Halifax Active Transportation

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Good Baklava

Full Report


Source: Halifax Examiner / Halifax Regional Municipality

Source: Halifax Examiner / Halifax Regional Municipality

The proposals involve bikelanes separate from sidewalks, instead of creating an asphalt sidewalk and calling it a mixed-use trail.

I like it. Especially separating pedestrians from cyclists. I've always thought "mixed use trails" were not a good idea.

I think it's good to build it now, while it is relatively easy to put it in place, and before the demand is there. Even if the bicycle lanes aren't heavily used by commuters, it will still provide yet another safe route for recreational cyclists, which can only be a good thing.

Of course there will be those who think that we should be making things more difficult for people living in these areas because they think improvements such as these will encourage sprawl. I'm glad the city doesn't seem to have that mindset, though, as people living off the peninsula should have access to safe, efficient travel as well.

[Keith P.]

Easily confused as I am, I wonder why the planners think there will be twice as much traffic volume heading northbound as southbound?

[atbw]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I like it. Especially separating pedestrians from cyclists. I've always thought "mixed use trails" were not a good idea.

I think it's good to build it now, while it is relatively easy to put it in place, and before the demand is there. Even if the bicycle lanes aren't heavily used by commuters, it will still provide yet another safe route for recreational cyclists, which can only be a good thing.

Of course there will be those who think that we should be making things more difficult for people living in these areas because they think improvements such as these will encourage sprawl. I'm glad the city doesn't seem to have that mindset, though, as people living off the peninsula should have access to safe, efficient travel as well.

The lane coming up Herring Cove from the Roundabout is something I’m really excited about. There’s a ton of great cycling on that part of the mainland but that stretch just sucks right now.

[Saul Goode]

Okay, I know this is supremely trivial and ultimately probably not even worth mentioning, but it's been irritating the bejeezus out of me, probably because it's a bit of mindless planner-speak, and planners have really been getting under my skin lately.

The strip of grass between the curb and the sidewalk, as shown on the cross-section diagram above, is absolutely, positively, definitely, no effing doubt about it, NOT a "boulevard", as the diagram says. A boulevard is an avenue, typically wide and well-landscaped, and often with a median strip.

It appears that that little curb-sidewalk strip at some point came to be known colloquially as a "boulevard strip" among (ahem) "professionals", and I guess I could be kinda-maybe-sorta okay with that, understanding (I think) the derivation. But over the years that seems to have been abbreviated in planner-speak to simply "boulevard". And that, frankly, is inane. It's just like calling it a "street" or a "road" or an "avenue". And nobody would put up with THAT nonsense.

Now it's beginning to infect the broader population. An acquaintance of my son's a few years ago commented to me on how HRM's snow-clearing Bobcats had torn up the grass on our "boulevard". I looked at him as if he had three heads (he barely has one); he had no idea whatsoever that a boulevard was actually some kind of thoroughfare. See what jerking around with a word can do?

I told him to look at a dictionary. I'm telling planners the same thing here and now. Look it up. And stop screwing with a perfectly good word.

There. Inconsequential rant off.

Do I need a flak jacket?

[OldDartmouthMark]

Haha... good rant. I concur.

[Good Baklava]

I’ve heard them called “storm water buffers”.

Here’s a list of terminology from Wikipedia: Road Verge

Apparently “boulevard” is used in Ontario and the upper Midwest.

I blame the Ontarians.

[Saul Goode]

Originally Posted by Good Baklava

I’ve heard them called “storm water buffers”.

Here’s a list of terminology from Wikipedia: Road Verge

Apparently “boulevard” is used in Ontario and the upper Midwest.

I blame the Ontarians.

Ah - the Great Illiterati, as I prefer to call them...

Of course, Ontarians insist on calling electricity "hydro" even if it's generated by burning coal, so what do they know?

Just kidding! Really! Nobody throw rocks!

But no matter, it's still a bit of inane jargon that should be expunged from the language. It's just too precious to be allowed to live.

[Good Baklava]

Originally Posted by Saul Goode

Ah - the Great Illiterati, as I prefer to call them...

Of course, Ontarians insist on calling electricity "hydro" even if it's generated by burning coal, so what do they know?

Just kidding! Really! Nobody throw rocks!

But no matter, it's still a bit of inane jargon that should be expunged from the language. It's just too precious to be allowed to live.

The added humour to the forum is much appreciated.

People telling me to pronounce Toronto faster are the ones who pronounce Dartmouth as Dart mouth, or Newfoundland as New Finland

[Saul Goode]

Originally Posted by Good Baklava

People telling me to pronounce Toronto faster are the ones who pronounce Dartmouth as Dart mouth, or Newfoundland as New Finland

Most of my colleagues (95%) are in the GTA. I get "Dart Mouth" all the time from them. Also "NewFOUNDland". The only one other than I who seems to get the names right is the one unit member who lives on the Left Coast.

The worst, though, is that in scheduling online meetings the Torontonians steadfastly and arrogantly refuse to acknowledge that there's any time zone other than Eastern. Or they're too dumb to know otherwise; neither looks good on them.

BTW, I say "Tronno". They seem to think that's fine.

[Keith P.]

I always called that a "hell strip" because HRM owns it but not only fails to maintain it but also dumps stuff from the roads on it with their snowplows. It sure as hell isn't a "boulevard".

Let's substitute "planners" for "lawyers" in Dick the butcher's quote from Shakespeare's Henry VI, Part 2 if we want to change common word usage.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Let's substitute "planners" for "lawyers" in Dick the butcher's quote from Shakespeare's Henry VI, Part 2 if we want to change common word usage.

Given the amount of damage that modern city planners can do to our pre-existing urban environment, this revised quote might be quite apt.

Meddlers, one and all...……….

City planning departments are of course quite important, and planning guidelines and rules have to be developed and enforced, but modern planners seem to go out of their way to overengineer solutions and add unneeded complexity in their quest to solve planning problems.

[Saul Goode]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

I always called that a "hell strip" because HRM owns it but not only fails to maintain it but also dumps stuff from the roads on it with their snowplows. It sure as hell isn't a "boulevard".

This past winter was the first in, oh, easily more than a decade when HRM's snow removal contractors haven't ripped the sod right out of the one in front of our place with their silly skid steers. This is inevitably followed by some crew coming by later and casually throwing down a few shovelfuls of topsoil and grass seed, which is useless, then by me buying sods to make the thing presentable and actually capable of being mowed through the summer and fall. I emailed photos to our councillor the first few times it happened but eventually accepted the futility of that and gave up.

I blame the city for letting them get away with it. Contractors ought to be obliged to use purpose-designed snow-removal gear that fits the sidewalks properly.

[eastcoastal]

Originally Posted by Saul Goode

... Contractors ought to be obliged to use purpose-designed snow-removal gear that fits the sidewalks properly.

Absolutely. It would be great if HRM would better define quality requirements of these contracts and stipulate penalties (or responsibility to fix appropriately) in its agreements.

[Good Baklava]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

modern planners seem to go out of their way to overengineer solutions and add unneeded complexity in their quest to solve planning problems.

Modern? You’ve just described the last couple centuries of urban planning.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Good Baklava

Modern? You’ve just described the last couple centuries of urban planning.

True that. The 1950s and 1960s weren't really any better than today in terms of city planning IMHO (arguably they were much worse - or even 'no planning' in some cases). For Halifax, it meant a massive demolition of a good portion of the downtown to replace it with a highway that went nowhere (once the citizens realized the huge cost of this demotion in terms of lost history, and stopped it before demolition of the buildings now known as Historic Properties). In the 1970s and 1980s it meant allowing free run for anybody who wanted to tear down anything and replace it with "nothing", i.e. an empty lot or surface parking. In retrospect, a more granular approach would have resulted in a much better outcome, but planners at the time were working by the popular philosophies of the day - that car access should trump all other priorities, not a balanced approach.

That said, I also think today's planners also have the tendency to go a little over the top with their one-size-fits-all textbook solutions...

I really wish that people in politics and the planning community would put aside their agendas and just do their job with a more balanced approach, rather than defaulting to whatever is the trendy philosophy of the day. I know that may sound a little unfair, and is not true in all cases, but I get the jist of what the other posters in this topic are getting at.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I really wish that people in politics and the planning community would put aside their agendas and just do their job with a more balanced approach, rather than defaulting to whatever is the trendy philosophy of the day.

But for any planner educated over the last x-number of years, all they know is the current dogma. They really don't know anything else.

[Good Baklava]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

That said, I also think today's planners also have the tendency to go a little over the top with their one-size-fits-all textbook solutions...

I really wish that people in politics and the planning community would put aside their agendas and just do their job with a more balanced approach, rather than defaulting to whatever is the trendy philosophy of the day. I know that may sound a little unfair, and is not true in all cases, but I get the jist of what the other posters in this topic are getting at.

Certainly, we have many cult-like utopian urbanists today.

While it’s pretty clear I support some of their ideals, I’m generally not a fan of the spirit in which they’re carried out. Someone may tell you the urbanist ideals are about health, the environment, saving taxes and and overall quality of life. I would agree with those ideas but I think it overlooks an important point: these ideals are mostly about attracting investment.

While there’s nothing wrong with bringing much-needed investment to the downtown I think it comes at the cost of people’s enjoyment of the city, and fails to deliver on the original promises. Urban enthusiasts today may see Paris as some sort of ideal, but many forget Haussmann’s project was about ensuring social and economic stability. In fact, Robert Moses was inspired by the boulevard carving in Paris when writing his thesis. We think too much about what is planned, without improving how we plan.

Someone in Cole Harbour will have a very different ideal city compared to another person in the North End. A Haligonian will have an ideal different from the Vancouverite, New Yorker, Parisian or Shanghainese. Different generations have their own ideals too. Despite its flaws I think Halifax has done an okay job at allowing some local taste in new development. I just find a lot of developments meeting these urbanist ideals in other parts of the country ironically produce pretty mundane spaces.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Good Baklava

Someone may tell you the urbanist ideals are about health, the environment, saving taxes and and overall quality of life. I would agree with those ideas but I think it overlooks an important point: these ideals are mostly about attracting investment.

A lot of planners don't talk in terms of trade-offs and I wonder if they think in terms of trade-offs and opportunity costs. You hear a lot about roads and transit being good or bad for example but not a lot about how to really get at the cost-benefit to decide which projects are worthwhile. I think the media play a role here; the dogmas fit in sound bytes and good quality decision making does not.

Halifax has some features we might think of as planning advantages that are more like a historical accident and not so much about modern planning choices. In particular it has a lot of older mixed use areas (maybe 1/5 or 1/4 of the metro while in many North American cities it's more like 1/10 or 1/20) and it's a bit less amenable to large scale development.

[Good Baklava]

Originally Posted by someone123

A lot of planners don't talk in terms of trade-offs and I wonder if they think in terms of trade-offs and opportunity costs. You hear a lot about roads and transit being good or bad for example but not a lot about how to really get at the cost-benefit to decide which projects are worthwhile. I think the media play a role here; the dogmas fit in sound bytes and good quality decision making does not.

I’d say there is a CBA between the highways, BRTs and LRTs in terms of the costs between projects, serving the maximum number of commuters and the types of development they generate. Where things are sorely lacking is the question of “If we put in this new GO Train, how many people can afford to live near stations?”. Of course both of those questions are absent from popular coverage.

Originally Posted by someone123

Halifax has some features we might think of as planning advantages that are more like a historical accident and not so much about modern planning choices. In particular it has a lot of older mixed use areas (maybe 1/5 or 1/4 of the metro while in many North American cities it's more like 1/10 or 1/20) and it's a bit less amenable to large scale development.

Yup.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Good Baklava

Certainly, we have many cult-like utopian urbanists today.

While it’s pretty clear I support some of their ideals, I’m generally not a fan of the spirit in which they’re carried out. Someone may tell you the urbanist ideals are about health, the environment, saving taxes and and overall quality of life. I would agree with those ideas but I think it overlooks an important point: these ideals are mostly about attracting investment.

While there’s nothing wrong with bringing much-needed investment to the downtown I think it comes at the cost of people’s enjoyment of the city, and fails to deliver on the original promises. Urban enthusiasts today may see Paris as some sort of ideal, but many forget Haussmann’s project was about ensuring social and economic stability. In fact, Robert Moses was inspired by the boulevard carving in Paris when writing his thesis. We think too much about what is planned, without improving how we plan.

Someone in Cole Harbour will have a very different ideal city compared to another person in the North End. A Haligonian will have an ideal different from the Vancouverite, New Yorker, Parisian or Shanghainese. Different generations have their own ideals too. Despite its flaws I think Halifax has done an okay job at allowing some local taste in new development. I just find a lot of developments meeting these urbanist ideals in other parts of the country ironically produce pretty mundane spaces.

Well said. Thank you for your insight.