Halifax Active Transportation

[Dmajackson]

Young, Kaye and Isleville - Street improvement pilot project

Raised median - Young Street

A temporary raised median will be installed at the intersection of Young and Isleville streets to facilitate a safer crossing for those walking, rolling and cycling. This measure will also serve to calm traffic on either side of Isleville.

Vehicles will no longer be able to turn left on Young Street at the intersection of Isleville Street. Vehicles travelling on Isleville must turn right at the intersection of Kaye and Young streets.

The raised median will reduce the overall crossing distance for those walking, rolling and cycling and allow the intersection to be crossed one lane at a time. A small central passage will allow those on bicycles, as well as emergency vehicles, to continue to travel through the intersection.

Back-in angled parking – Kaye Street

Twenty-three angled parking spaces will be installed on the north side of Kaye Street between Isleville and Gottingen streets. The new parking spaces will replace the fourteen parallel spaces that are currently on the north side section of the street.

The existing parallel parking spaces on the south side of the street will remain in place.

The new, angled parking design is safer and more efficient for pedestrians, drivers and cyclists.

Curb extensions – Kaye Street

Curb extensions will be installed on Kaye Street at the intersections of Gottingen and Isleville streets.

Curb extensions reduce the width of the road by extending the curb into the roadway. These features are intended to improve safety for all road users by decreasing vehicular speeds, reducing pedestrian crossing distances, and improving sightlines for those driving.

This pilot project will complement the Isleville slow street changes implemented as part of the Mobility Response Plan as well as the future North End AAA Bikeway, pending Regional Council approval.

An online survey will be launched in the coming weeks, where residents will have an opportunity to provide feedback on the pilot project. The survey will be available here. Residents can also contact 311 if they have feedback or questions about how to use this space safely.

These features are expected to remain in place until winter 2021, or later.

I am very happy to see these changes. I cycle and walk this area daily and Isleville is used as a major shortcut. The 'Slow Streets' signage is ignored so a physical barrier appears to be the only solution that will work. The block of Young between Isleville and Agricola is unnecessarily wide so a narrowing of the road should help slow traffic without reducing capacity.

[IanWatson]

Glad to see those improvements too! My daughter and I use Isleville regularly. Now I'd like to see them re-pave it; the surface isn't great for bikes.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Dmajackson

The 'Slow Streets' signage is ignored so a physical barrier appears to be the only solution that will work.

I do not see mention of any physical barrier affecting Isleville. The entire "slow streets" initiative has been a debacle since it is not supported by legislation or bylaw and hence has zero enforcement, since there is nothing to be enforced. It is seriously flawed in its premise of something that will allow walking and children's play on these streets. They are streets, not sidewalks. If that is the use that is desired, you need to close them. Having Isleville as a slow street is ridiculous in any event. For most of its length it is either commercial or is at present subject to several large construction projects, so there are few residents who would want to take advantage of this urban planner's nirvana.

[Dmajackson]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

I do not see mention of any physical barrier affecting Isleville.

Vehicles will no longer be able to turn left on Young Street at the intersection of Isleville Street. Vehicles travelling on Isleville must turn right at the intersection of Kaye and Young streets. The raised median will reduce the overall crossing distance for those walking, rolling and cycling and allow the intersection to be crossed one lane at a time. A small central passage will allow those on bicycles, as well as emergency vehicles, to continue to travel through the intersection.

This will create a physical barrier stopping vehicles from heading north-south through the intersection. This will eliminate vehicles from using Isleville between Almon and Duffus as an alternative to Agricola or Gottingen.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Dmajackson

Vehicles will no longer be able to turn left on Young Street at the intersection of Isleville Street. Vehicles travelling on Isleville must turn right at the intersection of Kaye and Young streets. The raised median will reduce the overall crossing distance for those walking, rolling and cycling and allow the intersection to be crossed one lane at a time. A small central passage will allow those on bicycles, as well as emergency vehicles, to continue to travel through the intersection.

This will create a physical barrier stopping vehicles from heading north-south through the intersection. This will eliminate vehicles from using Isleville between Almon and Duffus as an alternative to Agricola or Gottingen.

This is another example of HRM Planning overthinking things and creating solutions to non-existent problems. There is very little traffic on Isleville to start with and I seriously doubt there is much in the way of factual evidence showing any sort of problem. Just HRM bureaucrats doing everything they can to punish motorists.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

This is another example of HRM Planning overthinking things and creating solutions to non-existent problems. There is very little traffic on Isleville to start with and I seriously doubt there is much in the way of factual evidence showing any sort of problem. Just HRM bureaucrats doing everything they can to punish motorists.

Ironically, your last statement is also not based on factual evidence, just your opinion.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Ironically, your last statement is also not based on factual evidence, just your opinion.

That's right. But I'm permitted to do that because I'm a citizen. I have no power to change things. Planners who are monkeying with the rules of the road need to be held to a much higher standard than simply experimenting like Gyro Gearloose based upon what they read in a planning textbook.

[Good Baklava]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

This is another example of HRM Planning overthinking things and creating solutions to non-existent problems. There is very little traffic on Isleville to start with and I seriously doubt there is much in the way of factual evidence showing any sort of problem. Just HRM bureaucrats doing everything they can to punish motorists.

Think of it this way: A few small detours may seem like a punishment to motorists, but will it not be a service to motorists by having some drivers switch to bikes thus reducing local traffic? Encouraging everyone to drive on already congested streets would also be a disservice, and cycling infrastructure is cheaper for the taxpayer than new car lanes while also improving vehicular flow.

[atbw]

I cycle on Isleville on a weekly basis and this is a great change. The crossing distance is really long, so it's nice to have it broken up like this and only having to check for traffic from one direction.

As for a physical barrier, in a letter distributed to nearby residents, HRM showed an example of a sidewalk-height median with cutouts that would allow emergency vehicles and cyclists to pass unimpeded.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Good Baklava

Think of it this way: A few small detours may seem like a punishment to motorists, but will it not be a service to motorists by having some drivers switch to bikes thus reducing local traffic?

But that is not going to happen, and surely not because of burr-under-the-saddle measures like this that merely try to irritate people.

Encouraging everyone to drive on already congested streets would also be a disservice, and cycling infrastructure is cheaper for the taxpayer than new car lanes while also improving vehicular flow.

Non sequitur. Nobody is talking about adding new car lanes here. There is very little traffic in this area as it is. This is simply modern-day planning dogma run amok.

[Drybrain]

Let me weigh in here as someone who lives less than a block from Isleville. Plenty of drivers use Isleville as if it’s a thoroughfare, speeding up and down the street. The problem is even worse on Young, where the sudden width of that street west of the Hydrostone market block, and big blank facade of the brewery to the south, create a sense of spaciousness that encourages drivers to speed way up. There are tons of kids in this area in particular, who walk around the neighbourhood to playgrounds, schools, stores. There are also lots of cars zooming around the neighbourhood at excessive speeds, encouraged by overly wide streets. These traffic-calming measures will make the area quieter, slower, safer. The inconvenience to drivers will be minor; the improvement for residents will be significant. These are good changes.

[eastcoastal]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

...There is very little traffic on Isleville to start with and I seriously doubt there is much in the way of factual evidence showing any sort of problem. ...

Here come some anecdotal observations: I work near the Hydrostone and walk the southern part of Isleville semi-regularly to get to/from work (I try to vary my route). I've been working from home since pandemic-o-rama-2020, so don't know what it's like recently, but I will say that I regularly saw drivers taking Isleville faster than I felt was appropriate. In particular, the south terminus of Isleville seemed to be the worst, where it does not align with either Fuller Terrace or Northwood Terrace and drivers seemed to try and cut diagonally between. I can't say they were using the street as a way to bypass Agricola or Gottingen, but it certainly felt that way.

[eastcoastal]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

...For most of its length it is either commercial or is at present subject to several large construction projects, so there are few residents who would want to take advantage of this urban planner's nirvana.

I don't think Isleville is strictly commercial for any of its blocks. The street is 17 blocks long (counting regular blocks, not the weird hydro-blocks between Young and Duffus).

The two contiguous blocks between Almon and Russell have major construction projects (multi-storey residential), and there's a more minor site on the west side of the street between Kane and Livingston where their renovating the commercial strip. That leaves 15 blocks without construction. All of which have residential on them.

I can see how the presence of commercial activity on a block can easily overshadow the residential that is there as well, but I don't think your perception of "most" of the street being commercial is accurate.

To be fair, Novalea/Gottingen also has residential on it. I guess it's not a "slow street" because it's wider and the preferred conduit for cars?

[Keith P.]

I am on Isleville quite frequently. The section between Duffus and Stairs is mostly residential. The section south of that to Young is virtually all commercial on the west side (excepting a couple of 2-3 floor 1960s flats), with the sides of Hydrostone houses on the east side, but they do not front on Isleville.

There is one block of Young St that is wide. Aside from the fact that it seems highly unlikely that any petrolheads would use that single block for stunting as seems to be the argument, it has the Oland brewery on one side and a park on the other. No residential there at all.

It is very difficult to drive at any speed on the section of Isleville between Duffus and Young. There is parking on both sides and barely enough room for the travel lanes. If there is oncoming traffic as is usually the case you simply cannot travel even at the speed limit.

I used Streetview to travel the section of Isleville between Young and Almon. Aside from the Hydrostone Place condos and a Highfield Park Special 3-storey apartment on the opposite side of the street further along, there were exactly 2 residential properties fronting on Isleville. It terminates at Bloomfield St, hardly a useful destination for traffic to seek out. It too suffers from the same issue as the more northerly part of the street, with 2-sided parking making it difficult to even get to the speed limit due to the narrowness of the ROW. The argument that drivers would use it to bypass either Agricola or Gottingen is nonsensical to me as both of those streets have far more room and move better than Isleville does. I remain convinced that this is nothing more than a planning dept doing something merely because it has too many anti-car activists employed at the moment. It certainly seems unlikely to be based upon any evidence whatsoever.

[Good Baklava]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

I remain convinced that this is nothing more than a planning dept doing something merely because it has too many anti-car activists employed at the moment. It certainly seems unlikely to be based upon any evidence whatsoever.

It's not about a war between "bike people" and "car people". We all want what's most practical, not to entrench ourselves into a positition. It's really just about allowing commuters to safely move from A to B, no matter what they drive.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Good Baklava

It's not about a war between "bike people" and "car people". We all want what's most practical, not to entrench ourselves into a positition. It's really just about allowing commuters to safely move from A to B, no matter what they drive.

Except they are prohibiting motorists from easily getting from A to B.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Except they are prohibiting motorists from easily getting from A to B.

Keith, as mentioned above, I live here, and I drive Isleville often. The fact that when I want to drive south of Young I'll have to take Novalea instead of Isleville is a complete non-issue for me as a driver. (Actually, it's what I usually do anyway, because as a non-signalized intersection, Young/Isleville is often time-consuming to go north-south on.)

[atbw]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Except they are prohibiting motorists from easily getting from A to B.

Who is commuting to work on Isleville?

This is my issue with people against slow streets. We have people complaining about not being able to take shortcuts on roads they seldom use, if they’ve heard of them at all. South of Young, Isleville is completely impractical to drive on unless you live there. It then splits to Maynard/Creighton, both one-way streets with stop signs, both impractical to use outside of local use.

However, they’re quiet streets suited to cyclists as they have low enough traffic volumes that they don’t need separated bike lanes, and quiet and comfortable for pedestrians.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by atbw

Who is commuting to work on Isleville?

This is my issue with people against slow streets. We have people complaining about not being able to take shortcuts on roads they seldom use, if they’ve heard of them at all. South of Young, Isleville is completely impractical to drive on unless you live there. It then splits to Maynard/Creighton, both one-way streets with stop signs, both impractical to use outside of local use.

However, they’re quiet streets suited to cyclists as they have low enough traffic volumes that they don’t need separated bike lanes, and quiet and comfortable for pedestrians.

You have perhaps inadvertently made my point for me, or at least reinforced it.

The fact is you are correct - nobody uses Isleville as a shortcut to commute on. With the stop signs and narrow ROW it is already slow to travel on. There is very little traffic other than local. So why these unnecessary measures? Why fix something that is not broken? This is all just an out-of-control planning dept with a bunch of anti-car activists working in it having too much time and money on their hands using HRM streets like board game to play with.

[OldDartmouthMark]

So what we are saying is that this bike-friendly infrastructure is an attack on motorists who never use the street? I'm confused.

Sounds like we are moving into Catch-22 territory...