HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Atlantic Provinces > Halifax > Transportation & Infrastructure


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Mar 26, 2008, 10:28 PM
Keith P.'s Avatar
Keith P. Keith P. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 7,964
Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123 View Post
The alignments presented in the report integrate well with the road network on both sides and wouldn't require disturbing existing neighbourhoods much.
Naturally, that didn't stop the CBC from immediately setting up camp on the southernmost block of Robie St and interviewing residents who, of course, are opposed to any change. I didn't realize last might that the report recommended a Robie st. demarcation, which makes considerable sense. They also suggest that for an additional $100 mil you could go underground for a stretch, as I suggested, to minimize impact on that part of town. I like it. Make the tunnel entry at South, or even better, at University Ave.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Mar 27, 2008, 2:06 AM
spaustin's Avatar
spaustin spaustin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Downtown Dartmouth
Posts: 705
I commented on the Herald already, but I'll say it again here, a third bridge/tunnel would be a huge mistake. All another bridge is going to do is set off a even greater cascade of low-density sprawl development in Cole Harbour and Eastern Passage. In only a few years of opening it would be congested and rush hour would be as slow as it currently is on the other bridges. There is no solution to traffic congestion. History has shown that repeatedly and clearly. You have to accept congestion because only with congestion will people actually build up instead of out. This third bridge proposal is a billion dollar waste of money to solve a problem that can't be fixed and to allow sprawl, the type of development HRM's plans are trying to avoid! It would make so much more sense to plug that billion into transit. Just think what we could do with a billion dollar transit investment. We could have 2-4 new ferry routes!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Mar 27, 2008, 2:47 AM
Wishblade's Avatar
Wishblade Wishblade is offline
You talkin' to me?
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Calgary, AB
Posts: 1,322
Quote:
Originally Posted by spaustin View Post
I commented on the Herald already, but I'll say it again here, a third bridge/tunnel would be a huge mistake. All another bridge is going to do is set off a even greater cascade of low-density sprawl development in Cole Harbour and Eastern Passage. In only a few years of opening it would be congested and rush hour would be as slow as it currently is on the other bridges. There is no solution to traffic congestion. History has shown that repeatedly and clearly. You have to accept congestion because only with congestion will people actually build up instead of out. This third bridge proposal is a billion dollar waste of money to solve a problem that can't be fixed and to allow sprawl, the type of development HRM's plans are trying to avoid! It would make so much more sense to plug that billion into transit. Just think what we could do with a billion dollar transit investment. We could have 2-4 new ferry routes!
Would you prefer the sprawl continue to endlessly spiral to the north? With the current situation, this bridge would probably encourage density moreso than the status quo.

But anyway you look at it, another bridge has to be built. With population increases, and the fact that people will never leave the automobile, its a necessity.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Mar 27, 2008, 2:57 AM
spaustin's Avatar
spaustin spaustin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Downtown Dartmouth
Posts: 705
Sprawl won't endlessly spiral North. It'll hit a limit sooner or later if we don't provide the roads to enable it. There will always be development around the fringe but there is a difference between some development and the kind that Dartmouth saw after the completion of the first bridge! I'm afraid that you're incorrect about people in cars. Granted, it's really difficult to get people out of their cars, but it is possible. Unfortunately, it requires unconventional measures, many of which aren't politically popular, but it is possible. It may, however, become easier to do though in the coming decades as the era of cheap energy comes to an end.

Honestly, I'm kind of surprised by the reaction to this story on this board. I think its fair to say that most people on skyscraper forums prefer taller denser buildings. However, hardly anybody here seems to get what another bridge will mean for development in this city.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Mar 27, 2008, 4:19 AM
Dmajackson's Avatar
Dmajackson Dmajackson is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: B3K Halifax, NS
Posts: 9,294
Knowing this city and our vieplane obesession i cannot see a bridge obstructing the view on McNab's Island getting passed. If i had to choose i would say the tunnel or the BRT. The BRT sounds resonable cuz its cheaper and with a complete circuit they could provide quicker service downtown. With a direct bus from lets say Russell Lake West (Baker Drive) one could get downtown in ten minutes at the most and as long as they keep the fares reasonable the ridership rate would go through the roof. They could have a circ route like the report states, called the Urban-Loop (U-Loop) or something cooler.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Mar 27, 2008, 4:27 AM
Wishblade's Avatar
Wishblade Wishblade is offline
You talkin' to me?
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Calgary, AB
Posts: 1,322
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bedford_DJ View Post
Knowing this city and our vieplane obesession i cannot see a bridge obstructing the view on McNab's Island getting passed. If i had to choose i would say the tunnel or the BRT. The BRT sounds resonable cuz its cheaper and with a complete circuit they could provide quicker service downtown. With a direct bus from lets say Russell Lake West (Baker Drive) one could get downtown in ten minutes at the most and as long as they keep the fares reasonable the ridership rate would go through the roof. They could have a circ route like the report states, called the Urban-Loop (U-Loop) or something cooler.
That's why this harbor view argument should be tossed out the window. It's causing too many problems that aren't worth the stunting of growth its causing.

But I can't see as many people complaining about the tunnel idea as much as the bridge. I would actually almost prefer the tunnel over the bridge. less exposure to the elements means less maintenance and a more pleasant commute.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Mar 27, 2008, 4:46 AM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is offline
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 33,673
The current bridges are attractive landmarks. There's no reason why a new bridge wouldn't be the same. It would block views of McNab's but not George's Island.

The problem with the tunnel option is that it costs roughly double for the same number of lanes. A 4 lane tunnel would be something like $1.4B vs $1.1B for a six lane bridge.

The bridge = sprawl talk is horrendously oversimplified. It is not true that growth in Halifax is some zero sum game and that if no new roads are built towers will spring up instead of houses. That may happen to some degree but there's also a huge penalty in the case of a city like Halifax. Many people would just move somewhere else.

As I've said many times, I also think it's wrong to think of this as a "car" project. It's a way of providing better connectivity within core parts of the city for many different kinds of traffic, including pedestrians, cyclists, buses, and trucks. Even if you go to a city like Hong Kong you will find roads and bridges - they are a fundamental, essential part of every city.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Mar 27, 2008, 5:36 AM
Helladog's Avatar
Helladog Helladog is offline
Unregistered Loser
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: NB
Posts: 1,345
I like the tunnel idea. You could put 4-6 lanes down there with bus lanes which could be converted to subway track when needed in the future.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Mar 27, 2008, 10:11 AM
Keith P.'s Avatar
Keith P. Keith P. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 7,964
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bedford_DJ View Post
Knowing this city and our vieplane obesession i cannot see a bridge obstructing the view on McNab's Island getting passed.
Fortunately as a provincial body the ridiculous viewplanes do not apply. In any event, you are not creating an obstruction to the views of the harbour; you in fact are adding to the views. Imagine something along the lines of the Zakim Bunker Hill bridge in Boston, only on a much larger scale. It would become an icon of the city.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted Mar 27, 2008, 10:16 AM
Keith P.'s Avatar
Keith P. Keith P. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 7,964
Quote:
Originally Posted by spaustin View Post
Sprawl won't endlessly spiral North. It'll hit a limit sooner or later if we don't provide the roads to enable it. There will always be development around the fringe but there is a difference between some development and the kind that Dartmouth saw after the completion of the first bridge! I'm afraid that you're incorrect about people in cars. Granted, it's really difficult to get people out of their cars, but it is possible. Unfortunately, it requires unconventional measures, many of which aren't politically popular, but it is possible. It may, however, become easier to do though in the coming decades as the era of cheap energy comes to an end.

Honestly, I'm kind of surprised by the reaction to this story on this board. I think its fair to say that most people on skyscraper forums prefer taller denser buildings. However, hardly anybody here seems to get what another bridge will mean for development in this city.

What it will mean is a tremendous boon to development. You cannot force people into commie blocks on the peninsula. They don't want to live in those and to suggest that you can force them to do so by simply not building roads to areas outside the core is bizarro planning theory at its best -- cause misery to force people to adapt to your view of what the world should be. The upcoming HRM regional plan adheres to this lunacy and will fail as a result. People will live where they want to live and it is the job of govt to enable those choices or face being replaced. Getting people out of their cars is only possible up to a certain extent, after which it simply fails to address the transportation needs of peoples lifestyles.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted Mar 27, 2008, 1:40 PM
Spitfire75 Spitfire75 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Halifax
Posts: 253
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith P. View Post
Imagine something along the lines of the Zakim Bunker Hill bridge in Boston, only on a much larger scale. It would become an icon of the city.
Agreed. I'm definitely pro-bridge. Boost to development and a new icon for the city.

edit:typo

Last edited by Spitfire75; Mar 27, 2008 at 2:55 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted Mar 27, 2008, 2:26 PM
terrynorthend terrynorthend is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,053
Pro bridge here too. I think a bridge is a better idea than a tunnel as well. The geology under the harbour is very difficult and I'd bet money on a 1.4B$ project growing to 3+B$. And you only get 4 lanes for that money. If the only reason pro tunnel con bridge is viewplanes..lets get real!! BTW, maintenance costs on a 3.5 km underwater tunnel system are at least as much as that of a bridge.

If we add density to the peninsula..there will be more cars. Period. It will just be in the reverse..people living on the peninsula and commuting out. More people = more cars. We aren't all going to stop driving and using transit. Now that IS dreaming in technicolour.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted Mar 27, 2008, 4:15 PM
spaustin's Avatar
spaustin spaustin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Downtown Dartmouth
Posts: 705
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith P. View Post
What it will mean is a tremendous boon to development. You cannot force people into commie blocks on the peninsula. They don't want to live in those and to suggest that you can force them to do so by simply not building roads to areas outside the core is bizarro planning theory at its best -- cause misery to force people to adapt to your view of what the world should be. The upcoming HRM regional plan adheres to this lunacy and will fail as a result. People will live where they want to live and it is the job of govt to enable those choices or face being replaced. Getting people out of their cars is only possible up to a certain extent, after which it simply fails to address the transportation needs of peoples lifestyles.
It's not the job of government to facilitate every individual decision. No where is it written that people have a right to live in their single-family house with a huge backyard on a cul-du-sac and drive to work alone in an SUV. We live in a free society so they're free to make that choice if they want, but government has no obligation to make that easy for them. This crossing is a plan for that lifestyle. If you read the report transit is an afterthought and ferries get no mention (becaues the bridge commission has no role in ferries). This report was written from a cram as many cars as we can in and out everyday perspective. This bridge proposal is a pro-car proposal. The odds of many pedestrians walking or cycling across such a long distance are low (even less if its a tunnel) and what does it connect with on the other side? A highway to suburbia. This will be the second biggest sprawl enabler since the MacDonald was built and its something this city should definitely pass on.

Anyway, that's my 2 cents. I'm clearly in the minority here, so further comment is probably a waste of my and your time. Even if I'm in the minority here, if the herald board is any indication, I'm in a majority in the city at large. If this crossing proposal actually goes beyond a consultants report it'll be the biggest political fight this city has seen in a long, long time.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted Mar 27, 2008, 7:05 PM
Wishblade's Avatar
Wishblade Wishblade is offline
You talkin' to me?
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Calgary, AB
Posts: 1,322
No offense, but people who think a third crossing isn't going to be needed just don't research these things, and have no experience in urban development.

The third bridge is going to be needed regardless of the improvements done to public transportation. Every growing city sprawls outward. Most people don't want to or can't afford to live on the Penninsula, and that will never change.

I don't think I would be false in believing that the folks on this board who are pro crossing know what their talking about far more than many of those who commented on the CH.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted Mar 29, 2008, 3:33 PM
waterloowarrior's Avatar
waterloowarrior waterloowarrior is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Eastern Ontario
Posts: 9,242
I definetely agree with spaustin. The main effect of the bridge will be to facilitate sprawl to the east of the peninsula. You can bet that local developers already own huge chunks of land and are just waiting for the infrastructure to come and subsidize their future subdivision (as prices for land will become much higher as soon as the bridge is constructed). As for urban development, most progressive cities today are thinking of ways to reduce the number of expressways and stop continually accommodating vehicles (many are actually reducing the traffic lanes and replacing them with other modes of transportation), limit suburban expansion, and significantly increase transit use. If we keep accommodating vehicles in the same ways we always have, the modal split will never change. Saying things like "forcing people into commie blocks" is a strawman argument, because there are a range of different densities between a single family home and an apartment tower. The government's job is not to enable people to live where they want to live, as if things like environmental issues, transit, social, and health issues shouldn't matter.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted Mar 29, 2008, 4:00 PM
Keith P.'s Avatar
Keith P. Keith P. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 7,964
Quote:
Originally Posted by waterloowarrior View Post
The government's job is not to enable people to live where they want to live
A good socialist planner's dogma, but one that not all would agree with.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted Mar 29, 2008, 4:09 PM
waterloowarrior's Avatar
waterloowarrior waterloowarrior is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Eastern Ontario
Posts: 9,242
well I do study/work in urban planning
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted Mar 29, 2008, 5:03 PM
spaustin's Avatar
spaustin spaustin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Downtown Dartmouth
Posts: 705
The government's job is not to enable people to live where they want to live
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith P. View Post
A good socialist planner's dogma, but one that not all would agree with.
Well that's some selective editing. It's hardly fair quoting the guy while cutting out the rest of the sentence that says "as if things like environmental issues, transit, social, and health issues shouldn't matter." You've removed the bit about individual decisions having a collective effect on everyone that therefore gives government a mandate to regulate! If you want to argue against that by all means proceed since a case can be made, but it's not fair to divorce the social bit from the argument over government's role in society.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #39  
Old Posted Mar 29, 2008, 5:14 PM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is offline
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 33,673
The theory sounds kind of nice but there are all kinds of practical implications that are missing.

First of all, this isn't an expressway meant to upgrade normal roads. It's a bridge. Currently there is zero direct access from the South End of the city to Dartmouth (where many people already live), meaning that everybody needs to take long and inefficient trips from one side to the other using bridges several kilometres North. This is true of single occupancy vehicles, buses, commercial traffic, bicycles, pedestrians, unicyclists, etc.

I don't think anybody today would seriously question the need for the two harbour bridges. They're simply a necessity when it comes to moving people around in a city build around a major body of water. The third bridge has been talked about since the 1950s.

The other simple fact which I already mentioned is that Halifax is already the sprawliest city in Canada and most of that sprawl happens to be occurring far North of the city where it is easy to get around and where there are minimal planning restrictions. This is much worse than having new sprawl in Southern Dartmouth, particularly since it's shifting the centre of the whole region away from the urban core.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #40  
Old Posted Mar 29, 2008, 7:18 PM
mitchellirons mitchellirons is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Halifax, NS
Posts: 5
I would **love** to see $1bn in development tax credits for the Alderney area of Dartmouth. We are all forgetting that there is already a third crossing of the harbour in the ferry service. Alderney Landing is only a 15-minute ride away from downtown Halifax, and should have been the site of infill and proper urban development long ago.

I'm of the opinion that peninsular Halifax needs more **people** living and working on it as opposed to more people driving in to work there. The HDBC's plan sounds too much like the Chebucto St widening - a proposal developed with the best intentions, but developed by people whose first interests are not development of proper communities but the facilitation of traffic.

If the proposed $1bn cost of a bridge wasn't prohibitive to any approval, I'd have half a mind to send some Jane Jacobs to all of our councillors, MLAs, and **unelected** bridge commissioners. Until then, the point is moot.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Atlantic Provinces > Halifax > Transportation & Infrastructure
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:04 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.