HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #561  
Old Posted Jul 21, 2017, 7:07 PM
Ziobrop's Avatar
Ziobrop Ziobrop is offline
armchairitect
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Halifax
Posts: 721
Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123 View Post
I don't know if it's changing but it never seemed there was much sense of urgency to planning in Halifax. Politicians and staff alike tended to take a leisurely approach to everything and the excuse used was that Halifax was just a small city that wasn't really growing much so none of it mattered. But the city grew by 8,000 people last year, and its traffic is already not great. There has been no substantial improvement to transit either. Either there is going to have to be some more ambitious infrastructure development or the city is going to waste a lot of its potential.

This already happened a lot as you say with all the development that went to areas like Bedford and Hammonds Plains.

Could the lack of growth in bridge traffic be due to the fact that they've been at capacity for a while now at rush hour? If they were closed tomorrow they'd have 0 traffic, but that wouldn't be a good argument for why the city doesn't need bridges.
the bridges arnt at capacity though. they carried more traffic in the 90's and early 2000's they they do now iirc.

Edit - i found it. in 2015/16 33million trips. 2.3% increase from 2007/08. Capacity is 38million trips.
that is basically flat growth, and will take another 50 years at that rate to reach capacity.

Last edited by Ziobrop; Jul 21, 2017 at 7:19 PM. Reason: looked up actul numbers.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #562  
Old Posted Jul 21, 2017, 8:51 PM
worldlyhaligonian worldlyhaligonian is offline
we built this city
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,799
Lol, there is no need for a third bridge. An initial LRT from downtown to Clayton Park west would make way more sense at this point.

If there is a third crossing, a tunnel would be highly superior.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #563  
Old Posted Jul 21, 2017, 8:52 PM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is offline
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 33,673
I could be convinced either way but the bridge commission and planning statements in the media aren't very convincing. It's also a bit suspicious how they changed their tune after the political backlash circa 2008.

Fixed total annual traffic capacity of infrastructure vs. actual traffic is not meaningful. A bridge might be congested at 8 am but mostly empty at 2 am. If it's fully or partially impassable due to construction or other disruptions like the Big Lift that reduces traffic throughput. You don't know how many people would have liked to use the bridges but didn't, how much time was wasted, or how far the bridges were from accommodating their theoretical maximum throughput.

It is really the reliability of quick travel times and cost that matter. If the bridge wastes a couple hours of time every week people will avoid it. Traffic totals at that point won't tell you anything.

If you look at Halifax rush hour traffic on Google Maps you'll see one of the worst small cities in North America for delays. Most of the major routes light up as red on a typical day. Yet there are hardly any improvements in the works (to roads or transit) and planners keep suggesting there's no need.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #564  
Old Posted Aug 29, 2017, 12:39 PM
FutureofHalifax's Avatar
FutureofHalifax FutureofHalifax is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Halifax
Posts: 18
A number of people from Halifax city council were on the radio yesterday, News 95.7 discussing the merits of a 3rd bridge crossing. The female councilor talked about how the reason the circ was built was to allow a 3rd bridge crossing at the bottom by pleasant st. The male councilor discussed the idea of the Canadian infrastructure bank. They talked about it for a good 10 minutes
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #565  
Old Posted Aug 29, 2017, 7:42 PM
Keith P.'s Avatar
Keith P. Keith P. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 7,964
If by some miracle a third harbour crossing was built, we would undoubtedly see calls by the HCC to donate the Macdonald to them for exclusive use by bicycles.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #566  
Old Posted Aug 30, 2017, 5:24 PM
Colin May Colin May is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 1,480
Quote:
Originally Posted by FutureofHalifax View Post
A number of people from Halifax city council were on the radio yesterday, News 95.7 discussing the merits of a 3rd bridge crossing. The female councilor talked about how the reason the circ was built was to allow a 3rd bridge crossing at the bottom by pleasant st. The male councilor discussed the idea of the Canadian infrastructure bank. They talked about it for a good 10 minutes
As if the province has a few billion dollars so people can get to work a few minutes faster.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #567  
Old Posted Sep 7, 2017, 10:38 AM
Keith P.'s Avatar
Keith P. Keith P. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 7,964
HHB are now talking about rebuilding the MacKay:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-s...lace-1.4276682

If it needs to be done then I guess it needs to be done, but I would much rather see this investment go to a south-end crossing.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #568  
Old Posted Sep 7, 2017, 3:23 PM
terrynorthend terrynorthend is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,053
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith P. View Post
HHB are now talking about rebuilding the MacKay:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-s...lace-1.4276682

If it needs to be done then I guess it needs to be done, but I would much rather see this investment go to a south-end crossing.
I heard this news article. I was irked that CBC didn't even mention or seem to bother to ask HHBC whatever became of the 3rd crossing plans. They had pretty detailed plans for either a bridge or tunnel IIRC.

At any rate, my comment was they cannot do the same process on the Mckay that they did on the Macdonald as things sit now. The 4-lane Mckay connected to a highway might have been barely acceptable to handle all the city's traffic during 2 years of closures, but the Macdonald, a 3 lane bridge linked to a 2 lane street grid, simply cannot handle all the extra traffic.

Additionally, increased traffic volumes by the time this project would start (5,7, maybe 10 years from now) and the length to complete (wider, longer bridge)- three or four years, would be an unimaginable stress on the city.

These are plans to extend the life of the Mckay for 75-100 years, and HBBC has said the Mckay is safe until 2040. We are going to need a 3rd crossing certainly within that timeframe. The best solution is to build the 3rd crossing first while both bridges remain open, and then refurbish the Mckay as they see fit in the 2030's.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #569  
Old Posted Sep 8, 2017, 11:29 AM
IanWatson IanWatson is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,220
I went to a really interesting presentation on the Big Lift. As part of the presentation they briefly touched on the MacKay. One of the things they're going to seriously consider is building a new bridge right next to the MacKay and then tearing down the MacKay. In some ways it seems crazy, but I guess it ends up being comparable in cost because the logistics are much easier, plus you end up with a fully new structure built with modern engineering.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #570  
Old Posted Sep 10, 2017, 1:05 AM
Phalanx Phalanx is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Halifax
Posts: 584
But then the new bridge will never get a chance to be the old new bridge, we'll just have the new old bridge and the new new bridge.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #571  
Old Posted Sep 10, 2017, 12:47 PM
musicman musicman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 270
They build all these new things to modern engineering (computers) Everything is so close in tolerance weight wise it is very hard to upgrade. The main problem with the Mckay is that the main cables would need to be upgraded. This would nessesitate the closure of the bridge for an extended period of time.. They are in all likely hood going to decide to build a new bridge. We shall see..
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #572  
Old Posted Sep 10, 2017, 3:59 PM
Keith P.'s Avatar
Keith P. Keith P. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 7,964
If they were to replace the MacKay, it would make sense to do a 6-lane bridge at the very least. One hopes the approaches are totally re-thought as well.

I remember crossing the MacKay from the back seat with my mom and dad up front as we used it for the first time back in 1970 or whenever it opened. We all voiced the same non-expert opinion then - that it seemed too open, the guardrails were too short, the towers not very robust-looking, and that it just seemed "light" somehow.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #573  
Old Posted Sep 11, 2017, 2:22 AM
musicman musicman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 270
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith P. View Post
If they were to replace the MacKay, it would make sense to do a 6-lane bridge at the very least. One hopes the approaches are totally re-thought as well.

I remember crossing the MacKay from the back seat with my mom and dad up front as we used it for the first time back in 1970 or whenever it opened. We all voiced the same non-expert opinion then - that it seemed too open, the guardrails were too short, the towers not very robust-looking, and that it just seemed "light" somehow.
In comparison to other previous bridges it is light. Back in the day when the mcdonald was built things were vastly overbuilt because they didn't have the help of computers, so they said "this should be good, let's add 25% just to make sure".
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #574  
Old Posted Sep 11, 2017, 2:02 PM
Ziobrop's Avatar
Ziobrop Ziobrop is offline
armchairitect
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Halifax
Posts: 721
Quote:
Originally Posted by musicman View Post
In comparison to other previous bridges it is light. Back in the day when the mcdonald was built things were vastly overbuilt because they didn't have the help of computers, so they said "this should be good, let's add 25% just to make sure".
kind of. the Macdonald wasn't that long after the Tacoma Narrows Collapse. so yes there was some over engineering, but the old deck was also a poured concrete slab. that is very heavy compared to modern orthotropic bridge decks, so the new sections are lighter as a result. if you look at photos of the lions gate bridge redecking in Vancouver, they actually needed to weigh down the new sections so they lined up with the old properly.

the mackay was one of the first bridges with an orthotropic deck (the design manual was first published in english in 1963) - as such, it was one of the first lightweight bridges. i have been told its actually more light weight then what would be built today. As a result, the bridge flexes more, resulting in more maintenance. in all likely hood, that would mean replacement sections would be heavier then what is there now, requiring stronger towers and cables.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #575  
Old Posted Sep 13, 2017, 6:47 PM
FutureofHalifax's Avatar
FutureofHalifax FutureofHalifax is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Halifax
Posts: 18
The 3rd bridge crossing should be build first – before the shutdown of the Mackay Bridge – this will allow for traffic and cargo to continue to move smoothly. When the MacKay is done, we would have 3 bridges in place to handle increased traffic, improved transit, and rail.
The cost of the 3rd bridge should come from the Infrastructure Bank of Canada – this keeps tax dollars from being spent on it and shuts down debate from critics who don’t want any tax dollars being spent on basic integral infrastructure
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #576  
Old Posted Aug 28, 2019, 1:24 PM
FutureofHalifax's Avatar
FutureofHalifax FutureofHalifax is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Halifax
Posts: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123 View Post
The most important thing to realize is that the bridge will shape future development and redirect current traffic. Right now, people in Woodside-Eastern Passage go to the MacDonald or MacKay bridges. They would use the new bridge, freeing up room on the MacKay for people coming from Bedford and Sackville. Similarly, tens of thousands of houses will be built in Halifax in the coming decades. These could go in the empty land around Shearwater if a new bridge is built. This is a better alternative to Fall River or Hammonds Plains for a variety of reasons.

The effect would be similar to when the old bridges were built. When the MacDonald bridge went up Dartmouth more than quadrupled in size within a decade or so. Major transportation projects should be used as tools to shape the city in desirable ways, not merely as simple "fixes" to current problems.
Excellent points and we are in full agreement with you!
__________________
We can combine development and gentrification for the Future Of Halifax
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #577  
Old Posted Aug 28, 2019, 1:32 PM
FutureofHalifax's Avatar
FutureofHalifax FutureofHalifax is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Halifax
Posts: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123 View Post
Yes, the new bridge would probably have $2 tolls or something, which would translate into tens of thousands of dollars per day in revenues.

I'm not sure why people are complaining about how this is "pro-car". This is a project that would improve connectivity in the core. The report includes details about new BRT routes over the bridge. In reality a Southern bridge would likely make the city much more compact since it will promote growth in Dartmouth instead of North of the city. It will also make the downtown easier to get to for more people and encourage employment growth in the centre. Currently the HRM is headed along a trajectory where the "middle" of the metropolitan area is slowly shifting North because areas to the South do not have proper transportation connections.

The alignments presented in the report integrate well with the road network on both sides and wouldn't require disturbing existing neighbourhoods much.
Again excellent points, and we agree with you.

The city is projected to grow an additional 100,000 people over the next decade. There is a lot of space for development in Dartmouth South in Shearwater which really is at the end of its life.

The 3rd southern crossing allows a ring road to actually happen which allows for a proper bus transit system that would include the MacKay crossing.

It gets tractor trailers out of Halifax on the Circ in Dartmouth right away.

Lastly if we ever had a bridge failure or bridge entry/exit point emergency on 1 of the existing bridges, the city would grind to a halt.

Let's start planning for a 3rd crossing!
__________________
We can combine development and gentrification for the Future Of Halifax
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #578  
Old Posted Nov 24, 2019, 5:53 AM
MolteN MolteN is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Halifax
Posts: 48


A tunnel extending from the terminus of the circ, under the harbour and adjacent to george's island. Ramps coming off at the end of Barrington St and Marginal Rd would be awesome. Probably built by some asian development company. I'd would be happy to pay a higher toll for the existing bridges to fund a third tunnel crossing. A small suspension bridge over the NW arm wouldn't hurt either.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #579  
Old Posted Nov 24, 2019, 5:54 AM
MolteN MolteN is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Halifax
Posts: 48
tunnel

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #580  
Old Posted Dec 11, 2019, 4:02 AM
Nouvellecosse's Avatar
Nouvellecosse Nouvellecosse is offline
Volatile Pacivist
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 8,968
I can't think of a practical way to integrate the ramps/approaches into the south end for a bridge long enough to cross that distance and high enough to allow ships to pass underneath. A tunnel would be the only practical option even though we'd be losing out on having a grand landmark. A tunnel would be more costly and it wouldn't have as much capacity but really the street grid wouldn't be capable of handling huge amounts of traffic dumped in that part of town. Given how much NIMBYS holler about how any new building would change the "character" of a neighbourhood, just imagine how much the introduction of traffic from a multi-lane freeway would change the character.

But honestly, if we're serious about a third crossing we should be considering a rail tunnel with a light metro service. We already have two road bridges so the argument about having to have a backup in case one is blocked... well we already have a backup. Each is the backup for the other. And if we're worried about development patterns of the HRM, the argument isn't just about car commuter oriented development in one part of the region vs another as if car commuter oriented development is the only possibility. If a rail connection is the fastest and most reliable way to get into town and enabled people to avoid congestion, then that would inevitably affect development patterns.

When we consider the amount of infrastructure and functionality we'd be getting relative to the money spent and overall effect on the community, then a BART style trans-harbour tube would be by far superior. Vehicular tunnels are extremely expensive because they need to be much larger - especially if they're to carry transport trucks - and need to have much heavier-duty ventilation systems and fire suppression systems. Not to mention that a tunnel connecting the circ to the S. end would need to be longer than one connecting the two downtowns 1.3km vs 1.7km. The amount of funds needing to be spent on a 4 lane road tunnel and approaches could easily pay for not only a metro tunnel that extended under the harbour, but one that also through the city.

In terms of affordibility, we if we afford the road tunnel despite its fewer benefits we can afford the metro option. The metro option could also be paid for by user fees as most transit services charge as fare anyway. It's important to note that while many transit agencies have a farebox recovery ratio of well under 100%, that is for their operations as a whole which include highly subsidized bus services on lower ridership routes resulting in a relatively low number of riders per driver. When we look at subway/metro lines of many transit agencies on their own, it isn't uncommon for these services to be revenue positive allowing them to actually help to subsidize the rest of the system. Our metro line would be automated like the Vancouver Skytrain or Copenhagen metro making it extremely efficient. Also, we can't just look at it in isolation. Such a system would also allow many buses to be taken off the road and out of inefficient congestion.

Here is a brief diagram of the route, with oragne sections being elevated (the two branches in Dartmouth) while the red (main) section wold be tunnel, while the yellow section is surface. I envision it as having 30m long vehicles and peak headways on the combined section of 15tph or 4 min to start while the off peak would be 12tph or 5 min. Obviously these could be increased as warranted by demand with maximum throughput being about 34 tph or ~1:45 min.

I would keep the Woodside commuter ferry, but the Alderney ferry could be discontinued or just run infrequently in the summer for tourists. The main Dartmouth transit hub would shift from Bridge Terminal to Alderney, while MicMac and Tacoma would have major park'n'ride garages in addition to the bus connections. This along with the number of bus trips that the service would save would reduce costs hugely and take more loud and polluting vehicles off the road than would removing transport trucks from downtown with a road tunnel.

__________________
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." - George Bernard Shaw
Don't ask people not to debate a topic. Just stop making debatable assertions. Problem solved.
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 7:41 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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