Calgary Parks and Recreation is hosting two open-house sessions in 2005 to view the proposed pathway plan. Any cyclist who wishes to attend or present is encouraged to do so.

• January 15 2005, 9:00am - 4:00pm, with formal presentations by O2 Design at 10:00am and 2:00pm.
  Edgemont Community Association, 33 Edgevalley Circle NW
• February 26 20051:00pm - 5:00pm, with a formal presentation by O2 Design at 2:00pm.
  Dalhousie Community Association, 5432 Dalhart Road NW

The second one is being held to present the recommended options. Both meetings allow for "formal presentations" and CMBA is trying to get clarification from the City as to what that means. All cyclists who use Nose Hill, wish to use Nose Hill or even live in the same town as Nose Hill should attend and make their desires known (the Terms of Reference consider Nose Hill a regional park.)

CMBA has been involved as a stakeholder in the development of this plan, although we are only one stakeholder out of 40 on the committee. After the plan is approved, this could become the "now-we-really-mean-it" trail plan for the Hill, which has been the subject of much controversy since 1993. CMBA supports most of this plan as it considers cyclists a valid user group and proposes a plausible network of multi-use trails to allow access. We are however concerned at some groups modifying or trying to exempt themselves from the plan, so we hope all those interested attend and support this proposal or some version of it for all users.

The basic plan is not bad from an "any user" perspective - it seeks to protect the Hill from erosion while allowing reasonable user access. While it does not leave the Hill with as many access trails as it currently has, it allows much more reasonable access than any (unimplemented) plan we have seen in the past. Enough trails are open to at least allow people to enjoy the escarpment and generally get to the crest of the hill using a choice of routes. Previous plans have not allowed this and have led park users to simply ignore the illogical trail closures and continue eroding the Hill.

The City has publicly committed that the trails are multi-use (this time including cyclists) and that no users will be allowed off these routes on the escarpment. This is a marked improvement - previous plans were so unworkable that they exempted walkers and dog owners from the plan because there were simply no practical access routes. Effectively these plans applied only to cyclists since we were the only user group left (13%.)

This time, rather than leave issues in the hands of a polarized group of non-cyclists, the City hired O2 Consulting to review the trail system from the perspective of users, needs and potential for impact each user has. O2 came up with a reasonable and sustainable plan and did not depend on vilifying one user group in order to grant unlimited access for another. All users cause damage and all users should share in the solution.

CMBA has commented on the plans to the City and our conclusions follow. Even if you agree wholeheartedly with our comments, please try to show up at the Open House as that is where the real "numbers game" is played. Certain groups are claiming that they represent 65% of the hill's users and are aggressively seeking to exempt themselves from the plan - this of course means the entire plan will be useless from a preservation perspective.

CMBA's Comments on the Plan

Background:

The City presented four concepts and several add-ons, all of which have exactly the same trail routings. The only change is the surface type and the designations of the multi-use zone. Also presented were parking lot improvements, pathway linkages outside of the park, and signage/donor wall proposals. Our comments are as follows:

Routing:

CMBA supports the network proposed as plausible as it allows access for most users according to established patterns. We acknowledged that some of the "best" uptracks and downhill sections would be closed, however these have been the subject of much of the debate and blame placed on cycling over the last decade. The revised access allows the vast majority of users to get to their destination without requiring them to break the rules or take a serious detour.

We did feel that some linkages were appropriate between entrances where users did not immediately climb the Hill, and in many cases move to another uptrack. These were: (1) Shaganappi/John Laurie linkage to Brisebois (land is flat and permanently disturbed); (2) Brisebois to Charleswood linkage (the Charleswood entrance is to be closed yet many people travel between the two low on the escarpment); (3) Mackewan to Berkley linkage (many users currently move from the northern entrance to the Berkley entrance along the flat area); and (4) linkage from Berkely to 64th behind the new reservoir (they have tried in vain to close this route but people keep using it, besides they just built a reservoir there so why not?)

Surface:

CMBA supported the Concept 1 plan as it proposed using natural trail materials in most cases. Some versions of the plan (Concept 4) seem bent on paving a substantial number of trails. We do not feel this is in keeping with current user loads, budgets and the concept of a natural area park.

CMBA does however support pavement in the following cases: (1) do not remove the pavement on Porcupine Valley pathway (8.05 to 9.02 on the map) as it is already paved and heavily used; and (2) pave trail 5.8 to allow the two paved pathways to the east and west sides of the park to be connected by this "missing link."

Multi-Use Zone:

CMBA supports the existing Multi-Use Zone (MUZ) at the top of the park. We also support the extension of this zone right to the Edgemont parking lot as the land is already permanently disturbed and it would not require that dogs be leashed from the parking lot to the edge of the MUZ. The City's concepts shows this extension as an option but at the expense of the MUZ on the northern edge of the park - it was to be removed to keep the total acres of the MUZ equal.

A whole slate of other issues such as parking and washrooms were dealt with in the proposals as well. We did not comment at length on this because, in our opinion, they were superfluous to the issue of trail routing. Overall the plan seems to allow access where it is desired for most users, and protects the hill where it needs shielding.

Perimeter Pathway:

CMBA does not support the establishment of a perimeter pathway on the other side of Shaganappi, John Laurie or 14th Street. The original 1993 plan proposed this inside the park and it should be inside the park to benefit all users. If it is being constructed to allow alternatives for cycle commuters, then put the pathway where commuters will use it. We feel it is being proposed simply to justify a lack of bike access to Nose Hill.

If anyone would like more information or additional data, please email me at pngriba@pgco.ab.ca, I would be happy to assist.

Pete Griba