Jump to content
I get the motorized vs non-motorized argument, but there are details in that argument that need to be reviewed.
There are now class 1 electric bikes that have been used in competitive racing (nearly impossible to tell they have electric assist). If the racers are using the technology, it will soon trickle down to the masses. Having the rules based on something that is probably going to be nearly impossible to enforce by land managers is going to be an issue.
There are also battery powered electric motors on the shifters of some high end solely human powered bikes ( http://www.bicycling.com/bikes-gear/components/8-things-you-need-know-about-electronic-shifting “There’s no cable stretch, and the motor shifts the chain at the same speed, the same distance, every time,” ). There are a growing number of these high end bikes on our non motorized trails.
Should they all electric motors be banned including electric shifters? Does that apply to road bikes with electric shifting not being allowed to ride on the core trail? Where do we draw the line? What is the reasoning behind the rule or regulation? Is the rule or regulation enforceable without a significant amount of resources being dedicated to the enforcement of the regulation?
I don't view the motorized vs non motorized as cut and dry as many people do. I think there are consequences for taking such a hard line approach that are as risky or riskier to bike access than having the discussion with the information that these new technologies are not only coming buy actually already here. I hope the city of steamboat springs takes the time to have the discussion and clarifies the rules so the cycling public knows the rules.
Routt County Riders is an organization that advocates for all types of cycling. In my opinion, that includes ebikes. To me it is not a question of if they should be allowed it is more about where they should be allowed.
They are here now and likely coming in much larger numbers in the relatively near future. Currently the Federal, State and City laws and definitions do a poor job of consistently defining them. It is important for the land managers to put out a consistent message on where they are currently allowed and then it is important for the public (not just RCR or RCR board members) to help shape where they will be in the future.
RCR has helped provide the City with information on how it is defined at federal and state levels including some information on what is being done in other states and even other city's in Colorado.
I personally hope the city better defines where they are currently allowed (likely coming soon), then sets up a public meeting to take input from all trail users and groups like RCR. The local USFS office has a clear policy of only allowing any ebike on routes (including trails and roads) where motorized vehicles are allowed. Their reasoning and definitions behind that also need a little refinement if they intend on that applying to all forms of ebikes that are currently on the market.
RCR board members do not have access to all the agreements that the city has made such as conservation and trails easements or even the strings attached that come with grant moneys that the city has used to build some of the trails in the area. Until those documents are reviewed, it is a waste of volunteer time to take a stance on the where they should be allowed.
So far, it appears that the state level is giving local governments the ability to opt in on trails and opt out on sidewalks. That does not only pertain to ebikes but also more traditional bicycles.
I would welcome the reasoning behind your cut-and-dry view of the issue whether it is posted here, emailed to email@example.com or discussed in person at any upcoming RCR or RCR Trails Committee meeting. RCR's monthly meetings are the first Monday of each month (sign up for a newsletter here to confirm time and location: http://routtcountyriders.org/) and the RCR Trails Committee meetings are typically the 1st and 3rd Wednesdays of the month. This month we are pushing the meeting off a week to 7/27/2016. Email firstname.lastname@example.org to keep informed on the time and location of those meetings.
Thanks for your interest in cycling in Routt County.
(Although I am board member of Routt County Riders my opinions are my own and may not be those shared by my fellow board members.)
I have found no place that Steamboat Springs defines a "motorized bicycle". CDOT defines a "motorized bicycle" as follows in the 2010 Model Traffic Code: ""Motorized bicycle" means a vehicle having two or three wheels, a cylinder capacity not exceeding 50 C.C., and an automatic transmission which produces a maximum design speed of not more than thirty miles per hour on a flat surface." That does not seem to fit an "electric assisted bicycle".
Steamboat Springs should have a public process through the Parks and Rec Commission discussing what the City can and cannot allow in regards to electric assisted bicycles (including why) and then let the public fill in any gaps that staff misses and help decide which way the public wants it to be regulated for any items that are grey areas or the state and federal point to local government to decide.
The actual cost spent on trail maintenance is not $1 per trail use. That is the $$ that would fund the endowment ($1-1.5 million) in approximately the next 8-10 years. After that, the interest on that contribution should fund ongoing trail maintenance indefinitely. This will reduce or maybe even eliminate the reliance on annual contributions to be spent as they are donated or budgeted.
Here is the history on the Accommodations Tax and ballot language that I have put together: http://www.steamboatspringstrails.com/the-proposal-overview . We have been told it is only for capital improvements.
Luckily, we have a significant number of trail users that enjoy the local trails. Contributions of only $1.00 per trail use by all non-motorized users for the next 10 years should sustain the trails indefinitely. Use trails about once a week? Write a $50 check at the end of the year. Even if you use the trails daily, that is just $365 for a whole year of significant trail enjoyment.
Scott B. Lets see the numbers going back to 1990, not just a sentence saying it is inaccurate. That would likely help the "Vote Yes" group. I don't value polls too much.
"they have no plan and no constructive ideas" Wow, no wonder people feel they were not listened to.
I'll look at the report in more detail when I have time. Thanks for pointing it out. Isn't the chance at 33% of the students walking or biking to the school better than 0%? Not to mention the extra time and distance for those kids who do get driven from out of city limits on either side of town? I find it hard to believe that having all our elementary schools so close to each other is a smart move. Again, I'll look into it more when I find time. I am sure another article will pop up before the vote.
Thanks for helping clear that up Kevin. I don't like the contrast in time spent vetting the two different proposed projects either. Especially when you look at the difference in capital investment.
Designing to Snow Load is a given. It is easy to mess up roof design that increase the chance at ice dams that could reduce the life of the roof or cause leaks on year one. Michael has a very valid concern. Keep it simple.
Last login: Wednesday, July 27, 2016
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2016 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.
Tablet version |