Cogswell Interchange

[IanWatson]

Originally Posted by LikesBikes

Interesting bikeway design. I guess it's going to be bi-directional?

Yep. And they've used the large amount of space at the Brunswick intersection to do some nice details in terms of transitioning into the Brunswick bike lanes.

[Summerville]

Originally Posted by LikesBikes

Interesting bikeway design. I guess it's going to be bi-directional?

I think this is the way that HRM is going. why build two lanes when you can build a wider one that is easier to maintain

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Dmajackson

The new section of Cogswell Street looks nice. Some street interaction would be nice but that is out of the project's scope.


HalifaxDevelopments.ca (Photo by David Jackson)

Skateboarder’s delight.

[LikesBikes]

Originally Posted by Summerville

I think this is the way that HRM is going. why build two lanes when you can build a wider one that is easier to maintain

Never thought about it that way, but I guess that makes sense. I suppose that's why there's gutters as well, which is also something I feel like I've never seen before on a bikeway.

Also, it'd be nice if they extended it all the way to North Park. Having a protected connection from Barrington to the Common is badly needed as this area densifies.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Summerville

I think this is the way that HRM is going. why build two lanes when you can build a wider one that is easier to maintain

They should be able to keep it clear and salted in wintertime with one of their sidewalk units. Less finicky for the larger trucks that clear the main roads as well. The small boulevard will give them a place to move the snow to.

Looks like a win-win as car drivers don't have to deal with cyclists, and the obvious safety benefit for the two-wheeled engine-free crowd. Scooter riders will probably use it as well.

[Dartguard]

Originally Posted by Dmajackson

The new section of Cogswell Street looks nice. Some street interaction would be nice but that is out of the project's scope.


HalifaxDevelopments.ca (Photo by David Jackson)

I wonder if that new "bike" lane is wide enough for Firetrucks and Ambulances?
The Traffic in the City is certainly busier and slower with the loss of the former lanes of movement on Hollis and Lower Water. This lane could definitely be considered by those services should traffic be buggered up.

[ArchAficionado]

It's a good design. 2-way bikeways are common in Montreal, albeit unpopular amongst some locals because they can spit out one direction of cyclists on the wrong side of the road if/when they end, with said cyclists often poorly navigating the transition back to their side of the roadway thereafter.

I hope that this bikeway does actually get connected with some level of planning to others in the downtown area. Halifax has too many bike paths from nowhere to nowhere that thus get less use and are then regarded by many non-cyclist citizens as a waste of money, putting counterpressure on further expansion that would actually make the network useful for a wider audience.

As it exists now, taking this path would be a good way to get from the waterfront up/down to the commons and further destinations by way of Cogswell -> Brunswick -> Rainnie Drive

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by ArchAficionado

As it exists now, taking this path would be a good way to get from the waterfront up/down to the commons and further destinations by way of Cogswell -> Brunswick -> Rainnie Drive

But it would be all uphill. Given the caterwauling from the cyclists over other uphill bike lanes being impossible to use I cannot see this being much different. I will wait for the grievances to begin.

[HfxGuy]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

But it would be all uphill. Given the caterwauling from the cyclists over other uphill bike lanes being impossible to use I cannot see this being much different. I will wait for the grievances to begin.

Seems pretty downhill to me

[Haliguy]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

But it would be all uphill. Given the caterwauling from the cyclists over other uphill bike lanes being impossible to use I cannot see this being much different. I will wait for the grievances to begin.

Whos caterwauling about uphill bike lanes and where?

[IanWatson]

I have literally never heard a cyclist say uphill bike lanes are impossible to use. Usually the hill trope gets trotted out from people who are opposed to bike lanes.

[ArchAficionado]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

But it would be all uphill. Given the caterwauling from the cyclists over other uphill bike lanes being impossible to use I cannot see this being much different. I will wait for the grievances to begin.

90% of the greivances against the impossibility of using an uphill bike lane, at least on this forum, are your own utterances.

Certainly there is a certain percentage of people (unfit, old, not an experienced rider, all of the above, etc) who would not see fit to use an uphill bike route, but I think that E-bikes are a good solution for most of this demographic, if they wanto to bike. And if they don't want to bike, they have plenty of other ways to get around!

[OldDartmouthMark]

I may not be remembering this correctly, but I thought one of the arguments for the Macdonald flyover was to soften the hill climb?

[Haliguy]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I may not be remembering this correctly, but I thought one of the arguments for the Macdonald flyover was to soften the hill climb?

No, more like a safety issue if you're coming from the northend or west end. If you're coming from downtown its absolutley fine.

[Nouvellecosse]

The Macdonald flyover proposal was partly because of the hill, but not just that there's a hill there. It's because the current setup forces people coming from Dartmouth who plan to continue along North St. to not only go all the way to the bottom of a hill that they were already 1/2 way up, but to actually backtrack in the opposite direction and deal with additional road crossings to do it. That's becuse once you get to the bottom, you either need to walk up the left side of North St. since the road part goes in the opposite direction, or to wait for a traffic signal to get to the traffic lane going in that directin. So it's as much about the wasted time and being forced to backtrack in the wrong direction as it is the extra physical exertion. Yet with a flyover, not only would people not need to backtrack, go up twice as much hill, or wait for a crossing signal, you they can actually use momentum gained from going downhill on the bridge to propel a little ways up North St. So it solves several problems at once and saved a lot of time. It would be a time savings of 5, or even 10 minutes depending on the light cycle and how strong a hill climber it is. And that's a lot of time for just one intersection. But even if you just had to backtrack and waste time with a crossing signal, the current design still wouldn't be ideal.

But of course it was impossible for cyclists to go up hill, the Macdonald flyover wouldn't even be necessary since cyclists wouldn't be able to use the bridge to begin with. Because anyone who has ever biked over the bridge knows it is a rather large hill itself. Especially since it's almost always windy so there's often a headwind at the same time.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Yes, I wasn’t saying that it was the only consideration, but that I thought it was a factor. Or a feature at least. I wonder if it could be designed to be functional and safe without going so far up the hill, to save some budget.

Obviously there are hills in Halifax and Dartmouth. I’ve cycled over them many times. One of my favourites () was Thistle between Maple and Beech…. Victoria and Pine were two more (wouldn’t do Maple because of the traffic).

[DBaz]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Yes, I wasn’t saying that it was the only consideration, but that I thought it was a factor. Or a feature at least. I wonder if it could be designed to be functional and safe without going so far up the hill, to save some budget.

It was considered. If you read the staff report (I just reread it) Option 2 was to cross over and meeting grade at the Lorne Terrace gate. At the time that would have cost $5 million and Option 1 $6.2. Option 1 was preferred because of the significant interaction of pedestrians, bikes, and vehicles that would occur at the gate.

I think it’s important to remember that the reason a flyover is required is because the only way to safely allow bicycles to cross directly would be a fully protected crossing (ie red lights and no right on red) with strict enforcement (because motorists do not know fully understand that the danger of red light running and improper right on reds, ie full stop, is not to them but pedestrians and bicycles). It was never considered a viable option to hold up traffic that way.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by DBaz

It was considered. If you read the staff report (I just reread it) Option 2 was to cross over and meeting grade at the Lorne Terrace gate. At the time that would have cost $5 million and Option 1 $6.2. Option 1 was preferred because of the significant interaction of pedestrians, bikes, and vehicles that would occur at the gate.

I think it’s important to remember that the reason a flyover is required is because the only way to safely allow bicycles to cross directly would be a fully protected crossing (ie red lights and no right on red) with strict enforcement (because motorists do not know fully understand that the danger of red light running and improper right on reds, ie full stop, is not to them but pedestrians and bicycles). It was never considered a viable option to hold up traffic that way.

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.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I may not be remembering this correctly, but I thought one of the arguments for the Macdonald flyover was to soften the hill climb?

Exactly. A $15 million boondoggle to allow a tiny group of cyclists to not have to wait for a traffic signal at the Halifax end of the bridge. It seems that the cycling zealots not only hate having to ride their devices up a hill, but also have very short memories.

I agree that entry/exit is very poorly designed as-is, but the Mason-promoted solution is a ridiculous waste.

[Haliguy]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Exactly. A $15 million boondoggle to allow a tiny group of cyclists to not have to wait for a traffic signal at the Halifax end of the bridge. It seems that the cycling zealots not only hate having to ride their devices up a hill, but also have very short memories.

I agree that entry/exit is very poorly designed as-is, but the Mason-promoted solution is a ridiculous waste.

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!