Potential trail access closure at Knoch Knolls

[I pick bad lines]

While out for a ride at Knoch Knolls today I ran into a pair of parks guys who were working on the new bike bridge. They informed me that the park district is planning to put up a split rail fence next to the paved path at the point where the bridge comes over the river as well as other spots in the park as well. That will essentially close the widetrack trail, and potentially others, that runs all the way from the singletrack to the west of the foot bridge to get to the fast trail by the lower river. I can’t speak for everyone, but I use this spot in my main loop through the park on just about every ride. I was advised that the person to talk to at the park district is John Lomas. I've already called John Lomas at the park district and voiced my concern about this as a Naperville resident & parks user. He cited ADA requirements as to the reason for putting up the fence. He stated that the park district wants to close this trail access point & route the trail through the large open area  near the fire pit. I feel that another solution can be found, one that would meet the park districts needs and those of trail users as well.

I want to make a plea to the folks folks who use Knoch Knolls. Please email or call the park district & voice your concern regarding the closure of this section of trail and possibly others. I believe that a large number of emails or calls from mountain bikers would make them rethink this idea and it would also give them some perspective on how many of us actually use the park. This second reason might go a long way toward giving CAMBr more access to do trailwork in the park.

Here is the contact information for Mr. John Lomas:

John Lomas, Project Manager, 630-848-5015, jlomas@napervilleparks.org

[TheNormsk]

Do I understand this correct.  the parks district will fence off the area were I have put the red lines below, basically closing off the wide track that runs north west (orange) crossing the new DuPage River path (green).

I can see why they may do this as there is a visibility issue now where the paths cross and it is easy (as a biker on the wide track) to collide with a river path user (who tend to be fairly inattentive) particular if heading west due to the sleep climb out that is there now.

I do not have issue with them closing this IF CAMBr is allowed to put in an alternative.  There is definitely opportunity to put in some single track that runs around the open area.  The multi track from the fast single track by the river (Jedi) up to the green area is actually not that bad.  I don't mind using this.  Running through the green space would be a loss and potentially annoying to green space users.  Here there should definitely be some alternate route around the green space (like the theoretical purple route)..

[I pick bad lines]

Kerry, I see where you're coming from, the danger of a collision does exist. I tend to keep my eyes open for folks on the paved trail and have yet to have any issues at all. Your proposed solution for additional singletrack to replace this widetrack route sounds great to me too. Please share your opinions with the park district, I believe they would be open to hearing any potential solutions from concerned trail users if they are shared in a clear and concise manner.

[Ryan the VW Tech]

At the first least what about the horse gates or whatever to want to call them that kettle has on the connector in areas where you cross horse paths? Adding single track is always the best route to take though

[BiPedalBiPed]

At the first least what about the horse gates or whatever to want to call them that kettle has on the connector in areas where you cross horse paths?

Are you using voice recognition? It sounds like a sentence...

[Ryan the VW Tech]

Nope lol. cell phone, it likes to auto correct to say odd things lol and you can't read the whole sentence at a time if you blow it up big enough to read 


But I trust that with some simple common sence everyone will be able to comprehend it just fine

[I pick bad lines]

That bike corral thing like at Kettle or PBP might work if the intersection in question was flat, but the area that might be cut off is at a different enough elevation to make that option nonviable. In this case, a singletrack alternate route would be desirable if it did not go through the wide open field.

[TheNormsk]

The singe track option around the grassy field would also be desirable to trail runners, hikers and dog walkers, let along bikers.

Remember, we can not just think about ourselves.  Any proposal to John Lomas would have to stress the benefit to a wider community of trail users.  That CAMBr would welcome the opportunity to build out the trail (for FREE) under guidance from the park on placement for the benefit of all trail users.

Heck, I may even be able to find time to attend a work day for this. 

[I pick bad lines]

Agreed, we ought to always consider how our desired/proposed solutions can benefit other trail users. I know that plenty of trail runners and dog walkers use the existing route. A nice singletrack option would probably be well received by them as well as other mountain bikers.

[Principal (Snake) Skinner]

Without an easy alternative, people will likely find their way around the fence. Actually, a route that follows the side slope to get up to the paved path would be beneficial. People on the widetrack wouldn't barrel into people on the paved path if they have to make a few turns to follow a benchcut. On the west side of the paved path, a few tight turns around obstacles would also slow people down, similar to what the horse gates do.

[I pick bad lines]

Without an easy alternative, people will likely find their way around the fence.

I warned Mr. Lomas of this fact when I spoke to him on the phone yesterday.

[/quote]Actually, a route that follows the side slope to get up to the paved path would be beneficial. People on the widetrack wouldn't barrel into people on the paved path if they have to make a few turns to follow a benchcut. On the west side of the paved path, a few tight turns around obstacles would also slow people down, similar to what the horse gates do.
[/quote]That sounds right to me.




So, people, if you ride Knoch Knolls, help share ideas here, and voice your concern with the park district.

[TheNormsk]

I produced a more accurate map.

To address Dom's and Ben's comments trail 1 would probably be the most logical choice.  That way people walking/running/riding down the wide track will find that they have a single track route back to the river path when the come across the fence.  

Trail 2 and 3 are less likely given the Park District's aversion to new trails.  However in similar vein, trail 2 can provide an alternative route back to the river path and crossing point to the green space.  Trail 3 provides an alternative to trail 2 and I would see these as being presented as one or the other.

While I would like single track to the south east of the green space I now see this as a lot less presentable because is does not really serve users that access the green space from the old bridge and using the old wide track.  The ideal would would be to have this single track for trail users coming from the wide and single track to the north east as an option to get to the crossing point on the river path along with trails 1 and 2 (or 3) but I don't see this happening.

[fat-tyr]

Kerry, I see where you're coming from, the danger of a collision does exist. I tend to keep my eyes open for folks on the paved trail and have yet to have any issues at all. Your proposed solution for additional singletrack to replace this widetrack route sounds great to me too. Please share your opinions with the park district, I believe they would be open to hearing any potential solutions from concerned trail users if they are shared in a clear and concise manner.

If he mentioned "Americans with Disabilities Act" I would think his concern is more about the steep slope than a collision. The fence acts as a guard rail and is required as a safety measure. I would think if they raised the tread of the existing path a fence wouldn't be needed at that point.

[Principal (Snake) Skinner]

With those trail options Kerry, we'd be asking for a trail or two that paralleled the one they just made. That might seem redundant to the park district. Here's my take on it: the dotted orange trail pushes the intersection with the paved path over just a bit, with enough curve to get people's speed down (and make it more interesting to boot). The other orange one takes their idea of going thru the open area (assuming I got that right) and just pushes it into the tree line some, so people using the open area aren't in the way of riders coming thru. Being averse to new trails, they might be more open to a variation of their idea.

Stan - raising the tread would be a decent solution, but you'd need a good pile of dirt and stone to make the grade more shallow. I assume that comes under their ADA issue too. Since they apparently didn't budget that into the cost of the path, my guess is that they don't want the extra bill after the fact. It's certainly worth asking about though.

[baudler]

Worst case, we can get to it from the back way right?  So it would become an out and back?  It's a shame, really nice scenery right there along the river.