MedWheel comments on Parks System Master Plan

By /

MedWheel comments on Colorado Springs’ 2026 Park System Master Plan

To the Parks System Master Plan team,

Medicine Wheel Trail Advocates (MedWheel) appreciates the effort PRCS staff and the planning team have put into this draft Master Plan, and we first wish to acknowledge its accomplishments, before turning to our specific requests.

We’re encouraged by the Plan’s candor about the system’s biggest challenges – particularly the transparency about the maintenance staffing decline (85 to 28 FTE since 2000) and the $125M deferred capital backlog. Naming these problems clearly gets us closer to solutions. We’re also glad to see Goal G.9’s commitment to establishing a Sustainable Reinvestment Funding Strategy and diversifying funding sources as an initial priority. MedWheel has already been an active participant in community conversations about long-term, dedicated funding stability for our parks system, and we intend to keep supporting this work. Funding is foundational to everything else in this Plan.

We’re similarly encouraged by the Plan’s stated ambitions on mountain biking specifically: the IMBA Ride Center certification goal (G.10.D, currently under way) and the World-Class Bike Park identified among the Plan’s transformative projects both show a commitment to make Colorado Springs a destination-caliber mountain biking system. We want to help make these ambitions real, and these goals form the spirit behind our requests below.

MedWheel has partnered with this city for 35 years, and we remain genuinely excited about where this Plan can take us over the next decade. We also want to thank PRCS staff for confirming that trail-building and trail-advocacy nonprofits, including MedWheel, will be seated, empowered stakeholders in the upcoming Trail System Master Plan (Goal G.13.A) – a commitment we value and one that shapes several of the requests below. The requests that follow aren’t objections to the Plan’s direction – they’re an invitation to close specific gaps between what the community has said it wants and what will get us there, together.

1. Restore Skilled Volunteer Trail Maintenance Capacity (Goal G.5)

This comment addresses volunteer trail maintenance including corridor/vegetation trimming, tread and drainage upkeep, minor repairs and reroutes.

The 2014 Master Plan era relied substantially on trained volunteer labor, including MedWheel crews, for ongoing trail maintenance across the system. In recent years that access has been drastically curtailed. The rationale offered has been a need to “improve quality control,” but to our knowledge there is no documented record of substandard work tied to MedWheel, and only isolated exceptions system-wide.

The Plan itself documents the shortfall this restriction makes worse: General Fund-funded maintenance staffing has fallen from 85 FTE (2000) to 28 FTE today, and the Plan projects a need for 90+ additional FTEs over the next decade to sustain service levels, against a $125M deferred capital backlog. Colorado’s current standard value of volunteer time is $39.99/hour. MedWheel alone has provided in excess of 1,500 volunteer maintenance hours per year when empowered to do so – roughly $60,000/year in maintenance value from just one organization, and MedWheel is one of many trail and stewardship groups active in this system.

We appreciate PRCS staff’s indication that this will be addressed within Goal G.5, and potentially G.4. We look forward to reviewing the specific language once drafted, and would ask that it move toward a comprehensive, standards-based, tiered volunteer authorization program – open to all qualified trail organizations – ideally built on the four-tier model MedWheel has already proposed to PRCS staff, rather than the current single-tier (cleanup/trimming/closure-only) process. We’d appreciate a chance to discuss the revised language with PRCS staff and the planning team and, while we recognize PRCS may not routinely re-circulate draft language for outside review, we request the chance to review the proposed change before it’s finalized.

2. Provide Durable Assurances Against Misapplication of the Special Resource Area Designation

We appreciate PRCS staff’s clarification that the Special Resource Area classification is intended for parcels with unusual, defined scientific or resource value – Coral Bluffs was cited as the model example – and is not intended to apply to most open space parcels, including those with existing multi-use trail access. We agree Coral Bluffs represents a genuinely distinct case from a property like an existing historic trail system with established bike use.

Because this is a new designation without an implementation track record, we ask that this intent be reflected in the Plan itself rather than rely solely on current staff’s understanding of how it will be applied. Specifically, we ask that the final Plan:

  1. Commit that any future decision to remove established multi-use or bike access from an existing trail, as a result of open space classification, be brought before the Parks Advisory Board for public consideration before being finalized, rather than decided administratively without public review.
  2. List in the plan, representative examples (such as Coral Bluffs) of the intended use case for Special Resource Area designation, so the distinction between this classification and Natural Areas is documented, not solely institutional memory.

We raise this not out of concern about current PRCS leadership’s intent, which we take at face value, but because durable policy must not depend on any specific staff member’s tenure or interpretation to protect existing public access.

3. Meaningful, Empowered Role in the Trail System Master Plan

We appreciate PRCS’s confirmation that trail-building and trail-advocacy nonprofits, including MedWheel and Friends groups, will be seated participants – not just invited commenters – in the Trail System Master Plan’s working group or steering structure (Goal G.13.A), with a defined role in shaping classification criteria and use determinations. We understand several of the issues raised in this comment letter, including open space classification specifics, eMTB policy, low-power mobility devices, and multimodal trail function, will be addressed through that process rather than this Plan, and we look forward to bringing our full technical experience to that table, early enough to contribute before key framework decisions are finalized. To help this commitment translate into practice, we’d ask that MedWheel’s seat be reflected in whatever charter, scope, or kickoff materials formally establish the Trail System Master Plan’s stakeholder structure.

4. Track Continued Progress Toward a World-Class Bike Park

We understand PRCS is not prepared to commit to a specific site or timeline for the World-Class Bike Park in this Plan, and we respect the sensitivity involved, including around the Pikeview Quarry parcel specifically, which has already been discussed as a candidate location. We appreciate that this project remains an active priority for PRCS leadership and staff, and we’ve valued the visible support shown for mountain bike-specific infrastructure to date.

MedWheel is currently pursuing IMBA Ride Center certification for the Colorado Springs trail system (Goal G.10.D). The data and standards developed through that process will directly inform location and design considerations for a destination-caliber bike park, and we expect it to meaningfully strengthen the case for this project regardless of eventual location. We look forward to sharing that work with PRCS as it develops and continuing to partner on next steps toward finally realizing a commitment that has existed in planning documents since at least 2014. We’d welcome a periodic check-in to stay aligned on progress as this moves forward.

5. Address Crowding at High-Demand Destinations Through Transit, Not Just Parking

The Plan’s data shows that lack of parking is a significant barrier to park and open space use – 35% of survey respondents cited it, above the national benchmark comparison shown in the community survey results. Community input also consistently requested “expand trailheads and parking” as a priority, which frames the fix solely in terms of more vehicle infrastructure. The Plan does not go further to consider how the system’s most heavily visited destinations – Garden of the Gods Park, North Cheyenne Canon Park, Red Rock Canyon, and others – will accommodate continued growth in visitation without simply paving more land for cars.

Garden of the Gods already has a completed transit and access plan, providing a proven model PRCS can point to. We believe extending that approach systemwide deserves to be a recommendation in this Plan itself, not held entirely for the Trail System Master Plan to originate. We ask that the final Plan direct PRCS to extend the Garden of the Gods model to other high-demand destinations – evaluating shuttle service, remote parking with park-and-ride connections, or seasonal demand-management pilots, explicitly as a complement to (not a replacement for) trailhead expansion, and ensuring any such strategy supports bike-in and pedestrian access alongside vehicle-based transit. We recognize implementation details may be refined further through the Trail System Master Plan process, but the core recommendation should be set here so it guides future budgeting and planning rather than depending on a future process to create it.

6. Chart an Honest Pathway for Considering eMTBs on City Open Space

MedWheel urges PRCS to confront a policy gap left unresolved for several years: the classification of electric mountain bikes (eMTBs) on TOPS-funded open space and soft-surface trails.

Over the last several years, the city has defined Class 1 e-bikes as “non-motorized” for trail-access purposes, effectively allowing them to bypass TOPS’s prohibition on motorized use without amending the TOPS ordinance. We were, and remain, opposed to this approach. It has not delivered the outcome it was designed for: because many TOPS properties are also encumbered by conservation easements that define “motorized” independently of the city’s municipal code, those easements are not bound by the city’s Class 1 redefinition. The practical result is that eMTB access has not expanded on a single soft-surface TOPS trail since that policy was adopted – the workaround addressed a semantic problem in city code without solving the underlying access question.

We understand this work will be addressed through the Trail System Master Plan process (Goal G.13.A), where we look forward to participating as a seated stakeholder. Our position, for that process, is that PRCS should:

  • Reclassify Honestly: Treat eMTBs as motorized for policy purposes, rather than relying on a definitional exception that conservation easements do not recognize and that has failed to improve eMTB access.
  • Create a Real Pathway, Not a Presumption: Establish a transparent, criteria-based process – including traditional/historic uses and trail user conflicts – for evaluating where eMTB use should appropriately be added to specific open space trails or trail systems, rather than defaulting to blanket exclusion or blanket inclusion.
  • Coordinate with Easement Holders: Where conservation easements govern a property, require documented coordination with the easement holder before any eMTB access decision, so future access changes are legally durable rather than administratively convenient.

7. Establish a Comprehensive Framework for Low-Power Mobility Devices and Multimodal Trail Function

The draft plan is silent on the growing range of low-power electric personal mobility devices now used on urban trails for transportation- e-bikes across all three classes, e-scooters, e-unicycles, and similar devices. We understand this is best addressed within the Trail System Master Plan process, where we ask that PRCS direct a structured, device-by-device review of appropriate access by trail surface, speed, and context (urban connector vs. natural-surface trail vs. shared-use path), rather than a single blanket rule. Where a device type doesn’t fit existing trail-use categories, we request that PRCS preserve existing urban trail access while that process develops a durable, well-defined solution – one that accounts for devices that exist today as well as future technologies that may be considered. We look forward to contributing to a full device typology and access framework as part of that process, alongside other mobility stakeholders.

In the same vein, we appreciate PRCS’s suggestion that the upcoming Trail System Master Plan is the right venue to more fully assess our trails system through a multimodal lens. Our interest here goes beyond definitional language in this Plan: we see a real opportunity to strengthen the connected, off-street multimodal network and align PRCS’s trail planning with the City’s Streets Division on shared multimodal goals.

We ask that the Trail System Master Plan include an assessment of which trail segments serve genuine multimodal transportation functions – connecting residents to jobs, schools, transit, and commercial destinations – and evaluate those segments using multimodal-relevant criteria alongside recreational LOS standards, with coordination between PRCS and the Streets Division where warranted. We look forward to bringing this lens to that process as a stakeholder in the Trails Plan.

Closing

We raise these points because we’re invested in this Plan’s success. MedWheel brings over 35 years of on-the-ground trail work, a track record of collaboration with the city and other land managers, plus real, ever-increasing capabilities we’re eager to direct toward implementation – from skilled volunteer labor to continued participation in funding stability discussions to technical input on trail classification and mountain bike-specific infrastructure. We’re energized by the opportunities ahead, grateful for the empowered role we’ll play in the Trail System Master Plan, and would welcome the chance to meet with PRCS staff and the planning team to discuss any of the requests above in more detail.

Thank you again for the work that’s gone into this Plan and for the opportunity to comment.