Hotel tax for rail trail

[LTD]

then the biking folks should get together and pay for paving it and whatever else they want the taxpayers have paid enough already if its not good enough as a gravel trail tough luck

[Even Steven]

then the biking folks should get together and pay for paving it and whatever else they want the taxpayers have paid enough already if its not good enough as a gravel trail tough luck

Thank you for your valuable suggestions, instead we'll just wait for this project to be completed to enjoy it along with our families.

If you don't like it, tough luck.

[alfred2]

what kelowna needs is not more lanes , but the bikers to obey the laws of the road, right now most are very bad.

[Even Steven]

what kelowna needs is not more lanes , but the bikers to obey the laws of the road, right now most are very bad.

With this logic, we'd never see any road improvements or new highways.

[60-YEARS-in-Ktown]

The following are offered as suggestions for the proposed Rail Trail:

1. Lower and widen the graveled area that the tracks used to rest upon.

2. Make one ten foot wide lane each way and mark the lanes,

3. Pave the surface as time and finances permit,

4. Have a resource person familiar enough with the ENTIRE project to be able to supervise volunteers with various expertise and abilities.

5. Permit people to donate fully specified seating and other such FULLY SPECIFIED facilities along the Rail Trail.

6. Permit hikers, runners, bicycles, Senior Mobile Equipment and Battery Operated Scooters to use the paved portion. Permit horses to use the unpaved portion.

7. Continue present fencing to prevent damage to adjoining property and domestic livestock off of the rail trail

8. Each City and Town to carry liability insurance for their portion of the Rail Trail.

Hey Donald, it's a railroad..one track .......ever seen one..
Not gonna be TWENTY. Feet of lanes.and..yes....and an animal track... Not gonna happen
I would like some of what you been having...
In case you don't know, a lot of it is blasted out of rock, enough room for a single track..btw..

[Donald G]

Unread postby 50-YEARS-in-Ktown » Today, 5:57 pm

Hey Donald, it's a railroad..one track .......ever seen one..

1. What is the distance from fence to fence.

2. What is the actual width of the built up rail bed on which the tracks used to lay?'' Ten feet ??

3. How wide would the built up area be if all of the excess rail bed height was made 20 feet wide ??

My comments were suggestions. How about you do the same instead of simply saying No ?? How is it ever going to get built if everyone is afraid to state an opinion in fear of being jumped on by people who themselves do not supply suggestions ??

[60-YEARS-in-Ktown]

The right of way may be 40 or more feet but may be less in rocky places along the lake, especially. We're there was a lot of blasting.
The bed is about 9 or the 10 feet but built up.
I think they just want to get it done and fitting on the tracked, the idea of thinning or tripling is something (maybe ) For future expansion.
For now let's just try to get it built, to use it, is the plan..

I have made suggestions before and supported it from day one..

[Gone_Fishin]

It's long overdue that bike riders be required to licence their rides and carry 3rd party liability insurance.

We need to be able to identify offenders, the same way we can with crappy drivers via a plating system.

We also need them to be insured for damage, both property and personal, that they can cause in accidents.

You have a good point. Bikes used to have an annual licensing fee and plate (later a sticker). I'm in favour of bringing back such a system. Watching a dork on a bike sail past all the cars stopped to allow pedestrians cross on a crosswalk the other day had me wondering what would happen if he were to have plowed into one of the old gals crossing in front of us. With the self-entitled attitudes prevalent among the spandex crowd I'm seeing on here, I'm certain he would have spat on her and bailed out.

Time for those who demand more amenities to pony up and be responsible with licensing and adequate insurance to protect other users of the road.

[Donald G]

Unread postby 50-YEARS-in-Ktown » 39 minutes ago

For now let's just try to get it built, to use it, is the plan..

WADR I do not understand how we can start to "build it" until we know what the final product, perhaps years from now, will be or look like. IMO building piece meal without an over all plan usually results in disaster.

[60-YEARS-in-Ktown]

Right from the beginning , it was let's build the trail on a walkable rideable surface.
So to me that suggests building on the existing bed.
Widening is much more cost... Let's get it up and running, and after that worry about expansion.
Hey 97 for decades was never 4 or more lanes, it was 2 or even less in spots..

[marooned]

For those who want to see the design's rough specs and plans.

https://okanaganrailtrail.ca/constructing-the-trail

I am an avid cyclist, riding dirt, road, separated bike path, greenway, what have you. To get back to the original point of the thread, namely how to pay for the trail, my take is that we try to reduce the price tag. $8 million seems like a crazy amount, especially when some areas of the trail that I've already walked or ridden (Kekuli, Kelowna to Airport) are already passable by bike.

I agree it will be a huge community benefit for runners, walkers, cyclists, riders, tourists, etc but I just want to understand how it will come to cost so much.

For those myopic folk who seem to think that bike licensing is a funding opportunity, check out other licensing programs and their costs - revenues rarely cover the cost of the program. I guess by that rationale we should pay for new roadway improvements with a gas tax!

[Donald G]

Unread postby marooned » Today, 7:04 am

For those who want to see the design's rough specs and plans.

https://okanaganrailtrail.ca/constructing-the-trail

Excellent post marooned. I did not realize that the project had advanced to the point noted in the schematic accompanying your post. I particularly like the $160.00 per yard figure will be donating accordingly. I also hope that projects required to complete the other phases are priced for public donation accordingly.

Will walkers, runners, cyclists, wheelchairs, senior quads, horses, pets on leashes and electric scooters all allowed to use the trail?? Will the fence remain to keep travelers fenced in and stray livestock out ??

Obviously my knowledge needed updating. Thanks again.

[Rwede]

For those myopic folk who seem to think that bike licensing is a funding opportunity, check out other licensing programs and their costs - revenues rarely cover the cost of the program. I guess by that rationale we should pay for new roadway improvements with a gas tax!

Are you telling us that cycling isn't popular enough to pay its own way? That a $50 annual licensing fee wouldn't generate enough to put a bylaw officer in a Ford Ranger for the cycling months?

If so, then obviously municipalities shouldn't be spending millions of taxpayers' dollars to accommodate what appears to be an unpopular and under-utilized activity.

What's your opposition to carrying sufficient 3rd party liability insurance? Besides the fact that it might cost you a few bucks, that is.

[kgcayenne]

The police can't enforce the laws with existing cycle riders that defy them, what makes you think the resources are magically going to appear to enforce licencing of cycle riders?

[Rwede]

The police can't enforce the laws with existing cycle riders that defy them, what makes you think the resources are magically going to appear to enforce licencing of cycle riders?

How did they do it in years past?

The cops don't enforce it because they have other things far more pressing to deal with.

A dedicated bike cop has no other pressing issues.

No insurance = $345 fine.

No license = $345 fine.

Wouldn't take long before the vast majority became compliant, and that's all that any law strives for. 100% compliance doesn't happen and we don't expect it to happen.

Why aren't you in favour of liability insurance to protect other users of the road?