Chebucto/Mumford road widening

[Spitfire75]

Streatch talking tender
Chebucto Road widening could be on agenda next week
By AMY PUGSLEY FRASER City Hall Reporter
Thu. Jun 12 - 6:28 AM

A controversial road-widen­ing tender defeated at council Tuesday might be back at city hall as early as next week.

On Tuesday, councillors were deadlocked 11-11 in a vote to award a $2-million tender to Basin Contracting to do the work at the intersection of Chebucto and Mumford roads. Any votes that end in a tie are considered defeated, so the motion was lost.

However, councillors who voted against the project quickly started calculating how long it might be before the tender is brought back for an­other vote. Coun. Steve Streatch (East­ern Shore-Musquodoboit Har­bour), who was absent and didn’t vote Tuesday, said he’d like to see it back at council “as soon as possible."

Both he and Coun. Harry McInroy (Cole Harbour) missed the extra council ses­sion Tuesday morning that was scheduled to deal with the awarding of summer construc­tion tenders.

In separate interviews Wednesday, both said the vote should have been a formality because council has endorsed the project.

“We had made it clear that this is where council was go­ing," Mr. Streatch said in an interview. “I am amazed how things can turn around so fast."

City planning staffers want a reversing centre lane added to ease traffic burdens to and from the Armdale Rotary at peak traffic times.

The project would affect sev­en Chebucto Road homeown­ers who stand to lose up to three metres of their property to accommodate the widening of that portion of Chebucto Road. The city has already purchased the land at a cost of $600,000.

The homeowners have been fighting the project since they found out about it in August 2006 and have secured more than 3,000 names on a petition. They’d rather the city invest the $2 million in carpooling lanes or commuter buses.

Last summer, the Armdale Rotary underwent a multimil­lion- dollar upgrade to realign the entry points from the traf­fic circle’s five feeder streets.

So to pull the rug out from under the project at the last possible moment was “quite inappropriate," especially when it affects so many peo­ple, Mr. Streatch said.

“The tenders were out and staff selected a proponent. The property has been sold and moved around, according to council’s wishes. And now, in the 11th hour, to have some councillors play politics with an issue that’s important, is disrespectful not only to the residents but also to the proc­ess and to council."

It also affects the company set to start the project, said Mr. McInroy.
“Obviously, (Basin Contract­ing Ltd.) wanted the work and put forward a strong bid," he said.

“It was an approved project of council . . . and so, from all appearances, no one would have reason to believe it wouldn’t proceed."

Coun. Sheila Fougere (Con­naught- Quinpool), who had tried to get a one-year morato­rium on the project last fall, said there might be a hurdle in getting the tender on next week’s meeting agenda, since Tuesday’s vote ended in a tie.

Motions of reconsideration require the support of two­thirds of councillors, meaning several would have to have a change of heart.

She said her research of council’s administrative or­ders also suggested the motion could only be brought back to the floor quickly had Tues­day’s vote been decided in the a f f i r m at ive.

Otherwise, council has to wait two months to vote on a lost motion or revisit the issue after “the expiry of the civic year," she said.

With so many questions left hanging about the project, the city’s traffic manager said Wednesday that it might not get underway during the sum­mer, when traffic counts are usually lower.

If council has to wait until mid-August to vote on it again, the 10-week project could be pushed into the fall.

“It would have been our pref­erence to do it during the sum­mer as opposed to during Sep­tember and October," Dave McCusker said Wednesday.

“And it’s still not clear whether the contractor who won the award could still pro­vide that service at a different time of year or not."

Despite the fact that the city might revisit the tender next week, the TRAX co-ordinator for the Ecology Action Centre said she was “heartened" by council’s vote Tuesday.

“It’s like a little bit of light and hope," Laena Garrison said Wednesday.
“We’ve been opposed to it from the start mainly because the point of the widening is to increase vehicle capacity of the road. And we advocate for getting people out of cars and into more sustainable options and increasing the viability of sustainable transportation op­tions as opposed to getting roads to take more capacity."

As well, she’s happy to see that the number of councillors opposed to the project is grow­ing.

(apuglsey@herald.ca)

[hfx_chris]

As well, she’s happy to see that the number of councillors opposed to the project is grow­ing.

As am I. Why is Streatch so eager for this? It's not like this is going to benefit his car-driving constituents...

[spaustin]

Well if Streatch and McInroy cared so much they should have been there to cast a vote. It would have only taken one of them. From the sounds of things this project has been killed off until the Fall and possibly won't get started until next year. Hopefully we'll have some new councillors by then and maybe a new mayor that will finish this absurd project off for good.

[someone123]

It's not an absurd project. They're just bringing this little stretch of road up to the same standard as others in the area.

The fact is that as the city grows it needs both road and transit investment and this is one of the most efficient projects possible in terms of increased capacity relative to investment.

It's also true that this is an inappropriate time to be pulling the plug. The land has already been expropriated (and it's only a bit of their front yards...).

[coolmillion]

Ahh... road widening... the absurdity of this project goes far beyond calculations of road capacity and cost efficiency. The city is doing extremely little to encourage active and sustainable transportation and a project whose sole aim is to increase road capacity for single occupancy vehicles is sorely out of touch with not only those who are affected (directly and indirectly), but more generally "the times". The fact that this project was initially approved (by a predominantly suburban and rural council), despite strong civic opposition (not from anti-development types and heritage folks, but from home owners, taxpayers, environmentalists, walkers, cyclists, drivers, and urban councillors etc.) does not mean that it should go ahead at all costs. The surrounding roads with which this portion of Chebucto is supposedly being brought up to scale were the result of poor planning in the 60s and 70s. Other cities would invest in narrowing the stretch of Chebucto from Mumford to Connaught. A bike lane, more buses, a reversing lane.... Sheesh. Mistakes like this make me hate Halifax.

[Haliguy]

I feel for the residents, but it is project that should be done. It only makes sense.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by coolmillion

Ahh... road widening... the absurdity of this project goes far beyond calculations of road capacity and cost efficiency. The city is doing extremely little to encourage active and sustainable transportation and a project whose sole aim is to increase road capacity for single occupancy vehicles is sorely out of touch with not only those who are affected (directly and indirectly), but more generally "the times". The fact that this project was initially approved (by a predominantly suburban and rural council), despite strong civic opposition (not from anti-development types and heritage folks, but from home owners, taxpayers, environmentalists, walkers, cyclists, drivers, and urban councillors etc.) does not mean that it should go ahead at all costs. The surrounding roads with which this portion of Chebucto is supposedly being brought up to scale were the result of poor planning in the 60s and 70s. Other cities would invest in narrowing the stretch of Chebucto from Mumford to Connaught. A bike lane, more buses, a reversing lane.... Sheesh. Mistakes like this make me hate Halifax.

Sorry, but this is utter nonsense. That stretch of Chebucto is a choke point because nothing has been done to it since the 1950s. It is one of only 3 entryways onto the peninsula and the only opposition (aside from the usual enviro-crazies who oppose any improvement tot he road network) are the NIMBYs who bought houses on a major artery without somehow realizing that is what they were doing and somehow expected traffic to go away. Their reasons for opposing this are weak at best. The same tie-ups that trap cars also trap buses and there is no question that improving traffic movement will also improve transit performance. Sadly, the amount of public attention this has gotten is typical of anything that attempts to change Halifax for the better. Find some self-interested group with a complaint, give them tons of media coverage, and then stand back and watch progress grind to a halt. It is evidence of a ridiculous lack of leadership at city hall.

[coolmillion]

I think this is an extremely poor example of a project that might improve the city. In terms of opposition to the project, one only has to look to city council to see that detractors go beyond "enviro-crazies" and those who own property in the neighbourhood.

[Dmajackson]

I think this is a necessairy project. Currently there are 22 lanes of traffic in and out of the city. Its not enough and for any environmentalists out there this will add a extra lane only at peak times (inbound morning, outbound afternoon) allowing traffic to flow smoother and probably cut down of idling and because of the reversing lane cars will be less desired outside of peak hours. This could become a great rush-hour bus road.

[someone123]

Huh? Reversing lane? That's part of the plan. They're only going from two lanes to three lanes and they are installing a reversing lane rather than turning this into a full four lane artery.

This isn't only for cars as buses also use this stretch of road. I've been on it many times on a bus.

Active transportation is wonderful but for this particular case it's a red herring, just like "affordable housing" was for the South Park condo.

As for the cost, it's part of a few front lawns that the owners are getting paid for.

I wish people in Halifax had more of a sense of perspective. This very minor project is being treated like some 1970s 10 lane expressway going through the centre of the city. Of course, that's probably exactly what 2/3 of the people who hear about it just assume it is and then decide to oppose without even getting the facts.

[hfx_chris]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Sadly, the amount of public attention this has gotten is typical of anything that attempts to change Halifax for the better.

Ah, I must have missed the part where it was identified that increased use of single-occupant vehicle, and a trend away from mass transit is considered the better option.

If they put this money, plus some extra towards transit - imagine this. A bus holds what - 38 seated (based on what HRM is currently buying) plus an additional maybe 10-15 standing. So lets say 50, because it's a nice number.


Would you:
A. rather see a 40-foot long transit bus with 50 people on it in front of you on Chebucto road or...
B. rather see 50 cars in front of you on Chebucto road.

The argument that "the same tie-ups that trap cars also trap buses" is moot, because if you can reduce the amount of cars on the road by having them take the bus instead, the traffic won't be as bad and the buses (and cars) will be able to get through without problem. There's a reason experts (including urban planners from all over) are saying this is a backwards plan.

[spaustin]

You make it easy for people to drive they're going to drive and more sprawl will be built futher out. There is almost not point in expanding road capacity. History has shown quite abundantly that its pretty futile. Any improvements made to Chebucto will be temporary as more cars will fill the void and we'll be right back to where we are now. This project is made even more pointless by the direction of gas prices. Transit riderships up everywhere because of the cost of fuel. Now's the time to aggressively push transit, not make it easier to drive single-user vehicles. If the Chebucto Road project involved a dedicated bus lane I could back it but as it stands its just a temporary fix for cars and at the expense of making the city less attractive and enjoyable. I say go Fougere. Lets can this waste of money project that provides no real benefit to anyone while destroying people's frontyards.

[Keith P.]

The old planner's chestnut about the inefficacy of building road capacity has now been proven false, so forget that. the thing that gets me about enviro-nuts and planners alike is their slavish devotion to the dogma that any road improvement is bad and therefore should not be built. That is simply ridiculous. It is obvious to anyone who has travelled on it that Chebucto Rd was obsolete 40 years ago. It needs to be improved. That improvement will benefit all sorts of vehicles that use it, and the assumption that those are mostly all single-occupant vehicles is equally ridiculous. There are tons of commercial vehicles, multi-occupant vehicles,. and buses that need the improvement as well. To argue against this is like arguing for the purchase of light rail cars but not the track they run on.

[spaustin]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

The old planner's chestnut about the inefficacy of building road capacity has now been proven false, so forget that. the thing that gets me about enviro-nuts and planners alike is their slavish devotion to the dogma that any road improvement is bad and therefore should not be built. That is simply ridiculous. It is obvious to anyone who has travelled on it that Chebucto Rd was obsolete 40 years ago. It needs to be improved. That improvement will benefit all sorts of vehicles that use it, and the assumption that those are mostly all single-occupant vehicles is equally ridiculous. There are tons of commercial vehicles, multi-occupant vehicles,. and buses that need the improvement as well. To argue against this is like arguing for the purchase of light rail cars but not the track they run on.

Quite the contrary in fact if you consulted the literature. Nobody has yet figured out how to build themselve out of traffic congestion. It just can't be done... except for, perhaps, in a stagnant city where new growth doesn't swamp the increased road capacity (Sydney perhaps). I can get behind some road improvements. If they were adding a bus lane for example they would have my backing. Don't kid yourself though, another normal lane is just another lane to the suburbs for cars to jam in on all together at rush hour. Labelling it as something that's not aimed at car commmuters is very naive when there is only a traffic problem there for an hour or two in the morning and then again in the afternoon. Just because it will have some periphery benefits to other types of traffic that gets caught in the car problem doesn't change what the primary focus and goal is.

[Dmajackson]

Some information on this for anyone unclear of the exact parts of this project:
-Click on Chebucto Road FAQ's- http://halifax.ca/traffic/index.html
-Two drawings of the finished product:
http://halifax.ca/designcon/cons/doc...20080501_1.PDF
http://halifax.ca/designcon/cons/doc...20080501_2.PDF

[terrynorthend]

On a strange sidenote to last night's council meeting, (what with the anticlimax of the Alexander vote that ran out of time) council awarded the tender for widening Chebucto Road. So after a mere week in limbo, its going ahead after all.

[someone123]

The argument that "the same tie-ups that trap cars also trap buses" is moot, because if you can reduce the amount of cars on the road by having them take the bus instead, the traffic won't be as bad and the buses (and cars) will be able to get through without problem.

This basically never happens, because when traffic improves private vehicles become even more attractive. They always have a time advantage over buses except maybe for express buses running in dedicated lanes. Increasing capacity along this stretch makes a bus lane plan for, say, Bayers Road, more attractive.

Quite the contrary in fact if you consulted the literature. Nobody has yet figured out how to build themselve out of traffic congestion.

This is a strange and weak claim. By adding road capacity you either get higher speeds and shorter travel times or you can support more vehicles moving at the same speed. The ratio of investment to increased capacity is particularly advantageous at this location because it is a bottleneck. Even if congestion is eventually the same the road network will be able to support more people traveling, and that is the whole point.

Arguments about how 3 minutes saved in commuting don't matter or how congestion will eventually (i.e. 5-10 years later) resume at the same site and render this investment "pointless" really don't hold up to scrutiny. Everything is temporary and many investments produce only marginal benefits, and yet they still make sense. You might decide to buy a box of cereal at the grocery store even though it's not going to feed you for the rest of your life, for example. That is what this little project is analogous to for the city.

[spaustin]

Originally Posted by someone123

The argument that "the same tie-ups that trap cars also trap buses" is moot, because if you can reduce the amount of cars on the road by having them take the bus instead, the traffic won't be as bad and the buses (and cars) will be able to get through without problem.

This basically never happens, because when traffic improves private vehicles become even more attractive. They always have a time advantage over buses except maybe for express buses running in dedicated lanes. Increasing capacity along this stretch makes a bus lane plan for, say, Bayers Road, more attractive.

Quite the contrary in fact if you consulted the literature. Nobody has yet figured out how to build themselve out of traffic congestion.

This is a strange and weak claim. By adding road capacity you either get higher speeds and shorter travel times or you can support more vehicles moving at the same speed. The ratio of investment to increased capacity is particularly advantageous at this location because it is a bottleneck. Even if congestion is eventually the same the road network will be able to support more people traveling, and that is the whole point.

Arguments about how 3 minutes saved in commuting don't matter or how congestion will eventually (i.e. 5-10 years later) resume at the same site and render this investment "pointless" really don't hold up to scrutiny. Everything is temporary and many investments produce only marginal benefits, and yet they still make sense. You might decide to buy a box of cereal at the grocery store even though it's not going to feed you for the rest of your life, for example. That is what this little project is analogous to for the city.

But I might buy some seeds and grow my own food sustainably instead of buying cereal over and over and over again

[planarchy]

Everything is temporary and many investments produce only marginal benefits, and yet they still make sense. You might decide to buy a box of cereal at the grocery store even though it's not going to feed you for the rest of your life, for example.

While marginal benefits may make sense in some disciplines, it represents mediocrity in strategic planning. Such a short term solution, given the cost, makes absolutely no sense and will do little to improve the accessibility of the urban core - which is the main objective, correct? If city planners/engineers want to really do something that will make a difference they should present an honest proposal and openly embrace an Haussmannian ideal and plow a grand boulevard through the whole neighbourhood...perhaps rip one down Gottingen while there are at it and connect it to the bridge. Otherwise, they should hire designers to come up with something more innovative, perhaps risky, but in the end, at least interesting.

That cereal analogy is perhaps the oddest and most irrelevant thing I have ever heard.

[hfx_chris]

Originally Posted by someone123

You might decide to buy a box of cereal at the grocery store even though it's not going to feed you for the rest of your life, for example. That is what this little project is analogous to for the city.

So what you're saying is, every time congestion increases on a roadway, instead of fixing the problem we should just add another lane?