HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Jul 23, 2011, 3:00 PM
dartmouthy dartmouthy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 7
lol

$300 million (the approximate price of a fully funded LRT system for all of HRM) or a wider Bayers Road so that even more cars can idle in a different place for a few more minutes - yeah, good luck with the petition guys.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Jul 23, 2011, 3:59 PM
fenwick16 fenwick16 is offline
Honored Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Toronto area (ex-Nova Scotian)
Posts: 5,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by dartmouthy View Post
$300 million (the approximate price of a fully funded LRT system for all of HRM) or a wider Bayers Road so that even more cars can idle in a different place for a few more minutes - yeah, good luck with the petition guys.
I think a fully load LRT system for the HRM would be in excess of a billion dollars if you are including a line to Dartmouth.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Sep 14, 2011, 2:19 PM
worldlyhaligonian worldlyhaligonian is offline
we built this city
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,799
LRT would be amazing, but Metro Transit has codified language against any sort of train transport and those against spending are also in that boat. I'd take LRT over the Bayers road widening any day, but it would indeed cost probably 10x more.

Anyway, saw this on Facebook:

Public Meeting on Bayers Road Expansion
Wednesday, September 14 · 7:00pm - 9:00pm

St. Andrew's Community Centre
6955 Bayers Road
Halifax, NS

HALIFAX - A public meeting on the proposed Bayers Road widening will be at 7 pm on Wednesday September 14 at St Andrew's Community Centre, Bayers Road, organized by Councillors Jerry Blumenthal and Jennifer Watts. Staff will give an overview of two items before Regional Council this fall: the recommendation to accept the Road Network Functional Plan that includes the planned widening of Bayers Rd and the proposed establishment of a Transportation Reserve Corridor on Bayers Rd that will define the lines where the future widening would take place.

The project would have considerable impact on the existing neighbourhoods (noise, safety, pedestrian movement, and quality of life), the environment (studies have shown many times that road widening increases car usage), parking impacts on the peninsula, impact on the existing road network in other areas of the peninsula, the direction of the Regional Plan to increase residential density on the peninsula (encouraging attractive liveable neighbourhoods), and ability of HRM to financially support sustainable transportation options instead of the considerable amount of money needed to widen roads and their high maintenance costs.

Residents concerned about this proposal can consider the following actions:

Attend the Sept. 14th meeting to learn about the proposed recommendations that Regional Council is considering and provide feedback.
Contact me at jennifer.watts@halifax.ca and I will forward your comments on to Regional Council
Sign the online petition of the Ecology Action Centre:
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/rem...-road-widening





I don't get it... isn't this a conflict of interest to host a public meeting that clearly has a bias against this infrastucture improvement?

This is like 6955 bayers road all over again, instead of a 16 story tower there we got a squat 9 story thing... The concessions that will be made regarding the bayers road widening will likely make it worse than the original plan.

Watts voted against the pedestrian/disability bridge for the Dartmouth bus terminal, the convention centre, etc.

I don't think the use of funds is great for this project... but if we aren't developing any transportation infrastructure OR high density, wtf are we going to do when the whole city is sprawl? I'm not biking out to clayton park anytime soon!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Sep 14, 2011, 2:22 PM
worldlyhaligonian worldlyhaligonian is offline
we built this city
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,799
Quote:
Originally Posted by dartmouthy View Post
$300 million (the approximate price of a fully funded LRT system for all of HRM) or a wider Bayers Road so that even more cars can idle in a different place for a few more minutes - yeah, good luck with the petition guys.
Where do you get that number from? I think it would be in the billion dollar range if it were to be useful at all.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Sep 14, 2011, 3:57 PM
Jstaleness's Avatar
Jstaleness Jstaleness is offline
Jelly Bean Sandwich
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Dartmouth
Posts: 1,672
I still think that we should try the No Parking anytime before roads are widened. It's been mentioned by the drivers on this forum that it is one of the leading causes of congestion.
__________________
I can't hear you with my eyes closed
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Sep 14, 2011, 4:54 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 worldlyhaligonian View Post
Where do you get that number from? I think it would be in the billion dollar range if it were to be useful at all.
I think he probably got it from none other than Tim Bousquet who has graced us with yet another one of his wonderful articles this week (http://www.thecoast.ca/RealityBites/...ransit-forever)

Tim thinks the widening project will top $1 billion and here is a quote from the above article stating this:

Quote:
We can't really say exactly what the 102/Bayers Road project will cost, but it's clearly enormous. Take the projected 2009 costs of about $300 million, add in all the engineering and land acquisition costs, normal inflation, the hyper inflation of construction costs and excavating, the costs of Highways 107 and 113 and the untold costs of dealing with additional traffic on other streets... and a $1 billion price tag looks like a realistic ballpark figure for the entire project.

I think we require commuter rail first and foremost but if the city isn't going to even entertain the thought of it, than the widening is the next best option. Expanding bus service on this roadway the way it is will do practically nothing to alleviate congestion.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Sep 14, 2011, 5:07 PM
alps's Avatar
alps alps is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 1,564
If I didn't have class I'd be at the meeting tonight to voice my opposition. The 102, 107, and 113 "improvements" will certainly hit a billion by the end of it all and for what? More bland business parks, cookie cutter homes with two SUVs in the driveway, and cries for more parking downtown (if anyone's even able to get their car down there). It barely takes any imagination to come up with a load of completely viable alternatives. Shouldn't we be putting money into a proper BRT system first? There's no excuse to how long it takes to get into the city from Clayton Park and Bedford.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Sep 14, 2011, 5:28 PM
halifaxboyns halifaxboyns is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Planet earth
Posts: 3,883
I'm probably off in my own world on this project. While I don't like the widening idea for just cars. If the widening would take the lane added in both directions (or at least one lane) for buses and for car pooling, then I'd be a little more comfortable with this project.

Centre Street in Calgary is much like Chebucto, certain lanes change direction with the time of day but in each rush hour there is one lane dedicated completely to buses and car pooling and I know police are out monitoring randomly - a friend got hit with a ticket in the car pool lane, when he was by himself. I had no pity on him and it cost him a lot of $, but still...my point is that could help.

As to worldly's comment about Metro Transit - I think the current group within Metro Transit is really against rail. I don't understand it, I don't agree with it or like it. But most of the people involved are nearing the end of their careers, so these are people who likely won't change their minds unless directed to do so. This gives me hope that as this generation of staff retires, we could get people in who would be more willing to discuss or implement a rapid transit solution for HRM. I think the problem is that they keep thinking with the 'small city' hat on. It's time to grow up because Halifax is becoming a big boy.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Sep 14, 2011, 6:13 PM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is offline
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 33,673
Quote:
Originally Posted by halifaxboyns View Post
I think the current group within Metro Transit is really against rail. I don't understand it, I don't agree with it or like it. But most of the people involved are nearing the end of their careers, so these are people who likely won't change their minds unless directed to do so.
My suspicion is that Metro Transit has a bunch of old and unimaginative managers who have decision making power simply because they've been around for a long time. This is a horrible system that pretty much selects for people with bad, outdated judgement.

Is there even any mechanism for Metro Transit to be held accountable for their performance? Is there any real pressure for them to improve? My guess is that in terms of compensation and career progression it makes no difference to management whether you get from Bedford to downtown Halifax in 30 minutes or 90 minutes.

On top of this there's the transit union that periodically threatens to strike despite the fact that a bus operator gets paid $23/hr plus pension (so probably the equivalent of a $60,000/year private sector job) for a job that requires no post-secondary education and could be automated with present-day technology. Metro Transit is probably more of an income redistribution program than a transit system.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted Sep 14, 2011, 7:00 PM
worldlyhaligonian worldlyhaligonian is offline
we built this city
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,799
Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123 View Post
Metro Transit is probably more of an income redistribution program than a transit system.
This is good writing!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted Sep 14, 2011, 7:01 PM
worldlyhaligonian worldlyhaligonian is offline
we built this city
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,799
I don't understand why we don't have BRT right now... MT is a joke.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted Sep 14, 2011, 7:29 PM
halifaxboyns halifaxboyns is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Planet earth
Posts: 3,883
Quote:
Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian View Post
I don't understand why we don't have BRT right now... MT is a joke.
Well you do have a BRT. The Metro Link system is the bus rapid transit for HRM because only those buses have the queue jumping system that trips the lights along the corridors they drive. Other conventional buses don't have that system built in.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted Sep 14, 2011, 11:31 PM
Keith P.'s Avatar
Keith P. Keith P. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 7,964
Quote:
Originally Posted by alps View Post
If I didn't have class I'd be at the meeting tonight to voice my opposition. The 102, 107, and 113 "improvements" will certainly hit a billion by the end of it all and for what? More bland business parks, cookie cutter homes with two SUVs in the driveway, and cries for more parking downtown (if anyone's even able to get their car down there). It barely takes any imagination to come up with a load of completely viable alternatives. Shouldn't we be putting money into a proper BRT system first? There's no excuse to how long it takes to get into the city from Clayton Park and Bedford.
The first half of your post sounds more like you are passing judgement on a lifestyle choice than anything else. Not everyone wants to raise their kids on the 16th floor of a commie block on the peninsula.

As for your comment on BRT, how would you propose getting those BRT units onto and through the peninsula? You need roads to do that. The current 1950s version cannot support that.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted Sep 15, 2011, 1:16 AM
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
The first half of your post sounds more like you are passing judgement on a lifestyle choice than anything else. Not everyone wants to raise their kids on the 16th floor of a commie block on the peninsula.

As for your comment on BRT, how would you propose getting those BRT units onto and through the peninsula? You need roads to do that. The current 1950s version cannot support that.
I like suburbs when they are properly designed -- when they are somewhat walkable (to some basic shops and services), attractive, and dense enough to be served by transit to a standard that would make it a realistic alternative to the car for the average person. Generally speaking, I really like British suburbs.

No new subdivisions in Halifax meet those basic criteria. It's not really a lifestyle choice if the same old Halifax suburb formula is the homebuyer's only choice. Even the sort of bland new-urbanist inspired developments that pop up outside Toronto are miles above what we get here.

If they want to widen the roads to implement a dedicated busway or something I'd be much more open to that, but only if it were proposed from the beginning because I don't think it'd happen otherwise.

Last edited by alps; Sep 15, 2011 at 1:41 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted Sep 15, 2011, 2:53 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
It's not really a lifestyle choice if the same old Halifax suburb formula is the homebuyer's only choice.
Yeah, I think the most popular setup is a house in a small town sort of area with shops within walking distance. This simply isn't an option for most people because they cannot afford the limited Halifax equivalents (South End, West End, maybe parts of Dartmouth -- note that these are all much more expensive for a given size of house because people like them more!) and there are no similar suburban areas. I don't think many people actually prefer areas like Clayton Park. Some prefer Kingswood maybe, but not everybody would want to deal with the downsides of that type of development.

The dedicated bus ROW for Bayers Road makes a lot of sense and I think is being considered. It would be much better to promote its inclusion from the outset than to try to stop the whole process. The widening will happen eventually. The city is growing a lot and does need some improved traffic arteries. It's unrealistic to expect new growth to be handled 100% with increases in transit service.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted Sep 15, 2011, 9:28 AM
ILoveHalifax ILoveHalifax is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Palm Beach Gardens FL
Posts: 1,059
Last nite's meeting

I was at the initial protest meeting last nite. It was organized by 2 councillors to hear all the protests by the local residents. Only one man had the guts to speak in favor in such an agitated crowd.
I was quite impressed by the proposed widening. I feel that if they can improve movement of traffic on Bayers Road, with so little impact the neighborhood would actually be much better.
I could not help but think, if this crowd had been around years ago we would still all be trying to get to work on St Margarets Bay Rd and the Bedford Highway, imagine no 103 or 102.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted Sep 15, 2011, 12:36 PM
Waye Mason's Avatar
Waye Mason Waye Mason is offline
opinionated so and so
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Halifax, NS
Posts: 721
I went. I did not speak. Two people (both gentlemen approaching senior years) had the attitude that "super highways are inevitable." Most of the rest of the speakers were local residents, who were against it, because of the impact on the neighbourhood.

Of the few remaining, I found a couple of comments really interesting:

Peter Kelly - against. He said that reversing lanes, more transit, and better connections of other roads to outbound lanes would be a cheaper, better way to take the pressure off of Bayer's.

Dave McCusker - there as staff, he emphasized over and over again that transit was staffs preferred solution. He seemed to be saying, as much as staff can, that the politicians are not investing enough in transit so transit is not making a difference.

Mark Neener - fusion transit guy gave a slightly rambling point about transit, but really, to me the core points of their More than Buses thing are not new - transit needs to run on time, reliably, and not be 3 times slower than a car, or people won't take it.

I'm going to blog it later.

Personally, I think the city should reserve the corridor. But I don't think construction should start in 2014, or maybe ever. My fear is the city magically does suddenly grow to 1 million people, and we need that corridor, and it is too late. So you need to reserve the land now, even if you don't plan on using it for 25-50 years.

If we had $250-300 million to spend (most of the spend is actually provincial, so it would be hard to take that money and spend it elsewhere), I'd like to see the Bayne Street master plan connect Barrington as a four lane road all teh way to the Bedford Highway, and Bedford Highway 3/4 lanes to at least Hammonds Plains road. I think that would take a lot of pressure off of Bayers.

Also, making a new bridge over the railway cut, so that the split between Dutch Village Road traffic and outbound highway traffic happened earlier (right after Romans) would smooth traffic considerably.

But as was said here already - no parking. no stopping. Do what Toronto and Montreal do, deputize tow trucks, give them hunting licenses. You go out on Quinpool and park in the outbound lane at 5pm for "just one minute" and you come back, your car is gone. Also, no left hand or even right hand turns as appropriate during rush hour from Connaught to the highway would speed things along.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted Sep 15, 2011, 2:55 PM
halifaxboyns halifaxboyns is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Planet earth
Posts: 3,883
The no parking idea is a no brainer. That part is the easiest to deal with. The CH forum talked about the indented bus stops - I like that idea, but it may require some expropriation of land to do (at least between Bayers and Connaught and certainly between Connaught and Windsor).

A widdening to add a reversing lane might work...I'm not enough of a transit planner to be able to model how that could affect traffic.

What I don't agree with is adding another bridge over the railcut. If you did that to seperate the local traffic with the highway traffic, you'd have to take out the houses that are there in the centre on Mailing Street and the street behind it.

You'll never be able to get the Bedford Highway to 4 lanes all the way to Mill Cove without expropriating most if not all the businesses along it, period. That alone would kick up the cost. It would be a small miracle if you could even get a third lane in there which could reverse with traffic.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #39  
Old Posted Sep 15, 2011, 3:08 PM
halifaxboyns halifaxboyns is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Planet earth
Posts: 3,883
Found this in the CH's opinion section

Bayers Road widening: chance for new direction

Once in a while, we get a great opportunity to really think about a new direction for Halifax Regional Municipality: Will we continue down our current path of widening major arterial roads or will we embark on an ambitious and progressive program of supporting sustainable transportation — public transit, cycling infrastructure, commuter rail, ferry service and sidewalks?

Two decisions before regional council this fall will set the direction for this debate: the recommendations to accept the Road Network Functional Plan that includes the planned widening of Bayers Road, and the proposed establishment of a Transportation Reserve Corridor on Bayers Road that will define the lines where the future widening would take place.

Two compelling reasons for changing to a sustainable transportation agenda are the economics of road widening and the necessity of strengthening the urban core as a place to live.

The economics of road widenings are complex. Road construction and maintenance are staggeringly huge financial commitments. The projected costs in 2009 dollars for the Bayers Road widening (CN overpass to Windsor Street) are $16 million for construction and $5 million for land acquisition. The projected cost for the whole Highway 102/Bayers Road widening is $292 million, not including land acquisition. Costs of road construction are hard to predict, as we have just seen with the $5-million overexpenditure of the Washmill Court underpass.

With steadily increasing oil prices, it does not make economic sense to be planning road widenings when most employees may not be able to afford to travel in a private car. When we choose this direction, we severely limit our ability to ensure reliable transportation options for our economy in the future.

New and widened roads may not meet the needs of future commuters, but we seldom challenge ourselves to look at other options. Instead, we often bemoan the expense of public transit as a subsidy benefiting just a few and treat active transportation as a frill. At the household level, every time a resident chooses not to own a car or not to use one, it means more disposable income in their pocket to support other economic activity in our municipality. The real costs of subsidizing the private car at a community and personal level rarely enter the debate.

Central to the future planning direction of HRM is to make our community more sustainable. One important step in achieving this is to encourage more people to live in the urban core: This saves costs since it maximizes the use of existing infrastructure and it reduces our overall environmental footprint. The key phrase describing this goal is building vibrant, affordable communities where people live, work and play.

The rest is here.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #40  
Old Posted Sep 15, 2011, 3:39 PM
Waye Mason's Avatar
Waye Mason Waye Mason is offline
opinionated so and so
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Halifax, NS
Posts: 721
Quote:
Originally Posted by halifaxboyns View Post
You'll never be able to get the Bedford Highway to 4 lanes all the way to Mill Cove without expropriating most if not all the businesses along it, period. That alone would kick up the cost. It would be a small miracle if you could even get a third lane in there which could reverse with traffic.
I agree, 4 would be impossible for the whole length, but there are large chunks where it would not be hard, I am thinking Kearny Lake to past Larry Uteck, which would be a huge improvement, especially given the development off of Larry Uteck.
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 10:51 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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