Black Hawk’s bike-less quarter mile example for other cities

Published: July 8th, 2010

Cyclists fear precedent

In January of this year, Black Hawk’s City Council passed an ordinance banning bicycles from the three streets of its business district (neither children nor other cyclists are banned from residential areas) and posted signs with the familiar red circle and bar, in this case over a bicycle, announcing the prohibition on the affected streets. That includes about a quarter mile of Gregory Street, the cyclists favored route from the Central City Parkway to Highway 119. Cyclists can still use that route, but must dismount and walk their bicycles about four blocks through town due to a narrow stretch of road. For five months, most cyclists failed to do that, but were issued only warning citations from Black Hawk police. Beginning in June, however, police began ticketing those cyclists who ignored, or said they didn’t see, the signs. Black Hawk Police Chief Steve Cole said nine tickets had been issued to date. That means a minimum $68 ticket for the violator, plus an $18 surcharge. If the cyclist wants to appear in court, add $25 for court costs. Facing the fine, and denied the ability to ride that piece of road, cyclists notified Denver television stations and the Denver Post, putting Black Hawk’s ban in the public eye.

Dan Grunig of the cycling advocacy group, Bicycle Colorado, attended the June 9th Black Hawk Council meeting and asked for a repeal of the ban. He has said that cyclists fear the precedent Black Hawk is setting, that other Colorado cities may follow suit. That’s a real concern. Black Hawk City Manager Mike Copp said he’d been contacted by four other Colorado municipalities who are interested in banning bicycles from some of their streets. Jefferson County has considered asking legislators to make “counties” the authorities to decide which roads in their jurisdictions will be available to cyclists. Online public comments, following the media stories, run heavily against cyclists, not just in Black Hawk, but on many metro-area streets and Colorado roads. In fact, there are many city streets and roads in Colorado that already ban bicyclists. Black Hawk is not alone, nor are they first to ban cyclists, even in Gilpin County.

It was back in 2005 when Central City aldermen banned bicyclists from the Central City Parkway. Grunig appeared at their meeting shortly after that, pressing for a repeal. Central’s council complied. Despite opposition from their own Business Improvement District (who paid for the Parkway) the council repealed the ban, allowing cyclists to ride the Parkway – except for the last mile which culminates in Nevada Street. That street’s too narrow, they said, and carries too much traffic for it to be safe for cyclists. They created a trailhead exit from the Parkway and a trail bringing the cyclists into Central via Lake Gulch and Virginia Canyon Roads to Spring Street. Grunig has pointed out there had been no accidents with cyclists on Black Hawk streets, however both cities saw risks they are unwilling to take. Black Hawk, responding to complaints from motorists and observations by their staff, ordered a traffic study for their streets. Completed by Stolfus & Associates last October, that study said Main and Gregory Streets were poorly equipped to accommodate cyclists. Further, the traffic on those streets, often large buses and delivery trucks, is “frequently adverse” to cyclists. There isn’t just the concern of a cyclist being struck, said Copp, but also of other motorists as vehicles swing out to get around a cyclist. What’s more, he added, now the city is aware of the safety issues and potential for injuries, they must address them or risk problems with the city’s liability insurance provider. “We’re doing what we believe is best for our residents, our businesses and our patrons,” said Copp.

In Black Hawk, that means doing what’s best for the casinos. The industry benefits not only the residents of Black Hawk, but Gilpin County relies heavily on Black Hawk’s gaming revenues – as does the state. Copp said Black Hawk drew around 50,000 visitors to the area last weekend. It isn’t uncommon to draw 30,000 on other weekends. They come to Black Hawk, mainly, to gamble. Black Hawk casinos have contributed over $1 billion to the state’s coffers, via gaming taxes, since the inception of gaming. They will add approximately $90 million for this fiscal year alone ($81,604,000 fiscal year-to-date). Black Hawk casinos generated more than 84% of all of the state’s gaming revenues for the 2009-2010 fiscal year. 22% of that revenue will be directed back and split by the two gaming counties and three gaming cities in Colorado. The bulk, 78%, goes to the state, much of it funding road improvements enjoyed by motorists and cyclists alike. However, cyclists do not contribute to highway funds as motor vehicle owners do through licensing and registration fees. Many motorists object to paying for cyclists’ recreation, which they point out, is what most cyclists are doing as they ride through Black Hawk. Few are commuting as cyclists do in Boulder, Denver or other cities worldwide. (Colorado cyclists have gone global with their complaint against Black Hawk, via the internet, and British media picked up the story. American motorists point out that a train system provides relief for European commuters.) Local motorists particularly object to safety issues caused by cyclists riding the narrow, curving, shoulder-less highways they drive out of necessity. Residents driving Coal Creek Canyon have met with Gilpin County Commissioners to register complaints of cyclist’s behavior and ask for help. Gilpinites driving Golden Gate Canyon have been vocal in their support of Black Hawk’s ban, said Copp. He has received no negative comments from Gilpinites and plenty of support from mountain residents who favor not only Black Hawk’s, but additional bicycling bans.

Grunig’s group is now working on a legal challenge to Black Hawk’s ban, but with other cities and also counties looking at ways to limit cycling within their jurisdictions, the issue is bigger than Black Hawk. “Perhaps the issue should be put to the state’s voters,” Copp suggested.

This entry was posted on Thursday, July 8th, 2010 at 10:44 am and is filed under Community, Government, News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
  • KAS

    I live in Gilpin County and have ridden quite a bit in and through Black Hawk. I felt safer on Gregory St or Dory Hill Rd than on Hwy 119. The mayor’s safety concerns are bogus on their face. What he has managed to do is create a hostile environment. Prior to this ban the few drivers I would meet (and Gregory was only heavily traveled for the first block of its length) were routinely and uniformly friendly and courteous. The safety study was in fact performed AFTER the ban. And even at that the results were skewed to match what the council had already decreed. There is a hidden agenda here and his NOTHING to do with safety. In fact by forcing cyclists on to 119 they increase the danger.

  • LurkerDan

    The safety argument is bunk. What I can say is that I do enjoy gambling AND cycling, and though I never felt the need to bicycle in or through Blackhawk, I have gambled there in the past. But I will never again spend my hard-earned dollars in Blackhawk unless they rescind this short-sighted ban.

  • Cas Ino

    The article's claim that no negative comments have been received about the cycling ban is a ludicrous projection. It's also interesting that the article never mentions the Colorado Uniform Vehicle Code. Shall every municipality make up its own traffic lights, pedestrian crossing signage, etc?

    At least the article is shamelessly honest in admitting that the casinos are the only "citizens" whose votes count.

  • Chris

    “However, cyclists do not contribute to highway funds as motor vehicle owners do through licensing and registration fees. ”

    That logic is seriously FLAWED!

    I drive a car TOO! If I pay my registration fees and taxes and then decide to ride my bike instead of drive, am I not subsidizing motorists? My money contributes to the upkeep of the road just like all the other people using it. I ride a bike AND drive a car. Does that mean I have less right to use the road?

  • Gavin

    “However, cyclists do not contribute to highway funds as motor vehicle owners do through licensing and registration fees.” Not quite my friend. In fact, nearly all cyclists are motorists, so they do pay for that road. What’s more, take a look at what pays for roads: licensing and registration and even fuel taxes don’t pay for the roads by themselves. There’s plenty of general fund money going to pay for those roads, too. Given that bicycles contribute a trivial amount of wear compared to cars or trucks, most cyclists wind up on the wrong side of the funding equation, paying more for using the roads than non-cycling motorists. That’s the anti-cycling fanatics talking and I expect a journalist to be more critical and to question the assumptions of that group, not just parrot their unfounded claims.

  • JesusIsJustAlright

    Most cyclists have cars and have already paid for the road. Nice use of a lame argument.

Recent Stories

Recent Comments

Social Network