Access Gates Opening Pilot Submission #1: (See https://www.engagewhitehorse.ca/access-gates-opening-pilot.) This is the first of two associate submissions on this subject. The second will be attached when sent to city administration and Mayor & Council and will follow the first submission below.
Comments and Questions (August 16, 2022): This document was submitted to the city's Parks Department by Keith Lay as an associate of Active Trails Whitehorse Association, but is not intended to represent the opinion of all our associates.
It is suggested that if you have your own personal opinions or observations with regard to this pilot project that you submit them to [email protected] with copies to [email protected], [email protected], and to [email protected].
A) The “Background” information states that “throughout 2021-2022, the City has heard increased concerns from multi-use pathway users, trail user groups and organizations, and the broader community about the accessibility, effectiveness, necessity, and safety of access gates to non-motorized multi-use pathways.”
In order for citizens to believe the above statement it would need to provide evidence to support such claims. Unfortunately, the names of trail user groups and organizations that have expressed these concerns have not been provided.
Is the City prepared to release this information?
As well, no records are provided that would tell us how many multi-use pathway users have made complaints along with the respective dates of those complaints.
Is the City prepared to provide this information?
And, what does the City mean when it suggests the “broader community” has expressed concerns?
The failure to provide specific information makes one question the validity of the initial statement. (See first paragraph.)
What department of the City initiated this pilot project and who gave permission for it to be undertaken?
The group with which I am associated (Active Trails Whitehorse Association) has tried for years to get the City to do the following:
a) better enforce bylaws concerning motorized vehicles (ATVS and snowmobiles); b) install appropriate signage on non-motorized multiple use routes; c) repair damage to existing barriers; d) improve the existing barriers to make them more effective; e) amend the Snowmobile Bylaw to ensure that snowmobiles are prohibited from so-called non-motorized multiple-use trails; and ensure that more education on the proper and legal use of ATVs, snowmobiles, and other off-road vehicles is provided to operators.
On most occasions our “complaints” have fallen on deaf ears.
B) The “Background” information quotes the BC Active Transportation Design Guide – Section E1 which says, “Emerging research on access control for active transportation suggests that access control (gates, bollards, etc.) should be used sparingly unless deemed absolutely necessary.”
One expects that this “emerging research” was conducted on active transportation trails that were only open to non-motorized users and in areas where ATV and snowmobile use is much less likely to be of concern.
In other words, if the “emerging research” was not done in communities such as Whitehorse where ATVs and snow machines are allowed to operate within City limits (outside of the downtown core), and where paved pathways are either legally or illegally used by such vehicles, then it has little relevance to the issue.
In fact, the BC Active Transportation Design guide-Section E.2 Multi-Use Pathways E12 actually admits that this is the case as it says, “In some communities, multi-use pathways may also be used by motorized vehicles such as all-terrain vehicles (ATVs), utility-terrain vehicles (UTVs), off-road motorcycles, and snowmobiles. As the intent of this guide is to focus on active modes, design guidance for multi-use pathways that facilitate motorized vehicles is not included in the Design Guide.”
This pilot project seems to be mainly based on “emerging research” that is applicable only to communities that do not have to deal with either the legal or illegal use of so-called active transportation paved trails by Off Road Vehicles (ORVs) such as ATVs and snowmobiles.
Here in Whitehorse barriers are an unfortunate necessity on trails that are supposed to be non-motorized either in summer or in both summer and winter.
The City’s failure to amend the Snowmobile Bylaw to restrict snowmobile use to motorized multiple-use trails, and by doing so to honour the intent of the 2020 Trail Plan, and its failure to actively enforce the bylaws associated with ATV and snowmobile use in the City, have only added to the necessity of such barriers.
As such, the City should drop this time-consuming and costly Access Gates Opening Pilot exercise and get on with making changes that actually have a chance of negating the necessity of employing numerous access gates in the future.
For the City to abrogate its responsibility to both enforce and amend out-dated applicable bylaws, and to carry out the intent of applicable initiatives found in various plans and policies dealing with ORV use within City boundaries, is simply irresponsible.
C) Unfortunately, the impression one gets after reading all the “Background” material is that the City has already determined what it is going to do regardless of input, and it does not take much imagination to know what that action will be.
The City has already concluded that “The access gates opening pilot is anticipated to improve transportation accessibility, connectivity, equity, mobility, safety, and sustainability.” Yet, the pilot project is supposed to determine whether or not that will be the case.
D) The provided material says that over the course of two months (June and July) the City “will install enhanced signage and prepare communications materials to clearly communicate permitted and non-permitted trail uses before [carrying out] phase 1 of the pilot.”
Over two days (August 4 and 5th) I visited all ten access gate locations mentioned in the material. None of these locations had “enhanced signage.” (Of course, no explanation is given as to what qualifies as “enhanced signage,” but there certainly was no new signage of any type at the locations.)
I am also not aware of any “communications materials” being provided the public that would “communicate permitted and non-permitted trail uses.”
Conclusion: Pilot Preparation was not completed by the end of July, which puts all the timelines mentioned in the provided material at risk.
Pilot – Phase 1 is to be carried out during the summer of 2022. Apparently, “all candidate access gates during this time period . . . will remain open.”
As of August 4/5 only two of the ten access gates were open: the Airport Trail gate and the Millennium Trail gate, although the left side of the gate at Normandy Road (North Side) was broken and easily moved, as was the left side of the gate on Rhine Way. The barrier located at McIntyre Creek near the disc golf course has been vandalized and both poles can be easily moved aside, so I expect one could say that it is open.
When are these two gates going to be fixed in order to carry out their stated purpose?
The Airport Trail gate may have been open due to all the activity that has been going on re: the slide and studies required for the possible re-routing of the trail due to runway expansion.
In any case, even if the gate were closed it is easy for users to get by including those using wheelchairs. (It would be nice if the City would clean up the graffiti found on the rocks and the signage at the trailhead. It does not leave a good impression for visitors to our community.)
One would think that such vandalism would not be rewarded, but this is exactly what happens if the City does not repair the damage when it is reported.
The City should also take steps to improve the barriers in order to make it more difficult for those who try to destroy them, not take them down or open them up.
Of course, such damage also tells us that we have people in our community who do not respect our trails and their permitted uses.Taking barriers down will only encourage such people to further disrespect those permitted uses and by doing so put non-motorized users at risk.
It appears that Phase 1 of this pilot project has not been initiated and, as summer ends on August 31st, it can no longer be initiated as the gates in question were supposed to be open for the entire summer.
It is obvious that this pilot project is done for this year due to the failure to complete both the Pilot Preparation and Phase 1 of the Timeline within the allotted time frames.
It is impossible for the City to proceed to proceed to a Preliminary Review of Findings as such findings are premised on the completion of the Pilot Preparation and Phase 1 of the Timeline, both of which have yet to be done.
When will the City announce that this pilot project will be discontinued at least for this year? (Frankly, it should be discontinued permanently.)
I also question how the City was going to get feedback from citizens. Few people report violations by ATV or snowmobile operators, as it is often impossible to identify the riders. And, even if a bylaw officer is able to respond immediately to a complaint the ATV or snowmobile operator will be long gone.
Even if all the gates in question had been open for the entire summer and this resulted in more illegal ATV use, few will complain. So the City will assume that all is well and it can keep the gates open on a permanent basis.
E) Accessibility concerns: As mentioned I have visited each of the access gate locations listed. I have also photographed the existing barriers.
There is only one barrier that (in the summer) would present difficulties to someone in a wheelchair: Hillcrest Drive at the bottom of Granger connector trail.
Has the City actually received a complaint from any person using a wheelchair about this situation?
As mentioned previously, even the Airport Trail gate (if closed) would present no problem to someone in a wheelchair as there is plenty of open space on one side of the gate to allow access.
The barriers with a pole located on each side of the trail and bars extending out towards the middle are wide enough and high enough to permit wheelchair access. There would be no need to use any existing side trails around the poles. Eight of the ten access gates mentioned in the provided material are of this type.
As mentioned, both of the pole barriers at the McIntyre Creek location can swing open, as they have been vandalized. I have been trying to get the City to fix this barrier for the last year. However, although I brought this to the attention of Meagan Wilson, who was at the time the City’s Trail Coordinator, the barrier remains in its current vandalized state. (See email dated August 18/2021 immediately below.)
August 18/2021
Hi Meagan,
Just wondering when the barrier mentioned in my July 9 email will be functional again.
"Today (July 9) the other post on the gate that you recently repaired (only to have one its connections broken) was found vandalized. I did not notice it broken yesterday when I ran by. Now both bars can swing open.”
As I suggested in that email, the only solution (at this location) appears to be the use of [four or] five large stones: two placed between the two posts, and [one or] two placed in a triangle shape in front and/or behind the middle of the space between the two posts. They would be placed in such a way to allow those with baby buggies to get through, but ATVs and snow machines could not. As well, the paved trail should be signed as being off-limits to both snowmobiles and ATVs (as should all gas-tax funded active transportation paved trails that have not been designated by the City as MMU).
(Please note the suggestions for signage and for improvement of the barrier. I now believe that three large rocks placed in a triangle shape between the two posts would prevent motorized access to the paved trail and to the dirt trail that eventually leads to Takhini.)
Is the City going to fix this barrier before winter, or are we going to be told that the trail crew is too busy to do the work, or its not on its agenda for attention this summer, or the trail crew has ended its operations for the summer of 2022?
I use this area on a regular basis and I want to see this barrier fixed, and not removed! Various types of motor vehicles are accessing the area, which is a danger to other users of the paved trail and impacting the non-paved trails in the area, which I use to run on.
It is ridiculous to conduct a pilot project at ten barrier locations when three of those barriers have been vandalized and, as a result of the damage have not been in operation for some time.
As mentioned, it is now a year since the McIntyre Creek barrier has been operational. One wonders how long the other two have been out of operation.
Is the reason these barriers have not been repaired have anything to do with the fact that these three “locations” were chosen to be part of this pilot project?
Please note the following:
At the May 16, 2022 meeting of the city's Public Health and Safety Committee, the following concerns were brought up under New Business.
“Councillor Cameron noted that there are significant problems with damage being done to trails in McIntyre Creek and around the end of Pine Street, and requested an update on how the City is working to control the excessive activities on trails around McIntyre Creek.
Administration confirmed that Bylaw is conducting foot patrols and officers are working modified shifts on ATVs. Administration also noted that they have not reached out to the RCMP, but a new motorized trail map is being released to provide public education on requirements for valid driver’s licenses, license plates, insurance, and “safe ATV” cards; signage will also be specifically posted at the top of Pine Street.”
As the above material suggests, in McIntyre Creek Regional Park there are serious issues with motorized vehicles of all types, and opening up access gates (even for this pilot project) is going to send a message to irresponsible motorized users that the City has given up on enforcement.
The “Background” information on accessibility seems primarily focused on problems related to trail users having difficulty using side trails around barriers. However, as mentioned previously only one of the ten barriers involved in the current pilot project would present difficulties for any user including those in wheelchairs, a situation that could be easily rectified.
Conclusion: There are no access problems for summer users at nine of the ten locations, as in these locations there is no need for users to make use of side trails. There is an easy fix to the one barrier that may present problems.
Conclusion: Access problems for non-motorized winter users at nine of the ten barrier locations are not related to side trails, as in those locations users do not have to use side trails.
Winter access problems for our paved active transportation trails relate to snow clearing operations. Some trails are groomed, but not cleared. As a result, in the spring these trails turn into ice rinks and make their use dangerous.
Unless the City clears our paved trails down to the pavement, users will continue to have “access” problems not just at barriers, but on the entire paved trail system. However, I recognize that to clear all active transportation paved trails in the winter with City equipment would be extremely costly.
F) Effectiveness: I have just demonstrated that nine of the ten barriers up for study in this pilot project present no barrier to non-motorized trail users (including those in wheelchairs) in summer. In winter it is the snow that causes problems, not the barriers.
Of course, there is “Skepticism regarding perceived versus actual effectiveness of access gates in discouraging motorized vehicle access.”
How can gates be effective if the City does not repair them when they are vandalized? If three of the ten barriers in this study are out of operation, one wonders how many others are in a similar state throughout our city.
Gates are only one tool in preventing motorized vehicle access to our paved trails. No one should believe that barriers alone are going to solve the problem of illegal motorized access to our paved trails. However, removing them will send the wrong message to those who do not respect our trail system.
The City needs to amend the Snowmobile Bylaw to align with the ATV Bylaw and require snowmobile operators to stay on designated motorized multiple-use trails.
More public education is necessary concerning the legal use of ATVs and snowmobiles in the City of Whitehorse. This has to be done on a regular basis, not just after a councillor raises the issue before City Council.
We need better signage on our existing trails indicating their intended use.
And, we need more bylaw officers.
G) Necessity: The “Necessity” points in the material are just a repeat of the “Effectiveness” points, which I have addressed above.
H) Safety: Safety issues related to the “placement and design of access gates” are offset with the greater safety issues that would accrue to non-motorized users should barriers be removed.
Does the City have any specific examples of non-motorized users who have been injured as a result of the “placement and design of access gates?”
Unfortunately, in a city such as ours where the use of recreational snowmachines and ATVs is permitted, barriers to prevent motorized use of non-motorized trails are a necessity.
To repeat what I have said before, the City should drop this time-consuming and costly Access Gates Opening Pilot exercise and get on with making changes that actually have a chance of negating the necessity of employing numerous access gates in the future.
Keith Lay (ATWA associate/August 16, 2022)
Second submission: January 23, 2023
Comments and Suggestions with regard to the Access Gates Opening Pilot Project
This document was submitted to the city's Parks Department by Keith Lay as an associate of Active Trails Whitehorse Association, but is not intended to represent the opinion of all our associates.
It is suggested that if you have your own personal opinions or observations with regard to this pilot project that you submit them to [email protected] with copies to [email protected], [email protected], and to [email protected].
Comments and Suggestions with regard to the Access Gates Opening Pilot Project
According to the information provided, "the purpose of this pilot initiative" is to do the following:
Apparently, the initial project will deal with nine locations. Each of these is featured in the digital slideshow that can be accessed at the following site: See https://www.activetwa.org/photos.html. Scroll down to the second to last photo for a slideshow presentation. Move one photo at a time.
The proposed pilot initiative includes the following:
Concerns and comments with regard to this pilot project:
Both the Pilot Preparation and the Pilot itself have not been completed in the suggested timeline as intended, so there can be no effective Review of Findings in the spring of 2023 or Reporting and Sharing Information with the Public in the summer of 2023.
As well, according to Pilot Update #1-Sign Installation, the city is supposed to officially launch the project when informative signage is placed at the nine locations. However, as of January 12/2023, only three of the nine locations have informative signage installed: Airport Trail, Elijah Smith Elementary School, Sunset Drive North and Park Lane.
It is doubtful that many citizens are even aware of the project, but as it has apparently not been “officially launched,” then this is to be expected. ATWA has informed its associates of the project and continues to update its progress.
Unfortunately, it appears that this project is too far behind schedule to accomplish the allotted task in accordance with the current timeline. See Timeline at https://www.engagewhitehorse.ca/access-gates-opening-pilot.
It is suggested that if this pilot project is to be of any value, that when the city does have all the
informative signage placed at all nine locations, and all the required infrastructure, funds, and staff are in place to complete the project within a (new) specific timeframe then, and only then, should it formally announce the start of the pilot project. Any results obtained under the present circumstances would be suspect as to value.
I would also suggest that interviews of users at the actual location of these access gates, in both summer and winter might be of benefit. The weekend would probably be the best time for such interviews.
In the information provided about this project it was stated that “Throughout 2021-2022, the City has heard increased concerns from multi-use pathway users . . .” Unfortunately, one of the concerns it fails to mention is how difficult it is to get the city to respond quickly with regard to the repair of damaged barriers. Obviously, barriers cannot work if they are left in a state of disrepair.
And, it should be noted that the very fact that barriers are vandalized suggests their necessity, as it indicates the need for the city to protect trails from those who attempt to use them in violation of the rules.
Barriers can be very effective if designed properly and maintained on a regular basis. However, it must be acknowledged that there are places where barriers simply cannot work due (in part) to the nature of the terrain.
Obviously, it would be wonderful if no barriers were necessary on city trails whether paved or non-paved. Unfortunately, this is never going to be the case unless all motorized recreational use of off-road vehicles such as ATVs, dirt bikes, and snowmobiles is banned in our city. And, considering the fact that many still consider Whitehorse to be a frontier community, that is not going to happen any time soon.
Often the problem with barriers is that they are not built for the purpose intended: to prevent motorized use, but to permit all others (including those with applicable disabilities) ease of access.
Frankly, the city puts much money into the building of barriers on both paved and unpaved trails, when the placing of large rocks in appropriate positions may do much to curtail illegal use.
If placed properly these would allow those in wheel chairs, or those pushing various types of baby strollers to pass through, but not most motorized vehicles. Suggestions to the city provided by ATWA associates on how this might be done have been ignored.
Certainly, every effort should be made to try and avoid the use of any kind of barrier. In other words, citizens should be made aware of the existing rules of use that pertain not only to paved pathways, but also to non-paved trails. Proper signage should be placed on the trail in question illustrating uses that are not permitted. Unfortunately, Bylaw Services may have to be involved to ensure compliance. If, when all these avenues have been tried and have failed to produce the desired results, then the use of barriers may have to be considered.
It would be beneficial if the introduction to this project clearly indicated the problem(s) that people with disabilities experience when attempting to use the city’s paved trails in both summer and winter.
In other words, are we talking only about those who require wheel chair use of paved trails, or are we concerned about those with other disabilities that present other types of difficulties when using paved trails? In other words, the elimination of barriers may not entirely address the issues faced by those that have disabilities other than mobility concerns.
Winter use of paved trails is made more difficult because of the weather conditions we experience in our part of the world. Unless all our paved trails are ploughed down to the pavement, which would be a very costly exercise, then difficulties will arise for at least some users. The elimination of barriers will do little to enhance use under winter conditions.
And, it must be realized, that there are users who like paved trails to be snow-covered, as they would then be able to use snowshoes, kick sleds, or skis on the trails.
Snow-covered paved trails should not present much of a problem to those using fat bikes, as they are designed to provide traction on snow and ice.
Some runners enjoy running in the snow, as it acts as a cushion and helps to prevent impact injuries. Of course, the use of running shoes with spikes enhances the experience by providing greater traction and increased safety.
Barriers should not present problems for cyclists who are responsible riders. Yes, there may be times where one must dismount and walk the bike around barriers, but that is a small cost to pay to ensure that the paved trail is more protected from illegal motorized use. It should be noted that sometimes barriers are used to reduce the speed of cyclists on paths that are used by a variety of non-motorized users.
The association to which I belong has received a number of complaints surrounding the use of bicycles on the Millennium Trail. Anything that can be done to slow cyclists down on that trail and improve safety for walkers would be appreciated, and that may require more traffic calming devices including barriers.
Ignorance of the rules pertaining to the permitted use of the city’s paved trails is one of the factor’s that leads to the necessity of building trail barriers. It is the responsibility of the city to ensure that every effort is made to educate the public about permitted and non-permitted use of the city’s paved and non-paved trails. There are numerous platforms available for the inexpensive dispersal of information, of which the city could make use, in order to get the message out.
Improper signage on the city’s paved trails leads to improper use. As will be pointed out later in this document, only one type of sign is needed: one that clearly identifies the types of motorized vehicles that are not permitted on these trails.
I am told by Stefan Baer from the City’s Engineering services that “Engineering controls the classification and design of paved pathways in the City whereas Parks is responsible for non-paved trails throughout the City so Parks might have different standards and rationale.”
I was unaware of this distinction. Hopefully, both departments can work together to come up with signage that is standard for both types of trails and eliminate the confusing myriad of signs that we have now.
It seems that for the purpose of this project, the city is only interested in non-motorized multi-use PAVED pathways, and that should be made clear in the explanatory material. The material should then inform citizens as to what the permitted use is of such trails.
It is my understanding that if a paved trail is funded (via the territorial government) by what was called (up to June 29, 2021) the Gas Tax Fund and now called the Canada Community-Building Fund (CCBF), then it would be deemed non-motorized throughout the entire year, as its intended use (under the funding) was for active transportation or recreation.
However, if a municipality wanted to, it could open the paved trail to motorized use as long as that also included non-motorized users. (To me this has always seemed to be ridiculous, as it is at cross-purposes to the original purpose of such paved trails.)
I believe there are two such trails in Whitehorse that have been motorized: the Pine Street Extension paved trail, and the Hamilton Blvd paved trail.
We now have a new fund: Active Transportation Fund Government of Canada (ATFGOC). It is my understanding that this fund is separate and distinct from the federal gas tax fund (now the CCBF). “The Fund will . . . help build new and expanded networks of pathways, bike lanes, trails and pedestrian bridges, as well as support Active Transportation planning and stakeholder engagement activities.”
This funding is available not only for municipal projects in the territories including projects in Indigenous communities, but also for non-profit organizations. (See https://www.infrastructure.gc.ca/trans/active-actif-eng.html.)
As to what the rules are re: permitted use of paved or unpaved trails built using these ATFGOC funds, is something the city should explore and once determined, should pass its findings on to citizens. Hopefully, such active transportation/recreation trails will maintain the non-motorized aspect and eliminate the ability of a municipality to turn them into motorized trails.
Confusion results when we have so many different rules concerning trail use by motorized vehicles. ATVs and Snowmobiles are governed by different bylaws when common sense would suggest that one would suffice.
Two paved trails (Hamilton Blvd and Pine St. Extension) are motorized in winter, but apparently not in summer, yet they are found on the city’s MMU Trails map and, as such, are technically open to ATV/motorcycle use in the summer.
Signage of both of these paved trails suggest that the only motorized use is snowmobile use, yet the 2020 Trail Plan and ATV Bylaw indicate that these trails are open to ATV use for half the year. No wonder motorized users are sometimes confused as to what the rules are concerning use.
There is no sign illustration of what non-motorized uses (except walking) are actually permitted on these two trails, and this lack of information could also lead to some confusion. Again, a sign simply indicating the uses that are not permitted might be more effective. (Note: It is believed that the city does not want to see ATV/motorcycle use of either trail, but that should be made very clear with proper signage.)
An October 26 article in the Yukon News entitled, City of Whitehorse updating snow and ice policy, by Stephanie Waddell suggested that the Elijah Smith paved trail is open to snowmobile use. However, this is news to me, as it is not on the newly created/updated Motorized Trail Map for the City of Whitehorse. (See https://www.whitehorse.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/LatestMMUtrailmapupdatedMa.pdf.) And, as far as I am aware, it has never gone before City Council for designation.
It is my understanding that the trail is a non-motorized multiple use trail both in summer and winter. If funded via Gas Tax Funds, now called the Canada Community-Building Fund (CCBF), then unless formally designated by the city as including motorized users, it is closed to all motorized use as to the funding agreement with the federal/territorial government.
As the Elijah Smith paved trail is one of the trails included in this pilot study, it would be helpful to know the actual status of this trail as far as motorized use is concerned.
At Wednesday’s (January 19) Town Hall meeting in a conversation with Lee Hawkings, who is mentioned in the news article referred to above, it was revealed that apparently snowmobilers have been using the trail, but it is not actually open to snowmobile use. (The slideshow provided makes the assumption that the trail is off-limits to motorized use in both summer and winter.)
The city should produce one document that clearly states the permitted uses of the various paved trails in Whitehorse, as well as the rules related to other non-paved trails in the city.
As mentioned in my previous submission (August 16, 2022) the group with which I am associated (Active Trails Whitehorse Association) has tried for years to get the City of Whitehorse to do the following:
a) better enforce bylaws concerning motorized vehicles (ATVs and snowmobiles); b) install appropriate signage on non-motorized multiple use routes; c) repair damage to existing barriers; d) improve the existing barriers to make them more effective; e) amend the Snowmobile Bylaw to ensure that snowmobiles are prohibited from so-called non-motorized multiple-use trails; and ensure that more education on the proper and legal use of ATVs, snowmobiles, and other off-road vehicles is provided to operators.
On most occasions ATWA’s “complaints” have fallen on deaf ears.
If the City of Whitehorse really wanted to bring clarity and balance to our trail system, end the confusion associated with so-called non-motorized trails, improve safety and trail protection, and reduce costs, then it would amend the Snowmobile Bylaw to reflect the ATV Bylaw, and prohibit snowmobile operators from using non-motorized multiple use trails, greenbelts, and open spaces, and restrict snowmobile operation to motorized multiple use trails that are designed and designated for their use, and which are featured on the city’s (ever-expanding) motorized multi-use trails map.
As mentioned, with the exception of the paved Hamilton Blvd and Pine Street Extension paved trails, all other paved trails are closed to motorized use in both summer and winter, and should be signed appropriately. (This includes the paved Whistle Bend Perimeter Trail in Whistle Bend, which I believe was a territorial government project. It is currently signed correctly.) In other words, ATVs, motorcycles/dirt bikes, snowmobiles, and motor vehicles (cars/trucks) are not permitted.
Due to the confusion surrounding appropriate paved/non-paved trail use in Whitehorse, any signage must be crystal clear as to what uses are not permitted. At present, there appears to be a myriad of signs that the city uses. There is only one that needs to be installed on all paved pathways with the exception of the Hamilton Blvd paved trail, and the Pine Street Extension paved trail. That sign indicates that snowmobiles, ATVs, motorcycles, and cars/trucks are not permitted.
There is no need for the Shared Pathway sign, which is somewhat discriminatory in that it only shows two non-motorized uses (biking and walking).
There is also no need for the sign that indicates no motorcycle/dirt bike use, as the above sign removes that need. Signs are not cheap and anything we can do that reduces costs and yet provides clarity as to trail use should be adopted. (It should also be remembered that the cost of maintaining funded paved trails falls directly on the municipality and is not inexpensive, so it is imperative that the city tries to keep costs down by being more efficient with signage.)
The Report a Motorized Vehicle tool took some time to actually appear on the website. However, although this is a nice attempt to get people to report illegal motorized use at particular locations on paved trails, I have doubts that it will be used to any great degree.
Citizens do not report the illegal use of ATVs or snowmobiles in Whitehorse, as there is little that Bylaw Services can do to address the situation. By the time officers can respond, the vehicle in question is long gone. Those who violate our bylaws are not likely to have licence plates on their machines, so identification is impossible.
Unfortunately, previous experience results in apathy and so the Report a Motorized Vehicle tool may be underutilized, even if people are made aware of its existence with regard to this pilot project.
This brings us to another concern that the elimination of barriers will not solve: the lack of enforcement capability. We do not have enough bylaw officers to effectively carry out enforcement activities on our trails.
A slideshow featuring each of the Access Gates that are supposed to be part of the pilot project is found at the following site: https://www.activetwa.org/photos.html. Scroll down to the second to last photo for a slideshow presentation. Move one photo at a time.
Commentary accompanies each digital photo. I hope you will take the time to view it.
Thank you for providing the opportunity to make these comments and suggestions.
Keith Lay (Associate of Active Trails Whitehorse Association)
January 23, 2023
Comments and Questions (August 16, 2022): This document was submitted to the city's Parks Department by Keith Lay as an associate of Active Trails Whitehorse Association, but is not intended to represent the opinion of all our associates.
It is suggested that if you have your own personal opinions or observations with regard to this pilot project that you submit them to [email protected] with copies to [email protected], [email protected], and to [email protected].
A) The “Background” information states that “throughout 2021-2022, the City has heard increased concerns from multi-use pathway users, trail user groups and organizations, and the broader community about the accessibility, effectiveness, necessity, and safety of access gates to non-motorized multi-use pathways.”
In order for citizens to believe the above statement it would need to provide evidence to support such claims. Unfortunately, the names of trail user groups and organizations that have expressed these concerns have not been provided.
Is the City prepared to release this information?
As well, no records are provided that would tell us how many multi-use pathway users have made complaints along with the respective dates of those complaints.
Is the City prepared to provide this information?
And, what does the City mean when it suggests the “broader community” has expressed concerns?
The failure to provide specific information makes one question the validity of the initial statement. (See first paragraph.)
What department of the City initiated this pilot project and who gave permission for it to be undertaken?
The group with which I am associated (Active Trails Whitehorse Association) has tried for years to get the City to do the following:
a) better enforce bylaws concerning motorized vehicles (ATVS and snowmobiles); b) install appropriate signage on non-motorized multiple use routes; c) repair damage to existing barriers; d) improve the existing barriers to make them more effective; e) amend the Snowmobile Bylaw to ensure that snowmobiles are prohibited from so-called non-motorized multiple-use trails; and ensure that more education on the proper and legal use of ATVs, snowmobiles, and other off-road vehicles is provided to operators.
On most occasions our “complaints” have fallen on deaf ears.
B) The “Background” information quotes the BC Active Transportation Design Guide – Section E1 which says, “Emerging research on access control for active transportation suggests that access control (gates, bollards, etc.) should be used sparingly unless deemed absolutely necessary.”
One expects that this “emerging research” was conducted on active transportation trails that were only open to non-motorized users and in areas where ATV and snowmobile use is much less likely to be of concern.
In other words, if the “emerging research” was not done in communities such as Whitehorse where ATVs and snow machines are allowed to operate within City limits (outside of the downtown core), and where paved pathways are either legally or illegally used by such vehicles, then it has little relevance to the issue.
In fact, the BC Active Transportation Design guide-Section E.2 Multi-Use Pathways E12 actually admits that this is the case as it says, “In some communities, multi-use pathways may also be used by motorized vehicles such as all-terrain vehicles (ATVs), utility-terrain vehicles (UTVs), off-road motorcycles, and snowmobiles. As the intent of this guide is to focus on active modes, design guidance for multi-use pathways that facilitate motorized vehicles is not included in the Design Guide.”
This pilot project seems to be mainly based on “emerging research” that is applicable only to communities that do not have to deal with either the legal or illegal use of so-called active transportation paved trails by Off Road Vehicles (ORVs) such as ATVs and snowmobiles.
Here in Whitehorse barriers are an unfortunate necessity on trails that are supposed to be non-motorized either in summer or in both summer and winter.
The City’s failure to amend the Snowmobile Bylaw to restrict snowmobile use to motorized multiple-use trails, and by doing so to honour the intent of the 2020 Trail Plan, and its failure to actively enforce the bylaws associated with ATV and snowmobile use in the City, have only added to the necessity of such barriers.
As such, the City should drop this time-consuming and costly Access Gates Opening Pilot exercise and get on with making changes that actually have a chance of negating the necessity of employing numerous access gates in the future.
For the City to abrogate its responsibility to both enforce and amend out-dated applicable bylaws, and to carry out the intent of applicable initiatives found in various plans and policies dealing with ORV use within City boundaries, is simply irresponsible.
C) Unfortunately, the impression one gets after reading all the “Background” material is that the City has already determined what it is going to do regardless of input, and it does not take much imagination to know what that action will be.
The City has already concluded that “The access gates opening pilot is anticipated to improve transportation accessibility, connectivity, equity, mobility, safety, and sustainability.” Yet, the pilot project is supposed to determine whether or not that will be the case.
D) The provided material says that over the course of two months (June and July) the City “will install enhanced signage and prepare communications materials to clearly communicate permitted and non-permitted trail uses before [carrying out] phase 1 of the pilot.”
Over two days (August 4 and 5th) I visited all ten access gate locations mentioned in the material. None of these locations had “enhanced signage.” (Of course, no explanation is given as to what qualifies as “enhanced signage,” but there certainly was no new signage of any type at the locations.)
I am also not aware of any “communications materials” being provided the public that would “communicate permitted and non-permitted trail uses.”
Conclusion: Pilot Preparation was not completed by the end of July, which puts all the timelines mentioned in the provided material at risk.
Pilot – Phase 1 is to be carried out during the summer of 2022. Apparently, “all candidate access gates during this time period . . . will remain open.”
As of August 4/5 only two of the ten access gates were open: the Airport Trail gate and the Millennium Trail gate, although the left side of the gate at Normandy Road (North Side) was broken and easily moved, as was the left side of the gate on Rhine Way. The barrier located at McIntyre Creek near the disc golf course has been vandalized and both poles can be easily moved aside, so I expect one could say that it is open.
When are these two gates going to be fixed in order to carry out their stated purpose?
The Airport Trail gate may have been open due to all the activity that has been going on re: the slide and studies required for the possible re-routing of the trail due to runway expansion.
In any case, even if the gate were closed it is easy for users to get by including those using wheelchairs. (It would be nice if the City would clean up the graffiti found on the rocks and the signage at the trailhead. It does not leave a good impression for visitors to our community.)
One would think that such vandalism would not be rewarded, but this is exactly what happens if the City does not repair the damage when it is reported.
The City should also take steps to improve the barriers in order to make it more difficult for those who try to destroy them, not take them down or open them up.
Of course, such damage also tells us that we have people in our community who do not respect our trails and their permitted uses.Taking barriers down will only encourage such people to further disrespect those permitted uses and by doing so put non-motorized users at risk.
It appears that Phase 1 of this pilot project has not been initiated and, as summer ends on August 31st, it can no longer be initiated as the gates in question were supposed to be open for the entire summer.
It is obvious that this pilot project is done for this year due to the failure to complete both the Pilot Preparation and Phase 1 of the Timeline within the allotted time frames.
It is impossible for the City to proceed to proceed to a Preliminary Review of Findings as such findings are premised on the completion of the Pilot Preparation and Phase 1 of the Timeline, both of which have yet to be done.
When will the City announce that this pilot project will be discontinued at least for this year? (Frankly, it should be discontinued permanently.)
I also question how the City was going to get feedback from citizens. Few people report violations by ATV or snowmobile operators, as it is often impossible to identify the riders. And, even if a bylaw officer is able to respond immediately to a complaint the ATV or snowmobile operator will be long gone.
Even if all the gates in question had been open for the entire summer and this resulted in more illegal ATV use, few will complain. So the City will assume that all is well and it can keep the gates open on a permanent basis.
E) Accessibility concerns: As mentioned I have visited each of the access gate locations listed. I have also photographed the existing barriers.
There is only one barrier that (in the summer) would present difficulties to someone in a wheelchair: Hillcrest Drive at the bottom of Granger connector trail.
Has the City actually received a complaint from any person using a wheelchair about this situation?
As mentioned previously, even the Airport Trail gate (if closed) would present no problem to someone in a wheelchair as there is plenty of open space on one side of the gate to allow access.
The barriers with a pole located on each side of the trail and bars extending out towards the middle are wide enough and high enough to permit wheelchair access. There would be no need to use any existing side trails around the poles. Eight of the ten access gates mentioned in the provided material are of this type.
As mentioned, both of the pole barriers at the McIntyre Creek location can swing open, as they have been vandalized. I have been trying to get the City to fix this barrier for the last year. However, although I brought this to the attention of Meagan Wilson, who was at the time the City’s Trail Coordinator, the barrier remains in its current vandalized state. (See email dated August 18/2021 immediately below.)
August 18/2021
Hi Meagan,
Just wondering when the barrier mentioned in my July 9 email will be functional again.
"Today (July 9) the other post on the gate that you recently repaired (only to have one its connections broken) was found vandalized. I did not notice it broken yesterday when I ran by. Now both bars can swing open.”
As I suggested in that email, the only solution (at this location) appears to be the use of [four or] five large stones: two placed between the two posts, and [one or] two placed in a triangle shape in front and/or behind the middle of the space between the two posts. They would be placed in such a way to allow those with baby buggies to get through, but ATVs and snow machines could not. As well, the paved trail should be signed as being off-limits to both snowmobiles and ATVs (as should all gas-tax funded active transportation paved trails that have not been designated by the City as MMU).
(Please note the suggestions for signage and for improvement of the barrier. I now believe that three large rocks placed in a triangle shape between the two posts would prevent motorized access to the paved trail and to the dirt trail that eventually leads to Takhini.)
Is the City going to fix this barrier before winter, or are we going to be told that the trail crew is too busy to do the work, or its not on its agenda for attention this summer, or the trail crew has ended its operations for the summer of 2022?
I use this area on a regular basis and I want to see this barrier fixed, and not removed! Various types of motor vehicles are accessing the area, which is a danger to other users of the paved trail and impacting the non-paved trails in the area, which I use to run on.
It is ridiculous to conduct a pilot project at ten barrier locations when three of those barriers have been vandalized and, as a result of the damage have not been in operation for some time.
As mentioned, it is now a year since the McIntyre Creek barrier has been operational. One wonders how long the other two have been out of operation.
Is the reason these barriers have not been repaired have anything to do with the fact that these three “locations” were chosen to be part of this pilot project?
Please note the following:
At the May 16, 2022 meeting of the city's Public Health and Safety Committee, the following concerns were brought up under New Business.
“Councillor Cameron noted that there are significant problems with damage being done to trails in McIntyre Creek and around the end of Pine Street, and requested an update on how the City is working to control the excessive activities on trails around McIntyre Creek.
Administration confirmed that Bylaw is conducting foot patrols and officers are working modified shifts on ATVs. Administration also noted that they have not reached out to the RCMP, but a new motorized trail map is being released to provide public education on requirements for valid driver’s licenses, license plates, insurance, and “safe ATV” cards; signage will also be specifically posted at the top of Pine Street.”
As the above material suggests, in McIntyre Creek Regional Park there are serious issues with motorized vehicles of all types, and opening up access gates (even for this pilot project) is going to send a message to irresponsible motorized users that the City has given up on enforcement.
The “Background” information on accessibility seems primarily focused on problems related to trail users having difficulty using side trails around barriers. However, as mentioned previously only one of the ten barriers involved in the current pilot project would present difficulties for any user including those in wheelchairs, a situation that could be easily rectified.
Conclusion: There are no access problems for summer users at nine of the ten locations, as in these locations there is no need for users to make use of side trails. There is an easy fix to the one barrier that may present problems.
Conclusion: Access problems for non-motorized winter users at nine of the ten barrier locations are not related to side trails, as in those locations users do not have to use side trails.
Winter access problems for our paved active transportation trails relate to snow clearing operations. Some trails are groomed, but not cleared. As a result, in the spring these trails turn into ice rinks and make their use dangerous.
Unless the City clears our paved trails down to the pavement, users will continue to have “access” problems not just at barriers, but on the entire paved trail system. However, I recognize that to clear all active transportation paved trails in the winter with City equipment would be extremely costly.
F) Effectiveness: I have just demonstrated that nine of the ten barriers up for study in this pilot project present no barrier to non-motorized trail users (including those in wheelchairs) in summer. In winter it is the snow that causes problems, not the barriers.
Of course, there is “Skepticism regarding perceived versus actual effectiveness of access gates in discouraging motorized vehicle access.”
How can gates be effective if the City does not repair them when they are vandalized? If three of the ten barriers in this study are out of operation, one wonders how many others are in a similar state throughout our city.
Gates are only one tool in preventing motorized vehicle access to our paved trails. No one should believe that barriers alone are going to solve the problem of illegal motorized access to our paved trails. However, removing them will send the wrong message to those who do not respect our trail system.
The City needs to amend the Snowmobile Bylaw to align with the ATV Bylaw and require snowmobile operators to stay on designated motorized multiple-use trails.
More public education is necessary concerning the legal use of ATVs and snowmobiles in the City of Whitehorse. This has to be done on a regular basis, not just after a councillor raises the issue before City Council.
We need better signage on our existing trails indicating their intended use.
And, we need more bylaw officers.
G) Necessity: The “Necessity” points in the material are just a repeat of the “Effectiveness” points, which I have addressed above.
H) Safety: Safety issues related to the “placement and design of access gates” are offset with the greater safety issues that would accrue to non-motorized users should barriers be removed.
Does the City have any specific examples of non-motorized users who have been injured as a result of the “placement and design of access gates?”
Unfortunately, in a city such as ours where the use of recreational snowmachines and ATVs is permitted, barriers to prevent motorized use of non-motorized trails are a necessity.
To repeat what I have said before, the City should drop this time-consuming and costly Access Gates Opening Pilot exercise and get on with making changes that actually have a chance of negating the necessity of employing numerous access gates in the future.
Keith Lay (ATWA associate/August 16, 2022)
Second submission: January 23, 2023
Comments and Suggestions with regard to the Access Gates Opening Pilot Project
This document was submitted to the city's Parks Department by Keith Lay as an associate of Active Trails Whitehorse Association, but is not intended to represent the opinion of all our associates.
It is suggested that if you have your own personal opinions or observations with regard to this pilot project that you submit them to [email protected] with copies to [email protected], [email protected], and to [email protected].
Comments and Suggestions with regard to the Access Gates Opening Pilot Project
According to the information provided, "the purpose of this pilot initiative" is to do the following:
- Learn about the actual and perceived effectiveness and necessity of access gates at entrances to non-motorized multi-use pathways.
- Explore ways to improve access, minimize barriers, and improve safety for all non-motorized trail users including active transportation users and persons with disabilities.
- Work together with trail user groups and organizations, and neighbouring communities towards developing access control solutions that encourage intended trail uses while discouraging prohibited trail uses. (See https://www.engagewhitehorse.ca/access-gates-opening-pilot.)
Apparently, the initial project will deal with nine locations. Each of these is featured in the digital slideshow that can be accessed at the following site: See https://www.activetwa.org/photos.html. Scroll down to the second to last photo for a slideshow presentation. Move one photo at a time.
The proposed pilot initiative includes the following:
- Opening of access gates
- Enhanced signage
- Communications and engagement
- Data collection
- Research and analysis
- Development of recommendations
Concerns and comments with regard to this pilot project:
Both the Pilot Preparation and the Pilot itself have not been completed in the suggested timeline as intended, so there can be no effective Review of Findings in the spring of 2023 or Reporting and Sharing Information with the Public in the summer of 2023.
As well, according to Pilot Update #1-Sign Installation, the city is supposed to officially launch the project when informative signage is placed at the nine locations. However, as of January 12/2023, only three of the nine locations have informative signage installed: Airport Trail, Elijah Smith Elementary School, Sunset Drive North and Park Lane.
It is doubtful that many citizens are even aware of the project, but as it has apparently not been “officially launched,” then this is to be expected. ATWA has informed its associates of the project and continues to update its progress.
Unfortunately, it appears that this project is too far behind schedule to accomplish the allotted task in accordance with the current timeline. See Timeline at https://www.engagewhitehorse.ca/access-gates-opening-pilot.
It is suggested that if this pilot project is to be of any value, that when the city does have all the
informative signage placed at all nine locations, and all the required infrastructure, funds, and staff are in place to complete the project within a (new) specific timeframe then, and only then, should it formally announce the start of the pilot project. Any results obtained under the present circumstances would be suspect as to value.
I would also suggest that interviews of users at the actual location of these access gates, in both summer and winter might be of benefit. The weekend would probably be the best time for such interviews.
In the information provided about this project it was stated that “Throughout 2021-2022, the City has heard increased concerns from multi-use pathway users . . .” Unfortunately, one of the concerns it fails to mention is how difficult it is to get the city to respond quickly with regard to the repair of damaged barriers. Obviously, barriers cannot work if they are left in a state of disrepair.
And, it should be noted that the very fact that barriers are vandalized suggests their necessity, as it indicates the need for the city to protect trails from those who attempt to use them in violation of the rules.
Barriers can be very effective if designed properly and maintained on a regular basis. However, it must be acknowledged that there are places where barriers simply cannot work due (in part) to the nature of the terrain.
Obviously, it would be wonderful if no barriers were necessary on city trails whether paved or non-paved. Unfortunately, this is never going to be the case unless all motorized recreational use of off-road vehicles such as ATVs, dirt bikes, and snowmobiles is banned in our city. And, considering the fact that many still consider Whitehorse to be a frontier community, that is not going to happen any time soon.
Often the problem with barriers is that they are not built for the purpose intended: to prevent motorized use, but to permit all others (including those with applicable disabilities) ease of access.
Frankly, the city puts much money into the building of barriers on both paved and unpaved trails, when the placing of large rocks in appropriate positions may do much to curtail illegal use.
If placed properly these would allow those in wheel chairs, or those pushing various types of baby strollers to pass through, but not most motorized vehicles. Suggestions to the city provided by ATWA associates on how this might be done have been ignored.
Certainly, every effort should be made to try and avoid the use of any kind of barrier. In other words, citizens should be made aware of the existing rules of use that pertain not only to paved pathways, but also to non-paved trails. Proper signage should be placed on the trail in question illustrating uses that are not permitted. Unfortunately, Bylaw Services may have to be involved to ensure compliance. If, when all these avenues have been tried and have failed to produce the desired results, then the use of barriers may have to be considered.
It would be beneficial if the introduction to this project clearly indicated the problem(s) that people with disabilities experience when attempting to use the city’s paved trails in both summer and winter.
In other words, are we talking only about those who require wheel chair use of paved trails, or are we concerned about those with other disabilities that present other types of difficulties when using paved trails? In other words, the elimination of barriers may not entirely address the issues faced by those that have disabilities other than mobility concerns.
Winter use of paved trails is made more difficult because of the weather conditions we experience in our part of the world. Unless all our paved trails are ploughed down to the pavement, which would be a very costly exercise, then difficulties will arise for at least some users. The elimination of barriers will do little to enhance use under winter conditions.
And, it must be realized, that there are users who like paved trails to be snow-covered, as they would then be able to use snowshoes, kick sleds, or skis on the trails.
Snow-covered paved trails should not present much of a problem to those using fat bikes, as they are designed to provide traction on snow and ice.
Some runners enjoy running in the snow, as it acts as a cushion and helps to prevent impact injuries. Of course, the use of running shoes with spikes enhances the experience by providing greater traction and increased safety.
Barriers should not present problems for cyclists who are responsible riders. Yes, there may be times where one must dismount and walk the bike around barriers, but that is a small cost to pay to ensure that the paved trail is more protected from illegal motorized use. It should be noted that sometimes barriers are used to reduce the speed of cyclists on paths that are used by a variety of non-motorized users.
The association to which I belong has received a number of complaints surrounding the use of bicycles on the Millennium Trail. Anything that can be done to slow cyclists down on that trail and improve safety for walkers would be appreciated, and that may require more traffic calming devices including barriers.
Ignorance of the rules pertaining to the permitted use of the city’s paved trails is one of the factor’s that leads to the necessity of building trail barriers. It is the responsibility of the city to ensure that every effort is made to educate the public about permitted and non-permitted use of the city’s paved and non-paved trails. There are numerous platforms available for the inexpensive dispersal of information, of which the city could make use, in order to get the message out.
Improper signage on the city’s paved trails leads to improper use. As will be pointed out later in this document, only one type of sign is needed: one that clearly identifies the types of motorized vehicles that are not permitted on these trails.
I am told by Stefan Baer from the City’s Engineering services that “Engineering controls the classification and design of paved pathways in the City whereas Parks is responsible for non-paved trails throughout the City so Parks might have different standards and rationale.”
I was unaware of this distinction. Hopefully, both departments can work together to come up with signage that is standard for both types of trails and eliminate the confusing myriad of signs that we have now.
It seems that for the purpose of this project, the city is only interested in non-motorized multi-use PAVED pathways, and that should be made clear in the explanatory material. The material should then inform citizens as to what the permitted use is of such trails.
It is my understanding that if a paved trail is funded (via the territorial government) by what was called (up to June 29, 2021) the Gas Tax Fund and now called the Canada Community-Building Fund (CCBF), then it would be deemed non-motorized throughout the entire year, as its intended use (under the funding) was for active transportation or recreation.
However, if a municipality wanted to, it could open the paved trail to motorized use as long as that also included non-motorized users. (To me this has always seemed to be ridiculous, as it is at cross-purposes to the original purpose of such paved trails.)
I believe there are two such trails in Whitehorse that have been motorized: the Pine Street Extension paved trail, and the Hamilton Blvd paved trail.
We now have a new fund: Active Transportation Fund Government of Canada (ATFGOC). It is my understanding that this fund is separate and distinct from the federal gas tax fund (now the CCBF). “The Fund will . . . help build new and expanded networks of pathways, bike lanes, trails and pedestrian bridges, as well as support Active Transportation planning and stakeholder engagement activities.”
This funding is available not only for municipal projects in the territories including projects in Indigenous communities, but also for non-profit organizations. (See https://www.infrastructure.gc.ca/trans/active-actif-eng.html.)
As to what the rules are re: permitted use of paved or unpaved trails built using these ATFGOC funds, is something the city should explore and once determined, should pass its findings on to citizens. Hopefully, such active transportation/recreation trails will maintain the non-motorized aspect and eliminate the ability of a municipality to turn them into motorized trails.
Confusion results when we have so many different rules concerning trail use by motorized vehicles. ATVs and Snowmobiles are governed by different bylaws when common sense would suggest that one would suffice.
Two paved trails (Hamilton Blvd and Pine St. Extension) are motorized in winter, but apparently not in summer, yet they are found on the city’s MMU Trails map and, as such, are technically open to ATV/motorcycle use in the summer.
Signage of both of these paved trails suggest that the only motorized use is snowmobile use, yet the 2020 Trail Plan and ATV Bylaw indicate that these trails are open to ATV use for half the year. No wonder motorized users are sometimes confused as to what the rules are concerning use.
There is no sign illustration of what non-motorized uses (except walking) are actually permitted on these two trails, and this lack of information could also lead to some confusion. Again, a sign simply indicating the uses that are not permitted might be more effective. (Note: It is believed that the city does not want to see ATV/motorcycle use of either trail, but that should be made very clear with proper signage.)
An October 26 article in the Yukon News entitled, City of Whitehorse updating snow and ice policy, by Stephanie Waddell suggested that the Elijah Smith paved trail is open to snowmobile use. However, this is news to me, as it is not on the newly created/updated Motorized Trail Map for the City of Whitehorse. (See https://www.whitehorse.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/LatestMMUtrailmapupdatedMa.pdf.) And, as far as I am aware, it has never gone before City Council for designation.
It is my understanding that the trail is a non-motorized multiple use trail both in summer and winter. If funded via Gas Tax Funds, now called the Canada Community-Building Fund (CCBF), then unless formally designated by the city as including motorized users, it is closed to all motorized use as to the funding agreement with the federal/territorial government.
As the Elijah Smith paved trail is one of the trails included in this pilot study, it would be helpful to know the actual status of this trail as far as motorized use is concerned.
At Wednesday’s (January 19) Town Hall meeting in a conversation with Lee Hawkings, who is mentioned in the news article referred to above, it was revealed that apparently snowmobilers have been using the trail, but it is not actually open to snowmobile use. (The slideshow provided makes the assumption that the trail is off-limits to motorized use in both summer and winter.)
The city should produce one document that clearly states the permitted uses of the various paved trails in Whitehorse, as well as the rules related to other non-paved trails in the city.
As mentioned in my previous submission (August 16, 2022) the group with which I am associated (Active Trails Whitehorse Association) has tried for years to get the City of Whitehorse to do the following:
a) better enforce bylaws concerning motorized vehicles (ATVs and snowmobiles); b) install appropriate signage on non-motorized multiple use routes; c) repair damage to existing barriers; d) improve the existing barriers to make them more effective; e) amend the Snowmobile Bylaw to ensure that snowmobiles are prohibited from so-called non-motorized multiple-use trails; and ensure that more education on the proper and legal use of ATVs, snowmobiles, and other off-road vehicles is provided to operators.
On most occasions ATWA’s “complaints” have fallen on deaf ears.
If the City of Whitehorse really wanted to bring clarity and balance to our trail system, end the confusion associated with so-called non-motorized trails, improve safety and trail protection, and reduce costs, then it would amend the Snowmobile Bylaw to reflect the ATV Bylaw, and prohibit snowmobile operators from using non-motorized multiple use trails, greenbelts, and open spaces, and restrict snowmobile operation to motorized multiple use trails that are designed and designated for their use, and which are featured on the city’s (ever-expanding) motorized multi-use trails map.
As mentioned, with the exception of the paved Hamilton Blvd and Pine Street Extension paved trails, all other paved trails are closed to motorized use in both summer and winter, and should be signed appropriately. (This includes the paved Whistle Bend Perimeter Trail in Whistle Bend, which I believe was a territorial government project. It is currently signed correctly.) In other words, ATVs, motorcycles/dirt bikes, snowmobiles, and motor vehicles (cars/trucks) are not permitted.
Due to the confusion surrounding appropriate paved/non-paved trail use in Whitehorse, any signage must be crystal clear as to what uses are not permitted. At present, there appears to be a myriad of signs that the city uses. There is only one that needs to be installed on all paved pathways with the exception of the Hamilton Blvd paved trail, and the Pine Street Extension paved trail. That sign indicates that snowmobiles, ATVs, motorcycles, and cars/trucks are not permitted.
There is no need for the Shared Pathway sign, which is somewhat discriminatory in that it only shows two non-motorized uses (biking and walking).
There is also no need for the sign that indicates no motorcycle/dirt bike use, as the above sign removes that need. Signs are not cheap and anything we can do that reduces costs and yet provides clarity as to trail use should be adopted. (It should also be remembered that the cost of maintaining funded paved trails falls directly on the municipality and is not inexpensive, so it is imperative that the city tries to keep costs down by being more efficient with signage.)
The Report a Motorized Vehicle tool took some time to actually appear on the website. However, although this is a nice attempt to get people to report illegal motorized use at particular locations on paved trails, I have doubts that it will be used to any great degree.
Citizens do not report the illegal use of ATVs or snowmobiles in Whitehorse, as there is little that Bylaw Services can do to address the situation. By the time officers can respond, the vehicle in question is long gone. Those who violate our bylaws are not likely to have licence plates on their machines, so identification is impossible.
Unfortunately, previous experience results in apathy and so the Report a Motorized Vehicle tool may be underutilized, even if people are made aware of its existence with regard to this pilot project.
This brings us to another concern that the elimination of barriers will not solve: the lack of enforcement capability. We do not have enough bylaw officers to effectively carry out enforcement activities on our trails.
A slideshow featuring each of the Access Gates that are supposed to be part of the pilot project is found at the following site: https://www.activetwa.org/photos.html. Scroll down to the second to last photo for a slideshow presentation. Move one photo at a time.
Commentary accompanies each digital photo. I hope you will take the time to view it.
Thank you for providing the opportunity to make these comments and suggestions.
Keith Lay (Associate of Active Trails Whitehorse Association)
January 23, 2023