MORC, you've ruined the Metro trails!

For the source of the discussion, refer to the source:

http://bobbrowncycles.myblogsite.com/

Bob,

Thanks for voicing your opinions about the trail situation in the Twin Cities. It sounds like you're not entirely against MORC, so there's a great starting point.

Here's a little more information to fill in the gaps in your blog.

MORC was originally formed to preserve the trails that were in existence. We had successes at that and quickly realized that there was opportunity for additional trail in the Metro area.

We set out to expand existing trails and develop relationships with land managers where no mountain biking trails existed.

In order to build these relationships and subsequently the trails we desired, we dedicated ourselves to promoting sustainable trails and to take into consideration the specific requirements of the land managers we were working with.

Through this process, we have had to close down existing trails that some individuals love because they are simply not sustainable. Sure, I love ripping down the face of a hill at 40 mph as much as the next person, but it's just that. Ripping up the hill. Certain trails, while being fun, are not sustainable. The land managers that can look past the environmental damage being done are not willing to year after year sink their funds into repairing the damage done by riding during the season.

Another thing we discovered in this process is that in order to gain legitimacy, we've had to close down certain underground trails that, while popular, were not officially recognized as mountain bike trails. This can dishearten the individuals that ride the trails, but it preserves the area for them and all other mountain bikers. The alternative to this is to pirate the trails for the short term and lose them long term when the land managers close off access due to unauthorized trail users. This is not an option MORC is willing to accept.

When we finally get around to building trail, there are a few things we must take into consideration. Some of them are obvious to everyone, and some are transparent unless you happen to be involved in the behind the scenes advocacy efforts.

Some of the obvious ones we consider are: What're the natural terrain features that we're dealing with? Can the trail we're proposing be sustained as it's laid out? How will water flow across the trail (water is the #1 source of trail erosion)? What level of rider will be using this trail?

Some of the not so obvious ones are: How will this trail fit in with the other trail options in the vicinity? What specific requirements do the land managers have for this trail? How many volunteers do we have that are willing to collectively put in 100 labor hours a week for the next 3 years? How are we going to fund this trail project?

The answers to these questions always dictates the type of trail built. We have yet to run into a land manager that allows us to do what we want on their property, no questions asked. In some relationships, we've built up trust to the point that they let us make judgment calls on certain things. Other times, they dictate how wide the trail corridor needs to be, what techniques we can use in building the trail, what sort of tools we're able to use during construction and even how fast they want the riders to go at particular sections of the trail.

As we build these relationships with land managers, they usually give us more leeway to expand on the variety of the trail system within their park(s). With this freedom, we're able expand the types of features individuals encounter. Sometimes, it's a natural log crossing, others it will be a rock obstacle, and sometimes it will be a man-made technical trail feature.

The permission to implement these features is obtained by the trail steward behind the scenes. The actual implementation occurs at the trail work sessions. As people that have volunteered at work sessions know, trail worker input gets taken into account. If you want it, show up and help build it. If you don't like it, show up and let us know why.

The feedback we've gotten on our trail systems has been very apparent to us. Good luck finding a parking spot at Lebanon on the weekend. Also, our membership numbers are going through the roof. We've jumped from 250ish members at the end of 2003, to 650 in May of 2005. We also have groups from the outstate region approaching us about how they can duplicate the successes that we're having in the Metro.

That said, we still hear from people that they like the way the trails used to be and to a point we can understand. However, the way the trails used to be is more often than not unsustainable. I'm not talking unsustainable erosion wise (although that's true, too), I'm talking unsustainable as in closed down by land managers, unsustainable. Why is Murphy only open a couple months a year? Environmental impact is one huge reason.

MORC is dedicated to maintaining trail systems and gaining new ones. We will not devote our efforts to maintaining unsustainable trails. It's hard enough keeping the ones we have maintained with an all volunteer work force (not to mention building miles of new singletrack at the same time). We will also never be able to gain new trails that are not built in an unsustainable manner. Land managers don't want their land destroyed. We think that's a very reasonable request.

Bob, It's obvious to me that you're passionate about mountain biking and I wish more people had that zeal. It's equally obvious you're not seeing the entire picture of how MORC operates and why we do what we do. I challenge you to put action to where your mouth has lead. Get involved in MORC in a higher capacity. Come out for trail work sessions. Show up to board meetings. Help lobby land managers to let us gain new mountain bike trails. Get your opinion out in a manner that will either bring about change or enhance your point of view, rather than spew it in a consequenceless blog.

Feel free to contact me directly
Scott Thayer
President, MORC
president@morcmtb.org

Well, while we wait for an "official" MORC reply. I'll say this. I have no clue who Bob Brown is, but if thinks Lebanon was better before it was restored by MORC, he's a fool.

I think Mr. Brown should show up and do some trail work sometime, so he can become educated why we need rock gardens (armouring), and log crossings on the trail.

Originally Posted by BikerTex Well, while we wait for an "official" MORC reply. I'll say this. I have no clue who Bob Brown is, but if thinks Lebanon was better before it was restored by MORC, he's a fool. I think Mr. Brown should show up and do some trail work sometime, so he can become educated why we need rock gardens (armouring), and log crossings on the trail.

I believe he did show up at Theo trailwork at least once last year and he modified one of our McLeods's so that it has a flat bottom, I don't recall meeting him though.

He is a local frame builder (I was gonna post his web site, but somehow I just don't feel like it, you can google it), it's too bad to hear him come out so negatively with so little apparent knowledge of what motivates MORC, MOCA and the mountain bike community as I have come to know it.

He isn't the first and he won't be the last.

Originally Posted by BikerTex Well, while we wait for an "official" MORC reply. I'll say this. I have no clue who Bob Brown is, but if thinks Lebanon was better before it was restored by MORC, he's a fool. I think Mr. Brown should show up and do some trail work sometime, so he can become educated why we need rock gardens (armouring), and log crossings on the trail.

Bob Brown is a local frame builder and active racer / rider. He has been out to do trail work, at least at Theo, volunteered to keep our McCleods repaired, and seems to be generally a good guy. That's what makes his comments seem like even more of a sucker punch. It's hard not to take personally when I (and many, many others) have been spending all of our free time and then some dumbing down and "morc-ifying" one of his favorite trails. Ouch.

{ Yes, I know such things should not be taken personally, but ouch anyway }

From Mr. Brown's entry, I sort of just take it that he really enjoys smooth dirt on tight and twisty paths and isn't much of a thrill seeker. That's ok with me I guess. It is a little troublesome to hear some of his complaints being chaulked up to incorrect reasons...a sign of mild ignorance here and there (we are all probably guilty of this from time to time as well). The biggest feeling I have after reading his post is, "sorry man, majority rules...and we need to do these things so we can continue to have trails"

You can't make everyone happy so I guess it just doesn't really bother me too much. But the mountain dew thing; that sort of sticks in my craw because there are so many of us that just don't fit that description.

Honestly.... dissenting opinions should not be viewed in such a negative light. I have been a MORC member on two seperate occaisions (I seem to have let my membership lapse, I'll work on rectifying that) and can say I will be the same in the future.

He makes several valid points regarding trail width. The machines DO require a very wide amount of space to cut the bench. I can't recall very many, if any spots at Leb or Theo (I admit I have not been to either this spring yet) that require you to finesse through a tight tree crossing. I also concur with his points regarding artificial rock gardens, tabletops, berms, and other stunts built into the trail. The Farm, for about seven or eight years now, has been one of my favorite trails to ride and is plenty technical without a pervading sense of artificiality. Yes, I know there are man made stunts there but not nearly as many as Leb.

Given that he makes the disclaimer that "morc-ified" trails are better than none at all... and that it's one person's opinion.... it seems to me like this shouldn't be an issue. The increasing sense of groupthink around here (and rejection of people who don't subscribe to it) is a bit of a turnoff. I see Bob's rant, honestly, as more constructive criticism than anything else. He does indeed see the high-level goal and is not attempting to stand in the way.

Originally Posted by SickBoy I also concur with his points regarding artificial rock gardens, tabletops, berms, and other stunts built into the trail. The Farm, for about seven or eight years now, has been one of my favorite trails to ride and is plenty technical without a pervading sense of artificiality. Yes, I know there are man made stunts there but not nearly as many as Leb.

If you take away all of the X and XX Loop at Leb I bet you still have a trail that was just as long as the old Leb. If I recall there are no real stunts in the outerloop and to me it flows and is as twisty as possible.

Take Battle Creek for example. It had tight and twisty spots where you had to go between trees but then people started riding around those sections making them worse. How do you solve those problems without losing access to the trails because they become so ugly and eroded?

...somewhat conflicted.

What's natural about "fast open xc trails"? They're man made as well. Does he actually prefer that to well designed singletrack? Rocks not natural? I'm pretty sure this state is still covered by glacial till.

Bob has clearly contributed to MORC and builds some really cool bikes. Why does he care if somebody wants to ride a big FS bike around Leb? Is it because they chose that instead of spending 2K on one of his beautiful HTs...

Personally, I think we should run Leb backwards this season just for a change. Jumping the double uphill would be an interesting challenge...

Tomayto, tomahto.

Sean

I don't think there is much "group think" as you are implying, mountain bikers are certainly an individualist lot and everyone that I work with has been won over to the IMBA way of doing things by its real merit not for any need to dumb down trails.

IMBA is what we are really talking about here, that is the standard that we all march to at the most basic level, decisions about how individual trails are built are made by the trail steward for each trail, not some overseeing MORC committee.

Originally Posted by soupboy Personally, I think we should run Leb backwards this season just for a change. Jumping the double uphill would be an interesting challenge...

and take out those pesky log crossings right after the log ride......

I drink a case of mountain dew a day and I skid into every corner! Honestly, IMO anybody who uses or creates sterotypes is an ignorant jacka@* and I cant give them the time of day, so who cares what this moron has to say.

...thank you Scott.

And take out those gosh darn logs.

Originally Posted by berrywise and take out those pesky log crossings right after the log ride......

Bob Brown is a local bike frame builder. I've met him and had him repair a frame for me - he's nice guy and does excellent work.

As for his comments on the trails - he is obviously "having a bad day" as he said in his post. I'm not sure if he's read through the IMBA trail solutions manual, but all of the trail construction that MOCA does at Wirth Park (and I believe what MORC does at Lebenon and elsewhere) is based on the guidelines set forth by IMBA. As Bob himself pointed out, the Battle Creek trails were just fine until they started getting ridden by more and more people, at which point they began to erode because they were not designed for the higher traffic. Off-road cycling has somewhat become a victim of it's own success in that regard. IMBA standard trails are designed to hold up better to high traffic and to resist erosion due to water, but there are constraints that must be worked within to make that happen. Here in Minnesota, much of the terrain is soft soil that sees a fair amount of rain, and there are no mountains to speak of and that limits what you can do with a trail.

As for Wirth Park, both MOCA and the MPRB are interested in creating a long-lasting trail system that makes the best use of the terrain available. There is a desire by both MOCA and the MPRB to make the engineered trails in Wirth Park fit into the landscape so well as to look as if they had always been there. The system will most likely never see the number of man-made obstacles that are present at Lebanon and many of the obstacles that are in place at Wirth now are there for a reason (protecting trees, armoring low spots or steep areas, flow control near intersections, etc). We will continue to bring in rocks for armoring as needed. It is a delicate balancing act as there is a genuine appetite for the style of trail that has been created at Lebenon (as evidenced by it's popularity). The focus at Wirth has been to honor it's legacy and keep as much of the tight, twisty feel as possible while giving the trails a nice flow. The expert loop to be added this summer will continue in that vein, but make use of the terrain available to add challenge.

Bob - If you're reading this, if you haven't had a look at the IMBA Trail solutions manual, I'd be happy to share mine to let you have a look. I think it would answer many questions as to why things are being done the way they are.

- Peter McKinney

Before this thread turns into too big of mess… I’d urge you all to calm down. I’ve met Bob, I can’t say I know him personally, but what I know about him is he has a true passion for cycling. There’s very few people I would put on my list of folks who I consider to be a “cyclists cyclist”, but bb is one of them.

Although his rant may be a bite stinging I would say if bb has something to say about trail design his opinion should be considered. I would be very interested in a bb designed trail. Give bb the sustainable design parameters and he might just have some better ideas.

That’s my opinion