[Halifax] Nova Centre | 65-58-58 m | 16-15-14 fl | Completed

[someone123]

Originally Posted by alps

Winter is not a big hindrance, most of the time the roads are not covered in ice. Cycling in winter in Halifax is totally do-able.

The funny thing is we had a little snow here in Vancouver a few days ago. Having lived in both cities I find it interesting how people here say the weather is great for cycling but people in Halifax say the weather makes it impossible. There is more going on than just the minor difference in weather.

There are also lots of cyclists in Scandinavian cities like Helsinki and they are no better climate-wise.

[Haliguy]

Originally Posted by someone123

The funny thing is we had a little snow here in Vancouver a few days ago. Having lived in both cities I find it interesting how people here say the weather is great for cycling but people in Halifax say the weather makes it impossible. There is more going on than just the minor difference in weather.

There are also lots of cyclists in Scandinavian cities like Helsinki and they are no better climate-wise.

Yeah and the way the winters have been the last few years it's been fairly warm until the end of January almost.

[Halifax]

Originally Posted by alps

Winter is not a big hindrance, most of the time the roads are not covered in ice. Cycling in winter in Halifax is totally do-able.

When and if the snow comes though, the bike lanes no longer exist lol

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I agree that Burnside is bad for lack of sidewalks. I imagine that was a cost issue, and that lots of people would be up in arms if the city spent a bunch of money on adding sidewalks to Burnside (which I think should be done). I can imagine there would be tons of opposition here to the effect of "why are they spending all that money in Burnside? Should be spent on the downtown...".

Bayers Lake and Dartmouth Crossing are actually not bad to walk around, but they are, by nature, big. So lots of walking. Cycling shouldn't be all that bad in DC, but again by nature, Burnside has a lot of large truck traffic (industrial park) so you are taking your life in your hands being on a bike. Would it make sense to reconfigure Burnside to favour bicycles? Not in my opinion - it needs to function as an industrial park and thus trucks need to have priority. Would be nice if they could make some bike-only paths that cut through the park though - but again: money.

Bayers Lake is just poorly designed for everybody - it's hazardous to drive a car through there, so it would have to be moreso for a bike.

I've been to all of these areas, and have spent considerable time in DC and Burnside using all three modes so i know first hand that yes, they're very hostile to pedestrians and cyclists and very friendly to cars. You seem to seem to be equating pedestrian friendly with presence of sidewalks. Tons of extremely pedestrian-hostile areas with sidewalks exist. Things like wide streets, highly rounded corners, high curbs, long intervals between crossing signals (Where they even exist), long stretches between crossings, high traffic speeds, buildings set far back from the street with entrances facing parking, long walks through large areas of parking to get to buildings... for important commercials areas to have any lack of sidewalks means it's among the worst.

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I think this is about functionality more than anything. While it appears to be the opinion of cyclists that some kind of favour is being done to car drivers that everything is being designed for them, I can't help but think while bicycling is great for exercise and low pollution, it isn't all that practical in Canada (a vast country that is cold and slippery half the year) as a main source of transportation. I don't need to go into all the reasons I say this, as you stated that you own a car so obviously you wouldn't go to the expense and trouble if you didn't have a need for one. However, a few of the obvious/main ones are: weather, traveling long distances, moving goods, transporting multiple people especially children and elderly, speed and efficiency to get from place to place, etc. etc.

So I don't just see it as one group being favoured over another, I see it more as a functionality issue.

I had a parent die and the other parent who doesn't drive give me the car. I would not have bought one. I wouldn't even have accepted one if Halifax was designed in a less auto-centric way. But eve with Halifax's poor design characteristics, I certainly don't "need" one.

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

First of all, downtown Halifax is an excellent place to walk right now (construction zones aside). In fact I regularly make a point of going there (after parking the car in an underground lot) and just walking around. It's great! So I can't see an argument that it is bad for pedestrians.

Nobody said it was bad for pedestrians. I just happen to support policy that makes it better for pedestrians and cyclists rather than policy that invites more motor vehicles. But downtown isn't what I'd call my favourite place to walk either. With the level of traffic there is more noise and pollution than desirable (I'd love to see HT convert to electric buses) and crossing streets can still be pretty tricky the higher traffic levels. In some places the sidewalks also too narrow.

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I don't cycle anymore, but I cycled lots back in the 1980s and 90s when the street environment was much less hospitable to cyclists than it is now. We didn't have the one-metre rule, or designated bike lanes, and people were certainly much less aware of cyclists' needs than they are now. Guess what? No problems. I was always aware of my surroundings, did regular shoulder checks to see what was coming up on me, watched parked cars to see if somebody was about to open a door in front of me, watched for pedestrians about to step out in front of me, etc. etc. Also, when choosing routes I always chose the ones I knew would be less busy, to minimize potential issues. Through all that I never thought that downtown was a bad place to cycle.

This reminds me of the, "Well in my day, we talked 10 miles in a blizzard" type of speeches. Things probably were worse for cyclists in the past and there were always the resilient few who still managed. But being "better than it was" and being "as good as it should be" aren't the same thing. The best approach with nearly everything is take what you're given and make the most of it that you can. People were given something worse back then and made it better, and we have something that's still flawed and can do the same.

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

If I may rant a little: My impression is that many cyclists today seem to want the world to pander to them. While I applaud the efforts of the city to make it a more hospitable place to cycle, it seems like the cyclists don't want to do their part in sharing the roads and keeping themselves safe - they want the government to do this for them. To be honest, the cycling community sometimes comes across as a bunch of whiny spoiled brats who yell everytime something isn't done to prioritize everything for them. I'm sure that's not how they view themselves, but every time I hear something coming from them in the media, it always seems like they think the rest of the world is wrong, and their view is the only right one.

Funny, that's the same impression I get from some motorists. The difference is, with motorists it's a little more understandable since for the last 60 or so years everything was done to prioritize them, so obviously they're accustomed to it.

However, I don't think it's helpful to use such terms as they're divisive and unproductive.

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Where do I start with this one?

I think I'll simplify my answer and just say that a city has many varied citizens with many varied needs. Taking a hard "take-no-prisoners" stance is basically saying that your needs are more important than others' needs, which is essentially selfish. So while you may view something as being "mushy middle grounding", it is probably more like let's consider everybody's needs, and not just the cycling community.

Take it for what it's worth, they are just my views and my intention is just to have healthy, involved conversation, not to offend anybody. So please take no offense as it's not intended as such.

I'm not offended; I just think you're wrong. Taking a firm stance isn't saying that others' needs are less important; it's saying that you genuinely believe the solutions you push for are the best ones for society and taking the time and energy to advocate for them is the opposite of selfish. What would be selfish is to not bother getting involved and not passionately trying to improve one's society. But remember, just because you disagree with someone on the best way to do things doesn't mean that either of you "need" to do things your own way. Letting on that calling for change isn't respecting other's "needs" is simply emotionally charged BS. I don't "need" to use active transportation and could drive everywhere like many other people, while many other people could adapt to using cars much less, at least in certain parts of town. I just happen to believe that me driving everywhere would be worse for both me and society, while seeing a decrease in driving would be an improvement, and censoring my honest opinion out of fear that someone else might not like it is just silly. You'd have a point of if I was insulting people or calling them names for disagreeing or saying that they're acting like spoiled brats or something.

[eastcoastal]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Not from Spryfield, Clayton Park or Lower Sackville methinks.

Downtown Halifax needs to belong to all the residents of the metro area, not just those fortunate denizens who can either afford to live there (the rich), or choose to live there (empty nesters and unattached young professionals).

I think belonging to residents is about more than parking... I do hear vacilating anecdotal views that 1) there is never ANY parking and 2) there IS parking, it's just not always easy to find.

I tend to believe #2, but have been in the position of circling a few blocks downtown trying to find a convenient spot for what feels like FOREVER frequently enough to make me think twice about taking my car. The issue for me is that transit is not well organized here.

I tried finding some good data on parking in downtown Halifax, but I'm not sure that it's been well studied. So far it all seems very anecdotal.

However. I must say that my PERSONAL belief is that providing lots of on-street parking is not a strategy that makes downtown for all residents. In my opinion, that makes it for cars.

I am happy to see all the celebrants on the street for the re-opening, but the real test for Argyle Grafton will be how well it's used and loved a year from now.

[eastcoastal]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

...

Big box stores exist because of cost advantages - large space allows for large inventories and selection at relatively low square footage costs. The ability to order items in large quantities brings down the per-unit cost. So really it's a business decision, not a car vs pedestrian decision.

Some of those cost advantages come from tax breaks provided by the Municipality to those in industrial/business parks where big box stores go, don't they?

[eastcoastal]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Failure.

Granville Mall?

Granville Mall sucks. I think that's because it's one-ended and not well connected to other pedestrian locations. Maybe not. Maybe it's because pedestrian-oriented spaces are doomed to fail... but I really don't think that's the case.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

@OldDartmouthMark - very well said!!

The downtown in Halifax has to be shared by everyone. The solution lies in the "mushy middle". If nobody is satisfied with the solution, this usually means an appropriate compromise solution has been obtained.

If that's the case, then calling for people to censor or soften their opinions will not have the desired results. If side A softens and moves to the mushy middle out of concern for side B and side B continues pushing just as hard, then the final compromise won't be in the middle; it'll likely to be skewed toward side B. As citizens we all have voices and it's up to us all to advocate for ourselves and what we feel is best. It isn't our responsibility to advocate for, or defer, to someone else's preferences. It's the responsibility of others to advocate for themselves and for decision-makers to find the best solution or balance

[IanWatson]

Originally Posted by Halifax

When and if the snow comes though, the bike lanes no longer exist lol

HRM did a pretty decent job clearing the Rainnie Street bike lane last winter. Hopefully they can learn from that experience and do better elsewhere.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

If I may rant a little: My impression is that many cyclists today seem to want the world to pander to them. While I applaud the efforts of the city to make it a more hospitable place to cycle, it seems like the cyclists don't want to do their part in sharing the roads and keeping themselves safe - they want the government to do this for them. To be honest, the cycling community sometimes comes across as a bunch of whiny spoiled brats who yell everytime something isn't done to prioritize everything for them. I'm sure that's not how they view themselves, but every time I hear something coming from them in the media, it always seems like they think the rest of the world is wrong, and their view is the only right one.

Certainly this is how the HCC comes across and several of their higher profile advocates like Wedge and Lane certainly fit this description to a tee. Their opinions are the only correct ones and everyone who disagrees is a philistine, essentially is how they come across. The amount of money HRM has spent on their cause is ridiculously out of proportion to the number of people using the infrastructure, and comes across to those of us who need vehicles to get around as insulting when we see little to nothing being done to address problem areas in the roadway network. Everything HRM has done in that regard recently has made things worse, in fact.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

I've been to all of these areas, and have spent considerable time in DC and Burnside using all three modes so i know first hand that yes, they're very hostile to pedestrians and cyclists and very friendly to cars. You seem to seem to be equating pedestrian friendly with presence of sidewalks. Tons of extremely pedestrian-hostile areas with sidewalks exist. Things like wide streets, highly rounded corners, high curbs, long intervals between crossing signals (Where they even exist), long stretches between crossings, high traffic speeds, buildings set far back from the street with entrances facing parking, long walks through large areas of parking to get to buildings... for important commercials areas to have any lack of sidewalks means it's among the worst.

I agree with your assessment.

I had a parent die and the other parent who doesn't drive give me the car. I would not have bought one. I wouldn't even have accepted one if Halifax was designed in a less auto-centric way. But eve with Halifax's poor design characteristics, I certainly don't "need" one.

Very sorry for your loss.

I wasn't questioning your decision to own a car, only suggesting that if you have one then you recognize the advantages that they can have.

Nobody said it was bad for pedestrians. I just happen to support policy that makes it better for pedestrians and cyclists rather than policy that invites more motor vehicles. But downtown isn't what I'd call my favourite place to walk either. With the level of traffic there is more noise and pollution than desirable (I'd love to see HT convert to electric buses) and crossing streets can still be pretty tricky the higher traffic levels. In some places the sidewalks also too narrow.

Agreed on the noise and pollution, though from my perspective it's mainly the large diesel-powered vehicles that are the issue. Electric buses would be great, along with eliminating or rerouting the large container trucks.

I still think it's a great place to walk, though.

This reminds me of the, "Well in my day, we talked 10 miles in a blizzard" type of speeches. Things probably were worse for cyclists in the past and there were always the resilient few who still managed. But being "better than it was" and being "as good as it should be" aren't the same thing. The best approach with nearly everything is take what you're given and make the most of it that you can. People were given something worse back then and made it better, and we have something that's still flawed and can do the same.

LOL... thinking about the Monty Python skit...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAdlkunflRs

Funny, that's the same impression I get from some motorists. The difference is, with motorists it's a little more understandable since for the last 60 or so years everything was done to prioritize them, so obviously they're accustomed to it.

However, I don't think it's helpful to use such terms as they're divisive and unproductive.

Agreed. We should all work harder to understand others' perspectives.

I'm not offended; I just think you're wrong. Taking a firm stance isn't saying that others' needs are less important; it's saying that you genuinely believe the solutions you push for are the best ones for society and taking the time and energy to advocate for them is the opposite of selfish. What would be selfish is to not bother getting involved and not passionately trying to improve one's society. But remember, just because you disagree with someone on the best way to do things doesn't mean that either of you "need" to do things your own way. Letting on that calling for change isn't respecting other's "needs" is simply emotionally charged BS. I don't "need" to use active transportation and could drive everywhere like many other people, while many other people could adapt to using cars much less, at least in certain parts of town. I just happen to believe that me driving everywhere would be worse for both me and society, while seeing a decrease in driving would be an improvement, and censoring my honest opinion out of fear that someone else might not like it is just silly. You'd have a point of if I was insulting people or calling them names for disagreeing or saying that they're acting like spoiled brats or something.

That's fine. It's your prerogative to think I'm wrong, just as much as it's mine to think you're wrong.

You talk about being divisive, yet that's exactly what you are promoting. Not that your opinion is any less valid than anybody else's, but it's just an opinion.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by someone123

The funny thing is we had a little snow here in Vancouver a few days ago. Having lived in both cities I find it interesting how people here say the weather is great for cycling but people in Halifax say the weather makes it impossible. There is more going on than just the minor difference in weather.

There are also lots of cyclists in Scandinavian cities like Helsinki and they are no better climate-wise.

As mentioned, I haven't cycled here in many years, I've never been to Vancouver during a snow storm, and I've never been to Scandinavia. So I can only speak to my own experiences of cycling and driving in the winter in Nova Scotia. Nouvellecosse is in a better position to give an assessment than I am, in terms of today's winter cycling experience.

IMHO, cycling in Nova Scotia winter is definitely doable, and I see many hardy souls doing so in winters - more now than ever. (back when I did it, I would never see anyone else riding a bike out in the snow).

A couple of issues that I perceive to be problematic are as follows:
(1) While the roads are typically well salted (which must wreak havoc on all the metallic components of today's bikes - I sprayed light oil on mine "back in the day") there are times when I see cycling to be extremely dangerous in the winter. In a snowstorm, when traction and visibility are extremely bad, it's not uncommon to see cars off the road or into snowbanks - put a cyclist in the path of one of those and you don't need an imagination to understand the result. Ice hiding under snow is another hazard that could make a ride go bad in a hurry (I fell off my bike in such conditions years ago and was lucky to have escaped serious injury as I fell on a stone grave marker when riding through a park).

(2) Narrowed roads due to snow banks. Snow banks are inevitable here in the winter, and narrower roads lead to more hazards for bicyclists. If the snow banks are high an additional hazard is in place as a car driver may miss seeing just the head of the cyclist protruding above the snow. This also raises the possibilities of bicycle/pedestrian collisions, which is a real risk that nobody ever seems to talk about.

IMHO, there's increased risk and it's up to the cyclist to determine what is acceptable for themselves.

However, my thinking is that the difference between winter cycling in Vancouver and Halifax is more than just a state of mind. I may be wrong, but I feel that Halifax has more severe and more frequent physical hazards than does Vancouver for winter cycling.

Great 'Nova Centre' thread!

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

The city has actually been putting a ton of sidewalks in Burnside lately, plus they recently built that AT connector (bike + walking path) from the new highway bridge, along Burnside Drive, to Commodore Drive. I wouldn't be surprised if Burnside was the leading "neighbourhood" in terms of overall length of retrofit sidewalk added in the last couple of years.

Hey, that's great news. I hadn't realized that such an effort has been put into it.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Agreed on the noise and pollution, though from my perspective it's mainly the large diesel-powered vehicles that are the issue. Electric buses would be great, along with eliminating or rerouting the large container trucks.

Agree with you on the container trucks. I have no problem with electric busses either. FWIW, I also have no problem with turning a number of side streets in the downtown area into shared spaces. I just believe that main streets need to be used for vehicular traffic ( to maintain commerce), and that sufficient (enclosed) parking be maintained downtown to allow people to drive there if they so wish.

FWIW, Speaking of the container trucks downtown, I know someone on the board of the Halifax Port Authority and have personally spoken to him/her about this issue. They are all well aware of the problems of having HalTerm on the peninsula. They have also been studying the "big fix", which would be relocating the terminal off the peninsula and onto the Dartmouth shore.

This is an incredibly expensive proposition (well north of a billion dollars) and they would only recover $200-$300M by selling the current port properties in the south end for redevelopment. As such, significant federal/provincial investment would be necessary to make this ever happen.

My friend however is not discouraged. He/she feels that it could be marketed to the other levels of government as the cure for what ails downtown Halifax:
1- eliminate truck traffic in the core
2- free up the rail cut for a reliable regional commuter rail service
3- free up a large tract of waterfront land for redevelopment, including a new cruise ship terminal

As for a proposed Dartmouth container terminal, this would not necessitate container trains running along the Dartmouth waterfront downtown. According to my friend, there is another right of way available coming from the northeast that could be used to service the facility.

It will be interesting if this ever comes to fruition......

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

]You talk about being divisive, yet that's exactly what you are promoting. Not that your opinion is any less valid than anybody else's, but it's just an opinion.

This is the main problem I have with activists. They may have some good points you can agree with, and you may be willing to make some accommodations for their point of view, but a true zealot will be so uncompromising that they will never agree that what you are proposing is ever enough. It's always their way or the doorway. Furthermore, many activists are "professionals", and once they have exhausted themselves with one cause, they will move on to the next one. You often see the same people over and over again at a variety of different demonstrations that superficially seem unconnected.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Agree with you on the container trucks. I have no problem with electric busses either. FWIW, I also have no problem with turning a number of side streets in the downtown area into shared spaces. I just believe that main streets need to be used for vehicular traffic ( to maintain commerce), and that sufficient (enclosed) parking be maintained downtown to allow people to drive there if they so wish.

FWIW, Speaking of the container trucks downtown, I know someone on the board of the Halifax Port Authority and have personally spoken to him/her about this issue. They are all well aware of the problems of having HalTerm on the peninsula. They have also been studying the "big fix", which would be relocating the terminal off the peninsula and onto the Dartmouth shore.

This is an incredibly expensive proposition (well north of a billion dollars) and they would only recover $200-$300M by selling the current port properties in the south end for redevelopment. As such, significant federal/provincial investment would be necessary to make this ever happen.

My friend however is not discouraged. He/she feels that it could be marketed to the other levels of government as the cure for what ails downtown Halifax:
1- eliminate truck traffic in the core
2- free up the rail cut for a reliable regional commuter rail service
3- free up a large tract of waterfront land for redevelopment, including a new cruise ship terminal

As for a proposed Dartmouth container terminal, this would not necessitate container trains running along the Dartmouth waterfront downtown. According to my friend, there is another right of way available coming from the northeast that could be used to service the facility.

It will be interesting if this ever comes to fruition......



This is the main problem I have with activists. They may have some good points you can agree with, and you may be willing to make some accommodations for their point of view, but a true zealot will be so uncompromising that they will never agree that what you are proposing is ever enough. It's always their way or the doorway. Furthermore, many activists are "professionals", and once they have exhausted themselves with one cause, they will move on to the next one. You often see the same people over and over again at a variety of different demonstrations that superficially seem unconnected.

FWIW, I don't think it's possible to have a downtown totally free of vehicular traffic anyhow, as you always have to leave provisions for delivery, emergency vehicles, etc. Plus, as you mentioned, in Halifax a lot of businesses would suffer (commerce) from the reduction in traffic. A person can say all they want about foot traffic, bicycles, and transit (which is not good currently) taking up the slack, but I'm not so sure it would.

Regarding Halterm: My favourite proposal has always been the rail link to a depot outside of the city to link to trucking there. It adds an extra step, but basically eliminates unnecessary trucking within the city completely. In my eyes, it's such a clean system - move it out by rail, transfer to trucks which can avoid getting caught in traffic and narrow roads and can jump right on to the main highway.

To be clear, I think activism as an activity to affect change is a good thing overall, but I agree that the extreme viewpoints and not-give-an-inch standpoints are just a waste of time (because nobody takes them seriously) and give the majority of activists who are actually working to improve a situation a bad name (i.e. 'zealots'). From what I see, a lot of extreme activists just seem to get some kind of rush out of 'the fight', and really don't want to compromise anything as it would take the rush out of it.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

That's fine. It's your prerogative to think I'm wrong, just as much as it's mine to think you're wrong.

You talk about being divisive, yet that's exactly what you are promoting. Not that your opinion is any less valid than anybody else's, but it's just an opinion.

And that's where you're wrong. Stating an opposing opinion isn't divisive. The fact that people have opposing opinions means they're already divided. How people interact with one another after the divide is established determines whether or not they can come to a compromise or instead become entrenched. If they show contempt and disrespect toward one another in their language and tone then things shut down.

I don't know why you'd assume people are unable to compromise simply because they have strong opinions. Compromise comes into play when making a decision, allowing people to work together to find a solution that's as good as you can all agree on. It doesn't mean that you consider the compromise to be better than your original proposal nor does it mean changing your opinion to conform to others'. But in our case none of that is relevant since we're not making any of these decisions. We're only sharing our opinions. So no, I'm no promoting divisiveness.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

And that's where you're wrong. Stating an opposing opinion isn't divisive. The fact that people have opposing opinions means they're already divided. How people interact with one another after the divide is established determines whether or not they can come to a compromise or instead become entrenched. If they show contempt and disrespect toward one another in their language and tone then things shut down.

I don't know why you'd assume people are unable to compromise simply because they have strong opinions. Compromise comes into play when making a decision, allowing people to work together to find a solution that's as good as you can all agree on. It doesn't mean that you consider the compromise to be better than your original proposal nor does it mean changing your opinion to conform to others'. But in our case none of that is relevant since we're not making any of these decisions. We're only sharing our opinions. So no, I'm no promoting divisiveness.

Maybe I misunderstood your post. Your rant about the "mushy middle ground" sounded like you were against compromise. i.e. mushy middle ground = compromise

So is your point that I should be saying "damn all the cyclists and pedestrians because I want to drive my car everywhere" - if I actually want there to be a more balanced environment - in order to counter the "ban all cars" side of things? I guess I'm confused.

[Colin May]

Originally Posted by eastcoastal

Some of those cost advantages come from tax breaks provided by the Municipality to those in industrial/business parks where big box stores go, don't they?

There are no tax breaks for businesses in industrial/business parks.
Where did you get that idea from ?

[Colin May]

[QUOTE=MonctonRad;7982345]

" As for a proposed Dartmouth container terminal, this would not necessitate container trains running along the Dartmouth waterfront downtown. According to my friend, there is another right of way available coming from the northeast that could be used to service the facility.

There is no such right of way. There is the old route that ran past Shearwater and out along the Eastern Shore; it is now a trail. On the Dartmouth side there is only one, passing through downtown - stuff that. Getting a deal with CN over the use of the cut is the only solution, and the cheapest. Federal funding can be put to better use in HRM, we'll need the money for a new MacKay bridge.

[terrynorthend]

This thread seems to have significantly digressed from Nova Centre recently. Perhaps these discussions should be moved to "active transportation" or elsewhere.

As for Nova Centre, is there any word on a hotel operator yet? Did I hear correctly that the convention centre hall was opening in December?