Cogswell Interchange

[ILoveHalifax]

Originally Posted by W.Sobchak

Of course you can, this option however give people an opportunity to do more with the land than walk through or by until the land is ready and safe to use. I find encouraging community spirit to be prettier than some top soil with flowers and trees. I live in the community and witnessed first hand the growth of support. Shoot even the Fraternity across from the hospital were involved.

Again I still feel that this is a great short term solution until the land is ready for construction.

It gives a very few a chance to participate by growing a few vegies. Most of the time it looks like an eyesore. I think the majority would much prefer to see something more than spirit, flowers, trees, etc.
BTW I wish we would hire someone from Brampton to get involved in our municipal gardens. They have the most beautiful planters and gardens of any I've seen.

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

I watched/listened to this thing and hoo-boy... all the loons were out in force. Urban gardens, getting rid of trucks, the usual hating on cars, unicorns and moonbeams, totally unrealistic ideas galore. Most discouraging was Mayor Savage's disparaging comment that "...not long ago, people were actually talking about a third bridge...", thereby immediately dismissing the idea outright and dooming Halifax to a complete lack of development of some nearby property and ongoing gridlock due to lack of road capacity.

We are doomed with people like this shaping the future.

I have to admit I was a little worried for a while - but I think Mayor Savage's closing remark of recognizing there was no making everyone happy made me think that perhaps he's just playing this up the middle? There is nothing wrong with saying that a 3rd bridge is bad because personally (and I preface this by saying I'm a car driver) I think it's a bad idea if the crossing is only for cars. Now if we finally get smart and start using major projects like that to connect and provide opportunities for higher order transit as well (by also including an LRT tunnel), then it's not as bad because you then have the ability to build an LRT down Portland Street (the busiest corridor Metro Transit services), down the CIRC and over into downtown. Frankly - if Portland Street is as busy as it is that line would be a cash cow, easily paying for itself.

I don't think saying cars should be at the bottom of the food chain is bad, frankly I've believed that for a long time and I'm a car driver. We don't build cities for cars - we build them for people and until we get back to that reality cities will continue to fail. I have to admit when Watts started talking about urban agriculture, my heart skipped a few beats. My first thought was 'you want to turn 10 acres of prime high value land into a farm!? Seriously...!?'. But then when they came back to her and she explained more, I didn't think the idea was so bad. I mean, green roofs are already being contemplated in many cities and using plaza areas to grow food isn't so bad, so long as there are buildings happening too. I look at Calgary and we have an area along the Barclay Mall where the planters are used for food production and its been very successful (rumor has it, that it's expanding). Would be kinda neat to be standing waiting for a bus at a bus terminal and the planters were actually growing carrots. You could put up a sign to explain it as a demonstration project; who knows it might take off?

My main annoyance though was Alan Ruffman. While I think he was right about providing affordable housing - I think he wanted the whole thing affordable, which frankly isn't going to happen. Also his comment about changing HRM by design - this is the guy whose argued not to change the plan for other projects. That was the ultimate irony for me...

But I think Andy Fillmore's comment about the uplift (in terms of property taxes) was quite interesting. If part of the concern about the future road layout is dealing with the trucks and the rail cut is an expensive solution (which if you watch the video - when Andy says that, Alan Ruffman behind him shakes his head and mouths 'no') - I don't know if it is an expensive solution, but if it is...developing Cogswell and getting that lift in property taxes may lead to the ability to pay for the Rail cut solution. It would achieve two things; which I don't think many understood from Andy's comment.

Although I would add this to the equation - while I detest the idea of a 3rd crossing (only for cars, add an LRT tunnel and I'll be okay) - that too may actually eliminate the issue of trucks through DT and the reconfigured Cogswell Lands because why would they go out Barrington to the 102 when they could cross the Harbour, out the Circ, the 107 and then be that much further on there way out of the Province?

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

But I think Andy Fillmore's comment about the uplift (in terms of property taxes) was quite interesting. If part of the concern about the future road layout is dealing with the trucks and the rail cut is an expensive solution (which if you watch the video - when Andy says that, Alan Ruffman behind him shakes his head and mouths 'no') - I don't know if it is an expensive solution, but if it is...developing Cogswell and getting that lift in property taxes may lead to the ability to pay for the Rail cut solution. It would achieve two things; which I don't think many understood from Andy's comment.

I previously posted the image below to illustrate a route that I think would be more financially viable than a third harbour crossing and probably even result in less costly expropriation of land. It would get truck traffic directly from the Halterm terminal by routing them to the south, above but adjacent to the railcut without the necessary widening of the railcut. I like to imagine a route along Pine Hill Drive and Harbourview Drive - http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&cp=rf46dj9...sty=b&where1=Halifax%2C%20NS&form=LMLTCC . It would link to the Halterm terminal and a Northwest Arm bridge. This would encourage growth to the west of Halifax instead of across the harbour in Dartmouth.

[someone123]

Yeah, a connector from NW Arm Dr onto the peninsula is one of those obvious missing pieces of transportation infrastructure in the city. The bridge would be small and it would make a huge, immediate positive impact. It could have pedestrian and bike lanes. Hell, the trucks could even cross on a lower deck to cut down on noise and make the upper deck more attractive.

I don't have much sympathy for people who want the railcut to become parkland for South Enders. Right now trucks are rattling through half the city, including high-density neighbourhoods with 200 year old buildings built right up to narrow streets. How would it be worse to send this traffic along a short, already-existing trench that is mostly surrounded by a buffer of bedrock and trees? It wouldn't. This is a superior solution that just happens to offend special interests.

The truck traffic needs to be dealt with, along with transit, if downtown Halifax is to become a really liveable area that attracts a lot of residents. These are bigger picture items that have to happen along with Cogswell if it's going to be successful.

[someone123]

By the way, there are also a bunch of ways to mitigate noise from trucks. Here's one example from Melbourne:


http://thepompomist.wordpress.com/2008/03/16/highway-noise-barriers/

Many cities have come up with great solutions to these issues. Halifax doesn't have difficult or unsolvable problems.

[W.Sobchak]

Originally Posted by ILoveHalifax

It gives a very few a chance to participate by growing a few vegies. Most of the time it looks like an eyesore. I think the majority would much prefer to see something more than spirit, flowers, trees, etc.
BTW I wish we would hire someone from Brampton to get involved in our municipal gardens. They have the most beautiful planters and gardens of any I've seen.

I wouldn't go so far as say a few, the surrounding neighbourhood was involved. I do not have the numbers of people who showed up every week, but the harvest celebration looked to have about 30-40 people.

I agree with you. I want to see more there, I would like to see a new wing of the hospital starting at the corner and going the rest of the way down Bell. However your preference of using land while it is in the short term remediation period, this is my prefered option, as we can move this idea around to other areas that need remediation before excavation can happen.

I've only ever driven through Brampton, I'll have to make sure to turn into the city proper next time I'm there.

[Keith P.]

Alan Ruffman just needs to go away. First class — and know-it-all. Convicted of tax evasion a few years ago, it's a shame they didn't lock him up.

[fenwick16]

I see that an alternate route without the Cogswell Interchange was considered back in the 1960's. I think that it is too bad that the alternate wasn't built.

This is the alternate proposal by Allan Duffus in 1967 (source: http://www.cbc.ca/ns/features/cogswell-interchange/?section=been):



This could have been implemented with Barrington becoming a one-way street going southbound and Hollis going one-way northbound (such a one-way street routing scheme provides excellent traffic flow in Hamilton, Ontario). This could have been implemented instead of the Harbour Drive expressway proposal (which I think would have been a big mistake). The alternate Allan Duffus proposal could have been linked to a Northwest Arm bridge as proposed in the original Harbour Drive proposal shown below (http://www.halifax.ca/archives/HarbourviewDriveProposal1963.html): (in the Allan Duffus proposal, the Granville Street link could probably be eliminated)



I think Halifax would be much better off today with such a routing scheme and North West Arm bridge. It is interesting that mega-projects were actually built in the Halifax area in the late 1950's and 1960's when the city was much smaller (two harbour bridges and bicentennial highway).

[ILoveHalifax]

So does anybody know what exactly was Harbour Drive supposed to be, a freeway or a boulevard?

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by ILoveHalifax

So does anybody know what exactly was Harbour Drive supposed to be, a freeway or a boulevard?

The CBC piece on their website calls it a "6 lane expressway" but that piece is so biased I would not take that at face value.

This link has a map that shows the route along with other plans from the early '60s. It is a shame that none of this was done. It would have transformed Halifax. I believe it would have been a good thing.

http://www.halifax.ca/archives/HarbourviewDriveProposal1963.html

[ILoveHalifax]

Thanks Keith,

Hard to tell from that map and I guess I am not so concerned to go looking further.
I don't think it was elevated as the Gardiner Expy. A nice boulevard with trees and gardens down the middle like University Av, Toronto would be very attractive, and still provide lots of access to the waterfront.
Was it all in an effort to save a few old warehouses that sit empty today?
I would like to see Barrington further north widened to provide normal lane width, and a boulevard if at all possible. But I guess that will not happen since we seem to want to ban all cars from the city.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by ILoveHalifax

Thanks Keith,

Hard to tell from that map and I guess I am not so concerned to go looking further.
I don't think it was elevated as the Gardiner Expy. A nice boulevard with trees and gardens down the middle like University Av, Toronto would be very attractive, and still provide lots of access to the waterfront.
Was it all in an effort to save a few old warehouses that sit empty today?
I would like to see Barrington further north widened to provide normal lane width, and a boulevard if at all possible. But I guess that will not happen since we seem to want to ban all cars from the city.

If the types given a voice on the CBC forum recently had their way it would be all pedestrians and cyclists. Of course, what they would do there in an absence of profitable businesses is a mystery.

From what I can tell, a few buildings would have gone. The most notable was the Morses Tea building, which is a cool old building but one that struggles to find tenants or uses in the modern world. The others that would have gone were the Waterside Place buildings that front on Water St (the ones on Hollis were outside that corridor) and the fronts of a few of the buildings that make up the Water St part of Historic Properties - the ones immediately across from Waterside that have never had successful tenants and the front of the faux-storefront that the Maritime Museum maintains now.

It is important to note that this was all part of a plan that also called for revitalization of what was a very dirty and unsafe harbourfront into new uses. There was a hotel district, a major office district, and a public access district all along the waterfront side that would surely have been an improvement on the ice cream and souvenir shacks we now have. This is why I say I am unconvinced it was as bad as the usual suspects would have one believe. It seems we have given up an awful lot for the sake of some old unsuccessful buildings.

[fenwick16]

One thing that I think is disturbing with a few opinions at the CBC meeting was that the traffic can somehow disappear (i.e. that pedestrians will be the top priority). Truck traffic will not disappear as long as the Halterm terminal is doing well (hopefully the port traffic will increase in the future as large container ships make Halifax more attractive versus Montreal). No alternatives were suggested for truck traffic such as a North West Arm bridge.

However, I am glad that Halifax didn't cut the city off from the waterfront with a 6 lane expressway (which appears on the 1963 map as though it would have followed Lower Water Street).

[ILoveHalifax]

I remember Lower Water Street as a kid and it was pretty scuzzy. You generally just did not touch a thing cause everything was dirty. My father worked for a company who had an office and yard there. The building is still there.
I must say, I like the boardwalk, and it is great to people watch for the few summer months.
Other than a few ice cream stands the rest of the buildings are empty. All those retailers who have gone out of business are proof that we need to take another look at it.

[ILoveHalifax]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

One thing that I think is disturbing with a few of the people at the CBC meeting was that the traffic can somehow disappear (i.e. that pedestrians will be the top priority). Truck traffic will not disappear as long as the Halterm port is doing well (hopefully the port traffic will increase in the future as large container ships make Halifax more attractive versus Montreal). No alternatives were suggested for truck traffic such as a North West Arm bridge.

I think Halifax is a somewhat unusual city, that cannot be put in the same box as many of the others.
To begin with the center of our downtown is in the middle of the harbour and the center of our suburbs is in the middle of the Bedford Basin.
Our natural geography means that development happens not from the center but rather all out and around it in many directions. It is hard to force people to live right next door to their neighbor when they can have waterfront a mile or so down the road. We have some of the most beautiful properties to build on of any city in North America. In addition to the oceanfront we have all kinds of lakes yet to be developed. How do you tell someone they cannot build a little further away when there are so many beautiful sites.
We will never be able to provide transit to all those who choose to live out a bit, for a better site or view.

[halifaxboyns]

I think we have to be pragmatic and realistic about the issue of trucks and the Cogswell Interchange. As Peter Bigalow from HRM (in the CBC forum) pointed out - trucks aren't going away and they have to deal with all of it. So it's quite possible that whatever the final configuration ends up being, it may not be the best for everyone because of the port for a while.

But over time, as the economic lift comes in from the redevelopment of the site, that will give HRM more $ to look at other options, particularly combining the use of a 3rd harbour tunnel with transit and being a solution to trucks on Lower Water Street. At some point, whether we like it or not, the 3rd Harbour Crossing is going to be required, same with a NW arm crossing. The Harbour crossing will be needed because at some point the MacDonald is going to have to be replaced and I would hope that they put the 3rd crossing in so that when the MacDonald is taken out, there is still at least two crossings.

But I certainly don't think that the solution to the Cogswell issue will be completely found with a new alignment, redevelopment - I think it's several phases.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

But over time, as the economic lift comes in from the redevelopment of the site, that will give HRM more $ to look at other options, particularly combining the use of a 3rd harbour tunnel with transit and being a solution to trucks on Lower Water Street. At some point, whether we like it or not, the 3rd Harbour Crossing is going to be required, same with a NW arm crossing. The Harbour crossing will be needed because at some point the MacDonald is going to have to be replaced and I would hope that they put the 3rd crossing in so that when the MacDonald is taken out, there is still at least two crossings.

But I certainly don't think that the solution to the Cogswell issue will be completely found with a new alignment, redevelopment - I think it's several phases.

The problem is the time it takes in this city to ever do anything with roads. My favorite example is the MacDonald bridge and Barrington St. The bridge opened in the mid-1950s. For 50 years traffic heading out of downtown on Barrington that sought to use the bridge was forced to make a left turn onto tiny little Artz St., proceed along Brunswick, and then make a turn onto the bridge at an uncontrolled intersection. The backups at evening rush hour were, not surprisingly, absurdly long. And people put up with it for 50 years!! I find it difficult to believe that is even possible, but there you have it. All one needs to do is look at North St., which has been untouched since the bridge was constructed in spite of recommendations to the contrary at the time that it needed to be widened. I have zero confidence that whatever replaces the interchange will be appropriate to handle trucks and even normal traffic flow.

[Waye Mason]

The decisions made in the 1950s and 60s have no interest for me. I want to look at where we are now, and start addressing the problems we see now with solutions from this century.

A city of Halifax staff person who started work the year the MacDonald Bridge was built, say as a 22 year old, retired in 1998. How can we look at the Artz street issue and say that symbolizes Halifax today, when the modernization project that saw the Barrington on ramp built was built in 1999, almost 15 years ago? That is who we are now, people who solve the problems we inherited from the past.

With all respect, best practices around the world now show the value and tax lift obtained by getting rid of antiquated highway style drives like this, not just in big cities but in small ones.

I hear the same thing from the Heritage Trust folks, who also have the unfortunate tendency to bring up tragedies of planning departments past as if the battle is still being fought.

Cogswell lands will be marvellous, and the possibility of a new Police HQ 10-15 years from now means we could have some great new infill on that block too, I see downtown and the North End knit back together into a walkable, drivable, cohesive whole.

[RyeJay]

Originally Posted by Waye Mason

The decisions made in the 1950s and 60s have no interest for me. I want to look at where we are now, and start addressing the problems we see now with solutions from this century.

A city of Halifax staff person who started work the year the MacDonald Bridge was built, say as a 22 year old, retired in 1998. How can we look at the Artz street issue and say that symbolizes Halifax today, when the modernization project that saw the Barrington on ramp built was built in 1999, almost 15 years ago? That is who we are now, people who solve the problems we inherited from the past.

With all respect, best practices around the world now show the value and tax lift obtained by getting rid of antiquated highway style drives like this, not just in big cities but in small ones.

I hear the same thing from the Heritage Trust folks, who also have the unfortunate tendency to bring up tragedies of planning departments past as if the battle is still being fought.

Cogswell lands will be marvellous, and the possibility of a new Police HQ 10-15 years from now means we could have some great new infill on that block too, I see downtown and the North End knit back together into a walkable, drivable, cohesive whole.

I would love to see something of similar density on the police headquarters site as we're seeing being developed on the former Citadel Hotel site.

In terms of the Cogswell Interchange, we cannot get rid of that thing fast enough! It'll be curious to see if more streetgrid proposals are presented as we get closer to actually removing this old mistake.

[ILoveHalifax]

Originally Posted by Waye Mason

The decisions made in the 1950s and 60s have no interest for me. I want to look at where we are now, and start addressing the problems we see now with solutions from this century.

A city of Halifax staff person who started work the year the MacDonald Bridge was built, say as a 22 year old, retired in 1998. How can we look at the Artz street issue and say that symbolizes Halifax today, when the modernization project that saw the Barrington on ramp built was built in 1999, almost 15 years ago? That is who we are now, people who solve the problems we inherited from the past.

With all respect, best practices around the world now show the value and tax lift obtained by getting rid of antiquated highway style drives like this, not just in big cities but in small ones.

I hear the same thing from the Heritage Trust folks, who also have the unfortunate tendency to bring up tragedies of planning departments past as if the battle is still being fought.

Cogswell lands will be marvellous, and the possibility of a new Police HQ 10-15 years from now means we could have some great new infill on that block too, I see downtown and the North End knit back together into a walkable, drivable, cohesive whole.

That's just great. Now that we are on top of things and looking ahead to the future when can we expect a stadium? Will it be a priority over a new police station?