[josh_cat_eyes]

I am in favor of a tunnel or a bridge. I am from PEI, but I was at the recent Dane Cook show at the Metro Centre, and it took FOREVER to get out of the city. If there was a tunnel beginning from say, Spring Garden Road or South Street and going over to the end of 111. I don't know where you would be able to fit a new bridge without completely messing up the existing buildings. I wouldn't be apposed to a new bridge though, look at the bridge in Boston from the big dig. That is like a city landmark for them now. I don't see why Halifax couldn't have a new bridge become a landmark.

[City_of_Lakes]

A tunnel diving underground at the end of SGR would be awesome! But I don't know that it's possible given that the Maritime Centre is RIGHT there and would likely make it impossible to dig a tunnel underneath.

[-Harlington-]

i doubt that it will go near spring garden, although that would be neat. if anywhere i see a bridge or tunnel from the end of the circ to south st.

[alps]

Imagine what a tunnel at the end of Spring Garden would do to traffic - it wouldn't work. Should be foremost a pedestrian/transit road.

[terrynorthend]

Wow. It'd be an awfully steep grade into the tunnel.. its already a steep hill coming off SGR, and the tunnel would have to get beneath the Maritime Centre pilings and then down below the harbour bottom.

[City_of_Lakes]

A tunnel seems unlikely in that spot.. But wouldn't a bridge between the Circ and South Street inevitably interfere with George's Island somehow? Let's see how that proposal goes...:rolleyes:

[-Harlington-]

A tunnel seems unlikely in that spot.. But wouldn't a bridge between the Circ and South Street inevitably interfere with George's Island somehow? Let's see how that proposal goes...:rolleyes:

that is true, a bridge even being near georges island will never fly in halifax, its to loved of and island to even come near it

on that not where else would it be?
further down? eastren passage to south end or purcells cove? yeah right,
maybe from near the hopital or dartmouth cove into downtown via cogswell interchange although it would be nice to see that down, ?

[Keith P.]

that is true, a bridge even being near georges island will never fly in halifax, its to loved of and island to even come near it

on that not where else would it be?
further down? eastren passage to south end or purcells cove? yeah right,
maybe from near the hopital or dartmouth cove into downtown via cogswell interchange although it would be nice to see that down, ?

Thread newbies need to go back to page one and read the previous 6 pages worth of posts to understand what has already been covered.

Interestingly, the Bridge Commission has taken down the www.needsassessment.ca site that used to host the study document that identified the need for another crossing.

[hfx_chris]

Thread newbies need to go back to page one and read the previous 6 pages worth of posts to understand what has already been covered.

Interestingly, the Bridge Commission has taken down the www.needsassessment.ca site that used to host the study document that identified the need for another crossing.

Yeah, I mentioned that report in another thread, and somebody found a copy of the report on another site - but I'll be darned if I can find it again...

It's out there :)

[ScovaNotian]

There's a link on https://www.hdbc.ca/sustainability.asp .

[halifaxboyns]

A tunnel would probably be hugely expensive - plus you have to link it up with a road on the opposite side that could handle the traffic.

The eventual new alignment of Cogswell might work - since it's wide enough to support heavy traffic into the downtown with branch points at Barrington and Brunswick for different directions and routes - the problem is where would it hook up on the Dartmouth side? It's too far from the Circumfrential highway to really work, unless you did a tunnel like Boston right under the harbour, under the homes and the Coast Guard facility and then had it pop up so that it could connect to Pleasant Street? Thoughts?

[someone123]

The HDBC report has bridge alignments. It's pretty much a no-brainer since the road network was designed with the third crossing in mind. Ideally there would also be a vehicle bridge over the Northwest Arm, plus I think a small pedestrian bridge might be useful.

A tunnel would be more expensive and I don't think it would be particularly necessary. The existing bridges are attractive landmarks and there's no reason why the third bridge couldn't be one as well.

I wonder what the chances are of the bridge actually happening. It could be a kind of fait accompli since the HDBC can manage its own finances and is a provincial entity. Lots of people have already complained about the bridge but the two existing bridges were built to serve a city of 223,000 (1971). By 2016 Halifax will have 425,000 people or more and there has been growth on both sides of the harbour.

[fenwick16]

I would much rather see a few hundred million dollars put towards an LRT system on the peninsula and then twin the MacKay bridge with another bridge. The money saved on the southern harbour crossing would likely be enough for a peninsula LRT system. Then there would be no issues with the southern bridge interfering with shipping.

[someone123]

I would much rather see a few hundred million dollars put towards an LRT system on the peninsula and then twin the MacKay bridge with another bridge. The money saved on the southern harbour crossing would likely be enough for a peninsula LRT system. Then there would be no issues with the southern bridge interfering with shipping.

It is true that LRT would cost less but in practical terms it is much more difficult because there is no body analogous to the bridge commission. The bridge commission can obtain financing based on their current revenues and future tolls from the new bridge. It would be infeasible to pay for LRT through fares.

In general the notion that funding for a project could be diverted anywhere else is simply not true in the context of the HRM. The clearest example of this is with the federal government - they fund some things and not others, and if you don't put forward the right proposals you don't get anything. The municipality should have learned this painful lesson by now but apparently hasn't with the new ice rink which failed to obtain federal funding. HRM taxpayers might have gotten 50% more bang for the buck had that been delayed until funding was secured or scaled back so some money could be invested in something else.

[fenwick16]

It is true that LRT would cost less but in practical terms it is much more difficult because there is no body analogous to the bridge commission. The bridge commission can obtain financing based on their current revenues and future tolls from the new bridge. It would be infeasible to pay for LRT through fares.

In general the notion that funding for a project could be diverted anywhere else is simply not true in the context of the HRM. The clearest example of this is with the federal government - they fund some things and not others, and if you don't put forward the right proposals you don't get anything. The municipality should have learned this painful lesson by now but apparently hasn't with the new ice rink which failed to obtain federal funding. HRM taxpayers might have gotten 50% more bang for the buck had that been delayed until funding was secured or scaled back so some money could be invested in something else.

There is Metro Transit and there seems to be quite a bit of federal money available for public transit. Even the new NDP provincial government is committing a lot of money to new road construction since they know that it creates a lot of jobs - an LRT system could do the same. The big question is whether or not the fares would cover the cost of running an LRT system. It could be a short automated people mover system like at large airports which could run every 10 - 15 minutes at each stop. I read about the Calgary LRT system and they have come up with create ways to finance it - http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/programs/environment-utsp-casestudy-cs76eparkingtdm-891.htm . The Calgary system has greatly decreased the requirement for parking downtown. The same has happened in Copenhagen.

Even with BRT, parking lots could be set up on the outskirts of the city and then have regular shuttle buses running downtown. If Halifax can eventually afford a short LRT or subway system, people could park their cars and then take the LRT downtown (probably just a 5 - 10 minute ride). This would encourage people to shop downtown as in Copenhagen.

With all the approaches for a new bridge and the longer crossing distance, I would think that a southern bridge would be 2 - 3 times the cost of a second MacKay bridge. I think there would be major opposition to such a southern harbour bridge since it will lead into the south end neighbourhoods and increase traffic in the south end (some traffic would be diverted from the other two bridges). This south end opposition is why a Northwest Arm bridge has never been built - politicians are afraid to even talk about it.

[halifaxboyns]

Correct my assumption if it's wrong - but wasn't the 3rd harbour crossing supposed to connect to the end of the Circumfrential highway? If that's the case, there will be a need for a huge expropriation of land and then where would it connect on the Halifax side?

Calgary's LRT has the unique feature that if you are taking the train anywhere along 7th avenue and not going outside the downtown core, you can take the train for free. I love it - I live by the Olympic Plaza station, so if I'm going to pick up a couple small things at the grocerry store, I either walk or take the train for free! The extensions to the west and up in the NE are well underway now, which will add 7 new stations and something like 10km of new track.

[fenwick16]

I took the quote below from the following source: http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/programs/environment-utsp-casestudy-cs76eparkingtdm-891.htm

It is very interesting. When Calgary started implementing these ideas in the late 60's and early 70's it would have only been about the size that the HRM currently is (about 400,000). Instead of building additional parking, developers can contribute money to the city of Calgary which operates parking facilities outside of the downtown core. The idea is that having more parking in the downtown core encourages people to take cars downtown instead of public transit. So if developers wish to reduce their mandated parking requirements they can by contributing money to the city parking and transit system. This means that developers can have more space allocated to residential or commercial use instead of parking.

A similar idea has started to gain some acceptance - reducing highway capacity instead of increasing it. Cities have found that car usage increases with highway expansion - i.e. the number of cars increase to fill the available space. Places like San Francisco and Seoul, Korea have actually torn down some stretches of highway. In San Francisco it was replaced by standard access city streets whereas in Seoul, I don't think that it was even replaced at all (later I will try to find references - this comes from a TV documentary that I saw a couple of years ago).

I know that Halifax has done comprehensive studies on Bus Transit; now that the city is growing at a good rate, it would be good to see them study LRT systems which could be automated. I think that they should seriously consider a single track subway system with passing points on the major routes - then when ridership dictates, it could be expanded to double track. Initially it could be two trains that meet in the center to let each other pass. What I am thinking of is a system for the downtown with frequent cycles on a short track 4 - 5 KM. One route is the North End Halifax waterside route past the dockyards and Irving Shipbuilding (I think?) which could feed to a large car parking facility close to the MacKay bridge. People could get on it and be at their car within 5 - 10 minutes. It could be Right of Way (i.e. does not have to stop for traffic) partly buried in the Dockyards parking lots and partly above ground near Irving Shipbuilding in the North End.


City of Calgary

Calgary's parking plan was initially implemented in the 1960s when the city was devising a master plan for its downtown. This vision has allowed the city to keep control of downtown parking, while increasing its modal share for transit.

Chris Blaschuk, a parking strategist with the city, explains that, in the 1960s, the city identified two corridors that it wanted to develop for transit and pedestrian use. These corridors eventually became the city's light rail transit (LRT) corridor and the Stephen Avenue, also known as the 8th Avenue, became a pedestrian mall.

“The city knew that if they wanted to encourage transit use, they had to something about parking,” says Mr. Blaschuk.

By 1972, the city had developed a bylaw requiring developers to supply up to 20% of parking on the site of new office developments. The cost of the remaining 80% of parking (costs that developers would have had to pay to construct such spaces) was put into a cash-in-lieu fund. At the time, developers offered little opposition because parking was expensive to construct, offered little in the way of revenue benefits, and freed up space within new developments for other uses.

Using the cash-in-lieu fund, Calgary then constructed parking lots in “interceptor” locations. These lots allow people driving in from the suburbs to park their cars and then take transit or walk the remaining distance into downtown; they also provide an incentive for visitors to come to downtown.

“It's easier to park and then walk or take the LRT than circle the block,” says Mr. Blaschuk. The construction of the LRT in the mid-1980s further reduced the need for people to drive into the downtown core.

Since Calgary's parking policy only provides space for about half of downtown workers, most of the rest need to travel by transit. By putting such restraints on the number of parking spaces in the downtown and encouraging alternatives such as transit and walking, Calgary has been able to encourage greater transit use. Today, the city's modal split for transit into the downtown core is 46%, a percentage the city hopes to increase to 60% by 2030.

[Keith P.]

Bulldog Sue Uteck, normally a pretty good member of council, is way off base here. I know she doesn't like the effect it will have on her area but she needs to get her head out of her ass and realize that 15-20 years from now this city will not be able to function properly with the existing crossings, and that ferries and the like are only practical for a small percentage of the potential traffic needs. This kind of small-minded parochial thinking at council must stop.

http://thechronicleherald.ca/Metro/9016691.html


City staff eye south-end land
Third harbour crossing idea making big waves
By MICHAEL LIGHTSTONE City Hall Reporter
Sat. Jun 5 - 5:49 AM

A new municipal staff report has identified the preferred location for a potential third crossing across Halifax Harbour, a traffic project that might be needed as early as 2016.

But a regional councillor whose south-end Halifax district would be affected by the pro­posed commuter crossing — a bridge or tunnel — said Friday she’ll make a procedural move at Tuesday’s council meeting to try to sink the billion-dollar scheme. The information report says the best prospective crossing would be a link between High­way 111 in the Woodside area and the Port of Halifax lands and CN Rail property in Halifax’s south end.

“By endorsing the Highway 111 crossing location, regional council is not committing to a bridge or tunnel necessarily being constructed, or diminish­ing ongoing efforts to maximize the number of cross-harbour trips being made by more sus­tainable modes of travel," says the report, prepared by munici­pal transportation manager Dave McCusker.

By endorsing the site, “council allows Halifax Harbour Bridges and Halifax Regional Municipal­ity to take the steps necessary to ensure that future development will complement, and not in­terfere with, a future ability to construct this crossing if deemed necessary."

McCusker told The Chronicle Herald it is staff’s hope that regional council will agree in principle to the crossing site, should a bridge or tunnel ever be given the green light.

He said it’s his understanding that such a crossing would have to be considered by Halifax council and the provincial cabi­net.

“They would both have to agree on something being done," said McCusker.

The idea of a third crossing was floated by Halifax Harbour Bridges in 2008. It could be needed sometime between 2016 and 2026, or later, planners have said. Coun. Sue Uteck (North­west Arm-South End), who’s on the board of commissioners at Halifax Harbour Bridges, said Friday the proposed project is a waste of staff time, and it’s a concept that’ll likely never hap­pen in her lifetime.

She said city hall needs to concentrate on using the har­bour more, such as water taxis or another Metro Transit ferry, and forget about building a crossing that’s going to cost taxpayers a huge amount of money.

Metro’s population has hit 400,000, Mayor Peter Kelly said recently. In 2008, a public meet­ing heard a new bridge would probably have six lanes and cost $1.1 billion; a tunnel, with a $1.4-billion price tag, would accommodate four lanes.

“I understand the need that we’ve got to find, possibly in the future, more access to penin­sular Halifax," Uteck said.

“And I firmly believe that the way to go is the water. From my perspective, we’re not taking advantage of the most natural resource we have."

Uteck intends to place the report on Tuesday’s council agenda. If that happens, she said, she’ll marshal support from other councillors to kill the is­sue.

“This report says nothing," she said. “There’s no money, there’s no (political) will, there’s no initiative."

[fenwick16]

Bulldog Sue Uteck, normally a pretty good member of council, is way off base here. I know she doesn't like the effect it will have on her area but she needs to get her head out of her ass and realize that 15-20 years from now this city will not be able to function properly with the existing crossings, and that ferries and the like are only practical for a small percentage of the potential traffic needs. This kind of small-minded parochial thinking at council must stop.

http://thechronicleherald.ca/Metro/9016691.html

I think that the studies should proceed but it seems like a southern crossing might not be the best option in terms of cost. Instead of constructing a billion dollar plus crossing, cheaper options are available that should also be studied - one would be rapid transit off the peninsula and then encourage growth to the west of the Halifax peninsula instead of growth in Dartmouth. An LRT route from the West Mall to the downtown area which also passes the universities and hospitals might be a better option.

A Northwest arm bridge might be a better, much cheaper option than a third harbour bridge. Moving Halterm to the Dartmouth side and using the railcut as a roadway and rapid transit route might even be cheaper.

It sounds like the bridge commission wants to make sure that land is kept open for a potential third crossing in the southend. Is this really beneficial to the HRM - if land is tied up for decades to allow for a bridge that might never happen. Personally I would much rather see a LRT/subway system on the peninsula than a southern harbour crossing. Maybe just have an LRT link across the harbour instead (one or two track tunnel under the harbour) so that people can park their cars in Dartmouth and be in downtown Halifax in 2 - 3 minutes.

I think that Sue Uteck should be recommending a study of rapid transit in the Halifax area and even recommend a study on a Northwest arm bridge instead of the southern harbour crossing. One of my concerns is how will a southern harbour crossing affect very large container ships in the future. I still have hopes of Halifax becoming a mega port for container shipping as ships become larger.

Just my opinion.

[Keith P.]

Without debating all of your points, it is absurd that one councillor can torpedo such a major project as this by a procedural motion without appropriate analysis, broad consideration, and discussion. It is simply wrong.

[hfxtradesman]

She doesn't want the bridge or tunnel in the south end, cause it will be one big retirement area and there will be too much noise. That end of the city is not use to CHANGE!

[Haliguy]

I got to say I have always respected Sue but I have lost a bit of respect for her on this one. I always thought she was for the greater good but I guess when it comes to her own district she is not....and this is what is fundamentally wrong with the HRM. Councilors spend too much time fighting for their own districts and not enough emphasis on the larger issues that affect the city as a whole. It’s like having 23 separate kingdoms.

[fenwick16]

Without debating all of your points, it is absurd that one councillor can torpedo such a major project as this by a procedural motion without appropriate analysis, broad consideration, and discussion. It is simply wrong.

I agree with you on this point, this should be studied along with all the alternatives. One councillor shouldn't be able to torpedo such debate.

I hope that Halifax will grow to the point that a third crossing will be necessary. Personally I would prefer that it be a cheaper option such as a second MacKay Bridge, or even a rapid transit option with high density (lots of highrises) that reduces the use of cars (like in Manhattan) instead of increases the use of cars. However, all of the different options should be looked at.

[fenwick16]

I got to say I have always respected Sue but I have lost a bit of respect for her on this one. I always thought she was for the greater good but I guess when it comes to her own district she is not....and this is what is fundamentally wrong with the HRM. Councilors spend too much time fighting for their own districts and not enough emphasis on the larger issues that affect the city as a whole. It’s like having 23 separate kingdoms.

This is something that I have noticed in regards to the tax debate issue. When it comes to councillors running for mayor, HRM residents should make sure that they vote for someone who wants what is best for the HRM and not just their own district. However, I can understand that there must be a transition since councillors need to focus on their district as councillors but on the entire HRM as the Mayor. Since Sue Uteck is reportedly considering running for Mayor will she be able to make this transition?

[Haliguy]

This is something that I have noticed in regards to the tax debate issue. When it comes to councillors running for mayor, HRM residents should make sure that they vote for someone who wants what is best for the HRM and not just their own district. However, I can understand that there must be a transition since councillors need to focus on their district as councillors but on the entire HRM as the Mayor. Since Sue Uteck is reportedly considering running for Mayor will she be able to make this transition?


I think it really comes down to a weak mayor, two many councilors and an urban rural divide.

[someone123]

Well I don't think she can actually torpedo anything - ultimately it's a provincial project.

[worldlyhaligonian]

“This report says nothing," she said. “There’s no money, there’s no (political) will, there’s no initiative."

Wow, we have such optimistic leaders... isn't figuring out these three points your job there Sue?

I think the CN lands are a perfect place for a tunnel... 1.4 Billion isn't that crazy... especially if that they could command a decent toll... and the whole woodside area is definitely growing rapidly.

I feel as though they don't do jack squat in council and then say "its not possible" for any medium to large size infrastructure project. I'm amazed at how we even got bridges built in this city in the first place with the kind of attitudes I constantly hear.

Using the harbour is a good idea, but that has also been shut down by council. How can you make that kind of statement if the administration can't even agree on any transportation methods?

Like others are saying here, come one Sue, lets get the real reason you don't approve of this... you don't want to piss off all of the wealthy folks in your district that truly have the power in this city do torpedo this potential project. I guess it makes sense for you politically to be against this from the outset. Lets hope that you can't stop it... just out of spite even.

Screw these veiled opinions in Halifax, everybody is playing rediculous politics and won't even come out and say why they are truly against things.

Oh well, I bet when we reach critical mass and we get enough outsiders into the city things will eventually change!

[Dmajackson]

I can tell you why she doesn't want the bridge. She and her late husband bought a parcel of land at the end of McLean Street and built their family home right on the rail cut (its a nice house though I've been in it). If the bridge were to span across into the rail cut she'd have an expressway right in her backyard (literally a NIMBY opinion). So basically shes afraid if she still owns the house when the bridge is built the assessment value of her house will plummet becuase four trains a day is very different than a constant stream of vehicles zooming past her window.

[worldlyhaligonian]

I can tell you why she doesn't want the bridge. She and her late husband bought a parcel of land at the end of McLean Street and built their family home right on the rail cut (its a nice house though I've been in it). If the bridge were to span across into the rail cut she'd have an expressway right in her backyard (literally a NIMBY opinion). So basically shes afraid if she still owns the house when the bridge is built the assessment value of her house will plummet becuase four trains a day is very different than a constant stream of vehicles zooming past her window.

What if they put in a tunnel and have it extend further down the railcut? Isn't McLean up on a bluff anyway? I can't see how it would be any louder than other streets where people live and definitely not as loud as trains. Look at North Street... some of those houses are literally 10 feet from a rediculously busy street. Sounds a little self-serving to me!

Plus, it would only be loud during the times when people are supposed to be going to work or coming home from work anyway!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_JtoW7GrdY

Its weird, I see tons of people driving around in Halifax mid-day sometimes and its like, WTF, does nobody work 9-5 in this city? (I would be driving around because I was unemployed in Halifax... but I can't see that many people being unemployed given the relatively low rate of unemployment)

[fenwick16]

Its weird, I see tons of people driving around in Halifax mid-day sometimes and its like, WTF, does nobody work 9-5 in this city? (I would be driving around because I was unemployed in Halifax... but I can't see that many people being unemployed given the relatively low rate of unemployment)

Although this has nothing to do with a third bridge, I check the statistics at Statistics Canada a few times a month, and I see that Halifax continues to create jobs ( http://www40.statcan.gc.ca/l01/cst01/lfss03a-eng.htm ) and has a low unemployment rate. Another important statistic is the employment rate, since it is the number of people employed divided by the population over 15 years old (i.e. working age) expressed at a percentage. At 67.8% for May 2010, the HRM has one of the highest employment rates in Canada.

My question is: Does it really seem this way to HRM residents (and those that have moved away)? Does it seem like there are plenty of jobs in the HRM?

PS: If people were to choose between a 1 billion dollar plus southern bridge crossing and a billion dollar plus LRT/subway system which would they choose? I would rather have the LRT rapid transit system - however I don't see much political will for either in the HRM.

[spaustin]

Go Sue! Spending a billion to build a third crossing to deal with a problem that only exists for about 3 hours a day (once in the morning once in the evening) is a huge waste of money. A billion dollars could do so much more for transportation in Halifax. Think what a billion could do for public transit. We could have an LRT system or ferries or both! With a billion we could potentially relocate the port to Eastern Passage, thereby eliminating a lot of the truck congestion on the Peninsula and MacKay Bridge and opening up a huge amount of valuable land on the Peninsula for redevelopment. Heck if wanted to limit spending money entirely, we could setup an employer pass program (e-pass) to increase transit ridership for a fraction of the cost (something most other large Canadian cities have). Building a third crossing to try and jam more cars onto the Peninsula is just about the most backward idea going, especially since we haven't even tried anything else. It would be a huge waste of money. Best to nip this in the bud!

[worldlyhaligonian]

Go Sue! Spending a billion to build a third crossing to deal with a problem that only exists for about 3 hours a day (once in the morning once in the evening) is a huge waste of money. A billion dollars could do so much more for transportation in Halifax. Think what a billion could do for public transit. We could have an LRT system or ferries or both! With a billion we could potentially relocate the port to Eastern Passage, thereby eliminating a lot of the truck congestion on the Peninsula and MacKay Bridge and opening up a huge amount of valuable land on the Peninsula for redevelopment. Heck if wanted to limit spending money entirely, we could setup an employer pass program (e-pass) to increase transit ridership for a fraction of the cost (something most other large Canadian cities have). Building a third crossing to try and jam more cars onto the Peninsula is just about the most backward idea going, especially since we haven't even tried anything else. It would be a huge waste of money. Best to nip this in the bud!

I agree with your points and wish things like that were being done, but what about an LRT system and buses using the tunnel in addition to the car traffic? (I see a Dartmouth/Halifax loop that also extends west) Urbanization in Dartmouth would be more attractive (no heritage in woodside area, closer to downtown Halifax and downtown Darmouth in terms of distance) than alot of these distant mainland west sprawls that will only continue to contribute to congestion issues when entering the peninsula... regardless of how much we change the modes of transport.

[terrynorthend]

If I remember correctly, the bridge commission finances the new bridge, not the taxpayer, and then user tolls pay down the debt. If this is the case, then there is no "billion dollars" to be diverted instead to a here and there or systematic upgrade to HRM roads, nor to be sunk into a subway/LRT system.

Halifax doesn't need a bridge yet.. and it will be a bridge, not a tunnel, the area geology is far more ideal for major tunnel building ..but we will need it in the future, like it or not, even if we have put forth the most progressive transit improvements.

Halifax currently doesn't have the geography or population for a viable subway/LRT system. Its just not on the table. I hope to see the day we do, but that will be the same day that we either have, or are in screaming desperate need for another harbour crossing.

[Keith P.]

Go Sue! Spending a billion to build a third crossing to deal with a problem that only exists for about 3 hours a day (once in the morning once in the evening) is a huge waste of money. A billion dollars could do so much more for transportation in Halifax. Think what a billion could do for public transit. We could have an LRT system or ferries or both!

Which, as you put it, deals with a problem that only exists for about 3 hours a day. Plus you can't move cargo on either so it does nothing for commercial traffic.

With a billion we could potentially relocate the port to Eastern Passage, thereby eliminating a lot of the truck congestion on the Peninsula and MacKay Bridge and opening up a huge amount of valuable land on the Peninsula for redevelopment.

Do you have the studies on that? The issues around ship navigation and the dredging required? There is a reason why the 1999 superport proposal put the planned facility next to Ceres and not in Dartmouth. In reality, if you want assurances that any new port will be able to handle the oversized ships of the future, it needs to be somewhere other than Halifax if Halterm is not going to be in the mix as that is the only place that can assuredly handle them. And if that is the case, then you need the third bridge to get the boxes somewhere.

Heck if wanted to limit spending money entirely, we could setup an employer pass program (e-pass) to increase transit ridership for a fraction of the cost (something most other large Canadian cities have). Building a third crossing to try and jam more cars onto the Peninsula is just about the most backward idea going, especially since we haven't even tried anything else. It would be a huge waste of money. Best to nip this in the bud!

You just don't get it. Those cars do not necessarily stay on the peninsula any more. HRM extends well to the south and west now. An example: on Friday around 5PM I was trying to get from the Clayton Park area to Dartmouth. I took the MacKay since it seemed reasonably uncongested for the hour, and just had to use my usual shortcut to avoid the absurdity of the Windsor St exchange backup.

Once I got to the bridge I saw that Halifax-bound traffic was at a standstill virtually all the way across. That was caused by a work crew on the Halifax side that had one lane closed leading to the Fairview overpass (clearly, the kind of work that should be done overnight, but that never happens here). One lane, about 100 feet, and the bridge was at a standstill. But wait, there's more.

Once I crossed into Dartmouth I was astounded to find that traffic on Victoria Rd heading south toward the MacDonald was also at a standstill. People were avoiding the mess on the MacKay and the MacDonald could not deal with the load. It was completely ridiculous to think that one tiny works project could cause such traffic havoc. That Halifax-bound traffic was largely using the peninsula just for passage to ultimate destinations that would be west of the peninsula -- Clayton Park, Beechville, Tantallon, wherever. People who live in those places work in Burnside and other parts of Dartmouth. This is why we need to abandon the type of parochial thinking that Uteck demonstrated on this. HRM is not just the peninsula anymore, it is a growing city with legitimate transportation needs that our obsolete road network can no longer handle. While I support things like LRTs (though I cannot support large-scale spending on ferries), those point to point people movers cannot solve these problems.

[fenwick16]

Although, I would personally like to see a magnificent southern bridge (which it would certainly be) I have some serious doubts about this crossing:

1) Looking at mapquest, http://www.mapquest.com/maps?city=Halifax&state=NS&country=CA&latitude=44.64616&longitude=-63.573921&geocode=CITY , it appears as though the southern crossing would be almost twice as long as a crossing next to the MacKay Bridge. So this would likely mean twice the cost (or more).

2) The highways do not exist on the southern peninsula to handle the traffic that would be generated. In order for it to work then I think a Northwest arm bridge and highway leading to a Northwest arm bridge would also be required to get the traffic off the southern peninsula. This will greatly increase the cost and create a lot of opposition. On the other hand the highway infrastructure already exists for a second MacKay bridge.

3) Although, the Halifax Harbour Bridges Commission https://www.hdbc.ca/mandate.asp is set up to collect tolls and run the bridges, it is a Nova Scotia provincial corporation. So tolls collected from the bridges could be partly diverted to a rapid transit route. A second MacKay bridge could be built with LRT tracks (even a single track would likely suffice) and then an LRT/subway could connect to the downtown. People could park in Dartmouth (near Shannon Park) take the LRT across the MacKay and then along the Halifax Harbour to the downtown (Irving shipyard/DND Dockyards route). By increasing tolls on the bridges for vehicles (say an extra 90 cents each way - to $1.50) it would discourage the use of cars and provide funding for the LRT system (which could be $2 each way - people will be saving bridge fare and gas money). Eventually this system could be extended to the West Mall and then have another route going downtown along Spring Garden Road so that it forms a complete loop.

Although option 3) may appear to be far fetched, the two suspension bridges were built back at a time when the entire Halifax County population would have been 300,000 or less (back when Nova Scotia had big dreams). I think option 3) would actually be less than a bridge across the southern harbour and then Halifax would have an LRT system also instead of just one magnificent southern bridge. PS: What if just a one or two track tunnel could be built for the LRT and forget about the second MacKay bridge for another 30 - 40 years. Then the HHB commission could become a Halifax Bridge and LRT commission. Tolls could be collected for bridge crossings and LRT tunnel crossing at the MacKay location (or even have it near the MacDonald bridge to keep the LRT system cost down).

[reddog794]

I agree with Keith on the point of ineffective government, and how 1 councilor should not be that powerful in a council that is as big as ours.

However, the billion+ that would be earmarked for a third crossing, could easily be divvied up to replace the MacDonald, with a 6 lane bridge, and at least two more ferries, and expanded, all day service for both Dartmouth and Woodside.

I don't see how something that is predominantly automotive focused, yes buses, and trucks would use it too, but not in the volume or frequency of cars, would be beneficial to anybody other than drivers. The MacKay doesn't have any pedestrian access, would this one? Yes our transportation does need up grading, and yes HRM is bigger than the peninsula, we need multi platform solutions. Bus priority lanes are a key first step, and tolls to get into the peninsula would be a good piece, but the city would have to lower the tax rate DT to make it a better option than Burnside/Bayer Lake/DC and other low rent business centres. We need to be comfortable with more density on Peninsula, and especially DT.

Sue Uteck's comments and actions in Council on this issue are an example of why our system here could not put the responsible changes in place. The fact we have a weak mayor, and a stronger councilors, makes for these situations.

The idea of a third bridge solving the traffic woes, makes me think of trying to hit a fly, be it a Big fly, with a 1 1/2" dowel. You may hit the bugger, and man you will hit it all over the place, but you would have a better chance of killing it cleanly, if you used 8 1/8" sticks fanned together.

my pocket change on the discussion

[spaustin]

Which, as you put it, deals with a problem that only exists for about 3 hours a day. Plus you can't move cargo on either so it does nothing for commercial traffic.

Public transit deals with the 3 hour a day problem much more efficiently and cost-effectively. If more people switched to transit, that would reduce congestion and have a spillover effect for commercial vehicles too. We could also target commercial vehicles by building an inland terminal so that trucks don't have to come in and out of the Peninsula anymore. Making more space for cars carrying one person each that jam the roads for 3 hours a day, on the other hand, is hugely inefficient and is ultimately doomed to fail since it just encourages more people to drive.


Do you have the studies on that? The issues around ship navigation and the dredging required? There is a reason why the 1999 superport proposal put the planned facility next to Ceres and not in Dartmouth. In reality, if you want assurances that any new port will be able to handle the oversized ships of the future, it needs to be somewhere other than Halifax if Halterm is not going to be in the mix as that is the only place that can assuredly handle them. And if that is the case, then you need the third bridge to get the boxes somewhere.

No I don't have any studies, I was throwing out ideas. I'm not aware of anything that says it would be impossible. The autoport's down there already so it's not completely unnavigable as is. Maybe dredging would be needed, but that's surely not an insurmountable obstacle.


You just don't get it. Those cars do not necessarily stay on the peninsula any more. HRM extends well to the south and west now. An example: on Friday around 5PM I was trying to get from the Clayton Park area to Dartmouth. I took the MacKay since it seemed reasonably uncongested for the hour, and just had to use my usual shortcut to avoid the absurdity of the Windsor St exchange backup.

Once I got to the bridge I saw that Halifax-bound traffic was at a standstill virtually all the way across. That was caused by a work crew on the Halifax side that had one lane closed leading to the Fairview overpass (clearly, the kind of work that should be done overnight, but that never happens here). One lane, about 100 feet, and the bridge was at a standstill. But wait, there's more.

Once I crossed into Dartmouth I was astounded to find that traffic on Victoria Rd heading south toward the MacDonald was also at a standstill. People were avoiding the mess on the MacKay and the MacDonald could not deal with the load. It was completely ridiculous to think that one tiny works project could cause such traffic havoc. That Halifax-bound traffic was largely using the peninsula just for passage to ultimate destinations that would be west of the peninsula -- Clayton Park, Beechville, Tantallon, wherever. People who live in those places work in Burnside and other parts of Dartmouth. This is why we need to abandon the type of parochial thinking that Uteck demonstrated on this. HRM is not just the peninsula anymore, it is a growing city with legitimate transportation needs that our obsolete road network can no longer handle..

Your point? It's not like if a 3rd crossing were built we would suddenely be free of construction and other delays. Moving traffic across town with our geographic limits is of course a challenge, but what would a 3rd bridge really do? Instead of sitting on Victoria Road you could sit on the Circumferential and then try and jam yourself up Robie Street. The location may change, but the fact that trying to get around at 5:00pm is difficult won't. Now if we had a ferry terminal at Wrights Cove and others on the basin or at Purcells Cove with good transit connections and large park and ride facilities, those cross-town commuters could skip over the whole mess.


While I support things like LRTs (though I cannot support large-scale spending on ferries), those point to point people movers cannot solve these problems.

They can and do in many other places. These problems definitely aren't solvable though by increasing road capacity. We've tried that, it hasn't worked, it's not suddenly going to. We have to get smarter. That means investing seriously in public transit and also directing growth to areas that are better equipped to handle it. Building a 3rd bridge is a half-brained bandaid solution that's not going to achieve anything except further encouraging sprawl while tearing up the South End.

[planarchy]

However, the billion+ that would be earmarked for a third crossing, could easily be divvied up to replace the MacDonald, with a 6 lane bridge, and at least two more ferries, and expanded, all day service for both Dartmouth and Woodside.


I agree with this type of approach. Part - or all - of the problem lies in the fact that Metro Transit and the Bridge Commission are separate entities, with no intention of building a more integrated transportation system that benefits most people in the HRM. Metro Transit can't see past buses and the silly and obsolete fare/transit pass systems that they use, and the Bridge Commission is only interested in getting more cars moving back and forth.

I also agree that more capacity needs to be added to the existing bridges, but really find it hard to justify the expense of a third bridge. As many others pointed out, a lot can be done with 1.1-1.4 billion dollars. It's great the city is finally talking big numbers when it comes to infrastructure projects - it is about time - but to throw it all at a monofunctional bridge will not get you very far in the long run.

I don't think the answer is bridge or LRT or something like that. I don't know what is really needed, and the problem is that no one else does either. No one is looking at the big picture and talking about a comprehensive strategy for transportation, public and private modes. This is a huge problem. The city has to start doing something, bringing these groups together in a productive manner, and start planning on how to best implement a 1.4 billion dollar transit infrastructure fix.

[reddog794]

What would it take to integrate the two entities? Think of the money Metro transit would have to use. Be it hydrogen buses, or electric. Then again they would be able to afford Kelly's Ferry.

[spaustin]

If I remember correctly, the bridge commission finances the new bridge, not the taxpayer, and then user tolls pay down the debt. If this is the case, then there is no "billion dollars" to be diverted instead to a here and there or systematic upgrade to HRM roads, nor to be sunk into a subway/LRT system.

Yes the Bridges are paid for through user fees, which make it better than most road projects, but at the end of the day, we're still paying. It's not like just because the money is collected from tolls, it's free. It still eats up disposable income and imposes a cost on residents. Besides, the bridge might be "free", but HRM still has to pay for the supporting road infrastructure on either side. It's not completely tax neutral.


Halifax doesn't need a bridge yet.. and it will be a bridge, not a tunnel, the area geology is far more ideal for major tunnel building ..but we will need it in the future, like it or not, even if we have put forth the most progressive transit improvements.

Halifax currently doesn't have the geography or population for a viable subway/LRT system. Its just not on the table. I hope to see the day we do, but that will be the same day that we either have, or are in screaming desperate need for another harbour crossing.

I agree, about the LRT, but we should be keeping it in mind as we're not far from having the mass to start considering it. Our geography is such that it could probably work here earlier than in many other places. Many mid-sized European cities have extensive public transit systems. What we really should be focussing on here is adding ferry routes, building a bus system that is quick and maybe bringing back streetcars in some urban areas. The Metro Link system has performed really well and it's not even a full BRT. If you build it so that it's cost effective and quick, many people will ditch their cars. It's really sad though that despite the success and relatively cheap cost of Metro Link, years later we still don't have routes to Spryfield or Clayton Park. How much do you think we spent on road expansion during that time? We haven't even begun to seriously consider transportation options that don't involve a single driver in every car.

[fenwick16]

However, the billion+ that would be earmarked for a third crossing, could easily be divvied up to replace the MacDonald, with a 6 lane bridge, and at least two more ferries, and expanded, all day service for both Dartmouth and Woodside.

Expanding the capacity of the MacDonald is one possibility but wouldn't it be cheaper just to build a second bridge next to it that has 3 - 4 lanes (build a twin bridge). Then the old MacDonald could be shut done and completely refurbished whenever necessary. This has been done in various cities including the QEW Skyway in Hamilton, Ontario http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burlington_Bay_James_N._Allan_Skyway.

[fenwick16]

I agree, about the LRT, but we should be keeping it in mind as we're not far from having the mass to start considering it. Our geography is such that it could probably work here earlier than in many other places. Many mid-sized European cities have extensive public transit systems. What we really should be focussing on here is adding ferry routes, building a bus system that is quick and maybe bringing back streetcars in some urban areas. The Metro Link system has performed really well and it's not even a full BRT. If you build it so that it's cost effective and quick, many people will ditch their cars. It's really sad though that despite the success and relatively cheap cost of Metro Link, years later we still don't have routes to Spryfield or Clayton Park. How much do you think we spent on road expansion during that time? We haven't even begun to seriously consider transportation options that don't involve a single driver in every car.

Streetcars aren't really any faster than buses (maybe even slower). An LRT or even BRT with Right of Way (ROW) would be a much better option. If there is an efficient rapid transit option then I am sure many people would ditch their cars in favour of rapid transit. However, it would have to be rapid transit and therefore streetcars are not the way to go (unless they are armour-plated and are allowed to ram through cars and intersections). There is a good reason why so many cities including Halifax have gotten rid of streetcars. Just having train tracks on streets doesn't translate into rapid transit.

If you ask people in the Toronto area what they think of the streetcar routes, I don't think that you will get a very positive response.

[Keith P.]

Expanding the capacity of the MacDonald is one possibility but wouldn't it be cheaper just to build a second bridge next to it that has 3 - 4 lanes (build a twin bridge). Then the old MacDonald could be shut done and completely refurbished whenever necessary.

Seems pointless unless you are somehow able to do something with North St.

[Keith P.]

Public transit deals with the 3 hour a day problem much more efficiently and cost-effectively.

If the capital cost is about the same as has been suggested I fail to see how it is any more cost effective. Plus you are forced to deal with the likes of Metro Transit and militant public sector unions to operate it, which they can only do poorly. Not everyone arrives at an office at 9AM and is chained to a desk all day. People need to move around to do their jobs. Our current traffic situation makes that very difficult.

We could also target commercial vehicles by building an inland terminal so that trucks don't have to come in and out of the Peninsula anymore.

CN has no interest in that so you are talking about establishing a company do convey those boxes by rail and the capital investment that would require. Good luck.

Your point? It's not like if a 3rd crossing were built we would suddenely be free of construction and other delays.

My point is simply that our existing network is obsolete and overloaded. The city has grown substantially since the MacKay was opened in 1970. The roads have not changed in that time. Something needs to be done to address that.

Now if we had a ferry terminal at Wrights Cove and others on the basin or at Purcells Cove with good transit connections and large park and ride facilities, those cross-town commuters could skip over the whole mess.

And if ifs and buts were candy and nuts, we'd all have a helluva Christmas. How are you going to have good connections to take people to where they need to go in sprawly areas like those and others? You cannot.

These problems definitely aren't solvable though by increasing road capacity. We've tried that, it hasn't worked, it's not suddenly going to.

Pure socialist planning theory nonsense. If that were true there would be no roads anywhere except for buses. Even the communist Chinese have determined that a robust road network is essential for economic growth. Gives that old eastern European planning theory a real kick in the head.

[fenwick16]

Seems pointless unless you are somehow able to do something with North St.

True, that is why I think a second MacKay bridge would be the way to go with at least one LRT track (it would only take a train about 1-2 minutes to cross).

Rapid transit is an important way to increase capacity. It could be completely automated if work stoppages are a concern. Most large cities have LRT and heavy rail systems. Having an LRT system crossing the harbour would free up vehicle capacity on the bridges.

[spaustin]

If the capital cost is about the same as has been suggested I fail to see how it is any more cost effective. Plus you are forced to deal with the likes of Metro Transit and militant public sector unions to operate it, which they can only do poorly. Not everyone arrives at an office at 9AM and is chained to a desk all day. People need to move around to do their jobs. Our current traffic situation makes that very difficult..

But the capital costs aren't the same. For a billion + you get one bridge with 4-6 lanes. If memory serves, the Bedford ferry, terminal and all, is pegged at $50 million. Again, if memory serves, setting up the Metro Link system cost somewhere between $10-20 million. So, for the same cost of building a bridge, we could have quite an extensive network of ferries and buses. True you have to pay employees to run it, but who do you think resurfaces the roadways? Pixies? When I said think what a billion could do for transit, I wasn't suggesting that you have to spend a billion regardless and therefore the options are equal. I was simply illustrating that there are more effective ways to use that amount of money.


CN has no interest in that so you are talking about establishing a company do convey those boxes by rail and the capital investment that would require. Good luck..

True. CN has no interest and maybe right now the idea isn't feasible as a result. Doesn't hurt to think about the possibilities though. Things change.
Trying to get trucks in and out of Downtown Halifax is a problem and rail would be the most efficient way to deal with it.


My point is simply that our existing network is obsolete and overloaded. The city has grown substantially since the MacKay was opened in 1970. The roads have not changed in that time. Something needs to be done to address that..

The same could be said for Metro Transit. The Woodside ferry was added in 1985, more than 20 years ago. Our bus network probably hasn't grown all that much either.


And if ifs and buts were candy and nuts, we'd all have a helluva Christmas. How are you going to have good connections to take people to where they need to go in sprawly areas like those and others? You cannot..

We're talking about hypotheticals here. We don't have a third bridge right now either last time I checked. The Bridge Commission has plans, but so does Metro Transit. It wouldn't be that hard to hook terminals up to the existing road network. New ferry terminals would capture vehicle traffic before it hit the chokepoints. Purcells Cove and Eastern Passage would be perfect for that. The Bedford Highway is of course problematic, but getting into a terminal along there would still save people time since they wouldn't have to get across on the MacKay or try and get down Magazine Hill. Even better would be a bus rapid transit route into the terminal so that commuters who caught a bus near their home could skip pass the congestion.


Pure socialist planning theory nonsense. If that were true there would be no roads anywhere except for buses. Even the communist Chinese have determined that a robust road network is essential for economic growth. Gives that old eastern European planning theory a real kick in the head.

A robust road/rail network is key to economic growth. Goods need to move around. Roads, however, are also very inefficient when they get filled up by vehicles that are carrying 1 person each. It's well established that as you expand the road network, areas that weren't developable become attractive. Adding capacity without thinking it through just creates sprawl, wiping out any short-term traffic improvement. Public transit moves so many more people than a car. If done right, it can't be beat for efficiency and cost-effectiveness. If we weren't facilitating growth out in the burbs by all the road spending, perhaps the vacant space on the Peninsula and in old Dartmouth would have been filled in long ago, creating a more vibrant city that is also cheaper to operate.

[hfxtradesman]

How about we just build more family highrises downtown and stop urban sprawl. Don't we want to reclaime our downtown?

[MonctonRad]

The geography of the metro Halifax region makes any solution to the traffic congestion problem very challenging and I think whatever plan that develops will have to use a multifactorial approach.

Everyone who has posted recently has valid points. We need to provide alternatives for the automobile while at the same time recognizing that there are valid reasons why people sometimes have to use their car. A good quality highway system therefore remains a must.

Tolling vehicular access to the peninsula is not an option. It would discourage casual visitors and would be a disincentive for business. Psychology is important. Here in Moncton there is a major debate going on about cars being booted in private downtown parking lots. There is lots of public on-street parking but the booting issue is frightening people away and is hurting downtown business. Tolls in Halifax would do the same thing.

I have always thought that the concept of a third bridge extending across the harbour from the southern end of the Circumferential Highway was attractive. The main issue of course is "what do you do with the traffic when it hits the peninsula". The deep southenders would be none too pleased to see their leafy streets suddenly clogged with traffic thus requiring a diversion of traffic flow directly to the waterfront area. The streets there unfortunately are very narrow and would be unable to accomodate much increase in volume. Sadly therefore I conclude that the third bridge is not a viable option.

You do need to get truck traffic off of the downtown streets. I therefore remain a proponent of relocating Halterm. It has no business being on the peninsula. As Spaustin has pointed out, perhaps it could be relocated to the Dartmouth shore somewhere or maybe into the basin.

Relocating Halterm would free up oodles of prime land for future development. It would also allow the CN line to be used for LRT or commuter rail service (or a combination) to the downtown.

This is where I see the answer to Halifax's transit dilemma. You need to get commuters off the road so that the highways can be used by tourists, shoppers and delivery vehicles. The rail cut provides for (more or less) direct access to the downtown core. There could be several lines converging on the rail cut from the commuter watershed. One line for example could start in Sackville (with a park 'n ride), with stops in Bedford, at Chinatown, Fairview, Mumford, South Street (for the universites) and then at the VIA station. If we are talking purely about LRT, the line could be extended further along the waterfront to historic properties or even all the way to DND, the shipyard and around the peninsula. There are many possibilities......

Bus service needs to be enhanced as well. There are many places on the peninsula that would be inaccessible to an LRT but bus routes could be focussed on delivering passengers to LRT stations. Express bus routes to the downtown could be enhanced.

Peter Kelly likes fast ferries and while I am not opposed to the idea, I find it difficult to believe that they would be able to deliver large quantities of commuters to the downtown core. This would be better accomplished with rail.

Any solution to Halifax's traffic woes will have to be multifactorial. Look at Toronto with it's subway, streetcars, busses, commuter rail and proposed LRT to the airport. In Halifax, the existing highway system will have to be maintained and optimized (without access tolls), the bus and existing ferry system enhanced and most importantly, Halterm relocated and the existing rail right of way utilized for LRT and/or commuter rail. A third bridge is (sadly) probably not an option.

[fenwick16]

MonctonRad, you have some good points, however, the southern bridge was only one option. The third bridge could be a twin MacKay bridge in the North End. Another option was a two lane BRT only tunnel - they might as well make this LRT. It might make sense to have this is the southend - then there isn't all the additional road infrastructure to worry about.

PS: It seems like a lot of the focus for LRT and heavy rail has been the Bedford area. It seems like an LRT system would be more suitable in the high density areas of Halifax and Dartmouth.

[Haliguy]

I cross the harbour every day to go to work in Dartmouth and something needs to be done because it is a traffic nightmare . This morning traffic was backed up way passed Burnside Dr going to Halifax..just crazy..thank god I was going the other way....lol

[fenwick16]

I would like to see the federal and provincial governments spend about $2 billion on the Halifax/Dartmouth area for LRT/subway and a twin MacKay Bridge. The NS deficit has been around 12.5 - 13 billion for such a long time, I think the NDP should splurge on major infrastructure expenditures to get the Halifax area up to the 21st century. Look at what the last 2 bridges did for the Halifax area. I think a LRT/subway system plus second MacKay bridge would have a similar effect (although a LRT crossing close to the Halifax and Dartmouth downtown might be better).

They should also go ahead with a northwest arm bridge/ rail cut roadway (even without a southern crossing). These large infrastructure programs can have a huge effect on creating jobs. Most of the population growth in Nova Scotia over the next 20 - 30 years will likely be in the HRM. It would be best to keep these people in Nova Scotia. While they are at it, they should just throw in an outdoor stadium. Although, many will be against spending so much money, this is what many large cities seem to do - spend, spend, spend. As long as their populations keep growing then it can be justified. (a bit like a pyramid scheme - maybe there is an economic term for it).

[something_witty]

It seems like everyone who does not agree with a third crossing lives in Halifax.
I travel everyday from Halifax, to work in Dartmouth, and it is always busy on North St. It's tolerable in the morning, however driving from Dartmouth to Halifax at 4PM can be a nightmare, having 5 lanes merging in to one is just not working.
This has been getting worse and worse over time. I have only worked on this side for 3 years and have noticed it change overtime.

[Haliguy]

It seems like everyone who does not agree with a third crossing lives in Halifax.
I travel everyday from Halifax, to work in Dartmouth, and it is always busy on North St. It's tolerable in the morning, however driving from Dartmouth to Halifax at 4PM can be a nightmare, having 5 lanes merging in to one is just not working.
This has been getting worse and worse over time. I have only worked on this side for 3 years and have noticed it change overtime.

I have noticed the same thing.

[Wishblade]

Im a rush hour bridge traveller who lives in Dartmouth and works in Halifax. Some days crossing the MacDonald are absolutely terrible. I can't even imagine what it will be like in 10-20 years if no major improvements were made.

[Phalanx]

I don't doubt that it's getting more difficult to cross the bridge during peak hours, but the question is could/would more people use public transit to cross if the system was improved?

I know it's simply not possible for some, but I suspect a lot of people commuting to work by car do so by choice, not by necessity. That may be a perfectly valid choice - public transit can be less than speedy/reliable/comfortable/convenient, but if those issues were addressed, would more people make use of it? And if so, would that relieve pressure on the crossings in any significant way?

[-Harlington-]

i could see halterm moving to eastren passage area or burnside area, ,
and would it be possible just to widen both bridges ?

[Phalanx]

I seem to recall it being said that the MacDonald was at its weight limit after the last additions. No idea bout the MacKay.

[reddog794]

If the bridges were rebuilt, we could rise the height to allow post panamax ships into the basin, and just expand Ceres up along towards Chinatown.

[fenwick16]

If the bridges were rebuilt, we could rise the height to allow post panamax ships into the basin, and just expand Ceres up along towards Chinatown.

What do you do during the time that they are being rebuilt? It would be a traffic nightmare.

[Keith P.]

One anecdotal note about how traffic has grown. In my first job out of university in 1979 I was located in Burnside while living on the peninsula. It was no problem at all for the commute going to Dartmouth in the AM and going to Halifax in the PM using the MacKay. My memory of that time is that Halifax bound traffic in the AM (which I was going against) was heavy but moving. Coming to Halifax in the evening was a breeze. Contrast that to now where you have Halifax-bound traffic in the evening that is as heavy as morning rush hours. There is no doubt in my mind that something needs to happen soon.

As for transit options, there really is no way that transit can effectively serve places like Burnside. It is not set up for walking which is always required when you are dealing with that type of industrial park setup.

[Dmajackson]

Thinking out of the box here but couldn't the HHB build an active-transportation trail to the side of the MacKay similar to the McDonald Bridge bikeway. In Halifax is could connect to Novelea Street with ease (southside). Dartmouth would be more challenging but it could drop down to Princess Margaret Blvd. I'm to sketch up a quick map but it would be a great idea to tie into an eventual Shannon Park redevelopment.

[fenwick16]

Thinking out of the box here but couldn't the HHB build an active-transportation trail to the side of the MacKay similar to the McDonald Bridge bikeway. In Halifax is could connect to Novelea Street with ease (southside). Dartmouth would be more challenging but it could drop down to Princess Margaret Blvd. I'm to sketch up a quick map but it would be a great idea to tie into an eventual Shannon Park redevelopment.

Are you referring to adding bike and pedestrian lanes or LRT lanes to the MacKay Bridge? (I don't think that LRT lanes could be added - they would likely have to take one of the existing bridge lanes but then vehicular traffic would be reduced).

[Dmajackson]

Are you referring to adding bike and pedestrian lanes or LRT lanes to the MacKay Bridge? (I don't think that LRT lanes could be added - they would likely have to take one of the existing bridge lanes but then vehicular traffic would be reduced).

I was thinking bike/pedestrian lanes like there currently is attached to the McD. At the very least it could cut down volume in the Summer/Fall when the traffic is the worse.

I'm still worknig slightly on this but I was thinking of this type of layout for the trail and feeder paths; Halifax Trails (http://maps.google.ca/maps/ms?hl=en&ie=UTF8&msa=0&ll=44.68324,-63.596764&spn=0.013639,0.0421&t=h&z=15&msid=112449274347342063981.0004887846f0fda3654d7)

[terrynorthend]

I was thinking bike/pedestrian lanes like there currently is attached to the McD. At the very least it could cut down volume in the Summer/Fall when the traffic is the worse.




Yeah, that'll put a dent in it. LOL.

Seriously, lets improve the transit system by all means. Lets add buses, ferries, LRTs, BRTs, streamline the routing, develop a seamless hub and spoke network, push ridership sky high. Future growth will demand it.

But its not one OR the other. Car counts in HRM will still grow, year by year, until eventually our roadways are hopelessly jammed, and we WILL need to explore additional roadway and harbour crossing capacity. We might be able to push it off to 20-30 years instead of 10-15. But regardless, as they say, that train is a comin'!

[fenwick16]

Ohh nice shot.. now just imagine a shiny new cable-stay bridge in the shot just behind Georges Island. Sexy!

Quoted from the Farmers Market thread. Is it a cable-stay bridge or suspension bridge that is being proposed for the southern crossing?

This is about the size of bridge that we are talking about for the southern crossing (below). As much as I would like to see a magnificent bridge like the San Francisco Golden Gate Bridge in Halifax, I kind of doubt that it is going to happen (I don't want to sound pessimistic). I have been on this Golden Gate Bridge and actually walked on it and I was awe stuck by it. The San Francisco-Oakland bridge is even longer with more lanes of traffic, although it is not as well known as the Golden Gate Bridge. I have been on it also (but in a car) and this was an amazing experience also.

One note - the fare for the Golden Gate Bridge is $6.00 (in one direction only). Are people in Halifax prepared to pay these sorts of fares? And it carries 118,000 vehicles per day ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_gate_bridge ) which is more than double what the MacKay Bridge carries ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mackay_bridge ). For a southern bridge to be feasible I think people would have to pay at least $6.00 in one direction or $3.00 in each direction.

Does anyone have the Halifax Harbour Bridge commission report. I saw it previously but I can no longer find it? (I think they had some specs on the southern bridge).

PS: The suspension towers for this Golden Gate Bridge are 230 meters - just imagine the outcry - this will be seen inside the Citadel, etc, etc., etc.

http://www.worldgreatestsites.com/pics/golden-gate-bridge.jpg

[someone123]

The report is here: https://www.hdbc.ca/docs/Cross_Harbour_Traffic_Needs_Assessment_2009.pdf

[halifaxboyns]

I recall reading somewhere that the design of the McKay (I think it might have been a weight issue) precluded the addition of stuff on the side; but I may be wrong.

I know the MacDonald can't structurally support more addition as it's nearly to its design capacity for weight.

While I like the idea of just taking the bridges down one at a time and replacing them - there two things that jump to mind:

a) Cost - it a tunnel is 1.4 billion and a new bridge 1.1 billion (roughly); then you are talking two new bridges - so ballpark say 4 billion dollars? Please wait until I die; so I'm not paying for it. :) Actually; I live in Calgary - so unless I move; I guess I won't be hehe! Seriously though - there isn't the money available to do it.

b) Impact - with one bridge down; you end up in a situation that you have forced all traffic onto one bridge and going around the basin.

It might work; if you had the 3rd bridge built but by then what would be the point?

[fenwick16]

The report is here: https://www.hdbc.ca/docs/Cross_Harbour_Traffic_Needs_Assessment_2009.pdf

Thanks for the report link. I see the clearance for the southern crossing is 55 meters but they state that 62 meters might be required in the future. Based on the report, they realize the opposition that will exist with a Southern Bridge so I think they realize that a tunnel will be required - thus the cost would be a minimum of $1.4 billion. They seem to have a bias against a MacKay twin bridge and a bias for the southern crossing. At that cost and all the opposition that will occur, I would think it would be easier to shift the downtown core towards the north end and try for a MacKay twin bridge or even a MacDonald twin bridge and deal with the ramps required (since such ramps will likely be easier than constructing ramps in the south end).

There is no real reason for having growth in the south end of Dartmouth or for that matter, even for having growth in the current downtown Halifax. Based on the costs involved and all the opposition, if another bridge is required I think they should spent more time looking at a northern bridge otherwise it likely won't get built at all.

I think the south end bridge is the equivalent of building a stadium on the Commons, as much as I would like to see it, it just won't happen.

[Wishblade]

No third bridge or tunnel
Staff report on location for new harbour crossing 'waste of time'


Regional councillors polled Monday evening are against a third bridge spanning Halifax Harbour or a tunnel running beneath it.

"I want to make it tougher to get onto the peninsula with motor vehicles," said Coun. Jim Smith (Albro Lake-Harbourview).

Municipal staff have prepared a report identifying a preferred site for a third commuter crossing which could be needed as early as 2016.

"I don’t want to see another bridge," said Smith.

In 2008, the cost of a new bridge with six lanes was estimated to be $1.1 billion. A four-lane tunnel’s cost was projected to be $1.4 billion.

"I think that it’s an unfortunate waste of time and energy and resources," said Mayor Peter Kelly.

"We can use the dollars more strategically with other forms of transportation," the mayor said.

Planning for a tunnel or another bridge assumes that everything is staying the same, said Coun. Jennifer Watts (Connaught-Quinpool).

However, there are looming increases in oil prices and the environment to consider, she said.

"We’re not going to be able to move around our community as we do now," Watts said.

Many residents in her area are interested in sustainable transportation, particularly improving the ability to get around town in bicycles, she said.

Instead of preparing for another commuter link, the city should look at ways of stopping more cars from driving onto the peninsula, said Coun. Jerry Blumenthal (Halifax North End).

He believes special lanes should be reserved for buses and carpoolers. Any solo drivers travelling in those lanes would be ticketed.


Councillors agreed sustainable transportation is where they should continue to focus their efforts rather than using another bridge or a tunnel as a backup plan.

Coun. Sue Uteck (Northwest Arm South End) has vowed to try to scuttle a proposal that would affect her part of town.

The tunnel or bridge would likely connect Highway 11 in Woodside to Port of Halifax lands and CN Rail property in Halifax’s south end.

"I’m voting with Sue Uteck," said Blumenthal.

Blumenthal said he protested alongside people opposed to the widening of Chebucto Road and was disheartened to see all the cars going by carrying only one occupant.

Another link for car traffic would only further increase traffic congestion and frustration on the peninsula, said Kelly.

The proposal emphasizes the need for an integrated transportation authority with the province as a key player, he said.

"We need to be focused on an overall transportation strategy. Piecemealing it by different levels of government will not help us achieve the collective goal," Kelly said.

"If we don’t go in the direction we will pay continually the price financially and operationally for our overall transportation system."


Im glad their thinking of sustainable transit options, but I don't know how it can be denied that we will need a third crossing eventually. I just feel like we can put all the funds we want into public transit, but its really just delaying the inevitable.

[something_witty]

I agree that we are going to need it sooner rather than later. I would be shocked to see it in the next 10 years, as Halifax seems to wait as long as possible before doing anything.

I would consider taking BRT/LRT or regular bus to work, however there is no direct route across the bridge from my home. Metro Transit has, oh I don't know, mayb 5-10 busses travelling the same route along Gottingen, 3-4 of them go across the McDonald. There are no busses that go down Robie Street and do this. No busses that go down Windsor and do this. If I have to walk 10-15 minutes to a bus stop to take me to work, when I can get in my car and drive there in 10, the choice is obvious.

[cormiermax]

What a stupid decision, We will need a 3rd harbor crossing at some point in the near future and these people think they can solve the problem with special lanes on the road?

Looks like our wonderful counsel has done it again.

[fenwick16]

I agree with this statement by the Mayor:

"We need to be focused on an overall transportation strategy. Piecemealing it by different levels of government will not help us achieve the collective goal," Kelly said.

If the HRM grows to 600,000 - 700,000 people over the next 30 years, how will the additional transit problems be handled - one option for a cross harbour crossing was a BRT only option - so are they stating that this shouldn't be considered either? I know Sue Uteck is in favour of ferries which isn't a bad idea, but a lot more effort should be spent on the most densely populated areas and having true rapid transit whereby people can get from point A to point B within a few minutes (such as LRT either above or below ground on the Halifax peninsula and crossing over to Dartmouth) with a Right of Way. Even with all these measures another crossing - possibly a twin MacKay or a twin MacDonald bridge might be required in the future. A twin MacDonald Bridge would actually tie in better with the current bus transit. What about a single LRT track under the harbour near the downtown area to tie Haifax Downtown and Dartmouth Downtown together so people can get from one side to the other within a few minutes. (one train could get from one side to the other in about 2 minutes and then reverse back in the other direction - I think a high speed LRT on a single track could probably make one return trip - both directions - in 10 minutes or less). Then if additional capacity is required in the future another track could be added.

And if the councillors are really serious about reducing cars on the peninsula then get rid of all the ridiculous restrictions on tall buildings and start supporting dense population on the peninsula and in Dartmouth.

No matter what, I don't think that cars are going to disappear in the next 20 - 30 years. As oil becomes more scarce then cars will become smaller and will be electrically powered. I think at times people assume that as abundant oil disappears then we are going to switch to a car-less society; this is not a reasonable assumption. We will just switch to electrical power that relies more on other energy sources (such as nuclear energy, solar, wind, etc.). We might even switch to hydrogen powered cars. The reason for not switching sooner has been because of cheap oil. In the long run, scarce oil might mean a cleaner environment.

[FuzzyWuz]

one thing that hasn't been mentioned is that the sf/oakland bridge has two decks right? Why not build a six lane two deck replacement beside the existing mackay? That way you don't remove a bridge while the new one is being built and then the old one can be removed. Of course you have to deal with the traffic going on and off but that's my offering, for what it's worth.

[MonctonRad]

No matter what, I don't think that cars are going to disappear in the next 20 - 30 years. As oil becomes more scarce then cars will become smaller and will be electrically powered. I think at times people assume that as abundant oil disappears then we are going to switch to a car-less society; this is not a reasonable assumption. We will just switch to electrical power that relies more on other energy sources (such as nuclear energy, solar, wind, etc.). We might even switch to hydrogen powered cars. The reason for not switching sooner has been because of cheap oil. In the long run, scarce oil might mean a cleaner environment.

I agree absolutely! People are too used to the convenience of personal transportation to give it up without a fight! People will just switch to electrics or hybrids in order to maintain their personal freedom. Also, as I stated on a previous post, there can be legitimate reasons to use a car to get around.

"I want to make it tougher to get onto the peninsula with motor vehicles," said Coun. Jim Smith (Albro Lake-Harbourview)..

- All this attitude will accomplish will be to drive business out of the peninsula which will only worsen urban sprawl........get prepared for lots of new suburban business parks!

- We should not encourage new traffic to the core but likewise we should not actively discourage it either. We should be using a carrot and not a stick. Develop LRT and enhanced commuter bus service (including BRT) for regular commuters. This will free up the roadways and downtown parking for shopper, tourists and legitimate business purposes. The focus of any new traffic strategy should be on the commuters!!

Many residents in her area are interested in sustainable transportation, particularly improving the ability to get around town in bicycles, (councillor Watts) said.


- Good idea but not everyone is fit enough or lives close enough to work in order to commute by bicycle. Also, this is not a viable option for 4-5 months a year!!

Instead of preparing for another commuter link, the city should look at ways of stopping more cars from driving onto the peninsula, said Coun. Jerry Blumenthal (Halifax North End). He believes special lanes should be reserved for buses and carpoolers. Any solo drivers travelling in those lanes would be ticketed.

- The number of traffic lanes leading into the peninsula is restricted enough now as it is without limiting them even further with dedicated HOV lanes. Again, all this attitude will accomplish will be to drive economic activity off the peninsula. Is that what council actually wants?

Jeez, where is the leadership in Halifax Regional Coucil!! Does nobody want to spend the money to make things right? Does everyone want to keep on fiddling while Rome burns?

Access tolls, HOV lanes and active transport will not accomplish much. The answer lies in enhanced commuter access to the downtown. This might eventually entail a third bridge but I do worry about worsening downtown traffic congestion. To me, the answer lies in actively pursuing a commuter rail/LRT option.

[terrynorthend]

What a stupid decision, We will need a 3rd harbor crossing at some point in the near future and these people think they can solve the problem with special lanes on the road?

Looks like our wonderful counsel has done it again.

Yes, it blows my mind that these are the same people who fought tooth and nail to keep their privileged parking spaces in the middle of Grand Parade. Even when offered free passes to Scotia Square as an alternative, one councilor said that was unfeasible. The argument put forth was something like this- As councilors, we have to run around all day, and pop in and out of city hall. We can't be expected to park way over in Scotia Square and spend half an hour for a 10 minute stop. - The implication is that while they are all for alternative transit and traffic reduction, they are special people and have a legitimate need for driving (solo) and parking downtown. Well the problem is, they aren't so special. And I don't even mean that in a derogatory way. I mean that everyone sees their individual case as "special". From the delivery guy, to the bank executive, taxi drivers to doctors and lawyers. Everyone is for alternative transit and carbon footprint reduction, but everyone has their own "special" needs and reasons to drive everywhere and anywhere.

The point of my argument is not to call these people out and say, "Nay nay, how evil they are...", rather to make the simple point that people will drive, and more people will drive more. That is one truth we will not be able to get around.

[Keith P.]

Their argument could be totally defused by this: Build the bridge for passage only, with no exit onto the peninsula, only entry onto the bridge. Take it over the south end and onto the mainland on the other side of the Arm. That will accomplish the objective of enabling development on the mainland and in south Dartmouth while keeping these morons' precious car-free peninsula pristine. Idiots.

[fenwick16]

Serious contemplation of future transit needs is required immediately. If you look at the following report https://www.hdbc.ca/docs/Cross_Harbour_Traffic_Needs_Assessment_2009.pdf both the population (figure 3) and employment growth (figure 4) have already exceeded the high growth lines.

I personally don't think that the southern bridge is the best alternative in terms of cost, however, something will be required to improve transit.

[sdm]

Serious contemplation of future transit needs is required immediately. If you look at the following report https://www.hdbc.ca/docs/Cross_Harbour_Traffic_Needs_Assessment_2009.pdf both the population (figure 3) and employment growth (figure 4) have already exceeded the high growth lines.

I personally don't think that the southern bridge is the best alternative in terms of cost, however, something will be required to improve transit.

The way to improve transit is Light Rail, and council should be seriously considering this. The relocation of containership terminal to DND lands in the basin or eastern passage should form part of this as well.

Nothing worse then walking downtown and almost getting hit by transport trucks.

[fenwick16]

The way to improve transit is Light Rail, and council should be seriously considering this. The relocation of containership terminal to DND lands in the basin or eastern passage should form part of this as well.

Nothing worse then walking downtown and almost getting hit by transport trucks.

I actually agree with everything you have said. I would like to see this happen. Possibly in the future an LRT dedicated tunnel could be built to move people rapidly from Halifax to Dartmouth. Many cities (example Copenhagen and Calgary) have switched away from the idea of encouraging cars in the downtown area and have actively promoted rapid transit.

I think a short subway/above ground system with complete Right of Way could be built in the Halifax/Dartmouth area for less than $1 billion (if planned properly) that could provide true rapid transit on a frequent basis (similar to the Toronto and Montreal subways - just shorter). This would reduce cars and therefore road and parking requirements in the downtown areas. For the next 20 years or so, it would also relieve the requirement of another car bridge, even with strong growth in the Halifax area.

PS: LRT should be focused on the most densely populated area of Halifax and Dartmouth instead of Bedford (which could be serviced with ferries).

[beyeas]

Wow.

Setting aside the fact that some who shall go unnamed (although mostly someone who's name starts with Keith and ends with P) that seem to want to resurrect the McCarthy hearings for anyone who dares suggest that trying to discourage the use of single-traveller cars is an evil horrible thing (aka a Communist apparently)...

The fact is there is no one @#$%ing answer, no matter what 'some' may think. To simply say that it is clear that a billion dollars to build a Gold Plated Memorial Bridge to KeithP's Legacy is a perfect idea is single-minded, in a way that is equally true for if I were to argue that taking all that money and putting it into public transit was going to result in Utopia.

I have said it before on here, a fundamental problem is the piecemeal approach to transport planning in this city. The bridge commission's job is to maximize bridge use, while Metro Transit's job is to maximize transit use. The province is responsible for 100 series highways, and the city is responsible for city streets. There is no one body that is trying to think holisticly and look at what is best taken overall. In some cases new roads will be needed to improve car flow, in some cases more public transit infrastructure will be needed. Instead all we get at the political level is the same as what some on here seem to have, a single-minded approach with no flexibility to be open to other things.

And as far as the constant digs at people who live in the 'retirement village' of the South End... last I checked we didn't have exclusivity on NIMBYs. I defy you to show me evidence that my neighbours are any more anti-development than any other area. It has been acceptable to bash people from the South End and apply certain labels, and that is complete bullshit. It is ok to call people who want to get out of their cars communists, but I am quite sure it would not be ok to call people who want to drive Hitler?! Glass houses and all that right?

[beyeas]

And... now that I am done getting my frustration out... LOL

Part of my worry is that this will turn into the typical Halifax situation that NOTHING gets done. The city etc will be paralyzed by hard opinions on a new bridge versus public transit, southern versus northern routes into the city etc, and instead of leadership on the issues we get paralyzation and absolutely nothing will get done. If I had to bet, that is will be what happens. There won't be a bridge by 2016 or even 2020, nor will there be a major investment in public transit. Instead the vacuum of leadership in this city/province will result in a whole lot of nothing.

[fenwick16]

Wow.

Setting aside the fact that some who shall go unnamed (although mostly someone who's name starts with Keith and ends with P) that seem to want to resurrect the McCarthy hearings for anyone who dares suggest that trying to discourage the use of single-traveller cars is an evil horrible thing (aka a Communist apparently)...

The fact is there is no one @#$%ing answer, no matter what 'some' may think. To simply say that it is clear that a billion dollars to build a Gold Plated Memorial Bridge to KeithP's Legacy is a perfect idea is single-minded, in a way that is equally true for if I were to argue that taking all that money and putting it into public transit was going to result in Utopia.

I have said it before on here, a fundamental problem is the piecemeal approach to transport planning in this city. The bridge commission's job is to maximize bridge use, while Metro Transit's job is to maximize transit use. The province is responsible for 100 series highways, and the city is responsible for city streets. There is no one body that is trying to think holisticly and look at what is best taken overall. In some cases new roads will be needed to improve car flow, in some cases more public transit infrastructure will be needed. Instead all we get at the political level is the same as what some on here seem to have, a single-minded approach with no flexibility to be open to other things.

And as far as the constant digs at people who live in the 'retirement village' of the South End... last I checked we didn't have exclusivity on NIMBYs. I defy you to show me evidence that my neighbours are any more anti-development than any other area. It has been acceptable to bash people from the South End and apply certain labels, and that is complete bullshit. It is ok to call people who want to get out of their cars communists, but I am quite sure it would not be ok to call people who want to drive Hitler?! Glass houses and all that right?

I have railed on people in the South End also, although in this case I am in favour of rapid transportation versus the South End bridge. However, there is a good argument for having a Northwest arm bridge and rail cut roadway and it cannot even be discussed because it would pass through the South End.

I can understand why people would like to see a South End Bridge though, it would like having the Golden Gate Bridge in Halifax.

[beyeas]

I have railed on people in the South End also, although in this case I am in favour of rapid transportation versus the South End bridge. However, there is a good argument for having a Northwest arm bridge and rail cut roadway and it cannot even be discussed because it would pass through the South End.

I can understand why people would like to see a South End Bridge though, it would like having the Golden Gate Bridge in Halifax.

Personally I think an ideal situation would be to use the railcut for LRT, and move the container terminal to the Dartmouth side where it has easy access to both the rail-lines over there and immediate access to the 100 series highways heading out. However, like I said above, more than anything it is that I wish there was one board responsible for thinking about this as a whole and making integrated rather than piecemeal decisions about all these issues. Clearly city council is not the place for productive discussion on this!

[fenwick16]

Personally I think an ideal situation would be to use the railcut for LRT, and move the container terminal to the Dartmouth side where it has easy access to both the rail-lines over there and immediate access to the 100 series highways heading out. However, like I said above, more than anything it is that I wish there was one board responsible for thinking about this as a whole and making integrated rather than piecemeal decisions about all these issues. Clearly city council is not the place for productive discussion on this!

The Mayor suggested this also - you should sent an email to the Mayor and Premier (or person in charge of transportation). This is critically required in the HRM. Calgary and Copenhagen can be used as examples.

[beyeas]

The Mayor suggested this also - you should sent an email to the Mayor and Premier (or person in charge of transportation). This is critically required in the HRM. Calgary and Copenhagen can be used as examples.

Yeah I was surprised. One of the few things I have actually agreed with him on.

[MonctonRad]

I wish there was one board responsible for thinking about this as a whole and making integrated rather than piecemeal decisions about all these issues. Clearly city council is not the place for productive discussion on this!

HRM is an ungainly beast and regional council is filled with powerful councillors with conflicting vested interests. Because of the size of the municipality, councillors tend to behave more like MLA's fighting for their individual constituencies rather than advocates for the municipality as a whole........

I agree, the best solution would be to develop a regional transit authority to look after these issues. This needs to be moved out of the political realm, especially in a municipality like Halifax with a weak mayor and powerful councillors. HRM is as dysfunctional as the U.S. Congress.......

[fenwick16]

Personally I think an ideal situation would be to use the railcut for LRT, and move the container terminal to the Dartmouth side where it has easy access to both the rail-lines over there and immediate access to the 100 series highways heading out. However, like I said above, more than anything it is that I wish there was one board responsible for thinking about this as a whole and making integrated rather than piecemeal decisions about all these issues. Clearly city council is not the place for productive discussion on this!

Personally, I think that the rail cut could be used for heavy rail to places like Bedford and beyond (maybe two trains in in the morning and two out at night - it could be one train but only make stops in one direction - this is what is done on some routes with the GO system around Toronto). However, the LRT should focus on the heavily travelled routes such as a circular route up Spring Garden to West Mall, back down Spring Garden to downtown Halifax at Scotia Square. This could be subway where feasible and overhead track where subway is not feasible - but for it to be rapid transit it should be Right of Way for the whole route. Then at sometime, add one or two routes under the harbour.

[beyeas]

Personally, I think that the rail cut could be used for heavy rail to places like Bedford and beyond (maybe two trains in in the morning and two out at night - it could be one train but only make stops in one direction - this is what is done on some routes with the GO system around Toronto). However, the LRT should focus on the heavily travelled routes such as a circular route up Spring Garden to West Mall, back down Spring Garden to downtown Halifax at Scotia Square. This could be subway where feasible and overhead track where subway is not feasible - but for it to be rapid transit it should be Right of Way for the whole route. Then at sometime, add one or two routes under the harbour.

Ok let me correct my "ideal" statement... by ideal I mean "ideally realistic given the state of affairs in Halifax". I totally agree with you that the LRT/subway system that you describe would be awesome. But realistically I don't see us going from what we have to that anytime in the next 20 years. What I do think is maybe possible, just to get Halifax used to trains as daily transit, is using the rail cut etc with something like limited stops in Bedford, Rockingham, Mumford (I didn't do a good job describing that... others on here have done better). Something along those lines MIGHT be possible here in Halifax in the next while (maybe), but I don't see this city having the stones to go from what we have now to a full out service like you described (as much as I would love it to be otherwise).

[something_witty]

It seems like everyone is missing the point of a third bridge: to go to Dartmouth.

You all seem to be very excited for a billion dollar LRT system. An LRT system would be great, except, how do you plan on having this get to Dartmouth? There is no way they would spend another billion to have a LRT bridge/tunnel only going to Dartmouth.

If people have to take a bus, then take a ferry, then ride light rail to the rest of their destination, people will just take their cars.

[halifaxboyns]

It seems like everyone is missing the point of a third bridge: to go to Dartmouth.

You all seem to be very excited for a billion dollar LRT system. An LRT system would be great, except, how do you plan on having this get to Dartmouth? There is no way they would spend another billion to have a LRT bridge/tunnel only going to Dartmouth.

If people have to take a bus, then take a ferry, then ride light rail to the rest of their destination, people will just take their cars.

Absolutely correct - transportation only works when the mode is the simplest and least frustrating way to get somewhere. This is where heavy rail falls down with the rail cut and servicing Dartmouth - you can't get people to the Peninsula easily (if you went from the Train station; you still need a bus to go from there).

If a tunnel were built (or a bridge); it could potentially incorporate room for an LRT on the deck or in the tunnel - but there is always going to be an added cost.

An LRT system doesn't work unless it connects all the major employment centres together with residential areas and Burnside is one of those centres. In the transportation thread on rail; I posted a map of a potential rail based system (probably underground mostly) that served Dartmouth and Halifax. Here it is:
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4019/4556293361_00cae42463_o.jpg

The idea was to hit many of the major employment centres on the peninsula (Hospitals/Universities/DND) and also major commercial centres (West End Mall/Halifax Shopping Centre/Downtown/Spring Garden Road) and then cross the harbour (in some fashion) and do the same there. I figured a common route (much like the Skytrain in Vancouver) through downtown would give more reason to put more high density residential there since the route would be well serviced. This doesn't solve the problem of how you get the train across the harbour though - could be it's bridge or part of a tunnel. I'm not sure.

I should add that this plan is meant to be viewed in a contextual way; incorporated with a variety of other transit methods (I've noted a ferry and I think a commuter rail from Bedford/Truro and even Tantallon is considered).

[planarchy]

An LRT system doesn't work unless it connects all the major employment centres together with residential areas and Burnside is one of those centres. In the transportation thread on rail; I posted a map of a potential rail based system (probably underground mostly) that served Dartmouth and Halifax. Here it is:
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4019/4556293361_00cae42463_o.jpg



Interesting map - as a first draft of regional transportation network. But some of these routes are bizaare. I understand your logic of trying to hit employment centres, but ignoring the potential of Agricola or Gottingen street - arguably some of the most important transit corridors and those with the most potential for redevelopment is a problem. A line through the Northend end, from at least the Hydrostone, seems like a much more critical line - with the potential to trigger further redevelopment and revitalization - than the Victoria road spur to SMU. I would also see a connection through fairview to Clayton park as more important than lines to Cole Harbour. At least Clayton Park has some density to work with.

[halifaxboyns]

Interesting map - as a first draft of regional transportation network. But some of these routes are bizaare. I understand your logic of trying to hit employment centres, but ignoring the potential of Agricola or Gottingen street - arguably some of the most important transit corridors and those with the most potential for redevelopment is a problem. A line through the Northend end, from at least the Hydrostone, seems like a much more critical line - with the potential to trigger further redevelopment and revitalization - than the Victoria road spur to SMU. I would also see a connection through fairview to Clayton park as more important than lines to Cole Harbour. At least Clayton Park has some density to work with.

This was the first draft - I've updated the map but never got around to posting the second one. I had thought about Agicola and Gottingen streets (I think Agricola would probably be easier to redevelop comprehensively). Also, I agree about the hydrostone and I did factor that into my update.

I think mainly my view was hit the major residential areas while trying to get the major employment centres as well. Not easy!

[DigitalNinja]

I think we also need to look at places like sackville and areas further like fall river, bedford west which will be huge.
The problem is not getting around downtown, it's getting there. I think the highway from Sackville to burnside Dr. will take quite a bit of traffic out of burnside.
Bedford is another problem and will only compound when bedford west gets developed. The Bihi will be overflowing, and will need to be made into 6 lanes.
I don't really have a plan or anything like that, but Halifax seems like it is going to expand out into urban sprawl even more, and there doesn't seem like there is anything we can do about it.

[fenwick16]

Instead of building a southern bridge so that development is focused in southern Dartmouth (towards Shearwater) why not have a twin MacKay Bridge with LRT lanes and then have growth focused in Northern Halifax and Northern Dartmouth where the harbour crossing is the least expensive, and highways exist. Then have a rapid transit link to downtown Halifax, the two universities and the hospitals. The current downtown Halifax and Dartmouth will continue to be serviced directly by the ferries and buses. However, downtown Halifax and downtown Dartmouth will then tend to grow towards the North. Shannon Park could be tied by LRT to downtown Halifax and be the focal point of high density office and residential development in Dartmouth and have easy LRT access from the 100 series highways from Bedford, Sackville, Clayton Park , Fairview .... Although Shannon Park isn't currently a densely populated area, there is room to grow and land available for people to park in Dartmouth and take the LRT to downtown Halifax. One note; places like Burnside won't generate much LRT traffic during the evenings and weekends (for what that is worth). So the Burnside Park might be close to one end of a LRT route, but the LRT shouldn't necessarily pass through it. On the other hand, the universities, hospitals and downtown Halifax will generate LRT traffic 7 days a week.

I really think that encouraging growth in Southern Halifax is a mistake. There is simply a lack of real estate for future growth. I am thinking in terms of the HRM growing to 800,000 plus people.

[MonctonRad]

The problem is not getting around downtown, it's getting there.

Exactly!! :tup:

That's why you need to concentrate on commuter rail/LRT to get people from the commuter watershed onto the peninsula. If this burden is removed from the roadways then a lot of the problem will disappear.

[Keith P.]

I really think that encouraging growth in Southern Halifax is a mistake. There is simply a lack of real estate for future growth. I am thinking in terms of the HRM growing to 800,000 plus people.

It's not about encouraging growth in southern parts of the peninsula! It's about having something that will allow transport to/from areas of south Dartmouth to the mainland on the Halifax side. And most importantly, it is about planning for the inevitable growth that the city will experience in the next few decades, whether some like it or not.

[terrynorthend]

It's not about encouraging growth in southern parts of the peninsula! It's about having something that will allow transport to/from areas of south Dartmouth to the mainland on the Halifax side. And most importantly, it is about planning for the inevitable growth that the city will experience in the next few decades, whether some like it or not.


Yes. There are some good illustrations of this in the Bridge Commission report linked to earlier. It shows traffic density with red lines (thicker and thinner) throughout the peninsula under the various scenarios. The current scenario is heavily weighted to traffic density in the north. The second northern bridge scenario cause unbelievable traffic density to the north of downtown, and exacerbates bottlenecks in Dartmouth, funneling drivers from all over southern Dartmouth, Woodside, Penhorn, Colby Village, Forrest Hills all the way north to cross the harbour, then back south to DT. The southern options create a much more balanced traffic pattern throughout the peninsula, allowing traffic to egress halifax in sixth directions, and balances commuter traffic on the Dartmouth side as well.

[fenwick16]

It's not about encouraging growth in southern parts of the peninsula! It's about having something that will allow transport to/from areas of south Dartmouth to the mainland on the Halifax side. And most importantly, it is about planning for the inevitable growth that the city will experience in the next few decades, whether some like it or not.

I don't see why the growth must be in the southern part of Dartmouth when there is lots of land available in the northern part of Dartmouth, northern parts of Halifax, west of Halifax and east of Dartmouth. The Southern Bridge will be so costly and will require such high tolls that encouraging growth in southern Dartmouth seems like a bad idea. Regardless, even if growth occurs in southern Dartmouth then people can take the highway to another MacKay Bridge.

The plan could be - not to encourage growth in southern Dartmouth.

[terrynorthend]

I don't see why the growth must be in the southern part of Dartmouth when there is lots of land available in the northern part of Dartmouth, northern parts of Halifax, west of Halifax and east of Dartmouth. The Southern Bridge will be so costly and will require such high tolls that encouraging growth in southern Dartmouth seems like a bad idea. Regardless, even if growth occurs in southern Dartmouth then people can take the highway to another MacKay Bridge.

The plan could be - not to encourage growth in southern Dartmouth.

Its an identified growth area in the regional plan. And its already grown quite a bit since 1990, so in many ways the demand is already there. Commuters are already making lengthy trips all the way north through Dartmouth, across the harbour then back south through Halifax. Its not sensible to force all traffic into the same horseshoe pattern through the city. All these commuters will be dumped onto the northern end of the peninsula, and then have to compete with the huge volumes of traffic that will be coming in from everywhere else in Dartmouth, Bedford, Hammonds Plains.

Traffic flow is like plumbing or electrics. We wouldn't wire our homes this way, tacking the dryer and stove onto the same circuit as the bathroom razor or porch light. Why do it with traffic? Its neither good for congestion nor the environment.

[MonctonRad]

Its an identified growth area in the regional plan. And its already grown quite a bit since 1990, so in many ways the demand is already there. Commuters are already making lengthy trips all the way north through Dartmouth, across the harbour then back south through Halifax. Its not sensible to force all traffic into the same horseshoe pattern through the city. All these commuters will be dumped onto the northern end of the peninsula, and then have to compete with the huge volumes of traffic that will be coming in from everywhere else in Dartmouth, Bedford, Hammonds Plains.

Excellent point. I am on the fence about the third bridge but if south Dartmouth is expected to grow significantly then the need probably is there for this initiative. Traffic patterns would have to be carefully planned on the peninsula side but it may be feasible.

Regardless, Halterm still needs to be relocated and the railcut given over to commuter rail.......