[Spitfire75]

Streatch talking tender (http://www.thechronicleherald.ca/Metro/9007189.html)
Chebucto Road widening could be on agenda next week
By AMY PUGSLEY FRASER City Hall Reporter
Thu. Jun 12 - 6:28 AM

A controversial road-widen­ing tender defeated at council Tuesday might be back at city hall as early as next week.

On Tuesday, councillors were deadlocked 11-11 in a vote to award a $2-million tender to Basin Contracting to do the work at the intersection of Chebucto and Mumford roads. Any votes that end in a tie are considered defeated, so the motion was lost.

However, councillors who voted against the project quickly started calculating how long it might be before the tender is brought back for an­other vote. Coun. Steve Streatch (East­ern Shore-Musquodoboit Har­bour), who was absent and didn’t vote Tuesday, said he’d like to see it back at council “as soon as possible."

Both he and Coun. Harry McInroy (Cole Harbour) missed the extra council ses­sion Tuesday morning that was scheduled to deal with the awarding of summer construc­tion tenders.

In separate interviews Wednesday, both said the vote should have been a formality because council has endorsed the project.

“We had made it clear that this is where council was go­ing," Mr. Streatch said in an interview. “I am amazed how things can turn around so fast."

City planning staffers want a reversing centre lane added to ease traffic burdens to and from the Armdale Rotary at peak traffic times.

The project would affect sev­en Chebucto Road homeown­ers who stand to lose up to three metres of their property to accommodate the widening of that portion of Chebucto Road. The city has already purchased the land at a cost of $600,000.

The homeowners have been fighting the project since they found out about it in August 2006 and have secured more than 3,000 names on a petition. They’d rather the city invest the $2 million in carpooling lanes or commuter buses.

Last summer, the Armdale Rotary underwent a multimil­lion- dollar upgrade to realign the entry points from the traf­fic circle’s five feeder streets.

So to pull the rug out from under the project at the last possible moment was “quite inappropriate," especially when it affects so many peo­ple, Mr. Streatch said.

“The tenders were out and staff selected a proponent. The property has been sold and moved around, according to council’s wishes. And now, in the 11th hour, to have some councillors play politics with an issue that’s important, is disrespectful not only to the residents but also to the proc­ess and to council."

It also affects the company set to start the project, said Mr. McInroy.
“Obviously, (Basin Contract­ing Ltd.) wanted the work and put forward a strong bid," he said.

“It was an approved project of council . . . and so, from all appearances, no one would have reason to believe it wouldn’t proceed."

Coun. Sheila Fougere (Con­naught- Quinpool), who had tried to get a one-year morato­rium on the project last fall, said there might be a hurdle in getting the tender on next week’s meeting agenda, since Tuesday’s vote ended in a tie.

Motions of reconsideration require the support of two­thirds of councillors, meaning several would have to have a change of heart.

She said her research of council’s administrative or­ders also suggested the motion could only be brought back to the floor quickly had Tues­day’s vote been decided in the a f f i r m at ive.

Otherwise, council has to wait two months to vote on a lost motion or revisit the issue after “the expiry of the civic year," she said.

With so many questions left hanging about the project, the city’s traffic manager said Wednesday that it might not get underway during the sum­mer, when traffic counts are usually lower.

If council has to wait until mid-August to vote on it again, the 10-week project could be pushed into the fall.

“It would have been our pref­erence to do it during the sum­mer as opposed to during Sep­tember and October," Dave McCusker said Wednesday.

“And it’s still not clear whether the contractor who won the award could still pro­vide that service at a different time of year or not."

Despite the fact that the city might revisit the tender next week, the TRAX co-ordinator for the Ecology Action Centre said she was “heartened" by council’s vote Tuesday.

“It’s like a little bit of light and hope," Laena Garrison said Wednesday.
“We’ve been opposed to it from the start mainly because the point of the widening is to increase vehicle capacity of the road. And we advocate for getting people out of cars and into more sustainable options and increasing the viability of sustainable transportation op­tions as opposed to getting roads to take more capacity."

As well, she’s happy to see that the number of councillors opposed to the project is grow­ing.

(apuglsey@herald.ca (apugsley@herald.ca))

[hfx_chris]

As well, she’s happy to see that the number of councillors opposed to the project is grow­ing.
As am I. Why is Streatch so eager for this? It's not like this is going to benefit his car-driving constituents...

[spaustin]

Well if Streatch and McInroy cared so much they should have been there to cast a vote. It would have only taken one of them. From the sounds of things this project has been killed off until the Fall and possibly won't get started until next year. Hopefully we'll have some new councillors by then and maybe a new mayor that will finish this absurd project off for good.

[someone123]

It's not an absurd project. They're just bringing this little stretch of road up to the same standard as others in the area.

The fact is that as the city grows it needs both road and transit investment and this is one of the most efficient projects possible in terms of increased capacity relative to investment.

It's also true that this is an inappropriate time to be pulling the plug. The land has already been expropriated (and it's only a bit of their front yards...).

[coolmillion]

Ahh... road widening... the absurdity of this project goes far beyond calculations of road capacity and cost efficiency. The city is doing extremely little to encourage active and sustainable transportation and a project whose sole aim is to increase road capacity for single occupancy vehicles is sorely out of touch with not only those who are affected (directly and indirectly), but more generally "the times". The fact that this project was initially approved (by a predominantly suburban and rural council), despite strong civic opposition (not from anti-development types and heritage folks, but from home owners, taxpayers, environmentalists, walkers, cyclists, drivers, and urban councillors etc.) does not mean that it should go ahead at all costs. The surrounding roads with which this portion of Chebucto is supposedly being brought up to scale were the result of poor planning in the 60s and 70s. Other cities would invest in narrowing the stretch of Chebucto from Mumford to Connaught. A bike lane, more buses, a reversing lane.... Sheesh. Mistakes like this make me hate Halifax.

[Haliguy]

I feel for the residents, but it is project that should be done. It only makes sense.

[Keith P.]

Ahh... road widening... the absurdity of this project goes far beyond calculations of road capacity and cost efficiency. The city is doing extremely little to encourage active and sustainable transportation and a project whose sole aim is to increase road capacity for single occupancy vehicles is sorely out of touch with not only those who are affected (directly and indirectly), but more generally "the times". The fact that this project was initially approved (by a predominantly suburban and rural council), despite strong civic opposition (not from anti-development types and heritage folks, but from home owners, taxpayers, environmentalists, walkers, cyclists, drivers, and urban councillors etc.) does not mean that it should go ahead at all costs. The surrounding roads with which this portion of Chebucto is supposedly being brought up to scale were the result of poor planning in the 60s and 70s. Other cities would invest in narrowing the stretch of Chebucto from Mumford to Connaught. A bike lane, more buses, a reversing lane.... Sheesh. Mistakes like this make me hate Halifax.

Sorry, but this is utter nonsense. That stretch of Chebucto is a choke point because nothing has been done to it since the 1950s. It is one of only 3 entryways onto the peninsula and the only opposition (aside from the usual enviro-crazies who oppose any improvement tot he road network) are the NIMBYs who bought houses on a major artery without somehow realizing that is what they were doing and somehow expected traffic to go away. Their reasons for opposing this are weak at best. The same tie-ups that trap cars also trap buses and there is no question that improving traffic movement will also improve transit performance. Sadly, the amount of public attention this has gotten is typical of anything that attempts to change Halifax for the better. Find some self-interested group with a complaint, give them tons of media coverage, and then stand back and watch progress grind to a halt. It is evidence of a ridiculous lack of leadership at city hall.

[coolmillion]

I think this is an extremely poor example of a project that might improve the city. In terms of opposition to the project, one only has to look to city council to see that detractors go beyond "enviro-crazies" and those who own property in the neighbourhood.

[Dmajackson]

I think this is a necessairy project. Currently there are 22 lanes of traffic in and out of the city. Its not enough and for any environmentalists out there this will add a extra lane only at peak times (inbound morning, outbound afternoon) allowing traffic to flow smoother and probably cut down of idling and because of the reversing lane cars will be less desired outside of peak hours. This could become a great rush-hour bus road.

[someone123]

Huh? Reversing lane? That's part of the plan. They're only going from two lanes to three lanes and they are installing a reversing lane rather than turning this into a full four lane artery.

This isn't only for cars as buses also use this stretch of road. I've been on it many times on a bus.

Active transportation is wonderful but for this particular case it's a red herring, just like "affordable housing" was for the South Park condo.

As for the cost, it's part of a few front lawns that the owners are getting paid for.

I wish people in Halifax had more of a sense of perspective. This very minor project is being treated like some 1970s 10 lane expressway going through the centre of the city. Of course, that's probably exactly what 2/3 of the people who hear about it just assume it is and then decide to oppose without even getting the facts.

[hfx_chris]

Sadly, the amount of public attention this has gotten is typical of anything that attempts to change Halifax for the better.
Ah, I must have missed the part where it was identified that increased use of single-occupant vehicle, and a trend away from mass transit is considered the better option.

If they put this money, plus some extra towards transit - imagine this. A bus holds what - 38 seated (based on what HRM is currently buying) plus an additional maybe 10-15 standing. So lets say 50, because it's a nice number.


Would you:
A. rather see a 40-foot long transit bus with 50 people on it in front of you on Chebucto road or...
B. rather see 50 cars in front of you on Chebucto road.

The argument that "the same tie-ups that trap cars also trap buses" is moot, because if you can reduce the amount of cars on the road by having them take the bus instead, the traffic won't be as bad and the buses (and cars) will be able to get through without problem. There's a reason experts (including urban planners from all over) are saying this is a backwards plan.

[spaustin]

You make it easy for people to drive they're going to drive and more sprawl will be built futher out. There is almost not point in expanding road capacity. History has shown quite abundantly that its pretty futile. Any improvements made to Chebucto will be temporary as more cars will fill the void and we'll be right back to where we are now. This project is made even more pointless by the direction of gas prices. Transit riderships up everywhere because of the cost of fuel. Now's the time to aggressively push transit, not make it easier to drive single-user vehicles. If the Chebucto Road project involved a dedicated bus lane I could back it but as it stands its just a temporary fix for cars and at the expense of making the city less attractive and enjoyable. I say go Fougere. Lets can this waste of money project that provides no real benefit to anyone while destroying people's frontyards.

[Keith P.]

The old planner's chestnut about the inefficacy of building road capacity has now been proven false, so forget that. the thing that gets me about enviro-nuts and planners alike is their slavish devotion to the dogma that any road improvement is bad and therefore should not be built. That is simply ridiculous. It is obvious to anyone who has travelled on it that Chebucto Rd was obsolete 40 years ago. It needs to be improved. That improvement will benefit all sorts of vehicles that use it, and the assumption that those are mostly all single-occupant vehicles is equally ridiculous. There are tons of commercial vehicles, multi-occupant vehicles,. and buses that need the improvement as well. To argue against this is like arguing for the purchase of light rail cars but not the track they run on.

[spaustin]

The old planner's chestnut about the inefficacy of building road capacity has now been proven false, so forget that. the thing that gets me about enviro-nuts and planners alike is their slavish devotion to the dogma that any road improvement is bad and therefore should not be built. That is simply ridiculous. It is obvious to anyone who has travelled on it that Chebucto Rd was obsolete 40 years ago. It needs to be improved. That improvement will benefit all sorts of vehicles that use it, and the assumption that those are mostly all single-occupant vehicles is equally ridiculous. There are tons of commercial vehicles, multi-occupant vehicles,. and buses that need the improvement as well. To argue against this is like arguing for the purchase of light rail cars but not the track they run on.

Quite the contrary in fact if you consulted the literature. Nobody has yet figured out how to build themselve out of traffic congestion. It just can't be done... except for, perhaps, in a stagnant city where new growth doesn't swamp the increased road capacity (Sydney perhaps). I can get behind some road improvements. If they were adding a bus lane for example they would have my backing. Don't kid yourself though, another normal lane is just another lane to the suburbs for cars to jam in on all together at rush hour. Labelling it as something that's not aimed at car commmuters is very naive when there is only a traffic problem there for an hour or two in the morning and then again in the afternoon. Just because it will have some periphery benefits to other types of traffic that gets caught in the car problem doesn't change what the primary focus and goal is.

[Dmajackson]

Some information on this for anyone unclear of the exact parts of this project:
-Click on Chebucto Road FAQ's- http://halifax.ca/traffic/index.html
-Two drawings of the finished product:
http://halifax.ca/designcon/cons/documents/CHEBUCTO_20080501_1.PDF
http://halifax.ca/designcon/cons/documents/CHEBUCTO_20080501_2.PDF

[terrynorthend]

On a strange sidenote to last night's council meeting, (what with the anticlimax of the Alexander vote that ran out of time) council awarded the tender for widening Chebucto Road. So after a mere week in limbo, its going ahead after all.

[someone123]

The argument that "the same tie-ups that trap cars also trap buses" is moot, because if you can reduce the amount of cars on the road by having them take the bus instead, the traffic won't be as bad and the buses (and cars) will be able to get through without problem.

This basically never happens, because when traffic improves private vehicles become even more attractive. They always have a time advantage over buses except maybe for express buses running in dedicated lanes. Increasing capacity along this stretch makes a bus lane plan for, say, Bayers Road, more attractive.

Quite the contrary in fact if you consulted the literature. Nobody has yet figured out how to build themselve out of traffic congestion.

This is a strange and weak claim. By adding road capacity you either get higher speeds and shorter travel times or you can support more vehicles moving at the same speed. The ratio of investment to increased capacity is particularly advantageous at this location because it is a bottleneck. Even if congestion is eventually the same the road network will be able to support more people traveling, and that is the whole point.

Arguments about how 3 minutes saved in commuting don't matter or how congestion will eventually (i.e. 5-10 years later) resume at the same site and render this investment "pointless" really don't hold up to scrutiny. Everything is temporary and many investments produce only marginal benefits, and yet they still make sense. You might decide to buy a box of cereal at the grocery store even though it's not going to feed you for the rest of your life, for example. That is what this little project is analogous to for the city.

[spaustin]

The argument that "the same tie-ups that trap cars also trap buses" is moot, because if you can reduce the amount of cars on the road by having them take the bus instead, the traffic won't be as bad and the buses (and cars) will be able to get through without problem.

This basically never happens, because when traffic improves private vehicles become even more attractive. They always have a time advantage over buses except maybe for express buses running in dedicated lanes. Increasing capacity along this stretch makes a bus lane plan for, say, Bayers Road, more attractive.

Quite the contrary in fact if you consulted the literature. Nobody has yet figured out how to build themselve out of traffic congestion.

This is a strange and weak claim. By adding road capacity you either get higher speeds and shorter travel times or you can support more vehicles moving at the same speed. The ratio of investment to increased capacity is particularly advantageous at this location because it is a bottleneck. Even if congestion is eventually the same the road network will be able to support more people traveling, and that is the whole point.

Arguments about how 3 minutes saved in commuting don't matter or how congestion will eventually (i.e. 5-10 years later) resume at the same site and render this investment "pointless" really don't hold up to scrutiny. Everything is temporary and many investments produce only marginal benefits, and yet they still make sense. You might decide to buy a box of cereal at the grocery store even though it's not going to feed you for the rest of your life, for example. That is what this little project is analogous to for the city.

But I might buy some seeds and grow my own food sustainably instead of buying cereal over and over and over again ;)

[planarchy]

Everything is temporary and many investments produce only marginal benefits, and yet they still make sense. You might decide to buy a box of cereal at the grocery store even though it's not going to feed you for the rest of your life, for example.

While marginal benefits may make sense in some disciplines, it represents mediocrity in strategic planning. Such a short term solution, given the cost, makes absolutely no sense and will do little to improve the accessibility of the urban core - which is the main objective, correct? If city planners/engineers want to really do something that will make a difference they should present an honest proposal and openly embrace an Haussmannian ideal and plow a grand boulevard through the whole neighbourhood...perhaps rip one down Gottingen while there are at it and connect it to the bridge. Otherwise, they should hire designers to come up with something more innovative, perhaps risky, but in the end, at least interesting.

That cereal analogy is perhaps the oddest and most irrelevant thing I have ever heard.

[hfx_chris]

You might decide to buy a box of cereal at the grocery store even though it's not going to feed you for the rest of your life, for example. That is what this little project is analogous to for the city.

So what you're saying is, every time congestion increases on a roadway, instead of fixing the problem we should just add another lane?

[Keith P.]

So what you're saying is, every time congestion increases on a roadway, instead of fixing the problem we should just add another lane?

That might just fix the problem.

I can virtually guarantee you that when this project is done, you will look at the finished product and say, "All that fuss was about THIS??". That is the exact same thing that happened with the widening of Robie between Cunard and West -- at the time it was decried by the usual suspects as the worst thing possible, that it would create and expressway through a residential neighborhood, etc etc. In the end it is not even noticeable yet makes a real contribution to traffic flow..

[someone123]

That might just fix the problem.

I can virtually guarantee you that when this project is done, you will look at the finished product and say, "All that fuss was about THIS??". That is the exact same thing that happened with the widening of Robie between Cunard and West -- at the time it was decried by the usual suspects as the worst thing possible, that it would create and expressway through a residential neighborhood, etc etc. In the end it is not even noticeable yet makes a real contribution to traffic flow..

I agree. I've always maintained that most of those complaining about this don't know what it actually involves and once it's done nobody will mind it much.

[Dmajackson]

I think after Chebucto is finished the city should really look into fixing up more of Robie Street. It's so strange that its four lanes (Mass. Ave-Almon) then two (Almon-North) then three (North-West) then four (West-Cunard) then six (Cunard-Quinpool) then four lanes with periodical parking for the remainder. Four lanes to North then six lanes south of that i say. I think its essential for HRM to have four east-west roads that direct the traffic off the peninsula to the mainland (Bayers, Chebucto/Cunard, Quinpool and Kempt) so the faster these roads are the less traffic side streets will suffer from. And the same with north-south artieries (Robie, Connaught and Barrington). We just can't have our main roads looking like side streets, we have to have them more attractive to drive on.

I don't see why people complained about the Robie St thing that section of roadway is no more then 50 metres long.

[hfx_chris]

That might just fix the problem.For how long?

I can virtually guarantee you that when this project is done, you will look at the finished product and say, "All that fuss was about THIS??".Try saying that to the poor folks who are losing a very large chunk of their already small front yards. Plus a lot of my feelings towards this project are not so much about the amount of front yard space that will be lost (although that his a tragedy for those residents), it's the message this is sending to HRM residents - that it's okay to keep adding more and more cars to the road, and single occupant vehicles are more important than transit. This is the wrong message to be sending in today's world

[hfx_chris]

I think after Chebucto is finished the city should really look into fixing up more of Robie Street.I don't know, some of those sections get pretty tight with buildings right up to the sidewalk. There's no front yards to tear apart, so they would probably have to either make the sidewalks almost dangerously narrow, or remove buildings. Which would you prefer?

[someone123]

How is this project saying that single occupancy vehicles are more important than transit? Buses can use these roads too, and the fact is that the HRM council is simultaneously planning transit improvements such as a new garage and the Bedford ferry, both of which have much larger budgets.

You keep trying to frame this issue in black and white terms and they're just not appropriate. I agree that transit is important but the city is growing, there are more people and goods to move around, and transit does not provide a full solution. The city should be setting realistic goals for transit improvements and then should make decisions accordingly based on what are the optimal investments in terms of cost vs capacity.

It would be nice to turn Robie into a real artery for the city but I agree that it is a much more elaborate project than Chebucto Road and would involve more significant expropriations and drawbacks.

[Dmajackson]

I don't know, some of those sections get pretty tight with buildings right up to the sidewalk. There's no front yards to tear apart, so they would probably have to either make the sidewalks almost dangerously narrow, or remove buildings. Which would you prefer?

That is true that's why i said "look into it" to see if its feasible. The most tight area i think is West-Charles but only on one side. The car dealership and gas station leave some space to widen the road to four lanes without destroying houses or narrowing sidewalks. Other sections might be to tight to widen it though.

[hfx_chris]

How is this project saying that single occupancy vehicles are more important than transit?Somehow I doubt they're adding this lane for the benefit of buses, that's just a convenient side effect. If this project was for the benefit of transit, this third lane would be a bus and carpool only lane. The new garage and fast ferry developments really have nothing to do with Chebucto Road.

[spaustin]

Somehow I doubt they're adding this lane for the benefit of buses, that's just a convenient side effect. If this project was for the benefit of transit, this third lane would be a bus and carpool only lane. The new garage and fast ferry developments really have nothing to do with Chebucto Road.

Don't forget that there is no traffic problem here except for approximately 1-2hours in the morning and 1-2 hours in the afternoon. The source of that traffic problem? Too many people driving by themselves in their cars. The Chebucto Road widening is a solution aimed at cars to solve a car created problem. Whatever very marginal spill-over benefits there are for buses are just that side effects.

[Keith P.]

Your dogma is loose, boys. ;)

[someone123]

Somehow I doubt they're adding this lane for the benefit of buses, that's just a convenient side effect. If this project was for the benefit of transit, this third lane would be a bus and carpool only lane. The new garage and fast ferry developments really have nothing to do with Chebucto Road.

My comment was in response to your claim that somehow Chebucto Road sends out a "message" that transit is unimportant.

Are you suggesting that in order for transit to be promoted in the HRM, every single transportation project must dedicate more funding exclusively to transit than to overall traffic? That would be ridiculous. We should instead consider Chebucto Road in the context of all other transportation investment. If HRM council spends $3M on roads in one part of the city and $60M on transit in another they are not sending out the message that "single occupant vehicles are more important than transit".

[hfx_chris]

Are you suggesting that in order for transit to be promoted in the HRM, every single transportation project must dedicate more funding exclusively to transit than to overall traffic?
That sounds like a good idea to me. Although maybe not every single project, I mean simple projects like repaving a road or fixing a barrier or something, but certainly every major project should have some sort of significant component to improve, increase or otherwise enhance transit as a better solution to taking a car.

[coolmillion]

Are you suggesting that in order for transit to be promoted in the HRM, every single transportation project must dedicate more funding exclusively to transit than to overall traffic? That would be ridiculous.

If we look at the Chebucto project in isolation, it maybe doesn’t seem that bad. It appears to address a real and immediate issue, the land expropriations won’t directly affect many people, and the changes will probably ease congestion by increasing traffic speed and volume (in the short term). The problem lies in the broader context in which this project was approved. The city is sorely uncommitted and unimaginative when it comes to transit and pedestrian and cycling infrastructure. The regional planning strategy does a good job of creating a framework for future improvements, but it doesn’t go far enough.

I know it’s problematic to draw comparisons, but I think Halifax could learn a lot from Vancouver. A key element to that city’s approach is finding better ways to share the existing road network:

“Motorists, transit riders, truck drivers, pedestrians, and cyclists all compete for a place on the road network. Improving the alternatives to the car without expanding the road network means finding better ways to share the existing network.”

The plan then goes on to prioritize improvements to the road network for transit, trucks, pedestrians and cyclists ahead of cars. This plan was introduced in 1997!

http://vancouver.ca/engsvcs/transport/plan/1997report/index.htm

[Keith P.]

Same old dogma. In order to share the existing road infrastructure you need a decent infrastructure in the first place, not the paved cartpaths that are prevalent here. Nobody is saying those things shouldn't happen here, but you have to get the road network to a level of bare adequacy first.

[Dmajackson]

Wether or not we like it the widening has begun:
Chebucto Road protesters arrested
Six taken away after first tree felled
By KELLY SHIERS Staff Reporter
Fri. Jul 4 - 6:02 PM

Protesters tried in vain Friday morning to save the first tree in the path of Halifax’s controversial plan to widen Chebucto Road.

Over the howls of emotional protesters, police handcuffed and took away six of the nearly 100 people who gathered as the maple tree came down.

The six — four men in their 20s, a woman in her 30s and a woman in her 50s — face charges ranging from assaulting a police officer and obstructing police to mischief, Halifax Regional Police said Friday afternoon.

The first arrest took place just before noon when, despite several warnings from police, a woman climbed the tree that was about to be cut down.

“Five more were arrested just after 12:30 p.m. when a number of protesters interfered with officers attempting to arrest an individual who had been throwing objects onto the roadway,” police said in a release. “The six are still in custody, but will be released once it is determined what charges each individual will face. None of them live in the neighbourhood affected by the street widening.”

Protesters rang bells, blared horns, beat drums and hollered “Shame on you” as branches fell to the street and were quickly shredded in a mobile chipper.

Thomas Brask, who lives nearby, clambered up the next tree as the chainsaw started. He perched on a branch, vowing to stay put to support area residents who fought against widening the road.

“Somebody put me up here, they’ll have to come take me down,” he said.

Bernard O’Hearn watched the events unfold from the front steps of the house that has been his for 10 years and had been his aunt’s since the 1950s. He could see protesters arguing with police officers while young people sat in the road in front of the tree-removal truck that eventually left after its crew felled just one tree.

But he wasn’t sure the crowd was accomplishing much.

“It’s useless. You’ll never prove anything by doing this,” Mr. O’Hearn said, pointing to a woman crying in his front yard.

“I wonder if there’ll be this much hullabaloo when they cut every tree.”

For him, the sound of the chainsaw was a sign of the end that he had almost resigned himself to.

“Once the trees go, that’s it,” he said, as the trunk, stripped of branches, was finally laid bare beside the sidewalk.

Mr. O’Hearn said he wasn’t surprised by what was happening.

Twice, he said, he went to a council meeting with neighbours to plead for the road-widening project to be shelved. Each time, he was disappointed.<.p>

“We were against it right from the start,” he said, adding that he hasn’t seen the huge increase in traffic that the city has cited in justifying the project.

“But it’s not a shock. I knew they wouldn’t listen to us.”

Mr. O’Hearn said the city has offered more than $30,000 to some neighbours who will lose portions of their front yards to the widening project. His own family was offered $500, not because the work would eat any of his yard but because workers would be trespassing on his property.

He didn’t sign anything, he said, reasoning that doing so would somehow imply consent.

Coun. Dawn Sloane (Halifax Downtown) also watched from the sidewalk with sadness. She snapped photos for an album she plans to place in the city hall office of councillors, a majority of whom voted to approve the project.

And she ended up shedding a few tears, too.

“It takes years for a tree to grow and less than five minutes to cut it down,” Ms. Sloane said.

“I voted against this. It’s fundamentally wrong to widen this road.”

She said the $2.6 million the project will cost should have been spent instead on buses and encouraging carpooling.

“Look,” she said, pointing to vehicles passing by. “One person in that car, one person, one person, one person, one person.”

Ms. Sloane said she hoped council would never again make a similar decision.

Protestors took to the Armdale roundabout around 5 p.m. stringing their numbers out to block crosswalks. Cycling protestors occupied the inner lane and drove slowly in circles bringing traffic to a crawl. No police were visible at the time.

(kshiers@herald.ca

[hfx_chris]

"...I weep for V’ger as I would weep for a brother..."

[phrenic]

Wow. Sloane got one right. Go figure. :shrug:

[Keith P.]

Wow. Sloane got one right. Go figure. :shrug:

No, she is dead wrong, as usual. This should have been done 30 years ago. And for her to be there taking pictures just is adding fuel to the fire.

[Wishblade]

No, she is dead wrong, as usual. This should have been done 30 years ago. And for her to be there taking pictures just is adding fuel to the fire.

I'd have to agree with this statement.

[someone123]

“One person in that car, one person, one person, one person, one person.”

1 + 1 + 1 +1 + 1 + .... = ? Many thousands according to HRM traffic statistics.

[Takeo]

I find it interesting that people are so passionate about something which does not directly affect them in any way and I find it sad to hear people insulting protestors or supporters or homeowners. Personally, I just feel kind of agnostic on this issue. On the one hand, I think this project is probably not that big a deal. It's a very small change. But I also agree that building more roads never fixes congestion... it just adds more congestion. One thing I do know is... it really is a crying shame to see all those beautiful mature maples mowed down and replaced with asphalt.

[sdm]

“One person in that car, one person, one person, one person, one person.”

1 + 1 + 1 +1 + 1 + .... = ? Many thousands according to HRM traffic statistics.


This city will be much better without sloane. Heck i'd settle with Kelly if we get rid of sloane.

[Keith P.]

But I also agree that building more roads never fixes congestion... it just adds more congestion. One thing I do know is... it really is a crying shame to see all those beautiful mature maples mowed down and replaced with asphalt.

The fallacy of roadbuilding never fixing congestion is just that... a fallacy. By that theory all roads should be totally congested. Clearly that is not the case.

Mature maples are a hazard and need to be taken out after 40-50 years or else they rot and fall down on top of people and things. Maples grow like weeds around here and are dirty, messy trees. Vastly overrated.

[MonctonRad]

The fallacy of roadbuilding never fixing congestion is just that... a fallacy. By that theory all roads should be totally congested. Clearly that is not the case.

Mature maples are a hazard and need to be taken out after 40-50 years or else they rot and fall down on top of people and things. Maples grow like weeds around here and are dirty, messy trees. Vastly overrated.

You are being awfully hard on our national symbol:) . Personally, the more tree huggers the better! Next time; in addition to climbing the trees, I think they should chain themselves to the trees as well.:haha:

[hfx_chris]

No, she is dead wrong, as usual. This should have been done 30 years ago. And for her to be there taking pictures just is adding fuel to the fire.
You're absolutely right, it sounds just like something they would have done 30 years ago. But this isn't 30 years ago, and most progressive cities today are realizing increasing road capacity does nothing to actually solve the problem, it just shifts the problem around.

But then again I get tired of having to keep telling you this, since you never seem to get it. You're fixated on allowing more single occupant vehicles onto the roads instead of trying to convince some of them to find another way, be it public transit, carpooling or biking.

[GUB]

The fallacy of roadbuilding never fixing congestion is just that... a fallacy. By that theory all roads should be totally congested. Clearly that is not the case.

Mature maples are a hazard and need to be taken out after 40-50 years or else they rot and fall down on top of people and things. Maples grow like weeds around here and are dirty, messy trees. Vastly overrated.


I find the ignorance level on this forum astounding at times.

All maples are not created equal. The trees at the concerned location are Norway Maples. Yes Keith P, these are alien and invasive. However, many of the mature trees on our streetsides are Sugar Maples, a long-lived climax species of the Acadian Forest, reaching 300-400 years old. Let's make the proper distinctions.

For they passed a noble law,
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe, and saw.
Rush, 1978

[Keith P.]

I find the ignorance level on this forum astounding at times.

Yes, see the previous post. Someone who believes that no roads should ever be built because we will all be moving in flying vehicles or something next year. :rolleyes:

All maples are not created equal. The trees at the concerned location are Norway Maples. Yes Keith P, these are alien and invasive.

Exactly my point.

However, many of the mature trees on our streetsides are Sugar Maples, a long-lived climax species of the Acadian Forest, reaching 300-400 years old. Let's make the proper distinctions.


Interesting, but not germane to this discussion.

The point is simply that our road network is woefully obsolete even for 20-30 years ago. Look at the Bedford Highway. Look at North St. Look at Bayers Rd. One of the major north-south arteries in the city, Connaught Ave, is a totally residential street for gods sake -- how poorly planned is THAT?

Projects like this -- or actually, much more significant projects -- need to be done regardless of how many people we convince to move to buses. The city has grown to such an extent without road improvements that it is becoming a huge issue. If we get so bent out of shape over this I can only imagine what will happen when the 3rd harbor bridge project gets closer to reality.

[phrenic]

No, she is dead wrong, as usual. This should have been done 30 years ago.

Well, it's a 30 year old way of thinking, that's for sure. If we had done this 30 years ago, traffic patterns and flow would likely have adjusted by now and we'd be in the same situation anyway. I'm usually out balls to the wall in support of development in Halifax, but this is little more than a BS band-aid solution to a problem that more roads will never fix.

This is a very insignificant project in the grand scheme of things, no doubt, but my problem with it is that it embodies everything that is fundamentally flawed about transportation planning in this city. The car is king, no exceptions.

I still don't see the intrinsic benefit of having this done either. So Joe Blow may save 3 minutes off of his commute and the "choke point" (full of vehicles with only one person in each of them) gets deferred to a few blocks up the road? Sorry, not good enough. HRM wants to densify the peninsula and here it is providing extra reason to live in the Burb's. I just see a waste of a good chuck of taxpayer's change for little to no benefit.

[Keith P.]

I still don't see the intrinsic benefit of having this done either. So Joe Blow may save 3 minutes off of his commute and the "choke point" (full of vehicles with only one person in each of them) gets deferred to a few blocks up the road? Sorry, not good enough.

That is the argument put forward by those opposed. As I understand the project it will make for a left turn lane at the intersection with Mumford and allow two lanes straight through the intersection. If you look at traffic patterns a goodly number of those cars subsequently make a right and go down Connaught. So you have two lines, one for straight into downtown, one for Connaught. Makes sense to me so the choke point argument really is fallacious.

HRM wants to densify the peninsula and here it is providing extra reason to live in the Burb's. I just see a waste of a good chuck of taxpayer's change for little to no benefit.

Don't be ridiculous, of course there is benefit. See above. People really need to get their heads straight about this project. The opponents have milked the media for so much overhyped and uninformed coverage that the stories are really very misleading.

[someone123]

Well, this discussion is just going around in circles.

Fact is it's being done and I predict that once completed it will simply quietly be accepted as a necessary and functional part of the road network, something that is absolutely essential to everybody in the city.

[Dmajackson]

I was reading up on this project and its really not as huge as its made out to be. They're only widening two small blocks (Westmont-Sherwood). And those maple trees (7 of them) are being replaced with 48 new trees. That sounds pretty good to me. This has been blowe way out of proportion.

[phrenic]

Yeah, no one here is going to convince anybody else of anything, really.

While I have little sympathy for people like those arrested on the street the other day, saying that the residents of the street should shut the fuck up and stop whining, as a member of this forum did on another board (http://media.locals.ca/localsconf/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=139795&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=30), shows me that more than just those who oppose the project have a lack of understanding about all the circumstances involved.

And I agree that this project is so insignificant that most people will just forget about it, but it still emphasizes how utterly incompetent our municipal government is when to comes to planning sustainable modes of transportation - something every city should be doing these days.

[cmanley]

People really need to get their heads straight about this project. The opponents have milked the media for so much overhyped and uninformed coverage that the stories are really very misleading.

I think you are right about the media not performing their jobs on this one, Keith. Even between parties who oppose the project, reasons vary as to why they oppose it. As is normal for protests, many of the important, but less explosive discourse becomes hidden to viewers/readers. I was appauled by CBCs coverage of the event. The design of the proposed changes were not covered at all, nor were the symbolic significances of council's decision. It was stated that the public consultation process was free and democratic - not the case.

It would be great if media sources would inform about the true underlying issues, for and against, rather than only focus on the last ditch efforts of opposers, in what they see as in spectacle and will yeild increased reader/viewership.

[cmanley]

Interesting, but not germane to this discussion.

GUB's comments were germane to the discussion, as he corrected an important omission of yours, one that changes the outcome of your argument.

[terrynorthend]

I was reading up on this project and its really not as huge as its made out to be. They're only widening two small blocks (Westmont-Sherwood). And those maple trees (7 of them) are being replaced with 48 new trees. That sounds pretty good to me. This has been blowe way out of proportion.

I have to agree with Bedford. Its a small project that probably will be forgotten by all sides a few months after completion. Some of the residents were paid up to $30,000 for their small loss of land; one fella $500 for no land loss even, just the inconvenience of having construction workers temporarily on his property. I'd gladly let the city shave 10 feet off my lawn for 30K!! That'd buy a nice new car, and a brand new road out front to drive it on..:jester:

[Dmajackson]

Just to prove how over-exagerrated this project has become compare it to other projects in HRM. THis is only two blocks so why aren't people going insane over the HUGE widening project happening on Hammonds Plains Road, for example? They're widening the road by many lanes and only making the area more car dependant but i don't see any people hugging the trees that are being demolished. Of course i realize one major difference is Chebucto has more houses close to the road but when you think of it the main arguement against Chebucto is more cars being used to commute and how there is no more buses. That can be applied on Hammond's Plains as well. There are no buses out there and they aren't adding any with this widening so why isn't someone crying foul over this project? I can tell you that many locals know this is neccessariy for safety and a better community.

Sorry about the rant but people really need to realize that there are other widning projects that are worse than this one in HRM.

[Takeo]

Yes, see the previous post. Someone who believes that no roads should ever be built because we will all be moving in flying vehicles or something next year. :rolleyes:

I would appreciate you not putting words in my mouth Keith.

[Keith P.]

I would appreciate you not putting words in my mouth Keith.

Yours wasn't the previous post to the one in question, so I wasn't referring to you.

I would appreciate you not being so touchy.

[Keith P.]

GUB's comments were germane to the discussion, as he corrected an important omission of yours, one that changes the outcome of your argument.

Not at all. I was referring to the Norway Maples that were being removed. The outcome of my argument remains the same.

Jeezus, there must be something about this topic that causes people to totally lose the ability to see straight or something... ;)

[Keith P.]

Just to prove how over-exagerrated this project has become compare it to other projects in HRM. THis is only two blocks so why aren't people going insane over the HUGE widening project happening on Hammonds Plains Road, for example? They're widening the road by many lanes and only making the area more car dependant but i don't see any people hugging the trees that are being demolished. Of course i realize one major difference is Chebucto has more houses close to the road but when you think of it the main arguement against Chebucto is more cars being used to commute and how there is no more buses. That can be applied on Hammond's Plains as well. There are no buses out there and they aren't adding any with this widening so why isn't someone crying foul over this project? I can tell you that many locals know this is neccessariy for safety and a better community.

You just answered your own question. Anyone who has ever driven on that road knows how hazardous and awful it is. Again, this is a project that needed to be done around the time Kingswood went in 10+ years ago.

Sorry about the rant but people really need to realize that there are other widning projects that are worse than this one in HRM.

Worse? In what way? How can that project in Hammonds Plains be described as "worse"? It is a badly needed long overdue improvement. Maybe that's the reason nobody except a small lunatic fringe would ever oppose it.

[someone123]

I just can't believe that people keep repeating this ridiculous claim that building roads does nothing. Does this imply that Halifax should still have only the 20 or 30 original dirt roads built in the 1740s plus maybe some foot and bike paths? If that were the case we would simply not have a city. If this scenario seems absurd to you, which it is, then clearly building roads produces some benefit. They allow more people to get around the city, which is exactly what is needed when the population is increasing.

If you visit major cities, even those with dramatically higher transit ridership levels than Halifax can ever hope to have, you will still see large roadways. New York has them, Paris has them, London has them...

Hammonds Plains Road is another no-brainer road expansion project. It's simply necessary given what has been built in that area. Maybe one could argue that those subdivisions never should have gone up but the fact is that they have, so the people living there now need to get around by car, and the current 1950s era road is crowded and unsafe.

[spaustin]

Well this board is as divided as the community as a whole is. I frankly think the project is a huge waste of money for very little gain. It won't solve any congestion problems, it only improves things for cars, it needlessly damages an established neighbourhood and its all to solve a problem that only exists for an hour or two a day. If they were putting in a bus lane I could back it, but as it stands this is a suburban car project. What a waste. The whole thing is made even worse by the fact that the suburban and rural councillors are the reason it's happening.

[Dmajackson]

Worse? In what way? How can that project in Hammonds Plains be described as "worse"? It is a badly needed long overdue improvement. Maybe that's the reason nobody except a small lunatic fringe would ever oppose it.

Simply what I meant was Chebucto is short and only one lane expansion. As some other poster pointed out this was a neccessairy project 10+ years ago just like Hammonds Plains Road according to you. I drive on HPR all the time and its not that dangerous. And most heavily populated subdivisions there have popped up in recent years. Besides people who buy a house on a main "chokepoint" heading out of Halifax should be smarter thhan to expect it to stay the same forever.

IMO this might improve safety somewhat on the roadway of course i do not have official facts to back this but i do know having three lanes (one for each direction) is probably safer then one or two lanes because it seperates the different directions. Besides having a quicker drive down the main road will attract people that are currently cutting through the neighbourhoods making them safer.

So I say suck it up. This is two blocks not the whole road. And besides it's too late to change it now.

[someone123]

Actually I used to live in Hammonds Plains and I would say that the road is quite dangerous because it is so narrow and has so much truck traffic. I know of a few cases where people have had their windshields smashed out by falling debris from trucks, although maybe it's a little better now.

Eventually the highway 113 is supposed to alleviate some of the commercial traffic problems, but the widening for Hammonds Plains is still needed due to other development that has happened and will happen in the area (e.g. RIM and the rest of that business park plus everything else being built up to the Kearney Lake Rd area).

[reddog794]

In todays world, the reason a street should be logically widened, is for buses, because you get the most volume of people, per metre of road poured. Anything else is to bend to the rich, and they're enjoyment.

[Dmajackson]

Actually I used to live in Hammonds Plains and I would say that the road is quite dangerous because it is so narrow and has so much truck traffic. I know of a few cases where people have had their windshields smashed out by falling debris from trucks, although maybe it's a little better now.

Eventually the highway 113 is supposed to alleviate some of the commercial traffic problems, but the widening for Hammonds Plains is still needed due to other development that has happened and will happen in the area (e.g. RIM and the rest of that business park plus everything else being built up to the Kearney Lake Rd area).

Correct me if I'm wrong but haven't they banned non-local truck traffic from using HPR? I think legally they have to use the 102/103 corridor. I haven't heard of any accidents caused by fallling debris. THe only accidents i hear of on that road are deer related.

The area around Chebucto Rd has also built up lately especially further out on St. Margrets Bay and this is one of the two roads from out there into town so widening could be argued for the same as HPR.

[mitchellirons]

Well this board is as divided as the community as a whole is. I frankly think the project is a huge waste of money for very little gain. It won't solve any congestion problems, it only improves things for cars, it needlessly damages an established neighbourhood and its all to solve a problem that only exists for an hour or two a day. If they were putting in a bus lane I could back it, but as it stands this is a suburban car project. What a waste. The whole thing is made even worse by the fact that the suburban and rural councillors are the reason it's happening.

I think your thoughts are coming close to the heart of the matter.

Whether or not it is two blocks of a road or two km, whether or not it is or is not an invasive species of maple that are being cut down, the fact remains that this action is contrary to the desires and wishes of the area residents. The widening of Chebucto, however short it may be, is an act of community-destroying as opposed to community-building.

Local residents were heard, but were largely ignored. Frankly, all the opportunities they were given to voice their displease was a token attempt at community outreach.

I understand that cars and vehicles must be able to make it on to the Peninsula, but there are better ways to go about deliberating how to do it. This ordeal is in many ways no different that the appeal to remove City Council parking spots in Parade Square; the votes of a majority of councilors, who live very far away, are drowned out the votes of the councilors who have an immediate interest in the vicinity.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Regardless of argument about "cars", this project will definitely be important to future public transportation projects that will prove to be more "green".

Most of the non-residents involved in the debate have no idea what they are talking about.

[someone123]

Whether or not it is two blocks of a road or two km, whether or not it is or is not an invasive species of maple that are being cut down, the fact remains that this action is contrary to the desires and wishes of the area residents. The widening of Chebucto, however short it may be, is an act of community-destroying as opposed to community-building.

Well, this is not an isolated "community", it's part of a larger city. It's pretty much a given that nobody wants to lose part of their front yard, but how many of these people own cars? How many drive out to places like Bayers Lake to do their shopping, using formerly narrow dirt roads passing through other "communities"?

[MonctonRad]

In todays world, the reason a street should be logically widened, is for buses, because you get the most volume of people, per metre of road poured. Anything else is to bend to the rich, and they're enjoyment.

@ reddog794. From your phraseology, I can only guess that you are a fervent NDP supporter. Let's all turn this into a class struggle shall we? Proletarians of the world unite!!

[phrenic]

@ reddog794. From your phraseology, I can only guess that you are a fervent NDP supporter. Let's all turn this into a class struggle shall we? Proletarians of the world unite!!

Don't be a douchebag.

[Keith P.]

@ reddog794. From your phraseology, I can only guess that you are a fervent NDP supporter. Let's all turn this into a class struggle shall we? Proletarians of the world unite!!

I can't say whether the poster is a NDP supporter or not. But clearly this project has been changed from a simple and relatively minor intersection improvement project into a political football orchestrated by the Ecology Action Center and their supporters. The residents have been used as stooges by the EAC to advance the EAC's views in the media circus surrounding this. Fortunatley many now see them as the radicals they are and this may well cost them mainstream support. Whether the resident's ringleader, MacDonnell, is a member of the EAC I do not know. However, word on the street is that he bought the house about 18 months ago and used the impending project to beat down the price asked by the former owner. Nice.

If this is the kind of reaction we can expect any time something on the peninsula gets proposed that involves improving a roadway we can forget about advancing this city any time soon.

[coolmillion]

The residents have been used as stooges by the EAC to advance the EAC's views in the media circus surrounding this. Fortunatley many now see them as the radicals they are and this may well cost them mainstream support.

I would argue that the EAC has mainstream supporters because of efforts like this. The organization's staff, volunteers and members became involved in contesting the road widening project in order to offer support to the residents.

I would be curious to know your definition of radical, and to know why it is "fortunate" that the EAC may lose support because of their involvement.

[spaustin]

The argument that this is just a bunch of radicals is silly. The residents here have been up in arms over this for quite a while. They're not pawns of some giant left-wing conspiracy to stall the city. If someone were going to tear out the trees on my street and some of my front lawn, compensated or not, I would be mad too as would most people. Granted some of the more militant cause types have seized on this, but, in general, this is just a classic example of neighbourhood resistance and dismissing it as anything else is unfair.

[Wishblade]

The argument that this is just a bunch of radicals is silly. The residents here have been up in arms over this for quite a while. They're not pawns of some giant left-wing conspiracy to stall the city. If someone were going to tear out the trees on my street and some of my front lawn, compensated or not, I would be mad too as would most people. Granted some of the more militant cause types have seized on this, but, in general, this is just a classic example of neighbourhood resistance and dismissing it as anything else is unfair.

Personally, If the city wanted to widen my road to better traffic flow, and paid me for the land I was giving up, I'd actually be glad to do it. I guess thats one of the reasons Im personally on the pro side of this issue.

I can understand that thier discouraged, by I mean, they've got to know when to quit. They have the trees cut and their now taking out the sidewalks and their still trying to stop it. It just isn't going to happen.

[hfx_chris]

If this is the kind of reaction we can expect any time something on the peninsula gets proposed that involves improving a roadway we can forget about advancing this city any time soon.
Your "advanced city" is not the kind of advanced city I want to live in. My advanced city has a municipal government actively encouraging more people switching to public transit or carpooling, has fewer cars on the roads as a result, less congestion on the roads and faster commute times because of that. Your advanced city seems to be a larger number of cars idling in traffic...
I do stand to be corrected of course.

[Haliguy]

Your "advanced city" is not the kind of advanced city I want to live in. My advanced city has a municipal government actively encouraging more people switching to public transit or carpooling, has fewer cars on the roads as a result, less congestion on the roads and faster commute times because of that. Your advanced city seems to be a larger number of cars idling in traffic...
I do stand to be corrected of course.

This getting rediclous..it is a perfectly reasonable project. Its one lane which will help push through the extra volume of traffic that can now move through the roundabout. This lane will also allow public transit which uses roads by the way move through more effectively.

I can't believe the amount of protest over this project. Its one lane...its not like their putting a 6 lane road through or something.

These protesters have erased any sympathy I had for these people and I;m sure that's the same for a lot of other people as well. They should be ashamed of their actions.

[Takeo]

Question... I heard that the road will not be widened under the CN Rail bridge. It's that true?! As I say, I'm kind of agonistic on this project. In principle, I think it's wrong-headed because adding road capacity enables sprawl and more car use, but in reality it's a pretty small project and not that big a deal and cars are a reality that has to be accommodated for. I have a car and I use it of course, but I also walk and bus a lot. So cars are a reality, not everyone can bus or bike and we don't have trains and probably never will. So whatever. I don't care much one way or the other and I don't care to get into shouting matches and name calling about it. But if they are not widening the road under the rail bridge (which would mean a new bridge)... what's the point?!?! If that's the case... I think this project is utterly pointless. What's the point if it's not widened all the way to the roundabout? I just assumed it would be. That's ridiculous. That wouldn't solve anything. Surely that person was mis-informed... no?

[hfx_chris]

This lane will also allow public transit which uses roads by the way move through more effectively. Thanks, I'm aware public transit uses roadways. A dedicated bus/HOV lane would be a much better solution, transit wise. As it is, the bus is still going to have to sit in traffic.
However, now that I think back on every morning I've ever taken the bus inbound on Chebucto Road, right through the subject area, traffic hasn't been that bad. We usually got through within 2-3 minutes, so I don't honsetly see what the problem is with the way Chebucto is configured at present. A number of other people who take Chebucto on a regular or semi-regular basis have said the same thing, that Chebucto really isn't that bad.

I can't believe the amount of protest over this project. Its one lane...its not like their putting a 6 lane road through or something.Okay, so what happens in a few months or years time when traffic is backed up to the rotary again? Is it then time to start thinking about a fourth lane?

[Keith P.]

There is no widening of Chebucto all the way to the roundabout. That is one of the examples of misinformation that has been tossed around and which the media has done a ridiculously poor job of reporting. This is primarily an improvement to the Mumford/Chebucto intersection, that's all. Look here:

http://halifax.ca/designcon/cons/documents/CHEBUCTO_20080501_2.PDF

That intersection has always been a problem and this will help solve it. There are a couple of houses there that even now are ridiculously close to the curb, and in fact I seem to recall a car smashing into one not too many years ago, so anyone who argues that the intersection does not need improvement is in denial.

There will be a reconfiguration of Chebucto from that intersection down to the Roundabout to make the middle lane a reversing lane, but that's all. But hey, the truth doesn't serve the EAC's agenda, so it will never be reported.

[hfx_chris]

That intersection has always been a problem and this will help solve it. There are a couple of houses there that even now are ridiculously close to the curb, and in fact I seem to recall a car smashing into one not too many years ago, so anyone who argues that the intersection does not need improvement is in denial.
I'm not 100% sure I get what you're saying there; even the largest and most well designed intersection can still be an accident waiting to happen if somebody decides to be an idiot behind the wheel...

[Haliguy]

When it is all said and done people are going to wonder what all the fuss was about. Seroisly, this is so blown out of proportion.

[someone123]

Well, I'm about ready to give up arguing over this. It's happening. It's a compromise, the impact is very small, and it's a needed piece of infrastructure that benefits everybody (perhaps in a small way, but it's also an inexpensive project).

Those who think that we should have no new road projects ever are clinging to a narrow and unrealistic view just like some of the heritage people who make fools of themselves on a regular basis. Demanding that the city use only transit for its transportation needs is pretty similar to demanding that it remain entirely 19th century buildings and parking lots - neither view is reasonable and in the end trying to forcefully impose either on the city would do harm as a result.

[Takeo]

So Keith, the reversing lane will go all the way to the roundabout? I couldn't really tell from the PDF. It looks like it's the original road aside from a short section right at the intersection. So that tiny stretch (4-5 houses) is the only section being widened? And there's still be enough room from there to the roundabout (including under the rail bridge) for a reversing middle lane? If that's the case... I have to say... it's a shame a few folks are losing some of their yards and trees... but it hardly seems like that big a deal. Definitely blown way out of proportion.

I agree with Someone123 as well. The problem by and large seems to be one of dogma. People (the protestors in this case) opposing things based purely on principle without worrying too much about the facts. The Heritage Trust is the perfect example. The problem is, reality is not nearly as sexy as ideology. That PDF drawing wouldn't inspire me to march on Chebucto... but talk about the downfall or democracy and so on might. LOL.

That said... the 5:30 am "sneak attack" was pretty greasy. It's a free country. People have a right to peaceful demonstration. As far as I know, they weren't putting anyone at risk... there was no violence (and if there was, then arrests are, of course, justified). They were probably just beating on drums and holding signs and handing out pamphlets and the usual stuff. Hardly a threat to anyone. I don't know, I wasn't there. I do know one of the people who was arrested however. I've known this person for many years and there is absolutely no way this person would ever do anything violent or dangerous of any kind to anyone ever... not to themselves or anyone else. Not a chance. Our cops do have a reputation of getting a little over-zealous at times.

[hfx_chris]

I do know one of the people who was arrested however. I've known this person for many years and there is absolutely no way this person would ever do anything violent or dangerous of any kind to anyone ever... not to themselves or anyone else. Not a chance. Our cops do have a reputation of getting a little over-zealous at times.You don't have to be violent or dangerous to get arrested. Those people sitting in the trees weren't being violent or dangerous, but they were disobeying an order from police and obstructing work.

Well, I'm about ready to give up arguing over this. It's happening.I believe this is the first thing I actually agree with you about in this thread. I'm pretty much finished with this as well.
But before that, I have one final comment:
Demanding that the city use only transit for its transportation needs...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe a single person on this message board has demanded what you're claiming we are.

[Takeo]

You don't have to be violent or dangerous to get arrested. Those people sitting in the trees weren't being violent or dangerous, but they were disobeying an order from police and obstructing work.

I agree... but my friend was just handing out pamphlets.

[Keith P.]

So Keith, the reversing lane will go all the way to the roundabout? I couldn't really tell from the PDF. It looks like it's the original road aside from a short section right at the intersection. So that tiny stretch (4-5 houses) is the only section being widened? And there's still be enough room from there to the roundabout (including under the rail bridge) for a reversing middle lane? If that's the case... I have to say... it's a shame a few folks are losing some of their yards and trees... but it hardly seems like that big a deal. Definitely blown way out of proportion.


I should have also posted this link which shows the stretch down to the roundabout:

http://halifax.ca/designcon/cons/documents/CHEBUCTO_20080501_1.PDF

Yes, it goes all the way to the roundabout without actually widening the street. And yes, it has been blown ridiculously out of proportion.

[Dmajackson]

LOL...my comparision of Chebucto to Hammonds Plains Road was also thought of by the Chronicle Herald:

Widening street no problem in Bedford. (http://www.thechronicleherald.ca/Metro/1066399.html)

[spaustin]

I agree with Someone123 as well. The problem by and large seems to be one of dogma. People (the protestors in this case) opposing things based purely on principle without worrying too much about the facts. The Heritage Trust is the perfect example. The problem is, reality is not nearly as sexy as ideology. That PDF drawing wouldn't inspire me to march on Chebucto... but talk about the downfall or democracy and so on might. LOL.

I wasn't aware that there was just one way to look at the facts here and that if your assessment doesn't add up to support the project you must be a reactionary idealogue.

[Takeo]

I wasn't aware that there was just one way to look at the facts here and that if your assessment doesn't add up to support the project you must be a reactionary idealogue.

I was speaking more in general terms. It is true that ideas grab people more than facts.

Also, my own experience with this whole issue has been one of not really having too much of an opinion either way... but agreeing in principle with the idea that widening roads is generally a bad idea... promoting car use, sprawl, etc. We all know the arguments. So if I HAD to choose, I probably would have leaned towards the "against" camp. Then I saw the drawings and my thought was... what? That's it? So in my case at least... if I had chosen a side, I would have been a "reactionary idealogue".

Either way, you have to admit, the issue and the debate about it (especially on the Herald site) has been highly emotional and not very objective. It's been mostly name calling on both sides (again, mostly on the Herald site).

[Dmajackson]

It's official the third lane is to be introduced on Wednesday night:

Implementation of Reversing Lane on Chebucto Road between Roundabout and Mumford Road

(Friday, November 14, 2008) - The Chebucto Road Reversing Lane Project is near completion. The overhead lane designation signage scheduled to be activated on Monday, November 17th and to be fully operational at midnight Wednesday evening November 19th .

During the transition period from signage activation on Monday, November 17th until full operation midnight Wednesday, November 19th there will be two lanes designated outbound and one lane inbound. At midnight Wednesday November 19th the system will become fully operational, alternating the centre reversing lane at noon and midnight.

This new reversible lane operation on Chebucto Road will be similar to that on both the Herring Cove Road and Macdonald Bridge to which many drivers are already accustomed to using. The middle lane will operate in the east bound (inbound) direction to move traffic onto the peninsula between midnight and noon and in the west bound (outbound) direction to move traffic off of the peninsula between noon and midnight.

Motorists are advised to watch for and obey the painted lane markings and especially the new overhead lane control signals which will indicate the direction of travel permitted in the reversible lane depending upon the time of day.

HRM wishes to express its thanks and appreciation to motorist for their cooperation over the length of this project.

[Keith P.]

I am surprisingly impressed with the changes made to Chebucto. The huge fuss made over this seems ridiculous now that one can see the changes that were made -- they seem remarkably unobtrusive, but traffic moves much better.

[Dmajackson]

IMO if a road is going to be upgraded mainly to help out rush hour traffic then this should be the way to do it. Take an existing lane and make it flow with the traffic. We could do with a couple more of these around town. I've always thought that Dartmouth Rd in Bedford would be a great fit for a project like this. Its three lanes from end to end and is congested all the time.

[Haliguy]

It looks great! makes you wonder what all the fuss was about. Hopefully people we realize this so next time a road widening project comes up like this on the pennisula people won't be so against it.

[Keith P.]

It looks great! makes you wonder what all the fuss was about. Hopefully people we realize this so next time a road widening project comes up like this on the pennisula people won't be so against it.

The fuss was largely orchestrated as media buzz by the Ecology Action Center and a few of their loony followers who lived in the area -- and a bunch who didn't. Of course, the willing media were glad to beat the drum for their cause. The problem here is that the activists didn't know when to stop and let the hype get totally out of control, which in turn fanned the media hype even more. It was all very ridiculous.

[phrenic]

You really have no idea what the EAC is about and should stop slandering them and their suppoters. They are very far from being radical or loony when it comes to most issues an do a lot of good or this city and this province that you don't even realize. A lot of people seem to think they are little more than a bunch of tree huggers who spend all their time in the streets waving placards. If you really think they are a bunch of radicals you should go to their open house on December 3th from 4-7p.m. and learn a bit. 2705 Fern Lane.

The Chebucto Road widening dispute always was and still is about much, much more than just the city replacing a few hundred feet of lawns and trees with pavement. For better or for worse, it ended up a being the focal point for a lot of people's frustrations with the city.

If the city continues in the future to pursue upgrades to transportation infrastructure that serve to only make it easier to get around in a car, and forsake sustainable transportation entirely, you will continue to see people speak up and cause a ruckus.

[Takeo]

Yes. No need for the name calling. I have a number of close friends who were either involved with the protests or work at the EAC and I don't appreciate having them maligned. They are anything but "looney". I agree that the project was really minor and things got blown WAY out of proportion... you look at it now and think "that's what all the fuss was about?"... but the protestors had good points in principle. But name calling is always easier than listening. The Herald threads in particular were nothing more than shouting matches.

[Haliguy]

You really have no idea what the EAC is about and should stop slandering them and their suppoters. They are very far from being radical or loony when it comes to most issues an do a lot of good or this city and this province that you don't even realize. A lot of people seem to think they are little more than a bunch of tree huggers who spend all their time in the streets waving placards. If you really think they are a bunch of radicals you should go to their open house on December 3th from 4-7p.m. and learn a bit. 2705 Fern Lane.

The Chebucto Road widening dispute always was and still is about much, much more than just the city replacing a few hundred feet of lawns and trees with pavement. For better or for worse, it ended up a being the focal point for a lot of people's frustrations with the city.

If the city continues in the future to pursue upgrades to transportation infrastructure that serve to only make it easier to get around in a car, and forsake sustainable transportation entirely, you will continue to see people speak up and cause a ruckus.


Give me a break! So the city can't do any transportation improvements at all without this reaction...with all do repsect that is just dumb. Yes we need to put more into transit, but the fact is we will still have a growing number of cars as the city grows and people aren't going to stop user the cars over night or improve the transit sytem over night.

What happened on Chebucto road was just rediclous and they were a bunch of radicals not all but a lot of them were. Hopefully people next time will know how pathetic they are.

[hfx_chris]

Give me a break! So the city can't do any transportation improvements at all without this reaction...with all do repsect that is just dumb.
If the improvements somehow contain some sort of enhancement to public or sustainable transit, and help to encourage more people to leave their cars in their driveways, then it's all good. phrenic did NOT say that no transportation improvements should be made in the city, you took their words way out of context.

Was Chebucto minor? Depends. If you live on the street and were one of the folks whose front lawns were partially taken, then it probably wasn't a minor issue. If you were truly saddened by the cutting down of those trees, it probably wasn't a minor issue. If you were like me and are fed up with the city's apparent lack of interest in improving public transit and trying to get people out of their cars, it wasn't a minor issue.
If however you are a car driver who takes Chebucto Road every day, it probably is a minor issue. Minor because the time savings in getting from your driveway to downtown are going to be equally minor. This "improvement" hasn't actually improved anything, unless you think getting to work 5 minutes earlier is a huge improvement.

What happened on Chebucto road was just rediclous and they were a bunch of radicals not all but a lot of them were. Hopefully people next time will know how pathetic they are.
Thank you for at least conceding that not everybody who opposed this was a loony tree hugging radical. Some people opposed Chebucto for the wrong reasons, the ones who love to get their faces on camera while acting out against society. These are the same guys we see at every HCAP rally and protest throwing light bulbs at police and what not. But a lot of people were against it for the right reasons, and those of us who were do not like to be lumped in with those who weren't.

[sdm]

Give me a break! So the city can't do any transportation improvements at all without this reaction...with all do repsect that is just dumb. Yes we need to put more into transit, but the fact is we will still have a growing number of cars as the city grows and people aren't going to stop user the cars over night or improve the transit sytem over night.

What happened on Chebucto road was just rediclous and they were a bunch of radicals not all but a lot of them were. Hopefully people next time will know how pathetic they are.

Here here.

The city needs to spend more on public transit, mabye even rail. But to think people are going to stop using their cars is just plain stupid. If they don't spend anything on transportation improvements all we will do is decrease the amount of people coming to the core and COULD even increase urban sprawl.