Third Harbour Crossing

[Antigonish]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

During my career my first job was in Burnside when I was living in Halifax. The commute then was easy because it was indeed against the bulk of the rush-hour traffic. However over the last 10-15 years the equation has changed and while perhaps the two flows are not equal, traffic at rush hour is heavy in either direction.

My brother was working for a company in Burnside a few years ago but he didn't own a car (his previous employer was DT, took transit) so his commute was horrible by the sounds of it, like an hour+ one way to take a bus out there. Pretty sure he quit as soon as another opportunity arose strictly for that reason.

Originally Posted by Good Baklava

I wonder if a cable-stayed bridge will take its place, they seem to be all the rage these days.

Wouldn't this be a conflict with bridge heights for container ships though? It seems like cable-stayed bridges have relatively flat bridge decks so the approaches would probably have to be massive to get on it.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

A replacement or refurbishment of the MacKay Bridge will be needed whether or not a third crossing is built. This is not a thing where you can ignore the MacKay in favour of a third crossing. As much as we call it the "New Bridge", it's not much newer than the Macdonald was before it was rebuilt. And yes, as Keith mentioned the Macdonald is basically a brand new bridge since the Big Lift.

I personally think a third crossing is inevitable, so HRM should just get on with building it before replacing the McKay.

The benefit of this would be that you would maintain two crossings across the harbour while the McKay is replaced (thus minimizing disruption), and by doing so, you would be able to allow for the McKay replacement to fit into the current footprint (after it is removed), and you could also continue to use the built infrastructure on either side of the bridge for the replacement.

Win-win.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

I personally think a third crossing is inevitable, so HRM should just get on with building it before replacing the McKay.

The benefit of this would be that you would maintain two crossings across the harbour while the McKay is replaced (thus minimizing disruption), and by doing so, you would be able to allow for the McKay replacement to fit into the current footprint (after it is removed), and you could also continue to use the built infrastructure on either side of the bridge for the replacement.

Win-win.

I unfortunately don't see a third crossing ever happening, much as I think it would be reasonable. The much-discussed South End crossing to Woodside would make sense, and take pressure off traffic into the North End, but I can't see the city/province incurring the cost of the Big Lift, and a MacKay replacement, and a brand-new bridge. And the reconfiguration of land use on both the Halifax and Dartmouth side would be challenging to say the least.

I think it would make sense at the very least to go big with the MacKay replacement, and at the same time double down on more frequent ferry service, including a route to Bedford.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

I think it would make sense at the very least to go big with the MacKay replacement, and at the same time double down on more frequent ferry service, including a route to Bedford.

Would rail to Bedford not be more efficient and more rapid? I can't remember what the issue is with the rail lines from DT to Bedford but i'm sure someone will remind me.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by JHikka

Would rail to Bedford not be more efficient and more rapid? I can't remember what the issue is with the rail lines from DT to Bedford but i'm sure someone will remind me.

Mostly negotiations with CNR regarding prioritization of commuter rail traffic I believe.

Personally, I like the idea of commuter rail, and Halifax is a prime candidate as far as I'm concerned. All it will take is some money and a provincial Premier willing to take on the task.

[Saul Goode]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

I can't see the city/province incurring the cost of the Big Lift, and a MacKay replacement, and a brand-new bridge. And the reconfiguration of land use on both the Halifax and Dartmouth side would be challenging to say the least.

Those costs are not borne by HRM or the province. They're financed by the bridge commission (aka "Halifax Harbour Bridges").

[Citizen_Bane]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

I personally think a third crossing is inevitable, so HRM should just get on with building it before replacing the McKay.

The benefit of this would be that you would maintain two crossings across the harbour while the McKay is replaced (thus minimizing disruption), and by doing so, you would be able to allow for the McKay replacement to fit into the current footprint (after it is removed), and you could also continue to use the built infrastructure on either side of the bridge for the replacement.

Win-win.

I can see a third and a fourth crossing being built but only if those bridges are light rail/pedestrian/cycle. I see one bridge parallel to the McKay and the other crossing the Northwest Arm. However, it seems more likely that we'll be seeing more ferry service rather than LRT. A mistake I think if the city is to continue to grow to one million plus residents. However, if ferries it be, I hope the city would focus the service on commuters coming into the area via car and provide a place for commuters to park. Having ferries and parkades in place and then taking down the McKay before building a replacement for the Mackay could be a sure way to guarantee some early ferry success.

[Citizen_Bane]

Originally Posted by JHikka

Would rail to Bedford not be more efficient and more rapid? I can't remember what the issue is with the rail lines from DT to Bedford but i'm sure someone will remind me.

IMHO rail is absolutely the way to go. You can quite literally expand a rail system forever whereas the harbour is finite. Ferries are high polluters and somewhat susceptible to poor weather. Rail is so much easier to load/unload...to start and stop... to well, pretty much everything. So screw CN. We have a federal government with a mandate to help save the planet so surely it can be mandated that the existing CN ROW can be shared. Augment the rail beds if necessary. Add tracks. Negotiate. Get some fees in place. Surely it's not an impossibility?

[Saul Goode]

Originally Posted by Citizen_Bane

Ferries are high polluters

Well...compared to what? Diesel locomotives? Hmm...

I don't think you can categorically state that "ferries are high polluters". That depends entirely on what sorts of propulsion systems they use. They need not be dirty at all these days.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by Saul Goode

Those costs are not borne by HRM or the province. They're financed by the bridge commission (aka "Halifax Harbour Bridges").

I'm guessing a billion-dollar project like this would have to be financed in part by government, though? Could be wrong, I guess I assumed.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Saul Goode

Well...compared to what? Diesel locomotives? Hmm...

I don't think you can categorically state that "ferries are high polluters". That depends entirely on what sorts of propulsion systems they use. They need not be dirty at all these days.

I recall posting in this forum sometime in the past that electric ferries are part of the long-term plan for the system. Can't find the link at the moment though.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

I'm guessing a billion-dollar project like this would have to be financed in part by government, though? Could be wrong, I guess I assumed.

I don't think the numbers can work out for the HDBC to fund a new bridge through tolls. Their revenue was around $33M in 2018-2019. If they expanded the bridges they would probably collect a bit more, and these are multi-decade infrastructure projects, but they need to fund maintenance and interest on their debt too.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

I'm guessing a billion-dollar project like this would have to be financed in part by government, though? Could be wrong, I guess I assumed.

There is a good chance that a new crossing would see federal funding.

[Good Baklava]

I see a third crossing as the solution for when all other practical options have been exhausted including bridge replacements, commuter rail, ferries and new highways.

Assuming the city continues to rapidly grow, I roughly estimate it would probably only become close to reality sometime in the latter half of this century.

Just my opinion & assumptions ^^^

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Good Baklava

I see a third crossing as the solution for when all other practical options have been exhausted including bridge replacements, commuter rail, ferries and new highways.

It sounds like there have been a few somewhat separate yet partially overlapping questions. One is end of life or maintenance costs on the MacKay versus replacement, another is the notion of having a southern crossing, and a third is total bridge capacity.

I think the southern crossing is somewhat problematic because there's no plausible plan for connecting it up with suitable roads on the peninsula side or carrying that through to the mainland.

If replacing the MacKay makes sense then it probably also makes sense to add a couple extra lanes and the active transportation paths to future proof it and get some more value. There is an interesting question of how that northern area could be made friendlier to mixed traffic and mixed uses on both sides.

I'm not sure it makes sense to hold anything up under the assumption that commuter rail will save the day. It would not serve cross-harbour traffic well and it's been contemplated for decades with nothing to show for the many studies that have been done.

There's another interesting question which is whether or not Halifax is losing out somewhat by underdeveloping the southern part of the metro, causing people to travel farther than they otherwise would, and how that could be remedied. I think this is a problem and it affects all of Mainland South, the deep South End, and the area from around Woodside to Eastern Passage. You can see on a map how Dartmouth is roughly semi-circular with a big chunk missing, and the access between the central part of Dartmouth and bridges and the south is poor.

[Good Baklava]

Originally Posted by someone123

There's another interesting question which is whether or not Halifax is losing out somewhat by underdeveloping the southern part of the metro, causing people to travel farther than they otherwise would, and how that could be remedied. I think this is a problem and it affects all of Mainland South, the deep South End, and the area from around Woodside to Eastern Passage. You can see on a map how Dartmouth is roughly semi-circular with a big chunk missing, and the access between the central part of Dartmouth and bridges and the south is poor.

I have no disagreements about South End Halifax. I think back to the controversy surrounding the Young st. demolitions; the proposals had some merit but were unfortunately overshadowed by Tsimiklis and his Sahota-styled property management (ok, that’s overkill). I really think anyone else making proposals in the area will face the same barriers. I believe it would be much more efficient to add density to the South End, with a bridge connecting Purcell’s Cove and new development there, mostly because the arm would be cheaper to bridge. I don’t see that as most practical, but still more practical than a third crossing.

The limitations on Woodside appear more linked to the widespread industrial uses, which aren’t necessarily misplaced.

[atbw]

Quick content clarifying the proposal for those who don’t subscribe to the Examiner:

The new bridge would be built immediately to the North of the Mackay, keeping it operational during construction. It’s 6 lanes would be comprised of 4 traffic lanes and 2 bus/HOV/emerg lanes plus AT and pedestrian paths. A shift North can be pretty easily taken in by the Dartmouth approach, but will require an s-bend on the Halifax side. Perhaps that can be ironed out a bit in the Windsor St exchange.

One thing I absolutely want to see is the removal of toll plazas in exchange for a better method. It seems like a lot of the bridge gum-ups stem from trucks, the change line, or just the slow down around the plaza.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by atbw

Quick content clarifying the proposal for those who don’t subscribe to the Examiner:

The new bridge would be built immediately to the North of the Mackay, keeping it operational during construction. It’s 6 lanes would be comprised of 4 traffic lanes and 2 bus/HOV/emerg lanes plus AT and pedestrian paths. A shift North can be pretty easily taken in by the Dartmouth approach, but will require an s-bend on the Halifax side. Perhaps that can be ironed out a bit in the Windsor St exchange.

One thing I absolutely want to see is the removal of toll plazas in exchange for a better method. It seems like a lot of the bridge gum-ups stem from trucks, the change line, or just the slow down around the plaza.

Why not leave the old bridge there and use the new one for one way and the old one for the other way? That would mean 4 lanes each way plus the HOV lanes.

[Summerville]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Why not leave the old bridge there and use the new one for one way and the old one for the other way? That would mean 4 lanes each way plus the HOV lanes.

I believe that the MacKay will need a large mid-life repair job that will cost a lot in comparison to what was done on the MacDonald based on how it was built.

I heard that this was an option, but I guess the recent third party report confirmed the Bridge Commission’s early assumptions.

[Keith P.]

If the MacKay is falling apart as seems to be the case, you can discuss ferries and commuter rail (and if you're a loony, gondolas) all you want but those will not fix the core problem. Virtually all heavy truck traffic is funneled onto the MacKay, which probably has had a lot to do with its structural problems. To get that truck traffic from the Halifax side to the Dartmouth side and vice-versa, you need a bridge or bridges (or tunnel equivalent). Full stop.

What these discussions highlight quite well is the ludicrously low tolls that HDBC have been charging for decades. It is not unusual for major bridges elsewhere to charge tolls in the $5 to $10 range. Given the costs involved, ours should be the same.