Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutALL DOCUMENTS - 2020-09-30 Special (03)TRAIL USER CONFLICTS Just as Iron Mt Park has an unusually wide range of plant and wildlife, it has a wide range of users on the trails - hikers, joggers, families with children, horses, dog walkers, bikers and wildlife. Because it is sensitive natural habitat, the trails must by necessity be narrow - usually 3 ft wide. [This is an opinion, not a statement of fact. It has not been established that the trails must be any particular width in order to exist with the natural habitat.] Sharing the trails is a problem now, but will become a real liability when the new developed area & access trails open, creating a much higher level of traffic. [This is an opinion, not a statement of fact. While it is assumed that the use of the trails will increase, there will also be more trail, thus spreading out the use.] I was surprised, and frankly rather offended by what the trail consultant said in the Parks Advisory Board meeting 9/16/20 when talking about conflicts between users. He said user conflicts are something people worry about, but don’t actually happen. It’s just a fear in people’s heads. I want to say clearly, it is not just a fear in our heads. I walk the trail nearly every day and I see this happening on a regular basis. [I think this is a misrepresentation of my statements about user conflicts, and I certainly apologize if I offended anyone, that was not my intent. I was trying to identify the various types of situations that are referred to as “user conflicts”. People often speak of user conflicts being negative physical interactions, such as collisions, between users. Most “user conflicts” are not conflicts per se, but one party on the trail being unhappy or uncomfortable with the actions of another party on the trail. In trail planning, this is sometimes referred to as “goal interference”, where users become upset at the use patterns of other users, but there is no physical harm. The purpose of my comments was to clarify that the “user conflicts” that result in collisions, etc., are extremely rare, and that the “goal interference”-type conflicts should not be conflated with more serious encounters.] The Parks website says there have been very few reported conflicts between users. That’s probably true. Most people who have complained to me about conflicts did not know there is a way to report problems. For example, an upset older woman who had been knocked over by an unleashed dog told me she didn’t know who to tell. She started carrying a cane on walks to fend off loose dogs. She finally figured out what the chief of police’s email address might be and sent him an email. However, most people will not go that far to report a problem. Depending on official reports may not be the best way to gauge what kind of conflicts are actually happening. Walkers & families are low impact & slow speed. Joggers & horses take up more space, but have tended to be considerate of people as they pass. Walkers with leashed dogs are mostly manageable. Unleashed dogs & bikers seem to be the biggest problem. DOGS Iron Mt Park has had a problem with dog owners who intentionally unleash their dogs on the trail. There has been informal word of mouth among some dog owners in the city that Iron Mt is a good place to let their dogs run free. They sometimes chase up & down the steep banks uncontrolled, jump on other users, and start fights with other dogs. This is in spite of recent large LEASH YOUR DOG signs at trailheads, and being asked by other users to please leash their dogs. Ranger Ben has even done a few “stings” at trailheads, without much success. And of course, dogs are very hard on plants and wildlife in sensitive natural areas. BIKES Most bikes in this park travel at speeds high enough that even calling a warning does not allow enough time for other users to get out of the way when approached from behind. [This is likely in part because the current trail is wide, relatively smooth, and with a long downhill grade at the western end, allowing cyclists to achieve and maintain higher speeds. There are no “checks”, such as narrow tread, variable grades, rough surfaces, etc.] There are regular neighborhood teenage boys who speed along the upper flat trail fast enough to kick up dust, and run into anyone who does not jump aside. [If members of the cycling community, particularly adolescents, are acting inappropriately on a trail then they need to be educated about proper behavior, as in any situation in our society. This can include stopping the riders and letting them know that what they are doing is inappropriate.] There are mountain bikers who love to ride down the steep incline, sometimes screeching on their brakes as they startle users from behind. When the startled ones are dogs, children, horses or wildlife, this can create a serious safety hazard. [While this behavior is clearly rude it is unclear, based on the statement, how this creates a “serious safety hazard”; it is therefore similarly unclear how the problem can be addressed.] There has already been an incident of a horse falling over the side of the bank. [It is unclear whether the horse falling off the side of the bank is related to an interaction with a cyclist or due to some other influence; it is therefore unclear how the incident relates to the need to exclude cyclists from the proposed trail.] And as said before, sensitive plant life & rare wildflowers are being trampled from the need to jump off to the side. 3 feet wide is just not enough to be safe with all these different users. [A common definition of “singletrack” is that two users cannot pass or move abreast without difficulty. This applies regardless of the user type, and it is therefore likely that pedestrians would need to step off the trail in many locations to let one another pass so this impact is not the result of just one user group. Also, no evidence is offered of the location or breadth of current impact, just a generic statement.] It is especially bad on weekends, when groups of destination bikers from outside of LO come to ride as a pack on the trails. [No evidence is offered in support of this statement. How are non-resident cyclists identified? In addition, it is not illegal for non-residents to use the park, as Lake Oswego residents similarly enjoy parks in other jurisdictions. Furthermore, the use of the term “pack” is pejorative and indicates the author’s inherent dislike of cyclists using trails.] This is already enough of a problem currently. When the new developed area of the park is completed & a connecting trail built, the amount of trail traffic will increase significantly. What is the origin of the policy that all users can use all trails in LO? Tackling that citywide policy is a bigger topic which must be addressed. City council needs to be informed of this serious liability issue. [It is unclear what “serious liability issue” 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.] It seems clear to me for safety sake, that some trails in this park (especially the steep switchbacks) need to be off limits for bikes, and possibly horses as well.