Halifax Active Transportation

[j.graham]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

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.

Anecdotally, I've noticed the opposite happen in Ottawa. There is a fully protected North/South lane on O'Connor, a downtown street. More people obey the traffic lights when they have a real space that allows them to travel safely. Intersections just need a bit of paint and some signage to make it clear to cyclists and drivers what to do.

I have no doubt there will be some growing pains, but I think this is absolutely a sensible direction to move in.

[OldDartmouthMark]

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.

I would strongly campaign against this idea. A sidewalk is no place for bicycles to be zipping around while people are walking about, with children or dogs, going in or out of buildings, etc. Sounds like a disaster waiting to happen and I would expect you to be one of the first to complain about being run down by a bike while you were innocently walking on a sidewalk.

I don't have numerous experiences with this situation, but two come to mind:

- Whilst in Japan on business for 3 weeks a few years back, the city I stayed in appeared to allow bicycles on sidewalks but not on the roads. Everywhere I walked I had to always be on the lookout for a bicycle silently coming up behind me or weaving about to avoid another cyclist, etc. etc. Had a few close calls during those 3 weeks. On a side note, it was common for bicyclists, dressed in business suits, to carry an umbrella in the rain while they were riding about on the sidewalk, thus only having one hand with which to 'control' the bicycle...

- Whilst in Ottawa last year, we decided to take a walk along the river, down behind the Parliament buildings, on an 'active' trail, open to pedestrian and cycle traffic. Signs were posted for cyclists to limit their speed in tighter areas, and always ring their bell when approaching pedestrians. Some did, some didn't. For the ones that followed the rules (roughly half of the cyclists I encountered - like 10), it was no problem - heard a bell, looked around and stepped aside for the cyclist to pass. For the other half, even when shoulder checking every 30 seconds or so, you would suddenly hear the whirring of their wheels and feel the wind as they zipped by you from behind. A couple of them passed so closely that if I had stumbled slightly or turned around to look there could easily have been a collision.

Either way, bicycles are much more suited to moving with traffic traveling in the same direction and at a similar speed. Separate bike lanes are the best alternative. Just like with cars, it's not the speed that matters as much as the difference in speeds...

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I would strongly campaign against this idea. A sidewalk is no place for bicycles to be zipping around while people are walking about, with children or dogs, going in or out of buildings, etc. Sounds like a disaster waiting to happen and I would expect you to be one of the first to complain about being run down by a bike while you were innocently walking on a sidewalk.

I don't have numerous experiences with this situation, but two come to mind:

- Whilst in Japan on business for 3 weeks a few years back, the city I stayed in appeared to allow bicycles on sidewalks but not on the roads. Everywhere I walked I had to always be on the lookout for a bicycle silently coming up behind me or weaving about to avoid another cyclist, etc. etc. Had a few close calls during those 3 weeks. On a side note, it was common for bicyclists, dressed in business suits, to carry an umbrella in the rain while they were riding about on the sidewalk, thus only having one hand with which to 'control' the bicycle...

- Whilst in Ottawa last year, we decided to take a walk along the river, down behind the Parliament buildings, on an 'active' trail, open to pedestrian and cycle traffic. Signs were posted for cyclists to limit their speed in tighter areas, and always ring their bell when approaching pedestrians. Some did, some didn't. For the ones that followed the rules (roughly half of the cyclists I encountered - like 10), it was no problem - heard a bell, looked around and stepped aside for the cyclist to pass. For the other half, even when shoulder checking every 30 seconds or so, you would suddenly hear the whirring of their wheels and feel the wind as they zipped by you from behind. A couple of them passed so closely that if I had stumbled slightly or turned around to look there could easily have been a collision.

Either way, bicycles are much more suited to moving with traffic traveling in the same direction and at a similar speed. Separate bike lanes are the best alternative. Just like with cars, it's not the speed that matters as much as the difference in speeds...

The reality is that sidewalks here with a handful of exceptions are not as heavily used as the streets that HRM is planning to decimate with bike lanes, so the impact on citizens is far less. In case of the small number of exceptions something else will need to be done, but in most cases using sidewalks for cyclists is by far the lesser of two evils.

The two specific cases you cite are clearly cases of cyclists being careless, reckless and feckless when it comes to both the rules of the road (or path) and in general towards their fellow citizens, what seems to be a common affliction of those in the cycling community. It simply strengthens my point that mixing them with fast moving vehicles weighing several tons is sheer folly. Pedestrians would quickly learn how to protect themselves or not-so-subtly remind cyclists how to behave. I can see a big uptick in the popularity of walking sticks, a Victorian affectation that seems quite appropriate to deal with a Victorian form of wheeled transportation.

[ns_kid]

CBC rolled an interesting short doc Thursday looking at the impact of cyclist-car interactions in HRM. It's a sobering insight into the depth of the problem, and reflects both the inadequacy of our infrastructure as well as a general lack of consideration and respect for the rights and safety of others.

See the doc here.

[Keith P.]

The CBC piece shows the folly of what HRM is trying to do. We are not going to have protected bike lanes on every rural feeder road onto the peninsula. We are not going to have separate traffic signals to allow cyclists to cross intersections. We are not going to prohibit vehicles from making left turns that take them across bike lanes. As the piece states, they are a vulnerable form of transportation. We should not be encouraging them to mix with vehicles.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

The two specific cases you cite are clearly cases of cyclists being careless, reckless and feckless when it comes to both the rules of the road (or path) and in general towards their fellow citizens, what seems to be a common affliction of those in the cycling community. It simply strengthens my point that mixing them with fast moving vehicles weighing several tons is sheer folly. Pedestrians would quickly learn how to protect themselves or not-so-subtly remind cyclists how to behave. I can see a big uptick in the popularity of walking sticks, a Victorian affectation that seems quite appropriate to deal with a Victorian form of wheeled transportation.

Indeed, cyclists can seem "reckless and feckless", and entitled to boot.

I've been in Amsterdam, and the cyclists there seem to feel that they have the right of way all the time, and this isn't just with relation to motor vehicle traffic. In Amsterdam, you are a pedestrian at your own peril (at least tourists are - tourists generally aren't aware how vicious Dutch cyclists are, I imagine the native pedestrians have learned their place)..............

Cyclists are just as much at fault regarding their conduct as motor vehicle drivers are - they just won't admit it..........

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

The reality is that sidewalks here with a handful of exceptions are not as heavily used as the streets that HRM is planning to decimate with bike lanes, so the impact on citizens is far less. In case of the small number of exceptions something else will need to be done, but in most cases using sidewalks for cyclists is by far the lesser of two evils.

The two specific cases you cite are clearly cases of cyclists being careless, reckless and feckless when it comes to both the rules of the road (or path) and in general towards their fellow citizens, what seems to be a common affliction of those in the cycling community. It simply strengthens my point that mixing them with fast moving vehicles weighing several tons is sheer folly. Pedestrians would quickly learn how to protect themselves or not-so-subtly remind cyclists how to behave. I can see a big uptick in the popularity of walking sticks, a Victorian affectation that seems quite appropriate to deal with a Victorian form of wheeled transportation.

Disagree. The most basic expectation of living in the city should be a safe place to walk. Now you are wanting to turn it into a free for all where people have to carry sticks to beat errant cyclists. Ridiculous, not to mention that it would (in the case you describe) result in assault charges against pedestrians.

And expecting cyclists to always follow the rules of mutual respect is unrealistic - as shown by MonctonRad's post. Cyclists are not accountable for anything due to the lack of requirments (i.e no identifying plates, no privileges to be taken away, no insurance requirements to pay for pedestrians' injuries, etc.). It would not be a good idea, not by a long shot.

Officer: "Can you describe the cyclist that hit you?"
Pedestrian: "White guy, wearing a helmet and multicoloured jersey"
Officer: "Sorry ma'am, you've just described 90 percent of the cyclists around here"

Not to mention, for cyclists it would be a pain in the ass as well, dawdling along slowly, dodging pedestrians constantly.

Sometimes I think you post stuff just to get a reaction, rather than to advance the conversation, but it does make it entertaining, so there's that.

[atbw]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Sometimes I think you post stuff just to get a reaction, rather than to advance the conversation, but it does make it entertaining, so there's that.

If anything, he’s prompted me to do more research in the past week than I have in a long while. I agree about shared sidewalks though, they’re a nightmare. Multi use paths are better, but even then only at low volumes - any level of busy and they’re a gongshow. Anyway, I’m excited not to worry about getting hurt on my way to get groceries, and that I can stop calling 311 on drivers parked in the bike lane.

I think a huge part of this project will be the AT trail leading to Joe Howe – as it stands, I don’t think there’s any good connections for cyclists to mainland Halifax.

[atbw]

Originally Posted by j.graham

Anecdotally, I've noticed the opposite happen in Ottawa. There is a fully protected North/South lane on O'Connor, a downtown street. More people obey the traffic lights when they have a real space that allows them to travel safely. Intersections just need a bit of paint and some signage to make it clear to cyclists and drivers what to do.

I have no doubt there will be some growing pains, but I think this is absolutely a sensible direction to move in.

Cyclists generally disobey traffic lights because 1. they can see far better than anybody in a car, further back in an intersection, and 2. they are trying to get through before a line of traffic or bus starts trying to pass.

It's a lot easier to sit back and wait for the green when you aren't worried about a bus hooking you halfway through the intersection. Protected lanes and bike boxes will be great for this.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

And expecting cyclists to always follow the rules of mutual respect is unrealistic - as shown by MonctonRad's post. Cyclists are not accountable for anything due to the lack of requirments (i.e no identifying plates, no privileges to be taken away, no insurance requirements to pay for pedestrians' injuries, etc.). It would not be a good idea, not by a long shot.

Why, then, are we encouraging such behavior and spending millions in tax dollars on an unaccountable (and massively self-entitled) bunch of scofflaws? Not only is it an ableist agenda, it now seems to be one which is creating a special class of citizens - though cyclists have always thought themselves a cut above the rest of us slobs.

Sometimes I think you post stuff just to get a reaction, rather than to advance the conversation, but it does make it entertaining, so there's that.

No, I post what I feel are appropriate responses to the general idiocy that seems to prevail these days, especially within the HRM govt, who seem to believe it is their god-given right to waste our tax dollars on every special-interest group while ignoring the majority of those who pay the bills for them. If it makes some people look beyond the platitudes, the "progressive" media coverage and the PR spin, then I have succeeded.

[atbw]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

No, I post what I feel are appropriate responses to the general idiocy that seems to prevail these days, especially within the HRM govt, who seem to believe it is their god-given right to waste our tax dollars on every special-interest group while ignoring the majority of those who pay the bills for them. If it makes some people look beyond the platitudes, the "progressive" media coverage and the PR spin, then I have succeeded.

Just to get a better sense of where we are now; what would you say the best transportation or infrastructure project in the past ~25 years has been, in your opinion?

[Dartguard]

Originally Posted by atbw

Just to get a better sense of where we are now; what would you say the best transportation or infrastructure project in the past ~25 years has been, in your opinion?

I will gladly take a swing at that question. Without a doubt the addition of the third lane on The Macdonald Bridge.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Dartguard

I will gladly take a swing at that question. Without a doubt the addition of the third lane on The Macdonald Bridge.

I have to agree. It is also likely the ONLY such project undertaken within HRM during that time, which shows the neglect that our obsolete road network has suffered. The badly-needed third bridge (or tunnel) idea originally floated 10 or so years ago was killed before it even had a chance to take a breath.

That regrettable neglect has also crippled the 3-lane Macdonald bridge to some extent by not addressing the bottlenecks on either end at North St and Wyse Rd.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Why, then, are we encouraging such behavior and spending millions in tax dollars on an unaccountable (and massively self-entitled) bunch of scofflaws? Not only is it an ableist agenda, it now seems to be one which is creating a special class of citizens - though cyclists have always thought themselves a cut above the rest of us slobs.

I have my reservations on that as well, but I think it is a better solution than to put pedestrians at risk. I am thinking along the lines of making lesser-used side streets into one lane for one-way car traffic, and making the other lane completely devoted to cyclists. Then residents would still have access to their driveways and one half of the street would be dedicated to motor vehicles. Of course there would be some negatives, and some problems to be worked out, but a lot of side streets see almost no traffic, so it shouldn't be a great impediment to moving traffic. Just a thought.

No, I post what I feel are appropriate responses to the general idiocy that seems to prevail these days, especially within the HRM govt, who seem to believe it is their god-given right to waste our tax dollars on every special-interest group while ignoring the majority of those who pay the bills for them. If it makes some people look beyond the platitudes, the "progressive" media coverage and the PR spin, then I have succeeded.

Fair enough. I do feel that you are being honest and true to yourself in your responses. You do not sway from your narrative, regardless of whether others agree or not. I perhaps had worded that a little too strongly, in reading it after the fact...

[atbw]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

I have to agree. It is also likely the ONLY such project undertaken within HRM during that time, which shows the neglect that our obsolete road network has suffered. The badly-needed third bridge (or tunnel) idea originally floated 10 or so years ago was killed before it even had a chance to take a breath.

It seems incredible that a third lane on a bridge is the biggest and best infrastructure project in the past quarter century. Having Cogswell coming up and the promise of Windsor St. Exchange on the horizon was always exciting, but in this context it's amazing to see what is being planned.

I have my reservations on that as well, but I think it is a better solution than to put pedestrians at risk. I am thinking along the lines of making lesser-used side streets into one lane for one-way car traffic, and making the other lane completely devoted to cyclists. Then residents would still have access to their driveways and one half of the street would be dedicated to motor vehicles. Of course there would be some negatives, and some problems to be worked out, but a lot of side streets see almost no traffic, so it shouldn't be a great impediment to moving traffic. Just a thought.

I think on side streets local bikeways as we see them here and in Montreal work as well as this, without the added traffic of people driving out of their way to accommodate one-way traffic. Seymour/Vernon is great on bike, I usually take that via Morris to get out of downtown.

Why, then, are we encouraging such behavior and spending millions in tax dollars on an unaccountable (and massively self-entitled) bunch of scofflaws? Not only is it an ableist agenda, it now seems to be one which is creating a special class of citizens - though cyclists have always thought themselves a cut above the rest of us slobs.

Like OldDartmouthMark said, at least you're true to your opinions . But for everyone else, bikes can be endlessly adapted to different users of all ages (trikes, hand bikes, ebikes), almost always cost less than a car, and don't require $10,000 per year in upkeep. Hence why Halifax's lowest income earners have the highest rate of cycling as a primary method of transportation.

And let's say cycling DOES create an upper class of citizens based on access to them, at least the price of entry is no more than a $95 bike on Kijiji.

[Keith P.]

There is a very good reason why you can find cheap bikes. Many people find them to be a very poor alternative for transportation given their danger, lack of comfort, frequent failures, and the physical effort required to use, among many other drawbacks. A lot of them get purchased and then quickly get ignored once these negative attributes are discovered.

I was pleased to see this letter to the editor in the Herald today from a well-known person who has lived with a disability most of his life:

COUNTERPOINT: Why not spend $25 million on disabled?

Re: “Bikeway a waste.” I completely agree with the sentiments Peter Ewert expressed in his Aug. 2 letter.

In the runup to an election, governments come up with all kinds of ways to give taxpayers’ money away for no good reason.

With one per cent of the citizens riding bikes, there has to be other more pressing ideas for $25 million in tax dollars. I have an idea: let’s turn HRM into a model for the rest of Canada by making the city more accessible for those with disabilities.

Ever call a restaurant ahead of time to see if it’s accessible for wheelchair users? Good luck with that one! Most eateries are not accessible through the front door, and the bathrooms are a laugh. By the way, people with a disability also have to use the washroom!

Let’s get with a program of accessibility in the city and province instead of watching disabled people struggle to enter a building or a washroom — $25 million would be a start.

Look around you: We are not getting any younger. You see more and more wheelchairs, walkers and canes every day. Why are these disabled citizens being ignored? Is there anyone in government who will take up the cause of disabled people? I guess not.

We need help now. Are you listening? Maybe you will hear us through the ballot box.

Jerry Lawrence, Bedford

https://www.thechronicleherald.ca/opinio...not-spend-25-million-on-disabled-340591/

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

There is a very good reason why you can find cheap bikes. Many people find them to be a very poor alternative for transportation given their danger, lack of comfort, frequent failures, and the physical effort required to use, among many other drawbacks. A lot of them get purchased and then quickly get ignored once these negative attributes are discovered.

I was pleased to see this letter to the editor in the Herald today from a well-known person who has lived with a disability most of his life:



https://www.thechronicleherald.ca/opinio...not-spend-25-million-on-disabled-340591/

Jerry makes a good point. I have been thinking of this aspect as well (it was part of my thought process towards your sidewalk bike suggestion, but I didn't include it in order to simplify my comments). I honestly think the money would be well spent helping those who don't have a choice but to be in a wheelchair. However, I'm also thinking that since they spend money like drunken sailors (yours and Colin's words), there should be enough budget left over to tackle the accessibility issues and still improve bike transportation.

I recall having issues moving my father around after his amputations, and also assisting a friend in a wheelchair a few years back, and being surprised that there were still so many inaccessible locations in the city. I was hoping that things were improving in the subsequent years since they passed away, but apparently that's not the case.

As a side note, for those not familiar with Jerry Lawrence, he is no shrinking violet. He had been an active radio personality and politician for many many years and wasn't one to let barriers stand in his way - I believe he is retired now as he must be in his late 70s or early 80s. I remember, in the 1970s, Jerry was the track announcer at Atlantic Speedway in Lucasville. The only way to get between the track surface and the tower was to climb down the ~5-foot concrete wall between the stands and the track. On many occasions I witnessed Jerry, on crutches, hoist himself up to get over the wall, without any help from anyone. Of course he was much younger then, but you get my jist - if he says there's a problem... there's a problem.

[MonctonRad]

Well this is a dust-up that city council will have trouble avoiding. The "abelist" cycling lobby vs the disabled and dysmobile elderly.

There will be no winning this feud.........

The cycling elitists may have found their match.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Jerry makes a good point. I have been thinking of this aspect as well (it was part of my thought process towards your sidewalk bike suggestion, but I didn't include it in order to simplify my comments). I honestly think the money would be well spent helping those who don't have a choice but to be in a wheelchair. However, I'm also thinking that since they spend money like drunken sailors (yours and Colin's words), there should be enough budget left over to tackle the accessibility issues and still improve bike transportation.

I recall having issues moving my father around after his amputations, and also assisting a friend in a wheelchair a few years back, and being surprised that there were still so many inaccessible locations in the city. I was hoping that things were improving in the subsequent years since they passed away, but apparently that's not the case.

HRM is paying lip service to accessibility issues - they recently hired Paul Vienneau as an advocate, although I suspect he will have little effect without a budget - but the imbalance between the two camps is huge. Cycling has a well-organized and funded lobby group leaning on the city along with embedded advocates for their cause both on Council and within the Planning Dept., plus HRM cash flowing their way every year. Accessibility has Vienneau and not much else. Guess what group is going to win if nothing changes.

As a side note, for those not familiar with Jerry Lawrence, he is no shrinking violet. He had been an active radio personality and politician for many many years and wasn't one to let barriers stand in his way - I believe he is retired now as he must be in his late 70s or early 80s. I remember, in the 1970s, Jerry was the track announcer at Atlantic Speedway in Lucasville. The only way to get between the track surface and the tower was to climb down the ~5-foot concrete wall between the stands and the track. On many occasions I witnessed Jerry, on crutches, hoist himself up to get over the wall, without any help from anyone. Of course he was much younger then, but you get my jist - if he says there's a problem... there's a problem.

Don't forget that he was a MLA and, I believe, a Cabinet Minister for a time during the Buchanan years. I have much respect for him.

[Phalanx]

I find it a little frustrating in this thread that all cyclists tend to be lumped in together and held accountable for their worst habits.

There are plenty of cyclists who obey the rules, and some that don't, but the same can be said for pedestrians and drivers. The ire only seems to be directed at the group you have to share space with (...which this infrastructure would help mitigate, so I'm not sure where the complaints come from).

Speaking as a pedestrian, I would love to try cycling, but I find the lack of infrastructure and the often aggressive drivers in the city intimidating. As the infrastructure improves, I'm more likely to take up cycling.

And if we're going to be completely fair, how about I complain about all of the times I've nearly been hit by a car while crossing the street in a designated crossing area while having the right of way. Or how about talking about all the pedestrians who jaywalk or otherwise cross on reds. Etc etc.