HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


View Poll Results: How can we deal with the growing issue of crossing Halifax Harbour?
New Bridge (Third Crossing) 31 39.74%
Expand existing Mackay Bridge 2 2.56%
Total Replacement of a Current Bridge 6 7.69%
Tunnel 22 28.21%
More or Faster Ferries 15 19.23%
Leave it alone and use better mass transit options 21 26.92%
Other 2 2.56%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 78. You may not vote on this poll

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #61  
Old Posted Dec 12, 2011, 8:02 AM
Hali87 Hali87 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Calgary
Posts: 4,465
Another alternative to a rail link over a new bridge, that could still provide rail service to Dartmouth would be an expanded version of the railcut-based route on the Halifax side that would include an equivalent route along the Dartmouth waterfront using the existing tracks there (between Burnside and Shearwater). There was actually a master's thesis written a few years ago that proposed that route - interestingly enough, it was written by the same guy who authored the Bedford Transit Alternatives staff report and the latest commuter rail report. The two rail networks could link up near Bedford (if the city is willing to build the extra tracks to do so) or ferry services could link a couple of the stations north of the narrows to provide a second crossing point for people from Bedford/Mainland North who want to skip the peninsula - for example MSVU to Shannon or Wright's Cove. This could also be more effective than a Shannon Park to Downtown ferry since it would feed into the western harbour rail network without having to go through the narrows.

I think that the extra cost of making the bridge or tunnel wide enough to accomodate a railway on top of the road traffic, and then having to install tracks on it, would not be worth it. If anything maybe some of the road traffic from the MacDonald could be diverted to the 3rd crossing and the Macdonald could be reduced to 2 lanes plus 1 rail line (this would be cheaper since it would be a shorter distance and wouldn't have to be widened).

Last edited by Hali87; Dec 12, 2011 at 8:06 AM. Reason: reworded some stuff
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #62  
Old Posted Dec 12, 2011, 3:33 PM
halifaxboyns halifaxboyns is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Planet earth
Posts: 3,883
The question I'm trying to get at is whenever the third crossing is built, it may not be for serving the area around Woodside. But it would be an opportunity to get an LRT/streetcar type service across the harbour (since it wouldn't be able to do so on the other bridges).

Likely what would happen is the LRT would cross through the tunnel and continue onto Penhorn and then service one of the busiest corridors in the suburban areas - Portland Street out to Portland Hills.

But what I'm trying to find out from people is if this would then negate the need for the Woodside ferry?
I'm looking at probably 20 to 30 years out...

Last edited by halifaxboyns; Dec 12, 2011 at 6:22 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #63  
Old Posted Dec 12, 2011, 6:40 PM
Hali87 Hali87 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Calgary
Posts: 4,465
It's hard to say, because in 20 to 30 years Woodside could look totally different than it does now - some major changes would have to happen to make an LRT line to Penhorn worthwhile, though over that time span this kind of growth is certainly not out of the question. If the local population/attractions in Woodside can support the ferry by then even with an LRT station nearby then I say keep it. For some commuters it would still be more convenient/faster, there's the scenic aspect, keeps an extra link in case there's occasional problems in the tunnel, and keeps pressure off the LRT system so it doesn't have to expand as often. If we find ourselves in a situation where cross-harbour LRT is viable then I think we will also find ourselves concerned with more frequent expansion (longer and longer trains, for example, which require platforms to be altered)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #64  
Old Posted Dec 13, 2011, 4:43 PM
halifaxboyns halifaxboyns is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Planet earth
Posts: 3,883
I could easily see keeping the ferry (IMO) - and then Woodside evolving into a office/industrial area; even more so than it is now.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #65  
Old Posted Dec 13, 2011, 7:11 PM
Hali87 Hali87 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Calgary
Posts: 4,465
Quote:
Originally Posted by halifaxboyns View Post
I could easily see keeping the ferry (IMO) - and then Woodside evolving into a office/industrial area; even more so than it is now.
Adding some residential would help too, as long as there is a master plan for the area that creates a cohesive identity beyond "that place with all the hospitals and the oil refinery". The up-and-coming approach seems to be the creation of a village atmosphere in the "urban/neighbourhood centres" defined in the regional plan. Mill Cove, Birch Cove, Downtown Dartmouth and to a lesser degree, Spryfield and Dutch Village, are focusing on developing viable mixed-use communities that are aesthetically/culturally distinct from the Peninsula. This would not only be better from a planning perspective but would also make the city much more interesting. I imagine Woodside could use this approach as well, and in fact I would say there is an advantage their with the existing ferry and high concentration of institutional uses.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #66  
Old Posted Mar 31, 2012, 12:04 AM
Wishblade's Avatar
Wishblade Wishblade is offline
You talkin' to me?
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Calgary, AB
Posts: 1,322
I was inspired to look up more Halifax at night videos after mcmclassic posted one in the photos thread and came accross this one taken by CptSchmidt on youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOao-...eature=related

This is for anyone who thinks we don't need a third crossing. Thats unfortunately a lot of car culture there folks.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #67  
Old Posted Mar 31, 2012, 2:10 AM
Josh M Josh M is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Halifax
Posts: 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wishblade View Post
I was inspired to look up more Halifax at night videos after mcmclassic posted one in the photos thread and came accross this one taken by CptSchmidt on youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOao-...eature=related

This is for anyone who thinks we don't need a third crossing. Thats unfortunately a lot of car culture there folks.
I don't see how that proves we need a third bridge. That is rush hour, and I can't think of one city that doesn't have traffic during rush hour.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #68  
Old Posted Mar 31, 2012, 2:14 AM
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 Josh M View Post
I don't see how that proves we need a third bridge. That is rush hour, and I can't think of one city that doesn't have traffic during rush hour.
So we should just sit back and accept it as a given that bad traffic will always happen and theres no reason to solve it?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #69  
Old Posted Mar 31, 2012, 2:29 AM
alps's Avatar
alps alps is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 1,564
There's no shortage of examples across America that demonstrate that increasing traffic capacity doesn't solve anything in the long run. We need to better address the root of the problem.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #70  
Old Posted Mar 31, 2012, 12:51 PM
Keith P.'s Avatar
Keith P. Keith P. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 7,964
And there are also plenty of examples that show refusing to upgrade obsolete infrastructure holds back economic growth and progress. There is no question we need better road infrastructure.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #71  
Old Posted Mar 31, 2012, 1:51 PM
spaustin's Avatar
spaustin spaustin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Downtown Dartmouth
Posts: 705
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith P. View Post
And there are also plenty of examples that show refusing to upgrade obsolete infrastructure holds back economic growth and progress. There is no question we need better road infrastructure.
Where have you been the last 4 decades? 1960s planning has proven to be a colossal flop. There is a case for some real strategic investments in expanding the transportation infrasturcture system, but projects that are aimed at just expanding car capacity are doomed to fail and are ultimately just a waste of everyone's money. In Halifax, getting a shortcut to get the trucks out of the South End would be an example of a good investment. Spending more to make a really effective public transit system would be a good investment. Bike infrastructure is a good investment. Encouraging infill development would be good planning. On the other hand, spending money on things like a widening Bayers Road or a third Harbour Bridge to "solve" a rush hour problem that, comparatively, is really not that bad and only exists for an hour or so a day would be a really ineffective use of limited funds. This is especially true since we've essentially failed to really try any of the potential alternatives.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #72  
Old Posted Mar 31, 2012, 2:49 PM
Nouvellecosse's Avatar
Nouvellecosse Nouvellecosse is online now
Volatile Pacivist
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 8,968
Quote:
Originally Posted by alps View Post
There's no shortage of examples across America that demonstrate that increasing traffic capacity doesn't solve anything in the long run. We need to better address the root of the problem.
Yep. There's a common motto quoted by traffic planners that says "Widening roads to solve traffic congestion is like loosening your belt to cure obesity."

Perhaps it's time to put the HRM on a diet.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #73  
Old Posted Mar 31, 2012, 2:55 PM
Nouvellecosse's Avatar
Nouvellecosse Nouvellecosse is online now
Volatile Pacivist
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 8,968
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith P. View Post
And there are also plenty of examples that show refusing to upgrade obsolete infrastructure holds back economic growth and progress. There is no question we need better road infrastructure.
But infrastructure doesn't necessarily mean roads, and upgrade doesn't necessarily mean an increase in capacity.

Infrastructure can also mean things like transit, and upgrades can include improving quality or efficiency.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #74  
Old Posted Mar 31, 2012, 3:30 PM
fenwick16 fenwick16 is offline
Honored Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Toronto area (ex-Nova Scotian)
Posts: 5,558
Reducing congestion problems could also be through densifying the urban core.

As far as infrastructure goes, I think that a Northwest Arm crossing needs to be seriously considered. It could get trucks off the peninsula without having to go through the downtown core (if the proper route is chosen). It would also give passenger vehicles an alternate route to reduce traffic tie-ups at the relatively few peninsula exit points.

In any case, now would be a good time to start planning a short LRT system.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #75  
Old Posted Mar 31, 2012, 6:45 PM
Keith P.'s Avatar
Keith P. Keith P. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 7,964
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse View Post
Yep. There's a common motto quoted by traffic planners that says "Widening roads to solve traffic congestion is like loosening your belt to cure obesity."
That is a tired old chestnut that really needs to be buried once and for all.

In HRM we do not build new roads, have severe congestion, and then traffic spills onto residential streets as shortcutters try to make sense of it all.

Quote:
Perhaps it's time to put the HRM on a diet.
HRM roads have been on starvation rations for about 5 decades already. We do not build new roadways around here. But we need to.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #76  
Old Posted Mar 31, 2012, 6:51 PM
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
Where have you been the last 4 decades? 1960s planning has proven to be a colossal flop. There is a case for some real strategic investments in expanding the transportation infrasturcture system, but projects that are aimed at just expanding car capacity are doomed to fail and are ultimately just a waste of everyone's money. In Halifax, getting a shortcut to get the trucks out of the South End would be an example of a good investment. Spending more to make a really effective public transit system would be a good investment. Bike infrastructure is a good investment. Encouraging infill development would be good planning. On the other hand, spending money on things like a widening Bayers Road or a third Harbour Bridge to "solve" a rush hour problem that, comparatively, is really not that bad and only exists for an hour or so a day would be a really ineffective use of limited funds. This is especially true since we've essentially failed to really try any of the potential alternatives.
Your anti-road bias is showing.

Widening Bayers Road is obvious. It was designed originally to be widened way back in the 1940s. It is the one main artery onto the peninsula. I don't care if you have a fleet of buses or LRTs in your backyard waiting to go to work, this needs to be done as the city grows.

The 3rd harbour crossing is also worth doing. It would open up the southern part of Dartmouth to much growth and increase land values in that area. It might be the only real solution to the container truck problem you mention (although I am not convinced that pier is in the right place anyway). It could have a dedicated transitway if that makes you feel better.

I am unconvinced that bike infrastructure is anything more than a waste of money.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #77  
Old Posted Mar 31, 2012, 8:39 PM
RyeJay RyeJay is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 3,086
Quote:
Originally Posted by spaustin View Post
Where have you been the last 4 decades? 1960s planning has proven to be a colossal flop. There is a case for some real strategic investments in expanding the transportation infrasturcture system, but projects that are aimed at just expanding car capacity are doomed to fail and are ultimately just a waste of everyone's money. In Halifax, getting a shortcut to get the trucks out of the South End would be an example of a good investment. Spending more to make a really effective public transit system would be a good investment. Bike infrastructure is a good investment. Encouraging infill development would be good planning. On the other hand, spending money on things like a widening Bayers Road or a third Harbour Bridge to "solve" a rush hour problem that, comparatively, is really not that bad and only exists for an hour or so a day would be a really ineffective use of limited funds. This is especially true since we've essentially failed to really try any of the potential alternatives.
I completely agree.

(And it's because he's stuck in the 1960s)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #78  
Old Posted Mar 31, 2012, 10:31 PM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is offline
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 33,673
Quote:
Originally Posted by spaustin View Post
On the other hand, spending money on things like a widening Bayers Road or a third Harbour Bridge to "solve" a rush hour problem that, comparatively, is really not that bad and only exists for an hour or so a day would be a really ineffective use of limited funds.
I disagree completely with this attitude. Congestion results in a huge cost in terms of lost time, greenhouse gas emissions, etc. with zero benefit. It is horrible for the economy and overall quality of life in the city. The correct way to view the situation is to weigh the costs of transportation investment against the benefits they provide.

The argument that building more roads accomplishes nothing because it induces more traffic doesn't hold water. Travel times drop all the time when new roads are built, and even if the congestion ultimately returns to the same level there is more capacity so more people are traveling and the route is providing more value.

The reality in Halifax is that there's a modal split between different kinds of transportation. Hopefully it can be shifted over time in favour of transit but it's completely unrealistic to expect all new traffic to be accommodated by transit. What about trucks and deliveries, people who live in areas that cannot be served by transit, or people who must make lots of little trips every day for work? What about the buses themselves that add congestion to roads?

Some people don't like the idea of roads, and transit and bike lanes are trendier, but some new road construction is necessary in any growing city.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #79  
Old Posted Mar 31, 2012, 10:56 PM
Canadian_Bacon's Avatar
Canadian_Bacon Canadian_Bacon is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 239
I'm just going to throw my two cents in.

I think it needs to be a combination of things to improve the Traffic around the harbor and Halifax / Dartmouth. Building a new bridge alone will not solve anything as traffic will increase in the years to come and it too will become congested. What then, build a fourth crossing? I'm not ruling out that a third crossing wouldn't be an option though.

A tunnel is very expensive and costs quite a bit to maintain. So a tunnel is just not a good option in my opinion.

I think expanding/ improving what is in place will help alot. It's obvious that with a growing city the bridges need to expand as well. Maybe even go as far as one bridge being inbound traffic only and the other being outbound. But that wouldnt be practical as alot would need to be done to make that happen.

I do agree that new roads will need to be built to help, but it doesn't mean they have to go overboard with new roads.

Before I go on about this I will just sum my thoughts up. Basically I think there needs to be better city planning, improve what is in place and add more transit options. I will improve my thoughts once I get home and have a larger screen to work with. Writing on an iPhone screen is not helping me at all get my point across.
__________________
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
- Albert Einstein
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #80  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2012, 3:33 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
Some people don't like the idea of roads, and transit and bike lanes are trendier, but some new road construction is necessary in any growing city.
Of course! I never said that it's zero road construction. All I was getting at is the emphasis in HRM has been way off and is completely counter-productive and wasteful. Maybe I could be convinced that we need another bridge or that Bayers Road needs to be widened if HRM actually tried to improve the efficiency of our existing network. We have next to zero bus rapid transit, our active transportation system is a scattershot network that doesn't connect to anything, commuter rail is still a dream and we have three ancient ferries. Heck, we don't even have a mass transit connection to the airport (I know coming eventually). While more efficient public transit options languish, we're busy looking at spending billions on Bayers and a third bridge. How does that make any sense? Spend billions on facilitating single-vehicle car commuting and yet we can't even come up with $100 million for a fast ferry to Bedford. How sad is that? To extend the diet metaphor that's bouncing around here, HRM's on its second heart attack and instead of dieting, still wants to eat cake and pie every day.

Unfortunately, transportation is just one part of a much bigger problem. Our tax system punishes the Downtown, encouraging sprawl and encouraging more car commuting. Why build Downtown when you can pay half the taxes, enjoy free parking and lots of subsidized infrastructure in the burbs? Our planning regime says some nice warm and fuzzy words, but lacks the teeth to actually change anything (Bayers Lake II, this time with sidewalks). Try and build something Downtown and it's a huge fight whereas you can throw up whatever ugly box you want in the burbs, bulldoze some forest and no one cares. It's all very disheartening as we're sapping the vibrancy right out of our city and are paying more in taxes to do it. HRM has tried nothing and is apparently all out of ideas. The way we're going, we're going to continue to punch below our potential.

Last edited by spaustin; Apr 1, 2012 at 3:49 AM.
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 3:17 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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