[Saint John, NB] 🚲 Active Transportation 🛴

[bingun]

Originally Posted by EnvisionSaintJohn

This extension of the Harbour Passage will be huge for that development on Leinster and huge for rejuvenating that whole eastern side of the peninsula.

I agree, I would be very happy if I were the owner of that new building.

I also forgot to mention, there is more information about the Courtney Bay Causeway in next week's meeting.

It appears they are leaning towards reducing it to a single lane in each direction, with a 3.0-metre multi-use path separated by a 1.0-metre concrete boulevard, incorporating a concrete barrier.

In a way, this will be another Harbour Passage Extension from Crown to Bayside Drive, but probably not painted red.

Traffic Analysis and Conceptual Geometric Design: A traffic study was undertaken to assess the impacts of reducing the Causeway from four lanes to two lanes, while accommodating active transportation infrastructure. Traffic modeling based on future traffic projections indicated that the proposed lane reductions would have minimal impact on congestion.

City Staff worked with Gemtec and their team to conduct a value-engineering exercise to complete a conceptual design for the Causeway to remain within a total project cost of $19.2 million (including HST). To achieve this, a revised Causeway cross-section was developed consisting of two 3.6-metre-wide vehicle lanes and a 3.0-metre multi-use path separated by a 1.0-metre concrete boulevard with an incorporated concrete barrier. It should be noted the above estimate for the revised scope of work is based on preliminary investigation and concept design. Estimated project costs will become more accurate as the design process proceeds through its development.

As a result, the following breakdown is the forecasted City share funding required per year:

2026 $1,036,906 (included in the City’s 2026 Capital Program)
2027 $5,242,133.51
2028 $5,242,133.51

Total $11,521,172.54

It should be highlighted that $5,242,133 in City Share funding in 2027 and 2028 is a significant amount of City Share funding to assign to one capital project. As detailed in the City’s 5-year investment plan, assigning this amount of funding to one capital project results in less other capital projects being able to be completed in each of those years. As a high-level example when you compare the overall City share funding from the 2025 and 2026 General Capital funding programs, this project would represent approximately 25% of the 2025 program ($5,238,196.27/$21,140,000) and 19.5% of the 2026 program ($5,238,196.27/ $26,750,000). This is a significant project which will have a large City share footprint on the Capital program for years to come.

[adamuptownsj]

That's a horrendous decision. Idiotic.

[sailor734]

Originally Posted by adamuptownsj

That's a horrendous decision. Idiotic.

I agree. I expect the daily usage would be in the single digits if they ever did a traffic count.......which they won't because that would expose an inconvenient
truth.

[bingun]

I should add that there is more to this than what I quoted. I recommend reading the document. My read on this is that their priority isn't active transportation, but rather saving money and ensuring they receive external funding. Also, if you think this plan is bad, see the quote below on what it could have been. I think some people's heads would have exploded if they put bike lanes on the causeway.

https://pub-saintjohn.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=25775

Two initial Causeway geometric design options were developed, with the following estimated capital costs in 2025 dollars:

 Causeway Raising Conceptual Design – Option 1: $26.0 million, comprising
of two 4.3m vehicle lanes, two 1.6m bicycle lanes, a 1.5m greenspace
boulevard, and a 1.5m sidewalk.

 Causeway Raising Conceptual Design – Option 2: $22.8 million, comprising
two 3.6m vehicle lanes, a 1.5m boulevard, a 3m multi-use path.

[adamuptownsj]

These are equally bad. This is a major commuter feeder from Bayside's industry to and from the city center. Causeway needs to remain 4 lanes.

Any focus on improving non-motor-vehicle movement between the inner east side/south end should focus on Thorne-Loch Lomond from McDonald to Crown. A 2km 'multi-use path' with a median could easily fit here, presumably on the south side of the street, if you slightly narrowed the existing lanes and scrapped the orphaned bike lane that stops at Westmorland. There's actually residents and businesses along this whole route, unlike the causeway. Would tie in with eventual Harbour Passage extension and would serve both the inner east side and the dense Westmorland Heights area.

Westmorland Road doesn't even have sidewalks between Kilburn and East Point! You want to talk active transportation, we have to do something for pedestrians before getting cute and spending Alberta's money on messing with drivers.

ACAP Saint John has an extensive plan for trails in the Marsh Creek area. Why not take them up on it?

The elevation project should be low on our priority list anyway.

[darkharbour]

Originally Posted by adamuptownsj

These are equally bad. This is a major commuter feeder from Bayside's industry to and from the city center. Causeway needs to remain 4 lanes.

Any focus on improving non-motor-vehicle movement between the inner east side/south end should focus on Thorne-Loch Lomond from McDonald to Crown. A 2km 'multi-use path' with a median could easily fit here, presumably on the south side of the street, if you slightly narrowed the existing lanes and scrapped the orphaned bike lane that stops at Westmorland. There's actually residents and businesses along this whole route, unlike the causeway. Would tie in with eventual Harbour Passage extension and would serve both the inner east side and the dense Westmorland Heights area.

Westmorland Road doesn't even have sidewalks between Kilburn and East Point! You want to talk active transportation, we have to do something for pedestrians before getting cute and spending Alberta's money on messing with drivers.

ACAP Saint John has an extensive plan for trails in the Marsh Creek area. Why not take them up on it?

The elevation project should be low on our priority list anyway.

Irving land ownership is the hurdle there, JDI and IOL together own all the land in the forebay behind the causeway. Personally I was working on trying to establish a parallel off-causeway route that would have been within the forebay (sort of like Sackville's wetland park), further removing pedestrians and cyclists from the traffic and shielding them from the ocean more.

There's a whole Dalhousie U. planning study on the topic, I have it saved somewhere.

[adamuptownsj]

I'd be curious to learn what the Irving opposition is, when they're quite generous with public access to the INP and adjacent lands over west. It's not like they're doing anything with this swamp.

[sjuser23]

Originally Posted by adamuptownsj

These are equally bad. This is a major commuter feeder from Bayside's industry to and from the city center. Causeway needs to remain 4 lanes.

Any focus on improving non-motor-vehicle movement between the inner east side/south end should focus on Thorne-Loch Lomond from McDonald to Crown. A 2km 'multi-use path' with a median could easily fit here, presumably on the south side of the street, if you slightly narrowed the existing lanes and scrapped the orphaned bike lane that stops at Westmorland. There's actually residents and businesses along this whole route, unlike the causeway. Would tie in with eventual Harbour Passage extension and would serve both the inner east side and the dense Westmorland Heights area.

Westmorland Road doesn't even have sidewalks between Kilburn and East Point! You want to talk active transportation, we have to do something for pedestrians before getting cute and spending Alberta's money on messing with drivers.

ACAP Saint John has an extensive plan for trails in the Marsh Creek area. Why not take them up on it?

The elevation project should be low on our priority list anyway.

It would cost 5 -10 million more to maintain 4 lanes rather than 2. The base would have to be that much wider to go up the same height. Also, since one-mile interchange was built, the causeway is no longer a truck route so connection/traffic to industrial park is a fraction of what it was. It we look at usage to justify the expense, no way in hell is a 4 lane justified.

[bingun]

Originally Posted by sjuser23

It would cost 5 -10 million more to maintain 4 lanes rather than 2. The base would have to be that much wider to go up the same height. Also, since one-mile interchange was built, the causeway is no longer a truck route so connection/traffic to industrial park is a fraction of what it was. It we look at usage to justify the expense, no way in hell is a 4 lane justified.

This hits the nail on the head. What makes it even tougher is that the extra 5-10 million would have to be coughed up entirely by the city, as they've already maxed out all the government funding.

Just think of how many green zone trailers they can fund with that money!

[adamuptownsj]

Per the most recent Public Safety Committee minutes, the city is seriously letting discussion of using electric tuk-tuks on Harbour Passage proceed. Idiotic to not dismiss it out of hand. Absolutely not the right place for what's basically a small car. Last summer, the moron who runs the company was literally honking at people on the Passage to get them out of his way.

[sailor734]

I'm not even convinced there should be bikes on Harbour Passage. I know in Vancouver the seawall has two lanes divided by a grass median.....one strictly pedestrian only and the other bikes, E scooters etc. with a speed limit of 25 KPH.

Bike/scooters/Tuk-Tuk's don't belong on what is basically a sidewalk/running path/dog walking path.

[EnvisionSaintJohn]

Originally Posted by adamuptownsj

Per the most recent Public Safety Committee minutes, the city is seriously letting discussion of using electric tuk-tuks on Harbour Passage proceed. Idiotic to not dismiss it out of hand. Absolutely not the right place for what's basically a small car. Last summer, the moron who runs the company was literally honking at people on the Passage to get them out of his way.

Another rare case of where I agree with you, lol… and how much government funding did the tuk-tuk guy get? They could have funded a bike sharing across the Harbour Passage instead.

The Harbour Passage is definitely not the place for those things.

Originally Posted by sailor734

I'm not even convinced there should be bikes on Harbour Passage. I know in Vancouver the seawall has two lanes divided by a grass median.....one strictly pedestrian only and the other bikes, E scooters etc. with a speed limit of 25 KPH.

Bike/scooters/Tuk-Tuk's don't belong on what is basically a sidewalk/running path/dog walking path.

Banning bicycles from the Harbour Passage would be pretty extreme, lol, but I think I could get behind banning e-scooters from the Harbour Passage, those things are unbelievable dangerous.

[bingun]

A user named EH Wright posted drone photos of Fallsview Drive. It looks like they installed a map with the work they completed last year, which includes a 'future trail' down to the water and an alternative to the current steps. Between the parking lot improvements here and the ones underway at Fallsview Avenue, it will be a noticeable improvement for tourists.

The timing of these images is really useful to see the current state of the 'Cove' trail before the foliage grows in. Construction on that section of Harbour Passage should begin shortly, I believe.

[adamuptownsj]

Originally Posted by sjuser23

[...]Also, since one-mile interchange was built, the causeway is no longer a truck route so connection/traffic to industrial park is a fraction of what it was. It we look at usage to justify the expense, no way in hell is a 4 lane justified.

Per AllNB, it averaged 18,600 daily trips in 2017, likely quite a bit more now, and is one of the busiest arterials in the city.

This reduction wouldn't happen in a vacuum, either. The city is also publicly considering reducing Crown to 3 lanes for the Harbour Passage extension, which I don't hate, and has even made reference to making Chesley and Somerset 'active transportation corridors' in the North End Plan, which is not exactly wise.

[sailor734]

So if Somerset is going to be an "active transportation corridor" where are they going to build the new "motorized transportation corridor" to replace Somerset?

[Ire Narissis]

Originally Posted by sailor734

So if Somerset is going to be an "active transportation corridor" where are they going to build the new "motorized transportation corridor" to replace Somerset?

Pretty sure what they mean is adding active transportation to the existing road, not replacing the whole thing with a bike path.

[sailor734]

Originally Posted by Ire Narissis

Pretty sure what they mean is adding active transportation to the existing road, not replacing the whole thing with a bike path.

Sorry, I should have used some sort of emoji to denote sarcasm/tongue in cheek.