[HRM]

[QUOTE=alps;4890263]I wouldn't mind that in the eventual future as long as it doesn't look like the other Spryfield subdivisions of the past few years.


From this comment about Spryfield I don't think you are very familiar with the area an Arm crossing would serve. Check out the MLS listings in the communities surrounding Purcells Cove Road. Check out the listings for Ravenscraig or go to polycorp.ca.

Read today's allnovascotia.com - first article.

Pinehaven, Fairmount, Armdale, Stoneridge, Waterton buildings, future Rockcliffe Village, etc.

Spryfield is actually a small part of the catchment area

[fenwick16]

The most recent Statistics Canada census (2006) puts the population of Halifax at 369,455.

Per Access Nova Scotia's web site an average day in 2007 saw 23 births and 22 deaths for a net increase of 365 for the entire year.

Immigration to Nova Scotia is surely eclipsed by emmigration out of the province by those seeking work (especially when one considers that non - Nova Scotia university students are included in the census number above).

In short the current full-time population of Halifax is no where close to 400K.

The figure of 398k in July 2009 came from Statistics Canada. The number that you are quoting does not include the undercount. If you don't understand that fact then you shouldn't be stating such misinformation. In short, get your facts straight. Why do you think there is so much development is occurring in the HRM if the population has stagnated?

[alps]

From this comment about Spryfield I don't think you are very familiar with the area an Arm crossing would serve. Check out the MLS listings in the communities surrounding Purcells Cove Road. Check out the listings for Ravenscraig or go to polycorp.ca.

Read today's allnovascotia.com - first article.

Pinehaven, Fairmount, Armdale, Stoneridge, Waterton buildings, future Rockcliffe Village, etc.

Spryfield is actually a small part of the catchment area

I hike around Colpitt/Williams Lakes often and park in the new subdivisions. Low-density cookie-cutter houses all around, not really the sort of thing worth building a bridge to encourage more of IMO.

Here's a possible exit point (http://maps.google.ca/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=102667127006202999590.000489ce7c5a6b4c910f3&ll=44.643926,-63.601055&spn=0.034381,0.077162&t=h&z=14) for a single-lane truck route through the rail cut, btw. I don't think it'd require any bridges or ramps. Does it sound plausible? There used to be two tracks running alongside each other but one was removed a couple years back so there's room for at least one lane-width of roadway.

[fenwick16]

I hike around Colpitt/Williams Lakes often and park in the new subdivisions. Low-density cookie-cutter houses all around, not really the sort of thing worth building a bridge to encourage more of IMO.

Here's a possible exit point (http://maps.google.ca/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=102667127006202999590.000489ce7c5a6b4c910f3&ll=44.643926,-63.601055&spn=0.034381,0.077162&t=h&z=14) for a single-lane truck route through the rail cut, btw. I don't think it'd require any bridges or ramps. Does it sound plausible? There used to be two tracks running alongside each other but one was removed a couple years back so there's room for at least one lane.

Are you saying that the South End of Halifax is too good to be connected to the Mainland South End? Perhaps the people in the South End of Halifax have rights that the rest of the HRM don't have. Point Pleasant Park is regularly used by just a very small portion of the HRM. Why not make it accessible so that more people can enjoy it?

[alps]

Are you saying that the South End of Halifax is too good to be connected to the Mainland South End?

Eh..? I'm worried about the type of development that would go up if the bridge were built.

Point Pleasant Park is regularly used by just a very small portion of the HRM. Why not make it accessible so that more people can enjoy it?

I don't know where this became an issue, but those that live in Spryfield have a big piece of wilderness at Williams/Colpitt Lakes far superior to PPP and it seems backwards to build a bridge, have all that developed, just so they might drive over to Point Pleasant instead. I mean, not that I think this is the issue :shrug:

[fenwick16]

Eh..? I'm worried about the type of development that would go up if the bridge were built.

What type? Wouldn't the quality of development go up if it is within a 10 minute walk of the richest part of the city?

[alps]

Probably not, just look at what was built on Southwood Dr. (http://maps.google.ca/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Southwood+Dr,+halifax,+ns&sll=44.629604,-63.574684&sspn=0.004329,0.009645&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Southwood+Dr,+Halifax,+Halifax+County,+Nova+Scotia&t=h&layer=c&cbll=44.629603,-63.574688&panoid=YtQrw-LH3qebyFRNkRQs6A&cbp=12,155.97,,0,-2.21&ll=44.629566,-63.574812&spn=0.004299,0.009645&z=17) basically the only kind of suburban development we have in this city.

[HRM]

[QUOTE=alps;4890263]I wouldn't mind that in the eventual future as long as it doesn't look like the other Spryfield subdivisions of the past few years.


From this comment about Spryfield I don't think you are very familiar with the area an Arm crossing would serve. Check out the MLS listings in the communities surrounding Purcells Cove Road. Check out the listings for Ravenscraig or go to polycorp.ca.

Read today's allnovascotia.com - first article.

Pinehaven, Fairmount, Armdale, Stoneridge, Waterton buildings, future Rockcliffe Village, etc.

Spryfield is actually a small part of the catchment area

I hike around Colpitt/Williams Lakes often and park in the new subdivisions. Low-density cookie-cutter houses all around, not really the sort of thing worth building a bridge to encourage more of IMO.

Here's a possible exit point (http://maps.google.ca/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=102667127006202999590.000489ce7c5a6b4c910f3&ll=44.643926,-63.601055&spn=0.034381,0.077162&t=h&z=14) for a single-lane truck route through the rail cut, btw. I don't think it'd require any bridges or ramps. Does it sound plausible? There used to be two tracks running alongside each other but one was removed a couple years back so there's room for at least one lane-width of roadway.

Please name the developments you are talking about. I'm pretty sure I know one you are talking about - there are similar developments all over the city. So you don't see the $1M properties along the Arm on your hikes and all the $500-600K properties around Williams Lake? Been to Pinehaven? All over $1M. Been to Fairmount?

Read the first article in today's allnovascotia.com. The $1M properties in Ravenscraig subdivision are off William's Lake Road.

The houses in Ravines of Bedford South are cookie cutters. Ugly brick facade after ugly brick facade. A requirement to build there is brick front facade - and the brick MUST be purchased from Shaws. That isn't cookie cutter?

Given the proximity of this entire area to the southend, downtown and PPP Spryfield as we know it today woulld virtually disappear if a crossing over/under the Arm was built.

You cannot build an argument by cherry picking your points and ignoring everything else.

[alps]

I don't have an Allnovascotia subscription.

I've been to Fairmount, it's awful and most certainly "cookie-cutter". I don't equate high prices with quality and was more concerned with the "low-density" aspect of these developments anyway. I guess I should make it more clear than when I talk about "quality suburban development" I am referring to the type of thing Torontonians would call "smart growth" rather than sprawling, pricey developments with names like Ravenscraig.

[HRM]

I don't have an Allnovascotia subscription.

I've been to Fairmount, it's awful and most certainly "cookie-cutter". I don't equate high prices with quality and was more concerned with the "low-density" aspect of these developments anyway. I guess I should make it more clear than when I talk about "quality suburban development" I am referring to the type of thing Torontonians would call "smart growth" rather than sprawling, pricey developments with names like Ravenscraig.

You think Toronto has smart growth? Mississauga isn't sprawling? If there is a Lego block city Mississauga is it. Been to downtown Toronto at night. Ghost town. The TTC is the worst public transit system in any major city in North America with slow, lumbering street cars, subway lines to nowhere and Greece-like moiuntains of debt.

Williams Lake area sprawling? You have got to be kidding. It takes 15-20 minutes to get downtown during morning rush hour - depending on the rotary. 10 -12 rest of the time.

Anyway why would I be thinking about what Torontonians consider to be "smart growth" when discussing a crossing over the Arm?

[fenwick16]

You think Toronto has smart growth? Mississauga isn't sprawling? If there is a Lego block city Mississauga is it. Been to downtown Toronto at night. Ghost town. The TTC is the worst public transit system in any major city in North America with slow, lumbering street cars, subway lines to nowhere and Greece-like moiuntains of debt.


The only fact here is about the street cars. The subway system seems to be very efficient to me. I wouldn't consider downtown Toronto to be a ghost town at night. There are many attractions that draw people to the downtown during the evening. I would say that Toronto has a very vibrant downtown. During the summer, people attend Blue Jay games and during the winter, the Raptors and Maple Leafs. There are many performing arts centres in downtown Toronto that attract people to the city at night.

[fenwick16]

Probably not, just look at what was built on Southwood Dr. (http://maps.google.ca/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Southwood+Dr,+halifax,+ns&sll=44.629604,-63.574684&sspn=0.004329,0.009645&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Southwood+Dr,+Halifax,+Halifax+County,+Nova+Scotia&t=h&layer=c&cbll=44.629603,-63.574688&panoid=YtQrw-LH3qebyFRNkRQs6A&cbp=12,155.97,,0,-2.21&ll=44.629566,-63.574812&spn=0.004299,0.009645&z=17) basically the only kind of suburban development we have in this city.

Southwood Dr. is in the city not the suburbs. I don't see the connection.

A North West Arm crossing is just as important for the Halifax peninsula as the Halifax mainland. The south end is running out of land. For example there is no room for such things as a municipal stadium. You can be sure that the south end will resist densification in their neighbourhoods.

A North West Arm crossing will actually result in less commuting time for many people.

[alps]

You think Toronto has smart growth? Mississauga isn't sprawling? If there is a Lego block city Mississauga is it. Been to downtown Toronto at night. Ghost town. The TTC is the worst public transit system in any major city in North America with slow, lumbering street cars, subway lines to nowhere and Greece-like moiuntains of debt.

I work in downtown Toronto. Not sure when you went, but I find the area is much more happening than Halifax at night (particularly when Iggy Pop played last week :cool:). Mississauga is sprawling, sure, but the area around Square One is (slowly) developing into a nice town centre. Anywho I am moreso talking about the general shift towards intensification taking place here and not about the mistakes made in the suburbs.


Williams Lake area sprawling? You have got to be kidding. It takes 15-20 minutes to get downtown during morning rush hour - depending on the rotary. 10 -12 rest of the time.


Look at the area in Google Maps -- looks to me like very thoughtless low-density stuff. Distance from the city has nothing to do with it really.


Anyway why would I be thinking about what Torontonians consider to be "smart growth" when discussing a crossing over the Arm?

I was just using that as an example of the sort of development I would rather see in our suburbs

Southwood Dr. is in the city not the suburbs. I don't see the connection.

My point being that proximity to the city centre is not a guarantee that the development will be high quality, like you were suggesting.

[Canadian_Bacon]

Post deleted by me.

[someone123]

I work in downtown Toronto. Not sure when you went, but I find the area is much more happening than Halifax at night (particularly when Iggy Pop played last week :cool:). Mississauga is sprawling, sure, but the area around Square One is (slowly) developing into a nice town centre. Anywho I am moreso talking about the general shift towards intensification taking place here and not about the mistakes made in the suburbs.

This is mostly true but pretty separate from suburban development. Development is not a zero sum game, and it's simply wrong to view a house built in the suburbs as a lost apartment in the core. In reality I'm guessing the opposite is true, that high growth would encourage more inner-city development but that about 3/4 of it would end up in the suburbs. This is what's happening in cities like Toronto and Vancouver.

Either way, by far the biggest issue downtown is the fact that it takes a long time for buildings to be approved. Even banning suburban construction would not necessarily fix this issue. The next biggest problem is that the municipal price-to-performance ratio is messed up - central areas pay high taxes but do not receive higher than normal services, so this serves as a further disincentive to be in the core.

Something else to keep in mind is that Toronto has about 6,000,000 people and Halifax has about 400,000. If both cities were equally well-run, Toronto would still have more going on.

I do agree that Halifax is too quiet, but 70% of the cause for this is simply the lack of residents and workers. If the city made it very easy to develop downtown and about 20,000 new people moved in plus there were a bunch of public improvements (streetscape, library, etc.) the difference would be tremendous.

[halifaxboyns]

You think Toronto has smart growth? Mississauga isn't sprawling?
There is a big difference between Toronto and Mississauga - which are two seperate corporate entities. Toronto has pretty much no greenfield development since the land area that it has is built out - where as Mississauga can sprawl. So from that perspective, Toronto is doing smart growth throughout the core. Vancouver is another good example of increasing urban density - I think one of the best examples in North America.4

Williams Lake area sprawling?
Actually if you look at the Regional Plan's Future Land Use Map (http://www.halifax.ca/regionalplanning/documents/Map2_GeneralizedFutureLanduse.pdf) - much of the area is designated Urban reserve; so it's already been seen as an area for urban expansion. Combine this with the fact that the transportation map identifies a high speed ferry access route to Purcell's cove - I see this area as being prime for development.

That being said - a crossing on the arm will become necessary at some point because the simple fact is that the rotary can't really deal with the volume it has now; let alone more.

That being said; I'll go back to what I've said before about trying other things first - before going to a crossing. Set up a high speed ferry, improve the road network and then look at an arm crossing as a tunnel or a bridge. Perhaps one method to improve the road network is to consider making Quinpool a reversing lane street and improve the access point at the rotary - this way it could be 3 lanes into the core and then 3 lanes out of the core during rush hours?

Ultimately as the city grows; I think we mostly agree that this crossing will become important. Where we don't agree is how it should appear and where it should connect. Ultimately, when it comes to a decision - council will think of it from a cost/impact perspective. Build it as cheaply as possible (so that tax $'s are sucked into a bottomless pit) and in a way that impacts the residents of both sides in the least negative way. Personally, I think in the end two tunnels should be built (or bridges) - that connect from Robie and from South street - because no one seems to be thinking about the growth potential of Timberlea and their needs to get onto the peninsula either. :)

Downtown development (development in general) is not an easy process, but as the HT becomes weaker over time (let's face it - many of them are getting older and not many younger people are joining them because they seem them as a negative); the process should become less difficult, but there will always be people not wanting things to change. It's up to people like us, who believe in growth as a good thing, becoming better organized and supporting projects and getting out there and having our opinion known.

It's also up to planners with HRM to start looking at out of the box solutions to urban living/density and start really thinking about areas of potential that could become new urban villages like the Hydrostone (which by it's own natural evolution seems to be doing it on it's own with high density), Gottingen Street (huge area of lost potential density), Agricola, the car lot on Robie Street, the Young/Windsor Area and by the Sobey's on Windsor street (as examples). If in 20 years, all these areas were to become urban villages with a number of buildings even in the 10 to 15 storey range - that will significantly bulk up downtown numbers - potentially leading to improved activity in dowtown. But it will all come down to the choice of the consumer - until we get it out of people's heads that the 'Canadian dream' is owning a house in the burbs, then urban villages will remain concepts in HRM. I'm hopeful that with the population shift coming with the boomers retiring - that will change.

But the only way to actually improve downtown 'activity' (making it a busy place to be) is to look at things in a contextual approach. It's not just about building more apartment buildings and thinking 'build it they will come', there has to be stuff to do there. This is where the business community (and community development programmers) need to look at other cities to think of activities. Calgary has a fireworks festival - perhaps finding sponsors to setup a fireworks festival over the course of several nights? The tattoo is a huge tourist draw - why not think of some other activities with it in the same way stampede does (for example: many companies do free stampede breakfasts during the weeks of stampede, perhaps doing free breakfasts or lunches where companies sponsor the event?). Things like a Christmas Park lights in the public gardens (which I've previously suggested - much like Zoo lights here in Calgary), I hate to keep using Calgary - but I can't seem to think of other examples today. But you see what I'm saying - it's about bringing people to downtown to live, but also to play and to shop - gets some interesting stores into these villages. If you did an urban village on Agricola street with 10 to 15 storey condo blocks, with commercial on the ground floor with things like the Apple store or a Whole Foods (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whole_Foods_Market), plus other big box retail chains in an urban context (Future Shop/Walmart etc) you would give people places to shop.

I'll stop preaching now...this was way longer of a post then I intended. :)

[halifaxboyns]

I was thinking about the parking lots south of Spring Garden Road the other night and wanted to read the Halifax MPS to see what policies were applied to the site.

I stumbled onto this interesting policy about the North West Arm bridge that I thought was interesting:

9.6.9 The City shall delay or seek to delay any decision to construct Northwest Arm Drive from the Herring Cove Road to Purcell's Cove Road and any decision to construct a Northwest Arm Bridge until:
(i) the Halifax-Dartmouth Regional Development Plan, including the transportation plan, is re-evaluated;
(ii) detailed area plans have been completed for the Old South End and Peninsula Centre areas;
(iii) thorough impact studies of the Drive and the Bridge on the natural, social and economic environments of Mainland South and the Halifax Peninsula have been made, evaluated, and accepted by the City.

[fenwick16]

I was thinking about the parking lots south of Spring Garden Road the other night and wanted to read the Halifax MPS to see what policies were applied to the site.

I stumbled onto this interesting policy about the North West Arm bridge that I thought was interesting:

9.6.9 The City shall delay or seek to delay any decision to construct Northwest Arm Drive from the Herring Cove Road to Purcell's Cove Road and any decision to construct a Northwest Arm Bridge until:
(i) the Halifax-Dartmouth Regional Development Plan, including the transportation plan, is re-evaluated;
(ii) detailed area plans have been completed for the Old South End and Peninsula Centre areas;
(iii) thorough impact studies of the Drive and the Bridge on the natural, social and economic environments of Mainland South and the Halifax Peninsula have been made, evaluated, and accepted by the City.

Interesting! Thanks for posting. When was this MPS published? Could you provide a link.

[halifaxboyns]

Interesting! Thanks for posting. When was this MPS published? Could you provide a link.

90's I believe; needs a little updating I believe. Because it refers to the Planning Act a lot - there hasn't been a planning act in NS for a long time. The MGA replaced it and now there is the HRM charter.

[fenwick16]

This article was in thestar.com (the online version of the Toronto Star). I have a couple points - 1) most visitors to Halifax generally find it to be an interesting city, even visitors from the big city of Toronto (don't be offended, I still consider myself to be a Haligonian living in the Toronto area) - so Halifax needs to move ahead with the new convention centre, which will probably be a resounding success and help revitalize the downtown, 2) Halifax really needs a North West Arm crossing to get these big trucks off the downtown streets. That is why I like the route that I re-posted after the article (this doesn't go through the rail-cut but instead above it on the southern side)

(source - http://www.thestar.com/article/839542--hume-from-halifax-to-toronto-all-roads-lead-to-the-future )
Hume: From Halifax to Toronto, all roads lead to the future
Published On Mon Jul 26 2010

By Christopher Hume Urban Issues, Architecture

Halifax is a city that just keeps on truckin’: That’s the problem.

Though this historic city of 500,000 has much to offer, it also has its troubles; they begin with a harbour layout that puts hundreds of trucks onto the streets of downtown Halifax every day.

Lower Water, Hollis and, to a lesser degree, Barrington streets all have trucks roaring down them endlessly. Loaded, unloaded, many carrying containers, these huge vehicles are wildly out of place on Halifax’s narrow 19th-century arteries. These trucks are bigger than some of the buildings they pass. As for street life, forget it, with these behemoths grunting by every few minutes, the sidewalks are not much fun.

Shame, Halifax has retained a vital urban core where many similar smaller cities have not, Winnipeg, for example, can feel like the world’s biggest ghost town. The streets aren’t just empty; they’re deserted.

Despite its scruffiness, Halifax has also retained much of its civic and architectural heritage. There are a few too many stores for rent, and of course, the ‘60s, ‘70s and ‘80s wreaked havoc here, as everywhere else. All things considered, however, Halifax has much to feel good about.

Even its waterfront has finally succumbed to the forces of gentrification. New mixed-use developments have appeared on the edge of the harbour. Though largely conventional, they are more imaginative than many.

But then there are those trucks, tearing relentlessly up and down the streets.

Discussions have occurred, but solutions such as building a highway along rail lines are expensive. To an outsider, it seems this is one of those issues everyone has agreed to ignore. But that doesn’t mean it will go away.

The truck routes form a waterfront barrier that’s every bit as real as the physical obstacles in Toronto of railroads, highways and condos. Yet in both cities, the key to success is to reintegrate the waterfront into the larger community.

More generally, both cities need to be rescued from the car. That doesn’t mean elimination of cars; a reduction of 20 to 25 per cent would be enough to change conditions dramatically. That’s a little better than what has been achieved in London and Stockholm. Sounds optimistic, but historic city centres are simply not equipped to handle such volumes of traffic. In Halifax’s case, the situation is exacerbated by the fact that much of the traffic consists of big rigs.

Still one wanders around this old maritime city and can’t help but marvel at its urban potential. But first the streets must be reclaimed.

The irony, as always, is that Halifax is its own biggest asset. Compact and connected, it is in good shape for what awaits us after cheap oil. But in a world where monster trucks dominate, these qualities are liabilities. And so Halifax tends to look shabby and under-populated.

And it’s unlikely the truckers themselves enjoy driving the streets of Halifax; these vehicles are made for bigger spaces.

In Toronto, we have yet to come to terms with putting new neighbourhoods on streets that have become on and off-ramps for the Gardiner Expressway. That includes Spadina, Bay, Jarvis and York.

The vehicular role will change; the process has already started. Some cities will thrive; others will slowly die. Though we talk about corporations being too big to fail; what about cities? In Canada, we are content to leave them to their own devices, of which they typically have precious few. Though all cities face the perils of the future, Halifax at least has the virtues of the past.

Christopher Hume can be reached at chume@thestar.ca.

http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/2035/northwestarmtunnelwithc.jpg

[Jonovision]

Nice article. I really like Christopher Hume. He always brings some good points to light and there aren't many Canadian urban planning journalists so it is always refreshing to read his articles or see his videos.

[halifaxboyns]

Nice article. I really like Christopher Hume. He always brings some good points to light and there aren't many Canadian urban planning journalists so it is always refreshing to read his articles or see his videos.

If I'm not mistaken; he came out and spoke at the Plan It Calgary summit. When the new regional plan is done; he would be a great speaker for some sort of speaking series.

[beyeas]

This article was in thestar.com (the online version of the Toronto Star). I have a couple points - 1) most visitors to Halifax generally find it to be an interesting city, even visitors from the big city of Toronto (don't be offended, I still consider myself to be a Haligonian living in the Toronto area) - so Halifax needs to move ahead with the new convention centre, which will probably be a resounding success and help revitalize the downtown, 2) Halifax really needs a North West Arm crossing to get these big trucks off the downtown streets. That is why I like the route that I re-posted after the article (this doesn't go through the rail-cut but instead above it on the southern side)

(source - http://www.thestar.com/article/839542--hume-from-halifax-to-toronto-all-roads-lead-to-the-future )



I very much enjoyed the article, but I had a very different take on it than you. In fact my read of his work is that he would be very much against a new 6 lane connection to the peninsula. While he does say that we need to get the trucks out of the downtown streets (which I totally agree with and would support funding of structure to make that happen, whether it be that sort of route along the rail cut or something else) he in fact says that he thinks we need to REDUCE by 25% the number of cars coming onto the peninsula. Building a 6-lane link would be counter-productive in that regard. Building something (even if it is a tunnel link for truck and transit under the Arm is something I could support (and I think possible so would he), but I definitely don't see his article as being in support of a 6-lane link for cars.

[fenwick16]

I very much enjoyed the article, but I had a very different take on it than you. In fact my read of his work is that he would be very much against a new 6 lane connection to the peninsula. While he does say that we need to get the trucks out of the downtown streets (which I totally agree with and would support funding of structure to make that happen, whether it be that sort of route along the rail cut or something else) he in fact says that he thinks we need to REDUCE by 25% the number of cars coming onto the peninsula. Building a 6-lane link would be counter-productive in that regard. Building something (even if it is a tunnel link for truck and transit under the Arm is something I could support (and I think possible so would he), but I definitely don't see his article as being in support of a 6-lane link for cars.

I was thinking that rerouting the trucks alone would reduce vehicular traffic by at least 25% through the downtown which solves the problem of Halifax having 19th century street infrastructure. But if such a crossing is going to be built it would also make sense to have vehicular traffic also since it would open the Halifax south mainland for future growth. In addition, when that area has grown enough it would be a good transit route. (I liked his article but that doesn't mean that we must accept it as gospel).

[beyeas]

In addition, when that area has grown enough it would be a good transit route. (I liked his article but that doesn't mean that we must accept it as gospel).

Oh I agree... I just meant that I wouldn't necessarily take his article as support for your argument. Your point is well taken that removing the trucks will go partway to reducing downtown congestion on already clogged streets, however any gain in that would likely be more than offset by the increase in car traffic. What you propose is certainly an option, and for all I know it may be the right option, but it isn't an option that will reduce congestion on its own.

[halifaxboyns]

His article may also support the eventual relocation of Halterm off the Peninsula to another location closer to major roads, but still maintaining rail access.

Somewhere on the Dartmouth side; since the harbour depth would be the same (according to the map fenwick posted some time ago).

I think that may be a logical step too.

[someone123]

But the only way to actually improve downtown 'activity' (making it a busy place to be) is to look at things in a contextual approach. It's not just about building more apartment buildings and thinking 'build it they will come', there has to be stuff to do there.

The residential, retail, and everything else are self-reinforcing. I think there's enough going on downtown that simply adding more population does actually improve things a lot.

An area like Barrington is really just missing local population. It has lots of events, most of which don't seem to make much difference because the day-to-day traffic is not there.

[halifaxboyns]

The residential, retail, and everything else are self-reinforcing. I think there's enough going on downtown that simply adding more population does actually improve things a lot.

An area like Barrington is really just missing local population. It has lots of events, most of which don't seem to make much difference because the day-to-day traffic is not there.

Certainly more condominium projects along the waterfront like Bishop's landing and the Brewery tower will help. Also the Hollis apartment building should add good numbers. I'm torn on the Discovery Centre proposal; I'm thinking it should probably go office mainly. But it would also be a good site to go residential - right in the heart of downtown.

This is the problem for Calgary's downtown as well (at least late at night and on the weekends). There isn't enough population in downtown to really support many of the places being open; with some exceptions. According to the City's recent census, the population of the downtown core (excluding the Beltline) is 13,901. Now many places in China town and Eau Clare are busy because of dedicated localized population; but the real busy parts of downtown are the Mission and 17th avenue areas - which are in the Beltine to the south of downtown. That population is 18,902 and because of all the trendy bars and restaurants it is always buzzing.

I'm not sure what the population is for the downtown of HRM; but I would say that it needs to be big for the core to get any real life into it (including Dartmouth). But you can also do like Calgary and build more residential adjacent to the core (Agricola, Quinpool) and that should help too.

More residential in the core, adjacent to the core and with projects like King's Wharf, Trillium, The Brewery and Hollis Street are great starts...keep the momentum going!

[Jstaleness]

sseyD5iuzlk
Shot this today at about 3:30pm. Just added for fun.

[josh_cat_eyes]

What if Fairview Cove and Halterm were BOTH relocated to the east side of the DND just off windmill road. Then where Halport is, you could build the Stadium AND the metro centre replacement. You could replace the MacKay bridge with a tunnel (this would REALLY help in the redevelopment of Shannon park and Fairview Cove) The tunnel would have 3 tunnels. 1 with 6 lanes of northbound traffic. 1 with 6 lanes of eastbound traffic. and a 3rd for transit, pedestrians and bikes; 1 northbound transit lane and 1 southbound and 2 rail lines. 1 would continue to the train station downtown, the other would become part of the transit system. Not only this, but if those lines were put underground and a highway was built on it, that is a really easy way to get traffic out of downtown. The halifax shopping centre is right on this route, leave the potential for a subway transit stop. Basically you could have a car route, truck route or a transit route right on top of the trains on the same right of way. You could connect this south into the park with a NWA crossing connecting to NWA drive. You could also then replace the MacDonald bridge with a 4 lane southern tunnel. That way there is no direct traffic going into the downtown but easy ways to get there. Rather than having 2 bridges with 5 lanes, you have 2 tunnels, with 10 lanes of car traffic at both ends of hwy 111 PLUS 2 lanes of bus/transit traffic AND 2 rail lines. There would be nothing blocking viewlines and nothing blocking the ships. You have a 30,000 seat Stadium AND 18,000 seat Arena together DOWNTOWN, right next to MAJOR traffic arteries. I don't think ANY major city can say they have that. It's a win, win, win, win, win situation. A win for Peninsula, South of NWA, South of Dartmouth, the City, and the Province.

[halifaxboyns]

What if Fairview Cove and Halterm were BOTH relocated to the east side of the DND just off windmill road. Then where Halport is, you could build the Stadium AND the metro centre replacement. You could replace the MacKay bridge with a tunnel (this would REALLY help in the redevelopment of Shannon park and Fairview Cove) The tunnel would have 3 tunnels. 1 with 6 lanes of northbound traffic. 1 with 6 lanes of eastbound traffic. and a 3rd for transit, pedestrians and bikes; 1 northbound transit lane and 1 southbound and 2 rail lines. 1 would continue to the train station downtown, the other would become part of the transit system. Not only this, but if those lines were put underground and a highway was built on it, that is a really easy way to get traffic out of downtown. The halifax shopping centre is right on this route, leave the potential for a subway transit stop. Basically you could have a car route, truck route or a transit route right on top of the trains on the same right of way. You could connect this south into the park with a NWA crossing connecting to NWA drive. You could also then replace the MacDonald bridge with a 4 lane southern tunnel. That way there is no direct traffic going into the downtown but easy ways to get there. Rather than having 2 bridges with 5 lanes, you have 2 tunnels, with 10 lanes of car traffic at both ends of hwy 111 PLUS 2 lanes of bus/transit traffic AND 2 rail lines. There would be nothing blocking viewlines and nothing blocking the ships. You have a 30,000 seat Stadium AND 18,000 seat Arena together DOWNTOWN, right next to MAJOR traffic arteries. I don't think ANY major city can say they have that. It's a win, win, win, win, win situation. A win for Peninsula, South of NWA, South of Dartmouth, the City, and the Province.

Very interesting idea - but more tunnels = more $. Although (from my understanding) the cost to tunnel through rock like slate has come down because technology has improved, the fact is it's still not cheap.

But if HRM is going to get serious about building a good transportation system; it has to be prepared to shell out $. There hasn't been a good investment in the system and so the cumulative cost to make it better will be huge.

What worries me about any tunnels or increasing of capacity for cross town traffic is two things. Firstly (which has been stated before) if you increase capacity from Dartmouth it could create the effect of encouraging more people to live there. If you typically build more road capacity, people will use it - so it could lead to more sprawl. I think this could occur, but if things are well thoughtout before construction - you could impliment policy to make any new communities much higher density and more transit friendly.

The second concern is the inclusion of transit options into construction. There report that council saw for the 3rd link (which I believe I posted earlier on in this thread) was mainly based on cars/trucks. There was no option for rail or a transit only corridor. While this may kick up the cost, in the long run it would make things very helpful. Let's face it - the train station would be a great terminus for a variety of transit options and is drastically under used.

But where I agree with you partially is on moving Halterm. I don't think ceries really needs to move - it's fine, especially along a major rail corridor. What would have to happen to move Halterm is the rail line through DT dartmouth would have to be upgraded though - so that more trains could use it. That would mean more sidings and I'm not sure where that could happen...but I'm sure someone would sell their land at the right price.

But I don't know if putting the MC2 or the stadium on that location would work though. When I was home, I went to the farmers market and finding parking was a challenge when I went on a Saturday. I can only imagine the hell you'd have for a game - imagine if both had events, better yet all three? The parking might be okay if you had say a streetcar or subway, but I'd much rather see the Halterm site as a mixed use village concept.

I'd like to suggest that when considering locating the MC2 - we thinking about the regional core concept which is everything in the circ (Dartmouth side) and Peninsula Halifax. Could we not located MC2 on the Dartmouth side at the rail yards and create a cross town event idea?

[someone123]

Container terminals are not cheap.

I hope they are actively working on the third crossing. This really was one of the more depressing stories in Halifax since it's obvious that the city will need another crossing (last one build in 1970 when the city had maybe 250,000 inhabitants) yet the discussion is dominated by ridiculous talk of how soon there will be no cars etc. etc.

The line about it never being worthwhile to add more road capacity because it induces an increase in demand that causes equal congestion is loony -- reminds me a bit of Laffer curves. It's actually slightly worse because people are also ignoring the fact that additional capacity with equal congestion still means that more people are able to travel.

I hope they go with the bridge option because it is far more cost-effective and could look nice. The tunnel is more expensive with less capacity. The tunnel also would not have room for transit-dedicated and/or HOV lanes.

Halifax also obviously needs a Northwest Arm crossing.

[alps]

I don't think it's "loony" to suggest that additional road infrastructure would encourage people to drive. My parents moved from Dartmouth to Halifax because they were sick of the bridge traffic and they started walking to work instead (this was before the third lane project). I think a third bridge and a Northwest Arm crossing would certainly encourage urban sprawl and, in turn, more people bringing their cars downtown on streets that are already backed up. Suburban commute times are really the main incentive currently for many people to seek housing on the peninsula.

[someone123]

I don't think it's "loony" to suggest that additional road infrastructure would encourage people to drive.

You are making a slightly weaker claim than the one that I think is obviously wrong. Many people make an argument something like:

1) Better roads encourage driving.
2) More driving means more congestion, therefore
3) Building roads means more congestion (or congestion as bad as before).

I think this is a confused line of reasoning.

My parents moved from Dartmouth to Halifax because they were sick of the bridge traffic and they started walking to work instead (this was before the third lane project). I think a third bridge and a Northwest Arm crossing would certainly encourage urban sprawl and, in turn, more people bringing their cars downtown on streets that are already backed up.

Well, this may be true for your parents but it is one small part of the overall picture. The bigger effect is that people and businesses avoid the peninsula due to congestion. People instead choose to live in Dartmouth and work in places like Burnside. This trend has been dramatically larger than any return to the peninsula encouraged by worsening traffic -- far more development has happened in suburbs.

Note that another potential effect that's more difficult to measure is business lost to the entire region. I suspect this is huge -- property in a good location is unaffordable in Halifax given incomes so the city loses business and population to other regions.

Unfortunately I think this is lost on most people. The attitude seems to mostly be that everything's fine in Halifax, or at least this is true for people who have managed to obtain the relatively few cushy government jobs and well-located properties. Most of the rest of us have moved away.

[fenwick16]

The question that I have is "why must there be growth on both sides of the harbour?" If you look at this map of Quebec City - Google Map (http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&q=quebec+city&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Quebec+City,+Communaut%C3%A9-Urbaine-de-Qu%C3%A9bec,+Quebec&gl=ca&ll=46.792773,-71.27243&spn=0.177699,0.528374&z=12) you can see that the Quebec City area has continued to grow without numerous St. Lawrence River crossings. It doesn't need to expand into Levis, so why must the HRM encourage growth on the Dartmouth side. There seems to be plenty of room for growth on the Halifax Mainland - Google Map (http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=&q=halifax,+ns&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Halifax,+Halifax+County,+Nova+Scotia&gl=ca&ll=44.636903,-63.548698&spn=0.18469,0.528374&z=12). With the cost of another harbour crossing being estimated at over $1 billion dollars, I think this is a legitimate question.

[alps]

Well, this may be true for your parents but it is one small part of the overall picture. The bigger effect is that people and businesses avoid the peninsula due to congestion. People instead choose to live in Dartmouth and work in places like Burnside. This trend has been dramatically larger than any return to the peninsula encouraged by worsening traffic -- far more development has happened in suburbs.

Definitely a good point. But I can't help but think of all those hollowed-out mid-sized American cities with cores that are easy to get to -- typically all the regional highways converge in a "downtown circulator" -- but these places still do not have strong urban centres. I would like to see something like greenbelt legislation put in place to encourage developers to work closer to the core...and perhaps a third bridge might be OK in that scenario, but I think it'd be irresponsible otherwise.

[Waye Mason]

Just building the bridge was quoted at $1.6 billion by the Chair of Halifax Bridges a couple years ago. Moving the terminal too? Wow.

[someone123]

The question that I have is "why must there be growth on both sides of the harbour?"

It is a legitimate question but it is partly addressed in the report released by the Bridge Commission. Some factors (some are in the report, some are not):

-The bridge saves significant travel time even for current residents; it's been planned for ages.
-No capacity in the southern area due to lack of roads. Would require an Arm crossing.
-Much of the wilderness to the west is protected. I believe council also shot down a subdivision in the Timberlea area.

Basically the next-closest area for future development seems to be Bedford West, which is *much* farther from the downtown than the third crossing area (~10 km extra).

The $1.1B would be paid at least in large part by tolls, not by the taxpayer. It's incorrect to view funding for projects like the bridge as "zero sum", where $1 for the bridge means $1 less for a stadium or whatever else (this isn't even true for CC vs stadium because of spinoffs and federal funding).

A while back I did a calculation showing the value of saving travel time. Here's a rough approximation:

Bridges get 30 million crossings per year right now. Let's suppose the new bridge gets 10 million crossings per year (probably conservative).

Let's suppose each crossing saves on average 6 minutes of driving time (again, conservative).

10 * 6 = 60 million minutes saved per year = 1 million hours saved per year.

Let's assume an average worker makes $20/hour, and has to pay $5/hour to run their car. This means $25M saved per year. It would take 44 years for the bridge to pay for itself -- the Macdonald is already more than 44 years old.

Note that we are not including benefits in terms of reduced emissions etc. We are also not including maintenance costs.

A billion dollars sounds large while 6 minutes sounds like nothing... but in a city with hundreds of thousands of people those tradeoffs start to make sense!

[fenwick16]

It is a legitimate question but it is partly addressed in the report released by the Bridge Commission. Some factors (some are in the report, some are not):

-The bridge saves significant travel time even for current residents; it's been planned for ages.
-No capacity in the southern area due to lack of roads. Would require an Arm crossing.
-Much of the wilderness to the west is protected. I believe council also shot down a subdivision in the Timberlea area.

Wouldn't an Arm crossing save even more money in saved travel time? It would also get container truck traffic off city streets if routed correctly.

...The $1.1B would be paid at least in large part by tolls, not by the taxpayer. It's incorrect to view funding for projects like the bridge as "zero sum", where $1 for the bridge means $1 less for a stadium or whatever else (this isn't even true for CC vs stadium because of spinoffs and federal funding).

At 10 million crossings per year then what would the tolls have to be? - I think that it would be close to $10 per crossing since maintenance and interest payments must be factored in. I am basing that on 5% interest fixed rate for 25 years and on the low estimate of $1.1 billion - here is a mortgage calculator (https://www.rbcroyalbank.com/cgi-bin/mortgage/mpc/start.cgi/start). The principal and interest payments would be about $76.7 million per year and I think that annual maintenance costs would account for the remainder of the $10 per crossing estimate.

The Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco (a similar size) has a toll of $6, but in one direction only (which would be about $3 each way if factored that way, but it has 118,000 crossings per day or about 43 million per year) - reference (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Gate_Bridge)

What would the impact be on accommodating large container ships? This was an issue mentioned in the report and thus a more expensive tunnel was also suggested.

I think a southern bridge crossing would have to be heavily subsidized by taxpayers to make the tolls reasonable. If a third harbour crossing is required then I think it would have to be a twinning of the MacKay Bridge which would be a much cheaper option.

Also, I don't think that people would want all the numerous ramps leading into the southern Halifax area (there would be major opposition - the opposition would likely be stronger than it would be for building a stadium on the Halifax Commons, in my opinion. Therefore, I know that I shouldn't even suggest it).

There would also be major opposition to building a North West Arm crossing which should have been built decades ago. It is frustrating that such an important piece of infrastructure can't be built.

[someone123]

Wouldn't an Arm crossing save even more money in saved travel time? It would also get container truck traffic off city streets if routed correctly.

I agree.

A good plan might be a shared route for vehicles in the rail cut that could connect to a tunnel or a combined tunnel/bridge. This then link up to Northwest Arm Drive somehow (unfortunately this doesn't seem to have been planned for properly, however).

[someone123]

I am basing that on 5% interest fixed rate for 25 years and on the low estimate of $1.1 billion - here is a mortgage calculator (https://www.rbcroyalbank.com/cgi-bin/mortgage/mpc/start.cgi/start).

My guess is that the government can get much better financing than what people get from RBC for mortgages. It also makes sense for the government to amortize the cost over a longer period -- the Golden Gate is 78 years old.

[fenwick16]

My guess is that the government can get much better financing than what people get from RBC for mortgages. It also makes sense for the government to amortize the cost over a longer period -- the Golden Gate is 78 years old.

I just used their mortgage calculator, I am not suggesting that it be financed through the Royal Bank. Several months ago, I remember reading that the long term provincial bonds were around 5%. Amortizing over a longer period wouldn't save that much in yearly interest.

According to Wikipedia, the Golden Gate Bridge is already paid off. Even so, it is still running at a deficit. The quote below is from Wikipedia - reference (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Gate_Bridge):

The last of the construction bonds were retired in 1971, with $35 million in principal and nearly $39 million in interest raised entirely from bridge tolls.

In November 2006, the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District recommended a corporate sponsorship program for the bridge to address its operating deficit, projected at $80 million over five years. The District promised that the proposal, which it called a "partnership program", would not include changing the name of the bridge or placing advertising on the bridge itself. In October 2007, the Board unanimously voted to discontinue the proposal and seek additional revenue through other means, most likely a toll increase.

On 2 September 2008, the auto cash toll for all southbound motor vehicles was raised from $5 to $6, and the FasTrak toll was increased from $4 to $5. Bicycle, pedestrian, and northbound motor vehicle traffic remain toll free. For vehicles with more than two axles, the toll rate is $2.50 per axle.

In an effort to save $19.2 million over the following 10 years, the Golden Gate District voted in January 2011 to eliminate all toll takers by 2012 and strictly use open road tolling only.

[someone123]

Since the Golden Gate Bridge is 78 years old, wouldn't the tolls be used mainly for maintenance? I would assume that it is already paid off.

Yes, but I think it's normal to take longer than 25 years to pay off major pieces of public infrastructure.

If NS released bonds at 5% right now I think they would sell pretty well. Also keep in mind that a part of that is inflation -- a toll pegged at "real" terms would absorb that amount over time (to look at it another way, if you still charged the $10 toll in 40 years it would in real terms be dramatically cheaper).

[halifaxboyns]

I've been thinking about this most of the day. There are studies out there that shows, as road capacity is developed and built - there is a mental behaviour that does cause people to drive more, but I'll be darned if I can think of any of them off the top of my head lol. But there is an episode of E squared that talked about this issue exactly (I think it was in Seoul?). Jeff Kenworthy, who is shown on the episode talks about it (he spoke at the Plan It Calgary Summit).

That being said, I think you can build the road capacity and not see it gobbled up right away by thinking about designing new communities with a much higher density. If we focus on a transit village concept, where there is typically a high density corridor and mixed use area along the central community entrance points and along the main spine through the community with reducing density (and height) into the other areas - you can build more greenfield.

The catch with that is building a good transportation system to service these areas - either by LRT or BRT. Including these into any crossing design will be important.

[josh_cat_eyes]

Even if the halport was just moved to fairview cove, I think in the long term, they could save some serious money. I just thought it would be more logical right next to burnside.

Eventually both a NWA bridge AND and 3rd crossing will NEED to be built. People will be hitting themselves for not getting it done sooner.

[halifaxboyns]

Even if the halport was just moved to fairview cove, I think in the long term, they could save some serious money. I just thought it would be more logical right next to burnside.

Eventually both a NWA bridge AND and 3rd crossing will NEED to be built. People will be hitting themselves for not getting it done sooner.

But didn't someone earlier say that Fairview Cove has problems as it is because of the clearance under the bridges during high tide (they can't get a boat out there)?

I didn't go back into the thread (just back from seeing Elton JOhn here in Calgary and I'm tired), but if that's the case moving both terminals to Fairview will be a huge problem for container traffic. It might be more workable to look at a relocation to the Dartmouth side - but as Waye points out - huge cost involved. Something tells me that if a relocation is going to happen, it would be on the 20 year horizon.

[beyeas]

That being said, I think you can build the road capacity and not see it gobbled up right away by thinking about designing new communities with a much higher density. If we focus on a transit village concept, where there is typically a high density corridor and mixed use area along the central community entrance points and along the main spine through the community with reducing density (and height) into the other areas - you can build more greenfield.

The catch with that is building a good transportation system to service these areas - either by LRT or BRT. Including these into any crossing design will be important.

Great article in the G&M today on link between densification and good public transit. I wish that supposed "green" groups around Hali that seem to all be anti-height/density would read this:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/stephen-quinn/public-transit-is-the-key-to-a-sustainable-city/article2022234/

[josh_cat_eyes]

But didn't someone earlier say that Fairview Cove has problems as it is because of the clearance under the bridges during high tide (they can't get a boat out there)?

I didn't go back into the thread (just back from seeing Elton JOhn here in Calgary and I'm tired), but if that's the case moving both terminals to Fairview will be a huge problem for container traffic. It might be more workable to look at a relocation to the Dartmouth side - but as Waye points out - huge cost involved. Something tells me that if a relocation is going to happen, it would be on the 20 year horizon.

Yeah they did say that, but my proposal was to put a tunnel at both ends of the 111 highway and get rid of the bridges. It would be a MASSIVE project, but I think it would help downtown. Especially the part about having the new stadium and metro centre on the site of halport next to the woodside tunnel connecting through pleasant point park to a north west arm crossing. Perhaps you could even name one of the tunnels after Vince Coleman or Charles Tupper? Just a thought.

[fenwick16]

Yeah they did say that, but my proposal was to put a tunnel at both ends of the 111 highway and get rid of the bridges. It would be a MASSIVE project, but I think it would help downtown. Especially the part about having the new stadium and metro centre on the site of halport next to the woodside tunnel connecting through pleasant point park to a north west arm crossing. Perhaps you could even name one of the tunnels after Vince Coleman or Charles Tupper? Just a thought.

I would like to see the tunnels built, but the cost would be overwhelming. I think just the cost of the two tunnels would be in the $2.5 - 3 billion dollar vicinity. I am basing this on the estimate for the southern tunnel which was $1.6 billion. The northern tunnel would likely be cheaper but if the southern tunnel were $1.6 billion then the northern tunnel would likely be at least $1 billion.

I remember reading that when the MacDonald bridge is re-decked in 2014, the clearance under the bridge will be higher (I can't find a reference, but I think it was in this story which can only be accessed by paying a fee to the Chronicle Herald - Lions Gate makeover a preview of what's ahead for Macdonald - The Chronicle-Herald - Metropolitan - 11-24-2010). This project will replace the entire bridge structure except for the bridge towers and main suspension cables and is estimated to cost about $150 million. I believe that they are planning to do it at night and on the weekends by replacing one section at a time - this will be a major engineering feat (i.e. replacing most of the bridge without shutting it down for an extended period of time).

It is interesting to note the the two Halifax harbour bridges are running at a revenue surplus, it would be difficult to achieve that with a costly southern crossing, whether it be a tunnel or bridge.

[someone123]

Great article in the G&M today on link between densification and good public transit. I wish that supposed "green" groups around Hali that seem to all be anti-height/density would read this:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/stephen-quinn/public-transit-is-the-key-to-a-sustainable-city/article2022234/

Yep. This is by far the best way to build a good city that actually works for its residents. In Halifax this would translate into something like a light rail line (running at good frequencies as close to 24/7 as possible, so people can actually rely on it) to Clayton Park, with high density zoning near every station. The line would immediately be useful to many people and the shift in development patterns would generate huge savings in servicing costs while improving the quality of life of residents.

Unfortunately we are stuck with 1970s views and polarized pro- and anti-development crowds who generally don't know the first thing about what makes a city actually work. As a result Halifax seems to oscillate between damaging, poorly-planned auto-centric development and randomly halting development. Unless something changes the city is headed for disaster.

[fenwick16]

Unfortunately we are stuck with 1970s views and polarized pro- and anti-development crowds who generally don't know the first thing about what makes a city actually work. As a result Halifax seems to oscillate between damaging, poorly-planned auto-centric development and randomly halting development. Unless something changes the city is headed for disaster.

I am sure there are a lot of people in between those extremes - polarized pro- and anti-development crowds.

Vancouver is somewhat unique in that it is hemmed by the ocean, mountains and US border to the south. I have to agree that Halifax must start to densify in order to save on suburban servicing costs. However, building a third bridge goes against that concept. Using the Vancouver model, it would make more sense to use the harbour as a barrier against urban sprawl.

[someone123]

I am sure there are a lot of people in between those extremes - polarized pro- and anti-development crowds.

Probably, but we mostly hear from the zealots. The remaining majority mostly don't seem interested enough to educate themselves much on these topics. Many people want a low tax bill for example but oppose transit development ("I don't want to take the bus, so why should I care?") while being in favour of suburban development.

Either way, the level of public discourse in Halifax is considerably behind what you see in Vancouver or even Toronto. Here's a bizarre yet typical Herald article: http://thechronicleherald.ca/Business/1243134.html

Vancouver is somewhat unique in that it is hemmed by the ocean, mountains and US border to the south.

This has a much more limited impact on development than most people think. The mountains to the north are a real barrier but in practice the city is not even close to exhausting land to the south and east, and in fact the eastern end of the metropolitan area is very sprawly. I think local planning, wealth, and politics have had a much greater impact on development.

Also note that Vancouver is in the middle of building a giant new bridge -- the Port Mann bridge, which will cost $3B. Nearby highways are also being expanded greatly.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Great article in the G&M today on link between densification and good public transit. I wish that supposed "green" groups around Hali that seem to all be anti-height/density would read this:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/stephen-quinn/public-transit-is-the-key-to-a-sustainable-city/article2022234/

Great article. Its amazing when you combine density with technology (i.e. ocean water for heating and cooling)

I can't stand the lies from the "green" or "heritage/viewplane" crowd... Somehow they manage to get away with displaying their views as factual.

Do any of these ecology people even have science degrees?

[josh_cat_eyes]

The Vancouver area is the second biggest sprawling area in Canada behind southern ontario. Halifax has room to grow. believe it or not, sprawl can actually help a city. Nobdy is going to want to live 20-30 minutes into the suburbs when they can live in the city. As the suburbs get bigger, the demand to live in the city increases. Look at Halifax recently. There is a lot of residential towers going up. Vancouver is limited by the direction the suburbs can sprawl into. The problem with Halifax is a poorly designed road system. I HATE driving in Halifax, it is terrible. I think a big problem is the MacDonald bridge. It only has 3 lanes, plus on the dartmouth side, it doesn't really connect to any arteries. Even if it was located at the end of the 111 highway, it would make things a whole lot easier because traffic has a place to go.
A similar problem is in Dieppe on Paul St. The traffic circle empties out onto it, and the eventual connection to riverview was never built. Plus with the champlain place traffic, it is a nightmare.