Halifax Active Transportation

[eastcoastal]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Those local street bikeways are a perfect example of an infrastructure change made for one group (cycling devotees) that are hated by everyone else using the street. If others didn’t have to use the street it would be a non-issue. But if you do, or god forbid live on the street, they are a nightmare, and not because of the volume of cyclists since they are very sparse. They are built on the theory that all other users need to be inconvenienced to the max.

I walk/drive the Isleville bike zone frequently. Huge improvement in walking experience. Don't really notice detriment to driving experience. Can't comment on biking experience.

[OldDartmouthMark]

From the CBC's website:

Halifax updating plan for safer transportation system that reduces reliance on cars

The plan is a key part of hitting Halifax’s goal to have 30 per cent of trips made by active transportation or transit by 2031 — just five years away.

A 2022-23 Dalhousie University travel study said those types of trips were at about 19 per cent in Halifax.

Staff said most of the Integrated Mobility Plan’s original actions have been done, are in progress, or have become standard practice.

The plan aims to mostly complete a connected bike network by 2028, with rapid buses and ferries remaining other key parts of the plan.

New projects include gathering better data, evaluation of what is or isn’t working, studying transit links to other municipalities, and looking into smaller municipal vehicles for urban streets, including for Halifax Fire.

https://cdn.halifax.ca/sites/default/fil...ll/standing-committees/260326tsc1311.pdf

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I can’t help but think that the first time you stepped out onto one of your decommissioned sidewalks and have to dodge a cyclist who is using them as they are told to, there would immediately be a post on how irresponsible it is to let cyclists use sidewalks like this, etc., blah blah…

There chances of that are a number approaching zero given the tiny number of actual cyclists. What I suggested is actually done in many places and has always seemed to work quite well and at far less public expense. Things driven by a philosophical agenda instead of demonstrable need are always going to be unnecessarily expensive.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

There chances of that are a number approaching zero given the tiny number of actual cyclists. What I suggested is actually done in many places and has always seemed to work quite well and at far less public expense. Things driven by a philosophical agenda instead of demonstrable need are always going to be unnecessarily expensive.

Philosophically or not, I don’t think it’s a great idea to mix pedestrian and cycling traffic on sidewalks, which are not overly wide as it is, and were designed for walking, not vehicles moving at speed. I am imagining that you haven’t had a close call of a cyclist passing you from behind while you are walking, but it’s unpleasant at best and objectively dangerous in the worst case. Cyclists need to have their own lanes, and there are many places that don’t have sidewalks that really need them. If the city hadn’t cheaped out on all this stuff years ago, we wouldn’t even be having this conversation, because it would have been done right and getting around would be much safer for everyone.

It’s surprising to me each time this has to be explained, as it seems so obvious.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Philosophically or not, I don’t think it’s a great idea to mix pedestrian and cycling traffic on sidewalks, which are not overly wide as it is, and were designed for walking, not vehicles moving at speed. I am imagining that you haven’t had a close call of a cyclist passing you from behind while you are walking, but it’s unpleasant at best and objectively dangerous in the worst case. Cyclists need to have their own lanes, and there are many places that don’t have sidewalks that really need them. If the city hadn’t cheaped out on all this stuff years ago, we wouldn’t even be having this conversation, because it would have been done right and getting around would be much safer for everyone.

It’s surprising to me each time this has to be explained, as it seems so obvious.

I agree with this. Cycling numbers have increased rapidly, especially in certain parts of the city--there a bike routes with hundreds of bikes an hour at peak times, which absolutely would cause sidewalk congestion. Add to that the growing number of electric bikes, and heavy cargo bikes, and generally more crowded sidewalks due to population growth, and it doesn't make sense to mix bikes and pedestrians.

It slows cyclists to the point that it thwarts the efficiency of using them, and it can be dangerous for pedestrians.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Philosophically or not, I don’t think it’s a great idea to mix pedestrian and cycling traffic on sidewalks, which are not overly wide as it is, and were designed for walking, not vehicles moving at speed. I am imagining that you haven’t had a close call of a cyclist passing you from behind while you are walking, but it’s unpleasant at best and objectively dangerous in the worst case. Cyclists need to have their own lanes, and there are many places that don’t have sidewalks that really need them. If the city hadn’t cheaped out on all this stuff years ago, we wouldn’t even be having this conversation, because it would have been done right and getting around would be much safer for everyone.

It’s surprising to me each time this has to be explained, as it seems so obvious.

That’s because it isn’t.

First, I’m not talking about busy DT sidewalks. I’m talking about areas of residential streets where sidewalks are mostly empty except for occasional dog-walkers. The areas where councillors like Mason and Austin have afflicted streets with bike lane infrastructure at great and largely unnecessary expense.

Secondly, most of those streets have those underused sidewalks on both sides. It would be easy to designate one side for primarily pedestrian use and the other for bikes. In practice that would make little difference since the number of cyclists is so low. But if it miraculously grew, you have the existing grassy verges close to the curb line that people could walk in and could be hard-surfaced if it came to that.

But realistically, I always think back to a week I spent in a western US city many years ago that had a large park in the center of the city. It was a lovely, sprawling space between my hotel and the downtown, so I went for a walk there on a Sunday. It was busy with lots of pedestrians and cyclists. I quickly picked up on the protocol when I heard a voice behind me calling out “Left!” just before a cyclist zipped past on my left. That continued numerous times until I reached the downtown and nobody had any issues. It struck me all those years ago that this was the way to do it.

[DartmouthSteve]

A park is not a street. Cycling or walking in a park is for pleasure, not reallly for getting from point A to B.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by DartmouthSteve

A park is not a street. Cycling or walking in a park is for pleasure, not reallly for getting from point A to B.

It is how one got from one side of the area to the DT. It was exactly for getting from A to B given how large it was. And of course, you were not there to know any different.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

It slows cyclists to the point that it thwarts the efficiency of using them, and it can be dangerous for pedestrians.

Meanwhile, on narrow downtown streets further throttled by little used bike lanes you could say this:

"It slows motorists to the point that it thwarts the efficiency of use.* It also removes parking spaces when you finally get to where you are going, so, what is the point of trying to get there in the first place? Might just as well go to that suburban shopping mall instead.........

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

That’s because it isn’t.

First, I’m not talking about busy DT sidewalks. I’m talking about areas of residential streets where sidewalks are mostly empty except for occasional dog-walkers. The areas where councillors like Mason and Austin have afflicted streets with bike lane infrastructure at great and largely unnecessary expense.

Secondly, most of those streets have those underused sidewalks on both sides. It would be easy to designate one side for primarily pedestrian use and the other for bikes. In practice that would make little difference since the number of cyclists is so low. But if it miraculously grew, you have the existing grassy verges close to the curb line that people could walk in and could be hard-surfaced if it came to that.

But realistically, I always think back to a week I spent in a western US city many years ago that had a large park in the center of the city. It was a lovely, sprawling space between my hotel and the downtown, so I went for a walk there on a Sunday. It was busy with lots of pedestrians and cyclists. I quickly picked up on the protocol when I heard a voice behind me calling out “Left!” just before a cyclist zipped past on my left. That continued numerous times until I reached the downtown and nobody had any issues. It struck me all those years ago that this was the way to do it.

Meh. City sidewalks are notoriously bad for cycle traffic, as they were designed for pedestrians and are thus narrow, constructed of concrete which tends to shift (navigable for pedestrians but bad for cyclists) due to frost heaving, tree roots, etc., have very tight turns, and do not link up well with roadways. Cyclists would have to stop at each cross street, cross like a pedestrian, before continuing on. It would slow down cyclists significantly, and thus take away a lot of the advantage of using a bicycle for commuting due to how slow you would have to ride to navigate sidewalk layouts, pedestrians, street crossings, etc. (a fact that I'm sure you're aware of and likely why you are advocating so strongly for this idea, aside from the obvious reason). In the meantime, pedestrian/cyclist collisions would invariably occur, which reduces the safety for both groups, the exact opposite of the goal of cycling lanes. I would imagine there could even be issues with dogs getting hurt (i.e. your dog-walking example) as they would not be aware of cycliing/pedestrian rules.

The park example: Aren't cyclists already allowed to ride through parks and active trails in Halifax?

My experience in Ottawa a few years ago was not at the same level of excellence of yours in the US. While walking on the paved walkway beside the Ottawa River, I encountered many cyclists. Some would warn when coming from behind, usually with a bell, but several just whisked by unannounced. In a couple of cases, they went by at a speed and proximity that I could feel the wind rustle my shirt as they went by. I made a habit of shoulder checks, which reduced the enjoyment of the leisurely walk by the river, but even then you would miss some because they were carrying a bit of speed and would come up quickly. Had I stumbled or moved a little to the left as they went by, part of my vacation would likely have been spent in the emerg, getting my wounds tended to, a cast installed, a concussion watch, etc. Pedestrians and bikes do not mix, just like you would be aghast if you saw somebody walking down the middle of the street while you were zipping along in your car/SUV/truck. You would think that this is very unsafe, and why would a person want to risk being killed by a 4000 - 5000 lb vehicle? The same principles apply to bikes (especially fast and heavier e-bikes and scooters) and pedestrians, and cars and bikes.

On the other hand, since you have no problem with sacrificing a safe walking space for bike traffic, I wonder why you have such a problem with using a barely-driven-on side street for bicycle traffic, which still allows cars to drive on it, but with some restrictions that just reduce convenience, not safety. The cohesion of your ideology is missing a crucial link in logic.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Meanwhile, on narrow downtown streets further throttled by little used bike lanes you could say this:

"It slows motorists to the point that it thwarts the efficiency of use.* It also removes parking spaces when you finally get to where you are going, so, what is the point of trying to get there in the first place? Might just as well go to that suburban shopping mall instead.........

With cars, there isn't really any "efficiency of use" to begin with when it comes to a congested downtown setting. Without even considering safety or energy usage, they just take up too much space per person - not just while in motion but even when while parked - for them to be efficient in the most land constrained part of a city. So no, you could not say that if you want to speak accurately.

Downtowns just can't function if a majority of people insist on arriving by car. That's why in all large cities across the country, the majority of downtown visitors arrive by other modes. Halifax may not be large enough to be at that point yet, but the more it grows, the closer it gets. And being historic with narrower streets means it's closer to that point to begin with. People really need to stop with the false equivalences. The whole reason that municipalities are trying shift the modal split is that some modes are more advantages to the function of a city than others. So there's no "if you can do/say X about one then you can apply it equally to others." The equivalence doesn't exist.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

On the other hand, since you have no problem with sacrificing a safe walking space for bike traffic, I wonder why you have such a problem with using a barely-driven-on side street for bicycle traffic, which still allows cars to drive on it, but with some restrictions that just reduce convenience, not safety. The cohesion of your ideology is missing a crucial link in logic.

I’m not going to try and rebut your long-winded treatise on why nothing else will work, since most of your arguments come with their own self-destruct mechanism already. The problem is one you allude to in the last paragraph above. I have no issue with cyclists having a bike lane on residential streets. Paint them on every non-arterial street if you wish. The problem is the way they are implemented here, with largely useless and ineffective things installed at huge expense to no great effect. It is analogous to building a 6-lane freeway to every new subdivision before any buildings go up. Paint some lines, put up some signs, and see what happens. Most motorists are not the bloodthirsty monsters HRM seems to think they are.

I will touch specifically on one of your points. I hope that cyclists will indeed stop at cross-streets where that is required, even if that does go against the cyclist activist DNA. If we’re sharing the roads, we’re sharing the rules of the road.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

That's why in all large cities across the country, the majority of downtown visitors arrive by other modes. Halifax may not be large enough to be at that point yet, but the more it grows, the closer it gets.

I don't know what the stats are but I'd guess car commuters are a minority downtown. I also don't really think Halifax is behind that many other North American cities or somehow at an earlier stage of development. Larger Canadian cities like Calgary and Edmonton aren't really any less car oriented, even though they have LRT, and a lot of much larger American cities are worse. There are only really 3 Canadian cities with good transit and extensive downtown cores where it's desirable to live without a car. Halifax is probably more or less tied for 4th, with that tier including a bunch of cities of different sizes (like Ottawa and Victoria).

Halifax's bus system, for all its faults, would probably be quite far up the list in North America.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

long-winded treatise

And, we’re done!

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by someone123

I don't know what the stats are but I'd guess car commuters are a minority downtown. I also don't really think Halifax is behind that many other North American cities or somehow at an earlier stage of development. Larger Canadian cities like Calgary and Edmonton aren't really any less car oriented, even though they have LRT, and a lot of much larger American cities are worse. There are only really 3 Canadian cities with good transit and extensive downtown cores where it's desirable to live without a car. Halifax is probably more or less tied for 4th, with that tier including a bunch of cities of different sizes (like Ottawa and Victoria).

Halifax's bus system, for all its faults, would probably be quite far up the list in North America.

Calgary started building its LRT in 1978, when their population was 518,000, approximately the population of Halifax now, FWIW. It’s also a much newer city than Halifax, built on a grid system with lots of room for car traffic, but still their city government had the foresight to build an LRT, when many probably said it was too expensive or they didn’t need it.

[Dartguard]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Calgary started building its LRT in 1978, when their population was 518,000, approximately the population of Halifax now, FWIW. It’s also a much newer city than Halifax, built on a grid system with lots of room for car traffic, but still their city government had the foresight to build an LRT, when many probably said it was too expensive or they didn’t need it.

Calgary has three other attributes that help its transportation needs. Very low to nothing Hills compared to Halifax and no Ocean plus Gross Income. Calgary is richer and has been for a long time.

[Summerville]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

With cars, there isn't really any "efficiency of use" to begin with when it comes to a congested downtown setting. Without even considering safety or energy usage, they just take up too much space per person - not just while in motion but even when while parked - for them to be efficient in the most land constrained part of a city. So no, you could not say that if you want to speak accurately.

Downtowns just can't function if a majority of people insist on arriving by car. That's why in all large cities across the country, the majority of downtown visitors arrive by other modes. Halifax may not be large enough to be at that point yet, but the more it grows, the closer it gets. And being historic with narrower streets means it's closer to that point to begin with. People really need to stop with the false equivalences. The whole reason that municipalities are trying shift the modal split is that some modes are more advantages to the function of a city than others. So there's no "if you can do/say X about one then you can apply it equally to others." The equivalence doesn't exist.

My guess is approximately 85% of cars at rush hour in Halifax only have the driver and no passengers. There has to be an incentive (ie. better transit) to get people out of their cars.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Summerville

My guess is approximately 85% of cars at rush hour in Halifax only have the driver and no passengers. There has to be an incentive (ie. better transit) to get people out of their cars.

Yes, it seems an obvious thing that many other places have already done by giving high-occupancy vehicles preferential treatment over those carrying just one occupant. Unfortunately, HRM has instead spent millions and millions and inconvenienced much of the public with a bicycle lane fantasy.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Dartguard

Calgary has three other attributes that help its transportation needs. Very low to nothing Hills compared to Halifax and no Ocean plus Gross Income. Calgary is richer and has been for a long time.

So you are saying that Halifax shouldn't try to have better transit (like LRT) because it doesn't have these attributes? I think that, at 500,000 people, we should be planning for LRT now, so that as the city grows, it won't be that much more difficult/expensive to implement (we’re already behind where we should be). Right now we're just adding buses to already-crowded roadways (plus ferries, whenever that happens, but that only gets us across waterways, not through the city).

I have to ask, for all the people who say that we can’t or shouldn’t shift from basically car/bus only, what would you plan to do to deal with an ever-increasing car traffic problem? Tear down buildings to make bigger roads? Do nothing and let things continue the way they are? Hope that we experience a population decline so we can go back to the way it used to be? That’s not going to happen… in fact the feds just promised to invest something like $2 billion in the area for military purposes. Our population will continue to grow.

[someone123]

I think more difficult terrain and an older road network lend themselves to more reliance on higher-density transport like LRT. I see the "we don't have the space" or "our terrain is unusually hard to navigate" arguments deployed backwards a lot. If the terrain is challenging it's easier to run a rail line than an 8-lane highway or arterial road.

In Halifax there is basically an inner city like a European town which if it were in Europe would be served by trams. There's a ton of development in this area and the population is probably around 100,000 now. The outer suburbs meanwhile are more typical of North America and harder to serve with transit, but a lot of discussion seems to revolve around trains for those places or small towns like Windsor. The metro is also changing in that there will be high density areas outside of the core like around the bridge in Dartmouth. There's already a bus terminal there which could be a transfer point.

I don't think the argument that Calgary is wealthier means much by itself when talking about the 70s versus today. You would have to look at specific costs. Calgary is prone to boom and bust cycles as well and actually lost population in 1983 in the wake of the NEP. I'm not sure LRT would have been the slam dunk easy to build project back then that hindsight may make it look like today. Meanwhile, 2020s Calgary isn't getting all that much transit investment due to politics.