Cogswell Interchange

[egb]

I should be clear, I think Cogswell generally is one of the better municipal projects I can remember and the decision making along the way has been really good. i.e. selling the land for new construction rather than building something of questionable value, substantially increasing the density, etc. This very easily could have gone awry and they've done a really good job by and large.

My gripe is relatively minor in the grand scheme of things

[Empire]

Originally Posted by egb

I should be clear, I think Cogswell generally is one of the better municipal projects I can remember and the decision making along the way has been really good. i.e. selling the land for new construction rather than building something of questionable value, substantially increasing the density, etc. This very easily could have gone awry and they've done a really good job by and large.

My gripe is relatively minor in the grand scheme of things

Barrington Street should have been U/G, a new 16,000+ seat arena should be planned for the TradeMart site (would need to be purchased and demolished) while there is an open footprint, more plaza space (stone - art etc.) should be incorporated into the site, much more height (~40fl.) should be allowed to accommodate the extra plaza space.

A requirement for rebuilding of lost architecture should be dedicated to the area connecting Granville Mall. Quality materials should be strictly legislated with no exceptions. Chunky mundane structures such as Trinity would be disallowed and an overall perspective for the resulting skyline should be carefully examined. At present, the skyline is showing lack of attention to detail!

This would be a start!

[someone123]

Originally Posted by egb

My gripe is relatively minor in the grand scheme of things

The public space built so far looks so-so, but that's also minor. If you don't like the grass you can redo it. It sounds like the SGR streetscaping was tweaked a bit after being originally completed, and that may even be a better strategy.

The lack of underground infrastructure is a bigger problem and is much more expensive to change after the fact. The transit aspect looks like it's from 2009, designed for a smaller city with lower growth prospects. This fits in with the wider problem that there doesn't seem to be any overall long-term transit direction paired with a regional land use plan.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Empire

Barrington Street should have been U/G, a new 16,000+ seat arena should be planned for the TradeMart site (would need to be purchased and demolished) while there is an open footprint, more plaza space (stone - art etc.) should be incorporated into the site, much more height (~40fl.) should be allowed to accommodate the extra plaza space.

A requirement for rebuilding of lost architecture should be dedicated to the area connecting Granville Mall. Quality materials should be strictly legislated with no exceptions. Chunky mundane structures such as Trinity would be disallowed and an overall perspective for the resulting skyline should be carefully examined. At present, the skyline is showing lack of attention to detail!

This would be a start!

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by someone123

The lack of underground infrastructure is a bigger problem and is much more expensive to change after the fact. The transit aspect looks like it's from 2009, designed for a smaller city with lower growth prospects. This fits in with the wider problem that there doesn't seem to be any overall long-term transit direction paired with a regional land use plan.

I think this is a problem that will come back to haunt us in the future.

[someone123]

They could have done a cut-and-cover tunnel running from roughly Scotia Square (with the ferry terminal nearby) up Cogswell and across the Common over to Robie. This would have tied in with perhaps the best alignment in the BRT plan, which could one day be rail. You can build a bus tunnel and convert it to rail as was done in Seattle. I think the cost would be lower too these days if it were for battery electrics. But the wider plan isn't really in place so there's not much sense of how this would all connect.

I think Halifax might one day want some kind of small underground transit loop around the urban core, with a mix of LRT (1-2 lines) and BRT serving the suburbs. Undergrounding really opens up streetscaping options around Barrington and Spring Garden too, and just makes them all-around more pleasant areas. Getting rid of the trucks downtown and replacing most diesel buses with electrics with a lot running underground would be a big improvement.

[teddifax]

I love Halifax, but it has NEVER been known for forward-thinking!!!

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by someone123

They could have done a cut-and-cover tunnel running from roughly Scotia Square (with the ferry terminal nearby) up Cogswell and across the Common over to Robie. This would have tied in with perhaps the best alignment in the BRT plan, which could one day be rail. You can build a bus tunnel and convert it to rail as was done in Seattle. I think the cost would be lower too these days if it were for battery electrics. But the wider plan isn't really in place so there's not much sense of how this would all connect.

I think Halifax might one day want some kind of small underground transit loop around the urban core, with a mix of LRT (1-2 lines) and BRT serving the suburbs. Undergrounding really opens up streetscaping options around Barrington and Spring Garden too, and just makes them all-around more pleasant areas. Getting rid of the trucks downtown and replacing most diesel buses with electrics with a lot running underground would be a big improvement.

I know you've been posting similar thoughts on this forum for years, and it makes so much sense. Therefore it just amazes me that it has never seemed to even be on the radar of our elected officials. I suspect that in 20 years they will be pushing ideas like banning cars in the downtown (or charging a fee so that only the well-off people can afford to drive there) to make up for their lack of foresight in advancing transit (or at least laying out the infrastructure groundwork to allow it to happen in the future). Had they done that, they would allow a decrease in car traffic happen organically by providing better transit alternatives. I wouldn't want to drive if I could just hop on an efficiently-scheduled train to take me downtown, why would anybody? No parking, no traffic headaches... it would be great.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by teddifax

I love Halifax, but it has NEVER been known for forward-thinking!!!

So true... it's sad that we can't even think that it could be possible...

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by someone123

They could have done a cut-and-cover tunnel running from roughly Scotia Square (with the ferry terminal nearby) up Cogswell and across the Common over to Robie. This would have tied in with perhaps the best alignment in the BRT plan, which could one day be rail. You can build a bus tunnel and convert it to rail as was done in Seattle. I think the cost would be lower too these days if it were for battery electrics. But the wider plan isn't really in place so there's not much sense of how this would all connect.

I think Halifax might one day want some kind of small underground transit loop around the urban core, with a mix of LRT (1-2 lines) and BRT serving the suburbs. Undergrounding really opens up streetscaping options around Barrington and Spring Garden too, and just makes them all-around more pleasant areas. Getting rid of the trucks downtown and replacing most diesel buses with electrics with a lot running underground would be a big improvement.

You would have thought it might have occurred to some of those gold-plated 6-figure HRM bureaucrats when they saw how much dirt needed to be moved for their Cogswell Interchange dreams to come true that maybe this would be time for some undergrounding of Transit, but nooooo….

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I know you've been posting similar thoughts on this forum for years, and it makes so much sense. Therefore it just amazes me that it has never seemed to even be on the radar of our elected officials. I suspect that in 20 years they will be pushing ideas like banning cars in the downtown (or charging a fee so that only the well-off people can afford to drive there) to make up for their lack of foresight in advancing transit (or at least laying out the infrastructure groundwork to allow it to happen in the future). Had they done that, they would allow a decrease in car traffic happen organically by providing better transit alternatives. I wouldn't want to drive if I could just hop on an efficiently-scheduled train to take me downtown, why would anybody? No parking, no traffic headaches... it would be great.

All the cities that have implemented congestion pricing so far (most famously Singapore, London, and Stockholm) all had large and well used urban rail networks long before congestion pricing was initiated and it didn't prevent congestion or the need for congestion pricing. Having well used urban rail increases the overall number of people who can enter the city by allowing people to bypass congestion. It also reduces the percentage of people entering the city by private vehicle by giving an alternative.

But it does NOT reduce congestion or the total number of vehicles entering the city. If it did, none of the cities with congestion pricing would have had needed it to begin with. But they did need it because congestion was costing their economies huge amount of money since commercial vehicles such as delivery vans weren't able to complete their work in an efficient or predictable manner. The main difference between them and a place like Halifax is that they mainly need their roads for commercial purposes since people can travel by rail. But we need our roads for both purposes since we have no rail, so keeping them flowing smoothly is even more important in our case.

I'd love to have trains much as the next person and I would use them on a regular basic. But we need realistic expectations as to what it would and wouldn't accomplish. The whole "transit eliminating congestion" trope is one of the oldest and most frustrating myths around nowadays. Transit rich cities like London and NY, transit moderate cities like Toronto and Chicago, and transit poor cities like Houston and LA are all subject to road congestion. And driving in major cities only remains affordable for low income people by creating large amounts of subsidized parking which creates pressure devote more downtown space to cars resulting in buildings being demoed for parking spaces. Well, keep driving in the city affordable for poor people to the extent that it is to begin with, which it actually isn't. The only reason Halifax has managed to escape these issues thus far is because we're just starting to move into large city territory. But if we're going to actually become one, we need to leave this kind of naive, small-town behind.

[someone123]

It's complicated and many tomes have been written on the subject but consider that if you add a train next to a road, you can still have a whole lot more people getting to their destinations faster than they otherwise would have regardless of the traffic speed on the road. So in practice the travel options can improve (dramatically) even if congestion isn't solved. This is the normal situation for areas with very low throughput surface streets and rapid transit (like Yonge Street along the surface vs. the subway under it; Yonge is slow but the vast majority of trips are on the subway).

I wonder if commercial vehicles traveling at all hours really are the issue in Halifax and not commuters or small trips around the core that could be helped by better transit. Container trucks are a problem because of the racket and traffic they cause but the right fix there is to move the containers out by the rail lines that already exist. Another issue is poor highway connectivity that brings suburban through-traffic onto some streets around the periphery of the urban core, mostly around the 102 and Windsor St Exchange area. Fixes for these are supposedly in the works.

I think one "medium city" problem that will likely happen in Halifax is high density residential and employment growth around the urban core that can't be served by transit to a small number of points and walking. And the more growth there is with bad travel options off peninsula, the more people will want to cram onto the peninsula. Surface travel will get slower and slower.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by someone123

It's complicated and many tomes have been written on the subject but consider that if you add a train next to a road, you can still have a whole lot more people getting to their destinations faster than they otherwise would have regardless of the traffic speed on the road. So in practice the travel options can improve (dramatically) even if congestion isn't solved. This is the normal situation for areas with very low throughput surface streets and rapid transit (like Yonge Street along the surface vs. the subway under it; Yonge is slow but the vast majority of trips are on the subway).

Yes exactly. This is what so many people get wrong including many public officials who should know better. Rather than solving congestion, transit (in dedicated ROWs) helps people get where they're going despite congestion by allowing them to bypass it. The only thing that actually solves congestion once a city gets beyond a certain size is congestion pricing.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

All the cities that have implemented congestion pricing so far (most famously Singapore, London, and Stockholm) all had large and well used urban rail networks long before congestion pricing was initiated and it didn't prevent congestion or the need for congestion pricing. Having well used urban rail increases the overall number of people who can enter the city by allowing people to bypass congestion. It also reduces the percentage of people entering the city by private vehicle by giving an alternative.

But it does NOT reduce congestion or the total number of vehicles entering the city. If it did, none of the cities with congestion pricing would have had needed it to begin with. But they did need it because congestion was costing their economies huge amount of money since commercial vehicles such as delivery vans weren't able to complete their work in an efficient or predictable manner. The main difference between them and a place like Halifax is that they mainly need their roads for commercial purposes since people can travel by rail. But we need our roads for both purposes since we have no rail, so keeping them flowing smoothly is even more important in our case.

I'd love to have trains much as the next person and I would use them on a regular basic. But we need realistic expectations as to what it would and wouldn't accomplish. The whole "transit eliminating congestion" trope is one of the oldest and most frustrating myths around nowadays. Transit rich cities like London and NY, transit moderate cities like Toronto and Chicago, and transit poor cities like Houston and LA are all subject to road congestion. And driving in major cities only remains affordable for low income people by creating large amounts of subsidized parking which creates pressure devote more downtown space to cars resulting in buildings being demoed for parking spaces. Well, keep driving in the city affordable for poor people to the extent that it is to begin with, which it actually isn't. The only reason Halifax has managed to escape these issues thus far is because we're just starting to move into large city territory. But if we're going to actually become one, we need to leave this kind of naive, small-town behind.

So you’re essentially surmising that if we had top-notch transit that people would still rather sit in a traffic jam, and struggle to find expensive parking, leaving transit underused? Then why bother with transit at all since people will still consider the car to be a superior way to get around?

Perhaps the city should just be designed with business centres spread around to the suburbs so everybody isn’t travelling to the same place at the same time?

Regardless, I didn’t mean to trigger you on the downtown entry fee thing. My viewpoint has always been that a city becomes a better place to live by improving things vs restrictions to force people into doing things a certain way dictated by “those who know better than you”. The vision of the future being pushed by some is starting to feel a little dystopian to me, and I’m not sure that’s what I want for my city. But then maybe I’m just an old fart, as suggested by another member of the forum already…

[someone123]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

My viewpoint has always been that a city becomes a better place to live by improving things vs restrictions to force people into doing things a certain way dictated by “those who know better than you”. The vision of the future being pushed by some is starting to feel a little dystopian to me, and I’m not sure that’s what I want for my city.

I think there are a lot of technocratic solutions that would be good in theory but in practice are hard to implement and completely fall short politically. Halifax currently has a city council that can't manage tents in front of City Hall; they're probably not going to push forward a unique-to-Canada congestion pricing that forces some traffic off the peninsula. If the province and municipality coordinate they might build some improved transit. Politically, it's much easier to sell new services than restrictions.

(I believe a lot of what's wrong in our politics these days is political groups that try to get 50% + 1 or a FPTP victory and then implement changes that a lot of people aren't really on board with; even if it's "for the greater good", which is usually debatable for marginally-supported policies, this often results in flip-flopping and waste. One alternative is to sell your proposal so you get a large majority on board instead of fighting just to get the minimum support.)

[Arrdeeharharharbour]

It strikes me as odd or even wrong that resolution to traffic congestion should be viewed solely from the perspective of the automobile rather than that of the human. For example, if I'm sitting/standing comfortably on a train speeding to my destination past congested traffic, then I think it's fair to say that from my perspective congestion is solved. Traffic congestion can exist with all its negative implications (EMO, health & safety, economic, etc.) whilst still providing a solution for citizens to traffic congestion through a viable and desirable public transit system.

[Drybrain]

As I said on this thread a while ago, Halifax is definitely not going to become the first city in Canada to implement congestion pricing. Vancouver, which is in a better position in terms of infrastructure and overall social acceptance for such a thing, rejected it last tear. Even if the city implemented it (almost impossible to imagine), there's not a chance the provincial government would let it stand. Some people in rural NS already resent having to drive to the city hospitals, for example, or to other services on the peninsula. If they had to pay a congestion charge on top of that, they'd probably start howling for everything to be moved to Enfield or something. It would simply not stand; it's not going to happen.

I also think that honestly it would be a mistake, for two reasons

A: It would backfire politically and probably open the door for a reactionary pendulum-swing away from transit-first, active-transit priorities. There's a certain cohort of people who grumble about anything that makes driving marginally more difficult.

B: Let's say it's true that congestion pricing is the only thing that can meaningfully reduce traffic congestion, and that even building a lot more transit would only have a modest effect. The point remains that transit has to be standing by, immediately, for those who are deterred by the congestion charge. The alternative is that people just choose not to travel into the congestion-charge zone at all, and the urban core declines as a destination. That's not what we want. As far as I know, the only real congestion pricing in North America (besides bridge and road tolls, which of course we actually have) is in Manhattan, which doesn't have to worry about a few suburbanites deciding to stay in New Jersey or upstate.

But the Halifax peninsula? I honestly believe it's becoming one of the healthiest urban cores in Canada, a real small-city urban success story. But it's still a small city surrounded by suburban and rural communities, served by so-so transit and poorly connected except by road to far-flung communities.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Regardless, I didn’t mean to trigger you on the downtown entry fee thing. My viewpoint has always been that a city becomes a better place to live by improving things vs restrictions to force people into doing things a certain way dictated by “those who know better than you”. The vision of the future being pushed by some is starting to feel a little dystopian to me, and I’m not sure that’s what I want for my city. But then maybe I’m just an old fart, as suggested by another member of the forum already…

I agree, Mark. However you may have triggered the OP with your comments. Keep in mind his rather absurd signature line: "Don't ask people not to debate a topic. Just stop making debatable assertions. Problem solved."

It seems fair to assume that they do not embrace debate.

[Empire]

It took 5 years to have an app to obtain transit tickets and that doesn’t include tap or ticket vending machines. Designing, implementing and maintaining a congesting pricing scheme is not something HRM should entertain. Do you have toll gates, how many and would it slow traffic.

It would be nice to see HRM have more outside consultant studies for design policies, traffic management etc. It could save $$ in the end and produce more efficient systems.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Vancouver, which is in a better position in terms of infrastructure and overall social acceptance for such a thing, rejected it last tear.

It was pretty obviously not going to happen here (even if approved somehow there would have been major blowback). Halifax actually has more congestion pricing than Vancouver because of the bridge tolls; the NDP government removed the remaining tolls on suburban bridges a few years back. The municipal and provincial level politics are eerily similar to NS but with a lot more real estate money sloshing around. I'd say development approvals are worse here. I think a lot of the difference for transit comes down to TransLink and the fact that they've got a budget and long-term planning mandate covering many transport modalities. In principle this can be replicated in NS and is what the JRTA could be. The scale is smaller of course but if BC can build 100 km of SkyTrain, NS can build some transit too.

TransLink has much more pie-in-the-sky transit plans in development than Halifax/NS do, literally dozens of km of rapid transit running through many different parts of town that may be built in 2050 and some of the new rail will be running through farm fields. This is a good thing because it can guide future land use planning and infrastructure funding, and in the local political discussions people have a more concrete sense of the possibilities.