Is it reasonable for a business to require 'the bulk' of the city's residents as customers in order to prosper? I think not. And the local notion of what is 'downtown' and the barriers to walking to 'there' will hopefully continue to evolve with the passage of time. I realize that there is an obesity problem in NS and that there seems to be an entire generation who somehow lost the ability (or will) to walk, but really, people are starting to walk again. No doubt the benefits to our city will be many.

To improve the vitality and the streetscape of any downtown, it is important to remove most surface parking lots. I' m sure even Keith would agree with this. Surface parking is the bane of downtown Moncton, but at least the city here knows this and is taking all the steps necessary to try and remove this scourge (this will take decades unfortunately).

Downtown parking of course is still necessary so that the economy of the core is not suffocated. I agree with Keith here. It just has to be provided for in the most efficient way possible, and this means underground parking and multilevel parking structures. Properly constructed, these structures do not have to be ugly, and streetfront vitality can be maintained if there are leasable CRUs along the face of the structure adjacent to the sidewalk.

Just as importantly, all efforts should be taken to ensure that traffic access to the core should be maintained at least at current levels. To do otherwise risks asphyxiating the downtown. The core should exist for all citizens of the city (and surrounding areas), not just the downtown residents. To consider the core to be the playground only of the residents of the peninsula smacks of urban elitism.

While active transportation should be encouraged (where feasible), given Halifax's climate and geography, it is a fiction to believe that more than a small percentage of people can be coaxed into regular travelling into town via bicycle. Within the peninsula, bicycle paths should be relegated mostly to side streets, and dedicated bicycle lanes should only be constructed where the preexisting width of the street allows for it.

Again, while public transit usage should be encouraged, for a variety of reasons, it is not always convenient or practical for many people. The car will remain a mainstay for many people to gain access to the downtown area. Accommodations will have to be made, no matter how badly some urbanists hate the car.

C'mon guys, this is starting to sound like some Trump fake news conspiracy theory.

Let's get real here for a minute. Halifax is not an area with a huge traffic problem (see Toronto). It's no problem to get around in a car in Halifax, and our worst traffic backups on a normal (non-accident) day might take you a half hour to 45 minutes to get to/from the suburbs during rush hour. Even with recent additions of bicycle lanes and bus-only lanes, it's still not difficult to get around Halifax in a car.

Once you are downtown there are plenty of options for parking. Sure, everyone would like to have that ideal parking spot on the street, in front of their destination, and even better if it's free (evenings and weekends), but if you remove that requirement there are plenty of places to park and it will typically set you back less than 10 bucks (or about the price of an average glass of wine). But really, if anything, parking spaces are increasing downtown with the addition of new buildings and associated public parking spots. Sure, if you're cheap you won't want to pay for parking, but really it's just another one of the many associated costs of having the privilege of driving a car, and it's a small cost at that.

So, really much ado about nothing.

Just to remind everyone what set this derail off, here's someone123's post below where he actually states that Queen's Marque will result in an increase in parking spots in a prime downtown location:

@MonctonRad 's post is one I fully agree with. Also I ask my usual critics to note that nowhere in my posts did I ever mention the words "parking lot". I was referring to HRM's continual lunacy in reducing many streets to cycling paths and making it as difficult as possible for vehicles to circulate. Note the single-lane pathway that Lower Water has become. Note the various narrowings of intersections and lane reductions on major arteries, and the travel restrictions (with "Except Bicycles" signage) on many streets. If we were like most modern N.A. cities with very wide arteries these would perhaps be tolerable changes, but the concept has been dropped without much forethought onto Halifax's ancient and very narrow streets with consequences that seem obvious to most people except for those in our Planning Dept and Council. They have also removed loading zones and some on-street parking in those areas without allowing for any alternative.

It affects me very little as I avoid DT as much as possible now. But I suspect I am not alone in that sentiment. Alienating potential customers is not a formula for business success. It typifies an attitude of the bureaucrat, whose arrogance never includes any consideration to what the client actually desires when interacting with the agency.

No, you didn't use the words "parking lot", but you used a post where parking was mentioned to touch off on another 'war against the car' rant.

The funny thing is, I agree that the motorized personal vehicle is becoming less in favour in popular planning practices, and definitely losing favour with younger generations, and thus change is occurring (as change tends to do).

However, I'm starting to find the continual repetition of this thought pattern to be sounding more and more like a lame conspiracy theory. Things are changing out there due to public opinion and realities like environmental problems caused by our reliance on fossil fuels. Change has occurred in the past, continually, so we should not be surprised that things are continuing to change. The world today is much different than it was 50 years ago, and will be much different than it is now in another 50 years. Situation normal.

However, as I stated, none of it is earth shattering. If anything we are maintaining the status quo much more than handing over our roads to cyclists. I maintain that it is still no problem to take a car downtown, and much easier in Halifax than in many other cities that I have visited. The sky is not falling, as much as it appears we would like to believe.

Well, it will be earth-shattering for the owners of those businesses who go broke downtown, and for the landlords who invested in buildings to support a customer base that has now been driven elsewhere. As for your eulogy to motorized vehicles, think again. Even the avid cyclists are touting the advantages of "motorized bicycles" (sounds like a motorcycle to me but you cannot say those words since it brings the spectre of pesky things like registration and insurance down upon them) if they are to be used as a serious way of getting around instead of just recreation. Once those younger people get out of school and start raising families the appeal of living in a 1-bedroom apartment downtown will be replaced and so will their bicycles. With the advent of electrical propulsion either by battery or fuel cell power the arguments against fossil fuels will go away except among the hair-shirt extreme enviro types.

Excuse me for my rant but I just witnessed the latest example of cyclist misbehavior in DT Dartmouth. I was waiting at a red light on Windmill Rd prior to turning left up Thistle St. I noticed in my mirrors a cyclist blasting towards me from behind in the right lane. He blew through the red light, cut across the bow of a Transit bus *in the intersection* turning left onto Windmill, then when reaching the opposite corner veered right onto the sidewalk, then escaped somewhere into the Dartmouth Common. Yes, by all means let's encourage such behavior.

I'm sorry but you got cut off in traffic and came to the Skysraper forum for a multi-post, multi-thread rant? Perhaps we can get a separate thread for "Keith's war on HRM's war on the car and the inevitable death of all things downtown" so we can keep these all together and on topic.

On a more serious note, "Police encourage anyone who sees someone driving dangerously to report it." I hope that was the first place you expressed your concern about what you witnessed.
https://atlantic.ctvnews.ca/19-year-...outh-1.5084409

It is rather pointless to try reporting dangerous cycling. No registration, no way to ID the miscreant, fuggetaboutit.

No one is encouraging such behaviour. People love to complain about cyclists breaking laws – and they do – but motorists are just as bad if not worse, and are objectively much more dangerous to those around them.

We can't argue against cycling based on people who break the law because by that logic cars should basically be outlawed.

Exactly. Motorists are out there speeding along city streets; revving modified engines at obscene volumes; parking willy-willy in bike lanes, on sidewalks, and in no-stopping zones (try Gottingen for that); and engaging in all kinds of aggressive driving that is far more dangerous than some cyclist who runs a red light. (And honestly, while that does happen, it's the exception. And further normalizing cycling as part of our everyday traffic will continue to reduce it.)

No one is making excused for bad cyclists. But bad driving is a much, much more significant problem, yet dangerous drivers rarely see serious consequences for their actions. You practically have to commit vehicular manslaughter to lose your license.

I dunno about that. Cycling is pretty damn normalized in Amsterdam, but they are an absolute menace to pedestrians over there. Dutch cyclists operate with impunity and are pretty self entitled.

And cyclists don't even have a license to lose! They can be as reckless as they want, and might even get a fine for their behavior, but they will be back on their bike the next day.

Come on. Wake up and smell the coffee. Neither I nor anyone else have ever seen a motor vehicle do what this idiot did yesterday. First, because it could only do the first half of his stunt. The second half of veering onto the sidewalk and then blowing through an open gate into a park would be physically impossible. So stuff the "motorists are just as bad" part. They may do other things but not anti-social dangerous things like this in urban areas reserved for pedestrians. The incident by the Lance Armstrong wannabe yesterday makes a NYC bike courier look like a senior citizen by comparison. And I would suggest to you that the percentage of cyclists who ignore traffic rules is far greater than that of motorists. It is a regular occurrence, encouraged by cycling activists. The city is encouraging the growth in the number of cyclists and thus encouraging the growth of this sort of behavior. It is not hard to connect the dots.

Sure, we haven't specifically seen that. But I've seen plenty of motorists going the wrong way in roundabouts, down one way streets, and on highway off ramps. I've seen them run red lights, stop for no reason, etc. All maneuvers that are much more dangerous to other people than what a typical cyclist does.

You don't hear of many cyclists killing pedestrians, but vehicle-pedestrian collisions are practically a pandemic and is only getting worse.

And yesterday I was driving on the TCH westbound in Moncton, exiting onto Gorge Road, and there were two 10-12 year old girls cycling along the fucking shoulder of the TCH attempting to cross the Gorge Road exit lane to continue on down the freeway. Traffic was heavy (rush hour) and there were transport trailers both in the passing lane next to me, and behind me.

About three cars ahead of me had to brake aggressively to avoid this one girl who attempted to cross the exit lane on her bicycle, despite all the exiting traffic, and I was forced to do the same, all the time wondering how good the brakes were on the 18 wheeler bearing down behind me. :hell:

Luckily, all the drivers were alert enough to avoid a catastrophe, but the actions of these cyclists could have resulted in a multivehicle pile-up with multiple fatalities, so don't tell me that cyclists are always virtuous innocent victims in any motor vehicle accident! :hell: :hell: :hell:

There's a large body of research showing that requiring licenses for cycling substantially decreases cycling rates, does little or nothing to improve safety, and increases administrative burden and costs to government. I understand why people think it's such a no-brainer, but there are good reasons why almost no jurisdiction anywhere actually requires it.

Well it's a good thing I never said any of that.

Welcome to the internet, where facts don't matter and anecdotal evidence is all you need. Also your facts are made up and biased.

Anyway, Queens Marque - anybody know when the boardwalk is scheduled to open? Just wondering because this thread makes me want to slowly walk into the harbour.

No idea but I also wonder about the Muntz metal screens, if they are happening, and when. There are apparently clips for the panels up on the building facade.

All done or sponsored by cycling advocacy groups no doubt. But by all means, let's let people of any age with no accountability for their actions, no training, nor any understanding of rules of the road loose on highways with 20-ton trucks whizzing past or in traffic with lots of cars that can squash them like a bug.

Why should the health, safety, and comfort of peninsula residents be systematically compromised because so many people choose to live in large suburban homes and commute by car? That sounds more like suburban elitism to me.

A very significant proportion of peninsula residents already get around by walking and cycling. Hardly a "fiction" when we already have as many as 35,000 peninsula residents walking and cycling on a daily basis. It has also been established that many more would be interested in commuting by active transportation if the infrastructure was in place.

The real fiction is the recurring allegation on this forum that cycling is only possible in Halifax a few months out of the year.

The vast majority of roads and streets in Halifax are built for cars. And that will still be the case once the AAA cycleway network is in place!

Nobody is going to prevent you from driving. Some of us don't want to drive, or can't afford to. That means fewer cars on the road, which I would think would please motorists rather than eliciting rants against anything that benefits non-car owners. :shrug: