My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Open Space Advisory Board Agenda and Packet 2017 04 12
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
OPEN SPACE ADVISORY BOARD
>
2000-2019 Open Space Advisory Board Agendas and Packets
>
2017 Open Space Advisory Board Agendas and Packets
>
Open Space Advisory Board Agenda and Packet 2017 04 12
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 8:21:26 AM
Creation date
4/20/2017 2:05:51 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
OSABPKT 2017 04 12
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
69
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Open Space Advisory Board <br />Minutes <br />March 8th 2016 <br />Page 3 of 5 <br />the land has never been mowed during his tenure. If it has been mowed, it <br />was being done by citizens, not by the City and there are no plans to mow it.. <br />Ms. Bradley pointed out that it would be nice to have an easier way to contact <br />the board. She felt that she was somewhat shut -down when she contacted <br />the Parks Superintendent about the issue. Joe apologized for that and <br />Ember added that it was possible to have letters from citizens read into the <br />minutes for all advisory boards, if that was easier than attending a meeting in <br />person. <br />VIII. Presentation: Jefferson County Open Space Electric Bikes and Trail Study - <br />Initial Survey Results. Presented By: Mary Ann Bonnell, Visitor Services Manager <br />with Jefferson County Open Space <br />Ember reminded the board that the Hwy. 36 Biking Solutions wants to allow e - <br />bikes on the Bikeway, which will almost certainly funnel e -bikes onto Louisville trails. The <br />City wants to know what OSAB thinks about e -bikes on City trails. Mary Ann introduced <br />herself; she is a manager, but continues to occasionally patrol Jefferson County trails. <br />One thing she sees on patrol is e -bikes, despite the fact they are technically illegal under <br />motorized vehicle rules. <br />She shared some background on e -bikes, including a classification system (not <br />necessarily the only classification system) that defines Class 1 e -bikes as ones with top <br />assisted speeds of 20 mph and pedal -assist technology, meaning that the motor only <br />assists when the rider is pedaling. Class 1 e -bikes tend to be very quiet, quieter than <br />some traditional mountain bikes. She then presented the results of Jefferson County's <br />studies and surveys on e -bike use on their trails. One key finding was that people's <br />perceptions of e -bikes change when they are allowed the chance to ride one, an <br />experience which tends to make them much more favorable to allowing them on the <br />trails. Importantly, their work revealed that e -bikes are already on their trails, yet most <br />people don't notice them, even during a trial where staff increased their density by a lot. <br />Most survey respondents supported allowing class 1 e -bikes on all trails or paved -only <br />trails in Jefferson County. <br />Missy asked Mary Ann if e -bikes seem to cause any more trail damage than <br />regular mountain bikes. Mary Ann replied that they didn't study this question directly, but <br />her perception is that they are similar to a mountain bike's damage, and that the <br />individual rider's behavior seems to matter more than the bike itself for issues of both <br />speed and trail damage. Fiona asked Mary Ann what percentage of bikes on the system <br />are e -bikes currently. Mary Ann estimated maybe 10% of all bikes at Crown Hill (an <br />urban park) are actually e -bikes. Jim added that his perception for Louisville Trails was <br />closer to 5%. Jeff asked for any information about relative accident rates between e - <br />bikes and traditional bikes. Mary Ann replied that she doesn't have any direct data on <br />this question, but there is a perception that e -bikes may allow less -experienced riders <br />get in over their heads (e.g. the e -bikes allows them further up into hills and onto too <br />technical trails, or an e -bike's battery goes out during a long ride, semi -stranding the <br />rider). Jeff asked about accidents between e -bikes and pedestrians. Mary Ann's <br />impression was that there was no real difference between e -bikes and traditional bikes, <br />and again, the rider's behavior matters far more than the equipment. Graeme <br />commented that the enforcement difficulty is in cutting -off the extent of motorization for <br />e -bikes (class 1, vs. class 2). Missy asked whether it is hard for a ranger to determine <br />which kind of class e -bikes they are seeing. Mary Ann thought class 1 & 2 were hard to <br />determine with a glance. Helen commented that enforcing etiquette and developing <br />speed limits if necessary is more important than enforcing the motors. Jim agreed. <br />5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.