Cycling Activists Try Opportunism

[Antigonish]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

I agree. The constant propaganda from the cycling lobby, their supporters in the media, and their captives on Council about how cycling is the future way of getting around in HRM like it used to be in Beijing in the 1960s becomes very tiresome and irksome considering that only a small handful actually use the expensive infrastructure that HRM has overlaid onto the city's obsolete street network.

My biggest issue with a lot of young contemporary planners is their idealism that is bordering on dogmatic levels. A friend of mine is a civil engineer and absolutely HATES planners; he told me something years ago I'll never forget, nor ever un-see. He said, "planners are idealistic, but very rarely pragmatic" and its unfortunate to admit that he is right a lot of the time.

I went to a presentation with the president of the US Planners Association (Mitchell Silver) and enjoyed his enthusiasm and attitudes towards progressive planning ideals, but even then he found himself regurgitating a lot of dogma that didn't seem at all practical. He used to be director of planning for the City of Raleigh and gave examples of their zoning improvements, transit upgrades etc and so after the presentation I was fortunate to have a word with him and asked him if planners in his position have a pragmatic formula for increasing transit ridership for middle/upper-middle class commuters; my point being that Raleigh's climate is extremely humid and unbearable to be outside for nearly half the year and he fumbled and bumbled with incoherent half-answers until he settled on the conclusion that "people who need to take the bus will just take the bus"

It kinda leans towards your cynicism Keith, where at this point people who claim to be "progressive" (as an identifier more than anything) have shifted to borderline authoritarians on these issues. "People will like and support what I TELL them to like, capish?" I've found from my own experiences that many of the most outspoken people who push "progressive" policies are the least likely to follow them, they probably own a detached house somewhere out in Bedford and drive their car to the office every morning.

Originally Posted by Keith P.

I will note the following, based on long experience and much observation.

I have found that "progressives", regardless of political party affiliation, do not take criticism or being proven wrong at all well. I have come to believe it is because of the very nature of the label and those who pin it on themselves. By definition, if you are "progressive", you are on the side of the gods. You cannot possibly be wrong. Either what you believe is being done somewhere else so therefore it must be correct, even if too little time has passed to judge the effects (as seems to be the argument that originated this discussion), or it is so mind-blowingly incredible and forward-thinking that nobody with even half a brain could possibly oppose it. Therefore any criticism can only be personal or political, not fact-based or logical.

Meanwhile, "conservatives", again by the nature of the label, are seen as out-of-touch, old-fashioned, and intransigent in their positions, despite the typical benefit of long and practical experience. Never mind if the argument is to put 4-way stops on the 102, or to tax people making over 100K at 90% marginal rates because clearly they are too rich (or use whatever other half-baked example you prefer). Their views simply are seen as clearly and fundamentally flawed by those who call themselves progressive.

The polarization that we see so often now in political discourse is based in large part on this, in my opinion. When you label yourself in such a way that you cannot possibly be wrong in your position, it should not be a surprise.

I guess my above post covered this quote too.

Originally Posted by Hali87

I used to be more active here but mostly keep to the Canada section now. The personal attacks were a major part of that shift. Among other things, I was casually and baselessly accused of cheating my way through grad school, by someone else who doesn't post often anymore - though some others who are still regular posters have also been weirdly, directly antagonistic towards me, and I got pretty tired of that after a while. I'm not holding a grudge, but I have limited free time and prefer not to fill it with negativity.

I do want to thank OldDartmouthMark for standing up for me a number of times, but he really shouldn't have needed to. For what it's worth, things seem to have gotten a bit better over the last couple years (or maybe I just don't notice it since I don't check this site as often)

If people (on all sides) could resist being snarky I think the quality of discussion would improve a lot.

Oooh ooh story time! (I've been pretty much gone for the majority of 4 years here gimme gossip)

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Antigonish

My biggest issue with a lot of young contemporary planners is their idealism that is bordering on dogmatic levels. A friend of mine is a civil engineer and absolutely HATES planners; he told me something years ago I'll never forget, nor ever un-see. He said, "planners are idealistic, but very rarely pragmatic" and its unfortunate to admit that he is right a lot of the time.

I went to a presentation with the president of the US Planners Association (Mitchell Silver) and enjoyed his enthusiasm and attitudes towards progressive planning ideals, but even then he found himself regurgitating a lot of dogma that didn't seem at all practical.

Interesting post and I thank you for the comments. I have commented on the planning dogma issue here numerous times and it does seem to be a real (and self-perpetuating) problem in the profession. The issue is of course that young people take a degree in planning and are largely empty vessels on the subject, so their heads are filled by professors and "experts" with whatever the current dogma happens to be. But unlike the sciences, this is more of an art and therefore highly subjective. Data is used selectively to support the dogma while other data is ignored. And so it goes.

I also think that the very nature of the subject and the profession at large results in a degree of sensitivity to questioning of proposed positions given that they are supposed to be the arbiters of what is good and what is bad in terms of design and land use. Again this is subjective to a greater or lesser extent but given their training and subsequent employment in the profession they tend to believe they are right in their stated views while everyone else is at best an interested observer not at their level with opinions that are less worthy of consideration than their own.

[TheNovaScotian]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Interesting post and I thank you for the comments. I have commented on the planning dogma issue here numerous times and it does seem to be a real (and self-perpetuating) problem in the profession. The issue is of course that young people take a degree in planning and are largely empty vessels on the subject, so their heads are filled by professors and "experts" with whatever the current dogma happens to be. But unlike the sciences, this is more of an art and therefore highly subjective. Data is used selectively to support the dogma while other data is ignored. And so it goes.

I also think that the very nature of the subject and the profession at large results in a degree of sensitivity to questioning of proposed positions given that they are supposed to be the arbiters of what is good and what is bad in terms of design and land use. Again this is subjective to a greater or lesser extent but given their training and subsequent employment in the profession they tend to believe they are right in their stated views while everyone else is at best an interested observer not at their level with opinions that are less worthy of consideration than their own.

Again massive generalization, as someone who has studied planning and works in the private sector, without examples this opinion of yours, it's far from the truth of things. While studying planning, I observed the students ranged from a data driven approach, while some focused on the theory side. As someone who was more data driven, I did find myself at odds with the idealists from time to time but compromise was found when working on a project. Your arguments are not incorrect that some planners can get stuck on an ideal, but as a whole there is mix of people like any other workplace.

To Antigonish's point that peoples willingness to go to authoritarian extents really shows that people are on a spectrum in politics on every issue. People that are "woke" about identity politics can be downright authoritarian when discussing civic land use or environmental issues. It's a mixed bag really as in most segments of human life.

I could go on a rant about the evil corporate agenda put forward by conservative parties which habitually help the rich, privatize public services and echo the low tax - low service equation of neo-liberal policies. How when you cut funding to safety and regulation enforcement, companies will habitually abuse society for corporate gain. But I don't, every time a decision is made to enrich them by any level of government because it'd be exhausting and I'm sure this wouldn't help drive healthy discussion on this forum.

This city needs to continue investing more into infrastructure, bicycles are part of the multi-pronged approach. Do I agree with the strategy wholly, no. I feel larger investments in the rail system would pay dividends for the province as a whole but I don't start a crusade against people that are at least trying to fix the problems this city faces. This is the type of stuff that made me decide to go the private sector route because working in the public sector is a very thankless job now that we've been told repeatedly by corporate media and people parroting it, that there's so much government largess and misuse of public funds that politicians should justify repeated cuts to programs and corporate taxes.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Hali87

I used to be more active here but mostly keep to the Canada section now. The personal attacks were a major part of that shift. Among other things, I was casually and baselessly accused of cheating my way through grad school, by someone else who doesn't post often anymore - though some others who are still regular posters have also been weirdly, directly antagonistic towards me, and I got pretty tired of that after a while. I'm not holding a grudge, but I have limited free time and prefer not to fill it with negativity.

I do want to thank OldDartmouthMark for standing up for me a number of times, but he really shouldn't have needed to. For what it's worth, things seem to have gotten a bit better over the last couple years (or maybe I just don't notice it since I don't check this site as often)

If people (on all sides) could resist being snarky I think the quality of discussion would improve a lot.

Very good points. Why spend your valued free time to come here if it's going to leave you feeling crappy? This is totally voluntary, and it's really only as good as the quality of the posts - if the postings go to crap, the quality of the conversations follow accordingly, and people will go elsewhere.

About the specific instance that you refer to, I recall some of that exchange, but not the details. Thankfully it's in the past. I don't know what motivates people to initiate an attack on a messageboard, but I do know it sucks to be on the receiving side of one... and I hate to see somebody being victimized like that. You have always posted very fairly and honestly, and even when we don't agree, you have always been very respectful... and I appreciate that greatly - it's a very good quality to have, and contributes to every conversation in a positive way.

Hopefully this thread will help to make everybody realize that we have to work hard at keeping things on an even keel.

I don't know what more there is to be said, other than to quote Bill and Ted in that we should all strive to "Be excellent to each other"...

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Hali87

I used to be more active here but mostly keep to the Canada section now. The personal attacks were a major part of that shift. Among other things, I was casually and baselessly accused of cheating my way through grad school, by someone else who doesn't post often anymore - though some others who are still regular posters have also been weirdly, directly antagonistic towards me, and I got pretty tired of that after a while. I'm not holding a grudge, but I have limited free time and prefer not to fill it with negativity.

I recommend reporting posts or PMing a moderator to address problems like this. It can be hard to know when to intervene or what bothers people and what doesn't. The mods are also somewhat inured to this by having to deal with occasional truly bad stuff that just gets deleted no questions asked (thankfully rare).

(Personally I find the Canada section pretty nasty lately with a bunch of weird alt-right stuff.)

In my experience most of the time when a conversation gets too heated and there are personal attacks people are usually happy to edit/remove posts or just move on if there are complaints. It's easy for things to unintentionally get out of hand when people are posting text instead of talking in person. They write things they would never say.

I am hoping we can get more positive content in this section (planning material, pictures of construction projects, etc.). I find SSP is at its best when it's got a focus and at its worst when it doesn't.

[Colin May]

In the 2016 census there were 1,965 people in HRM who commuted to work by bicycle within HRM. And 1,820 who commuted to another province/territory.
Within HRM 137,130 commuted as a driver of a car/truck/van and another 14,265 who commuted as a passenger in a car/truck/van.
For transit the number was 22,975 persons. People walking to work numbered 15,935.
The dream of increasing cycling/walking/transit as a means to getting private vehicles off the road is obviously just that.... a dream based on ignorance or deliberately ignoring the data.
https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-r...TABID=1&type=0

[Dartguard]

Originally Posted by Colin May

In the 2016 census there were 1,965 people in HRM who commuted to work by bicycle within HRM. And 1,820 who commuted to another province/territory.
Within HRM 137,130 commuted as a driver of a car/truck/van and another 14,265 who commuted as a passenger in a car/truck/van.
For transit the number was 22,975 persons. People walking to work numbered 15,935.
The dream of increasing cycling/walking/transit as a means to getting private vehicles off the road is obviously just that.... a dream based on ignorance or deliberately ignoring the data.
https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-r...TABID=1&type=0

I often wondered what the numbers were in relation to the cycling investments vs the users. Our Cycling friends definitely demand a disproportionate claim to the 18th Century grid pattern first laid out by the London board of Trade. Hmmm time will tell.

[someone123]

How many people travelled between Halifax and Dartmouth before there were harbour bridges? The real question is who will use the infrastructure when built, not how many are currently using bad infrastructure.

Commuting isn't everything, the 2016 census was a while ago in cycling infrastructure terms, and they may be geographically concentrated. It could be something like a 5-10% modal share for commuters on the peninsula in 2020. Such a modal share would be enough to justify some bike routes on the peninsula.

[Dartguard]

Originally Posted by someone123

How many people travelled between Halifax and Dartmouth before there were harbour bridges? The real question is who will use the infrastructure when built, not how many are currently using bad infrastructure.

Commuting isn't everything, the 2016 census was a while ago in cycling infrastructure terms, and they may be geographically concentrated. It could be something like a 5-10% modal share for commuters on the peninsula in 2020. Such a modal share would be enough to justify some bike routes on the peninsula.

Does ANY city in Canada approach 5% Cycling?

[Good Baklava]

Originally Posted by Dartguard

Does ANY city in Canada approach 5% Cycling?

South-end Halifax has a cycling modal share of 9.4%

Grandview-Woodland in Vancouver touches 17.1%

La Petite-Patrie in Montréal goes up to 21.6%

These are all residential neighbourhoods close to the city centre. City-wide statistics will average out the areas where actual AT investment takes place.

We know Canada has 4 individuals per square Kilometre, but no one would ever say we shouldn’t have cities because of that.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by someone123

How many people travelled between Halifax and Dartmouth before there were harbour bridges? The real question is who will use the infrastructure when built, not how many are currently using bad infrastructure.

Between car ferries crossing the harbour and those driving around Bedford Basin there clearly were enough to justify broad public support for a bridge. That was driven by a sense that such development was needed to satisfy pent-up demand and an understanding that such a structure would have great benefits to the economy and allow growth, along with an understanding that such infrastructure would be paid for almost completely by those who actually used it and not the taxpayers at large. In contrast there is next to nothing justifying the spending of tax dollars on bike infrastructure other than woo-woo thinking by cycling activist groups that somehow cycling will save us from the evils of the private vehicle.

[Summerville]

Originally Posted by Colin May

In the 2016 census there were 1,965 people in HRM who commuted to work by bicycle within HRM. And 1,820 who commuted to another province/territory.
Within HRM 137,130 commuted as a driver of a car/truck/van and another 14,265 who commuted as a passenger in a car/truck/van.
For transit the number was 22,975 persons. People walking to work numbered 15,935.
The dream of increasing cycling/walking/transit as a means to getting private vehicles off the road is obviously just that.... a dream based on ignorance or deliberately ignoring the data.
https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-r...TABID=1&type=0

This is a prime example of cherry picking data to support a false claim. Mr. Trump would call it alternative facts.

We need bike lanes on the peninsula and in Dartmouth. I'm happy that my kids will have bike lanes.

[Summerville]

Originally Posted by Summerville

This is a prime example of cherry picking data to support a false claim. Mr. Trump would call it alternative facts. For someone that is known for seeking the truth, I'm a little surprised.

We need bike lanes on the peninsula and in Dartmouth. I'm happy that my kids will have bike lanes.

I admit that there is likely bias here, but provides a better discussion piece

https://twitter.com/BrentToderian/st...626112/photo/1

[Good Baklava]

Originally Posted by Summerville

I admit that there is likely bias here, but provides a better discussion piece

https://twitter.com/BrentToderian/st...626112/photo/1

I’m a big fan of these charts, but it’s the type of thing that makes someone come along and cry “planning dogma”. If evolving arguments for cycling are called dogma for nearly 10 years, is that position not dogmatic in itself?

I suspect that while the data presented in the tweet is largely factually correct, it can be difficult for others to fathom how these societal costs were calculated. Not because the information presented here is wrong, but because another worldview would have a different idea of what constitutes a societal cost. I will disagree with their opinion, but their opinion is the middle ground between knowing and not knowing. For example, climate change: while I see it as a grave threat and a a top priority, for many it’s only a concern for some decadent urbanite lefties. For them tax dollars may be the only metric for societal cost. I’m not defending that view or the people who preach it, but it creates a difficult context for sharing cycling info.

I know it’s funny that I, who likes to take shots at the anti-cyclists, am trying to build a bridge. I know this can be very hard and not done all the time because it would restrict the conversation; but if we’re to be convincing for the holdouts we need info targeting their worldview. They may never like AT infrastructure, but I hope with the right information they will at least accept it.

[Dartguard]

Originally Posted by Summerville

I admit that there is likely bias here, but provides a better discussion piece

https://twitter.com/BrentToderian/st...626112/photo/1

Likely a bias HAHAHAHA!. As I have said on another post, Koolaid all over the place. This gentleman's twitter feed is the Bike problem in a nut shell. A minority opinion masquerading as a superior way of living and dammit people you WILL see the light. The numbers will decide in the end and thanks to the physical limitations of especially the peninsula of Halifax the upcoming use it or lose it debate will be decided rather easily. With growth of 10,000 new people per year and who only knows after Covid settles down I imagine that Transit will be the bigger draw on city resources moving forward.

[Summerville]

Originally Posted by Dartguard

Likely a bias HAHAHAHA!. As I have said on another post, Koolaid all over the place. This gentleman's twitter feed is the Bike problem in a nut shell. A minority opinion masquerading as a superior way of living and dammit people you WILL see the light. The numbers will decide in the end and thanks to the physical limitations of especially the peninsula of Halifax the upcoming use it or lose it debate will be decided rather easily. With growth of 10,000 new people per year and who only knows after Covid settles down I imagine that Transit will be the bigger draw on city resources moving forward.

It seems that you automatically went to the car-related data. But yes, as the city gets bigger, something will have to give. Cars require road space. more cars, more road space.

As I already live on the peninsula, I don't really have any skin in the game, as far as commuting to work is concerned. But it would be nice for our governments to take a long term approach in planning.

[Colin May]

Originally Posted by Summerville

This is a prime example of cherry picking data to support a false claim. Mr. Trump would call it alternative facts.

We need bike lanes on the peninsula and in Dartmouth. I'm happy that my kids will have bike lanes.

You seem to ignore the point I made in the last sentence. Read it again and respond to what I wrote, not what you imagine I wrote.

[Franco401]

Originally Posted by Colin May

You seem to ignore the point I made in the last sentence. Read it again and respond to what I wrote, not what you imagine I wrote.

You used HRM-wide stats for a problem that only affects part of the region. Don't accuse others of misrepresenting you when you only reply to those that don't call you out on your awful, self-serving argument.

[Good Baklava]

Originally Posted by Dartguard

Likely a bias HAHAHAHA!

Of course it’s a biased study, but no one claims otherwise. We need to acknowledge our biases, because we all have them and they shape our every statement.

[Good Baklava]

Originally Posted by Franco401

You used HRM-wide stats for a problem that only affects part of the region. Don't accuse others of misrepresenting you when you only reply to those that don't call you out on your awful, self-serving argument.

You said it before I had the chance to. If peninsular haligonians or those in DT Dartmouth are made up of a sizeable proportion of cyclists, why not offer them suitable infrastructure?