[Jstaleness]

I am curious to see what others believe are the best ways to deal with the growing issue of Crossing Halifax Harbour.

[-Harlington-]

I'd say that short term better transit/ferry service is a must

Long term, some sort of third crossing is most likely going to be needed at some point whether it be bridge or tunnel .

But ferries are something i think could be utilized a little better

[Josh M]

No need for a third bridge but the MacDonald bridge has to be replaced

[halifaxboyns]

I'm concerned that adding a 3rd bridge would facilitate an increase to sprawling suburban development.

If an LRT system is designed, I would be happy to see the money spent on a tunnel only for transit (bus and LRT) and leave the existing bridge capacity for cars/trucks.

[Nouvellecosse]

^ Exactly.

A crossing for transit would be much more efficient since two lanes could easily suffice and it would actually make the area better whereas constantly expanding road capacity only makes the HRM worse.

Besides, the brides are only nearing capacity in terms of the number of vehicles that can cross, not in terms of the number of people who can cross. Having a higher percentage of people cross using transit will allow the existing bridges to serve many tens of thousands more people per day.

[someone123]

I agree that it's bad to promote suburban sprawl, but there are two factors at play here that people tend to conflate:

1) Sprawliness of city. Basically this is % car traffic and acres of land used per person.
2) Population growth in the metropolitan area.

As a city grows it needs more roads and more bridges. There is no avoiding this. You can increase transit ridership somewhat but some people need to use cars, there will still be bus traffic, truck traffic, and newly developed areas need to be connected to the older parts of the city. Note that Paris, a densely populated city, has more roads and bridges than Halifax, which is much sprawlier.

Halifax will need more road capacity onto the peninsula even if it builds more transit. When the MacKay was built the city only had about 220,000 people. Soon it will have 500,000 people. Even if we double or triple transit use over the next 10-20 years we will need more roads. Even if we use the existing bridges more efficiently we will need more roads.

The correct way to look at this is in terms of increasing transit modal share so that maybe we will look at 2,000 new cars per year instead of 3,000, but the cars will still be there. The idea that Halifax is behind so it needs to halt road construction is based on horribly oversimplified assumptions and following that plan would have very bad consequences for the city, particularly if there's no good plan for a transit system, which there isn't right now.

[halifaxboyns]

For me, if a tunnel is used for transit only - then you really wouldn't need more than two lanes, which should reduce the cost. On top of which, any LRT could operate as a track in the 'road' type system with proper safety measures put in.

If the tunnel entrance started out in the parking lots near the dockyard, this could provide an excellent transit hub location (despite being so close to downtown). Vehicles would then enter and exit at this point and be able to continue into downtown along whatever the reworked street configuration would be, once the Cogswell Interchage is removed. The exit on the Dartmouth side might be a little tricky, but could end up right at the Dartmouth Sportsplex lot. The entry points would of course be secured so non-transit vehicles wouldn't get in.

The only thing that will be a negative is the number of transit trip opportunities along Gottingen and Barrington Street (from North to Cornwallis) would likely decrease dramatically. But the Gottingen Street component could be offset by a streetcar on Agricola (long term) but I'm not sure about Barrington. My memory of the stops along there (that are the inbound stops for buses from Dartmouth) is that they weren't used very much, except for the stop by the bridge to allow connections to the 4/2. This could be moved down to the dockyard with a route change for the 4/2.

[someone123]

They're not going to do a $1B+ tunnel for only transit. Even a transit-only lane in an expensive tunnel is a stretch. They did have a bus lane in the 6 lane bridge plan however. With a third crossing it might be possible to get a dedicated one-way lane on the Macdonald. Because of the weight issues I'm not sure LRT could go on it and LRT out to Eastern Passage is not very attractive.

Part of the purpose of the proposed third crossing is to get truck traffic out of the South End. Another useful reason for building the bridge is to improve connections to Eastern Passage/Cole Harbour. I think this is a useful improvement over the prospect of putting more suburban development north of the city. The Spryfield area is also underdeveloped but would be easy to serve with transit if there were some improvements. Actually some people there could practically walk to work if they built a small bridge over the Northwest Arm -- this should be another priority.

[alps]

Light rail, with a dedicated bridge or tunnel, should be prioritized long before any additional road capacity.

[Nouvellecosse]

I agree that it's bad to promote suburban sprawl, but there are two factors at play here that people tend to conflate:

1) Sprawliness of city. Basically this is % car traffic and acres of land used per person.
2) Population growth in the metropolitan area.

As a city grows it needs more roads and more bridges. There is no avoiding this. You can increase transit ridership somewhat but some people need to use cars, there will still be bus traffic, truck traffic, and newly developed areas need to be connected to the older parts of the city. Note that Paris, a densely populated city, has more roads and bridges than Halifax, which is much sprawlier.

Halifax will need more road capacity onto the peninsula even if it builds more transit. When the MacKay was built the city only had about 220,000 people. Soon it will have 500,000 people. Even if we double or triple transit use over the next 10-20 years we will need more roads. Even if we use the existing bridges more efficiently we will need more roads.

The correct way to look at this is in terms of increasing transit modal share so that maybe we will look at 2,000 new cars per year instead of 3,000, but the cars will still be there. The idea that Halifax is behind so it needs to halt road construction is based on horribly oversimplified assumptions and following that plan would have very bad consequences for the city, particularly if there's no good plan for a transit system, which there isn't right now.A woman is overheard talking to her friend about planning for another baby:

"So when we first moved into our house it was 10,000 sq ft and that was fine. It was just the two of us and we were comfortable. But when we had the first baby it started getting a bit tight, so after some convincing, my husband agreed that if we had another baby we could add an expansion. But he only wanted to add another 2000 sq ft, saying we could just be more 'space efficient'. Now it's 4 of us all stuffed into 12,000 sq ft and we're thinking of having a 3rd baby, yet he doesn't want to move or add another expansion. I mean, this is getting ridiculous! We've already become more efficient since wen we first moved in! We had 5000 sq ft per person then, now we have only 3000 sq ft per person. If we stuff another baby into the house we'll have to become another 20% more efficient on top of that!

And what if we decide to have a 4th child? There's no way we can cram 6 people into a 12,000 sq ft house. I mean, its such a simple concept; if your family grows, you need more room. Why is that so hard for him to understand???

[Nouvellecosse]

They're not going to do a $1B+ tunnel for only transit. Even a transit-only lane in an expensive tunnel is a stretch. They did have a bus lane in the 6 lane bridge plan however. With a third crossing it might be possible to get a dedicated one-way lane on the Macdonald. Because of the weight issues I'm not sure LRT could go on it and LRT out to Eastern Passage is not very attractive.

Part of the purpose of the proposed third crossing is to get truck traffic out of the South End. Another useful reason for building the bridge is to improve connections to Eastern Passage/Cole Harbour. I think this is a useful improvement over the prospect of putting more suburban development north of the city. The Spryfield area is also underdeveloped but would be easy to serve with transit if there were some improvements. Actually some people there could practically walk to work if they built a small bridge over the Northwest Arm -- this should be another priority.I'm definitely open to the idea of a NW arm crossing, but I'm not sure I see the logic in not wanting a harbour crossing to be transit only or have a dedicated transit component because the crossing would be an expensive project. I mean, if its expensive we should want to get as much out of it as possible shouldn't we? And two lanes of transit could easily as move as many or more people as 4-6 lanes of general road space.

As far as rerouting the trucks, sure that would be nice, but for the kinda $$$ we're talking about I think we can safely say there are much higher priorities.

[someone123]

And what if we decide to have a 4th child? There's no way we can cram 6 people into a 12,000 sq ft house. I mean, its such a simple concept; if your family grows, you need more room. Why is that so hard for him to understand???

This analogy is really strained aside from its disturbing Nanny State connotations. People are not children, and planners are not parents. People should have as much freedom as possible to choose how they want to live. It is the dream of some planners to be able to shove people into fashionable developments (what is fashionable changes every decade or two by the way) but that attitude is ignorant and politically infeasible. Typically in the past it hasn't worked out well. It's how we got things like the Cogswell Interchange back in the 1970s when highways were fashionable.

The reality for Halifax is that the city takes everybody's money and tells them to make do with what they have, people and businesses will leave because they will not want to put up with gridlock and high taxes in a small city.

A transit-only tunnel is again politically infeasible and I think its return on investment is poor. Like I said, where would it even go? Eastern Passage? If you want a more central bridge and your single focus is transit then conversion of the Macdonald makes more sense.

[Nouvellecosse]

There are no nanny state connotations here. No one is suggesting that there should be a law governing how people live or travel. It's simply the same old scenario that with limited funds available, officials should seek the most effective ways to spend them. Which of course is no different from any other planning process.

What I find really strange though is how you seemingly imply that taxpayers such as myself should alter our opinions of what is and isn't a good idea to be more in line with the prevailing views. Suggesting that you or I shouldn't support a position because it's "politically infeasible" aka that most other taxpayers aren't likely to support it, is a bit too "group think" for my taste (just to borrow a little from your style of debate lol). Whether or not other taxpayers are likely to agree with a planning idea has no bearing on whether or not it's a good idea.

It's the job of elected officials to consider the myriad desires of the populace when making decisions, and to often look for compromises in the hopes of coming up with the plan most appealing to the most people. Taxpayers with outlying opinions often don't get exactly what they want, but sometimes are given concessions or allowed to influence the decision-making process.

That will never happen, however, if people with such opinions don't advocate for them and instead chose to support something more mainstream under the belief that doing so is somehow supporting freedom.

[someone123]

Whether or not other taxpayers are likely to agree with a planning idea has no bearing on whether or not it's a good idea.

Perhaps not, but the opinion of taxpayers does in large part determine whether or not these things will ever actually be implemented. Realistic proposals are a lot more interesting and have a greater chance of having a positive impact on the city.

[spaustin]

A third harbour bridge would be a disaster right now. All it would do is guarantee massive amounts of additional sprawl in Eastern Passage. Road capacity will eventually need to be added, but to do so now when we haven't made any serious efforts at increasing transit usage doesn't make any sense. We could spend our money much more wisely. A billion or whatever the cost of another bridge is could build a real bus rapid transit system or a whole network of ferries.

[RyeJay]

I support a third crossing: after HRM has dealt with improvements to its current public transit, which includes investment in some form of rail. There are simply way, way too many vitally necessary tweaks that need to be done to our existing infrastructure before consideration of a third crossing, which would add traffic to an ill-prepared network of roads.

Besides, Halifax's suburbs are doing great; our business parks are a fine example... Let's wait a while before giving birth to budget-raping sprawl to Eastern Passage.

And I doubt a crossing over the arm would ever happen. ....SAVE THE DINGLE VIEW!!! :rolleyes:

[Nouvellecosse]

I also doubt it would be easy to get a NW arm crossing but that doesn't stop me from wondering "what if".

I lived in Spryfield for a few years wile going to Dal and always marveled how close the two are by way the crow flies relative to the way the road winds.

[Chadillaccc]

Why couldn't a third crossing include rail transit?


between Surrey and New Westminster, we have the longest transit only bridge on the planet. I'm sure the densely populated boroughs of Halifax and Dartmouth could support a transit bridge with 2 lanes for cars only(no trucks) and pedestrians.

Easier said than done... but it really is a great idea.

[someone123]

A third harbour bridge would be a disaster right now. All it would do is guarantee massive amounts of additional sprawl in Eastern Passage. Road capacity will eventually need to be added, but to do so now when we haven't made any serious efforts at increasing transit usage doesn't make any sense. We could spend our money much more wisely. A billion or whatever the cost of another bridge is could build a real bus rapid transit system or a whole network of ferries.

I also think that there are lots of transit projects that would be much better than a third crossing. I would like to see a modest "backbone" LRT or streetcar system combined with a couple more MetroLink-style BRT routes covering areas like Clayton Park and Spryfield. Another important project proposed is a dedicated transitway running down Bayers or a similar route. These would in total cost maybe $100-200M.

It's a bit incorrect to present transit as an alternative way to spend bridge money, however. The fact is that the HDBC are the ones who would build a third crossing. They can finance it themselves largely from tolls and they are not involved in providing transit services. A regional transit authority could fix this problem.

[Josh M]

And what if we decide to have a 4th child? There's no way we can cram 6 people into a 12,000 sq ft house.

If you cant fit 6 people into a 12 000 sq ft house you need to lose some weight

[Jstaleness]

I lived in Spryfield for a few years wile going to Dal and always marveled how close the two are by way the crow flies relative to the way the road winds.

It's amazing to think about what a bridge over the NW arm could do for an area like Spryfield. It would become a very desirable place to live for many.

[ILoveHalifax]

I think the Northwest Arm is among the most beautiful parts of any city in Canada.
I wonder if some sort of an iconic design might work for an Arm bridge. It could add to the beauty rather than take away from it.

[fenwick16]

There are new viewplane bylaws being planned for the Northwest Arm that will probably prevent a Northwest Arm bridge from being built anytime in the future. However, I think a tunnel under the Arm would work and there would be less opposition.

PS: I voted other - I would pick a Northwest Arm tunnel which would be a cheaper option and encourage growth to the west of Halifax.

I posted a drawing (below) that I did a few months ago in the other related thread - http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=148144&page=14

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

[MonctonRad]

I think a good question would be "where would a NW Arm crossing be located?"

An obvious choice would be South Street, but this would be very close to the Dingle and therefore might not be a favourable option. If you move further south along the arm, the bordering properties get more expensive and the crossing would be further from downtown. Quinpool Road on the other hand is too close to the head of the arm and the Armdale Rotary.

The most effective location for a crossing would therefore be somewhere between South Street and Quinpool Road, possibly Coburg Road as it feeds directly onto Spring Garden Road. What do people think?

[fenwick16]

:previous: The problem with a Coburg Road route is that trucks from Halterm Terminals would have to travel along Spring Garden Road to get to it. I think the most direct route from Halterm will be the best route and such a route would still be close to the major population centres around the universities and hospitals.

If you look at the current Northwest Arm Drive, I think it was designed with the intention of crossing the NW Arm near the rail-cut.

[Empire]

McNab Harbour Span 4 lanes

A third harbour crossing connecting the #111 to Barrington St. could make a huge impact.

- Traffic on MacKay and MacDonald would be reduced with the development of the MacNab span
- The span would come in on the east side of the Cunard Centre and stay elevated above the tracks (blue) until it connected to the south end of Barrington St.
- All port truck traffic would take the McNab span
- The LRT woud bring commuters through the rail cut to the Via Station (soon to be expanded)..from there rapid buses would transport commuters to Burnside and Darthmouth Crossing
- the Dartmouth rail line could also bring commuters to a bridge terminal where they would pick up Rapid transit or the Woodside ferry to downtown

http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q7/empire1_2007/3rdbridge-1.jpg

[RyeJay]

McNab Harbour Span
http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q7/empire1_2007/3rdbridge-1.jpg

This is an interesting idea. The peninsula's end of this crossing would have to be elevated enough to allow cruise ships to pass through. I wonder what view planes this would be offending?

[haligonia]

McNab Harbour Span 4 lanes

A third harbour crossing connecting the #111 to Barrington St. could make a huge impact.

- Traffic on MacKay and MacDonald would be reduced with the development of the MacNab span
- The span would come in on the east side of the Cunard Centre and stay elevated above the tracks (blue) until it connected to the south end of Barrington St.
- All port truck traffic would take the McNab span
- The LRT woud bring commuters through the rail cut to the Via Station (soon to be expanded)..from there rapid buses would transport commuters to Burnside and Darthmouth Crossing
- the Dartmouth rail line could also bring commuters to a bridge terminal where they would pick up Rapid transit or the Woodside ferry to downtown

http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q7/empire1_2007/3rdbridge-1.jpg

I actually like this quite a bit. It seems close to Geroge's Island, but if the towers are located well it could work.

[spaustin]

It's a bit incorrect to present transit as an alternative way to spend bridge money, however. The fact is that the HDBC are the ones who would build a third crossing. They can finance it themselves largely from tolls and they are not involved in providing transit services. A regional transit authority could fix this problem.

True to a degree. At the end of the day though, the money is all coming from the same place (the residents and businesses of HRM). User pay systems like tolls are more politically feasible, especially for infrastructure like bridges where people are already conditioned to pay tolls. Any HRM tax hike to net more cash for public transit, even if it was something small like $25 or $50 per property, would no doubt be more controversial and draw negative attention.

[Keith P.]

While the financial models are quite different, if you look at the Cobequid Pass, cars pay $4 and commercial trucks pay $3 per axle, so the toll is $15 for an 18-wheeler. That project makes a fortune and has been quite profitable. While the cost of the bridge is likely significantly more, it also does not need to make a profit but just break even. With proper traffic rules requiring trucks to use it rather than the downtown surface streets it likely could be feasible.

[halifaxboyns]

I think empire's example is interesting, but I see a few problems. Namely the bridge height so ships (cruise and container) could clear it and the location of the possible bridge supports. Based on the map, it looks like one of the docking burths would become unusable. I suspect that's being a bit nit-picky, but the routing makes sense.

My only problem with LRT going through a 3rd crossing (either bridge or tunnel) that while it would provide good service to the new/existing subdivisions in Dartmouth to get to the downtown office core (Portland Hills, Portland Estates, etc.) you'd have to literally back track along the circ to get to places like Burnside, Mic Mac Mall and Dartmouth Crossing. This may make serving those locations with an LRT not so good in terms of time to get there - which could make the service unattractive.

I certainly agree that the NW Arm crossing should go ahead, but I'm not sure how it could all tie into the NW Arm Drive. There would be a lot of expensive expropriation required (including the shopping centre) to get the route through - not just dealing with the pond that's at the end of the route. Not saying it's bad...just will be difficult.

[Empire]

I think empire's example is interesting, but I see a few problems. Namely the bridge height so ships (cruise and container) could clear it and the location of the possible bridge supports. Based on the map, it looks like one of the docking burths would become unusable. I suspect that's being a bit nit-picky, but the routing makes sense.

My only problem with LRT going through a 3rd crossing (either bridge or tunnel) that while it would provide good service to the new/existing subdivisions in Dartmouth to get to the downtown office core (Portland Hills, Portland Estates, etc.) you'd have to literally back track along the circ to get to places like Burnside, Mic Mac Mall and Dartmouth Crossing. This may make serving those locations with an LRT not so good in terms of time to get there - which could make the service unattractive.

I certainly agree that the NW Arm crossing should go ahead, but I'm not sure how it could all tie into the NW Arm Drive. There would be a lot of expensive expropriation required (including the shopping centre) to get the route through - not just dealing with the pond that's at the end of the route. Not saying it's bad...just will be difficult.

The 3rd bridge height should be similar to the MacDonald at the shore approach. Container ships clear the MacDonald near mid span. Cruise ships may have to go around the north side of George's Island to dock. They then would have to be turned when leaving so they can go back around the island and then go under the bridge at mid span.

MacDonald height
http://maps.google.ca/maps?q=halifax&hl=en&ll=44.660351,-63.589725&spn=0.000122,0.061626&sll=49.891235,-97.15369&sspn=28.297189,63.105469&vpsrc=0&hnear=Halifax,+Halifax+County,+Nova+Scotia&t=h&z=14&layer=c&cbll=44.66023,-63.589605&panoid=fVUT46RpqxxGZo7a9U8COg&cbp=12,90,,0,0

[RyeJay]

You say Georges Island... and I say hey look a free bridge support!

No.
Not really. Though I'd enjoy an enthused response from Heritage Trust, after they pull their tongues out of their throats.

[RyeJay]

I think empire's example is interesting, but I see a few problems. Namely the bridge height so ships (cruise and container) could clear it and the location of the possible bridge supports. Based on the map, it looks like one of the docking burths would become unusable. I suspect that's being a bit nit-picky, but the routing makes sense.

Not nit-picky. You're pointing out financial obsticles. No serious bridge proposal will go through without problem solving in these cases.

As far as I can conceive, to avoid that mess you've illustrated the bridge would have to maintain its height further into, or rather above, the peninsula with an exit/entrance connecting somewhere on Inglis St.

I'm not sure how innovative the architecture would have to aspire, but perhaps a large property somewhere on this street could serve as a suitable connection for this bridge. I keep thinking of how much space is needed for the bridges we currently have.

[halifaxboyns]

It took me a few minutes to find it; but here (http://www.halifax.ca/council/agendasc/documents/100608cai03.pdf) was the information report from a 2010 Regional Council meeting that send Councillor Uteck up in arms about a 3rd harbour crossing. The grade profiles are insane for the actual bridge crossing...talk about blocking a view!

One thing I will say for the tunnel concept they show in the report is that if a tunnel was done for the NW arm crossing, it appears that it could easily connect to the tunnel system depicted.

I'm not sure if anyone else is paying attention to the base drawing very well (when I review plans, I pay attention to details so I don't end up approving stuff that wasn't supposed to be there) - but did you notice that there appear to be rail tracks where the current Farmers Market is located? Must be an old base map layer from when the tracks were still there and now have been removed.

[Empire]

Great find, I like the tunnel concept more. With the bridge, the onshore support wipes out Pier 21.

[halifaxboyns]

Great find, I like the tunnel concept more. With the bridge, the onshore support wipes out Pier 21.

The tunnel appears (I'm guessing) to have had some forethought about a future NW arm connection. I was thinking about the whole issue of cost recovery for a tunnel or a bridge, especially since the CBC is doing a series on infrastructure starting off with the Gardiner Expressway in Toronto. There was also an interesting show on CNBC this past weekend on rebuilding the US's infrastructure.

I am not familiar enough with HRM's taxing powers under the HRM charter, but I wonder if (in addition to tolls for the structure) there could be a form of levy or property tax applied to properties on the peinsula and in Dartmouth for the crossing? The same for the NW arm? This way, any new subdivisions built next to or within proximity of the crossing could then have to pay into the cost of building it?

[RyeJay]

:previous:

I should check out those series.

The levy idea you mentioned: would you think it fair to apply it across the board, to even existing subdivisions--or are you strictly speaking in the sense of new developments that are now benefiting (and in many cases only possible) because of the new crossing?

For a harbour crossing in the form of a bridge, I surmise a connection on the peninsula as far inward as the corner of South Street and Queen:

The height of the bridge would avoid all infrastructure along the southern waterfront. Furthermore, Georges Island would be untoched and unblocked in terms of a view via the Citadel. In addition to this view preservation are those of McNabs Island and the mouth of our harbour which meets the Atlantic Ocean. An immediate complication would be the acquisition of a small number of properties on the downward slope of South Street, toward Barrington, as this is where the peninsular bridge connection would be...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v508/RyJ/PossibleHalifaxPeninsularCrossing1-1.jpg

The arm crossing, I'm not sure about. I think I'll admit that this particular area of the HRM is the place I know least about. Where would appropriate connection points be? I'm guessing the further south, the further away from the rotary, the more practical?...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v508/RyJ/PossibleHalifaxPeninsularCrossing-1.jpg

[halifaxboyns]

Based on the drawing you have, I find it difficult to believe that the view of George's Island won't be impacted. I found this (http://maps.google.ca/maps?q=Halifax&hl=en&ll=44.646277,-63.578621&spn=0.000015,0.00825&sll=49.891235,-97.15369&sspn=35.05337,67.587891&vpsrc=6&hnear=Halifax,+Halifax+County,+Nova+Scotia&t=h&z=17&layer=c&cbll=44.646277,-63.578621&cbp=12,0,,0,0&photoid=po-43297398) picture from google maps and it's very likely it will be impacted.

The levy idea would depend on how HRM's taxing authority would be based - I'd have to check the charter. I suspect a levy wouldn't work because you couldn't apply it to subdivisions already approved; levies typically can only be collected as development occurs. So it would only work if all existing subdivisions started seeing redevelopment...plus with a levy, the collection process can be slow (depending on the pace of development).

A property tax might work better (such as a certain percentage increase over a period of time to help fund a bridge/tunnel), which I would suggest should apply to all HRM since everyone will have an equal opportunity to use these facilities.

The south street idea is interesting but it require the bridge go up and over the farmers market. If you look at the land necessary for the end of the McDonald and McKay, it would be a huge impact in terms of taking out existing houses. I shuder to think that the westin could be impacted or need to be taken down or Cornwallis Park removed, considering how wide the end of the bridges is in terms of supports and land required.

In terms of the mainland side, a NW arm crossing will be problematic regardless of whether it's a tunnel or a bridge. The first problem is that Purcell's Cove road is no more than a 2 lane country road, so how will that be dealt with (would an interchange really be needed?). Then there is how the road would connect to 'mainland ring road' (NW Arm Drive). Because that road was never really extended, the ring is 'broken' because you would need to expropriate the shopping centre (where Sobeys is), homes and get around Catamaran Pond to get the most direct routing. Then of course there is the connection at Herring Cove Road - if you too the most direct line, you'd now have a multi-intersection with HCR and Williams Lake Road. So it would take a lot of work.

The benefit of this connection though would be that the land around Williams Lake and Colpitt Lake has been set aside as 'urban reserve' for future urban growth (http://www.halifax.ca/regionalplanning/documents/Map2_GeneralizedFutureLanduse.pdf), so if a crossing was planned, in this case a levy could be applied (in addition to a property tax) since any future subdivisions would likely have direct benefit to this peninsula connection and the connection to a ring road system.

Don't get me wrong - I like that you are thinking of routing, the crossing has to go somewhere, at some point. But sometimes people forget about how land intensive a bridge can be in terms of the approaches and intersections, unless I'm miss understanding where you expected the actual bridge to begin. Where would the physical bridge start on the Halifax side?

[RyeJay]

:previous:

You're understanding my brainstorming. You're correct that a number of houses would have to be demolished on the downward slope of South Street, going toward Barrington Street. The corner of South Street and Queen Street is essentially my proposed bridge connection; the sudden downward slope of South Street would offer room for bridge elevation--enough to completely avoid the historic Westin Hotel, while not being so tall as to block the Citadel's view of McNabs.

Considering the picture you've provided of the Citadel's view of Georges Island, a bridge could completely avoid Georges Island. For the hell of it, just for imagination's sake, if we were to copy and paste one of our other bridges to this conceptual location...would it be close enough to having enough height? I'm betting yes.

If not, it's just a matter of going higher. We can do that. And given the Citadel view, there is room to go higher and still not impact the view of McNabs.

Unfortunately, our bridge options are severely limited. It's a complicated area for this kind of infrastructure. We need more brainstorming.

[RyeJay]

A rough visual of what I'm trying to convey:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v508/RyJ/3rdHarbourBridgeRendering.jpg

[halifaxboyns]

Okay I understand now - so you are basically calling on the bridge to go up over the westin and then quickly come down to South Street so that the ramp would begin somewhere on the hill - I get it; but that's a drastic grade shift from the peak height. I'm not sure how well that would work...

That's where I see the advantage of a tunnel. Yes, the cost is much greater but then the visual effect isn't there and it's not as constrained by location as a bridge would be. The location on the Dartmouth side would still be fixed to match up with the circumfrential, but the location on the Halifax side could end up under the railway cut and port (see the diagram from the HRM report).

[Empire]

Ever been to Stanley Park?

http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q7/empire1_2007/3rdbridgeII.jpg

[MonctonRad]

:previous:

I like this routing! It reminds me of the San Francisco Bay Bridge connecting San Fran and Oakland. It bridges an island like this too.

This route avoids the problems with the cruise ship terminal and the container port, keeps the bridge piers away from Georges Island and at the same time would open up McNabs Island for public access.

The major problem is that the bridge would not connect up directly with the Circumferential Highway on the Dartmouth side. I would imagine however that there would be more options to remediate this sort of a routing problem on the Dartmouth side of the harbour than there would be on the Halifax side.

Good job Empire for thinking outside the box! :tup:

[RyeJay]

I like Empire's display as well. McNabs would finally be a provincial park that more of the public could enjoy. I wonder how elevated the section connecting Eastern Passage with McNabs Island would have to be? Ships still use this side water route, I believe.

[Pete Crawford]

I think Empire's route is really an inspired one. Connecting McNab's in a way that would (effectively) give us another Point Pleasant Park, and allow for some park-oriented development there is reason enough alone to choose that route. But it's really the only reasonable suggestion. Building a high bridge over George's Island would look horrid.

The problem I keep thinking about though is the over-land route from the container port to Barrington and Hollis streets. I assume it would have to be an elevated overpass. Also, landing that overpass to connect with the city roads would probably have to be done on the current Atlantic Superstore site (You can't just build a road through the Westin Nova Scotlan like the map suggests).

Even if it were a tunnel, are Barrington and Hollis really streets that can handle that kind of increase in traffic? They're slow enough as it is.

Any innovative ideas?

[RyeJay]

I think Empire's route is really an inspired one. Connecting McNab's in a way that would (effectively) give us another Point Pleasant Park, and allow for some park-oriented development there is reason enough alone to choose that route. But it's really the only reasonable suggestion. Building a high bridge over George's Island would look horrid.



To distance this conversation from turning into something too simple, such as personal preference of aesthetics devolving into an exclusion of practical ideas, we need to also take into account the willingness of HRM to finance a much longer, much more expensive bridge project that completely misses the goal of a connection with the Circumferential Highway on the Dartmouth side of the harbour.

Just sayin ;)

[someone123]

Would it really be a longer bridge? It seems like the McNabs-Point Pleasant span is shorter than the South End span would have to be.

I like that alignment.

[Pete Crawford]

If you start the Dartmouth-McNabs span at Eisner Cove (seems a lot more practical) that's only about a two minute drive from the Circumferential. Maybe Pleasant St. could be widened. Nothing impossible.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Friends of McNabs (guessing it exists) would shit their pants... but I like it.

[jslath]

http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6110/6415982281_92081b08f8_b.jpg

Why the focus on a bridge? This is a proposed tunnel route from a 2008 report by the Halifax Bridge Commission. Cross Harbour Traffic Needs Assessment (https://www.hdbc.ca/docs/Cross_Harbour_Traffic_Needs_Assessment_2009.pdf)

[halifaxboyns]

My preference is mainly for the tunnel, but not in the design that is shown above. I would prefer some thought put into the tunnel design to incorporate an LRT right of way.

The great thing I see with the tunnel is that it would easily allow for the eventual connection of a tunnel under the NW arm to the mainland to be incorporated into the whole system.

[RyeJay]

:previous:

I love how this tunnel connects with Robie Street!

[halifaxboyns]

:previous:

I love how this tunnel connects with Robie Street!
I don't want to poo poo your bridge idea; it would certainly be interesting but when I champion the tunnel, I'm looking at the potential future need of a hard crossing onto the mainland and it seems from the tunnel design, it would allow for that future crossing.

With the bridge concept you proposed - it would connect to South Street, but then there would be a bunch of stop lights between the bridge (which would function as freeflow) to Robie Street where a potential NW Arm crossing would be. The tunnel wouldn't necessairily have that problem - although I suspect there would still be a traffic light at South/Robie.

If we could find a way to over come the problem of the freeflow issue to each crossing then a bridge could still work.

[someone123]

A tunnel avoids a lot of problems and might actually be more practical as a third harbour crossing. The downside is that the price per lane is much higher.

Would a Northwest Arm tunnel work? It is an interesting idea but I don't know how deep the water is.

I'm also not so sure a bridge over the Arm would be such a problem. It could be small with, say, 3 reversing lanes, a bike path, nice pedestrian walkways, and maybe a space for a restaurant like the one in the Winnipeg pedestrian bridge. It could be sold as a benefit to South Enders since they'd be able to go over to Flemming Park. It does not have to be an ugly, utilitarian freeway-style bridge, and if it connects up to South Street it won't be close to many residents.

[jslath]

http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6056/6421213721_bab8495220_b.jpg

There is a lot of high valued real estate along both sides of the Northwest Arm, so any potential crossing may be met with resistance. I always thought property alongside the Atlantic School of Theology would be a good compromise for a crossing and with a new bridge over the rail cut can be tied in with Robie Street.

[bedfordite_93]

a tunnel would be the best because it could utilize the rail-cut.

[halifaxboyns]

I wasn't sure where to put this; but I've been working on a map that integrated the bridge/tunnel concepts with potential future transportation concepts that have been discussed.

In addition, I've noted potential areas of redevelopment concentration which could be areas where TOD policies could be applied and intensification to high density could be encouraged.

The map (http://maps.google.ca/maps/ms?msid=202282502905246741857.0004b30bc68e277bc208e&msa=0&ll=44.67024,-63.610153&spn=0.075445,0.132008) link I've put in takes into account more of a tunnel concept, but the bridge concept could easily be done on the map.

I've added a number of streetcars, ferry links and I've managed to add 1 regional rail link.

[halifaxboyns]

One question I would like to ask everyone, which jumped in my head this afternoon when I was reading about some transportation stuff (to modify my map):

Regardless if the 3rd crossing is a bridge or a tunnel, assuming that it includes a method to get a streetcar or an LRT across to the Dartmouth side, would this render the need for the Woodside ferry redundant?

I ask because now you'd have a high speed form of transit going across the harbour that would provide a greater capacity than the ferry - even though it might have a few stops before it got to Woodside?

I'd be interest to hear people's thoughts...

[Hali87]

I doubt the municipality would build an LRT line over the harbour anytime in the forseeable future, I think the only chance of that happening would be if Shearwater was redeveloped. I'm not sure that the local demand in Woodside for example warrants much more than the ferry,MetroLink route and regular buses that they already have. It seems like it's going to be a huge struggle to get LRT on the peninsula, I think it'll be decades before the municipality would build tracks in Dartmouth - especially because BRT is actually a lot more viable on the east side of the harbour, with long, uninterrupted, relatively wide streets and the Circ.

What I think would make more sense would be a bridge over the Northwest Arm for pedestrians and transit only. I think this should be built before a 3rd harbour crossing.

[Hali87]

Another alternative to a rail link over a new bridge, that could still provide rail service to Dartmouth would be an expanded version of the railcut-based route on the Halifax side that would include an equivalent route along the Dartmouth waterfront using the existing tracks there (between Burnside and Shearwater). There was actually a master's thesis written a few years ago that proposed that route - interestingly enough, it was written by the same guy who authored the Bedford Transit Alternatives staff report and the latest commuter rail report. The two rail networks could link up near Bedford (if the city is willing to build the extra tracks to do so) or ferry services could link a couple of the stations north of the narrows to provide a second crossing point for people from Bedford/Mainland North who want to skip the peninsula - for example MSVU to Shannon or Wright's Cove. This could also be more effective than a Shannon Park to Downtown ferry since it would feed into the western harbour rail network without having to go through the narrows.

I think that the extra cost of making the bridge or tunnel wide enough to accomodate a railway on top of the road traffic, and then having to install tracks on it, would not be worth it. If anything maybe some of the road traffic from the MacDonald could be diverted to the 3rd crossing and the Macdonald could be reduced to 2 lanes plus 1 rail line (this would be cheaper since it would be a shorter distance and wouldn't have to be widened).

[halifaxboyns]

The question I'm trying to get at is whenever the third crossing is built, it may not be for serving the area around Woodside. But it would be an opportunity to get an LRT/streetcar type service across the harbour (since it wouldn't be able to do so on the other bridges).

Likely what would happen is the LRT would cross through the tunnel and continue onto Penhorn and then service one of the busiest corridors in the suburban areas - Portland Street out to Portland Hills.

But what I'm trying to find out from people is if this would then negate the need for the Woodside ferry?
I'm looking at probably 20 to 30 years out...

[Hali87]

It's hard to say, because in 20 to 30 years Woodside could look totally different than it does now - some major changes would have to happen to make an LRT line to Penhorn worthwhile, though over that time span this kind of growth is certainly not out of the question. If the local population/attractions in Woodside can support the ferry by then even with an LRT station nearby then I say keep it. For some commuters it would still be more convenient/faster, there's the scenic aspect, keeps an extra link in case there's occasional problems in the tunnel, and keeps pressure off the LRT system so it doesn't have to expand as often. If we find ourselves in a situation where cross-harbour LRT is viable then I think we will also find ourselves concerned with more frequent expansion (longer and longer trains, for example, which require platforms to be altered)

[halifaxboyns]

I could easily see keeping the ferry (IMO) - and then Woodside evolving into a office/industrial area; even more so than it is now.

[Hali87]

I could easily see keeping the ferry (IMO) - and then Woodside evolving into a office/industrial area; even more so than it is now.

Adding some residential would help too, as long as there is a master plan for the area that creates a cohesive identity beyond "that place with all the hospitals and the oil refinery". The up-and-coming approach seems to be the creation of a village atmosphere in the "urban/neighbourhood centres" defined in the regional plan. Mill Cove, Birch Cove, Downtown Dartmouth and to a lesser degree, Spryfield and Dutch Village, are focusing on developing viable mixed-use communities that are aesthetically/culturally distinct from the Peninsula. This would not only be better from a planning perspective but would also make the city much more interesting. I imagine Woodside could use this approach as well, and in fact I would say there is an advantage their with the existing ferry and high concentration of institutional uses.

[Wishblade]

I was inspired to look up more Halifax at night videos after mcmclassic posted one in the photos thread and came accross this one taken by CptSchmidt on youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOao-m2H_KA&feature=related

This is for anyone who thinks we don't need a third crossing. Thats unfortunately a lot of car culture there folks.

[Josh M]

I was inspired to look up more Halifax at night videos after mcmclassic posted one in the photos thread and came accross this one taken by CptSchmidt on youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOao-m2H_KA&feature=related

This is for anyone who thinks we don't need a third crossing. Thats unfortunately a lot of car culture there folks.

I don't see how that proves we need a third bridge. That is rush hour, and I can't think of one city that doesn't have traffic during rush hour.

[Wishblade]

I don't see how that proves we need a third bridge. That is rush hour, and I can't think of one city that doesn't have traffic during rush hour.

So we should just sit back and accept it as a given that bad traffic will always happen and theres no reason to solve it?

[alps]

There's no shortage of examples across America that demonstrate that increasing traffic capacity doesn't solve anything in the long run. We need to better address the root of the problem.

[Keith P.]

And there are also plenty of examples that show refusing to upgrade obsolete infrastructure holds back economic growth and progress. There is no question we need better road infrastructure.

[spaustin]

And there are also plenty of examples that show refusing to upgrade obsolete infrastructure holds back economic growth and progress. There is no question we need better road infrastructure.

Where have you been the last 4 decades? 1960s planning has proven to be a colossal flop. There is a case for some real strategic investments in expanding the transportation infrasturcture system, but projects that are aimed at just expanding car capacity are doomed to fail and are ultimately just a waste of everyone's money. In Halifax, getting a shortcut to get the trucks out of the South End would be an example of a good investment. Spending more to make a really effective public transit system would be a good investment. Bike infrastructure is a good investment. Encouraging infill development would be good planning. On the other hand, spending money on things like a widening Bayers Road or a third Harbour Bridge to "solve" a rush hour problem that, comparatively, is really not that bad and only exists for an hour or so a day would be a really ineffective use of limited funds. This is especially true since we've essentially failed to really try any of the potential alternatives.

[Nouvellecosse]

There's no shortage of examples across America that demonstrate that increasing traffic capacity doesn't solve anything in the long run. We need to better address the root of the problem.Yep. There's a common motto quoted by traffic planners that says "Widening roads to solve traffic congestion is like loosening your belt to cure obesity."

Perhaps it's time to put the HRM on a diet.

[Nouvellecosse]

And there are also plenty of examples that show refusing to upgrade obsolete infrastructure holds back economic growth and progress. There is no question we need better road infrastructure.But infrastructure doesn't necessarily mean roads, and upgrade doesn't necessarily mean an increase in capacity.

Infrastructure can also mean things like transit, and upgrades can include improving quality or efficiency.

[fenwick16]

Reducing congestion problems could also be through densifying the urban core.

As far as infrastructure goes, I think that a Northwest Arm crossing needs to be seriously considered. It could get trucks off the peninsula without having to go through the downtown core (if the proper route is chosen). It would also give passenger vehicles an alternate route to reduce traffic tie-ups at the relatively few peninsula exit points.

In any case, now would be a good time to start planning a short LRT system.

[Keith P.]

Yep. There's a common motto quoted by traffic planners that says "Widening roads to solve traffic congestion is like loosening your belt to cure obesity."

That is a tired old chestnut that really needs to be buried once and for all.

In HRM we do not build new roads, have severe congestion, and then traffic spills onto residential streets as shortcutters try to make sense of it all.

Perhaps it's time to put the HRM on a diet.

HRM roads have been on starvation rations for about 5 decades already. We do not build new roadways around here. But we need to.

[Keith P.]

Where have you been the last 4 decades? 1960s planning has proven to be a colossal flop. There is a case for some real strategic investments in expanding the transportation infrasturcture system, but projects that are aimed at just expanding car capacity are doomed to fail and are ultimately just a waste of everyone's money. In Halifax, getting a shortcut to get the trucks out of the South End would be an example of a good investment. Spending more to make a really effective public transit system would be a good investment. Bike infrastructure is a good investment. Encouraging infill development would be good planning. On the other hand, spending money on things like a widening Bayers Road or a third Harbour Bridge to "solve" a rush hour problem that, comparatively, is really not that bad and only exists for an hour or so a day would be a really ineffective use of limited funds. This is especially true since we've essentially failed to really try any of the potential alternatives.

Your anti-road bias is showing.

Widening Bayers Road is obvious. It was designed originally to be widened way back in the 1940s. It is the one main artery onto the peninsula. I don't care if you have a fleet of buses or LRTs in your backyard waiting to go to work, this needs to be done as the city grows.

The 3rd harbour crossing is also worth doing. It would open up the southern part of Dartmouth to much growth and increase land values in that area. It might be the only real solution to the container truck problem you mention (although I am not convinced that pier is in the right place anyway). It could have a dedicated transitway if that makes you feel better.

I am unconvinced that bike infrastructure is anything more than a waste of money.

[RyeJay]

Where have you been the last 4 decades? 1960s planning has proven to be a colossal flop. There is a case for some real strategic investments in expanding the transportation infrasturcture system, but projects that are aimed at just expanding car capacity are doomed to fail and are ultimately just a waste of everyone's money. In Halifax, getting a shortcut to get the trucks out of the South End would be an example of a good investment. Spending more to make a really effective public transit system would be a good investment. Bike infrastructure is a good investment. Encouraging infill development would be good planning. On the other hand, spending money on things like a widening Bayers Road or a third Harbour Bridge to "solve" a rush hour problem that, comparatively, is really not that bad and only exists for an hour or so a day would be a really ineffective use of limited funds. This is especially true since we've essentially failed to really try any of the potential alternatives.

I completely agree.

(And it's because he's stuck in the 1960s)

[someone123]

On the other hand, spending money on things like a widening Bayers Road or a third Harbour Bridge to "solve" a rush hour problem that, comparatively, is really not that bad and only exists for an hour or so a day would be a really ineffective use of limited funds.

I disagree completely with this attitude. Congestion results in a huge cost in terms of lost time, greenhouse gas emissions, etc. with zero benefit. It is horrible for the economy and overall quality of life in the city. The correct way to view the situation is to weigh the costs of transportation investment against the benefits they provide.

The argument that building more roads accomplishes nothing because it induces more traffic doesn't hold water. Travel times drop all the time when new roads are built, and even if the congestion ultimately returns to the same level there is more capacity so more people are traveling and the route is providing more value.

The reality in Halifax is that there's a modal split between different kinds of transportation. Hopefully it can be shifted over time in favour of transit but it's completely unrealistic to expect all new traffic to be accommodated by transit. What about trucks and deliveries, people who live in areas that cannot be served by transit, or people who must make lots of little trips every day for work? What about the buses themselves that add congestion to roads?

Some people don't like the idea of roads, and transit and bike lanes are trendier, but some new road construction is necessary in any growing city.

[Canadian_Bacon]

I'm just going to throw my two cents in.

I think it needs to be a combination of things to improve the Traffic around the harbor and Halifax / Dartmouth. Building a new bridge alone will not solve anything as traffic will increase in the years to come and it too will become congested. What then, build a fourth crossing? I'm not ruling out that a third crossing wouldn't be an option though.

A tunnel is very expensive and costs quite a bit to maintain. So a tunnel is just not a good option in my opinion.

I think expanding/ improving what is in place will help alot. It's obvious that with a growing city the bridges need to expand as well. Maybe even go as far as one bridge being inbound traffic only and the other being outbound. But that wouldnt be practical as alot would need to be done to make that happen.

I do agree that new roads will need to be built to help, but it doesn't mean they have to go overboard with new roads.

Before I go on about this I will just sum my thoughts up. Basically I think there needs to be better city planning, improve what is in place and add more transit options. I will improve my thoughts once I get home and have a larger screen to work with. Writing on an iPhone screen is not helping me at all get my point across.

[spaustin]

Some people don't like the idea of roads, and transit and bike lanes are trendier, but some new road construction is necessary in any growing city.

Of course! I never said that it's zero road construction. All I was getting at is the emphasis in HRM has been way off and is completely counter-productive and wasteful. Maybe I could be convinced that we need another bridge or that Bayers Road needs to be widened if HRM actually tried to improve the efficiency of our existing network. We have next to zero bus rapid transit, our active transportation system is a scattershot network that doesn't connect to anything, commuter rail is still a dream and we have three ancient ferries. Heck, we don't even have a mass transit connection to the airport (I know coming eventually). While more efficient public transit options languish, we're busy looking at spending billions on Bayers and a third bridge. How does that make any sense? Spend billions on facilitating single-vehicle car commuting and yet we can't even come up with $100 million for a fast ferry to Bedford. How sad is that? To extend the diet metaphor that's bouncing around here, HRM's on its second heart attack and instead of dieting, still wants to eat cake and pie every day.

Unfortunately, transportation is just one part of a much bigger problem. Our tax system punishes the Downtown, encouraging sprawl and encouraging more car commuting. Why build Downtown when you can pay half the taxes, enjoy free parking and lots of subsidized infrastructure in the burbs? Our planning regime says some nice warm and fuzzy words, but lacks the teeth to actually change anything (Bayers Lake II, this time with sidewalks). Try and build something Downtown and it's a huge fight whereas you can throw up whatever ugly box you want in the burbs, bulldoze some forest and no one cares. It's all very disheartening as we're sapping the vibrancy right out of our city and are paying more in taxes to do it. HRM has tried nothing and is apparently all out of ideas. The way we're going, we're going to continue to punch below our potential.

[Jstaleness]

Unfortunately, transportation is just one part of a much bigger problem. Our tax system punishes the Downtown, encouraging sprawl and encouraging more car commuting. Why build Downtown when you can pay half the taxes, enjoy free parking and lots of subsidized infrastructure in the burbs? Our planning regime says some nice warm and fuzzy words, but lacks the teeth to actually change anything (Bayers Lake II, this time with sidewalks). Try and build something Downtown and it's a huge fight whereas you can throw up whatever ugly box you want in the burbs, bulldoze some forest and no one cares. It's all very disheartening as we're sapping the vibrancy right out of our city and are paying more in taxes to do it. HRM has tried nothing and is apparently all out of ideas. The way we're going, we're going to continue to punch below our potential.

I didn't agree with everything you have said in some of the previous posts, but what you said above I agree with 100%.

[Keith P.]

I'm definitely open to the idea of a NW arm crossing, but I'm not sure I see the logic in not wanting a harbour crossing to be transit only or have a dedicated transit component because the crossing would be an expensive project. I mean, if its expensive we should want to get as much out of it as possible shouldn't we? And two lanes of transit could easily as move as many or more people as 4-6 lanes of general road space.

As far as rerouting the trucks, sure that would be nice, but for the kinda $$$ we're talking about I think we can safely say there are much higher priorities.

Your concept only makes sense if transit is used to reasonably high capacity. This will not happen because MT runs a very poor service and people only use it as a last resort. I firmly oppose adding anything to the existing MT operation because it will be hijacked by the miserable ATU. Until we figure out a different way to run mass transit in this town, in a way that eliminates the ATU and the bus-only mindset of current MT management, your idea would be one of the biggest boondoggles in history.

[Josh M]

So we should just sit back and accept it as a given that bad traffic will always happen and theres no reason to solve it?

I am not saying that we should sit back and accept it, but I don't understand how a third bridge will fix rush hour traffic.

[Jstaleness]

I am not saying that we should sit back and accept it, but I don't understand how a third bridge will fix rush hour traffic.

If placed on the south ends it would reduce the amount of Eastern Passage and Woodside traffic that use the current Bridges now. I believe strongly that it will help but at what point does it become too costly to bother?

[Josh M]

If placed on the south ends it would reduce the amount of Eastern Passage and Woodside traffic that use the current Bridges now. I believe strongly that it will help but at what point does it become too costly to bother?

I'm not saying that it wouldn't reduce traffic, but I'm saying that there is always going to be heavy traffic during rush hour. I think that a third bridge would be too expensive and we should look at maybe improving our current bridges if that is possible. Maybe have two levels so that each could in different directions.

[Keith P.]

I'm not saying that it wouldn't reduce traffic, but I'm saying that there is always going to be heavy traffic during rush hour. I think that a third bridge would be too expensive and we should look at maybe improving our current bridges if that is possible. Maybe have two levels so that each could in different directions.

From what I understand, the MacDonald bridge cannot be expanded any further without being replaced by a new structure. However, you make a good point regarding improvements. While they are just bandaids, some comparatively simple changes could help.

The approaches at either end of the MacDonald are straight out of the 1950s. On the Dartmouth side, an elevated toll plaza over Wyse Road to eliminate the traffic signals would help greatly. The same holds true for a way for traffic to turn left onto Wyse without backing up onto the bridge. Widening the Dartmouth end to reduce the restriction just prior to the toll plaza would also be a good move. On the Halifax side, eliminating the pedestrian crosswalk or building an elevated roadway over it would help a great deal, although dumping so much of the traffic onto the cartpath known as North St is always going to be a problem. Still, I think some smart design could increase capacity greatly.

The problem with the MacKay is of course the disaster known as the Windsor St exchange. A grade-separated interchange is the only solution to that mess. That should be combined with a proper connection to the Bicentennial Highway/102 that eliminates the use of Joe Howe and other surface streets.

[spaustin]

From what I understand, the MacDonald bridge cannot be expanded any further without being replaced by a new structure. However, you make a good point regarding improvements. While they are just bandaids, some comparatively simple changes could help.

The approaches at either end of the MacDonald are straight out of the 1950s. On the Dartmouth side, an elevated toll plaza over Wyse Road to eliminate the traffic signals would help greatly. The same holds true for a way for traffic to turn left onto Wyse without backing up onto the bridge. Widening the Dartmouth end to reduce the restriction just prior to the toll plaza would also be a good move. On the Halifax side, eliminating the pedestrian crosswalk or building an elevated roadway over it would help a great deal, although dumping so much of the traffic onto the cartpath known as North St is always going to be a problem. Still, I think some smart design could increase capacity greatly.

The problem with the MacKay is of course the disaster known as the Windsor St exchange. A grade-separated interchange is the only solution to that mess. That should be combined with a proper connection to the Bicentennial Highway/102 that eliminates the use of Joe Howe and other surface streets.

Don't forget the bike ramp ;) It too is poorly designed. There is no good way to get onto it at the Dartmouth side and on the Halifax side it dumps cyclist onto 4 lanes of fast-moving Barrington Street where you're really risking your neck. The bike lane should connect to Brunswick. Brunswick is a nice calm ride out of the hustle and bustle of traffic, at a good elevation and even has a bike lane for a couple of blocks by the Citadel. To get cyclists onto Brunswick, it might make sense to flip the pedestrian and bike lanes and then build a pedestrian bridge at the end of the existing bike lane so that pedestrians don't have to go down to Barrington (I suspect it's easier to build a pedestrian bridge than a bike bridge). If Brunswick doesn't work, maybe a bike bridge could be built to get cyclists up to Gottingen from the existing lane. Gottingen is one the potential Crosstown Connector routes, which, if built could make for a major improvement in bike infrastructure because we would actually have the makings of a network instead of bits and pieces. Big hitch is all the bus traffic north bound on it though.

[Keith P.]

If you are going to the trouble of building overpasses at either end the Halifax end of the bike lane could probably be fixed. I agree that the current configuration is ridiculous. Flipping the pedestrian and bike lanes might be a good idea.

[RyeJay]

Modifications to the existing bridges should be done prior to considerations of a third crossing. What is absolutely vital, though, is a focus of our money toward urbanising so that we may get to the root of our traffic problems. Before building a third bridge, we need to have a reformed tax code so that new development is encouraged toward the core; we also need to invest in numerous forms (not just bus) of public transit.

We may discover that a third crossing is not needed upon these other investments -- and this could save us a lot of money, relieve our traffic frustrations at least slightly, and help reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, all while further encouraging a healthy culture of walking, not just for peninsular Haligonians but for suburbanite public transit users as well.

[DigitalNinja]

The current implementation of bike lanes sucks as it is. It's dangerous for the cyclists and is confusing to drivers.

The thought that roads don't need to be expanded is wrong. And the thought that we don't need more/better public transit is wrong as well.

I still think something like the Toyama tram would be great in Halifax! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyama_Light_Rail_Toyamak%C5%8D_Line

[someone123]

Modifications to the existing bridges should be done prior to considerations of a third crossing.

The HDBC mentions modifications and twinning of the MacKay in the third crossing report. The Macdonald has already been modified pretty substantially (third lane and reversing lanes), and the MacKay twin is less desirable than a southern crossing. My impression is that improvements might help, but that none of them will produce gains proportional to the amount of growth that the city has experienced. There will be a need for either another crossing or additional far-flung suburbs on the outskirts of Bedford (which may in any case result in pushing forward plans like 102 widening that won't be far off from the cost of the bridge and will NOT be paid for by tolls). Opposition to the third crossing based on the idea that we need less suburban development is probably misguided.

I think bike lanes and so on are like alternative energy sources such as solar or wind turbines. They're great and are useful in a certain niche (I've biked to work a lot in Vancouver). Maybe Halifax can have 5% or 7% bike traffic, or even more in the summer months. Bikes will not be replacing cars and buses, however.

To put things into perspective, population growth is around 1.3% per year and may increase in the future. This means that a great bike network might push off the need for road infrastructure by a few years at most. In reality most solutions are an order of magnitude or more off from what is required. Transit is more substantial but I think it had (pre-strike) something like an 11% share of commuters. To keep congestion stable the transit system would have to grow in ridership by 10-20% every year. Needless to say, that's not what's been happening in Halifax. It might be feasible with a well-planned LRT system but unfortunately that's not even on the table right now. Putting off a bridge for an imaginary transit system is not reasonable.

Realistically I don't think a third crossing is a bad idea if it is handled properly. If they do a six-lane crossing that gets trucks off downtown streets, has a HOV/transit lane, and is supported by tolls, it could be great for the city.

[Nouvellecosse]

To put things into perspective, population growth is around 1.3% per year and may increase in the future. This means that a great bike network might push off the need for road infrastructure by a few years at most. In reality most solutions are an order of magnitude or more off from what is required. Transit is more substantial but I think it had (pre-strike) something like an 11% share of commuters. To keep congestion stable the transit system would have to grow in ridership by 10-20% every year. Needless to say, that's not what's been happening in Halifax. It might be feasible with a well-planned LRT system but unfortunately that's not even on the table right now. Putting off a bridge for an imaginary transit system is not reasonable.

Realistically I don't think a third crossing is a bad idea if it is handled properly. If they do a six-lane crossing that gets trucks off downtown streets, has a HOV/transit lane, and is supported by tolls, it could be great for the city.I think you'll find though that transit usage is strongly affected by the ease in which people can get around by automobile. When there is little incentive to use alternatives, transit usage remains low. But when car usage becomes either too expensive or less convenient due to either congestion or lack of parking, then transit usage increases. Mode share should not be viewed as a variable independent of and unchangeable by planning.

Honestly, I think the path Halifax has been taking over the last couple decades is very undesirable in terms of the percentage of suburban/car depended development (not specifically development in the suburbs, but the exceptionally poor way it's been done), and remedying this is not going to be easy. I remember watching documentaries about the Big Dig and seeing the state of traffic leading up to the project. It was said that rush hour had become some 16 hours per day which I found unimaginable. But when visiting Toronto and seeing how congested the Gardiner is. it's not quite so surprising. If we really think our traffic problems are serious because traffic is backed up an hour in the morning and an hour in the evening and use this justify increasing road space, then nothing is ever going to change. We'll get the bridge and a decade or so after it's open, the extra capacity will induce enough demand to congest it to the same degree as the bridges are now. And nothing will ever change.

Now I'm under no illusions that the one action of not making a new bridge will single handedly solve all sprawl and auto dependency problems. Alone it will do little but cause congestion on the bridges to increase. The problem obviously has multiple long term causes and will require multiple equally long term solutions. But we need to remember that the problem is not the congestion which is only a symptom of it. And knee-jerk reacting every time roads get a little congested and thinking adding capacity is the only option is only surrendering to the problem rather than solving it.

[Nouvellecosse]

Your concept only makes sense if transit is used to reasonably high capacity. This will not happen because MT runs a very poor service and people only use it as a last resort. I firmly oppose adding anything to the existing MT operation because it will be hijacked by the miserable ATU. Until we figure out a different way to run mass transit in this town, in a way that eliminates the ATU and the bus-only mindset of current MT management, your idea would be one of the biggest boondoggles in history.I agree that MT is not ideal, but you seem to be just writing off transit and concluding that due to MT's problems, the only viable mode of transportation is the automobile. Don't you think we should be putting more effort into fixing it rather than just abandoning it? Especially considering how much more expensive and less efficient automobile transportation is relative to mass transit.

[Nouvellecosse]

When I hear about how dire our infrastructure issues are, I always find it interesting to compare the HRM to other cities. In 2001, Dartmouth had a population of about 65,000 and Cole Harbour had 25,000. Based on growth trends, we can assume the combined areas have reached 100,000 by now. Montreal's South Shore suburbs had a combined population of 712,172 in 2006. There are 7 road lanes connecting Dartmouth and Cole Harbour to Halifax, and 23 lanes connecting the South Shore to Montreal. In order for them to have a proportional number of road lanes as us, they'd need to more than double theirs to about 49. How do they manage? Well, I suspect having two commuter train routes a metro line, and 2 bike routes probably helps.

The situation is a little less extreme in Greater Vancouver. Their North Shore suburbs had a combined population of about 175,000 in 2006, and there are 9 road lanes connecting them to Vancouver. In order for them to have as many lanes per capita as us, they'd need just over 12.

[Keith P.]

I think you'll find though that transit usage is strongly affected by the ease in which people can get around by automobile. When there is little incentive to use alternatives, transit usage remains low. But when car usage becomes either too expensive or less convenient due to either congestion or lack of parking, then transit usage increases. Mode share should not be viewed as a variable independent of and unchangeable by planning.


I have never understood the desire by some to cause congestion and delay as an incentive to make people use transit. That seems extremely wrong-headed. Especially in HRM with the bus-only mindset of MT, causing congestion by refusing to upgrade our obsolete road infrastructure is self-defeating since buses get trapped in that congestion and become even less attractive to users.

It is a complex problem and no single answer will solve it. Part of it comes from offering other modes of transit other than buses on our existing roads, such as rail. Some of the answer comes from rethinking the existing bus route structure to remove the endless parade of buses along Barrington St and the poorly designed routings that many routes have. And part of it comes from fixing our road infrastructure to accommodate the growth we have had since the 1950s when our current roads were largely built. Saying that it will all be OK if only we had bike lanes and trails for people to walk 10km to work, as some do, instead of a practical and workable solution involving all of the moving parts of the equation is just silly.

[someone123]

I think you'll find though that transit usage is strongly affected by the ease in which people can get around by automobile. When there is little incentive to use alternatives, transit usage remains low. But when car usage becomes either too expensive or less convenient due to either congestion or lack of parking, then transit usage increases. Mode share should not be viewed as a variable independent of and unchangeable by planning.

Well, I talked about mode share going up. My point is that we're not going to get the mode of transportation that works for the 3% to grow overnight to handle a significant percentage of overall traffic.

It is too bad that much of Halifax was poorly developed, but that is the reality. A certain percentage have no alternative to their cars because of where they live, where their job is located, the nature of their job, etc. As Keith P. says it is a complex problem and I hear far too many facile prescriptions for just dealing with it or making it go away with infill (that is hard to even build). Part of the solution is going to include new roadways.

[Hali87]

I have never understood the desire by some to cause congestion and delay as an incentive to make people use transit. That seems extremely wrong-headed. Especially in HRM with the bus-only mindset of MT, causing congestion by refusing to upgrade our obsolete road infrastructure is self-defeating since buses get trapped in that congestion and become even less attractive to users.

It is a complex problem and no single answer will solve it. Part of it comes from offering other modes of transit other than buses on our existing roads, such as rail. Some of the answer comes from rethinking the existing bus route structure to remove the endless parade of buses along Barrington St and the poorly designed routings that many routes have. And part of it comes from fixing our road infrastructure to accommodate the growth we have had since the 1950s when our current roads were largely built. Saying that it will all be OK if only we had bike lanes and trails for people to walk 10km to work, as some do, instead of a practical and workable solution involving all of the moving parts of the equation is just silly.

I agree that there are some people who literally do think that we should actively increase congestion because this will make driving less attractive and "force" people to choose other modes of transportation. I think this is misguided. A subtly different approach that I agree with much more is simply to stop making it easier for people to get around by car, while continuing to make it easier to get around in other ways. Sometimes this comes at the expense of automobile traffic, but in these cases there must be measures put in place to mitigate the increased difficulty for drivers. Throughout much of the 20th century, in Halifax as well as in most North American cities, the automobile had an overwhelming priority. While we don't need to make it hard to drive just for the sake of making it hard to drive, we do need to take the car off its pedestal in many cases.

One example would be putting a bus lane on Bayers Road without providing extra non-bus-only lanes. Depending how this is done, car capacity would be the same as it is now, or somewhat lower. But the net capacity of the road would be significantly higher because buses use space more efficiently. Because the buses would be much faster, people would be more inclined to use them.

Another approach would be to remove on-street parking from some streets downtown and turn lanes that were previously used for parking to transit-only. Again, this is simply a more efficient use of space, and since it would significantly improve the efficiency of transit, it could be a good pay-off. Eliminating the on-street parking and using this space to plant flowers or something would not be a good trade-off, in terms of traffic flow; it would make it harder to drive but would not offer any alternative.

[HalifaxRetales]

http://www.novascotiawebcams.com/halifax/mackay-bridge.html

new cam of MacKay

[q12]

http://www.novascotiawebcams.com/halifax/mackay-bridge.html

new cam of MacKay

Awesome! Long overdue!

We need more traffic cameras on the major artieries in this city. That way you can try to avoid spending and hour and a half trying to cross the the harbour in rush hour with an accident on one of the bridges.