[ScovaNotian]

Interesting rumours in The Coast: http://www.thecoast.ca/RealityBites/archives/2010/03/16/a-roundabout-for-the-bedford-highway .

[Dmajackson]

I'm not necessairily against a roundabout here but why have they proposed one at an intersection that is working fine and not at a poorly designed intersection like Rocky Lake Dr?

[hfx_chris]

Probably for the same reason they were thinking about one at Novalea/Duffus/Devonshire.

[Keith P.]

This roundabout fetish that city staff seem to have developed needs to be exorcised ASAP. Putting one on the Bedford Highway is completely ridiculous.

[ScovaNotian]

An HRM document with design options (and drawings of the roundabout) is here:
http://www.halifax.ca/regionalplanning/documents/BirchCoveBrief.pdf

[fenwick16]

This has nothing to do with the roundabout but I like the development itself.

[joeyedm]

i live at the top of kearney lake road @ dunbrack. i personally really like the proposals that i have seen here, especially the roundabout. just in terms of traffic flow, roundabouts are the most efficent ways to handle traffic.

the only potential problem that i see is the skating rink that currently sits at the bottem of kearney lake. they will have alot of opposition to this developement if they cant find away to incoroprate that into the site.

[joeyedm]

ok i just looked again, and i noticed that in option 2, the church is there with what looks like a little park next to it. however the roundabout is not there.

[Keith P.]

i live at the top of kearney lake road @ dunbrack. i personally really like the proposals that i have seen here, especially the roundabout. just in terms of traffic flow, roundabouts are the most efficent ways to handle traffic.

the only potential problem that i see is the skating rink that currently sits at the bottem of kearney lake. they will have alot of opposition to this developement if they cant find away to incoroprate that into the site.

Roundabouts do not belong in such a mismatched situation --- the high volume of Bedford Hwy traffic is being impeded by a roundabout for low volumes from Kearney Lake and this new proposal. Makes no sense.

I was fairly unimpressed with any of the 3 options. The first 2 appear to retain the existing tunnel under the railbed for access. I guess all the heavy equipment and materials for the development is coming and going by barge. The faux-village idea seems fake to me. And if you are going to build a waterfront trail from the end of Bedford basin to somewhere near Ceres and the rail yard as is seemingly suggested, you do not need to further compromise the Bedford Hwy by shoehorning in bike lanes as well. Let them use the trail.

[Dmajackson]

Roundabouts do not belong in such a mismatched situation --- the high volume of Bedford Hwy traffic is being impeded by a roundabout for low volumes from Kearney Lake and this new proposal. Makes no sense.

Kearney Lake actually has a considerable amount of traffic. The left-turn lane always has a line-up stretching up the hill by the time they get a green.

It might only be a three-way intersection but I think anything to slow traffic coming down the hill can only help. Besides a single-lane roundabout could reduce the need for double lanes on both roads.

Kearney Lake could see a multi-directional left turn lane installed or a reversing lane installed. Bedford Highway to the south could remove the centre lane in favour for a median with left-turn lanes at intersections or use the space for bike lanes. To the north the removal of the right-turn lane could make space for either bike lane extensions, a short median, or left-turn lanes for adjacent properties.

I was fairly unimpressed with any of the 3 options. The first 2 appear to retain the existing tunnel under the railbed for access. I guess all the heavy equipment and materials for the development is coming and going by barge. The faux-village idea seems fake to me. And if you are going to build a waterfront trail from the end of Bedford basin to somewhere near Ceres and the rail yard as is seemingly suggested, you do not need to further compromise the Bedford Hwy by shoehorning in bike lanes as well. Let them use the trail.

You do realize there is going to be long gaps between the entrances/exits for bicycles and because of the need for non-at-grade crossing all of them will involve steep climbs?

With or without an adjacent path the Bedford Highway needs bicycle lanes directly on the street right-of-way to accomodate local traffic needs.

Besides the current boardwalk in Bedford gets crowded in the summer-time with walkers/joggers so its rare to even see cyclists on the boardwalk. Most cyclists will use Waterfront Dr/Shore Dr/Bedford Hwy to access amenities like Mill Cove Plaza.

[Keith P.]

You do realize there is going to be long gaps between the entrances/exits for bicycles and because of the need for non-at-grade crossing all of them will involve steep climbs?


Too bad. When cyclists start to pay for their bike lanes then they can have their say. Until then, given our expanding trail system here in metro, when that is an option that is where they belong, not on major roadways. Hell, today I saw one idiot biking on the 118 -- I hope he lived to talk about it.

[Dmajackson]

Too bad. When cyclists start to pay for their bike lanes then they can have their say. Until then, given our expanding trail system here in metro, when that is an option that is where they belong, not on major roadways. Hell, today I saw one idiot biking on the 118 -- I hope he lived to talk about it.

Yah so do'nt forget that cyclists pay taxes as well and most also own cars so we are paying for the road improvements too. And well a cycling path requires a lot less maintenance than a main throughfare so we are saving the government money.

With the exception of the MacKay Bridge and the expressways cyclists have the same rights as vehicles on the road so we could ride down the centre of the Bedford Highway if we wanted to and there is nothing motorists could do. So isn't it better that the taxes we pay give us our own lanes so we don't piss off you motorists?

My point still stands. Even with a adjacent path the Bedford Highway will be full of cyclists and having bicycle lanes is the only safe manner for the two to coexist. Neither cars nor cyclists are going to magically disappear off of the highway not matter what infastructure is built. And no offense drivers but you could learn a lot about safety if you hop on a bike for a day or two.

[Jonovision]

I like the look of this proposal. And I have nothing against the roundabout. My only question when reading the article today in the coast was 'why the hell is united gulf proposing another project?!' They are already having trouble with all the ones they have on the go right now.

[planarchy]

With the exception of the MacKay Bridge and the expressways cyclists have the same rights as vehicles on the road so we could ride down the centre of the Bedford Highway if we wanted to and there is nothing motorists could do.


Exactly. This is a good point. The problem is if you try this here, some moron will probably try and run you off the road. I've been living away from halifax for the last number of years, but having returned, I'm happy to see a lot more bikes on the road. Dalhousie's now has a bike rental (i think it is rental) shop to provide easy access to bikes for students - things like this make a big difference.

But I'm also shocked at how some people bike - moving from roadway, to sidewalk, to crosswalk in a way that only confuses and angers drivers (I'm talking downtown). I saw a guy the other day biking on the roadway, but moving against traffic on a narrow road. I see too many biking like they are trying to reconquer the city. A little civility on both sides is needed.

[KeithC]

What the Bedford Highway needs is a 3rd lane. That would help reduce the traffic, instead it was replaced with a bicycle lane that is barely used. I drive that Highway everyday and I see about 3-4 bicycles that use it. What a waste.

As for the idea of a roundabout, definitely no. I agree with KeithP. It would just cause more slowdowns in traffic. So there's no need for one.

That's my 2 cents.

[Dmajackson]

What the Bedford Highway needs is a 3rd lane. That would help reduce the traffic, instead it was replaced with a bicycle lane that is barely used. I drive that Highway everyday and I see about 3-4 bicycles that use it. What a waste.

As for the idea of a roundabout, definitely no. I agree with KeithP. It would just cause more slowdowns in traffic. So there's no need for one.

That's my 2 cents.

While I agree the Bfd Hwy needs a third lane for left-turning vehicles your choice of words is odd. The vast majority of the road never had a third-lane to begin with so they didn't "replace" it though maybe in one or two stretches there might not be room for the lane now in the right-of-way (they can always purchase land from streetfront lots).

I also drive the road daily but as both a motorist and a cyclist I disagree completely on the role of cycling on the highway. On nice days like today there are dozens of cyclists out at a time using the road and given that it is a direct flat route it will be well used no matter how many mtorists try to run us off the road. If there was no bicycle lanes we'd simply ride down the middle of the road and since motorists would hate that even more I think we can all agree that giving bicycles their own lane is for the benefit of everyone.

As for the roundabout I once again disagree with your statement. The Bedford Highway is not meant to be a high-speed throughfare. If you want to go fast drive up a hill and go in town through the Bi-Hi. Considering the intersection is at the bottom of a hill going around a bend in the road a roundabout could do wonders for slowing down traffic and getting people to stop speeding through the intersection and onto Halifax or Bedford (I get tailgated for going 55-60 through there right now).

Besides the island in the centre of the roundabout would make an excellent spot for some local artwork (of anything but a lighthouse).

[Keith P.]

Besides the island in the centre of the roundabout would make an excellent spot for some local artwork (of anything but a lighthouse).

It's a major artery, not an art gallery. That idea in the proposal is among the most absurd I have ever read.

The Bedford Hwy was supposed to be 4 lanes at one point, and the moron councillor for the area at the time derailed it. Hence you have that silly section north of Bayview with 2 lanes inbound, one lane outbound.

[Dmajackson]

It's a major artery, not an art gallery. That idea in the proposal is among the most absurd I have ever read.

The Bedford Hwy was supposed to be 4 lanes at one point, and the moron councillor for the area at the time derailed it. Hence you have that silly section north of Bayview with 2 lanes inbound, one lane outbound.

Well I never did say an art gallery. Many roundabouts in the world have local art in the centre island as a way to fill in otherwise useless space. I think a sculpture of a local legend or even nearby wildlife could fit well in the area.

Just to correct you its two lanes outbound, one lane inbound in front of the Mount which is fine by me. In my mind the layout in Rockingham is what the entire highway should be like with one lane each way and a centre turning lane, mind you I would love to see bicycle lanes added in at some point too.

[Keith P.]

Just to correct you its two lanes outbound, one lane inbound in front of the Mount which is fine by me.

That is not what I was referring to, but helps illustrate the folly of the council decision way back when. I was referring to the section between Bayview and MSVU, which is 2 in/1 out. Then when you get to MSVU it switches to 2 out/1 in before becoming 1/1 after that for the most part. Bad, bad design.

[sk8tr]

Hi, I'm a resident of Birch Cove, and this is my first post, although I've been following this forum since I moved here from San Francisco 4 years ago.

I attended the public meeting tonight. St. Peter's church was packed with several hundred people, many more than at previous meetings. City staff presented the preferred design, which included the roundabout. They promised that the complete report will be posted here in the next few days.

http://www.halifax.ca/regionalplanning/WesternShoreBedfordBasin.html

All in all, the project once complete will have 400-500 residential units, which adds quite a bit of density to the area. Lots of concern from residents about the potential impact of all of those people on (what else) traffic. Staff pointed out that the additional people means that there will be additional demand on transit, and therefore transit options will need to improve.

The Q&A was quite lively. Lots of residents concerned about traffic and the loss of their private views. Interestingly, at one point, the developer got up and presented an alternate plan, which involved a single highrise tower on the north end of the Chinatown site, instead of two mid-rises, and explained that this might be preferable to the community because it enhances ground level views for most, leaves the waterfront mostly out of the shadows, and provides more space for public 'amenities', by which I assume he means a park.

Personally, despite some of negativity tonight, I think that some version of this project will go through. Everyone recognizes that the status quo is not really an option because the site has too much potential, and city staff made it very clear that without a 'plan' the alternative is relatively unregulated development (using 1970's-era bylaws) that could result in a strip mall type development. (Ugh, there's enough of that already on the Bedford Hwy, thank you!)

[sk8tr]

By the way, I'm still a little skeptical about the roundabout myself. It just seems a little too cramped to work well (but I'm sure if it were England, it would seem spacious!).

[fenwick16]

Hi, I'm a resident of Birch Cove, and this is my first post, although I've been following this forum since I moved here from San Francisco 4 years ago.

What a great city, San Francisco. I was lucky to spend a few days there during a convention about 9 years ago. My favorite city other than Halifax (only because Halifax and Nova Scotia was where I grew up). I hope that Halifax can become more like San Francisco (Halifax has quite a long way to go, although it has a foggy waterfront without the seals).

[DigitalNinja]

Did they have any models of the buildings? What was the massing like? Hard to say what would be better, 2 mid rises or 1 high rise.

[sk8tr]

They didn't have any models, just the powerpoint presentation. The buildings in the presentation were more detailed than the crude massing models that they used in last year's design brief. I'm looking forward to downloading the PDF of the report and examining it in detail (it's not posted yet).
I think I might favour the higher single tower instead of the two mid-rises. On the other hand, the 2 mid-rises gave the site an element of symmetry. Mostly I just care about the quality of the development (materials, cladding, etc.), and I'm hopeful that we don't end up with a bunch of boring red-brick. If the 19-story Bayview condos development goes ahead, and residents get to see what how attractive a modern highrise overlooking the basin could be, maybe they would be more receptive to something similar at Birch Cove.

[Dmajackson]

There are videos up now; Birch Cove (http://halifax.ca/regionalplanning/WesternShoreBedfordBasin.html)

[Dmajackson]

I'd watch the videos to get the sense of the plan but here's the proposed building heights for now;

Waterfront - two 12 storey buildings
Village Centre - two 4-5 storey buildings
Wedgewood - 8 storey building (big setback)
Farmers Clems/Irving - 3 storey buildings

[Dmajackson]

Final Draft Birch Cove Waterfront Area Master Plan (http://www.halifax.ca/regionalplanning/documents/BirchCoveFinalDraftlow-res.pdf)

I'll start pulling some photos to get some discussion back into this thread. :)

[halifaxboyns]

Final Draft Birch Cove Waterfront Area Master Plan (http://www.halifax.ca/regionalplanning/documents/BirchCoveFinalDraftlow-res.pdf)

I'll start pulling some photos to get some discussion back into this thread. :)

Had a quick look - really interesting concepts. But I didn't see the potential for a ferry dock - or did I miss it in my quick skim?

[DigitalNinja]

I think they want the ferry closer to Bedford, but you are right that would be a prime spot for another ferry.
Overall I think it's a good plan. I think they should get rid of the motel though, that thing would distract from the overall development, I hope the owners would sell it if this works.
I had a quick laugh at the survey, most people though the whole area should just be a giant park, not many wanted anything built on the land at all.

[Dmajackson]

Had a quick look - really interesting concepts. But I didn't see the potential for a ferry dock - or did I miss it in my quick skim?

It didn't mention it in the document at all but from what I recall in the videos the marina location could be converted to a terminal if the demand is ever high enough (I think he said at least twenty years).

[Dmajackson]

The full report is available HERE (http://www.halifax.ca/regionalplanning/documents/BirchCoveFinalDraftlow-res.pdf). All photos and information below is from the report.

EXISTING:

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4024/4460758616_95d0cd3c83.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2799/4460758658_53edae3b95.jpg

Existing traffic counts are in the range of 20'000 (north) -23'000 (south) vehicles a day on the Bedford Highway in Birch Cove. There is no information provided for Kearney Lake Drive traffic volumes.

THE FUTURE:

Waterfront: Two 12-storey residential buildings with underground parking and ground floor retail
Village Centre: Two 4-5 storey residential buildings with underground parking and ground floor retail
Irving/Farmers Clems: Small office building between the two lots (on Farmers Clems property). No change in the Irving lot.
St. Peter's Church: Two small 3 storey residential developments.
Wedgewood: 1 storey retail building with an 8 storey building to the south.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4067/4459979167_959314a31c.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2789/4459979209_a5317a6ab6.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2745/4459979273_c811af343c.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2744/4460845272_2f60fa3105.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2690/4460065813_0d6e7a1e6b.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4061/4460065901_ec6e5b3ea4.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4070/4460065947_eace427f0e.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4062/4460845562_740cdbd2c8.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4021/4460066061_f65b10a311.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4033/4460845700_c6560ab8e5.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2712/4460066219_472f8fdb27.jpg

[cormiermax]

Looks very promising, it has a very Mediterranean look.

[halifaxboyns]

This has some interesting potential - but I'm a little disappointed about keeping the hotel and the irving there. I think the irving is a use that could've been encouraged to leave the area for the sake of putting more people and pedestrian oriented uses there.

The hotel would be a good site for a 5 storey apartment building - which would be within good walking distance of a potential transit stop (whether it's bus, ferry, rail or all three).

[Keith P.]

The motel is not staying.

[joeyedm]

the motel is not staying. the area where it is would be raised to street level. it would have underground parking, and have a 2 story building over top. the building would only be 2 storys to protect view planes. behind it would be the apartment building, where the cove store is now.

[halifaxboyns]

the motel is not staying. the area where it is would be raised to street level. it would have underground parking, and have a 2 story building over top. the building would only be 2 storys to protect view planes. behind it would be the apartment building, where the cove store is now.

I wouldn't call it a viewplane per sae - I think that term is used way too much. It's just protecting the view, but thanks for explaning. My mom moved out to condos on Bedros, so I'm just getting used to that area again - it's been ages, so I don't remember it well!

[oldkid_newblock]

Hi Y’all:

I’ve just joined this forum and find the various discussions on development fantastic. Just a quick observation. If there’s a moderator for this page I would suggest that you change the title “Bedford Roundabout” to “Birch Cove Study” or something like that.

I attended the public meeting last Monday night as well. The developer stood up and gave a compelling argument in favor of one tower of greater height as opposed to two 12 storey buildings at the China town site. As part of the presentation he showed a before (two 12 storeys) vs. one –about 20 storeys (After) further north on the site. His argument made sense –One taller tower would improve view corridors of the harbor, especially from the Old Kearney lake road and hillside residents south of the road. He said the tower could be built at an angle further reducing any impediments to views by those who would be affected on the north side. He went on to say that the elimination of one tower would leave a lot more space on the waterfront for parkland, access to the waterfront and providing public amenities similar to that found at Bishop’s Landing. He said that I should write in to the city and offer my support. I will and suggest anyone else of like mind do the same. Here’s the contact info for the HRM feedback. This is required by Friday April 2.
Paul Morgan, Planner
HRM Regional & Community Planning
Phone: 490-4482
Fax: Fax: 490-3976
Email: morganp@halifax.ca

[fenwick16]

Hi Y’all:

I’ve just joined this forum and find the various discussions on development fantastic. Just a quick observation. If there’s a moderator for this page I would suggest that you change the title “Bedford Roundabout” to “Birch Cove Study” or something like that.

I attended the public meeting last Monday night as well. The developer stood up and gave a compelling argument in favor of one tower of greater height as opposed to two 12 storey buildings at the China town site. As part of the presentation he showed a before (two 12 storeys) vs. one –about 20 storeys (After) further north on the site. His argument made sense –One taller tower would improve view corridors of the harbor, especially from the Old Kearney lake road and hillside residents south of the road. He said the tower could be built at an angle further reducing any impediments to views by those who would be affected on the north side. He went on to say that the elimination of one tower would leave a lot more space on the waterfront for parkland, access to the waterfront and providing public amenities similar to that found at Bishop’s Landing. He said that I should write in to the city and offer my support. I will and suggest anyone else of like mind do the same. Here’s the contact info for the HRM feedback. This is required by Friday April 2.
Paul Morgan, Planner
HRM Regional & Community Planning
Phone: 490-4482
Fax: Fax: 490-3976
Email: morganp@halifax.ca

Welcome to this forum oldkid_newblock and thanks for your input. I agree with this way of thinking, one tall building is better than two mid-rise buildings, especially if the space that is being saved will be dedicated to green space. I think people in this Birch Cove area should seriously consider this by the April 2 deadline. This might also mean lower condo purchase prices or lower apartment rent (whichever it is) since it would probably result in lower construction cost.

[sdm]

i wish the city would take the time and effort (and resources) to work at areas around the core instead of suburbs. All they are doing is making it more attractive to develop/live in areas farther from the core.

Additionally i believe a roundabout on the bedford highway will be a terrible move.

[halifaxboyns]

i wish the city would take the time and effort (and resources) to work at areas around the core instead of suburbs. All they are doing is making it more attractive to develop/live in areas farther from the core.

Additionally i believe a roundabout on the bedford highway will be a terrible move.

There may be a benefit to this if commuter rail or a highspeed ferry is built here. One of the difficulties with transit to the burbs is that the density isn't always high enough to support rail/ferry or even BRT.

So ideally what you want to have happen is have pockets of density in the burbs (like this site) adjacent to a major transportation hub (like ferry or rail). This is Transit Oriented Development (TOD) or Transit Adjacent Development (TAD).

Here in Calgary we're very good at TAD and not so good at TOD. But all along the LRT line there are pockets of high density development and office clusters at certain stations. So if they were to build the commuter rail line, I'd suspect there would be a station here and at Mill Cove and I have a feeling they would do a plan similar to this in Mill Cove as well (along the same principles, but the look/feel would be different).

[Dmajackson]

Here in Calgary we're very good at TAD and not so good at TOD. But all along the LRT line there are pockets of high density development and office clusters at certain stations. So if they were to build the commuter rail line, I'd suspect there would be a station here and at Mill Cove and I have a feeling they would do a plan similar to this in Mill Cove as well (along the same principles, but the look/feel would be different).

Somewhere's in the Subruban Developments thread there is the three options for Mill Cove. The final plan was expected earlier but this year but it somehow got slowed down. I really hope it comes forward soon the site is not pretty to look at and if there was a solid place set aside for the ferry and train terminals it might push them forward quicker.

Back on topic I'm going to be emailing HRM in favour of the one tower.

[someone123]

i wish the city would take the time and effort (and resources) to work at areas around the core instead of suburbs. All they are doing is making it more attractive to develop/live in areas farther from the core.

It feels like the HRM treats most districts more or less equally when in reality the core is far more important to a much larger number of people.

Transit-oriented development is nice but when you have no plans whatsoever for transit and NIMBY tendencies to cut back on densities it's really unlikely to be successful. A single 20 storey tower and acres of parkland aren't going to do much for a transit station far from everything else.

[worldlyhaligonian]

I wish they could define a future transit route and plan the communities based off of this projection. That way we could sustainably build towards a city where BRT could be implemented in phases.

[sdm]

I wish they could define a future transit route and plan the communities based off of this projection. That way we could sustainably build towards a city where BRT could be implemented in phases.


:tup:

Problem is that the current transit plan (one just passed in principle that is) was based on the current mps (which some are very out dated).

Bedford to the core would be well served with light rail. As expressed, i use this road daily and a roundabout would just funnel traffic to areas like bayers road and over fill its capacity. The ravines will be dumping more on this section once the over pass is finished.

[Dmajackson]

I've been skimming through the Bedford MPS and found an interesting section relating to the future of the Bedford Highway. It basically states the Bedford Highway should not be a high volume, high speed corridor but rather a high volume, low speed corridor. It suggests having a maximum travel width of 48 feet which would fit three lanes of traffic and that over time all sections of the Highway in the Bedford plan should be reduced to this width.

I think roundabouts fit this policy perfectly. :)

P.S. there is also another policy that says cycling shall be encouraged in Bedford.