Spring Garden Streetscape

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

There will not be increased foot traffic. Pedestrian malls have always been a failure.

Pedestrian malls often are successful from a retail perspective while transit malls usually are not. On the other hand, transit malls tend to improve the efficiency and reliability of the larger transit network while pedestrian malls usually don't. SGR is trying to be both here, and it will be a delicate balance to make it work well for both retail and transit. I think the streetscaping improvements will help and that the biggest risk at this point is an Ottawa-like situation where the (narrowed) street becomes overcrowded with buses that end up blocking each other and slowing each other down. If that can be avoided then I think things will work out.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by JHikka

So cars will still have access then.

No meaningful access (but you know this - you're only trying to bait me for some reason). The primary reason for lifting the overnight restrictions is to allow service and delivery vehicles access. Any benefit for private automobiles by the petit-fonctionaires in the Halifax planning department is purely unintentional and regrettable.

Originally Posted by JHikka

Sounds great, honestly. Canadian cities and urban cores need more of this.

And I have no problems with pedestrianizing certain streets in Canadian downtowns. Downing Street in Moncton is now largely pedestrianized, and this is OK because it is a side street with no meaningful through traffic to begin with. Pedestrianizing Downing Street also is not merely a meaningless sop to the bicycle lobby because Downing has a very bright destiny as a direct connector between Moncton City Hall Plaza and Riverfront Park on the shore of the Petitcodiac. There are huge development plans for Downing over the next 20 years worth a couple of hundred million dollars. It will be the new heart of downtown Moncton. Pedestrianization should work here very well, and, ultimately, this should create a lively urban experience for downtown Moncton (without impacting downtown traffic flow).

The pedestrianization of SGR might work, as there are nearby alternative streets which could be used for vehicular traffic, but it will be an aggravation and a nuisance for the motoring public, and might cause some increased congestion on these alternate roadways. The jury is still out if this will have any effect on businesses lining SGR. There is a healthy residential population in the neighbourhood, lots of students in nearby universities and, (once the pandemic is finished), lots of captive office workers and hotel guests too. The loss of suburban Haligonians visiting the street might not even be noticed.

We will know by this time next year.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by JHikka

It's been widely proven that replacing on-street parking with sidewalks and bike lanes improves revenue for businesses on those streets. Nobody is proposing a pedestrian mall - SGR is still accessible by car.

Those "studies" are of the type done on behalf of activist groups with conclusions determined well in advance. Every pedestrian potential customer for SGR businesses is already attending those businesses. There is nothing (except for HRM's perpetual construction, which will not change) keeping them away. Where are they going to magically come from?

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Haliguy

Nope..not true! They are generally great success stories!

I guess you've never been to Sparks St in Ottawa. In the winter. It is a wasteland.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by DirectionNorth

I wish there was. There are a whole list of reasons why cars are bad: environmentally, they pollute and the land use they generate take a ton of space. They discourage walking. They kill lots of people. They are space inefficient, compared to other forms of transport. They're expensive. A large segment of the population (especially the poor, those under 18, and the elderly) can't use them.

Bad, Bad, BAD!! The urbanist mantra. Go ahead and keep approving suburban sprawl though, with our hopelessly non-functional Transit system. And its funny how most "poor" folks I know (which does not include anyone living in a shed in a public space) get around with vehicles just fine. As the saying goes, it beats walking. Or cycling in this climate.

[DirectionNorth]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Bad, Bad, BAD!! The urbanist mantra. Go ahead and keep approving suburban sprawl though, with our hopelessly non-functional Transit system.

I notice how you immediately resorted to insults. Got anything that backs your opinion up? It should take you 10 seconds to Google "why cars are good." Or maybe you know your position doesn't have evidence?

You haven't actually offered counterpoints to the negatives of car use I've brought up, so I'm assuming you agree with them.

I notice how often pro-car advocates use "transit is bad" as their reasoning. Wouldn't the solution be to increase transit service? If you recognize how bad cars are, wouldn't the logical thing be to support alternatives?

Originally Posted by Keith P.

And its funny how most "poor" folks I know (which does not include anyone living in a shed in a public space) get around with vehicles just fine. As the saying goes, it beats walking. Or cycling in this climate.

Sure, poor people buy cars. That's because we've built our cities to be based on cars. If you're working minimum wage, what are you giving up to be able to pay $7,000 + maintenance for a car? If you could take transit to work and shopping in a similar amount of time as driving, would you still pay for a car that takes uses 1/4 of your annual income?

[Half-Axed]

Last time I went to my optician on SGR, I went to park by the Gardens and found I had to download an app to pay for parking. The set-up was a bit annoying but I really enjoy the option now. No worries finding change and feeding meters.

I would never expect to find parking on that section of SGR, nor would I waste my time driving on it unless absolutely necessary, with something like five crosswalks in the space of 300 metres or so.

This all seems like such a non-issue to me - except for people who struggle to walk a block. I've never understood the Haligonian expectation that there should be free parking right outside the business you are going to. I suppose so much of the city is built in the suburban strip mall fashion that people aren't used to walking a reasonable distance.

As others have noted, if we had decent, reliable, high speed transit I'd just as likely leave my car home if I wanted to spend the day downtown.

Originally Posted by someone123

Does Halifax have good parking apps yet? In theory you can have an app that shows you all of the prices of available spots. You pay by putting in a code at the spot. It is a much better system than coins or credit/debit cards, although I guess they need to provide backup methods of payment.

Around here there are apps but unfortunately there is no standardization so depending on where you go you might need a different app. That is mostly due to there being different municipalities which is not an issue in HRM.

I think parking should be market rate, with the prices set such that there are always some free spots.

[KMcK]

Turning Spring Garden into a transit sewer won't contribute to a positive pedestrian experience. I'd prefer they move the remaining commuter routes to Sackville Street, similar to how many now use Morris and University, and put rush hour transit priority measures on Sackville.

[DirectionNorth]

Originally Posted by KMcK

Turning Spring Garden into a transit sewer won't contribute to a positive pedestrian experience. I'd prefer they move the remaining commuter routes to Sackville Street, similar to how many now use Morris and University, and put rush hour transit priority measures on Sackville.

Keeping it as a traffic sewer will?

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

No meaningful access (but you know this - you're only trying to bait me for some reason).

The implication that any positive urban realm for pedestrians comes at the expense of having more dirty homeless people and criminals hanging around is the dialogue you've previously brought to this thread. It's baseless and frankly insensitive.

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

The pedestrianization of SGR might work, as there are nearby alternative streets which could be used for vehicular traffic, but it will be an aggravation and a nuisance for the motoring public, and might cause some increased congestion on these alternate roadways.

Which is fine as long as public transit options and active transportation options can keep up. Cities aren't supposed to be for cars.

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

The jury is still out if this will have any effect on businesses lining SGR.

Removing cars directly on streets is overwhelmingly positive for urban businesses because it creates a better environment for people who aren't using the road.

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Those "studies" are of the type done on behalf of activist groups with conclusions determined well in advance.

Keep your head in the sand, I guess.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by JHikka

The implication that any positive urban realm for pedestrians comes at the expense of having more dirty homeless people and criminals hanging around is the dialogue you've previously brought to this thread. It's baseless and frankly insensitive.

You are confusing two entirely different issues (either intentionally or unintentionally). I'm unsure of your motives. The comment I was responding to was concerning your remark that private vehicles still had "access" to SGR, which they clearly do not (in a meaningful way).

Regarding the planters on the sidewalks of SGR, yes, they might indeed attract panhandlers to conduct their trade. They will give them somewhere to sit, and they also add congestion points to the sidewalks making it more difficult to avoid them.

I think we all want a positive pedestrian experience on SGR. Widening the walkways and overall gentrification should help accomplish this, but panhandlers remain problematic, and we should not be doing anything to exacerbate the situation.

I've been familiar with SGR since 1979, and lived in downtown Halifax for 10 years during the meantime. Panhandling and vagrancy has always been a problem, and this has worsened recently with the homelessness and opioid crises. These people deserve our sympathy and our support, but this should not give them free licence to harass pedestrians using our downtown streets. A positive urban realm should not include panhandling, period. If panhandling is perceived as a major problem, then this will have a negative impact on downtown merchants by keeping potential customers away. A downward spiral could ensue.

This is not a problem exclusive to Halifax (obviously). Main Street in Moncton has a serious vagrancy and panhandling problem, and sometimes these people can be very aggressive, even to the point of harassing retail employees in their shops. The problem is serious enough that some store owners are considering relocating, which will only result in the hollowing out and ghettoization of downtown. Nobody wants this.

In Moncton it is approaching a crisis point. Main Street in Moncton is not as resilient as SGR in Halifax, and the downward spiral is closer to happening here as a result. Halifax should be vigilant however. It could happen there too.........

[Haliguy]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

I guess you've never been to Sparks St in Ottawa. In the winter. It is a wasteland.

Yup I have, I think any street in Ottawa in the middle of winter is a wasteland...lol

Spark St def has some problems. In the middle of the financial district which empty's out a 5 pm is one problem and no natural flow of pedestrian traffic. I don't think having cars on it would do anything.

I have been to many cities with pedestrian streets that are thriving.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by DirectionNorth

I notice how you immediately resorted to insults. Got anything that backs your opinion up? It should take you 10 seconds to Google "why cars are good." Or maybe you know your position doesn't have evidence?

You haven't actually offered counterpoints to the negatives of car use I've brought up, so I'm assuming you agree with them.

I insulted nobody. Well, except maybe in a general way, urbanists, but then again, that's always fair ball.

I needed to offer no "evidence" of anything. Private vehicles are a superior form of transportation in every way. Climate-conditioned, quiet, comfortable, with entertainment included. Not quite the same as sitting next to a dirty person stinking of weed on a noisy bus that reeks of urine, vomit, and cheap cologne.

I notice how often pro-car advocates use "transit is bad" as their reasoning. Wouldn't the solution be to increase transit service? If you recognize how bad cars are, wouldn't the logical thing be to support alternatives?

I am reminded of the old joke of two old ladies talking about a particular restaurant:

"Oh, I won't go there any more! The food is terrible!"

"Yes!! And such small portions!"

The solution to bad Transit isn't to offer more of it.

Sure, poor people buy cars. That's because we've built our cities to be based on cars. If you're working minimum wage, what are you giving up to be able to pay $7,000 + maintenance for a car? If you could take transit to work and shopping in a similar amount of time as driving, would you still pay for a car that takes uses 1/4 of your annual income?

An utterly false argument. Until we have a NYC-style Transit network, which we will never have given our antiquated street network and incapacity to build any new and better alternative, people should simply make the decision that works best for them in the circumstances, and not have some central body deeming what they must do. It is not like this decision on SGR becoming Transit-only was some kind of master plan puzzle piece. It was slipped in at the last minute by Mason and his minions as yet another blow to motorists, but which will have zero effect on Transit operability.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Regarding the planters on the sidewalks of SGR, yes, they might indeed attract panhandlers to conduct their trade. They will give them somewhere to sit, and they also add congestion points to the sidewalks making it more difficult to avoid them.

God forbid the city provide amenities to its local population. The presumption that street improvements will lead it into becoming more of a haven for criminals and the homeless is, as I said, baseless.

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

I think we all want a positive pedestrian experience on SGR. Widening the walkways and overall gentrification should help accomplish this, but panhandlers remain problematic, and we should not be doing anything to exacerbate the situation.

So what should we be doing then? Throwing them in jail? I'm not sure how this is relevant to a better pedestrian experience on SGR.

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

This is not a problem exclusive to Halifax (obviously).

I think there are more constructive ways to tackle the issue than simply pointing out that these people may exist and they may do harm, which is something that you've taken a liking to doing whenever cities propose improving their pedestrian realms. Why are there homeless and why are they there? If there's crime what public policy levers are being used or not to cause or alleviate this? All better than the alternative discussion of lamenting their very existence whilst providing no solutions.

Originally Posted by Haliguy

Yup I have, I think any street in Ottawa in the middle of winter is a wasteland...lol

The problem with Sparks St. is that it isn't residential - it's primarily government buildings. What this means is that it's only populated 9-5, M-F, and then empties out accordingly thereafter. Pedestrian malls are successful when they're combining mixed-use developments of commercial, residential, and institutional. Sparks is a poor example to use against pedestrian malls in general, especially considering Ottawa's dismal weather of -40 winters and +40 summers.

[DirectionNorth]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

I insulted nobody. Well, except maybe in a general way, urbanists, but then again, that's always fair ball.

I needed to offer no "evidence" of anything. Private vehicles are a superior form of transportation in every way. Climate-conditioned, quiet, comfortable, with entertainment included. Not quite the same as sitting next to a dirty person stinking of weed on a noisy bus that reeks of urine, vomit, and cheap cologne.

In other words, you don't have anything to back your position, because you know there's no base to it, and you don't have a refutation to what I said. Got it.

Originally Posted by Keith P.

I am reminded of the old joke of two old ladies talking about a particular restaurant:

"Oh, I won't go there any more! The food is terrible!"

"Yes!! And such small portions!"

The solution to bad Transit isn't to offer more of it.

The solution is to offer better transit.

Originally Posted by Keith P.

An utterly false argument. Until we have a NYC-style Transit network, which we will never have given our antiquated street network and incapacity to build any new and better alternative, people should simply make the decision that works best for them in the circumstances, and not have some central body deeming what they must do. It is not like this decision on SGR becoming Transit-only was some kind of master plan puzzle piece. It was slipped in at the last minute by Mason and his minions as yet another blow to motorists, but which will have zero effect on Transit operability.

I'm not an HRM resident, so I'm not qualified to comment on Halifax planning processes.

You admit your street network is antiquated, with limited capacity. Therefore, cars can only transport so many people without expropriation. It's well documented that a single lane of transit/active transport moves more people than a single car lane. Wouldn't that be more efficient?

If you want people to make decisions based on their circumstance, then fund roads to the detriment of every other mode of transport, people will choose cars. Which, for the reasons I described, and you failed to engage with, are detrimental to society.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by DirectionNorth

In other words, you don't have anything to back your position, because you know there's no base to it, and you don't have a refutation to what I said. Got it.

Come, come, you can do better than that. I used to make those kind of comebacks 20 years ago on message boards when I disagreed with a post. Then I discovered I was correct and I no longer needed to be so dismissive.

The solution is to offer better transit.

HRM has proven time and time again over the years that this is something impossible for them to do.

I'm not an HRM resident, so I'm not qualified to comment on Halifax planning processes. [

But that didn't stop you!

You admit your street network is antiquated, with limited capacity. Therefore, cars can only transport so many people without expropriation. It's well documented that a single lane of transit/active transport moves more people than a single car lane. Wouldn't that be more efficient?

If you want people to make decisions based on their circumstance, then fund roads to the detriment of every other mode of transport, people will choose cars. Which, for the reasons I described, and you failed to engage with, are detrimental to society.

Funding proper road capacity does not lead to the detriment of other forms of transport. What HRM is doing with these moves in recent times (including bike lanes which go unused, transit lanes that are usually empty, etc etc) is trying to cram 10 lbs into a 5lb bag. It simply does not work. Look at a major artery like North St, untouched for nearly a century. At some point you'd think it would have occurred to someone in city govt that it was a necessity to widen that street. Yet it has never been touched. Lunacy.

[DirectionNorth]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Come, come, you can do better than that. I used to make those kind of comebacks 20 years ago on message boards when I disagreed with a post. Then I discovered I was correct and I no longer needed to be so dismissive.

Suburbanites love to make insults. They're still wrong, much like how Trump's repeated claim of fraud can never be proven.

Originally Posted by Keith P.

HRM has proven time and time again over the years that this is something impossible for them to do.

So you switch to an inefficient, unreliable, polluting, deadly, and inaccessible mode of transport.

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Funding proper road capacity does not lead to the detriment of other forms of transport. What HRM is doing with these moves in recent times (including bike lanes which go unused, transit lanes that are usually empty, etc etc) is trying to cram 10 lbs into a 5lb bag. It simply does not work.

Also because of poor urban planning. Transit and bike lanes look empty because a single vehicle is so much more space efficient than a car, that the same throughput uses much less space, and therefore, they look empty when they transport the same amount of people.

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Look at a major artery like North St, untouched for nearly a century. At some point you'd think it would have occurred to someone in city govt that it was a necessity to widen that street. Yet it has never been touched. Lunacy.

How many buildings would need to be demolished to a North St widening? The ROW can barely fit 2 lanes + sidewalk. Expropriation would be needed to get to 4 lanes, and I don't really believe that there would be zero sidewalks on that road, forcing expropriation of blocks of houses. All for the convenience of giant metal boxes with a single person inside from another neighborhood. No wonder it's never been widened.

[Good Baklava]

Ah yes, everyone claiming to have absolutely seized the content of an issue while only arguing over (urban) forms. A classic of urban discussion. #Formalism #Hegel

[Keith P.]

Blaming poor urban planning on previous poor urban planning must be the ultimate circular argument. Like the project under discussion, continuing to debate with such an individual seems pointless and a waste.

[Summerville]

Panhandling on SPR is a serious problem. But to suggest that the new redo will create a panhandling problem is a lazy exercise without really considering the underlying issues.

Panhandling on SPR has always existed. Unfortunately, I’ve noticed the same guy on the street for over 20 years. First noticed him in 1998ish and have watched his decline. The fact that panhandlers target SPR is perhaps an indication of the foot traffic on the street.

The city should really spend a little to work on the panhandling issue after they have spent to much on the construction project. But the solution will require creativity which I fear the city has no depth. Perhaps they should fund a non-profit with this experience.

I don’t see the argument that the reduction of car lanes will wreck the street. Perhaps it will make it a little more difficult for taxis and deliveries. But the sidewalk improvements could attract more pedestrians who will spend their money.

Another side issue the movement towards big name tenants on the street which has slowly eaten away at the attraction of SPR for local shops,…who have been pushed to the side streets. Aside from taking an active role in the economy which is dangerous,…I don’t know what can be done.