Third Harbour Crossing

[Keith P.]

Glad I'm not the only one around here who can offend the delicate sensibilities of certain members...

Back to the subject at hand, the satellite view seems to indicate that with a bit of creative design you don't even need to disturb those sleeping in Fairview Lawn. You might need to take down the parkade at Bayers Rd SC or build a bridge diagonally over the rail cut to get enough room but it certainly seems feasible.

[IMG][/IMG]

[Nouvellecosse]

I'm inclined to believe that there isn't a desirable way to link the MacKay to highway 102, and that the only way to deal with the congestion people face when traveling between them is likely to deal with the area's congestion in general. I don't think the majority of traffic is caused by people traveling from Dartmouth to the south shore, but rather people traveling between Halifax peninsula and Halifax mainland (Clayton park/Fairview, etc.) and Bedford/Sackville and between Dartmouth to Halifax mainland. This is good in the sense that potential remedies to the congestion don't need to address MacKay-102 trips specifically, but bad because there probably isn't sufficient justification for major projects that address such trips specifically (other than perhaps the aesthetic thrill of connecting lines on a map).

Congestion in the area could be eased somewhat through increasing the transit modal split by making transit faster/more appealing using transit priority measures. However, if we're going to become a major city there comes a point at which we need to come to terms with congestion. We may be small enough now that if we spend enough money it may still be possible to build out of congestion, but if we keep growing that will quickly cease to be the case. Major cities always have more demand for road travel than can be satisfied unless they institute congestion pricing. It's just simple supply/demand economics that if something is provided at a lower point on the price curve than where it intersects with the demand curve, there will be a shortage because there's more demand than can be satisfied at that price.

In this case, when road use is free (or a very low price such as $1) demand is so large it basically impossible to satisfy. Therefore, every major city including those with the biggest and more impressive road infrastructure like LA are congestion restrained and have latent demand. The smart cities focus on creating ways to help people get around by bypassing such congestion using mass transportation systems using separate rights-of-way rather than trying to satisfy the demand for general road space. Some cities, such as London, also place a price on road use so that demand is price limited rather than supply limit allowing traffic to flow freely. The only alternative is to simply accept the congestion.

There are of course cases in which the total flow a road traffic is diminished by choke points which can be remedied to increase total road capacity. However, that doesn't change the fact that total capacity will never satisfy demand in a major city, meaning that any such project is very limited as a solution. So it's important to carefully consider whether such projects are truly worth the cost and effort.

Originally Posted by Saul Goode

I just find it, well...comical, I guess, to be accused of being "part of the problem" because I express disagreement with an idea propounded in, of all places, an internet forum (!) populated by a bunch of development fanboys who are just here to ideate about stuff being built.

I mean, problem? Really? To whom? In what world? Does anyone think that anyone in any kind of position to make any kind of decision about which highways get built in HRM gives a tinker's dam (bucket of warm spit, bag of dirt...take you pick) about what some poster to this forum of building nerds thinks or says? That I could conceivably be any sort of "problem" because of it? Yeah, that's it. I cause traffic jams on Joe Howe just by the sheer power of my obtuse, obstructionist thinking.

The whole notion is just so inane that it can only be funny.

I wouldn't take it too seriously and it's good that you're able to have a chuckle about it. Obviously there's nothing wrong with observing that a problem exists while simultaneously not believing that a solution someone has proposed it feasible. There are some problems that ultimately have no desirable solution, but that doesn't mean it's wrong to discuss the situation and explore possible remedies before settling on that conclusion.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

This is good in the sense that potential remedies to the congestion don't need to address MacKay-102 trips specifically, but bad because there probably isn't sufficient justification for major projects that address such trips specifically (other than perhaps the aesthetic thrill of connecting lines on a map).

I dunno. Do you have traffic counts? My impression is that this is a pretty busy area that's a mess of many different connections, and the MacKay to 102 route is really weird. It doesn't sound exotic to want to commute from Clayton Park to Burnside or go to Bayer's Lake from the Dartmouth side.

I'm not very pro road development but I think there are sometimes lynchpin projects or low-hanging fruit that just make sense. The Bayers Road widening was one of those. 102 improvements may be in that category too since there's the road network is so strange, the city has grown so much, and the area is fairly empty with poor land use.

In this case, when road use is free (or a very low price such as $1) demand is so large it basically impossible to satisfy.

There's an equilibrium of supply and demand and there will be more demand when the price falls, but more analysis is needed. For driving, a lot of the cost is time, not money, plus there is fuel, insurance, etc. A road with a $0 toll is not free to drive on, and we don't see unbounded demand at $0 tolls with streets that are gridlocked 24/7. Lots of Halifax streets were uncongested in the past and they were free back then too.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Congestion in the area could be eased somewhat through increasing the transit modal split by making transit faster/more appealing using transit priority measures. However, if we're going to become a major city there comes a point at which we need to come to terms with congestion. We may be small enough now that if we spend enough money it may still be possible to build out of congestion, but if we keep growing that will quickly cease to be the case. Major cities always have more demand for road travel than can be satisfied unless they institute congestion pricing. It's just simple supply/demand economics that if something is provided at a lower point on the price curve than where it intersects with the demand curve, there will be a shortage because there's more demand than can be satisfied at that price.

In this case, when road use is free (or a very low price such as $1) demand is so large it basically impossible to satisfy. Therefore, every major city including those with the biggest and more impressive road infrastructure like LA are congestion restrained and have latent demand. The smart cities focus on creating ways to help people get around by bypassing such congestion using mass transportation systems using separate rights-of-way rather than trying to satisfy the demand for general road space. Some cities, such as London, also place a price on road use so that demand is price limited rather than supply limit allowing traffic to flow freely. The only alternative is to simply accept the congestion.

The question to think about is how high is high enough to force enough people to transit, but not be too high that everyone cries fowl. I would think somewhere around the cash fare for transit one way to around $5 likely would be enough. I know some here might think that is too high, but that is kinda the point. It would make you consider where you live/work nd how you get there.

While I lived in Halifax, I lived in the North End. I was in the RCN, so I decided it would be best to be closer to work Even still, without the ability to get a parking pass, I walked or biked to work These were conscious choices I made about my commute. Had I stay there, I would have eventually bout a house on the outskirts. That means the potential of dealing with one of the 2 bridges. I might have ended up doing what many do and park at a transit terminal and take a bus in.

If HBC were interested in reducing congestion, they would raise the tolls regularly. The rate is too low to be a consideration for commuters.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by someone123

I dunno. Do you have traffic counts? My impression is that this is a pretty busy area that's a mess of many different connections, and the MacKay to 102 route is really weird. It doesn't sound exotic to want to commute from Clayton Park to Burnside or go to Bayer's Lake from the Dartmouth side.

Going between Clayton park (or most other points on the mainland) and Dartmouth doesn't require one to access the 102. For instance, I have co-workers who used to commute between my office in Burnside and their homes in Clayton park and they just used Titus and Main Ave. The only thing the 102 would really be useful for is access to Bayers lake, the south shore, and places in between like Lake Echo.

To be clear, my assertion isn't that no one would be traveling between the 102 and the MacKay; just that not enough people would be making it to justify a huge cost/effort civil engineering project. I don't have traffic counts for that specific trip, but if you have them I'm certainly open to being convinced.

Originally Posted by someone123

There's an equilibrium of supply and demand and there will be more demand when the price falls, but more analysis is needed. For driving, a lot of the cost is time, not money, plus there is fuel, insurance, etc. A road with a $0 toll is not free to drive on, and we don't see unbounded demand at $0 tolls with streets that are gridlocked 24/7. Lots of Halifax streets were uncongested in the past and they were free back then too.

What you're describing In terms of the cost of driving is largely what I referred to in short hand as a city being supply limited in the sense that once congestion takes too great a toll in terms of time and wasted gas, as people will be dissuaded in a similar way that they would be if the upfront price is too high. It's true that demand isn't literally infinite, but it is functionally unlimited relative to any reasonable ability to satiate it in the context of a major city. While I disagree that more analysis is needed on the general principle, as the dynamic is thoroughly observed and documented, I agree that it's good to point out that congestion limitation is often indirectly also cost limitation (either monetary or cost) and I see how that may not have been clear.

On the other hand, I do think I was clear that such insatiable demand refers specifically to major cities. Halifax is only flirting with that threshold (and was even smaller in the past) and may still be able to build it's way out of congestion (if we feel the cost is worth it) but that we'll need to adapt to congestion as we continue to grow. And yes, it's also true (although somewhat tautological) that latent demand is only present at times when demand in general is present.

None of this changes the fact that congestion will become a persistent part of life in Halifax as it grows. You may very well be right about the benefits of closing this gap in the highway network. I just haven't personally been convinced yet.

[Good Baklava]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

The issue is that Halifax likes to act like it's a small town, when it is the largest city east of Quebec City.

I agree that many locals incorrectly claim Halifax is a city with small town feel; it comes up a lot in NIMBY arguments. However, I think non-Maritimers classifying Halifax as a backwater in need of modernization is unfortunately more widespread. I can say HRM feels more urbanized than KW, Mississauga, or Brampton despite our smaller population. While there’s always room for critique, it’s pretty clear we have our own way of doing things that works well.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

While I disagree that more analysis is needed on the general principle, as the dynamic is thoroughly observed and documented, I agree that it's good to point out that congestion limitation is often indirectly also cost limitation (either monetary or cost) and I see how that may not have been clear.

I did not mean that more general analysis is needed, I mean that more analysis is needed to be able to say much about particular road improvement projects. Some are good, some are bad. I don't think it is correct to say that road improvements are never worth it because there will always be congestion. It is obvious that even if congestion is held constant and the maximum throughput is increased the number of trips supported goes up and that is a net win for people who are choosing to make those trips. Maybe this all sounds like an argument against a straw man but I have heard a lot of people and even planners repeat very simplistic mantras about traffic as if they're all that is needed.

We don't say the same thing about housing construction but the supply/demand relationship is similar. If the availability goes up, the price goes down, and people tend to consume all of the housing.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Good Baklava

I agree that many locals incorrectly claim Halifax is a city with small town feel; it comes up a lot in NIMBY arguments. However, I think non-Maritimers classifying Halifax as a backwater in need of modernization is unfortunately more widespread.

I wonder how much of the backwater classification has anything to do with the city and how much of it is just stereotypes, and it probably doesn't matter much anyway.

As you say the "small town" thing seems to be a mix of NIMBY sentiment locally and when it comes from elsewhere it seems to have an element of puffery (I am so sophisticated that only places with millions of people don't feel like small towns), or, if we're being less cynical, subjectivity. Eventually people should make some concessions to objectivity when deciding what is or isn't small town.

That being said Halifax does feel bigger than it used to and I think there are some specific significant qualitative changes in the urban core. One change is that there's a decent amount of stuff that's not just along a couple of main drags downtown (e.g. Agricola or Young Street), and there's more than you can explore on foot easily in a day. Another change is that the pedestrian-friendly parts feel less like "islands" now and the core areas like say Spring Garden Road feel less like they're 1/2 a block away from dreary empty lots (although part of Barrington is still like this; I think it is still at a fraction of what it could be if everything from Inglis to Cornwallis down to the water were developed well).

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Good Baklava

I agree that many locals incorrectly claim Halifax is a city with small town feel; it comes up a lot in NIMBY arguments. However, I think non-Maritimers classifying Halifax as a backwater in need of modernization is unfortunately more widespread. I can say HRM feels more urbanized than KW, Mississauga, or Brampton despite our smaller population. While there’s always room for critique, it’s pretty clear we have our own way of doing things that works well.

But does it? That attitude is part of the issue. To think that what you are doing is the best, yet your traffic is worse than other cities larger than it, such as KW is part of the general issue. Halifax is a good city with lts own great things. However, it does lack in transportation infrastructure. If you doubt that, why did they build an off ramp from the MacKay Bridge that was immediately replaced, and only was taking down in the last 10 years?

If you look at a place like KW, they listen to other ideas to make their city better. For example, they built an LRT. They used the ideas of Calgary and Edmonton as well as Ottawa, learned from them and made a good system that works for them.

Look at other cities with harbours. Take Boston. Do they only have one or 2 crossings? No, they have several. They even have transit only crossings. So, let's have Halifax learn from other cities and take what they have learned and make it their own.

Boston did a Big Dig to bury their highway through the city. Maybe the Circ through Halifax could be underground, but above the sea level. It solves the issues with figuring out how to put it above ground somewhere.

[Good Baklava]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

But does it? That attitude is part of the issue. To think that what you are doing is the best, yet your traffic is worse than other cities larger than it, such as KW is part of the general issue. Halifax is a good city with lts own great things. However, it does lack in transportation infrastructure. If you doubt that, why did they build an off ramp from the MacKay Bridge that was immediately replaced, and only was taking down in the last 10 years?

If you look at a place like KW, they listen to other ideas to make their city better. For example, they built an LRT. They used the ideas of Calgary and Edmonton as well as Ottawa, learned from them and made a good system that works for them.

Look at other cities with harbours. Take Boston. Do they only have one or 2 crossings? No, they have several. They even have transit only crossings. So, let's have Halifax learn from other cities and take what they have learned and make it their own.

Boston did a Big Dig to bury their highway through the city. Maybe the Circ through Halifax could be underground, but above the sea level. It solves the issues with figuring out how to put it above ground somewhere.

I know my post seems a bit hostile to any outside ideas, but the point is not about closing our eyes to success stories abroad. It is that Halifax is perfectly capable of choosing what outside ideas are beneficial for itself.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

The question to think about is how high is high enough to force enough people to transit, but not be too high that everyone cries fowl. I would think somewhere around the cash fare for transit one way to around $5 likely would be enough. I know some here might think that is too high, but that is kinda the point. It would make you consider where you live/work nd how you get there.

While I lived in Halifax, I lived in the North End. I was in the RCN, so I decided it would be best to be closer to work Even still, without the ability to get a parking pass, I walked or biked to work These were conscious choices I made about my commute. Had I stay there, I would have eventually bout a house on the outskirts. That means the potential of dealing with one of the 2 bridges. I might have ended up doing what many do and park at a transit terminal and take a bus in.

If HBC were interested in reducing congestion, they would raise the tolls regularly. The rate is too low to be a consideration for commuters.

I'm sure there would be backlash against any increase so it would require real political courage. I would actually be in favour of a third crossing if 1) it was primarily funded by tolls (either on the crossings themselves or a broader congestion charge), 2) it includes significant transit improvements such as dedicating the MacDonald's 3rd lane to transit after the new capacity comes online, and 3) it can be done in such a way that the approaches and additional traffic doesn't disrupt the existing urban fabric too severely. I would lean more toward a general congestion charge over higher bridge tolls because it seems not only less fair, but also less effective (at reducing congestion and raising funds) to target only those who cross the harbour. The caveat being that we'd need stronger infrastructure in place first so that the charge doesn't just push people and development off the peninsula. Whether it be a series of dedicated lanes for BRT, an LRT ROW, or commuter rail, if there is an attractive way to access the peninsula without driving I don't think that the charge would have an adverse effect. But if put in place with things as they currently are, it would.

I think the best option for the crossing would be an immersed tunnel. The portal could at the Parking lot behind the Westin, connecting traffic to L. Water and Terminal Rd/Hollis. It would stay immersed until George's island at which point it would rise out of an artificial island beside George's up onto a bridge the rest of the way. The underwater tunnel part would be about 1/2 km and the channel between the island the island and Pier 21 would have the clearance for larger ships entering the harbour, while the channel between the island and Woodside would have enough clearance under the bridge for small/medium vessels like the coast guard or pleasure craft.

This would solve the issue of the approaches. If a bridge were to span the whole way, in order for it to have enough clearance for huge cruise ships like the Queen Mary 2 at the Pier without the benefit of a hill, it would need extremely long approaches. It might even need a large spiral ramp. The QM2 has a draught of 10.3m and a height of 72m, so if the tunnel had a height of around 5m and we allow an extra 2.5m of clearance, and the water surface is 2.5m below road surface, the approach ramp would only need to descent about 20m versus a climb of over 3x greater for a bridge.

Other advantages are that tunnels tend to be much costlier than bridges, so having the tunnel portion be only about 1/3 the total length could save a lot of money. Not only would the tunnel not have to be very long, but the bridge wouldn't have to be nearly as high. It would still provide a major new landmark, be more interesting/scenic to cross, and there could perhaps even be a pedestrian crossing which is unlikely for a tunnel of that length.

There are several notable examples of this hybrid design including Chesapeake Bay Bridge–Tunnel in Virginia, the Tokyo Bay Aqua-Line, and the Øresund Bridge between Sweden and Denmark so the idea seems to be well demonstrated and generally feasible even if uncommon.

[atbw]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

I think the best option for the crossing would be an immersed tunnel. The portal could at the Parking lot behind the Westin, connecting traffic to L. Water and Terminal Rd/Hollis. It would stay immersed until George's island at which point it would rise out of an artificial island beside George's up onto a bridge the rest of the way. The underwater tunnel part would be about 1/2 km and the channel between the island the island and Pier 21 would have the clearance for larger ships entering the harbour, while the channel between the island and Woodside would have enough clearance under the bridge for small/medium vessels like the coast guard or pleasure craft.

This is actually an interesting idea – I hadn't realized that much of the large ship traffic passes between George's and Pier 21.

The South End is definitely a tricky area to work with for a tunnel approach, but I agree that a tunnel would be significantly less disruptive than the type of approach that a bridge would require.

Perhaps using some of the Superstore parking lot as the on ramp from Hollis, and having the off ramp line up with Lower Water would work?

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

I'm sure there would be backlash against any increase so it would require real political courage. I would actually be in favour of a third crossing if 1) it was primarily funded by tolls (either on the crossings themselves or a broader congestion charge), 2) it includes significant transit improvements such as dedicating the MacDonald's 3rd lane to transit after the new capacity comes online, and 3) it can be done in such a way that the approaches and additional traffic doesn't disrupt the existing urban fabric too severely. I would lean more toward a general congestion charge over higher bridge tolls because it seems not only less fair, but also less effective (at reducing congestion and raising funds) to target only those who cross the harbour. The caveat being that we'd need stronger infrastructure in place first so that the charge doesn't just push people and development off the peninsula. Whether it be a series of dedicated lanes for BRT, an LRT ROW, or commuter rail, if there is an attractive way to access the peninsula without driving I don't think that the charge would have an adverse effect. But if put in place with things as they currently are, it would.

I think the best option for the crossing would be an immersed tunnel. The portal could at the Parking lot behind the Westin, connecting traffic to L. Water and Terminal Rd/Hollis. It would stay immersed until George's island at which point it would rise out of an artificial island beside George's up onto a bridge the rest of the way. The underwater tunnel part would be about 1/2 km and the channel between the island the island and Pier 21 would have the clearance for larger ships entering the harbour, while the channel between the island and Woodside would have enough clearance under the bridge for small/medium vessels like the coast guard or pleasure craft.

This would solve the issue of the approaches. If a bridge were to span the whole way, in order for it to have enough clearance for huge cruise ships like the Queen Mary 2 at the Pier without the benefit of a hill, it would need extremely long approaches. It might even need a large spiral ramp. The QM2 has a draught of 10.3m and a height of 72m, so if the tunnel had a height of around 5m and we allow an extra 2.5m of clearance, and the water surface is 2.5m below road surface, the approach ramp would only need to descent about 20m versus a climb of over 3x greater for a bridge.

Other advantages are that tunnels tend to be much costlier than bridges, so having the tunnel portion be only about 1/3 the total length could save a lot of money. Not only would the tunnel not have to be very long, but the bridge wouldn't have to be nearly as high. It would still provide a major new landmark, be more interesting/scenic to cross, and there could perhaps even be a pedestrian crossing which is unlikely for a tunnel of that length.

There are several notable examples of this hybrid design including Chesapeake Bay Bridge–Tunnel in Virginia, the Tokyo Bay Aqua-Line, and the Øresund Bridge between Sweden and Denmark so the idea seems to be well demonstrated and generally feasible even if uncommon.

One would hope that the third crossing would have an LRT on it as well as HOV/bus lanes.

The idea of a hybrid design might work, but dealing with Georges Island could be difficult as it is owned by Parks Canada.

The USS Doris Miller is a new aircraft carrier with the US Navy. it has a draught of 12m. It is the first in it's class. No doubt that one will be stationed out of Norfolk, and one day it might want to come to Halifax. The immersed tunnel would be problematic as it would limit the draught a ship visiting Halifax would need to be to fit. This may have the Federal Government step in and require a bored tunnel.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Doris_Miller

I don't doubt that this will get federal funding as it would be a major infrastructure project.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Good Baklava

I agree that many locals incorrectly claim Halifax is a city with small town feel; it comes up a lot in NIMBY arguments. However, I think non-Maritimers classifying Halifax as a backwater in need of modernization is unfortunately more widespread. I can say HRM feels more urbanized than KW, Mississauga, or Brampton despite our smaller population. While there’s always room for critique, it’s pretty clear we have our own way of doing things that works well.

Well said and thank you. That attitude tends to get under my skin a little, but I brush it off as just being part of the forum. It's good to know that somebody else sees it as well.

[Saul Goode]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

The USS Doris Miller is a new aircraft carrier with the US Navy. it has a draught of 12m. It is the first in it's class. No doubt that one will be stationed out of Norfolk, and one day it might want to come to Halifax. The immersed tunnel would be problematic as it would limit the draught a ship visiting Halifax would need to be to fit. This may have the Federal Government step in and require a bored tunnel.

The draft of the Ford-class CVNs (of which Doris Miller is one) is not significantly greater - only about 2’ greater, at 39’ - than the Nimitz-class carriers which have visited Halifax numerous times (the QM2, by comparison, draws only about 30’). The depth of the channel between Georges Island and the waterfront averages about three times that for most of its width, so it’s really not a factor.

But more to the point, the Nimitz-class CVNs always anchor at Anchorage 1 or 2, both of which are south and east of the island. They never proceed up harbor and, as nukes, never tie up alongside, so it’s quite unlikely either they or the Fords would ever have occasion to be between Georges and the waterfront anyway.

Also, for the record, Doris Miller is not the first in its class, it’s the fourth.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

One would hope that the third crossing would have an LRT on it as well as HOV/bus lanes.

The idea of a hybrid design might work, but dealing with Georges Island could be difficult as it is owned by Parks Canada.

The USS Doris Miller is a new aircraft carrier with the US Navy. it has a draught of 12m. It is the first in it's class. No doubt that one will be stationed out of Norfolk, and one day it might want to come to Halifax. The immersed tunnel would be problematic as it would limit the draught a ship visiting Halifax would need to be to fit. This may have the Federal Government step in and require a bored tunnel.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Doris_Miller

I don't doubt that this will get federal funding as it would be a major infrastructure project.

As Saul pointed out, the aircraft carriers wouldn't be entering that far into the harbour, but the main issue with the approaches pertains to how deep the tunnel (or how high the bridge) needs to be when it first leaves land and begins to cross the water. The deepest draughts that the port can currently handle is 16.8m post-panamax vessels, but the tunnel would have extra length to drop those additional few metres by the centre of the channel. Only the large cruise ships dock at the port of Halifax piers forcing the tunnel or bridge to have clearance for them right at the water's edge. With the current bridges the tallest vessels would be passing under them near the centre of the main spans rather than hugging the sides of the channel. Also, the current bridges aren't high enough to handle some vessel visiting the port including the QM2, but they don't need to be since those vessels don't need to reach that far into the harbour. So it's an matter of not only total clearance, but also where that clearance is needed.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Going between Clayton park (or most other points on the mainland) and Dartmouth doesn't require one to access the 102. For instance, I have co-workers who used to commute between my office in Burnside and their homes in Clayton park and they just used Titus and Main Ave. The only thing the 102 would really be useful for is access to Bayers lake, the south shore, and places in between like Lake Echo.

To be clear, my assertion isn't that no one would be traveling between the 102 and the MacKay; just that not enough people would be making it to justify a huge cost/effort civil engineering project. I don't have traffic counts for that specific trip, but if you have them I'm certainly open to being convinced.

I think you are overlooking that there are other populated areas that would benefit from a connection between the MacKay and the 102. For example, the Timberlea/Beechville/Lakeside area has a population of around 25,000. Then there's the Prospect/hwy333/Tantallon area. It would probably also pick up commuters from the Spryfield/Harrietsfield/Herring Cove areas as well... etc.

I'm sure a significant number of those residents work in Burnside and surrounding areas, and currently have to get creative to find the 'best' route for their daily commute. These are just a few examples. IMHO the effect on traffic congestion for the city connector roads would be noticeable.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

I think the best option for the crossing would be an immersed tunnel. The portal could at the Parking lot behind the Westin, connecting traffic to L. Water and Terminal Rd/Hollis. It would stay immersed until George's island at which point it would rise out of an artificial island beside George's up onto a bridge the rest of the way. The underwater tunnel part would be about 1/2 km and the channel between the island the island and Pier 21 would have the clearance for larger ships entering the harbour, while the channel between the island and Woodside would have enough clearance under the bridge for small/medium vessels like the coast guard or pleasure craft.

Interesting idea, but my first thought was about what grades would be required to make the entry point so close to the water, such as the Westin parking lot, and then transition above ground to a bridge in a relatively short distance. Car/truck traffic aside, if you are planning to run rail transit through the tunnel you would likely need much longer approaches which could change traffic flows considerably and/or possibly make the tunnel/bridge connection impractical.

That said, I'm not familiar with the standards or calculations required, so maybe it wouldn't be as bad as I am thinking.

[DigitalNinja]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I think you are overlooking that there are other populated areas that would benefit from a connection between the MacKay and the 102. For example, the Timberlea/Beechville/Lakeside area has a population of around 25,000. Then there's the Prospect/hwy333/Tantallon area. It would probably also pick up commuters from the Spryfield/Harrietsfield/Herring Cove areas as well... etc.

I'm sure a significant number of those residents work in Burnside and surrounding areas, and currently have to get creative to find the 'best' route for their daily commute. These are just a few examples. IMHO the effect on traffic congestion for the city connector roads would be noticeable.

Seems like the only way for a connection would be to build a raised highway section above Joe Howe or over the train line and connect that way. But I agree a connection to a new bridge is needed. With 6 lanes of traffic I don't think the roads feeding into it could keep up at all and they are already having trouble now.

It would be great to have more people use transit but the transit infrastructure isn't there and many areas are still underserved by transit. IMO for transit to be viable a good majority of the population off peninsula needs to be within a 5 minute walk to a bus stop which I don't think we are close to being there yet.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I think you are overlooking that there are other populated areas that would benefit from a connection between the MacKay and the 102. For example, the Timberlea/Beechville/Lakeside area has a population of around 25,000. Then there's the Prospect/hwy333/Tantallon area. It would probably also pick up commuters from the Spryfield/Harrietsfield/Herring Cove areas as well... etc.

I'm sure a significant number of those residents work in Burnside and surrounding areas, and currently have to get creative to find the 'best' route for their daily commute. These are just a few examples. IMHO the effect on traffic congestion for the city connector roads would be noticeable.

There is an issue that seems to still exist. People from the old cities and town still only think of those instead of the entire area. It shows in the road networks that are built only to serve the locals. For instance, the Bedford Highway should be at least 4 lanes for the whole length. This is true with other roads. So, people of the former city of Halifax are looking at the harbour crossings only to serve their needs.