HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted Oct 19, 2015, 12:53 PM
q12's Avatar
q12 q12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Halifax
Posts: 4,500
Halifax Traffic

Macdonald Bridge delayed opening this morning till 10:30 am at the earliest due to the Big Lift. Traffic on the Circ (Hwy 111) backed up past Portland Street and on the Bi-Hi (Hwy 102) past Kearney Lake Road.



Circ (Hwy 111)



Bi-Hi (Hwy 102)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted Oct 19, 2015, 1:15 PM
OldDartmouthMark OldDartmouthMark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 8,405
It always amazes me how easily our traffic can become snarled. Take one route out of the mix and major backups ensue.

The google traffic map illustrates how a third crossing at the base of the 111 would have helped the situation somewhat.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted Oct 19, 2015, 1:35 PM
Keith P.'s Avatar
Keith P. Keith P. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 7,964
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark View Post
It always amazes me how easily our traffic can become snarled. Take one route out of the mix and major backups ensue.

The google traffic map illustrates how a third crossing at the base of the 111 would have helped the situation somewhat.
More than "somewhat".

It is ridiculous that our political leaders in this town are actively opposing a third harbor crossing. We need a south-end bridge.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Oct 23, 2015, 10:41 AM
q12's Avatar
q12 q12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Halifax
Posts: 4,500
And it has happened again...
The circ (111) is backed up 10km...

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted Oct 23, 2015, 5:24 PM
Nouvellecosse's Avatar
Nouvellecosse Nouvellecosse is online now
Volatile Pacivist
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 8,968
Yeah when I got the broadcast from the Big Lift smartphone app saying the bridge won't be opening until 2pm I was like, "Shit..."

I took the bus across the bridge for the first time since they actually started replacing the span segments and that crazy bump is still slowing things down. I went across at around 5:30pm (for some reason the reversing lane was going in the Halifax direction) and the traffic was moving at a walking pace right up to the bump, then right after it went to normal speed.

I didn't want to take the ferry since I was going from Highfield to Mumford but I actually think the ferry might have been faster.
__________________
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." - George Bernard Shaw
Don't ask people not to debate a topic. Just stop making debatable assertions. Problem solved.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted Oct 23, 2015, 5:34 PM
Keith P.'s Avatar
Keith P. Keith P. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 7,964
This entire week has been a debacle for HHB.

There can be no question that a 3rd harbor crossing is becoming more and more vital.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted Oct 25, 2015, 2:20 PM
Jringe01's Avatar
Jringe01 Jringe01 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Montreal
Posts: 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith P. View Post
This entire week has been a debacle for HHB.

There can be no question that a 3rd harbor crossing is becoming more and more vital.
How would that work...where could they put it
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted Oct 25, 2015, 4:48 PM
Keith P.'s Avatar
Keith P. Keith P. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 7,964
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jringe01 View Post
How would that work...where could they put it
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=148144
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted Oct 25, 2015, 5:41 PM
Colin May Colin May is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 1,480
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jringe01 View Post
How would that work...where could they put it
It's really quite easy .... a few billion dollars will just drop out of the sky as part of the 3rd bridge fantasy. Justin will fly over throwing sacks full of new $100 bills to Premier McNeil.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted Oct 25, 2015, 6:34 PM
Keith P.'s Avatar
Keith P. Keith P. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 7,964
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colin May View Post
It's really quite easy .... a few billion dollars will just drop out of the sky as part of the 3rd bridge fantasy. Justin will fly over throwing sacks full of new $100 bills to Premier McNeil.
Colin, are you suggesting we cannot build any new large-scale projects ever again? Even ones supported by a revenue stream?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted Oct 25, 2015, 11:18 PM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is offline
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 33,673
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith P. View Post
Colin, are you suggesting we cannot build any new large-scale projects ever again? Even ones supported by a revenue stream?
I think the fear of taking on major projects is really starting to hurt the city. If a third bridge had been built, to take one example, the current project likely would have been much less painful and there would have been more options in terms of HOV or transit lanes, etc.

The alarmist stuff about how the city, province, or country are on the verge of bankruptcy and can't afford to build anything (or run deficits) doesn't hold up to water at all. Infrastructure projects are necessary in any city and the capacity of the city and province to build new projects is much higher today than it was in the 1950's-70's when a lot of the current infrastructure was built. HRM and NS debt levels have both been falling and interest rates are low. The city population and economy are also vastly larger than they were in the past.

Here's what Statistics Canada has to say about the labour market in Halifax over the past year (http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tabl...s04a-eng.htm):
Labour force - +4,300 from September 2014 - September 2015 (+1.8%)
Employment - +5,100 (+2.3%) -> This means that 5,100 more people are trying to get to work this year than one year ago.

Yet many people still think that new infrastructure is not really needed or is too risky. It's absurd.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2015, 4:08 AM
Colin May Colin May is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 1,480
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith P. View Post
Colin, are you suggesting we cannot build any new large-scale projects ever again? Even ones supported by a revenue stream?
In January the province issued $125,000,000 of 30 year notes at a yield of 2.91% and in the period August 2014 to March 31 2015 issued $1 billion debt.
Assuming a new bridge from Woodside to the southend costs $1 billion the interest alone would be at least $30,000,000 a year and at $2 per vehicle the project requires 15,000,000 crossings a year, total crossings now are 30,000,000. Not including the cost of operations.
In 2014/15 HDBC had total revenue of $32,000,000
The Big Lift is estimated at $200,000,000.
The cost of a new VG is $500-800 million.
The province says the cost of fitting out 2 floors at Dartmouth General is $150 million.
I'm suggesting that a cost/benefit analysis of a 3rd bridge will show that it is not supported by a revenue stream and is a waste of scarce resources.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2015, 3:08 PM
OldDartmouthMark OldDartmouthMark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 8,405
Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123 View Post
I think the fear of taking on major projects is really starting to hurt the city. If a third bridge had been built, to take one example, the current project likely would have been much less painful and there would have been more options in terms of HOV or transit lanes, etc.

The alarmist stuff about how the city, province, or country are on the verge of bankruptcy and can't afford to build anything (or run deficits) doesn't hold up to water at all. Infrastructure projects are necessary in any city and the capacity of the city and province to build new projects is much higher today than it was in the 1950's-70's when a lot of the current infrastructure was built. HRM and NS debt levels have both been falling and interest rates are low. The city population and economy are also vastly larger than they were in the past.

Here's what Statistics Canada has to say about the labour market in Halifax over the past year (http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tabl...s04a-eng.htm):
Labour force - +4,300 from September 2014 - September 2015 (+1.8%)
Employment - +5,100 (+2.3%) -> This means that 5,100 more people are trying to get to work this year than one year ago.

Yet many people still think that new infrastructure is not really needed or is too risky. It's absurd.
I have to agree with this. If people were as resistant to infrastructure spending back in the 1950s we would still be driving around the Bedford Basin or waiting for a car ferry.

Putting off infrastructure updates until it's "really needed" is really just poor planning. The money will be spent regardless, and likely land acquisitions will be more difficult and costly at that time. Or the optimal location will no longer be available due to land use changes, etc.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted Oct 28, 2015, 1:12 PM
OldDartmouthMark OldDartmouthMark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 8,405
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted Nov 2, 2015, 12:44 PM
q12's Avatar
q12 q12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Halifax
Posts: 4,500
Welcome to Toronto er..Montreal.. oh wait Dartmouth.


https://twitter.com/HaliBreaking?ref...Ctwgr%5Eauthor
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted Nov 2, 2015, 2:28 PM
Drybrain Drybrain is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 4,101
That photo really demonstrates how much we need higher-order transit (i.e., more than buses) and we need it ASAP. Unfortunately, most people will look at that and think the answer is more lanes for traffic.

This is anecdotal, but last month I spent about five days each in Reykjavik (population 250,000) and Amsterdam (population 2.5 million), and it really made plain the the paradoxical relationship between additional road capacity and worsened traffic.

Modern Reykjavik has developed in a mostly car-oriented, sprawly way. It's got a wonderful, walkable, compact city centre, but outside of that it turns into a bunch of huge roads and overbuilt overpasses connecting far-flung single-family subdivisions and big-box retail destinations. There's a decent bus network, but that's it, and it's clearly not the locals' first choice of transport. It's very Halifax-like.

Amsterdam is, of course, classic European mid-rise density, spread almost uniformly through the whole metropolitan area. The region is connected to nearby towns and cities by a robust rail network, and internally by a highly developed system of in-town trams. Streets are mostly narrow, with the exception of some wide boulevards that nonetheless generally have only one lane of auto traffic in each direction, with the rest given over to transit ROWs and cycling. There are highways in and out of the city, but even though the population is ten times greater than Reyjkavik's, the highways are no more numerous, and are all the same width or narrower.

And yet driving in Amsterdam was way easier, faster, and more free-flowing, despite that there was obviously much less road space per citizen than in Reykjavik, where traffic was absurdly over-congested for a small city.

Obviously that's anecdotal, but still: On the one hand, a big city with relatively little road space and relatively minor congestion problems, and on the other, a city ten times smaller with buckets of road space and constant congestion.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted Nov 2, 2015, 4:38 PM
OldDartmouthMark OldDartmouthMark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 8,405
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drybrain View Post
That photo really demonstrates how much we need higher-order transit (i.e., more than buses) and we need it ASAP. Unfortunately, most people will look at that and think the answer is more lanes for traffic.

This is anecdotal, but last month I spent about five days each in Reykjavik (population 250,000) and Amsterdam (population 2.5 million), and it really made plain the the paradoxical relationship between additional road capacity and worsened traffic.

Modern Reykjavik has developed in a mostly car-oriented, sprawly way. It's got a wonderful, walkable, compact city centre, but outside of that it turns into a bunch of huge roads and overbuilt overpasses connecting far-flung single-family subdivisions and big-box retail destinations. There's a decent bus network, but that's it, and it's clearly not the locals' first choice of transport. It's very Halifax-like.

Amsterdam is, of course, classic European mid-rise density, spread almost uniformly through the whole metropolitan area. The region is connected to nearby towns and cities by a robust rail network, and internally by a highly developed system of in-town trams. Streets are mostly narrow, with the exception of some wide boulevards that nonetheless generally have only one lane of auto traffic in each direction, with the rest given over to transit ROWs and cycling. There are highways in and out of the city, but even though the population is ten times greater than Reyjkavik's, the highways are no more numerous, and are all the same width or narrower.

And yet driving in Amsterdam was way easier, faster, and more free-flowing, despite that there was obviously much less road space per citizen than in Reykjavik, where traffic was absurdly over-congested for a small city.

Obviously that's anecdotal, but still: On the one hand, a big city with relatively little road space and relatively minor congestion problems, and on the other, a city ten times smaller with buckets of road space and constant congestion.
Interesting comparison. When you compare the land area of each it's even more interesting:

Amsterdam: 219 square kilometers
Reykjavic: 274.5 square kilomiters
Halifax: 5490 square kilometers

Your comment about Amsterdam:
"The region is connected to nearby towns and cities by a robust rail network, and internally by a highly developed system of in-town trams."
I think this is specifically relevant to Halifax, in that the "suburbs" are basically the equivalent of the nearby towns and cities that you speak of, as that's how "the suburbs" started out, as independent towns and cities.

The difference, as I see it, is that although pretty much all the towns and cities in Nova Scotia were once connected by rail, they were subsidized by the government and thus able to remain in operation despite being generally underutilized. Eventually, in light of the onslaught of other forms of transportation (e.g. automobiles and buses), our population density wasn't really large enough to financially support regular rail service and our government didn't have the political strength (or, perhaps, the foresight) to maintain and bolster rail service like typical European cities/countries did. This eventually led to the country's rail system becoming privatized and lines being dropped by the private companies when it was realized that they were not financially viable (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadi...and_refocusing). This resulted in the rails for these branch lines being torn up and the ROWs repurposed as activity paths instead. Sadly, the costs associated with changing them back to rail, should we ever decide to do so, would be astronomical and thus unlikely to be viable for the foreseeable future.

To keep it in perspective, however, it's important to point out the difference in population between Halifax and Amsterdam, in that Amsterdam has over six times the population of Halifax in a much smaller land mass, or even more aptly, The Netherlands has over sixteen times the population of Nova Scotia on less land area (NS: 55,283 km² vs The Netherlands: 41,540 km²). Given these stats, a highly developed rail system has been a necessity for a long time in The Netherlands, whereas it has not really been economically viable in Nova Scotia.

To give it yet more perspective, consider if The Netherlands had similar levels of car usage among its population as Nova Scotia, it would be chaos - you would never be able to move. In comparison, the current level of traffic in Halifax is really not all that bad - it gets snagged up every now and then when something goes wrong, but relatively speaking it generally works pretty well. I think we just like to complain about it disproportionately (human nature). Every time I drive in a larger city elsewhere, I'm always pleased to return home to Halifax's relatively light traffic. Even further, once you get outside of Halifax, to other areas of the province, traffic problems are basically nonexistent.

I'm a big supporter of rail transit, of using what is currently a surplus ROW (the rail cut) to more efficiently move people around the area, but I do realize that economics must play into it for it to work. Therefore we have to service the areas of greater population immediately (even if it is at a loss but benefits a large part of the population), but it will perhaps be several decades before (if ever) it becomes practical to move people by rail to every small town and village in the province, such as it is now in The Netherlands.

Perhaps if we look to balance the type of traffic that we have, keeping in mind the challenges presented by our particular population geography, the best overall scenario would be to develop a few key pieces of infrastructure and transit now, so that we can build on that for the future, however that evolves.

Examples could include
- a third harbour crossing and maybe a Northwest Arm crossing if possible;
- commuter rail and overall improvement in the efficiency of transit altogether (which could include a type of trolley service, but most importantly involves all types of transit functioning as one entity);
- and yes, increased/improved bicycle access ("if you build it they will come").

Also, we must keep in mind that these should not be considered mutually exclusive. Example: a third harbour crossing, for example, could be designed to provide special accomodations for alternate forms of transit, such as rail and separated bicycle lanes. Commuter rail transit could be designed to be able to accommodate fluctuating percentages of bicycle commuters. And so on.

Just my
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18  
Old Posted Nov 2, 2015, 5:02 PM
Nouvellecosse's Avatar
Nouvellecosse Nouvellecosse is online now
Volatile Pacivist
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 8,968
^ I generally agree with those sentiments, but in terms of trying to "balance the type of traffic that we have" we shouldn't be balanced in what we're adding, as that does little to alter the current imbalance. To create that balance you'd need to add more of the things we're lacking.

In other words, if you have three buckets of water that you feel should be balanced, and currently they're filled to 80%, 10%, and 10%, you don't add 1/3 of new water to each bucket; you'd balance them by adding 50% of new water to each of the last two buckets until they reached the level of the first.

OR, by not adding any new water and simply taking some from the 80% bucket and adding it to the other two. Lots of options there...
__________________
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." - George Bernard Shaw
Don't ask people not to debate a topic. Just stop making debatable assertions. Problem solved.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19  
Old Posted Nov 2, 2015, 6:23 PM
Drybrain Drybrain is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 4,101
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark View Post
Interesting comparison. When you compare the land area of each it's even more interesting:

Amsterdam: 219 square kilometers
Reykjavic: 274.5 square kilomiters
Halifax: 5490 square kilometers
Interesting, though I always take that number for Halifax as basically a bureaucratic falsehood, due to our comically overreaching civic amalgamation.

I don't know what the pre-HRM land area is, but the city's wikipedia page lists the "urban" land area at 262 square kilometres, so I'd use that number for purposes of comparing with the above figures.

Quote:
Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark View Post

To keep it in perspective, however, it's important to point out the difference in population between Halifax and Amsterdam, in that Amsterdam has over six times the population of Halifax in a much smaller land mass, or even more aptly, The Netherlands has over sixteen times the population of Nova Scotia on less land area (NS: 55,283 km² vs The Netherlands: 41,540 km²). Given these stats, a highly developed rail system has been a necessity for a long time in The Netherlands, whereas it has not really been economically viable in Nova Scotia.
For sure, I don't intend it as a directly applicable comparison. Amsterdam and Halifax are extremely un-alike. (Though Halifax does have a lot of parallels with Reykjavik, which surprised me. And is overall complimentary, since Reykjavik, car-dependence aside, is pretty great.)

It was just interesting to be in a city where private automobiles clearly dominated transport planning, and another where mode-sharing was the clear priority, and see how much more manageable traffic was in the latter. Even with a far larger population.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20  
Old Posted Nov 2, 2015, 6:36 PM
Keith P.'s Avatar
Keith P. Keith P. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 7,964
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drybrain View Post
It was just interesting to be in a city where private automobiles clearly dominated transport planning, and another where mode-sharing was the clear priority, and see how much more manageable traffic was in the latter. Even with a far larger population.

My question would be: how happy are the citizens with that system? Euroland has generally supported things like rail infrastructure and other public transportation by taxing things like gasoline and incomes at levels that would have citizens here in the streets with torches and pitchforks if proposed. Add to that the general perception here of public transport as slow, dirty, unreliable and filled with numerous undesirables and it would be a terribly hard sell. Often things seem better until you look beneath the surface.
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 3:08 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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