Third Harbour Crossing

[something_witty]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

I don't see why the growth must be in the southern part of Dartmouth when there is lots of land available in the northern part of Dartmouth, northern parts of Halifax, west of Halifax and east of Dartmouth. The Southern Bridge will be so costly and will require such high tolls that encouraging growth in southern Dartmouth seems like a bad idea. Regardless, even if growth occurs in southern Dartmouth then people can take the highway to another MacKay Bridge.

The plan could be - not to encourage growth in southern Dartmouth.

There really is no room to grow in North End Dartmouth or North End Halifax. That area is pretty much full except for Shannon Park. They are not going to start redevelopment of older areas until there is demand for it, and the demand is now in South Dartmouth. There is a huge amount of construction going on there, and twinning the Mackay will not stop it.

[fenwick16]

A southern bridge which will interfere with shipping and therefore is not considered to be ideal, will likely be well over $1 billion (by the time highways in South End Halifax are constructed it could be $1.5 billion - for example). Part of the highway for the southern bridge network envisioned in the 60's and 70's does not exist - Harbour Drive. Likewise a tunnel which would not interfere with shipping would be even more money and still require a highway network (or at least a major roadway).

On the other hand a twin MacKay Bridge might only be $500 million with 4 lanes of vehicular traffic and 2 lanes of LRT traffic. (This is just a guess based on the numbers being given for the southern bridge).

The difference in cost could be close to $1 billion dollars by the time the southern bridge and road network is complete. If a southern bridge can be easily accessed by 100,000 people near Shearwater, and a twin MacKay bridge can be easily accessed by 100,000 people near Shannon Park (say a radius of a few miles), then the difference in cost is $1 billion dollars/100,000 people = $10,000 per person. If there are 2.5 people in each household, then that is $25,000 per household extra. The southern bridge will also have higher ongoing maintenance costs. With these costs in mind, and the negative effect that a southern crossing might have on shipping wouldn't it be better to focus grow towards a twin MacKay Bridge instead of a southern crossing. Growth trends can be planned in advance along traffic corridors. Growth doesn't have to just occur wherever it occurs.

A lot of people can be fit into the county of Halifax without using southern Dartmouth. For example, the city of Toronto (not including all the suburbs such as Mississauga) has 2,503,000 in 630 square kilometers. The Toronto Urban Area has 4,753,000 people in 1749 square kilometers (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toronto ). For comparison, the land area of Halifax County (HRM) is 5,500 square kilometers. If you just consider the densely populated Urban Area, the population is 283,000 in just 263 square kilometers ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halifax_Regional_Municipality ). So you can see that Halifax could get up to almost 1,000,000 people in less than 1000 square kilometers (quite easily, the city of Toronto has 2.5 million in 630 square kilometers, about 1/10th the county of Halifax land area). So it is not necessary to have southern Dartmouth populated. Just concentrate the growth in areas that are the cheapest to service. This is already being done to some extend - HRM wants to add more people onto the peninsula.

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by something_witty

There really is no room to grow in North End Dartmouth or North End Halifax. That area is pretty much full except for Shannon Park. They are not going to start redevelopment of older areas until there is demand for it, and the demand is now in South Dartmouth. There is a huge amount of construction going on there, and twinning the Mackay will not stop it.

Twinning the MacKay will not stop development in southern Dartmouth, but southern Dartmouth can access a twin MacKay from the Bi-Centennial Highway. Once people realize the costs involved, the increases in taxes and the high toll rates required to justify a southern bridge then I think the desire for such a bridge will quickly disappear. I doubt that political support for such a southern bridge or tunnel will exist. So people will live wherever they want to live, but if people living in Dartmouth need to go into Halifax then they will prefer to live in the areas with the easiest access to Halifax.

I am just writing this realistically; if the HHB pushes for a southern bridge, then likely the Halifax area will not get any additional bridge capacity in the near future. The support towers for such a bridge would likely be close to 600 feet tall. The tallest building in Halifax, Fenwick Towers, is only 320 feet tall. The supports for such a bridge would be clearly visible within the Citadel. And a more expensive tunnel in the southend would only have 4 lanes instead of 6 lanes with a bridge. Wouldn't it be better to have 6 lanes (2 LRT lanes) on a second MacKay Bridge?

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

HRM wants to add more people onto the peninsula.

I guess that's why they are doing legal shenanigans with Polycorp (Pete Polley and The Five Guys Named Moe) to prevent him from developing the empty lot next to Spice condos.

They say they want development, but in reality they do everything they can to discourage it by bureaucratic maneuvering and foot-dragging. And even the few developments that get past staff (i.e. Craigmore) then get slagged by our stellar municipal councillors.

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

I guess that's why they are doing legal shenanigans with Polycorp (Pete Polley and The Five Guys Named Moe) to prevent him from developing the empty lot next to Spice condos.

They say they want development, but in reality they do everything they can to discourage it by bureaucratic maneuvering and foot-dragging. And even the few developments that get past staff (i.e. Craigmore) then get slagged by our stellar municipal councillors.

This truly is mind boggling. I think a lot of people really would prefer zero growth, in spite of what they might say to the contrary.

I want to see Halifax become a bigger more dynamic city with new sports teams, LRT routes, an outdoor stadium, a new Metro Centre (when required), a nice 600 plus foot observation tower (or even better, a 40 storey office tower with an observation tower), lots of modern architecture, a new twin MacKay Bridge, etc.

[someone123]

As a back-of-the-envelope calculation, suppose the new bridge saves an average driver 15 minutes of travel time (driving up to the MacDonald bridge or whatever, noting that traffic would be much worse for everybody in that situation, even people not going to South Dartmouth). By 2036 they are expecting 25,000 daily trips from the peninsula to South Dartmouth (p. 20 of report). This means 6250 hours of time saved per day, which at an average wage would be approximately $125,000 per day. This works out to over $45 million per year. Over 40 years, it works out to $1.8 billion.

Unfortunately people have very bad intuition when it comes to this stuff. Yes, a billion dollars is a lot of money. No, it is not an unreasonably large amount of money to spend when you're looking at transportation for 25,000 people. However, I am guessing that the HDBC and province will see things this way and that they'll eventually push through the bridge project.

A MacKay twin would be nice too but it's a fundamentally different project.

[someone123]

To hopefully further ground this discussion in reality, here's the metro area from Google Earth:



Note the large developed area of Dartmouth that would be closer to the southern end of the Circumferential. Also, note how the mainland south of Halifax is almost undeveloped - this is because it has poor transportation connections to other areas. If it had better connections it could be developed more and would be closer to the core than many other growing suburban areas. A bridge over the Northwest Arm connected to a third crossing would be perfect and has been planned for decades.

The idea that the bridge would be a project for cars is simply a red herring. You can put whatever kind of traffic you want on a bridge - there will certainly be commercial traffic, buses, and possibly rail. More fundamentally the idea that cars are somehow evil or about to disappear is also really suspect. I think it would be great for the HRM to reduce its car dependence but this is not going to be done overnight, it's going to be done by slowly improving the desirability of transit over time. Having new suburbs closer to the core and things like new BRT lanes on a bridge with good access are exactly what will make the difference.

[planarchy]

Originally Posted by someone123

To hopefully further ground this discussion in reality, here's the metro area from Google Earth:



Also, note how the mainland south of Halifax is almost undeveloped - this is because it has poor transportation connections to other areas. If it had better connections it could be developed more and would be closer to the core than many other growing suburban areas. A bridge over the Northwest Arm connected to a third crossing would be perfect and has been planned for decades.

Mainland south of Halifax is undeveloped, not necessarily because of poor transportation connections, but because it is some of least desirable land in the region. The areas in Dartmouth are developed because development was specifically directed there from the early 1960s onward, and Burnside developed between Sackville and this new area as a way to direct traffic off the bridge. This development had little to do with transportation, and a lot to do with politics and the development of a trunk sewer.

A bridge to the southend is a bridge to nowhere. What it surely would do is encourage more development in the Woodside area, which maybe is not such a bad thing, but it will have minimal effect on current traffic congestion.

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by someone123

Unfortunately people have very bad intuition when it comes to this stuff. Yes, a billion dollars is a lot of money. No, it is not an unreasonably large amount of money to spend when you're looking at transportation for 25,000 people. However, I am guessing that the HDBC and province will see things this way and that they'll eventually push through the bridge project.

A MacKay twin would be nice too but it's a fundamentally different project.

I think that the chance of the HHB (Halifax Harbour Bridges) and province pushing this through is about equal to the chance of the Harbour Drive being pushed through. Luckily the Harbour Drive project was stopped 40 years ago; fortunately it was stopped since it would have cut most of Halifax off from the waterfront (similar to the Toronto eyesore called the Gardener Expressway) and it would have resulted in numerous historic properties from being torn down.

If you look at the satellite map image, it appears as though southern Dartmouth hasn't been developed because the Shearwater airport is in the way. This area is just as close to the MacKay Bridge as much of the built up areas of Cole Harbour.

[Phalanx]

Just for another POV on the topic from today's Herald...

This bridge to nowhere can wait

By MARILLA STEPHENSON
Thu. Jun 10 - 4:54 AM

I’m all for looking down the road to the future, but it’s too soon for that road to point toward a bridge to nowhere.

There has been talk for decades about a third harbour crossing between the Halifax peninsula and the mainland.

In the 1980s, there was a big fluster about a bridge over the Northwest Arm. Between south-end property owners and sailors at the Royal Nova Scotia Yacht Squadron — all in the path of the proposed route — it was quickly shelved. In the 1990s, it came up again.

Now it’s 2010 and staff at Halifax city hall are talking about a third bridge or perhaps even a tunnel under what has long been described as one of the deepest natural harbours in the world.

Last week, it was a bunch of rotaries that nobody seems to want. This week, it’s a third bridge that the municipality won’t be able to afford any time soon. Still, the staff report circulated to councillors this week indicates the third harbour crossing could be needed by 2026.

And let’s not forget the high-speed harbour ferry system that has consumed thousands of dollars in research and study, with no green-light action. Council shuffled a private proposal off the front burner last winter and there’s been no talk of it since.

Meanwhile, transit spending is soaring as taxpayers are told that new money is needed to beef up that service in order to reduce vehicular traffic and feed commuters onto the peninsula.

Ha. Take a drive through the downtown — Barrington Street will do — and look at the closed businesses and boarded windows. It’s beyond me how on Earth this government, which has for a decade allowed the deterioration of the downtown, has the nerve to talk aloud about a third bridge.

Councillors were quick to put the boots to the bridge idea when contacted by The Chronicle Herald this week. Most opposed a third link, calling instead for other methods aimed at reducing traffic or making the peninsula more accessible.

Jerry Blumenthal, who represents north-end Halifax, has let it be known that a rotary — one of four being considered in the region — is not welcome in his district. Discussion of potential rotaries included the five-corner intersection of Novalea Drive and Devonshire Avenue, but Blumenthal says residents are not open to the idea.

A report on the rotaries indicated that traffic circles are generally safer than large intersections. There is no question that improvements to the Armdale Rotary have made traffic flow more smoothly, for the most part, although rush-hour backups are still common. But that rotary was already in existence. Whether volumes at Novalea and Devonshire would merit replacing traffic signals with a roundabout is debatable, plus it will be an uphill climb to get residents on board.

It’s a big, big jump from a rotary to a new bridge. Major infrastructure needs have to be considered and discussed with an eye to long-term solutions, and given the long-term growth projections, we’ll have to build the bridge at some point.

But a bridge to a dying downtown makes no sense. Halifax regional council and staff would do better to first turn their minds to salvaging the downtown. The United States experience has keenly demonstrated that cities die outward from their cores, so rejuvenation has to start in places such as Barrington Street and its surrounding environs.

Councillors can worry about getting the cars in and out — or the buses over and back — once the infrastructure is in place to return the downtown to a thriving destination.

In the meantime, the bridge can wait.

([email protected])

Source: http://thechronicleherald.ca/Opinion/1186645.html

[someone123]

The problem with the Harbour Drive highway project was the need for large-scale expropriation and demolition. It was a very different project.

That article has fairly muddy, bumper-sticker style logic. The downtown doesn't need to be "salvaged", for example.

[hfxtradesman]

Like I said before, recapture the downtown or have a dying city.

[fenwick16]

I think this is the bridge that needs to be pushed through in the near term. A North West Arm bridge and highway link to open up the southern Halifax mainland. This could then have a short link to Halterm for trucks to get them off Downtown Halifax streets (through the edge of the Point Pleasant Park if necessary, if the rail cut is not an option). This would be far cheaper than the southern harbour bridge and would succeed in getting trucks quickly off the peninsula. Then if a southern tunnel is really required, it would have something to connect to.

[sdm]

Originally Posted by someone123

The problem with the Harbour Drive highway project was the need for large-scale expropriation and demolition. It was a very different project.

That article has fairly muddy, bumper-sticker style logic. The downtown doesn't need to be "salvaged", for example.

Downtown needs help Someone, its getting worse.

A number of projects are stalled, like it or not. And of the developers i have talked to HRM is making it tougher to build.

So therefore i tend to agree with the article general, get on with helping the core.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by sdm

Downtown needs help Someone, its getting worse.

A number of projects are stalled, like it or not. And of the developers i have talked to HRM is making it tougher to build.

So therefore i tend to agree with the article general, get on with helping the core.

Sure, but this is pretty much entirely separate from the bridge issue, except for the fact that the reactionary sentiment that causes people to offhandedly reject any new transportation projects is very closely related to the kind of sentiment that caused people to freak out over United Gulf and other projects.

The downtown has problems because it is being poorly managed. That's going to keep happening until HRM leadership changes, whether a bridge is built or not.

Also, I agree about a Northwest Arm bridge. There should probably be two or three of them.

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by someone123

Sure, but this is pretty much entirely separate from the bridge issue, except for the fact that the reactionary sentiment that causes people to offhandedly reject any new transportation projects is very closely related to the kind of sentiment that caused people to freak out over United Gulf and other projects.

The downtown has problems because it is being poorly managed. That's going to keep happening until HRM leadership changes, whether a bridge is built or not.

Also, I agree about a Northwest Arm bridge. There should probably be two or three of them.

There is good development and bad development. Personally, I think a southern bridge is bad development - along the lines of the Harbour Drive. Back 10 - 20 years ago I actually considered a southern bridge to be a good idea based simply on wanting to see such a major bridge built in Halifax but I now see the negatives of such a bridge (one being the expenditure which could benefit the Halifax area by being spent elsewhere). Will people pay the fares required to pay for such a bridge?

If Halifax builds a southern bridge that will prevent very large post panamax size ships from easily entering the harbour and eventually prevents it from benefiting from such a change in shipping then is this really a good development? Part of Halifax's reason for being - is the deep harbour. The MacDonald and MacKay bridges are already an obstacle to very large ships, such large ships were probably not considered when these bridges were built - should Halifax make the same mistake again? Not only is a southern bridge an obstacle to shipping, a tunnel is out of line with the realities of the Nova Scotian finances. Even very rich cities like Toronto have to choose construction projects based on a cost analysis - so why would it be different with Halifax?

On the other hand, Halifax should already have 2 - 3 North West Arm Bridges. This is something that frustrates me with politics in the Halifax area. However, the same thing happens in the Toronto area - example, Toronto has been unable to build a Toronto Island bridge even though this would not be an extraordinarily priced project.

[something_witty]

I would fully support the third bridge/tunnel project. When you have to drive to and from Dartmouth at least 4 times a week, maybe once or twice on the weekends you would see the benefit of it.
I think a lot of people here are more worried about the loss of the rail cut for this dream LRT system they have.
The most vocal opponents of this crossing are the ones who would not normally use it.
As a resident of downtown Halifax & commuter, with friends and famility in Cole Harbour, this is only something I could hope for, since it will probably not be built until it's too late.

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by something_witty

I would fully support the third bridge/tunnel project. When you have to drive to and from Dartmouth at least 4 times a week, maybe once or twice on the weekends you would see the benefit of it.
I think a lot of people here are more worried about the loss of the rail cut for this dream LRT system they have.
The most vocal opponents of this crossing are the ones who would not normally use it.
As a resident of downtown Halifax & commuter, with friends and famility in Cole Harbour, this is only something I could hope for, since it will probably not be built until it's too late.

The rail cut is not a good location for a LRT system so that is not the point. I think there are many people in favour of this southern crossing because they are thinking in terms of 60 cent tolls like the other two bridges. If the tolls are $3 - $4 will people still be in favour of it? (For example the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco has a one way toll of $6). If you think the tolls should only be 60 cents then should all of Nova Scotia subsidize your convenience when a slightly less convenient twin Mackay bridge could be build for far less money? I think that the really problem here is that people who are strongly in favour of this southern bridge aren't doing the math.

[something_witty]

I do realize that tolls will be more expensive. I would not mind paying an extra amount to cross at a better location, as I am sure most commuters would. To save 15-20 minutes of time, not including any other obstacles like bridge jumpers or accidents, would be worth it.

[MonctonRad]

I found this on the Canada Board. Apparently they are considering an LRT/Tramway in Quebec City.



They seem to be happy routing their LRT to the west onto the existing bridges before heading back east to downtown. Perhaps this would work for Halifax as well.

BTW, they really need something like this in Quebec City. The traffic on Boul. Laurier near Laval University and Les Galleries there is absolute chaos.