Third Harbour Crossing

[josh_cat_eyes]

I am in favor of a tunnel or a bridge. I am from PEI, but I was at the recent Dane Cook show at the Metro Centre, and it took FOREVER to get out of the city. If there was a tunnel beginning from say, Spring Garden Road or South Street and going over to the end of 111. I don't know where you would be able to fit a new bridge without completely messing up the existing buildings. I wouldn't be apposed to a new bridge though, look at the bridge in Boston from the big dig. That is like a city landmark for them now. I don't see why Halifax couldn't have a new bridge become a landmark.

[City_of_Lakes]

A tunnel diving underground at the end of SGR would be awesome! But I don't know that it's possible given that the Maritime Centre is RIGHT there and would likely make it impossible to dig a tunnel underneath.

[-Harlington-]

i doubt that it will go near spring garden, although that would be neat. if anywhere i see a bridge or tunnel from the end of the circ to south st.

[alps]

Imagine what a tunnel at the end of Spring Garden would do to traffic - it wouldn't work. Should be foremost a pedestrian/transit road.

[terrynorthend]

Wow. It'd be an awfully steep grade into the tunnel.. its already a steep hill coming off SGR, and the tunnel would have to get beneath the Maritime Centre pilings and then down below the harbour bottom.

[City_of_Lakes]

A tunnel seems unlikely in that spot.. But wouldn't a bridge between the Circ and South Street inevitably interfere with George's Island somehow? Let's see how that proposal goes...

[-Harlington-]

Originally Posted by City_of_Lakes

A tunnel seems unlikely in that spot.. But wouldn't a bridge between the Circ and South Street inevitably interfere with George's Island somehow? Let's see how that proposal goes...

that is true, a bridge even being near georges island will never fly in halifax, its to loved of and island to even come near it

on that not where else would it be?
further down? eastren passage to south end or purcells cove? yeah right,
maybe from near the hopital or dartmouth cove into downtown via cogswell interchange although it would be nice to see that down, ?

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by -Harlington-

that is true, a bridge even being near georges island will never fly in halifax, its to loved of and island to even come near it

on that not where else would it be?
further down? eastren passage to south end or purcells cove? yeah right,
maybe from near the hopital or dartmouth cove into downtown via cogswell interchange although it would be nice to see that down, ?

Thread newbies need to go back to page one and read the previous 6 pages worth of posts to understand what has already been covered.

Interestingly, the Bridge Commission has taken down the www.needsassessment.ca site that used to host the study document that identified the need for another crossing.

[hfx_chris]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Thread newbies need to go back to page one and read the previous 6 pages worth of posts to understand what has already been covered.

Interestingly, the Bridge Commission has taken down the www.needsassessment.ca site that used to host the study document that identified the need for another crossing.

Yeah, I mentioned that report in another thread, and somebody found a copy of the report on another site - but I'll be darned if I can find it again...

It's out there

[ScovaNotian]

There's a link on https://www.hdbc.ca/sustainability.asp .

[halifaxboyns]

A tunnel would probably be hugely expensive - plus you have to link it up with a road on the opposite side that could handle the traffic.

The eventual new alignment of Cogswell might work - since it's wide enough to support heavy traffic into the downtown with branch points at Barrington and Brunswick for different directions and routes - the problem is where would it hook up on the Dartmouth side? It's too far from the Circumfrential highway to really work, unless you did a tunnel like Boston right under the harbour, under the homes and the Coast Guard facility and then had it pop up so that it could connect to Pleasant Street? Thoughts?

[someone123]

The HDBC report has bridge alignments. It's pretty much a no-brainer since the road network was designed with the third crossing in mind. Ideally there would also be a vehicle bridge over the Northwest Arm, plus I think a small pedestrian bridge might be useful.

A tunnel would be more expensive and I don't think it would be particularly necessary. The existing bridges are attractive landmarks and there's no reason why the third bridge couldn't be one as well.

I wonder what the chances are of the bridge actually happening. It could be a kind of fait accompli since the HDBC can manage its own finances and is a provincial entity. Lots of people have already complained about the bridge but the two existing bridges were built to serve a city of 223,000 (1971). By 2016 Halifax will have 425,000 people or more and there has been growth on both sides of the harbour.

[fenwick16]

I would much rather see a few hundred million dollars put towards an LRT system on the peninsula and then twin the MacKay bridge with another bridge. The money saved on the southern harbour crossing would likely be enough for a peninsula LRT system. Then there would be no issues with the southern bridge interfering with shipping.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

I would much rather see a few hundred million dollars put towards an LRT system on the peninsula and then twin the MacKay bridge with another bridge. The money saved on the southern harbour crossing would likely be enough for a peninsula LRT system. Then there would be no issues with the southern bridge interfering with shipping.

It is true that LRT would cost less but in practical terms it is much more difficult because there is no body analogous to the bridge commission. The bridge commission can obtain financing based on their current revenues and future tolls from the new bridge. It would be infeasible to pay for LRT through fares.

In general the notion that funding for a project could be diverted anywhere else is simply not true in the context of the HRM. The clearest example of this is with the federal government - they fund some things and not others, and if you don't put forward the right proposals you don't get anything. The municipality should have learned this painful lesson by now but apparently hasn't with the new ice rink which failed to obtain federal funding. HRM taxpayers might have gotten 50% more bang for the buck had that been delayed until funding was secured or scaled back so some money could be invested in something else.

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by someone123

It is true that LRT would cost less but in practical terms it is much more difficult because there is no body analogous to the bridge commission. The bridge commission can obtain financing based on their current revenues and future tolls from the new bridge. It would be infeasible to pay for LRT through fares.

In general the notion that funding for a project could be diverted anywhere else is simply not true in the context of the HRM. The clearest example of this is with the federal government - they fund some things and not others, and if you don't put forward the right proposals you don't get anything. The municipality should have learned this painful lesson by now but apparently hasn't with the new ice rink which failed to obtain federal funding. HRM taxpayers might have gotten 50% more bang for the buck had that been delayed until funding was secured or scaled back so some money could be invested in something else.

There is Metro Transit and there seems to be quite a bit of federal money available for public transit. Even the new NDP provincial government is committing a lot of money to new road construction since they know that it creates a lot of jobs - an LRT system could do the same. The big question is whether or not the fares would cover the cost of running an LRT system. It could be a short automated people mover system like at large airports which could run every 10 - 15 minutes at each stop. I read about the Calgary LRT system and they have come up with create ways to finance it - http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/programs/environment-utsp-casestudy-cs76eparkingtdm-891.htm . The Calgary system has greatly decreased the requirement for parking downtown. The same has happened in Copenhagen.

Even with BRT, parking lots could be set up on the outskirts of the city and then have regular shuttle buses running downtown. If Halifax can eventually afford a short LRT or subway system, people could park their cars and then take the LRT downtown (probably just a 5 - 10 minute ride). This would encourage people to shop downtown as in Copenhagen.

With all the approaches for a new bridge and the longer crossing distance, I would think that a southern bridge would be 2 - 3 times the cost of a second MacKay bridge. I think there would be major opposition to such a southern harbour bridge since it will lead into the south end neighbourhoods and increase traffic in the south end (some traffic would be diverted from the other two bridges). This south end opposition is why a Northwest Arm bridge has never been built - politicians are afraid to even talk about it.

[halifaxboyns]

Correct my assumption if it's wrong - but wasn't the 3rd harbour crossing supposed to connect to the end of the Circumfrential highway? If that's the case, there will be a need for a huge expropriation of land and then where would it connect on the Halifax side?

Calgary's LRT has the unique feature that if you are taking the train anywhere along 7th avenue and not going outside the downtown core, you can take the train for free. I love it - I live by the Olympic Plaza station, so if I'm going to pick up a couple small things at the grocerry store, I either walk or take the train for free! The extensions to the west and up in the NE are well underway now, which will add 7 new stations and something like 10km of new track.

[fenwick16]

I took the quote below from the following source: http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/programs/environment-utsp-casestudy-cs76eparkingtdm-891.htm

It is very interesting. When Calgary started implementing these ideas in the late 60's and early 70's it would have only been about the size that the HRM currently is (about 400,000). Instead of building additional parking, developers can contribute money to the city of Calgary which operates parking facilities outside of the downtown core. The idea is that having more parking in the downtown core encourages people to take cars downtown instead of public transit. So if developers wish to reduce their mandated parking requirements they can by contributing money to the city parking and transit system. This means that developers can have more space allocated to residential or commercial use instead of parking.

A similar idea has started to gain some acceptance - reducing highway capacity instead of increasing it. Cities have found that car usage increases with highway expansion - i.e. the number of cars increase to fill the available space. Places like San Francisco and Seoul, Korea have actually torn down some stretches of highway. In San Francisco it was replaced by standard access city streets whereas in Seoul, I don't think that it was even replaced at all (later I will try to find references - this comes from a TV documentary that I saw a couple of years ago).

I know that Halifax has done comprehensive studies on Bus Transit; now that the city is growing at a good rate, it would be good to see them study LRT systems which could be automated. I think that they should seriously consider a single track subway system with passing points on the major routes - then when ridership dictates, it could be expanded to double track. Initially it could be two trains that meet in the center to let each other pass. What I am thinking of is a system for the downtown with frequent cycles on a short track 4 - 5 KM. One route is the North End Halifax waterside route past the dockyards and Irving Shipbuilding (I think?) which could feed to a large car parking facility close to the MacKay bridge. People could get on it and be at their car within 5 - 10 minutes. It could be Right of Way (i.e. does not have to stop for traffic) partly buried in the Dockyards parking lots and partly above ground near Irving Shipbuilding in the North End.

City of Calgary

Calgary's parking plan was initially implemented in the 1960s when the city was devising a master plan for its downtown. This vision has allowed the city to keep control of downtown parking, while increasing its modal share for transit.

Chris Blaschuk, a parking strategist with the city, explains that, in the 1960s, the city identified two corridors that it wanted to develop for transit and pedestrian use. These corridors eventually became the city's light rail transit (LRT) corridor and the Stephen Avenue, also known as the 8th Avenue, became a pedestrian mall.

“The city knew that if they wanted to encourage transit use, they had to something about parking,” says Mr. Blaschuk.

By 1972, the city had developed a bylaw requiring developers to supply up to 20% of parking on the site of new office developments. The cost of the remaining 80% of parking (costs that developers would have had to pay to construct such spaces) was put into a cash-in-lieu fund. At the time, developers offered little opposition because parking was expensive to construct, offered little in the way of revenue benefits, and freed up space within new developments for other uses.

Using the cash-in-lieu fund, Calgary then constructed parking lots in “interceptor” locations. These lots allow people driving in from the suburbs to park their cars and then take transit or walk the remaining distance into downtown; they also provide an incentive for visitors to come to downtown.

“It's easier to park and then walk or take the LRT than circle the block,” says Mr. Blaschuk. The construction of the LRT in the mid-1980s further reduced the need for people to drive into the downtown core.

Since Calgary's parking policy only provides space for about half of downtown workers, most of the rest need to travel by transit. By putting such restraints on the number of parking spaces in the downtown and encouraging alternatives such as transit and walking, Calgary has been able to encourage greater transit use. Today, the city's modal split for transit into the downtown core is 46%, a percentage the city hopes to increase to 60% by 2030.

[Keith P.]

Bulldog Sue Uteck, normally a pretty good member of council, is way off base here. I know she doesn't like the effect it will have on her area but she needs to get her head out of her ass and realize that 15-20 years from now this city will not be able to function properly with the existing crossings, and that ferries and the like are only practical for a small percentage of the potential traffic needs. This kind of small-minded parochial thinking at council must stop.

http://thechronicleherald.ca/Metro/9016691.html

City staff eye south-end land
Third harbour crossing idea making big waves
By MICHAEL LIGHTSTONE City Hall Reporter
Sat. Jun 5 - 5:49 AM

A new municipal staff report has identified the preferred location for a potential third crossing across Halifax Harbour, a traffic project that might be needed as early as 2016.

But a regional councillor whose south-end Halifax district would be affected by the pro­posed commuter crossing — a bridge or tunnel — said Friday she’ll make a procedural move at Tuesday’s council meeting to try to sink the billion-dollar scheme. The information report says the best prospective crossing would be a link between High­way 111 in the Woodside area and the Port of Halifax lands and CN Rail property in Halifax’s south end.

“By endorsing the Highway 111 crossing location, regional council is not committing to a bridge or tunnel necessarily being constructed, or diminish­ing ongoing efforts to maximize the number of cross-harbour trips being made by more sus­tainable modes of travel," says the report, prepared by munici­pal transportation manager Dave McCusker.

By endorsing the site, “council allows Halifax Harbour Bridges and Halifax Regional Municipal­ity to take the steps necessary to ensure that future development will complement, and not in­terfere with, a future ability to construct this crossing if deemed necessary."

McCusker told The Chronicle Herald it is staff’s hope that regional council will agree in principle to the crossing site, should a bridge or tunnel ever be given the green light.

He said it’s his understanding that such a crossing would have to be considered by Halifax council and the provincial cabi­net.

“They would both have to agree on something being done," said McCusker.

The idea of a third crossing was floated by Halifax Harbour Bridges in 2008. It could be needed sometime between 2016 and 2026, or later, planners have said. Coun. Sue Uteck (North­west Arm-South End), who’s on the board of commissioners at Halifax Harbour Bridges, said Friday the proposed project is a waste of staff time, and it’s a concept that’ll likely never hap­pen in her lifetime.

She said city hall needs to concentrate on using the har­bour more, such as water taxis or another Metro Transit ferry, and forget about building a crossing that’s going to cost taxpayers a huge amount of money.

Metro’s population has hit 400,000, Mayor Peter Kelly said recently. In 2008, a public meet­ing heard a new bridge would probably have six lanes and cost $1.1 billion; a tunnel, with a $1.4-billion price tag, would accommodate four lanes.

“I understand the need that we’ve got to find, possibly in the future, more access to penin­sular Halifax," Uteck said.

“And I firmly believe that the way to go is the water. From my perspective, we’re not taking advantage of the most natural resource we have."

Uteck intends to place the report on Tuesday’s council agenda. If that happens, she said, she’ll marshal support from other councillors to kill the is­sue.

“This report says nothing," she said. “There’s no money, there’s no (political) will, there’s no initiative."

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Bulldog Sue Uteck, normally a pretty good member of council, is way off base here. I know she doesn't like the effect it will have on her area but she needs to get her head out of her ass and realize that 15-20 years from now this city will not be able to function properly with the existing crossings, and that ferries and the like are only practical for a small percentage of the potential traffic needs. This kind of small-minded parochial thinking at council must stop.

http://thechronicleherald.ca/Metro/9016691.html

I think that the studies should proceed but it seems like a southern crossing might not be the best option in terms of cost. Instead of constructing a billion dollar plus crossing, cheaper options are available that should also be studied - one would be rapid transit off the peninsula and then encourage growth to the west of the Halifax peninsula instead of growth in Dartmouth. An LRT route from the West Mall to the downtown area which also passes the universities and hospitals might be a better option.

A Northwest arm bridge might be a better, much cheaper option than a third harbour bridge. Moving Halterm to the Dartmouth side and using the railcut as a roadway and rapid transit route might even be cheaper.

It sounds like the bridge commission wants to make sure that land is kept open for a potential third crossing in the southend. Is this really beneficial to the HRM - if land is tied up for decades to allow for a bridge that might never happen. Personally I would much rather see a LRT/subway system on the peninsula than a southern harbour crossing. Maybe just have an LRT link across the harbour instead (one or two track tunnel under the harbour) so that people can park their cars in Dartmouth and be in downtown Halifax in 2 - 3 minutes.

I think that Sue Uteck should be recommending a study of rapid transit in the Halifax area and even recommend a study on a Northwest arm bridge instead of the southern harbour crossing. One of my concerns is how will a southern harbour crossing affect very large container ships in the future. I still have hopes of Halifax becoming a mega port for container shipping as ships become larger.

Just my opinion.

[Keith P.]

Without debating all of your points, it is absurd that one councillor can torpedo such a major project as this by a procedural motion without appropriate analysis, broad consideration, and discussion. It is simply wrong.