Halifax Active Transportation

[Nouvellecosse]

^ The point is that some people are placing excessive scrutiny on proportionately tiny costs when it comes to active transportation and there's nothing incorrect about placing the costs in context. Improving road design, adding active transport infrastructure, and increasing the number of cyclists (and now escooter users) are all vital to safety. That's partly because of the safer infrastructure itself, but also the safety in numbers effect. Not to mention the lives saved by increased physical activity. In other words, much of the active transportation debate has literally been around safety and saving lives. Yet there are detractors (including Dartguard in this thread) who outright say things like "society DOES NOT owe you a safe corridor". If anything, you pointing out the safety value as justification for why the situation is different for massively expensive road projects actually validates LB's point.

[GTG_78]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

^ The point is that some people are placing excessive scrutiny on proportionately tiny costs when it comes to active transportation and there's nothing incorrect about placing the costs in context.

What is the appropriate level of scrutiny for a plan that was budgeted for $25 million, is less than 25% complete, and will likely be tens of millions of dollars over budget if completed to current spec? When are people allowed to take serious issue with that?

The projected costs for the flyover have doubled. Will it be appropriate to scrutinize them if costs triple? Quadruple?

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by GTG_78

What is the appropriate level of scrutiny for a plan that was budgeted for $25 million, is less than 25% complete, and will likely be tens of millions of dollars over budget if completed to current spec? When are people allowed to take serious issue with that?

The projected costs for the flyover have doubled. Will it be appropriate to scrutinize them if costs triple? Quadruple?

Where do you see that the AAA network has gone through 80 percent of its budget already?

Also, as for the flyover, the costs are being scrutinized--council is debating it this afternoon, and there will be a value-engineering study over the winder to see if there are more cost-effective ways to approach the problem. Having said that, if we'd just built the thing on time, inflated construction costs would never have become an issue.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Having said that, if we'd just built the thing on time, inflated construction costs would never have become an issue.

It was a ridiculous project from the day the HCC proposed it regardless of cost. Then Mason & co. embraced it without any sort of evaluation or due diligence.

The essential problem is that the entire "active transportation" agenda was premised on the belief that if HRM would build it, the users would come. The problem is that they have not come. And now we no longer have the money all those bike lanes, curb extensions, bollards, Samerrhoids, and Austicks (TM Regd) cost us. But we do have traffic headaches that will be with us forever as the city grows.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by LikesBikes

Also, if you think a highway expansion is going to fix traffic and car accidents then I think you're going to be pretty disappointed in a few year's time...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand

You must be new here. The old "induced demand" argument the cycling zealots have always liked to throw out in regard to vehicle infrastructure was largely debunked here years ago.

In any event, one can see the lack of validity of it by simply looking at bike lane infrastructure which was constructed but which has not subsequently led to any real increase in cycling. QED.

[LikesBikes]

The bike infrastructure that's been built is inadequate and doesn't provide a network which is why not that many people choose to bike currently. Go to any other city that's actually invested into bike infrastructure and you'll see more people biking (MTL, Vancouver, Toronto, etc.).

The anti-bike/pedestrian zealotry is what leads to more traffic, accidents, and all-around unpleasant communities. Go to places like Houston or Phoenix to see how great only planning cities only for cars works out.

[Dartguard]

Originally Posted by GTG_78

What is the appropriate level of scrutiny for a plan that was budgeted for $25 million, is less than 25% complete, and will likely be tens of millions of dollars over budget if completed to current spec? When are people allowed to take serious issue with that?

The projected costs for the flyover have doubled. Will it be appropriate to scrutinize them if costs triple? Quadruple?

Good questions, yet I think that the Bike lobby will argue that their safety and the costs associated with their preference of transportation are justifiable no matter what the cost. They WILL prevail. I have never seen any commitment to plan to trial any of these Bike experiments and to study their justification for future use. Is there any criteria for expending funds for these projects whether they are used or not? Will usage rates be observed and collated over time and publicly announced? I suspect that once they are built its like voting for the Taliban. Rule for ever. Its as if some secret society has a special power over our elected officials, Planners and Managers.

[LikesBikes]

Good to see it only took a day or so for someone on here to compare people who want to be able to bike safely to the Taliban

[mleblanc]

Originally Posted by LikesBikes

Good to see it only took a day or so for someone on here to compare people who want to be able to bike safely to the Taliban

Yeah, I'm not a cyclist but damn that might've been one of the dumbest takes I've seen on this forum.

[Dartguard]

Originally Posted by LikesBikes

Good to see it only took a day or so for someone on here to compare people who want to be able to bike safely to the Taliban

Thanks for picking the fly poo out of the pepper. I was asking if there are any plans to collect honest data on bike lane use and will or will not that information be used to alter future plans. What are the numbers of users that the City will consider a customer served? Are there plans to study the traffic displacement at rush hours that bike lanes take from cars per hour leaving the Peninsula or will the statement be expressed from the opposite view that so many bikes replaced so many cars? Would the elimination of the bike lanes lead to a higher throughput of Cars during rush hour? Will our new inclusive, non judgmental World even allow those questions?

[Summerville]

Originally Posted by Dartguard

Thanks for picking the fly poo out of the pepper. I was asking if there are any plans to collect honest data on bike lane use and will or will not that information be used to alter future plans. What are the numbers of users that the City will consider a customer served? Are there plans to study the traffic displacement at rush hours that bike lanes take from cars per hour leaving the Peninsula or will the statement be expressed from the opposite view that so many bikes replaced so many cars? Would the elimination of the bike lanes lead to a higher throughput of Cars during rush hour? Will our new inclusive, non judgmental World even allow those questions?

There is a twitter site that monitors certain bike lanes…they have sensors installed

https://mobile.twitter.com/bikehfxstats

[Dartguard]

Originally Posted by Summerville

There is a twitter site that monitors certain bike lanes…they have sensors installed

https://mobile.twitter.com/bikehfxstats

Thanks for that Summerville. Another rabbit hole to explore.
I am honestly interested in the data.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Dartguard

Thanks for picking the fly poo out of the pepper. I was asking if there are any plans to collect honest data on bike lane use and will or will not that information be used to alter future plans. What are the numbers of users that the City will consider a customer served? Are there plans to study the traffic displacement at rush hours that bike lanes take from cars per hour leaving the Peninsula or will the statement be expressed from the opposite view that so many bikes replaced so many cars? Would the elimination of the bike lanes lead to a higher throughput of Cars during rush hour? Will our new inclusive, non judgmental World even allow those questions?

The city has set goals toward increasing the percentage of trips by active transportation and reducing the number of trips by private vehicle. These goals and strategies toward achieving them are provided clearly in the 53 pageIntegrated Mobility Plan and the 91 page Active Transportation Priorities Plan. So while improving the safety and quality of life for current active transportation users is one of many benefits the city cites, it isn't the main or only goal.

The bike lanes have very little affect in terms of vehicular traffic because they're achieved either by occupying excess road width that was otherwise just shoulder, replacing some parking spots, or reducing the width of road lanes slightly which also improves safety by encouraging more reasonable traffic speeds. Any change that occurs is done in consideration of its affects on overall traffic throughput among other factors.

It's great for people to get involved in the planning of the city by asking questions and learning about changes. I would just hope that any questions are being asked out of genuine interest rather than purely as an avenue for attack. For those who are actually interested, there are very few questions on these topics that haven't been covered by the extensive documentation the city has provided.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by GTG_78

What is the appropriate level of scrutiny for a plan that was budgeted for $25 million, is less than 25% complete, and will likely be tens of millions of dollars over budget if completed to current spec? When are people allowed to take serious issue with that?

The projected costs for the flyover have doubled. Will it be appropriate to scrutinize them if costs triple? Quadruple?

Anyone discussing this in good faith has to start by recognizing that the majority of the objections have nothing to do with the specific cost. When the project was first envisioned at least a decade ago before any sort of cost increases, people complained just as much.

But to answer your question, the appropriate level of scrutiny is a cost benefit discussion applied equally to road and AT projects in proportion to their cost. So it's not a matter of when but how. Any time people scrutinize AT projects with the idea that it should be singled out for special scrutiny compared to other transportation projects, then it's in bad faith. All projects should have good faith scrutiny from the beginning.

[LikesBikes]

Originally Posted by Dartguard

Thanks for picking the fly poo out of the pepper.

No one forced you to put the fly poo with your pepper/make an idiotic and offensive comparison like that.

Originally Posted by Dartguard

I was asking if there are any plans to collect honest data on bike lane use and will or will not that information be used to alter future plans. What are the numbers of users that the City will consider a customer served? Are there plans to study the traffic displacement at rush hours that bike lanes take from cars per hour leaving the Peninsula or will the statement be expressed from the opposite view that so many bikes replaced so many cars? Would the elimination of the bike lanes lead to a higher throughput of Cars during rush hour?

Yes. There's whole professional fields out there like traffic engineering, civil engineering and urban planning that do this.

Originally Posted by Dartguard

Will our new inclusive, non judgmental World even allow those questions?

[Haliguy]

Originally Posted by Dartguard

Thanks for picking the fly poo out of the pepper. I was asking if there are any plans to collect honest data on bike lane use and will or will not that information be used to alter future plans. What are the numbers of users that the City will consider a customer served? Are there plans to study the traffic displacement at rush hours that bike lanes take from cars per hour leaving the Peninsula or will the statement be expressed from the opposite view that so many bikes replaced so many cars? Would the elimination of the bike lanes lead to a higher throughput of Cars during rush hour? Will our new inclusive, non judgmental World even allow those questions?

I can't think of any bike lanes that would severely affect car traffic volumes at rush hour.

[MonctonRad]

So, I see that Halifax regional council, in an attempt to forestall imminent insolvency is planning a general 8% property tax rate hike for HRM.

Maybe it's time for council to rethink certain vanity projects <cough>bicycle flyover lane<cough> instead..................

[GTG_78]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

But to answer your question, the appropriate level of scrutiny is a cost benefit discussion applied equally to road and AT projects in proportion to their cost. So it's not a matter of when but how. Any time people scrutinize AT projects with the idea that it should be singled out for special scrutiny compared to other transportation projects, then it's in bad faith. All projects should have good faith scrutiny from the beginning.

Those discussions already occur with respect to road infrastructure. Millions of dollars are spent in this province alone on those discussions. And in my professional capacity, I have spent the better part of 20 years participating in those discussions. So I take some exception to the suggestion that traditional road infrastructure is routinely approved without proportionate scrutiny. Anyone who has worked for or with the Province or HRM or the federal government would find that idea ridiculous, or that there is something untoward about people questioning the effectiveness of the Mobility Plan or its cost effectiveness.

[GTG_78]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

The city has set goals toward increasing the percentage of trips by active transportation and reducing the number of trips by private vehicle. These goals and strategies toward achieving them are provided clearly in the 53 pageIntegrated Mobility Plan and the 91 page [URL="https://cdn.halifax.ca/sites/default/files/documents/transportation/transportation-projects/AT_Plan_Final_July222014_000.pdf"]

The bike lanes have very little affect in terms of vehicular traffic because they're achieved either by occupying excess road width that was otherwise just shoulder, replacing some parking spots, or reducing the width of road lanes slightly which also improves safety by encouraging more reasonable traffic speeds. Any change that occurs is done in consideration of its affects on overall traffic throughput among other factors.

It's great for people to get involved in the planning of the city by asking questions and learning about changes. I would just hope that any questions are being asked out of genuine interest rather than purely as an avenue for attack. For those who are actually interested, there are very few questions on these topics that haven't been covered by the extensive documentation the city has provided.

This is just false. In addition to creating a new signaling system and eliminating right-turn-on reds, two car lanes were outright eliminated - not reduced - on Wyse Road to accommodate the bicycle lanes. The effect has been a significant increase in traffic congestion in the remaining lanes.

And no, people should not restrict themselves to "asking questions and learning about changes." People are entitled to provide input and critique how their tax dollars are spent.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Haliguy

I can't think of any bike lanes that would severely affect car traffic volumes at rush hour.

Been on Wyse Rd lately? Or trying to get on the Macdonald to go to Halifax in the morning? Austin has screwed those routes up royally with his cycling-friendly traffic signals. If only there were any cyclists there that needed them...