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
     
     
  #81  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2012, 11:02 AM
Jstaleness's Avatar
Jstaleness Jstaleness is offline
Jelly Bean Sandwich
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Dartmouth
Posts: 1,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by spaustin View Post
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.
I didn't agree with everything you have said in some of the previous posts, but what you said above I agree with 100%.
__________________
I can't hear you with my eyes closed
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #82  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2012, 12:39 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
I'm definitely open to the idea of a NW arm crossing, but I'm not sure I see the logic in not wanting a harbour crossing to be transit only or have a dedicated transit component because the crossing would be an expensive project. I mean, if its expensive we should want to get as much out of it as possible shouldn't we? And two lanes of transit could easily as move as many or more people as 4-6 lanes of general road space.

As far as rerouting the trucks, sure that would be nice, but for the kinda $$$ we're talking about I think we can safely say there are much higher priorities.
Your concept only makes sense if transit is used to reasonably high capacity. This will not happen because MT runs a very poor service and people only use it as a last resort. I firmly oppose adding anything to the existing MT operation because it will be hijacked by the miserable ATU. Until we figure out a different way to run mass transit in this town, in a way that eliminates the ATU and the bus-only mindset of current MT management, your idea would be one of the biggest boondoggles in history.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #83  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2012, 2:29 PM
Josh M Josh M is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Halifax
Posts: 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wishblade View Post
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?
I am not saying that we should sit back and accept it, but I don't understand how a third bridge will fix rush hour traffic.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #84  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2012, 5:36 PM
Jstaleness's Avatar
Jstaleness Jstaleness is offline
Jelly Bean Sandwich
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Dartmouth
Posts: 1,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh M View Post
I am not saying that we should sit back and accept it, but I don't understand how a third bridge will fix rush hour traffic.
If placed on the south ends it would reduce the amount of Eastern Passage and Woodside traffic that use the current Bridges now. I believe strongly that it will help but at what point does it become too costly to bother?
__________________
I can't hear you with my eyes closed
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #85  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2012, 5:39 PM
Josh M Josh M is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Halifax
Posts: 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jstaleness View Post
If placed on the south ends it would reduce the amount of Eastern Passage and Woodside traffic that use the current Bridges now. I believe strongly that it will help but at what point does it become too costly to bother?
I'm not saying that it wouldn't reduce traffic, but I'm saying that there is always going to be heavy traffic during rush hour. I think that a third bridge would be too expensive and we should look at maybe improving our current bridges if that is possible. Maybe have two levels so that each could in different directions.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #86  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2012, 6:41 PM
Keith P.'s Avatar
Keith P. Keith P. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 7,964
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh M View Post
I'm not saying that it wouldn't reduce traffic, but I'm saying that there is always going to be heavy traffic during rush hour. I think that a third bridge would be too expensive and we should look at maybe improving our current bridges if that is possible. Maybe have two levels so that each could in different directions.
From what I understand, the MacDonald bridge cannot be expanded any further without being replaced by a new structure. However, you make a good point regarding improvements. While they are just bandaids, some comparatively simple changes could help.

The approaches at either end of the MacDonald are straight out of the 1950s. On the Dartmouth side, an elevated toll plaza over Wyse Road to eliminate the traffic signals would help greatly. The same holds true for a way for traffic to turn left onto Wyse without backing up onto the bridge. Widening the Dartmouth end to reduce the restriction just prior to the toll plaza would also be a good move. On the Halifax side, eliminating the pedestrian crosswalk or building an elevated roadway over it would help a great deal, although dumping so much of the traffic onto the cartpath known as North St is always going to be a problem. Still, I think some smart design could increase capacity greatly.

The problem with the MacKay is of course the disaster known as the Windsor St exchange. A grade-separated interchange is the only solution to that mess. That should be combined with a proper connection to the Bicentennial Highway/102 that eliminates the use of Joe Howe and other surface streets.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #87  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2012, 7:12 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
From what I understand, the MacDonald bridge cannot be expanded any further without being replaced by a new structure. However, you make a good point regarding improvements. While they are just bandaids, some comparatively simple changes could help.

The approaches at either end of the MacDonald are straight out of the 1950s. On the Dartmouth side, an elevated toll plaza over Wyse Road to eliminate the traffic signals would help greatly. The same holds true for a way for traffic to turn left onto Wyse without backing up onto the bridge. Widening the Dartmouth end to reduce the restriction just prior to the toll plaza would also be a good move. On the Halifax side, eliminating the pedestrian crosswalk or building an elevated roadway over it would help a great deal, although dumping so much of the traffic onto the cartpath known as North St is always going to be a problem. Still, I think some smart design could increase capacity greatly.

The problem with the MacKay is of course the disaster known as the Windsor St exchange. A grade-separated interchange is the only solution to that mess. That should be combined with a proper connection to the Bicentennial Highway/102 that eliminates the use of Joe Howe and other surface streets.
Don't forget the bike ramp It too is poorly designed. There is no good way to get onto it at the Dartmouth side and on the Halifax side it dumps cyclist onto 4 lanes of fast-moving Barrington Street where you're really risking your neck. The bike lane should connect to Brunswick. Brunswick is a nice calm ride out of the hustle and bustle of traffic, at a good elevation and even has a bike lane for a couple of blocks by the Citadel. To get cyclists onto Brunswick, it might make sense to flip the pedestrian and bike lanes and then build a pedestrian bridge at the end of the existing bike lane so that pedestrians don't have to go down to Barrington (I suspect it's easier to build a pedestrian bridge than a bike bridge). If Brunswick doesn't work, maybe a bike bridge could be built to get cyclists up to Gottingen from the existing lane. Gottingen is one the potential Crosstown Connector routes, which, if built could make for a major improvement in bike infrastructure because we would actually have the makings of a network instead of bits and pieces. Big hitch is all the bus traffic north bound on it though.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #88  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2012, 9:32 PM
Keith P.'s Avatar
Keith P. Keith P. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 7,964
If you are going to the trouble of building overpasses at either end the Halifax end of the bike lane could probably be fixed. I agree that the current configuration is ridiculous. Flipping the pedestrian and bike lanes might be a good idea.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #89  
Old Posted Apr 2, 2012, 12:51 AM
RyeJay RyeJay is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 3,086
Modifications to the existing bridges should be done prior to considerations of a third crossing. What is absolutely vital, though, is a focus of our money toward urbanising so that we may get to the root of our traffic problems. Before building a third bridge, we need to have a reformed tax code so that new development is encouraged toward the core; we also need to invest in numerous forms (not just bus) of public transit.

We may discover that a third crossing is not needed upon these other investments -- and this could save us a lot of money, relieve our traffic frustrations at least slightly, and help reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, all while further encouraging a healthy culture of walking, not just for peninsular Haligonians but for suburbanite public transit users as well.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #90  
Old Posted Apr 2, 2012, 2:09 AM
DigitalNinja DigitalNinja is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 964
The current implementation of bike lanes sucks as it is. It's dangerous for the cyclists and is confusing to drivers.

The thought that roads don't need to be expanded is wrong. And the thought that we don't need more/better public transit is wrong as well.

I still think something like the Toyama tram would be great in Halifax! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyama_...mak%C5%8D_Line
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #91  
Old Posted Apr 2, 2012, 6:04 AM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is offline
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 33,673
Quote:
Originally Posted by RyeJay View Post
Modifications to the existing bridges should be done prior to considerations of a third crossing.
The HDBC mentions modifications and twinning of the MacKay in the third crossing report. The Macdonald has already been modified pretty substantially (third lane and reversing lanes), and the MacKay twin is less desirable than a southern crossing. My impression is that improvements might help, but that none of them will produce gains proportional to the amount of growth that the city has experienced. There will be a need for either another crossing or additional far-flung suburbs on the outskirts of Bedford (which may in any case result in pushing forward plans like 102 widening that won't be far off from the cost of the bridge and will NOT be paid for by tolls). Opposition to the third crossing based on the idea that we need less suburban development is probably misguided.

I think bike lanes and so on are like alternative energy sources such as solar or wind turbines. They're great and are useful in a certain niche (I've biked to work a lot in Vancouver). Maybe Halifax can have 5% or 7% bike traffic, or even more in the summer months. Bikes will not be replacing cars and buses, however.

To put things into perspective, population growth is around 1.3% per year and may increase in the future. This means that a great bike network might push off the need for road infrastructure by a few years at most. In reality most solutions are an order of magnitude or more off from what is required. Transit is more substantial but I think it had (pre-strike) something like an 11% share of commuters. To keep congestion stable the transit system would have to grow in ridership by 10-20% every year. Needless to say, that's not what's been happening in Halifax. It might be feasible with a well-planned LRT system but unfortunately that's not even on the table right now. Putting off a bridge for an imaginary transit system is not reasonable.

Realistically I don't think a third crossing is a bad idea if it is handled properly. If they do a six-lane crossing that gets trucks off downtown streets, has a HOV/transit lane, and is supported by tolls, it could be great for the city.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #92  
Old Posted Apr 2, 2012, 11:21 AM
Nouvellecosse's Avatar
Nouvellecosse Nouvellecosse is online now
Volatile Pacivist
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 8,968
Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123 View Post
To put things into perspective, population growth is around 1.3% per year and may increase in the future. This means that a great bike network might push off the need for road infrastructure by a few years at most. In reality most solutions are an order of magnitude or more off from what is required. Transit is more substantial but I think it had (pre-strike) something like an 11% share of commuters. To keep congestion stable the transit system would have to grow in ridership by 10-20% every year. Needless to say, that's not what's been happening in Halifax. It might be feasible with a well-planned LRT system but unfortunately that's not even on the table right now. Putting off a bridge for an imaginary transit system is not reasonable.

Realistically I don't think a third crossing is a bad idea if it is handled properly. If they do a six-lane crossing that gets trucks off downtown streets, has a HOV/transit lane, and is supported by tolls, it could be great for the city.
I think you'll find though that transit usage is strongly affected by the ease in which people can get around by automobile. When there is little incentive to use alternatives, transit usage remains low. But when car usage becomes either too expensive or less convenient due to either congestion or lack of parking, then transit usage increases. Mode share should not be viewed as a variable independent of and unchangeable by planning.

Honestly, I think the path Halifax has been taking over the last couple decades is very undesirable in terms of the percentage of suburban/car depended development (not specifically development in the suburbs, but the exceptionally poor way it's been done), and remedying this is not going to be easy. I remember watching documentaries about the Big Dig and seeing the state of traffic leading up to the project. It was said that rush hour had become some 16 hours per day which I found unimaginable. But when visiting Toronto and seeing how congested the Gardiner is. it's not quite so surprising. If we really think our traffic problems are serious because traffic is backed up an hour in the morning and an hour in the evening and use this justify increasing road space, then nothing is ever going to change. We'll get the bridge and a decade or so after it's open, the extra capacity will induce enough demand to congest it to the same degree as the bridges are now. And nothing will ever change.

Now I'm under no illusions that the one action of not making a new bridge will single handedly solve all sprawl and auto dependency problems. Alone it will do little but cause congestion on the bridges to increase. The problem obviously has multiple long term causes and will require multiple equally long term solutions. But we need to remember that the problem is not the congestion which is only a symptom of it. And knee-jerk reacting every time roads get a little congested and thinking adding capacity is the only option is only surrendering to the problem rather than solving it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #93  
Old Posted Apr 2, 2012, 11:27 AM
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
Your concept only makes sense if transit is used to reasonably high capacity. This will not happen because MT runs a very poor service and people only use it as a last resort. I firmly oppose adding anything to the existing MT operation because it will be hijacked by the miserable ATU. Until we figure out a different way to run mass transit in this town, in a way that eliminates the ATU and the bus-only mindset of current MT management, your idea would be one of the biggest boondoggles in history.
I agree that MT is not ideal, but you seem to be just writing off transit and concluding that due to MT's problems, the only viable mode of transportation is the automobile. Don't you think we should be putting more effort into fixing it rather than just abandoning it? Especially considering how much more expensive and less efficient automobile transportation is relative to mass transit.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #94  
Old Posted Apr 2, 2012, 12:02 PM
Nouvellecosse's Avatar
Nouvellecosse Nouvellecosse is online now
Volatile Pacivist
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 8,968
When I hear about how dire our infrastructure issues are, I always find it interesting to compare the HRM to other cities. In 2001, Dartmouth had a population of about 65,000 and Cole Harbour had 25,000. Based on growth trends, we can assume the combined areas have reached 100,000 by now. Montreal's South Shore suburbs had a combined population of 712,172 in 2006. There are 7 road lanes connecting Dartmouth and Cole Harbour to Halifax, and 23 lanes connecting the South Shore to Montreal. In order for them to have a proportional number of road lanes as us, they'd need to more than double theirs to about 49. How do they manage? Well, I suspect having two commuter train routes a metro line, and 2 bike routes probably helps.

The situation is a little less extreme in Greater Vancouver. Their North Shore suburbs had a combined population of about 175,000 in 2006, and there are 9 road lanes connecting them to Vancouver. In order for them to have as many lanes per capita as us, they'd need just over 12.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #95  
Old Posted Apr 2, 2012, 12:36 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
I think you'll find though that transit usage is strongly affected by the ease in which people can get around by automobile. When there is little incentive to use alternatives, transit usage remains low. But when car usage becomes either too expensive or less convenient due to either congestion or lack of parking, then transit usage increases. Mode share should not be viewed as a variable independent of and unchangeable by planning.
I have never understood the desire by some to cause congestion and delay as an incentive to make people use transit. That seems extremely wrong-headed. Especially in HRM with the bus-only mindset of MT, causing congestion by refusing to upgrade our obsolete road infrastructure is self-defeating since buses get trapped in that congestion and become even less attractive to users.

It is a complex problem and no single answer will solve it. Part of it comes from offering other modes of transit other than buses on our existing roads, such as rail. Some of the answer comes from rethinking the existing bus route structure to remove the endless parade of buses along Barrington St and the poorly designed routings that many routes have. And part of it comes from fixing our road infrastructure to accommodate the growth we have had since the 1950s when our current roads were largely built. Saying that it will all be OK if only we had bike lanes and trails for people to walk 10km to work, as some do, instead of a practical and workable solution involving all of the moving parts of the equation is just silly.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #96  
Old Posted Apr 2, 2012, 6:00 PM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is offline
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 33,673
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse View Post
I think you'll find though that transit usage is strongly affected by the ease in which people can get around by automobile. When there is little incentive to use alternatives, transit usage remains low. But when car usage becomes either too expensive or less convenient due to either congestion or lack of parking, then transit usage increases. Mode share should not be viewed as a variable independent of and unchangeable by planning.
Well, I talked about mode share going up. My point is that we're not going to get the mode of transportation that works for the 3% to grow overnight to handle a significant percentage of overall traffic.

It is too bad that much of Halifax was poorly developed, but that is the reality. A certain percentage have no alternative to their cars because of where they live, where their job is located, the nature of their job, etc. As Keith P. says it is a complex problem and I hear far too many facile prescriptions for just dealing with it or making it go away with infill (that is hard to even build). Part of the solution is going to include new roadways.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #97  
Old Posted Apr 2, 2012, 6:10 PM
Hali87 Hali87 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Calgary
Posts: 4,465
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith P. View Post
I have never understood the desire by some to cause congestion and delay as an incentive to make people use transit. That seems extremely wrong-headed. Especially in HRM with the bus-only mindset of MT, causing congestion by refusing to upgrade our obsolete road infrastructure is self-defeating since buses get trapped in that congestion and become even less attractive to users.

It is a complex problem and no single answer will solve it. Part of it comes from offering other modes of transit other than buses on our existing roads, such as rail. Some of the answer comes from rethinking the existing bus route structure to remove the endless parade of buses along Barrington St and the poorly designed routings that many routes have. And part of it comes from fixing our road infrastructure to accommodate the growth we have had since the 1950s when our current roads were largely built. Saying that it will all be OK if only we had bike lanes and trails for people to walk 10km to work, as some do, instead of a practical and workable solution involving all of the moving parts of the equation is just silly.
I agree that there are some people who literally do think that we should actively increase congestion because this will make driving less attractive and "force" people to choose other modes of transportation. I think this is misguided. A subtly different approach that I agree with much more is simply to stop making it easier for people to get around by car, while continuing to make it easier to get around in other ways. Sometimes this comes at the expense of automobile traffic, but in these cases there must be measures put in place to mitigate the increased difficulty for drivers. Throughout much of the 20th century, in Halifax as well as in most North American cities, the automobile had an overwhelming priority. While we don't need to make it hard to drive just for the sake of making it hard to drive, we do need to take the car off its pedestal in many cases.

One example would be putting a bus lane on Bayers Road without providing extra non-bus-only lanes. Depending how this is done, car capacity would be the same as it is now, or somewhat lower. But the net capacity of the road would be significantly higher because buses use space more efficiently. Because the buses would be much faster, people would be more inclined to use them.

Another approach would be to remove on-street parking from some streets downtown and turn lanes that were previously used for parking to transit-only. Again, this is simply a more efficient use of space, and since it would significantly improve the efficiency of transit, it could be a good pay-off. Eliminating the on-street parking and using this space to plant flowers or something would not be a good trade-off, in terms of traffic flow; it would make it harder to drive but would not offer any alternative.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #98  
Old Posted May 30, 2012, 12:37 PM
HalifaxRetales HalifaxRetales is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Halifax
Posts: 396
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #99  
Old Posted May 30, 2012, 12:58 PM
q12's Avatar
q12 q12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Halifax
Posts: 4,500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HalifaxRetales View Post
Awesome! Long overdue!

We need more traffic cameras on the major artieries in this city. That way you can try to avoid spending and hour and a half trying to cross the the harbour in rush hour with an accident on one of the bridges.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #100  
Old Posted Jun 14, 2013, 11:09 PM
RyeJay RyeJay is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 3,086
We need progress on more public transit, and possibly a third bridge.

Today:

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 5:17 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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