Halifax Active Transportation

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

The pedestrian-oriented PDF file fails to open every time I've tried.

It's afraid of you Keith.........

[atbw]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

It's afraid of you Keith.........

I mean it’s not really worth looking at. The plans can be summed up as:

Transit: Left lane travel, right lane transit at afternoon peak, parking off-peak, separated bike lane.

Pedestrian: left lane parking, right lane travel, no transit priority, separated bike lane. Curb bump-outs and some novel public space.

Both include a future bi-directional bike lane going up George to (presumably) Hollis.

As someone who uses a variety of methods to get down Lower Water, I prefer the transit option as it sort of optimizes the available space on the street, especially if the number of busses on the street increases.

The issue with the current bike lane for me is that the “car tickler” barriers don’t actually stop people from parking there, which pushes cyclists into traffic, slowing traffic and putting people in danger. It does weave a little bit, but I think that’s a fine compromise given that the street itself weaves and has a number of pinch points.

The pedestrian option doesn’t really offer a lot of functional improvements to the street as far as I can see.

[eastcoastal]

Originally Posted by atbw

I mean it’s not really worth looking at. The plans can be summed up as:

Transit: Left lane travel, right lane transit at afternoon peak, parking off-peak, separated bike lane.

Pedestrian: left lane parking, right lane travel, no transit priority, separated bike lane. Curb bump-outs and some novel public space.

Both include a future bi-directional bike lane going up George to (presumably) Hollis.

As someone who uses a variety of methods to get down Lower Water, I prefer the transit option as it sort of optimizes the available space on the street, especially if the number of busses on the street increases.

The issue with the current bike lane for me is that the “car tickler” barriers don’t actually stop people from parking there, which pushes cyclists into traffic, slowing traffic and putting people in danger. It does weave a little bit, but I think that’s a fine compromise given that the street itself weaves and has a number of pinch points.

The pedestrian option doesn’t really offer a lot of functional improvements to the street as far as I can see.

AllNovaScotia includes a description of the three options in today's issue.

[Arrdeeharharharbour]

Well, I took the online survey knowing that it was more of an exercise in providing a statistic on public engagement rather than being true feedback that could result in change. I have little doubt that the mould is already set on Water street regardless of any feedback received via a survey. I'd love to be proven wrong on this. Anyway, as a comment on the two options provided, it seems in either option that the city is trying to squeeze too much into too small a corridor.

[Dmajackson]

I'm happy to see that Nova Scotia's first bicycle traffic light is now functional. Part of the MacDonald Bridge bikeway project this can be found at Wyse Road & Boland Road. This light separates vehicles turning right onto Boland from hitting cyclists in the protected lane heading straight along Wyse. Look closely and you can see the lower light has a bicycle shaped bulb.


Halifax Developments Blog (Photo by David Jackson)

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Dmajackson

I'm happy to see that Nova Scotia's first bicycle traffic light is now functional. Part of the MacDonald Bridge bikeway project this can be found at Wyse Road & Boland Road. This light separates vehicles turning right onto Boland from hitting cyclists in the protected lane heading straight along Wyse. Look closely and you can see the lower light has a bicycle shaped bulb.


Halifax Developments Blog (Photo by David Jackson)

I guess Sam Austin is not interested in HRM's climate change initiatives if he wants vehicles idling unnecessarily at red lights unable to make right turns in order to protect a non-existent group of cyclists from accidents that have never happened. He has done the same sans traffic signals at Nantucket and Wyse. No shortage of HRM tax dollars to waste.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Dmajackson

I'm happy to see that Nova Scotia's first bicycle traffic light is now functional. Part of the MacDonald Bridge bikeway project this can be found at Wyse Road & Boland Road. This light separates vehicles turning right onto Boland from hitting cyclists in the protected lane heading straight along Wyse. Look closely and you can see the lower light has a bicycle shaped bulb.


Halifax Developments Blog (Photo by David Jackson)

Interesting. Thanks for posting this as I've never seen bicycle signals before.

I assume this is to protect bicyclists during afternoon rush hour when motorists who turned left onto Wyse (from the bridge) would turn right onto Boland to presumably avoid the traffic on Nantucket? I haven't lived in that area for some time so I don't know what the traffic patterns are like in that area today.

I'm curious as to the sequencing of the lights. In the view shown, it's pretty straightforward as there is a green arrow for cars and trucks to go straight, red lights plus a "no right turn on red" sign to stop cars and trucks from turning right while the cyclist is given the green light to proceed straight through the intersection (and turn right if desired).

What happens after that? Do the cyclists get a red light when the car/truck green light for a right turn come on to avoid right turn collisions?

I hesitate to ask further questions lest I am accused of being disingenuous or 'campaigning against active transportation because I'm known to like cars', but I am wondering if it just works the same 24/7, or if it changes during times of light traffic, when chances of right turn collisions with cyclists are reduced (or nil). I mean, as a cyclist one of the first things I learned was that just about any street branching off to the right had potential for such a collision, and after almost becoming too personal with a green Plymouth Fury that turned right in front of me at the corner of Ochterloney and Victoria years ago, I developed the habit of shoulder checking as I approached such roads to make sure somebody wasn't approaching that might cut me off.

I think it's great (and kind of cute, actually) that signals like this are being added, but the pragmatic part of me wonders what the real-world benefits will be to cyclists. And I say this with the caveat that I don't know the traffic conditions at that intersection now. I also wonder if the money spent on this signal could have been put towards other cycling infrastructure that would provide better bang for the buck.

(Hoo boy... now waiting for the accusations... ) I promise I won't respond to any negativity, as I think I am asking reasonable questions... i.e. participating in a discussion.

[Nouvellecosse]

As cool as that description sounds, I've been through the intersection on a regular basis since the changes were implemented and I didn't see any bicycle signal. Other than the pavement markings there's nothing specific in terms of cycle infrastructure. The only difference in the signals is that the walk light turns on a few seconds before the general traffic signal goes green to give them a head start. Unless the bicycle signal wasn't turned on when i went through. If so, it would be good for it to provide a similar head start as the walk light since conflicts with turning cars can be an issue.

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

(Hoo boy... now waiting for the accusations... ) I promise I won't respond to any negativity, as I think I am asking reasonable questions... i.e. participating in a discussion.

It mostly seems fine as is. But I can try to come up with something more controversial later if you're worried about things getting too dull.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

It mostly seems fine as is. But I can try to come up with something more controversial later if you're worried about things getting too dull.

It's OK, dull is good.

[Dmajackson]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Interesting. Thanks for posting this as I've never seen bicycle signals before.

I assume this is to protect bicyclists during afternoon rush hour when motorists who turned left onto Wyse (from the bridge) would turn right onto Boland to presumably avoid the traffic on Nantucket? I haven't lived in that area for some time so I don't know what the traffic patterns are like in that area today.

Basically yes. The bicycle light does come on 24/7 though. It is part of the lights' automatic cycle.

I'm curious as to the sequencing of the lights. In the view shown, it's pretty straightforward as there is a green arrow for cars and trucks to go straight, red lights plus a "no right turn on red" sign to stop cars and trucks from turning right while the cyclist is given the green light to proceed straight through the intersection (and turn right if desired).

What happens after that? Do the cyclists get a red light when the car/truck green light for a right turn come on to avoid right turn collisions?

Yes. The straight-thru is on with the right-turn. When the right-turn is red it is straight-thru, cyclist, and pedestrians together.

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

As cool as that description sounds, I've been through the intersection on a regular basis since the changes were implemented and I didn't see any bicycle signal. Other than the pavement markings there's nothing specific in terms of cycle infrastructure. The only difference in the signals is that the walk light turns on a few seconds before the general traffic signal goes green to give them a head start. Unless the bicycle signal wasn't turned on when i went through. If so, it would be good for it to provide a similar head start as the walk light since conflicts with turning cars can be an issue.

The old traffic signals were removed and replaced with the new ones this week.

As for the pedestrian signal it only comes on with the straight-thru and cyclist light so provided the NROR sign is obeyed there is no conflict with vehicles. Right turning cars shouldn't have cyclists or pedestrians slowing them down now. Add in the quick rotation cycle and they shouldn't be waiting more than 30 seconds at the light (non-peak times at least).

Also I forgot to note that the bicycle signal for crossing Wyse Road at Nantucket is installed it is just not turned on yet.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Dmajackson

Basically yes. The bicycle light does come on 24/7 though. It is part of the lights' automatic cycle.



Yes. The straight-thru is on with the right-turn. When the right-turn is red it is straight-thru, cyclist, and pedestrians together.

Thanks!

[Keith P.]

The entirety of the Wyse Rd bike lane silliness is the result of a councillor having far too much influence and exerting his personal will upon staff. The same was true for his curb bump-out fetish in previous years but this has taken it to new lows. Hopefully he will not re-offer next election as he has hinted or will be defeated (which seems to be more likely given the number of negative comments by constituents I have read recently), and his replacement can remove some of the more offensive bits of what he has created.

[bartekci]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

The entirety of the Wyse Rd bike lane silliness is the result of a councillor having far too much influence and exerting his personal will upon staff. The same was true for his curb bump-out fetish in previous years but this has taken it to new lows. Hopefully he will not re-offer next election as he has hinted or will be defeated (which seems to be more likely given the number of negative comments by constituents I have read recently), and his replacement can remove some of the more offensive bits of what he has created.

Do you get off on sitting in the Active Transportation thread to make this kind of wasteful commentary? You obviously have something against bike infrastructure, which when implemented, enables access for many others who may not have the privilege to own or use a car. Maybe take a break from trolling and think about that for a bit, huh?

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by fatscat

Do you get off on sitting in the Active Transportation thread to make this kind of wasteful commentary? You obviously have something against bike infrastructure, which when implemented, enables access for many others who may not have the privilege to own or use a car. Maybe take a break from trolling and think about that for a bit, huh?

I have thought about HRM's bike infrastructure long and hard. The main thought I have is that with all the money they have spent on it there is still virtually nobody who uses it. If we're talking wasteful, let's talk about that.

[atbw]

Originally Posted by Dmajackson

Also I forgot to note that the bicycle signal for crossing Wyse Road at Nantucket is installed it is just not turned on yet.

Also at Thistle St. I'd hope they'd get those going first - Boland is more or less OK, though in a video I saw a few cars completely ignore the no right on red. At the other signals which haven't been activated, it's kind of a guess as to when you can go, which is a bit annoying.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by atbw

Also at Thistle St. I'd hope they'd get those going first - Boland is more or less OK, though in a video I saw a few cars completely ignore the no right on red. At the other signals which haven't been activated, it's kind of a guess as to when you can go, which is a bit annoying.

Maybe it's too early to judge this, but as an active cyclist do you see much practical benefit to these signals?

In the 'old days', I would have just shoulder checked and moved to the right side of the straight lane and proceeded through the green light (though back then there wasn't a dedicated right turn lane or arrows as it wasn't an overly busy intersection). Mind you, it's probably been 30 years since I rode my bike along that street so things have probably changed since then.

In looking at the way things are laid out now, in order to separate bike traffic from car traffic probably the signal is completely necessary in high traffic areas. I'm just trying to get a feel for what is happening practically, and where this is all going. A bike network that is actually, practically safe is a great idea, and a challenge when adding to old infrastructure. So I'm wondering if this is a great idea that actually works, or a "let's give this a try and see what happens"...

[atbw]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Maybe it's too early to judge this, but as an active cyclist do you see much practical benefit to these signals?

In the 'old days', I would have just shoulder checked and moved to the right side of the straight lane and proceeded through the green light (though back then there wasn't a dedicated right turn lane or arrows as it wasn't an overly busy intersection). Mind you, it's probably been 30 years since I rode my bike along that street so things have probably changed since then.

In looking at the way things are laid out now, in order to separate bike traffic from car traffic probably the signal is completely necessary in high traffic areas. I'm just trying to get a feel for what is happening practically, and where this is all going. A bike network that is actually, practically safe is a great idea, and a challenge when adding to old infrastructure. So I'm wondering if this is a great idea that actually works, or a "let's give this a try and see what happens"...

Your way of cycling is similar to my current way of cycling - keep moving, move like a car. This is fine for you and me, and my riding buddies, but it sucks for the mom taking her kids to school, the kids riding home from school, or when I want to take my girlfriend on a relaxed ride over to Dartmouth. Riding in 50km/h traffic, shoulder checking and changing lanes is not a chill time for anyone who isn't already on the roads.

I find the 2-step turns a bit of a pain, but once the lights are operational I'm hoping they're phased in a convenient way.

One other thing - think of the size of a Honda Civic from 30 years ago, and the size of a Honda Civic now. The sedan from 30 years ago represents a class of vehicle which no longer exists today. Everything is a crossover, or an SUV, or a pickup truck, longer, wider, and heavier than in years before. Drivers see less, and are driving vehicles that may be safer for themselves, but more dangerous for those around them. So, traffic separation becomes a baseline requirement.

A last point on old infrastructure - really the only place that is a big challenge is right downtown. Most of the streetscape off the peninsula is mid-century or newer, and can accommodate cycling infrastructure fine. Montreal is big and old and has narrow streets and it's one of the top cities in North America for cycling. I think there's an idea (not saying this is your stance, just rambling) that Halifax is uniquely unsuitable for cycling when that isn't really the case.

[essaysmith]

Being there ( Boland at Wyse) in person on a few occasions so far, there are several cars who ignore the no right on red at every light cycle. I have seen more than 10 cars illegally turn so far in two days.

[Keith P.]

The really hilarious thing here is installing traffic signals for a group of cyclists, who are notorious for ignoring all signs, signals, and rules of the road.

As for cars ignoring the no right on red rule there, is it any wonder? There are almost never any cyclists there. Rights on red there have been a decades-long practice to help traffic move. There is no obvious reason why they should suddenly be prohibited. People need to get where they are going. The similar ban at the bottom of Nantucket at Wyse has now commonly defeated by shortcutting through the Esso station. Perhaps the nearby Tim's could construct a lane through their lot exiting on Boland for a similar workaround.

Anyone who questions HRM's war on the motorist need only look at this nonsense from Austin for proof.

[OliverD]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

The really hilarious thing here is installing traffic signals for a group of cyclists, who are notorious for ignoring all signs, signals, and rules of the road.

As for cars ignoring the no right on red rule there, is it any wonder? There are almost never any cyclists there. Rights on red there have been a decades-long practice to help traffic move. There is no obvious reason why they should suddenly be prohibited. People need to get where they are going. The similar ban at the bottom of Nantucket at Wyse has now commonly defeated by shortcutting through the Esso station. Perhaps the nearby Tim's could construct a lane through their lot exiting on Boland for a similar workaround.

Anyone who questions HRM's war on the motorist need only look at this nonsense from Austin for proof.

So your stance is that cyclists ignoring signs is bad but it's fine if drivers do it. Shocking.

And yes, there is an obvious reasons why rights on red should be prohibited in some cases. Something that we've known for 40 years: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0022437582900019

The results showed significant increases in pedestrian and bicyclist accidents involving right-turning vehicles at signalized locations following the introduction of Western RTOR. These increases were: 40 % for pedestrians and 82 % for bicycles in New York State; 107 % for pedestrians and 72 % for bicycles in Wisconsin; 57 % for pedestrians and 80 % for bicycles in Ohio; and 82 % for pedestrians in New Orleans. Analysis of police accident reports suggested that drivers stopped for a red light are looking left for a gap in traffic and do not see pedestrians and bicyclists coming from their right.