Halifax Active Transportation

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by Haliguy

I very much disagree!!

Absolutely. It's a cost that we just have to bite down on--I doubt there's a cheap way to accomplish the same thing. The bridge access is a huge barrier to cross-town cycling traffic. I'm an active, 10-months-of-the-year cyclist, quite comfortable even on streets with poor infrastructure. But the bridge trek is so arduous and annoying I actively avoid it.

[Haliguy]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Absolutely. It's a cost that we just have to bite down on--I doubt there's a cheap way to accomplish the same thing. The bridge access is a huge barrier to cross-town cycling traffic. I'm an active, 10-months-of-the-year cyclist, quite comfortable even on streets with poor infrastructure. But the bridge trek is so arduous and annoying I actively avoid it.

Agreed, I have been biking a few days a week to work over the summer across the bridge from Northend Halifax to Woodside, and the bridge access is large hindrance on Halifax side. If you're not coming from or going to downtown, it's a large safety issue. Also, it's not just bicycles, there a lot more people using E-bikes and E-scooters these days and we need the infrastructure to accommodate it.

[Arrdeeharharharbour]

The next time I step off of a bus into a mucky slush puddle because HRM can't afford to pour a cement pad at a bus stop, I might end up with cold wet feet but I'll have a warm heart as I'll recall that all is good in HRM because one fellow won't be hindered and another won't be annoyed whilst riding their bikes sometimes. Clearly spending priorities are bang on in HRM because I I I I I I I I I..... give up.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by Arrdeeharharharbour

The next time I step off of a bus into a mucky slush puddle because HRM can't afford to pour a cement pad at a bus stop, I might end up with cold wet feet but I'll have a warm heart as I'll recall that all is good in HRM because one fellow won't be hindered and another won't be annoyed whilst riding their bikes sometimes. Clearly spending priorities are bang on in HRM because I I I I I I I I I..... give up.

Just something to think about.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Absolutely. It's a cost that we just have to bite down on--I doubt there's a cheap way to accomplish the same thing. The bridge access is a huge barrier to cross-town cycling traffic. I'm an active, 10-months-of-the-year cyclist, quite comfortable even on streets with poor infrastructure. But the bridge trek is so arduous and annoying I actively avoid it.

Nowhere did I say that the existing situation there - a prime example of wasteful govt spending in and of itself because of how poorly thought out it was - needed to stay that way. But a $10 million flyover ramp for a tiny handful of users isn't it.

It has been said before but I'll repeat: motorists already need to stop upon reaching the Halifax side of the bridge for pedestrians randomly crossing North St activating the crosswalk signals. All that needs to be done is to make those signals slightly smarter and extend them to signals at the end of the bicycle lane. Upon request every few minutes (not randomly but every few minutes if requested), the signals stop traffic to/from the bridge to allow the handful of pedestrians and cyclists to go where they want to go. That's it. A few thousand dollars to do that and remove the barriers at the end of the lane. That is not a particularly steep grade from there to Gottingen unlike the lower portion below the bridge. Problem is solved and millions of tax dollars go to a more useful purpose.

[Arrdeeharharharbour]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Just something to think about.

Well, I guess I do think that our city budget is finite. At least it is in terms of the tax amount that citizens are happy paying. I you can find enough money in the budget to satisfy all the 'I' people out there then great. Tell us how.

[someone123]

Annual HRM spending is about $1.1B. The concrete pad pouring for transit stops probably isn't significant. It might have more to do with planning oversights or bandwidth and logistical issues than the municipality needing to cut back to save money.

The budget isn't zero sum because there are outside factors like local economic growth or provincial and federal funding, and some spending can replace the need for other spending. If you build a capital project that makes the city a nicer place to live it can pay for itself. I think a lot of HRM projects are in that ballpark (Cogswell will for example if done well due to land sales, economic activity, and taxes paid). Our ports and airports are another example of net wins.

Given all the private investment happening on the peninsula, and the large growing tax base there, I would guess that a lot of seemingly fancier quality of life type improvements are completely justified.

[LikesBikes]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Just something to think about.

This also: https://www.rocktoroad.com/twinning-high...in%20the%20history%20of%20the%20province.

$700m for one frickin road. As a society we're fine with throwing away hundreds of millions of dollars for new highways which will lead to more traffic, increase GHGs, induce more financially unsustainable suburban development, and eat into our region's greenspace, but a trickle of money towards walking or biking is suddenly not within our budget.

[Nouvellecosse]

^ That's the part that people seem to miss. Car-centric spending is significantly more wasteful and has been occurring for decades. For instance, the HRM's estimated cost just for the connection from Burnside to hwy 107 is $14,780,000. Having to pay to widen and build new roads and maintain the greater amount of road surface is a huge financial burden and the city wants to keep those costs from ballooning by slowing shifting small amounts of the traffic to more sustainable modes. This of course has no relation to outlandish claims like "active transportation proponents want to ban cars and force everyone to bike everywhere".

The city's growth strategy is for 25% of region-wide growth to occur in the urban core while 50% would be suburban and 25% would be rural. But that 25% in the urban core provides an opportunity to reduce costs through active transportation. Providing the same amount of capacity through other means is much costlier. The goal in the integrated mobility plan was to go from 77% of trips by private car in 2011 to no more than 70% by 2031. Given 20 years expected population growth, that's still represents an increase in total car usage. Just not as great an increase as it would have otherwise been. And that would be an increase the city can't afford given the limitations of the road network in a historic, geography constrained city.

Also, I just saw one of the replies on the previous page. I'll try to be patient knowing people can be under a lot of stress but it wow ...

[TheNovaScotian]

Originally Posted by LikesBikes

This also: https://www.rocktoroad.com/twinning-high...in%20the%20history%20of%20the%20province.

$700m for one frickin road. As a society we're fine with throwing away hundreds of millions of dollars for new highways which will lead to more traffic, increase GHGs, induce more financially unsustainable suburban development, and eat into our region's greenspace, but a trickle of money towards walking or is suddenly not within our budget.

I'm gonna preface this with the fact I'm a supporter of bicycle lanes and understand it can take awhile for usage to increase.
What your are referring to, is the deadliest stretch of highway in the province. This project will not induce suburbs to just sprout out of the ground, this is a main N/S thoroughfare connecting parts of the province.
This highway exists currently so this redirection eats up very little of our regions greenspace. This project will save peoples lives which is the same reason I support bike lanes.

Personally, fear mongering about highways makes you seem less credible on the topic of transportation. Bicycles are not some panacea for all our traffic problems. Highways plays a larger part in the economic well-being of the province compared to a few urban commuters.

Want to hear a crazy notion about roads? Not building more roads also creates a problem, if the population is growing. Most armchair planning types miss that part as they add bump out and traffic calming in a city already bursting at the seams.

[Dartguard]

Originally Posted by LikesBikes

This also: https://www.rocktoroad.com/twinning-high...in%20the%20history%20of%20the%20province.

$700m for one frickin road. As a society we're fine with throwing away hundreds of millions of dollars for new highways which will lead to more traffic, increase GHGs, induce more financially unsustainable suburban development, and eat into our region's greenspace, but a trickle of money towards walking or is suddenly not within our budget.

The highway in the report however has nothing to do with GHG,s suburban development or greenspace. The twinning of this highway and the rebuilding of 15+ bridges along the way will definitely improve safety on this very important stretch of the TRANS CANADA. Almost all the groceries , building supplies, and anything else that fits on a truck takes this highway to resupply Newfoundland. Literally a lifeline for 527,000 other Canadians. It should be twinned all the way to Aulds Cove as there is room and it can get dicey near Monestry . While we are at it the 103 to Bridgewater and 101 to Kingston should be twinned now before the Province gets to that 2 Million mark. The Feds should spring for most of the 101 as the Kingston stretch leads to the gates of CFB Greenwood and Trudeau can't hide from defence obligations anymore. He will try however.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

The city's growth strategy is for 25% of region-wide growth to occur in the urban core while 50% would be suburban and 25% would be rural. But that 25% in the urban core provides an opportunity to reduce costs through active transportation. Providing the same amount of capacity through other means is much costlier. The goal in the integrated mobility plan was to go from 77% of trips by private car in 2011 to no more than 70% by 2031. Given 20 years expected population growth, that's still represents an increase in total car usage. Just not as great an increase as it would have otherwise been. And that would be an increase the city can't afford given the limitations of the road network in a historic, geography constrained city.

I think this is a better starting point for the discussion than talking about what should be cut to pay for cycling infrastructure in the growing city. Capital investment will to some degree be driven by growth, and that should match up with actual or desired transportation modal share.

Even if you assume something conservative like 3% bike modal share for the core, that likely works out to enough to expand bike infrastructure a lot since the baseline is so low. The capital stock for car-based travel is well up into the billions.

I suspect cycling could be more like 10%+ on the peninsula (and sure, most people don't bike year-round, but you just factor that into average year-round modal share; maybe it's 1% in winter and 20% in summer) plus the city may well blow past the 25% urban core target and it is definitely exceeding the old growth targets. It makes sense to borrow more for capital expenses when the city is growing as population growth lowers the debt burden.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by someone123

...plus the city may well blow past the 25% urban core target and it is definitely exceeding the old growth targets. It makes sense to borrow more for capital expenses when the city is growing as population growth lowers the debt burden.

I think it is blowing past that target. According to the Halifax Partnership, rural population only increased by 3,400 between 2016 and 2021, about seven percent of the total. They don't break out urban and suburban percentages, but I'd be surprised if the urban number wasn't higher than 25 percent, given the very high levels of growth in most urban core census tracts.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by TheNovaScotian

I'm gonna preface this with the fact I'm a supporter of bicycle lanes and understand it can take awhile for usage to increase.
What your are referring to, is the deadliest stretch of highway in the province. This project will not induce suburbs to just sprout out of the ground, this is a main N/S thoroughfare connecting parts of the province.
This highway exists currently so this redirection eats up very little of our regions greenspace. This project will save peoples lives which is the same reason I support bike lanes.

Personally, fear mongering about highways makes you seem less credible on the topic of transportation. Bicycles are not some panacea for all our traffic problems. Highways plays a larger part in the economic well-being of the province compared to a few urban commuters.

Want to hear a crazy notion about roads? Not building more roads also creates a problem, if the population is growing. Most armchair planning types miss that part as they add bump out and traffic calming in a city already bursting at the seams.

That's true in the sense that not every highway project is going to have all those harmful effects. I think their point is the enormous amount of money involved without people giving it much thought or objection since it's just considered "normal". I'm not disputing the benefits of the project (I don't actually know much about it), but it takes a lot of justify an enormous expense and there are opportunity costs that also come into play. I don't think pointing that out affects anyone's credibility.

[LikesBikes]

Originally Posted by TheNovaScotian

I'm gonna preface this with the fact I'm a supporter of bicycle lanes and understand it can take awhile for usage to increase.
What your are referring to, is the deadliest stretch of highway in the province. This project will not induce suburbs to just sprout out of the ground, this is a main N/S thoroughfare connecting parts of the province.
This highway exists currently so this redirection eats up very little of our regions greenspace. This project will save peoples lives which is the same reason I support bike lanes.

Personally, fear mongering about highways makes you seem less credible on the topic of transportation. Bicycles are not some panacea for all our traffic problems. Highways plays a larger part in the economic well-being of the province compared to a few urban commuters.

Want to hear a crazy notion about roads? Not building more roads also creates a problem, if the population is growing. Most armchair planning types miss that part as they add bump out and traffic calming in a city already bursting at the seams.

Not once in my life have I ever said bicycles are a panacea for our transportation issues, I assume you just think that cause of my username on here lol?

My opinion is that if we're ok with spending literally hundreds of millions/billions of dollars on roads (something we know we generally should not be doing for the reasons I listed previously, though some exceptions exist) but spending a couple million on walking or biking is out of budget then we're engaging in non-sensical thinking. We have a growing population downtown that don't own a car and we should be encouraging walking/biking and transit. The costs to make these safe and reliable ways to get around are much much much cheaper than building new roads.

Also, if you think a highway expansion is going to fix traffic and car accidents then I think you're going to be pretty disappointed in a few year's time...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand

[GTG_78]

Originally Posted by LikesBikes

This also: https://www.rocktoroad.com/twinning-high...in%20the%20history%20of%20the%20province.

$700m for one frickin road. As a society we're fine with throwing away hundreds of millions of dollars for new highways which will lead to more traffic, increase GHGs, induce more financially unsustainable suburban development, and eat into our region's greenspace, but a trickle of money towards walking or biking is suddenly not within our budget.

The highway is in a heavily-trafficked but rural part of the province. It is also one of the most dangerous roads in Atlantic Canada. The twinning is designed to save lives. No one is developing suburbs because of it. A significant amount of money was spent *on* environmental mitigation and there were practical constraints that further mitigated impact.

[GTG_78]

Originally Posted by LikesBikes

Also, if you think a highway expansion is going to fix traffic and car accidents then I think you're going to be pretty disappointed in a few year's time...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand

No, there is strong evidence that highway twinning reduces the incidence and seriousness of accidents, most notably by obviating head-on collisions. And induced demand does not apply to this particular project.

[Haliguy]

Originally Posted by GTG_78

No, there is strong evidence that highway twinning reduces the incidence and seriousness of accidents, most notably by obviating head-on collisions. And induced demand does not apply to this particular project.

Very true. They are much safer! and good for movement of goods, services and people around the province.

[Summerville]

Originally Posted by LikesBikes

Not once in my life have I ever said bicycles are a panacea for our transportation issues, I assume you just think that cause of my username on here lol?

My opinion is that if we're ok with spending literally hundreds of millions/billions of dollars on roads (something we know we generally should not be doing for the reasons I listed previously, though some exceptions exist) but spending a couple million on walking or biking is out of budget then we're engaging in non-sensical thinking. We have a growing population downtown that don't own a car and we should be encouraging walking/biking and transit. The costs to make these safe and reliable ways to get around are much much much cheaper than building new roads.

Also, if you think a highway expansion is going to fix traffic and car accidents then I think you're going to be pretty disappointed in a few year's time...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand

I agree with your comment comparing the millions of dollars spent on highways in relation to bike and walking infrastructure....in the city.

We shouldn't confuse the province's twinning of highways with City construction.

Highway 104 has seen many fatalities and given the province's plans to facilitate hydrogen plants in the Strait of Canso, the expanded highway is a necessity.

Highway 103 is another highway that should be twinned sooner than later. we all know someone who has been killed or injured on that highway.

[GTG_78]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

That's true in the sense that not every highway project is going to have all those harmful effects. I think their point is the enormous amount of money involved without people giving it much thought or objection since it's just considered "normal". I'm not disputing the benefits of the project (I don't actually know much about it), but it takes a lot of justify an enormous expense and there are opportunity costs that also come into play. I don't think pointing that out affects anyone's credibility.

But the point is incorrect. Both levels of government and citizens have spent *decades* discussing and debating twinning the 104, both to reduce accidents and to facilitate the movement of goods and services. In that period of time, dozens of people have died from head-on collisions that could have been prevented by twinning sooner.

And as Dartguard observes, the 104 is a vital artery that is as important to Newfoundland as it is to Nova Scotia. One would hope that everyone would consider it normal to ensure that people in Newfoundland are provisioned.