Daylighting Sawmill River

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Colin May

The last part is correct. The Walter Regan obsession with putting salmon back in the river and up through the lakes knows no bounds.

If he wants to do that then let him and his special-interest organization pay for it. They have already tapped into a serious amount of public funds. Otherwise it is a total waste of money that would be better spent elsewhere.

[spaustin]

So the Ekistics plan says $15-$20 million for daylighting the whole river. That's a big chunk of change. Has to be measured in terms of what has to be spent anyway and in the shelf-life of the project. My understanding of the situation is almost the entire pipe has to be dug up to replaced because it is at the end of its life and doesn't mitigate enough of the flood risk. The traffic signals at the intersection of Alderney are at the end of their life and need to be replaced and its my understanding HRM was looking at taking the opportunity to redo that problematic intersection at the same time. We're also looking at spending money to finally get something happening with the Greenway Park. This a lot coming together all at once. It's an opportunity that only comes around every few decades. In deciding whether daylighting Sawmill River is worth it, a key question is how the cost of daylighting compares to what has to be spent in the status quo scenario? Without that information, it's hard to judge, in a financial perspective, whether it's worth it.

It's also worth thinking in terms of the life expectancy of the whole project. The existing pipe was installed 40 years ago. $15-$20 million is a big sum up front, but over a long-time horizon like that, it diminishes. Could some of the cost also be offset by allowing additional development in that row of houses that have all been modified to hold busineses on Ochterloney at the end of Maple? Having a park and daylighted river would do a lot of their property value and development potential. Anyway, just some of my jumbled thoughts that I'm working on getting into a Spacing article

[IanWatson]

Hello Dartmouth has a piece on this project:

http://www.hellodartmouth.ca/the-tim...sawmill-river/

[halifaxboyns]

I haven't been following this - is this about ensuring there is lighting along the pathways?

[JET]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

I haven't been following this - is this about ensuring there is lighting along the pathways?

You're just pulling our leg, right? But then, you didn't put lol: just read Ian's link and you will be enlightened.

there is mention that the fish going upstream might take care of the weed problems in Lake Banook, that would be dandy.

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by JET

You're just pulling our leg, right? But then, you didn't put lol: just read Ian's link and you will be enlightened.

there is mention that the fish going upstream might take care of the weed problems in Lake Banook, that would be dandy.

New job here - lack of time so I'm not as up to date as I used to be.

[JET]

I feel the same way about the UARB info, just daunting; hope the new job has been good for you.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

Hello Dartmouth has a piece on this project:

http://www.hellodartmouth.ca/the-tim...sawmill-river/

Kate Watson is a activist who seems to think we are made of money. It is interesting that she references the reason why it was put underground in the first place. I am old enough to remember Hurricane Beth. Much of the area near Sullivans Pond and downtown was under water as a result. With the likelihood of more severe storms on our future, is she condemning us to more frequent flooding and resultant property damage?

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Kate Watson is a activist who seems to think we are made of money. It is interesting that she references the reason why it was put underground in the first place. I am old enough to remember Hurricane Beth. Much of the area near Sullivans Pond and downtown was under water as a result. With the likelihood of more severe storms on our future, is she condemning us to more frequent flooding and resultant property damage?

I'm not sure where she was going with this, as her concept of 90% of the water going to the underground conduit and 10% going above ground confounded me a little. I'm not sure what would be involved technically in making that happen or how the increased cost of having both would help to make her case.

You make a good point in that returning it to the same configuration as we had pre-1971 would likely damn us to a repeat of Hurricane Beth's flooding. There would have to be some kind of backup/emergency diversion plan, which would most definitely mean more $$$.

I dunno - I like the idea - but there would be a lot involved in making it work, IMHO.

[JET]

HRM and the Shubenacadie Canal Commission jointly undertook two major studies for the
Canal Greenway between Sullivan’s Pond and Halifax Harbour. Each of these studies, prepared in 2003 and 2006 by professional engineers, landscape architects and planners, concluded that it was feasible to daylight a large portion of the existing stormwater pipe, extending from the intersection of Portland Street and Prince Albert Road across "Irishtown Road and up onto a portion of the Starr Manufacturing site. This would allow a substantial surface stream. A plan prepared for the SRA in 2012 by a fisheries biologist demonstrated how a surface stream could be created to provide fish passage, while a revitalized underground pipe would continue to carry most of the stormwater below grade. Neither option interferes with the preservation or interpretation of historic features on the site."
https://www.ecologyaction.ca/files/i...%20River_0.pdf
I don't think anyone is suggesting that we have daylighting and no stormwater backup. We can have our cake and eat it too!

[DartmouthKate]

In response to OldDartmouthMark and KeithP, the point is not to return the Sawmill River to its pre-Beth state. We're getting smarter. We know the capacity to convey water in an extreme weather event is important AND we know having nature and water in urban spaces is important. This achieves both.

My argument is that while the sewer renewal is happening, it makes financial and logistic sense to daylight the river.

Check out page 28 here to get an idea of cost. (I figure the stream would be about 600m)
http://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/bitstre...pdf?sequence=1

[Dmajackson]

Before I post on this topic I should mention that I am an active member of the Sackville Rivers Association (SRA), a former director, and good friends with Walter Regan.

As for my opinion I strongly believe that Sawmill River should be daylighted. The stream would not only increase the aesthetic appeal of Downtown Dartmouth but it would also provide a gathering spot for nearby residents with plenty of passive recreational potential. The increased property values would be a nice side effect and turning the Trans Canada Trail into a major greenway would increase civic pride.

The SRA has overseen some daylighting projects out in Sackville and I can say that they have made a noticeable impact in their immediate area even if most people don't know about them.

If this is done well I think Halifax Water should look into daylighting a portion of Freshwater Creek from the Public Gardens down to the redeveloped VG parking lot.

[Colin May]

Originally Posted by Dmajackson

Before I post on this topic I should mention that I am an active member of the Sackville Rivers Association (SRA), a former director, and good friends with Walter Regan.

As for my opinion I strongly believe that Sawmill River should be daylighted. The stream would not only increase the aesthetic appeal of Downtown Dartmouth but it would also provide a gathering spot for nearby residents with plenty of passive recreational potential. The increased property values would be a nice side effect and turning the Trans Canada Trail into a major greenway would increase civic pride.

The SRA has overseen some daylighting projects out in Sackville and I can say that they have made a noticeable impact in their immediate area even if most people don't know about them.

If this is done well I think Halifax Water should look into daylighting a portion of Freshwater Creek from the Public Gardens down to the redeveloped VG parking lot.

The property values in downtown have increased significantly because it was undervalued for decades. We got rid of many rooming houses by ensuring that welfare recipients were housed in decent properties, not with slum landlords who had bought into the area in the 70's hoping to make a quick buck from all the blather about 'rejuvenation' aka knock-em-down-and-build-apartments.
Downtown is popular because older properties are available, no worries about sitting in traffic jams, closeness to bus & ferry and plenty of green space.
If HRM has money to spend on making the area more attractive I am sure a new P-9 school to replace the 50+ year old Bicentennial School would be a major attraction for families, and families, unlike seniors, spend more money in the local economy. Schools don't exist at City Hall, they hate sending money to the school board - that is provincial jurisdiction, whereas spending money on a stadium is municipal jurisdiction. Go figure.
Property values will continue to increase without the expenditure at the Starr site. We could sell our house tomorrow if we were so inclined, any agent will tell you they have clients lined up to buy homes in the area (does not apply to King's Wharf)

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by JET

HRM and the Shubenacadie Canal Commission jointly undertook two major studies for the
Canal Greenway between Sullivan’s Pond and Halifax Harbour. Each of these studies, prepared in 2003 and 2006 by professional engineers, landscape architects and planners, concluded that it was feasible to daylight a large portion of the existing stormwater pipe, extending from the intersection of Portland Street and Prince Albert Road across "Irishtown Road and up onto a portion of the Starr Manufacturing site. This would allow a substantial surface stream. A plan prepared for the SRA in 2012 by a fisheries biologist demonstrated how a surface stream could be created to provide fish passage, while a revitalized underground pipe would continue to carry most of the stormwater below grade. Neither option interferes with the preservation or interpretation of historic features on the site."
https://www.ecologyaction.ca/files/i...%20River_0.pdf
I don't think anyone is suggesting that we have daylighting and no stormwater backup. We can have our cake and eat it too!

All it takes is our money!

If the EAC is for it, I'm against it.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Whatever, I'm not going to be like opponents of things!

Money is money, lets spend and make this city proper... convention centre, stadium, canal daylighting, whatever!

[Colin May]

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

Whatever, I'm not going to be like opponents of things!

Money is money, lets spend and make this city proper... convention centre, stadium, canal daylighting, whatever!

Sober politician alert.

[IanWatson]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Kate Watson is a activist who seems to think we are made of money. It is interesting that she references the reason why it was put underground in the first place. I am old enough to remember Hurricane Beth. Much of the area near Sullivans Pond and downtown was under water as a result. With the likelihood of more severe storms on our future, is she condemning us to more frequent flooding and resultant property damage?

My understanding is that not doing anything will condemn us to frequent flooding and property damage. The current underground pipe was designed on 1970s level of development in the area. Since then a lot more has been paved over (more runoff) so the current pipe is undersized. The pipe needs to be replaced with something bigger no matter what.

The discussion that's happening now is whether to simply replace the existing pipe with a bigger pipe, or to replace it with a bigger pipe and a surface stream (at least for a portion of the run). As Kate explained, the Feds now require fish passage for any works like this. One option is to design a fish ladder into the pipe (at increased cost). Another option is to put in the stream and use that for fish passage (also at some cost). The question is, does the fish ladder or stream cost more? What about when you consider the other benefits of the stream?

[JET]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

All it takes is our money!

If the EAC is for it, I'm against it.

I was anticipating that, so when I was looking for a source that said that the plan was to have daylighting "while a revitalized underground pipe would continue to carry most of the stormwater below grade."; I was pleased to find the EAC information.

[JET]

Originally Posted by DartmouthKate

In response to OldDartmouthMark and KeithP, the point is not to return the Sawmill River to its pre-Beth state. We're getting smarter. We know the capacity to convey water in an extreme weather event is important AND we know having nature and water in urban spaces is important. This achieves both.

My argument is that while the sewer renewal is happening, it makes financial and logistic sense to daylight the river.

Check out page 28 here to get an idea of cost. (I figure the stream would be about 600m)
http://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/bitstre...pdf?sequence=1

Welcome to the forum Kate, good to have another Dartmouth voice on here. Is it your article referrred to in post #23?

[DartmouthKate]

Hi Jet. Yes it was my article. I've been reading Skyscraper for a long time now, and decided it was time to take the plunge and contribute. There's a wealth of information to be shared!