Comments on the proposed…

Comments on the proposed Ontario Cycling Network A Northern Ontario/Greater Sudbury Perspective

Connectivity

We appreciate the decision to implement a route south of Greater Sudbury on Highway 69, therefore opening up access to areas like Killarney which are currently not accessible by bike. This is very positive for cyclists who currently cannot get to their camps (cottages) or to the town of Killarney and Killarney Provincial Park. Greater Sudbury cyclists are currently effectively cut off from Southern Ontario, unless they take long, cumbersome detours that allow them to bypass the 4-lane sections of highway 69, on which bikes are currently prohibited.

Accessibility

We appreciate that a preferred route would be quieter, safer, scenic, and would include key destinations like provincial parks. We certainly support the routes which would target the development of cycling tourism. In Northern Ontario however, there are destinations (which may include personally owned property) that may only be accessed via major highways, including highways 69 and 17. Unlike Southern Ontario, many regions do not have alternative highways or side roads that would allow people to safely bike to their destinations. We need to ensure that all existing and future destination points are fully accessible by bike. Providing scenic detours of significant distances should be options, but not the only option. We recommend that the gaps that are currently shown on Highway 69 and Highway 17 should include cycling infrastructure.

As examples, the route on side roads alongside Highway 69 deviates across the Murdock River to Dry Rapids Roads on a road that will be built at some point. It then travels on Delamere Road, to Highway 64, Highway 607, to rejoin Highway 69 just north of the French River Trading Post. There is also no safe infrastructure shown on the section of Highway 17 between Markstay-Warren and West Nipissing; long-distance cyclists who prefer a more direct route should be provided with a direct route to Greater Sudbury.

There are no routes shown going north from Greater Sudbury to destinations like Nipigon, Timmins and many other towns and cities via Highways 144 and 11 North. Consideration should be given to safe access to these communities.

Safety

The infrastructure that is built needs to be safe, as well as comfortable for all types of cyclists. The off-road infrastructure that is identified needs to be built or retrofitted to a standard that all users, and in particular those with road bikes, are able to use this infrastructure. In the North, off-road trails are often damaged by ATVs, and are not maintained to the same standard as are roads built for motor vehicles. Bridges need to be safe, and other options provided when highway bridges cannot accommodate cycling. In the North, multi-purpose bridges (eg bike/ATV in the summer and snowmobile in the winter) could be options that could be built in partnership with organizations like the Ontario Federation of Snowmobile Clubs.

Tourism

Safe and accessible infrastructure, and accessible destinations are key to building a cycling tourism industry as envisioned by the #CycleON strategy. We look forward to additional investments by the Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport, as announced recently. We hope to see the integration of infrastructure with good wayfinding for cyclists and promotion of destinations that include parks, bicycle-friendly businesses, rest stops, and camping locations (including camping opportunities in the North that include crown land and non-operating provincial parks). Working together with the various levels of government, with businesses, indigenous peoples, and community groups will result in great cycling tourism opportunities for Northern Ontario.

Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the cycling routes that are being proposed in Northern Ontario, and we look forward to being involved as the plan is refined in more detail.

[Original Comment ID: 209480]