, building and most of all maintaining.

[FSSS]

I think most land managers don't know what to do with a group that is interested in access and willing to actually volunteer to plan and build.

No matter who does the planning and building, the land manager is ultimately responsible for any maintenance, liability and enforcement.

A major fear is that if they allow a group to do a bunch of work and then the group falls apart, the land managers feel they'll get stuck with a bunch of extra work and costs. This is where building well-designed, sustainable trails becomes so important.

[SickBoy]

I remember riding at Tierney's Woods with friends when I first started riding in high school. The trails were pretty lame and had swamps on a couple of sides if I remember right.

Part of the reason I thought that bringing Hyland back would be cool would be if Buck was lost as a weeknight race venue. If the land between the ski area and the ski jump could be utilized (maybe even having the start/finish at the jump) I think it could/would work as a replacement.

[seberly]

That area by the jump is absolutely the set aside area - off limits.

[stoneage]

Again, I ponder, how does a marginal small group get a million or so dollars from the park district to construct a device that serves a handful of people a year, whereas, a no cost sustainable trail built by volunteers that would be used endlessly wouldn't even be considered?
And I paraphrase, I love XC skiing and I used to ski jump when I was a kid.

[JayT]

Again, I ponder, how does a marginal small group get a million or so dollars from the park district...
They didn't, they got a grant.

[stoneage]

They didn't, they got a grant.
They got a grant to build the facility, but they got the land from the Park District, which sits taking up some of the 20/80 ratio deemed by Three Rivers.. By any means, that is quite an expensive piece of property at taxpayers expense for an activity that is at most in the 1/2 of 1 % category. That wasn't my whole point, though. I am trying to figure out how they get these funds. Maybe MORC or IMBA should invest more in full time grant writing and fund acquisition. We are a good sized demographic, but hardly hold our heads above water, when compared to ski jumpers, XC skiers and equestrians, all who seem to get what they need and want at a much higher percentage than their numbers dictate. Back in the early 90's when I interviewed for superintendent there were 50 miles of trails dedicated to bicycles in the system, none being single track, with over 250,000 uses per year. At the same time there were 52 miles of dedicated horse trails with a total of 2500 uses. It's all about the money, I know, but lets face it, that is an absurd use of public funds and public land for a marginal demographic. Remember, one mile of horse trail could be used for 5-7 miles of singletrack when you apply the 20/80 standard, and everyone knows would be ecologically sounder.

[JayT]

I would say that mountain bikers are an emerging demographic and compared to most of the user-groups mentioned in this thread, very new. As an emerging user-group the influence MORC is beginning to have is key.

MORC’s efforts have not been ignored by Three Rivers Park District and in fact have had a very positive influence. For instance, largely because of MORC’s efforts in educating the PD on sustainable trails the PD is initiating (currently underway) a district-wide non-paved trail study. The PD is going to physically survey every non-paved trail in the PD and analyze them based on sustainable standards. This study is a big deal and will likely yield favorable opportunities for MORC. Again, this is because of the influence MORC has had on the Park District.

So don’t let your past experiences or your perceptions of how the PD operates pre-judge what you think is possible. The times they are a-changin’

Stay tuned…

And as a side note, I asked about the ski jump. The PD purchased the land that the ski jump facility sits on from the Mpls Ski Club. The way I understand it, as part of that purchase, there’s an agreement that allows them to continue their operations.