Halifax Active Transportation

[gcaven]

Originally Posted by Arrdeeharharharbour

Good to know! Thanks! I did know that Isleville was a bikeway/had a bike lane or 'something' but I never thought of it as a 'zone'. Maybe the 'Local Street Bikeway' terminology/jargon got it the way of me knowing that it was something different or that I don't often drive in that area. Can you confirm for me that no on street parking was lost? As I'm typing this I'm thinking that a 'ZONE' should require no physical alterations just only behaviour differences.

I don't think any on-street parking was lost, the infrastructure added was some speed bumps, curb extensions, and a modal filter at Young St (cars can't continue straight across). IMO it works pretty well, I feel very safe biking there.

But re: behaviour, human behaviour is downstream of infrastructure. See the Spring Garden transit only pilot, just putting up a sign will not do much. The other cities mentioned in your image before made similar changes to infrastructure in areas where they encourage shared road use.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by Arrdeeharharharbour

Good to know! Thanks! I did know that Isleville was a bikeway/had a bike lane or 'something' but I never thought of it as a 'zone'. Maybe the 'Local Street Bikeway' terminology/jargon got it the way of me knowing that it was something different or that I don't often drive in that area. Can you confirm for me that no on street parking was lost?

I live about 50 metres from Isleville. No parking was lost. Speed humps were added and curbs were bumped out, along with more visible signage and pavement markings. There's also a mode filter at Young, so cars going northbound on Isleville have to detour, as do cars going eastbound on Young. It looks like this. It can be mildly annoying as a driver, but as a neighbourhood resident, with two small kids, I'm very pro-reducing car traffic.

Originally Posted by Arrdeeharharharbour

As I'm typing this I'm thinking that a 'ZONE' should require no physical alterations just only behaviour differences.

You pretty much have to make physical alterations to induce behaviour difference. People don't drive according to signage so much as they drive for the conditions. If the street is narrower, and there are speed humps, and so forth, people will naturally go slower. (Mostly--there are people who still bomb up and down the street at 50 km/hr.)

The street is a pretty significant bike route and is the main neighbourhood drag connecting the Hydrostone area to Young Street and points south. It's pretty decently pedestrian-trafficked these days too. The changes

[Summerville]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

I live about 50 metres from Isleville. No parking was lost. Speed humps were added and curbs were bumped out, along with more visible signage and pavement markings. There's also a mode filter at Young, so cars going northbound on Isleville have to detour, as do cars going eastbound on Young. It looks like this. It can be mildly annoying as a driver, but as a neighbourhood resident, with two small kids, I'm very pro-reducing car traffic.




You pretty much have to make physical alterations to induce behaviour difference. People don't drive according to signage so much as they drive for the conditions. If the street is narrower, and there are speed humps, and so forth, people will naturally go slower. (Mostly--there are people who still bomb up and down the street at 50 km/hr.)

The street is a pretty significant bike route and is the main neighbourhood drag connecting the Hydrostone area to Young Street and points south. It's pretty decently pedestrian-trafficked these days too. The changes

I cycle that route on a regular basis and can't bring myself to use Agricola anymore.

If a cyclists can use that route instead of Agricola or Gottingen,...I'd highly recommend it. And driver's will appreciate it too.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by Summerville

I cycle that route on a regular basis and can't bring myself to use Agricola anymore.

If a cyclists can use that route instead of Agricola or Gottingen,...I'd highly recommend it. And driver's will appreciate it too.

Gottingen is really bad on a bike. I'm a very comfortable urban cyclist and I never bike on Gottingen. Terrible combo of bad sightlines, narrow width and fast driving. Not a good street for cycling.

Agricola is much better. There are more interesecting streets, so more east-west traffic slowing the north-south traffic. Also more crosswalk-pedestrian activity all the way up to North Street. But it's still a bit dicey--I'm fine cycling it on my own, but I never ride with my kids there. That's why Isleville is such a great option. It's slow, it's safe, it's where the whole family can get on a bike and go downtown: Isleville down to Fuller Terrace/Maynard, down to Nora Bernard/Cunard->North Park-> Bell Road-> South Park.

The Isleville street mods make it meaningfully easier and safer to get my kids around town. Making drivers (including me, I'll add) drive an extra block to avoid a mode filter is a tiny price to pay.

[Keith P.]

Those local street bikeways are a perfect example of an infrastructure change made for one group (cycling devotees) that are hated by everyone else using the street. If others didn’t have to use the street it would be a non-issue. But if you do, or god forbid live on the street, they are a nightmare, and not because of the volume of cyclists since they are very sparse. They are built on the theory that all other users need to be inconvenienced to the max.

[Arrdeeharharharbour]

Thanks for all the feedback!

[gcaven]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Those local street bikeways are a perfect example of an infrastructure change made for one group (cycling devotees) that are hated by everyone else using the street. If others didn’t have to use the street it would be a non-issue. But if you do, or god forbid live on the street, they are a nightmare, and not because of the volume of cyclists since they are very sparse. They are built on the theory that all other users need to be inconvenienced to the max.

I live just off Isleville and the experience is also much improved as a pedestrian. When I drive, the inconvenience is extremely minor and very much worth the trade-offs

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by gcaven

I live just off Isleville and the experience is also much improved as a pedestrian. When I drive, the inconvenience is extremely minor and very much worth the trade-offs

Yeah. As a cyclist the experience is +10 over the status quo. As a pedestrian it's +5. As a driver it's -1.

I bike, walk and drive, so in the aggregate for me it's a huge improvement, as it is for many, many people--even those who just walk and don't bike.

Unfortunately, it seems like some drivers perceive even the smallest inconvenience (driving around the block to avoid a mode filter) or a non-inconvenience (a speed hump or bumpout that takes their speed down a few kilometres per hour) as an outrageous infringement on their mobility.

[ArchAficionado]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Those local street bikeways are a perfect example of an infrastructure change made for one group (cycling devotees) that are hated by everyone else using the street. If others didn’t have to use the street it would be a non-issue. But if you do, or god forbid live on the street, they are a nightmare, and not because of the volume of cyclists since they are very sparse. They are built on the theory that all other users need to be inconvenienced to the max.

Take your logic and apply it to roads, and be appalled. Our system as a whole has been designed exclusively with cars in mind for the better part of a century. The point of these local bikeways isn't to inconvenience everybody else; rather, it's to lower the probablility that a driver kills a cyclist through a failure of design. If a non-commuter road now becomes non-viable for commuting as a result, so be it!

Many car-brained folks like yourself fail to realize that your default assumption is that the car reigns supreme. Where privelege is the standard, equality feels like oppression.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Yeah. As a cyclist the experience is +10 over the status quo. As a pedestrian it's +5. As a driver it's -1.

I bike, walk and drive, so in the aggregate for me it's a huge improvement, as it is for many, many people--even those who just walk and don't bike.

Unfortunately, it seems like some drivers perceive even the smallest inconvenience (driving around the block to avoid a mode filter) or a non-inconvenience (a speed hump or bumpout that takes their speed down a few kilometres per hour) as an outrageous infringement on their mobility.

Just my impression (I can’t speak for people who live there), but it seems like there are enough traffic-prioritized streets in the area that having one be less convenient isn’t much of a loss for people who are driving through, but a great tradeoff considering the safety of cyclists is at play. For people who live there, I think it would be an overall positive with the improvements for pedestrians and cyclists, plus there is the bonus of less vehicles ripping along your street on their way to somewhere else. If it were me, I would like to live on a street that has been prioritized for cyclists, even though I do drive a car.

[Summerville]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Just my impression (I can’t speak for people who live there), but it seems like there are enough traffic-prioritized streets in the area that having one be less convenient isn’t much of a loss for people who are driving through, but a great tradeoff considering the safety of cyclists is at play. For people who live there, I think it would be an overall positive with the improvements for pedestrians and cyclists, plus there is the bonus of less vehicles ripping along your street on their way to somewhere else. If it were me, I would like to live on a street that has been prioritized for cyclists, even though I do drive a car.

There are so many stop signs/intersections, and to be honest, pot holes on the Northwood Terrace-Maynard-Creighton bikeway that cyclists move faster on the stretch than cars. its a prefect location for a shared road...with the exception of the pot holes of course

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by ArchAficionado

Take your logic and apply it to roads, and be appalled. Our system as a whole has been designed exclusively with cars in mind for the better part of a century. The point of these local bikeways isn't to inconvenience everybody else; rather, it's to lower the probablility that a driver kills a cyclist through a failure of design. If a non-commuter road now becomes non-viable for commuting as a result, so be it!

Many car-brained folks like yourself fail to realize that your default assumption is that the car reigns supreme. Where privelege is the standard, equality feels like oppression.

Personally, I think these discussions work better when handled logically, without the emotional culture war stuff. Even though we all have our opinions, some very strong at times (myself included), I wish we could talk about cycling infrastructure without using terms like ‘entitled cyclists’ or ‘privileged drivers’, etc.

I think these are great points that stand on their own merits. I’d like to add that I see little difference between a city having bicycle infrastructure and having sidewalks. The difference being that sidewalks have been around a long time and nobody is going to argue that the safety of people (especially children) is not important enough to have them, even if they are rarely used.

When one considers that cycling infrastructure only really exists in order to protect the safety of cyclists, I would find it hard to argue that it’s not important, or that it shouldn’t exist… just like sidewalks. It’s as simple as that, really.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Summerville

There are so many stop signs/intersections, and to be honest, pot holes on the Northwood Terrace-Maynard-Creighton bikeway that cyclists move faster on the stretch than cars. its a prefect location for a shared road...with the exception of the pot holes of course

Lol… hate for potholes is common ground. I think we all can agree on that!!

[Dmajackson]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Lol… hate for potholes is common ground. I think we all can agree on that!!

I find potholes fascinating. I walked by one on Gottingen Street tonight that is deep enough to expose the brickwork that was laid along the tram lines on the street.


Source: Facebook

For the record unlike everything else I post here I did NOT take this image in 1949, my grandparents might of walked on these bricks back then though.

[someone123]

I don't know the particulars of the bike network but generally there are a few streets that get bike-specific infrastructure and the space dedicated to it is just a small fraction of the total. The amount of money spent on bike infrastructure is probably just a few percentage points at most of the public spending on transportation in the municipality.

One thing I see is that there's never-ending council debate about hypothetical future budgeted projects but a lot of the time the actual spending is small and ends up getting stretched over many years due to the delays. One source said the actual bike network spending has been something like $20M over 10 years.

[someone123]

This article says 122,000 trips were taken on shared electric bikes and scooters during the pilot program that began in May 2025: https://globalnews.ca/news/11734421/halifax-escooter-ebike-pilot-program-resumes/

I think these programs hugely increase the value of active transportation networks. They become useful to visitors and can be combined with car or transit commutes. For example you can park somewhere on the peninsula then use a scooter to get around, or you can easily get to the North End as a tourist, or rent a bike and go around Point Pleasant Park. And because they are electric they work for a wide variety of fitness and mobility levels. You pretty much just need to be able to stand upright and that's it.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Dmajackson

I find potholes fascinating. I walked by one on Gottingen Street tonight that is deep enough to expose the brickwork that was laid along the tram lines on the street.


Source: Facebook

For the record unlike everything else I post here I did NOT take this image in 1949, my grandparents might of walked on these bricks back then though.

I concede that potholes are interesting from an archaeological point of view…

Great shot, btw!

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by ArchAficionado

Take your logic and apply it to roads, and be appalled. Our system as a whole has been designed exclusively with cars in mind for the better part of a century. The point of these local bikeways isn't to inconvenience everybody else; rather, it's to lower the probablility that a driver kills a cyclist through a failure of design. If a non-commuter road now becomes non-viable for commuting as a result, so be it!

Many car-brained folks like yourself fail to realize that your default assumption is that the car reigns supreme. Where privelege is the standard, equality feels like oppression.

Many cycling-addled people like yourself see the car as Public Enemy #1 and therefore believe anything done to make life worse for those users in favor of the tiny minority of cyclists is fair game. The truly unfortunate thing is that certain HRM staff and councillors have the same belief and are diverting millions in tax dollars towards a totally unrealistic and unreachable goal. We are not Amsterdam and never will be.

Given the explosion of growth in HRM, moving people around should be a priority and eliminating existing ways of doing that should never be an option. Adding ways, however, should be. I offer up one example: virtually every street in residential parts of the city except for a few newer suburbs has sidewalks on both sides that get very little use except for within the downtown. Use one of them exclusively for the handful of cyclists and leave everything else alone. Problem solved. The existing mindset within HRM (and yourself, apparently) that all drivers are bloodthirsty lunatics looking to kill cyclists is insane.

[ArchAficionado]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Many cycling-addled people like yourself see the car as Public Enemy #1 and therefore believe anything done to make life worse for those users in favor of the tiny minority of cyclists is fair game. The truly unfortunate thing is that certain HRM staff and councillors have the same belief and are diverting millions in tax dollars towards a totally unrealistic and unreachable goal. We are not Amsterdam and never will be.

Given the explosion of growth in HRM, moving people around should be a priority and eliminating existing ways of doing that should never be an option. Adding ways, however, should be. I offer up one example: virtually every street in residential parts of the city except for a few newer suburbs has sidewalks on both sides that get very little use except for within the downtown. Use one of them exclusively for the handful of cyclists and leave everything else alone. Problem solved. The existing mindset within HRM (and yourself, apparently) that all drivers are bloodthirsty lunatics looking to kill cyclists is insane.

So, I agree with your general sentiment that cycling will never be the main mover. Nor will any Canadian city realistically adopt the planning ethos of European cycling havens.

I have no such "enemy #1" against cars nor drivers. Simply, this is about designing a small percentage of roads to at least be safe or viable options for bikes, at the minimal incovenience of cars. Speedbumps, narrowed crossings, etc, do little to make the driving experience worse but do a lot to prevent cyclists or pedestrains from experiencing an untimately death. This matters, to me.

I also agree with your notion that planners and planning restrictions often cause excessive time, expense, and analysis/paralysis that all lead to the tax payer being ripped off. I've been shouting from the rooftops for years that I could build a city-wide bike network in a matter of weeks and for a relatively minimal cost with nothing but a forklift and a yard full of drop-in curbs.

Your idea for the sidewalk being a MUP works in suburban settings but in the urban environment the sidewalk is a point of access for many addresses on both sides of higher-traffic streets. To make space for cycling lanes, we should remove street parking, IMO, and adopt my above strategy. Although I imagine you'll balk at the suggestion of any tiny marginal inconveniencing of drivers. (See previous point; when privelege is the standard, equality feels like oppression).

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Many cycling-addled people like yourself see the car as Public Enemy #1 and therefore believe anything done to make life worse for those users in favor of the tiny minority of cyclists is fair game. The truly unfortunate thing is that certain HRM staff and councillors have the same belief and are diverting millions in tax dollars towards a totally unrealistic and unreachable goal. We are not Amsterdam and never will be.

Given the explosion of growth in HRM, moving people around should be a priority and eliminating existing ways of doing that should never be an option. Adding ways, however, should be. I offer up one example: virtually every street in residential parts of the city except for a few newer suburbs has sidewalks on both sides that get very little use except for within the downtown. Use one of them exclusively for the handful of cyclists and leave everything else alone. Problem solved. The existing mindset within HRM (and yourself, apparently) that all drivers are bloodthirsty lunatics looking to kill cyclists is insane.

I don’t believe that this is an accurate take on the situation, though. Nobody is trying to turn Halifax into Amsterdam. Cyclists just want a safe way to be able to get around the city on their bikes. If you have read the posts from the people who use this infrastructure, you should notice how many also drive cars, and thus do not have the opinions that you are accusing them of having.

The conversation around this is strange at times. On one hand you have cycle activists who occasionally voice extreme views of cars, then you have views like this, painting all cyclists with the same brush while suggesting that sidewalks be decommissioned in favour of vehicle traffic. Meanwhile, the other 99% of the population has more reasonable views that favour a compromise, but their views are not as aggressive or spoken with outrage, so our impressions are that everyone is an extremist fighting for one all-or-nothing side or the other. It’s the point I was attempting to make previously, and hopefully the rest of us will realize that most of it is just noise, and continue to work towards reasonable compromise that protects cyclists while allowing people to get where they need to go. (Almost time for another LRT discussion…lol)

I can’t help but think that the first time you stepped out onto one of your decommissioned sidewalks and have to dodge a cyclist who is using them as they are told to, there would immediately be a post on how irresponsible it is to let cyclists use sidewalks like this, etc., blah blah…