Boulder Open Space and Mountain Parks
West Trail Study Area -- Community Collaborative Group (CCG)
Mountain Bike-Related Comments
Prepared for the September 13, 2010 CCG Meeting
Guy Burgess
South Boulder Representative
This memo (with accompanying attachments) summarizes my current thinking on the mountain bike issue and is being presented to the CCG as my contribution to the September 13 meeting. I am very grateful for the literally hundreds of messages I've received offering advice on how the CCG should handle this highly controversial issue. This memo highlights the key points and includes my thoughts on how these often contradictory comments might best be reconciled and how the core interests of my diverse constituency might best be protected.
I honestly have no idea how the CCG discussion will proceed or what agreements will be possible. (It's quite possible, for example, that the CCG will decide that it can't handle this issue under its consensus rules and it will refer to the entire matter to OSMP's non-consensus process.) Still, this memo outlines the core points that I will try to make and defend in the course of the discussion.
I had hoped to distribute this memo for public comment earlier. Unfortunately, other family and job commitments, along with the tight CCG timeline, made this impossible. Still, I think that, by now I've heard the major points many, many times over. In looking over this document I ask that you recognize that I'm obviously in a very difficult position which makes it impossible to please everyone. This is the closest that I have been able to come to a sensible middle ground (though certainly not consensus) after struggling with the issue for the last several months. Hopefully, my CCG colleagues will have even better ideas. I also apologize for any typos or poorly worded sections. This was put together under much tighter time pressures than I would have liked.
This memo includes the following sections:
1. Plans for the September 13 meeting,
2. Overview of mountain bike proposal,
3. Overview of neighborhood comments received,
4. Summary of the "key points" that have emerged from those neighborhood comments,
5. Thoughts on available collaborative opportunities and their limits.
September 13 Meeting Agenda
Information on the agenda for the CCG Mountain Bike meeting for this meeting is found at:
My understanding is that the September 13 meeting will involve the kind of detailed discussion of options that the CCG has had on other issues over the last couple of months. It is quite possible that only tentative decisions will be made at this meeting with more final decisions made as part of a still loosely defined reconciliation and "grand trade-off" process. My understanding is that reconciliation phase will yield a draft report that the public will have an opportunity to review and comment on before it is finalized and submitted to the Board of Trustees. As mentioned above, it is also possible the CCG may decide that it cannot successfully address the issue under its consensus rules and refer it to the alternative non-concensus process.
It is quite possible that I am not accurately understanding the meeting agenda or the nature of the process. For the latest and most accurate information, consult the above website and OSMP.
The Mountain Bike Proposal
Just to be clear, the proposal "on the table" is to create a mountain biking accessible route (using existing and/or newly constructed trails from the Chautauqua area south to the south end of the Mesa Trail.) The proposed trail would be routed somewhere east of the Mesa Trail and west of the many City neighborhoods that abut Open Space and the West TSA.
The latest draft proposal from the Mark McIntyre, the mountain bike representative on the CCG it found at:
For the purposes of this memo I have found it useful to separate the proposal into two segments:
- The Northern Trail -- from Chautauqua to the city's southern urban boundary where Lehigh/Greenbrier abuts Open Space. (This trail need only connect with city streets where it crosses Table Mesa Drive.)
- The Southern Trail -- from Lehigh/Greenbrier to the south end of the Mesa Trail.
Overview of Neighborhood Comments Received
This section constitutes my effort to help the CCG, members of the neighborhood caucus, and the Boulder community, more generally, understand the extraordinarily large number of comments that I have received on this extremely controversial issue. While members of the CCG have certainly been aware of the contentious nature of this issue, I doubt that they fully appreciate the magnitude and intensity of the controversy. Personally, I know of relatively few City policy debates that have generated this level of intense public involvement. In order to give you a better sense of what the neighborhoods think about this issue, I've attached a summary of comments opposing mountain bike access prepared by mountain bike opponents. A summary of arguments supporting mountain bike access is embodied in the mountain bike proposal cited above
In addition, I'm enclosing the full-text of the three categories of comments (Supportive Comments, Opposing Comments, and Compromise Ideas -- accessible from the menu sidebar) received using my online comment system. (http://west-tsa-neighborhood-comments.blogspot.com/) You should understand that these do not include the many comments submitted via other channels. These files are also a few days old and do not include a number of more recently submitted comments. For the latest information go to the website.
You should also note that many of the comments received were submitted by people who live outside of the South Boulder neighborhood and sometimes outside of the "West of Broadway" neighborhood caucus area. While I am not representing the views of people outside my caucus area, it is clear that the CCG has, collectively, the responsibility of considering and views of the entire community.
I ask you to at least skim through these comments and notice the amount of effort that went into preparing them. Clearly, this is something that people really care about.
Summary of the "Key Points"
I have spent considerable effort trying to understand and respond to the core interests underlying the many comments received. This has led me to conclude that there are five key points that the CCG absolutely must take into account in its deliberations.
Key Point #1: Mountain biking seriously undermines the quality of the visitor experience for other users of the same trail / area.
There are a very large number of people (including many mountain bikers) who believe that the addition of mountain biking to the hiking trails that they currently enjoy would dramatically undermine the quality of the visitor experience--often to the point where people feel that it wouldn't be worth going there anymore. Given the central role that access to these Open Space trails plays in their quality of life the level, the intensity of opposition is understandable.
More specifically, mountain bike access is seen as harming the visitor experience in the following ways:
- Safety -- Safety concerns primarily result from speed differentials and the possibility that hikers and mountain bikers might not be able to successfully avoid one another. Special concerns were raised about children who may not know which way to jump, and those with disabilities (primarily the elderly who may not be sufficiently mobile). Concern had also been expressed about the possibility that occasional mountain bikers might not be sufficiently cautious when encountering other visitors. Safety concerns have also been expressed about how bikes would interact with dogs and especially dogs on leash.
- Visitor Experience -- Concerns have been expressed about the perceived disruptions to the visitor experience associated with mountain bikers who because of their faster speed would tend to be encountered much more frequently than their numbers would suggest. Also undermining the experience is the fact many hikers feel that they would always have to be "on guard" and looking over their shoulder for bikes coming up from behind.
- Environmental Disruption -- Another group of concerns addressed the belief that mountain bike use would disturb wildlife and/or wildlife viewing opportunities.
The Bottom Line: The CCG and OSMP should not consider approving mountain bike access unless it can find ways of preserving the quality of the visitor experience on existing, widely-used and highly-valued trails. At a minimum, this would requires that mountain bike access be provided on a new trail routed in ways that would provide the maximum possible visual and physical separation from existing trails.
Key Point #2: South Boulder neighbors do not want the peaceful and relatively isolated nature of their neighborhoods disrupted by a large influx of outsiders.
With respect to adverse impacts on neighborhoods (as opposed to visitor experiences on adjacent open space plans), there is broad agreement that the proposed trail would be extremely popular and would draw mountain bikers from outside of the immediate Boulder area. This traffic threatens to increase congestion and noise in the neighborhoods along the possibility that a few of the newcomers would act in truly troublesome ways. This concern was compounded by the fact that the trail would be routed close to so many houses. (In part because of NCAR's desire to route any trail along the periphery of its property.)
The Bottom Line: At a minimum, mountain bike access must be configured in ways which limit neighborhood disruptions to the maximum extent possible -- generally by insisting that mountain bikes stay on the trail and away from the neighborhoods and that they access the trail only a few access points located on major thoroughfares and without neighborhood parking for mountain bikes.
Key Point #3: The more lightly visited and more environmentally pristine South Boulder Open Space area is especially prized.
Neighbors are terrified about the possibility that their special place will develop visitor saturation levels which approach Chautauqua and Sanitas. The possibility that the CCG might do something to undermine the area's special qualities has generated intense opposition. For example, concerns have been expressed that locating the trail on the front side of the mesas would visually impair the mountain backdrop. There were also questions about whether it would be possible to build a sustainable trail away from the houses on the relatively steep slopes of the mesa with their "extremely-muddy-when-wet" shale soils.
Perhaps, more importantly, there are concerns that the proposed trail would have serious adverse effects on critical area habitats.
The Bottom Line: In balancing community and neighborhood interests, the CCG needs to do everything it can to preserve the special quality of the area. This includes carefully identifying and avoiding key environment resources.
Key Point #4: The National Park class properties in South Boulder belong to the community as a whole not just the immediate neighbors.
Because of an unfortunate oversight the way in which these properties were acquired, there are very limited options for equitably providing public access without adversely impacting neighbors around few legal access points. Still, these access points are a key community resource. It's not okay for neighbors to tell their fellow Boulderites to simply go elsewhere. We all have a right to enjoy this special place.
The Bottom Line: Given the inherent tension between this point and point #3, the CCG is going to have to be creative and search for solutions that serve both the interests of the community and interests of neighbors and not fall into the either/or trap figuring that they have to pick one group of constituents over the other. In general this involves finding ways to use available access points as efficiently as possible with minimal disruption. Here the addition of bicycle and mass transit access is a positive step.
Key Point #5: Mountain biking is an OSMP-accepted form of passive recreation.
It is perfectly appropriate to ask the CCG to identify mountain bike access options that also provide reasonable protection to open space neighbors, other visitors, and the environment. This view is supported by the following key passages cited by Dean Paschall from the OSMP Visitor Master Plan (which the CCG is obligated to follow).
---------------------------------------------------------------
On page "39" of the VMP [OSMP Visitor Management Plan] it reads:
Bicycling
"Retrofitting Trail for Bikes: As trail improvement projects are being planned, give consideration to the appropriateness of designating and construction them to include bicycling."
"New Bike Trails: Work with the community groups to examine the feasibility of possible mountain biking /multiple-use trails that would: (1) connect the east side of Mountain Parks to Walker Ranch or U.S. Forest Service land; and/or (2) provide more mountain biking opportunities west of State Highway 93."
On page "V" bullet 4 states:
"Preservation of land for passive recreation use, such as hiking, photography or nature study, and if specifically designated, bicycling, horseback riding, or fishing."
Given that the VMP and the Charter are sideboards, this makes it very clear that the Department is charged with the task of "examining feasibility".
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Bottom Line: It is not a acceptable for the CCG to summarily dismiss mountain bike proposals as illegitimate. As is the case with all OSMP constituents, the CCG has an obligation to try to find some way of accommodating reasonable proposals. Given the size of the mountain bike constituency and the fact that they have no current access to the West-TSA, their request for a single trail running roughly 2/3 of the way from the north of the TSA to the south is a modest and reasonable request.
Thoughts on Available Collaborative Opportunities and Their Limits
There are two basic ways of approaching a controversial issue like mountain biking. One is for the parties to use the full range of tools available to political activists to fight for the victory of their preferred solution through appropriate political processes. The CCG is charged with pursuing an alternative model--one that seeks to equitably balance the competing interests of all OSMP constituents. While it is clear that any decision it makes can be appealed through conventional political processes, the hope is that the CCG will be able to craft and broadly attractive plan that everyone will see as advancing their core interests. For this to work, people will obviously have to accept something short of total victory. The good news is that this approach also limits the risk of total defeat. This section constitutes my best effort to fulfill my responsibilities as a member of such a collaborative Group.
Based upon the intensity of comments received, I am under no illusions. My more centrist ideas do not enjoy consensus support. Still, I think that almost everyone that I've heard from will find my suggestions to be much more desirable than their imagined "worst-case" outcome. Conversely, of course, I expect that people will find my ideas much less desirable than their best case outcome. I should also mention that I believe in compromise solutions. That is why I sought a position on the CCG.
In general, my more centrist approaches revolve around two possibilities which are described in detail below:
- Strategies for constructing the North and South Mountain bike trails in ways that would minimize adverse impacts on other visitors, neighbors, and the environment.
- The possibility of finding other mountain bike opportunities north, south, east, and west of Boulder that would reduce or eliminate the need for a mountain bike trail in the already congested West TSA. (NOTE: This requires the consideration of options that fall outside of the scope of the West-TSA and the CCG. As such, all that the CCG can do is offer recommendations to OSMP. Still, a systemwide approach is thoroughly appropriate for an issue such as this.)
Within this broad context I see four principal possibilities (with lots of variations within each option):
- Development of high quality mountain bike opportunities on other OSMP properties that eliminate the need for either the North Trail or the South Trail,
- Full development of both the North Trail and South Trail,
- Development of the South Trail only with development of some alternative mountain bike opportunities to compensate for the failure to build the North Trail,
- Initial construction of the South Trail to be followed by evaluation period. If reasonable expectations for the protection of neighborhoods and other visitors are met, construction of the North Trail would be the next step. If, based on the South Trail experience, a decision is made that the North Trail is unworkable, alternative, high-quality mountain bike access options would be vigorously pursued.
Mountain Bike Trail Specifications
In order to better balance mountain bike and neighborhood concerns. I suggest that the following specifications be used in designing and operating the North and South Trails.
- Choose an alignment that provides maximum possible visual and physical separation from existing trails and neighborhoods (While I believe that such an alignment as possible, the current mountain bike proposals don't really do this. I have prepared my suggested "maximum separation alignment."
- Should the mountain bike trail be routed on existing, reasonably busy hiking trails, a compensatory hiking trail should be constructed to provide comparable access for non-mountain bikers,
- To protect the neighborhoods, mountain bikes would only be allowed to access the trail from Chautauqua, Table Mesa Drive, the south end of the Mesa Trail, and a site along City Open Space on Lehigh/Greenbrier that would minimize impacts on neighbors,
- Strict and prompt enforcement of trail usage rules,
- A very strong commitment from the mountain bike community to discourage mountain bikers from driving and parking at congested access points. As an alternative, further-out, staging area parking would be identified,
- Construction of only the most minimal facilities at the Greenbrier / Lehigh connection point (basically, a trail and a sign),
- Construction of the trails to standards which provide a high quality experience for mountain bikers while also producing a sustainable trail,
- Trail difficulty should be moderate so that it is accessible to a large majority of mountain bikers,
- The trail should be routinely closed during mud episodes that threaten its sustainability,
- The trail would be open to other users under the standard "yield triangle" rules with the understanding that it is primarily mountain biking trail,
- Routing the trail in the most environmentally sensitive way possible given the above criteria,
- Construction of the South Trail first with a final decision to construct the North Trail based on the success of the South Trail (including reasonable compliance with regulations).
- Encourage mountain bike visitors to spend as much of their time as possible in outlying (Dowdy Draw / Marshall Mesa) areas and to use the new trails as a non-automobile route to get from Boulder to these areas.
Alternative Mountain Bike Access Options
The CCG should also consider the possibility of accommodating OSMP's mountain bike constituents by providing access options of comparable quality in other areas.
NOTE: Many, if not most, of these options are beyond the scope of the CCG. As such the most CCG could only strongly recommended to OSMP that these options be pursued. Some options also involve difficult right-of-way acquisition issues that may make them unworkable.
Options that merit consideration include (but are not limited to):
- Chapman Drive from the Red Lion Inn to Realization Point on Flagstaff,
- The proposed upper Long Canyon trail paralleling Kosler Lake Road from the Realization Point parking lot to the West Ridge of Green Mountain parking area,
- Off-highway access to county mountain bike trails at the Betasso Preserve either via the Boulder Canyon bikeway or a new mountain bike access trail to be created along the city's water supply pipeline,
- Extension of the North foothills mountain bike trails toward the old Beech Aircraft plant,
- Additional mountain bike trails in OSMP farm and ranch land east of the city (generally involving a double fenced corridor and constructed to provide slower and more challenging opportunities),
- Improve off-highway access to the Marshall Mesa / Dowdy Draw trails from the South Broadway bikeway,
- Improved opportunities in the Marshall Mesa, Dowdy Draw, Springbrook area including, perhaps, Jewel Mountain.
Thank you, Guy. You've done an excellent job of summarizing some possible compromise solutions, many of which I think could work quite well. I hope the meeting is going well. Unfortunately I was unable to attend.
ReplyDelete