Dear Editor:
On my run today along the central Grand Boulevard pathway, I see that work is moving apace in digging up the current path.
I had been in contact with the city previously suggesting that they do not rip up a perfectly acceptable pathway and, certainly, not to pave it; I was keen to check, therefore, if they were, in fact, now proceeding with paving.
On checking the website, I find that they are, indeed, proceeding.
What reasoning would conclude that such an action should proceed?
It appears that 56 per cent of respondents thought that this was a bad idea. But, the website says, 27 per cent of those were against the whole project so should be discounted, leaving 29 per cent “true negative respondents” (my quotes).
What a bunch of woolly rationalization that appears to me to be trying to make the “numbers” say what the designers and engineers had already decided.
A better decision would have been to keep a perfectly good gravelled path that posed no barrier to accessibility (the inclined grade alone makes it pretty unattractive for manual wheelchairs).
Paving is not an environmentally sound option both from a materials and water shedding characteristic. It is also patently wasteful to not use what it already there. Added to this is the fact that paving presents an unforgiving surface, certainly compared with the existing path. Runners as well as walkers will be subject to more stresses on a paved surface and this is a well used running route.
I had made the suggestion that if the city had to redesign the surface, they should investigate using recycled rubber (used successfully on at least one trailway in Chicago — the Bloomingdale Line or “606”).
Replacing the existing trail is counter to the “green” in the Green Necklace.
Andrew Massil
North Vancouver
What are your thoughts? Send us a letter via email by clicking here or post a comment below.
