Halifax Active Transportation

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by dtown

New MacDonald Bridge bikeway project approved by the city transportation committee, could be voted on by council as early as August 15th.

http://www.metronews.ca/news/halifax/201...ld-bridge-bikeway-project-in-motion.html

Such profligate, utterly wasteful spending of taxpayer dollars must be stopped. This is the same as every other unused cycling infrastructure spend only 100 times bigger. The line needs to be drawn. Either that or given the HCC this and nothing else for the next 10 years.

[IanWatson]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Such profligate, utterly wasteful spending of taxpayer dollars must be stopped. This is the same as every other unused cycling infrastructure spend only 100 times bigger. The line needs to be drawn. Either that or given the HCC this and nothing else for the next 10 years.

I'm pretty sure the cycling community doesn't even really want the flyover; they'd be happy with the fence removed and a crosswalk. But that would slow down cars getting off the bridge. So really this is money being spent for the benefit of drivers.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

I'm pretty sure the cycling community doesn't even really want the flyover; they'd be happy with the fence removed and a crosswalk. But that would slow down cars getting off the bridge. So really this is money being spent for the benefit of drivers.

That is the narrative being spread by the HCC and is total BS. If that was the case we would have had elevated pedestrian crossings at the Halifax end long ago, as there are far more pedestrians crossing than cyclists. No, this is a $7 million cookie designed to prevent the hapless cyclists from having to go up the hill.

[IanWatson]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

That is the narrative being spread by the HCC and is total BS. If that was the case we would have had elevated pedestrian crossings at the Halifax end long ago, as there are far more pedestrians crossing than cyclists. No, this is a $7 million cookie designed to prevent the hapless cyclists from having to go up the hill.

Except that's a complete red herring because the pedestrian crosswalk does not block cars exiting the bridge. The pedestrian crossing is signal-controlled at a set of lights that would be there whether or not the crosswalk was there. Google Maps view.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

Except that's a complete red herring because the pedestrian crosswalk does not block cars exiting the bridge. The pedestrian crossing is signal-controlled at a set of lights that would be there whether or not the crosswalk was there. Google Maps view.

Wrong side. I'm talking about this one.

https://www.google.ca/maps/@44.6585026,-...GyH0tuJ8gbZKZRLg0OIeg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

[jslath]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

An even better first would be toll booths on it.

I agree! Stick a Macpass to the helmet and pay tolls.

[NDPer4life]

This is a victory for all the socially conscious haligonians and a defeat for trump supporters

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by jslath

I agree! Stick a Macpass to the helmet and pay tolls.

Excellent suggestion!

Hopefully Council will come to their senses and deep-six this absurdity.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by NDPer4life

This is a victory for all the socially conscious haligonians and a defeat for trump supporters

Yes, because we all know that Donald Trump is very concerned about bicycle lanes in Halifax.

Sorry for the sarcasm, but I just don't know what this comment has to do with anything...

[Nouvellecosse]

As urban enthusiasts, improvements to bike lanes on the bridge and elsewhere is something we should all be vocally supporting because of the ability of active transportation to improve urban areas and reduce costs for both individuals and governments. There's a common perception in NS that investment in cycling infrastructure will be an extra financial burden for governments, but in reality that isn't the case. As Tristan Cleveland pointed out recently, cyclists actually pay more taxes than other citizens relative to their imposed burden. And here is an article that discuss the cost effectiveness of such investments:

https://www.fastcompany.com/3065591/bike...t-effective-way-to-improve-public-health

I realize of course that there are some naysayers who simply don't like cyclists, and for them it isn't about the facts as they're just using these misconceptions as excuses to attack those who are different, which is the same as any other type of bigotry. But for most people, their opposition to active transportation measures is simply down to a misunderstanding of the economics.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

As urban enthusiasts, improvements to bike lanes on the bridge and elsewhere is something we should all be vocally supporting because of the ability of active transportation to improve urban areas and reduce costs for both individuals and governments. There's a common perception in NS that investment in cycling infrastructure will be an extra financial burden for governments, but in reality that isn't the case. As Tristan Cleveland pointed out recently, cyclists actually pay more taxes than other citizens relative to their imposed burden. And here is an article that discuss the cost effectiveness of such investments:

https://www.fastcompany.com/3065591/bike...t-effective-way-to-improve-public-health

I realize of course that there are some naysayers who simply don't like cyclists, and for them it isn't about the facts as they're just using these misconceptions as excuses to attack those who are different, which is the same as any other type of bigotry. But for most people, their opposition to active transportation measures is simply down to a misunderstanding of the economics.

Oh, FFS...

Using Tristan Cleveland as an argument for anything other than the absurdity of his positions is sheer and utter lunacy. That "study" is all speculation. extrapolation, and assumptions. Not many facts to be found therein. Extrapolating that house of cards into an argument that it reduces health costs and increases economic benefits is like stepping off a 50-storey building becuase your research indicates the human body should be able to fly. It is like a matron buying a mink coat because it is on sale and then arguing with her husband that she just saved him $5000.

[jslath]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Oh, FFS...

Using Tristan Cleveland as an argument for anything other than the absurdity of his positions is sheer and utter lunacy. That "study" is all speculation. extrapolation, and assumptions. Not many facts to be found therein. Extrapolating that house of cards into an argument that it reduces health costs and increases economic benefits is like stepping off a 50-storey building becuase your research indicates the human body should be able to fly. It is like a matron buying a mink coat because it is on sale and then arguing with her husband that she just saved him $5000.

I'm also confused as to how New York City and Halifax can be compared. Apples and oranges. NYC spent 8.1 million on 45 miles of bike lanes. Compare this to Halifax's 7.5 million for a ramp. Also note that NYC's ridership may possibly increase by 9.32%. Key words: may possibly.

I'm all for getting people out of their cars, but I'd much rather see 7.5 million spent improving Halifax Transit. Maybe finally build a bus shelter on the Halifax side of the bridge?

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by jslath

I'm also confused as to how New York City and Halifax can be compared. Apples and oranges. NYC spent 8.1 million on 45 miles of bike lanes. Compare this to Halifax's 7.5 million for a ramp. Also note that NYC's ridership may possibly increase by 9.32%. Key words: may possibly.

I'm all for getting people out of their cars, but I'd much rather see 7.5 million spent improving Halifax Transit. Maybe finally build a bus shelter on the Halifax side of the bridge?

NYC and Halifax aren't being compared. The effects of increased bicycle use compared to maintaining lower rates of use are being compared. Of course if we want to examine the effects of an increase in bicycle usage as a result of an investment in infrastructure, we have to look at places where that's happened (and happened in a relatively short time frame to limit the likelihood of other changes being responsible).

But if we were going to compare the two cities, if anything I'd suggest that NYC would have been better served with more transit investment with the opposite being true for Halifax. Halifax is small enough and quiet enough for cycling to be friendlier to more people, whereas NYC is huge and many times busier, more crowded, and more intimidating.

But the main takeaway is to look specifically at the effects of active transportation use and the impacts of investment and avoid being distracted by irrelevant details. Until we actually do an experiment here in Halifax, people will always find some way to discount the experience of every other place, whether it be culture, size, weather, geography, or what have you. But more often than not, such details have little to no relevance. You can find countless studies and discussions on the economics of cycling and its related infrastructure. For example, this discussion on the merrits of bicycle license fees. But none that I've seen (other than pure commentary) show it to be less cost effective than motorised alternatives.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

But none that I've seen (other than pure commentary) show it to be less cost effective than motorised alternatives.

A $7.5 million ramp to avoid having to pedal uphill a couple of hundred feet or wait for a traffic signal certainly is in no way cost-effective.

[NDPer4life]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Yes, because we all know that Donald Trump is very concerned about bicycle lanes in Halifax.

Sorry for the sarcasm, but I just don't know what this comment has to do with anything...

I said Donald trump supporters, not Donald trump. You know the type that sit at home and watch the news, filled with hate towards the world....

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by NDPer4life

I said Donald trump supporters, not Donald trump. You know the type that sit at home and watch the news, filled with hate towards the world....

However, as a Canadian, anything related to Trump has no value, as he is the 'leader' of another country. It is not a valid term to be used in describing Canadian situations, in my opinion.

Personally, I try to shy away from generalizations such as the one that you are presenting and instead consider the merits of the argument or presentation on their own.

Pigeonholing people into categories never has a positive or useful result, in fact IMHO it's one step short of turning into an 'ism'.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

However, as a Canadian, anything related to Trump has no value, as he is the 'leader' of another country. It is not a valid term to be used in describing Canadian situations, in my opinion.

Personally, I try to shy away from generalizations such as the one that you are presenting and instead consider the merits of the argument or presentation on their own.

Pigeonholing people into categories never has a positive or useful result, in fact IMHO it's one step short of turning into an 'ism'.

Agreed, this isn't the forum for these discussions anyway.

The bike ramp investment is a good one IMO, just like road widening will improve public transit flows on Bayers Rd. Separating various forms of transit is always the most successful approach.

[Ziobrop]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

A $7.5 million ramp to avoid having to pedal uphill a couple of hundred feet or wait for a traffic signal certainly is in no way cost-effective.

its not actually the uphill - most cyclists crossing the bridge do so from Gottigen, not barrington. as it stands, to get to the bike lane, you have to ride to the bottom of the hill, cross the street, then ride back up. the issue is the city doesn't want to stop cars with a traffic signal. the Simplest solution would be for the bridge commission to switch the bike lane and the pedestrian lane to the opposite they are now. For whatever reason they wont do that. the next simplest solution would be for the city removed one section of the bars from the fence along the bikeway, and painted a path for them to go straight up to gottigen.

many cities have green crosswalks for bikes. Painting that and a hole in the fence would maybe cost 1000$ to do, but would require the province to amend the mva, and drivers would need to accept a stop at the Halifax end of the bridge.

Since both those things are unlikely, we need a bridge.

[OldDartmouthMark]

$7M upgrade considered for bike-friendly access to Macdonald Bridge

[IanWatson]

Council approved the bike flyover. Only Whitman voted 'no'.