|   Palos Trail Workday Photos | LakeRaven
Nov 9, 2003 3:40 PM | | A new section of twisty narrow rocky singletrack was born this morning at Palos.
volunteer lumberjacks
.jpg
<br>
<br>tooltime
<br>
<br><img src=)
Hi-Ho Hi-Ho
.jpg
<br>
<br><img src=)
Final Instructions
.jpg
<br>
<br>Ed Bartunek
<br>
<br><img src=)
A trail with a View
.jpg
<br>
<br>El Presedente, Juan
<br>
<br><img src=)
Offically Open for Business
.jpg</td></tr></table><table width=) | | Congratulations CAMBr! | Ken in KC.
Nov 10, 2003 2:10 PM | | I know it's been a long hard row. It's nice to see your efforts and years of diligence pay off with new trails.
I can't wait to get back up there to ride.
Ken |
| correction | Nick.
Nov 10, 2003 2:13 PM | | "A new section of twisty narrow rocky singletrack was born this morning at Palos."
A challenging section of existing
b LEGAL
trail with a difficult steep climb as well as the option of a 2' + drop off was
b covered with deadfall
and replaced with this much wider and shorter (4+ feet isn't "narrow" and it certainly isn't singletrack) trail, free of any features and any flow.
1 step forward, 2 steps back. This is not progress, and I think it's terribly ironic that this is posted under a forum labeled "save the trails".
Nick |
| I also find it ironic... | Ken in KC.
Nov 10, 2003 2:25 PM | | That a difficult steep section could avoid being a fall line trail and that you consider it flowing. I also find it ironic that you like the narrowness of the original trail, but can't see the fact that a 4' corridor will grow back to about 2' with a trail tread of 6-8".
You can't start out with a trail that is too narrow. If you do, mother nature will reclaim it and you won't be able to find the trail. In addition, a responsible trail designer will start with a much wider trail (for new sections of trail) and let the riders determine the line. If they didn't, then the trail designers would assume the line, regardless of how the trail should flow when it's ridden. If you start with a 6" trail, it will grow back in to around 3".
If however, you start with a wider tread, the riders will establish the best line on the tread, and the rest of the "trail" will revegitate.
Where you at the trail work day? Have you been involved with CAMBr? You have the choice whether to get involved and influence the trails and the types of trails. If you're not involved, then you really don't have a say in how things are managed. |
| I also find it ironic... | PP_LePeuw
Nov 10, 2003 2:48 PM | | Worked with Cambr/Turf quite a few times over the years, not yesterday though. However, Nick has a valid point. Closing off that loop from Gravity Cavity was a terrible loss as was the Stone House, Cemetery Hill, the Canal Trail, ZipTie and most other spots that those nagging orange closed signs have appeared in the last few years. What is there to show? Turf1 and this new trail do not make up for the losses. |
| The Delicate Balance... | Ken in KC.
Nov 10, 2003 3:02 PM | | The position that CAMBr's in is an unenviable one. On one hand, they have to meet the needs and wants of a very demanding and political land manager in Cook County. On the other hand, they have to try and meet the needs of all mountain bikers who ride at Palos, most of whom aren't CAMBr members.
So here's some food for thought for you:
Cook County doesn't really trust mountain bikers to manage the land, since we're all a bunch of Mountain Dew swilling thrill seeking junkies, in their eyes.
Do you think it's remotely possible that since this is the first legal and new trail that has gone in to Palos in several years, that this may be an assessment of CAMBr and their trail building policies?
Do you think it's entirely possible that in order to establish and develop that trust, CAMBr has to meet the needs and desires of the land manager for this specific section of trail, vs. adding trails that they would really like ride?
Do you think it was short sited of CAMBr to meet the land managers needs and expectations for trails on this particualr section of trail in order to develop trust and turn Palos in to a really kick ass trail system?
I get just as upset about dumbing down or sanitizing trails as the next person, but we need to face facts: We don't control the land, the land manager does. There are times when we, as trail stewards, must meet the land manager's needs, even if they aren't consistent with the types of trails we would like to build.
I'm not asking you not to be upset with the loss of technical sections of trail. I am asking you to try and understand the delicate balance that advocacy organizations must obtain between gaining the trust of the land managers, while meeting the immediate needs and wants of trail users.
Ken |
| You're right on target, Ken! | Muddy D
Nov 11, 2003 7:39 AM | | Thanks for hitting the nail on the head, Ken. One of the main reasons CAMBR was able to cut this new trail was that we offered to clear out non-native plants (buckthorn and honeysuckle) for 25 feet on either side of the trail. We still have another workday to go before we get that part done - we felt lucky that getting the trail open would come first. With them gone, the native species (Oak, Hawthorn, etc.) will grow back to fill in the area - and narrow what is currently a wide corridor. You do what you have to to get progress. And after three years of no progress (in getting new trails), you make the compromises that you have to.
Just ask any union member if they think they've ever gotten everything they demanded in contract negotiations. Of course not! Both sides compromise, no one gets their complete wish list, but everyone walks away with more than they had before. We are essentially the union for Chicago mountain bikers - but a lot of them don't join or lift a finger to help. Yet they still expect the union to staunchly protect their interests without budging, and get mad when we don't!
The county also requires that the trail is wide enough to get an ATV vehicle down the trail. Of course, we leave it to them to tell us when to go back in and widen it out again.
As for the part of the existing trail that was closed, the county told us to close it. The new trail ran into a small loop, and the county wouldn't accept it being anything but a linear trail. Trail density is another of their concerns. The part that was closed was the less challenging part of this - very small - loop. Also, it went along the side of a prairie. As Illinois used to be all prairie and now they're almost all gone, protecting what's left is a high priority with land managers, so getting mtb'rs off of this one was very important to them.
Yes, we lost a climb, but we expect to put one back into this trail next year. So, overall, we're just losing a 2 ft. drop. Getting a 1/2 mile trail extension in exchange for a 2 ft. drop was a no-brainer. The majority of trail users will NOT miss it, and the county won't let us keep stuff like that. Riders who want that stuff can go to Challenge Park and get all the North Shore riding they want. The new trail is a lot twistier than the other trails in Palos - that's to give users some variety in what they find out there. And until it packs down, it won't roll as fast as the others. And, like you said Ken, we'll see how the lines play out after the tail traffic works the trail in. We already know we need to make one change: we have a tandem mountain bike couple who say the only line they can use to get over one particular odd-shaped log causes them to ram into a tree!
Hmm. So... we could compromise and rework the trail design to accomodate their interests, even though it means losing a nice trail feature... or we could not give in at all. What to do. WHAT to do. Uh, I think we'll go with the compromise, seeing as how the tandem couple shows up for workdays. In the long run, everyone will be better off. |
| i | Nick.
Nov 11, 2003 8:25 AM | | |
| I disagree. | Nick.
Nov 11, 2003 8:53 AM | | 1st, what is your name? I wouldn't be surprised if I know you.
The part that was closed was, in my opinion, the only challenging part of the loop. The trail ran along side the prairie for perhaps 40 or 50 feet max, and getting riders off of that short section could have just as easily been re-routed to stay within the woods.
We did not get a 1/2 mile extension, we exchanged trail for trail. If you think that is the same thing as adding trail you should think about it a bit longer. The fact that you say "the majority of trail users" will not miss the drop and that you equate a 2 footer with "north shore riding" is laughable and tells me that you are either disconnected or think that all riders are at the same skill level. Maybe both. 100% of the people I ride with would miss that feature. 100%.
You claim the new route offers variety to riders when it does not. It is more of the same. Look at the existing trails and show me how this new 1/2 mile is any different. You and your bicycle are capable of so much more than turning left or right. What will you do when you grow bored with simply turning? What if someday you decide you want to know what it feels like to let your tires leave the ground? What do you do when (or if) you travel and ride trails with features you have no idea how to handle because all of your local trails have been groomed into novice routes?
Every trail need not be an easy ride for every rider, and trail design shouldn't necessarily be dictated by weather or not a tandem can clean it.
Rather than get defensive about some criticism, try to see my view of the situation. You might share it some day. |
| CAMBr doesn't have a choice.... | Ken in KC.
Nov 11, 2003 10:37 AM | | Cook County is mandating the type of trail that is going in and tying access to chaging and rerouting trails that they don't want, including the hill and 2' drop.
Cook County is holding all the power. CAMBr is simply working to build trust within Cook county, so that they maight add more, and more challenging trails on Cook County land in the future.
I won't beat a dead horse. Take a read of my post below. If it doesn't make sense, let me know and I'll do my level best to answer and address your comments and concerns.
Ken |
| I also find it ironic... | Nick.
Nov 11, 2003 8:20 AM | | The steep section that I mentioned is challenging, not flowing. The difference here is the new route (on the whole and this brand new stage) is neither.
I understand fully why the new route was cut as wide as it was. The last trail built before this was done so in the same manner and for the most part grew in very nicely.
I don't like to participate in the closures of quality trails. I won't be part of sanitizing trails when the features in question should be rideable by anyone with more than a year or two on a bike.
Yes, I have have been involved with CAMBR. My email was not an attack on the efforts of the group. Also, just because I offer another honest opinion / evaluation does not mean I'm ignorant of the "how and why" as you implied. |
| also ... | Nick.
Nov 11, 2003 9:05 AM | | I stopped being actively involved with the group right around the same time I heard our IBMA rep state that "technical trails have no place in Palos, so close to a large metropolis" and other members discussing trail closures for bikes in the woods during the Winter in the interest of not messing up XC skier's tracks. |
| I must be missing something... | Ken in KC.
Nov 11, 2003 10:30 AM | | You said: "A challenging section of existing LEGAL trail with a difficult steep climb as well as the option of a 2' + drop off was covered with deadfall and replaced with this much wider and shorter (4+ feet isn't "narrow" and it certainly isn't singletrack) trail, free of any features and any flow."
Based on your statement above, you seem to indicate that the old section flowed, while the new section didn't.
I'm not trying to mince words, so I apologize for my misunderstanding.
Now, the critical element that I ask you to recognize is that CAMBr is working with a land manager that really doesn't want mountain biking at Palos, period. They must meet the needs and wishes of the Cook County first, or risk having the county close the trails to mountian biking permanently.
I can't speak for the IMBA State Rep in IL, but just reading between the lines, my guess is that he made those statements because Cook County had already decided and mandated that there wouldn't be any technical or challenging obstacles at Palos. I'm also surmising that he made those statements because he didn't have a choice as to whether the trails were challenging or not and he was doing some politicing to smooth over Cook County.
I completely understand your furstration with trail sanitation. It's one the single most frustrating aspect of advocacy for me. It's even more frustrating than working with a hostile land manager, because you may eventually change the LM's attitude, but you can rarely unsanitize a trail.
With that said, in the case of Cook County and Palos, this is very much a test for CAMBr. There is no doubt that the county is assessing the work that is going on at Palos. Given that they don't really like mountain bikers to begin with, they would more than likely prefer to close the trails all together, rather than hassle with them.
So, this is a test for CAMBr and mountain bikers in general. If Cook County likes what they see, then they may open up other land to singletrack trails that mountain bikers will have access to. If they have a reason to close down Palos, they could do that to.
It's imporant to the overall access picture in Cook County and the Chicago metro area in general that CAMBr pass this test. They must treat the Palos trails with kid gloves in order to earn the trust of Cook County. Having lived in Chicago, I am absolutely amazed that a piss ant town like Kansas City has well over 100 more miles of singletrack mountain bike trails than Chicago. It needs to change, but advocacy, trust, and recognition of the need for more trails won't come overnight. Access in Chicago must crawl before it walks or runs.
I empathize with your frustration, but working with governments and municipalities to legalize mountain bikes on trails is a sloooooooow process. Especially if you have to build trust first. CAMBr and mountain bikers in general are just beginning to develop trust with Cook County.
More trails are likely to come, but not until Cook County is comfortable with CAMBr and their trails. Palos is step #1 in developing that trust. If CAMBr and mountain bikers don't gain the trust, then they never get to step #2. Cook County holds 100% of the power over the trail and trail design at Palos. There's simply not much that CAMBr can do to change that right now.
I'm not trying to be a dick, but hopefully I've shed a little light on the process. Shutting off popular trail sections is frustrating, but in this case, CAMBr doesn't have a choice. Cook County says that a section goes, so it has to go. Period. There will come a time when CAMBr will be able to challenge them, but not until they build the trust.
Ken |
| Cambr as "Uncle Tom" | PP_LePeuw
Nov 12, 2003 1:45 PM | | Cambr does have a choice you have neglected Mr KC. They can choose to build where the county allows, but they can also choose to stop closing off trails that the county deems off limits. Cambr puts on their own poster in the Bullfrog kiosk that they are about trail building/maintenance/advocacy, all of which I support. Nowhere do they tout the fact that the county is whoring them out to do their closure work ... might be bad for membership? This thing about patience ... Turf/Cambr have been at CCFPD's beck and call for far too long(almost 10 years?)to just get two and half miles built and dozens closed |
| Wow, you're dense.... | Ken in KC.
Nov 13, 2003 7:19 PM | | First, it's just Ken. Secondly, the county owns the land. The owner of the land dictates what trails are closed and what trails are open.
CAMBr isn't whoring itself out, they are doing what it takes to keep trails open. The alternative, is not that the trails you want to remain open, but that all the trails are closed to mountain bikes.
It's really not that difficult a concept to grasp. It seems you're intentionally missing the point in order to grandstand against CAMBr. Sitting on the sidelines and bitching. Very nice tact.
Ken |
| I know you are, but what I am I? | PP_LePeuw
Nov 14, 2003 6:28 AM | | You seem to think I have it out for Cambr, which I don't. I admire their tenacity. I just feel that in the last few years they've gone in a direction I don't agree with. The county is trying to foist upon them the work of closing formerly legal trails in order to get new ones built. I realize the trail system is not exclusively for bikers, nor should it be. However, it seems the more Cambr tries to play politics, the more bikers lose. I can remember a time, not so long ago, when the hated orange signs were few and far between. Now it is hard to put together a decent ride from trail to trail without poaching to get from one to another. I'll let you get back to your TV dinner, Tang and C-Span now. |
| Hummm.... | Ken in KC.
Nov 14, 2003 7:49 AM | | CAMBr have gone in a direction that you don't agree with, yet you sit on the sidelines and throw stones? In other words, you don't want to be involved with the direction of the organization, but you have very concrete ideas on how CAMBr should be run.
You feel obligated to demonstrate how right you are regarding CAMBr's direction, despite the fact that you're not a member, by taking a regional organization who just spent several years trying to preserve any mountain biking access within Palos, and pissing on their (limited thus far) success. This helps CAMBr and mountain biking access in and around Chicago how, exactly?
The point you seem to be ignoring is that Cook County would prefer to close the trails to mountain bikers entirely, and it's within their right to do so. CAMBr is doing the dirty political work on your behalf to keep the trails open. Politics and government aren't a one way street. Your specific needs, wants and desires aren't going to be met 100% of the time, regardless of how right you think you are.
CAMBr has to balance what they would really like, which is more trails open for mountain biking, more technical challenge on the trails and the incorporation of more technical trails; with want Cook County wants: Palos closed to mountain biking. CAMBr then has to work the political system to find a balance that is somewhere between what they want, and what the county wants.
I wish it were as simple as you make it out to be, but the fact is, it isn't.
TV dinners, Tang and C-Span? You forgot to mention my mobile home, inane city (or county) petitions and my half hearted campaign for city council election. You're funny, in the quirky sort of way.
Ken |
| Lemme see here... | Steve-O
Nov 17, 2003 10:42 AM | | "You seem to think I have it out for Cambr, which I don't."
In your post above you called CAMBr an "Uncle Tom". Using a derogatory remark to describe an organization that you later claim to admire sounds like waffling to me.
You state that you disagree with CAMBr's direction but you offer no solution. It would be a heck of a lot easier for the FPDCC to simply issue a blanket statement banning mountain bikes from the trails. Remember that they hold the cards, not CAMBr or the individual tax payer. CAMBr really doesn't have a choice but to work with the county.
Do you know Ken in KC? Ken understands these issues better then most of the bikers in Cook county. Before you rip on him understand that he has saved more singletrack in the Midwest then you'll ever ride... |
| Clarification | PP_LePeuw
Nov 18, 2003 1:33 PM | | I didn't use the term Uncle Tom in the way you are suggesting, rather I implied that the CCFPD is using Cambr in that capacity when it comes to trail closures. Case in point is this new trail where an orange sign was posted to tell bikers/horseys it is closed to them, not to hikers. If that is the case, why drag all those logs and brush to block the trail from being accessed by those hikers who are legally able to walk there?(are they going to erect another little fence too?) Cambr should not have to take responsibility for deterring poachers at the expense of other users. Sorry if I don't offer up a solution, but I just think in the years I worked with Turf/Cambr they had to jump thru way too many flaming hoops to get where Palos and the rest of the Chicagoland area are today(which is sorely lacking in legal trails) As for Ken in KC, I don't know him, all hail to him and I hope you take your head outta his rectum long enough to read this. |
| The other side of the coin | LakeRaven
Nov 11, 2003 11:06 AM | | Nick accurately desribes the other side of the coin to my origional post. A trail was born and a trail was killed. Ken and Muddy present valid points on the situation CAMBr is forced into by the power of the Governmental Agency that manages the land , upon which, the trails reside. The question I want Nick to ask himself is.....how will his post help this situation? For the past few years I've been the one making noise like Nick's post. I have recently discovered that, while valid and centered in the truth, these posts do nothing to provide any solutions. The only way to engage positively in the struggle for our trails is through CAMBr. Good or bad, the only voice mountain bikers have that the county will entertain goes through CAMBr. That's what I have found to be the reality of the situation. We're all riders and we all love our trails. I mourn with you the loss of the Gravity Cavity mileage. Let's also celebrate the birth of the new connector trail. |
| Not trying to flip you off for your post... | Muddy D
Nov 11, 2003 5:18 PM | | Nick, bikes that take 2 ft. drops are more of the freeride variety. The people who do those drops are looking for a more aggressive ride. XC bikes just crack eventually from the stress. I've seen it. But the county absolutely, without giving an inch on it, will not allow us to build trails to suit more aggressive riders. I think it's a liability thing. I'd love to add more technical features, a long rock garden for one, with chicken routes for less-skilled riders. I'd be all over putting up a sign that said a really technical trail, built like some of the "non-Palos" trails in the area, was for expert-level riders only. But there's nothing CAMBR can do to get them.
No I don't think all riders are the same skill level. I ride with guys who hardly spend a day off the bike, and guys who only get out on the odd weekend. And the first group - who likely aren't that different from you - is certainly not looking for the same experience as the second, and probably spend most of their time on different trails. But I haven't heard the CAMBR members I've seen say that this drop was something they were willing to make a stand to keep. Some will miss it, but many don't. I'm not against big drops or other ways to let my tires "leave the ground," I'd work to add more if it were an option for us, but I can't. I work with the hand I'm dealt.
On the variety thing... think about the Old Argonne area, and the Pipeline, and most of Psycho Path, and the widetrack trails.... There's a lot of straight lines there. You can pick up a lot of speed because good handling skills aren't required to ride them. The new trail is different in that it twists all the time, more than Turf1 I think. Being different from the others means we have more variety. It may not be the variety you want, but we take what we can get.
Bottom line, building a trail at Palos isn't about providing an appealing experience for all riders. I wish to god it was. We're obligated to design them for less-skilled riders, regardless of the population that acually uses them. CAMBR wants more mileage at Palos, the county says they'll give us more, as long as we can compromise on what we want. What would you do in our shoes? |
| thanks ... | Nick.
Nov 12, 2003 7:08 AM | | and ps: I still don't know who you are.
nick_xc AT hotmail DOT com |
| Playing by the Rules with Cook County... | Matt S.
Nov 18, 2003 7:37 AM | | is a mute point. Their agenda is clear. I know and respect the guys (and gals) from Cambr. They do what they can, but rest assured there is no good fight to be fought, no battle to win. Hell we can't even see the Battle Field. I have in the past defended Cambr and continue to do so. But the writing is on the wall. In the 5 years I've been riding Palos, this has clearly been the worst year yet. Trail closures, renegade Forest Police, tickets, harrassment, County budget cuts, corrupt cops, ghost payrolling. etc. Clearly the rights of Mtn. Bikers are the furthest thing from the Countys' mind. Ken in KC...you speak intelligently and make what seem to be good, valid points, almost "Text Book" in nature. You don't live/ride here, so I have to wonder if you would have the same perspective if it was your trail system that was dwindling year after year. Maybe you would. Maybe your the kind of person that follows the rules at any cost. Staying the course, hoping that one day the Land Manager will finally see the light...except that day never seems to come. The good trails are virtually all closed, and one day you come to realize you just don't want to ride anymore. Sure trail poaching has crossed your mind, but that's not who you are. Well.. guess there's not much else to do but sell that dusty bike in your garage eh? The scenario I just described is happening to riders throughout Chicagoland. It was not uncommon for the parking lot at Palos (Bullfrog Lake) to be overflowing with cars / riders. Not anymore. Many riders have given up. As for the new trail, Nick is right...a good (but short) trail was closed to allow for the construction of a short boring trail. I don't think congratulations are in order. Do I sound negative?...YOU BET! I've lost almost 50% of the trails I like to ride, and it's not because of CAMBr, or because I don't help out on trail days like I used to, or because I don't call and badger Cook County Commissioners like Ed Bartunek of Cambr wants me to. The County doesn't want us there, and their message is clear...WE WILL DO WHATEVER WE CAN TO WEAR YOU DOWN, YOUR NOT GETTING THE TRAILS YOU WANT, YOU'LL TAKE THE FEW SCRAPS WE THROW YOU, AND YOU CAN FORGET ALL ABOUT GETTING THOSE CLOSED TRAILS RE-OPENED! OH, AND IF WE GIVE YOU A NEW TRAIL WE WILL TAKE ONE OR MORE AWAY! In the end people will stop riding Palos altogether, or they will poach trails. Obviously neither outcome is desirable. It's one thing to follow the rules, it's another thing altogether to succomb to moronic trail closures decided by inept County officals hell bent on abusing their power. There's more than one way of standing up for what you know is right. I guess what I'm trying to say is...you won't find any dust on my bike. |
| Inaction and giving up is definitely the way to go.... | Ken in KC.
Nov 18, 2003 8:23 AM | | So you suggest that Cook County has made up their minds, and that the writing is on the wall? Hummm... So that means that Palos will close. Why fight city hall? Just give up and let them close the trails. More tickets, more sneaking around...
I specifically am not suggesting that rules should be followed at all costs. What I am suggesting is that in order to increase access, you have to play the game. CAMBr is playing the game.
The way to get any land manager's attention is through economics. If an organization can present hard economic data supporting the fact that mountain bikers travelling from all over the Chicago area are coming to Palos to ride, buy gas, stop for beer and food, etc., then Cook County benefits through taxes.
I don't currently live in Chicago, but I know it pretty well. I've lived in Midlothian (a long ride or short drive from Palos) right off of Cicero, 39th and Damon, and State and Ontario at various times over the past 10 years. I've logged many miles at Palos, and Kettle Morain. I commuted to work and didn't use a car when I lived North of the Loop. I could navigate in Chicago faster on a bike than I could in a car, especially if you ride on lower Whacker and lower Michigan. I used to love riding along the lake shore in the spring and summer, just to admire the scenery. One of my favorite hamburger joints in the country is Boston Blackies. The best taco stand I've ever been to (in the states) is Enos on the Southside (try their Tacos Al Pastor, they're great). I usally attended the Southside St. Pats parade vs. the Chicago parade because I prefered to pub crawl and drink vs. standing around watching the river turn greenish.
My advice in this case isn't text book, it's real world based on my experience in gaining (and keeping) land access for singletrack trails. The first step in gaining access is assessing and meeting the land manager's needs. If the LM's needs aren't met, then there are no valid resons for them to open up land/trails for mountain biking.
On the other hand, in the KC area, we have more requests for trails from land managers than we can handle. Our biggest problem is a shortage of labor to field all the requests for singletrack trails. This didn't just happen overnight. The land managers are requesting trail from us because we've worked extremely hard to build their trust and meet their needs. Currently, we're turning down requests for new trails, because we have a backlog of about 30 miles of trail.
What I'm talking about is the up front dedication it takes to slog through the politics of advocacy. It's a long, slow road that has very little immediate results. While we've had a great deal of success in the KC area, we've been working with one land manger for nearly a decade to open up trails in their parks. We're close to realizing this goal, but it's taken 10 f'ing years to get there.
I invite you to come down to KC and ride our trails. In fact, there is an advocacy summit scheduled for March 19-21, 2004 where you can head down, learn about what other groups throughout the Midwest have done to successfully gain access, drink some beer, ride some kick ass trails and race (if racing is your gig). If you liked what Palos used to be, I suggest that you'll absolutely love our trails. We have more rocks, but the trail types are similar.
Hell, if you have a long weekend, you could head over this way as well. It's an 8 hour drive (max) from Chicago to KC, but you gain 120 miles of trail, vs the 2 hour drive to Kettle for the doubletrack wash experience.
Ken |
| Ken, all of what you say... | Matt S.
Nov 18, 2003 9:01 AM | | makes perfect sense when you are dealing with reasonable (or even remotely reasonable) people. As you may well know, Chicago has a long history of crooked politics. Until some decision making offical has that warm and fuzzy feeling of cash in his pocket, we'll all just have to be content with looking over our shoulder's when we ride. I worked in the Waste industry in Chicago for several years..I was amazed at what I saw and heard. Corruption is blatant. I've even had the good fortune of meeting with County Commissioners in connection with my work..Let me tell you...it's like something out of the movie "Goodfellows". I could almost hear the theme song for The Godfather" playing in the background...creepy! Ya, I know it's easier to quit than to keep trying. But I'm a realist. Until I see a changing of the guard on the County level, I'm going to maintain the same perspective. We'll have to agree to disagree on this. |
| No, we won't.... | Ken in KC.
Nov 18, 2003 12:11 PM | | I don't disagree with you. I am very aware of the special nature of Chicago politics (and especially Sanitation and Streets). Actually, I think we're saying the same thing.
My point is that the political side of advocacy is difficult. The political side of advocacy in Chicago/Cook County is nearly impossible.
CAMBr is trying and fighting like hell to even keep the trails open and legal, such as they are. If CAMBr were not attempting to work with Cook County (even though it may seem fruitless), do you think all of Palos would be closed to mountain biking? Would the trails that have been closed still be open? Would you not have to poach technical sections as you do now?
I'm simply asking that people not bash CAMBr for wading in where most people are afraid to go. They're trying their collective asses off to keep the trails open and legal. The alternative is really trail that is closed to mountain biking.
Let me put this another way. Hypothetically, if someone were out on trails in Palos that were closed to mountain biking, and they had an opportunity to hop on to some legal trails that were out there, would they in fact, benefit from the legal trails being there? On the other hand, if all the trails at Palos were closed to mountain biking and hypothetically, that same rider was out riding, they would receive a summons for being on 100% of the trails, not jsut some of it.
I understand your frustration completely. I sympathize with what is going on in Chicago. I think the county and the city are missing out on a tremendous opportunity. I aonly ask that people understand the position that CAMBr is in, based on what we know is a difficult situation.
Ken |
| As you can see from my posts... | Matt S.
Nov 18, 2003 2:11 PM | | I'm not bashing CAMBr. I am friends with many of CAMBr's more prominent members, and on occasion ride with them. I respect what they do. But it does bother me when I hear they are closing trails. Yes they are working with the County under the premise of a more promising tommorrow, but I fear they are being used as the County's pupits sometimes. One of the previous posts suggested that Cambr "just say No" to closing trails. Let the county do the closings with their own manpower imo. Yes, assisting the County in closing trails might score some very minimal points in the eyes of the county, but at the same time it greatly reduces CAMBr's credibility and effectiveness in the eyes of fellow riders. I'm tired of seeing CAMBr get slammed everytime something goes south @ Palos, and I often come to their defense. Personally, I think it's time for CAMBr to stop being on the defensive, bowing to all the County's demands, and to begin taking more action to publicize the County's overall discrimation against mtb riders as compared to other land users. |
| |
