ROARING FORK VALLEY HORSE COUNCIL
P O Box 127
Snowmass, CO 81654
www.rfvhorsecouncil.org
P O Box 127
Snowmass, CO 81654
www.rfvhorsecouncil.org
2/11/2015
To the Roaring Fork Transit Authority - Bret Meredith,
I am writing this letter as Communications Chairman for the Roaring Fork Valley Horse Council. First let me say how excited the equestrian community is about the RFTA and OST vision to include safe, soft track, bridle paths, separate where possible, along the Rio Grande corridor. From previous meetings with Pitkin County OST, we understand that they support existing soft track for horses and pedestrians, with improvements and additions. It is our hope that RFTA will continue the soft track concept from near the Emma School House through Carbondale and on to Glenwood Springs. We understand this process will be on going and encourage RFTA to strive to make Rio Grande, equestrian, pedestrian soft track trail a reality.
At this time the asphalt paved bike path is dangerous for horses with metal shoes that slip and slide on the slick surface. Also, many pedestrians prefer the soft track for walking and running, which is easier on the human body. People walking their dogs, families walking with baby carriages, and other pedestrians have reported problems with fast moving bikes on the paved surface. Separate soft track trail would be an excellent solution to these problem encounters.
When constructing a soft track for pedestrian and equestrian uses, the width of the soft track is very important. The average size horse with rider measures between (3’ and 4’) If two approaching horses pass each other, you would like at least (3’) between the horses. As you can see, (12’) would be the most ideal width.
It is also important to make sure the shoulders on each side of the (8’) track do not drop off sharply. If the shoulders are flat (2’), ideally the entire flat soft track surface would be (12’) in width.
Knowing that the asphalt bike path is (10’) in width, it only makes sense that a soft track for equestrians and pedestrians would be wider because of the large size of most horses.
The recommended (8’) wide flat track, with the (2’) flat shoulder on either side is adequate for horses to pass each other, when approaching from opposite directions. This (8’) width with (2’) flat shoulder would give pedestrians room to feel safe with other users.
Where possible, it would be ideal to move the soft track away from the paved bike path, separate from and not parallel to the paved surface bike path. Many bikes are moving fast, and when passing close to horses, can cause shying and create dangerous situations.
We realize that some RFTA easement areas are limited by wetlands, steep side banks from the old railroad bed, and narrowing width through private holdings. We know that in some circumstances, adjoining landowners may be interested in selling land or easement for the Rio Grande Trail. We hope that Pitkin County OST would pursue options to accommodate a separate soft track where possible.
When the natural conditions limit width for soft track, the absolute minimum track width could be no less than (4’) in short sections along the RFTA Rio Grande easement. In these short narrow sections all users would have to be cautious.
When the time comes the RFVHC will be available the help in any way with equestrian soft track planning and construction. It has been our great pleasure to work with Pitkin County OST, the City of Aspen OST, and RFTA for this exciting, new, future endeavor.
The Aspen Times said that public comment for the RIO Grande, RFTA Trail was extended to April 31st, because of the many entities having questions and concerns. We ask that you please contact the RFVHC about any upcoming meeting concerning RFTA Rio Grande Trail.
Please email Holly McLain: [email protected] for future meetings.
Thank you so much for your time.
Most Sincerely,
Holly McLain
Cc: RFTA Board
Lindsey Utter Pitkin County OST
To the Roaring Fork Transit Authority - Bret Meredith,
I am writing this letter as Communications Chairman for the Roaring Fork Valley Horse Council. First let me say how excited the equestrian community is about the RFTA and OST vision to include safe, soft track, bridle paths, separate where possible, along the Rio Grande corridor. From previous meetings with Pitkin County OST, we understand that they support existing soft track for horses and pedestrians, with improvements and additions. It is our hope that RFTA will continue the soft track concept from near the Emma School House through Carbondale and on to Glenwood Springs. We understand this process will be on going and encourage RFTA to strive to make Rio Grande, equestrian, pedestrian soft track trail a reality.
At this time the asphalt paved bike path is dangerous for horses with metal shoes that slip and slide on the slick surface. Also, many pedestrians prefer the soft track for walking and running, which is easier on the human body. People walking their dogs, families walking with baby carriages, and other pedestrians have reported problems with fast moving bikes on the paved surface. Separate soft track trail would be an excellent solution to these problem encounters.
When constructing a soft track for pedestrian and equestrian uses, the width of the soft track is very important. The average size horse with rider measures between (3’ and 4’) If two approaching horses pass each other, you would like at least (3’) between the horses. As you can see, (12’) would be the most ideal width.
It is also important to make sure the shoulders on each side of the (8’) track do not drop off sharply. If the shoulders are flat (2’), ideally the entire flat soft track surface would be (12’) in width.
Knowing that the asphalt bike path is (10’) in width, it only makes sense that a soft track for equestrians and pedestrians would be wider because of the large size of most horses.
The recommended (8’) wide flat track, with the (2’) flat shoulder on either side is adequate for horses to pass each other, when approaching from opposite directions. This (8’) width with (2’) flat shoulder would give pedestrians room to feel safe with other users.
Where possible, it would be ideal to move the soft track away from the paved bike path, separate from and not parallel to the paved surface bike path. Many bikes are moving fast, and when passing close to horses, can cause shying and create dangerous situations.
We realize that some RFTA easement areas are limited by wetlands, steep side banks from the old railroad bed, and narrowing width through private holdings. We know that in some circumstances, adjoining landowners may be interested in selling land or easement for the Rio Grande Trail. We hope that Pitkin County OST would pursue options to accommodate a separate soft track where possible.
When the natural conditions limit width for soft track, the absolute minimum track width could be no less than (4’) in short sections along the RFTA Rio Grande easement. In these short narrow sections all users would have to be cautious.
When the time comes the RFVHC will be available the help in any way with equestrian soft track planning and construction. It has been our great pleasure to work with Pitkin County OST, the City of Aspen OST, and RFTA for this exciting, new, future endeavor.
The Aspen Times said that public comment for the RIO Grande, RFTA Trail was extended to April 31st, because of the many entities having questions and concerns. We ask that you please contact the RFVHC about any upcoming meeting concerning RFTA Rio Grande Trail.
Please email Holly McLain: [email protected] for future meetings.
Thank you so much for your time.
Most Sincerely,
Holly McLain
Cc: RFTA Board
Lindsey Utter Pitkin County OST