Re: Access Gates Opening Pilot - Request for Review
Richard Legner
- It's a beautiful photo. It reminds me of my travels in New Zealand. However a more suitable graphic would ideally be a bit less Kiwi livestock and a bit more bollard or access gate with an approaching cyclist, parent with a stroller, or a person in a wheelchair - preferably but not necessarily taken in Whitehorse - maybe even at one of the gates proposed for the pilot. If a suitable stock photo is not available I don't mind taking a few shots for the purpose.
- Location of the gate at Airport Trail is missing a pin
- Elijah Smith soccer field gate location pin is slightly off - the gate is actually at the NE corner of the soccer field.
- The Location pin of the Millenium Trail at the skate park is also a bit off. The gate is further to the south where the trail begins turning towards the river.
- There are actually two trail access points at that location, both with access barriers; (Google Street View is outdated there. )
- This area is actually quite precarious. There is a 90 degree bend in the trail hugged tightly by a tall backyard fence creating a completely blind turn. I've had a few near misses there even though I slow down to walking pace and ring my bell when approaching.
- I think that eliminating one of the access points and slightly realigning the approach would not be too expensive and would make that piece of trail much safer.
- Opening the gates alone would likely increase travel speeds and increase the potential for collisions and injuries and thus go against some of the objectives of the pilot project. (Sorry, I know I originally proposed this as one of the gates to open without considering this possible safety impact.)
- If the minor re-alignment is out of scope for this project, maybe we could consider opening the gate at the top of Hillcrest Drive/bottom of Granger connector instead - or even in addition to. It would complete the whole Hillcrest neighbourhood as cycling barrier free). Now that the connector is being plowed in the winter months, this gate is seeing more bicycle traffic and is especially difficult to get through because snow is almost always plowed up blocking the narrow opening.
- I think it would be beneficial to run the pilot into the winter to help gauge snowmachine intrusion and the Research and Analysis and Reporting and Sharing components pushed accordingly. A full 12-month pilot may be best.
- I think this will be the most challenging part of the project. I don't believe (correct me if I am wrong) that there is quantitative baseline data regarding motor vehicle intrusion. Those opposed to this project (I've been contacted by some with concerns already) may be motivated to report intrusions when they normally wouldn't.
- I am falling short of coming up with a reasonable way to judge the outcome. Would some complaints render it a failure? Would anything short of turning the peaceful Hillcrest community into a mud bogging destination be considered a success? It may end up being a fine line. The outcome will almost certainly be subjective.
- I am open to brainstorming ideas on how to gauge success.
The more time I spend learning about active transportation and the more I advocate for it, the more it is clear to me that meaningful progress is nearly impossible without also working towards reducing car-dependency, and lowering the deeply ingrained entitlement to using motorized all terrain vehicles where prohibited because of lack of enforcement and consequences. I feel that some sort of an information campaign (maybe social media) aimed at educating and reducing this culture of entitlement would be a valuable companion to this project. Any chance a campaign could be launched alongside the pilot? (I notice that MMU trail map has recently been updated - kudos)
This message and any attachments are for the use of the intended recipient only and contain information that is privileged and confidential. Should you receive this message in error, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender immediately. Thank you.Hi Richard,
Please see the link below on the Access Gates Opening Pilot we are looking to launch.
https://www.engagewhitehorse.ca/shared_link/_ehs4uiz
Feel free to send me any suggestions or comments.
Cheers,
Stefan Baer, E.I.T. (he/him/his)
Transportation Engineer-in-Training | Engineering Services
City of Whitehorse | www.whitehorse.ca
Working and living within the traditional territories of the
Kwanlin Dün First Nation and the Ta’an Kwäch’än Council.
#roadsafety #safesystems #sustainablesafety
Safe Systems – the basics | the details
Sustainable Safety – the basics | the details
#transportationequity
Equity & Transportation Planning
Richard Legner
Thanks for the quick reply. Please check out my comments below in this blue colour.
Good day Richard,
My comments below in red.
Photograph:
- It's a beautiful photo. It reminds me of my travels in New Zealand. However a more suitable graphic would ideally be a bit less Kiwi livestock and a bit more bollard or access gate with an approaching cyclist, parent with a stroller, or a person in a wheelchair - preferably but not necessarily taken in Whitehorse - maybe even at one of the gates proposed for the pilot. If a suitable stock photo is not available I don't mind taking a few shots for the purpose.
Are you able to take a couple nice shots of local access gates for the initiative. That would be appreciated if you happen to be in the area.
Map location links:
- Location of the gate at Airport Trail is missing a pin
- Elijah Smith soccer field gate location pin is slightly off - the gate is actually at the NE corner of the soccer field.
- The Location pin of the Millenium Trail at the skate park is also a bit off. The gate is further to the south where the trail begins turning towards the river.
I will redo the links as I could not find any shape files/GIS files/asset files of where we have our gates internally so I was just guessing based on my familiarity with some of the areas.
Perhaps would you be able to send me a kml (Google Earth), shape file, or screengrabs/maps of exactly where the gates are and I can update accordingly?
Sunset Drive N and Park Lane gate:
- There are actually two trail access points at that location, both with access barriers; (Google Street View is outdated there. )
- This area is actually quite precarious. There is a 90 degree bend in the trail hugged tightly by a tall backyard fence creating a completely blind turn. I've had a few near misses there even though I slow down to walking pace and ring my bell when approaching.
- I think that eliminating one of the access points and slightly realigning the approach would not be too expensive and would make that piece of trail much safer.
- Opening the gates alone would likely increase travel speeds and increase the potential for collisions and injuries and thus go against some of the objectives of the pilot project. (Sorry, I know I originally proposed this as one of the gates to open without considering this possible safety impact.)
- If the minor re-alignment is out of scope for this project, maybe we could consider opening the gate at the top of Hillcrest Drive/bottom of Granger connector instead - or even in addition to. It would complete the whole Hillcrest neighbourhood as cycling barrier free). Now that the connector is being plowed in the winter months, this gate is seeing more bicycle traffic and is especially difficult to get through because snow is almost always plowed up blocking the narrow opening.
I don’t have budget or scope to do path realignment, but one of the findings of this pilot could be to use alternative measures/design solutions/design standards for access control and speed control of active users. We could then recommend this forward as a potential capital project.
I’m not too familiar with this trail and these gates. Let me know which ones would be preferred to be opened and their locates and I can update accordingly. Meagan and I can go and do a site visit to the gates to ensure that we don’t create additional unintended safety hazards by opening these gates.
Timeline:
- I think it would be beneficial to run the pilot into the winter to help gauge snowmachine intrusion and the Research and Analysis and Reporting and Sharing components pushed accordingly. A full 12-month pilot may be best.
Meagan and I had a chat about this.
We feel that summer is best for a pilot because it tests the worst case scenario. Our bylaws are different for summer motorized vehicles vs winter motorized vehicles because snowmobiles typically do less damage on trails and have more permission across City trails. Any access gate that survives the summer trial, we would likely just leave it open throughout this winter. We just don’t wish to communicate this in our pilot at this time because some neighbourhoods may have concerns with committing to that long of a pilot from the start.
I will massage the timeline wording to account for this.
Gauging the outcome of the pilot:
- I think this will be the most challenging part of the project. I don't believe (correct me if I am wrong) that there is quantitative baseline data regarding motor vehicle intrusion. Those opposed to this project (I've been contacted by some with concerns already) may be motivated to report intrusions when they normally wouldn't.
- I am falling short of coming up with a reasonable way to judge the outcome. Would some complaints render it a failure? Would anything short of turning the peaceful Hillcrest community into a mud bogging destination be considered a success? It may end up being a fine line. The outcome will almost certainly be subjective.
- I am open to brainstorming ideas on how to gauge success.
I agree. This is very difficult to gauge. We don’t wish to overly promote this because we don’t want people who are already predisposed to being opposed to the initiative to skew the data towards more complaints than there actually are.
We also won’t communicate that our recommendations are solely based on complaints. Complaints are one part of it, but we can put some language to say that each gate will be looked at on a case by case basis with engineering analysis, engagement with the community, etc.
We don’t have any baseline data measuring motorized vehicle intrusion, but I could circle back with bylaw and obtain some “before” information on how many motorized vehicle complaints we have received for each area. This would be our best baseline data.
I was thinking of setting up our traffic counters, but I fear the radar would not be able to tell the difference between a bicycle and motorcycle. We could set up our cameras, which would be much more accurate, but the processing could be time consuming and labour intensive and we would likely have to set it up for a long period of time just to get enough data points. I like Forests initial suggestion to using the complaint based model as it is easiest and requires the least effort. Open to suggestions though.
Education
The more time I spend learning about active transportation and the more I advocate for it, the more it is clear to me that meaningful progress is nearly impossible without also working towards reducing car-dependency, and lowering the deeply ingrained entitlement to using motorized all terrain vehicles where prohibited because of lack of enforcement and consequences. I feel that some sort of an information campaign (maybe social media) aimed at educating and reducing this culture of entitlement would be a valuable companion to this project. Any chance a campaign could be launched alongside the pilot? (I notice that MMU trail map has recently been updated - kudos)
I appreciate your passion for active transportation Richard and discouraging motorized vehicle usage.
Our goal with the language is to be as mode agnostic as possible. I’ve carefully used language to ensure that we are not pitting active users against motorized users and that we are trying to reasonably and safely accommodate their co-existence where legally permitted but discourage their co-existence where legally prohibited. I think you've done a good job of this.
We also don’t plan on promoting this on social media in general so as not to stoke the fire. Council is very aware of motorized vehicle intrusion at the moment (a counciller raised some concerns a couple weeks ago) and we don’t wish to exacerbate these concerns, have to obtain Council permission, or get Council in the weeds and details of something we feel can be handled between Administration, communities, and organizations. Our goal is to keep this low profile and apolitical. All good points.
As such, we hope that people find about it not through promotion but through stumbling upon an opened gate so as not to draw too much attention to it or risk making this political, or risk skewing our data by those predisposed to oppose it.
Thanks
Richard
PS: I notice that the gates I proposed to open in the Takhini subdivision did not make it to the draft. Perhaps that was a bit ambitious of me and I think it is a good decision to keep the pilot to just one neighbourhood and the two non-residential gates.
Meagan and I decided not to include the Takhini Gates at McIntyre Creek because this area has been subject to extensive motorized intrusion complaints. We are open to opening the ones in Takhini subdivision though and I forgot to add them. Can you send me the exact locates of them as well when you have a chance?
Let me know your thoughts on this approach. I will make the first round of tweaks based on your comments.
Richard Legner
Hi Richard,
Can you send me the locates of the gates in Takhini. All the gates except the ones by McIntyre Creek.
Cheers,
Stefan Baer, E.I.T. (he/him/his)
Transportation Engineer-in-Training | Engineering Services
City of Whitehorse | www.whitehorse.ca
Working and living within the traditional territories of the
Kwanlin Dün First Nation and the Ta’an Kwäch’än Council.
From: Baer, Stefan
Sent: Friday, June 10, 2022 2:07 PM
To: 'Richard Legner' <leg...@gmail.com>
Cc: Wilson, Meagan <Meagan...@whitehorse.ca>; Forest Pearson (fkpear...@yahoo.com) <fkpear...@yahoo.com>; Whitehorse Urban Cycling Coalition (WUCC) <whitehorse-urban-...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: RE: Access Gates Opening Pilot - Request for Review
Hi Richard,
My latest comments in green.
Photograph:
- It's a beautiful photo. It reminds me of my travels in New Zealand. However a more suitable graphic would ideally be a bit less Kiwi livestock and a bit more bollard or access gate with an approaching cyclist, parent with a stroller, or a person in a wheelchair - preferably but not necessarily taken in Whitehorse - maybe even at one of the gates proposed for the pilot. If a suitable stock photo is not available I don't mind taking a few shots for the purpose.
Are you able to take a couple nice shots of local access gates for the initiative. That would be appreciated if you happen to be in the area.
I certainly can. Is it ok to have a person (cyclist, parent with stroller, etc) in the photo or should we avoid models and the hassle of possibly needing model releases?
Let me check with Guin. If you could have a person but without the face that would be appreciated.
Map location links:
- Location of the gate at Airport Trail is missing a pin
- Elijah Smith soccer field gate location pin is slightly off - the gate is actually at the NE corner of the soccer field.
- The Location pin of the Millenium Trail at the skate park is also a bit off. The gate is further to the south where the trail begins turning towards the river.
I will redo the links as I could not find any shape files/GIS files/asset files of where we have our gates internally so I was just guessing based on my familiarity with some of the areas.
Perhaps would you be able to send me a kml (Google Earth), shape file, or screengrabs/maps of exactly where the gates are and I can update accordingly?
Here are Google Maps pin links to the gates:
Airport Trail Gate (location)
Elijah Smith Soccer Field (location)
Sunset Drive N & Park Lane (location)
Millenium Trail Near Skate Park (location)
Hillcrest Drive at bottom of Granger Connector trail (location) - this is the trail that was added to winter maintenance schedule just this past winter. T(here may be larger opposition to this by some long-time Hillcrest residents who remember cars (not just motorized ATVs) taking this route. My thinking is we should open it for the pilot to see if increase intrusion returns - it's the whole point.)
Sunset Drive N and Park Lane gate:
- There are actually two trail access points at that location, both with access barriers; (Google Street View is outdated there. )
- This area is actually quite precarious. There is a 90 degree bend in the trail hugged tightly by a tall backyard fence creating a completely blind turn. I've had a few near misses there even though I slow down to walking pace and ring my bell when approaching.
- I think that eliminating one of the access points and slightly realigning the approach would not be too expensive and would make that piece of trail much safer.
- Opening the gates alone would likely increase travel speeds and increase the potential for collisions and injuries and thus go against some of the objectives of the pilot project. (Sorry, I know I originally proposed this as one of the gates to open without considering this possible safety impact.)
- If the minor re-alignment is out of scope for this project, maybe we could consider opening the gate at the top of Hillcrest Drive/bottom of Granger connector instead - or even in addition to. It would complete the whole Hillcrest neighbourhood as cycling barrier free). Now that the connector is being plowed in the winter months, this gate is seeing more bicycle traffic and is especially difficult to get through because snow is almost always plowed up blocking the narrow opening.
I don’t have budget or scope to do path realignment, but one of the findings of this pilot could be to use alternative measures/design solutions/design standards for access control and speed control of active users. We could then recommend this forward as a potential capital project.
I’m not too familiar with this trail and these gates. Let me know which ones would be preferred to be opened and their locates and I can update accordingly. Meagan and I can go and do a site visit to the gates to ensure that we don’t create additional unintended safety hazards by opening these gates.
Yes, that would be a great additional recommendation to come out of the study. To me, it is a dangerous spot (and not because of cars for once) and an injury waiting to happen - a blind corner, proximity to school, high-speed bicycle commuters, children walking to school, seniors strolling with their dogs. It would be a shame if someone got hurt, and possibly an opportunity or some to oppose active transportation. The realignment needed there looks really minimal to me and would be a huge improvement. I do encourage you to do a site visit to this particular location if you're not familiar with it. I work nearby at Burns Road and could take a quick break to meet at the site if it would be helpful.
I can meet sometime next week if you are free. When works by you?
Timeline:
- I think it would be beneficial to run the pilot into the winter to help gauge snowmachine intrusion and the Research and Analysis and Reporting and Sharing components pushed accordingly. A full 12-month pilot may be best.
Meagan and I had a chat about this.
We feel that summer is best for a pilot because it tests the worst case scenario. Our bylaws are different for summer motorized vehicles vs winter motorized vehicles because snowmobiles typically do less damage on trails and have more permission across City trails. Any access gate that survives the summer trial, we would likely just leave it open throughout this winter. We just don’t wish to communicate this in our pilot at this time because some neighbourhoods may have concerns with committing to that long of a pilot from the start.
Fair enough. To avoid possible arguments that the pilot was not given a long enough chance, would extending the pilot a bit, say to mid October, be an option?
(Btw, can you point me to the specific bylaws for summer and winter motorized use? Is there a map that communicates the summer and winter usage laws? I feel like I should have a better understanding of these.)
I will massage the timeline wording to account for this.
Gauging the outcome of the pilot:
- I think this will be the most challenging part of the project. I don't believe (correct me if I am wrong) that there is quantitative baseline data regarding motor vehicle intrusion. Those opposed to this project (I've been contacted by some with concerns already) may be motivated to report intrusions when they normally wouldn't.
- I am falling short of coming up with a reasonable way to judge the outcome. Would some complaints render it a failure? Would anything short of turning the peaceful Hillcrest community into a mud bogging destination be considered a success? It may end up being a fine line. The outcome will almost certainly be subjective.
- I am open to brainstorming ideas on how to gauge success.
I agree. This is very difficult to gauge. We don’t wish to overly promote this because we don’t want people who are already predisposed to being opposed to the initiative to skew the data towards more complaints than there actually are.
We also won’t communicate that our recommendations are solely based on complaints. Complaints are one part of it, but we can put some language to say that each gate will be looked at on a case by case basis with engineering analysis, engagement with the community, etc.
Agreed.
We don’t have any baseline data measuring motorized vehicle intrusion, but I could circle back with bylaw and obtain some “before” information on how many motorized vehicle complaints we have received for each area. This would be our best baseline data.
I was thinking of setting up our traffic counters, but I fear the radar would not be able to tell the difference between a bicycle and motorcycle. We could set up our cameras, which would be much more accurate, but the processing could be time consuming and labour intensive and we would likely have to set it up for a long period of time just to get enough data points. I like Forests initial suggestion to using the complaint based model as it is easiest and requires the least effort. Open to suggestions though.
Your suggestions are great if resources and baseline data were available. In the absence of both, I think we'll have to wait and see what the pilot brings. If I come across some ideas, I'll be sure to pitch them to you.
Education
The more time I spend learning about active transportation and the more I advocate for it, the more it is clear to me that meaningful progress is nearly impossible without also working towards reducing car-dependency, and lowering the deeply ingrained entitlement to using motorized all terrain vehicles where prohibited because of lack of enforcement and consequences. I feel that some sort of an information campaign (maybe social media) aimed at educating and reducing this culture of entitlement would be a valuable companion to this project. Any chance a campaign could be launched alongside the pilot? (I notice that MMU trail map has recently been updated - kudos)
I appreciate your passion for active transportation Richard and discouraging motorized vehicle usage.
Our goal with the language is to be as mode agnostic as possible. I’ve carefully used language to ensure that we are not pitting active users against motorized users and that we are trying to reasonably and safely accommodate their co-existence where legally permitted but discourage their co-existence where legally prohibited. I think you've done a good job of this.
We also don’t plan on promoting this on social media in general so as not to stoke the fire. Council is very aware of motorized vehicle intrusion at the moment (a counciller raised some concerns a couple weeks ago) and we don’t wish to exacerbate these concerns, have to obtain Council permission, or get Council in the weeds and details of something we feel can be handled between Administration, communities, and organizations. Our goal is to keep this low profile and apolitical. All good points.
As such, we hope that people find about it not through promotion but through stumbling upon an opened gate so as not to draw too much attention to it or risk making this political, or risk skewing our data by those predisposed to oppose it.
I don't think I communicated the education campaign idea clearly. My intention wasn't to promote the project itself. Rather, I envision a separate campaign to educate citizens about where, within the city, motorized ATVs are and are not permitted, the effect illegal riding has on the community, and information on how to be a responsible ATV user in general. I see the city is running similar education campaigns about how to place compost to the curbside, for example - gentle reminders to citizens of rules and expectations.
Great idea. I think in response to the Councilor’s recent complaints my colleagues already have been doing some communications campaign to highlight this. I can ask communications to perhaps keep up the comms on this. Depending on when we do this it could skew the results of the pilot though as people might be more educated about where they can/can’t ride motorized vehicles.
Richard Legner
Richard Legner
Hi Richard,
Keep me posted. I still have yet to hear from Granger and Hillcrest Community Associations.