You note a good point – we forgot to mention that our post is referencing the Parks Board report dated October 1, 2013 “Seaside Greenway Improvements” (PDF). In this report you find “Appendix A” which contains an illustration at a large scale showing a “potential route” for bike improvements and another for pedestrian improvements.

This illustration doesn’t provide much in terms of the detailed layout people want to see. For example, it’s impossible to determine with any degree of specificity how far the “proposed” trail is from the existing trail, trees or other existing elements, or what design and landscaping elements might be introduced to mitigate any impacts associated with the bike route.

The comments from the public that have been reported in the media have stated concern about this level of detail. People want to know the exact location and potential impacts – and yet, because things are at a preliminary stage, these are not well documented in the report. Instead, the level of detail – a concept with more generalities than specifics – left informational gaps. Some of these, in turn, were filled in with unhelpful speculation and conjecture. This didn’t help the controversy!

– Adam