Don’t waste any more money on things that are just fine the way they are, love the trail as is!!
P
Pamela Twa
3 years ago
No paving, no lights…. I am a biker …
A
Anonymous
3 years ago
Stop using our tax money for projects to accommodate even more visitors and do not benefit local residents nor our wildlife
M
Miss Information
3 years ago
People with disabilities will benefit from a paved path.
G
Graeme Williams
3 years ago
Not needed & being rammed through without consultation - something very fishy about this
D
Doug Kachur
3 years ago
Leave the habitats as they are! no more expansions!
C
Carrie Kachur
3 years ago
Canmore needs to stop expanding, we are NOT Banff, nor do we need to be like Banff! Leave the habitats as they are and no more changes!
B
Barbara Sarna
3 years ago
No need for unsightly pathway. Keep Canmore as natural as possible!
J
Jennifer Jenkinson
3 years ago
I am shocked that Canmore's Council would even be considering widening and adding artificial lighting to what is a well planned multi-use pathway which is designed to blend with the surrounding green space and still support and protect the wildlife and their habitat. The very idea of widening to an extreme and subsequent loss of so many trees in a world that needs our forests now more than ever should simply stop any reasonable Council that has an Environmental Stewardship policy and a publicly declared commitment to green policies. The cost to local taxpayers is certainly an issue, but the cost to habitat, wildlife and the environment would be beyond measure.
G
Graham Lock
3 years ago
The light pollution and cost of capital and maintenance should alone be cause for concern.
M
Mary Shearer
3 years ago
If speed is needed those cyclists can ride on the Legacy or on the roads. Lights are not needed on a natural trail.
B
Bob Boyden
3 years ago
Stop the hypocrisy. Is the Town only “green” when it’s convenient to be? We don’t need an 18ft. (5.5m) asphalt highway along the banks of the Bow now or 10 years from now.
H
Hanif Janmohamed
3 years ago
This proposal is a poorly considered and thinly investigated projection of what progress 'should' look like. This is a huge missed opportunity to look at great ways of adding to the quality of the experience of biking - which is in itself a chosen alternative to the context of a 'highway'.
The culture of biking is not remotely similar to the culture of cars - a different set of references and models is required to consider what is actually needed. The application of road culture to an alternative form of commuting is mistaken and is missing the point entirely.
F
Friends of the Path
· petition starter
3 years ago
Beyond the initial $915,550 cost of pavement and concrete, future maintenance costs likely double. Based on a Rails to Trails 2015 Report (Maintenance Practice and Cost of Rail-Trails) from over 200 trails surveyed, average costs for maintaining asphalt were $1225/km. Average costs for maintaining non-asphalt surfaces were $625/km.
F
Friends of the Path
· petition starter
3 years ago
Featured
Of the estimated $5,470,000 total budget in the Bow River Pathway Conceptual Design document, $1,365,550 is definitely not wise use of our tax dollars: $555,750 on concrete, $359,800 on asphalt and $450,000 on lighting that citizens do not want or need.
F
Friends of the Path
· petition starter
3 years ago
It's not a done deal until the funds are approved by mayor and Council for the recommendations in the reports. As taxpayers, we can all let the mayor and council know by letters and phone calls that WE DO NOT WANT OUR TAX DOLLARS SPENT ON PAVING AND LIGHTING THE WEST BOW RIVER TRAIL.
A
Anonymous
3 years ago
Featured
Unnecessary. Huge waste of our tax dollars. Canmore's expanded 5.5 meter trail would be wider than Legacy Trail, Vancouver's Stanley Park path, the Great Lakes Waterfront Trail in Toronto, and trails in Chicago, Dallas, Boston...how can the Town justify this?
A
Anonymous
3 years ago
This project is a terribly invasive idea. A path of this size will further disrupt/displace the wildlife of this area. At the proposed size it’s basically a road. The light pollution alone from lighting this path should have landed this idea in the trash. This impacts the residents of the area who will have to see those street lamps instead of clear night skies.
The path does need attention because of the increase in foot traffic. Has the town looked into an update that is better for the local ecosystems instead of moving full steam ahead on this gentrification nightmare of path?
J
Jonathan Scott
4 years ago
In its current form this trail is an asset to the community that blends well with the surrounding nature. Paving and lighting this path turns it into something akin to a street of which we already have many.
The path is perfect the way it is
Don’t waste any more money on things that are just fine the way they are, love the trail as is!!
No paving, no lights…. I am a biker …
Stop using our tax money for projects to accommodate even more visitors and do not benefit local residents nor our wildlife
People with disabilities will benefit from a paved path.
Not needed & being rammed through without consultation - something very fishy about this
Leave the habitats as they are! no more expansions!
Canmore needs to stop expanding, we are NOT Banff, nor do we need to be like Banff! Leave the habitats as they are and no more changes!
No need for unsightly pathway. Keep Canmore as natural as possible!
I am shocked that Canmore's Council would even be considering widening and adding artificial lighting to what is a well planned multi-use pathway which is designed to blend with the surrounding green space and still support and protect the wildlife and their habitat. The very idea of widening to an extreme and subsequent loss of so many trees in a world that needs our forests now more than ever should simply stop any reasonable Council that has an Environmental Stewardship policy and a publicly declared commitment to green policies. The cost to local taxpayers is certainly an issue, but the cost to habitat, wildlife and the environment would be beyond measure.
The light pollution and cost of capital and maintenance should alone be cause for concern.
If speed is needed those cyclists can ride on the Legacy or on the roads. Lights are not needed on a natural trail.
Stop the hypocrisy. Is the Town only “green” when it’s convenient to be? We don’t need an 18ft. (5.5m) asphalt highway along the banks of the Bow now or 10 years from now.
This proposal is a poorly considered and thinly investigated projection of what progress 'should' look like. This is a huge missed opportunity to look at great ways of adding to the quality of the experience of biking - which is in itself a chosen alternative to the context of a 'highway'. The culture of biking is not remotely similar to the culture of cars - a different set of references and models is required to consider what is actually needed. The application of road culture to an alternative form of commuting is mistaken and is missing the point entirely.
Beyond the initial $915,550 cost of pavement and concrete, future maintenance costs likely double. Based on a Rails to Trails 2015 Report (Maintenance Practice and Cost of Rail-Trails) from over 200 trails surveyed, average costs for maintaining asphalt were $1225/km. Average costs for maintaining non-asphalt surfaces were $625/km.
Of the estimated $5,470,000 total budget in the Bow River Pathway Conceptual Design document, $1,365,550 is definitely not wise use of our tax dollars: $555,750 on concrete, $359,800 on asphalt and $450,000 on lighting that citizens do not want or need.
It's not a done deal until the funds are approved by mayor and Council for the recommendations in the reports. As taxpayers, we can all let the mayor and council know by letters and phone calls that WE DO NOT WANT OUR TAX DOLLARS SPENT ON PAVING AND LIGHTING THE WEST BOW RIVER TRAIL.
Unnecessary. Huge waste of our tax dollars. Canmore's expanded 5.5 meter trail would be wider than Legacy Trail, Vancouver's Stanley Park path, the Great Lakes Waterfront Trail in Toronto, and trails in Chicago, Dallas, Boston...how can the Town justify this?
This project is a terribly invasive idea. A path of this size will further disrupt/displace the wildlife of this area. At the proposed size it’s basically a road. The light pollution alone from lighting this path should have landed this idea in the trash. This impacts the residents of the area who will have to see those street lamps instead of clear night skies. The path does need attention because of the increase in foot traffic. Has the town looked into an update that is better for the local ecosystems instead of moving full steam ahead on this gentrification nightmare of path?
In its current form this trail is an asset to the community that blends well with the surrounding nature. Paving and lighting this path turns it into something akin to a street of which we already have many.