Third Harbour Crossing

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

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

Thanks for the report. Looks like it could be done with minimal disruption based on current land usage. Can't say that this will be the case 20 years from now, though.

[ue]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

There isn't one.

Basically, that's what I was saying.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by ue

Basically, that's what I was saying.

Perhaps one of the reasons that the feds are planning to spend tens of billions on infrastructure over the next decade or so... Halifax needs in on that.

[lawsond]

Originally Posted by 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.

C:\Users\Lawson\Pictures\circ1.png

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by lawsond

C:\Users\Lawson\Pictures\circ1.png

Did you mean to post something like this?



Source

A delay in reopening the MacDonald Bridge or any traffic altercation, no matter how minor, usually inflicts major chaos on our bridges during rush hour...

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by 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.

Obviously, Colin, you do not need to travel across the harbor on a daily or multi-daily basis.

[Colin May]

The HRM Council document shows the top of an underground tunnel at 55 metres. If we have a few billion I suppose it would work.

[Colin May]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Obviously, Colin, you do not need to travel across the harbor on a daily or multi-daily basis.

I cross the old bridge on a regular basis and even in the rush hours the delays pre-redecking are barely worth mentioning.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Colin May

I cross the old bridge on a regular basis and even in the rush hours the delays pre-redecking are barely worth mentioning.

That is simply untrue.

[IanWatson]

I think Colin is right. Traffic on the bridges right now is annoying but isn't actually that bad in the grand scheme of things.

That being said, it's not bad to plan for the future. MacKay Bridge is scheduled for replacement in the next 20 years. I don't know if there are plans to increase capacity at that time. There are definitely plans to add pedestrian and cycle access though.

Maybe a third crossing could be done in conjunction with moving the port? Then you could configure adequate access without having to mess with the existing fabric of the city too much.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

I think Colin is right. Traffic on the bridges right now is annoying but isn't actually that bad in the grand scheme of things.

You need to go back to the first few pages of this thread from 2008 and read what led to all this. The original studies projected a need for replacement starting now.

[Colin May]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

You need to go back to the first few pages of this thread from 2008 and read what led to all this. The original studies projected a need for replacement starting now.

Charge higher tolls during rush hours for single occupant cars and have bus only lane at the same time. Add 50 cents a litre to gas and use the revenue for transit improvements. Have a ferry/ferries dedicated to the dockyard.

[Keith P.]

Or just build a third crossing, paid for by users.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Colin May

Charge higher tolls during rush hours for single occupant cars and have bus only lane at the same time. Add 50 cents a litre to gas and use the revenue for transit improvements. Have a ferry/ferries dedicated to the dockyard.

I don't agree with such severe taxation on gasoline as it is already quite highly taxed, and typically the revenue just gets lumped into the budget and ends up paying for other things.

Transit is dirt cheap now, so why not raise transit fees to help subsidize the service, while creating a program to reduce the rate for low-income users? Bridge/tunnel users should pay for their use as they do now, and again the fee is relatively cheap so it could be raised as well. And, as mentioned previously, the feds are investing heavily into infrastructure now. Now is the time for the city to create some projects to take advantage of that money - it is certainly happening in other parts of the country!

The problem with severely adding tax to gasoline is that you are penalizing everybody who uses it, including those who live in rural areas that need a car to get around and will never benefit from transit or bridge subsidizing. May as well tax home heating oil and electricity while you're at it....

[Keith P.]

Keep in mind that the feds are imposing a carbon tax already to pay for all of their out-of-control spending and expanded bureaucracy. The taxpayer can only take so much punishment from govt.

[OldDartmouthMark]

That's a good point, actually.

Another thing about gas taxes is that the move is towards migrating motor vehicle powertrains to electric. Once there is a fair mix of electric and gas/diesel vehicles on the road, then the tax is only penalizing those who haven't or can't afford to switch over to new electric vehicles. It would not function as a deterrent to traffic, as Colin alludes to, rather just a revenue grab from a specific portion of the public.

[Colin May]

Let us assume a new bridge can be built for $500 million.
Financed with 30 year bond at 3% and with annual sinking fund.
Annual payments would be $25 million and debt free after 30 years.

In 2015/16 HHBC Toll revenue was $31 million

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Colin May

Let us assume a new bridge can be built for $500 million.
Financed with 30 year bond at 3% and with annual sinking fund.
Annual payments would be $25 million and debt free after 30 years.

In 2015/16 HHBC Toll revenue was $31 million

That's because they don't charge enough and they spend too much money on unnecessary things.

[Colin May]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

That's because they don't charge enough and they spend too much money on unnecessary things.

What tolls do you suggest ?
What are the 'unnecessary things' and how much do they cost ?
Where would HDBC get the $25 million to meet the annual debt debt payments ?
Not to mention the annual operating cost of a new bridge.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Keep in mind that the feds are imposing a carbon tax

Yes-ish...

already to pay for all of their out-of-control spending and expanded bureaucracy.

Um, no. Any carbon tax will be collected by the provinces, to do with as they wish...

The taxpayer can only take so much punishment from govt.

... including, if a province so chooses, to reduce other taxes.