I should note that while this report only ranks a very small portion of our bike network as high-comfort it also says we have 214km of multiuse paths in Halifax. It describes MUPs as medium-comfort infrastructure. - ThreadSky

terriclarke.bsky.social • 2 days ago

I should note that while this report only ranks a very small portion of our bike network as high-comfort it also says we have 214km of multiuse paths in Halifax. It describes MUPs as medium-comfort infrastructure.

Reposted from Terri

Total # of high comfort bike lanes as defined in the Can-BIS system:
Montréal: 360 km
Vancouver: 246 km
Edmonton: 226 km
Québec: 190 km
Sherbrooke: 109 km
Winnipeg: 71 km

Halifax: 3 km 2/8

Source is the excel file in this zip folder:

Comments

justip.bsky.social•2 days ago

I think that's accurate. I enjoy them (as a cyclist or as a pedestrian), but not all pedestrians do, and therefore not all cyclists do.

terriclarke.bsky.social•2 days ago

100% agree. I think they have their place, but they’re not a replacement for separated infrastructure, particularly within urban centres.

justip.bsky.social•2 days ago

Edmonton's network does use them and it honestly mostly works, but it works best in places where they're used by few pedestrians.

meanderingemu.bsky.social•2 days ago

my problem with enjoying them is the lack of connectivity, which for me is much more on issue cycling than walking, but this is likely because i have walked in many aggressive environment in my meanders.

envirojen.bsky.social•2 days ago

I am also not convinced that they have an accurate assessment of those segments of our bike network. Having spoken with the lead researcher, she has concerns about parking and vehicle volumes on LSBs generally, but she doesn’t necessarily know the local context.

envirojen.bsky.social•2 days ago

There is some documentation in the zip folder about LSBs being removed from the dataset because they didn’t have the required features on further inspection. I wonder if that inspection has happened here yet.

terriclarke.bsky.social•2 days ago

It’s hard to say. I’m trying to make sense of their numbers, but they just link back to Halifax’s open data for the source

envirojen.bsky.social•2 days ago

I think they include Allan-Oak & Vernon LSBs as “high comfort”. But that’s my recollection from chatting during the meeting we had with the CAN-BICS folks.

terriclarke.bsky.social•2 days ago

There’s definitely data I can tell is missing, both from Halifax and from other cities. It claims Fredericton has 0km of MUPs, which is definitely not true.

envirojen.bsky.social•2 days ago

Ya, I am not sure when this was last updated. I think it’s pre-2021 maybe?

terriclarke.bsky.social•2 days ago

This is supposedly the 2024 update

epiong.bsky.social•1 day ago

Having just written a position statement on Halifax's LSBs, and having looked closely at the NACTO guidelines which supposedly were used to guide design principles here, I can so there is not a single LSB in Halifax that should be considered as such. None meet the NACTO guidelines.

envirojen.bsky.social•1 day ago

Following up to this, I can see that the CAN-BICS map folks have listed our LSBs as “non-conforming” on their map. Which means they don’t meet CAN-BICS criteria for an LSB either.

terriclarke.bsky.social•1 day ago

None of this surprises me as someone who has had “get off the road” yelled at me by more than one driver while riding on our LSBs.

abolish-this.bsky.social•1 day ago

We literally cannot follow both NACTO and the red book. And, frankly, I'd rather they resolve that by just trashing the red book. They keep trying to fix it and all it ever does is get a little fluffy text that means nothing and policy that wouldn't look out of place in 1972.

sv-rub-a-dub.bsky.social•2 days ago

Not impressed that MUPs are "medium." That lacks the nuance that it may be uncomfortable if the path is too narrow but can be AAA if there are marking sand enough width to separate cyclists and pedestrians.

andrewctenor.bsky.social•2 days ago

214 km?! Are we counting the whole rail line to Chester or what

terriclarke.bsky.social•2 days ago

There are a fairly substantial number of MUPs in Dartmouth, plus the COLT, Bayers Road, the Barrington greenway, sections of the HUG, etc. 214km makes sense to me.

andrewctenor.bsky.social•2 days ago

Enh the HUG is pretty darn short, but ok. Dartmouth is big!

kwilsonhfx.bsky.social•2 days ago

They'd have to be. That's 120+km

They're also counting every bike-able trail in every park in all of HRM, even when it doesn't connect to anything.

andrewctenor.bsky.social•2 days ago

Ah yes, handy dandy Saunders Park, for example. Which could be pressed into service pretty easily, methinks.

I bet they also counted a lot of roads in PPP that don’t allow bikes some of the time anyway

covell.ca•2 days ago

Curious what weighting is given to continuous lanes versus gaps - for example, Brunswick northbound ends just before Cogswell, a busy and crowded spot with many turning cars. Once across Brunswick, there's the new separated path down the hill (but nothing up, and Brunswick dangerous past there).

terriclarke.bsky.social•2 days ago

Going by the map that Jen shared the 3km of high comfort lanes only seems to have counted South Park, part of Bell, Hollis, and part of Lower Water.
Brunswick might have been included in their count of painted lanes/low-comfort infrastructure.

terriclarke.bsky.social•2 days ago

The good news is that Brunswick is getting upgraded to a 2-way bikeway starting hopefully this year, which will better connect to Cogswell, to Rainnie, and to the MUP at the central library.

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply