Third Harbour Crossing

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

First, you should not drink and drive whether you are driving a vehicle of pedaling a bicycle. Drunk/stoned biking is undoubtedly a contributor to some of the tragic cycling incidents we have seen. I know many cyclists feel that the rules of the road do not apply to them but I strongly disagree.

Agreed, there is a double standard applied here. It's not entirely unjustified (drunk cyclists don't pose even close to the threat that drunk drivers do) but we don't want either on the roads, for very good safety reasons.

Having said that, I only had two and stopped long before leaving. Pretty sure I was under the limit.

[eastcoastal]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

...My issue with the ferries is that they are as @someone123 said in an earlier post, yet another piecemeal component of our transportation system. For a time I lived in Dartmouth and worked in DT Halifax. I thought the ferries would be an ideal way to get to and from work. Nothing could have been further from the truth. You could not get to the terminal in Dartmouth easily unless you drove and parked all day, which was almost as expensive as parking in downtown Halifax. If you had to go somewhere midday you were out of luck of course as your vehicle was on the other side of the harbour. If your job was not in a relatively small semicircle close the the Halifax terminal you were also out of luck as bus connections there were limited. The same held true if you attempted to bus instead of drive on the Dartmouth side, only even worse. On days where I did not drive to Alderney but instead attempted to use the ferry/bus combo it often took 90-120 minutes to get home, which is ridiculous. The ferries are not in any way integrated with the rest of transit except for the ability to use a transfer. Why this has never been addressed remains one of the great HRM mysteries. They may be great if you have someone to drop you off in the AM and pick you up in the PM but they are a rather poor option for most.

Agreed - the lack of integration would be amusing if it wasn't sad.

[FutureofHalifax]

We believe it is an excellent idea for a number of reasons - the city is growing and continues to grow; so the city needs a bridge system which can handle such growth. It's good for public transit. It's good for people who live in the various southern suburbs of Halifax on both sides of the harbour. It's good for emergency type of situations - if one the bridges had some sort of failure the city would grind to a stop. It's good for getting commercial goods in and out of the city. It's good for future potential rail development. It's good for general safety - the current bridges are at or very near safe capacity.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by FutureofHalifax

We believe it is an excellent idea for a number of reasons - the city is growing and continues to grow; so the city needs a bridge system which can handle such growth. It's good for public transit. It's good for people who live in the various southern suburbs of Halifax on both sides of the harbour. It's good for emergency type of situations - if one the bridges had some sort of failure the city would grind to a stop. It's good for getting commercial goods in and out of the city. It's good for future potential rail development. It's good for general safety - the current bridges are at or very near safe capacity.

Those are all very accurate and valid reasons for a third harbour crossing. Of course none of us will likely see it in our lifetimes given the attitude among the many anti-development activists the media loves to feature, and our motley crew of pandering politicians. Our Mayor and Council would rather waste money on more politically correct things while ignoring the basic needs of the taxpayer.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Those are all very accurate and valid reasons for a third harbour crossing. Of course none of us will likely see it in our lifetimes given the attitude among the many anti-development activists the media loves to feature, and our motley crew of pandering politicians. Our Mayor and Council would rather waste money on more politically correct things while ignoring the basic needs of the taxpayer.

There is a deep problem all around North America when it comes to poor infrastructure. It is too politically difficult and too expensive to build what growing cities need. Europe and Asia don't seem to suffer from this problem as much. There are lots of projects in Germany and China that get built quickly and on budget.

One problem with the bridge is that the bridge commission really lost the PR battle. They presented the plans but didn't put much effort into articulating why it would be useful. The anti-development crowd managed to label it as a regressive car-only solution and that was that, even though it would have enabled a lot of transit improvements as well and might have helped with urban sprawl.

Here in Vancouver the situation is about as bad although as I've pointed out the city does invest more in transit. But getting around this town is very difficult and a lot of central areas are underdeveloped because of NIMBYism. As a result, lots of people spend an hour or more commuting to work. The economic costs must be enormous.

Is there a single growing, major Canadian city out there that has managed to provide affordable housing with shrinking commute times through modern infrastructure and real estate development? Our wealth and level of technological development has increased but we waste more time travelling and spend more on housing than we did in the 1970's.

Recently I read an article that pointed out that almost all inflation in North America has been due to growing housing (NIMBYs, poor transportation infrastructure), education (disaster of subsidized student loan debt and ballooning entitlements for education workers), and health care costs (some specific to the US; opaque billing, restrictions on the supply of doctors and other practitioners). Prices have been flat or falling in most other areas (post oil bubble). Real GDP growth in the US has been modest but if not for inflation induced by those few areas, economic growth in the last decade would have been close to 4% (due to year-over-year improvements in technology and business). The conclusion to all of this was that human-caused bureaucracies and the like were negating most potential economic growth. Looking at it another way, we are generating more and more wealth but it is almost all siphoned off to small groups.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by someone123

One problem with the bridge is that the bridge commission really lost the PR battle. They presented the plans but didn't put much effort into articulating why it would be useful. The anti-development crowd managed to label it as a regressive car-only solution and that was that, even though it would have enabled a lot of transit improvements as well and might have helped with urban sprawl.

The other and perhaps most significant problem here is that the third bridge would affect property owners in the moneyed South End the most, and those folks have tremendous political influence with politicians. From the local councillor being in their pocket to the Mayor to various provincial and federal pols who depend upon those people for donations, there is no political will to do what is clearly the right thing for the majority. Shameful.

[OldDartmouthMark]

For once I actually have to agree with Keith here. A third harbour crossing would be of great benefit to the entire city, but it appears the political will isn't strong enough to make it happen.

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

For once I actually have to agree with Keith here. A third harbour crossing would be of great benefit to the entire city, but it appears the political will isn't strong enough to make it happen.

I am rather shocked that you want a third harbour crossing through southern downtown Halifax. Just imagine the ramps through what has become a great historic downtown. The idea of using Georges Island for a support column makes me cringe (Keith_P's suggestion in another thread).

If Dartmouth is encouraged to continue its grow, then a third harbour crossing will be required, but I think that a twinning of the MacKay is more likely (even if inconvenient).

However, in my opinion, the logical solution is a Northwest Arm Bridge and densification of the Halifax peninsula and mainland.

A third harbour crossing in south Halifax would probably mess up downtown Halifax worse than the Harbour Drive would have, or that the Cogswell Interchange already has.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

I am rather shocked that you want a third harbour crossing through southern downtown Halifax. Just imagine the ramps through what has become a great historic downtown. The idea of using Georges Island for a support column makes me cringe (Keith_P's suggestion in another thread).

I look forward to your Chairing the new "Save the Snakes" coalition.

If Dartmouth is encouraged to continue its grow, then a third harbour crossing will be required, but I think that a twinning of the MacKay is more likely (even if inconvenient).

However, in my opinion, the logical solution is a Northwest Arm Bridge and densification of the Halifax peninsula and mainland.

A third harbour crossing in south Halifax would probably mess up downtown Halifax worse than the Harbour Drive would have, or that the Cogswell Interchange already has.

You realize, of course, that the plan was always to have a south-end bridge that tied into an Arm bridge as well? Of course Halifax has been stuck in the mud on that since the end of WWII.

The third crossing as originally conceived would have little effect on anything historic. The knee-jerk comparison to Harbour Drive is ludicrous on several levels. Harbour Drive may well have given us something better downtown than what we have been saddled with for the last 40 years. Regardless, this is a completely different project.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

I am rather shocked that you want a third harbour crossing through southern downtown Halifax. Just imagine the ramps through what has become a great historic downtown. The idea of using Georges Island for a support column makes me cringe (Keith_P's suggestion in another thread).

If Dartmouth is encouraged to continue its grow, then a third harbour crossing will be required, but I think that a twinning of the MacKay is more likely (even if inconvenient).

However, in my opinion, the logical solution is a Northwest Arm Bridge and densification of the Halifax peninsula and mainland.

A third harbour crossing in south Halifax would probably mess up downtown Halifax worse than the Harbour Drive would have, or that the Cogswell Interchange already has.

First of all, using Georges Island for anything involving a 3rd harbour crossing would be somewhat ludicrous.

You may be right about widening the MacKay if you could deal with the cluster that is the Windsor St. exchange, perhaps an expressway overpass that links the bridge directly to the 102 might work, but there would still be the bottleneck to get out of the peninsula that would likely be alleviated if a 3rd crossing were utilized instead.

Considering a 3rd crossing: disruption to the downtown could be minimized if it ran from the Woodside end of the 111 to somewhere in the viscinity of the edge of Halterm, potentially using part of the unused portion of the rail cut to exit the south end to another bridge over the Northwest Arm, and continue to link up to Northwest Arm Drive and eventually the 102/103. Truck traffic wouldn't have to run through downtown Halifax anymore, plus downtown traffic would have another route off the peninsula.

I know this would probably never happen, as it would involve the tricky situation of getting from the railcut to the Northwest Arm, and then to Northwest Arm Drive. As mentioned, it would be politically almost impossible to pull off. Plus, it would be an incredibly expensive project (but if some Federal money could be grabbed, it could turn out to be a reasonable deal in the long run).

A century ago it seemed that there was more will to take on large infrastructure projects like these, with an eye to deal with capacity before it became a problem. Now, it seems like we wait until after it becomes a problem and then build to current capacity, meaning that we will never really be out of the hole. Plus, as has happened already, there is no real plan to reserve land for such potential projects to be done when it is time to do so.

I think that even if the bridge just ran from Halterm to Woodside and provided an additional level dedicated to rail transit, I would see it as a net positive. Access to and from the downtown would be improved, and traffic through the downtown would be reduced IMHO.

Of course hindsight is 20/20, and it's not always easy to predict the future - there may come a time when car usage is drastically reduced, leaving us with overcapacity. Autonomous vehicles could change the landscape of commuting, with the potential of small buses running on continually changing routes based on customer requests, and/or small autonomous "pods" that are continually in use (not customer-owned) and thus alleviating the need for parking. Autonomous vehicles working off a larger network that "sees" all the vehicle routes and thus optimizes traffic flow based on need, could mean that our existing infrastructure is more than adequate. Who knows how it all will go?

[someone123]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I think that even if the bridge just ran from Halterm to Woodside and provided an additional level dedicated to rail transit, I would see it as a net positive. Access to and from the downtown would be improved, and traffic through the downtown would be reduced IMHO.

If there were a third harbour crossing the Macdonald could be reconfigured with a reversing transit-only lane. Or maybe two transit-only lanes and one reversing mixed traffic lane.

Bridge crossings and freeways are two different things. Bridges don't need to be ugly or have huge approaches and interchanges around them to carry lots of traffic. Those things aren't even all that useful since the bridges themselves are bottlenecks.

A Northwest Arm bridge in particular could be attractive and wouldn't have to carry tons of cars at highway speeds to be useful. It have a direct impact on very few private properties.

[fenwick16]

A physical problem to having a bridge in the south end is the clearance below the bridge. To handle the large ships forecast to come into Halifax in the future it would be best to have at least 200 feet clearance (the other two bridges are already causing problems for the Fairview Cove terminal at 150 feet clearance). It would be best to have this clearance right at the waterfront, but with no large natural hill in the south end, such as there is for the MacDonald Bridge, the ramps would have to be very long (they might even have to start on the mainland).

I might be mistaken, but I thought that a bridge report done a few years ago indicated that to prevent an obstruction to ship traffic that a southern crossing would have to be a tunnel.

[Colin May]

The traffic delays on the two bridges are minor and even in 20 years will not justify a 3rd bridge. It is cheaper to change the mindset that all government has to be on Mainland Halifax.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Tunnel with BRT built in?

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

A physical problem to having a bridge in the south end is the clearance below the bridge. To handle the large ships forecast to come into Halifax in the future it would be best to have at least 200 feet clearance (the other two bridges are already causing problems for the Fairview Cove terminal at 150 feet clearance). It would be best to have this clearance right at the waterfront, but with no large natural hill in the south end, such as there is for the MacDonald Bridge, the ramps would have to be very long (they might even have to start on the mainland).

I might be mistaken, but I thought that a bridge report done a few years ago indicated that to prevent an obstruction to ship traffic that a southern crossing would have to be a tunnel.

A tunnel would be a nice alternative, if it could be done practically. I believe it has been discussed here many times, in fact I recall you had a proposal that included a tunnel at some point.

My main questions would be how deep would it have to go and is the material below the harbour suitable and stable enough for this type of application. Also, how far inland would you have to go to maintain acceptable grades for the roadway and more critcally, railbeds...

[ue]

Originally Posted by someone123

There is a deep problem all around North America when it comes to poor infrastructure. It is too politically difficult and too expensive to build what growing cities need. Europe and Asia don't seem to suffer from this problem as much. There are lots of projects in Germany and China that get built quickly and on budget.

One problem with the bridge is that the bridge commission really lost the PR battle. They presented the plans but didn't put much effort into articulating why it would be useful. The anti-development crowd managed to label it as a regressive car-only solution and that was that, even though it would have enabled a lot of transit improvements as well and might have helped with urban sprawl.

Here in Vancouver the situation is about as bad although as I've pointed out the city does invest more in transit. But getting around this town is very difficult and a lot of central areas are underdeveloped because of NIMBYism. As a result, lots of people spend an hour or more commuting to work. The economic costs must be enormous.

Is there a single growing, major Canadian city out there that has managed to provide affordable housing with shrinking commute times through modern infrastructure and real estate development? Our wealth and level of technological development has increased but we waste more time travelling and spend more on housing than we did in the 1970's.

Recently I read an article that pointed out that almost all inflation in North America has been due to growing housing (NIMBYs, poor transportation infrastructure), education (disaster of subsidized student loan debt and ballooning entitlements for education workers), and health care costs (some specific to the US; opaque billing, restrictions on the supply of doctors and other practitioners). Prices have been flat or falling in most other areas (post oil bubble). Real GDP growth in the US has been modest but if not for inflation induced by those few areas, economic growth in the last decade would have been close to 4% (due to year-over-year improvements in technology and business). The conclusion to all of this was that human-caused bureaucracies and the like were negating most potential economic growth. Looking at it another way, we are generating more and more wealth but it is almost all siphoned off to small groups.

I blame neoliberalism and NIMBYism. I can't actually think of a Canadian city that isn't behind on infrastructure.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by ue

I can't actually think of a Canadian city that isn't behind on infrastructure.

There isn't one.

[Phalanx]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

A tunnel would be a nice alternative, if it could be done practically. I believe it has been discussed here many times, in fact I recall you had a proposal that included a tunnel at some point.

My main questions would be how deep would it have to go and is the material below the harbour suitable and stable enough for this type of application. Also, how far inland would you have to go to maintain acceptable grades for the roadway and more critcally, railbeds...

It would only have to go as deep as the harbour floor depending on method:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immersed_tube

Material isn't so much an issue with that, either.

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

A tunnel would be a nice alternative, if it could be done practically. I believe it has been discussed here many times, in fact I recall you had a proposal that included a tunnel at some point.

My main questions would be how deep would it have to go and is the material below the harbour suitable and stable enough for this type of application. Also, how far inland would you have to go to maintain acceptable grades for the roadway and more critcally, railbeds...

I only did a fantasy sketch of a Northwest Arm tunnel route (nothing worth looking at)

However, there are some actual drawings of a proposed bridge and tunnel in this report - https://www.halifax.ca/council/agendasc/documents/100608cai03.pdf

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Phalanx

It would only have to go as deep as the harbour floor depending on method:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immersed_tube

Material isn't so much an issue with that, either.

Hmmm... interesting. Looks like a proven method, given that the Michigan Central Railway Tunnel was constructed in 1910 and is still in use today.

Halifax should do this.