Halifax Active Transportation

[LikesBikes]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

However, sometimes you have to look in the mirror. Having a discussion with a group that doesn't accept or consider criticism is equally non-productive. I was originally hoping to perhaps improve that level of discussion by pointing out negative labeling (for both sides, BTW, as I detest "cycling zealots" as much as "anti-bike" labels), but neither side seems to want to drop their weapons, so I now see there is no point in that discussion, since my idea was apparently super-unreasonable.

There's a bit of bothsideism going on here. On one hand, there are the pro-bike crowd who'd like to have a discussion about the improvements being made to cycling and the other group who come in here calling everyone names (no anti-bike isn't the same as "crazy cycling zealots") and consistently bringing down the discussion. Bikes are a part of transportation systems across the world and we shouldn't have to provide the arguments for why this is the case on a near-weekly basis. To me, it seems obvious there's a few trolls on here who seem to take pleasure in bringing this discussion/thread down to a grade 2 level of debate.

[Arrdeeharharharbour]

Perhaps if the title of the thread was changed to be: 'Active Transportation in the absence of sound financial decisions' or something similiar then the discussion could move towards things like best placement of bike paths, best design for this or that, etc.. As it stands now there seems to be a stalemate between the pro-bike who want their individual wants satisfied and the anti-bikes who can't reconcile the spending of tax dollars in the absence of other public infrastructue that would serve a greater good. This situation could very well be an example of a generational gap in terms of way of thinking and acting.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Arrdeeharharharbour

Perhaps if the title of the thread was changed to be: 'Active Transportation in the absence of sound financial decisions' or something similiar then the discussion could move towards things like best placement of bike paths, best design for this or that, etc.. As it stands now there seems to be a stalemate between the pro-bike who want their individual wants satisfied and the anti-bikes who can't reconcile the spending of tax dollars in the absence of other public infrastructue that would serve a greater good. This situation could very well be an example of a generational gap in terms of way of thinking and acting.

I think this comes closer to a realistic view of the situation. Fiscal responsibility was the first casualty of HRM's "active transportation" agenda and now it has become expected that essentially unlimited funds will be available for any flights of fancy the cycling activists suggest. Meanwhile the explosive growth of the city and associated increases in traffic volume are ignored in the quest to reduce street capacity and make life as difficult as possible for motorists. Surely if put to a referendum the majority would ensure this does not occur, but we have not been given that opportunity. As you so well put it, the greater good is being ignored.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Reacting to your implications... i.e. I wouldn't do this in a car-related thread, therefore you shouldn't do it in a cycle-related thread (errr... "active transportation"-related). If it wasn't meant that way, then I retract my statement. Sometimes it's difficult to wade through some of the haughtiness of your posts... so "my bad".

No that is what I was implying. Not that they shouldn't do it on the basis that I wouldn't, but that they shouldn't do it because it's provocative, disruptive, and leads to conflict. I was simply pointing out the hypocrisy of the people doing it since they wouldn't take kindly to it being done by others. In other words, I was criticizing people (well, mostly just person at this point) disrupting the thread and I definitely don't think they should be doing it. However, criticism is neither dictatorship nor censorship, something you clearly realize because you were criticizing someone yourself earlier in this very discussion. You complained that using terminology like "anti-bike" came across as "derogatory" which I assume implied that you don't think they should be doing that. So I guess you were dictating to them?

And of course, I'm sure calling someone's post's "haughty" would never quality as derogatory.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

However, sometimes you have to look in the mirror. Having a discussion with a group that doesn't accept or consider criticism is equally non-productive. I was originally hoping to perhaps improve that level of discussion by pointing out negative labeling (for both sides, BTW, as I detest "cycling zealots" as much as "anti-bike" labels), but neither side seems to want to drop their weapons, so I now see there is no point in that discussion, since my idea was apparently super-unreasonable.

This has become silly. Can we move on?

The problem isn't an inability to consider criticism. It's recognizing that while constructive criticism is productive, destructive criticism isn't. The ability to distinguish between the two and accept one while denying the other is extremely productive actually.

I'll also point out that the term zealot has much more negative connotations than "anti-bike", the latter of which is an accurate description for someone who opposes bikes, while zealot is a normative accusation of inappropriate behavior (much like the term haughty).

But sure. If you want to move on you're welcome to do so any time. But if you choose to continue the topic, you have no reason to expect anyone else not to.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

No that is what I was implying. Not that they shouldn't do it on the basis that I wouldn't, but that they shouldn't do it because it's provocative, disruptive, and leads to conflict. I was simply pointing out the hypocrisy of the people doing it since they wouldn't take kindly to it being done by others. In other words, I was criticizing people (well, mostly just person at this point) disrupting the thread and I definitely don't think they should be doing it. However, criticism is neither dictatorship nor censorship, something you clearly realize because you were criticizing someone yourself earlier in this very discussion. You complained that using terminology like "anti-bike" came across as "derogatory" which I assume implied that you don't think they should be doing that. So I guess you were dictating to them?

And of course, I'm sure calling someone's post's "haughty" would never quality as derogatory.

Are we having fun yet?

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

The problem isn't an inability to consider criticism. It's recognizing that while constructive criticism is productive, destructive criticism isn't. The ability to distinguish between the two and accept one while denying the other is extremely productive actually.

I'll also point out that the term zealot has much more negative connotations than "anti-bike", the latter of which is an accurate description for someone who opposes bikes, while zealot is a normative accusation of inappropriate behavior (much like the term haughty).

But sure. If you want to move on you're welcome to do so any time. But if you choose to continue the topic, you have no reason to expect anyone else not to.

Uh-huh.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Dmajackson

The bicycle traffic lights at MacDonald Bridge / Nantucket / Wyse have been activated. I've driven through a few times and cyclists seem to be navigating the area better now. The only issue is the new protected left-turn coming off the bridge seems to cause a bit of a line-up and drivers frequently run the red light. I imagine overtime this will balance out as more people opt to continue up Nantucket during the long green light.

Hmmm... it might have an unintended benefit of reducing people trying to avoid the traffic lineups on Nantucket by zipping across to Boland or Albro Lake.

Glad to hear that it seems to be showing benefit.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Glad to hear that it seems to be showing benefit.

It's not. There are too few cyclists using it to make any material difference.

However, I hear both the Esso on the corner and the Dartmouth Shopping Center are looking into installing toll gates for those shortcutting the "no right turn" nonsense heading in the opposite direction to take advantage of the multitudes moving through their lots to avoid the unnecessary delay.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

It's not. There are too few cyclists using it to make any material difference.

However, I hear both the Esso on the corner and the Dartmouth Shopping Center are looking into installing toll gates for those shortcutting the "no right turn" nonsense heading in the opposite direction to take advantage of the multitudes moving through their lots to avoid the unnecessary delay.

I honestly can't comment as I haven't driven through there since the changes have been made.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I honestly can't comment as I haven't driven through there since the changes have been made.

But you just did.

[Nouvellecosse]

Safe to say it's best left to the actual cyclists using the new provisions to judge whether it's providing them with an improved experience. In my case, I enjoy the part heading onto the bridge since I no longer have to drive through the strip mall parking lot and dodge people crossing the lot or backing out of the parking spaces and can instead use the new dedicated lane. Not to mention I no longer need to turn through queued cars on Faulkner. The intersection on Boland on the other hand, I'm mostly indifferent about since provisions like dedicated bike signals are mostly aimed at making fearful novice cyclists feel safer.

So far the area going left up Wyse toward Boland doesn't seem to have a huge volume of cyclist, but that's not too surprising given that the city's stated intention in building this type of infrastructure is to increase the rates of cycling meaning that they don't consider the rates high enough already. Once the AAA (all ages and abilities) routes have formed a cohesive network for a few years, we can start to judge whether or not the strategy was successful.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Are we having fun yet?

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Uh-huh.

Nothing any more fun than making a genuine attempt to communicate with people and having it met with tone policing and unproductive snark for the sake of snark while the actual content is disregarded. Who wouldn't love that.

[ILoveHalifax]

I fail to understand why any motorist can be angry towards cyclists - I always give cyclists lots of space and will not pass them unless I can move over even into oncoming lanes (sometimes that takes a fair wait for the lanes to clear) - BUT every time it only takes a few seconds and I am back behind the same car I was before. - Winter time on Agricola there is no space for bicycles but I wait so as not to get near them, I am driving a 4000 lb vehicle and a bicycle is 20 lbs, hardly a fair fight

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Nothing any more fun than making a genuine attempt to communicate with people and having it met with tone policing and unproductive snark for the sake of snark while the actual content is disregarded. Who wouldn't love that.

Hey, just returning the favour, my friend.

I commented in good faith way back before the 'drama' started, musing whether the volume of people serviced by bike lanes is the best use of taxpayers money vs prioritizing excellent transit first, and then looking at bike lanes, and nobody bothered to actually consider the point and instead came out in attack dog mode.

I suggested a more positive discourse and the responses came back to tell me that it was an unreasonable expectation, so I remarked that I would follow thusly. You can't expect kind respectful discourse once you've openly rejected it.

At this point, I haven't recognized any "genuine attempts to communicate" from you in quite some time, so I'm kinda done with it. The whole discourse from this thread and the cycling community in general has really changed my opinion of the whole thing. I still enjoy bikes and cycling, but I definitely don't consider myself part of the "club", I don't want to be at this point as it seems to be made up of a bunch of nasty, self-righteous people who have disdain for anybody that doesn't walk in lock-step with them. "Oh, but many cyclists also drive cars"... why is that? Because bicycles aren't the be-all end-all form of transportation for all circumstances? Imagine that.

That said, I still support cycling and bicycle infrastructure. I like the concept and think it's important, but don't like all the BS surrounding it.

Jesus, this is not how I want to spend my time, so why don't we all just take a deep breath and let it go. We don't agree. I'm good with that. Full stop. Ignore my comments, or put me on ignore if I get under your skin that much, but no more bullying from you please, I'm not taking part in it any further.

[Dmajackson]

Some AT updates;

1) Halifax has installed bumps at key intersections to encourage drivers to make sharper left-turns. The idea is a sharper turn will require slower speeds which should reduce left-turn pedestrian accidents. This is a trial run for this season. Joseph Howe @ Bayers @ Dutch Village;



2) Intersection upgrades and new AT connection. Joseph Howe @ Hwy 102 Ramps @ Elliott Street;



3) 30% Plans for Dartmouth North AT Connections Project have been unveiled.

Transportation Standing Committee Report

The goal of the project is to connect the Wyse Road bike lanes to Burnside Greenway. The proposed route is Farrell St Park - Farrell St (on-street bikeway) - Victoria Road (off-street bikeway) - Highfield Park Drive (on-street bikeway). The crossing of Victoria Road would be via a new half-signal for cyclists and pedestrians.

I used to bike from Wyse - Burnside everyday and while I took a different path I can understand why they chose this routing. For me Albro Lake - Leaman was the fastest route that was reasonably safe. The report mentions the need for safer crossings of Victoria Road north of Albro Lake, BRT Plans, and the high-density Centre zoning of Highfield Park Drive as reasons for selecting their route.

The Burnside Greenway is one of the few spots where you can see a constant stream of cyclists. Hopefully this project will encourage even more people to use it and force Halifax to extend the greenway north like it has been promised for the last decade.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Dmajackson

The goal of the project is to connect the Wyse Road bike lanes to Burnside Greenway. The proposed route is Farrell St Park - Farrell St (on-street bikeway) - Victoria Road (off-street bikeway) - Highfield Park Drive (on-street bikeway). The crossing of Victoria Road would be via a new half-signal for cyclists and pedestrians.

Well, as of right now there is no Wyse Rd bike lane despite them being built at great expense and inconvenience less than a year ago. The Austicks (TM Regd.) , the concrete bollards and all of the roadway paint installed on a good-sized chunk of Wyse Rd have all been torn up. In fact, there is no Wyse Rd either, as Halifax Water decided this would be a good time to do a major water and sewer pipe upgrade there. Hence at the corner of Wyse and Boland are barricades with numerous "Road Ends", "Bike Lane Closed" and "Detour" signs, with large piles of dirt visible in the background along with heavy equipment and HW staff standing around.

Sadly though, the asinine traffic signals the Councillor dreamed up for the intersection of Wyse and Boland continue to work although now their only function is to delay traffic unnecessarily. With there being no longer any cross traffic at that intersection, the signals could in fact be turned off entirely since Wyse Rd traffic can only turn right onto Boland and Boland traffic can only turn left onto Wyse. But noooo. Vehicles must still wait at the corner of Wyse and Boland for the special right-turn green signal to proceed. The brain-dead thinking at City Hall caused by a pandemic of Austinitis must be contagious.

Also, I note that the changes at Nantucket and Wyse by the Bridge Plaza seem to only have caused serious backups each morning all the way up the hill to Victoria Rd. The signals are apparently no longer synchronized going towards the bridge thanks to the Councillor, so morning rush traffic backs up badly. So much for HRM's battle against greenhouse gases.

[IanWatson]

This week's Regional Council agenda has a change order for design fees for the Macdonald Bridge bikeways. The staff report mentions that the updated target for the Halifax side improvements (i.e. the flyover) is now 2024.

[Keith P.]

There is a prime candidate for cancellation given the revenue shortfall now staring HRM in the face. A perfect example of frivolous and unnecessary spending.

[Haliguy]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

There is a prime candidate for cancellation given the revenue shortfall now staring HRM in the face. A perfect example of frivolous and unnecessary spending.

I very much disagree!!