Third Harbour Crossing

[hfxtradesman]

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

[Haliguy]

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

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

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

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

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

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by Haliguy

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

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

[Haliguy]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

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

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

[someone123]

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

[worldlyhaligonian]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Dmajackson]

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

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by Dmajackson

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

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

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

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

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

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

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

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

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

[spaustin]

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

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by spaustin

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

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

[terrynorthend]

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

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

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

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by spaustin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[fenwick16]

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

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

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

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

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

[reddog794]

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

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

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

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

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

my pocket change on the discussion

[spaustin]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

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

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

Originally Posted by Keith P.

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

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

Originally Posted by Keith P.

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

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

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

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

Originally Posted by Keith P.

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

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

[planarchy]

Originally Posted by reddog794

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

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

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

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

[reddog794]

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

[spaustin]

Originally Posted by terrynorthend

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

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

Originally Posted by terrynorthend

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

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

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