Roundabouts in HRM

[Keith P.]

There's an online survey for "Shape Your City: North Park Intersections". I filled one out and made sure to emphasize the need to balance the street between the three main modes of transportation (pedestrians, cars, and bicycles). This street is one of the few areas in HRM where all three are combined into a high-capacity corridor.

I also strongly recommended the installation of roundabouts at the intersections. :tup:

http://halifax.ca/surveys/

I made sure to tell them that moving traffic is the only thing they should worry about and to keep the bike lanes and roundabouts away. ;)

[Dmajackson]

Halifax proposes two roundabouts for North Park Street
February 28, 2013 - 6:29am BY DAVENE JEFFREY STAFF REPORTER

Two roundabouts could be coming to Halifax’s North Park Street.

About 100 people crowded into the Olympic Community Centre on Hunter Street on Wednesday evening to hear the city’s proposal to install traffic circles at both ends of North Park Street.

The infrastructure at the two intersections is aging and needs to be replaced, transportation engineer Tanya Davis of Halifax Regional Municipality told the gathering. And city staff believe roundabouts are the way to go.

“We have done quite a bit of analysis on this and these are the preferred options, for sure,” Davis said.

The current intersections have issues beyond just age.

...

(djeffrey@herald.ca)

Read More: thechronicleherald.ca (http://thechronicleherald.ca/metro/805464-halifax-proposes-two-roundabouts-for-north-park-street)

[worldlyhaligonian]

I think it makes sense... very common in europe. We should focus on having more of a european city design for drivers and pedestrians alike.

[haligonia]

Councillor Waye Mason (it still gives me such a thrill to say that :) ) tweeted some of the designs last night. They looked really great!

[cormiermax]

Councillor Waye Mason (it still gives me such a thrill to say that :) ) tweeted some of the designs last night. They looked really great!

Have a link?

[haligonia]

I can't figure out how to post Instagram pictures to the forum, but here are the links:

http://instagram.com/p/WQLNjwlLP-/
http://instagram.com/p/WQK9QAFLPs/
http://instagram.com/p/WQKqPXFLPM/

[someone123]

Roundabouts seem like a natural choice for complicated intersections with more than 2 streets. In this case the current intersections are also very run down looking, and the North Common itself could handle an overhaul.

I could see this being a nice project, but it seems like it's already been debated for years.

[Keith P.]

I think it makes sense... very common in europe. We should focus on having more of a european city design for drivers and pedestrians alike.

This is not Europe.

The one at the Rainnie Drive/Cogswell end may make some sense. The other one at Cunard is just there because HRM is in love with the idea of roundabouts. It is a simple intersection they are trying to make complicated.

[cormiermax]

This is not Europe.



Why should we not look towards the best examples of city planning as inspiration?

[worldlyhaligonian]

This is not Europe.

The one at the Rainnie Drive/Cogswell end may make some sense. The other one at Cunard is just there because HRM is in love with the idea of roundabouts. It is a simple intersection they are trying to make complicated.

I know its not Europe... but our street layout is probably as close as you will get. The Cunard one makes even more sense... its senseless waiting there.

You think waiting for a light is a good idea? Don't be a contrarian against me for the sake of it. Or would you prefer squigee kids?

Seriously, you make some good points in alot of cases, but this isn't a fad. There are about 3 similar intersections in my neighborhood in europe... and they work much better. The existing situation at both these intersections is a joke.

Europe is hands down the model for this sort of thing. You don't know what you are talking about on this one.

[Duff]

Here is one that Brett Ruskin from Global posted on Twitter.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BEGvcHPCMAIDy2S.jpg:large

https://twitter.com/Brett_Global/status/306719147147014144/

[gohaligo]

I went to the public information meeting. I found it to be very informative. One slight problem is that staff use room many statistics in their presentations. They peck everyone's eyes out with 30% Of this and 20% of that. Drives me crazy.
They divided the room into idea camps. Neighbours, In Favor, Bike people, walkers, Against. Etc. All groups seem to work well with active discussions. Except for the well organized Against group. About 25 or so sat in a closed grumpy looking circle and didn't engage. Very sad.
If you live in hali and want this to proceed in some forms. Get involved, write your councilor. Or this will not happen.

[Dmajackson]

That rendering looks great. :)

One thing I'm pleased to see is the narrowing of North Park Street. Currently the road is ridiculously wide and dangerous. The extreme width advocates high speeds and it reminds me of some roads in Downtown Calgary where they are so wide traffic is going 50km/h+ on them. In this case its also caused by the short traffic lights.

It's also good to see the parking areas on North Park and the crosswalk shortening at Cornwallis Street.

Personally I see no downfalls to this plan. It'll keep traffic flowing but at a safe speed (30-40 km/h) . It'll provide visual enhancements and safe pedestrian access to the Commons. It has bicycles in mind and it gets rid of one of the ugliest intersections in HRM. Also roundabouts provide a neat bookmark to park areas.

Also I imagine if we can get enough money we can get HRM to "accidentally" demolish the Armoury Villa building in the process. :P

[someone123]

One thing I'm pleased to see is the narrowing of North Park Street.

Back in the 70's I think the idea was that there should ideally be highways everywhere, so they widened just about everything they could. Cogswell is another street that is way too wide in spots. It's just a waste of land given the bottlenecks all around.

If you live in hali and want this to proceed in some forms. Get involved, write your councilor. Or this will not happen.

The rendering does look nice. I think that area has a ton of potential if a little bit of money is invested in fixing up the streets and the Commons. Most of the houses along North Park look pretty good now.

One other positive change in the area is that, if I remember correctly, the same developer who did the Vic now owns the empty lot at Robie and Pepperell and is planning to build a mid-sized building there. I think the Commons would work a little better if densities nearby were higher and there were more people out and about. Quinpool's another area that is a little shabby because it is underpopulated.

[Jstaleness]

This is not Europe.

The one at the Rainnie Drive/Cogswell end may make some sense. The other one at Cunard is just there because HRM is in love with the idea of roundabouts. It is a simple intersection they are trying to make complicated.

I have to disagree. The Cunard intersection is ok for those of us that drive it on a regular basis. It can be quite confusing for those outside the city of Halifax. I love the way the proposal looks and it should allow for a lot more free flow of traffic in the area. I also think the "green" aspect will be improved.
It may not be Europe but Roundabouts/Traffic Circles whatever you want to call them wouldn't have been around for almost hundreds of years if they didn't serve some purpose.

[Keith P.]

I have to disagree. The Cunard intersection is ok for those of us that drive it on a regular basis. It can be quite confusing for those outside the city of Halifax. I love the way the proposal looks and it should allow for a lot more free flow of traffic in the area. I also think the "green" aspect will be improved.

Narrowing streets in a rapidly growing city is senseless. The "green" aspect in HRM usually just means throwing some bike lanes which is simply a waste.

And if you think visitors from the undeveloped country are confused now, just wait until you throw back to back roundabouts at them. They will be frozen in terror.

It may not be Europe but Roundabouts/Traffic Circles whatever you want to call them wouldn't have been around for almost hundreds of years if they didn't serve some purpose.

Euroland also has many castles with moats and drawbridges over them that you don't generally see here. Maybe we should adopt those too.

[cormiermax]

Euroland also has many castles with moats and drawbridges over them that you don't generally see here. Maybe we should adopt those too.

I think we already have one of those.

[CdnEh]

Euroland also has many castles with moats and drawbridges over them that you don't generally see here. Maybe we should adopt those too.

You may have heard of it :)

http://goo.gl/maps/kI6fL

[Hali87]

Narrowing streets in a rapidly growing city is senseless. The "green" aspect in HRM usually just means throwing some bike lanes which is simply a waste.

And if you think visitors from the undeveloped country are confused now, just wait until you throw back to back roundabouts at them. They will be frozen in terror.



Euroland also has many castles with moats and drawbridges over them that you don't generally see here. Maybe we should adopt those too.

Well, Halifax does have moats (the Citadel and City Hall each have one, to name a couple), and almost every other major city in Canada has at least one large, castle-looking building (generally hotels, although Saint Mary's is kind of castley).

By "undeveloped country" I guess you mean "everywhere else in Canada"? It's not just bumpkins from rural NS that find that intersection confusing. As it is Halifax has one of the most confusing street networks in the country for anyone unfamiliar with the city.

[Drybrain]

Narrowing streets in a rapidly growing city is senseless. The "green" aspect in HRM usually just means throwing some bike lanes which is simply a waste.



Not if we want to have people living in the core, rather than just driving through it. Whoever said North Park is ridiculously wide is right, and its intersections are really confusing.

This whole area is awful, not just because it exemplifies the auto-centric, demolition-happy, urban-renewal type of planning that was in fashion in the 50s-70s. It's that it was also done so [I]badly[/I, even for what it was. Navigating these huge boulevards and intersections on foot is just awful, and even driving, which is what the whole thing was planned to accomodate, is really unpleasant. The sooner its fixed, the better.

[Keith P.]

The main issue with moving people in Halifax is its ridiculously narrow streets. Buses get tied up, and tie up traffic themselves when stopping. Someone does a bad parking job and nothing moves. Same with a fender-bender or a winter snowbank. At least this, by some freak of nature, is a decently-sized street, not unlike what you find in most every other city in North America. So why in god's name are we going to reduce capacity by 67%? Ridiculous and absurd.

[Drybrain]

The main issue with moving people in Halifax is its ridiculously narrow streets. Buses get tied up, and tie up traffic themselves when stopping. Some doe s a bad parking job and nothing moves. Same with a fender-bender or a winter snowbank. At least this, by some freak of nature, is a decently-sized street, not unlike what you find in most every other city in North America. So why in god's name are we going to reduce capacity by 67%? Ridiculous and absurd.

Streets get wider on this continent as you move east to west. It's just a function of the city's respective ages. Nothing can be done about it, and what we lose in traffic expediency, we gain in decent neighbourhoods. (Calgary, for example, is wonderful for bombing around in your SUV, but not so great for urban neighbourhoods, outside of a tiny core.)

[worldlyhaligonian]

The main issue with moving people in Halifax is its ridiculously narrow streets. Buses get tied up, and tie up traffic themselves when stopping. Some doe s a bad parking job and nothing moves. Same with a fender-bender or a winter snowbank. At least this, by some freak of nature, is a decently-sized street, not unlike what you find in most every other city in North America. So why in god's name are we going to reduce capacity by 67%? Ridiculous and absurd.

But my experience living here in europe is that busses don't wait in traffic circles and everything moves faster. I don't agree in significantly unwidening some streets and Bayers Road clearly needs to be widened.

That being said, traffic circles means you can drive almost right through. Halifax only has high traffic and certain times and I hate waiting for lights at like 2am.

[FuzzyWuz]

Well, Halifax does have moats (the Citadel and City Hall each have one, to name a couple),

The ditch around the citadel is actually just called a dry ditch. Never was meant for water. Just a hinderance to invaders.

[cormiermax]

The ditch around the citadel is actually just called a dry ditch. Never was meant for water. Just a hinderance to invaders.

I think its actually called a dry moat.

[Keith P.]

Whatever, the point is that they aren't building them any more.

[Hali87]

I think they actually are in places like Dubai.

[fenwick16]

Cambridge, Ontario has built a few in the last 3 years. There are three roundabouts in this one map link - http://maps.google.ca/maps?q=cambridge&hl=en&ll=43.402834,-80.289588&spn=0.026409,0.066047&hnear=Cambridge,+Waterloo+Regional+Municipality,+Ontario&t=h&z=15

From the MTO (Ministry of Transportation Ontario) - http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/engineering/roundabout/faq.shtml#3
Are there any roundabouts in Ontario?
In Ontario, a number of municipalities (such as the Region of Waterloo, City of Ottawa and the City of Hamilton) have constructed roundabouts on municipal roads with great success. However, this is a relatively new method of traffic control at intersections on provincial highways. Roundabouts have been successfully implemented on provincial highways in other Canadian provinces.

I think it is great that Halifax is being pro-active in implementing this method of traffic control. Thank you Duff for posting the image (below) from Brett Ruskin. I like it :tup:

Here is one that Brett Ruskin from Global posted on Twitter.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BEGvcHPCMAIDy2S.jpg:large

https://twitter.com/Brett_Global/status/306719147147014144/

[alps]

I'm glad they seem to have dropped the idea of replacing the Willow Tree with a massive roundabout.

Some aspects of this plan look good and I agree that the circles would be less confusing to visitors than the current setup. But I haven't heard anything that has allayed my fear that these would be more of a nuisance (and potentially more dangerous) for pedestrians. Crossing at the Armdale rotary feels unsafe even though you only have to do 2-3 lanes at a time, because the drivers aren't forced to stop at lights and they are probably more focused on merging into the circle than people at the crosswalk. And of course these two intersections likely get much more pedestrian traffic than Armdale.

[Dmajackson]

Next phase of public consultation is underway. There is a PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE JANUARY 29TH @ 7PM @ MARITIME HALL (HALIFAX FORUM). There is also an online survey.

Shape Your City Webpage - North Park Intersection Redesign (http://shapeyourcityhalifax.ca/North-Park-Intersection-Redesign)

The major change from the earlier consultations seems to be removing Rainnie Drive from the roundabout. They don't specifically mention why but I imagine it has to do with geometrics and modern traffic standards that no longer allow confusing intersections like this.

[rkannegi]

I went to the Feb 13 meeting. At the point of the meeting where we all split up into random groups, at the table I was at, that group (including Jennifer Watts) wanted me to speak for them (when it was our group's turn to have the mike) due to my strong perspective on the city road system, where I suggested either shutting down Rainnie, absorb it into Citadel Hill as added parkland, or make it into a parking strip in order to reduce the complexity of the roundabout (and inherently reduce conflict points, enhancing traffic flow), while also opening the door for Gottingen Street (and inherently the whole North End neighborhood) to finally have a solid connection (for all transport modes) to the Metro Centre, which would be much better than the current one-way stop at the south end of Gottingen where it's now very difficult to turn left to go downhill to Brunswick Street, across most hours of the day (and even the night), let alone trying to walk across Rainnie Drive to Citadel Hill from Gottingen Street.

(Interestingly enough, when I spoke, the few people who were still quietly chatting in the back of the room stopped chatting and listened quite attentively when I spoke about Rainnie Drive to the whole room).

It seems like HRM has found idea that feasible.

Cheers,

Richard Kannegiesser

[Dmajackson]

^Congrats. :cheers:

It's not often that what one person says at public consultation can be directly tied to future changes.

I agree with the closing of Rainnie Street as long as the traffic it currently handles is accounted for on Cogswell. Having a bike-friendly route from the Commons down to Brunswick Street is a great idea.

[IanWatson]

Closing Rainnie is an awesome idea!

Looking at this diagram (http://shapeyourcityhalifax.ca/project/photos/15?photo_id=619.jpg), I can't quite figure out exactly what it is they're intending to do. Anyone have access to a larger version? It does appear like Rainnie might still be open to some vehicular traffic, but maybe only one way. I guess this would be to keep all the parking available along there.

[halifaxboyns]

Closing Rainnie is an interesting idea, but I'd want to see a traffic impact study to know for certain that the traffic flow patterns aren't going to be drastically affected (I suspect not, but still...).

From the diagram, I'd say that they are making a right in/right out connection to Cogswell with Rainnie. This way, if you come off the roundabout you can head down Cogswell or turn right and head onto Rainnie down the hill. Then if you are heading up Rainnie, you would then have to take a right onto Gottingen Street to be able to eventually get up to the roundabout and head to Quinpool because if you stayed on Rainnie, you would get to this new intersection where you would be forced to make a right turn (back down Cogswell).

One benefit (if you can call it that) is that you could create a new lane of on street parking on Rainnie (on the side closest to the Centennial pool) with this configuration.

[Keith P.]

Next phase of public consultation is underway. There is a PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE JANUARY 29TH @ 7PM @ MARITIME HALL (HALIFAX FORUM). There is also an online survey.

Shape Your City Webpage - North Park Intersection Redesign (http://shapeyourcityhalifax.ca/North-Park-Intersection-Redesign)

The major change from the earlier consultations seems to be removing Rainnie Drive from the roundabout. They don't specifically mention why but I imagine it has to do with geometrics and modern traffic standards that no longer allow confusing intersections like this.

That page and poll/survey is seriously eff'ed up.

Look at this:


What is most important to you as we redesign the intersections at North Park Street?

More opportunities for active transportation
Opportunities for outdoor art
New public spaces in the newfound areas
A place to sit and smell the roses


They're INTERSECTIONS. It should not be a surprise to anyone that the one and only thing they need to do is efficiently move traffic. Which, of course, is not even on the list.

Meanwhile, the page bounces you over to another page which has this looney-tunes survey:



ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION (Cyclists) optional
Do you prefer you cycle on the road within a bike lane?
Do you prefer to cycle on the road on a wide travel lane?
Do you prefer to cycle on an off-street multi-use path?

Where would you like to locate the OUTDOOR ART? optional
In the neighbourhood park entrances (plaza)
Within the roundabout circles
Along the travel ways (smaller scale, multiple areas)

When choosing OUTDOOR ART, would you like to see... optional
Commission an artist for public art in the new available space, or

Click here for an example of public art

A community art project in the new available space

Click here for an example of community art

Are there any themes or stories the OUTDOOR ART should express? optional
How should the NEW PUBLIC SPACES be used? (please select one option)
Click here for definitions to help you answer the question


optional
As an aesthetic, landscaped space to move through

Click here for an example of an aesthetic travel way

As a "people place" with opportunities to stop, sit and socialize

Click here for an example of a people place

As an active gathering place for community events and celebrations

Click here for an example of a gathering place

What kind of plantings would you like to see in the NEW PUBLIC SPACES? (select one option) optional
Ornamental plans and flowers
Plants with seasonal interest (fall colour, spring flowers, evergreens)
Native species (native to Nova Scotia)
Edible fruits and berries

What kind of seating would you prefer in the NEW PUBLIC SPACES? (select one for each option) optional
Sun, or
Shade
Continued - What kind of seating would you prefer in the NEW PUBLIC SPACES? (select one option) optional
In groups, or
alone
Continued (part 3) - What kind of seating would you prefer in the NEW PUBLIC SPACES? (select one option) optional
Quiet, restorative spaces, or
Social, active spaces
In the seating areas, what would you prefer views of? (select all that apply) optional
Activities in the Common
People watching on the streets and pathways
Scenic vistas and landmarks (i.e. Citadel Hill, Halifax Harbour, the Armoury, Centennial Fountain)
Vegetation or park landscaping

As we redefine RAINNIE DRIVE, what do you want it to do? (select all that apply)

Image of proposed plan for Rainnie Drive

optional
Connect the Halifax Common with the downtown
Be a safer, more comfortable route for pedestrians and cyclists
Relate better to Citadel Hill National Historic Site
Provide more public open space for the adjacent residential neighbourhood
Provide parking for destinations downtown or on the Common
Maintain some vehicle acces


Holy crap.

The inmates are now running the asylum.

It is bad enough that roundabout disease has infected HRM Traffic, but now the infestation of "active transportation" wa-wa types threatens to kill the entire organism.

Cripes, HRM, you have a huge traffic problem. Stop spending tax money and wasting time asking people if they want edible plants, fer crissakes.

[hfx_chris]

I want the "Other:" option - efficiently and safely move vehicles and pedestrians.

Art can come later. If ever.

[ILoveHalifax]

I quite agree the survey is f'd up.
I took a look and exited without completing it.
I very much like the round about concept and remember some very interesting circles in Washington, DC. Seems to me they were very different from each other. Some were larger and included fountain and plaza, others plants and art, etc, etc.
How about the designers come up with a great design for each location.

[ILoveHalifax]

While we're talking plants how about the city hire a professional gardener to design our gardens and planters. Take a look at what is done in Brampton, ON with all sorts of new plants and combinations of plants. Their flowers are magnificent.

[Keith P.]

Some of those suggestions and much of the entire process is tantamount to having a giant bonfire fueled with property tax dollars. It is rather outrageous.

Perhaps each roundabout should be equipped with a giant firepit in the center of the circle to let drivers toss $10 bills in as they pass. Cyclists, of course, would no doubt be exempt.

[worldlyhaligonian]

What constitutes art?

Also, closing Rainnie... looks like a terrible idea on all fronts.

[hfx_chris]

Good question re. art. Aside from a few flower beds, I'm not sure what else I would want to see them installing in a roundabout, drivers in this city are distracted enough. It's not like sitting at a red light where you've got time to gaze, you need to be paying attention at all times at a roundabout.
They were talking about benches... seriously?

If Rainnie was turned into a one-way street from Gottingen westward for example, they could install angled parking spaces along it.


Edit: Quick Q regarding the driveway up to the Citadel. Is that two way or one way? I seem to recall there was a gate there for a while stopping you from going up, making it basically an exit only.

[Dmajackson]

It appears NSTIR will be installing a roundabout at Highway 102 in Waverley. I believe it is for the four-way intersection servicing Perrin Drive and the northbound highway lanes.

[IanWatson]

Also, closing Rainnie... looks like a terrible idea on all fronts.

Please, do enlighten us as to why.

I think it's a great idea closing it as far as the Gottingen corner:
1) Removing it will remove one corner from that crazy intersection.
2) No buildings front onto it.
3) It's a redundant transportation route.
4) Going from Gottingen to the bottom end of Rainnie will actually be reasonable once cars aren't coming from the right.
5) It can be used as more parking for Metro Centre events and/or a way to divert bikes away from Cogswell.

[xanaxanax]

Please, do enlighten us as to why.

I think it's a great idea closing it as far as the Gottingen corner:
1) Removing it will remove one corner from that crazy intersection.
2) No buildings front onto it.
3) It's a redundant transportation route.
4) Going from Gottingen to the bottom end of Rainnie will actually be reasonable once cars aren't coming from the right.
5) It can be used as more parking for Metro Centre events and/or a way to divert bikes away from Cogswell.

1) is a simplistic intersection that any moron can figure out

2) who cares, its a scenic route and Cogswell is more ugly to drive down.

Going down Rainnie from North Park, or Cogswell to is the majority of people's main chose for going onto to Brunswick or Duke weather it is by foot, bike or car, Hardly anyone uses Cogswell to bike down or walk down to those areas.
its not a redundant transportation route at all coming from the north end, turning right from Gottingen onto Rainnie is a redundant that serves no purpose unless you made a mistake in where you are going.

4. Going from Gottingen onto Rainnie is easy as pie pretty much any time of day ever ever.

5) fewer people would park along Rainnie for Metro Centre events is you made it a one way street,

driving down Cogswell or Gottingen just to drive up Rainnie to find a place to park is moronic,

Under no circumstance would it mean more traffic down Gottingen, it would just mean more traffic down Cogswell. Its like saying making lower water street one way has made more traffic down Agricola

[Hali87]

1) is a simplistic intersection that any moron can figure out


Really? It's one of the most confusing intersections I've ever seen.

[hfx_chris]

...

1. Yep, dead easy intersection. That's why they're proposing a radically different design. That's also why there are so many accidents there, it's just too simple. People aren't being challenged enough.

2. Scenic route.. not even going to touch that one. However let's not forget a roundabout needs a certain amount of space, and if you add more streets you need to make the circle bigger to accommodate it. Trollope and Ahern would take up quite a bit of space already because the streets aren't right next to each other. I just don't think there's enough room for all six streets, given the amount of room they have for the circle, and Rainnie is the logical street to leave out.

3. Not sure if anyone noticed or not, but on one of those images it looks like they're partially redesigning the intersection of Cogswell and Gottingen, to make right turns onto Gottingen (from North Park, in front of the pool) easier and more natural.

4. If it's such an easy left turn, then that means there's very little traffic coming down Rainnie from the right. You kinda just undermined your point.

5. Fewer people would park along Rainnie for Metro Centre events if it was one-way? Really? People are just going to drive right past a bunch of empty parking spaces a block away from the MC, in favour of what, parking 3-5 blocks away on some other side street?

[JET]

"redesigning the intersection of Cogswell and Gottingen, to make right turns onto Gottingen (from North Park, in front of the pool) "

I don't follow this

[rkannegi]

"redesigning the intersection of Cogswell and Gottingen, to make right turns onto Gottingen (from North Park, in front of the pool) "

I don't follow this

The image is here in the Photos section of the North Park Street Redesign page on Shape Your City Halifax (unfortunately I can't zoom in):

http://shapeyourcityhalifax.ca/project/photos/15?photo_id=619.jpg

Under the current 50% plan referenced above, HRM intends on adding a right turn ramp at the southwest corner of the intersection of Gottingen and Cogswell (eastbound Cogswell turning right onto southbound Gottingen). Given that a second stop line also appears on the intersection of Gottingen and Rainnie on the referenced image, I suspect that HRM will install a traffic signal at the south end of Gottingen with it defaulted to green for Gottingen when no one is coming downhill along Rainnie.

The right turn ramp from eastbound Cogswell to southbound Gottingen would offset the partial closure of Rainnie (no more need for each of eastbound right turns to always come to a complete stop when Cogswell has the red light). However, the lack of a four-lane cross section for Cogswell between North Park and Gottingen and the lack of double-lane passage through the roundabout, for both eastbound and westbound traffic, may become a problem. The reduced delay of the four-way roundabout may be enough to allow for single lane passage for Cogswell's east-west through traffic, compared to the very high delay of the current five-way traffic signal intersection (which was a six-way traffic signal intersection when Ahern and Trollope were two-way roads prior to the opening of the new Citadel High School). However, if Cogswell to the east of Gottingen remains at its current width on the ultimate traffic planning horizon, even after the Cogswell interchange is torn down and replaced with a new road and ramp arrangement, HRM had better be prepared to expand the North Park/Cogswell roundabout and the section of Cogswell between North Park and Gottingen to remove the single-lane-each-way "bottleneck" off of Cogswell when its gets busier. We don't need future traffic to be messed up by another Young-Street-style bottleneck (referring to Young between Robie and Agricola). Unnecessarily inconsistent and erratic road design unnecessarily jams up traffic and causes crashes.

Back in the February 2013 forum, while I recommended the partial shutdown of Rainnie, I also wanted to see Cogswell Street expanded to a four-lane divided road between Gottingen and North Park so that it would the have a consistent design (and width) all the way from Quinpool Road to the Cogswell interchange. HRM seems to have land set aside for this, so they may as well do it when they rebuild North Park Street.

At least HRM is not going to have a sudden change from single lane to double lane and than pack to single lane along the northbound side of North Park. They were thinking about it, but at the February 2013 North Park forum, I advised the project engineers on how erratic changes in road design along a corridor can adversely affect traffic. I reference the following road in Maryland (Bradley Boulevard where it crosses over the Washington, DC Beltway (I-495)):

http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/11481/lane-closed-to-ease-congestion-actually-not-a-crazy-fail/

Not surprisingly, I'm suspicious that the current design plans for North Park between the planned roundabouts now feature more consistent lane design as a result of my reference to the web link above, and it is also why I'm not surprised that HRM eliminated the sudden lane splits on Windsor Street three months ago at both North Street and Almon Street when they added the bike lane,s resulting in more consistent traffic flow (even though the ability to bypass left turns along Windsor Street at these two intersections has been partially sacrificed).

[hfx_chris]

Could it also be a possibility that, if Rainnie is to be excluded from the new roundabout, and presumably traffic along Rainnie were to decrease, the intersection of Gottingen and Rainnie would be reconfigured such that southbound Gottingen traffic (including traffic from Cogswell) would flow directly onto Rainnie eastbound without any need for traffic signals (simple stop sign on eastbound Rainnie)

[rkannegi]

Yes it's possible, depending on the amount of gaps in Gottingen's traffic (in both directions) that would allow Rainnie's traffic to enter, let alone the design of any pedestrian crossings. This would be one-way STOP or YIELD with Quinpool-style signalized pedestrian crossing across "Gottingen", where the lights would stay green for "Gottingen", except when pedestrians push the crossing button ("Gottingen" would consist of the existing Gottingen and the section of Rainnie to the east of Gottingen). Also, if eastbound Rainnie's traffic can't easily turn directly onto northbound Gottingen due to heavy traffic, they could just "turn right" onto the new "Gottingen" mainline and then turn left onto northbound Brunswick and then use Cogswell westbound to recover their intended route along Gottingen northbound.

A semi-pictographic sign could be placed at the east end of the planned one-way section of Rainnie (depicting the Gottingen/Rainnie/Brunswick/Cogswell block with arrows turning left around the block) suggesting drivers that are planning turning left from the one-way Rainnie onto northbound Gottingen to "turn right and then turn left around the block during heavy traffic" (may avoid the need for a full left turn ban while keeping unfamiliar drivers informed of a safe way to head onto northbound Gottingen during heavy traffic hours, also while letting drivers make direct lefts from the Rainnie one-way during low traffic hours). This would save the need for a traffic light for left turns from the Rainnie one-way (aside from the required pedestrian signal crossing), unless if Gottingen's traffic ever got so heavy that even a right turn would be difficult, but in that case, I suspect that would likely only happen during severe gridlock, at which point, once a driver on the Rainnie one-way has fully stopped for the stop sign, the next driver that's stuck in line along Gottingen would alternate right of way with the stopped driver on the Rainnie one-way, let alone that there are already traffic signals nearby on Brunswick and Cogswell.

(Alternating traffic during gridlock at unsignalized intersections, but only during gridlock - exactly the same as Germany's Reißverschluss traffic rule for stop and yield intersections under gridlock conditions, known in English as the "zipper" rule, similar to the "zipper merge" for merge intersections).

Cheers,

Richard Kannegiesser

(for those who don't know, ß in German spelling is the same as "ss" in English spelling)

[Keith P.]

I cannot see how or why Rainnie would be abandoned. It seems a crazy idea since Rainnie is the one and only way most drivers get to and from the downtown core from North Park. Using Cogswell for that requires additional intersections and turns and frankly seems absurd. None of what has been shown in this thread so far explains why this is a good idea or what the new version looks like. Frankly, if it is only being done to allow a roundabout to function a bit better, maybe then you need a better idea for the intersection than a roundabout.

[Waye Mason]

Close Rainne from roundabout to Gottingen, realign eastern remainder of Rainne to be an extension of Gottingen, put a roundabout at Gottingen/Cogswell with the right off of Cogswell inbound as a pass through to Gottingen inbound.

None of this needs to happen until Cogswell interchange planning comes down. In the interim Rainne stays open off of Cogswell inbound.

All the traffic modelling shows that this would work, and have plenty of capacity for growth.

[terrynorthend]

Closing Rainnie is an interesting idea, but I'd want to see a traffic impact study to know for certain that the traffic flow patterns aren't going to be drastically affected (I suspect not, but still...).

From the diagram, I'd say that they are making a right in/right out connection to Cogswell with Rainnie. This way, if you come off the roundabout you can head down Cogswell or turn right and head onto Rainnie down the hill. Then if you are heading up Rainnie, you would then have to take a right onto Gottingen Street to be able to eventually get up to the roundabout and head to Quinpool because if you stayed on Rainnie, you would get to this new intersection where you would be forced to make a right turn (back down Cogswell).

One benefit (if you can call it that) is that you could create a new lane of on street parking on Rainnie (on the side closest to the Centennial pool) with this configuration.

I think this is a good idea. I would like to see as an extension to this, boulevarding of the orphaned section of Cogswell Street running from the roundabout to Gottingen Street. There is plenty of room for this, trimming a small strip off of the north side of the Centennial Triangle properties. This could be reclaimed on the Rainnie side (which will be a much quieter roadway now) if desired. A four lane boulevard would go a long way to increasing traffic capacity on the east-west Quinpool-Cogswell corridor. It would provide a consistent look and feel to the Cogswell gateway into downtown too, especially striking driving east towards the harbour when the interchange is replaced by new development.

[Dmajackson]

Halifax's wonderful winter weather has resulted in the open house being rescheduled to next Wednesday (February 5th), Maritime Hall at the Forum, 7-9pm.

Source : Halifax Regional Municipality Public Service Announcement (http://www.halifax.ca/mediaroom/pressrelease/pr2014/PSA-PublicEngagementonNorthParkIntersectionRedesignProjectisCancelledDuetoWeather.html)

[rkannegi]

I just went to the public engagement session at the Maritime Hall of the Halifax Forum.

Overall I like the 50% roundabout design they currently have. I voiced a concern about cyclists being doored when forced into a bike lane immediately next to parked cars, even those HRM has had this setup for a while on South Park Street. Might a shared bike/car lane work better in order to avoid dooring incidents for the bikes that need to road on this specific stretch of road? Maybe. At least for Windsor Street's curbside bike lanes you don't have to worry much about cars dooring bikes.

The current single lane roundabout plans will be able to handle the traffic load of a fully four-laned boulevard along all of Cogswell. The ultimate configuration of Cogswell east of Gottingen is dependent on the outcome of the Cogswell Interchange demolition planning (still uncertain at this time).

I have good news about the Rainnie/Gottingen intersection. In the initial phase of one-way Rainnie on implementation of the Cogswell/North Park roundabout in 2015, the one-way section of Rainnie will face a STOP sign at Gottingen, while southbound Gottingen will be freeflow (except when yielding to pedestrians). Westbound Rainnie Drive traffic will be forced through the existing right turn YIELD onto northbound Gottingen (the existing right turn island will be extended southward to the existing centreline of Rainnie). Westbound Rainnie traffic will only need to yield to pedestrians and to traffic that turned left onto northbound Gottingen from the the stop sign that will face one-way eastbound Rainnie. I had suspected that HRM was looking at this kind of an intersection for Gottingen at Rainnie.

A right turn ramp will be installed on eastbound Cogswell at Gottingen (eastbound-southbound right turns), while traffic signal phasing will be adjusted accordingly for the increase in left turns at the Cogswell/Gottingen intersection.

Overall, I am very happy that not only is the roundabout design progressing well, but also that Gottingen Street will finally have a solid connection to the Metro Centre area, which will may getting through much easier, regardless of mode of transport, active or vehicular. I even suggested the possibility of picnic tables at on the north (one-way Rainnie) side of the Citadel along with parking and multi-use path facilities.

The North End neighbourhood has be fighting for many years for a better connection to downtown. The "Gottingen Street Extension" is basically the first part of it. The next phase of joining the North End to downtown will be the Cogswell Interchange Demolition Party.

In hindsight, I'm still floored (in a good way) at how my idea of partially closing Rainnie Drive took off since the February 27, 2013 forum. Now it's to the point that Rainnie Drive itself is going to become its own Shape Your City project in the near future. That's why I say to people that if they have ideas that would likely work from both a combined engineering and a liveability perspective, SPEAK UP. Hiding gets us nowhere (as what happened with the attempt at changing the design of the intersection of Duffus, Novalea & Devonshire).

Cheers,

Richard Kannegiesser

[Keith P.]

Disaster awaits. Totally ridiculous. This is going to be a monumental failure.

[HalifaxRetales]

Disaster awaits. Totally ridiculous. This is going to be a monumental failure.

you are so negative all the time that your opinion is moot.


These will be great, I really like the design and makes it way safer for pedestrians

[Keith P.]

In hindsight, I'm still floored (in a good way) at how my idea of partially closing Rainnie Drive took off since the February 27, 2013 forum. Now it's to the point that Rainnie Drive itself is going to become its own Shape Your City project in the near future. That's why I say to people that if they have ideas that would likely work from both a combined engineering and a liveability perspective, SPEAK UP. Hiding gets us nowhere (as what happened with the attempt at changing the design of the intersection of Duffus, Novalea & Devonshire).

Cheers,

Richard Kannegiesser

No offense, Richard, but this is what really troubles me.

We have an army of HRM bureaucrats and traffic engineers and outside consultants who have been working on this thing for years. How is it possible that the idea of a random citizen at a public session had never been thought of before and even worse, becomes a key component of the project?

The mind boggles.

Is this the level of thinking that has gone into this project?

What land mines await in implementation if, as seems clear, they did not consider all possibilities?

I hate roundabouts. I think bike lanes are a complete waste of money. I think the priority for any street project should be moving vehicle traffic first and foremost, as that is what streets are for.

HRM has gone off the rails, badly.

[pchipman]

I think the priority for any street project should be to move people and goods as efficiently as possible.

[Keith P.]

I think the priority for any street project should be to move people and goods as efficiently as possible.

In most places that remains true. In Halifax it seems the priority has become one of building as many bike lanes as possible and narrowing our already narrow streets to accommodate them, building roundabouts to further slow down traffic from moving efficiently, and closing other streets to traffic entirely because they are deemed too risky for the handful of cyclists who use them.

It is nuts.

[Drybrain]

I think the priority for any street project should be to move people and goods as efficiently as possible.

That's definitely one of the priorities, but it's also very much an engineer's perspective--maximum traffic efficiency.

And if that's always our priority, the whole city just becomes thoroughfares, and local, neighbourhood-level needs are disregarded.

The whole idea that streets are about moving the most cars in the least time is really an invention of the 1930s and onwards. For thousands of years before that, city streets were always used by multiple modes of transport--carriages, streetcars, pedestrians, bikes, all criss-crossing and haphazardly navigating streets. And the urban economy was as a result much more locally based.

Cars obliterated all that, turning streets into rigidly-laned thoroughfares, and neighbourhoods into drive-through zones. Cue the flight to the suburbs. (This is a very simplistic history, but in broad strokes, it's true.)

Obviously there's no going back now, but we can find an equilibrium where cars are accommodated, but not always over and above everything else, and neighbourhoods get some of the local uses of their streets back.

[rkannegi]

No offense, Richard, but this is what really troubles me.

We have an army of HRM bureaucrats and traffic engineers and outside consultants who have been working on this thing for years. How is it possible that the idea of a random citizen at a public session had never been thought of before and even worse, becomes a key component of the project?

The mind boggles.

Is this the level of thinking that has gone into this project?

What land mines await in implementation if, as seems clear, they did not consider all possibilities?

I hate roundabouts. I think bike lanes are a complete waste of money. I think the priority for any street project should be moving vehicle traffic first and foremost, as that is what streets are for.

HRM has gone off the rails, badly.

Well, if Larry Uteck Blvd had more lights instead of roundabouts, it would not be moving as well as it is now.

Additionally, lobbing off Rainnie drive not only reduces conflict points at the roundabout with North Park, it resolves the issue of north-south urban commuter traffic of all transport modes switching between Gottingen and Brunswick at the Citadel.

The one thing I did have a concern with the roundabout is that if Cogswell is ultimately going to be a four-lane boulevard all the way from Quinpool to Casino Nova Scotia (after Cogswell Interchange Demolition), is that the single-lane roundabout will effectively break the consistency of the Cogswell boulevard corridor. Even though the roundabout would still work, it will require advanced warning signage of the lane drop in each direction in order to avoid having many drivers accidentally end up in a forced left turn lane (going eastbound) or a forced right turn lane (going westbound). I said that, at absolute minimum, there needs to be at least 50m of warning before the start of the forced turn lane in each direction (analogous to the 50m minimum length for a freeflow merge to be established within a 50km/h zone). Ideally, I recommend 100m of lane change warning in this case.

Also, another thing I would recommend to HRM is that, while the Willow Tree intersection is in its current configuration, signage and markings be placed at the Willow Tree intersection indicating the outside eastbound lane of Cogswell as the ultimate straight through lane with the adjoining inside eastbound lane indicated/signed as a forced left onto North Park.

I am ultimately hoping for a four-lane boulevard along Cogswell and I am hoping for two-lane exits for Cogswell traffic from the roundabout if the 4-lane boulevard scenario comes to pass. My reason for the two-lane exits for Cogswell east-west traffic under the four-lane boulevard scenario: Traffic flow consistency across two lanes in each direction along the entire Cogswell corridor east of Robie. Cyclists have managed to cope with multi-lane roundabout exits in Waterloo, Ontario. Why can't they do it here?

I would also like bikeable crossings at the roundabout crosswalks (but also have signs telling bikes and peds to wait for traffic to stop or yield BEFORE crossing the road). What's the point in riding a bike on the multi-use paths if you have to dismount every time they meet a road? Legal or not, like it or not, you WILL have cyclists riding through the crosswalks that connect to multi-use trails. Regina, SK has some bike-permitted crosswalks along Arcola Avenue just west of Ring Road. So, why can't Nova Scotia change its outdated Motor Vehicle Act accordingly?

Keep in mind that eastbound Cogswell actually originates from a single lane on Quinpool (eastbound inside lane). Until the Willow Tree intersection is changed to allow for two eastbound lanes of Quinpool to become two eastbound through lanes of Cogswell, the bottleneck effect of the single-lane exits at the Cogswell/North Park roundabout will be minimal.

I like free flowing, consistently designed road systems. I'm originally from Ontario, where roads are far, far more consistently designed than Halifax's existing road network, even within road rights of way that are as narrow as Halifax's. Believe it or not, the North Park Street project will bring some Ontario-like consistent road design to the Halifax Common. There are roundabouts like this in a few spots in Ontario (i.e. Waterloo Regional Municipality and Ottawa) and in almost all cases, they are moving very well, including the one recently built at the current south end of Highway 406 at East Main Street in Welland, ON.

What good is in there in having a free flowing road system if there's no destinations for it to connect to? At that point, the road system, including the freeway system, becomes useless.

Cheers,

Richard Kannegiesser

[Waye Mason]

Ken Reashor (traffic czar) had been talking about closing Rainne for years. The traffic modelling shows it is not needed.

[Keith P.]

Well, if Larry Uteck Blvd had more lights instead of roundabouts, it would not be moving as well as it is now.

But Uteck does not work well at all right now. The circles are too small, so much so that trucks often go over the curbs into the circle, and traffic incidents are common.

Additionally, lobbing off Rainnie drive not only reduces conflict points at the roundabout with North Park, it resolves the issue of north-south urban commuter traffic of all transport modes switching between Gottingen and Brunswick at the Citadel.

Gottingen St is not a major commuter route heading south. If you are heading downtown from points west, which is the majority of traffic, you use Rainnie.

The one thing I did have a concern with the roundabout is that if Cogswell is ultimately going to be a four-lane boulevard all the way from Quinpool to Casino Nova Scotia (after Cogswell Interchange Demolition), is that the single-lane roundabout will effectively break the consistency of the Cogswell boulevard corridor. Even though the roundabout would still work, it will require advanced warning signage of the lane drop in each direction in order to avoid having many drivers accidentally end up in a forced left turn lane (going eastbound) or a forced right turn lane (going westbound). I said that, at absolute minimum, there needs to be at least 50m of warning before the start of the forced turn lane in each direction (analogous to the 50m minimum length for a freeflow merge to be established within a 50km/h zone). Ideally, I recommend 100m of lane change warning in this case.

Exactly. This is why I despise this concept. HRM is intentionally choking off traffic for reasons that I fail to understand. You have an intersection there that currently works well. They are going to spend millions to choke it down to one lane? Absurd. It seems like the progressives have seized the reins of power in HRM and are doing whatever they can to advance the anti0car agenda. We should not be making these kind of decisions in the name of social engineering.

I am ultimately hoping for a four-lane boulevard along Cogswell and I am hoping for two-lane exits for Cogswell traffic from the roundabout if the 4-lane boulevard scenario comes to pass. My reason for the two-lane exits for Cogswell east-west traffic under the four-lane boulevard scenario: Traffic flow consistency across two lanes in each direction along the entire Cogswell corridor east of Robie. Cyclists have managed to cope with multi-lane roundabout exits in Waterloo, Ontario. Why can't they do it here?

Because the cycling coalition or whatever they call themselves has Watts and Mason in their pocket, and they are a bunch of self-important, entitled whiners who do not want anything other than total control of traffic design here to fit their own twisted agenda.

[Keith P.]

Ken Reashor (traffic czar) had been talking about closing Rainne for years. The traffic modelling shows it is not needed.

I thought Reashor was gone from HRM?

When he was the traffic czar I do not remember very many members of HRM Council being supportive of his ideas.

Now on this misguided idea, he is suddenly correct?

I highly doubt it.

[hfx_chris]

You have an intersection there that currently works well.


Ok hold on a second, that intersection does not work well in its current configuration. Whether they replace it with a roundabout or a realigned and signalized intersection, the intersection as it is now is hugely confusing to anyone who doesn't use it on a regular basis, and don't forget that confusion is what causes accidents and delays for everyone else.
Come on Keith, surely you can at least agree the intersection needs replacing with something

[Keith P.]

Ok hold on a second, that intersection does not work well in its current configuration. Whether they replace it with a roundabout or a realigned and signalized intersection, the intersection as it is now is hugely confusing to anyone who doesn't use it on a regular basis, and don't forget that confusion is what causes accidents and delays for everyone else.
Come on Keith, surely you can at least agree the intersection needs replacing with something

Not at all. What is confusing about it? I use it all the time and it is dead-simple. If HRM would paint some markings on the asphalt it would work fine. The one part that is a bit tricky is the slight misalignment of Rainnie with the part of Cogswell along the Common, but that is easily fixed. It is not a difficult intersection, certainly not when compared to the mess this roundabout is shaping up to be.

Most problems at intersections in this town are due to poor or more often non-existent markings and signage. HRM seems to have a thing about not posting signs. Look at the major entrance to the peninsula, Bayers Road. Now put yourself in the position of a visitor. Good luck with that. No useful signage, lane drops at Connaught, and what signage there is looks confusing as hell.

[rkannegi]

Ken Reashor (traffic czar) had been talking about closing Rainne for years. The traffic modelling shows it is not needed.

In regards to Ken Reashor's stance on Rainnie, it's better late than never. Honsetly, I had some suspicion that it may have been talked about years before in HRM, considering that once I got to know the lay of the land here over the last decade, I quickly saw Rainnie as a relic of outdated urban traffic planning methods that would no longer be supported in any Canadian city. I know that Ken was (and is) also talking about a bunch of other things too, including about the intersection of Windsor, Cunard & Chebucto, which is in terrible need of realignment (Windsor Street's left turns often have to merge back with their respective straight-through traffic before they can make their left turns due to the lack of room, in the middle part of that offset intersection, for north-south straight-through traffic to bypass northbound and southbound left turns). The current Windsor/Cunard/Chebucto intersection cues nothing but one thing: Road Rage!

Windsor/Cunard/Chebucto (WCC intersection in short)

After I found out from HRM that mini-roundabouts won't work at Windsor, Cunard & Chebucto because of Windsor Street being a designated truck route that would necessitate a full-sized roundabout if it were to ever get a roundabout there (after much costly demolition), I suggested to HRM about split phasing across all four approaches, plus a pedestrian-only phase. I heard back that split phasing with Barnes dance phase will cause excessive delays, so I scrapped that suggestion.

I have also suggested protected lefts off of Windsor Street (for the northbound and southbound left turns) as a temporary measure until HRM is able to proceed with rebuilding that intersection to meet modern National standards. The issue with protected lefts is that there is still an increase in required signal phases at Windsor/Cunard, still increasing signal delays, even though it would only be applied to the Windsor Street approaches (while Cunard Street's/Chebucto Road's approaches would be left unchanged). However, I have not yet heard specifically from HRM whether or not only giving Windsor Street protected lefts at this intersection would work or not.

Another temporary option (that I have not yet made to HRM) that may be able to be done for Windsor, Cunard & Chebucto is to have the Windsor Street approaches changed to having the left turns and through traffic share the left-hand lane, while having the right-hand lane on each of the Windsor Street approaches reserved for right turns only (no protected left signals provided in this scenario). The Cunard approaches in this scenario would remain unchanged. This option eliminates the through/left-turn traffic "squishing" issue along Windsor Street without adding any new signal phases, but kills the slight chance that smaller cars may get to squeeze past left turns (but you really don't want people trying to squeeze past heavier, larger vehicles because it robs the heavy vehicles of the their necessary turning room, which could lead to a major snag, or worse, a heavy truck accidentally crushing a car that's squeezing through its blind spot).

Long story short about Windsor, Cunard & Chebucto is that every option with that intersection is a "double-edged sword". On an editorial/comical note about the "double-edged sword", I have a saying that would fit in well with that (but I would not encourage actually doing it in a literal sense): "F*** it. Sleep on the sword!"

Stad Main Gate

Unfortunately for me (and anybody else that works for DND or who does business with DND), Stadacona Main Gate on Gottingen is awfully similar to the WCC intersection, but instead of a chaotic offset traffic signal, Stad Main Gate has even less protection, where it only has an offset two-way stop with Almon on Gottingen, while having a crosswalk that slices right through the middle of the offset intersection! I know that HRM won't be able to improve the intersection until DND demolishes Atlantic Block in Stadacona, but could HRM at least look at moving the crosswalk out of the middle of the offset intersection there? (Put new crosswalks across Gottingen on the south side of Stad Main Gate and on the north side of Almon Street and possibly paint a box zone or put up special signs advising people not to block the intersection during heavy traffic, let alone have signs warning people that they may have to exchange right of way due to the chaotic nature of that intersection.

Given the extremely chaotic nature of the Stad Main Gate intersection, as another temporary option, we may need revoke Gottingen Street's traffic priority altogether and look at a temporary off-set 4-way STOP intersection for Stad Main/Gate/Gottingen/Almon. For the offset all-way STOP option, I would suggest normal all-way STOP signs on each approach plus yellow diamond signs immediately below each STOP sign showing a pictograph of the offset intersection as it would be seen from each affected approach.

Also, in the temporary all-way STOP scenario for Stad Main Gate, all crosswalks should be on the outside of the intersection (with pictograph signs telling pedestrians to cross Gottingen along the outside edges of the offset intersection, similar to the pedestrian control signage on the intersection of Portland Street and Eisener Boulevard in Dartmouth:

https://maps.google.ca/?ie=UTF8&ll=44.671659,-63.525867&spn=0.00515,0.006362&t=h&z=17&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=44.671706,-63.525621&panoid=8zMAkNNjPmUCFJNExMmUIQ&cbp=12,125.98,,2,7.17

Why the offset all-way STOP option for Stad Main Gate? The Stad Main Gate "junction" on Gottingen is getting very bad now (it's now a major accident waiting to happen), even outside of the AM and PM peak hours. It's also becoming a major impediment on Metro Transit service, particularly that of Route 7 (which I do use on occasion for downtown bank runs instead of wasting time fighting for parking near the CIBC downtown). Let alone that there is already an all-way STOP on Gottingen and Russell (so an off-set all-way STOP at Stadacona/Almon is not going to distrupt signal progression, since there's already no traffic progression along that section of Gottingen, just that it would slow down Gottingen).

Throw in a driver who is not familiar with the area around Stadacona, let alone from HRM altogether, into the current configuration of the Stad Main Gate "junction" in the middle of rush hour, and you're bound to get a major T-bone or rear-end crash, especially when you have the all-to-frequent situation where drivers going along Gottingen unexpectedly yielding the right of way to traffic Stadacona Main Gate and Almon Street when conditions would otherwise allow Gottingen Street to have normal traffic priority.

Gottingen Street

Now about Keith's take on Gottingen. If Gottingen is not a major commuter route, then why does HRM have it classed as "arterial" (the same road class as Barrington)? I can explain some of the reasons. In the not-so-distant past (before the early 1990's), you had to use Gottingen to get onto the MacDonald Bridge from Downtown (no direct connection to Barrington south of the bridge). Even now, Gottingen south of North Street/MacDonald Bridge still handles a lot of Bridge traffic to and from downtown, let alone internal north-south collector traffic from its own neighbourhoods (Gottingen/Novalea corridor).

Crosswalk Control On Major Roads

As a matter of fact, while I'm at it about "arterial" roads, in regards to "arterial" roads' crosswalks, I believe that if there is going to be a marked mid-block crosswalk on "arterial" roads like Cogswell, the southern part of Gottingen and Barrington (or Portland in Dartmouth), and also on any multi-lane roads (except in extremely localized multi-lane cases like the Halifax Airport Terminal drop-off/pick-up area), it should be a full signal instead of flashing yellow, and especially instead of signs-only. This "arterial crosswalk" stance would include all of Gottingen south of North Street and all of Cogswell, but not North Park Street since North Park is only a "major collector" that will be reduced to a single lane in each direction on its redesign, thereby allowing the redesigned Cornwallis crosswalk on North Park to be a flashing yellow one, in my eyes. If North Park Street was to remain a multi-lane road instead of the current single-lane plan that's envisioned by HRM, I would call for a full pedestrian signal at the existing Cornwallis crosswalk due to the high/extreme risk of "multi-threat" car-pedestrian crashes that currently occurs at almost all multi-lane crosswalks that only have a flashing yellow signal system at most.

Also, having heavy volumes of "arterial" traffic (multi-lane or single-lane) suddenly stop for pedestrians at mid-block locations, on the erratic basis that you would get at flashing-yellow and signs-only crosswalks, is a recipe for trouble. The exception to that is at unsignalized roundabouts, where speeds are much lower, and where drivers are more prepared to yield as a result of already approaching a YIELD sign, thereby usually allowing for more relaxed crosswalk control at roundabouts than you would have in a mid-block setting, even on "arterial" roads. The current North Park pedestrian control plan for the North Park redesign will work well in my mind, even with my increasingly rigid stance on crosswalk control standards on all major roads (aside from the effects of distracted driving, cycling and walking, which I should just call distracted commuting, on crosswalks).

Cheers,

Richard Kannegiesser

[Dmajackson]

As a matter of fact, while I'm at it about "arterial" roads, in regards to "arterial" roads' crosswalks, I believe if there is going to be a marked mid-block crosswalk on "arterial" roads like Cogswell, the southern part of Gottingen and Barrington (or Portland in Dartmouth), and also on all multi-lane roads (except in extremely localized multi-lane cases like the Halifax Airport Terminal drop-off/pick-up area), it should be a full signal instead of flashing yellow, and especially instead of signs-only. This "arterial crosswalk" stance would include all of Gottingen south of North Street and all of Cogswell, but not North Park Street since North Park is only a "major collector" that will be reduced to a single lane in each direction on its redesign, thereby allowing the redesigned Cornwallis crosswalk on North Park to be a flashing yellow in my eyes. If North Park Street was to remain a multi-lane road instead of the current single-lane plan that's envisioned by HRM, I would call for a full pedestrian signal at the existing Cornwallis crosswalk due to the high/extreme risk of "multi-threat" car-pedestrian crashes that currently occurs at almost all multi-lane crosswalks that only have a flashing yellow signal system at most.

Having heavy volumes of "arterial" traffic stop for pedestrians at mid-block locations on a sudden, erratic basis that you would get at flashing-yellow and signs-only crosswalks in a recipe for trouble. The exception to that is at unsignalized roundabouts, where speeds are much lower (and where drivers are more prepared to yield as a result of already approaching a YIELD sign), thereby usually allowing for more relaxed crosswalk control at roundabouts than you would have in a mid-block setting, even on "arterial" roads. The current North Park pedestrian control plan for the redesign will work well in my mind, even with my increasingly rigid stance on crosswalk control standards on major roads (aside from the effects of distracted driving, cycling and walking, which I should just call distracted commuting, on crosswalks).

So for existing intersections like the MSVU entrance on Bedford Highway you are recommending a half-signal like what exists at Quinpool & Harvard (https://maps.google.ca/maps?q=quinpool+road+and+preston&ll=44.644902,-63.599143&spn=0.002737,0.006539&hnear=Quinpool+Rd+%26+Preston+St,+Halifax,+Halifax+Regional+Municipality,+Nova+Scotia&gl=ca&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=44.644902,-63.599143&panoid=JXzVIz2fFXKPYOChFcd0GQ&cbp=12,248.47,,0,-0.22) where pedestrians have to activate a traffic light 'WALK' signal and side-streets are 'STOP-SIGN' controlled?

And then at multi-lane crosswalks like the Mainland Linear Trail on Lacewood (where a lady was hit last month) you are recommending a pedstrian only stoplight like the one on Bow Trail (Calgary) (https://maps.google.ca/maps?q=bow+trail+and+sarcee+trail&ll=51.051046,-114.160196&spn=0.002418,0.006539&hnear=Bow+Trail+SW+%26+Sarcee+Trail+SW,+Calgary,+Division+No.+6,+Alberta&gl=ca&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=51.050975,-114.159966&panoid=kAgTwYfCuFrWRhudtdj0yg&cbp=12,108.93,,0,2.44)?

If this is the case then I agree with your suggestions with one addition.

Where a AT trail crosses a multi-lane roadway (ie Mainland Linear at Lacewood) traffic signals should be installed BUT in addition the activation button should be accessible to cyclists and they should be able to ride through the intersection without dismounting.

[rkannegi]

So for existing intersections like the MSVU entrance on Bedford Highway you are recommending a half-signal like what exists at Quinpool & Harvard (https://maps.google.ca/maps?q=quinpool+road+and+preston&ll=44.644902,-63.599143&spn=0.002737,0.006539&hnear=Quinpool+Rd+%26+Preston+St,+Halifax,+Halifax+Regional+Municipality,+Nova+Scotia&gl=ca&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=44.644902,-63.599143&panoid=JXzVIz2fFXKPYOChFcd0GQ&cbp=12,248.47,,0,-0.22) where pedestrians have to activate a traffic light 'WALK' signal and side-streets are 'STOP-SIGN' controlled?

And then at multi-lane crosswalks like the Mainland Linear Trail on Lacewood (where a lady was hit last month) you are recommending a pedstrian only stoplight like the one on Bow Trail (Calgary) (https://maps.google.ca/maps?q=bow+trail+and+sarcee+trail&ll=51.051046,-114.160196&spn=0.002418,0.006539&hnear=Bow+Trail+SW+%26+Sarcee+Trail+SW,+Calgary,+Division+No.+6,+Alberta&gl=ca&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=51.050975,-114.159966&panoid=kAgTwYfCuFrWRhudtdj0yg&cbp=12,108.93,,0,2.44)?

If this is the case then I agree with your suggestions with one addition.

Where a AT trail crosses a multi-lane roadway (ie Mainland Linear at Lacewood) traffic signals should be installed BUT in addition the activation button should be accessible to cyclists and they should be able to ride through the intersection without dismounting.

Yes, you bet that's the case. For trails like Mainland Linear Trail, I certainly want its road crossings to be completely bikeable WITHOUT dismounting (hence my rant about frequent forced dismounting impeding the viability of cycling a couple posts ago). As an aside, I have jokingly called the Mainland Linear Trial the "Pile Drive Trial" due to it being straight enough to allow for sprinters and cyclists to literally "pile drive it" down the trail.

The part of the UK that I was in during early 2011 (Gosport/Portsmouth) has lots of bikeable crossings (YIELD and signal), let alone bike lanes and paths, which is why I liked biking over there; while here in Canada, the excessively frequent cases of forced dismounting, full-stopping for STOP signs where you have to put your feet on the ground and overall lack of protected right of way for cyclists on most of its major roads is why I have not biked much in Canada since Thunder Bay re-banned biking on its sidewalks in 2002. (I was still living in Thunder Bay at the time and Thunder Bay was one of the last Canadian cities to ban sidewalk biking, or in that specific case, re-instate the ban on sidewalk biking, which as a result, is now causing that city to have to build direct connectors between its bike paths and nearby roads to facilitate continuous mounted biking).

Cheers,

Richard Kannegiesser

[Keith P.]

So I have just re-read the entire thread to try and get a sense of how this evolved. It still makes no sense.

Under the design-on-the-fly plan that is currently prevailing, I am trying to figure out how all the traffic that currently exits downtown in the evening using Rainnie will get out after these changes are made.

If I understand it correctly, it will go up Duke, cross Brunswick, go uphill on Rainnie, and be forced to a hard right turn onto Gottingen by the police station. It will then hit the traffic lights at Cogswell and be required to make a left turn onto Cogswell, then go up Cogswell, hit the circle, and hopefully proceed.

The right-left from the east end of Rainnie onto Gottingen and then Cogswell sounds like a big problem, especially the left onto Cogswell.

Surely there needs to be a better way. I see huge delays every evening.

[rkannegi]

So I have just re-read the entire thread to try and get a sense of how this evolved. It still makes no sense.

Under the design-on-the-fly plan that is currently prevailing, I am trying to figure out how all the traffic that currently exits downtown in the evening using Rainnie will get out after these changes are made.

If I understand it correctly, it will go up Duke, cross Brunswick, go uphill on Rainnie, and be forced to a hard right turn onto Gottingen by the police station. It will then hit the traffic lights at Cogswell and be required to make a left turn onto Cogswell, then go up Cogswell, hit the circle, and hopefully proceed.

The right-left from the east end of Rainnie onto Gottingen and then Cogswell sounds like a big problem, especially the left onto Cogswell.

Surely there needs to be a better way. I see huge delays every evening.

Yes, that's the case. A 4-way roundabout is much better than a 6-way intersection and would still be better than a 5-way roundabout. HRM will add a left turn phase on northbound Gottingen at Cogswell. For the inbound, HRM will add a right turn ramp from eastbound Cogswell to southbound Gottingen and southbound Gottingen will be freeflow (except for crosswalk) onto eastbound Rainnie toward Brunswick & Duke as a result of westbound Rainnie being forced through a right turn YIELD onto Gottingen northbound, as also as a result of one-way Rainnie west of Gottingen being stopped at a STOP sign at Gottingen. Who would Rainnie westbound yield to? It would yield to the left turns that originate from one-way Rainnie west of Gottingen, aside from yielding to pedestrians. Being that Gottingen will be "arterial" at Rainnie, I would recommend a pedestrian half-signal system for the pedestrian crossing that will pass across the priority leg (Gottingen southbound) of the new Gottingen/Rainnie intersection.

The current average delay at the six-way intersection (and likely even the lesser delay at a 5-way roundabout) more than offsets the current benefit of being able to go straight outbound along Rainnie from Brunswick to Cogswell at North Park. So, a 4-way roundabout with partial closure of Rainnie and minor redesign and re-phase of the Cogswell/Gottingen intersection would get people through faster than they would under the current system or a 5-way roundabout.

Richard Kannegiesser

[Keith P.]

Yes, that's the case. A 4-way roundabout is much better than a 6-way intersection and would still be better than a 5-way roundabout. HRM will add a left turn phase on northbound Gottingen at Cogswell. For the inbound, HRM will add a right turn ramp from eastbound Cogswell to southbound Gottingen and southbound Gottingen will be freeflow (except for crosswalk) onto eastbound Rainnie toward Brunswick & Duke as a result of westbound Rainnie being forced through a right turn YIELD onto Gottingen northbound, as also as a result of one-way Rainnie west of Gottingen being stopped at a STOP sign at Gottingen. Who would Rainnie westbound yield to? It would yield to the left turns that originate from one-way Rainnie west of Gottingen, aside from yielding to pedestrians. Being that Gottingen will be "arterial" at Rainnie, I would recommend a pedestrian half-signal system for the pedestrian crossing that will pass across the priority leg (Gottingen southbound) of the new Gottingen/Rainnie intersection.

The current average delay at the six-way intersection (and likely even the lesser delay at a 5-way roundabout) more than offsets the current benefit of being able to go straight outbound along Rainnie from Brunswick to Cogswell at North Park. So, a 4-way roundabout with partial closure of Rainnie and minor redesign and re-phase of the Cogswell/Gottingen intersection would get people through faster than they would under the current system or a 5-way roundabout.

Richard Kannegiesser


Frankly, this seems ill-conceived. The left turn from Gottingen northbound onto Cogswell westbound is certain to be a huge bottleneck. If the problem is that you need a 4-legged roundabout instead of a 5-legged one, then a better solution needs to be found. Rainnie is a far better way to get down into the core than Cogswell. A solution that preserves that utility needs to be found.

[rkannegi]

Frankly, this seems ill-conceived. The left turn from Gottingen northbound onto Cogswell westbound is certain to be a huge bottleneck. If the problem is that you need a 4-legged roundabout instead of a 5-legged one, then a better solution needs to be found. Rainnie is a far better way to get down into the core than Cogswell. A solution that preserves that utility needs to be found.

I'm still fairly sure the traffic will flow better under the current plan than at the existing intersection.

The only other way you would be able to have a four-way intersection (roundabout or cross intersection) would be to cut off Cogswell, but then you would need to build a realigned Cogswell across the western portion of the Centennial Pool property to join the cut off portion of Cogswell to Rainnie (one-way STOP or YIELD at Rainnie with only right turns permitted from westbound Cogswell onto Rainnie, and that's if it's not held up by the traffic queue from the new four-way North Park intersection). The other issue with keeping Rainnie going through is that you will need a traffic light at the intersection with Gottingen, which is already busy enough for a traffic signal under the existing road layout, considering that there are already queues of a at least few vehicles frequently lining up on Gottingen southbound at the one-way stop onto Rainnie during the busiest hours of the day (or just before a major event at the Metro Centre), let alone the already very high delay in Gottingen southbound traffic waiting for gaps for Rainnie traffic, even when there not already a queue on southbound Gottingen.

Richard Kannegiesser

[Dmajackson]

Next round of public engagement is next week. On Thursday, March 20th from 7-9pm at the Atlantica Hotel there will be a 90% design completion meeting for the public to come and ask questions. The current plan is for Regional Council to approve this as part of this years budget and for construction to begin at Cunard Street in June (finishing in November). Cogswell would be built starting in June 2015.

I should be at this meeting if anyone else plans to go. :)

[rkannegi]

Thanks for the heads up,

I'll try my best to make the March 20th meeting at the Atlantica. If parking is expected to be a premium in the vicinity of the Atlantica, I'll board the Gottingen/Robie 7 since I live right on that bus route and that it has good service frequency on weekdays and weeknights and straight routing along both Gottingen and Robie. For those most part, I'll probably showing support for the 90% design if it goes the way I suspect it will (quite similar to the 50% design).

Armdale Roundabout

On another note, I proposed a rather radical suggestion to HRM Traffic and Right of Way in regards to the Armdale Roundabout: Breaking it up into two smaller roundabouts (a 4-way northern roundabout between STM Bay, Chebucto and Joe Howe and a 3-way southern roundabout between Joe Howe (connector between the two roundabouts), Herring Cove and Quinpool.

Even though the double-roundabout scenario for the Armdale would provide simpler, safer roundabout designs on each of the two proposed roundabouts, for all modes of transport, the big issues will be assessing property expriopriation costs for making way for the construction of northern roundabout (STM Bay-Chebucto) and the expected traffic load on the short 50-100 meter long connector road between these two proposed roundabouts that I'm suggesting for feasibility assessment at Armdale. Such an idea would, though, allow for easy provision of east-west overpasses (if ever required) for the two big "east-west" traffic flows (STM Bay-Chebucto flow and Herring Cove-Quinpool flow), but overpasses would require even more land to accomodate their slip ramps, especially for slip ramps that would need to be designed to allow full pedestrian and cyclist crossings across the slip ramps (at their roundabout approaches and their gores on either side of the overpass structures) to allow active commuters to have the choice of overpassing the roundabouts too, if overpasses for the two big "east-west" flows are ever added to this. Even if the 100% at-grade iteration of my suggestion is found feasible (the iteration without any overpasses), it will be a while before this is constructed due to the costs and logistics that will be involved (funding will need to be saved up by HRM).

Cheers,

Richard Kannegiesser

[ILoveHalifax]

Very interesting and I have not taken a lot of time to think about it or draw it out, but here's another idea. What about one circle on top of the other, so in the afternoon for example to get from Quinpool to St Marg's, and Herring Cove you take the upper circle leaving the Chebucto to enter the lower circle
Mornings you would take the upper circle from St Margs to get to Quinpool and Chebucto while Herring Cover would use the lower to Quinpool and Chebucto.
Again I have not had time to think it all thru.

[rkannegi]

Very interesting and I have not taken a lot of time to think about it or draw it out, but here's another idea. What about one circle on top of the other, so in the afternoon for example to get from Quinpool to St Marg's, and Herring Cove you take the upper circle leaving the Chebucto to enter the lower circle
Mornings you would take the upper circle from St Margs to get to Quinpool and Chebucto while Herring Cover would use the lower to Quinpool and Chebucto.
Again I have not had time to think it all thru.

That is an interesting idea. The one thing that I see is traffic won't be able to transfer directly between Quinpool and Chebucto (but I bet the volume of that movement is very low). They would have to use MacDonald Street (it joins the Mumford/Chebucto intersection directly to Quinpool with only a one-way stop sign on Quinpool that has moderately poor sightlines).

Another idea I just thought of is that we could have the Armdale as a 5-way roundabout but re-arranged into a double "raindrop" roundabout, where traffic within the connector road between the two "raindrops" not have to yield to enter the second roundabout in their respective direction of travel.

For the double "raindrop" system to be more effective than the existing 5-way Armdale Roundabout in terms of traffic capacity, a pair of overpasses (with slip ramps to the 5-way double "raindrop") would be needed where one overpass goes from directly Chebucto to STM Bay while the other overpass goes directly between Herring Cove and Quinpool. In this scenario, all movements transferring between the two newly-formed "east-west" overpass corridors would have to proceed through both ends of the double "raindrop" roundabout system. (Basically, you take the Armdale Roundabout, "pinch" it into a peanut shape and throw a couple east-west overpasses over the ends of the "peanut" with slip ramps joining the roundabout to the overpasses).

Granted the peanut-shaped roundabout would have the exact same number of entries and exits as the exisiting Armdale, but it would make it feel like two roundabouts even though it's still one roundabout, while motivating the two direct east-west flows to stick to the pair of overpasses provided (with daily commuter traffic would usually only use the peanut roundabout for transferring between the two overpassed east-west corridors or for Joseph Howe access). The double-raindrop effect also allows for the connector road to be shortened down to maybe 30 metres in length between the bitter ends of the raindrop sections of the roundabout. However, the overpasses would still require property expropriation for slip ramps to be built alongside the overpasses for the "peanut" roundabout to access the four roads that would funnel directly go onto the two overpasses.

Cheers,

Richard Kannegiesser

[Dmajackson]

I attended the 90% public consultation tonight and I have to say the whole project looks great. It carefully balances the needs of cyclists, drivers, and pedestrians. There's plenty of green space, three new plazas, and even tactical markings for the visually impaired.

[Keith P.]

...and bedlam shall now ensue. This will be a disaster for drivers. Sheer lunacy.

[q12]

The roundabout at Larry Uteck and Starboard/Nine Mile is a gong show.

The painted lines haven't been visible for close to a year.

Current:
http://i60.tinypic.com/21dk83o.jpg

What it should look like (fixed):
http://i58.tinypic.com/2woauya.jpg

If the painted lines aren't maintained then these roundabouts are extremely dangerous.

People need to understand:

Approach in the left lane for left turns (signal required) and driving straight through.

Approach in the right lane for right turns (signal required) and driving straight through.

I don't know how many times I've entered the roundabout with someone beside me in the right lane that wants to turn left to Sobeys and nearly drives into me.

[OldDartmouthMark]

The roundabout at Larry Uteck and Starboard/Nine Mile is a gong show.

The painted lines haven't been visible for close to a year.

If the painted lines aren't maintained then these roundabouts are extremely dangerous.

People need to understand:

Approach in the left lane for left turns (signal required) and driving straight through.

Approach in the right lane for right turns (signal required) and driving straight through.

I don't know how many times I've entered the roundabout with someone beside me in the right lane that wants to turn left to Sobeys and nearly drives into me.

Which is precisely why those lines never should have been there in the first place. Having double lanes in a small roundabout like that is a recipe for disaster, mainly because drivers don't tend to understand the rules (signals in a roundabout? haven't seen it yet) or after they become familiar with them, they go into autopilot and disregard the rules (often in an effort to aggressively get through as quickly as possible and pass any cars that might be moving slower than they want to go).

But, even more importantly, the roundabouts are so small that they require you to enter in the left lane (if you're not going straight through) and quickly make a lane change and exit from the right lane - all the while making sure that somebody hasn't entered the circle to your right and tried to pass you (or stayed by your side through the circle as you mentioned), watching for approaching vehicles which sometimes forget to yield, pedestrians who may step into the crosswalk at your exit, which you have to give right of way to regardless of the circumstances, etc. etc.

In my opinion, it is not practical to try to maintain a functional double lane through a series of small roundabouts, such as on Larry Uteck. They should all be reduced to single lane on the approach, maintained to single lane though the series of roundabouts and moved back to double lane upon exit. This might lead to a perceived bottleneck once traffic volumes increase there, but no more so than the daily pileup which will likely start occurring when high volumes of quickly moving traffic try to negotiate the double lanes in the small circles.

Just my :2cents: on the matter.

[halifaxboyns]

My mother's place is on Larry Uteck and I have never had a problem with any of the three roundabouts. It's not rocket science and yes, it is about slowing vehicles down so that people move slightly slower.

How does adding 10-30 seconds to your travel make a difference? Because you would actually have a longer wait if it was a traffic light.

[Keith P.]

My mother's place is on Larry Uteck and I have never had a problem with any of the three roundabouts. It's not rocket science and yes, it is about slowing vehicles down so that people move slightly slower.

How does adding 10-30 seconds to your travel make a difference? Because you would actually have a longer wait if it was a traffic light.

Yeah, theoretically they are wonderful. But in reality every driver I talk to about them absolutely despises the things.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Yeah, theoretically they are wonderful. But in reality every driver I talk to about them absolutely despises the things.

^ They are bad drivers, plain and simple. Roundabouts are easy. Every driver you talk to is likely a bad driver.

Its like people who think Armdale is "scary". Are you kidding me? Its so easy and leads to good flows of traffic.

Most drivers are terrible in the maritimes because its so rural. There are also alot of elderly people.

PEI - Worst... I actually avoid these license plates like the plague.
NB - Second worst
NS - Third worst

[worldlyhaligonian]

My mother's place is on Larry Uteck and I have never had a problem with any of the three roundabouts. It's not rocket science and yes, it is about slowing vehicles down so that people move slightly slower.

How does adding 10-30 seconds to your travel make a difference? Because you would actually have a longer wait if it was a traffic light.

Exactly.

[rkannegi]

...and bedlam shall now ensue. This will be a disaster for drivers. Sheer lunacy.

I've already been living and working in Bedlam (CFB Halifax) for over 4 years after I finished University.:haha:

Cheers,

Richard Kannegiesser

[hfx_chris]

The roundabout at Larry Uteck and Starboard/Nine Mile is a gong show.

The painted lines haven't been visible for close to a year.

If the lines are wearing out that quickly, that tells me everyone's changing lanes inside the circle... two things, 1. people obviously haven't caught on to how a roundabout works yet, and 2. there really is no need as you suggested for most of these circles to be two lanes...

[halifaxboyns]

Yeah, theoretically they are wonderful. But in reality every driver I talk to about them absolutely despises the things.

Totally anecdotal. I'd take the stats/facts of someone who studied transportation planning and has been qualified in their field over anecdotal rhetoric any day. That's just like the NIMBY folks of the HT saying tall buildings next to heritage buildings are a bad thing and providing not statistics or facts to back it up.

[halifaxboyns]

For some additional information, I provide you two youtube videos. I highly encourage people to watch them all the way through. We recently had Dan Burden out here in Calgary for a workshop and was the special guest at the end of a film fest we did. His talk was much like what is presented in this video:

Dan Burden (TEDxManhatten) (http://youtu.be/pNlTdoFV9bQ)
*I'd point out - Dan is not an educated urban planner, he learned on his own and did not attend school, but seems to get the common sense of things.

We also had Gil Penalosa (http://youtu.be/jQWWhnjNUtc) out here in Calgary two years ago. His brother became the Mayor of Bogota, a city that has far less $ than many Canadian cities - yet they built an amazing public transit system and bike/pedestrian system because Gil's brother (as mayor) made the choice not to invest in any automobile infrastructure, at all during his term. This is Gil's discussion on 8 to 80 cities - designing cities for people from 8 years old to 80 years old. This is a much reduced version of his talk...Food for thought.

[ILoveHalifax]

For some additional information, I provide you two youtube videos. I highly encourage people to watch them all the way through. We recently had Dan Burden out here in Calgary for a workshop and was the special guest at the end of a film fest we did. His talk was much like what is presented in this video:

Dan Burden (TEDxManhatten) (http://youtu.be/pNlTdoFV9bQ)
*I'd point out - Dan is not an educated urban planner, he learned on his own and did not attend school, but seems to get the common sense of things.

We also had Gil Penalosa (http://youtu.be/jQWWhnjNUtc) out here in Calgary two years ago. His brother became the Mayor of Bogota, a city that has far less $ than many Canadian cities - yet they built an amazing public transit system and bike/pedestrian system because Gil's brother (as mayor) made the choice not to invest in any automobile infrastructure, at all during his term. This is Gil's discussion on 8 to 80 cities - designing cities for people from 8 years old to 80 years old. This is a much reduced version of his talk...Food for thought.

Thank you, very interesting.

[Keith P.]

Totally anecdotal. I'd take the stats/facts of someone who studied transportation planning and has been qualified in their field over anecdotal rhetoric any day.

Said like a true planner - force the theoretical onto the citizens instead of real-world experience. Well done! :rolleyes:

That's just like the NIMBY folks of the HT saying tall buildings next to heritage buildings are a bad thing and providing not statistics or facts to back it up.

Not at all. It is the unfiltered, unprompted, real-world feelings of people who have been forced to use these things and do not like them one little bit.

Drivers do not like roundabouts. It is really that simple.

[Keith P.]

For some additional information, I provide you two youtube videos. I highly encourage people to watch them all the way through. We recently had Dan Burden out here in Calgary for a workshop and was the special guest at the end of a film fest we did. His talk was much like what is presented in this video:

Dan Burden (TEDxManhatten) (http://youtu.be/pNlTdoFV9bQ)
*I'd point out - Dan is not an educated urban planner, he learned on his own and did not attend school, but seems to get the common sense of things.

We also had Gil Penalosa (http://youtu.be/jQWWhnjNUtc) out here in Calgary two years ago. His brother became the Mayor of Bogota, a city that has far less $ than many Canadian cities - yet they built an amazing public transit system and bike/pedestrian system because Gil's brother (as mayor) made the choice not to invest in any automobile infrastructure, at all during his term. This is Gil's discussion on 8 to 80 cities - designing cities for people from 8 years old to 80 years old. This is a much reduced version of his talk...Food for thought.

Bogota or Manhattan Beach and many of the other examples are temperate-climate cities and have a very different mindset than much of Canada. You can bike to the beach all year around in Southern California if you want. You can't do that in St. John's or Halifax or Montreal. I fail to understand why the planning community fails to see this. Those who use bicycles are a very tiny minority as compared to the overall taxpayer population, yet we are devoting a ridiculous amount of time and attention to their demands. Meanwhile those who both carry and pay the freight are forced to put up with less and less in the way of infrastructure. Try delivering your new sofa on a bicycle.

A large dose of reality is seriously needed.

[MonctonRad]

:previous:

Keith is right. In the Maritimes, bicycle commuting is only an option from mid April to November - about 7-8 months a year, and even then about 1/3 of the days will be rainy which will mean that your business suit will get at least somewhat damp. Climatologically speaking, bicycles are practical about 40% of the time. Add on the fact that Halifax is damned hilly and that once people get into their 50's or 60's, most will not want to deal with the hassle of biking and "active transportation" becomes a solution for a distinct minority of the population. Do we really want to be compromising motorized transportation to satisfy a small number of zealots.

Don't get me wrong - I have no problem with incorporating active transportation corridors and bicycle lanes in new subdivisions. They can be planned appropriately where new construction is occurring and ideally should be placed well away from vehicular traffic. In some places here in Moncton (e.g. Millennium Blvd), they have a sidewalk on one side of the street and a bicycle path (separated by a grass median from the roadway) on the other side of the street. This is ideal. Bicycle and pedestrian paths can also be placed so that they cut through a subdivision, ignoring the street network and following the most direct route to regional shopping or transportation nodes. Doing this makes bicycle and pedestrian commuting quiet and safe.

The big issue is incorporating active transportation in older parts of the city, especially in places like Halifax with narrow streets and doing this without compromising traffic flow and existing on-street parking. This is damned near impossible. Zealots of course will say that car drivers deserve no consideration and should be ignored in any traffic planning exercise. This is not realistic by any measure. We are stuck with the transportation grid that we have. We can of course fiddle with the layout a little - perhaps by putting a bike lane on a lesser used downtown secondary route; but adding a bike lane on a narrow major commuter corridor like Windsor Street invites all sorts of major problems.

In short - monkeying with the system to encourage active transportation to the downtown from the burbs is really a non starter. To decrease traffic congestion. you really need to provide a viable alternative in terms of mass transportation - i.e. heavy commuter rail, a better designed bus transportation system and LRT. This is what Halifax needs, not a network of on street bicycle lanes that interferes with existing traffic flow. Active transportation is just not viable given our climate and topography…….

[MonctonRad]

Regarding roundabouts, I'm actually rather much a fan of the concept - if they are properly planned.

Here in Moncton, there is a new five point roundabout that has been installed at Killam and Collishaw to allow for a new connection to Russ Howard Blvd and the Four-Ice Centre. It works exceeding well and is much quicker than the pre-existing controlled intersection was. Kudos to the traffic planners who persevered despite considerable resistance from neighbourhood residents. :tup:

The Killam/Collishaw roundabout however is a single lane roundabout. I think a double lane roundabout increases driver confusion exponentially and should only be used in situations where they are absolutely warranted.

In Moncton, we have two huge traffic circles (Hall's Creek by Champlain Place and, at the Petitcodiac River Causeway at the foot of Wheeler Boulevard). Both of these traffic features are fed by multilane streets and highways and in turn are two (and in places three) lane traffic circles. They work well because the diameter of the roundabouts is such that it easily allows drivers time to maneuver from lane to lane so that they can exit appropriately where they want to go.

I think that in roundabouts with a small diameter, that multiple lanes should be avoided. I think this scenario can cause all sorts of traffic conflicts and would be very aggravating to navigate.

BTW, I have driven through the quadruple roundabout on Larry Uteck in Halifax several times and I must admit that (although I am generally a fan of roundabouts) that this particular configuration is absolute lunacy. I think somebody thought that if one roundabout is good, that four roundabouts must be even better!! :haha:


Surely there must have been some better way to handle traffic flow in this particular location…….

[ILoveHalifax]

I used to live on Larry Uteck and really liked the round abouts, however I always drove them very aggressively and also very defensively knowing that others were having problems. I sure appreciated the 2 lanes because some people have such a hard time they will just stop when they get to them and those who can drive them need a way around the others.

[planarchy]

:previous:

Keith is right. In the Maritimes, bicycle commuting is only an option from mid April to November - about 7-8 months a year, and even then about 1/3 of the days will be rainy which will mean that your business suit will get at least somewhat damp. Climatologically speaking, bicycles are practical about 40% of the time. Add on the fact that Halifax is damned hilly and that once people get into their 50's or 60's, most will not want to deal with the hassle of biking and "active transportation" becomes a solution for a distinct minority of the population. Do we really want to be compromising motorized transportation to satisfy a small number of zealots.

Don't get me wrong - I have no problem with incorporating active transportation corridors and bicycle lanes in new subdivisions. They can be planned appropriately where new construction is occurring and ideally should be placed well away from vehicular traffic. In some places here in Moncton (e.g. Millennium Blvd), they have a sidewalk on one side of the street and a bicycle path (separated by a grass median from the roadway) on the other side of the street. This is ideal. Bicycle and pedestrian paths can also be placed so that they cut through a subdivision, ignoring the street network and following the most direct route to regional shopping or transportation nodes. Doing this makes bicycle and pedestrian commuting quiet and safe.

The big issue is incorporating active transportation in older parts of the city, especially in places like Halifax with narrow streets and doing this without compromising traffic flow and existing on-street parking. This is damned near impossible. Zealots of course will say that car drivers deserve no consideration and should be ignored in any traffic planning exercise. This is not realistic by any measure. We are stuck with the transportation grid that we have. We can of course fiddle with the layout a little - perhaps by putting a bike lane on a lesser used downtown secondary route; but adding a bike lane on a narrow major commuter corridor like Windsor Street invites all sorts of major problems.

In short - monkeying with the system to encourage active transportation to the downtown from the burbs is really a non starter. To decrease traffic congestion. you really need to provide a viable alternative in terms of mass transportation - i.e. heavy commuter rail, a better designed bus transportation system and LRT. This is what Halifax needs, not a network of on street bicycle lanes that interferes with existing traffic flow. Active transportation is just not viable given our climate and topography…….

You can say that everyone isn't interested in biking, but Keith and you are both off with your "facts"

Moving by bike? Never! (Sweden) -
http://www.bikesatwork.com/static/images/customers/move-by-bike-1.jpg

Biking 12 months of the year?? Impossible! (Denmark) -
http://cdn2.gbtimes.com/cdn/farfuture/D6IHSDJkDF-v6hpTlS7rmQSzGs_chainnXEtWyUYr-Q/mtime:1387203846/sites/default/files/styles/1280_wide/public/2013/11/27/winter-biking_snow_cargobikes_copenhagen2010_cycling-embassy-of-denmark.jpg?itok=cfvJvtum

People biking in their 50's and 60s ?? How ridiculous!
http://bicycledutch.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/vught01.jpg

The issue is really about three issues - little incentive to get out of cars, little to no infrastructure, and pure laziness. Hill excuse is a good example - you can bike around most of the peninsula without biking up any significant hills, especially in N-S direction. Another false fact - Halifax streets are too narrow. This one has to stop. They've been there for 250 years and worked fine. The problem is that people are getting fatter and their trucks are getting bigger. The streets are still the same and no different that much of the world.

This is what Halifax needs, not a network of on street bicycle lanes that interferes with existing traffic flow. Active transportation is just not viable given our climate and topography……."

- This is just ridiculous. They are actually PUBLIC Right of ways by law, not canals for cars. Unfortunately, they've been appropriated over a period of 50 years and now those in cars feel entitled and don't want to share. We seem to forget that walking is a right. Driving is, in fact, a privilege. Cars are great, useful, and can help us move things around and get places quick. But they take up a lot of space and make cities more dangerous. When we plan cities we need to remember this and once in while, in densely populated areas, driving needs to be made less convenient and more expensive for the sake of everyone. Because not every can or wants to live in 5-10 unit/acre suburban neighbourhoods. End of rant.

Even muppets bike in London:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_e8bdSNHaDto/TCEIeeitweI/AAAAAAAAAqw/ZZDb6PB7wLk/s1600/MuppetsBikeRide.jpg

[someone123]

Bikes also take up a lot less space, so narrow streets are actually an argument for everything but cars.

[q12]

I sure appreciated the 2 lanes because some people have such a hard time they will just stop when they get to them and those who can drive them need a way around the others.

^I agree, the 2 lanes help when dealing with people who will never figure out how to use a roundabout properly.

I've actually encountered people turning left and travelling the WRONG DIRECTION around the roundabout three times on Larry Uteck since they opened. One of them started down the off ramp and almost ended up driving the wrong way on the bi-hi. :uhh::runaway::help::duh

[MonctonRad]

I've actually encountered people turning left and travelling the WRONG DIRECTION

Sadly I saw the same thing the other day on the Killam/Collishaw roundabout here in Moncton…….. :facepalm:

Perhaps they thought they were in the UK. :haha: