Castanet

Here it comes folks. Another politician in your pockets for tax money. Just like Kelowna did to the tune of $22,000,000 for a trail for the few. It is astounding just how ignorant politicians can be when it comes to truly understanding the plight of their constituents.

Mr Kyllo I suggest you look at the unemployment rates for the area that this trail runs through and to which the suggestion will be forthcoming to the CSRD and NORD to tax the people living in the area to pay for the trail.Not just to pay for it, but the upkeep as well. The 2017 figures up to March from Service Canada depict a different rose colored picture than what your government propaganda figures put forth.
January to February 2017 figures tell us that the unemployment rate for Southern Interior BC was 9.6%
February to March 2017 figures tell us that the unemployment rate for Southern Interior BC was 9.3%
and March 12 to April 8 figures tell us that the unemployment rate for Southern Interior BC was 8.8%.

It is a well known fact that politicians are poor managers of money. Great at making themselves look good in the eyes of the public and great at spending other peoples money, but it stops there. The idea that a proposed rail trail from Sicamous to Armstrong is going to be flouted as " Good for the community" and good for BC. I am certain that the tax payers of North Okanagan will be petitioning this idea once it is out of the bag. Just like our fellow tax payers in Lake Country did because they had a greater need for where their tax dollars could go.

$2.7,000,000 could do a lot for this area. Governments are real good at pushing USER PAY fees on the public. I suggest you introduce this concept in order to pay for the proposed trail.

I'm thinking that you missed the economic impact assessment comissioned by the Rail Trail Initiative that projected that the new trail from Kelowna to Coldstream has the potential to add $6MM per year to the local economy by tourism dollars.

With the current trend of promoting "adventures" over "things" these trails offer safe experiences that will draw people who want to have an active vacation ... then there's the added benefit that it can be used by local commuters to stay out of vehicle traffic ...

Considering how much is spent on roadways for motorized vehicles, this is pretty miniscule compared to the benefit offered ... eventually there could be a cycling/hiking corridor all the way from Sicamous down to Osoyoos ... that'd draw people who would spend money at businesses along the way ... good example of the government spending money that then generates money for the people who paid the original taxes ...

I don't disagree that governments waste money but totally disagree that they are wasting money on a rail trail.

I'm not sure how used the trail will be in the sushwap but the one along Kal lake is packed all the time and it's not even fully in service yet.

It is not a trail for the "few". You want people to pay to walk run and cycle when obesity rates are on the rise?

Of all the stupid things governments waste money on, this is not one of them.

it will generate nothing people wont be coming specifically to ride a trail they will use it while on vacation that's that to say it will generate money is a crock of *bleep* it will cost money and I agree it should be funded by user pay, in this day and age where my taxes go up every year health care is a mess education is under funded and homelessness at an all time high stuff like this is a slap in the face .

spooker wrote:I'm thinking that you missed the economic impact assessment comissioned by the Rail Trail Initiative that projected that the new trail from Kelowna to Coldstream has the potential to add $6MM per year to the local economy by tourism dollars.

I'm neutral on the trail, neither yay nor nay. But I think they're being a teensy bit too hopeful with that number. Its a flat trail, hardly something that people will be flocking here for.

In 2010 it was estimated that cycling in Europe saved over 114B euros from reduced mortality rates (based on the EU members) ... anything that will promote cycling and get people off their butts saves the government money that would otherwise be spent on healthcare ...

For that same year the bicycle tourism industry accounted for 44B euros ...

In 2014 Michigan logged $668MM in benefits to the economy from employment, retail revenue, tourism expenditure, and increased health and productivity ...

The $6MM estimation in the original report might be low ...

Money well spent ... can't wait to see what happens with the Trans-Canada Trail opening this year ...

spooker wrote:In 2010 it was estimated that cycling in Europe saved over 114B euros from reduced mortality rates (based on the EU members) ... anything that will promote cycling and get people off their butts saves the government money that would otherwise be spent on healthcare ...

For that same year the bicycle tourism industry accounted for 44B euros ...

In 2014 Michigan logged $668MM in benefits to the economy from employment, retail revenue, tourism expenditure, and increased health and productivity ...

The $6MM estimation in the original report might be low ...

Money well spent ... can't wait to see what happens with the Trans-Canada Trail opening this year ...

Comparing the cycling culture in Europe and here is like comparing apples to oranges. Here it's a recreation, there it's a way of daily life. The $6m estimate is not even close to being "low".

But I didn't only state European numbers ... I also quoted numbers from our southern brethren who are as addicted to cars as we are ... and I could easily continue ... just looking at the Gran Fondo participation numbers should give you a hint of the number of people who will travel to have a great bike ride ... the Okanagan Shuswap Century Ride sells out in less than an hour every year and that route is completely on regular roadways but people ride 3.5km uphill through Salmon Arm to say they did it ...

And the idea that cycling here is only recreation is something that has been changing for the last decade ... while Kelowna isn't the greatest exampl, you can see larger cities where "riding as transportation" has gained a large foothold ...

Do you not think that the rail trail network has the potential to make this list?
http://www.theloop.ca/10-bike-trips-that-will-make-you-fall-in-love-with-canada/

All you have to do is put in "canada cycling tourism" and Google returns 402,000 hits ... of course only a small fraction will be pertinent to this conversation but a small percentage is still a heck of a lot of resources ... some describe companies that have been proving supported cycling tours back to the 1970's ...

Call me a romantic on two-wheels ... but "build it and they will come"

then you and the rest of the gran fondo people should pay for it through a user pay system

LTD wrote:then you and the rest of the gran fondo people should pay for it through a user pay system

Thank you for the suggestion.

Awesome deal. They sure got a much better deal than the suckers who ponied up for the Kelowna to Vernon section.

Glacier wrote:Awesome deal. They sure got a much better deal than the suckers who ponied up for the Kelowna to Vernon section.

Wow. Simply Wow.

How can anyone think that a rail trail is a bad thing.

the trail itself isn't the issue its the 40 million of tax payers money that's going to be *bleep* away on it that's the issue

Chyren wrote:

Glacier wrote:Awesome deal. They sure got a much better deal than the suckers who ponied up for the Kelowna to Vernon section.

Wow. Simply Wow.

How can anyone think that a rail trail is a bad thing.

A) Where did he say it was a bad thing?
B) Not everyone agrees that money should be spent on whatever it is someone else thinks is a good idea or supports.

Dizzy1 wrote:

Glacier wrote:Awesome deal. They sure got a much better deal than the suckers who ponied up for the Kelowna to Vernon section.

A) Where did he say it was a bad thing?
B) Not everyone agrees that money should be spent on whatever it is someone else thinks is a good idea or supports.

A) One could reasonably infer from the use of "suckers" that he has a negative opinion of the trail, though English is really vague with contemporary usage and the just reading the text over the internet leaves out tonal inflection and body language which would have supplied more information to interpret

B) Very true ... though you don't see me getting out here and complaining that my money is being used to widen Hwy 97 between Leathead and Sexsmith while I see plenty of people complaining about cycling infrastructure ... everyone has their opinions based on their knowledge and experience ...