Seems our fair city is just a smaller version of this fair city. Doesn’t Austin’s bike lane maps look similar? Here’s ours:
Seems our fair city is just a smaller version of this fair city. Doesn’t Austin’s bike lane maps look similar? Here’s ours:
So, Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has weighed in on Ragged Mountain. Please find the NBC 29 story with all three letters from Albemarle Co.
Below is the letter address to citizens with my responses embedded with italics.
An Open Letter to City and County Residents
This letter is for those City and County residents interested in the public water supply at Ragged Mountain Reservoir, those who have enjoyed walking the trails in the Ragged Mountain Natural Area (“RMNA”), those interested in biking within RMNA, and others. This information has been previously shared with members of City Council and their staff.
The City engaged in a very public process from 2014 to 2016 to determine what activities it wanted to allow at RMNA. With respect to biking, the City received a significant number of comments on both sides of the issue. [with overwhelming support for multiuse trails at Ragged Mountain] When City Council adopted its ordinance on December 19, 2016 to allow biking [they also voted to allow trail running. Why no mention of that?], the controversy surrounding the question was reflected in City Council’s 3-2 vote. The two Council members who voted “no” encouraged delaying the vote based on a written request from the Board of Supervisors. [As stated in the same paragraph by the author, the City of Charlottesville engaged in a lengthy, very public two-year process. The BOS had plenty of opportunity to weigh in and chose not to.]
The City’s ordinance is unique in that it claims to regulate activities outside of the City’s boundaries. [That is not unique. Charlottesville owns several other properties in Albemarle Co. for which it has ordinances. There are also other localities in Virginia that own property in other localities.]
Ordinarily, cities and counties are authorized to exercise their powers only within their respective boundaries. [except where permitted by law as in this case]
There are exceptions, and the City relied on a State law (Virginia Code § 15.2-1725). That law allows the City to adopt regulations pertaining to recreational areas such as RMNA even though it is located outside of the City’s boundaries. The State law restricts how the City’s authority may be exercised. It prohibits the City from adopting any regulations in conflict with the County’s. Unfortunately, the City’s new regulations conflict with a County regulation (County Code § 11-303), which does not allow biking at RMNA. The County’s regulation is intended to prevent pollution of the Ragged Mountain Reservoir by limiting the types of human activities allowed at RMNA. [However, the County does not have a general law against cycling, nor does it ban cycling at most of its parks. So the ban at Ragged Mountain is an exception. Who does the County have regulations regarding Ragged Mountain at all? My understanding is that the County needs the regulations in order to enforce the city laws for Ragged Mountain not to actually dictate uses there. Without their own regulations for the property, ACP would be powerless on what would otherwise be considered private property.]
The Board of Supervisors has contacted City Council to resolve this matter as quickly as possible, offering to hold a facilitated meeting between designated members of the Board and City Council and their respective staffs. The Board acknowledges the desire of the biking community to have greater access to off-road public lands. Indeed, the County promotes properly located recreational activities. Therefore, the Board has proposed to City Council a solution for our community by opening a new County park on the Hedgerow property much earlier than originally planned. Hedgerow Park will have a new entrance and be accessible for biking without the risk of polluting the Ragged Mountain Reservoir, our community’s public water supply. [Hedgerow will only be accessible off of Rt. 29 and will not be accessible by bicycle unless you want to ride on the 250 bypass under I-64 and then another mile or so to the park entrance. No thanks. So, you will still need a car to access that park. One of the keys to a successful bicycle networks for which Charlottesville strives, is to have meaningful destination you can reach by bicycle. Other than the Rivanna Trail and O Hill which are both places that rely on the benevolence of private owners, there is no destinations for a bicyclists that do not wish to use a car. Ragged Mountain provides a nice nature experience that should be enjoyed by more users engaging in physical activity. The Ragged Mountain property is also not the source of the majority of the reservoir’s water, that water is pumped there from the City’s other reservoirs that are also in the county. Also keep in mind, that I-64 runs through the Ragged Mountain watershed and over the reservoir itself. It is hardly a pristine environment AND has the potential to suffer much greater effects than adding a few multiuse trails.]
In December, after City Council adopted its ordinance, it passed a motion asking the Board to consider amending the County’s regulations. The Board has invited the City to share the information that it collected during its lengthy public process for the County’s staff to analyze. This information will complement and accelerate County staff’s own analysis of the issue. [Why should the county have any say what uses are allowed on City-owned property?]
Lastly, readers may wonder why the issue of whether biking should be allowed at RMNA is important to the County. This concern extends beyond only preventing pollution of the Ragged Mountain Reservoir. [There is no evidence to suggest that allowing cycling among the other newly sanctioned activities like trail running add more to pollution of the Ragged Mountain reservoir. In fact, evidence suggest that properly designed and maintained trails that replace the current poor trails at the park will make for better water quality overall.]
Imagine if the County purchased land within a residential City neighborhood in order to establish a County-owned urban park. Then, based on its ownership of the park, the County decided to allow a use that was prohibited by the City. As an extreme example, assume that the County decided to allow riding motorcycles in the park at any time. The City would justifiably feel that its authority over the lands within the City was being violated by the County. The Board of Supervisors’ expectation is that City Council will respect the County’s sovereignty and its regulations, regardless of whether the City Council and City staff disagree with those regulations. [This is a specious argument for several reasons. 1) It is a false equivalency to suggest that motorcycle use is anything like mountain bike use. 2) It is against the rules of all the City’s parks to allow motorized vehicles. That is obviously not the case for cycling. 3) The County maintains properties in the city which includes at least two schools and an administrative building. Does the County seek permission from the City to govern those properties? I bet the answer there is “no.” It is a shame that elected County officials choose to dabble in such arguments.]
Everyone can agree that our community is not well-served when its local governments are in conflict. Everyone can also agree that it is the responsibility of both the City and the County to provide rules that are clear and consistent. The Board of Supervisors looks forward to a speedy resolution of this controversy. In the meantime, the County is bound to enforce its regulations. [This is a completely manufactured controversy. The County clearly has had the opportunity to weigh in. The RWSA has no issues with mountain biking at Ragged Mountain. The overwhelming public input, the City’s park advisory board, the City’s bicycle and ped. committe and the City’s planning commission all reviewed the proposals. All voted to allow cycling at Ragged Mountain. The County could quickly end the “controversy” by voting to amend its regulations to mirror the City’s.]
Chair, Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
Now we Albemarle supervisor Rich Randolph saying this really isn’t about bicycles at Ragged Mountain. It is about the City not ceeding to the whims of the county board.
If that is the case, why did Ms. McKeel ask for a postponement of a preview new trail alignments at Ragged Mountain scheduled for this weekend? This has never been about anything other than a very small group’s attempt to keep all but a few from enjoying the reservoir. I read the County’s regulation re Ragged Mountain. It also says boats must be permitted. I have been to Ragged Mountain many times. I have yet to see any posting mentioning the boat permitting. I also bet the County has chosen not to enforce the that portion of the law up to now. So why all the posturing about enforcing the rules now? I also would be willing to be the County has never run an enforcement operation against trail running there either.
It has also been pointed out that the County allows cycling at two other RWSA reservoirs. Chris Green Lake and Totier Creek Park have almost the exact same language in their county code as does Ragged Mountain. Yet, the County actively supports bicycling at those parks. The County’s Chris Green Park trail map is evidence to that.
UPDATE: It appears the county is updating its park use maps and matrix to come inline with its own regulations. The Totier Creek Map was changed in January to remove references to bicycling. The park use matrix was updated on February 24th and the references to cycling at Totier Creek and Chris Green Lake have been removed.
It is time to County residents to contact their supervisors and tell them you do not want them participating in this. They should quickly change the regulations to match the City’s inclusive use policy for the betterment and enjoyment of more City and County residents.
“To enhance the quality of life for all through the stewardship of public
land and parks and to provide quality recreational experiences.”
~ Charlottesville Parks and Recreation Mission Statement (emphasis added)
Case for Multiuse Trails throughout Ragged Mountain Park
As the above mission statement says, Charlottesville parks are for use by all citizens. Excluding the use of bicycles on trails at Ragged Mountain excludes a good portion of Charlottesville citizens for the benefit of a small minority at the expense of the park itself.
Investing in bicycle infrastructure such as bicycle networks and destinations like Ragged Mountain are good for the local economy. Providing for destinations and access increases livability. Increased livability leads to increased tax revenues. People riding bicycles are not driving cars and creating pollution. Providing active transportation and recreation like bicycling for citizens decreases health care costs by making people healthier. This is especially important in this era of the obesity epidemic and increasing disease caused from pollution.
Economic benefits of trails:
Economic benefits of bicycle infrastructure:
If we can attract new citizens who wish to be car-free and convince more citizens to give up their cars or dramatically reduce their use, we can save wear and tear on our roads and eliminate the need for larger volume road projects:
Providing Quality Recreation for More Citizens
At the Charlottesville Planning Commission discussion of Ragged Mountain on Nov. 9th, 2016, Commissioners Kurt Keesecher and Lisa Green made the point that the city is actively working to increase density. There is an ever increasing need for more recreational space for more activities for more people. There are minimal options for bicycle destinations that do not involve cycling on poor roads (like Plank Road, Lynchburg Road and Ivy Road) or by car. Ragged Mountain is the only city park that had the potential for a quality cycling experience that is easily reachable from town by bicycle.
Opponents of shared use trails at Ragged Mountain cite the miles of mountain bike trails at other public land in the region. As the parent of a mountain bike team member here in town, I assure you that we must load up all the kids in motor vehicles and drive upwards of 40 minutes every week to get to these referenced trails. Groups like the Boys and Girls Club cycling team must deal with the same transportation issues. With limited time and resources, the possibilities for cyclists drop dramatically. People wishing to take a quick lunchtime or evening ride have extremely limited options.
The only in-town options are the Rivanna Trail and O Hill which rely on the benevolence of private owners and the University of Virginia. The Rivanna Trail’s woes are well documented and UVa’s risk management approval of allowing mountain bikes at O Hill is tenuous at best
Building Trails and Community
One of the main arguments of the multiuse opponents is that riding bicycles on trails damages them and causes water quality issues. It is true that riding on poorly designed trails, especially after significant rain, can cause trail damage. Inadequacy designed trails will erode without any use. This is clearly evident at Ivy Creek and Ragged Mountain where no bikes have been on the trails. Yet, extensive erosion of trails exists. The best way to combat trail damage and erosion is to (re)design and (re)build quality trails using techniques championed by the International Mountain Bike Club (IMBC) to avoid water runoff damage.
Who has the best trail building knowledge and skills in the Charlottesville area? The Charlottesville Area Mountain Bike Club (CAMBC) does. CAMBC members have taken the time and expense to become certified trail builders through the IMBC. CAMBC actively works with groups like the Charlottesville Trail Runners, the Rivanna Trail Foundation and area parks departments to design, build, reconfigure and maintain trails in many locations in the area. Are these people motivated by having more mountain bike trails? Yes. Do they intend exclusive use of these trails? Absolutely not.
So by excluding the use of bicycles, a major beneficial community is excluded from Ragged Mountain. I see no reason why CAMBC would put resources into a park which its members cannot use. I would also point out that the only trail work at Ragged Mountain since the dam project completion was done by CAMBC members.
The proponents of multiuse trails at Ragged Mountain are in favor of ALL citizens using the trails including people with disabilities. We are not proposing exclusive use and wish to engage all trail users to create the best trail system possible. CAMBC members have suggested hiking-only trails as part of the Ragged Mountain trail system. We are an inclusive bunch. Excluding the best trail builders from using Ragged Mountain will negatively affect the experience for all at the park.
Argument for a Full Multiuse System
Understanding that the two Parks and Recreation Advisory Board votes to exclude bicycles from areas on either side of the pontoon bridge were well intentioned, they were misguided and will have unintended and lasting negative consequences on other trail users.
The trip around the Ragged Mountain Reservoir is a conservatively estimated (using a general line loop) 7 miles. That would take hours to circumnavigate on foot. From the parking lot, it can easily take more than two hours to reach the pontoon bridge traveling in a counterclockwise direction and over an hour across the dam in the clockwise direction. That means that regardless of use, very few hikers will visit the SW side of the reservoir and would be the largest draw for cyclists. Yet, this is exactly where the parks board voted to exclude bicycles and force all the cycling activity into the area with highest concentration of other trail users.
The argument that we must keep cyclists out of the SE area of the park (area between dam and pontoon bridge) because of the terrain assumes that the topography is indeed too steep. The issue was raised by a board member who was admittedly not a cyclist, much less a mountain biker. She was reacting to a specific small section of the trail over a steep incline that is poorly designed.
A majority of the existing trail in the SE area is on tame terrain with many sections close to being flat. The problematic section of trail is a concern for the trail experts as well. This section of trail needs to be redesigned to limit erosion and create a better experience for users by creating switchbacks that dramatically reduce slope and water erosion. There is no reason this redesign cannot easily accommodate mountain bikes as well.
The argument for banning cyclists from the SW corner of the park is based on a letter from a vegetation ecologist from Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation Division on Natural Heritage, Gary Fleming. Mr. Fleming recommends a buffer of 250 meters around an area identified in the Ragged Mountain Natural Area 2016 ECOSYSTEM SURVEY report as containing a plant listed as threatened under the Commonwealth of Virginia Endangered Plant and Insect Act. According to Mr. Fleming, there should be no trails in this buffered area. Not hiking-only trails; no trails. Why would the parks board then vote to only ban bicycles there? The board had no discussion of how a hiking trail would be any less damaging that a multiuse one.
Not only that, Mr. Fleming’s recommendation is based on some dubious references. His letter references three studies that were monitoring major disturbance of large portions of forest canopy either by building logging roads or clear cutting forests. These disturbances give invasive species much needed sunlight to get established. The building of foot and bike trails has negligible effects on tree canopy and does not provide large amounts of sunlight through the canopy needed by invasives. Let’s also keep in mind the biggest disturbance of tree canopy in this area is the reservoir itself. Is there the potential for more exotic species invasion? Yes. How do we prevent that? By engaging concerned citizens, like the members of CAMBC, as enthusiastic participants in eradication efforts, not excluding them.
Should we protect the area identified in the survey report where this threatened plant exists? Yes, let’s not build any trails in the area. Keep in mind, Mr. Fleming’s recommendations pretty much excludes ANY use at the SW corner of the park including the new pontoon bridge and the opposite shoreline. 250 meters is a long way.
Allowing for circumnavigation of the reservoir and developing multiuse trails in the area farthest from the parking lot will attract cyclists to the areas where there will be the least number of hikers. That will reduce the pressure on the areas closest to the parking lot and make for fewer hiker/cyclists interactions. I believe most cyclists would choose to take different routes out and back given the opportunity. Yet if circumnavigation is not allowed, the potential exists for a hiker to be passed by the same mountain biker twice on the out-and-back.
Recommendations for Council
Council should pass an ordinance allowing mountain biking at Ragged Mountain with no restriction by area or trail. Council should then task the Parks department to engage the city’s trail planner, other trail experts and concerned citizens to create and implement a comprehensive multi-use trail plan with special consideration to hikers (in the form of hiking-only sections) and people with disabilities.
More people riding bicycles is good for communities. Better economy, better health, better well being.
But it’s exasperating to see how Bad Cyclist anecdotes receive equal treatment to voluminous statistical evidence that cycling makes communities better. It’s maddening to watch public meetings where bike lanes are raged over like they’re landing pads for Martian armies. The transportation data is incontrovertible: Streets that accommodate for cycling get safer. Fewer people get hurt. Fewer people get killed. People on bikes and people walking on the street. Everybody. Even people in automobiles.
For context, here are the current options for W. Main St.
Below is the letter I wrote to Council today:
Do bike lanes make New York City streets safer?
Yes, very much so. Bike lanes bring along with them safety improvements for the entire street and every street user — not just for people riding bikes. According to the DOT’s Pedestrian Safety Study and the most recent Sustainable Streets Index, streets with bike lanes have about 40 percent fewer crashes ending in death or serious injury, and that’s for all street users: drivers and pedestrians included. For example, after a parking-protected bike lane was installed on Manhattan’s Ninth Avenue, all traffic-related injuries dropped 50 percent. Injuries to pedestrians dropped 29 percent and injuries to cyclists dropped 57 percent.
For example, protected bike lanes include pedestrian refuge islands in their design, which shorten the crossing distance of wide avenues for people on foot. Protected bike lanes typically include priority left turn lanes and signals, which help to improve vehicle flow and deter failure to yield to pedestrian violations — a common reason for pedestrian injury on our busy streets.
Building a bike lane is not just for bicyclists. Bike lanes are one way to realize a ‘complete street,’ or a street that recognizes and keeps safe all [citizens] who use it.
Do more bicyclists on the street make it safer to ride a bike?
Yes, much safer. Intuitively, bicyclists know that it feels safer to ride a bike when there are other cyclists on the street with you. In 2003, researcher Peter Jacobsen published a groundbreaking report that confirmed bicyclists’ intuition to be based in scientific fact. The “safety in numbers” effect identified by Jacobsen’s research is this: The more bicyclists there are on the streets, the safer they are. The phenomenon can be attributed to a variety of factors, such as drivers’ increased familiarity seeing bicyclists on the street or street improvements, like bike lanes, that often accompany a growth in bicycling.
Data from a wide range of cities shows that every time the number of bicyclists is tripled, the driver-bicyclist crash rate is cut in half. The “safety in numbers” effect is happening in New York City as we speak, as documented by the DOT’s Cycling Safety Indicator. We have never had so many cyclists on the streets, and yet it has never been safer to ride a bike. Bike lanes, which do a lot to encourage cycling, are helping to add to this important “safety in numbers” effect on NYC streets.
In Australia, several different researchers have studied mandatory helmet laws — looking at the lives saved by helmets, the fact that biking is now more dangerous because there are fewer bikes on the road, the actual costs of buying helmets and enforcing the laws, and the massive health costs of having fewer people biking in a country that’s battling obesity — and concluded they do more harm than good.
As discussed here before, there are four basic categories of cyclists defined by confidence. The by far largest of the groups, the “Interested But Concerned” has been shown to start riding more if given proper bicycle infrastructure. These studies, however, have taken place primarily in cities with good infrastructure.
People For Bikes has conducted the first nationwide survey of this group of cyclists. Here are the findings:
1. One third of people who want to bike more are dissatisfied with existing bike infrastructure
2. Bicycle ownership is a major barrier to riding, especially among poorer households
3. Fear of being personally targeted is a major barrier to riders of color
4. The western United States is much better at the bike + transit combo
5. Every single demographic group wants protected bike lanes