Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner

Jim Donnelly enters rehab...

29K views 219 replies 42 participants last post by  Moe Ped 
#1 ·
...this thread is where you need to spew your concerns about the recent changes brought to manner in which the Jim Donnelly Trail (JDT) will be constructed.

Sorcerer and I joined with a couple of other Coe volunteers on a hike up the JDT with the DPR's Monterey District Trails Supervisor to learn about the offending "structures" and also to get correct info about trail work to be done on the upcoming VOCal event. It was a very cold, wet and windy hike up the JDT; we stopped frequently to discuss the issues that brought about the "stop work order".

It was too wet for me to take many photos, Sorcerer had a waterproof camera so hopefully he'll be able to post more. This one is from when we were nearly to the top and the rain was letting up:
Photobucket
The poppies were furled-up trying to stay dry!

Photobucket
Dmitry, Philip, Paul and John (DPR guy) break at the top for a snack. Not a very happy-looking lot but it was mostly that we were cold and wet!

We were very relieved to hear John say that he saw no "structures" on the JDT; but that there were some "features" that would have to be changed. He very thoroughly explained the whys and wherefores of the policies that the JDT has to be built to. John's a former DH'er who's raced at the collegiate level so he does have sympathies towards MTBing.

That being said; the manner in which the paperwork was filed for the JDT creates a rather strict set of guidelines to which the trail must be built. It seems that the size of Coe creates a circumstance to where the policies are defined unlike what we may see at another Park or in another District. Bottom line; no RGDs, no banked turns, no berms---48" wide full bench everywhere except at a few "choke points"

"Offending" features:
Photobucket
As silly as it may seem; this drain has a built-up portion so it must be removed. Drains dug down (called nicks or lenses) are OK. Anything built up like a RGD not. We'll be talking about the prejudice which lies herein later; but hikers complain about this "feature" and describe it as a "bike jump". I was happy that most of the "grade reversals" that we had put in passed muster.

Another view:
Photobucket
Silly, huh!?!?

Photobucket
Another goddamed "structure"!

Photobucket
This turn was unfinished but would have had a berm; it will be rehabbed to a plain out-sloped corner. I personally built 3 other corners on the JDT with some "banking"; they'll have to be changed also. The project's PEF only shows switchback turns; so that's only what can be built. Had something else been offered 5 years ago when the paperwork was started, we might have been able to build something else. We could try and force a new PEF but that could easily take another 5 years before we could continue the work.

Photobucket
Because the Sorcerer has taken the official DPR trail-building classes it's been said that he should have "known better"; hence he was required to wear a dunce cap at the end of the day.

Now it's his turn...
 
See less See more
7
  • Like
Reactions: mikemikemike
#137 ·
Re-routed!?!?



Photos???

When was the last time you rode it? A long time ago?

I'm not aware of any recent work but that doesn't mean it hasn't happened---I'll go check it out.
 
#136 ·
I haven't checked this thread before, but I knew the work was going on and thought that everything was going well. So, I was surprised last month when I happened to be out at the Dowdy Ranch center and heard otherwise. The volunteer (a very nice former ranger) told us that unauthorized trail structures had been installed on the JDT and it had been closed until the issued could be resolved. What?

After seeing the pictures, I am rather upset. None of these features would be called structures in my opinion (I was thinking of double jumps, wood ladders, teeter-totters, etc.) Then, reading through the thread I can see the unmovable obstacle that bureaucracy has handed the hard working volunteers. Build it EXACTLY this way, or we will shut the trail and make an example of you lawless mountain bikers! This is not what anyone wants, but it is their policy. Not fun, not nice, but we all have to deal with it. I wish it were different, and that mountain bikers had as much of a voice as the hiking/equestrian crowd, but the tide has yet to turn...

Hopefully this will all get sorted out when trail work begins again in November. I'd like to see the new trail when it is completed. Last time I was out there, I rode up Anza/Jackson and back down Domino Pond/Cattle Duster/Grapevine (with an unnecessary long detour to Kelly Lake). I don't get out that way often, but I am looking forward to the finished JDT product when it is completed. It looks like all of you have been doing a lot of great work out there. I'm really impressed with your dedication and willingness to see this project through, regardless of the bureaucratic hassles.
 
#142 ·
Trail work to resume

PRA Event

Title:
Fall Trail Day -- Jim Donnelly Trail
When:
November 10, 2012 9:00AM - 3:00PM
Where:
Hunting Hollow Entrance and Parking Lot -
Category:
Lending a Hand
Description

We will work on the realignment of the Jim Donnelly Trail accessed from Hunting Hollow gate. This is a great new multi-use trail that is becoming popular with all users. It's a 3.5 mile trail that starts right across from the first Hunting Hollow creek crossing. It provides a sustainable 10% grade trail all the way up to Steer Ridge Road.

We'll do trail work rain or shine. It's been dry for a long time, the ground is hard, and conditions will be dusty. We'll focus on widening the trail in the bottom one mile section up to the picnic table.

We will be working with McLeods, Pick-mattocks, shovels, rakes, loppers, and hand saws. Instruction on safe tool use will be provided.

We'll meet at the Hunting Hollow Parking Lot at 9AM to organize teams, hand out tools and walk to the work sites. We'll work until 3PM, with a noon time lunch break all together along the trail.

You will be expected to sign a liability release to participate in this activity. Participants under age of 18 will be required to provide a Parental/Guardian Permission for Juveniles Consent Form.

Plan on wearing sturdy boots, long trousers and bring work gloves if you have them. Bring a lunch and water.

Thanks for being willing to help, we're looking forward to a great day in this beautiful park.

Please contact Paul Nam (email vocinam@yahoo.com) to express your interest in volunteering for this trailwork activity.

Venue

Venue:
Hunting Hollow Entrance and Parking Lot
Description

The Hunting Hollow entrance and parking lot is located on the south-west edge of the park on Gilroy Hot Springs Road north-east of Gilroy.

The Hunting Hollow gate and parking area is open 24 hours a day, year round. You can arrive at the entrance and park any time of day or night. You can self-register for day use or backpacking. Be sure to take a park map with you when you head into the backcountry. You'll find free handout maps at the bulletin board in the parking area. You can also study a large park map stapled to the bulletin boards. Large maps are available for purchase on weekends when the parking area is staffed (in March through June).

There are no car camping sites at the Hunting Hollow entrance.

Dogs are not allowed beyond the Hunting Hollow entrance. See Dogs at Coe Park for more information.

No drinking water is available at the Hunting Hollow entrance, so be sure to bring what you'll need.

Getting There
The Coe Park Hunting Hollow entrance is located on Gilroy Hot Springs Road, the same road you take to get to Coyote Reservoir.

To get to the entrances, take Highway 101 to Gilroy (which is about 10 miles south of Morgan Hill and 25 miles south of San Jose). The distance from 101 to the Hunting Hollow entrance is about 9 miles.

Take the Leavesley Road exit (County Road G9) and head east.

After about 1.8 miles, turn left (north) on New Avenue; go a little over half a mile and then turn right (east) on Roop Road. About 3.3 miles up Roop Road, you'll pass the Coyote Reservoir Road on the left.

The Hunting Hollow entrance is about 3.3 miles past the Coyote Reservoir Road turnoff.[
 
#146 ·
Down and Dirty

Hi,

Here's an attempt to let some pressure out of this thread. Mountain biking is legit. I am a mountain biker. Trail building is simple, but not as simple as one might think. Codes, laws, policy, regulations, permissions, credentials, authorization, and the temerity to wade into all that, are not simple things.

Here's me and a friend on the Cannell Trail up the hill from Kernville a couple of weekends ago demo-ing a bicycle:



The photo above is taken in a National Forest. Notice that there are old and thick pine trunks or limbs the trail goes through. Notice, perhaps, that the trail is rocky and technical. Notice that this is a really good trail.

Trails may seemingly appear like bacteria in a jam jar, or yeast in a wort. However, they develop from individuals who have made a choice to create them. People are like yeast. It is a concern that people might simply consume all the nutrition they can, and then turn tits up.

We might not like it at all, or parts of it, but the regulations are there to the put brakes on development so as to reduce and discourage the chances of some misguided, even malevolent, or ignorantly damaging activity.

The JDT and trails that might follow it in Coe are subject to CSP trail building code. At this time, not everything I, mudncrud or Pliebenberg would prefer in terms of trail, may be properly applied in State Park lands.

Some of us have been described as an over-enthusiastic volunteers. Compliments like that are exceptional and are nice to hear about. But getting a trail built and officially blessed and open is another thing.

This trail is going through.
 
#147 ·
Did a few laps on JD Sunday, it's clear it's one of the most popular trails in the park with all users. The welcome mat of horse crap to start with and the many horse shoe prints from the day before in both direction show's the Horse folks dig it, the half dozen bikers I saw Sunday were digging it, did not see any hikers but there foot prints were all over. Pretty sad you have to keep reworking a trail that's better than 99% of the other trails in Coe.

Maybe I'll come out Saturday and see how many laps I can get in on JD while, just need to start working on a list of smart ass comments to direct towards Boss King each time I pass.

In the spirit of Sally's video, here is another one that reminds me of the ongoing work going on JD.

 
This post has been deleted
#150 ·
Or if you want to work on a trail where mountain bikers make the decisions you can join us in Pogonip on Saturday. 9am at the bottom of U-Con. Paul N. you need to come visit sometime soon, my schedule is flexible, shoot me an email.

Drew


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 
#163 ·
To clarify...

3rd or 4th postponement in a row...that's the current status of the trailwork program.

///Charlie
The first 3 "postponements" were because staff decided that they could only do "supervision" one weekend a month, and the CMBP decided to defer to the TWD's that the MAU had scheduled (which BTW went on as scheduled with a good turnout)

April's CMBP TWD was postponed because the only Uniformed Volunteer (me) willing to take on the JDT project has to drive a group back to the Rooster Comb for an all-day outing. Can't be 2 places at once...

The CMBP 2nd Saturday TWD is "thumbs-up" for next month (May 10th)

To further the discussion about State Park trail standards; the CSP is fine with "Grade Reversals" on trails in their park units; it's the "Rolling Grade Dips" (RGDs) that they take exception to.

You can argue with them (I have) until you're blue in the face but they will not concede that a RGD is different than a purpose-constructed bike jump. We have to be content with "Drainage Knicks" for getting water off the trail. (Of course these need to be placed twice as often as RGDs and last 1/4 as long!)

BTW; with enough Grade Reversals, RGDs are not really necessary IMHO.

Berm turns? That's another can o'worms...
 
#164 ·
Hi,

Happened to see this thread resurface while I visited this forum this morning to see how the threads on the Bell Built grant were going, and I thought about this quite a bit today. Most days I do not give a thought about Henry W. Coe anymore. I still love the place, and the volunteers though.

My last photo on this thread shows me out of uniform and with a bandana across my mouth. I covered my mouth, because I did not want to post anything. Put a muzzle on it, to be careful.

Well I'm past that stage now. But I won't say anything hard hitting unless someone asks the right questions.

That park is pretty cool as is. It still has great potential too. Sometimes I wonder whether the modern trails of Jackson and Spike Jones were so poorly aligned and integrated to discourage access, and uphill bicycle access in particular. These trails are modern and do not comply with agency specifications.

The recent bracket of dryer than "normal" winters since I stopped doing trail work have been kind to the steep roads and trails. It has been so arid that good trail work conditions have been rare as well.

I agree that some of the subsequent work on the JDT has been poor. What is in the works is a mystery to me. Priorities are apparently lacking. The trail exists, floating out there like a boat without sails, rudder, and sailors. It's a sad legacy for me, and the park.

One of the things that irks me still, is the instance of the thick low branch on the Ichabods Oak. It did get cut, and the clearance obtained is less than the DPR requirement. Okay it is fine for bike riding, and for most horse riders. The horse riders may have to stoop on their mounts. The trail bed could still be lowered a bit. However, I think the alternatives were not given fair consideration. It's a small thing, I know, but it is a subset of the communication problems and sclerotic bureaucratic process that did not work.

There was a threshold which was crossed when Volunteers Outdoors California came to help. Perhaps this was the origin of my demise there. It was a part for sure.

In short, the weather in the weekdays prior to the event was wet, and the trails supervisor cancelled the event. I thought that it should have gone on. The weekend was dry and the trail work conditions would have been close to ideal. Well, the Supervising Ranger decided to deny rescheduling the event because VOCAL did not have a back up date reserved. I did not like this. Apparently many others wished to reschedule the trail work as well. We networked. There may have been appeals to higher authority whose influence made rescheduling irresistible. Going above, probably did not go well with the Supervising Ranger and the Superintendents. The event happened, and trail work was done. Subsequently the relationship between myself and the senior staff chilled more.

It had not been as good as it should have been. The Sector Superintendent and his Supervising Ranger were not exactly welcoming when they arrived in the park, after I was an established volunteer. I had drank the IMBA kool-aid some years prior, with a little medicine. In retrospect, not enough medicine, so to speak. Anyway, as I learned more, I became more and more concerned about liability and safety issues. Safety was always on my mind, because I could see that a bad accident is bad enough, but that it could also halt volunteer work. The Superintendent made two requests. One was to become a uniformed volunteer. The other was to form a mountain bike patrol. These items were fulfilled. Then the Superintendent said that I needed to go to the DPR trail school and complete the course. I did that too.

In the course of that training I learned a lot of good information and put it into practice. At the same time, there were some things I disagreed with in practice. These are in the minority though.

Let me go back to the beginning. I saw Coe as a place that needed trail maintenance and trail development. I was, in a way, like an idealistic person who decides they want to become a teacher to make the world a better place by starting with the noble ideal of educating children to be good people, but who end up not able to express those ideals due to regulations and policy which guide curriculum. In other words I was probably pretty stupid to expect the State parks agency to agree to allow volunteers to do better trail work than their own paid crews.

In a profound way, the trail standards are like some of the education standards in the USA: dumbed down. The trail system, as defined in the specifications (note, not as expressed in the actual field), is hyper-conscious towards the safety of visitors. Perhaps the agency really cares about us. But I'd venture to say that we don't want them to care in the way they do. It's hard for me to tell the difference sometimes, whether or not they are really just trying to cover their ass with their signs and pleadings, or just provoke you into doing something they can cite you for. There's a lot of Orwellian doublespeak going on.

Parse this: Trails should be safe. Well, I'm sorry, no trail can be deemed safe. Alright then, how about trails should be as safe as possible? Well that is even worse.

Furthermore in this vein, another disappointing aspect of the State Parks style of administration became clear even to me after a while: The concept that trails in State Parks should not become destinations in themselves. The ruling paradigm (dogma) in State Parks is that the trail is merely a means of visiting the reason for the park, and that it should not upstage the scenery, or cultural significance.

I thought about this stuff for awhile, and I don't recommend it. It is like a snake eating itself.

Stepping back, and looking at it from afar, I realized that the policy is purposed to deflect attempts at innovation, improvement; stifle local influence; to attempt to impose a bland hypocrisy (while on one hand congratulating themselves on how good a trail looks, they on the other hand praise how it blends into the nature and doesn't impose, and delight in the safety of the 8 foot trail corridor) of trail design (terrain dictates otherwise thank goodness); and confound outsiders.

This is the nice stuff. I am glad I was stopped. Yes, at the time it was a disappointment. But I had been working under conditions that were not to my liking. I never liked the uniform. I never liked the policing aspect of the Bike Patrol. I just saw the patrol as means towards getting trail work done. Half of it was good, and half was not. I also did not like the merit system the volunteer program and all of the badges etc. I tried to assimilate, but it's not my scene. I'm round, not square.

That is all I have to say.
 
#166 ·
Hi,

Happened to see this thread resurface while I visited this forum this morning to see how the threads on the Bell Built grant were going, and I thought about this quite a bit today. Most days I do not give a thought about Henry W. Coe anymore. I still love the place, and the volunteers though.

My last photo on this thread shows me out of uniform and with a bandana across my mouth. I covered my mouth, because I did not want to post anything. Put a muzzle on it, to be careful.......

.....That is all I have to say.
Appreciate the perspective, and positive attitude, Sorcerer. Your frequent presence in the park is definitely missed.

....To further the discussion about State Park trail standards; the CSP is fine with "Grade Reversals" on trails in their park units; it's the "Rolling Grade Dips" (RGDs) that they take exception to.

You can argue with them (I have) until you're blue in the face but they will not concede that a RGD is different than a purpose-constructed bike jump. We have to be content with "Drainage Knicks" for getting water off the trail. (Of course these need to be placed twice as often as RGDs and last 1/4 as long!)

BTW; with enough Grade Reversals, RGDs are not really necessary IMHO.
PL, your continued work at Coe is much appreciated. Definitely an important, but thankless job.

I know I'm preaching to the choir, and I don't want to rehash or restate prior commentary, logic, or lack thereof. I do find some irony (imagine that) in the CSP position you mention above. Grade reversals are fine, according to CSP policy, but to add a single true reversal to an existing trail would require moving the bench from its defined alignment, which in turn would require the onerous and nearly impossible to complete PEF process. As a result we're back to square one.

One of the criticisms that I often hear is that the reason IMBA advocates RGDs is due to the fact that they fun for bikes, even though they are not the best approach to erosion control. We all know that this is a falsehood, and I find it interesting to see the approaches taken by other land stewards in the area, including those not mired in ancient government bureaucracy and dogma. Let's take a look at the approach taken by POST, which is a highly respected conservation and protection agency in they bay area, with a rich history of adding lands to parks and open space areas enjoyed by many types of users. When it comes to trail management, they strive to take the best and most logical approach, independent of the type of user.

-D

Publication Paper Book Paper product History
 
#167 ·
lol, RGD are bike jumps? They are the worst kind of jump. Nothing like dropping into a hole just before trying to jump. Further proof they are idiots and have no idea what the bike riding experience is like.

We rode Coe last weekend, and the ruts are getting out of control on some trails. Too bad they don't have a team of volunteers to fix them...
 
#168 ·
I agree with d-bug, rgd are not good for jumps. You can get a foot or two of air off of them but as d-bug points out you drop down into them then come out. I find it somewhat amusing because an rgd actually slows a bike rider down. On top of that if you do by chance boost a rgd this causes a further loss of speed. You want to go fast, keep the tires on the ground.

The second thing that has never sat well with me with the refusal to build bermed corners. The Supervisors insistence on off camber corners actually makes for an unsafe corner. Riders are way more likely to crash and get hurt going around an off camber corner. Touch the front brake in one of those and your likely to get hurt.

EDIT:

Last comment on the JDT. Currently the JDT seems to be producing the kind of trail they are trying to avoid, it is dangerous whether you are fast or slow because of the off camber corners and it is most dangerous for inexperienced riders. This trail is also shaping to be a great trail to go fast on if you are good at that kind of thing. It is flat, wide and with nothing to inhibit speed. Hate to burst their bubble but for a good rider those off camber corners just do not do much to slow us down. But, the off camber corner does take a beating.

Who are they trying to setup for failure, us, them, the trail, all the above?
 
#169 ·
JD is all about being an easy elevator up, my bet is it sees very little downhill bike traffic, I rarely see anyone come down it. Which make it even more ridicules that there were wringing there hands that it might be to fun for bikes going down, I tried it down once before they started destroying it and did not find it anywhere close to the fun I have on the other choices going down in the area, like Spike Jones, Middle Steer or Lyman Wilson.
 
#171 ·
Yep it's been setting there for about a week. The intel I'm getting says that they may start today.

...not holding my breath as this has been "promised" for a long time now.
 
#177 ·
Now it's next week...

:madman::madman::madman:

Oh well...

Most nobody involved deeply with the JDT wanted to see the job finished with the SWECO but the plans call for a 4' width full bench cut (cuz' the JDT is a Class I multi-use trail per State trail Guidelines) and we're stuck with that.

They're holding the JDT for ransom in regards to other new trails in the park; until JDT is complete nothing else moves forward. The top 1/2 mile of the JDT where the SWECO will do its thing is just too far out for us to get enough volunteers out there to do the job by hand. About a 5 mile round trip hike and we lose to much time/energy for this to be practical. And it's a long shuttle drive to truck volunteers to the top;something else that's been considered.
 
#178 ·
:madman::madman::madman:

Oh well...

Most nobody involved deeply with the JDT wanted to see the job finished with the SWECO but the plans call for a 4' width full bench cut (cuz' the JDT is a Class I multi-use trail per State trail Guidelines) and we're stuck with that.

They're holding the JDT for ransom in regards to other new trails in the park; until JDT is complete nothing else moves forward. The top 1/2 mile of the JDT where the SWECO will do its thing is just too far out for us to get enough volunteers out there to do the job by hand. About a 5 mile round trip hike and we lose to much time/energy for this to be practical. And it's a long shuttle drive to truck volunteers to the top;something else that's been considered.
Well, at 4 feet you should be able to haul ass and get some good strava times. So much for multi-use. There are other tractors besides the dreaded SWECO. Plenty of options in between hand built and SWECO raped.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top