Halifax Active Transportation

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Summerville

It would seem that a lot of the griping is about what is going on now. But in reality is the city spending more on new roads and rebuilding roads than bike lanes? Per capita? Most definitely. Think of the cost of the new burnside connector.

The Burnside connector is a provincial project, made necessary by the suburban growth that has taken place over the last couple of decades and the lack of prior investment in highways. The same needs to be done with the proposed but long-delayed connection between the 103 and 102 to replace the antiquated Hammonds Plains Rd., for the same reason. We also need a third bridge across the harbor for similar reasons. Bike lanes on those routes are going to do nothing to improve the lot of suburbanites.

The AT plan is designed to get people out of their cars. The suburbs are growing and the arteries into the peninsula are already getting overwhelmed with cars.

Growth is growth. HRM can try to discourage it or guide it but to date have been unable to stem it, and their thirst for revenue will mean it is going to keep happening. Not everyone can or wants to live on the peninsula. But many of them are forced to work there, so they need to get there. Few are going to cycle there. So you need other ways. This is where HRM has fallen on its face. Narrowing streets for bike lanes negatively impacts not only cars but also commercial vehicles and buses. We are already seeing people avoid the peninsula because of these changes and it will only get worse with time.

The city is monitoring traffic flow where bike lanes have been built and nothing has changed for the worse.

That is clearly not so. Look at spots like Robie and Young, where movement on Young St is essentially halted much of the time thanks to elimination of turning lanes. While there have been a few instances where a street had been overbuilt in the 1960s/70s in anticipation of widening of connecting sections that never happened, those instances are rare. Expropriation may be required in spots if HRM is determined for this to continue - places like the intersection of Robie and North, and much of North St itself for starters.

[Good Baklava]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

I know - I've been to Amsterdam. Dutch cyclists are vicious!!

Being a tourist is very different than living there. Even then, living there is still one step away from adapting to local culture, which doesn’t always come naturally. Visiting France for a couple weeks won’t make anyone a wine and cheese expert. Maybe if you had lived a year in Amsterdam, you would have understood the situation differently, maybe not. Perhaps Dutch commuters think Canadian tourists are vicious.

[Good Baklava]

Originally Posted by Citizen_Bane

Halifax is not Barcelona...as has been previously stated. We don't have big density downtown. We actively plan against density through allowing only squat buildings to be built downtown. We don't have Barcelona's pollution issue to resolve. Their additional bicycle lanes are a byproduct of a pollution resolution plan not transportation problem. The UK has announced that they will ban the sale of petrol autos in 2030 which is coincidently the point in time at which Barcelona has planned to have spent 37 billion dollars to achieve a same or similar goal. Wouldn't the 37 billion be better spent to create emissions free electricity to power electric autos in Barcelona? Barcelona has an extensive public transportation system. Halifax doesn't.

So “Not our problem” you say... Being a health and environmental issue doesn’t stop AT from being a transportation issue. Making it easier to cycle to a transit stop can boost ridership which would then justify making the transit system more extensive. Not everyone should have to bike from point A to B, transit can cover longer hauls.

[Good Baklava]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Expropriation may be required in spots if HRM is determined for this to continue - places like the intersection of Robie and North, and much of North St itself for starters.

So razing a neighbourhood to expand lanes is okay, but bike lanes are somehow a huge burden? Am I reading this wrong?

[Dartguard]

Originally Posted by Good Baklava

Being a tourist is very different than living there. Even then, living there is still one step away from adapting to local culture, which doesn’t always come naturally. Visiting France for a couple weeks won’t make anyone a wine and cheese expert. Maybe if you had lived a year in Amsterdam, you would have understood the situation differently, maybe not. Perhaps Dutch commuters think Canadian tourists are vicious.

Actually thanks to our Troops Liberating the Netherlands, Canadians have an honored position in the International pecking Order of Dutch Tourism . I still remember the free meal and Beer after a barkeep mistook me for a Yank. She was embarrassed and could not apologize enough.

[Dartguard]

Originally Posted by Good Baklava

So razing a neighbourhood to expand lanes is okay, but bike lanes are somehow a huge burden? Am I reading this wrong?

Well lets look at this proposition in a longer term. Eventually a neighborhood may be raised to build a rail service on the Peninsula. So the question then becomes if Bike lanes are OK to take Roadways then Railways should be able to take neighborhoods. The Peninsula is only so big and density is increasing.What will it be in 20,50 or 75 Years?

I think a far more relevant question is when the planned bike lanes are fully implemented will the Halifax Cycling coalition allow themselves to prove the Business, Safety and frequency case of the infrastructure? Will the same lobbyist's stand down when the build it and they will come theory proves paltry. What defines success for the investment and BTW virtue signaling bunk is not a parameter of success. Who and exactly what will define "success"?

[Good Baklava]

Originally Posted by Dartguard

Actually thanks to our Troops Liberating the Netherlands, Canadians have an honored position in the International pecking Order of Dutch Tourism . I still remember the free meal and Beer after a barkeep mistook me for a Yank. She was embarrassed and could not apologize enough.

The patriotism card doesn’t give us an excuse to be patronizing. I was specifically referring to how Dutch commuters may be annoyed by our ignorance to local customs, the same way some tourists are annoyed by the cycling. I would like to draw comparison to those who live along the Cabot trail: Those operating restaurants and museums are happy to accommodate European cycling enthusiasts, but find them an annoyance to pass on the road.

[Good Baklava]

Originally Posted by Dartguard

Well lets look at this proposition in a longer term. Eventually a neighborhood may be raised to build a rail service on the Peninsula. So the question then becomes if Bike lanes are OK to take Roadways then Railways should be able to take neighborhoods.

We should think about the social costs of each before lumping expropriation and bike lanes together.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Good Baklava

We should think about the social costs of each before lumping expropriation and bike lanes together.

Well, bike lanes have expropriated parking spaces and travel lanes from existing streets, so expropriating properties along such arteries seems a logical next step. If you have a large enough ROW then you can build bike lanes (and bus lanes, and BRT lanes) to your heart's content. Perhaps having HRM fork out actual cash money to property owners in order to construct the HCC dream-world nirvana will force some actual hard decisions to be made instead of the "it's almost free" mindset that currently afflicts Council and the HRM planning dept.

[Summerville]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Well, bike lanes have expropriated parking spaces and travel lanes from existing streets, so expropriating properties along such arteries seems a logical next step. If you have a large enough ROW then you can build bike lanes (and bus lanes, and BRT lanes) to your heart's content. Perhaps having HRM fork out actual cash money to property owners in order to construct the HCC dream-world nirvana will force some actual hard decisions to be made instead of the "it's almost free" mindset that currently afflicts Council and the HRM planning dept.

The days of wide spread expropriation are over. We have to determine how we will efficiently use the existing roadway space. Building more car lanes is not sustainable.

[Good Baklava]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Well, bike lanes have expropriated parking spaces and travel lanes from existing streets, so expropriating properties along such arteries seems a logical next step. If you have a large enough ROW then you can build bike lanes (and bus lanes, and BRT lanes) to your heart's content. Perhaps having HRM fork out actual cash money to property owners in order to construct the HCC dream-world nirvana will force some actual hard decisions to be made instead of the "it's almost free" mindset that currently afflicts Council and the HRM planning dept.

The beauty of a bike lane is that both they and their users require minimal space. If you expropriate private land for a bike lane it defeats the purpose of building them. While you often champion efficient tax dollar use and respect for private property, this passion seems reserved for people who align with your worldview. It may seem like strength to throw expropriation in as an obstacle to bike lanes, but perhaps we should show some empathy for people and places having been impacted by expropriation before throwing the word around.

[Summerville]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

The Burnside connector is a provincial project, made necessary by the suburban growth that has taken place over the last couple of decades and the lack of prior investment in highways. The same needs to be done with the proposed but long-delayed connection between the 103 and 102 to replace the antiquated Hammonds Plains Rd., for the same reason. We also need a third bridge across the harbor for similar reasons. Bike lanes on those routes are going to do nothing to improve the lot of suburbanites.

You can't suck and blow at the same time. When I previously mentioned that the federal government was contributing the majority of the cost of bike lanes in Halifax, you ranted about our future deficits.

You have to think about the big picture.

Yep,...we need to build the highways. I agree with it.

And we need a new bridge,...it will likely replace the MacKay bridge and will tie into the new Windsor Exchange project. Add another billion for a new bridge.

Everything has to be considered as one plan. Better highways for the suburbs, BRT or LRT and bike lanes on some of the roads.

And in the grand scheme of things, the money contributed towards bike lanes is a small fraction of the 2 billion+ that will be spent to support automobiles.

Am I okay with it. Yes,...just admit that you don't like bicycles. Its not about the money.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Summerville

You can't suck and blow at the same time. When I previously mentioned that the federal government was contributing the majority of the cost of bike lanes in Halifax, you ranted about our future deficits.

You have to think about the big picture.

Yep,...we need to build the highways. I agree with it.

And we need a new bridge,...it will likely replace the MacKay bridge and will tie into the new Windsor Exchange project. Add another billion for a new bridge.

Everything has to be considered as one plan. Better highways for the suburbs, BRT or LRT and bike lanes on some of the roads.

And in the grand scheme of things, the money contributed towards bike lanes is a small fraction of the 2 billion+ that will be spent to support automobiles.

Am I okay with it. Yes,...just admit that you don't like bicycles. Its not about the money.

Vehicle owners pay a large portion of their own way in such initiatives. Cyclists do not. In any event I have no particular hate for those cyclists who follow the rules of the road, share the ROW properly, and aren't the extremist/zealot types that make up the cycling activist groups and hate motorized vehicles. Where I do get my back up is when govt takes our hard-earned money and pours it down the drain that is bike lanes without any justification based on a build-it-and-they-will-come rationale. We have built it, but they aren't coming. At some point the reckoning for this wasteful experiment will occur, hopefully soon. We cannot have Council and planning staff using the civic treasury to fund a mega-million sandbox for them to play with their pet ideas in when other real needs are being ignored.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Summerville

The days of wide spread expropriation are over. We have to determine how we will efficiently use the existing roadway space. Building more car lanes is not sustainable.

And why is that? Do you even know what that last word means? It sounds a lot like the thankfully-departed Coun. Watts who decried everything that wasn't something made out of wood and recycled paper as "unsustainable".

[j.graham]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Vehicle owners pay a large portion of their own way in such initiatives. Cyclists do not. In any event I have no particular hate for those cyclists who follow the rules of the road, share the ROW properly, and aren't the extremist/zealot types that make up the cycling activist groups and hate motorized vehicles. Where I do get my back up is when govt takes our hard-earned money and pours it down the drain that is bike lanes without any justification based on a build-it-and-they-will-come rationale. We have built it, but they aren't coming. At some point the reckoning for this wasteful experiment will occur, hopefully soon. We cannot have Council and planning staff using the civic treasury to fund a mega-million sandbox for them to play with their pet ideas in when other real needs are being ignored.

Cyclists pay property taxes. Renters (indirectly) pay property taxes. Cyclists pay income taxes. Cyclists pay sales taxes. Cyclists pay for car infrastructure at a higher rate than car-owners pay for cycling infrastructure.

[Good Baklava]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

And why is that? Do you even know what that last word means? It sounds a lot like the thankfully-departed Coun. Watts who decried everything that wasn't something made out of wood and recycled paper as "unsustainable".

Summerville knows what they mean because whether it’s financial or environmental sustainability you’re referring to, AT infrastructure will excel in both senses of the word.

[Good Baklava]

Originally Posted by j.graham

Cyclists pay property taxes. Renters (indirectly) pay property taxes. Cyclists pay income taxes. Cyclists pay sales taxes. Cyclists pay for car infrastructure at a higher rate than car-owners pay for cycling infrastructure.

This is correct, the suburban roadways are largely financed by taxes collected from denser peninsula neighbourhoods (where frequent cyclists live). Car dependent suburbs are thus subsidized by areas making more efficient use of infrastructure. This isn’t my opinion, I really recommend reading “Perverse Cities” by Pamela Blais.

[Good Baklava]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

We have built it, but they aren't coming.

Well, when most of the protected lanes have only been completed in recent months there’s not much information.

[Summerville]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

And why is that? Do you even know what that last word means? It sounds a lot like the thankfully-departed Coun. Watts who decried everything that wasn't something made out of wood and recycled paper as "unsustainable".

I’m sorry that I triggered you with that word. I meant financially unsustainable. When governments expropriate they have to pay fair market value. And you can expect significant legal expense arguing about the process or the what is fair market value.

And still you will have legal fights decades after.

To re-frame what I said....the days where a government can expropriate large swaths of low income properties is over.

Governments will either have to convince a willing seller to sell, or work within the property they own. Notice how the Cogswell interchange project has been held up? It’s because the city can’t efficiently expropriate.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Summerville

Notice how the Cogswell interchange project has been held up? It’s because the city can’t efficiently expropriate.

Well, in fairness, HRM cannot efficiently do much of anything.