Three Rivers Park District seeks input on trail planning in Elm Creek [Archive] - Minnesota Off-Road Cyclists Discussion Forums

Jonathan Vlaming

08-22-2006, 06:12 PM

Hello,
I am the Planning Manager for Three Rivers Park District. The Park District is updating the Master Plan for Elm Creek Park Reserve. Part of the master planning process involves assessing demand for new facilities and proposing new facilities to meet those demands. The Park District has identified a need for the development of a mountain biking facility at Elm Creek Park Reserve. I am now in the process of examining two conceptual facility development options to meet this demand. To do this I need input from the mountain biking community – hence this forum post.

The two options are described below. Please take a few minutes to review them and provide your ideas and opinions on which option would better serve your needs. The final recommended option will reflect your input, as well as the natural resources management plan for the Park Reserve, and the potential benefits and impacts on other park visitors.

Please post your feedback in this thread, as it will allow for a community dialogue on the two options. Thank you for your help!

Here are the two options currently under consideration:

Option 1: Single Track Mountain Bike Complex
The complex will be located near Lemans Lake in the northeastern area of the Park Reserve. It will be accessed through a trail parking lot with restrooms & drinking water off of Hayden Lake Rd. Access would also be available through the existing paved trail within the park. The complex would contain several loops of various difficulty levels. The complex would be similar in design to what the Park District is currently developing at Murphy-Hanrehan Park Reserve.

Option 2: Dispersed Single Track Mountain Bike loops along the existing paved trail
The trailhead would be located at Eastman Nature Center. Riders would then head north along the paved trail to stand-alone single-track loops. The rider would be able to do a loop then bike on the paved trail to the next loop, and so on until returning to the Eastman trailhead. Individual loops would have a single difficulty level, though there would be a variety of levels provided through the system.

gopherhockey

08-22-2006, 09:35 PM

I assume you want individual comments on which option is preferred. Speaking just for myself, I'm not a fan of biking on paved trail with a mountain bike and would much rather see a stacked loop type system of mountain bike (singletrack) trails not put together by anything paved. This is unless the paved option were to bring significantly more overall milage.

How about both? Have a mountain bike only one-way system around Lemans Lake, then have a series of shared trails as in option 2. This would give mountain bikers a specific area to ride, and a bonus area to expand the distance without having to re-ride the same trail over and over. Other types of trail users could benefit by the additional singletrack and would have no reason to complain about a mountain biking only section in the park. (good signage could make this possible)

A good trail distance to shoot for is in the 8-10 mile range or more.

Putting the MORC hat back on, I'm sure our 3RPD Trail Steward would be interested in talking to you in more detail once you get individual rider input to see what type of involvement you'd like from the organization.

Buck

08-22-2006, 09:47 PM

I'd love to see a Freeridey loop, and a Dirt jump area. I haven't seen the area but I bet there is a spot that would work perfect for it.

Thanks for asking!
Buck

jkalla

08-22-2006, 10:16 PM

I don't like the idea of paved trails linking the mountain bike loops simply because I see the potential for user conflicts. I am imagining a family out for a nice gentle ride being buzzed by a couple of mountain bikers trying to get to the next loop.

RichZilla

08-22-2006, 10:45 PM

I agree with gopherhockey. I think both trails would be best, but if there are only enough resources for one now, the separate singletrack is better. Having a bunch of us ruffian mountain bikers getting on and off the paved path, could make some of the 'normal' folks uneasy...but I'm sure we could learn to behave.:D

Having the option for a 20+ mile set of loops off the main path has its benefits also...

I do a little freeriding when I get the chance, but those areas are limited in the metro. It would be good to put some of that in the future plans as well!

stoneage

08-22-2006, 11:24 PM

There is certainly a lot of room out there. Loon State Cyclists used to ride the area for training 12-15 years ago. There are some ridges that cut through the area. There would be a lot of Salem Hills type connections between any elevation, so I would think easy to intermediate with a few tougher parts. I remember quite a bit of sand and gravel interspersed with black dirt forest. A trials park or stunt area would be a possibility. The picture shows Champlin just to the North, and very easy access from 169 or from inside the park.
ECP (http://71.193.93.160/~williamoreilly/ECP.png)

seberly

08-22-2006, 11:26 PM

I like option #2 as I prefer more point to point riding than going around in circles over and over, seeing the other trails, etc.

SprocketHead

08-22-2006, 11:32 PM

I am in favor of Option 1: Single Track Mountain Bike Complex.

I regularly enjoy the many miles of paved paths in the park. I would love to see and if neccesary, be involved in Natural Surface Mountain Bike Trails at Elm Creek!

Lebanon Hills Mountain Bike Park in Eagan is a good example of how I would like to see the trails implemented. A trail designed like that would be useful and pleasing to a wide variety of riders.

I also will side with MORC leadership on their ideas and affirm that they should be consulted for this project. They have done a terrific job on many trails in the area!

crux

08-22-2006, 11:34 PM

Agreed with what has been posted here. There are issues with having paved and single track type trails close togther and don't get me started on crossings. We have seen issues with horses, road bikers, mt bikers and general hikers on a trail back in Omaha where it was a good idea, but just was not safe to mix traffic.

A multi looped section of single track trails of varied degrees of difficulty would work best over such an area. Have a section for cross country riders, and the free ride crowd to use the area correctly with mtb on seperate trails from other users. This increasses safety and will not disturb the view shed of any user group.

We have local experts that are capable of building quality trails here depending upon skill background and I'm sure that any one of us would be more than happy to do a walk thru of the area if given the oppertunity to do the floor planning with a group or member of your park district.

jag

08-22-2006, 11:44 PM

This sounds great. You guys lost me the one time i mountain biked there over 10 years ago. Do you know how many miles each option is? I would vote for the more miles option. I'd also like to see some jumps and drops out there. You can make option trails around jumps and drops for those that prefer not to leave the ground. Paved trails are for doing wheelies.

Neckroll

08-23-2006, 03:21 AM

I would think that option #1 would be the better one to start with. As is stated by a few people above, having to travel on any paved trails between loops is just asking for potential conflict with horses, hikers, road bikers and families out for a leisurly ride. And as we all know, when there are conflicts such as these, the dirty mountain bikers are usually going to be the ones who come out looking like the problem because we would be the change that has been made that brought about the issues.
Option two would probably, in the end, be more desirable as it would have the potential to have more mileage, and maybe even keep different skill levels of mountain bikers apart, which isn't always a bad thing. But for an initial "trial" type phase, I would vote for #1 because it would have a better chance of succeeding, causing fewer issues with other park users and maybe, when we've shown that we really can get along with other park patrons, we could expand the system and turn it into something great, which the north metro could really use. Gas prices are too high to make us north siders have to drive to eagan or savage whenever we want some hardcore MTBin action :D

funky-funky-chicken

08-23-2006, 08:01 AM

I'm going to go with what seems to be the consensus on option 1. Definitely one-way trails if possible. I do like the idea, like John said, of a stacked loop system where practical. It gives riders the ability to mix and match loops of differing difficulties and provides a natural qualifier for more difficult trails.

If trails were developed in different areas of the park, it would be nice if both sections could be linked by off-road trails (possibly multi-direction, double-track?) with a combined trail head/crossing accessible by paved trail as well.

biking_stickman

08-23-2006, 10:43 AM

Although I'd like a good long uninterrupted singletrack trail (option 1), the potential for a great single/doubletrack high mileage trail at Elm Creek wins me over (option 2). A good long trail (~15-20) is a type of trail the Twin Cities is missing. To avoid user conflict, I'd recommend using the XC ski trails instead of the paved bike path as the connector between trails.

A freeride loop (as mentioned in other posts) would provide the double benefit of being a good "double black diamond" loop for expert XC riders to include and could be looped over and over again by freeride specialists. This diversity would also bring a larger number of riders to Elm Creek.

As a person who grew up in the Anoka area, I have spent many cold winter days on the XC ski trails looking into the woods and seeing the singletrack possibilities. Thanks for making this happen!

gopherhockey

08-23-2006, 10:56 AM

This is something best discussed via our trail steward, but as it can relate to trail layout and as we get closer and closer to fall I am reminded of two very important things that all mountain bike trails should strive for:

1. Allow night riding
2. Allow winter riding

We live in an area that can really restrict the riding season without these two options. Letting riders go until a set time (e.g. 10pm @ Lebanon Hills) vs. "until dusk" would allow more riders to get off work and still get in a good amount of riding. (not to mention that night riding is so dang fun to do!) Winter riding for similar reasons - we extended the riding season at Leb by about 3 months last year.

Either option would probably work but option 1 would allow less conflicts, especially if any of the shared trails turn to ski trails. Putting bikers and skiiers together going the same direction on a trail is not a good formula... and normally the bikers take the hit.

IMHO no mountain bike trail area in Minnesota should be without these two options.

kenthecook

08-23-2006, 01:07 PM

I have lived and ridden near the park for 14 years. I was disappointed when they chopped up the trails for the skiing, but, that's progress. Plus, I hoped we mtbrs would get some consideration in the future. Looks like our time has come! I currently ride all of the bike trails (of which there are too few) and the horse trails (sorry). I've never had any conflicts with the horse riders, I always stop, talk to the people, and am courteous. They appreciate it and they've told me they like that we talk to them, as the horses recognize voices as something they are not scared of. Anyway, I like the idea of option 1, the more single track the better! But, I like the open riding as well. Where else can you ride for 30 miles on a mtb and only see the same trails twice in the metro area? It is the only place you can train for Chequamegon. I'm fortunate because the park is 8/10 mi from my home.
One other poster mentioned lighting for riding at night. If you knew how many times I've looked at those XC trail lights and wished I could turn them babies on! That would be cool. I think the park could handle a race annually too. Plenty of room. The climbs are tame, but the distance could be greater then ususal MN races at the ski hills to make up for it.

dave t

08-23-2006, 01:42 PM

One other poster mentioned lighting for riding at night. If you knew how many times I've looked at those XC trail lights and wished I could turn them babies on! That would be cool.

Lights on the trail would be cool but many riders do have personal lighting systems. Light poles would make night riding more accessable to some but shouldn't be a requirement for allowing nighttime trail use.

TML

08-23-2006, 01:53 PM

Jonathan,

Thanks for giving the riders a chance for input on the plan.

Given your choices, I would opt for #2, a dispersed series of trails throughout the park that you could tie together to make one, very large continuous point to point ride througout most of the park. We have nothing like that currently in the Metro area.

The text below, though not exactly the same as the Option #2 scenario, is similar in concept. I expressed these thoughts in an earlier email discussion with some others.

This would be my plan in my own perfect world: ;)

". . . I propose we shoot for something that we don't have in the twin cities as of yet. That is, a large, single loop system that actually takes you a respectable distance from where you started. Given the size of Elm Creek, there is a great opportunity to utilize a lot of park land. A singletrack that roughly parallels the the existing paved trail would be phenomenal.

The way the park is laid out, you could have a continuous loop upwards of 15 miles long, with major access points/trailheads every 3 - 4 miles. Utilizing multiple trailheads would spread out the use significantly.

Assuming we would want the trail to be one-way, a loop of 15+ miles is not always wanted. Those not wanting to ride the entire loop could use the existing paved trail as a bail-out to make shorter loops as they desired.

--Troy "

Thanks again for giving us the chance for group input and thoughts!

msquire311

08-23-2006, 02:03 PM

I lived in the Champlin area for 3 summers and rode all over that park. There is a ton of potential there. There is a lot of partially developed trails, praries, woodlands, a great area for a trail. I vote number 1 there is pleanty of land and it would be nice to get into some of the remote areas of the park away from the main trails.

seejames

08-23-2006, 03:12 PM

I am very much in favor of #1, although I think that there has to be a way to make loops connected by the double track. To echo other poster's thoughts, we need a LONG trail in this area. Not only will it help ease congestion throughout the trail, but it will give us in the TC area somewhere to get some serious mileage.

I also think that a freeride or high technical area in a separated area is a great idea, not only for those who are experienced, but also those who would love an area where we can learn without feeling like they should "backtrack" on high traffic trails.

Buck

08-23-2006, 04:29 PM

skills park, DJ area. and dedicated FR trail.

L8Rz
Buck

Don Youngdahl

08-23-2006, 09:24 PM

Thanks to Three Rivers Park District for posting this query to us riders. I prefer option 2, primarily because it should logically provide the opportunity for more miles of single track than a stacked loop system crowded into a small portion of the park.

If the paved trail connecting sections were kept to minimum length, then we could have a trail approximating the great concept initially espoused by Troy Lawrence - a large single loop system that takes one throughout a large park.

I think there is a bit too much concern expressed regarding conflicts with other warm weather users when considering these options. Are off-road cyclists as a composite group such louts that we can't be expected to share the trail in a responsible fashion with other users? I think not, and I believe the collective experience of metro are land managers would support my contention. Let's not damn ourselves by accepting a stereotypical negative image that represents only a small number of our group.

Don Youngdahl

RichZilla

08-23-2006, 11:23 PM

Paved trails are for doing wheelies.

'Nuff Said!:cool:

gopherhockey

08-24-2006, 08:26 AM

I think there is a bit too much concern expressed regarding conflicts with other warm weather users when considering these options. Are off-road cyclists as a composite group such louts that we can't be expected to share the trail in a responsible fashion with other users?

It would be interesting to see. If they can do it in Colorado, we can do it here.. right?

I still think *both* could be an option. More miles, and if there were conflicts we'd have a place to fall back on as our own. My gut is telling me the paved connector is a formula for disaster.

stoneage

08-24-2006, 08:39 AM

Are off-road cyclists as a composite group such louts
To be honest, I have witnessed behavior towards other user groups that would turn off a land manager. As much as I would like a larger area, this could be an issue with a fledgling relationship like 3RPD. Blowing by walkers at the Bottoms, not yielding to hikers, spitting rocks exiting at Leb. Small minority, but they are the ones they notice.

gopherhockey

08-24-2006, 08:47 AM

To be honest, I have witnessed behavior towards other user groups that would turn off a land manager. As much as I would like a larger area, this could be an issue with a fledgling relationship like 3RPD. Blowing by walkers at the Bottoms, not yielding to hikers, spitting rocks exiting at Leb. Small minority, but they are the ones they notice.

It definitely only takes one bad example.. and as a group I think we have plenty of those. (although we're certainly working to fix that) I could see going with option 2 then being left with nothing a year later... and/or worse, lost opportunities in other park areas. Land managers also talk to each other as well.

seberly

08-25-2006, 02:41 PM

stoneage

08-25-2006, 02:46 PM

I don't believe the paved trail is a walking trail it is a bike trail there are already bikers on it.
I think you may be right, Steve. At least it is shared, I would imagine. I would hope that the MTB'rs would be polite if we went with the multiple loop, because I'm sure it would be heavily used and they would be very obvious as a new user group.

kerb

08-25-2006, 04:59 PM

I live a half block from Elm Creek and ride the current doubletrack approx 3 days a week and the paved trails approx 3 days a week on my road bike. I started mountain bike racing this year and as previously mentioned this is the only park in the twin cities where riders training for long events can get in a good long training ride off-road and on constantly rolling hills. I know many others riders use the doubletrack for this purpose.

I have often times thought all this park needs is some single track connected to the existing doubletrack and this would be "the" park to go to in the Twin Cities for a long ride that offers both singletrack to work on those skills and doubletrack to work on speed and endurance. Not everyone likes doubletrack and not everyone likes riding a crowded singletrack loop over and over like Lebannon Hills or Theo. Offering both would attract a greater variety of riders and prevent a separate loop from becoming overcrowded.

What I fear is the doubletrack being turned into hiking trails only or going away all together. I rarely see anybody on the hiking only trails, except for the ones around the nature center. So turning the existing doubletrack into hiking would be wasted trails IMHO and I would hope they could be kept open for both users.

In the thousands of miles I've biked over the years in Elm Creek I've never had a problem on the paved trails with other users on this multi-use trail. I see walkers, runner, roller bladers, ski skaters, occasionally horses along the trail, mountain bikers, and road bikers who are sometimes traveling at a high speed. The current paved trail is quite long at 15+ miles so it's never crowded, is very much under used IMO, and we all get along just fine. I usually count on average 10 people over 15 miles of riding so encounters are not even close to numerous. There's more than plenty of room for everyone in this wonderful park. The north end of the park is the least busiest and the vast majority of nearby residents live on the south and east ends as it's mostly farm country on the west and north. If singletrack is only built in the north and the double track is closed there will be lots of local mountain bikers taking the paved trails to the north end. So you won't be able to keep an increased number of mountain bikers off the paved trails anyway as some in this thread have mentioned. It would actually be easier with a parrellel 15 mile loop to hop on anywhere and avoid the paved path then it would be to travel up to 7 miles or so on the paved path to get to the separate singletrack area in the north.

I really like Troy Lawerence's idea of having a continuous singletrack roughly parrelleling the existing 15 mile paved loop with exits in a few spots to the paved trail, but I would also like to keep the doubletrack and connect it to the singletrack for a huge network of off-road trails! If the decision is made to have a separate singletrack in the north section, would it be possible to connect it to the double track in the south? Or instead of branching the singletrack off the paved trails, build an additional double track trail that also parrellels the paved trail and branching the singletrack off of it? That would really add some miles and options and keep mtn bikers off the paved trails!

As mentioned earlier keeping doubletrack with singletrack would allow for races to be held there since the doubletrack would allow plenty of opportunities for passing and adding distance to the races.

Thanks for asking for our input! I'm really looking forward to the addition of singletrack to the best all-around park in the metro.

Fatire AL

08-25-2006, 08:01 PM

I have been riding Elm Creek for the better part of 13 years, and have seen the park make many improvements over the years; mtb trails have not been one of them. The opening up of the north part of the park offered paved trail access to a wide variety of terrain. These same paved trails could offer a means for connecting mtb trails throughout a large part of the park. That being said I think the mtb community would much rather see a continuous loop system of considerable length, one that a park of over 5,300 acres could easily support.

I ride both paved and non paved portions of the park for as long as the seasons allow, and I ride at all times of the day. Although an enhanced trail system would bring more riders to the park, I honestly believe that adding more bikes to the paved trails (these trails are primarily used for bikers already) would be insignificant.

So, options #1 or #2..... I think it would be great to have a continuous loop system that allows for long miles of all off-road riding, and I think the park can easily support such a system. However, if utilizing the existing paved trails could allow access to a cluster of trails that offers even more total miles of trails then I am all for that.

The idea of allowing night riding is great.
The idea of allowing winter riding is great.
Also, allowing a recognized trail building organization some input into the process is a good idea.

simlove

08-28-2006, 12:15 AM

I am in favor of Option 1: Single Track Mountain Bike Complex.

Thanks for working on this project, and for involving MORC so intimately. I look forward to the outcome.

Simon A Lovell, BP (near the dam)

Morrie

08-28-2006, 02:13 PM

I have often times thought all this park needs is some single track connected to the existing doubletrack and this would be "the" park to go to in the Twin Cities for a long ride that offers both singletrack to work on those skills and doubletrack to work on speed and endurance. Not everyone likes doubletrack and not everyone likes riding a crowded singletrack loop over and over like Lebannon Hills or Theo. Offering both would attract a greater variety of riders and prevent a separate loop from becoming overcrowded.

I really like Troy Lawerence's idea of having a continuous singletrack roughly parrelleling the existing 15 mile paved loop with exits in a few spots to the paved trail, but I would also like to keep the doubletrack and connect it to the singletrack for a huge network of off-road trails! If the decision is made to have a separate singletrack in the north section, would it be possible to connect it to the double track in the south? Or instead of branching the singletrack off the paved trails, build an additional double track trail that also parrellels the paved trail and branching the singletrack off of it? That would really add some miles and options and keep mtn bikers off the paved trails!

As mentioned earlier keeping doubletrack with singletrack would allow for races to be held there since the doubletrack would allow plenty of opportunities for passing and adding distance to the races.

I agree with the options listed above. It would be nice to have a place that has single and double track. With Murphy's double track in its last season, it would be ideal to have a replacement. I like riding double track and single track and to have it all in once area would be GREAT! It would give riders a variety of things to ride. So often, I ride one or two laps at Theo, or Lebanon, and get kind of bored with it. Then it's on to the pavement for extra miles.

Same lap, same direction different day. It would be nice to mix it up with double and single track.

How about also designing the trail so the direction can be switched every week, or two weeks, or month with the simple flip of a sign? The signs along the trail will also have to be switched, but that can be done as a park employee rides that trail. A new sign would have to be designed to accomdate this, the standard brown ones won't do. This would be a first for a trail in the Cities!!!!!!

Also keep the distance long. The park is big enough for it. It would be nice to see some place, around the Twin Cties where you could put in 20- 30 miles, or more if you wanted to without doing a ton of laps.

gopherhockey

08-28-2006, 02:18 PM

How about also designing the trail so the direction can be switched every week, or two weeks, or month with the simple flip of a sign? The signs along the trail will also have to be switched, but that can be done as a park employee rides that trail. A new sign would have to be designed to accomdate this, the standard brown ones won't do. This would be a first for a trail in the Cities!!!!!!

As a side note - we have discussed doing this before... or even just having a backwards day or event. Trouble is most bikers don't even look or read trail signs so they would all get confused. Even one head-on because of a confused rider would create issues.

As much as I love this idea I think for safety sake it would be best to keep it going one way or make it two way. We don't need more two-way trails in this area... :p

Its interesting to note all the new registrations happening just to comment on this thread. It seems like a lot of people are out there as "guest" not registering or commenting. I encourage all of you reading this that have not signed up yet to please do so, and then start posting up... MORC will grow stronger through your membership and also your participation.

I also don't see a lot of regulars posting up here... I suspect most riders I know would want the singletrack bike-only option or both. Its very important to speak up if a land manager is willing to listen.

biking_stickman

08-28-2006, 02:28 PM

Its interesting to note all the new registrations happening just to comment on this thread. It seems like a lot of people are out there as "guest" not registering or commenting. I encourage all of you reading this that have not signed up yet to please do so, and then start posting up... MORC will grow stronger through your membership and also your participation.

Skinnyski.com has set up a link on their main page that goes directly to this thread. Welcome to all new visitors!

ebrandel

08-28-2006, 02:35 PM

I'm more in favor of stacked loops of trails, so option #1. I don't think making the route 100% singletrack is required though. Having some easier doubletrack mixed in doesn't hurt. If it's the difference between 10 miles of just singletrack and 15 miles of singletrack/doubletrack, I'd take the latter.

Whatever combination of trails that keeps me off of paved surfaces for the longest time is what I'm in favor of.

gopherhockey

08-28-2006, 03:43 PM

Skinnyski.com has set up a link on their main page that goes directly to this thread. Welcome to all new visitors!

Interesting. I wonder why? I hope we don't have skiiers giving input on behalf of mountain bikers.

Its why I'd like more input from those with a larger post count. :p

mara

08-28-2006, 03:50 PM

Interesting. I wonder why? I hope we don't have skiiers giving input on behalf of mountain bikers.

Besides being the place to go for all things skiing, SkinnySki also has a huge lot of information about silent sports events and happenings. If you haven't yet had the pleasure, check them out.

TML

08-28-2006, 03:50 PM

Interesting. I wonder why? I hope we don't have skiiers giving input on behalf of mountain bikers.

Its why I'd like more input from those with a larger post count. :p

Not to worry, I don't think.

Skinny-ski is a great silent sports crossover site. They shift to mountain bike/cycling/running race coverage in the summer. Having them mentioning us with a direct link is a great thing as far as I see it.

gopherhockey

08-28-2006, 03:53 PM

Not to worry, I don't think.

Skinny-ski is a great silent sports crossover site. They shift to mountain bike/cycling/running race coverage in the summer. Having them mentioning us with a direct link is a great thing as far as I see it.

Yup, I checked out their site - lots of stuff on biking, running etc. I appreciate the link...

JayT

08-28-2006, 11:41 PM

Interesting. I wonder why? I hope we don't have skiiers giving input on behalf of mountain bikers.

Its why I'd like more input from those with a larger post count. :p

Really? you were unaware of SkinnySki.com before this thread?? or funnier yet, the fact that skiers just might ride mountain bikes.

Seriously... SkinnySki.com is a great web site even if your not a skier. The Adelsman's do an awsome job.

ibismojo2001

08-29-2006, 12:41 PM

I really like Troy Lawerence's idea of having a continuous singletrack roughly parrelleling the existing 15 mile paved loop with exits in a few spots to the paved trail, but I would also like to keep the doubletrack and connect it to the singletrack for a huge network of off-road trails! If the decision is made to have a separate singletrack in the north section, would it be possible to connect it to the double track in the south? Or instead of branching the singletrack off the paved trails, build an additional double track trail that also parrellels the paved trail and branching the singletrack off of it? That would really add some miles and options and keep mtn bikers off the paved trails!

As mentioned earlier keeping doubletrack with singletrack would allow for races to be held there since the doubletrack would allow plenty of opportunities for passing and adding distance to the races.

I like the above referenced idea except for the paved trail exits. One continuous trail with exits to the double track trail would be ideal, if possible. If it is exited to the paved trail, I'm afraid we would have the same issues as we have with other trails - inexperienced riders on experienced required trails. Signage would be key.

Also, having that trail in the south metro would be easier for me to travel to. :D

Also, very excited about Murphy!:jumpy:

gopherhockey

08-29-2006, 01:22 PM

Really? you were unaware of SkinnySki.com before this thread?? or funnier yet, the fact that skiers just might ride mountain bikes.

I'd heard of it but I don't frequent it. I get what I need here. ;)

Mountain bikers all snowboard... right??? I thought that was the law. :crazy: Why on earth would one xc ski when one could stud up the tires and ride.. hehe

Stonehenge

08-29-2006, 05:23 PM

I can understand that new members to the MORC site have been noticed because of this topic. That only shows a need to fill a void - available good trails for the north west metro area. I ride this park system and have for many years. I have ridden all of the existing MTB trails and explored other trails which exist in the park.

Concider:
* Park usage is growing and will continue to grow as new housing around the park and near the park has resently boomed plus word of mouth about how nice this park is has brought people from farther away.
* Winter ridding would probably not be allowed if option 2 because the same parking lot is used for Cross country ski and family/ kids sledding which can get busy.
* There are other dirt double tracks in the area to ride from section to section instead of tar....or at least use the wide mowed easment along the tar trail to make a fun twisting dirt single track to link sections.
* the park system has/had a standing regiment of not developing more than 2% of the land. This may make for linking via existing tar path or dirt two track more conducive to get more milage.
* current trail exists at option 2 however it is on the XC ski trail.....Chequamegon 40 like....wide cut/mowed trail with a single track cut on it. Cutting wooded single track off this would be ok.

Stonehenge

08-29-2006, 05:25 PM

Think about the Eskar trail at Telemark ( Chewamegon land ) in Wisconson...... take that trail and add single track all around it like Ojibway, lebannon ,the farm ,Elk river and Mamouth. THATS WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT. Option 1.... is clearly the best alternative in my mind to start with.

Stonehenge

08-29-2006, 05:27 PM

Stonehenge

08-29-2006, 05:27 PM

Option 2.... I see option 2 as more of an OPTION for recreational type or family / rider and less experienced riders making this less of a destination for the majority of off road mountain bikers. Option 2 would be nice however trail and access to those parts of the park could be had from the trail head off Hayden lake - Option 2 trail could be the add ons in later years to the main MTB park - like the add ons at Lebanon have evolved. Option two already has a nice staffed building and the existing MTB trails are right there off the parking lot.

Stonehenge

08-29-2006, 05:28 PM

Optimum trail ( over time) would be to have both option 1 and option 2. Two trail heads and the ability to ride all trail from either location. Option 2 trail head would be best suited for the easier trails (still fun), recreational riders. Option 1 trail head for the majority of riders. Dont get me wrong about the terrain at opton 2 as it is not all flat and can be nice too. Option 1 trailhead could be open for Winter riding.

stoneage

08-29-2006, 05:42 PM

he park system has/had a standing regiment of not developing more than 2% of the land. This may make for linking via existing tar path or dirt two track more conducive to get more milage.
I believe that the mission statement has 80% of the park reserves undeveloped. That would leave 20%.

stoneage

08-29-2006, 05:45 PM

Why on earth would one xc ski when one could stud up the tires and ride.
They want to go fast? ;) I'll race you around MH.:D

kerb

08-29-2006, 06:58 PM

Option 1 offers some great terrain and will make trail riding and trail access more like what we ride everywhere else - meaning get on the dirt trail and ride dirt trail till your done, like Lebannon and others. This parking lot is at the point of a 1 to 2 mile long Esker ( a long spine like uprising ) in a wooded area. This Esker has a long double track on the top and drops down each side similar as a ravine. Plenty of great trail can reside in this area. Also noted are other larger hills in this area that can be very challenging.

I believe the the long double track on the top of the Esker that you mentioned is the horses/hiking only trail. Looking at the map attached to the first post of this thread, the only off road trail in the north half of the park is the horse/hiking trail. This is my concern going with option 1 in the far upper NE section of the park. The ability to link a separate option 1 loop with the double track in the south half the park doesn't currently exist without cutting an additional long double track trail in the north down to the double track in the south. If this can be done in a later phase then option 1 would be fine with me. Linking the existing double track to option 2 would be a lot easier since the existing trails are fairly close to the nature center which is between the north and south ends of the park. A major concern of mine is I hope the existing double track will not go away or be unavailable to mtn bikers when the new singletrack is opened, similar to what is happening at Murphy Hanrehan.

Last week I rode several of the CAMBA trails in WI, including the Esker, for the first time and that is my favorite area to ride a large number of miles now within a couple hours of the Twin Cities. I totally agree that something akin to those network of trails could exist in Elm Creek depending on if resources, available land, etc are available.

kerb

08-29-2006, 07:11 PM

Option two already has a nice staffed building and the existing MTB trails are right there off the parking lot.

If you are talking about the Eastman Nature Center (which was listed as the starting point of option 2) then those existing trails are Hiking only and it's a big no no to bike on them. I'm guessing you are probably talking about the main Visitors Center at the south end of the park. Those trails right off the parking lot are MTB trails. Just wanted mention this so someone doesn't read this and go out riding on the Nature Center hiking only trails.

kerb

08-29-2006, 07:43 PM

I mentioned the new single track to my neighbor and his first question was "Are they going to charge a fee to ride it?". Which got us to talking about how a fee was added each time a new area of the park was improved, i.e. snowmaking on the XC trails, new sledding hills, new swimming pond. These were all free until the improvements. Just curious if a fee is planned for this too? It wouldn't bother me too much (as long as a season pass was available) since I ride a lot but my neighbor who only occasionally rides didn't sound too thrilled about it. So my hunch is he would be less likely to ride it often.
I would imagine if option 1 was built as described with a separate parking lot and a new facility then it would be easier to charge a fee for parking.

Stonehenge

08-29-2006, 07:58 PM

If you are talking about the Eastman Nature Center (which was listed as the starting point of option 2) then those existing trails are Hiking only and it's a big no no to bike on them. I'm guessing you are probably talking about the main Visitors Center at the south end of the park. Those trails right off the parking lot are MTB trails. Just wanted mention this so someone doesn't read this and go out riding on the Nature Center hiking only trails.
My mistake - the vistor center has the existing and the XC ski and Sled area. The trail system at Easman just south of the building is hiking.
The propsed MTB trail I then see as being accross the road (north) off of the 10 mile loop. What about parking.... Eastman parking is small.

Stonehenge

08-29-2006, 08:08 PM

I believe the the long double track on the top of the Esker that you mentioned is the horses/hiking only trail. Looking at the map attached to the first post of this thread, .

Last week I rode several of the CAMBA trails in WI, including the Esker, for the first time and that is my favorite area to ride a large number of miles now within a couple hours of the Twin Cities. I totally agree that something akin to those network of trails could exist in Elm Creek depending on if resources, available land, etc are available.

The long double track on top of the esker is not marked on the map. The trail marked, and used by horses, is close by but follows the power lines through that area south of the road and closer to the lake. Also the parking lot there is currently new and not to bad in size. I wonder - would they will build a new parking area east of the horse trail - if so then we would have to cross the horse trail to get into the desired trail area. The current parking lot would grant easy ingress/ egress to the esker.

kerb

08-29-2006, 08:25 PM

The propsed MTB trail I then see as being accross the road (north) off of the 10 mile loop. What about parking.... Eastman parking is small.

Good point, Eastman parking is small from my recollection. However, if the trails come off all around the north loop (10 miles long?) then there currently are parking lots available on Ferbrook just west of Eastman, French Lake Rd, Hayden Lake Rd, and the dog off-leash area on Goose Lk Rd (if non-dog parking is allowed there). These are all spaced nicely around the upper paved loop. The description for option 2 didn't say how far around the north loop the trails would go though. Hopefully around the whole loop :)

DaveH

08-29-2006, 11:43 PM

This is GREAT that we're looking to add SINGLE TRACK to Elm Creek! OPTION 1 is the best way to begin for several reasons.
- Meeting other riders would be easier if there was a central location.
- The fun of competing on a loop with other riders is more fun than possibly never seeing another rider on a dispersed trail.
- If you crash & need help, your chance of getting found is better.
- You can always add miles/variety by riding the paved trails to other areas of the park and access the double track, eventually via Option 2 trails.
- A new parking lot off of Hayden Lake Rd with restrooms & drinking water would be awesome.
- Other options would be to ride from Lifetime Fitness, Ice arena, Library, Liquor Store, Dunn Bros (Hayden Lake & Hwy 169), Mann Theatre, Caribou
- Trailhead Cycling & Fitness is only a mile or so away!

jleemc

08-30-2006, 02:08 AM

My vote is for option 1.
I road bike the park once a week, sometimes Ill rollerblade it, great park! The only diff between double track and the outer loop the park has now would be dirt instead of black top. I would rather have a challenging single track in the woods then a double track in the open prairie.

There also used to be some good Dirt jumps on the edge of the park.

gopherhockey

08-30-2006, 09:52 AM

Its great to see new people getting involved and posting up! It does make me think that more trails in areas other than south metro might just gain us a lot of new members and forum users.

Stonehenge

08-30-2006, 07:09 PM

Option 1 offers alot:
Using the Esker could be set up similar to Elk River which is set up in 4 sections dead ending dirt road. This road makes very good and easy access to much of the trail. The 2 track on the Esker could serve similar access benefits.
Ease in trail building and trail maintenance - materials and tools movement....4 wheeler or vehicle
Bail out - due to injury, fatiqe, time restraint, weather change, ect....
Quick access to parts of trail - favorite/ repeat section, meet others already riding,

It is very feasable to link up option 1 to option 2 area.
Here is a nice long loop option..... ride section 1 and 2 at Esker then commuter trail to option 2 area, ride the Nature center side then commuter trail back to Esker and ride section 3 and 4
The south end of the Esker ends near the dog park, from there a very short use of snowmobile trail to the tar road ( Elm creek rd ) then single track paralleling the road could lead you directly to the nature center. A nice singletrack from (the house with a castle top) linking to Eastman area each way would work well. Single track along the snowmobile trail too and it would be a continous loop.

oldgrowth

08-31-2006, 01:36 AM

I'm in favor of option #1. All y'all have already posted great reasons to chooose #1, so I ain't gonna rehash it all. Challenging, flowing singletrack is simply the shiznittle.

Jonathan Vlaming

08-31-2006, 03:58 PM

Thank you all for providing input and insight into the mountain bike trails being considered for Elm Creek Park Reserve. I have read over all of your comments several times. Listed below is the draft text of what I am writing in the master plan regarding the mountain bike trails. I am recommending Option 1 - the stacked loop system, along with a single-track loop that roughly parallels the paved trail around Lemans Lake. If the mountain bike trails become too congested, a second system may be developed in the area north of Eastman and Elm Creek Road and west of the north paved loop trail. Ideally, the two networks would be connected by a mountain bike trail that could then provide the longer trail experience. The second area development and longer trail are currently not possible as there is an 80/20 rule for the park, with up to 20 % of upland areas available for recreation development. With the addition of the stacked-loop system at Lemans Lake and a planned campground by the winter rec area, the park reserve is nearing its development limit. However, I expect horse use to decline significantly over the next decade due to the suburbanization of the surrounding area, and it is possible that the horse trail portion of the 20% may become available to other expanding uses. Consequently - the Master Plan will make no promises beyond Option 1 at this time, but the plan has a placeholder for future mountain bike trail expansion as warranted by future demand.

The Master Plan works at a gross level - specific trail and network design occurs after the Master Plan has been approved and the Three Rivers Park District Board of Commissioners have approved funds for design and development of the trail network. Consequently, specific design suggestions won't be reflected in the Master Plan write-up.I will post a link to the master plan when it is up for review and comment by the public starting in late September.

Jonathan Vlaming

Here is the draft write-up:
The master planning process examined two different options for developing mountain biking facilities to meets the recreation demand for this activity. Option 1 consists of a stacked loop complex of single-track mountain biking trails of varying difficulty located in the Lemans Lake area. Option 2 consists of a series of stand-alone single-track loops accessed at points along the existing paved trail in the north half of the park reserve.

These options and a request for feedback were posted on the Minnesota Off-Road Cyclists’ (MORC) Website in their Forum section. Thirty individuals posted 58 comments, with two-thirds of those with preferences supporting Option 1 – the stacked loop system. Several participants expressed concern that the second option had the potential for creating user conflicts on the existing paved trail, which is used by walkers and cyclists of all levels. However, some of these comments recognized that most mountain bikers are courteous and safe riders, but that a few instances of conflicts caused by inconsiderate riders could jeopardize the continued use of the paved trail to access single-track loops under the Option 2 scenario. A reoccurring theme in the comments was a strong desire for a significant overall length of single- or double-track trail for cyclists to build their endurance skills. Other comments included a desire for development of free-ride or skill areas, winter riding opportunities and night riding opportunities.

The Master Plan recommends development of a stacked single-track mountain biking trail network in the Lemans Lake area, with a dedicated trailhead, parking facility and restrooms located off Hayden Lake Road at the current paved-trail trailhead location. If feasible as determined in the design-development planning prior to trial construction, the single-track system should include a one-way single-track endurance loop roughly paralleling the existing paved trail around Lemans Lake, and a skills-park sub-area located near the trailhead. If the single-track system is found to be operating consistently at its carrying capacity at a future date, it is recommended that additional trails be developed in the area of the Park Reserve located north of Elm Creek Road and west of the existing paved north loop, and that the two networks be connected by a non-paved double-track trail.

gopherhockey

08-31-2006, 04:49 PM

Thanks Jonathan, I think you nailed it with what you have written here. Thanks so much for polling the community on this subject.

I hope that those in the area of Elm Creek will stay involved. In order for a land manager to partner with a group like MORC and be successful we need volunteers and leaders in the area. If you are willing to get involved and help build/maintain it can happen... in my experience we simply cannot rely on the leaders and volunteers from the other successful trail projects to do all the work.

Stonehenge

08-31-2006, 07:46 PM

Thanks Jonathan, I think you nailed it with what you have written here. Thanks so much for polling the community on this subject.

I hope that those in the area of Elm Creek will stay involved.
we need volunteers and leaders in the area.
If you are willing to get involved and help build/maintain it can happen...

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Agreed on all of the above.
Polling is a good way to get input- add, eliminate, tweek ideas.
Thanks for all the efforts and listening on all fronts

Is there a volunteer/ Leader list started for this project?
If so how do I sign up?
I am willing to get involved.

Shorty

08-31-2006, 08:08 PM

A big thanks to Jonathan and Three Rivers for getting MORC members' input!!!

The plan sounds great to me!

Burke

08-31-2006, 11:14 PM

Jonathan,

If you need any further assistance from MORC at this stage in the game, give me a call, or shoot me an email. MORC is excited about the potential at Elm Creek and has met with Park District staff on a couple occasions regarding these possibilities.

Scott
612-308-4056
president@morcmtb.org

homebrewbiker

09-09-2006, 09:27 PM

Thanks Jonathan, I think you nailed it with what you have written here. Thanks so much for polling the community on this subject.

I hope that those in the area of Elm Creek will stay involved.
we need volunteers and leaders in the area.
If you are willing to get involved and help build/maintain it can happen...

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Agreed on all of the above.
Polling is a good way to get input- add, eliminate, tweek ideas.
Thanks for all the efforts and listening on all fronts

Is there a volunteer/ Leader list started for this project?
If so how do I sign up?
I am willing to get involved.

I also want to get involved. I work not too far from there in Plymouth, it would be great to have a good off road area close to work!

Nuget

09-12-2006, 09:40 AM

I'd enjoy option #1 myself. I like the northeast area of the park best, lots of terrain to work with in that area. Also the multiple loop idea is great, continuous riding without have to make paved trail crossings.

When is this plan going to be put into motion?

I live across the street from the park and would be more than happy to help make these trails happen! Please keep us posted on any progress.

Thanks and can't wait for these trails!

JayT

09-12-2006, 01:29 PM

When is this plan going to be put into motion?

The purpose of Jonathan's post was to ask users (mtber's) what type of use they would prefer (given a couple options). Jonathan is in the process of updating the master plan for Elm Creek. The master plan document works as a guideline for future use & development of the park.

The thread was not polling users because of any specific plans being developed, at this time, for mtb trail at Elm Creek.

What is important to this group (MORC & all mtber's) is that mountain biking, specifically a single-track type trail system, has been recognized as a activity for potential development at Elm Creek.

Currently there are no plans or set dates in the works, but having the master plan recognize mountain bikes and single-track trails lays important ground work. It strongly increases the likelihood of a future single-track trail system at Elm Creek.