Thanks to all who attended the Open House hosted by the City in January. The four concepts have been revised into three and we encourage you to comment on the new concept plus proposed enhancements.

Nose Hill Park Routing Concept 3

CMBA is encouraging the City to adopt Concept 3 (the most open trails) with as much natural trail surface as possible and the existing MUZ (Multi Use Zone). A full description of the options and a ton of information is available from the City website. Please note that if you have a good case that a favorite trail should be added, come forward now because if it ain't on the plan it won't be open.

Some of the questions we have received will be answered in Q&A format:

Q: Why can't MTBs just keep using the trails they have in the past?

A: This is exactly what every other user group is asking - "Why can't [insert any special interest group] be exempt from trail restrictions?" Bikers, walkers, residents, orienteers, dog owners, naturalists, equestrians and so on all argue they are 'special' users of the park. Yet the park is degrading under their collective use. We only ask to be treated fairly, and in this case the closures apply fairly to all users.

Q: Why is CMBA supporting regional pathway development in a natural area?

A: CMBA is supporting naturally-surfaced trails wherever possible, we are not suggesting the City 'pave-the-park' as some alarmist groups are claiming. However, that being said, we do not agree with removing existing, paved pathways such as Porcupine Valley. We also believe that bike commuters are valid cyclists as well and should not be discouraged from using Nose Hill because the two existing paved pathway systems are deliberately unconnected.

Q: Are MTBs being treated unfairly?

We have not been treated unfairly by the City at all, in fact, we commend the City and O2 Consulting on forming a well-rounded stakeholder group and treating all input fairly. It is the previous plans that have been highly prejudicial to cyclists. Our problem lies with various opposition groups, such as the Action Group, who feel these old plans should be reinstated.

Q: Who is the Action Group?

A: We are not certain if it is a separate society, secret society or just a subcommittee of Friends of Nose Hill. They claim the membership of:

• Friends of Nose Hill - FONH has long opposed CMBA's views on park use. They blame erosion on bike use, they claim that the cyclist-friendly elements of previous plans were 'DEFEATED DUE TO THE EFFORTS OF THE FRIENDS AND OTHERS', they strongly oppose commuter bike use of the park.
• Off-Leash Calgary - While OLC has been quite adversarial with respect to Bowmont, we have seen eye-to-eye with them effectively in other areas (Southland). Still, when push comes to shove cyclists and dog walkers are quick to polarize and blame each other for the problems, when really they are struggling for the same thing - recreational access. In Nose Hill's case OLC accuses bikes of creating a 'circum-park trail just inside the Park's boundary fence' and appears to want them 'limited to peripheral routes outside the park'.
• Canadian Parks and Wilderness - CPAWs appears to be opposed to 'large-scale recreational use' and believes that the park should be maintained as wilderness. No alternatives are provided to manage the increasing use of an almost inner-city park.
• Brentwood - The community appears to be opposed to change in the park, although we are not certain if they mean the current de facto management or some previous plan.
• Dalhousie - no position statement
• Edgemont - no position statement
• MacEwan/Sandstone - no position statement
• North Haven - no position statement
• Ranchlands - no position statement
• Silver Springs - no position statement
• Thorncliffe/Greenview - The community appears to favor fewer trails and no restrictions on walkers.
• Triwood - no position statement

Q: What is the Action Group proposing?

A: It is very difficult to determine just what the Action Group is proposing as they don't seem to have a common plan to support (other than trashing the City plan). Some are calling for combinations of: (1) a 'Concept 5' with much fewer trails than the City's plan, (2) a return to the Year 2000 Plan (98% closed to bikes), (3) a return to the 1994 Plan (99.4% closed to bikes), (4) no cross-park routes, (5) bike pathways outside of the park and/or (6) no restrictions on walkers.

If a group you belong to or community you live in is part of this Action Group, are you aware of their point of view? For example many cyclists are dog owners, yet OLC is backing fewer trails for bikes. Does this represent you as a constituent?

Q: What do you mean '98% closed to bikes?'

A: The trail system is a 'living' system, but on average there are about 1,000 trail segments open on the hill escarpment (not MUZ). The Year 2000 plan proposed that bikes be restricted to 18 of these (1.8%,) thus 98.2% would be closed. The same plan proposed that 112 trails be closed and reclaimed (11.8%) but no restrictions be placed on walkers. This plan failed miserably because nobody obeyed the closures and nobody ever enforced the bike bans. It could not have succeeded because 87% of the park users still had unrestricted access, and banning cyclists simply because they were easily identified would just not have been effective - they were only 13% of the usership.