Halifax Active Transportation

[Waye Mason]

I use the Dartmouth Cove trail every day. It always has lots of people on it.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Waye Mason

I use the Dartmouth Cove trail every day. It always has lots of people on it.

Just because you use it doesn't mean it is a good idea. Building "trails" at the expense of other much more urgent priorities makes no sense.

[Waye Mason]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Just because you use it doesn't mean it is a good idea. Building "trails" at the expense of other much more urgent priorities makes no sense.

Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is not a good idea.

[haligonia]

Originally Posted by Waye Mason

Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is not a good idea.

This is a suitable response to most KeithP posts.

[planarchy]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Just because you use it doesn't mean it is a good idea. Building "trails" at the expense of other much more urgent priorities makes no sense.

I have to generally agree with this. Many of HRM's trails "initiatives" are a cop out and only distract from creating efficient and effective bike and pedestrian infrastructure. This focus on suburban recreational infrastructure is only because it is easy and cheap. The city has yet to show any serious commitment to URBAN transit or public space.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by haligonia

This is a suitable response to most KeithP posts.

Our friend Waye seems to think he has become some sort of arbiter of urban development now that he is on speed dial for CBC Mainstreet. Surprising, because I didn't think he hung around Fred's Salon on Agricola all that much and that seems to be the source of most of their material. Nevertheless his view is just that - his - and is no more right than anyone elses, and in fact is often out of step as we have seen. But he has no shortage of opinions.

[haligonia]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Our friend Waye seems to think he has become some sort of arbiter of urban development now that he is on speed dial for CBC Mainstreet. Surprising, because I didn't think he hung around Fred's Salon on Agricola all that much and that seems to be the source of most of their material. Nevertheless his view is just that - his - and is no more right than anyone elses, and in fact is often out of step as we have seen. But he has no shortage of opinions.

I am not advocating any of Waye's opinions except for the one that I quoted. All I was saying is you have a tendancy to dismiss certain ideas as bad or useless just because you don't agree with them.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by planarchy

I have to generally agree with this. Many of HRM's trails "initiatives" are a cop out and only distract from creating efficient and effective bike and pedestrian infrastructure. This focus on suburban recreational infrastructure is only because it is easy and cheap. The city has yet to show any serious commitment to URBAN transit or public space.

Vancouver's most heavily used bike infrastructure is in the city and was very cheap to set up. In most cases it consists of routes built along side streets. All that was needed to make them work were road-side signaling mechanisms that cyclists could trigger and small islands in the middle of major streets (it is safer to cross one side as once!).

In the context of Halifax the idea would be to have an informal route along something like Edward Street. It would not have bike lanes but would have some painting on the street and signs to tell cyclists they're on the right track. It would jog over to Vernon and then at Quinpool Rd there would be a little "bay" for cyclists to wait in to cross that would have a button to trigger the lights -- it works just like the pedestrian signals but you can stay on your bike. Then maybe it would jog over to Dublin Street or something. Simple. Cheap.

Many of these routes in Vancouver had next to no vehicle traffic before and they are packed with bikes now. They're safe for cyclists because there's not much car traffic and they are not a big problem for residents because bikes are nice and quiet. They are also good for motorists because they take the cyclists off of busy streets. Everybody wins.

There are also bike routes in suburban areas that includes stuff like elaborate bridges over major streets (I'm sure they cost $1M+ sometimes). You see the odd cyclist on them. The downtown routes are packed.

So at the end of the day I think it's wrong to say that bike infrastructure is not worthwhile, but it has to be planned sensibly. It is correct to criticize the stupid bike lanes in Halifax that are not part of a coherent system and are not getting the city good value for dollar. That money could have already been used to build a vastly superior system on the Peninsula.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by haligonia

I am not advocating any of Waye's opinions except for the one that I quoted. All I was saying is you have a tendancy to dismiss certain ideas as bad or useless just because you don't agree with them.

That would be because I am correct.

[haligonia]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

That would be because I am correct.

Ahh, I understand now

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by haligonia

I am not advocating any of Waye's opinions except for the one that I quoted. All I was saying is you have a tendancy to dismiss certain ideas as bad or useless just because you don't agree with them.

In all honesty, I see what you are saying... and don't agree with Keith P. on many topics, but I think he's mostly quite pragmatic.

Dumbest protest ever...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1a3A6q05f8

Cars and bikes should not be sharing high traffic roadways, its just not safe or efficient... plain and simple. A car is bigger, faster, and weighs more... would you paint a line between yourself and a lion and think its sufficient for you not to get killed?

[Dmajackson]

As per normal a few items peaked my interest this week at the Active Transportation Advisory Committee and hopefully some solutions can be found for them.

1. Bike Lane Maintenance & Current List of Bike Lanes

The issue of maintaining bicycle lanes was briefly brought up this month. One of the major complaints raised by bike lane users is the apparent lack of cleaning. Similar to vehicles, bike tires can be severely damaged by glass, rocks, and other roadside debris. Street sweepers do a good job of removing small pieces but the issue of frequency of cleaning and how to remove larger pieces have been raised. Because of their location adjacent to curbs debris tends to build up more in the lanes particularly around commercial areas (junk food, bottles) and bus stops (beer bottles). The report link above shows the current lanes and their frequency schedule and while I mostly agree with the current rules I do have one issue. Generally speaking urban areas are serviced once a week and suburban/rural areas are serviced every other week. One notable exception is Caldwell Road in Cole Harbour. This is a major road but is quite far out in the suburbs. IMO the municipality needs to rework its criteria to allow for more flexibility on busy roads. Outside of the urban core the usage by cyclists should be factored in so busy trunk roads can be kept in a pristine state.

2. MacDonald Bridge Bikeway

The other issue that peaked my attention is the MacDonald Bridge bikeway approaches. I only use the bridge once a month and it is just to bike to and from the committee meetings which coincide with my photo-tours most of the time. The Dartmouth approach is considered adequate but the Halifax approach is dangerous and unnecessary. Most cyclists head for Brunswick Street which involves climbing and descending a steep hill. I had to do this on Wednesday (Gottingen bound though) and it was brutal. The common opinion is the bikeway is a vital connection but the current approaches are deterring all but experienced riders from using it. With the bridge redecking coming up in 2013-2014 the pressure has been mounting from the community to improve the access alongside the lane closures. Improving the access will be a difficult and costly process that will likely require reworking the car access (I can hear Keith's screams of anguish ). One idea floated is to switch the bike and pedestrian ways so the main bike access would be off of Brunswick Street. In my opinion this could work great but access to Brunswick would have to be restricted further. Once I think of some ideas I'll post them.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Dmajackson

The other issue that peaked my attention is the MacDonald Bridge bikeway approaches. I only use the bridge once a month and it is just to bike to and from the committee meetings which coincide with my photo-tours most of the time. The Dartmouth approach is considered adequate but the Halifax approach is dangerous and unnecessary. Most cyclists head for Brunswick Street which involves climbing and descending a steep hill. I had to do this on Wednesday (Gottingen bound though) and it was brutal. The common opinion is the bikeway is a vital connection but the current approaches are deterring all but experienced riders from using it. With the bridge redecking coming up in 2013-2014 the pressure has been mounting from the community to improve the access alongside the lane closures. Improving the access will be a difficult and costly process that will likely require reworking the car access (I can hear Keith's screams of anguish ). One idea floated is to switch the bike and pedestrian ways so the main bike access would be off of Brunswick Street. In my opinion this could work great but access to Brunswick would have to be restricted further. Once I think of some ideas I'll post them.

The entire Halifax side needs to be reworked for both cars and bikes. It is ridiculous that traffic on the bridge stops for random pedestrians choosing to cross the street at the Halifax end. What is needed is a grade-separated roadway that would take North St traffic over the existing crosswalk and avoid this problem. Such a solution would also give an opportunity to fix the existing bike lane entry/exit, which even I agree is a ridiculously bad design.

One hopes the HHB will use the redecking project to also fix the choke point and the entry to the toll plaza Dartmouth-bound. A little widening there would go a long way.

[Empire]

The artile below may be a bit off topic but it is bang on. Any transportaion authority that has an Exit 0 is really missing th big picture. After all we have a philosophy in HRM that is bad to paint crosswalks so one shouldn't expect too much from our Provincial counterparts.

READER’S CORNER
Exit strategy missing

From the Herald

Thu, Sep 22 - 4:55 AM
Having recently travelled Hwy. 102, I find the exit numbering to be somewhat out of hand.

Driving in from the airport, I noted that the Waverley exit is No. 5, which, to most people, would mean that there are five more exits.

However, five exits later, I’m only at Exit 3 and when I get to the exit I want, it is actually the 9th exit, and there are at least two more before Exit 0 at Bayers Road.

The same nonsense also occurs on highways 101 and 103. Maybe the Transportation Department would consider doing what the rest of the world does and number the exits according to the distance in kilometres the exit is located at along the road.

I’ve driven throughout Eastern Canada, the United States and Europe. I’ve also driven in North Africa, the Middle East, and parts of Asia and Nova Scotia is one of the very few jurisdictions still using the archaic system of numbering exits 1, 2, 3, etc.

I know the government will think of all sorts of reasons not to do anything, including resorting to the extremely insulting excuse that "Nova Scotians will have difficulty adjusting to a new system."

I have heard complaints from metro residents and tourists about how confusing our highways can be. Isn’t it time to join the 21st century?


Dave Chiodo, Dartmouth

[Empire]

About 10 years ago I wrote to HRM planning and suggested that there were many sidewalks on the peninsula that could become shared bike lanes or dedicated bike lanes and was practically laughed out of town. Many streets such as Preston St. have a sidewalk on both sides but almost no use.

Sidewalks like this on Pepperell St. could be bike lanes.
http://maps.google.it/maps?q=Halifax+ns&...SCHwsEGTB7GD_5u1mCxU3A&cbp=12,237.6,,0,0

I took this pic in Ottawa in 2010:

[alps]

Sounds dangerous -- while backing out of my driveway it can be difficult to see pedestrians walking by let alone a speeding cyclist.

[Empire]

Originally Posted by alps

Sounds dangerous -- while backing out of my driveway it can be difficult to see pedestrians walking by let alone a speeding cyclist.

I hope you look out for joggers with a stroller.

[Dmajackson]

I've been laughed out of HRM more than a few times and the vast majority of the laughter comes from the Traffic Department. I have dozens of examples of how outdated their mentality is and unfortunately the provincial government makes matters worse.
Here's just a few examples I head of in the last month;

- Cyclists push-buttons as found in large cities (like Ottawa) are illegal in Nova Scotia because bicycles are vehicles and therefore do not need assistance heading through signalized intersections (NS policy)

- Current technology used to detect traffic on side streets at signalized intersections cannot detect cyclists and these will not be upgraded anytime soon because it would reduce the capacity of major roads (HRM policy)

- A bus route that heads from Sackville to Dartmouth via the Bedford BYPASS is considered a Bedford route and therefore no new route will be considered for Bedford-Bridge because one technically exists (Metro Transit policy)

- "Stop Bars" will not be painted at many intersections with adjacent sidewalks because it is assumed cars will stop at the sign and not block the crosswalk (marked or unmarked) (HRM policy)

- A fifteen minute wait to make a left-hand turn is considered adequate and not in need of any upgrades (HRM policy)

[Empire]

Originally Posted by Dmajackson

I've been laughed out of HRM more than a few times and the vast majority of the laughter comes from the Traffic Department. I have dozens of examples of how outdated their mentality is and unfortunately the provincial government makes matters worse.
Here's just a few examples I head of in the last month;

- Cyclists push-buttons as found in large cities (like Ottawa) are illegal in Nova Scotia because bicycles are vehicles and therefore do not need assistance heading through signalized intersections (NS policy)

- Current technology used to detect traffic on side streets at signalized intersections cannot detect cyclists and these will not be upgraded anytime soon because it would reduce the capacity of major roads (HRM policy)

- A bus route that heads from Sackville to Dartmouth via the Bedford BYPASS is considered a Bedford route and therefore no new route will be considered for Bedford-Bridge because one technically exists (Metro Transit policy)

- "Stop Bars" will not be painted at many intersections with adjacent sidewalks because it is assumed cars will stop at the sign and not block the crosswalk (marked or unmarked) (HRM policy)
- A fifteen minute wait to make a left-hand turn is considered adequate and not in need of any upgrades (HRM policy)

HRM does not believe in any painted markings such as stop bars and crosswalks because it gives the user a false sense of security. How can they possibly be more backwards?

[ILoveHalifax]

There is an left turn signal from Robie N to Cunard W but the rest of the northbound traffic does not have a green light signal; they just sit there for no apparent reason.
Also the Cunard W as it crosses Robie takes quite a jog. Frequently cars drive thru without taking the jog going east on westbound lanes. How about some markings thru the intersection to help guide cars to the proper eastboud lanes.