The Environmental Impacts of Cycling
According to Parks & Recreation

 

The recommendations of the Administration quote the City's research into the environmental impact of cycling (page 3). The quote that is presented is misleading and out of context. The full documentation of the Administration's research into this subject is below. It clearly states that disturbance is equivalent in overall impact between cyclists and pedestrians. It also clearly identifies that short cutting and braiding are largely attributable to foot traffic. These are some of the problems that the trails review in Nose Hill Park is trying to address. Since cyclists only make up 13% of the users in Nose Hill Park and they have the same overall impact, banning cyclists will, at best, only reduce impact by 13%. This reduction can be achieved without banning an entire user group by improving trail maintenance and designing trails that are stable and can withstand the usage demands.   MEMORANDUM   To: Members of the Nose Hill Park Management Advisory Committee From:     Dave Elphinstone Natural Parkland Management Coordinator Urban Forestry and Central Services #75 Date: August 19, 1999 Re: Summary of Environmental Impacts Regarding Trail and Off Trail Use Over the last three or four years my office has collected a large amount of information regarding the above issue from literature and the Internet. In order to provide you with as much info as possible, it was felt that you should receive a summary of our findings. Research regarding environmental impact is found on each "side of the fence" either favouring or opposed to cycling. I was able to find papers, symposia, web sites and policy both pro and con as well as areas that have banned cyclists, separated users or allowed multi use in natural environments. Much of the information tries to address who has more impact, cyclists, equestrians or foot traffic. The inferences and conclusions are confusing and need clarification. The following are some of the overlapping conclusions (between studies): disturbance is equivalent in overall impact (pedestrians and cyclists) equestrians have the highest impact impacts of each activity have different effects in different conditions and places. (This is perhaps the most significant factor). individual places must be evaluated separately (can't do same things in Calgary as Toronto or as Moab) disturbance variables can be linked to site conditions such as (but not limited to) aspect, weather and behaviour (riding quietly along flat trail vs up and down hills at different speeds). The following is a simplified and condensed version of impacts of each activity: Foot off trail disturbance and compaction. short cutting and braiding. trampling leaving trails in bad weather (after trail disturbance) important mitigation is to stay on established trails. Cycling tends to affect existing trails. greatest effect on hills and wet areas. Interest in accessing sensitive terrain like ravines. deepens trails and allows for more chance at gullying. May make it more difficult for other users if unmitigated. speed through sensitive wildlife areas. skidding Equestrians Increase size and scope of trails deteriorate trails including spreading fines and dust. trampling introduction of weeds Additional points: Initial disturbance is often cattle, vehicle or foot traffic. Trail degradation (after initialization ) is often caused by cyclist and foot traffic Trail management - key point is requirements to maintain pedestrians on trail, and actively maintain trails (requires adequate budget) used by cyclists. Trail degradation over the long term increased by lack of available funding. Specific research on an area is usually rare and difficult to gather (while keeping all parameters equal). When they do exist the information is rarely transferable. The research usually does not solve the conflict. There are often disagreements on the validities of any study. Other comments include: Un-managed high off road bike use will result in rapid landscape degradation. High mountain bike use trails, however can be managed to decrease impacts. Adequate funds are a prerequisite to manage these trails. If under funded references suggest eliminating access. High use foot trails are more susceptible to concerns such as perceived hazards from mountain bikes, on low volume trails perception decreases. Mixing use may increase perception problem. General conclusions: There is a wealth of information "out there" much of which is trying to "fight" for a position. Each activity and level of activity has a different effect under different conditions. Common approach is to identify who does most damage which is misleading, whereas key factors are what damages are done and how to mitigate them. Management of major impacts must be undertaken. Most decisions are not wholly science based. This is a very short summary of what appears to be common ground in the literature. I have a couple of binders of information and access to other research if you wish. I can provide you with a number of available titles to increase your knowledge as well. Please note that this is in no way inclusive but rather a gleaning of common information. Please feel free to contact me at 221-4688 or prpsde@gov.calgary.ab.ca if you have any questions. Sincerely,   Dave Elphinstone Natural Area Management Coordinator   cc.  George McLauchlan, Manager, #54 Doug Marter, Superintendent, #54 Dennis La Freniere, Business Development Coordinator #54 Ken Eadie, Superintendent #82 C:\MyFiles\ADMINIS\1999\memo to mac re trails.wpd

"Their research and the research of the Administration verifies that the impacts of biking versus walking/hiking are of a different type and level under different conditions; i.e. in some cases hiking/walking has a different and/or greater effect, and in other cases biking has a different and/or greater effect." [CPS2000] "disturbance is equivalent in overall impact (pedestrians and cyclists)" [Parks & Recreation Summary of Environmental Impacts Regarding Trail and Off Trail Use, Aug 19, 1999] "The cyclists' argument is that they don't do any more damage than pedestrians and there is probably some validity to that argument," said Doug Marter, a planning superintendent with city parks. There is no evidence to support claims that cyclists cause any more damage to designated or undesignated trails than that caused by walkers or runners [CPS97-85 UTP]

 
Home | What is CMBA? | People & Contacts | Education
Newsletters | Trail Care | Help Out | Membership | Links | Site Map