Halifax Active Transportation

[Haliguy]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

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...

I have actually, bike lanes are not affecting traffic!

And I bike to work across the bridge once a week and the bike lanes are well used and would be used a lot more if there was better connected bike infrastructure!

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Haliguy

I have actually, bike lanes are not affecting traffic!

And I bike to work across the bridge once a week and the bike lanes are well used and would be used a lot more if there was better connected bike infrastructure!

I NEVER see more than 4 or 5 cyclists any time I cross that bridge at rush hour in the AM. I mean, never. And usually none at other times.

The supposed lack of connecting infrastructure is an all-purpose excuse to forgive the lack of uptake in cycling. There will never be enough of it where the advocates will be forced to find some other fictitious reason. There are roads that connect. Use them like everyone else.

[Haliguy]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

I NEVER see more than 4 or 5 cyclists any time I cross that bridge at rush hour in the AM. I mean, never. And usually none at other times.

The supposed lack of connecting infrastructure is an all-purpose excuse to forgive the lack of uptake in cycling. There will never be enough of it where the advocates will be forced to find some other fictitious reason. There are roads that connect. Use them like everyone else.

I pass a least 10 over the bridge and that's in the few minutes it takes to bike across. And it's not just bikes, its e-scooters and e-bikes too.

Yeah, how about no! You know how dangerous it is to try and get on the bridge on the Halifax side coming across town. The safer and better infrastructure, the more people will feel safe to bike. It's been proven in other cities ie Montreal.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by GTG_78

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.

I didn't say any such thing. I was referring to the comments made on this and similar online platforms by those who regularly participate in them. Of course the government studies all major decisions, but the people in these threads tend to approach these topics with the default assumption that things are mostly well and good with road projects while they're all fanciful and wasteful when it comes to AT projects.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by GTG_78

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.

I use Wyse road several times per week so i'm quite familiar with it. The only "lanes" that were eliminated were short sections of turning lanes that did little to nothing to increase capacity. There is now a single turning lane heading onto Boland Rd. and a single lane heading up Wyse beyond Boland both of which are a single lane per direction so there's no point in multiple lanes emptying into them. What was eliminated was a left turn lane serving Pelzant St (and a couple of businesses across the street), neither of which warranted the use of that space given the low traffic volume. And none of what was reduced were actual travel lanes. I can attest that the traffic is not any worse.

When there are fewer "storage" lanes such as turn lanes that store cars in queue, the queue isn't as wide but stretches further down the street which makes it it looks "worse" to the casual observer. This can happen with short stretches of general travel lanes as well on streets that start out wider before narrowing. This is sometimes referred to as a bottle neck. If a street has a 4 or 6 lane stretch and then narrows to say, 2 lanes, the wider stretch stores vehicles that need to merge into the narrower sections but doesn't help with overall throughput which is only as great as the narrowest section. So those short storage sections can often be put to better use.

Originally Posted by GTG_78

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.

Actually yes, they should. They should most certainly start with a neutral stance until they've actually educated themselves on the topic at hand. Nothing is achieved by trying to critique something you know nothing about which is what happens when people react based on assumptions before finding out the details.

[GTG_78]

Let's compare:

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

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.

And then:

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

I use Wyse road several times per week so i'm quite familiar with it. The only "lanes" that were eliminated were short sections of turning lanes that did little to nothing to increase capacity.

Incredible goal-post shifting. Falsely denying that there has been any reduction in lanes and then incorrectly claiming that there has been no impact on capacity. And no, those were not the only lanes that were eliminated.

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

When there are fewer "storage" lanes such as turn lanes that store cars in queue, the queue isn't as wide but stretches further down the street which makes it it looks "worse" to the casual observer. This can happen with short stretches of general travel lanes as well on streets that start out wider before narrowing. This is sometimes referred to as a bottle neck. If a street has a 4 or 6 lane stretch and then narrows to say, 2 lanes, the wider stretch stores vehicles that need to merge into the narrower sections but doesn't help with overall throughput which is only as great as the narrowest section. So those short storage sections can often be put to better use.

I have been professionally involved in development and infrastructure planning for 17 years - first in government and now in the private sector. I don't require an explainer.

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Actually yes, they should. They should most certainly start with a neutral stance until they've actually educated themselves on the topic at hand. Nothing is achieved by trying to critique something you know nothing about which is what happens when people react based on assumptions before finding out the details.

OTOH, I am not sure if there is any utility in engaging with someone who believes that people do not have the right to voice an opinion unless they achieve some arbitrary (and no doubt perpetually out-of-reach) level of 'education'. People will and should voice their opinions about how their money is spent, be it on highways or bicycle lanes. In a democracy, that is a good thing.

[LikesBikes]

Originally Posted by Haliguy

I pass a least 10 over the bridge and that's in the few minutes it takes to bike across. And it's not just bikes, its e-scooters and e-bikes too.

Yeah, how about no! You know how dangerous it is to try and get on the bridge on the Halifax side coming across town. The safer and better infrastructure, the more people will feel safe to bike. It's been proven in other cities ie Montreal.

I just took the bridge and passed about 10 cyclists/people on scooters and it's -5 right now. There'd undoubtedly be more people too who'd bike if given safe infrastructure. For example, my girlfriend only rides when she's with me because she doesn't feel safe enough to do it by herself.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by LikesBikes

I just took the bridge and passed about 10 cyclists/people on scooters and it's -5 right now.

Clearly, if that is true, there is no need for an expensive and out-of-cost-control flyover. As both myself and others have suggested, some simple alterations at the Halifax end would be all that is required for you and your ilk to achieve the nirvana you seek by eliminating the poorly thought out and designed downhill loop-de-loop to Barrington.

I find it curious that decades ago a larger but similar grade-separated project for vehicles was proposed and designed at the Wyse Rd bridge connection to Nantucket but was decried as unnecessary. Just imagine how many tons of carbon would have been saved over the years if that had been built. That remains true even today.

[LikesBikes]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Clearly, if that is true, there is no need for an expensive and out-of-cost-control flyover. As both myself and others have suggested, some simple alterations at the Halifax end would be all that is required for you and your ilk to achieve the nirvana you seek by eliminating the poorly thought out and designed downhill loop-de-loop to Barrington.

In the short term I would agree that some simple alterations would improve the situation getting off the bridge on the Halifax side, such as protection on Barrington and Artz streets to allow a safe way to get up to Gottingen.

In the long term, however, a fly over will be necessary, which by the way would be 85% paid for by the Feds and Province btw if it's done before 2024. This would immeasurably improve conditions as cyclists as they wouldn't have to bother with going up/down the hill which would make travel between Halifax and Dartmouth quicker and easier and safer.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by LikesBikes

This would immeasurably improve conditions as cyclists as they wouldn't have to bother with going up/down the hill which would make travel between Halifax and Dartmouth quicker and easier and safer.

I'm thinking that in the near future more people will transition to e-bikes for commuting (as has been stated that there are already many e-bikes and e-scooters crossing the bridge) that will make this a non-important point.

Perhaps by the time the flyover would potentially be built, that climbing the hill to Gottingen won't be an issue, and we will find that the $10 million deluxe flyover was an unnecessary expense and that safety needs could have been met with infrastructure improvements at, perhaps, 1/10th of the cost.

[LikesBikes]

Cyclists getting off in Halifax will still be required to contend with high traffic volumes, steep grades (which can be slippery and overall, not safe) and busy intersections whether on an e-bike or not.

Also, where did this idea that everyone is going to be on an e-bike in the future come from?

Lastly, the $12 million is a drop in the bucket of municipal finances. Further, the muni would only pay about $2 million of the total, with the Feds and Province paying the rest (that is until 2024, afterwards the city may be on the hook for more of the total cost).

[OldDartmouthMark]

However, any time the idea that steep grades and slippery conditions is brought up in the suggestion that cycling might not catch on in Halifax, we are reassured by 'everybody' that hills and ice are not valid concerns, and don't prevent people in other cities from cycling year-round. The hill from the bridge to Gottingen is actually quite minor (I've biked it), especially if you compare it to streets in the downtown, which have been confirmed to be no problem for cyclists.

Nobody said that everybody is moving to e-bikes, but you can't deny that they are becoming more popular, and many cyclists on SSP have suggested that they will be the future of commuter cycling, and that they help close the gap between bicycles and traditional motor vehicles. I'm no expert, but just repeating what people 'in-the-know' have been saying...

[LikesBikes]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

However, any time the idea that steep grades and slippery conditions is brought up in the suggestion that cycling might not catch on in Halifax, we are reassured by 'everybody' that hills and ice are not valid concerns, and don't prevent people in other cities from cycling year-round. The hill from the bridge to Gottingen is actually quite minor (I've biked it), especially if you compare it to streets in the downtown, which have been confirmed to be no problem for cyclists.

Nobody said that everybody is moving to e-bikes, but you can't deny that they are becoming more popular, and many cyclists on SSP have suggested that they will be the future of commuter cycling, and that they help close the gap between bicycles and traditional motor vehicles. I'm no expert, but just repeating what people 'in-the-know' have been saying...

The purpose of bike infrastructure at the end of the day is to make it harder for drivers to mow down cyclists. In the case of the bridge here, the best way to do provide this infrastructure is to do a flyover which produces the win-win scenario of improving bike safety while removing a hill. Is the hill currently unconquerable? Of course not. Would more people bike if you didn't have to bike the hill? Probably.

Whether it be downtown, at the base of the bridge here, or anywhere else where there is potential demand for cycling, safe bike infrastructure should be provided given it doesn't cost astronomical prices (and no, a couple of million dollars is a drop in the bucket, especially when the province and feds are paying for 85% of the bill as would be the case here). An astronomical price would be the hundreds of millions/billions of dollars spent on new road projects.

And e-bikes are increasing in popularity and present the opportunity to increase the number of people who choose to cycle, which is great. At the same time though, it would be foolish to plan new infrastructure with the assumption that everyone uses an ebike, just as it's foolish to assume everyone can bike, walk, or drive - i.e., the city needs to provide residents a safe and reliable way to travel using a mix of travel modes.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by LikesBikes

The purpose of bike infrastructure at the end of the day is to make it harder for drivers to mow down cyclists. In the case of the bridge here, the best way to do provide this infrastructure is to do a flyover which produces the win-win scenario of improving bike safety while removing a hill. Is the hill currently unconquerable? Of course not. Would more people bike if you didn't have to bike the hill? Probably.

Clearly then, the sooner we can build a network of underground bike tunnels the better, since that is the only way cyclists can be protected from the likes of drivers such as Moe M. Downe behind the wheel of his F-250. If they use a network of underground tunnels like ants, their safety could be assured. Surely the minor cost to taxpayers would be worth it.

Not realistic you say? Then perhaps the cycling community should take on the job of fundraising for themselves to relieve the burden on the taxpayer and to stop making themselves constantly sound so entitled. Perhaps a raffle?

[LikesBikes]

Nice attempt at hyperbole? Don't know what you're trying to say but all people who want to bike need is something like a protected curb or small bridge here or there which costs a fraction of what car infrastructure does.

[kzt79]

Originally Posted by LikesBikes

Nice attempt at hyperbole? Don't know what you're trying to say but all people who want to bike need is something like a protected curb or small bridge here or there which costs a fraction of what car infrastructure does.

Yeah I generally agree with Keith and in fact drive most of the time myself. But even I accept the need for some basic cycling and pedestrian infrastructure lol.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by LikesBikes

The purpose of bike infrastructure at the end of the day is to make it harder for drivers to mow down cyclists. In the case of the bridge here, the best way to do provide this infrastructure is to do a flyover which produces the win-win scenario of improving bike safety while removing a hill. Is the hill currently unconquerable? Of course not. Would more people bike if you didn't have to bike the hill? Probably.

I think everybody understands the purpose of bike infrastructure. Drivers don't want to "mow down cyclists", but at the end of the day driving can be difficult, especially during traffic and when there are narrower streets with less room to maneuver. Throw in inclement weather and darkness to decrease visibility and a bicycle mixed in with vehicle traffic can disappear to the motorist with tragic results. Yeah, we all get that, I think. Personally, I support adding cycling infrastructure to Halifax's streets. I think we've needed it for a long time, and frankly I've been disappointed by how little the existing appears to be used, but hold onto the "build it and they will come" attitude.

Your assertion that the flyover ramp appears to be the only safe way to handle cycling infrastructure at the Halifax side of the Macdonald is what I'm questioning.

Yeah, avoiding a hill is "nice", and I agree that it would make going to Gottingen much easier for those with standard bicycles. However, to many of us, this sounds like a "want" rather than a "need". As I mentioned previously, Halifax and Dartmouth have many hills that can make cycling challenging at times... I know this because I've probably biked up 90% of the hills over the years and can admit to using the granny gear at times on the steeper ones, or stopping to catch my breath on occasion. Every cyclist will have to accept that their ride will involve climbing a hill for most runs through the city, but for some reason, this one hill is special in that we need a $12.7M ramp to get us there? If this is built will there be a need for a flyover ramp on the Dartmouth side? That Nantucket hill is a long one.

I see that intersection as being contentious, and there needs to be improvements to ensure the safety of cyclists, but it's hard to accept that this "deluxe" version is the only way to do it. It seems to me that perhaps a solution that costs less but still provides safety could mean that part of this $12.7M could be spread around to upgrade other parts of the cycling network that desperately need it, rather than blowing the wad at the Halifax side of the Macdonald while the rest of the network remains incomplete and disconnected, in some cases.

Originally Posted by LikesBikes

Whether it be downtown, at the base of the bridge here, or anywhere else where there is potential demand for cycling, safe bike infrastructure should be provided given it doesn't cost astronomical prices (and no, a couple of million dollars is a drop in the bucket, especially when the province and feds are paying for 85% of the bill as would be the case here). An astronomical price would be the hundreds of millions/billions of dollars spent on new road projects.

Can you provide a source for your assertion that this flyover ramp will only cost the city $2M? I did some searching but couldn't come up with anything conclusive - the closest I found was this article from 2019: $25M allows Halifax to shift bike lane project into high gear

From the article:

The federal government on Monday announced it would contribute $12.5 million to the project, with the Nova Scotia government chipping in $8.25 million. The city will spend $4.25 million.

Halifax's share equals 17%, which sounds great, but that $25M total is for all of the infrastructure in the plan (30 km), and the bridge flyover was estimated at $6.2M, not the current $12.7M. I understand that the actual costs of all of the infrastructure has increased as well, and unless the feds and the province have increased their shares from the $20.75M mentioned in the article, then the city taxpayers are paying for the cost overruns, are they not? As it stands, the flyover ramp will eat up over half the cycling infrastructure budget for the entire city, and it hasn't even been built yet - actual costs of building can easily exceed estimates once unanticipated problems are found during the construction process, so we don't even know the end cost of this yet.

Which is why I question whether a better, safe, version could be built that will allow more of the budget to go to other bike infrastructure projects in the city.

Originally Posted by LikesBikes

And e-bikes are increasing in popularity and present the opportunity to increase the number of people who choose to cycle, which is great. At the same time though, it would be foolish to plan new infrastructure with the assumption that everyone uses an ebike, just as it's foolish to assume everyone can bike, walk, or drive - i.e., the city needs to provide residents a safe and reliable way to travel using a mix of travel modes.

Again, I think everybody wants cyclists to be safe in reality, but unless you intend to provide cyclists with lifts and ramps throughout the city, hills are just part of the daily ride, and this hill is just one more. E-bikes are great in that they will allow people who otherwise might not cycle to conquer the hills with ease, but I can't be convinced that helping to level out this one hill in Halifax is going to be a deciding point for somebody choosing whether to cycle or not. It just sounds like rhetoric to me, if I can be direct in conveying my thoughts.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

drivers such as Moe M. Downe behind the wheel of his F-250.

Would this be one of the 'five Moes' working on the NFB building? If so, then we've identified the culprit!

[kzt79]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I think everybody understands the purpose of bike infrastructure. Drivers don't want to "mow down cyclists", but at the end of the day driving can be difficult, especially during traffic and when there are narrower streets with less room to maneuver. Throw in inclement weather and darkness to decrease visibility and a bicycle mixed in with vehicle traffic can disappear to the motorist with tragic results. Yeah, we all get that, I think. Personally, I support adding cycling infrastructure to Halifax's streets. I think we've needed it for a long time, and frankly I've been disappointed by how little the existing appears to be used, but hold onto the "build it and they will come" attitude.

Your assertion that the flyover ramp appears to be the only safe way to handle cycling infrastructure at the Halifax side of the Macdonald is what I'm questioning.

Yeah, avoiding a hill is "nice", and I agree that it would make going to Gottingen much easier for those with standard bicycles. However, to many of us, this sounds like a "want" rather than a "need". As I mentioned previously, Halifax and Dartmouth have many hills that can make cycling challenging at times... I know this because I've probably biked up 90% of the hills over the years and can admit to using the granny gear at times on the steeper ones, or stopping to catch my breath on occasion. Every cyclist will have to accept that their ride will involve climbing a hill for most runs through the city, but for some reason, this one hill is special in that we need a $12.7M ramp to get us there? If this is built will there be a need for a flyover ramp on the Dartmouth side? That Nantucket hill is a long one.

I see that intersection as being contentious, and there needs to be improvements to ensure the safety of cyclists, but it's hard to accept that this "deluxe" version is the only way to do it. It seems to me that perhaps a solution that costs less but still provides safety could mean that part of this $12.7M could be spread around to upgrade other parts of the cycling network that desperately need it, rather than blowing the wad at the Halifax side of the Macdonald while the rest of the network remains incomplete and disconnected, in some cases.



Can you provide a source for your assertion that this flyover ramp will only cost the city $2M? I did some searching but couldn't come up with anything conclusive - the closest I found was this article from 2019: $25M allows Halifax to shift bike lane project into high gear

From the article:


Halifax's share equals 17%, which sounds great, but that $25M total is for all of the infrastructure in the plan (30 km), and the bridge flyover was estimated at $6.2M, not the current $12.7M. I understand that the actual costs of all of the infrastructure has increased as well, and unless the feds and the province have increased their shares from the $20.75M mentioned in the article, then the city taxpayers are paying for the cost overruns, are they not? As it stands, the flyover ramp will eat up over half the cycling infrastructure budget for the entire city, and it hasn't even been built yet - actual costs of building can easily exceed estimates once unanticipated problems are found during the construction process, so we don't even know the end cost of this yet.

Which is why I question whether a better, safe, version could be built that will allow more of the budget to go to other bike infrastructure projects in the city.



Again, I think everybody wants cyclists to be safe in reality, but unless you intend to provide cyclists with lifts and ramps throughout the city, hills are just part of the daily ride, and this hill is just one more. E-bikes are great in that they will allow people who otherwise might not cycle to conquer the hills with ease, but I can't be convinced that helping to level out this one hill in Halifax is going to be a deciding point for somebody choosing whether to cycle or not. It just sounds like rhetoric to me, if I can be direct in conveying my thoughts.

As an occasional cyclist, I also agree with all of this. Resources need to be allocated in a sensible way with proportionate benefits. Not real life, but a nice goal!

[LikesBikes]

There's a lot to go through here.

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I think everybody understands the purpose of bike infrastructure. Drivers don't want to "mow down cyclists", but at the end of the day driving can be difficult, especially during traffic and when there are narrower streets with less room to maneuver. Throw in inclement weather and darkness to decrease visibility and a bicycle mixed in with vehicle traffic can disappear to the motorist with tragic results. Yeah, we all get that, I think. Personally, I support adding cycling infrastructure to Halifax's streets. I think we've needed it for a long time, and frankly I've been disappointed by how little the existing appears to be used, but hold onto the "build it and they will come" attitude.

First - the assumption that drivers don't want to mow down cyclists isn't always necessarily true. I've been honked at and had garbage thrown at me in Halifax and I've only been here for less than a year. Further, there's many stories of drivers intentionally mowing down cyclists - e.g., https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/crime/texas-teen-mows-down-cyclists-b1927867.html. Given the extreme language used by a few of the forumers to describe cyclists here, not to mention from comments on Facebook, I wouldn't be surprised at all to hear about intentional aggressive driving to harm cyclists or make us feel like we don't belong.

Second, I don't think we should just accept cyclists injuries and deaths because "driving is hard". The way we build our roads incentives drivers to speed which worsens. There are small things we can do to reduce the injuries and death on our roadways that don't cost a lot of money and would provide other benefits - less traffic congestion, nicer streets, better economic productivity, more accessibility etc. . Also, is driving really that hard - or are drivers just very distracted, driving vehicles that are way too big (nowadays literally the size of tanks sometimes) and frankly, just stupid some of the time.

Third, the major reason our bike infrastructure isn't that well used is because there's no network built out. Ask anyone who bikes or wants to bike and they will tell you this. I live in a central part of the city but still biking anywhere really isn't that safe. My girlfriend works downtown but doesn't feel safe biking because there's no bike lanes downtown. The built less than half of what the basic network was supposed to be in the Transportation Plan and our bike infrastructure pales in comparison to almost every other city in Canada.

Look at other cities, when they build it, people come - there's no reason to think Halifax would be any different in that regard (in fact, I'd argue the natural climate of Halifax, and especially the peninsula, being fairly moderate in temperatures gives it more potential than other cities like Montreal). Hills are a pain, and should be lessened if able to be done somewhat easily as in the case of the bridge flyover, but are generally manageable or at least avoidable (on the peninsula, at least). This idea that things like induced demand or basic urban planning principles we've known for decades don't apply to Halifax just doesn't make sense.

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Your assertion that the flyover ramp appears to be the only safe way to handle cycling infrastructure at the Halifax side of the Macdonald is what I'm questioning.

Yeah, avoiding a hill is "nice", and I agree that it would make going to Gottingen much easier for those with standard bicycles. However, to many of us, this sounds like a "want" rather than a "need". As I mentioned previously, Halifax and Dartmouth have many hills that can make cycling challenging at times... I know this because I've probably biked up 90% of the hills over the years and can admit to using the granny gear at times on the steeper ones, or stopping to catch my breath on occasion. Every cyclist will have to accept that their ride will involve climbing a hill for most runs through the city, but for some reason, this one hill is special in that we need a $12.7M ramp to get us there? If this is built will there be a need for a flyover ramp on the Dartmouth side? That Nantucket hill is a long one.

Building a ramp would help make the bike access to Dartmouth more accessible to everyone. Again, the hill cyclists currently face is steep, can be slippery, and is not safe at the street intersection at Barrington. Building the flyover would shorten travel times, improve safety, and improve the connection to Gottingen and North Street which also should receive protected bike infrastructure given the amount of traffic on those streets.

The Dartmouth side is already good with the connection now at Wyse road so I don't know what you're talking about there.

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I see that intersection as being contentious, and there needs to be improvements to ensure the safety of cyclists, but it's hard to accept that this "deluxe" version is the only way to do it. It seems to me that perhaps a solution that costs less but still provides safety could mean that part of this $12.7M could be spread around to upgrade other parts of the cycling network that desperately need it, rather than blowing the wad at the Halifax side of the Macdonald while the rest of the network remains incomplete and disconnected, in some cases.

I'd argue this is an important transportation link for the region, one of the worst spots for cyclists and is somewhat low hanging fruit. Dartmouth and Halifax are the two most populous parts of the HRM if I'm not mistaken and the bike connection right now could be great (Dartmouth side is already good with Wyse road not being a death trap like most other stroads in the city) but the main gap is the Halifax side. Sure, you could argue that other improvements should be made first, but I don't think many cyclists would disagree that this is an important gap in the cycling network that should be prioritized.

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Can you provide a source for your assertion that this flyover ramp will only cost the city $2M? I did some searching but couldn't come up with anything conclusive - the closest I found was this article from 2019: $25M allows Halifax to shift bike lane project into high gear

From the article:


Halifax's share equals 17%, which sounds great, but that $25M total is for all of the infrastructure in the plan (30 km), and the bridge flyover was estimated at $6.2M, not the current $12.7M. I understand that the actual costs of all of the infrastructure has increased as well, and unless the feds and the province have increased their shares from the $20.75M mentioned in the article, then the city taxpayers are paying for the cost overruns, are they not? As it stands, the flyover ramp will eat up over half the cycling infrastructure budget for the entire city, and it hasn't even been built yet - actual costs of building can easily exceed estimates once unanticipated problems are found during the construction process, so we don't even know the end cost of this yet.

Which is why I question whether a better, safe, version could be built that will allow more of the budget to go to other bike infrastructure projects in the city.

I don't have time to find the source but the $2 million is what's being reported by the Halifax Cycling Coalition.

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Again, I think everybody wants cyclists to be safe in reality, but unless you intend to provide cyclists with lifts and ramps throughout the city, hills are just part of the daily ride, and this hill is just one more. E-bikes are great in that they will allow people who otherwise might not cycle to conquer the hills with ease, but I can't be convinced that helping to level out this one hill in Halifax is going to be a deciding point for somebody choosing whether to cycle or not. It just sounds like rhetoric to me, if I can be direct in conveying my thoughts.

This design was chosen because it makes the most sense if you want to make cycling safe and accessible to all. I agree hills are something that sometimes have to be conquered and building lifts would be ridiculous, but at the same time, if there are small things the city can do to make cycling safer and more accessible to all, then they should be pursued. In this case, the City has the opportunity to do that by removing some of the main safety concerns, improving the connectivity to Gottingen and North Street, removing a hill which itself isn't safe, and overall making cycling a more enjoyable experience - something that is necessary to some degree if we want people to stop driving as much. Further, given the increasing development in Halifax and that development on the Dartmouth side that is in the works, one could foresee this bridge becoming a very well used bike corridor in the future if given the right design. Unfortunately, at the moment the city seems incapable of actually following through on anything related to bike infrastructure that's not a light or one of those silly curbs being installed all over the place now, neither of which by the way improve the cycling experience much at all imo.