A new Boulder County pilot program to test alternating trail use on multi-use trails is facing pushback from local mountain bikers, who say the effort is rushed and could limit access without clear evidence of a problem.
The proposed program would experiment with restricting certain activities — such as hiking, biking or horseback riding — to specific days or times on selected trails. County officials say the goal is to test whether alternating use can reduce user conflict, improve safety, enhance visitor experience and limit the spread of invasive weeds.
But members of the mountain biking community argue there are more effective ways to address those concerns without reducing trail access.
“The mountain bike community is confused and puzzled about where this is coming from and why groups were not brought in earlier to discuss,” said Wendy Sweet, executive director of the 35-year-old Boulder Mountainbike Alliance.
“There’s so many trails that are not open to bikes, and there’s not any trails that are open to bikes only,” she said. “So if there’s any change in which bikes lose access, even for one day of the week, the community is not happy.”
The pilot stems from direction given by all three Boulder County commissioners in late 2025 to explore alternating trail use. The approach is currently used only at Betasso Preserve, where biking is not allowed on Wednesdays and Saturdays.
County data shows reported conflict is relatively rare. About 4% of surveyed trail users said they had experienced conflict, with similar rates on trails with or without alternating trail use, well below a benchmark cited by county staff.
In a memo to commissioners, county staff noted that Colorado State University professor Jerry J. Vaske, who studies recreation conflict and human behavior on public lands, recommends implementing alternating trail use when more than 25% of respondents report interpersonal conflict.
The Boulder Mountainbike Alliance says the county has overlooked other design strategies to limit trail conflict, like parallel routes or designating a mix of trail types, and has not engaged volunteer groups like the Boulder Mountain Bike Patrol, a group of patrollers within BMA that promotes responsible riding.
Boulder County Parks and Open Space spokesperson Summer Alameel said conflict is only one factor the county is considering. The pilot may also explore broader questions, including why some people choose not to use the trails, concerns about crowding and how Boulder County’s practices align with neighboring jurisdictions.
Commissioner Claire Levy said she told staff she is interested in whether a pilot could make some trails feel more accessible to hikers, particularly at Heil Valley Ranch.
“That was the open space property that I focused on, because that’s the one where people have said, ‘I feel like I cannot go and hike there on weekends,’” she said. “My intention was that we would only do this one, not that we would do it on multiple properties.”
A March memo from parks staff outlined a potential pilot at Heil Valley Ranch, including hiking-only days on the Wapiti Trail, though county officials say no final decisions have been made.
Key details of the pilot, including which trails will be included and which activities might be restricted, remain undecided. Boulder County manages 116 miles of multi-use trails. Trails under consideration include Heil Valley Ranch, Hall Ranch and Walker Ranch, as well as a possible expansion at Betasso Preserve.
“Rather than conceptualizing a pilot and soliciting feedback after implementation, Boulder County has asked the community to provide their thoughts on what a pilot should entail,” Alameel said.
Staff expect to finalize details before July and run the pilot through the end of 2026. They are still seeking feedback on how to measure success, including changes in trail conflict, crowding and community satisfaction. At the end of the year, commissioners will decide whether to make the approach permanent.
The county is gathering public input through an online survey open until May 19 and two open houses.
Levy said it is still possible the pilot will not move forward.
“The community should weigh in,” she said. “Do you want us to try this out, or do you not want us to try it out?”
Questions about the process
Beyond concerns about access, some community members have questioned how the pilot was developed and announced.
Sweet said the Boulder Mountainbike Alliance was not consulted before the county moved forward, and she questioned why the proposal was not brought before the Parks and Open Space Advisory Committee, which typically reviews changes to open space management.
Direction from county commissioners to pursue the pilot occurred at two administrative meetings that did not allow public comment. Alameel said the pilot was not a significant enough change to require POSAC’s review.
“A pilot is not a management plan or a policy update,” she said. “Its purpose is simply to gather general information, not to make permanent changes to any existing plans.”
Sweet noted that a 2019 pilot allowing e-bikes on some trails involved a more extensive public process, including multiple presentations to the advisory committee and a formal vote by commissioners.
The timing has also raised questions, she said, given that the advisory committee did not meet for several months during a period of other open space debates, according to Boulder Reporting Lab reporting.
Since learning about the pilot earlier this year, mountain bikers have mobilized in opposition to the pilot. Sweet said many attendees at a recent commissioners’ townhall in Nederland April 21 came specifically to raise concerns.
“People are saying, ‘I ride or hike or run on X trail all the time, and I’m not seeing issues,’” Sweet said. “’What are they talking about?’”
With our population allowed to grow without increasing the infrastructure including recreation, we need to learn to live together and share simultaneously. This would be one more reduction in recreation activity behind closing the boulder rec center and YMCA in Longmont and impossible to get into Rocky mountain without a permit and reservation and reservations at horse tooth or brainerd are very difficult to get even 6 months in advance.
I both hike and bike and I have never seen an issue. Some people just have a hard time sharing. I believe I’ve never run into a biker that caused any issues.
I run on Betasso and Walker Ranch a decent amount. I feel bad every time a mountain biker needs to stop because of me (and other hikers/runners), it doesn’t seem fun for them. I would gladly give up some days as biker-only if it meant gaining some days that are non-biker-only. It seems like everyone wins in that situation.
That’s the thing – no one really likes it. It’s not like cyclists enjoy stopping every 20 yards when it’s busy either, but we kind of just accept it and move on as efficiently as we can. But for some reason hikers having most open space to themselves (where cyclists are already disallowed), is seen as inadequate because someone really just has to hike at Betasso on a Sunday. Well, sorry, I’d like to mountain bike on the Mesa Trail, but I don’t get to enjoy that either because hikers and runners decided they’d prefer I didn’t. But there is literally not a single trail that I can enjoy as a cyclist without hikers or runners, and their dogs. Not one. Newsflash: I don’t like your dog, and don’t like having to look at dog poop being left around on trail. But I’m not a jerk, so I pretend I like getting smelled and jumped on (it’s obnoxious), but I’m not out here trying to get all the dogs kicked off trails. Given the popularity of mountain biking and how important it is to people, I’m frankly a little tired of pretending like their use gets to be treated as more important than mine just because “they” say so, and are old and grumpy. There’s plenty of hiker only trails. Go use those if you have to have no bikes. Leave the few trails mountain bikers can actually use alone.
Excellent articulation of the truths of the matter. The proposal ramps up the already flagrant discrimination against a single class of trail user. And the hypocrisy stings because mountain bikers and mountain biking organizations do more to build and maintain trails than any other user group.
I’m a returning resident to Boulder. I’m on trails as both a walker and cyclist and this issue reminds me of a quote from Gandhi that I’ll paraphrase: “Communities that attend t their responsibilities, don’t need to worry about their rights”. A little bit of consideration about not pushing a hiker off the trail just to get a better time on Strava. Regulations get made when we fail to pay attention to basic courtesy.
I’ve witnessed multiple incidents of cyclists behaving badly on open space trails, including near misses with hitting older hikers and spooking horses, creating dangerous situations for everyone near. Being unidentifiable protects them from being held accountable. I think the pilot program is a great idea! Contrary to their belief, cyclists do not have more rights to recreation here than everyone else.
You’re right Jack, cyclists do not have more or less rights… That is exactly why this program that removes trail access for cyclists is one sided. How many trails currently are hiker only vs bike only… Please elaborate how the current system is giving cyclists “more rights” as you say. I would love to know more.
Hikers have plenty of recreation opportunities where bikes aren’t allowed. If you are an anti bike hiker type, go visit one of the MANY places that cyclists are currently, and always will be prohibited.
Instead of the county wasting tax dollars on this program, they could build new trails as a way to better serve different user groups and reduce this “conflict” they speak of but have absolutely no data (other than that only 4% of surveyed users have ever seen a conflict) to support.
Perhaps it’s “one-sided” because a hiker has never physically threatened a biker by acting crazy on trails that are shared by both groups. If one group is allowed to continue dangerous behavior unchecked, that “right” should be reined in so everyone can enjoy the trails without putting themselves in danger from those few who feel their freedom is paramount. Hiking was the reason trails were built in the first place. But, yeah, more parallel trails would make sense. Maybe the mountain bike/e-bike users could rally to help build them.
Roxanne, mountain bikers are lined up waiting for the opportunity to build bike only, directional trails in Boulder County. That however, will never happen because the County Commissioners are very anti bike. Look at how other counties have optimized their trails (Jeffco, Clear Creek) in order to give both hikers and bikers places to recreate.
I’ve seen plenty of hikers mad that bikers exist at Betasso on a Sunday. I’ve had multiple encounters with hikers refusing to share trails with bikers. Yes, bikers must yield and not hit hikers and be patient, but some hikers refuse to let bikes pass them even if there is plenty of room for everyone to pass safely.
I’ve just seen too much dangerous behavior coming from cyclists over the last 30 years. I’m a hiker as well as an equestrian and I also enjoy riding my mountain bike. If cyclists could be identified and ticketed for endangering others, that would probably help. Lastly, we all pay taxes for bike lanes that are only used by cyclists, but you might prefer that subject for a different conversation.
One-way trails is another way to reduce conflict. My fear is that when I’m riding up approaching a blind turn a cyclist will come down at high speed. One-way trails eliminate this conflict. That leaves conflict between pedestrians and cyclists but at least the pedestrians will feel safe on half the loop (the half that’s uphill for the cyclists) and know which direction cyclists will come from on the downhill half.
Agreed, a great example on how thoughtful trail design can lead to less conflict and more enjoyable experience for everyone!
“Contrary to their belief, cyclists do not have more rights to recreation here than everyone else.” states one commenter here, but there’s no trails in Boulder County that allow cycling and don’t allow hiking or equestrian. There are, however, many trails that don’t allow bikes. Bikers already have reduced access to recreation opportunities causing crowding at the current areas.
The “alternating use” at Betasso is not alternating use at all – it’s simply a ban on bikes on 2 days. There’s no equal days allowing only bikers and not hikers. Implementing alternating use requires it to be equitable and based off how it is in place at Betasso, it’s hard to trust that it won’t simply limit bike access while retaining the same access for hikers.
Boulder has amazing hiking, but the bureaucracy here means there has been extremely slow expansion of trails as population has increased, resulting in the crowding now. Limiting access does not fix crowding. Crowding and congestion cause conflict.
I am an older hiker and I have never had a bicyclist yield to me on a trail. And, I am surprised that e-bikes are allowed on any trails. Alternating day trail use sounds like a good idea to me, on trails where bikes are allowed. What would Thoreau say?
I’m sorry, but unless you’ve only hiked once and had some bad luck, that is absolutely not true. Boulder cyclists are over the top courteous and yield to hikers, dog walkers, runners all the time. I walk my dog every day on a bikes-allowed trail every day and they yield and are very nice and respectful. And the mtn bike community has been behind (including countless volunteer hours) many of the new and improved multi use trails within OSMP. Boulder is a cycling town, has been forever – the city and county should respect and embrace this culture.
I don’t mean this as a rebuttal at all, but just a window into the experience from the bike side. It seems like the vast majority of hikers prefer to step off the trail when bikers are approaching. I try to be hyper vigilant about trail etiquette, but almost invariably hikers will wave bikers through. Of course I can, and do, pull off well before getting to the hiker but most of the time that just results in both of us standing still and then the hiker telling me to ride through. As a result I often end up riding towards hikers at a slow pace to try to read the situation and make a call.
This isn’t a complaint at all, I think it’s indicative of generous behavior on the part of hikers. Just saying that many of us who ride these trails a lot are sort of conditioned to roll through because most hikers don’t actually want/take the right of way. I’d actually say I get the feeling some hikers are annoyed when I pull over rather than just rolling through.
As someone who has literally been yelled at by fast bikers to get out of the way I support all opportunities to restrict them and promote quiet, contemplative uses. They are also ridiculously hard on the land and habitat with illegal trail building, off trail jumps and side hilling ever increasing. I’ve observed age 20 something Mt. Bike Camp counselors leading kids in all of these rogue activities including racing past private property No Trespassing signs. Their aggressive, petulant, can’t take no for an answer culture is catching up with them. We get that an expensive, high end bike industry is supporting their activism (here come E bikes) but they do not speak for all of us. In many ways they are just another unsustainable public land extractive use.
Patricia, I wonder if this is a case of polite miscommunication. If you step off the trail far in advance, most bikers read that as a clear signal to keep going. In my experience, it’s a bit of a paradox: I always proactively stop to yield, but 80% of hikers actually insist I keep rolling because it’s easier for them to pause than for a biker to restart on a climb. It’s also a long wait for a biker to stop very far back and wait for the hiker to eventually make it there so I wonder if it could be a good idea for hikers and bikers to come together and see what distance would feel comfortable for older people to trust that yes, the biker is stopping.
Since Heil is one of the very few technical uphill challenges open for bikes near Boulder (and bikes have been part of the plan there for 30 years), maybe we can look at this as a need for better communication rather than closing the trail to bikes 30-50% of the week, which will crowd other, more boring and fast trails. When I want a bike-free experience, I’m so grateful for the hiker-only trails at Hall and Heil! OR, honestly the 100s of miles of exceptional hiker-only trails throughout Boulder.
To Hemlock: I have experienced that at Betasso by one man in his 30s one time, except he didn’t yell. However, I think that demonizing an entire group for HIS behavior is not cool. We all pay for the open space and there is very little of it open to bikes. However, you literally have 100s of miles of no-bike trails. I am personally a quiet person who loves nature who has to be careful with my feet and knees. Mountain biking has been a godsend to me. Please let us have the few trails we do and share with us. Why should everything be for you? The amount of times I have gone to Heil and no one is there, is large. Check out the County’s website for off-peak times. I also bike Heil frequently and there are zero illegal jumps or things built by citizens. So, your comment is actually untrue. Maybe you are talking about some other county or state or missed the 100s of bike-free trails available to only hikers and equestrians. I do all of the activities responsibly and have lived in Boulder for 22 years and enjoy the typical good vibes I encounter. No one likes the small percentage of Hikers (yes) or bikers who aren’t friendly and respectful.
Spot on. I’ve enjoyed hiking, mtn biking and 4 wheel off-road in Boulder county for past 3 months in some form almost every day. Returned after 20 years in mid-west. I am so grateful to have access to mountain nature again, and respectful people trying to enjoy and take care of it. I haven’t had a bad encounter yet in any form. Maybe I’ve been lucky since it isn’t busy yet. Access is such a gift and should be open for responsible and sustainable use by all including those that are not able bodied.
We can share and enjoy no matter what form we choose to access, and finding equitable and responsible ways to do that should be the goal, rather than an us vs. them or “only my mode” attitude.
Not consulting affected communities, and the public prior to the proposal is an unfortunate miss, and elected officials should try to do better. They represent us all, not just those they choose to listen to or seek input from in administrative or public forums. The different days and parallel trails ideas are good suggestions that could have been explored on the record, instead of people having to post comments through Boulder Reporting Lab to hopefully be heard by them. Thankfully BRL exists and Brooke Stephenson brought this to the public’s attention with reporting to spark awareness and constructive conversation.
4% of users reported conflict? Doesn’t seem so bad for a bunch of Boulderites! What’s the conflict rate in the Whole Foods parking lot? At least a quarter of us are so internally conflicted about our virtue signaling, we don’t know if we should sell our Tesla or just get a sticker letting folks know we don’t like Elon.
Seriously, one way travel direction would cut human interaction by loads. Bikers are not going to rear-end hikers. Hikers aren’t really much more than half as slow as the average mountain biker. I think if it was suggested, not required, that hikers go the same direction as two-wheelers, and in doing so, reduce their interactions, it would reduce the 4% conflict rate even more
Either way, mountain bikers need more access not less. It’s Public. If you can’t get along with folks, enjoying the outdoors in a slightly different way than you’re enjoying it, you’re the one with the problem.
Ya know, most trails in Boulder are ALREADY off limits to cyclists, and essentially reserved for the exclusive use of runners and hikers. You don’t HAVE to decide to hike on the few trails that are accessible to cyclists on a Saturday morning. When mountain biking, I actually don’t have much of a choice except to make busy the like 4 trails that allow mountain biking. We could just build more trails if there’s increased demand and use, instead of making sure to close down yet more resources people use for recreating.
Hiker and biker here.
4 our of 100 (4%) is an incredibly low percentage of people to complain about anything. Of those 4 people, 3 will probably be unhappy regardless of the outcome, so that leaves one person with a potentially legitimate concern. So the County is catering to the 1%. Sounds about right.
Part of the issue is hikers are entitled, feeble minded and bodied and want to take up the entire trail rather than yield a foot of space for someone to go around them….really symptomatic of the entire yuppie overprileveged condescending appeal that boulder has. Karen’s abound on every trail that think you’re about to steal their depends if you simply approach near them on their sad boomer bird watch or whatever their doing clogging up useful public space and complaining about
Between 2017 and 2020, when I lived in Boulder, I had numerous conflicts with hikers on Betasso when I’d MTB there. I never had a problem with the Wednesday and Saturday closure, and all of my issues with folks on the trail happened on perfectly acceptable biking days. It was always incredibly frustrating because the hikers literally have 2 days set aside every week to avoid run ins with MTB’ers. For the record, it is a problem spread far and wide, because I’ve had conflicts with hikers in Evergreen and even on the designated single track complex in Black Hawk. I just figured hikers get all mad cause they’ll never be cooler than the boys and girls on bikes. The only reason they only saw 4% probably was they didn’t poll many folks from the MTB crowd…
The only way this makes any sense at all is if you’re planning on opening more trails to mountain biking. Otherwise access for mountain bikers is already incredibly limited and I’m afraid this is just a convenient way to limit mountain biking even further.
Direct result of people who don’t ride bikes (county commissioners) thinking there is no harm in E bikes and allowing them in open space. E Bikes should not be allowed…. going to happen to a lot of our trails.
I am in favor of limiting trail use. I ride horses and have been harassed many times!
I am a cyclist and have been riding local trails for 20 years. I announce myself, pass safely, and yield or pull over for other trail users. I have had more conflicts than I can count, most from non-cyclists. It’s possible that it’s worse because I’m female, but I doubt it. There just seems to be a lot of trail users waiting to unleash their rage.
Following are just a few examples of what cyclists endure when they are doing the right things. During one ride, as I stopped and pulled to the side for a group of equestrians, one of them pointed a gun at me and shouted obscenities. Another time, also while yielding to equestrians, that group took the opportunity of me being stationery and ground level to throw rocks, hitting me in the face and head. Apparently they had rocks with them for this type of opportunity? A third example was when I stopped 20 yards from a hiker with two dogs to announce myself. She was stopped at a cattle gate on the trail and I needed to pass through safely. I could see that she had two unleashed dogs in a leash-only area, and both were barking and growling. As soon as I tried to communicate, she told both dogs to go and “get” me. Since I was stopped, I was an easy target and was bitten badly. I called the local OSMP ranger to report the incident and then endured 20 minutes of the ranger telling me how much they loooved cattle dogs and how amazing they were.
Don’t assume that all cyclists are jerks on the trail, and don’t assume that all hikers and equestrians are treated badly. It is often the other way around.
I live near these trails and want to raise a perspective that hasn’t come up in this discussion: hikers with dogs. In my experience, most of the hikers I encounter on Wednesdays and Saturdays (the no-bike days) are there with their dogs, and the current schedule matters a great deal to them.
My concern isn’t just about yielding to bikes when they pass. It’s the constant readiness to do so that wears on you. That low-level alertness that makes it hard to simply enjoy a walk. If this alternating-day policy is removed, I won’t be using these trails anymore.
If this pilot truly alternated between mountain biking and hiking, (two days a week hikers were not allowed on the trails and two days a week no mountain bikes were allowed on the trails) I could support this plan. If this pilot replicates Betasso Reserves plan, which is not alternating, this is just another ploy to suppress mechanized recreation on our public trail systems. Ex: no motorized single track in Boulder County
If this pilot moves forward banning mountain bikes several days a week at Heil Ranch, this will only increase animosity between mountain bikers and hikers.