The KCC Forums

This is perhaps the preeminent issue for AT planning in Kamloops at present, and one that serves to illustrate the City's true travel hierarchy (which is in opposition to their stated mode hierarchy). Personal motor vehicle travel and parking trumps all else. The plan to use MUPs in all new AT infra also acts as a wedge issue for those who are trying to advocate for better AT infrastructure. It forces advocates to decide is something better than nothing, or is it not? MUP's have a place, and the criteria for when the place fits a MUP are clearly outlined in the provincial AT resource guide. Kamloops has chosen to ignore that guide, and try to satisfy everyone (build AT, don't impact parking or vehicle travel lanes, don't disrupt current travel patterns, don't force anyone to contemplate major change). MUPs fit that bill, but in the end satisfy nobody, at least in many of the proposed locations. KCC (in my opinion) has to keep pushing the City to use MUPs when they are appropriate, to mode separate MUPs in busy areas, and to protect on street cycleways where they exist, and where they are the best infrastructure choice in new projects. Unfortunately that may mean NOT supporting some proposed projects. We also need to be very transparent with our members about why we do or do not support projects as they come up. The VV drive example is a good one. A MUP along there is not a good idea...

I posted the following on Let's Talk. I hope people will flood Let's Talk with feedback - Purvez says they are going to integrate public feedback into the plan presented to Council...

​Nice to see an updated plan making progress through the process.

I am concerned that the plan does not identify needed upgrades to current infrastructure (a financially responsible approach), but instead proposes a high number of new MUPs, which tend to be unsatisfying to both pedestrians and cyclists due to speed differentials, as well as costly to build. Valleyview Drive is a good example of a currently functional, but unprotected cycleway that would be comfortable for innumerable new users if simple mode separation was installed. The plan instead proposes a new MUP. A similar approach (pop-up protection) could be done on Summit, Hugh Allen, and Parkcrest at low cost, but with large benefit.

The proposed MUP along Fortune Dr. does not add to the network, as Schubert is already a good route, and is only a block away. Money to build a Fortune MUP could instead be used to improve Schubert to allow cyclists and pedestrians to not have to share the same space. Similarly, upgrades to the Fleetwood route to prioritize cycling would be substantially more feasible than trying to fund construction of a MUP along Parkcrest.

The plan does not facilitate easy access to Tranquille corridor, and only marginally improves access to the Columbia business centre.

The route to connect Dallas/Barnhartvale to Valleyview is not deemed to be a priority in the plan, leaving those residents cut off from the rest of the City for years to come.

In the context of difficult funding choices facing the City, and an entirely inadequate AT budget, a focus on affordable upgrades to our current out-of-date infrastructure and a prioritization of improving connections between those facilities would be a welcome direction, in contrast to this aspirational, but seemingly unaffordable plan.