Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 61
  1. #1
    Now Uploading
    Reputation: mtbdirteater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,110

    JCOS Trail Use Task Force Meeting Tuesday Night June 9th, 7:00pm

    Meeting at 7:00pm Tuesday, June 9th at the Jefferson County Open Space Administrative Office, 700 Jefferson County Parkway, Golden 80401.

    In addition to the usual park user group updates and feedback, the agenda includes a discussion of the alternating day schedule at Centennial Cone, more in depth on the current issues at Apex and other updates including the Mayhem Gulch parking area, North Table Mountain progress, new proposed yield regulations, more...

    See you there.

    Dave
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Attached Files Attached Files
    Just Passing Through: eatin' dirt & crappin' dust

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    119
    Some of us are getting a tooth pulled Tuesday. Can someone post an update after attending this meeting?

    Msurk

  3. #3
    hehe ...you said "member"
    Reputation: jake7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,120
    can't make it - son has a baseball game.

    Heard from an OAB member that Kevin said this meeting should be "interesting" ... I asked him what that meant and he couldn't elaborate. I asked him if JCOS already was leaning in any particular direction for Apex and again he said he didn't know.

    I think this meeting has the potential to allow for the mtb community to contribute and ultimately effect where JCOS goes with Apex. My hope is that a decision hasn't already been reached and the meeting is nothing more than a formality for the sake of appearing fair ....
    Me fail english? Thats unpossible. - Matt Groening

  4. #4
    Now Uploading
    Reputation: mtbdirteater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,110
    Quote Originally Posted by jake7


    I think this meeting has the potential to allow for the mtb community to contribute and ultimately effect where JCOS goes with Apex. My hope is that a decision hasn't already been reached and the meeting is nothing more than a formality for the sake of appearing fair ....
    Decisions have not been reached yet. The Trail Use Task Force input and discussion is part of the process, we report to the staff and OSAC in an advisory capacity. The BCC recommended formation of the TUTF for this purpose. It gives all three user groups reps oportunities to discuss and involve themselves with working solutions in Open Space. And it works. That's why we don't have a bike ban on North Table. Now we are working on Apex. And public input is very important. Public input alone isn't enough though, the user groups need to discuss and agree on aspects of the parks use and interaction/conflict resolution is a key peice of this. That's what the TUTF does. We attempt resolutions at the user level and make those recommendations to Open Space staff and OSAC, and that's what they ask us to do, that's what we are there for.

    I will post an update after the meeting.

    Regards,

    Dave
    Just Passing Through: eatin' dirt & crappin' dust

  5. #5
    MFin' Princess
    Reputation: TVC15's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    5,487
    Quote Originally Posted by jake7
    My hope is that a decision hasn't already been reached and the meeting is nothing more than a formality for the sake of appearing fair ....
    If you look at the agenda, it's awfully tight ... the last 10 minutes alone are supposed to cover three topics, including proposed new yielding regs? With at least 18 people in attendance?! Your concern is one that many likely share.

    Remember folks, there are additional public input opportunities. Please come to as many as you can and make your voice heard. The fact is, the mountain bike community has valid concerns, reasonable needs, and alternative solutions to shared goals. Get involved!

    Mark your calendars ... hope to see many of you there!

    Thursday, June 18, 2009 from 6:30 - 8:00 p.m; Saturday, June 20, 2009 from 9:30 - 11:00 a.m.: Apex Open Houses

    July 2, 2009 7:00pm: OSAC Review (Apex Feedback): Findings from public input will be reported at the Open Space Advisory Committee’s regular meeting on July 2, 2009 at 7:00pm. COMBA will be there to make sure our input was captured accurately, and hope you will be too!

    Additional dates/deadlines of note:
    <O</O
    June 30 2009: Apex Feedback Forms due to Thea Rock. http://dev.comba.org/apex_survey.html
    <O</O
    July 6, 2009: Public Comment on new yielding regulations due to Colleen Gadd.
    <O</O
    August 6, 2009 OSAC Meeting: An “Information Item” will be placed on the agenda for discussion of the draft yielding regulations, public comments, and staffs draft recommendations.
    Last edited by TVC15; 06-09-2009 at 06:15 AM.

  6. #6
    Thread Terrorist
    Reputation: IndecentExposure's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,847
    Bump.

    I hope to see many of you tonight.

    IE

  7. #7
    Thread Terrorist
    Reputation: IndecentExposure's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,847
    Is there space for public comment?

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    279
    I had expected to see more people, but a fair meeting all told. The old folks with their horses were a snore! I look forward to hearing more at the open house.

  9. #9
    Now Uploading
    Reputation: mtbdirteater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,110

    Very Productive TUTF Meeting Last Night

    Was one of the most positive and productive Trail Use Task Force meetings we've had in years last night. Lots of great input from all three park user groups, and received well from JCOS staff in attendance last night.

    The Trail Use Task Force reps will be at both open houses again to continue this dialouge about collective solutions suggested for Apex. I'll have the same digital working map files projected up on the big screen for more input from all. Open Space staff members will be there in attendance to answer questions and take additional input.

    Please join us all at one or both of the open houses that ypu can make. Thursday night June 18th at 6:30pm and Saturday morning June 20th at 9:30am are the dates and times.

    Thanks for all in attendance last night and everyone's input.

    Regards,

    Dave Cohen
    Trail Use Task Force Biker Representative
    Just Passing Through: eatin' dirt & crappin' dust

  10. #10
    Now Uploading
    Reputation: mtbdirteater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,110
    Michelle,

    Do you ever think about what you are going to say before you say it? You seem hell-bent on not communicating with Jefferson County Open Space through the very channels that the board of county commisioners created and the JCOS staff formally utilizes to keep an open channel of communication with the public park users and between all park user groups.

    With the current position you serve in at COMBA, this just seems, well, for lack of a more accurate description with your current comments and attitude, irresponsible on your part. If you are trying to lead within your advocacy group by example, you are shooting yourself and the park users that you hope to represent in some way in the foot. Good job. We can't wait for the next bone-headed wall that you throw up between parties trying to communicate. But even after your latest here, we still welcome you to get involved by coming to the meetings and learning the communication process.

    Just a tip, it doesn't involve making demands and plowing through anyone you feel is in your way and leaving a wake. No one is in your way but yourself. Come on, join the rest of the user group and park users and drop the sore attitude and personal special interest agenda, you're giving COMBA a bad name with your wreckless approach to things that existed long before your urgency to light fires and bring pitch forks. It's time that you knew that's not the way it works in Jefferson County. Communication, reason and diplomacy gets us in possitions to solve problems and agree to take measures to try to reduce or end conflicts.

    Solving problems and reducing conflicts and complaints goes a long way towards creating more park user oportunities for all. Not hard-line special interest agenda rammed at people you are hoping to get something out of.

    Regards,

    Dave



    Quote Originally Posted by TVC15
    If you look at the agenda, it's awfully tight ... the last 10 minutes alone are supposed to cover three topics, including proposed new yielding regs? With at least 18 people in attendance?! Your concern is one that many likely share.
    Just Passing Through: eatin' dirt & crappin' dust

  11. #11
    Thread Terrorist
    Reputation: IndecentExposure's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,847
    05, which one was you? I was in the back corner making several comments! Thanks for showing up!

  12. #12
    MFin' Princess
    Reputation: TVC15's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    5,487
    Quote Originally Posted by mtbdirteater
    Michelle,

    Do you ever think about what you are going to say before you say it? You seem hell-bent on not communicating with Jefferson County Open Space through the very channels that the board of county commisioners created and the JCOS staff formally utilizes to keep an open channel of communication with the public park users and between all park user groups.

    With the current position you serve in at COMBA, this just seems, well, for lack of a more accurate description with your current comments and attitude, irresponsible on your part. If you are trying to lead within your advocacy group by example, you are shooting yourself and the park users that you hope to represent in some way in the foot. Good job. We can't wait for the next bone-headed wall that you throw up between parties trying to communicate. But even after your latest here, we still welcome you to get involved by coming to the meetings and learning the communication process.

    Just a tip, it doesn't involve making demands and plowing through anyone you feel is in your way and leaving a wake. No one is in your way but yourself. Come on, join the rest of the user group and park users and drop the sore attitude and personal special interest agenda, you're giving COMBA a bad name with your wreckless approach to things that existed long before your urgency to light fires and bring pitch forks. It's time that you knew that's not the way it works in Jefferson County. Communication, reason and diplomacy gets us in possitions to solve problems and agree to take measures to try to reduce or end conflicts.

    Solving problems and reducing conflicts and complaints goes a long way towards creating more park user oportunities for all. Not hard-line special interest agenda rammed at people you are hoping to get something out of.

    Regards,

    Dave
    I made the obersvation that it was a very long agenda, with many items that required discussion beyond the allotted time, and noted that another poster's concerns are likley shared by others. That's "wreckless"? Encouraging people to attend open houses to get involved and represent our community is "lighting fires and bringing pitchforks"?

    I think we have a disconnect.

    I, as a Jeffco resident and advocacy lead, am extremely open to working with Jefferson County, and will continue do so. I am grateful that JCOS itself encourages this kind of communication happen through multiple channels ... TUFT, open houses, and OSAC meetings. Our community needs utlize all of them!

    If you have personal concerns, please contact me at michelle@comba.org and I'd be happy to discuss them off-line with you. And, as always, thank you for your dedication to our community, and being open to feedback from the community you represent and serve.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Reporterkyle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    473
    Quote Originally Posted by mtbdirteater
    Was one of the most positive and productive Trail Use Task Force meetings we've had in years last night. Lots of great input from all three park user groups, and received well from JCOS staff in attendance last night.

    The Trail Use Task Force reps will be at both open houses again to continue this dialouge about collective solutions suggested for Apex. I'll have the same digital working map files projected up on the big screen for more input from all. Open Space staff members will be there in attendance to answer questions and take additional input.

    Please join us all at one or both of the open houses that ypu can make. Thursday night June 18th at 6:30pm and Saturday morning June 20th at 9:30am are the dates and times.

    Thanks for all in attendance last night and everyone's input.

    Regards,

    Dave Cohen
    Trail Use Task Force Biker Representative
    Dave,

    Thanks for the hard work you did on the plan. I know I look forward to getting a better sense of some of the options you worked on. We didn't have a chance to look at it more in depth last night, but is there substantially more to it than the flip-flopping directional use proposal?

  14. #14
    "I want it now!"
    Reputation: Veruca Salt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    112
    Quote Originally Posted by mtbdirteater
    Michelle,

    Do you ever think about what you are going to say before you say it? You seem hell-bent on not communicating with Jefferson County Open Space through the very channels that the board of county commisioners created and the JCOS staff formally utilizes to keep an open channel of communication with the public park users and between all park user groups.

    With the current position you serve in at COMBA, this just seems, well, for lack of a more accurate description with your current comments and attitude, irresponsible on your part. If you are trying to lead within your advocacy group by example, you are shooting yourself and the park users that you hope to represent in some way in the foot. Good job. We can't wait for the next bone-headed wall that you throw up between parties trying to communicate. But even after your latest here, we still welcome you to get involved by coming to the meetings and learning the communication process.

    Just a tip, it doesn't involve making demands and plowing through anyone you feel is in your way and leaving a wake. No one is in your way but yourself. Come on, join the rest of the user group and park users and drop the sore attitude and personal special interest agenda, you're giving COMBA a bad name with your wreckless approach to things that existed long before your urgency to light fires and bring pitch forks. It's time that you knew that's not the way it works in Jefferson County. Communication, reason and diplomacy gets us in possitions to solve problems and agree to take measures to try to reduce or end conflicts.

    Solving problems and reducing conflicts and complaints goes a long way towards creating more park user oportunities for all. Not hard-line special interest agenda rammed at people you are hoping to get something out of.

    Regards,

    Dave

    Way to publicly flame Michelle and her efforts Dave! Don't you think this e-mail could have been sent privately? Way to encourage participation!

    I think Michelle is doing an outstanding job. The mountain biking community has a well-spoken, articulate representative out there fighting for our rights.

    Keep up the good work TVC.

  15. #15
    bacon! bacon! bacon!
    Reputation: SkaredShtles's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    11,664
    Enough with the bickering in public folks! And people wonder why most of this community just goes out and rides.

  16. #16
    Moosehead
    Reputation: moosehead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    1,892
    Whoa Nellie (pun intended). We're all on the same team here, right?

  17. #17
    bacon! bacon! bacon!
    Reputation: SkaredShtles's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    11,664
    Quote Originally Posted by moosehead
    Whoa Nellie (pun intended). We're all on the same team here, right?
    I'm not all that convinced. So many of us mt bikers aren't really much when it comes to teams... hell - that's probably why a lot of us even got into the "sport."

    Equestrians, OTOH, appear to be WELL versed in team sport etiquette...

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation: enduroslrider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    119
    Thanks, Dave, for the hard work and representation.

    Though I'm not completely sold on the directional idea (for Apex), I did really like your idea of uphill-swinging gates at certain key locations as a form of downhill speed control. I probably would've thrown that out on the floor as the first "bargaining chip." However, I'm sure you had good reasons for not doing that based on your deep involvement with the other user groups.

    Maybe I'm missing something, but from the comments around the table last night after your presentation, the new management practices for Apex seem less like a compromise and more of a concession on the part of one specific group of trail users. For the sake of fairness, shouldn't a compromise involve concessions from all stakeholders?

    I've got a few other ideas that probably aren't best shared in this forum that I will share with JCOS via e-mail and at next Thursday night's Open House.

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation: enduroslrider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    119
    let's stay united here, folks.

    publicly pointing out that we have internal conflicts (mtb'ers conflicting with mtb'ers) does NOT help our cause at all.

    focus, focus!

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    279
    Quote Originally Posted by IndecentExposure
    05, which one was you? I was in the back corner making several comments! Thanks for showing up!
    My wife and I were sitting in front of you. I gave you the Yield info.
    P

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    127
    I agree, the mountain bikers need to come together and submit a proposed solution as one unified group. Maybe have a separate meeting where the bikers who give a crap can get together and discuss these things?

    Regarding solutions, I liked the idea that one gentleman proposed in the post-meeting discussions. That is, strategically placing large boulders so that bikers would have to slow down greatly in order to navigate them.

    The equestrian group disgusted me with their attitude. They acted as if JCOS was supposed to cater to their every need and desire, even when they are the smallest trail user group.

    The bikers definitely came off as being the most reasonable and willing to compromise, as well as the most interested in working to solve the problems. I'm sure the JCOS officials noticed this as well, so overall good job guys.

    Thanks for putting together the presentation Dave, it was very helpful for everyone to be able to see what we were talking about on the screen.

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,869
    Quote Originally Posted by mtbdirteater
    Michelle,

    Do you ever think about what you are going to say before you say it? You seem hell-bent on not communicating with Jefferson County Open Space through the very channels that the board of county commisioners created and the JCOS staff formally utilizes to keep an open channel of communication with the public park users and between all park user groups.

    With the current position you serve in at COMBA, this just seems, well, for lack of a more accurate description with your current comments and attitude, irresponsible on your part.
    Regards,

    Dave
    Yikes, dude. TVC was recognizing that the agenda was tight for the amount of discussion that was likely to happen. Your rant doesn't even make sense. You owe her an apology.

    I appreciate the effort that both of you make to help the local mountain biking community.

    The posts to links and email that I've gotten from TVC have been very helpful in getting me off my lazy ass to throw in my two cents on the Jeffco issue which is important to all of us. She's doing more than 95% of the rest of us are.

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation: hungryhead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    386
    Quote Originally Posted by mtbdirteater
    Michelle,

    Do you ever think about what you are going to say before you say it? You seem hell-bent on not communicating with Jefferson County Open Space through the very channels that the board of county commisioners created and the JCOS staff formally utilizes to keep an open channel of communication with the public park users and between all park user groups.

    With the current position you serve in at COMBA, this just seems, well, for lack of a more accurate description with your current comments and attitude, irresponsible on your part. If you are trying to lead within your advocacy group by example, you are shooting yourself and the park users that you hope to represent in some way in the foot. Good job. We can't wait for the next bone-headed wall that you throw up between parties trying to communicate. But even after your latest here, we still welcome you to get involved by coming to the meetings and learning the communication process.

    Just a tip, it doesn't involve making demands and plowing through anyone you feel is in your way and leaving a wake. No one is in your way but yourself. Come on, join the rest of the user group and park users and drop the sore attitude and personal special interest agenda, you're giving COMBA a bad name with your wreckless approach to things that existed long before your urgency to light fires and bring pitch forks. It's time that you knew that's not the way it works in Jefferson County. Communication, reason and diplomacy gets us in possitions to solve problems and agree to take measures to try to reduce or end conflicts.

    Solving problems and reducing conflicts and complaints goes a long way towards creating more park user oportunities for all. Not hard-line special interest agenda rammed at people you are hoping to get something out of.

    Regards,

    Dave
    wow - hanging out with you must be a lot of fun - or maybe you just woke up on the wrong side of the bed???

  24. #24
    Thread Terrorist
    Reputation: IndecentExposure's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,847
    Quote Originally Posted by 05Willys
    My wife and I were sitting in front of you. I gave you the Yield info.
    P
    Right on.

  25. #25
    Thread Terrorist
    Reputation: IndecentExposure's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,847
    Quote Originally Posted by SkaredShtles
    Enough with the bickering in public folks! And people wonder why most of this community just goes out and rides.
    True.

    However, most of the community that just goes out and rides are part of the reason why we're fighting to keep things like Apex alive.

    I rode with the brothers (only you know who I'm talking about) down Mt Falcon earlier in the season and they bombed down the front side of Falcon not yeilding to a single person. I stopped for everyone. It made me a little mad, but the ranger totally caught them. She watched from the bottom and they didn't slow 95% percent of the time.

    ..and to the mtbr community, these guys are xc riders.

    This is a problem they just don't get.

  26. #26
    bacon! bacon! bacon!
    Reputation: SkaredShtles's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    11,664
    Quote Originally Posted by IndecentExposure
    True.

    However, most of the community that just goes out and rides are part of the reason why we're fighting to keep things like Apex alive.

    I rode with the brothers (only you know who I'm talking about) down Mt Falcon earlier in the season and they bombed down the front side of Falcon not yeilding to a single person. I stopped for everyone. It made me a little mad, but the ranger totally caught them. She watched from the bottom and they didn't slow 95% percent of the time.

    ..and to the mtbr community, these guys are xc riders.

    This is a problem they just don't get.
    Did they get it after the tongue-lashing from the ranger? I ought to kick those brothers in the balls.

    Apex? Nobody goes there any more... it's too crowded.

  27. #27
    Thread Terrorist
    Reputation: IndecentExposure's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,847
    They did. but their after claim was "All the hikers got out of the way and waived us through".

    I was well behind them and paused, if not stopped and waived them through. It was a really busy day, I stopped/yeilded over 25 times. Annoying, but I gave the hikers first right of refusal.

    We all see things differently, but the Ranger saw it all (as did I as I was stopped).

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation: enduroslrider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    119
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian_Pal
    The equestrian group disgusted me with their attitude. They acted as if JCOS was supposed to cater to their every need and desire, even when they are the smallest trail user group.
    I share your sentiment completely. JCOS does seem to cater to equestrians more than other users - special, designated parking lots (major $) and extreme trail maintenance (e.g., White Ranch) both come to mind. Nevermind the "can do no wrong if you're on a horse" yielding regs (which aspect will not likely change) and non-requirement to have to clean up after your animal)

    And yet, the STILL complain about not having adequate places to park or turn around their huge rigs? C'mon people - show some appreciation at least for the special attention JCOS gives you (a very much minority trail user) - and seemingly does NOT give some other user groups (very much the majority trail user).

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    74

    Great meeting and Great Job, Dave et.al.

    By all accounts, EVERYone in attendance was in agreement that this was possibly THE most productive meeting in quite awhile.

    To those concerned about a 'tight' agenda -- 2 points.
    1) Amy Ito did a very good job (along with the User Group reps) of keeping things on point, streamlined and moving ahead, so much so that we were running ahead of schedule for much of the meeting.
    2) I was a bit surprised to see many familiar faces, with many people I was expecting to see there............ absent.

    On the equestrian concerns, I think that they were all valid. Granted, I don't really like what they do to the trails, but, people have been riding horses for millenia. Everyone is entitled to enjoy our parks and they have some special concerns -- Last night was mostly centered on parking issues for them.
    As to Apex specifically, they are a non-issue, basically. The trail is just too crumbly for them, so, they really don't ride there anymore.
    I thnk we would all be well served to keep in mind the example of last years National Trail Day, where they got those tools 10 miles up the trail for us.
    A wonderful example of what happens when we DO work together.
    Another would be Indian Creek. There wouldn't be trails at all there, probably, if it weren't for that groups 'buy-in'.

    There are some proposed trails in Buffalo Creek that are extremely problematic as to access, etc. and we may very well need their help, again. So, I think any compromises we work out could go a long way towards getting their help in the future.

    This dove-tails nicely with the issue at hand, which is Apex.

    Fact: There have been complaints by hikers and equestrians (even mounted volunteer Rangers) against mtb's. As outrageous as some of the actions of these wing-nuts were, no one is painting the entire user group as 'off-the-handle'. I continue to be impressed by this fact and I don't think that gets conveyed very well on this forum, frankly.
    It would be very easy to get the impression that EVERYone is out to 'get' mtb'er's in JCOS Parks -- if MTBR was your sole source.

    Dave did yeoman work, as always - he and the Bike User Group came up with some possible scenarios that keep mileage intact for bikes -- there would just be 2 or 3 gates(maybe) and the middle section would be directional (again, maybe).

    I don't see that we are being "singled out", per se -- If they were closing our access or restricting us to certain trails, yes. But considering the facts -- the section in the middle has limited sight lines, is too narrow, can't be expanded, no terrain to run a parallel trail, etc. -- I think that either or both of the above possible scenarios are acceptable.
    It certainly is the most reasonable, vs. any partial or total restriction.

    Another possible solution would be Alternating Days.
    It seems Centennial Cone has become a victim of it's own success with this kind of solution and nobody, JCOS or any of the user group reps, seemed to want to implement this at Apex.

    Lastly -- Please, please, please -- ALL of the scenarios for Apex discussed above are POSSIBILITIES.
    Even at the meeting last night, this had to be reitterated a couple of times.
    They are just conversation starters, intended to get everyone thinking 'outside the box'.



    I urge any and all to attend the Open House meetings. You can give input and most importantly, I think you will get a much fuller picture of all that is involved and who the actors are.

    So, keep an open mind and most importantly, Take The Long View.

    Happy Trails,

    Marc

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    119
    For those of us who couldn't make the meeting, are the meeting minutes or notes available somewhere or could a synopsis of the meeting be posted here?

    Quote Originally Posted by lokiboy8

    Another possible solution would be Alternating Days.
    It seems Centennial Cone has become a victim of it's own success with this kind of solution and nobody, JCOS or any of the user group reps, seemed to want to implement this at Apex.
    The Cone a victim of its own success? Can you please elaborate? Was a consensus on this reached?

    Thanks,

    Msurk

  31. #31
    Stand back
    Reputation: dbabuser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,146
    Quote Originally Posted by msurk
    The Cone a victim of its own success? Can you please elaborate? Was a consensus on this reached?

    Thanks,

    Msurk

    I'd agree w/ that - even just driving up the canyon, you can see that the parking lot is PACKED on bike days. I'd rather not have that be the case w/ Apex.
    Golden Bike Park

    Golden Connector Trails need your support!

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    119
    Please elaborate on what JCOS stance is on The Cone. Too many bikers now? That's not good news because if that is their view then alternative use schedules, something which seems like a viable option, will be taken off the table for future use possibly leaving the impression that we bikers can't behave when hikers aren't even part of the picture. This doesn't seem like a good development.

    Msurk

  33. #33
    Stand back
    Reputation: dbabuser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,146
    Can't behave? Where'd you get that?
    Golden Bike Park

    Golden Connector Trails need your support!

  34. #34
    bacon! bacon! bacon!
    Reputation: SkaredShtles's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    11,664
    He's right.

    Bikers can't behave.

    It's in our nature.


  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    119
    Quote Originally Posted by dbabuser
    Can't behave? Where'd you get that?
    I did say "possibly leaving the impression". However, I am hearing rumblings from within JCOS that biker - biker complaints at The Cone are no less intense and numerous then hiker - biker compalints at non-alternative use parks. I'm perturbed that alternative use doesn't appear to be creating positive results.

    Msurk

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    279
    I told someone that I would throw my synopsis of the meeting their way tomorrow and I will try to remember to post it here as well. May be good for others to fill in holes.

    Marc,
    I love your attitude when dealing with the horse crew. I have a hard time maintaining the positive attitude that so many of the board and OS members were able to maintain when listening to them. I need to work on that skill. I would say that the equestrians at the meeting stated they do not ride Apex, but there was dung on the trail today that states they do not speak for everyone.

    The JEFCO peeps made mention of the cone being a victim of it's own success, stating that the trail is packed with bikers these days and bikers make up something like 78% of cone users. The victim portion stems from all of the bike-bike problems now that the trail is becoming so congested and has so many fast, blind corners. There was mention of making the trail directional when the full loop is open, but many hated the idea because the loop is long for frontrange standards (funny because it is rather short for summit county standards). I never heard any mention on the logistics of making a bisecting trail or any other options, I believe the cone was brought up as a discussion on the success of bike/hike days to determine the applicability of the design to Apex. Other than the Horse crew, most believed Apex was an out the door trail and enforcing the usage restrictions would be much more difficult at Apex than a "destination" trail like the cone.

    More to come

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    74

    What I said is not what you think I meant -- I think...

    Quote Originally Posted by msurk
    Please elaborate on what JCOS stance is on The Cone. Too many bikers now? That's not good news because if that is their view then alternative use schedules, something which seems like a viable option, will be taken off the table for future use possibly leaving the impression that we bikers can't behave when hikers aren't even part of the picture. This doesn't seem like a good development.

    Msurk

    To clarify -- CC is extremely popular with us mtb'ers. Equestrians have little to no adequate parking, for now. That is going to change in the future with the construction of the Mayhem Gulch lot. Hikers don't seem to like it due to the exposure.

    The aversion to Alternating Days at Apex has nothing to do with the popularity or lack thereof at Centennial Cone.
    It has everything to do with trying to find a solution that retains full access for all user groups.

    And now for something completely different --
    I just realized that some in attendance may have had a little chuckle at self-recognition upon hearing of "Tayor's Triple" at CC, recently. He had 3 near/ actual collisions - on the same ride!
    A flash of seeing themselves, as hikers or horsemen -- and as human beings.
    Last weekend, a horseperson told us a story about a woman rider that gave EVERY biker a hard time -- and how they couldn't stand her, how they were embarrassed, basically.
    I am sure the runners/hikers could tell some similar tales.

    Silly humans. Pulling raw materials from the earth, smooshing it all together to make gyrating contraptions to karoom around on......

    H'asta

    Marc

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    119
    Thanks for the elaboration. It can be difficult to communicate on the Internet. Its very easy to misconstrue comments. Was anything mentioned about adjusting the yield rules? It does seem like clarification on what it means to yield may be in order. I'm wondering why so much deference is given to equestrians.

    Msurk

  39. #39
    bacon! bacon! bacon!
    Reputation: SkaredShtles's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    11,664
    Quote Originally Posted by msurk
    <snip> I'm wondering why so much deference is given to equestrians.
    Theirs is a historical position... and a lot of equestrians tend to be well organized, well funded, and well connected.

  40. #40
    Stand back
    Reputation: dbabuser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,146
    And don't forget, they ride temperamental, thousand pound + animals, who at any point, could indiscriminately maim or kill anyone who gets too close. Just think if we all had dogs like that! Of course if they were dogs, we'd all have to pick up their 10 lb poos. That'd be some big ol plastic baggies to carry...
    Golden Bike Park

    Golden Connector Trails need your support!

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    119
    Quote Originally Posted by SkaredShtles
    Theirs is a historical position... and a lot of equestrians tend to be well organized, well funded, and well connected.
    I'd say they also tend to be older people as well. Mtbr's can learn from them. Older people generally understand the importance of becoming part of the political process. They constitute are large voting block which is why they get catered to.

    Msurk

  42. #42
    Rigid in Evergreen
    Reputation: topmounter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    1,538
    Having recently moved to Evergreen after living in the Boulder / Longmont area for years, it's great to see the enthusiasm and teamwork going into mountain biking... access to a wide variety of excellent mountain biking is the reason why I'm paying taxes in JeffCo and not BoulderCo now.

    Without knowing the full history of Apex and CC, I'll just throw out my initial impressions of these two parks.

    Regarding Apex:

    I'm assuming that most of the issues on Apex come from the main trail since it is rather narrow in sections and is a popular DH run with it's easy shuttle access and being more technical than Chimney Gulch. Gates might help, but I'd rather see some sections re-routed a bit to provide some modest uphill sections to help moderate top-to-bottom speeds (I tend to prefer "natural" obstacles over "man-made" obstacles).

    I'm not a gravity rider and I'm sure there is the standard laundry list of reasons that this is a "bad" idea, but I think it would help Apex significantly if there was a trail or trails built and dedicated to downhill shuttles. Obviously the front range already attracts plenty of cyclists, but I like what Bootleg Canyon did for Boulder City, Nevada, a pretty amazing story if you aren't familiar with it:

    http://www.bootlegcanyon.org/

    It also concerns me that some of the rougher and moderately technical sections were graded out of Grubstake last year (I haven't ridden Apex this season). As I understand it this is routine maintenance, but personally I'd rather leave trails rougher and more technical to help keep speeds down and riders more attentive.

    Regarding Centennial Cone:

    As much as I love to ride there, the single-track along the canyon ridge is pretty sketchy when there is on-coming bike traffic. While I wouldn't mind if this trail was made directional as-is, ultimately I'd like to see the outer loop made directional and a couple of interior non-directional trails added so you had more options for shorter or longer rides (e.g. a N-S trail west of the peak and a N-S trail west of Elk Creek and east of the peak). Adding trails might also maintain some loop possibilities during seasonal closures as well.

    Now that I'm settled and an official Jefferson County property owner and tax payer, I look forward to getting involved and seeing you all on the local trails.


    Edit: Oh and horse folks run the gamut in my experience... I've ridden with horses (horse in front and a horse behind, at their invitation) on densely wooded eastern single-track while having friendly chats with their riders and I've been verbally assaulted and physically threatened by other horse riders in the most innocuous situations. Regardless, I treat them all the same, dismount immediately, talk early and be ridiculously friendly.

  43. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    119
    JCOS wants to maintain a wilderness feel for The Cone. This means fewer trails. I personally love the layout and feel it achieves that goal. A little known fact is that hikers are allowed to walk off trail in JCOS parks. However, JCOS doesn't want unofficial social trails to develop. With the current layout of The Cone large tracks of wilderness are "undisturbed" and could be explored in a wilderness fashion. Even on the trail you get the sense of wilderness. I say if people are sketched out by the exposure, they should hike or ride elsewhere. I'm not a fan of directionalizing The Cone.

    Msurk.

  44. #44
    Rigid in Evergreen
    Reputation: topmounter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    1,538
    Quote Originally Posted by msurk
    JCOS wants to maintain a wilderness feel for The Cone. This means fewer trails. I personally love the layout and feel it achieves that goal. A little known fact is that hikers are allowed to walk off trail in JCOS parks. However, JCOS doesn't want unofficial social trails to develop. With the current layout of The Cone large tracks of wilderness are "undisturbed" and could be explored in a wilderness fashion. Even on the trail you get the sense of wilderness. I say if people are sketched out by the exposure, they should hike or ride elsewhere. I'm not a fan of directionalizing The Cone.

    Msurk.

    I think the main issue is the bike-on-bike closing speeds and blind'ish turns... many sections run pretty quick in either direction. The exposure on one side and the up-slope on the other just limits your options when approaching oncoming traffic.

  45. #45
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    119
    Quote Originally Posted by topmounter
    I think the main issue is the bike-on-bike closing speeds and blind'ish turns... many sections run pretty quick in either direction. The exposure on one side and the up-slope on the other just limits your options when approaching oncoming traffic.

    The option should be to slow down and yield and if both riders in opposite directions need to step off their bikes to do so in a safe fashion, that's what riders should do. I hope they don't widen The Cone's trails.

    Msurk.

  46. #46
    Stand back
    Reputation: dbabuser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,146
    IMO, directionalized trails > limited access, either via alternating days or otherwise.
    Golden Bike Park

    Golden Connector Trails need your support!

  47. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    74

    With all due respect

    Quote Originally Posted by dbabuser
    IMO, directionalized trails > limited access, either via alternating days or otherwise.
    Great -- all or nothing thinking.

    I am going to ignore that and ask you a question, instead........

    What would be a workable solution, in your opinion?

    None of these possible solutions are perfect, admittedly.
    But, the status quo is over.
    Things at Apex are going to change and it is too late to go back to a kinder, gentler time --So, we all need to grapple with the situation 'as it is', put on our thinking caps and come up with something palatable.

    To Topmounter -- The options to widen the trail in the middle section, or to add a parallel corridor are unworkable.
    As to a dedicated DH trail, oh boy -- I don't have the time to go into all the history around this.

    The current OSAC leadership is closed-minded to this, for a myriad of reasons.
    So, our Reps continue to engage them on an educational basis. Some really don't understand the distinction between a BMX bike and a DH bike. In their defense, if they are not a cyclist, why would they? They honestly thought that a skills park on top of NTM would take care of the DH/Freeride folks.
    These folks are not dumb -- they just are in need of some help to understand the distinctions within our User Group.
    And as we help them to understand our user group, I think that they can't help but see that a DH solution makes a ton of sense and could go a long way towards resolving some of these issues.
    They/ we also will continue to strive to get some people onto OSAC from our user group, as it is predominately hiker/equestrian biased.
    This last part is a solely political process. I'd liken it to a chess game that lasts for years.

    So, if you don't have much patience, gumption and 'stick-to-itivness', don't get on the train.

    It is going to be slow going and frustrating, until we finally reach the tipping point.
    That is how a lot of change happens -- moves like a glacier, then all of a sudden (seemingly) -- Shazamm!!

    Lastly, Some folks were asking about 'Yielding' --

    Collen Gadd said that they are still reworking those changes, which were admittedly vague, at best. The current draft looks pretty straight forward and commonsensical.
    The only glaring ommission that myself and some others could find would be the lack of language as to the responsibilty of BOTH parties to acknowledge one another.
    An interesting sidebar to this is the growing use of IPods, etc.
    Several Reps mentioned this is a growing concern and at some point is going to be needed to be addressed.
    At this point, the agreed upon action is for the 3 User Groups to address it within their own groups.

    Anyone want to sign up for THAT duty?

    Good Luck with that, whomever!

    Ciao Bella!

    Marc

  48. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    74

    On second thought.....

    Quote Originally Posted by dbabuser
    IMO, directionalized trails > limited access, either via alternating days or otherwise.


    I realize you are voicing not only your opinion, but that there are many who probably share the same sentiment.

    After reflection, I think my tone could be taken for being authoritarian-ish -- or worse.
    I always read through anything before I post it and revise it several times to take out any sarcasm, flippancy, etc. I was actually trying to address all of those other folks, through you -- and I may have over-reached a bit.

    I want to treat everyone with the respect and consideration they are due, just as I, myself, wish to be treated.

    If I offended in any way, please except my apology.



    Tah,

    Marc

  49. #49
    Rigid in Evergreen
    Reputation: topmounter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    1,538
    Quote Originally Posted by msurk
    The option should be to slow down and yield and if both riders in opposite directions need to step off their bikes to do so in a safe fashion, that's what riders should do. I hope they don't widen The Cone's trails.

    Msurk.

    "Slow down and yield" would work if you had better visibility and everyone who rode there was on board... but I certainly wouldn't want someone making the mental leap that "Slow down and yield" means there should be Marin County style speed limits in blind turns and sections of trail with poor visibility.

    And I am definitely not suggesting that trails be widened... Not only would that increase speeds, but I think it would do far more to damage the "wilderness feel" of CC than adding a couple of additional interior trails for people who may not want to or be able to do the full loop.

  50. #50
    Almost Human
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    2,558
    Quote Originally Posted by dbabuser
    IMO, directionalized trails > limited access, either via alternating days or otherwise.
    (I've been listening to everyone for several weeks and keeping my mouth shut, but I would like to weigh in on this as a member of the local cycling community since I'm getting the impression some people are missing what the real issues are.)

    One the one hand, directional trails might reduce the number of trail conflicts, but I have to wonder if this proposal might give some people the impression that they have permission to ride as fast as they want, which only exacerbates the real issue of people riding too fast on trails that are not designed for that type of use, and actually creates less safe trails to ride on.

    Also, I'm wondering why you need official directional travel for MTB's? The local MTB community could easily take care of this themselves by creating "preferred" directions for certain trails and having that information published and publicized. COMBA could do this? It's been done on many trails already. After all, most of us know not to ride up Captain Jacks or upper Belcher Hill. If 70% of the riders follow the "preferred" direction, then user conflicts will probably be reduced. Right?

    IMHO the real issues are 1) high speeds and 2) total number of trail users (all user groups). Don't you think alternating schedule work better at addressing these issues? It keeps speeds in check as riders need to be cognoscente of people coming from the opposite direction, plus it solves the trail crowding issue by spreading the user groups out which reduces trail conflicts.

    The speed issue seems to be something the local bike community needs to work on though? Why does JCOS need to take care of this for us?

    Flame away.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •