Soft Bike Ban
It's in Boulder County Open Spaces charter, although not explicit, to manage with a bias towards preservation over recreation. What is explicit in its charter is that all recreation will be passive recreation. ....
To be perfectly honest, I'm surprised someone in OS ok'd this reroute at all. Moving the trail a few feet out of the existing trail corridor is generally ok, but an obvious change in thinking reroute like this generally can only be approved in a parkwide management plan review and re-draft.
Yes, the background politics are really that bad. Be stoked you can ride what little you can ride on County OS trails. For real ass hauling, no regard for who's around the corner type of fun, go to US Forest lands. It's what my "riding circle" does.
The truth isn't pretty. Thanks for your blunt observations.
Much the same is being attempted here in CS at Red Rocks Canyon and
Manitou Section 16. Adding @ 35 switchbacks into proposed trail reroutes
in what we were told is a "sustainable" trail design. Stairs were built on some sections before planning even took place.
I'm not going to apologize for calling it for what it is. It's a "soft bike ban".
I can't blame them for trying to "just build something bikers won't want to
use". If I hated bikes, I would do it too. Yes 32x18, that's how politics is
played. I don't make the rules, but I do know how to play the game.
We'll find out soon if our efforts at RRC last year paid off. Browsing the draft docs
online I see where the City has actually admitted hikers and bikers impacts
are the same. A huge victory IMHO. I believe the city abandoning the
process last year was a victory too. The City was scared about the
political fallout of closing trails to bikes, which I believe some in the RRC friends group thought they could do.
I also see these new trail layouts as a passing fad. Hikers will create shortcuts
between the switchbacks, new social trails will be made, and then we'll
need more planning meetings, and more trail maintenance, and more trail
reroutes. We've been down this road before. History repeats itself.
This is nothing new.
I hope that is becoming clear(er) to the MTB advocates that
"Passive recreation" and "sustainable trail design" are both open to
interpretation to suit the circumstances. They can be used to deny or
grant access depending on who is using them and how.
It's almost like the entire open space community is still in denial about the
role mountain biking plays in our local communities and state. It's a
love-hate relationship.
Pretty pictures of MTBers sells airplane tickets and fills hotels, and for
many of us is the reason we moved/live here. Yes Open Space likes our money.
But the reality of sharing trails is too much for NIMBY's.
So while some believe progression mountain biking is dropping a 50' cliff, progression to me will be when we finally move past this juvenile discussion of "who" should be allowed where, and we finally start building trails/parks with mountain bikes in mind. Yeah that's why I'm here.