HomeMy WebLinkAboutALL DOCUMENTS - 2020-09-30 Special (04)Comments Submitted to the LO Parks Department
Regarding New Trails in Iron Mountain Park
Thank you for allowing me to submit my comments in writing since the Webex
communication system did not work for some of us during the meeting on Sept. 30, 2020.
Segment C
All five of us who spoke at the Parks Board meeting on September 16 are very
appreciative of the changes made in segment C of the new trail. The revised route will
protect a large section of the natural area at the east end of the park. In addition, the new
junction will lessen the possibility that people accustomed to using the social trail will be
tempted to take a short cut from the switchback up to the Iron Mountain Trail.
Segment B
I understand the rationale for moving segment B of the trail a little further up the slope
than the route we proposed, which was closer to Iron Mountain Boulevard. However, I
am not convinced that segment B of the trail has to run above the tributary and terminate
at the bridge. There is more than one way the trail could terminate at the east end of the
new development. We were prepared to show some of these options, but were not
allowed to show any visuals at the meeting. The present route of the trail cuts between
wildlife and their access to water. [No evidence has been presented that the construction
of a narrow natural-surface trail will restrict wildlife access across it. The trail is not lined
with a tall chain-link fence or other physical barrier.]
Trail Users
For all of us on the stakeholder team, the biggest concern is the plan to allow bicycles on
the new trail. When we expressed surprise at this, we were informed that according to
city policy cyclists have access to all trails in LO parks. This was news to us. We would
like to know who made this decision? Was there any public input? This policy has
serious liability risks for the city. [It is unclear what “serious liability risks” exists; no
specific dereliction of legal duty on the part of the city is identified. This is likely a
generic statement made with intent of scaring the city.] Did the City Council approve
this policy?
We are not are not anti-bike. Many of us are, or have been, cyclists. But common sense
tells us that there are places where bikes are not safe. [There is no accepted standard for
“common sense” and it varies based on the situation.] The extremely steep slope and
narrow trail on Iron Mountain is one of them. This will be a 3-foot trail with two-way
pedestrian traffic including dogs and children. The trail does not meet minimum
standards for multi user trails published by Metro, the City of Portland or the Mountain
Park Home Owners Association to name just a few. There is no way a pedestrian can
step out of the way on such a step slope to avoid being hit by a cyclist. This is a huge
liability issue for the City. [Common protocol is for cyclists to yield to pedestrians. Given
the singletrack nature of the trail, both users would likely need to interact verbally to
identify a safe passing protocol. This is no different than if two hikers met each other on
the trail. There is no identified liability on the part of the city for this type of interaction.]
We were told that the city couldn’t enforce a rule against bikes on the new trail so we
should just allow them for that reason. Tryon Creek State Park and many other parks in
Oregon do not allow bikes and they have had no trouble enforcing the rule. On the other
hand, Mountain bikers in Portland’s Riverview Park have damaged the environment and
have been a problem for years because of they were allowed to have the run of the natural
area. [All users in Riverview Park damage the trails because they are unsustainably
constructed. This contrasts to the trails proposed for Iron Mountain, which utilize
accepted sustainable trail development practices.] The city finally banned them, but
because they feel entitled to the area, it is much harder to enforce the ban. We were told
that if conflicts between bikes and pedestrians develop, bikes could be banned at that
point. The situation in Riverview Park suggests that waiting for problems to occur is a
bad idea.
Finally, the trail contractor asserted that there is no evidence that mountain bikes cause
environmental damage. I would like to refer him to three studies that show just the
opposite. [This is a false characterization of the statements made about impacts by
cyclists on trails. Based on controlled studies, hikers and bikers have a similar level, but
different types, of impacts. There is no evidence that, on sustainably built trails, that
cyclists cause more impact than hikers.]
George Wuerthner, “Impacts of Mountain Biking,” The Wildlife News (June 18, 2019)
https://www.thewildlifenews.com/2019/06/18/impacts-of-mountain-biking/
Michael Quinn and Greg Chernoff, Mountain Biking: A Review of the Ecological Effects:
A Literature Review for Parks Canada. Calgary, AB: Miistakis Institute, Faculty of
Environmental Design-University of Calgary, 2010.
https://www.lib.washington.edu/msd/norestriction/b67566091.pdf
Michael J. Vandman, “The Impacts of Mountain Biking on Wildlife and People: A
Review of the Literature” (July 3, 2004)
http://www.culturechange.org/mountain_biking_impacts.htm
[This author is well known to trail professionals as being what is politely referred to as a
“crank”; he has no training, education, or professional work in sustainable trail
development. Recently, he was convicted of assaulting a mountain biker on a trail with a
trail building tool.]
Thank you again for allowing me to submit my comments and questions.
Sincerely,
Susanna Kuo