HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #61  
Old Posted May 13, 2008, 6:11 AM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is offline
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 33,673
Huh? Dismantling the MacDonald bridge makes no sense whatsoever. It's a landmark in the city, it's built and pays for itself, it adds capacity across the harbour, and it's faster for some trips (e.g. Hfx/Dartmouth centre to centre, where tens of thousands of people live and work) than the alternatives would be.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #62  
Old Posted May 14, 2008, 3:12 AM
reddog794's Avatar
reddog794 reddog794 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 198
You're right, it's simply a speculation. I thought that the Angus was shorter than the MacKay, but it turns out differently.

To be honest, I'd prefer Halifax, growing into a seaside city. More Waterfront developments, more water transport. More pedestrian, and mass transit options. If you build more roads, you encourage more cars. Why not start to streamline the auto-minded 60's urban design, now? When we're still getting our Ball to the rolling point?

Either way a 1.1b dollar bridge is rather obscene. Are they going to install the rail too? Vancouver gets multi-billions of highway and elevated rail improvements, and we get a billion dollar bridge. I bet you, the ferrys and buses, you could buy with that money would move more people than a 6 lane bridge.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #63  
Old Posted May 24, 2008, 8:44 PM
Wishblade's Avatar
Wishblade Wishblade is offline
You talkin' to me?
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Calgary, AB
Posts: 1,322
Bridge views split: Survey
Those under 55 more likely to back crossing, poll finds
Rachel Boomer, Metro Halifax
May 22, 2008 10:35

If you’re young and you live in the city core, you probably want a third bridge.

But if you’re over 55, you’re more likely to worry it’s going to send your taxes through the roof.

A new poll released yesterday by Corporate Research Associates suggests support overall for a third harbour crossing — either a bridge or a tunnel — is mixed. Forty-eight per cent of the 401 people surveyed either completely or mostly oppose a new crossing, while 46 per cent either completely or mostly support it.

Break that down by age or location of residence, though, and things get less murky. Only 32 per cent of those over 55 support a third crossing, while 56 per cent of those 18 to 34 and 49 per cent of 35 to 54-year-olds support it.

CRA president Don Mills says it’s all about whether you use the bridge or not.

“People in the 55 and over category are less likely to be working. They see it, and they say ‘that’s going to put my taxes up, and I don’t have the ability to pay for that’,” Mills said.

A study prepared for the Halifax-Dartmouth Bridge Commission and released in late March sug­gested HRM will need a third harbour crossing by 2016. It would cost between $1.1 billion and $1.4 billion.

CRA surveyed 401 adults between May 2 and 12. Results are considered accurate to within 4.9 percentage points, 95 times out of 100.




By The Numbers

>> Completely or mostly support the third crossing:

Dartmouth: 51 per cent

Halifax: 50 per cent

Bedford/Sackville: 47 per cent

Other HRM: 33 per cent

>> Completely or mostly oppose:

Other HRM: 58 per cent

Bedford/Sackville: 47 per cent

Halifax: 46 per cent

Dartmouth: 39 per cent




Now, what gets me about this article is the fact that the area and demographic that will use the bridge the most, is where the most support is, and the least amount of support is by people it generally wont affect or benefit.

I'm however not surprised that there is a lot of opposition to it, especially by older residents. It's just unfortunate in my mind. The bridge has to happen eventually whether people like it or not, so everyone should get used to the idea.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #64  
Old Posted May 24, 2008, 8:53 PM
Aya_Akai's Avatar
Aya_Akai Aya_Akai is offline
Dartmouth Girl
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Halifax
Posts: 606
Build the damn thing. Get 'er done.

Those numbers prove it, and as Wishblade said, the most support if from the area that needs it the most, and the most opposition are from people it wont even affect.

This sounds like a typical response from the city in general. It is really starting to bother me why people cant just accept the fact this city is growing and it has to go up/out/across to do it. I am in full support of the 3rd crossing and I seriously hope that the city realizes that it can't always listen to the people, and sometimes will have to just do what is necessary to make things work smoothly.

I think sometime in the near future, myself and Wishblade will be organizing some form of meet where all of us, and if you know anyone else who is pro-development getting together, getting facts and figures together and presenting them to city hall...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #65  
Old Posted May 24, 2008, 9:24 PM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is offline
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 33,673
From the point of view of self-interested taxpayers a new bridge is perhaps the best kind of transportation investment possible since so much of it can be financed through tolls. Those who take the new bridge will be paying for it while those who do not will not. It's the same as with the bridges that exist today.

Quote:
Either way a 1.1b dollar bridge is rather obscene. Are they going to install the rail too? Vancouver gets multi-billions of highway and elevated rail improvements, and we get a billion dollar bridge. I bet you, the ferrys and buses, you could buy with that money would move more people than a 6 lane bridge.
Well Vancouver has many bridges as well, including major new bridges under construction. It is also about five times larger than Halifax.

Ferries and buses are useful for some things but they're just not the same class of infrastructure. Buses will be using the new bridge for example, along with commercial traffic that is not served by transit.

"Bridge or transit" is really the wrong way to be looking at this.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #66  
Old Posted May 25, 2008, 12:30 AM
Jonovision's Avatar
Jonovision Jonovision is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,003
I still have very mixed feelings about this new bridge, but at the moment I don't think it's a good idea. We have too many people living way out in the outskirts of town that work downtown. People should be living and working much closer. And a bridge is not a way to achieve this.

Also....in that survey...where are all the people aged 18-35?! All those people are able to work, drive and vote. I bet a good deal of them would oppose the new construction as well.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #67  
Old Posted May 25, 2008, 3:06 AM
spaustin's Avatar
spaustin spaustin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Downtown Dartmouth
Posts: 705
I still think it's the worst idea that has come up in this city in quite a while. If you want a huge expense that'll encourage more sprawl this is the way to do it.... but I guess we've been over this argument a couple of times now. Just because we can do something doesn't mean we should or that it's the best option. I also don't find it the least bit surprising that a report prepared for the bridge commission (a body's whose entire reason to exist is to drive cars and trucks and, sometimes, buses across the harbour) comes out in favour of another bridge and virtually ignores water-based transit. I hope, if this does start to move, that someone does an independent analysis. In any case, that poll seems to indicate that my earlier hunch that a 3rd bridge, if it proceeds, will spark the biggest political fight this city has seen in a long-time is correct. You can't be more polarized than 50/50.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #68  
Old Posted May 25, 2008, 11:20 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
You can't be more polarized than 50/50.
That's actually pretty positive for Halifax, where most change of any sort is invariably strongly opposed.

All else being equal, I think the bridge is needed, if for nothing else than to move containers out of Halterm. However, I am of the belief more and more that Halterm needs to go away entirely. You could either relocate it near Ceres or over on the Dartmouth side, if you rebuilt it at all -- given the decline in business for the port and the new developments in the port business elsewhere, that may not be even necessary. If you did that the imperative for a 3rd bridge is reduced, and you create a parcel of very valuable developable land on the harborfront.

More and more I am thinking that we need to spend a billion or two on some sort of rail-based public transport. A line out to Bedford/Sackville and the airport would be a good start. Another out towards Tantallon. Cole Harbour is difficult because of the harbour but perhaps something could be done there as well. Screw the arguments against it; it is something that needs to be done. Gasoline isn't getting any cheaper and the car commute is threatened. Build it and it will get used.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #69  
Old Posted May 25, 2008, 1:17 PM
spaustin's Avatar
spaustin spaustin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Downtown Dartmouth
Posts: 705
But that's just it, with the exception of the Twisted Sisters, other public debates about development have been pretty publicly lop-sided. Usually only one side turns out. This, on the other hand, I think has the potential to draw people out on both sides of the issue and create a real debate.

I agree with you 100% about the container port. I spent the last semester of my planning degree doing a project on how to better connect Pier 21 into the rest of the city. The end result is that I'm convinced that the port is just in the wrong place. It made sense way back when but it hasn't for years. Rather then trying to constantly figure out how to get trucks out of South End Halifax (rail cut, bridge or tunnel) we should just move the yard.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #70  
Old Posted May 27, 2008, 9:13 AM
reddog794's Avatar
reddog794 reddog794 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 198
Ah, alas the unions would never go for it, and so we are stuck with a container pier, on primo urban land.

I'm not bridge or transit, I'm into improving the infrastructure there, 1.1 billion dollars can do a lot more good for the the city's roads, be it new surfacing, bus corridors, and transit like Electric trolleys, than a shining example of how great Rodney MacDonald.

And if it's the feds talking about a bridge, why not put that into the port and rail facilities, in order to make us the East Coast Gateway, they've talked about.

It makes no sense to me, what so ever, to build that bridge. That area is going to become a hot spot for young people, and older people, going to school in NSCADU and NSCC, looking for a place to walk to school from, or easy to catch a ferry or bus to. We should be trying to nurture that focus for a community, it's what makes us feel like a small town inside a city. We should be using that, to become Dynamic. It's what makes Montreal hip, and Vancouver exotic. Toronto its Multiculturalism.

I agree though with the idea of getting rid of the terminal, and moving it either into the basin, or out, closer to the mouth. You could create an urban seaside village. Keep it max 5 story, and park the shit right out of it, so it blends into PPP. Add a Library there while your at it, or maybe a community rink?...<sigh> 1.1b isn't enough for those dreams.

Last edited by reddog794; May 27, 2008 at 9:30 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #71  
Old Posted May 27, 2008, 5:25 PM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is offline
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 33,673
The problem with your plan is that the $1.1B for the bridge would be mostly user-pay from $2 (or more) tolls that will be charged. This is not money available for the province to spend on whatever.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #72  
Old Posted May 28, 2008, 5:04 PM
reddog794's Avatar
reddog794 reddog794 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 198
My plan is to not have the bridge, as it would ruin the areas around it's bases, be one more obstacle for the container ships getting into port, and wouldn't do very much for a transit system that is not able to accommodate for very many new riders. Sorry someone123, I usually agree with what you have to say, but I can't this time.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #73  
Old Posted May 29, 2008, 1:45 AM
spaustin's Avatar
spaustin spaustin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Downtown Dartmouth
Posts: 705
Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123 View Post
The problem with your plan is that the $1.1B for the bridge would be mostly user-pay from $2 (or more) tolls that will be charged. This is not money available for the province to spend on whatever.
I really don't understand this taxes/tolls distinction that keeps being made. At the end of the day citizens and businesses are paying for it regardless of how its collected. In one scenario taxpayers in the entire province pay out of their tax bills while in the other residents of HRM and some visitors pay through a user fee (tolls). Either way people pay for it, all that's different is how the cost is distributed. The only thing I can see that makes any difference is the politics. People will, strangely, accept user fees, but they'll go beserk over tax increases even though it largely amounts to the same thing. Sigh. Democracy is a pain in the butt sometimes
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #74  
Old Posted May 29, 2008, 3:02 AM
hfx_chris hfx_chris is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Dartmouth, NS
Posts: 1,450
Well of course people pay for it, but at the end of the day there's no reason why some guy who lives in Sheet Harbour and never uses the bridge needs to pay for it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #75  
Old Posted May 29, 2008, 3:23 AM
waterloowarrior's Avatar
waterloowarrior waterloowarrior is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Eastern Ontario
Posts: 9,242
Keith P that is a great idea about spending the money on relocating/reducing the role of the port. The amount of money saved on future infrastructure (bridge, proposed highway along rail corridor), plus the amount raised by selling development rights, would be able to offset a lot of the costs I think. Other bonuses include more people living near the core and rail corridors that would be freed up for use by new public transit rail lines. The new neighbourhood could be built with mixed use at higher densities and connected to the downtown with biking and transit infrastructure. I'm not from the area, so I'm not sure if all of this is possible, but it sounds like a great idea.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #76  
Old Posted May 29, 2008, 4:21 PM
Canopus's Avatar
Canopus Canopus is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 91
With the average age in the province at 42 and HRM at 40 I believe, it's not difficult to see where this idea will probably go. Incidentally, I believe that NS is now the oldest province.

That would explain a few things
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #77  
Old Posted May 29, 2008, 4:58 PM
Dmajackson's Avatar
Dmajackson Dmajackson is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: B3K Halifax, NS
Posts: 9,294
Quote:
Originally Posted by waterloowarrior View Post
...Other bonuses include more people living near the core and rail corridors that would be freed up for use by new public transit rail lines. The new neighbourhood could be built with mixed use at higher densities and connected to the downtown with biking and transit infrastructure. I'm not from the area, so I'm not sure if all of this is possible, but it sounds like a great idea.
It would be great to have a new area to develop down there. The main problem would be the NIMBY's living ontop of the railcut (Coun. Uteck). Having a trail to connect the boardwalk to PPP would be great. And that far down there are limited if any viewplanes and height restrictions could be relaxed. Just imagine being able to walk from Point Pleasant all the way to the Casino without going on the street. If this did happen there would be a few problems, like transportation. They railcut would have to become a very busy roadway and Terminal Road would have to be widened. Just an idea but a ferry terminal could be built here as well with connections to Herring Cove, Woodside, Burnside and the current Halifax Terminal.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #78  
Old Posted May 29, 2008, 6:52 PM
reddog794's Avatar
reddog794 reddog794 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 198
I say we get our bus and ferry system in better order, before we begin to discuss rail transit. Light Rail is a big jump to make, for a city whose transit system leaves you with a 40 minute commute from Bayers Road to the Hospital.

Waterloo I don't they meant reducing the role of the port, more just relocating. To reduce to role of our port would be to let steam out of the boiler. With a "move the containers from southend" movement, it could mean serious updates to both our ports facilities, and out bound rail services, to Ceres.

Either way this thread ties nicely into the idea of, merging the Bridge commission, with Metro Transit. Makes too much sense right? So why hasn't it happened yet?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #79  
Old Posted May 29, 2008, 8:43 PM
hfx_chris hfx_chris is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Dartmouth, NS
Posts: 1,450
How does that make sense?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #80  
Old Posted May 29, 2008, 9:53 PM
Keith P.'s Avatar
Keith P. Keith P. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 7,964
Quote:
Originally Posted by hfx_chris View Post
How does that make sense?
Well, they are both very poorly run governmental organizations. Merging them would undoubtedly make them a bigger, even more poorly run organization.
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 10:12 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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