General Updates and News

[LikesBikes]

Originally Posted by Colin May

The questions are very relevant because there are other issues of much greater importance to people who live in HRM and the importance of getting from A to B depends on why you need to get from A to B, and at what time/day you need to get from A to B.
Only 16% of the HRM population live on the peninsula.
If you live in Sackville how do you get to the VG for cataract surgery scheduled for 7 a.m. ?
Or, if you live near the VG how do you get to Cobequid for a colonoscopy at 7 a.m ?
Age, place of residence, place of work and time of work are all relevant.

Building a bike lane doesn't make it harder for someone to make any of those trips, it just allows them to do it by using a bike which is a more affordable, healthy and enjoyable way to get around.

I've worked shifts and weekends before where a majority of people would arrive via AT and transit. I was also raised in the suburbs but would bike to school and bike to friends which was great. Being driven by your parents everywhere sounds awful. Nowadays that's probably less common as most cars are the size of tanks and any notion of children having independence has disappeared.

[LikesBikes]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

A couple of points: The HRM plans were not thought out by staff but instead were a production of the cycling lobby.

Source? And also, whose the cycling lobby? The integrated transportation plan was developed by planners, engineers and community members, like every other planning document pretty much...

[QUOTE=Keith P.;9797611]
Our august Council merely rubber-stamped what was put in front of them. No thought was given to how it would be done nor what it would all cost. Nor was any attention paid to the potential fallout from those negatively affected either financially or practically. /QUOTE]

The amount of money going towards AT is tiny in the grand scheme of things. If you're worried about taxes going up then you should be thinking more about the cost of new roads in exurban areas and the maintenance costs of servicing them. Here's an example from Ottawa showing how low density development in the suburbs ends up costing the city more - https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottaw...memo-1.6193429.

Originally Posted by Keith P.

One other point: the author mentions several times the goal/need for a protected bike network. One should quickly realize that this is a mostly unattainable goal. Cyclists will always eventually need to mix with other modes of transportation to get where they are going. The idea of a protected network just for them is largely unrealistic. It is not much different than motorists demanding a separate road network for 18-wheelers because they are scared to mix with them on the roads.

In cities that build bike infrastructure well (Montreal, Vancouver, tons of cities in Europe), cyclists use the infrastructure. Halifax hasn't built enough infrastructure yet and what's been built is pretty crappy which is why we don't have a ton of people biking yet.

[GTG_78]

Originally Posted by LikesBikes

Building a bike lane doesn't make it harder for someone to make any of those trips, it just allows them to do it by using a bike which is a more affordable, healthy and enjoyable way to get around.

I've worked shifts and weekends before where a majority of people would arrive via AT and transit. I was also raised in the suburbs but would bike to school and bike to friends which was great. Being driven by your parents everywhere sounds awful. Nowadays that's probably less common as most cars are the size of tanks and any notion of children having independence has disappeared.

I don't know why this needs to be stated, but a person going for cataract surgery or a colonoscopy is not going to be cycling, let alone from *Sackville* to their appointment.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by someone123

I don't want to get into the old climate debate but the reality is either you're a hardcore cyclist here or you take transit or drive on some bad days. This is not San Diego. The number of truly "nice" days is pretty similar; it already snowed here a couple weeks ago.

Vancouver has its own challenges as well like much bigger hills and mountains than Halifax and bridge and traffic issues that are no better. Both major universities here are up large hills and in general the destinations are more spread out, while the Halifax peninsula and inner Dartmouth are the perfect scale for cycling.

I don't think there is a climate debate, actually. Vancouver and Halifax have different climates, which is a more complicated conversation than simply relying on mean temperature data, etc.

For example, people who collect classic cars will often shop for them in BC because they tend to be less rusty than east coast cars of similar vintage which mostly disappeared 30 - 40 years ago. Why, you say, when mean temperature data suggests that the climates are similar, and the west coast also has high humidity?

Use of road salt would be the answer - from your chemistry classes you will remember that steel gives up electrons more readily in a solution of salt water vs water alone. Why would more road salt be used on the east coast? Icy roads would be the answer. The same icy roads that are less conducive to cycling, one would surmise.

Mind you, I haven't lived in Vancouver as you have, so I don't really know. I do know that cycling culture in Vancouver is big, much more than that of Halifax, and I can say anecdotally from visiting Vancouver that there is more cycling infrastructure available, and more cyclists using it, which brings me back to the point that with more optimal infrastructure and usage than Halifax, Vancouver still has a car traffic problem that results in things like sitting in non-moving traffic for a half hour to just get across the Lions Gate bridge (the west coast cousin of the Macdonald bridge), which I have done.

Nonetheless, it wasn't an important point, just an illustration that cycling infrastructure is great for those who want to use it, and all cities should have decent cycling infrastructure, but it still isn't going to take a major bite out of traffic like good transit would (i.e. Skytrain, for example).

So, saying that the city is 'kowtowing to drivers' is a loaded (and false) statement, when the vast majority of people depend on roads just to live their lives (not for 'fun'). Of course there are better ways to do it, which is why many of us have complained about Halifax's lack of effort to provide decent transit so that people could have an efficient and convenient alternative to jumping into their car to go anywhere.

It's really a simple conversation that is easy to understand without all the loaded rhetoric that people cling to when trying to defend their 'side'. IMHO, there are no sides, as we all really want the same thing... acceptable, efficient ways of moving about... and there are many ways to achieve that goal.

[LikesBikes]

Originally Posted by GTG_78

I don't know why this needs to be stated, but a person going for cataract surgery or a colonoscopy is not going to be cycling, let alone from *Sackville* to their appointment.

Again, everyone acknowledges biking won't be for everyone (just like walking isn't for everyone and driving isn't for everyone). That doesn't mean though we shouldn't make it safe for people who choose or are forced to use a bike (reasons could be lacking transit and inability to afford or operate a car.) Further, in your example there's still going to be doctors, nurses, and other employees at the hospital or medical centre who may choose to bike if safe infrastructure is provided.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by LikesBikes

Again, everyone acknowledges biking won't be for everyone (just like walking isn't for everyone and driving isn't for everyone). That doesn't mean though we shouldn't make it safe for people who choose or are forced to use a bike (reasons could be lacking transit and inability to afford or operate a car.) Further, in your example there's still going to be doctors, nurses, and other employees at the hospital or medical centre who may choose to bike if safe infrastructure is provided.

It already exists. It's known as a bus or a taxi.

[LikesBikes]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

It already exists. It's known as a bus or a taxi.

Transit service sucks in most cities outside of the core and who is going to afford a taxi to commute to work everyday?

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by LikesBikes

Source? And also, whose the cycling lobby? The integrated transportation plan was developed by planners, engineers and community members, like every other planning document pretty much...

No, it was produced by one Ms. Kelsey (Bike) Lane, then head of the Halifax Cycling Coalition, now with the Ecology Action Center (last time I looked). She bought Mason a coffee, gave him the document, and presto, an Active Transportation Strategy was born. That's pretty much how it went down. And of course the tyro HRM planners, fresh out of school, lapped it up.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Use of road salt would be the answer - from your chemistry classes you will remember that steel gives up electrons more readily in a solution of salt water vs water alone. Why would more road salt be used on the east coast? Icy roads would be the answer. The same icy roads that are less conducive to cycling, one would surmise.

I guess but road salt is used here too, though not as much and sometimes it isn't used when it should be. It's already been used around my area and it's not uncommon for us to have a week or two of ice and snow per year and of course we have heavy rain sometimes or wind storms and last summer it went over 40 with the heat dome. My point is you need to have some kind of plan for this as a bicycle commuter, and it doesn't matter much to logistics or annual biking rates if this happens for 2 weeks a year or 2 months a year. Even if cycling is a 6 month a year activity it's worthwhile.

The road salt and generally better winter maintenance is actually an equalizer. NS certainly isn't great but when it snows here a lot of side streets or pedestrian paths are not cleared at all. Farther afield you see people biking in more wintry places than Halifax like Montreal or Helsinki. Globally I don't think the Halifax climate is that out there for cycling. It's maybe middle of the pack in NA or even above average since so many places have swampy 30+ summer weather that isn't good for cycling at all.

Mind you, I haven't lived in Vancouver as you have, so I don't really know. I do know that cycling culture in Vancouver is big, much more than that of Halifax, and I can say anecdotally from visiting Vancouver that there is more cycling infrastructure available, and more cyclists using it, which brings me back to the point that with more optimal infrastructure and usage than Halifax, Vancouver still has a car traffic problem that results in things like sitting in non-moving traffic for a half hour to just get across the Lions Gate bridge (the west coast cousin of the Macdonald bridge), which I have done.

The goal of cycling infrastructure isn't to make car traffic lighter and nicer, it's to allow people to do trips by bike. Given the relative percentages and the way the traffic tends to rebalance itself across modes according to travel times and cost, cycling infrastructure is not likely to be a significant traffic solution and shouldn't be sold as one.

I'm not sure I've seen any large/growing cities with all 3 of functional urbanism (any vibrancy whatsoever), "all you can drive" roads (no congestion charges), and light traffic. I think the right solution there is better transit and congestion fees as well as some tactical road improvements when possible. I don't think cycling infrastructure interferes with those other goals much if at all.

[Drybrain]

To this discussion I would add that the bridge bikeway—the most controversially costly piece of the IMP—has been engineered specifically to keep bikes out of the way of traffic. A staff report to council this week indicated that if the flyover is ultimately cancelled and some less costly means of getting on the bridge pursued, only very minor impacts to car traffic will be allowed.

The idea that bike infrastructure is having some seriously deleterious effect on congestion is silly; I’m not aware of any data that shows this, and it definitely hasn’t been my experience anecdotally.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Would never defend our slow, unambitious AT rollout—and I’m very jealous of Montreal especially—but I wonder where Calgary has gotten this reputation as a cycling leader. The city built 6 km of lanes in 2015—up from zero—and then added incrementally for the next half-decade. It added 11 km in 2021, a good catch up, but it still has only 23 km built towards the 30 km it was supposed to have in 2020, with no plans for more next year. Worse than Halifax, really, when you consider the vast sprawl of the place and relatively smaller proportion of the population served by the lanes that do exist.

The Sutcliffe victory in Ottawa’s mayoral election also doesn’t bode well for cycling there, but I guess that strongly depends on the makeup of council.

I dunno... I recall being in Calgary in 1983(!), seeing bike lanes and wishing that Halifax had similar infrastructure (it had none). So, I'm not sure where you get the impression that it had zero bike infrastructure before 2015.

Back in Halifax I was sharing the roads with cars, cycling like my head was on a pivot to make sure that nobody was about to cut me off or turn in front of me. Without a helmet. Mind you, although drivers weren't perfect back then, they were less aggressive and more attentive, generally. There certainly didn't seem to be any car vs bicycle 'war' going on, and generally there seemed to be more respect between both sides.

Anecdotally, FWIW, my recent experiences with places that had more cycling infrastructure (Ottawa and Montreal, specifically) were not great as a pedestrian. In both places there were a few instances where, as a pedestrian on a "shared path", I was almost run down by cyclists that would zip up behind you, fail to use their bell as a warning, and blow by you so closely that you could feel the wind from them passing. In all of those cases, had I stepped slightly to the side (like to avoid a puddle or dog poop) I would have been creamed and probably spent the remainder of my vacation in pain (or the hospital). In Montreal I witnessed a cyclist almost take out a small child (who naturally will have the propensity to wander), presumably because the cyclist didn't want to slow down when approaching a family with small children. I know these are only the actions of individuals, but the 'kumbaya' talk of cyclists living in virtuous harmony with all those around, or even being grouped in with pedestrians is a bit misleading, IMHO. There are still real problems that will occur between cyclists and those who are 'lower in the pecking order'.

[GTG_78]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Anecdotally, FWIW, my recent experiences with places that had more cycling infrastructure (Ottawa and Montreal, specifically) were not great as a pedestrian. In both places there were a few instances where, as a pedestrian on a "shared path", I was almost run down by cyclists that would zip up behind you, fail to use their bell as a warning, and blow by you so closely that you could feel the wind from them passing. In all of those cases, had I stepped slightly to the side (like to avoid a puddle or dog poop) I would have been creamed and probably spent the remainder of my vacation in pain (or the hospital). In Montreal I witnessed a cyclist almost take out a small child (who naturally will have the propensity to wander), presumably because the cyclist didn't want to slow down when approaching a family with small children. I know these are only the actions of individuals, but the 'kumbaya' talk of cyclists living in virtuous harmony with all those around, or even being grouped in with pedestrians is a bit misleading, IMHO. There are still real problems that will occur between cyclists and those who are 'lower in the pecking order'.

If cycling usage does increase, there will need to be a broader re-examination of right of way to address this. The Netherlands opted to prioritize right-of-way for cyclists over drivers and pedestrians in shared spaces. Likely, a similar choice will become necessary here. Ultimately, we do not 'share' the road: the government (taking direction from voters) prioritizes one form of transportation over the other, and then sequences appropriately.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by GTG_78

If cycling usage does increase, there will need to be a broader re-examination of right of way to address this. The Netherlands opted to prioritize right-of-way for cyclists over drivers and pedestrians in shared spaces. Likely, a similar choice will become necessary here. Ultimately, we do not 'share' the road: the government (taking direction from voters) prioritizes one form of transportation over the other, and then sequences appropriately.

This was at least partly because it is so difficult for cyclists to accelerate. But the need for that kind of priority might be getting outdated with electric bikes. And the % of cyclists is high in places like Amsterdam.

I don't think society or cities are even close to adapting to vehicles that take advantage of modern technology. Both small electric vehicles and limited self-driving. If we were building new cities from the ground up, we would probably want a completely different setup. Little to no manual drive at all, more specialized vehicles, etc.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I dunno... I recall being in Calgary in 1983(!), seeing bike lanes and wishing that Halifax had similar infrastructure (it had none). So, I'm not sure where you get the impression that it had zero bike infrastructure before 2015.

It had no on-street separated lanes (unless it had them back then and later got rid of them). It certainly had none when I lived there 10 years ago.

What it has had for a long time is a big network of off-road recreational paths, winding through its river valleys and escarpments. Those are really nice, but not always very effective for moving efficiently through the city.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by someone123

I guess but road salt is used here too, though not as much and sometimes it isn't used when it should be. It's already been used around my area and it's not uncommon for us to have a week or two of ice and snow per year and of course we have heavy rain sometimes or wind storms and last summer it went over 40 with the heat dome. My point is you need to have some kind of plan for this as a bicycle commuter, and it doesn't matter much to logistics or annual biking rates if this happens for 2 weeks a year or 2 months a year. Even if cycling is a 6 month a year activity it's worthwhile.

The road salt and generally better winter maintenance is actually an equalizer. NS certainly isn't great but when it snows here a lot of side streets or pedestrian paths are not cleared at all. Farther afield you see people biking in more wintry places than Halifax like Montreal or Helsinki. Globally I don't think the Halifax climate is that out there for cycling. It's maybe middle of the pack in NA or even above average since so many places have swampy 30+ summer weather that isn't good for cycling at all.

Anyhow... it was a side point, so no debate necessary, and I already deferred to the expertise of somebody who lives there (i.e. you).

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

It had no on-street separated lanes (unless it had them back then and later got rid of them). It certainly had none when I lived there 10 years ago.

What it has had for a long time is a big network of off-road recreational paths, winding through its river valleys and escarpments. Those are really nice, but not always very effective for moving efficiently through the city.

You would know... I was only a visitor, and maybe I was thinking about the cycling trails, but I recall them cutting through the city, and on-street lanes (perhaps not separated?). Regardless, I wouldn't have had 'cycle-lane envy' if there was nothing, so...???

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Anecdotally, FWIW, my recent experiences with places that had more cycling infrastructure (Ottawa and Montreal, specifically) were not great as a pedestrian. In both places there were a few instances where, as a pedestrian on a "shared path", I was almost run down by cyclists that would zip up behind you, fail to use their bell as a warning, and blow by you so closely that you could feel the wind from them passing. In all of those cases, had I stepped slightly to the side (like to avoid a puddle or dog poop) I would have been creamed and probably spent the remainder of my vacation in pain (or the hospital).

The bright side was that likely the reckless idiot cyclist would have had similar injuries and possibly have damaged his velocipede as well, so there would have been some solace in that.

If walking on such shared paths, a pair of elbow pads and a stout stick are a must.

[Kittle]

Originally Posted by LikesBikes

Transit service sucks in most cities outside of the core and who is going to afford a taxi to commute to work everyday?

The majority of increased cycling due to the construction of new infrastructure is largely those who "sometimes used cycling as a means of transportation", and those who used it as a primary means switching their routes to take advantage of the new infrastructure. The usage of the cycling infrastructure also depends on locality dependent factors. With so many who commute from far off the peninsula to work as has been mentioned, I highly doubt the increase in cycling per dollar spent would be worth it.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...61920921002145

Edit: can we also compromise that cyclists who use the sidewalk or car lanes out of convenience where unobstructed, usable bike lanes be fined for this? Just as I would say the driver of the car photographed parking their car in the Hollis bike lane a few weeks back deserves the same.

[Arrdeeharharharbour]

I don't know what this development is called so maybe someone can help me out? It's the south west corner of Gottingen and Bilby. They're in there with a backhoe busting rock this morning.

20221128_090754 by AJ Forsythe, on Flickr

[Summerville]

Originally Posted by Arrdeeharharharbour

I don't know what this development is called so maybe someone can help me out? It's the south west corner of Gottingen and Bilby. They're in there with a backhoe busting rock this morning.

20221128_090754 by AJ Forsythe, on Flickr

That is the one with the clock