Nose Hill Bike Restrictions

January 2005

See also: Nose Hill Park Effective Letter Writing Government Contacts

The City of Calgary is developing an improved trail plan for Nose Hill. CMBA is asking any cyclists who have an interest in Nose Hill Park to please attend the open house this weekend, then follow up with a phone call or letter to your Alderman.
 

Date:	Saturday, January 15, 2005
Time:	9:00am - 4:00pm, with formal presentations by O2 Design at 10:00am and 2:00pm.
Place:	Edgemont Community Association, 33 Edgevalley Circle NW

Why? Well it looks like cyclists might get lost in the crowd yet again thanks to other special interest groups trying to "save" "their" park. Several "guardian" organizations with a long history of excluding cyclists from "their" park are rallying to return a biased variation of a never-implemented 1994 Plan.

Of course these same groups (87% of the users - i.e. walkers and dog owners) conveniently exempted themselves from any restrictions and now they are lobbying to try the plan again. In the end, the City never really implemented this plan because it was so unworkable!

That plan restricts bikes to "non-dirt formalized trails" everywhere except the gravel pit/off-leash area - a total of six uptracks, according to their map. The plan also claimed (by consensus not science) that the majority of the erosion on the escarpment was caused by cyclists - untrue and unfounded. Cyclists were never allowed to participate in this plan. It was simply a group of stakeholders who found it convenient to blame cyclists. Of course, no restrictions were placed on pedestrians.

Luckily, the plan was contingent on the creation of a perimeter route inside the park, developed in consultation with cyclists. This effectively suspended the plan for six years because the committee refused to accept cyclists into their membership. Nobody faced any restrictions and the trails degraded because the advisory committee was too proud!

In 1999 the City "invited" cyclists to be a party to a revised plan. The City, however, stood behind the draconian restrictions in the 1994 plan, and merely wanted CMBA to bless a plan that was prejudicial to cyclists. CMBA did not participate, nor did any other legitimate cycling group. We wanted to represent cycling as a recreation, not grovel as a minority to be systematically removed from the park.

The plan was eventually rehashed in 2000 to allow cycling on a total of 12 uptracks and closed a handful of trails for reclamation (11%) - again without the input of CMBA. In other words, cyclists were banned from 88% of the escarpment trails but pedestrians could use any trail with few restrictions (11% of the trails were closed to all users.) This was the start of the "orange snow fence" era on the park. Did you know you were unlawfully riding in the park?

The City admits that the plan has failed. Cyclists did not know they were breaking the (unfair) law and pedestrians kept using every trail, including the "closed for reclamation" trails. To be fair, some cyclists kept using the closed trails too, so we are not innocent in this respect. Incidentally, the same plan proposed the perimeter trail across the freeway and outside of the park.

The City would have had a hell of a time enforcing the cycling restrictions because the same groups that proposed the plans opposed trail signage as well. Open and closed-to-cyclist trails were indistinguishable. Cyclists would have had to memorize which of the trail segments were open to them (18) versus closed to all users (118) and open to pedestrians (882.) Bylaw Services wouldn't touch the issue!

CMBA has heard from Off Leash Calgary that cyclists are the ones riding off trails and causing all the damage, at the same time they cannot explain why the un-scooped dog poop on these closed trails did not have a tire track through it. Similarly, the Friends of Nose Hill periodically publishes pictures that are clearly images of water erosion, but the captions blame it all on bikes - perhaps they think we sweat excessively. It is convenient to blame all the erosion on cyclists, and of course we are easily identified from a bylaw enforcement perspective. These groups fail to consider the fact that we cause about the same erosion per user as a pedestrian. Any plan to "save" the park cannot possibly succeed if it only applies to a tiny 15% minority.

Groups bickered for 10 years about who to ban and how to reduce the use of the park, mostly by making it inaccessible to groups other than themselves. CMBA has no problem with sharing the park with dog walkers and pedestrians. We feel it is best to manage multi-use trails to enhance every users "natural experience", rather than kick out user groups or let unsustainable trails degrade because we want are too timid to manage them.

So in 2004 the City hired external consultants to come up with a plan that was fair and workable for all users. This really means provide access along the patterns of the existing trails but close redundant parallel trails or those encroaching on sensitive habitat. The restrictions had to be enforceable as well, so they proposed to delineate the designated network with signposts or trail mix (gravel/clay).

The very detailed plan is described on the CMBA website. Because of its complexity it is probably best to go to the open house and see the large maps and presentation boards. It proposes several variants of the same trail network along with a laundry list of options. While CMBA recognizes the plan will close some of our favorite tracks, it does afford much more access than any previous plan ever has, and the restrictions apply fairly to all users.

Some groups are adamantly opposed to the plan for various reasons - they feel the natural area will be damaged beyond belief, they feel the plan suggests excessive pavement, they don't like the restrictions. These groups are proposing fewer trails and selective user restrictions on other groups.

In our view, the City plan was developed with the ecology in mind and the variant we support is in keeping with the natural character of the park. The pavement issue is moot because the City has proposed options that result in even less pavement in the park than today. The routing is sound as well, as the plan strives to provide a choice of routes for all users.

We think most of this opposition is because now the restrictions will apply to all users - boy that's gotta sting ya know, after 10 years of making rules only for cyclists to follow and exempting themselves, pedestrians are going to have to participate in solving the problem they are 87% of!

We have heard these groups publicly propose their groups be allowed to wander off of the designated routes because they have become accustomed to this bad habit. That means 87% of the off-trail erosion will continue. Also, the plan effectively becomes the Nose Hill Bicycle Plan as it would restrict no other users. This is not what the plan was developed for.

CMBA has proposed some modifications to the City to allow for a few additional trails where we felt they were lacking. We do not support a reduction in the number of trails in the plan simply because if you take away routes that are popular and provide no plausible alternative, people will simply ignore the rules. Back to the drawing board.

Lets make the restrictions reasonable and fair. The City is proposing a reasonable network of trails for all users and fair restrictions that apply to both cyclists and pedestrians. The City plan is ecologically sustainable and practical as it allows most users to get where they want to go.

Please show up at the open house and say you want fair and reasonable access for cyclists.

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