Halifax Active Transportation

[Keith P.]

That's a mighty big bonfire HRM is making with tax dollars.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Yes, they are so well-designed that cyclists avoid even modest uphill stretches like the plague and demand a $10 million flyover lane to avoid such exertion it requires of them.

Such climbs are easily tackled by the multiple gear ratios available on bicycles. Ever hear of a 10-speed bicycle? It's been around since at least the 1970s, when the most gear ratios available in a car was only 4 or 5 speeds - geez those cars take so long to adopt technology...

I'm not a fan of the flyover ramp either, btw. Seems a little unnecessary when it could be tackled by a set of traffic lights - but then you'd have to slow down car traffic - so maybe this is actually a concession to motorists?

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Just don't forget your tire patch kit and pump. If anything makes my point it is the absolute failure of bicycle tire technology to keep abreast with the times.

Google is your friend, Keith. The main reason that tubeless tires haven't overtaken the bicycle world is weight. Low weight is most advantageous on a bicycle - read the article below:
https://www.bicycling.com/skills-tips/a27628336/tubeless-tires-guide/

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Which is essentially the point I was attempting to make.

Maintaining infrastructure costs money. Some of this comes out of general revenue, while the rest comes out of formal (and informal or indirect) user fees. In the future, as ICE vehicles begin to disappear from the roadway, the revenue from "traditional" user fees will disappear. This will have to be replaced. Either more of the burden will be shifted to the general revenue stream, or new and creative types of user fees will be developed. This is why I mentioned the possibility of GPS based usage data based on kilometerage travelled as a possibility. How broadly based this will be applied will be an issue. Cars certainly. Electric motorcycles probably. E-bikes maybe (depending on how they are defined). Pedal powered bicycles would likely escape scrutiny, but you never know - if there is ongoing demand for dedicated bicycle infrastructure, it is possible that some type of commuting fee could be proposed.

There comes a point when cost of bureaucracy becomes so much that it cancels out its usefulness. Can you imagine the cost of managing and enforcing a GPS payment system? Especially when managed by the government?

A tax system seems to be the type of payment method with which the government has the most skill (), and I'm sure they will find an efficient way of removing money from our paycheques in such a way that the roads will be paid for and we will never be sure what money goes to which expense...

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Note that I am not anti bicycle. I will likely purchase an E-bike within the year. I am a strong adherent to the idea that bicycle infrastructure should be completely separate from the existing road network. Luckily here in Moncton, we have a fairly well developed pedestrian/bicycle trail system which is physically removed from the road network. Our mayor lives in my neighbourhood, and she bicycles to city hall about seven months a year using the trail network. She can accomplish about 80% of the 10 km trip on dedicated trails. This is ideal.

The problems come when there is competition between bicycles and cars for space on the precious existing roadways. This is when conflicts can happen between the cycling lobby and the motoring public. These conflicts are difficult to resolve and can be major sources of tension.

The thing is, what you are describing is the strongest argument for separated bicycle road networks. All the antics that you and Keith described in the Queen's Marque thread (oddly enough) would be vastly reduced if bicycles did not have to interact with car and truck traffic. But it's expensive - so when governments try to implement it, you have the same people complaining about the cost and then bringing up some conspiracy theory that there's a war on the motorist, when really they are just trying to introduce an alternative to traditional motor vehicles that is safe for all to use.

The arguments can be somewhat confusing at times, really, and unnecessary for such a simple concept.

[Good Baklava]

We all like to bash on NIMBYs such as Peggy Cameron, but it’s funny how some people become remarkably similar over a bit of streetscaping.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Such climbs are easily tackled by the multiple gear ratios available on bicycles. Ever hear of a 10-speed bicycle?

Hey, it's not me complaining. It is just about every cyclist and more significantly, cycling activists, who have their hand in our pocket to take our tax money and spend it on projects to avoid even modest climbs.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

The thing is, what you are describing is the strongest argument for separated bicycle road networks. All the antics that you and Keith described in the Queen's Marque thread (oddly enough) would be vastly reduced if bicycles did not have to interact with car and truck traffic. But it's expensive - so when governments try to implement it, you have the same people complaining about the cost and then bringing up some conspiracy theory that there's a war on the motorist, when really they are just trying to introduce an alternative to traditional motor vehicles that is safe for all to use.

The problem is that they are trying to make an inherently unsafe practice, "safe". To do so requires huge cost, not surprisingly. It is no different than if the govt decided to make parachute jumping or rappelling down the side of a mountain or building, "safe". And to make it even more challenging, they are doing so without requiring users to have any training, certification, or accountability for their actions whatsoever. It is utter insanity.

I hope you caught the high comedy this week when a local "urbanist" got clipped by a pickup truck while cycling. The vehicle was just driving along according to the rules of the road when the cyclist blew through a stop sign as they seem obligated to do. The cyclist who caused the collision suffered a minor injury but as they are wont to do, immediately went to social media and started to decry the sad state of affairs when he was actually ticketed by the police for his failure to obey the law. The online shredding of him that ensued was really quite entertaining.

[MonctonRad]

Yes, well, we all know that cyclists ignore stop signs and feel themselves to be above the law.

Hey, I get it, I remember riding a bicycle a lot when I was a teenager and into my early 20s. You want to conserve momentum when you are cycling. As such, a stop sign becomes nothing more than a mere suggestion.

As for cyclist entitlement, since there will be increasing conflicts between cyclists and motor vehicles in the future, this becomes a strong argument in favour of acquiring a dash cam as otherwise, in most circumstances, the natural presumption is that it is the motor vehicle operator who is automatically at fault..........

[j.graham]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Yes, well, we all know that cyclists ignore stop signs and feel themselves to be above the law.

Hey, I get it, I remember riding a bicycle a lot when I was a teenager and into my early 20s. You want to conserve momentum when you are cycling. As such, a stop sign becomes nothing more than a mere suggestion.

As for cyclist entitlement, since there will be increasing conflicts between cyclists and motor vehicles in the future, this becomes a strong argument in favour of acquiring a dash cam as otherwise, in most circumstances, the natural presumption is that it is the motor vehicle operator who is automatically at fault..........

How often do you drive above the posted speed limit while driving?

[atbw]

Originally Posted by Good Baklava

We all like to bash on NIMBYs such as Peggy Cameron, but it’s funny how some people become remarkably similar over a bit of streetscaping.

I’m surprised nobody has made this comparison before.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by j.graham

How often do you drive above the posted speed limit while driving?

The Riverfront Trail in Moncton (a paved shared use path for both cyclists and pedestrians) has recently instituted a 20 km/hr speed limit. The cyclists are loudly complaining................

[Dmajackson]

In more active transportation news;

- Councillor Mason has shown the plan for Nova Scotia's first bicycle-activated traffic light! This will be installed this fall at Coburg/Seymour/Vernon. The existing crosswalk will be replaced by traffic signals with crosswalks on all four sides of the intersection. Bicycles will be allowed to make all movements and will have a dedicated approach lane on Vernon/Seymour. Vehicles will have to make a right-turn onto Coburg Road.

- A Staff Report is going to H&WCC next week seeking approval of parts of the North-End and West-End AAA Bicycle Network. This has been in the making for years. Briefly, the West-End route will be placed on Liverpool Street from Windsor to George Dauphinee, and then connect north to Bayers Road AT Trail (U/C) and west to Sobeys parking lot. The North-End route will be done in two phases. Phase one will stretch up Isleville (full length) to Leaman (full length) to Leeds Street with a future trail connection along Novelea to Africville Lookoff Park. Phase two will extend south but will be approved at a later date. The report introduces new ways of traffic calming the streets including the recently implemented treatment at Isleville/Young and possible locations for mini traffic circles. It also shows the jug-handle left-turn for coming off Windsor Street (NB) onto Liverpool Street.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Dmajackson

In more active transportation news;

- Councillor Mason has shown the plan for Nova Scotia's first bicycle-activated traffic light! This will be installed this fall at Coburg/Seymour/Vernon. The existing crosswalk will be replaced by traffic signals with crosswalks on all four sides of the intersection. Bicycles will be allowed to make all movements and will have a dedicated approach lane on Vernon/Seymour. Vehicles will have to make a right-turn onto Coburg Road.

Mason lives on Vernon St. It must be nice to have the public purse to make the street you live on free of traffic. This is an obvious conflict of interest and should be fiully investigated. He needs to be defeated in the election.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by atbw

I’m surprised nobody has made this comparison before.

Probably because it is an utterly spurious comparison.

[Good Baklava]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Probably because it is an utterly spurious comparison.

Then disprove this:

1. NIMBYism is the behaviour of opposing a project near where you live.

2. Keith opposes new bike lanes in his city of Halifax.

Therefore, in regards to Active Transportation Keith is a NIMBY.

I’m sure when it comes to other types of projects, I and others can become NIMBYs as well. Maybe it’s a car dealership being constructed downtown, or a new suburb on potential parkland; the possibilities are endless. The main point is that no one is above becoming a NIMBY as we each have our peeves.

[atbw]

Took a ride out of downtown to the Shearwater trail to Rainbow Haven today. The Flyer trail and Dartmouth Harbour trail were both very popular with lots of other folks walking and cycling. The biggest gap in this network is Pleasant St. through the former refinery. The distance of fine, and elevation is gentle enough, but your options are sharing the road with 70kmh traffic, or a worn out sidewalk. Given that most of the stretch has very little foot traffic, this would be an ideal spot to implement a multi use trail.

This ties in with Halifax’s problem (which we do seem to be working on) of connecting these great trails like the BLT, Shubie Park, and the Flyer, with paths and bike lanes in the core.

[Good Baklava]

Originally Posted by atbw

Took a ride out of downtown to the Shearwater trail to Rainbow Haven today. The Flyer trail and Dartmouth Harbour trail were both very popular with lots of other folks walking and cycling. The biggest gap in this network is Pleasant St. through the former refinery. The distance of fine, and elevation is gentle enough, but your options are sharing the road with 70kmh traffic, or a worn out sidewalk. Given that most of the stretch has very little foot traffic, this would be an ideal spot to implement a multi use trail.

This ties in with Halifax’s problem (which we do seem to be working on) of connecting these great trails like the BLT, Shubie Park, and the Flyer, with paths and bike lanes in the core.

Agreed, even coverage on the peninsula can be spotty at times such as between the Barrington Greenway and Hollis Lanes, but we know this was supposed to be fixed in the cogswell redesign. I wouldn't be suprised to see the greenways leading to the core improved in the future as well. The Chain of Lakes Trail is also somewhat of a dead end.

[atbw]

Originally Posted by Good Baklava

Agreed, even coverage on the peninsula can be spotty at times such as between the Barrington Greenway and Hollis Lanes, but we know this was supposed to be fixed in the cogswell redesign. I wouldn't be suprised to see the greenways leading to the core improved in the future as well. The Chain of Lakes Trail is also somewhat of a dead end.

I am eagerly awaiting the Bayers Road trail that will connect into the COLT. I believe that'll also link up with the planned(?) Dutch Village Road cycling facilities. Fairview is looking like it's suddenly going to become a great spot for cyclists.

If you look at what is going to be accomplished in the next 2 years, let alone 10, Halifax could become on-par with Montreal or Victoria for active transport infrastructure.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Good Baklava

Then disprove this:

1. NIMBYism is the behaviour of opposing a project near where you live.

2. Keith opposes new bike lanes in his city of Halifax.

Therefore, in regards to Active Transportation Keith is a NIMBY.

Your theory goes off the rails immediately. A NIMBY is by definition opposed to a single project that is near where they live.

I am opposed to all bike lanes as a wasteful use of public funds that serves a very tiny squeaky-wheel activist group merely in order to allow HRM Council the perceived benefits of greenwashing. Meanwhile the majority has their experience of living or visiting HRM made worse as a result. It does not matter if bike lanes are i DT Halifax or in Ecum Secum. I oppose them all as unnecessary.

[Franco401]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Your theory goes off the rails immediately. A NIMBY is by definition opposed to a single project that is near where they live.

I am opposed to all bike lanes as a wasteful use of public funds that serves a very tiny squeaky-wheel activist group merely in order to allow HRM Council the perceived benefits of greenwashing. Meanwhile the majority has their experience of living or visiting HRM made worse as a result. It does not matter if bike lanes are i DT Halifax or in Ecum Secum. I oppose them all as unnecessary.

Have you considered that you being in the minority on this issue might indicate that the general public doesn't hate them? That cyclists are neither a tiny group of shouting lunatics nor (as you have repeatedly implied on this forum) a shadowy cabal plotting to make sure nobody drives downtown again?

The statement I've bolded should be enough to make you consider that you may have other reasons for hating people who bike, and that you're in a bubble (a term that has admittedly taken on a new meaning recently).

[ChildishGavino]

Try riding a bicycle with regular traffic - heavy or otherwise - for a while, your tune'll change right quick.