Halifax Active Transportation

[Good Baklava]

Originally Posted by atbw

Voter turnout was the highest it's been since 2004 (48%), when Sunday shopping was an issue. This year 40% of those who could vote, did, representing an increase over the previous election in which less than 30% of people voted.

I Misread the situation, thanks for the correction!

I think I double checked but glanced over the wrong topic, extra accuracy is always appreciated!

[Summerville]

Originally Posted by Good Baklava

Voter turnout was pretty low**, but those candidates have the urban voter base that largely supports or does not oppose AT initiatives. If any of those 4 applied the same platform to Tantallon area they wouldn’t stand a chance. Let’s say Mason loses or decides not to run the next election, it’s possible you wouldn’t be a fan of his replacement either.

**Please note voter turnout statement is incorrect, as corrected by following poster.

In all seriousness Mr. Placer, I get the idea that you don’t oppose cyclists in principle but instead oppose ideas associated with them. You see the cyclist as the embodiment of a worldview and whole range of ideas in opposition to yours. Therefore, you see it fitting to poo on the party any time a new AT project or article is shared because you feel you’re preventing the progression of other crazy but unrelated ideas. You can keep doing that, but I’ll be here to bring new points and justify things that probably seem crazy to a few.

And given the positive direction that we are going, Keith and MonctonRad will have a lot to talk about in years to come....

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Summerville

And given the positive direction that we are going, Keith and MonctonRad will have a lot to talk about in years to come....

The good thing is that when they are shown to be unused and unnecessary, most of them are easily removed and the ROW put to better use. In most cases you wouldn't even need a bulldozer.

[j.graham]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

The good thing is that when they are shown to be unused and unnecessary, most of them are easily removed and the ROW put to better use. In most cases you wouldn't even need a bulldozer.

What makes you think that is likely to happen? Colder cities like Winnipeg, Edmonton, Ottawa, Calgary have all been expanding their cycling networks after initial uptake. Rainier cities like Vancouver as well. Old cities like Montreal. Hilly cities like Oslo and San Francisco.

Halifax is not nearly as unique as you think.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by j.graham

What makes you think that is likely to happen? Colder cities like Winnipeg, Edmonton, Ottawa, Calgary have all been expanding their cycling networks after initial uptake. Rainier cities like Vancouver as well. Old cities like Montreal. Hilly cities like Oslo and San Francisco.

Halifax is not nearly as unique as you think.

They are all following the flavor-of-the-month planning dogma as that is currently written. Eventually it will change.

[j.graham]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

They are all following the flavor-of-the-month planning dogma as that is currently written. Eventually it will change.

Flavour of the month?? Ottawa has been maintaining and expanding their pathway and cycling network for 50 years. Usage is still growing. Montreal had their first bike lane in 1979 and has over 500km today.

Is 40-50 years of movement in the same direction just a trend to you? Everyone else in this thread engages with good faith and evidence. Please, please, show us some respect and bring some of your own.

[Dartguard]

[QUOTE=j.graham;9112284]Flavour of the month?? Ottawa has been maintaining and expanding their pathway and cycling network for 50 years. Usage is still growing. Montreal had their first bike lane in 1979 and has over 500km today.

Is 40-50 years of movement in the same direction just a trend to you? Everyone else in this thread engages with good faith and evidence. Please, please, show us some respect and bring some of your own.[/QUOTE

Ottawa has been a planners Nirvana since the first Trudeau ruled. I used to live there as a kid and the National Capital Commission is a good Idea Fairy
Volcano of over resourced virtue infused, how can we be better than Washington silliness. But what are you going to do with the second coldest National Capital on the Planet. NO-ONE bikes in Ottawa in January but the lanes are there.

[Good Baklava]

Originally Posted by Dartguard

Ottawa has been a planners Nirvana since the first Trudeau ruled. I used to live there as a kid and the National Capital Commission is a good Idea Fairy
Volcano of over resourced virtue infused, how can we be better than Washington silliness. But what are you going to do with the second coldest National Capital on the Planet. NO-ONE bikes in Ottawa in January but the lanes are there.

Completely false. I worked in Gatineau last winter and 2 coworkers from a 6 person team biked, not to mention the strangers I also saw braving the slushy streets.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Good Baklava

Completely false. I worked in Gatineau last winter and 2 coworkers from a 6 person team biked, not to mention the strangers I also saw braving the slushy streets.

The question would be why these people are not being treated by our much ballyhooed health care system for their irrational and dangerous behavior that no sane person would even consider.

[Dartguard]

Originally Posted by keith p.

the question would be why these people are not being treated by our much ballyhooed health care system for their irrational and dangerous behavior that no sane person would even consider.

exactly!!

[Antigonish]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

The question would be why these people are not being treated by our much ballyhooed health care system for their irrational and dangerous behavior that no sane person would even consider.

I get it that biking in January is really unpleasant for 97% of the population, but for the remaining 8-9 months of the year that infrastructure is going to be used by a lot of people when it's desirable. Why pull the plug on all of it because it won't be used to its full potential 24/7/365? Seems rather short-sighted.

This same problem happened in Saskatoon. They finally built dedicated bike lanes in the CBD connecting Nutana and the University area with downtown but then people whined and complained about reduced street parking. Then the council ripped out the bike lanes so cyclists had to use the car lanes to get around and the anti-bike crowd freaked out again. Like, you can't win no matter what you try to do so why not build infrastructure that keeps cyclists out of car lanes for commuters? People want to have their cake and eat it too.

[pchipman]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

The question would be why these people are not being treated by our much ballyhooed health care system for their irrational and dangerous behavior that no sane person would even consider.

One could say the same thing about alcoholics, smokers, sky divers, motorcyclists, etc.. the list could go on and on. What is a major risk for one is a lifestyle for another. We generally respect and accept personal freedoms in this manner, but I suppose this is a matter of debate for the merits of a public health care system.

[Summerville]

Originally Posted by pchipman

One could say the same thing about alcoholics, smokers, sky divers, motorcyclists, etc.. the list could go on and on. What is a major risk for one is a lifestyle for another. We generally respect and accept personal freedoms in this manner, but I suppose this is a matter of debate for the merits of a public health care system.

Being overly negative is not good for your blood pressure, but some people make it as a lifestyle choice as well

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Antigonish

I get it that biking in January is really unpleasant for 97% of the population, but for the remaining 8-9 months of the year that infrastructure is going to be used by a lot of people when it's desirable.

But that never happens. Even in midsummer most of the bike lanes remain largely unused here. They are the very definition of a solution in search of a problem. Do we really need these when they have an average usage rate of 2 to 4 bicycles an hour?

[Good Baklava]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

But that never happens. Even in midsummer most of the bike lanes remain largely unused here. They are the very definition of a solution in search of a problem. Do we really need these when they have an average usage rate of 2 to 4 bicycles an hour?

It’s only this year that we’re developing a proper network, so I’d be curious to see how ridership has evolved over the years. It would be like only doing traffic counts on a Sunday and using that to justify road design. With the numbers you gave, the answer would really depend on the type of bike lane and what neighbourhood we’re in. How many people use your typical suburban sidewalk? Probably not many but they’re nice to have.

[Nouvellecosse]

The main point is that active transportation naysayers have no business criticising anyone advocating for their transportation priorities when the whole reason we're in this mess is because their side lobbied even more aggressively for changes that at the time were far more radical back when the majority of people weren't motorists. So criticizing anyone else for lobbying to partially reverse the damage from their side's (big-moneyed, elitist) lobbying is the height of hypocrisy.

In reality, we hear these stupid naysayer arguments over and over again and unfortunately they don't get any less stupid over time. Of course bike lanes will always look emptier than they actually are because the car lanes host not just people transporting themselves but also over a thousand kg of metal and other materials at the same time in the form of their vehicles which have room for several passengers and cargo but most often are carrying only the driver. If every cyclist carried all that extra shit everywhere they went bike lanes would look much fuller. And of course there aren't proportionally many cyclists now when most people feel unsafe cycling with the current mostly auto-centric road design in mixed traffic. But in reality, bike lanes are not less used than many sidewalks or many side streets across the metro and funding for them is not controversial. And bike lanes mostly use space previously occupied by car parking (the turnover rate of parked cars is often lower than the number of bike lane users) or reducing needlessly wide lane sizes rather than replacing general traffic lanes.

But regardless, bike lanes don't need to justify their existence based on car counts. And most importantly, whether or not we "need" bike lanes isn't up to people who have no intention of ever using them. (We don't "need" many things that can still be beneficial and desired by the community.) Cyclists, pedestrians, and other active transportation users are all entitled to claim public space as citizens and taxpayers, regardless of the approval of dogmatic naysayers.

I realize none of the dogmatic motorists will ever be convinced by any amount of facts or reason so me spending time addressing such stupidity isn't for their benefit. It's simply for the benefit of those who may not be familiar with the topic who may stumble across these publicly accessible discussions in order to avoid them potentially being misled. We've seen it demonstrated enough times that it doesn't work to just ignore stupidity in the hopes that it will just go away assuming everyone can automatically see through it. In reality it will fester and spread if it isn't actively counteracted.

[Dartguard]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

The main point is that active transportation naysayers have no business criticising anyone advocating for their transportation priorities when the whole reason we're in this mess is because their side lobbied even more aggressively for changes that at the time were far more radical back when the majority of people weren't motorists. So criticizing anyone else for lobbying to partially reverse the damage from their side's (big-moneyed, elitist) lobbying is the height of hypocrisy.

In reality, we hear these stupid naysayer arguments over and over again and unfortunately they don't get any less stupid over time. Of course bike lanes will always look emptier than they actually are because the car lanes host not just people transporting themselves but also over a thousand kg of metal and other materials at the same time in the form of their vehicles which have room for several passengers and cargo but most often are carrying only the driver. If every cyclist carried all that extra shit everywhere they went bike lanes would look much fuller. And of course there aren't proportionally many cyclists now when most people feel unsafe cycling with the current mostly auto-centric road design in mixed traffic. But in reality, bike lanes are not less used than many sidewalks or many side streets across the metro and funding for them is not controversial. And bike lanes mostly use space previously occupied by car parking (the turnover rate of parked cars is often lower than the number of bike lane users) or reducing needlessly wide lane sizes rather than replacing general traffic lanes.

But regardless, bike lanes don't need to justify their existence based on car counts. And most importantly, whether or not we "need" bike lanes isn't up to people who have no intention of ever using them. (We don't "need" many things that can still be beneficial and desired by the community.) Cyclists, pedestrians, and other active transportation users are all entitled to claim public space as citizens and taxpayers, regardless of the approval of dogmatic naysayers.

I realize none of the dogmatic motorists will ever be convinced by any amount of facts or reason so me spending time addressing such stupidity isn't for their benefit. It's simply for the benefit of those who may not be familiar with the topic who may stumble across these publicly accessible discussions in order to avoid them potentially being misled. We've seen it demonstrated enough times that it doesn't work to just ignore stupidity in the hopes that it will just go away assuming everyone can automatically see through it. In reality it will fester and spread if it isn't actively counteracted.

The arrogance in your statement is breathtaking. You and your Ilk have decided that bike lanes are coming and that's it. Fine. When the infrastructure is fully implemented then the city's transportation department and not virtuous Biking supremist overlords will determine if they will stay . Or NOT!! The numbers in the end will determine the justification.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Dartguard

The arrogance in your statement is breathtaking. You and your Ilk have decided that bike lanes are coming and that's it. Fine. When the infrastructure is fully implemented then the city's transportation department and not virtuous Biking supremist overlords will determine if they will stay . Or NOT!! The numbers in the end will determine the justification.

There is arrogance here but certainly not on my side. I've been here for over 15 years and have spent countless hours and days attempting to have polite, gentle, measured discussions providing evidence, arguments, sources, neutral language etc. and it has been made abundantly clear that the other side isn't interested in any of it. All they're interested in is demanding that society reflects their personal desires so I've come to accept that the only option to push for improvements in the sustainability, livability, and efficiency of the urban environment is to simply oppose them. Sometimes that happens. People reach an impasse and you just have to accept it, adjust your strategy accordingly, and move on.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Dartguard

The arrogance in your statement is breathtaking. You and your Ilk have decided that bike lanes are coming and that's it. Fine. When the infrastructure is fully implemented then the city's transportation department and not virtuous Biking supremist overlords will determine if they will stay . Or NOT!! The numbers in the end will determine the justification.

There is certainly a large dose of arrogance but I think there is an even larger dose of willful ignorance. The cycling activists always see the private vehicle as the enemy (just like the overseers in Eastern Bloc countries did, because it offered the proletariat freedoms that threatened the control of those in power) and consistently fail to understand that people like having vehicles for far more reasons than just getting to and from work each day. They then attribute the popularity to shadowy lobbying and undue influence by the auto and oil industries, because Big Corporate has to be bad, right? It is just absurd. To me, it makes far more sense to use the underutilized sidewalk infrastructure for the handful of entitled cyclists who demand separation from the vehicles on roadways. And when those two modes conflict, it is a much fairer fight than the certain injury and death that results when a cyclist gets into an altercation with a dump truck.

[pchipman]

Originally Posted by Dartguard

The arrogance in your statement is breathtaking. You and your Ilk have decided that bike lanes are coming and that's it. Fine. When the infrastructure is fully implemented then the city's transportation department and not virtuous Biking supremist overlords will determine if they will stay . Or NOT!! The numbers in the end will determine the justification.

It's a shame that a strong and clear argument is considered arrogance by some. I suppose the impression of arrogance emerges a reflex to the strength of the argument.

I understand that some auto-users feel incredibly threatened by the presence of alternative forms of transportation. Why? It is clear that cars are useful in their promotion of individual freedoms and transportation - the vast infrastructure to support their use is not going anywhere. Why is such minimal public investment in cycling infrastructure so threatening? Despite some claims otherwise, bicycles can also be used by those (like me) who can't afford / don't want a car in their life to promote personal freedoms and a means of local transportation. Why try to shoehorn everyone into a car-focused lifestyle?