The 2020 Trail Plan was approved by City Council on December 7, 2020.
The approved 2020 Trail Plan can be found on the City's website. See https://www.whitehorse.ca/departments/parks-and-community-development/trails. You will find our analysis on the new plan under Issues. See 2020 Trail Plan Analysis.
There are a number of documents found below. In order from top to bottom you will find the following:
A) ATWA's delegate presentation before City Council of Dec. 7, 2020
B) ATWA's 2020 Draft Trail Plan Response
C) ATWA's initial written submission of 04/28/2020 entitled, 2007 Trail Plan Rewrite:
D) Letters to the media concerning the 2007 Trail Plan Rewrite:(Six in total)
Delegate presentation before City Council of Dec. 7, 2020
Topic: 2020 Trail Plan
Presenter: Keith Lay (Active Trails Whitehorse Association)
Good evening.
As this is apparently the only opportunity to address members of council on the subject of the 2020 Trail Plan, we feel it is important to raise two concerns, one of which involves cost estimate figures that were not available for public review and comment in the Draft Plan.
Concern #1:
Action #17of the 2020 Trail Plan reads as follows: “Support an upgrade of the Dirt n’ Soul Mountain Bike Park to support skills development.”
Although this certainly is something in general that most people would support, the Trail Plan is not the appropriate place in which to seek such funding. One must question what a Bike Park upgrade has directly to do with our trail network? It certainly does not align with the Trail Plan’s Vision Statement.
As well, Action #17 benefits only one particular user group, and this seems to be at odds with one of the Trail Plan’s Guiding Principles that states that our “trail network . . . supports a variety of trail users . . .” (See p. 15 of the 2020 Trail Plan.) One would think that there are a number of trail user groups that have infrastructure that they would like to see upgraded, but you do not find funds to support their specific needs in this Trail Plan. Indeed, it would not be appropriate.
The cost estimate for Action #17 is $200,000, which makes it the most expensive Action of the Trail Plan. This one Action alone accounts for 36% (before the Contingency Allowance) of the estimated cost of this Trail Plan.
The park is co-managed by the Contagious Mountain Bike Club and the City of Whitehorse, and the City was one of those who provided financial support towards its original construction. [1]
So, the City has in the past given financial support to the Mountain Bike Park, and continues to provide services in its role as co-manager, services that are not without cost. And now, the Trail Plan asks the City to contribute an additional $200,000 to support this particular user group.
You will note that the next most expensive action in the Trail Plan is Action #16 at $175,000. Here funds are to be used to “Develop and market key trail loops of varying lengths and difficulty.” Although expensive, this Action is one that will potentially benefit all users of our trail network, not just one user group.
Funds for the proposed bike park upgrade should be raised in the same manner as they were in 2010. (See footnote #1.)
The City needs to ensure that all trail user groups are placed on an equal footing when it comes to obtaining City funding, or other City support initiatives.
We request that Action #17 either be dropped entirely, or changed to read as follows:
Support trail user groups in their efforts to enhance the benefits our trail network provides. [2]
It is important to mention that the Trail Plan has numerous Actions that do not require a lot of money to complete, but will bring many positive improvements to our trail network. The City should concentrate its efforts on completing those Actions before addressing larger expense items.
Concern #2:
Action #24 of the plan reads as follows: “Update Definitions in the Trail Maintenance Policy.” It goes on to suggest the removal of one specific definition in order for it “to be consistent with other policies and bylaws.”
It seems less than effective for the Trail Plan to devote one whole Action to eliminating one particular definition, when the whole idea expressed numerous times in the Trail Plan is for all policies, plans, definitions, and bylaws associated with trails to be consistent. [3]
This issue was discussed at last Monday’s council meeting. In response to questions raised by councillors, “administration confirmed that a top priority will be to identify the bylaws and policies that need to be updated” in order for them to be integrated and consistent. [4] This needs to be clearly stated in the Trail Plan’s Action Plan.
We request that Action #17 be changed to reflect its real intent and read as follows:
Ensure all policies, plans, definitions, and bylaws associated with this Trail Plan are integrated and consistent. [5]
ATWA respectfully asks you to send this Trail Plan back to administration to address the two concerns we have raised. We have waited three years for a new trail plan. Providing time to allow these adjustments to be made is well worth the wait.
Thank you
[1] The project came in below the estimated construction cost of $80,000, although without volunteer labour, contributions in kind, and Lotteries Yukon, costs would have exceeded $100,000. (See Aug. 23, 2010 Yukon News article by Tom Patrick.)
[2] This change would also mean a change to Action Summary #17 under Theme 4: Making Connections (p 41 of Trail Plan).
[3] Under 1.1 Purpose and Scope, the Trail Plan states that it wants to “build upon and integrate existing policies, bylaws, [and] management plans . . .” (p 3) As already mentioned Action24 says that it wants to see consistency between policies and bylaws by updating definitions, and the DraftTrail Plan said that one of the intents of the Trail Plan is to ensure that“trail related policies and bylaws are integrated.”
[4] Minutes of #20020-25 of Community Services Committee 11/30/20 p. 2
[5] This change would also mean a change to Action Summary #24 under Theme 5: Trail Policies and Bylaws.
ACTIVE TRAILS WHITEHORSE ASSOCIATION (ATWA)
2020 Draft Trail Plan Response
Date: September 30, 2020
To: Landon Kulych (Manager • Parks & Community Development)
City of Whitehorse & Heidi Redman (Lees + Associates)
From: Keith Lay & Pat Milligan (ATWA)
Introduction:
Benefits of Trails (p. 1)
Comments:
Under Health Benefits: It should be mentioned that trail use by individuals not only provides physical benefits, but also mental health benefits, as well as playing a role in strengthening personal relationships. (U. S. National Parks Service 2018. See https://www.nps.gov/subjects/trails/benefits-of-hiking.htm.)
Under Environmental Benefits:Trails do not just promote “alternative modes of travel like walking and biking as opposed to driving,” [but also alternative modes of active recreation.]
If the City is truly serious about its climate change emergency then it should be promoting active forms of both travel and recreation. Motorized (gas-powered) off-road vehicle (ATV/snowmobiles/dirt bike) recreation does nothing to promote environmental benefits, but does the exact opposite.
Under Environment Benefits it is stated that, “Trails also provide opportunity for plants and vegetation that reduce [the] effects of climate change.” There seems to be something missing in this sentence. Perhaps it should be rewritten as “Trails also provide opportunity for [the growth of] plants and vegetation that reduce [the] effects of climate change.”
Note: It would be beneficial to have a reference to support the truth of this statement.
If not properly planned and constructed trails can have a detrimental impact on plants, animals, and ecosystems. Trails can lead to the importation of invasive plant species by all types of trail users. Flow trail construction can result in the cutting of large tracts of woodland.The building of trails and their subsequence use can displace animals due to the impact on their habitat and their avoidance of humans.
Perhaps it would be better to say that if planned and constructed properly trails may have a positive impact on the surrounding environment.
2.3 Neighbourhood Trail Planning (p. 8)
Comment:
The first paragraph under this heading is somewhat misleading. It suggests that neighbourhood trail plans are developed “with the direct involvement of residents.” It is our experience that so-called stakeholder groups take the lead role in the development of these plans. Resident input comes mainly at the end of the process where residents comment on what the stakeholders have developed.This process is one that needs to be revisited.
3.1 Vision Statement (p. 15)
“Whitehorse will have a diverse and accessible trail network valued as a primary community asset. A well-connected network of non-motorized and motorized trails will contribute to a liveable, attractive, sustainable and resilient northern community. Residents and visitors will enjoy access to year-round recreational trails and active transportation routes that connect neighbourhoods and community amenities, contribute to community health and wellness, foster shared use and stewardship, and celebrate our unique natural and cultural heritage.”
We present two alternatives to the above Vision Statement:
Alternative #1:
“Whitehorse will have a diverse, [sustainable], and accessible trail network valued as a primary community asset. A well-connected network of non-motorized trails will contribute to a liveable, attractive, sustainable and resilient northern community, [and a network of motorized trails designed to take users away from residential neighbourhoods and beyond City limits.] Residents and visitors will enjoy access to year-round recreational trails and active transportation routes that connect neighbourhoods and community amenities, contribute to community health and wellness, foster shared use and stewardship, and celebrate our unique natural and cultural heritage.”
The suggestion that motorized trails contribute to a liveable, sustainable, and resilient northern community as implied in the draft’s Vision Statement is not something that should be written unless it can be supported with facts.
If City Councillors support such a statement being included in the Vision Statement in light of their climate change emergency declaration, and the City’s claim that it wants to promote active forms of recreation and transportation, then the worth of both the declaration and the claim will be seen to be of little value.
Alternative #2:
“Whitehorse will have a diverse, [sustainable], and accessible trail network valued as a primary community asset. A well-connected network [of trails] will contribute to a liveable, attractive, sustainable and resilient northern community. Residents and visitors will enjoy access to year-round recreational trails and active transportation routes that connect neighbourhoods and community amenities, contribute to community health and wellness, foster shared use and stewardship, and celebrate our unique natural and cultural heritage.”
Alternative #2 avoids mentioning the terms non-motorized and motorized altogether. Including these terms automatically suggests that we have or should have an equal balance of motorized and non-motorized trails in the City, which in itself is a somewhat controversial contention. Over the next ten years (the life of the 2020 Trail Plan) the public’s attitude with regard to this balance may well change (if it has not already), which is another good reason to avoid mentioning the two terms in the Vision Statement.
Leaving the terms out of the Vision Statement will also avoid having to support the claim made in the Draft’s Vision Statement that motorized trails contribute to a liveable, sustainable, and resilient northern community, which is certainly a very questionable statement.
In addition, at present people think of motorized trail use as being mainly a gas-powered activity, but now we are seeing the introduction of all types of electric powered recreation devices. Leaving the term motorized in the Vision Statement may cause confusion down the road, as in the future we may have to distinguish between electric and gas powered motorized activities.
Please note the addition of the word sustainable in the first sentence of Alternative #1 and #2. The word is used in a different context than it is in the third sentence.
3.2 Guiding Principles (p. 15)
Benefits for Our Community (Social, Cultural, Economic, Environmental, Climate Change)
Comment:
Environmental benefits that may accrue from a new Trail Plan would hopefully include changes that would reduce the negative impacts of climate change or help to reduce its severity. The way the Guiding Principle reads now, the impression is given that one of the benefits of our trail network will be climate change, which we do not think is the intended meaning. Just take it out. Environmental benefits cover it.
Community Engagement (p. 16)
“Community involvement, throughout planning, management, construction and maintenance is important to ensure the long-term success of the trail network and protection of environmental, cultural and heritage values. Continued trail stewardship and volunteer participation is encouraged, complementing City resources and helping to provide high quality trails.”
Comment:
Employing the term Community Engagement rather than the term Inclusiveness used in the 2007 Trail Plan is certainly a step forward, as the latter term was being constantly misused as to meaning.
However, we suggest the following be considered as an improvement to the proposed Guiding Principle.
Community involvement [and consultation], throughout the planning, [approval], construction, [management], and maintenance [of trails] is important to ensure the long-term success of the trail network and protection of environmental, cultural and heritage values. Continued trail stewardship and volunteer participation is encouraged, complementing City resources and helping to provide high quality trails.
Note: Community involvement may not necessary include actual consultation, so we feel that including the word consultation would provide clarification. The listing order has been changed to better reflect the actual process of trail development.
4.1 Theme 1: Trail Classifications (p. 19)
Trail Designations
Comment:
This Draft Plan should adopt clear definitions for each type of trail as per use. People need to know what activities can take place on trails within the City of Whitehorse. They also need to know the true meaning of trail designation terms such as Non-Motorized Multiple Use Trail. Even members of City Council have demonstrated on numerous occasions their lack of understanding concerning trail designation terms.
In the Glossary section of this Draft Plan we will make suggestions as to trail designation terms that would reduce the current confusion. Of course, this would have to include the amending of the Snowmobile Bylaw in the manner suggested in this document.
Trail Type Chart (p. 20)
Please refer to the section entitled Type 1. It states that the typical use of such trails is pedestrian and cycling with limited motorized use.
ATWA would like to know why most paved gas-tax funded active transportation routes have not come before City Council for designation as non-motorized (summer and winter) trails, as this has always been the intended use for such trails. Even the Pine Street Extension paved trail has not been formally designated as a multi-use (motorized and non-motorized trail) even though it has been posted as such.
We would like to see the Draft Plan recommend that all gas-tax paved trails in Whitehorse that have not been formally designated, be brought forward for that purpose, and that the recommendation is that they be designated as Non-Motorized Multiple Use. (The exception would be the Pine Street Extension paved trail, which has been signed Multi-Use, but not formally designated.)
As there does not seem to be any Action #1 in this document we are going to add one of our own.
Action #1: Amend the Snowmobile Bylaw to reflect the ATV Bylaw and prohibit snowmobile operators from using non-motorized trails, greenbelts, and open spaces.
Why?
1.The Draft Trail Plan states that policies and bylaws should be consistent.
At present, the Snowmobile and ATV bylaws are not, in that ATVs are only permitted on designated motorized trails. They are not permitted on non-motorized trails, in the greenbelt, or in open spaces.
In contrast snowmobile operators are not restricted from using our greenbelts, open spaces, or non-motorized trails, as they “may drive their machines on a motorized multiple use trail and [in] any other area of the City that is not specifically excluded pursuant to section 15 of [the] bylaw.
The inconsistency that currently exists between the ATV and Snowmobile bylaws, and the resulting confusion for all trail users, is a compelling reason for Mayor and Council to re-open the snowmobile bylaw to correct this problem. *
Amending the Snowmobile Bylaw as suggested would establish consistency between the two bylaws.
2. Amending the Snowmobile Bylaw would aid in the protection of greenbelts, open spaces, and non-motorized trails from degradation by those snowmobilers who act irresponsibly.
Allowing snowmobiles access to greenbelts, open spaces, and non-motorized trails can result in the widening of trails, (leading to more ORV use) damage to vegetation, and disturbance to wildlife, non-motorized users, and City residents. The latter have a right to the quiet enjoyment of their property. Although the Snowmobile Bylaw says that operators are not to “damage any vegetation or ground,” it is hardly enforceable, and any damage may not be apparent until the snow melts.
3. Amending the Snowmobile Bylaw would also end the confusion surrounding the term non-motorized trail. At present, only non-motorized trails that are listed in the Snowmobile Bylaw under Schedule “C” and “E” are considered to be truly non-motorized (summer and winter).
Amending the bylaw as suggested would mean that whenever reference was made to a non-motorized trail everyone would know that meant a trail that was free from motorized use over the course of the entire year.
At present, snowmobilers are not always sure where they are allowed, and many other users are under the mistaken belief that non-motorized trails are free from motorized use even in winter. This creates confusion and potential conflict.
4. Currently, in order to establish a trail as truly non-motorized (summer and winter) the City has to go through the process of amending the Snowmobile Bylaw in order to add the trail to either Schedule “C” or “E” of the bylaw, a time-consuming and costly process.
The lack of understanding by City Council, the press, and the general public of the above requirement led to total confusion surrounding the Whistle Bend Perimeter trail, and resulted in additional costs to the City, needless public conflict, and much waste of everyone’s valuable time.
Amending the Snowmobile Bylaw would negate the need to designate a trail as non-motorized, as all trails not officially designed and designated as Motorized Multiple Use, would be considered to be non-motorized (summer and winter).
City Council would only need to designate trails that accommodate both motorized and non-motorized users, trails called Multi-Use by the OCP, and Motorized Multiple Use by administration, and that would be done through the Neighbourhood Trail Plan process.
Amending the bylaw as suggested, would save both time and money, reduce both confusion and conflict, and create a more equitable trail network.
5. Amending the bylaw as suggested would mean that all a motorized user would have to do is look at the City’s Motorized Trail Map to determine where they can operate their ORV in Whitehorse. Greenbelts, open spaces, and all trails not on the map would be off-limits to motorized use both in summer and in winter.
6. Amending the Snowmobile Bylaw will not be detrimental to the responsible snowmobiling community. Both the City and the Klondike Snowmobile Association* ask operators to stay on designated motorized routes. *(KSA Newsletter Early Spring 2012)
7.The Klondike Snowmobile Association says that its members only use the City’s trails once or twice a season, and that its members prefer to involve themselves in snowmobile activities that occur outside City limits. (See http://ksa.yk.ca/wpcontent/uploads/2012/01/KSA-Spring-2014.pdf and http://ksa.yk.ca/wpcontent/uploads/2018/09/KSA-Fall_2018.pdf).
This suggests that we have more than enough snowmobile trails in Whitehorse already, so denying access to trails that have not been designed or designated for responsible motorized use should not present a problem.
8. Amending the Snowmobile Bylaw as suggested would create a more equitable trail network. When the current 2015 City Motorized Trail Map is updated more motorized trails will be added to reflect the completion of the Porter Creek, Takhini, Whistle Bend, Range Point Trail Plan.
As well, there are two more Neighbourhood Trail Plans to be completed: Whitehorse North and South. Undoubtedly, more motorized trails will be designated when those plans are completed. One must also add all the non-motorized trails that are not found in Schedule “C” and “E” of the Snowmobile Bylaw in order to get an idea of the potential extent of trails that are open to motorized use in winter. All this for an activity that is far down the list of popular trail-user activities for Whitehorse residents. (Trail PlanWhat We Heard Report p.10)
9. Changing the Snowmobile Bylaw as suggested would not stop snowmobilers from asking the City to change the status of a non-motorized trail to that of a designated motorized trail. The KSA (and the CMBC) tried to do this with the Rotary Centennial Bridge and adjacent Millennium Trail.
*The inconsistency developed partly because some believe that due to snow cover, snowmobiles have less impact on the landscape than ATVs. Research indicates significant snowmobile impacts. Snow depth varies each year, and changes throughout the winter. Factors such as degree of slope, aspect, height of land, temperature variation, and vegetation cover all affect snow depth. Therefore, snow depth is never the same in all areas of the city. Vegetation located above the snow snaps easily in the cold. If snowmobilers were required to stay on designated motorized trails and out of open spaces and greenbelts (as are ATVs), then damage would be reduced, particularly to narrow single-track trails. It would also reduce user conflict, improve safety, and make for a more equitable trail network.
4.2 Theme 2: Making Connections (p. 21)
Comments:
4.2.1 Active Transportation Trails (p. 21)
These paved trails are not just active transportation trails, but also active recreation trails. The title of this section (4.2.1.) should be changed to reflect that fact.
As mentioned previously these trails need to be designated as non-motorized (summer and winter).They would then have to be included in the Excluded Section of the Snowmobile Bylaw, requiring an amendment to the bylaw. (Amending the Snowmobile Bylaw as we have suggested would make the second step unnecessary, avoiding more time and expense.)
Most of these paved trails were funded by the gas tax fund and intended to promote both active recreation and active transportation. The main problem with these trails as noted in this section, concerns winter maintenance. In order to maximize use they need to be cleared down to pavement in the winter. Why use gas tax funds to build trails that are not going to be used effectively for half the year? Can the City not use gas tax funds to maintain these paved trails in the winter? If not, then is it possible to engage volunteers in each of our neighbourhoods who have ATVs equipped with blades to clear these paths? The City could reimburse their gas costs.
There are ATV operators in Porter Creek that clear sidewalks without being asked. They are much appreciated. Of course, they are equipped with a licence plate and conform to the City’s bylaws. Some of these people are retired and may well enjoy the task.
The Klondike Snowmobile Club grooms some paved trails, but a groomed trail is a lot different from a cleared trail, and in spring due to compaction, turns into an icy and dangerous path.
4.2.2 Recreational Trails (p. 22)
Action #4: Create more accessible trail connections at the north and south ends of Grey Mountain.
Comment:
One of our associates provided the following information, which we have paraphrased.
“Pee Wee Hill definitely needs some grading, or steps cut out of the steep parts. It is really slippery in the winter. In the spring it cannot be used for about a month because it is slick with mud on top of meting ice. I’m not aware that Heartbreak Hill and the Hospital trail have these problems, but I seldom go there in the winter.
New switchback trails should not be installed at any of these locations. Doing so will only lead to more braiding. We had that discussion at the Whitehorse Trail and Greenways Committee (WTGC) a few years ago. One environmental staff member at a WTGC meeting (I forgot his name, he left) concluded that a new switchback trail at Pee Wee Hill should NOT be installed because it would cause erosion and there are already too many trails in the area, so the idea was cancelled.
One example of a switchback trail installation that has resulted in bad erosion is the “Yukon Energy” trail that goes up above the fish ladder. Hikers keep taking shortcuts across the switchbacks, and now there are deep grooves on the hillside, which turn to streams of mud when it’s wet, causing mini slides across the existing trail.”
It should also be remembered that we now have a Chadburn Lake Regional Park Management Plan with five stated goals, initiatives to achieve those goals, and timelines in place for each initiative. Most, if not all of these initiatives, have a cost to implement. Considering the fact that there does not seem to be any money to even install a sign at the entrance of the park to indicate that it is a regional park, one might well wonder where the money is to come to complete these initiatives let alone ones that are subsequently added.
As well, the stated initiatives in the current plan should have priority for completion over ones that people want to add after the completion of a Park Management Plan.
Frankly, this seems to be a too specific request to place in this Trail Plan and one that would be better addressed through the Trail Development Policy.
Action #5: Develop and market key trail loops of varying lengths and difficulty connecting to points of interest.
Comment:
The second paragraph in this section talks about the creation of stacked loops, which we know generally work well for mountain biking. Hopefully, if such a system is created it can be done without building a large number of additional trails, but rather by connecting existing trails.
With 850 kilometres of trails within our City we should be working to decommission trails. If we decommissioned two trails for every one developed it might make for a more environmentally friendly trail network. We do not want to get to a point where our trails detract from the enjoyment of the nature that surrounds them.
The same paragraph mentions the involvement of various user groups including motorized users. This would mean that trails would have to be designed to accommodate both motorized and non-motorized users, something that the majority of citizens do not want to see, as demonstrated by the various surveys and neighbourhood plans provided in our initial submission.
As also pointed out in our initial submission, the National Trails Coalition says that such trails are the most expensive to build and maintain. (The Canadian Council of Snowmobile Organizations (CCSO) is a member of TheNational Trails Coalition and the Klondike Snowmobile Association is a member of The Canadian Council of Snowmobile Organizations.)
The Official Community Plan (OCP) says that motorized and non-motorized users should be separated whenever possible. (See OCP 18.5.1) Why is it that the City is constantly ignoring such policies?
As well, some of the areas mentioned in the design of the stacked loops are located where motorized vehicles are not permitted. Please refer to the East of the Yukon River Trail Plan.
Both the OCP and the 2007 Trail indicate that citizens want to get ORVs away from residential areas and beyond City limits. Stacked loops, if open to Off Road Vehicles (ORVs), might do just the opposite. People have a right to the quiet enjoyment of their property.
The Draft Plan seems concerned about global warming due to climate change. City Councillors have declared a Climate Change Emergency and yet we continue to foster motorized trail use growth. What does this tell us about the City’s commitment to deal with this Climate Change Emergency?
Action #6: Support an upgrade of the Dirt n’ Soul Mountain Bike Park to support skills development.
Comment:
Although this certainly something that most people would support, like Action #4 it seems to be a too specific request to place in this Trail Plan. As well, it really has nothing to do with trails. It is a bike park!
Action #7: Create option lines on difficult trail sections to promote skills progression or where overuse is present.
Comment:
This seems like another mountain bike request. Current option lines on Grey Mountain are not impressive. Creating loops around a steep section in order to allow weaker or less skilled riders to get to the same point on a trail may not reduce trail degradation. More vegetation and soil has to be removed or displaced in the creation of these easy loops. And, you still get good riders using the steep section and avoiding the loop, but still degrading the trail. Such loops degrade the natural environment that other users treasure.
If it is too steep to ride without causing degradation then bikers can get off the bike, put it over their shoulder, and walk up the trail.
The comment that option lines improve trail experiences for a variety of users is unsupported in this document. This conclusion can only be reached through public engagement perhaps via the Trail Development Policy.
There seems to an assumption that trails that are good for mountain bikers are always going to be good for other non-motorized users.
“Mountain bike trails are, by nature, quite different from hiking, commuting, walking and equestrian trails. Hiking trails generally strive to reach certain points of interest via the route of least resistance, i.e. low grade and wide, or steep with less regard for terrain features. Mountain bike trails are constructed to maximize the esthetic appeal of the terrain at hand. Soil, logs, lumber, and rock are sometimes used to enhance and create new landforms. Trails meander through a landscape from one feature to the next, the most successful and popular trails “flow” through the landscape in this endeavour.” (See https://squamish.ca/assets/4eb318a9e3/Trail-Standards-Manual-0411.pdf District of Squamish Trail Standards).
Again, this is a too specific request to place in this Trail Plan. As mentioned, we have a Trail Development Policy that proponents could utilize to pursue their request.
Action #8: Support “out and away” trails for motorized use.
Comment:
We would certainly be glad to see the creation of a map of “out and away” trails, or escape routes as the 2007 Trail Plan labels them, and appropriate signage on such trails. As we indicated in our initial submission this was something that was recommended in the 2010 OCP, but never completed.
The Klondike Snowmobile (KSA) Association was supposed to be involved in this effort. It had 13 years to do so, and yet Action #8 suggests that the organization will be consulted again.
Out and away trails already exist. They simply have to be properly identified on the City’s (to be improved) motorized trail map.This time around the City should contact Peter Long of Whitehorse Walks for help in creating such a map. Once City administration has a draft map prepared, it should then inform the various viable Community Associations and stakeholders for their input.
ATWA will much appreciate an updated and improved motorized trail use map as indicated in our initial submission. This is long overdue.
Unfortunately, unless the Snowmobile Bylaw is amended to reflect the ATV Bylaw, and prohibit snowmobile operators from using non-motorized trails, greenbelts, and open spaces, any motorized trail map will not reflect the true extent of the motorized network available to winter users.
Action #11: Adopt best management practices for trails in ecologically significant areas.
Comment:
ATWA is glad to see the inclusion of the material ATWA provided in our initial submission on Best management practices.
However, we do have some additional comments. First, our OCP makes the following statement: “Once an OCP is adopted by a bylaw, all future land use decisions made by Council must be consistent with the objectives and policies outlined in the Plan.” (p. 6) The new Trail Plan must respect the land use objectives and policies of the OCP, which are outlined on pages 31-35 of the OCP.
As the City is currently preparing a new Official Community Plan Draft, ATWA questions the wisdom of bringing a Draft Trail Plan before City Council prior to the approval of the new OCP. As the Trail Plan must be consistent with policies and objectives of the OCP, it would seem logical to wait until we know what those are before proceeding with the presentation before City Council of the final Draft Trail Plan.
Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs) are supposedly off-limits to ATVs and snowmobiles under the OCP, Snowmobile Bylaw, and ATV Bylaw. Yet, we see motorized routes in the City that go right through ESA areas such as McIntyre Creek.
If the City actually followed current OCP policies and objectives, we would not be constantly raising the issue of ORVs in ESAs, and there would not be what ATWA perceives as a City push to allow dirt bikes in the Ear Lake area, or along the west side of the Yukon River.
Establish a City environmental review committee of experts to look at any issues concerning ESAs, particularly those that involve the impact of motorized recreational activities on such areas.
Experts were used to develop the ESAs identified within the OCP, and the Kwanlin Dun First Nation used experts when they developed their City of Whitehorse Heritage and Ecosystem Design Proposal. However, one gets the impression that City decisions regarding the placement of motorized (MMU) trails within ESAs are made randomly, and demonstrate a lack of understanding of ESAs and their need for protection.
Action #12: Complete remaining neighbourhood level trail plans.
Comment:
As you know ATWA has participated in both the Whitehorse North and Whitehorse South Trail Task Force process, neither of which has been completed. We have also been involved as stakeholders in two other neighbourhood trail task force bodies.
However, ATWA feels that the suggestion to use “a more inclusive public consultation process, that includes charrette style public workshops as part of the planning process” is the right direction to pursue.
One concern that we have is that the City does neighbourhood trail planning prior to doing Park Management Plans for those neighbourhoods where a regional park is to be established. To us, the reverse should be done. Citizens will tell the City what their vision is for the park, and that vision should be reflected in the trail planning process that follows.
4.3 Theme 3: Signage & Wayfinding (p. 26)
Action #13: Update print and web-based trail mapping.
Comment:
ATWA is happy to see that this action will be undertaken. We would just like to re-emphasize what we said in our previous submission.
Due to the confusion surrounding the classification of trails as per use, the legends on neighbourhood trail maps are of little value, as they do not clearly indicate which trails are open to both motorized and non-motorized use, or only open to non-motorized use (summer and winter), which is really what people need to know.
A Great Trail map featuring its routes in Whitehorse would be appreciated. As we mentioned in our last submission some indication should be given as to which parts of it are truly non-motorized (summer and winter).
There does not seem to be any provision for public input concerning the Great Trail. Since part of it goes through Whitehorse, the Klondike Snowmobile Association (as agent for the Great Trail) should be asked by the City to hold an annual public meeting with regard to Whitehorse issues related to the trail.
Action #14: Continue to integrate indigenous languages and traditional place names into the trail network in partnership with First Nations.
Comment:
One cultural site you might want to include is the esker opposite F. H. Collins. Apparently, it was a lookout point (for game) for First Nation people. At one time there was an archaeological dig located at the south end of the esker.
Action #16: Continue marking of existing trails with signposts and en route markers.
Comment:
It would really be appreciated if the City would correct all its trail signs that place Longitude before Latitude. It is embarrassing when you take visitors on our trails and they see these coordinates in an incorrect order. It does not make our City look very sophisticated.
ATWA has pointed this error out numerous times to administration over the course of several years and have been told that the situation would be corrected. We are still waiting. All these signs should be corrected. It should be an easy fix. Signs that are to be installed for the first time should be checked to ensure that the error has not been repeated.
Action #17: Coordinate with TKC and KDFN on efforts to encourage appropriate trail use on settlement land.
Comment:
This is much needed. ATWA has received complaints concerning settlement land in Whitehorse North.
4.4 Theme 4: Education & Etiquette (p. 29)
Comment:
This section talks about conflict on trails. There is probably far more conflict than one thinks. If one sees an operator of an ATV, dirt bike, or snowmobile who is breaking City regulations, what action can you take? There is no point in calling bylaw, as the offender will be gone before an officer gets there. You cannot identify the vehicle because there will be no licence plate attached. One may indeed have serious disagreement (conflict) with the operator’s action, but will have no reasonable opportunity to express it through legitimate means.
What is missing in this section is any reference to the negative impact that irresponsible Off Road Vehicle operation has on our trails, greenbelts, and open spaces, something that due to the huge growth in ORV sales during the pandemic, is only going to increase dramatically. If operators would just stick to the myriad of designated motorized trails in Whitehorse, there would be far less environmental degradation.
The statement is made that “User education and communications are the preferred and proactive course of action, rather than formal enforcement programs.” This is a truism, and one that we have heard time and time again. However, if we continue to lack the ability or desire to enforce the bylaws that pertain to trails, then the abuse of those bylaws will continue.
Unfortunately, Bylaw Services has only one trail position. That officer is dedicated to concerns related to trails. Depending on operational requirements this person may have the help of at least one other officer. With 850 km of trails it is obvious that enforcement possibilities are limited.
However, there are areas of our City that receive more trail use than others. Perhaps resources should be concentrated in those areas on a rotating basis. As well, the City should consider increasing the size of our Bylaw Services department in order to expand its ability to patrol our trails.
Perhaps Bylaw Services could focus on ORV compliance a few times a year. Many residents complain that they see no licence plates on trail bikes, ATVs, and snowmobiles. The operators of such vehicles often used trails that are not designed or designated as motorized. It appears as if the City is advocating for ORV users, who despite the City’s ORV education campaigns, continue to operate their vehicles as if there are no bylaws.
Action #19: Utilize targeted public educational messaging around responsible trail use.
Comment:
There needs to be more information provided to the public concerning the regulations surrounding the operation of ATVs and snowmobiles in the City of Whitehorse. Dealers should be asked to distribute such information to their customers.
Local community associations should provide appropriate information on their Facebook pages. Last spring the Porter Creek Community Association provided information on regulations pertaining to ATV use in its community.
The ATV Bylaw says, “A person may operate an ATV on a motorized multiple use trail during the time period April 1 to October 31 in each year and shall not operate an ATV on a motorized multiple use trail from November 1 to March 31 in each year,” although this should really be a fluctuating date as snow levels vary each year.
At or around these turnover points the bylaws applicable to the respective ORV could be imparted to social media, the press, and local radio stations by Bylaw Services.
Action #20: Update and expand trail resources available on the City website.
Comment:
Yes! Finally, one-stop shopping for all information related to trails in the City of Whitehorse.
4.5 Theme 5: Trail Policies & Procedures (p. 32)
Action #23: Update Definitions in the Trail Maintenance Policy.
Comment:
Action #23 of the Draft Plan says that the City should “remove reference to the exclusion of motorized use on “single-track trails” found in the Trail Maintenance Policy, in order to be consistent with other policies and bylaws. The definition of "single-track trails" found in the policy says, “no motorized use is permitted on single-track trails.”
Certainly everyone wants to have consistency between our City’s various policies and bylaws. However, it is interesting to note that ATWA has already gone before City Council to ask it to ensure the Snowmobile Bylaw was updated to reflect the definition of single-track trails given in the newly minted (November 2016) Trail Maintenance Policy.
Default single-track trails should have been added to the Excluded Section of the Snowmobile Bylaw. Doing so would have given additional protection to default non-motorized single-track trails from winter snowmobile use.
Note: Default Non-Motorized Multiple Use Trails are trails that have not been formally designated by the City as truly Non-Motorized Multiple Use trails (summer and winter).
The Draft Plan suggests removing the reference to the exclusion of motorized use on single-track trails, the exact opposite of what ATWA argued before City Council.
If the City amended the Snowmobile Bylaw to reflect the ATV Bylaw, and prohibited snowmobile operators from using non-motorized trails, greenbelts, and open spaces, there would be no problem changing the definition as the Draft Plan suggests.
The Draft Plan advocates ensuring consistency between the City’s various policies and bylaws, and yet when it comes to the subject of creating consistency between the ATV Bylaw and Snowmobile Bylaw it is silent.
Action #24: Develop policy directions for use of e-bikes and other e-mobility devices on trails.
Comment:
On January 20, 2020 ATWA presented our concerns before City Council about the lack of information available to the public and to dealers concerning the use of e-bikes and other electric mobility devices on City trails and streets. (See https://www.activetwa.org/e-bikes.html). We have been told that various City departments are now working on this issue.
Our research indicates that a review of current City policies and bylaws can only bring one to the conclusion that e-bikes are permitted to operate only on City streets and designated motorized trails. The City has not disputed our conclusion.
If one gets into an accident while operating an e-bike off City roads and designated motorized trails, then there could be potential liability issues.
The comment is made in this section that there is strong stakeholder feedback advocating the use of e-bikes on Type 1 paved trails. We find this surprising, as even the Contagious Mountain Bike Club does not appear to have a policy developed on the appropriate use of e-bikes within the City.
We asked the organization to join us in our presentation on the subject before City Council on January 20, 2020, but it declined, as it had not yet devised a policy on the subject. Given the fact that we simply went before City Council to“ensure Council [was] made aware of the need to clarify where e-bikes and other electric mobility devices can be legally and appropriately used within the City of Whitehorse,” we were surprised when it decided not to participate.
Despite our efforts and that of Spencer Edelman of Listers Motor Sports, the City has failed to provide clarification, although as mentioned it has not disputed our conclusion that such devices can only be operated on City streets and motorized trails.
We have received comments that indicate concern about bicycle use on our paved trails, particularly the Millennium Trail. It is felt that there should be more direction given with regard to the appropriate use of bikes on pedestrian trails.
E-bikes are heavier, somewhat more difficult to control, and can travel at significant speeds, so the potential impact on pedestrians may be greater than a regular bicycle.
The use of e-bikes on non-paved trails has raised concerns in other jurisdictions, even among mountain bike organizations. Our City is late in the game concerning e-bike issues and should immediately seek public input into the issue in order to develop appropriate guidelines, policies, and perhaps a new bylaw.
Action #27: Establish winter maintenance priorities for paved Type I Trails.
Comment:
Please see our comments concerning winter maintenance of paved Type 1 Trails under 4.2.1. All such trails must be cleared down to pavement if they are going to provide the intended benefit to users in winter. Volunteers could help in this regard.
4.7 Theme 7: Stewardship & Partnerships (p. 35)
Action #28: Continue to provide recognition, support and tools to Trail Stewards.
Continue to strengthen partnerships with Trail Stewards and provide support through recognition of volunteer efforts, support for the delivery of programming and events, and funding towards trail maintenance activities.
Comment:
According to the City’s Trail Maintenance Policy the term “trail steward” means an organization or individual (Appendix C) that formally takes on responsibility for the care and maintenance of a particular trail. A trail steward is generally a volunteer organization whose stewardship is authorized through a memorandum of understanding [with the City].
The Whitehorse Cross Country Ski Club is not considered to be a Trail Steward under the City’s Trail Maintenance Policy.
The City should recognize that each of our two trail steward’s represent specific interests, which is only natural, and should not assume that just because one is a motorized group (KSA) and the other is a non-motorized group (CMNC), that the KSA represents all motorized users, and the CMBC represents all non-motorized users.
In other words, we cannot count on our trail stewards to necessary recognize or appreciate the interests and concerns of other user groups.
This was well demonstrated when both Trail Steward’s supported the motorization of the Rotary Centennial Bridge and adjacent sections of the Millennium Trail.
The point we are making is that the City should make more of an effort to consult with other user groups particularly walking groups, as 97% of your survey respondents “use trails for walking/hiking.”
We fully support the idea of “trail stewardship programs such as Adopt-a-Trial.” However, what is missing here is a suggestion that we have made previously. We need City trained trail volunteers who would patrol and monitor our trails as well as offer information to users on trail etiquette, bylaws concerned with trail usage, and City policies that relate to our trail network.
Apparently, Anchorage has such a group who are part of the City’s Trail Watch program. This would allow to citizens to get more involved with our trail system. They would be true trail stewards.
5.1 Prioritization (p. 37)
The implementation plan should be reviewed annually to respond to changes, ensure integration with other City plans, and take advantage of potential funding and partnership opportunities.
Comment:
Once a year Parks & Community Development should come before City Council and give an update on the progress of the Trail Plan. This should be done as well with other such plans like the Chadburn Lake Regional Park Management Plan, and the Schwatka Lake Area Plan. Perhaps one City Council meeting a year could be set aside to discuss the progress that has been made in all such plans. The public could be given time at the meeting to respond.
Glossary
Comment:
We suggest a number of additions and corrections to the Glossary. We also suggest dropping the term Motorized Multiple Use Trail.
MOTORIZED MULTIPLE USE TRAIL
Trails designed and designated by the City to be used by both non-motorized [users]and motorized vehicles including snowmobiles.
Comment:
Our suggestion is to drop the use of the term Motorized Multiple Use Trail altogether, and replace it with the term Multi-Use, which the OCP uses to define a trail used by both non-motorized and motorized users, the City uses on trail signage to mean the same thing, and which the KSA uses in the same manner.
You may also want to consider rewriting the definition as follows:
Multi-Use Trail:Trails designed and designated by the City to be used by both non-motorized and motorized users including snowmobilers.
OR
Multi-Use Trail:Trails designed and designated by the City to be used by both non-motorized and motorized users, which includes all trail users who rely on a motor to provide a source of power.
The latter definition would recognize that e-bike use is becoming common in the City, and at present it seems that such devices are only permitted on City roads and designated motorized trails.
NON-MOTORIZED MULTIPLE USE TRAIL
Trails design[ed] and designated to be used by a range of non-motorized uses.
Comment:
Correction to the word design to read designed.
Using the above definition as written would mean that all non-motorized trails not officially designated as such would not be considered to be non-motorized. In other words, default trails are not included in the definition as they were in the 2007 Trail Plan (p. 25). As well, the 2007 Trail Plan definition of the term did not include the word designed, so why is this word now included?
Take out the words designed and designated as this conflicts with the ATV Bylaw, which says that ATVs are not permitted ona non-motorized trail.The bylaw does not differentiate as to whether or not the non-motorized trail is designed as such, designated as such, or is a default trail.
If common sense prevails and the Snowmobile Bylaw is amended as we have suggested, then that bylaw will reflect the ATV Bylaw with regard to non-motorized trails.
The definition could then be simplified to read as follows:
Non-Motorized Multiple Use Trail. . . A trail that is to be used only by a variety of non-motorized users.
Suggested additions to the Glossary:
Passive Recreation
Comment:
This term is used on p. 25 of the Draft Plan. It is also used elsewhere in City documents including the OCP (p. 34), but we have never been able to get the City to define the term. There are various activities that may be considered as recreation, such a picnic or non-motorized activities such as walking.
Single-Use Trails (Motorized)
Single-Use Trails (Non-motorized)
Comment.
There should be a designation for Single-Use trails (motorized ornon-motorized) in this section. The current OCP says “designating trails for specific uses . . . aids in the safety of trail users.” (OCP 18.2 Trail Development p. 73)
The current Chadburn Lake Park Management Plan accepts the fact that there may be a place for single-use non-motorized trails under certain conditions. (See Chadburn Lake Park Management Plan Section 3.5 #3.)
Trail Steward
The definition found in the Trail Maintenance Policyshould be included in this Glossary.
Thank you for allowing us to make this submission.
Keith Lay & Pat Milligan (ATWA)
2007 Trail Plan Rewrite:
As we have mentioned in ATWA Updates, the City of Whitehorse is in the process of updating the 2007 Trail Plan.
Below you will find an updated copy of ATWA’s initial comments re: the 2007 Trail Plan Update that was sent to each member of Council in April. In mid-March we sent a similar document to Heidi Redman of Lees + Associates, which was awarded the contract for consultant services with regard to the updating of the 2007 Trail Plan. It raises a number of issues and concerns that have been brought forth by associates over the last few years that should be addressed in any new trail plan for the City of Whitehorse.
Following this submission you will find copies of a number of letters ATWA has sent to the media concerning the update of the 2007 Trail Plan. The last one was published on August 7, 2020 by the Whitehorse Star.
To: All members of City Council
From: Active Trails Whitehorse Association (ATWA)
Date: April 28, 2020
Initial comments concerning the update of the City of Whitehorse 2007 Trail Plan (Please note Footnotes 1-7 are found at the end of the document.)
1. Size of our trail system: The 2007 Trail Plan makes the following comments concerning our existing trail network. It says that we have “an estimated 150 km of existing trails of City-wide significance and at least 700 km of local and neighbourhood trails . . .” (Executive Summary 2007 Trail Plan) Later it says that we have “approximately 150 km of designated motorized multiple use trails, and more than 700 km of designated and default non-motorized multiple use trails.” (p. 25, 2007 Trail Plan) Later on the plan says “the Whitehorse trail system is estimated to total over 850 km, minimum.” (p. 29)
This information is confusing, out-dated, and does not reflect the truth of the situation.The figures give the impression that there are a huge number of non-motorized multiple use trails as opposed to motorized trails when, as will be explained later, this is not the case.
One could also conclude from the above information that all existing trails of City-wide significance are motorized, which they may well be, but it seems strange that both trails of City-wide significance and designated motorized multiple use trails total identical lengths, namely 150 km. Clarity with regard to both these figures is needed.
As well, according to a Hillcrest Community Association report, the city’s 150 km of motorized trails had grown to 400 km by 2011. The report indicated that the 400 km figure was obtained from the city. (Seehttps://hillcrestcommunity.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/letter-to-hca-residents.pdf).
Adding to the confusion is the fact that in Whitehorse so-called default non-motorized trails are often open to motorized snowmobile use in winter and, as a result, cannot be considered as non-motorized trails. In our city no does not necessarily mean no when it comes to non-motorized trails, something that needs to be rectified by amending the Snowmobile Bylaw.
In addition, given the amount of trail construction since 2011, one would think that even the 2011 figure concerning the length of motorized trails is out-of-date.
We have also had a number of neighbourhood trail plans completed since 2007, in which numerous motorized multiple use trails have been designated.
We also have 29 km [1] of paved multi-use pathways in Whitehorse, many of which were paid for by federal gas tax funds. Those paid for by federal gas tax funds are considered to be active transportation trails in the city, although strangely enough such trails can be open to motorized use if the city so decides. Unfortunately, many of these trails have not been formally designated as non-motorized (summer and winter), and this leads to confusion and misuse. The new trail plan should specifically address these gas tax funded paved active transportation trails and recommend that the city clarify their use by formal designation.
After a period of twelve years the city is still using the figures (150 km & 700 km) to indicate the size and use of our trail network despite what it said about the growth of motorized trails in 2011, and by continuing to ignore the information mentioned above concerning so-called default non-motorized trails, so-called active transportation trails, neighbourhood trail plans completed since 2007, and new trail construction.
One figure in which we can put some faith is that of the number of kilometres that have been adopted into the city’s Trail Maintenance Policy, a figure that now totals around 250 km.
This new trail plan should provide up-to-date figures concerning the size and use of our trail system. In other words, what is the length in kilometres of our motorized trail network, and what is the length in kilometres of our non-motorized (summer and winter) trail network.
Better yet, these figures should be broken down according to the length of our motorized multiple use trail network (which according to the 2007 Trail Plan is open only to motorized vehicles), the length of our non-motorized multiple use trail network (which according to the 2007 Trail Plan is open only to a variety of non-motorized users), and the length of our multi-use trail/mixed use trail network which according to the OCP is open to both non-motorized and motorized users. [2]
There is a motorized trail map (2015) on the city’s website to which one could refer in an effort to calculate the length of motorized trails in the city, but one would have to ensure that it is up-to-date. This map needs to be upgraded as in its present state it lacks appropriate information that would make it of much use to motorized users, particularly to those who are recent inhabitants or simply visiting. Right now it looks like someone took a red pen and just made lines on a piece of paper.
For your information, summer and winter (truly) non-motorized multiple use trails are listed in the Snowmobile Bylaw under Schedule “E” and Schedule “C”. Their respective lengths would have to be determined.
SCHEDULE “E” EXCLUDED TRAILS
As the 2007 Trail Plan indicates, trails that are to be motorized must be both designed and designated for such use. (p. 25) Unfortunately, one cannot include gas tax funded active transportation trails in the non-motorized multiple use category if they are open to snowmobile use for half the year.
We also have (by default) non-motorized multiple use single-tracktrails in our city. The Trail Maintenance Policy (November 2016) confirms such trails are closed to motorized use. (See Definitions p. 2 & 3) However, this fact is not reflected in the Snowmobile Bylaw. Efforts to get the city to explain why the Snowmobile Bylaw has not been updated to reflect this aspect of the Trail Maintenance Policy have fallen on deaf ears.
It is our understanding that (where applicable) city bylaws are supposed to reflect city policies and plans such as the Official Community Plan (OCP) and the 2007 Trail Plan. One cannot include single-track trails in the non-motorized multiple use category if, because of the Snowmobile Bylaw, they are open to snowmobile use for half the year.
It would be nice if the new trail plan included an Active Transportation Map for the urban containment area of the city, something that the current OCP promised, but never delivered. (See p. 27 & 62 of the OCP.) There should also be an Active Recreation Map that would include all the truly non-motorized (summer and winter) designated trails available to citizens in the City of Whitehorse.
As well, according to the OCP “the trail plan recommends the creation of a map of “out and away” trails for motorized recreation vehicle usage. This map shall be designed to strongly discourage the use of all terrain vehicles on non-motorized trails and in environmentally sensitive areas . . . work on this project shall be done in conjunction with groups such as the Klondike Snowmobile Association (KSA), Motor Vehicles Branch, and others.” (See OCP 18.5.2) As far as we can tell this work was never completed. This map should be included in the new trail plan.
In addition to the above maps the city needs to provide an updated Great Trail map on the city’s website that would show the route(s) of this (mainly motorized) trail within the city. There should be an indication as to which sections of the trail are non-motorized (summer and winter).
The Snowmobile Bylaw must be amended to reflect the ATV Bylaw and prohibit snowmobile operators from using non-motorized trails, green spaces, and open spaces. Sadly, access by snowmobiles to so-called non-motorized trails causes damage to existing vegetation as a result of the widening of trails, which in turns leads to more use by both ATVs and snowmobiles. (Even the Snowmobile Bylaw recognizes that snowmobiles damage vegetation.)
Damage to greenbelts and open spaces by snow machines could be reduced if they (like ATVs) were not permitted to travel off trail and into such areas. It could also be argued that the lack of protection of so-called non-motorized trails results in disturbance to wildlife and non-motorized users alike. Non-motorized users may well be forced to find somewhere else to recreate.
It is ridiculous that every time a reference is made to a non-motorized city trail, one has to clarify whether or not it is non-motorized all year round (summer and winter) or just in summer. No should mean no!
It is also ridiculous that the only way we can designate a truly non-motorized (summer and winter) trail in the City of Whitehorse is to change the Snowmobile Bylaw, a costly and needless procedure. Changing the Snowmobile Bylaw as suggested would eliminate these absurdities and make for a far more equitable trail system. Failure to change the Snowmobile Bylaw in the manner suggested will draw into question the value of any new trail plan.
Once the bylaw is changed then a well-designed city motorized map and/or app would inform all motorized users what trails they can legally use. Any trail not on this map would be off limits to motorized users.
2. Trails Classification/Designations: The section of the 2007 Trail Plan that discusses trail designations is poorly written and, as a result, confusing. (See p. 24-26) The city has increased this confusion by continually misusing both the term motorized multiple use trail and the term non-motorized multiple use trail as defined in the 2007 Trail Plan. As a result, all approved city trail plan maps are both confusing and misleading.
For example, the Porter Creek, Takhini, Whistle Bend, Range Point Trail Plan has a legend on its trail map in which several categories of trails are listed such as the following: Singletrack Trails, Paved Trails, Non motorized multi-use routes, and Motorized multi-use routes. (Seehttps://www.whitehorse.ca/departments/parks-and-community-development/trails-/trail-consultation/north).
As mentioned previously, due to the Snowmobile Bylaw snowmobiles can use many non-motorized multiple use trails, so the legend needs to take this into account by clarifying whether these non-motorized multiple use trails are non-motorized (summer and winter), or just in the summer.
Similarly, clarity is needed as to whether the motorized multiple use trails are multi-use trails, which (according to the OCP) combine non-motorized and motorized users, or only open to motorized use. (The new trail plan should call trails that combine non-motorized and motorized users Mixed-Use trails.)
According to the Trail Maintenance Policy Singletrack Trails, are off-limits to motorized vehicles, so that should be indicated beside the term in the legend. (It should also be mentioned in the current Snowmobile Bylaw.)
There also needs to be some indication as to which paved trails are motorized and which are free from motorized use in both summer and winter.
To add to the confusion please note that the map of the trail plan in question is entitled DRAFT PLAN, although the plan was passed by City Council in 2016.
The 2007 Trail Plan argues that due to limited resources “many recreational facilities – including trails – must accommodate multiple uses, and users.” (p. 24) It then goes on to use the Canada Games Centre (CGC) as an example of such accommodation. The logic behind such a comparison escapes us. The CGC does not accommodate all its activities in one specific area at the centre else chaos would ensue. Having one trail open to all kinds of user activities may also lead to major user conflict, trail degradation, safety concerns, and trail displacement.[3]
The city says that it has two major categories of multiple use trails: non-motorized multiple use trails and motorized multiple use trails. Yet, it continues to misinterpret its own definitions of these terms, which often leads to confusion for all interested parties. There is no definition in the current trail plan for a trail that allows for both motorized and non-motorized use, although as previously mentioned one is found in the OCP.
The majority of Whitehorse residents have long indicated the need for non-motorized trails to be separate from motorized trails through survey results and neighbourhood plans (refer to Appendix A found at the end of this document). Yet the city continues to designate mainly motorized trails via the neighbourhood trail task force route, which is hardly a balanced, fair, or logical approach, and one that does not reflect actual trail use. Indeed, “90% of Yukoners use local walking trails” as active forms of recreation and transportation. (See http://www.community.gov.yk.ca/pdf/RYALS_FINAL_for_Printing_-_Dec_2012.pdf Active Yukon/Yukon Active Living Strategy/2012.)
Mr. Daniels (President of the KSA) has said that, “At no time will [he] agree to restrict snowmobile use beyond what is currently mandated by law.” (See p. 2 http://ksa.yk.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/KSA-Early-Spring-20121.pdf). So, unless we change the Snowmobile Bylaw it is unlikely that we will see any end to the current inequitable situation.
Unfortunately, unlike the snowmobile, mountain biking, and cross-country skiing community there is no group that purports to represent the interest of walkers in our city. Hence, they are often ignored or forgotten when issues arise that impact their form of recreation.
As well, one cannot rely on the city’s trail stewards to represent the interests of walkers. Neither can one rely on them to protect non-motorized trails from being motorized. One only needs to refer to the controversy surrounding the effort to motorize the truly non-motorized (summer and winter) Rotary Centennial Bridge and adjacent Millennium Trail, an effort that lasted from 2013 to 2015 before finally being put to rest by City Council.
Two of our trail stewards, “The Klondike Snowmobile Association and Contagious Mountain Bike Club . . . stated [their] support for motorized use” of the bridge and adjacent Millennium Trail. (See https://www.whitehorsestar.com/News/support-overwhelming-for-pedestrian-only-bridge).
When the issue finally came up for a public discussion at City Council the gallery was completely full. There was standing room only. Only one person in the crowd spoke for motorizing the trail and bridge in question. It is obvious that the majority of citizens want non-motorized trails to be separate from motorized trails wherever
feasible and practical. [4] However, the city continues to ignore the evidence supporting this fact.
Many times we have heard the argument from city officials and trail stewards that “shared use is always the most cost-effective and inclusive way forward.” (Doug Hnatiuk, former manager of Parks and Community Development.) (See https://www.whitehorsestar.com/News/support-overwhelming-for-pedestrian-only-bridge).
Unfortunately, what is not made clear is that the 2007 Trail Plan recognizes two types of shared use trails: non-motorized multiple use trails and motorized multiple use trails. The latter is the most expensive type of trail to build and maintain, a fact that the city and at least one of our so-called trail stewards (the Klondike Snowmobile Association) seems unwilling to recognize.
Any trail that allows motorized use has to be built and maintained to accommodate the widest Off Road Vehicle (ORV) that can be used on that trail. Any infrastructure such as a bridge that is built on the trail has to be wide enough and strong enough to support such vehicles. Once built, the bridge has to be maintained by the City of Whitehorse at the city’s expense. [Correction: Once built, maintenance has to be done by the city itself, or by the city’s Trail Stewards via an agreement with the city. (07/25/20)]
Of course, motorized trails have to be longer to satisfy the recreational needs of motorized users, as ORVs can travel much further than a non-motorized user over a given time period. Obviously, longer trails are more expensive to both build and maintain. They also have to be wider and have better sight lines, which also adds to the expense. As well, such trails have a far greater impact on the environment both during and after construction due to their building requirements.
“Shared use trails [mixed-use trails] which accommodate a variety of both motorized and non-motorized users are the most expensive to build because they are usually wider in order to accommodate multiple trail uses.” (Canadian Trails Study, Dec. 2010 Study Commissioned by Terrance J. Norman, M.Sc. for National Trails Coalition p.21) [5] These mixed-use trails are even more expensive than motorized multiple use trails, as there may have to be increased signage due to the possible presence of non-motorized users.
In contrast, "Hiking trails are the least expensive to build because they are rather narrow. They can follow geographic contours and go around major obstacles.” (Canadian Trails Study, Dec. 2010 Study Commissioned by Terrance J. Norman, M.Sc. for National Trails Coalition p.21)
The obvious question is why the city appears to be concentrating its efforts on designating motorized trails, or what the city incorrectly refers to as MMU trails. Such trails, called multi-use in the OCP, or mixed-use trails in other jurisdictions, accommodate a variety of motorized and non-motorized users. As mentioned, these trails are the most expensive to build and maintain, yet the city continues to designate more of them with the passage of each neighbourhood trail plan. And, this is a city that continues to give the impression that it supports active forms of recreation and transportation.
In addition, according to the KSA, “Many Whitehorse-based sledders rarely ride within city limits. They prefer the back-country and only ride in town a couple of times per year, including at the poker run.” (See http://ksa.yk.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/KSA-Spring-2014.pdf). (We believe the poker run has been discontinued.)
An event survey was conducted by the KSA in order to help plan snowmobile activities for the 2018/2019-winter season. “About 10 per cent [of respondents] wanted rides within city limits, 28 per cent wanted rides starting in city limits but taking a quick route out and away, and just over 50 per cent would rather rides be [located] entirely outside of city limits. (See http://ksa.yk.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/KSA-Fall_2018.pdf).
The survey indicates most KSA snowmobilers were more interested in activities that either took them quickly out of the city, or involved events that took place entirely outside of Whitehorse. Needless to say this suggests that snowmobilers have the means to transfer their machines away from town.
The obvious question is why the city continues to designate more motorized trails, as it seems very apparent that they are not needed? One must also remember that snowmobilers are allowed to use city roads outside the downtown core as long as they have the following documentation: “a valid operator’s license; a valid certificate of registration in respect of the snowmobile; a valid registration plate affixed to the snowmobile; a valid insurance card in respect of the snowmobile; and a valid Safe Snowmobiler Card as required by this bylaw.” (p. 6 Snowmobile Bylaw)
The incorrectly called MMU trails are promoted as being democratic in that non-motorized users are welcomed. However, as mentioned previously, these trails are designed and built to accommodate the needs of the widest vehicle (ATVs/snow machines), and may not be truly enjoyed by those involved in non-motorized active forms of recreation, particularly walkers. Such people often prefer quieter surroundings, and more narrow trails, which offer a greater variety of terrain and a more natural experience.
Surely city administration must realize that our trail stewards (CMBC and KSA) [6] quite naturally build trails that satisfy the demands and needs of their membership, but such trails may not be ideal for the walker or runner. As well, due to the nature of the respective activities, their (club built) trails may be far more damaging to the environment than walking or hiking trails. Unfortunately, as previously mentioned there is no organization that represents walkers (the majority of trail users), and the city seems unwilling to assume this role.
Single or specific use trails should be one of our possible trail classifications or designations. The current OCP says “designating trails for specific uses . . . aids in the safety of trail users.” (OCP 18.2 Trail Development p. 73) Yet, every time ATWA has suggested that for certain trail use in the city this should be done, our input has been rejected.
For example, certain types of mountain bike trails should be designated single-use trails. A trail developed specifically for downhill riding and speed should be closed to other uses, to reduce safety concerns.
“Downhill riding is all about rhythm and flow. As they descend the trail, downhillers go as fast as possible by finding the best lines and riding smoothly. Advanced riders tend to ride faster lines - those that require a higher level of strength, agility, and reaction. A downhill trail should be technical, with features and lines that challenge riders of all abilities.” (See https://www.imbacanada.com/resources/freeriding/building-dh-trails).
It should be noted that the current Chadburn Lake Park Management Plan accepts the fact that there may be a place for single-use non-motorized trails under certain conditions. (See Chadburn Lake Park Management Plan Section 3.5 #3.)
If organizations are willing to assume the cost of developing and maintaining such trails, and go through the trail development process, then single purpose trails should be an option. Obviously, the city would have to be cautious as to how many of these trails are built, but the city should recognize that the OCP allows for the designation of specific-purpose trails. (There may already be existing trails that could qualify as single purpose trails.)
As mentioned previously, there needs to be recognition that when an organization builds a trail, it is building it first for the recreational use of that organization. The trail may be open to other users, but it is not necessarily built to accommodate the needs of those other users.
A mountain bike trail may not be the best type of trail for a runner, a walker, or a skier. The latter have different trail needs to those of mountain bikers. This may necessitate the designation of at least some city trails (already in existence) as specific use trails for the under-represented recreational groups in our community, walkers being one such group.
The city needs to go no further than the Alberta Recreation Corridor And Trails Classification document to see how a trails classification system should be designed. Although ATWA (long ago) passed this document on to Parks and Community Development for review, we have never received any feedback. We encourage those preparing the draft Trail Plan to adopt (with permission) all appropriate sections of this classification system. (See http://www.albertatrailnet.com/downloads/Rec Corridors Trail Classification Manual.pdf).
3. Guiding Principles: One of the Guiding Principles of the 2007 Trail Plan is Inclusiveness. The use of this word should be discontinued as city representatives have continually misused it when dealing with trail planning participants.
The idea has been promoted that the term means that our trails should be open to all types of recreational use, when it actually means that the public should be included “in determining guidelines for trail system development, use, preservation and maintenance.” (2007 Trail Plan, p. 9)
The city’s record with regard to public involvement and proper process concerning our trails has been questionable. One only needs to look at issues such as the following: Rotary Centennial Bridge and adjacent Millennium Trail, the functioning of the Whitehorse Trail & Greenways Committee (WTGC), the Whistle Bend Perimeter Trail, the Whistle Bend Casca Inner Loop sidewalk, the Whitehorse North and Whitehorse South Trail Plans, and the gas tax funded Pine Street extension active transportation paved trail.
Replace Inclusiveness with one of the following terms: Public Engagement, Citizen Engagement, or Community Engagement. Under the term chosen it is suggested the following be written: Given the importance of our trail system to both citizens and visitors and its potential impact on our city’s natural environment, it is essential that the general public and First Nations be consulted in the building, use, and maintenance of trails, and in the responsible development of our trail system as a whole.
Another Guiding Principle should be Environmental Protection. We seem to forget that every time we build a trail we are impacting the natural environment. Few of us would consider allowing anyone to construct a trail through our respective backyards, but because plants, animals, and birdlife have no voice with which to
protest they are often ignored. To salve our conscience we simply say that we can mitigate (make less severe) the impact.
Under the term Environmental Protection we suggest the following: Priority consideration must be given to the protection of the environment that a trail system allows us to experience and, if preserved, from which we can learn much about the natural world.
The current trail plan includes Sustainability as one of the Guiding Principles. Our suggestion would be to change the word spheres to areas, as the latter term is better understood. In addition, the term fiscal responsibility needs explanation. (Perhaps it refers to the necessity of having a cost effective trail system.)
Diversity is another Guiding Principle mentioned in the 2007 Trail Plan. Perhaps this should be changed to User Diversity. Under this term we suggest the following: Our trail system is open to a variety of user activities as long as those activities are carried on in a safe and respectful manner, and in the case of motorized users are on trails intended to lead operators beyond city limits and away from residential neighbourhoods.[7]
Equitable Access might be a better term to use as a Guiding Principle rather than the current Accessibility. Efforts should be made to promote the use of our trail system to users of diverse abilities including those with physical and other challenges.
4. Vision Statement: The current vision statement needs to reflect the city’s claim that it supports active forms of recreation and transportation, particularly as it has recently declared a climate emergency.
Whitehorse will have a sustainable and interconnected trail system that will support the City’s commitment to active (non-motorized) forms of recreation and transportation, and their respective benefits to both individuals and the environment, and one which will support a network of motorized trails intended to take users away from residential neighbourhoods and beyond city limits. The City will strive to ensure that our trail system will continue its position as a principle asset for our community.
5. Other comments on the 2007 Trail Plan:
a) The Executive Summary makes the comment that “Citizens want to be involved in future trail planning and management.” It then suggests that the then proposed neighbourhood-by-neighbourhood task force groups and Whitehorse Trail & Greenways Committee (WTGC) would allow for that involvement.
ATWA currently sits on two of these neighbourhood task force groups and has been involved with two others. Unfortunately, for various reasons all but one of these have proven to be very divisive exercises. Similarly, the WTGC did little to ensure the public would be involved in trail development and management. Our efforts to improve its workings were fruitless, and the experience of our representatives on the WTGC was (to say the least) unpleasant.
Please be aware that not all trail construction projects are the result of neighbourhood task force planning. Our trail stewards can apply to Parks and Community Development to construct trails that are outside of the neighbourhood task force planning process. Prior to the passage of the Trail Development Policy public involvement in the building of such trails was negligible.
b) On page one of the 2007 Trail Plan it is stated that the Trail Plan “paired with the Trails section of the City of Whitehorse website for updates [will become] a “one-stop shop” for information on City trails.” Despite ATWA’s efforts to ensure this actually happened, it remains a goal that has not as yet been achieved. We had hoped that the WTGC would work to ensure this pledge would be honoured, but it was not to be.
The current plan refers to the Trans Canada Trail (The Great Trail) and the Grand Concourse Authority as resources to draw upon in order to gain from other’s experiences and avoid “reinvention of the wheel”. Unfortunately, the Great Trail has proven to be a major disappointment for many of its original contributors and supporters, as it has deviated far from its original intent as a national non-motorized multiple use trail.
We suggest that the before mentioned Government of Alberta Recreation Corridor & Trails Classification System is an excellent resource that should be adopted by our city.
c) On page 7 of the plan, reference is made to Publications. Today, publications can often be replaced by apps. In fact, there is an app for our local trails. (See https://apps.apple.com/ca/app/whitehorse-trail-guide/id872909893). However, one would need to purchase the app and an iPhone or iPad to use it. As well, such apps need to be constantly updated. The city should look into the possibility of providing an app (at a cost) that one could download from the city’s website containing up-to-date information concerning our trail system.
d) We need to redefine the term trail steward. The following definition of a trail steward is found in both the Trail Maintenance Policy and the Trail Development Policy, but it hardly reflects what being a trail steward actually entails.
The term trail steward refers to “an organization or individual that formally takes on responsibility for the care and maintenance of a particular City trail. A trail steward is generally a volunteer or volunteer organization whose stewardship is authorized through a memorandum of understanding.”
This suggests that only individuals or organizations that have a memorandum of understanding with the city qualify as trail stewards. Thus, the term trail steward seems to more of a technical rather than holistic term.
Trail stewards appear to be restricted to the care and maintenance of certain trails, most likely (but not necessarily) trails they built for their particular form of use: snowmobiling or mountain biking. The Trail Maintenance Policy suggests that we have only two trail stewards: CMBC and the KSA.
The KSA president says that the association is “the steward of the multi-use trail system in the Whitehorse region . . .” (See http://ksa.yk.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/KSA_Winter_2011-201212.pdf). So here we have a trail steward that claims to be the steward of all multi-use trails in the City of Whitehorse, although one wonders if the city supports such a claim.
One would hope he is just referring to motorized trails, but if that is the case then why does the Snowmobile Bylaw not require snowmobilers “to use motorized trails except in environmentally sensitive areas?”(See https://hillcrestcommunity.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/letter-to-hca-residents.pdf).
The KSA president refers to those of us that want to support the designation, maintenance and protection of a quality non-motorized multiple use trail network, associated green spaces, and Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA’s) as “exclusionists (those who want to exclude others or have exclusive use).” (See http://ksa.yk.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/KSA-Early-Spring-20121.pdf).
One would think that trail stewards would respect the needs and wishes of other user groups (particularly walkers) who want to enjoy trails that are free from motorized use in both summer and winter. (As previously mentioned, both the KSA and the CMBC supported the motorization of the Rotary Centennial Bridge and adjacent parts of the Millennium trail.) The current trail plan provides for non-motorized multiple use trails, a fact that the KSA does not seem to understand. And, no one is excluding snowmobilers from using truly non-motorized trails as long as they leave their machines at home.
In any case, the new trail plan should recognize that all users of our trail system whether motorized or not should act as trail stewards, and demonstrate their respect for both other users, the environment in general, and specifically for the trails they use.
e) The Trail Development Policy includes a definition of the International Mountain Bike Association (IMBA) guidelines for trail construction. This may lead one to believe that all trails that are not intended for motorized use are to be built according to IMBA Guidelines. If this is the case, then all non-motorized trails in Whitehorse are to be built primarily to accommodate mountain bikers.
There must be recognition that other non-motorized users may not necessary appreciate being lumped in with mountain bikers. Hikers, walkers, skiers, and other non-motorized users may prefer trails that are designed and constructed with different characteristics. IMBA Guidelines are not the only guidelines for non-motorized trail construction. The aforementioned Alberta Recreation Corridor & Trails Classification System includes Basic Trail Design Characteristics by Type of Experience, and is certainly worth a good review.
f) When the new trail plan is completed and approved, ATWA would like to see an immediate review of our bylaws to ensure they reflect the desires of the public as expressed in the said plan and, as well, those of other trail related policies.
g) The new trail plan should deal with the issue of e-bikes. At present it appears that the only place one can legally operate a Class-1 e-bike in the City of Whitehorse is on city roads and on motorized trails. The city needs to develop a clear policy concerning the use of electric mobility devices, and in particular Class 1 e-bikes, in order to provide clarity for sellers, current owners, and those contemplating the purchase of such devices.
h) The new trail plan should recognize the need for a city-trained volunteer group of citizens that would act as true trail stewards much like is suggested in Appendix A: Regional Parks Plan Strategies of the Chadburn Lake Park Management Plan. (See p. 41) However, they could also patrol our trails and educate the public with regard to their appropriate use. As well, some could be trained to maintain, build, and decommission trails. Such a group would be true trail stewards as they would be concerned with our entire trail system. Unfortunately, although the city is always complaining that it has too many trails to effectively patrol and maintain, it seems loathe to the idea of establishing such a volunteer group.
i) The new trail plan should emphasize the need for the city to inform the public about all aspects of our trail system. In other words, the policies, bylaws, regional park plan(s), neighbourhood trail plans, the new 2020 Trail Plan, and area plans such as that of Schwatka Lake should be easily accessible to the public. And, the information given should be up-to-date.
j) Terms that need to be explained in a Definition list: single-track trails, environmentally sensitive areas, default trails, designated trails, active transportation trails, user displacement, active forms of recreation and transportation, and the expression trails of City-wide significance. In other words, what are the characteristics of trails of City-wide significance?
We are providing this document now, as we feel it essential that you are made aware of some of the issues that we deem to be of importance, and of which you may not be aware. No doubt other comments will be forthcoming once the public review process is underway.
We hope that this review will be a valuable process for all concerned, and will result in a new trail plan of which all Whitehorse citizens will be proud.
Yours sincerely,
Keith Lay (Active Trails Whitehorse Association)
[email protected]
www.activetwa.org
633-4936
Footnotes:
[1] See P.12 City of Whitehorse Bicycle Network Plan.
[2] Since the term multi-use has been so corrupted in meaning, the city would be better served by designating such trails as mixed-use as do other jurisdictions. It is suggested that in the new Trail Plan the term mixed-use be employed over that of multi-use to designate a trail that can be used by both motorized and non-motorized users.
[3] Non-motorized users (particularly walkers) tend to move away from trails that are exposed to motorized use, and in some cases from mountain bike use, as they may prefer a different experience, or one without the noise, smell, and potential danger that motorized vehicles may present.
[4] Obviously, there are some situations where issues of safety, cost efficiency, and practicality make the construction of a mixed use trail combining motorized and non-motorized users the best solution. For example, building a mixed use paved trail through our city’s Rabbit Foot’s Canyon would be the best solution to get all users safely through the area, without exposing them to unsafe highway travel or the rough trail located on one side of the highway.
[5] The Canadian Council of Snowmobile Organizations (CCSO) is a member of The National Trails Coalition and the Klondike Snowmobile Association is a member of The Canadian Council of Snowmobile Organizations (CCSO).
[6] The Trail Maintenance Policy only lists the Contagious Mountain Bike Association (CMBA) and the Klondike Snowmobile Association (KSA) as trail stewards, but not the Whitehorse Cross Country Ski Club. (See Appendix “C”) According to the Trail Maintenance Policy “a trail steward is generally a volunteer organization whose stewardship is authorized through a memorandum of understanding.” It would seem that the WCCSC does not have a “memorandum of understanding,” with the city, although one finds this somewhat strange.
[7] These are the so-called out and away trails mentioned in Section 18.5.2 of the OCP. A city map was supposed to be created with the intent of “strongly [discouraging] the use of all terrain vehicles on non-motorized trails and in environmentally sensitive areas.” (p. 76 of OCP) The map was supposed to “be done in conjunction with groups such as the Klondike Snowmobile Association [a trail steward], Motor Vehicles Branch, and others.” (p. 76 of OCP) The map was never completed.
Appendix A:
City of Whitehorse survey results and neighbourhood plans indicate that the majority of residents support the restriction of snowmobiles to designated motorized trails
“Motorized recreational vehicles (ATVs, snowmobiles) were identified as a major point of contention in the community. Many feel disturbed by motorized activity and identify it as a safety issue, particularly in regards to children. The consensus seems to be that laws regarding these vehicles are not being respected and must be more stringently enforced.”
“Furthermore, trails need to be strongly designated as motorized or non-motorized. Many also expressed concern regarding the erosion of trails, and general environmental damage caused by these vehicles.”
“Where feasible, consideration shall be made to separate multi-use trails (which accommodate motorized and non-motorized recreation) from non-motorized trails. Future multi-use trail development shall avoid environmentally sensitive areas wherever possible.”
https://www.activetwa.org/uploads/2/2/7/6/22767404/110701_snowmobile_bylaw_report_july_2011.pdf
“It is important to separate motorized and non-motorized trail use: 59% agree 23% disagree.” (This survey was part of the 2011-2012 public consultation process for the new Snowmobile Bylaw.)
2014 Hillcrest Neighbourhood Plan - section 3.4.4.3:
https://hillcrestcommunity.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/hillcrest-plan-final.pdf
“The City should continue to explore methods such as improved signage, barriers (Figure 11), and compliance monitoring, to ensure All Terrain Vehicles (ATVs) and snowmobiles are used only on trails where motorized vehicles are permitted.”
“Manage greenspace to rehabilitate, limit access, and limit fragmentation” (page 20)
Respondents made numerous comments on the need to keep motorized vehicles off non-motorized trails summer and winter.
May 2017 “Porter Creek/Whistle Bend/Takhini/Range Point Trail Plan Report:
http://whitehorse.ca/Home/ShowDocument?id=8364 (report is on pages 17 to 24 of agenda package)
Letters to the media concerning the 2007 Trail Plan Rewrite:
Letter #1:
As many of you know the City of Whitehorse is developing a new Trail Plan that will replace the 2007 Plan that was supposed to expire in 2017. It is asking you to fill out an online trail survey by May 26. This survey is available on the City of Whitehorse website under Public Consultation. There is also a Trail Plan fact sheet that you are encouraged to read prior to filling out the survey. See https://whitehorse.ca/departments/parks-and-community-development/trails.
It would also be advisable to review the current 2007 Trail Plan to gain a better understanding of what we have been working with for well over the past decade. The plan is available on the City of Whitehorse website. (Go to Departments/Parks and Community Development/Trails/Resources.)
In March, Active Trails Whitehorse Association submitted a written document to the planning team that outlined a number of issues and concerns brought forth by associates over previous years. It is our hope that these concerns and issues will be addressed in the new Trail Plan. This document is available on our website under Issues (Trail Plan Rewrite) at activetwa.org.
We know that many of you are justifiably passionate about our trail system, and at times have conflicting views concerning that system, but I think we can all agree that we are certainly fortunate to live in a city that has a wealth of trails that are open to a variety of activities, both motorized and non-motorized.
Our amazing trail system contributes to our physical and mental well-being, especially so at this difficult time of our lives. If you care about our trails, greenbelts, and open spaces please get involved.
Yes, fill out the survey, but if you have concerns that are not covered by the survey and would like to ensure they are heard, or wish to give a more detailed response to some of the survey questions please contact the following:
Heidi Redman, of Lees + Associates at [email protected]
Landon Kulych, Manager of Parks and Community Development at [email protected]
Daniel Gjini, Parks Project Coordinator at [email protected]
Mayor & Council, at [email protected].
Keith Lay (Active Trails Whitehorse Association)
[email protected]
Letter #2:
The new Trail Plan for the City of Whitehorse should recommend that the Snowmobile Bylaw be amended to reflect the rules of the ATV Bylaw, and prohibit snowmobile operators from using non-motorized trails, greenbelts, and open spaces.
In Whitehorse so-called “default” non-motorized trails are open to motorized snowmobile use in winter, and therefore cannot really be considered as non-motorized trails. Only those non-motorized trails listed in the Snowmobile Bylaw under Schedule “E” and Schedule “C” are truly non-motorized (summer and winter) trails.
Access by snowmobiles to so-called “default” non-motorized trails may cause damage to existing vegetation and can result in the widening of trails, which in turns leads to more use by both ATVs and snowmobiles. The Snowmobile Bylaw recognizes that snowmobiles can damage vegetation, as does the Trail Maintenance Policy. The latter states that single-track trails are closed to motorized use, although strangely enough this is not reflected in the Snowmobile Bylaw.
In our city “no” does not necessarily mean “no” when it comes to non-motorized trails, something that needs to be rectified by amending the Snowmobile Bylaw as suggested. This change would result in a more equitable trail system, and one that would provide additional protection for non-motorized trails and green areas of Whitehorse, as well as reduce the disturbance to wildlife, non-motorized users, and residential neighbourhoods. It would also reduce the confusion (as to meaning) that is often apparent when the term “non-motorized trail” is used.
It would also reduce the time and money spent on opening the Snowmobile Bylaw each time a “truly” non-motorized trail (summer and winter) was designated, as currently the bylaw has to be amended to add the trail to its Schedule “E” or Schedule “C”. However, it must be admitted that the designation of a truly non-motorized trail is a rare event in the City of Whitehorse.
The City could also save time and money by combining the ATV and Snowmobile Bylaw into an Off Road Vehicle (ORV) bylaw, as with the suggested amendment to the Snowmobile Bylaw there would be little to differentiate between the two. Once the bylaw was amended then motorized users would know that the only trails they could use would be those illustrated on a motorized trail map provided in the map section of the City’s website.
Please note that the 2007 Trail Plan’s intent was to provide motorized users routes that would allow them access to “out and away”trails that would lead them out of the urban area and on to suitable backcountry trails. Those routes have been provided and are part of a motorized network of Whitehorse trails that in 2011 was estimated to be some 400 km in length. (See https://hillcrestcommunity.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/letter-to-hca-residents.pdf.)
The failure of the new Trail Plan to recommend amending the Snowmobile Bylaw as suggested would negate its value in enhancing the protection of a truly non-motorized multiple-use trail system.
ATWA’s initial submission concerning the 2007 Trail Plan rewrite can be found on our website under “Issues”. (See https://www.activetwa.org.)
Keith Lay (Active Trails Whitehorse Association)
www.activetwa.org
[email protected]
Letter #3:
The City of Whitehorse’s new Trail Plan should acknowledge the fact that when we build trails we may negatively impact the natural environment. However, if developed correctly a new trail can actually improve and protect natural areas and increase the public’s appreciation of those areas.
It should be recognized that new city trails are not built of necessity, but mainly out of a desire to satisfy our recreational pursuits. We believe most residents want the natural environment protected. The world is not going to end because a proposed trail is not developed.
According to both the ATV and Snowmobile bylaws Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs) comprise areas that “have high wildlife values and/or high environmental sensitivity, where protection of natural areas, wildlife habitat, and ecological values is ensured. ”
These same bylaws prohibit ATV and snowmobile operators from entering areas “designated as environmentally sensitive.” However, it should be recognized that non-motorized trail use could also negatively impact ESAs.
ESAs deserve a high level of protection and we would like to see this reflected in the new Trail Plan. At present, one sometimes gets the impression that the city views ESAs as obstacles to the trail planning process. At times there appears to be a major disconnect between city administrators involved in trail planning and those involved in park or area planning as it pertains to ESAs.
The new Trail Plan should recognize that a properly designed trail system must protect ESAs and the green spaces that accommodate trails. Trails should provide opportunities for users (particularly walkers and hikers) to obtain both knowledge and appreciation of our natural environment. If we degrade that natural environment when developing new trails, there will be far less for users to appreciate. Environmental protection of the highest order should be one of the “Guiding Principles” of the new Trail Plan.
The Official Community Plan (OCP) that is currently undergoing review says, “Proposed development or activities that may impact the ecology of [ESAs] shall be examined through comprehensive planning processes,” although unfortunately it does not clarify what these “comprehensive planning processes” involve. Certainly, they should ensure that decisions made concerning ESAs that will be impacted by trail development are based on the recommendations of qualified people.
It would also be helpful if the city’s website would provide a “direct” reference to a map of the ESAs. At present this map is found following page 95 of the OCP, and is labelled “Green Space Network Plan”. (See https://www.whitehorse.ca/home/showdocument?id=728.)
We would do well to follow the City of Toronto’s direction and adopt London, Ontario’s mandate regarding trails in ESAs which is as follows:
The primary reason for trail development in ESAs is to direct intensive activities away from sensitive natural areas while providing passive [non-motorized] recreation opportunities and promoting ecological awareness;
The development of all trails and structures will be contingent upon the environmental sensitivity of the area, and
The number and magnitude of trails within an ESA will be minimized. (See City of Toronto Natural Environment Trail Strategy, p. 22-23)
Keith Lay (Active Trails Whitehorse Association)
http://www.activetwa.org
[email protected]
Letter #4:
The following letter was published by the Whitehorse Star on July 17, 2020 under the title "A path to simplifying trail designations."
The new City of Whitehorse Trail Plan should include a new trail designation system to replace the very confusing one used in the current plan (2007 Trail Plan p. 24-26). The city has added to this confusion by continually misusing the term “motorized multiple use trail” (MMU trail) and the term “non-motorized multiple use trail”, as defined in the current Trail Plan.
According to the 2007 Trail Plan, MMU trails “only” accommodate motorized recreational vehicles while non-motorized multiple use trails “only” accommodate non-motorized use.
However, in Whitehorse, most MMU trails are open to non-motorized use, and most non-motorized multiple use trails are open to snowmobile use.There is no definition within the current Trail Plan for a trail that allows for both motorized and non-motorized use.The Official Community Plan (OCP) gives the title “multi-use” to such trails, and there are a few paved trails in the city that are actually signed as such. Unfortunately, this term has become so misused that it should be replaced.Other jurisdictions use the term “mixed-use” when referring to trails that accommodate both motorized and non-motorized users, a term that the new Trail Plan would be wise to adopt.
As a result of the continued misuse of trail designation terms found within the current Trail Plan, approved city neighbourhood trail plan maps are confusing and misleading.
For example, the Porter Creek, Takhini, Whistle Bend, Range Point Trail Plan has a legend on its trail map in which several categories of trails are listed.They are: Singletrack Trails, Paved Trails, Non motorized Multi-Use routes, and Motorized Multi-Use routes. (See https://www.whitehorse.ca/departments/parks-and-community-development/trails-/trail-consultation/north.)
The Snowmobile Bylaw allows snowmobile use of most non-motorized multiple use trails, so the legend needs to take this into account by clarifying whether the plan’s non-motorized multiple use trails are truly non-motorized (summer and winter), or just in the summer.
Similarly, clarity is needed as to whether the plan’s motorized multiple use trails are actually “multi-use” trails, which, according to the OCP, combines both non-motorized and motorized users, or are “only” open to “motorized” use as the current Trail Plan states.
According to the Trail Maintenance Policy, Singletrack Trails are off-limits to all motorized vehicles, so that should be indicated beside the term in the legend. (It should also be mentioned in the current Snowmobile Bylaw.)
There also needs to be clarification as to which “paved” trails listed in the neighbourhood plan are motorized (and at what time of the year), and which are off-limits to motorized use in both summer and winter.
Just to add to the confusion, the map of the trail plan in question is still entitled “DRAFT”, although the neighbourhood plan was passed by city council in 2017.
The city should refer to the Alberta Recreation Corridor And Trails Classification document to see how a trails designation system can be designed.
We encourage those preparing the draft Trail Plan to adopt (with permission) all appropriate sections of this classification system.
(See http://www.albertatrailnet.com/downloads/Rec Corridors Trail Classification Manual.pdf).
Keith Lay
Active Trails
Whitehorse Association
Whitehorse
Letter #5:
The following letter was published by the Whitehorse Star on July 24, 2020 under the title "Trail information is confusing and outdated."
In order to ensure an equitable trail system for all users, the city needs to have an accurate idea of the size and use of its existing trail system.
The 2007 Trail Plan says that we have “an estimated 150 km of existing trails of City-wide significance and at least 700 km of local and neighbourhood trails . . .” (2007 Trail Plan Executive Summary).
It then says we have “approximately 150 km of designated motorized multiple use trails, and more than 700 km of designated and default non-motorized multiple use trails” (2007 Trail Plan, p. 25).
It also says “the Whitehorse trail system is estimated to total over 850 km, minimum” (p. 29).
This information is confusing and outdated. It gives one the mistaken impression that there are a huge number of non-motorized multiple-use trails as opposed to motorized trails.
According to a Hillcrest Community Association report, the city’s 150 km of motorized trails had grown to 400 km by 2011.The report indicated that the 400 km figure was obtained from the city. (See https://hillcrestcommunity.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/letter-to-hca-residents.pdf.)
Since 2011, a number of neighbourhood trail plans have been completed in which a few non-motorized multiple-use trails have been designated along with a number of motorized trails that must be added to the 400 km figure.
There are two more neighbourhood trail plans in the works, which will undoubtedly increase the number of motorized trails.
“Default” non-motorized trails must also be added to the motorized trail total as they are open to motorized snowmobile use in winter and, as a result, cannot be considered as “truly” non-motorized trails, something that needs to be rectified by amending the Snowmobile Bylaw.
We also have 29 km of paved multi-use pathways in Whitehorse, many of which were paid for by federal gas tax funds.The latter are considered active transportation trails, although strangely enough, such trails can be open to motorized use if the city so decides.Unfortunately, many of these trails have not been formally designated as non-motorized (summer and winter), and this leads to confusion and misuse.
The new trail plan should specifically address these gas tax-funded, paved active transportation trails and recommend that the city clarify their use by formal designation.
New trail construction since 2007 has also likely added to the total of both non-motorized and motorized trails.
One would think that the city has provided more than enough “out and away” trails to allow motorized users to access “the larger hinterland, where they will not be a nuisance to non-motorized users,” and “allow them the opportunity to recreate (away from) built-up areas.” (Source: Official Community Plan, p. 74, and 2007 Trail Plan, p. 23.)
The new trail plan should provide up-to-date figures concerning the current size and use of our trail system.
Knowing the length of both our motorized trail network and our “truly” non-motorized (summer and winter) trail network may help the city and the public make more informed and equitable decisions as regards our trail network.
Keith Lay
Active Trails
Whitehorse Association
Whitehorse
Letter #6:
The following letter was published by the Whitehorse Star on August 7, 2020 under the title "City's approach to trails: unfair, illogical."
The 2007 Trail Plan states that due to limited resources, “many recreational facilities – including trails – must accommodate multiple uses, and users” (p. 24). City administration has said “shared use is always the most cost-effective and inclusive way forward.” (See https://www.whitehorsestar.com/News/support-overwhelming-for-pedestrian-only-bridge).
Yet, the National Trails Coalition (NTC) “Trail Study” states that “Shared use trails are the most expensive to build because they are usually wider in order to accommodate multiple trail uses.” (See http://www.ntc-canada.ca/pdf/NTC-Canadian-Trails-Study.pdf p. 21)
City administrators fail to clarify that the 2007 Trail Plan recognizes “two” types of shared use trails: non-motorized multiple use trails and motorized multiple use trails.
As the “Trail Study” indicates, “motorized” shared use trails are going to be far more expensive to build and maintain, as they have to accommodate the widest off-road vehicles (ORVs) permitted. They also require better sight lines and must be longer to satisfy the recreational needs of motorized users. Bridges have to be of appropriate width and strength to accommodate ORVs. Once built, maintenance has to be done by the city, or by trail stewards through an agreement with the city.
If you add non-motorized users to the mix and create a “multi-use” or “mixed use” trail, additional costs will accrue, as extra measures have to be taken to ensure the safety of both user groups.
In contrast, the NTC document says, “Hiking trails are the least expensive to build because they are rather narrow. They can follow geographic contours and go around major obstacles” (p. 21).
As “90% of Yukoners use local walking trails” for active forms of recreation and transportation, one can argue that these inexpensive trails provide the “biggest bang for the buck” and represent the most “cost-effective and inclusive way forward.”
(See http://www.community.gov.yk.ca/pdf/RYALSFINALforPrinting-Dec2012.pdf p. 9)
Why does the city concentrate its efforts on designating motorized trails when they are the most expensive to build and maintain? And why does it do so despite the fact that it has already established numerous “out and away” routes that allow motorized users the ability to access areas beyond city boundaries?
And, as a Klondike Snowmobile Association (KSA) survey suggests, its members seem more interested in activities that either take them quickly out of the city, or in events that are held entirely “outside” of Whitehorse. (See http://ksa.yk.ca/wp-content/uploads/ 2018/09/KSA-Fall_2018.pdf (p.1)
The KSA has also said that “Many Whitehorse-based sledders rarely ride within city limits.”
(See http://ksa.yk.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/KSA-Spring-2014.pdfp.2). One questions the need for more motorized trails of any type.
The city’s Official Community Plan (OCP) supports the concept of separate trails for non-motorized and motorized trail users “where feasible” (OCP 18.5.1).
Whitehorse residents, who in city surveys and during neighbourhood trail planning exercises have requested that non-motorized and motorized trail users be separated, support this concept. (See https://www.activetwa.org/2007-trail-plan-rewrite.html refer to Appendix A.)
Yet the city continues to designate mainly motorized “mixed-use” trails via the neighbourhood trail task force process. That is hardly a balanced, fair, cost-effective, or logical approach, and is one that does not reflect actual trail use or residents’ preferences. The new Trail Plan should address these concerns.
Keith Lay
Active Trails
Whitehorse Association
Whitehorse
The approved 2020 Trail Plan can be found on the City's website. See https://www.whitehorse.ca/departments/parks-and-community-development/trails. You will find our analysis on the new plan under Issues. See 2020 Trail Plan Analysis.
There are a number of documents found below. In order from top to bottom you will find the following:
A) ATWA's delegate presentation before City Council of Dec. 7, 2020
B) ATWA's 2020 Draft Trail Plan Response
C) ATWA's initial written submission of 04/28/2020 entitled, 2007 Trail Plan Rewrite:
D) Letters to the media concerning the 2007 Trail Plan Rewrite:(Six in total)
Delegate presentation before City Council of Dec. 7, 2020
Topic: 2020 Trail Plan
Presenter: Keith Lay (Active Trails Whitehorse Association)
Good evening.
As this is apparently the only opportunity to address members of council on the subject of the 2020 Trail Plan, we feel it is important to raise two concerns, one of which involves cost estimate figures that were not available for public review and comment in the Draft Plan.
Concern #1:
Action #17of the 2020 Trail Plan reads as follows: “Support an upgrade of the Dirt n’ Soul Mountain Bike Park to support skills development.”
Although this certainly is something in general that most people would support, the Trail Plan is not the appropriate place in which to seek such funding. One must question what a Bike Park upgrade has directly to do with our trail network? It certainly does not align with the Trail Plan’s Vision Statement.
As well, Action #17 benefits only one particular user group, and this seems to be at odds with one of the Trail Plan’s Guiding Principles that states that our “trail network . . . supports a variety of trail users . . .” (See p. 15 of the 2020 Trail Plan.) One would think that there are a number of trail user groups that have infrastructure that they would like to see upgraded, but you do not find funds to support their specific needs in this Trail Plan. Indeed, it would not be appropriate.
The cost estimate for Action #17 is $200,000, which makes it the most expensive Action of the Trail Plan. This one Action alone accounts for 36% (before the Contingency Allowance) of the estimated cost of this Trail Plan.
The park is co-managed by the Contagious Mountain Bike Club and the City of Whitehorse, and the City was one of those who provided financial support towards its original construction. [1]
So, the City has in the past given financial support to the Mountain Bike Park, and continues to provide services in its role as co-manager, services that are not without cost. And now, the Trail Plan asks the City to contribute an additional $200,000 to support this particular user group.
You will note that the next most expensive action in the Trail Plan is Action #16 at $175,000. Here funds are to be used to “Develop and market key trail loops of varying lengths and difficulty.” Although expensive, this Action is one that will potentially benefit all users of our trail network, not just one user group.
Funds for the proposed bike park upgrade should be raised in the same manner as they were in 2010. (See footnote #1.)
The City needs to ensure that all trail user groups are placed on an equal footing when it comes to obtaining City funding, or other City support initiatives.
We request that Action #17 either be dropped entirely, or changed to read as follows:
Support trail user groups in their efforts to enhance the benefits our trail network provides. [2]
It is important to mention that the Trail Plan has numerous Actions that do not require a lot of money to complete, but will bring many positive improvements to our trail network. The City should concentrate its efforts on completing those Actions before addressing larger expense items.
Concern #2:
Action #24 of the plan reads as follows: “Update Definitions in the Trail Maintenance Policy.” It goes on to suggest the removal of one specific definition in order for it “to be consistent with other policies and bylaws.”
It seems less than effective for the Trail Plan to devote one whole Action to eliminating one particular definition, when the whole idea expressed numerous times in the Trail Plan is for all policies, plans, definitions, and bylaws associated with trails to be consistent. [3]
This issue was discussed at last Monday’s council meeting. In response to questions raised by councillors, “administration confirmed that a top priority will be to identify the bylaws and policies that need to be updated” in order for them to be integrated and consistent. [4] This needs to be clearly stated in the Trail Plan’s Action Plan.
We request that Action #17 be changed to reflect its real intent and read as follows:
Ensure all policies, plans, definitions, and bylaws associated with this Trail Plan are integrated and consistent. [5]
ATWA respectfully asks you to send this Trail Plan back to administration to address the two concerns we have raised. We have waited three years for a new trail plan. Providing time to allow these adjustments to be made is well worth the wait.
Thank you
[1] The project came in below the estimated construction cost of $80,000, although without volunteer labour, contributions in kind, and Lotteries Yukon, costs would have exceeded $100,000. (See Aug. 23, 2010 Yukon News article by Tom Patrick.)
[2] This change would also mean a change to Action Summary #17 under Theme 4: Making Connections (p 41 of Trail Plan).
[3] Under 1.1 Purpose and Scope, the Trail Plan states that it wants to “build upon and integrate existing policies, bylaws, [and] management plans . . .” (p 3) As already mentioned Action24 says that it wants to see consistency between policies and bylaws by updating definitions, and the DraftTrail Plan said that one of the intents of the Trail Plan is to ensure that“trail related policies and bylaws are integrated.”
[4] Minutes of #20020-25 of Community Services Committee 11/30/20 p. 2
[5] This change would also mean a change to Action Summary #24 under Theme 5: Trail Policies and Bylaws.
ACTIVE TRAILS WHITEHORSE ASSOCIATION (ATWA)
2020 Draft Trail Plan Response
Date: September 30, 2020
To: Landon Kulych (Manager • Parks & Community Development)
City of Whitehorse & Heidi Redman (Lees + Associates)
From: Keith Lay & Pat Milligan (ATWA)
Introduction:
Benefits of Trails (p. 1)
Comments:
Under Health Benefits: It should be mentioned that trail use by individuals not only provides physical benefits, but also mental health benefits, as well as playing a role in strengthening personal relationships. (U. S. National Parks Service 2018. See https://www.nps.gov/subjects/trails/benefits-of-hiking.htm.)
Under Environmental Benefits:Trails do not just promote “alternative modes of travel like walking and biking as opposed to driving,” [but also alternative modes of active recreation.]
If the City is truly serious about its climate change emergency then it should be promoting active forms of both travel and recreation. Motorized (gas-powered) off-road vehicle (ATV/snowmobiles/dirt bike) recreation does nothing to promote environmental benefits, but does the exact opposite.
Under Environment Benefits it is stated that, “Trails also provide opportunity for plants and vegetation that reduce [the] effects of climate change.” There seems to be something missing in this sentence. Perhaps it should be rewritten as “Trails also provide opportunity for [the growth of] plants and vegetation that reduce [the] effects of climate change.”
Note: It would be beneficial to have a reference to support the truth of this statement.
If not properly planned and constructed trails can have a detrimental impact on plants, animals, and ecosystems. Trails can lead to the importation of invasive plant species by all types of trail users. Flow trail construction can result in the cutting of large tracts of woodland.The building of trails and their subsequence use can displace animals due to the impact on their habitat and their avoidance of humans.
Perhaps it would be better to say that if planned and constructed properly trails may have a positive impact on the surrounding environment.
2.3 Neighbourhood Trail Planning (p. 8)
Comment:
The first paragraph under this heading is somewhat misleading. It suggests that neighbourhood trail plans are developed “with the direct involvement of residents.” It is our experience that so-called stakeholder groups take the lead role in the development of these plans. Resident input comes mainly at the end of the process where residents comment on what the stakeholders have developed.This process is one that needs to be revisited.
3.1 Vision Statement (p. 15)
“Whitehorse will have a diverse and accessible trail network valued as a primary community asset. A well-connected network of non-motorized and motorized trails will contribute to a liveable, attractive, sustainable and resilient northern community. Residents and visitors will enjoy access to year-round recreational trails and active transportation routes that connect neighbourhoods and community amenities, contribute to community health and wellness, foster shared use and stewardship, and celebrate our unique natural and cultural heritage.”
We present two alternatives to the above Vision Statement:
Alternative #1:
“Whitehorse will have a diverse, [sustainable], and accessible trail network valued as a primary community asset. A well-connected network of non-motorized trails will contribute to a liveable, attractive, sustainable and resilient northern community, [and a network of motorized trails designed to take users away from residential neighbourhoods and beyond City limits.] Residents and visitors will enjoy access to year-round recreational trails and active transportation routes that connect neighbourhoods and community amenities, contribute to community health and wellness, foster shared use and stewardship, and celebrate our unique natural and cultural heritage.”
The suggestion that motorized trails contribute to a liveable, sustainable, and resilient northern community as implied in the draft’s Vision Statement is not something that should be written unless it can be supported with facts.
If City Councillors support such a statement being included in the Vision Statement in light of their climate change emergency declaration, and the City’s claim that it wants to promote active forms of recreation and transportation, then the worth of both the declaration and the claim will be seen to be of little value.
Alternative #2:
“Whitehorse will have a diverse, [sustainable], and accessible trail network valued as a primary community asset. A well-connected network [of trails] will contribute to a liveable, attractive, sustainable and resilient northern community. Residents and visitors will enjoy access to year-round recreational trails and active transportation routes that connect neighbourhoods and community amenities, contribute to community health and wellness, foster shared use and stewardship, and celebrate our unique natural and cultural heritage.”
Alternative #2 avoids mentioning the terms non-motorized and motorized altogether. Including these terms automatically suggests that we have or should have an equal balance of motorized and non-motorized trails in the City, which in itself is a somewhat controversial contention. Over the next ten years (the life of the 2020 Trail Plan) the public’s attitude with regard to this balance may well change (if it has not already), which is another good reason to avoid mentioning the two terms in the Vision Statement.
Leaving the terms out of the Vision Statement will also avoid having to support the claim made in the Draft’s Vision Statement that motorized trails contribute to a liveable, sustainable, and resilient northern community, which is certainly a very questionable statement.
In addition, at present people think of motorized trail use as being mainly a gas-powered activity, but now we are seeing the introduction of all types of electric powered recreation devices. Leaving the term motorized in the Vision Statement may cause confusion down the road, as in the future we may have to distinguish between electric and gas powered motorized activities.
Please note the addition of the word sustainable in the first sentence of Alternative #1 and #2. The word is used in a different context than it is in the third sentence.
3.2 Guiding Principles (p. 15)
Benefits for Our Community (Social, Cultural, Economic, Environmental, Climate Change)
Comment:
Environmental benefits that may accrue from a new Trail Plan would hopefully include changes that would reduce the negative impacts of climate change or help to reduce its severity. The way the Guiding Principle reads now, the impression is given that one of the benefits of our trail network will be climate change, which we do not think is the intended meaning. Just take it out. Environmental benefits cover it.
Community Engagement (p. 16)
“Community involvement, throughout planning, management, construction and maintenance is important to ensure the long-term success of the trail network and protection of environmental, cultural and heritage values. Continued trail stewardship and volunteer participation is encouraged, complementing City resources and helping to provide high quality trails.”
Comment:
Employing the term Community Engagement rather than the term Inclusiveness used in the 2007 Trail Plan is certainly a step forward, as the latter term was being constantly misused as to meaning.
However, we suggest the following be considered as an improvement to the proposed Guiding Principle.
Community involvement [and consultation], throughout the planning, [approval], construction, [management], and maintenance [of trails] is important to ensure the long-term success of the trail network and protection of environmental, cultural and heritage values. Continued trail stewardship and volunteer participation is encouraged, complementing City resources and helping to provide high quality trails.
Note: Community involvement may not necessary include actual consultation, so we feel that including the word consultation would provide clarification. The listing order has been changed to better reflect the actual process of trail development.
4.1 Theme 1: Trail Classifications (p. 19)
Trail Designations
Comment:
This Draft Plan should adopt clear definitions for each type of trail as per use. People need to know what activities can take place on trails within the City of Whitehorse. They also need to know the true meaning of trail designation terms such as Non-Motorized Multiple Use Trail. Even members of City Council have demonstrated on numerous occasions their lack of understanding concerning trail designation terms.
In the Glossary section of this Draft Plan we will make suggestions as to trail designation terms that would reduce the current confusion. Of course, this would have to include the amending of the Snowmobile Bylaw in the manner suggested in this document.
Trail Type Chart (p. 20)
Please refer to the section entitled Type 1. It states that the typical use of such trails is pedestrian and cycling with limited motorized use.
ATWA would like to know why most paved gas-tax funded active transportation routes have not come before City Council for designation as non-motorized (summer and winter) trails, as this has always been the intended use for such trails. Even the Pine Street Extension paved trail has not been formally designated as a multi-use (motorized and non-motorized trail) even though it has been posted as such.
We would like to see the Draft Plan recommend that all gas-tax paved trails in Whitehorse that have not been formally designated, be brought forward for that purpose, and that the recommendation is that they be designated as Non-Motorized Multiple Use. (The exception would be the Pine Street Extension paved trail, which has been signed Multi-Use, but not formally designated.)
As there does not seem to be any Action #1 in this document we are going to add one of our own.
Action #1: Amend the Snowmobile Bylaw to reflect the ATV Bylaw and prohibit snowmobile operators from using non-motorized trails, greenbelts, and open spaces.
Why?
1.The Draft Trail Plan states that policies and bylaws should be consistent.
At present, the Snowmobile and ATV bylaws are not, in that ATVs are only permitted on designated motorized trails. They are not permitted on non-motorized trails, in the greenbelt, or in open spaces.
In contrast snowmobile operators are not restricted from using our greenbelts, open spaces, or non-motorized trails, as they “may drive their machines on a motorized multiple use trail and [in] any other area of the City that is not specifically excluded pursuant to section 15 of [the] bylaw.
The inconsistency that currently exists between the ATV and Snowmobile bylaws, and the resulting confusion for all trail users, is a compelling reason for Mayor and Council to re-open the snowmobile bylaw to correct this problem. *
Amending the Snowmobile Bylaw as suggested would establish consistency between the two bylaws.
2. Amending the Snowmobile Bylaw would aid in the protection of greenbelts, open spaces, and non-motorized trails from degradation by those snowmobilers who act irresponsibly.
Allowing snowmobiles access to greenbelts, open spaces, and non-motorized trails can result in the widening of trails, (leading to more ORV use) damage to vegetation, and disturbance to wildlife, non-motorized users, and City residents. The latter have a right to the quiet enjoyment of their property. Although the Snowmobile Bylaw says that operators are not to “damage any vegetation or ground,” it is hardly enforceable, and any damage may not be apparent until the snow melts.
3. Amending the Snowmobile Bylaw would also end the confusion surrounding the term non-motorized trail. At present, only non-motorized trails that are listed in the Snowmobile Bylaw under Schedule “C” and “E” are considered to be truly non-motorized (summer and winter).
Amending the bylaw as suggested would mean that whenever reference was made to a non-motorized trail everyone would know that meant a trail that was free from motorized use over the course of the entire year.
At present, snowmobilers are not always sure where they are allowed, and many other users are under the mistaken belief that non-motorized trails are free from motorized use even in winter. This creates confusion and potential conflict.
4. Currently, in order to establish a trail as truly non-motorized (summer and winter) the City has to go through the process of amending the Snowmobile Bylaw in order to add the trail to either Schedule “C” or “E” of the bylaw, a time-consuming and costly process.
The lack of understanding by City Council, the press, and the general public of the above requirement led to total confusion surrounding the Whistle Bend Perimeter trail, and resulted in additional costs to the City, needless public conflict, and much waste of everyone’s valuable time.
Amending the Snowmobile Bylaw would negate the need to designate a trail as non-motorized, as all trails not officially designed and designated as Motorized Multiple Use, would be considered to be non-motorized (summer and winter).
City Council would only need to designate trails that accommodate both motorized and non-motorized users, trails called Multi-Use by the OCP, and Motorized Multiple Use by administration, and that would be done through the Neighbourhood Trail Plan process.
Amending the bylaw as suggested, would save both time and money, reduce both confusion and conflict, and create a more equitable trail network.
5. Amending the bylaw as suggested would mean that all a motorized user would have to do is look at the City’s Motorized Trail Map to determine where they can operate their ORV in Whitehorse. Greenbelts, open spaces, and all trails not on the map would be off-limits to motorized use both in summer and in winter.
6. Amending the Snowmobile Bylaw will not be detrimental to the responsible snowmobiling community. Both the City and the Klondike Snowmobile Association* ask operators to stay on designated motorized routes. *(KSA Newsletter Early Spring 2012)
7.The Klondike Snowmobile Association says that its members only use the City’s trails once or twice a season, and that its members prefer to involve themselves in snowmobile activities that occur outside City limits. (See http://ksa.yk.ca/wpcontent/uploads/2012/01/KSA-Spring-2014.pdf and http://ksa.yk.ca/wpcontent/uploads/2018/09/KSA-Fall_2018.pdf).
This suggests that we have more than enough snowmobile trails in Whitehorse already, so denying access to trails that have not been designed or designated for responsible motorized use should not present a problem.
8. Amending the Snowmobile Bylaw as suggested would create a more equitable trail network. When the current 2015 City Motorized Trail Map is updated more motorized trails will be added to reflect the completion of the Porter Creek, Takhini, Whistle Bend, Range Point Trail Plan.
As well, there are two more Neighbourhood Trail Plans to be completed: Whitehorse North and South. Undoubtedly, more motorized trails will be designated when those plans are completed. One must also add all the non-motorized trails that are not found in Schedule “C” and “E” of the Snowmobile Bylaw in order to get an idea of the potential extent of trails that are open to motorized use in winter. All this for an activity that is far down the list of popular trail-user activities for Whitehorse residents. (Trail PlanWhat We Heard Report p.10)
9. Changing the Snowmobile Bylaw as suggested would not stop snowmobilers from asking the City to change the status of a non-motorized trail to that of a designated motorized trail. The KSA (and the CMBC) tried to do this with the Rotary Centennial Bridge and adjacent Millennium Trail.
*The inconsistency developed partly because some believe that due to snow cover, snowmobiles have less impact on the landscape than ATVs. Research indicates significant snowmobile impacts. Snow depth varies each year, and changes throughout the winter. Factors such as degree of slope, aspect, height of land, temperature variation, and vegetation cover all affect snow depth. Therefore, snow depth is never the same in all areas of the city. Vegetation located above the snow snaps easily in the cold. If snowmobilers were required to stay on designated motorized trails and out of open spaces and greenbelts (as are ATVs), then damage would be reduced, particularly to narrow single-track trails. It would also reduce user conflict, improve safety, and make for a more equitable trail network.
4.2 Theme 2: Making Connections (p. 21)
Comments:
4.2.1 Active Transportation Trails (p. 21)
These paved trails are not just active transportation trails, but also active recreation trails. The title of this section (4.2.1.) should be changed to reflect that fact.
As mentioned previously these trails need to be designated as non-motorized (summer and winter).They would then have to be included in the Excluded Section of the Snowmobile Bylaw, requiring an amendment to the bylaw. (Amending the Snowmobile Bylaw as we have suggested would make the second step unnecessary, avoiding more time and expense.)
Most of these paved trails were funded by the gas tax fund and intended to promote both active recreation and active transportation. The main problem with these trails as noted in this section, concerns winter maintenance. In order to maximize use they need to be cleared down to pavement in the winter. Why use gas tax funds to build trails that are not going to be used effectively for half the year? Can the City not use gas tax funds to maintain these paved trails in the winter? If not, then is it possible to engage volunteers in each of our neighbourhoods who have ATVs equipped with blades to clear these paths? The City could reimburse their gas costs.
There are ATV operators in Porter Creek that clear sidewalks without being asked. They are much appreciated. Of course, they are equipped with a licence plate and conform to the City’s bylaws. Some of these people are retired and may well enjoy the task.
The Klondike Snowmobile Club grooms some paved trails, but a groomed trail is a lot different from a cleared trail, and in spring due to compaction, turns into an icy and dangerous path.
4.2.2 Recreational Trails (p. 22)
Action #4: Create more accessible trail connections at the north and south ends of Grey Mountain.
Comment:
One of our associates provided the following information, which we have paraphrased.
“Pee Wee Hill definitely needs some grading, or steps cut out of the steep parts. It is really slippery in the winter. In the spring it cannot be used for about a month because it is slick with mud on top of meting ice. I’m not aware that Heartbreak Hill and the Hospital trail have these problems, but I seldom go there in the winter.
New switchback trails should not be installed at any of these locations. Doing so will only lead to more braiding. We had that discussion at the Whitehorse Trail and Greenways Committee (WTGC) a few years ago. One environmental staff member at a WTGC meeting (I forgot his name, he left) concluded that a new switchback trail at Pee Wee Hill should NOT be installed because it would cause erosion and there are already too many trails in the area, so the idea was cancelled.
One example of a switchback trail installation that has resulted in bad erosion is the “Yukon Energy” trail that goes up above the fish ladder. Hikers keep taking shortcuts across the switchbacks, and now there are deep grooves on the hillside, which turn to streams of mud when it’s wet, causing mini slides across the existing trail.”
It should also be remembered that we now have a Chadburn Lake Regional Park Management Plan with five stated goals, initiatives to achieve those goals, and timelines in place for each initiative. Most, if not all of these initiatives, have a cost to implement. Considering the fact that there does not seem to be any money to even install a sign at the entrance of the park to indicate that it is a regional park, one might well wonder where the money is to come to complete these initiatives let alone ones that are subsequently added.
As well, the stated initiatives in the current plan should have priority for completion over ones that people want to add after the completion of a Park Management Plan.
Frankly, this seems to be a too specific request to place in this Trail Plan and one that would be better addressed through the Trail Development Policy.
Action #5: Develop and market key trail loops of varying lengths and difficulty connecting to points of interest.
Comment:
The second paragraph in this section talks about the creation of stacked loops, which we know generally work well for mountain biking. Hopefully, if such a system is created it can be done without building a large number of additional trails, but rather by connecting existing trails.
With 850 kilometres of trails within our City we should be working to decommission trails. If we decommissioned two trails for every one developed it might make for a more environmentally friendly trail network. We do not want to get to a point where our trails detract from the enjoyment of the nature that surrounds them.
The same paragraph mentions the involvement of various user groups including motorized users. This would mean that trails would have to be designed to accommodate both motorized and non-motorized users, something that the majority of citizens do not want to see, as demonstrated by the various surveys and neighbourhood plans provided in our initial submission.
As also pointed out in our initial submission, the National Trails Coalition says that such trails are the most expensive to build and maintain. (The Canadian Council of Snowmobile Organizations (CCSO) is a member of TheNational Trails Coalition and the Klondike Snowmobile Association is a member of The Canadian Council of Snowmobile Organizations.)
The Official Community Plan (OCP) says that motorized and non-motorized users should be separated whenever possible. (See OCP 18.5.1) Why is it that the City is constantly ignoring such policies?
As well, some of the areas mentioned in the design of the stacked loops are located where motorized vehicles are not permitted. Please refer to the East of the Yukon River Trail Plan.
Both the OCP and the 2007 Trail indicate that citizens want to get ORVs away from residential areas and beyond City limits. Stacked loops, if open to Off Road Vehicles (ORVs), might do just the opposite. People have a right to the quiet enjoyment of their property.
The Draft Plan seems concerned about global warming due to climate change. City Councillors have declared a Climate Change Emergency and yet we continue to foster motorized trail use growth. What does this tell us about the City’s commitment to deal with this Climate Change Emergency?
Action #6: Support an upgrade of the Dirt n’ Soul Mountain Bike Park to support skills development.
Comment:
Although this certainly something that most people would support, like Action #4 it seems to be a too specific request to place in this Trail Plan. As well, it really has nothing to do with trails. It is a bike park!
Action #7: Create option lines on difficult trail sections to promote skills progression or where overuse is present.
Comment:
This seems like another mountain bike request. Current option lines on Grey Mountain are not impressive. Creating loops around a steep section in order to allow weaker or less skilled riders to get to the same point on a trail may not reduce trail degradation. More vegetation and soil has to be removed or displaced in the creation of these easy loops. And, you still get good riders using the steep section and avoiding the loop, but still degrading the trail. Such loops degrade the natural environment that other users treasure.
If it is too steep to ride without causing degradation then bikers can get off the bike, put it over their shoulder, and walk up the trail.
The comment that option lines improve trail experiences for a variety of users is unsupported in this document. This conclusion can only be reached through public engagement perhaps via the Trail Development Policy.
There seems to an assumption that trails that are good for mountain bikers are always going to be good for other non-motorized users.
“Mountain bike trails are, by nature, quite different from hiking, commuting, walking and equestrian trails. Hiking trails generally strive to reach certain points of interest via the route of least resistance, i.e. low grade and wide, or steep with less regard for terrain features. Mountain bike trails are constructed to maximize the esthetic appeal of the terrain at hand. Soil, logs, lumber, and rock are sometimes used to enhance and create new landforms. Trails meander through a landscape from one feature to the next, the most successful and popular trails “flow” through the landscape in this endeavour.” (See https://squamish.ca/assets/4eb318a9e3/Trail-Standards-Manual-0411.pdf District of Squamish Trail Standards).
Again, this is a too specific request to place in this Trail Plan. As mentioned, we have a Trail Development Policy that proponents could utilize to pursue their request.
Action #8: Support “out and away” trails for motorized use.
Comment:
We would certainly be glad to see the creation of a map of “out and away” trails, or escape routes as the 2007 Trail Plan labels them, and appropriate signage on such trails. As we indicated in our initial submission this was something that was recommended in the 2010 OCP, but never completed.
The Klondike Snowmobile (KSA) Association was supposed to be involved in this effort. It had 13 years to do so, and yet Action #8 suggests that the organization will be consulted again.
Out and away trails already exist. They simply have to be properly identified on the City’s (to be improved) motorized trail map.This time around the City should contact Peter Long of Whitehorse Walks for help in creating such a map. Once City administration has a draft map prepared, it should then inform the various viable Community Associations and stakeholders for their input.
ATWA will much appreciate an updated and improved motorized trail use map as indicated in our initial submission. This is long overdue.
Unfortunately, unless the Snowmobile Bylaw is amended to reflect the ATV Bylaw, and prohibit snowmobile operators from using non-motorized trails, greenbelts, and open spaces, any motorized trail map will not reflect the true extent of the motorized network available to winter users.
Action #11: Adopt best management practices for trails in ecologically significant areas.
Comment:
ATWA is glad to see the inclusion of the material ATWA provided in our initial submission on Best management practices.
However, we do have some additional comments. First, our OCP makes the following statement: “Once an OCP is adopted by a bylaw, all future land use decisions made by Council must be consistent with the objectives and policies outlined in the Plan.” (p. 6) The new Trail Plan must respect the land use objectives and policies of the OCP, which are outlined on pages 31-35 of the OCP.
As the City is currently preparing a new Official Community Plan Draft, ATWA questions the wisdom of bringing a Draft Trail Plan before City Council prior to the approval of the new OCP. As the Trail Plan must be consistent with policies and objectives of the OCP, it would seem logical to wait until we know what those are before proceeding with the presentation before City Council of the final Draft Trail Plan.
Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs) are supposedly off-limits to ATVs and snowmobiles under the OCP, Snowmobile Bylaw, and ATV Bylaw. Yet, we see motorized routes in the City that go right through ESA areas such as McIntyre Creek.
If the City actually followed current OCP policies and objectives, we would not be constantly raising the issue of ORVs in ESAs, and there would not be what ATWA perceives as a City push to allow dirt bikes in the Ear Lake area, or along the west side of the Yukon River.
Establish a City environmental review committee of experts to look at any issues concerning ESAs, particularly those that involve the impact of motorized recreational activities on such areas.
Experts were used to develop the ESAs identified within the OCP, and the Kwanlin Dun First Nation used experts when they developed their City of Whitehorse Heritage and Ecosystem Design Proposal. However, one gets the impression that City decisions regarding the placement of motorized (MMU) trails within ESAs are made randomly, and demonstrate a lack of understanding of ESAs and their need for protection.
Action #12: Complete remaining neighbourhood level trail plans.
Comment:
As you know ATWA has participated in both the Whitehorse North and Whitehorse South Trail Task Force process, neither of which has been completed. We have also been involved as stakeholders in two other neighbourhood trail task force bodies.
However, ATWA feels that the suggestion to use “a more inclusive public consultation process, that includes charrette style public workshops as part of the planning process” is the right direction to pursue.
One concern that we have is that the City does neighbourhood trail planning prior to doing Park Management Plans for those neighbourhoods where a regional park is to be established. To us, the reverse should be done. Citizens will tell the City what their vision is for the park, and that vision should be reflected in the trail planning process that follows.
4.3 Theme 3: Signage & Wayfinding (p. 26)
Action #13: Update print and web-based trail mapping.
Comment:
ATWA is happy to see that this action will be undertaken. We would just like to re-emphasize what we said in our previous submission.
Due to the confusion surrounding the classification of trails as per use, the legends on neighbourhood trail maps are of little value, as they do not clearly indicate which trails are open to both motorized and non-motorized use, or only open to non-motorized use (summer and winter), which is really what people need to know.
A Great Trail map featuring its routes in Whitehorse would be appreciated. As we mentioned in our last submission some indication should be given as to which parts of it are truly non-motorized (summer and winter).
There does not seem to be any provision for public input concerning the Great Trail. Since part of it goes through Whitehorse, the Klondike Snowmobile Association (as agent for the Great Trail) should be asked by the City to hold an annual public meeting with regard to Whitehorse issues related to the trail.
Action #14: Continue to integrate indigenous languages and traditional place names into the trail network in partnership with First Nations.
Comment:
One cultural site you might want to include is the esker opposite F. H. Collins. Apparently, it was a lookout point (for game) for First Nation people. At one time there was an archaeological dig located at the south end of the esker.
Action #16: Continue marking of existing trails with signposts and en route markers.
Comment:
It would really be appreciated if the City would correct all its trail signs that place Longitude before Latitude. It is embarrassing when you take visitors on our trails and they see these coordinates in an incorrect order. It does not make our City look very sophisticated.
ATWA has pointed this error out numerous times to administration over the course of several years and have been told that the situation would be corrected. We are still waiting. All these signs should be corrected. It should be an easy fix. Signs that are to be installed for the first time should be checked to ensure that the error has not been repeated.
Action #17: Coordinate with TKC and KDFN on efforts to encourage appropriate trail use on settlement land.
Comment:
This is much needed. ATWA has received complaints concerning settlement land in Whitehorse North.
4.4 Theme 4: Education & Etiquette (p. 29)
Comment:
This section talks about conflict on trails. There is probably far more conflict than one thinks. If one sees an operator of an ATV, dirt bike, or snowmobile who is breaking City regulations, what action can you take? There is no point in calling bylaw, as the offender will be gone before an officer gets there. You cannot identify the vehicle because there will be no licence plate attached. One may indeed have serious disagreement (conflict) with the operator’s action, but will have no reasonable opportunity to express it through legitimate means.
What is missing in this section is any reference to the negative impact that irresponsible Off Road Vehicle operation has on our trails, greenbelts, and open spaces, something that due to the huge growth in ORV sales during the pandemic, is only going to increase dramatically. If operators would just stick to the myriad of designated motorized trails in Whitehorse, there would be far less environmental degradation.
The statement is made that “User education and communications are the preferred and proactive course of action, rather than formal enforcement programs.” This is a truism, and one that we have heard time and time again. However, if we continue to lack the ability or desire to enforce the bylaws that pertain to trails, then the abuse of those bylaws will continue.
Unfortunately, Bylaw Services has only one trail position. That officer is dedicated to concerns related to trails. Depending on operational requirements this person may have the help of at least one other officer. With 850 km of trails it is obvious that enforcement possibilities are limited.
However, there are areas of our City that receive more trail use than others. Perhaps resources should be concentrated in those areas on a rotating basis. As well, the City should consider increasing the size of our Bylaw Services department in order to expand its ability to patrol our trails.
Perhaps Bylaw Services could focus on ORV compliance a few times a year. Many residents complain that they see no licence plates on trail bikes, ATVs, and snowmobiles. The operators of such vehicles often used trails that are not designed or designated as motorized. It appears as if the City is advocating for ORV users, who despite the City’s ORV education campaigns, continue to operate their vehicles as if there are no bylaws.
Action #19: Utilize targeted public educational messaging around responsible trail use.
Comment:
There needs to be more information provided to the public concerning the regulations surrounding the operation of ATVs and snowmobiles in the City of Whitehorse. Dealers should be asked to distribute such information to their customers.
Local community associations should provide appropriate information on their Facebook pages. Last spring the Porter Creek Community Association provided information on regulations pertaining to ATV use in its community.
The ATV Bylaw says, “A person may operate an ATV on a motorized multiple use trail during the time period April 1 to October 31 in each year and shall not operate an ATV on a motorized multiple use trail from November 1 to March 31 in each year,” although this should really be a fluctuating date as snow levels vary each year.
At or around these turnover points the bylaws applicable to the respective ORV could be imparted to social media, the press, and local radio stations by Bylaw Services.
Action #20: Update and expand trail resources available on the City website.
Comment:
Yes! Finally, one-stop shopping for all information related to trails in the City of Whitehorse.
4.5 Theme 5: Trail Policies & Procedures (p. 32)
Action #23: Update Definitions in the Trail Maintenance Policy.
Comment:
Action #23 of the Draft Plan says that the City should “remove reference to the exclusion of motorized use on “single-track trails” found in the Trail Maintenance Policy, in order to be consistent with other policies and bylaws. The definition of "single-track trails" found in the policy says, “no motorized use is permitted on single-track trails.”
Certainly everyone wants to have consistency between our City’s various policies and bylaws. However, it is interesting to note that ATWA has already gone before City Council to ask it to ensure the Snowmobile Bylaw was updated to reflect the definition of single-track trails given in the newly minted (November 2016) Trail Maintenance Policy.
Default single-track trails should have been added to the Excluded Section of the Snowmobile Bylaw. Doing so would have given additional protection to default non-motorized single-track trails from winter snowmobile use.
Note: Default Non-Motorized Multiple Use Trails are trails that have not been formally designated by the City as truly Non-Motorized Multiple Use trails (summer and winter).
The Draft Plan suggests removing the reference to the exclusion of motorized use on single-track trails, the exact opposite of what ATWA argued before City Council.
If the City amended the Snowmobile Bylaw to reflect the ATV Bylaw, and prohibited snowmobile operators from using non-motorized trails, greenbelts, and open spaces, there would be no problem changing the definition as the Draft Plan suggests.
The Draft Plan advocates ensuring consistency between the City’s various policies and bylaws, and yet when it comes to the subject of creating consistency between the ATV Bylaw and Snowmobile Bylaw it is silent.
Action #24: Develop policy directions for use of e-bikes and other e-mobility devices on trails.
Comment:
On January 20, 2020 ATWA presented our concerns before City Council about the lack of information available to the public and to dealers concerning the use of e-bikes and other electric mobility devices on City trails and streets. (See https://www.activetwa.org/e-bikes.html). We have been told that various City departments are now working on this issue.
Our research indicates that a review of current City policies and bylaws can only bring one to the conclusion that e-bikes are permitted to operate only on City streets and designated motorized trails. The City has not disputed our conclusion.
If one gets into an accident while operating an e-bike off City roads and designated motorized trails, then there could be potential liability issues.
The comment is made in this section that there is strong stakeholder feedback advocating the use of e-bikes on Type 1 paved trails. We find this surprising, as even the Contagious Mountain Bike Club does not appear to have a policy developed on the appropriate use of e-bikes within the City.
We asked the organization to join us in our presentation on the subject before City Council on January 20, 2020, but it declined, as it had not yet devised a policy on the subject. Given the fact that we simply went before City Council to“ensure Council [was] made aware of the need to clarify where e-bikes and other electric mobility devices can be legally and appropriately used within the City of Whitehorse,” we were surprised when it decided not to participate.
Despite our efforts and that of Spencer Edelman of Listers Motor Sports, the City has failed to provide clarification, although as mentioned it has not disputed our conclusion that such devices can only be operated on City streets and motorized trails.
We have received comments that indicate concern about bicycle use on our paved trails, particularly the Millennium Trail. It is felt that there should be more direction given with regard to the appropriate use of bikes on pedestrian trails.
E-bikes are heavier, somewhat more difficult to control, and can travel at significant speeds, so the potential impact on pedestrians may be greater than a regular bicycle.
The use of e-bikes on non-paved trails has raised concerns in other jurisdictions, even among mountain bike organizations. Our City is late in the game concerning e-bike issues and should immediately seek public input into the issue in order to develop appropriate guidelines, policies, and perhaps a new bylaw.
Action #27: Establish winter maintenance priorities for paved Type I Trails.
Comment:
Please see our comments concerning winter maintenance of paved Type 1 Trails under 4.2.1. All such trails must be cleared down to pavement if they are going to provide the intended benefit to users in winter. Volunteers could help in this regard.
4.7 Theme 7: Stewardship & Partnerships (p. 35)
Action #28: Continue to provide recognition, support and tools to Trail Stewards.
Continue to strengthen partnerships with Trail Stewards and provide support through recognition of volunteer efforts, support for the delivery of programming and events, and funding towards trail maintenance activities.
Comment:
According to the City’s Trail Maintenance Policy the term “trail steward” means an organization or individual (Appendix C) that formally takes on responsibility for the care and maintenance of a particular trail. A trail steward is generally a volunteer organization whose stewardship is authorized through a memorandum of understanding [with the City].
The Whitehorse Cross Country Ski Club is not considered to be a Trail Steward under the City’s Trail Maintenance Policy.
The City should recognize that each of our two trail steward’s represent specific interests, which is only natural, and should not assume that just because one is a motorized group (KSA) and the other is a non-motorized group (CMNC), that the KSA represents all motorized users, and the CMBC represents all non-motorized users.
In other words, we cannot count on our trail stewards to necessary recognize or appreciate the interests and concerns of other user groups.
This was well demonstrated when both Trail Steward’s supported the motorization of the Rotary Centennial Bridge and adjacent sections of the Millennium Trail.
The point we are making is that the City should make more of an effort to consult with other user groups particularly walking groups, as 97% of your survey respondents “use trails for walking/hiking.”
We fully support the idea of “trail stewardship programs such as Adopt-a-Trial.” However, what is missing here is a suggestion that we have made previously. We need City trained trail volunteers who would patrol and monitor our trails as well as offer information to users on trail etiquette, bylaws concerned with trail usage, and City policies that relate to our trail network.
Apparently, Anchorage has such a group who are part of the City’s Trail Watch program. This would allow to citizens to get more involved with our trail system. They would be true trail stewards.
5.1 Prioritization (p. 37)
The implementation plan should be reviewed annually to respond to changes, ensure integration with other City plans, and take advantage of potential funding and partnership opportunities.
Comment:
Once a year Parks & Community Development should come before City Council and give an update on the progress of the Trail Plan. This should be done as well with other such plans like the Chadburn Lake Regional Park Management Plan, and the Schwatka Lake Area Plan. Perhaps one City Council meeting a year could be set aside to discuss the progress that has been made in all such plans. The public could be given time at the meeting to respond.
Glossary
Comment:
We suggest a number of additions and corrections to the Glossary. We also suggest dropping the term Motorized Multiple Use Trail.
MOTORIZED MULTIPLE USE TRAIL
Trails designed and designated by the City to be used by both non-motorized [users]and motorized vehicles including snowmobiles.
Comment:
Our suggestion is to drop the use of the term Motorized Multiple Use Trail altogether, and replace it with the term Multi-Use, which the OCP uses to define a trail used by both non-motorized and motorized users, the City uses on trail signage to mean the same thing, and which the KSA uses in the same manner.
You may also want to consider rewriting the definition as follows:
Multi-Use Trail:Trails designed and designated by the City to be used by both non-motorized and motorized users including snowmobilers.
OR
Multi-Use Trail:Trails designed and designated by the City to be used by both non-motorized and motorized users, which includes all trail users who rely on a motor to provide a source of power.
The latter definition would recognize that e-bike use is becoming common in the City, and at present it seems that such devices are only permitted on City roads and designated motorized trails.
NON-MOTORIZED MULTIPLE USE TRAIL
Trails design[ed] and designated to be used by a range of non-motorized uses.
Comment:
Correction to the word design to read designed.
Using the above definition as written would mean that all non-motorized trails not officially designated as such would not be considered to be non-motorized. In other words, default trails are not included in the definition as they were in the 2007 Trail Plan (p. 25). As well, the 2007 Trail Plan definition of the term did not include the word designed, so why is this word now included?
Take out the words designed and designated as this conflicts with the ATV Bylaw, which says that ATVs are not permitted ona non-motorized trail.The bylaw does not differentiate as to whether or not the non-motorized trail is designed as such, designated as such, or is a default trail.
If common sense prevails and the Snowmobile Bylaw is amended as we have suggested, then that bylaw will reflect the ATV Bylaw with regard to non-motorized trails.
The definition could then be simplified to read as follows:
Non-Motorized Multiple Use Trail. . . A trail that is to be used only by a variety of non-motorized users.
Suggested additions to the Glossary:
Passive Recreation
Comment:
This term is used on p. 25 of the Draft Plan. It is also used elsewhere in City documents including the OCP (p. 34), but we have never been able to get the City to define the term. There are various activities that may be considered as recreation, such a picnic or non-motorized activities such as walking.
Single-Use Trails (Motorized)
Single-Use Trails (Non-motorized)
Comment.
There should be a designation for Single-Use trails (motorized ornon-motorized) in this section. The current OCP says “designating trails for specific uses . . . aids in the safety of trail users.” (OCP 18.2 Trail Development p. 73)
The current Chadburn Lake Park Management Plan accepts the fact that there may be a place for single-use non-motorized trails under certain conditions. (See Chadburn Lake Park Management Plan Section 3.5 #3.)
Trail Steward
The definition found in the Trail Maintenance Policyshould be included in this Glossary.
Thank you for allowing us to make this submission.
Keith Lay & Pat Milligan (ATWA)
2007 Trail Plan Rewrite:
As we have mentioned in ATWA Updates, the City of Whitehorse is in the process of updating the 2007 Trail Plan.
Below you will find an updated copy of ATWA’s initial comments re: the 2007 Trail Plan Update that was sent to each member of Council in April. In mid-March we sent a similar document to Heidi Redman of Lees + Associates, which was awarded the contract for consultant services with regard to the updating of the 2007 Trail Plan. It raises a number of issues and concerns that have been brought forth by associates over the last few years that should be addressed in any new trail plan for the City of Whitehorse.
Following this submission you will find copies of a number of letters ATWA has sent to the media concerning the update of the 2007 Trail Plan. The last one was published on August 7, 2020 by the Whitehorse Star.
To: All members of City Council
From: Active Trails Whitehorse Association (ATWA)
Date: April 28, 2020
Initial comments concerning the update of the City of Whitehorse 2007 Trail Plan (Please note Footnotes 1-7 are found at the end of the document.)
1. Size of our trail system: The 2007 Trail Plan makes the following comments concerning our existing trail network. It says that we have “an estimated 150 km of existing trails of City-wide significance and at least 700 km of local and neighbourhood trails . . .” (Executive Summary 2007 Trail Plan) Later it says that we have “approximately 150 km of designated motorized multiple use trails, and more than 700 km of designated and default non-motorized multiple use trails.” (p. 25, 2007 Trail Plan) Later on the plan says “the Whitehorse trail system is estimated to total over 850 km, minimum.” (p. 29)
This information is confusing, out-dated, and does not reflect the truth of the situation.The figures give the impression that there are a huge number of non-motorized multiple use trails as opposed to motorized trails when, as will be explained later, this is not the case.
One could also conclude from the above information that all existing trails of City-wide significance are motorized, which they may well be, but it seems strange that both trails of City-wide significance and designated motorized multiple use trails total identical lengths, namely 150 km. Clarity with regard to both these figures is needed.
As well, according to a Hillcrest Community Association report, the city’s 150 km of motorized trails had grown to 400 km by 2011. The report indicated that the 400 km figure was obtained from the city. (Seehttps://hillcrestcommunity.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/letter-to-hca-residents.pdf).
Adding to the confusion is the fact that in Whitehorse so-called default non-motorized trails are often open to motorized snowmobile use in winter and, as a result, cannot be considered as non-motorized trails. In our city no does not necessarily mean no when it comes to non-motorized trails, something that needs to be rectified by amending the Snowmobile Bylaw.
In addition, given the amount of trail construction since 2011, one would think that even the 2011 figure concerning the length of motorized trails is out-of-date.
We have also had a number of neighbourhood trail plans completed since 2007, in which numerous motorized multiple use trails have been designated.
We also have 29 km [1] of paved multi-use pathways in Whitehorse, many of which were paid for by federal gas tax funds. Those paid for by federal gas tax funds are considered to be active transportation trails in the city, although strangely enough such trails can be open to motorized use if the city so decides. Unfortunately, many of these trails have not been formally designated as non-motorized (summer and winter), and this leads to confusion and misuse. The new trail plan should specifically address these gas tax funded paved active transportation trails and recommend that the city clarify their use by formal designation.
After a period of twelve years the city is still using the figures (150 km & 700 km) to indicate the size and use of our trail network despite what it said about the growth of motorized trails in 2011, and by continuing to ignore the information mentioned above concerning so-called default non-motorized trails, so-called active transportation trails, neighbourhood trail plans completed since 2007, and new trail construction.
One figure in which we can put some faith is that of the number of kilometres that have been adopted into the city’s Trail Maintenance Policy, a figure that now totals around 250 km.
This new trail plan should provide up-to-date figures concerning the size and use of our trail system. In other words, what is the length in kilometres of our motorized trail network, and what is the length in kilometres of our non-motorized (summer and winter) trail network.
Better yet, these figures should be broken down according to the length of our motorized multiple use trail network (which according to the 2007 Trail Plan is open only to motorized vehicles), the length of our non-motorized multiple use trail network (which according to the 2007 Trail Plan is open only to a variety of non-motorized users), and the length of our multi-use trail/mixed use trail network which according to the OCP is open to both non-motorized and motorized users. [2]
There is a motorized trail map (2015) on the city’s website to which one could refer in an effort to calculate the length of motorized trails in the city, but one would have to ensure that it is up-to-date. This map needs to be upgraded as in its present state it lacks appropriate information that would make it of much use to motorized users, particularly to those who are recent inhabitants or simply visiting. Right now it looks like someone took a red pen and just made lines on a piece of paper.
For your information, summer and winter (truly) non-motorized multiple use trails are listed in the Snowmobile Bylaw under Schedule “E” and Schedule “C”. Their respective lengths would have to be determined.
SCHEDULE “E” EXCLUDED TRAILS
- Birch Loop Trail (Crestview)
- Millennium Trail
- Whistle Bend Paved Perimeter Trail (Whistle Bend)
- Chadburn Lake Ski Trails
- Mount McIntyre Ski Trails
- Magnusson Ski Trails
- Biathlon Ski Trails
As the 2007 Trail Plan indicates, trails that are to be motorized must be both designed and designated for such use. (p. 25) Unfortunately, one cannot include gas tax funded active transportation trails in the non-motorized multiple use category if they are open to snowmobile use for half the year.
We also have (by default) non-motorized multiple use single-tracktrails in our city. The Trail Maintenance Policy (November 2016) confirms such trails are closed to motorized use. (See Definitions p. 2 & 3) However, this fact is not reflected in the Snowmobile Bylaw. Efforts to get the city to explain why the Snowmobile Bylaw has not been updated to reflect this aspect of the Trail Maintenance Policy have fallen on deaf ears.
It is our understanding that (where applicable) city bylaws are supposed to reflect city policies and plans such as the Official Community Plan (OCP) and the 2007 Trail Plan. One cannot include single-track trails in the non-motorized multiple use category if, because of the Snowmobile Bylaw, they are open to snowmobile use for half the year.
It would be nice if the new trail plan included an Active Transportation Map for the urban containment area of the city, something that the current OCP promised, but never delivered. (See p. 27 & 62 of the OCP.) There should also be an Active Recreation Map that would include all the truly non-motorized (summer and winter) designated trails available to citizens in the City of Whitehorse.
As well, according to the OCP “the trail plan recommends the creation of a map of “out and away” trails for motorized recreation vehicle usage. This map shall be designed to strongly discourage the use of all terrain vehicles on non-motorized trails and in environmentally sensitive areas . . . work on this project shall be done in conjunction with groups such as the Klondike Snowmobile Association (KSA), Motor Vehicles Branch, and others.” (See OCP 18.5.2) As far as we can tell this work was never completed. This map should be included in the new trail plan.
In addition to the above maps the city needs to provide an updated Great Trail map on the city’s website that would show the route(s) of this (mainly motorized) trail within the city. There should be an indication as to which sections of the trail are non-motorized (summer and winter).
The Snowmobile Bylaw must be amended to reflect the ATV Bylaw and prohibit snowmobile operators from using non-motorized trails, green spaces, and open spaces. Sadly, access by snowmobiles to so-called non-motorized trails causes damage to existing vegetation as a result of the widening of trails, which in turns leads to more use by both ATVs and snowmobiles. (Even the Snowmobile Bylaw recognizes that snowmobiles damage vegetation.)
Damage to greenbelts and open spaces by snow machines could be reduced if they (like ATVs) were not permitted to travel off trail and into such areas. It could also be argued that the lack of protection of so-called non-motorized trails results in disturbance to wildlife and non-motorized users alike. Non-motorized users may well be forced to find somewhere else to recreate.
It is ridiculous that every time a reference is made to a non-motorized city trail, one has to clarify whether or not it is non-motorized all year round (summer and winter) or just in summer. No should mean no!
It is also ridiculous that the only way we can designate a truly non-motorized (summer and winter) trail in the City of Whitehorse is to change the Snowmobile Bylaw, a costly and needless procedure. Changing the Snowmobile Bylaw as suggested would eliminate these absurdities and make for a far more equitable trail system. Failure to change the Snowmobile Bylaw in the manner suggested will draw into question the value of any new trail plan.
Once the bylaw is changed then a well-designed city motorized map and/or app would inform all motorized users what trails they can legally use. Any trail not on this map would be off limits to motorized users.
2. Trails Classification/Designations: The section of the 2007 Trail Plan that discusses trail designations is poorly written and, as a result, confusing. (See p. 24-26) The city has increased this confusion by continually misusing both the term motorized multiple use trail and the term non-motorized multiple use trail as defined in the 2007 Trail Plan. As a result, all approved city trail plan maps are both confusing and misleading.
For example, the Porter Creek, Takhini, Whistle Bend, Range Point Trail Plan has a legend on its trail map in which several categories of trails are listed such as the following: Singletrack Trails, Paved Trails, Non motorized multi-use routes, and Motorized multi-use routes. (Seehttps://www.whitehorse.ca/departments/parks-and-community-development/trails-/trail-consultation/north).
As mentioned previously, due to the Snowmobile Bylaw snowmobiles can use many non-motorized multiple use trails, so the legend needs to take this into account by clarifying whether these non-motorized multiple use trails are non-motorized (summer and winter), or just in the summer.
Similarly, clarity is needed as to whether the motorized multiple use trails are multi-use trails, which (according to the OCP) combine non-motorized and motorized users, or only open to motorized use. (The new trail plan should call trails that combine non-motorized and motorized users Mixed-Use trails.)
According to the Trail Maintenance Policy Singletrack Trails, are off-limits to motorized vehicles, so that should be indicated beside the term in the legend. (It should also be mentioned in the current Snowmobile Bylaw.)
There also needs to be some indication as to which paved trails are motorized and which are free from motorized use in both summer and winter.
To add to the confusion please note that the map of the trail plan in question is entitled DRAFT PLAN, although the plan was passed by City Council in 2016.
The 2007 Trail Plan argues that due to limited resources “many recreational facilities – including trails – must accommodate multiple uses, and users.” (p. 24) It then goes on to use the Canada Games Centre (CGC) as an example of such accommodation. The logic behind such a comparison escapes us. The CGC does not accommodate all its activities in one specific area at the centre else chaos would ensue. Having one trail open to all kinds of user activities may also lead to major user conflict, trail degradation, safety concerns, and trail displacement.[3]
The city says that it has two major categories of multiple use trails: non-motorized multiple use trails and motorized multiple use trails. Yet, it continues to misinterpret its own definitions of these terms, which often leads to confusion for all interested parties. There is no definition in the current trail plan for a trail that allows for both motorized and non-motorized use, although as previously mentioned one is found in the OCP.
The majority of Whitehorse residents have long indicated the need for non-motorized trails to be separate from motorized trails through survey results and neighbourhood plans (refer to Appendix A found at the end of this document). Yet the city continues to designate mainly motorized trails via the neighbourhood trail task force route, which is hardly a balanced, fair, or logical approach, and one that does not reflect actual trail use. Indeed, “90% of Yukoners use local walking trails” as active forms of recreation and transportation. (See http://www.community.gov.yk.ca/pdf/RYALS_FINAL_for_Printing_-_Dec_2012.pdf Active Yukon/Yukon Active Living Strategy/2012.)
Mr. Daniels (President of the KSA) has said that, “At no time will [he] agree to restrict snowmobile use beyond what is currently mandated by law.” (See p. 2 http://ksa.yk.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/KSA-Early-Spring-20121.pdf). So, unless we change the Snowmobile Bylaw it is unlikely that we will see any end to the current inequitable situation.
Unfortunately, unlike the snowmobile, mountain biking, and cross-country skiing community there is no group that purports to represent the interest of walkers in our city. Hence, they are often ignored or forgotten when issues arise that impact their form of recreation.
As well, one cannot rely on the city’s trail stewards to represent the interests of walkers. Neither can one rely on them to protect non-motorized trails from being motorized. One only needs to refer to the controversy surrounding the effort to motorize the truly non-motorized (summer and winter) Rotary Centennial Bridge and adjacent Millennium Trail, an effort that lasted from 2013 to 2015 before finally being put to rest by City Council.
Two of our trail stewards, “The Klondike Snowmobile Association and Contagious Mountain Bike Club . . . stated [their] support for motorized use” of the bridge and adjacent Millennium Trail. (See https://www.whitehorsestar.com/News/support-overwhelming-for-pedestrian-only-bridge).
When the issue finally came up for a public discussion at City Council the gallery was completely full. There was standing room only. Only one person in the crowd spoke for motorizing the trail and bridge in question. It is obvious that the majority of citizens want non-motorized trails to be separate from motorized trails wherever
feasible and practical. [4] However, the city continues to ignore the evidence supporting this fact.
Many times we have heard the argument from city officials and trail stewards that “shared use is always the most cost-effective and inclusive way forward.” (Doug Hnatiuk, former manager of Parks and Community Development.) (See https://www.whitehorsestar.com/News/support-overwhelming-for-pedestrian-only-bridge).
Unfortunately, what is not made clear is that the 2007 Trail Plan recognizes two types of shared use trails: non-motorized multiple use trails and motorized multiple use trails. The latter is the most expensive type of trail to build and maintain, a fact that the city and at least one of our so-called trail stewards (the Klondike Snowmobile Association) seems unwilling to recognize.
Any trail that allows motorized use has to be built and maintained to accommodate the widest Off Road Vehicle (ORV) that can be used on that trail. Any infrastructure such as a bridge that is built on the trail has to be wide enough and strong enough to support such vehicles. Once built, the bridge has to be maintained by the City of Whitehorse at the city’s expense. [Correction: Once built, maintenance has to be done by the city itself, or by the city’s Trail Stewards via an agreement with the city. (07/25/20)]
Of course, motorized trails have to be longer to satisfy the recreational needs of motorized users, as ORVs can travel much further than a non-motorized user over a given time period. Obviously, longer trails are more expensive to both build and maintain. They also have to be wider and have better sight lines, which also adds to the expense. As well, such trails have a far greater impact on the environment both during and after construction due to their building requirements.
“Shared use trails [mixed-use trails] which accommodate a variety of both motorized and non-motorized users are the most expensive to build because they are usually wider in order to accommodate multiple trail uses.” (Canadian Trails Study, Dec. 2010 Study Commissioned by Terrance J. Norman, M.Sc. for National Trails Coalition p.21) [5] These mixed-use trails are even more expensive than motorized multiple use trails, as there may have to be increased signage due to the possible presence of non-motorized users.
In contrast, "Hiking trails are the least expensive to build because they are rather narrow. They can follow geographic contours and go around major obstacles.” (Canadian Trails Study, Dec. 2010 Study Commissioned by Terrance J. Norman, M.Sc. for National Trails Coalition p.21)
The obvious question is why the city appears to be concentrating its efforts on designating motorized trails, or what the city incorrectly refers to as MMU trails. Such trails, called multi-use in the OCP, or mixed-use trails in other jurisdictions, accommodate a variety of motorized and non-motorized users. As mentioned, these trails are the most expensive to build and maintain, yet the city continues to designate more of them with the passage of each neighbourhood trail plan. And, this is a city that continues to give the impression that it supports active forms of recreation and transportation.
In addition, according to the KSA, “Many Whitehorse-based sledders rarely ride within city limits. They prefer the back-country and only ride in town a couple of times per year, including at the poker run.” (See http://ksa.yk.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/KSA-Spring-2014.pdf). (We believe the poker run has been discontinued.)
An event survey was conducted by the KSA in order to help plan snowmobile activities for the 2018/2019-winter season. “About 10 per cent [of respondents] wanted rides within city limits, 28 per cent wanted rides starting in city limits but taking a quick route out and away, and just over 50 per cent would rather rides be [located] entirely outside of city limits. (See http://ksa.yk.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/KSA-Fall_2018.pdf).
The survey indicates most KSA snowmobilers were more interested in activities that either took them quickly out of the city, or involved events that took place entirely outside of Whitehorse. Needless to say this suggests that snowmobilers have the means to transfer their machines away from town.
The obvious question is why the city continues to designate more motorized trails, as it seems very apparent that they are not needed? One must also remember that snowmobilers are allowed to use city roads outside the downtown core as long as they have the following documentation: “a valid operator’s license; a valid certificate of registration in respect of the snowmobile; a valid registration plate affixed to the snowmobile; a valid insurance card in respect of the snowmobile; and a valid Safe Snowmobiler Card as required by this bylaw.” (p. 6 Snowmobile Bylaw)
The incorrectly called MMU trails are promoted as being democratic in that non-motorized users are welcomed. However, as mentioned previously, these trails are designed and built to accommodate the needs of the widest vehicle (ATVs/snow machines), and may not be truly enjoyed by those involved in non-motorized active forms of recreation, particularly walkers. Such people often prefer quieter surroundings, and more narrow trails, which offer a greater variety of terrain and a more natural experience.
Surely city administration must realize that our trail stewards (CMBC and KSA) [6] quite naturally build trails that satisfy the demands and needs of their membership, but such trails may not be ideal for the walker or runner. As well, due to the nature of the respective activities, their (club built) trails may be far more damaging to the environment than walking or hiking trails. Unfortunately, as previously mentioned there is no organization that represents walkers (the majority of trail users), and the city seems unwilling to assume this role.
Single or specific use trails should be one of our possible trail classifications or designations. The current OCP says “designating trails for specific uses . . . aids in the safety of trail users.” (OCP 18.2 Trail Development p. 73) Yet, every time ATWA has suggested that for certain trail use in the city this should be done, our input has been rejected.
For example, certain types of mountain bike trails should be designated single-use trails. A trail developed specifically for downhill riding and speed should be closed to other uses, to reduce safety concerns.
“Downhill riding is all about rhythm and flow. As they descend the trail, downhillers go as fast as possible by finding the best lines and riding smoothly. Advanced riders tend to ride faster lines - those that require a higher level of strength, agility, and reaction. A downhill trail should be technical, with features and lines that challenge riders of all abilities.” (See https://www.imbacanada.com/resources/freeriding/building-dh-trails).
It should be noted that the current Chadburn Lake Park Management Plan accepts the fact that there may be a place for single-use non-motorized trails under certain conditions. (See Chadburn Lake Park Management Plan Section 3.5 #3.)
If organizations are willing to assume the cost of developing and maintaining such trails, and go through the trail development process, then single purpose trails should be an option. Obviously, the city would have to be cautious as to how many of these trails are built, but the city should recognize that the OCP allows for the designation of specific-purpose trails. (There may already be existing trails that could qualify as single purpose trails.)
As mentioned previously, there needs to be recognition that when an organization builds a trail, it is building it first for the recreational use of that organization. The trail may be open to other users, but it is not necessarily built to accommodate the needs of those other users.
A mountain bike trail may not be the best type of trail for a runner, a walker, or a skier. The latter have different trail needs to those of mountain bikers. This may necessitate the designation of at least some city trails (already in existence) as specific use trails for the under-represented recreational groups in our community, walkers being one such group.
The city needs to go no further than the Alberta Recreation Corridor And Trails Classification document to see how a trails classification system should be designed. Although ATWA (long ago) passed this document on to Parks and Community Development for review, we have never received any feedback. We encourage those preparing the draft Trail Plan to adopt (with permission) all appropriate sections of this classification system. (See http://www.albertatrailnet.com/downloads/Rec Corridors Trail Classification Manual.pdf).
3. Guiding Principles: One of the Guiding Principles of the 2007 Trail Plan is Inclusiveness. The use of this word should be discontinued as city representatives have continually misused it when dealing with trail planning participants.
The idea has been promoted that the term means that our trails should be open to all types of recreational use, when it actually means that the public should be included “in determining guidelines for trail system development, use, preservation and maintenance.” (2007 Trail Plan, p. 9)
The city’s record with regard to public involvement and proper process concerning our trails has been questionable. One only needs to look at issues such as the following: Rotary Centennial Bridge and adjacent Millennium Trail, the functioning of the Whitehorse Trail & Greenways Committee (WTGC), the Whistle Bend Perimeter Trail, the Whistle Bend Casca Inner Loop sidewalk, the Whitehorse North and Whitehorse South Trail Plans, and the gas tax funded Pine Street extension active transportation paved trail.
Replace Inclusiveness with one of the following terms: Public Engagement, Citizen Engagement, or Community Engagement. Under the term chosen it is suggested the following be written: Given the importance of our trail system to both citizens and visitors and its potential impact on our city’s natural environment, it is essential that the general public and First Nations be consulted in the building, use, and maintenance of trails, and in the responsible development of our trail system as a whole.
Another Guiding Principle should be Environmental Protection. We seem to forget that every time we build a trail we are impacting the natural environment. Few of us would consider allowing anyone to construct a trail through our respective backyards, but because plants, animals, and birdlife have no voice with which to
protest they are often ignored. To salve our conscience we simply say that we can mitigate (make less severe) the impact.
Under the term Environmental Protection we suggest the following: Priority consideration must be given to the protection of the environment that a trail system allows us to experience and, if preserved, from which we can learn much about the natural world.
The current trail plan includes Sustainability as one of the Guiding Principles. Our suggestion would be to change the word spheres to areas, as the latter term is better understood. In addition, the term fiscal responsibility needs explanation. (Perhaps it refers to the necessity of having a cost effective trail system.)
Diversity is another Guiding Principle mentioned in the 2007 Trail Plan. Perhaps this should be changed to User Diversity. Under this term we suggest the following: Our trail system is open to a variety of user activities as long as those activities are carried on in a safe and respectful manner, and in the case of motorized users are on trails intended to lead operators beyond city limits and away from residential neighbourhoods.[7]
Equitable Access might be a better term to use as a Guiding Principle rather than the current Accessibility. Efforts should be made to promote the use of our trail system to users of diverse abilities including those with physical and other challenges.
4. Vision Statement: The current vision statement needs to reflect the city’s claim that it supports active forms of recreation and transportation, particularly as it has recently declared a climate emergency.
Whitehorse will have a sustainable and interconnected trail system that will support the City’s commitment to active (non-motorized) forms of recreation and transportation, and their respective benefits to both individuals and the environment, and one which will support a network of motorized trails intended to take users away from residential neighbourhoods and beyond city limits. The City will strive to ensure that our trail system will continue its position as a principle asset for our community.
5. Other comments on the 2007 Trail Plan:
a) The Executive Summary makes the comment that “Citizens want to be involved in future trail planning and management.” It then suggests that the then proposed neighbourhood-by-neighbourhood task force groups and Whitehorse Trail & Greenways Committee (WTGC) would allow for that involvement.
ATWA currently sits on two of these neighbourhood task force groups and has been involved with two others. Unfortunately, for various reasons all but one of these have proven to be very divisive exercises. Similarly, the WTGC did little to ensure the public would be involved in trail development and management. Our efforts to improve its workings were fruitless, and the experience of our representatives on the WTGC was (to say the least) unpleasant.
Please be aware that not all trail construction projects are the result of neighbourhood task force planning. Our trail stewards can apply to Parks and Community Development to construct trails that are outside of the neighbourhood task force planning process. Prior to the passage of the Trail Development Policy public involvement in the building of such trails was negligible.
b) On page one of the 2007 Trail Plan it is stated that the Trail Plan “paired with the Trails section of the City of Whitehorse website for updates [will become] a “one-stop shop” for information on City trails.” Despite ATWA’s efforts to ensure this actually happened, it remains a goal that has not as yet been achieved. We had hoped that the WTGC would work to ensure this pledge would be honoured, but it was not to be.
The current plan refers to the Trans Canada Trail (The Great Trail) and the Grand Concourse Authority as resources to draw upon in order to gain from other’s experiences and avoid “reinvention of the wheel”. Unfortunately, the Great Trail has proven to be a major disappointment for many of its original contributors and supporters, as it has deviated far from its original intent as a national non-motorized multiple use trail.
We suggest that the before mentioned Government of Alberta Recreation Corridor & Trails Classification System is an excellent resource that should be adopted by our city.
c) On page 7 of the plan, reference is made to Publications. Today, publications can often be replaced by apps. In fact, there is an app for our local trails. (See https://apps.apple.com/ca/app/whitehorse-trail-guide/id872909893). However, one would need to purchase the app and an iPhone or iPad to use it. As well, such apps need to be constantly updated. The city should look into the possibility of providing an app (at a cost) that one could download from the city’s website containing up-to-date information concerning our trail system.
d) We need to redefine the term trail steward. The following definition of a trail steward is found in both the Trail Maintenance Policy and the Trail Development Policy, but it hardly reflects what being a trail steward actually entails.
The term trail steward refers to “an organization or individual that formally takes on responsibility for the care and maintenance of a particular City trail. A trail steward is generally a volunteer or volunteer organization whose stewardship is authorized through a memorandum of understanding.”
This suggests that only individuals or organizations that have a memorandum of understanding with the city qualify as trail stewards. Thus, the term trail steward seems to more of a technical rather than holistic term.
Trail stewards appear to be restricted to the care and maintenance of certain trails, most likely (but not necessarily) trails they built for their particular form of use: snowmobiling or mountain biking. The Trail Maintenance Policy suggests that we have only two trail stewards: CMBC and the KSA.
The KSA president says that the association is “the steward of the multi-use trail system in the Whitehorse region . . .” (See http://ksa.yk.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/KSA_Winter_2011-201212.pdf). So here we have a trail steward that claims to be the steward of all multi-use trails in the City of Whitehorse, although one wonders if the city supports such a claim.
One would hope he is just referring to motorized trails, but if that is the case then why does the Snowmobile Bylaw not require snowmobilers “to use motorized trails except in environmentally sensitive areas?”(See https://hillcrestcommunity.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/letter-to-hca-residents.pdf).
The KSA president refers to those of us that want to support the designation, maintenance and protection of a quality non-motorized multiple use trail network, associated green spaces, and Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA’s) as “exclusionists (those who want to exclude others or have exclusive use).” (See http://ksa.yk.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/KSA-Early-Spring-20121.pdf).
One would think that trail stewards would respect the needs and wishes of other user groups (particularly walkers) who want to enjoy trails that are free from motorized use in both summer and winter. (As previously mentioned, both the KSA and the CMBC supported the motorization of the Rotary Centennial Bridge and adjacent parts of the Millennium trail.) The current trail plan provides for non-motorized multiple use trails, a fact that the KSA does not seem to understand. And, no one is excluding snowmobilers from using truly non-motorized trails as long as they leave their machines at home.
In any case, the new trail plan should recognize that all users of our trail system whether motorized or not should act as trail stewards, and demonstrate their respect for both other users, the environment in general, and specifically for the trails they use.
e) The Trail Development Policy includes a definition of the International Mountain Bike Association (IMBA) guidelines for trail construction. This may lead one to believe that all trails that are not intended for motorized use are to be built according to IMBA Guidelines. If this is the case, then all non-motorized trails in Whitehorse are to be built primarily to accommodate mountain bikers.
There must be recognition that other non-motorized users may not necessary appreciate being lumped in with mountain bikers. Hikers, walkers, skiers, and other non-motorized users may prefer trails that are designed and constructed with different characteristics. IMBA Guidelines are not the only guidelines for non-motorized trail construction. The aforementioned Alberta Recreation Corridor & Trails Classification System includes Basic Trail Design Characteristics by Type of Experience, and is certainly worth a good review.
f) When the new trail plan is completed and approved, ATWA would like to see an immediate review of our bylaws to ensure they reflect the desires of the public as expressed in the said plan and, as well, those of other trail related policies.
g) The new trail plan should deal with the issue of e-bikes. At present it appears that the only place one can legally operate a Class-1 e-bike in the City of Whitehorse is on city roads and on motorized trails. The city needs to develop a clear policy concerning the use of electric mobility devices, and in particular Class 1 e-bikes, in order to provide clarity for sellers, current owners, and those contemplating the purchase of such devices.
h) The new trail plan should recognize the need for a city-trained volunteer group of citizens that would act as true trail stewards much like is suggested in Appendix A: Regional Parks Plan Strategies of the Chadburn Lake Park Management Plan. (See p. 41) However, they could also patrol our trails and educate the public with regard to their appropriate use. As well, some could be trained to maintain, build, and decommission trails. Such a group would be true trail stewards as they would be concerned with our entire trail system. Unfortunately, although the city is always complaining that it has too many trails to effectively patrol and maintain, it seems loathe to the idea of establishing such a volunteer group.
i) The new trail plan should emphasize the need for the city to inform the public about all aspects of our trail system. In other words, the policies, bylaws, regional park plan(s), neighbourhood trail plans, the new 2020 Trail Plan, and area plans such as that of Schwatka Lake should be easily accessible to the public. And, the information given should be up-to-date.
j) Terms that need to be explained in a Definition list: single-track trails, environmentally sensitive areas, default trails, designated trails, active transportation trails, user displacement, active forms of recreation and transportation, and the expression trails of City-wide significance. In other words, what are the characteristics of trails of City-wide significance?
We are providing this document now, as we feel it essential that you are made aware of some of the issues that we deem to be of importance, and of which you may not be aware. No doubt other comments will be forthcoming once the public review process is underway.
We hope that this review will be a valuable process for all concerned, and will result in a new trail plan of which all Whitehorse citizens will be proud.
Yours sincerely,
Keith Lay (Active Trails Whitehorse Association)
[email protected]
www.activetwa.org
633-4936
Footnotes:
[1] See P.12 City of Whitehorse Bicycle Network Plan.
[2] Since the term multi-use has been so corrupted in meaning, the city would be better served by designating such trails as mixed-use as do other jurisdictions. It is suggested that in the new Trail Plan the term mixed-use be employed over that of multi-use to designate a trail that can be used by both motorized and non-motorized users.
[3] Non-motorized users (particularly walkers) tend to move away from trails that are exposed to motorized use, and in some cases from mountain bike use, as they may prefer a different experience, or one without the noise, smell, and potential danger that motorized vehicles may present.
[4] Obviously, there are some situations where issues of safety, cost efficiency, and practicality make the construction of a mixed use trail combining motorized and non-motorized users the best solution. For example, building a mixed use paved trail through our city’s Rabbit Foot’s Canyon would be the best solution to get all users safely through the area, without exposing them to unsafe highway travel or the rough trail located on one side of the highway.
[5] The Canadian Council of Snowmobile Organizations (CCSO) is a member of The National Trails Coalition and the Klondike Snowmobile Association is a member of The Canadian Council of Snowmobile Organizations (CCSO).
[6] The Trail Maintenance Policy only lists the Contagious Mountain Bike Association (CMBA) and the Klondike Snowmobile Association (KSA) as trail stewards, but not the Whitehorse Cross Country Ski Club. (See Appendix “C”) According to the Trail Maintenance Policy “a trail steward is generally a volunteer organization whose stewardship is authorized through a memorandum of understanding.” It would seem that the WCCSC does not have a “memorandum of understanding,” with the city, although one finds this somewhat strange.
[7] These are the so-called out and away trails mentioned in Section 18.5.2 of the OCP. A city map was supposed to be created with the intent of “strongly [discouraging] the use of all terrain vehicles on non-motorized trails and in environmentally sensitive areas.” (p. 76 of OCP) The map was supposed to “be done in conjunction with groups such as the Klondike Snowmobile Association [a trail steward], Motor Vehicles Branch, and others.” (p. 76 of OCP) The map was never completed.
Appendix A:
City of Whitehorse survey results and neighbourhood plans indicate that the majority of residents support the restriction of snowmobiles to designated motorized trails
- 2010 Riverdale Neighbourhood Plan: Section 1.5.3, Questionnaire outcome (page 9)
“Motorized recreational vehicles (ATVs, snowmobiles) were identified as a major point of contention in the community. Many feel disturbed by motorized activity and identify it as a safety issue, particularly in regards to children. The consensus seems to be that laws regarding these vehicles are not being respected and must be more stringently enforced.”
“Furthermore, trails need to be strongly designated as motorized or non-motorized. Many also expressed concern regarding the erosion of trails, and general environmental damage caused by these vehicles.”
- 2010 Whitehorse Official Community Plan section 18.5.1:
“Where feasible, consideration shall be made to separate multi-use trails (which accommodate motorized and non-motorized recreation) from non-motorized trails. Future multi-use trail development shall avoid environmentally sensitive areas wherever possible.”
- 2011 Whitehorse Snowmobile Survey (statistically valid) results:
https://www.activetwa.org/uploads/2/2/7/6/22767404/110701_snowmobile_bylaw_report_july_2011.pdf
“It is important to separate motorized and non-motorized trail use: 59% agree 23% disagree.” (This survey was part of the 2011-2012 public consultation process for the new Snowmobile Bylaw.)
2014 Hillcrest Neighbourhood Plan - section 3.4.4.3:
https://hillcrestcommunity.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/hillcrest-plan-final.pdf
“The City should continue to explore methods such as improved signage, barriers (Figure 11), and compliance monitoring, to ensure All Terrain Vehicles (ATVs) and snowmobiles are used only on trails where motorized vehicles are permitted.”
- 2015-2050 Whitehorse Sustainability Plan:
“Manage greenspace to rehabilitate, limit access, and limit fragmentation” (page 20)
- 2015 ORV impacts and management measures - Survey conducted by Yukon conservation Society, Friends of McIntyre Creek, Porter Creek Community Association
Respondents made numerous comments on the need to keep motorized vehicles off non-motorized trails summer and winter.
- 2016 Whistle Bend, Porter Creek, Takhini survey:
May 2017 “Porter Creek/Whistle Bend/Takhini/Range Point Trail Plan Report:
http://whitehorse.ca/Home/ShowDocument?id=8364 (report is on pages 17 to 24 of agenda package)
Letters to the media concerning the 2007 Trail Plan Rewrite:
Letter #1:
As many of you know the City of Whitehorse is developing a new Trail Plan that will replace the 2007 Plan that was supposed to expire in 2017. It is asking you to fill out an online trail survey by May 26. This survey is available on the City of Whitehorse website under Public Consultation. There is also a Trail Plan fact sheet that you are encouraged to read prior to filling out the survey. See https://whitehorse.ca/departments/parks-and-community-development/trails.
It would also be advisable to review the current 2007 Trail Plan to gain a better understanding of what we have been working with for well over the past decade. The plan is available on the City of Whitehorse website. (Go to Departments/Parks and Community Development/Trails/Resources.)
In March, Active Trails Whitehorse Association submitted a written document to the planning team that outlined a number of issues and concerns brought forth by associates over previous years. It is our hope that these concerns and issues will be addressed in the new Trail Plan. This document is available on our website under Issues (Trail Plan Rewrite) at activetwa.org.
We know that many of you are justifiably passionate about our trail system, and at times have conflicting views concerning that system, but I think we can all agree that we are certainly fortunate to live in a city that has a wealth of trails that are open to a variety of activities, both motorized and non-motorized.
Our amazing trail system contributes to our physical and mental well-being, especially so at this difficult time of our lives. If you care about our trails, greenbelts, and open spaces please get involved.
Yes, fill out the survey, but if you have concerns that are not covered by the survey and would like to ensure they are heard, or wish to give a more detailed response to some of the survey questions please contact the following:
Heidi Redman, of Lees + Associates at [email protected]
Landon Kulych, Manager of Parks and Community Development at [email protected]
Daniel Gjini, Parks Project Coordinator at [email protected]
Mayor & Council, at [email protected].
Keith Lay (Active Trails Whitehorse Association)
[email protected]
Letter #2:
The new Trail Plan for the City of Whitehorse should recommend that the Snowmobile Bylaw be amended to reflect the rules of the ATV Bylaw, and prohibit snowmobile operators from using non-motorized trails, greenbelts, and open spaces.
In Whitehorse so-called “default” non-motorized trails are open to motorized snowmobile use in winter, and therefore cannot really be considered as non-motorized trails. Only those non-motorized trails listed in the Snowmobile Bylaw under Schedule “E” and Schedule “C” are truly non-motorized (summer and winter) trails.
Access by snowmobiles to so-called “default” non-motorized trails may cause damage to existing vegetation and can result in the widening of trails, which in turns leads to more use by both ATVs and snowmobiles. The Snowmobile Bylaw recognizes that snowmobiles can damage vegetation, as does the Trail Maintenance Policy. The latter states that single-track trails are closed to motorized use, although strangely enough this is not reflected in the Snowmobile Bylaw.
In our city “no” does not necessarily mean “no” when it comes to non-motorized trails, something that needs to be rectified by amending the Snowmobile Bylaw as suggested. This change would result in a more equitable trail system, and one that would provide additional protection for non-motorized trails and green areas of Whitehorse, as well as reduce the disturbance to wildlife, non-motorized users, and residential neighbourhoods. It would also reduce the confusion (as to meaning) that is often apparent when the term “non-motorized trail” is used.
It would also reduce the time and money spent on opening the Snowmobile Bylaw each time a “truly” non-motorized trail (summer and winter) was designated, as currently the bylaw has to be amended to add the trail to its Schedule “E” or Schedule “C”. However, it must be admitted that the designation of a truly non-motorized trail is a rare event in the City of Whitehorse.
The City could also save time and money by combining the ATV and Snowmobile Bylaw into an Off Road Vehicle (ORV) bylaw, as with the suggested amendment to the Snowmobile Bylaw there would be little to differentiate between the two. Once the bylaw was amended then motorized users would know that the only trails they could use would be those illustrated on a motorized trail map provided in the map section of the City’s website.
Please note that the 2007 Trail Plan’s intent was to provide motorized users routes that would allow them access to “out and away”trails that would lead them out of the urban area and on to suitable backcountry trails. Those routes have been provided and are part of a motorized network of Whitehorse trails that in 2011 was estimated to be some 400 km in length. (See https://hillcrestcommunity.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/letter-to-hca-residents.pdf.)
The failure of the new Trail Plan to recommend amending the Snowmobile Bylaw as suggested would negate its value in enhancing the protection of a truly non-motorized multiple-use trail system.
ATWA’s initial submission concerning the 2007 Trail Plan rewrite can be found on our website under “Issues”. (See https://www.activetwa.org.)
Keith Lay (Active Trails Whitehorse Association)
www.activetwa.org
[email protected]
Letter #3:
The City of Whitehorse’s new Trail Plan should acknowledge the fact that when we build trails we may negatively impact the natural environment. However, if developed correctly a new trail can actually improve and protect natural areas and increase the public’s appreciation of those areas.
It should be recognized that new city trails are not built of necessity, but mainly out of a desire to satisfy our recreational pursuits. We believe most residents want the natural environment protected. The world is not going to end because a proposed trail is not developed.
According to both the ATV and Snowmobile bylaws Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs) comprise areas that “have high wildlife values and/or high environmental sensitivity, where protection of natural areas, wildlife habitat, and ecological values is ensured. ”
These same bylaws prohibit ATV and snowmobile operators from entering areas “designated as environmentally sensitive.” However, it should be recognized that non-motorized trail use could also negatively impact ESAs.
ESAs deserve a high level of protection and we would like to see this reflected in the new Trail Plan. At present, one sometimes gets the impression that the city views ESAs as obstacles to the trail planning process. At times there appears to be a major disconnect between city administrators involved in trail planning and those involved in park or area planning as it pertains to ESAs.
The new Trail Plan should recognize that a properly designed trail system must protect ESAs and the green spaces that accommodate trails. Trails should provide opportunities for users (particularly walkers and hikers) to obtain both knowledge and appreciation of our natural environment. If we degrade that natural environment when developing new trails, there will be far less for users to appreciate. Environmental protection of the highest order should be one of the “Guiding Principles” of the new Trail Plan.
The Official Community Plan (OCP) that is currently undergoing review says, “Proposed development or activities that may impact the ecology of [ESAs] shall be examined through comprehensive planning processes,” although unfortunately it does not clarify what these “comprehensive planning processes” involve. Certainly, they should ensure that decisions made concerning ESAs that will be impacted by trail development are based on the recommendations of qualified people.
It would also be helpful if the city’s website would provide a “direct” reference to a map of the ESAs. At present this map is found following page 95 of the OCP, and is labelled “Green Space Network Plan”. (See https://www.whitehorse.ca/home/showdocument?id=728.)
We would do well to follow the City of Toronto’s direction and adopt London, Ontario’s mandate regarding trails in ESAs which is as follows:
The primary reason for trail development in ESAs is to direct intensive activities away from sensitive natural areas while providing passive [non-motorized] recreation opportunities and promoting ecological awareness;
The development of all trails and structures will be contingent upon the environmental sensitivity of the area, and
The number and magnitude of trails within an ESA will be minimized. (See City of Toronto Natural Environment Trail Strategy, p. 22-23)
Keith Lay (Active Trails Whitehorse Association)
http://www.activetwa.org
[email protected]
Letter #4:
The following letter was published by the Whitehorse Star on July 17, 2020 under the title "A path to simplifying trail designations."
The new City of Whitehorse Trail Plan should include a new trail designation system to replace the very confusing one used in the current plan (2007 Trail Plan p. 24-26). The city has added to this confusion by continually misusing the term “motorized multiple use trail” (MMU trail) and the term “non-motorized multiple use trail”, as defined in the current Trail Plan.
According to the 2007 Trail Plan, MMU trails “only” accommodate motorized recreational vehicles while non-motorized multiple use trails “only” accommodate non-motorized use.
However, in Whitehorse, most MMU trails are open to non-motorized use, and most non-motorized multiple use trails are open to snowmobile use.There is no definition within the current Trail Plan for a trail that allows for both motorized and non-motorized use.The Official Community Plan (OCP) gives the title “multi-use” to such trails, and there are a few paved trails in the city that are actually signed as such. Unfortunately, this term has become so misused that it should be replaced.Other jurisdictions use the term “mixed-use” when referring to trails that accommodate both motorized and non-motorized users, a term that the new Trail Plan would be wise to adopt.
As a result of the continued misuse of trail designation terms found within the current Trail Plan, approved city neighbourhood trail plan maps are confusing and misleading.
For example, the Porter Creek, Takhini, Whistle Bend, Range Point Trail Plan has a legend on its trail map in which several categories of trails are listed.They are: Singletrack Trails, Paved Trails, Non motorized Multi-Use routes, and Motorized Multi-Use routes. (See https://www.whitehorse.ca/departments/parks-and-community-development/trails-/trail-consultation/north.)
The Snowmobile Bylaw allows snowmobile use of most non-motorized multiple use trails, so the legend needs to take this into account by clarifying whether the plan’s non-motorized multiple use trails are truly non-motorized (summer and winter), or just in the summer.
Similarly, clarity is needed as to whether the plan’s motorized multiple use trails are actually “multi-use” trails, which, according to the OCP, combines both non-motorized and motorized users, or are “only” open to “motorized” use as the current Trail Plan states.
According to the Trail Maintenance Policy, Singletrack Trails are off-limits to all motorized vehicles, so that should be indicated beside the term in the legend. (It should also be mentioned in the current Snowmobile Bylaw.)
There also needs to be clarification as to which “paved” trails listed in the neighbourhood plan are motorized (and at what time of the year), and which are off-limits to motorized use in both summer and winter.
Just to add to the confusion, the map of the trail plan in question is still entitled “DRAFT”, although the neighbourhood plan was passed by city council in 2017.
The city should refer to the Alberta Recreation Corridor And Trails Classification document to see how a trails designation system can be designed.
We encourage those preparing the draft Trail Plan to adopt (with permission) all appropriate sections of this classification system.
(See http://www.albertatrailnet.com/downloads/Rec Corridors Trail Classification Manual.pdf).
Keith Lay
Active Trails
Whitehorse Association
Whitehorse
Letter #5:
The following letter was published by the Whitehorse Star on July 24, 2020 under the title "Trail information is confusing and outdated."
In order to ensure an equitable trail system for all users, the city needs to have an accurate idea of the size and use of its existing trail system.
The 2007 Trail Plan says that we have “an estimated 150 km of existing trails of City-wide significance and at least 700 km of local and neighbourhood trails . . .” (2007 Trail Plan Executive Summary).
It then says we have “approximately 150 km of designated motorized multiple use trails, and more than 700 km of designated and default non-motorized multiple use trails” (2007 Trail Plan, p. 25).
It also says “the Whitehorse trail system is estimated to total over 850 km, minimum” (p. 29).
This information is confusing and outdated. It gives one the mistaken impression that there are a huge number of non-motorized multiple-use trails as opposed to motorized trails.
According to a Hillcrest Community Association report, the city’s 150 km of motorized trails had grown to 400 km by 2011.The report indicated that the 400 km figure was obtained from the city. (See https://hillcrestcommunity.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/letter-to-hca-residents.pdf.)
Since 2011, a number of neighbourhood trail plans have been completed in which a few non-motorized multiple-use trails have been designated along with a number of motorized trails that must be added to the 400 km figure.
There are two more neighbourhood trail plans in the works, which will undoubtedly increase the number of motorized trails.
“Default” non-motorized trails must also be added to the motorized trail total as they are open to motorized snowmobile use in winter and, as a result, cannot be considered as “truly” non-motorized trails, something that needs to be rectified by amending the Snowmobile Bylaw.
We also have 29 km of paved multi-use pathways in Whitehorse, many of which were paid for by federal gas tax funds.The latter are considered active transportation trails, although strangely enough, such trails can be open to motorized use if the city so decides.Unfortunately, many of these trails have not been formally designated as non-motorized (summer and winter), and this leads to confusion and misuse.
The new trail plan should specifically address these gas tax-funded, paved active transportation trails and recommend that the city clarify their use by formal designation.
New trail construction since 2007 has also likely added to the total of both non-motorized and motorized trails.
One would think that the city has provided more than enough “out and away” trails to allow motorized users to access “the larger hinterland, where they will not be a nuisance to non-motorized users,” and “allow them the opportunity to recreate (away from) built-up areas.” (Source: Official Community Plan, p. 74, and 2007 Trail Plan, p. 23.)
The new trail plan should provide up-to-date figures concerning the current size and use of our trail system.
Knowing the length of both our motorized trail network and our “truly” non-motorized (summer and winter) trail network may help the city and the public make more informed and equitable decisions as regards our trail network.
Keith Lay
Active Trails
Whitehorse Association
Whitehorse
Letter #6:
The following letter was published by the Whitehorse Star on August 7, 2020 under the title "City's approach to trails: unfair, illogical."
The 2007 Trail Plan states that due to limited resources, “many recreational facilities – including trails – must accommodate multiple uses, and users” (p. 24). City administration has said “shared use is always the most cost-effective and inclusive way forward.” (See https://www.whitehorsestar.com/News/support-overwhelming-for-pedestrian-only-bridge).
Yet, the National Trails Coalition (NTC) “Trail Study” states that “Shared use trails are the most expensive to build because they are usually wider in order to accommodate multiple trail uses.” (See http://www.ntc-canada.ca/pdf/NTC-Canadian-Trails-Study.pdf p. 21)
City administrators fail to clarify that the 2007 Trail Plan recognizes “two” types of shared use trails: non-motorized multiple use trails and motorized multiple use trails.
As the “Trail Study” indicates, “motorized” shared use trails are going to be far more expensive to build and maintain, as they have to accommodate the widest off-road vehicles (ORVs) permitted. They also require better sight lines and must be longer to satisfy the recreational needs of motorized users. Bridges have to be of appropriate width and strength to accommodate ORVs. Once built, maintenance has to be done by the city, or by trail stewards through an agreement with the city.
If you add non-motorized users to the mix and create a “multi-use” or “mixed use” trail, additional costs will accrue, as extra measures have to be taken to ensure the safety of both user groups.
In contrast, the NTC document says, “Hiking trails are the least expensive to build because they are rather narrow. They can follow geographic contours and go around major obstacles” (p. 21).
As “90% of Yukoners use local walking trails” for active forms of recreation and transportation, one can argue that these inexpensive trails provide the “biggest bang for the buck” and represent the most “cost-effective and inclusive way forward.”
(See http://www.community.gov.yk.ca/pdf/RYALSFINALforPrinting-Dec2012.pdf p. 9)
Why does the city concentrate its efforts on designating motorized trails when they are the most expensive to build and maintain? And why does it do so despite the fact that it has already established numerous “out and away” routes that allow motorized users the ability to access areas beyond city boundaries?
And, as a Klondike Snowmobile Association (KSA) survey suggests, its members seem more interested in activities that either take them quickly out of the city, or in events that are held entirely “outside” of Whitehorse. (See http://ksa.yk.ca/wp-content/uploads/ 2018/09/KSA-Fall_2018.pdf (p.1)
The KSA has also said that “Many Whitehorse-based sledders rarely ride within city limits.”
(See http://ksa.yk.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/KSA-Spring-2014.pdfp.2). One questions the need for more motorized trails of any type.
The city’s Official Community Plan (OCP) supports the concept of separate trails for non-motorized and motorized trail users “where feasible” (OCP 18.5.1).
Whitehorse residents, who in city surveys and during neighbourhood trail planning exercises have requested that non-motorized and motorized trail users be separated, support this concept. (See https://www.activetwa.org/2007-trail-plan-rewrite.html refer to Appendix A.)
Yet the city continues to designate mainly motorized “mixed-use” trails via the neighbourhood trail task force process. That is hardly a balanced, fair, cost-effective, or logical approach, and is one that does not reflect actual trail use or residents’ preferences. The new Trail Plan should address these concerns.
Keith Lay
Active Trails
Whitehorse Association
Whitehorse