Update: 2014 Seymour Work Plan - Trail Decommissions

Well the Bowen Island bike park has also been flattened by Metro Vancouver. This is a bigger picture problem.

details here:

http://www.bowenislandundercurrent.com/news/with-bike-park-flattened-community-engagement-on-the-park-begins-1.1116497

best of luck to them to rebuild it with dirt (great idea btw!), because that's one sad lookin kid.

http://www.bowenislandundercurrent.com/news/with-bike-park-flattened-community-engagement-on-the-park-begins-1.1116497

The municipality’s lease on the Metro Vancouver land where the bike park stood had run out in 2011, and in March 2012 council requested a staff report on how to proceed on the issue.
“Metro Vancouver didn’t like their property being used for this purpose,” says Councillor Cro Lucas, who was acting mayor on May 26. “There were a number of measures that we could’ve taken to mitigate their concerns, but the cost of those combined with the yearly maintenance costs were significant, especially for a facility that didn’t appear to have a high amount of usage, and did not have a specific group taking responsibility for it.”

Again, so quick to get machinery in there to bulldoze it. Imagine if they had the same enthusiasm to build or repair it.

I wonder how much it cost to decommission it?

Well the Bowen Island bike park has also been flattened by Metro Vancouver. This is a bigger picture problem.

Those dam kids should be off doing something rise anyways!

Like unplanned teen pregnancy, breaking windows, and smoking crack.

Metro Vancouver says this is their mission statement.

Mission: Build and facilitate collaborative processes, including those that engage citizens, to achieve a robust partnership working together for a sustainable region.

How would you say they are doing?

Metro Vancouver says this is their mission statement.

How would you say they are doing?

I would say they haven't built shit.

I would say they haven't built shit.

I'd agree.. What can we do to make them get their shit together?

Every area has a person who makes the ultimate decision.

Don't assume each section of Metro Van knows what the other sections are doing.

Find out who the person making decisions are and ask them why they feel they can no longer work with the NSMBA.

Probably not. I just prodded them again to answer my original email.

I got a reply. In essence, they are saying that the builder, NSMBA, and LSCR all agreed (after walking it together) that the line is not "maintainable", and encroaches on 5 creeks and wetlands. And it impacts "tree roots". They are suggesting that nobody thought the trail should be kept and is the "wrong place".

I don't buy the environmental justification. Creeks can be crossed with bridges (they were), so can wetlands (they were), and tree roots can be protected (although I think the hypersensitivity about tree roots that we're currently hearing about is over the top - trees appear to survive trail crossings for generations, all over the Shore - and there are lots of trees).

I guess the positive is that the dialog with NSMBA and the builder actually happened - but I feel it is most likely that the outcome was predetermined, that LCSR simply doesn't like losing control and (based on the other decommissioning proposed) will be striving to keep the number of trails low.

I got a reply. In essence, they are saying that the builder, NSMBA, and LSCR all agreed (after walking it together) that the line is not "maintainable", and encroaches on 5 creeks and wetlands. And it impacts "tree roots". They are suggesting that nobody thought the trail should be kept and is the "wrong place".

I don't buy the environmental justification. Creeks can be crossed with bridges (they were), so can wetlands (they were), and tree roots can be protected (although I think the hypersensitivity about tree roots that we're currently hearing about is over the top - trees appear to survive trail crossings for generations, all over the Shore - and there are lots of trees).

I guess the positive is that the dialog with NSMBA and the builder actually happened - but I feel it is most likely that the outcome was predetermined, that LCSR simply doesn't like losing control and (based on the other decommissioning proposed) will be striving to keep the number of trails low.

Before i reply to this and give my take on what LSCR said - i want to speak to a few people…

Before i reply to this and give my take on what LSCR said - i want to speak to a few people…

Check your pms.

Oh man, most people have no idea what a big problem Metro Van can be. Zero accountability. Tons of power. Its supposed to be looking out for interests of the region, and there are a lot of good projects out there, but sometimes it just feels like a giant bureaucratic steamroller. Flattening a kids bike park.

And then they probably have tons of meetings with all sorts of mid-level managers trying to figure out why so many people are cutting unauthorized trails. :fu:

Easiest way for city officials to deal with building mountain bike infrastucture in the forest is to remove it.
Easiest thing for hard working enthusiastic kids to do is rebuild or build in another part of the forest.
Flattening a kids bike park. Great now they can use all that built up angry energy doing what? vandalism? drugs?

Before i reply to this and give my take on what LSCR said - i want to speak to a few people…

so what happened?

so what happened?

If i recall, Dubprof told me that the response I got from LSCR (go back a few posts to see my comments) was essentially a form letter. But I don't know if he went any further.

I am sad that Lola is gone, still. Not that I could ride most of the woodwork but it was an awesome trail with great connectivity.