Murphy-Hanrehan Park Reserve Proposed Trail Development

[gopherhockey]

Murphy-Hanrehan Park Reserve Proposed Trail Development

As many of you know MORC has been developing a relationship with Three Rivers Park District over the past couple years. MORC's efforts has yielded two IMBA trail school's that have been great educational opportunities for Park District staff, other regional land managers, and area mountain bike enthusiasts. MORC's positive relationship with Three Rivers Park District continues to progress. Park District staff has expressed support for the 2005 Federal Recreational Trails Grant application MORC submitted to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. If successful, this grant could contribute to the funding for the trail relocation and development of trails at Murphy-Hanrehan Park Reserve.

Park District staff and MORC volunteers have preliminarily identified a trail alignment of 12 miles. The proposed trail realignment expands the mountain bike season from spring through fall, conditions permitting, as compared to the current scenario where mountain biking is prohibited until August. More diversity in challenge levels are created with loops for beginner, intermediate and advanced bikers. The trail length would increase, the speed would be managed through design elements and the trails would be designed and constructed using sustainable design standards. At the same time, current trails that are restricted due to wildlife and sensitive resource protection would not be open to mountain biking and only used seasonally. The proposed trail could be designated for off-season use as a snowshoe trail and winter hiking.

Conceptual ideas for this trail are being considered as part of the Murphy-Hanrehan Park Reserve’s master plan update and will require approval by the Three Rivers Park District Board of Commissioners and the Metropolitan Parks and Open Space Commission prior to development; however, these activities are scheduled within the next year and could be accomplished in sufficient time to pursue trail construction within the timeframe of the grant award. If offered, all grants applied for on behalf of or by the Park District are subject to Board approval. MORC will continue to work with the Park District through the planning process in hopes that a better, more sustainable trail design could be developed in Murphy-Hanrehan Park Reserve.

- Three Rivers Park District

[ryno lite]

A post like this sure gets me thinking about the 2005 biking and trailbuilding season! I sure hope it all goes through and I get to help turn some dirt at Murphy this year!

[Tim Wegner]

As the messge indicates, MORC has applied for a grant to build this trail. The grant approval process looks very very strong. The relationship with Three Rivers has gotten stronger every month. The holdup on this could be the masterplann and approval from the met council. The met council did not have a problem with the trail that was put in at Lebanon so I am not anticipating a serious problem with the proposed trail at Murphy.

If the grant is approved, the masterplan works and met coucil approval occurs, we could begin the preliminary work this fall perhaps beginning in October. The grant funding is the one that limits the starting time. We can not start work until the federal funds are released and that usually occurs sometime after October 1.

Tim

[syntaxjunkie]

Very Cool.

Just a thought, John: This post could/should probably replace the Philip Keyes annoucement on the home page.

[ryno lite]

Well, hopefully I will get something to look forward to in '06! Might just have to turn dirt at Theo and Harmon this year if Murph doesn't come till very late. I'm sure there will be plenty go around for all of us trail building junkies in '05.

[gopherhockey]

Very Cool.

Just a thought, John: This post could/should probably replace the Philip Keyes annoucement on the home page.

Yup, I think it is important to get on the front page. I think it might be more important to get something up about spring conditions though at least for a week or so, then let this one loose on the front.

I have to try dig up our yearly "don't ride when wet" message... Hmmm... I know it is here somewhere...

[dasil003]

Will the current trail open as usual in August? I didn't ride Murphy last year, and I'd like to take one last ride on the old roller coaster on my new ETSX-30.

[edub]

It seems that my thought isn't to popular with what I read on this web site, but here I go. I like Murphy Hannerhan the way it is. It is a great cardio work out and a great place to go knock out some sprints for your workout. The Climbs especially the 1st one are great. That 1st down hill is the fastest one around the area that I've found. I have spoken with many bikers that share these same ideas and we were wondering if it would be possible to leave the old trail in or somehow work with it to keep what is there. My fear is that all the trails will become just like Lebanon (which is fantastic--great job on its design). But in order to get anything like Murph you have to go to Winona or Afton which are a long drive. Its nice to have the variety. I drive to Eagan to ride Lebanon when thats the type of riding I want to do. Other days I go to Murph. It has nothing to do with convenience it has to do with variety. Just thought I'd throw this out there and see how this issue has been addressed. I've been away all winter and haven't been keeping up with these issues. So if this has been discussed I was wondering if I could find out where it stands.

Thank you:D

[syntaxjunkie]

Thanks for your comments. As I understand it, the issue with the trails at Murphy Hanrehan is that they just won't last the way they're built. The gulleys from erosion get deeper every year. Right now, it's a lung-busting roller coaster ride. But with the way that the trail is laid out, its future is as a denuded hillside pockmarked by unrideable ruts. Which would suck.

I don't think you'll find many people who don't like Murphy the way it is. But given the choice between losing it altogether and making it into something we can enjoy for decades to come, most will opt for the latter.

As a side note, I distantly recall some folks early on who were unhappy with the work that MORC did at Lebanon. Now that all's said and done, it's hard to argue (although I'm sure some will) that the trails there aren't more fun and more challenging than ever, whether or not you ride the X and XX loops. I'm confident that the future holds the same kind of potential for Murphy.

[edub]

I've been riding at Murph for 10 years and it hasn't eroded away yet. To keep that type of terrain available could something like terrace oaks be done with class 5 and rubber ridges? I assume the park service has done some maintenance. The lung busting roller coaster is what makes it a fun work out. I agree that Lebanon Hills is alot of fun and I am glad that MORC did what it did. That work was some fantastic marketing for MORC and what it stands for and how it is helping out mountain biking. My point is that the variety is from the completely different types of trails that Lebanon and Murph are from each other. I was just wondering if there could be some type of creative compromise that could be reached? Could a new trail integrate the old -or- could a new trail be built completely seperate from the old. I realize it may be to late to bring up this debate because it sounds like funding has been taken care of and I'm sure the design has already been submitted. However, if there is still a chance to consider this I would just like this perspective to be heard.

again thank you :D

[nigel]

I believe the trails at Murphy are not being closed to any trail maintanence issues but rather to protect the Avian species that nest in that particular area, thus the previous years of such a short season. The trails there are great and very fun to ride, however 3RPD has decided to close them, but they are also allowing us to build new trails which we should all look at as a very positive thing for us all.

Douglas

[syntaxjunkie]

I stand corrected.

As is so often the case.

Thank you, Doug.

[dasil003]

But my question still stands...

Will we be able to ride it one last time this August?

[JayT]

But my question still stands...

Will we be able to ride it one last time this August?

Yes, Murphy-Hanrehan will be open Aug. 1st as usual

The earliest any work would begin at M-H is the fall of this year ('05).

[SickBoy]

I'm kinda siding with Eric on this one....

Were there any plans to change/close the existing ski/mtb trail before MORC got involved?

I'm kind of a fan of Murphy just because it's excellent training for Chequamegon. Obviously, given the choice between "nothing" being there and "something" being there I would pick the latter, but the idea of another 100% twisty IMBA-standard singletrack trail on the south side of the cities (particularly, south of the river) is something I find mostly uninteresting....

[Little D]

Has Three Rivers Park really decided to close the existing trail to MTB after this year or is this just a rumor/dicussion? (like Buck closing, or pavement at the River Bottoms, etc.)

[Little D]

On the Three Rivers Park page, there isn't anything about closing the MTB trail.

There is mention about "In 2004, the park was designated as an "Important Bird Area" by the National Audubon Society". :sick:

??

[JayT]

If and when new trails are developed at Murphy Hanrehan, then the existing trails will be closed to mountain bikes. At this time there is no set date.

If everything works out and trail development goes forward at M-H the time-line will be something like this; earliest begin date - fall '05. Construction would continue through the '06 & '07 seasons. Target completion date would be fall '07.

[Little D]

Thanks Jay

So as Tim stated, "Oct 1st" is probably when we'll know if the grant is being released to start construction. If yes, then no more Murphy as it is.

Change can be hard sometimes when you like something as it is...:cryin:

[JayT]

Thanks Jay

So as Tim stated, "Oct 1st" is probably when we'll know if the grant is being released to start construction. If yes, then no more Murphy as it is.

Change can be hard sometimes when you like something as it is...:cryin:

We'll have a good idea very soon if we've been selected. The Oct. 1 date is when the grant money is available for spending.

[Little D]

I hate to ask hypothetical questions but: if the grant doesn't go through does the trail stay open as it is through 06 and 07? Can anyone accurately and factually answer this?

[KleinCrazy]

I've been riding at Murph for 10 years and it hasn't eroded away yet. To keep that type of terrain available could something like terrace oaks be done with class 5 and rubber ridges? I assume the park service has done some maintenance. The lung busting roller coaster is what makes it a fun work out. I agree that Lebanon Hills is alot of fun and I am glad that MORC did what it did. That work was some fantastic marketing for MORC and what it stands for and how it is helping out mountain biking. My point is that the variety is from the completely different types of trails that Lebanon and Murph are from each other. I was just wondering if there could be some type of creative compromise that could be reached? Could a new trail integrate the old -or- could a new trail be built completely seperate from the old. I realize it may be to late to bring up this debate because it sounds like funding has been taken care of and I'm sure the design has already been submitted. However, if there is still a chance to consider this I would just like this perspective to be heard.

again thank you :D

You have to understand something here, it has not eroded away because 3RPD has been spending 10's of thousands of dollars each year to regrade and haul in dump truck upon dump truck of dirt to bring the trail back up to it's current form. This was also one of the main reasons that Lebanon got redone. They were spending money that they really didn't have to fix a trail and in the process rolling a dump truck over while trying to fix erosion issues.
With the current budget issues that parks are facing, they just cannot afford this type of maintenance and thus are looking for workable options.

What everyone has to understand is that niether of these trails were ever designed to be used in the summer. They were built using a skid loader and were to only be used in the winter for skiing. When Mountain biking took off, the parks thought that instead of spending money to build a mountain bike trail they would just open up their ski trails to bikes. One of the major effects of this was that grass no longer grew on the trails like it used to when it was only used in the winter. This greatly increased the damage caused by water to the trails and thus increased the cost of maintenance.

I understand all the Chawamy people out there love having MH for training, however you cannot compare one to the other. Chawamy are mostly forest service roads and if you look, they are nowhere near enviromentally sound and thus only get used on a regular basis for the FTF. All new trails built in the area in the last 5 years have been swoopy singletrack to IMBA standards.

I know you do not want to hear this but if you want to trail for Chawamy, head south of the city and just start riding the dirt roads.

We here in MN do not have the elevation available to us to build sustainable trails 10 feet wide, and with a 25 degree down slope, you need 1000's of elevation to build such trails, not 100's. I am sorry but IMBA and MORC have no control over this and if you want new trails around, or new trails replacing closed ones, you are going to have to ride what we can build around here. Otherwise you are going to have to move out west, and even out there you are beginning to see the highly erodable trails being shut down and replaced with sustainable ones.

[Little D]

Thanks James. I know we're beating a dead horse here. And as much as I liked Leb before the renovations, it's way, way, way better now. Perhaps Murph will have a similiar if not better transition.

Maybe someone can look at changing that negative Murph review on the webpage also...It's never cool to rip on the dying.

[JayT]

I hate to ask hypothetical questions but: if the grant doesn't go through does the trail stay open as it is through 06 and 07? Can anyone accurately and factually answer this?

At this point I can tell you that it's very likely the grant will happen, but I won't go as far as saying it's 100%. To date, the plan is to close the existing trails once new trails are available. There has been no discussion about closing M-H to mountain biking altogether.

I know that's not a definitive answer, but it's the best answer currently available. As with any project, situations and circumstances change as do final outcomes.

[flea]

As far as erosion on the Murphey trails, I would say it is pretty significant. Previous to mountain biking becoming popular the trails showed none of the rocks and ruts on hills that are visible now. This could be due to other reasons besides mtb, I have seen illegal horse use on these trails in the spring. Don't get me wrong I love riding there as much as the next person. I hike the trails before biking season and at a walking pace the erosion is more noticable, I recall the original bike treadway being quite smooth with the exception of the bottom of femur hill.

[Trevize1138]

I used to love MH until a couple years ago when I tried it out again and the ruts were simply too dangerous to be any fun. I haven't been back since. It is true: it used to be a lot smoother and a lot more ridable than now. No matter how much gravel and repair work they do, the ruts just seem tenacious as hell.

On a philosophical note, I'd like to see the trails out there changed strictly because they are a throwback to the days when off-road cycling didn't have its own identity. We were just a novelty sport and they allowed us to ride on XC ski trails only because they didn't want to spend money on a fad.

Off-road cycling should involve a variety of skills including bike handling, leg strength and cardivascular fitness. Murphy currently really only tests leg and lung power. As has been said before, if you want to ride faster at places like Lebanon on the new trails ... ride faster! :crazy: The only thing stopping you is your ability. Personally, I feel I've gotten to the point where I'm *flying* around Lebanon, narrowly avoiding trees and hanging on for dear life down the Dream Trail's gradual descents.

[nigel]

Jay T can correct me if im wrong.....but i "think" the trail we ride on now will also be closed to EVERY activity, hiking, horse riding, ski's, biking....so its not closing to just us that ride there, so no reason to feel this is a negative thing. The park system has to have a certain % natural and a certain % useable, so we should be thanking them that they have asked MORC to build new mtn trails in another part of the park. In the end it'll all work out for us all, just have to look ahead not just at whats at hand.

Douglas

[FSSS]

I would think that with the elevation changes out at M-H, new trails could
include some pretty good downhill grades and still be sustainable - especially if the trail is closed to horses. Obviously no fall line trails, but undulating downhills with some steeper grades thown in.

M-H seems to me like one place where trail designers should look closely at determining the max grade at which the soil can withstand erosion - then design to the upper limits of sustainability. It would definitely be extra work, and higher risk, but would really help keep Murphy's identity.

What about resources for armoring??

Can anyone describe (or better yet, post pics of) the initial plans for M-H??

[dasil003]

I would imagine the max sustainable grade depends largely on topography and vegetation in addition to soil qualities, so you kind of have to play the guessing game.

My main desire for the new Murphy is that it still include in insane lung-busting climb somewhere. Afton is the only place around (that I know of) with anything even close to that big climb. It's one thing to push yourself up a climb, but nothing motivates like the thought of falling over and puking as you slide backwards down the steepest part.

[FSSS]

Afton is the only place around (that I know of) with anything even close to that big climb. It's one thing to push yourself up a climb, but nothing motivates like the thought of falling over and puking as you slide backwards down the steepest part.

The key difference between Afton & Murphy is ownership/stewardship of the land. Hopefully more private land owners like the Afton folks will step-up, they can do things that public land managers would have a very hard time allowing.

[JayT]

Jay T can correct me if im wrong.....but i "think" the trail we ride on now will also be closed to EVERY activity, hiking, horse riding, ski's, biking....so its not closing to just us that ride there, so no reason to feel this is a negative thing. The park system has to have a certain % natural and a certain % useable, so we should be thanking them that they have asked MORC to build new mtn trails in another part of the park. In the end it'll all work out for us all, just have to look ahead not just at whats at hand.

Douglas
I am not certain about hiking (bird folks), but eventually the trails would be closed to all summer activities. The trails will still be used for nordic skiing.

The efforts that Tim, Dale, and MORC have put in to build a relationship with the Park District should be commended. Without their legwork (2+yrs worth!) none of this would be happening. It's their persistence that's been the catalyst. M-H represents the beginning of a partnership that should continue to yield more trails. I don't have anything solid to report, but there has been preliminary discussion about locations west and north.

I don't think it's any secret which park I live next to. So you can guess where I'm dying to see trails...

[Tim Wegner]

In my discussions with Three Rivers Parks District, it was my understanding that our mountain biking trail was going to be closed in order to protect the bird sanctuary. After hearing that we would lose the trail at Murphy, MORC decided that we needed to become proactive and approach Three Rivers about replacing the mileage that we would be losing with new single track that would be open the entire biking season. MORC people had many discussions with Three Rivers about keeping mountain biking as a user group at Murphy-Hanrehan.

The administration at Three Rivers is top notch. They realized how much pent up demand there is for top quality mountain bike trails in the Metro area. We discussed how usage at Lebanon, Theo, Battle Creek and others increased once MORC began improving the trails. Three Rivers wanted to have an area where the trails could stay open year round for activities and will be considerably longer than the existing trail.

This change did not happen overnight. The meetings took place over a 2+ year time line with a lot of compromise by both sides that came to the table. It looks like it will finally happen and let me be the first to say; "It will be worth all the effort." I think this trail will be better than Lebanon. (yes you can quote me on that)

Many things had to come together to make this happen. Funding was one of the major roadblocks that we faced. Since this is a regional park, MORC could not use the value of volunteer hours for any grants that we applied for the trail construction. That meant MORC and Three rivers had to find significant $$$ to match any grant that we applied for funding. MORC does not have a large amount of cash but the board of directors saw the need for this trail and dug really deep to find a significant amount to contribute. We approached a private individual and asked for support for funding this project and this person agreed. Three Rivers matched the amount that MORC and this individual contributed. These combined funds allowed MORC to apply for a significant grant which has passed all committee reviews to date and more than likely will be awarded sometime in October.

That means that by 2008 we should have significantly more trail to ride in this awesome park. You will not believe the terrain that we have to work with and the challenges that we can put into the trail.

There is still one more hurdle that needs to be cleared before we get a go, that is for the master plan to be amended to include mountain biking in the new area, approval has to be given by Three Rivers Parks Commission as well as the MET Council. Once all the approvals occur, we can build trail. Don't think for a minute that Three Rivers is dragging their feet on this one. Just ask Jay Thompson, he will tell you what a high level of priority this has become for the administration people at Three Rivers.

Just thought I would bring everyone up to speed on what is happening with next potential trail area in the Metro area.
TW

[grizzly adam]

Wow - very cool indeed. Thanks for the update and all the effort!

[SickBoy]

James, I can't say I particularly appreciated the tone of your post in this thread. It's this kind of attitude that has alienated a large chunk of the MN cycling community from MORC itself.

Primarily what I wanted clarification on was that MORC wasn't approaching 3RPD looking to "close" trails that were a "problem" in their(/our) eyes and that there were real, actual plans to close the trail previous to MORC's involvement.

Thank you for the concise reply, Tim. My concerns are addressed.

[KleinCrazy]

James, I can't say I particularly appreciated the tone of your post in this thread. It's this kind of attitude that has alienated a large chunk of the MN cycling community from MORC itself.

Primarily what I wanted clarification on was that MORC wasn't approaching 3RPD looking to "close" trails that were a "problem" in their(/our) eyes and that there were real, actual plans to close the trail previous to MORC's involvement.

Thank you for the concise reply, Tim. My concerns are addressed.

Andy,

My post was in response to the history of the trails themselves and their sustainablility, not the powers behind the "closing" of them. I was not attempting to address your concerns. I had no information of the politics involved like Tim did, so I chose not to address that question.

I stand by all of my comments and I also understand that they conflict with a number of the mountain bike racers in the state. I make no apologies for this as they are my opinions and I am entitled to them as much as others are. I understand how being a MORC board member it can be inferred that everything thing I say is MORC talking. I make it a point to attempt to include "MORC's Stand..." "MORC's belief..." etc when I am talking for MORC, otherwise it is I only.

I can also not understand why my comments would alienate anyone from MORC. I hoped that it would educate them on some of the reasons why trails like this are undergoing the changes that they are. Everyone can have a very narrow view of things and have a blind spot for something they love. I admit to this on a number of changes that have had to be made to the trails in the area. I had hoped that having a little more information on the background issues involved with endangered trails, people might gain a better understanding of things.

If my tone seemed a little harsh towards a portion of the cycling community that I am not a member of, nor have much of and understanding for, I apologies. My feeling towards them I will attempt to keep to myself in the future.

[soupboy]

...at the prospect of putting "real" trails in at MH. I've ridden there once three years ago. It was dreadful.

I just don't understand the allure of such trails. It was all the pain (climbing) with none of the gain (fun, swoopy DH singletrack). Get a roadie or go to spin class.

I applaud the efforts of MORC and 3RPD to make something happen at MH. Now, if only it wasn't halfway to IA...

Sean

[Trevize1138]

Get a roadie or go to spin class.

Sean

(Takes 5 steps back from Sean)

;)

[soupboy]

...one little comment scares you out of the foxhole?

(Takes 5 steps back from Sean)

;)

[ppgc]

I applaud the efforts of MORC and 3RPD to make something happen at MH. Now, if only it wasn't halfway to IA...
Sean

Oh come on now...I grew up near there and I know it is still nearly 90 miles to the Iowa border.... :) Hope morc gets the go ahead on this, I have memories of the lungbuster before it was really rutting... It would be nice to have it open all summer.

[Little D]

I just took my five steps back from Sean....

[Jeff Lewis]

....but the idea of another 100% twisty IMBA-standard singletrack trail on the south side of the cities (particularly, south of the river) is something I find mostly uninteresting....

I agree. The flavor of Murphy needs to be maintained. We should place the necessary turns at the top of the hills where your speed will naturally be slower -- and design sustainable gently curving downhill's for maintaining momentum. Lots of momentum!:D The feeling of speed should be a distinct element at Murphy.

And I think currently the smaller rollers at back half of Murphy just beg you to hammer up each and every one in order to maintain your speed. The place is meant to be ridden balls out. If we design the new trails right you shouldn't even need to touch your breaks. Well maybe just a little bit if your really flying -- and that will be the allure.

[FSSS]

The flavor of Murphy needs to be maintained... The feeling of speed should be a distinct element at Murphy.

From the posts on this thread I think this is a pretty popular opinion. I would also guess that it's a very popular opinion outside the IMBA/MORC circles. My only hope is that the trail designers feel the same way.

There is no reason there can't be fast downhills (that is obviously the precedent that has been set) that are sustainable through the use of grade reversals, armoring and effective planning.


KEEP MURPHY FAST!!


tp

[dave t]

I also love the flat out speed that can be generated at Murph. To me a rut is just another obstacle but we all know that ruts equal the demise of a trail so the trail needs to be built to avoid them.

I really would like to still have some bomber runs out there with just some rises or other erosion control. Without the swoopy twisty nature of Leb's dream trail, skidding and breaking bumps shouldn't be a problem.

If I remember correctly, 12 miles was thrown out as a trail length and that is certainly enough trail to contain a bit of everything and keep everyone happy at least most of the way around. It is a Mt bike trail after all and I believe every Mt bike trail should make your wheels leave the ground, the wind scream in your ears, you love your suspension and hate the guy who layed out the trail a few times a lap. If not, it is too easy.

My perfect Murphy would simply graft Lebanon, The Farm/Mammoth and the current Murphy together.

[Trevize1138]

I would think there's got to be some clever way to get faster downhills that are still IMBA compliant. Just because IMBA has guidelines doesn't mean you can't get creative within those guidelines and make fast downhills that are part of a *sustainable* trail.

The notion that just because we can no longer do fall-line trails with trees 12 ft apart on either side shouldn't mean we have to sacrifice the flavor that the Murphy faithful love.

Personally, I love working within limitations. It gets my creative juices flowing somehow. I have faith in the serious talent represented by the MORC board members and trail bosses that they can make something new, fun and unique that will please new and old riders alike.

[JayT]

To clearify; the trail that is proposed at Murphy Hanrehan will be located in a different part of the park. These trails will not be located in the area were mountain biking is currently allowed. And again, the trails that are currently used at M-H are only open for approximately 3 months starting August 1st. The new trails would be open all season.

As James Ford stated in an earlier posting and people really need to understand this; as trail designers, we in Minnesota (particularly the metro area) are limited by what there is to work with. As James pointed out we do not have 1000’s of vertical feet to work with. That’s what it would take to build sustainable trails with challenging/thrilling slopes. The maximum vertical difference on the 180 acre M-H site has less than 150 feet. That’s about as good as it gets in the metro area. I'm certain MORC designers will maximize this area and do the best they can given what they have to work with.

No matter how popular, challenging, or thrilling the current ride experience is at M-H is it does not change the fact that the trails are fall line trails. The Park District, through hind sight and education (thanks to MORC/IMBA), recognizes that these trails are detrimental to a sensitive environment. The best solution is to reduce and/or eliminate use on these trails. In the future the PD might even reclaim and abandon portions of the existing trail in attempts to stop the negative impact the fall line trails have had on the environment.

I know losing the current trails at Murphy Hanrehan will not be popular with some of you, but you have to look at the bigger picture. The Park District is not only looking to replace and expand trails at Murphy Hanrehan, the PD is also looking at developing new trails systems at other areas.

Mountain biking has become a activity the Park District wants to support. Trails built to sustainable standards is the only way this will happen. Area mountain bikers are very well represented by MORC and MORC has proven through its leadership, education, and actions to be responsible Stewards. It’s MORC’s hard work this reputation that has earned the respect of land managers like the Park District.

If you’ve ever questioned the value of your $20 membership, take it from me; the value of what the current leadership of MORC is delivering on your behalf is worth many times that amount, I can't emphasize that enough. I’ve had the pleasure of meeting many times now with Tim, Dale, Scott, and others and the vision they have for the future is awesome.

[Trevize1138]

Just to clarify my most recent post based on what Jay has said here, I'm often the first to point out to people that we do not have 1000s of feet of vertical in MN and we have to work with that. I'm trying to think a little out-of-the box here (horrible cliched phrase, but I'm too lazy to come up with something more original).

A fall-line trail is, of course, right out. I would think, though, that there'd be some way to find out how to get a long, relatively straight and mostly downhill stretch of trail at Murphy that would provide some semblance of the speed the old trail had.

Mind you, I'm aware of the limitations: it would never be as fast (I clocked myself at 42mph once in '96 at MH!) and it can only be so straight because of, well, trees :). But, someone here mentioned the Dream Trail at Lebanon and I think that's a great example of what we're capable of. The Dream Trail has its own sustainability issues (braking bumps) that I'm guessing we'll be working on this year. But, it can stand as one place where we've got experience at creating fast, flowing, longer downhills where you can get some thrilling speeds in.

This could be a great opportunity to show to 3RP and those who love the current MH trails that we can build a sustainable trail that's also fast and rolling. Of course, I have no idea what the terrain is like and where you guys are thinking of building, so considering that we may not have much to work with. :)

[edub]

Thanks James. I know we're beating a dead horse here. And as much as I liked Leb before the renovations, it's way, way, way better now. Perhaps Murph will have a similiar if not better transition.

Maybe someone can look at changing that negative Murph review on the webpage also...It's never cool to rip on the dying.

I don't think it should be looked at as a negative review on the page. As I mentioned earlier I only wanted a different perspective to be heard. All the different mountain bikers have different opinions on what we like to ride. I know its not possible to accommodate everyone when you build a trail, however, hearing out riders concerns or ideas can open a discussion on different ways to approach building future trails that appeal to a wide variety of riders. I cannot say enough how much I appreciate what MORC has done and their work is not going unnoticed.

Is the new design complete? If so is it set in stone? Is there room to integrate some of the ideas posted on this message board into the new design? If not how about with future trail design at other parks?

I've seen that membership is now over the 500 mark. Congratulations on that! As one of those 500 members who will be increasing my contribution as I renew my support for this organization I would hope that riders opinions will at least be considered in future trail development. :D

[FSSS]

First off, I REALLY appreciate all the support from the 3R Park District. It is good to see land managers identifying mountain bikers as an important user group.



As James pointed out we do not have 1000’s of vertical feet to work with. That’s what it would take to build sustainable trails with challenging/thrilling slopes. The maximum vertical difference on the 180 acre M-H site has less than 150 feet.
I have to disagree. Grade is the important factor. With a vertical drop of 150 feet, someone could (theoretically) build over 750 feet of downhill trail with an average grade of 20%, if the grade of the sideslope is sufficient. This could certainly be a challenging and thrilling stretch of downhill trail. Obviously, the site defines what can actually be built - but if it can be done I hope the designers aren't too conservative to try.

Sure, we aren't going to be able to have 45 minute downhills like out west, but they can still be thrilling.



I'm certain MORC designers will maximize this area and do the best they can given what they have to work with.

No matter how popular, challenging, or thrilling the current ride experience is at M-H is it does not change the fact that the trails are fall line trails.
My hope (a hope I think many riders share) is that the designers layout a trail that is not only sustainable, but has long sightlines and gradual turns that will help maintain the thrilling experience for which M-H is known (and loved).

[FSSS]

I just came across this when I was re-reading the original post:

"speed would be managed through design elements"

I think this is where MORC/3RPD will run into the most resistance.


If you change the trails but still maintain the 'Murphy' experience, many of the veteran Murphy riders will come around and accept the changes.

If you change the trail and change the experience, many of those riders will likely stop riding Murphy.

Make Murphy something special!

The original post also mentions loops of varying difficulties.
Steeper (sustainable) hills in the expert section????:D

[Tim Wegner]

I am not sure if I should jump into this one or not but here goes. I saw one post that said 20% grades would be doable. I have never seen a sustainable trail with a 20% grade at least not for more than 5-10 feet. You NEVER can exceed 10% grade if you want the trail to be sustainable. You can do 15% for a 5-10 foot section but you must take some steps before and after this steep area to ensure that water does not flow down the slope.

Armoring would let us go for steep trails. However there is no material at MH for armoring. So it would have to be hauled in and more than likely bought as well. Also, armoring is SLOW! It took about 12 people a good 8 hours to armor that section at afton last year and it was only about 30 feet of trail.

Also wondering just what kind of trails people want here. Everyone complains about MH as it is now--what is the fun in climbing and then going down as fast as you can. It sounds like some would like us to replicate the same thing at the new trail site. I thought that was what made 3RPD close the trails during much of the season at the old site.

If someone can show me a manual or a trail that goes down hill at 20% and doesn't erode, I am sure we can do that too. Remember though if you want a trail that is up and down and fast you will have a lot fewer miles of trail. My guess is that the expert loop will become 2-3 miles instead of 8-10 miles. (you can't build multiple trails on a side slope if you have a fast downhill trail going down the sideslope)


People bitched about Lebanon when we changed it as well and yet 35,000+ trips a year are made on this trail. If you have an idea that you would like to see in this trail then you need to prove that your idea will allow the trail to sustain! Trail construction is all about sustainability. We also focus on fun and challenge. Have an idea? Show us how we can make it happen. The speed that is reached on the current MH trails is of concern to 3RPD. One of the directions that we were challenged with by the parks was "How will you control the speed?" I know many of us can handle our bikes at any speed but you know what--there are more out there that cannot and they too will be riding this trail.

3RPD is thinking about adding a skills area somewhere on this trail so that could add some interst as well.

I know I am going to get scalded on this post but as the IMBA representative I am expected by MORC as well as the IMBA office in Boulder to promote SUSTAINABLE trail constuction. I will NEVER apologize to anyone for my stance on building sustainable trails.

Let the scalding begin.
TW

[ryno lite]

I hate to disappoint Tim by not scalding him, but I can't wait for a new MH! I have not ridden MH since Lebanon started to be redone. I can understand that some riders will miss the old MH style same as happened at Lebanon, but more people will like the new trail more than the old just like at Lebanon. If Lebanon is an indicator, there will be easily 5-10 times as many riders of a new trail than the current trail. With more riders and a longer season, 3 Rivers will definitely be serving more riders! I guess I'm lucky, I happen to really enjoy the product of sustainable trails and am not a big fan of the fall line trails like MH. Everyone is different and I hope that however the trail ends up that it satisfies a large percentage of mountain bikers. I myself can't wait!

[edub]

>Also wondering just what kind of trails people want here. Everyone complains about MH as it is now--what is the fun in climbing and then going down as fast as you can. It sounds like some would like us to replicate the same thing at the new trail site. I thought that was what made 3RPD close the trails during much of the season at the old site.

Not everyone complains about MH now. Have there been any unbiased polls done to find out what riders like about different trails? Some of us do find fun in climbing and then going down as fast as you can. Why do you think they make full face helmuts and full gear? We don't live in the mountains and can only do that stuff on a huge scale once and a while by traveling out west or up to lutsen. Its just nice to get a taste of it once and a while. Not all riders want the same type of trails all the time. As you get a higher membership there is going to be a higher group of differences of what we like to ride. Lebanon in awesome! So is MH! For different reasons. I just would like to see creative solutions sought out so that the variety can somehow remain.

MH was closed for birds mating or nesting. Not because of erosion issues.

>My guess is that the expert loop will become 2-3 miles instead of 8-10 miles. (you can't build multiple trails on a side slope if you have a fast downhill trail going down the sideslope)

Why is an 8-10 mile trail better than a 2-3 mile trail? If you can get your adrenaline up in a 2 mile loop who cares?

Its my understanding (please let me know if I'm wrong) that the new proposed trail will be in a totally different area. If it is would 3RPD consider keeping the old trail available from Aug. on as in the past? All I'm saying is keep the fast sections. If the proposed trail is in the current trail area what about keeping sections of old trail around?

>People bitched about Lebanon when we changed it as well

I am not bitching. I just would like to make sure that riders opinions are considered when trail designs are created.

>The speed that is reached on the current MH trails is of concern to 3RPD. One of the directions that we were challenged with by the parks was "How will you control the speed?" I know many of us can handle our bikes at any speed but you know what--there are more out there that cannot and they too will be riding this trail.

So what your saying is the trails have to be designed to the lowest common denominator? Why should we have to be slowed to the slowest riders? Isn't that what trail signs are for? Black diamonds, blue squares etc...? Are some areas exempt from the speed concerns. For example Lacrosse WI has a cement skate board park with a huge half pipe that has broken bones written all over it, however, because the city owns it there is some exemption that allows a ride at own risk rule. There's some sort of legal bubble that protects the city. Is it possible that these laws could work with the parks?

>I know I am going to get scalded on this post but as the IMBA

I am not scalding you. I was just hoping that with some creative thinking that Sustainable trails and fast trails don't have to be an oxy moron. :D

[dave t]

I know I will like "The New Murphy" but I will still miss the roller coaster. There is no way to rebuild the trail that way but there could be a good long "Dream" style run just with fewer abrupt turns and logs. Subtle grade reversals and bends in the trail would make for less skidding and the progressive destruction it causes. If that would cause too much speed, make the grade changes a bit longer but keep the rollercoaster effect where if it is done right, there is no real "climb". It would be sweet if there is terrain out there to squeese out a whole mile like that.

It would be fun to take a few miles and turn them over to Buck and Shad, tell them to go nuts and see what happens.

Twelve miles is a good long trail, and there should be room in there for a bunch of variety. No matter how awesome the trail is, you know somebody will hate something and bitch endlessly about it. Even if they LOVE 11.99 miles, all you will ever hear from them is how much they hate that 52 foot section that throws off their groove.

So, judging from the trails that have been build so far and the learnin' that has been done in the process, I'd say we're in for a real treat when the MORC boys put their heads together in an area with Murphy's potential.

VARIETY with ROLLERCOASTERS and something for everyone.

[Crash]

Eric - you quoted quite a few sections of Tim's post, but one you forgot to comment on is
If you have an idea that you would like to see in this trail then you need to prove that your idea will allow the trail to sustain!....... Have an idea? Show us how we can make it happen.

I'd be interested in your comments on this.

I just would like to see creative solutions sought out so that the variety can somehow remain.

I'm sure if you brought forth some creative solutions, people would listen.

[manual63]

It would be fun to take a few miles and turn them over to Buck and Shad, tell them to go nuts and see what happens.

Heh...heh...let us have it....come on.....give it too us.....:scream::scream::crazy2::crazy:

[Trevize1138]

Not everyone complains about MH now. Have there been any unbiased polls done to find out what riders like about different trails?

That would be very interesting to take a survey on that. Of course, the difficulty would be how do you phrase the question. Do you ask "Do you like the Murphy trails as-is or should they be closed?" Or, do you ask "Would you like Murphy trails in their current short, singularly-interesting way or would you like more variety and length?" The new trails don't exist yet and if you ask most people they'll probably say "Yeah, I like Murphy. It's fun and exhillerating." But, you can't deny that in its current state it's just not sustainable. And, with the State of MN cutting off funding more-and-more to this kind of thing, ultimately not affordable. Got tens of thousands of $$ lying around we don't know about?

MH was closed for birds mating or nesting. Not because of erosion issues.

Erosion issues related to mountain bikes riding on ski trails are directly affecting the bird habitats.

Why is an 8-10 mile trail better than a 2-3 mile trail? If you can get your adrenaline up in a 2 mile loop who cares?

Yes, more trail is better than less. Next stupid question. :) Seriously, come on out and give your input. The only thing better than 2 miles of adrenaline-pumping trail is 10 miles of adrenaline-pumping trail, right? You wouldn't want to leave trail designing up to the likes of Tim here now, would you? Remember, these trails are built by volunteers using donated money. You're not paying any taxes for the development of these trails so it's not like you can vote out the senator who changed Murphy. Getting directly involved is your only recourse here.

Its my understanding (please let me know if I'm wrong) that the new proposed trail will be in a totally different area. If it is would 3RPD consider keeping the old trail available from Aug. on as in the past? All I'm saying is keep the fast sections. If the proposed trail is in the current trail area what about keeping sections of old trail around?

Again ... no money available to keep it this way.

So what your saying is the trails have to be designed to the lowest common denominator? Why should we have to be slowed to the slowest riders? Isn't that what trail signs are for? Black diamonds, blue squares etc...? Are some areas exempt from the speed concerns. For example Lacrosse WI has a cement skate board park with a huge half pipe that has broken bones written all over it, however, because the city owns it there is some exemption that allows a ride at own risk rule. There's some sort of legal bubble that protects the city. Is it possible that these laws could work with the parks?

I've said it before, I'll say it again: if you don't like slow trails, ride faster. :) It's your own fault if you're using brakes. Many of the trails at Leb are quite fast, especially the Dream Trail's downhill. The only thing keeping me from going faster in some sections is fear for my own well-being!

Don't get me wrong here, I'm not saying "shut up and come out to help build trail" flippantly. We are all sincere when we say we welcome different opinions. Thing is our memories suck, and unless you're on-site while we're building the trail we'll probably forget what you said. :) "What was that Eric was saying he wanted in this section? Was it something about making sure the trail was flat and slow? Yeah, that's it!"

Just think of it this way: we're all a bunch of roadies who are secretly looking to pave Murphy so we can ride our carbon fiber frames around it. So, you're the only one stopping us by showing up to trail work and keeping a close eye on us to make sure we keep building MTB trails. You can be a hero! You can save Murphy from such conspiracies! Man that flat-bottom shovel and keep us in line! ;)

[bakkeb]

I've been watching this post for some time now and I can't understand why anyone would want to keep riding M-H the way it is right now? I've been there once....once! Why would a mountain biker pay $4 for that crap and only for a month of riding to boot. :confused: I told myself I would never waste my time there again. I didn't really like Leb. before they changed it. Now knowing what is at Leb. and how well done the trail is, would you ever want the old trail back? I doubt very many people would choose the old trail. I'll go back when the trails are properly built for mountain bikers.:etard:

[Jeff Lewis]

I've said it before, I'll say it again: if you don't like slow trails, ride faster. :) It's your own fault if you're using brakes. Many of the trails at Leb are quite fast, especially the Dream Trail's downhill. The only thing keeping me from going faster in some sections is fear for my own well-being!

Last year Jeff Hall destroyed the rest of the field at the Leb TT not because he is THAT much more technically skilled than the rest of the field. It was mostly because he has a power to weight ratio that allows him to BREAK and ACCELERATE much faster than everyone else. Contrary to popular belief, tight and twisty single track does not favor the more "technical" rider over the "fitter" rider. On a more convential MNSCS course he may be 10% to 15% faster than the rest of the field -- but at Lebannon he was about 20%.

So is there a point here? Basically I want more trails where strong riders and weaker riders can ride closer to the same pace. How can weaker riders ride fast? By being able to carry momentum! And why would I even care? I ride with my son alot. We ride the river bottoms and the Farm. There are parts of the Farm where he can really carry some speed and he loves the littler rollercoaster hills. The long hills are tough, but the worst is having to break at the bottom of a hill. If he can carry momentum he is not far behind. And like a kid he likes a fast downhill every now and then.

And one last note -- kid friendly does not have to mean boring. The Farm has many unique characteristics which we both have fun on. The key will be trying to bring all these elements together in a trail which is first and foremost -- sustainable. Could someone comment on how sustainable the Farm is/was.

Trying to describe this in a post is next to impossible. As previously stated the best thing to do is be on site when the decisions are being made. I have to agree that the terrain and "rules of the game" can dictate much of what is built.

[Buck]

mmm, I like the idea of getting 8mi to play with. Then again I have never ridden in the cities. I think for some of you and flame away if you want, but you need to think out side of what is in the cities. Everything seems to be compared to LH and TW. Why??? are those the two and only two places that you guys ride? I've ridden everywhere in MN and the opportunity you have to make many different kinds of trails in such a small area(T.C.s) amazes me.. for lack of better words...how much you guys bicker about it, I'd kill to have the chance to build all the different kinds/types of trails you guys could have!

OK the erosion thing has been beaten to death. I think every one here understands, the trails HAVE to be sustainable, ok accept it.

2nd, the trails at said area are going to be closed it they aren't fixed, right??? So where is the arugement on this one??? Either keep the area open or watch it be closed...mmm, with all that I see/read every day about closings every where else it seems more of a blessing to be given the chance to re-design the area. (But then again the areas being closed aren't for you XC guys or in this state, heck even this country for that matter, so maybe you don't care.)

3rd. Technical difficulty can be achieved any where, you guys just need to learn how to look at the terrain differently and re-think the use of grade reversals and other erosion control devices and techniques. In Florida there is a DH course that has 3' of elevation loss over the entire trail.

4th: I don't know how big this area is, but aren't you guys worried about over developing areas with trails??? I mean I'd rather see a trail that is say 5 mi of super buff trail then 10mi of trail that is pretty much totally on top of itself. But hey I'm new to the whole developing thing so I don't know maybe I am wrong.

I say again though, I have NEVER ridden said area, heck I haven't even ridden T.W. or L.H.! so take what I say as is, or flame a way...what ever :) I'd sure love to make/map out 8mi of trails though!!!:cool:

What ever does happen it sounds like a pretty cool place, hopefully I can get my enduro running this summer and come on some rides up that way!

L8R
Buck

[bigwheel]

Buck, we gotta get you out to Leb so that you can understand what (almost) everybody is raving about. It's only an hour away from your home. I just rode it tonight for the first time this year, and finally got to remember how nice of a trail it is.

I'll be glad to show you the trail, but you'll have to wait up for me on the uphills and the downhils and all the other stuff.

[Little D]

Erosion issues related to mountain bikes riding on ski trails are directly affecting the bird habitats.




What heck is that supposed to mean? Are they land birds?

[Buck]

Buck, we gotta get you out to Leb so that you can understand what (almost) everybody is raving about. It's only an hour away from your home. I just rode it tonight for the first time this year, and finally got to remember how nice of a trail it is.

I'll be glad to show you the trail, but you'll have to wait up for me on the uphills and the downhils and all the other stuff.

This is off topic, but I wish I could show you guys the trail I made before it got chainsawed, believe me, think big, the last edition to it was a 18' long tetter that was 8' tall with exit into a nice gully, that lead to a sweet little drop/jump combo thing. and before that was a ladder about 9' high 8" wide with a nice gap/drop at the end of it, oh yeah to get to the ladder work you had to ride super tight DH over rocks and fallen trees to get to it, then at the end is was nice little 6 pack that was tech b/c I made the jumps small, the gaps big and wove it through trees!!! Believe me MN can have some crazy stuff!!! The few people that got to ride it liked it, it was easily one of if not the toughest trail in MN, that is why I need to get Tim/Erik out there, so I can re-build legally...:hit:

That being said I ride a 50+ pd bike, you'd probably be waiting for me!!! But sometime this summer I'll take ya up on that offer!

L8R
Buck

[KleinCrazy]

What heck is that supposed to mean? Are they land birds?

If Remember correctly, these endangered birds ground nest only in cleared areas about the width of the ski trails at MH. Thus the need to keep people off of the trails during the nesting season. They do not nest in areas the width of our normal 42 inch singletrack.

If I am wrong somebody please correct me, but that is what I remember from the naturalist.

[Tim Wegner]

what is attractive about the new area is that the birds that are unique do not nest in the area where trails are being proposed.

TW

[ryno lite]

Tim, you always post at 10:22 pm? You're getting too predictable.

[Little D]

Ok, I've been doing a little research on the "Warbel" and of the many different types, I have not found a ground nesting one. Someone help me out here...

In looking back on the MH threads I have found many different opinions on Murphy. Some love it, some hate it. This will probably be a little controversial,
but I'm sorry to say the opinion of John L has seemed a little vindictive toward the trail in the review and on posts.

I love MH the way it is. MH, along with the River Bottoms brought Mt Biking to me. Two totally different types of trails within the Twin Cities. (Some kickers on MH would totally put it over the top. (Buck/Kosk; if you haven't already, I hope you get to ride it this year.))

I believe and trust in MORC as an organization to inspire growth in maintainable trails around the Twin Cities and I believe MH will be great in the future, but I'll miss the roller coaster speed and lung busting climbs.

later

[Tim Wegner]

Dan

Contact Jay T. He has some posts on MH and is employed by 3RPD. He can tell you what the species of birds are that are currently using the area as a nesting area. I bet he can tell you the name of the bird that nests close tothe trails. I am not sure if the bird actually nests on the ground or if it just prefers to nest next to an area that is cleared of plants and trees.

Its not 10:22 now!!!
TW

[JayT]

I only know this because I just called one of the PD's wildlife staffers. I'm not a wildlife expert by any means. The woodland bird species of special concern at Murphy Hanrehan are:

Cerulean Warbler (Dendroica cerulea)
Hooded Warbler (Wilsonia citrina)
Red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus)
Arcadian Flycatcher (Empidonax virescens)

There are many other species present as well, but these are the ones of special concern.

[ppgc]

I only know this because I just called one of the PD's wildlife staffers. I'm not a wildlife expert by any means. The woodland bird species of special concern at Murphy Hanrehan are:

Now with picture goodness...

Cerulean Warbler (Dendroica cerulea)
http://www.audubon.org/News/press/Mid_west_birds/Cerulean_warbler.jpg

Hooded Warbler (Wilsonia citrina)
http://www.mobirds.org/WarblerShow/Pics/36%20Hooded%20Warbler%20Steve%20Dillinger.jpg
[/url]
Red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus)
http://kaweahoaks.com/html/hawk_redshoul2.jpg
(http://www.mobirds.org/WarblerShow/Pics/36%20Hooded%20Warbler%20Steve%20Dillinger.jpg)
Arcadian Flycatcher (Empidonax virescens)
http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/nature/birding/austin_birding_sites/images/area14_arcadian_flycatcher.jpg
[url="http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/nature/birding/austin_birding_sites/images/area14_arcadian_flycatcher.jpg"]


-pete

[JayT]

The Hooded Warbler is the most special. According to the PD Wildlife staff - Murphy Hanrehan is the only nesting place known in Minnesota.

[gopherhockey]

In looking back on the MH threads I have found many different opinions on Murphy. Some love it, some hate it. This will probably be a little controversial,
but I'm sorry to say the opinion of John L has seemed a little vindictive toward the trail in the review and on posts.


Holy... I haven't hardly been online at all and I'm being pulled into this. Huh?

Anyone else is free to review the trails, everyone is entitled to their opinions... should it matter in the scheme of this conversation what my review was? No. Please leave me out of this.

If you do want my opinion, however, I see Murphy as sitting at the edge of being one of the best trails in the metro - even better than Leb. But thats just MY take on it... ;) MORC will do it right... might not make everyone happy, but the vast majority will be, and the land managers will be too and thats just as important. There is a great relationship forming - great things are in store for this trail and others like it....

[ryno lite]

Holy... I haven't hardly been online at all and I'm being pulled into this. Huh?

Anyone else is free to review the trails, everyone is entitled to their opinions... should it matter in the scheme of this conversation what my review was? No. Please leave me out of this.

If you do want my opinion, however, I see Murphy as sitting at the edge of being one of the best trails in the metro - even better than Leb. But thats just MY take on it... ;) MORC will do it right... might not make everyone happy, but the vast majority will be, and the land managers will be too and thats just as important. There is a great relationship forming - great things are in store for this trail and others like it....

It's way more fun to talk bad about you when you're not paying attention! Heck, with how busy you are, I just hope to be able to see you on the trail at least one time in '05!

[FSSS]

I saw one post that said 20% grades would be doable. I have never seen a sustainable trail with a 20% grade at least not for more than 5-10 feet. You NEVER can exceed 10% grade if you want the trail to be sustainable. You can do 15% for a 5-10 foot section but you must take some steps before and after this steep area to ensure that water does not flow down the slope.

If someone can show me a manual or a trail that goes down hill at 20% and doesn't erode, I am sure we can do that too.

The point of my 20% average grade trail analogy was to dispel the incorrect assumption that since "we do not have 1000’s of vertical feet to work with" we cannot "build sustainable trails with challenging/thrilling slopes." This assumption is not true.

Topography is not the limiting factor - $$ and risk management are the limiting factors.

I'm not trying to be snotty, but this is from the IMBA website (and IMBA manual):
http://www.imba.com/resources/trail_building/rock_armoring.html (http://www.imba.com/resources/trail_building/rock_armoring.html)

Caption of Pic #2: Stabilizing steep sections of contour trail with grades from 20 to 45%.

I would think if IMBA is using this as an example of how to build steep, armored sections of trail, erosion concerns were addressed. I'm not saying this proves that it could be done at Murphy, that depends on the conditions at the site. What I am saying is that to state that "you NEVER can exceed 10%" is being very conservative. Never is a very definitive word.

I was one of the 12+ people that helped build the armored downhill at Afton last year. Was it slow, hard work that required a ton of muscle (and mechanized equipment)?
Absolutely.
Is it a section of sustainable trail like no other near the metro area?
I think so.
Was it fun as hell to ride?
Yup.

I asked the question earlier in this thread, but I don't think it got answered:
Are there resources (both $$ and actual rock) for armoring at Murphy??

[FSSS]

Also wondering just what kind of trails people want here. Everyone complains about MH as it is now--what is the fun in climbing and then going down as fast as you can. It sounds like some would like us to replicate the same thing at the new trail site.

Remember though if you want a trail that is up and down and fast you will have a lot fewer miles of trail. My guess is that the expert loop will become 2-3 miles instead of 8-10 miles. (you can't build multiple trails on a side slope if you have a fast downhill trail going down the sideslope)

People bitched about Lebanon when we changed it as well and yet 35,000+ trips a year are made on this trail.

Not everyone complains about the current Murphy trails - in this and other threads many people have said they enjoy the current Murphy trails. I feel not recognizing these opinions would be a mistake. Mountain bikers are a diverse crowd and MORC should do its best to consider ALL types of mountain biking experiences. Personally, I think going downhill as fast as you can is fun as hell, and I know that there are MANY other riders that would agree.

As far as the question of length, the answer lies in the type of experience you are trying to provide. The best answer does NOT lie within the "more is better" mentality. It may be decided that to provide the desired experience, the amount of trail is reduced - a perfectly valid decision. Obviously we'd all like to have as much trail as possible, but the experience is what is important. I don't go out to a trail because of how long it is, I go to a trail for the experience it provides - and the length of the trail is only one of many components of that experience.

Leb is an awesome example of a successful mtb trail. No doubt about it. It frickin' blew me away the first time I rode it in its current form. Great trail. I like it more with every trip back. But at the same time, I don’t want to ride there every time I go for a ride. People like variety. Just because Leb is a success, that doesn't mean we should go around the cities trying to make more versions of Leb.

Has speed been a problem over the many years Murphy's been open??
Are people getting hurt due to excessive speed?
Have there been safety issues due to the speeds of the current trails??

If not, I would think that this would serve as a precedent for the new trails. And I'd hope that MORC would try to preserve this important aspect of riding at Murphy. If it's the desire of MORC/3RPD to increase mtb use in the park, I realize that speed would be a concern since many of the new riders would be novices. Through the use of good signage, trail filters/qualifiers, and designated "expert" trails, I would think safety and risk issues would be effectively addressed.

What kinds of speeds are acceptable to 3RPD??

Speed is a part of mtn biking - and I'm not talking about pedaling fast! :crazy:
I'm talking about feeling the effects of gravity. I'm talking about letting go of the brakes and letting gravity do its work. That feeling of gravity taking over is one of mountain biking's most sought after experiences - an experience for which Murphy is well known.

One thing that I think has been misinterpreted is that this is NOT an attack on sustainable trails. There is no need to get defensive - I think every reasonable person will agree that the trails must be sustainable. It is the overall approach/frame of mind/perspective within the context of sustainability that is being debated here. It is a debate about changing the experience that Murphy provides. And even though the Murphy trails have to change, I feel the Murphy experience can (and should) be preserved.

I hope these posts have not been interpreted as flames, my purpose here is to further the discussion and ultimately make Murphy a better trail.

I also hope that JayT and Tim, as well as other Murphy riders, continue to participate in the discussion on this thread.

[RedSquirrel]

Amen. Keep Murphy, Murphy like, faster and steeper than others. If all trails around here end up like Leb and Theo I'm gonna get bored. There's more than one way to trail. Heath

[thebionicman]

You don't have to make a trail steep to make it fast. The downhill at Steeplechase has an average grade of 8-9%. I am not sure what the overall elevation change is at Murphy. And one point that people are missing is that we won't be in the same area of the park as the current trails are (may not have the elevation change).

I would like to see some speed and roller coaster action at Murphy, but I think we will have more of the Corkscrew than Wild Thing.

[Tim Wegner]

I stand by my statement that 10% grade is the sustainable grade. 15% can be done for very short distances. Unless you have a huge pile of rock to carry in AND get permission from 3RPD to haul in a foreign material you will have trouble armoring the trail to reach the 15% + in trail grade. At the IMBA school today Nat and Rachel both said " you cannot exceed 15% grade without water eroding your trail." Much of the armoring that you see on the IMBA website is done in Wales. This area recieves in excess of 160" or rain every year. They have to armor the trail just to keep it above water. Matter of fact the trail cited is about 45 miles in length and indeed much of it is armored. It is armored as a water management tool and not because they chose to ignore the basic rules of trail construction. I might also mention that the armouring material is "native" to the area and not hauled in to create the trails.

I wonder why some would like MH to remain just as it is?? If that is the case we will open the trail in August and close it on October 31st. We will have to do that because if we break the rules for trail construction---the trails will erode and we will be right back where we started. That seems like a really poor return on our investment of volunteer hours for trail construction. Our goal in negotiating with 3RPD was to ensure that the new trail would stay open ALL season long.

That said--I learned a lot today at the IMBA trail school. I was pleased to see many MORC members in attendance. I think we will build a lot of fun into the trail at MH. It will be different from Leb and it will be different from MH as it is now. As MH is now it won't work it has to be changed. Changing it doesn't mean it won't be fun it just means it will be changed for the better.

Change is not easy, accepting change is even more difficult. I believe my trail building skills have changed significantly in the past 3 years. Why has it changed? Because I have attended 3-4 trail schools each year over the past 3 years. Each time I have attended a school I have learned something. Each school was taught by individuals with different philosophys of trail design. Joey Kline's trail is different from Mike Riters is different from Mark and Lora's and is different from Nat and Rachel's. Each of the above mentioned trail builders has a different style. I have worked hard to add a bit of everyone's style into the trails I have designed. None of the trail people I have mentioned have advocted exceeding the rules of trail construction.
TW

[thebionicman]

Going a little OT here, but Tim mentioned something very important. Each trail school you learn new things. I have multiple schools, and its give you a great prospective on how people view trails and what lines they come up with.

[FSSS]

Tim and Erik - thanks for posting, I'm surprised either of you have energy left.

Yeah, I think anyone whining about losing the existing trail is gonna have to face the facts, the current trail will likely be gone in the next few years. But like I said before, if you can maintain the same type of experience (on sustainable trails), most everyone will accept the changes as a better situation.

Good point about not necessarily needing a steep grade for a trail to be fast. Sightlines, turn radii, tread and corridor width, and designing trail around maintaining momentum are probably even more important. Plus, unlike steep grades, none of those factors inherently create difficult sustainability issues (other than braking bumps).

The fast downhills have been the highlight of Murphy for a very long time, and I hope 3 or 4 years from now, they still are (albeit fast, sustainable downhills).

It may be a pipe dream (since it is on public land), but I gotta try.

I guess there is always Steeplechase…

I'll shut up for a while now.

[Tim Wegner]

No don't shut up. Input from others is what keeps us up to date on what needs to be done. Like you said not everyone likes the same thing. There is no way I will ride "THE ROCK" or "THE OAK" at Steeple Chase. But Adam and his buddies and many others can and want to ride stuff like that so it needs to be considered and built if possible.

TW

[gopherhockey]

Amen. Keep Murphy, Murphy like, faster and steeper than others. If all trails around here end up like Leb and Theo I'm gonna get bored. There's more than one way to trail. Heath

Sorry to get sidetracked, but Heathen - whats your real full name?

Thanks...

[gopherhockey]

I'm sure someone has said this already in this thread (as well as others) but the best way to really contribute, learn, or get your .02 in on trails is to come on out and volunteer.

No, it doesn't mean concerns raised by people (members and non-members alike) are not listened too and appreciated... but we all know that those that show up to trailwork are usually more able to contribute their ideas - and they can learn to do them within proper trail building boundaries. I've had people show up to trail work bent on showing us all how our trails are wrecking things but leave with a new apprciation and feeling of ownership... its a great feeling to meet people and find ways to work together. Its a formula I have seen work many times with MORC and I have no doubt this will happen at MH.

Those that might be sitting back gritting their teeth over this - please come on out when the time comes, and by all means don't feel you have to keep quiet if you have something to say.

3 bananas for MH :banana: :banana: :banana:

[Trevize1138]

T.P., Tim and John,

Well spoken, all! :)

I envision that MH won't just be a Lebanon or Theo copy. It also won't be the old MH. I have a feeling by the time we're done with MH we'll have something wholely unique, and that's something to be excited about! :banana:

[FSSS]

I think a lot of the issues being discussed here pertain to the early stages in the design of the trail.

I agree, coming out to trailwork gives you an opportunity to voice opinions on things like where to build a trail feature or minor changes in trail location.

But the forums are a great place (and the only place for most of us) to voice our opinions to the actual designers of the trail about the overall 'feel' of the trail - broad topics that are decided when the trail is laid out.

Once trailwork starts, I would think these types of decisions have already been decided.

I like to see all the talk from the bigwigs about the Murphy project being something special!

Maybe a new favorite trail??? (on the south side at least ;) )

[bigwheel]

I envision that MH won't just be a Lebanon or Theo copy. It also won't be the old MH. I have a feeling by the time we're done with MH we'll have something wholely unique, and that's something to be excited about! :banana:


Possibly, but that will partly depend on who shows up for trail building. If all of the work is being done by XC riders, then I would expect the leb-like sections to get most of the attention. I'm willing to help, but not if we are just building trail for a group of people that don't care enough to show up and work on their own trail.

On the other hand, seeing what was done using IMBA techniques on a DH/FR area in just two days, I could easily see how an group of dedicated DH/FR'ers could build a trail at Murphy that would make a person wet his pants.

[FSSS]

Possibly, but that will partly depend on who shows up for trail building. If all of the work is being done by XC riders, then I would expect the leb-like sections to get most of the attention. I'm willing to help, but not if we are just building trail for a group of people that don't care enough to show up and work on their own trail.

I would hope that MORC members as a whole would be able to see the bigger picture. Even if a particular trail isn't their favorite type of trail, I'd hope they would support a project that appeals to other mtb riders simply because it helps strengthen and build the mtb community as a whole.

Plus there is no way to know if that "other group" doesn't care to show up, or simply doesn't know to show up. In all reality MORC members are a tiny percentage of all MN mountain bikers. MORC should work for all MN mountain bikers, not just its members (or the majority of its members).

[thebionicman]

Lets see if people can follow me on this one. Go out to Leb and as you ride you can tell the trail has gotten built differently as everyone got more experience.

Go to Theo, as everyone got better at design and building the trail became different (better I think).

[bigwheel]

I would hope that MORC members as a whole would be able to see the bigger picture. Even if a particular trail isn't their favorite type of trail, I'd hope they would support a project that appeals to other mtb riders simply because it helps strengthen and build the mtb community as a whole.

Plus there is no way to know if that "other group" doesn't care to show up, or simply doesn't know to show up. In all reality MORC members are a tiny percentage of all MN mountain bikers. MORC should work for all MN mountain bikers, not just its members (or the majority of its members).

It depends on what is the "bigger picture". The "bigger picture" probably also should include hiking trails, ATV trails, horse trails, etc. Although I "support" them, I'm not going to spend my evenings building trails for them. I'd rather be riding.

I joined MORC because it is an active group that shares the same interest as me, and is working to make one of my favorite sports better. I started doing trail work when I realized that I was sleazing on the hard work done by other people.

I spent most of this weekend working on two obstacles that I will probably never ride. Was it time well spent? - Absolutely! I learned a lot from the experience, and had a great time working with young enthusiastic riders that were willing to step up and work to make their sport better. It was even more exciting when we could watch them ride the sections that we just built. These are the people that will take the lead, and ultimately decide how their trails will be built. These are the people that are willing to put in the hard labor, and the time to learn what works and what doesn't work, rather than sitting on the sideline and crying that the trail isn't steep enough or that someone tore down their tinkertoy structure.

Without a dedicated group to build and maintain the trails, it doesn't make much sense for to work on the DH/FR areas. These trails are steep and dangerous. They are going to take a *lot* more effort to build and maintain, than it takes for swoopy xc trails. This will have to be done by the same people that ride them, because they are the ones that will know what needs to be changed. And, if the trails are not constantly kept up, it could have a very bad influence on mountain biking.

I'm willing to help, but I'm not going to spend my evenings working for a group that are not willing to work on their own trails. If it is the case that they just "don't know", then maybe those that "do know" should tell them that they are missing out on a great opportunity that may not always be there in the future.

[FSSS]

Without a dedicated group to build and maintain the trails, it doesn't make much sense for to work on the DH/FR areas.

I'd be surprised if 3RPD allowed MORC to build a DH or FR trail at Murphy. This is public land after all. I would guess the trails at Murphy are going to be XC trails - just with a different 'feel' from Leb or other trails in the area. And hopefully that 'feel' is fast!

I think all the discussion here is within the realm of XC trail building/riding, that said, there a lot of different types of XC riders out there.

Hope to see you at Murphy trailwork!! (whenever it starts)

[Trevize1138]

Murphy *will* feel different. Why? It's a different area and no doubt there will be a different trail boss.

In fact, I'd say it would be harder to try to make a "Lebanon Clone" at Murphy than it would just to lay out the best trail that would make sense for the area.

And, yes, make it fast! :) I'm sure there will be limitations to that, as 3RPD has said they want to manage speed there. Still, I think you can find ways to work around that and give it some semblance of that "Murphy Feel." Or, should I say, that mid-90s Murphy feel before it got all rutted out and nasty. :crazy:

[FSSS]

...and no doubt there will be a different trail boss.

Which raises the obvious question... who will be the trail boss??

(or is it too early?)

[thebionicman]

I would imagine the choosing of the Trail Steward for Murphy is going to be a long process.

[TrailDale]

If things go as expected, Tim and I hope to get the contract for trail design at M-H. So tell us what you want. This is the first "new" trail for Three Rivers, so they will be cautious - don't look for a DH trail.

Sounds like "fast" is the preference. Based on the preliminary intermediate layout, its gong to be fast. The expert loop has plenty of elevation, so we could have long climbs up to the IMBA maximum grade and then long swoopy curvy twisty downhill sections - at least that's what I gave Three Rivers on the preliminary topo trail layout.

The concept expert trail - at this point - is like the Leb Dream trail section without the braking bumps. Not any constructed features, but looking for rock ledges for difficulty in climbing and dropping.

So - what do you want?

[FSSS]

Sounds like "fast" is the preference. Based on the preliminary intermediate layout, its gong to be fast. The expert loop has plenty of elevation, so we could have long climbs up to the IMBA maximum grade and then long swoopy curvy twisty downhill sections - at least that's what I gave Three Rivers on the preliminary topo trail layout.

The concept expert trail - at this point - is like the Leb Dream trail section without the braking bumps. Not any constructed features, but looking for rock ledges for difficulty in climbing and dropping.

Music to my ears! :banana:

Long climbs, long downhills, fast and swoopy!!

Just not too twisty on the downhills (braking bumps).

[SheBeast]

Well I've always liked racing at Murphy as a change of pace because it had no obstacles and was just b@lls out sprinting. So I guess less log crossings and rock gardens than Leb that would be cool in my opinion. Hillside is a good example of what this particular rider likes, though I'm guessing you have less acreage than Elk River.

[gopherhockey]

Which raises the obvious question... who will be the trail boss??

(or is it too early?)

MORC has two basic responsible roles when working with a trail - the Trail Steward and the Dirt Boss. We have a paper being written that lists these roles and responsibilities so we can all talk the same language.

In short, the Trail Steward is the one that manages the reationship with the land manager / owners and the particular trail while working hand in hand with MORC. There is usually a primary and secondary.

The Dirt Boss is the one that holds the trail work sessions and works with the trail steward to be sure the trail is conforming to the overall plan. They recruit volunteers, get the tools to the trail, and basically get nice and dirty. There is usually one primary and up to a few secondary Dirt Bosses.

These roles will develop as a part of the relationship building and trail development process. MORC will be "appointing" these roles, but often they come naturally. There may also be interrum stewards and bosses until the "dust settles" and a couple of obvious people are identified. Often the trail steward becomes fairly obvious as they are already working closely with the land managers before the dirt starts to fly...

I have a feeling with Murphy we'll need Dirt Bosses from other trail systems to help get things kicked off, then shortly after it should be easy to identify someone to take up the lead in that area.

Its still a formula MORC is playing with, but it seems to be a successful one. If there are people interested in any aspect of a trail such as Murphy be sure to get in contact with a MORC board member to express interest.

[smeulebroe]

Sounds like "fast" is the preference. Based on the preliminary intermediate layout, its gong to be fast. The expert loop has plenty of elevation, so we could have long climbs up to the IMBA maximum grade and then long swoopy curvy twisty downhill sections - at least that's what I gave Three Rivers on the preliminary topo trail layout.

The concept expert trail - at this point - is like the Leb Dream trail section without the braking bumps. Not any constructed features, but looking for rock ledges for difficulty in climbing and dropping.

Very Cool :) I only live 3 miles from Murphy and will definately be there for trail work for years to come. I love trails with climbs and rewarding swoopy curvy singletrack.

[EmL34]

So - what do you want?

20 miles of trail that stays familiar, yet changes subtly ever time I ride it.

[gopherhockey]

So - what do you want?

Something that will take traffic away from Lebanon :D

I'd like to see the idea of faster flow happen without the bumps... it will be a challenge but I'm betting on success.

[FSSS]

John/Dale:

Thanks for posting! It is nice to see a discussion you are participating in looked at, and taken seriously, by the decision-makers and 'higher-ups'.

If there is a need for a secondary Trail Steward or Dirt Boss, I'd like to volunteer. I have experience and education (BS in Recreation Mgmt) on the land management side of things, plus a fair # of hours of trail work at Wirth and I attended the Afton school last year. My only drawback is that it I'd only be able to put in real hours from mid-June to mid-August.

Thanks.

[FSSS]

So - what do you want?

Bumpidy-bump

I'm kinda surprised there haven't been more responses to Dale's question.


???


Maybe it's because Dale's post hit the nail on the head and everyone's happy?

Sounds like "fast" is the preference. Based on the preliminary intermediate layout, its gong to be fast. The expert loop has plenty of elevation, so we could have long climbs up to the IMBA maximum grade and then long swoopy curvy twisty downhill sections - at least that's what I gave Three Rivers on the preliminary topo trail layout.

The concept expert trail - at this point - is like the Leb Dream trail section without the braking bumps. Not any constructed features, but looking for rock ledges for difficulty in climbing and dropping.

[bigwheel]

Well, it's not what anyone wants to hear, but I wouldn't mind another Leb clone.

[Trevize1138]

Bob, you're an example of our dumbed-down society :crazy:

I want miles and miles of new trail at Murphy. I don't care how they turn out, I'll ride 'em and I know I'll love 'em :banana:

[manual63]

You should plan to make BB and AK happy.....isn't that a MORC priority....:D

[bigwheel]

Bob, you're an example of our dumbed-down society :crazy:

Hey! I represent that remark!

I also want lots-o-miles of trail, and will ride almost anything, with the possible exception of the death trap stunts we built at Steeplechase. I also will help build it, even if it does maim innocent young riders who have yet to grow a frontal lobe.

[Little D]

I like what I'm hearing about the new trail. Thanks guys!

[Crash]

I'm kinda surprised there haven't been more responses to Dale's question. Maybe it's because Dale's post hit the nail on the head and everyone's happy?

Extremely happy :D :D :D

so we could have long climbs up to the IMBA maximum grade and then long swoopy curvy twisty downhill sections

[Jeff Lewis]

You should plan to make BB and AK happy.....isn't that a MORC priority....:D

Chill ... two wrongs don't make a right.

[soupboy]

...with any new singletrack in the metro. It's time for that hilly version of the Luce Line to disappear.

Sean

[DanB]

But my vote goes for longer straighter but slight curvy (think flow) flats and climbs, I love the last section of Lebanon. I just grin from ear to ear during that and then call all my biking buddies on my cell on the way home and rant and rave about how amazing that trail is.

That's just my opinion, but I'll tell you what if it was damn near exactly like Lebanon there would be nothing wrong with that. I've ridden all over the country and I will flat out say that I believe Lebanon to be one of the best trails anywhere in the US of A. The only thing our trails (Metro Area) lack is that feeling of going somewhere, when your in CO, UT, MT, or whatever you just feel like your on an adventure. Maybe that is because it is new and that gives it that quality. But let's face it if I wanted adventure I could go hang out on Hennepin at Midnight, I'll take kick arse riding anytime over that so.....OUR TRAILS ROCK!!!

Thanks for letting me voice my opinion and I hope you all take this with a grain of salt and a huge pat on the back!

Dan

[At the Gates 2121]

just wait til murphy is done and the additions at battlecreek are done

[DMonkey]

I for one would really like to see single track at Murphy and if there is a long section like the dream trail at Leb - works for me..
Clones aren't great, but if only a section of the trail is similar, or optional area - then that's very cool.. I like variety in riding - and please keep it over 5 mi. loops. 7 - 10 seem like the magic numbers for around here, but I wouldn't mind 14 - 20 mi loop to take me down a notch.

Battle C has some additions coming as well?? Right on.. I really like Battle Creek for just the variety there and how long you can ride if you really want to (and some decent climbs).

Thanks for the trails and I'll try to help with Murphy again (I did a couple nights down there for the test single track).

[Tim Wegner]

I think we will spend a lot more time in trail planning for Murphy than we did at Lebanon. We felt really pressured to get a trail completed at Lebanon. Now that Lebanon is up and running successfully we can take a bit more time to add great features at Murphy as well as building some cool trail sections. This will be a 3-4 year project and I think we will end up with a minimum of 12 miles of trails.

TW

[RedSquirrel]

Make Murphy harder than Leb. Leb is too easy, plus I get bored.
A combo of Afton, Murphy and Leb would be fantastick.
No flats.
Flats cause puddles & cries from trail builders. Do it right (easy for me to say).
If plans sound cool enough you'll see me out helping like I am at Afton.

Wish List
1. Climb sections closer to Afton
2. Speed sections closer to Murphy today
3. Obstacle and city slick techno (if you call it that) sections like Leb
4. Jerk and surprise like Mammoth
5. Don't care'bout flow, just ups & downs (need many forces so never boring)

Good Luck.
May the force be with us all.
:angel:

[Brenda Callahan]

John and all,
I'm so glad I found this forum!!! This needs an e-mail from you by July 26th, or before August 1st at the latest, and all it is, is a request to preserve public input on a plan to plop down 21 houses on the border of Murphy Hanrehan, at the park's narrowest point. It's that simple. Your contacts with Three Rivers should ask too.

The Burnsville city council is voting August 1 to decide on whether to let an envronmental review study proceed. An EAW would guarantee the public has a 30 day comment period on the proposal. There are a lot of questions to be answered. For example, what kind of park access will there be? Should there be another park entrance made here, on the east side of the park, at the end of Valley View Drive?

There’s only one house there now on this 31 acres. The new ones would be wedged on ridges between six wetlands and the steep bluff, so they’ll be highly visible from the park. I can e-mail you maps and aerial photos.

From a wildlife standpoint, this area is continuous habitat without a border. The Dakota County biological survey highlighted the area as of high ecological value, especially the sedge meadows, willow swamp and oak woodlands.

Here’s the link to an article in the St. Paul paper: http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/news/local/states/minnesota/counties/dakota/12183045.htm (http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/news/local/states/minnesota/counties/dakota/12183045.htm)



We need your e-mail skills, and you don't need any expertise at all. It's just a simple e-mail request to be allowed to participate in the environmental review process, so the city council can see this is more than just a 'not in my backyard' issue. So far they've successfully MADE it only a backyard issue, by limiting public input.



They've held just one meeting so far on this, and notice of it was sent to just the surrounding landowners in my neighborhood. I attended the meeting Tuesday night. This thing is on the fast track, and I got the clear view the staff thinks they don’t need any more information, or need any more public input--especially from you 'outsiders'. July 26th the Parks and Natural Resources Commission votes, and on August 1 the city council votes, on whether to do an EAW.



The state certified our citizen’s petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) on the project. But it left it to the city council’s discretion. Eagan’s city council ordered a similar ‘discretionary’ EAW when a 30 acre housing development was proposed for the border of Lebanon Hills Regional Park last year, so there is an easy precedent.


In your e-mail, all you are asking for is the same rights to broad public participation in this process, by doing the EAW. This development will impact a resource of statewide significance.


What other information might be uncovered in the EAW process? Why are they afraid of more public participation? There’s no need to rush, and take a shortcut here. Why skip the process the state has set up for the public to help its elected officials get the best information possible before deciding on development?

The Mn orienteering club and bird watchers have sent e-mails. Mountain bikers and other stakeholders, as well as the DNR and the Three Rivers Park District, deserve the formal EAW process so they can participate by commenting on it.

The city might well ask: what more would an EAW would do?



1. The study has to answer a standard set of questions such as wildlife impacts. The state set up this process for exactly these kinds of situations, to bring about consistent results.



2. The EAW must analyze visual impacts of the project, which haven’t been mentioned yet. What will park users see? Maybe the city should include some screening guidelines? What will park access be like?



3. The EQB Monitor newsletter will announce the study statewide. It will tell you where to see the study, and sets up a 30 day comment period. It also requires a public hearing. The city also must send out a press release about all this, so more people find out about it.



4. An EAW also must be sent to other government bodies. Experts at Fish and Wildlife, EPA, US Army Corps of Engineers and local governments like Dakota County will get a copy to review. So if you have any contacts with those bodies, ask them to ask Burnsville to proceed with the EAW. The city should also include Scott County and Savage, since these wetlands drain into the Credit River. The park district also deserves a copy of the EAW as an adjoining landowner, and should have a formal chance to comment.


Again, the deadlines are July 26 for Parks vote and August 1 for Council vote. So please act ASAP!


Burnsville City Council (Mayor Elizabeth Kautz and all four council members at once)

council@ci.burnsville.mn.us (council@ci.burnsville.mn.us)

Here’s a link to each member’s info: http://www.burnsville.org/government/city1.htm (http://www.burnsville.org/government/city1.htm)

City Council Message Center - 952-895-4403



Burnsville Natural Resources Director Terry Schultz (he advises the Parks and Natural Resources Commission)

terry.schultz@ci.burnsville.mn.us (terry.schultz@ci.burnsville.mn.us) Parks and Recreation chair is Paula O’Keefe, but I don’t have an e-mail address for her or the commission. City Hall: (952) 895-4400.



Dakota County Commissioners Michael Turner and Paul Krause (They represent Burnsville. Ask them to ask Burnsville for an EAW so the county can review it)

michael.turner@co.dakota.mn.us (michael.turner@co.dakota.mn.us)

paul.krause@co.dakota.mn.us (paul.krause@co.dakota.mn.us)



Please respond directly to my e-mail address, if possible.

Thank you!

Brenda Callahan on the Burnsville/Lakeville/Savage/Credit River border, Dakota County

15715 Judicial Rd.
Burnsville, MN 55306
brenda.callahan@comcast.net (brenda.callahan@comcast.net)

[Little D]

bump, bump

[Craig Andersen]

Is there any way that MORC can improve the local mtb scene without taking something away? Murphy is the only remaining local rollercoaster. MTB is all about variety. If all of the MORC made trails become small chainring specials like Leb. we are left to get excercise with skinny slicks on the road.

Please do not take away the current Murphy trail - it is an epic!

[Kingbozo]

Is there any way that MORC can improve the local mtb scene without taking something away? Murphy is the only remaining local rollercoaster. MTB is all about variety. If all of the MORC made trails become small chainring specials like Leb. we are left to get excercise with skinny slicks on the road.

Please do not take away the current Murphy trail - it is an epic!

Epicly unsustainable.

[Tim Wegner]

Murphy will change for the following reasons:

Highly eroded trail
No chance to make it sustainable
Runs right through what will become a bird sanctuary
Closed for the majority of the riding season
Trail too short
Better trail will be built

Murphy has been a problem for many years. Mountain bikers are blamed for the damage that occurs on the trails even though the problem is with design. We have been given one hello of an opportunity to build a new better epic trail. The new trail should end up being a minimum of 12 miles long with multi-levels of challenge.

It not often you get a blank piece of land on which to build trails where there are no other trail user to contend with. This is what we are getting at Murphy. For those that do not like Lebanon I offer this, come on out and help build the trail to meet your challenge. Don't complain what has been done when you do not give your imput. Join MORC and IMBA, they are the groups that have invested hundreds of hours and thousands of dollars already to get us to the point where we are with Three Rivers Parks District.

TW

[FSSS]

For those that do not like Lebanon I offer this, come on out and help build the trail to meet your challenge. Don't complain what has been done when you do not give your imput.

When will layout begin?

It seems the main concern people have regarding Murphy is with how/where the corridor is laid out. They are concerned with the types of decisions that are made before trailwork even starts.

Sustainable rollercoaster!!!! :D

[rowland]

[QUOTE=FSSS]When will layout begin?

It seems the main concern people have regarding Murphy is with how/where the corridor is laid out. They are concerned with the types of decisions that are made before trailwork even starts.

Sustainable rollercoaster!!!! :D[/QUOT

i agree 100%
once the trail is laid out, it's all over but the sweat.
i, for one, want a rollercoaster. a big bad-a**ed rollercoaster:)

[Tim Wegner]

Actually the trail layout is more of a trail corridor where the trail will be built. The designers will design the grade reversals and look for the most interesting terrain and then allow the builders to use their imagination to complete the trail in the most interesting manner.

As far as the roller coaster thing---if it can be built with sustainability as the focus, it will be built. We tried a roller coaster at Lebanon on the dream trail and all we ended up with were braking bumps. I know that many of us can ride that section without touching our brakes and oh how I wish I could build a trail just for us. REALITY though is anyone can ride the trail no mater what their skill level. Just goes to show that not everyone that rides the trail knows how to ride. The sad thing about Lebanon is that apparently someone that could not ride some of the stuff in the expert trail went in and dumbed it down so they could ride it. Those are the same people that won't come out and help with trail work but will invest their time wrecking what others have done. We promised Three Rivers that we would build a trail that would require a minimum of maintenance and that is what we will deliver.

I saw a video from imba that showed a wonderful trail built in California that had about 20-30 jumps on a section of the trail that was probably only 1/2 mile long. The speed was not much over 12-15 MPH and there was enough room to have a "B" line around the jumps. I would like to convince Three rivers that we need to build this type of trail at Murphy. Once I convince them of the need for this trail I will have to find the right spot to build the trail.

To answer the question about when will the design work begin, soon very soon. Actually we can't collect any of the RTP funds for work that is performed before the date of fund release.(no one knows when that is but is always after October 1 sometime) I will begin wandering Murphy sometime in September, forming a map in my mind looking for the on the ground features that we need to make sure are included in the trail. If anyone is interested in wandering you can PM me and I will let you know when I am going out. Usually I wait until it is cooler and the bugs are not quite as bad.

TW

[Buck]

Actually the trail layout is more of a trail corridor where the trail will be built. The designers will design the grade reversals and look for the most interesting terrain and then allow the builders to use their imagination to complete the trail in the most interesting manner.

As far as the roller coaster thing---if it can be built with sustainability as the focus, it will be built. We tried a roller coaster at Lebanon on the dream trail and all we ended up with were braking bumps. I know that many of us can ride that section without touching our brakes and oh how I wish I could build a trail just for us. REALITY though is anyone can ride the trail no mater what their skill level. Just goes to show that not everyone that rides the trail knows how to ride. The sad thing about Lebanon is that apparently someone that could not ride some of the stuff in the expert trail went in and dumbed it down so they could ride it. Those are the same people that won't come out and help with trail work but will invest their time wrecking what others have done. We promised Three Rivers that we would build a trail that would require a minimum of maintenance and that is what we will deliver.