Has anyone seen the RFP for the trail work? I'm interested in what MetroVan has included in the scope of work...That will really determine what DreamWizards can build.
I've seen a couple of the DreamWizards Instagram posts...but don't have an instagram account, so can't watch many of them.
Heat pumps are a great option, but you need to remember they increase costs.
Another option to consider are passive systems...here is an interesting link; https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190822-are-there-alternatives-to-air-conditioning (which hopefully works! My success rate has been low). One of the best passive solutions is more trees.
One mature tree can produce the same cooling effect as 10 room-sized air conditioners (https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/ex/sustainablecitiescollective/why-we-need-trees-our-cities/1100050/)
A urban forest has the potential to decrease urban temps by ~10 degrees, link (which may not work); https://www.pnas.org/content/116/15/7575
Passive systems won't work with the heat wave that just happened, but will be pretty effective for the majority of the year.
I've sent in an email...I've emailed in the past...really a giant black hole.
I'm concerned though, especially after seeing this article; https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/motorcycle-club-ousted-out-of-popular-metro-vancouver-park-1.6063131.
It seems like Metro Parks really doesn't care about longstanding relationships. They are more than happy to dump partners and move on...I'm not really sure why they don't actually engage with their constituents and partners? It would be great to hear from NSMBA, to know more about what is going on or what the plan is...
I have read the regional park plan. The problem with Metro Vancouver's park plans, is that they only include one user type (hiker) and the general goal is to exclude people and educate them on why they are being excluded...
With regards to the tree removal, most forest types have natural disturbance types that need to be replicated in a park environment. For example, the coastal Douglas biogeoclimatic zone requires ground fires to maintain the forest type. By managing fires, the forest needs tree removal/management to maintain a healthy forest.
To be clear, I'm not advocating for tree removal. I'm sure an experienced trail builder (as Craw said) could have mitigated the tree removal. I'm advocating for the right balance between environmental protection and recreation (and inclusion of all user types). And a park management plan that is inclusive...
Another opinion piece on NSNews (https://www.nsnews.com/opinion/editorial-outdoor-adventurers-take-notice-after-rock-climbers-fined-for-unsanctioned-trail-3671197) about the climbers being banned. With each of these stories, we get bits and pieces of the full story. As with any issue there are different sides, backstory, and human/environmental needs.
I too am concerned about the cutting of trees, but I wonder how it compares to the number of trees removed within the city. A property around the corner from me recently cut down ~15 trees that were 50 to 100 years old (with hardly any complaints). We see the continuous paving of the city, trees cut to support infrastructure, so many decisions that impact the environment!
I think a balance needs to be struck between recreational needs, and environmental needs. I'm concerned about using the NSMBA trail model, because it seems to limit the construction of new trails (NSMBA has been talking about building an advanced jump trail on Fromme for 12 years, but the District seems to be a roadblock/impenetrable barrier). I hope that the major landowners can move from enforce/punish/disable approach to an enable/empower approach by creating a vision, sharing the vision, bringing people together, and supporting the needs of residents and the environment...we need a strategic trail/recreation plan for the North Shore.
Meant to say upper digger....not upper crippler, which I agree flows perfectly into lower crippler, and is an awesome trail.
Upper digger is short double black with blacks above and a blue below. Which doesn’t mean that I don’t like upper digger.
Great to know about the changes to lower executioner. I was recently riding lower executioner and was politely informed by a hiker that it wasn't a biking trail. I think the uphill sign at the bottom may be causing confusion?
So at a higher level...the strategic planning for NSMBA should include...a overarching North Shore trail plan, independent assessment of trail ranking, what else??
I've been thinking about this thread for a bit now, trying to sort out the desired end result and the asks needed in the strategic plan...
Looking at the history of the trail network, some of the initial things that come to mind are;
- the North Shore has lost a lot of trails (especially harder ones),
- the trail network requires variety for to suit all participants,
- the network needs to be sustainable,
- there is a need for clarity around ranking,
- there is a distinct frustration with the DNV/LSCR/BC Parks,
- there is a need for clarity on what the NSMBA is advocating for.
I've been thinking about upper crippler, and while I love the trail (and the other old school trails). It seems like a stranded asset, there are blacks above and a blue below? Do we fight for that small segment of trail to stay the same or a proper trail plan that looks at expanding the trail network (versus the current zero sum game).
My question for the masses is; what do we ask for in the strategic plan that supports builders, NSMBA, etc. and the long term results?
I too think Steve Jones did a great job summarizing the concerns. I think props/congratulations need to go out to Cooper, who volunteered to speak with a 23 day old baby!
A few other interesting comments...
- Fromme has a trail classification plan, not a trail network plan
- Councilor Muri seemed to imply that the NSMBA was supposed to police unsanctioned trails??
- Councilor Forbes mentioned the urban containment boundary, which is to meant to contain housing development...From metro; UCB is intended to maintain a stable, long-term footprint for urban development. Not limit recreation?
- Would be great if the trail planning looked at trails within municipal parks too!
I haven't had a chance to watch the video yet...but here is a link to the recording; https://app.dnv.org/council/default.aspx?filename=20201214cw&type=MP4&start=1
Seymour Trails Strategic plan discussion starts and 1 hour 5 minutes...
Sorry for the crappy links...thanks for fixing!
Apparently next week's DNV Council workshop will be discussing the Seymour Trails Strategic plan (https://app.dnv.org/councilsearchnew/), and will be a good opportunity for trail users and residents to provide feedback on the current trail network and the desired trail network. Here is a link to the DNV notice; file:///C:/Users/icullis/Downloads/201214CW.Notice.pdf.
To date the district has completed a trail map and condition assessment, which is outlined in the agenda and report; file:///C:/Users/icullis/Downloads/201214CW.AGN.pdf. The Seymour Trails Strategic Plan starts on page 29.
I've read through the report a few times. Seems to still have a fairly negative spin...with identify, consolidate, decommission, and penalize popping up quite a few times in the report. Here are some of the comments;
- a few trail construction and decommissioning projects
- Staff have begun to focus their efforts on the Berkley Hyannis area, and are currently developing a framework for trail decommissioning, consolidation, and select closures
- Parks will continue to rely upon a seasonal trail crew responsible for trail maintenance, minor Infrastructure repairs, decommissioning of unsustainable trails, and restoration of heavily impacted areas
- Through the North Shore Restorative Justice Program, the District worked with the trail builder, who was fined and assigned 50 hours of community service to support trail restoration areas
- prepare a plan for trail management...
- Ideally, a year-round full time alpine trail crew would be approved within Parks to inspect and maintain trails, to decommission unsustainable trails, and / or those trails that may be recommended for closure through the study
That said, it is great that the DNV is looking at planning the trail network and trying/attempting to work with the other landowners (Metro, BC Parks, CMHC). It would be great if they worked on prioritizing a network that met the needs of all users (so illegal and unauthorized trails weren't needed).
If you would like to be heard send polite and constructive feedback/speaking requests to firstname.lastname@example.org.