Third Harbour Crossing

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by ILoveHalifax

Except when the elected councillor is so blatantly NOT OBJECTIVE.

Well, it's not really possible for a councilor to be totally objective. Would you prefer he lived in Toronto like our CAO?

We don't necessarily "need" those bridges. Obviously you would like them. A lot of people wouldn't. The city will grow differently with or without them, and the South End is growing and is already one of the densest parts of Atlantic Canada... You and the councilor just have different visions for the city's future I guess, and while neither of them are exactly aligned with mine, his is closer and (in my limited experience as a planning graduate) I would say that Waye's are more reflective of contemporary planning theory than "someone who lives in the neighbourhood and doesn't want it to change". I can't say I agree with every vote/decision he's made but that's the nature of politics. It seems like he takes a lot of unjustified hate and abuse here. There is more than one way of growing a city and there's more than one way of improving it.

If you expect it to ever look just like Vancouver here, you're in for a long wait (moving to Vancouver would be a more realistic approach).

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by ILoveHalifax

DUH!!!!
Now why would the illustrious councillor want all the crossings in the north end? Could it be because he lives in the south end and does not want the traffic on their streets?
Such special people, wanting to live in a city but without traffic or noise. He will do just about anything to avoid hi-rises in their area as well.
It makes no sense that everybody drives to the north of Dartmouth every morning and nobody drives to the south and they all cross to Halifax that has everybody driving south every morning and nobody driving north. We could widen the 111 similar to the 401 to accommodate and then they can crawl down Robie or Barrington single file.
Does the illustrious councillor have a conflict of interest or has he gone mad?

So if anything, what we should be doing is distributing employment areas a bit better so people aren't all driving to/from the same places every rush hour. There's no reason everyone in Dartmouth needs to work in Downtown Halifax (and in fact they don't...). Or we could encourage employers to stagger their work days.. Or we could add more ferries... there are probably dozens of solutions that would be less destructive and much much less expensive than building a 3rd harbour crossing. Building a Windsor St. Exchange - South would be the worst thing to happen to the Peninsula since Cogswell and/or the original Windsor St. Exchange...

I would absolutely support a NWArm bridge if:

- It has minimal effects on the navigability of the NorthWest Arm
- It is primarily/only for pedestrians and transit
- It comes with a master planned, transit-oriented development on the other end.

I'd actually prefer to see a gondola (as in Whistler, not Venice) across the NW Arm rather than a bridge, personally.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Hali87

So if anything, what we should be doing is distributing employment areas a bit better so people aren't all driving to/from the same places every rush hour. There's no reason everyone in Dartmouth needs to work in Downtown Halifax (and in fact they don't...). Or we could encourage employers to stagger their work days.. Or we could add more ferries... there are probably dozens of solutions that would be less destructive and much much less expensive than building a 3rd harbour crossing. Building a Windsor St. Exchange - South would be the worst thing to happen to the Peninsula since Cogswell and/or the original Windsor St. Exchange...

I would absolutely support a NWArm bridge if:

- It has minimal effects on the navigability of the NorthWest Arm
- It is primarily/only for pedestrians and transit
- It comes with a master planned, transit-oriented development on the other end.

I'd actually prefer to see a gondola (as in Whistler, not Venice) across the NW Arm rather than a bridge, personally.

Is this the kind of stuff they teach in planning school these days?

It is totally impractical and quite foolish. A pedestrian bridge across the Arm? You cannot be serious. Even in the 18th century they would have built one for horses and carts.

[TheNovaScotian]

Originally Posted by Hali87

So if anything, what we should be doing is distributing employment areas a bit better so people aren't all driving to/from the same places every rush hour. There's no reason everyone in Dartmouth needs to work in Downtown Halifax (and in fact they don't...). Or we could encourage employers to stagger their work days.. Or we could add more ferries... there are probably dozens of solutions that would be less destructive and much much less expensive than building a 3rd harbour crossing. Building a Windsor St. Exchange - South would be the worst thing to happen to the Peninsula since Cogswell and/or the original Windsor St. Exchange...

I would absolutely support a NWArm bridge if:

- It has minimal effects on the navigability of the NorthWest Arm
- It is primarily/only for pedestrians and transit
- It comes with a master planned, transit-oriented development on the other end.

I'd actually prefer to see a gondola (as in Whistler, not Venice) across the NW Arm rather than a bridge, personally.

I agree with the line of thinking, but in most of the studies the city has done it points to a 3rd crossing being unavoidable. Considering they're trying to achieve only 25% of the growth in HRM to happen downtown, that means there will be even more suburban and rural commuters on the roads. Moving the area's of employment is not an option realistically and would further exacerbate the decentralization of the city.

The fundamentals of HRM's bureaucratic ideals are so intrinsically based off of weak kneed reactionism, it has damaged the psyche of an entire generation of Haligonians and has kept this city thinking small. There needs to be a shift in how this city plans for the future. We used to be pioneers now we can't even keep up with the Jones. An innovative city's attracts innovative citizens.
A gondola system would work great crossing the NW Arm, you would need to carry it over Pt. Pleasant then cross into Woodside to make it convenient. Having a terminal there, for the eventual LRT I always envisioned, along the Circumferential to the other end or Burnside at least.
I've tried to find fault in it but keep finding advantages. If we get a heavy snowfall, it's worth it's weight in gold. I've seen a lot of different ways like in Rio where it's in a highly urban area and has transformed life in the favelas for so many. The cost would be a fraction of a new bridge and could have a couple footings on Georges for an eventual stop there. The footings are fairly unintrusive compared to one for a 6 lane suspension bridge called the Gloria McCluskey

[worldlyhaligonian]

All the traffic comes in north of the Arm, so why would an Arm crossing be needed? If anything, the lack of capacity on Bayers Rd is the culprit of most traffic coming into downtown.

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Is this the kind of stuff they teach in planning school these days?

It is totally impractical and quite foolish. A pedestrian bridge across the Arm? You cannot be serious. Even in the 18th century they would have built one for horses and carts.

No, a bridge for pedestrians and transit. Obviously not the same.

As for whether it's what they teach in planning school, yes, sort of, but not really. The transportation engineers would probably be 100% for a 3rd crossing. Those focused on local history would point out that much of the highway infrastructure was put in place with the assumptions that there would be a south Harbour crossing and a Northwest Arm bridge.

What they do tend to encourage is critical thinking, creativity, looking at how things are done in other parts of the world, and not repeating the worst mistakes of the last several decades. Ideas like demolishing a few blocks of old housing in the South End to make way for a bridge would almost universally be seen as bad now. Coming up with alternatives to a 3rd bridge (even if the bridge is ultimately built) would almost universally be seen as good. Ultimately all of the profs were from different places (geographically) and had different areas of expertise, and probably wouldn't all agree on this

I'm not saying that a third harbour crossing shouldn't be built under any circumstances, but I think it should be a last resort, not the default option.

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

All the traffic comes in north of the Arm, so why would an Arm crossing be needed? If anything, the lack of capacity on Bayers Rd is the culprit of most traffic coming into downtown.

Presumably new developments would shift to Mainland South (in a dream world where transportation and land use planning are coordinated). Many of the Clayton Park/Bedford commuters going to the South End could continue south down Dunbrack/NWAD and access the South End via the new bridge instead (yes, using transit.)

Or how about this - a NW Arm crossing for pedestrians, AT, transit, and trucks? The trucks could be diverted from the South End across the bridge and then to the 102 via NW Arm Drive. If people still wanted the gondola, pedestrians could use that and the bridge could just be for transit and trucks.

[Nouvellecosse]

Aparently a gondola lift system is capable of over 5000 passengers per hour per direction.

http://www.doppelmayr.com/en/products/3s-gondola-lift/

That's like a bus less than once per minute. They don't go very fast... but certainly faster than being stuck in traffic.

[ILoveHalifax]

WTF, the gondolas look like the answer to traffic in Halifax. How about we replace all the buses with gondolas up and down every street. They could be above Bayers Rd. We could have parking garages out in Bedford, Sackville and everybody could gondola in from there. Hopefully all cars and trucks could be eliminated from the peninsula and the bridges could become a thing of the past.
Why have the planners been keeping this secret for so long?

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by ILoveHalifax

WTF, the gondolas look like the answer to traffic in Halifax. How about we replace all the buses with gondolas up and down every street. They could be above Bayers Rd. We could have parking garages out in Bedford, Sackville and everybody could gondola in from there. Hopefully all cars and trucks could be eliminated from the peninsula and the bridges could become a thing of the past.
Why have the planners been keeping this secret for so long?

Thanks, it wasn't really a proposal to solve all the city's traffic woes, just something I thought would work in a specific site. Glad you seem to like it! It would not make sense to have these going down every street though. If you were in fact being sarcastic, could you at least explain why you think it wouldn't work, specifically across the Northwest Arm?

Planners haven't brought this up before because generally they were discouraged from doing anything creative for a really long time. Halifax would not be the first city in North America to use a gondola as public transportation, not even the first in Canada.


edit: on first reading I assumed you were being sarcastic, but then I read it again and I legitimately can't tell. If you're being sincere, I'd say that this is probably too much.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by ILoveHalifax

WTF, the gondolas look like the answer to traffic in Halifax. How about we replace all the buses with gondolas up and down every street. They could be above Bayers Rd. We could have parking garages out in Bedford, Sackville and everybody could gondola in from there. Hopefully all cars and trucks could be eliminated from the peninsula and the bridges could become a thing of the past.
Why have the planners been keeping this secret for so long?

LOL. But keep in mind, in Halifax there would be issues: Some would complain the gondola towers are TOO TALL! Others would not want unsightly gondolas blocking the view down the Arm from Joe Howe Drive. Wildlife activists would complain gondolas would be hazardous to the bird population. The EAC would want the gondolas powered only by SUSTAINABLE sources of energy, perhaps the tides. Cyclists would demand special bike gondolas just for them. The Fire Department would need millions of dollars to design and build gondola rescue apparatus. Passengers would complain that Transit somehow made no gondolas arrive for 40 minutes when suddenly 3 arrive simultaneously. All gondolas would be routed to travel above Barrington St regardless of destination. Gondola operators would demand "Sky Rooms" where they could go to smoke and use the bathroom. And of course, the NIMBY brigade would rise up and decry the presence of gondolas over the South End, complaining that we have built a "gondola culture" in Halifax that needs to be quashed. Meanwhile, suburbanites would demand bigger and faster gondolas to take them to the malls and shorten their commute time to downtown. I'm afraid gondolas would soon just become a car without wheels.

[MonctonRad]

[Hali87]

Well, that escalated quickly.

[IanWatson]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

LOL. But keep in mind, in Halifax there would be issues:...

Well that was my morning smile of the day. Thanks!

[OldDartmouthMark]

Keith P.: humourous post.

ILoveHalifax: not so much. Quite the opposite in fact.

Hali87: keep up with the creative ideas. It's that kind of thinking that keeps us out of the dark ages. Intriguing idea, really.

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Keith P.: humourous post.

ILoveHalifax: not so much. Quite the opposite in fact.

Hali87: keep up with the creative ideas. It's that kind of thinking that keeps us out of the dark ages. Intriguing idea, really.

Thanks! It's nice to get feedback beyond just sarcasm.

[Nouvellecosse]

I hope this thread doesn't get too bogged down by bickering. If you call out someone's poor behaviour, you can't expect them to simply accept it. People don't behave poorly because they don't know their behaviour is wrong, but because they genuinely believe such behaviour is acceptable. When I called out the forumer for his or her inappropriate attack on councillor Mason's objectivity, it wasn't because I was expecting them to redact it; it was because I didn't want to be part of a silent majority, as silent majorities basically constitute a de-facto statement of acceptance (so not saying anything means you find it acceptable). I instead wanted to show councillor Mason any onlookers in the thread that not everyone agrees with such behaviour. And as expected, the forumer brushed it off, but my objection remained in the public sphere to serve its intended purpose.

So in other words, can't everyone just say their piece and move on??

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

So in other words, can't everyone just say their piece and move on??

I'm just sitting here anxiously awaiting the arrival of the bike gondolas.

[Nouvellecosse]

But anyway, the idea of urban cable cars has been around for awhile now. I remember some guy posted an article about it in the Toronto section of SSC over 5 years ago.

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1034995

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

I'm just sitting here anxiously awaiting the arrival of the bike gondolas.

Well, I'll make it my #1 priority in life

That said, if I ever end up working for the municipality, I'll no longer be posting on this forum.