Channel Parkway was logical location

Re: “Cycle path a great investment for the City”’ by Brian Hughes and “Bike Path Belongs on Channel Parkway,” by Claude Filiatrault (Herald letters, June 30) were well founded and intelligently authored.

Hughes’ comments addressing cycle pathways as economically-sustainable, familyoriented and desirable.

There is denning the necessity of bike lanes within the community.

Cost effective is debatable. I will also not debate the inherent and unavoidable accident that will happen — yes, they will happen — when cyclists intermingle with vehicular traffic, especially within intersections.

However, Filiatrault argues in favour of Channel Parkway is clearly the alternative, the City in their decision to commit $8 million-plus towards bike lanes cycling route within the City, did not address.

Channel Parkway is clearly the jewel of this community. On any given day hundreds walk, jog and cycle the Parkway. Locals and tourists alike, also by the hundreds, if not thousands use the channel to float.

To improve — and the word is improve — the current cycling pathway of the channel would, in my opinion, unquestionably be significant cost-effective to the current commitment of the City to the cycle paths.

Channel cycling pathways are already in place. The greater percentage of necessary improvement minimally would require over burden layer on current asphalt, before new application of new asphalt is to be applied. 50% of current pathways would require little or no improvement.

The City is to be encouraged to enter into a dialogue with Penticton Indian Band to find a path towards improvement of this much valued jewel of Penticton. Recent communication with senior PIB staff has shown a very favourable welcoming response towards the improvement of the Channel Parkway and the need of constructive communication with the City.

Provincial grants up 50% of improvement costs are available.

Walter Tymofievich Penticton