Halifax Active Transportation

[Nouvellecosse]

That's an even bigger issue on the Halifax side approach ramp. The cycle coalition is lobbying to have the approach fixed so that people don't have to go right to the bottom on the hill and drive up in order to get on the bridge. For me this isn't an issue of not wanting to climb a hill as much as it is about not wanting to waste time when I'm in a hurry.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

That's an even bigger issue on the Halifax side approach ramp. The cycle coalition is lobbying to have the approach fixed so that people don't have to go right to the bottom on the hill and drive up in order to get on the bridge. For me this isn't an issue of not wanting to climb a hill as much as it is about not wanting to waste time when I'm in a hurry.

The squeaky-wheel bike lobby wants a few million property tax dollars to build them a flyover ramp. It is foolish. All they need to do is treat it like a crosswalk at the end of the bridge and install a signal like those used for crosswalks. The handful of cyclists actually using it would not significantly impede traffic.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Wtf? So now they're going to have to buy brand new ones for the bridge when it comes time to put them back up?

These were cobbled together and added to the short lifespan of the bridge deck. They were too heavy and not well-integrated into the structure. The new deck sections being installed have these integrated into the deck surface.

[Ziobrop]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Wtf? So now they're going to have to buy brand new ones for the bridge when it comes time to put them back up?

No the new segments have the bike and sidewalk integrated on the deck piece.
These are add-ons from the third lane project. To get the third lane they removed the sidewalk and a pipe duct, and added the replacement sidewalk and bikeway on the outside of the bridge

[Ziobrop]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

The squeaky-wheel bike lobby wants a few million property tax dollars to build them a flyover ramp. It is foolish. All they need to do is treat it like a crosswalk at the end of the bridge and install a signal like those used for crosswalks. The handful of cyclists actually using it would not significantly impede traffic.

It's not the bike lobby proposing the 2 million dollar flyover. They just rightly don't want to have to go down the hill and back up it to get on the bridge. They would be happy with a light. The flyover is to appease drivers so they don't have an extra stop.

Fwiw the bike lane has enough use that a crosswalk would traffic constantly stopping..

[Ziobrop]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

These were cobbled together and added to the short lifespan of the bridge deck. They were too heavy and not well-integrated into the structure. The new deck sections being installed have these integrated into the deck surface.

The deck is 60years old.. That's a pretty good life span. Also worth noting the bridge deck is being replaced before it becomes a serious problem. It still has life in it, but they arnt having to make emergency repairs due to failures

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Ziobrop

The deck is 60years old.. That's a pretty good life span. Also worth noting the bridge deck is being replaced before it becomes a serious problem. It still has life in it, but they arnt having to make emergency repairs due to failures

The deck deteriorated badly shortly after the 1990s additions. The driving lanes developed noticeable waves or ripples. Coincidental or causation?

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Ziobrop

It's not the bike lobby proposing the 2 million dollar flyover. They just rightly don't want to have to go down the hill and back up it to get on the bridge. They would be happy with a light. The flyover is to appease drivers so they don't have an extra stop.

Fwiw the bike lane has enough use that a crosswalk would traffic constantly stopping..

A delayed timed signal like those used on Quinpool at Beech and in other locations would not significantly impede traffic. Of course the cyclists might have to wait a minute sometimes. Since there is a pedestrian crosswalk right across from the Halifax end of the bike lane it would make sense to integrate those.

[Dmajackson]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

A delayed timed signal like those used on Quinpool at Beech and in other locations would not significantly impede traffic. Of course the cyclists might have to wait a minute sometimes. Since there is a pedestrian crosswalk right across from the Halifax end of the bike lane it would make sense to integrate those.

That could work but it should be noted ~1200 cyclists use the bridge on a weekday mostly during rush hour so there would be quite a few conflicts.

I do favour a fly-over since it would keep the road-users separated.

[Nouvellecosse]

There would obviously need to be a waiting area off the track where people could stop and wait for the light to change to avoid issues with people who are continuing down the hill to Barrington st. And as we all know, there would be people darting across before the light changed.

[OldDartmouthMark]

I support the flyover - let's do it right the first time. 1200 cyclists per day is a significant number, and it will only increase in the future. If we mickeymouse it with some kind of crosswalk to "do for now", we'll just have to spend the money later to do it right anyhow, after everything is all frigged up.

Nickel and diming has never served us well in the past, so why would it be any different now? Let's build infrastructure with an eye to the future so we only have to do it once.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I support the flyover - let's do it right the first time. 1200 cyclists per day is a significant number, and it will only increase in the future. If we mickeymouse it with some kind of crosswalk to "do for now", we'll just have to spend the money later to do it right anyhow, after everything is all frigged up.

Nickel and diming has never served us well in the past, so why would it be any different now? Let's build infrastructure with an eye to the future so we only have to do it once.

Toll it. $1 per crossing seems fair. HHB is not a charity.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Toll it. $1 per crossing seems fair. HHB is not a charity.

Maybe $0.50 would be more appropriate, but, a toll to cross would make some sense. Mind you, do so and there will be an uproar about it.

[Colin May]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Maybe $0.50 would be more appropriate, but, a toll to cross would make some sense. Mind you, do so and there will be an uproar about it.

$50 for 12 months for adults aged 18-60. Will pay for maintenance of the new route. A toll would be a nuisance.

[curnhalio]

I think a flyover lane would be cool. It could run up the grassy median to the lights at Gottingen. Of course, they could just switch the bike path to the other side of the bridge as well.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Colin May

$50 for 12 months for adults aged 18-60. Will pay for maintenance of the new route. A toll would be a nuisance.

But how would they handle people who just wanted to cross once rather than a daily commute? They'd need some sort of toll booth there to collect funds from the occasional users, and the yearly subscribers would still need to stop and show their passes because I don't think there'd be a way to use a transponder and bikes have no license plates for a camera to read.

But really, the amount that cyclists and pedestrians are saving in maintenance and in reducing road traffic means that if anything they're revenue positive or at least very low cost. And the while the HDBC may not be a charity, it is a non-profit organization tasked solely with providing a public benefit. Although I'm not convinced it's within the mandate for the commission to fund that type of work on the approaches and if there were a flyover, it would be done by the HRM. No doubt a small price to pay considering how much it spends to build and maintain all the sidewalks and roads across the HRM that receive far lower levels of traffic.

[Colin May]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

But how would they handle people who just wanted to cross once rather than a daily commute? They'd need some sort of toll booth there to collect funds from the occasional users, and the yearly subscribers would still need to stop and show their passes because I don't think there'd be a way to use a transponder and bikes have no license plates for a camera to read.

But really, the amount that cyclists and pedestrians are saving in maintenance and in reducing road traffic means that if anything they're revenue positive or at least very low cost. And the while the HDBC may not be a charity, it is a non-profit organization tasked solely with providing a public benefit. Although I'm not convinced it's within the mandate for the commission to fund that type of work on the approaches and if there were a flyover, it would be done by the HRM. No doubt a small price to pay considering how much it spends to build and maintain all the sidewalks and roads across the HRM that receive far lower levels of traffic.

Use the honour system or tell them the lane won't be cleared when it is winter. Most cyclists would view $50 as a bargain. Casual cyclists go free.

Everything has a value. I like to keep my sidewalk clear all year and I often clear parts of my street in the winter right down to the surface. Last week I cleared most of the leaves from the gutter into piles knowing that the street cleaner was nearby, he came along and did the final sweep. Beats letting the leaves end up clogging a catch basin.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Colin May

Use the honour system or tell them the lane won't be cleared when it is winter. Most cyclists would view $50 as a bargain. Casual cyclists go free.

Everything has a value. I like to keep my sidewalk clear all year and I often clear parts of my street in the winter right down to the surface. Last week I cleared most of the leaves from the gutter into piles knowing that the street cleaner was nearby, he came along and did the final sweep. Beats letting the leaves end up clogging a catch basin.

No, not everything has a value if it's going to cost more to collect the value than the worth of the value one is collecting. Honestly, the HDBC would already be tolling cyclists and pedestrians if it was worth while. But they know the administration (staff, implementation, enforcement, etc.) of it would cost as much or more than any revenue gained given the much smaller numbers of people compared to the motor vehicles, especially after the drop in usage the toll would cause. I mean, people can get across the bridge with a standard bus fare, and the toll would put the cost difference between the two that much closer.

And if it was "honour system" for some and strict enforcement for others, people would be crying foul and saying it was unfair. Not to mention that a lot of cyclists bike every weekday only up until there is snow and ice down and therefore wouldn't be affected by winter maintenance at all, and the small percentage of hardcore winter cyclists would the only ones affected if they cut it because the others refused to pay.

But no, the everything has a value philosophy doesn't itself have much value. All you'd end up doing is providing a disincentive for people to use active transportation, which not only saves money for the actual people doing it but also for the community as a whole. And the bridge commission has been getting sufficient funding with its current processes.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

But how would they handle people who just wanted to cross once rather than a daily commute? They'd need some sort of toll booth there to collect funds from the occasional users, and the yearly subscribers would still need to stop and show their passes because I don't think there'd be a way to use a transponder and bikes have no license plates for a camera to read.

But really, the amount that cyclists and pedestrians are saving in maintenance and in reducing road traffic means that if anything they're revenue positive or at least very low cost. And the while the HDBC may not be a charity, it is a non-profit organization tasked solely with providing a public benefit. Although I'm not convinced it's within the mandate for the commission to fund that type of work on the approaches and if there were a flyover, it would be done by the HRM. No doubt a small price to pay considering how much it spends to build and maintain all the sidewalks and roads across the HRM that receive far lower levels of traffic.

Stick a Mac Pass on your helmet!

But seriously, I agree that it would be a pain to administer, and the net value once you paid for a few extra commissionaires to enforce, etc. would probably be negligible.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Stick a Mac Pass on your helmet!

But seriously, I agree that it would be a pain to administer, and the net value once you paid for a few extra commissionaires to enforce, etc. would probably be negligible.

The value would be in the message it sends to the cycling community that not all infrastructure is free.