HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted Jul 14, 2011, 8:20 PM
Keith P.'s Avatar
Keith P. Keith P. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 7,964
Bayers Road Widening

I see that the usual suspects (Watts, Sloane and Blumenthal) had a public meeting the other night where the people who live on Bayers Road and will be affected by the proposed widening project came out to bray at them and play the victim card. Naturally these 3 are now working to block the widening project, even to the point of promoting an EAC petition against the widening project.

Well, what works for those who oppose change can also work in favor of it, so I created my first online petition in favor of the project. I urge any of you who want this to go forward to visit and sign here:

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/bayersroadwidening/

Please pass this along by any means you can: Facebook, Twitter, etc.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted Jul 14, 2011, 9:52 PM
haligonia's Avatar
haligonia haligonia is offline
Urban Thinker
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 630
I'm sorry, but I just can't support this project. Widening the road doesn't solve the problem, it only adds to it. Sure, traffic will be better for the next few years. But by widening the road and decreasing traffic, we are only making it easier people to use their cars. We need real, long term solutions. Solutions that encourage people to walk, bike or take transit instead of using their cars. If not, car usage will only grow and we will be faced with the same situation ten years down the road.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted Jul 14, 2011, 10:03 PM
Keith P.'s Avatar
Keith P. Keith P. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 7,964
Quote:
Originally Posted by haligonia View Post
I'm sorry, but I just can't support this project. Widening the road doesn't solve the problem, it only adds to it. Sure, traffic will be better for the next few years. But by widening the road and decreasing traffic, we are only making it easier people to use their cars. We need real, long term solutions. Solutions that encourage people to walk, bike or take transit instead of using their cars. If not, car usage will only grow and we will be faced with the same situation ten years down the road.
Not widening the road precludes any possibility of adding services like transitways, etc and merely perpetuates the existing problem while these same councillors blithely vote in favor of more sprawl in Bedford and the like. You cannot have it both ways. The last serious reconfiguration of this area was when Bicentennial Drive was built in 1949. The Halifax of today is far from that sleepy little burg. It needs to be upgraded, and you can use all the trendy phrases you want but you cannot deny that this is a joke of an entryway to our fair city. Suggesting people walk in from places like Kingswood or Glen Arbour is simply absurd.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Jul 14, 2011, 10:08 PM
hoser111's Avatar
hoser111 hoser111 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 340
I support this...done
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted Jul 14, 2011, 10:30 PM
haligonia's Avatar
haligonia haligonia is offline
Urban Thinker
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 630
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith P. View Post
Not widening the road precludes any possibility of adding services like transitways, etc
If the road widening was to be used as a step towards adding transitways and the like, why aren't they included in the proposal? If the road is widened, and a transitway is proposed a few years later, people will scream about how it will reduce the width of the road. Either that or the road will have to be widened again, which proves my point that any extra convenience you give to cars will be eaten up before you know it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted Jul 14, 2011, 10:33 PM
haligonia's Avatar
haligonia haligonia is offline
Urban Thinker
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 630
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith P. View Post
The last serious reconfiguration of this area was when Bicentennial Drive was built in 1949. The Halifax of today is far from that sleepy little burg. It needs to be upgraded, and you can use all the trendy phrases you want but you cannot deny that this is a joke of an entryway to our fair city. Suggesting people walk in from places like Kingswood or Glen Arbour is simply absurd.
I do agree that Bayers Road does need to be upgraded/dealt with, however there has to be a better way than widening it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted Jul 14, 2011, 10:37 PM
alps's Avatar
alps alps is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 1,564
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith P. View Post
Not widening the road precludes any possibility of adding services like transitways, etc and merely perpetuates the existing problem while these same councillors blithely vote in favor of more sprawl in Bedford and the like. You cannot have it both ways. The last serious reconfiguration of this area was when Bicentennial Drive was built in 1949. The Halifax of today is far from that sleepy little burg. It needs to be upgraded, and you can use all the trendy phrases you want but you cannot deny that this is a joke of an entryway to our fair city. Suggesting people walk in from places like Kingswood or Glen Arbour is simply absurd.
If a transitway is in the works they can propose a transitway. No, people aren't going to walk from Kingswood, but Kingwood shouldn't have been given permission in the first place if the infrastructure was inadequate and everyone would be driving in. The people that moved there knew what the commute would be like before they did. Why should people on Bayers have their apartments destroyed or their land expropriated, and where does it end?

It's another horrible project straight out of the 60s that doesn't actually solve any problems and is ultimately driven by traditional road fetishism and a lack of imagination. It perpetuates traffic problems by making it easier for people to live in far-flung places where 95% of people drive to work. Given the inaction of this city on actual plans to restrict sprawl, bad traffic is the only hope I have that things will actually begin to turn around naturally -- that people will seek to live closer to work so that they aren't stuck in gridlock every day.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted Jul 14, 2011, 10:40 PM
q12's Avatar
q12 q12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Halifax
Posts: 4,500
I support this as well, and I also think the province needs to widen Highway 102 from Bayers Road out to Bedford.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted Jul 14, 2011, 11:37 PM
Nouvellecosse's Avatar
Nouvellecosse Nouvellecosse is offline
Volatile Pacivist
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 8,968
Quote:
Originally Posted by alps View Post
If a transitway is in the works they can propose a transitway. No, people aren't going to walk from Kingswood, but Kingwood shouldn't have been given permission in the first place if the infrastructure was inadequate and everyone would be driving in. The people that moved there knew what the commute would be like before they did. Why should people on Bayers have their apartments destroyed or their land expropriated, and where does it end?

It's another horrible project straight out of the 60s that doesn't actually solve any problems and is ultimately driven by traditional road fetishism and a lack of imagination. It perpetuates traffic problems by making it easier for people to live in far-flung places where 95% of people drive to work. Given the inaction of this city on actual plans to restrict sprawl, bad traffic is the only hope I have that things will actually begin to turn around naturally -- that people will seek to live closer to work so that they aren't stuck in gridlock every day.
Very well said!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted Jul 14, 2011, 11:57 PM
fenwick16 fenwick16 is offline
Honored Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Toronto area (ex-Nova Scotian)
Posts: 5,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith P. View Post
I see that the usual suspects (Watts, Sloane and Blumenthal) had a public meeting the other night where the people who live on Bayers Road and will be affected by the proposed widening project came out to bray at them and play the victim card. Naturally these 3 are now working to block the widening project, even to the point of promoting an EAC petition against the widening project.

Well, what works for those who oppose change can also work in favor of it, so I created my first online petition in favor of the project. I urge any of you who want this to go forward to visit and sign here:

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/bayersroadwidening/

Please pass this along by any means you can: Facebook, Twitter, etc.
What troubles me is the frequency of Councilors going against staff recommendations. I can see why there appears to be so much friction between the HRM Councillors and the HRM staff.

There appears to be too much resistance to change in the HRM - especially peninsular Halifax. I thought that the HRM long-term plan was to densify the urban core. However, many decisions seem to be contrary to that plan.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted Jul 15, 2011, 3:21 AM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is offline
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 33,673
Quote:
Originally Posted by alps View Post
No, people aren't going to walk from Kingswood, but Kingwood shouldn't have been given permission in the first place if the infrastructure was inadequate and everyone would be driving in. The people that moved there knew what the commute would be like before they did. Why should people on Bayers have their apartments destroyed or their land expropriated, and where does it end?
Devil's advocate:

1) It's built now. The city is responsible for people who live there.
2) People knew they'd live farther out but didn't necessarily sign up for antagonistic policies towards off-peninsula residents and commuters!
3) Expropriating a few houses (most of the land is empty and the widening was planned for -- we are not talking about destroying a neighbourhood) is not a big deal if people are properly compensated. I bet people would be in favour of it if they each got a cheque for $30k on top of their house value. The project would still be worth it with that added cost.

Quote:
Given the inaction of this city on actual plans to restrict sprawl, bad traffic is the only hope I have that things will actually begin to turn around naturally -- that people will seek to live closer to work so that they aren't stuck in gridlock every day.
Unfortunately at this point most people live in the suburbs. The failure to provide good transportation around the core has simply encouraged more jobs to move out to the suburbs for the past 20 years.

I am all for investing in transit but there also needs to be an emphasis on cutting commuting times and on weighing costs and benefits. In the case of Bayers Road we're talking about carrying out a planned widening of what's already an artery in order to handle way more traffic.

People also need to accept that the city is growing. Since not all new traffic can be accommodated with transit, and since most HRM transit also needs roads, more roads must be built in order to maintain service levels.

The best thing to lobby for would be dedicated bus lanes. Torpedoing the widening is not necessarily going to help the peninsula.

Last edited by someone123; Jul 15, 2011 at 3:32 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted Jul 15, 2011, 3:49 AM
alps's Avatar
alps alps is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 1,564
Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123 View Post
Devil's advocate:

1) It's built now. The city is responsible for people who live there.
2) People knew they'd live farther out but didn't necessarily sign up for antagonistic policies towards off-peninsula residents and commuters!
3) Expropriating a few houses (most of the land is empty and the widening was planned for -- we are not talking about destroying a neighbourhood) is not a big deal if people are properly compensated. I bet people would be in favour of it if they each got a cheque for $30k on top of their house value. The project would still be worth it with that added cost.
1/2) I'm not antagonistic towards off-peninsula residents -- I'm all for new commuter projects backed by a shred of sense: transportation options that take cars off the road rather than simply widening the roads, encouraging sprawl, and pushing the congestion issue ten more years into the future in the most inefficient way imaginable (and destroying neighbourhoods on top of that.) Of course, new suburban development should also be tightly managed to ensure we get the most out of whatever alternative would be built. I'd love to see proper BRT, with dedicated busways, serving suburban areas.

3) 90 properties will be affected, 3 large apartment buildings and many homes fully demolished, with the entire 102 corridor project costing in the realm of $300 million, (diagrams from corridor study)

Last edited by alps; Jul 15, 2011 at 4:29 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted Jul 15, 2011, 11:19 AM
q12's Avatar
q12 q12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Halifax
Posts: 4,500
Quote:
Originally Posted by alps View Post
On the last page it says:

Quote:
Many existing corridors (Bedford Highway, Windsor St. Exchange, Armdale Roundabout) have volumes beyond their capacity with little opportunity for expansion.

Access to the Highway 102 corridor is available (even more so with the new interchanges) but underused due to the congestion at Bayers Road.
This is the problem. If traffic used HWY 102 more it would balance out the traffic and help with the congestion on these other arteries. We might find out that the traffic problem in this city is not as bad as we thought.

Not everyone is going to want to live on the peninsula.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted Jul 18, 2011, 4:41 PM
coolmillion's Avatar
coolmillion coolmillion is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 295
As a counterpoint, here is a petition urging council to consider other options before pursuing a transportation reserve along the Bayers Road corridor:
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/exp...x-nova-scotia/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted Jul 18, 2011, 5:07 PM
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 coolmillion View Post
As a counterpoint, here is a petition urging council to consider other options before pursuing a transportation reserve along the Bayers Road corridor:
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/exp...x-nova-scotia/
I see Phil Pacey signed this petition. He doesn't want development in the core, and apparently he doesn't want it outside it either. Im not saying the Bayers widening is a good idea nessesarily, but really, you should be on one side of the issue or the other, not just anti everything.

As for my opinion on the whole thing, I think this should have been looked at before approving the mega developments in Bedford. Now that their approved and underway, theres probably not much of a choice but to widen Bayers. With the population increase planned out there, I do believe that even with much better public transportation the number of cars would still increase. And Bedford isnt exactly building out to be bus friendly unfortunately.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted Jul 18, 2011, 10:29 PM
worldlyhaligonian worldlyhaligonian is offline
we built this city
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,799
I think all of the opposition is once again quite misplaced. The Chebucto widening turned out to be one of the best things for the neighborhood, improving the flow of both buses and cars.

As someone123 once pointed out, much of the opinions on this issue are unfounded and based on completely different examples of transportation infrastructure in the past.

In its current state, something needs to be done with Bayers Rd... I think a widening will have very little impact on the neighborhood aside from reducing congestion. My front lawn isn't as big as those fronting onto Bayers. Recent developments incorporated the plan for widening. This is a mountain made out of a molehill by the same people who constantly waste taxpayer dollars on their own misguided agendas.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted Jul 19, 2011, 2:47 AM
alps's Avatar
alps alps is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 1,564
Quote:
Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian View Post
In its current state, something needs to be done with Bayers Rd... I think a widening will have very little impact on the neighborhood aside from reducing congestion. My front lawn isn't as big as those fronting onto Bayers. Recent developments incorporated the plan for widening. This is a mountain made out of a molehill by the same people who constantly waste taxpayer dollars on their own misguided agendas.
The plans seem to indicate that many houses and apartment buildings will be totally levelled...am I missing something?

The Chebucto Road widening didn't just "improve flow" -- it also increased car traffic volumes substantially in the greater area, as measured by a study done afterward. How does that improve the neighbourhood, when the majority of residents likely walk to work anyway?

Quote:
Originally Posted by q12 View Post
Not everyone is going to want to live on the peninsula.
Being against this plan doesn't make me anti-suburb or whatever -- there will always be people who want to live in places like Clayton Park but I don't see why we take it for granted that 95% of them will shuttle themselves in by huge SUVs every day.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18  
Old Posted Jul 19, 2011, 4:35 AM
Dmajackson's Avatar
Dmajackson Dmajackson is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: B3K Halifax, NS
Posts: 9,294
Quote:
Originally Posted by alps View Post
The plans seem to indicate that many houses and apartment buildings will be totally levelled...am I missing something?
Yes and no. There will be a fair bit of demolition of older buildings if this goes ahead but newer developments such as 6955 Bayers have planned for the widening.

Quote:
The Chebucto Road widening didn't just "improve flow" -- it also increased car traffic volumes substantially in the greater area, as measured by a study done afterward. How does that improve the neighbourhood, when the majority of residents likely walk to work anyway?
As a resident of Bedford I seldom use Chebucto Road but based on the limited use I have had the road is a lot better nowadays not just in traffic flow but also in appearance. The road improvement project didn't require the widening of most of the road which sets it apart from Bayers Road.
__________________
NEW!!!Halifax Developments Blog

- DJ
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19  
Old Posted Jul 19, 2011, 5:42 AM
worldlyhaligonian worldlyhaligonian is offline
we built this city
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,799
Quote:
Originally Posted by alps View Post
The plans seem to indicate that many houses and apartment buildings will be totally levelled...am I missing something?

The Chebucto Road widening didn't just "improve flow" -- it also increased car traffic volumes substantially in the greater area, as measured by a study done afterward. How does that improve the neighbourhood, when the majority of residents likely walk to work anyway?

Being against this plan doesn't make me anti-suburb or whatever -- there will always be people who want to live in places like Clayton Park but I don't see why we take it for granted that 95% of them will shuttle themselves in by huge SUVs every day.
Apartment buildings and houses... do you mean the few unremarkable 1.5 story wartime houses that are clad in vinyl siding and the ugly 4 story apartment building?

Wasn't the purpose of the widing to increase the capacity? Higher traffic volumes would typically be the result of improving capacity. Furthermore, I live near the area and it is now much better in terms of both busing and driving from a qualitative POV. I live on the peninsula and constantly go through this intersection... anybody who says its not better doesn't remember what it was like.

Hilariously, the worst part of the Chebucto widening was the use of that ugly exterior material by one of the homeowners who's house was moved back (and they were very well compensated by this whole "ordeal")

I don't know anybody in this neighborhood who walks to work except those who work for Manulife. In fact, its probably about a 45 minute to an hour walk to downtown. Additionally, everybody knows the best route is through the neighborhood up to Quinpool, not walking up Chebucto.

The Chebucto widening didn't turn out to be the Cogswell Interchange and neither will the Bayers road widening.

This is more fear mongering... can't anything get accomplished around here without unfounded comparisons.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20  
Old Posted Jul 19, 2011, 12:37 PM
Keith P.'s Avatar
Keith P. Keith P. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 7,964
Quote:
Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian View Post
The Chebucto widening didn't turn out to be the Cogswell Interchange and neither will the Bayers road widening.

This is more fear mongering... can't anything get accomplished around here without unfounded comparisons.
That's what the cadre of the Ecology Action Center, CBC news, and the usual anti-everything groups do around here.
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 8:10 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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