Jim,
I'm not sure, but is your concern that on the days when the road is open to
vehicles, then cyclists wouldn't be allowed? If so, that's not my
understanding. It is my understanding that on "vehicle days" all users
(including cars, cyclists, and peds) would have access, not just motorized
vehicles. I agree that on those days, it is likely that the
more-than-recreational cyclists would continue to use the road for access.
One side effect of opening the road, even on the proposed partial basis, is
that ATVs and non-licensed vehicles would then be banned full-time from
using the road.

Jim Schwerin



>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jim Yount" <jyount@...>
> To: "Susan Shore" <sshore@...>; "Craig Schwechel"
> <cschwechel@...>; "Wes Ford" <www4d@...>; "Kathy & Brooke
> Bell" <bellieve94@...>; <medicine_wheel_PPR@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, February 11, 2005 11:31 AM
> Subject: FYI
>
>
>> I'm curious if the Parks & Rec Board considered whether or not cyclists
>> (and
>> or hikers) will still be able to use the road on the days that it is open
>> to
>> vehicular traffic. The majority of cyclists currently using the road
>> (other
>> than beginners or parents with children) would continue to utilize the
>> road
>> with cars present if allowed. I also don't believe this would impact
>> vehicular traffic either - the open portion of Gold Camp Road below the
>> parking lot shows this to be true (you just don't have people hiking due
>> to
>> safety concerns).
>>
>> Jim S., Can you comment?
>>
>>> From: "Jim Lockhart"
>>> Date: Thu Feb 10, 2005 6:06:16 PM America/Denver
>>> Subject: Park Board Gets an F
>>>
>>>
>>> Greetings,
>>> The Colorado Springs Park Advisory Board voted unanimously to
>>> recommend
>>> to Colorado Springs City Council that the City support Alternative F
>>> among
>>> the alternatives in the Gold Camp Draft Environmental Impact Statement,
>>> which would reopen the road to traffic with time restrictions designed
>>> to
>>> allow nonmotorized users to use a road free from vehicles during
>>> certain
>>> time periods. This alternative, as proposed by the Forest Service,
>>> would
>>> allow one-way motor vehicle traffic during certain periods, such as
>>> every
>>> other day or every other weekend, while prohibiting motor vehicles
>>> during
>>> the alternating periods.
>>> The actual recommendation of the Board was to recommend that
>>> Council
>>> support F
>>> --with the stipulation that the City have input into the timing
>>> and
>>> schedule adopted
>>> --with the stipulation that the City would like to see concerns
>>> regarding funding for operations, and particularly the responsibility
>>> for
>>> maintenance and patrolling, better addressed
>>> --with the suggestion that if funding is a problem, the Forest
>>> Service consider a fee-for-use system to help pay for reopening consts;
>>> --AND with the further suggestion that Council consider
>>> whether, if a
>>> staggered system of alternating motorized/nonmotorized use days were
>>> to be
>>> adopted, the Forest Service should also consider whether a two-way
>>> traffic
>>> scheme would be better under this alternative than the one-way traffic
>>> pattern suggested in Forest Service Alternative F.
>>> The major factor seeming to influence the Board to adopt this
>>> proposal
>>> is that it would allow some motorized access while still preserving
>>> use part
>>> of the time by nonmotorized users, which they felt maximized the
>>> ability of
>>> various groups to use the road compatibly.
>>> City Council will meet in informal session on Tuesday, February
>>> 22, to
>>> hear the Board's recommendation, but not to take public comment on it,
>>> and
>>> will vote on the matter on Tuesday, March 8, at which time the public
>>> can
>>> comment.
>>> Jim Lockhart
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>