|
|
|
| ||
| Home | What is CMBA? | People & Contacts | Education | Newsletters | Trail Care | Help Out | Membership | Links | Site Map |
| Issues |
|
Nose Hill Park
More opposition to the Nose Hill Trail and Pathway Plan June 2005
In order to breathe new life into this discredited plan the Community Board has initiated a series of pseudo public meetings to 'gather public input'. To prevent the Board from stacking the meetings and declaring overwhelming support and to stand up for cyclist's rights in Nose Hill Park we need cyclists to attend these meetings, ask questions and voice their opinion. We are urging all cyclists to attend at least one of these so-called public meetings. The meetings are:
While we do not want to be rude or obnoxious it is important that you attend and to express yourself. We have found they intend to 'collect statistics' and compare their plan against the City's to gather support for their plan. Their meetings are not endorsed by the City as the City views them as just a private group trying to drum up believers. However, from what we have been able to determine about their plan, it appears quite detrimental to cyclists:
In short, it is a return to the same old blame-it-all-on-bikes attitude we have seen for the last 12 years. CMBA supports the City plan which attempts to deal with the problems rather than simply blame a minority group. This self-anointed 'board' justifies themselves by claiming the park must be kept as an 'ecological preserve' and must not become a 'recreational park' CMBA feels with proper management it can be both, but the NHPCB feels their goal of making it an ecological preserve must be attained by restricting bikes. Of course their plan caters directly to their comfortable and complete use of the Park. For example, they are not willing to alter the boundary of the multi-use zone (as has been proposed in the City's plan) to provide greater protection to wildlife because they appear to see that as an intrusion on their right to use the Park in any way they wish. So please get you and your friends together and attend these meetings and tell this group you support the City plan (way more trails) and that the park should support recreation and not just for them. Please note the plan that CMBA supports still restricts cyclists, but it does so in a fair and open fashion. All users will be held to the same restrictions and the plan encourages use of the park rather than discouraging it by making access difficult (for bikes.) Dealing with the NHPCB has been most difficult as they refuse to talk to anyone but their own members. The group claims to represent residents around the park yet refuses to come to the table and describe the plan - even to the City! They were, however, quite unhappy with the 600 plus participants in the two open houses held by the City and are staging their own meetings to promote their own plan. These meetings are not sanctioned by the City but they seem determined to show that they have some form of public support to bolster their credibility. We think it would be great if cyclists attend these and make their feelings known. CMBA has worked with the City and other interest groups for over a year to create a fair plan that supports cycling while protecting the Park. Don't let a small group of radicals undermine this process and prevent you and other cyclists from enjoying Nose Hill Park. [ Top ] Post SPC update May 2005 There are several rants on this website about the plan, so if you are unfamiliar with it, please review these links (Cycling Detractors, Bike Restrictions, Nose Hill archive.) The procedure at an SPC meeting is that each presenter gets 5 minutes to voice their opinion. There were over 100 people in attendance and 35 presentations. All were pretty passionate about the park, leaving the SPC with a tough decision to make as to who's passion is best for the hill. Of the 15 points in the plan, almost every presenter voiced an opinion over two issues: (i) pavement and (ii) trail restrictions: Pavement - the plan proposed to pave the infamous trail named 5.8 in the plan (450m of new pavement on top of an existing, eroded dirt trail) and also proposed to pave a trail from the Edgemont parking lot to the new Brisebois overpass. It also proposed to repair the decrepit Porcupine Valley (Berkley Gate) pathway and to rebuild all pathways to a narrow tread width with an aggregate inlay to make it look like gravel (no yellow line.)
Dozens of presenters described this as and "end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it" scenario. And to counter, dozens more suggested it was desirable. We feel the argument against pavement was a bit exaggerated - member after member of the Friends of Nose Hill stood up and portrayed a bulldozer hacking through the virgin stands of aspen in Many Owls Valley, where in fact it is already a road and pretty eroded. Fortunately, in the end the Aldermen agreed that while it held great symbolic significance to some, it was a limited amount of pavement and was appropriate. Trail Restrictions - one of CMBA's greatest fears with this plan was that, like past plans (1994, 2000), it would require only cyclists to stay on designated trails (60 km) while walkers and dog walkers sought an exemption that would allow them to go anywhere on the hillside (~300 km.)
Again the committee decided not to amend the plan, which would have exempted walkers from staying on route. Once you are on the escarpment (steep slopes) all users are required to follow the same restrictions. Stay on the designated trails. Altogether it was an extremely long nine hours of argument and counter argument. There was some bike bashing, relatively few dog-bike issues, and in general most presenters passionately wanted to preserve the park, it was just they disagreed on pavement or whether restrictions would apply to themselves or not. Of note, we were very impressed that the Aldermen from the three wards around the park (Druh Farrell, Bob Hawkesworth and Gord Lowe) all had intimate knowledge of the park. Each had visited it, understood the problems and seemed genuinely concerned with preserving it for future generations. We hope cyclists in the wards around the park remember this when the next election comes up. The plan still has to go to a full council meeting on May 16, and they could still amend it, however the public cannot participate beyond the SPC meeting. If it does pass, we should start seeing trail improvements in about a year and closures of degraded informal trails in about two years. [ Top ] Important dates for the Nose Hill Trail and Pathway Plan April 2005 The Trail and Pathway Plan will be appearing in front of the Standing Policy Committee (SPC/CPS), most likely at the May 4, 2005 meeting. For procedural reasons we will not know this for sure until the Friday before the meeting, but if you want to show up please call or email Pete and he can add you to a 'call-out' list for the day of the meeting. What does this plan show? Pretty much the same trail system proposed at the second open-house is intact with some minor modifications. CMBA strongly supports this design as it provides a plausible trail system that will allow all users to enjoy the hill while minimizing erosion on the escarpment. It is true that only about 60km of trails will remain open once you leave the Multi-Use Zone (MUZ = plateau at the top plus gravel pit), however this is a vast improvement over past policies which have (on paper) limited us to only three or five trails! Other articles on this website will show you where the battle has become decidedly ugly and pitched against cyclists, so we encourage you to email or write your alderman, or better still, show up at the SPC/CPS meeting. Many majority groups are still lobbying to exempt themselves from the plan, for example, groups representing walkers and dogs (87% of the users) feel they should be allowed anywhere and want restrictions to apply to cyclists only.
To reiterate CMBA's position, Parks has agreed that all users cause some damage, in fact, per user, a cyclist causes the same amount of damage as a walker. Parks is also supporting a plan where controls apply to all park users, which CMBA vigorously supports. Any last-minute exemption for dog owners and walkers means the plan only applies to cyclists. Banning only a 13% minority cannot possibly save the escarpment from degradation-87% of the users will be able to use any trail whatsoever and defeat any rehabilitation effort (like the last effort.) There is also a 'don't let them pave the park' lobby that suggests the park is being 'given' to cyclists and must, of course, be taken back. This alarmist lobby feels that paving a trail from the new multi-million dollar concrete overpass and the linking of two existing asphalt trails with a few hundred meters of gravel-topped asphalt is the end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it. CMBA notes that the same people behind these lobbies have been opposed to cyclists for at least twelve years and have used every political, civil and public venue to blame bikes for a problem they themselves are 87% of. Lets all cooperate fairly and save the park rather than blame the same old historic scapegoats. [ Top ] March 2005 Update March 2005 The CMBA exec would like to thank any members who came out to the second Nose Hill Trail Plan Open House on Saturday February 26, or wrote letters, or who attended the first Open House for that matter! We appreciate all the support we have received. In summary, the City has upgraded the trail plan from Concept 3 according to public feedback from the first open house and also from stakeholder suggestions. The detailed plan is on the Parks website.
The routes put forward were generally enhanced from what was presented at the open house. Some missing secondary routes were added to allow for route diversity (all users do not wish to take a single access to the plateau and also have to return by the same radial trail) and enhanced access (some Primary Routes caused significant and pointless detours.) In addition, the Multi-Use Zone (MUZ) was expanded and extended to the Edgemont parking lot and also as far to the east as possible. Off-Leash Calgary was opposed to this but it seems to support both cyclists and dog owners. Unfortunately, some of the existing MUZ was lost near the Porcupine Valley brow and on the Mackewan-North brow in order to keep users away from the native ecosystems. This was the only way the City felt they could protect these sensitive areas. In general we feel the plan does an excellent job at balancing every users needs, given the fact that the overall goal is to protect and preserve the park. This will always result in compromise, and all cyclists will be faced with significantly fewer trails than we have enjoyed in the past. However, all users will be faced with these same restrictions. With this plan all users have a share in the protection and preservation of the hill and, as cyclists, we have been treated fairly in this respect. So CMBA is quite positive about the plan - the City has listened to both general and special interest groups. The plan addresses the 'needs of the many' as opposed to a special few. And they have left it relatively accessible rather than getting neurotic about restrictions. [ Top ] January 2005 Update January 2005 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.
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:
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. [ Top ] New Pathway Plan for Nose Hill January 2005
Nose Hill Bike Restrictions
Well, our opponents are at it again - proposing trail restrictions that conveniently exempt themselves. <more> 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.
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 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Email: info@cmbalink.com | Copyright © 2000-2005 Calgary Mountain Bike Alliance | Privacy Policy |
A previously disbanded group called the Nose Hill Park Community Board (NHPCB) has appeared from nowhere and convinced Ald. Dale Hodges to attempt to delay the Parks and Recreation plan because they were uncomfortable with the outcome of the public consultation process. Ald. Hodges was able to convince City Council to delay acceptance 'until Parks and Recreation can review the NHPCB plan.' The interesting thing is the plan that the Community Board is bringing forward is substantially the same plan that was offered as an alternative during the regular public consultation process. This plan was rated fourth out of the four plans that were put forward for public review.
Other than being blatantly unfair, this exemption would kill any attempt to stop informal trail proliferation. If close to 90% of the users continue to use the informal trail system it will continue to degrade. Some speakers thought there was no problem at all, so there should be no bans, others felt they had a right to ignore trail closures and vowed to keep using the closed trails. CMBA felt strongly that all users should be subject to fair restrictions as everyone had a part in causing the erosion, so everyone should share in reducing it.
