This commentary is by Rex Madden, co-founder of Greater Nederland Area Riders (GNAR), a mountain bike advocacy nonprofit based in Nederland.
A recent opinion piece published in Boulder Reporting Lab argues that Boulder County’s alternating trail-use pilot can balance safety, access and conservation. But the argument is largely unsupported by the evidence and, in several key respects, contradicted by the county’s own data and statements from county officials. At its core, the proposal reads like a thinly veiled argument for excluding one user group from public land based on the preferences of another.
Boulder County Parks and Open Space’s own documentation defines trail conflicts as “values conflicts,” instances where visitors interfere with one another’s goals or preferences, not safety incidents. The systemwide conflict rate is 4%.
I asked Chief Park Ranger Bevin Carithers at the May trail-use pilot open house whether the county has recorded data on collisions or accidents between mountain bikers and hikers. He acknowledged that no such data exists to substantiate a safety concern.
What we have, then, is a 4% rate of reported preference-based discomfort. Designing a major access policy around that is a disproportionate response to a preference issue, not a documented safety problem.
The opinion also repeatedly refers to these properties as “hiking trails.” They are designated multi-use trails. That distinction is not semantic.
Calling them hiking trails implies a hierarchy of ownership that does not exist in the designation and frames mountain bikers as guests rather than equal members of the user community these trails were built to serve. That framing reflects the very philosophy this pilot would institutionalize.
On the ecological argument, the opinion piece cites no studies and references no site-specific data for Heil Valley Ranch, Hall Ranch or Betasso Preserve. The broader scientific literature also does not support the hierarchy being implied.
A 2003 study by researchers Audrey R. Taylor and Richard L. Knight of Colorado State University found wildlife exhibited statistically similar responses to hikers and mountain bikers, with no biological justification for managing mountain biking differently than hiking. Two additional studies — one by Swiss researchers Hans Gander and Paul Ingold in 1997, and another led by Christopher Papouchis in 2001 — found mountain bikers caused less wildlife disturbance than hikers.
Research on bald eagles found they were most likely to flush when recreationists stopped to observe them and were less alarmed when cyclists passed quickly at constant speed.
The Sierra Club has published findings that hiking often disturbed wildlife more than motorized recreation, because animals interpret a silent approach as predatory. Taylor and Knight also found wildlife reacted more strongly to off-trail users than trail users, supporting the argument that purpose-built trails reduce ecological disturbance compared to the unsanctioned proliferation that results from inadequate sanctioned infrastructure.
The conservation argument used to justify restrictions also helped create the very problem it now claims to solve.
The proliferation of unsanctioned trails across Boulder County is evidence that sanctioned infrastructure has failed to meet legitimate demand, not that mountain bikers are bad actors. The conservation case for building more trails is stronger than the conservation case for restricting the ones we have.
A department that does not update its approach to reflect changing populations, changing recreation patterns and evolving best practices is not conserving anything. It is preserving institutional inertia.
Boulder County Commissioner Claire Levy’s constituent newsletter states the purpose of this proposal is to “better support hikers and horseback riders,” not to reduce conflict or improve safety, but explicitly to benefit other user groups at mountain bikers’ expense.
Levy also recently told 9News that Boulder County Parks and Open Space acquires land primarily for conservation, not recreational use. If that is official policy, the public deserves clarity about it, because voters have long been voting to fund open space taxes under a different assumption.
It is also a choice, not a necessity.
The county could acquire land with recreational development as an explicit goal. It could identify areas within its existing 100,000 acres suitable for purpose-built trails. It could partner with volunteer organizations ready to plan and build. These are decisions the county is refusing to make.
Trail designer Joshua Rebennack, who works nationally on shared-use trail systems, submitted a detailed letter to the commissioners this month documenting how similar conflicts have been addressed elsewhere through trail design and user-management techniques, not exclusion.
Shared singletrack operates successfully in New York City, Minneapolis, Pittsburgh and Duluth without restricting any user group.
Meanwhile, the world’s largest bicycle manufacturer just signed a lease to move its U.S. headquarters to Boulder. IMBA, PeopleForBikes, Pearl Izumi and Outside Inc. are all here, alongside many other smaller cycling-related businesses.
Boulder County has been chosen by the cycling industry as its home. Yet the county’s open space department continues to restrict the trails that helped build that reputation, with no plan to create meaningful alternatives.
Mountain bikers are not asking for special treatment. We are asking to be treated as the equal constituents we are, on land we funded, managed by a department that should be serving all of us.
The pilot is not balance. It is a policy choice made on behalf of one group’s preferences, dressed in the language of conservation, by an institution that has not meaningfully updated its philosophy in decades.
It’s refreshing to see some data spoken of, as the other editorial was pretty devoid of that.
One especially underhanded aspect of the PR surrounding this has labeled the project “alternating use”, which would indicate that there would be days for hikers and equestrians only and days for bikers only. The proposal actually bans bikes on certain days, and keeps hiker/horse access through all days.
Let’s make it a true alternating schedule. Hikers and Horses every other day and mountain bikers the other. AND on the days mountain bikers can’t use the trails at Heil, Hall and Betaso they can use the hundreds of miles of trails that currently exclude bikes all to themselves. I’ve hiked some of these anti-bike trails and imagine myself shredding down them thinking it would be much more fun than what I am currently doing.
The primary problem with bicyclists on any of the trails within Boulder County’s trail system exists because of the cyclists who treat the trails as race tracks with little regard for the hikers. It’s difficult to enjoy the natural beauty on the “hiking trails” when it is always necessary to be on the alert of “racers” barreling around the corner. Another major irritant for individuals in search of peace and solitude is when cyclists arrive in groups and refuse to cycle single file, forcing hikers into the weeds to avoid being injured.
There are plenty of trails where bikes, and even dogs aren’t allowed. The county has already set aside restricted spaces for your enjoyment of nature and quiet. Why can’t the rest of us have a little space?
Hey Rick,
I get it. Some cyclists are jerks. They’re clearly chasing their PR on Strava. However even sharing that sentiment. I still think we could handle this differently.
Would increased signage at the trailheads, and parking lots reminding cyclists of the need to slow down at blind turns, and pedestrian right of way help?
I think before the county made a choice they should have asked all of us what we want. Right now it feels like they made up their mind and want us to pick sides.
But there is a middle ground. More biking volunteers advocating to younger cyclists to share the paths politely. Rather than continue full speed shouting on your left. Maybe slow down to a crawl and gently say on your left. Etc.
While I appreciate the county is taking concerns seriously I think there could have been a progression of small steps. If say increased education and outreach didn’t work and the same 4% conflict was still occurring then they could consider escalating.
Right now it feels like the county went from 0% to 100% with their escalation.
sounds like you support more trails and better trail management techniques! Thank you!
Let’s be clear that this shared use model exists in only a handful of trails in the county because that is all that is available to bikes. There is literally over 100 miles of hiker only trails in the county if one doesn’t like the shared use experience.
The opposite does not exist for bikers, they only have those few narrow shared use choices and zero bike only options..yet pay same taxes to purchase and maintain our open space.
Sure there are a few bad actors, on both sides. Let’s educate correct around that before creating further frustrating restrictions that will only lead to more.
Or make it TRULY alternating so bikers can enjoy a little speed without disrupting hikers. Problem solved.
4%. Only 4%. Not 10 or 30 or 50%. As a hiker, runner and mtn biker, I see plenty of rudeness when I am hiking or running from other hikers. Cyclists are much more courteous. One bad experience seems to expand into “every biker does this”.
I have been living in Boulder County since 1989 and am a multi-use open space visitor. I hike, walk my dogs, cross-country ski, and mountain bike on open space. I remember the decades of organization and effort it took for the mountain biking community to finally get access in 2013 to the open space we all pay for. You’re right. Boulder County and Boulder County Open Space management has a long, sordid history of discriminating against mountain biking. I agree that there is no merit in the Country’s misguided attempt to curb mountain bike access to public spaces. Now that the mountain biking and larger cycling industries have become so well established here and contribute so much financially to the acquisition and maintenance of our trail system by driving sales tax revenue, I find it short-sighted and offensive that the County would try to roll back access for riders. Cut the crap, Boulder County. More than any other user group, mountain bikers have repeatedly come to the table with proposals in hand to reduce conflict and minimize their impact. Mountain bikers have earned their seat at the table. Stop trying to revoke their access.
Many of us living in Boulder county cycle rather than hike due to physical limitation, and don’t want to get back on a horse high off the ground. Thank you for standing up for cyclists. Cycling remains my best avenue for maintaining my health.
This is an important point. The severe limitation of off-road cycling that Boulder has implemented places an artificial barrier to outdoor enjoyment of the outdoors for people with certain disabilities. It is explicit discrimination on the basis of ability.
I mountain bike much more frequently than hike. From personal experience, I believe that bike/hiker conflicts are underreported. Recently while biking at Betasso on a weekend, I very nearly hit a small child (standing off the trail next to his parents) who suddenly went into the middle of the trail to pick up a pine cone. (There were no limited sight distance issues). Imho, there are simply too many of all of us, and we’re loving our trails to death. I support alternating use days on weekends and holidays. My riding and hiking experience would be vastly improved. I also think that single track should be kept single! I see too many riders going off the trail to go around me – even though I’ve stopped at the edge of the trail and leaned my bike over to let them pass on the trail. I’d like to see more trails that are one-way only and signage to help educate riders as well.
Jane Ang – sounded like you support TRUE alternating days where some are bike only, correct? If so, that is not this proposal to be clear, this pilot would continue to allow 7 day access to hike traffic and not address the problem you raised.
Yes TRUE that. And I said as much on the survey. Thanks.
I always get stuck on that 4% stat and how people discuss it like it’s trivial. That’s 4 out of every 100 people which sounds like a lot to me. And there’s little doubt the interactions involving hikers feeling endangered is under reported. Most people aren’t going to file a complaint, they’ll just avoid the trail.
If safety is not that important, why do we even need bike lanes at all on our city streets? Why can’t e-bikes simply ride with cars and trucks in the same lanes? Yet, in Boulder the city insists on reducing Iris to a two lane road in order to provide bikers with maximum space – because safety.
Roxanne, thank you for engaging with this thoughtfully. You actually make my point better than I do.
The 4% figure is worth putting in context. Trail management organizations working in far more densely used systems across the country typically use around 20% as the threshold that warrants intervention. At 4%, Boulder County is well below what peer agencies consider a problem requiring major policy action. That does not mean the experience of feeling startled by a fast-moving bike is not real or valid. It absolutely is.
But here is where we agree completely: the answer is dedicated infrastructure, not restriction of shared space.
You cite Boulder’s bike lanes as evidence that safety matters. I agree entirely. But notice what the city did. When bikes and cars created conflict on shared roads, the city did not outlaw bikes or put them on alternating days. It built dedicated infrastructure so each user group could travel safely and comfortably. Imagine if instead of building bike lanes, the city had simply banned bikes from Iris on Tuesdays and Thursdays. Nobody would accept that as a solution.
That is exactly what I am advocating for on trails. Build dedicated bike infrastructure so mountain bikers have trails designed for their activity and hikers have trails designed for theirs. The conflict problem largely solves itself. What the county is proposing instead is the equivalent of banning bikes from Iris on alternating days and calling it progress.
We are on the same side here. The county just has not caught up yet.
The county is in deficit, though, so where will the money come from for new bike trails? In the example of the bike lanes on Iris, the city is not concerned with the safety or convenience of cars (clearly!), it is solely looking out for the safety of the bikers because they are the most vulnerable. Cars don’t need to be concerned about conflicts with bikers from a safety standpoint because they won’t get hurt. Similarly, hikers are vulnerable in the same way when confronted with speeding bikes hurdling around corners. But sure, dedicated infrastructure would work as long as it doesn’t create too much environmental damage
Re: the money — Cyclists are willing, able, and already do build and maintain the trails! They’re the one user group that regularly contributes to shared infrastructure on a volunteer basis. When Colorado P&W blocked the Eldo-Walker connector, they did so in spite of the fact that it was going to cost $0. It was purely to keep out the undesirables.
A car trying to avoid a cyclist can hit another car.
Roxanne – at least hikers have many many options if they wish to avoid one of the very few bike accessible trails that this proposal would discriminate against.
I’m not saying that’s what hikers should do, but as a biker and a hiker, when I hike I go to the 100+ miles of hike only trails. Bikers have no such option, in fact this pilot would inequitably impact the majority of the limited biking access in the county open space that does exist.
A significant portion of the 4% is biker to biker “conflict” (primarily annoyance or mistakes) and it would be great to do a pilot that used smart solutions. On the trails that allow dogs, the conflict is primarily about dogs. I think yes, there is plenty of unreported conflict/annoyance but it’s all groups. Like, the two different times an off-leash dog has run at me barking and nipped at me while on a hiking-only trail…I didn’t report. The surveys they did are a sample and are representative of the 96% happiness rate. People get crabby everywhere they share space with other humans. The more crowded, the more tension, usually. People don’t like sharing or waiting in line or being in traffic and get real angry and selfish. Closing one trail crowds others. Also yeah, not all hikers are great. I am not going to write in about every one of them who gives me the “stink eye” as I wait patiently for them to pass and not say hi or thanks or acknowledge my presence as I did my part. I am referencing a commenter on the other letter who is apparently unfriendly and getting that in return. I sometimes encounter people like her but most people are really nice. And yeah, how great is it when we don’t have to stop? But we aren’t advocating for getting hikers off of the single-track. Sharing is caring. I also run and hike.
I agree 100%. That seems to me a reasonable compromise.
Rick, you’re 100% correct. I’ve lived here for almost 40 years. I gave up hiking and horseback riding the Boulder open space trails years ago, after having too many safety incidents with cyclists. The last dangerous encounter left me flat on my back, my spooked horse standing near me with broken reigns. The cyclist had silently run up on the back of my horse, causing him to unexpectedly rear up as we crossed a wooden bridge. The cyclist did not even ask if I was ok, but did yell “f——- you”.
I didn’t report the incident because cyclists can’t be identified and therefore held accountable. If Boulder wants my “data” for this and other negative cyclist encounters I’ve had, feel free to get in touch.
Any data to add to this? That is a truly sad story when you consider the hundreds of miles of trails open to you to hike or ride a horse with no bikes allowed. Add this comment to the others in the “feelings not facts” pile.
You sound all up in your feelings here Nick.
And yet, I’m not using my feelings to try and discriminate against entire user groups, Roxanne.
Nick, this particular incident occurred on an open space trail close to my home. (This particular osmp area isn’t one being considered for the alternate days). I rarely loaded my horse in a trailer since I was able to easily ride him to a lovely nearby trail. At the time of this dangerous incident all trails were open to everyone. Not sure how my experience translates to you as “feelings not facts” but I assure you my account is factual.
Sounds like you were dealing with some shitty people, Jack. That is quite unfortunate. Unfortunately if we continue to insist that multi use trails are the solution we will have to learn to get along and share. Based on your experience it’s seems to me that we might be able to agree that a solution for everyone is actually a solution for no one. And just thinking about it a bit I’m sure the things you want for a pleasant horse ride are very different from what people on bikes or even hikers might prefer. It’s seems like you are in the position to benefit from some bike only infrastructure that would take some pressure off your local trails
I support more trails and more trail management, and I am a cyclist and a horseman. But, contrary to what one commentator here said, more signs, etc., won’t solve the issue of mountain bikers bombing down trails ignoring everyone else’s needs (including other cyclists’). It’s not the sharing that troubles me; it’s the rudeness. For horses, it’s scary and therefore dangerous for all concerned. For the elderly (me), it’s scary and dangerous.
I do think, that if the county imposes alt-days, it should be exactly that: days for cyclists only, then days for horses/hikers only. It would be more difficult for the county to enforce but a happier outcome for those on the trails.
Rex,
You do have points, but it also seems like you want what you want and others’ wants are lesser. Not the way to compromise.
Everything about mountain biking in Boulder county is a compromise. I don’t think asking for fair treatment is such a problem. Susan your comment sounds like you’re implying that we’re a bunch of entitled brats, whereas, I believe it’s quite the opposite, and the officials proposing these regulations are the ones trying to do something unreasonable when they already have the upper hand.
I also happens to be a fact that what I’m proposing will make the user experience for literally all users of these public lands better.
If only our public officials were so thoughtful, articulate and evidence driven as Rex Madden. Parks & Open Space’s alternating trail use pilot proposal hasn’t passed the smell test since its announcement. I am a hiker and not a mountain biker. I have well north of 100 regional hiking trails (ie within 60 minutes of my Longmont home) saved in All Trails. I am sure mountain bikers can’t make the same claim. Their opportunities to pursue their passion should not be restricted based on weak arguments and flimsy to no evidence.
If all bikers were respectful and responsible while on mixed use trails, this probably wouldn’t be an issue. Unfortunately, too many bikers (cyclists) don’t observe basic etiquette rules and treat the trails as “race tracks”.
Rick, by that logic we should ban cars because some drivers speed, restrict hiking because some hikers go off trail, and limit equestrian use because some horses are unpredictable. The behavior of a minority within any group has never been a legitimate justification for restricting the entire group’s access to public land.
Every user community has people who don’t follow the rules. That is an enforcement and education problem, not an access problem. The solution is better signage, trail design that reduces conflict points, and user education — all of which have been implemented successfully in trail systems far more heavily used than Boulder County’s.
Public land belongs to all of us equally. The moment we start deciding which groups deserve access based on the worst behavior of some members, we have set a standard that no user group, including hikers, would survive.
I am sorry for your experience, Jack, that sounds horrible. That said, why is obvious, easily digestible education (for ALL users groups) not consistently addressed ON the trails? I recently was on a trail in Jefferson County that is busy and popular with horses and bikes. I must say I observed some poor behavior (not dangerous) all around and do NOT observe this behavior in Boulder County, or it’s rare. I think, a lot fewer people. For example, the trail damage was from deep horse prints near the edge of the singletrack in many spotsfor a few miles. I also notice that etiquette and understanding of horses is not laid out anywhere obvious. This is a semi-urban environment in a world where many have never been exposed to a domesticated horse on a trail.
We need better PR. Like, I know because I care about being considerate but a lot of people have never gotten the education and are also not naturally empathetic and don’t understand that the biker or hiker or horse didn’t hear them coming. Or what it feels like to be hearing impaired, no matter your transport mode.
This is why we need actual unbiased regional trail system planning and education and signage…not reactivity to personal isolated incidents and punishment to an entire group because of a few bad unaware actors. The only signs at Heil right now are “slow down for the butterflies in the drainageway” and “watch out for rattlesnakes”. Last year, I saw signs on Boulder trails that I run on saying announce yourself to hikers. Photo of hikers with dogs on long leash. There have been so many times those dogs have not been reeled in, are off leash on a leash only trail and when I repeatedly ask to pass…but headphones or convo prevent any registration.
Conflict and annoyance can be managed and saying it’s all bikes is BS. It’s all humans. And we need to share. And sometimes, most people will get annoyed. And most times, people are having a great time.
Easy solution choose from the 100 or so trails not open to bikes. And it’s unfortunate that you lump all mountain bikers into one class of rude and non observing of rules. Quite frankly, that is not the majority of mountain bikers.
And not all hikers know and observe etiquette, even to other hikers.
I’ve had numerous times where a hiker(s) purposely blocked trail on say a steep section of uphill single track when it would have been easy for them to step off for 10 seconds and let me keep momentum. So I was forced off and hard to get going again…for no real gain on the hikers part besides causing me grief.
I’m 63, don’t “bomb” trails, am super respect of hikers, as I’m also one myself.
So please stop characterizing all hikers as angels and all bikers as disrespectful demons. There are bad actors on both sides…discrimination against just one side is just plain wrong.
As a hiker and a mountain biker and having lived in the Boulder area for over forty years, this pilot program really seems to be going in the wrong direction. There are so few trails for mountain bikers and a myriad of trails for hikers that are closed off to cyclists. I have never experienced when out riding, any type of accident between a hiker and a cyclist. I do agree Boulder is heading in the wrong direction with restricting what few trails there are currently open, to bikes. It does seem like they are trying to please a particular group of people and it is unfortunate because, for years mountain bikers have wondered, where can we go ride? And if my tax dollars are supposedly for conservation and recreation use and a city council member says open space is strictly for conservation then, I also agree WTF?? Very shortsighted comment. What’s the point of living in one of the most expensive areas and not being able to use it?
Also, the county already has a pilot program essentially. There is Betasso Preserve. It works but it kind of sucks for those that want to go ride on Wednesdays or Saturdays. Again, hikers have so many options in Boulder that are non motorized. …why more?
Thank you, Rex Madden, for the data and the studies. They rip a large hole in the county’s decision-making. I will be sure to use this info.
It’s interesting to read all of the comments, and for me the bottom line is that that there are far too few bike trails to support the avid biking community here. Limiting access is absolutely an unfair penalty and, it would be reasonable to conclude, that it means there will be more bike traffic on the days they are allowed on shared trails. Either true alternating trails for everyone, or it’s just a penalty to bikers.
In addition to the stats in the article, a quick AI search on gave this data (even if remotely true, hikers by far have more access than bikers do:
* Hiking access: roughly the full 155-mile trail system.
* Bike access: about 58 miles.
* Therefore hikers have access to about 2.7x more trail mileage than bikers in Boulder OSMP.
I moved here five years ago after 30 years of mountain (and road) biking in Arizona, and there are no such distinctions on any of the trails there.
No “hikers only” days for MTB access trails, and few designated “hikers only” trails.
There are also significantly more trail riders on horseback than there are here, and significantly more days available for hiking and riding year-round.
And yet there’s not of this kind of debate in Maricopa County, which leads me to believe it’s not statistically driven and more a vocal minority in Boulder who want ALL the trails to themselves and don’t believe MTBers have any rights to the same space they’ve also funded.
My family are avid hikers, and stick to the MANY trails that are hiking only–far more than there are MTB trails in the county and region.
If we want to focus on minimizing cyclist/pedestrian accidents in the county, why not start with requiring bicycling licenses for anyone under 16 on a motorized ebike that can go 35 mph on urban sidewalks and through parks without a clue as to the safe use or the rules of the road?
In the meantime, either make these trails TRULY alternating use (hiking/no riding or riding/no hiking) or focus on proper trail etiquette.
Thank you Rex. I wanted to submit something, but I think you said it better.
For anyone interested, I did a quick number-crunch using data from TrailForks (as far as I know, Boulder County Parks and Boulder Open Space do not make this information accessible). If you filter out trails rated as green, which are usually doubletrack paths, and filter out unofficial social trails, the remaining singletrack in the Boulder area is about 25% open to bikes. My minimal code is and datasets are visible here: https://github.com/dbemerydt/boulder-trails.
Because of the way TF specifies regions, this doesn’t include anything north of James Canyon. This limitation would be addressed if Boulder and Boulder county made raw data available.
I’ll add that in the mountains adjacent to town, that percentage drops to 0, forcing bikers to ride on dangerous roads to get to the few trails where they’re allowed. In this way, the ongoing bike ban, which this pilot project seeks to expand, is explicitly violent.
They ban us from the trails so they can kill us on the roads.
If this program is implemented and is not truly alternating use, I would support and help organize the civil disobedience required to fight this BS.
A car trying to avoid a cyclist can hit another car.