Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner
1 - 20 of 25 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
162 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
As some of you may know, the CDCC has been circulating a petition, around local bike shops, requesting that Jefferson County Open Space provide downhill specific trails, as a way to help reduce conflicts between the different user groups. Maybe you have already signed it or maybe you didn't even know it existed. Well if you have not been able to make sign it at a shop then here is your chance to sign online. Just go to this link, http://new.PetitionOnline.com/dhbike/petition.html , and put in your name and email address, that simple. If you have any questions about the petition please let me know at [email protected].
Respect,
Kent Setsma.
 

·
Still on Training Wheels!
Joined
·
1,107 Posts
THIS SHOULD BE STICKIED TONY

Great post.

I had no way of getting to the meetings (work), so had no way of signing the pettition if there was one. Thanks for posting this up. My E-tograph is on it's way!
 

·
rubber side down
Joined
·
458 Posts
Are downhillers wanting their own trail systems, or do you want to put trail usage limits on existing trails? I'm afraid that all this is going to lead to is a segregated use mentality in Jeffco which, for all of mountain biking, is a bad thing.
 

·
Now Uploading
Joined
·
1,110 Posts
Bulldozer said:
What has been the reaction so far about your desire for a single-use trail system?
I can shed some light on this, I'm the one working on it. I'm a biker rep on the JeffCo Trails Use Task Force committee. Part of what I do is to work with the other two user groups to resolve conflict issues in Open Space parks. I work with staff and report to the OSAC committee. We had two very productive meetings with staff on these issues in the past three months. I invited some representatives of CDCC to the meetings. After studying the history of user conflict claims in particular Open Space parks and documented issues, and frequently using all of the affected parks, I am presenting this as a solution for the speed differential issue. All users benefit from moving downhill higher speed shuttle traffic to a dedicated use downhill (directional) trail. This does not set a precident, as we have hiker only trails in Mount Falcon, Deer Creek, Reynold's Ranch which was prevoiusly closed to bikes withouit our input (and we are working to reopen for mult-use), and Mount Galbrath, which is a hiker only park. We are not advocating deviating from multi-use unless a special solution solves a specific problem with a specific park. This one solves the specific problems in Apex, White Ranch and Mount Falcon, in that order. The problem is that parks with steep downhill trails accessable from both top and bottom inspire shuttling with DH bikes faster than the average traffic flow. We can stop downhilling no more than we can stop baseball or football, and we do not wish to. The ever growing industry drives the technology, and riders are out training for race season, just like the XC riders when they ride. Some trail riders blur the distinction between rider types just by how they ride, much less what they ride. As riding technology and use patterns evolve, we must address the use impacts dynamically, and manage accordingly. Apex is the number one problem park in the open Space system for speed differential. And it is shuttled the most. One new solution we proposed actually forms a smaller shuttle loop inside the larger Apex shuttle loop by using Open Space owned but not yet developed land between Cabrini Shrine and the dinosaur parking lots. That is actually North Mathews/Winters, on the north side of I-70. It is a perfect use for that land, does not interfere with any residential area traffic concerns up top, does not use the Apex parking lot, and it is or can be made accessable from both top and bottom, with small dedicated parking lots. The land and space for this already exists. That was but one example location that we provided to Open Space staff. We sat down in two productive meetings with Planners, Aquisitions, Legal, Park Services and then Planning and Development Manager which coordinates the Task Force committe that I am on, and we reached much agreement on this solution concept. we do not simply want DH or even bike trails just to have them, we expect to encounter other users out on muli-use trails. We wish to develop these because it solves a use conflict problem and all park users benefit from the solution. We are at the degree of agreement now where I have been tasked with proving that this is a valid use for Open Space parks. This is no more less valid than the existing hiker only parks. And we would like to build hiker trails around the DH trail, so it would still be a multi-use park. It's a special solution, for a special problem. And looking at our alternatives, resources and the concequences of not acting at all on this issue, we belive it is the best solution. It bans no user groups and benefits all. It utilizes land for development which may be otherwise unusable for multi-use or any other use. We hope you will support us on this, and I am very close to meeting with staff again to draft a resolution for the OSAC committee to validate this use and move forward with development.

Cheers,

Dave Cohen
JeffCo Trails Use Task Force Biker Representative
 

·
Trail Sanitizer
Joined
·
467 Posts
Thanks for the details, Dave. You answered all of my questions. The petition language only mentions a single-use trail so I wondered how that went over with JCOS. The petition doesn't match the greater scope of the project, only the designation of a single-use downhill trail within a larger multi-use trail system.
 

·
Now Uploading
Joined
·
1,110 Posts
russman said:
Are downhillers wanting their own trail systems, or do you want to put trail usage limits on existing trails? I'm afraid that all this is going to lead to is a segregated use mentality in Jeffco which, for all of mountain biking, is a bad thing.
No. OS staff knows very well what we are doing with this. I'm one of the same guys working to keep our parks multi-use and avoid any and all discrimination bans of user groups. You have no problem with a hiker only park and hiker only trails, but a problem with a bike trail that solves a multi-use problem in Apex?

If you have not heard yet, we were successful in convincing Open Space Staff and the director, with the support of the OSAC committee, that North Table Mountain shall remain multi-use, with no bike challenge park up on top of the 24 percent grade (bad location for it anyway, we are looking elsewhere), and we were granted a one year extension for the ad-hoc group (which I am also a member) to study North Table and issue a report concerning trail location in conjunction with the natural areas of the park. This addresses ALL park user's concerns, because the ad-hoc group for NTM is made up of ALL park user groups represented by the Task Force reps, TCS, the equrestrians, Plan JeffCo, TMFC, city of Golden, Open Space Staff, and environmentalist experts. We are referring to the IMBA "How To Build Sweet Singletrack" book to address trail sustainability issues and eliminate erosion concerns.

So Open Space has changed its stance on NTM. They no longer favor any alternating ban schedule. They now favor multi-use, which is a direct result of our involvement, documentation and educational efforts. The OSAC committe supports us. And I am asking you for support on this DH directional trail. It solves a problem, and discriminates against no one. It improves the experience for all at Apex and parks like it by providing a more appropriate place for DH riding. The hikers already have many miles and parks of hiker only trails that they do not always utilize. we are asking for one bike DH trail to solve a multi-use problem. Think about it. We have, we have studdied it, and we see no other solution. If we don't step up to solve this problem, it will literally run over us. Times have changed, we have to be responsible and do the right thing. No one user group should receive any preferential treatment over any other. Most equrestrians and hikers we talk to understand this and support this solution. the hikers that don't are complaining that they don't have enough hiker only trails as it is, so they should have more and we should have none, and continue to bomb down Apex with them while they complain. You see a problem with that? I do. We can't stop downhilling, so let's work to put it in the right place. we are not talking about changing any multi-use pholosiphy which serves us so well, we are talking about implimenting a specific soluution for a specific problem. Think out of the box.

I put a lot of time and hard work into this and I will see it through, because it is the right thing to do at the right time.. Thanks for your support.

Cheers,

Dave
 

·
Now Uploading
Joined
·
1,110 Posts
Bulldozer said:
Thanks for the details, Dave. You answered all of my questions. The petition language only mentions a single-use trail so I wondered how that went over with JCOS. The petition doesn't match the greater scope of the project, only the designation of a single-use downhill trail within a larger multi-use trail system.
Thanks, I plan to meet with Peter, Henry and the TCS Stewardship Commitee soon to discuss this further, hope to see you there.

Cheers,

Dave
 

·
rubber side down
Joined
·
458 Posts
mtbdirteater said:
No. OS staff knows very well what we are doing with this. I'm one of the same guys working to keep our parks multi-use and avoid any and all discrimination bans of user groups. You have no problem with a hiker only park and hiker only trails, but a problem with a bike trail that solves a multi-use problem in Apex?

If you have not heard yet, we were successful in convincing Open Space Staff and the director, with the support of the OSAC committee, that North Table Mountain shall remain multi-use, with no bike challenge park up on top of the 24 percent grade (bad location for it anyway, we are looking elsewhere), and we were granted a one year extension for the ad-hoc group (which I am also a member) to study North Table and issue a report concerning trail location in conjunction with the natural areas of the park. This addresses ALL park user's concerns, because the ad-hoc group for NTM is made up of ALL park user groups represented by the Task Force reps, TCS, the equrestrians, Plan JeffCo, TMFC, city of Golden, Open Space Staff, and environmentalist experts. We are referring to the IMBA "How To Build Sweet Singletrack" book to address trail sustainability issues and eliminate erosion concerns.

So Open Space has changed its stance on NTM. They no longer favor any alternating ban schedule. They now favor multi-use, which is a direct result of our involvement, documentation and educational efforts. The OSAC committe supports us. And I am asking you for support on this DH directional trail. It solves a problem, and discriminates against no one. It improves the experience for all at Apex and parks like it by providing a more appropriate place for DH riding. The hikers already have many miles and parks of hiker only trails that they do not always utilize. we are asking for one bike DH trail to solve a multi-use problem. Think about it. We have, we have studdied it, and we see no other solution. If we don't step up to solve this problem, it will literally run over us. Times have changed, we have to be responsible and do the right thing. No one user group should receive any preferential treatment over any other. Most equrestrians and hikers we talk to understand this and support this solution. the hikers that don't are complaining that they don't have enough hiker only trails as it is, so they should have more and we should have none, and continue to bomb down Apex with them while they complain. You see a problem with that? I do. We can't stop downhilling, so let's work to put it in the right place. we are not talking about changing any multi-use pholosiphy which serves us so well, we are talking about implimenting a specific soluution for a specific problem. Think out of the box.

I put a lot of time and hard work into this and I will see it through, because it is the right thing to do at the right time.. Thanks for your support.

Cheers,

Dave
Dave, I'm one of the members of the Policy Committe of TCSMBC...I'm well aware of the north table mountain issue, as well as other trail issues in Jeffco, and the front range. Personally, I really don't like your attitude on this. All i did was ask a question regarding this petition, and you paint me as naive.
 

·
Now Uploading
Joined
·
1,110 Posts
russman said:
Dave, I'm one of the members of the Policy Committe of TCSMBC...I'm well aware of the north table mountain issue, as well as other trail issues in Jeffco, and the front range. Personally, I really don't like your attitude on this. All i did was ask a question regarding this petition, and you paint me as naive.
I'm passing along the rest of the info to everyone who reads this forum.

Thanks for your help and involvement too. I can't possibly see where you can take offense to anyone's comments on a forum here.

And with all due respect, we don't need any attitudes here, so if you don't like mine, consider the fact that the TCS Policy committee is not a JeffCo Open Sapce committe, so you are of course entitled to your own opinion and you guys can do whatever you like. And I'll keep my personal opinions to myself.

Contact me if you want to get more involved and help, that's what I'm here for.

Cheers,

Dave
 

·
Cynical Bystander
Joined
·
6,770 Posts
drum714 said:
THIS SHOULD BE STICKIED TONY

Great post.

I had no way of getting to the meetings (work), so had no way of signing the pettition if there was one. Thanks for posting this up. My E-tograph is on it's way!
I only have mod powers in the DH board, otherwise I would.
 

·
Trail Sanitizer
Joined
·
467 Posts
mtbdirteater said:
Thanks, I plan to meet with Peter, Henry and the TCS Stewardship Commitee soon to discuss this further, hope to see you there.

Cheers,

Dave
Assuming I get the invitiation I'll be there. We had a TCS board meeting last night to discuss a lot of things but this wasn't brought up while I was there. I did have to leave before the meeting adjourned, however.

I signed the petition as it falls in line with the stance of the TCSMBC's position of reducing user conflict due to speed differential.
 

·
Now Uploading
Joined
·
1,110 Posts
Bulldozer said:
Assuming I get the invitiation I'll be there. We had a TCS board meeting last night to discuss a lot of things but this wasn't brought up while I was there. I did have to leave before the meeting adjourned, however.

I signed the petition as it falls in line with the stance of the TCSMBC's position of reducing user conflict due to speed differential.
Thanks for your support. Yeah, user conflict problems in JeffCo Open Space parks are a Task Force issue, that's what I am tasked with, but we sure appreciate your support and input on trying to resolve this issue. We're not looking for any organization's possition statement on this, just the support of the mountain biking, and park user community that agrees that it's time to arrive at solutions for this problem.

So even if the wording in the petition is summarized and general, please consider signing it anyway. Open Space staff knows what it pertains to when we present it along with the rest of our documentation and report.

Thanks,

Dave
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
394 Posts
Is the idea – or “solution”- behind this downhill trail that it will decrease/eliminate “downhilling” (however we want to define that) on the other trails throughout the Jeffco system ?

Dave, could you sketch in the proposed trail on this image of the parcel ?
Thanks
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
162 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 ·
hardtail05 wrote "Is the idea – or “solution”- behind this downhill trail that it will decrease/eliminate “downhilling” (however we want to define that) on the other trails throughout the Jeffco system ?"

If you define dowhilling as shuttling, then yes, we hope this will eliminate the practice of dh shuttling at other multi-use trails. If you define downhilling as riding your bike down the hill, the absolutly not. Mountain bikers will continue to ride up and down multi-use trails, as they currently exist at Open Space parks. The petition clearly states that riders can choose not to ride directional, mountian bike trails, "depending on, but not limited to, trail conditions, equipment, and rider’s better judgement". We do not want the status of any existing trails to change, we want new trails that will direct higher speed traffic away from slow speed traffic. Win, Win, Win, Win.
 

·
ride
Joined
·
5,275 Posts
This is a good solution for the elimination of shuttled downhill riding at other parks. Are the user conflicts on file from those specifically against cyclists shuttling trails or cyclists riding too fast while going downhill? In the mind of many hikers, DHers on big bikes and XC guys going really fast is about the same thing. Is the thought to make this a dh bike only trail, or a bike only dh trail? If the idea is a trail that is downhill but could be ridden on an average mountain bike, why not lobby for a small singletrack trail loop as well as shuttle access to the top? Will it be more palatable to the voting/tax paying public to market the project as something for all bikers?

What I got from reading Russman's comments is not segregating mtb from hikers and horses, rather segregation within mtb itself. Mountain bikers as a group probably need to be more politically cohesive as it is. A division could be a bad thing.

I know Jeffco is a little different environment from Boulder County, but in a public hearing here's a few things we'd be guaranteed to run up against here that could potentially kill the project:

-If it's a downhill only trail for dh bikes only, that could portray images of the aggro Mountain Dew male scaring Bambi. A bike loop for all types may be easier to swallow since it'll get more of the average biker off of my hiking trail, arghhhh.

-Shuttling via auto creates it's own list of issues, or at least some issues that folks will raise. Paved roads cost a lot of money. Dirt roads create a lot of dust. There will need to be sufficient parking on both ends, etc.

-Bikers have argued for a long time (or at least IMBA and BOA) that bikes are environmentally friendly. You can make an ecologically sound downhill trail, but can it justify the extra 'cost' of driving back and forth shuttling?

Food for thought, anyway. That said, you guys seem to be making amazing progress down there. Thanks, and keep up the great work.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
394 Posts
ignazjr said:
-Shuttling via auto creates it's own list of issues, or at least some issues that folks will raise. Paved roads cost a lot of money. Dirt roads create a lot of dust. There will need to be sufficient parking on both ends, etc.

.
Ignazjr makes a good point. Riding bikes downhill may be the lesser of the two issues. The driving of cars back and forth between each run could create lots of issues. Sounds expensive, too. Is there any way to utilize the chairlift at Heritage Square ?
Previously existing chairlifts seem like a better idea than driving back & forth in cars, but what do you guys think?
 
1 - 20 of 25 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top