HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #81  
Old Posted May 30, 2008, 8:03 AM
reddog794's Avatar
reddog794 reddog794 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 198
lol

The way I wrote it down is: the bridge commission is there to get people across the harbour how ever they want outside of boat or plane. A lot of these people use cars. Metro Transit is of the same game, only across the city, and in buses or ferries, not cars. Metro Transit does the same thing as the bridges, only in boats, and not cars. So why not give Metro Transit the bridges so there can be more buses than cars.

We need to look seriously at buying more articulated buses for mainly our heavy link routes, and taking the rest and putting them into regular mass routes to compensate for lack or room. 10 Articulated Link buses would make a huge impact on both systems. The money coming in from the bridges, would seriously improve the chances of improving the Link system, and ferry services fast. Convert our reg route Art. buses for Link service two. Ideally, electrifying the Link routes would be key. If they threw that into the deal of a third bridge, then yea, I'd probably be okay with the idea.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #82  
Old Posted May 30, 2008, 11:47 AM
hfx_chris hfx_chris is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Dartmouth, NS
Posts: 1,450
Quote:
Originally Posted by reddog794 View Post
The way I wrote it down is: the bridge commission is there to get people across the harbour how ever they want outside of boat or plane. A lot of these people use cars. Metro Transit is of the same game, only across the city, and in buses or ferries, not cars. Metro Transit does the same thing as the bridges, only in boats, and not cars. So why not give Metro Transit the bridges so there can be more buses than cars.
As much respect I have for Metro Transit and the job they do, I shudder to think how things would be run if they were in control of the bridges as well. That being said, I could see a broader transit authority with power over both Metro Transit and the Bridge Commission. Kind of like the Metropolitan Authority... only with bridges.

Quote:
We need to look seriously at buying more articulated buses for mainly our heavy link routes, and taking the rest and putting them into regular mass routes to compensate for lack or room. 10 Articulated Link buses would make a huge impact on both systems. The money coming in from the bridges, would seriously improve the chances of improving the Link system, and ferry services fast. Convert our reg route Art. buses for Link service two. Ideally, electrifying the Link routes would be key. If they threw that into the deal of a third bridge, then yea, I'd probably be okay with the idea.
I know there was talk about more artics being purchased, but I have yet to see any RFPs or tenders put out. I recall from a meeting of the North-West Transit Advisory Committee (comprises Sackville and Bedford) that it was mentioned more MetoLink buses would be purchased in the furute, and some of them would be artics, but of course they need some for regular service as well; the ones they have now won't last forever, and they're required on other routes which need them.

But I think you can forget about electric trolley coaches. As interesting an idea it is, it's just not feasable when you consider the extensive diesel fleet they currently have, and the work required to string the overhead lines, not just on the downtown streets, but on highways and various other streets for flexibility, training of drivers and maintenance crews, modifications to the garages...
Of course there are the two diesel-electric hybrids they're purchasing for the downtown shuttle service. Those are rumored to be articulated.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #83  
Old Posted Nov 14, 2008, 3:46 AM
Jonovision's Avatar
Jonovision Jonovision is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,003
I'm surprised no one else posted this yet......
Personally I still think its a ridiculous idea.

What’ll it be: Bridge or tunnel?
Public not sold on need for third crossing
By KRISTEN LIPSCOMBE Staff Reporter
Thu. Nov 13 - 5:41 PM

Whether it’s another bridge or an underground tunnel, a third crossing could be needed to handle the traffic travelling across Halifax Harbour as early as 2016.

That’s what about 20 Haligonians who showed up at a community consultation at Cole Harbour Place heard Wednesday night from representatives with the Halifax-Dartmouth Bridge Commission.

Click here for more information about Cross-Harbour Traffic Needs Assessment
Engineer Jon Eppell told the crowd a new bridge would likely span six lanes, including two for high-occupancy vehicles, and cost $1.1 billion. A tunnel, with a $1.4-billion price tag, would probably accommodate four lanes.

He said another bridge would include paths for bikers and walkers, but height for vessels passing underneath would be a concern. An underground tunnel, on the other hand, wouldn’t allow for recreational lanes.

If the province moves ahead with either option, Mr. Eppell said the best location for both would be to link Highway 111 in Woodside to the CN rail cut at the south-end Halifax container terminal.

But not all of the people in attendance seemed convinced that doling out big bucks to build something new is the best solution for growing concerns about traffic congestion in the downtown core.

"The current model that we’re working on as a society is not sustainable," said Bob Verge, who was the first to stand up and share his thoughts during the public meeting. "I suspect that over the next five, 10 years those assumptions that we’ve been living with are going to change.

"And what I see here is largely a projection forward of assumptions that were relevant to the past, but may not be relevant, or as relevant, in the future," he said.

The Cole Harbour resident suggested the commission is jumping to the conclusion that another bridge or tunnel is needed, "when, in fact, maybe the easiest solution is to eliminate some of the bottlenecks for the current facilities, like the toll booths."

Matt Duffy of Eastern Passage said he thinks Halifax Regional Municipality’s transportation system as a whole needs an overhaul, including a close look at the efficiency of the city’s buses and ferries.

But bridge commission representatives assured the audience they are open to other options and are taking transportation across the municipality into consideration. They said their findings are based on a needs assessment requested by city council in 2007 and subsequently carried out by independent consultants.

"The report outlines the significant transportation challenges facing HRM from now through 2036," the commission’s website says. "Traffic volumes will increase, even with the most optimistic targets in increased public transit use being achieved, to the point where there is an expected need for additional cross-harbour capacity."

Go to www.thechronicleherald.ca to read more. Four more workshops are being held to garner public feedback, with the next one set for Tuesday from 7 to 9 p.m. at the Dartmouth Sportsplex.

According to the commission, 32 million vehicles cross the A. Murray MacKay and Angus L. Macdonald bridges annually, up from 24 million in 1981.

( klipscombe@herald.ca)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #84  
Old Posted Mar 26, 2009, 6:54 PM
Amanita's Avatar
Amanita Amanita is offline
Crane Goddess
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,228
I know it's been a while since anyone updated this, but if we get anything, I hope it will be a bridge.
I think it was Othmar Ammann, master bridge engineer, who said that "Bridges soar. Tunnels burrow". I can't remember whether it was him or somebody else who called tunnels a vehicular bathroom.

I'm guessing a suspension bridge at the proposed location would have an impressively long main span. And it's been said that "it's almost impossible to build an ugly suspension bridge".
__________________
"Build me to the heavens, and Life never stops"
"Live as if the world were as it should be, to show it what it can be"
-Angel
"Prayers are fleeting and wars are forgotten, but what is built endures"
-Ambassador DeLenn, Babylon 5
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #85  
Old Posted Mar 26, 2009, 10:08 PM
hfx_chris hfx_chris is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Dartmouth, NS
Posts: 1,450
Tunnels burrow? Wow, what a smart man

In all seriousness though, I too would like to see a bridge. Big fan of suspension bridges myself too.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #86  
Old Posted Mar 26, 2009, 10:18 PM
kph06's Avatar
kph06 kph06 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,021
I love a nice suspension bridge, but I'd be nervous one in this are would really disrupt the look and flow of the harbour, and might make a tangled mess of roads where it lands on the Halifax side similar to the Windsor Street exchange.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #87  
Old Posted Mar 27, 2009, 8:29 PM
Amanita's Avatar
Amanita Amanita is offline
Crane Goddess
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,228
About a bridge disrupting the look of the harbour entrance- people raised the same concern about the Golden Gate and Verrazano Narrows bridges, and they are both icons now. I think if they went with a really nice design, a suspension bridge would look hella cool.
__________________
"Build me to the heavens, and Life never stops"
"Live as if the world were as it should be, to show it what it can be"
-Angel
"Prayers are fleeting and wars are forgotten, but what is built endures"
-Ambassador DeLenn, Babylon 5
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #88  
Old Posted Mar 27, 2009, 9:48 PM
hfx_chris hfx_chris is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Dartmouth, NS
Posts: 1,450
Agreed. As long as it isn't so utilitarian like the McKay Bridge, and is green I would be cool with it
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #89  
Old Posted Mar 28, 2009, 5:36 PM
Amanita's Avatar
Amanita Amanita is offline
Crane Goddess
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,228
Poor MacKay bridge got left out where architectural gingerbread is concerned. Even MacDonald Bridge has some nice features, such as the curved members of the towers, lending a bit of elegance. I don't know why poor MacKay got none of that. Bridge commission didn't want to pay for it? Who knows.
__________________
"Build me to the heavens, and Life never stops"
"Live as if the world were as it should be, to show it what it can be"
-Angel
"Prayers are fleeting and wars are forgotten, but what is built endures"
-Ambassador DeLenn, Babylon 5
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #90  
Old Posted Mar 28, 2009, 5:47 PM
kph06's Avatar
kph06 kph06 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,021
This is a wide part of the harbour though with respect to the other parts,I could be wrong, but aren't the Golden Gate and Verrazano Narrows bridges at narrow points so they don't appear to block too much? Its hard to make a decision on it without any good renderings, but I just figured they'd go with the cheapest option which would leave us with a bland bridge, like when you compare the MacKay to the MacDonald as far as detail in the tower is concerned. In most cases I would definately prefer a bridge, because you get a constant reminder of the final product and the money and time put into it, but in this case for me it depends on the look from the water coming in the harbour. Anyways I'm sure its a few years down the line.

On another note, its nice to see you back Amanita, I didn't post back when you were a regular but I read this daily, hows the crane work going? I came across your posts on the tower crane construction thread the other day, you summed it up pretty good.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #91  
Old Posted Mar 28, 2009, 8:31 PM
hfx_chris hfx_chris is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Dartmouth, NS
Posts: 1,450
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amanita View Post
Poor MacKay bridge got left out where architectural gingerbread is concerned. Even MacDonald Bridge has some nice features, such as the curved members of the towers, lending a bit of elegance. I don't know why poor MacKay got none of that. Bridge commission didn't want to pay for it? Who knows.
Could also be the era, I find a lot of pieces of infrastructure built in the 70s and 80s were very utilitarian, very basic.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #92  
Old Posted Mar 28, 2009, 9:12 PM
Takeo Takeo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Halifax
Posts: 595
I love the new cable-stayed bridge over the Charles in Boston. It's mostly decoration since it's crossing what amounts to a puddle. Well... not quite... but it is a very short crossing. Regardless, it's a beautiful bridge.

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #93  
Old Posted Mar 28, 2009, 10:29 PM
terrynorthend terrynorthend is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,053
Quote:
Originally Posted by kph06 View Post
This is a wide part of the harbour though with respect to the other parts,I could be wrong, but aren't the Golden Gate and Verrazano Narrows bridges at narrow points so they don't appear to block too much?
Well, the Verrazano and Golden Gate bridges are the 8th and 9th longest main spans in the world respectively at 1298m and 1280m. In fact at various times in each of their histories they were once the longest in the world. Contrast this to the MacDonald at 441m and the MacKay at 426m. A well designed bridge would look fantastic at the mouth of the harbour.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #94  
Old Posted Mar 29, 2009, 12:41 AM
spaustin's Avatar
spaustin spaustin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Downtown Dartmouth
Posts: 705
The Vernanzo Narrows Bridge and the Golden Gate are long bridges, but they also fit their surroundings. They cross at the narrower parts of their harbours. If this third bridge gets built, it will really reach across our harbour at a wide point. I don't really like that idea. I would rather keep the nice view of the wide open ocean than have it blocked off with a man-made sturcture.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #95  
Old Posted Mar 29, 2009, 1:25 AM
hfx_chris hfx_chris is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Dartmouth, NS
Posts: 1,450
Unfortunately we can't make the harbour narrower in that area...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #96  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2009, 9:31 PM
Amanita's Avatar
Amanita Amanita is offline
Crane Goddess
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,228
Yeah, the bridges go where they are needed. Unfortunately no luck so far in the crane department..I know a lady who works down at Halterm..I'll keep in touch with her to find out when the longshoremen are hiring again.
__________________
"Build me to the heavens, and Life never stops"
"Live as if the world were as it should be, to show it what it can be"
-Angel
"Prayers are fleeting and wars are forgotten, but what is built endures"
-Ambassador DeLenn, Babylon 5
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #97  
Old Posted Dec 2, 2009, 12:51 AM
Jstaleness's Avatar
Jstaleness Jstaleness is offline
Jelly Bean Sandwich
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Dartmouth
Posts: 1,672
On CTV news tonight they had a spot about the future of the MacDonald. They need to spend 132 Million before 2015 to have the bridge resurfaced.(again)
Also it is also a good time to possibly widen the bridge to become 4 lanes. This would add another 160 Million they say. On top of that add multiple more millions to fix the approaches. Can the supporting towers the handle the additional weight? I'm not an expert but that bridge moves enough now with 3 full lanes of traffic. Instead of 4 lanes could that bridge support side rail lines each direction for small light rail cars. Maybe a line running from Portland hills to downtown and one shooting in from Bedford??

My only other idea is if it does go 4 lanes then they should make one lane in the am a bus only and same for the pm return trip home. If buses get people home quicker then cars...people will be more motivated to ride.

I'm trying to keep this short but, Whats cheaper and more effective?? A third harbor crossing that is estimated to cost Billions and really only helps Eastern Passage and Cole Harbor? What about Halifax side? Where would the highway go from there? or Rail crossing on the bridge which serves Bedford as well as Dartmouth quite well. I'd rather see Rail myself but it just stinks that cities the size of Halifax have proven time and time again they cant make rail work in a cost effective way.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #98  
Old Posted Dec 2, 2009, 3:06 AM
Phalanx Phalanx is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Halifax
Posts: 584
Can they even add another lane? I wouldn't think there would be room, and I also thought I heard something about being at its weight limit?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #99  
Old Posted Dec 2, 2009, 3:12 AM
alps's Avatar
alps alps is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 1,564
Yeah, I recall their original reason as to why suicide barriers couldn't be installed along the entire bridge was the extra weight, although those are currently being put into place.

Not sure how big of a fan I am of a third harbour crossing, it would obviously accelerate sprawl in Cole Harbour, Woodlawn, and especially Eastern Passage. Light rail on the Macdonald is a nice idea and I think those hundreds of millions would certainly be better spent on light rail than on one measly additional lane.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #100  
Old Posted Dec 2, 2009, 3:18 AM
eternallyme eternallyme is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,243
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jstaleness View Post
On CTV news tonight they had a spot about the future of the MacDonald. They need to spend 132 Million before 2015 to have the bridge resurfaced.(again)
Also it is also a good time to possibly widen the bridge to become 4 lanes. This would add another 160 Million they say. On top of that add multiple more millions to fix the approaches. Can the supporting towers the handle the additional weight? I'm not an expert but that bridge moves enough now with 3 full lanes of traffic. Instead of 4 lanes could that bridge support side rail lines each direction for small light rail cars. Maybe a line running from Portland hills to downtown and one shooting in from Bedford??

My only other idea is if it does go 4 lanes then they should make one lane in the am a bus only and same for the pm return trip home. If buses get people home quicker then cars...people will be more motivated to ride.

I'm trying to keep this short but, Whats cheaper and more effective?? A third harbor crossing that is estimated to cost Billions and really only helps Eastern Passage and Cole Harbor? What about Halifax side? Where would the highway go from there? or Rail crossing on the bridge which serves Bedford as well as Dartmouth quite well. I'd rather see Rail myself but it just stinks that cities the size of Halifax have proven time and time again they cant make rail work in a cost effective way.
If that is the case, then it should be replaced by a new bridge. IMO, that new bridge should be 5 lanes (2 lanes reserved for buses, and the middle lane is reversible depending on time of day).

Light rail is probably not a good idea, due to the extra cost (on top of the already high cost) and the fact it would be duplicating the ferry network.

A third bridge would be very difficult since the only place it could go is to the south, and that is too heavily developed by the ports and industrial plants, making it even more expensive and the approaches would get highly congested.
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 5:34 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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