Sunday, June 27, 2010

Mountain Biking: Opposing Comments

113 comments:

  1. We are strongly opposed to opening Bear Canyon, Shanahan Ridge, and Mesa trails to bikes. As an "avid ... mountain biking" enthusiast wrote in a thoughtful letter to today's Boulder Camera, "it's simply a bad idea."

    These trails are heavily used by hikers and runners, including many families with trail strollers, small children, and dogs.

    Since they were closed to bikes, the trails have become enormously popular for walking and running, in large part because hikers do not have to dodge bikes. We have "shared" trails with mountain bikes, and it was too often an unpleasant experience. Its hard to enjoy a trail after dodging a couple of bikes, and wondering if one might come flying around the next corner.

    Trail improvements have been made that are designed for foot traffic, not for bikes: bikes will without question tear up log steps that have been installed (at considerable expense) on many steep grades on these trails.

    These have become well known, very heavily used hiking and running trails, in part because there are no bikes. Hikers and runners are not seeking the adrenalin that is a part of mountain biking. Perhaps not for all bikers, but for many, there is an adrenalin element in technical challenges or speed; this simply is not the case for walkers and runners. That's the incompatibility, in a nutshell. The wonderful experience of walking the south Boulder trails -- quiet, serene, safe -- will disappear. Opening these trails to biking will not only destroy the hiking/running experience, it will without question lead to accidents and injuries. Even the wider parts of the Bear Canyon trail are often filled with runners, hikers, families, older people with walking sticks, all passing each other. Add bikes to that mix and people will get hurt.
    There were excellent reasons for closing these trails to bikes in 1986; why re-open these trails to bikes? Should we re-open Pearl Street to automobiles? No, of course not. The quality of experience on Pearl Street and the south Boulder trails is very much worth preserving. There are many other places to drive cars or ride bikes. We urge you to NOT allow mountain bikes on Bear Canyon, Shanahan Ridge, and Mesa trails.

    Thank you,

    Steve Lekson & Cathy Cameron
    92 Benthaven, Boulder, CO

    ReplyDelete
  2. The following is a link to an opinion piece I wrote for Sunday's Camera regarding proposals for mountain biking on south Boulder trails and additional parking lots at trailheads in south Boulder. Please consider it my contribution to the current debate at the CCG and OSMP regarding these issues.

    http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_15328070?IADID=Search-www.dailycamera.com-www.dailycamera.com

    Many thanks for your service to the community.

    Best regards
    Sarah Heilbronner

    ReplyDelete
  3. The following is a link to an opinion piece I wrote for Sunday's Camera regarding proposals for mountain biking on south Boulder trails and additional parking lots at trailheads in south Boulder. Please consider it my contribution to the current debate at the CCG and OSMP regarding these issues.

    http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_15328070?IADID=Search-www.dailycamera.com-www.dailycamera.com

    Many thanks for your service to the community.

    Best regards
    Sarah Heilbronner

    ReplyDelete
  4. I live on Lafayette Drive just off Lehigh and have been walking my dogs on the Shanahan trails since the mid-70s, when trails as we know them today were virtually non-existent. While much more crowded with people today, walking is still fun, and I find that people are much more careful with their dogs since the green tag program was started.

    Shanahan trails are a wonderful place for children to learn about nature. This past week I have seen mothers with anywhere from two to four children walking with them up the trails and at the near pond (as my kids used to call it) just west of Hardscrabble. It’s nice and peaceful and they can move at their snail’s pace.

    I do not even want new trails for bikes. My dogs (on leash) and I were nearly run down at Marshall Mesa just a week ago. Over there the bikers were more polite than early last fall when I last dared to go, but they still go very fast and I felt like we nearly got run over.

    I do not want the risk of children having to cross a trial that bikes travel on, not to mention the environmental damage more trails would cause. The ones already there have been there for at least 25-30 years. No new ones have been created since then.

    I am sending you this email to voice my opposition to bikes anywhere near the Shanahan Ridge area, since I understand you are pushing for them.

    Susan Evans
    South Neighborhood

    ReplyDelete
  5. We have lived at 2895 Iliff Street in Boulder (at the corner of Juilliard & Iliff Streets) for over 6 years. We make frequent use of the open space adjacent to our neighborhood (3-4 times per week in the summer, usually once or twice a week in the winter), mostly hiking on foot (North and South Fork Shanahan Trails, Mesa trail, Big Bluestem, Fern and Bear Canyon and others) and we sometimes ride the open space further out on our mountain bikes (Marshall Mesa, South Boulder Creek, Community Ditch) and we make frequent use of the paved trails in the city of Boulder on our bikes.

    We used to hike on the Marshall Mesa Trail, but stopped doing so years ago because of the heavy use of that trail by mountain bikers. We firmly believe that mountain bikers and hikers do not belong on the same trail, particularly when there is any incline on it at all. We have nearly been run over by mountain bikers numerous times, even on our bikes (which is much more visible to a biker). Most mountain bikers ride too fast for hikers and put the hiker's safety in danger. It also changes the nature of the trail, from a safe and peaceful meander in nature to stepping out into traffic on a busy street.

    We appreciate the fact that there are trails for mountain bikers and we enjoy using them, but we steadfastly oppose expanding the mountain biking trails onto and adjacent to Shanahan Ridge, including the North and South Fork Shanahan Trails, the Mesa Trail, Big Bluestem and Bear Canyon Trail. These are wonderful hiking trails and we want to continue to peacefully use them without fear of being over run, struck or constantly on the lookout for rapidly approaching mountain bikers - to get out of the way.

    It is our experience that bikers do not yield to hikers; they have an expectation that hikers will step aside. And just like a pedestrian encountering a car, the bikes always "win". Bikers call in front of them, "on your left" - which is a demand to yield. This is the very conflict which hikers seek to avoid when taking to the trails.

    The Shanahan Ridge hiking trails are quiet, peaceful walks in nature; allowing mountain bikes there would convert them into expressways of speed and noise fraught with peril from the constant potential of collisions. We thoroughly enjoy both hiking and mountain biking, but we strongly believe that they don't mix. Please don't compromise the hiking trails that we enjoy by allowing mountains bikes to have access to them.

    Please let us know if you have any questions.

    Kind regards,

    Louisa L. Baker and J. Paul LaChance
    2895 Iliff Street
    Boulder, CO 80305
    (720) 304-3746
    llbaker4@msn.com

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hello Joe, Guy,

    Wanted to provide my input for the Open Space Plans.

    I am a frequent walker/hiker in the Shanahan Ridge Trails and Marshall mesa. Here are my observations:
    1.The Shanahan trails are narrow in many areas, with lots of beautiful wildflowers and tree cover. It is difficult to see up ahead or to pass if there are lots of people/dogs, so mixing bikes and walkers would be dangerous.
    2. The Marshall Mesa, after this very cold, wet winter has become very ruddy with bike tracks. It is obvious that biking is a lot harder on the environment that walking.
    3. Even with the openness of the Marshall Mesa trail, frequently a biker will pull up right behind me with no warning or call. I always move over and hold my dog if I know they are coming, but I generally do not get that courtesy in return. It appears that rudeness is on the rise.
    4. The area south of the Shanahan Trail, the Blue stem area, is home to lots of nesting birds. It is a very peaceful area. The serenity of the open space will be severely destroyed if we permit vehicles - like bicycles - in the area.
    5. Greenbrier/Lehigh Road has bus stops. We do not need parking areas. There are also 2 schools with young kids (Boulder montesorri and Mesa Elementary), so increasing car traffic is not a good idea.

    Thanks for listening.
    katherine Velasco
    3700 Silver Plume Lane

    ReplyDelete
  7. I hike and bike. I am a (recent) dog owner; a 23# puggle with an off leash permit.

    I cannot imagine sharing the current Shanahan trail system with bikes and bikers. I believe our dog would be a severe risk; any dog would but small dogs are really at risk of their lives on vehicular-access trails.

    Each activity we engage in places us in a zone unique to that activity. Biking and hiking zones are incompatible.

    That said, I *do* support an east-west bike trail linking the city to Walker ranch, preferably one that doesn't bisect any Shanahan trail (altho I don't know if that's possible).

    One more thing: should biking be allowed under any scenario at Shanahan I would lobby hard for a visible tag with designated mounting parameters, designed simply with ID# readable from a distance. Sorry to say, I simply do not trust bikers to honor any code of safe shared us practice.

    Bart Windrum
    3855 Telluride Place

    ReplyDelete
  8. Clarification: my small dog is not "a" risk but "at risk".

    ReplyDelete
  9. Greetings,
    I am writing to express a strong opinion against allowing bikes on the hiking trails west of Boulder. As a resident of Shanahan ridge, I frequently(2-3 times/week) hike the trails in my neighborhood. In the last month I have hiked two open space ranches, in Golden and one in Lyons, which allow biking. In both cases the bike usage on the trail severely disrupted the hiking experience. Every couple minutes I had to jump out of the way of a bicyclist. One could say that the right of way is to the hiker, but this is not how it works on the ground when a biker is coming down the trail at a good clip. Instinct takes over and the hiker steps off the trail. On several occasions there was not enough room to safely step off the trail and I was rather precariously balanced on a drop off as a bike went by within inches of me. The trails were also much wider than our hiking trails due to erosion.

    As a hiker, a core value of the experience is the rhythmic pace which is peaceful and relaxing. Having to stop, move out of the way and then go every few minutes completely breaks the rhythmic pacing of the experience. Having to move quickly off the trail to avoid bikes which often cannot be seen until then are quite close is an unnerving and irritating experience, just the opposite of the hiking I currently experience in these trails nearby. Frequently bikes come up from behind and say nothing until they are too close for comfort.

    I appreciate the time you are putting in on this committee and ask that you pass my letter onto the the decisionmakers in this situation.

    Best Regards,

    Janet Kilby
    3675 Silver Plume Lane
    Boulder, CO 80305
    South Neighborhood

    ReplyDelete
  10. July 24, 2010

    Dear CCG,

    My name is Christine Cowles and I live with my husband and two children at 3530 Smuggler Circle. We are in Shanahan Ridge 5, at the junction of Greenbriar and Lehigh, in the southern neighborhood of the WTSA.

    For some trail users, these discussions are important because they will impact (one way or another) their leisure time activities. For those of us who live adjacent to the trails and open space, our entire way of life and the actual real value of our home could be affected.

    We are fortunate to have the beautiful open space right across our yard. The coyotes, fox, deer and other wildlife are abundant and the Shanahan’s cattle share the area too. The road next to our home is mostly local traffic. The SKIP bus stop is near our door which is very convenient and provides unlimited access to the trails by people who don’t happen to live right here.

    Neighborhood walkers, hikers in route to the trails, groups of Fairview students, “cross country skaters,” rollerbladers, and bikers of all kind ride by our house every day. After the buses, cars and motorcycles, the loudest of these travelers are the bikers as they need to raise their voices in order to hear each other because of the speed at which they are traveling. The gate to a community trail is also right by our home. Runners, families with children of all ages and dogs are often on the trail. We hear the squeaking of the gate as they come and go but it isn’t a problem.

    Our biggest concern about open space right by our home is if the new plan added parking lots and encouraged more residents and non-residents to drive to these trails. The increased noise and traffic would be extremely disruptive to the environment and to the people who live here. As I stated earlier, we already have bus stops by all of the trailheads in this area. There is also a parking lot at Fairview High School that is available on weekends, as well as before 7 am and after 3 pm on weekdays. This is only a quarter of a mile away.

    Because we live in high density townhomes, we don’t have our own backyard for our children, age 4 and 6 to play. They play in the common grass area which is bordered by Greenbriar and then open space. A parking lot and enhanced trailhead would make a hazardous situation even more so.

    We don’t have central air in our homes because we are all on electric power and we don’t have ducts. We keep our windows open to allow the breeze in to cool our homes. If trail usage increased substantially and a parking lot was added, the early morning activity of driving, parking and getting ready to ride/hike would be especially disruptive.

    Adding mountain bikes to current hiking trails is another issue that concerns us. The trails by our home are currently laid back, quiet and the perfect place for families with children and/or dogs. Adding mountain bikes to the mix would make the trails dangerous and sustaining the integrity of the trails would be very difficult. We love to bike the trail on Marshall Mesa, but we no longer hike there. The trails by us are much safer and well-suited for walking/hiking. Multi-use trails with such high volume don’t work.

    If a new enhanced trail head/parking lot is constructed by our home and a biking trail is connected to it from the south and north it could be considered the starting point for people from all over the Denver-Metro Area. Please don’t create that horrible situation for our neighborhood.

    Thank you,
    Christine Cowles

    ReplyDelete
  11. Dear CCG,

    My name is David Mosberger and I live with my wife and two daugthers (age 2 and 7) in south Boulder (Devil's Thumb). We're very concerned about the prospect of opening up the trails in the study area to mountain biking.

    We have hiked in the Marshall Mesa area in the past but it was a nightmare as we had to constantly be on alert to make ensure our kids were safe while bikes were passing us. So what was meant to be a relaxing walk instead became a nerve-wrecking experience. Needless to say, we haven't gone back to hike there anymore.

    In contrast, the bike-free trails in the study area are a true joy to hike. Note that many of those trails are fairly narrow and steep. It doesn't take a lot of imagination to see what would happen if bikes were allowed to barrel down those trails.

    Additionally, we are very concerned that at least one proposal suggested to create new trails along the Devil's Thumb neighboorhood. The areas that those trails would cross have notorious groundwater problems and creating new trails there that would be frequented by mountain bikes would likely cause serious erosion problems.

    On the other hand, we very much support making it easier to access official trail heads by public transportation and bikes. Adding bike racks to the trail heads to encourage hikers to come by bike rather than car seems like a great idea. Similarly, adding signs to bus-stops that would direct hikers to official trailheads would seem like a positive step.

    ReplyDelete
  12. As a south neighborhood resident I am opposed to any Mountain bike use on OSMP land south of Baseline and Broadway .There are excellent mtn. bike trails in other less fragile habitat in the city and county of Boulder.
    SpenseHavlick ...665 Emporia Rd. Boulder 80305

    ReplyDelete
  13. I moved into the Table Mesa area in the early 1960's and into my present home in 1970. I have hiked and run the Mesa and Shanahan trails over these years. The trails have been improved and are even more enjoyable than they were years ago. There are also a lot more people using them. Allowing bicycles on these trails would be a disaster. Although many bikers are courteous, most of them go fast and I've had close calls on trails where they are allowed. Even on Boulder bike paths the walkers and runners are at risk.

    Betty Valent
    1744 Bear Mountain Dr.
    South Neighborhood

    ReplyDelete
  14. I strongly oppose any mountain biking on the West TSA in the NCAR/DevilsThumb/Table Mesa/Shanahan Ridge Area. My opposition is based on the need for safety of walkers and hikers (of all ages), the environmental qualities of this area, including the Big Bluestem habitat, the potential for massive infusion of bike enthusiasts from the entire front range if the protection of these areas was altered and opened to mountain biking, and the impact visually and physically on the meadows and narrow trails and footpaths. I think that the comments made above on the "opposition" page by others to the mountain biking proposal are also well stated. I have lived in this area for nearly 20 years and am a frequent hiker of the Shananhan, BigBluestem and Mesa Trails.

    Cathy Greer
    3025 Galena Way
    South Neighborhood

    ReplyDelete
  15. I live in South Boulder and have hiked and run the Shanahan and Bear Creek trails on my own, with my dogs, and with my children. When my boys were little, a rogue bicyclist nearly ran us down: my two babies in a baby jogger, our two dogs (well trained and under voice control) and me. The biker, rounding a corner, simply could not stop in time; physics would not allow it. In the order of things, bikes are supposed to yield to pedestrians. It seems to me at best irresponsible, at worst maybe even liable, to allow bikers on a trail system where they can not physically fulfill their responsibility to yield.

    I am an avid cyclist, but I oppose introducing mountain bikes to these trails first and foremost as a safety issue. If bikes are introduced to Shanahan and Bear Mountain trails, where children, hikers, joggers and pets all share the commonality of being on foot, conflict is sure to abound, and it will likely be at the expense of those of us on foot. What a shame it will be when a child is injured because a bike simply could not stop in time. This is not a question of “if” but of “when.” This is not a question of common sense and safety.

    Lisa Drake
    3080 Galena Way
    Boulder CO 80305

    ReplyDelete
  16. We are a family of 4 living on the very south-western edge of Shanahan Ridge Townhomes along Lehigh/Greenbriar. We've been enjoying this Shanahan trail system since 1993. I remember even back then that one of my first thoughts and impressions about these trails was how peaceful and accessible they were as I didn't need to worry about colliding with bikes as I do need to with other trails. There is a wonderful, low impact, pristine quality about these trails that I continue to enjoy now with my family with 2 young children. My husband is a mountain biker (also a runner who enjoys these trails) and when he chooses to bike, he goes to some nearby trails at Marshall Mesa. This trailhead provides, for those who need to commute by car, a nice lot for cars and even a public restroom. Do we need to duplicate this in our whole trail system or is it possible to preserve some quality trails for hikers and runners that often include families with pets on leashes? Boulder is a wonderful place for all kinds of activities and I hope that we can continue to provide places that will remain relatively low impact for those who want to enjoy the silence and calm that our incredible beauty here offers. Added, the thought of tearing apart another beautiful meadow in such a crucial natural environment for a parking lot saddens me greatly. This kind of action seems to truly go against the intent and progress that this city is aiming for in encouraging (especially for those able, motivated, active athletes) biking as commuting or busing as is easily accessible to this area. Once a natural area is destroyed, it can't be easily re-created as it once naturally was. Certainly as a resident facing this beautiful meadow, this would greatly impact our daily lives in a dramatic way. Especially with so many small children in this area now enjoying the nearby play and park area. But even more than that, I fear that we are chipping away at the very heart of what makes this place so incredibly rare and special.

    Robin Allegra
    3515 Smuggler Circle
    Boulder, CO
    80305

    ReplyDelete
  17. I live in South Boulder and have hiked and run the Shanahan and Bear Creek trails on my own, with my dogs, and with my children. When my boys were little, a rogue bicyclist nearly ran us down: my two babies in a baby jogger, our two dogs (well trained and under voice control) and me. The biker, rounding a corner, simply could not stop in time; physics would not allow it. In the order of things, bikes are supposed to yield to pedestrians. It seems to me at best irresponsible, at worst maybe even liable, to allow bikers on a trail system where they can not physically fulfill their responsibility to yield.

    I am an avid cyclist, but I oppose introducing mountain bikes to these trails first and foremost as a safety issue. If bikes are introduced to Shanahan and Bear Mountain trails, where children, hikers, joggers and pets all share the commonality of being on foot, conflict is sure to abound, and it will likely be at the expense of those of us on foot. What a shame it will be when a child is injured because a bike simply could not stop in time. This is not a question of “if” but of “when.” This is a question of common sense and safety.

    Lisa Drake
    3080 Galena Way
    Boulder CO 80305

    ReplyDelete
  18. Our letter to the Camera is posted above (June 29, 2010). Since we wrote that letter, we've learned more about the situation, and I'd like to add a few more comments. One thing we've learned is that there's a lot to learn: this whole issue has "flown under the radar" for most south Boulder residents. The pro-bike lobby is very well organized and they have pushed the issue from the beginning of Open Space planning. South Boulder neighborhoods are just now (July 2010) discovering and reacting; and I fear our voices may come too little, too late to accurately reflect community opinion. That said, I welcome the chance to offer comments, and I thank our CCG representatives for their volunteer service.

    According to the Bolder Mountain Bike Alliance (BMA) webpage, "there are more than 400 miles of trails on these public lands. A bit more than two hundred trail miles are opened to bikes." Half of the trail system is already open to bikes! (Which means that half the trail system is unpleasant for hikers, runners, and walkers.) And the BMA webpage announces that the City of Boulder Parks and Recreation Department has just begun construction of a "world class bike park" with a budget of $4+million. Apparently that's not enough.

    I am strongly opposed to opening existing trails to bikes in the western Open Space and Mountain Parks. The problem in a nutshell: bikers wear helmets (and need to); hikers don't. Bikers wear helmets because it is in the nature of their sport to occasionally crash: speed, technical maneuvers, and adrenaline sometimes send the bike one way and the rider another. Hikers and runners don't need helmets—at least, on bike-free trails. Speeding machines don't mix with families, dogs, horses, kids, and elders walking, hiking, running—all enjoying the famous quiet and calm of Shanahan Ridge, Bear Canyon, and other wonderful trails of the west Open Space and Mountain Parks.

    I am also against building new trails exclusively for bikes through this area. Cutting up Open Space with more trails is not good conservation. Bikers have half the trails in Boulder County and a new $4 million park. Hikers, runners, dog-walkers have the other half of the trails. Surely, each has enough? If we are thinking of ways to spend money on open space trails, how about expanding special needs and ADA trails? Leave the rest as it is.

    The trails in the western and southern Open Space and Mountain Parks have operated wonderfully as pedestrian, dog, and horse trails for almost thirty years. They are famous for their peace and quiet and calm. They are ALREADY a destination for visitors looking for that increasingly rare experience (a sizable portion of trail users are from beyond Boulder County.) If BMA and bikers want to enjoy the wonderful, almost unique environment and experience offered by the west TSA trails, could they perhaps get off their machines and walk? In the spirit of "compromise" and "consensus" (BMA's terms) could the bike lobby not acknowledge that there are many thousands of people in the community (including many bike riders) who enjoy enormously the quiet, safe bike-free trails of Open Space and Mountain Parks? Traditional users of these trails walk dogs, hike, run, raise families, and vote. How is it that the bike lobby thinks that their particular enthusiasms over-ride the Open Space experience cherished by many thousands of Boulder residents (and visitors)? I'm sorry to say it, because I'm sure many mountain bike riders are fine people, but demanding more beyond half the county's trails and a $4 million bike park seems…greedy. The west TSA trails are as much a part of Boulder's heritage as Pearl Street or Boulder Creek. Please leave them alone.

    Stephen Lekson
    92 Benthaven Place
    Boulder CO 80305

    South Neighborhood

    ReplyDelete
  19. As a senior citizen in the south neighborhood I frequently hike on the open space trails . This would be impossible if the trails were opened to mountain biking. I couldn't move fast enough to avoid fast moving bikes. There are plenty of trails and roads for the bikes to use which wouldn't endanger humans and dogs. please register my vote to keep the trails closed to bikes. Sincerely, Robert J Miller, 2847 Tincup Circle,Boulder.

    ReplyDelete
  20. We are strongly opposed to allowing mountain bikes on trails between Chautauqua and Eldorado Springs, especially on any trails west of the neighborhoods. We are avid users of these trails, with our dogs and our children, and allowing bikes on them would completely alter the hiking experience for the worse.

    We share the concerns about safety, environmental distruption, neighborhood impacts, negative aesthetic impact, and an overall degradation of the hiking experience that have been outlined in other comments. This stretch of open space and its trails are currently ideally suited to serving the residents of Boulder, and allowing bicycles on such an inhabited and delicate environment is a bad idea.

    Marty & Diann Grosjean
    3605 Silver Plume Lane
    South Neighborhood

    ReplyDelete
  21. My family has lived on the edge of Open Space for about four years. Daily, we view the hundreds of people who enjoy the trails --runners, hikers, climbers and recreational walkers of all ages and abilities. As others have said, bikes and people are a disaster waiting to happen. The trails are steep and uneven so that even a careful biker might have trouble avoiding trouble. And, unfortunately, most bikers are in it for the challenge and the thrill and are not careful.
    Allowing bikes on the existing trails of Bear Canyon, the Mesa Trail and such would destroy their character and one of the jewels of this city. Please look for another area.

    Kathy Leftwich
    1295 Wildwood Road

    ReplyDelete
  22. I am a recreational mountain biker and have spent a lot of time teaching my kids (10 and 8) to mountain bike. A great sport! But we have plenty of good trails in and around Boulder. We can ride to some, drive to others. The recent growth in availability of trails in our area (Betasso, Heil Ranch, Dowdy Draw and various extensions to them) are great, although even there, I get the sense that various neighbors are not too happy. There is no need to allow bikes access to the West TSA. It will ruin or damage the fun lots of other people have there without being of major gain to bikers. Once one takes into account all of the compromises that will need to be made to allow for erosion control, sight lines, etc., the route will be a lousy and uninteresting mountain bike trail that yet annoys everyone else. What a lose-lose proposition. It will also harm the longer term prospects for expanded mountain biking in what are more appropriate rural areas when people experience what a disaster this is. Please stop this nonsense before everyone suffers!

    And if this does go to "political" levels because a compromise cannot be found - and it can't be - council members, please recall that voters have long memories. It is abundantly clear that this is a niche, special-interest issue no different from bank bailouts etc. (Even more - lots of the "special interest" folks themselves don't want this - see the number of postings from mountain bikers like me who say "no thanks".) The broad population does not support this. It was tried in the 1970's and did not work. At much higher usage and population densities, why are we even discussing this now? What next, put a ski area back at Chautauqua? How about snowmobiles - they are under-served by Boulder trails too....

    Robert Heilbronner
    1746 Bear Mountain Drive
    Boulder, CO 80305

    ReplyDelete
  23. Balancing Bikers and Hikers

    As the discussion continues regarding bikes and Open Space, a few facts may be helpful . . .

    In 2005 the BMA (Boulder Mountainbike Alliance) set the following Trail Goals: 1) five new from-town singletrack trails, 2) new connector trials, 3) new designated riding area, and 4) NO trails closed to bikes.

    The BMA along with the City and County of Boulder are to be congratulated for far exceeding these goals. As of 2009 the BMA had 12 new singletrack trails PLUS four new designated riding areas. In addition, NO trials were closed to bikes.

    As for the new designated riding area, on May 10, 2010, the City of Boulder began construction of the Valmont Bike Park, 45 acres at the intersection of Valmont and Airport Road. The BMA calls this $4.1 million project the “ultimate off-road bike park.”

    Of the 97 miles of trails on Boulder City Open Space, 48 miles (49.5%) allow bikes. And of the 400 miles of trials on Boulder County public lands, over 200 miles allow bikes. (Source: BMA’s website) These numbers will significantly increase with the completion of the Valmont Bike Park.

    Boulder and the BMA have done a great job creating a variety of bike trials which is why many bikers, as well as hikers, believe it is NOT necessary to allow bikes in the pristine West Trail Area (i.e. the Open Space below the Flatirons from Chautauqua to Eldorado Springs).

    Bikers deserve their 200 miles of city and county trails and their new $4.1 million state-of-the-art Bike Park. In return, hikers, runners, dog walkers, and nature lovers deserve their share of bike-free Open Space serenity and safe trails.

    Tom Duncan
    1815 View Point Rd.
    Boulder, South Neighborhood

    ReplyDelete
  24. There have been numerous comments regarding the hazards and problems with shared hiking/biking trail usage and we concur with those objections. However, there has been less discussion of the problems associated with the creation of new, separate trails for mountain bikes in the West TSA area, probably because it is harder to quantify the issues as compared to nearly being run down by a bicycle. But a substantial number of new, biking-preferred trails are being proposed in the West TSA area and that is a very bad idea.

    We are hikers, have lived in Boulder for nearly 40 years and have repeatedly voted in favor of the City’s open space/mountain parks land acquisition program. Throughout this time, we have actively supported what we thought was the City’s goal of protecting the mountain backdrop and preserving natural areas, since that is a substantial part of what makes Boulder such a special place to live. Although recreational access is also important, we recognized that overuse and development would destroy exactly what we loved about open space and therefore limitations on recreational use were necessary. Looking at what is now being proposed, the new Devil’s Thumb Stand-Off would effectively put a dirt road through what is now a pristine meadow in one of the most visible portions of our mountain backdrop. Similarly, the proliferation of new trails in the Devil’s Thumb/Shanahan Ridge area will further fragment the already limited natural areas to the detriment of native vegetation and wildlife.

    Some other objections are the development and maintenance costs for new trails, trail-related erosion problems (a serious problem given the clay soils), additional traffic in residential areas, increased parking demands in already over-burdened residential areas, loss of privacy for adjacent homes, and similar.

    In other words, while mountain biking can and should have a place in Boulder open space, the areas adjacent to Devil’s Thumb/Shanahan Ridge are absolutely not the place for it.

    John & Harriet Olson
    1930 Stony Hill Road
    Boulder, CO 80305

    ReplyDelete
  25. Correction - The above comment is from the South Neighborhood. John & Harriet Olson, 1930 Stony Hill Road, Boulder, CO 80305 (South Neighborhood)

    ReplyDelete
  26. Hi:
    We're hikers and bikers and the parents of young children 8, 5, 3. We love biking on all of Boulder's wonderful bike trails in and out of the city. We also love hiking on the dedicated hiking trails. We think it's wonderful that the voters in Boulder have recognized that in some cases it's ok to dedicate trails to one or the other activity and thus provided a choice for citizens' recreation.

    As a mom of kids I can say that I absolutely have concerns of the speed differential/blind hills/curves of bikes and hikers. Two years ago a 3 year old friend of our child was hit by a bike on a Boulder trail. He was bruised/cut up and scared but happily he was otherwise ok. Truthfully, it was the three year old's fault. He suddenly lurched out into the trail of an oncoming biker. His mom didn't expect this, but there it is...that is the nature of kids (and it's why we don't give them driver's licenses ;>)). As a family, we generally avoid things like the Boulder Creek trail for hiking (or if we do we're on alert, we don't let the kids walk out ahead too much and it's definitely not as relaxing as hiking on a dedicated walking trail). I also have noted bikers whipping down the city trails pulling off some dangerous maneuvers and have never seen anyone on a bike get a ticket, etc. And while I truly believe most mt bikers/bikers are cool and careful with pedestrians, I think there are always a few folks with limited judgement in the mix.

    Anyway, in short, I'd oppose making generic multi use trails out of the area under discussion. I think what Boulder has done in the past (i.e. some multi use, some dedicated) creates something for everyone). For kids, pregnant ladies, elderly folks, special needs folks dedicated walking trails are really important.

    I realize what an investment a lot of mt. bikers have made in their equipment and know that if I had one of the super neat/expensive bikes I would want to get out on a lot of trails too, but maybe there is some other area to expand in (the north, farther in the mountains?).

    Anyway, good luck with the planning process Guy, I just wanted to throw in a vote for the small people who sometimes don't get factored in!

    Cheers!
    Susan Churchill (South Neighborhood)
    1313 Wildwood Court
    Boulder, CO 80305

    ReplyDelete
  27. Catharine Harris, 2645 Briarwood Drive, Boulder, CO 80305, South Neighborhood

    I do not believe mountain bikes are appropriate between Chautauqua and Eldorado Springs. Here are my reasons:

    1. The intent of our Open Space Charter has been mainly conservation and preservation of native grasses, birds, wildlife, wildflowers, and simply open space to balance our increasingly dense and paved urban environment. Our Open Space charter seeks to offset the mindset of developing and using every square inch of available land. Our open space program has been a nationally recognized treasure for 24 years.

    2. I have walked the Boulder Creek Path, the Bobolink Trail, and Betasso Preserve which are dual usage trails for walkers and bikers. I feel I take my life in my hands. They are not safe for walkers, so many walkers just give up using them.

    3. Where else in our fast-moving culture do you find quiet? I walk the Shanahan trails nearly every day. I listen to and watch birds, look at how the vegetation changes from day-to-day, and simply rest in the quiet and solitude. Adding people who are engaged in the exciting and challenging sport of mountain biking is not compatible with our open space trails.

    4. Creating new single use paths for bicycles will cut across now-pristine bird, grass, flower, and wildlife habitat further fragmenting our finite natural resource that is our open space.

    5. Mountain bikes have plenty of trails available to them. They already have access to 34% of City Open Space trails and 84% of county Open Space trails. Mountain bikes have access to 45% of U.S. Forest Service trails. THey have hundreds of miles of designated bike lanes on streets and highways within Boulder city and county. Soon mountain bikers will have a new 45 acre, $4.1 million bike park at the corner of Valmont and Airport Road. What's enough for them? Just because they want more doesn't mean they should get it.

    6. Our trails already draw people from Denver and surrounding towns. Adding the large mountain biking population and clubs will overtax our trails, our environment, and our neighborhoods. Building parking lots for the additional people who come from out-of-town will require paving parts of open space.

    7. Who is going to pay for increased trail maintenance if mountain bikes are allowed?

    ReplyDelete
  28. Diana Fields, South Boulder, 1440 Blue Sage Court

    For the past 23+ years, I have run the trails in the West TSA, on average at least 5 days a week. As a runner usually in training for distance runs, I often string together long runs spanning the trail system in the West TSA proposed to be opened to mountain biking. During my runs, I have been fortunate to encounter two mountain lions, 12 bears, and innumerable other types of wildlife, all of which I believe were present because of the delicate balance struck between access and conservation policies currently in place for our Boulder trails. I treasure my experience in this unique area, and fear that opening up this area to mountain biking will radically change the existing trails, mar the hillsides if new trails are created, and negatively impact the wildlife sharing this area with us. I oppose adding mountain biking to the West TSA, and believe efforts to increase biking opportunities at Valmont Park, potentially at Eldora, and on other trails that don’t abut neighborhoods adequately meet the professed need for more bike trails in Boulder.
    My comments on the compromises suggested by the Mountain Biking Alliance are as follows:
    • Consider plans for a trail north of the urban boundary at Lehigh/Greenbrier separately from plans for a trail south of that boundary which has less difficult neighborhood impact issues.
    I agree that the issues for expanded trails south of Lehigh/Greenbriar should be considered separately from those to the north. In fact, the proposed north corridor, which I strongly oppose, is, in my opinion, too short any way to contribute to a meaningful mountain-biking experience. The benefit to bikers of opening up a relatively short trail in this sensitive area is clearly outweighed by its significant detriment to the interests of hikers, conservationists, and wildlife.
    • Continue to prohibit mountain bike access on all of the popular hiking trails in the area by constructing new, primarily mountain bike trails.
    No new biking trails should be created in this sensitive environmental area. For the same reasons increased dog restrictions were imposed in most of these areas (to reduce environmental and riparian conflicts), we should not create a new impact by adding bikes.
    • To the extent possible route the new mountain trails out of the "viewshed" of immediate neighbors and another trails.
    A laudable goal, but with “social trails” having no regulation on them by design, I fear that the existing social trails that are in the viewshed of neighbors will become an area with a “slippery slope” --specifically not regulating these trails could permit bikers, like hikers, to access them expanding the impact of current biking proposals beyond what might be intended.
    • Sharply limit the number of places where mountain bikes can access neighborhood streets (to Table Mesa Drive only, for example).
    As above, access to these proposed mountain biking trails could be possible via social trails. I agree no formal mountain biking trail heads should be located in crowded neighborhoods.
    • Strongly encourage mountain bike visitors to bike and not drive to the already crowded trailheads.
    This should be a goal for all open space users and is difficult to control; it would have no meaningful mitigating affect here.
    • Avoid sensitive habitat areas as defined by OSMP's new Highly Suitable Habitat criteria.
    Absolutely.

    (part I -- to be continued in next post because of length)

    ReplyDelete
  29. Diana Fields, South Boulder, 1440 Blue Sage Court

    Part II--continued from prior post

    My comments on the compromises suggested by the Mountain Biking Alliance are as follows:
    • To limit mountain bike usage of the area and to better serve the mountain bike community, try to develop other mountain bike opportunities to the north, south, east, and west of the core Western TSA area.
    This is too broad and vague to support, but the threat to expanding biking in the Western TSA should not be used as leverage to open up, automatically, biking opportunities in other areas where similar concerns are raised. Each opportunity should be evaluated separately and nothing should be considered as a trade off. I would support increased study of expanding the network of biking trails recently added to the trail systems in Boulder.
    • Encourage mountain bike visitors to spend as much of their time as possible in outlying areas and to use the new trails as a non-automobile route to get from Boulder to these areas.
    This would be impossible to enforce and would be, at best, lip service to concerns about over-use/crowding and memories would fade over time about the intended purpose of these restrictions.
    • Encourage courtesy patrols and rapid response of law enforcement.
    This already should be a priority in areas where biking is permitted, and, like the self-enforcement of dog regulations, has not been the answer to user conflicts. Again, this appears only to be lip service to appease those in opposition to biking and would have no meaningful effect.
    • Consider occasional bans on mountain bikes use on current hiking trails through something like an even/odd numbered day system.
    This would be difficult to police, and would only provide an answer to user conflicts 50% of the time. This also does not address the significant environmental concerns during the 50% usage—once we scare away the wildlife, will it matter that every other day wildlife gets a reprieve?
    • Avoid routing bikes through neighborhood streets.
    This seems difficult as myriad access points could be gained from social trails in neighborhoods.
    • Consider allowing only "uphill" traffic to slow down mountain bikes.
    A one-way corridor “uphill” from either North to South or reverse seems pointless—this would result in a mixed “mountain” biking experience if a return trip was by road. The upside of having a one-way biking experience in this area is significantly outweighed by the downside to the West TSA as a whole.

    ReplyDelete
  30. I am very strongly opposed to any mountain biking access to the this area. I've lived in Shanahan Ridge for 14 years, and have spent many hours hiking the trails nearby. These trails are used by people of all ages. For example, I often see older folks enjoying a stroll on the trails; how many other trails are easily accessible to people who may have limited mobility? There are many, many little kids and dogs. If mountain bikes were allowed, it would create a very dangerous situation for everyone who uses the trails. We all know how hazardous the Boulder Creek Path can be. Do we want that in the south Boulder neighborhood? I believe the trails are already used quite heavily -- I don't think they can really handle a large increase in use of any kind.

    I also have a lot of concern about added traffic to the area. The speed limit on Greenbriar/Lehigh is 25. Yet I constantly see people driving up the road going 40-50 mph. Buses, too. Only once in 14 years have I ever seen any police officers trying to catch the speeders. Speeding cars are a big concern in part because so many people are crossing the street on foot to access the trails, often in spots that are somewhat blind. Do we want to increase the risk of collisions, with more car traffic and bikers accessing the trails?

    We have a lovely quiet neighborhood in this area. Please don't let it be ruined.

    Catherine Dold
    Telluride Place
    South Neighborhood

    ReplyDelete
  31. I am concerned about the proposal to add mountain biking to the list of activities that are permitted in the South Boulder Open Space. Trails such as Bear Canyon and Shanahan Ridge are crowded daily with hikers, joggers, families, elders, dogs, and others. On weekends the population quadruples. The trails are narrow, often steep, and have many blind corners. I think we can all agree that pedestrians and bikers would be a dangerous mix. So we are left with two options: 1) leave things as they are; 2) give up some of these very heavily used trails to bikers, 3) build new trails.

    Obviously I strongly support the first option. I feel that we should use this limited space for those purposes that allow the largest number of people to enjoy them. When I’m on the trails, I see lots of young families with babies and toddlers, lots of elderly people walking to stay fit, college-age hikers and climbers, teenagers enjoying time with their friends, joggers, strollers, dog walkers, and many other sorts of folks. Why turn the trails over to a small minority of people who want the rush and thrill of a high-speed bike ride? There are enough places in the Boulder area where they can find that experience without disenfranchising South Boulder. I know that one of the “compromise” proposals is “bikes every other day” – a 50% decrease in the use of trails by others. That is asking us to give up a great deal. And new trails would have impacts on a fragile environment.

    I have heard anecdotal evidence of surveys taken in South Boulder that asked if bikes should be permitted in the area and the response was overwhelmingly “no” (90% of respondents). However, I am concerned that most people in South Boulder do not know about the proposed changes to the trail system at all. Although the CCG website has been set up, it seems to only be for those “in the know” and those that happen to stumble upon it. I certainly hope that CCG or Boulder Open Space will conduct a fair and impartial survey of people in South Boulder to assess the desire or need for biking trails in this area. If the response is negative, I hope that CCG and Boulder Open Space will recommend that no change be made in the use of the South Boulder trails.

    Thank you very much for allowing me to be part of this planning process.

    Cathy Cameron
    92 Benthaven Pl.
    Boulder, CO 80305

    South Neighborhood

    ReplyDelete
  32. Hi,

    My name is Jason Vogel, president of the Boulder MountainBike Alliance (BMA) and resident of South Boulder. I'm obviously in support of reasonable and responsible access for bikes in the West TSA, so why am I writing here?

    I'd like to acknowledge the validity of some of the concerns that I've read in the comments above. For example, the speed differential between bikes and hikers can be dangerous, simply having bikes on trail can change the nature of a trail to the point where some people no longer enjoy it, and kids and dogs that behave erratically can spell disaster on a mixed use trail.

    However, there are also a number of points raised above that are simply untrue or unfair. Bikers and BMA in particualr are not trying to take over the West TSA. We have asked for extremely modest access primarily to allow us to access trails to the south and west w/o the use of a car. We do not commonly run people down, kill ground nesting birds, or have horns growing out of our heads - well most of us anyway.

    BMA and many mountain bikers bike on open space for surprisingly similar reasons to you all - to get away from the hustle of modern life, to commune with nature, to experience the wonderful preservation of open lands that Boulder has preserved for future generations.

    We are not the caricatures of adrenaline fueled, irresponsible, poodle-killing nut cases that we have been painted as. We understand the many challenges that bike access in the West TSA would pose and we are willing to compromise and engage in a meaningful discussion on whether and how our needs can be met in the West TSA area. I encourage all of you commenting on this site to think about compromise solutions and post some ideas there. It's too easy to just say no, and it pits our equally passionate and sizable communities against one another unnecessarily.

    I encourage you to ask - "What do bikers really want in the West TSA?" "Would any bike access of any type whatsoever be acceptable in the West TSA?" "What would I need to get from the biking community for me to feel that they had made a reasonable compromise that respects my desires too?"

    It is a sad state of affairs that we have to log competing pro and con bike comments instead of engaging in meaningful conversation. Let's try and live up to the expectations of good citizenship and at least try to understand one another and our respective needs and desires.

    In the most genuine spirit of community building,

    Jason Vogel
    President
    Boulder MountainBike Alliance
    1245 Berea
    South Neighborhood

    ReplyDelete
  33. Richard and Patricia Gioscia
    2959 Tincup Circle
    Boulder, CO 80305
    South Neighborhood

    We have lived in south Boulfer for 20 years and use the trails frequently. There are already too many trails in the south Boulder area as numerous renegade trails have been added over the years. Having visited biking areas, we have found it impossible to have a peaceful experience on trails which allow biking or are close to biking. The small footprint between the west neighborhoods and the flatirons will make it impossible to create a separate trail that is not distracting and disturbing to hikers. Please do not open up this area to mountain bikers.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Just want to add my support to most of the comments above. I discovered the Shanahan Ridge residential area with adjacent trails in 1987 after having moved to Boulder in 1973. I chose to live up here so I could WALK to a peaceful natural environment that has “restored my soul” EVERY TIME I enter that environment. Enough has been said above about the differences between biking and hiking activity and mentality, so I will not add to it, except to emphasize Christine Cowles’ statement “We love to bike the trail on Marshall Mesa but we no longer hike there”, which I find states the problem in a nutshell.
    Every hiker with whom I have spoken about opening up South Boulder open space to bikes – even those who are also bikers – say something similar. When there are bikes on or near trails, hikers are inclined to stay away from them. Many trails in and around Boulder have already been opened to bikers, narrowing the options for us hikers. Do the bikers need to have access to EVERY Boulder Open Space area? Can not a few of the areas remain peaceful, undamaged, and safe for the hikers, their children and pets?

    Please do not destroy the peacefulness and preservation of a habitat that so many of us, local and non-local, have come to require for our wellbeing.

    I would also like to express my thanks to the neighborhood representative and whoever else was involved in setting up this site so that those of us who are unable to attend meetings can express our opinions, pro or con. That after all, is part of the process of “engaging in meaningful conversation.”

    Connie Hirsch
    3558 Smuggler Way
    South Neighborhood

    ReplyDelete
  35. I am deeply opposed to the introduction of mountain biking on open space in our area.
    Why?
    1. Sharing heavily used trails is simply too dangerous. The safety of hikers, children, the elderly, dogs, and others should be enough to end this discussion. Just as jet skiiers or sailboats are not allowed where lots of people swim so should mountain bikes be restricted where lots of people walk, sit, chat, and run.
    2. It will change the peaceful nature of the trails - having to constantly avoid bikers coming up behind you and in front of you is a profoundly different experience.
    3. It will attract more traffic and parking problems, threatening the tranquilty of quiet neighborhoods and making it less safe for children playing.
    4. It will not be enforceable. What's to keep bikers from going off trail? Ignoring speed and safety rules? It will place a strain on already strained Open Space rangers. And, equally disturbing, it will drain away resources that should have been spent on education, trail preservation, etc. We have a hard enough challenge now...why are we even considering adding to it?
    5. We already have an extensive system of mountain biking trails in Boulder. This is excessive - a response to a small but vocal group who doesn't represent a majority of Boulder citizens.
    If the plan is to create new trails, that is equally concerning. Put Simply: The destruction of precious resources and habitat is not worth it.
    Our open space is finite and fragile. If we change the way it's used today, what's to stop more changes in the future? Let's say "ATV enthusiasts" were to become as well organized as mountain bikers and wanted to use the trails, would we simply desert Open Space principles and accomodate them? What if downhill skiers wanted to build a ski area, would we just say OK?
    Are we saying that if you are loud enough, well organized enough, well funded enough...than we are more than happy to desert the principles of Open Space - our most unique and valuable resource?
    Please, please take a stand on what makes Boulder Boulder....
    -Eve Rose
    1343 Wildwood Court
    South Neighborhood

    ReplyDelete
  36. Current proposals to add new trails for mountain bikers or to share existing trails in Central and South Boulder are extremely ill-advised. Current trails are simply too busy to make this safe. The creation of new trails when we are having a tough enough time maintaining our existing trails is also ridiculous. It is painful to think that the City would sacrifice Open Space to the selfish interests of one interest group.
    Roderick Wallis
    1343 Wildwood Court
    South Neighborhood

    ReplyDelete
  37. I believe strongly that the West Trails area of Mountain Parks should remain closed to bikes. There are already tons of bike paths, paved roads, dirt forest service roads, and trails available to bikes. I bike all the time myself (including to work everyday), but bikes don't need to be everywhere. I already avoid a number of county open space areas due to the incessant bike traffic. It creates a circus atmosphere rather than a quiet, enjoyable experience in nature - kind of like trying to snowshoe on a downhill ski run (and I like to do both of these two - but in separate places). Not only that, you can't relax because of safety issues - you never know when another bike is suddenly going to pass you (too closely) from behind. Please, please don't open this area to bikes. Personally, I would feel that the area has been taken away from me, and would no longer be willing to vote in support of OSMP funding measures.

    I live in Martin Acres, just north of Table Mesa Blvd. I use the West Trails area around once a week. I also have taken my son on the trails for years and years (he's now 12), but having bikes and little kids on the same trails is even more problematic than bikes and adults - please don't diminish other families' chances to educate their children about nature in a relaxed, safe environment. Family hiking tends to be concentrated close to town, because kids aren't always up for long hikes, and no one wants to drive 45 minutes or an hour to get to hiking spots and then do a relatively short hike, so that's all the more reason to keep the near-town areas like this bike free and kid-friendly. Drive families off the trails, and who will be our next generation of outdoor supporters?

    Andrew Cowell
    4485 Hamilton Ct.

    ReplyDelete
  38. We live in the South Boulder neighborhood and we are opposed to any initiative to expand mountain bike access in South Boulder.

    We feel that the only constituency served by expanded mountain biking are a small group of avid mountain bike riders within Boulder, and a huge number of mountain bike riders who live along the front range.

    Here are my reasons for opposition:

    1. Mountain bike riding is simply not compatible with the current forms of trail enjoyment, primarily walking and hiking. I am a mountain bike rider and I know a large part of the enjoyment and workout benefit comes from biking fast and the last thing you want to do is slow down or stop and walk around any hikers on the trail. What will happen is that when a biker or group of bikers encounter hikers (which will occur every few minutes), many bikers will continue riding around the hikers by going off trail. I’m not saying all bikers will do this, but based on my experience riding on other mountain trails that allow bikers and hikers, a fairly sizable percentage will do this.

    2. It is not safe to mix mountain biking with hiking. As mentioned above, mountain biking involves an element of speed and considering the number of hikers, walkers, pet owners, and families using the trails, serious accidents will inevitably occur.

    3. There is no need for additional mountain biking. There are plenty of bike paths and bike lanes to connect bikers to existing mountain bike destinations. There are also many mountain bike trails open to mountain biking within Boulder and within 30 minutes of Boulder. If you include all mountain bike trails within 60 minutes of Boulder, you could bike a different trail every day and never ride the same trial twice.

    4. Once we start opening up Boulder Open Space to recreational uses beyond what is currently allowed, we start down a path that will have huge negative consequences in terms of congestion and environment degradation.

    Finally, I don’t believe that this issue has a compromise. The word ‘compromise’ has a positive connotation, so it is used frequently by the mountain bike group. But ‘compromise’ as they use the term, means allowing some form of mountain biking. This is not a compromise. We either preserve our Open Space or we start to destroy it for the benefit of narrow special interests. There is no compromise here.


    Bill and Sudy Reynolds
    3160 Galena Way

    ReplyDelete
  39. We strongly oppose the opening of the Shanahan Ridge Trails to biking. It puts all at risk - Children, dogs and adults. To wit the Boulder Creek Bike path toward Boulder Falls - one risks life and limb to bikers. There are sufficinnt bike routes in the county. If you want to mountainbike go to the mountains
    South Neighborhood
    Dorothy and Leo Pedlow
    1986 Hardscrabble

    ReplyDelete
  40. I have hiked and enjoyed the southern Boulder foothills for 30 years, and I intend to continue doing so. I appreciate the comparatively low density of use and the friendliness and politeness of other users. I felt safe with my young daughter many years ago, and I feel safe with my small, well-behaved dog now. I am very concerned about the ramifications of sharing the trails with mtn bikers, who are generally going at speeds that would be alarming for my ambling habits. I support APPROPRIATE trails that meet the needs of respectful, conscientious bikers and sustain our mesas and neighborhoods. I do not think shared trails for walkers, hikers, children, dogs, AND bikers are appropriate, necessary, or wise. Thank you.

    Deborah Fink - South
    3855 Telluride Place

    ReplyDelete
  41. I am an avid hiker, trail runner and mountain biker. There is no need to add mountain biking to the heavily used trails in the West TSA. Simply put, these trails are far too crowded to add bikes and the number of conflicts would be huge. If you're seriously looking at putting bikes on these trails, this group should take a hiking field trip on any given weekend day in the summer. You will quickly see how there is no room to add bikes. I have lived in North and South Boulder and can easily ride to the current mountain bike trailheads from both locations. I am open to looking into putting in some connector trails in certain locations as long as they are separate from the current trails, (as I stated in the compromise section). Please leave these already very crowded trails alone. Thanks.
    Sarah Lee
    1275 Wildwood Rd
    South

    ReplyDelete
  42. Will Eiserman, Shanahan RidgeAugust 9, 2010 at 9:20 PM

    We’ve heard a lot of discussion about multi-use trails and potentially turning some current hiking trails into multi-use trails. This is a lose-lose solution. Blended use of trails by hikers and bikers is a dishonest concept. Most hikers are hiking to enjoy the tranquility that comes from being in the open spaces where they are away from high motion activity, where they can be contemplative, tuned into nature and wildlife and peace and quiet. When bikers are on trails, the hiking experience is no longer any of those things. Hikers have to be on high alert at all times, aware of the movement of bikes around them, the loud voices of bikers talking over the sound of their bikes to one-another. Wildlife disperses so that hikers no longer experience any of that. Despite the technical pedestrian right-of-way, this is absolutely not how it works. What might have been a contemplative hike to connect with nature and wildlife, and one’s own thoughts turns into a competition for a trail with only momentary slices of what a real hike is about. Similarly, mountain bikers don’t get the experience they are looking for on a multi-use trail. They need the freedom of an exclusive bike trail where they don’t have to be concerned about young children, dogs, a hiker with earphones on… all of which pose safety concerns for bikers and hikers alike and which slow them down. Bikers do not want to be slowed down - velocity and adrenaline is what its all about. Bikers enjoy negotiating the obstacles of a trail, but not human obstacles and certainly not young children or dogs. No one is wrong here in what they want from a trail experience whether hikers or bikers. To suggest that the two activities can go together is completely dishonest. They simply do not work. It’s a lose/lose. To be strongly opposed to multi-use trails should not be construed as Anti-biking any more than it can be construed as anti-hiking. It’s a bad mix where no one gets the experience they want! My request is to take multi-use off the table and look for other solutions to meeting the needs of hikers and bikers. Don’t take away anything that already exists. Don’t take current trails way from hikers or bikers. Add where you need and can without impacting the land too harshly.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Will Eiserman, Shanahan RidgeAugust 9, 2010 at 9:24 PM

    I also strongly encourage you to re-evaluate the questions posed to the community so as not to force-frame the issue in an artificial, pro-con, false dichotomy as you’ve done in this website. People are forced to pit themselves against their neighbors not having the real invitation to weigh in on the most fundamental question which seems to be have skipped over altogether - “Do you see a need to change the current use of the trails in south Boulder?”

    The general community is not calling for change and, in fact, if change does occur, many people will feel that something has been taken from them. That information should give a different premise to how we can respond to the minority of individuals who do want something additional because it tells us that we need to preserve what already IS and make changes AROUND that. We must seek win win solutions and that will never occur when the community is set up to take sides rather than asking them the core question.

    As our community representative we look to you to help us protect what already exists. If change is necessary for reasons beyond what the majority in the local community desire, then it should preserve what already exists and add to the system in a way that does not negatively impact the residents by increasing vehicular traffic to our neighborhoods or spoil our current hiking trail experiences.

    There is also a sentiment being expressed that pressure on the trail systems in other parts of Boulder needs to be diverted to the South Boulder trails. For decades Boulder residents have invested in a transit system as a means of limiting traffic and the need for parking lots dotting our landscape. The SKIP bus route provides unlimited accessibility to all of the South Boulder Trailheads by people coming from the greater Boulder/Denver metro area. My request is that our community representative adamantly oppose any new strategies to increase impact on south Boulder trails and absolutely oppose increasing vehicular traffic to the residential trailheads found in South Boulder/Shanahan Ridge area.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Hi:
    RE the CCG update and the accompanying mt. bike presentation. I have some questions/concerns?

    On the Mt. Biking presentation:
    - Slide 16 - "Reducing Conflict" . The fourth bullet point is a "Bike Patrol". What I want to know is who is this bike patrol? How many $$s FTE's are allocated to it? Who is paying for it? etc. etc. I guess this sounds pretty token and phantom as it stands. If this is just a volunteer wishful thinking idea thing can we just ditch it and acknowledge that it won't happen or be sustainable? So in short it sounds like some brochures, some signs and people being nice is about all the enforcement of biking rules that is planned? Anyway, I think it's important to be real here. Are conflicts/violations really going to fall on the Boulder Police and Park Rangers? Should the open space committee keep a log of all calls to the police/park rangers regarding these conflicts. What's going to happen if these conflicts ramp up, i.e. what's the resolution process? Is there a point where we revert back to the current use? Anyway, I guess I just want to know who I should call if my child is nearly run over by a bike going at excessive speeds...because realistically I'm going to want to call and complain if I see a violation. And again realistically, if my senior neighbor, child, or animal is hit by careless riding, I'd like to think that I'm a bigger person, but I'm probably going to want to sue...

    Anyway, for the sake of the community, it makes sense for the group advocating for mt bike trials do some rigorous thinking here?

    - Environmental Degradation: Are we comfortable with the diverted hiking traffic up through UCAR/NCAR territory. Is UCAR/NCAR comfortable with this? We'e always received the message that they didn't want more hikers through the grasslands...doesn't this mess up UCAR/NCAR conservation plans?

    - It's great the parking lots are just rumors. But to ensure that the mt. bike plan doesn't result in further parking/congestion encroachment in neighborhoods can the city post and enforce some neighborhood parking signs in the neighborhoods with entrances? Better yet can we move the mountain bike in ramps somewhere else? We've all seen what's happened in the Chataqua neighborhoods in regards to traffic/congestion so I think addressing increased car traffic (as a result of mt. bikers) is not unreasonable. Where will these folk park? It's probably very naive to think that they're biking to the trail entrances....

    - Has the mountain bike organization done any research on how many additional mountain bike folks will be coming through. Is there any contingencies in case this traffic (both car and bike traffic) is higher than expected.

    - I get that folks are stuck on the notion of a bike path connecting one end of town/open space to the other. i.e. the N/S Connector to the other. I wish folks would be a little more real and not afraid to talk about the potential conflicts vs. presenting this idea as a fully baked, well thought out idea. In my experience, naive plans never seem to work out well and create a lot of work for people implementing and enforcing the reality.

    Cheers!
    Susan Churchill
    1313 Wildwood Court
    Boulder, CO 80305
    South

    ReplyDelete
  45. To CCG members, Open Space Board, and Boulder City Council:

    It’s pretty clear after reading all these posts (as well as those on the supporters’ page) that adding mountain bikes to the trails in the NCAR/Flatirons/Shanahan Ridge area is a bad idea. Nobody—hikers, joggers, dog walkers, parents with kids, bird watchers, seniors—wants to dodge mountain bikes. And bikers don’t want to dodge all those folks.

    So that leaves either alternate days or new trails. The alternate-day proposal is unworkable if you are a dog owner—just tell your dog to cross its legs for a day! And many of the users are daily hikers or joggers—some even train on those trails. Sorry, you have to give up 50% of your usual use in favor of bikes. Try telling that to your doctor who wants you doing that daily exercise.

    The idea of adding more trails dedicated to mountain biking in this narrow corridor undercuts the reason this Open Space area is so valuable. It’s pristine and full of wildlife, flowers, lovely vistas, and peace and quiet—that’s why it’s so well loved. We revel in it because it isn’t cut up into numerous trails—and remember those proposed mountain bike trails would be highly visible scars on this precious terrain. Do we risk loving it to death by opening it up to even more recreation opportunities? (If that’s not a concern, then let’s consider inviting in ATVs and snow mobiles. People who enjoy those activities pay taxes, too.)

    And don’t forget those companies in Denver who would be happy to bring their vans filled with biker tour groups to beautiful Boulder to enjoy our lovely new mountain bike trails.

    The real issue, however, is found in the introduction Guy wrote for this website’s homepage. He said that CCG is considering suggestions for the West TSA trails “with the goals of reducing adverse impacts from visitors on Open Space neighbors, reducing ‘user conflicts,’ and increasing the level of environmental protection.”

    If that’s true, then why are we even considering mountain bikes in this area? They clearly will create adverse impact on neighbors and users, as well as user conflict, and increase environmental degradation.

    No matter how powerful, well organized, and well-funded the mountain bike lobby, there is no logic in considering their demands for additional bike trails in this pristine West TSA Open Space. They already have access to 50% of the trails in both the City of Boulder and the Boulder County Open Space. And now they have a $4.1 million “ultimate off-road bike park” on 45 acres under construction near Valmont and Airport Road.

    Are mountain bikers (those who want access to West TSA trails) 50% of the Boulder population? How did they get the city to appropriate $4.1 million for a small group? (Chess players! Bridge players! X-Country Skiers! Let’s get organized and demand our $4.1 million.)

    So why are the mountain bikers so powerful? And are they well organized enough to override the interests of a much larger segment of the Boulder population--or simply louder? (Note: There are many bikers who oppose this proposal--maybe they should get organized. It would be interesting to know if there are more of them than there are supporters.)

    Sandra Moriarty
    1815 View Point Rd
    Boulder,
    South Neighborhood

    ReplyDelete
  46. I read the supporting, opposing and compromising comments that have been posted. I am of the understanding that there are other trails for mountain bikes, and mountain bikes can use paved roads. The safety concern is what I cannot seem to get around. With small children, senior citizens and hikers sharing the trails with the bikers, someone will get seriously injured from a biker who could not stop or didn't see the little one. If you designate an area as bikes only during a certain time, weather condition or day, how would you enforce this? There will be people who believe that the rules are not for them. Would the neighborhoods near the trails be responsible for reporting? Just because you're a tax payer, doesn't mean you can endanger others -even unintentionally - for your recreation. For our environment, our families and friendly hikers on our trails, I agree with the opposing arguments, and I oppose expanding use of mountain bikes on the trails.

    Michele Lee
    1929 Hardscrabble Drive
    South

    ReplyDelete
  47. Guy,
    Conservation is the Common Ground
    As a South area neighbor, I live as close as I can to the Shanahan area of City Open Space. Over the past year, I have attended most of the CCG meetings, and it has become increasingly clear that the common ground shared by all of the community representatives is their dependence on the continued practice of conservation of WestTSA lands. The quality of adjacent neighborhoods, and neighbor’s lives is directly related to the health of the nearby Open Space grasslands, meadows, and forests that drew people to live in this area. This interconnectedness is a key concept. I think a good portion of the population understands how important it is to perceive themselves as an integral part of this only land/home we have. And that is most easily done through quiet, non-disruptive observation of land and animal processes.

    Likewise, hiking and climbing desirability, and even the public’s choice to air the pros and cons of other uses are all inextricably linked to the fact that the City has, and can continue to preserve these WTSA lands. If you give decision priority to conservation efforts on this committee, you will be making the wisest investment in the core all caucus interests.

    Maintain Present Regulations
    The most responsible position you can take is to say yes to maintaining the present trail-use regulations for lands immediately west of Boulder. Please recognize that opening new, separate, or multi-use bike trails in the WTSA would be a bad idea and would lead to an imbalance in local recreational uses.

    • Over the past two decades, many hiker and conservation compromises have been made, with mountain biking now allowed on over 84% of the trail milage within Boulder County Open Space. Those financial and political decisions to spend tax dollars were made with the knowledge that City Open Space decisions were right around the corner. It would be reasonable to consider the WTSA as part of the whole of Boulder Open Space, both geographically, and financially.

    • Maintaining the present usage status quo would encourage respect between all users, especially those already displaced from County trails. If you think carefully about this, you will realize that Boulder citizens have already paid dearly, in terms of money, user displacement, and fragmentation of habitat.

    In this process, the CCG was tasked with inclusion of biking in the discussion of possible uses in the WTSA, and that is being done, but please don’t give in to the threats that “Conservation and neighborhood caucuses (would) loose any ability to provide input,” if they don’t reach consensus on biking in the WTSA.

    Sue Douglass
    3045 Galena Way

    ReplyDelete
  48. Guy,
    Here is the remainder of my comment letter.

    Clarification of Blog Wording
    • I am concerned that you may not have truly heard many legitimate voices that you represent, and want to make sure that my voice, and those of over 30 of my neighbors in Shanahan Ridge VI will be considered. Thank you for attending our HOA’s May 24th meeting during which all who spoke, except one, showed either opposition or outrage in regards to your promotion of mountain biking uses on South Boulder trails. Considering your wording in this blog’s mountain-biking overview, “we're collecting ideas for... what we hope will be the best mountain bike trail possible...,” what is your intent?

    • Additional clarification of wording in this blog’s biking overview would help the public understand what is meant by the proposed “single bike corridor.” You could more accurately state that at least eight possible bike access points through neighborhoods are being considered. Additional bike trailheads are proposed for South Boulder Creek, Mesa, Flagstaff, Boulder Canyon and Eldo./Walker Ranch. When I look at a map of suggested mountain bike trails and multiple loops, I can only interpret disregard for preservation of the land, and for future users (whatever their addresses) who will depend on the health of nearby habitat and ecosystems.

    In summary, I hope you will act on your obligation is to uphold the quality of both the land, and future neighbor/open space experience. Your conservation advocacy will have positive long-term benefits for each caucus.

    Sue Douglass
    3045 Galena Way

    ReplyDelete
  49. I would like to address the very important issue of enforcement. If bikes are allowed on the current trails, rather than creating separate trails, rule enforcement would need to be ramped up significantly. Signs and brochures are not going to cut it, as they don't work now. Currently there is almost NO enforcement of the rules. Biking is not allowed now and people ride bikes. (The people in the picture are riding on the connector trail that parallels Wildwood, Holyoke, and Emporia.) Dogs are not allowed off leash, yet they are off leash and run into yards. No one is there to enforce the rules, so it would just be worse if bikes were added to the mix. OSMP is not staffed to handle it. Please, as a compromise, create separate bike trails. Thanks.

    (This post was put in the "Neighborhood Protection: Compromise" section. To see the picture of the bikers on the trail illegally, go to that section, as I could not copy it here.)

    Sarah Lee
    1275 Wildwood Rd
    South

    ReplyDelete
  50. I would like to add something to my previous comments. I feel a lot of pressure from the mountain biking community to find a compromise. There is an implication that by not compromising, that we are being unfair. When my 8 year old son asks for more computer time after he has already spent hours staring at a screen, do I have to compromise and let him do something I think is unhealthy? If he asks me to let him ride his bike without a helmut or skip putting on his seat belt - just this once - do I have to let him? No. Simply asking, simply wanting something is not enough. Not when the stakes are this high. I do not believe we should open up existing trails to mountain biking in the West TSA study area - nor do I think we should create new trails. This is not because I think mountain bikers are bad people - out to destroy the world - but because I believe our Open Space cannot sustain it. I oppose it because I am trying to protect something unique and precious in our community. Not everything warrants compromise. Sometimes, when an idea is flawed, it's OK to oppose it. Supporters of this Mountain Biking Proposal, Consider This: Sometimes, when an idea is wrong for the environment, wrong for the community, it's OK to let it go, to compromise on what you really want for what the community really needs.
    Eve Rose
    1343 Wildwood Court
    South Boulder

    ReplyDelete
  51. I am strongly against allowing mountain biking on the existing West TSA trails. We live near the Bear Canyon trail with two small kids. We hike or run on the trails frequently in all seasons. In fact, being so close to these trails is one of the main reasons why we decided to move to this area. My toddler loves to run up and down these trails, smell the flowers, and play with the little rocks. If mountain bikes are allowed on these trails, we would have no choice but to keep her in the backpack all the time or abandon these trails altogether.

    Apart from safety concerns, allowing mountain bikes will also change the atmosphere on these trails completely. It would be hard to relax and enjoy the serenity and quietness of the open space when you need to constantly watch out for bikers. We hiked on Marshall trail once and the experience was so completely different that we never returned to that trail. It would be terrible, and almost unimaginable, if the same thing happens to the trails that we frequently visit including Bear Canyon, Mesa, NCAR, and Shanahan Ridge trails. We also have close friends who hike or run these trails daily regardless of the weather. It would be devastating if this sanctuary is taken away from them.

    In addition, allowing mountain biking in these trails may very well increase the auto traffic in the residential area near the trail heads. Even though the trails are already pretty busy, many of the frequent visitors (hiker/runner) walk/run to one of the trail heads from their home. Allowing mountain biking may allure bikers from out of the area (e.g. Denver) and make the traffic congestion and parking issues near trail head much, much worse.

    We're also opposing to adding new trails in West TSA that are close to residential areas, or has the danger of creating soil erosion or disturbing the sensitive habitat for plants and wildlife.

    I don't think we're alone or even in the minority for opposing to these proposals. I hope our voice will be heard.

    Ning Mosberger
    1935 Stony Hill Rd.
    (South Neighborhood)

    ReplyDelete
  52. As a resident of Shanahan Ridge for nearly 30 years, I am strongly opposed to allowing mountain biking on the West TSA trails. The use of these beautiful, serene trails for mountain biking is completely inconsistent with their current and long-term use for hiking and dog-walking. Mountain biking would present a significant danger to people, pets, and the trails themselves. In addition, mountain bikers already have many miles of open space trails available for their use. Allowing mountain biking on these trails would very definitely have a negative impact on the quality of life in southwest Boulder, while the continued ban on mountain biking on these trails would in no way hamper bikers from pursuing this activity.
    Stephanie Greenberg
    2999 Tincup Circle
    South

    ReplyDelete
  53. I live in the Shanahan Ridge area of south Boulder. I am opposed to having a mountain bike trail in this area because of the negative impact on wildlife: deer, bears, mountain lions, foxes, birds, etc.

    Anne Smith
    3100 Galena Way

    ReplyDelete
  54. I have lived on Shanahan Ridge for the last 19 years. Being able to hike safely with my dog is a great blessing of living here. Mountain bikes simply do not mix peacefully with hikers. Please DO NOT open the Shanahan Ridge and surrounding trails in the South Boulder area to mountain bikes!

    ReplyDelete
  55. I have lived in Boulder since 1966. I voted for Open Space funding, in priority order, to (1) preserve wildlife habitat, (2) preserve mountain view, and (3) suppress opportunity for develop of these lands.

    The proposed use of bikes violates all three of these goals, and should be dismissed.

    If I recall correctly, the last usage study of the area indicated that out of City residents were primary users of the area. It makes no sense to facilitate increased use of this precioous resource.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Beth Wettergren
    1955 Tincup
    South Neighborhood

    I have lived in the Table Mesa Area long enough to remember the terror of the mixed use trails. In the 80's, I tried to walk the trails with my children and dog and watch for bikes. The people on bikes were as careful as they could be, but nature, inertia and the laws of gravity made it a hair-raising time. Please do not plan for mixed use trails.
    As for separate trails and the provision of a new parking lot to accommodate bike riders, that would create congestion, traffic and confusion where there is now a congenial, MUCH-used, but pedestrian-paced use of the area. Please do not tamper with this appropriate use of a natural area.

    ReplyDelete
  57. I am opposed to allowing mountain bikes use the west TSA trails for the obvious reasons as stated by others. Surely mountain bikers can enjoy their sport in areas that do not have such an impact on near-by urban neighborhoods.

    Ruby Marr
    355 Norton Street
    Central Neighborhood

    ReplyDelete
  58. As a homeowner on Telluride (and a cyclist) who would live daily with the effects of a parking lot at her back door, I wish to express my strong opposition to the possibility of allowing mountain bikes on Shanahan Ridge and surrounding trails. Mountain bike traffic would seriously disrupt the quiet ambiance of the Shanahan Ridge trails and inevitably result in trail deterioration.
    In addition to harming the delicate wildlife and conceivably causing injury to hikers on the trail, the almost certain increase in noise and exhaust levels associated with parking areas will markedly decrease the value of my home.
    Not to mention the quality of life.
    Please consider all the consequences.

    Irene Roederer
    3792 Telluride
    South.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Please count this as a vote AGAINST adding mountain biking to the South Boulder trails between Chautauqua and El Dorado Springs. The trails in question are heavily used by hikers of all ages and dogs on and off leash.

    Adding bikes to the mix would seem to benefit one group, and one group only – the bikers. These trails are used by families with little children, teens, young adults and those getting up their years, climbers with their gear, runners with ear buds in, dogs off leashes and you want to add bikers flying down the hills. This would be an accident just ripe for occurring. Would toddlers have to be kept on leash?

    These trails provide scenic relief as well as a wonderful buffer from life’s hectic pace and a respite from the daily grind. It is refreshing to get out on these trails and experience the wildlife such as deer picking their way through the trees and shrubs, the hummingbirds protecting their area, the butterflies in their varied splendor and the sound of wind through the trees. This is lost completely to the person caught up in an adrenal rush as they seek to control the headlong rush down a steep incline.

    When I want to put myself in harms way I need only hike up or down the Boulder Creek path and I do put myself there on foot and on bike from time to time. I used to meet a friend to walk and chat there but we were not able to walk side by side at a leisurely pace because of the rush of bicycles.

    I also want to state here that what appears to be a purely electronic form of communiqué for such an important discussion completely eliminates from this forum those that do not or cannot communicate in this format. I have seen next to nothing in our local newspaper about this topic or the “CCG” or “West-TSA”. While Boulder is known for its highly educated and savvy population it seems large segments of potential input are being left out of this very important process and I would like to ask why this is so?

    Thank you,
    Merrilee Saathoff
    3785 Smuggler Place
    South Neighborhood

    ReplyDelete
  60. I've lived on Shanahan Ridge for more than fifteen years. I've regularly walked the West TSA trails for longer, almost twenty-five years.

    I'm also a cyclist. I've ridden my hybrid bike from Shanahan Ridge to my office in Louisville 52 times so far this year. I'm trying my best to limit my driving.

    I respectfully oppose the proposal to open the West TSA trails to mountain bikes. Mountain biking and hiking on these trails are simply not compatible uses. Introduction of bikes on the trails would, in short, deprive hikers of the quiet, peaceful experience of hiking there.

    Young children and the elderly are among the many people who currently enjoy hiking on these trails. My two daughters grew up hiking there. Speed differentials between walkers and cyclists would, I predict, prove hazardous to walkers and cyclists alike.

    If allowed, the bikers would surely come in substantial numbers, from across the Front Range. This would bring further unwanted congestion to all of Shanahan Ridge, not just to the hiking trails. There is currently no place for these good people to park, and I have no interest in seeing portions of Shanahan Ridge carved up into parking lots.

    Last but not least, these trails and their surroundings are fragile. I strongly doubt that the introduction of these new impacts would leave these trails and their surroundings in anything like their current condition.

    Thank you for considering my views.

    David J. Driscoll
    3172 Redstone Road
    Boulder, CO 80305
    (303) 494-2244
    ddriscoll@gdhlaw.com

    ReplyDelete
  61. We are opposed to allowing mountain biking on West TSA trails or creating new mountain biking trails in the pristine West TSA Open Space. We have lived in south Boulder for forty years. We have always voted to support Open Space ballot issues and have also volunteered countless hours to Open Space through the years.
    The balance of conservation, preservation and recreation have always been the subject of emotional debate and conflict . The CCG states that they are soliciting suggestions for the West TSA with the goal of reducing adverse impacts from visitors on Open Space neighbors, reducing user conflicts and increasing the level of environmental protection. We believe reintroducing mountain biking will create conflict and impact the Open Space environment in a negative way.
    History has proven that combining mountain biking and hiking on a shared trail system does not provide a positive experience for either interest . Hikers want to experience nature, undisrupted wildlife and tranquility. They want to escape speed and noise. They want to relax and feel safe and not have to constantly be on the alert for aggressive bikers that could injure their family or pets. Mountain bikers want to experience the challenges of the terrain and recreate without having to worry about causing injury to hikers or to themselves . They do not want to negotiate a maze of hikers and pets.
    We feel the mountain biking community is being greedy in demanding more trails. The Boulder Mountainbike Alliance already boost that mountain bikers enjoy 200 miles of the 400 miles of Boulder County Open Space and 48 miles of the 97 miles of City of Boulder Open Space. In addition to 248 miles of trails bikers control they are soon to enjoy a $4.1 million state-of-the-art bike park on 45 acres. That leaves only 249 miles of Open Space for all other recreation interest groups to share.
    Environmental protection should concern all interested groups. The existing social trails have already disrupted spring run -off drainage into Fern Creek. What was once a robust creek with vegetation and an incredible bird habitat is now home to rattle snakes that enjoy the dry creek bed. The magnificent Open Space backdrop we all cherish and admire should not be recreated into extinction.

    Carol and Larry Dill
    2030 Stony Hill Road
    Boulder, Colorado 80305

    ReplyDelete
  62. My name is Evelyn Bassoff, and I am a long-time (more than 30 years) home owner at 3131 11th Street As a frequent walker on the open-space trails that bless my neighborhood, I am appealing to the CCG representatives to preserve their quiet and beauty. I strongly oppose opening them to mountain bikers, who would greatly diminish the walking/hiking experience for so many of us. Thank you. --Evelyn Bassoff, North Boulder Neighborhood

    ReplyDelete
  63. In reading the proposal by Mark McIntyre presented to the CCG on May 3rd and the comments posted on this site that are supportive of mountain biking within the West TSA there appear to be two primary desires expressed by the mountain bike community. First, a bicycle trail from north to south to eliminate the need to drive to mountain bike trailheads and second, mountain bike access to additional expert or challenging terrain.

    I struggle to understand the perception that these needs are not currently being met. Today there are a large number of bicycle trails through Boulder that link the north and south neighborhoods, the need to drive to the existing mountain bike trailheads seems to be largely a matter of preference. I am confused as to why the mountain bike community would prefer to drive to trailheads than make use of the existing city bicycle trails built for this specific purpose. If a compromise is to be made I would prefer investing in expanding the already extensive Boulder city bicycle trail system to improve the connection to existing mountain bike trailheads, rather than opening the West TSA to mountain biking.

    The desire for access to additional expert or challenging terrain is even more difficult for me to understand given the recent investment in mountain bike opportunities, both in the Dowdy Draw area in the south and the new $4.1 million, 45 acre Valmont Bike Park at the intersection of Valmont and Airport Road in the north. How much more do we need to do for this particular interest group?

    The challenge for OSMP and the CCG is to balance the interests of the diverse users of the entire Boulder Open Space and Mountain Parks lands. I have to applaud the excellent job that the OSMP staff and board have done to date. No one interest group has had 100% of their desires met, yet we have among the most beautiful and enjoyable open spaces in the country. Most dog owners would love to have leash free access to all trails within OSMP, but this is not the case. Likewise, equestrians would also love to have horseback riding on all OSMP trails, but neither is this the case. Today, of the 97 miles of trails on Boulder City Open Space, 48 miles (49.5%) allow bikes. One can always argue that the percentage of trails open to any particular interest group is insufficient; however, we still must recognize that all interests are being met to a high degree.

    One comment in Mr. McIntyre’s presentation that stands out is his assertion on slide 4 “Failure of Consensus Means: CCG is a failure”. What hyperbole! I would hardly condemn the CCG in total, for failure to find a compromise that opens the West TSA to mountain bikes. I commend the effort of the CCG and this statement by Mr. McIntyre highlights just how narrowly focused a perspective his proposal represents.

    Not all mountain bikers have such a narrow perspective. I found the opinion piece (http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_15328070?IADID=Search-www.dailycamera.com-www.dailycamera.com) authored by Sarah Heilbronner, a self professed mountain biker, runner, hiker and conservationist, refreshing in that it represented a balanced view of the issues involved. However, I found a number of the negative comments made to her opinion piece disturbing in their level of vitriol. The fact that these negative comments also got a significant number of thumbs-up approval votes from others indicate that these opinions are not the sentiment of just a few. If these comments are representative of even a minority of the mountain bike community, it is clear why this issue is so confrontational and controversial. It is also indicates why many hiker, mountain biker interactions become confrontational.

    Lastly, it seems to me that the opinion of the mountain bike community is that because the West TSA CCG exists, change therefore is necessary and the only compromise possible is one that opens the West TSA to mountain bikes. I do not share that opinion. There is much to be said for the status quo and the incredible natural resources that exist within this area.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Mountain bikers and walkers on heavily used trails do not mix. The idea of opening popular hiking/running trails to legions of cyclists is a bad idea and dangerous for the walkers/hikers.

    m gilbert
    3121 7th street
    80304

    ReplyDelete
  65. I do not believe that hikers and bikers are compatible on the same trail. There are far too many inherent dangers despite intentions to be careful and considerate.

    Alice Levine
    585 Juniper Avenue
    Boulder 80304
    North neighborhood

    ReplyDelete
  66. My name is David Willmarth, I live at 2410 Cragmoor adjacent to one of the trail access points to the West TSA with my wife and two small children. I am a Boulder native who has been a frequent user of the West TSA trails my whole life. I ran cross country at Fairview High school in the early eighties and frequently used the trails for training runs. Since then I have enjoyed the west TSA for training runs with my with wife, hikes with my kids up Bear Mountain, and climbing in Fern Canyon, Dinosaur and Flatirons area. I feel Boulder has done an outstanding job managing and maintaining such a wonderful resource and it is one of the main reasons I have remained in Boulder. I also don't see the need for a lot of changes (don't fix what's not broken).

    In addition to running, hiking and other activities, I have also been an avid mountain biker for the past 25 years and have been very pleased with the expansion of mountain biking on the trails south of Boulder (Marshall Mesa, Greenbelt Plateau, High Plains, Community Ditch, Doudy Draw, Flatirons Vista, Spring Brook). The new trails enable me to ride to the trails from my house and the 3 miles of pavement bike paths and back roads such as Marshall Road provide a great warm up/warm down with little to no traffic.

    Over the years as the popularity of mountain biking has grown on the front range trails I have seen conflict among types of trail users increase. My experience from other trails along the front range (White Ranch, Chimney Gulch, Apex, Willow Springs, Walker Ranch, Heil Ranch, Halls Ranch....) is that multi use on trails only works when the volume of concurrent usage on a given stretch of trail is low or are the same activities. The volume of users I experience during frequent training runs through a variety of trails in the West TSA is too high to make make multi use work and would result in a poor experience for all. Hikers/runners/dog walkers would be required to be on alert for frequent mountain bikers and the mountain bike experience would diminish due to frequent dismounts to let hikers, runners, dogs off leash pass.

    Other ideas under consideration are:

    1) Parallel Trails (hiking and mountain biking trails running parallel along the same path). This solution would only solve part of the problem. The conflicts between dogs off leash and mountain bikes would remain, and solitude of the single track trails we enjoy today would be impacted.

    2) Separate Mountain Bike Trail from Chautauqua to Eldorado. In theory I am not opposed to this idea. However, after educating myself on the constraints of the private property adjacent (NCAR, NIST) to open space and the sensitive habitat areas and natural resource concerns it seems improbable that a single track mountain bike trail of any significance would be feasible. My understanding is the only option to route a mountain bike trail through the NCAR property would be on the dirt fire road directly behind the houses (not appealing mountain bikers or home owners). The trail from the south side of NCAR (Bear Canyon) to Eldorado would only be 3 - 4 miles depending on the route. As a mountain biker, 3 to 4 miles hardly seems worth the effort and with the compromises required to get something approved I fear the end result will be a patchwork of dirt roads and trails that would not be appealing to mountain bikers.

    A better use of the resources we are spending on this issue would be to focus on negotiating agreements to open up a connector trail to Walker Ranch from Eldorado and provide Mountain Bikers access to significant mileage of quality single track without having to ride or drive over flagstaff mountain. I would gladly ride the road to Eldorado.

    David and Tammi Willmarth
    2410 Cragmoor Rd.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Have the advocates done the math on the likely number of bikers? I fear the LA freeway problem - if you build it, it will quickly fill up and then you'll need another one.

    Would you allow mountain biking on Yosemite's John Muir trail? I think this would be the equivalent.

    What do the advocates feel is an acceptable rate of injuries (given that some collisions are inevitable)? One little old lady or child a year? It would be irresponsible to avoid this question.


    Ned Field
    1750 Bear Mt Dr
    Boulder CO 80305

    (South Neighborhood)

    ReplyDelete
  68. My husband and I live in 1250 Bear Mountain Ct. the area described as "South Neighborhood -- south of Table Mesa and west of Broadway"; we have lived here for 11 years. We moved to this place for the very reason of having access to the beautiful open space for hiking and are active users of the trail system around here. We are very thankful and feel very lucky to be able to enjoy such a beautiful area.

    We both strongly oppose to the idea of mixing trails for mountain biking and hiking. Mountain bikes will definitely pose a danger to people and canines in addition to significantly damaging the fragile ecosystem which has already been damaged by people, horses and dogs. We have seen over the years how trails are getting significantly wider, new side trails get created all the time and this is just by walking activity; imagine what mountain bikes would do.

    In the past we have hiked in trails that are shared with mountain bikes and in our experience most mountain bikers ride too fast and we were always on the lookout for them and we were not able to enjoy the hike fully because of this.

    We are strongly opposed expanding mountain biking trails onto and adjacent to Shanahan Ridge, including the North and South Fork Shanahan Trails, the Mesa Trail, Big Bluestem and Bear Canyon Trail. These trails are beautiful and wonderful and we want to continue to peacefully use them without fear of being run over, struck or constantly on the lookout for rapidly approaching mountain bikers, to get out of the way. Please don't allow mountain bikes in these hiking trails.

    Thanks.

    Laura Turley

    ReplyDelete
  69. As an avid Mountain biker, team rider and racer, I am strongly opposed to the proposed additions of trails and opening of existing trails in the West TSA areas in the South particularly in the Shanahan area.
    Points of opposition and local established trails listed below for mainly safety and conservation reasons.

    1.User conflict-Speeds in excess of 20MPH-not compatible with off leash dogs. No enforcement of speed and rules evident by open space. I have seen only 3 bike patrols at MM in 2 years. Will be another area to patrol with limited funds and personnel.
    2.Opening trails to bikes would result in closure of trails to dogs entirely and the off leash program eliminated as evident by Springbrook/Ashram area/Road from Marshall Mesa to 128 junction parking lot. Shanahan Residents have paid the city for the green tags to allow the dogs off leash in the trails adjacent to their homes. The two are not compatible at the speeds of Mtn. bikes. Dogs are under the voice control of their owners and not a Mtn. Biker that yells on your left at a high speed and will approach within seconds (that is if you’re lucky enough to get that courtesy from the rider-see inexperienced riders).
    3.Proposed new Mtn. Bike trail adjacent to Greenbriar is an area of major runoff in late winter and spring. At present (August 2010) there is even standing water on Greenbriar itself and in the open space directly south due to this issue. The trail would spend a great deal of time as a mud bog again not conducive to conservation of trails and riders not self managed to stay off during bad conditions. The City of Boulder had not been successful in mitigating this problem. What are the CCG’s proposals?
    4.Would force residents in the area to have to DRIVE to another area to walk their pet or hike in safety contradicting the GREEN environment of Boulder and the direct access reason many of the homeowners bought in this neighborhood to begin with.
    5.Inexperienced bikers have “Trained” joggers, equestrians and hikers to yield completely off trail whether they have the uphill right of way or not causing trail erosion and widening. This problem takes funds to combat and years to reverse.
    6.Proposed Mtn. Bike trails leave little to no close access to hiking only trails for elderly/disabled people, parents with strollers and hikers with older dogs. Many people and animals can’t physically make it to the Mesa trail to enjoy a non multi use trail. Proposed multi use and Mtn. Bike trails are trails adjacent to the neighborhoods making it difficult to get to hiking only trails without using multi use trails to access them.
    7.Trail network in South Boulder area is not conducive to having directional trails or alternating days as some trailheads use. Both Centennial Cone and Betasso, trails that use these methods, are comprised of mainly one circular loop and are destination areas for the most part.
    8.Lack of enforcement and education of trail users at present especially recreational users. Not yielding to uphill riders or hikers, riding closed trails and riding off trails instead of yielding. Not allowing time to warn hikers from behind or not warning them at all. Many beginner riders ride off the trail completely instead of yielding to the uphill rider.
    9.Lack of self policing during poor trail conditions despite “mud-o-meter” signs at trailheads. Mandatory spring 2010 closures were enforced due to lack of self compliance at Springbrook and Heil Ranch trails. Muddy trail ruts dry into hard clay ruts. Most of these trails are used by beginners that cannot navigate these ruts and wider trails are being established by these riders going around to avoid obstacles. An example of obstacle avoidance in the Marshall Mesa area is the stairs going from top of Marshall Mesa to road towards Hwy 128. Users unable to navigate the steps have made their own trails on both sides. Experienced riders all but vacate the South trails in the summer and only use them to train when no other dirt options are available.
    Mary Zuvela
    3790 Smuggler
    South Neighborhood

    ReplyDelete
  70. As an avid Mountain biker, team rider and racer, I am strongly opposed to the proposed additions of trails and opening of existing trails in the Southwest area-Continued.
    10.Severe Trail erosion within one year of opening trail. Evident by the newer and larger rocks exposed on the decent from Flatiron Vista to Dowdy Draw, the Springbrook loop especially the south side and connector by bridge between Marshall Mesa at ditch to road to 128 trailhead. Again, lack of ability to navigate these exposed rocks; inexperienced riders go around them widening the trail.
    11.Blatant trail abuse-example shuttling of down hill bikes 3 times in 1.5 hours to “bomb” down Betasso/Boulder Canyon connector to tunnel at high speeds as evidenced by bike car shuttles observed on several occasions. Berms like ski area downhill parks evidenced at Betasso corners and also now on the descent into Dowdy Draw.
    12.Poor planning on behalf of trail building at Marshall Mesa as evidenced by the original Drainage problem that was ignored on the East part of the trail paralleling the old Marshall Road entrance. The trail was closed shortly after it was first opened due to drainage issues and had to be subsequently rebuilt. This problem was identified before the original construction but ignored. Even more severe drainage issues at the proposed Shanahan location. Similar issue at Dowdy Draw trail.
    13.Severe Trail damage from bikes ridden in spring 2010 still showing in June until long dry periods in July. Mud ruts still evident as late as August, 2010 in Marshall Mesa and Heil Ranch areas.
    14.Marshall Mesa/Dowdy Draw trailheads easily and safely accessible by bike from South Boulder neighborhoods via paths, dirt roads, and 93 underpass at present. One of the safest bike routes in Boulder. No urgent need for a “connector” trail. Also, abundant parking at both of these trailheads.
    15.Abundance of good trails to Mountain Bikers at present. Proposed trails are mostly adding flat dirt double track and opening dirt roads-not any good addition for interesting riding, just basically another dirt road to ride on at excessive speeds.
    16.Both roads for access (Greenbriar and Lehigh) are in school zones increasing traffic and danger to children from increased vehicle traffic and users/drivers unfamiliar with the neighborhood. Proposed Shanahan trails and trailhead in very close proximity to preschool.
    17.Open space trailheads generally attract car thieves (as evidenced by signs saying leave no valuables in cars and personal experience) and this normally low crime neighborhood would see an increase in crime-see neighborhood crime maps. Very close proximity to homes with open yards.
    18.Lack of area for overflow parking-no parking areas on Greenbriar and the SR5 HOA would be financially burdened by having to enforce parking in the limited parking areas we have for residents and guests. This would be a direct cost to SR5 and other associations in the area.

    30 miles of dirt riding in Marshall Mesa/Flatiron Vista-S Boulder
    25 miles of mostly single-track Lefthand Canyon Heil/Hall connector-N. Boulder
    Betasso Preserve and new extension in progress-W Boulder
    Boulder res/ Wonderland area-N Boulder
    Teller Farm/White Rock area-Central Boulder
    Gold Hill trails, Poorman, Logan Mill,and Sunshine Canyon areas-Central/NW Boulder
    Walker Ranch/Meyers homestead-Central/W Boulder
    Marshall Road to E Boulder rec with additional riding to Stazio Ball fields on bike paths-SE
    Huge network of trails at West Magnolia in Nederland for summer use and close proximity to Hall Ranch, White Ranch, Chimney Gulch, North Table Mountain Loops and many other JefferCo County trails that are rideable a good portion of the year.

    Recommendations to BMA/CCG - maintain and repair trails already established and spend excess time and funds educating and patrolling users, especially beginners on trail rules and conservation.
    Mary Zuvela
    3790 Smuggler
    South Neighborhood

    ReplyDelete
  71. We have read all the supporting and opposing comments on Mountain Biking and think that practically all arguments have been given. In our opinion this area should not be opened to bikes. And we especially support the view in the postings of Bill and Sudy Reynolds, Sandra Moriarty and those of Sue Douglass. Thank you!

    Horst and Erna Rogalla
    3772 Telluride Circle

    ReplyDelete
  72. I, Ardith Ferguson, live at 3810 Telluride Place, Boulder, CO 80305 and am opposed to the proposal to expand mountain biking via new trails in south Boulder. There are already existing trails that could be used and current parking lots off of Hwy 93 could be expanded. Any new lots and trails added off of Greenbriar would greatly increase the traffic and hazards to a road that is already choked with high school traffic. In addition, the curve in the road heading west on Greenbriar past Fairview, is a dangerous curve and there have been numerous accidents where people have run off the road. Having traffic pulling out onto Greenbriar from a trail parking lot would further compound an already dangerous section of the road. Please use the trails and lots that already exist on Broadway/Hwy 93.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Greetings,

    My wife and I are strongly opposed to allowing mountain bikes on the South Boulder trails and to building new mountain biking trails in the area. We have two small children and a dog, and we enjoy not having to worry about their safety with mountain bikes. In addition, I believe Mary Zuvela's posting has many excellent points which I have included some of here as I could not state them any better.

    14.Marshall Mesa/Dowdy Draw trailheads easily and safely accessible by bike from South Boulder neighborhoods via paths, dirt roads, and 93 underpass at present. One of the safest bike routes in Boulder. No urgent need for a “connector” trail. Also, abundant parking at both of these trailheads.
    15.Abundance of good trails to Mountain Bikers at present. Proposed trails are mostly adding flat dirt double track and opening dirt roads-not any good addition for interesting riding, just basically another dirt road to ride on at excessive speeds.
    16.Both roads for access (Greenbriar and Lehigh) are in school zones increasing traffic and danger to children from increased vehicle traffic and users/drivers unfamiliar with the neighborhood. Proposed Shanahan trails and trailhead in very close proximity to preschool.
    17.Open space trailheads generally attract car thieves (as evidenced by signs saying leave no valuables in cars and personal experience) and this normally low crime neighborhood would see an increase in crime-see neighborhood crime maps. Very close proximity to homes with open yards.
    18.Lack of area for overflow parking-no parking areas on Greenbriar and the SR5 HOA would be financially burdened by having to enforce parking in the limited parking areas we have for residents and guests. This would be a direct cost to SR5 and other associations in the area.

    30 miles of dirt riding in Marshall Mesa/Flatiron Vista-S Boulder
    25 miles of mostly single-track Lefthand Canyon Heil/Hall connector-N. Boulder
    Betasso Preserve and new extension in progress-W Boulder
    Boulder res/ Wonderland area-N Boulder
    Teller Farm/White Rock area-Central Boulder
    Gold Hill trails, Poorman, Logan Mill,and Sunshine Canyon areas-Central/NW Boulder
    Walker Ranch/Meyers homestead-Central/W Boulder
    Marshall Road to E Boulder rec with additional riding to Stazio Ball fields on bike paths-SE
    Huge network of trails at West Magnolia in Nederland for summer use and close proximity to Hall Ranch, White Ranch, Chimney Gulch, North Table Mountain Loops and many other JefferCo County trails that are rideable a good portion of the year.

    Recommendations to BMA/CCG - maintain and repair trails already established and spend excess time and funds educating and patrolling users, especially beginners on trail rules and conservation.

    Carl Embry
    3715 Smuggler Place
    South Neighborhood

    ReplyDelete
  74. As a south neighborhood resident I am opposed to any Mountain bike use on OSMP land south of Baseline and west of Broadway .There are excellent mountain bike trails in other less fragile habitat in the city and county of Boulder. I am also an avid mountain biker.
    These trails are heavily used by hikers and runners, including many families with trail strollers, small children, and dogs.
    I personally hike on the Shanahan Ridge trails every day with my dog and value the peace and serenity of hiking without competing with mountain bikes.

    The wonderful experience of walking the south Boulder trails will disappear. Opening these trails to biking will not only destroy the hiking/running experience, it will without question lead to accidents and injuries.
    In addition, the noise level will substantially increase for home owners that live next to the trails.

    Jim Touchton
    1969 Hardscrabble Pl, Boulder CO
    South Neighborhood

    ReplyDelete
  75. Thank you for providing this means of assessing public sentiment on these issues.

    I live on Shanahan Ridge with my family and we love riding mountain bikes!
    However, I could not be more opposed to ANY increased mountain biking in the OSMP/West TSA. I find no shortage of places to ride my mountain bike, and believe the reason we created our Open Space was exactly that - Open Space!, not as recreational facilities for mountain bikers in Boulder and (by extension) the rest of the Denver metro area.
    For a preview, just take a hike on the Dowdy Draw trail any weekend.

    With all due respect to my fellow mountain bikers - I find the proposal to be absurd on it's face! I believe most Boulder residents do too.
    Suppose a representative of Boulder's swimming community found his/her way onto the CCG and proposed that a small lake and a couple of parking lots be built in the open space to accommodate the recreational needs of avid swimmers in Boulder (and the Denver metro area). Would we feel the need to find a "compromise that everyone can agree on"? Of course not. This is exactly how we should regard this proposal for more (and more!) mountain bike trails, trail heads, and parking lots.
    The list of obvious reasons is long and well documented in this forum. Shrinking public funds, increased traffic, and protecting Open Space are high on my list. I also don't know a single person who supports this idea. Rather, I believe most of our citizens would echo Ralph's comments above - that there is much to be said for the status quo and the absolute treasure we have in our unspoiled Open Space.

    Whether we like it or not, we had better face the fact that city's funding challenges will only increase in the years to come, and we have no business considering new programs (especially ones that aren't wanted or needed).
    We will be doing good just to fund the Open Space program as it exists, without having to sell-off some precious land to do it.
    Thank You.

    Todd Ball
    3775 Smuggler Place
    Shanahan Ridge

    ReplyDelete
  76. We have lived in the South Boulder neighborhood for the past nine years.

    The proposal for hikers and mountain bikers to “share” the South Boulder hiking trails is misleading. Cars can share a highway, people can share a movie, we can all share the air we breathe, at least for while. These examples are true sharing in that an additional participant does not significantly degrade the experience of the other users.

    Anyone who has hiked mixed-use trails knows what to expect. These trails do not offer a chance for man and nature (and dog) to interact in peace, as they also include machines. The overwhelming majority of mountain bikers are courteous*, slowing down when approaching hikers. Typically, the hikers step aside (often going off the trail to do so), the bikes pass, and the hike resumes. Both the hikers’ and bikers’ experience is diminished. In fact, many hikers now avoid multi-use trails with high bike use, as the constant wariness necessary to avoid and accommodate bikes robs the hike of its pleasure.

    Imposing these conditions on current hiking trails is not sharing. Rather, it is a pure and simple taking of hikers’ enjoyment in order to allow mountain bikers to use the trails. The idea to allocate days of exclusive use among bikes and other users would be the greatest taking of all, as it would deprive current users of 100% use on the days given exclusively to bikes. With 48 miles of OSMP trails at their disposal, the inability to ride a bike to El Dorado Springs does not justify this significant reallocation of resources from one group to another.

    Since the 1983 limitations and 1987 ban, mountain biking has grown as a sport and that growth means there are much greater concerns now over safety and environmental damage. OSMP and the County Commissioners need to decide if and explain how these prior concerns are no longer at issue.

    Pretending that hiking and biking can truly share a trail is a fiction, and serves neither group well.

    Sam and Kathryn Kaminsky
    3685 Smuggler Place, Boulder

    * While discourteous mountain bikers are a small percentage, they are both terrifying and dangerous, as they yell for hikers to get out of their way and race by at high speeds. We do not believe this small band of renegades can be effectively identified and supervised on these trails with heavy family use, and indeed we have not read a single proposal by anyone to do so.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Will Eiserman, 1880 Telluride Lane, BoulderAugust 14, 2010 at 5:44 PM

    On the powerpoint presentation by Mark McIntyre posted on the CCG site he states the following regarding hikers and mountain bikers:
    "Know that we all have the same goals
    Be outdoors
    Reconnect with nature
    Connect with family and friends
    Enjoy our open space"

    Unfortunately, this is a dishonest representation and must be corrected. If you believe this statement, than blending mountain biking and hiking can seem reasonable. But it is completely not true. Hikers are typically interested in a tranquil experience to reconnect with nature, to be removed from the fast speed, high velocity experience of off-trail life where one can get lost in ones thoughts and senses. Bikers are typically interested in the adrenaline charged experience of speeding up and down hills, negotiating obstacles and pushing their personal limits. Hikers can't do what they are there to do when mt bikers are speeding up and down the trails. Its impossible. Similarly, if hikers are lost in their thoughts in the middle of the trail, bikers have a adult, child and dog obstacle that present safety issues and which definitely slows them down. Neither hikers nor bikers are wrong for what they want. But Mr. McIntyre is wrong. They are absolutely NOT THE SAME THING. And it is critical that be understood and central to any decisions that are made. Hiker and Mountain Bikers want very different experiences, so let's be honest about the dilemma. Multi-use trails are a LOSE/LOSE proposition. If we need even more options for mountain bikers it should not be at the expense of hikers, any more than new trails for hikers should take away existing mountain bike trails from bikers. To suggest you can add mountain biking to existing hiking trails without taking anything away from hikers is completely dishonest.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Geoffrey Johnson
    3553 Smuggler Way
    South Neighborhood

    My wife and I mountain bike, and we have about a dozen friends who mountain bike, however we have yet to meet anyone who thinks it is a good idea to expand mountain biking on the open space in South Boulder beyond the Dowdy/Marshall Mesa area. When riding a bike the idea is not to have the shortest ride possible, we ride from South Boulder along the frontage road to Marshall and access Marshall Mesa easily. We don't need to build parking lots on our open space to provide quick access to mountain biking trails.

    My wife and I participate in many mountain sports and we recognize that for some of these it is necessary that we drive. We alpine ski, but do not recommend cutting trails down Green Mountain, we golf, but don't recommend building a course along Bluestem Trail (I know this comment is over the top.) Our open space is a treasure, we are willing to limit the activities that we engage in on the open space to protect it for future generations, to protect the habitat, and to ensure compatible uses that can be enjoyed by everyone.

    In regard to cutting a trail from Greenbrier/Lehigh onto the open space, I would like to point out that it appears that the suggested alignment would run through a prarie dog village, and a wetland. This area has a current level of protection that prohibits the walking of a dog across it, even a dog on leash. I have also observed the severe erosion that is occuring in the Dowdy area and know that running a trail down the steep hillside from Greenbrier/Lehigh would inevitably lead to more erosion on the open space.

    In regard to building a parking lot at that location, I think it is outrageous that we would consider this kind of wanton destruction of our open space. It is really incongruous in light of the efforts that the Open Space Depaartment has made in recent years to protect our land and habitat.

    I really was surprised to hear that some residents of Boulder support expanded mountain biking on open space near the City. I can envision mountain bikers coming up unexpectedly on pedestrians, children, or dogs, potential accidents, and destruction of trails through erosion.

    Existing trails allow me to jump on my mountain bike and have a nice loop through town, partly on dirt, and partly on bike paths. In any event the kind of trails that would challenge hard core mountain bikers would not be feasible on our open space. So what is the point?

    ReplyDelete
  79. Cyndi Long 3707 Telluride Circle, South NeighborhoodAugust 14, 2010 at 8:19 PM

    I appose any proposals to increase use of Open Space trails in the south Boulder area by adding parking lots, opening existing trails to mountain bikers, and creating new trails for mountain bikers. These trails are heavily used at present, Additional high impact use is not safe or sustainable to users, wildlife, the environment, or neighborhoods. I have over 120 signatures from neighbors stating the same.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Catharine Harris, 2645 Briarwood Drive, Boulder, CO, South Neighborhood
    I have just read the Boulder Mountain Bike Alliance handout advocating more trails on our open space for mountain bikes. They want a mountain bike trail from Chautauqua to Eldorado Springs. THEY ALREADY HAVE ONE! It's the Bobolink Trail to South Boulder Creek Trail to Marshall Road to Eldorado Springs Drive or to Marshall Mesa, Community Ditch, and Doudy Draw Trails. Why isn't that enough for them?

    ReplyDelete
  81. I strongly oppose any expansion of new mountain biking trails, the use of current trails for bikes or god forbid, parking lots in South Boulder.

    South Neighborhood
    Carol Baskin
    3630 Silver Plume Ln

    ReplyDelete
  82. Dick Harris, 2645 Briarwood Drive

    Riding bikes on Open Space at the west side of the developed City of Boulder is against the rules, and has been for about 25 years. Our mountain bike riders want to change that. There are some very fundamental reasons why bikes aren’t there and their current popularity is one of the best reasons for keeping things that way.

    How did they get excluded? When the voters passed the Open Space program in 1967 they put the rules in Boulder’s City Charter. Five of the eight purposes of Open Space begin with the word “preservation.” To some, one of those preservation requirements is ambiguous. It says, “Preservation of land for passive recreation use, such as hiking, photography or nature studies …” That would be the end of the story but there’s more, “and if specifically designated, bicycling, horseback riding, or fishing.” It seems pretty clear that the drafters of the Charter intended “passive” use and that does not include bicycling. But being tolerant souls they allowed non-passive uses including biking.

    In the 1980s Boulder experimented with bikes on Open Space to disastrous consequences. The conflict between bikers and hikers was so bad that we once again eliminated biking, except at the north and south ends of the City.

    Why do the bikers think things are different enough to make a change? I suppose it is that biking is much more popular and there are many more bikers. Their principal advocate, the Boulder Mountainbike Alliance, collects a lot of money from them and likely even more for the biking industry including Boulder bike shops that profit financially by giving their customers more places to ride.

    But there are other changes too. Because there are so many more hikers and bikers than in 1980, conflicts will be much worse than earlier when they were already too severe to allow. The overall use of Open Space is so heavy now that, astonishingly, the number of visitor-days per year is greater in Boulder’s Open Space than in Rocky Mountain National Park. Open Space parking lots are often jammed and neighborhoods near trailheads and accesses are congested many with cars from outside of Boulder.

    We need to be looking to the future, say another 50 years, added to the 43 years already.
    By adding biking, yet another use, there will be vastly more out-of-town visitors, and use of our Open Space will rise significantly. The specter of new parking lots in neighborhoods has been bandied around. City staff and biking advocates have felt it necessary to deny that they are even thinking about them. But even if we don’t build them in the near future, they will be inevitable in time, even five or ten years.

    The bottom line is that for the sake of our residents, we need to keep the present biking rules in place. Bikers have no shortage of places to bike thanks to the generosity of the City that has opened 34% of its trails to bikes. The County has opened an astonishing 84% with a total of 138 miles in both jurisdictions.

    It’s really simple. We will destroy the original purposes of our precious Open Space if we open the portion near Boulder to mountain bikes. We need to keep it the way it is as its founders intended.

    For more factual information about bikes on Open Space check out the website SOSboulder.org. It’s from a lot of your friends and neighbors who understand the enthusiasm of bikers but don’t think biking is passive recreation that is compatible with sustaining our Open Space. As you look at it, one topic you might consider is the Charter’s requirement to preserve “…natural areas…”

    ReplyDelete
  83. Dick Harris, 2645 Briarwood Drive

    Riding bikes on Open Space at the west side of the developed City of Boulder is against the rules, and has been for about 25 years. Our mountain bike riders want to change that. There are some very fundamental reasons why bikes aren’t there and their current popularity is one of the best reasons for keeping things that way.

    How did they get excluded? When the voters passed the Open Space program in 1967 they put the rules in Boulder’s City Charter. Five of the eight purposes of Open Space begin with the word “preservation.” To some, one of those preservation requirements is ambiguous. It says, “Preservation of land for passive recreation use, such as hiking, photography or nature studies …” That would be the end of the story but there’s more, “and if specifically designated, bicycling, horseback riding, or fishing.” It seems pretty clear that the drafters of the Charter intended “passive” use and that does not include bicycling. But being tolerant souls they allowed non-passive uses including biking.

    In the 1980s Boulder experimented with bikes on Open Space to disastrous consequences. The conflict between bikers and hikers was so bad that we once again eliminated biking, except at the north and south ends of the City.

    Why do the bikers think things are different enough to make a change? I suppose it is that biking is much more popular and there are many more bikers. Their principal advocate, the Boulder Mountainbike Alliance, collects a lot of money from them and likely even more for the biking industry including Boulder bike shops that profit financially by giving their customers more places to ride.

    But there are other changes too. Because there are so many more hikers and bikers than in 1980, conflicts will be much worse than earlier when they were already too severe to allow. The overall use of Open Space is so heavy now that, astonishingly, the number of visitor-days per year is greater in Boulder’s Open Space than in Rocky Mountain National Park. Open Space parking lots are often jammed and neighborhoods near trailheads and accesses are congested many with cars from outside of Boulder.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Dick Harris, 2645 Briarwood Drive CONTINUED


    We need to be looking to the future, say another 50 years, added to the 43 years already.
    By adding biking, yet another use, there will be vastly more out-of-town visitors, and use of our Open Space will rise significantly. The specter of new parking lots in neighborhoods has been bandied around. City staff and biking advocates have felt it necessary to deny that they are even thinking about them. But even if we don’t build them in the near future, they will be inevitable in time, even five or ten years.

    The bottom line is that for the sake of our residents, we need to keep the present biking rules in place. Bikers have no shortage of places to bike thanks to the generosity of the City that has opened 34% of its trails to bikes. The County has opened an astonishing 84% with a total of 138 miles in both jurisdictions.

    It’s really simple. We will destroy the original purposes of our precious Open Space if we open the portion near Boulder to mountain bikes. We need to keep it the way it is as its founders intended.

    For more factual information about bikes on Open Space check out the website SOSboulder.org. It’s from a lot of your friends and neighbors who understand the enthusiasm of bikers but don’t think biking is passive recreation that is compatible with sustaining our Open Space. As you look at it, one topic you might consider is the Charter’s requirement to preserve “…natural areas…”

    ReplyDelete
  85. I am a resident of Table Mesa and strongly oppose opening current Open Space trails to mountain bikes in South Boulder. I am primarily a cyclist and racer (road, mountain, and 'cross) but I also like to hike and run. I really value being able to go for a peaceful hike or run on local trails without worrying about mountain bikes crashing into me or not yielding to me. I also feel strongly that the trails in South Boulder currently open to mountain bikes (e.g. Marshall Mesa, Dowdy Draw, etc) have been severely damaged by riders who have repeatedly chosen to ride them despite wet conditions, and I would hate to see even more trails damaged. I'd like preservation to be a priority on the Open Space trails in question.

    Diana Gibson
    1325 Drexel Street
    Boulder CO 80305

    ReplyDelete
  86. My name is Jutta M. Schmidt. I live on 1795 Viewpoint Road, Boulder 80305. My property adjoins Open Space. Like ninety percent of my neighbors, I am opposed to the introduction of more mountain bike trails in South Boulder for the following reasons:

    1. Mountain bike trails are seriously destructive to the environment. Cutting more trails is in violation of the *Open Space Charter* which states under Sec. 176:

    "Open Space land shall be acquired, maintained, preserved, retained, and used only for the following purposes:

    Preservation or restoration of natural areas.........
    Preservation of water resources...........
    Preservation of land for passive recreation use, such as hiking, photography or nature studies, and if specifically designated, bicycling, horseback riding, or fishing."

    These " designations" were made when the land was acquired. It follows that after-the-fact designations are made for political reasons that serve the Mountain Bike lobbies, not the citizens of Boulder who are financing the "Open Space and Mountain Parks Mission" or the 20 000 mountain bikers of Boulder who have about half of the trails open to them already.

    2. If you add to the 20 000 Boulder mountain bikers those of Denver and greater suburbia looming between the Front Range of the Rockies and the states that boarder on Colorado the number of mountain bikers likely to drive to Boulder every week end will increase exponentially. They will pollute the air that we breath, turn "passive recreation" into a dangerous enterprise, while flooding the 'Developments' adjoining "Open Space" -- not designed for public parking -- with cars that cause additional damage, property and otherwise. Needless to add, the Boulder Tax payers are forced to foot the bill for this invasion also. For those small businesses and restaurants who hope to benefit from this type of tourism.... Think again. Speaking as a bicyclist, after a long ride the next best part of the day is getting out of your high tech garb and take a shower at home or at a camp ground. Mountain bikers are not football fans!

    ReplyDelete
  87. Michael Browning
    3186 Galena Way
    South Boulder

    I will not repeat the many well-presented comments that precede this one. However, there are two separate issues that need to be addressed: (1) should mtn bikes be allowed on existing trails, and (2) should new trails be constructed for biking. I say no to each.

    1.Shared Use: Walking and mountain biking are simply not compatible uses on the existing trails. Those trails are already heavily used by hikers, dog walkers, bird watchers, and other passive recreational users. Bikes travel at speeds that are incompatible with hikers and dogs. I have stopped hiking on trails that allow bike use. I am constantly forced off those trails, frequently surprised by bikers, and feel my safety, not to mention my enjoyment, is greatly compromised. This is even a more serious concern for the elderly, families with small children, and dog walkers. Safety issues alone should be enough to keep mtn bikers off already heavily used trails.

    As the Boulder population has increased over the last 40 years, trail use has already increased dramatically. Even now, trails are sometimes crowded and peace and serenity harder to find. Adding bikers would greatly increase use, increase conflicts, and diminish the special quality of the West TSA.

    I am not against bikers using some trials, but do not believe they have the right to use all trails. Over 130 miles of trails in the City and County of Boulder area already open to mtn bikes. The City has also spent over $4 million on a new state-of-the-art bike park just for off-road bikers. The West TSA is the gem of the City's open space program. The absence of bikes is a major reason. We need to preserve it as a special place.

    New Trails. Somehow conservation has become a dirty word in this debate. However, five of the nine stated purposes of the open space program highlight "preservation." We need to protect the West TSA not only for current residents, but also for those generations to come. If the West TSA becomes simply another bike park or thrill ride, its special qualities will be lost forever. The West TSA makes Boulder special. Let's keep it that way. Adrenaline should not be allowed to overwhelm serenity.

    The West TSA is also a last refuge for many plants and creatures. Again, we should keep preservation of the natural environment as the top priority. New trails are inconsistent with this priority.

    Building new trails for bikes will also attract bikers from all over the Front Range and beyond to use what is a City resource. Neighborhood parking and traffic problems would increase dramatically.

    For all these reasons and more, I strongly oppose allowing mtn bike use within the West TSA, either on existing trails or new ones.

    ReplyDelete
  88. We are strongly opposed to any Mountain bike use on OSMP land south of Baseline and Broadway because of erosion problems and the danger to hikers. If you check mountain bike trails, especially after a rain, it is easy to see the additional ruts caused by the bikes on the sides of trails.

    Ruth Carol has hiked in the Boulder Mountain Park since 1959 and worked to pass the original sales tax for Open Space in the early 60s. Both of us have supported Open Space for many years. We would hate to see the values of preservation destroyed by overuse.

    Ruth Carol and Glenn Cushman
    8495 Arapahoe Rd.
    Boulder, CO 80303

    ReplyDelete
  89. I strongly oppose the opening of the West TSA to mountain biking and in particular the South Boulder Creek, Big Bluestem, and Shannahan trails for all of the resaons that have been articulated above. I would like to add two more reasons that I have not seen identified here.

    First, by opening the South Boulder Creek, Big Bluestem, and Shannahan trails to mountain bikes there would no longer be any trails in South Boulder that could be considered just hiking trails. They all would be mountain bike trails, leaving no options for those (hikers, runners, equestrians, and dog owners) who would like to get away from potential encounters with mountain bikes.

    Second, a significant portion of this area was designated as a state natural area in January 2000. The web site (http://parks.state.co.us/NaturalResources/CNAP/NaturalAreasInfo/AlphabeticalListing/Pages/SouthBoulderCreek.aspx) states the following:

    "South Boulder Creek Natural Area features a mosaic of high quality wetlands, wet meadows and mesic grasslands, including plains riparian forests and tallgrass prairie ecosystems.

    A remnant of the plains cottonwood riparian ecosystem occurs in good condition along South Boulder Creek. This riparian community provides essential wildlife habitat and contributes to the biological diversity of floodplains along the Colorado's western plains.

    In combination with riparian and grassland communities, wetlands found along South Boulder Creek are considered to be among the best preserved and most ecologically significant in the Boulder Valley.

    The floodplain in the area includes habitat for three species of concern: a rare plant, Preble's meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei); and Bobolink (Dolichonix oryzivorous), a locally rare bird on the edge of its range. In addition, the area serves as a research site for on-going floristic and wildlife investigations."

    Mountain biking as an activity is at odds with the biological significance of this area.

    ReplyDelete
  90. William White
    1727 Viewpoint Rd
    South Neighborhood

    Having been lived in Boulder since the early sixties, I have seen many attempts at trail sharing come up. In my personal experience, a mixed use trail system is not effective for either groups. However, it impacts the walker more as they are the ones that have to jump out of the way of the trailbikers. Secondly, the charter of open space is to conserve, preserve. Trail biking is much harder on the land that walkers / hikers. I have voted for every open space funding initiative over the last few decades, however, if the usage is changed to mixed us, then I will no longer vote for increase funding as that was not the value proposition when originally proposed to the taxpayers. Last, given our area is a residential area, any proposal to construct special use parking lots, will only increase traffic in our community and I believe the traffic will originate outside of the south boulder area. This places a higher risk profile for our children, pets and other pedestrians in our community.

    ReplyDelete
  91. I strongly oppose the opening of the West TSA to mountain biking and in particular the South Boulder Creek, Big Bluestem, and Shannahan trails for all of the resaons that have been articulated above. I would like to add two more reasons that I have not seen identified here.

    First, by opening the South Boulder Creek, Big Bluestem, and Shannahan trails to mountain bikes there would no longer be any trails in South Boulder that could be considered just hiking trails. They all would be mountain bike trails, leaving no options for those (hikers, runners, equestrians, and dog owners) who would like to get away from potential encounters with mountain bikes.

    Second, a significant portion of this area was designated as a state natural area in January 2000. The web site (http://parks.state.co.us/NaturalResources/CNAP/NaturalAreasInfo/AlphabeticalListing/Pages/SouthBoulderCreek.aspx) states the following:

    "South Boulder Creek Natural Area features a mosaic of high quality wetlands, wet meadows and mesic grasslands, including plains riparian forests and tallgrass prairie ecosystems.

    A remnant of the plains cottonwood riparian ecosystem occurs in good condition along South Boulder Creek. This riparian community provides essential wildlife habitat and contributes to the biological diversity of floodplains along the Colorado's western plains.

    In combination with riparian and grassland communities, wetlands found along South Boulder Creek are considered to be among the best preserved and most ecologically significant in the Boulder Valley.

    The floodplain in the area includes habitat for three species of concern: a rare plant, Preble's meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei); and Bobolink (Dolichonix oryzivorous), a locally rare bird on the edge of its range. In addition, the area serves as a research site for on-going floristic and wildlife investigations."

    Mountain biking as an activity is at odds with the biological significance of this area.

    Ralph Brown
    1355 S Foothills Hwy
    Boulder, CO 80305
    ralph.w.brown@comcast.net

    ReplyDelete
  92. Robert Sancetta
    3512 Smuggler Way
    Boulder, CO 80305
    303-499-5255

    I have been a Boulder resident since 1972, and have been frequenting the local trails on a near-daily basis (in all seasons) since I moved here. I have also been a full-time resident and homeowner in the Shanahan Ridge area since the mid-1980’s.

    Let me begin by stating my objective here is to be fair, and to avoid being a “NIMBY.” I am an avid runner and hiker, and formerly a cyclist (both on the roads and on less-technical trails). I support both activities as worthwhile and excellent outdoor fun and exercise. I simply believe that these activities should be done on separate terrain.

    While in theory I have no personal objection to a connector trail for mountain bikes from north to south, permit me the following comments and observations;

    -the attempt at permitting mountain bikes on the trails in the Mesa/Shanahan trail areas in the 1980’s was a short-lived disaster. Due to concerns for erosion and potential injury both to cyclists and pedestrians, this policy was terminated. Reinstating it now, with co-mingled use with pedestrians, children, and pets is a series of injuries and lawsuits in the making. How quickly we forget problems from the past.

    -the current mixed use trails south of the Eldorado Canyon road (including both Marshall Mesa and Doughty Draw), are, if we can be honest here, in reality “bikes only” on the weekends. As much as I used to frequent these trails, I no longer go near them. Pedestrians spend most of their time stepping off the trail to permit cyclists to pass in these areas. I have not once, never/ever, had a cyclist offer to stop and to give me the right of way as a pedestrian. Never. And, stepping off the trail constantly not only ruins any potential enjoyment for the pedestrian, it’s also not risk free, as much of the off-trail terrain is on a slope, increasing the risk for falls, sprained ankles, etc.

    -the inability to use these particular trails is particularly disconcerting to me, given that not only is my home nearby, but my office is at the turnoff to Eldorado Springs off of Hwy 93. I used to be able to frequent these trails, but I no longer can on any sort of frequent or reliable basis.

    -accepting (reluctantly, but accepting nonetheless), therefore, that the trails noted above are, for all practical purposes, for bikes only, I have no ethical problem supporting then that the Shananhan and Mesa trails really should remain pedestrian only. If they become mixed use, the experience for pedestrians will become less enjoyable, and increasingly dangerous.

    ReplyDelete
  93. Sancetta continued ...


    -if a connector trail is still under consideration, please cut this to be WITHOUT any portion concurrent as mixed use with existing pedestrian trails. The only way to do this, of course, would be to cut across the Shanahan trails at some points, for example. I have no problem with this, so long as these intersections are not only well marked, but have very clear devices to slow the pace of cyclists, so they can’t surprise pedestrians by passing at high rates of speed, increasing injury risks for all.

    -the concept of a parking lot along Greenbriar was also suggested many years ago, and removed from consideration after significant opposition. I oppose any and all efforts to renew this idea. This would destroy the serenity of the open space views in that area, would cause considerable litter, and would keep all the local HOA’s and Fairview HS parking lots filled with transient cars (likely there would also be many vehicles parked illegally along Greenbriar) as Boulder now becomes the next Moab…that is, a “destination” mountain biking mecca. I submit that any parking lot built here would quickly become an overflowing eyesore. While, as stated above, I have some acceptance of the concept of a N-S connector trail, the idea of a parking lot and new trails alongside Greenbriar is something I oppose…stating clearly that I would oppose this as strongly as I possibly can if it remains a consideration.

    -if ultimately the addition of new mountain biking trails is approved, please endeavor to ensure that whatever the final design is, that it…

    -is sustainable, without causing irreparable damage to local terrain
    -keeps cyclists and pedestrians separate
    -does NOT change any existing pedestrian trails into mixed use terrain

    In summary, if increased mountain bike trail use is ultimately approved, please consider using fairness and restraint – to create something that is both sustainable and reasonable. Please remember that mountain bikes have plenty of trails already available to them, remembering further that even if these trails are considered mixed use, than in reality they are all but mountain bike exclusive. Finally, ensure that any trail use modifications maintain the safety and serenity that pedestrians currently experience in our wonderful mountain park system.

    ReplyDelete
  94. Ben Vanberg
    3380 Cripple Creek Trail
    Boulder, CO 80305
    South Neighborhood

    I am an avid mountain biker, and race for a local cycling team. I have been a member of the BMA, but after reading their current proposal for opening up existing trails in the South Boulder area I did not renew my membership this year.

    Reading from the proposal:

    "open the trails in the southernmost portion of this TSA as shared use trails,
    including South Boulder Creek, Big Bluestem, and Shanahan Ridge"

    I am very much opposed to opening these trails to mountain bikes. As a rider of the existing trails south of Eldorado Canyon it is apparent that mountain biking is taking a toll. Trails that were single track just last year are now double and triple track. I was just riding a bit of that trail yesterday and was saddened to see that what was more or less single track this spring is now tripple track. I hate so admit it, but it's mostly due to mountain bikers. The problem is that not everyone is informed on how to properly ride single track, and they never will be. The trails will suffer.

    As a pedestrian I avoid multi-use trails all together. It's no fun to go for a trail run or a hike and constantly step out of the way of mountain bikers. One of the biggest reasons I invested in a home in this area was for the pedestrian access to the very trails in the BMA proposal. It would be very sad to see these trails destroyed by opening them to mountain bikes. Not to mention that it would become very difficult to have the same user experience we do now on these trails with bikes. It's an amazing place to bring your dog or family to hike around and enjoy Boulder's finest open space.

    I know this is "not in my back yard" talk, but that's why I moved here after all. And while I do love the access that the BMA has helped to get for the mountain bike community I remain opposed to this proposal. In fact, I am opposed to opening up multi-use trails on any of the open space from South Boulder to North Boulder.

    What I am in favor of are completely separate trails for mountain bikes that are built in a common sense manner. I think there is room for these kind of trails with minimal user conflict. These would probably still have to be open to pedestrians, but it wouldn't take away from what is already there. I do think these trails should be minimal "connector" trails. What would still have to be addressed is user impact and user education. Too many times I'm frustrated with other riders that ride off the trial because it's too muddy, rocky or just to go around. I'm not sure how you control this but until we find a good way to educate the users of these trails we are going to continue to see the damage that is already very apparent on the multi-use trails south of town.

    Ditto on Sancetta's comments above. They just don't work well together.

    ReplyDelete
  95. To: CCG
    From: Greg Tucker, 2280 Stony Hill Road, Boulder (South area)

    First of all, my thanks to the CCG for taking on this difficult challenge. Many people have already eloquently presented on this comment blog lots of reasons why opening the area to mountain bike trails would be a bad idea. Sarah Heilbronner, in her guest commentary, expressed the issues especially nicely. I agree strongly with her conclusion that "Our representatives need to return to the drawing board to seek another route that would not lead to erosion, congestion, and user conflict on enjoyable south Boulder trails. Perhaps it is simply not possible to squeeze such a route into this narrow and valued corridor."

    I have little to add to Sarah's thoughtful piece, except to share one of my earliest experiences in Boulder, some years before I moved here. My parents, sister and I were walking up the creek path along the canyon on a beautiful summer's day. Although I was living at the time in a crowded European city, I was unaccustomed to the craziness of the Creek Path. So I was quite startled when, as we were strolling along enjoying conversation and scenery, a couple of downhill-bound bikers on the trail ahead began shouting angrily at us to get out of the way. My then-70-something-year-old parents were, fortunately, nimble enough to dodge out of the way in time to avoid being bowled over. But the experience left a strong impression on all of us. It was only after I moved to Boulder some years later than I realized how dangerous it can be to drop your guard when walking on the Creek path, and other mixed-use paths like it. These paths will take you from A to B, but they are no place for a quiet, relaxed stroll -- you have to keep your wits about you.

    Since then, I've come to love cycling on many of the bike trails all around Boulder. But like others who have commented on this page, I am under no illusion that cycling and hiking mix. As I learned on that first Boulder visit many years ago, walking on a mixed-use trail is a very different experience from the kind of peaceful hiking experience that is today available to everyone on the South area trails. That experience is unique and well worth preserving. For this reason, I very strongly oppose the proposal to open the area to mountain biking.

    Thanks again to the CCG for wrestling with this issue.

    ReplyDelete
  96. Patrick Murphy
    1554 North Street
    about 3 blocks east of broadway.

    I would strongly oppose having bikers on the foothills trails. I have one broken bone in my body and that is in my right hand, after being run down by a biker on the Sanitas Valley trail - and that was after they were banned.

    I was hiking with my partner Maria and her elderly mother and her friend on the Betasso Trail when we were run off the trail by a pack of lady bikers that were talking and not paying attention as they rounded a turn in a wooded drainage. The trail was narrow and concave and as we tried to move to the side, the slopes were slippery and the two elderly ladies slipped and were almost hit by the bikers.

    Bikes and hikers are a dangerous mix. Bikes, hikers, kids and dogs is an insane combination.

    ReplyDelete
  97. I live in the Central neighborhood, north of Table Mesa. Our family runs and hikes with our dog on the local trails, and we enjoy mountain biking on the trails south and north of Boulder. I'm opposed to adding mountain bikes to the existing trails in the west TSA or to adding a new trail for mountain bikes connecting Chautauqua to Eldorado Springs.

    We've really enjoyed the access for mountain bikes south of town on the Marshall Mesa and Dowdy Draw trails. However, I'm acutely aware of my negative impact as a biker on the experience of the individuals and families that I meet on those trails. I think the co-mingling of bikes and hikers is a negative for both, as the hikers feel unsafe and on edge, and the bikers have to frequently interrupt the flow of their pedalling experience. I think this is true regardless of how responsible or courteous the mountain biking community tries to be.

    I disagree that a N/S connector trail is needed for commuting or to provide non-motorized access to southern bike trails: the Broadway bike path leads to the Marshall frontage road and the Marshall Mesa trailhead--a pleasant, and easy ride. I also disagree that there is room for a new continuous trail in the urban areas north of Lehigh/Greenbriar. Although there might be reasonable options south of that neighborhood, this would create additional pressure on that already congested neighborhood access point. The mountain biking community has been very effective in recent years in gaining access and new trails for this user group, which is great. However, I'd prefer the status quo (no bikes) in the West TSA.

    Judy Ruckman
    2990 Carnegie Dr.

    ReplyDelete
  98. I used to be a hiker AND a mountain biker. Thanks to serious debilitating illness, I am now a plodder. But I still have a dog that needs to run off-leash in order to get proper exercise. There is no way I can plod along a hiking trail, properly supervise my dog, and watch for mountain bikes all at the same time. Please do not take away what little access I still have to fresh air, open space, and exercise for my dog - all things that would undoubtedly happen if the South Boulder / Shanahan Ridge trails were opened to mountain bikes. Mountain bikes and pedestrians on the same trails are an invitation to disaster.

    ReplyDelete
  99. My name is Joe Mottashed and I live on Gillaspie Drive in South Boulder. I have lived in South Boulder for over 40 years. I hike in the study area frequently and am very familiar with most of the trails. Mixing bicycle usage with existing hiking trails in this area is a bad idea, and introducing more trails for the purpose of biking is also a bad idea. The area is already greatly impacted by the current usage. It is a sanctuary for wildlife and it is a place where the entire family can enjoy a peaceful outing. There are plenty of other trails for mountain bike usage. I stay off those trails when hiking because hikers and bikers don't mix well. Please don't reintroduce biking into this area.

    ReplyDelete
  100. I am Pat Shea from 1323 Wildwood Court. I am opposed to the ideas of adding bikes to existing trails or building new trails in the West trails area. It is simply not safe for children or the elderly to be on mixed use trails.
    I tried taking my 85 year old father on the Creek Path. It was a frightening experience. Unless you have excellent hearing and balance, it is not safe.

    ReplyDelete
  101. I would again like to express my opposition to the opening of the West TSA to mountain biking and in particular the South Boulder Creek, Big Bluestem, and Shannahan trails. There is another portion of this area, the Colorado Tallgrass Prairie, was designated as a state natural area in November 1984 (http://parks.state.co.us/NaturalResources/CNAP/NaturalAreasInfo/AlphabeticalListing/Pages/ColoradoTallgrassPrairie.aspx) and highlighted in the Colorado Natural Areas Program Spring 2003 newsletter (http://parks.state.co.us/SiteCollectionImages/parks/Programs/CNAP/Newsletters/CNAPSpring03.pdf).

    The CNAP web site states the following about the Colorado Tallgrass Praire, “The Colorado Tallgrass Prairie Natural Area is a remnant of a once-extensive area of tall prairie occupying the South Boulder Creek floodplain and much of the glacial outwash plateaus of the Front Range. These tallgrass prairie remnants support flora similar to the prairies of South Dakota, Kansas, and the Midwest, including big bluestem (Andropogon gerardii), switchgrass (Panicum virgatum), and yellow Indiangrass (Sorgastrum nutans).”

    I reiterate, Mountain biking as an activity is at odds with the biological significance of this area.

    Ralph Brown
    South Neighborhood
    1355 S Foothills Hwy
    Boulder, CO 80305

    ReplyDelete
  102. I would like to point out a third portion of the West TSA, Boulder Mountain Park Natural Area, that was designated as a state natural area in Februay 2009. The web site (http://parks.state.co.us/NaturalResources/CNAP/NaturalAreasInfo/AlphabeticalListing/Pages/BoulderMountainPark.aspx) states the following:

    “Boulder Mountain Park is located along the foothills-plains interface just west of the City of Boulder. This Natural Area encompasses Green Mountain, Longs Canyon, the Boulder Flatirons, and the Western Mountain Parks Habitat Conservation Area. All of these areas represent a rich ecotonal area between the mountains and the plains, and create a large habitat for a variety of species.
    These management areas support typical examples of modern foothills community types as well as plant species left over from the cooler and wetter conditions prevalent during the last ice age. Among the plant relicts are a stand of paper birch and disjunct populations of boreal and subalpine plants. The property contains a high concentration of rare plants, including one extremely rare plant. There are also several rare birds, mammals and insects that call this park home. At this site, visitors can walk through 1.5 billion years of geologic history and view the renowned Boulder Flatirons.”

    It should be noted that the Mesa Trail, North Fork Shanahan Trial, South Fork Shanahan Trail, much of the Big Bluestem Trail, Shadow Canyon Trail, Bear Peak West Ridge Trail, Bear Canyon Trail and others trails north of NCAR are all contained within this protected state natural area.

    It amazes me that we would consider opening up the West TSA to the impact of mountain bikes, considering how much of it is protected Colorado natural areas.

    Ralph Brown
    South Neighborhood
    1355 S Foothills Hwy
    Boulder, CO 80305

    ReplyDelete
  103. The truth is that you won't be successful in keeping mountain bikers off the trails around Boulder. As hikers, you and your trails already cut through and disrupt wildlife areas (and your houses in Boulder take up precious wildlife land too...don't forget that). Your arguments against bikers are weak...more damage to trails? Show proof! The impact is minimal. I'm sorry, but your effort is sad.

    ReplyDelete
  104. Lot's of conjecture and false information.
    I'd like to see hikers staying on trail (in sensitive areas too!) and picking up their dog shit and trash for once. Oh wait I'm a mtn biker who picks up their trash and does their trail maintennce for them, silly me.

    That flyer can suck it with it's fear mongering.

    ReplyDelete
  105. My name is Keith Jimmerson. I live at 1825 View Point Rd.in southwest Boulder.It is frustrating to observe the tactics used by BMA.First the original neighborhood rep was a past president of BMA. So much for fair and balanced representation.Then tax returns for BMA show they gave cash to Boulder's mayor and all the city council members. I wonder how they may vote when this issue comes up.Then there is a picture in BMA's website showing an OSMP ranger cutting down a no mtn. bike sign with a big grin on his face.This ranger is in an OSMP uniform.Does that mean all OSMP is against hikers in the West TSA? All this can be seen in the BMA website.Fellow hikers, we are in an uphill battle to keep mechanical vehicles out of the West TSA.Keep up the good fight! Keith Jimmerson

    ReplyDelete
  106. Sorry, but being a very avid biker and hiker etc, I find the lack of tolerance and misunderstanding most of these comments represent quite shocking.....riding and hiking can get along and it does quite well in other parts of the state and country for that matter. The place isn't getting any bigger and for sure there are places that should be kept free of people in general, but we must also look to the needs of the many, and for sure by not having some common ground for the users you are so intending of keeping out, only forces them into their cars and driving more.....local riding needs are not crazy to ask for and not everyone wants to ride the roads and bike trails whixh are in they're own right fairly dangerous. I guess it's o.k. to ask us to do that, but your selfishness is astounding. Bikes are honorable and good for people, controls can be put in place to mitigate use etc....let's open our minds a little shall we? we have much more to worry about together out there than this!

    ReplyDelete
  107. We are visiting Boulder from Tennessee to see our daughter at CU and hike the area near the Flatirons. We have learned of the effort of mountain bikers to gain access to the open space area below the Flatirons. This area is one of the great open spaces within minutes of downtown Boulder for residents and visitors alike to hike the great foothills of the Rockies. Allowing mountain bikes on these trails would be a travesty and diminish one of the finest walking trail systems in Colorado. Please do not allow mountain bikers access to these great trails. Channing Dawson, Whitney Ray-Dawson, Tessa Dawson, Knoxville Tennessee 37932

    ReplyDelete
  108. My name is Anne Fenerty. I live at 2805 Stanford Avenue. I am opposed to mountain bikes on more OS trails. The trails which were opened to bikes are now mostly bike trails as most of us don't enjoy dodging bikes on what we thought were quiet, contemplative walks for the enjoyment of our lovely open space. This year the forest wildflowers were exceptionally gorgeous; please keep this special place so near the city for those who would like to see and listen to wildlife and enjoy the flowers.
    I don't know if I would have voted for every Open Space acquisition for the last 40 years had I known that a park we bought will be a $4.1 million bike park;as well as the Boulder Creek path and the Spring Brook trails, now mostly used by bikers. While bikes are to yield to hikers I yet have to see this. We lost these lovely trails. Let's hope we will keep the remaining ones.

    ReplyDelete
  109. The trails that the Mountain Bike association want to use in South Boulder are access points for anyone wanting to use the South Boulder Trail system. If this goes into effect many will DRIVE to other areas to hike, thus impacting the strain on other over hiked areas such as Chatauqua and Sanitas. Please expand the trail systems already in place for bikes such as the Marshall Mesa/Doudy Draw area, or trails around the Boulder Resevoir. We do not need bikes in South Boulder around our neighborhoods.
    I am a mountain biker, hiker, and runner with a dog.

    ReplyDelete
  110. We have already seen the impact that the mountain bikes have had on Heil Ranch and on Betasso Reserve. Just recently while on a hike at Heil Ranch I counted 98 bikes on a 3 mile loop. I am not opposed to mountain bikes, but I think that they should have separate paths to use. Far too many pedestrians of all ages use the foot paths and it becomes both hazardous and disruptive to always be on the look out for bikers sharing the same path. The intent of a quiet walk in the woods becomes a focused awareness of on-coming traffic by bikers. Please submit my NO vote on this matter. Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  111. Living on open space in South Boulder is a treat for those who love to hike. Adding mountain bike trail pathways through these areas will adversely affect these pristine, quiet trails which south boulder is known for. It's already crowded with runners, hikers, dogs, and families who enjoy these outings. We are opposed to allowing bikers on these trails.
    Can't a trail be created along highway 93 to access the south boulder mountain bike trails??? 685 Emporia Rd, Boulder

    ReplyDelete
  112. What we need is not an exlusive but inclusive trail use policy. All users groups should be able to enjoy these areas. I am a hiker, mt. biker, climber and runner. I understand the concerns of each user group but like to think from each user group's point of view. To me, the only winning formula is one in which we make space for everyone and each group gives respect to the other. Education of each trail user groups is part of the solution. If it's really that much of an issue create an online certification course for the user groups that explains how to act on the trails and respect other user groups as well as report abusers. As an example, the cyclists could take a course designed to address the issue of approaching hikers at high velocity, learning to call out to the hiker from a certain distance when approaching and not passing the hiker at any more than a slow speed. Fast cyclists cause fear of a collision and then resentment. Right of way to hikers would be reinforced. You want to ride on the few trails in Boulder County that are on the so called "certified trail" list....take the certification course, print out your card and carry it with you. Don't have a card while on one of the few "certified trails", you get a warning and then a fine. Put a sign at the trial head and notify the user groups. It's not that we should exclude certain user groups, it's that we should educate. In this way the respectful users are not lumped in with the abusers. And the abusers get educated. The certification are for everyone, hikers, biker, climbers. That level of involvement, if done properly, could create a population of caring users more interested in taking care of other user groups and their needs and lessen the numbers of complaints. Everyone's got a right to be out there! Let's celebrate our different user groups and enjoy the joy we feel while respecting their chosen method to enjoy our beautiful lands. Sean

    ReplyDelete
  113. I have been a town of Eldorado Springs resident since 1993. I consider the West TSA as well as Open Space south of Eldorado Springs Drive my backyard. Therefore, I feel very protective of it. I am literally on these trails every day of the week at some point. Since I really have no yard in Eldorado Springs I use the trails on a daily basis to exercise my dogs. I believe this give me a unique perspective on the usage of these trails. It is true that since the trails south of Eldorado Springs drive have been opened to bikes, the hiking experience is quite changed. Hikers and hikers with dogs has dropped dramatically. What is happening is that that group of users is now being pushed to the West TSA to avoid bikers and have a quieter experience. This is making the West TSA way more crowded. And it already is very crowded on nice weekends. I've read the bikers proposals and I think the one thing that really stands out is their claim that bikers will yield. This is so untrue. In the year since the bike trails were opened south of Eldorado, only once has a biker yielded to me and my dog. It is always the other way around. There are many polite riders who slow down but they never stop and wait for me to pass. There have been way too many occasions of bikers going way too fast past hikers. Scary and dangerous. I think that speed and failing to yield are the biggest issues. If I stand my ground on the trail and wait for the bike to yield they repeatedly just go off trail around me causing further expansion of the trails. Bikes and horses and hikers with or without dogs is a recipe for disaster. Right now on the trails that allow bikes it is "hikers and equestrians use at your own risk!"

    I have mountain biked, had horses for over 25 years and am a bird watcher and hiker also. I feel like the bikers have plenty of area to ride already on Boulder County open space. Please save the West TSA for more passive use. It is a precious area and should be preserved as it is. Let's maintain the trails we have there and not cut it up further to accommodate bikers.

    Eldorado Springs Resident
    South Boulder Area

    ReplyDelete

Please be sure that you are entering your comments on the appropriate page (Supporting Comments, Opposing Comments, or Compromise Ideas).

YOU MUST INCLUDE YOUR NAME, ADDRESS, AND THE AREA IN WHICH YOU LIVE (SEE LIST BELOW.)
Otherwise your comment may be deleted.

For the "comment as" box, the easiest thing to do is comment as "anonymous" (just include your name and address in the body of your comment).

Information about common comment posting problems is found at the top of the right hand link column.

Also, please e-mail us your comments at west.tsa.neighborhood.reps@gmail.com. That way, if there is a problem, you can contact you. You must do this if you want us to add you to the mailing list.

Comment areas:
- North Neighborhood -- North of Canyon, West of Broadway
- Central Neighborhood -- Between Table Mesa and Canyon. West
  of Broadway
- South Neighborhood -- south of Trable Mesa and west of Broadway
- East Boulder -- east of Broadway

As "West of Broadway" Neighborhood Representatives we do not represent East Boulder interests. We will, however, make your comments available to other CCG representatives who are responsible for representing your interests. We also encourage you to contact your representatives directly. (See right hand column for links.)

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.