Halifax Active Transportation

[OldDartmouthMark]

Glad we got that sorted out.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Glad we got that sorted out.

I agree. The more ill-informed posters who do not see my posts, the better for me to be critical of their rationale.

[Arrdeeharharharbour]

I was on South Park street near University Ave. / SGR this week. What a mess! It was like driving in Calcutta (or how I imagine that to be). At one point, when the sight-line blocking busses moved away I realized that I was in a parking lane. Honestly, the zigzagged traffic offered no clues to which vehicles in front of might or might not move...eventually. And HRM seems loath to install overhead signage. Now I wouldn't call it dangerous because traffic was moving so slowly when it moved. I did wonder if the busses were on time. It would be difficult to convince me that the bicycle lanes here are not seriously retarding traffic.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Arrdeeharharharbour

I was on South Park street near University Ave. / SGR this week. What a mess! It was like driving in Calcutta (or how I imagine that to be). At one point, when the sight-line blocking busses moved away I realized that I was in a parking lane. Honestly, the zigzagged traffic offered no clues to which vehicles in front of might or might not move...eventually. And HRM seems loath to install overhead signage. Now I wouldn't call it dangerous because traffic was moving so slowly when it moved. I did wonder if the busses were on time. It would be difficult to convince me that the bicycle lanes here are not seriously retarding traffic.

Did the idea cross your mind that you might be better off leaving your car at home and riding a bike instead?

[dreamcamera]

Originally Posted by Arrdeeharharharbour

I was on South Park street near University Ave. / SGR this week. What a mess! It was like driving in Calcutta (or how I imagine that to be). At one point, when the sight-line blocking busses moved away I realized that I was in a parking lane. Honestly, the zigzagged traffic offered no clues to which vehicles in front of might or might not move...eventually. And HRM seems loath to install overhead signage. Now I wouldn't call it dangerous because traffic was moving so slowly when it moved. I did wonder if the busses were on time. It would be difficult to convince me that the bicycle lanes here are not seriously retarding traffic.

This attitude is part of the issue to be fair. You didn't know where you were going, ended up in the wrong lane, and blame bike lanes, HRM for not giving you signage, and compare that experience to Kolkata (a 15 million metro population). Sometimes it's a user issue.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by dreamcamera

This attitude is part of the issue to be fair. You didn't know where you were going, ended up in the wrong lane, and blame bike lanes, HRM for not giving you signage, and compare that experience to Kolkata (a 15 million metro population). Sometimes it's a user issue.

You say “to be fair “, and then proceed to not be fair in your assessment. Then we wonder why we can’t have balanced discussions in this thread.

Same ol’ same ol’.

[Arrdeeharharharbour]

Originally Posted by dreamcamera

This attitude is part of the issue to be fair. You didn't know where you were going, ended up in the wrong lane, and blame bike lanes, HRM for not giving you signage, and compare that experience to Kolkata (a 15 million metro population). Sometimes it's a user issue.

Attitude? What attitude? Can you see through solid vehicles? It's a good honest rendition of an actual event. On a straight stretch of roadway and with no indication of otherwise, most probably will assume that the through lane would be straight rather than morph into a strip of on street parking directly in front of you. But that's an aside with the point being that this is exactly what the province will be looking for in their streets review. I don't think it could be successfully argued that the now single through lane would be as efficient as having two through lanes which could be accomplished by removing the bike lane. Also, it strikes me that a little creative thinking might have pushed the pedestrian traffic into Victoria Park along this congested area and put the bike lane where the sidewalk is thus retaining or gaining a lane of auto traffic. Once you get south of South St. congestion is much less of an issue and an on street bike lane is fine.

[Arrdeeharharharbour]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Did the idea cross your mind that you might be better off leaving your car at home and riding a bike instead?

Indeed I'd rather have been walking. I was in the area picking up a friend for lunch at Cheeky Burger on Quinpool. I thought the price was a bit dear for a burger and fries at $20.00 but still, I'd recommend the double smash burger with cheeky sauce. It was quite good.

[Dartguard]

Originally Posted by Arrdeeharharharbour

Attitude? What attitude? Can you see through solid vehicles? It's a good honest rendition of an actual event. On a straight stretch of roadway and with no indication of otherwise, most probably will assume that the through lane would be straight rather than morph into a strip of on street parking directly in front of you. But that's an aside with the point being that this is exactly what the province will be looking for in their streets review. I don't think it could be successfully argued that the now single through lane would be as efficient as having two through lanes which could be accomplished by removing the bike lane. Also, it strikes me that a little creative thinking might have pushed the pedestrian traffic into Victoria Park along this congested area and put the bike lane where the sidewalk is thus retaining or gaining a lane of auto traffic. Once you get south of South St. congestion is much less of an issue and an on street bike lane is fine.

But Arrdee you questioned the anointed doctrine of Bike lanes. I believe the area where you described your confusion is also where the bike counter is located so Holy land if you will. Honest questions however are hopefully about to be asked of the truly atrocious Traffic situation in Halifax and honest , blunt solutions applied.The City is too busy to play around with special interests anymore.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Arrdeeharharharbour

Indeed I'd rather have been walking. I was in the area picking up a friend for lunch at Cheeky Burger on Quinpool. I thought the price was a bit dear for a burger and fries at $20.00 but still, I'd recommend the double smash burger with cheeky sauce. It was quite good.

I’d probably rather be walking as well. Probably not freezing off certain temperature sensitive parts of my body on a bike though (it would have been fine in my twenties or thirties but not so much now). I have no choice but to conclude that if council’s idea is to inconvenience people out of their cars and onto bikes (if that’s actually a thing), then I don’t see it as being a very successful one. However a combination of walking and efficient transit sounds much more inviting to me… especially coming from the reaches of Dartmouth, Sackville, Spryfield, etc. where, even with dreadful traffic the car remains the most convenient option (i.e. picking up a friend for a visit to a special shop or restaurant). The way forward seems clear to me, as well as the thought that things could and should have been more efficiently planned (your concept of routing pedestrians to Victoria Park is a good example of the type of thinking that should be happening but seems to be lacking).

I will keep your burger recommendation in mind for the next time I am in the area. Thanks!

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by Arrdeeharharharbour

Attitude? What attitude? Can you see through solid vehicles? It's a good honest rendition of an actual event. On a straight stretch of roadway and with no indication of otherwise, most probably will assume that the through lane would be straight rather than morph into a strip of on street parking directly in front of you. But that's an aside with the point being that this is exactly what the province will be looking for in their streets review. I don't think it could be successfully argued that the now single through lane would be as efficient as having two through lanes which could be accomplished by removing the bike lane. Also, it strikes me that a little creative thinking might have pushed the pedestrian traffic into Victoria Park along this congested area and put the bike lane where the sidewalk is thus retaining or gaining a lane of auto traffic. Once you get south of South St. congestion is much less of an issue and an on street bike lane is fine.

Originally Posted by Arrdeeharharharbour

Attitude? What attitude? Can you see through solid vehicles? It's a good honest rendition of an actual event. On a straight stretch of roadway and with no indication of otherwise, most probably will assume that the through lane would be straight rather than morph into a strip of on street parking directly in front of you. But that's an aside with the point being that this is exactly what the province will be looking for in their streets review. I don't think it could be successfully argued that the now single through lane would be as efficient as having two through lanes which could be accomplished by removing the bike lane. Also, it strikes me that a little creative thinking might have pushed the pedestrian traffic into Victoria Park along this congested area and put the bike lane where the sidewalk is thus retaining or gaining a lane of auto traffic. Once you get south of South St. congestion is much less of an issue and an on street bike lane is fine.

I don’t want to be rude but the idea of pushing pedestrians onto another street, to replace the sidewalk with a bike lane, with the ultimate goal of adding another car lane, is deeply indicative of auto centric thinking.. There are likely more pedestrians on this stretch of roadway on a daily basis than cars. And this is easily the most successful bike lane in the city, with the highest usage and greatest usage increases. The idea of removing it to facilitate marginally faster car movement during infrequent jam ups is silly. The bike lanes are not in any significant way a cause of traffic disruption here. Removing them, and encouraging hundreds of cyclists per day to either cycle in mixed traffic or trade their bikes for cars and add to auto congestion, would be a bigger disruption.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

I don’t want to be rude but the idea of pushing pedestrians onto another street, to replace the sidewalk with a bike lane, with the ultimate goal of adding another car lane, is deeply indicative of auto centric thinking.. There are likely more pedestrians on this stretch of roadway on a daily basis than cars. And this is easily the most successful bike lane in the city, with the highest usage and greatest usage increases. The idea of removing it to facilitate marginally faster car movement during infrequent jam ups is silly. The bike lanes are not in any significant way a cause of traffic disruption here. Removing them, and encouraging hundreds of cyclists per day to either cycle in mixed traffic or trade their bikes for cars and add to auto congestion, would be a bigger disruption.

Why do people always say they don't want to be rude, and then go on to be rude? (j/k)

Is moving over pedestrian traffic 10 ft into the park that disruptive to pedestrians? I think the actual negative effect would be more to the integrity of the park, but a cost/benefit analysis could have been done.

What I think is silly is that every time that something is brought up that might help car traffic, the "car centric" term has to get tossed in there as though we must always perpetuate the 'us vs them' thinking. Sometimes compromises are just compromises.

[Keith P.]

It is interesting to see how different municipalities handle these things. I get the sense HRM planners looked at a bunch of other places and then picked the most bicycle-friendly design they found with the intent of inconveniencing motorists as much as possible for dogmatic reasons as much as anything. I note that in Vancouver, which one would expect to be a hotbed for cycling, the bike lanes are sometimes very narrow and immediately adjacent to traffic. Yet pedestrians seem to have expansive amounts of space despite there not being very many of them. Odd. I think back some time ago when I was in the western US for a week and the co-existence of pedestrians and cyclists was a new experience for me. You would walking along a paved path when you’d hear “Left!” coming from behind, and keep to your right when a cyclist rode past on your left. Seemed simple.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Frankly, I just think it's time for the culture war aspect of cycling lanes and car traffic to go away. It's just transportation after all.

[GTG_78]

Originally Posted by DBaz

Are you referring to me?

No, I absolutely don’t want an echo chamber, and I’m more than happy to have me opinions challenged. I will engage pretty much everyone else if I think I have a relevant point of view to share.

I just no longer want to see posts that cannot be limited to why it’s felt that certain development decisions are incorrect, even though I sometimes agree that they are. When every post seems like a personal attack on city staff, councillors, and by extension those that voted for them, I no longer want to even give the post any validity.

This is a bit rich. The majority of your posts are comments disparaging suburban residents and motorists.

Par example:

"The first thing I learned is that people out here don't realize:
- how privileged they are... they complain about everything, especially roads
- how subsidized they are; they don't seem to have any idea how much those roads cost, who pays for them, and why HRM was actually amalgamated (there was reason why the province put pressure on)."

"Since both Halifax Cycling Coalition and the car lobby (as represented here) are bitchin', the Windsor St plan must be a good balance..."

"It feels that some of you "with age on" are subscribing to the Fox News definition of "fair and balanced" for "a more inclusive mix.""

"That seems to be true. We’ve been appeasing entitled suburbanites for decades and they still whine like little…"

"I know it's hard for some people to understand, but people who choose to live in a downtown core actually want the area to be walkable, safe bike paths, effective transit, and not having cars using their living space as a superhighway.

As well, the taxes they pay would fund those things (because of the density) if it wasn't for the outflow of money to support suburban infrastructure.

This isn't a HRM specific thing. Look what is happening in Toronto right now; Rob Ford is pandering to the 905. Somehow Montreal has told the suburbs to p!$$ off..."

"It's funny, I had a chat with Pam Lovelace, which started with me saying I would never vote for her because she only cares about the suburbs. Unfortunately, that was driven by something you said causing me to completely ignore her."

"I fully admit I went in with a bias. It’s quite common for politicians from the suburbs to pander to a certain group (cough, Fords, cough) and Keith’s comment coupled with what I read made me believe that was what she was doing. There was some evidence that one of the District 2 candidates was doing the same."

[OldDartmouthMark]

Halifax mayor advocates for cost-saving measures as bike network estimate balloons

Halifax’s mayor is giving an update on the soaring cost of the municipality’s bike network.

The entire project was originally estimated to cost $25 million, and the province and federal government committed $20.8 million towards it.

But by last year, the total projected cost of the program increased to $85 million and more than $66 million in work still needs to be done.

The municipality expects federal and provincial funds will be exhausted after next year and the outstanding costs will fall on the municipality.

Any ideas as to why costs spiraled from $25 million to $85 million? I can understand inflation and 'covid inflation', but still...

Were the initial cost estimates too low? If so, why? Lots of questions here, but it seems like the bike network is going to take the hit from this. Too bad.

[Keith P.]

Just another example of HRM management incompetence at best, or deliberately lowballing the estimates in order to advance a widely unpopular agenda at worst. I suspect a combination of both. Time to take a step back and consider different options that cost much less.