Halifax Active Transportation

[Dartguard]

Funny you should mention that. I just found some dated data that goes to support Keith's argument about a small minority of Bike Nuts demanding more than their fair share.

Its from 2005 but I doubt if the data has changed much.

https://novascotia.ca/dhw/publications/annual-statistical-reports/cchs_physical_activity_2006.pdf

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Dartguard

Funny you should mention that. I just found some dated data that goes to support Keith's argument about a small minority of Bike Nuts demanding more than their fair share.

Its from 2005 but I doubt if the data has changed much.

https://novascotia.ca/dhw/publications/annual-statistical-reports/cchs_physical_activity_2006.pdf

It has not, and still remains very much a fringe activity that is quite dangerous.

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/en/pub/82-003-x/2017004/article/14788-eng.pdf?st=5MCvKqE3

[atbw]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

It has not, and still remains very much a fringe activity that is quite dangerous.

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/en/pub/82-003-x/2017004/article/14788-eng.pdf?st=5MCvKqE3

I would not describe an activity performed by 40% of Canadians in the past year as a fringe activity. Between the two studies, we see 15% of Nova Scotians cycling in 2005, and 26.8% cycling in 2016. Both of those figures seem higher than the 1% toted by those against these lanes.

The StatsCan study is particularly interesting, as we see a doubling in helmet usage between 94/95 and 13/14, along with a slight decrease in cycling.

However, cycling deaths remained virtually flat over the two decade period, at a rate of 2.6 deaths per million population. Adjusting for a Canadian cycling population of 40%, that is 6.2 deaths per million riders. At Nova Scotia's cycling population of 26.8%, that same rate would be 9.49 deaths per million riders, although it's hard to tell without province-specific data.

In 2014, driving killed 1,848 people, or 52 deaths per million population. Adjusting for the 26 million registered drivers in 2014, that works out to be 69 deaths per million drivers.

What is dangerous?


https://www.statista.com/statistics/448557/number-of-licensed-drivers-in-canada/

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by Dartguard

Funny you should mention that. I just found some dated data that goes to support Keith's argument about a small minority of Bike Nuts demanding more than their fair share.

Its from 2005 but I doubt if the data has changed much.

https://novascotia.ca/dhw/publications/annual-statistical-reports/cchs_physical_activity_2006.pdf

Things can change a whole lot in 14 years. Also, this is a province-wide survey. Obviously people cycling to work or school in rural areas is going to be low, and that right away skews these stats way to the low side.

I actually take exactly the opposite conclusion from this data: 14 years ago, 6% of Nova Scotians regularly biked for "non-leisure" activities, i.e., getting around. That's a provincial average, covering rural areas, suburbs and small towns, where almost no one would bike because it's impractical. So if we were to look just at the urban areas (central Halifax, its inner suburbs, and the downtowns and inner areas of many small towns) the rate of non-leisure cycling would obviously be much higher there, which is where we're taking about building infrastructure.

Anecdotally, it's very obvious that cycling has become more popular in the past decade.

Combine these two considerations and it seems pretty obvious we're not talking about some puny group of people, but a considerable number of people who currently use bikes to get around, and likely a much larger who would if it were safer and easier.

Anyway, if you look at other things we spend public money on for 6% or less of the population, I think we can find far better examples of waste than bike lanes, which can serve to facilitate transportation, save lives, and ease traffic congestion.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by atbw

I would not describe an activity performed by 40% of Canadians in the past year as a fringe activity. Between the two studies, we see 15% of Nova Scotians cycling in 2005, and 26.8% cycling in 2016. Both of those figures seem higher than the 1% toted by those against these lanes.

The StatsCan study is particularly interesting, as we see a doubling in helmet usage between 94/95 and 13/14, along with a slight decrease in cycling.

However, cycling deaths remained virtually flat over the two decade period, at a rate of 2.6 deaths per million population. Adjusting for a Canadian cycling population of 40%, that is 6.2 deaths per million riders. At Nova Scotia's cycling population of 26.8%, that same rate would be 9.49 deaths per million riders, although it's hard to tell without province-specific data.

In 2014, driving killed 1,848 people, or 52 deaths per million population. Adjusting for the 26 million registered drivers in 2014, that works out to be 69 deaths per million drivers.

What is dangerous?


https://www.statista.com/statistics/448557/number-of-licensed-drivers-in-canada/

I try to take a pragmatic approach to cycling these days, as I was once an enthusiastic young cyclist (though mostly mountainbiking, never got into the thin wheel bikes). So I try to look at all sides.

I just want to say that you can look at all the statistics in the world, but you can't change physics. Unless concrete barriers are installed to protect you from the rest of the world, you are at risk every time you are on a bicycle. And not just from cars - a collision with a pedestrian or another cyclist, curbs, trees, a wheel dropping into a pothole or drainage grate, even unexpected gravel on the pavement - all these things can cause fairly serious injuries to a cyclist, who is basically unprotected meat traveling at 15 - 50 km/h.

Yesterday I had to run an errand in downtown Halifax, and I saw a young woman on a bicycle in the middle of traffic with a baby seat attached to the bike with a toddler in it. I prayed to the powers that be that she doesn't drop the bike or get hit, because that child was in a very precarious position, being part of the bike. She didn't seem to be riding with the level of skill or awareness that I would have liked to see either.

So, yes, bikes are really safe, until something unexpected happens.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

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.

This is not new, actually. The realities of pollution and climate change, combined with a continually exploding global population has made IC-powered vehicles a target for many years (decades). Many many advances spurred on by government regulations have been made to reduce emissions, improve fuel economy, and improve safety, but still the war goes on.

Problem is... they are such a useful, convenient tool with which to expand our lives and allow us to accomplish way more than we could without one, they are probably sticking around until something better comes along.

Bicycles are great - they are fun, a fantastic form of exercise, useful for small commutes, and their only form of pollution are whatever comes from the human propelling it. But, they do not have the capabilities to travel at high speeds for long periods of time, or to haul moderate to large amounts of cargo, so therefore not a replacement.

[MonctonRad]

The bicyclists in Amsterdam are vicious. They always have the right of way and have no consideration for pedestrians whatsoever........

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

This is not new, actually. The realities of pollution and climate change, combined with a continually exploding global population has made IC-powered vehicles a target for many years (decades). Many many advances spurred on by government regulations have been made to reduce emissions, improve fuel economy, and improve safety, but still the war goes on

I wouldn't say that any of these measures constitutes a "war" on the car. Most people would be happy to support initiatives to make automobiles more eco friendly, efficient, cheaper to run and safer.

The bicycling lobby however seems eager to see their mode of transportation supplant motorized vehicles of any sort, powered by whatever means. Some bicycle enthusiasts have morphed into zealotry, proselytizing our politicians with irrational exuberance to further their own ends, seeking to reach a Nirvana where the automobile is actually banned from the downtown cores of our cities.

Bicyclists should be respected, and accommodations should be made where feasible and practical. ideally bicyclists should have their own infrastructure completely separate from motorized vehicles, and completely divorced from the existing roadway. In most circumstances, this would be accomplished by having a sidewalk on one side of the street and a bikeway on the other side of the street. Injudicious narrowing of the roadway itself to allow for bicycling infrastructure should be avoided most of the time.

[Dartguard]

Originally Posted by atbw

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.

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Things can change a whole lot in 14 years. Also, this is a province-wide survey. Obviously people cycling to work or school in rural areas is going to be low, and that right away skews these stats way to the low side.

I actually take exactly the opposite conclusion from this data: 14 years ago, 6% of Nova Scotians regularly biked for "non-leisure" activities, i.e., getting around. That's a provincial average, covering rural areas, suburbs and small towns, where almost no one would bike because it's impractical. So if we were to look just at the urban areas (central Halifax, its inner suburbs, and the downtowns and inner areas of many small towns) the rate of non-leisure cycling would obviously be much higher there, which is where we're taking about building infrastructure.

Anecdotally, it's very obvious that cycling has become more popular in the past decade.

Combine these two considerations and it seems pretty obvious we're not talking about some puny group of people, but a considerable number of people who currently use bikes to get around, and likely a much larger who would if it were safer and easier.

Anyway, if you look at other things we spend public money on for 6% or less of the population, I think we can find far better examples of waste than bike lanes, which can serve to facilitate transportation, save lives, and ease traffic congestion.

Here is story from Global news with some interesting stats especially about bike injury's in B.C.

https://globalnews.ca/news/4316749/sports-injuries-hospitalizations-canada/

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

I wouldn't say that any of these measures constitutes a "war" on the car. Most people would be happy to support initiatives to make automobiles more eco friendly, efficient, cheaper to run and safer.

The bicycling lobby however seems eager to see their mode of transportation supplant motorized vehicles of any sort, powered by whatever means. Some bicycle enthusiasts have morphed into zealotry, proselytizing our politicians with irrational exuberance to further their own ends, seeking to reach a Nirvana where the automobile is actually banned from the downtown cores of our cities.

Bicyclists should be respected, and accommodations should be made where feasible and practical. ideally bicyclists should have their own infrastructure completely separate from motorized vehicles, and completely divorced from the existing roadway. In most circumstances, this would be accomplished by having a sidewalk on one side of the street and a bikeway on the other side of the street. Injudicious narrowing of the roadway itself to allow for bicycling infrastructure should be avoided most of the time.

Perhaps I overstated it a bit. Not so much a war, but a focused movement based on the problems created by the use of personable automobiles.

I can't disagree with the other points you made either.

Furthermore, I have to say that if 2-wheeled open conveyances were the most practical form of transportation, then most people would already be riding motorcycles.

Maybe if someone were to invent a 4-wheeled closed vehicle with good heating and A/C capabilities, that was capable of carrying passengers and cargo and made it a pedal/electric hybrid, it might catch on??

[Keith P.]

I get the sense that the citizens of HRM are finally awakening to the undue influence of the cycling lobby on our municipal Council and are starting to push back. I got a kick out of this letter to the editor of the Herald on August 3, and could not agree more:

Sometimes I think my waking hours are spent in the DC Comics “Bizarro World,” which in popular culture has come to mean a situation or setting that’s weirdly inverted or opposite to expectations.

I find myself in this state, especially when I discover the contrary antics and lavish expenditures of the serial spendthrifts (most, not all) we have elected to HRM council.

Three levels of government are spending a total of $25 million on bikeways, yet all the potholes from last winter haven’t been repaired yet — and those that have been have produced ugly, quilted washboard roads of black and various shades of grey throughout the land. The painting for traffic-lane separation, directional arrows and crosswalks are faded beyond recognition. Bizarro!

An inept transit system that is trying to claw back a few dollars on the backs of the elderly still contemplates spending thousands of dollars to install free Wi-Fi to increase ridership, thus revenue. Bizarro!

A group of councillors, who themselves mostly drive cars and live in single-family dwellings, is moving to force reluctant residents to walk, bike, use transit and live in high-rise towers for the sake of density. Bizarro!

The Halifax Natal Day Parade is to be held in Dartmouth. Bizzaro!

Frankie Foster, Halifax

[atbw]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Perhaps I overstated it a bit. Not so much a war, but a focused movement based on the problems created by the use of personable automobiles.

I can't disagree with the other points you made either.

Furthermore, I have to say that if 2-wheeled open conveyances were the most practical form of transportation, then most people would already be riding motorcycles.

Maybe if someone were to invent a 4-wheeled closed vehicle with good heating and A/C capabilities, that was capable of carrying passengers and cargo and made it a pedal/electric hybrid, it might catch on??

E-Bikes are absolutely amazing. I think the big benefit to having bike lanes are the other things that can go in them, scooters, e-bikes, cargo bike things and whatever micro mobility vehicles we see in the future.

Tree cover can do a big service in terms of cooling the street, combined with the breeze of riding, there's a lot of sittuations where I feel cooler riding.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by Dartguard

Here is story from Global news with some interesting stats especially about bike injury's in B.C.

https://globalnews.ca/news/4316749/sports-injuries-hospitalizations-canada/

Is that to mean that bicycles are too dangerous? Those numbers includes recreational biking, mountain biking, and sports-related biking, so we can assume the injury rate for urban cycling would be much less.

And anyway, automobile accidents kill nearly 2,000 Canadians a year, and seriously injure (sometimes permanently) about 150,000 more. Nobody seems to bring these numbers up when we ask whether we should widen highways or build more roads.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by atbw

E-Bikes are absolutely amazing. I think the big benefit to having bike lanes are the other things that can go in them, scooters, e-bikes, cargo bike things and whatever micro mobility vehicles we see in the future.

Cities need to put more effort into creating a medium-speed network of roads that work for all of these small electric vehicles, and the provinces need to work on standardization and safety.

If they get this right the payoff would be enormous because a huge number of single occupancy car trips could be done by much more efficient electric vehicles.

In a lot of cases what is or isn't street legal in different provinces depends on arbitrary wording choices from many decades before the electric vehicles existed. So here in BC it's legal to fly around at 80 km/h on an electric bike because it has pedals but it's illegal to go 5 km/h on an electric scooter; they are not allowed on sidewalks, in bike lanes, or on streets. Not sure what the rules are in NS.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Is that to mean that bicycles are too dangerous? Those numbers includes recreational biking, mountain biking, and sports-related biking, so we can assume the injury rate for urban cycling would be much less.

And anyway, automobile accidents kill nearly 2,000 Canadians a year, and seriously injure (sometimes permanently) about 150,000 more. Nobody seems to bring these numbers up when we ask whether we should widen highways or build more roads.

I think, as anything else in life, it's a calculated risk - risk vs reward. We all make calculated risks each and every day of life, and the safest of us use intuition and attentiveness to try to lower those risks as much as possible, but still accept the risks.

Also, the methods of comparison being presented are a little suspect:

- Using absolute totals is not really a great method of comparison as the number of motor vehicles vastly outnumbers the amount of bicycles on the road.

- Motor vehicle incidents are reported and tracked more closely as there is insurance involved and a lot of data is tracked from police reporting and the insurance industry. Bicycles are not required to be registered or insured, and bicyclists are not required to take any traffic training (which is a failure of our system, IMHO) and thus do not have any licensing requirements on which penalties (such as traffic violation demerit points) could be applied - therefore little to no data is collected in the system, unless someone decides to study it (which can also be flawed as we know).

- Additionally, one must consider that most motor vehicle fatalities occur in situations that a bicycle is not capable of operating in, such as traveling at speeds over 50 km/h. If, hypothetically, you could ride your bike at 110 km/h on highway situations, you would most definitely see more fatalities on bicycles than in cars and trucks. So, IMHO, direct comparison is not really useful in situations where a bicycle would not be used, and in fact bicyclists would likely default to a motor vehicle to travel in those conditions.

- Then there are other factors in play, such as operation in winter storm conditions, operation of a vehicle while impaired, etc., where amounts of usage would not be equal between the two modes of transportation.

As I mentioned in a post above - physics is the main determiner of injuries and fatalities. In the same conditions a person in a car is always safer than a person on a bike.

It's actually a silly conversation because we're back to a simple apples/oranges comparison - a direct comparison of safety/risk makes no sense as each one has its own positives and negatives and people make their choices as to which one suits their needs best, and which risks are acceptable for them to take.

[Keith P.]

There has been a lot of dancing around the real issue.

That issue is that mixing bikes/scooters/motorized wheelchairs/etc with cars and trucks on the same roadways is inherently very dangerous. You can build all the lanes you wish but the non-vehicular user is always going to pay very dearly when the inevitable collisions happen. HRM and other municipalities are either ignorant of the risk they are creating with these strategies or are willingly putting these people at risk and counting on a liability defense of "well, we built lanes for them so it wasn't OUR fault."

So, the planners would say, let's build an entirely separated network for these users. Except (a) you generally do not have the space and (b) it would be absurdly expensive. The fact that such separate networks already exist - in the form of sidewalks - has been almost totally ignored until now. But the further these efforts get, the more that makes sense to me. Given the light usage rates by cyclists in bike lanes, putting them on sidewalks in most areas would not be hugely problematic. You would need signage and education that the cyclists would hopefully obey (not a sure thing by any means). But mixing them side by side with container trucks and oil tankers as is currently being done is suicidal.

The entire thing needs a full rethink.

[j.graham]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

There has been a lot of dancing around the real issue.

That issue is that mixing bikes/scooters/motorized wheelchairs/etc with cars and trucks on the same roadways is inherently very dangerous. You can build all the lanes you wish but the non-vehicular user is always going to pay very dearly when the inevitable collisions happen. HRM and other municipalities are either ignorant of the risk they are creating with these strategies or are willingly putting these people at risk and counting on a liability defense of "well, we built lanes for them so it wasn't OUR fault."

So, the planners would say, let's build an entirely separated network for these users. Except (a) you generally do not have the space and (b) it would be absurdly expensive. The fact that such separate networks already exist - in the form of sidewalks - has been almost totally ignored until now. But the further these efforts get, the more that makes sense to me. Given the light usage rates by cyclists in bike lanes, putting them on sidewalks in most areas would not be hugely problematic. You would need signage and education that the cyclists would hopefully obey (not a sure thing by any means). But mixing them side by side with container trucks and oil tankers as is currently being done is suicidal.

The entire thing needs a full rethink.

So do you think we should split the sidewalk in half for pedestrians and cyclists or widen the sidewalks to make more room for cyclists?

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by j.graham

So do you think we should split the sidewalk in half for pedestrians and cyclists or widen the sidewalks to make more room for cyclists?

Greater minds than mine can figure that out. However one obvious thing would be to make one sidewalk a bike zone and make the other sidewalk across the street pedestrian-only.

[atbw]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

That issue is that mixing bikes/scooters/motorized wheelchairs/etc with cars and trucks on the same roadways is inherently very dangerous. You can build all the lanes you wish but the non-vehicular user is always going to pay very dearly when the inevitable collisions happen.

Let's have a look at what we're actually building.



In orange are on-street protected bikeways. Protected means cars and bikes won't be driving in the same lane, because they are separated with bollards or concrete. This means fewer conflicts between bikes and vehicles.

In green are multi-use pathways, like those pedestrian-bike sidewalks you suggested. These are typically more separated from the roadway, with a median of grass in between. Sidewalks and bikes don't, because there's storefronts, clutter, and too many directions of travel on a sidewalk. However, if there's only two directions of travel, and enough space, these work fine.

In blue are local street bikeways. These are streets that do not see heavy traffic, and should not see cars driving 50kmh anyway. Here, things like speed bumps, bump outs and sharrows are added.

Of the streets highlighted in orange, Morris St, Almon St, Cogswell, North St. and Wyse Road are the streets that may lose some space to cyclists. Cogswell and Wyse absolutely have room to be trimmed as they're quite overbuilt. Morris connects to the University lane and is a natural fit for an extended lane. North and Almon are the only two places I can see it being a tight squeeze.

Cyclists don't get hit in protected lanes. They get hit where they mix with high speed traffic and have no lane at all. Nowhere in this plan does that happen.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by atbw

Of the streets highlighted in orange, Morris St, Almon St, Cogswell, North St. and Wyse Road are the streets that may lose some space to cyclists. Cogswell and Wyse absolutely have room to be trimmed as they're quite overbuilt. Morris connects to the University lane and is a natural fit for an extended lane. North and Almon are the only two places I can see it being a tight squeeze.

Cyclists don't get hit in protected lanes. They get hit where they mix with high speed traffic and have no lane at all. Nowhere in this plan does that happen.

Morris, Almon and North are all going to be dangerously narrowed as they are already too narrow for the amount of vehicular traffic they create. Removing parking as will be required on those streets will result in some very agitated homeowners/renters/business owners as we have already seen with the ridiculous Allan, Gottingen and Vernon/Seymour changes. And even if the lanes are "protected" with plastic bollards, there is zero protection at intersections. Given the proclivity of cyclists to ignore signals or other traffic rules, that will always be a very dangerous area and I fully expect the "protection" they enjoy when traveling on those streets will give them a false sense of security at intersections.

Some sense needs to be injected into the HRM planners.