HomeMy WebLinkAbout6A - Amending the BRC to permit electric-assisted pedal-powered bicycles on off-street bicycle facilitiesDO NOT REMOVE -
PRAB F~le Matenal
~ CITY OF BOULDER
~,..- PARI{S AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD
AGENDAITEM
MEETING DATE: Januarv 28. 2002
Agenda Item Preparation Date: Januarv 9, 2002
SUBJECT: Public heanng and consideration of a recommendanon to Ciry Council on
amending the Boulder Revised Code to pemut the use of electric-assisted, pedal-powered
bicycles on off-street bicycle facilitres.
TO: Pazks and Recreat~on Advisory Boazd
FROM: Tracy Wmfree, Acung Director of Pubhc Works for Transportauon
Nlike Gazdner-Sweeney, Transportahon Operahons and Planning Coordmator
Marni Ratzel, BicycTe & Pedestnan Transportanon Planner
PURPOSE:
~
°..., Tlus item prov~des updated mformauon on the background and use of electric-assisted, pedal-powered
bicycles (herein referred to as "electnc-assisted bicycles") and requests that the PRAB consider a
recommendation to City Council on amending the Boulder Revised Code to permit the use of electnc-
assisted bicycles on off-sueet bicycle facilit~es, mcludmg those that traverse pazks property
BACKGROUND:
In July 1999, the Transportahon Advisory Boazd (TAB) ongna(ly considered a recommendauon
proposed by staff to proceed wrth an ordinance revision that would allow the use of electnc-assisted
bicycles on both on-street and off-street bicycle facihdes in the city of Boulder. The TAB held pubhc
hearings and discussed the proposed ordinance at ~ts meehngs convened in July, August and September
1999. Dunng the TAB pubhc heanngs, there were several speakers who supported allowmg electnc-
assisted bicycles on both off- and on-street facilitres. However, some cihzens and TAB members raised
concems over the vanous users on the mult~-use paths and poss~ble safety issues ansing from allowing the
electnc-assisted bicycles on the paths. At the September meet~ng, the Boazd voted (5-0) to recommend
allowmg the use of electnc-assisted bicycles on the on-street faciliues (b~ke lanes) and to review m one
year the use of electnc-ass~sted bicycles on multi-use paths.
On November 16, 1999, the Ctty Counc~l held a fust readmg of the electnc-ass~sted bicycle ordmance.
There were no queshons or issues raised at the fust readmg The Council moved and approved to publish
by utle only an ordinance amendmg T~tle 7, B.R.C. 1981, concemmg electnc-assisted bicycles. On
December 7, 1999, City Council approved on second readmg and considera6on to amend TiUe 7, B R C
1981 concemmg elecmc-assisted bicycles, wtuch allowed them to be operated m bicycle lanes m the city
of Boulder Since the ordmance was passed, there has been no record of complunts, conflicts or accident
~"'~' occurrences mvolvmg an elecmc-assisted bicycle
~..
This summer, the Transportahon Advisory Boazd requested staff review and recommendahon of the
AGENDA TTEM # yJ- •!T Paae 1
exisung ordmance adopted m 1999. Staff presented mformahon aboutthe electnc-assisted bicycles and ~
panc~ipated in a public heanng process hosted by the Transportahon Advisory Boazd (TAB) at their
monthly meehng, wluch convened Monday October 8th. At the meeting TAB members approved a
motion (4-1) makmg a recommendation to the City Council in favor of expandmg the use of electnc-
assisted bicycles by allowmg the~r operation on multr-use paths and select sidewalks (conformmg to
reguladons governmg traditronal bicycles). TAB also recommended a one-yeaz review and requested staff
to mves6gate ways to venfy the power limita6ons of the electric-assisted bicycles.
The electric-assisted bicycle is a combmation of a b~cycle and an electnc motor that can be used
sepazately or in combination while traveling along a bicycle faahty. Potenrial users of this travel mode
include commuters and persons who prefer to travel by bicycle but may not be physically able to complete
the tnp intended without an electnc power assist. Staff found ment to this mode alternahve m that it
could expand the potenual bicycle user base and be an opportumty to work towazd the goals contazned m
the Transportation Master Plan (TMP) The TMP, last updated m 1996, estabhshed the goal of doubling
the total number of dazly bicycle tnps from 80,000 to 16Q000 between 1994 and 2020
Staff considered a vanety of factors surroundmg the possible use of electnc-assisted bicycles on mult~-use
paths, mcluding the speed of electnc-assisted bicycles, compahbiliry with other users, ahgnment with
goals m the Transportahon Master Plan (TMP) and public mput. In analyzing a possible code change to
allow electric-assisted bicycles to use those facflihes where they aze presendy protubited (mulri-use paths
and sidewalks), staff looked at compadbihty with other facihty users. The prmcipal distinchon between
bike lanes and mula-use paths is the traffic mix. On multr-use paths there are both pedestrians and
bicycles. In bicycle lanes, only bicycles are currendy allowed to operate on the facIlity. The mismatch
between user speeds would be much less m lanes. However, most of the elecmc-assisted bicycles for sale
by retazlers have speed capacihes of up to 20 mph (th~s is based on a 180 Ib. person travehng on a flat ~
surface). Specifica6ons of typica12001 electric assisted bicycle models ue ouflmed as Attachment A and ,",
may be viewed on the Internet at: http://www fleets dce.g.ov/fleet tool.cg?13512.atv.2.260983.
When the electric motor is m use, there is httle to no noise created The speed of a bicycle usmg only the
electnc power ass~st is between 13 and 18 mph.l Factors such as slope, rider's weight and terrun affect
the speed of the bicycle. As the terra~n or slope of a bicycle facihty becomes more difficult or steep, the
speed of the electric power assist will decrease, unless pedal power is used in con~unc6on with the electnc
power assist
Currendy, the Boulder Revised Code states that no person shall dnve m excess of 15 rtules per hour on
any path or 25 miles per hour on any street upon wh~ch no speed haut is posted. The speeds of the
electric-assisted bicycles aze compahble wrth the speed lumts established by the code and the condihons
existing on the bicycle faciliues today. The 20-mph speed lumt capacity has been mcluded m the draft
ordinance to specifically estabhsh the performance pazameters under wtuch the electnc-assisted bicycles
would be pernutted on the bicycle facilities.
Followmg up on reseazch conducted m 1999, staff recendy talked with representatrves from communihes
m Missoun, Cahfornia and Georgia which have passed resoluhons or ordmances allowmg electnc-
assisted bicycles to operate on theu multi-use paths and streets. Based on the expenence of other
communiUes that have allowed electnc-assisted bicycles, there has not been a resulhng mcrease in
conflicts on mulh-use paths or other bicycle facilihes In one of the commumhes mternewed, the
bicycles have been in use for seven yeazs with no lustory of conflicts.
Last spnng, the Downtown Mobihty Center purchased three electric-assisted bicycles to ra~se public
The speed eshmate is based on a 180-pound person travelmg on a flat surface
~"^R
r~
AGENDA ITEM # UI ,~ PaEe 2
~ awazeness of this alternate commute oprion Two bicycles were donated and raftled as grand pnzes for
Walk and Bike Week 2001 and the Green Transportaflon Awazds, concluding the Foot Race series The
remazmng bicycle is available on loan to downtown employees that work wiffiin the CAGID / BID azea.
Individuals that sign out the electric-assisted bicycle aze provided a short traimng session that educates
them on the operauon of the vehicle and associated traffic rules and regulahons Plans to purchase three
additional bicycles m coordmahon with the grand opening of the Downtown Mobiliry Center and make
all four bicycles available on loan to the general public are under way. To date, several downtown
employees have utihzed the electric-assisted bicycle and expressed interest m leanung more about where
and how to purchase an electric-assisted bicycle.
The CAO has drafted a proposed ordmance for City Council considerahon that allows elecmc-assisted
bicycles to operate on all facilides where tradihonal bicycles aze allowed (mulh-use paths and sidewalks)
Staff welcomes discussion and additional comments that PRAB seeks to mcorporate in a final draft
ordmance for considera6on by City Council.
TAB supported maznUVmng the exisung definihons oudined m the Boulder Rensed Code for a bicycle
and electnc-assisted bicycle, wtuch are as follows:
"Bicycle" means a vehicle propelled solely by human power apphed to pedals upon which any person
may ride havmg two tandem wheels or two pazallel wheels and one forwazd wheel, all of which are more
than fourteen inches m diameter.
"Electric assisted bicycle" means a bicycle with a battery powered electric motor with a capacity of no
more than four hundred watts contrnuous input power rahng which ass~sts the person pedalmg and wluch
f"" ~s not capable of propelLng the bicycle and nder at more than twenry miles per hour on level pavement.
~..
PUBLIC COMMENT
The electnc-assisted bicycle rtem has been oudmed on the agenda of three mee6ngs TAB meeungs of
September 12, 2001 and October 8' 2001, and the PRAB meeting of November 26' 2001. A total of nme
(9) cihzens provided oral comment at these meehngs (3 in opposiuon, 5 m favor, 1 undecided).
To date, transportatxon staff has recerved wntten comments from 34 cihzens. These comments are
mcluded as Attachment B
Outlined m Attachment C aze Guest Opmion / Letters to the Editor pubhshed m the Dazly Camera that
feature citizens' pomt of view on electnc-assisted bicycles
Addmonally, staff received letters of request from a Boulder cit~zen for addiaonal informat~on on electnc-
assisted bicycles These letters from Ms. Sorenson and stafFs response is mcluded as Attachment D
PUBLIC OUTREACH / EDUCATION
The proposal on amendmg the Boulder Revised Code to permit the use of elecmc-assisted bicycles on
off-street bicycle facihfies has raised several concerns for the behavior of exisang users on mulh-use
paths, as well as whether the addihonal permitted use of electnc-ass~sted bicycles would encourage
mcreased speed and disrespect for compehng path users. Concems ra~sed mclude conflicts and
congesuon on panc~ulaz paths such as the Boulder Creek Path
Transportaaon staff is workmg with the CAO and the Boulder Pohce Department to tdendfy appropriate
strategies for addressmg these concerns. It is anqcipated that a comprehensive plan will be compnsed of
~ strateges to educate path users of their nghts and responsibihhes, emphastze courtesy among path users
~,` and heighten awazeness and enforcement achvi6es.
AGENDA ITEM # VI ~ Page 3
Addressmg concerns rused regazding conflicts and congestion on panc~ulaz paths such as the Boulder
Creek Path aze items to be deternuned. Staff is working with the CAO and the Boulder Police Department ~
to identify appropriate suategies for addressmg these concems. Tt is anhcipated that a comprehensive '""
plan will be compnsed of strategies to heighten awazeness, safety educanon and enforcement acrivihes
PUBLIC PROCESS
The proposed ordinance revision was presented as a discussion Informauon Item at the November 26,
2001 meehng of the Pazks and Recreation Advisory Boazd. A pubhc hearing and consideratron of a
recommenda6on to City Council on amendmg the Boulder Revised Code to pernut the use of elecmc-
assisted bicycles on off-street bicycle fac~htxes is not yet scheduled on a meeung agenda of the Open
Space Boazd of Trustees It is anucipated that the item will be mcluded on an agenda m February 2002
and that the proposed Ordinance amendment will be heazd before the City Council m First Quarter 2002
BOARD ACTION REOUESTED:
Staff requests PRAB consider a recommendat~on to City Council amendmg the Boulder Revised Code to
permit the use of elecmc-assisted bicycles on off-street bicycle facilit~es
A deternunauon on whether to restnct the use of electnc-assisted bicycles on particulaz paths under the
junsdiction of Pazks and Recreauon is requested. Should such a restrichon be recommended, whether to
use signs as the means to pubhcize the prohibmon is requested.
PRAB members aze encouraged to try ridmg an electnc-assisted bicycle The Downtown MobiLty Center
currenfly owns and loans an electric-assisted bicycle (eBike) to downtown employees for short errands or
to be used as a commuring tool for work A fleet of electrio-assisted bicycles will be available prior to the
January 28, 2002 meehng so that PRAB members may view and nde an elecmc-assisted bicycle. PRAB
members also may contact Jan Wazd, Employee Transportaaon Coordinator, Downtown and University ~
Hill Management Drvision by telephone at 303-413-7316 or e-mazl at wazd~ @ci.boulder.co us to reserve "~
an eB~ke in the days preceding the meehng.
Please contact, Marni Ratzel, Bicycle / Pedesman Planner, Go Boulder - Ciry of Boulder
ratzelm@ci boulder.co.us or by telephone at 303-441-3266 if you have comments, queshons, or are
mterested m addihonal informahon.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Electnc-assisted bicycles
B E-mailed wntten comments recerved from cit~zens
C Daily Camera Guest Opmion / Letters to the Editor
D Ms. Sorenson's Letters of Request and staffs response
i*"~
_~
AGENDA ITEM #~• f} PaPe 4
Attachment A
~ Specifications of Typical 2001 modeis of
Electric-assisted bicycles
For elecuonic copies, go to:
http //www fleets doe.gov/fleet tool.ce1~13512,atv,2.260983
,~-
~
...,
AGEi~IDA iTEM #~. f} ,, PAGE S
DO NOT REMOVE -
PRAB File Matenal
ATTACHMENT A
ACCOUNT OF INFORMATION GATHERED IN RESPONSE TO YOUR LETTERS
,,,.. PAGE 1 OF 4
~«.~..
• Santa Rosa, CA
Of the three communities contacted previously, Santa Rosa, CA most closely resembles Boulder On
December 20 2001, I spoke with Ken Kimari, an officer with the Santa Rosa Police Departrnent. Police
Officer Kimari is with the Downtown Division and may be contacted by telephone at 707-543-3001 x 7127.
Mr. Kimari also referred me to Bruce Eisert, Transit Planner to obtam statistical data regardmg the volume
of bicycle traffic and miles of bicycle facilities within the city of Santa Rosa. Mr. Eisert may be contacted by
telephone at 707-543-3334. Information gathered through my conversations with both representatives is
detaded below.
The city of Santa Rosa is the county seat for Sonoma County, the largest city north of San Francisco, and
estimated to have a population of 142,000 persons No actual counts are available for the volume of
bicycle traffic in the aty. However, census data reports that the bicycle modal split is 2 percent.
A total of 70 miles of bikeways currently exist in the aty of Santa Rosa. Of these, 12 mdes are multi-use
paths used for both recreational and commute trip purposes Several miles of bicycle path travels along the
Santa Rosa Creek. The Pnnce Memonal Greenway is an additional east / west connector under
construction that will Imk the west side and downtown areas. Electnc-assisted bicycles are permmed to
operate on all multi-use paths. There is no speed limit regulation on the path system. An additional 25
miles of bicycle lanes are provided on city streets and the remaining 33 miles of bikeways are designated
as signed routes only.
Mr. Kimari estimates that the use of electric assisted bicycles is a small percentage of total bicycle volume
i,,V He also indicated that several cd}r departments have purchased electnc-assisted bicycles to conduct
business including enforcement actiwties, trainmg and civilian transportation It is estimated that the city
currently utilizes a fleet of beiween 10 -12 electnc-assisted bicycles. The use of electnc-assisted bicycles
has not created enforcement or safety issues. No noise or safety complaints / inadents are on record.
There is no licensing or registration reqwrement for bicycles or electric-assisted bicycies However, in
conformance with state legislation, electnc-assisted bicycle operators must be 16 years of age or older and
must wear a bicycle helmet. The aty of Santa Rosa encourages police officers to enforce bicycle
regulations Heightened enforcement of helmet laws targeted toward chddren is a pnmary emphasis. A
bicycle enforcement officer is funded through a state grant. Responsibilities of this position include helmet
and safety education programs conducted in schools. No dedicated hotline number exists for public
comment specific to bicycle issues Concems are directed to and handled by the traffic department or
bicycle advisory committee.
The aty of Santa Rosa maintains statistics on bicycle-related crashes. This data does not separate
traditional bicycles from electnc-assisted bicycles. Mr. Kimari indicated that no electnc-assisted bicycle
specific complaints / accidents have been registered. According to the city of Santa Rosa Update of the
Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, 295 bicycle-related crashes occurred on streets in Santa Rosa during
a three-year period from January 1997 to January 2000
Resolution No 240245 or the Council of the City of Santa Rosa is outlined as Attachment C. The
resolution, passed on June 29, 1999, supports the use of ZAP electric bicycles and scooters in the city of
Santa Rosa According to Mr. Kimari, the City Councd has allowed motorized scooters and electric-assisted
,~,,, bicycles to operate on bicycle paths. Gas-powered scooters are also a permitted on bikeway paths.
Mopeds are not allowed on bicycle paths.
~,
AGENDA Tl'EM #~Y~ , pAGE _ (L
ATTACHMENT A
ACCOUNT OF INFORMATION GATHERED IN RESPONSE TO YOUR LETTERS
PAGE 2 OF 4
~.
According to Mr. Kimari, the aty has not expenenced any liabdity issues involvmg electric-assisted bicycles. ~°
Mr Kimari also indicated that electric-assisted bicycles are ridden for transportation purposes by adults for
whom less pedaling is an incentive to commute by bicycle.
Katy Trail, Missouri
In December 2001, I made several attempts to commurncate with Mr. Larry Larson, Distnct Supervisor of
Kary Trail State Park in Missouri Mr. Larson and I spoke on January 2, 2002. He may be contacted by
telephone at 660-882-8196. The following is an account of our conversation supplemented by information
excerpted from a website for Katy Trail State Park. This site is linked to the Missouri State Parks and
Nistor~c S+tes web site and hosted by the Missouri Department of Natural Resources. You may obtam
additional infortnation by visiting ht~t J/www.mostateparks.comlkatvtrad htm
The Katy Tratl is a 238-mile long-distance hiking and bicycling trad budt on the former Missoun-Kansas
Texas Radroad. The ma~onty of the trail closely follows the route of the Missoun River. Although the
scenery often changes, the trail remams faidy level and constant as ~t meanders through the countryside.
There are 26 official trailheads and mnumerable entrance points to access the tratl, which Imks at least 50
communities. The trad travels through many types of landscapes includmg dense forests, wetlands, deep
valleys, remnant prairies, open pastureland and gently rolling farm fields The trad is open only dunng
dayhght hours Trailheads provide parkmg areas and other amenities. Many communities also otfer
services to trail users
Kaiy Trad State Park has been designed specifically for bicyclists and hikers. Annual wsitation (trad use) is
estimated at 350,000 Approximately 70 - SO percent of users are bicyclists, with pedestnans compnsing ~
the remaining 20 - 30 percent. Horses are permitted only on the westem section of the tratl from the State
Fairgrounds in Sedalia to Calhoun. The ma~onty of the trail is accessible to persons wdh disabilities. All
motonzed equipment is prohibited except official and emergency vehicles. Electric-assisted bicycles and
tncycles (maximum speed of 20 mph) as well as electric-powered mobility devices for persons with
disabdfies such as motonzed wheelchairs and scooters are allowed. No actual counts are avadabie for the
volume of electnc-assisted bicycle traffic along the path. Mr Larson estimates that the use of electnc
assisted bicycles is a small percentage of total bicycle volume The soft surface trail of limestone and
gravel discourages scooter and in-line skate users.
Samt Charles, Sedalia, and Columbia are c~ties that provide on-street bicycle lanes. These lanes or other
park trails link directly to the Katy Trail. Jefferson City also accommodates bicyclists w~th on-street lanes.
There is no licensing or registration requirement for bicycles or electric-assisted bicycles. Park rangers and
supplemental staff patrol the trad system and enforce regulations. A speed limit regulation does not
currently exist. Accordmg to Mr. Larson, no electric-assisted bicycle specific complaints / accidents have
been registered. Likewise, no crashes along the trail have been reported this year However, he estimates
that approximately 20 minor collisions occurred during this time.
According to Mr. Larson, the operation of electric-assisted bicycles on the Katy Trail has not initiated
requests for expanding the types of permissible uses to include other motonzed vehicles.
The public may utdize the Missouri Parks Department 800 number or post to the web site to file a public
comment / concem. No hotline spec'rfic to bicycle issues exists
According to Mr. Larson, the Katy Trad / State Park has not experienced any liability issues mvolving
electnc-assisted bicycles. ~'
AGENDA ITEM # v2•' 1, PAGE ~
ATTACHMENT A
ACCOUNT OF INFORMATION GATHERED IN RESPONSE TO YOUR LETTERS
,~.~. PAGE 3 OF 4
`~..
State of Georgia
I telephoned Mr. David Wegener, Office of Plannmg GDOT Bicycle & Pedestnan Coordinator and Ms
Joyce Ddl, his supervisor dunng the week of December 17, 2001. Mr. Wegener may be contacted by
telephone at 404-657-6692 or e-mail at Dav~d Wegener~dot state aa us, and Ms Joyce Ddl may be contacted
by telephone at 404-656-5726 or e-mail at ~ovice o~u~doc sta~e aa us. Mr. Wegener was out of the office for
the holidays. I e-mailed Ms. Dill and Mr. Wegener your list of questions for their response, as appropnate.
I received a follow-up e-mail from Mr. Wegener on January 2, 2002 that indicated he was still determining
where he might obtain the information requested.
Santa Cruz, CA
On January 2, 2002, I spoke with Ms. Cheryl Schmitt, aty of Santa Cruz bicycle / pedestrian coordinator.
Ms. Schmitt may be contacted by telephone at 831-420-5187 or e-mail at cschmitt~ci,santa-cruz ca us
The city of Santa Cruz is home to a University of Califomia State Campus and estimated to have a
population of approximately 55,000. A total of 25 miles of on-street bicycle lanes and 10 miles of multi-use
paths currently exist.
Ms. Schmitt confirmed that the aty of Santa Cruz passed an ordinance that allows electric-assisted bicycles
to operate on street and in bicycle lanes. Electric-assisted bicycles are currently prohibited from muiti-use
paths due to the physical constraint of these facilities, which are generaliy 8-feet wide The Cdy Counal
reserves the right to permit electric-assisted bicycles to operate on multi-use paths, as appropriate by
exception. The ciiy has recently completed a new multi-use path along the river. At a path width minimum
u-- of 10-feel wide, C~ty Councd may consider the exception of aifowmg electnc-assisted bicycles to operate on
this faality. However, no request has been generated to date This river path is approximately 2.5 miles in
each direction for a total of 5 faciliiy miles, is currently utilized primanly as a commuter bicycle route and
accommodates light pedestnan traffic
All bicycles are reqwred to be licensed (registered) with the city The pnmary purpose is to maintain a
database of bicycles by serial number so that stolen vehicles recovered may be retumed to their rightful
owner Ms Schmitt estimates that bicycle/pedestrian related collisions comprise 8- 9 percent of all
collisions occurring in the city of Santa Cruz. Data does not separate traditional bicycles from electnc-
assisted bicycles Ms Schmitt indicated that no electnc•assisted bicycle specific complaints / accidents
have been registered
No requests for expanding the use of electric-assisted bicycles or scooters have been generated to date
San Francisco, CA
On December 26, 2001, I communicated with Oliver Gida, staff member of the San Francisco Bicycie
Program. Mr. Gida may be contacted by telephone at 415-5U3-2119. Accordmg to Mr. Gida no obmance
defining or regulating the use of electnc assist bicycles in the city of San Francisco currently exists. Mr.
Gida also indicated that there are no regulations that explicitly prohibit electric-assisted bicycles from
operating on multi-use paths. No bicycles are permitted to operate on sidewalks in the downtown area
The Board of Supervisors for the City and County of San Francisco passed a resolution supporting the use
of "ZAP" electnc bikes and scooters in 1999. The resolution is a formal declaration of support only Mr
,•-, Gida's interpretation of the resolution and existing laws is that electric-assisted bicycles are permitted to
.,... operate where traditionai bicycles are permitted until an ordinance specifies otherwise. It is his
understanding that the volume of electric-assisted bicycles operating m San Franasco is a negligible and
AGENDA ITEM # ~J- ~'> PAGE g
A'iTACHMENT A
ACCOUNT QF INFORMATIQN GATHERED IN RESPONSE TO YOUR IETTERS
PAGE 4 OF 4 ~
that the top speed of electnc-assisted bicycles is in conformance with what can be achieved by the operator `"
of a traditional bicycle. Therefore, regulating the operation of electric-assisted bicycles has not been
identified as a concern to address as of this time.
Petaluma, CA
My attempts to contact representatives for the city of Petaluma have been unsuccessful. Through an
mtemet search conducted in December 2001, I obtained the following contact information. Ms Patncia
Tuttle Brown, PedesUian and Bicycle Advisory Committee Chairman may he contacted via telephone at
707.7622240. Ms Jane Thomson, City of Petaluma, Community Development and Planning may be
contacted at 707-778-4301 My messages for both representatives were not retumed as of this letter.
~
~
~
~
AGENDA ITEM # VI •~ , PAGE ~
DO NOT REMOVE -
Attachment B PRAB File Matenal
Written Comments Received from Citizens
Page 1 of 15
,r°'^
~...
1 January 8, 2002
Dear Marni,
I support the use of power-assisted conveyances on Boulder bikeways and bike paths. I, myself, use an
electric scooter, a 3-wheel battery-powered wheelchair, to get around town on the bike paths. Disallowing
such would be very hard on me and possibly ~n violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act
Again, please register my support for power-assisted bicycles and wheelchairs on aty bikeways
Thank you.
David Leserman
2806 Cordry Court
Boulder 80303
2 January 7, 2001
Dear Marni,
I ~ust heard that the City of Boulder is considering whether to contmue allow electric-assisted bicycles
and tncycles on Boulders multi-use paths. Although I do not use this type of bike, I am a year-round
bicycle commuter I have seen several of these bikes on the Boulder Creek path and they certainly
aren't any problem They are quiet and travel at regular bicycle speeds or slower Moreover, the
people I've seen using them generaily appear to have some kind of disabdity A good fnend of mine,
who had polio and now suffers from post-polio syndrome has recently discovered the benefds of
exerase. It has made a tremendous difference in his health and well being If the disabled users of
these bikes are prevented from using the multi-use paths and start using motonzed vehicles, it wdl not
~ only dimmish their heaRh but add to air pollution and decrease Irfe quality for everyone AddRionally, if
these nders are forced onto busy streets, everyone will be endangered. I urge you to continue to
allow electnc-assisted bicycles and tncycles on Boulder's multi-use paths
Sincerely,
Paul Tepley
3 January 7, 2002
Dear Marni,
In light of the recent discussion, I am writing to add my support for electric assist bicycles bemg
accepted on our multi-use paths
Because it essentially "acts" as a bicycle, the electnc assist bike should be altowed on Boulder's paths.
From my observations, it is qwet and is operated as a bicycle with the addition of a boost when needed
These bikes should be allowed on the paths to grve their riders the connections and convenience of
Boulder's multi-use paths, key advantages afforded non-auto travelers to get around town
I support the electnc assist bicycle as a useful alternative to the automobile W ith mcreasmg auto
use, and the famdiar consequences of traffic congestion and air pollution, not to mention parking
headaches, Boulder needs wable transportation alternatives to offer auto dnvers The easy to use,
compact electric bike is an option for those who want to leave the car at home and make errands
using clean and qwet transportation
Also, the electnc assist bicycle supports the goals of Boulder's Transportation Master Plan, which aim
at reducing auto use and keeping down air pollution. It benefits Boulder with the "One Less Ca~'
concept for every person who uses an electric assist bike (instead of a car) one car wtll be removed
from Boulder's streets A bicycle is swted for the short trip around town that would othenvise be
made m a smgle occupied auto
.~^
~
AGENDA ITEM # 1/.1- ~ R, PAGE ~~
Attachment B
Written Comments Received from Citizens
Page 2 of 15
^"v,
Bikes are good transportation I support bikes as a clean and efficient mode that is affordable And ~
theyre fun~ So whaYs the fuss over the electric assist bike~ It is another form of bicycle that the City
of Boulder, I believe, should allow on the multi-use paths and support as "altemative" transportation
Thank you for considering my comments
Sincerely,
Karen J. McCorry
Offiaency, President
P3 Colorado People, Planet Profits, President
4055 Dawn Court, Boulder, CO 80304
4 January 7, 2002
Mami-
Thanks for adding me to your e-mad list We spoke some time ago regarding the permitting of electric
bicycles on Boulder's bike paths, and I had occasion to speak with Graham Hill on the same sub~ect
I was so angry at a letter in the Camera from Mark Kern on 12/24, that I responded and had my own
letter published on 12/29 in rebuttal. Graham suggested I inform you of this, in the event you missed
that issue and would like a copy (though I imagine you have someone in your office clipping these
sorts of things) Unfortunately, I'll be out of the state on January 28th and unable to attend the PTAB
hearing on that date, however, I hope to be avadable for any future heanngs
Please keep me updated-
Julia Portmore
Staff Note. Ms. Portmore's Letter to the Editor titled "Giving some help to older Boulder" was
published December 29, 2001 and is included in Attachment C ^"~
5 January 7, 2002 ~
Dear Mami,
I have an electnc assisted tnke. I understand there is an ~ssue before the board on allowmg these
bikes on the bike path I have a neuro muscular condition and use my bike to get around town via the
bike path and side streets to avoid traffic congestion I travel between ten and twenty miles per hour,
any healthy person riding a bicycle can eas~ly exceed my top speed
Please allow electnc bikes on the bike paths Please call if you need a petition drawn up Thank you
for your time
Sincerly,
Padraic Cassidy
3980 Broadway
Ste 103 #140
Broadwav. Co 80304
6 January 5, 2002
Dear Sirs,
Without reviewing all the arguments, which I'm sure you have heard many times, I simply want to
register my opposition to permitting motorized vehicles on Boulder's bike/pedestnan paths I see
these paths as recreational first and foremost, and secondarily and incidentally as a short-range
commuter system If Boulder were to develop a dedicated set of bike-commuter arterials for longer-
range tnps, electnc-assisted bikes might be appropnate, but not on the existing set of paths
i"~
AGENDA ITEM # ~ • !r , PAGE ~
Attachment B
Written Comments Received from Citizens
Page 3 of 15
~
~°' Sincerelv. John S Averv. 600 Kalmia Ave . Boulder 80304
7. January 3, 2002
Dear Marni,
I am writing to express my support for the use of electnc-assisted bikes on Boulders multi-use paths
Most any alternative to the gasolme combustion engine is a positive step for the aty of Boulder, and
electnc bikes offer one such alternatrve that has no down side Havmg used them myself, I can attest
they are qwet and not prone to excessive speeds I am a frequent user of BouldePs paths and would
be more than happy to share that space with electnc-assisted transportation, espeaally considenng
the positive environmentai effects for our community Thank you for your consideration
Sincerely,
Adam Boyle
1551 6th Street
Boulder, CO 80302
(303) 415-0725
8 January 3, 2001
2000 Poplar Avenue
Boulder, CO 80304
Dear Ms Ratzel,
1 am writmg to add my voice to the discussion of electnc bikes on Boulders bike paths and to add my
support to the use of electric bikes on our bike paths.
r,.., I have had an electnc bike (an Elec-Trek) for a year and a half I have kept track of how often I~use it
~ to get to work (at the Boulder Public Library) for about a year I estimate that I use it about half the
time to get to work, 2-3 times a week (not to mention other trips around town)
It has always been my feeling that using altematrve transportation (bikes or buses) is a plus for the
entire community One person's use of these modes positively impacts the rest of the us
I can understand the concern of those who do not want to see electric bikes on the our b~ke paths, but
feel that their concem is due to misinfortnation. My electnc bike makes no sound other than a gentle
whirnng noise It allows me to nde my bike regularly and not feel exhausted as I reach the top of the
19'" street htll, where I live Regarding the issue of speed, the electnc assist on my bike cuts out
above 20 mph I do ride a short section of the Creek Path as well as the path through the commurnty
gardens on my commute. I assure you that I am not the fastest nder, and am regularly passed by
swifter cyclists on traditional bikes
Please contact me if you have any questions
Sincerely,
Laurie Watkms
Home phone 303-442-6197
Work phone 303-441-3142
9 January 2, 2002
Dear Ms. Ratzel
I'm wr~ting to lend my support of the proposal to allow the use of electric-assisted bicycles on the
multi-use paths in the City of Boulder I wnte from the perspective of being a retved CU taculty
member with long-standing roots here in Boulder Here's why I support this proposai.
~
~
AGENDA 1TEM # ~i ~ , PAGE I ~
Attachment B
Written Comments Received from Citizens
Page 4 of 15
•^•+.
It encourages the use of ineans of transportation other than cars The automobile is our ma~or source ,,.
of air pollution, traffic congestion, and sprawl, as well as one of our principal uses of land
It encourages older persons, such as myself, to leave thev cars at home when making sfiort tnps
within the City Some older persons are discouraged from using regular bicycles because they cannot
negotiate Boulder's steep hdls on them, these folks might be encouraged to take bikes rf they can get
an electnc boost for hiil-climbing.
Thank you for your attention
A. D Hdl
A David Hill, Professor Emeritus, Dept of Geography,
Urnversity of Colorado, Box 260, Boulder, CO 80309-0260
Home and work phone. (303)494-3178, Fax (303)494-8276
E-mail adh~colorado edu Home 3695 Lo~gwood, Boulder,CO 80305-7239
10 January 2, 2002
Dear Ms Ratzel
I am writing in reference to your upcommg January 9, 2002 meeting related to allowing electric bikes
on Boulder's bike paths
I am in full support of promoting the alternatroe transportation goals in the City of Boulde~'s Master
Plan The goals I support are no grow[h in long-term vehicle traffic, reduction in single-occupant-
vehicle travel to 25% of our trips, and contmuous reduction in mobile source emissions of air
potlutants If allowing electnc bikes to use the City of Boulder's bike paths wdl enhance the City's
ability to reach these goals without endangering path users, as the existing data indicates, then I am
in full support of this use
It is clear from our current transportation data that single occupancy vehicle tnps will continue to ~
increase in the coming years. Electric bike access to Boulder's extensive bike path system may '"'°
increase the number of people who choose to select an altemative to the automobile Electnc bikes
seem to offer an additional mobility that a non-electric bike does not offer, and may increase this
alternatrve mode of transportation. This could be especially true for people who may find it difficult to
travel on a non-electric bike
Again, as long as the use of electric bikes on Boulder's bike paths does not create a public safety
concern, I am in full support of allowing this use as it will increase our chances of reducing
dependence on the automobtle
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 303-441-1182
Sincerely,
Jeffrey J. Zayach
Environmental Health Program Manager
Boulder County Health Department
11 December 31, 2001
Regarding: Electnc bicycles on Boulder bike paths
Dear Marni,
In light of the recent discussion, I am writing to add my support for electric assist bicycles being
accepted on our multi-use paths.
Because it essentiaily "acts" as a bicycle, the electric assist bike should be aliowed on Boulder's
paths From my observations, it is qwet and is operated as a bicycle with the addition of a boost
~
AGENDA ITEM # ~ ~ ~ , PAGE ~_
Attachment B
Written Comments Received from Citizens
Page 5 of 15
~
V"'°` when needed These bikes should be allowed on the paths to give their riders the connections and
convenience of Boulder's multi-use paths, key advantages afforded non-auto travelers to get around
town
I support the electnc assist bicycle as a useful alternative to the automobde. With increasing auto
use, and the famdiar consequences of traffic congestion and air pollution, not to mention parking
headaches, Boulder needs viable transportation alternatives to offer auto dnvers The easy to use,
compact electnc bike is an option for those who want to leave the car at home and make errands
usmg clean and quiet transportation.
Also, the electnc assist bicycle supports the goals of Boulder's Transportation Master Plan, which aim
at reducing auto use and keeping down air pollution. It benefits Boulder with the "One Less Ca~'
concept for every person who uses an electric assist bike (instead of a car) one car will be removed
from Boulder's streets A bicycle is swted for the short tnp around town that would otherwise be
made in a single occupied auto
Bikes are good transportation I support bikes as a clean and efficient mode that is affordable And
they're fun~ So whaYs the fuss over the electric assist bike~ It is another form of bicycle that the City
of Boulder, I believe, should allow on the multi-use paths and support as "altemative" transportation
Thank you for considenng my comments
Sincerely,
Landon Htlliard
Post Office Box 1374, Boulder, Colorado 80306, (303) 440-5911
12 December 31, 2001
»,.. Dear Mami
`~- I am writmg in support of the use of electric-assisted bikes on the multi-use paths within the City of
Boulder To support the goals of the Transportation Master Plan and preserve quality of life m
Boulder, I urge the city of Boulder to allow the use of electnc-assisted bikes We need to utilize all
potential modes of travel to reduce the number of vehicle miles traveled in single-occupant vehicles,
and electnc-assisted bikes are one more option for a segment of the population Since they travel at
speeds of no more than 20mph, I see no conflict wdh their abdity to use the multi-use paths Boulder
should continue to lead the way in supporting alternative ways of travel.
Sincerely,
Debra A Baskett
Executroe Director
U S 36 Transportation Mobility Orgarnzation
13 December 5, 2002
To City Council Transportation Advisory Board
Please do not allow motorized vehicles on bike paths or sidewalks
Having experienced this multiple use in Holland years ago, I know how disconcerting and
uncomfortable this is for a foot-pedaling cyclist I am a frequent user of the bike paths for exercise,
pleasure and transportation. I fear that en~oyment and use of the paths wdl be much diminished by
use of motorized vehicles on the paths The streets and roads exist for motonng. The fact that
motorized bikes weight 60- 65 pounds precludes their use by any but the robustly able-bodied so it is
questionable that people who cannot pedal wdl be enabled to use the paths
Eleanor DePuy
charles deouv~coiorado edu
~,i."
ti
AGINDA ITEM # ~~Q , , ppGE ~
Attachment B
Written Comments Received from Citizens
Page 6 of 15
14 December 4, 2001
Memorandum to The Transportation Adwsory Board
~,
My wife and I are avid cyclists and ~oggers We avoid the Boulder Creek segment of Boutder's Path
System because of the danger caused by cyclists and roller bladers whose speed creates a danger
for pedestnans and others using the path. We are convinced that Boulder will over time wdness an
increasing number of very serious in~unes to bladers, cyclists and/or pedestrians resulting from the
statistically inevitable collisions that will occur on this congested segment of our path system.
As our city continues to grow and the popularity of our Path System increases, the dangers
summarized above will spread to other sections of the System.
To introduce motonzed vehicles into this situation only increases the risk to serious m~ury that already
exists We do not believe the Path System was intended to become a motor-way Instead d
constitutes both an en~oyable means of alternattve transportation and a recreational resource that
permeates our community It should be preserved as such. Boulder's effort to improve the System
should be focused upon developing and executing effectroe means of speed control rather than
introducing a new category of vehicular traffic
I have been involved in financing development of the technology underlying the current generation of
battery drroen "electrically assisted bicycles." I am familiar with thev design, weight and capaaty for
speed Since we are not now effectroely controlling the speed of bicycles on the Path System, I am
concerned that we will be unable to control the speed of motonzed vehicles which are two to three
times as heavy as a bicycle and capable of travelling 20 to 30 miles per hour. The result, of course, is
a geometric increase in the danger to users of the System and, ultimately, a reduction in our citizen's
comfort in usmg it
Motorized vehicles should properly be limited to the roadways We have an extensive system of ~
bicycle lanes integrated into our streets Electrically assisted bicycles have been speafically designed
for use in environments similar to our roadway bicycle lane system. As the technology contmues to "'"
improve, the use of our roadway bicycle lanes by electncally assisted bicycles should increase and
add to the usage of this currently underutdized alternative transportation asset
I assume that you have scrutmized the commercial motivation behind those advocating the
introduction of motorized vehicles into our Path System. I hope that there is no conflict between the
commercial interests of a few and the recreational interests of the many in our community
I urge you to act in the mterests of our commurnty and reconsider and withdraw your recommendation
to City Council that motorized vehicles be allowed on Boulder's Recreational Path System
Richard B Stebbins
2~29 13th Street
Boulder
15. December 4, 2001
Hello,
Our names are Rob Geier and Tresha Cuomo, and we've been residents of Boulder for about 8
years We have en~oyed us~ng the bike path very much over the years atong with our two children,
even as it has become more crowded. However, we think it would be a BIG mistake to allow
motorized bicycies access to this mostly pedestnan and bicycle pathway, both in terms of safety and
in terms of the aesthetic expenence
PLEASE DO NOT allow motonzed bikes or "electrically assisted" bicycles to ruin the expenence for
the rest of us, and perhaps cause in~unes to the slower moving and erratically moving children and
pedestrians using this wonderful space
~
AGENDA ITEM # I ~ - , PAGE ~
Attachment B
Written Comments Received from Citizens
~ Page 7 of 15
~"`~ Thanks for your consideration of our feehngs,
Rob Geier and Tresha Cuomo
4161 St. Croix
Boulder
303-447-3337
16 December 4, 2001
Hello,
Our names are Sally and Ted Barrett-Page, and we've been residents of Boulder for about 19 years
We have en~oyed using the bike path very much over the years along with our two chddren, even as it
has become more crowded However, we thmk it would be a BIG mistake to allow motonzed bicycles
access to this mostly pedestrian and bicycle pathway, both in terms of safety and in terms of the
aesthetic expenence
PLEASE DO NOT allow motorized bikes or "electncally assisted" bicycles to rwn the experience for
the rest of us, and perhaps cause in~unes to the slower moving and erratically moving children and
pedestrians usmg this wonderful space.
Thanks for your consideration of our feelings,
Sally and Ted Barrett-Page
616 Pine Street
Boulder
303-449-8117
17 December 4, 2001
Forthe record
As Neighborhood Liason for Mapleton and Whittier Neighborhoods, I must tell you that Mapleton in
particular is very much against electncally assisted bicycles on the bike paths (IYs my ~ob)
Julia Wrapp
wrap~~a boulder co us
18 December 3, 2001
I sent a response to Sunday's Guest Opinion against electnc assist bikes in the Camera Hopefully it
will be published
Karen Kochanski
Staff Note . Ms Kockanski's Letter to the Editor titled "Motorized bikes will blend well" was published
on December 18, 2001 and is included in Attachment C
19 December 2, 2001
It has been brought to my atte~tion that there is a motion in piace for allowing motonzed vehicles on
our Boulder bike paths My first reaction was that it must be a ~oke But then I realized that it could be
senous since pushing the envelope has become very much a way of our life We have become used
to the fact that more and more of us have lost the will to accept any kind of limitation
On further investigation, I learned that the motion was mitiated by a gentlemen who is in his 80s and
is not able to petal his bike Thus, we are dealmg with a very understandable request I am sure at
first glance, nobody in town would want to deny the gentlemen access to the bike paths
.~.,,
~
AGENDA ITEM # V~ , PAGE ~ ~
Attachment @
Written Comments Received from Citizens
Page 8 of 15
.~-,
The problem is that a motion of this kind needs an offiaal response It reqwres a decision by the ti-
authonties to either deny a smgle indrvidual access or allow access with motonzed vehicles for -
everybody
I am sure, if ailowed, the particular gentleman would be very responsible nding his electnc bike and
that he would not endanger himself and anybody else Unfortunately I have very Idtle reason to
believe that this holds true for "everybody else ' For many of us the temptation for speed is ever
present, whether we are in a car, on skis or on a bike We aiso know, it is much easier to loose
control of a vehicle under mechanical power than human power~ ThaYs why we need rules - to protect
us from ourselves and from others
Therefore, I encourage you to NOT allow general use of ANY vehicles that are powered by engines,
whether gasoline or electrical, on our preaous bike paths Anything less than a stnct rule will be
abused For example, there are kids ~n my neighborhood, who run their motorized scooters at top
speed up and down the middle of our street I would hate to see these kids let loose on the bike
paths.
I wonder if the gentlemen who made the request has fuliy considered the possible consequences,
including the poss~bdity to bemg run over by one of these "bikes" himself~ Perhaps he could consider
alternatrves There are plenty of wonderful country roads north and east of Boulder where one can
en~oy a bike nde with very little traffic and with great views
Best Regards
Gerhard Koepf
700 Kalmia Ave
Boulder Co. 80304
20 November 28, 2001 ~
Hi Mami, ~
As I said at the end of last rnghYs meeting I greatly appreaate your being informed about electric-
assist bicycles
I came to hear the board discuss a question roughly phrased as, "Should we endorse the
recommendation to temporarily end the discnmmation against electnc-assist bicycles~" I was
disappointed by a board discussion dominated by fears of an unfamdiar technology Aias, during the
discussion it became apparent board members were unaware of many facts m your report
1 felt the first Citizen Participation speaker misrepresented the facts about motor noise and bike
speed if you have ridden (or ridden along wdh) an electric-assist bicycle you would be embarcassed
to publicly claim as she did, "... they sou~d like a motorcycle". The sound is like an electnc motor
raising a car w~ndow She also quoted from a magazine advertisement about some super-duper
model capable of outrageous speeds Yet, your report is very clear about limiting speed. The other
speaker against electric-assist bikes ignored the agenda He colorfully trotted out the offenses
committed by bicyclists He told a story about "not having enough time to think which way to ~ump"
when a speeding bicycle rushed toward h~m as he stood along the Boulder Creek Path. One may
infer that he also didn't have time to think a) if it was an electnc-assist bicycle, or b.) if so, was the
battery swdched on, or c) if the nder had engaged her throttle Last night the issue before the board
was whether to treat electric-assist bicycles the same or to treat them drfferently from traditional
bicycles His was a story about a dangerous, menaang bicyclist. A threatening bicycle beanng down
on you is ~ust that; nothing more or less. Does it really matter if it is an electnc-assist or traditional
one~ Cyclist misbehawor is a different matter and as its own agenda item would, I suspect, draw a
large audience His story portrays bicyclists as harmful and by implication, electnc-assist bicyclists as
harmful But I fail to see the story's relevance to the question of differentiating electnc-assist bicycle
laws from traditional bicycle laws.
~
AGENDA ITEM #~/~} , p,qGE I 7
Attachment R
Written Comments Received from Citizens
Page 9 of 15
..~.
°j" He continued to confuse issues as he longed for the days when strolling pedestnans on the Creek
Path chatted with each other While I wholeheartedly agree about the goodness of neighborly
conversations, and the virtues of a good walk, and perhaps even the evils of a schedule-driven
soaety, I fail to see how this directly related to the agenda Yes, people should be more friendly and
m less of a hurry What has that got to do with treating electric-assist bicycles different from
traditional ones~ The advantage of an electnc-assist bicycle is its range, not ds rate.
For some, Boulder's Creek Path is a unique, downtown nature path To others it is a unique,
downtown, automobde-free recreation and transportation path. The same gentleman offered a plea to
"Let me hear the sound of the creek" as he walked along the path I can't hope to exactly reproduce
his eloquent words I think ds fair to say he would be offended by the whirnng sound from passmg
electnc-assist b~cycles This unnatural sound diminishes his en~oyment of the natural beauty of
Boulder Creek To him the sound of an electnc motor makes the path less attractive as a setting for a
walk Fav enough. Tnis is information about his preferences. Other preferences exist I have used the
electnc-assist when riding upstream to reach the westem end of the Creek Path and points beyond
In the Fall the leaves on the path are an inspinng, visual source of ~oy to me. W ho's preference is
nght~ If I am careless and rudely engage the throttle during the few seconds when he is within
earshot of my motor, does his annoyance warrant denymg me two hours of en~oyment~ I don't know
how to answer that question. Perhaps my plea should be, "Let me see the beauty along the creek"
Dunng the discussion one question wouldn't leave my head. "How can I address fears about electnc-
assist bicycles~' Unlike the other two speakers last night I do have experience nding an electnc-
assist bike on shopping errands, recreational rides with my famdy, personal meditation ndes, and
commutmg to work I've ridden in Boulder's streets and bike lanes I only recently discovered my safe
routes involving the Boulder Creek Path also make me an outlaw We rode the electric-assist bikes
on Vad's and Keystone's bike paths. Anyone can rent electnc-assist bikes at a shop on one of Vail's
pedestnan/bicycle-only streets We have explored small Colorado towns: Creede, Delores, La Junta,
"~' Lake City and others. Starting at Pueblo Reservov and then continwng mto the cdy of Pueblo we rode
~ many mdes along the Arkansas Rrver on a wide path that clearly rivals Boulder's for natural beauty
and vanety of users. As a famdy we rode the spectacular 114 mile George S Mickelson trail in South
Dakota. The cunous asked about our bikes but everyone accepted us How would you suggest I
make our knowledge and experiences avadable to the policy deasion-makers~
Frankly, there is no substdute for first-hand information Simple expenments are a great way to gather
knowledge Please encourage those fearful of the noise from electnc motors to listen to one Electnc-
ass~st bicycles don't sound at all like a Harley Davidson. Before anyone specuiates too much about
unsafe speeds encourage them to ride a bike or watch one as it is ridden The first speaker last night
offered the preposterous speculation that since electnc-assist bicycles have a throttle their nders
won't use the pedals. Ride one of the bikes and notice it you pedal or don't One simple experiment
will answer many questions and bamsh much misinformation and fear
Please forward my e-mad address to others involved in this discussion. I want the chance to answer
questions
My family has two electric-assist bicycles I use one almost daily but the other is available for
borrowing Please let me know how I can help address the fears and falsehoods about electnc-assist
bicycles Right now I'm still ~led because of the misinformation and fuzzy reasoning at last nighYs
public meeting. Better still, once I've calmed down a wee bit, let me help educate others about the
many good points of nding a bicycle m Boulder
Regards,
Scott M Aliman
smallman~smallman com
(303)641-7714
~"'^
0.,,-
AGE~7DA ITIM #~ , PAGE ~
Attachment B
Written Comments Received from Citizens
Page 10 of 15
..+a
21. November 26, 2001 _
Thank you for the information. Unfortunately, at this point I am not able to attend Below are a few of
my thoughts on the issue for the Board's consideration
John Hamilton
I am strongly opposed to the idea of allowmg any motonzed vehicles on the Bouider Bike/Pedestrian
paths for the followmg reasons
1 To my knowledge, the intent of the paths has always been for non-motorized transportation. I,
along with many other atizens, have strongly supported this concept, and I wdl continue to
support it. Changing the fundamental use of the paths after gaining the strong support is, in my
opinion, somewhat unethical. If the paths were planned with motorized vehicles in mind, that
should have been communicated when the paths were originally proposed and funded
2 Allowing motorized vehicles of any type wdl rwn the the spirit of the path system. Boulder has a
strong record of supporting different interests in a responsible way - this should continue Few
people would attempt to argue that bikes should be allowed on Mesa trad - because the spmt of
trad would be rumed to accomodate a few The same holds true with regard to allowmg motonzed
vehicles on the path system
3 It is tempting to use specific language to allow "electrically assisted bicycles" on the paths The
premise is that this use wdl be easdy managable and increase the use of alternative
transportation. However, no matter what the terminology, the result would be that motorized
vehicles would be allowed on the paths. I believe this would be totally unmanagable and create a
terrible situation on the paths.
4 The main impediment to using bicycles of any kind in Boulder is not the use of the paths - it is the
lack of safety one feels on the streets (Most trips require some on street ridmg.) To get people
out of cars and onto bikes and feet reqwres addressing on street safety issues, not changing the
rules on the paths. .w*
The path system as it exists is a centerpiece of Boulder - please don't allow motorized vehicles ,,,p
22 October 22, 2001
Marion Gately
443-7623
Suggested a handicapped sticker for electric bikes on the bike path She is in favor of electric bikes
for handicapped purposes only She is concemed it will be chaos to have electric bikes on the bike
paths overall
23. November 26, 2001
I am very concerned about the proposal to ailow powered vehicles on the bikepaths and sidewalks
am a Probation Officer in the Justice Center and use the path along the creek on a regular basis IYs
dangerous enough with ~ust human powered bikes I can't believe there is a proposal to allow
powered vehicles on these paths I was a police officer in Souther Califorrna in the 70's and 80's
when they used to allow the use of mopeds It caused so many acadents and in~unes that the entve
state of Califomia banned these vehicles from the bike paths, sidewalks, and even the city streets~
You may think you could be responsible m such a situation, however, there are 1,000 other people
who will not. I taught traffic school in California for 14 years, and the level of stupidity and
recklessness exhibited by people never ceased to amaze me Don't allow the beautrfui path along
the creek to be used in this way It was be a grave mistake
Sincerely, Lon Turner (303) 441-4720, "turner, lori" <lori turner~~udicial state co us>
/""~
AGENDA ITEM #~ , PAGE I ~
Attachment B
Written Comments Received from Citizens
Page 11 of 15
~ 24 November 16, 2001
George Peters
ainvorks ~concentric.net
Conceming the counal's consideration of allowing "electronically assisted" motonzed vehicles on
Boulder's pedestrian/bicycle paths The reason for creating the pedestnan/bike paths in Boulder were
to provide a safe passageway for bicyclists and pedestnans along the Boulder Creek pathway. This
pathway instantly became a great success and subsequently turned into a ma~or artery for speeding
bicyclists, in line skaters and skateboarders, It is already dangerous for pedestnans to walk on
without extreme caution To add another vehicle that can attain speeds of 30 mph with the
assistance on an electric motor is idiotic and inwting disaster. Just one inadent, one Ide altered
forever, one avil lawswt will force the city to reconsider. If the aty is wdling to provide a multrlevel
causeway along the pathways that provide for each of the speeding veh~cles as well as one for
walking, this allowance for a motorcycle (which is technically what it is) is ~ust as ludicrous Keep it on
the streets where it belongs.
25. November i6, 2001
Melanie Walker
Mmwalker~strioe colorado edu
I am wrding with regard to the issue of motorized vehicles on sidewalks and bike paths I urge you
not to allow this proposal to be accepted As a pedestrian in Boulder I am terronzed enough by bikes
on side-WALKS~~! I feel that designated b~ke lanes on streets is the appropnate place for these
motorized vehicles Pedestrians shanng bike paths is dangerous enough without plaang vehicles on
these same passageways that can reach speeds on 25-30+mph
""' Thank vou for vour consideration
~.,
26. November 12, 2001
Jan Clason wrote•
Hi Jerry,
I ~ust wanted to put in my two-cents about possibly allowing motonzed bikes on our city bike paths
IYs already a danger zone on the bear creek bike path from Table Mesa to Moorhead The cyclists
literally zoom through and are not always considerate of pedestrian's strolling Samantha and I walk
to school and simply crossing toffro the school wa the bndge can be challenging Although we've not
been hit yet, we've had real close calls Beth Throckmorton was hit from behmd a few years back
I'd like to make a suggestion to the transportation board to have the city put in "Cyclists Please Slow
Down" signs near parks and schools I'd brought this up to the city parks & rec and the transportation
dept. a few years back and they thought it a good idea, but thus far no signs have materialized
Thanks much for all the things you're doing on behalf of Martin Acres and our community~
Jan Clason, President
Martm Acres Neighborhood Assoaation
http•//www martmacres org
http //www libertvunites org
27. October 8, 2001
Dear members of the Boulder Transportat~on Board
A"'"
`~...
AGENDA ITEM #~T~ , PAGE d.D
Attachment B
Written Comments Received from Citizens
Page 12 of 15
^'1
As a local Boulder citizen who ndes the bicycle paths daily, often with a chtld in tow, I urge you not to ~..
allow all motonzed bicycles on the bike paths Perhaps a system could be set up where by nders
with motonzed bikes could get a free permit to ride them on these paths if they claimed some need
(age, bad knees, heart condition, etc.) but I strongly oppose ~ust letting anyone on. I lived and
bicycled in Holland for 3 years where many 14 - 18 year olds had vanous forms of motonzed bikes,
and sharing the paths with them was a nightmare Motors and pedestnans do not mix, so we should
keep any blending at an absolute mmimum, and only based on need.
Janet Streater
2830 Dover Dnve
Boulder, CO 80305
28 October 8, 2001
To whom it may concern,
I am an older boulder county cyclist who uses aty bike paths periodically for commuting and general
recreation. I am OPPOSED to the idea of allowing any type of vehicle ( other than wheelchairs ) that
is either electncally or engine powered The ma~or paths, such as the Boulder Creek path already are
qwte crowded Faster vehicles will compound the already often chaotic "scene"
Thanks for heanng my comments
Chuck Gray
670 Logan Mill Rd
29 October 8, 2001 ,~
I want to encourage you to not allow electric powered vehicies of any k~nd (excepting wheelchairs) on ~
Boulder Bike paths They should be restricted to on-street bike lanes As a pedestrian, there are
many times and places where human powered bicycles are intimidating and dangerous due to
congested areas, blind turns, and darkness Adding powered vehicies because they are currently few
in number, and not very fast will quickly become a problem as this technology improves and becomes
less expensive The on-street bike lanes are comprehensive, and allow for travel throughout this town
without needing to be on the paths. We cannot allow reliance on enforcement of speed limits on the
path to control the use of ~nappropriate vehicles
Sincerely yours,
Ron Flax
2836 Eim Avenue
303-494-5900
30 October 8, 2001
Dear Marni,
Regarding the electric-assisted bikes I would like to add our experiences with the e-bikes we have
utilized in our downtown employee transportation programs
We purchased 3 electric-assisted bikes in Apnl of this year with hopes of sparking some new interest
to employees that may not have ndden a bike in years. Our purpose was to mtroduce an excitmg and
new option to driving around town for errands or for simply commuting to work The sole purpose
behmd the purchase of the bikes was to encourage folks and motivate them to try another form of
transportation
~
,...,
AGENDA ITEM ~~ , PAGE .~
Attachment B
Written Comments Received from Citizens
~ Page 13 of 15
~ One of the electnc-assisted bikes was on display dunng our Boulder Race Senes events and was
raffled off to folks that had used "green transportation" to get to all four races. It was a very popular
item and drew a lot of conversation Another of the bikes was donated and grven away during "Walk &
Bike Week.°
The thvd bike is being used as a loaner to downtown employees for short errands or to be used as a
commuting tool for work. We have found that the majonty of employees that borrow the bike haven't
been on a bike in years. It has become a new and excitmg mtroduction to biking for many. We have
also found that for many of the employees that have tried out the electnc-bike, d has encouraged
them to get their old bikes out of storage and start using them
The electnc-assisted bikes have not only been a great marketing tool for alt mode utdization they
have also encouraged folks that have not been on a bike in years to grve biking another try~
Sincerely,
~an ward
downtown employee transportation coordinator
Downtown, University Hill and Parking Services
City of Boulder
31 October 7, 2001
David Lake
David lake~oxketmad com
Hello Marni,
Although inactive with BBC, Dave forwarded your post to me First, congratulations on being hired I
~.. know they were careful and would hire only the best, highly qualified person
~ Re E-Bike Proposal
I probably canY make the TAB meeting but want to express 110% approval and encouragement for
staff's proposal to allow electric bikes full access Frankly iYs important if not critical for the future of
ndmg in Boulder to do this I don't need to re-iterate the benefits except to say iYs probably only a
matter of time before it happens We users can deal with the'cooperation on the trads' issues
BTW, I saw my first modern ebike in boulder the other day while nding in to work Very nice He
works at the auport and as a 20year commuter wants a boost for the hills. Wasn't too hard to catch
him even with the boost running and as a somewhat slow, 25+year commuter that indicates his has
good top-end governing~
Thanks, Good Luck, John Militzer
32 I would like to suggest that NO motonzed vehicles are allowed on any bike path No motorized
skateboards, no electnc bikes, no mopeds etc the only exception ought to be for motorized
wheelchairs for people who are physically unable to walWride any[hing
Michael C Deragisch
Employer Relations Coordinator
UCB133 / Career Services
Unrversity of Colorado
Boulder Colorado, 80309
(303)492-4123
Michael. Deragisch ~colorado.edu
www colorado edu/careersernces
33 A Dear TAB members,
~
{w..-
AGENDA ITEM # ~ ~} ,PAGE ~
Attachment B
Written Comments Received from Citizens
Page 14 of 15
~"+~
i am stiff opposed to allowmg electnc assisted vehicles on muiti use paths without shown physicai --
need by the users through disabdity or age
From my perspective there is already too much high speed traffic going on o~ the paths and
addmg vehicle weight and energy to mcrease speed seems unnecessary and dangerous
I've met a number of people who say they don't want to use the paths now as there is too much
high speed activity I don't see that adding electnc assisted vehicles wdl help the ambiance of our
paths at ail and feel, indeed, that they would detract from keeping the paths an attractrve place for
people to use foot power.
In any case I am for specifically limiting two things on any citizen run powered vehicle which may
be allowed on the paths
W eight
Horsepower
Assuming the electnc is allowed I don't care rf it has peda4s or not or runs on hydrogen, methane
or other fuei so long as iYs not an internal combustion engine making fume and noise [fuel cells
OK] The hazmat guys can deal with sulfuric aad and potassium hydroxide spols from
conventional battenes f presume [a new bike path ~ob -) ]
Go to yahoo.com and type in °lectra vi'24" for an electnc bike that goes up to 45 MPH Vehicies
Of this nature should definitely be excluded.
I Hope we see thousands of electric bikes on the roadways soon -but I'm not looking forward to
seeing them on our multruse paths
ride on~ premena
~
B There ~s no reason that electnc bikes can't be made to go very fast for short periods of time --
[battery weight IS still a big issue] and the small lightweight motors are available if you have the
money
A bike about eqwvalent to a 250cc gasoline engine is available in the Lectra VR24 [go to yahoo com
and type it in -took at web I~stings] About 45MPH top speed and about $3500 now I think [$6000
about 3 years ago]
Whereas I don't expect this eqwpment to appear in use in quantity soon [guys like that internal
combustion noise] 1 think it would be wise to limit machme weight and power
A person is about 1/10 horsepower [HP] steady or 1/3 HP for short times A motor putting out as
much energy as a perso~ ~s easdy fitted to a bike a~d gives great adva~tage
I say save it for the old folks on the multi-use paths - these things are heavier and make nasty
machine noises - we already have too much speed on the paths Some of it ~ust from speed skaters
ride on~ oremena
34 DearTAB members,
These are my personal comments about tonighYs TAB agenda item no VI A.sub 2, electric bikes
Please do not take these comments as sepresentative of any organization or person other than
myself
After reading the staff memo, it seems that there wdl not be a significant increase in contlicts if
electric-assisted bikes are legalized on Boulder's multi-use paths This was the reported expenence
in communities in Missoun, California and Georgia
~w.
AGENDA ITFZvt # '~J~ ~ ~, PAGE ~~
Attachment B
Written Comments Received from Citizens
Page 15 of 15
x^~-
,,,,,, Therefore I am supportrve of expanding Boulder's electnc bike ordinance to allow operation on
multi-use paths Please support the staff recommendation to continue with staff studies and an
October 8 public hearing on the ordinance revision. Thank you
Sincerely,
Dave Aliured
4231 Eaton CouR
Boulder, CO 80303
303-499-7466
CC: BldrBike~yahooarouos com
~
/"`
~
AGENDA ITEM ~ ~ ~, , PAGE ~
,~^ Attachment C
~ Account Daily Camera Editorial / Guest Opinion
Page 1 of 7
~.
~
Letters to the Editor
ELECTRIC BIKES
Giving some help to older Boulder
I cannot pass up the opportunity to respond to Mark Kern's letter on Dec. 24, m which
he argues that Boulder's bike paths should be kept free of motorized transportation
Although this topic is ~ust one of many that has strong proponents and opponents, his
comment that, "If someone is so disabled they need motonzed transportation, then
standing on a motorized contraption or balancing on a bicycle is likely to fit the needs of
very few," really made me angry.
Mark is obviously unaware that a whole segment of our population falls mto the "senior"
category, and that folks who have ridden bikes most of their lives now need a small
assist in order to travel substantial distances by bicycle. I'm one of these folks, not
disabled but merely aging naturally, and i'd love a motorized bike to allow me to leave
my car in the garage more often. Bicycles with electric motors are quiet and not
necessarily high speed, and wdl provide additional travel opportunities for many of our
older residents. After all, Mark, you, too, wdl be growing older one day~
JULIA PORTMORE
Boulder
December 29, 2001
OO Boulder Daily Camera
AGENDA ITEM ~ VI'• rf ., PAGE ~
Attachment C
Account Daily Camera Editorial / Guest Opinion ~
Page 2 of 7 `~
Daily Camera (Boulder, CO)
LETTERS
December 24, 2001
Section: Editorials
Page: A6
Column: Commentary
MOTORIZED BIKES
Keep our paths human-powered
In response to the letter "Motorized bikes wdl blend in well," by Karen Kochanski
on Dec. 18: It is nice that the paths are free of motorized transportation. It is a
simple and easy distinction: "No Motor Vehicles." I nde a bicycle a lot. I use the
paths a lot. I don't want to see motorized bicycles on the paths. If someone is ~
so disabled they need motorized transportation, then standmg on a motorized
contraption or balancing on a bicycle is likely to fit the needs of very few. ~
Once motorized bicycles are allowed on the paths, they are no longer "No Moto
Kochanski wrote about a 15-mph speed limit on the path. I suppose someone co~
stretches of the paths, but I doubt a bicycle racmg along one of the paths near th
more than 12 mph, perhaps not even more than 10 mph.
The perceptions of bicycle speeds in town are amazmg. A letter once appeared
in the Camera, saying bicyclists go 30 mph at intersections. I ~oked once at a
bicycle meeting about the 25-mph sign along the bike path by Foothdls and the
Boulder Creek Path Everybody laughed. Bicyclists go faster, but my speed down
nearby canyons exceeds 20 mph by 2 or 3 mph, and I am in my top gear with the
long, steady decline in my favor.
MARK S. KERN
Boulder
OO Boulder Daily Camera
~
AGENDA ITEM #~ , PAGE c1 ~O
,,,,m. Attachment C
~,.,. Account Daily Camera Editorial / Guest Opinion
Page 3 of 7
Letters to the Editor
BIKE PATHS
Motorized bikes will blend in well
This letter is in response to the guest opinion titled "Keep Our Paths Quiet" published
Dec. 2. The author, Charlotte Sorenson, expressed several concems about allowing
electric- assist bikes to use the bike paths in Boulder. I have such a bike and disagree
with several of her conclusions.
Her first concem is that electnc- assist bikes will increase the congestion on the bike
paths. I have only ever seen one other such bike in use when I ride and I doubt that
there are very many out there.
`~ Another concern is their abdity to exceed the 15 mph speed limit on the paths. When I
"'"" ride my bike, I am constantly passed by others using non-motorized bikes. People who
use electnc-assist bikes generally do so because they are not able to use a non-
powered bike. Even when the power is used, the bike will not reach high speeds when
pedaled by a disabled or elderly person.
Her final concem is noise. My bike is very quiet when the power is engaged. I can carry
on a normal conversation with another rider without the need to shout over the sound of
the bike. I have in fact ndden my bike on the paths, only sporadically engaging the
power to climb inclines coming out of underpasses. No one has ever been startled or
complained of the noise.
The altemative to using bike paths to get around Boulder on an electric-assist bike is
dangerous for disabled and elderly people. These bikes cannot compete with traffic any
more than a regular bike, and collisions wdl be mevitable According to the author, the
risks of allowing electric assist bikes on bike paths "clearly outweigh the benefits " I
disagree.
KAREN KOCHANSKI
Bou/der
December 18, 2001
O Boulder Daily Camera
r^°~
~...
AGENDA ITEM #~~ , PAGE ~
Attachment C ,y
Account Daily Camera Editorial / Guest Opinion ~
Page 4 of 7
Give'electric-assist' bicycles a chance
By Scott Allman
After reading "Keep our paths quiet," a Dec. 2 guest opirnon cntical of electric-assist
bicycles, I thought tefling my own experiences as an owner and rider of such a bicycle
might add some balance to the discussion.
I've rediscovered bike nding. Dunng the Lights of December Parade as I electncally
meandered the chdly streets of downtown Boulder with the Casey Middle School Bike
Club, a young woman called out to me, "You're havmg as much fun as the kids~" She ~
was right. ""'~
I hadn't senously ridden a bike since the 1980s. I'm over 50 now and no one has ever
confused me with a top-notch athlete. As my chddren grew, they wanted more and
longer family bike rides with their Dad
With their encouragement, I test rode an electnc-assist bike, bought one, and in
retrospect, it's surprising how quickly the miles add up. I toodle to the bank and grocery
store, nde quick trips to the Urnversity of Colorado(with no parking hassles) and pedal
commute to work in east Boulder.
The great advantage of an electnc-assist bicycle is its range, not its rate of speed.
Compared to traditional bicycles there's less worry when running errands and more
pfaces to have fun. In 18 months I've ridden mine almost 2,000 miles.
Recently the Transportation Advisory Board recommended that the aty of Boulder
"permit the use of electric-assisted, pedal powered bicycles on off-street bicycle
facilities" and "allow electric-assisted bicycles to operate on all factlities where traditional
bicycles are allowed."
As those of us who ride electric-assist bikes know all too well, it's a welcome change
thaYs long overdue. The city of Boulder has designed a beautiful, safe, tranqwl
transportation network located next to meadows, schools, woods, office complexes,
businesses, parks and streams.
How does electric-assist work~ To get the assist, you hold down a small lever mounted
on the bicycle handlebars. As long as you continue to press downward an electric motor
..*,
AGENDA ITE~f ~ V~~ R' . PAGE ~._
~ Attachment C
Account Daily Camera Editorial / Guest Opinion
Page 5 of 7
helps turn the rear wheel. The motor makes a sound like the soft whir you hear as an
electric car window is lowered.
On level ground with a fully charged battery, the electric-assist has a top speed of 15
mph. Running the motor while coastmg or nding downhdl is a sdly waste of precious
electriaty
The battery and motor do make these bikes heawer than a bicycle designed for speed I
gladly increased my bike's weight to ~ust over 50 pounds by adding reflectors, a
courtesy bell for pedestnans, front headlight, rear-view mirror, flashing tad-light, rear
wheel rack and panniers for safely carrying loads, kickstand, and a computer to
accurately measure speed and distance. I probably operate the safest bike in Boulder.
And from a safety perspective iYs the operator that makes the most difference. Fears
that aging Baby Boomers like me wdl make the Boulder Creek Path a racetrack are
clearly unfounded.
These bikes handle like a mountain bike and are as safe as mountain bikes When the
bike needs repairs and ad~ustments I take it to a local bike shop. The Colorado
Department of Motor Vehicles doesn't regulate either electnc-assist bikes or their riders
preasely because they are not motor vehicles. First and foremost they are bikes.
The TAB proposal defines in detad an electric-assist bike. Scooters, mopeds, and
~ motorcycles are excluded Bikes like mme are included Before anyone else confuses
~ noisy gas-powered mopeds or scooters with electric-assist bikes, please read the TAB
recommendation. My model is pictured in Attachment A, on the top row.
At the heart of the recommendation is a trial period of one year to gather citizen
feedback. The lone dissenting TAB voter was quoted as saying, "Once they are in, they
are in." I'd like to take that thought one step farther and add, " Once you've seen and
heard an electric-assist bicycle, you'll never believe they are a ma~or hazard or fear they
will 'drown out the sound of the creek."' And, I suspect, once your life changes to include
a bike as an altemative way to get around town, you wdl want to use the safest, most
beautiful routes.
If the City Counal follows the TAB recommendation you can see and hear for yourself
the truth about electric-assist bikes. Most of you won't even notice me as I blend in with
the many different users of our beautiful paths.
Better yet, take an electric-assist bicycle for a ride like I did. The TAB recommendation
opens a door for you to rediscover the many ~oys of nding a bike in Boulder
Scott A/lman lives m Bou/der.
December 8, 2001
OO Boulder Dady Camera
P""~
`~..
AGENDA ITEM #~~} , PAGE ~
Attachment C ,,,~
Account Daily Camera Editorial / Guest Opinion
Page 6 of 7 '~
Keep our paths quiet
By Charlotte Sorenson
On Oct. 8, the Transportation Advisory Board of the city of Boulder voted to recommend
to the City Councd that motonzed vehic-es be allowed on Boulder's sidewalks and
pedestrian/bicycle paths.
While the board euphemistically calls these machines "electrically assisted bicycles,"
they are motonzed vehicles as defined by the city, a definition the board would like to
change in a revised ordinance.
As a pedestrian and cyclist who loves the bike paths, I have three concems if motorized '~
vehicles are allowed on the recreational bike paths, many of which run through '°`
Boulder's parks and open space.
The first concem is safety. Already the bicycle/pedestrian paths are used for human-
powered recreational act~vd~es by walkers of all ages (from seniors to toddlers), by
roller-bladers and skateboarders, by dogs, and by bicyclists who frequently exceed the
posted limit of 15 mph
Allowing electncally assisted motorized bikes on the paths would add sigrnficantly to the
existmg congestion and danger. Such bikes are almost all capable of speeds faster than
the speed limit And some can go much faster. For example, the Dec. 13, 1999 issue of
VeloNews states• "The Optibike (one brand of electnc bicycles) really rips~ Test nding
on single-track trails and streets around Boulder is a blast ... You can comfortably cruise
at 25-30 mph without breaking a sweat." Speed wdl almost inevitably cause accidents
- particularly on the already crowded multi-use paths and sidewalks.
The second concern is lack of enforceabdity. There is no enforcement on the paths now,
nor is there likely to be, given the Boulder Police Department's limited resources and
budgetary constraints. Opening the door to "electncally assisted bicycles" opens the
door to motonzed vehicles of any type Who and what is to prevent mopeds, electnc
scooters, or even gas scooters from using the paths? A pedestrian has no chance of
identifying or catching up with any of these unlicensed machmes to protest excessive
speed or unsafe operation. If there were an accident or a near miss, where would one
get help? And would the city be liable for damages~
~
AGENDA ITEbf # l~ 17 ~, PAGE ~ O
~ Attachment C
Account Daily Camera Editorial / Guest Opinion
Page 7 of 7
The third concern is noise A member of the Transportation Adwsory Board said. "They
make zero noise " In fact, when the demonstration bikes (one that looked like a moped)
were tumed on at the Oct. 8 meeting, they made considerable noise. Len Barron, long-
time resident and walker, spoke at the Nov. 26 meeting of the Parks and Recreation
Board. He pleaded with the board to keep Boulder's parks both safe and quiet, saying
that the en~oyment of natural sounds such as that of flowing water would be destroyed
by the sound of motors on paths such as the Creek Path. "
Some might say: "Well, there wdl only be little bursts of noise and speed." Common
sense suggests, however, that if there is a motor on a bicycle or scooter, the rider wdl
tend to use the motor most, if not all, of the time - both up and down hdls. IYs just
easier. The bikes are heavy (weighing approximately 60 pounds) and are harder to
pedal than regular bikes (which typically weigh 20 to 30 pounds.) As Walter Fricke,
assistant city attomey, acknowledged at the Oct 8 TAB meeting• "No one pedals a
moped." Certamly no sernor wdl pedal a 60-pound bicycle. Nor wdl commuters, the TAB
real target user group.
The city of Bouider created a network of beautiful and tranquil paths through meadows,
woods, and next to streams for the use of pedestrians and for other activities that are
human powered. LeYs keep it that way~
Because of serious issues of safety, enforcement and noise, motorized vehicles of any
^""` type belong m the bicycle lanes on the city streets, not on the pedestian and bicycle
`"" paths. No other community in Colorado permits such vehicles on their recreational bike
paths. Given that the nsks clearly outwe~gh the benefits, why should Boulder be the first
to do so~
Unless the Transportation Advisory Board withdraws its recommondation at its
upcoming Dec. 10 meetmg, the aty council wdl vote early in 2002 on whether to allow
motonzed vehicles on Boulder's sidewalks and bicycle paths The TAB says the new
ordinance would ~ust be a test, subject to review after a year or so to see how many
acadents and complaints occur. But as Brant Liebmann, the only TAB member to vote
against the recommendation, wamed at the Oct. 8 meetmg: "Once they are m, they are
in."
Readers who share the concerns described in this opmion piece are encouraged to
write or contact members of both the city council and the TAB to urge them to keep
electrically assisted motorized bicycles off our sidewalks and recreational paths. Simple
common sense dictates that these treasured pathways should contmue to be reserved
for human-powered actroities
Char/otte Sorenson is a Bou/der resident.
December 2, 2001
OO Boulder Daily Camera
~
AGENDA ITE~I # I~ • ~•, PAGE ~
Attachment D
Ms. Sorenson's Letters of Request and Staff's Response
~
January 4, 2001
Ms. Charlotte Sorenson
603 Spruce Street
Boulder, CO 80302
Dear Charlotte.
This is in further response to your December 4 and December 8, 2001 letters regarding electnc-assisted
bicycles. Thank you for your comments and questions
It is my understandmg that the Transpo~tation Adwsory Board's (TAB) recommendation to City Council on
amending the Boulder Revised Code to permit the use of electnc-assisted, pedal powered bicycies (herein
referred to as electnc-assisted bicycles) on off-street b~cycle facdities resulted from information regarding
Boulder's expenence relative to the use of electnc-assisted bicycies in our community to date and the desire
to promote more options for the potential bicycle user.
r
~ In 1999, the Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) considered a recommendadon to proceed w~th an
ordmance revision that would have allowed the use of electnc-assisted bicycles on both off- and on-street
facd~ties Dunng the public process, staff addressed questions raised by TAB members and ci~zens
regarding the specifications of electnc-assisted bicycles, experiences of other communities w~th electnc-
assisted bicycles on multi-use paths, and examples of ordinances allowing the use of electnc-assisted
bicycles TAB memorandums and meeting minutes of July, August and September 1999 provide an
account of the process I'd be happy to provide you with copies of these documents
A defmition for "electric-assisted bicycles° was agreed upon However, the overall discussion warranted that
a better understanding of the potential impacts of introducing the electnc-assisted bicycles was necessary
TAB passed a mohon to recommend that electnc-assisted bicycles be pertnitted to operate on the street and
in bicycle lanes and that the ordmance be rewsded in a year's time
In preparation tor the recent ordinance rewew, t consulted the Boulder Police Department to obtam
informaUon on crash expenence, summons issuance and current enforcement practices Police Officer
Mitch Tnullqo, a bicycle patrol officer assigned to the Downtown and Hdl Distncts, indicated that no record of
complamts, conflicts or crash occurrences involving electnc-assisted bicycles have been fded to date With
respect to the proposed recommendai~on to allow electnc-assisted bicycles to operate on mulU-use paths
and sidewalks, Officer Tnullgo also stated that electric-assisted bicycles should be classified as bicycles
and, therefore, be govemed under the same regulations
As outlmed in my letter of December 6, I conducted follow-up mquires with representahves of Santa Rosa,
CA and the Katy Trail, MO this summer to obtain an update on their experiences. Each stated that their
community has not experienced a resultmg increase in conflicts on multi-use paths or other bicycle facilities
due to the operation of electric-assisted bicycles I also communicated with Dawd Wegener, GeArgia
~ Department of Transportation He confirmed that the State of Georgia law allows electric-assisted bicycles
on multi-use paths Mr. Wegener also did not have a record of any incidents / acadent expenence involving
electnc-assisted bicycles since the ordinance was passed in February 1996
AGENDA ITEM #~~„ PAGE ~~
Ms. Sorenson
January 4, 2002
Page 2 of 2
Our research indicates that Bouider and other communities that have adopted ordinances to define and regulate the
use of electnc-assisted bicycles shows that no adverse impacts have resulted from integratmg these vehicles mto their
bicycle systems However, since receiving your letters, I have again contacted the above communities and conducted
addihonal intemet searches to obtam information, and I hope to answer your questions.
As requested, I also contacted the cities of San Francisco and Petaluma, CA It is my understanding that in-depth
telephone interviews with these communities were not previously conducted because neither had adopted ordinances,
thus previous data from these cit~es would have been minimal LasUy, I contacted the aty of Santa Cruz, which has
adopted an ordinance similar to the one that exists m Boulder today Additional staff resources and time were
required to compde a detaded accoum in response to your questions. Some quest~ons are not directly applicable to
each communiry that Boulder contacted. Addironally, my attempts to reach some representatives were unsuccessful
due to the holiday season In lieu of providmg an itemized response to each question outlmed in your letters for each
community, I offer the foilowing summary of our research, which has been expanded to address your concems as best
as possi6le An account of supplemental mformaGon gathe~ed is detaaled by locale as Attachment A.
Appended as Attachment B is a summary of average dady bicycle volume counts at select locations along multi-use
paths m the aty of Boulder for each year from 1999 to 2001. A percent change of bicycle volume between 1999 and
2001 is included. As noted on the attachment, coum data compared is for the month of May. The city has not
coilected data detadmg the number of pedestaans, in-hne skaters, skatehoarders or other users that aiso share the
multi-use paths
."-,
I'd like to emphasize that a national standardization for electnc•assisted bicycle laws does not exist The practices
empfoyed to regulate the operation of electnc-assisted bicycles and effects expenenced by commundies that staff
researched oHers msight and d~alogue for Boulder to draw from Staff has utdized the mtormaUon obtained to
determme what elements are applicable to our community and gain an understanding of the issues to address in ~""~o
drafting an ordinance to regulate these vehicles in Boulder I am confident that the mformation obtained offers a -.~
reasonabie, accurate and appropnate sample of strategies and expenences for the cit¢ens and decision makers of
Boulder to regard in their considerahon of a recommendation on whether to amend the ex~shng ordinance
In closing, I'd like to adwse you that the Open Space Board of Trustees (OSBT) and Parks and Recreation Advisory
Board (PAAB) will each hold a public heanng to receive comments and consider the proposed ordmance amendment
recommended by TAB The PRAB public heanng is scheduled on the agenda of their January 28 meetmg. The
OSBT public hearing is yet to be scheduled Please contact me ~f you would like meeting detads and let me know if I
can be of further assistance. Again, your input is welcomed and appreaated
Regards,
Mami Ratzel
Bicycle / Pedestnan Transportation Planner
Attachments
A Account of information obtained in response to your letters
B. Average Datly Bicycie Volume Count at Select Locations
~«*.
AGENDA ITEM # V-F-~ ~' , PAGE 3 3
Page 1 of 1
, ,,...
,~
Georgia Jackson - Motorized vehicles on paths
oa-
inC/u.~c fn pit
~ /~r ."~
~
,~
From: "~ohn avery" <avery~ohn2@hotmail com>
To: <counsel@a.boulder co.us>
Date: 1/5/2002 11:05 AM
Subject: Motorized vehicles on paths
CC: <ratrelm@ci boulder co us>, <~acksongQci boulder co us>, <crain~@ci boulder co us>
Dear Sirs,
Without rewewmg all the arguments, which I'm sure you have heard many
times, I simply want to register my opposition to perm~tting motorized
vehicles on Boulder's bike/pedestnan paths. I see these paths as
recreational first and foremost, and secondarily and inadentally as a
short-range commuter system If Boulder were to develop a dedicated set of
bike•commuter arteriais for longer-range trips, electric•assisted bikes
might be appropnate, but not on the ex~sting set of paths
Sincerely, John S Avery, 600 Kalmia Ave , Boulder 80304
Send and recerve Hotmail on your mobile device. htto //mobile msn com
r~
~
~
u~v 2~ ~ 20° ~
,
~ ~~Y~~4 ~ ,
~ ~a~ ~ l7~
~ cc esY~~ ~
~e
~e~.~. y f ~
~ ~~
~~ ~ ~ ~ ~
L- cop~
~ ~
= a ~ ~ a~~ tu ~
~
~,
~-- ~a~~ D~d ~~ ~~
~
~
~ ~~L~S
sb ~
~I~ ~
~a~
~~~~
~
~~,
~ ~~~cG~ !
~ (1^
~ ~ ~lQ ( ~~
~c~~o~ ~- . ~ ~
- ~~~ ~~~, ,
~
a~~ ~~~
~~~~
~ ~~ ~ ~~~
~f
~ ~c ~Q~~
~V(
1
~~1~
36 ~ ~y~
~
2~
~~
~.
~~
~
~. Il~ ~
~~ ~~
(o ~s'~s
r ' .
•
Charlotte R. Sorenson
~ 603 Spruce Street
~ Boalder, CO 80302
~ Te-: (303) 440.6955
FAX: (303) 440-9752
e-mail: chaco(~a,boulder.com
Memorandum
Motonzed Velvcles on Boulder's Sidewalks and Pedestnan/Bicvcle Paths
To Boulder C~ty Councilors
William R Toor, Mayor L~za Morzel
Thomas Eldndge, Deputy Mayor Franco~se Pomsatte
Dan Corson Gordon Riggle
Spenser W Havl~ck Mazk Ruzzm
Donald R Mock
Ron Secrist, City Manager
Chnstine Aaderson, Deputy City Manager for Env~ronmental Security
John Tayer, Chairmaa, Transportation Advisory Board
Stephen E Millard, Editorial Page Editor, Da~1~Camera
Greg Avery, StaffReporter, Dailv Camera
From Charlotte R Sorenson
Date December 14, 2001
~..
`"` Ttus memorandum expresses my concems as a cit~zen with regard to the October 8, 2001
recommendation by the Transportation Advisory Boazd (TAB) to pemvt the use of motorized
vekucles (electrically-ass~sted bicycles) on Boulder's sidewalks and pedestrianlbicycle paths
Smce attending TAB's meeting on October 8, I have contacted between 350 and 400 people,
many of them m person on the paths around Boulder Of this group, perhaps five have
considered TAB's recommendation to be a good idea Even these five, when presented with
the serious issues of safety, lack of enforcement, and motorized noise, began to reconsider
the~r vtews Many peop]e felt that there had not been enough pubhc nonce before TAB's
October S vote In fact, most of the people I spoke with thought TAB's recommendation was
some sort of joke~ "IYs already crazy out here~" was a typical reaction
As a pedestnan and a recreat~ona! walker, I en~oy usmg all of Boulder's trails for the sohtude
and natural beauty they provide an escape from the confusion and notse of the streets I
walk by myself, wyth Criends, and with family and grandchildren I enloy the paths as a
cychst as well
However, I am well awaze that the paths aze becommg mcreasingly congested v~nth skate-
boazders, roller-bladers, mothers with toddlers and baby camages, dogs on leashes, and other
users all compehng for space Those who laid out the paths m the first place undoubtedly
did not ant~cipate some of these uses I am aware, also, t6at there are numerous blind corners
~^ on the paths and many bikers who already exceed the posted 15 mph speed limrt
~I~~r
W~th the smgle exception of motonzed wheelcha~rs for the hand~capped, I am totally
opposed to opening the door to motorized velucles of any kmd (u-cluding electrically-
assisted motorized bicycles) for use on Boulder's s~dewalks and pedestnan/bicycle paths
-~
In my opmion, introducmg motonzed velucles would, in effect, turn these recreahonal paths
mto "mmi-streets" and only make them more dangerous, an outcome that those who ~
supported the creation of the paths would certa~nly decry _.
The recreaUonal pedestnan/bicycle paths should be reserved for human-powered actrvihes
Motonzed ve}ucles such as electnc bikes belong m the bicycle lanes on the city streets where
there is already a good system of bicycle lanes In fact, the bicycle commuters w~th whom I
have spoken have assured me that they can uavel to almost any destmation m Boulder usmg
only the city streets
My additional concems fall into three categories, each of which I shall discuss in tlus
memorandum
A Weaknesses in the azguments supportmg TAB's recommendation
B TAB's recommendation is based on madequate studies by the Transportation Dept
C On Dec 18, Council Members should test-dnve more than one model of e-bilces
A Weaknesses m the Ar~uments Supportmg TAB's Recommendation
Members of TAB have encouraged Council members to allow motorized velucles (in
ttus case, electncally-assisted b~cycles) on Boulder's sidewalks and bicycle paths for a
yeaz to be followed by a review At the October 8 meering of TAB when the
recommendahon was made, Tim Rettew (TAB) acknowledged "new hazards and a
harassmg component" to these new vehicles, but suggested future rev~ew "LeYs see how ~
many accide~rts and complamts there are " Note, however, that the recommended ~,
ordinance does not mclude a sunset provision at the end of the year and thus would be
permanent unless overturned
I tivnk that ttus is a clever strategy for TAB, but I think that it is d~smgenuous and
misleading as faz as the public is concemed How common is it to review or reverse
ordinances once they are wntten~ Would rt be easy to get motonzed vehicle users off the
sidewalks and paths once they have become accustomed to using them~ How often in the
city have reviews reversed an original vote~
2 I know also that members of TAB have encouraged Council members to believe that
there vnfl only be a few of these vehicl~s T4iat, too, is isusleadmg Maybe they aze nght,
during the first few years Then usage will go up as prices go down and as these vehicles
become more popular (wtuch, of course, is TAB's hope) Only then will the real
problems of safety, enforcement, and no~se begin
In the meantune, because there is virtually no enforcement on these paths, would not the
door be opened to other forms of motonzed ve}ucles electnc and gas scooters, mopeds,
the new "Segway" scooter, and perhaps even golf carts~ There is no way to keep these
vehicles off the s~dewalks and paths It would be almost impossible, as well as very
costly, to stahon a monitor at each and every entrance to a sidewalk or path to do a tnage
based on number of watts, make of vehicle, gas or electnc, etc
.-+,
~~
,~
~ 3 As for re-defining the mearung of the word "b~cycie" m the ordinance, let's not wonder,
~ as Mr Clinton did, what the de&nttton of "is" ~s Tn my opmioq that would be ]egislatrve
sleight of hand
A motonzed velvcle is a motonzed vetucle
A bicycle wrth a motor is a motonzed velucle
A bicycle with a motor is not ` just a bike "
B TAB's Recommendation is Based on Inadequate Studies bv the Transnortation
DeQartment
It is my opmion that TAB based its October 8 decision on studies that were supeficial
and incomplete Based m part on these madequate studaes, TAB voted to recommend to
City Council that it change an existing city ordinance and re-de$ne a motorized vehtcle
(an electncally-assisted motonzed bicycle) as ` just a bike" Ttus would allow these
motorized ve}ucles to run on Boulder's sidewalks and pedestrian/bicycle paths
I am enclosmg the "studies of various/several cities and communities" to wtuch Marm
Ratzel (B~cycle and Pedestrian Transponation Planner, Transportation Department)
refened m two public meetings that I attended (the October 8 meeting of TAB and
the November 26 meeting of the Boazd of Parks and Recreation) In the hallway after the
P& R Boazd meeting, Ms Itauel also told my husband and me about the "studies" she
had done "~n other c~t~es" and promised to send them to me
'"~ I asked for these studies because I felt that they were important m that they obviousiy
'~-~ influenced members of TAB m their vote (John Tayor, TAB Chvr, referred to "stud~es
done in other c~ties") They also influenced the public in attendance at the meetings
Finally, they mfluenced the press Greg Avery, Dailv Camera, October 7, 2001, quoted
Ms Ratzel "Other cit~es have allowed the electric-ass~sted bilces on bike paths and
doing so has not mcreased reported problems on the paths"
After two additional written requests as well as an mtervention by Ron Sechrist, City
Manager, I receivad these "studies "(Both letters to Ms Ratzel and the "studies" are
enclosed ) I reviewed them and found them to be totally inadequate and superficial In
addrttoq Ms Rauel did not answer any of the questions posed m my letter to her of
December 4
On December 8, I wrote to Ms Ratzel again (]etter enclosed) askv~g for more complete
u~formation I have not yet recerved a response I am, therefore, on the advice of several
knowledgeable members of the community, puttmg these materials in your hands, so that
you, as Council members, will be able to draw your own conclusions about their
adequacy before you make a dec~sion that would constitute a dramaUc change of use of
Boulder's sidewalks and bicycle paths
C On Dec I8 Council Members Should Tesi-Dnve More Than Just One E-bike Model
I have learned that Council members will be trying out Scott Allman's e-bike on
~ December 18~' I hope that Council members vv~ll keep in mmd that over 200 companies
currently make these b~kes (By the way, many e-bikes are sold in avtomobile agencies,
not as you might imagine m bicycle shops They aze considered motorized vehicles, l~ke
cazs ) Testing only one will not give a true picture of the range of their capabiGt~es
.~
4
(speed, power, weight, noise, maneuverabilrty, safety features, etc ) Council members
should try a vanety of models of e-bikes even the fastest ones or ones that resemble ~
mopeds
Scott's e-b~ke is not the only model on the market or m the prototype phase, as can be
seen in the enclosed article "Turner's Electnc Bike" (VeloNews, a Boulder-based
publicaUOn, December 13, 1999) The Opt~-Bike ~s certauily not being marketed to
Boulder's seniors, a group which TAB promotes as one of rts pnmary target audiences
Excerpts "It really rips~"
"Test-riding on single-track tra~ls and streets around Boulder is a blast "
"You can comfortably cruise at 25-30 mph without breaking a sweat "
" behaves more like a motorcycle "
"By contrast, a road motorcycie provides no exercise or access to
b~ke paths, rough tra~ls °
What ~s to keep such models (sUll wit}un TAB's guidel~nes of 400 watts) off the
s~dewalks or paths~ There can never be meanuigful enforcement once the door 6as
been opened to motorized vehicles of any type
Summarv
After much thoughtful effort, the city of Boulder created a umque and beautiful network of
paths, primarily for the off-street use of pedestnans and cyclysts human-powered actrvities
Certainly, in supporting the creation of these paths, no cit~zen thought that he or she was, in fact, '"~
voting for future "mini-streets" ""`
The cunent "bright-Gne" ordinance that reserves Boulder's sidewalks and pedestrian/bicycle
paths exclusrvely for human-powered activrties is a good one It is easily understood by all
Permitung motorized velvcles on the c~ty's s~dewalks and pedestnan/bicycle paths threatens to
create safety, enforcement, and noise problems and to destroy the very qualities that make
Boulder unique
Please contmue to prohibit motorized vehicles from Boulder's sidewalks and pedesinanlbicycle
paths Keep ~11 motonzed vehicles, including electncally-asststed bicycles, on the city streets
and m the bicycle lanes where fhey belong~
Thank you for your thoughtful considerat~on of these matters
Sincerely,
C~IV~~ ~'~~U~-
Charlotte R Sorenson
Enclosures
1 Sunday Camera Guest Opiruon, "Keep Our Paths Qwet", December 2, 2001 ~-+,
2 VeloNews anc~le "Turner's Electric B~ke", December 13, 1999
3 Letters to Mam~ Ratzel November 29, December 4 and 8, 2001
4 Transportation Department "Studies" of Electric Bikes
December 18, 2001
~ Presentation To The Boulder City Council
My name is Charlotte Sorenson I live at 603 Spruce Street
I am here to speak in opposit~on to the recommendarion made to Council by the Transportat~on Adv~sory
Board (TAB) to permit e-bikes (electrically-assisted motorized veivcles) onto Boulder's sidewalks and
pedestrian/bicycle paths
In the letter that I delivered to each of you last Friday, I expressed the opuuon that TAB's proposal was
based upon inadequate public review and inadequate studies of e-bikes in other communities In addition,
I might point out that there is no reference to the introduction of motorized vehicles m the Greenways
Master Plan, approved by Council m November
I feel that members of TAB have offered to the public and to Council soothing azguments for what I
beGeve they ultimately want to achieve the slow but steady transformarion of Boulder's unique system of
recreational paths imo what could become "mim-streets "
First and foremost, TAB wants the Council to redefine an e-bike as "just a bike " However, an e-bike has
a motor and is thus a motonzed vetucle regazdless of whether the motor is on (An analogy a moped has
pedals and can be pedaled without engaging the motor, but no one is suggesting that mopeds are not
motorized vetucles )
'~' Second, TAB wants the public and Council to betieve that there will be "only a few" of these vehicles on
`" the sidewalks and paths True today, perhaps, but, in fact, there are about 200 manufacturers worldvinde
who make e-bikes As prices go down and technology unproves, usage could increase dramatically,
thereby adding significantly to the already existing congestion and danger on the paths
Third, TAB soothes the public and Council by sa}nng that "these ve}ucles were not built to appeal to speed
demons " In fact, the OptiBike designed in North Boulder by Jim Turner conforms to TAB's guidelines
of 400 watts, but as Jim told me yesterday, it is built for speed "It can go 25-30mph about as fast as a
car on Boulder's streets " Jim was advised by the Transportation Department not to demonstrate his e-
bike for Council, because, as he put it, "it goes too fast "
Fou TAB encourages Council and the public to "try it for a year " Ttus is tmly seductive The ~ssues
raised by the introduction of motorized vehicles onto Boulder's sidewalks and pedesfrian/bicycle paths
may not be problems during the first few years, but they certaznly will be as time goes on With total lack
of enforcement on the paths, there will be no way to control speed, make, wattage, noise, or type of
motorized vetucles
It is a slippery slope Once the door has been opened to e-bikes with motors, other types of motonzed
vehicles could become a feature of Boulder's sidewalks and bicycle paths, m essence tuming them into
mini-streets and increasing the risk of acc~dents
Because of the difficulties inherent m undertakmg a review and reversmg a decision once made, in future
,v~+ years there will be nothing that the crt~zens of Boulder can do about ttus
°~..
For all these reasons, I urge Council members to reject TAB's October 8 recommendanon Piease reserve
Boulder's sidewalks and umque recrearional paths for human-powered acnvities
GUEST OPINION
~.,
D~ember Z. 200,
SUNDAY CAMERA 3E
K~ep our path~ -quiet
~~~
O n Oct 8. the Traasporta-
tion Advisory Board of the
dry of Boulder voted W
recommend W the City
Couna7 that moWrixed vehicles be
aDowed on Boulde~s sidewaDcs and
Pedestrian/bicycle paths.
While the board euphemistica-y
calls these machines `electrically as-
sisted bicycks,' they are motorized
vehicles as de5ned by the. aty. a de~
inition the board would ]~ce to
change ia a revised ordinance.
As a pedestrian and cyclist who
loves the b~7ce patha. I have three
cmcems if motorized vehiclea are
aDowed on the recreational b~7[e
paths, many of wlrich:un Hunugh
Boulde~'s parks and opea space.
1he fuat coucan ia safety. H~
ready the bicpcle/pedeshian patha
are uaed for human-powered r~CC+es~
tional actvidea bywalkas of aIl
aees (from seniors to toddlas), b9
rollerbladets and skateboarde[s,b9
doga, and by bicycliata who fre-
quenfly exceed the posted limit of 15
~
Allowing electrically assieted mo-
torized b~ces on the patha would add
sign~ican89 W the e~stin8 conges
tion aad danger. Such b~ee are aF
most all capable of sjieeds fastc
than the speed limit And eome can
go much faeter. For example, the ,
Dec.13,1999 iesue of VeloNews
states: "!be Ophb~7ce (one brand of
electricbi~.yc]es) really ripslTeat
ridiug on siugletrack trails and
streets around Boulder ia a blast ...
You can comfortahly cruiae at 2530
mph without brealdng a sweat'
Speed wHl almost inevitably cause
accidenffi-par~euvrly on the ak
*eadX Rowded mul~uee paths ~d
eidewalks.
1]~e aecond concem ia lack of eo-
forceabi]ity.'17~ere is ao enforce-
menf on the paths now, nor is there
likely W be, given the Boulder Police
Depar~enrs aimiced teaources and
budgetazy constraints. Opening the
door to `electiically assisted MaS-
cles" opens the door W moWrized
vehicles of azry type. Who and what
ia W prevent mopeds, e]ecUic xoot
ets. or even gas scaoters from using
the paths? A pedestrian has no l
chance of identidying or catching up
with~aoy of Weae unlicenaed ma
chinea tn proteat ~ccesaive speed or
unsafe opaatioa If there were an
acddent or a near miss, afiere
would one get help7 And would the
dly be lisble for damages?
'Ihe third concecn is noiae. A
member of the 1Y~anaportation Adv~
sory Bosrd said: 'lliey make zero
noise.° Ia fact, when 1he demonstra
tion b~cea (one that laoked ]~ a
moped) weie mrned on at the Oct 8
meedng. they made considetable
noiae. I.ea Barroq long time res'r
dent and walkv, apoke at ffie Nov. '
26 meetiog of the Parks and Rea~ea
tion Board. He pkaded with ffie
hoard W k~eep Boulde~a parka Iwth
eafe and quiet, saYinB that ffie enjoy
matt of nat~ual soimds such as that
of flowiog water would be destroyed
by the wund of mowre on paths
such as the Creek Path.
Some might sap: "Well, @tere w~11
only be liqle bwsts of noiae aad
speed." Commion~ense sue8esb.
however, U~at if there is a mofnr on a
bicycle oracoota, the rida wID tend
W uee the moWr most, if not all, o~
the time- both np and down h~1is.
IYs juet easia.'i]~e b~ces are hesvy
(weI8Uin8 ~rimetelY 60 twunda)
and are harder to pedal thaa regular
b~es (whicb tYP~Y~Bb 20 to 30
pounds.) As Waker Fricke, asai~nt
citY sttor'a9, +c~owledged at fhe
Oct 8 TAB meetiog:'No one pedale
a moped." Certainly no senior wID
pedal a 6apound bicyde, Nor w~
crommuters. the TAB real ffirget user
te s
B~o~R
'!be dty of Boulder created a net-
work of besuti[ul and uanqui! paths
through meadows.woods~ and nact
tq streams for the uae of pedeatrians
aad for otha ac8vifka that ue hu-
man Powered. I.d's keep it thet way!
Berauae of aerious iasues of sate-
ry, enforoement and noiae, moWr-
ized vehicles of any tpype bdong in
the bicycle lacea on the citq streets,
not on the pedestlan and bicyrle
paths No otha communiry in Cob
rado permib auch vehicks on thdr
recreational bil[e patha. Given tluR
the risks clear~ outweigh the bena
fits, why sho~ild Bouldvbe the S~t
W do so? ~
Unless the Traosportation Advi-
sory Board withdrawe its recom-
mondatipn at ita upcoming Dec.10
meetine~ the atycot~l wm wLe
early in 2002 oa whefhv to aDo~c
mowriud vehi~lea on Boulde~a
sidewallcs and bicyck pathe.'!he
TAB say~s 9ie new ordinana would
just be s teat, subjed w review a8er
a year or ao to see how many acai-
dents and complsinta ocwr. Bnt ae
Brant I3ebmaon, the on1yTAB
memba to vote agaiuetthe ~o~
mendation, waraeA st the Od. 8
meeting:'Onoe they are in. theyare
~w
Readas who share the conceros
deacdbed'm this opinion meoe are
encouraged to write or rnnmct mem
bera of both the city oounc~ aad the
TAB to urge them to keep electrica~
ly assisted motoriud bicyc9es ~
aur aidewaiks and reaeati~sl
pstha. S'im~e common eeose dio
raus that thae Oreaeurtd path~wya
ahould continne to be reeetved Eor
6uman~po~vaed acfivitles.
Qwrlotte Sonn.to~ is a Bor~der
raide~t
~
~...~
~
Memo to Members of the Pazks and Recreation Boazd
From. Charlotte R Sorenson (email chaco@boulder com)
Date January 16, 2002
Re Introduct~on of Motorized Vehicles on Boulder's sidewalks and
pedestnan/bicycle paths as recommended by the Transportahon Advisory
Board (TAB) on October 8, 2001
I am enclosmg for each of you a transportarion map of Boulder Brant Liebmann
(member of TAB) voted against mtroducing electric motonzed vehicles onto Boulder's
sidewalks and pedestnan/bicycle paths As he says and as you can see from the map,
"You can get absolutely anywhere in Boulder using the bicycle lanes and the city
sYreets "
LeYs reserve Boulder's umque system of pedestrian/bicycle paths for human-powered
activities
~
~
~