General Updates and News

[Drybrain]

I've rarely disagreed with Waye on anything--development issues, downtown investment, heritage preservation, progressive planning--so I'd be curious to hear his reasoning. I don't like the idea of just unthinkingly dropping high-rises into neighbourhoods, but there are already two tall residential towers literally right next to this site, and minimal demolition would be required to accommodate this tower.

[worldlyhaligonian]

What if they added a set back and went taller?

Density needs to be achieved in this area, the hospital and its lots north of this really deaden the amount of people that could be living so close to downtown.

[IanWatson]

The Wellington application has me scratching my head for two reasons:

The first is the proposal. Fifty-eight 3,700 sq.ft. units!? Who the crap is going to buy/rent those units? I mean, we definitely need to provide larger units in the downtown so that families can actually live there, but 3,700 sq.ft. is massive even by suburban detached home standards. Will these actually be affordable to anyone?

The second is the staff report and recommendation. The request at this point is to review the MPS, and the applicant gives some pretty good reasons why this might be appropriate. It seems to me like a responsible staff response would be to evaluate these reasons. Instead, the meat of staff's recommendation comes from a review of the proposal itself, which seems to me to be hugely premature at this point. OF COURSE the proposal doesn't meet existing policies, that's why they're asking for the policies to be reviewed.

A more appropriate process in my view would be:
1. Evaluate the justification for reviewing the MPS. Is MPS review justified?
2. Yes? --> Review it and establish more modern criteria for what is appropriate on that site. This could include reexamining things like lot coverage and building size.
3. Accept the applicant's development agreement application.
4. NOW evaluate the proposal itself against the MPS policy that has been reviewed. Does the proposal meet the new policy?
4a. No? Reject it. Let the developer modify their proposal and come back, or sell the lot to someone who will put in a more appropriate proposal.
4b. Yes? Approve it, including whatever clauses are necessary in the DA to ensure the approved proposal meets the new MPS policy.

To me it seems like the process to date has been backwards. My only explanation is that maybe staff is trying to avoid tying up resources in an MPS review by making suppositions about a future proposal. Unfortunately, if that is the case it seems highly inappropriate to me and very unfair to the applicant.

EDIT: On further reflection it's completely reasonable for staff to recommend against a review of MPS policies on the basis of lack of resources; Council is certainly under no obligation to anyone to change its plan. That being said, if lack of resources is the reason, that should be stated explicitly in the staff report so that Council can make the decision of whether to spend more money on resources, allocate resources from other projects, or not do a review.

[ILoveHalifax]

This apparently will be a very interesting file as the developer already has approval to build 210 bedrooms on this property. Are we talking rooming house? student housing?
It was pointed out that just maybe the NIMBY's just might prefer high end high rise, to what is already approved.

[halifaxboyns]

One of the issues I have with the HRM process is that you must seek permission from council to undertake a plan amendment. That seems a little bit counter intuitive - I'm going to apply, to ask council to begin my application. So what did I apply for?

Maybe it's just process and gives Council the sober second thought option, but still - it just seems a pointless exercise because the staff have to take all this time and effort to write an initiation report and do at least a partial review. Why not cut out that exercise and just get into the meat of a full review?

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by RyeJay

Well said.

The only thing "well said" was the usual regurgitation of widely debunked planning theories that, if true, would have us all driving on dirt cartpaths.

The mounting evidence dismissing the older ideologies of infrastructure planning will hopefully help HRM move forward with stronger forms of public transit. We need to set some sensible goals for development that is transit oriented.

Until we address public transit, we won't successfully address the poor percentage of urban development compared to Halifax's suburban bloating.

Implementing congestion charges would be politically challenging, though.

We cannot afford public transit from the far-flung suburbs. Nor will the people in the cars and trucks on Bayers Road be willing to take it, since not all, or even most, are simply driving to a point downtown and parking their car all day. They have places to go, people to see, goods to deliver. Our 1950s street network continually frustrates that. Buses or even LRT would not be useful to these people, not that we can afford LRT anyway, and buses are worthless without better streets anyway. I have never seen anyone defend the mess that is the Halifax Shopping center entrance before, but apparently you think it is just fine. Bizarre.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

The only thing "well said" was the usual regurgitation of widely debunked planning theories that, if true, would have us all driving on dirt cartpaths.



We cannot afford public transit from the far-flung suburbs. Nor will the people in the cars and trucks on Bayers Road be willing to take it, since not all, or even most, are simply driving to a point downtown and parking their car all day. They have places to go, people to see, goods to deliver. Our 1950s street network continually frustrates that. Buses or even LRT would not be useful to these people, not that we can afford LRT anyway, and buses are worthless without better streets anyway. I have never seen anyone defend the mess that is the Halifax Shopping center entrance before, but apparently you think it is just fine. Bizarre.

HI KEITH. Thanks for critiquing my post via a reply to a one line comment on my post written SOMEONE ELSE.

Anyways, I cited a piece of commentary published at the Fraser Institute Forum (yes, a hippie rag that advocates dirt car paths for all!) that cited recent and credible research that demonstrates why widening roads will not solve congestion problems in the long term.

If you happen to have some of your own studies, by all means, link them here, and I'll be happy to read.

I'm fine with new roads, they're sometimes necessary. But they're subject, as well, to the laws of diminishing returns.

See you out on the dirt car path!

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

I've rarely disagreed with Waye on anything--development issues, downtown investment, heritage preservation, progressive planning--so I'd be curious to hear his reasoning. I don't like the idea of just unthinkingly dropping high-rises into neighbourhoods, but there are already two tall residential towers literally right next to this site, and minimal demolition would be required to accommodate this tower.

I would be quite interested as well.

I've respected his work on Council, but lately, he's seemed to go off message lately, and speaking out for NIMBYs concerns, rather than for things that will build our community, like Spirit Place.

I mean, I just read that MetroNews story and, FFS, I'm agreeing with BARRY DALRYMPLE over Waye. I mean, you have to go pretty far off the rails to where BARRY DALRYMPLE is setting you straight on planning matters.

I'm one of those "local residents". And guess what? I support the thing.

If he thinks that he'll earn re-election by appeasing NIMBYs and rejecting reasonable infill and development proposals like this, and Spirit Place, then I think he's deeply miscalculated.

He might hear a lot of whiny NIMBYs at his office, and receive emails from them about new development proposals, but they are not representative of the district. It will be us, the silent majority, who will be judging his term in office.

Or perhaps he's been hanging out a bit too much with Jennifer "I've Never Seen A Development Proposal That I Llke" Watts, lately?

Let's see.

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

Anyways, I cited a piece of commentary published at the Fraser Institute Forum (yes, a hippie rag that advocates dirt car paths for all!) that cited recent and credible research that demonstrates why widening roads will not solve congestion problems in the long term.

You keep referring to the Fraser Institute Forum as if everyone knows what that is. It might be a well-known conference, but I'll be the first to admit that I don't actually know what it is. I would guess that many others don't, either.

[Hali87]

Also, I've heard that the current Bayers Road-widening proposal has been modified so that the new lanes will be transit-only, as a compromise of sorts. How would people feel about that? I recognize that some would probably prefer to just sacrifice one or two existing vehicular lanes for bus lanes, rather than widen, but I can't see that working very well in practice.

[Empire]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

HI KEITH. Thanks for critiquing my post via a reply to a one line comment on my post written SOMEONE ELSE.

Anyways, I cited a piece of commentary published at the Fraser Institute Forum (yes, a hippie rag that advocates dirt car paths for all!) that cited recent and credible research that demonstrates why widening roads will not solve congestion problems in the long term.

If you happen to have some of your own studies, by all means, link them here, and I'll be happy to read.

I'm fine with new roads, they're sometimes necessary. But they're subject, as well, to the laws of diminishing returns.

See you out on the dirt car path!

The fact is, widening roads improves traffic flow. Whether it encourages more commuters to drive with ease is another debate. Look at Portland St. The stretch that handles 50,000 cars a day works quite well albeit very busy. It is 4 -5 lanes, has proper bus turn-outs, well marked crosswalks with flashing lights. Take away a lane in any of the heavy traffic areas and you have Bayers Rd., Robie St. or the worst example of traffic planning .....Barrington North. The extra lanes for the MacDonald Bridge approach cured the bottleneck overnight. The reconfiguration of the Micmac Rotary cured the bottleneck overnight. The section of Portland St. downtown that hasn't been widened is a disaster.

So yes counterfactual, widening streets solves traffic congestion.

Portland St. 5 lanes where required:
https://maps.google.ca/maps?q=dartmouth+...A_KpHjoZNsN7iUz2g&cbp=12,252.69,,0,18.51

Portland St. 2 lane mess:
https://maps.google.ca/maps?q=dartmouth+...aTfC2qBKTI3uPZjqc6t8g&cbp=12,227.07,,0,0

Barrington North Donkey path:
https://maps.google.ca/maps?q=dartmouth+...o_4ROA86BDhg&cbp=12,291.67,,0,18.77&z=19

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by Empire

The fact is, widening roads improves traffic flow. Whether it encourages more commuters to drive with ease is another debate. Look at Portland St. The stretch that handles 50,000 cars a day works quite well albeit very busy. It is 4 -5 lanes, has proper bus turn-outs, well marked crosswalks with flashing lights. Take away a lane in any of the heavy traffic areas and you have Bayers Rd., Robie St. or the worst example of traffic planning .....Barrington North. The extra lanes for the MacDonald Bridge approach cured the bottleneck overnight. The reconfiguration of the Micmac Rotary cured the bottleneck overnight. The section of Portland St. downtown that hasn't been widened is a disaster.

So yes counterfactual, widening streets solves traffic congestion.

This is precisely my point. Road widening provides relief... but eventually just encourages more congestion. Do you drive on those routes, esp during rush hours? Traffic along Portland and connecting major streets was reasonable about 5-10 years ago. It's gotten worse and is not getting better. Same with MacDonald. Yes, a new lane instantly relieved congestion, but if you drive the bridge during rush hour, it's pretty congested and brutal. We're basically back to the way it was mid 1990s, before the extra lane.

As I said, this is the point: Often, widening a road may address congestion in the near term, but not long term. It incentivizes existing drivers to drive more, and non-drivers to start driving. This is contextual, of course. But it makes sense, and there is solid peer reviewed research supporting the conclusion.

Here is one recent study:

Duranton, Gilles, and Matthew A. Turner (2011). The Fundamental Law of Road Congestion: Evidence from US Cities. American Economic Review 101, 6: 2616-2652.

Duranton is from the London School of Economics, and Turner, University of Toronto.

Excerpt:

For interstate highways in metropolitan areas we find that VKT [vehicle kilometers traveled] increases one for one with interstate highways, confirming the “fundamental law of highway congestion” suggested by Anthony Downs (1962; 1992). We also uncover suggestive evidence that this law may extend beyond interstate highways to a broad class of major urban roads, a “fundamental law of road congestion”. These results suggest that increased provision of interstate highways and major urban roads is unlikely to relieve congestion of these roads.

Blog post discussing the study: http://dc.streetsblog.org/2011/05/31/stu...e-congestion-is-an-exercise-in-futility/

Also, replacing a Rotary with a 6 lane highway out in the suburbs is not the same as widening a road in a central collector route in an urban setting like Bayers.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by Hali87

You keep referring to the Fraser Institute Forum as if everyone knows what that is. It might be a well-known conference, but I'll be the first to admit that I don't actually know what it is. I would guess that many others don't, either.

Fraser Institute is a fairly well known conservative/right wing think tank based out west. Our Prime Minister, and his mentor Preston Manning, have both had formal and informal ties to the think tank.

The point, is that the Fraser Institute is not going to be putting out hippie fluff that leads to "dirt car paths".

What the F.I. does often care about, is wasted taxpayer dollars. Like a billion dollar boondoogle to widen roads that only leads to more congestion down the road.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by Hali87

Also, I've heard that the current Bayers Road-widening proposal has been modified so that the new lanes will be transit-only, as a compromise of sorts. How would people feel about that? I recognize that some would probably prefer to just sacrifice one or two existing vehicular lanes for bus lanes, rather than widen, but I can't see that working very well in practice.

I'd have to see the proposal, but yes, that could be a compromise, especially as it seems like this project is marching forward regardless.

[ILoveHalifax]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

Fraser Institute is a fairly well known conservative/right wing think tank based out west. Our Prime Minister, and his mentor Preston Manning, have both had formal and informal ties to the think tank.

The point, is that the Fraser Institute is not going to be putting out hippie fluff that leads to "dirt car paths".

What the F.I. does often care about, is wasted taxpayer dollars. Like a billion dollar boondoogle to widen roads that only leads to more congestion down the road.

Wow! If our prime minister and Preston Manning have ties to this think tank I guess we should all be tuned in. They are definitely superior to the rest of us in their thinking.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by ILoveHalifax

Wow! If our prime minister and Preston Manning have ties to this think tank I guess we should all be tuned in. They are definitely superior to the rest of us in their thinking.

Yes, because that's exactly what I said.

I'm a fan of neither the PM nor Manning. I voted for neither, and don't plan to.

So, let me re-iterate the point again: the Fraser Institute is not a urbanist/environmental/anti-car/anti-suburb org that would publish an article advocating like those causes.

I'm responding to Keith's suggestion that my argument would lead us down a path to "dirt carpaths".

That's the last time I'll explain. If you can't figure it out now, no amount of hand holding is going to help.

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by Empire

The fact is, widening roads improves traffic flow. Whether it encourages more commuters to drive with ease is another debate. Look at Portland St. The stretch that handles 50,000 cars a day works quite well albeit very busy. It is 4 -5 lanes, has proper bus turn-outs, well marked crosswalks with flashing lights. Take away a lane in any of the heavy traffic areas and you have Bayers Rd., Robie St. or the worst example of traffic planning .....Barrington North. The extra lanes for the MacDonald Bridge approach cured the bottleneck overnight. The reconfiguration of the Micmac Rotary cured the bottleneck overnight. The section of Portland St. downtown that hasn't been widened is a disaster.
So yes counterfactual, widening streets solves traffic congestion.

Only to a point...
I will concede that as of the time that a road expansion opens, it does help traffic flow. I think no one disagrees with that, things move well. The problem becomes over time.

As the City grows, there are percentages that use cars, transit, walk etc. What those numbers are for HRM I don't know the exact breakdown; but I'd hazard an educated guess that car is likely over 50%. But as the city grows, while the percentages may go up or down, the volume of vehicles tends to go up and so more cars are on the road. That means that at peak times, capacity starts tightening and eventually the roads get jammed again. Keep in mind, when people complain about traffic we are talking about a 2-5 hour span of time in the day (morning/evening rush). So spending millions of $ to help cars get through an area and then the road performs super well (because it's under capacity) all other times - makes you wonder what the value is?

Keep in mind - after 5 years (typically) the road capacity reaches the clogged point again, after the road is expanded. So then you have to expand again - it's a never ending cycle.

I think we all agree that the only way forward is a combination effort and it's not as simple as expanding one road. It's a comprehensive effort of land use/transportation planning and investment.

[ILoveHalifax]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

Yes, because that's exactly what I said.

I'm a fan of neither the PM nor Manning. I voted for neither, and don't plan to.

So, let me re-iterate the point again: the Fraser Institute is not a urbanist/environmental/anti-car/anti-suburb org that would publish an article advocating like those causes.

I'm responding to Keith's suggestion that my argument would lead us down a path to "dirt carpaths".

That's the last time I'll explain. If you can't figure it out now, no amount of hand holding is going to help.

The Fraser Institute has its own agenda and is not recognized as an authority on many subjects, so I will use my own experiences to evaluate urban development.
Please don't hold my hand. I am not in a big rush to be lead anywhere by you. Because we have a difference of opinion does not make yours right and mine wrong no matter who you quote.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

Only to a point...
I will concede that as of the time that a road expansion opens, it does help traffic flow. I think no one disagrees with that, things move well. The problem becomes over time.

As the City grows, there are percentages that use cars, transit, walk etc. What those numbers are for HRM I don't know the exact breakdown; but I'd hazard an educated guess that car is likely over 50%. But as the city grows, while the percentages may go up or down, the volume of vehicles tends to go up and so more cars are on the road. That means that at peak times, capacity starts tightening and eventually the roads get jammed again. Keep in mind, when people complain about traffic we are talking about a 2-5 hour span of time in the day (morning/evening rush). So spending millions of $ to help cars get through an area and then the road performs super well (because it's under capacity) all other times - makes you wonder what the value is?

Keep in mind - after 5 years (typically) the road capacity reaches the clogged point again, after the road is expanded. So then you have to expand again - it's a never ending cycle.

I think we all agree that the only way forward is a combination effort and it's not as simple as expanding one road. It's a comprehensive effort of land use/transportation planning and investment.

Yes. 100%. Thank you.

I'm certainly not advocating ditching road work or expansion; just that for decades our sole focus really has been on massive road expansions, with little strategic thinking or empirical evidence about the net benefit of these projects.

I mean, when have we ever invested in a bold mass transit project in this city? Crickets chirping...

Anyways, I'm done.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by ILoveHalifax

The Fraser Institute has its own agenda and is not recognized as an authority on many subjects, so I will use my own experiences to evaluate urban development.
Please don't hold my hand. I am not in a big rush to be lead anywhere by you. Because we have a difference of opinion does not make yours right and mine wrong no matter who you quote.