Cogswell Interchange

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Haliguy

What are you talking about?! Its not about waiting at traffic signals! It's a safety issue being very difficult to bike onto the bridge. Not sure why you don't get that!

It's not a matter of not getting it; it's a matter of actively wanting things to be as unsafe and unpleasant as possible for cyclists to discourage them from riding and to punish the ones who still do. That's been clear for years now.

[mleblanc]

I dream of the day I click on this thread and it's filled with progress pictures and not certain users having tantrums over bike lanes, but it is not this day.

My cost saving proposal is to ban cars of the old bridge. Us cars can stick to the new bridge, busses and bikes get the old bridge. There's your $15 mill back, minus my consultancy fee of course.

[DBaz]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Thanks for the analysis. I agree that Option 1 sounds like a better alternative than Option 2.

I had been wondering if it might have been more advantageous to just build an "off ramp" further up the span that would meet street level to the northeast of Lorne Terrace. This would also avoid interaction with traffic, etc., but there would still be a hill to climb after exiting the bridge. I would think that, being shorter and less elaborate, it could save significant budget to be invested in other areas of cycling infrastructure. No idea as to whether it was ever considered, or what would be the reasons for not doing it this way.

Unless I'm misunderstanding you, that is in effect what Option 2 was. It is a challenge though, because it still crosses two lanes of traffic, and then the ramp has to land where the sidewalk is, because there is no room except the sidewalk between the traffic lanes and the security fence of the base. It also creates additional security issues for DND.

I'm pretty sure that the "climbing the hill" was never the issue discussed. The issue was that making cyclists go down the hill, cross over three lanes of relatively unforgiving traffic (I've done it enough to know that) and then come back up was going to discourage use of the bridge bike lane and the network as a whole. The "coming back up" was seized upon by certain people and turned into "bicycles can't go up hills, ha ha..."

In my mind the question comes down to the fact that we've already put a lot of money into adding both proper bike and walk ways when we redid the bridge. However, the connections on both sides haven't been finished. Is the additional expense to do that worth it? As a resident of the outer suburbs who currently mostly drives but tries to use my E-Bike, I say the cost is definitely worth it.

This doesn't really belong in this thread because the bridge will be relatively well connected to Cogswell by the existing bicycle lane along Barrington, although the Barrington and North intersection will still be a pain. *Sorry*

[DBaz]

Originally Posted by Haliguy

What are you talking about?! Its not about waiting at traffic signals! It's a safety issue being very difficult to bike onto the bridge. Not sure why you don't get that!

The concern about waiting at traffic signals is more for cars. If there was a signal there to allow bikes to cross, it would be backed up into the toll booths on the other side during both morning rush hour, and in the afternoon. And it still wouldn't be safe for bikes because those same frustrated drivers would be running that red.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by DBaz

Unless I'm misunderstanding you, that is in effect what Option 2 was. It is a challenge though, because it still crosses two lanes of traffic, and then the ramp has to land where the sidewalk is, because there is no room except the sidewalk between the traffic lanes and the security fence of the base. It also creates additional security issues for DND.

I was just noodling while looking at google streetside, so obviously I didn't put a lot of thought into it. I also don't recall seeing "Option 2", so maybe it's the same.

My thought process was to come off of the side of the bridge bike lane at a point that they could overhead the traffic lanes circling around to Barrington, and match up to the grade at North, either through a ramp or a switchback. The tricky part is that I considered eliminating a traffic lane to accommodate the bike lane, but am now thinking it's necessary due to dockyard traffic.

So, it's probably a dumb idea.

FWIW, I don't really care if the ramp is built or not. If it will make a major improvement for bike safety then go for it. I do find myself becoming skeptical at times when it appears that the lanes are not used much, but will concede to the 'build it and they will come' mindset. We'll see I guess.

And yes, time to end this tangent and get back to Cogswell. Sorry.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by mleblanc

I dream of the day I click on this thread and it's filled with progress pictures and not certain users having tantrums over bike lanes, but it is not this day.

The forum has been a little dead lately, so at least it's something to read...

Originally Posted by mleblanc

My cost saving proposal is to ban cars of the old bridge. Us cars can stick to the new bridge, busses and bikes get the old bridge. There's your $15 mill back, minus my consultancy fee of course.

Great idea, then let's get on to a third crossing project. So much for cost savings, but we will need it anyhow, with the current and planned population increases.

[DBaz]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I was just noodling while looking at google streetside, so obviously I didn't put a lot of thought into it. I also don't recall seeing "Option 2", so maybe it's the same.

For ref the report is at https://cdn.halifax.ca/sites/default...0815rc1424.pdf I got the options reversed; Option 1 (what you suggested) is on page 11, Option 2 (the recommended full flyover) is one page 12. It does mention the grade for each (10% and 5.5%).

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by DBaz

For ref the report is at https://cdn.halifax.ca/sites/default...0815rc1424.pdf I got the options reversed; Option 1 (what you suggested) is on page 11, Option 2 (the recommended full flyover) is one page 12. It does mention the grade for each (10% and 5.5%).

Thanks for that. Looks like they thought it through already and chose to avoid the messiness of having to acquire property from DND.

I seem to recall that the price had increased since 2017, and I am wondering what the actual price will be by the time they get around to building it. Also wasn’t there a deadline to receive federal funding for this?

FWIW, I wasn’t out to lunch in recalling that the hill climb was a consideration, as discussed in the sixth bullet point of the document in regards to Option 2. Not a make or break, but the grade differences that you mention make that option more comfortable for riders.

Anyhow, further discussion of this should be probably be continued in the active transportation (cycling) thread. I don’t have any more to say about it, however. I hope they get to it soon, though, if they are actually going to do it.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

It's not a matter of not getting it; it's a matter of actively wanting things to be as unsafe and unpleasant as possible for cyclists to discourage them from riding and to punish the ones who still do. That's been clear for years now.

Utter nonsense. The problem is that the existing setup was designed very poorly. I get that and agree totally. The proposed solution of the flyover though is seemingly from the days when the cycling lobby got everything they asked for from HRM without question and without regard to cost, usefulness, or other priorities. The cost ballooned quickly and no other options were even allowed to be considered. It was discussed here ad nauseum and there is no need to repeat that here.

What was never even considered though was simply the most logical option, to make the bike lane entry/exit on the Halifax side where the bridge touches down at the ramp down to Barrington. Just open that up, install a traffic signal both for bikes and vehicles, and it would not be an inconvenience at all. Traffic coming off the bridge already stops frequently there for pedestrians anyway. Just add the handful of cyclists to that. There was a fiction promulgated by the HCC lobbyists at the time that the evil motorists did not want to stop, but that wasn't so. They already have to stop anyway when pedestrians are present there, and nobody ever asked them the question about stopping for a few cyclists too. It was a fabricated falsehood to justify their monument to cycling. Given the wildly inflated cost of the project even in these flush times for HRM spending, it cannot possibly be justified. I find it interesting that discussion of this has stopped during the election campaign because it is likely a third rail for any candidate. Supporting this would likely get them a handful of votes from the cycling bunch but many times more votes for any candidate saying it is a bridge too far.

[IanWatson]

As a cyclist (and driver) I'd be totally fine with Keith's proposed solution if "they" could make it work. However, my understanding always was that with the geometry and sight lines of the right turn off the bridge there is no safe way to have a crossing there?

[DBaz]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

As a cyclist (and driver) I'd be totally fine with Keith's proposed solution if "they" could make it work. However, my understanding always was that with the geometry and sight lines of the right turn off the bridge there is no safe way to have a crossing there?

I think what Keith is saying is not to go across the right turn lane, but instead go across the main lanes towards Brunswick. I have to say that if that's the case, I agree with him that I never heard it discussed and it might be the best trade off.

From there you could go down Brunswick to George Dixon Park, then up Charles all the way to Windsor and Chebucto. This would separate bike traffic from North St.

I would like to know if that was considered a viable option as well.

[IanWatson]

Oh that's interesting. I could get behind that.

It would mean having two crosswalks right in a row, since you'd still need the existing one to get people to the bus stop and the north side of North Street.

I wonder too how to set it up so cyclists didn't have to dismount and walk on the sidewalk, since there's currently hardly room on the south side of North for a bike lane or multi-use path. Maybe run a bike lane up the grassed/treed median, or move the east-bound vehicle lanes into the grassed median and make space on the south side of North?

[OldDartmouthMark]

The above proposal would probably get more attention and discussion in the cycling thread. Maybe discuss it there?