Halifax Active Transportation

[Keith P.]

Strangely enough, the Halifax Cycling Coalition is not a credible source for anything to do with cycling. They are a lobby group, nothing more. Their $2 million figure is likely based on some very creative accounting. They originally said the cost would be $5 million. The current estimate of $12 million will likely be closer to $20 million if the thing ever gets built. All the more reason to find a way that does not require building it at all.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by LikesBikes

There's a lot to go through here.



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/w...-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.

Do you really think this? In my experience people care about other people and don't want to harm them - this includes people who drive cars (although the cycling coalition probably doesn't want you to believe this).

Yeah, there are rude crackpots out there who will yell at you or whatever, but they're not intentionally mowing you down, or you wouldn't be writing here. Furthermore, if this were happening on a regular basis, it would be in the news every day, and people would be going to jail for it.

If it were really that bad, then separated bike lanes wouldn't help you anyhow, unless there were reinforced concrete walls dividing the bike lane from the car traffic, and if there were, and people hated cyclists so much, they'd wait until you had to cross a street, or pull out a gun and shoot you. It sounds ridiculous, but that's how your assertion sounds to me. Ridiculous.

If you want to cling to the idea that it's really that bad, then maybe Keith was right - the only safe way to cycle is for underground tunnels for bicycles only. The cycling coalition should be lobbying council for this - they'd probably get it, though it might take awhile for them to get around to it, if you consider delays in other infrastructure projects, like Cogswell for example.

The 16 year old kid in Texas, who in your article was described as trying to 'roll coal' on them but couldn't handle the truck enough to not hit cyclists, is an idiot nutjob (but even then apparently wasn't trying to run over cyclists), like many other idiot nutjobs out there in society that we have to put up with. If there were stats available, I wouldn't be surprised if more people are injured/killed from mass shootings in the US, than cyclists intentionally run over by drivers. TBH, I'm not sure why you would pick that article to prove your point, other than focusing on the perceived hatred that drivers are supposed to have against cyclists (us vs them... it's the common theme of the day).

As far as using Facebook (or twitter, or reddit, or instagram, etc etc) as a barometer by which to judge society's values... you shouldn't. If you want to read the worst that society has to offer, then those are good sources. But really... "step away from the facebook", you'll be better off for it.

Originally Posted by LikesBikes

Second, I don't think we should just accept cyclists injuries and deaths because "driving is hard".

Nobody said that. I used examples where there can be so many things going on, including poor visibility, that can be conducive to accidents happening between cars and bikes... i.e. an argument for separated bike lanes. I'm arguing for the same thing you are, yet you still are trying to change the narrative to something I wasn't saying in the first place.

I'm guessing that you have never driven a car, or otherwise I wouldn't have to explain this to you.

Originally Posted by LikesBikes

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.

I already said that I'm clinging to the 'build it and they will come' thing, but it still doesn't change my thought that I wish more people would use the existing. It's my opinion, and you don't have to agree with it.

All that said, I don't take "planning principles" as law, or fact, for that matter. Planning ideals have changed so much over the years, and current ideas will change in the future, depending on what is popular at the time. Again, feel free to disagree... this is just my opinion.

Originally Posted by LikesBikes

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.

This has already been discussed ad nauseum. I have nothing more to add.

Originally Posted by LikesBikes

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.

Again, nobody is saying that nothing should be done there. The question is whether you think that the flyover ramp is worth using up half the cycling infrastructure budget, and are you OK with major sections of the cycling network not being done to pay for this (which you've already stated is a major reason why people aren't using it).

Is a flyover ramp vs an alternative solution, that is just as safe but less convenient, worth having an incomplete cycling network in the rest of the city?

Originally Posted by LikesBikes

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

Enough said.

Originally Posted by LikesBikes

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.

Already discussed, and it's out of my hands anyhow. If (more like when) it's built, I hope it lives up to the expectations being pushed by the cycling coalition and all of their followers. Safe cycling should be available to all, and I hope that the choice build the super-deluxe bridge flyover doesn't mean that more people in other parts of the city don't have decent cycling infrastructure to use because most of the budget was blown on this.

[LikesBikes]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Do you really think this? In my experience people care about other people and don't want to harm them - this includes people who drive cars (although the cycling coalition probably doesn't want you to believe this).

According to this link, about a third of car-on-bike collisions are the result of aggressive drivers. So, do I really think some drivers intentionally violate cyclists' right to be on the road, leading to injury and death sometimes? Yes.

Further, these acts of aggression make a strong impact on how cyclists perceive the road. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of potential cyclists choose not to because they see how aggressive and crazy some drivers can be, and how little there is to protect cyclists (i.e. no protected infrastructure).

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Yeah, there are rude crackpots out there who will yell at you or whatever, but they're not intentionally mowing you down, or you wouldn't be writing here. Furthermore, if this were happening on a regular basis, it would be in the news every day, and people would be going to jail for it.

So because I'm alive I have no right to complain about bad and aggressive drivers or advocate for the right to bike safely? That's an... interesting take. In your mind does anybody have the right to complain about anything or should we all just be happy and thankful that we're alive and not try to make the world a better place.

And again, about a third of accidents are the result of aggressive drivers, so a significant portion of accidents can be attributed to these “rude crackpots”

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

If it were really that bad, then separated bike lanes wouldn't help you anyhow, unless there were reinforced concrete walls dividing the bike lane from the car traffic, and if there were, and people hated cyclists so much, they'd wait until you had to cross a street, or pull out a gun and shoot you. It sounds ridiculous, but that's how your assertion sounds to me. Ridiculous.

As long as there's a physical separation between cars and cyclists then most people on bikes will feel and be safe as it makes it harder for drivers to intentionally or unintentionally injure or kill cyclists.
The issue is drivers already have a weapon that’s better for intimidation than a gun, their car. Further, they can often excuse any aggression or intimidation that may unintentionally lead to injury or deathder with by saying it was raining, or the cyclist wasn’t flashy enough.

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

If you want to cling to the idea that it's really that bad, then maybe Keith was right - the only safe way to cycle is for underground tunnels for bicycles only. The cycling coalition should be lobbying council for this - they'd probably get it, though it might take awhile for them to get around to it, if you consider delays in other infrastructure projects, like Cogswell for example.

Again, a metre-wide bike lane or MUP is all anybody wants. That is usually enough to prevent unintentional and intentional road violence. If you want to put cars in tunnels under the city though then I think a certain Elongated Muskrat may have something to sell you.

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

The 16 year old kid in Texas, who in your article was described as trying to 'roll coal' on them but couldn't handle the truck enough to not hit cyclists, is an idiot nutjob (but even then apparently wasn't trying to run over cyclists), like many other idiot nutjobs out there in society that we have to put up with.

As you say, our society is filled with idiot nutjobs who drive cars the size of tanks. We can choose to do nothing about this and face the consequences (more deaths and injuries) or build some basic infrastructure which will protect all users of the road.

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

If there were stats available, I wouldn't be surprised if more people are injured/killed from mass shootings in the US, than cyclists intentionally run over by drivers.

So because if fewer people are being killed by aggressive drivers than mass shootings are we not allowed to complain about cyclists’ deaths and injury? If so I don't get what a lot of people are doing always complaining about bike lanes when I haven't heard of a bike lane ever killing somebody. Or did the cycling coalition cover that story up?

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

As far as using Facebook (or twitter, or reddit, or instagram, etc etc) as a barometer by which to judge society's values... you shouldn't. If you want to read the worst that society has to offer, then those are good sources. But really... "step away from the facebook", you'll be better off for it.

I disagree. Online is often a dirty and scary place, but it absolutely impacts the real world and can be a barometer for how people feel. It’s obviously not a total reflection of everybody, but I think it can help us understand the state of society somewhat (ie it’s not pretty).

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Nobody said that. I used examples where there can be so many things going on, including poor visibility, that can be conducive to accidents happening between cars and bikes... i.e. an argument for separated bike lanes. I'm arguing for the same thing you are, yet you still are trying to change the narrative to something I wasn't saying in the first place.

Sorry, I misinterpreted you and admit I was wrong. In my defense I haven't totally gotten used to writing on SSP and may miss some things).

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I already said that I'm clinging to the 'build it and they will come' thing, but it still doesn't change my thought that I wish more people would use the existing. It's my opinion, and you don't have to agree with it.
All that said, I don't take "planning principles" as law, or fact, for that matter. Planning ideals have changed so much over the years, and current ideas will change in the future, depending on what is popular at the time. Again, feel free to disagree... this is just my opinion.

I will disagree with you, don't worry about that!

As a thought experiment, let’s say the idea that if you build it they will come isn't true. How would this work for car infrastructure - i.e., there's no roads, no highways, no nothing. Would we expect car to appear then? Probably not. Build car infrastructure though, then the cars will come.

Imagine a downtown without sidewalks - would people still walk? Probably a little bit but not as much as they would if there were sidewalks.

Now, we don't have to imagine, a city with barely any protected bike infrastructure. Will some people bike in the city? Ok course, as there's brave people who aren't that afraid of getting injured and people who have no other good transportation options. This however is a small minority of the total population. Build out a network, though, and people who may normall be more afraid of getting injured will start to bike more as the risk goes down.

Further, not trying to be facetious, but are there any cities that have not built it but are still good cycling cities? Every good cycling city I know also has good infrastructure (i.e., Montreal, Amsterdam, Copenhagen, certain neighbourhoods of Vancouver, Winnipeg and Ottawa). Tokyo may be somewhat of an exception but they have narrow streets often that can act like traffic-calmed streets in North America, at least that’s my understanding of it.

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

The question is whether you think that the flyover ramp is worth using up half the cycling infrastructure budget, and are you OK with major sections of the cycling network not being done to pay for this (which you've already stated is a major reason why people aren't using it).

Is a flyover ramp vs an alternative solution, that is just as safe but less convenient, worth having an incomplete cycling network in the rest of the city?

Yes. Feel free to disagree or call me hypocritical, but I think this connection is critical for linking the two major population centres of the HRM core. Ideally though wouldn't have to be one or the other and we could build more protected bike lanes while at the same time doing this project.

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Enough said.

Maybe I was wrong as I can't find the exact number. Still, the money runs out in 2024 so if this bridge isn't built before then the City is going to be on the hook for 100% of the bike infrastructure. If we care about fiscal responsibility then this shouldn't be acceptable.

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Already discussed, and it's out of my hands anyhow. If (more like when) it's built, I hope it lives up to the expectations being pushed by the cycling coalition and all of their followers. Safe cycling should be available to all, and I hope that the choice build the super-deluxe bridge flyover doesn't mean that more people in other parts of the city don't have decent cycling infrastructure to use because most of the budget was blown on this.

That's fair enough. I don't think you're wrong for thinking that building a network may be more important than improving the link between Halifax and Dartmouth through this bridge concept. I can see both sides to this debate but am mostly pro-flyover because that's what the plans are and theoretically that should be what we’re currently prepared to build.

Unfortunately, while we're arguing about whether to go for the network or do this fly-over, nothing on the ground seems to really be getting built and at the same time a lot of people on here, and yourself included at times, argue that we have too much bike infrastructure which is a little crazy when you compare our city with others across the country.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by LikesBikes

So because I'm alive I have no right to complain about bad and aggressive drivers or advocate for the right to bike safely? That's an... interesting take. In your mind does anybody have the right to complain about anything or should we all just be happy and thankful that we're alive and not try to make the world a better place.

No, I didn't say that. I said, sarcastically I might add, that if drivers were evil people actively trying to kill cyclists all the time, there is a high chance that you might be one of the victims. Essentially I don't agree with the attitude that if you drive a car you are a bad person who wants to harm innocent cyclists. I think that is so out to lunch I don't even want to address it anymore.

I am not saying that there aren't poor drivers, or aggressive drivers, or distracted drivers. Yes, all of those are out there. But to imply that joe/jill average citizen just trying to get to work or pick up their kids, or whatever, has some evil intent to injure/kill cyclists is just not accurate.

Originally Posted by LikesBikes

As long as there's a physical separation between cars and cyclists then most people on bikes will feel and be safe as it makes it harder for drivers to intentionally or unintentionally injure or kill cyclists.
The issue is drivers already have a weapon that’s better for intimidation than a gun, their car. Further, they can often excuse any aggression or intimidation that may unintentionally lead to injury or deathder with by saying it was raining, or the cyclist wasn’t flashy enough.

Again, a metre-wide bike lane or MUP is all anybody wants. That is usually enough to prevent unintentional and intentional road violence. If you want to put cars in tunnels under the city though then I think a certain Elongated Muskrat may have something to sell you.

Again, you seem to think I am arguing against protected bike lanes, and therefore think you have to twist my words to fit your narrative.

And also again, you're pushing the homicidal driver angle. If a crazed maniac wants to kill cyclists, a curb is not going to protect anybody. A car or truck can easily jump any curb or plow through any separators short of a concrete wall.
Yet separated cycle lanes do work in keeping cyclists safe. Why? Because it provides a visible separation so that average drivers can easily understand where the roadway is, and bikes will stay within the barriers... it prevents accidents. Notice the word is accidents and not intentional collisions by homicidal motorists.

If every cycling activist pushes the idea that drivers are bad people who want to intentionally kill cyclists, then nobody outside of their activism group will take them seriously, as people who drive cars will know that they or other people they know wouldn't dream of intentionally hitting a cyclist (or pedestrian, or other car, etc, for that matter). Really, IMHO you are doing your cycling community a disservice by using that language.

Now, if we want to talk about avoiding accidents, I'm with you all day. Keep pushing the 'drivers intentionally wanting to harm, or "mow down" cyclists' angle, and my eyes will glaze over and I'll move on to another post.

Originally Posted by LikesBikes

As you say, our society is filled with idiot nutjobs who drive cars the size of tanks. We can choose to do nothing about this and face the consequences (more deaths and injuries) or build some basic infrastructure which will protect all users of the road.

Again, I'm not saying we should do "nothing". In fact, I'm saying quite the opposite. Why do you choose to twist my words rather than attempt to understand the point I'm trying to get across. This is becoming exhausting.

Originally Posted by LikesBikes

So because if fewer people are being killed by aggressive drivers than mass shootings are we not allowed to complain about cyclists’ deaths and injury? If so I don't get what a lot of people are doing always complaining about bike lanes when I haven't heard of a bike lane ever killing somebody. Or did the cycling coalition cover that story up?

Huh? I don't understand. Nobody is saying that.

Originally Posted by LikesBikes

I disagree. Online is often a dirty and scary place, but it absolutely impacts the real world and can be a barometer for how people feel. It’s obviously not a total reflection of everybody, but I think it can help us understand the state of society somewhat (ie it’s not pretty).

I can respect your opinion on that, as there are certainly different ways of interpreting online discourse. In my opinion, much of social media is taken up by a small percentage of the population using extreme language to overemphasize the point that they are trying to make. These past number of years have shown out how much misinformation is often spread on these platforms. Therefore, to my way of thinking, there is little of it to be trusted, and not much of value.

It's not about being "pleasant" or "pretty". It's about what is real and what is being posted to try to persuade the public into thinking a certain way. YMMV.

Originally Posted by LikesBikes

Sorry, I misinterpreted you and admit I was wrong. In my defense I haven't totally gotten used to writing on SSP and may miss some things).

It's all good. Just trying to keep it real.

Originally Posted by LikesBikes

As a thought experiment, let’s say the idea that if you build it they will come isn't true. How would this work for car infrastructure - i.e., there's no roads, no highways, no nothing. Would we expect car to appear then? Probably not. Build car infrastructure though, then the cars will come.

Imagine a downtown without sidewalks - would people still walk? Probably a little bit but not as much as they would if there were sidewalks.

Now, we don't have to imagine, a city with barely any protected bike infrastructure. Will some people bike in the city? Ok course, as there's brave people who aren't that afraid of getting injured and people who have no other good transportation options. This however is a small minority of the total population. Build out a network, though, and people who may normall be more afraid of getting injured will start to bike more as the risk goes down.

Further, not trying to be facetious, but are there any cities that have not built it but are still good cycling cities? Every good cycling city I know also has good infrastructure (i.e., Montreal, Amsterdam, Copenhagen, certain neighbourhoods of Vancouver, Winnipeg and Ottawa). Tokyo may be somewhat of an exception but they have narrow streets often that can act like traffic-calmed streets in North America, at least that’s my understanding of it.

I already said I am clinging to the 'build it and they will come' line of thought. I reserve the right to be disappointed that the existing isn't used more than it is, and to consider the possibility that it could be still underused once it's all built out. That said, I still think they should build it. And I still think that transit needs to be improved immensely - in fact I wish the city put as much thought into transit as they have into bike lanes.

Not to criticize your thought experiment, but it's a little extreme. Sure, if there were no roads, people wouldn't be able to drive cars. On the other side, if you build 10-lane roads everywhere, they will not be filled with cars - people are not going to think "look at all the room on that 10 lane road - I have nowhere to go but I have to use the road because it's there". This is where I think that current planning thought falls short with their stance on "induced demand", FWIW.

Your sidewalk analogy is fair, and is why I think that there should be bike infrastructure built.

That said, people do have the option of riding their bikes on the roads, and most people, I think, will choose a route that's less busy, like a quiet side street rather than the busiest thoroughfare that runs parallel. That's what I did many years ago when there were zero bike lanes. If I came to a hazardous intersection, I would choose to walk the bike across, like a pedestrian, and then continue on my way after that. So, this is not equivalent to having zero roads for cars to drive on... but I still agree that having a complete, connected network will be better, more convenient, and safer for cyclists. It's what we should do to improve our city (and improve transit).

Originally Posted by LikesBikes

That's fair enough. I don't think you're wrong for thinking that building a network may be more important than improving the link between Halifax and Dartmouth through this bridge concept. I can see both sides to this debate but am mostly pro-flyover because that's what the plans are and theoretically that should be what we’re currently prepared to build.

Unfortunately, while we're arguing about whether to go for the network or do this fly-over, nothing on the ground seems to really be getting built and at the same time a lot of people on here, and yourself included at times, argue that we have too much bike infrastructure which is a little crazy when you compare our city with others across the country.

Again, I never said that improvements shouldn't be made, quite the opposite actually. I only questioned whether this solution is the one that should get the majority of funding.

I don't think I ever argued that we have too much bike infrastructure. I've argued that citizens have the right to question whether the infrastructure decisions being made are the best ones, and others have seemingly wanted to suggest that none of it should be questioned, and if we do question it, then we should be categorized as "anti-bike". Like, you're either a bicycling activist, or you are against all things related to bicycles. This just removes the nuances and good discussion that could happen, and condenses down to simplistic, binary discussion points. Or in other words, a waste of time.

[LikesBikes]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

No, I didn't say that. I said, sarcastically I might add, that if drivers were evil people actively trying to kill cyclists all the time, there is a high chance that you might be one of the victims. Essentially I don't agree with the attitude that if you drive a car you are a bad person who wants to harm innocent cyclists. I think that is so out to lunch I don't even want to address it anymore.

I am not saying that there aren't poor drivers, or aggressive drivers, or distracted drivers. Yes, all of those are out there. But to imply that joe/jill average citizen just trying to get to work or pick up their kids, or whatever, has some evil intent to injure/kill cyclists is just not accurate.

I never said all drivers are bad. I simply insinuated there are many bad drivers out there, and this results in injuries and death and people being afraid to bike. The purpose of my statement was to say that the argument that, whether sarcastic or not (it’s hard to tell without the /s), I’d be a victim already if it was a serious issue is a silly argument.

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

If a crazed maniac wants to kill cyclists, a curb is not going to protect anybody. A car or truck can easily jump any curb or plow through any separators short of a concrete wall.

Yet separated cycle lanes do work in keeping cyclists safe. Why? Because it provides a visible separation so that average drivers can easily understand where the roadway is, and bikes will stay within the barriers... it prevents accidents. Notice the word is accidents and not intentional collisions by homicidal motorists.

I think protected infrastructure can go a long way in protecting cyclists from drivers of all kind – aggressive drivers, bad drivers, distracted,and good drivers who have bad luck and accidentally hit someone on a bike for no reason of their own (e.g., black ice or medical emergency while driving). If instead of being on the side of the road with no protected infrastructure, they were on a pathway or protected bike lane, I don’t think they’d be as likely to be hit. You said you were in agreement that bike infrastructure is good so this shouldn’t be a controversial opinion to you.

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

If every cycling activist pushes the idea that drivers are bad people who want to intentionally kill cyclists, then nobody outside of their activism group will take them seriously, as people who drive cars will know that they or other people they know wouldn't dream of intentionally hitting a cyclist (or pedestrian, or other car, etc, for that matter). Really, IMHO you are doing your cycling community a disservice by using that language.

Now, if we want to talk about avoiding accidents, I'm with you all day. Keep pushing the 'drivers intentionally wanting to harm, or "mow down" cyclists' angle, and my eyes will glaze over and I'll move on to another post.

Again, you're putting words into my mouth. I don’t think anybody actually believes all drivers are bad (although the car coalition probably doesn't want you to believe this ).

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Huh? I don't understand. Nobody is saying that.

It sounded like you were insinuating that such a small number of cyclists are killed by aggressive drivers that it’s not an issue worth thinking about. I disagreed.

On your later points, I’m glad to hear you still think bike infrastructure should be built. I know you will say you’ve always been in support of it but your comments often point in the other direction, so please forgive any misunderstanding on my part. I read your comments questioning dangers faced by cyclists on the road and my lived experience plus family’s and friends’ experience make me very passionate about advocating on this issue. We may disagree on specifics, such as bridge vs. no bridge but if you understand that more cycling infrastructure is needed to improve safety and cycling in the city then we’re ultimately in general agreement.

I am happy to discuss nuances, and often get frustrated on this forum because every mention of cycling turns into a heated debate over whether cycling should be allowed at all or not with language turning into “War on cars”, and “crazy cycling zealots” or other ridiculous statements (e.g., references to the Taliban). I suspect you may consider me guilty of this as well but I would disagree, as I have never gotten down to the level of incendiary language used by some people on this site. I just have a very controversial username that states I like bikes.

[OldDartmouthMark]

I think it would surprise you that we probably agree on more points than not, but there seems to have been a communication gap that I don't understand the reason for.

Regardless, I think this discussion has run its course. Time to move on.

[LikesBikes]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Regardless, I think this discussion has run its course. Time to move on.

Glad you agree.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by LikesBikes

According to this link, about a third of car-on-bike collisions are the result of aggressive drivers. So, do I really think some drivers intentionally violate cyclists' right to be on the road, leading to injury and death sometimes? Yes.

"I read it on the internet, so it must be true!"

And again, about a third of accidents are the result of aggressive drivers, so a significant portion of accidents can be attributed to these “rude crackpots”

See above.

The issue is drivers already have a weapon that’s better for intimidation than a gun, their car. Further, they can often excuse any aggression or intimidation that may unintentionally lead to injury or deathder with by saying it was raining, or the cyclist wasn’t flashy enough.

Moe M. Downe lives, apparently. Jeebus.

As you say, our society is filled with idiot nutjobs who drive cars the size of tanks.

Again, see above.

So because if fewer people are being killed by aggressive drivers than mass shootings are we not allowed to complain about cyclists’ deaths and injury? If so I don't get what a lot of people are doing always complaining about bike lanes when I haven't heard of a bike lane ever killing somebody. Or did the cycling coalition cover that story up?

Where does one even start with stuff like this?

Sorry, I misinterpreted you and admit I was wrong. In my defense I haven't totally gotten used to writing on SSP and may miss some things).

Clearly, govt needs to create a program at great public cost to prevent a few people from doing things wrong because they persist in doing an activity that they cannot get a handle on. We'll get right on that.

Unfortunately, while we're arguing about whether to go for the network or do this fly-over, nothing on the ground seems to really be getting built

You make that sound like a bad thing.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by LikesBikes

Glad you agree.

Yeah, I should have listened to my inner voice and put an end to it a few posts ago...

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Or in other words, a waste of time.

Trying to convince somebody that the vast majority of people are just using the roads and their cars to go about their lives, and are not targeting cyclists, is senseless when that person is just trying to push an agenda... even when it doesn't make sense.

That is, unless you actually believe some of the stuff you posted about that.

Either way, yeah, this conversation has ended.

[LikesBikes]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Yeah, I should have listened to my inner voice and put an end to it a few posts ago...



Trying to convince somebody that the vast majority of people are just using the roads and their cars to go about their lives, and are not targeting cyclists, is senseless when that person is just trying to push an agenda... even when it doesn't make sense.

That is, unless you actually believe some of the stuff you posted about that.

Either way, yeah, this conversation has ended.

This shouldn't be that hard to understand, I never said, nor do I think, that all drivers are trying to target cyclists. I don't know why you keep going back to this.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by LikesBikes

This shouldn't be that hard to understand, I never said, nor do I think, that all drivers are trying to target cyclists. I don't know why you keep going back to this.

This has approached the level of silliness. I also never said that you think "all" drivers are trying to target cyclists, but it appears to be usual for you to take something that somebody writes, and then step it up to be something different that suits your purpose.

To my interpretation, the quotes below imply that you think that drivers intending to "mow down cyclist" is quite common. You start it off with a stark statement, but then seem to slowly dilute it as the discussion evolves.

I see now that it wasn't your intent, so I apologize for my misinterpretation. Let's let this go now, as I have no interest in continuing this discussion.

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.

Originally Posted by LikesBikes

First - the assumption that drivers don't want to mow down cyclists isn't always necessarily true.

*snip*

Further, there's many stories of drivers intentionally mowing down cyclists - e.g., https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-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.

Originally Posted by LikesBikes

So, do I really think some drivers intentionally violate cyclists' right to be on the road, leading to injury and death sometimes? Yes.

[LikesBikes]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

This has approached the level of silliness. I also never said that you think "all" drivers are trying to target cyclists, but it appears to be usual for you to take something that somebody writes, and then step it up to be something different that suits your purpose.

Your ongoing assertions that I have more extreme views than I actually do are getting to be very annoying. All I have ever said is that some drivers are bad, some drivers are aggressive, and that bike infrastructure is necessary to prevent injury and death. Each time I say this you accuse me of saying all drivers are evil. Examples being:

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

But to imply that joe/jill average citizen just trying to get to work or pick up their kids, or whatever, has some evil intent to injure/kill cyclists is just not accurate.

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Trying to convince somebody that the vast majority of people are just using the roads and their cars to go about their lives, and are not targeting cyclists, is senseless when that person is just trying to push an agenda... even when it doesn't make sense.

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

To my interpretation, the quotes below imply that you think that drivers intending to "mow down cyclist" is quite common. You start it off with a stark statement, but then seem to slowly dilute it as the discussion evolves.

I see now that it wasn't your intent, so I apologize for my misinterpretation. Let's let this go now, as I have no interest in continuing this discussion.

My quotes don’t ever suggest what you have accused me of. I used strong language of “mow” but that can be intentional or unintentional – both types of collision are significant and are worth considering when we build a transportation network for cyclists. I’m glad you’ve finally realized you misinterpreted my words. Hopefully we can move on now.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by LikesBikes

getting to be very annoying

The feeling is mutual.

Originally Posted by LikesBikes

Hopefully we can move on now.

I've been trying to move on for several posts now. Please stop.

[LikesBikes]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I've been trying to move on for several posts now.

Sure you have.



In other news, a spokesman from the province said that funding for AT infrastructure should continue till 2028, so even though the flyover on the Macdonald bridge won't be built until 2024 (at the earliest), the city will still get the sweet deal of only having to cover $2 million (yes, only $2 million), or 17% of the total cost. This is very good news.

https://www.thecoast.ca/halifax/macd...t?oid=29815417

[someone123]

Originally Posted by LikesBikes

In other news, a spokesman from the province said that funding for AT infrastructure should continue till 2028, so even though the flyover on the Macdonald bridge won't be built until 2024 (at the earliest), the city will still get the sweet deal of only having to cover $2 million, or 17% of the costs according to this article. This is very good news.

https://www.thecoast.ca/halifax/macd...t?oid=29815417

This will be a $2M or so spend from the municipality for a key piece of infrastructure that is leveraged to get a larger amount of federal funding, and people are making a big deal out of it as an example of waste or bad priorities?

Isn't the flyover an example of cycling infrastructure that adds capacity rather than coming at the expense of road capacity for other vehicles?

[OldDartmouthMark]

That's great news!

Thanks for finally providing a source for the (previously mysterious) cost to the city. I agree it's a good deal to get provincial and federal funding that probably would have just gone elsewhere anyhow. A win-win.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by someone123

This will be a $2M or so spend from the municipality for a key piece of infrastructure that is leveraged to get a larger amount of federal funding, and people are making a big deal out of it as an example of waste or bad priorities?

I notice that you consistently seem to look at federal largesse as somehow being "free". But it all comes out of taxpayer pockets. The substantial payment I (and many others) make to Justin early every year attests to that.

I do not know the total number of taxpayer accounts in NS . For our back-of- the-envelope figuring, let's call that number 700,000. So we would be looking at $15-$20 from each NS taxpayer to pay for this (since further inflation of the $12.x million cost is likely).

But in this case, because it is a uniquely local project that benefits nobody outside HRM since the municipality is so sprawling and bicycles are generally not used for long-distance travel, we should only attribute the burden to HRM residents. So let's say $30 to $40 for every resident of HRM who pays taxes. It doesn't matter that HRM is only on the hook for $2M, as it is all public money regardless of what the final cost may be, which comes out of taxpayer pockets. Could each of those individuals make good use of an extra $40 in their pockets? I have no doubt they could. Could $12M in public funds be used to improve the greater good more than this project would? Again, I have no doubt that is true. Do those taxpayers receive any benefit from funding this specific project? Not really, certainly not for more than a tiny handful. It is a vanity project when you get right down to it, especially when other far less expensive options that would achieve much the same effect exist.

This particular project is adding capacity to a segment that does not require added capacity. It is addressing an inconvenience, nothing more. Whatever it costs, it is not free.

[Arrdeeharharharbour]

Originally Posted by LikesBikes

Sure you have.



In other news, a spokesman from the province said that funding for AT infrastructure should continue till 2028, so even though the flyover on the Macdonald bridge won't be built until 2024 (at the earliest), the city will still get the sweet deal of only having to cover $2 million (yes, only $2 million), or 17% of the total cost. This is very good news.

https://www.thecoast.ca/halifax/macd...t?oid=29815417

Thank goodness! Great news becasue we all know that the province has magic money growing trees and none of those funds will come from us tax payers.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

I notice that you consistently seem to look at federal largesse as somehow being "free". But it all comes out of taxpayer pockets. The substantial payment I (and many others) make to Justin early every year attests to that.

I do not know the total number of taxpayer accounts in NS . For our back-of- the-envelope figuring, let's call that number 700,000. So we would be looking at $15-$20 from each NS taxpayer to pay for this (since further inflation of the $12.x million cost is likely).

That's not how it works. The feds raise money nationally and NS contributes a disproportionately small amount. They tend to announce programs in favoured areas, e.g. climate change and active transportation, that have a national budget. NS is a small province with almost no impact on the national agenda. Halifax/NS either take a piece of that pie or they don't and the money goes to other provinces that happily fund projects.

If Halifax fails to use its federal transit funding, Ottawa will not be returning money to NS taxpayers.

For many years Halifax was near the bottom for federal financing obtained through cost sharing while places like Calgary were near the top since they're always ready to match.

The municipality, province, and local economy recover a portion of federal spending so the spinoff effect can easily be positive even if there's no payoff whatsoever and the municipality has to chip in some $. The penny-pinching attitude can and does harm the local economy.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by someone123

Isn't the flyover an example of cycling infrastructure that adds capacity rather than coming at the expense of road capacity for other vehicles?

Is this adding capacity, though? It's connecting to the bridge, which has a fixed capacity, and unless there are backups of tens of cyclists waiting at the exit to the bridge due to the bottleneck created by... I'm not sure... car traffic I suppose, it is not adding capacity.

As the poster who likes bikes attests, this is about improving safety of cyclists (the most important thing), and also providing a break from the slope, apparently, for those going up to Gottingen (a nice thing, but doesn't improve capacity, unless it unlocks thousands of cyclists who decide to start commuting by bicycle because of this).

Either way, it's a good thing. In a previous post I broke down costs and made assumptions based on an old news article, but it appears that no matter how much the costs increases, the province and feds still pay the same percentage of the overall cost... making it an even better deal for HRM and not compromising the rest of the system... if I'm assuming correctly.

It's all good if it helps to keep inept drivers from "mowing down" cyclists. Worth 10 times the cost if it saves just one life.