Third Harbour Crossing

[Dmajackson]

Thinking out of the box here but couldn't the HHB build an active-transportation trail to the side of the MacKay similar to the McDonald Bridge bikeway. In Halifax is could connect to Novelea Street with ease (southside). Dartmouth would be more challenging but it could drop down to Princess Margaret Blvd. I'm to sketch up a quick map but it would be a great idea to tie into an eventual Shannon Park redevelopment.

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by Dmajackson

Thinking out of the box here but couldn't the HHB build an active-transportation trail to the side of the MacKay similar to the McDonald Bridge bikeway. In Halifax is could connect to Novelea Street with ease (southside). Dartmouth would be more challenging but it could drop down to Princess Margaret Blvd. I'm to sketch up a quick map but it would be a great idea to tie into an eventual Shannon Park redevelopment.

Are you referring to adding bike and pedestrian lanes or LRT lanes to the MacKay Bridge? (I don't think that LRT lanes could be added - they would likely have to take one of the existing bridge lanes but then vehicular traffic would be reduced).

[Dmajackson]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

Are you referring to adding bike and pedestrian lanes or LRT lanes to the MacKay Bridge? (I don't think that LRT lanes could be added - they would likely have to take one of the existing bridge lanes but then vehicular traffic would be reduced).

I was thinking bike/pedestrian lanes like there currently is attached to the McD. At the very least it could cut down volume in the Summer/Fall when the traffic is the worse.

I'm still worknig slightly on this but I was thinking of this type of layout for the trail and feeder paths; Halifax Trails

[terrynorthend]

Originally Posted by Dmajackson

I was thinking bike/pedestrian lanes like there currently is attached to the McD. At the very least it could cut down volume in the Summer/Fall when the traffic is the worse.

Yeah, that'll put a dent in it. LOL.

Seriously, lets improve the transit system by all means. Lets add buses, ferries, LRTs, BRTs, streamline the routing, develop a seamless hub and spoke network, push ridership sky high. Future growth will demand it.

But its not one OR the other. Car counts in HRM will still grow, year by year, until eventually our roadways are hopelessly jammed, and we WILL need to explore additional roadway and harbour crossing capacity. We might be able to push it off to 20-30 years instead of 10-15. But regardless, as they say, that train is a comin'!

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by terrynorthend

Ohh nice shot.. now just imagine a shiny new cable-stay bridge in the shot just behind Georges Island. —!

Quoted from the Farmers Market thread. Is it a cable-stay bridge or suspension bridge that is being proposed for the southern crossing?

This is about the size of bridge that we are talking about for the southern crossing (below). As much as I would like to see a magnificent bridge like the San Francisco Golden Gate Bridge in Halifax, I kind of doubt that it is going to happen (I don't want to sound pessimistic). I have been on this Golden Gate Bridge and actually walked on it and I was awe stuck by it. The San Francisco-Oakland bridge is even longer with more lanes of traffic, although it is not as well known as the Golden Gate Bridge. I have been on it also (but in a car) and this was an amazing experience also.

One note - the fare for the Golden Gate Bridge is $6.00 (in one direction only). Are people in Halifax prepared to pay these sorts of fares? And it carries 118,000 vehicles per day ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_gate_bridge ) which is more than double what the MacKay Bridge carries ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mackay_bridge ). For a southern bridge to be feasible I think people would have to pay at least $6.00 in one direction or $3.00 in each direction.

Does anyone have the Halifax Harbour Bridge commission report. I saw it previously but I can no longer find it? (I think they had some specs on the southern bridge).

PS: The suspension towers for this Golden Gate Bridge are 230 meters - just imagine the outcry - this will be seen inside the Citadel, etc, etc., etc.

[someone123]

The report is here: https://www.hdbc.ca/docs/Cross_Harbour_Traffic_Needs_Assessment_2009.pdf

[halifaxboyns]

I recall reading somewhere that the design of the McKay (I think it might have been a weight issue) precluded the addition of stuff on the side; but I may be wrong.

I know the MacDonald can't structurally support more addition as it's nearly to its design capacity for weight.

While I like the idea of just taking the bridges down one at a time and replacing them - there two things that jump to mind:

a) Cost - it a tunnel is 1.4 billion and a new bridge 1.1 billion (roughly); then you are talking two new bridges - so ballpark say 4 billion dollars? Please wait until I die; so I'm not paying for it. Actually; I live in Calgary - so unless I move; I guess I won't be hehe! Seriously though - there isn't the money available to do it.

b) Impact - with one bridge down; you end up in a situation that you have forced all traffic onto one bridge and going around the basin.

It might work; if you had the 3rd bridge built but by then what would be the point?

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by someone123

The report is here: https://www.hdbc.ca/docs/Cross_Harbour_Traffic_Needs_Assessment_2009.pdf

Thanks for the report link. I see the clearance for the southern crossing is 55 meters but they state that 62 meters might be required in the future. Based on the report, they realize the opposition that will exist with a Southern Bridge so I think they realize that a tunnel will be required - thus the cost would be a minimum of $1.4 billion. They seem to have a bias against a MacKay twin bridge and a bias for the southern crossing. At that cost and all the opposition that will occur, I would think it would be easier to shift the downtown core towards the north end and try for a MacKay twin bridge or even a MacDonald twin bridge and deal with the ramps required (since such ramps will likely be easier than constructing ramps in the south end).

There is no real reason for having growth in the south end of Dartmouth or for that matter, even for having growth in the current downtown Halifax. Based on the costs involved and all the opposition, if another bridge is required I think they should spent more time looking at a northern bridge otherwise it likely won't get built at all.

I think the south end bridge is the equivalent of building a stadium on the Commons, as much as I would like to see it, it just won't happen.

[Wishblade]

No third bridge or tunnel
Staff report on location for new harbour crossing 'waste of time'


Regional councillors polled Monday evening are against a third bridge spanning Halifax Harbour or a tunnel running beneath it.

"I want to make it tougher to get onto the peninsula with motor vehicles," said Coun. Jim Smith (Albro Lake-Harbourview).

Municipal staff have prepared a report identifying a preferred site for a third commuter crossing which could be needed as early as 2016.

"I don’t want to see another bridge," said Smith.

In 2008, the cost of a new bridge with six lanes was estimated to be $1.1 billion. A four-lane tunnel’s cost was projected to be $1.4 billion.

"I think that it’s an unfortunate waste of time and energy and resources," said Mayor Peter Kelly.

"We can use the dollars more strategically with other forms of transportation," the mayor said.

Planning for a tunnel or another bridge assumes that everything is staying the same, said Coun. Jennifer Watts (Connaught-Quinpool).

However, there are looming increases in oil prices and the environment to consider, she said.

"We’re not going to be able to move around our community as we do now," Watts said.

Many residents in her area are interested in sustainable transportation, particularly improving the ability to get around town in bicycles, she said.

Instead of preparing for another commuter link, the city should look at ways of stopping more cars from driving onto the peninsula, said Coun. Jerry Blumenthal (Halifax North End).

He believes special lanes should be reserved for buses and carpoolers. Any solo drivers travelling in those lanes would be ticketed.


Councillors agreed sustainable transportation is where they should continue to focus their efforts rather than using another bridge or a tunnel as a backup plan.

Coun. Sue Uteck (Northwest Arm South End) has vowed to try to scuttle a proposal that would affect her part of town.

The tunnel or bridge would likely connect Highway 11 in Woodside to Port of Halifax lands and CN Rail property in Halifax’s south end.

"I’m voting with Sue Uteck," said Blumenthal.

Blumenthal said he protested alongside people opposed to the widening of Chebucto Road and was disheartened to see all the cars going by carrying only one occupant.

Another link for car traffic would only further increase traffic congestion and frustration on the peninsula, said Kelly.

The proposal emphasizes the need for an integrated transportation authority with the province as a key player, he said.

"We need to be focused on an overall transportation strategy. Piecemealing it by different levels of government will not help us achieve the collective goal," Kelly said.

"If we don’t go in the direction we will pay continually the price financially and operationally for our overall transportation system."

Im glad their thinking of sustainable transit options, but I don't know how it can be denied that we will need a third crossing eventually. I just feel like we can put all the funds we want into public transit, but its really just delaying the inevitable.

[something_witty]

I agree that we are going to need it sooner rather than later. I would be shocked to see it in the next 10 years, as Halifax seems to wait as long as possible before doing anything.

I would consider taking BRT/LRT or regular bus to work, however there is no direct route across the bridge from my home. Metro Transit has, oh I don't know, mayb 5-10 busses travelling the same route along Gottingen, 3-4 of them go across the McDonald. There are no busses that go down Robie Street and do this. No busses that go down Windsor and do this. If I have to walk 10-15 minutes to a bus stop to take me to work, when I can get in my car and drive there in 10, the choice is obvious.

[cormiermax]

What a stupid decision, We will need a 3rd harbor crossing at some point in the near future and these people think they can solve the problem with special lanes on the road?

Looks like our wonderful counsel has done it again.

[fenwick16]

I agree with this statement by the Mayor:

"We need to be focused on an overall transportation strategy. Piecemealing it by different levels of government will not help us achieve the collective goal," Kelly said.

If the HRM grows to 600,000 - 700,000 people over the next 30 years, how will the additional transit problems be handled - one option for a cross harbour crossing was a BRT only option - so are they stating that this shouldn't be considered either? I know Sue Uteck is in favour of ferries which isn't a bad idea, but a lot more effort should be spent on the most densely populated areas and having true rapid transit whereby people can get from point A to point B within a few minutes (such as LRT either above or below ground on the Halifax peninsula and crossing over to Dartmouth) with a Right of Way. Even with all these measures another crossing - possibly a twin MacKay or a twin MacDonald bridge might be required in the future. A twin MacDonald Bridge would actually tie in better with the current bus transit. What about a single LRT track under the harbour near the downtown area to tie Haifax Downtown and Dartmouth Downtown together so people can get from one side to the other within a few minutes. (one train could get from one side to the other in about 2 minutes and then reverse back in the other direction - I think a high speed LRT on a single track could probably make one return trip - both directions - in 10 minutes or less). Then if additional capacity is required in the future another track could be added.

And if the councillors are really serious about reducing cars on the peninsula then get rid of all the ridiculous restrictions on tall buildings and start supporting dense population on the peninsula and in Dartmouth.

No matter what, I don't think that cars are going to disappear in the next 20 - 30 years. As oil becomes more scarce then cars will become smaller and will be electrically powered. I think at times people assume that as abundant oil disappears then we are going to switch to a car-less society; this is not a reasonable assumption. We will just switch to electrical power that relies more on other energy sources (such as nuclear energy, solar, wind, etc.). We might even switch to hydrogen powered cars. The reason for not switching sooner has been because of cheap oil. In the long run, scarce oil might mean a cleaner environment.

[FuzzyWuz]

one thing that hasn't been mentioned is that the sf/oakland bridge has two decks right? Why not build a six lane two deck replacement beside the existing mackay? That way you don't remove a bridge while the new one is being built and then the old one can be removed. Of course you have to deal with the traffic going on and off but that's my offering, for what it's worth.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

No matter what, I don't think that cars are going to disappear in the next 20 - 30 years. As oil becomes more scarce then cars will become smaller and will be electrically powered. I think at times people assume that as abundant oil disappears then we are going to switch to a car-less society; this is not a reasonable assumption. We will just switch to electrical power that relies more on other energy sources (such as nuclear energy, solar, wind, etc.). We might even switch to hydrogen powered cars. The reason for not switching sooner has been because of cheap oil. In the long run, scarce oil might mean a cleaner environment.

I agree absolutely! People are too used to the convenience of personal transportation to give it up without a fight! People will just switch to electrics or hybrids in order to maintain their personal freedom. Also, as I stated on a previous post, there can be legitimate reasons to use a car to get around.

"I want to make it tougher to get onto the peninsula with motor vehicles," said Coun. Jim Smith (Albro Lake-Harbourview)..

- All this attitude will accomplish will be to drive business out of the peninsula which will only worsen urban sprawl........get prepared for lots of new suburban business parks!

- We should not encourage new traffic to the core but likewise we should not actively discourage it either. We should be using a carrot and not a stick. Develop LRT and enhanced commuter bus service (including BRT) for regular commuters. This will free up the roadways and downtown parking for shopper, tourists and legitimate business purposes. The focus of any new traffic strategy should be on the commuters!!

Many residents in her area are interested in sustainable transportation, particularly improving the ability to get around town in bicycles, (councillor Watts) said.


- Good idea but not everyone is fit enough or lives close enough to work in order to commute by bicycle. Also, this is not a viable option for 4-5 months a year!!

Instead of preparing for another commuter link, the city should look at ways of stopping more cars from driving onto the peninsula, said Coun. Jerry Blumenthal (Halifax North End). He believes special lanes should be reserved for buses and carpoolers. Any solo drivers travelling in those lanes would be ticketed.

- The number of traffic lanes leading into the peninsula is restricted enough now as it is without limiting them even further with dedicated HOV lanes. Again, all this attitude will accomplish will be to drive economic activity off the peninsula. Is that what council actually wants?

Jeez, where is the leadership in Halifax Regional Coucil!! Does nobody want to spend the money to make things right? Does everyone want to keep on fiddling while Rome burns?

Access tolls, HOV lanes and active transport will not accomplish much. The answer lies in enhanced commuter access to the downtown. This might eventually entail a third bridge but I do worry about worsening downtown traffic congestion. To me, the answer lies in actively pursuing a commuter rail/LRT option.

[terrynorthend]

Originally Posted by cormiermax

What a stupid decision, We will need a 3rd harbor crossing at some point in the near future and these people think they can solve the problem with special lanes on the road?

Looks like our wonderful counsel has done it again.

Yes, it blows my mind that these are the same people who fought tooth and nail to keep their privileged parking spaces in the middle of Grand Parade. Even when offered free passes to Scotia Square as an alternative, one councilor said that was unfeasible. The argument put forth was something like this- As councilors, we have to run around all day, and pop in and out of city hall. We can't be expected to park way over in Scotia Square and spend half an hour for a 10 minute stop. - The implication is that while they are all for alternative transit and traffic reduction, they are special people and have a legitimate need for driving (solo) and parking downtown. Well the problem is, they aren't so special. And I don't even mean that in a derogatory way. I mean that everyone sees their individual case as "special". From the delivery guy, to the bank executive, taxi drivers to doctors and lawyers. Everyone is for alternative transit and carbon footprint reduction, but everyone has their own "special" needs and reasons to drive everywhere and anywhere.

The point of my argument is not to call these people out and say, "Nay nay, how evil they are...", rather to make the simple point that people will drive, and more people will drive more. That is one truth we will not be able to get around.

[Keith P.]

Their argument could be totally defused by this: Build the bridge for passage only, with no exit onto the peninsula, only entry onto the bridge. Take it over the south end and onto the mainland on the other side of the Arm. That will accomplish the objective of enabling development on the mainland and in south Dartmouth while keeping these morons' precious car-free peninsula pristine. Idiots.

[fenwick16]

Serious contemplation of future transit needs is required immediately. If you look at the following report https://www.hdbc.ca/docs/Cross_Harbour_Traffic_Needs_Assessment_2009.pdf both the population (figure 3) and employment growth (figure 4) have already exceeded the high growth lines.

I personally don't think that the southern bridge is the best alternative in terms of cost, however, something will be required to improve transit.

[sdm]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

Serious contemplation of future transit needs is required immediately. If you look at the following report https://www.hdbc.ca/docs/Cross_Harbour_Traffic_Needs_Assessment_2009.pdf both the population (figure 3) and employment growth (figure 4) have already exceeded the high growth lines.

I personally don't think that the southern bridge is the best alternative in terms of cost, however, something will be required to improve transit.

The way to improve transit is Light Rail, and council should be seriously considering this. The relocation of containership terminal to DND lands in the basin or eastern passage should form part of this as well.

Nothing worse then walking downtown and almost getting hit by transport trucks.

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by sdm

The way to improve transit is Light Rail, and council should be seriously considering this. The relocation of containership terminal to DND lands in the basin or eastern passage should form part of this as well.

Nothing worse then walking downtown and almost getting hit by transport trucks.

I actually agree with everything you have said. I would like to see this happen. Possibly in the future an LRT dedicated tunnel could be built to move people rapidly from Halifax to Dartmouth. Many cities (example Copenhagen and Calgary) have switched away from the idea of encouraging cars in the downtown area and have actively promoted rapid transit.

I think a short subway/above ground system with complete Right of Way could be built in the Halifax/Dartmouth area for less than $1 billion (if planned properly) that could provide true rapid transit on a frequent basis (similar to the Toronto and Montreal subways - just shorter). This would reduce cars and therefore road and parking requirements in the downtown areas. For the next 20 years or so, it would also relieve the requirement of another car bridge, even with strong growth in the Halifax area.

PS: LRT should be focused on the most densely populated area of Halifax and Dartmouth instead of Bedford (which could be serviced with ferries).

[beyeas]

Wow.

Setting aside the fact that some who shall go unnamed (although mostly someone who's name starts with Keith and ends with P) that seem to want to resurrect the McCarthy hearings for anyone who dares suggest that trying to discourage the use of single-traveller cars is an evil horrible thing (aka a Communist apparently)...

The fact is there is no one @#$%ing answer, no matter what 'some' may think. To simply say that it is clear that a billion dollars to build a Gold Plated Memorial Bridge to KeithP's Legacy is a perfect idea is single-minded, in a way that is equally true for if I were to argue that taking all that money and putting it into public transit was going to result in Utopia.

I have said it before on here, a fundamental problem is the piecemeal approach to transport planning in this city. The bridge commission's job is to maximize bridge use, while Metro Transit's job is to maximize transit use. The province is responsible for 100 series highways, and the city is responsible for city streets. There is no one body that is trying to think holisticly and look at what is best taken overall. In some cases new roads will be needed to improve car flow, in some cases more public transit infrastructure will be needed. Instead all we get at the political level is the same as what some on here seem to have, a single-minded approach with no flexibility to be open to other things.

And as far as the constant digs at people who live in the 'retirement village' of the South End... last I checked we didn't have exclusivity on NIMBYs. I defy you to show me evidence that my neighbours are any more anti-development than any other area. It has been acceptable to bash people from the South End and apply certain labels, and that is complete —. It is ok to call people who want to get out of their cars communists, but I am quite sure it would not be ok to call people who want to drive Hitler?! Glass houses and all that right?