Halifax Active Transportation

[MonctonRad]

One thing to note is that the cycling zealots seem to feel that the road infrastructure in the city was designed exclusively for personal motors vehicles, and as such the responsibility to pay for said road infrastructure rests entirely with motorists. Cyclists bear no responsibility for maintenance of this infrastructure whatsoever.

I think it should be pointed out that even if personal motor vehicles suddenly disappeared as if by magic tomorrow, that the road infrastructure would still be there, still be necessary, and still need to be maintained.

The road network is necessary for a functioning economy, including deliveries by van and truck, and public transit by busses. Every single house in HRM will still need to have a road passing by it's front door, otherwise how would you move into your house when you take up residence, or get your furniture out when you choose to move? How will your latest iPhone get delivered by Amazon if the delivery van can't get near your house? How about mail delivery, or getting fuel delivery or getting your air conditioning unit serviced? Presumably your kids will still be getting to school via school bus.

It will be interesting to see the paradigm shift in 20 years time when virtually all vehicles are electrics, and as such, there will be no gas taxes to be paid. Where will the funds come from to pay to maintain the infrastructure? Presumably there will be some form of GPS based road toll based on usage. Who will pay this toll? Will it be only the drivers of electric cars? How about electric motorcycles? What exactly is the dividing line between an electric motorcycle and an electric bicycle? If electric bicycles are paying road tolls, then why not conventional bicycles too???

There will be a slippery slope down the road, mark my words. Once the politicians have successfully slain the personal motor vehicle, and killed the goose that laid the golden egg, then the money to maintain the roads will have to be found somewhere. Oh, you will pay, mark my words, you will pay. Bicycle road taxes are inevitable.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Of course, and like most inventions, the development advanced quickly to the highly sophisticated machines they are today. Bicycles, meanwhile, have largely stayed in statis, even still relying on tire technology that was abandoned by most everything else 60 years ago. Motorists are not driving newer versions of the Curved Dash Olds, while cyclists are still using Victorian-era designs. It is remarkable. Perhaps they should be wearing waistcoats, detachable collars, stovepipe hats and for those of the female persuasion, bustles.

Keith, it's very clear that you don't understand the principles of engineering.

Improvements happen based on need and economics. Cars are very complex machines and have to satisfy a myriad of functional requirements. These requirements have evolved and changed over the past 120 years, as have technological advancements. I'm sure I don't have to explain the differences between a car and a bike.

A bike, to the engineering world, is beauty in its simplicity. Its basic design does not require huge leaps and bounds in improvements, because it was already a good design from day 1. Of course, there have been many many incremental improvements over the years, mostly to reduce weight and improve functionality, but there is only so far you will need to go with a simple functional design. To put it in context, how much has the design of the fork and spoon been improved over the past century? Does anybody say they are outdated?

In summation, the basic bicycle is a time-honoured design that will live on long after the time when society has moved past the car. Today you can still buy a bike that is cheap, light and strong, and can get you where you need to go with no need for electricity or fuel - all it requires is a healthy operator. Of course you can buy expensive high-end bikes as well, that will do everything better, but the point is that a bike remains in reach of just about anybody who can scrape together a few hundred bucks (or much less if you buy a used one).

Now electric bikes are a relatively new innovation, kind of a hybrid between motorcycle and bicycle, that moves beyond the basic principles of simplicity of design. They will have their place, and could potentially open up the bicycle to a new group of users who perhaps have lesser physical capabilities but greater financial ones. We'll see where that goes, but the basic bicycle will live on regardless of what happens with electric bikes.

So... your assertion is basically misguided, but I won't judge if you still want to don your waistcoat, detachable collar, and stovepipe hat... I'm not a fashion snob.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Just yesterday evening I was cross Novalea at Stanley, at a marked crosswalk, and a driver in a huge Dodge Ram was roaring down the street at probably 70 or 80 km. He didn't appear to so much as touch his brakes, fcing me to literally run to clear the sidewalk. If I hadn't darted out of the way, the massive front grille of his vehicle would have killed me.

So yeah, those cyclists, weaving around foolishly, are pretty annoying. But the consequences of poor vehicle handling/driving/cycling are orders of magnitude different when talking about driving vs. cycling.

Yeah, the point is that all facets of society have examples of bad behaviour. Bringing light to specific cyclists who weren't following the rules and then implying that all cyclists are like this is disingenuous to say the least.

[Summerville]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

One thing to note is that the cycling zealots seem to feel that the road infrastructure in the city was designed exclusively for personal motors vehicles, and as such the responsibility to pay for said road infrastructure rests entirely with motorists. Cyclists bear no responsibility for maintenance of this infrastructure whatsoever.

I think it should be pointed out that even if personal motor vehicles suddenly disappeared as if by magic tomorrow, that the road infrastructure would still be there, still be necessary, and still need to be maintained.

The road network is necessary for a functioning economy, including deliveries by van and truck, and public transit by busses. Every single house in HRM will still need to have a road passing by it's front door, otherwise how would you move into your house when you take up residence, or get your furniture out when you choose to move? How will your latest iPhone get delivered by Amazon if the delivery van can't get near your house? How about mail delivery, or getting fuel delivery or getting your air conditioning unit serviced? Presumably your kids will still be getting to school via school bus.

It will be interesting to see the paradigm shift in 20 years time when virtually all vehicles are electrics, and as such, there will be no gas taxes to be paid. Where will the funds come from to pay to maintain the infrastructure? Presumably there will be some form of GPS based road toll based on usage. Who will pay this toll? Will it be only the drivers of electric cars? How about electric motorcycles? What exactly is the dividing line between an electric motorcycle and an electric bicycle? If electric bicycles are paying road tolls, then why not conventional bicycles too???

There will be a slippery slope down the road, mark my words. Once the politicians have successfully slain the personal motor vehicle, and killed the goose that laid the golden egg, then the money to maintain the roads will have to be found somewhere. Oh, you will pay, mark my words, you will pay. Bicycle road taxes are inevitable.

That was an unfortunate rant. Any fuel tax collected or transfer from the feds that isn't specifically targeted to a piece of infrastructure, just flows into general revenue. Its not earmarked for roads.

The city and the province then decide what they want to spend the revenue on.

As I recall, the province itself spends more on general maintenance than it actually received from gas tax revenue. Investment into new infrastructure comes from a different pot of cash.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

One thing to note is that the cycling zealots seem to feel that the road infrastructure in the city was designed exclusively for personal motors vehicles, and as such the responsibility to pay for said road infrastructure rests entirely with motorists. Cyclists bear no responsibility for maintenance of this infrastructure whatsoever.

I think it should be pointed out that even if personal motor vehicles suddenly disappeared as if by magic tomorrow, that the road infrastructure would still be there, still be necessary, and still need to be maintained.

The road network is necessary for a functioning economy, including deliveries by van and truck, and public transit by busses. Every single house in HRM will still need to have a road passing by it's front door, otherwise how would you move into your house when you take up residence, or get your furniture out when you choose to move? How will your latest iPhone get delivered by Amazon if the delivery van can't get near your house? How about mail delivery, or getting fuel delivery or getting your air conditioning unit serviced? Presumably your kids will still be getting to school via school bus.

It will be interesting to see the paradigm shift in 20 years time when virtually all vehicles are electrics, and as such, there will be no gas taxes to be paid. Where will the funds come from to pay to maintain the infrastructure? Presumably there will be some form of GPS based road toll based on usage. Who will pay this toll? Will it be only the drivers of electric cars? How about electric motorcycles? What exactly is the dividing line between an electric motorcycle and an electric bicycle? If electric bicycles are paying road tolls, then why not conventional bicycles too???

There will be a slippery slope down the road, mark my words. Once the politicians have successfully slain the personal motor vehicle, and killed the goose that laid the golden egg, then the money to maintain the roads will have to be found somewhere. Oh, you will pay, mark my words, you will pay. Bicycle road taxes are inevitable.

I can't speak for how cycling zealots "feel" but the point people seem to be missing is that the majority of the infrastructure is paid for by everyone through general revenues and as a country we don't supply government, tax-payer funded infrastructure based on how much tax an individual has directly contributed. That just isn't a thing. I've seen rhetoric opposing various programs due to the beneficiaries being supposedly undeserving for everything from equalization payments for poorer provinces to the social safety net, to EV tax credits and even schools (yes, i even got into a debate once with someone who thought schools should be solely paid for by those who choose the "luxury" of having children). Sometimes the argument is that people aren't deserving because they're too rich and should pay directly, sometimes because they're too poor and not paying enough taxes. it's whatever people can come up with. But as effective as it can be at turning people against one another and generating opposition to programs that rationally make sense, it just isn't a thing. That's not how government services work and we need to forget such foolishness and focus on evaluating programs based on their actual merit.

In terms of roads themselves, yes they existed before car culture and will exist after. But they existed in a completely different form and extent. In addition to the obvious difference in maintenance cost, the really striking difference is that much more road surface is needed to support high car volumes - both in terms of the widths needed to accommodate high traffic levels, and the length caused by the resulting lower density. Look at all the wide roads in places like Clayton Park and Cole Harbour. Many multi-lane roads, and many more two lane roads that are wide enough for stopped cars on the side without obstructing cars lanes. The idea that car culture results in a net revenue gain is complete myth that needs to die. It is a net revenue burden and governments will have higher net revenue once there is less inefficient traffic to accommodate. The financial unsustainability is one of the biggest reasons people are pushing for alternatives.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

One thing to note is that the cycling zealots seem to feel that the road infrastructure in the city was designed exclusively for personal motors vehicles, and as such the responsibility to pay for said road infrastructure rests entirely with motorists. Cyclists bear no responsibility for maintenance of this infrastructure whatsoever.

I think it should be pointed out that even if personal motor vehicles suddenly disappeared as if by magic tomorrow, that the road infrastructure would still be there, still be necessary, and still need to be maintained.

The road network is necessary for a functioning economy, including deliveries by van and truck, and public transit by busses. Every single house in HRM will still need to have a road passing by it's front door, otherwise how would you move into your house when you take up residence, or get your furniture out when you choose to move? How will your latest iPhone get delivered by Amazon if the delivery van can't get near your house? How about mail delivery, or getting fuel delivery or getting your air conditioning unit serviced? Presumably your kids will still be getting to school via school bus.

It will be interesting to see the paradigm shift in 20 years time when virtually all vehicles are electrics, and as such, there will be no gas taxes to be paid. Where will the funds come from to pay to maintain the infrastructure? Presumably there will be some form of GPS based road toll based on usage. Who will pay this toll? Will it be only the drivers of electric cars? How about electric motorcycles? What exactly is the dividing line between an electric motorcycle and an electric bicycle? If electric bicycles are paying road tolls, then why not conventional bicycles too???

There will be a slippery slope down the road, mark my words. Once the politicians have successfully slain the personal motor vehicle, and killed the goose that laid the golden egg, then the money to maintain the roads will have to be found somewhere. Oh, you will pay, mark my words, you will pay. Bicycle road taxes are inevitable.

To be clear, roads have been installed throughout history to provide easier access between, and within, villages, towns, and cities. Roads have existed as long as people have been moving, often starting from walking trails that eventually were made larger to accommodate horses and wagons, then enlarged again and made smoother as motor vehicles evolved that were capable of greater speed, and required smooth, wide roads in order to operate efficiently and to their capabilities. Cities always were designed with pathways or roads on which to get around, and the cost of those roads increased as they had to be engineered to a higher level to accommodate the car/truck. Eventually, roads were also recognized to be a military advantage in times of war.

Bicyclists have been on these roads, and have benefitted from them throughout this time, but as cars evolved and were capable of higher speeds, bicycling became more dangerous on public roads. This was considered to be acceptable for many years (curiously, as danger to pedestrians was recognized and sidewalks were built), but now 'we' are realizing that the risk level is unacceptable and thus roads need to evolve further. Hence bike lanes.

Each evolution is based on a need, and now the world (or at least the segment of the world that accepts science) is scrambling to mitigate climate change caused by over a century of unchecked environmental neglect. Along the way, somebody realized that while technological advancements will help to mitigate the effects climate change, simply helping a percentage of the population to leave their cars at home and to safely commute on a device that has zero environmental implications can have an effect similar to billions of dollars of technological advancements.

So my point is that nobody 'owns' the roads. They are in place to serve the needs of society, and those needs evolve as society changes. We are now witnessing just such an evolution. We all need them, and we all pay for them in one way or another, regardless of the minutia of where each individual dollar comes from. Moving forward, you can be confident that the politicians will continue to find new and creative ways to find money to pay for the roads, as they do for everything else that we need as a society. It will all work out, despite our best efforts to convince ourselves that we are barrelling into an endless pit of despair...

[Nouvellecosse]

^ Very well said. Much more congenial than I can seem to manage. lol

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Keith, it's very clear that you don't understand the principles of engineering.

Improvements happen based on need and economics. Cars are very complex machines and have to satisfy a myriad of functional requirements. These requirements have evolved and changed over the past 120 years, as have technological advancements. I'm sure I don't have to explain the differences between a car and a bike.

A bike, to the engineering world, is beauty in its simplicity. Its basic design does not require huge leaps and bounds in improvements, because it was already a good design from day 1. Of course, there have been many many incremental improvements over the years, mostly to reduce weight and improve functionality, but there is only so far you will need to go with a simple functional design. To put it in context, how much has the design of the fork and spoon been improved over the past century? Does anybody say they are outdated?

In summation, the basic bicycle is a time-honoured design that will live on long after the time when society has moved past the car. Today you can still buy a bike that is cheap, light and strong, and can get you where you need to go with no need for electricity or fuel - all it requires is a healthy operator. Of course you can buy expensive high-end bikes as well, that will do everything better, but the point is that a bike remains in reach of just about anybody who can scrape together a few hundred bucks (or much less if you buy a used one).

Now electric bikes are a relatively new innovation, kind of a hybrid between motorcycle and bicycle, that moves beyond the basic principles of simplicity of design. They will have their place, and could potentially open up the bicycle to a new group of users who perhaps have lesser physical capabilities but greater financial ones. We'll see where that goes, but the basic bicycle will live on regardless of what happens with electric bikes.

So... your assertion is basically misguided, but I won't judge if you still want to don your waistcoat, detachable collar, and stovepipe hat... I'm not a fashion snob.

I think the biggest difference is that much of a car's engineering goes into its propulsion system. For non-electric bikes, the human body is the propulsion system and the body is something that hasn't changed much for tens of thousands of years. A bike doesn't have to do as much so there isn't as much to change to begin with. Of course the food that goes into the body to ultimately power the bike has certainly changed for better or for worse. But that's a whole different story.

One rather odd thing I noticed tho is that many car drivers seem to use the same basic walk to get to their cars that people having been using since paleolithic times. You'd think they'd come up with something more modern. Perhaps a pogo stick.

[j.graham]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

The argument that they already pay their fair share is also specious. Unlike motorists, a large percentage of cyclists are neither property owners, renters, or income-earners. They are living with family, going to school or working part-time, and not paying a significant amount of taxes if any at all. Those that have moved up the ladder and actually have their own place and a job are usually in the beginning of their work life and hence still not contributing significantly, and in fact often turn to cycling as a way to avoid paying for a vehicle, fuel taxes and road fees. The group remaining that is actually contributing financially typically use cycling mostly for recreational purposes and not for commuting or non-work transportation.

This reads a lot like you just hate poor people. Please cite some sources if you're going to make hand-wavy claims like this.

The Statistics Canada report on cycling completely contradicts what you're saying. Cycling increases with income.

You are disguising your vitriol as facts.

[atbw]

Originally Posted by j.graham

This reads a lot like you just hate poor people. Please cite some sources if you're going to make hand-wavy claims like this.

The Statistics Canada report on cycling completely contradicts what you're saying. Cycling increases with income.

You are disguising your vitriol as facts.

I continuously enjoy how he dismisses facts as being made up, and counters said facts with anecdotes and opinions. Both painting cyclists as poor and on the margins of society, and as a mafia ready to ban cars and take over the streets.

I’ll say I enjoy cycling, everyone I get into cycling enjoys cycling, people who visit me in Halifax are amazed at the bike infrastructure and walk ability our city has. Even if I have an interaction with a driver (which is usually them trying to incorrectly give right of way) I’m never as miserable or frustrated on my bike as I am when I drive. Driving in traffic is not fun, and there’s never going to be a level of infrastructure that eliminates traffic. We could raze downtown and make Barrington 6 lanes and we’d still have people miserable in their cars.

Why not try something different? If it doesn’t work, adjust it, change it, move it. You can see this with the bike lanes around town — Hollis St. Beginning as a painted lane, and the concrete lane being constructed in a different manner after feedback. I’m sure the next iteration will be different too.

[Good Baklava]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

One thing to note is that the cycling zealots seem to feel that the road infrastructure in the city was designed exclusively for personal motors vehicles, and as such the responsibility to pay for said road infrastructure rests entirely with motorists. Cyclists bear no responsibility for maintenance of this infrastructure whatsoever.

I think it should be pointed out that even if personal motor vehicles suddenly disappeared as if by magic tomorrow, that the road infrastructure would still be there, still be necessary, and still need to be maintained.

The road network is necessary for a functioning economy, including deliveries by van and truck, and public transit by busses. Every single house in HRM will still need to have a road passing by it's front door, otherwise how would you move into your house when you take up residence, or get your furniture out when you choose to move? How will your latest iPhone get delivered by Amazon if the delivery van can't get near your house? How about mail delivery, or getting fuel delivery or getting your air conditioning unit serviced? Presumably your kids will still be getting to school via school bus.

It will be interesting to see the paradigm shift in 20 years time when virtually all vehicles are electrics, and as such, there will be no gas taxes to be paid. Where will the funds come from to pay to maintain the infrastructure? Presumably there will be some form of GPS based road toll based on usage. Who will pay this toll? Will it be only the drivers of electric cars? How about electric motorcycles? What exactly is the dividing line between an electric motorcycle and an electric bicycle? If electric bicycles are paying road tolls, then why not conventional bicycles too???

There will be a slippery slope down the road, mark my words. Once the politicians have successfully slain the personal motor vehicle, and killed the goose that laid the golden egg, then the money to maintain the roads will have to be found somewhere. Oh, you will pay, mark my words, you will pay. Bicycle road taxes are inevitable.

If all decisions were made this way we would live in a world which is a bit morally void. Would it not be like saying tobacco taxes outweigh healthcosts? Not that roads are unhealthy, they're just in need of a little sharing. If you don't at least have the option to walk/bike you're forced to sit in a car for a good part of the day, and that certainly isn't ideal for cardiovascular health either.

It's interesting to note that a similar argument to yours was made in the book "Perverse Cities". The author basically points out that the infrastructure which services suburbs can't be paid for by the sparce land use, leading to the argument that developers are subsidized to construct suburban developments. The proposed solution was to raise development charges in the suburbs while lowering them for more urbanized developments. It may increase the relative cost of a single family home in the long-run, but wouldn't penalize any existing homeowners.

Whether you agree with this argument is not the point I'm trying to make, because the author's solution doesn't involve taxing suburban homeowners simply because they didn't pay for roads on their own.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Moving forward, you can be confident that the politicians will continue to find new and creative ways to find money to pay for the roads, as they do for everything else that we need as a society. It will all work out, despite our best efforts to convince ourselves that we are barrelling into an endless pit of despair...

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.

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.

[IanWatson]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

One thing to note is that the cycling zealots seem to feel that the road infrastructure in the city was designed exclusively for personal motors vehicles

While roads are not exclusive for personal vehicles, road standards certainly are designed for motor vehicles (fire trucks in particular). While a bicycle (and even a pedestrian, really) can use a road for travel, it is not designed for that use. Turning radii, speed limits, surface maintenance standards, etc. are all designed to make it easy and efficient to move motor vehicles. Bicycles have different requirements, just as sidewalks are designed for pedestrian requirements.

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

the responsibility to pay for said road infrastructure rests entirely with motorists. Cyclists bear no responsibility for maintenance of this infrastructure whatsoever.

Except we seem to be talking in circles here because, as has been discussed, roads are primarily paid for through general revenue, which includes the income and property taxes from cyclists. And, I would add, not too many people are ONLY cyclists. So even people who bicycle some of the time are paying fuel taxes when they drive.

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

I think it should be pointed out that even if personal motor vehicles suddenly disappeared as if by magic tomorrow, that the road infrastructure would still be there, still be necessary, and still need to be maintained.

Yes, as you note this is a challenge with EVs. Since roads are primarily paid for with general revenues, there won't be a direct link between lower fuel use and road maintenance, but there will certainly be a hole in general revenue. This will need to be made up through some means.

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

What exactly is the dividing line between an electric motorcycle and an electric bicycle?

This division is already established for licensing purposes based on the wattage of the motor, whether the motor can drive the vehicle on its own or whether it just assists, and whether the vehicle has pedals. To be fair, it could probably use some refinement because there are those "in-between" electric scooters that have vestigial pedals to skirt the licensing requirements, but are realistically too large and fast to travel with bicycle traffic in bike lanes.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by j.graham

Cycling increases with income.

That would largely be recreational cycling, and likely is an even better correlate with bicycle purchases. Most of those hang unused on the walls of their 3-car garages in the suburbs, unused except on pleasant summer evenings and weekends.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Good Baklava

Not that roads are unhealthy, they're just in need of a little sharing.

But the cycling activists don't want to share as they always have until recently. They want their own separate infrastructure.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

In reality, there are some who simply dislike people who have a particular cultural difference and want to see them excluded and subjugated. For them, no amount of reasoning, information, or patience will quell their animosity.

...

For the latter, nothing will change their minds and you're simply allowing them to dominate the course of the discussion.

You have just described the cycling activists to a T.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

A bike, to the engineering world, is beauty in its simplicity. Its basic design does not require huge leaps and bounds in improvements, because it was already a good design from day 1. Of course, there have been many many incremental improvements over the years, mostly to reduce weight and improve functionality, but there is only so far you will need to go with a simple functional design.

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.

In summation, the basic bicycle is a time-honoured design that will live on long after the time when society has moved past the car. Today you can still buy a bike that is cheap, light and strong, and can get you where you need to go with no need for electricity or fuel - all it requires is a healthy operator.

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.

[Good Baklava]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

But the cycling activists don't want to share as they always have until recently. They want their own separate infrastructure.

That's because cyclists aren't in a position to share; they are asking motorists for room to build their own infrastructure. Knowing that safety is one of the main barriers to adopting active transportation, it's an understandable request.

The statement about cyclists and income is correct on both ends of the argument. There are two main groups; low income earners who can't afford a car and highly paid professionals who commute to work as part of a lifestyle choice. The main concern now is that adding bike lanes causes a neighbourhood to gentrify due to its increased appeal to urbanite professionals, pushing out many of the low income earners who stood to benefit the most.

[Good Baklava]

She can accomplish about 80% of the 10 km trip on dedicated trails. This is ideal.

Greenway trails are definitely ideal, and can serve more than just cyclists although they aren't applicable for travel within heavily urbanized areas. Those painted bike lanes can actually cause drivers to give less room, a point often brought up as to why bike lanes need separation. An alternative school of thought, although again not applicaple to every context, is to have slow moving streets without bike lanes, the idea being that ambiguity forces drivers to go slowly and safely share the street.

if there is ongoing demand for dedicated bicycle infrastructure, it is possible that some type of commuting fee could be proposed.

If you're close enough to downtown that you can routinely bike, you're likely already paying a premium for where you live, and reducing the need to build more road infrastructure. Given that cities are trying to encourage cycling as an alternative, it is unlikely you'll pay a toll to use a dedicated bike lane. It would be like asking pedestrians to pay a toll for using the sidewalk.

[Dmajackson]

A few updates from the AT world;

- The Dunbrack Greenway will include lighting. This was added onto the approved project which is now under construction.

- Willow Tree intersection will see tactical improvements this year. The unused spaces will blocked off (think Isleville/Young project this summer) and crosswalks will be shortened. This is purely pedestrian improvements. Right-turns from Bell onto Cogswell will be banned.

- Chricton Avenue at Oakdale and Ochterlonely at Victoria will also see tactical improvements for crosswalks. Think Agricola at Charles or Ochterlonely at Wentworth for what they will look like.

- The Rainnie Street Bikeway will be extended down Gottingen Street to Brunswick Street. This will be a six metre wide bi-directional bikeway that will end in what is currently the right-turn channel on Gottingen. In a year or two the bikeway will replace the current bike lanes on Brunswick Street and extend down to Spring Garden Road. The Doyle-SGR block already has this area set aside.

- Tender is also out for South Park Street Protected Bicycle Lane extension to Sackville Street. These will be raised bike lanes between the relocated curb and sidewalk. Only example of this style in Halifax right now is the brand new lane on Lower Water Street. There will also be improvements for Bell Road near Sackville Street.

- Not an active transportation project but traffic signals are being installed at Sackville Street at Dresden Row. This is in preparation for Spring Garden Streetscaping which will see Dresden become one-way northbound and Birmingham one-way southbound. IIRC, left-turns from Queen onto Sackville will be banned once the traffic lights are functional.

[alps]

Some images can be found on Waye Mason's Twitter:

https://twitter.com/WayeMason/status/1301593000607395841