Discussion 5 – Considerations for West Kelowna

What important considerations do you see for the existing or alternate corridor options being explored for West Kelowna and Westbank First Nation?

90 responses to “Discussion 5 – Considerations for West Kelowna

  1. Teresa

    I can’t even imagine a traffic corridor coming through the rose valley regional area! It is an area full of wildlife, people from all over the world hike and bike here. It is a major recreation spot for people of our city. There must be a better idea!

  2. Charity

    I saw a proposal that had the second crossing going through an environmentally sensitive area behind Tallus Ridge. I do not believe the second okanagan crossing should be going behind Tallus Ridge. That area is home to a park called Carrot mountain. There are two water reservoirs where the proposal seems to be going. It’s steep and mountainous and directly beside a residential community. There is a logging road called Bear Main Rd that would seem more suitable. It’s already established and in the right vacinity.

  3. Lisa

    Please do not build a new highway/roadway and ‘connector’ through the forested land and residential neighbourhoods of Smith Creek, Tallus Ridge, Shannon Woods and Rose Valley. It seems like a complete disregard for the beautiful wilderness that we know and love as well as the residential neighbourhoods throughout.
    We have an existing highway that does not function well due to the traffic lights. Removing the lights and creating overpasses makes sense. The overpass at Westside Road has greatly eased congestion in that area. It makes sense that if all the lights were removed from the highway it would function more efficiently and ease congestion.

  4. Nathan

    I like the route right through the existing downtown along already existing transportation routes and making use of at least some of the infrastructure already in place. The bypass option, around West Kelowna would cause a lot of disruption to otherwise untouched natural areas, and cuts too close to residential properties. Okanagan residents are proud of their natural environment … let’s not just punch a road right through it for convenience sake. Use existing corridors; it’ll be the least disruptive to the natural environment and to residents who live on the outskirts of town for a reason. Furthermore, there should be a way to incorporate bike lanes and pedestrian paths easier that it would be for the same ‘around the town’ route proposed. Think long term … think future … through town is the right option. My 2 cents.

  5. Nadene

    I think it is rediculous to consider passing a highway through Rose Valley park and the surrounding neighbourhood. It would be a significant loss to park wildlife, irreplaceable forest, and pose a threat to the Rose Valley lake reservoir. The cost of a 14 km extension to the highway would far outweigh the benefit provided to the few drivers who would choose this extended route. This route would also have a negative impact on both Bear Creek Provincial park and Raymer bay regional park. In an era where our natural parklands, forests, and wild animal populations are under constant threat, I feel we need to examine options that are more environmental friendly. I strongly oppose this corridor option.

  6. Tracy

    Easy access across the highway for those locations where bus rapid transit stops are. Also connectivity for cyclists and pedestrians across the highway so these alternative forms of transportation can be encouraged.

  7. JRD

    I understand that West Kelowna city council wanted to have this project identify some possible bypass routes through the hills of West Kelowna. I would just like to point out that I am completely against any such plan.
    Destroying the beautiful hills surrounding West Kelowna is a terrible idea. Having a highway above West Kelowna would not only be visually unappealing, but would add to noise pollution, destroy wildlife, and create a physical barrier between the people of West Kelowna and the surrounding wilderness.

  8. M.

    Destroying parkland is a dangerous and outdated solution.

    Other cities have considered the environment and the long term solution and so should we.

    Existing bridge is for commuters. Rapid transit needed.

    Look at other cities around the world. There is no need to re-invent the wheel, look to them.

  9. Kristian

    The environmental impact of putting a road through these forested communities and what should be a protected regional park is quite frankly ludicrous and had to have been created by someone who has never been in the community. People live here for the natural beauty and tranquility that the West side of Kelowna provides. People come from all over the country and even the world to hike and mountain bike in the Rose Valley Regional Park. It is home to bears, cougars, wolves, coyotes, lynx, eagles, owls and other countless species of birds. Running the road so close to the reservoir itself also puts the water supply in harms way. We live in these communities to be closer to nature, to stay active and healthy. Let’s minimize the scarring of the land and find a plan that makes use of existing infrastructure as a starting point. That has to be more financially and environmentally viable than destroying the forest.

    1. Jason

      Have you ever been up into the plateau country above the Okanagan Valley?! It’s nothing but clear cuts. The land has been scarred terribly. What’s left isn’t a forest, it’s a tree farm.

      1. Jeff

        “We’ve already damaged the environment, what’s the point of stopping now?”
        Does it not make sense to save the little bit of natural land left from development rather than just say screw it?

        1. Jason

          I’ve been deeply affected by how we treat our natural environment in BC for so long. So disheartening to lose all the wild places; to cut down all the forests, slash roads and lay pipelines driving animals into extinction. We can’t even protect the miniscule remnants of old growth forest we have left. The multinationals are taking that too. Seems it’s only when we are directly affected do we act or speak out.

  10. Jf

    Please do not destroy the beautiful wilderness in Rose Valley, Shannon Lake and Smith Creek.
    This would put a major negative impact on all of these neighbourhoods.

  11. Sheldon

    I went to the information session at Lions Hall and applaud the Ministry for presenting the information in an orderly fashion. I thought that the majority of considerations for the existing Hwy 97 corridor were considerate of West Kelowna’s needs and within reason for longer-term planning and future development. However, the alternate or bypass route I felt was extremely short-sighted and is far from the best solution for West Kelowna and the Valley. First off is the alignment chosen. How can anyone think that running a bypass through our treasured Rose Valley Regional Park, along Carrot Top Mountain and across Powers Canyon be the most appropriate corridor solution. The scar on the hillside (visible to all) would be irreversible and forever be a mark of our lack of consideration for the environment and landscape all in the name of moving more vehicles. The noise that will be broadcast, echoing across the valley will be massive departure from the current serenity I for one move to the Westside for. No amount of noise abatement walls will quell the “jake-brakes” of loaded logging trucks driving at freeway speed behind residential neighborhoods such as Tallus Ridge, Smith Creek, Upper Glenrosa, Rose Valley and West Kelowna Estates. The entire roadway alignment is in bedrock which require millions of cubic meters of blasting, major impacts to groundwater and surface water, migration corridors and wintering grounds for ungulates and other animals. Worse is the simple cost of doing so…which no-one in the open house could tell me. The build-out of this road would be in the billions! Imagine what West Kelowna could do with its entire road network with even a billion dollars…we could have a world-class community instead of one that people will want to bypass in future. I hope Mayor and Council are listening and understand that a bypass is the last thing West Kelowna needs!

  12. Anthony

    Nearly every option provided impacts ALL out door recreation in West Kelowna. As a land owner in West Kelowna and Peachland I am concerned with my ability to access out door recreation in the area.. why I live in the area!!

    Why doesn’t the province consider going around last mountain from the connector avoiding all established trail networks in the area..

  13. Bob

    Since 96% of the traffic across the bridge is local it does not make any sense to create an alternate route to bypass West Kelowna. The alternate route doubles the distance to get through West Kelowna to the bridge, has steep grades as it rises well above the valley floor, comes very close to Shannon Lake and Tallus Ridge neighborhoods and destroys green space along its entire route.

  14. Krista

    Rose Valley Park is an asset to the entire region with well used trails and infrastructure. A proposed solution through the park would negatively impact residents, tourism and the region as a whole.

  15. collin

    Improve the existing transportation corridors to high speed design with the overpasses. Residents will fight the ridiculous bypass options. These are our natural outdoor havens that are the reason people live and love West Kelowna. We will not accept losing these natural areas to make sure everyones commute to the city doesn’t increase by 10 mins.

  16. Summer

    Option 2A would damage a well-used regional park and threaten a watershed (used for drinking water). Rose Valley Regional Park is one of the only amenities in the area and draws users from the neighbourhood and throughout the valley… it’s used for hiking, dog walking and biking – during all seasons, plus it’s a rare wildlife habitat. As a resident of West Kelowna Estates, I am concerned how this would damage the neighbourhood, environment, and, from a financial standpoint, property values.

  17. Marnie

    Studies have shown that just 4% of traffic heading across the bridge is going through the Okanagan so it makes no sense to create an alternate route to bypass West Kelowna. Who would use this new route??? Work with the existing infrastructure and improve what we already have. The highway already cuts through the city, fix it first. The alternate route not only doubles the distance to get through West Kelowna to the bridge, but it has steep grades, it encroaches on Smith Creek, Shannon Lake, Tallus Ridge and Rose Valley neighborhoods and destroys green space along its entire route.

    It is incredulous that MOTI would even consider constructing a new highway through a regional park!!

    Put the millions of dollars that you propose to spend on highway infrastructure into transit — dedicated lanes, park and rides, more buses — and that would help solve the congestion.

    West Kelowna council may be pushing for this bypass but the people of West Kelowna are saying NO.

  18. Clay

    The alternate bypass route is a disgusting, ridiculous solution. Please don’t destroy the look and feel of our beloved hillside communities. The impact would forever destroy valuable recreational areas and wildlife habitat. Let’s do what we must, to keep the traffic in the existing corridor.

    1. Jason

      Clay the vast network of clear-cuts above Okanagan Valley have already destroyed wildlife habitat. Is this a question of “out of sight, out of mind “?

  19. Paula

    I am opposed to a road through Rose Valley regional park. Do not destroy the wilderness, do not route highway traffic through quiet neighbourhoods. Do not destroy hiking and biking trails.

  20. Heather

    I am shocked that the best plan is to build a highway through a park and beside a drinking water reservoir. The habitats that are preserved in the Rose Valley Regional Park are important to the land. The Park is well used by residents and visitors – somewhere to teach our children about nature. A highway running through the park will completely destroy the ecosystem and also the opportunity for people living in an urban setting to connect with nature. The idea of building a new highway through the park is absolutely absurd.

  21. Joanne

    I think that the least expensive and disruptive solution would be to make interchanges instead of lights at most intersections along the highway through West Kelowna, and to time the lights better through Kelowna. I believe these changes would make a significant decrease to congestion.

  22. gary.symons@me.com

    I am completely opposed to the idea of taking a bypass highway through Rose Valley Regional Park. This is really the gem of the entire parks system in the West Kelowna area.
    The highway as described would also pass by our water reservoir, and would impact on the wildlife in the area.
    We are among the hundreds of people who hike in this park every day. It is to West Kelowna what Knox Mountain is to the City of Kelowna, and it’s not something that can really be replaced.
    We in fact moved to the Rose Valley neighbourhood because of Rose Valley Regional Park. It is the best wilderness park in the entire Okanagan that is easily accessible by most people.
    Running a highway through this park wouldn’t just destroy the park itself, it would also destroy the entire neighbourhood, affecting several thousand people.
    This is just a bad idea that should never see the light of day. In my opinion, if a highway really is needed, the Bear Creek Main is a better route and already has a right of way.

  23. Stacey

    By even considering putting a highway through our ecological sensitive areas such as Rose Valley, shows the ignorance the government has for its people and the environment. Hundreds of people use Rose Valley Regional Park daily for their recreation. The government should be protecting these parks from further urban development, not paving them. It’s an insult to the people who live in the Okanagan for the government to even consider this as an option. We should be increasing rapid transit for our existing corridors as infrastructure is already in place. If a second crossing is added, it should be as close to the current crossing and highway to decrease environmental damage. From the old ferry dock area up to the existing highway combined with more interchanges along 97 would ease traffic considerably without vast environmental impact.

    1. Jason

      Rose Valley Park should be tripled in size! Come on RDCO !

      1. Jason

        or is that CORD, whatever, how much are they really doing to protect nature ?

  24. Lisa

    I think we should focus on better, fast, more regular bussing systems. If you make it easier for people to drive, more people will drive! If you make it easier to bus or bike, you will increase the bus riders and bikers.

  25. Ed

    No round abouts, cities are getting rid of them and you are thinking of putting some in. The average person does not know how to drive or signal through them.

  26. Gordon

    I saw a proposal that would take traffic through Rose Valley Regional Park. It takes traffic through a park full of wildlife and trails used by many local people. The route then continues northward for what appears to be 2-3 kms before it cuts back onto Westside Road. The fact that ruining a park is part of the consideration is bad enough. Expecting anyone to drive an extra 5-6 kms makes no sense. There must be something missing as this plan makes no sense. I agree with the need for a second crossing. There has to be a better plan.

  27. Matt

    Option 2A will destroy the main reason why we moved to West Kelowna: Rose Valley Regional Park. I am in this park daily walking my dog, hiking, and biking. To have a high speed highway running though a beautiful park, seperating hikers from the reservoir, does not seem like a very good option to me. If this option goes through we will move away from West Kelowna unfortunately. I think improving the interchanges along highway 97 as are proposed (overpasses/trenched lanes) will significantly ease congestion. If needed potentially having an option such as 2B through already ugly commercial land, rather than beautiful park and residential land, makes way more sense to me. Please do not ruin my backyard!!

  28. James

    Please re-consider going through with the bypass options – particularly the Option 2A and City Option, which pass through environmentally sensitive areas of Shannon Lake, Rose Valley, among others. I’m concerned this by-pass will destroy neighborhoods, be a threat to very active wildlife in the area and have potentially significant impacts to the community’s domestic water resources. The latter is particularly troubling as various governments have just recently invested millions of dollars upgrading the Rose Valley water treatment plant and would likely now have to invest more to add additional protections to a now vulnerable water source. Option 2A and the City option go right by that isolated water resource – not a reasonable risk to take.

    West Kelowna’s roadways do not appear to have an issue with capacity, but rather flow – frequent and long stoppages at intersections that create back ups. Upgrading the existing Highway 97 corridor to eliminate intersections along the West Kelowna stretch will uncork the bottlenecks and allow for better transportation. It will also facilitate rapid transportation (likely in the form of a bus rapid transit) through the region.

    The strategy of opening of new by-pass corridors has been done in many municipalities to minimal success (see Kenaston – Bishop Grandin in Winnipeg). Time after to time, low density development (such as what we currently see along Highway 97 in West Kelowna and the Westbank First Nation) will follow the by-passes and you start the problem anew.

    A truly better question, would be to address why people in West Kelowna and Westbank First Nation go to Kelowna? The data shows that most trips start within the region end in the region. Thus, if we develop the destinations within West Kelowna for entertainment, employment, and overall services, our citizens’ need to cross the bridge as frequently will be greatly diminished.

    Transportation and communities in 2040 will look very different that they do now. Let’s not double down on a 1960’s solution to a 2040 problem.

  29. paul

    Bypass West Kelowna using an upper bench parallel to Westside Rd. thru to Vernon.

  30. Mark

    There is very little volume north of the bridge, a large % of the volume comes from Lakeview Hts, why not have the second crossing come from the end of Springfield over to the end of Campbell rd and on into Lakeview hts/Boucherie Rd. Please also consider the electrical cable being propose by BCHydro as a back up from Fortis in Kelowna.

  31. K.J.

    For West Kelowna (and really the whole project) I believe the most important issue here is the continued use of current infrastructure…leaving the roads where they are and upgrading them where they are. It seems a bit ridiculous to blast yet another highway through parks, green areas and protected spaces as proposed in the Alternate Corridor for West Kelowna. People move, tour, and spend money all because of the beautiful greenery; truely a unique place doesn’t need to be destroyed. I am very much opposed to the Alternate Corridor through the neighborhoods of Rose Valley, Shannon Woods, Tallus Ridge, Smith Creek etc. The background to the West Kelowna proposition makes “downtown” West Kelowna sound like a bustling metropolis, when in reality, its barely four blocks long and most retail is found beyond the “downtown” Main Street area.
    I would also like to comment on the travel time trends on Page 5. First, 15minutes of congestion isn’t a long time, and if you drive to work you have to expect this. Also I don’t believe your forecast of 2040 takes into account the trend of “remote” work and working from home. There needs to be consideration for how work-styles will change over time with changing technologies. The office based job is decreasing, especially in an area known for its Tech Industry, an industry that very much can have staff work remotely and not come in to work 9am-5pm.
    Finally, there have been studies that indicate building larger roads is only a temporary solution to congestion, and the real solution to congestion is developing effective and efficient mass transit systems in urban areas. I am not really “for” any of the options, especially the ones that blast out green areas, but do think we need to think beyond just building Highways to solve this problem. Were alternate options to highway building ever considered?

  32. Sandy

    The sole reason for purchasing in Rose Valley is because we edge onto RoseValley nature park. The area offers peacefulness and solace at a days end of working, we enjoy the wildlife and bird life that abound in the area. Rose Valley has hit the news of late with serious concerns of ground water issues that have yet to be explained, thus possibly causing property values to drop. Secondly our drinking water source has had a serious algae bloom issue and our drinking water is at risk…………now you want to blast your way through a nature reserve, causing issues for a wildlife corridor as well as causing possibly more ground water leaks that cannot be handled and putting a highway close to our water source for West Kelowna residents already at risk. I believe a study was done to build overpasses along Hwy 97 and take out the lights where many serious accidents happen…..what happened with that plan and what was the cost to do all of those studies. As West Kelowna residents we see further development around the Westlake turn off has been allowed to go through…this Government needs to take more responsible action and solutions that do not jeopardize nature corridors, peoples home choices and most importantly our water supply. Also at this time our home is not directly affected by the current spring run off issue but I worry for those who are living with this unanswered issue and it could only get worse. We are not impressed with our West Kelowna council and alderman’s judgement at this time………….PLEASE DO NOT DESTROY OUR ENVIRONMENT……….allow us to live the lives we chose by purchasing homes in West Kelowna.

  33. Holly

    Hi there,
    I’m a resident in Tallus Ridge and certainly am not pleased about the proposed idea of a crossing that goes through Rose Valley, Tallus Ridge and Smith Creek. We bought our home in Tallus because of the beautiful trail system and wildlife surrounding us. Also because it is a family friendly neighborhood. A major highway running through our backyard would endanger animals, take away our trail systems, create noise, safety hazards for our children and traffic. It would no longer be safe for our kids to ride their bikes, play in the forest and have the opportunity to experience the outdoors right in our neighborhood.

    There are so many other better options that would alleviate traffic issues. The already planned 2 over/under passes will help. There is room to add one more lane to the hwy and then have it like vancouver where the lane can be used for either direction based on traffic patterns.

    This option simply can’t happen.

    It would ruin 3 key neighbhoods in west Kelowna and totally contradicts how west Kelowna has positioned itself as area offering real estate that has “living room”, “being in nature”.

    Let’s not be the community that has many highways running through it disrupting beautiful neighborhoods.

    If this proposal goes through you can count on these 3 neighborhoods rallying like a bunch of crazy hippies and blocking construction from ever starting. And if all else fails there will be a mass exodus of tax payers in west Kelowna furious at the city looking to move elsewhere.

    I highly suggest other options be considered.

    From a tax payers perspective is must be the most expensive and most disruptive option to key communities and species.

  34. Electra

    I think this is a terrible idea and that it will completely ruin this beautiful area. Many families have moved to this area for the Rose valley park and trails, for the serenity and scenery. Yes the city is expanding but why ruin what is beautiful about it, if we do not have to. People come to visit these Westside parks form around the world and enjoy hiking, biking, geocaching and more. Environmentally it will also have a very negative impact on the wildlife. I vote NO!!!!

  35. Shaun

    I appreciate the need to explore options to upgrade our traffic infrastructure, but I think the option of running a highway through parks, environmentally sensitive areas and peaceful, established residential neighbourhoods like Tallus Ridge, Smith Creek and Rose Valley is not the way to go. We already have roadways in place that I think should be improved. I think remodeling Hwy.97 through West Kelowna to reflect the way Hwy.1 is through North Vancouver is a great plan. Replace all the traffic lights with a handful of on/off ramps, and have city access through the side streets after that. This would alleviate most if not all congestion for the through traffic, with the least amount of change for the people and environment in West Kelowna.
    My family and I just built our “forever house” in Tallus Ridge, and we chose our location largely because of the peace and quiet it gives being so close to the park right out our back door; I don’t want to see that morphed into a highway.

  36. David

    I am just finishing construction of my home at the bottom of Carrot Mountain below the reseviour. From looking at the proposed route they will be driving a highway thru my backyard. I spent 16 months dealing with the District of West Kelowna and Council and not once did they feel it was important to mention to me that they were proposing to build a highway in my backyard. Destroying park land for a useless highway makes no sense at all. As well the costs to build the proposed route will be astronomical due to the terrain and the bedrock. I’m not sure sure who headed up this plan but they must not have ever enjoyed the beautiful parks that they are thinking of destroying. I am 100% against this proposed route and will do everything I can to stop it.

  37. Kathleen

    Thank you for taking the time to present to our group this evening. That said, not one of your representatives took notes throughout the discussion. In fact, there was zero sincerity for the potential loss of our parks and peaceful neighbourhoods.

    2A in Rose Valley is not the best option to alleviate traffic hurdles. People see our parks, especially Rose Valley, as a destination – a lifestyle, a community… this proposal shows a lack of considersation to the beauty of where we live, and why people continue to desire the Okanagan lifestyle.

    Our community is supportive of growth. But not supportive of taking away our parks to get there.

  38. barry

    this idea is rediculous
    if your gonna add a second crossing why not just put new bridge straight off the end of the connector straight across the lake and run it below the okanogan moutain park across to mccauloch rd to join with highway 33 and from there a road could also go north towards vernon which would also help vernon with there issue of a bypass theres already fsr rd’s up there which could easily be made into highway and this would not cause anymore unneccesary damages to forested areas.

  39. Michael

    I empathize with the need to evaluate alternate corridors to better transport people through Kelowna and surrounding regions — it’s been a topic of discussion for over 40 years — and I appreciate this effort to illustrate technically feasible options and provide a venue to solicit community feedback.

    Understanding options are very limited, due to geological logistics, it makes sense this consultation explore the concept of gutting Rose Valley, Rose Valley Regional Park, Shannon Woods, Tallus Ridge, Glenrosa, and Smith Creek for a new four-lane, high-speed highway running through West Kelowna. If this option was absent from your investigation, it would offer no options, apart from upgrading the existing corridor. So putting aside the fact that this highway would run through my home, I respect the energy and process in place to explore and present potential solutions.

    As you move forward into “Phase 2, Part 2” of your consultation, where you make recommendations and have ongoing community and stakeholder dialogue, residents of West Kelowna propose that you explicitly remove the following alternate corridor options from your evaluation:

    – Option 1A: Trepanier Road to Smith Creek Road
    – Option 1B: Highway 97/97C Junction to Smith Creek Road
    – Connector: Smith Creek to Bartley Road
    – Option 2A: Bartley Road to Bear Creek / Westside Road
    – Option 2B: Bartley Road Extension

    The impact these options would impose on West Kelowna geologically, to residents, and to the community, would be devastating and irreversible. It would irresponsible and embarrassing for them to remain in your consultation options through “Phase 2, Part 2”.

    The value West Kelowna offers, is anchored in outdoor recreation, coupled with a quiet, family-oriented lifestyle. Permanently destroying the sensitive natural parkland in this region, completely eliminates the value and appeal West Kelowna has to offer residents or guests.

    The city of West Kelowna sacrificing it’s most valuable assets: our parkland, our wildlife, our water supply, our residential neighbourhoods, our bedrock — to save commuters tens of minutes, and introduce ‘downtown appeal’, is short-sighted at best. It’s better described above as ridiculous, ludicrous, absurd, shocking, ignorant, and disgusting.

    The only option is upgrading the existing corridor, but it sounds like the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure was mandated to explore a bypass, by the district (?). This is the root of the problem, since a bypass is illogical, and these options are the resulting symptoms.

    Moving forward through “Phase 2, Part 2”, MOTI’s recommendations should consist of:

    – Upgrading the existing corridor with interchanges / trenching
    – Establishing a roadmap for maintenance and upgrades to our existing lake crossing
    – Evaluating more invasive changes to traffic infrastructure Main Street / Dobbin Road
    – Proposing more forward-thinking options, such as light rail and improvements to public transit to move people (not vehicles) through Kelowna. It’s clear a negligible amount of congestion is imposed by commuters just passing through, and you should be presenting modern solutions looking forward to 2040.

    A bypass is not an option. It’s akin to consciously choosing to inflict more devastation than the wildfires we’ve experienced, or inevitably will experience in the future.

    It’s time for this 40+ year discussion to course correct.

  40. Lynne

    Please do no build a highway through parkland and near residential neighbourhoods. We moved to the West Kelowna decades ago because of the tranquility of the community. We are so lucky to have this beautiful nature right outside our door. Also, the harmful effects a highway like you have proposed would have on our water supply.
    I commute each day from West Kelowna all the way to Reed’s Corner. I truly believe, a new highway would not make much of an impact on the commuter traffic. The answer is to address the issues with the existing corridor. As one man, last night at the meeting held by concerned citizens at MBSS, said the issues is the stop sign at the end of the bridge. That stop sign referring to numerous lights along highway 97 that does not allow the traffic to flow. Some days I hit almost every red light from Abbott St. to Sexsmith. Also, we need to look at investing in rapid transit, to help remove the vehicles from the roads. Move the people, not more cars.
    In the meantime, can you the Ministry PLEASE REMOVE the pedestrian control device at Abbott Street and Highway 97. During the busiest time on the roads it is also the busiest pedestrian period because of City Park. (Summertime). That pedestrian control signal is activated continuously through out the rush hour period. Traffic is blocked up for blocks on the North side and all the way across the bridge during the morning rush house. There is a tunnel for the people to use to but it is “inconvenient” for the walkers/runners/bike riders so they cross at Harvey. Can a Pedestrian walk over be put into place in the near future. Thank you!

  41. Claudine

    This should be put to a vote by West Kelowna residents as it is clear by the majority of respondents on this thread that no one supports the connector. The City needs to listen to their community !

  42. Michael

    The impact that would be incurred in West Kelowna geologically, to residents, and to the community, would be devastating and irreversible.

    The value West Kelowna offers, is anchored in outdoor recreation, coupled with a quiet, family-oriented lifestyle. Permanently destroying the sensitive natural parkland in this region, completely eliminates the value and appeal West Kelowna has to offer residents or guests.

    The city of West Kelowna risking its most valuable assets: our parkland, our wildlife, our water supply, our residential neighbourhoods, our bedrock — to save commuters tens of minutes — doesn’t seem forward-thinking to me. Instead:

    – upgrade the existing corridor with interchanges / trenching
    – iterate on the roadmap for maintenance and upgrades to our existing lake crossing
    – propose modern options, such as light rail and improvements to public transit to move people (not vehicles) through Kelowna.

    It’s clear a negligible amount of congestion is imposed by commuters just passing through.

    Thank you!

  43. Bruce

    It makes absolutely no sense to build a 30km long bypass of West Kelowna period. Never mind the fact that they want to go through people’s yards, water sheds/reservoirs, and park land. What would happen to all of the businesses in West Kelowna?
    Is the Ministry saying that the majority of the traffic in West Kelowna just wants to go through to Kelowna? A bypass will not relieve any of the congestion going into Kelowna.

    There is no need for a second crossing as even their study concludes that the bridge is more than adequate until 2040-2050. The issue is all of the stop lights at the ends of the bridge, in both Kelowna and West Kelowna. I say scrap the second crossing idea and the West Kelowna bypass. Then spend the money on over/under passes on HWY97. Have none of these engineers never driven in high traffic cities that move copious amounts traffic with proper infrastructure…

  44. sandra

    I was at the meeting last night and it was obvious that 90% of people there were AGAINST the proposed connector road to alleviate traffic congestion . Option 2A was of major concern with everyone practically. The building of a road through rose valley wildlife habitat, near the drinking water reservoir, and a long road section to Bear Creek provincial park where there is, another wildlife habitat seems incredibly insensitive. Westside road itself is very congested in the summertime and could not handle more traffic.
    Congestion on the 97 is usually about 10mins duration. Certainly not worth spending billions to excavate a new road through the wildlife territory surrounding the City of Kelowna and West Kelowna. Upgrading what we already have, removing traffic lights, bridges over fast lanes and improving public transportation would be a much better and more acceptable plan.

  45. Holly

    Thank you for taking the time to meet with the public on April 10th.

    I am 100% opposed to an alternate corridor running through Rose Valley, Shannon Woods, Tallus Ridge, Smith Creek, Glenrosa. I do not see any benefit, only irreversible environmental damage and dividing communities to save a few minutes of driving (if any). The existing corridor is aligned with the bridge which sounds like it will have enough capacity until 2040 and could be taken well past that by adding an additional lane, adding lane control and projections for how driving patterns will change with autonomous cars. Let’s focus on keeping traffic flowing along our existing corridor.

    I am concerned that “Jack” from the open house said they were taking notes but I did not see any evidence of this. Is it easier to disregard public feedback if there is no written record?

    I am also very concerned about the comment made by the engineer presenting on the study that it is easy to build a road through a park.

    ****To the residents of West Kelowna, users of our hiking trails, mountain biking trails, nature enthusiasts – we have the opportunity NOW to use our voices and shape the future of our city. Let’s make a difference and preserve our parks and communities for generations to come. It cannot stop at this forum****

  46. Jim

    There has not been sufficient input by the community on this issue. The proposal that appeared in the media recently is not acceptable for a number of reasons. The most significant is that it crosses through parkland that is the habitat of considerable wildlife, and construction of this nature will forever have a negative impact. Building major structures above residential areas has proven to be risky business as far as I know.

  47. Steve

    The alternate corridor options go through parkland and communities. Based on that and the difficulty of the terrian, please pull these options off the table. Once the parks are ripped up, they are gone forever. It is too bad past governments did not protect earlier routes that had been considered.

  48. tracy

    Please expand the existing highway
    If you knew 20 years ago you wanted to run a highway through our wilderness homes why did you allow homes to go within 150 feet of a four lane highway in the middle of 3 watersheds underground springs and a wildlife corridor
    This isn’t just about rose valley
    Glen rosa,. Smith creek, Tallis ridge , shannon lake are some of the nicest areas in west Kelowna
    I can’t believe out mayor would even consider this an option
    We say no to the second crossing and alternate highway

  49. Maureen

    Save the enormous cost of building a second crossing of Okanagan Lake and destroying parkland by fixing what we already have.
    1. Improve Hwy 97 in Kelowna by making it 6 lanes from Bennett Bridge to McCurdy, removing all business frontage access and stoplights, and adding grade-separated interchanges – like a real highway (ie Deerfoot in Calgary).
    2. Open Bennett Bridge to all 6 lanes (3 west, 3 east) and allow the 3rd eastbound lane to be restricted to Sneena Road merge traffic until at least 50m onto the bridge so that nightmare spot is improved – it is a dangerous bottleneck right now.
    3. Remove all Hwy 97 stoplights in West Kelowna, replacing with grade-separated interchanges.
    4. Make Dobbin Road in West Kelowna business district the Hwy 97 corridor, with 4 lanes and a few elevated interchanges for local access instead of the many stoplights.

  50. J.

    It must be too late for the proposed route, the former Socred Gov. proposed that route, but the NDP took over and the route was dropped, and now developed. Good luck moving traffic now!

  51. Abk

    I am writing to strongly oppose the proposed new highway that is to run behind the existing neighbourhoods of Smith Creek, Tallus Ridge and Rose Valley. We moved to the Westside because of the natural undisturbed beauty of the areas that will be impacted by the proposed new highway. This area is not only a natural gem for all residents and visitors to the area but also for the many species of wildlife that call these forests home. In addition, our local drinking water reservoir would negatively be impacted. A highway intersecting this delicate area will forever destroy this unique area. The noise that would be generated from this highway would be extreme as the sound would hit all the surrounding mountains in the area and be amplified for all the residents that live in these neighbourhoods. The cost to minimize this noise pollution would be astronomical. Please focus your attention on creating a long term environmentally sound decision that preserves this very special area and what makes West Kelowna the best place to live. Sustainability should be the focus not destruction. My opinion would be to upgrading the existing highway to remove all lights so that traffic can flow freely and a special focus should be made on increasing transit and carpooling options. I implore you to make the right decision and save these areas because if the mistake is made to build this highway through these neighbourhoods, they will forever be destroyed.

  52. Stallion

    Get rid of all traffic lites on #97 and install a few overpasses. Build two frontage roads on each side of #97 from the Sneena area thru to the Greyhound depot/Paynters Fruit stand. This would eliminate a huge amount of local traffic from the highway. Fix the lites in Kelowna and the bridge will be good for 20+ years.

  53. Wade

    The problem is in the traffic planning, not the bridge. Coming over the bridge in the morning, you see 2 empty lanes coming to West Kelowna and going to West Kelowna at supper you see very minimal traffic coming to Kelowna.

    Is it conceivable that a certain part from the Kelowna side of the bridge to say Westlake Road could be 5-6 lanes and utilize a couple lanes to switch directions between 7-9am and then again from 4 – 6pm?

    From the bridge to Mc Curdy it would make more sense to use the middle lane for thru traffic to avoid stopping and starting, pedestrian crossings, and turning of the highway. If your just going through it makes logical sense.

    Drivers… take some of the blame. The tailgaters & distracted drivers… who else really creates the accidents during rush hour? Lane hopping… doesn’t get you there much faster due to all the lights slowing you down. The care length space between cars is not because you can fit into the space, but rather to give drivers a distance that can be a buffer if one is to jam on the brakes in front of you. I’d love to know where Kelowna rates for accidents per capita… we have to be #1.

    What about a parking lot at Gelately, Peachland & Penticton for a decent size passenger boat to move people up and down the lake faster like a lake taxi.

    A highway through Rose Valley, near the drinking water and through a national park and family neighbourhood is seriously an options for planners who can’t think logic or into the future. Look at other cities to make notes if you must. Also, think in the future, not in the now as it’s how the city got to this point already.

    I do believe maybe a true by-pass highway to avoid the city if one was going north to South from Peachland to Vernon wouldn’t be such a bad idea vs the second crossing.

  54. JP

    Although I read mostly negative comments about the corridor options, I think we need to face the fact that we will have to solve the traffic flow not only for the next 20 years, but for the 20 years after as well. Furthermore, downtown Westbank badly needs a bypass route. I therefore agree that we should start planning and eventually build a corridor that would lead to a second crossing.

  55. susie

    There has to be a better way than putting a highway straight through Rose Valley a beautiful and well used provincial park

  56. Jill

    As there are options to use the existing highway you need to stay out of our parks and neighbourhoods. I live in rose valley so that I can get out of the Hussle and bustle and be near green space. Adding a highway above my home will compeletely wreck our community and home. Please consider this very seriously. You will be destroying many people’s place of refuge. I understand there are corridor issues bit by pass roads through our parks and neighbourhoods are not the answer. Either the existing highway needs to be updated or a ring road located much further away from the parks and neighbourhoods needs to be review. Please please please don’t wreck my home and our beautiful parks. I would rather deal with traffic than have any of our beautiful neighbourhood and green space be ruined.

  57. Brian

    Alternative bypass routes through existing established Rose Valley park land and others, is simply unthinkable.
    Accommodating more cars in this manner repeats the flawed thinking of the last 70 years. Build more roads, and you will have more cars, more cars and you will have worse air quality in the valley – its that simple. There appears to me more consideration given toward peoples’ commute time than the air they breathe.
    Think creatively about public transportation systems for 2040 and we will all be better off.

  58. Craig

    I attended the last information session and was truly shocked at the proposal to route an alternate bypass through the Glen Rosa, Smith Creek, Talus Ridge, Shannon Woods and Rose Valley neighbourhoods. This would destroy environmentally sensitive areas as well as have extreme negative impacts on the quality of all these neighbourhoods. Like many people in West Kelowna, we chose to live in the Shannon Woods area due to the interface with the natural wooded areas as well as the quiet and tranquil nature of the neighbourhood and its natural beauty. This would be completely destroyed by a bypass route. As well there is an existing network of community trails which flows up the hillsides and connects to the Smith Creek area which provide outstanding hiking and recreation which would be hard to access, if not ruined, with a bypass cutting through it. At the meeting the MOT officials stated they did not know the exact route this bypass would follow but that due to the steep terrain would have to be at the base of the slope. At this time there are two reservoirs and existing houses at the base of the slope above us. This by pass proposal should be entirely rejected and it has such a detrimental impact on every one of the mentioned neighborhoods in terms of environmental impact, noise/disruption and devaluation of property values. The proposals for development of the existing Highway 97 corridor are well thought out and can make it a good and viable route for use into the future. This existing corridor can and should be the route to be developed without the negative impacts to the existing hillside neighbourhoods.

  59. Amanda

    I’m disappointed to learn that one of the corridor options include the destruction of green space in Rose Valley, which is used extensively by locals to stay healthy, as well as an important area for wildlife accessing Rose valley reservoir.

  60. Charlene

    It is particularly difficult to fathom why the West Kelowna municipal government would put forward support for the proposed connector just above the neighbourhoods of Smith Creek, Tallus Ridge, Shannon Woods, and Rose Valley. This highway would destroy the beauty and tranquility of these areas, impact real estate values and most importantly destroy parks, trails and green space. It also contradicts West Kelowna’s own “Recreational Trails Master Plan” which states on their website that they recognize the “outstanding trail opportunities” that exist here. Most of the trails identified by the municipal government for upgrade and development would be destroyed or severely impacted by the connector.
    Improvements to the existing corridor, eliminating signals and installing interchanges, would achieve the same results as an alternate route with much less impact on the environment and probably at a lower cost. The proposed trench through downtown to remove the couplet, although disruptive to a small area during the construction, would improve traffic flow, and is a much better option. Apparently Mayor Findlater previously expressed concern about West Kelowna “becoming a city of interchanges with a freeway running through the middle of it”. Instead the proposed bypass will direct traffic through numerous residential areas across very challenging terrain, ecologically sensitive areas, near our water reservoir and completely away from the businesses in the town centre. Please eliminate the bypass option.

  61. Lindsay

    West Kelowna traffic would easily be reduced by removing the lights along the existing corridor and instead creating hwy exits and/or over passes. Given the amount of space along side most of the hwy (until you enter the blocks of the current city core), this should not be a challenging feat, rather a no-brainer.

    Even the lights in the West Kelowna/Westbank city core could be removed, while maintaining the one way directed traffic and redirecting city traffic so that the 5 or 6 lights aren’t even necessary. I personally think that West Kelowna is currently an incredibly easy solution – the Kelowna side will take some more creativity.

    Improve the existing corridor & look into better options for rapid transit.

    Demolishing the natural beauty and recreational use of our park land and natural surroundings is a HORRIBLE idea that will only negatively impact this city and the whole Okanagan Valley. It shouldn’t even be an option!! I am surprised and disappointed that the City of West Kelowna does not see the same.

    The Okanagan Valley is a paradise because of its amazing and easily accessible natural surroundings. If you ruin the amazing natural surroundings, you will ruin the majority of the reason anyone desires to visit or live here. Remember, a huge part of our economy is tourism and real estate.

    Think forward! Once natural beautiful land is gone, its gone forever and there isn’t any more being made!

  62. Jeff

    Improve the existing corridor and leave our parks alone.

  63. Kathy

    There are much better options to explore rather than adding a second crossing through the natural and beautiful area of Rose Valley and the other West Kelowna communities. We don’t want to destroy our hiking trails, wildlife, and water sources, they are way too precious. Please work on improving the existing highway! Better to spend the money improving transit options, add park and ride lots to encourage transit use, add lanes to widen the highway, add off ramps to the existing highway to improve the flow of traffic. Add lanes to the bridge or take out the divider and give the extra lane to the rush hour traffic in the morning and end of day. Reduce or remove all the lights on Hwy 97 and use off ramps so traffic can flow in and out of the city. Please explore these other options. It makes no sense in this day and age to destroy our beautiful habitat by adding another crossing.

  64. Geoff

    One of the main reasons my wife and I live in West Kelowna is our regional parks. We are both in them every day. The new route should not destroy such beautiful West Kelowna assets.

  65. Sandra

    Directing the traffic away from the Main Street of Westbank to encourage a local downtown community is a positive move. Encouraging growth for employment in West Kelowna so residents do not need to cross the bridge during rush hour would help. Continuous traffic flow for people travelling through the area is necessary. The proposed bypass routes appear to have more detrimental effect on the parks and land than benefits to improving traffic flow.

  66. Danika

    1. Upgrade the existing corridor with more overpasses and roundabouts (like at westlake) to reduce congestion, it is the constant start/ stop/ start/stop on each end that has the bridge so backed up as once you are free of those lights the traffic is smooth sailing. Try sitting in it in rush hour and you will see what I mean!
    2. Destruction of our parks which bring so much joy to locals (and is the reason I moved to Kelowna) and brings so many tourists to the area seems utterly backwards. Let’s keep our green spaces and keep the areas desirable to keep our current families here and especially to grow our city with making the Okanagan desirable for new families who value green spaces and safe neighbourhoods to raise their children. The Okanagan is bleeding all it’s young UBCO and OC graduates that need a reason to stay!
    3. We need those wildlife areas to be protected! For the animals and for us. There are many delicate ecosystems surrounding Rose Valley which help to keep each of those water reservoirs safe! Building a bypass could contaminate our water with runoff!

  67. kimberly

    A rail system needs to be considered in depth. Keep people, where people are and make more opportunities for density and complexity. I envision the rail system as another layer in the way we navigate this region. If another highway is built, it would take business away from the WFN development. I think the WFN, WK and the province need to be more forward thinking in terms of transportation for tourism, commuting and an aging population. A rail system would also take people out of their cars and into the public sphere, where we engage with our neighbours and our community in a more haptic way. Imagine how empowered an elderly person would be if they could take themselves to the grocery store! Let’s be an example for smart growth rather then repeat the mistakes of many broken cities.

  68. RK

    This proposal lacks vision and quite frankly is the biggest slap in the face to the current and next generation of West Kelownians I have ever seen. The fact is in 20 years there will be less traffic on our roads. Why? Have you herd of the web, we will not be driving cars to purchase groceries,electronics,furniture and other items that are easily purchased and delivered to our door. Instead we will bike, walk, ride share or ask our autonomous vehicle to drive to our regional parks and enjoy everything they have to offer. Not to mention the movement of working remotely where companies like Telus and others encourage better work life balance and improved productivity to work from where you want. The person that said you trying to solve a 1960 s problem with a 1960s solution has it right. Shame on our city counsellors and Mayor for not having the vision to see this now and continue to push solutions to meet their own selfish agendas. Get this right and do not build bypasses and infrastructure that will not be needed in the future.

  69. A

    All the proposed routes through Smith Creek, Tallus Ridge, Shannon Woods and Rose Valley are ridiculous. We need better options that don’t impact out wildlife and world class parks that locals and tourists come here for! Update existing roads and consider the interchange at boucherie. Seems our council here isn’t listening to much of what the people here have to say… so I’ll make it simple. Leave our parks, our neighborhoods, our enviroment, and our widlife alone!

  70. Liam

    I am adamantly opposed to the construction of a bypass through West Kelowna above Smith Creek, Tallus Ridge, and Rose Valley. This idea is incredibly unpractical and would be an obvious detriment to the fragile ecosystem which is already threatened by rapid development. As long as I live here, I will strenuously oppose this route.

  71. Gord

    I am against the alternate corridor options identified for West Kelowna. These options will severely impact park land and existing properties and I am sure that the construction costs would be considerably higher than upgrading the existing route and adding some sort of rapid transit.

    In particular, the route above my home in West Kelowna Estates (Rose Valley) would devastate the atmosphere of the neighborhood and destroy valuable park land, water reservoir and wildlife habitat. I, along with many others use this park regularly for hiking and cycling and we love to live here because we have this literally in our back yard. It would be devastating to have this replaced with a highway or road of any sort. The extra distance and elevation changes required for this route will result in it being used very little and the existing corridor will still need to be upgraded.

    Upgrading the existing route with well thought out interchanges and improvement to some of the parallel routes seems to me to be the only reasonable option for the existing crossing and for any future crossings to the north. The addition of some sort of rapid transit system along the highway and parallel to the existing bridge would also greatly improve the congestion.

  72. Andrew

    We are residents of Shannon Hills Place, West Kelowna. It is preposterous to hear of the proposed 4 lane highway through Carrot Mtn. This not only seriously impacts our neighbourhood but also Glenrosa, Smith Creek, Tallus Ridge and Rose Valley residents. The other option of using the existing Hwy through Westbank to the bridge will have much less impact on our neighbourhoods, parks, wildlife and water supply. In closing, on a matter this serious, I think more public forums are required involving representation from all impacted neighbourhood associations. Thank you.

  73. Rian

    A 4 lane highway blasted through mountains, parks, watersheds, and residential neighborhoods will have an irreversible, permanent, negative impact on the quality of life for thousands of Okanagan residents. A second bridge to more efficiently funnel traffic into the center of Kelowna will only move the bottleneck north a few blocks, and destroy the north end community.

    I drive from Glenrosa to the airport in heavy traffic and it takes 45 minutes, 50 if I stop for coffee. Smooth sailing most days from Boucherie to Pandosy, the bridge is not slowing me down one bit.

    The 97 corridor through Kelowna already ties in with major trunk roads to connect with the rest of town, it just needs less lights, a few interchanges and improvements to frontage road flow. Westbank needs the same treatment. Traffic funnels on/off 97 from both sides and across WRB bridge, and will continue to do so new bridge/bypass or not.

    Let’s fix up the highway we have instead of spending billions to divert thundering transport trucks and fifth wheels through parkland and back yards.

  74. Ron

    I’m sorry, but this is lunacy. Running a new provincial highway through a number or residential neighborhoods and both municipal and regional parks to a second crossing that does not exist and is not needed for 23 years?

    How do you people come up with these ideas?

  75. Bryce

    What does West Kelowna have in common with North and West Vancouver? They are both very desirable places to live and have a highway to feed the cities with beautiful mountains and park lands surrounding their communities. The neighbour hoods of Rose Valley, Shannon Lake and Smith Creek are like a smaller version of Mount Seymour, Grouse and Cypress. These areas are very popular destinations for locals and foreigners that enjoy the hiking and biking trails. While I fully support better traffic flow through the BC interior, West Kelowna doesn’t need a second highway going through some of it’s most important geographical appeal. It needs an updated, modern highway with proper roundabouts including over and underpasses. All the people I’ve talked to with about this issue support overpasses and we are very frustrated that our Mayor is apposed to them. People sitting in traffic jams is not good for tourism, the environment or bringing value into our community. Both the City of Vancouver and Kelowna have high traffic congestion problems per capita because they are lacking a proper highway through the center of them. West Kelowna is fortunate to already have the base of that infrastructure in place. For the cost associated with constructing a new highway through Smith/Creek/Rose Valley, I believe building a tunnel under the Westbank downtown core from the base of the hill below Gorman’s mill to Gellatly Rd near the RCMP building would make a lot more sense. With the through traffic going below Westbank, this would allow for a revitalization of the downtown. It would also allow traffic to flow between the Okanagan Connector, Peachland and Kelowna.

  76. Jeff

    Please refer to pages 11-15 of the spring 2017 planning study book. Option 2a does not appear to make sense to us. To have to go 14km to get to the Bartley Rd interchange is slower, more invasive with reworking the road, would destroy the hillside which would then be unsightly and noisy disrupting the neighbourhood than what it would be to just go with Option 2b (page 15). With this option it would only be 1.7km from the westside Rd interchange and then you can hook off at Bartley Rd to a connector to avoid having to go through West Kelowna which is slow and extremely congested. We like the idea of 1b from smith creek interchange to a connection at 97 and 97c as this gives the option to each travel point vs option 1a which would just be to 97c. So with this combination, although about 6km further than just following along 97 from the bridge; people could avoid lights and more efficiently get through the west Kelowna traffic to either 97c to Vancouver or 97 onward to Penticton.

  77. Z

    The simple solution is to make as many lights as possible on the highway into overpasses…stopping 5 times in as many kilometers on a major highway is ridiculous.

  78. Tom

    Just became aware of this matter. We are planning to move from Winnipeg to build a retirement home in the Crystal View Development, off Glenrosa Rd, which would come close to the proposed Westside bypass route, but are now reconsidering on whether to go ahead. I share all of the concerns which have been voiced by many already about destruction of the precious ecosystem, park space, justifications of needs, etc. If absolutely necessary in terms of longer range plans, the solution must have minimal if any impact on the residents and community of West Kelowna. Anything less should be recognized as unconscionable. The harm caused by such a bypass in my opinion would far outweigh any perceived or future benefits. Please preserve this precious ecosystem, and have sincere regard for the residents of this community. Thank you.

  79. Isabel

    Stop the destruction of Rose Valley Park. Remove option 2A from all highway plans. It wasn’t a good idea in 1974 and it still not, so stop bringing it up as a possible option. This option is way too long and even though I would live right by it, it would not be a viable option to drive. The road maintenance alone would be horrible in winter. Explore overpasses through the community, keep the traffic in the community so people will use the facilities here and keep the economy going. Listen to the residents who travel the main corridor as the majority would prefer overpasses as a strong population opposes the destruction being proposed to so many neighbourhoods and parks.

  80. Bob

    The best solution is to have a bypass of West Kelowna from Peachland to south Kelowna.

  81. Audrey

    If the cost to build a second bridge across Lake Okanagan is issue at this time, I have an idea that might be solution for 20-30 years. My solution is to run a FERRY from Okanagan Centre Road to Nahun on Westside Road. Traffic would turn off Hwy 97 in Lake Country and proceed on Okanagan Centre Rd. This route is already in place. I have travelled throughout the Province of BC in both my car and on my motorbike. I love the drive on Hwy 23 just west of Revelstoke to the Shelter Bay Ferry to Galena and onto Nakusp. A Ferry is a wonderful way to cross waters, it offers much to tourism and creates employment. I believe that the wineries in Lake Country, Lake Okanagan Resort and many of the privately ran camps on Westside Road would benefit to have a Ferry bringing cars to them. This would give another route to the Westside from Hwy 97 and a direct route to people living on Westside Road to Kelowna. Particularly La Casa Resort owners. I think that the summer volume would decrease daily in Kelowna and tourism would be up because of interesting Hwy route. This could be a solution for 20-30 years until the population dictates another bridge crossing. Thank you from a resident of this Province who loves to travel in her own back yard.

  82. Rylan

    What makes the most sense would be to improve highway 97. Make it six lanes, and get rid of the traffic lights and create grade separated interchanges for all intersections between Boucherie and Glenrosa. The struggle would be where the highway splits by Gellatly. This is where they should choose Dobbin Street and expand it. They could add an interchange at Old Okanagan Highway and Hebert Rd if if Dobbin is chosen to be expanded. Regarding the second crossing of Okanagan Lake, right where Highway 97 makes that sharp turn before bridge hill would be a great place to create an interchange for a freeway to go through Kelowna (this would be on that empty land near Old Ferry Wharf Rd). These modifications may seem a little invasive, however it needs to be dealt with properly now before West Kelowna gets even more built up, before the issue does become uncorrectable.

  83. Holger

    I wholeheartedly agree with many of the previous posts: please do NOT destroy Rose Valley or other recreational parks. Instead of building evermore roads, consider overpasses and strengthening public transit. If buses were not as old and loud as they are, and run more frequently between Kelowna and West Kelowna, more people would use them. Also facilities for locking and storing bicycles would help persuade people use more public transit. Please take a look at urban planning in the Scandinavian countries, the Netherlands, Germany, Austria, etc.

  84. Tim

    It is important to improve cycling safety and separating cycling and automotive traffic when improving the West Kelowna corridor

Comments are closed.