Halifax Active Transportation

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

The idea that cycle lanes need to work for every person with any form of disability in order to not be ableist is, quite frankly, absurd. By the same logic, cars are super ableist because people with vision problems can't use them. The reality is, bike lanes make cycling easier, safer, and available to a much wider range of the population. They're not for the Lance Armstrong wannabes going 40 km/h; those guys are already confident using the roads.

FWIW, I can't agree with your argument. Of all the modes of transportation being discussed here, cars/vans are, perhaps, the best form of transportation for people with vision issues. This is as a passenger, of course, but a vision-impaired person can no more be the operator of a bicycle than he/she can of a motor vehicle. Additionally, if autonomous vehicles become a practical reality, there is potential for a vision-impaired person to be the operator of a car, whereas to my knowledge there will be no such option for a bicycle.

So are you suggesting that the Lance Armstrong-esque people are going to continue using the roads for motor vehicles? So bicycles can use both bicycle lanes and roadways? I haven't thought this way before, but maybe Keith is right on his opinion about the war on the automobile... The next step will be completely banning 4+ wheeled motor vehicles from the roads...

[someone123]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

In essence, I have nothing against bicyclists, but I do have an issue with measures to encourage bicycle commuting at the expense of motorists. In Moncton, bicyclists can commute along the trail network considerable distances without impacting on street traffic. Occasionally issues do arise however. Several of our larger collector streets have been converted from four lane to three lane (centre turning lane), with bicycle lanes on both sides. This is partly for the benefit of the cyclists, and partly for traffic calming. It has worked fairly well on Salisbury and Shediac Roads, but is problematic on Mountain Road by the Casino. This is really the only area in town where there is really a fight going on between commuters and the cycling lobby.

Well in a lot of cases as you mention here I think the anti-car stuff is really about traffic calming or environmentalism and is an inherent cost of building bike infrastructure. With electric bikes in particular overpasses work great and they don't interrupt traffic at all.

Something else to consider is that a lot of the people who commute by bike would otherwise be in cars. So you have to work that into the net cost of supporting the bikes. If you had a busy intersection and you took away 30% of the cars and replaced them with bikes using an overpass, there would be a net gain for the car commuters.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by someone123

Something else to consider is that a lot of the people who commute by bike would otherwise be in cars. So you have to work that into the net cost of supporting the bikes. If you had a busy intersection and you took away 30% of the cars and replaced them with bikes using an overpass, there would be a net gain for the car commuters.

That percentage is dreaming in technicolor. You are talking about something reminiscent of Beijing in the 1960s.

I'm also confused by your mention of overpasses. Where and why? I don't understand the application you're thinking of. I really don't think spending hundreds of millions on bike overpass intersections is a wise use of scarce public funds.

I do agree that the advent of practical electrification of both 2 and 4-wheel conveyances will change things greatly. I actually think a 4-wheel vehicle, the size of a Smart car or whatever, has great potential for a lot of commuters. People who would never want to use a bicycle for anything other than pleasure travel or exercise might well find themselves using such a device like this to go to and from work instead of their SUV.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

That percentage is dreaming in technicolor. You are talking about something reminiscent of Beijing in the 1960s.

I should have said small electric vehicles (10-25 km/h, much smaller than cars) instead of bikes. I don't think it's an unrealistic future scenario.

I'm also confused by your mention of overpasses. Where and why? I don't understand the application you're thinking of. I really don't think spending hundreds of millions on bike overpass intersections is a wise use of scarce public funds.

It's just an example of additional bike infrastructure that does not slow down vehicle traffic. They're pretty common around North America.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by someone123

There's still some stuff that needs to be figured out but now that batteries have improved so much there's going to be an explosion of cheap electric vehicles. The heavy, weak, and expensive batteries are what held them back from 2000-2017 or so. We still haven't seen the "killer" personal electric vehicle, and they aren't supported well by the current mix of roads and pathways. Scooters are OK and there are scooters now that are around $500, cost ~$0 for fuel, emit nothing, and will go 45 km on a charge at around 20 km/h. Cities will want to develop good networks of medium-speed roadways for people going 15-25 km/h (and excellent snow/ice clearance along these routes).

If the infrastructure is developed properly this could bring about huge changes for cities like Halifax, where lots of people have medium-length commutes and there isn't great transit. The infrastructure is an order of magnitude cheaper and uses far less space than car infrastructure. For most people, on a nice day if they had a good route (hilly or not) from their home to work, commuting 5-10 km by electric scooter or bike would be an extremely attractive option.

I wouldn't be against using an electric bike for a 5-10 km commute (in dry weather), but would definitely not want to do the same on a scooter. Sounds brutal, standing in one spot on a scooter for a half hour straight.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by someone123

It's just an example of additional bike infrastructure that does not slow down vehicle traffic. They're pretty common around North America.

I like the idea of grade separation, but would be curious of how/where and costs involved. Do you have any specific examples to share?

[someone123]

Here's the Vancouver bike map: https://www.translink.ca/-/media/Documen...7B5F73D288324E91DDE2D1C497963421FBE5B85D

An overpass: https://www.google.com/maps/@49.2580408,-122.9645692,19.75z

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by someone123

Here's the Vancouver bike map: https://www.translink.ca/-/media/Documen...7B5F73D288324E91DDE2D1C497963421FBE5B85D

An overpass: https://www.google.com/maps/@49.2580408,-122.9645692,19.75z

That's a nice piece of infrastructure, and though it doesn't look cheap, it would greatly improve the situation for both cyclists and motorists. Presumably, this is used by pedestrians as well.

We already have a few pedestrian overpasses locally, that could potentially have entrance/exit ramps installed to open them up to cyclists as well, like this one over the 111:
https://goo.gl/maps/7J8uCyFip9AWkdNs7

Then there is this one near Dartmouth Crossing that is already usable by cyclists:
https://goo.gl/maps/PmnBrgFqZP2BwfPh9

[Antigonish]

Never change, Keith

I'll admit I'm not an avid cyclist and generally held contempt for them in the past but if you build the infrastructure people will use it. Halifax suffers greatly from a geography problem so widening the roads just can't happen. The city needs to invest heavily in cycle and walk infrastructure and LRT, quick.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by someone123

It's just an example of additional bike infrastructure that does not slow down vehicle traffic. They're pretty common around North America.

It would make far more sense to invest those funds in grade-separated VEHICLE overpasses to move the 98% of users far more efficiently. As we all know, cyclists do not like going uphill whereas powered vehicles eat them for breakfast.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

And the next step in HRM's war against the vehicle is to ban right turns on red at such intersections before doing so everywhere else too, all in he name of "safer streets for everyone". "Adding to climate change one step at a time" ought to be their motto.

I should develop a stage show as a psychic. What did I tell you?

https://globalnews.ca/news/5900973/trauma-doctor-pedestrian-safety-hrm/

Of course the statement by the good doctor is simply patently false. Any incidents that happen because of an incorrectly-done right turn on red are almost always very low speed and should overall be far less injurious than, say, being hit in a poorly-designed and signaled mid-block crosswalk where speeds are much higher. But of course those in the medical and Public Health community are often prone to tremendous overstatement to advance their agenda.

[atbw]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

I should develop a stage show as a psychic. What did I tell you?

https://globalnews.ca/news/5900973/trauma-doctor-pedestrian-safety-hrm/

Of course the statement by the good doctor is simply patently false. Any incidents that happen because of an incorrectly-done right turn on red are almost always very low speed and should overall be far less injurious than, say, being hit in a poorly-designed and signaled mid-block crosswalk where speeds are much higher. But of course those in the medical and Public Health community are often prone to tremendous overstatement to advance their agenda.

Nevermind the fact that most pedestrian fatalities and near misses occur in crosswalks anyway.

Anybody in here feeling grumpy? Go hop on a bike. https://twin-cities.umn.edu/news-events/...est-mode-transportation-would-be-cycling

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by atbw

Nevermind the fact that most pedestrian fatalities and near misses occur in crosswalks anyway.

Maybe we should eliminate crosswalks entirely. They seem very dangerous.

Anybody in here feeling grumpy? Go hop on a bike. https://twin-cities.umn.edu/news-events/...est-mode-transportation-would-be-cycling

If that were true, why is it that cyclists are always complaining and seem so unhappy with things? I suspect that is more the infamous fake news based upon "research" done with predetermined conclusions we have become afflicted with.

[Keith P.]

Things don’t seem to be going well in Toronto either. The backlash is getting noticeable.

‪https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2019/09...upside-down-to-fulfill-their-wishes.html via @torontostar‬

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

It would make far more sense to invest those funds in grade-separated VEHICLE overpasses to move the 98% of users far more efficiently. As we all know, cyclists do not like going uphill whereas powered vehicles eat them for breakfast.

This used to be true but electric bikes are becoming very common and affordable.

A bike overpass can be smaller and built to carry less weight than a car overpass. The bike overpasses cost around $1-5M, which is not very much if we are talking about major corridors.

It's impossible to come to any conclusion in the abstract about which type of investment is best. It depends on the specific situation. But there's a lot of potential in Halifax for expanding the use of small electric vehicles including bikes. They're much cheaper, better for the environment, and work well in urban environments where travel distances tend to be short but space is at a premium.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by someone123

This used to be true but electric bikes are becoming very common and affordable.

A bike overpass can be smaller and built to carry less weight than a car overpass. The bike overpasses cost around $1-5M, which is not very much if we are talking about major corridors.

It's impossible to come to any conclusion in the abstract about which type of investment is best. It depends on the specific situation. But there's a lot of potential in Halifax for expanding the use of small electric vehicles including bikes. They're much cheaper, better for the environment, and work well in urban environments where travel distances tend to be short but space is at a premium.

Well, perhaps once those electric bikes become practical, popular and have a user base, then investments in infrastructure can be made. Until then it is all speculative and a misuse of public resources.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Well, perhaps once those electric bikes become practical, popular and have a user base, then investments in infrastructure can be made. Until then it is all speculative and a misuse of public resources.

It's kinda a chicken & egg sorta thing.

If you build it, they will come...........

Of course, any infrastructure investment should be prudent and well planned, and should not interfere with existing automobile infrastructure (at least as little as possible).

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Well, perhaps once those electric bikes become practical, popular and have a user base, then investments in infrastructure can be made. Until then it is all speculative and a misuse of public resources.

A bunch of my co-workers commute by electric bike. I'm considering getting one. I used to commute by bike but my current commute is too hilly for that to be practical. With an electric bike it would be no problem.

[Summerville]

I still believe e-bikes will change the landscape of this city. Yesterday, while biking along Ahern, I noticed 4 baby-boomers zipping up the north entry road to the Citadel on e-bikes. I cycle almost every day and wouldn't be able to make it up that incline with as much ease. I've seen every size and age of cyclist on e-bikes.

[MonctonRad]

Electric bicycles do have the potential to change the commuting landscape, but I still think usage will go down in the winter and during inclement weather.

I'm considering an e-bike myself, but doubt that I would use it for commuting.