Seattle Parks Department Up to Their Old Tricks – Again?

[wakeflood]

Skeets, I’m sympathetic to your point. I agree that a number of activities should be available to people in our limited green spaces.

Let me throw a couple of thoughts out?

I too have had mountain bikers fly by me with no notice on what I assumed was just another walking path. I’d like to see designated mountain bike trails in places discrete from walking/hiking paths. Those modes are different enough that they deserve to be separated. Do we have enough discrete space in our urban areas for both? Unsure. I suspect you could forge a trail or two in Lincoln Park exclusively for mountain bikes but they’d only take a few minutes to complete and that’s not very functional. So I’m inclined to say, probably not. There might be enough room in one or two of our other parks like Discovery or Seward, but they too might get tight?

Mountain biking is its own deal. If you really enjoy it, you’re going to want to do it someplace where you can spend a few hours on trails, not a few minutes.

And I’m not sure if frisbee golf works either? It might. Gotta’ keep your eyes peeled for those babies coming in hot tho’!

Share This

[skeeter]

Wake, as usual you make excellent points.

I agree that hikers and mountain bikers on the same trails is a recipe for frustration and potential injury as well.

The current pilot project acknowledges this and calls for separate and marked walking trails and mountain biking trails. See map:

http://cheasty.org/the-park/biking-trails/

I think the best model is St Edward State Park up in northern Kirkland. All the trails are separately marked for biking or hiking. The system works in my experience, and everyone is having fun.

Guys, I don’t think anyone is proposing that all hiking trails in Seattle parks will be open for bicycles. That would not be appropriate or safe. My guess is 15 years from now there will be 20 miles of walking trails for every 1 mile of mountain biking trails. Walking is more accessible so it makes sense for more walking trails than biking trails.

Share This

[maplesyrup]

I’m pretty much with skeeter on this one. Mountain bike trails and hiking trails don’t necessarily have to be mutually exclusive.

And anyway all the document says is that they want to study areas for potential uses, and they have formulas and criteria for making decisions. Why would anyone be against a study and making an informed decision? Sounds like classic Seattle Process to me.

Share This

[anonyme]

skeeter, normally I agree with you on a lot of issues, but not this one. Nor do your analogies make a lot of sense. Soccer fields and golf courses do not share space with walkers and hikers, although if I were to use the same rationale – they should. I demand trails on golf courses!!!! Silly, isn’t it?

Mountain biking, as Wake points out, takes a lot of room and is not compatible with walking and hiking – or with peace and relaxation. Going out on a limb here, but isn’t mountain biking for, um, mountains? Or at the very least, big hills? Hills that don’t have environmentally sensitive areas? Parks already provide a fairly wide spectrum of recreational opportunities. They can’t provide ALL of them.

Share This

[skeeter]

anonyme – I think we’re reading from different books here.

There will be two sets of trails. One set of trails for hikers. One set of trails for mountain bikers.

No one is proposing putting trails on golf courses.

“Mountain Biking” can be done in a variety of terrains. No mountains needed. Mountain Biking is any biking on an unpaved trail.

I still think my analogy makes sense. A couple posters suggested if you want to go mountain biking you should go to Issaquah. To me that sounds as silly as telling someone who wants to play golf to go to Issaquah. If Seattle can build and maintain golf courses on city parks I don’t see why we can’t also have mountain bike trails in city parks.

Share This

[skeeter]

I guess the reason I got involved with this subject is I found the thread title to be misleading. Studying if mountain bike trails make sense in certain limited natural areas is not an “old trick.” Look – folks might like natural areas the way they are. Some might not want to add mountain bikes into the mix. Fine – fight for what is important to you. But I think it is misleading to compare this study to a “Go Ape” zipline or suggesting that citizens are being “tricked.” Many, many people think this is a good proposal and worthy of study. Let’s see how the pilot project goes. I’m excited. Excited for me and excited for all the folks who are going to be able to enjoy this activity. The only “trick” I see is the parks department doing its job and listening to people who have an idea. Some don’t like the idea. But I do.

Share This

[wakeflood]

Hold on now, where are there golf courses that server a dual function as a city park? As in name a place where golfers and people picnic in the same physical space?

I’ve played DISC golf in a park in White Center but never golf golf.

Share This

[JoB]

skeeter.. i followed your link

explain to me how people walking won’t be affected by combined use areas on the trail?

i have seen how walkers are affected trying to use the paths on Alki.. and those are supposedly separated.

worse yet, have you tried taking a walk on the canal walking trail near Fremont. Constantly dodging bikes is not my idea of a good time.

and..not to beat a dead horse.. but if you are putting a bike trail through our park systems wilderness won’t you be whitling the area in which sensitive plants and ecosytems can survive down to a whole lot closer to 1% of the system?

there’s not much left now.

Share This

[skeeter]

I think every golf course in Seattle is a city owned park.

The mtn bike trails, of course, wouldn’t need exclusive use of the park. You could have a park with mtn bike trails in addition to hiking trails. Like the pilot park at Cheasty.

My point is if seattle parks can accommodate golfers I don’t see why seattle parks can’t accommodate mountain bikers too. Obviously not at the same place though.

Share This

[skeeter]

JoB – there would be separate trails for people on bikes and people on foot. Maybe some trails would have to be shared. We will have to hope that people will be polite. People who are bothered by bikes would probably stay on the paths for pedestrians.

You are correct that creating bike paths will involve removing some plants. That’s true. No way to build a trail without removing some vegetation. We’ll have to decide if the benefits of this activity outweigh the environmental costs.

Share This

[JoB]

skeeter..

i am not bothered by bikes..

i am bothered by people barreling down the trails on their bikes without paying attention to the people on the trail..

i am sure you are far more polite than that.. but i am also pretty sure you aren’t the norm.

i no longer move quickly enough to get out of the way

Share This

[JanS]

I do have to say….considering the actions of the “privileged” dog walkers who do not abide by the rules, can we be certsin that all bikers (and pedestrians) will totally abide by the rules? In a perfect world, maybe. But….we all know that perfection is illusive, and anyone want to wager there will be bikers of certain ages/bravado/etc., who will push the limits, not stay on trails, and think that a park is a free for all then? (and combine them with the off leash dogs…oh, myyyy!) (and let’s not even mention the walkers who can’t read/think, and use the bike trails because they’re easier/closer/whatever excuse) Yeah, yeah, I know…cynical me…

Share This

[anonyme]

Jan, you make a great point. Expecting people to behave on a shared trail is an experiment doomed to failure, and compares well to the off-leash conundrum.

It’s really very simple: our natural park areas, the ones dedicated to simple pleasures such as walking, are already a scanty and threatened resource. There is not enough available space to pare down even further in order to allow for non-compatible sports activities.

The taxpayers don’t need another expensive study in order to decide how to chop up the parks even more. Instead, put the money toward restoration, repair – and enforcement.

Here’s an even better idea: gold courses are unsustainable water hogs. Let them go wild, and turn them into mountain bike trails…

Share This

[B-squared]

Love that idea, Anonyme!

Share This

[wakeflood]

I’m down with most of your thoughts anonyme, save the golf courses. At least people pay good $ to cover the costs of upkeep. And for those of us who enjoy the game, it makes a 6-7 mile walk a lot more fun and exercise I’ll get off the couch for. :-)

Share This

[skeeter]

“Expecting people to behave on a shared trail is an experiment doomed to failure, and compares well to the off-leash conundrum.”

The “experiment” has been wildly successful all over Western Washington. Tacoma just opened a park to rave reviews.

http://www.seattletimes.com/life/outdoors/tacomarsquos-new-mountain-bike-park-emblematic-of-backersrsquo-long-strides/

Share This

[JoB]

skeeter..

from your link

“First, a good mountain biker on a good trail rarely bothers with the brakes.”

“Sure, they found places to ride in town. There were unofficial trails near Salmon Beach, China Lake and even Swan Creek Park. But they built features only to find them bulldozed or destroyed.”

…

“Mountain bikers are environmentalists,” said Jeff Ostenson, a Wenatchee resident who produced the documentary. “They are about sustainability. They want to build trails that are still there after the storms. And I think that provides a huge environmental education for kids.”

every comment drives home the basic concept that for mountain bikers.. it’s about the ride.. not about the environment in which that ride exists… and about building a better environment in which to ride… a better more challenging trail system.

you can’t do that without destroying habitat.

“Colonnade started to change the way some people thought about mountain bikers as the sport displaced the drug deals and prostitution that used to frequent the area.

“It doesn’t solve the social ill,” Glover said. “But it returns the area to the community as a place where they can go and have fun safely.”

Bikers were happy because they got a place to ride. People were happy because it drove those doing illegal activity out of the area.

but it did so at the cost of driving out those who appreciated the woods for what they were … not to mention the wildlife that lives in them.

we don’t have enough wild areas in our park system to drive those who tread lightly in those woods out.

Share This

[skeeter]

“every comment drives home the basic concept that for mountain bikers.. it’s about the ride.. not about the environment in which that ride exists… and about building a better environment in which to ride… a better more challenging trail system.”

That’s a valid point JoB. Mtn bikers are motivated to create better trails for their own enjoyment. For most, their primary motivation is not environmental stewardship.

When done correctly, though, mtn bike trails can have a minimal environmental impact. But “minimal” is not zero.

I suspect if we were re-designing the city of Seattle in 2015 starting with a blank slate we’d make countless changes to what we’ve got today. Our challenge is trying to adjust what we can to balance competing goals.

Share This

[JanS]

skeets…we’re not talking making a NEW place for mountain bikers(and I’m all for that)….Tacoma did that, it looks like. We’re talking about places like Lincoln Park, sharing side by side with non-bikers, and that’s an idea I’m not sure is workable. Bikers, runners, walkers, dog walkers…all like to make their own rules at times…and who will enforce the “rules” that the Parks set up…? Who enforces them now?

Share This

[wssort]

I used to take my kids through the west Duwamish greenbelt trails often, teaching them to stay on the path. We don’t go anymore because of many off leash dogs – last time we happened upon an unsuspecting Rottweiler and the owner behaved annoyed with us for being there. It will only be a matter of time before we lose these sensitive habitats.

Share This

[skeeter]

Those are all good questions JanS. I’m sure those who are vetting the options will consider them in the process.

Share This

[Denise]

Skeeter, this is not really about mountain bikes at all. The main issue is taking a rare resource, like the 1 or 2% of Seattle’s acreage that remains as public natural area, and carving it up between specialized user-groups. If we get rid of the concept of “reserved for passive/low-impact/pedestrian use”, which is the type of use that is accessible to the widest, most inclusive group (virtually all people), then our natural areas will become carved up like a pie. It won’t just be mountain bikes, it will be any active sports group that demands access for their own sport. Nature-based sports are great, but they belong in larger public spaces that can accommodate these multiple uses. Our very small, already stressed and fragmented natural areas cannot withstand this type of multi-use policy revision. Please, sign the petition to ensure ALL people have free, fair, and sustainable access to nature in the future.

Share This

[joanbateman]

Interesting reading.

As a Parks Advocate, and Community Activist, much of what we have in West Seattle has been hard fought with blood, sweat, and tears both around the table, and with hands in the dirt.

This proposal would change the way we look at and use areas of land designated by our predecessors and ourselves for natural purposes. The inclusion of bikes and other disruptive devices would do harm not only to the physical environment ( think here more money to sustain and higher taxes) and nature’s environment of birds, animal, insect, etc, but only ourselves. That is a high risk venue.

Watching how well people disobey the law about cell phone usage and texting, makes me very concerned about the lawsuits springing up because Parks allowed a biker to do his or her think, going out of control, and injuring some man, women, child or dog…. or maybe the last species of a species of bird, animal, or plant.

Having lived in a natural area for over 45 years, the wild life in Seattle is very precious. Once gone, it will not be recreated. Think Washington, DC.

It is not enough to set aside a bike trail in the midst of a green belt, when that area is populated by owls, eagle, peregrine falcons, raccoons, coyotes, and oh yes, the cougar that once in a while comes down from the mountains.

I think bikers should have their fun, but not at the risk to an already endangered, at risk environment.

Please, if you want to change the City’s proposal, sign this petition.

https://www.change.org/p/preserve-seattle-parks-natural-areas-and-greenspaces

Share This

[JoB]

biker looking for thrills meets off leash dog

who pay the medical bills?

i signed the petition

Share This

[joanbateman]

The SNA Online Petition only needs several hundred petitions to reach 1000. A noble goal for our Parks.

https://www.change.org/p/preserve-seattle-parks-natural-areas-and-greenspaces

Share This

[Author]

Posts