Halifax Active Transportation

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Quinpoo would, however, be a great street to install a contra-flow bike lane on in the future. It would probably mean removing on-street parking from one side. If in the future we can increase mode share so that parking is demand flatlines and cycling/transit demand grows, it will be more feasible. I'd agree it's a bad idea now--but not necessarily in the future. Toronto did basically the same thing with the Bloor Street bike lanes, and that's worked out fine. (But that is a different situation, with that street sitting above the region's second busiest transit line,)

I have no doubt the cycling lobbyists would demand a bike flyover bridge across the Arm since the uphill stretch of Quinpool from Horseshoe Island would be deemed by the EAC and HCC to be far too steep for cyclists to tolerate.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

I have no doubt the cycling lobbyists would demand a bike flyover bridge across the Arm since the uphill stretch of Quinpool from Horseshoe Island would be deemed by the EAC and HCC to be far too steep for cyclists to tolerate.

Electric bikes have really changed the dynamic with hills.

But I do think a bridge over the Arm would be good, and it might be more likely to happen as a pedestrian and cycling bridge rather than one for mixed traffic or cars only. There's more and more recreational stuff on the mainland side and there's an opportunity to build affordable housing (of the market variety) on the mainland that would only be a short commute onto the peninsula. As the city grows, this underdeveloped area will become more and more attractive.

[Keith P.]

Don't give them any ideas.

Perhaps the electric cycles can be used as an argument to save the city $10 million on that useless Macdonald addition though.

[alps]

Here's the all-ages-and-abilities bike network place from the IMP (top) compared to the updated plan (bottom). Some changes include:

• Addition of the excellent Devonshire and Barrington north connection
• Deletion of part of the Almon St. protected cycle track, and its awkward replacement with a local street bikeway on Liverpool, a few blocks over
• Addition of a protected cycle way on Albro Lake Rd, linking up nicely with the routes on Slayter St. and Wyse Road
• New local street bikeways on Oak/Allen and Charles St.
• "Potential rail station" icons removed

I wonder what happened to the rest of the long-proposed Halifax Urban Greenway concept – it would seem to fill a gap in this network very well.

[Keith P.]

The "All Ages and Abilities" moniker is seriously misleading and needs to be changed. This is very much an ableist initiative and certainly not something for all citizens.

[JET]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Don't give them any ideas.

Perhaps the electric cycles can be used as an argument to save the city $10 million on that useless Macdonald addition though.

Gee Keith, I guess you don't bike across the MacDonald often?

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by JET

Gee Keith, I guess you don't bike across the MacDonald often?

Of course not. But the flyover is a ridiculous and hugely expensive solution to a very simple problem. Have a signalized crossing at the end of the bridge JUST AS THERE CURRENTLY IS NOW for the crosswalk across that end of North St. Save the taxpayer $10 million. If a cyclist has to wait for a signal, it will give them a chance to catch their breath or dry off. Win-win.

[JET]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Of course not. But the flyover is a ridiculous and hugely expensive solution to a very simple problem. Have a signalized crossing at the end of the bridge JUST AS THERE CURRENTLY IS NOW for the crosswalk across that end of North St. Save the taxpayer $10 million. If a cyclist has to wait for a signal, it will give them a chance to catch their breath or dry off. Win-win.

Oh but Keith, how will the traffic ever cope if they are delayed by cyclists every few minutes.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by JET

Oh but Keith, how will the traffic ever cope if they are delayed by cyclists every few minutes.

I think motorists would agree that a cycling signal every 10 minutes would be quite fair.

[atbw]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

The issue is that most people who are willing to cycle are already doing it. Additional monies spent now are not going to have a linear affect on ridership rates since you are going after a group that is much harder to convert to a much less appealing form of transportation.

The opposite is true in terms of ridership and infrastructure. 58% of Haligonians are interested in cycling, but currently do not. The fear of traffic is the number one thing keeping them off the roads. The presence of bike lanes, and a minimum grid are the third and fourth biggest factors in people choosing cycling.

This is what we are building, and who we are building it for. The 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 cyclists will be fine. Those who want to take their time, take their kids, and not worry, are who this network is for. Half of Halifax would like to travel by bike more than they do now — this investment will let them (and take their cars off the street while they do.)

Source:https://drive.google.com/file/d/13E5LWd1boeUV_P68cITIGJDAGLOtHYWG/view


As for that donut-sized hole in downtown, it’s Halifax’s most walkable neighbourhood, so the majority of errands and commutes can be done conveniently on foot.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by Agricola

Right, two or three cyclists! probably closer to two or three hundred per day.

Just to bring this back to June's discussion of how many people use Vernon as a cycling corridor: A city report stated that on an average weekday in October 2017, 577 cyclists used the most-traveled block, between Jubilee and Cedar.

That compares to 3,500 cars/trucks/motorcycles/etc. So about 15% of vehicle traffic (counting both cars and bikes as vehicles) are currently bicycles. I would be pretty surprised if that number hasn't increased at least a little since 2017, and this kind of infrastructure will likely increase it further. So it's really a substantial portion of road users this is being built for. A couple more years and I wouldn't be surprised if a quarter of the street's traffic, or more, is bikes, for 8-9 months of the year, anyway. Yet I'm sure cyclists will still be seen by a great many people as mere pests or impediments to traffic, rather than a major portion of the road users.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by atbw

The opposite is true in terms of ridership and infrastructure. 58% of Haligonians are interested in cycling, but currently do not. The fear of traffic is the number one thing keeping them off the roads. The presence of bike lanes, and a minimum grid are the third and fourth biggest factors in people choosing cycling.

This is what we are building, and who we are building it for. The 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 cyclists will be fine. Those who want to take their time, take their kids, and not worry, are who this network is for. Half of Halifax would like to travel by bike more than they do now — this investment will let them (and take their cars off the street while they do.)

The "interested" number is very questionable and highly inflated. Putting them in harm's way in constricted, busy streets is tantamount to HRM inviting them to injure themselves. Same with people who think they can tow infants around in bike trailers. It is lunacy. These are not rides on a trail in a park. These are rides on busy streets with much traffic and lots of distractions.

[atbw]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

The "interested" number is very questionable and highly inflated. Putting them in harm's way in constricted, busy streets is tantamount to HRM inviting them to injure themselves.

Inflated by how much? This is the answer people gave, and we have no reason to doubt it in place of relying on assumption and hypotheticals. The point at which ‘interested’ becomes ‘committed’ will be different for every individual, but again, to claim that building protected cycling infrastructure will not affect the number of cyclists is not founded in fact.

Same with people who think they can tow infants around in bike trailers. It is lunacy. These are not rides on a trail in a park. These are rides on busy streets with much traffic and lots of distractions.

Exactly why we are building protected and separated infrastructure on busy streets and calming quiet streets. Driving is inherently dangerous and a leading cause of death for children. (~30% of deaths of children between 1-17 were accidental, 17% of which were motor vehicle accidents). Calming streets, slowing traffic, separating bikes and cars on main roads, and generally getting cars off the street will save lives.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by atbw

Inflated by how much? This is the answer people gave, and we have no reason to doubt it in place of relying on assumption and hypotheticals. The point at which ‘interested’ becomes ‘committed’ will be different for every individual, but again, to claim that building protected cycling infrastructure will not affect the number of cyclists is not founded in fact.

I am interested in a number of movies. But I may go to 1 out of 10. That is what people mean when they respond to a question like that.

Exactly why we are building protected and separated infrastructure on busy streets and calming quiet streets. Driving is inherently dangerous and a leading cause of death for children. (~30% of deaths of children between 1-17 were accidental, 17% of which were motor vehicle accidents). Calming streets, slowing traffic, separating bikes and cars on main roads, and generally getting cars off the street will save lives.

That is delusional. Most bike lanes are not and cannot be protected by anything other than a painted line or a plastic bollard. And there is nothing that can be done about busy intersections which are inherently dangerous. These initiatives will result in more injuries and deaths, something which cycling lobbyists don't want to talk about. Cycling in traffic can never be made safe. Let's speak to the real issue here: the goal of the planning community to eliminate the private vehicle, their sworn enemy, from much of the peninsula. Let's have a full public discussion of that rather than feel-good announcements by politicians about how wonderful cycling will be.

[atbw]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

That is delusional. Most bike lanes are not and cannot be protected by anything other than a painted line or a plastic bollard. And there is nothing that can be done about busy intersections which are inherently dangerous. These initiatives will result in more injuries and deaths, something which cycling lobbyists don't want to talk about. Cycling in traffic can never be made safe.

Intersections with bike infrastructure reduced injuries by 75% compared to intersections without. In NYC, injury crashes across all road users (cyclists, motorists and pedestrians) are reduced by around 40%. Busy intersections can get bike boxes, restrict right on red movement, give bicycle-only signals, advance pedestrian signals and remove slip lanes to improve their safety. Drivers also feel more comfortable when cyclists have a separated lane vs. in mixed traffic. What evidence do you have to the contrary?

Let's speak to the real issue here: the goal of the planning community to eliminate the private vehicle, their sworn enemy, from much of the peninsula. Let's have a full public discussion of that rather than feel-good announcements by politicians about how wonderful cycling will be.

The Halifax IMP has the goal of reducing single occupant vehicle use as the default method of transportation by improving transit, cycling and pedestrian infrastructure. Are we wrong to do so?

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by atbw

The Halifax IMP has the goal of reducing single occupant vehicle use as the default method of transportation by improving transit, cycling and pedestrian infrastructure. Are we wrong to do so?

So you admit it then, there is a "War on the Car"!!!!!!

And all this time I thought it was just a conspiracy theory.

Time to marshall all the troops. Since I don't live in the HRM, I'll leave it to Keith to organize the resistance at the ballot box.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by atbw

The Halifax IMP has the goal of reducing single occupant vehicle use as the default method of transportation by improving transit, cycling and pedestrian infrastructure. Are we wrong to do so?

Yes. It is ill-advised at best. The amount of tax money it would take to even try to accomplish that is massive and unrealistic. In 10 years, electric vehicles will be commonplace. In 20, likely hydrogen fuel cell vehicles will remove the charging problem for them so there will be zero enviro argument to be made. Hard to imagine why someone would choose to cycle in the cold rain instead of commuting in something comfortable like that.

Time to move to somewhere more rational, I think.

[Vivid_Ascent]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Hard to imagine why someone would choose to cycle in the cold rain instead of commuting in something comfortable like that.

Exercise, perhaps?

I think Halifax should be applauded for building infrastructure that facilitates active lifestyles and provides for a zero-emission form of transportation.

The fact that decades into the future zero-emission vehicles might become commonplace is, in my opinion, a poor justification for failing to pursue a popular and objectively greener alternative today. Cars pollute today; why not take concrete steps to reduce emissions now? Why wait for macro-level societal changes that may or may not even occur in our lifetimes?

Imagine I was a 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 smoker and I said to you, "well in 10 years they'll probably have better treatments for lung cancer, and in 20 years they'll probably be able to cure it all together. So I should keep smoking and actively reject alternatives that might help me quit today." Does that sound like a watertight argument?

Nobody will be forced to use the new biking infrastructure. A bike-lane network does not negate one's right to drive a car, it merely provides safer, more convenient infrastructure for a form of public transportation that the public has expressed significant appetite for.

Also, I'm not sure what motive anyone would have to lie when asked on a survey that gauged their openness to biking. Any reasonable person should be able to foresee how their survey responses could be used to inform future public policy decisions. So even if some people did lie about their interest in biking (to not seem lazy??), it's likely they they view biking infrastructure in a positive light and as a good use of tax dollars.

I'm pretty new to Halifax--so feel free to inform me if I'm off base--but the amount of anti-bike sentiment on this forum, composed supposedly of advocates of sustainable development and smart urban design, strikes me as odd. I've seen so many posts about this nefarious "bike-lobby" that has infiltrated the city's decision-making process. If that's true -- and I've seen no evidence to convince me that it is -- shouldn't that be something to celebrate on this forum? Would we rather that tax money be spent on more freeways to drive urban sprawl at the peripheries ?

If bike infrastructure and road-sharing tack on an unbearable five minutes onto drivers' commutes, maybe some will think about moving to a more central location, selling their car, and buying a bike. That'd be a plus for urbanism and a plus for the planet.

Again, I'm new here so let me know if I'm missing part of the picture. I don't mean to put a stick in anyone's spokes, but that's my two cents.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Vivid_Ascent

Nobody will be forced to use the new biking infrastructure.

But everybody is being asked to pay for it to placate a loud but tiny fringe minority.

I'm pretty new to Halifax--so feel free to inform me if I'm off base--but the amount of anti-bike sentiment on this forum, composed supposedly of advocates of sustainable development and smart urban design, strikes me as odd. I've seen so many posts about this nefarious "bike-lobby" that has infiltrated the city's decision-making process. If that's true -- and I've seen no evidence to convince me that it is -- shouldn't that be something to celebrate on this forum? Would we rather that tax money be spent on more freeways to drive urban sprawl at the peripheries ?

If you are unaware of the power and influence of the cycling lobby, specifically the EAC and the HCC, you need to take a closer look. They pull the strings of Council generally and its members such as Mason, Zurawski, Austin, Cleary and others specifically. And HRM's planning dept is infested with numerous cycling zealots who create these plans that the taxpayer if forced to pony up for. Rather than bringing forward proposals that the majority would use and benefit from, they come up with these sort of foolish ideas that satisfy the tiniest of special interests.

If bike infrastructure and road-sharing tack on an unbearable five minutes onto drivers' commutes, maybe some will think about moving to a more central location, selling their car, and buying a bike. That'd be a plus for urbanism and a plus for the planet.

This is of course the foundation argument. Punish motorists for making the choice that makes sense for them given the location of their residence - itself determined by past planning decisions of HRM - and have them move into an expensive concrete box on the peninsula. So much for their kids playing in the backyard or enjoying a suburban lifestyle that is more affordable and allows the parents to do other things for their kids. "Urbanism" is the problem.

[atbw]

Originally Posted by Vivid_Ascent

Again, I'm new here so let me know if I'm missing part of the picture. I don't mean to put a stick in anyone's spokes, but that's my two cents.

What I notice is that resistance seems sentiment- and anecdote-driven, instead of being based on any sort of data. We hear the same tired and unsubstantiated arguments every time: it won't be used! It will make traffic unbearable! It's for the rich 1%! It'll kill business!

Fortunately, planners take into account this data, not feelings and anecdotes.

Infrastructure almost universally results in higher ridership, fewer accidents across all road users, and each rider is one less car on the road. Cycling, as a primary method of transportation, is most common among the lowest income tiers in Halifax. Furthermore, cycling is more accessible to all ages than vehicle ownership, meaning kids, teens, and their grandparents can get around without buying a car, bumming a ride, or needing a license.

We can rhyme off facts and figures forever in response to these weak arguments, but the best thing to do is to let your elected officials know what you love, what needs some work, and get out there and ride.