Regardless, the HRM has already heard and addressed all of these objections in crafting the official policy. I don't want to seem unsympathetic to anyone's concerns, and it's great for everyone to be civically engaged, but none of the objections people are posting here have raising anything new or seem to have convinced anyone, so I'm not sure of the purpose in belabouring them. Circular rehashing of the same resolved issues just seems kind of pointless.
Example questions in the
FAQs page include:
Q: It doesn’t seem like that many people cycle in Halifax. Why are we spending money on bicycle lanes?
A: We know from Stats Canada data and municipal data collection initiatives that many people use cycling as a form of transportation to get to work, school, and other important destinations. When it comes to commuting for work, the overall rate of cycling across the entire Halifax region is 1%. However, in several neighbourhoods in the Regional Centre, the rate of commuter cycling is 5-10%. This data does not capture the people who use cycling for non-commute trips like running errands, meeting up with friends and family, or visiting local parks and beaches.
Regardless of the number of people who cycle in Halifax now, we are not building infrastructure only for them. Several studies indicate that, by building better cycling infrastructure, we can grow the number of people cycling. In fact, a recent survey of Halifax residents revealed 48% of residents that safer, more comfortable, and more connected infrastructure is the number one thing that would encourage them to cycle more often. Investing in bikeways makes it easier and more efficient for people to bicycle in Halifax and allows us to provide safer infrastructure for people using our roads who are the most vulnerable.
Q: Why don’t we have people register their bicycle like they have to register a vehicle?
A: Several cities, including Halifax, have used bicycle licensing in the past to try and regulate bicycle use like vehicle use. However, these programs were and are not effective because:
• The level of administration needed for these programs often means they cost more to run than the revenue taken in for licensing fees
• They do not have a demonstrated impact on cycling safety
• They can be inequitable and impose additional financial barriers to transportation for people who may rely on lower-cost transportation options
• We want to encourage and enable people to cycle more often and additional fees may act as a deterrent
Instead, Halifax is focused on supporting safety and skills education for people interested in cycling to help them understand how to navigate our city by bicycle and to people driving to help them understand how to share the road. For example, we recently partnered with the Ecology Action Centre on a series of videos to help people Get There By Bike.
Q: Why are you taking away on-street parking for bus and bicycle lanes?
A: The planning process that is used when considering active transportation and transit improvements for a street requires consideration of a variety of criteria. The process should identify the improvements provided for active transportation and transit users and balance them with any trade-offs that may be necessary such as impacts to traffic flow, on-street parking / loading, and mature trees. All of this and more is taken into account and staff prepare options that balance these trade-offs in different ways for public feedback. For example, one option may provide for a more direct bicycle route but require the removal of more on-street parking spaces than another option which diverts the bikeway for a couple of blocks to retain some parking spaces.
While some projects result in the loss of on-street parking, by replacing some on-street parking with infrastructure for bicycles and buses, we are providing direct access for more people to destinations on that street, like local businesses. Studies have found that improving access for active transportation and transit users can actually be beneficial for businesses – for example, a study from London showed that people accessing businesses via walking, cycling, and transit spent 40% more than those accessing them by vehicle. Where possible, we also work to find creative solutions like allowing for parking in bus lanes outside of peak hours. This allows for the space to prioritize bus movement when traffic is highest but provides for parking the rest of the time.
Q: I pay for the roads I drive on. Why don’t we have people who cycle pay for the bicycle lanes?
A: Most of the money for the construction and maintenance of our municipal transportation infrastructure, including roads, sidewalks, and bicycle lanes, is paid for by general taxes. Everyone who owns or rents housing pays into the general tax base and therefore pays for this infrastructure.
Active Transportation infrastructure (e.g. sidewalks, bikeways, or multi-use pathways) is often much less expensive to construct and requires a lot less maintenance than roadways. Since the people who primarily walk, roll, or cycle generally pay the same amount of taxes as people who primarily drive, they pay a disproportionately high cost for transportation infrastructure compared to those people that primarily drive.
Currently, and as we grow our networks, people are also using multiple forms of transportation depending on what kind of trip they are taking. It is rare that someone only ever walks, cycles, or drives. Often, people are using a mix of options. In this way, it makes sense that our general tax base supports improvements for the range of options that people use in their daily lives. The IMP guides how we invest that money in infrastructure that provides options for everyone using our streets in Halifax.
Q: Why are you taking away on-street parking for bus and bicycle lanes?
A: The planning process that is used when considering active transportation and transit improvements for a street requires consideration of a variety of criteria. The process should identify the improvements provided for active transportation and transit users and balance them with any trade-offs that may be necessary such as impacts to traffic flow, on-street parking / loading, and mature trees. All of this and more is taken into account and staff prepare options that balance these trade-offs in different ways for public feedback. For example, one option may provide for a more direct bicycle route but require the removal of more on-street parking spaces than another option which diverts the bikeway for a couple of blocks to retain some parking spaces.
While some projects result in the loss of on-street parking, by replacing some on-street parking with infrastructure for bicycles and buses, we are providing direct access for more people to destinations on that street, like local businesses. Studies have found that improving access for active transportation and transit users can actually be beneficial for businesses – for example, a study from London showed that people accessing businesses via walking, cycling, and transit spent 40% more than those accessing them by vehicle. Where possible, we also work to find creative solutions like allowing for parking in bus lanes outside of peak hours. This allows for the space to prioritize bus movement when traffic is highest but provides for parking the rest of the time.
Prev
on the matter, nothing more, nothing less.
Linear Mode
