Haifax-Dartmouth Bridge Commission

[Saul Goode]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Ever since Sam Austin tinkered with the timing of the traffic signals there to accommodate whatever he sought to accommodate, the flow of the morning commute has been choked down significantly.

Yes. And that whole area has become a PITA to drive in. I miss the cutout from Nantucket onto Wyse, and not being able to turn right on red from Wyse to Boland is really irritating when there's no other car or bicycle anywhere in sight that could possibly be affected.

[OldDartmouthMark]

And it’s exactly this type of overreach that gives cycling infrastructure a black eye. Too much one way, seemingly blind to common sense and the needs of the majority. If the conspiracy theories are correct, and part of the motivation is to try to force people out of their vehicles by creating inconvenience, this only hurts the cause in the long run, creating negative PR for the cycling community.

[IanWatson]

Originally Posted by Saul Goode

not being able to turn right on red from Wyse to Boland is really irritating when there's no other car or bicycle anywhere in sight that could possibly be affected.

I have to admit, the "no right turn on red" wherever bike lanes are installed really baffles me. As a cyclist, I WANT the cars turning right on red. That means they can clear the intersection before my light turns green to go straight, and there's less risk of me getting right hooked by a right-turning car who's been getting impatient waiting for a green.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

If the conspiracy theories are correct, and part of the motivation is to try to force people out of their vehicles by creating inconvenience, this only hurts the cause in the long run, creating negative PR for the cycling community.

These theories, at least in our city, are not correct.

[darkharbour]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

I have to admit, the "no right turn on red" wherever bike lanes are installed really baffles me. As a cyclist, I WANT the cars turning right on red. That means they can clear the intersection before my light turns green to go straight, and there's less risk of me getting right hooked by a right-turning car who's been getting impatient waiting for a green.

I'm divided about it personally. I bike to work a lot, and I agree in large part with what you are saying for the exact same reason, but the flip side of that is that by giving people the "permission" to turn right whenever they want it creates more situations where drivers don't check their blind spot or even look for cyclists at all, and that can be very unnerving as an unprotected cyclist.

It's also much worse for cyclists coming through the intersection on a green light the other way. If a driver sticks their nose out into the intersection to check - or not stop completely - to turn right on a red light, they are very likely to either hit a cyclist coming the other way, or to take up the bike's space on the side of the intersection and force them to veer further into traffic and risk getting side swiped or hit from behind.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

These theories, at least in our city, are not correct.

Could have fooled me. I know FB skews older and is not representative of the populace as a whole, but the comments on there regarding the motion to pause the bike lane initiative to take a second look at it was almost universal in decrying the efforts so far and condemning Council for pandering to special interests that do not represent the interests of the city overall.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by darkharbour

I'm divided about it personally. I bike to work a lot, and I agree in large part with what you are saying for the exact same reason, but the flip side of that is that by giving people the "permission" to turn right whenever they want it creates more situations where drivers don't check their blind spot or even look for cyclists at all, and that can be very unnerving as an unprotected cyclist.

It's also much worse for cyclists coming through the intersection on a green light the other way. If a driver sticks their nose out into the intersection to check - or not stop completely - to turn right on a red light, they are very likely to either hit a cyclist coming the other way, or to take up the bike's space on the side of the intersection and force them to veer further into traffic and risk getting side swiped or hit from behind.

I don't know exactly why, but Austin has waged war on motorists being able to turn right at intersections, having removed a slip lane at Nantucket and Wyse that to my knowledge had very few problems and allowed traffic to flow more freely. He then doubled down on that by insisting that the new intersection not allow right turn on red either. That is less problematic for cyclists in my experience as most I've seen either just make the turn anyway, or dismount and walk their bike to the corner and then proceed.

The intersection at Boland and Wyse is a total mess at likely huge cost to taxpayers. I have no idea what problem he thought he was solving with that setup. Hopefully a useful lesson in the future for not letting elected councillors direct city staff.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

These theories, at least in our city, are not correct.

I'm not saying they are, nor am I saying they are not. I will say that neither side has proven their argument unequivocally.

I will also say that, when you look at the functionality of the Wyse Road/Nantucket area, the cost/benefit balance, in terms of vehicle and cycling traffic, tends to raise suspicions... but it could just be attributed to a planning failure where the functionality of the area wasn't considered in its entirety.

I would also say that IMHO, there are two distinct factions of the cycling community - (1) those who just want to cycle in a safe environment - the "users" so to speak, and (2) the activist community whose goal is to always fight for cycling preferences, generally without limit - just push it as far as you can go.

I suspect that most cyclists fall under (1), and that would include myself, and the minority are in (2), though there is also (and will always be) some overlap. If there is even a sliver of truth to said conspiracy theory, it would fall squarely into the lap of group (2). Meanwhile group (1) just wants to cycle and arrive at their destination in one piece.

Take it for what it's worth. which won't be much if you disagree.

[Dartguard]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

These theories, at least in our city, are not correct.

Ah, but in practicality they are happening. The no right turn signs that have suddenly appeared out of Montreal are a complete waste of Gas , time and tolerance. WTF really?? I have waited on Lower Water street in the now single lane of traffic with the NON USED bike lane sitting empty to my right. There used to be two lanes to empty downtown. Now there is an unused monument to a very effective special interest group. Fuck the majority.

What defines success for this investment? I would like to hear from the majority of the travelling public what that definition is and not the vested interest group or the planning compatriots. When is enough enough?
How many bikes per day per kilometer ?, how many liters of gas wasted?
How many hours wasted waiting for the anointed to peddle by?

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by Dartguard

Ah, but in practicality they are happening. The no right turn signs that have suddenly appeared out of Montreal are a complete waste of Gas , time and tolerance. WTF really?? I have waited on Lower Water street in the now single lane of traffic with the NON USED bike lane sitting empty to my right. There used to be two lanes to empty downtown. Now there is an unused monument to a very effective special interest group. Fuck the majority.

1. The idea that cyclists are “anointed” because they’ve been given a few slivers of road space on a handful of the municipality’s thousands of roads is beyond ridiculous. Does this mean drivers are “anointed” everywhere else, where cyclists are made to roll through the gutter or in the door zone of parked cars, as drivers impatiently honk their way past them? I’m just trying to get myself and my family around safely. City streets are almost exclusively allocated to the use of motorists. Now that a fraction of them are allocated to cyclists, some motorists take it as an outrage?

2. No litres of gas or hours of drivers’ time are being wasted because bike lanes are not causing congestion. With the exception of that bit of Water Street (which happened years ago) no car lanes have been eliminated to accommodate bikes.

3. As for whether bike lanes are empty: cars are a massively inefficient use of space. A dozen people in single-occupancy can jam up a whole city block. That’s the cause of congestion: way too many people in cars for the limited amount of road space in a dense urban core. That’s not ideology, that’s geometry. Bikes, however, are very space-efficient. That’s why a car lane can be backed up while a bike appears empty, even though the bike lane is carrying substantial traffic itself. Compelling evidence from a recent afternoon on South Park during which bikes and scooters made up 17 percent of all traffic.

[Keith P.]

Man, there's a whole city of straw men that suddenly appeared here.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Could have fooled me. I know FB skews older and is not representative of the populace as a whole, but the comments on there regarding the motion to pause the bike lane initiative to take a second look at it was almost universal in decrying the efforts so far and condemning Council for pandering to special interests that do not represent the interests of the city overall.

The city has done polls about this that show a healthy majority are in favour of current/more bike lanes. And after Fillmore's motion made the news, even councillors who voted for it said they'd received mostly messages from constituents opposed to it. (John Young said exactly this in council, but then voted for Fillmore's motion anyway--which is fine, I don't think councillors' jobs are just to do what constituents tell them, but it was notable.)

I think Mancini's motion this week to examine costs without halting underway projects was a much more sober approach. It's still a little annoying that bike projects get singled out for this kind of scrutiny when so many others don't, but Mancini's motion was reasonable. Fillmore would have halted projects currently being tendered, created uncertainty with private contractors with likely future ramifications, thrown this year's capital budget out of whack and probably driven costs UP. Mancini's motion is like "I support the bike network, but let's see if we can nudge those costs down." I'm cautiously optimistic about it.

[IanWatson]

Originally Posted by Dartguard

I have waited on Lower Water street in the now single lane of traffic with the NON USED bike lane sitting empty to my right. There used to be two lanes to empty downtown. N

My office is right on Lower Water Street. That lane is VERY well used. It only feels like it isn't because you don't see long queues of bikes like you do of cars - because the bikes are moving through instead of sitting there in your field of view.

Lower Water used to be bi-directional with one lane in each direction. Then it was briefly two lanes outbound, but that didn't do any good because it narrowed down to essentially one lane at Historic Properties. It was technically two lanes but it got so narrow people would merge into one. In other words, Lower Water Street never functioned well for emptying downtown, bike lane or no. It's gotten worse not because of the bike lane, but because the number of cars using it has increased.

Short of tearing down Historic Properties, there's no real way to make Lower Water a high-volume route for cars. The bike lane at least takes away some of the car volume.

[GTG_78]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

The city has done polls about this that show a healthy majority are in favour of current/more bike lanes. And after Fillmore's motion made the news, even councillors who voted for it said they'd received mostly messages from constituents opposed to it. (John Young said exactly this in council, but then voted for Fillmore's motion anyway--which is fine, I don't think councillors' jobs are just to do what constituents tell them, but it was notable.)

The survey also clearly indicated that a supermajority of residents was opposed to paying more taxes to build additional bike infrastructure.

The final actual cost will almost certainly exceed $90 million. A final cost of $125 - 140 million seems more likely. It is highly unlikely that HRM will be able to secure additional funding from the Province. It is unlikely that HRM will be able to secure additional funding from the Fed.

It is probable that HRM residents will be on the hook for it. And if the question of building more lanes at the current cost was put to voters in a plebiscite, the proposition would lose. And everyone knows it.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

cars are a massively inefficient use of space. A dozen people in single-occupancy can jam up a whole city block. That’s the cause of congestion: way too many people in cars for the limited amount of road space in a dense urban core. That’s not ideology, that’s geometry. Bikes, however, are very space-efficient. That’s why a car lane can be backed up while a bike appears empty, even though the bike lane is carrying substantial traffic itself.

Perhaps everybody should buy a motorcycle then?

These conversations are silly, because it's apples and oranges. Cars fulfill needs that two-wheeled conveyances cannot. I know I don't have to explain this.

What this city needs is a good, efficient transit system, which it does not have, and perhaps has not since the 1940s (when the city was much smaller, and very different).

We don't need bicycles vs cars. We need bicycles + cars + transit + ???

The ??? could mean planning changes such that rush hour is almost eliminated, like spreading out business nodes, perhaps planning smaller, walkable communities, etc. I'm not a planning expert, so I'm not going to pretend that I know the solution, but I fail to believe that the only solutions available are the ones that we continually default to. It seems that the world no longer produces people who can think outside the box anymore...

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by GTG_78

The survey also clearly indicated that a supermajority of residents was opposed to paying more taxes to build additional bike infrastructure.

I guarantee that a supermajority of residents are opposed to paying more taxes for almost anything.

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

We don't need bicycles vs cars. We need bicycles + cars + transit + ???

Yes.

[someone123]

That old bottleneck by Morse's Teas used to be very unappealing and poorly designed. There wasn't even a sidewalk on one side. It seems better to accept it's suitable for at most one vehicle lane, and it isn't primarily a traffic artery.

I think the reality with downtown is that if it's going to be built up and vibrant, it won't be that convenient a place to drive, and most people will need to rely on more space-efficient modes of transportation. There was a time when the area was more car-friendly, but it was also half empty with parking lots all over the place. The main solution now is to provide good transit service for the area.

One criticism of the bike lanes is that Halifax doesn't have a comprehensive transportation plan or sense of long-term car and transit infrastructure needs. All of its recent planning hugely underestimated growth with no contingency for what happened. In the absence of good planning, it's possible that bike lane investments will interfere with whatever ends up happening a few years later.

[Keith P.]

Please educate me on the bottleneck at Morse’s. Is the entry to Historic Properties not across the street? And is that not a 1970s creation not at all historic in itself? Why could 10 or 15 feet of that not be sacrificed to open up transportation options, especially given that (as I understand it) that entire mostly failed shopping area is under renovation? I confess that I haven’t set foot in there in years.

[GTG_78]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

I guarantee that a supermajority of residents are opposed to paying more taxes for almost anything.



Yes.

We are one of the most heavily taxed subnational jurisdictions in North America. Residents are right to object to paying even more when it is for something they will not use.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Please educate me on the bottleneck at Morse’s. Is the entry to Historic Properties not across the street? And is that not a 1970s creation not at all historic in itself? Why could 10 or 15 feet of that not be sacrificed to open up transportation options, especially given that (as I understand it) that entire mostly failed shopping area is under renovation? I confess that I haven’t set foot in there in years.

The physical stone walls of the buildings on each side of the street are very close together. The old configuration (visible on Google street view) was 2 narrow vehicle lanes with a sidewalk on one side. Now it's 1 vehicle lane, 1 bike lane, and sidewalks on both sides (visible in the Google maps satellite view).

It is not good in a downtown area to have sidewalks that stop and start, and now that the interchange is gone this is all walkable. With the second sidewalk, I doubt there is room for a second full-sized vehicle lane. So it's not just about the bike lane per se. It also looks like Upper Water Street is only one lane in each direction after merging with Hollis so I'm not sure how much difference the extra lane one or two blocks over would make; it would just move the bottleneck slightly. You could argue that that section of Upper Water should have been redesigned as 4 lane but again it merges in with 4 lane Barrington nearby. The ability for Water St to act as a vehicle corridor is limited.