Steveston Highway Multi-Use Path Project

I applaud City Staff and Council for working to add more multi-use paths throughout our community. This certainly helps make it easier for residents to get more active through walking, running, biking and the like. 

With regards to Steveston Highway being the best location for this project, I do have some concerns. If the intent to have the most people as possible benefit from accessing and using this new infrastructure, where is the best place to locate it for such purposes?  

I understand the path as planned would be on Steveston Highway from No.2 Road to Shell Road. If the thinking was that Steveston Highway would be the best location due to farmland and hence fresh air on the south side of the road, keep in mind the heavy and growing volume of traffic on this highway. As a bike rider, dog walker and runner, I would be inclined to avoid this path due vehicle exhaust, regardless of what air monitoring may indicate as safe levels of air pollution because my perception of the health dangers seems just too obvious. 

Another concern would be, how many users of this potential new path would detour north from other arterial roads like Williams, Francis, Blundell or Granville to use this path heading east or west? I would suspect very few but if there is data to suggest otherwise, I would love to see it. The Canada Line was located on a main, populated route, No.3 Road to provide easier access to a larger base of customers. I find it challenging to understand why this new multi-use path would not be located on a more populated route, using this same logic. A more obvious choice might be Williams Road since there is already a bike lane there, which with enhancements could make this much safer and increase its usage. Yet, other options could be Francis, Blundell or Williams, moving this important new path closer to areas of increased population. 

On the other hand, if this path was intended simply for a smaller segment of potential users going from the Steveston area to Ironwood or beyond, it clearly will be a very expensive, $11.5 million project serving much fewer users than it could. Is there data to inform how many additional people would use such an isolated route? If TransLink is driving this decision as to the route the City must conform with, I would suggest City Council advocate for what residents need rather than the wishes of the regional authority. Surely, TransLink will fund what city leaders see as the best alternative for this new infrastructure which would still meet the goals of having a multi-use path that is accessible, safe, and helps gets people moving beyond driving. 

Clearly Steveston Highway is not the optimal location for this wonderful new city asset, and I look forward to seeing the City explore better alternatives. 

Jerome Dickey