East Bay Regional Park District's Master Plan - Final Draft
Come see what is in store for mtn biking.
Did they listen to you or ignore you?
The District Master Plan
Single Track Trails
Haven't checked to see the response.
Mtn Bike Parks
I asked for a mtn bike park within the 122,000 acres.
Haven't checked to see the response.
Tesla section of the Carnegie OHV Area
I asked for the Tesla section of the Carnegie OHV park to be removed as a possible aquisition. In spite of being told directly, "Tesla is not on the radar", it did show up in the final document. This property is owned by the State of California OHV system. Neighbor with political connections are trying to get this area away from the OHV system.
Mountain biking made headway. RFA2 and RFA3 specifically show intention and flexibility where we are concerned. This is new and the immediate effect of this is seen in the recent work allowed at Pleasanton Ridge. V-O-Cal, "these trails should be a bit wider and smoother." EBRPD Advisor "leave them, they will be fine."
There is no longer any reference to single track trails but to narrow trails. This does not allow anyone to distinguish us away from trails but to be included. No one can say, "You can't ride single track" because it doesn't, by definition, exist. There is intent to consider our needs when new trails are made and to allow wide trails to get narrow. This is all new. There is evaluation on a case-by-case basis, which opens many possibilities. See page 63 for RFA2 and RFA3
Yet in a general sense we are recognized as a much larger user group and that fact resisted a lot of haters. We out-commented them by a huge margin. Cyclist images also appear throughout the document and the cycling logo is at the top of the logo pile to the side of the pages. I know that may not seem like much but it is a huge statement to anyone who looks at their documents. Of the 41 images showing trail users, 34% were hikers, 34% were cyclists, 15% were dog walkers, 12% were equestrians, and 5% were in wheelchairs.
Philosophically we are embraced more directly. On page 28 under Providing a Variety of "Trails for All" they write:
"Trail use consistently shows up on surveys as the most preferred activity in the Regional Parks. The popularity of mountain bikes has changed the way many people use the trails and has increased the demand fro a more active recreational use of the trails. Mountain bikes can take riders farther into a park during a day or a few hours than they could on foot or horseback."
The language is positive; we are not scofflaws or vermin but part of something very popular with new potentials for park use. Below that is a picture of me riding on East Ridge. I happen to be to the far right of the trail, and obeying the law, with dog walkers and hikers blocking the middle of the trail in the background. Images say a lot.
So, no bike parks, no tricks, no stunts, no gnar-gnar. Most importantly the biggest obstacle to our access was exclusion from the written word in the Master Plan.
No more. Not only are we included but we have leeway into the future.
BTW, we rode Pleasanton Ridge last Sunday and got to sample VO Cal fine work. Their work was where I expected it, on the social narrow trails in the back side. I was happy to see that those social trails are now incorporated in the park legal trails, as they are pretty nice and fun to ride.
Faster is not always better, but it's always more fun
A couple of our guys were out there riding on Friday and came upon a narrow trail which was pretty nice. When they got to the end they realized that it was one they had worked.
By Jack Burns in forum California - Norcal
Last Post: 02-28-2015, 06:45 AM
By cbcbike in forum New York - New Jersey
Last Post: 12-09-2011, 08:08 AM
By mjpeters4 in forum Trail Building and Advocacy
Last Post: 09-08-2011, 11:48 AM
By mjpeters4 in forum Arizona
Last Post: 09-07-2011, 04:44 PM
By imtnbke in forum California - Norcal
Last Post: 05-11-2011, 10:46 PM