Shouldn't we be encouraging the use of rights of way and easements by cyclists? Isn't there something ironic about complaining about overuse in a section of the state park while we're closing roads to them?
We should be encouraging people to use — as pedestrians and cyclists — their easements instead of blocking them off with fences and gates. Even my neighborhood is filled with fences across county-owned rights of way and easements. This funnels people — cars, bikes, pedestrians — into the one path that remains open. That's bad for safety, dangerous for pedestrians and bad for drivers.
The tighter we funnel traffic means more damage to the paths, and more repairs to the pavement or trails. How can you complain about overuse when more and more trails near housing are blocked from cyclists’ use? Of course the remaining trails are going to see more use. It's a clear tragedy of the commons.
We need to build more trails, both paved and unpaved. Where is an approved path from Felton to the back of the University of California, Santa Cruz campus? Where is an approved path up the San Lorenzo River, connecting the parks and keeping pedestrians and cyclists off the highway? Why doesn't the county make sure our rights of way and easements through neighborhoods are open to pedestrians and cyclists, so these roads are there when we need them for emergency use? Why are we spending money blocking ways instead of encouraging them?
Stacey Croft, Ben Lomond