[Cycles Ed]

Doc,
Thanks for attending. That goes to anyone else as well.

I had three different meetings happening last night - 2 of which I couldn't get to

So again glad to hear that the wording was removed. At times it's best not to know things, but in this case I've got to ask where did this thought originate from? Is it something that was seriously being considered?

Quote

�� Repair and expand the existing trails and determine future use of the trails. Examine
whether or not mountain bike use should continue.

[yeagermeister]

Cycles Ed, on 26 January 2010 - 08:10 AM, said:

So again glad to hear that the wording was removed. At times it's best not to know things, but in this case I've got to ask where did this thought originate from? Is it something that was seriously being considered?

It seems it should have been phrased "Examine whether some trails should be taken out of use."

P&R seemed impressed by our presence, and I think between the cycling and non-cycling people who all spoke (mostly cycling), we made many good points that hopefully will have a profound effect. One thing to note- if things are to progress, it will take active participation from those who use the park. Volunteering for work days on the trails there may be vital. Currently Richmond has a lot of participation, and I imagine many Henrico residents would be more likely to use PFP or split their time between JRPS and PFP. Hopefully this would provide a decent workforce for Hanover, especially if they are looking to expand the trail systems at other parks.

A couple of notes:

1. The current master plan is partly based on a survey that was done 7 years ago (2003). A newer study was done and the priority has shifted substantially from activity fields being on the top of the list to not being in the top 10, and 3 of the top 5 now are nature trails, walking trails, and bike paths (p 9). This stands to affect the master plan, and therefore the image you see in the plan could change. I think many of us saw the image as definitive, and I'm not so sure this is the case now.

2. The demographic of Hanover has shifted from younger to older (p 40), affecting the needs of the county. Activity fields are not on the top of the list for senior citizens. This (maybe surprisingly) helps our case quite a bit.

3. The new chairman told me to stay active in regular communication with the county (notably emails to Greg Sager). I know there are people here who are more familiar with what's going on there, and who are already in contact with them. Please keep in the loop. If you have contact information and passing it along to others would help, please let us know.

4. One of the key statements made by Greg was that they do not acknowledge the trails "for obvious reasons" (probably because of liability). There seems to be a feeling that this should change, and that the county should be involved in their maintenance and direction. They do not (and will not) have a trails employee like the city does. It will take a lot of work and a lot of time to get the trails in good shape and workable. They may look at doing an evaluation of the trails (no timeline for when)- if they do and deem some trails unsafe or unsustainable, and close trails that we currently use, I would recommend looking at any obvious obstruction to a trail as "trail closed" and to respect those decisions so they continue to respect us.

5. They seem open to talking with MORE about proper trail building. This may take some time to develop, but it's certainly worth pursuing, even if only on an informal basis for now.

6. Hanover does not have a ton of money to throw at the parks, and trails are cheap compared to almost all of the other amenities offered. This is to our advantage. There is a lot to be gained by working with them, but also a lot to lose if they offer this opportunity and we don't respond. We have about 40-50 miles of trails in the area, and losing almost 10 is a huge cut.

[f5000sl]

Great going folks!!! Thx to all that attended and represented mountain biking in a positive light!

[Alpscycler]

Cycles Ed, on 26 January 2010 - 08:10 AM, said:

At times it's best not to know things, but in this case I've got to ask where did this thought originate from? Is it something that was seriously being considered?

One of the board members was asked to explain the intent of the sentence in question. He explained that up to this point, Hanover Parks and Rec had turned a blind eye to the trails leaving their maintenance and control to groups and individuals. The board now seems to realize that this needs to change and that Hanover Parks and Rec needs to assume control of these trails to include an examination of the current trails and to determine what changes if any need to be made. This would include updating the design, repair of existing trails, and establishing a use and maintenance plan. Under the surface, there also seemed to a hint of the feeling by the board member speaking that perhaps the use and support of these trails for the purpose of mountain biking would involve more effort than it is worth, but that wasn't said.

At this point, 5 or 6 of the attendees voiced their feelings about the importance of the trails for the mountain biking community. Some of the points made were 1) that Poor Farm is one of the only locations with trails suitable for beginners and in particular women and children, 2) that the trails were used by many riders with the "Ride like a girl" Tuesday night rides given as an example, 3) that riders from as far away as Williamsburg and Fredericksburg come to Poor Farm to ride and spend their money afterwards in Ashland, and 4) that the trails at JRPS and FHP are maintained by large numbers of volunteers and that there is no reason not to believe that the same is possible for Poor Farm.

This was followed by questions from several board members. The questions from the board members showed an interest and concern by them and displayed to me at least that their minds were not made up on this matter.

I believe the showing at the meeting was very effective and if there are future meetings, we should do everything in our power to get an even larger attendance. The board was impressed and the fact that there was a good showing at a meeting helps to give confidence to the board that volunteers are a viable means to maintain the trails.

I had to leave before the decision was made to remove the sentence in question. Bravo that this was accomplished. It really shows that the board was listening to the message we delivered and received it in a positive manner.

Note: It seems that Yeagermeister and I were typing our replies at the same time. He adds a bit more detail than I, but we both agree that continued representation is key. I also agree that if an opportunity does present itself for a group such as RA MORE to maintain the trails, it should be jumped on. Otherwise the board could easily decide that it would be much easier to just close the trails to mountain bikers.

[longslowdistance]

Ed and everyone:
I live in Hanover Cty. I'm out of town and couldn't make the meeting but did send a polite email to my Hanover selectman in support of mtb at PF as well as suggesting Hanover sign an MOU with MORE. Any other suggestions to help our cause?