For years, cyclists have used a dirt road at Boulder Reservoir as a key east-west connection around the lake. Then, one day in June, the city placed a rock in the middle of it.
A few weeks later, the city replaced it with a larger one — a boulder — and posted a sign explaining that it was restricting access because the route is a dam maintenance road, “not an official trail.”
The boulder sits next to an existing gate blocking the road to cars. Cyclists can still ride around it through a narrow opening.
According to the city’s posted notice, cyclists entering from the east often ride into the boat trailer parking lots at high speed, creating safety issues for themselves, boaters and motorists. The notice also cites increased use by “large groups of cyclists arriving simultaneously and a notable increase in e-bikes.” City spokesperson Kate Hernandez said officials have observed “near-conflicts” in the area.
The city also argues that the route creates an equity issue because cyclists entering from the east bypass the reservoir entrance fee while still using facilities such as roads, restrooms and water access. According to the notice, that places an “unfair burden on paying visitors.”
In a July 7 blog post, Boulder Mountainbike Alliance Executive Director Wendy Sweet rejected the city’s description of the route as “not an official trail,” while saying the organization supports addressing safety concerns and unauthorized access to reservoir amenities.
“For many years, people have used this corridor to travel safely through northeast Boulder. It’s shown on official City trail maps, including the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, as part of the broader trail system, and for nearly all riders it’s simply a regional connection, not a destination,” she wrote.
The route also appears as a multi-use trail on the city’s GreenStreets and Open Space and Mountain Parks maps.
Later, in response to questions from Boulder Reporting Lab, Hernandez acknowledged that the route is a multi-use trail and said the city is updating the signage “to reflect that this is a multi-use trail, and bike access is not forbidden.”
Mike Dee, executive director of the Coalition for Cyclists (C4C), which advocates for safer cycling, said the route has become increasingly popular with both recreational riders and commuters as gravel biking has grown in popularity.
“It’s an important connector point,” he said. “The fact that the [city] is making a move here is a testament to how much it’s used.”
Sweet and Dee said the city should address its safety concerns without disrupting an important regional connection. But they also said the city’s initial messaging left them unsure whether cyclists were still permitted to use the route. The posted sign referred to “restricted access” and said the road “is not intended or designed for public recreational use.”
Hernandez said that was never the city’s intent. She said access is not being restricted and that, for now, the city is simply asking cyclists to ride slowly and single file through the intersection for safety while it updates the signage.
Dee emphasized the need for communication with the cycling community going forward.
“I think what matters is that we have a conversation about it,” he said.
Sweet and Dee are scheduled to meet next week with Boulder Reservoir Recreation Manager Stacy Cole, who said in an email that she welcomed the opportunity to discuss the issue.
Hernandez said the city doesn’t typically conduct community outreach before implementing safety measures. “However, we could have done a better job of informing [the public] and appreciate the opportunity to lessen the confusion,” she told Boulder Reporting Lab.
The city indicated the boulder is the first step in a broader set of planned changes at the intersection.
Hernandez said the city is improving signage to make its request for slow, single-file travel clearer and is also considering adding pavement markings.
“The long-term goal is a separate path that supports folks moving around or through the Boulder Reservoir recreation area,” she said. That plan is currently unfunded.
Cyclists react
On a July 6 Facebook post by the Boulder Mountainbike Alliance about the new boulder, more than 80 comments ranged from amusement to anger.
One commenter suggested moving the boulder. Another said she had already ignored the posted notice.
“Too many words,” she wrote. “I rode right by it on Saturday.”
Others questioned how the new restriction squared with the city’s goals of building a safe walk and bike network.
“I’ve used this as a quick way to go from Gunbarrel to Boulder without getting near speeding cars that use the dirt roads,” one person wrote. Another said she used the trail to commute from Niwot.
Most commenters voiced skepticism about the necessity of the boulder.
One person said they had run and ridden the trail for 30 years and “never seen a vehicle towing a boat coming or going.”
“You want cyclists to pay for using a 1/2 mile dirt road?” he wrote.
Timeline: How the Boulder Reservoir boulder got there
- Early June: Rock appears on the dirt road used by cyclists east of Boulder Reservoir.
- June 13: The Ironman Boulder takes place.
- June 15: The rock disappears.
- June 17: The rock reappears.
- June 17: A Boulder Mountainbike Alliance bike patroller asks the city’s volunteer manager why the rock is there.
- June 18: The volunteer manager asks a ranger supervisor.
- June 22: The ranger supervisor asks Boulder Reservoir recreation management.
- June 24: Boulder Reservoir recreation management says the rock was placed to discourage cyclists from using the route.
- Late June: The city replaces the rock with a larger boulder and adds a sign explaining the restriction.
- July 16: Cycling advocates and city officials are scheduled to meet to discuss the Boulder Reservoir boulder.
Too many Boulders.
Or too many seagulls?
Lynn, you are great and I like your comment…..but your neighbor couldn’t resist ….
Carl
I’ll cut you some slack this time!
If it were motorcyclists or anywhere with real freedom, a patriot would’ve already dragged that thing away with their hemi..
Meanwhile, every report about a cyclist killed on the road is accompanied by a dozen comments blaming them for being on a road when there are “so many” non-vehicular path options.
I would like to know exactly who made the decision to place this boulder and under what authorization. I really wish BRL had posted the verbatim text of the message posted – because it is clearly intended as a cycling ban on the route.
I would also like to point out how totally unnecessary the boulder – which makes it extremely challenging to fit a bike through – is for the states purpose. That particular exit is already extremely narrow and rutted. The dam road is quite bumpy and not all that conducive to speed. And when you exit from the dam road to the pavement of the res parking – it’s on an uphill. No cyclist is “flying” through there.
There is no legitimate safety concern here. This is yet another thinly veiled attack on cycling access in Boulder.
Hi Art, I overestimated how easy the text of the notice would be to read in the photo we included. See if you can read it here: https://boulderreportinglab.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/image2.jpg
It idea is that it’s not a bike route and they don’t want you riding a bike there. Why is this hard to understand? They own the land so they did it with their own authority.
Eric, did you read the article? That’s not how management of city property works.
I agree. Many Colorado cities have lost their minds in making to many decisions without citizens inputs or consent about changes they just decide to put in place. Is this just less representation or is it their present socialistic attitudes?
now that’s just dumb (and immature)
This is infuriating and smacks of a decision made by a single city employee or small group of city employees who are anti-bike. I ride this trail weekly and have NEVER seen any conflicts between cyclists and anyone else. The public deserves to know WHO made this decision, who chose the language on the sign and who put the small boulder the size of a large boulder across a well used portion of a trail (super dangerous).
So many issues with how this was implemented, and the poor-to-nonexistent communication around it. It seems like the city representatives interviewed here are trying to cover up for an unsanctioned decision by someone at the reservoir (as evidenced by the weird paper sign posted without letterhead, logos, or a signature).
I am one of those cyclists who uses this on the regular to connect from the LoBo path to 51st. Yes, I could go around Coot lake instead, but find this connection more pleasant for everyone — Coot lake often has many dogs off leash (allowed, of course!) and many more pedestrians who tend to walk in groups across the entire width of the path. I’ve been riding this reservoir connection for decades and I, too, have rarely, if ever, encoutered anyone moving their boat while I’m there.
What size is the boulder?
It’s the size of a Boulder
How ironic that a rock would be a significant obstacle to “mountain” bikers or anyone strong enough to just pick up a bicycle.
I’ve ridden that path dozens of times. I’ve never sought water access nor have I stopped to use a restroom. I’ve rarely seen more than a few pedestrians or cyclists unless there’s a race or some other event going on.
Welcome to the world of dealing with Boulder Reservoir – they seem to go out of their way to turn the Reservoir into a revenue source (they view it like an indoor rec center), discourage public use without paying a burdensome amount and squandering access to a superb outdoor space. I have been rowing on the reservoir for more than 25 years and ever year it gets more expensive and more restrictive. I have had so many ‘conversations’ I have lost count. They have nearly put all of the rowing clubs out of business. I do not doubt that the boulder was put there to discourage bicyclists from using the facility without paying (from the NE), plain and simple. I have never seen a safety issue myself. Next will they stop runners and hikers from using the dam path by installing monitored gates on the north side? I wish someone in the city who makes decisions would have the user perspective. They really don’t listen.
This was a shameful act by Boulder Reservoir Management that’s short-sighted and unnecessary. Bikes have never been a major issue there. Stop making mountains out of molehills and be good community members!
They want answers? But they ignore the one sign with answers?
An Update: I just rode the Reservoir and either today or yesterday, the boulder was moved and signage removed.
I rode through that point on a mountain bike recently and noted how odd it was that it was blocked off. I don’t know why the city is spending money just making life annoying for people. I understand that they think there’s a safety concern but blocking off access with a Boulder does not seem like an ideal way to address it. I thought we wanted to make Viking easier and more convenient in Boulder. This seems like a move in the opposite direction.
Keep this example in mind as to the mindset of upper City management and their priorities. When November arrives and the City again asks residents for more of our tax dollars to waste on their pet projects instead of using our funds wisely. Vote NO on any tax increase.
The pathetic part is the way they went about doing it. They actually created a safety hazard after so many years of through passage by that gate all of a sudden a big boulder is put there, if somebody’s not paying attention or if the light is just right they could plow right into that boulder!! So irresponsible and reckless!
I’m interested in the evolving culture of mountain biking, its interface with conservation (or not) and the “New Boulder”. Let’s hope the biker’s comment about the safety sign “too many words, I rode right by it” isn’t indicative. Regardless, it’s a keeper! Wear your helmet folks.
I think the “city” screwed up, and now they’re tapdancing by being noncommital to anything. It’s like saying “everything is the same but different”.